The Instigator
atheistmaximus
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
thinkingaboutit
Con (against)
Winning
22 Points

Abortion - Is only a religious issue. Abortion is the way to take when there is a bad situation.

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 4 votes the winner is...
thinkingaboutit
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/17/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 936 times Debate No: 19352
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (4)

 

atheistmaximus

Pro

30,000 will die of starvation today, but hey GO AHEAD and have ANOTHER BABY, I guess Jesus has a plan for everyone. BUT since all aborted babies go to heaven, WHY NOT DO THIS ONE A FAVOR AND SEND IT TO HEAVEN, instead of it having a chance to become an evil heathen...

WHAT WOULD YOU TELL A COUPLE WITH 3 KIDS TO DO? THEIR INCOME IS CRAP, HAVE A TERRIBLE MARRIAGE, , AND LIVE IN A 1 BEDROOM APT???? WOULD YOU TELL THEM TO HAVE A 4TH CHILD OR ABORT ??????

HOW ABOUT A WOMEN THAT IS GOING TO HAVE A DEFORMED, MENTALLY DESABLED CHILD with HORRIBLE BIRTH DEFECTS? NOT MAY BUT WILL HAVE A MESSED UP CHILD. (we have these new magic boxes that let you see into the body, and we also have this magic thing that looks in the blood for deformities in THIS THING CALLED DNA)
thinkingaboutit

Con

You present 2 Scenarios. Clarify them, if I am incorrect. I don't want to assume your point of view.

1. You believe that people shouldn't have kids if they have low incomes.

2. And, If the child may be handicapped then the pregnancy shouldn't be completed either.

This is your position right?

Even before I tackle your scenarios we need to consider and think through the ethics of abortion. In all the abortion arguments (Pro and Con), there are two main questions.

1. Do human beings possess intrinsic moral value? (Something with intrinsic value may be regarded as an end or end-in-itself.)

2. Is the developing fetus a human being?

And an additional question that should come up is:

3. Are humans intrinsically valuable?

Internationally the declaration of human rights recognizes the intrinsic moral value of human beings. This would imply that IF a developing fetus is a human being, then the fetus has intrinsic moral value, including the right to life.

Back to question #2 above, Is the developing fetus a human being?

Scientifically and medically the fetus at every stage of development is a human being. You mentioned DNA, then you understand that is human DNA and once combined (egg and sperm), at conception, all the traits of a human being are determined. I do want to clarify, an embryo is not a baby, but it is a human being at a different stage. It would be absurd to kill a human just because the human being is not at a later stage of life.

I think most know that abortions are not performed on embryos. Most women come to know that they are pregnant after two months, so abortion takes place at about 12 weeks or more. Consider this, two months in and the embryo is already a fetus. From two months and on we are not dealing with just cells. Organs are present, arms, feet, circulatory systems are present, but developing. Is kind of hard to say it, but a BABY, is there.

Another thing to think about is that from conception to old age we are in different stages of development. To say the least medicine and science verify that a fetus is a human being in one of the developing stages. In other words abortion according to medicine and science should be considered a destruction of an innocent human life.

PLEASE NOTICE THAT THROUGH OUT ALL I HAVE JUST MENTIONED IF HAVE NOT APPEALED TO THE BIBLE (religion, etc.), YES NOT EVEN ONCE. The main reason being, contrary to popular believe, abortion is NOT a religious issue.

Again back to the first two questions.

Question 1. Do human beings possess intrinsic moral value? Is a philosophical question.

Question 2. Is the developing fetus a human being? Is a medical/scientific question.

Neither one of them a religious.

Your Scenario 2: "HOW ABOUT A WOMEN THAT IS GOING TO HAVE A DEFORMED, MENTALLY DESABLED CHILD with HORRIBLE BIRTH DEFECTS. NOT MAY BUT WILL HAVE A MESSED UP CHILD. (we have these new magic boxes that let you see into the body, and we also have this magic thing that looks in the blood for deformities in THIS THING CALLED DNA)"

Your point of view is: If the child may be handicapped then the pregnancy shouldn't be complete either.
I will further expand on your point of view. Just want to warn you, you are making many presumptions that may even qualify yourself or a loved one as someone that to our standards is unacceptable to society.

1. "Deformed" – From your point of view if a human being from birth is less aesthetically pleasing to your standards, then he or she should be put to death.

2. "Mentally disabled" – From your point of view if a human being is less intelligent than "who", then he or she should be put to death.

3. "Not May but will have a messed up child" – From your point of view a Parent ought not or is unable to love a child just because is a "messed up child." What is your definition of "messed up?"

From your point of view all human beings with Down syndrome and aesthetically un-appealing to your standards are less of a human being than you and because of that, the death sentece should be applied.

To put it at its worst, because a human being has a 99% chance to be born with Edwards syndrome and may live to only 5 to 15 days or 5, 10 or 20 years, then that human being deserves to be put to death before they come out the birth canal. Just because of statistics.
Debate Round No. 1
atheistmaximus

Pro

Ah man this is just a sermon! Why are you wasting my time? You didn't even answer my questions. WHAT DOES "Do human beings possess intrinsic moral value*? (*Something with intrinsic value may be regarded as an end or end-in-itself.)" EVEN MEAN?
"Intrinsic? " "end to end-in-itsself? " go paint a picture word artist, cause this isn't an idea, its just a bunch of words put together. Maybe if you write more adjective you might s**t out an acutal idea… (A BUNCH OF JUMBLED UP WORDS!!!!) I seen people die and I still don't know what end-in-itself mean…

I asked questions and you gave me this long sermon.
You said "From conception to old age we are in a different stage of development." Who's fact IS THAT? That's not a fact, that's what people want to believe, specifically THIEST.
You said "I want you to PLEASE NOTICE THAT THROUGH OUT ALL I HAVE JUST MENTIONED IF HAVE NOT APPEALED TO THE BIBLE (religion, etc.), YES NOT EVEN ONCE. The main reason being, contrary to popular believe, abortion is NOT a religious issue."

That's really interesting because the bible says you shouldn't waste your seed
Genesis 38:9-10 ESV "But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his. So whenever he went in to his brother's wife he would waste the semen on the ground, so as not to give offspring to his brother. And what he did was wicked in the sight of the Lord, and he put him to death also."

You are simply weaseling out of the question.
I feel slapped in the face by this waste of time, I honestly do. I wanted to have a discussion, a serious AND HONEST discussion, but now I am see you are just politely waiting your turn to speak, NO SHARING OF IDEAS, or HONESTY… Just you waiting politely to post a bunch of worthless crap.

COME ONE, YOU REALLY FELT THE NEED to talk about the declaration of human rights? The same bill waved in front of people of Darfur as they are being killed?! DID YOU JUST CUT AND PASTE A SERMON??? And by the way: where in the declaration of human rights does it talk about fetus being humans? Oh, that's right IT DOESN'T!
thinkingaboutit

Con

Like I mentioned in my opening statement. The approach itself to abortion has nothing to do with religion; it has to do with human rights. If medicine/science attribute that a fetus is a human being, how is that religious in any way, shape or form? Just because you do not believe that a human being has intrinsic moral value, makes it a valid excuse to dismiss that all humans at all stages of life have this value.

The one that inserted a bible verse in this conversation happens to be you. At this point it seems that you are just upset that I didn't pick up a bible, opened it randomly and picked a verse to defend abortion. What you are doing is just trying to establish your point of view regardless of facts. Just look at how you ended your statement: "And by the way: where in the declaration of human rights does it talk about fetus being humans? Oh, that's right IT DOESN'T!"

I did NOT say that the declaration of Human Rights talks about a fetus being human. Medicine says a fetus is a Human being, the declaration of Human Rights states that Humans have the right to life.

Is like you are openly screaming "I do not care what medicine/science has to say about how a fetus is classified. A Fetus is not a human in my eyes regardless of what medicine says." "This should be a religious only talk, how can this be about science and philosophy."

Please re-read and actually understand what I said instead of ranting angrily because I did not make it a religious discussion by throwing random bible verses like you attempted to do.

But please do note that your ignorance of Middle Eastern culture shines. How does a verse about a man not taking the cultural responsibility of the time, which was to take care of his brothers widow has anything to do with abortion?
Debate Round No. 2
atheistmaximus

Pro

"Again, your ignorance of Middle Eastern culture shines. How does a verse about a man not taking the cultural responsibility of the time, which was to take care of his brothers widow has anything to do with abortion."

God killed Onan for SPILLING his SEED! This BS justification is exactly what I am referring to when I say YOU ARE NOT TRYING TO LEARN or PASS ON IDEAS, YOU ARE SIMPLY WAITING TO HEAR YOURSELF TALK.

Are you really going to try and justify that this very bible verse ISN'T USED BY MILLIONS OF CHRSITANS to justify abstinence? Do I really need to give you more? Look I have NOTHING TO LOOSE by hearing you out, I have NO attachment to my ideas, because they don't come from an infallible god. If your rationality is better I only have A BETTER POINT OF VIEW AND A BETTER WAY OF THINKING TO GAIN. You on the other hand aren't trying to have a conversation you really aren't, your just justifying your idocracy. You aren't trying to learn or have question your just TALKING.

This feels like a rap battle Not a conversation, If I wanted to put pretty words together and get nothing accomplished I would have become one, however I didn't. Go be a rapper, don't waste my time.

Until you show me a Scientific Study published in a medical journal that somehow PROVES FETUS'S are human I will no longer participate in a conversation with you. (There is NO study, I have access to all the medical journals…) Stop lying I hear it's a sin. Your making your fellow Christians look bad, So much for your morality…
thinkingaboutit

Con

It seems that you continue to be un-informed of the idea you are attempting to defend. No serious credible Pro-Choice organization/Abortion Clinic will EVER voice that a fetus is not a human being. They would be discredited by the Medical community in less than a minute.

Just let me list a couple of quotes from advocates of abortion:

> "there is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence an embryo conceived from human sperm and eggs is a human being."(Peter Singer, Practical Ethics, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993, 2008), 85-86.)*

* As a side note - Peter Singer also defends full-blown infanticide. So, when is a human being worthy of having the right to life in his eyes?*

> Mary Calderone - Planned Parenthood's former medical director, "Fertilization, then, has taken place. A baby has been conceived." (The Zero People: Essays on Life" by Jeffrey Hensley, Servant Publications (March 1983) p 9)

> "a facet that makes the obstetrician's burden unique in the whole field of medicine is his double obligation; he simultaneously cares for two patients, the mother and the infant… The essential step in the initiation of life is by fertilization, the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and the fusion of the two cells into a single cell." (Dr. Alan Guttmacher, Pregnancy and Birth: A Book for Expectant Parents New American Library; Revised Ed edition (January 1, 1962)

> Faye Wattleton, former president of Planned Parenthood, 14 years (1978–1992), "…we have deluded ourselves into believing that people don't know that abortion is killing. So any pretense that abortion is not killing is a signal of our ambivalence, a signal that we cannot say yes, it kills a fetus." (Faye Wattleton, "Speaking Frankly," Ms. Magazine, May / June 1997, Volume VII, Number 6, 67.)

You should actually READ a couple of Medicine books pertaining (specifically) the field of Embryology. But since you wanted published worked I will list some below. I may add, they are peer reviewed and actually studied by those in Universities attempting to complete a degree.

What I am afraid of, is reading another one of your post and in it you somehow will attempt to discredit the field of Embryology!

Do a brief reading of the material below and see why a fetus is a human being:

- Moore and Persaud's The Developing Human
- Larsen's Human Embryology
- Carlson's Human Embryology & Developmental Biology
- O'Rahilly and Mueller's Human Embryology & Teratology

To your surprise, none of these are in the bible, nor are religious publications. Just wanted to let you know.
Debate Round No. 3
atheistmaximus

Pro

IF THERE IS A CONSPIRACY IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMNNUNITY WHY DID YOU SAY THE FOLLOWING ? "Is like you Boris were openly screaming 'I do not care what medicine/science has to say about how a fetus is classified. A Fetus is not a humanThis scientific conspiracy may it be true or not is irrelevent. YOU claimed YOU HAD SCIENTIFIC PROOF. AND YOU DONT, THEREFORE YOUR A LIER! that is my problem with people like you, you MAKE THESE POINTS AS IF THEY WERE TRUE, THAT MAY WORK IF YOUR LIE TO THE DUMB SHEEP AT CHURCH BUT IT WONT WORK WITH ME. in my eyes regardless of what medicine says.
thinkingaboutit

Con

You are actually attempting to discredit the field of Embryology, unbelievable!

At this point you are openly stating:

1. All the Embryology books that students have to study (at a University level) to get a degree are NOT based on scientific studies?

If we apply your logic can we say that :

All the books in Physics that are studied to get a degree are NOT based on scientific studies?

If this is not what you are stating please clarify.
Debate Round No. 4
atheistmaximus

Pro

Sure these doctors could be intelligent, however WITHOUT a study I can't make up conclusion on how they came up with their beliefs. There is a differnce between trying to argu ETHICS and SCIENCE.

Ethics is on what believe based on life experiences. SCIENCE IS BASED ON THE STUDIES. MonaVie (a magic tonic drink) claims to cure cancer and tons of other stuff, however these findings came from an in house study with 7 people and no control subjects. Meaning that the study was biases.

My point is i want to know WHY they claim what they claim, IF they are really being scientific that's great, if not than that is something that needs to be understood as well...

THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN coming up with a conclusion based on the data, and just having a theory WITHOUT ANY DATA TO BACK IT UP.

LEt me give you an other excample, Kary Mullis Discovered PCR, he won the Noble prize and is a TOP scientist in his field. HOWEVER he is a Religious NUT BAG that claim god is real because we can't see him. =/ outside of PCR reasearch he is a babbling fool. Just because you are educated in one field doenst make you educated in EVERY FIELD. HENCE why i LOOK AT THE STUDIES.

I don't know how plan parent hood came up with their fetus are people too statement therefore i dont know.
TO be honest i dont know if people are fetus, but i stopped debating with you because you lied about scientific studies. That leads me to believe that you aren't trying to HONESTLY exchange ideals, YOU ARE TRYING TO LIE TO ME TO CHANGE MY MINED. I now simply don't trust what you are saying is true, I think your a lier and therefore don't want to have to double check every single sentence. I dont' want to mess up and think you have a good point, change my mind and then be angry for trusting you when i find out your rationally with flawed. Its just a waste of time for me. I rather spend my time with people that WON'T LIE TO ME.
thinkingaboutit

Con

Thank you for the debate. Till next time sir.

Just in case you may read this. I close with the following.

1st
I did not have any influence on the writers of the Embryology books or the scientific test that were done to achive their conclusions or do I know them personally.

Your statements do puzzle me.

"YOU ARE TRYING TO LIE TO ME TO CHANGE MY MINED"

How did I achive that? I provided credible resources, authories in the field, books used in Top Universities and information that is not based even an ounce on religion or ethics or either of them is a religious publication.

So in other words the experts in the field of Embryology are lying? I mean, I pointed to a credible scientific resource, but you attribute their research as "lies". Honestly how much sense does that make?

2nd
I doubt that the person who has called Kary Mullis a " religious nutbag" had Kary Mullis evaluated to arrive to that conclusion, which would contradict your attempt to be honest an un-biased. You where that one who stated - "THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN coming up with a conclusion based on the data, and just having a theory WITHOUT ANY DATA TO BACK IT UP."

You assume that Dr Mullis is a "nut bag" without any scientific evidence that "Certifies" him as dillusional. In other words based on your OPINION we all MUST believe that Dr Mullis is not coherent, even without a clinical study? I mean, you seem to imply that a "sheep mentality" only applies to religious people, but if you truly look at what you have stated, it looks like there are "bandwagoners" on both sides, some just easily allow others to make up their mind for them without digging in deeper to their claims, and yes, we must test all claims, even if is a "respectable" resource.

3rd
You stated - "Just because you are educated in one field doenst make you educated in EVERY FIELD. HENCE why i LOOK AT THE STUDIES."

You have openly dismissed the branch of Embryology, but YOU claim to "look at the studies." Obviously you look, but only look for studies that agree with your point of view, but rather NOT look at others that may even give you a plausible explanation for what may be your internal conflict.

Once again thanks for the debate, until next time.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
atheistmaximusthinkingaboutitTied
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: Pro needs to learn to avoid the caps lock button and provide a good counter argument to cons points. complete win for Con
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
atheistmaximusthinkingaboutitTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Pro started off by insulting Con and his arguments (Ad Hominem) and never presented any kind of an accurate counter argument.
Vote Placed by jm_notguilty 5 years ago
jm_notguilty
atheistmaximusthinkingaboutitTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: PRO loses conduct for insulting CON, loses SG for over-capializing unnessesary words, hard to undertand and args to CON for actually making more superior args which PRO didn't refute accurlately/adequately
Vote Placed by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
atheistmaximusthinkingaboutitTied
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: Resolution unclear, but I'm pro-abortion, so I clicked that I agree with Pro. Conduct: Pro was belligerent and insulting. Advantage: Con. Language: Pro was sometimes incoherent. Advantage: Con. Arguments: Pro started off with real arguments, but then switched to insults. Declined to respond to Con's arguments. Advantage: Con. Sources: Con's were impressive. Advantage: Con. This is no votebomb. Con won in each category.