The Instigator
16kadams
Pro (for)
Winning
41 Points
The Contender
waterskier
Con (against)
Losing
4 Points

Abortion is generally immoral

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 10 votes the winner is...
16kadams
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/29/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,198 times Debate No: 23928
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (10)

 

16kadams

Pro

In this debate I contend abortion, a procedure that removes and kills the fetus, is generally immoral. Immoral and abortion needn't be defined, we know what those mean. Any semantics or trolling equates forfeiting the debate. The words in the resolution are common knowledge.

1st round for acceptance. BOP even.
waterskier

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
16kadams

Pro

I hope to have an excellent debate with my opponent :D

C1: The future like ours argument

Now the question is, as a fetus is a human, why should we not kill it? And why is it immoral to kill an adult but not a person? This is a question always being debated, and its the question is a fetus morally equivalent to an adult? Now, this argument was formulated to counter the desire argument, one that argues a fetus has no desires therefore is not like an adult morally. But note the desire argument fails, as people view it immoral to kill people contemplating suicide as they want to die. But in society we view it still immoral as you are taking life that could have been (assuming they reform themselves). And that is where the future like ours (FLO) comes to play. As it is used to argue killing a suicidal person is immoral, it also applies to a fetus.

Now lets look into a child doing suicide, getting hit by a car, murdered, or just dying. We often hear how that kid was to young to die, he had a future, etc. Like the phrase "I am to young to die". All of this uses the same logic as the FLO. These thoughts of people and philosophers alike assume something is being deprived in their future. When one dies, you are then deprived of the future, or what would have been a future. Inflicting the loss of a future is what actually makes murder immoral (much of the time, unless its defense and you are preventing you losing your future) and that being the point killing any adult is immoral. This is how the argument follows:

1. Killing something with a future like ours (ours = human) is morally wrong
2. A fetus has a future like ours.
3. Hence killing a fetus is morally wrong

Now this argument is logically valid, and works as it shows a property/attribute a fetus already has: a future like ours. This argument also works even better then others as this is an attribute a fetus shares with us, and just not showing it has a potential too have it (that works but is slightly less convincing).

The FLO proves the fetus has a right to life, and refutes the common argument a fetus has nothing in common with a human. Again, this argument also refutes the view that it is moral to kill a fetus as it has no desires. And this argument is much ore convincing, shows that a fetus's future exists therefore taking it away is bad (same logic as the desire argument, but actually shows its weakness) etc. This argument is logically valid and proves the point on all accounts. Now this next point is supposed to be used along with the next argument as the FLO is the argument that makes the majority of killings immoral. The next argument relates to brain dead people, and a fetus. The FLO is a sufficient point proving it is immoral to kill anything with a future. As a fetus usually will survive, it will have a future and is therefore immoral to abort it.

C2: Substance view

This argument is spouted all the time, in many debates, under many names. Pro-Life people almost always use this argument, as it is fairly effective and simple to comprehend. This argument argues a fetus has rights and is not just property of the woman.

To start my opponent likely agrees a grown adult that is alive in his 30's has a right to life. This is fairly uncontroversial. Again, why is it immoral to kill them?

Under this argument, I contend humans come into this world with valuable and accidental properties making them unique. Some of these attributes include being a person, just plain being a person. But this is the part where my opponent will claim a fetus is not fully aware etc.

According to the argument, the ability to acquire these abilities is sufficient for them to have the same moral standing as a "fully" grown human. In other words, being too young or disabled but able to use these attributes close to how they function (or relating too) or be able to acquire these abilities down the road is sufficient to person hood. Fetus' are not mere objects with no capability, that have the ability to acquire these things! Here goes the argument:

1. It is morally wrong to kill an adult human as they are part of a valuable species/kind of being
2. The unborn do not undergo large developments to poses those intrinsic qualities that makes people special
3. Hence it is immoral to kill the unborn

Yes, a fetus does in fact go change, but once abortion becomes an option there is a large potential for the child and not as much as you think will happen. A fetus, then, is already scientifically a human. Sure, its face and brain and size will change. But this is besides the point for #2. The point is as a fetus only requires the ability to acquire the thought process of a human, they really undergo little change. It is like how a baby does not change much to be a 10 year old besides size and other minor things, yet it is considered to have a right to life. A fetus is almost a baby in the same idea, hence using the same logic as a baby is not fully formed we can argue fetus has a right to life under the same logic.

I suspect the counter to this argument being the brain dead state and how they have little change to enter this state and have no right to life, and although seems convincing can be countered.

C3: A look at society

Many of my arguments are well constructed philosophical arguments, and although apply to society the thing I am about to state we are tought since we are young. I used to like this argument before I came here, and then saw these arguments on either side and thought "this argument would be crushed!". Until I saw the golden rule be used effectively. [1]

Treat others the way you want to be treated

Its marvelous! This is you must ask "do I want this happening to me?". Well to my opponent, readers, and all of the world, looking back would you want to be aborted? No. The point being if you abort a child, or encourage abortion, you are saying I would be ok with being aborted or having someone successfully encourage my mother to have aborted me. As no one (except a very small sub sect of the population) would choose to be aborted. Hence the argument prevails.

It is very simple, and nearly bullet proof.

CONCLUSION:

I am low on room, and was hoping for another argument to be added. But the ones listed are sufficient. If needed, assuming my opponent argues a fetus is not a human therefore C3 does not apply, I can use the same idea/information in a rebuttal.

The answer to this debate is clear, I have shown using a very simple argument of the golden rule that abortion is wrong as it is only right if you concede the majority of the world wants to be aborted. (we contend abortion is on balance moral/immoral) so a few cases do not hurt my case. C3 proves on balance it is immoral to abort a fetus, and the other two contentions show that all abortion/most abortion is morally wrong as well. A pro vote is warranted, but this cannot be assumed as my opponent has not responded.

To be simple, I have affirmed the resolution. Abortion is generally immoral for the reasons listed above. C3 and 1 seem to be the killers. I urge a PRO vote when the time comes.


Source:
1. http://www.debate.org...
waterskier

Con

you made some very good points, i assume that rebuttals are not allowed this round so I will include them in round 3
argument #1 cases of rape or incest
woman who becomes pregnant due to an act of either rape or incest is the victim of a horribly violent and morally reprehensible crime. Although pregnancy as a result of either rape or incest is extremely rare, there is no getting around the fact that pregnancy does occur in some instances. In the case of rape or incest, forcing a woman made pregnant by this violent act would cause further psychological harm to the victim.

argument #2 an argument specifically for pro
I can see on your profile that you are pro death penalty. If it is immoral to kill a fetus but moral to kill an adult then you must believe a fetus is more important than a human.

argument #3 fetal ownership
Premise One: Individuals own their bodies, and everything that is growing within them.
Premise Two: Fetuses grow within the bodies of their mothers.
Conclusion One: Females own their fetuses.
Premise Three: Individuals may destroy that which they own.
Premise Four: Females own their fetuses.
Conclusion Two: Females may destroy their fetuses.

If you don't agree that women own their fetuses, then you must believe that it should be illegal to remove tumors.
both tumors and fetuses are living, growing masses of cells. (you must believe this if you believe a fetus is alive)
both are growing so you cannot differ between the two here
tumors can be either benign or malignant. Therefore, you cannot say tumors and fetuses are different because tumors will kill you but fetuses will not.
Debate Round No. 2
16kadams

Pro

1. Rape or incest?

Now, one must look into my 3rd argument, and overall case. My third argument refutes this in and of itself, as it still applies under the golden rule. Let's say your an innocent little baby. Your mom get raped, and in her anger she shoves a hanger up in the you know what and kills you. Or she goes to planned parent hood and she gets the doctor to put a spoon in there. Either way you die. Would you want to die? Would you want to have been aborted? NO!

Another reason is based on the fact he fetus never actually did the raping, the fetus is innocent and is a byproduct of the innocent, not the creator or the helper, he is not related to the incident in any way except he accidentally showed up. This case, to me, is exactly like "oops I got drunk". Why? Because the same action occurred: Sex and you accidentally came. And sure, there is a difference, but as I have proven a fetus is a human I think we should herald the fetus's life over the pregancy.

Also, the resolution reads GENERALLY immoral, 51% or more of the time. Rape is only a reason 0.5% of the time. [1] This argument is largely irrelevant.

2. For me?

This is irrelevant as it fails too:

a) Prove ABORTION IS IMMORAL/MORAL, and is just an attack on me.
b) does not even relate to abortion, only my "contradictory" views

Due to the fact this argument relates to me, not the resolution or other, it is irrelevant. But I have to respond because this argument is irritating.

The differences between the DP and abortion are large. Firstly, 99.8% of the time the DP has been accurate. DNA checks, our judicial system etc makes it dog gone impossible to kill an innocent in modern times. I can only think of one instance this happening in the last decade (2006). In the DP, your killing a violent person who has himself broken the moral codes in society, and therefore does not deserve to have the same rights we deserve. He, himself, concedes his right the minute his murder weapon penetrates. He has then said he will not obey the moral orders. I therefore think he should be punished. Also the DP is about punishment of criminals, not murder of human innocent fetus's. the two issues are very separate.

Either way this is irrelevant, but refuted.

3. Fetal ownership

This argument says property over life. Now I can do the same logic and apply it to another subject:

1. Individuals own their property (in your case body is property)
2. Dogs are pets and are property
C: Dogs are property of their owner
3. People can destroy what they own
4. People own their pets
C: It is moral to kill a dog that you own

This logic hardly works in modern day society, and killing based on property is illogical. This means, as kids in their young age are still property kind of, it is now moral to kill young children if your their parents. This makes no sense. This logic is flawed.

My opponent then relates a tumor to a fetus, but this is refuted in my arguments above. A fetus has a future like ours, as well as having the capability to becoming a human being. Therefore killing it removes his future and he no longer has ability. Doing that is immoral by all standard. A tumor, however, does not have this future or capability. Hence relating the two is like relating radiation and black-holes. His point is flawed logic AND his tumor relation fails miserably.

CONCLUSION:

He dropped my arguments, hence they still stand. Here is the break down of his arguments:

> 1. Refuted but assuming he wins this argument it only applies to 0.5% of abortions. The resolution states GENERALLY immoral hence he must prove is moral 51% of the time. This argument is far from that, and therefore means nothing no matter who wins it.
> 2. Irrelevant, an attack on me not the debate or the resolution. DOES NOT APPLY. Also, refuted.
> 3. Was very flawed and refuted as needed.

100% of my case stands untouched, 2 of his points are irrelevant and/or do nothing to get him too 51%, and the third is question begging and refuted. VOTE PRO>





[1] http://old.usccb.org...
waterskier

Con

I don't have enough time to do the debate with finals. Vote Pro
Debate Round No. 3
16kadams

Pro

Thanks for a humble concession. I understand.

Vote pro
waterskier

Con

Sure and thanks for not being a d about this

Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Deathbeforedishonour 4 years ago
Deathbeforedishonour
The perfect way to refute Pros position would have been to ask for pro to prove that Objective morality actually exists. Because if it doesn't then there is no such thing as moral and immoral.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Sorry to hear that

I wish you best of luck in finals
Posted by waterskier 4 years ago
waterskier
I don't have enough time with finals to do this debate. My apologies to 16kadams. Vote for him.
Posted by waterskier 4 years ago
waterskier
please excuse grammar and spelling errors for the rest of this, I broke my computer, so i'm doing this on my phone.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
ok
Posted by waterskier 4 years ago
waterskier
I have alot to do today so my argument will probably be posted tommorow.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Hyperion1 4 years ago
Hyperion1
16kadamswaterskierTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:61 
Reasons for voting decision: Points to 16k for concession except conduct to waterskier for being a good sport about it :)
Vote Placed by Maikuru 4 years ago
Maikuru
16kadamswaterskierTied
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 conceded.
Vote Placed by TheOrator 4 years ago
TheOrator
16kadamswaterskierTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession. Also the Pro legitimately had good argumetns.
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
16kadamswaterskierTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Obvious arguments to Pro. Conduct to Con for the honorable forfeit.
Vote Placed by Greyparrot 4 years ago
Greyparrot
16kadamswaterskierTied
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:61 
Reasons for voting decision: forfeit...1 point for avatar
Vote Placed by AlextheYounga 4 years ago
AlextheYounga
16kadamswaterskierTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro definitely gets this one.
Vote Placed by Wallstreetatheist 4 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
16kadamswaterskierTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession
Vote Placed by Xerge 4 years ago
Xerge
16kadamswaterskierTied
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: Concession
Vote Placed by Ixaax 4 years ago
Ixaax
16kadamswaterskierTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession. Question is, why would someone accept a debate as finals approach?
Vote Placed by Contra 4 years ago
Contra
16kadamswaterskierTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:51 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to CON for a humble concession, strong arguments from PRO, including the self realization argument. Although, some libertarians do believe that property rights do entail people to kill or do what they want with them, although yes society for the vast part believes that people can have property rights, but the common good must be upheld to, decided by our Democracy and culture. Conclusion: Pro wins.