The Instigator
beem0r
Pro (for)
Winning
42 Points
The Contender
Tatarize
Con (against)
Losing
15 Points

1b. Abortion

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/1/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,011 times Debate No: 5601
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (0)
Votes (9)

 

beem0r

Pro

Abortion is one of the most widely disagreed upon topics. To determine whether abortion is right or wrong, we must define our values.

Before I go on, I will clarify my stance. Some of you might see PRO for 'Abortion' and assume I am advocating that Abortion is awesome and should always be done. Au contraire. I am arguing that abortion is fine, but not necessarily 'good' [though in many cases, it is good]. Due to the nature of the debate on this subject, my opponent will be arguing that abortion is bad.

First, an observation. Morality is a construct through which we do what's best for society at large rather than for ourselves as individuals. For instance, it may be in a person's best interest to commit murder, but even without laws few of us would be willing to do so, due to morality.
And that is all morality is. Therefore, morality need not come into play, since people have different perspectives on morality on this issue. Rather, let us examine the root of morality - whether abortions are often better for society at large or not.

First, let me point out that we are specifically talking about people who are considering getting an abortion. It is obvious that abortion, if done by everyone, would be a pretty bad idea.

But who are these people who are considering getting abortions? I will make some statements that are generally true about this group of people.
They are poor.
They are people who do not wish to have children.
The kid is shown to have physical or mental problems.

These are the general groups that most widely apply.

Now then. Time for another observation. On average in society, people take from society the same amount they give to society. This is a mathematical necessity. Since this is not true for everyone, note that some people contribute more than they take and some people take more than they contribute.

The poor tend to occupy this second group. Welfare, charity, and other poor-assistance programs tend to make the poor take more than they receive from society. This also applies to the mentally or physically handicapped.

Here is an analogy. Let's say society is a big party, and the amount of beer at this party represents productivity. All the beer at this party is brought by individuals; some people bring more than thy drink so that others can drink more than they bring. In this analogy, the poor or handicapped person takes more than he brings. Stopping that person from coming to the party means the average amount of beer every other person gets goes up. True, you may say to yourself, "A person can only use so much beer," but remember that this is productivity in my analogy. More beer means more food, better food, a better car, more stuff. Except for the ridiculously wealthy, it is senseless to argue that people cannot use more wealth.

So above I've shown that the economic impact of a poor or handicapped person is low, and that most of those aborted are destined to be either handicapped or poor [most poor parents have poor kids]. Sure, there might be the occasional exception, but we are talking in overall terms.

So now, let's consider environmental impacts. Most people have negative impacts on the environment, save for people who invent environmentally friendly alternatives to stuff. Needless to say, it is almost certain that a poor or handicapped person will have a negative environmental impact. There's an astounding minority of people who have positive impacts, and an astounding minority of that group would be poor or handicapped.

What about social impact of aborting a kid? I want to point out that most of us are extremely replaceable as far as the social impacts we cause. For instance, Bob had a lot of good times with his best friend, Tom. However, what if Tom had been aborted as a fetus? Would Bob have gone friendless, spent all that time alone? No. He simply would have found different friends growing up.
Therefore, it seems the social impact we have is minimal at best, and this would apply just as much, if not more, to the poor and handicapped. The other two positive impacts of abortion above far outweigh this impact, if this impact is indeed negative.

Also, consider that these groups tend to be genetically less than average. Thus, abortion is a form of unnatural selection, helping weed out some of the low end humans. While this is hardly justification for abortion on its own, it certainly is a nice bonus to the reasons given above.

But perhaps my opponent can find a way to tip the scales to his side.
Tatarize

Con

Abortion is murder. I don't really understand all my opponents big words but he wants to murder innocent children. It isn't moral to murder children and he things that because God has blessed a woman with a child that she has it within her rights to murder that baby. This sort of I brought you into this world I can take you out mentality is one of the greatest sources of vice and problems in the modern world. He couldn't be further from the truth. It is ALWAYS wrong to murder a child.

My opponent says that sometimes it is morally justified to murder if it is within our best interest. This is categorically false. There are certain unalienable rights of man of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness and my opponent wants to put that aside and argue what is better for society. You know where murdering people for the good of society leads? There are vast numbers of examples. From Hitler, Mao, and Polpot to Stalin and Il, killing people because it's "good for society" is an immoral stance. Perhaps in self defense, but a baby is hardly trying to murder its mother.

Abortions done by anybody would be a bad idea. I can sympathize with women who's lives might be endanger if they carried the child to term such as with an ectopic pregnancy. That might actually fall under the guise of self-defense. However, for the most part women get abortion as a form of birth control. The vast majority of abortions are by women who simply don't want children and so long as society condones the murder of babies just because they happen to be unborn doesn't suggest for a moment that it's a moral thing to do.

Murdering, or allowing poor people to murder, poor children is an absurd argument to make. I murdered a guy, but he was a hobo so that's okay. You know what you get charged with if you murder a homeless man? MURDER!

We should murder poor people for the good of society? Have you ever heard of eugenics? That's what you're advocating for. Good for society to murder unborn babies. Why don't you murder then after their born? Why not take an IQ test when they are five and chop off their heads if they don't do so well.

It is not moral to murder children. Even if a society were to allow it, it's an abomination. It is never right to murder a child. Thou shall not kill.

Abortion is wrong.
Debate Round No. 1
No comments have been posted on this debate.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by Tatarize 6 years ago
Tatarize
beem0rTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
beem0rTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by s0m31john 7 years ago
s0m31john
beem0rTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
beem0rTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by FemaleGamer 7 years ago
FemaleGamer
beem0rTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
beem0rTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by resolutionsmasher 7 years ago
resolutionsmasher
beem0rTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by zach12 8 years ago
zach12
beem0rTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by CP 8 years ago
CP
beem0rTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03