The Instigator
AlexanderOc
Pro (for)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
KevinLomaxESQ
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

Abortion Is Morally Wrong

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 3 votes the winner is...
KevinLomaxESQ
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/20/2014 Category: Health
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 567 times Debate No: 62004
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

AlexanderOc

Pro

First round is acceptance.

I. Disclosure

As a forewarning to all readers, I will be arguing with semantics. If you dislike that type of argument, please do not vote. I only wish to see objective voters who decide the winner based solely on the correctness of his argument, not the means in which it is presented.

I will be taking the stance that abortion is morally wrong. To affirm this resolution I will be connecting various definitions to show why this is objectively correct. Therefore, I will be defining all terms at the beginning of this debate.

If my opponent feels that I cherry picked a definition to suit my argument, he retains the right to provide a source to a definition that better complies to the common definition.

II. Terms

1.This debate will take place in 5 rounds with the first being an acceptance round.

2.There will be an 8,000 character count cap per the usual.

3.Each debator will have 3 days to post his argument. A single forfeiture will result in a loss of the conduct point. Multiple forfeitures will be the equivilant of a concession, causing my opponent to lose all rights to points.

4. The subject of morality is a tricky one. If not carefully understood, it can ruin a debate. So I will be taking the fundamental that applies instead of allowing the whole subject matter into this debate. This fundamental will be as follows:

One human intentionally taking the life of another human is incorrect.

III. Definitions

Abortion: The elimination of a potential birth with the intent of terminating pregnancy


Now, I pass the argument to my future opponent for a fun debate.
KevinLomaxESQ

Con

In this, the acceptance round, I do accept the challenge. I intend to challenge the Instigator's attempt to prove that "Abortion Is Morally Wrong"
I acknowledge Instigator's terms and definitions.
I acknowledge that the Instigator intends to argue semantics. I intend to do the same!
Debate Round No. 1
AlexanderOc

Pro

Note: I will be addressing an unborn child as a "baby" for the entirety of my argument to keep things simple, due to lack of an equivalent word.

I.Opening Construct

I would first like to begin by thanking my opponent for accepting this debate.

Now, I'm going to keep this short and simple as to not create too much confusion, as semantic arguments tend to do.

A. Abortion is killing

In order to kill something, it must first be living. So therefore we can define killing something as taking away life from a living thing intentionally.
To qualify abortion as killing, we must first demonstrate how the entity being aborted is a living thing, and how abortion is intentionally taking the life away from it.

So let's define life, or a "living thing". I find this source to be very helpful in doing so.

http://www.biology-online.org...





      • an organized structure, being made up of a cell or cells







      • requires energy to survive or sustain existence







      • ability to reproduce







      • ability to grow







      • ability to metabolize







      • ability to respond to stimuli







      • ability to adapt to the environment







      • ability to move







      • ability to respire






These are the qualities of a living thing. So let's compare these to the qualities of an unborn child.


Any stage of pregnancy will definitely show the baby is made up of cells. From the very conception, it is a single celled zygote.
Without energy, a baby will not function as a system. This is why the umbilical cord exists, to supply energy from the mother to the baby.
While not immediately utilized, a baby will eventually develop sexual organs and therefore the ability to reproduce.
A baby has the ability to go from a zygote to a fetus, aka growing.
A baby could not get energy if not for a metabolism.
A baby's body will react with heat and coolness, to regulate body temperature.
Adaptation can be accomplished in a variety of ways, the most simple being hot and cold though. Adapting to each to regulate temperature.
A baby can kick inside his mother's uterus.
A baby could not produce energy if not for cellular respiration.


So, in conclusion, an unborn child is a living thing. Eliminating a living thing with intent is killing.

B. Abortion is done with intent.

According to our definition, abortion is the intentful elimination of the baby. Seeing as my opponent accepted this definition, the quality of intent is retained.

C. Killing is morally incorrect

As agreed upon in the first round, this is another given.

D. Abortion is morally incorrect

Sine we have seen how abortion is killing and how killing is morally wrong, it is very easy to put the two together to form the resolution.

KevinLomaxESQ

Con

Greetings again Pro, and thanks in advance for a interesting debate.

I intend to rebut Pros argument that "Abortion is Morally Wrong". I contend that Pro will be unable to prove that "Abortion is Morally Wrong".

Interestingly, in the opening round Pro stated that, "The subject of morality is a tricky one. If not carefully understood, it can ruin a debate." Yet, in the first two rounds Pro chose not to provide or refer to any definition or context for determining "Morality" or what is "Moral". The closest Pro came to any related specificity, was when he stated his position that "intentionally taking the life of another human is incorrect." Yet, he laid no supporting foundation for that assertion and did not specifically state that his opponent must accept it.

Pro's round two argument is essentially the following:

A. Abortion is killing
B. Abortion is done with intent.
C. Killing is morally incorrect
D. Abortion is therefore morally incorrect

To topple the logic in Pro's argument, I need only to invalidate point C. Without point C, Pro's logic can not make the "connection" between Abortion and Morality. By not, providing specificity, Pro's point C Translates to: "All" Killing is morally incorrect. I challenge that premise, with the following two responses

1. According to Pro's own on-line source. ..a Virus can be considered a living thing.(http://www.biology-online.org...)
If a Virus was killing an unborn child, can Pro prove it is "morally incorrect" to kill the Virus ? I think not.

2. Even if we limit the scope of the word "Killing" to that of Humans. Point C, still can not be validated.
If a known relentless Killer was in the act of strangling an innocent child to death, can Pro prove it is "morally incorrect" for a police officer to save a life, by intentionally shooting to kill the killer ? Again, I say no.

I say, Pro can not prove that "Killing" is by itself "inherently" wrong or immoral. It would seem Situations and context must also be considered.

Pro, The instigator, said that in this debate he "will be arguing with semantics".
Since "semantics" is not a person or entity, I translate that to mean he will be "using"semantics" to argue with me.
Using semantics however, requires careful usage of words, and proper definitions.
Unfortunately, Pro has not gotten off to a good start. His choice of words and lack of specificity/definition may have severely undermined his argument.
Debate Round No. 2
AlexanderOc

Pro

Nice argument by Con, however it has it's faults.

I. Cross Examination

First off, I would like to note misunderstanding by my opponent. In the "Terms" section of my first round, I stated that instead of allowing the full subject of morality and it's inherent confusion, we will be solely using a fundamental of morality.
That said fundamental being:

One human intentionally taking the life of another human is incorrect.

By accepting my terms, Con accepted that this be the fundamental of morality.
I was not making an argument, I was setting a term. One which Con did acknowledge in his first round and accepted them along with the debate. He is therefore bound to it.

Con also misinterpreted my point C. He labeled them as arguments when all they really are is headings. I did, in fact, mean that human-human killing is morally incorrect. This was evident by me saying "as we agreed upon in the first round". By which I mean him agreeing to the terms.
So, I have no obligation to prove that one human killing another is morally wrong, as Con has signed himself to that by accepting the debate.That basically nullifies his whole second round.


My opponent makes yet another mistake by assuming me saying "I will be arguing with semantics" actually means "I will be arguing using semantics"

He outright stated that semantics is not a person or entity, when that is not at all the case.


http://www.ebay.com...;


So I see it as completely rude of my opponent to disregard my friend semantics as not even being a a real person. I sincerely hope he apologizes, or else my friend here may stop helping me debate.



Back to Con.
KevinLomaxESQ

Con

Pro has indeed made this a humorous debate!
It was amusing to see how he'd attempt to remedy a critical error he made, when establishing Terms of the debate in Round #1.

The exact quote from Pro, in the Term #4 section of the 1st round said:

"4. The subject of morality is a tricky one. If not carefully understood, it can ruin a debate. So I will be taking the fundamental that applies instead of allowing the whole subject matter into this debate. This fundamental will be as follows: One human intentionally taking the life of another human is incorrect."

However, in opening of Round #3. Pro attempted to express the details of Term #4 as... "we will be solely using a fundamental of morality." Perhaps that's what Pro meant to say, but that is NOT in fact what Pro said.

Notice that in Round #1 Term #4, Pro chose to use the word I. That was a critical error in this consensual semantic debate.
"I" is singular, not plural. Pro did not say "We" will be, and therefore Con, can't be... bound to the supposed "fundamental" in Term #4 from Round 1

Further, Pro said he would be "taking the fundamental" not "using" the fundamental, nor "sharing" the fundamental.
"Taking" is an odd choice of words in this sentence. It's unidirectional and does not imply any collective use.
Pro recognized and implicitly acknowledged his errors, by cleaning it up and replacing it with the words "we" and "solely using", in Round #3"

Pro's error so badly damaged his intended strategy that in Round #3 he seems to have abandoned his bold intentions to "argue with semantics".
Pro now makes the bizarre claim that he is actually arguing "with"...a broken link to ebay. (Very Odd)

Pro's error so badly damaged his intended strategy that in Round #3 he also refused to defend his own logic,
by referring to his own argument points as just "Headings". "Headings"...Really ???

Let us remember that Pro and I are debating whether "Abortion Is Morally Wrong".
As worded, that means each and every Abortion, regardless of circumstance, situation or context., is morally wrong.
To support his argument. Pro wants to be able say that that "Killing" is morally wrong,

However, that premise, even if true is insufficient. To avoid consideration of circumstance, situation on context, Pro would need to prove that "Killing" is by itself "inherently" wrong or immoral.

I say again, Pro can not prove that "Killing" is by itself "inherently" wrong or immoral.
Nor can Pro prove, for example, that it is "morally incorrect" for a police officer to save a life, by intentionally shooting to kill the killer. It would seem that situations and context must also be considered.

Critical errors have left Pro without the necessary logical building blocks required to make his initial argument. Pro must therefore prove/justify his premise, find another strategy or abandon the argument altogether.
Debate Round No. 3
AlexanderOc

Pro

AlexanderOc forfeited this round.
KevinLomaxESQ

Con

I must say, I am disappointed to see that Pro, the instigator, has forfeited round four. I am not completely surprised however. As I said in the closing of round 3, critical errors have left Pro without the necessary logical building blocks required to make his initial argument. Pro would need to prove that "Killing" is by itself "inherently" wrong or immoral. I say again, Pro can not prove that "Killing" is by itself "inherently" wrong or immoral. Pro must therefore prove/justify his premise, find another strategy or abandon the argument altogether.

It seems that Pro, the instigator, has chosen to abandon the argument altogether.
Debate Round No. 4
AlexanderOc

Pro

I do sincerely apologize to Con for such a shameful forfeiture. Time escaped me and will assume full responsibility for the wasted round.

As for my argument, I was scrambling to come up with one. Though, I can only blame myself for letting such simple mistakes like using "I" instead of "we" or proof-checking the link I provided be used in the hands of my opponent.. I'm sure that I could formulate an argument at this point, however it seems like a futile effort that would inevitably lead to shameful nitpicking.

With that, I conced this debate to Pro and leave this round to him for his final words.

KevinLomaxESQ

Con

Pro, I appreciate the sincerity of your closing comments. It was a respectable and honorable admission. I believe your intentions were to "concede" this debate to me, "Con", although there were some typo's in that last sentence, and I accept that. I enjoyed our exchange and the challenge it presented. I look I forward to a future debate!
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by AlexanderOc 2 years ago
AlexanderOc
In case link is faulty,
http://www.ebay.com...
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Sojourner 2 years ago
Sojourner
AlexanderOcKevinLomaxESQTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro conceded the debate. All points to Con. As with TT, this vote in now way condones abortion.
Vote Placed by TrasguTravieso 2 years ago
TrasguTravieso
AlexanderOcKevinLomaxESQTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Seriously? The man forfeited and conceded, this should not be difficult to vote on. (Let it be known, however, that by this vote I do not condone the barbarous in-utero murder/dismemberment/burning of thousands upon thousands of human beings.)
Vote Placed by Hanspete 2 years ago
Hanspete
AlexanderOcKevinLomaxESQTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was the only one to give sources, conduct on both sides was very good, no grammatical mistakes made.