The Instigator
Sunfire315
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Briannj17
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Abortion is 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...
Briannj17
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/28/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 467 times Debate No: 85710
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (15)
Votes (1)

 

Sunfire315

Pro

Rules:
No kritiks.
No red herrings.
The topic is the morality of abortion, not its legality.
Briannj17

Con

I accept. This debate resolution is simple. I will supply definition since you haven't.

Abortion: the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy.
https://www.google.ca...

Immoral: not morally good or right : morally evil or wrong
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

I will begin with a simple question. How do you define what is moral and what is not? I believe firmly that abortion with no justifiable reason is wrong. However reasons such as rape or a deformed baby that could kill the mother or a terribly handicapped baby are reason why abortion is moral and this is based on the long term view of the future.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...
From this we see that for moral reasons some instances of abortion are morally correct and this goes against your resolution that all forms of abortion are just wrong.

In conclusion...
I wish to see your side although I will not permit your changing of the resolution in the future to accommodate said instances when abortion may be moral. Since of course you state all forms (none specified) of abortion are wrong.
I look forward to your response.
Debate Round No. 1
Sunfire315

Pro

Sunfire315 forfeited this round.
Briannj17

Con

Because of my opponents unfortunate forfeit I extend all arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
Sunfire315

Pro

I will begin my case by pointing out that an unborn childs life is just as valuable as that of one who has already been born. It would be absurd to say that a twelve inch journey down a birth canal somehow turns a just a "mass of cells" into a human being. This is something my opponent agrees with. In his eyes as well as mine, abortion is morally equivalent to infanticide.

As for the extending reasons which my opponent provided, It is fairly obvious that killing somebody just because they have a handicap is evil. As for the circumstances of rape or incest, the child is not guilty of any crime; he didn't get to control how he came into this world. It would still be morally wrong to kill a child on the basis of how they came into this world or because they are deformed. We can't know for certain if a mother would die in childbirth, and the situations where we could know we could circumvent it with a c-section. This is not the middle ages; deaths by childbirth are extremely rare objectively speaking. Statistically speaking you have a 0.02% chance of dying in childbirth. [1]

[1]http://www.scientificamerican.com...


Briannj17

Con

Firstly I would like to say you never pointed out what you base your morals on and morality is subjective to the culture and ideals of different people. I said abortion for no reason other then birth control is wrong. However their are instances where the morality of abortion is for it. I'll give an instance. If doctors found a virus that could wipe out an entire city or even the world and the virus was only kept alive inside the living fetus, would you abort the baby and save billions of people? Or would it be moral to kill every body including the baby? In certain instances it is moral to abort the baby which goes against what you said.

https://coelsblog.wordpress.com...

Again on the subject of morality it is clearly subjective and based on an individual. You say killing a baby with a handicap is wrong yet a handicap that will make the baby suffer all it's life to me is more wrong then killing the baby early before it suffers the pain. Which shows that abortion is not objectively immoral. Even with that one in two thousand chance it still happens and mothers die everywhere from giving birth to children. In those instance if the mothers and baby life was at a great risk it would be moral to me to abort the baby early.

In conclusion..
Since Pro never stated how he knows whether something is immoral or not, and for the instances when I have proven morality is subjective, it is clear that all instances of abortion are not wrong. For this reason vote con. For I have told you why all said instances of abortion are not morally wrong. My name is Brian N. Johnson and thank you for reading.
Debate Round No. 3
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by tejretics 9 months ago
tejretics
Pretty clear win for Con. Pro doesn't actually establish a proper normative framework that holds that "killing is wrong," which is an assumption within this argument. Pro defends their case by saying "it's obvious that . . . [it] is evil." That's an appeal to intuition. Pro doesn't offer any justification for it. Con's argument holds that Pro has to clearly establish a normative framework and shows that Pro has the BoP to prove their moral framework, which Pro doesn't uphold. Con argues that morals are subjective, which negates. Since I don't buy the unjustified framework, even presuming moral realism, I vote Con.

Pro doesn't exactly show a normative framework to be true that states "killing is immoral." Con challenges exactly this -- what is moral, and what isn't? Who decides that? Con's question is more regarding moral epistemology than metaethics, and that's why I vote Con.
Posted by Briannj17 9 months ago
Briannj17
And what do you mean trying to win? ;-)
Posted by Briannj17 9 months ago
Briannj17
If you had just answered my question we wouldn't be having this discussion! If you didn't want kritiks why didn't you define anything?!
Posted by Sunfire315 9 months ago
Sunfire315
Trying to win a debate by Kritiking is just kind of cheap.
Posted by Briannj17 9 months ago
Briannj17
Then in that case it all comes down to what you consider a baby and what you consider a fetus. If my opponent had just stayed what he believed morals were based on I would have rebutted from there.
Posted by Mhykiel 9 months ago
Mhykiel
It's fairly universal that harming another life is morally wrong. There are exceptions when more life is saved by the taking of the one. but generally even that one has to be responsible in some way.

A baby in the womb is harmed by abortion. Not responsible for the position it is in. essentially as innocent an actor in this situation can get.
Posted by whiteflame 9 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: minddrag// Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Con (Conduct, Arguments), 3 points to Pro (S&G, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: I believe that this was a very good debate, but I do believe that con absolutely creamed pro in this debate. It seemed to me like a one sided rout.

[*Reason for removal*] Not an RFD. The voter merely restates the argument point allocation without explaining why Con's arguments were best, and doesn't explain conduct, S&G or sources at all.
************************************************************************
Posted by Just-Call-Me-PK 10 months ago
Just-Call-Me-PK
I understood your response clearly i was just clearly pointing out the contradiction in it.
Posted by Briannj17 10 months ago
Briannj17
I made it clear how mortality is subjective and depends on the culture, religion, and other personal beliefs that differ in individuals.
Posted by Just-Call-Me-PK 10 months ago
Just-Call-Me-PK
Cons arguments are contradictory. Morals have to be objective otherwise people can just make up their own morals (which unfortunately happens) it's preventing real world order, morals have to either be objectively wrong or objectively right. If morality is subjective how can you abort a life when that life morally may be against abortion? So logically abortion must be objectivly wrong. Denying objective morality is denying a fixed order in nature. It is objectively wrong to abort a life.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by tejretics 9 months ago
tejretics
Sunfire315Briannj17Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments