azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: Yes.

8 weeks typically marks when the neurons in the brain first start forming connections to one another. It requires a bit more than that for the different brain cells to start communicating with one another, and more nervous infrastructure still before any kind of feeling can take place. It's usually around 15-18 weeks before the brain and peripheral nervous system develop enough to receive and respond to stimuli, but like I said, side of caution; structures have been observed to be mostly formed as early as 12 weeks, with reflexes that 'bypass the brain' beginning to occur, so I cuts off at 12 weeks. It's also convenient with the whole trimesters thing.
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: Yes.

Where did you learn all of this? .
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: Yes.

Biology and anatomy lessons taken from basic levels in high school through high levels in college, tempered by countless hours of reading medical journals and the like, communication with colleagues working in medical fields, personal observation and many questions asked during my wife's pregnancy, and personal behavioral observations of numerous children from infancy to young childhood, my own son included.
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: No.

If studies suggests that fetal pain does not occur until close to 30 weeks, how does that influence your opinion?e.g.: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16118385
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: No.

I would point out that studies cannot possibly determine whether the fetus is experiencing something that can be directly compared to what we experience as pain, we can only gauge that based on responses, which are limited by the level of development of the brain.I would also point out that other studies establish the ability for a fetus to react to a painful stimulus in a manner different from a nonpainful one as early as 15 weeks, which would appear to be in contradiction to the article you linked, and further that the structures that allow such can form as early as 12 weeks.The article in question does not refer to a specific experiment, but is based off of various other articles published regarding fetal pain at various stages. I strongly suspect cherry picking of some kind to be involved here- and at the very least, even if I don't question the raw data from various studies, I can certainly question the conclusions drawn.
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: No.

studies cannot possibly determine whether the fetus is experiencing something that can be directly compared to what we experience as painThen why not draw the line at day 1? the ability for a fetus to react to a painful stimulus in a manner different from a nonpainful one as early as 15 weekspost the reference, I'll check it out.that the structures that allow such can form as early as 12 weeksDo you have evidence that the thalamocortical fibers referred to develop earlier than the 23 weeks that they suggest, or evidence that the structures aren't required for pain recognition? I strongly suspect cherry picking of some kind to be involved hereCouldn't it be vice-versa - that the other study involves cherry-picking?I can certainly question the conclusions drawn.Sure - your opinion could be anything, but is less persuasive to me than evidence.
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: Yes.

Then why not draw the line at day 1?Because even if we can't determine if a response to a stimulus is directly comparable to our concept of pain, we can certainly assume that an absence of development in the peripheral and central nervous systems means that pain cannot be experienced, the infrastructure required to indicate such being absent.post the reference, I'll check it out.I'll have to go digging a bit to find it, I linked several different studies in a prior debate- I'll edit this when I have them for you. At work at the moment so it may be later this evening.Do you have evidence that the thalamocortical fibers referred to develop earlier than the 23 weeks that they suggest, or evidence that the structures aren't required for pain recognition?I'm not asserting that fetus' experience pain in the same manner that developed adults do. I'm asserting that they experience pain the same manner that other animals are observed to. Animals that don't have these fibers or the structures surrounding them in the first place, such as most reptiles, are still recognized as able to feel pain.The burden of proof would be on the one claiming that such structures are required to experience anything that would be called pain, and it has not been met.I base mine on the earliest point that the perception of pain is theoretically possible; better, in my opinion, to attribute rights to something that may not yet 'deserve' them than to deny rights to something that should.Couldn't it be vice-versa - that the other study involves cherry-picking?An actual study doesn't generally involve cherry-picked result, and when it does so it doesn't pass peer review. Your link was not to a study- it was to a conclusion drawn from multiple selected studies.Sure - your opinion could be anything, but is less persuasive to me than evidence.But your linked article does not, in fact, provide evidence, now, does it?
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: No.

At work at the moment so it may be later this evening.Take your time, I am actually headed out of town for a couple days - niece is having a baby, apropos, eh? (Mmm, hopefully not now that I think about it.) Rather not try to keep typing everything on the phone - depends on how long we are waiting I suppose.Will keep an eye out for studies and read if there's time. An actual study doesn't generally involve cherry-picked result, and when it does so it doesn't pass peer review A single study is suceptible to bias as is a study of studies. Your link was not to a studyA study of studies is still a study. Are you able to see the methodology etc - if not, I might be able to paste portions for you to evaluate, or the list of citations, etc. But your linked article does not, in fact, provide evidence, now, does it?Um, yes?How is a study published in the Journal of the American Medicine Association done by 4 MDs and a PhD with nearly 100 citations not evidence?
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: No.

I apologize if you have already answered this elsewhere - when you say wrong, do you mean morally, legally, or both?More specifically, which laws related to abortion do you think should exist?
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: Yes.

I believe that it is morally wrong to abort beyond 12 weeks (end of the first trimester) except insofar as it is necessary to save the life of the mother. This is my personal moral stance on the issue.As far as the laws I would support, the breakdown would be as follows:-Prior to 12 weeks gestation, abortion can be had at any time for any reason, and we do not grant any rights to the fetus.-From 12 weeks gestation on, the fetus is granted the same level of rights that animals are. We do not kill it because it is an inconvenience, but when it is a direct threat to the mothers life we deal with it by whatever means necessary; preferably an emergency c-section or induced labor, but abortion where that fails.
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: No.

Using that standard would abortions be allowed at any time since pregnancy always poses increased danger for the mother?
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: Yes.

Not sure why you disputed here but...Not exactly. Remember, I said 'when it is necessary to save the life of the mother.' I'm not talking about 'increased danger' statistically- I'm talking about individual cases where a specific mothers life is at risk, to be assessed individually. If the mother's life can be saved just as reliably by an emergency c-section or induced labor, those should be utilized instead (at least if the fetus has gestated long enough to be viable). An abortion procedure itself is not without risk for the mother, and cases where aborting is the only option would tend to be exceptions to the rule.So technically speaking, this model would allow for even late term abortion, but only when it is deemed the only way to save the life of the mother. There would be strict limitations, however, on the circumstances under which abortions from the second trimester on would be allowed. First trimester abortions would see no such limitations.
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: No.

the danger can be readily alleviated by an emergency c-section or induced laborInduced labor after 12 weeks but before viability would be an abortion, correct?An abortion procedure itself is not without risk for the motherBut generally less danger than the pregnancy. refI'm not talking about 'increased danger' statisticallyI was referring more to the same rights as animals - if an animal poses a danger, then I would assume you would believe it should be legal to put it down (or at least give it away, which before viability is not really an option during pregnancy.)
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: Yes.

Induced labor after 12 weeks but before viability would be an abortion, correct?Yes, it would; and the lack of viability would be a factor in rendering abortion the only option to save the mothers life in some cases; this is consistent with what I've already said.But generally less danger than the pregnancyAgain- I'm not concerned with danger in the form of statistical risk. I'm concerned with specific danger due to complications or other abnormal factors that put the life of the mother at risk.I was referring more to the same rights as animals - if an animal poses a danger, then I would assume you would believe it should be legal to put it down (or at least give it away, which before viability is not really an option during pregnancy.)Immediate specific danger, not statistical potential danger. I wouldn't have a dog put down because it was a 'threatening breed' like a put bull, I wouldn't have a dog put down because it had a history of biting when its tail was pulled. I would have a dog put down if it was in the habit of attacking with little or no provocation. Sure, pregnancy carries some level of risk with it, but that's not what is being examined here.
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: No.

the only option to save the mothers lifeWhat if it isn't to save the mother's life, but to save her ovaries or protect her from other organ damage, or to protect her financially, or...complications or other abnormal factorsmight be a bit convoluded, but I think this is a good place to mention rape. Does allowing only for "abnormal factors" rely on some level of consent to sex carrying with it the consent to the normal risks associated with pregnancy?Immediate specific danger, not statistical potential danger.All danger is in the form of statistical potential danger.I wouldn't have a dog put down because it was a 'threatening breed' like a put bull, I wouldn't have a dog put down because it had a history of biting when its tail was pulled. I would have a dog put down if it was in the habit of attacking with little or no provocation.This would mean that no abortion could be preventative - you must wait until the fetus creates an actual injury or death to take action.Sure, pregnancy carries some level of risk with it, but that's not what is being examined here.Why not?
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: Yes.

What if it isn't to save the mother's life, but to save her ovaries or protect her from other organ damage, or to protect her financially, or...Then it should be dealt with prior to the 12 week mark, before animal rights apply to it.might be a bit convoluded, but I think this is a good place to mention rape. Does allowing only for "abnormal factors" rely on some level of consent to sex carrying with it the consent to the normal risks associated with pregnancy?Again; 12 week mark. Past that, life threatening. That's where I stand on the matter.All danger is in the form of statistical potential danger.No, statistical potential danger is not danger at all. Danger is an actual looming threat, specific to you. If 1 out of 10 campers are attacked by bears, statistically they are all in danger- but in actuality, only 1 of each 10 is in immediate danger. My point is simply the risk of 'being pregnant' is insufficient. Or, if you will- deaths due to pregnancy in the developed world represent only a tiny fraction of all pregnancies; it isn't statistically dangerous enough to warrant such a drastic measure, except wherein specific circumstances significantly amplify the risk.This would mean that no abortion could be preventative - you must wait until the fetus creates an actual injury or death to take action.Not exactly. A dog represents an entirely different type of threat than a fetus does, and is simply handled differently. A dogs threat is behavioral; behaviors typically do not form in a vacuum and occur in patterns. Unexpected behavior from dogs, while having numerous documented cases, is still an extreme rarity amongst the species; most are very much creatures of habit. A fetus' threat is circumstantial, and in many cases the threat is not indicated until complications are already arising. Sometimes they are caught ahead of time, and it is quite obvious that a life threatening situation will inevitably result. That said, when an expectant mothers life is threatened by the pregnancy, it is because the fetus is already causing some form of injury, directly or otherwise- so no problems there.Why not?Because we are currently discussing my views on the matter, not an assessment of how things actually are, and (as I touched on earlier in this post) I consider the low incidence of maternal death in the developed world sufficient evidence to declare that the risk entailed by pregnancy is not in and of itself to warrant abortion once the fetus attains animal rights. As stated, they are entirely free to abort during the first trimester for whatever reason.
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: No.

Re: organ damage:If a dog consistently bites people's fingers, or face, or genitals, etc. would you not get rid of it since it did not wound people in life-threatening ways?Re: potential danger:You start by saying no, but then proceed to support my assertion. The risks are given a statistical probability which can rise or fall until an actual incident does or does not occur.A dog represents an entirely different type of threat than a fetus does, and is simply handled differently.Probability of harm for dogs and fetuses may be calculated differently, but they are both still statistics.Keep in mind that successful pregnancies have near certain chance of pain, fatigue, hormone imbalances, mental/physical changes, etc.Also, note that many severe complications are not discovered until the ultrasound at 18-20 weeks.With Obamacare, this may no longer be a concern in the US, but: if you can't afford to keep an animal you can give it away, would this be an acceptable reason even when the fetus reaches animal status in your view?
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: No.

Re: dog attack vs fetusThe issue I am exploring is - if there is near certainty of damage which will likely be less than life threatening, can one get rid of an animal? If so, by applying the animal standard you suggest, wouldn't abortion be allowed to protect not just the life of the mother? The method of calculating the probability isn't relevant as long as they could be said to approximate each other.If you can get rid of a dog for being dangerous, but not life threatening, wouldn't the same logic apply to the fetus?Re: statisticsStatistics can be very general or very specific, but danger/risk is assessed about a future (unknowable) event and always relies on probability. I think it boils down to a semantic argument which isn't likely to bear much weight, so, rather than get too far off track, I will just say that you should think on this for a bit. If you think we should flush it out further, I will.Do you really not understand the difference between a 'general risk' and an 'immediate threat'?They are both perceived points along a continuum of probability.An acceptable reason for late term abortion?Does late term abortion now mean anything over 12 weeks? Or, is there some point between 12 weeks and birth where rights get elevated?
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: Yes.

The issue I am exploring is - if there is near certainty of damage which will likely be less than life threatening, can one get rid of an animal? If so, by applying the animal standard you suggest, wouldn't abortion be allowed to protect not just the life of the mother? The method of calculating the probability isn't relevant as long as they could be said to approximate each other.If you can get rid of a dog for being dangerous, but not life threatening, wouldn't the same logic apply to the fetus?Are you not reading my posts? It's an entirely different scenario. The threat that a dog represents to a person is an aggressive attack. Dogs are creatures of habit. A dog that is in the habit of attacking without provocation can be expected to continue attacking again and again.Complications from a fetus do not represent habitual behaviors, or any intent whatsoever. If a non-life threatening complication arises during a pregnancy, that does not generally imply that further complications will arise from the same pregnancy.It's not the same situation, at all. If a fetus was capable of habitually engaging in intentional, unprovoked, aggressive behavior, it would be. A one-time complication from a fetus is more comparable to getting an injury from tripping over a dog than it is to a dog attack, and I wouldn't put a dog down because I tripped over it.They are both perceived points along a continuum of probability.So you say. But they are not the same.Remember: the maternal death rate that that statistical danger comes from does not mean that x% of pregnant women will simply die randomly with no explanation. Pregnancy does not lead to death in the absence of complications; the level of risk assigned to pregnancy is the statistical likelihood of developing a complication that will lead to death.I'm going to compare pregnancy complications to bear attacks here.(Arbitrary numbers) Roughly 1 in 100 campers experience a bear attack camping in this park.There is a perceived, general risk, for all of the campers.There is an immediate threat to roughly 1% of them. The remaining 99% are never in any real danger due to bears not attacking them.I have no problem with someone shooting a bear that is attacking them (although bears do have a tendency to shrug off most bullets, thats another topic entirely), just as I have no problem with someone having an abortion when they are experiencing a life-threatening complication. I have a problem with shooting a bear on sight because it MIGHT attack you, just as I have a problem with someone having an abortion because they MIGHT develop a complication.Does late term abortion now mean anything over 12 weeks? Or, is there some point between 12 weeks and birth where rights get elevated?In my system, yes, as 12 weeks gestation would be the only delimiting point during pregnancy. No further increase in rights for the duration of pregnancy or even immediately afterwards. I would assign human rights to the child when said child is able to demonstrate self awareness and consciousness, which generally occurs between 18 and 24 months.
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: Yes.

I will try to simplify even further.Dog: high likelihood of causing severe damage, low likelihood of causing death - can you get rid of?Pregnancy: same exact question. ?How to determine "high likelihood of causing severe damage, low likelihood of causing death" (habituality, complication, etc.) can be addressed separately, but given the same danger, is the same action allowed?
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: Yes.

Dog: high likelihood of causing severe damage, low likelihood of causing death - can you get rid of?Yes, because a dog causes damage by the form of an intentional attack which is a habitual behavior, and remains a threat for as long as it lives; a single attack is an indicator of future attacks.Pregnancy: same exact question. ?It depends. Pregnancy causes damage due to incidental complications, and only remains a threat for the duration of the pregnancy and delivery. How to determine "high likelihood of causing severe damage, low likelihood of causing death" (habituality, complication, etc.) can be addressed separately, but given the same danger, is the same action allowed?I would say that given the same danger, the same action is allowed- but 'the same danger' means more than the same overall probabilities- it means the same form of danger, the same threat of recurring danger, the same amount of intent, and the same scope. Even if a pregnancy could be demonstrated to be equal in terms of risk to a given dog, the danger represented by the dog is intentional, and has a significant threat of recurrence, and has a much larger scope; the fetus can really only injure the mother, and that only for the duration of the pregnancy. A dog can endanger many others for a significantly longer time.Equal rights means equal treatment under the same or equivalent circumstances. You have yet to establish a comparison that is remotely equivalent in terms of circumstances.
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: Yes.

In both scenarios, life is not threatened yet for one it is allowed and for the other it is not... ?
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: No.

By your logic, we would treat pickpocketing and armed robbery as being the same.The fact that there is a similarity between two situations does not mean they should be dealt with the same when they are entirely different in other ways.
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: Yes.

I find your inability to answer the question quite telling.Are you asserting that there is no case that can be made for getting rid of a dog where there is less danger than a case where you seem to be saying that one cannot terminate a pregnancy?A dog that bites fingers and breaks the skin etc, but does not have the ability to rip fingers fully off - can a person reasonably (and/or legally) choose to get rid of?vs.After being pregnant more than 12 weeks, a woman finds out about a complication of her pregnancy that will very likely result in loss of her ovaries - can she reasonably (and/or legally) choose to get rid of?The fact that there is a similarity between two situations does not mean they should be dealt with the same when they are entirely different in other ways.If there is never enough similarity for comparison, then it is possible that claiming fetal rights should equate to animal rights is not an apt analogy.