The Instigator
Mike-the-wise-guy
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
socratits
Con (against)
Winning
20 Points

Abortion in any case, should be against the law.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
socratits
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/19/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 900 times Debate No: 56886
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (3)

 

Mike-the-wise-guy

Pro

The first round is for acceptance. The Pro will be arguing that abortion in any case, is wrong, and should be against the law. The Con will be arguing that abortion should be legalized in all cases. The BoP will be shared because there really isn't a BoP.
socratits

Con

Hi I accept. I will try to argue that it is permissible in ALL cases. However, I do want the audience to know that I personally do not believe that abortion is permissible in every case.
Debate Round No. 1
Mike-the-wise-guy

Pro

Thank you for accepting this debate. I will begin by saying if you abort a baby, you are a murderer. Life will always be life. You can try to change it all you want, but what it comes to is, killing any form of human life is wrong in MOST cases (unless the person is a murderer). Abortion is wrong in any case.
http://www.tfpstudentaction.org...
http://www.biblebelievers.com...
http://www.lifesitenews.com...

Some evolutionists like to say a pig is more of a human than the fetus itself. But the pig will never become a human. A fetus will. Did you know that Tim Tebow's parents almost aborted him? What if the baby you abort would have some day cured cancer? Or invented some lifesaving invention. The problem is, we no longer value life. The reason is the majority of people think we are animals. And there is nothing wrong with killing animals. Therefore if the parents don't want the baby, they should just kill it. No big problem. Same with elderly. If they can't life on their own, by this definition we should just kill them off. Think of it this way. Obama passed a law that would require people that are on life support to be cut off. You are going to be old someday, and might need life support. But by law now you can't have it. I will try to stick with is debate. The same principle applies to abortion. You never gave the child a chance at life. He/she could have done something amazing but yet, all we do is keep killing babies. Did you know there are 234 abortions per 1,000 live births (according to the Centers for Disease Control)?
Abortions per year: 1.2 million
Abortions per day: 3,288
Abortions per hour: 137
9 abortions every 4 minutes
1 abortion every 26 seconds

In the time it took me to write this, 45 babies have been aborted. That is 45 people that could have changed the way we lived. Have you ever watched the movie "It's a Wonderful Life"? See how many people one life can touch? And denying these people chances at life is just unfair. You are killing the weak. Think before you abort. You may change the future.
socratits

Con

Thank you for the debate, however, I will be blunt and tell you that you make no real arguments. So, I will address each of your statements and then add my own assertions. Maybe you can have a better time analying my arguments.

I will begin by saying if you abort a baby, you are a murderer.

I feel that is is the crux of your argument. Yet, you failed to support your thesis with any reasoning. Essentially, you would've just been as effective as saying abortion, in any case, should be against the law (as is your debate title.) In what ways do you consider a ball of cells, a fetus, and a baby to be the same? By your staunch arguments and examples with the pig, I think it is safe to assume that as soon as the egg and sperm fertilize, it is considered human and killing humans is immoral (funny thing though, in your last sentence of the first paragraph you actually said the opposite, killing is immoral except for murder :P)

The problem with your concept of a human is that youre turning the debate to animal rights. You are stating that a ball of cells is considered human. If so then, how would we differentiate homo sapiens sapiens from other organisms such as Yeasts or an ant? At fertilzation, both are a ball of cells. Ultimately, youre saying that we should not kill any living organism, which is very hard to do considering that we will in our lifetime ultimately kill organisms by accident. Thus through this argument, it would seem that every person in the world is immoral. If everyone is immoral then, your argument fails on the idea that people who do not abort, are moral, because we abort more ball of cells or lower forms of organisms essentially every day, making your statistics insignificant when we take your argument into consideration (sorry for the run-on.)

If I assumed wrong and that is not your belief on what a human is, then we can take your assertions literally that a baby has rights as soon as it is fully developed. The problem with this assertion is that, how would you differentiate mothers rights with the baby's. If the mother dies as a result of the baby, is that fair to the mother? In what ways would we consider a baby's rights, who has been living in this world for less than 1 hour, more important than a 20-30 year old mother?

Murder: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Whichever scenario you take, one would realize that it is not considered murder. If you still think it is murder, you need to prove that the intentions of the mother are with MALICE as defined above. In no way shape or form have you argued that this is the case. AS a result, your argument fails and you have yet to demonstrate your BOP.

Some evolutionists like to say a pig is more of a human than the fetus itself. But the pig will never become a human. A fetus will.

You worded this sentence poorly. By saying "a fetus will [become a human], you are suggesting that a fetus is not a human, yet. As of right now, I cannot understand what you are trying to suggest with this statement. Unless you are trying to concede to my point, then please elaborate.

Did you know that Tim Tebow's parents almost aborted him? What if the baby you abort would have some day cured cancer? Or invented some lifesaving invention.

This is a very weak argument when you compare the probablity of producing a genius to the economic and social detriments provided on the mother and child. "What if" statements are very weak because it suggests something happening, but the chances of it happening are slim. If cancer was easy to cure, I'm pretty sure someone would have already solved that problem years ago. What makes that one person different from the other 7 billion currently residing on earth?

As for Tebow, I thought he wanted to be a starting quarterback...soooo why is he a commentor for ESPN? So what's your point with the Tebow example? :P

nd there is nothing wrong with killing animals. Therefore if the parents don't want the baby, they should just kill it. No big problem. Same with elderly. If they can't life on their own, by this definition we should just kill them off. Think of it this way. Obama passed a law that would require people that are on life support to be cut off.

First of all, obamacare deals with insurance, not with physical removal of life support.

Second, you make statements without support, for space, I am not gonna bother refuting this assertions for they are irrelevent to the debate of IS ABORTION MORAL/LEAGAL.

In my opinion, I believe Abortion should be legal. For this debate, I will argue that abortion is permissible. The reason being is that the choice ultimately comes down to the mother. It was the mother and father's idea of having a baby. The mother is seen responsible for rearing that child, and if she decides not to have the baby, then its her right to abort it. Preferably sooner than later. The reason being is that it was the mothers choice to have the baby to begin with. If she decides not to have it before the baby is fully developed, then it is her right to not have it (for this debate, I will avoid the situaiton of rape.) It is true that those "what ifs" can come true, however, when we look at the social and economic burdens with having a child, is it right to take that chance? Even if I am 100% sure that the mother will produce another Einstein, but if she doesnt have the social or economic means to rear the child, that would mean that she raised a child against her will.

As for people saying adoption is a plausibility, one should consider the chances of being adopted by the right family with the right resources to rear a genius.

Secondly, we have to go back to the mother's rights. What's her reasoning for enudring 9 months of pain and suffering? What makes the baby's rights more important than the life giver, the mother?
Debate Round No. 2
Mike-the-wise-guy

Pro

"(funny thing though, in your last sentence of the first paragraph you actually said the opposite, killing is immoral except for murder :P)"
Quote from me: "...killing any form of human life is wrong in MOST cases (unless the person is a murderer)."

Murderer is defined as: "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another." - Google.com

"Some evolutionists like to say a pig is more of a human than the fetus itself. But the pig will never become a human. A fetus will."
Yes I did word it very unclear. I should have said "Some evolutionist like to say a pig is more of a human than the fetus itself. But the pig is not human. The fetus is."

"What makes that one person different from the other 7 billion currently residing on earth?"
That is kind of like asking what made Einstein different than the people around him at his day. Everyone is different. God made everyone for a purpose, whether it be small, or huge.

"First of all, obamacare deals with insurance, not with physical removal of life support."

Really? You better check again. Obama care will remove life support, but the stupid thing is the congress passed a law that them and the president would not have to have Obama care. That way they could life on life support if the need it. Check the facts. If you believe what the press tells you, all I can say is good luck.

However back to the topic at hand, ABORTION:

"Even if I am 100% sure that the mother will produce another Einstein, but if she doesn't have the social or economic means to rear the child, that would mean that she raised a child against her will."

That is the most pathetic argument I have ever heard. Haven't you ever heard of foster care? If the mother does not want it, give it to foster care. Don't just kill it.

"As for people saying adoption is a plausibility, one should consider the chances of being adopted by the right family with the right resources to rear a genius."

So what? You would rather be a murderer than actually trying to give this person a chance at life? Adoption as a whole is a messed up process. But it could be fixed with some cooperation on both sides. Life is to important to ignore it.

"Secondly, we have to go back to the mother's rights. What's her reasoning for enduring 9 months of pain and suffering? What makes the baby's rights more important than the life giver, the mother?"

I would say it is her fault. She had unprotected sex. She must life the consequences instead of killing an innocent person for no reason. The baby's rights are not more important. Neither are the mother's. Both of their rights are equally important. That's why if there is a 100% chance that the mother will die in birth (rarely if ever 100%) and a 10% chance that the baby will survive, we have to go with the baby. The mother would have been killed by natural causes. Notice the odds are never this bad against the mother.

What it comes to is you have to know that the baby's life is just as important as the mother's. No more, no less.
socratits

Con

"Some evolutionists like to say a pig is more of a human than the fetus itself. But the pig will never become a human. A fetus will."
Yes I did word it very unclear. I should have said "Some evolutionist like to say a pig is more of a human than the fetus itself. But the pig is not human. The fetus is."

What made you come to the conclusion that people will come to conclude this statement? You provide no evidence so I can neither concede nor refute the statement. Likewise, I can say that some people believe the spagetti monster is real.

Murderer is defined as: "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another." - Google.com

Whats up with the random definition? I provided a definition to explain why abortion is not considered murder. You, on the other hand, gave me a definition...with no supporting facts.

"What makes that one person different from the other 7 billion currently residing on earth?"
That is kind of like asking what made Einstein different than the people around him at his day. Everyone is different. God made everyone for a purpose, whether it be small, or huge.

Youre not getting what I am conveying with that rhetorical question. I am suggesting that the chances of finding the right "genius" is statistically improbable. If cancer was easy to cure, then one of those 7 billion people should have already solved that problem. We've been on the earth for thousands of years now so the TOTAL population (if we take into consdieration every single human life since the age of humans) isn't even close to 7 billion people. Yet, not 1 person was able to solve the cancer problem. What makes that "what if" probablilty more significant than those 7+ billion people before us?

More importantly, you are nit-picking on the small issues that I provide. You failed to realize the overall argument with that example. When you that that pargraph as a whole, I am aruging that to make a genius you need the right environment. If the parents arent ready to have a child, what are the chances that the genius would come to fruit? Moreover, even given the possiblilty that the genius does become very influential, it wouldn't be right to say that it was worth the sacrafice of the parents, if the parents werent ready to have that child, but ended up having him because they knew that he would become a genius.

"First of all, obamacare deals with insurance, not with physical removal of life support."

Really? You better check again. Obama care will remove life support, but the stupid thing is the congress passed a law that them and the president would not have to have Obama care. That way they could life on life support if the need it. Check the facts. If you believe what the press tells you, all I can say is good luck.

Please show me evidence besides just stating random facts that you believe are to be true. Throughout this whole debate, you showed no evidence to your arguments. Please change that for the next round. Also, you failed to rebut my statement. Obamacare deals with insurance policies. How does insurance policies transition towards physical removal of life support?

Anyhoo even if this absurd statement was true, then I hope you realize that healthcare would be really no different. If you haven't realized that our current healthcare is based on social economic status, then maybe you should educate yourself before you critize other policies.

However back to the topic at hand, ABORTION:

I like how youre criticising me for digressing when I am only addressing the obamacare statement THAT YOU MADE.

"Even if I am 100% sure that the mother will produce another Einstein, but if she doesn't have the social or economic means to rear the child, that would mean that she raised a child against her will."

That is the most pathetic argument I have ever heard. Haven't you ever heard of foster care? If the mother does not want it, give it to foster care. Don't just kill it.

Maybe if you read the whole paragraph before commenting my statements wouldnt be so pathetic.

"As for people saying adoption is a plausibility, one should consider the chances of being adopted by the right family with the right resources to rear a genius."

So what? You would rather be a murderer than actually trying to give this person a chance at life? Adoption as a whole is a messed up process. But it could be fixed with some cooperation on both sides. Life is to important to ignore it.

Wow this statement is messed up on so many levels. First of all, so what? What do you mean "so what?" It doesnt matter if parents suffer as long as we get that child alive,right? It doesnt matter that the parents would not know/be ready to raise that child, as long as the child is alive, right? It's fine if parents ignore their children, because that's the best way to raise a child, right? Moreover, your comment suggests that rape is moral. As long as a fetus is formed as a result of rape, that fetus has the rights to live. Screw the mother, shes just a means to an end, right?

Again, I gave you my scenario what defines murder and why abortion is not murder. You keep making assertions without support. Please learn the value of providing supporting evidence for your claims. It makes your arguments SO much stronger.

Yes, you agreed that adoption is a messed up process so therefore, we should screw it up even more by adding more unwanted birth to this earth.

You suggest a resolution to adoption. If it's that easy, why hasn't it been solved yet?

"Life is TOO important to ignore." You used a wrong word, bro. Again, you don't define what life is. What murder is. What your actual argument is. You make assertions without refrences or supporting facts.

"Secondly, we have to go back to the mother's rights. What's her reasoning for enduring 9 months of pain and suffering? What makes the baby's rights more important than the life giver, the mother?"

I would say it is her fault. She had unprotected sex. She must life the consequences instead of killing an innocent person for no reason. The baby's rights are not more important. Neither are the mother's. Both of their rights are equally important. That's why if there is a 100% chance that the mother will die in birth (rarely if ever 100%) and a 10% chance that the baby will survive, we have to go with the baby. The mother would have been killed by natural causes. Notice the odds are never this bad against the mother.

What it comes to is you have to know that the baby's life is just as important as the mother's. No more, no less.

Pro puts the fault on the mothers. I think this is wrong, especially in the case of rape. His statement suggests that rape is moral, because it's clearly the mothers fault for being raped. She shouldnt have dressed so provactively. This is such an absurd statement that I will not continue to rebut your ridiculous statements.

Lastly, I want the readers to know that PRO has not refuted ANY of my claims nor has he supported any of his arguments with evidence. Throughout both rounds, he goes on making statements without references and when I ask for evidence, he drops the ball and switches topics. While it is true that I did not use refrences either, one should note that I am refuting his arguments with common sense.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Mike-the-wise-guy 2 years ago
Mike-the-wise-guy
Congratulations socratits, you have won. I feel I have done well however. I am still a noob at this debate stuff. Congrats and good luck on you next debates! :)
Posted by socratits 2 years ago
socratits
Also, for Mike-the-not-so-wise-guy, what do you favor more, Obamacare or the Affordable Health Care Act?
Posted by socratits 2 years ago
socratits
Well I knew it was gonna be a religious debate before I took the argument. I don't mind it being religious at all if the guy can argue well.
Posted by alyfish126 2 years ago
alyfish126
Yea pretty much... Plus inaccurate, un-cited, and now religious. I wouldn't have any problem with the latter had it been defined in round one. Guess it should have been assumed by the prof. pic.
Posted by socratits 2 years ago
socratits
So youre agreeing with the fact that Pro's resolution was unclear.
Posted by alyfish126 2 years ago
alyfish126
Using terms such as 'baby' or 'person' in reference to a zygote, embryo, or fetus is misleading. 'Baby' is simply inaccurate. 'Person' implies personhood, for which there was no argument.

Any individual reading any debate should be presented with clear and objective arguments. If an argument is not so, an individual uneducated on the topic quickly falls victim to misleading claims, and, in this case, appeal to emotion. Misleading claims fall closer to the 'lie' side of the spectrum and are often argued as immoral. Debates are for clarity and the collective investigation of truth. Please, save the excessively passionate and unjustified claims for marches and public demonstrations.
Posted by Defro 2 years ago
Defro
@Mike-the-wise-guy
Actually it is. There are cases in which doctors are 100% sure that the mother will die giving birth, so it is neccessary to save the mother. At the same time, they know that if they choose the baby instead of the mother, there is a 10% chance that it will live. Rather than risk losing two lives, it would be a smarter decision to save the one with a higher chance of living.
Posted by Mike-the-wise-guy 2 years ago
Mike-the-wise-guy
Even in the cases of the mother's life at risk, is it really necessary to kill another life as well? You could loose both, one or none. But I think it is a chance people have to take to ensure life.
Posted by Dilara 2 years ago
Dilara
Abortion should only be allowed if the mothers life is at risk.
Posted by Mike-the-wise-guy 2 years ago
Mike-the-wise-guy
You may. I would prefer that the Con is actually for abortion in most cases. Not just in early stages.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Manastacious 2 years ago
Manastacious
Mike-the-wise-guysocratitsTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments (can we even call them that) are laughable at best. He simply asserts that abortion is wrong and never addresses Con's arguments. Many of Pro's claim were unsupported. Further, Pro makes offensive remarks that are unfounded. Full ballot to Con. Nicely handled.
Vote Placed by Burncastle 2 years ago
Burncastle
Mike-the-wise-guysocratitsTied
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: Pro's arguments (can we even call them that) are laughable at best. He simply asserts that abortion is wrong and never addresses Con's arguments. Many of Pro's claim were unsupported.
Vote Placed by Martley 2 years ago
Martley
Mike-the-wise-guysocratitsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not refute any of Con's arguments, yet Con addressed all of Pro' positions. I vote Con.