The Instigator
ConsciousSpirit
Pro (for)
Losing
14 Points
The Contender
belle
Con (against)
Winning
43 Points

Abortion is murder and should be illegal

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/10/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,279 times Debate No: 11388
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (12)

 

ConsciousSpirit

Pro

In this debate I will voice for those whom have a voice that cannot be heard. I ask that the voters set aside their personal bias and evaluate the facts. The Pro-Abortion movement, as I will explain, is not for a choice but for condemnation of a life they seem to be unfit. In this debate we must first decide when does life begin psychically and legally.

We physically see the building blocks of life beginning at conception when the male sperm makes contact with the female egg. Life officially has received it's essential foundation to begin at this point. Physically , life has now begun it's journey. After being fertilized, the egg then travels and burrows itself into the uterine wall, this provides the essential housing for the growing life.

At the fifth week, the life is now moving into the form of a baby. The brain, heart, and other vitals are now being formed at this point in the stage of life. Keep in mind, most women are just now finding out they are late on their period and by this time are taking pregnancy tests. The fifth week of human life is essential to what defines us as being alive because it is during this time the life is official, it has a heart beat.

When we go to the hospital for serious reasons we are fitted with a heart beat monitor. This is vital for the doctors to know because it lets them know if you're on the verge of death. As humans, we judge life by the heart beat. A heart is formed at 18 days old and after 21 days the life in the womb has a heartbeat and can be seen on an ultrasound. -J.M. Tanner, G. R. Taylor, and the Editors of Time-Life Books, Growth, New York: Life Science Library, 1965, p.

When a heart beat stops, we pronounce the patient legally dead. When we kill the human fetus, even at 21 days, we are taking a heartbeat and legally killing the life. At 21 days we can without a single notion of doubt say there is a life. By 8 weeks, sex organs are starting to form and the male sex organ will start to show if it is indeed a male. By the end of the third month, the hands and feet are not only formed but moving, acknowledging the notion that the baby is conscious of it's body.

I have now laid out the foundation and formation of life in a simple form for the audience and must ask, how can life be a choice? Life is an organized preordained event as I have shown in the first 3 months alone. It should be noted, by common sense alone, that late-term abortion is without a doubt murdering the fully formed conscious child seeing that the child can survive without the mother and in most cases without medical care after 7 months from conception. I am not debating the circumstances of conception, whether it be rape of incest, I am debating when does life begin and how their mothers choose to kill their own child. I set forth the notion that abortion is not only unnatural but a man made murder and the propaganda that tells you other wise is making a cowardly attempt at making money on the blood of the unborn.

Abortion has become a business, as noted by "clinics" and corporate organizations such as planned parenthood who have a vested interest setting forth the pro-abortion movement. I ask the audience to put aside the bias of classification of murder and acknowledge the presence of life in the womb and how this life, like your life, must be protected under not only natural but federal law. I set forth the notion that abortion, regardless of the circumstances, is murder I am not debating whether murder is justifiable under any circumstances. I will now leave the floor open to my opponent.
belle

Con

Pro has tried to make this a debate about when life begins, asserting that once the fetus has a heartbeat, it is alive, and thus killing it is murder. However, there are several problems with this view. First, the fetus, at this point only a single cell, is alive from the moment of conception. It is not as if before it has a heartbeat it is inert or not alive, and afterwards it comes to life. Second, murder is not simply defined as the bringing about the death of a living being. If this were the case, all our farms involved in the raising of animals for human consumption would be teeming with murderers. Not to mention all predatory animals would be considered murderers as well. If you mean to specify a human actor and a human victim, thats something but it still doesn't get you to a accurate conception of murder.

Generally, murder is thought of as the unjustified killing of another person. given this, two issues remain: the question of whether a fetus is to be considered "a person" and the question of whether or not abortion is unjustified.

I am arguing that the answer to both these questions is no. My objections rest on a fact of pregnancy which you briefly mentioned in R1 but dismissed. Up to a certain point, a fetus literally cannot live except in full physical dependence on the mother. The fetus must live as a parasite off of her, stealing nutrients from her blood, and in fact secreting chemicals that actually serve to divert more nutrition to it [1][2].

Personhood is a concept of independence. Any being that cannot live except by its physical tie to another is not a person. Let me make this clearer- the fetus, up to the point when it is viable, is wholly dependent on the mother, and can be dependent on no one else. It is either feeding off her body or it is dead. Babies are also dependent beings, but their dependence is not tied to a single individual. If a mother does not wish to care for her baby she can give it up for adoption and allow someone else to care for it. There is no such course open to a pregnant woman. If she does not want to "take care" of the fetus by nourishing it with her body, she has no option but to kill the fetus. No one else can take up the responsibility for her. I can't belabor this point enough. The interests of a half-formed human being cannot override the interests of a fully formed one. Because the life of the fetus is inexorably tied to the body of the mother, the fetus lives only as an extension of her body, a part of her. A woman has the right to remove parts of her body she does not wish to be there. A fetus is no exception.

1. http://www.nlu.edu...
2. http://www.rnceus.com...
Debate Round No. 1
ConsciousSpirit

Pro

I would first like to thank Con for quickly responding to my debate. Now, to the debate at hand. Con has mistaken my notion that I was debating when life begins. I was building the foundation of life to the audience. Con then attempts to diminish the complexity of life by asserting that life starts starts as a single cell and it's unimportant. I would like to point out to con that this single step alone is what made Con the person Con is today. Without this cell, life is nothing. I ask con to evaluate the complexity of this single cell Con wishes to degrade.

Con then attempts to equate humans with animals. Although this is an entirely different debate and an attempt to string the debate into another to make Cons seem more acceptable, I will touch on this. This debate is not why animals must kill each other live, those animals were at least born to kill or live amongst each other and by the laws of nature given a shot a life. This debate has to do with Human abortion and how it is unnatural and murder, not a predator killing it's prey. I am sorry if I did not make this point clear...

Con attempts to degrade the fetus as if it was not a human. It's genetic blueprint is human and it's organs whether forming or fully formed are human. Con attempts to make the notion that if it is not fully formed and out of the mother than it is not human, this is a fallacious argument because as I stated - the blueprint for a human and the foundation of human life is obviously evident. I ask the audience to examine 4D ultrasounds and see that these are in fact human beings http://www.4d-ultrasounds.com....

Con then argues that because the fetus is reliant on it's mother while it's in the womb and is to be equated to a parasitic being, such as a tick. May I remind the audience that the mother created this life, this is not an accident and the fetus should not be in the same category as say- a tapeworm. This "parasite" was due to an act of the mother and father. I would also like to remind Con that con was also a parasite. Calling a human fetus a parasite is not only disturbing but shows no sense of morality or love for the child. This argument could lead to the argument that if that child causes your bank account or fridge to be drained than you can kill it because it is reliant on you.

Con then attempts to equate a human organ or limb with a fetus saying that "A woman has the right to remove parts of her body". May I remind the audience that the baby was not there before the act of sexual reproduction and is not "apart" of the Womans body as an organ or limb is. The baby should not be put under the penalty of death because of the irresponsibility of the mother and father. The act of sex is to reproduce, it is natural. What is not natural is abortion.
As stated in Round 1, the taking of life is in fact murder. I have laid out the foundation of life and how we define life. The argument is not why murder is acceptable, the argument is Abortion is murder and should be illegal. Ending a human life is murder.
belle

Con

I have made no attempt to degrade life, nor have I attempted to equate human beings with animals. My goal in that regard was to specify your point for you because you didn't bother: "life" is not the important concept in a debate about abortion. The contentious concepts are personhood and murder.

Pro has also implied that I believe a fetus is not human. However, that is manifestly untrue. A fetus is the result of a coupling between two human individuals and has human DNA. It is indeed human, and I never said differently. That does not make it a person, however. Personhood is more inclusive than simply having human DNA. It is an extremely hard concept to delineate. Generally, personhood or humanity in a more metaphysical sense is defined in relation to rationality. There are degrees of cognition that are accorded degrees of rights. For example, a psychopath is not considered fully "human"- a person- even though they indeed possess a full complement of human DNA. Those with IQs of under 75 are denied some freedoms granted to those with normal IQs because of their decreased cognitive abilities. A fetus, almost completely lacking in cognition beyond base perception, would not qualify for personhood at all. The cognitive development of a fetus is certainly no better than that of a cow, and yet killing cows is not considered murder[1] .

Even if you wish to equate personhood and humanity however, you still have a problem.

Not all killing of persons is considered unjustified. For example, self defense is clearly a legitimate reason to kill someone. I am offering the utter and complete dependence of the fetus on the body of the mother as justification for her legal ability to kill it. This is only an option because it is the only method by which she can remove the parasite from her body.

Assume for a moment that you were in a car accident. You wake up in the hospital and there are tubes coming out of you, your blood being taken and used by the man in the next bed before it is returned to you. He was another victim in the accident (neither of you were at fault). Say the doctor tells you- you have no choice but to allow this man to feed off you for the next nine months. If you do not allow this to happen, he will die. No one else can perform this service for him (no one else's blood is compatible for the purposes of this example). Would you then think that man's existence and utter dependence on you a legitimate means to your enslavement? He is a stranger who's existence and dependence you never intentionally brought about. He is utterly and completely helpless. And you have no desire to help him. Is choosing not to help him really murder? Would you allow this man to be tied to you for nine months, to your great inconvenience and quite possibly ill health, simply because some strange twist of fate has occurred that makes your action the only action that can sustain his life?

You were not consulted before this occurred, your personal desires were not ascertained, your intentional behaviors did nothing to bring about this parasite's existence and dependence upon you. And yet, here he is. The mere existence of a dependent being trumps all your desires, all your freedom of action in regard to your own body. This is wrong. It is not murder to go about your business refusing to host a parasite, even if that parasite is human in some sense.

Having sex is not a form of "consent" for pregnancy. Not all sex is consensual, so you are condemning rape victims to carry the spawn of their attackers to term. Also, birth control isn't 100% effective. Even if one uses a condom (properly) every time they have sex, there is still a small chance that they will become pregnant. Having gone to great length to avoid pregnancy, it doesn't follow that an individual should have to put up with such parasitism when they accidentally contract it.

And I have reached my character limit

1. http://brainmind.com...
Debate Round No. 2
ConsciousSpirit

Pro

First, I would like to thank Con for the debate! When I first started the debate I proposed the notion that Abortion is murder and laid out the foundation of life and how we define life that notion still stands and I have not seen anything to hinder this view.

Con has made several claims that the human fetus is merely a parasite and when I addressed to Con that Con is degrading the human life Con quickly acknowledged that it was indeed human. Con also gave accreditation to my claim that a fetus is a result of two humans having sex but moments later Con makes the statement that this fetus is not up to her standards of "personhood". I would ask the audience - what is personhood without life? If you cut the being's chance of ever achieving "personhood" out in the very beginning, how is it possible for the baby to achieve Con's standard of "personhood". Also, "personhood" is logical fallacy.
To give an example of this, A blind person has a dog that opens doors, shows them where to walk, and serves them as company. This human is reliant on this dog for basic stuff. Is the blind person not as much as a person as you or I? Is a person bound to wheelchair not a person in Con's definition? Con continues to refer to the human fetus as a parasite rather than a life because Con knows that if she acknowledges life than the debate leans to the common sense logic of - killing life is murder.

Con then gives us an example of self defense being a legitimate reason to kill someone, I would like to point out that this is a fallacious argument because I do not believe in killing anyone and I do not think Con speaks for everyone's view on the acceptance of killing someone no matter the circumstances. Con is taking a generalization of self defense and comparing this to the killing of the unborn, as if the unborn is attacking its mother. I would like to point out to Con that the building blocks of life are preordained by nature and I promise Con that the baby is only taking what it needs to survive, unlike a thief or attacker.

Con then attempts to give us an example by placing a victim of a car accident in the same scenario as a mother who has become pregnant. I would like to point out that the baby is not an accident. The act of sex is to reproduce. I can not stress this enough to Con. When a woman becomes pregnant, nature has taken it's course and everything is going exactly to plan. Con's car accident argument fails because a car accident is an accident.

Con then attempts an attack of character on my part because I defend the life of a child who is the product of rape. I would like to point out to the audience that rape happens in nature and most Atheist will even to go so far as to defend rape as it natural in the animal kingdom. Con then calls the child a "spawn", although rape victims are so far down the chain in people who get abortions that it is almost not worth mentioning , the life that is forming in the mothers womb is still the mothers child and an alternative is adoption. Murder is never justifiable and I can not stress that enough in this debate because Con will continuously attempt to give examples of horrid conditions that make up the smallest percentile of those who receive abortions. The majority of healthy, not products of rape, fetuses are the ones that are sent to the abortionist. Again, I will like to point out that this debate is not "When is Abortion justifiable" . Con attempts to then explain birth control and how it is ineffective sometimes, again..the act of sex is to reproduce and nature doesn't appreciate cheaters.

I have laid down the foundation of life and the genetic blueprint of humanity for the audience. I ask that you vote on the topic at hand and not whether it is right in certain circumstances. Although diminishing the fetus by constantly calling it a parasite, Con did acknowledge that it is human life.

If you were aborted, we wouldn't be having this debate right now.
belle

Con

To begin, I would just like to comment that the indisputable fact that had my mother chosen to have an abortion when she was pregnant with me I would not exist, nor be able to participate in debate, is completely irrelevant to the content of this debate. The resolution is not "belle's mother should have had an abortion" or anything along those lines. Your attempt to sway me through such emotional appeals adds nothing to your case. That said- onwards!

Pro seems to think that I was at some point laboring under the delusion that a fetus is not human. What I am actually saying is that the terms human and parasite are not mutually exclusive. If any being having human DNA is defined as human than any human is perfectly capable of also being a parasite.

He also persists in claiming that since the fetus is alive and it is human, killing it is murder. However, as my definition in R1 stated, which he did not contest, murder is the unjustified killing of a person. It follows that if I can show either than the fetus is not a person or that killing it is justified I have fulfilled my burden in this debate. As it stands, I have done both.

Pro seems to be arguing that since a fetus is a potential person, it is entitled to the same protections a fully realized person is. However, stipulating that murder consists in the destruction of a potential person leads quickly to absurdity. An ovum is also a potential person and women disgard them on a monthly basis through menstruation. And of course millions of "potential people" are thus destroyed everytime a man masturbates. Masturbation isn't murder!

Even granting the "personhood" of a fetus however, Pro fails to show that abortion is unjustified. He first of all distorts my argument to say that all forms of dependence are justifications for killing, which I never implied at all. I said that if the only two options for the fetus are:

(1) complete physical dependence on a specific individual person or
(2) death

that the person has the right to sever the connection between the fetus and herself, thus causing the death of said fetus. This dependence relation is only justification for killing when those conditions hold. The lady with the seeing eye dog is, first of all, not dependent on another person but on an animal. Second, she could find another dog that could do the job just as well. A fetus cannot find another womb if the owner of the one it finds itself in does not wish to house it.

I am also unclear whether or not Pro believes killing in self defence is justified, but I will give him the benefit of the doubt here. He claims that a fetus is "only taking what it needs to survive" and thus the mother's act is not one of self defence. However, shooting a starving theif who is breaking in to your home is no less justified than shooting an affluent one. The "need" of the attacker in self defence cases is irrelevant.

Pro further claims that pregnancy is not an accident but this is simply laughable. Any result coming about from an act that is not intended is accidental. Simply because pregnancies are sometimes the result of sexual activity, it doesn't follow that they are the intended result. In the same way, car accidents are sometimes the result of driving on public roads, but they are almost certainly not the intended result.

Finally, I have said nothing about my opponent's character, only about his position; namely that rape victims who choose to have abortions are, by his logic, murderers. I believe I have shown why this view is fallicious.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by yayawhatever 6 years ago
yayawhatever
ConsciousSpirit said:
The majority of abortions are done to healthy moms and babies

I say: Moms are women/girls that have had kids, preggy women are mothers TO BE. No babies are involved in abortions either...babies wear diapers and have lungs and bones.

ConsciousSpirit said:
Abortion is murder and should be illegal.

I say: Abortion would be murder IF it was illegal

Misuse of words doesnt change reality
Posted by Metz 6 years ago
Metz
If there was a "writing ability point" it would go to pro. However, I agree with CON, not because I like abortion but because I think that the women ought to be able to choose. I find it ironic that some of the some vehement anti-abortion activists are male whom (I hope) never will become pregnant themselves.
Posted by Korashk 6 years ago
Korashk
You can change your vote Crysis.
Posted by CrysisPillar 6 years ago
CrysisPillar
I'm sorry - I pressed the "cast my vote" button before I even chose sides! It's not going to affect either one of you much...it pretty much says tied for evreything. But keep in mind that I would have cast in my honest opinions of the debate if I had not pressed the button.
Posted by ConsciousSpirit 6 years ago
ConsciousSpirit
In typical liberal fashion you take a small piece of the argument and give it this grand sense of justice. The majority of abortions are done to healthy moms and babies. You are attempting to give erroneous arguments to defend a very small minority. Again, this debate was not on the topic of "when is abortion ok". Taking a life is murder and I will stand by that. If the mother is in danger and the baby is dead or going to die because of complications than it of course is not taking a life since the baby is not alive. left_wing_mormon(ironic name by the way) , believe it or not almost every case for abortion has nothing to do with "complications" but rather greed. What would I call that? I would call dying for your child honorable.
Posted by left_wing_mormon 6 years ago
left_wing_mormon
So when the mother's life is in danger and she can't recieve a safe surgical abortion procedure, and she dies as a result, what do we call that?

Forcing women to have unsafe illegal abortions will prove fatal for some women and spread infections. What do we call that?
Posted by Puck 6 years ago
Puck
So many laughs to be had.
Posted by mable_sox 6 years ago
mable_sox
PRO all the way.
Posted by Zetsubou 6 years ago
Zetsubou
Think...

Potential life argument...

I would Like to challenge Belle to this Laterz...
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by ravenwaen 6 years ago
ravenwaen
ConsciousSpiritbelleTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by yayawhatever 6 years ago
yayawhatever
ConsciousSpiritbelleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Pwnu059 6 years ago
Pwnu059
ConsciousSpiritbelleTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Yurlene 6 years ago
Yurlene
ConsciousSpiritbelleTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by serp777 6 years ago
serp777
ConsciousSpiritbelleTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by jamsjamsjams 6 years ago
jamsjamsjams
ConsciousSpiritbelleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Vote Placed by sword_of_lead 6 years ago
sword_of_lead
ConsciousSpiritbelleTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by kingofslash5 6 years ago
kingofslash5
ConsciousSpiritbelleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by josh_42 6 years ago
josh_42
ConsciousSpiritbelleTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:30 
Vote Placed by Korashk 6 years ago
Korashk
ConsciousSpiritbelleTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05