The Instigator
morgan2252
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
saar.cone
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points

Abortion is Morally Right

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 4 votes the winner is...
morgan2252
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/29/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,367 times Debate No: 29673
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (20)
Votes (4)

 

morgan2252

Pro

Round 1: Acceptance round.
Round 2: Opening arguments.
Round 3: Rebuttals. New arguments may be introduced.
Round 4: Rebuttal and conclusion. No new arguments.

Burden of proof is shared.


Please accept!
saar.cone

Con

I accept, but your proposition needs to be clarified.
Debate Round No. 1
morgan2252

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate. I am debating that the abortion cause is more ethical than the anti-abortion cause.


Pro-life?

Many against abortion claim that by having an abortion, you are killing a human being and therefore it is wrong. However, if you really analyze the facts and statistics, you may find that you’re actually killing fewer humans by having an abortion as opposed to having the child. Allow me to explain what I mean.

Stem Cell Research
Stem cell research is thought to be able to cure up to 70 major diseases. It works because you can replace an infected cell with a stem cell, and the stem cell can infinitely multiply until the body is healed again. The two types of stem cells are adult stem cells (multipotent) and embryonic stem cells (pluripotent). The difference is, adult stem cells can only create cells of the specific type of cell it is, while embryonic stem cells can create cells of ANY kind (except eggs and sperm). The debate is, adult stem cells do not harm the host, while embryonic stem cell research requires the killing of a human embryo (future baby).

But by allowing abortion, the embryo will be dead anyway. In that case, we can use those cells to cure those with fatal diseases. Embryonic stem cell research has been proven to be able to cure cancer. So for every embryo we “killed,” we could cure a patient dying of cancer. This would create a bit of a balance; no lives added, no lives taken away. Already, the concept of “pro-life” is becoming irrelevant, since no lives are being taken away. But there’s more.

Chances of the Woman’s Death
It’s a fact; women are less likely to die in a modern abortion procedure than they are from giving birth. The chance of a woman dying in an abortion is about one in 100,000, while the chance of her dying from birth is about 13.3 in 100,000. So, for every 100,000 women who want to have an abortion, we’d be saving about 12 of them from death.

Crime and Murder
According to Procon.org, a 2005 survey showed that 73% of women that had an abortion could not afford the baby, and 38% said it would interfere with their career goals. (Remember that some of this statistic is overlapping, considering that 73+38 is over 100.) In which case, both the woman and the baby would end up in poverty. According to Jackson freepress.com,
  • “Lower-class youth commit four times more violent crimes than middle-class youth.
  • The total cost of crime in the U.S. is $2 trillion per year—$1.3 trillion comes from street crime and the remainder from economic crimes such as fraud.
  • The victimization costs of street crime are approximately $700 billion per year.
  • Poverty raises the cost of crime by at least $170 billion annually.
  • Fifty-three percent of people in prison earned less than $10,000 per year before incarceration.”

As you can see, because the child will grow up poor, they are more likely to commit crime as opposed to middle or upper class children. According to Procon.org, “Some estimates claim that legalized abortion accounted for as much as 50% of the drop in murder, property crime, and violent crime between 1973 and 2001.” This would result in less murder and less lives taken away from the general community.

So when you think of it logically, abortion actually saves lives, as opposed to taking them away as many claim.

Pain

Another argument against abortion is the idea that the embryo will experience pain. Once again, allow me to explain why there would be less pain with abortion.

Pain of the Diseased
As I mentioned before, stem cell research can take away the pain of those suffering from cancer and other diseases. Many think about the pain of the embryo without considering the pain of those having to be tortured from the pain of cancer every single day. If we allow abortion and put stem cell research actively into practice, we can put this form of pain to an end.

Pain of the Mother
Once again, everyone talks about the baby without considering how the mother is going to feel. Like I said above, the woman will have to experience the hardships of poverty, and turn her once-bright future into a pitiful one all because she couldn’t get rid of her baby. As opposed to my point above, this is more of an emotional pain rather than a physical pain. But it is pain, nevertheless.

Pain of the Child
If the child grows up in poverty, he/she will have to suffer as much pain as his/her mother. However, the real debate is whether or not it will cause pain to the fetus when it is aborted.

It won’t.

Pain is a result of our nervous system working and telling us that something is wrong. However, the baby’s cells still have a chance of turning into any organ; in other words, the embryo doesn’t have a fully developed brain, nor is it close to even having a nervous system. Chances are, the baby is going to experience more pain if it is allowed to grow up in poverty.

Conclusion

To sum it up:
  • Allowing abortion will actually save more lives than it takes away.
  • Allowing abortion will take away any pain caused by unplanned pregnancies, as well as saving those with deadly diseases like cancer from a slow and painful death.
saar.cone

Con

"I am debating that the abortion cause is more ethical than the anti-abortion cause." -Opponent (Emphasis mine)

Hello everyone. I am an agnostic christian anarcho capitalist, this means that I disagree with just about everybody on everything which is why I didn't have much difficulty in taking up the task of opposing the position that "Abortion is Morally Right", despite the incredibly ambiguity of it.

In my head I was picturing my opponent standing on top of a mountain of dead 3rd trimester fetus' immortalized in a detailed statue inside a building akin to the Parthenon where people would come and pay hommage to her great works, and the undoing of so much injustice in the world -the injustice of fetus' being alive-.

Alas, I did not have such luck. She is trying to espouse a utilitarian ethic, wherein all lives are of equal utility and worth.

Paradoxically, I'm going to debunk this by first introducing a proposition that I know can not be scientifically proven in any way. Something that has absolutely no primary evidence and cannot be tested in any way.

It is this:
Human beings are sentient.

There have been many definitions and tests posed for consciousness/self-awareness/the soul/the spirit of the human being, but at the end of the day the only reason we know it exists is because we know it ourselves.

It is that which you're left with when you take away all of your senses and stop thinking.

It is what defines time. Not the time on a clock, or the relational movements of matter. The time that you experience.

When you present a rock to a computer, it can analyze it, get its precise measurements, and color, even far beyond what our senses are capable of, and it will be able to tell you or me that it is a rock, but when you pull apart a computer and dig into it, it's 0's and 1's.

When go outside and pick up a rock. It's not measurements or colors, or any specific detail. It's a rock. Even if you didn't know the word "rock".

I know all of that is true from nothing but introspection. No experiment can test for it, though many have been theorised.

This is is important because it establishes that you and I are completely unique. That even if I was duplicated exactly (molecule for molecule), we are not interchangeable.

The most detailed computer yet created could not make sense of anything I just said to you. It's complete utter incomprehensible and rediculous nonsense.

After all, if you had two identical bottlecaps in front of you, you wouldn't say either is unique. It doesn't matter which is where or what you do with it. They're completely interchangeable.

So human beings have this capacity for unique value that nothing else we know of has.

Because of this irreplaceable unique attribute -sentience- human beings are individually unique. The value of a human being is never interchangeable for another.

If you buy that, then you understand why a utilitarian argument of trading lives of young people for other people (no matter how many) doesn't work. I'm banking on you being sentient just like I am.

A fetus is Human
A human being's life is a continuum of changes from conception to death. It shares the same exact DNA. I was once a fetus, you were once a fetus.

If you can show me one credible measurable demarcation that biologically differentiates between a fetus and a baby as seperate organisms I will forfeit this debate to you.

fetus -> X -> baby

HUMAN
Conception -> Embryo -> Fetus -> baby -> infant -> child -> adolescent -> young adult -> adult -> senior

Each signifies the developmental stages of a human being, none signify organisms changing from one to another.

Since every stage between conception to birth is a human being, killing it, by definition, is homicide and since the victim is innocent of any wrongdoing, it is murder.

"Chances of the Woman’s Death"-Opponent

My opponent suggests that because we can save the lives of a few mothers, we should just abort en-masse indiscrimanently.
Most people that I know of that are pro-life, including myself, don't have a problem aborting a child when the mother's life is at risk.
It's still homicide, and it's a tough decision, but that's between the mother and the doctor when the mother's life is at risk.

"According to Procon.org, 'Some estimates claim that legalized abortion accounted for as much as 50% of the drop in murder, property crime, and violent crime between 1973 and 2001.' "-Opponent

I'm not sure how reliable "some estimates" are, but lets assume they're right as well as your other figure of 2 trillion dollars. I'll just give you all of that ground.

Between 1973 and 2001 39,287,430 fetus' were aborted.(1) By 2019, if they radically underperform the general population at $20,000/yr, they would be producing $785,748,600,000 dollars worth of goods and services annually

Murder crime rates went from 9.4 to 5.6 cases. (2)(3)

Property crimes rates went from 3,737.0 to 3,658.1 cases. (2)(3)

Violent crime rates went from 417.4 to 504.5 (2)(3)

(Per 100,000 population)

So I guess according to 'some estimates', reducing the GDP of the US by ~800 billion dollars and killing ~40 million people was worth it because it saved ~1802 people, reduced property crime by 1.05%, and increased violent crime by 20.8%.

And since there was an overall increase in the crime rates, a reduction in the cost of crime is somewhere between zero and laughable.

Pain
The pain inflicted has little bearing on whether abortion is moral or not. The entire debate hinges on whether it's murder and whether that murder is justified.

It is murder, and it's not justified. It is only justified in cases where the mothers life is at risk.

1: http://www.johnstonsarchive.net...
2: http://www.fbi.gov...
3:
http://www.disastercenter.com...
Debate Round No. 2
morgan2252

Pro

My opponent says, "Human beings are sentient."

That is the truest thing I have ever heard.

What sets us apart from computers is the fact that we have emotions and feelings. We have individuality and personality. I will not disagree with my opponent on this. This is what makes humans human.

Moving on, I have no doubt that the fetus is living. In fact, last year in biology, we got a list of 6 things that make something living:
  • It has DNA. (Obviously, the fetus has DNA)
  • It reproduces. (It will later have the capability to reproduce, as it couldn't reproduce then. Calling them "not living" because they couldn't would be like saying a child isn't living.)
  • It responds to the environment. (Fetus's respond to the environment.)
  • It has cells (You'd be an idiot to think that was untrue.)
  • It obtains energy. (It gets energy from its mother)
  • It grows and develops. (Obviously...)


But as my opponent said so himself, humans are sentient. What makes humans "human" is the fact that they have emotion and color. Many, if not all of our emotions, including stress, pleasure, anger, and fear, are caused by hormones. (Check out http://www.testcountry.org....) And in order for hormones to be secreted, one must have an endocrine system. However, the fetus hasn't even developed an endocrine system yet; it can't secrete hormones. No hormones, no emotion.

Therefore, regardless of the fact the fetus is living, it isn't human nor does it deserve the rights of a person. And consider this: In my last argument, I talked about stem-cell research (which my opponent completely ignored...). With that, we can save the lives of those who are people, not those who aren't.

In my opponent's last argument, he said, "killing ~40 million people was worth it because it saved ~1802 people." However, my opponent completely factors out the stem cell research argument, which has been proven to cure cancer. Like I said, if we could one cancer patient for every abortion, we'd be saving more lives, factoring in my other arguments.

So, instead of killing 40 million people, (and as I mentioned before, fetuses are not people...) to save 1802 people as my opponent claims, it would be more like aborting 40,000,000 fetuses to save 40,001,802 people.

Sources:
http://www.testcountry.org...

saar.cone

Con

"What makes humans "human" is the fact that they have emotion and color. Many, if not all of our emotions, including stress, pleasure, anger, and fear, are caused by hormones. (Check out http://www.testcountry.org.......) And in order for hormones to be secreted, one must have an endocrine system. However, the fetus hasn't even developed an endocrine system yet; it can't secrete hormones. No hormones, no emotion.

Therefore, regardless of the fact the fetus is living, it isn't human nor does it deserve the rights of a person." -Opponent

My opponent has made some unsupported claims here. I know that a fetus doesn't have emotions, I know that it isn't sentient. How does that lead one to believe that a fetus is not a human and does not deserve the same protections as any other human?

It sounds like you're proposing: Any organism that doesn't have emotions or sentience -at the present moment- can be destroyed.

But consider that the earliest stages of development are not the only time that a human lacks emotion and consciousness. We go emotionless and unconscious for ~8 hours a day, in fact.

The very same proposition that seems to allow abortions could just as easily be applied to that of anyone that is momentarily unconscious.

This is almost morally identical to you knocking a person unconsious, being fully aware that they will wake in 9 months, and insisting that the person be killed before that happens so that you can save the lives of another person (see below).

A fetus is a human being that was brought into existence into the mothers womb, completely without their knowledge or consent. It is a transitionally emotionless, non-sentient, innocent and helpless young human being.

And finally. Where does this fetus (non-human according to you) become human? Clearly if it's not human at the moment then there must be a time where this thing flips a switch and turns into a human being, where does that happen? And are you contented that that organism can be destroyed all the way up until that moment? And if you are content with that late of development, are you content that some "real humans" might die by accident?


"So, instead of killing 40 million people, (and as I mentioned before, fetuses are not people...) to save 1802 people as my opponent claims, it would be more like aborting 40,000,000 fetuses to save 40,001,802 people." - Opponent

You admit that humans are sentient, but you don't recognize the consequence that this means that people cannot be traded one for another. Murdering 10,000 people isn't justified if it saves 10,000. They are not the same. Every person is inherently unique. Not because they are currently conscious, but because they have the capacity for it.

You might as well be saying that if you destroy a farmers crop of corn, providing the same volume of potatoes would be just compensation. Or saying it's a morally superior action to wipe out an entire civilization if a larger population takes its place.

Disclaimer:
I do appear to be a hippocrite here because I say that a child could be aborted if the mothers life is at risk, but the key difference is that I'm not saying that aborting the child is morally neutral. I'm not saying that if the mother and baby are at risk of death then killing the baby is justified because one died and one lived. No, don't misunderstand me. These are usually complicated situations that are the risk of the mother and baby dying or guaranteeing the life of the mother. A decision between allowing one to die, or homicide. This is not an easy or morally neutral decision. So the decision needs to be made between the doctor and the mother.

Think of my hippocracy if I said that the mother should give her life up for the baby. I would be valuing one human life over another, when they are not comparable.


When the results of any choice is highly uncertain, then the correct action must be highly uncertain.


My position is superior
My opponent has had to introduce complicated moral rules and structures that are difficult to follow and make little raional sense. My position is this:

1.) Human life starts from conception.
2.) All human life should be protected from aggression.
3.) A human from conception to birth is completely innocent of any wrongdoing.
4.) Any attack on that human is aggression.
5.) That aggression is only justified when the mother is at risk of death, just like in any other case of homicide.

Simple, concise, and easy to follow.

No scientifically inaccurate demarcation needs to be made between a fetus and a "human". No special status needs to be given to a embryo or fetus. There's no risk of "accidentally" killing a human. There's no special subjective valuation needed. No complicated rules or legal jargon.



TLDR:
My opponent cannot sustain her argument for these reasons:
1.) She cannot adequately define what a human being is.

2.) She asserts that all humans are equally interchangeable when they are not.
3.) She relies on extremely optimistic results for stem cell cures.
4.) She appears to propose that humans should only be protected because they have feelings and sentience, when it's clear that all humans transitionally lose feelings and sentience.

My position is superior because it's simpler, coherant, comprehensive, consistent, and doesn't rely on subjective valuation.
Debate Round No. 3
morgan2252

Pro

“My opponent has made unsupported claims here. I know that a fetus doesn't have emotions, I know that it isn't sentient. How does that lead one to believe that a fetus is not a human and does not deserve the same protections as any other human? It sounds like you're proposing: Any organism that doesn't have emotions or sentience at the present moment- can be destroyed.” Yes. That is what I am proposing. Many agree that bacteria and viruses have no emotions. They are living things, and yet, we kill them every time we wash our hands. However, I never hear anyone say, “You killed a bacterium! That's murder!” Bacteria lack sentience, and therefore are not human. Early fetuses are the same way.

“Consider that the earliest stages of development are not the only time that a human lacks emotion and consciousness. We go emotionless and unconscious for 8 hours a day, in fact.” That isn’t true. Our minds are active during sleep-especially REM(rapid eye movement)sleep. During REM sleep, we have dreams, and in those dreams, we feel emotions. This is especially true in vivid dreams. During REM sleep, one’s breathing may become irregular and blood pressure may increase. So we actually DO feel emotions in our sleep. My point still stands.

“Where does this fetus become human?” At about week 6, the baby starts to give off brainwaves, meaning it can think. After this the baby starts to develop the ability to move, smile, hiccup, dream, etc. So in my opinion, the baby becomes “human” on the 6th week. I believe abortions must be, and can be, done before then.

“You admit that humans are sentient, but you don't recognize the consequence that this means that people cannot be traded one for another. Murdering 10,000 people isn't justified if it saves 10,000. They are not the same. Every person is inherently unique. Not because they are currently conscious, because they have the capacity for it.” I absolutely support abortion before 6 weeks. Before then, the fetus is not human. And it wouldn’t be ‘murder,’ considering that murder only refers to humans.

My opponent also makes the case that each fetus is unique and deserves rights. In terms of DNA, that is true. However, one’s DNA and how one looks isn’t all of what makes a person unique. One’s emotions and personality make the most difference. The fetus doesn’t have emotions yet, and personality comes from experience. I’d also like to point out that initially the embryo of fish, chickens, dogs, lizards, and humans are hard to distinguish. Forget about whether each human is unique; see if you can tell the difference between an embryo of a human and the embryo of another animal! Uniqueness isn't relevant at that point.

My opponent says that because the fetus has the capacity for emotion and consciousness, it is human. My opponent also provides a list to support this: HUMAN: Conception -> Embryo -> Fetus -> baby -> infant -> child -> adolescent -> young adult -> adult -> senior However, my opponent also misses the stage sperm and egg. Some forms of birth control use “spermicide” that kills sperm. Despite the fact that sperm have the capacity to become a baby, no sane person that calls that murder and says sperm need rights, too. Thus, capacity is irrelevant to the debate.

“You might as well be saying that if you destroy a farmers crop of corn, providing the same volume of potatoes would be just compensation. Or saying it's a morally superior action to wipe out an entire civilization if a larger population takes its place.” In the farmer situation, I would definitely be OK with being paid the same value in potatoes. In the civilization example, if the larger population was saved because the other civilization died, I’d be OK with that, too. Also, if the new civilization was more intelligent and more productive, I agree with swiping out the other one. However, this claim is a bit irrelevant because not all fetuses will be aborted. The ones whose parents love them and think of them as their own would be brought into the world.

My opponet also thinks his position is superior because:

1) Human life starts from conception.
I never said that life does not start from conception. I said that in the last round. I’m saying that humanity itself does not start from conception. All of our feelings, emotions, and personalities must be developed. One may argue that at conception, the fetus has the capacity to develop these things, but then again, so do egg and sperm.
2) All human life should be protected from aggression.
I agree with this also, but I do not think fetuses are humans yet.
3) A human from conception to birth is innocent of any wrongdoing.
Doing something wrong and making mistakes is part of being human. I never said it did anything right or wrong. Before it becomes human, (6 weeks in my opinion) the fetus cannot move, think, feel emotions, or do anything. It simply is.
4) Any attack on that human is aggression.
This is false, as fetuses are not human.

My opponent also says I cannot sustain my argument because:

1) She cannot adequately define what a human being is.
A human being has emotions and feels pain. A human makes mistakes. A human can think, a human can move, and as my opponent said, is sentient. A young fetus does not have all of these things, and therefore, is not human.
2) She asserts that humans are equally interchangeable when they are not.
As I have said many times, fetuses are not human. They are not very unique before they are human. Humans are not equally interchangeable, but in my opinion, young fetuses are.
3) She relies on extremely optimistic results for stem cell cures.
Stem cell research is not simply “optimistic,” because studies show that it can cure cancer. According to Phys.org, human embryonic cells can be coaxed to become cancer-killing cells. It is not a matter of chance. It can be done, but only if we choose to do it.
4) She appears to propose that humans should only be protected because they have feelings and sentience, when it's clear that all humans transitionally lose feelings and sentience.
When humans dream or lose consciousness, their subconscious brain comes into play and they still feel emotions. It’s evident that human beings do NOT lose their conscience.

Lastly, my opponent says, “My position is superior because it's simpler, coherant, comprehensive, consistent, and doesn't rely on subjective valuation.” Simpler does not mean better. Subjective valuation actually gives me the upper hand, because you need to use your brain to figure things out. Simple without having to use your brain appeals to those who aren’t willing to think (no offense). So in the end, subjective valuation improves an argument.



Vote pro!
saar.cone

Con

My opponents position has fallen apart, there's really nothing to grip onto at this point.

She has agreed that "Any organism that doesn't have emotions or sentience at the present moment can be destroyed."
She says that this reasoning doesn't apply to a sleeping person because of REM sleep, and then doesn't address the 80% of the time that a person is sleeping and not in REM! (1)

By my opponents own reasoning not only is it acceptable to kill a person in their sleep, but a person actually ceases to be human while sleeping. (As long as their not dreaming.)

" 'Where does this fetus become human?'[Me]
At about week 6, the baby starts to give off brainwaves, meaning it can think. After this the baby starts to develop the ability to move, smile, hiccup, dream, etc. So in my opinion, the baby becomes 'human' on the 6th week. I believe abortions must be, and can be, done before then."

I had to sit here for a while just to figure out where to begin, so I decided to make a list of what's wrong with this paragraph.

1.) Not only is she asserting a definition of human that's completely un-backed by any scientific evidence (she admits its just her "opinion"), but she actually changed the definition that she was using before from
A.) A human is an entity with sentience and emotions
to
B.) A human is an entity with brainwaves.
2.) Her old definition was bad, but her new definition encompasses most of the animal kingdom! So most animals are "human"? I guess so.
3.) She says that an abortion "must be" done before a baby becomes a fetus. I assume she doesn't mean that.
4.) She doesn't recognize the fact that there is no sudden change from an embryo to a fetus, and therefore the problem of accidentally killing what she refers to as "human".
5.) She's no longer arguing that "Abortion is Morally Right". She's arguing that abortion is morally acceptable before 6 weeks but from 6 weeks to birth it isn't.


"my opponent also misses the stage sperm and egg. Some forms of birth control use 'spermicide' that kills sperm. Despite the fact that sperm have the capacity to become a baby, no sane person that calls that murder and says sperm need rights, too. Thus, capacity is irrelevant to the debate." -Opponent
Her conclusion doesn't follow from what she argued. Even if it was true that sperm cells have the capacity to become human doesn't mean the capacity for consciousness is irrelevant to this debate.
Sperm is not a human, and neither is an egg. A fertalized egg is a human being with the capacity for sentience (In principle). I did not "miss" the sperm or the egg. They were not part of the developmental stages of a Human because they are not human.




In the farmer situation, I would definitely be OK with being paid the same value in potatoes. In the civilization example, if the larger population was saved because the other civilization died, I’d be OK with that, too. Also, if the new civilization was more intelligent and more productive, I agree with swiping out the other one. However, this claim is a bit irrelevant because not all fetuses will be aborted. The ones whose parents love them and think of them as their own would be brought into the world."-Opponent

Volume, not "value". My opponent still isn't grasping the problem. There's no absolute value for people. There is no intrinsic value to them. No two are the same. Each one is as fundamentally different as the difference between a photon and a polar bear.
It's not logically or morally sound to trade one person or group of people for another. That is the property of sentience that no other known creature or process possesses.


I've enjoyed this debate. Thanks for reading, please post the reasons for your votes either way, I'm always interested in reading them.

1: http://www.webmd.com...
Debate Round No. 4
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by zezima 3 years ago
zezima
Having a child just to kill it? (Stem cell research)
A woman claims that it's "her body".
Why do I have to wear a seat belt? It's "my body"...
Why can't I get a tattoo underage? It's "my body"...
I could keep going forever...
Posted by makhdoom5 3 years ago
makhdoom5
if it cure many disease than it should be used to save babies and we should kill the adult person.
the criminal one the bad one.
and save the children.
the soft pure and with out any sin.
the angles.
the little tiny winy into pieces. when i think about it. it make me to cry.
what if this had happend with you or me.
most of the time the 5th or 6th or 3rd or 4th baby of father had done a lot for this world see the. most contributory peoples of the world you will find. any egg or any sperm which had been fertilized could be new savior of earth.
i am 9th son of my mom.
we were 10.
4 died and 6 remaining.
i am the youngest.
i may not be here talking with you.
Posted by makhdoom5 3 years ago
makhdoom5
dear its not simple. its the most long topic in my head.
leave any try to understand what i wanted to say.
don't go against nature.
at least if its good for human or nature there you have quite justification.
but if it violate the right and look criminal than what you say.
more further its good for human but a big risk is attached than again there is no point.
Posted by makhdoom5 3 years ago
makhdoom5
see some thing which even belong to us on 20th century or we discovered it in this century was also here from the beginning.
a person should get from what ever it comes. you even should believe religions. indeed you don't know who the Hindu worship or the roman was worshiping like Zeus or Athena or krono. they were also real but they were not gods. i am not going to tell what they was.
but every thing which belong to this world could be true or false. and as human with limited knowledge cant say any thing.
we go and search any thing.
our islam says learn from every where. whatever come in front. but believe what is right.
well.
we can use any thing as we use to do that by using nature. but we must not customize it. dont use it customized. don't go against default with custom.
like the fission reaction is natural phenomenon.
but it happens on sun earth is not made for this. still. there are two terms used in chemistry.
one natural radioactivity and other artificial radioactivity.
this artificial thing is custom.
its against nature.
it will destroy the world. or make disorder.
Posted by makhdoom5 3 years ago
makhdoom5
you did not understand what i said.
the skin cancer again is our fault.
you messed or damages the ozone layer.
why you consume that much carbon dioxide. actually it do not damage layer. its clorofloro. which is produced by any air conditioner or refrigerator.
what is this.
you talked about tech as nature its not.
any thing artificial is not nature. you go on beach. some beach in world and wonder naked there and claim it nature as we are born naked.
indeed nature is nakedness.
if you put leaves on body or mud or put skin of animal to keep you warm its nature.
cook food its also nature. you may call fire a tech but its not its natural phenomena. occur around us automatically. not by us. electricity is also nature as produced in cloud.
nut abortion is 100% unnatural.
as it would not happen automatically.
we already have immune for even cancer. if some body get cure of cancer by immune system its natural.
well don't talk about science i may know better than you almost 15 year of study of science. i do think every day. every time. do not waist time in parties or music or movies. actually some movies which also be on history. or some thing like science or tech or some thing like that.
Posted by morgan2252 3 years ago
morgan2252
I did not mean to make that a separate comment. Oh well.

If a person had cancer from smoking or any other addiction, it is their own fault. However, not every type of cancer is due to a result of an addiction or something bad. Skin cancer is caused from harmful Ultraviolet rays released by the sun (which is a part of nature). What is so bad about being outside? Also, cancer is not the only disease stem cell research is thought to be able to cure. (I used cancer as an example because I found a valid source that proved it worked.) Many believe it can cure Alzheimer's, HIV, and over 70 other major diseases.

As for nature, I'd like for you to clarify what your statement. Is nature a lack of technology? If so, farming is certainly technology, as is cloth, tools, and civilization. All of these had to be invented. If we lived without technology, we would be simple hunter/gatherers.

Is nature anything that is not indoors? Houses and cabins were originally made from trees, and some still are. Plastic is made from oil, and oil is pumped from "natural" Earth and exists because of the "natural" plants and animals that died millions of years ago. Glass is a result of melting natural sand, which is made from fire, which occurs naturally when lightning strikes. In the end it is hard to define what "natural" means.

As for old blood being consumed or burnt, I have no idea what you're saying. Our bone marrow is constantly creating blood cells, so running out of blood is unlikely unless you have a deep wound, if that's what you're talking about.
Posted by morgan2252 3 years ago
morgan2252
I just feel like debating right now, so I am going to refute makhdoom's argument.
Posted by makhdoom5 3 years ago
makhdoom5
plz don't talk about my appearance i am following nature.
Posted by makhdoom5 3 years ago
makhdoom5
what if a person have cancer because of smoking or alcohol or any other addiction.
a fully grown man would have lived a lot of life but what about that little angles you get out in pieces.
such a shame. is it not against nature.
which animal have abortion.
its not justification.
the baby in moms body is true cycle of nature.
i think there should be no medicine. the sick peoples are retain in society. which the nature had rule to take away. but the more strong and more immune embryo is taken away.
this is not just 100% against nature.
who say abortion is not against the health of women.
you don't know the women are weak now a days because of the medicine which weaken our immune system. the machines because of which we do not do a of exercise.
women are more than men in the whole world because they have naturally strong immune system so that they can birth to baby. and because she become weak or her old blood is consumed or burnt. so it is just like donating the blood the and fresh blood keep you health.
there is lot to say.
but can i here.
they put limit on words.
Posted by No-this-is-patrick 4 years ago
No-this-is-patrick
Dwolf bequite. You did jump to conclusions because tou said before understanding. So, again, bequite.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by famer 4 years ago
famer
morgan2252saar.coneTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: countering theawesomeperson's vote because his RFD has no relevance to the arguments presented in this debate. 7-points counter.
Vote Placed by theawesomeperson 4 years ago
theawesomeperson
morgan2252saar.coneTied
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: The fact that fetus are living, it completely made the pro sound immoral
Vote Placed by DeFool 4 years ago
DeFool
morgan2252saar.coneTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate exemplifies what I love about this game; a completely original, innovative way of looking at a well-known subject. I was delighted to see the following argument made, and defended. ?Abortion is less likely to result in the death of a woman than childbirth.? To this, I was delighted again by the rebuttal, from a self-described Christian anarchist (no irony). He argues first that the parts of the whole are not the whole with a tight computer analogy. Then he reverses his logic and argues that the part (fetus) is the whole (fully formed human). I was uncertain if this was an intentional reversal, an exercise in absurdist illogic (which I love), or an accidental rhetorical mistake. Pro responds by pointing out that a fetus is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition of being a human. This is also what Con accidentally or intentionally stated, and so I award arguments to Pro.
Vote Placed by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
morgan2252saar.coneTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: "When is an entity similar enough to us, to be considered a member of our society?" Pro asserted that all beings with the potential to become "sentient" are worthy of protection. Why? He admits that's a bare assertion with no grounding, and the rest flows only if you buy it. Con's argument relied on the simpler foundation of utilitarian ethics, that unwanted children are more likely to be a burden to our society and we can harvest valuable things like stem cells from the aborted fetuses. Pro would've had to argue for the use of his ethics system, for me to vote based on his ethics system, or show that from a utilitarian perspective that it's better not to perform adoptions. I want to note that I felt it was overall a close debate with good arguments on both sides, and I suspect the outcome will depend in large part on the ethical systems of various voters. It's certainly a question to which society isn't certain of the answer. Sources favor Pro 10:4. Conduct and S&G were good/even.