The Instigator
NerdiestNerder
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
Sonofcharl
Con (against)
Losing
4 Points

Abortion Should Be Abolished

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The Voting Period Ends In
108days06hours51minutes32seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/7/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 months ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 421 times Debate No: 116366
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)

 

NerdiestNerder

Pro

NOTE: I had to reload this debate because the first I did this, the debate was more on morals and how they were subjective, and not on the actual topic of abortion.
Well, well, well. Here is the infamous debate back again, with new topics, and new discussions that should be discussed.

Before I begin the argument, I believe a few ground rules should be put in place before I get started. First of all, I'd like to say that I WILL NOT, and let me repeat that, WILL NOT tolerate immaturity, rudeness, impoliteness, or any slandering. I realize that yes, we are in a debate, but we should never lose our civility.

Secondly, I'd like to say that the first round is for an introduction to your side of an argument. This is like a pitch to the readers, and your opponent, on what the argument is about and why you're choosing the side that you are chose.

The 2nd, 3rd and 4th debate rounds are for the arguments. If you can, I request to my opponent that you have clear points and flagpoles. In fact, the last time I debated someone with abortion, found here: http://www.debate.org...... I continued to get to the opponents end flag, but, he continued to move it farther and farther back. Not only does this hurt your credibility, but it also hurts the debate as a whole.

Finally, the 5th round is a final argument, and then another pitch, now using the evidence that you've brought to the table, to bring the audience to your side one last time. It also is a respectful closing between opponents.

Whew! That was probably a bit too long, so I'm sorry if you fell asleep while reading that. Now, my pitch and first argument can be found below:

--------------------------------------

Hello, opponent. I'm glad you decided to accept. Just read the rules above, and know a bit on the subject, and I'm sure we'll have ...fun... doing this.

My obvious stance on the issue is that abortion is morally wrong, and therefore be illegal and frowned upon. I believe abortion is the murder of human beings, so, again, should be illegal and frowned upon. Here's why.

First of all, let's look at some terms, so me and my opponent understand each other, and are on the same page:

Murder: "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another." -Google

Abortion: "Abortion is the ending of pregnancy by removing an embryo or fetus before it can survive outside the uterus." -https://en.wikipedia.org......

There we go. So, in theory, all I have to do to destroy the opponent is to prove two things, which I will do now:

1) Abortion is unlawful and premeditated
2) A fetus, from fertilization to newborn, is a human being

Alright, so #1 is fairly easy to debunk. It's premeditated, obviously, and just because abortion is lawful does not mean its good. Slavery was lawful, and plenty of other hideous things throughout history were lawful. Not even this, but abortion itself is unlawful In some places around the world today!

Now, some of you may be scratching your heads and thinking, "Who the hell would actually defend abortion by saying that it's a law right now!" Well, just one example can be found in the video right beneath this paragraph, found at the time mark 1:15...

https://www.youtube.com......

It's the killing of a human. The main argument that leftist take is that a fetus is not a human, merely a bundle of cells. Is this true? No. But don"t take my word for it. Take Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D."s word for it. She states:

i."As pointed out above in the background section, there is a radical difference, scientifically, between parts of a human being that only possess "human life" and a human embryo or human fetus that is an actual "human being." Abortion is the destruction of a human being. Destroying a human sperm or a human oocyte would not constitute abortion, since neither are human beings. The issue is not when does human life begin, but rather when does the life of every human being begin. A human kidney or liver, a human skin cell, a sperm or an oocyte all possess human life, but they are not human beings: they are only parts of a human being. If a single sperm or a single oocyte were implanted into a woman"s uterus, they would not grow; they would simply disintegrate.

Note: This destroys the argument for "If Abortion is murder, then masturbation is murder as well!!!" as well. Hmm. Neat!

ii.As pointed out above in the background section, there is a radical difference, scientifically, between parts of a human being that only possess "human life" and a human embryo or human fetus that is an actual "human being." Abortion is the destruction of a human being. Destroying a human sperm or a human oocyte would not constitute abortion, since neither are human beings. The issue is not when does human life begin, but rather when does the life of every human being begin. A human kidney or liver, a human skin cell, a sperm or an oocyte all possess human life, but they are not human beings: they are only parts of a human being. If a single sperm or a single oocyte were implanted into a woman"s uterus, they would not grow; they would simply disintegrate."

Note- This article was published in 1999. Still, though legal standards on abortion may have changed, to my knowledge, the scientific facts and evidence are not like goo. They stay in concrete. I also suggest you check out the website, as it is very useful: https://www.princeton.edu......

There you have the definition if something is a human being. If it can grow in a woman's uterus. And, anything from fertilization to newborn is a human being, and of course, anything after that is one also.

Now, my final point I wish to make is the "A fetus doesn't have most organs until very very late!" Well, my response to you is that the number of organs you have don't constitute whether you are a human being or not.

If that was true, I could walk over to the hospital and kill someone who was brain dead or without life support. A lot of humans are missing many organs, but they still constitute as a human, right? And besides, a fetus is GROWING these organs. It is developing them, and therefore that, by itself, should constitute it as a human.

Overall, I want to say good luck to my opponent, for I hope you'll discuss fairly and learn something. I also request that readers comment on their opinions on either side of the debate.

With that said...

You better respond before 48 hours or up, because then I would have wasted half an hour creating this argument...
Sonofcharl

Con

Hello.
Emotions are, as emotions do and emotions are brain held and not universally significant and levels of sensitivity are extremely variable. That is to say, there is no one, given, collective moral.

Well morals are subjective and your opening gambit concerns the morality or should we say immorality of abortion and as you clearly state, morals are only subjective.

Illegality is a collective social decision, whereas believe is a personal assumption and frowning is a facial expression. Therefore legislation must be the will of the many and not the edict of the few and certainly not based on assumptions or facial expression.

I am no more inclined to accept the subjectivity of a Ph. D. than I am my opponents.

Point 3, is basically a repetition of point 2.

Abortion is a possibility and there will always be people who seek to have abortions. Therefore abortions might as well be carried out safely and legally.
Choosing to undergo an abortion is just as much a subjective decision as the assumed moral proclamations of an anti-abortionist, therefore neither individuals decision can be judged honestly.

Life is the potential that exists within all organic material. I would therefore assert, that the potential that exists within a single celled organism is exactly the same as the potential that exists within a fully formed human being.

Human beings are instinctively selfish and selective in their regard for life. We have to behave this way in order to survive.

When I die it will not be death that I fear, it will be the thought of non-existence. At what point does a foetus become aware of it's own existence and therefore fear death?

One last point for Pro's consideration. What real loss is one foetus to an already overpopulated planet?
Despite abortion the human population grows exponentially. If we base decisions solely on morality, isn't it fair to propose that unnaturally prolonging life, is just as immoral as extinguishing life prematurely.
Debate Round No. 1
NerdiestNerder

Pro

Thanks for responding.

"Illegality is a collective social decision, whereas believe is a personal assumption and frowning is a facial expression. Therefore legislation must be the will of the many and not the edict of the few and certainly not based on assumptions or facial expression."

Good point. Your first three paragraphs are very compelling, but I believe that they have one blaring flaw. Yes, I do emotionally feel for the fetus that are being killed. But do I still prevent concrete facts on why it is murder, which is agreed upon wrong? Yes.

Laws are based on negative impacts, as my previous opponent has said. So, my argument structure is that I must show these negative impacts of abortion. However, "negative" implies a moral decision. So, what one person might see as a positive, another might see as a negative. This is of course why many people vote, so that the collective and mostly agreed upon moral is placed in action. So, I am using the most common Western Civilization moral to prove this is wrong.

Again, that's why I'm focusing on why abortion is murder. If I prove that, then the discussion is over. Murder, no matter where you're at in the West, is most likely frowned upon, and is illegal. Therefore, morals and emotions do not play a role (or should not play a role) in this discussion. I am focusing on already clearly defined morals and laws to disprove abortion.

"I am no more inclined to accept the subjectivity of a Ph. D. than I am my opponents."

I inquire you to read the full text, if you have not already, because what I showed was only the thesis of the argument, while the rest explains and destroys myths with facts and using morals and laws that are already put in place to disprove abortion, like I am doing now. I suggest that before you try to discredit her, you read the entire page. And, if you did read the entire page, then this is an un-factual lunge to discredit her.

"Abortion is a possibility and there will always be people who seek to have abortions. Therefore abortions might as well be carried out safely and legally."

Just because people seek out something, that does not mean that it "might as well" be carried out safely and legally. We could fill in the blank with anything, murder, theft, but for the example, I'm going to use rape.

EXAMPLE: Rape is a possibility and there will always be people who seek to rape women. Therefore, rape might as well be carried out safely and legally.

Now, you may say that the difference between abortion and rape is that in abortion, "no one" is hurt, but in rape, there are negative impacts. So, I will again prove that abortion is murder.

First of all, instead of giving euphemisms for abortion like the left, such as "it's just a bundle of cells", I will give the reader and my opponent a chance to look at the staggering resemblances of the fight of abortion versus the fight of slavery. Let's begin.

CASE 1:

ABORTION: "women have a moral right to decide what to do with their bodies" -http://www.bbc.co.uk...

SLAVERY: The slaves are on my land, and I have the right to what I can and cannot do to them.

CASE 2:

ABORTION: "the right to abortion is vital for individual women to achieve their full potential" -http://www.bbc.co.uk...

SLAVERY: If I get rid of these slaves, then the production on my plantation will go down, and I cannot make any money for my family!

CASE 3:

ABORTION: If you make me keep the fetus, then both of us will suffer in our lives!

SLAVERY: If the slaves leave, then I will not be able to make money, and civilization around me can't get the food I give them!

"When I die it will not be death that I fear, it will be the thought of non-existence. At what point does a foetus become aware of it's own existence and therefore fear death?

One last point for Pro's consideration. What real loss is one foetus to an already overpopulated planet?
Despite abortion the human population grows exponentially. If we base decisions solely on morality, isn't it fair to propose that unnaturally prolonging life, is just as immoral as extinguishing life prematurely."

Firstly, is the determination of life self-consciousness? Again, take a brain-dead person! It is not legal for me to walk over to the hospital and kill him/her! Also, can I kill a schizophrenic for not being able to distinguish reality? Or someone who can't fear death? Can I kill them all?

And finally, there are ways to stop overpopulating on this planet. Killing already fertilized human beings should not be one of them. In fact, they should be the last ones to be considered to "kill off", because they are technically the most innocent humans on the planet.

And, sorry for assuming your politics, but I'm guessing you're anti-2nd amendment. If so, what if I made this argument:

"One last point for Con's consideration. What real loss is 96 Americans to an already overpopulated planet?
Despite guns, the human population grows exponentially. If we base decisions solely on morality, isn't it fair to propose that unnaturally prolonging life, is just as immoral as extinguishing life prematurely."

It makes no sense, because abortion is murder, which is collectively immoral, which should be abolished.

Good luck.
Sonofcharl

Con

I am British, something of a realist and in the main, apolitical and definitely atheist.

Interestingly the people of the Republic of Ireland recently voted to amend their current anti-abortion laws. Perhaps the people of The U.S.A. should be given the same opportunity to have their say.
As I previously suggested social decisions should not be based on the edict of the few.

Rape is legislated against and I don't think there is a collective will in the U.S.A to amend this legislation. Your rape argument is clever but does not directly address the point I was making. There will always be women who wish to have an abortion. Irish women would travel to the U.K. U.S women would inevitably seek alternative solutions too.
Would you seek to impose the death penalty for foetal murder?

As I stated in the previous round, human beings are selfish and selective in their regard for life. Perhaps you would care to address this issue.

How do you regard deaths caused by U.S. military action?
Do you regard the deaths of supposed terrorists as murder? And what about all the incidental civilian deaths, 3500 in Afghanistan alone in 2017. There can be no room for hypocrisy in an anti-abortion argument.

Sorry, your references to slavery may be emotive and dramatic but are a completely separate issue.

You also neglected to address the issue I raised, concerning the unnatural prolonging of life, specifically with regard to medical intervention. Another example of human selectivity and selfishness maybe. That is to say, morals are fine, unless they impinge on me personally. And yes, there may be other ways to stop overpopulation but there is certainly not the collective will to do so.

Who are the 96 Americans?
What is collective immorality? I thought that we had already agreed that morality was subjective.

Further for your consideration:
A embryo or early stage foetus is not independent, it is an insentient extension of the mothers body and thereby the responsibility of the mother alone and not the responsibility of a third party.
Debate Round No. 2
NerdiestNerder

Pro

Okay. As you've probably guessed, I'm American, and a Christian, however, I will not use that in my facts.

"Rape is legislated against and I don't think there is a collective will in the U.S.A to amend this legislation. Your rape argument is clever but does not directly address the point I was making. There will always be women who wish to have an abortion. Irish women would travel to the U.K. U.S women would inevitably seek alternative solutions too.
Would you seek to impose the death penalty for foetal murder?"

Law is not created from the majority of people saying so. It comes from the basis of negative-impacts. However, how that law is PASSED depends on the people. I think you might be getting those two different processes mixed up.

About women who wish to have an abortion, it is true, but that doesn't mean we should keep it. First of all, if the law was passed in Britain or America, it would be the first big move on abortion, so yes, they would travel to other countries. However, the influence of these major countries would slowly spread, and abortion would most likely be outlawed in most places. Then, because abortion is no longer an option, humanity would find alternative motives and grow.

And this is just me talking. It happened when slavery was abolished. Slowly, the world got rid of slaves, and because there were no slaves to work, the Agricultural Revolution began, starting in turn the Industrial Revolution. I do believe that there would be a generation or two where women would seek to have illegal abortions, but eventually, that would more or less stop entirely.

"human beings are selfish and selective in their regard for life"

I didn't respond to this at first because I personally thought it was pointless. Yes, human beings are naturally selfish and selective, but that doesn't mean we should act on that and kill our unborn child. Again, I could say the same thing about rape or murder. It doesn't matter whether it is natural, but whether it has negative impacts.

"How do you regard deaths caused by U.S. military action?
Do you regard the deaths of supposed terrorists as murder? And what about all the incidental civilian deaths, 3500 in Afghanistan alone in 2017. There can be no room for hypocrisy in an anti-abortion argument."

First of all, may I say that fetus's are the most innocent ones among us, as I said last time. Therefore, you cannot compare it to death sentences, like the Left loves to do so much.

And about the innocents, I still view that as unjust and a sad ending to a life. But, you must remember that it is a war, and the soldiers do not personally go to Afghanistan to kill innocents. They must take precautions, and it is a shame that these people die because of it. In other words, these innocents were killed for the safety of the American people, which is the U.S.'s military main job, and is more or less unavoidable. If it was not unavoidable, then I would stand up for the innocent's too, so I'm not a hypocrite.

"You also neglected to address the issue I raised, concerning the unnatural prolonging of life, specifically with regard to medical intervention. Another example of human selectivity and selfishness maybe. That is to say, morals are fine, unless they impinge on me personally. And yes, there may be other ways to stop overpopulation but there is certainly not the collective will to do so."

The unnatural prolonging of life is in most terms is moral, and I can see no negative impacts of it. If you do, please call them out to me, but as long as there are no negative impacts, then this is irrelevant.

Anyways, I would just like to say it has been a treat debating with you. I like that you took the philosophical part of abortion rather than the scientific one.

Good luck.
Sonofcharl

Con

It's a pleasure to debate with you too.

I have debated with U.S. Christian anti-abortionists before, and their response to specific questioning is always the same.

They can be as dispassionate about the taking of an Afghan civilians life as they can be passionate about abortion and let's not forget the thousands of child casualties that have resulted from the U.S. lead war on terror, Surely some of these children are as innocent as a foetus.

Selective morality is undeniably hypocritical. But as we have already agreed, morality is subjective.

Human beings are naturally selective and selfish, in their regard for life. This is how we are and this is how we always have been, we are prepared to extinguish life if we assume that action is necessary, we can easily vary our moral values to suit our needs. In that sense, we are all hypocrites.

The clear implications of unnaturally prolonging life is over-population and the resulting impact on Planet Earth and it's natural environment. I would suggest that this has a far greater negative impact on society than the abortion of an unwanted foetus.

We are all conditioned differently. I am clearly, far more dispassionate and realistic in my approach to socio-conceptual issues than you are and that is how society functions in general, millions of individuals with a million differing moral view points. No one actually has the authority to assume righteousness above all others, therefore a fair society must be based upon collective decision making rather than the edicts of a few self proclaiming righteous individuals. Maybe the U.S. people would vote to abolish abortion. Are you prepared to test the water?

Powerful societies bullying weaker ones into submission is a pretty grim approach to foreign policy making and as recent history shows, generally leads to far more problems that it solves. I think your suggestion that weaker nations would inevitably follow a U.S. lead on anti-abortion legislation is a somewhat naive assumption. I would suggest that a highly secular U.K referendum would produce a similar result to the recent Irish vote and as I pointed out the collective will of the Irish people decided that existing anti-abortion laws should be amended in favour of pro-choice.

Maybe it's a sad reflection of society in general, that for varying reasons, there are women who regard pregnancy and motherhood as an unwanted burden. But of course, one persons burden throws up opportunities for others to take advantage of. The one all consuming global God is money and therefore the immorality of abortion in one persons eyes is the opportunity to make money for others. Prostitution and narcotic use may also be regarded with the same sadness, but as we know, no matter how hard we legislate against these things they will never go away, human demand and fiscal opportunities are irrepressible. The same situation will inevitably apply to abortion. Morality is nothing when compared to our overwhelming needs and our overwhelming desire for money. Fiscally the U.S's loss, will be Canada's or somewhere else's gain.

Finally:
In round 2, I left you with a further point for consideration regarding the nature of the mother/foetus connection. I was suggesting that the foetal mass was no more than an extension of the parental mass. Organic matter by definition contains the essence of life whether it be a tumour or a foetus. If we disregard morality for a moment, (for as we know morality is both subjective and selective) then isn't the surgical removal of one unwanted mass very much the same as the removal of another.
Debate Round No. 3
NerdiestNerder

Pro

"They can be as dispassionate about the taking of an Afghan civilians life as they can be passionate about abortion and let's not forget the thousands of child casualties that have resulted from the U.S. lead war on terror, Surely some of these children are as innocent as a foetus.

Selective morality is undeniably hypocritical. But as we have already agreed, morality is subjective."

As I said before, I believe that the killing of Afghan lives is terrible, and a waste, and against my morals, HOWEVER, people understand collectively that this morally wrong, and the casualties are trying to be avoided. I personally believe the Army is taking all costs NOT to kill an innocent, and for that, I am not mad at them. They are only trying their best.

Abortion on the other hand is purposeful, with the full intention of murdering a fetus. They do not try to avoid it, or find other possibilities and instead choose to destroy it. Again, I feel that both kinds of death are morally wrong, but one I am more tolerant of due to the circumstances around it.

"The clear implications of unnaturally prolonging life is over-population and the resulting impact on Planet Earth and it's natural environment. I would suggest that this has a far greater negative impact on society than the abortion of an unwanted foetus."

As much as I would love to debate this, I can't really discuss this now. We could judge the negative impacts of each for round after round, and while I think this is a fair point, it is a whole other topic of itself. However, if you wish to bring to the table a few specific example, I might be able to debate this with you.

"Are you prepared to test the water?"

Of course! I think if each U.S. state voted in terms of abortion, then the results would be different. Alabama would obviously be pro-life, while California would obviously be pro-choice. So yes, millions have different moral views, which is why I try to prove it is murder. When I do that, it is not up to morals, but simply laws. I would frame the opponent and therefore they would not be able to progress. Therefore, as long as this stays true and people mention this, I would believe that we vote correctly.

The fact that a lot of America is religious is helpful too.

"Powerful societies bullying weaker ones into submission is a pretty grim approach to foreign policy making and as recent history shows, generally leads to far more problems that it solves. I think your suggestion that weaker nations would inevitably follow a U.S. lead on anti-abortion legislation is a somewhat naive assumption. I would suggest that a highly secular U.K referendum would produce a similar result to the recent Irish vote and as I pointed out the collective will of the Irish people decided that existing anti-abortion laws should be amended in favour of pro-choice."

Who said bullying? I said influencing. When bullying does happen, I agree with you that things get worse. However, influence is different. In most cases, simply influence doesn't hurt anything, because it lets the other countries reach the new result in their own time. I trust that America would not hold a gun to the head's of other countries. All it takes it two or three big powers to outlaw abortion, then the rest will most likely find their way.

About the moving from one country to another to gain access, that is predicted and more or less okay. As long as the "door" to abortion is closing, it is okay. As long as the move is gaining, eventually, the people cannot go anywhere convenient enough or legal.

"In round 2, I left you with a further point for consideration regarding the nature of the mother/foetus connection. I was suggesting that the foetal mass was no more than an extension of the parental mass."

Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense. Blood is flowing through that child, in fact, it is probably another blood type. The brain is making simple thoughts apart from the host. The body is moving, it is growing, and while it may be connected physically to the mother, it is itself a different entity.

Finally, I would like to quote Matt Walsh, who made a statement on Abortion today at the summit of Western Conservatives. The link is below. Think what you may about morals or ethics being subjective, but I would beg you to look at this at a philosophical standpoint.

https://www.youtube.com...

"You can tell everything you need to know about a society by how it treats its children.

And so what do you learn about ours?

The most innocent, the most pure, the most beautiful of all people are the precise ones that we have targeted.

Now you'd think that if we decided to wage this war on human life, it would make sense to start somewhere else among the chain. You know, start wiping out the adults first. People like you and I. Because adults can be cruel, selfish, ugly, mean, many of them have already waster their potential. Their beauty and purity has rotted away after years spent abusing themselves and those around them.

It's wrong of coarse to start aborting adults, I'm not condoning that. But at least we have an ugliness to us, that you could use as some flimsy justification.

But children?

They have harmed no one. They are filled with joy and potential and love. And if we cannot see the value and worth of a child, then who can we see it in? I remain in forever and always astounded by the dull and empty sorts of people that would look at an unborn child and see only a clump of cells..."

I encourage you to watch the rest, and also remember that these are his words, not mine.

And again, I hope that instead of using your subjective argument against this, you simply take it as it is, as that will mean much more to the reader.

Good luck.
Sonofcharl

Con

Hi.

Round 4 and I am extremely pushed for time at the moment so this post will be concise and mostly rebuttal.

1) The numbers of civilian casualties in the U.S. lead war on terror is bewilderingly high, a fact that is probably very conveniently brushed under the media carpet. "They are only trying their best" is frankly not good enough.

2) Killing people in the name of U.S. righteousness is as purposeful as abortion. It is unfair to regard abortion as intentional murder. You may personally regard it as murder, but the actual intent is to prevent an unwanted pregnancy.

3) At the end of the proverbial day, the circumstances are the same. death is death and selective morality is hypocritical.

4) Is the U.S. fifty separate countries or one nation.

5) Whether or not religion is a help or a hinderance to social progress is another debate altogether.

6) I would assert that the U.S is very much a bully in regard to it's foreign policy, again another debate maybe. But I would suggest that forcing U.S. values onto smaller nations, as recent history proves is often counter productive.

7) You once again chose to ignore the issue of the recent Irish debate. A predominantly Catholic society that voted counter to your viewpoint.

8) You also chose to ignore my suggestion that society is actually driven by greed (money) rather than moral values and the U.S is no different in this regard. Money is a more powerful God.

9) How we view physiology, is once again a subjective issue. And don't rely on expert opinion, because expert opinion is as divided and as subjective as everyone else's.

10) All your latter points are extremely subjective and personally held. Righteousness is in the eye of the beholder and no matter how much you protest your Christian principles, ultimately there is no greater authority capable of passing judgement. Let the collective will of the people decide and I for one will happily go along with their decision.

I will make every effort to post a worthy and comprehensive final round.

Regards.
Debate Round No. 4
NerdiestNerder

Pro

I was wondering if you would respond, and am happy that you found time to do it.

Also, thanks for the numbers. That way, I don't have to quote paragraph after paragraph.

1) Yes, the media did brush up the deaths, or at least, until Donald Trump came into power. Once he did, then the leftist media of course took it out on him. But that is not the point. "They are trying their best" was only a bit of my argument.

Still, you must understand yet again that this is war. While deaths are, and should be, frowned upon, unlike abortion, this is not an issue of convenience. This is an issue that will, and has, changed the future of the world. Therefore, I am sure that the Army weighs the risks and the downfalls of the civilian deaths. I doubt that the army just goes out to the battlefield and kills whoever they want. There are repercussions and incentives not to kill innocents. Are most of these true of abortion? No.

2) (On an off note, is it true that the stereotypes of American Army is their arrogance and their surety that they are always right?)

Yes, yes, I admit that phrase was a mistake. However, as I said before, it is not just about if it was purposeful. It is about the background in general. I would suggest you read the paragraph above.

3) Just because death is death at the end of a PROVERBIAL day, doesn't mean that I can have different opinions on death. Background and purpose play a HUGE part. If what you say is true, then why do laws exist? Why do people even care about any murder? As long as someone dies, the murderer should be penalized regardless.

4) I wouldn't assume that you understand how law works in this country. I don't think anyone does. However, what I proposed in Round 4 may not exactly happen, but the end result would be the same.

5) True. Honestly, that would make a fun debate. I would probably meet in the middle. In my opinion, religion's MORALS should be like teenager's parents. At least some of them. As you said, another place another time.

6) Again, it wouldn't force it. It would simply influence. I don't think America's foreign policy is going to force it brutally on these countries. What I am saying is that America is a star that a good bit of smaller countries look up to (sometimes wrongfully so), and by overturning abortion, maybe they would listen.

7) I chose to ignore it mainly because I don't the point in this argument. Ireland's culture is changing, and I would say that about a lot of cultures. HOWEVER, that does not mean would should lose sight in basic and agreed upon morals that are 99% objective. Murder is one of them, which is why a big argument of mine is that abortion is murder, which would objectivity it to being bad.

8) So we should throw trying to make ourselves better out the door and just accept that we're all terrible people? What if this going to solve? We should always be trying to be better, and go against terrible human nature. Of course, nothing can be 100%, but still, what if we just gave up? What would happen to acts like murder and rape? Why are laws created in the first place?

9/10) True, but what about the "purity" point Walsh made? I think it's fair to say that children and babies have done less wrong than adults. However, collective will always come first, and I respect that in today's government.

Good luck, and it was pleasure.
Sonofcharl

Con

Many thanks to my opponent for a civil debate.

Abortion. Always a contentious issue.
On one side of the fence are the immovable idealists, with their pre-set moral agenda, on the other side are the pragmatists with their more objective and detatched opinions.
How society makes judgements and formulates legislation should be based on a balanced, rational decision that takes into account both sides of the argument. Ultimately no individual or group has the greater authority to be able to define what is actually right or wrong. One sided legislation is authoritarian and undemocratic and surely undermines the basic principles of the U.S. Constitution.
Pro asserts that "Abortion should be abolished" and maybe this would be the collective decision of the U.S. people, if they were given the chance to have their say. Pro. dismisses the recent Irish referendum on abortion as pointless and incomparable, but I would assert that it is clearly indicative of a shift in Western public opinion, from old fashioned moral standards towards a more pragmatic, pro choice view point.

Murder is either murder or it is not. Rationalising murder using an assumed age innocence ratio, is somewhat cynical to say the least and inevitably results in a display of selective morality and consequent double standards. In order to retain any credibility as the high moralist I think it reasonable to expect no variation in the anti-abortionist's condemnation of the taking of life. Pro clearly has the ability to be selectively moral, one moment, they have an overwhelming concern for the lives of innocent human beings, the next moment they are able to easily override that principle in justification of their defence of national honour. It is wrong for a U.S citizen to abort a foetus but justifiable for a U.S citizen to take the life of an Afghan child, clearly selective morality and double standards.

Is a an embryo or early stage foetus a human being or an organic mass with the potential to be a human being. Ask an expert and you will inevitably receive one of two answers, depending on which side of the fence the expert is standing. The anti- abortionist will obviously always choose promote the opinion that suits their cause, and the pragmatist will do the same, however I think it fair to suggest that the pragmatist by the very nature of their pragmatism will always consider both sides of the argument, whereas the anti-abortionist or high moralist is more likely to dismiss opposing opinion, out of hand and without due consideration.

I personally, with realistic consideration have concluded that an embryo or early stage foetus is, a non-sentient organic mass, a dependant extension of it's mother and as such the responsibility of the mother. I would therefore assert that the decision to terminate an unwanted pregnancy should be solely the decision of the mother and not the decision of a third party and certainly not the decision of a third party pressure group. It is all to easy to pontificate from the side lines.
As long as the decision and subsequent action to terminate a pregnancy is undertaken within the current legislated parameters, then I would suggest that at this current moment in time the choice to terminate an unwanted pregnancy should be socially permissible.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by John_C_1812 2 months ago
John_C_1812
Constitutional being abstinent can be described as unlawful and premeditated murder. The embryo is alive and it is by choice it is set to death by the actions of people. The human embryo is alive according to medical journals as it is subject to cryogenic freezing to insure longevity of life.
Posted by John_C_1812 2 months ago
John_C_1812
A woman should not be denied access to Female specific Amputation. Even after instruction to Abortion is legislated as having been made legal.
Posted by missmedic 2 months ago
missmedic
"1) Abortion is unlawful and premeditated
2) A fetus, from fertilization to newborn, is a human being"
These definitions are not accurate and exclude the mother's rights.
A spontaneous abortion is as opposed to an induced abortion. In a spontaneous abortion, it is purely accidental, that is spontaneous.
missed abortion;1.An abortion in which the fetus dies but is retained within the uterus for two months or longer.
The question of when life begins is a philosophical issue, not a scientific one, and there can be no consensus. "A clump of cells is not a viable human being."..."""."You are not a viable human until you are born and breathing.".."""".."You are not a viable human if you need an other to keep you alive."
Posted by missmedic 2 months ago
missmedic
How would you abolish abortion, with social programs to aid women, or law enforcement?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by AIRhino 1 week ago
AIRhino
NerdiestNerderSonofcharlTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: HIs arguments were better and I agree with that wholly. Also, Con didn't use sources.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 weeks ago
dsjpk5
NerdiestNerderSonofcharlTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering poor vote.
Vote Placed by factandevidence1234 2 months ago
factandevidence1234
NerdiestNerderSonofcharlTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Reasons for voting decision: Abortion is ok. Usually a woman doesn't just throw her baby away for no reason. It's because she can't take care of it in the conditions of her life.