The Instigator
Vere_Mendacium
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
JasperFrancisShickadance
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Abortion is morally permissible within 1st trimester

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 3 votes the winner is...
Vere_Mendacium
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/24/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 910 times Debate No: 57083
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

Vere_Mendacium

Pro

Abortion is morally permissible within the 1st trimester, and should not require the pretext of a rape, incest, or medical complication to validate it as such. While it should require the consent of both 'parents' (in my opinion), we will not discuss this point in addition. This debate will center only on the morality of abortion within the period between conception and the 1st trimester. This time period allows for an unknowingly pregnant mother time to notice the pregnancy through lack of a menstrual cycle for a month or two, and take abortive measures.
JasperFrancisShickadance

Con

I believe abortion is murder, unjust, unfair, and morally horrific. This will be interesting. I agree with pro that there is no justifiable requirement of rape, medical complications, or incest (that abortion is usually associated with).

Good luck to my opponent and let the debating begin!
Debate Round No. 1
Vere_Mendacium

Pro

In the efforts of saving time & turns in this debate, I will assume, as you display, that you are Christian and your view is based as such. Therefore, instead of addressing what you know, I will address what you believe. You believe that abortion is bad for the reasons/concepts you gave (murder, unjust, etc). However, your own religiously-based script is full instances that mention, condone, and does little (or not) mention to state it's anti-abortion stance other than mentioning 'thou shalt not kill', while hypocritically condoning and even commanding it:

-Hosea 9:11-16 "Ephraim shall bring forth his children to the murderer. Give them, 0 Lord: what wilt thou give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. . .Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit: yea though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb."
-Numbers 31:17 (Moses) "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every women that hath known man by lying with him."
Hosea 13:16 God promises to dash to pieces the infants of Samaria and the "their women with child shall be ripped up".
(etc)

In terms of being 'unjust or unfair': I wont address these concept since they are relatively defined and explained, akin to morality. I could go on a tirade on how unfair God has been and is, both individually and otherwise, on micro and macro levels. Unfairness cannot be used in the context to justify morality. Hell being the result of those whom do not know Christ is just one big one.

I am not sure how to interpret your second sentence, other than assuming that you misinterpreted my clarification on the ground of this argument. I (unlike you I think) believe that these are even greater issues to morally justify an abortion.

Additionally, I am not sure how/why you would associate abortion with these 'extenuating circumstances', as they end up being only minority (combined!) of cases resulting in the need for abortion:
"1% reported that they were the survivors of rape (NAF).
"2% of women included a physical problem with their health among reasons for having an abortion (NAF)."
"Less than 1% of all abortions take place because of rape and/or incest."
http://www.guttmacher.org...

Out of the 4,317,119 babies were born in the U.S. in 2007, statistically about half of all pregnancies are unintended (~2,158,560), 40% of them are aborted (~863,424), and about 89% of them took place in the first trimester (~768447).

Now, women gave multiple reasons, but the top were; Inadequate finances, "unprepared", or "unwanted change".

So, now to the root of my premise; Are they, we (US tax payers), and the soon-to-become child to bear the pain of an unintended result of an action that we (overwhelming majority) as humans are deeply hardwired to enjoy, pervert, and engage in. Does the individual's morality of a single life (?-able) trump the moral protection of countless others (liberty)?
JasperFrancisShickadance

Con

Where did I display that I am Christian? Anyways yes, I am, but you don't have to let that influence the way you debate me (for example now you're quoting Bible verses). But as such, I will rebut way you present those verses and will try my best to keep calm!

I'll start with this: what is your source for these Bible verses? Because if you had read the chapters that were in Hosea and Numbers, you would get a better understanding for why these quotes were said/written. I will not write every single word leading up to the verses you put so that everyone can see the situation the authors of Hosea and Numbers were in (so you all get better knowledge of why they don't have to do with abortion whatsoever), but I hope you will at least try to understand the situation so I can debate you to a further extent. Because of the ignorance here, those Bible verses have been a waste of time and are irrelevant to the topic: "abortion is permissible within 1st trimester."

Please do explain how GOD, of all matters, has been unfair, in any way you can; I will debate you on that issue here and now if you choose. But this, again, doesn't go along with abortion's issue thus might not be a good time to discuss God's moralities/fairness.

You don't have to interpret my second sentence, saying "this will be interesting." It just will...or not...

My opponent "Additionally, I am not sure how/why you would associate abortion with these 'extenuating circumstances'..." Well, no matter the statistics, many people I have talked to who try to justify abortion say "it's because of rape or incest.' I thought you would use it to justify abortion, too, until you said otherwise. I associate these factors with abortion because of people who want to say abortion is alright, but in a different way than you. So, instead of going on about that, I'll focus on why I think abortion (in general) is wrong EVEN within the 1st trimester.

ABORTION IS NOT FAIR:

This is my favorite saying to tell anyone on Abortion: 'A person's a person, no matter how small.' http://abcnews.go.com...

Just because a woman had SEX OUTSIDE OF MARRIAGE or was fooling around with the serious (with sex) doesn't mean she should kill the life inside of her and pretend it's no big deal. Because it IS a big deal. Ever heard of the Butterfly Effect? Everybody has a contribution to the world's progress, and over-population is NOT a problem. Imagine if they thought the world was over-populating when people like Einstein were born. What I'm trying to say is, everybody's life matters. Humanity should be protected, not murdered. It is unfair for mankind to be killed because of the mother's irresponsibility. The mother was messing around: now look what you've done! I'm not saying mothers shouldn't have kids. But they should be committed, and married, first.

Next round I'll rebut your so-called 'cases resulting in need for abortion.'

Conclusion: I don't agree that abortion is permissible at all.
Debate Round No. 2
Vere_Mendacium

Pro

You stated that you are Christian via you public profile; Mennonite to be exact (which raises even more question for me, but no matter). I do not wish to let any creed or religion be the basis for one's thinking, let alone my own, but I can clearly see that you are perfectly thinking in line of that of your faith. No matter, we'll transition off of assuming your religious affiliation to derive your reasoning, after I address your questions.

My sources of these bible versus are, the bible. You can/may use any version you prefer, but the story is the same. And after reading further and beyond in Hosea and Numbers (Moses was the author/subject btw), the story does little to negate the fact that they condoned and were commanded and subsequently then command the murder/fetal homicide of a people 'hated' by them or their 'jealous' god (as God himself puts it). So if the religious defense of abortion is that it is murder, and murder is 'bad', why is there so very much of it done by, for, and in the Lord's name? But you are right, using these or various other Bible versus to justify or condemn abortion or murder is futile, because it is based on how the reader wished to interpret it.

Lastly for religion, you wanted to know how God is unfair. A book can be (and has been) written on it, but I'll answer with a question: What apparently happens to people who never know or are not baptized ? You say abortion is "NOT FAIR", yet your own god flooded the world, droned Sodom and Gomorrah, killed the first borns of Egyptians, etc. That's about as unfair as US nuking Japan civilians,, twice. My point is done here, so no need to debate that off topic.

Apologies on my question regarding your 'second' sentence, that should have read 'third' sentence, and I hope you know see what I was trying to say.

No matter the statistics? They are vitally important, to this and MANY other issues/phenomena, and consistently show, as such, how in the dark people are about reality vs perception. Im not sure how many people you've talked to about their abortion, but I'm sure it wasn't over 860,000.

So now the meat and potatoes; you feel that every individual is infinitesimally important, invaluable, and subsequently; equal. But how can this be so? Is this religiously influenced, because the bible does not proclaim so, it actually proclaims the opposite. And are we referring only to human life, and no other species on the planet? I ask because you state very confidently that 'over population' is 'NOT a problem', but how do you know this? Are you comparing our unprecedented numbers, environment, and problems to somewhere else? Population is growing exponentially, and the problem isn't running out of physical room more than it is the side effects; unemployment, economy crisis, global warming, boarder wars, epi/pandemics, resource/fuel disputes, un-education, generation, etc. So, population, murder, & religion aside, what makes abortion 'bad'? Is it ending a life? Define life to u
JasperFrancisShickadance

Con

JasperFrancisShickadance forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Vere_Mendacium

Pro

My opponent was not able to provide a timely response, so I will 'attempt' to keep my elaboration into my reasoning short, while still allowing for further clarification of my position and investigation into theirs.

When you state your favorite quote that 'a person is a person, no matter how small" , how small do you go? Down to a zygote upon fertilization, or do you include the gamete pre-fertilization? They are both technically considered cells, the basic unit of life, so is it only when the egg is penetrated that a life begins, or is the typically 'wasted' sperm/egg life also? Or perhaps not that early, and perhaps when the heart beat begins as early as 6 to 8 weeks. The questions are rhetorical and don't expect an answer, but the point I make is that the definition of life and it's parameters are relative and subject to individual interpretation when we both assign life's 'living' parameters such as cells and bodily phenomena, and assign human life a higher priority/value than animals (another argument). If we assign each and everyone's life infinite and equal value in conjunction with this definition of life as early as a cell, we are then unable to pull the plug on a brain dead baby/teen/adult, we cannot go to war (offensive or defensive), we cannot make a decision when it comes to medically having to choose the baby OR the mother in a one-will-surly-die scenario. IF, however, you can make a decision to take a life to save a life, then you consciously must nullify one's preconceived notions of infinite & equal value of life, whereupon you can now enter into hedonists calculus to have the value and quality of life measured in the arena of abortion. I will end this point and address one more.

You mentioned marriage as a required precursor to sex and/or reproduction, but why? Is it the spiritual bondage that is necessary to prepare/allow the event, or does it serve solely as a mutual/legal condition of readiness, because in either respect is should not because it statistically (modernly) has not served as such either effectively or practically. Taking a look at divorce statics, nationally or globally, serve to show that marriage has little significance in spiritual terms of fulfilling a 'holy matrimony' upon which 'till death' do they part, or to evoke a readiness state for child rearing as divorce rates are at least up to 45% in America on average. Do we then say that none of these children were in fact ready/allowed to be born during a marriage destined to fail, because the numbers would be astronomical considering the divorce rates.

I will rest on these two points, allow my opponent to respond, and address my final & closing statements in round 5.

Just a few:
https://www.census.gov...
http://www.divorcestatistics.org...
https://en.wikipedia.org...
JasperFrancisShickadance

Con

Well, the truth is we have gotten way off topic and you contradicted yourself by saying we BOTH shouldn't let religion sway what we believe--especially about abortion--so I won't and I will purposefully just focus on your arguments defending abortion, even if my faith is part of the conversation. (You can debate me about the Bible and God another time, if you'd like.)

I believe that every human CAN be invaluable, if they aren't already, and yes my "religion" sways this argument because I believe God created us all, loves and cares for EACH of us no matter what, and none of us are better or worse in His eyes. It all comes down to a person's faith and if they accepted Jesus as their Savior. So, a person can go from being awful (in the sight of the society and people around him) to a decently nice person and the past won't matter any more. Nevertheless every person is special, am I wrong? When women perform abortion it takes away the CHANCE of what-could-be a human, let alone the very life. This is the very thing I've been trying to explain--despite the forfeit which I was out of town for--and I wish you would understand and have some heart for these people we are denying life to.

My definition of life: anything that prospers by itself, prospers with others (or will) and is living. Population is not an excuse to deny life to a human being, the reason that if the human is given a chance and has the right influence he will do well in society. We don't know whether he would hurt or prosper in life unless we LET him ("him" being the baby).

A person's a person (or factually will be a person). It's really simple, just know that the fetus will be a person and it needs too have a chance at living outside the womb because the mother chose in the first place to have that kid!

When a mother says she is unprepared for the baby that probably means she is single and/or the biological father doesn't have a say on whether the fetus lives, is that not right? That is why a strong marriage is so important to have BEFORE performing sex because when the reproduction happens the kid should have a strong home to live in, too. It won't only be a ready mom, but both parents will be committed to raising a child. Our society accepts divorces, though, so it's no wonder it also accepts abortion.
Debate Round No. 4
Vere_Mendacium

Pro

I did not intend to let this debate revolve around one's religious convictions, but you basis for your 'I believe' statements are both noticeably influenced by such, and equally justified/source with such as well. This tends to by typical & predictable with most who accept a creationist position in life.

I won't debate if every human CAN be invaluable, because thats another argument all together and subject to the definition of 'value', as well as the quality of being 'special'. Was Hitler special? Did he have value if God let him live? How about the miscarried baby, or the child develops a painful cancer at 3 and dies; what was God's position on their value and giving them the choice of life? Where was their chance? Can only God or nature make this choice? Special does not translate to value, as most people like to think.

We cannot use potential 'value' to argue against / for abortion. It is irreverent because a fetus may become Jesus or the Antichrist, Hitler or Gandhi. 'Chance' is one argument, but here is where we change gears, because in order to be able to understand the reasoning of abortion, you have to abandon the 'reasoning' (or lake thereof) of religion.

The Christian religion does not allow for abortion. It however allows for murders, both innocent or not, in the name or command of the lord, but not unwarranted. It also allows for slavery and class separation. All these things we think of as 'bad', correct? So Christians, and most religious people, take a cafeteria-style approach when it comes to doing/interpreting what is right & wrong, which is why there are so many flavors (denominations) of the church. However, we realize that there IS this style of picking and choosing, because we further realize that actual and literal interpretation of religion is flawed, hypocritical, and counter intuitive. Why, usually, they ascribe to the 'new' testament.

Therefore we REASON to be able to think/choose for ourselves what is right/wrong in our society, which then develops into rules and a government and laws to tell us what is allowed and what is right and wrong by a reasoning majority. We identify and recognize freedoms & human rights of choice, thought, and speech. Then we take it upon ourselves to create laws and codes for what to do in tough situations that religion does not address; domestic violence, economic warfare, global warming, and abortion (not the biblical fetal homicide as I referenced earlier). Humans take away life everyday with every hamburger purchased, and furthermore with every tax-funded murder on the battlefield. However, the fetus is not anything or anyone yet. It does not breath, it does not speak, it cannot reason, just like a raw sperm or egg. However, a mother can reason, and can determine if her and/or the potential baby would be better off not progressing with it's creation unprepared/able/wanted.

You equate marriage with relationship incorrectly. They can be & often are independent.

not enuf chars :(
JasperFrancisShickadance

Con

JasperFrancisShickadance forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Vere_Mendacium 2 years ago
Vere_Mendacium
Perhaps you should have
Posted by Geogeer 2 years ago
Geogeer
If nobody else accepts in a few days let me know. I'll give you a good debate on this topic.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Daltonian 2 years ago
Daltonian
Vere_MendaciumJasperFrancisShickadanceTied
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: Arguments by Pro were simply more convincing. Con didn't really back up his/her sentiment with any sort of evidence, just blanket statement opinions. Conduct to Pro for FF (x2) by con
Vote Placed by Stalin_Mario 2 years ago
Stalin_Mario
Vere_MendaciumJasperFrancisShickadanceTied
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: FF
Vote Placed by bsh1 2 years ago
bsh1
Vere_MendaciumJasperFrancisShickadanceTied
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: FF