The Instigator
daniel.droege5
Pro (for)
Winning
19 Points
The Contender
RationalMadman
Con (against)
Losing
4 Points

Abortion is immoral and the destruction of life.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
daniel.droege5
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/22/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,827 times Debate No: 25760
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (18)
Votes (5)

 

daniel.droege5

Pro

Hello. Thank you for reading this.

I intend to prove in this debate that Abortion is immoral and results in the destruction of life. I would like to exclude religious arguments and arguments outside of the US. I also do not consider an abortion immoral if the procedure is to save a mother's life or remove a fetus that will not come to term.

A few disclaimers:
I would not advocate the passage of laws to restrict a woman's ability to get an abortion. I am simply arguing that it is an immoral act, destroys life, and other morally superior options are available.

I would like to narrow the scope of these arguments to the impact on the parties involved. The parents, doctor, and fetus. I will not be trying to argue against the impact abortions may or may not have had on society.

Please use this first round for acceptance and arguments. Please no new arguments in the 3rd and 4th rounds.

A1.
I believe that life begins after conception during 5th week of pregnancy when the heart starts beating. When the heart stops beating, a person is considered dead, so once the heart starts beating, they should be considered alive. An abortion after this time (as most are that are performed) destroys a human life and is therefor immoral.

A2.
I don't consider it murder. When you murder someone you take them away from their family and friends and leave only the memory of they time they knew them. When you abort a fetus, you entirely remove them from existence. They are deprived of all life without their consent. This destruction of life is worse than murder in my opinion.

A3.
If a doctor does something to harm a fetus, they would be held accountable as if they hurt a human being. The fact that we hold doctors accountable to the unborn should mean that women are also committing an immoral act by ending the life of their unborn children.

A4.
Alternatives exist such as Emergency Contraception or Plan B, and adoption. Since all women faced with abortion have multiple choices in varying degrees of morality, it would be helpful to place them in order from most moral to least.

Moral>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Immoral
Safe sex > Plan B > raise a child > adoption > abortion > leaving the baby in a dumpster.

Arguments might be made that if the child would be raised in extreme poverty then adoption might be more moral than raising the child, but abortion would still be immoral and the destruction of human life.

Please list your definitions (if you have a problem with my semantics) and your arguments why you believe abortion is not immoral. Wait until the 2nd round to counter my claims as it is the last round for new arguments.

Thank you again for your time.
RationalMadman

Con

I am extremely angry with people like yourself. You are a man and act as if you know what it is to be a woman. You discuss life while being uninvolved in the creation for more than a good night of sex. As a male myself, I would never be ignorant nor arrogant enough to pose as one who knows what it is to be a woman yet you act as if you do.

I agree that abortion is the destruction of life but I disagree that it is immoral.

Definitions

Abortion[1]: The deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks.
Immoral[2]: Not conforming to accepted standards of morality.
Morality[3]: Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.
Good[4]: To be desired or approved of.
Bad[5]: Not such as to be hoped for or desired; unpleasant or unwelcome.
Behaviour[6]: The way in which an animal or person behaves in response to a particular situation or stimulus.

C=Contention and A= argument so I prefer to use C.

C#1: A fetus is not a "person" so can't have rights protecting it from abortion: Is terminating a fetus, which can neither feel emotions nor be conscious of its own "existence," really be considered equivalent to killing a "person?" Some define personhood (qualifying for rights) through a set of criteria. A being need not exhibit every criterion to qualify as a person, but failure to exhibit most is proposed as disqualification. One list includes consciousness (at least the capacity to feel pain), reasoning, self motivation, the ability to communicate on many possible topics, and self-awareness. Lists like this are intended to help someone be able to objectively distinguish between a biological human and a person. An embryo is not a person because it satisfies only one criterion, namely consciousness (and this only after it becomes susceptible to pain). Other sets of criteria conclude that an embryo lacks personhood (and a right to life) because it lacks self-consciousness, rationality, and autonomy. These lists diverge over precisely which features confer a right to life, but tend to propose that they are developed psychological features not found in embryos.

C#2: The fetus causes physical pain; the woman has a right to self-defense. The fetus causes sickness, discomfort, and and extreme pain to a woman during her pregnancy and labor. It is, therefore, justifiable for a woman to pursue an abortion in self-defense.

C#3: There is no inviolable "right to life" in abortion and other cases. It is clear that the notion of "the right to life" can sometimes be violated for certain ends. This is the case in sending soldiers to war. So as in abortion, it can be justified to kill a fetus under certain circumstances.

C#4: No woman "wants" an abortion; it is only the least bad alternative: Women do not "want" abortions. They find themselves in a position in which abortion is the less bad between bad alternatives. This argument is important in explaining that abortion is not about a malicious desire to "kill babies" or even to express their right to choose; it is about allowing women to make the best choice that they can.

C#5: Abortion must be justified in cases of impregnation by rape: Woman, and in some cases girls, who have been raped should not have to suffer the additional torment of being pregnant with the product of that ordeal. To force a woman to produce a living, constant reminder of that act is unfair on both mother and child.

C#6: If women (not men) are solely burdened by pregnancy, they must have a choice. Men are dominant in their ability to impregnate a woman, but carry no responsibilities afterward. If woman carry the entire burden of pregnancy, they must have a choice.

C#7: It is odd to defend the dignity of a fetus over a child-rearer: There is a peculiar double standard being applied by opponents of abortion. The dignity of the fetus is glorified, while the dignity of the child-rearer is seemingly ignored and even trampled. This is particularly concerning when more men appear to support abortion than woman; it appears that men are more willing to trample the child-bearer (a woman) than the child.

C#8: Abortion is just when birth control fails (involuntary impregnation): If a woman does not voluntarily choose to seek a pregnancy, it is impossible for a fetus to have any claim over the woman's body. Only when the woman participates voluntarily in creating a life, does she open the door to any responsibilities to the fetus or to any rights that the fetus may have over the mother. If a pregnancy is a result of an accident (the failure of birth control), it cannot be called voluntary. Therefore, the fetus cannot be said to have any rights over the mother's body, and abortion can be said to be justified.

C#9: Abortion is justified when the fetus is certain to suffer and die from a disability: Finally, due to advances in medical technology it is possible to determine during pregnancy whether the child will be disabled. In cases of severe disability, in which the child would have a very short, very painful and tragic life, it is surely the right course of action to allow the parents to choose a termination. This avoids both the suffering of the parents and of the child.

C#10: Poor women are disproportionately deprived choice when abortion is illegal.Poor woman are most susceptible to circumstances in which abortion is necessary. If abortion is illegal, therefore, this socio-economic group will be disproportionately affected.

C#11: Abortion might forestall the potential birth of another Hitler. This is a counter-argument to the notion that abortion could have wiped out some of the greatest social contributors in history; it also could have wiped out some of the worst individuals in history.

C#12: If a fetus was defined as a "person", the legal shifts would be too dramatic: No abortions would be permitted for any reason, including rape or incest. Each miscarriage would have to be investigated. The legal consequences of such an amendment would be massive.

Sources:

[1] http://oxforddictionaries.com...
[2] http://oxforddictionaries.com...
[3] http://oxforddictionaries.com...
[4] http://oxforddictionaries.com...
[5] http://oxforddictionaries.com...
[6] http://oxforddictionaries.com...
Debate Round No. 1
daniel.droege5

Pro

Thanks for accepting this debate. I would recommend not accepting anymore debates that make you so angry. I was involved in the creation of my son in other ways. My labor paid for the insurance that covered the health care cost. I am also halfway through raising that child, so if you think that 9 months of pregnancy trumps 18 years of financial and emotional support, you should try having the next one and see if your perspective changes.

Since Con has already conceded that abortion is the destruction of life, all I must do is prove that the destruction of life is immoral. I will go further than that, as many points Con has made should be refuted and some of them contradict the point that abortion is the destruction of life as I understand them.

A5
The destruction of life is immoral even if a person or group of people benefits from that destruction. Even if no one benefits from the destruction of life, it should be up to the life being destroyed. Since we do not have the capability to find out if a fetus would like to live or die, taking the option of life off the table is immoral and reprehensible.

(I'm sorry, I really don't know what letter to use. :( )

C1
A fetus can begin feeling pain as early as 20 weeks. A child is not fully self-aware until four or five years of age. When someone is under anesthesia, they are not conscious. The point is that none of these are useful in determining if a being has a right to life, and therefor would be immoral in destroying said life. If a living person is unconscious, unreasoning, unmotivated, uncommunicative, and unaware; they still have a right to life. If a person doesn't have a heartbeat, they are dead, so the destruction of life would be impossible. This should be the only qualification on whether a fetus has a right to life. I concede that a fetus does not have these abilities, but since babies don't either, it is not acceptable to destroy their life in regards to morality.

C2
I agree that if a fetus is going to cause death or serious illness to the mother, she can abort it. However, if someone at your work gives you a cold and transmits their virus into you, they cannot be held liable for the pain and discomfort they have caused you. Since a baby poses no criminal intent and cannot be held accountable for its actions (since it was a direct cause of consensual sex) I find it disturbing that anyone would blame a fetus for the pain brought on by themselves.

C3
This is a utilitarian viewpoint. The same that leads to all atrocities. "Any means to an end", "A few must be sacrificed for the good of the many" This is why I didn't want to argue the effects on society as a whole. I find it immoral to force someone into sacrificing themselves for the benefit of everyone else.

C4
I know women don't want to kill babies. I believe that almost all women feel remorseful after an abortion because they know that they have done something immoral.

C5
This is another debate in itself which is why I will concede it here for the purpose of brevity.

C6
I wouldn't say they carry no responsibilities afterwards unless you are talking about having an abortion. I would agree to that, but if the child is brought to term, they will have as much of a responsibility as the mother. This does nothing to prove that abortion is moral. It just says that since it is a woman's action, they should be able to do it, moral or otherwise without the consent of a man.

C7
I care nothing about the dignity of either being for the sake of this debate. We are talking about the life of the fetus. Much more is at stake here then humiliation and pride. A women chooses an abortion. Pregnancy and childbirth is what would naturally happen without interference. A woman doesn't choose to carry to term. She would do that no matter what. She chooses to step in and take action to destroy the life of the fetus. This is where I can prove it is a premeditated, immoral act to decide to remove your unborn baby from existence. She is not deciding whether or not to give life to an inanimate object. The object is alive and she is choosing to end that life for her own selfish reasons. That is what makes it immoral. It is to her benefit that the unborn child has to die.

C8
If I eat bacon for every meal until I die from a heart attack, I didn't have an "involuntary heart attack". It was the direct cause of my actions that caused my heart attack. This why what causes unwanted pregnancies. People want to have sex, but not deal with the potential consequences. This is why education will be the only thing that reduces abortions and not laws. Birth control pills fail when women fail to take it. Again, it was in response to their actions. Can the same be said about the father? If he didn't want to voluntarily create life and pay child support for 18 years, could he force the women to get an abortion?

C9
Concede as I have stated, if the fetus dies or will not come to term, abortion would be a moral alternative. Since it is one of the very view, this should help me prove my point. Only when you are destroying the life of a fetus that is not viable could it be considered moral, so when the fetus is viable, it is an immoral action.

C10
We are not talking about legality. Just morality where socioeconomic variables should not come into play.

C11
Con counters themselves. Playing God is tricky business and is always immoral.

C12
Again, no legal standpoints or laws should be discussed as it is not relevant to morality.

Maybe Con would feel better if they know that I am undecided in this debate and secretly hoping they will win.
RationalMadman

Con

All your rebuttals are wrong.

Firstly I shall discuss the issues you bring up in your round one debate, then the new 'A5' raised in round two as well as countering your rebuttals.

IRRELEVANT A#1: Life starts the moment the sperm meets the egg, a cell is alive, thus your determination of when life starts is truly irrelevant for every cell is split up (hence killed) in order to reproduce via mitosis, it is how we grow, old cells die to produce newer cells in larger quantity. The heart is merely one organ made of many living cells thus every cell was alive even before it began 'beating'. there is nothing special about the heartbeat.

NOT EVEN AN ARGUMENT FOR PRO A#2: You state that it is immoral and the destruction of life. How is it not being murder even deserving of being your second argument? It's not even relevant for your side of the debate.

Need for clarification A#3: What exactly is your point here? The doctor hurts the foetus? Does the foetus even know it exists? Can it even consciously register its pain?

IRRELEVANT A#4: Yes, there are alternatives to abortion. Yes there is the option of adoption. However, this is not a valid argument to prove that abortion is immoral, only that it is one of many alternatives, not that it in itself is immoral.

THE HYPOCRISY ALMOST MADE ME LAUGH A#5: "The destruction of life is immoral" Have you ever heard of the meat industry? The vegetable industry? the food industry? The cases of transplant where a pig is killed for a heart? The self-defence laws regarding a murderer being found not guilty if it was done in self-defence? Every single part of a human society displays that if we benefit, taking life is not necessarily immoral, your point is so ridiculously reliant on emotion that it throws all logic out of the window. The fact that you followed up the statement "The destruction of life is immoral" with the remark "Even if a person or group of people benefits from that destruction" Shows me how ignorant you are. Are you saying all wars, all police who shoot the criminal to death due to weapon raising and perhaps all people who put down their dog to save its suffering are immoral? Well then you surely have a great burden of proof on your part.

Countering Rebuttals

C#1: "A fetus can begin feeling pain as early as 20 weeks." there is no more sign of a foetus showing pain than there is an ant, and believe me when you step on an ant it writhes in agony, even runs faster to overcome the pain, thus are you suggesting the foetus is equal to an ant? There is no evidence that bacteria don't feel pain, should we stop all acts of hygiene? You then go on to say "If a living person is unconscious, unreasoning, unmotivated, uncommunicative, and unaware; they still have a right to life." Well no they don't. The issue with a four to five year old is that the duty of the parent is to save it by law. The issue of the person under anesthesia is that the surgeon has the duty to save this person's life, duty by profession and duty by law. It is the same with any scenario you can give me regarding a person in such a helpless state, any medic has a duty thus it is not about morality but about legal and professional duty to save a person's life. Also this doesn't even slightly succeed in countering my point that a foetus is not a person.

C#2: Someone at my work is not the issue, the virus is. Thus killing the virus is ethical and hence I try to do it (usually by merely leaving my immune system to do the job for me). It is totally different when the foetus itself is causing the physical deterioration and pain. A baby is out of the body, not a part of it so you can't really compare the two.

C#3: You have a burden of proof to prove that all wars are immoral and that governments of all nations that ever went to war were morally incorrect to do so. You also have to prove that bacterium have a right to life which we violate by using soap. If you can't prove this then there is no intrinsic right to life.

C#4: It's not immoral. It's just better than the alternative scenario, often in places where the woman is burdened with a raped baby in a place of extreme poverty.

C#5: Rape is related to this debate. Nowhere in your conditions for debate did you state that rape was not included. I Think you should concede this rebuttal and try again.

C#6: I think you should research father's leaving the mother alone with the baby, as is very common in less economically developed regions of this world. The mother is often left with either aborting the baby or raising it in poverty, not all countries allow adoption in poor areas, especially rural ones.

C#7: I think you didn't read my point properly. I shall repeat it. There is a peculiar double standard being applied by opponents of abortion. The dignity of the fetus is glorified, while the dignity of the child-rearer is seemingly ignored and even trampled. This is particularly concerning when more men appear to support abortion than woman; it appears that men are more willing to trample the child-bearer (a woman) than the child. Read it this time and please realise why this is a strong point countering the false concept of the immorality of abortion.

C#8: Condoms that break or have even the smallest tear also often led to unplanned pregnancy. Causes of condom damage include improper use, inadequate use of a water-based lubricant, using condoms past the expiration date, improper storage. Jewellery, fingernails, and other objects may create tiny tears in condoms that render them ineffective. If condoms are your choice in contraception, make sure to use a vaginal spermicide to decrease your risk of unplanned pregnancy should condom damage occur.

For a given individual, it’s difficult to know why her birth control might have failed. Skipping pills is certainly a common reason. But some people also metabolize the pill more quickly than others, which results in the medication being cleared more quickly from the body. Certain medications, particularly the tuberculosis-treatment drug rifampin, can potentially interfere with pill metabolism.

Body weight could also have an effect. Barbieri says that birth control pills are not tested on women who are obese, and some observational studies of women taking the pill have detected a slightly higher failure rate in those women.[1]

How do you justify these cases of failure? Stop thinking that contraception is 100% effective, it is not. If you are suggesting not having sex at all then you have a very big burden of proof as to why this should be the case.

C#9: I didn't say the foetus doesn't come to term. I said foetus comes to term but would die from a severe disability.

C#10: You didn't address my point. Poor woman are most susceptible to circumstances in which abortion is necessary. If abortion is illegal, therefore, this socio-economic group will be disproportionately affected. THEREFORE ABORTION IS NOT IMMORAL!

C#11: This was merely a contention to oppose a possible one you would raise.

C#12: If it can't be implemented as a law how can it be moral? Are you suggesting having an immoral law system?

Sources:

[1] http://www.boston.com...
Debate Round No. 2
daniel.droege5

Pro

A1.
A cell is not killed. It dies. There is a difference. It is also not a human being. An abortion is killing a fetus. It is not naturally occurring. This argument is for a better way of telling when an embryo becomes a human being. That is all. How is it not relevant when killing a human being is immoral? We use the heart and the heart alone to determine when a human being is dead so it should be the factor when considering when life starts as well.

A2.
I was saying that there are things that are more immoral than murder in regards to the victim. Abortion being one of them in my opinion. It is the difference between living and dying or being completely removed from existence like in "It's A Wonderful Life."

A3.
The point is that if it would be immoral for a doctor to harm the fetus, it should also be immoral for the mother to harm the fetus.

A4.
If you have two sons and they are hanging off of a cliff and you had to drop one of them to save the other one from certain death, it would not be immoral. If you dropped them both, it would be immoral. Normally dropping a child off a cliff is immoral, but when you have no other option between doing something immoral and doing something even more immoral, it is still moral to do the act that was previously immoral. If you have a moral alternative and you don't take it, then by default, you are being immoral. If someone put a gun to your head and said, "Have an abortion or I will shoot you." Having an abortion would then be moral.

A5.
I thought it was implied that we were talking about human life since that is what this debate is centered around. Self-defense is completely different and the fact you would link abortion to self-defense on the behalf of the mother is what's comical.

C1.
It is also my argument that it is a parents duty to protect an unborn child as well as a born child. I did counter your point, but you misunderstood it. You showed no difference between the qualifying factors you provided to show that a fetus was not a person, but you fail to see how an adult lacking the same qualifications cannot be murdered.

C2.
The point stands that just because another being causes you discomfort, you cannot kill them. Especially when the pain was brought on by the person wanting to do the killing.

C3.
All wars are immoral or a self-defense reaction to something immoral. Remember, we are talking about humans here. Stop derailing the argument with bacteria and farm animals. The entire reason we have governments and laws is to protect the right to life. Why would we protect something if we had no right to life? I guess if you believe that nothing has a right to live, killing could never be considered immoral.

C4.
If it is better than the alternative, why do they feel so remorseful? I think you know it is because they feel like they have done something wrong and you were very close to admitting it.

C5.
Since we are talking about abortions being moral or immoral, non-consensual sex adds another layer to the argument and could change the outcome entirely based on less than 1% of all abortions performed. If I can prove that abortions are immoral, I would like to take you up on this debate as I am sure we disagree, but if I can't prove a typical abortion is immoral, this is a waste of time. That is why I conceded the point to focus on the argument presented.

http://www.nytimes.com...

C6
This has nothing to do with the argument. Irrelevant.

C7
This argument is nonsense. I read it and understood it entirely. I would say that since fetuses are male and female, you should respect the rights of both of them by not killing them. Since men have forced women to get abortions in the past, I would view their part in it as immoral also. Would you agree that if a woman was forced to have an abortion, it would be immoral?

C8
That is what the morning after pill is for. I know the effective rate of various prophylactics. So do the people using them and if you didn't want a baby, would take a 1% chance? If the condom breaks and you say, "To hell with it!" that is your fault. This in no way has an effect on the morality of destroying a human life.

C9
That is what I mean by "viable fetus" or "fetus that will not come to term."

C10
I have shown that abortion is never a necessity. It causes more harm to the unborn child than all others involved. We don't kill people because they are poor. It would be immoral if we did so poor or not.

C12
All the things done in Nazi Germany were lawful. That doesn't quite make them moral does it? Were all the abortions before Roe vs Wade immoral because they were illegal? Did they all of a sudden become moral just because the abortion was lawful?
RationalMadman

Con

Right well you seem to think that humans have a 'right to life' but cells that make us up do not. Justify this.
Debate Round No. 3
daniel.droege5

Pro

Since my opponent has abandoned the previous arguments, I would appreciate that they not introduce anymore arguments in the next round as it would be impossible for me to answer to them. I would appreciate if con would take the time to respond to individual points in the final round or offer a simple "concede" to the point or entire debate. This way I can be sure that they have taken the time to read the points I spent so much time to make.

Cells do not have a heart beat which also proves my first argument in that a cell is not human, however, if I were to harm cells on your body without your consent, it would be considered assault or at the very least harassment. If I creep into a woman's room and do something that causes her to miscarry her child while she is sleeping, I would have committed a crime. Since that woman would lose her child, I have committed an immoral act and since I have cheated that unborn baby of a chance at life is also immoral. Just because the culprit is now the mother instead of myself, the immorality of the act does not change.

If you will not concede that an abortion is immoral in 99% of the cases (after 1st heartbeat, notwithstanding rape or incest), than at least concede this example:
If an 18 year old girl is pregnant and wants to keep her baby, but her parents and boyfriend pressures her and threatens to cut her off financially or kick her out if she does not have an abortion, wouldn't you say that abortion was immoral?
RationalMadman

Con

Look: If the mum has been raped, it's okay (according to you). If the mum would die to have baby it's okay(according to you). But if the mum would have to miss months of work for maternity leave, be weak to the knees and covered in her own sick because she is in the slums of India or any country where this occurs then it's not okay according to you. If she decided to take one sad night out of her working life and have sex with her boyfriend and perhaps was in a country where contraception was like gold and a bowl of rice was the only thing she could afford then if her man didn't pull out in time she has to be burdened with it? I don't appreciate your morality, and I think you need to understand just how harsh some women live. They never had the chance to know about contraception, they might have been barely legal age-wise or perhaps felt like getting dominated but then it felt too good to stop. Why do we do any medical procedure? Why do we save people who jump off a building due to being drunk, after all it's their fault for being drunk, why do we bother to help anyone? This is the key error in your moral system, you think ALL abortions should have the same moral reading, in fact this is not only naive but rather ignorant as a world view. If killing is wrong, then should we just not fight any wars? Let terrorists take over? Foolish in every regard has your debate been so far. You don't understand that pregnancy itself is very damaging, there are women who eat so little that pregnancy won't kill them, in fact they can't afford having this tested, all they know is if they have the baby all the 9 months they'll probably be exhausted and collapse by the end. Just consider what you are talking about.
Debate Round No. 4
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by muzebreak 4 years ago
muzebreak
I like how Daniel pretty much just stated half her resolution as though it were an axiom and Rational didn't call her on it, all he did was give examples where he would call it not immoral. But the thing that really needed to be addressed here was: What morality is it against? Daniel deserved to lose the debate for not giving a morality which this goes against, and rational deserved to lose for not bringing that fact up in his first round. In the end, rational deserved it more for not even attempting to argue the second half of the resolution.
Posted by mcc1789 4 years ago
mcc1789
Ok, well you have an exception there at least.

As you know I dispute this is a crime.

Yes, it's happened, and I don't agree with eugenics. However, anti-abortion/contraception propaganda is also pushed on them. US-funded clinics around the world have been forbidden to even mention it.
Posted by daniel.droege5 4 years ago
daniel.droege5
Yes, even if a fetus cannot help it, (lacking criminal intent) if it is going to cause serious risk to the mother to carry the baby to term, an abortion would not be immoral imo.

The difference is that in most cases the fetus is not harming the mother and the mother has criminal intent on destroying her unborn child for her own benefit.

I didn't want to encroach this topic in the debate, but I believe that abortion and sterilization is pushed on people who are poor, uneducated, and belonging to a minority group with propaganda. Eugenics is very immoral imo.
Posted by mcc1789 4 years ago
mcc1789
My point is you should think of quality, not just quantity. I think you already know I've said that it's okay in any case. So you make an exception to save the mother?
Posted by daniel.droege5 4 years ago
daniel.droege5
How poor and unwanted does a child have to be for you to accept that it is okay to shoot them in the head?

They would have to be dying for me to do it.

If I couldn't pull the trigger, it must be because I find something wrong with it. I couldn't do an abortion unless it was to save my wife or put a nonviable fetus out of its misery.
Posted by mcc1789 4 years ago
mcc1789
"Okay, follow me on this one. I don't think you have a right to take my money that I worked for, in the form of taxes, to pay for war and social programs I disagree with. However, since society has agreed that it is legal to take a portion of my wages and apply it indiscriminately is rationalized because I myself benefited from the collection of revenue. This pay it forward mentality should be applied to abortion."

I fail to see how your example above equals "pay it forward." More like "something good can come from bad" per your opinion.

"The only reason you are here is because you were not aborted. If you were aborted, you would never have to make this decision or any other decision."

Quite true.

"Since you were not aborted, you should pay it forward and not have an abortion."

How does this follow in any way?

"You child may never thank you for it, but would you expect them to do so?"

No, I wouldn't expect it.

"You would never tell your child that you considered aborting them or that you should have aborted them because that would be wrong and immoral."

I can imagine someone who has a child they didn't want might feel this, and even say it. That may not be nice, but studies show unwanted children have worse upbringings and later outcomes. You might want to consider it.
Posted by daniel.droege5 4 years ago
daniel.droege5
Rationalmadman. I get it now. It is an oxymoron.

You should not melt-down until the voting is over.
You could still pull this one out.
Posted by daniel.droege5 4 years ago
daniel.droege5
Okay, follow me on this one. I don't think you have a right to take my money that I worked for, in the form of taxes, to pay for war and social programs I disagree with. However, since society has agreed that it is legal to take a portion of my wages and apply it indiscriminately is rationalized because I myself benefited from the collection of revenue. This pay it forward mentality should be applied to abortion. The only reason you are here is because you were not aborted. If you were aborted, you would never have to make this decision or any other decision. Since you were not aborted, you should pay it forward and not have an abortion. You child may never thank you for it, but would you expect them to do so? You would never tell your child that you considered aborting them or that you should have aborted them because that would be wrong and immoral.
Posted by mcc1789 4 years ago
mcc1789
I'm not implying that do not get pregnant due to their voluntary actions (barring rape, as you said). I don't see what food poisoning has to do with this, but in that case, it can also be dealt with medically. A person can indeed blame the illness for how they feel, even though it does not choose to exist, any more than a fetus does. True, a born human cannot live in another, but if they could, and it were no fault of their own in being there, does that mean they have a right to? I never said this proves harm, although it may occur. Regardless of whether it causes harm, I do not see how any entity can have the right to live on another's body, whether they chose that or not.
Posted by RationalMadman 4 years ago
RationalMadman
daniel you are a fool. I don't care if others think you deserve to win. You are a fool if you truly believe abortion to be immoral.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by emospongebob527 4 years ago
emospongebob527
daniel.droege5RationalMadmanTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:42 
Reasons for voting decision: Con dropped the argument and never picked it back up............
Vote Placed by danjr10 4 years ago
danjr10
daniel.droege5RationalMadmanTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: Good Debate
Vote Placed by martianshark 4 years ago
martianshark
daniel.droege5RationalMadmanTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Interesting and unique debate. I gave conduct to Pro for various reasons, including the fact that Con basically conceded in the last two rounds, and that he broke the rules by arguing in round 1. Pro's spelling/grammar was slightly better, and his arguments were solid and convincing. Sources are about the same.
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
daniel.droege5RationalMadmanTied
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: Con said something like "All your rebuttals are wrong", which is pretty rude, but he took it a step further by dropping all arguments in the second to last round and going on a rant that brought up new arguments in the very last round.
Vote Placed by InVinoVeritas 4 years ago
InVinoVeritas
daniel.droege5RationalMadmanTied
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 abandons all arguments. Honestly, it's not worth debating him. He always drops all arguments at the end and goes off on irrational rants.