The Instigator
rugbypro5
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
Alduin
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Abortion is Wrong

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
rugbypro5
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/12/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 709 times Debate No: 61578
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (15)
Votes (2)

 

rugbypro5

Pro

I am taking the stance that abortion is wrong in all cases except when the mother's life is endangered. Thank you Con and let's have a good debate.
Alduin

Con

It's constitualy legal for a woman to have an abortion in any case. The Supreme Courts decided it, and it's here to stay.
Debate Round No. 1
rugbypro5

Pro

I want to begin by saying that I will give up my arguments and admit that I already lose. I will be the number one advocate of abortion rights for women IF you can prove to me these 2 premises are wrong: 1) The unborn are human 2) The unborn are alive. If these 2 conditions are correct about the unborn, then they should constitutionally have rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If they aren't correct, then, like I stated, women should have every right to do whatever she wants with whatever is inside her body. Science, however, provides extremely solid ground to believe that both premises are true. The DNA of the fetus show 2 things: 1) The unborn are 100% human. They have every chromosome needed to be classified as a homosapien sapien and they have everything needed to be a fully developed human. Bioethic textbooks nationwide confirm that life begins from conception and that the zygote is a complete, distinct human being. 2) The fetus is not the mother. Put in those terms, it seems very simple and straightforward. There are always those that say though, "A woman should be able to do what she wants with her body." Once you know the scientific facts, you realize that statement is false.

The fetus, from the moment of conception is also alive according to the definition of life: the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death. Notice that the zygote has the capacity to do all of this and is actively doing 3 of the 4 from the moment of conception. (All except reproducing, though I imagine you can make an argument it's doing that as well.)

So being that both those statements are true, the fetus is a whole human being, not fully developed, but it is alive. Development is a key aspect to look at when pondering the value of the being inside the mother. If we can kill it because of it doesn't have cognitive brain fuction, then you say we can kill it because it doesn't have an arbitrary ability that hasn't developed yet. I therefore, can promote the same ideology that because a 2 year old girl doesn't yet have the ability to reproduce, then she is less valuable than the 17 year old girl and she has less value than the older, more developed girl. This then means we can kill any girl until puberty. We don't say this because we don't believe that human beings have more or less value based on their level of development. The same should hold true for the human being inside the mother.

If abortion kills a human being, why should I draw the line at the endangerment of the mother's life? Aren't I being a hypocrite, placing higher value on the more developed being instead of treating them as equals? No, and here's why. When paramedics are trying to save a family in a car that has just gone underwater, they don't go and save the women and children first- they look for the strongest looking men. Why? Is it because they were told that men are more important to save than women or children? No, they are told to save the strongest men because they know that they have a higher probability of survival, and that's what they want to do, save as many lives as possible. That is accomplished by attempting to save the stronger beings life first. So, now take that philosophy to bioethics. The mother is much stronger and has a much higher probability of surviving, therefore, if the mother's life is endangered, we should act in order to save her life first. Not just go and have abortion, but rather do everything possible to save both, but when there is no other alternative, save the mother's life instead of the child's. Make sense? It's only due to the probability of survival, not the value of the 2 individuals.

https://www.google.com...
Alduin

Con

Ok. Since you are on the side of abortion is wrong, I'm assuming you are coming from a moral and/or religious point of view. The latter will get you killed in a debate instantly, but we can cover that in more detail later.

So let's start with the 2 premises. I can't scientifically prove that an unborn person is alive and human. And you will never hear me say otherwise, because it's fact. But where you change from fact to opinion is when you say that an unborn human has constitutional rights.

In order for the US constitution to protect a person, they must either become a citizen, or be born in the US. A unborn person therefore is not protected by the laws or rights of America or her citizens. Now once that child leaves his or her mother's womb and breathes in American air, then that citizen is entitled to every right the US constitution grants it. Until that time however, the child's allegence is to no one and in turn, is not protected by any nation.

I know this will cause a lot of outrage amongst religious viewers, but hopefully they can separate their private beliefs from the public policy of abortion.
Debate Round No. 2
rugbypro5

Pro

You probably shouldn't base your entire argument off the law. This is why. We as humans legislate morality, morality meaning: The way things ought to be or we ought to act. So we create laws based on what we believe is right or wrong. In 1972, the court for Roe v. Wade determined that the most moral decision to choose was to allow abortion deeming that it should be the woman's choice. So our laws are based on our beliefs about morality at the time they were created. This poses a problem: We are constantly trying to get closer to perfect morality, which means that we are constantly changing our beliefs about morality and in turn changes our laws. So saying that because a court over 40 years ago thought it was morally permissible to have an abortion, doesn't mean they were actually right.

Now many people know that abortion is killing an unborn child, but they've been told not to push their beliefs onto others. This is very politically correct, but very logically, morally, and ideologically wrong. If we were to see a murder or rape taking place, it would be morally wrong to stand there and say, "I don't want to push my beliefs onto that person." The morally right action would be to go over and rip the rapist off the woman or subdue the murderer with every fiber of your strength and then do whatever necessary to keep them from continuing. So if abortion is murder (The definition of murder is "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another."), which abortion is, then like I just clarified, we should try and stop this murder by any means necessary. In this case, the means is by legislation.

So this is my argument and rebuttal in a sentence. Abortion is morally wrong because it kills an innocent child, and because law is legislated morality, it should be illegal to have an abortion (unless the mother's life will end because of the child).
Alduin

Con

I know may of you think that abortion is morally wrong, and many of you think that it's up to the woman to choose. But morality is never going to beat the law. An American citizen (the woman in this case) has more rights in America than the non citizen (the unborn child). And to take her rights away under a banner of "it's the moral thing to do" is flat out wrong. The judges saw this in roe v wade, and years later, more and more Americans are realizing that taking a citizens rights away to protect a non citizen is unconstitutional. Yes it may be moral, but it certainly isn't freedom. And I don't think any woman is going to bend when it comes to an issue like this. They either align themselves with the law or their religion. (Because morality is a direct product of religions). The decision alone rests with the mother, and if she chooses not to abort, then fine. But don't try to take her right away and tell her it's moral at the same time.
Debate Round No. 3
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
That happens because mankind is inherently fickle.You may feel one way today, and another way tomorrow.Now we can fix our hearts, we are this way and none other.The liberals have fixed their hearts. Abortion and no other way to look at it.The pro-lifers have also fixed their hearts. Life and no death decisions.One thing wrong with the decisions a young mother makes about killing her baby. She will never know how she will feel until after the deed is done. And then it is too late to go back and change that decision if she wants to. Now if a young mother does not want to raise a child, when she has the baby, then how she feels can then be dealt with. If she still feels like not wanting to raise the baby, adoption is always there. And if her feelings change, and the baby is someone she wants to have in her life, that option is there. Abortion leaves only one option, death.
Posted by FaustianJustice 2 years ago
FaustianJustice
I'll stick with the law and the Constitution and the SCoTUS, because Prohibition and Slavery didn't happen. /sarc off

The debate was assumed to be about morality, at least thats what I gathered. And secondly, its not h hard search to find instances in which a pregnant individual was invovled in a case in which the negligence of another led to a miscarriage or the death of the developing baby, and the negligent party was charged with a murder variant. If the unborn don't have rights, how does that happen?
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
Any way. The debate is not the legality of abortion. But whether it is right or wrong.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
I fully comprehend it. Like I fully comprehended it being legal to own slaves and to kill Jews in Germany. And I fully understand that every action will have a consequence. And the consequence of abortion is that it settled in the souls of our young people.There have been those who thought nothing of walking into a school and shooting 20 elementary kids for no other reason than he viewed them as something to exterminate.Like liberals like yourself see babies not yet born.
Posted by Alduin 2 years ago
Alduin
What part of legal abortion don't you comprehend?
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
That is an insane statement.Saying that because a person is not a cittzen then it can be killed at just anybodies whim. I do not know where you live, not in America, that is for sure.
Posted by Alduin 2 years ago
Alduin
That child, a citizen of no country, is entitled to no protections or rights. At least you're not relying on religion... But for how long?
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
And did you notice I did not bring any religion into that statement .
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
Deny rights to who. Am I not denying that mother the right to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness. I am trying to protect the life of the baby. Not deny it to its mother.If she thinks that having a baby would stop her pursuit of happiness, then simply give it to someone whose pursuit of happiness would include raising a child.A woman with honor and integrity would do that. A shallow, selfish woman would choose to kill her baby.It is not pro-choice or pro-life. It is pro-death choice, or pro-life choice. Both are decisions or choices. One choice preserves life, and the other choice takes a life.
Posted by Alduin 2 years ago
Alduin
Anyone who has read you comments knows that you deny rights to Americans under a religious banner, a true evil.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
rugbypro5AlduinTied
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: Con rested his entire argument on legality, when this was clearly about morality--he even conceded in the final round that "...taking citizens rights away to protect a non citizen is unconstitutional. Yes it may be moral, but it certainly isn't freedom". In terms of right and wrong, Pro made his case. Con tried to go tangental to the motion--and it just doesn't work. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
Vote Placed by FaustianJustice 2 years ago
FaustianJustice
rugbypro5AlduinTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: This really turned into a non-debate and more of a discussion. No consesus reached.