The Instigator
LaughItUpLydia
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Atheism_Debater
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Abortion is wrong and bad

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/12/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,520 times Debate No: 71614
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (18)
Votes (0)

 

LaughItUpLydia

Pro

Abortion is taking the right of life away from a human being who has no say in his/her situation. When you take the life away from someone, it is murder, therefore abortion is murder although there is much controversy. This controversy is what we will be debating about here.

This debate will simply be about the morality and mortality of the subject of abortion.

Pro = arguing that abortion is immoral and a form of murder against those who can't speak for themselves.

Con = arguing that abortion is moral, perfectly fine for a mother to do, and that it is not murder (the fetus is not human enough to be considered murdered)

Saying that the Burden of Proof is on me (Pro) would be correct but it won't do much good including that in my introduction, unless my opponent expects to just do rebuttals and not present his own arguments.

Wrong: http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Bad: http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Aborting: http://www.merriam-webster.com...

LET THE DEBATING BEGIN!
Atheism_Debater

Con


Introduction:


I would like to accept this debate, and I look forward to debating this controversial topic of abortion with my intelligent friend, @LaughitupLydia. Throughout the debate, I intend to refer to my opponent as Lydia. If Lydia has any concerns about my reference please let me know in the comments.


I will not be presenting any rebuttals in the first round, for that would be unfair to Lydia and would give me an unfair advantage throughout the entire debate. I will be presenting my rebuttals in round two of Lydia’s round 1 response.


I know this will be a formal, intelligent, and mature debate between Lydia and me on the controversial concept of abortion. I look forward to which view-point on this concept will win out in the end, and I sincerely hope that it will not end in the meaningless, vote less tie, which tragically happens to some unlucky few debates.


Abortion is a procedure in which a pregnant woman terminates her pregnancy. There are two different ways to perform an abortion; medical abortion, or surgical abortion. A medical abortion usually uses two different drugs, methotrexate or mifepristone, which will sometimes be followed with misoprostol. Medical abortions are usually done in the beginning of a pregnancy. The other type of abortion surgical abortion, the most common technique is vacuum aspiration. In this procedure, a tube is inserted into the mother and the contents of the pregnancy are vacuumed out.


Now the question is if abortion is morally acceptable. Now my role in this debate is to convince the voters to the best of my ability that it is. Lydia will try to convince the voters to the best of her ability that it is not.


Argument 1:


Woman should have the right to have full control of their bodies.


In the first trimester of pregnancy, the fetus cannot survive without the mother. The fetus is attached by the placenta and umbilical cord, its health is dependent on the mother’s health, and cannot be regarded as a separate person. It is the mother’s constitutional right, and moral right, to have control of her own body. Taking away a mother’s right to her body, is never morally justified.


Argument 2:


According US Department of Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey, there is an average of 293,066 rape victims, age 12 or older every year. Assuming that the vast majority of these innocent women were impregnated, denying these women the right to not want a baby is immoral. These innocent women did nothing wrong to be forced with the responsibility of caring for a child. Denying women abortion is not morally justified.


Argument 3:


Teenagers who become pregnant will be forced to have a grim life without abortion. They are much more likely to drop out of school, receive inadequate care, rely on welfare taking up taxpayer dollars develop health problems, end up getting divorced, or poverty. The child of the mother is likely to face a similar life. Not having abortion will ruin the lives of mothers and children; this is not a morally justified course of action.


Conclusion:


I have stated my three arguments on how abortion is morally justifiable. I look forward to the rest of the debate, I would like to wish Lydia the best of luck. Thank you!


Your friend,


Atheism_Debater



Debate Round No. 1
LaughItUpLydia

Pro

INTRODUCTION

Thank you, Con. I am suitable to be called by my first name, yes! But I would like to lay down certain boundaries and reminders before we get too deep into this controversial topic of abortion. I am a female, hence things could get personal. Because I am against abortion yet I am female, my opponent cannot use the tactic of "males can't choose, it's the woman's responsibility and decision. Readers, do not take anything personally from me or Con. Though I am arguing as a Pro-life advocate, I don't refer that label to all people against abortion (I don't particularly agree with the names given by society "pro-life" and "pro-choice, as not all presumed pro-choicers are "against" life and not all pro-lifers are "against choice). Voters, please recall that the win goes to whoever debates best in the end, not whoever is politically correct, but at the same time the victor will be whichever "view-point on this concept will win out in the end" (as Con said).

I believe we both agree with the definitions on abortion and the terms surrounding the topic. If we come upon a disagreement we will mention it sooner than later.

ARGUMENTS
1.) Individuals are individuals

Birth is a natural step in the circle of life in which the female gives birth, in one way or another, to another being. Conception is the step before birth and it is specially given as a job for females. When a female is carrying life/baby inside of her, it is her responsibility to protect the baby no matter what the circumstances, because all life has equal rights and is coequally precious.

A form of human life, whether born, unborn, fetus, or not fetus, is still an individual human. This is because size and/or stages in the terms of life are not accountable for whether the life form gets to live.

The individual who has the honors of carrying another beginning of a human cannot decide the fate of that little human because that little human is an individual itself, whether it can communicate or not. He deserves to live his life just like you or me or anyone does, he has equal rights, and he should be given a chance even if he cannot tell us that he wants a chance.

2.) Abortion is Murder

Since the legalization of abortion in 1973, over 56 million unborn children have been killed, more than the entire population of Spain. That's 155 babies per hour. Every fourth unborn child is aborted. 23% of abortions occur at 9-10 weeks, 11% at 11-12 weeks, 7% at 13-15 weeks, 4% at 16-20 weeks, and 1% for 21-40 weeks. I argue that abortion is immoral, wrong, and murder because life begins at conception.

"An unborn baby at 20 weeks gestation is fully capable of experiencing pain. " Without question, [abortion] is a dreadfully painful experience for any infant subjected to such a surgical procedure." Robert J. White, M.D., PhD., professor of neurosurgery, Case Western University

"At 20 weeks, the fetal brain has the full complement of brain cells present in adulthood, ready and waiting to receive pain signals from the body, and their electrical activity can be recorded by standard electroencephalography (EEG)." Dr. Paul Ranalli, neurologist, University of Toronto

The skeleton is complete and reflexes are present at 42 days. Electrical brain wave patterns can be recorded at 43 days. This is usually ample evidence that thinking is taking place in the brain.

A few of the most brutal--and common--versions of abortion are such as these:
Dilation and Evacuation (D&E): Sharp-edged instruments are used to grasp, twist and tear the baby"s body into pieces, which are then removed from the womb.
Saline abortion: Salt water is injected into the womb through the mother"s abdomen. The unborn baby swallows this fluid, is poisoned and dies in a process that sometimes takes 24 hours. The toxic saline solution causes severe burns over the unborn child"s entire body.

Some people assume that unborn life-forms are not babies and that they don't equal to a human therefore don't have rights to live. This is completely false because of the potential and obvious life signs that the fetus/being shows. Not only is this unfair and unjust, but also killing someone because of a lie.

"Please understand that by aborting your unborn child, that does not make the baby go away. Your baby will be in your heart until you die. After abortion " the guilt, shame and loneliness is horrible. Once you abort, you cannot go back and change it." " Lisa Burroughs

Murder is taking away a life.
Abortion takes away a life.
Therefore, abortion is murder.

3.) Abortion is unsafe.

As a report counted (see sources), compared with other medical procedures, the abortion industry is largely unregulated. Although there are no exact statistics for the number of women who die from botched procedures, LifeDynamics.com compiled a list of 347 women killed by legal abortions since 1973.2 Furthermore, the National Cancer Institute commissioned a study lead by Dr. Janet Daling, an abortion supporter, and her colleagues at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center which found a link between abortion and cancer: "among women who had been pregnant at least once, the risk of breast cancer in those who had experienced an induced abortion was 50% higher than among other women." The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer reports: "28 out of 37 worldwide studies have independently linked induced abortion with breast cancer. Thirteen out of fifteen studies conducted on American women report increased risk. Seventeen studies are statistically significant, sixteen of which found increased risk. Most of the studies have been conducted by abortion supporters."

"At 20 weeks, the fetal brain has the full complement of brain cells present in adulthood, ready and waiting to receive pain signals from the body, and their electrical activity can be recorded by standard electroencephalography (EEG)."
" Dr. Paul Ranalli, neurologist, University of Toronto

Rebuttals for Argument 1

"Woman should have the right to have full control of their bodies."
As you read my first argument you would realize the facts about 'individuals.' You can't ignore the fact that the unborn body is NOT the mother's. While the mother has full responsibility as the grateful burdened carrier of life at that point in time, it is her job to keep the life inside her safe, not to throw it away just because the fetus can't speak physically for itself. But we must ask, if the unborn baby could communicate and we would give it the choice to live or not, what do you think he would choose? The whole flaw in abortion is that your taking away the human beings right to living, and that fact cannot be escaped. Women DO have the right to have full control of their bodies, but they also have full control of their offsprings' bodies/lives. Just because you can't see the life inside them doesn't mean the babies don't want their lives.

"Taking away a mother"s right to her body, is never morally justified."
Taking away a disabled--unable to communicate--human being's right to live in his/her body is never morally justified, either.

Rebuttals of Argument 2/3

"Assuming that the vast majority of these 293,066 innocent women were impregnated, denying these women the right to not want a baby is immoral."
Where are the sources? There are options available besides killing the children.

"Teenagers who become pregnant will be forced to have a grim life without abortion. They are much more likely to drop out of school, receive inadequate care, rely on welfare taking up taxpayer dollars develop health problems, end up getting divorced, or poverty."

The problem with this argument is that the percentage of teenagers who are actually pregnant and in a desperate circumstance is very low. Did I mention yet that situations of rape victims and/or young pregnancies take up less than 2% (see sources) of abortions annually? http://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...

CONCLUSION

We need to preserve life, not kill our next generation because we don't think we can handle them. From a logical perspective our goal is to help by the system of reproduction; in this way humanity is better off. What if you aborted Einstein? Adoption and foster care is the alternative that leaves the mother without guilt and regret and gives the child a chance at life no matter how bad the circumstances might be.

Thank you for your participation, Con! I'm excited that we've got this debate rolling. Good luck on your Round 2. I'm running out of characters, sorry for any mistakes. :)

SOURCES
http://www.abortionfacts.com...
http://www.tfpstudentaction.org...
http://www.abort73.com...
https://prolifeacrossamerica.org...
http://liveactionnews.org...
Atheism_Debater

Con

I could not post a response for this round. I already had my response half done on my computer when our water heater started leaking and flooded the room where my computer is. We had to remove everything from the room and bring in fans to clean it up. I am now on my parents computer and I didn't have time to post my response. I'm sorry about the entire ordeal, it really sucks when personal issues get in the way of debating. Anyways, I couldn't post a response, I wish to continue this debate, but I totally understand if my opponent doesn't want to.
Debate Round No. 2
LaughItUpLydia

Pro

I will present a little part to add on to my arguments of Round 2 even though Con has forfeited a round. I hope this debate will continue nonetheless.

Abortion is a procedure in which woman terminates the individual life inside her (see R2). Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's moral, and just because something is accepted by society doesn't mean it's right. From my stance, it's like this: if a crowd of people walk one way I'm not just going to follow them as if I'm blind. So I dig deeper into ethics and the meaning of a human being. Is a baby being born still human? Yes. Should a human being have the right to live? Yes. Is the baby made of our own DNA and flesh and blood? Yes. Should we be killing off our own flesh and blood? Of course not. But the logic in the argument for abortion is that "some already-alive humans don't have time and/or resources for the not-yet-born humans." This breaks my heart and I think it is insensitive for it not to.
Atheism_Debater

Con

Introduction:

I completely agree with Lydia about the labeling, I understand and unfalteringly respect what she says.

Rebuttal of Argument 1:

In this argument Lydia uses the usual idea that the fetus is a human being, “A form of human life, whether born, unborn, fetus, or not fetus, is still an individual human” and that, “he has equal rights, and he should be given a chance…”

The average number of sperm, or spermatozoa, that are expelled in one male ejaculation, is 500 million. Each of these sperms is an individual life, each and every one has the chance to be born, “A form of human life, whether born, unborn… still an individual human. This is because size and/or stages in the terms of life are not accountable for whether the life form gets to live.” If we use the logic that Lydia proposed, then each and every one of these unborn, living sperm should have equal rights, and each and every unborn human “deserves to live his life just like you or me or anyone does,” If Lydia’s idea is to be preserved and used, it cannot be abandoned or else this logic is a fallacy, and Lydia would be a hypocrite. In order for Lydia to not be a hypocrite, Lydia would have to carry out her logic, and surgically remove one sperm, and directly insert that into the female egg, for every single couple ever that wants to have a child, in order for this logic to prevail. To abstain from murdering innocent human lives.

Something is described as being something, if characteristics of that something match the characteristics of that other something. If I were to remove a human heart from a human body, could that something be described as human? Certainly not! Its cells still have human DNA, but holds little characteristics that a human possesses. If I were to remove a fetus from a pregnant mother, should this be described as human? Maybe twenty or so weeks in it could, but before that it does not. It does not have the characteristics that a human has at that point, so should not be described as human. It is not logical to say something is another thing, if it possesses little characteristics of thing. After this point, and the characteristics are met that render it a human, then it is a human. But this does not happen until far into the pregnancy, and personally, I do not believe that women should get pregnancies that far in.

With these two rebuttals, I examined and showed what following through Lydia’s theory would actually look like, and argued that fetuses should not be thought of as a human.

Rebuttal of Argument 2:

In the beginning of the second argument, my opponent brings up numerous statistics of abortion which cannot be argued since they are fact. Later on Lydia brings up quotes to show that 20 weeks into the pregnancy, the baby feels pain and doing an abortion could hurt the child. Lydia continues on the premise of this thought.

Lydia establishes that the child can feel pain, yet some types of abortion processes can be done so the baby feels no pain. If they don’t currently exist, they can be invented. This is not a valid argument.

“A few of the most brutal--and common--versions of abortion are such as these:”

Lydia then lists two different abortion techniques that are brutal. I would be fine with this except that she claimed that these were common, which they are not. Using the argument that some techniques of abortion can cause pain to the child, so abortion is bad, is not a valid argument, for it doesn’t account for techniques that don’t cause pain to the child. Saying that some dogs are bad, does not mean that all dogs are bad, similarly saying that some abortions are bad, doesn’t mean they are all bad.

“This is completely false because of the potential and obvious life signs that the fetus/being shows”

This adds to what I said in my first rebuttal, about the sperms.

Rebuttal of Argument 3:

In this argument, Lydia basically sites research about how abortions can cause cancer and how they are deadly.

I will rebut this by showing how not having an abortion, and giving birth to a child is just as dangerous, if not more, than an abortion.

“Every day, approximately 800 women die from preventable causes related to pregnancy and childbirth.” (WHO Maternal mortality)

Women giving birth usually die of severe bleeding usually after childbirth, infections, high blood pressure during pregnancy, or complications from delivery. Mortality is also much higher in teen pregnancies.

“From 1990 to 2013, the global maternal mortality ratio declined by 45 per cent – from 380 deaths to 210 deaths per 100,000 live births, according to UN inter-agency estimates.” (UNICEF)

Although the mortality rate is slowly decreasing, not having an abortion, and giving birth is equally dangerous.

Abortions save mother’s lives.

Counter Rebuttal 1:

“Women DO have the right to have full control of their bodies, but they also have full control of their offsprings' bodies/lives.”

Exactly, mother’s should have control of their offspring, and should choose to do what they want with them, according to you.

“But we must ask, if the unborn baby could communicate and we would give it the choice to live or not, what do you think he would choose? The whole flaw in abortion is that your taking away the human beings right to living, and that fact cannot be escaped.”

The baby might choose not to live, you cannot make unsubstantiated assumptions like this.

Counter Rebuttal 2/3:

“Where are the sources? There are options available besides killing the children.”

My sources were in the comments and keeping the child, enduring the dangers of birth, and then give the child away to foster care where it takes up tax payer dollars, lives on welfare, and is most likely to be a criminal and danger to society.

Conclusion:

There was no way possible for me to post a response, I don’t think that I should be penalized for something that is not my fault. I have also not forfeited a round, I just couldn’t write a response, I am sorry, but personal matters sometimes interfere with debating.

I look forward to the rest of the debate, good luck to you Lydia!

Sources:

http://data.unicef.org...

http://www.who.int...



Debate Round No. 3
LaughItUpLydia

Pro

I thank Con that he reminds everyone this debate is not based on the two sides ("pro-choice" and "pro-life"). Now, for Round 4!

First off I would like to make clear once and for all that any life form, whether human/fetus or not, is viable to having every right to their full life potential no matter what. All other arguments cease for me, in this round, because I know that abortion is murder. Randy Alcorn once said [1] "Even if abortion were made easy or painless for everyone, it wouldn't change the bottom-line problem that abortion kills children." Now, why is it that (the US) protects the unborn animals of some endangered species [2] but will abort unborn humans without giving second thought? Every argument I see that tries to defend abortion "rights" fails because it is illogical.
My opponent calls me a hypocrite because I state plainly that any form of human life, whether born, unborn, is still an individual human and has the right to live that life, just like you and I. Con commits straw man fallacy when explaining how I must "surgically remove one sperm...directly insert that into the female egg for every couple that wants to have a child." This debate is meerly about abortion. That being said, I stand my ground as to why the stages of unborn life dealt with during abortion, as per adversion, should always be protected (because) they are humans.

Secondly, I think you all should know what "fetus" actually means. In Greek it means "little one" or "offspring." I wonder why. Con says that the reason an unborn child is not a human is because the fetus does not have some of the the "characteristics" of a human yet. "If I were to remove a fetus from a pregnant mother, should this be described as human? Maybe twenty or so weeks in it could, but before that it does not. It does not have the characteristics that a human has at that point, so should not be described as human." But, at any rate, if it is a form of life, it deserves to be born in this world, even though he cannot speak for himself himself. Looking at Con's argument from a different perspective, I can explain how it may be offensive to some people. What about the children born with disabilities? They are still considered 'human,' despite that they might not have "all the characteristics." I am not debating that a fetus is a potential human, I'm arguing that a fetus is a human with potential. For this reason we should be protecting all rights for the lives of these humans with potential.

Have you ever seen the movie "The Giver"? In a scene or two it gives you an idea of the true definition of abortion, in a sense, because they "get rid of" unwanted babies by surgical murder which they name "Release." It shows how we sugercoat the meaning of abortion and make it sound like disposing a fetus is no problem and nothing that should concern anyone. But of course, this is not true.

I'm not trying to bring this debate into politics of this sort, but since I am against abortion I am against the law that allows humans to be "disposed" of.

Con assumes that "pain may not be felt during abortions of certain methods." This is not a valid argument because, indeed, abortions currently are nearly all done causing pain to the unborn baby. [3] However, I am no longer debating with this tactic (see my second paragraph). He also asserts that "women giing birth usually die of severe bleeding usually after childbirth, infections, high blood pressure during pregnancy, or complications from delivery." This is false because pregnancies do not "usually" end that way.

Abortion may save mothers lives but they abolish the unborn human's potential. So the tough question is, which is worse? Killing a halfway grown woman or a child who would have a full life ahead?

More rebuttals:

"The baby might choose not to live."

Now Con's trying to explain how abortion "is justified killing due to our lack of knowing what the baby wants." This is such an insane assumption because it isn't possible for a baby to be so unenthusiastic about life that he'd rather die. The woman/parents have full control over the unborn baby's body and life, and this is only because the body is helpless and needs support, but there should not be a choise for them to make since the baby has full rights to live.

"My sources were in the comments and keeping the child, enduring the dangers of birth, and then give the child away to foster care where it takes up tax payer dollars, lives on welfare, and is most likely to be a criminal and danger to society."

Con assumes three things here: 1) that welfare is a bad thing, 2) that money is more important than the life of the baby, and 3) that the baby will most likely be a threat to society and criminal. This is something to consider. Abortion equals death while life equals oppurtunity, no matter how "bad" it might be," and you should let the child decide whether he wants to live or not once he can do so for himself. Until then, the--for lack of a better term--"underdeveloped" human has full rights to life.

Conclusion:

This has been a good debate despite Con not being able to respond right away. I conclud that all life matters. Individual rights are what they are and we can't sugarcoat that. Abortion takes away a human's right to life and is, therefore, wrong and bad.


[1] http://www.thegospelcoalition.org...

Atheism_Debater

Con


Introduction:


Thanks for that response Lydia.


I would like to comment on the images in Lydia’s response. I don’t understand how internet memes are relevant to this debate. Besides this fact, they are false. “Abortion is an essential measure to prevent the heartbreak of infant mortality.”


The … means that there was a break in the text, meaning that she said something different before that. She probably said, Proper medical care is an essential measure to prevent the heartbreak of infant mortality.” Substituting something else out for another to give the illusion of a message is pathetic propaganda. I fully respect my opponent, I am only talking about the meme.


The other meme is true, but makes the assumption that the “someone else” is really a person.


Rebuttal:


“That being said, I stand my ground as to why the stages of unborn life dealt with during abortion, as per adversion, should always be protected (because) they are humans.”


Lydia attempts to defeat my sperm argument. Yet completely restates what I defeated. Every single sperm is “unborn life” and since Lydian says unborn life, “should always be protected (because) they are humans.” Therefore every single sperm should be protected with human rights, according to Lydia. All I am doing is following out her logic, the only way to defeat this would be to say that sperm aren’t unborn life, but, sperm is obviously unborn life.


Lydia then attempts to defeat my argument that a fetus is not a human because of the characteristics with this,


“What about the children born with disabilities? They are still considered 'human,' despite that they might not have ‘all the characteristics.’ "


Children with disabilities still look extremely human, I’m not sure if there is a disability that makes you look like a different species.


“Have you ever seen the movie ‘The Giver’?”


Yes, I’ve also read the book, and the entire book series.


“In a scene or two it gives you an idea of the true definition of abortion, in a sense, because they "get rid of" unwanted babies by surgical murder which they name "Release." It shows how we sugercoat the meaning of abortion and make it sound like disposing a fetus is no problem and nothing that should concern anyone.”


Yet we are talking about fetuses, not already born children.


“This is false because pregnancies do not "usually" end that way.”


I apologize, I meant the women that die, usually die that way.


“Killing a halfway grown woman or a child who would have a full life ahead?”


Now your categorizing which people deserve to live or not.


“Con assumes three things here: 1) that welfare is a bad thing, 2) that money is more important than the life of the baby, and 3) that the baby will most likely be a threat to society and criminal. This is something to consider. Abortion equals death while life equals oppurtunity, no matter how "bad" it might be," and you should let the child decide whether he wants to live or not once he can do so for himself.”


1: Welfare is not a bad thing, I was merely stating that it takes up tax dollars. 2: You still have to prove that a fetus is a human which has not been done yet. 3: this is a proven fact by statistics and research. You can’t “let the child decide” if it wants to live or not. The fetus won’t decide, it is not logical to assume that the child would say yes, nor is it that the child says no.


Conclusion:


I have stated my rebuttals, and I look forward to Lydia’s response. Thank you!





Debate Round No. 4
LaughItUpLydia

Pro

Thank you. I apologize in advance for the bad spacing; my computer wouldn't allow the last paragraphs to be spaced evenly.

1. The memes

Honestly I didn't mean to make the memes big, I originally wanted it to be just some links. I put them there because they explain my point. See, what I'm trying to do is get it in Con's head that abortion--and most feminism related to "birth control"--is hypocrisy at best, and it's sugar-coating murder to make it sound like basically "getting rid of" a "thing" (for the benefit of the mother, usually). "No, it's not a human yet, why would it be since we can't see it?!" (Sarcasm there.)
I'll explain my "memes" from R4.


Terry O'neill is a well-known feminist, attorney, and obviously she supports abortion. Now, either you support abortion or you despise it because you believe it's wrong, so what one pro-abortion person says will most-likely suit your beliefs as a pro-abortion person, too. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... This explains what she said, and now you can't deny that she said it and you must refute. I would like to end with another "meme" which I want a response rather than criticism.
The other meme, Con admitted, is true. There were no assumptions made by me since I have already proven that the unborn baby is a human. What, do you truly think that there's the possibility of the fetus being something other than a human?

I think we all know that a woman's not going to give birth to a different creature, and specifically we are debating abortion, so my simple main contention is that a fetus/baby in the womb of a woman deserves to be born and live because it is a human. Obviously it is not full grown, but it is still a human. I am not making any claims concerning sperms at the moment, thus, everything my opponent asserted about my supposed statement about sperms is invalid. Yes, I claim that "unborn life should always be protected because they are humans," but this is specifically in terms of abortion and it is irrelevant to bring sperms into topic. How does something non-human come from human parents?
A pre-birth fetal and a teenager like myself can sum up the important similarities that make me and the unborn equally human by these four categories: size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency. Now, do any of these categories disqualify the fetus as a human being? Will I become more human when my brain finally finishes developing? From the way I see it, Con believes a fetus is not human, just something growing inside a woman's body that is trying to be born into "life." You see that none of these categories affect the nature of the fetus; the fetus is fully human from conception.
2. Rebuttals
By reminding you of scenes from "The Giver," I am attempting to visualize how unborn and born aren't different. The only difference is being able to see them. We agree that the "unborn" aren't always fetuses, but we are merely arguing abortion terms, correct? So, aborting the unborn is the same as murder just as the unborn have the same contents as the born. The unborn, or more specifically, fetuses, are in the process of growing and maturing, but infants (and us) are, too.
"I apologize, I meant the women that die, usually die that way." Actually the leading death in women is heart disease. http://www.cdc.gov...; I hate to say it, but even if what Con said is true, at least they are dying as heroes that served a great benefit and impact to the next generation of humans. The life of an unborn child is just as valuable as anyone, after all, you and I were once one too and I think I've always been human. Not sure, but I think so.

Con states that it is a "proven fact by statistics and research" that a child will most likely be a criminal or threat to society. I'd like to see the source for that--in fact, I'd like to see sources for all the claims Con's made--I have no reason to believe him otherwise.
"You can’t “let the child decide” if it wants to live or not." (Quoting Con)
This is one of the simple reasons why abortion is wrong and bad (and unlawful murder). Abortion does not give the right to life. It takes away a human with potential forcefully, and the decision to it's life is made by someone who's never met the innocent, unable-to-speak-for-himself, human. Abortion is like giving a blind, deaf, and mute (disabled) person--for example, Helen Keller--a pill which destroys her life. It is impossible to ask her, but you can't deny her the right to live!
Would it Bother Us More if They Used Guns? pro-life T-shirt from Abort73.com
3. Conclusion
I have stated why abortion is wrong and in no way, good. I have refuted Con's arguments, and in doing so I have proven that an unborn baby is still human. Thank you for participating in this debate--I hope you got the vibe that it was done peacefully, Atheism_Debator!
Atheism_Debater

Con

I'd like to thank Lydia very much for bringing up this debate and participating in it. I enjoyed this debate very much and am sad to see it end. The debate is now in the voters hands and I will now give it to them. Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 5
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by InsaneSanity 1 year ago
InsaneSanity
Too bad no one voted, this was a great debate, I came too late. I guess this comment is sort of like my vote, I agree with LaughItUpLydia for the most part, but I think that if the fetus is very new, and the woman did not give consent, then it should be allowed. Midnight commenting is my excuse for any spelling, grammar, or whatever other derps in this comment. :)
Posted by LaughItUpLydia 2 years ago
LaughItUpLydia
I don't believe there is more than one aspect on the definition of 'abortion.' Either it's a morally sound action that is justifiable, or it is immoral and murder therefore unjust. What do you think @Ragner?
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
Which aspect of abortion? That it should never be done is my favorite, but that's a non-defensible position.
Posted by LaughItUpLydia 2 years ago
LaughItUpLydia
Ragner, do you want to debate this topic with me?
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
One of the most one sided debates I've seen in awhile (which didn't end in a forfeit or complete gibberish), however due to the overwhelming strength of my bias on this issue, I must refrain from voting.

...

@ButterCatX
Your RFDs are coming along nicely.

Generally you don't need to mention things that you are not voting on which are equal (or near enough to equal to not merit a point). If one side say forfeited (or otherwise had conduct violations which distracted from their argument) and you decided they did not lose conduct, that would be something to explain.

The usually unbiased nature of .gov and .edu sites tends to be a key determinant. I would say one of them (such as the World Health Organization), tends to outweigh a half-dozen propaganda websites which all say the same thing for the same pathos reasons (here's pictures of dead babies!). Source bombing is a crime against source credibility (not to say this debate outright had that, just something to keep in mind for future voting).
Posted by ButterCatX 2 years ago
ButterCatX
This will act as my rfd.
Neither side wins the conduct points as both sides displayed good conduct and respected each other.Both sides also used proper grammar and had no misspellings. Con placed better arguments stating that it is a woman's choice to have an abortion and included many facts including that people have freedom over their own body. Con also won the sources pints because she included many .org and .gov sites which are generally more reliable than .com sites, pro also used some good sources but con had better ones.
Posted by LaughItUpLydia 2 years ago
LaughItUpLydia
Shucks, I didn't mean to make the photos so big
Posted by LaughItUpLydia 2 years ago
LaughItUpLydia
Atheism-Debator, do you now think that fetus is it's own individual.
Posted by Atheism_Debater 2 years ago
Atheism_Debater
Mathgeekjoe,
That's an excellent question and I am pleased that you brought that up. Yes, according to my logic this true, I never realized it, but yes that is true. Thanks again for bringing that up, I never realized that before.
Posted by Mathgeekjoe 2 years ago
Mathgeekjoe
@Atheism_Debater
"Without the mother, the fetus couldn't survive, this is why it is considered one with the mother, once the fetus reaches the stage that it can survive without the mother, it is no longer part of the mother."

According to this logic, a person on life support is one with the life support. So one question?
Do you consider people on life support to be part machine?
No votes have been placed for this debate.