The Instigator
MyDinosaurHands
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Defro
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points

Abortion (See for scenario)

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 2 votes the winner is...
Defro
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/17/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,093 times Debate No: 46143
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)

 

MyDinosaurHands

Con

Scenario: A woman has been impregnated through rape. As far as her doctors know, she nor her baby are at risk of death or disablement.

I will be against the use of abortion in this scenario, my opponent will be for allowing the use of abortion in this scenario.

First Round will be for Acceptance.
Defro

Pro

I accept.

In the comment section, Con has allowed me to set the time limit for abortion.
Therefore, I will set the time limit to 3 weeks, while it is still a zygote.

Zygote (noun): A cell in diploid state following fertilization or union of haploid male sex cell (e.g. sperm) and haploid female sex cell (e.g. ovum).
http://www.biology-online.org...



State your case.
Debate Round No. 1
MyDinosaurHands

Con

Thanks for the quick acceptance Defro, and voters thanks for reading.

So, in order to show why the woman in this scenario must go through the shame/embarrassment of carrying a rape-baby for 9 months, I will need to show why we must consider abortion a worse option than the whole shame/embarrassment deal.


Killing and Abortion
I will not be ranting on about how soon babies do this and that and how they have human DNA and blah blah blah. Obviously trying to argue over whether or not an unborn baby qualifies as a life is a very old argument, and whenever the argument is revived between two debaters no ground is taken or lost. Hopefully the following will be a fresher argument.

When you kill someone, you end their life (duh), and take away their future. When you abort an unborn human you (according to the popular Pro-Abortion view) do not end a life, but you still are taking away the possibility for their future. Whether or not you think abortion is killing, you should be able to see that killing and abortion accomplish the same thing: they take away life in the future. They both steal.

And if we can see that abortion and killing accomplish the same thing, we should be able to realize that both carry the same moral consequences/implications, and therefore should be treated as the same thing.

Choice in Abortion
Pro-Abortionists also call themselves Pro-Choice because it sounds nice and they believe that a woman can do what she wants with her body, that whether or not to abort is completely her choice.

But what about the unborn's choice? Yeah, seriously. I realize that we can't lean up next to a woman's bulging preggers stomach and ask, "Well what do you want us to do with you Mr. Baby?" However, we can go and ask people who weren't aborted (and then obviously can speak) if they would've been ok with being aborted years back. What's the answer 99% of the time? 'No'. That should be obvious. It's the same as being asked if you wanted to die. Most people don't want to cease to exist, and so it would be unfair to not take this into consideration in regards to abortion.

Even though we can't ask the baby, through logic we can infer what his answer will be 999/1000 times. And if we can infer his answer, how can we act like the mom is only person with the choice?

And if we have to compare which of these two choices take precedence, and if we look at my first section, we realize that the choice that involves staying 'alive' takes precedence over a choice regarding (in this scenario) a person's comfort.


Recap
Now having established that abortion accomplishes the same thing as killing, and therefore should be regarded as such, and having established that we know what the baby's choice would be if we could ask, let's weigh the evils here. On one hand we've got a woman's discomfort versus what accomplishes the same thing as killing, robbing her unborn child of a life. Clearly it would suck to have to bear a rape-baby, but it is the lesser evil when compared to stealing that zygote's life waiting for it.

Thanks for reading.
Defro

Pro

I'd like to thank Con for his points.

I will address your second point about choice before addressing your first point about killing.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Rebuttals:

Choice in Abortion

Con has claimed that if asked, an unborn would decide that it would want to live. I would like to remind Con that Con has the burden of proof to this claim. No unborn has ever provided an answer to this question, therefore Con's claim is an assumption, and not an "inferred answer" like he suggested.

Furthermore, if it is a zygote, like I made clear in round 1, it does not have a brain[1]. It is physiologically more similar to a piece of flesh than it is a human. Brains are needed to think and make decisions. Because it doesn't have a brain, a zygote cannot make a conscious decision.

However, I believe Con is saying that if they had brains, they would choose to live. I would like to remind Con that once a fetus has a brain, it is no longer a zygote, and I am arguing for while it is still a zygote. Having taken advanced psychology courses, I have learned that the humanistic perspective of psychology states that freewill and conscious experience is essential to the human experience, which contributes to its decision making skills. An unborn child has not experienced anything yet, so therefore it cannot make a decision. If I asked you why you wanted to live and not to die, you'd say something along the lines of "Because living is great and dying is painful and it sucks." An unborn child does not know what life, death, great, and sucks would entail because its never lived, died, felt pain, or had a particularly inconvinient situation that sucks. Therefore it cannot make a decision as to whether or not it would want to live.

Because the mother has the ability to chose and the zygote does not, we should prioritize on the mother more than the zygote.


Killing and Abortion

Con implies that he does not wish to debate about whether a zygote is considered a life or not and simply places the line himself. I must disagree. It is neccessary to establish where to put the line as to when a human life begins, otherwise this debate will not advance. However, Con wishes not to discuss this, and I will oblige with his placement of where the line is on life.

From Con's statements, he is implying and assuming that a zygote is considered a human life. As stated by me above, a zygote is more physiologically similar to a piece of flesh than it is a human being. It is also more physiologically similar to sperm cells and any unicellular organism than a human being. Therefore, any unicellular organism is equivilent to a human lifewise.

It is true that zygotes have life, just like skin cells, sperm cells, cancer cells, and pretty much any other cell. But by Con's logic, he is also implying that killing skin cells, sperm cells, and cancer cells is imoral. By this logic, scratching our skin is imoral because it kills skin cells and getting your cancer cured is imoral because it kills cancer. Furthermore, it would also be imoral for women to menstrate or even have sex in general! Because having sex kills millions of sperm cells that don't reach the egg cell and menstrating kills many egg cells, and sperm and egg cells are one of the closest organisms to the zygote.

Con states that abortion derives zygotes of their potential future as human beings. Firstly, if you plan to abort it, you are not deriving them of their future because they simply don't have one. Secondly, I would like to say that by Con's suggested logic, billions upon billions of sperm and egg cells (which are even closer physiologically to a zygote than an actual human being) are being derived of their potential future as zygotes and then as human beings whenever someone performs regulated sex or just sex in general, and menstration. How is this different from killing a zygote?

Furthermore, I would like to inform Con of the possibilities of the zygote's "human life." Has it ever occured to Con that if the mother did not abort, the mother would possibly neglect and hate her child? If this is the case, it is also possible for the mother to abandon her child, leaving it to live in pain and suffering. Some of these children even end up killing themselves anyway. Wouldn't it be better to prevent the child from feeling all this pain and suffering and killing him/herself in the first place? Of course this is just an assumption, but it is a valid assumption because Con wishes to discuss the future based on his assumptions.

____________________________________________________________________________

Addendum:


Choice in Abortion

I would like to inform Con about the zygote. A zygote is one cell. I've already established that it has no free will or decision making skills, therefore it is not an entity. Being an AP Biology student, I can say with validity that if the zygote hasnt even properly mitosized yet, then it could technically be considered an organ of the woman's body. And if it is part of the woman's body, the woman should have the right of choice, like choosing to get a tattoo or piercing on your own body.

Furthermore, the raped woman didn't have a choice to begin with.


Legality

Rape is considered an illegal crime in most of not all countries[2]. Therefore, the zygote is a product of crime. From this trail of logic, one can conclude that a zygote conceived illegally is illegal.


Abortion Reduces Crime, Particularly Homicide

A brilliant world-known economist by the name of Steven Levitt discovered this. The graph below is self-explanatory and I will provide a video that explains this in depth.

Steven Levitt claimed that because abortion was illegal, many unwanted children were born, and due to traumatic childhoods these unwanted children went through, they grew up to become criminals. If these children were aborted, crime would reduce.

As you see in the graph, homicide was at its highest when in the 1990s, when the 14 - 17 year olds were born before the legalization of abortion nationwide in the United States. Homicide Rates reduced dramatically in the early 2000s, when the kids aged 14 - 17 were all wanted and not aborted.



Over to Con.
_____________________________________________________________________________

Sources:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
3. Video



Debate Round No. 2
MyDinosaurHands

Con

Counter Rebuttals

Choice
"..once a fetus has a brain, it is no longer a zygote, and I am arguing for while it is still a zygote."
This is one of the central tenets of my opponent's rebuttals in this particular section. Given the above quote, and my opponent's choice to make this debate confined to a zygote, I shall have to shift my argument somewhat. My opponent is saying that since a zygote can't be capable of making this decision, we shouldn't take the choice of an unborn child into consideration.

Think about it this way though: Your friend is on vacation. You have one million dollars, and you're ready to give it away to someone. Even though your friend would almost certainly want that money, since he's not around, you completely discount what he would want. This is just like the zygote. Even though it is completely incapable of answering, we know in the future what it would want. Just because you can't get a legitimate answer in the present doesn't mean an extremely likely future answer should be discounted.

Plus, how would you feel if you got jipped out of your life because at the time, you couldn't answer? You'd probably feel like it was a totally cheap excuse.

Killing and Abortion
".. he is implying and assuming that a zygote is considered a human life."
If I implied that a zygote is alive, I apologize. My arguments never had the purpose of trying to render a judgment on the actual status of a zygote, or any other unborn child stage. What I was implying was that a zygote should be treated like a life, since it will become one. To be clear: not a human life, but should be treated like one.

It's kind of like if you're building a house for your family. Even if it's not completed yet, you're still going to treat it with the same respect as if it was a fully finished and furnished house, being careful to keep it from harm.

"..he is also implying that killing skin cells, sperm cells, and cancer cells is imoral. By this logic, scratching our skin is imoral because it kills skin cells and getting your cancer cured is imoral because it kills cancer."
The difference between killing skin cells and zygotes is this: a zygote is eventually going to be an undisputed human being. Your skin cells? They are hardly on their way to jumping off you and growing into a weird skin flake child. This also applies to Pro's statement about sperm cells during sex. A single sperm cell on its own has no capability to be anything more than a sperm cell, and so its death during sex isn't detracting from the numbers of human beings coming into eventual undisputed existence, seeing as only one sperm is going to get to the egg.

"Firstly, if you plan to abort it, you are not deriving them of their future because they simply don't have one."
How don't they? If you leave it alone it will grow into a human being just like you and me. How can that potential not be considered 'its future'?

"..billions upon billions of sperm and egg cells (which are even closer physiologically to a zygote than an actual human being) are being derived of their potential future as zygotes and then as human beings whenever someone performs regulated sex or just sex in general, and menstration. How is this different from killing a zygote?"
Because no egg/sperm has acquired a claim to life in the future until it has become a zygote. I won't repeat myself on why a zygote has a claim to life in the future.

"Some of these children even end up killing themselves anyway."
This quote is expressive of my opponent's next argument, which is basically saying due to the crappy life these zygotes are likely to have, we should just spare them the trouble and not even give them a chance. I would like to note the use of the word 'some'. It is impossible that every child who came into existence through rape will end up killing themselves. That means at least some of them will live out their lives. So what's worse? Nobody living out their lives, or some people living out their lives? And who's to say that all of these people will be miserable with their lives. Some of them would get adopted and live no worse for wear than any normally conceived person. Given this, not aborting would produce more happy lives than aborting would.

"And if it is part of the woman's body, the woman should have the right of choice, like choosing to get a tattoo or piercing on your own body."
A body part that will eventually grow into a human being? No other body part does stuff like that, yet we can classify a zygote like an arm or leg?

Legality
"Rape is considered an illegal crime in most of not all countries[2]. Therefore, the zygote is a product of crime. From this trail of logic, one can conclude that a zygote conceived illegally is illegal."
You could also conclude that if two parents are murdered, their leftover orphan is illegal, because it came into orphan-hood through a crime.

They zygote didn't commit the crime either, why should we try to put the legality of this on the zygote? And yes, they way I am referring to the zygote here is as if it's a life, hopefully this isn't unacceptable to anybody reading this, seeing as I have outlined why I believe we should treat a zygote like a life, even if you don't think it is alive.

Crime Reduction
Even though a correlation between abortion and crime has been found, we should consider the big picture. My opponent claims homicides in particular are reduced
Defro

Pro

Con has either misunderstood what I said or deliberately ignored some of my statements.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Rebuttals:

"Even though your friend would almost certainly want that money, since he's not around, you completely discount what he would want. This is just like the zygote. Even though it is completely incapable of answering, we know in the future what it would want."

-This is a bad analogy.
You can also infer this from your friend because you know your friend. You know his/her personalities, preferences, and habbits, but you don't know the potential personalities, preferences, and habbits of a zygote. As mentioned already by me, decision making comes from freewill and conscious experience. Your friend is different because he/she has had experiences that conditioned him to desire the money. Your friend has memories where he used money to buy things he liked, and so he wants the money because he associates it with positive connotations. However, how do you account for the people who wouldn't want the money? My grandpa for example, would not have wanted the money because he's content with what he has.

-A zygote has had no experiences that would make it want to desire life. Con is arguing that if a zygote can think, it will desire to develop into a fetus and be born as a human. Con is implying that everyone wants to live no matter what. This is not true, as is the case with severely depressed people.

-Con is assuming that if a zygote can think, it will think like your average person and desire to be born as a human. But who are we to know what a zygote thinks like if it could even think? Con has the burden of proof.


"how would you feel if you got jipped out of your life because at the time, you couldn't answer? You'd probably feel like it was a totally cheap excuse."

-Again, zygotes can't feel, so this analogy is irrelevant. Furthermore, if zygotes could feel, how would you know what it felt like? Maybe it wouldn't want to be born as a human and live as a human. How do we know? Con is basing his assumptions off of how the average person thinks, which does not account for how everyone and everything thinks.

-If the average male preying mantis can think on the same level of intelligence as humans, it would think something along the lines of "I wish I'd get my head eaten off by a female manits." because that's what happens whenever a female mantis mates with a male mantis. Humans obviously don't think like this, so how do you know a zygote will think like an average human?


"It's kind of like if you're building a house for your family."

-This analogy goes against Con. If you aren't even close to finish building your house and it is destroyed by a tornado, you wouldn't feel as bad as if it were destroyed by a tornado right after you finished building it.

-Therefore this analogy supports me resolution. Aborting a zygote within three weeks is much better than doing it when it is a developed fetus.


"The difference between killing skin cells and zygotes is this: a zygote is eventually going to be an undisputed human being...A single sperm cell on its own has no capability to be anything more than a sperm cell"

-Sperm cells have the capabilities to become zygotes, therefore it has the capability to become human. However, Con's logic is stating that sperm cells need to fuse with an egg cell in order to become a zygote, therefore sperm cells cannot have the have this capability without help from an external source. I would like to remind Con that zygotes also require help from external sources to have this capability and that a single zygote does not have the capability to become a human being. Zygotes need to perform mitosis (cell-division) to eventually become a being. In other words, it requires several cells to become a human being, and by then, it would be a fetus and not a zygote.


"If you leave it alone it will grow into a human being just like you and me. How can that potential not be considered 'its future"

-Because we don't leave it alone. We aborted it. Therefore it has no future. It doesn't even have a potential future because we aborted it. How can something dead have a potential life? It may have had a potential life if we chose not to abort it, but we chose to abort it, so it has not potential life.


"no egg/sperm has acquired a claim to life in the future until it has become a zygote."

-And no zygote has acquired a claim to life in the future until it becomes a fetus. You're point?


"It is impossible that every child who came into existence through rape will end up killing themselves. That means at least some of them will live out their lives. So what's worse? Nobody living out their lives, or some people living out their lives?

-Con has noted the word "some", yet uses the word "every". Also, impossible is a very strong word. A better word would be "unlikely".

-I am not saying every pregnant woman should abort fetuses, therefore some people would live out thier lives.


"
And who's to say that all of these people will be miserable with their lives. Some of them would get adopted and live no worse for wear than any normally conceived person. Given this, not aborting would produce more happy lives than aborting would."

-Again, I am not saying all of them will be miserable, but some of them. And if some of them are miserable, then it certainly would be acceptable in some cases for abortion. Con's resolution in round one states that every case of aborting a zygote concieved by rape is not acceptable. But my resolution is that some are acceptable.

-Con is delibrately trying to twist my statements. I am not saying "all" but "some". And if some are miserable, then isn't it acceptable for these specific people to have been aborted when they were still a zygote, preventing all their pain and suffering?


"A body part that will eventually grow into a human being? No other body part does stuff like that, yet we can classify a zygote like an arm or leg?"

-But it hasn't grown into a human being. It is but one cell. That is exactly why I specified in round one that the time limit be 3 weeks. Another body part that does stuff like that is the sperm cell.

-It is not 100% certain that the zygote will grow into a human being. There is the possibility that it will die before doing so. Therefore, it can grow into a human being, just like a sperm cell can grow into a human being, and by justifying the deaths of sperm cells, Con has justified the deaths of zygotes.


"You could also conclude that if two parents are murdered, their leftover orphan is illegal, because it came into orphan-hood through a crime."

-Okay. So Con agrees? I'll remember to put that on the scoreboard.


"they way I am referring to the zygote here is as if it's a life, hopefully this isn't unacceptable to anybody reading this"

-The zygote is alive, just like sperm cells and cancer cells are alive. Yet how do you justify the deaths of sperm cells. How do you justify doctors killing cancer cells to cure a patient?


"Even though a correlation between abortion and crime has been found, we should consider the big picture."

-Con concedes that abortion reduces crime.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

In the comment section, Con says that he accidentally hit submit, so he couldn't finish his argument. Therefore, I will not provide an Addendum containing new points, to let Con catch up.
Debate Round No. 3
MyDinosaurHands

Con

I concede. Rain your points down on Defro. I'm gonna go cry or something.
Defro

Pro

Due to Con's honorable concession, I find it unnecessary to rain my points down on him. Good debate!

Vote Pro!
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Defro 3 years ago
Defro
Con has conceded, and I don't want to pressure him with more points in the debate. So I'll put this here instead of part of the debate.

Bodily Autonomy:

Everyone has a right to do what they want to their own body. Even a corpses have this right. Dead human bodies are not allowed to be used for science or anything unless they signed a paper when they were alive giving consent.

By denying women of this right, you are essentially saying that pregnant women have less rights than a corpse.
Posted by Defro 3 years ago
Defro
@MyDinosaurHands

That is very regrettable.
I recomend typing your arguments in word and pasting it on DDO so that this problem won't occur again. Also, it can be risky at times to type it directly on DDO because the site would freeze sometimes for people and they would have to re-type their arguments which sucks.
Posted by MyDinosaurHands 3 years ago
MyDinosaurHands
NOTE: I accidentally hit submit during working on my third round arguments. I take full responsibility and ask for no concessions from voters, I'm merely making this statement to clarify why I apparently stopped short.
Posted by ESocialBookworm 3 years ago
ESocialBookworm
I don't think she should have an abortion. IMO, it is morally and ethically wrong. However, there are some case studies where the rapist had mental illnesses that would pass on through genes. You guys can look into that.
Posted by Defro 3 years ago
Defro
Okay thanks
Posted by MyDinosaurHands 3 years ago
MyDinosaurHands
Ah damn! Forgot that. It doesn't matter for my argument, Pro can have it whenever he wishes.
Posted by EndarkenedRationalist 3 years ago
EndarkenedRationalist
How long has the woman been pregnant?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Actionsspeak 3 years ago
Actionsspeak
MyDinosaurHandsDefroTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 3 years ago
Krazzy_Player
MyDinosaurHandsDefroTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession.