The Instigator
rugbypro5
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
Ferminator
Con (against)
Losing
5 Points

Abortion is Wrong

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 2 votes the winner is...
rugbypro5
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/25/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 488 times Debate No: 42942
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

rugbypro5

Pro

Hello and Merry Christmas! Welcome to the debate about the highly controversial topic: Abortion. I will be arguing that it's wrong and should not be endorsed at anytime during a pregnancy for any reasons.

Go ahead and enter your first argument.
Ferminator

Con

Hello, and happy holidays to you as well! I look forward to having a friendly debate on this issue.
I will begin by saying that I do not want this to turn into a religious debate. Thank you.

Abortion is not wrong for many reasons.
One reason is that it is the parent deciding whether or not to not have the baby. The child is the parents' responsibility to take care of the baby, and if they are not responsible or can't take care of him/her, then what other option is there? What if the woman is at imminent risk?
Debate Round No. 1
rugbypro5

Pro

First, I want to say I'm so sorry. I didn't phrase my opening well. I meant to say I want this to be a religious debate... Just kidding. But really, I didn't mean that abortion will be off limits under any circumstance: if the woman's life is in danger, then we should act on trying to save the mother's life. But let me be clear- this is not because the woman is more valuable than the fetus, but rather the mother has a much higher probability of surviving. When I said that abortion shouldn't be endorsed at any time, I was thinking of instances of rape and incest: even in those situations the child should not be killed.

You say, "One reason is that it is the parent deciding whether or not to not have the baby." That is equivalent of saying "It's the murderer deciding whether or not to shoot the person. Therefore we should allow him to do it should he decide he wants to." (This analogy of course will be contingent of the fact that the fetus is 1) Human and 2) It's alive. I will prove these later.)

After that, you say that it's the parents' responsibility to take care of the baby. Right there you admit that the parents should be responsible to take care of their kid, and the least responsible thing to do would be to have it killed, so why should they be allowed to do it? But let's say that they are not irresponsible enough to abort the baby, but are not responsible enough to give it a good home or raise him/her properly, then what should the do? Well, adoption is an excellent alternative. Many great couples are unable to have children and then go to adoption centers. Abortion is not the only option.

MAIN ARGUMENT:

My main point will be that the fetus is alive and human. If it is, then we have no right to kill it and decide its fate.

The fetus is human: From the very moment of conception, the fetus has all 46 chromosomes to be considered a homosapien sapien (human). And it has its own unique set of DNA that is completely separate from its mother. (This means that the baby cannot be a part of the woman's body, and therefore, this debate cannot revolve around the woman's rights.) So if it is scientifically proven to have its own DNA and all 46 chromosomes, then the fetus is a human being.

The fetus is alive: To prove the baby is alive, using Oxfords definition, we have to see that it meets the requirements of "capacity of growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death." I will argue that the baby has/ will have all of these and therefore is alive.

The baby inside of the mother has the capacity of growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death. From the moment of conception, there is growth, I think we can agree on that. And though the fetus is not, at that moment, capable of reproducing, it will in the future. But if this diminishes its value, and therefore its rights, then it will diminish the value of a girl under the age of 12 (roughly). A girl at that stage in her life is just as incapable of reproducing as a fetus is, but no one will ever argue that we have the right to kill her or give her less value. Functional activity is another one, if we gain our value from being able to move and function, we are stripped of our value once we cannot function. That means those who are in a coma do not have the same rights as you and I, because they aren't able to function at that moment. But certainly we do not propose we can kill at a whim, anyone that is in a coma. Now you might say that the heart is still beating and lungs are still moving, and the fetus does not yet have those capabilities, but once again, it does not have them YET. The value of life is not contingent on a life's level of development, otherwise a 15 year old will have more value than a 14 year old because he is more developed. Lastly, the fetus is changing and will soon die, hopefully about 80 years later, but it will die. So it meets all of the requirements of life.

So, if the fetus is a living human, it has its own rights, specifically it's right to life. And its rights are not to be stripped due to its: size, level of dependency, level of development, or environment. This is because we are all changing in size, dependency, development, and environment. So if the fetus' rights will change based on the change of those factors, you must extrapolate from only those living humans, to all living humans, meaning we will be subject to those same changes. I know none of us will volunteer to have our value based on our size, dependency, development, or environment, therefore we should not subject fetus' to the same.
Ferminator

Con

I will make my main point across, then I will respond to your argument in the later rounds.

According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the definition of abortion is: a medical procedure used to end a pregnancy and cause the death of the fetus (1)

Let's focus on the first part of the definition. It is a medical procedure used to end a pregnancy. The fetus is not fully developed until the end, of course, so one can assume that you would not necessarily be killing, just ending the development. I'll try to compare it to someone who is brain dead. The person can not think, respond, or do anything. It is only being kept alive by artificial machines. If you were to stop the machines, then it would die. But one can probably assume the person would not be feeling pain. So, you're right in part, that the fetus is alive. Just as the person who is brain-dead though, it is not fully developed to feel. So the fetus is alive, but will not feel any sort of pain.

MAIN POINT:
The fetus is partially alive, not fully developed. You are not harming the fetus, just ending it's development. That makes it acceptable to stop a pregnancy.

Sources:
(1) http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate Round No. 2
rugbypro5

Pro

You may not have read my argument as thoroughly as you should have. First you are wrong in saying the fetus is fully developed at the end. We are not fully developed until we are in our mid 20's. Therefore using your same logic, I wouldn't be killing a 6 year old girl, I'd only be stopping her development. And the ability to feel is only an ability that will develop as well, just like the ability to tie your shoes, or ability to shop online. Let me reiterate, just because someone is not fully developed, it doesn't depreciate their value.

Comparing this to a brain-dead person is just as invalid. We are just as incapable of responding, thinking, or acting when we are asleep, or in a coma, but still, we cannot justify killing the person.

Lastly, in your main point, you say, "The fetus is partially alive, not fully developed...," but there is no such thing as "partially alive." I already proved that it is alive. And I already proved that you can't kill someone based on its level of development.

So there is still no good reason to have an abortion, given that the mother's life is not in danger.
Ferminator

Con

"But really, I didn't mean that abortion will be off limits under any circumstance: if the woman's life is in danger, then we should act on trying to save the mother's life."
"So there is still no good reason to have an abortion, given that the mother's life is not in danger."

-You seem to keep insisting that it is wrong to have an abortion, unless, of course, the mother's life is not in danger. But that is going against your own argument, which has no logic to me.

"My main point will be that the fetus is alive and human. If it is, then we have no right to kill it and decide its fate."
"...there is no such thing as 'partially alive.'"
"Let me reiterate, just because someone is not fully developed, it doesn't depreciate their value."

-You are absolutely correct, their value is the same, if you choose to believe that.
And there is such a thing as "partially alive". Go back to my example; a brain dead person does not have those abilities anymore that defines himself/herself as fully alive, thanks to your definition from Oxford you provided me so kindly with.
Debate Round No. 3
rugbypro5

Pro

You still are not reading my arguments to their full, your questions will be explained. The only reason I say that you should have an abortion if the woman's life is in danger is because the mother has a much higher probability of survival. It's the same as when a paramedic is diving down to a family in a car under water. The paramedic will always go to save the male in the best shape first, not the women or children. This sounds wrong, but the man has a higher chance of survival, therefore it's more logical to save him first and not the others than to save none at all. Does that make sense now?

You still need to give me a reason for abortion. Sadly, I won't have another chance to try and refute it, but feel welcome to post an argument.
Ferminator

Con

1 reason? I can give you tons of reasons right now why you CAN get an abortion:
-The parent has no money (You need money to raise children and your family might not support you)
-The parent can't have the baby adopted (Nobody might want to adopt your child)
-The parent needed to go back to school (To get a better education to become more experienced)
-The child could be "disabled" and the parent might not want that (I know this is wrong, but it's a reason some might choose)
And that doesn't even involve miscarriages.

I hope I have given you sufficient evidence as to why you CAN have the option to have an abortion.

I have enjoyed this debate. You put up a very good fight. Maybe we might debate sometime in the future. ;)
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by MyDinosaurHands 2 years ago
MyDinosaurHands
Con said happy holidays instead of Merry Christmas. I know who I'm voting for.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
I think that the main problem with Con's argument is that he's completely removed the importance of the mother in this case. I don't think you should have given into Pro's argument so easily that the mother's state, both in the physical and mental sense, don't matter. Like it or not, the child is dependent on the mother, and the harms of that dependency very much matter when it comes to weighing out abortion. You could buy every single argument he's making and still beleive that the mother's quality of life should be preferred, it just requires making those arguments.

Also, since Con is saying that incestuous babies are fine, he's willing to subject kids to terrible genetic diseases that result from it as well as any disease that can be screened for, such as Tay-Sachs, which no child has survived beyond the age of 4. It seems more harmful to the child and parents both - not less - in these instances to force the birth and make them go through the physical harms of such diseases.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
rugbypro5FerminatorTied
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:43 
Reasons for voting decision: There was very little in the way of clash in this round. That's Con's fault, not Pro's. Pro engaged every argument Con presented, while Con ignored the vast majority of Pro's argumentation and tried to focus on reasons why a person might get an abortion, not why it was morally correct to do so. Hence, conduct goes to Pro. Pro was the only one to address moral correctness, and though his stance wasn't clear from his first post, it was in the second. Con needed to address the moral issue, addressing the wrongness or rightness of abortion. He could have looked at mental and emotional concerns of rape victims, genetic defects and bad outcomes for the child, the issue of where to draw the line on health issues for the mother, or focused on economic issues. He did none of those. So the only argument on morality is whether the child's alive and human or not, which Pro dominates. Hence Pro wins on convincing. Both sides were practically devoid of cites, but Con had one at least.
Vote Placed by MyDinosaurHands 2 years ago
MyDinosaurHands
rugbypro5FerminatorTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's argument smashed Con's. The only saving grace for Con was that he did use a source at one point. However the source from his information seemed directly harmful to his argument, which is just reason of many why Pro had the better argument.