The Instigator
MuckingFedic
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
2104
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

A child with a disease that will prevent it from contributing to society has to be aborted.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/20/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 284 times Debate No: 81246
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

MuckingFedic

Pro

"If a child is preordained to have a mental or physical disease that will inhibit its ability to contribute to society, then it should be legally required to abort it".

Mental/Physical diseases that prevent someone from contributing to society make them also a burden to society. By not being able to contribute, you are only leeching. These retarded (1) people are decreasing societies margin of success. By reducing the amount of these people we are accelerating the amount of healthy people in the world. Science is not always correct, but nothing ever is. This is about using eugenics (2) to increase the ways society can grow and develop by decreasing the amount of people that don't contribute.

(1) http://dictionary.reference.com...

(2) http://dictionary.reference.com...
2104

Con

Since you did not define terms, I will. Diseases that prevent a child from contributing to society include social impairments such as the autistic spectrum, and range to any physically disabling ailment, such as missing or amputated limbs, paralysis, etc. Able to contribute to society will be defined as able to obtain, maintain, and support ones self with a job that pays above minimum wage on a month by month basis over a reasonable period. And finally, aborted will be defined as the medical process of killing an unborn embryo

Now, on to my arguments. I believe that diseases that inhibit or prevent a child from contributing to society do not constitute a just reason to abort ones child, and that such an act is nearly equivalent to killing the same child after birth.

My first reason for believing this is the beginning of the child's life, as a single, recently fertilized, diploid zygote (1). Scientifically, the cell is the smallest and simplest form of life. This is why I believe life begins at fertilization. When the sperm and egg cell combine, that is considered, scientifically, the combination of two life forms, and therefore are already alive themselves. Therefore, abortion is better described as the killing of unborn children that became legal simply because we can not hear them scream or cry, but I thought that would give me some flak, so for the sake of this discussion, stick with the definition in the preceding paragraph.

My second reason for believing it is that aborting embryos predicted to have impairing diseases when they are birthed is something Adolf Hitler would have supported. Adolf Hitler, allow me to remind you, was arguably the sole reason for World War Two. He was a murderer of many, many people, directly and indirectly. I think we can agree that following in Hitler's footsteps would not be a good thing. Now allow me to give a few more details about Hitler. His slaughtering of Jews was an outward expression of his support of eugenics. He considered people who had blonde hair and blue eyes superior to those with other colors of hair and eyes. And, Hitler would probably congratulate the United States on beating his record of murders. In more clear terms, more babies have been killed in the United States than Hitler killed jews in the whole of Europe. And I would be surprised if you were to say that babies of all kinds are lesser than Jews.

My third and final point is that if we kill babies who won't be able to contribute to society, then the 735,000 elderly people who are in assisted living settings are next. Babies who are predicted to not be able to contribute to society can not be very different from those 735,000 people. If we kill the babies, then the next thing you are going to support is the invasion of all the assisted living communities and the slaughter of everyone there. The only way you won't support it is if you decide to contradict yourself.

Those are my points. Thank you for debating with me and, to those of you reading this debate, for reading through this long argument.
Debate Round No. 1
MuckingFedic

Pro

Thank you for responding. Also thank you for helping define terms. I am new to debate so I am still practicing proper format.

This form of eugenics defiantly relates to extremism of Hitler. However, it is not intended to be as extreme. Let us take a sample of 1000 unborn children that are considered within the bounds to be aborted. Out of those 1000 that get aborted, 10 (1%) would have ended up contributing to society. In order to have had those 10 however, you would need to also include 990 unhealthy children that would have no hope of contributing to society. On top of that, those 10 children would grow up and live an extremely brutal life. Having a disability of any kind makes you a target for bullying all throughout K-12.

Looking at the other side of if we got rid of those 1000 unborn children and replaced them instead with 1000 healthy children, we can see a much better life. Now instead of 10 children struggling to succeed in a world full of hatred, we have 1000 children with average or better lives. This does not mean that they will not be bullied or have a hard life, this just means that they will have a lot less hardships than their unhealthy counterparts.

Lastly, the 735,000 elderly people who are in assisted living settings. Those people would never be killed. Under most circumstances, they have spent their life contributing to society and even adding to society. You go through your childhood learning how you want to contribute to society, then contribute to society in adulthood, and when it comes time to grow old, society contributes back to you. This thus forms not just a circle of life, but a circle of society.

These are my counterpoints. Thank you for your detailed response and open mindedness. To those reading this, I personally have no side on this matter for both sides are too compelling for me to be able to choose.
2104

Con

2104 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
MuckingFedic

Pro

MuckingFedic forfeited this round.
2104

Con

2104 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
MuckingFedic

Pro

MuckingFedic forfeited this round.
2104

Con

2104 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
MuckingFedic

Pro

MuckingFedic forfeited this round.
2104

Con

2104 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.