The Instigator
Zaradi
Pro (for)
Tied
3 Points
The Contender
Gingerbreadman
Con (against)
Tied
3 Points

Abortion is generally wrong.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/15/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,218 times Debate No: 23613
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (4)

 

Zaradi

Pro

In my recent thought (yes people, I actually do think), I discovered a very simple, yet interesting vein of thought. I ended up following that train of thought and arrived at a conclusion that contradicted my previously held beliefs at every angle: abortion is wrong in most situations. While I used to be a pro-choice advocate, I feel now that this isn't necessarily correct in most cases.

What I want to do here is to have an informal debate, more of a limited discussion. Sources will be generally frowned upon. No overly ornate arguments. If you're putting more than half an hour into writing and thinking of rebuttals, you're spending too much time on this debate. I mainly just want to have a one-on-one discussion with someone who either a) believes in the pro-choice stance, or b) is up to playing devil's advocate. Please keep an open mind in this debate.

Let's set out a few ground rules for a second.

1. For those worried about their win/loss record, I urge voters to let this debate end in a tie. If someone votes, make sure the points even out between myself and my opponent.
2. In the event of two or all rounds forfeited, the non-forfeiting debater holds the right to nullify rule number one, in which case all seven points will go to the non-forfeiting debater.
3. Upon request, rule number two can be voided.

First round will be for acceptance.

Definitions:

Abortion: the voluntary termination of pregnancy (a.k.a. Killing the fetus)

Wrong: Impermissible, incorrect.
Gingerbreadman

Con

I am from a standpoint that which respects the life of all beings, whether they be born or unborn, but I am pro-choice. I am unhappy however that the pro-life standpoint is taking away the ability for women to get abortions. Whether this is from a religious standpoint or a moral standpoint I am not sure. But as for the abortion of the unborn fetus itself I am for the option for women to have the choice to abort it or not. Of course it is not an excuse such as, "oh who cares if I get pregnant, I can just get an abortion", That is not right. Getting an abortion in my eyes is for a female to decide she is not ready to make the commitment to the baby and will not be able to take care of it. And of course there is the circumstance of rape or the possible disfigurement and/or retardation of the baby. In those cases it does make sense to abort the fetus to spare them the sort of empty life they will lead, putting the weight of themselves on the backs of those who need to take care of them. I am sorry if this seems cruel but we cannot allow that to happen. If a person is to live there life as a hollow shell, being spoon fed and carted around, I'd say that isn't much of a life.
Debate Round No. 1
Zaradi

Pro

I'd like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate. As this is his first debate here on Debate.org, I'd like to welcome him to the site and hopes that he sticks around for a while. With that being said, his response seems out of place (most probably by unknowing of the site's workings). As I stated the first round was for acceptance, and not argumentation, then his first round should just be read as a long "I accept". If my opponent wishes, he may copy and paste his argument into the next round, if he wishes to use the same line of reason. With that said, I'll go ahead and jump right in.

The entire debate around the ethics of abortion have been blown entirely out of proportion. In the understandable attempt to find the game-winning argument that proves your side 100% of the time, we as debaters have delved out of the realistic zone of our world and delved into argumentation that hardly applies to our modern society, if ever. The answer to the question of whether abortion should be allowed in our society, in my opinion, is rather simple. It comes down to one principle that I feel we acknowledge exists without ever giving it thought:

Treat others how you wish to be treated.

Yes, the Golden Rule. It's a very simple principle that states taht when you consider taking an action to or against another person, that you ought to consider if you were in their place, and they in yours, if you would want them to take that action to or against you. If you would want it to happen to you, then the action would be more likely than not a good action. If you wouldn't want that action taken or directed at you, then it would be more likely than not a bad action.

Now how does this apply to the conundrum of abortion? Before we consider consenting to the act of abortion, we need to visualize ourself as the unborn baby. Would you want to be aborted, regardless of the reason? Nine times out of ten, any person would answer that question with a solid 'no'. Right there we should be able to see that regardless of whether the baby is a person or not, that abortion is generally a bad action. Of course, there are often situations that arise in life that aren't always clear cut on what is the right action. I'll adress a few of them here:

Rape:

If a girl/woman is raped and is impregnated with the raper's child, should she be allowed to get an abortion? Even in this situation, it would seem wrong to kill a baby-to-be, regardless of whose it is. Even if she did not wish to have the baby be raised by her, she could simply give the baby up for adoption to a host family or to the foster system. There are plenty of other avenues of action to get around having to abort a human life. Even here, abortion would still be wrong.

Teenage Pregnancy:

If a teenager fools around with her boyfriend a bit (who doesn't?) and ends up getting pregnant, should she be able to abort the baby? One would be able to logically, and reasonably, deduce that she wouldn't be able to effectively care for the baby herself, so would the baby really be in worse pain than if one were to abort it? Again, the golden rule applies here as well, as one wouldn't want to be aborted, regardless of who our mother was. If the ability to raise the baby is called into question significantly, it may be possible to allow the baby to be rasied by a family member or relative, or to give the baby up for adoption, as to allow the baby to live until the mother is capable of raising the baby on her own. So even here, abortion wouldn't be the correct choice.

Disease:

One might say "Well what if the baby is going to have Down Syndrome or Autism? Wouldn't it be okay to abort the baby then?" I still don't think that in the case of a mental or sociological disorder, such as Autism or Down Syndrome, that it would be permissible to abort the baby. Many avenues of treatment exist for these forms of disorders, and many children born with the disease grow up to be active, productive members of society. It may be more trying on the parent to raise a child with a disorder, as compared to a child without a disorder, but that is hardly a good enough excuse to have the baby aborted.

Another objection on the disease front is "Well what if the baby will have some horrible disease that will cause the baby tons and tons of pain throughout their life? Wouldn't we be saving the baby from more pain by aborting it?" And this line of reasoning carries some weight to it. But I feel that it ignores the possibility of a) a misdiagnosis from a sonogram (which are actually more common than one would like to believe), or b) technological and/or medical advances that allow us to find a cure for the disease and prevent the baby's suffering without having to abort the child. While these technological or medical abilties do not exist in our current society, we must always keep the future in mind when deciding on policy. Having said this, this may be the sole reason where an abortion would be permissible, given that the diagnosis is correct. Even still, the ability to access abortion treatments should be restricted, as to prevent the situations where a baby is thought to have some horrible disease and upon still birth (giving birth to a dead baby), the doctors find out that the baby wouldn't have had any disease.

So we can see that by just placing oneself in the baby's shoes, that having an abortion is, 9.5 out of 10 times, the wrong course of action to take, and that there are better avenues of action to take in specific situations that may be outside the normal.

With that, I turn the floor over to my opponent.
Gingerbreadman

Con

I apologize for my use of the blog I am a first time user and I thank you for the understanding.

Now, first to your concern about the case of forced sex and rape. In the case of rape, the mother's will to have the child is probably the main reason for abortion. Consider two mothers, both have been raped and are a few weeks pregnant. One woman because of religious reasons will not take the life an unborn fetus because of the way she was raised, or the ways she is taught through the church, synagogue, or mosque (or whichever religion you may choose). On the other hand we have a woman that is more of personal beliefs then of faith. She has decided to get an abortion, not because of her willingness to get rid of a human life, but because she believes she cannot raise the child nor have the bastard child of a man she does not know. The child that is born out of pure lust is no less of a human I agree but this woman's personal beliefs is what is ending or continuing the lives of the fetuses.

Secondly, in your argument about the diseased or handicapped infants that grow up to be very well formed members of society does make sense to me and I do now realize that my argument was invalid about the abortion of a fetus if it is to be born full of disease or disorder.
There is a case however I would like to inquire about, what if the mother was going to have complications during the birth of the baby which would result in the death of the mother, baby, or both? Would it not be more logical to save one life then risk the life of both? (Again please bear with me if my arguments are not as "colorful" as you wish them to be or bad reasoning, it is my first time debating)

I would also like to address something I have been swirling around in my mind for a while. The concept of getting rid of the option to get an abortion seems to pushing your own wishes and influences into other people's faces. Which almost seems to come to the extreme sometimes. Such as the rallies and meetings that are to try to force the option of getting an abortion out the window. I'm not saying that abortions are "right" but I do say that if you do not want to get an abortion, don't get an abortion. Taking the option to abort an unwanted or unexpected child away seems to take someone else's beliefs away and replace them with the people who took them away. I understand that certain groups want to remove the right to get an abortion because of the belief that it is murder or basically "legal' murder of a person before they are born.

With that I turn the floor back over to opponent.
Debate Round No. 2
Zaradi

Pro

I thank my opponent for his last round. To save us all some time, I'll just get right to it.

The first point my opponent brings up is a...confusing analogy with two mothers. I say confusing because it doesn't make much sense for me, and I would love it if my opponent were to clarify it. But from what I can gleam from it, the objections to the second mother's right to get an abortion, I believe, I already answered. If she doesn't feel like raising the child, she can simply give it up for adoption to a host family or the foster system. We still have to consider how we would feel in the baby's situation if our mother were considering an abortion just because she had been raped and her repist got her pregnant. As we wouldn't want to get aborted because of that, we shouldn't abort the baby.

When my opponent asks the question of what about complications during pregnancy, I think I have to ask a second question to respond to his first: do we even have the capabilities to determine if complications will happen ahead of time? There are some that we can tell, such as if the umbilical cord has wrapped around the baby's neck, but these can be solved without the use of aborting the baby. Of course other complications exist, but these are beyond our ability to detect before they happen (I could be wrong on this, if I am simply let me know).

My opponent raises a valid concern when he says that outlawing abortion would be forcing one's views onto others, which wouldn't exactly be a good thing. It's also a bad idea for a host of other reasons, but that's besides the point. That's why I would suggest that we don't entirely outlaw it, but rather restrict access to it to the point that those who are only truly in need of it (such as for a serious disease that would only subject the baby to more due suffering than necessary) can actually access it. It would prevent arbitrary abortions (I got preggers, but I no wanna be preggers, so I abort teh baby!) while still allowing it to be there in extreme cases.
Gingerbreadman

Con

To clarify what I was trying to say about the two mothers; what I was trying to say was that the abortion of the baby is decided by the mother and only the mother. And is normally determined by the mother's personal beliefs and influenced by her family and friends. So say Mother A is a very religious woman, which chooses not to abort the baby because of her personal beliefs. While Mother B is not a religious person but does still have a strong moral basis. And Mother B chooses to get an abortion because she thinks that the act of having the baby (that was not made by love) somewhat disgusts or saddens her extremely. Which I think is a misconception with some people. Some people think that the act of birthing the baby is the "disgusting" action. While others think the baby itself is "disgusting".

Recognizing the medical issues in an unborn fetus has been successfully accurate in some cases. However, like my opponent said, there are cases in which unborn babies have been diagnosed with a disease and come out completely healthy. So the information is not always 100% accurate. So to summarize, tests have been recorded positive and negative in about equal status.

I have come to a conclusion that my opponent has made some very remarkable answers and has put an Idea in my mind.

The idea is that, as he said, not to make abortion completely illegal, and to make more restrictions and laws on the subject, to prevent more arbitrary abortions. But to make it more of a necessity rather than a luxury in some cases, but to still make it for the immediate public, just with more restrictions, red tape, and fees. Just to make the public a little more… scared ill say to get an abortion. Because that's one thing the government's got right. When you want to scare the citizens, raise the price.
Debate Round No. 3
Zaradi

Pro

Since I only have nine minutes before I have to go to class, I'll get straight to thing.

I think the main problem with my opponent's mother analogy is that independent of how gross the mother views giving birth to a baby she didn't consent to receiving, it doesn't change the fact that, if the situations were reversed and we were the baby, we still wouldn't want our mother to abort us. So, reciprocally, we still shouldn't abort the baby.

While there have been plenty of cases that health issues were diagnosed correctly and accurately in the pre-natal stages, 9 times out of 10, it still won't give us a reason to abort the baby. Other complications, at least most serious complications with the pregnancy itself, aren't really detectable until labor begins, and the ones that we can detect, we have the capability of fixing before labor begins. So I can't find this to be an accurate reason for it, past the fact that we would be saving a baby with a seriously painful condition a whole lot of pain with an abortion.

As a small aside, I find it mildly humorous that my opponent came to, more or less, the same conclusion I did three rounds back. Heavy restriction would solve a whole lot of problems.

But since that's basically it, I'll end here. I thank my opponent for this fun little discussion, and urge voters to vote this as a tie.
Gingerbreadman

Con

Thank you for the debate sir, it has been fun and has opened my mind slightly and I thank you for it.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by OberHerr 4 years ago
OberHerr
The argument that merely because we think they would not be able to bear the suffering, because we would not be able to, is faulty.

Why?

Well, if someone is born with something, and they have it all their life, they will learn to cope with it.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
1dustpelt
ZaradiGingerbreadmanTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: I do not why Pro asked for a tie because he beat the sh!t out of this debate
Vote Placed by OberHerr 4 years ago
OberHerr
ZaradiGingerbreadmanTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: I though Pro definitely won, but he wanted a tie, so a tie he will get.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
ZaradiGingerbreadmanTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: I always thought of the golden rule, but I thought it could be refuted by arguing a fetus is not a human and therefore not applies.... anyway leaving tied
Vote Placed by SuburbiaSurvivor 4 years ago
SuburbiaSurvivor
ZaradiGingerbreadmanTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: As Pro requested I'm leaving this at a tie. While I think Pro's argument are a bit rough and require a bit of fine-tuning, I think he's got a great start at a good Pro-Life argument. I do believe there's an argument already similar to this, but Pro's approach is novel!