Abortion is morally wrong.
Debate Rounds (5)
Round 1: Acceptance and opening statement
Round 2: Opening arguements/rebuttles
Round 3: Rebuttles
Round 4: Arguements and rebuttles
Round 5: Rebuttles and closing statements
I look forward to a civilized debate :)
I look forward to this. Good luck.
I shall withhold an opening statement as morality is not clearly defined. However, I will state that I am in support of women being allowed to have the option of an abortion.
Moral: 1.concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.
2.holding or manifesting high principles for proper conduct. (https://www.google.com...)
I would like to limit this in the worldviews of evolution and christianity. However, if you want to argue for a different philosophy/religion you may.
In accordance to evolution, any action that helps you "survive and thrive" is considered moral. By thrival I mean creating offspring to carry on your genetic information through the passing on of your DNA. This would mean that any action that prevents this would be by default immoral. So to any person who accepts a philosophy based on Darwinian evolution, such as Nietzsche, abortion would be morally wrong due to the fact that it is going against the natrual instinct to "thrive".
In accordance to a biblical worldview, any action that is in direct contrary to the orders/commandments of God is sin. Sin is considered to be immoral. God commands that we not murder another human. The Bilbe makes it clear that human life begins at conception. Therefor, abortion is considered murder which is morally wrong.
This is a short first round but I wish to hear your response before continuing my arguement. Thank you for accepting and especially for behaving in a civilized manner.
"In accordance to evolution, any action that helps you 'survive and thrive' is considered moral. By thrival I mean creating offspring to carry on your genetic information through the passing on of your DNA. This would mean that any action that prevents this would be by default immoral."
While Pro makes a good point, it is only good in theory. Pro asserts that "any actions that prevents this would be by default immoral." I'd like Pro to think about this question: Which is more immoral? Having a child that you know will be born with a horrible genetic disease, or not making a child suffer their whole life while working to get that disease out of the gene pool.
From an evolutionary standpoint, helping to rid a life form that is not fit to survive is much more moral than letting the weak link continue to ensure that the human race is imperfect.
I would also like to point out that many women face the risk of death if they have to give birth to a baby. The life of the mother should fall under the "survive" clause of what Pro claims is moral in evolution.
"God commands that we not murder another human. Therefor, abortion is considered murder which is morally wrong."
This sounds great and all, but again this is not how it works.
Let me read a quote from the bible: Jesus is reported to have once said "Assuredly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they may utter; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal condemnation" (http://lavistachurchofchrist.org...)
What this quote means is that the lord will forgive the sin of murder. The only sin that the lord will not forgive is " blasphemy against the Holy Spirit." (http://rcg.org...).
Surely, if the abortion is necessary to the health of the woman or the child, the lord and savior shall give pardon to mere mortals who can't know better.
I'd like to follow this up by asking another question: Which is more immoral? Forcing an 11 year old girl to become a mother after being raped, or giving her a chance to life her life. Think of all of the great scientific and literary minds that have been lost because somebody became a mother too early on.
For evolution: I argue that protecting humans as a species is more important than protecting one child.
For Christianity: I argue that the lord will forgive us for the sin of murder, so whether it is a sin or not is irrelevant.
Also, I'd like some sources for the claims that pro made such as "the Bilbe makes it clear that human life begins at conception" and "In accordance to evolution, any action that helps you 'survive and thrive' is considered moral."
As for the first question I would say that the child with a genetic disease would still be immoral to kill under the "thrive" clause. If it is a genetic disease then the parents are still passing their genetic information on to the offspring. however, this child would be less likely to pass on his genetic disease due to natural selection. So it would not continue to, for lack of a better word, pollute the gene pool. Under an evolutionist standpoint I would be willing to submit to the idea that the child has less value but I don't find that as reason enough to abort it.
In response to the death of the mother scenario: In nature you will often see mothers willing to give their lives for their child. This would make it apperent that thrival is valued more so than survival. This is simply my own view of things though so I do not want to claim it as fact. Other than that I will admit it to be a good and solid arguement that I can not, at this time, refute.
While it is true that God will forgive all the sins of saved people through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, that does mean that we should sin anyway just because we know he will forgive us. Paul wrote "Should we sin more so that grace may abound? Persih the thought!". So even though sin will be forgiven it does not change the fact that all sin is immoral.
God can and probably will forgive christians who have abortions. But again this does mean that it is ok (moral) to do so. Christian are supposed to obey God's moral laws out of love for him and appreciation of what he did for them.
In response to the rape victim scenario: While rape is immoral and should not happen, why should the child have to suffer because of the sin of it's father? In a just world the father would have to take care of the girl and the child but unfortunately this does not always happen. The child does not deserve to have its oppritunity at life be denied because a man decided to take an immoral action. Rape is wrong and murder is wrong. Two wrongs do not make a right.
I will post Bible refrences when I can get to a better computer (mine keeps crashing and it is very slow). As for my evolution assertions, I will admit that this is simply what I observe. I will see if I can find something to back up these ideas.
Thank you for being well mannered. It really is appreciated.
"However, this child would be less likely to pass on his genetic disease due to natural selection."
What about genetic diseases that don't show their affects until after reproduction occurs? If a parent has Huntington's Disease, there is a 50% chance that their child will get the gene for it. Huntington's disease doesn't show up in some people until as late their 70s. But it can also show up earlier if their adult life. (http://en.hdyo.org...).
I argue that ensuring the gene is stopped is more moral (evolutionary perspective) than being the reason that your son died at 35, your two grand kids died at 40/44, and only three of your five great grand kids lived past 50. Can you imagine how much pain that would inflict on the remaining great grand kids? There would be so much survivor's guilt.
Now, because you did not kill one child, you have ruined the life of three, and killed five. Luckily, because of the way the gene works, the people that were fortunate enough to not get the disease cannot pass it on. Even though there is a 50% chance that your son will not get the disease in the first place, is it really worth the bet?
"I don't find that as reason enough to abort it."
You must explain to me why though. You have the Burden of Proof to show it would be morally wrong to kill the group of cells that will one day become a child. Then an adult. Then a murderer.
"While it is true that God will forgive all the sins of saved people through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, that does mean that we should sin anyway just because we know he will forgive us."
I'm glad you agree with me.
"But again this does mean that it is ok (moral) to do so.
I can't tell if this is a typo or if Pro honestly agree with me. Since this is the second time, I think I'll assume it is the latter.
"While rape is immoral and should no happen, why should the child have to suffer because of the sin of it's father?"
Let me turn this around. Why should a young girl have to suffer because of the sin of the man? The child barely exists at this point. All it is is a group of cells. Unrecognizable from an elephant, or an otter. Would it be moral to stop the creation of this life in order to save an existing life? The girl is not ready to raise a child, and the child will have a terrible life. No father, mother had to drop out of school at 16 to take care of him/her. I argue that it's more moral to protect the existing life (the young girl) than it is to save the non-existing life (the clump of cells).
It's time to crack open the old testament.
Genesis 2:7 states that God made Adam's body out of the dust of the Earth. Later, the "man became a living soul" only after God '"breathed into his nostrils the breath of life."
"This passage seems to state clearly that Adam's personhood started when he took his first breath. Following this reasoning, a newborn would become human after it starts breathing. If a fetus is only [on it's way to becoming] human, then an abortion would not terminate the life of a human person.
I await Pro's response. I hope he finds a better computer.
el_ginger forfeited this round.
SocialistAtheistNutjob forfeited this round.
el_ginger forfeited this round.
SocialistAtheistNutjob forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by JasperFrancisShickadance 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||5||0|
Reasons for voting decision: This was a very close debate, even as I ignore the four forfeitures in the last rounds. First, Con made a few false statements when rebutting, such as this sentence: "I would also like to point out that many women face the risk of death if they have to give birth to a baby." 'Many' is incorrect as it is less than 1% of abortions, and even if Con's statement was true it would be less moral according to evolutions standards to kill the young one and keep the mother. This sentence is what did it for me (Con): "Think of all of the great scientific and literary minds that have been lost because somebody became a mother too early on." Think of ALL the scientific and literary minds that have been lost from human lives being cut from this world. Overall Pro did a great job explaining the evolutionist and Christian side opposing abortion and, though they both had good rebuttals, I'd say Pro did better.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.