The Instigator
JimShady
Con (against)
The Contender
Swapnoneel
Pro (for)

Abortion is morally acceptable.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Swapnoneel has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/24/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 506 times Debate No: 100266
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)

 

JimShady

Con

A follow-up to my "Life begins at conception" debate, here we have a debate about abortion and if it is morally acceptable. I will be arguing that it is not (except if the mother's life is threatened, then which I believe it is acceptable). Under any other scenarios, whether the human fetus is simply not wanted or was conceived by rape, I will be arguing that abortion is morally wrong.

Note: you must believe in the concept of morals to accept this debate. Obviously someone who does not believe in morals could troll the heck out of this debate.

Round 1 will be for acceptance, and Rounds 2 through 4 will be arguments and rebuttals.

Definitions (from Merriam Webster):

1) human: a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens)
2) fetus: an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind
3) moral: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior
4) abortion: the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus

Feel free to add definitions or improve upon mine if you see fit in your Round 1 acceptance.
Swapnoneel

Pro

I accept your challenge and will be arguing for the notion that abortion is morally acceptable.
I do hold that morals exist but they must be logical in that they must not contain fallacies.
Debate Round No. 1
JimShady

Con

So, you say that you believe in the existence of morals as long as they are logical and do not contain fallacies. Then I'll take it that you believe, like many people that murder is wrong. Let me know if you disagree with this. If you do, then this debate is pointless and a waste of time. You can stop reading after this paragraph. Or....

If you do hold that murder is not good, not in the middle, but bad, then this debate is gonna go somewhere hopefully. What I'm going to try and convince you of is that abortion is murder, and since murder is morally inacceptable, so is abortion. I can put it as a math equation if you want: abortion=murder , murder=morally inacceptable , abortion=morally inacceptable.

To understand why abortion is murder, I first must prove to you that the aborted human fetus is a human being. Not a potential human, not just "a fetus", but a human. Because murder, defined by Merriam Webster, is "the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought" [1]. You cannot murder a rock, because a rock is not a person. Killing animals is considered animal cruelty, not murder [2]. So you can only really murder a human. Any other organism intentionally killed is animal cruelty.

Because the human fetus in a mother's womb is not considered human by many, then in that case they believe it is not murder, but, well, animal cruelty. There is no in between, and if there is, please tell me what it is (but no synonyms that mean exactly the same thing like "termination"). People who believe the human fetus is not really human are forced with a choice: either human or animal. It can not be in between. A "developing" human as some like to call it is still human. "Developing" is only a subcategory of humans. Just like a "disabled" or "super" human. Because disabled humans and super humans (not like Superman really, but humans who have an extraordinary ability) are still considered humans, why aren't developing humans, as well?

If you still believe that a human fetus is not human, then what is he or she? A fish? A lion? You are either human, specifically homo sapiens, or you are some other type of animal. You cannot be only part human. And because the DNA of even a human single-celled zygote is fully complete and dictates that it is indeed of the genus-species Homo sapiens, we can deduce scientifically that this is a human being.

I have other reasons to illustrate why a human fetuses, who are human, should not be aborted because they are human, but for now I will see how you do against these.

Sources:
1. https://www.merriam-webster.com...
2. www.debate.org/opinions/is-killing-an-animal-murder
Swapnoneel

Pro

I see your perspective on the matter, now let me try to present my perspective of the matter.

Abortion is considered murder by a vast community, but let us try and deconstruct the problem with such a notion. Murder is an action and an action cannot arbitrarily be considered good or bad. Rather it is the cause and effect of an action which deems it good or bad. Now though murder is considered bad and moral code dictates that murder of any human is bad, a point which I do agree with, the fact stands that murder is considered bad since it causes agony and suffering to the one against whom it is committed and also against all those who concerned themselves with the life of the one who is murdered. So let me try to categorize what a fetus maybe with regards to the above mentioned facts. We can try and categorize any number of things in any number of ways. But most of the ways which we would consider won't really have relations to the reason for which we wish to categorize something at an instance. Yes there are arguments to categorize fetuses as human and there are arguments which categorize them as non-human or some made up sub-category of human and non-human but most of those categorizations have little to do with understanding abortion and murder of the fetus and its consequences.

A fetus which is being aborted need not suffer. In the beginning stages it cannot feel pain, in the later stages it can be kept under the influence of anesthesia while being aborted (if it does really feel pain, something studies still disagree upon) and does not need to suffer or feel grief. Unlike humans ,disabled humans and super humans who do feel pain and can suffer and will suffer if murdered. Thus if we do wish to categorize fetuses in the light of an discussion on murdering, killing or aborting it(chose your choice of word), is it not much better to categorize them as per their ability to suffer than pulling up some completely arbitrary and in most cases irrelevant conditions such as DNA which have no consequence on the action of murdering a fellow human being and the pain related with the act of killing which leads to us condemning such an act as a society. The same conditions can be applied to argue that a fetus need not be categorized as an animal when considering the act of murder. Since an animal suffers but a fetus need not. A fetus is further incapable of conscious thought and sentience thus the question of mental or psychological agony or even thought is unneeded and irrelevant. This fact too must separate a fetus from humans since the absence of sentience means it would not demonstrate the presence of a very critical concept which is present in humans. In fact it can be very well stated that it need not even be categorized as an animal since even basic thought processes and feelings(in any meaningful way that is)are also mostly out of reach of an fetus. Another idea would be that there is not much emotional connections a fetus has made with the outside world and thus ending it wouldn't cause much agony to anyone who would've cared for it. Therefore I do not consider the murder of a fetus though how horrific an act as considered by many of the society I share, to fall under the same moral restrictions and issues which the murder of an human or animal would adhere to.

I would further like to add that in cases where a fetus is to be aborted and the child is unwanted, him being born causes suffering to all. When a child is brought into this world no matter how well his conditions and his family's conditions are, he will suffer. In case of an unwanted child he will obviously suffer more. If he has genetic or birth defects he will be suffering pain throughout his life. If he is unwanted he will still suffer the agony of a lack of love and will have to go through the trials and tribulations of the same which is even more true for the developing world where the act of abortion is even more rampant. Thus if aborted in a manner without pain, there is really no harm caused. Causing agony or suffering is also immoral and thus one should not perform acts which ensure that sensations of such are caused.

Sources:-
1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
2. http://www.doctorsonfetalpain.com...
3. http://www.livescience.com...
4. https://www.nytimes.com...
5. http://www.lifenews.com...
6. https://www.scientificamerican.com...
7. http://thebrainbank.scienceblog.com...
8. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
9. http://www.salon.com...
Debate Round No. 2
JimShady

Con

Opponent seems not to care about whether a human fetus is human or not, and so he throws aside that point and basically assumes that he or she is to make his argument. That's fine. But if the opponent backs up on this, I will ask him to make a decision, is an unborn human fetus human or not? And if not, please explain why.

So, you are basically saying that because a human fetus does not feel pain when being aborted, it is therefore not considered murder, and if it is murder, you "do not consider the murder of a fetus though how horrific an act as considered by many of the society I share, to fall under the same moral restrictions and issues which the murder of an human or animal would adhere to." Nowadays in the U.S. a common means of execution is a lethal injection, where the person on death row will feel no pain except maybe the needle. And you can kill anybody this way, so it can still be a means of murder. Pain is not necessary for murder to be murder. It can be considered a more humane way of murder, but it is still murder. And also, while some aborted human fetuses have not yet developed a nervous system and some are treated with anesthesia, there are also countless cases when they do in fact feel pain [1][2]. Scientists are still unsure on this, but unsure is not a good stance to have when we are talking about if someone feels pain when being cut to pieces with a knife.[3]

Secondly you make the argument that because human fetuses are not conscious and have no sentience, then they can not process their death with "mental or psychological agony." This not a very good argument at all. We know that humans can be murdered in there sleep (not conscious) by sticking a lethal injection into them. They die without metal agony at all, but it's still murder. Take a person who has lost all consciousness in their brain because they were born like that or were injured- if your injected them with a lethal injection, is that not wrong? You do not have to be conscious to be murdered.

Here you state "the absence of sentience means it would not demonstrate the presence of a very critical concept which is present in humans." Highly illogical as we know that some disabled humans are not sentient, and yet they are still humans.

The emotional connections you pull up are kind of bogus. Sure, the mother wouldn't care at all about an aborted fetus, but millions of people around the world [4]grieve for these humans who have no one to defend them. And if you believe in God, which I'm not sure of, you could say that he cares. However you can easily refute that if you want if you're an atheist, I'll understand. But to say no one cares that a human fetus is killed is simply wrong.

You then go onto argue that if the unwanted child is born, it causes suffering to all. This is a very negative assumption. While it may be true that some families won't be able to afford the kid, they can still give him/her up for adoption. If he or she has birth defects, don't you think he or she should at least get a chance to cope with these problems? You pretend as if all the unwanted child will encounter is suffering, well everyone suffers. It's a part of life. And have you ever considered the positive possibilities that could've come about if an unwanted human had not been aborted. Perhaps that unwanted child could have discovered a cure for cancer, or ended world hunger, or found a way to travel through space. Unfortunately we will never know because that potential is thrown away from abortion.

I'd also like to point out that my opponent is source spamming by posting a large number of sources on one point, which is kind of unnecessary. Think about that voters on the reliable sources voting part.

Sources:
1. http://www.abortionfacts.com...
2.http://www.factcheck.org...
3.http://www.prochoice.com...
4.https://www.statista.com...
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Sinque 1 year ago
Sinque
Abortion is murder. Murder is not bad or good because those are opinions and opinions are not correct.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
cant murder no one
Posted by Swapnoneel 1 year ago
Swapnoneel
Thanks m8
Posted by JimShady 1 year ago
JimShady
I am debating that abortion is murder, and since murder is morally inacceptable, so is abortion. Many people believe abortion to not me murder, and therefore they think it is acceptable. I am going to be debating why it is murder, and thus point out the Pro-Choice contradiction.
Posted by JimShady 1 year ago
JimShady
What I am debating is that it SHOULD not be acceptable. I know that it is acceptable. What I am trying to push across is that abortion should not be acceptable because it falls under murder. I do not see how I have lost.
Posted by m8 1 year ago
m8
If morals are simply what is agreed by society, then you automatically lose this debate because according to Gallup, 79% of people would allow abortion in some circumstances.

I don't even necessarily agree.

Feel free to use this, Swapnoneel.
Posted by JimShady 1 year ago
JimShady
Morals are agreed upon by society. We agree that killing is bad, and if you do not, then you do no operate by morals. And if you don't then this debate does not involve you.
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
Everything is acceptable..Only you can chose it is not..
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.