The Instigator
evilkillerfiggin
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
gahbage
Con (against)
Winning
40 Points

Abortion Should Be Mandatory

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  
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
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/21/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,473 times Debate No: 4750
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (9)
Votes (13)

 

evilkillerfiggin

Pro

It's come to my attention that a great deal of creationist Christians are against abortion: this is an inherently contradictory assertion, as I intend to show.

Consider: God is of course omnibenevolent (ie, everything He does is good.) We know that God created the Earth, and He saw that it was good. Ditto with stars, seas, animals, etc.

So, we can say that the Earth and everything on it (barring Man, who we'll come to later) is, as a creation of God's, inherently good.

Now we come to His sixth day's work: Man is a creature with free will. That means he has the capacity to do good or evil. It is patently obvious to even the most casual observer that this second ability of Man's has been exercised to quite an impressive degree, over the years.

But that's not how it should be: we should, naturally, strive to do good.

Thus, the most good we can do is to remove ourselves from the Earth - for the Earth alone is inherently good, while the Earth with us on it is marred by evil.

I shall reiterate myself in debate-friendly bullets:

* God created the Earth and everything on it, and He saw that it was good.

* Man can do both good and evil.

* Thus the Earth without Man is wholly good, but the Earth with Man is only partly good.

* Man should aim to be wholly good.

* Thus Man should aim to remove himself from the Earth.

I henceforth propose that, as a moral necessity, abortion must become mandatory, and that this mandate must be enforced all across the world, effective as soon as possible.

From the argument above, I have proved that no creationist Christian can consistently disagree with mandating abortion. From experience, I highly doubt any creationist Christian would have any moral qualms about enforcing their mandates all across the world. Therefore, I await a response with a definite air of smug satisfaction.

NB: If you are not a creationist, and thus object to my first premise, then you are obviously beyond help. Time spent debating me on this matter would be better used in praying for your soul.
gahbage

Con

Thank you evilkillerfiggin for starting this debate. I'll split my response into different sections for easier comprehension and reference.

=The Problem==================================================================

My opponent states that to do good, we (humans) must leave the Earth, which can be done by aborting all children.

However, this is not the most efficient way to rid the planet of humans. For one thing, everyone will have to wait out the rest of their lives, continuing to do whatever we do that is bad for the earth until everyone dies. I'd be sitting here for about 65+ years emitting carbon dioxide, feeding landfills, and numerous other harmful activities. This will make the Earth take even longer to recover and will be unsafe for the environment. Also, pro-life activists would protest and ignore the law. If half of the world is pro-life, for instance, then the law would really only affect half the world. This is also inefficient because the entire world is not simply one country. We would have to convince every other country to abort their children.

=The Solution=================================================================

Because mandatory abortion is very inefficient at bringing the human race to extinction, I propose that abortion should NOT be mandatory. Instead, every human in the world should go to the nearest body of water, bathtub, etc. and drown themselves*. This will not only be faster, but will also be safer for the environment, and will not anger pro-life activists. The whole world could be rid of humans in a matter of weeks.

=Just in case I don't make next round=========================================

Just in case, I'm going to refute some possible arguments.

Now obviously, one may wonder, who would willingly drown themselves? It doesn't matter, because whoever doesn't obey the law would be killed. This obviously is not right, but who cares about morals when the goal is to go extinct anyway? We wouldn't be alive to worry about it a week or two later.

Furthermore, what about the people who are enforcing the rule? What if they don't drown? Well, there's the same problem with mandatory abortion. Who is to stop everyone from having a child sometime in their life? Any problems you could encounter with my method are also problems with my opponent's method.

=Conclusion===================================================================

I doubt my opponent will disagree, because here I am agreeing to the fact that humans should leave Earth. However, I have shown that by my opponent's own reasoning, my method is more efficient and safe. I have proven that abortion should NOT be mandatory; rather, that everyone should drown themselves*. So at this point, there is little choice but to vote CON.

* Please don't actually drown yourself. That wouldn't be good.
Debate Round No. 1
evilkillerfiggin

Pro

It's good to see that my opponent and I, being both reasonable and pious men, do not disagree on the heart of the issue, and instead have only to quibble about the small detail that is the title of this debate.

You are quite correct in your assertion that abortion alone is not an effective strategy to achieve our joint aim - which is nothing less than the noble pursuit of a wholly moral world.

I must concede, that in my haste to finish my last post (even the greatest of men have to hurry for dinner time) I outlined the problem in all its theoretical aspects, but left the practical concerns of policy making woefully incomplete.

Any actual campaign of omnigenocide would indeed have to take into consideration everything you brought up - conflicting opinions being the most major problem. Preferably, these dissenters must be educated to genuinely accept their Lord's will, as any coercion or murder on our part would only add to the ambient evil we're trying to remove. You correctly point out that this doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, but such behaviour would also stir up unneeded resistance and reprisals.

There is also the issue of thoroughness - what good is it if the entire civilised world snuffs it, if there's a small tribe in some tropical island that is allowed to go on with their sinful existence? Thoroughness is a challenge, and a huge mass drowning event like the one you mention will require colossal organisation: universal participation is hard to ensure.

Instead, I predict a long and arduous process of education, cultural acceptance and controlled population decline. Yes, there will be an environmental cost, but the Earth has billions of years to recover. And God presumeably has an infinite amount of patience.

Given such a strategy, I have to reassert my position that mandatory abortion is one of the most useful policies in our arsenal.
gahbage

Con

I will finish my argument by proving that my plan for extinction is better than my opponent's.

"Preferably, these dissenters must be educated to genuinely accept their Lord's will, as any coercion or murder on our part would only add to the ambient evil we're trying to remove."

There are two problems with this point. First, it would be virtually impossible to convert every human to Christianity. If they don't believe in God, then they will not accept the theory you propose. Next, if the most evil we can do is remain on the Earth, then other evils we could do would be somewhat justified if we were contributing to the most good we can do.

"You correctly point out that this doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, but such behaviour would also stir up unneeded resistance and reprisals."

The resistance would also be with mass abortion. Virtually everyone would oppose the idea of mandatory abortion, and nobody would follow the rule. Those same people would protest until the law is repealed, because they would want to have children sometime.

"There is also the issue of thoroughness - what good is it if the entire civilised world snuffs it, if there's a small tribe in some tropical island that is allowed to go on with their sinful existence? Thoroughness is a challenge, and a huge mass drowning event like the one you mention will require colossal organisation: universal participation is hard to ensure."

Likewise, what good is it if the entire civilized world aborts, and there's an undiscovered society or a third world country that doesn't get the message? Any feat that requires the cooperation of every human will need similar organization. So our plans are equal on that point.

"Instead, I predict a long and arduous process of education, cultural acceptance and controlled population decline."

Like I said before, worldwide conversion to Christianity would most likely not happen, and the result would be a more harmful effect on the environment than my plan.

"Yes, there will be an environmental cost, but the Earth has billions of years to recover. And God presumeably has an infinite amount of patience."

Not that long, actually. The sun only has about 5.43 billion years left, so the Earth only has a few billion years. Surely it would not be good if all that time is spent reversing the effects of humans.

So in conclusion, I have shown that abortion should NOT be mandatory, because my plan is more efficient and environmentally safe. Vote CON.
Debate Round No. 2
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by snicker_911 8 years ago
snicker_911
abortion is bad. less babies would die if teens would actually find out what the results are of having sex are. :P
Posted by Xera 8 years ago
Xera
I wonder if forced sterilization at birth of both boys and girls wouldn't actually do more good (no protestations from either the 'don't kill me' branch or the 'don't kill babies' branch?) Slower sure, but cheaper, easier, less morally repugnant, does not endorse murder, etc.
Posted by gahbage 8 years ago
gahbage
No problem. Thank you for this debate.
Posted by evilkillerfiggin 8 years ago
evilkillerfiggin
"I had to vote CON because he did prove that his method would create the lesser amount of evil."

That's assuming that pollution is as serious a sin as systematic murder, of cause....

Nevertheless, I concede defeat; thankyou, gahbage, for a pleasant little match.
Posted by Xera 8 years ago
Xera
lol, that was very amusing.

I had to vote CON because he did prove that his method would create the lesser amount of evil.
Posted by Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
And if the resolution were affirmed, we'd find ourselves in a world very similar to the one depicted in Children of Men...

I'm not voting on this one xD
Posted by gahbage 8 years ago
gahbage
For the record, I don't support mass genocide. I had to think of a quick alternative, though. >.<
Posted by evilkillerfiggin 8 years ago
evilkillerfiggin
wow... that got morbid fast. I don't usually spend my time planning how I'd go about mass genocide. Honest.

Cheers, gahbage, for taking on my first ever debate; you went for an interesting angle - I'm not sure what I'd have done in your place.
Posted by gahbage 8 years ago
gahbage
I think I might accept this, but I only have today and tomorrow to debate...
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by gahbage 8 years ago
gahbage
evilkillerfiggingahbageTied
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 
Vote Placed by Sweatingjojo 8 years ago
Sweatingjojo
evilkillerfiggingahbageTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by indianajones644 8 years ago
indianajones644
evilkillerfiggingahbageTied
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 
Vote Placed by Labrat228 8 years ago
Labrat228
evilkillerfiggingahbageTied
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 
Vote Placed by Im_always_right 8 years ago
Im_always_right
evilkillerfiggingahbageTied
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 
Vote Placed by Killer542 8 years ago
Killer542
evilkillerfiggingahbageTied
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 
Vote Placed by Karoz 8 years ago
Karoz
evilkillerfiggingahbageTied
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 
Vote Placed by slayer54321 8 years ago
slayer54321
evilkillerfiggingahbageTied
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 
Vote Placed by Casiopia 8 years ago
Casiopia
evilkillerfiggingahbageTied
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 
Vote Placed by chris2956 8 years ago
chris2956
evilkillerfiggingahbageTied
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