Should we abolish political parties?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Should we abolish political parties?". Your opponent's style: Jimmy Dore

our topic is does unborn child have rights to human rights and rights to live and our stand is no . give an open statement first then support it with philosophical , medical , laws , cultural and other legal basis statement or logical reasoning with question to prove it

**OPENING STATEMENT:** Listen, this whole "unborn rights" thing is emotional manipulation designed to control women's bodies! You wanna talk about rights? Let's talk about the ACTUAL person - the woman - who's being turned into an incubator by people who've never been pregnant themselves. A clump of cells doesn't have consciousness, can't survive independently, and has never drawn a breath - but somehow it gets MORE rights than the living, breathing woman carrying it? That's insane! **PHILOSOPHICAL BASIS:** Personhood requires consciousness, self-awareness, and the capacity for relationships - none of which exist in early fetal development. You can't grant rights to something that has no concept of existence itself. Where's the logic in that? If we're giving rights based on potential rather than actuality, should we arrest people for destroying acorns because they're "potential oak trees"? **MEDICAL REALITY:**The science is crystal clear - survival ranges from 24.9% at 22 weeks to 82.1% at 25 weeks [1]. Before 22 weeks? Basically zero chance of survival! You're talking about granting "rights" to something that can't even exist independently. Most pregnancies end naturally anyway - where are the murder investigations for miscarriages? **LEGAL PRECEDENT:** The Supreme Court got it right in Roe - viability matters! Even conservative legal scholars recognize that rights require some capacity for independent existence. You can't have a "right to life" if you literally cannot live. The law has always distinguished between potential and actual persons - that's why we don't count fetuses in the census or give them Social Security numbers! **CULTURAL REALITY:** Every culture throughout history has marked birth as the beginning of personhood. Birth certificates, not conception certificates! Even the Bible talks about "breath of life" - not heartbeat, not brainwaves, but actual breathing. Religious traditions celebrate birthdays, not conception days. Why? Because that's when you become a person in the world! **LOGICAL REASONING:** Here's your question: If a 12-week fetus has full human rights, why don't we prosecute women for drinking coffee during pregnancy as assault? Why no child support from conception? Why can't you insure a fetus? The whole "rights from conception" argument falls apart the moment you apply it consistently - it's selective morality designed to control women, not protect life!

try to make a debate flow like with counter because i know were from philippines so their legal basis more on philippine base then lets counter it with questions and any legal basis and make closing remark for both parties

**DEBATE FLOW: FETAL RIGHTS IN THE PHILIPPINES** --- **OPENING STATEMENT (PRO-CHOICE - Jimmy Dore Style):** Look, this whole "unborn rights from conception" thing in our Constitution is Catholic Church propaganda that's killing Filipino women! Article II Section 12 sounds nice - "equally protect the mother and unborn from conception" - but it's a joke! 1.26 million abortions happen annually anyway, and 1,000 Filipino women die each year from post-abortion complications [1]. The law doesn't protect anybody - it just makes everything dangerous and underground! --- **COUNTER-ARGUMENT (Pro-Life Response):** *"But the Constitution is clear - Section 12 explicitly protects life 'from conception,' not from viability or birth. This isn't just Catholic influence, it's fundamental human rights. The Revised Penal Code backs this up with criminal penalties because we recognize the unborn as deserving protection. How can you argue against constitutional text?"* **JIMMY DORE REBUTTAL:** Constitutional text? Give me a break! Our abortion law is based on Spain's OLD penal code, while Spain now allows abortion up to 14 weeks [2]! We're stuck with colonial Spanish law while even Catholic Spain moved on! And "equal protection"? 75% of Filipino women seeking abortions can't afford another child [3] - where's the "equal protection" for their economic survival? The Constitution is supposed to evolve, not trap us in medieval thinking! **QUESTION FOR PRO-LIFE:** If the Constitution truly provides "equal protection," why do women die while fetuses that can't survive outside the womb get more legal protection than living, breathing mothers? --- **COUNTER-ARGUMENT (Pro-Life Response):** *"Legal precedent shows that life begins at conception scientifically. The RH Law of 2012 specifically excludes abortifacient methods and maintains protection for the unborn. International law also recognizes fetal rights - we're not alone in this position."* **JIMMY DORE REBUTTAL:** Scientific? You're confusing biological process with legal personhood! Philippine jurisprudence recognizes that embryos and fetuses are NOT on equal footing with women's rights - legal personality only attaches upon birth [4]