The Instigator
wiploc
Con (against)
Winning
28 Points
The Contender
MasterKage
Pro (for)
Losing
22 Points

Abortion is Immoral --- Tournament Debate, round 1

Do you like this debate?NoYes+7
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 12 votes the winner is...
wiploc
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/27/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,534 times Debate No: 19511
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (21)
Votes (12)

 

wiploc

Con

Resolved: Abortion is Immoral.

MasterKage is Pro. He believes abortion is immoral, wrong, should not be done. He can make exceptions for rape and incest if he chooses, but the point is that abortion itself is a wrong thing, from the moment of conception. He doesn't have to argue that abortion should be illegal, but he should argue that it is immoral.

Pro has the burden of proof.

Wiploc is Con. His personal opinion is that abortion is good; lots of people should abort. Requiring abortions is as bad as forbidding abortions.

This is a three round debate, sort of. There are four rounds, but Con initiated and won't argue in this first round. Pro will argue first, starting in this first round. In the fourth and final round, Pro will not argue.

Thus, Pro will argue first, and Con will argue last. Like so,

Round 1: Con does not argue; Pro's first argument.
Round 2: Con's first argument; Pro's second argument.
Round 3: Con's second argument; Pro's third and final argument.
Round 4: Con's third and final argument. Pro does not argue.

Pro is not committed to any of these terms until he accepts this debate. If he doesn't like this setup, we'll cancel and start again.

8000 characters. 72 hours.

Voters should give no score for citations or sources. We can cite if we want to, but we want our own logic to carry this.
MasterKage

Pro

I thank Con.
As per rules, first round is Pro's first argument.

Resolved: Abortion is Immoral.

Abortion is defined as the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus.
Immoral is defined as not moral: broadly : conflicting with generally or traditionally held moral principles.
Moral is defined as of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior.

I will now present my argument.

Contention 1: Abortion is murder

"… embryo which is implanted in the lining of the uterus and develops a separate circulatory system with its own blood supply receiving nourishment and oxygen from the placenta."

From the above, an embryo is clearly alive, therefore the act of abortion is murder should be considered immoral.
The fact that abortion is legal in the majority of cases, even encouraged at times, is most definitely immoral.

Contention 2: In most cases, abortion is useless

In the majority of cases where abortion is useless.
The only cases where abortion is acceptable is rape and incest.
With these two cases you can easily limit the usage of abortion to only these two, all other cases where abortion is unnecessary can be restricted.
Also, in the case of rape, proper medical care can prevent the woman from becoming pregnant.

Contention 3: The majority of abortion cases are given by minors.
This inexperience can cause the minor to not choose any better alternatives and rashly choose the abortion method.
Later on, the minor has regretted of their decision.

[1]http://womensissues.about.com...
[2]http://bible-studies.cephasministry.com...
Debate Round No. 1
wiploc

Con


Is abortion immoral? Pro has given us no reason to think so.


Pro defined Immoral as, "conflicting with generally or traditionally held moral principles." But we are here to reason with each other, not to poll the general populace, or to read old books. We don't care what the majority view is, or what dead people think; we are here to discuss what is actually true.


So the only issue is whether abortion is actually wrong.


1. Abortion is Murder.


Pro claims that abortion is murder, which is clearly false. Murder is a legal state, not a moral state, so it shouldn't even be at issue in this discussion. But, given that Pro raised the issue, abortion is legal, so it is not murder. Pro's first contention is clearly false.


2. Embryo Is Alive.


Pro says embryos are alive. But an unfertilized egg is just as alive as a fertilized egg, so how is this relevant? Is Pro against all killing? No, clearly not, since he's fine with murdering (his language) embryos that result from rape or incest. And he's happy to assassinate fertilized eggs by preventing them from implanting in the womb. Presumably he has nothing against tonsillectomies. Possibly he eats steak.


If Pro has a case, he has failed to communicate it.


3. Abortion is, in most cases, useless.


Pro makes this claim, but he fails to support it. Some people would rather not have children. Abortion is a reliable way to prevent having children. It is not useless; people pay good money for it and are happy to do so.


4. Most abortions are done for minors.


Well, this doesn't seem like a problem. Most minors shouldn't be having kids. Some are so young that their health will be permanently endangered by continuing a pregnancy.


Pro says that minors are inexperienced, choose abortion out of ignorance, and later regret it. In my ignorance, I once ordered calamari, and shortly regretted that‒but that didn't make it immoral. Presumably, Pro thinks having an abortion is more morally significant than ordering calamari, but he has not explained why. Nor has he explained why abortion is immoral for minors but not adults. Or why he thinks it is immoral for adults because it is immoral for minors. Whatever it is he's trying to say here, he just hasn't been clear.


Conclusion:


Pro seems to have something against abortion, but he hasn't communicated what, and he hasn't shown how it is immoral. What's wrong with it? Why does he think it is wrong? Why would he choose for other people? Why does he think that buyer's remorse in some people makes something immoral for all people?


This debate is a chance for Pro to clarify his thinking and articulate his thoughts. What is his real objection to abortion? Why does he think it wrong?


Unless Pro answers those questions persuasively in future rounds, vote Con.
MasterKage

Pro

Pro claims that abortion is murder, which is clearly false. Murder is a legal state, not a moral state, so it shouldn't even be at issue in this discussion. But, given that Pro raised the issue, abortion is legal, so it is not murder. Pro's first contention is clearly false."

Murder is defined as the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought.
Essentially the killing of one human by another is murder.
The embryo is killed in the abortion process.
Since embryos have human characteristics it must be considered murder.

" No, clearly not, since he's fine with murdering (his language) embryos that result from rape or incest."

I stated that a thin exception could be used.
Also, doctors have medical opportunities to prevent this if these cases arise.

"Pro makes this claim, but he fails to support it. Some people would rather not have children. Abortion is a reliable way to prevent having children. It is not useless; people pay good money for it and are happy to do so."

Once again the majority of people who take the abortion route deeply regret their decision.

"Pro says that minors are inexperienced, choose abortion out of ignorance, and later regret it. In my ignorance, I once ordered calamari, and shortly regretted that‒but that didn't make it immoral."

Any negative practice that, in the majority, caters to minors and young woman is most definitely immoral.

That is all for now.
Good luck.
Debate Round No. 2
wiploc

Con

Pro wrote:

Murder is defined as the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought.

This fails to support Pro's position. Abortion isn't unlawful, and abortionists work without malice towards the products of conception. That would be like having malice towards a piece of bread that you put in the toaster, or towards a lug nut as you tighten it. Does a doctor performing a tonsillectomy have malice toward the tonsils? It's a perfectly ridiculous idea.

Pro undertook to prove that abortion is immoral. He isn't even moving in that direction. Claiming that abortion is illegal‒especially when this claim is patently false‒does not tend to show that it is also immoral.

Was it immoral to smuggle bibles into Russia? Was it immoral to smuggle slaves north out of Dixie? Not every illegal act is immoral.

Essentially the killing of one human by another is murder.

Again, this argument doesn't work in Pro's favor. Pro has no problem with murdering (in his view this is murder) the children of rape and incest victims. Therefore‒even if we stipulated that abortion was murder, which we do not‒Pro takes the position that murder isn't always wrong.

Thus, he has done nothing to show that abortion is immoral.

The embryo is killed in the abortion process.

Again, not helpful. Pro gives us no reason to believe this killing is wrong. He doesn't object to killing unfertilized eggs, why should he object to killing fertilized eggs? He has offered no case for me to refute. He is arguing strictly to those who already agree with him, and giving no reason for others to agree.

Since embryos have human characteristics it must be considered murder.

Would Pro call it murder to burn a photograph of a human? A parrot that talks like a human? Tonsils that have human DNA?

No, having some similarity to a human does not make one a human, no more than being an acorn makes one an oak tree.

And further, even if we stipulated that killing things like humans was murder, that would not tend to prove that doing so was immoral. Not all illegal things are immoral, and Pro himself seems to favor murder in some cases.

I stated that a thin exception [murdering the children of rape and incest victims] could be used.

Pro thinks that a few murders would be good, but he doesn't want too many? Whatever Pro's opinion is, whatever point he's trying to convey, he has not yet had success at getting his point across.

Why does Pro think abortion is immoral? He has not yet made his case.

I can say why I think it is immoral to make abortion illegal, or even to go around promiscuously declaring abortion to be immoral. I'll not take the space to do that here, since it would be off topic, since Pro has the burden of proof. But I could do it, and I would do it if it were on topic, if it were the subject of this debate. But Pro declines to share his reasons for thinking abortion is immoral.

I can't refute his argument if he refuses to say what it is. So just remember that Pro has the burden of proof. He has not tried to meet that burden. Vote Con.

Also, doctors have medical opportunities to prevent this if these cases arise.

I don't know what the point of this is supposed to be. Is Pro backpedalling, implying that abortion is bad even in the case of rape and incest?

And how is it worse to abort an attached zygote than to prevent a zygote from attaching? It's murder either way, according to Pro's logic. An unattached zygote has as much similarity to a person as an attached zygote does, doesn't it? In fact, an unattached zygote is even more similar to a person, since people aren't generally attached to other people.

Once again the majority of people who take the abortion route deeply regret their decision.

I assume this is a lie. Mind you, I don't think Pro is lying. I assume that Pro is innocently repeating something that some liars told him. In any case, even if Pro's outlandish claim were true, would that make abortion immoral?

For instance, if most people regretted voting for George Bush, does that mean that voting for George Bush was immoral? Obviously not. In a free country, we get to make free choices, even if we will regret some of those choices. Freedom is good, including the freedom to choose whether or not to have children.

Any negative practice that, in the majority, caters to minors and young woman is most definitely immoral.

Pro has not shown abortion to be a negative practice. Forcing pregnant children to have babies, now that would be a negative practice. Forcing anyone to do anything, without compelling reasons, would be negative practice. It would be immoral.

I've read a quotation, something like, "If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament." It seemed to me an extreme thing to say, an exaggeration. But here, suddenly, is Pro saying that it is because it is women wanting abortions that the practice is immoral. I am at a loss for response.

Conclusion:

Pro has undertaken to prove that abortion is immoral. He has undertaken to show that this is true from the moment of conception, notwithstanding that he keeps referring to embryos.

Pro has taken no steps in this direction, given us no hint of a reason to think abortion immoral. Indeed, his cryptic and self-contradictory proto-arguments call doubt on whatever he may say next. He thinks abortion is murder, but he approves of some murders?

Would Pro think it acceptable to murder the teenaged children of rape and incest victims? I assume not. I assume that he really knows that abortions aren't murders. But if I'm wrong, if Pro really thinks abortion is murder and that murdering the children of rape victims is fine, then how are we to trust anything else he says.

In particular, how are we to trust anything he says about morality?

Please vote Con.

MasterKage

Pro

I thank Con for their response.

I will refute my opponents points.

"This fails to support Pro's position. Abortion isn't unlawful, and abortionists work without malice towards the products of conception."

The only decision made in the abortion process is that of the parents, more commonly that of the women, this gives no opportunity to the child decide their fate. It is solely the parents decision whether or not to carry out the abortion, thus the child has absolutely no say in the matter.

" That would be like having malice towards a piece of bread that you put in the toaster, or towards a lug nut as you tighten it. Does a doctor performing a tonsillectomy have malice toward the tonsils? It's a perfectly ridiculous idea."

"Was it immoral to smuggle bibles into Russia? Was it immoral to smuggle slaves north out of Dixie?"

I understand that you are trying to make a connection to the above statements and the topic, but this is irrelevant.

"Again, this argument doesn't work in Pro's favor. Pro has no problem with murdering (in his view this is murder) the children of rape and incest victims. Therefore‒even if we stipulated that abortion was murder, which we do not‒Pro takes the position that murder isn't always wrong."

I stated a few exceptions can be made in the instance of rape and incest.
Once again, a far more favorable option would be to allow a doctor to prevent the pregnancy, thus preventing the need for abortion all together.

"Would Pro call it murder to burn a photograph of a human? A parrot that talks like a human? Tonsils that have human DNA?"

You are misinterpreting my criteria for human characteristics.
I suppose I mistyped that in some way.
Human characteristics such as that of being alive.
A heart beat would be an example, embryos clearly have been discovered to have heartbeats, thus being considered murder.

"Pro thinks that a few murders would be good, but he doesn't want too many? Whatever Pro's opinion is, whatever point he's trying to convey, he has not yet had success at getting his point across."

Once again, doctors can prevent pregnancies if instances of rape and incest occur.

"I don't know what the point of this is supposed to be. Is Pro backpedalling, implying that abortion is bad even in the case of rape and incest?"

I am stating that in the cases of rape and incest a much more favorable option than abortion would be to prevent the pregnancy.

"For instance, if most people regretted voting for George Bush, does that mean that voting for George Bush was immoral?"

Once again, this is irrelevant.

"Pro has not shown abortion to be a negative practice. Forcing pregnant children to have babies, now that would be a negative practice. Forcing anyone to do anything, without compelling reasons, would be negative practice. It would be immoral."

Abortion is a practice that kills living embryos, this is most definitely a negative practice.

I have effectively refuted each of my opponents arguments, thus I urge a Pro vote.
Debate Round No. 3
wiploc

Con

Thank You:

My thanks to MasterKage for engaging in this debate with me, and to any readers who care to comment or vote.

The Resolution:

MasterKage has undertaken to prove that abortion is immoral. From the moment of conception, it is immoral. MasterKage has the burden of proof.

The Argument - Abortion is Murder:

MasterKage's argument is the claim that abortion is murder.

I have pointed out murder is a legal status, not a moral status. MasterKage has never contested this.

In order for a legal claim to suffice as a moral claim, morality would have to be pegged to the law like the peso is pegged to the dollar. We would have to believe that morality depends on legality. We none of us believe this.

We do not believe, for instance, that smuggling slaves to freedom is immoral. We do not believe that, just because the Russians had a law against it, it was immoral to smuggle bibles into Russia.

The claim that abortion is immoral because it is illegal is therefore false.

Vote Con.

We should also notice that abortion is not illegal. So, even if MasterKage had prevailed on the above argument illegality entails immorality, he would still have failed to prove that abortion is immoral. According to his own logic, since abortion is not illegal, it is not immoral. His argument therefore fails.

Vote Con.

Rape and Incest:

MasterKage also claims that abortion is not immoral in the cases of rape and incest. This exception torpedoes his main claim.

MasterKage would never accept the murder of, say, the six year old child of a rape or incest victim. That really would be murder, and it really would be immoral. MasterKage would emphatically not allow it. The fact that he allows for the killing of zygotes, embryos, and fetuses of rape and incest victims makes it clear that he doesn't really think abortion is murder.

Vote Con.

If I'm wrong about that, if MasterKage really does countenance murder in some circumstances, then this still torpedoes his main argument. If he accepts that murder is not always immoral, then his claim that abortion is murder does not even tend to show that abortion is immoral.

Vote Con.

Morning After:

MasterKage also makes a not-very-clear argument about morning-after pills being better than abortions. In either case, though, a fertilized egg is killed. If it is murder in one case, then it is murder in the other. If it is immoral in one case, then it is immoral in the other.

MasterKage has been given repeated opportunities to explain himself, but he repeatedly declined. He has undertaken to show that it is immoral to kill a fertilized egg from the moment of conception, but he sabotages that claim by saying that it is all right to kill a fertilized egg if it has not yet attached to the uterus.

Vote Con.

Useless:

MasterKage claimed that Abortion was useless, that most people who get abortions have buyer's remorse and change their minds afterwords. This seems implausible. When I challenged him on this, MasterKage dropped the argument.

Vote Con.

Even if abortion were useless, that wouldn't make it immoral. Is bubblegum immoral? Is opera immoral? The people who get abortions clearly don't think it is useless.

Vote Con.

Minors:

MasterKage also claims that abortion is bad because minors get abortions. Minors also get their cars repaired, but that doesn't make car repair immoral. MasterKage would have to show that there was something wrong with abortion before we could infer that there was something wrong with abortion for minors.

It's clear that he thinks there is something wrong abortion, but he has declined to explain why he thinks that.

Vote Con.

Heartbeat:

MasterKage made a not-very-clear argument to the effect that killing things like humans is the same as killing humans. He dismissed my examples of things with human characteristics by saying that those things don't have heartbeats.

That's interesting, because zygotes (fertilized eggs) and early embryos don't have heartbeats either. MasterKage undertook to prove that abortion is immoral from the moment of conception, not just from when a heart develops and starts to beat.

If abortion is not immoral before there's a heartbeat, then abortion is not immoral from the moment of conception.

Therefore, MasterKage has effectively conceded this debate.

Vote Con.

Negative Practice:

MasterKage said that any negative practice focused on minors, particularly young women, is immoral. This is a circular argument. He assumes that abortion is a negative practice, and then says it is bad because it is negative.

Vote Con.

No Say in the Matter:

MasterKage complains that zygotes have no say in the matter of whether they shall be aborted. But zygotes have nothing to say. They have no brains, no minds, no opinions, no preference for not being aborted. It is not that their opinions are ignored, but rather that they have no opinions to ignore.

Vote Con.

Conclusion:

Every argument raised by MasterKage has unambiguously failed. If there are good arguments against abortion, MasterKage has not raised them in this debate.

Vote Con.

Formatting Note:

Because MasterKage is Pro, he got to go first and I got to go last. This means that he doesn't have another turn. He may post something like, "Vote Pro," rather than wait out the seventy-two hour clock, but he he doesn't get to make another substantive post.

If he does let the clock run out, the automated program that runs these debates will claim that he forfeited the round. This is not to be held against him.

MasterKage

Pro

As per rules Pro doesn't argue in this round.
Debate Round No. 4
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by wiploc 2 years ago
wiploc
I composed my debate posts in MS Word. This is where I made quoted material blue.

Then, in rich text mode (or whatever) I clicked on the Paste From Word icon, and pasted into the resulting pop-up window.

It's not perfect, but it works pretty well. The first time I did it, my post was pretty ugly because I was testing which effects would work, so the post included font changes, size changes, highlighting, color changes, and I-don't-remember what else.
Posted by Islam_Forever 2 years ago
Islam_Forever
How did you make blue letters?
Posted by RoyLatham 2 years ago
RoyLatham
If killing of everything human that is living is murder then the tonsillectomy argument needed to be answered, but it was not. If one is will to help Pro by thinking "he must have meant living and potentially viable for maturity to an independent human" then Pro's exceptions for rape and incest are morally unjustified. By allowing the exceptions he grants that "murder" as a moral crime is not what he claimed it to be. At that point, the reader who awards arguments to Pro has to bring in to his mind elaborate arguments that were not even hinted at by Pro. The arguments have to go along the lines of "Murder is not murder when ending the lives brings a greater good ..." But if that line were pursued, it allows Con to argue the greater good of abortion. The bottom line is that those who thought Pro won are imagining a debate that did not happen.

The term "murder" is introduced into abortion debates in order to equate pro-choice advocates with Jeffrey Dahmer or the like. It's interesting how that fails. If you want to equate it with murder, you really have to go with the legal definition of murder. If you don't want to equate it, then you can't call it "murder." That contradiction appears again in allowing exceptions for rape and incest.

Based on what was said in the debate, a clear win for Con.
Posted by Reid 2 years ago
Reid
Fixed
Posted by MasterKage 2 years ago
MasterKage
Everyone please, if you have it, take the source point off.(except Raisor as he is countering Logicrules)
Posted by MasterKage 2 years ago
MasterKage
"Voters should give no score for citations or sources. We can cite if we want to, but we want our own logic to carry this."

I'll request that you take the source point, 16kadams.
Posted by wiploc 2 years ago
wiploc
16kadams wrote:
: and sources to pro because he had some, I didn't see any for con.

Note the first post: I could have cited sources if we were scoring for sources; but, in this debate, scoring for sources is against the rules.

: Also making pro not argue last round is unfair.

Con didn't argue substantively in the first round. Pro didn't argue substantively in the last round. The result is that we each got to argue three times. Pro got to go first, and Con got to go last. There is nothing unfair about that.

If Con had wanted different rules, we could have worked that out, and set up the debate differently. It is improper for you to cast a vote against the way a debate is set up.
Posted by wiploc 2 years ago
wiploc
Thanks for giving it a second look, Chuz-Life.
Posted by Chuz-Life 2 years ago
Chuz-Life
Wiploc, I have reconsidered and reviewed and my vote remains the same. I agree the wording was not the same. But the aspects that I mentioned were (in my opinion) touched on in the debate. Looks like you are winning now, despite my vote.
Posted by logicrules 2 years ago
logicrules
@raisor....huh, the statement quote is from the debate....reading seems to be a learned kill neglected on DDO.
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 11 through 12 records.
Vote Placed by Chuz-Life 2 years ago
Chuz-Life
wiplocMasterKageTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: The reason my vote goes to Pro is this; Con would be right in claiming that ""murder" is solely a legal matter if the laws regarding abortion were consistent in their Constitutionality. They are not. If "rape" were somehow legalized, would the sexual assault of a woman be any less of a crime? Or, would it be even MORE of a crime? A rape is a rape, whether it is 'legal' or not. And, so is a murder.
Vote Placed by logicrules 2 years ago
logicrules
wiplocMasterKageTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Con made statements that were incorrect, eg Murder is la legal state not moral. Con did not contradict pro's definition of moral, just made an ad absudum about method. Overall con's argument was specious, subjective, unsupported and failed logically.