The Instigator
16kadams
Pro (for)
Winning
1 Points
The Contender
ScarletGhost4396
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Abortion is immoral

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 1 vote the winner is...
16kadams
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/28/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,324 times Debate No: 22399
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

16kadams

Pro

First round acceptance, definitions and clarifications.

definitions:

"Abortion is defined as the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo"
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Actual longer resolution:

Abortion is immoral when caused by accidental pregnancies (exclude rape in this debate).

This debate is ONLY when you have a whoops moment with a boyfriend/girlfriend, or even a husband/wife. NONE of the hard cases in this debate.
ScarletGhost4396

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
16kadams

Pro

P1: from conception, a fetus is a member of the human race
P2: Members of the human race are intrinsically valuable
P3: It is wrong to kill an innocent human being
P4: Abortion kills a human being
C: Abortion = immoral


Defending P1: from conception, a fetus is a member of the human race

There are many theories on when a human being comes to start. The law says birth. Religion says conception. And science too has a conclusion: conception.

"The changes occurring between implantation, a six-weeks embryo, a six-months fetus, a one-week- old child, or a mature adult are merely stages of development and maturation. The majority of our group could find no point in time between the union of sperm and egg, or at least the blastocyst stage, and the birth of the infant at which point we could say that this was not a human life." [1]

Although this is not with P1, I will provide other evidences as well. (later abortion times) As by 8 [or even 6] weeks people record significant brain activity among the fetus. [2]

Now one must also define what is a human. There are many definitions on this topic, and there is always room for this debate. As you can already see, I believe conception is the beginning of a human being.

This argument is the simple saying of common sense. It is this simple. We know a fetus from the moment of conception is alive as after fertilization it already begins to grow and adapt to its environment. [3] Now, sure a fetus is alive. so what? It isn't immoral to hunt, deer are alive? I have actually heard this rebuttal, and it is highly flawed. Just because something is alive =/= it has intrinsic value, what gives a fetus value is because it is a living human. It is alive AND has human DNA, both of these things are needed for a human to exist. Also comparing a fetus to a deer is a poor example as other things, not just life, are needed to be a human, a fetus has these qualities, a deer does not.

Another argument I have seen is the skin cell scratch or the hair argument, as they have DNA. But this example too is flawed. Firstly, it is common knowledge the hair is dead once visible, so cutting hair is doing no damage. The skin cell argument too is flawed, as when you scratch your skin only dead skin usually falls off. Also both of these arguments are false on another premise, the mother/father organism will survive whether or not we rip these hairs out or the skin cells off, a fetus is a human ad is constructed is made up of different parts which is made from within, not like a normal object. These comparisons are extremely flawed.

The pro life position is a fetus from conception is alive and is a human, this is backed by science.

P2: Members of the human race are intrinsically valuable

The reason we have intrinsic value is because of what we embody, as opposed to instrumental value, which are totally different things. People denounce the killings of other human beings, yet this is hypocritical as I have demonstrated a fetus is a human being and these people support abortion, often. As people denounce the killing of others this shows there must be some value to a human, either through societies or other outlets. A fetus is as valuable as a human, so a fetus therefore has value.

P3: It is wrong to kill another [innocent] human being

This is fairly indisputable, there are cases though where it is justified. But abortions in the case of this debate (whoops the contraception failed) does not apply to the possibly just reasons to kill. It is a fact it is wrong to kill an innocent person, by opponent would likely agree, but differs on when life begins. As a fetus has done nothing wrong, it is wrong to kill a person (fetus is a human), and a fetus has value, couldn't I technically end here? But I continue :P

P4: Abortion kills a human being

Here is where my opponent will disagree, a fetus is a human so it does not kill any human being. Well before I talk about my premise, lets first see what abortion is.

"The word abortion comes from the Latin abortio, which means to abort, miscarry, deliver prematurely. The Latin word abortus means "miscarriage, premature, untimely birth". In medicine abortion means ending a pregnancy prematurely. " [4]

Now my opponent agree abortion ends pregnancy deliberately. But we differ on the premise of the does abortion kill a human being. As I have proven, assuming science is correct in assuming a fetus is a human [at conception], then abortion is in fact terminating a human being, and as hums have intrinsic value and it is wrong to kill a human abortion is morally wrong. This now brings me to my closing.

Conclusion:

Abortion is a termination of a pregnancy, which in turn KILLS A HUMAN, with intrinsic value and ends a perfectly innocent person. As it is widely accepted a killing of another human is morally wrong, and a fetus is a person, then abortion should also be considered morally wrong by more people. So to close, abortion is morally wrong, as it ends a persons life. I will once again outline the basic argument:

P1: Life starts at conception
P2: Members of the human race are intrinsically valuable
P3: It is wrong to kill an innocent human being
P4: Abortion kills a human being
C: Abortion = immoral

Vote para mio!!




[1] Willke & Willke, Handbook on Abortion, (1971, 1975, 1979 Editions)
[2] J. Goldenring, "Development of the Fetal Brain," New England Journal of Medicine.
[3] http://www.abortionfacts.com...
[4] http://www.medicalnewstoday.com...
ScarletGhost4396

Con

To my opponent's surprise, I will actually be DEBATING in this round. lol. In this resolution, I have to stand with the CON evaluating abortion through two standards of morality: deontology and consequentialism. I observe the following: Morality's purpose is to promote social harmony and ameliorate suffering, as Professor Bryan Benham of Philosophy at the University of Utah College of Humanities explains. Therefore, the burden of the PRO in this scenario is to prove that abortion will deviate us from this state for human society.

The CON case will focus on these following ideas:
1. Fetuses are not members of human society and are, therefore, not subject to its protections of rights, making their termination morally irrelevant (hence, morally permissible, at the very least).
2. Fetuses, due to their condition, are ineligible for the acquisition of human rights, making their termination further morally irrelevant.
3. Abortions, especially legal ones, are practical for human society and its survival in nature.

I will now move on to my contentions explaining these points:

Contention 1: The termination of fetuses is morally permissible
Evaluating this debate through the context of philosophy in the form of social contract and human rights, we can clearly see that regardless of their current condition of being human or otherwise, their current condition also makes them ineligible for the acquisition of rights in human society according to the doctrines guiding them as such. This is to explain the deontology of abortion.

Sub-point 1a: Fetuses are not part of social contract.
The condition of fetuses being so distant from society in the current state as well as their intellectual inability to be part of the contract deems fetuses incapable of being a subject of social contract, henceforth making them ineligible of the protections of government formed from the contract itself. Social contract is what guarantees the worth of citizens in society and protects the rights of them thereof in addition to determining a state of legitimate or illegitimate government as such, meaning that an overarching standard for securing harmony in society is this social contract.

Social Contract Theory (csus.edu)

Sub-point 1b: Fetuses are not eligible for human rights.
The context of human rights, as explained by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations, set in 1948 in order to create a universal standard for human rights, also presents that fetuses are less eligible for rights considering that the first clause states that all human beings are BORN equal.

Contention 2: Abortions are practical for the continuation of society.
Under the lens of consequentialism, abortions are also moral considering their contribution to the society at large in the following ways:

Sub-point 2a: The alternative of adoption centers is a poor one.
The pro-life argument will state that adoption rather than abortion should be the best alternative for the betterment of teenage mothers facing this circumstance, but the conditions at which children are subjected to in the context of adoption centers leads to their mental detriment:
"
Margaret A. Keyes, Ph.D., of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and colleagues assessed 540 non-adopted adolescents, 514 internationally adopted adolescents and 178 domestically adopted adolescents (ages 11 to 21) to determine if adopted adolescents were at a higher risk for behavioral and emotional problems. Assessments were based on child and parent reports of attention-deficit/hyperactivity, oppositional defiant, conduct, major depressive and separation anxiety disorders, teacher reports of psychological health and contact with mental health professionals."

In the case of the amount of adoptions that are done worldwide, this is also small:
"About 85 percent of these [250,000 worldwide] adoptions are domestic, or undertaken within the same country. In relative terms, the number of child adoptions is small, with only 1.5 percent out of the 16 million orphans worldwide being placed each year. The number of adoptions that take place each year in the United States is 125,000. The United States thus accounts for about one-half of the total number of child adoptions worldwide, with most of them being domestic adoptions." (The Boston Globe)

Sub-point 1b: Overpopulation warrants the need for abortions.
In only 10 short years, the world population has shot up from 6 billion to 7 billion, and soon enough, it is possible that we will reach a limit to how much human population we can have in proportion to the abundance of resources in the world as a whole.

An article from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology explains: "The world has a problem of overpopulation, not under-population. The environmental problems occur largely because too many people exist and strain the natural resources. Thus, not creating an extra person is on average good for the society. (If creating a person would on average be good, then more people should be created, and the population size is too small, not too large.) In abortion, when a mother chooses not to create a person, the person is unwanted and thus probably should not be created. Much of the poverty found throughout the world is caused by having too many children. Abortion prevents that and thus reduces poverty. Poverty contributes to crime. Therefore, abortion reduces crime. Unfortunately, the government in the USA does not support abortion for poor people."

"No nation desirous of reducing its growth rate to 1% or less can expect to do so without the widespread use of abortion. This observational study, based on the experience of 116 of the world's largest countries, supports the contention that abortion is essential to any national population growth control effort. The principal findings are: Except for a few countries with ageing populations and very high contraceptive prevalence rates, developed countries will need to maintain abortion rates generally in the range of 201-500 abortions per 1000 live births if they are to maintain growth rates at levels below 1%. The current rate in the USA is 426 abortions per 1000 live births. Developing countries, on the other hand, are faced with a different and more difficult set of circumstances that require even greater reliance on abortion. No developing nation wanting to reduce its growth to less than 1% can expect to do so without the widespread use of abortion, generally at a rate greater than 500 abortions per 1000 live births. Widespread availability of abortion is a necessary but not sufficient condition to achieve growth rates below 1%. A high contraceptive prevalence is essential as well in order to achieve growth rates below 1%. A high contraceptive prevalence is a necessary but not sufficient condition to achieve population growth rates below 1%. A high rate of abortion (generally 201-500 or more abortions per 1000 live births in the developed and greater than 500 abortions per 1000 live births in the developing countries) is essential to achieve growth rates below 1%."

Resources (Other than ones already mentioned):
Taranovsky, Dmytro. "Abortion." Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2 Aug. 2002. Web. 01 Apr. 2012. <http://web.mit.edu...;.

E, Kessel. "Supplemental Content." National Center for Biotechnology Information. U.S. National Library of Medicine. Web. 01 Apr. 2012. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...;.



Debate Round No. 2
16kadams

Pro

Rc1: Termination of fetuses is morally permissible

SPA: Fetuses are not part of a social contract

A social contract is an intellectual device that explain the relationship with individuals and their governments. [1] Now, the argument only works if a fetus is not an individual, and if they are then it is immoral to deprive them of this right. So, if I prove a fetus is a human them they should be in a social contract, then it is immoral to kill them. My opponents argument only works when a fetus is not a human, and the government has laws protecting her side. If a fetus was indeed a human, and the politicians saw it that way, abortion would be banned then, well, they enter a social contract.

Now, the argument against a fetus not being a human is they are not developed. Things that are less developed are worth less, and a fetus is just a development stage of a human, it is a human in a different stage. [2] Now, as development matters we can assume the older you are the better you are. Now your life is worth less then some old persons life. The arguments against a fetus being a human are fallacious. They deserve to be in a social contract.

SPB: fetuses are not eligible for human rights

This is false. In Latin america 24 nations signed a treaty giving a fetus all human rights. [3] This argument also seems to be odd, as you are applying laws to morality. Morality is about being in good manner. [4] So, if I prove a fetus is a human like I already have, then it is not in good manner to abort a fetus.

Rc2: Abortions are needed in society

May I ask, how does this involve morality?

SPA: Adoption is a poor option

How does this relate to the resolution? Adoption and abortion are not related in this debate, as we are arguing the morality of abortion, not adoption.

Still, we are arguing the morality of abortion, not adoption.

SPB: Overpopulation

Once again, how does this relate to the practice of abortion?

He first says we strain resources, like food. False.

"In most of the world, food production is easily outstripping population growth, and on a world-wide basis the problem of overpopulation no longer exists. It is true, of course, that some nations still cannot feed themselves, but the reasons for this tend to be political...[for example] Zimbabwe has seen a massive decline in food production since independence, as have most of the emerging nations of Africa. But Africa is the last bastion of state planning and socialism, and it is no accident that it is also the last bastion of famine." [5] [6]

Then he claims the environmental problems, which is odd, as it would likely happen anyway. Also, does this involve morality?
__________________________________________________________________________________________________

P1: Life starts at conception
P2: Members of the human race are intrinsically valuable
P3: It is wrong to kill an innocent human being
P4: Abortion kills a human being
C: Abortion = immoral

P1: Life starts at conception

Now, as already presented the basic argument I will re touch. Once the... fertilization occurs the fetus is alive an technically a member of the human species, this is a fact. As some people put it:

"Embryo: The early developing fertilized egg that is growing into another individual of the species. In man the term 'embryo' is usually restricted to the period of development from fertilization until the end of the eighth week of pregnancy." [7]

Now this is when a human exists, the development of a new human being. This all at fertilization, or conception. This creates a new HUMAN organize, the zygote. The zygote is alive and well. [8]

P2: Members of the human race are intrinsically valuable

This is obvious. I already got the point across above.

P3: It is wrong to kill an innocent human being

Self explanatory. This is a fact, and a fetus is a human, an abortion kills the fetus. Get the gist yet?

P4: Abortion kills a human being

Obviously.

C: Abortion = immoral

A fetus is a human, it is wrong to kill people, abortion kills the fetus, abortion is immoral.

Conclusion:

He dropped my arguments, and most of his arguments DO NOT EVEN relate to morality. My argument of:

P1: Life starts at conception
P2: Members of the human race are intrinsically valuable
P3: It is wrong to kill an innocent human being
P4: Abortion kills a human being
C: Abortion = immoral

Still stands. I forgot to add, the basic argument of this was taken from keytarhero.
http://www.debate.org...

VOTE PRO

__________

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] F. Beck, D. B. Moffat, and D. P. Davies, Human Embryology, Second edition (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1985)
[3] http://civilliberty.about.com...
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[5] http://www.christianaction.org.za...
[6] Exploding Population Myths, by Jim Peron, 1995, The Free Market Foundation, Sandton, South Africa. p8
[7] Walters, William and Singer, Peter (eds.). Test-Tube Babies. Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1982
[8] Sadler, T.W. Langman's Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995
ScarletGhost4396

Con

ScarletGhost4396 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
16kadams

Pro

I ask for conduct... As posting arguments last round would also be frowned upon I would ask if he does so I get another point. I ask for a PRO vote.
ScarletGhost4396

Con

ScarletGhost4396 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by DragonX 4 years ago
DragonX
I'm anti abortion here's what people don't get you are taking a human life. We call murders for killing a child wrong but yer when we a child is aborted it's considered okay. Double standard. they say this should be done to keep the children amount rate small. Well they do say strengths come in numbers so if the children are born they can be good depending on the way you raise I don't have kids but I know plenty of single young parents who have decided to keep their kids,. When a aborton is commited by the mother it is later soon to be regreted by a majority of them. Which in this case it would be a good idea for a person to save sex for marrage because if everbody did wait until they were married there would be no reason for aboortions nor would there be any teen pregnacies. So abortion wouldn't be an issue
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
all you need to post is I accept :P
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
we meet again ^_^
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Maikuru 4 years ago
Maikuru
16kadamsScarletGhost4396Tied
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: I'll try to read this later. For now, conduct to Pro for Con's forfeits.