The Instigator
alexjohnc3
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Marauder
Pro (for)
Winning
22 Points

Abortion is 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 6 votes the winner is...
Marauder
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/16/2010 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,086 times Debate No: 11424
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (14)
Votes (6)

 

alexjohnc3

Con

There are many so-called "pro-lifers" who are in opposition to abortion on the grounds that it is the killing a human being. That is an irrational belief that, if enforced by the government, would cause countless women to suffer for no good reason.
Marauder

Pro

'cause countless of women to suffer for no good reason'
Fail, continuation of the species is a good reason. Also, our economy is in danger due to Old people outnumbering the young, causing the source for social security to collapse http://www.usnews.com...

Explain how it is irrational to classify what we are while still in the vagina as human, or ending its growth as death
Debate Round No. 1
alexjohnc3

Con

You have failed to argue that abortion is immoral. You're merely attempting to appeal to the (supposed) consequences of allowing women to have abortions.

You're the one making the claim that what is "still in the vagina"--actually, in the uterus--is human and therefore it is immoral to kill it, so the onus is on you.
Marauder

Pro

Your appeal was that there is no good reason for women having to give birth, I showed that was false as we need more youth to support our old people in our economy.

There is no reason to ever think it is not human, if we are to stray far from that track of thought it should be with good provocation. It is not irrational to think it human when there is no reason to think otherwise.

I do thank you for correcting me though, it is in the uterus, not vagina. My bad.
Debate Round No. 2
alexjohnc3

Con

I do not see how economic considerations provide good reason for women having to give birth, even if they do not wish to for whatever reason (such as financial issues or simply because of the heavy burden of bearing a child). As I said before, you're attempting to appeal to the supposed consequences of preventing women from having abortions.

When something is "human" is arbitrary. Is it at conception, i.e., when the moment the sperm fertilizes the ovum? If so, why is it immoral at that moment
Marauder

Pro

Financial issues have logical place in a woman's decision to give birth, only to raise it. (Orphanage)
The severity of the burden is also up to her (Morphine)
These consequences need to be appealed to in determining if its 'for no good reason' because they are a cold logistic with little room for interpretation.
sadly the first point it is human is not as closed to interpretation. But we must treat it so in any case at conception to avoid Loki's Wager http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_Wager
Debate Round No. 3
alexjohnc3

Con

The burden of bearing a child is far greater than giving birth, unless you're suggesting women take morphine for 9 months. Furthermore, the poor disproportionately have unwanted pregnancies (http://tinyurl.com...), and it can lead to psychological issues for the mother (http://tinyurl.com...).

Even if we say it is human at the moment of conception, that does not justify the belief that abortion is immoral. I am out of room, so I'll point you here for that: http://tinyurl.com...
Marauder

Pro

Morphine is really only for the deliver period itself, but I think we know they are milder drugs than morphine for the first 9 months. I fail to see why the ratio of poor and rich pregnantcies deal with morality. Your second article refutes itself. It asserts that the child must be loved and unwanted pregnacy causes that but then turns around to say unwanted pregnancy doesnt= unwanted birth.
Those sperm&ovum die naturaly and thus would never be called immoral, but abortion is unatural.
Debate Round No. 4
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Marauder 6 years ago
Marauder
reponse to 1)
Well they are way more problems hurting social security than just generation imbalance in population, so yes it could never solve all of them.
rsp to 2)
true, it would still be a small percentage added perspectively, but how many other ways do you increase population on levels even as high as .26%? more unborn children die in a day than people who perished in the 9/11 attacks. the only other method for increasing population to even that extent would involve conquering another country, and adding its residents to our workforce population count. for some reason people are always turned off by that suggestion. Unless we 'annex' another country like we did with texas.
And still this will be drops in the bucket, but every drop is going to make picking up the slack for the remaining 99. 74% all the more manageable. every dollar less we get into debt is another dollar that can pay off debt, witch snowballs more dollars availible to pay of more debt.

every drop in the bucket counts when your trying to pay off your debts.

Not that I have any faith that will ever happen even if abortion was made illeagle for that very pupose, cause if congress ever gets more money they dont have to spend on debt they wont use to pay it off, they never spend money like they have common sense.
Posted by alexjohnc3 6 years ago
alexjohnc3
1. Simply having more and more children every generation won't solve problems with social security. There is no evidence for that claim.
2. If, hypothetically, you were right that having more children in the younger generation would solve problems with social security, the number of potential babies who were aborted (about 800,000 per year http://www.cdc.gov...) would be only 0.26% of the total population. While that's a lot, it's certainly not even close to enough to support the 47 million people receiving social security. (http://digital.library.unt.edu...)
3. Your solution, provided it would work at all despite what I've noted above, would not be sustainable. Each generation would have to be much larger than the previous (if, somehow, there were far more abortions than there actually are, that is).
Posted by Marauder 6 years ago
Marauder
'-Used more reliable sources: He sourced a US News blog post on problems involving social security as evidence that abortion is immoral because if it was banned there would be more young people who could pay for older people's social security. He didn't provide a reliable source that showed fewer abortions would lead to fewer problems with social security, however.'

if the problem with social security is baby boomer generation is just a little too big for our current generation can handle, than the only solution one can imagine is to add more to that younger population. if abortion is stoped, then every case that would have been an abortion cannot not add to the that population. that source was to refute your defense 'for no good reason'
as far as how much cold legestics bear on morality, thats another question, but statements like 'no good reason' sounds like an appeal to cold legestics to me and not morality so it called for a legestical answer.
Posted by InsertNameHere 6 years ago
InsertNameHere
Lately I have been having very mixed feelings about abortion. I have decided awhile ago that late term abortion is wrong. However, earlier abortion is ok if the mother is a rape victim or something. Other than that she chose to have sex and get pregnant. :) If you don't want a child then keep your pants up.
Posted by alexjohnc3 6 years ago
alexjohnc3
Honestly, your vote makes no sense to me Yurlene.

-Better conduct: I think both of us were pretty civil.
-Spelling and grammar: See his last reply.
-More convincing arguments: Not for me to say. He did end with a naturalistic fallacy, which I was unable to point out since that was the end of the debate.
-Used more reliable sources: He sourced a US News blog post on problems involving social security as evidence that abortion is immoral because if it was banned there would be more young people who could pay for older people's social security. He didn't provide a reliable source that showed fewer abortions would lead to fewer problems with social security, however. He also sourced a Wikipedia entry.
I sourced an actual article in the Washington Post and an article from the website "Pro-choice Forum" that was, despite the name of the website, well-referenced and written by two Ph.D. psychologists.
Posted by Yurlene 6 years ago
Yurlene
Con - Really now? That's it?
Personally I lean towards pro-choice versus pro-life.
But to see this argument unfold. I say the pro has it. But my position still stands :-P
Posted by alexjohnc3 6 years ago
alexjohnc3
I assumed there was an obvious difference between the murder of a fully developed human and the "murder" of a fetus. I didn't object to a fetus being a human because it does have 23 chromosomes. However, a fetus lacks personhood. The link I gave you discusses why a fetus should not be considered a person. Just wanted to clarify that, but since the debate is over, that's all I'll say. :)

Glad you liked the 500 character limit! =)
Posted by Immortal 6 years ago
Immortal
This was a short debate...
Posted by Marauder 6 years ago
Marauder
justification for claming the immorality of murder is given as a norm. you gave us only 500 character limet so I'm not wasting the space on the assumed. the only obvious contention that needs delt with if it qualifies as that is 'is it human?'

that being said I am glad that you set the limit to 500, cause that has made this a very fun challange for me to say what I need to say with the smallest words possible.
Posted by alexjohnc3 6 years ago
alexjohnc3
Really? I don't think his arguments have been paticularly strong considering he has to show abortion is immoral and he has yet to provide good reason for believing it is.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Yurlene 6 years ago
Yurlene
alexjohnc3MarauderTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Sorrow 6 years ago
Sorrow
alexjohnc3MarauderTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by gbpacker 6 years ago
gbpacker
alexjohnc3MarauderTied
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 
Vote Placed by Teleroboxer 6 years ago
Teleroboxer
alexjohnc3MarauderTied
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 
Vote Placed by Xie-Xijivuli 6 years ago
Xie-Xijivuli
alexjohnc3MarauderTied
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 
Vote Placed by tBoonePickens 6 years ago
tBoonePickens
alexjohnc3MarauderTied
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