The Instigator
toughenough
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Surrealism
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

Abortion and murder are not morally equivalent.

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Surrealism
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/24/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 663 times Debate No: 57118
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

toughenough

Pro

So you screwed up, you got boned and some of his semen, or all of it, went inside of you and now you're pregnant. You don't want the baby and the exhaustion of having it could ruin all the plans of life that you had but there is a medically safe procedure to carry out to kill the fetus.

So you go up to the abortion clinic and the doctor turns around and tells you "Sorry but you're not allowed to do that because that little guy their has a right to life that surpasses your right to good health." So, you suck it up and go through 9 months of hell only for him to be a stillborn kid, or maybe before that there was a miscarriage. Heck, let's say the kid gets born and finds out he was an accident that the parents truly wish had never been born and would have gone through with killing had the law not been in place and in his anger kills his parents and takes revenge on the world in a life of crime.

Let's say he becomes the next Einstein and gives great theories to the world, is it worth that one Einstein for all the babies that grow up neglected due to parents not wanting them and being unhappy and ruining this world? If you look at the statistics, countries where abortion is outlawed generally have higher proportions of poverty and crime than ones where it's socially accepted. It's not coincidence that they are also overpopulated and have many more social issues within their nations than nations that have loosened up laws on abortion. This is because killing something that hasn't ever had the chance to know it exists is completely morally different to killing someone who already knows it exists and who will leave behind emotional scars in their friends and relatives once they are dead.

I challenge you to prove to me that killing is killing no matter what without also proving that washing your hands isn't murdering bacteria. Good luck.
Surrealism

Con

"You don't want the baby and the exhaustion of having it could ruin all the plans of life that you had..."

Because as we all know, adoption does not exist.

"but there is a medically safe procedure to carry out to kill the fetus."

Mostly safe, anyway, depending on how late the abortion is. Well, at least to the person having the abortion. To the fetus? Not so much. Fatality rates are nearly 100% for all fetuses involved in abortions.

"So you go up to the abortion clinic and the doctor turns around and tells you "Sorry but you're not allowed to do that because that little guy their has a right to life that surpasses your right to good health.""

Well, because the baby has the potential for an entire lifetime the could be ripped away with certainty, versus the chance of decreased quality of life for part of the mother's life, the doctor's statement is in fact justified.

"So, you suck it up and go through 9 months of hell only for him to be a stillborn kid, or maybe before that there was a miscarriage."

Well actually, although the miscarriage rate is 15-20%, most of those are in the first seven weeks when it has no significant impact. Once the baby's heartbeat is detected, the miscarriage risk drops markedly. [1] Additionally, the current rate of stillbirths is only 2 percent. And 98% of stillbirths occur in poorer countries [2], which says more about the economic conditions of those countries than it does about childbirth.

"Heck, let's say the kid gets born and finds out he was an accident that the parents truly wish had never been born and would have gone through with killing had the law not been in place and in his anger kills his parents and takes revenge on the world in a life of crime."

Complete speculation. Find me a study that shows that children born unintentionally are more likely to be homicidal. Honestly, your scenario has no weight if you can't find even one precedent.

"Let's say he becomes the next Einstein and gives great theories to the world, is it worth that one Einstein for all the babies that grow up neglected due to parents not wanting them and being unhappy and ruining this world?"

Can you find me a statistic that proves that unintentional children are not likely to be useful members of society despite harsh childhoods, or that they're even significantly more likely to have harsh childhoods in the first place? And, again, adoption still exists.

"If you look at the statistics, countries where abortion is outlawed generally have higher proportions of poverty and crime than ones where it's socially accepted. It's not coincidence that they are also overpopulated and have many more social issues within their nations than nations that have loosened up laws on abortion."

Well, it's clear that Pro hasn't actually looked at the statistics, so let's do it for him. Here are some countries that have legalized abortion: [3]

Cuba
Kazakhstan
South Africa
China
Tajikstan
Uzbekistan
Albania
Vietnam
Tunisia

"This is because killing something that hasn't ever had the chance to know it exists is completely morally different to killing someone who already knows it exists and who will leave behind emotional scars in their friends and relatives once they are dead."

Actually the senses of fetuses are stimulated during fetal development. [4] So a fetus would know that it exists. It's not as if the senses are magically activated after it passes through the birth canal. Additionally, if the lack of emotional scars is a reason for killing to be permissible, then would a baby given birth to by a mother who doesn't want it be permissibly killed? It seems like that's what your argument proposes.

"I challenge you to prove to me that killing is killing no matter what without also proving that washing your hands isn't murdering bacteria."

The resolution says nothing about bacteria. It talks about abortion. Strictly speaking, washing your hands IS murdering bacteria, but bacteria have no senses or minds or any concept of pleasure, so killing a bacteria isn't immoral. In fact, because the bacteria could infect a creature that did have senses, a mind, and a concept of pleasure, one could argue that killing certain bacteria is moral.

To answer the resolution in one sentence, abortion is actually more immoral than most forms of murder because it rids a baby of an entire life, not just part of it. Over to Pro.

[1] http://www.nlm.nih.gov...
[2] http://www.who.int...
[3] http://reproductiverights.org...
[4] http://www.beginbeforebirth.org...
Debate Round No. 1
toughenough

Pro

I know adoption exists. Do you also know that spending 9 months completely exhausted from an ever growing, energy-draining parasite that we romanticize to be can make studying and perhaps having a part-time job nearly impossible to physically do without sacrificing success at one for the other? You could end up failing exams or losing your job because of the pregnancy alone and its effect on your body. This would make you have to redo the whole year. Then you'd have to live forever with the guilt of knowing that you could perhaps have raised your own baby but now if you ever do have a child and raise it, you'll always have that ever growing guilt of never having raise your first child and it will bite at you and psychologically ruin you.

So what if the fetus has the potential to become a baby and the baby has the potential to a life? Why does this surpass the woman's right to deal with a growth in her body that's draining all her nutrition and health for the sake of its own survival? A fetus is just a selfish, malignant blob of cells inside the mother's body that she is sacrificing her own well-being to produce. Why are you forcing to do this when it can end up as a screwed up adult or as a miscarriage?

Oh okay, so you want to make the mother wait 6-7 weeks when the fetus is slightly more conscious and then kill it, yeah that really makes no sense.

What on Earth does poor vs. rich countries have to do with it? Are you saying that poor countries are somehow invalid in moral discussion?

I don't need to prove a link between homicide and neglectful past (which will most likely stem from a child being unwanted in the family but the mother being too stubborn to give the child up for adoption). [https://www.childwelfare.gov...] Consequences of childhood neglect include impaired brain development (meaning resorting to crime to earn money will be more likely) and direct link to criminality.[http://tinyurl.com...]

I concede the crime issue but that's also because those nations have people very unwilling to report crimes.

Now onto the first paragraph of Con's closing statement:

"The resolution says nothing about bacteria. It talks about abortion. Strictly speaking, washing your hands IS murdering bacteria, but bacteria have no senses or minds or any concept of pleasure, so killing a bacteria isn't immoral. In fact, because the bacteria could infect a creature that did have senses, a mind, and a concept of pleasure, one could argue that killing certain bacteria is moral."

My opponent concedes that washing hands is murder and should be criminally charged as such if it were not for the ct that bacteria not only lack sentience but are entirely parasitic and selfish in their way of existing. Well, I have news for my opponent. Not only is a fetus parasitic to a greater extent as it takes up more time, effort and nutrients to maintain than the average bacteria [http://www.dailykos.com...][http://www.microbiologyonline.org.uk...]. Aside from this, there are very many good things that bacteria do for the world[http://healthyeating.sfgate.com...] whereas fetuses very rarely give back more than they give and often will end up wasting their life away on partying, self-indulgence retirement and finally dying. The only contribution most will ever grow to give the is the children of their own that are parasitic fetuses all over again.

Now onto the second paragraph:

"To answer the resolution in one sentence, abortion is actually more immoral than most forms of murder because it rids a baby of an entire life, not just part of it."

If this is correct, the resolution is upheld and proven true because it never stated which more morally acceptable than the other. Nevertheless, this is actually false because the consequences of killing someone who has already lived are far more emotionally devastating to the vast array of people who value their sentient existence and economically devastating to their workplace than killing a fetus which is potentially only known to exist to the mother seeking the abortion and the doctor giving it.
Surrealism

Con

"Do you also know that spending 9 months completely exhausted from an ever growing, energy-draining parasite that we romanticize to be can make studying and perhaps having a part-time job nearly impossible to physically do without sacrificing success at one for the other? You could end up failing exams or losing your job because of the pregnancy alone and its effect on your body. This would make you have to redo the whole year. Then you'd have to live forever with the guilt of knowing that you could perhaps have raised your own baby but now if you ever do have a child and raise it, you'll always have that ever growing guilt of never having raise your first child and it will bite at you and psychologically ruin you."

Because as we all know, maternity leave does not exist.

"So what if the fetus has the potential to become a baby and the baby has the potential to a life? Why does this surpass the woman's right to deal with a growth in her body that's draining all her nutrition and health for the sake of its own survival? A fetus is just a selfish, malignant blob of cells inside the mother's body that she is sacrificing her own well-being to produce."

Problems:

1. If the fetus is just a malignant blob of cells because it doesn't contribute to the mother's wellbeing, then a newborn is too. Why is it not okay to kill a newborn but perfectly okay to kill a fetus? Does passing through the birth canal magically make the fetus into a contributing human?

2. A woman doesn't have a right to "deal with" a fetus because it has the potential to become a human being. Humans do not have the right to control whether or not another human lives or not. This is the reasoning by which we believe that murder is in most instances immoral.

3. I'm sorry, but a decreased quality of life for nine months does not outweigh losing one's entire life outside of the womb. Seventy years is worth more than nine months.

4. The fetus does contribute to the mother's wellbeing. Evolutionary fitness occurs when your genes are passed on. By being born, the fetus contributes to its mother's evolutionary fitness.

"Why are you forcing to do this when it can end up as a screwed up adult or as a miscarriage?"

Why give birth at all to anyone "when it can end up as a screwed up adult or as a miscarriage?"

"Oh okay, so you want to make the mother wait 6-7 weeks when the fetus is slightly more conscious and then kill it, yeah that really makes no sense."

I never said to kill it after six to seven weeks! I said the risk of miscarriage drops after six to seven weeks!

"What on Earth does poor vs. rich countries have to do with it? Are you saying that poor countries are somehow invalid in moral discussion?"

No, I'm saying that the places in which stillbirth is more likely are poorer countries, so if we're worried about stillbirths we shouldn't have abortions, we should just try to reduce poverty.

"I don't need to prove a link between homicide and neglectful past (which will most likely stem from a child being unwanted in the family but the mother being too stubborn to give the child up for adoption). [https://www.childwelfare.gov......] Consequences of childhood neglect include impaired brain development (meaning resorting to crime to earn money will be more likely) and direct link to criminality.[http://tinyurl.com......]"

You still need to prove that children born unintentionally are more likely to be abused as children.

"My opponent concedes that washing hands is murder and should be criminally charged as such if it were not for the ct that bacteria not only lack sentience but are entirely parasitic and selfish in their way of existing...aside from this, there are very many good things that bacteria do for the world"

I did not say that! I said that CERTAIN bacteria can be killed morally. I know many bacteria are beneficial, and do not condone killing them! I only condone the killing of harmful bacteria!

"Not only is a fetus parasitic to a greater extent as it takes up more time, effort and nutrients to maintain than the average bacteria...whereas fetuses very rarely give back more than they give"

A newborn doesn't give anything to its parents either. Are you saying it's justified to kill a newborn?

"often will end up wasting their life away on partying, self-indulgence retirement and finally dying."

I could say the same thing about the mother. "If they hadn't wasted all their time getting drunk with strangers, they wouldn't have made the mistake of not using protection with that boy who left them. They deserve having to have a child as punishment for their mistakes. They have to learn to take some responsibility."

"Nevertheless, this is actually false because the consequences of killing someone who has already lived are far more emotionally devastating to the vast array of people who value their sentient existence and economically devastating to their workplace than killing a fetus which is potentially only known to exist to the mother seeking the abortion and the doctor giving it."

So you're saying that if a mother gives birth to a child by herself and doesn't like it, it's okay for her to kill it?

Over to Pro.
Debate Round No. 2
toughenough

Pro

toughenough forfeited this round.
Surrealism

Con

I extend my arguments, but would also like to note once again that most of my opponent's arguments in favor of abortion also serve as arguments for allowing the killing of newborns. It is a burden on my opponent to show why passing through the birth canal magically transforms the fetus from being morally able to be killed to not.
Debate Round No. 3
toughenough

Pro

toughenough forfeited this round.
Surrealism

Con

Extend my arguments, but be aware that since Pro has forfeited two rounds, they should concede a significant portion of voting advantage. Unless Pro can really hit it out of the park in their last round, they have essentially forfeited the debate.
Debate Round No. 4
toughenough

Pro

toughenough forfeited this round.
Surrealism

Con

Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by PlumberGirl123 3 years ago
PlumberGirl123
Lmao Same for you
Posted by toughenough 3 years ago
toughenough
Totally get you, plumbergirl.
Posted by PlumberGirl123 3 years ago
PlumberGirl123
I totally agree with pro. Everything he said is correct which is great to hear cuz a guy can actually understand what a women goes through. I'm glad he knows its physically and emotionally exhausting for a woman to be pregnant. There's nothing wrong with abortion. The fetus has no say whatsoever. She created you and she can take you out. Some people also say "we'll you wouldn't like it if ur mom had an abortion". Actually I don't care at all. That's her decision, I wouldn't know anything anyways! ;D so stop acting like I would've had a say in the matter. When I was a fetus I had no rights. Which is perfectly fine with me. You can't choose what a women does. She's the one either going through the abortion procedure or the pregnancy and god hopes she goes through the abortion cuz u'll be more stressed than you can imagine with a baby.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 3 years ago
lannan13
toughenoughSurrealismTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 3 years ago
dsjpk5
toughenoughSurrealismTied
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 ff many rounds. Used the phrase "screwed up and got boned". Conceded some points to con.