The Instigator
justin.graves
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
morgan2252
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points

Abortion is 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...
justin.graves
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/22/2013 Category: Health
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 699 times Debate No: 31568
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)

 

justin.graves

Pro

Hey, I told you I'd challenge you to a debate sometime and, well, here I am. The first round will be acceptance. Basic rules: No name calling, use sources, don't use Wikipedia as a source, and you cannot add contentions after the first round of debating. Based on your previous debates I've seen, you seem to be above all of that.
morgan2252

Con

Acceptance. I'm ready for an awesome debate!
Debate Round No. 1
justin.graves

Pro

Abortion is the killing of an unborn child while it is still developing in the womb. This is done through a number of means. Before the eighth week, these abortions are usually done using drugs (Abortion: Questions and Answers, Dr. J.C. Wilke, 1985). From the eighth week to the twelfth week, suction aspiration is the primary means of abortion. It is done by the insertion of a tube into the womb and sucking the child out through it. (Wilke, 1985) At that point, the child can has almost complete use of its limbs, can somersault, swallow, and has started growing hair.

By the twelfth week, the baby has a fully functioning brain, although it is not completely developed. From then until the eighteenth week, the baby is killed using "dilation and evacuation." This is done by inserting forceps into the womb, grabbing the child, and twisting it around over and over until it is completely dismembered and sucked out through a tube (Wilke, 1985).

At week twenty, a baby in the womb can feel pain.* By that time, a new form of torturous abortion has begun: "saline injection."(Wilke, 1985) This involves injected a saline solution into the womb. The baby ingests this solution and is poisoned. It is also a corrosive liquid that burns the skin. It usually takes a baby between 1 and 24 hours to die from this, all the while in terrible agony, but sometimes a baby is born after labor is induced still alive! A few have even been saved and put up for adoption afterwards. This form of abortions continues until six months.


At six months, according to teachteenparents.com, a baby sucks on its thumb and can listen to conversations. At that point, a new, horrific abortion type begins:"prostaglandin chemical abortion." (Wilke, 1985) The chemical causes contractions to occur that are much more violent then usual. It crushes the baby, sometimes decapitating it. C-sections are also a popular way to remove the baby. The umbilical cord is cut and the baby is taken out alive to suffocate on a table.

By the 32nd week, there is evidence that a baby can dream (Wilke, 1985). After that time, partial birth abortions occur. It is simply the killing of the baby as it is being born, usually by the insertion of scissors into the baby's skull, which is the only thing not born. The scissors open the skull, a tube is inserted, and the baby's brain is sucked out through the tube.

These are the horrors of abortion. Pain, suffering, and death. The death of a human child. We are still not sure when exactly a baby can feel pain. It may be as early as before twelve weeks. Even before that, the baby is obviously a child, with human form and a developing nervous system.

That video up there says it all. Who can deny the photos of dead children? It is like a present day Holocaust, nay, it is one! This is not a fight over religious ideas, but the fight for millions of children! More than 50 million children have been murdered in this fashion, their bodies dumped in the trash or researched upon! The majority of Nazi's believed the Holocaust was right, the majority of Americans think abortion is right. I see no difference.



morgan2252

Con

I thank my opponent for challenging me to this debate.

My opponent uses images of dead fetuses to demonstrate the horrors of abortion. I will not deny the fact that these are true. However, he focuses so much on the actual abortion rather than what happens after the abortion.

It appears that my opponent concentrates on the subject of pain in his last argument. However, there will be much less pain in an abortion.

Pain of the Child
Most mothers that have abortions usually have abortions for one of two reasons. The first reason is that it interferes with her education and career goals. The second, and more common reason, is because she usually can’t afford the baby. As a result, the child may grow up in poverty. If this occurs, he/she will have to suffer this type of pain.

Another alternative is that the child is put up for adoption. However, nearly 25% of children don’t get adopted! That’s an extremely high percentage. According to Adoptioninstitute.org, “Even with the recent increases in adoptions from foster care, the number of children waiting for adoption on September 30, 1999 was more than two-and-a-half times the number of children adopted during that year.” Those children that get put up for adoption will have to experience a different type of pain: the pain of not feeling loved. But unlike the pains that my opponent describes, this type of pain can last for an entire lifetime! We don’t want to burden children with this strong, emotional pain.

My opponent also describes the physical pain that a child goes through. However, despite the fact that he says that the baby begins to feel pain at around week 20, the child’s nervous system still isn’t fully developed. It doesn’t feel as much pain as it would if its nervous system was completely developed. My opponent describes these horrible things, and yes, it is clear that the baby experiences pain. However, it is not to the extent that we feel pain today.

And chances are, the emotional pain that the baby will feel after it is born will be much greater than the physical pain it would have felt if it was aborted. Aborting the child may be less painful for it in the long run.

Pain of the Mother
Like I said above, the woman usually has to experience the hardships of poverty because she cannot afford the baby. Many women choose abortion simply because it is cheaper. For example, childbirth can cost up to $2000 for prenatal care alone if they don’t have health insurance. (Many Americans don’t due to poverty.) In addition, the woman will also have to pay for maternity clothing, and if she chooses to keep the baby, may also feel the urge to spend money on other accessories. There are also many other expenses. Meanwhile, abortions can cost between $300 and $800. That is a big difference in cash, especially if you’re close to poverty and every penny matters. If the woman has more money due to the fact that she had an abortion, her life may be much better than if she decided to have the child.

Pain of the Diseased
Remarkably, human fetuses can be used as stem cells. Stem cells are thought to be able to cure up to 70 major diseases because you can replace an infected cell with a stem cell, and the stem cell will multiply until the body is healed. The two types of stem cells are adult stem cells (multipotent) and embryonic stem cells (pluripotent). The difference is, adult stem cells can only create cells of the specific type of cell it is, while embryonic stem cells can create cells of ANY kind except eggs and sperm. (One can easily see how doctors would rather have the embryonic cells for the same reason that blood distributors would rather have Type O blood.) In fact, according to a 2005 study, stem cells have been proven to be able to cure cancer. Stem cell research can take away the pain of those suffering from cancer and other diseases. Many think about the pain of the embryo without considering the pain of those having to be tortured from the pain of cancer every single day. If we allow abortion and put stem cell research actively into practice, we can put this form of pain to an end.

Pain of the Community
As I said before, if the mother chooses to keep the child, both she and the child are most likely go into poverty. According to Jacksonfreepress.org, those in poverty are most usually criminals. In other words, these unwanted children that are being considered to be aborted are most likely going to be a burden to society. The general community will probably go through less pain if the child is aborted.

Conclusion
1. Abortion could cause less pain to society because it will likely reduce the amount of crime.
2. Abortion could cure those who have to suffer from cancer every day.
3. Abortion could provide the woman with a cheaper alternative to childbirth and help those who are only a few steps away from poverty.
4. Despite the fact that abortion causes the child pain, its underdeveloped nervous system causes it less pain than we would feel if we had to undergo the processes of abortion. It may also save the child’s emotional pain in the long run because it may grow up in poverty or get the feeling it isn’t loved. And, in my opinion, emotional pain is the worst kind of pain of them all.

Sources
http://www.jacksonfreepress.com...
http://abortion.procon.org...
http://www.adoptioninstitute.org...
http://www.webmd.com...
http://www.plannedparenthood.org...
http://www.americansforcures.org...
http://phys.org...
Debate Round No. 2
justin.graves

Pro

Touché, Ms. Morgan. I have been in a Mock Trial class before. I learned there that one of the marks of a truly great debater is being able to turn the opponent's theme against themselves. Very well done.

Anyways, I suppose that I should have outlined my points in the Second Round. My apologies. My exact contentions are as follows:
1. Abortion is murder 2. Abortion is painful to the baby 3. Abortion is akin to the Holocaust and equally wrong.

Let us now look at my rebuttals to Ms. Morgan's points.

Pain of the Child
Wow! 75% of babies are adopted into loving families! That... that is incredible! Truly incredible! More than 75% of babies in America will live their lives instead of being killed! I think that is amazing. Millions of children that were not slaughtered on a stainless steel, cold operating table.

I want to ask you a question... Let's say you saw a child in an orphanage in my hometown of Wilmington, NC. You walk in and there are more than two dozen children lined up waiting to see if you will adopt them. You ask the nurse which one of these children has been here the longest and will most likely never be adopted. He points out four little boys and two little girls in the corner. She says that they most likely will never be adopted. Ever. Would you shoot them all on the spot to put them out of their "misery?" I desperately hope that both those out there reading this and Ms. Morgan would give a resounding: "NO! That is wrong!" Then why is it different to kill a defenseless child in the womb to take it out of the "misery" it has a 25% chance of having? There is no difference.

Pain of the Mother
By Ms. Morgan's definition, more than 90% of the world should be killed. Did you know that at least 80% of the world lives on less then $10 per day.* Did you also know that the average person in France in under the US poverty line? In fact, a lot of Europe is!* Does this mean that we should abort 90% of the world's babies? No! Of course not.

According to my opponent, it costs $300- $800 to have an abortion. That kind of money is a dream to those that live in the country of Haiti, where rice farmers sometimes make less than 25 cents per day. I have been to Haiti and seen that poverty, but instead of killing everyone in it, I give them food and a way to sustain themselves. I don't see how you wouldn't kill 54,000,000 babies living in horrible poverty, but America would kill54,000,00*0 unborn children because they mightgrow up better than 80-85% of the world, but less than 15-20%. It is illogical. We won't kill newborn babies who dolive in horrible poverty, but we will kill unborn children who mightgrow up in subjective poverty. Would you kill a newborn who may die before he turns five because of poverty? No? Than why are you killing babies because they might grow up in America where 97% of those under the poverty line have a TV, and 34% have more than one car.* It is illogical.

Pain of the Diseased

As my favorite Sci-Fi character Mr. Spock once said, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." Even if you follow this philosophy, the numbers are all wrong. The "many" are the aborted babies in this instance. How many people die of cancer daily? 1,500.* How many children are aborted everyday? 3,425.* More than two times as many babies are killed per day than cancer patients that die. And did we ask those babies' permission to die for others? No, we just decided to kill 'em without their consent. There is no excuse for killing babies.

Pain of the Community

Poverty again. Except now those babies couldturn into ruthless criminals. Ms. Morgan, I saw on your profile that you do indeed support the death penalty, as do I. But I do not support the death penalty being given to those that steal TV's, mug people, or even rob banks. I don't think anyone else would either. However, your argument seems to say that you think we should kill criminals beforethey commit the crime. Just because it is a possibility. Also, I don't even see how trying to stop crime early would constitute the murder of 54,000,0000 babies.It doesn't add up. Crime... or genocide. Hmm... What a choice...

Conclusion
1. "Abortion could cause less pain to society because it will likely reduce the amount of crime." This is horrible. You wouldn't give the death penalty to a thief for stealing a TV, why would you kill a baby who has not committed a crime? The most innocent in the world are being killed for crimes that they did not commit!

2. "Abortion could cure those who have to suffer from cancer every day." As I have already shown, the number of cancer patients who die everyday is fewer than the number of babies aborted everyday. Also, the babies did not give consent to be killed. They couldn't have.

3. "Abortion could provide the woman with a cheaper alternative to childbirth and help those who are only a few steps away from poverty." As I said, by America's definition of "poverty" at least 85% of the world should by killed using this philosophy. You would never kill a child in true poverty, why would you kill a baby that could be born in subjective poverty?

4. "Despite the fact that abortion causes the child pain, its underdeveloped nervous system causes it less pain than we would feel if we had to undergo the processes of abortion. It may also save the child’s emotional pain in the long run because it may grow up in poverty or get the feeling it isn’t loved. And, in my opinion, emotional pain is the worst kind of pain of them all." You wouldn't kill a child in a rundown orphanage when they are unloved, why would you kill a child who might?

Did you notice what was said in all four points above? Could. Could grow up in poverty. Could be unloved. Could cause less pain to society. I don't know about you, but when a person's life is in my hands, I would be a lot more careful about knowing for certain that something bad would happen. Even then, who are you to make that decision for them?


I think I have made my point of infant pain fairly well in the previous round. However, I would like to bring out my other two points more in the 1,951 characters that I have left. 1. Abortion is murder 2. Abortion is akin to the Holocaust and equally wrong.

If you have time, I plead with you to watch the 180 Movie through WOTM that I have supplied through Youtube. It was enlightening for me when I was deciding how much of a Pro-lifer I was. It helped me see clearly to make my decision.

Say that it was 1943 in Germany, you are in a mental hospital and 100 children with Down Syndrome are lined up in front of you. The Nazi guard tells you to shoot all of those children because they "have a bad quality of life." Would you shoot them? Yet again, I hope you answer is a resounding "NO!" Then why are we killing 92% of all Down Syndrome children before they are even born? 92% Think for a second, when was the last time that you saw a young child with Down Syndrome? I just saw one a few days ago and suddenly realised how long it had been since I had seen another child with that gift. We are no better than the Nazis who killed innocent children because they had gifts and handicaps such as Down Syndrome. Despicable.


Did you know that the majority of the Nazi public supported the Holocaust? They saw the propaganda posters, heard speeches by "scientists" who said that the Jews "weren't human", and decided that if they weren't human, they should be killed. Sound familiar? I don't see how anyone can justify the murder of 54,000,000 children! If you believe that there truly is a child in the womb, and you still think that there is a reason for it to be killed, think about it for a little while, hopefully you will change your mind. There is no excuse for murder, genocide, and Holocaust. Not poverty, sickness, or happiness.

morgan2252

Con

I have watched the video my opponent posted and may refer to it in some of my arguments.

“I want to ask you a question... Let's say you saw a child in an orphanage in my hometown of Wilmington, NC. You walk in and there are more than two dozen children lined up waiting to see if you will adopt them. You ask the nurse which one of these children has been here the longest and will most likely never be adopted. He points out four little boys and two little girls in the corner. She says that they most likely will never be adopted. Ever. Would you shoot them all on the spot to put them out of their "misery?"

As terrible as this sounds, I’d kill them. Yes. (I’d adopt as many as I could before I allowed this to happen.) I’d also take the most painless, humane approach possible when they died.

I know you compare this to Nazism, but in a way, it is the opposite. The cause of Nazism was insecurity. After WWII, Germany was very, very poor, and very hopeless. The reason the Nazis followed Hitler was because he was able to take advantage of this and give them hope. If we are able to prevent this, people may be less susceptible to just anything that could possibly make their life better. So, in a way, this could PREVENT Nazism.

I do not disagree that abortion is the killing of a human being. However, in response to the video you posted:

It is okay to kill a child in the womb when you know it will most likely have a poor quality of life and that it is not wanted. Aside from that, this is okay if it is a huge burden that cannot be carried, and will screw up the woman financially due to the cost of childbirth. It is okay to kill a child in the womb when it is not loved, and you know it will not only mess up one life, but two (mother and child).

“By Ms. Morgan's definition, more than 90% of the world should be killed. Did you know that at least 80% of the world lives on less then $10 per day.* Did you also know that the average person in France in under the US poverty line? In fact, a lot of Europe is!* Does this mean that we should abort 90% of the world's babies?”

I really hate to say this, but once again, Nazism was a result of being poor. If an extremely insecure, poor country happens to get a good leader that gives them hope, they will undoubtedly follow him/her. And if that leader has the wrong intentions, then that country could be the next Nazi region. I don’t think that it is as bad as Germany was before WWII, but honestly, if a country does get that poor, we really do need to be careful. If the masses are poor, it could result in real genocide.

“That kind of money is a dream to those that live in the country of Haiti, where rice farmers sometimes make less than 25 cents per day.”

Haiti and other third world countries are underdeveloped. Their poverty is different. This is a result of lack of technology. It is a fact that where the technology is, there is prosperity. Where it is not, there is poverty. Haiti does not need to die, it needs to advance. However, countries that already have this technology that experience poverty can use this technology in a dangerous way.

“However, your argument seems to say that you think we should kill criminals before they commit the crime.”

Yes! Thank you! Even in the video, tons of people said that they would kill Hitler before he even did what he had done. However, if you killed the people who willingly followed him, Hitler would have never even come to power in the first place.

“Say that it was 1943 in Germany, you are in a mental hospital and 100 children with Down Syndrome are lined up in front of you. The Nazi guard tells you to shoot all of those children because they "have a bad quality of life." Would you shoot them?”

Yes! (I would choose a more humane alternative than shooting, though.) Not only do they have a bad quality of life, but they don’t give back to society!!!!!! They suck up resources, and take, and take, and take without ever giving anything back! At the very least, people should be able to carry their own weight. (I don’t agree with murdering Jews, though. They are some of the most productive members of society.)

Now to the heart of the matter. Here are some of my opponent’s claims of why abortion is wrong.

1. Abortion is murder

Yes. I have no doubts in saying that now. However, it is murder that ends murder. (That’s terrible wording, but it’s the only way I know how to put it.) My opponent compares abortion to Nazism, but ignores the fact that abortion could also prevent Nazism. In this case, his claims make no sense.

2. Abortion is painful to the baby

It is painful to the baby. That is clear. It is also painful to the mother. If the mother gets pregnant, she will have to experience pain no matter what she chooses: adoption, abortion, or keeping the child. If she chooses to keep it, she will be unable to create a good life for the child and herself. If she chooses adoption, she will have to go through all of the pains of childbirth, as well as the money it costs to have a child. She will also have to go through the pain of giving away the child that isn’t even guaranteed to have a good life. If she aborts, she will have to kill a child. But what about the baby? The child will have a hard time either way also. Abortion is painful to the baby. So are the other options. Therefore, this argument is not valid. (I’d say abortion is the least painful overall, actually.)

3. Abortion is akin to the Holocaust and is equally wrong.

I disagree. As I mentioned before, abortion is actually the opposite of the Holocaust. Anti-abortion actually creates the perfect situation for a mass movement to happen, allowing leaders, such as Hitler, to manipulate this and create a party such as the Nazis.

Sources:
http://library.thinkquest.org...
http://www.google.com... (This has a PDF, by the way.)
Debate Round No. 3
justin.graves

Pro

I quite literally cried when I read my opponent's response to my contentions. I told myself that when America was to the point that its citizens could justify the murder of millions, that I would no longer be proud to be an American. I have lost all hope in humanity and in the American people. America is in a downward spiral. When it can justify the murder of every poor child, every orphaned child, and every mentally challenged child, we are one step away from killing ourselves. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

My opponent claims that abortion could keep countries from turning to Nazism and other such philosophies, but the horror of Nazism was the fact that it killed millions. Why would we kill 50 million to prevent the killing of 6 million?

I am assuming based on the comment section that my opponent is forfeiting this round. I will no longer sit here and debate this. I will take more action than that. When humanity finally comes to its senses and sees the evil that we have been creating and asks "where was the world?" I don't want to be ashamed to tell my grandchildren that I did nothing.

54,000,000 babies have been murdered in 40 years. Where is the world? Where is justice?

“Monsters exist, but they are too few in numbers to be truly dangerous. More dangerous are…the functionaries ready to believe and act without asking questions.”

― Primo Levi

“Thou shalt not be a victim, thou shalt not be a perpetrator, but, above all, thou shalt not be a bystander.” -Yehuda Bauer


morgan2252

Con

morgan2252 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by justin.graves 3 years ago
justin.graves
OK, I am going to assume that you will forfeit the round.
Posted by morgan2252 3 years ago
morgan2252
I really hate to say this, but I think I'm going to quit DDO. After posting my last argument, I've realized that I really don't have the time to consistently use this site. I've got plenty of homework and after-school activities to worry about. It's almost becoming a bit of a burden. I'm probably going to forfeit the last round because of this, but I'm okay.

Adios!
Posted by morgan2252 3 years ago
morgan2252
I really hate to say this, but I think I'm going to quit DDO. After posting my last argument, I've realized that I really don't have the time to consistently use this site. I've got plenty of homework and after-school activities to worry about. It's almost becoming a bit of a burden. I'm probably going to forfeit the last round because of this, but I'm okay.

Adios!
Posted by justin.graves 3 years ago
justin.graves
That's fine, I have the ACT and PLAN test coming up in two weeks.
Posted by morgan2252 3 years ago
morgan2252
I'll try to post as soon as I can. I've been getting an awful lot of homework lately. I have lots of standardized testing coming up...
Posted by Sola.Gratia 3 years ago
Sola.Gratia
I'm with you on this topic Justin.Graves...
Posted by wolfman4711 3 years ago
wolfman4711
Well yeah..
Posted by justin.graves 3 years ago
justin.graves
Holocaust pictures are nasty too.
Posted by wolfman4711 3 years ago
wolfman4711
That video is nasty. Eww
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Misterscruffles 3 years ago
Misterscruffles
justin.gravesmorgan2252Tied
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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Normally I wouldn't give conduct points for a FF, but morgan2252 did so gracefully and politely. Argument still goes to Pro because of the FF.