The Instigator
JasperFrancisShickadance
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
SkepticalDebatee
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Abortion (Is it OK) Part II

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
JasperFrancisShickadance
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/23/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 584 times Debate No: 57032
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

JasperFrancisShickadance

Con

Abortion kills life and I think we should cherish life, as each person is unique and smart and special. We should not be taking away anybody's life, no matter the circumstance of the mother. What's wrong with this picture: society kills human beings yet goes to a lot of stress to save endangered species! But the focus is on 'why abortion is wrong/right.' Pro must argue that it is OK and I (con) will argue that it is not. First round, please give your reasons of why it is OK. I have already stated the obvious and if pro can rebut that, go ahead.

Let the debating begin!
SkepticalDebatee

Pro

Abortion is morally permissible as a fetus does not have consciousness thus making the act not cruel in the sense that a fetus does not yet value its life, and taking away this potential human is not necessarily detrimental to society as a whole. It may be argued they could be a great person, but they could also be a bad one, and using this logic it would be immoral not to have as many children as possible because one of them could be a great genious.
Debate Round No. 1
JasperFrancisShickadance

Con

Thank-you for accepting this debate. Hopefully it turns out OK (unlike Part 1).

REBUTTALS

"Abortion is morally permissible as a fetus does not have consciousness thus making the act not cruel"
It is actually unclear whether babies feel when they are aborted or not. There have been many horrifying occasions where, having taken the pill too late, the mothers have HEARD the cry of the almost-dead baby. This makes everything seem more real, right? It makes the people realize that women are the productions of life; that the baby is life, and the fetus becomes that baby. [http://www.mccl.org....] You might say, 'aborting a baby who's no farther along than the 1st trimester doesn't effect anything because the fetus is...' This is awful because there I so much pain involved anyways. Abortion of an unconscious fetus might not seem cruel, in terms of the physical pain for the new human, but you do not KNOW how much physical pain, and guilt, a mother feels after doing abortion?

Here is the story of a 21 year old woman who went through the process of abortion:
"I went to the clinic to get more birth control. I had run out and was off for maybe a month. They asked if I wanted to be tested (for pregnancy) and at first I said "no""being sure I wasn't pregnant. I changed my mind after finding out it would only take a couple minutes. When the nurse came back in and told me I was pregnant, my life instantly felt unreal. I was frozen in shock. For some stupid reason, I had believed it wouldn't happen to me. My boyfriend declared on many occasions before this that he would get an abortion, and yet even that I didn't truly believe. I couldn't say the words to him, so I just showed him the papers. He instantly demanded an abortion. I don't blame him for not wanting the child. I was scared out of my mind"not only because I wasn't ready financially and mentally"but because I was scared of being alone. I decided I wouldn't bring a child into this world if one of us didn't want the baby. I thought, "How can I make a decision for the both of us?" I didn't want to ruin his life. I knew I'd regret getting the abortion, but I don't think I ever knew what regret was before. Every day I regret it. I find myself constantly saying sorry. I took my child's life away. I didn't even give my child a chance to live. It doesn't matter if I was scared or even if the child wasn't wanted. It wasn't my choice to let the child live or die. I made the mistake of having unprotected sex, but to kill my unborn child because of that mistake haunts me every day. I can't take it back. I keep imaging how much I would have loved that child. Every time I see a pregnant lady or a child at all, it breaks my heart. If you are thinking about getting an abortion, stop thinking about your own life because it's not about you anymore. Think about the child, because its the child's life you are dealing with."
[http://www.abort73.com...]

http://www.abort73.com... (Read the descriptions written in dull)
http://www.abort73.com... (Watch the video on site)

This website here gives some easily mistaken facts about abortion, please read them.
http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org...

The question is, is abortion taking away important and useful life? As you said, "...a fetus does not yet value its life, and taking away this potential human is not necessarily detrimental to society as a whole. It may be argued they could be a great person, but they could also be a bad one, and using this logic it would be immoral not to have as many children as possible because one of them could be a great genious." By the way you spelled "genious" wrong.
This is not the same thing AT ALL, and saying 'you would have to have as many children as possible' is utterly irrelevant to abortion. Abortion is not a matter of morality, rather of justice. It's fine to have as many kids as possible but even if every woman in this world had 5 children, all the abortions happening would barely be made up. Our society is killing the next generations, 137 human beings killed every hour [http://www.all.org...] and the most common reason is because of the 'life of the mother' exception, either financially or even death-threateningly. These mothers aren't sitting down to think: the only way for humans to come and be on this earth is through them and their wombs, and life is valuable because of this. If we know what a pill can do (stops the life in a woman) why do we choose to let that do that to us? Abortion cannot be justified in any way. We are stopping so many chances at life because of a simple pill that too many women consider, and sadly, they underestimate it and think it's a simple process.

Abortion shouldn't be legal because...
"If it had been legal in 1958 my best friend probably would have been aborted in a heartbeat. And the people who would have encouraged her parents to do it, for economic and health reasons, would have thought that they were doing what was best for the other three children. Please tell that to her husband, and her two kids, and any children they will have down through the generations."

Abortion is too easy and pressurized and "simple" because...
"When you can trot a woman down to the nearest "clinic" and have her baby killed, then you are devaluing her and having power over her. Abortion is a soul-killing act. 64% of all women who abort state that they felt pressured into it. I have talked to many women who regret their abortions, but never have I met a woman who changed her mind who ever said she wished she had had one. What I hear instead is that they can"t imagine their lives without this child. Women are inherently in their nature nurturing. Abortion completely goes against all that is natural for women."

The reasons pro-life believers think abortion is wrong is because...
"Of course, both men and women oppose abortion because it is the taking of a human life, and in doing so at the rate of 1.2 MILLION ANNUALLY, all other human life is devalued. We should all be concerned about that. I have seen this argument used with increasing frequency lately. I am guessing it"s yet another tactic to take the debate off of what really goes on during an abortion, and keep the debate in the realm of catchy sound bites. Since the slogan "It"s a woman"s body" has been disproved by science (it"s a child"s body that gets destroyed), and the "It"s just a blob of tissue" has been completely obliterated by ever-improving ultrasounds, and finally, the "It doesn"t hurt anyone else" has pretty much played itself out on the evening news and is apparent in the total disregard for all human life in our society, I"m just assuming this is the next, and hopefully final, slogan to be trotted out."
SOURCE: http://www.standforlife.net....

"Women have a 1/3 chance of sexual assault, in this way abortion is justified..." REBUT:
http://afterabortion.org...

This concludes Round 2. You may rebut anything I said or/and any website I listed.
SkepticalDebatee

Pro

I will now rebut my opponents first round arguments.

While a fetus may be to some degree unique they are by no means smart or special. I've already explained that the argument that they could become something special is flawed. Your rebuttal dances around this by saying we need these kids to continue the human species, but we have no chance of going extinct due to them. (1)
You then go on to say that abortion is not justified under any circumstances, but what if it would mean the woman would die? This is a blatant contradiction of morals, and in this case the woman could be someone valuable to society.
My opponent then makes a point about us allowing abortion and protecting endangered animals being hypocritical, but humans are not an endangered species as I have stated.

Now I will rebuild my case.

My opponents first rebuttal is that fetuses may feel pain. These claims aren't currently substantiated, and as my opponent has BoP (Abortion is already legal therefore he had is going against the norm.) he must find valid evidence for this. No "possible" arguments. Even if this were true the development of these feelings come after the overwhelming majority of abortions occur. (2)
The next argument presented revolves around guilt of people who get abortions, but it is their decision to get that abortion people feel regret for all kinds of things that does not mean they should be banned. In fact most women don' regret their decision. (3)
By the way you spelled genius wrong when pointing out I spelled genius wrong. I've already covered this argument.
Quotes about how abortion devalues life are then presented. How? If this has happened why have we not seen a moral collapse of society? Why haven't murder rates soared since the legalization of abortion? (4) There is also something about it devaluing women, but again how? It's solely the woman's choice.
My opponents site about rape victims only aborting 1/4 of the time. If this is true then how does it make the times when people do get abortions morally invalid?

1. http://www.cdc.gov... (Much bigger worldwide. Duh.)
2. http://mobile.nytimes.com...
3. http://www.m.webmd.com...
4. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...
Debate Round No. 2
JasperFrancisShickadance

Con

Thank-you for your participation in Round 2. Now for the third round.

REBUTTALS:

"While a fetus may be to some degree unique they are by no means smart or special."
http://www.google.com...
http://www.google.com...
Tell me, if you had a child would you call him/her unique, special, or both? Every child is special, a. k. a. different from what is usual. Every child has it's own fingerprint, own personality, own ideas. Every child is immoral at times, every child commits good deeds and is moral, too. Also, every mother is proud of her child at times while sometimes shameful of her child. But despite all these factors, the mother who is entitled through sex to have kids, should give those little humans life no matter the circumstances. Whether it's unexpected or not, the mother should NOT "get rid" of her child(ren) because it is (1) her flesh she kills, (2) her pride she kills, and (3) a human she kills. Every fetus/baby is special and unique enough to have life-rights.

"I've already explained that the argument that they could become something special is flawed." Maybe you have, but does THIS (meaning you, assuming that the body they are killing might not be a genius but rather someone awful), justify the taking away of the body's life? Making that kind of assumption is flawed: (A) you are taking rights away from a human who has NO say, (B) you are saying that 'because the human might be bad to the society it makes abortion seem better.' The fetuses can turn into any kind of person when it "becomes human" and there, by no means, is a reason you shouldn't give the human a chance at being "special." Besides that, it should be obvious that every human being is special in some way. Unless, of course, you don't believe that every human is equal and everyone should have equal rights! You have displayed discrimination and unfairness: right there in those two little sentences you gave. Discrimination against all those humans you have taken life-rights away from. Unfairness because these humans don't get a chance at life.

"...but what if it would mean the woman would die?"
1st off, it is extremely rare that the mother would have to abort her baby in order to keep living. 2nd, we must define the 'death' of the mother exception as NOT the 'health' of the mother (just to make things clear). Philosophically, we might justify the decision to abort a life-threatening pregnancy this way:

A) If the pregnancy continues, the mother will die. If the mother dies, the child will die.

B) If the pregnancy is ended through abortion, the child will die, but the mother will live.
In both instances the child will die. Since there is no way to save the child, but there is a way to save the mother, it is morally expedient (even necessary, perhaps) to save the mother by ending the life of the child"on the premise that is better to save one life, than to lose two. This conclusion has nothing to do with valuing one life over the other. It merely recognizes that since there is no way to save the baby, the most ethical course of action is to save the mother. Though such thinking may be ethically sound as it applies to the hypothetical conditions above, real-world circumstances are never so cut and dry. Quite simply, statement A is flawed. We can say with certainty that if the mother dies, the child will die, but we can never say with certainty that if the pregnancy continues, the mother will die. In order to be accurate, the beginning of Statement A would need to be re-rendered as such:

A) If the pregnancy continues, the mother MIGHT die...
Does the morality of aborting a life-threatening pregnancy depend on the severity of the threat to the mother? Is it a matter of percentages and probability? There have NOT been many cases of a 'will die' for the mother, and some that have been have turned out fine (i.e. mothers giving birth to health babies in their abdomen or an ectopic pregnancy). [http://www.abort73.com...]

My opponent: "humans are not an endangered species." Just saying, but because I believe humans are more important than animals, I also have ventured to think that EVERY human is an endangered specie. We are each special AND unique, no matter how small (including fetuses because everybody knows they will become a human), and they should be protected MORE than animals who might be dying out. But sadly, this is not the case and people such as my opponent believe animals are more important saving than humans.

"...the development of these feelings come after the overwhelming majority of abortions occur." My opponent also said that I must find "possible" arguments for the idea that fetuses may feel pain. Well, knowing there are also NO PICTURES GIVEN of what the fetuses look like when they are aborted, the public does not know (either) about what happens to the fetus/baby when the pill takes over. There are pictures on magazine covers of the damage wars and fights do to people in other countries, but alas, there are no front cover pictures of the damage and hurt and pain abortion causes babies (and their mothers, for that matter). This website might bring some awareness to the "feelings" fetuses have when getting killed.
http://www.priestsforlife.org....

"In fact women don't regret their decision." Are you kidding me?! What your website says is exactly what they want you to think! It's a medical website that tells you abortion is harmless and the only after-effect is cramps! There are so many stories and testimonies of what abortion does to the mother. Here are a FEW stories:
http://www.silentnomoreawareness.org...

You've said that society has to be collapsing in order for abortion to be proven as devaluing life. All I can say is: everybody knows that abortion = murder in the womb. It literally zaps the newly-formed life right into utter darkness because one pill was taken by it's carrier (mother). Nobody LIKES to think of it that way but it's TRUE.

There can be no rebuttal for knowing what abortion really does.
SkepticalDebatee

Pro

I never said that children aren't special or smart, but fetuses aren't. I feel like you and I have definitions of smart and special anyways. A fetus does not have ideas or a personality. At some point it will have fingerprints, but that is pretty superficial and would fall under the category of unique. You still have failed to s how that a fetus is special or smart.
(A) A fetus has no say because it is not capable of thought. It doesn't care either way so It is naturally the mother's decision. (B) I did not use this as THE reason abortion is OK, but rather as a rebuttal to the argument that it will someday be a great human being. In fact many studies show that abortion lowers crime rates. This is because less people are born into low income families or families with parents who don't love the child. Statistical evidence backs this up. (1) (2)
It doesn't matter how rare these occasions are as you stated "no matter the mother's condition" so this argument is justified.
It's pretty silly to argue that each human is its own species, and you haven't really backed up this claim. I never stated that I value animals more than humans. If an animal wanted an abortion or would die without one I would find it moral to give it an abortion.
I am confused about this argument. How do some bloody pictures show that a lot of pain occurred. A woman recently filmed her abortion. It didn't look like she was in very much pain to me. (3)
A couple testimonials do not compare to over 1000 people surveyed. How can you call my source biased when all of yours openly are. The study was conducted outside of the website I presented. It merely reported the findings.
You still haven't actually shown that abortion devalues life. If it did there would be some effect.

1. http://www.google.com...
2. http://freakonomics.com...
3. http://m.nydailynews.com...
Debate Round No. 3
JasperFrancisShickadance

Con

"I never said that children aren't special or smart, but fetuses aren't." Seriously, is there any difference between fetuses and children in the long run? What will the fetus become? It will grow into the stage of being a baby (once being born, which abortion prohibits), and then the baby will become a child who IS special AND smart. A fetus might not have ideas or a personality but it will have both once it is out of the womb and developed. I don't need to show that a fetus is special or smart because that is irrelevant. The problem, which is often misunderstood or unbalanced, is what the fetus will turn into. I believe abortion is murder because of the FACT that the fetus inside the mother WILL turn in to a human being, whether he acts or looks like one or not. If there wasn't such a word as 'fetus,' and it was just called a human, there wouldn't be such misinterpretations as to what 'murder' is. No matter how it is defined, it is taking life away from a future human being. And it still stuns me how so many people don't see it this way.

Rebuttal for (A) and (B):
"A fetus has no say." You're exactly right. That's why killing it is unfair. You say the fetus does not care either way, therefore it is the mother's decision. But you're wrong because if the fetus was grown a bit more SO THAT it DID understand the situation, it would want to live (obviously).

"In fact many studies show that abortion lowers crime rates." First, what studies? Actually, this hypothesis has been proven wrong through studies of its own: Five states legalized abortion three years before Roe v. Wade. Crime started falling three years earlier in these states, with property crime (done by younger people) falling before violent crime. [1] Second, this doesn't justify killing human life (how many times must I remind you?). You say life is not thrown away, but you have just proved that it is through abortion because you have actually said: "LESS PEOPLE are born."

I said/mean that each human is MORE IMPORTANT than each specie, whether endangered or not. (To be exact I said "every human is an endangered specie.") To clarify this, know that humans effect the earth and the habitats of nature--and animals--so instead of worrying about the endangered species (i.e. "WE MUST SAVE THE GRAY WOLVES!!!"), let's worry about the worriers who supposedly "protect wildlife" because THEY are the reason the environment/people/technology is the way it is [2]. By decreasing population and people we decrease the amount of leaders, activists, inspirers, etc. who move society along. We will never know the effects of abortion to society because we will never know what we are missing out on...! It's that simple. These fetuses have potential, you know.

"It doesn't matter how rare these occasions are as you stated "no matter the mother's condition" so this argument is justified." Huh? Please explain what is justified...and also when I stated "no matter the mother's condition."

Bloody pictures show that a lot of pain occurred because they are bloody!! Pain for the mother seeing that the abortion was a real murder of a human being. Pain to know that the baby had to have suffered from EXTENSIVE pain, with all that blood. [3]

Your third site, with the video of a happy abortion procedure, is bogus. The woman didn't even wonder what might've happened to the life inside of her. And you're saying crime rates lower because unloving parents have abortion. There's not a lot to say except for that it looked like that woman could've loved her child, most women love there children (who wouldn't love her own flesh?). So that argument is pointless, too.

You haven't showed me, in any way, how abortion is fair or just or moral. But it is up to the voters to decide, so, thank-you (Con) for debating this topic!

SOURCES
[1] http://freakonomics.com...
[2] http://www.motherjones.com... ('10 reasons why we need wolves' is ignorant to the fact that people are killed so much more than wolves yet we encourage abortion)
[3] http://abortionpillrisks.org...
SkepticalDebatee

Pro

In an effort to maintain fairness I will only rebut half of my opponents previous round. This way no one will get the last word on the entire debate. Specifically I will attack the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 5th paragraphs.

1. You are still not getting my argument. Fetuses don't have conscious thoughts (a) or pain. (already sourced) It is at this point similar to a plant. Some people are vegans or vegetarians, but I doubt that anyone would find eating a plant abhorrent. I do not feel that plants are entitled to the same rights as animals for this reason. They simply do not value their own life. The argument then is that at some point they will value their own life at some point, but at THAT point in time the mother values the freedom that an abortion can provide, and the fetus has no opinion on the matter. Using utilitarianism we can therefore justify abortion. The fetus does not suffer, and the mother is able to live her life how she wants to. Society gets the benefit of the mothers freedom to innovate, and while it may be argued that that fetus could innovate I have shown this to not necessarily be true, and my opponent has never countered this. They state that we should give everyone a chance, but is forcing someone to live down a life they don't want so that someone else can get a chance fair? I don't think so.
3. I just showed you a site with statistics to back up my claim. Are statistics not studies? This was never my argument for abortion being justified it is rather a rebuttal against your idea of giving "everyone" a chance.
4. By the way you spelled species wrong. The word has s in it twice. I don't think that you understand ecology at all. The reason you don't want species to go extinct is it reduces biodiversity. The less biodiversity you have the less stable an ecosystem becomes, until it all comes collapsing down in a chain reaction of co-dependent species. (b) The same does not happen if a person dies. In fact it could be argued that more abortions/use of condoms and the like would be beneficial. Overpopulation is a huge problem going forward. It reduces quality of life, and causes the destruction of more habitat, and thus more species. (c)
5. Sorry, I misquoted you. Your actual, very similar, statement was "We should not be taking away anybody's life, no matter the circumstance of the mother." This justifies my argument because no matter how small the amount of abortions where this is the case (certain death for mother if child is not aborted) are compared to the entirety of abortions. You made a blanket statement so I merely have to provide one contradictory example to defeat it. Here is doctor testimony that abortion may be needed to save lives. (d)

I have used unbiased sources whereas my opponent has not. Provided many undeniably winning arguments.
(pain, special person etc.) And continued to develop my arguments, rather than repeating the same things over and over. For these reasons I can see no other than a Pro vote.

a. http://www.scientificamerican.com...
b. http://www.nwf.org...
c. http://www.marketwatch.com...
d. http://www.usatoday.com...
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by mishapqueen 2 years ago
mishapqueen
JasperFrancisShickadanceSkepticalDebateeTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I felt that Con brought up some arguments that were not responded to by Pro, and Pro seemed to be basically repeating their arguments. Con was persuasive and seemed to care about both mother and child, while Pro seemed to just dismiss the child.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
JasperFrancisShickadanceSkepticalDebateeTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments were horrible.
Vote Placed by Phoenix61397 2 years ago
Phoenix61397
JasperFrancisShickadanceSkepticalDebateeTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Better arguments given by con. Pronly win argument was "a fetus isn't special." Both sides used fairly biased sources.