The Instigator
KeytarHero
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
petersaysstuff
Con (against)
Losing
5 Points

Abortion is generally an immoral act

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 3 votes the winner is...
KeytarHero
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/3/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,332 times Debate No: 16849
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (24)
Votes (3)

 

KeytarHero

Pro

For this debate, I will argue that abortion is generally an immoral act. The first round will be for acceptance, rounds two and three for argumentation, then round for will be for closing thoughts.

I look forward to a lively debate.
petersaysstuff

Con

I first would like to thank my opponent for this debate. I will first start by giving definitions.

Immoral: "Not conforming to accepted standards of morality"[1]

I will end this round with a question, what are the accepted standards of morality and who sets them out?

[1] http://www.google.com...
Debate Round No. 1
KeytarHero

Pro

I would like to thank the Contender, Peter (who apparently says stuff), for taking up my challenge. As I indicated, round one was for acceptance so I will address his question in the body of my argument (which was my intention, anyway). Also, by "immoral" I really meant "not moral." I will not have Peter turn this into a war of semantics by trying to show that abortion is morally accepted so it is moral (I don't know if this was his intention, but just to be clear). I am questioning abortion's moral validity.

As the Contender is not a Christian, I will keep religious arguments to a minimum, if they need to be addressed at all.

-Opening Argument-

I will give my argument in the form of a syllogism:

P1: The unborn are members of humanity from fertilization until natural death.
P2: All humans have an inherent right to life.
P3: It is wrong to kill an innocent human.
C1: Therefore, the unborn have an inherent right to life.
C2: And it is wrong to kill an innocent unborn human.

Premise 1: The unborn are members of humanity from fertilization until natural death.

Biologically, we are humans at every stage of development. It would be incorrect to state that a human fetus grew up to be me. What is more correct is that I was actually once a human fetus (and embryo, and zygote, etc.). We have human parents, and every living thing reproduces after its own kind (dogs have dogs, cats have cats, humans have humans). We also have human DNA. At all stages of development we are human, and therefore deserving of having our most basic right, the right to life, protected.

Common pro-choice counter arguments generally fall into one of four categories: Size, Level of development, Environment, and Degree of dependency. I will briefly address these:

Size -- The unborn are smaller than we are. Men are also generally bigger than women, yet they are not more valuable or deserving of more rights than women are. Size is no qualification for personhood. That's what we call bullying.

Level of development -- The unborn are less developed than we are. Toddlers are also less developed than adults, yet they still have the same right to live adults do.

Environment -- The unborn are not less valuable due to where they reside. I have been to Italy, yet the person I was did not change. I was the same person there as I am here. Simply being in the womb does not make one any less of a human or less deserving of rights.

Degree of dependency -- The unborn are dependent upon the mother to live, but so are toddlers and infants. Simply being dependent does not make one more or less valuable. Everyone is dependent on something. Adults are dependent on their jobs to survive.

Premises 2 and 3: All humans have an inherent right to life and it is wrong to kill an innocent human.

Humans are inherently valuable. Every human has the inherent right to live. "Person" is simply a legal term that allows legal discrimination. Africans were once discriminated against and made as slaves. Women were once discriminated against and viewed as property. Neither African-Americans nor women were allowed to vote at one point in our nation's past. The Jews were discriminated against during the Holocaust. Our world is filled with discrimination (and note, I'm not comparing abortionists or women who get abortions to Nazis, this is merely to illustrate the discrimination that has gone on in the world). The unborn are still discriminated against and killed through the act of abortion. They are innocent because they have no yet committed a crime, and certainly not one deserving of death.

Conclusions 1 and 2: Therefore, the unborn have an inherent right to life, and it is wrong to kill an innocent unborn human.

As members of humanity, the unborn have an inherent right to life and they have not committed any acts of wrong. Simply existing is not a crime, and certainly not punishable by death.

-Conclusion-

I have adequately shown in my arguments why the unborn are valuable and deserving of protection. If the unborn are innocent, then killing them is prima facie wrong. In fact, we treat convicted criminals better than the youngest members of our own species.

I look forward to the Contender's rebuttal, and wish him the best of luck in this debate.
petersaysstuff

Con

I do not want this to be a semantical war much like you don't so let's not argue definitions xD
I would like to suggest what the voters should look for and vote upon:
Ignoring the one exception about a mother's life being in danger, my opponent must show that all other instances of abortion are morally wrong. That is his burden. I must either get him to concede that there are good exceptions (I will not use the one he proposed for that would be cheap) and/or prove that there are good reasons. If I can do what was previously said I should win, if not, my opponent wins.

Rebuttal:

1: It is true that fetus' are human but a human does not necessarily mean a person. I would define a human as having two pairs of 23 chromosomes. This is what a human is. A person is different however. A person is an independent individual hence a fetus is not a person. A fetus relies on it's mother meaning it is not independent ergo it is not a person.
For example, the hair follicles on your head are humans. They have all your DNA but they are not people. So every time one pulls out a piece of ones hair they are "killing" a human yet they have no moral qualms about that so why should anyone of any qualms regarding abortion? A hair follicle is the same as a zygote except that a zygote can grow. Nothing more.

Why would I argue size?
The level of development is somewhat not important in this debate (so far at least)
Why would I argue environment?
//The unborn are dependent upon the mother to live, but so are toddlers and infants. //
This is false. An infant can be cared for by someone else and the mother need not be involved. A fetus MUST remain attached to the mother. A fetus and an infant are two incomparable things.

//Adults are dependent on their jobs to survive//
False. An adult can survive without a job, it is just harder. But think about it, what have homo-sapiens, homo-erectus ect been doing before the advent of modern society? Surviving without jobs! This argument falls.

2: Humans do not. People do. As previously stated, a hair follicle is a human, not a person. That hair follicle does not have a right to life but if it were a person it would.

//"Person" is simply a legal term that allows legal discrimination.//
This is not true in the least. A person is what separates a hunk of DNA (a hair follicle) from a walking talking sentient being. It has nothing to do with being a way to legally discriminate.

Women and blacks and Jews were still people though. Discrimination has nothing to do with someone not being a person, it has to do with hatred.

The unborn are not people and thus there should be no moral qualms regarding aborting them. If you have a moral qualm regarding that I dare say you cannot use a hair brush, or soap, or a towel, or anti-bacterial soap, ectectect...

My argument (if this goes through out the round I win): If a women is raped and is impregnated she has the right to choose.
Take for example that said women is a teenage girl of the age of 15. She is unfit to be a mother and the likely hood of her dropping out of school increases, she will rely on public money and will develop health problems. But let's add more. Say the female who was rapped grew up in poverty and knew that if she had the child the child would either be abused or could not live a happy life? She would be doing the child a favor.

What must be done for my opponent to win:
1: Defend his points
2: Prove my point wrong
What he can't do:
1: Say that my point falls outside the generally category. I'm not saying he will but if he does that is unfair since there is no bright line for what is inside and outside the generally category.

What I must do to win:
1: Defeat my opponent's points
OR
2: Extend my argument across the debate.
Debate Round No. 2
KeytarHero

Pro


I wish to take a moment and thank the Contender, Peter, for his rebuttal and interest in this topic. He has obviously put a lot of thought into his position and I hope to carefully consider and rebut his arguments. I am glad he is not looking for a war of words; as I haven't debated him yet, I wasn't sure what to expect.

Rebuttal:

1: I am glad that Peter concedes the unborn are human. It is hard to argue against that scientifically or philosophically. However, his definition of human is somewhat simplistic. Yes, humans have two pairs of 23 chromosomes, totaling 46 chromosomes. But what of someone with Downs syndrome, who actually has 47 chromosomes? By Peter's definition, someone with Downs syndrome is not human because they don't meet the criteria of having two pairs of 23 chromosomes.

There is much more to being human than the number of chromosomes. Humans are unique on this planet (and possibly the universe) because we also have the ability to reason, to question our place in the universe, to become better than we are, to create technologies, etc. From the very beginning of our conception, we are developing. This doesn't stop once we leave the womb. A human is not fully developed until sometime in their 20's.

Now, regarding the analogy of the hair follicle, Peter is making the biological mistake of confusing parts with wholes. Hair is part of a whole; if you pluck out a hair, it stops growing. However, once a fetus has been born, he continues to grow once separated from the mother by the umbilical cord. While unborn, the human grows and continues growing once outside the womb and separated. This is because they are a separate, unique individual even in utero, as the unborn has his own unique DNA fingerprint. As Scott Klusendorf writes,

"The difference in kind between each of our cells and a human embryo is clear: an individual cell's functions are subordinated to the survival of the larger organism of which it is merely a part. The human embryo, however, is already a whole human entity. True, it's an immature human, as is an infant, but it's a whole human organism nonetheless...it makes no sense to say that you were once a sperm or somatic cell. However, the facts of science make clear that you were once a human embryo." [1]

The contender observes, "a hair follicle is the same as a zygote except that a zygote can grow. Nothing more." But this is precisely why we see the zygote is alive. Living things grow. A zygote is a living human, whereas a hair follicle is a part of the larger human whole.

Regarding size and environment, they are arguments pro-choicers less educated on the topic make.

Regarding level of development, it sort of goes hand-in-hand with degree of dependency, but there are some differences.

Peter mentioned, "An infant can be cared for by someone else and the mother need not be involved." This is true. But what if the mother decides to breastfeed? The child can then only be cared for by the mother. Also, some women leave the umbilical cord attached for an hour or so after birth to make sure the child receives as much nutrient as she can. If she suddenly had a change of heart (say, for the sake of argument, the reality of the situation finally hit her strongly enough and she wanted the child aborted), should she still have that right because the child is still attached by the cord?

A fetus and infant are not incomparable. As I have shown, they are both living humans. A fetus is just a less developed infant.

While some adults may be able to fend for themselves if they find themselves homeless and jobless, not everyone can. Most homeless people live off the generosity of others. They are exposed to the elements outside and often go hungry. Their quality of life is drastically reduced by having to live on the streets. It was also easier in the dawn of civilization before people created money. A homeless person can't exactly just start farming crops because he would have to buy them first.

2: Peter contends, "A person is what separates a hunk of DNA (a hair follicle) from a walking talking sentient being." In order for me to address this argument, I must ask: what is your definition of sentience?

Women, blacks, and Jews were considered property. They were not considered people. Women were owned by their husbands, blacks were owned by slaveowners, and Jews were owned by Germans. People cannot be owned as property. It goes against their basic human rights.

I have already illustrated why having a moral qualm against abortion does not pre-suppose a moral qualm against brushing, using a towel, etc. Abortion kills a living human, the other examples are merely a part of the larger whole and are not unique individuals.

Honestly, I was hoping not to have to consider rape in this argument because it requires a whole new set of argumentation. However, I seem to have plenty of characters remaining so I would be happy to address the issue.

My brief argument against rape abortions is as follows: Rape is a horrible crime. It should never be done to anyone, and I am very much in favor of harsher punishments against rapists. However, the unborn is still a living human and should not be punished for the horrible crime his father committed. I believe we should punish the criminal, not the child conceived in this fashion. It is true she currently has the legal right to choose abortion, however what is legal is not always moral and I believe it is still immoral to abort the unborn in this scenario.

What I would like to know is why would killing the child before he is born be merciful? How do you know that the child would rather die than grow up in poverty? She could always go with adoption. Adoption is a very expensive process, so she can be sure the child would be given to a loving family. One of the reasons that adoption is so expensive is because it would also cover most, if not all, of her medical expenses. That would eliminate the possibility of the child growing up in poverty or being abused.

But let's take this a step further: Say there's a woman who was raped two years ago. She thought she could handle raising the child conceived in rape, but by now the child has started to develop features that resemble the rapist so that every time she looks at him, she burns with hatred for what that man did to her. Is she now justified in killing the child? Would we be justified in killing the child to put him out of his misery if his mother was abusive?

I thank my opponent for a thought-provoking argument, and I look forward to the next round.

[1] Klusendorf, Scott. The Case For Life, 1st ed. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2009. 38. Print.
petersaysstuff

Con

Regarding the chromosome number. You are correct, that was badly worded. If I may I would like to reword my statement. A human is a thing with two sets of 23 chromosomes (save for some malady). People with down syndrome would have two pairs of 23 chromosomes if the separation of the sister chroma-tides had gone normally.

Now regarding my opponent's claim. My opponent claims that humans are unique because we can reason and comprehend the universe ectectect but fetus' cannot preform such functions. Thus I implore my opponent, if that is a key characteristic of a human (as he says it is) are fetus' then not human?

In the next section it seems that my opponent is arguing against my analogy by saying that a fetus has a unique set of DNA and can grow on it's own. Regarding unique DNA: If unique DNA is a crucial component of a human then identical twins are not different people. They have the same DNA and thus, if my opponent's argument is true, they are the same human. Now regarding the parts and whole. It does not matter if the hair follicle cannot grow once it has been plucked. It is still a human. The same can be said for cells in our body. Theoretically a cell in our body could be kept alive thus, by my opponent's argument it too would be immoral to kill it.

A zygote is a living human that relies on something else. A human cell is the same way. They are both human and they both live. They both could, theoretically, survive outside the womb/host.

//Regarding size and environment, they are arguments pro-choicers less educated on the topic make.//
Lol. I would not make those.

//But what if the mother decides to breastfeed? The child can then only be cared for by the mother.//
What? Which mother? If the birth mother decides to breast feed that has no bearing on whether or not the children can be cared for by the other mother. They still can hence my argument stands.

Regarding the question: That would not be moral for the reason that the fetus has passed that stage at which it is no longer dependent. It can survive without the umbilical cord hence it is not dependent. Before that stage of independence is reached it can be aborted.

//A fetus and infant are not incomparable. As I have shown, they are both living humans. A fetus is just a less developed infant./
The way you compared them was false as shown in the last round.

//Most homeless people live off the generosity of others.//
That is a rather blanket statement. Is there anything to support such a claim?

//Their quality of life is drastically reduced by having to live on the streets//
Just because their quality of living is reduced does not mean they can't survive.

//A homeless person can't exactly just start farming crops because he would have to buy them first.//
One actually could.... all one needs is to get seeds (which one could get by looking in any dumpster) and then plant them. The argument that people depend on their jobs is just not true.

2: Sentient would be able to explore and perceive the world independently (Save for crippling diseases)

Regarding women, blacks and Jews: They were considered property but they were still considered people. The two are NOT mutually exclusive. For example blacks were part of a person but a person non-the less.

//I have already illustrated why having a moral qualm against abortion does not pre-suppose a moral qualm against brushing, using a towel, etc. Abortion kills a living human, the other examples are merely a part of the larger whole and are not unique individuals.//
Cross apply my parts and whole argument from above.

//Honestly, I was hoping not to have to consider rape in this argument because it requires a whole new set of argumentation.//
I'm sorry but it is an argument and I brought it up.

So in the first paragraph all that is said is that you believe we should not punish the unborn. Ok, let's read on.

//What I would like to know is why would killing the child before he is born be merciful? How do you know that the child would rather die than grow up in poverty?//
It is true that one doesn't know that but, as you even said earlier, you standard of living is reduced and "often go hungry". So is it good to let a child live in poverty and "often go hungry" simply due to the fact that their mother was raped? Of course not,

Adoption is not a possibility. Less than 1% of these types of pregnancies end in adoption.[1]
So the claim that the baby could just be put up for adoption is just not viable since this rarely happens.

//Is she now justified in killing the child? Would we be justified in killing the child to put him out of his misery if his mother was abusive?//
What? I assume you mean a two year old child? If so the answer is no. This is again because the child is no longer directly dependent on the mother and is a person now. The answer is the same to the second question.

I would like to thank my opponent for his response and I would like to apologize for my poor debating. This has been a terrible debate for me.

[1] http://www.wikilaw3k.org...
Debate Round No. 3
KeytarHero

Pro

I would like to, again, thank my opponent for having the courage to debate this fundamental and tough issue that faces and affects us all. I will respond to my opponent's arguments and then make my closing statement.

1. Regarding the chromosome analogy: I really don't know anyone who says humans are defined as anything that has two pairs of 23 chromosomes (46 chromosomes total). This is because there are certain ailments which would cause someone to be created with more or less than that amount of chromosomes, yet they would still be human because they were conceived by human parents. I really don't think the number of chromosomes is enough to define humanity. Under normal circumstances, a human would have 46 chromosomes, but in rare instances they would not.

Humans do have the ability to reason and comprehend the universe around us. That's what makes us unique and different from animals. If you are going to exclude the unborn because they haven't reached that level of development yet, you must also exclude newborns and toddlers. The thing is, humans are rational moral agents with the natural inherent capacity to perform functions like reasoning and comprehending. Unless you are going to make the claim that the more intelligent someone is, the more valuable as a person they are, you cannot consider the unborn and newborns/toddlers as less valuable just because their brains haven't yet developed sufficiently.

Identical twins are indeed two different people. Even if identical twins' DNA are exactly the same, their DNA expresses itself differently. [1] [2] For instance, identical twins have different sets of fingerprints, or one may get cancer while the other may not. However, as more research is being done, scientists are actually finding that identical twins may, in fact, have tiny differences in their DNA which are minor, but relatively common. [2]

"It does not matter if the hair follicle cannot grow once it has been plucked. It is still a human."

It does matter. In order for something to be alive, it must grow. Hair follicles are not living. Humans are. Hair follicles are a part of the larger whole. There is a difference between something having human DNA and a growing, whole organism of the human species. I've never heard anyone call a hair follicle "a human" before. Cells are also a part of the whole human organism. They are not their own organism.

"What? Which mother? If the birth mother decides to breast feed that has no bearing on whether or not the children can be cared for by the other mother. They still can hence my argument stands."

What other mother are you talking about? A child only has one biological mother. If a mother breastfeeds, the child is still dependent on the mother's body for survival. That's the point I was driving at. But let me ask you this: Artificial womb technology is being developed. Since the unborn depending upon the woman's body for survival is so crucial for denying her life rights, would you change your stance on abortion when artificial womb technology becomes a reality? At that point, any woman could theoretically have the unborn transplanted into her womb and continue caring for her.

"That would not be moral for the reason that the fetus has passed that stage at which it is no longer dependent. It can survive without the umbilical cord hence it is not dependent."

Congratulations, you just made the environment argument. So apparently being connected or dependent upon the mother's body isn't the issue, what is the issue is that the child is still in the mother's womb. The unborn can be viable up to five months premature. If your reason is viability, then this would also exclude late-term abortions from being acceptable for any reason.

Let me give you a scenario to illustrate my point: What if a couple decides a few days before delivering a healthy full-term baby girl, they really want a strapping young man. They decide to abort the girl, simply because she's a girl, and they'd rather their first born be a boy. While the girl is full-term, she is still dependent on the umbilical cord to survive. Should this procedure be legal? Almost everyone would agree it shouldn't. In fact, a 2003 Gallup poll showed that 84% of Americans oppose abortions in the third trimester [3] and most, if not all, pro-choicers I've talked have condemned sex-selection abortions.

2. Now that I know my opponent's definition of sentience, my answer is pretty much the same as when I responded to the difference between the unborn and adult humans. Humans are rational moral agents with the natural inherent capacity to perform functions like reasoning and comprehending. The fact that the unborn and newborns/toddlers have not developed sufficiently yet is irrelevant.

"Regarding women, blacks and Jews: They were considered property but they were still considered people."

That's simply false. Blacks were considered 3/5's of a person as a compromise on how many representatives the southern states got. They had more representatives because the Supreme Court ruled that not only would white people be counted, but all black people would be counted, they would divide that by 3/5's, and get more representatives.

People back then either thought blacks were people, or they thought they were non-person humans, or sub-humans (or even animals.) If everyone thought they were persons, slavery couldn't have been legal, because a person is a human being that's been granted basic rights.

Regarding rape:

Would a woman be jusitifed in killing her two-year-old son because her family is growing up in poverty, and the two-year-old would "obviously" rather be dead than live in poverty? Or perhaps because she could help feed the rest of her family if there was one less mouth to feed?

"Adoption is not a possibility. Less than 1% of these types of pregnancies end in adoption."

This is probably because only 1% of abortions are done because of a pregnancy resulting from rape in the first place. [4] So of course these types of adoption will be low. However, just because most teens don't give their child up for adoption does not mean adoption isn't available. It is, and there are people willing to adopt newborns, but sadly, most teens that don't want to raise the child themselves abort the child instead of gifting it to somebody else.

"What? I assume you mean a two year old child? If so the answer is no."

So let me now ask you this. Suppose you're at a public pool and you're the last to leave. You hear a splash and after investigating, you realize a toddler has just fallen in and is now drowning. There is no one else around. The toddler is now literally depending solely upon you for survival. Are you now responsible for saving this child?

-Closing thoughts-

I believe I have successfully proven the resolution. The unborn are most certainly living human beings, deserving of the same protection and right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as the rest of us. If the unborn are living human beings, then killing them through abortion is an immoral act because they are innocent and have not committed a crime (certainly not one deserving of death). I look forward to reading the contender's rebuttal and closing thoughts. I thank the contender for debating this issue with me and I thank you, the reader, for reading and carefully considering the arguments presented here.

[1] http://www.livescience.com...
[2] http://www.livescience.com...;
[3] http://www.gallup.com...;
[4] http://www.guttmacher.org...;(p. 113)

(I apologize if the links didn't translate correctly. You should be able to copy and paste them if the link is broken in some way.)
petersaysstuff

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for proposing this challenge.

Regarding chromosomes: I refined my statement in the last round so this rebuttal is essentially against my original claim which I revoked. My revised claim was: "A human is a thing with two sets of 23 chromosomes (save for some malady). People with down syndrome would have two pairs of 23 chromosomes if the separation of the sister chroma-tides had gone normally."

//you must also exclude newborns and toddlers.//
This is false. Your claim was that humans have the ability to reason and comprehend the universe. Newborns and Toddlers both can. When a baby walks around it is reasoning and comprehending the universe. When a toddler sticks it's finger in a pot of water and it gets burnt, it is reasoning and comprehending the universe. But if we ignore the aforementioned things, if I must exclude toddlers and newborns so must you since it is your definition. You would then have to concede that toddlers, newborns and fetus' are not humans which I doubt you want to do. So here you are stuck in a double bind. We use your definition and either fetus' aren't humans since they do not fit your definition, and let me say, you never contested this fact, or fetus', newborns and toddlers aren't humans.

//...perform functions like reasoning and comprehending.//
But fetus' have not developed this yet. So your own definition is disproving your argument.

I never said that newborns/toddlers are less important. You are strawmaning my argument. My argument was as follows:
"Now regarding my opponent's claim. My opponent claims that humans are unique because we can reason and comprehend the universe ectectect but fetus' cannot preform such functions. Thus I implore my opponent, if that is a key characteristic of a human (as he says it is) are fetus' then not human?"

Now I ask, does the above statement even talk about toddlers and newborns? The answer is of course no.

Identical twins: I am aware that the genes are expressed differently but the problem is that your argument is that they [fetus'] have a unique set of DNA and thus they are people. That is where the identical twins argument is from. If unique DNA is the factor then, again, identical twins are the same. It doesn't matter what the phenotype is, the genotype is the same. And regarding link [2], I cannot open it and I can't copy it because it is posted as http://www.livescience.com......; So I don't know how one would judge this.

Hair follicles: // In order for something to be alive, it must grow. Hair follicles are not living. Humans are//
I never said that the hair follicle was "alive". All I was saying is that it is a human. The only thing I argued was alive was a cell in a body which is true. But my opponent has successfully refuted this argument. This point is lost.

//What other mother are you talking about? A child only has one biological mother.//
I thought you meant if the child was raised by someone else. That is what I was talking about.

//If a mother breastfeeds,//
The keyword here is IF. A mother does not need to breast feed. My claim that babies are NOT dependent like fetus' are still stands.

Regarding the question, that is not the only reason for being "denying her life rights". Yes I would. They are still dependent on the same exact thing.

//Congratulations, you just made the environment argument.//
How so?

//So apparently being connected or dependent upon the mother's body isn't the issue, what is the issue is that the child is still in the mother's womb. //
False. Once the baby has passed a development point it does not need the umbilical chord. If one were to have the baby and put it in a fake womb I would no be for aborting it then for the same reason. It has literally nothing to do with the environment. It is about the developmental stage.

// If your reason is viability, then this would also exclude late-term abortions from being acceptable for any reason.//
Yes. I am against late-term abortions. I will admit this. So what? The time of the abortion was never specified in the resolution and I am arguing that it should be allowed before said developmental point.

// she is still dependent on the umbilical cord to survive//
This contradicts your previous evidence. You previously said //The unborn can be viable up to five months premature.// meaning that the child could be born and still live hence it is not totally dependent on the mother.

But it should not be legal for the reason stated above.

//natural inherent capacity to perform functions like reasoning and comprehending//
Extend my double bind.

//Blacks were considered 3/5's of a person as a compromise on how many representatives the southern states got.//
Ummmm I already said something to this effect. I said: "For example blacks were part of a person but a person non-the less." And you saying this proves they were part of a person still.

//If everyone thought they were persons, slavery couldn't have been legal, because a person is a human being that's been granted basic rights//
What? People acknowledge them as people, they were just lesser. Of course this is a bad way to think but it is the way people did.

You also dropped Jews and Women thus I extend.

//Would a woman be jusitifed in killing her two-year-old son because her family is growing up in poverty/
I already answered this. "If so the answer is no. This is again because the child is no longer directly dependent on the mother and is a person now. The answer is the same to the second question."

//This is probably because only 1% of abortions are done because of a pregnancy resulting from rape in the first place.//
My evidence is saying that of the babies that are not aborted, (they were conceived via rape) only 1% of them are put of for adoption. I don't see how your evidence is relevant at all.

//does not mean adoption isn't available//
I'm saying that statistically speaking it is not a viable option. You would be creating more homeless people who will, as you said previously, your standard of living is reduced and "often go hungry". This fact has gone uncontested thus I extend it.

Regarding the question: You are not [i] responsible [/i] but you should save the child. This would be akin to having a late term abortion which I previously said I disagreed wit.

Conclusion: Even if we ignore all of my arguments against my opponent, the rape argument outweighs. This is because my opponent is resolutionally bound to defend that abortion is never right (except if the mother's life is in danger) and he just did not refute the rape argument. I have shown that the baby will grow up in poverty and, in my opponent's words, have a standard of living that is reduced and "often go hungry". Also, my opponent never responded to the following claims: " She is unfit to be a mother and the likely hood of her dropping out of school increases, she will rely on public money and will develop health problems." [round 2] thus I extend them and I should win, if on nothing else, on this argument.

Thanks.
Debate Round No. 4
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by petersaysstuff 6 years ago
petersaysstuff
I was trying to show that there are cases when it should be allowed.
Posted by KeytarHero 6 years ago
KeytarHero
It generally is an appeal to pity because number one, rape abortions are very rare (they are responsible for only 1 or 2% of all abortions), and whether the woman is raped or not doesn't change whether or not the unborn is a human or a person. Therefore rape really doesn't change anything in the grand scheme of things.
Posted by petersaysstuff 6 years ago
petersaysstuff
An appeal to pity? What? *facepalm*

Making accusations is always good.
Posted by JoshBrahm 6 years ago
JoshBrahm
Never mind. It's fixed.
Posted by JoshBrahm 6 years ago
JoshBrahm
Dang it! I wrote my comment for voting, but forgot to select the radio buttons. I meant to give all four points to Con. Is there a way for me to fix this?
Posted by KeytarHero 6 years ago
KeytarHero
Jilliani: In which way did I not adequately refute the rape argument? I mentioned that since the unborn are living humans, abortion is immoral. If abortion kills a living human, we should not punish them for the crime of their father. Also, adoption is always available for a girl/woman impregnated by rape. How did I not adequately refute it?
Posted by KeytarHero 6 years ago
KeytarHero
No problem. I appreciated you taking me up on the challenge.
Posted by petersaysstuff 6 years ago
petersaysstuff
It's fine. But this was a fun debate. I could have done better though. I tried a new argument for abortion. I usually do something else XD
Posted by KeytarHero 6 years ago
KeytarHero
Regarding the second link I posted, I have no idea why it did that. I posted the link in its entirety. The website must have cut off part of it or something, especially if you were able to open the first link. It came from the same website. I had a debate which the same thing happened to my opponent: he posted a link and I couldn't open it.
Posted by petersaysstuff 6 years ago
petersaysstuff
May I inquire as to the "poor" arguments.
And I do admit I'm doing terribly. So what?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by JoshBrahm 6 years ago
JoshBrahm
KeytarHeropetersaysstuffTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's biology was off, for example never understanding how he was confusing parts with wholes. His logic was poor, for example assuming that just because a small percentage of raped women choose adoption = adoption isn’t a viable option. The rape argument, while emotionally effective, is ultimately an appeal to pity. Pro offered arguments why the unborn are full human beings, and if they are, the way they were conceived shouldn't change their right to live.
Vote Placed by Jillianl 6 years ago
Jillianl
KeytarHeropetersaysstuffTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con wins because pro did not adequately address the rape argument and spent too much time repeating themself when trying to refute.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
KeytarHeropetersaysstuffTied
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:32 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro took a page from the WLC school of debating and outlined not only their argument but e argument of their opponent in the OP. Peter should have ignored this argument and created his own. Further some of the responses were weak such as an infant can sense/response to the enviroment, well so can a fetus. 3:2 pro