The Instigator
Marauder
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
headphonegut
Con (against)
Winning
20 Points

Abortion, (from athiest perspective.)

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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/20/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,698 times Debate No: 16062
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (14)
Votes (5)

 

Marauder

Pro

I have here a debate I decided to play devils advocate with to make a point that you have no ground to stand on to be pro-life if there is no god. http://www.debate.org...

but unfortounatly my newb opponent could not even keep his account active long enough to finish 2 rounds of the debate, but I put a lot of effert in my case for that debate and I'm tired of my efforts being waisted on people who cant finish there debates.

So I start this debate anew, and here are the terms for whoever wants to pick up the challenge.

1) My round one arguments are the round one arguments of the debate in the link I gave.
so yes, you have to read it to accapt this challenge, http://www.debate.org...

2) By accapting this challenge you are agreeing to pick up from where my opponent left off in the above link that I said you need to read http://www.debate.org...

3) It is preffered that you take this debate only if your an athiest and against abortion, but if your not, just understand you position is the Con to the resolution and it's a condition that we make our cases as if it's a known fact that there is no God.

4) I put a percintile ranking requirment on the debate. I had too, I'm tired of 'Crash and Burn' debate's.

Thats all, good luck to whoever accapts, and please, please, please, please, please.... finish this debate if you accapt it. I gave a three day period to make your next argument it's not a hard commitment to keep.
headphonegut

Con

well thanks for following up your debate.

C1 - I made the two points in the other round 1. that adoption was a better alternative and 2. that a fetus has senses so he/she can feel and he/she can dream thus proving there is brain activity meaning he/she is human. Let me say my opponent has not challenged those points my opponent has instead proposed that all the children that can die at an early age (doesn't indicate how early) must. My opponent further moves on to say this is because of overpopulation which causes famine.

"Those who would choose to not go through with an abortion but raise there child up, they at the very least show they are emotionally and financially capable of handling doing so. This is a wanted adaptation for our species to pass on to the rest of the population. Those that want to choose abortion could do so for different reasons, like emotional stress from the burden of having this child, of keeping it. Money problems with providing for it. Or perhaps it's not that they can't accomplish the task of raising the child allowing it to live if push came to shove but the timing of its coming is one of massive inconvenience and they just don't want too. Whatever the case, they have the common theme of showing the parent to be unable to adapt in some way to this situation life provided unless you count escape an adaptation. If escape must be labeled an adaptation it's not a positive one to have spread through our species."

First off choosing to have a kid over an abortion doesn't automatically mean the families are stable or have means or that they are emotionally and financially capable of raising a child. Quite frankly you can't discern every family apart by saying mothers who don't choose abortion their offspring is better because.....well you don't say why they're kids are better you don't say why it's a wanted adaptation. Furthermore a parent that chooses abortion you label is as an adaptation of escape. Is this a genetics argument? mothers who choose to have a baby have better genetics than those who don't. Mothers that choose abortion can easily choose to have their baby adopted whatever the reason for an abortion an adoption is more desirable because it gives a chance at life an there's room for potential.

'How can we even think about allowing, much less make it manditory to continue the life of beings that have no face no history and contributions to the world as of yet who would be the children of people they were inconvenient enough for that they wanted out of birthing them when the globes unchecked growth in population is causing the deaths of millions who do have faces and histories. And not just any death but the slow death of starvation. Sometimes quicker when there the result of the riots or the wars over our dwindling resources."

Okay it is more logical to give a chance to someone with potential then to others with none people with a history don't deserve to live because they have a history they've lived longer if the choice is between a 30 yr old man and a unborn baby then I would say choose to kill the 30 yr old guy what has he done that he deserves to live? My opponent asked why does it matter how human the fetus is? this statement is a concession to a fetus's humanity. The above statement sounds like a statement of morality "the slow death of starvation," " the death of millions who do have faces, "dwindling resources" I now ask why does it matter how someone who was born and has had a chance to live dies? It is only reasonable to allow them to die and let all things with the potential of life to be allowed to live because then we would be doing something productive all unborn babies have potential and we simply don't know what they'll acomplish when they grow up.

My opponent summarized his points.
"1) Because of growing over-population of the planet, the deaths of these fetuses that the mothers do no want is virtually manditory to start slowing population growth's progress.

I say that over population isn't a problem like all things nature will take it's course due to human growth a bacterium or virus will devastate the world and bring the population down.

2) The advancement of our species has always been based on the reproduction of those that can adapt, cope with wider variaty of situations, tougher situations. Pregnant women who want abortion in some way cant adapt or cope in some way with delievering what there reproducing.

Pregnant women can always choose adoption if the point is that they don't want a baby give him/her to someone else.
and I object to you saying that women who want an abortion are weaker than those who don't and that they can't adapt or cope to what they're producing that makes no sense whatsoever now because a women doesn't want a kid she has bad genes? You can't discern what kind of genes the parents have and you can't imply that because they don't want a child the child would be unbeneficial to the race.

3) Though my opponent made some vallient arguments that fetuses are indeed human he failed to make any connecting point as to why that should matter. I contend there has been no reason as of now given to us that should make us think that a fetus being human should matter.

my opponent concedes that fetuses are human and

4) It is better for the majority of the worlds deaths to be due to abortions than due to famine, and war over resorces or other over-population related problems."

I say why is it better for deaths to be due to abortion? just as long as people die isn't that good for bringing down the population growth? logically speaking it is better to let those in famine and war die then to kill those that have potential. abortion is never the answer when giving your baby away if you don't want him/her can easily be chosen. it's more rational to kill everyone with aids than to let those that are going to be aborted die. death is imminent for both of them but the one's with aids have already had time on earth.

thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
Marauder

Pro

To begin I will respond to my opponents question about if I was using a genetics argument And his assertion that moms are not better just because they choose against abortion.

To be clear I am not using a genetics argument, not all adaptations we pass on are from our DNA. One of mankind's greatest adaptations that was passed on to the rest of the race in history was when a man learned to use fire. But death is still important in even that kind of adaptation like it is with genetic ones, the population that cannot use fire must die and population that can must spread. The preferable adaptation I spoke of the non-abortion choosing parents was more of the kind like learning to use the wheel than it was the adaptation of being six feet tall.

The reason I say non-abortion choosing parents have an adaptation that's better to pass on to the next generation that makes up the population, is the bear minimum things you can deduce about the one who does choose to have abortion for some reason. There are only a few conceivable ones, certainly the only ones I ever here. Some choose to have an abortion because there child would be fiscally burdensome and they don't feel up to handling it. Some choose because of the emotional stress it would put them under and they don't feel they are up for it. Some choose for a more mental reason that they don't feel up to handling. I am pretty sure those three broad categories can classify any of the excuses given to have an abortion that you are ever going to here but if you think otherwise I challenge you to provide a example that does not fit them. Fundamentally the choice for an abortion came from a recognition of some kind that they could not adapt to delivering there child. Those that choose life at bear minimum we can say to feel they could adapt. the economic burden, even if they were poor, did not strike them as too much to handle. the emotional stress, even if they are a little bit of a basket case did not strike them as too much to handle. And even if they lacked I.Q. points and knew it, it still did not deter them from delivering there child.

They could adapt, and the child raised by them surely will pick up on some of that adaptation. The ones that have only there fearful reasons of there in-ability to handle delivering there child will spread nothing to the population, there offspring are dead and carry nothing to the rest of the population because they are no longer part of it.

I admit though, this point does not stand on its own. Con could continue to argue for the adoption alternative and say the adoptive parents would have the same adaptation to feeling they could handle having the child as the biological ones. And this is potentially true, but to be honest its mostly a control issue. A child raised by there birth parent will simply learn the character adaptations from those parents and there's not much more to it than that. A child put up for adoption though has the variable of what they learn during there time in an orphanage. Of course this would not make any independent case inherently going to have problems learning the positive adaptations we want them to learn but a whole that variable may affect some cases. And since we are looking for a cut in population anyway for the overpopulation problem and the birth mom wanted it dead anyway why stop her? A parent has legal right to revoke there 17 year old's right to drive, why not have the legal right to revoke there unborn child life? There is nothing wrong with a woman killing a child that's dependent on her as defined by the still attached umbilical cord. It's not like that child has some divine right to its life since we know belief in the divine is just superstitious non-sense.

The one reason my opponent gives for why a child must be allowed to live is its potential. Pay attention readers at this here, for I believe if I am to defend this debates resolution it rest on my ability to refute this.

A beings potential at birth means very little. Hitler was a fetus once and his potential grew to be a dictator. fetus's have as much potential to be Jack the Ripper as it does to become Charles Darwin. I could just as easily argue that all unborn children should be put to death because they have the potential to spread hatred, ignorance and suffering into the world. I'd cite people like Jim Jones as evidence that the potential exist and my case would be just as strong as the one my opponent gave about their potential to add good to the world.

If your being rational you cant say anything of the potential future actions of a fetus because it is too early to make anything out of that 'potential'. people with faces and histories though, you do have actual data to critique there potentials to say something for or against.
The fear I suppose you have though is that we might be killing our next great world leader. This is absurd though, that kind of potential will still exist in other children out there that are born and live and we can teach them to grow on that particular potential. When you minus all the pregnant women that choose abortion, there will still always be children being born out there, and there will still be many in need of adoption for whatever reason, (mother died in child-birth, parents are executed because there Bonnie & Clyde, killed by thugs, died in war, taken away from parents because they were druggies and abusive, ect...). Whatever born children make up the next generation, there potential will fulfill the needs of the world we are worried about losing in the aborted babies.

And remember, there is no special reason any unborn child in particular should live for its potential, there is no God and they have no divine right to live out there potential that some divine creator gave them at birth with. They were simply because two people wanted to have sex and there life is sometimes a result of that. As long as the birth of children has not completely stopped in the population as a whole, who cares if an independent case is denied it's 'potential' to live and become Edward Teach http://en.wikipedia.org...?

My opponent just brushed off the Overpopulation case by saying a disease will take its due course and handle it. First off, I demand evidence that a disease could ever still do this, because I think hoping this will fix the population is just too much wishful thinking given our medical advancements. we have vaccines for practically any such thing that could come our way and when viruses that we have no cure for come its not long before we make something to handle the problem and it becomes old news. Are you still worried about how you will likely be one of the many to die of 'Bird flu'? I did not think so. What about the 'Swine flu'? surely the 'epidemic' that was suppose cause has killed someone you know if it didn't get you.
Fact is the only epidemics that will cut the population down is famine and war that the overpopulation causes. My opponent say's it's better for people to die in famine and war than it is to die of abortion. This is ridiculous and the only reason given as to why it would not be is the 'potential' argument that I refuted. death by famine and war are far more inhumane and barbaric than the controlled death of a unborn child at a doctors sterile hands.

Another thing about 'potential', there the potential of unborn is not of greater value of the geriatric. As long as your still suck'en wind, you still have 'potential' to save, give, and make. but one thing you have over the unborn is you can already tie your shoes and count by 2's. you already have many tools you have picked up that aid you in contributing to the world. It's not logical to favor your death over the death of a unborn child that knows nothing and does nothing as of yet.

I thank my opponent and await his response.
headphonegut

Con

My opponents example of fire use is a false dilemma. If one cannot use fire he/she must die? subsequently wouldn't all babies or children that cannot use fire must die?

R1 - First one cannot discern what "adaptations" parents are going to pass onto their kids if your argument is parents who have kids have more to teach them that is obviously a given since parents who didn't have children cannot teach them anything; However you cannot base your argument on this because parents who don't choose to have children might be better equipped or might have more to teach their children than parents who do. As per your challenge many abortions in China and India happen because the baby is going to be a girl. Furthermore I have to ask how do you know that parents somehow cannot adapt to delivering their children?

"They could adapt, and the child raised by them surely will pick up on some of that adaptation. The ones that have only there fearful reasons of there in-ability to handle delivering there child will spread nothing to the population, there offspring are dead and carry nothing to the rest of the population because they are no longer part of it."

Why is it important to carry something to the population? And I have no Idea what your point is.

R2 - My opponents only point here is to kill a child he still has not refuted my point on the fetus being alive and having it's own right to life like a small adult on life support should we take away his life support system because it belongs to the hospital? The law still charges murderers for killing a women and her child as two separate entity's.

PotentialR - Well I don't see how another Hitler or jack the ripper could hurt the world after all you're saying overpopulation. Why does it matter how someone dies? Even if all the children born spread hatred, ignorance and suffering into the world I would be fine with that everyone should have a chance at life. Furthermore I must say that my opponent concedes to the argument about babies having the potential to adding good to the world. If a child does grow up to kill millions isn't that good using my opponents logic? I mean overpopulation is going up right? I assume my opponent would be all over this letting millions die to decrease population.

My opponent says it's to early to make anything of the potential future actions of a fetus because it's too early, but that's just it it's too early to tell you don't know what a baby might grow up to be I'm fine with whatever they grow up to be just as long as they have a chance to grow up. If a child grows up to be the next Einstein great if a child grows up to kill people even better he/she is contributing to decreasing population. My opponent concedes that born children make up the next generation how about he gives them a chance to live? My opponent has advocated that all children that are able to die at an early age must. My opponent essentially killed our future already. Also might I say my opponent contradicts himself first he argues too early, that people with faces (don't understand the 'faces' part) have a history and so their potential can be measured, then he says "there potential will fulfill the needs of the world we are worried about losing in the aborted babies. He essentially dismissed a babies potential then said not to worry we have a babies potential.

I'm not saying there is a god I'm saying it's only logical to let all children be born because of what they might do this isn't a special reason it's a logical one that factors in the risks of what they might do to what they might be able to do.
Also our population as a whole has been trending up like a J to only place it dips is the bubonic plague. Many diseases kill millions of people like lower respiratory infections kill 4 million people, HIV kills 5 million, malaria 3 million, Diarrhea kills 2.2 million, tuberculosis another 2, measles half million. There are still many incurable diseases like Ebola, polio, lupus Erythematosus, influenza, Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease, diabetes, asthma, cancer, and my favorite the common cold.

My opponent says that it is inhumane and barbaric that someone die by famine and war than it is to die by abortion since my opponent has not refuted that fetuses can feel we will be under the assumption that they can. First let me say who cares how someone dies why is a death by abortion preferable to one of famine the end result is still death isn't that what my opponent wants for the population to be reduced? I assume war and famine would be great but unfortunately that to inhumane and barbaric. Second let me say that a baby's death is even more barbaric and inhumane since now we have switched to morality a doctor has several choices depending on what stage the babies is in there's the scraping one where the doctor then you know sucks the remains down a tube there's the quick one where if it's small enough you just have to literally suck it out with an awesome tube. There's also the one where the doctor stabs the baby in the head then sucks his brains out.

And another thing and unborn is much preferable to old people they're going to die soon what can they contribute to the world and why is contribution to the world important? It is very logical for an unborn to take your place.

My opponent has made a Machiavellian/utilitarian argument where the end justifies the means and that this end is for the greater good. However my opponent has failed to explain why it is necessary to provide for the greater good and how killing children promotes good.

just to restate. Adoption is a better alternative as my opponent has said the parents who receive the child will teach their child what they know and ultimately be of better use then old people have. and a baby can feel and dream therefore they can think.

I await my opponent.

more incurable diseases
Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia
Acute Myeloid Leukemia
Acquired Immune Defficiency Syndrome (AIDS) see also HIV
Adrenoleukodystrophy (ALD)
Alzheimer disease
Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS,Lou Gehrig's disease)
Aspartylglucosaminuria
Asthma
Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD)
Autism
Avian Influenza
B-Mannosidosis
Batten disease (Juvenile Neuronal Ceroid Lipofuscinosis)
Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE, "Mad Cow" disease)
Bipolar disorder (Manic-depression)
Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL)
Chronic myeloid leukemia (CML)
Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (CJD) see also Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy and Kuru
Common Cold
chicken pox aka Herpes Zoster aka varicella-zoster aka Shingles
Currarino Triad
Cystic Fibrosis
Cystinosis
Dementia
Diabetes
Dysmyelogenic leukodystrophy (DMD a.k.a. Alexander disease)
Ebola
Emphysema (C.O.P.D.)
Farber disease
Fatal Familial Insomnia
Fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva
Flu
Fucosidosis
Galactosialidosis (Goldberg syndrome)
Gaucher disease
GM1 Gangliodsidosis
Hairy cell leukemia
Herpes Zoster aka varicella-zoster aka chicken pox
Hopeless Astrocytoma (Brain Cancer)
Hurler syndrome (includes Hurler-Scheie)
Hunter syndrome
Infantile Neuronal Ceroid Lipofuscinosis
Infertility
Krabbe disease
Kuru see Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
Lissencephaly
Lymphocytic Lymphomas
Hodgkin Lymphoma
Non-Hodgkin lymphoma
Small lymphocytic lymphoma
Maroteaux-Lamy
Measles
Metachromatic Leukodystrophy (MLD)
Morquio A
Mucolipidosis II (I-Cell Disease)
Mucolipidosis IV
Multiple sclerosis (MS)
Niemann-Pick disease, Types A and B
Polio
Pompe disease
Prosaposin
Progeria
Pseudomyxoma peritonei
Psoriasis
Salla disease
Sandhoff disease
Sanfilippo A
Scheie syndrome
Schindler disease
Schizophrenia
Sialidosis (Mucolipidosis I)
Sly syndrome
Spreading Adenocarcinoma
Spreading Melanoma
Takayasu's arteritis (Pulseless Disease)
Tay-Sachs disease
Tinnitus
Wolan disease
Debate Round No. 2
Marauder

Pro

To begin I would like to address a case my opponent made against me thats very logical, about my saying that all babies that can die must but then saying the next generation must live on to carry on our good adaptations.
Yes it sounds ridiculose when you take 'all babies that can die must' in the most litteral sense that 'all' babies must die. I shall elaborate now to try to say what I ment to say by all babies that 'can die' now.

I of course dont mean all babies period must die. there must always be another generation if our race is to continue to live on and so it is pivatol that we reproduce successfully. So in essence we 'cannot' afford to lose all babies lives, so it should go if I say all that 'can' die must, then this does not mean all babies period. the babies that 'can' die would be whatever the population in the next generation that we can afford to lose.

The Desise list:
my opponent gave a long list of all incurable desises and gave a few statistics on some of the death toll some create. Do not be impressed by this please readers since his point is on how desise and plauge will counter over-population. my link I gave in the first round (in fist edition of this debate) shows that inspite of all these incurable desises the population goes up everyday. How is it with all the millions of deaths listed by my opponent associated with these diseses the population goes up? the only way is that there are far too many births replacing the dieing. a barral may have 50 big holes in it but it will still stay full if its constantly filled by a waterfall. So my opponents point about incurable desises only strenghtens my point about the overpopulation problem. Its so serious that none of these diseses are slowing it down.

why is it important to carry something to the population?:
have you not studied science? it's how all species become stronger and advance throughout history that pass on the good traits to the rest of the population. thats how we evolve into superor beings that are better off. If there is anything out there that should be taken as axiomatic that its good to pursue it, it would have to be the development of our species for its truely the only thing that truely outlast us.

everyone should have a chance at life:
why? because a legal document has the courts rule the death of an unborn as two murders? once in germany the courts ruled that you could not be charged with murder for killing a jew, but thats clearly messed up. Con treats it as axiomatic that it's just and right to make sure all have a chance at life but takes for granted that is not axiomatic when there is no god so he will have to give a better case than that. No such right has been given to us by our maker because we have no maker, life is not given it is simply something that 'could just happen' to you and you do relitively nothing about it. easy come easy go.

Hatred ignorance and suffering are less barbaric to have in our world than abortion:
my opponent sights a few late term abortion methods as being barbaric forms of causeing suffering to the fetuses and puts this up as greater than the pain and bloodshed caused by Hitler, Jack the Ripper and Edward Teach. First, even if those methods should be said to cause suffering to the infants its ridiculous to think it even comes close to rivaling the suffering those men caused much less outmach it.

But let us keep in mind in all those abortion methods the brain is the first thing to be very quickly destroyed. once that is taken out there can be no pain for the brain does not recieve it. the body is just a shell after thats taken care of. the unborn has no time to even regester that its in pain or that it should care becase the part of the body that lets it do that is destroyed.

Old people should die in place of babies:
yes, death panles would be another good practical start in truely tackling the overpopulation problem, but this does not negate the need to reduce population growth at the source.

I will cover any points I missed in the next round do to my time running close to out.
headphonegut

Con

thank you for you timely response

I understand what my opponent is trying to say about his phrase that all babies that can die must. I didn't take it at the most literal sense I took it at face value, however when the phrase is examined and defined can is literally a word that implies possibility or having the potential or ability to do something so when you say all babies that have the potential to die must, or that have a possibility of dying must, aren't you basically saying that all babies must die?

Overpopulation is very serious however we still haven't even reached carrying capacity so that only means that overpopulation is simply not going to happen in the next few years since their is no sign of disease mutating and killing off the population is apparent that we aren't overpopulated.

Homosapien race is the only race that doesn't pass on genes for instincts we have adaptations in the beginning of our early stages of life for learning via seeing and hearing. and good genes aren't passed on by giving something to the population it's by hooking up with someone because they either look good or run fast however that doesn't guarantee that their kid will look good or run fast.

that is exactly what I'm saying "easy come easy go" however I hold that everyone should have a chance at life and I never give the courts a lot of merit but they have recognized that a baby is basically a human in the third trimester. Also everyone should have a chance at life because to deny someone the right to life simply on the basis of they're not human yet however that is completely arbitrary like voting somebody placed an imaginary line and said this is when you become human although that's debatable because how can one define "human" if it is when to species from the race homosapiens consummate then what's the problem? a Biologist would say all life begins at conception.

so now your argument is it's not that one suffers but how one suffers. Is the quantity of suffering relevant? should a special place be granted to those who suffer more? is the suffering of a mother who lost a son much less of that of a mother who lost a son in a concentration camp? and then you qualify how babies die by saying that they die relatively quickly you don't contest that it is barbaric or that it causes suffering.
Debate Round No. 3
Marauder

Pro

For one last time I give clarification on the 'all babies that can die must' comment. by all that 'can' I mean all that we can afford to lose, by all that we can afford to lose I mean whatever that number is that sceintiest calculate out to be the amount of population the next generation can be reduced by and our race be okay.

I think amoung the things I might have missed last round was Cons case that he does not believe unborn babies should have a right to life based on diven right from a God, but that it was pure logic taking in risks of what they might do to what they might be able to do. I think something is off with your calculations though, for every Mother Teresa in history you could name I could name you an Edward Teach (if not 2!). net potential of what a child might become will cancle out to zero since as you agreed its just too early to say anything about what the child could have become.

potential simply does not give an unborn child a right to its life over a mothers right to end its life. I do not think my opponent has argued the case well enough that it does give the child the right prove it so.

second thing I missed the last round was the Cons case that I have failed to explain why its necessary to provide for the greater good, and why killing unborn children does this good.
first, I do not have to show abortion neccisary to affirm the resolution, I only need to show it prefreable to affirm the the resolution. As a cause for why our population will be reduced, I think I have shown its preferable to the cause for population reduction my opponent advocates, bubonic plauge.

As for how abortion promotes the cause of population reduction, it should be self-explanatory. some of the next generations lives are ended before birth, so they cant add to the current population themselves, and they cant create additions to the next generation (after their own) population. surely this will help plauges and war have time to catch up to balance off what additions to population the babies that are allowed to live add.

As for my opponent case about why we have not reached the overpopulation problem yet, by his logic the trillion dollar deficet is not a problem because havent actually auctioned off land to chiniese people yet, or global warming is not a problem yet for us because glaciers still exist. these problems should not just be passed on untill its so late that there consequences begin to hurt us. they need delt with now.

you say you are saying 'easy come easy go' to but you still hold all should be given a chance at life. these are not compatible unless you redifined life just now to mean long enough to have your diapers changed. earleir you were arguing for a definition that its deffinitly alive in the woumb an even now you speak of how a biologist would say all life starts at conception. so the unborn children in question are alive an have had there 'chance at life' though it was a short life indeed. If you argue they must hang on to that life longer still than your not arguing 'easy go'

If a child dies quickly in the woumb its axiomatic its not barbaric. the brain that allows the child to feel pain is eliminated before the child can feel the pain. a.k.a. painless death. perhaps its barbaric to watch siscors stabed into an nearly born infants skull, but its if its barbaric for the child that experinces it thats important. painless death to endure equalls not barbaric.


In Conclusion I do not think Con gave any good reasons for an athiest to think a unborn child has a right to life this debate.
I conclude that though overpopulation may one day cause events that will solve the overpopulation problem, it is those events we wish to avoid that make us call it a problem in the first place.

Dropping my athiest role playing here, I also conclude at the end of this debate that It's God alone that can give you any claim on a right to your life before other mortals. otherwise such rights it are absurd, you did not pay for it or work for it. your life just 'happened' to you. you not being apart of your own creation have no claim on it that your maker does not give to you. without God the closest beings you can call your maker is your mom and dad, and if she wanted an abortion that by definition means she did not give you the right to your life, so you cannot lose something you dont have or are owed to start with.
headphonegut

Con

My opponent now wants to not clarify but qualify his definition of what he meant when he said can that qualification was never made before now my opponent has brought scientist into the "meaning" of the word "can." I will say however that you previously stated that against my "desise list" that their were still many babies being born anyway in fact using abortion as a means to reduce population would be a failure because their are still many babies being born anyway a much better way to reduce population ( not saying that it needs to be reduced) would be to simply "nuke" a country or two.

I still hold that every being of the race homo sapiens needs to be given a chance at life and those that cannot handle taking care of a child can still have the child and choose adoption. A sort of legality status is given to you when you are born and a fundamental right to life however if someone kills you that person is punished but someone who isn't yet born is not considered alive I find that extremely odd one is only alive not when his heart starts beating or when the brain starts to have activity. A fetus starts to develop brain function in 28 weeks.

My opponent has made several statements that it's barbaric and inhumane for someone to die from war or famine, but isn't it more barbaric and inhumane to kill a baby? Is the objection that it isn't death because the fetus still hasn't developed or hasn't been born? that seems like an argument of time. If I shoot a man in the face then I am guilty of killing him however If I expose him to something that will kill him in exactly 50 years but he dies at 45 did I kill him? I could argue that it was his life choices that killed him and not me. That's basically what you're saying the mother didn't kill a baby because it still wasn't long enough for the baby to be born was the baby not going to become human? was the baby not going to develop a brain? it's not death because their is no longer a baby to be dead? that's just silly.

"As for my opponent case about why we have not reached the overpopulation problem yet, by his logic the trillion dollar deficet is not a problem because havent actually auctioned off land to chiniese people yet, or global warming is not a problem yet for us because glaciers still exist. these problems should not just be passed on untill its so late that there consequences begin to hurt us. they need delt with now."

I don't believe global warming is a problem statistics show that it has been colder now than in the last ten years and the deficit is a problem because by definition it's a falling value of money it's happened past tense.

"you say you are saying 'easy come easy go' to but you still hold all should be given a chance at life. these are not compatible unless you redifined life just now to mean long enough to have your diapers changed. earleir you were arguing for a definition that its deffinitly alive in the woumb an even now you speak of how a biologist would say all life starts at conception. so the unborn children in question are alive an have had there 'chance at life' though it was a short life indeed. If you argue they must hang on to that life longer still than your not arguing 'easy go'"

While I am arguing that a baby is definitely alive in a womb you misunderstand the phrase "chance at life" I meant a more philosophical definition if you will. That for someone to have a "chance at life" they are able to experience emotions and have experiences.

"If a child dies quickly in the woumb its axiomatic its not barbaric. the brain that allows the child to feel pain is eliminated before the child can feel the pain. a.k.a. painless death. perhaps its barbaric to watch siscors stabed into an nearly born infants skull, but its if its barbaric for the child that experinces it thats important. painless death to endure equalls not barbaric."

axiomatic? you are aware that it means self evident or taken for granted or obvious. And the amount of pain you feel is now a measure of barbarism? would it be barbaric for me to kill 20 people slowly? yes would it be barbaric of me to kill 20 different people with two shots too the head? a lack of pain or thereof does mean act is less barbaric. In fact what if I brought in 20 more people and killed them alternatively by slowly killing one of them too death and then quickly shooting the next one in the head. Am I half barbaric because I killed only 10 of them painfully? now what if through all of the killing I had spectators? what would they view me as some guy who just likes to kill people or as a barbarian?

"In Conclusion I do not think Con gave any good reasons for an athiest to think a unborn child has a right to life this debate. I conclude that though overpopulation may one day cause events that will solve the overpopulation problem, it is those events we wish to avoid that make us call it a problem in the first place."

Wait you're arguing it's bad to kill somebody that still doesn't exist? hmmmmmmmmm. A problem indeed.

-Conclusion-
While my opponent has made some good arguments he has made a contradiction and has made a mistake in saying that all babies that can die must. He has not made his burden. I have refuted all my opponents arguments and with some final thoughts that the potential of a baby is still good grounds for keeping all of them alive until they have experienced life. The potential of someone whatever they may make either a great discovery which is good or maybe kill many people with which by my opponents logic is needed for reducing population very much ( which it doesn't need reducing because the world still hasn't reached carrying capacity)or nothing at all either way they deserve a chance at life because of this.

I would like to thank my opponent for starting this debate.
cordially, HPG

http://www.dailytech.com...
http://www.globalresearch.ca...
Debate Round No. 4
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Marauder 6 years ago
Marauder
@maucio2: you vote shows it (said sarcastically at the time of this post cause there are no votes on the debate yet)
Posted by mauricio2 6 years ago
mauricio2
im with pro
Posted by headphonegut 6 years ago
headphonegut
lol sssokay
Posted by Marauder 6 years ago
Marauder
sorry about cutting that off a little short. most of what I missed I didn't consider the strongest cases I needed to make, and I had like one minute left to make cases so I figured it was better to put what I had already gotten than it would have been to over gone in time and forfeited saying anything.
Posted by Marauder 6 years ago
Marauder
just a heads up, It's going to be close to the line when I post my argument this round. I will have little time tomarrow and saturday to get it done and posted, and on sunday between work and church, there may be a few hours available to me that I might get it done around the afternoon very shortly before 2:00 on Sunday, or shortly after 9:10ish. the 3 day clock started close to 11:00 clock so I should still have time available without forfeiting, it will just be closer than I care for normally.
Posted by Marauder 6 years ago
Marauder
wheewww. Thank you so much, you have restored my faith in debating on DDO.
Posted by headphonegut 6 years ago
headphonegut
haha nevaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Posted by Marauder 6 years ago
Marauder
you have like 18 hours left when I posted this. that means you wont even have half of your day probably by the time you get up, and who knows what others things youve got to do with your day.
Posted by Marauder 6 years ago
Marauder
dude please dont forget this debate..... I know your in a lot of mafia games and all that but come on. you accepted it, dont be a newb by forfeiting round one
Posted by headphonegut 6 years ago
headphonegut
that's coo BTW............................. morality is overrated
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
MarauderheadphonegutTied
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: pro was illogical for the most part.
Vote Placed by JoshBrahm 6 years ago
JoshBrahm
MarauderheadphonegutTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's best moment: "If a child does grow up to kill millions isn't that good using my opponents logic? I mean overpopulation is going up right? I assume my opponent would be all over this letting millions die to decrease population." Con mistakenly thinks D&X abortions are still legal. That changed in Gonzales v. Carhart. I've seen much stronger abortion arguments than the one Pro presented. Con offered good challenges to most of Pro's arguments.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
MarauderheadphonegutTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: "Yes it sounds ridiculose" - pro, really, use a spell check and try to format your arguments into some kind of point summary. You have fairly long posts which can ramble and end up hiding your arguments.
Vote Placed by kohai 6 years ago
kohai
MarauderheadphonegutTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made no sense!
Vote Placed by MontyKarl91 6 years ago
MontyKarl91
MarauderheadphonegutTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Interesting debate. However, many of Pro's claims did not seem to make much sense. They were unfounded and failed to make me see his side. Use of the built in spell checker would have also been nice. It was a clean debate, but had a clear winner.