The Instigator
JasperFrancisShickadance
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
BDPershing
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Abortion is injustice and morally wrong,

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...
JasperFrancisShickadance
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/16/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,813 times Debate No: 68451
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

JasperFrancisShickadance

Pro

For reasons such as forfeiting in previous debates, I hope desperately that my contender will step up and present arguments! I thank you ahead of time if you do. Why I want to debate BDPershing is because of the issues he brings up here: http://www.debate.org...

My contentions are simple: that abortion is a form of murder and is morally, spiritually,and physically wrong. I hope that the designated opponent will accept this instigation and debate to his full capacity of arguing!! :D I can be a fierce debater but I also have a soft heart for those who oppose me. This should be interesting.
Round 1 acceptance, meaning do not post arguments in round 1. No rules for conclusions and whatnot.

I would like to add one thing and that is that there is no limit to sources, whether bias or un-bias, as long as the content of the sources isn't irrelevant or completely false. If either debater gets off topic or troll-debates in any way, he automatically loses.

LET THE DEBATING BEGIN!
BDPershing

Con

I accept this debate, I'm assuming due to the phrasing of the topic "Abortion is injustice and morally wrong" if I show that it is just by legal standards and/or morally sound that I uphold my BoP. For my opponent states that it is both an injustice and immoral. "is" referring to as existing to the present, injustice referring to legally just or simply being justified by law, and morally wrong referring to a state of being immoral.

Definitions:
Morality: principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
Injustice: lack of fairness or justice
Justice: rightfulness or lawfulness, as of a claim or title; justness of ground or reason
Lawful: allowed or permitted by law; not contrary to law
Law: the principles and regulations established in a community by some authority and applicable to its people, whether in the form of legislation or of custom and policies recognized and enforced by judicial decision.
Murder:
1.Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder) and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder)
2.Law. to kill by an act constituting murder.

Good luck
Debate Round No. 1
JasperFrancisShickadance

Pro

Thank you for providing the definitions, it was nice of you to do that for me. You are correct in saying that "if you show abortion is just by legal standards and morally sound than you uphold your BoP," with one exception which is this: legal standards must be settled upon because many people have different opinions. To clear it up, the terms I believe we will agree with is that "reasonable suspicion" [1] will be accounted for by fellow readers and voters and preponderance of evidence shall be assumed by both debaters' arguments.

I would like to start off with a question for Con: if something is legal is it also considered (from your stand point) truth and/or morality? Please answer and we will debate that from there. It is relevant to this debate because, quite obviously, abortion is favored by the majority of people (not only in America, but in the world), and I believe that that is one of the big reasons that it is legal (concerning the U.S.A). I would also like to stress, let alone ponder, the well-supported idea that abortion is encouraged among women, mainly women who are nervous/uncomfortable with having a baby, due to issues such as overpopulation and "saving a human from depression or hunger or deprivation." Let me know your thoughts.

ABORTION IS NOT AN INDIVIDUAL CHOICE

When a human life begins is not a religious, moral, or philosophical issue; it is a scientific and biological one. Scientists know distinct human life begins at conception. From that time onward, the unborn child is a living, developing individual with a uniquely human genetic constitution.

A FETUS IS NOT A PART OF A WOMAN'S BODY

All human beings have rights which must be protected. A women has a right to protect her own body. Her child, too, has rights, beginning with the right to continued life. The unborn child is an individual, separate and distinct from the mother. From the time of conception, the baby's genetic code is unique to itself, different from the mother's and father's. The baby has its own blood type, heart, brain, and other organs, and may have differently colored eyes, hair and complexion. Being dependent on others should not deprive a helpless human being of fundamental rights.

Is it wrong to argue that the potential (future) of the fetus can define if he is human or not? No. It's as if you pro-choice-ers have to see the baby come out of the woman's body before you can label it an "independent" baby/human! This is completely illogical because, quite obviously, a baby is still dependent on the elders in his/her life even after he is born. Lol think of this analogy and try to rebut it. Saying that a fetus is part of a woman's body is like saying that human waste is a part of the human's body: it is true since--say--poop is developed in the body and is not deposited until it is ready. When a fetus "becomes" a baby, is it still in the mother's womb? When feces become poo, is it still in the human's body? When a baby is born, is it any different than a fetus besides the fact it is out of the body? (This is where the analogy ends.)

The baby is still developing, growing, eating, etc. At 8 weeks, all organs of a human body are formed already, and with little help from others, it could live outside the womb. Even the unborn baby's fingerprints are engraved. At 4 1/2 months the unborn baby"s ears are functioning and he/she hears the mother"s heartbeat, as well as external noises like music. The baby is also able to experience pain. Life-saving surgery has been successfully performed on babies at this age. [8]

THE GOVERNMENT INTERFERING WITH PERSONAL ISSUES IS A FALSE ARGUMENT

As Thomas Jefferson once wrote: "The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government." In modern American society, it is na"ve to suggest that government can be absent from this debate on human life. The government acts through law to regulate in areas much less fundamental than the right to life. The real issue is whether the government will fulfill its responsibility to protect and preserve life, or continue to allow this most fundamental human right to be denied.

A WOMAN'S EXCUSE FOR '...PERSONAL CIRCUMSTANCES PREVENTING HER TO RAISE A CHILD' IS FALSE

A woman has many choices for life. If she wishes to raise her child, there are countless programs across the country that can provide her with counseling, housing, medical care, job training, food, clothing, and other needed services to help her make a good life for herself and her child. If a woman feels that she cannot provide for her baby, adoption can be a good choice for both mother and child. Children's lives should not be sacrificed as a means of solving the problems of others.

Think of one of your favorite little children in your life, perhaps a niece/nephew or cousin. Remember all her personality traits and unique ideas, her good side and her bad side, and her behavior towards you. Now imagine: her mother almost aborted him/her. Some pro-choice-ers argue that abortions don't even matter! Think what would've happened if no babies were aborted. Technology would most likely be more advanced and life might be easier for all of us due to their contribution to the world's proceeding. See these pictures:
http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com...
http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com...
http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com...
http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com...

ABORTION IS NOT JUSTIFIED BECAUSE IT IS NOT USED ONLY AS A LAST RESORT AND FREQUENTLY A RESULT OF RAPE, INCEST, OR DANGER IN THE MOTHER'S LIFE

The truth is that abortion has become a widely used method of birth control in this country. By 1992, 46 percent of all abortions were repeat abortions. Last year, approximately 1.5 million abortions were performed in the U.S. At most, about 1 percent of these were performed for reasons of rape or incest, less than 7 percent to protect the mother's health. Abortion advocates fail to mention the other 92 percent.

DISABLED INFANTS SHOULD NOT BE ABORTED

It is inhumane to use abortion to set artificial standards of quality for human life. No one has the right to judge the quality of another human being's life, or to decide who should live and who should not. The fundamental value of human life is a given, it is not determined by an individual's physical or mental capacities.

In conclusion:

Abortion is wrong because it is unnecessary murder; injustice and inequality for all. I look forward to an educated rebuttal. Thank you for debating me!

SOURCES:
http://www.stthomasapostle.org...
https://www.youtube.com...
http://www.tfpstudentaction.org...
http://www.abort73.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://prolifeacrossamerica.org...
BDPershing

Con

Re: Opponents opening statement
My opponent claims abortion to be murder, as stated, ""that abortion is a form of murder""
Murder:
1. Law: the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder) and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder)
2. Law: to kill by an act constituting murder.

Malice: desire to inflict injury, harm, or suffering on another, either because of a hostile impulse or out of deep-seated meanness.

Question 1: Do you believe that those who do abortions do it with malice?
Question 2: Is it currently lawful?

As for morality,
Morality varies between cultures it is not objectively the same across the board and across the ages. In fact there are many types of morality for example,

Innate morality: A born trait of unchanged sense of morality, where morality simply is constant trait that is given by god since birth.

Objective Morality: is the idea that a certain system of ethics or set of moral judgments is not just true according to a person's subjective opinion, but factually true. Proponents of this theory would argue that a statement like "Murder is wrong" can be as objectively true as "1 + 1 = 2." Most of the time, the alleged source is God, or the Kantian Categorical Imperative; arguably, no objective source of morality has ever been confirmed, nor have any a priori proofs been offered to the effect that morality is anything other than subjective. Kant ultimately fails, because he is perceptibly committed to Christian morality, which guides his arguments.

Evolving subjective morality: That morality is developed and perfected over time, ever changing to the final conclusion of perfection of the idea of morality. Developed by the values of time morality varies as time goes on, with each passing age morality becomes more refined and developed till it reaches the final result of Perfect morality, or also known as Moral Truth.

My opponent fails to realize the amount of kids who weren't aborted yet either die or kill the birth parent due to poor conditions, long ago birth killed 1 out of 1.5 mothers. My opponent also ignores what laws are and it does not matter if one does or not consider them truth or moral, for they were established simply as law. Reason why if you break the law one won"t care if you don"t consider the law truthful or moral"
My opponent also accepts that abortion is morally sound for as she has stated, ""abortion is favored by the majority of people (not only in America, but in the world), and I believe that that is one of the big reasons that it is legal (concerning the U.S.A)"" Unless she condemns these people as being totally immoral then we can conclude that abortion has a moral stance around the world.

Re: ABORTION IS NOT AN INDIVIDUAL CHOICE
This part of my opponent"s argument contradicts itself later for it implies one does not have the right to their privacy and choices against another human being.

Re: A FETUS IS NOT A PART OF A WOMAN'S BODY
My opponent attempts to establish that the child is not part of the mother, I can agree for it more or less resembles a parasite for it feeds and weakens the mother throughout its growth without the mothers consent (if she wishes for an abortion). Like any negative effect on one"s body, one has the right for it being removed; this argument is like forcing someone to accept a cancer and to not have it removed for it is part of one"s body.

Re: THE GOVERNMENT INTERFERING WITH PERSONAL ISSUES IS A FALSE ARGUMENT
Isn't attacking/denying the choice also interfering with personal choice, the government concluded it being the choice of the mother due to her having the rights to her personal life, no one has a right to intervene in her personal affairs. Like I stated before if it has a negative effect on another, in this case the mother, than they have the right to have that negative affect removed.

Re: A WOMAN'S EXCUSE FOR '...PERSONAL CIRCUMSTANCES PREVENTING HER TO RAISE A CHILD' IS FALSE
My opponent attempts to appeal to the idea of there being other options. Foster Care around the world has over 11 million children released into the adult world once they reach of age, never experiencing an adopting family, out of the 158 million children who are orphans/ in foster care. Only 7,000 U.S families adopted in 2012, there were 400,000 children in foster care in the U.S during this time.

Re: ABORTION IS NOT JUSTIFIED BECAUSE IT IS NOT USED ONLY AS A LAST RESORT AND FREQUENTLY A RESULT OF RAPE, INCEST, OR DANGER IN THE MOTHER'S LIFE

Irrelevant: abortion was not defined by law as being only for last resort"

Re: DISABLED INFANTS SHOULD NOT BE ABORTED
Irrelevant: section goes off topic and does not support either abortion being an injustice or it being immoral"

Re: In conclusion:
Steps away from the claim of simply "murder" to being unnecessary murder"

-ABORTION IS NOT AN INDIVIDUAL CHOICE
-A FETUS IS NOT A PART OF A WOMAN'S BODY
-THE GOVERNMENT INTERFERING WITH PERSONAL ISSUES IS A FALSE ARGUMENT
-A WOMAN'S EXCUSE FOR '...PERSONAL CIRCUMSTANCES PREVENTING HER TO RAISE A CHILD' IS FALSE
-ABORTION IS NOT JUSTIFIED BECAUSE IT IS NOT USED ONLY AS A LAST RESORT AND FREQUENTLY A RESULT OF RAPE, INCEST, OR DANGER IN THE MOTHER'S LIFE
-DISABLED INFANTS SHOULD NOT BE ABORTED

I find it insulting that you present, as your own, these plagiarized rebuttals to other arguments I have not brought to the table. If you"re going to insult me with this, at least give the courtesy to the original authors by enclosing in quotation marks the language that is not your own and is copied from".
http://www.stthomasapostle.org......

My conclusion is simple, Abortion, at the present time, is indeed legal and therefore it is not an injustice. Morality varies too much to use effectively in this argument, and, even though it varies between all cultures of the world, you yourself have stated that the act of abortion is accepted all across the world.

What would abortion look like if it is illegal?
Pray you don"t have a miscarriage, and if you do you murdered someone"

http://www.dailykos.com...
Debate Round No. 2
JasperFrancisShickadance

Pro

REBUTTALS

I noticed how Con provided no sources for back up or definitions whatsoever, but alas, I will take what I've been given and debate his case anyways. After "googling" the meaning of 'murder,' I figured my opponent got his definition from dictionary.com. Going into specifics we can say that murder is "...the killing of another human being under conditions covered in law" and we can say that it is generally committed with "...malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation..." I would rather not argue about the meanings or words all day so, Con, would you be alright with me switching the word 'murder' to 'kill'? Also, I am not trying to avoid any discussion, but remember that my resolutions for this debate is that "Abortion is injustice and morally wrong." I stated that abortion is murder/killing, but that is not what we are mainly debating about though it is apropos.

My opponent: "Do you believe that those who do abortions do it with malice?" No, I believe that it is ignorance due to the pregnant woman being fooled into believing abortion is NOT killing. MOST women--I believe--are innocent because of ignorance or simple trickery.

My opponent: "Is it currently lawful?" Well, you haven't answered by question from R2, which is this: "if something is legal is it also considered (from your stand point) truth and/or morality?"

Your case for morality is well written, says me. However, it is irrelevant to the case of abortion being morally wrong. Is killing/murder of innocent human beings considered morally wrong universally, just with some people at some times? (Disregard cannibals please.) Objective morality is the assumed topic we are arguing here, agreed?

Con writes: "My opponent fails to realize the amount of kids who weren't aborted yet either die or kill the birth parent due to poor conditions, long ago birth killed 1 out of 1.5 mothers." I don't want to argue the morality in human rights, but let me ask you: is giving someone a whole new lifetime more important than giving someone else a few more years to live? Oh yes and I also fail to realize how anyone can say aborting babies before they are even born into the world is better than letting them live for a given amount of time. Another thing about human rights is the fact that the definition of a "human" is controversial between us. Some, like my opponent, think that they aren't "humans" until they are born or whatever, thus they believe they don't have any say in their life! Prove me wrong, Con, but is that so unfair and unjust that it's not exactly pro-choice for the baby's life?!

We need to focus on definitions rather than "objective morality" because of the above controversy of when a baby/fetus becomes a real human. Con states: "...Unless she condemns these people as being totally immoral then we can conclude that abortion has a moral stance around the world." It is not a matter of the people who are immoral, I am merely saying that the act of abortion is killing therefore immoral. Because the majority of America believes abortion is not killing mankind, they believe it is moral and that it SHOULD be legal. Which brings me back to the first question I ever asked Con in this debate. Just because something is legal doesn't automatically define it as moral.

My opponent: "This part of my opponent"s argument contradicts itself later for it implies one does not have the right to their privacy and choices against another human being." Please explain yourself, Con, I am confused by your means--and what you are trying to prove.

I will now reinforce my statement that a fetus or baby is not a part of a woman's body.
"...it more or less resembles a parasite for it feeds and weakens the mother throughout its growth without the mothers consent." My opponent, writing about the baby inside the womb, says that it is "without the mothers consent" but how can this be when she obviously had irresponsible and unprotected sex? The man and the woman are intended to have sex for reproduction, hopefully everybody knows that. Mankind, as well as most types of animals, regenerate and produce more offspring by intercourse and always through the female. Why baby whales protected more than baby humans, I do not know, but to me it explains further how abortion is morally wrong and injustice towards human life.

My opponent: "Like any negative effect on one"s body, one has the right for it being removed; this argument is like forcing someone to accept a cancer and to not have it removed for it is part of one"s body."
Readers, can a fetus be compared to a cancer?? I am a female. I believe that bearing a new life (baby) inside me is a privilege that should be protected, and yes it may hurt physically at times, but once the baby is born it is free from the womb. When it is inside the womb it is an individual even though he may not be free in the world, and I know that he will become a human just like you and me.

"Isn't attacking/denying the choice also interfering with personal choice, the government concluded it being the choice of the mother due to her having the rights to her personal life, no one has a right to intervene in her personal affairs." Oh, and I suppose it is totally moral, just and legal for the mother to murder her 5 year old child too, because after all, the child is still her property, right? Once Con can prove that a baby is not an individual person, we will talk, but so far he has not proven that nor that an argument showing that the government interfering with personal issues is a valid case. I don't know why the concept of personal life as a baby is so hard to grasp, except that a baby isn't able to fight for itself therefore doesn't have "rights." Explain that, Con.

My opponent tries to make it sound like the awful statistics for Foster Care and adoption for children in the world and U.S. is MORE awful that it would be for the parents of all those kids to simply have them be aborted. The fault in that is most likely objective morality and common sense, am I wrong?

Con: "Irrelevant: abortion was not defined by law as being only for last resort" Many pro-choice-ers make a case for "all the rapes and incest that the mother was forced to bear a child. I was merely explaining why the argument is wrong by presenting statistics saying that an estimated about 1% of women who get abortions are a result of rape or other dangers.

Con: "Irrelevant: section goes off topic and does not support either abortion being an injustice or it being immoral." How is it off topic? A large number of babies are aborted because they are disabled. This is injustice towards the disabled.

CONCLUSION AND NOTES
I did not mean to insult you, Con. We are debating abortion here, and if you aren't a woman you shouldn't be insulted. ;) Sorry if you are.

You accuse me of giving sources to some of my arguments, whereas you gave none.

Because my opponent has not explained his position as to why everything that is legal is not an injustice, my case stands. We will continue debating morality; I hope that I cleared things up on definitions this round (even though it is quite impossible to do that with each of our beliefs).

Wait, hold it, miscarriage is abortion???!! Since when are they the same?

Thank you for participating. I look forward to the next round.
BDPershing

Con

Re: "I noticed how Con""
So you"re stepping away from your first claim of abortion being murder.
"My contentions are simple: that abortion is a form of murder and is morally, spiritually,and physically wrong."

Legal Truth/morality:
"My opponent also ignores what laws are and it does not matter if one does or not consider them truth or moral, for they were established simply as law. Reason why if you break the law one won"t care if you don"t consider the law truthful or moral."-Round 2, Re: opening, last paragraph, 2nd sentence

Re: "My opponent: "Do you believe that those who do abortions do it with malice?" No""
Then it cannot be murder, therefore making your statement," that abortion is a form of murder" incorrect.

Re: My opponent: "Is it currently lawful?""
If it"s not obvious I have indeed answered this. (Refer to legal truth/morality, from above)

Re: "Your case for morality is well written, says me""
This is subject to how one defines "innocent", I don"t really care of what morality you conform to I was simply giving examples of types of morality. Showing how unreliable to consider something immoral, when it can be completely moral by another type of morality.

Re: "Con writes: "My opponent fails to realize the amount of kids who weren't aborted yet either die or kill the birth parent due to poor conditions, long ago birth killed 1 out of 1.5 mothers."""
If you speak survival of the species, if a child is born in a time at which resources are scarce the being who brought it into this world, believe it or not, will "kill" it, for a child for its first years of life in a burden on the society, it cannot gather food, it cannot defend the society, and it does not have the strength to even defend itself. Logically speaking such a burden would lead to the demise of the species. Would you rather we take the path of fish? Throw hundreds of thousands of "children" into the world with no guidance and "pray" they don"t all die" The already living has always been more valued than a life that has just begun, that is nature.
Matured (capable of breeding)> Child> aged (cannot breed or fend for itself in a time of crisis)

Re: "We need to focus on definitions rather than "objective morality"""
Your claim that it is an "injustice and morally wrong" you follow up this statement with "Abortion "IS" murder" not simply "killing". You cannot keep backing away from your argument and trying to change your stance mid-way. Murder is an "unlawful" killing of a person, that is the definition, you claim it is an injustice for it is murder, meaning your arguing this under injustice being defined as law (refer to definitions).

Re: "My opponent: "This part of my opponent"s argument contradicts itself""
"It"s not an individual"s choice" well it is for the government establishes that" With this logic the victim of a rape doesn't have a choice for it"s not an individual choice"

Re: "I will now reinforce my statement""
That hardcore view of sexual acts as not for pleasure but for only reproduction, I hope if you"re going to say this then you"re not committing acts of masturbation, for it is a sexual act that is stimulating the reproduction organs" If we"re going to go that far, any type of sexual stimulation that activates these organs could be considered an abortion. Man that will suck, guys will be considered murders for wanting to rub one off, and since we all know it takes two to tango.
About this "unprotected sex" thing, you do know that protection is not 100%, condom can rip, the pill may be ineffective, etc" Even the day after pill could be considered an early abortion. In fact anything preventing a pregnancy can be viewed as being an act of preventing life, which, to you, would be illegal"

Re: "My opponent: "Like any negative effect on one"s body""
Sympathy appeal I see, quick question if you will die if you give birth, mainly due to a complication, that does not mean you can"t have a child but the current pregnancy can and in all likely hood will kill you, what will you do? Let"s throw in a father who ran away and this child will never see him in his/her life time, a rapist. By the way, "I know he will become a human like you or me", umm the "potential" of becoming a good lawful citizen who doesn't wish to infringe on a person"s rights to their own privacy or what"s best for their child. If you don't like abortions, then don't have one...

Re: "Isn't attacking/denying the choice also interfering with personal choice""
This part of my argument is the contradiction I mentioned earlier for your saying "it"s not an individual choice" yet it has already been concluded that it"s not up to government to interfere with personal issues. I mentioned this many times before, if you want a fetus to be labeled as a person then,
1. You need to prove its can rationally think.
2. If so, you cannot support the current child raising system deployed by parents for it infringes on these children"s rights as a person.
3. You must label woman"s rights as being inferior to a fetus/child's human rights
Normal human rights> Children human rights> Woman human rights

Re: ""Oh, and I suppose it is totally moral, just and legal for the mother to murder her 5 year old child too, because after all, the child is still her property, right?""
What"s the difference between a 5 year old and a fetus? Well for one, one is actually developed and does not rely on taking directly from the parent to exist. The 5 year old is capable of speech. Can the fetus do that? No" Once out of the womb it can be considered a fully independent organism who does not force itself on to another therefore gaining the official title of "human child".

Re: "My opponent tries to make it sound like the awful statistics for Foster Care""
Look abortion itself has been going down for years now; your argument doesn't take into account the repercussions of forcing a mother to go through birth. Not only will it cause death of woman it will increase the amount of kids who will go into foster care and come out without be adopted, thrown into the world with, no core skills, no money, and no connections. A whole new class of homeless will evolve from forcing birth, which will be such a strain of the system that it will affect everyone.

Re: "Con: "Irrelevant: abortion was not defined by law as being only for last resort"""
I don"t care what the Pro-choice-ers make cases for; legally there is no restriction of it being only for last resort.

Re: "Con: "Irrelevant: section goes off topic""
It"s up to the mother if she wants it gone; I"m not going to force a mother to go through birth. Person rights over rule human being rights, for a person(s) have the rationality capable to make decisions and understand their surroundings. Now the issue with your statement is you don"t know if this disability caused a miscarriage or complications that will kill the mother. Again person rights trumps human rights and if the mother consented to an abortion to save herself it"s her choice.

Re: CONCLUSION AND NOTES
"I did not mean to insult you""
It"s insulting to any debater to take another"s rebuttals and say they are your own"

"You accuse me of giving sources""
I accuse you of improper sourcing for you did not "quote" the rebuttal(s) you use as your main arguments in the previous round, which is like taking it as your own work, plagiarism. Definitions are simple for anyone can place them in a google search to find them or they already know the definition"

"Because my opponent has not explained his position""
"Re: opening, last paragraph, 2nd sentence""

"Wait, hold it, miscarriage is abortion???!! Since when are they the same?"
Abortion, death/removal of a fetus while still in pregnancy
Miscarriage, Death of a fetus while still in pregnancy"
That is just how legislation lays in anti-abortion countries"

I Extend my conclusion, Simple solution, don't like abortion then don't have one...
Debate Round No. 3
JasperFrancisShickadance

Pro

Thank you, Con.

Clarification: I still completely hold my contention that abortion is killing. I am arguing that, because abortion simply is the killing of babies, it is an unjust act as well as morally wrong.

Con says: "My opponent also ignores what laws are and it does not matter if one does or not consider them truth or moral, for they were established simply as law. Reason why if you break the law one won't care if you don"t consider the law truthful or moral." Well thanks for quoting yourself. Ok then, instead of explaining why it's perfectly fine to go along with whatever the government officials say is right, give me your back up for why YOU believe abortion should be legal. I am going to assume that you'll say it's the woman's right because Pro Choice is all about women's comfort, so we will keep debating around the (in)justice and (im)morality in that. However I would like to give a little "reminder" and that is that abortion is NOT "pro-women," instead, it kills

Mainly because of MLK day, I'm going to bring up some subjects on the minority race. This is not off-subject. Here are the leading causes of death among African Americans since 1973:
AIDS: 227,695
Violent Crimes: 329,313
Accidents: 408,723
Cancer:1,324,250
Heart Desease: 2,503,789
Abortion: 14,5000,000

Do these statistics bother you? If not, how are they faulty? Mother Theresa once said, "abortion is murder/killing in the womb. A child is a gift from God. If you do not want him, give him to me."

Martin Luther King Jr., once said, "How can the 'Dream' survive if we murder the children? Every baby is like a slave in the womb of his or her mother. The mother decides his or her fate."
We allowed the left to convince Americans that abortion is about "choice." There is no choice for the baby, who is summarily destroyed.
Abortion is Murder
Abortion kills!
1x1.trans Pregnant teens
Re: "Then it cannot be murder, therefore making your statement," that abortion is a form of murder" incorrect." First, "abortion is a form of murder" is not my only contention nor my resolution, and second, killing defines murder in this context. Let's not argue definitions, you know what I mean.
My opponent: "I don"t really care of what morality you conform to I was simply giving examples of types of morality." If you don't care than why did you give the different examples?
Re: "Logically speaking such a burden would lead to the demise of the species. Would you rather we take the path of fish?" So much hurt. This is wrong (A) because we are not scarce on resources, and (B) because society does not work without human beings yet you would choose to abort the next generation. You're telling me that the survival of yourself as a human being is more important than the child's so you would just kill him if resources were scarce?!!?
Re: "Throw hundreds of thousands of "children" into the world with no guidance and "pray" they don"t all die."" Umm this is the only world we have, the only chance at life that those unborn babies will/won't, yet from you (Con's) standpoint dieing BEFORE you get born is better than after. Basically now you're saying that--even though the vast majority of babies aborted STILL FEEL pain when getting injected with the killing-pills--it is better for society and for the humans already born to kill the unborn babies. No comprendo.
I hate abortion. Clearly it is a human. Like. My goodness. Okay. I'll stop before I go into a full fledged rant.
Re: "Murder is an "unlawful" killing of a person, that is the definition, you claim it is an injustice for it is murder..." I believe abortion should be unlawful/illegal. You still haven't given me an answer about why something is legal therefore lawfully sound (moral and just).
Please rephrase; I couldn't understand what you were trying to say here: "It"s not an individual"s choice" well it is for the government establishes that" With this logic the victim of a rape doesn't have a choice for it"s not an individual choice""
As I have said before, little less than 2% abortions are because of rape. That doesn't mean rape doesn't happen, but it's not something we should dwell on.
Re: "In fact anything preventing a pregnancy can be viewed as being an act of preventing life, which, to you, would be illegal"" Preventing pregnancy is not nearly the same as aborting. This is off topic anyways.
Con writes: "if you will die if you give birth, mainly due to a complication, that does not mean you can"t have a child but the current pregnancy can and in all likely hood will kill you, what will you do?" It completely depends on the perspective of a person. Since you're asking me, what I would do is look at the possibilities. It would give more life if I gave a new person (my daughter/son) a whole life even if I couldn't live out the rest of my full lifespan--who knows what that would be. Not having an abortion on my baby would be more productive to society and it would make me happy to know I gave my life to give someone else full life. On the side of the father, I would believe in adoption and God's hand on my child. See this site: http://thirdworldorphans.org....
"Love says, 'I sacrifice myself for the good of the other person.' Abortion says, 'I sacrifice the other person for the good of myself.' "
Re: "it has already been concluded that it"s not up to government to interfere with personal issues." Yes but it's not up to a different body to decide the fate of another's.
My opponent says:
"You need to prove its can rationally think."
As I've said, it cannot because it is still developing. That doesn't mean we take it's potential to think away.

Re: "If so, you cannot support the current child raising system deployed by parents for it infringes on these children"s rights as a person."
What does this have to do with abortion and why should I prove that?

Re: "You must label woman"s rights as being inferior to a fetus/child's human rights."
Because abortion is legal, I am not saying that it is not the woman's choise. I am saying that it shouldn't be because the baby is his own body which means he has the right to live.
Con writing about the differences between a 5 year old and a fetus: "Well for one, one is actually developed and does not rely on taking directly from the parent to exist." You have proven my point, Con. A baby cannot save itself from an abortion therefore it is an act of injustice and immorality to take his life. "The 5 year old is capable of speech. Can the fetus do that? No." And that's why I stand up and talk for them!
Re: "Look abortion itself has been going down for years now; your argument doesn't take into account the repercussions of forcing a mother to go through birth. Not only will it cause death of woman it will increase the amount of kids who will go into foster care and come out without be adopted, thrown into the world with, no core skills, no money, and no connections." It WILL cause death of women??? See this site for a rebuttal of that: http://www.abortionfacts.com...; All babies are born with no core skills, no money, but the connections part is so off key. Again, you'll need sources to back that up.
Re: "I don"t care what the Pro-choice-ers make cases for; legally there is no restriction of it being only for last resort." I don't understand what you were rebutting here.
Let me show you something:
Abortion, death/removal of a fetus while still in pregnancy
Miscarriage, Death of a fetus while still in pregnancy
Abortion is purposeful and resolute death of a fetus while still in pregnancy. Miscarriage is the natural accident of the fetus's death while still in pregnancy. Abortion is murder; miscarriage is not.
If I don't like abortion I will not have one. But there are alternatives to having abortions just because you don't want to have a baby. And there is something wrong with those who like the idea of aborting babies' lives, and that is what I am concluding with. Thank you for debating.
BDPershing

Con

I really don"t know what to say" for my opponent has completely forfeited their argument and has now went on an emotional crusade, I was sure we were having a debate not a who can appeal to emotion more, but I cannot say I am surprised for my opponent has been telegraphing this for a while.
Debate Topic:
"Abortion is injustice and morally wrong"

This is the debate topic pretty clear and strait forward, other than definitions which I would have hoped my opponent to at least try to establish their definitions so I and the rest of the readers don"t have to play the guessing game. So I try to clarify the topic and post some definitions that I assume to be the same as my opponent.

As anyone can see the word "injustice has two definitions that could have applied. Unlawful and unfair, at first it may seem my opponent would be leaning to the unfair notion until this,

"My contentions are simple: that abortion is a form of murder and is morally, spiritually,and physically wrong."

Murder is a LEGAL term it"s not a word for just killing it is defined as,

Murder: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
This still reinforces the definition I have already provided.

This is the Basic definition, this is literally what you will get when you type it in google, and though people may consider killing and murder to be swap-able this is not the case. The moment my opponent placed the term "injustice" followed by murder, the only definitions we can now follow are legal definitions. Injustice meaning unlawful, murder meaning unlawful killing, applied to Abortion.

The topic, as my opponent has set it up as, could be read like so "Abortion is Illegal and Immoral"

My opponent could have tried to clarify themselves in round 2 providing their definitions and finally clearing their vague interpretation of the topic. This was not the case.

Round 3 was when we finally see that pro has now abandon their statement from round 1,

"Con, would you be alright with me switching the word 'murder' to 'kill'?"

Attempts to re-clarify how to define murder and seeing how murder is indeed a legal term has now back away from his opening statement,

"My contentions are simple: that abortion is a form of murder and is morally, spiritually,and physically wrong."

To,
" "Abortion is injustice and morally wrong." I stated that abortion is murder/killing"

Since the beginning I have had how I would be defining murder up since round 1, my opponent took the time to attempt to clarify about legality, yet still did not clarify their meaning of murder until round 3 which I could only assume is due to their inability to attempt a defense of their opening statement, and now wishes to change their contention to be a more defend-able and unchained to the term known as law. In fact we can see at the end of round 2 my opponent still clung to the term Murder, though they have now refer to it as being "unnecessary murder".

My opponent has also conceded,
"Re: "My opponent: "Do you believe that those who do abortions do it with malice?" No""
Then it cannot be murder, therefore making your statement," that abortion is a form of murder" incorrect.

My opponent up till round 3 has based their argument that abortion is injustice for it is murder, now they agree that abortions are not done with malice therefor making abortion not murder. Which completely collapses their argument that abortion is injustice for it is murder as stated from the first round.

"Re: "Murder is an "unlawful" killing of a person, that is the definition, you claim it is an injustice for it is murder..." I believe abortion should be unlawful/illegal."

If you wanted to try to argue it being "unfair" then phrasing the topic as "Abortion should be illegal for it is immoral", "Abortion should be an injustice for it is morally wrong", "Abortion is Unfair and immoral", etc" Would have been better...

Again, my opponent sees how their argument has completely collapsed due to ignorance on how they have phrased the topic and neglected to provide any definitions to attempt to clarify what they mean, though they due clarify one thing in round 1,

"My contentions are simple: that abortion is a form of murder and is morally, spiritually,and physically wrong."

I have given 6 potential days for my opponent to try to clarify themselves in the first 2 rounds not including the time I waited to see if they would change the way they have phrased this debate or at least provide their own definitions. But my opponent continued, even with my established definitions since they never provided their own.

Therefor we must conclude Abortion is legal as it presently exists and my opponent knows this and falls to the emotional appeal and his morality.

As for morality, it varies too much to be used effectively someone"s morality will be different from your own that just how it is. Though my opponent does provide us a glimpse of how in America and around the world people accept abortions which shows that abortion may indeed have a moral stand in this debate.

Anyways I have fulfilled my BoP as stated and agreed by my opponent from round 1,
"I'm assuming due to the phrasing of the topic "Abortion is injustice and morally wrong" if I show that it is just by legal standards and/or morally sound that I uphold my BoP."

My opponent:
"You are correct in saying that "if you show abortion is just by legal standards and morally sound than you uphold your BoP."

Though my opponent goes on say legal standard must be settled upon, I can only conclude my opponent is referring to the legality of abortion is America due to a later statement, which indeed has Abortion being legal.

Concluding that abortion is indeed legal therefor not an injustice/murder. I could push that it is moral too due to a statement made by my opponent,

"It is relevant to this debate because, quite obviously, abortion is favored by the majority of people (not only in America, but in the world), and I believe that that is one of the big reasons that it is legal (concerning the U.S.A)."

Morality: principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

Favor:
1. an attitude of approval or liking. (google)
2. approval, support, or popularity (http://www.merriam-webster.com...)

If people accept it as being good then in can be considered moral, and since morality comes in all shapes and sizes we could conclude that abortion, due to large group(s) of people accepting it as good, can be considered moral.

Again upholding my BoP

Which leaves one solution to the problem,

"If you don"t like Abortion, then don"t have one!" "Anonymous (This is actually not a quote I have made)
-------------------------------------------------
I do however have some advice to my opponent,
1. When making the foundation of a debate try to define all words that have multiple definitions.
2. When your opponent gives definitions read over them and see if you agree with them, if not provide your own.
3. When debating its good to know the definitions of the words your going to use often, if they mean something else in slang terms then what they mean in definition, you should define it.
4. Its always good to establish the rules of each round.
5. Don't copy and not quote rebuttals if your going to use it as your own opening arguments... It is indeed rude and plagiarism...

P.S.
If you didn't understand what my rant in that forum was about, it was about the double standard exercised in modern times when looking at children, and how illegalizing abortion will cause a severe double standard, for once you able rights to a fetus, the rights themselves must be applied to all ages, which so happens to not currently be applied to children. Reason why I call it slavery constantly in my responses in that forum, because by definition it is.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by BDPershing 2 years ago
BDPershing
dat bias none read vote...
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Chuz-Life 2 years ago
Chuz-Life
JasperFrancisShickadanceBDPershingTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro makes it clear in his/her opening comments :"My contentions are simple: that abortion is a form of murder and is morally, spiritually,and physically wrong." - Con tried to make the debate about the legal definition of "murder" instead. Pro's arguments are based on the allegation that abortions are murder. Con's response was (primarily) to cite the laws that pro is challenging as an authority unto themselves. Con's personal attack in R4 (emotional crusade) was uncalled for. Emotional arguments should be expected in a debate concerning the moral aspects of abortion.