The Instigator
kip.mock
Con (against)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
Commondebator
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points

Abortion is Morally okay

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 3 votes the winner is...
Commondebator
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/18/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,004 times Debate No: 61938
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (11)
Votes (3)

 

kip.mock

Con

To my opponent: Please keep this respectful and calm. I don't want to offend anyone, my goal is to understand your position more thoroughly...that said, let's go.

My position on abortion is that it is morally wrong. I'd like to start by addressing a few common arguments made by pro-choicers.

1. We're pro-choice, not pro-death. Basically, we're in favor of everyone deciding for themselves rather than there being a strict definition of what you can and can't do.
a) I'm not saying you have no choice...I'm just saying your choice is wrong.
b) You are in essence saying, if I am correct, that it's okay to end a life. Where is the line drawn. When is it okay to end a life, and when is it not?

2. We're talking about Women's rights here, not the "rights" of an inanimate thing.
a) This is what the crux of this argument really is about...is the fetus alive? I'll get to this later. But here's why it's the crux: If the fetus is alive, we're not talking about Women's rights, we're talking about murder.

3. The fetus is not a human yet. (Living Being)
a) Why? Why is birth the marker. To me it seems more logical that conception be considered the point of life's beginnings. Why? Simple: Both the egg and the sperm carry 23 chromosomes: an incomplete number. When those two come together, they become 46, enough for a living human. An argument could also be made for the point when the heart begins to beat, but I really really don't want to argue about when life begins, because we'll never agree on that. Here's what we can agree on:
b) There are only four option for the living status of a fetus:
-1. It's dead and we know it
-2. It's alive and we know it
-3. It's dead and we don't know it
-4. It's alive and we don't know it
For the sake of this argument, I'm going to eliminate Numbers 1 and 2. We can argue about proofs of life and death of the fetus...but for now I'm not going to. I'm interested, however, to hear my opponent's thoughts on the subject.
So, 1 and 2 are gone. And remaining: Best case scenario, abortion is criminal neglect. What I'm saying is this: Option 1 is the only scenario in which Abortion is okay. There's statistically a 25% chance. And unless my opponent can prove without a shadow of a doubt that the fetus is dead...then we come up with a simple answer: Abortion is either murder (Under option 2 and 4), or it's criminal neglect (under option 3, when we aren't sure but it is dead). Chances are, logically, abortion is murder.

The heart is beating...the being is alive. Where's the line? What makes ending the life of an unborn child okay? And why is it that abortion is conducted early on in a pregnancy? Why not later? Are there moral questions then? Why are there not moral questions earlier? Is it just because the child doesn't seem as human then? Are doctors actually questioning what they are doing? These are all questions that I ask my opponent to answer. I leave the floor to any comer. Thanks!
Commondebator

Pro

The fact that we are aborting the child, doesn't always mean it is morally wrong.

What if the mother got raped? She will have to live with her child growing up, living with that thought. Imagine how hard it would be for a mother's child to understand that.

Lets say the family is economically unable to have a baby. If the mother choses not the abort the baby, the child will have to live in a poor environment, where basic survival needs are scarce. The baby, would have to live and grow in an environment, where there is a high chance it may die.(Such as places in Africa). Isn't it better to abort the undeveloped child?

If the child has a birth defect, its life will be miserable. He/she will not be able to fit in the society. In some cases, it is better for the parents to not see that happening, and the child to experience that.

I would like to add, that it is the mother's body. The fetus is not a person yet. It belongs to the mother. The mother should have the right to abort that child, because its the mother's body. The fetus is not fully developed, and its not fully human. Its a blob of tissue. If its life is going to be miserable, its best that you abort it before it becomes a fully functioning person.

That raps up my argument for round 1.
Debate Round No. 1
kip.mock

Con

First Paragraph: Your statement that it is not ALWAYS morally wrong suggests inherently that it is morally wrong in some circumstances.

Second Paragraph: What if the mother was raped...why isn't adoption an option? Someone without the memories of being raped, (which I am in no way trying to downplay) can raise the child that was, by fair means or foul, conceived. Interestingly enough, according to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov..., only 5% of rapes lead to pregnancy, so this, while it's still a terrible occurrence, is few and far between.

Third Paragraph: Economic Ability....Um, what would you choose? Death, or being poor and having to work at McDonald's? Besides this, Adoption is still an option...this is a very obvious solution you seem unwilling to recognize.

Fourth Paragraph: Birth defects. I don't know about you, but I have an adopted brother with birth defects. And he lives a very very happy life. I understand some can be debilitating, but is it really right for anyone to decide for someone else whether or not they have the right to enjoy the life that they have been given the chance to live? Would you be okay with someone else deciding if you were able to live your life? Obviously not.

Finally the last paragraph: Is it the mother's body or the child's. I find your argument contradictory and demeaning to the child. Contradictory, because your previous two arguments have been about the child's rights (their right to wealth, and their right to not have birth defects) Now this one is saying that the mother is the only one who has rights...I'm sorry, when did that happen? But back to the question, is it the mother's body. This is difficult to answer, because yes, she is carrying a great responsibility within her body. The responsibility of another human being. Another beating heart. Not a "blob of flesh," as you put it. The child is unborn, the child is unable to live without the mother, the child is not grown. But that in no way makes the child an object to be thrown in the garbage. Literally. That's all I have to say.
Commondebator

Pro

"Death, or being poor and having to work at McDonald's? Besides this, Adoption is still an option"this is a very obvious solution you seem unwilling to recognize."

Adoption and birth is no different. Adoption, also requires money to raise the Child.

" but I have an adopted brother with birth defects"

In a debate, I can't take your word, and your own life experiences. Although I doubt, there is a chance you are not telling the truth. I can understand what message you are trying to convey, but it should be solely the mother's choice to raise a child with a birth defect. Nothing is wrong if the mother doesn't want to see her child going through the pain of the cruel society tormenting the abnormal child.

"because your previous two arguments have been about the child's rights (their right to wealth, and their right to not have birth defects)"

Can you quote when I said its the child's right not to have a birth defect? I feel like you must have misunderstood me. It should be up to the mother to make the decision to avoid her child going through the pain of being abnormal.

"The responsibility of another human being. Another beating heart. Not a 'blob of flesh,' as you put it. The child is unborn, the child is unable to live without the mother, the child is not grown"

Apologies if "blob of flesh" was unprofessional. The child is still intact and part of the mother's body. No, its not a human being yet and your not killing a human being. You are preventing an undeveloped fetus from further developing. If something wrong happens, and the final baby would not have an economically strong family, or if the baby will have a birth defect, it is perfectly moral to prevent the a future child to go through that.

Back to you con.
Debate Round No. 2
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by kip.mock 2 years ago
kip.mock
Thanks to you as well, it was a great debate and I enjoyed hearing your thoughts on the issue.
Posted by Commondebator 2 years ago
Commondebator
Again, I thank my opponent for the debate, and wish him luck for upcoming debates.

It was a terribly close win, and I enjoyed debating with my opponent. He showed reliable sources, and due to my lack of thorough explanation I was misunderstood.

Overall, good luck on future debates and thank you for giving me a good time!
Posted by kip.mock 2 years ago
kip.mock
@Relativist....do blood cells that come out of a paper cut develop into fetuses?
Posted by Pfalcon1318 2 years ago
Pfalcon1318
CON gave himself Burden of Proof by stating "My position on abortion is that it is morally wrong". By making this claim, CON has placed a requirement upon himself to make a case for his position. Unfortunately no positive argument was ever given.

CON addresses arguments given in favor of pro-choice, but this does not then mean that abortion is morally wrong. Due to his initial claim, the only way CON can get the points for arguments is by making a positive argument in favor of his resolution, that abortion is morally wrong.

PRO gives arguments for circumstances where abortion is morally okay. While CON argues that this assumes that there are circumstances where abortion is not okay, this is not necessarily so. PRO's arguments are cases where abortion might be considered the best available option. From a utilitarian standpoint, it would then be morally permissible.

Unfortunately, no specific conditions were offered as to how we should judge morally permissible and impermissible actions, by either side. Instead, I looked at the arguments, chose the best ethical system that applies to both, then reread the arguments.

PRO is really the only one that offered positive arguments. CON failed to adequately address them. PRO's argument regarding the mother's right to her own body is probably the strongest, as it covers the most instances. A woman owns her body at all times. CON's suggestion of a contradiction is misguided, as PRO points out. PRO does not mention child's rights. All of PRO's arguments were in regards to the mother, and how problems in her life (financial instability) or in the child's life (birth defects) might lead to abortion being allowed.

CON's lack of positive arguments and inadequate rebuttals force me to vote PRO.

I welcome any challenges to or feedback on this RFD.
Posted by Relativist 2 years ago
Relativist
A cell is a cell. If you're claiming that aborting one cell is murder, that's like saying blood cells that seep out of your wound are murdered because you failed to put the drops of blood back in....
Posted by kip.mock 2 years ago
kip.mock
Haha it's all good bro! Interesting thoughts, thanks for the debate!
Posted by Commondebator 2 years ago
Commondebator
Ah, apologies con. I should've read your comment!
Posted by Commondebator 2 years ago
Commondebator
Whoops didn't realize that was 2 rounds.
Posted by kip.mock 2 years ago
kip.mock
Thanks for your comment...and honestly, I almost agree with you. But why on earth would the child need to know that they were a product of rape? Why would they even need to know they were adopted? If their adopted parents/biological mother feel that they can handle it, then they'll tell them. If not, well, they don't need to know.
Posted by briannamarie 2 years ago
briannamarie
I know you disagree with the fact that killing an UN-born baby is not okay, but what if it was rape? Imagine the feeling the child might have inside of itself for the rest of it's life, knowing that it was a rape baby, not suppose to be alive! Obviously, abortion should have some limitations.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Pfalcon1318 2 years ago
Pfalcon1318
kip.mockCommondebatorTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: In comments.
Vote Placed by andymcstab 2 years ago
andymcstab
kip.mockCommondebatorTied
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: I think con wins as the debate was never about whether abortion is always the worst of two evils, ie whether on some occassions a case can be made for abortion. The fact that pro needs to cite examples such as 'what if the mother was raped', 'what if the child was disabled' etc, shows that the default position is that abortion is wrong, as the only argument pro has given is that abortion can sometimes be the lesser of two evils. It is still an evil. To show that abortion was generally morally OK, pro would have to use an argument showing that abortion is OK as a default position, with no extenuating circumstances, otherwise he is admitting it isnt.
Vote Placed by Relativist 2 years ago
Relativist
kip.mockCommondebatorTied
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:23 
Reasons for voting decision: The resolution did not specify in what circumstances abortion is justifiable. Because of this, you are leaving everything on interpretation. Con own sources because he was the only one to quote Mendelian genetics and it's basics(23 chromosomes) but his rapid questioning made his argument less convincing because of its repetitive nature. Not to mention con did not use any connectors and pro at least provided a well formulated argument. Each hypotheticals were set out and though it was rebutted by con, pros last round cleared any misconceptions.pro had a firm foundation of his argument, con did not. Arguments to pro and sources to con