The Instigator
kvaughan
Pro (for)
Winning
31 Points
The Contender
Solarman1969
Con (against)
Losing
12 Points

Abortion is ethically justifiable

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/15/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,661 times Debate No: 1830
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (14)
Votes (15)

 

kvaughan

Pro

First, I want to set up some ground rules for the debate. If SOLARMAN disagrees with any of them, please let me know.

1. TO THE VOTERS: please judge the round on the basis of whose arguments are superior, not your personal opinions or what you think of the person presenting them. It would be greatly appreciated if you would leave a short reason for decision in the comments section.

2. Whoever's arguments are the most rational and reasonable shall win.

3. No attacks on the person presenting the arguments, only attacks on the argument.

4. I shall not defend every single kind of abortion. I am neutral on "partial birth" abortion, and support a view by which the fetus gains increasing moral significance as it develops.

My arguments: We can approach the ethics of abortion from three different perspectives. First, we must decide what exactly a fetus is and if it is morally significant. Second, we must determine if a woman is obligated to carry the fetus to term if we grant it full moral significance. Three, we must look at the consequences of the pro-life position.

1. I submit that it is a prima facie logical fallacy to treat an entity like what it will becomes instead of like what it is presently. We do not treat peach seeds like peach trees and accordingly we should not treat a fetus like a fully-gown human being.

In usual moral deliberations, we tend to reason that if an entity cannot feel pain, it has no moral significance. This is why we do not have moral obligations to rocks. Since, according to the best medial science, the fetus cannot experience pain until 20 weeks, it must be justifiable to abort before that period. After that period, it seems to me that as the fetus gains fully human facilities, it should gain increasing moral significance. Of course, I do not offer a clear bright line here, but it justifies some abortions.

2. Let us suppose that I grant that a fetus has the same moral status as a fully-gown person. Philosopher Judith Thomson offers this scenario as an argument for abortion even under these circumstances:

"You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you – we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist is now plugged into you. To unplug him would be to kill him. But, never mind, it's only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you." It is morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation?"

She thinks that answer is clearly ‘no', and since the scenario is analogous to abortion, you are likewise not morally required to allow the fetus to use your kidneys and other vital organs and are morally allowed to remove the entity.

3. I have argued elsewhere that if ‘life begins at conception', it follows that all fertilized eggs are morally important. Here's the problem, when one attempt to have children through normal sexual reproduction it is estimated that "Only 50 to 60 percent of all conceptions advance beyond 20 weeks of gestation. Of the pregnancies that are lost, 75 percent represent a failure of implantation and are therefore not clinically recognized as pregnancies." (Norwitz, E.R. . "Implantation and the survival of early pregnancy." The New England Journal of Medicine vol. 34508 Nov. 2001 1400-1408)

This indicates that the decision to attempt to have children leads to the death of many fertilized eggs, which, according to the pro-life position, are fully significant individuals. The death of these eggs is not justifiable especially when the only motivation is to have children.

That should be enough to get us started
Solarman1969

Con

Life is Sacred

Life begins at conception

There are people around the block waiting to adopt

A woman who gives birth rather than abort should be given most of the $ 30-40,000 adoption fees as an incentive.

There is no magic day when a human being becomes valid

Roe v Wade is unconstitutional, taking away states rights on this matter and is based on a lie

http://www.cnn.com...

Roe should be overturnned

from an ethical standpoint

Doctors are to DO NO HARM

Abortion is the ending of a life

the cells and spirit are alive from the first microsecond after conception

life is sacred and human beings are WANTED

more people is GOOD THING

there are TONS of families that cant have kids that want to adopt

TONS

that is really the bottom line

women that have abortions are NOT WARNED of the SPIRITUAL CONSEQUENCES of having an abortion.

http://afterabortion.com...

It is a very depressing thing to kill an unborn child

that was to be someone special

we must affirm life

if not, we affirm death

affirm life

SOLARMAN
Debate Round No. 1
kvaughan

Pro

I gotta say I'm really, really disappointed Solarman. Your post here is about the same as your flames on the comments sections of debates elsewhere. I thought for sure that you'd have some arguments to make.

You COMPLETELY ignored my ENTIRE post. This is unforgivable.

To remind you, I argued:
1) that life (or moral significance to me more careful with out language) does not being at conception because it is a logical fallacy to treat an entity like what it shall become instead of like what it is. You did not refute this, but only stated again that life begins at conception which is funny considering that you contradict yourself by saying "There is no magic day when a human being becomes valid".

Now, you do say "the cells and spirit are alive from the first microsecond after conception" First, again, you have nothing to support this, and I would be on firm ground to just say 'not-uh". But if by spirit you mean soul, let me ask you something: what do we do with the case of identical twins. In this case, the egg is fertilized and THEN splits. Do they each have half a soul? does only one have a soul? Do they share a soul? All the options are absurd because the position is absurd

If you want to argue that life beings at conception, that's fine, but here's a PROTIP: try defending positions instead of just stating them. It might help you out.

2) I defended that even if the fetus is a full person, in similar situations we would not argue that a person must take care of it. Again, this goes unrefuted.

3) pro-life means that sexual reproduction is evil. Since you have kids and probably reproduced sexually, I find your lack of contradiction curious at best and aggravating at worse.

Under this light, your comments about adoption are not relevant. If the fetus isn't a person, and if it is not incumbent on women to carry it, the adoption doesn't matter.

I hope for your sake you can do a heck of a lot better solarman. Anyone can troll, but few can back it up.
Solarman1969

Con

Im going to do a psychological analysis on your response

It seems very angry

"I'm really, really disappointed Solarman"

Are you angry at me for my complete support of life ?

Are you insecure about your position for death and dehumanization of the baby?

Lets look at your statements

"I thought for sure that you'd have some arguments to make."

I made alot of arguments

you havent addressed any of them

here they are in summary format

(1) Life is sacred and begins at conception
(2) Roe is bad law and should be overturned- it is a states rights issue
(3) babies are wanted and thus should not be killed
(4) the death proponents are either misguided or evil.
(5) the birth mother should be incentivized to keep the baby (25-30K$) and this should be paid by the adoptive parents
(6) being pro-abortion puts you on the side of "people are bad and there should be less of them" - which is a false position- more people = good!

NEXT POINT

You COMPLETELY ignored my ENTIRE post. This is unforgivable

Hmmm. again you seem to be angry with me.

NEXT POINT

life (or moral significance to me more careful with out language) does not being at conception because it is a logical fallacy to treat an entity like what it shall become instead of like what it is.

you argue that 20 weeks is when human beings should be protected from harm and not be able to be aborted?

Where do you come up with that arbitary point?

Why not 21 or 19 ?

Are all babies the same in this regard?

and how are you going to deal with the "unfair" argument from a woman who didnt get there in time, or changed her mind after?

The important point here is you DONT support infancticide nor, later term abortion- CORRECT?

That means that you are, like the court tried ineffectively, to argue that at some ARBITRARY time when the baby is in the womb, life begins.

BEFORE THAT , it is NOT a life, according to you.

It can thus be KILLED before your arbitrary date which is impossible to enforce or really exactly determine.

NEXT POINT

But if by spirit you mean soul, let me ask you something: what do we do with the case of identical twins. In this case, the egg is fertilized and THEN splits. Do they each have half a soul? does only one have a soul? Do they share a soul? All the options are absurd because the position is absurd

Absurd?

to argue that we have souls that exist before, during, and after the body is inhabited is absurd?

that there is a continuum of life that is unbroken despite the body is absurd?

I think to NOT believe this is absurd, and I beleive the Tibetans have sufficiently proven REINCARNATION and REBIRTH

So let me correct myself.

the BODY or BODIES, temporary vessels for soul(s) begin one microsecond after the sperm and egg meet, and this is cosmic force much greater than the body.

NEXT POINT

I defended that even if the fetus is a full person, in similar situations we would not argue that a person must take care of it.

You need to clarify this statement.

What "similar situations" do you refer to ?

Clearly, once a baby is BORN, you as the parent are required to care for it, and the baby will be taken away if you are negligent, as society is reponsible for the care and protection of its children.

NEXT POINT

pro-life means that sexual reproduction is evil.

Im not sure if you are old enough to have really loved, but I hope someday you know what is like to have a great woman be totally committed to you and love you unconditionally. Sex is one of the greatest and most fabulous ways to express deep love for another being and to become one.

Making a child is literally becoming one, and is the highest of high.

SEX is really the core of the argument about ABORTION

The PROPONENTS of abortion, especially the men, are arguing for sexual licentiousness in general. there arent many celibate people out there pushing abortion

Sex without consequences.

there ARE consequences to uncommitted sexual relations. negative ones.

Sexually transimitted diseases
death, spiritual and physical
unwanted pregnancy
insecurity
jealously
degrading of the great and sacred role of the woman

the proponents of "free sex", NOT TO BE CONFUSED with "free love", aim to do different things, depending on who they are

(1) alleviate the guilt they feel for their "sins" and bad karma

(2) try to make societally acceptible unhealthy sexual practives and lifestyles

(3) try to eliminate social morays and the family

- this is right out of the communist handbook

http://www.podval.org...

The bourgeois claptrap about the family and education, about the hallowed correlation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labor.
Communist Manifesto

THE ONLY SAFE SEX IS WITHIN A COMMITTED MONOGAMOUS RELATIONSHIP

Far from sex being wrong or evil, we conservatives think it is GREAT and one of the best things life has to offer!

OH YEAH !

NEXT POINT

Since you have kids and probably reproduced sexually, I find your lack of contradiction curious at best and aggravating at worse.

Huh?

this is a nonsensical statement

NEXT POINT

Under this light, your comments about adoption are not relevant

How is adotion NOT relevant???

the fact that the BABIES ARE WANTED is a CRITICAL POINT

* address my point about the mother being incentivized to keep the baby please

SUMMARY

Life begins at conception, the soil and spirit are a contiuum

We should AFFIRM life and that all people are wanted and are sacred

Roe is bad law and should be overturned

The consequences of abortion are NEGATIVE on society

Destruction of life is UNETHICAL and AGAINST the HIPPOCRATIC OATH
Debate Round No. 2
kvaughan

Pro

holy crap, arguments ho! I'm excited.

I'll try to address issues in the order that you presented them, but that may be difficult given your stylistic choices.

ON MY PSYCHOLOGY: yes, I your first post angered me in its absurdity. Not that the position was absurd, but that you did present a single argument for any of your positions and did not interact with my arguments in any significant way. And, as I saw on the comments section of the debate that I met you on, what worked in getting a response was forceful language, not understatement. The fact that you're pro-life doesn't really matter to me. The fact that you did not interact with me does matter. But, you last post seems much better at advancing arguments, so I am much happier now.
ONTO YOUR ARGUMENTS: I will address them in terms of the numerical form you presented. I would like to point out that I ignored a great many of them because they are irrelevant to the position I was advancing. I expected you to connect the dots for me, but it looks like I'll have to do it myself.

1) "Life is sacred and begins at conception". I did address this through my argument 1. Also, as I have pointed out, you have not provided an argument for why life begins at conception. At all, you have just fiated that the soul enters at conception and that a fertilized egg is important. But, the point of this debate is to discuss this point. More on it later.
2) "Roe is bad law and should be overturned- it is a states rights issue". Let's go back to the topic of discussion, which is "abortion is ethically justifiable". I don't care if it's states rights, federal rights or alien rights. I am arguing ethics. I take no stance on the legal status of Roe because I really don't care -- a law can be unethical, so we should argue ethics not law.
3) "babies are wanted and thus should not be killed" This argument hinges on the moral status of the fetus. My feces, hair, toenails, dinner leftovers, old scraps of paper, etc might all be wanted. Is it then incumbent upon me to give these items to others? Clearly the answer is no because we do not require altruism either legally or morally, we simply argue that altruism is a 'should' not an 'ought'. Accordingly, we should not require women to spend 9 months carrying a baby for the sake of altruism. Of course, if a fetus is a person, this may change.
4) "the death proponents are either misguided or evil." This argument hinges on the status of the fetus. Once we address this, we can address this argument.
5) "the birth mother should be incentivized (sic) to keep the baby (25-30K$) and this should be paid by the adoptive parents" RUNNING THEME: this argument depends on the status of the fetus. If it's a person then sure, if not, then why provide an incentive?
6) "being pro-abortion puts you on the side of "people are bad and there should be less of them" - which is a false position- more people = good!" The pro-abortion side argues that you cannot have a moral obligation to people who do not yet exist. Maybe more people are good, but I have no obligation to them to put them into being. Additionally, if "more people are good" then our participation in this debate is unethical -- we should instead be trying to impregnate women and create more people. In fact, under this argument, that's all we should do.

Now that I've dealt with that, let's move on to my arguments and your responses.

1) I argued that we should treat a fetus like what it is, not like what it will become. "you argue that 20 weeks is when human beings should be protected from harm and not be able to be aborted? Where do you come up with that arbitary (sic) point? Why not 21 or 19 ? Are all babies the same in this regard?"

I chose 20 weeks because that's a rough estimate of when a fetus gains the ability to feel pain you can research it for yourself here: http://en.wikipedia.org.... The point is, whatever that point may be, it is certainly not at conception, so abortion must be justified before this point. I want to point out that I AM NOT DEFENDING THAT I KNOW THE EXACT BRIGHTLINE. I am only defending that abortion CAN be justified. This is true even if it's justified pending further evidence.

I'm not sure what the "unfair" argument is. please explain it and I will deal with it.

you said:
"The important point here is you DONT support infancticide (sic) nor, later term abortion- CORRECT? That means that you are, like the court tried ineffectively, to argue that at some ARBITRARY time when the baby is in the womb, life begins.BEFORE THAT , it is NOT a life, according to you. It can thus be KILLED before your arbitrary date which is impossible to enforce or really exactly determine."

Again, this is why I said "Of course, I do not offer a clear bright line here, but it justifies some abortions" all I want to prove is that some abortions are fine, but let's be clear here: 'conception' is just as arbitrary. Why not say that an individual sperm and egg are morally significant? Why not say that any cell which COULD, potentially turn into a person is significant (meaning that all cells are people given the correct advancements in technology). My point concerns treating the fetus like we treat similar entities. This is not arbitrary. Treating it like a person, that is truly arbitrary.

2) ON SOULS: first, you have not demonstrated that a soul exists. To make an argument from souls, you will need to prove their existence. You say "Tibetans have sufficiently proven REINCARNATION and REBIRTH". If this is you, oh please do explain.

What I was claiming is absurd is how you deal with the case of identical twins. What happen to the single soul that enters at the moment of conception. Please address this point, also, why should the soul enter at conception? Why not at birth or at some other arbitrary date. This whole argument smells like someone just made it up.

3) ON my second argument, that women are not obligated to take care of the fetus. The "similar situation" is the example that you ignored from my first round from Judith Thomson. To argue that a woman must take care of another person for 9 months is asking her to be a extremely good samaritan, which we do not require in other situations. Please go to my first point and answer the analogy.

4) ON SEXUAL REPRODUCTION BEING EVIL: This whole vein of argument is totally irrelevant. My point was that fertilized eggs die all the time in normal sexual reproduction. If pro-life is true, then this is a tragedy. Talking about sexual ethics is another debate entirely. Please stick to the topic and address my point about sexual reproduction necessarily being evil.

5) ADOPTION: I addressed this above. If a fetus is a person then incentives and adoption are decent point, if not, there's no reason to provide incentives (not to mention this is a politics, not ethics argument) and there's no reason to ask women to carry the baby for 9 months.

6) on the Hippocratic oath. People love to misuse this. Here's some excerpts on the actual Hippocratic oath: "I swear by Apollo Physician and Asclepius and Hygeia and Panaceia and all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will fulfill according to my ability and judgment this oath and this covenant" Christians are necessarily in violation of it.

"I will not use the knife, not even on sufferers from stone, but will withdraw in favor of such men as are engaged in this work." cutting is a no-no.

Point is, this oath is dumb and using it as an argument is about the same.
Solarman1969

Con

CLOSING ARGUMENT

Abortion is far from ethical.

It is evil, in that it is the taking of life.

It touches on a larger issue, sexual licentiousness.

If you arent female, and have sex with a male, you cant get pregnant by accident.

So what we are looking at is the justification of out of wedlock sex, through being able to abort after a supposed MISTAKE was made.

CONTRACEPTION IS WRONG

If we look at the chemicals and devices that man uses, including condoms, they are all wrong; the exception would be a vasectomy, perhaps.

* The pill can cause major physical and mental problems in girls and women

* IUDs can cause sterlization and other physical problems

* Condoms prevent true sensation, and arent guaranteed to prevent STDs

SEXUAL OBJECIFICATION IS WRONG

The devaluing of th human female, and debasement of the culture, the teaching to children of sexual licentiousness at a young age and improper parenting are causing unwanted preganancies.

If is is clear that if abortion is much harder to get, for example you may have to leave the state to get one, it will create a climate that MAKES children and adults behave more responsibly.

Sex will be treated as MUCH more serious, which is SHOULD BE.

As a MAN, you should NOT have sex with any woman who you are not committed to and prepared to make a baby.

And nonetheless to be a REAL MAN, you need to have CONTROL over yourself.

If men CONTROL themselves, there will be NO unwanted pregnancy.

Again, this is a matter of CONTROL over YOURSELF.

Thus, this is a further argument for abortion to be a state issue, and it be possible to BAN abortion, except in the case of rape or the life of the mother.

MY ABORTION POLICY

(1) Overturn ROE v WADE, and make it a STATE issue.

States can ban, or condone abortion at their discretion.

Horrendous practices, like late term abortion, or the murder of a live infant , can by punishable by jail or fines, or both.

(2) Make adoption very profitable for the donor mother

make this a state and federal priority.

provide free services for poor mothers.

Make it clear the EVERY CHILD IS WANTED and that there are MULTIPLE wonderful families waiting to adopt ,and that abortion is harmful, risky, and expensive.

(3) Have counseling and support services for pregnant women who need help, as well as prenatal counseling and support services.

SOALRMAN
Debate Round No. 3
kvaughan

Pro

There is an old saying in politics: 'never answer the question you were asked, answer the question you WISH you were asked'. Solarman, I think you have done exactly this.

Let's review the topic: 'abortion is ethically justifiable'. Let's also review my opening argument, which usually sets the tone for a debate. I argued:
1. that we should treat an entity like what it is, not like what it will become. Since a fetus is not a person, it should not have the rights of one.
2. Abortion can be justified even if it is a person, as per the Thomson example (recall that you have failed to refute this argument at any point)
3. If abortion is wrong, then sex is also murder (again, the only refutation was you misunderstanding the argument in round 2)

With that in mind, you last post is almost entirely irrelevant. Most of it concerns what you perceive to be the horrors of promiscuous sex. That opinion is largely due to outdated social morays and I vehemently disagree that consensual pleasure-seeking can be morally wrong (perhaps unwise, but certainly not immoral), but even if you're right, this is not the debate you signed on for, but is another debate entirely.

One could, for example, be in a marriage and still face the decision concerning abortion or, abortion could be an issue without sex at all: women could inject semen into themselves. Granted, both cases are unlikely, but my point is that abortion and sexual promiscuity are indeed separate issues. If I wanted to talk about sexual ethics, I would have created a topic to discuss this.

But, beyond that, you never actually give any reason to think that consensual uncommitted sex is wrong all you say is "Sex will be treated as MUCH more serious, which is SHOULD BE. As a MAN, you should NOT have sex with any woman who you are not committed to and prepared to make a baby."

So, for this argument to work, you must defend that uncommitted, consensual sex is wrong and that this is not intimately connected to abortion that all abortions result from theses practices.

Now, you continue your post with some suggestions on your own abortion policy. I want to bring back some of my arguments on the futility of discussing this:

"Under this light, your comments about adoption are not relevant. If the fetus isn't a person, and if it is not incumbent on women to carry it, the adoption doesn't matter." -- kvaughan round 2

"the birth mother should be incentivized (sic) to keep the baby (25-30K$) and this should be paid by the adoptive parents" RUNNING THEME: this argument depends on the status of the fetus. If it's a person then sure, if not, then why provide an incentive?" --Kvaughan round 3

"5) ADOPTION: I addressed this above. If a fetus is a person then incentives and adoption are decent point, if not, there's no reason to provide incentives (not to mention this is a politics, not ethics argument) and there's no reason to ask women to carry the baby for 9 months." -- kvaughan round 3

my point is this, I have addressed this point time and time again and you have not responded. We have to decide what a fetus is first, and rather or not it's ok to abort it. Then, and only then, can we have a discussion about what should be done in regards to pregnant women.

This points to what seems to be the fundamental element of your 'strategy': become a moving target. In round 1, you argued that life begins at conception, that people want to adopt, etc, all while completely ignoring my opening post.

In round 2, you randomly decide to confront my opening argument, ask me to address some points you made etc.

now in round 3, you've decided to completely ignore all the other lines of argument and go for this sexual promiscuity argument which I've already addressed. In fact, in this round you completely ignore a ton of incredible arguments. I was particularly fond of my Hippocratic oath argument.

So, here's what I want from you. To win this debate (or convince me in any way) I need some discussion the points I presented in my opening statement. Why should I think a fetus is a person? Why should a women be forced to carry a child for 9 months when the Thomson analogy contradicts this? And, if abortion is wrong, why isn't sex wrong.

I chose these arguments for a reason -- they crush the pro-life position. At this point I assume you failed to address them because of how good they are or because you have nothing to say against them. This is annoying because you did this is round 1 and recovered for round 2. Maybe round 4 will be better.
Solarman1969

Con

This debate can go on ad nauseum, and I have alot of work to do

Nonetheless, it is a very important topic

You base your premise on a human being not being a humand being until delivery or some magic date like 20 weeks- that is just plain and simple wrong.

(1) Since a fetus is not a person, it should not have the rights of one.

I completely disagree- life is sacred and begins at conception

This is a deeply held belief, and you are entitled to feel otherwise.

(2) Abortion can be justified even if it is a person

I diagree.

abortion is the deliberate taking of a viable human life. It is on the road to tryanny and the devaluing of human life, which leads to infanticide, murder of the infirm and handicapped, and other horrors.

(3) If abortion is wrong, then sex is also murder

this is just plain stupid.

Sex is a sacred act between humans designed to create life.

(4) With that in mind, you last post is almost entirely irrelevant. Most of it concerns what you perceive to be the horrors of promiscuous sex. That opinion is largely due to outdated social morays and I vehemently disagree that consensual pleasure-seeking can be morally wrong

NO IT IS NOT

Abortion is a "right" jealously guarded by those who want to promote and protect IMMORALITY- out of wedlock sex, sex among minors, etc.

Without immoral behavior , there is no unwanted preganacy

and here is a FUTHER point- abortion is used to cover up ILLEGAL sex between adults and minors all the time - statuatory rape

thousands of times a year

(5) So, for this argument to work, you must defend that uncommitted, consensual sex is wrong and that this is not intimately connected to abortion that all abortions result from theses practices

I STATE THIS ABSOULTELY

Uncommitted sex is harmful to the persons involved and society at large

the devaluing of sex to a mechanical act is bad for society

encouraging cheating spouses and infidelity hurts families and society

Finally

(6) Why should I think a fetus is a person?

Because it is. Life is sacred and the creation of life is sacrosanct

You must understand this to be a full human being

(7)I chose these arguments for a reason -- they crush the pro-life position.

No they do not

If one believes the the sacredness of life , and strives to protect those without a voice, one is a much better human being that one who argues for their devaluation and murder.

I reiterate my pro-life stance.

(1) Overturn Roe - make it a state issue

(2) Incentivize motherhood and adoption- make abortion expensive

(3) provide services for poor mothers during pregancy

(4) Emphasize a moral code that makes sexual morality a HIGH ethic, and promicuity a LOW ethic
Debate Round No. 4
kvaughan

Pro

I don't have a lot of time, so I'll make this quick.

One again, you simply state your disagreement with my arguments without specifying any reason for this disagreement. If you want to debate this refute points 1-3.

I have dealt with all the arguments that you re-advanced here. I will not do it again.
Solarman1969

Con

I argued:

1. that we should treat an entity like what it is, not like what it will become. Since a fetus is not a person, it should not have the rights of one.

2. Abortion can be justified even if it is a person, as per the Thomson example

3. If abortion is wrong, then sex is also murder

All these are NONSENSICAL

1 . Why are seeds so valuable? They are only POTENTIAL plants

And to say a human being in vitro is NOT alive is a LIE

Even YOU admit after 20 weeks YOU admit that it is a life and worth protection

2. This is another lie and demeaning to life.

This idiotic example you point out from some moron about a violinist being plugged into you is just plain idiotic.

Your goal here is to argue that MURDER of INNOCENT BEINGS is ethical.

It is the MOST POSSIBLE UNETHICAL thing.

You simply argue that human life is meaningless and that one should never sacrifice for another.

this is a typical seflish view that all leftists have

Its ME ME ME ME ME and MY convenience

3. This is again totally stupid.

Sex is murder?

DUH.

Again, you refuse to acknowledge the fact of the sanctity of life.

you also refuse to accept that it is a LIE that these children are NOT WANTED

this LIE is perpetuated by the forces of NARAL and PLANNED PARENTHOOD

futhermore, you refuse to accept that these organizations and all pro-abortion entities are arguing for SEXUAL LICENTIOUSNESS

THESE PROABORTION GROUPS PROMOTE ALL KINDS OF EVIL, NOT JUST KILLING BABIES

In EVERY WAY, abortion is wrong .

Abortion is then height of unethical, and evil.

It is the deliberate taking of human life.

RU -486 is on the rise. It caused spontaneous abortion.

This may seem a more convenient way of terminating a baby, rather than cutting it apart into pieces in the womb.

Here are some of the Victims of RU-486 in the United States:

Holly Patterson, age 18 - San Francisco, CA
Died: September 17, 2003

Hoa Thuy (Vivian) Tran, age 22 - Orange County, CA
Died: December 29, 2003 in Las Vegas

Chanelle Bryant, age 22, Pasadena, CA
Died: January 14, 2004

Oriane Shevin, age 34 – Sherman Oaks, CA
Died: June 14, 2005

Causing your body to turn on itself internally is NOT without risks, and is every bit as immoral as traditional abortion, which again, physcially KILLS the infant in the womb.

Gregg Cunningham of The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform says, "Abortion represents an evil so inexpressible that words fail us when attempting to describe its horror. Until abortion is seen, it will never be understood."

Pro-abortion columnist Naomi Wolf observes, "The pro-choice movement often treats with contempt the pro-lifers' practice of holding up to our faces their disturbing graphics....[But] how can we charge that it is vile and repulsive for pro-lifers to brandish vile and repulsive images if the images are real? To insist that the truth is in poor taste is the very height of hypocrisy."

The images are real. Be advised that our abortion pictures are graphic. If you wish to continue, use the links below:

http://www.prolifetraining.com...

SO ONCE AGAIN ABORTION IS THE MOST POSSIBLE UNETHICAL THING POSSIBLE

IT IS THE MURDER OF INNOCENTS

FEEL FREE TO DISAGREE WITH ME ALL YOU WANT AND PROMOTE EVIL

IT IS A FREE COUNTRY

BUT SOMEDAY YOU WILL COME TO TERMS WITH THE CONSEQUENCES OF YOUR ACTIONS

BETTER BE PREPARED TO DO SO

ESPECIALLY YOU MEN, WHO ARE MERELY PROMOTING ABORTION TO SUPPORT YOUR OWN IMMORAL UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR TOWARD WOMEN

SOLARMAN
Debate Round No. 5
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mindjob 9 years ago
mindjob
You mean like you'd love to do to those evil liberals? Lets not be hypocritical now, solarman
Posted by Solarman1969 9 years ago
Solarman1969
anyone who is a communist sympathizer deserves to go live in a commie country for a week and see what its really like being tortured, suppressed and murdered

OH ! just like unborn babies by liberals and Planned Parenthood
Posted by MarxistKid 9 years ago
MarxistKid
Amazing Mindjob! Already I feel ashamed of my view not being his!
Please forgive me conservative cheech-and-or-chong!
My own views kept me from your brilliant light!

Ok, kids! Let's try and find the exact point that he losses it while reading my comment!
Posted by mindjob 9 years ago
mindjob
He just is what he is. He doesn't care to make any friends with us liberal, retarded kids that spend all of our uneducated energy on this site instead of becoming good pot-smoking conservatives like him.
Posted by MarxistKid 9 years ago
MarxistKid
Solarman is making enemies much faster than friends. Is he debated the latter on obvious issues to get hate attention?
Posted by mindjob 9 years ago
mindjob
I was just going to laugh and leave it at that, but apparently comments must be at least 25 characters long. So now that it's long enough...lol. Ok
Posted by Solarman1969 9 years ago
Solarman1969
Oh yeah

youre such an intellectual GIANT, public policy wonk bureaucrat

ABORTION IS EVIL
Posted by mindjob 9 years ago
mindjob
Just when we thought there was hope for solarman, he had to revert in his last round. Oh well. I wasn't expecting much anyway.
Posted by kels1123 9 years ago
kels1123
I actually have to say that Solarman had a better argument in my eyes so far and I have to be honest when I first saw who was debating I was like oh no , I have to go against my opinion but so far Solarman great points. Keep it up.

Now as for my opinion, I think a women does have the right to not be pregnant , she just has to abstain from having sex ..especially unprotected sex and then SHE WON'T be PREGNANT> However once you are , well then to abort is killing a baby and is murder so then I think you now forfeit that right to not be pregnant.
Posted by mindjob 9 years ago
mindjob
Actually, the light of realizing the hippocratic oath being archaic and actually not used a a lot of medical schools, largely because the oath calls for doctors to teach others their trade for free, among many other reasons. Understandably, the schools wouldn't be fans.

Your arguments in the last round are the best I have seen from you yet. But you, as well as all conservatives, need to realize a vital fact: telling someone to be good, moral and to control themselves will not actually make anyone moral and good. Conservatives keep thinking that shaking their fingers at society will make everything great and happy. Reagan telling everyone to "just say no" didn't do anything to stop people from doing crack and cocaine. Legislators have to work with what society gives them, not fancifully legislate their ideals and expect society to follow.

The World Health Organization already proved making abortions illegal and impossible to obtain safely won't do anything to decrease their prevalence. They just get pushed underground and then mothers, as well as babies, die.
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by jtrevino 6 years ago
jtrevino
kvaughanSolarman1969Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Vote Placed by tarsjake 8 years ago
tarsjake
kvaughanSolarman1969Tied
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 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
kvaughanSolarman1969Tied
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 
Vote Placed by cinderella1992 9 years ago
cinderella1992
kvaughanSolarman1969Tied
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 
Vote Placed by bruindebater 9 years ago
bruindebater
kvaughanSolarman1969Tied
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 
Vote Placed by MarxistKid 9 years ago
MarxistKid
kvaughanSolarman1969Tied
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 
Vote Placed by kels1123 9 years ago
kels1123
kvaughanSolarman1969Tied
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 
Vote Placed by Greendonut 9 years ago
Greendonut
kvaughanSolarman1969Tied
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 
Vote Placed by aaltobartok 9 years ago
aaltobartok
kvaughanSolarman1969Tied
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 
Vote Placed by Miserlou 9 years ago
Miserlou
kvaughanSolarman1969Tied
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