The Instigator
Dmot
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Kumquatodor
Con (against)
Winning
1 Points

Aboriton should remain illegal

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 1 vote the winner is...
Kumquatodor
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/22/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 918 times Debate No: 36951
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)

 

Dmot

Pro

8000 characters

48 hours to respond


Rounds:
1 is for acceptance
2 is opening arguments
3 is clarification and rebuttal
4 is closing statements


The argument is over whether or not abortion should be illegal. For the sake of this debate lets leave out life of the mother. All other situations are fair game. I argue that abortion should be illegal.


Let's not let this get into the practical of everything. This should remain about the principal rather than what to do in specific situations legally
Kumquatodor

Con

I HEARBY ACCEPT YOUR CHALLENGE! Good luck!
Debate Round No. 1
Dmot

Pro

TO ALL READING THIS:

I apologize for the title. I should have said "Abortion should be illegal" not "remain." Obviously it is not illegal now (at least not entirely) and therefore it was a misuse in words. I don't think I can edit it now, but that is what was obviously meant.


Okay, thankyou con for accepting this debate challenge. It is my argument that abortion should be illegal. I said we can leave out life of the mother because that is an extreme circumstance, it is very rare (actually direct abortion is never neceessary to save the life of the mother) and because we will get bogged down in technicalities. It is my argument however that in every other instance, abortion should be illegal.


Here is my argument:


1) Abortion is the direct killing of the life in the womb.

Given what the abortion procedure is, this should be obvious. Of course there are different types of procedures. Most involve in some way directly harming the fetus through poisoning or dismembering in some way. Obviously this is direct killing. By direct killing I mean doing something that by its very nature leads to the death of the fetus inevitably and purposely. Also, any procedure which ends a pregnancy directly (that is purposely and by its very nature...i.e. any true abortion) is murder because to directly deprive a life of the basic necessities and ordinary care that it needs is to directly kill that life---whatever kind of life it may be (and the fetus is obviously a living thing, no one objects to that).


2) The Life in the womb is a human being

We could get more into this later. However for now, I will just offer some quotes:

"Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zyg tos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being. The common expression 'fertilized ovum' refers to the zygote."
Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects.

"Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception)."
Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology.

http://www.priestsforlife.org... Some images on fetal development

http://prolifeaction.org... Facts about fetal develpment.


Is it human blood that is spilled in an abortion? Is it a human heart that stops beating? Is it a human embryo that is destroyed? Is it human arms and human legs that are torn off?


You bet



3) The government has a duty to protect innocent human beings from being murdered

Murder is terrible for society. A society that allows for murder of human beings is an unjust society. Once we say that the government does not need to protect human children...who does the government protect?


You may say that this is a woman's choice between her and her doctor. But in reality, it is no more a woman's choice between her and her doctor than the choice to murder a 2-year old child. Innocent human beings need to be protected by the government against anyone who wishes to harm them. Once we admit this is false, you fall into the trap of saying that human beings may be murdered simply because they are incovneiant.


Finally, I find it very difficult to defend a system that allows abortion but not the murder of 5-month olds. I don't see any objective and NON-arbitrary criterea that could make the two different. Because of this, I think that abortion is an implicit acceptance of all murder and all injustice into society.










"Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).

Kumquatodor

Con

I shall rebut!

It is my argument however that in every other instance, abortion should be illegal.
Including rape? Or does this count as "life of mother" circumstances?

We have 4 rounds, so we can debate that if it is deemed debatable.
__________________________________________________________
Abortion is the direct killing of the life in the womb.
Given. I agree that it is direct killing and deigned to kill.
_______________________________________________
The Life in the womb is a human being
Umm...

Is it human blood that is spilled in an abortion?
I'll say yes.

Is it a human heart that stops beating?
I'll say yes.

Is it a human embryo that is destroyed? Is it human arms and human legs that are torn off?
I'll say yes.

What do the following questions have in common? They all have somehing extra to them. The heart may stop beating, but the human does not develope a heart until x time. Is the humans' arms and legs torn off? They don't develope arms and legs until x time.

You see, the question up until x point, these cells are just that: cells. I concede that they are human cells, but so are the skin cells you kill when you sit down. Or scratch yourself. Or eat.
________________________________________________________________________
Once we say that the government does not need to protect human children...who does the government protect?
"Children" is a strong term. Is a clump of cells a child? What if it is only a clump of cells?

Finally, I find it very difficult to defend a system that allows abortion but not the murder of 5-month olds. I don't see any objective and NON-arbitrary criterea that could make the two different. Because of this, I think that abortion is an implicit acceptance of all murder and all injustice into society.
I will show you.

According to your OWN source, pain systems don't develope until 9 weeks of developent. Fingerprints don't develope until 14 weeks of developement. Brainwaves don't develope until 6 weeks. The heart doesn't develope until 18 days.

Now, what is the difference between a 5-week-old zygote and a 5-month-old child? A heartbeat. Blood. Thought. Pain. Fingerprints. Everything that makes us human.
_________________________________________________________
Now, I'll give examples where it might be MORE responsible to abort a child.

1) It may fall into a vegitated state.
2) It does not have parents.
3) It will go to an adoption home.
4) It may grow up in an abusive home.
5) The parents are too poor.
6) It may be disabled.
7) It might be ill.
8) It might be mentally ill.
9) They dont want a child.
______________________
If zygotes cannot feel pain up until 8 weeks, why not have a law that, until 8 weeks, you can abort?
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Now: if we make abortion illegal, then all cases will become deadly.

Untrained people will attempt to abort children, and this is very likely to kill the parent.
Debate Round No. 2
Dmot

Pro

Thankyou Con

Con's points will be in bold:
Including rape? Or does this count as "life of mother" circumstances?

Well, if you follow my 3 premises, it would seem as though rape is no excuse for abortion. That is not life of the mother necessarily because there is nothing about a baby concieved via rape that is especially physically unhealthy to the mother. Although it is certainly a tragic thing and something that merits emotional support and care for the mother in such a situation.


Umm...


Well, with the quote I provided it seems as though biology tells us that my statement that life begins at conception is correct. A zygote is a human being by nature because it is a human cell. But you may ask: How is it different from other human cells? What makes it a human being not part of another?

A few things:
first off, it has different and unique DNA from father and mother.
Second, it is self-directed.
Third, it is a complete integrated whole. All of its functions serve to grow, develop and reproduce--not to aid in the growth, development, reproduction, or survival of a greater organism (take the heart for example which clearly is not an organism but an organ)
Fourth, it is the only point in human development which is not an arbitrary point to say the human being begins to exist. It is genetically human, and it functions like a complete organism, and there is no point after which there is a clear cut substantial change in the type of organism present. Therefore, these are short points, but they still serve to prove that a zygote is a human being.

I'd also add that you didn't do anything to refute my point, all you said was "umm"


What do the following questions have in common? They all have somehing extra to them. The heart may stop beating, but the human does not develope a heart until x time. Is the humans' arms and legs torn off? They don't develope arms and legs until x time.

Although I have to add that "x time" is quite early on in human development. Even so, these things just serve to prove that since the time of conception the zygote is developing fast and will continue to develop all features of an adult human being. These are not the standards by which we judge human life.

"Children" is a strong term. Is a clump of cells a child? What if it is only a clump of cells?

We are all clumps of cells my friend...unless you believe in a soul of some sort. But that is an impossible question to answer in the scope of the debate and really irrelevant because if we have souls, zygotes might too, and in this case, a zygote is not merely a cell and neither are you. Taking it from the physical perspective however, we are all, 100% of us, clumps of cells. I don't get why pro-abortion people use this argument.

Now, what is the difference between a 5-week-old zygote and a 5-month-old child? A heartbeat. Blood. Thought. Pain. Fingerprints. Everything that makes us human.

Really? Are these what makes us human? So if thought makes us human, how much does are neurological capacity have to be in order to count as true "thought"? Maybe 3 year olds don't have enough of this thought. Why are fingerprints essential to human beings? Does someone who gets their hands cut off lose their humanity? Or a heart beat? sure most humans have heart beats, but how is this essential to a complete organism or to a human being, or to life. Many organisms lack hearts, there is nothing essential human-like about hearts, and cells are lives but do not have hearts. Hearts help us survive but are not an essential feature to what it means to be human.

All of these features are arbitrary. There is nothing about them which gives us human value. I might as well say something horrible like "mental capacity has to exceed 130 IQ points" or "whiteness is the measure of human development" its all arbitrary and it leads to absurd, monstrous conclusions.

1) It may fall into a vegitated state.
2) It does not have parents.
3) It will go to an adoption home.
4) It may grow up in an abusive home.
5) The parents are too poor.
6) It may be disabled.
7) It might be ill.
8) It might be mentally ill.
9) They dont want a child.

I guess if a child is disabled it does not have value? I personally take offense at the mentally ill comment because I actually have a close relative who is mentally ill and his life is of great value and that comment is just wrong. It doesn't matter if the parents dont want a child, that doesnt give them the right to kill him or her. Those viewing the debate: See how harsh and bigoted the pro-abortion position is? See how it values some people less than others?

If zygotes cannot feel pain up until 8 weeks, why not have a law that, until 8 weeks, you can abort?


Because the ability to feel pain is not the foundation for the right to life. The rigth to life is based on our human dignity, not our nervous system capactiy. But if you insist, would you be in favor of cutting back abortions after 8 weeks? That would be a big change and something I would support. Although It wouldn't be 100% in my favor, I would be happy to see it,.


My points still stand, and con's arguments don't refute mine, but just illustrate what kind of conclusions we must draw if we deny the pro-life argument









Kumquatodor

Con

First, the most important matter:

I personally take offense at the mentally ill comment because I actually have a close relative who is mentally ill and his life is of great value and that comment is just wrong.
I did not mean it like that.

My cousins' cousin is severely dissabled. One of my friends was both mentally ill and disabled. I myself am slightly disable with Mild Cerebral Palsy. I meant not to say that these people are of lower value.

What I meant was: maybe, if the child will have an exceptionally hard life, it might be right to, as an act of mercy, abort the kid before he can feel pain.
________________________________________
Although it is certainly a tragic thing and something that merits emotional support and care for the mother in such a situation.
Should a mother be forced to endure 18 years of raising a child that is a constant reminder of the tragic event. Should the mother have to change her ENTIRE life because one evil ***** decided to rape her? The mother might have to:
1. Have to drop out of school.
2. Stay home from work.
3. Stay home from friends.
4. Tell the grandparents.
5. Tell the child.
6. Get (expensive) therapy.
7. Explain to people (bosses, gov. workers, police, parents) how this baby spontaniously appeared in her uterous.

No one deserves that! It isn't the babies fault, mind you, but why not abort it while it is nothing but clumps of cells, or is incapable of thought or brainwaves.



What about the child? Should it be forced to live with the truth: that he was conceived by an act of violence that dramatically changed the mothers life, and that they'll never know their father, and that their existance was caused in a horrible event?
____________________________________________
Therefore, these are short points, but they still serve to prove that a zygote is a human being.
You have convinced me that these are indeed humans.

I draw reference to vegatative states/long comas. In these instances, we sometimes let the people die. Aborting the baby is a similar thing.

A developing baby is very similar to a person in a these conditions: little to no brainwaves, inability to live without outside help.
_____________________
These are not the standards by which we judge human life.
It kind of is. Failure to meet these standards are how we justify termination of those in vegitative states and comas.
________________
Taking it from the physical perspective however, we are all, 100% of us, clumps of cells. I don't get why pro-abortion people use this argument.
WE are humans. Our pets are dogs, cats, etc. Babies, at this time, are unable to feel pain. Or think. They do not have most of the fuctions that animals, much less humans, have.
__________________________________________________________________
Many organisms lack hearts, there is nothing essential human-like about hearts, and cells are lives but do not have hearts.
These things are not inherently human, true. But humans require these things to live. If a human has none of these, is it really living? Most likely not?
_________________________________________
Because the ability to feel pain is not the foundation for the right to life.
Very true. However, I was just reasoning that, if you can't feel pain, can't think, don't have a body etc., then it is possibly justified.
___________________________
But if you insist, would you be in favor of cutting back abortions after 8 weeks?
I would be in favor of cutting abortions after 8 weeks, unless it were a "special" case (like rape, or lack of knoweledge of pregnancy, which is VERY rare, or if the baby would have a hard time in life, or if parents cannot care for the child well).

Also, though this source isn't infallable, our own Skeptikitten claims that 60% of abortions occurr before 9 weeks.
http://www.debate.org...
___________________________________
That would be a big change and something I would support.
I guess my opponent concedes that SOME abortions should be legal.

Do I win?
Debate Round No. 3
Dmot

Pro

Let's go through Con's points and see where he fails to rebut my argument. Then I will restate my argument.
His comments in bold, mine are plain

What I meant was: maybe, if the child will have an exceptionally hard life, it might be right to, as an act of mercy, abort the kid before he can feel pain.
But the problem is this: Who are YOU or ANYONE ELSE to decide what lives are less valuable? If you say it is an act of mercy to kill, then it follows that the life is not valuable.


No one deserves that! It isn't the babies fault, mind you, but why not abort it while it is nothing but clumps of cells, or is incapable of thought or brainwaves.

YOU TOO are a clump of cells. Everyone is. That argument is completely absurd. We are all clumps of cells.

I draw reference to vegatative states/long comas. In these instances, we sometimes let the people die. Aborting the baby is a similar thing.


Aborting does not equal letting die. Tearing apart an infant from the uterus is not letting, its doing.

These things are not inherently human, true. But humans require these things to live. If a human has none of these, is it really living? Most likely not?


The zygote is a living cell. You say I have convinced you that it is human. It follows therefore that it is a living human.

Very true. However, I was just reasoning that, if you can't feel pain, can't think, don't have a body etc., then it is possibly justified.

Possibly is not the same as actually. This is life and death, we need more certainty. Even so, does that mean if you kill someone in their sleep painlessly it is justified? What do you mean don't have a body? Who said an embryo is not a body? I say it is a body, a human body, albeit a small one and one that needs to develop to become an ADULT body.

I guess my opponent concedes that SOME abortions should be legal.

Do I win?

Absolutely not! I do not concede that. Please read my actual arguments. I ask you if YOU concede that some abortions should be made illegal. I explicitly stated that of course all abortions should remain illegal and all are bad. The point was that by your own logic you should admit that many abortions are wrong and should be illegal. That would be a compromise position for me, but a better one than the current situation.


Now, on to my argument. It consists of 3 simple premises:
1) Abortion is the direct killing of life in the womb
2) The life in the womb is human
3) The government has the duty to protect humans from being murdered


As for premise 1, this should be obvious. Any abortion procedure has as its direct goal the termination of the life in the womb. It is accomplished in ways that are explicitly designed to terminate the pregnancy usually by first killing the fetus and then expelling it. However, direct explusion even before killing it would be murder because it is the inducement of certain death of the unborn child for the sake of ending the pregnancy. How could anyone doubt that this is direct killing or at least has the same quality as direct killing of the life in the womb?

Premise 2 is simple, you concede this point and I have defended it elsewhere:
You have convinced me that these are indeed humans.


Premise 3 should be relatively uncontraversial.





Kumquatodor

Con

If you say it is an act of mercy to kill, then it follows that the life is not valuable.
How so?! The act of mercy is performed in order to spare the child of the pain. There is NO drop in the value of life implied.

Also, people don't live or die based "value" per se. If we did, then I am pretty certain that you and I and the homeless would all be dead!
___________________________
YOU TOO are a clump of cells.
I can think. I can breath. I can reason. There is a clear difference.

Unthinking zygote that doesn't feel pain OR a thinking, breathing person with friends that'll miss him.

Do you see the difference.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Aborting does not equal letting die.
These actions may have a similar purpose, though. Therein lies their similarities. They can both be for mercy, or for not wanting the person to be a bother anymore.

These are both tragic events, but why should one be legal, and the other be illegal?
______________________________________________________________________
This is life and death, we need more certainty. Even so, does that mean if you kill someone in their sleep painlessly it is justified?
Again:

Zygotes do not feel pain for a long time. They do not breath or even have lungs. For most part, they don't have blood. They cannot think.

There is a clear difference.
_________________________
I ask you if YOU concede that some abortions should be made illegal.
I would compromise by having some abortions become illegal. I would hate to hear of all the news of women and untrained doctors' attempts, but...


Abortions being llegal is preferable, though.
____________________________________
I believe I have shown that there are substantial differences between us and zygotes, and that killing a zygote is far more justifiable then killing a developed human.
_______________________________________________________
I had fun debating!



Voters: Voter for whom who you will!
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Archibald 4 years ago
Archibald
Laws are passed by a group of (predominantly) men. Abortion relates ONLY to women. Wow, lucky I'm a guy. I think I'll stay right out of this.
Posted by Deathmonkey7 4 years ago
Deathmonkey7
Yeah, the stipulations of this debate are dramatically swayed in favor of pro right off the bat. I momentarily thought about accepting the challenge until I saw the conditions unfairly forbidding legitimate debate topics.
Posted by Ragnar 4 years ago
Ragnar
Leaving out both the mother, and specific situations that can arise... Wow.
Posted by donald.keller 4 years ago
donald.keller
Pro. Rewrite this resolution. If Abortion isn't illegal, than your Resolution is irrelevant.

Say "Abortion should be illegal"

And proofread.
Posted by thett3 4 years ago
thett3
Abortion cannot remain illegal, as it's legal right now
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Mikal 4 years ago
Mikal
DmotKumquatodorTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Both sides were kind of weak and could have been stronger. Con gets S and G because of noticeable spelling errors by Pro. Including the one in the title.