The Instigator
King_da
Pro (for)
Losing
10 Points
The Contender
rogue
Con (against)
Winning
14 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 5 votes the winner is...
rogue
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/19/2011 Category: Science
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,289 times Debate No: 15484
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (5)

 

King_da

Pro

This debate is about abortion. I will argue that abortion is wrong and my opponent will argue the contrary.

For the first round, I will simply ask this: Is innocent human life something special that should not be taken purposely?

I will allow my opponent to answer that question and built her own case.
rogue

Con

Pro's question is irrelevant. The fetus killed is not a good or bad person. Innocence is not a virtue. Innocence means you have not had the chance or exposure to bad things. The fetus killed could just as likely be a bad person than a good person. I bet if Hitler's mother wanted to have an abortion you would have been all for it knowing the future. Now, if you are for not killing humans no matter what, that is another matter entirely. I do not see a fetus as a person. We don't know anything about it besides its heritage, maybe its gender, and nothing more. What makes a person important is that other people see it as important and have emotional ties to them. If the mother wants to have an abortion, they obviously do not care about the child and don't want it. Even if they had the baby, they would be forcing it on other people, forcing those others to care about the unwanted child. Yes, the baby can be adopted and then it is wanted, but, we have so many unwanted babies already and not enough people who want to adopt. It would be cruel to either the baby one has, or another orphan if you give it up for adoption because either the child you made took a home away from another orphan, or your child won't have a home and will just grow up in foster care.

The reason abortion is important is that women need to have the right to their bodies. The woman is more important than the child in this situation because she has people who she is important to, where as the child does not. The woman has built a life for herself, while the child is just a bunch of cells at this point. Pregnancy greatly changes the woman's body and life. It is costly, can lead to many health complications, and keep a woman from taking an opportunity that would improve her life permanently, like a promotion, new job, internship, schooling, and many other opportunities.

Some say that it is the woman's fault she got pregnant and that she was irresponsible and should deal with consequences. It is not always the case that the woman did not take the proper precautions. If she was raped, it could have been the fault of the rapist. Some women are just naturally very fertile. My friend's mother got pregnant twice while on birth control and while using a condom. Even if the woman was irresponsible, should we force her to suffer the possibly extremely detrimental consequences of being pregnant for one mistake?
Debate Round No. 1
King_da

Pro

By innocent, I mean one who is "free from moral wrong". That is a very relevant question because I am not against killing in all cases, only those of which it involves an innocent human life.

With that said, I fully agree with my opponent that we should "force" the "unwanted child" on other people; I agree that we should allow women the right to make their own decisions; I don't think that we should allow women to suffer "the possibly extremely detrimental consequences of being pregnant for one mistake"; I further think that abortion should be legal through all 9 months of pregnancy and should be paid for by the government for any woman. If… If the unborn are not human. And if my opponent can prove by science that the unborn are not human or by philosophy that even if they are, we have no duty to value them, I am fully prepared to concede.

This debate is not about who's pro-choice and who's anti-choice. In fact, I'm pro-choice on a whole lot of issues: I support a woman's right to chose her religion, for her to decided which shoes she will wear, what car she drives, and a lot of other issues. I'm also anti-choice on a whole bunch of issues: spousal abuse, dumping toxic waste into rivers, ect. Some choices, however, a civilized society should not allow. The killing of innocent, unborn humans is one of those choices that should not be allowed. Again, if it can be proven by science that the unborn are not human or by philosophy that even if they are, we hold no reason to let them live, I will concede. My point is simply this, can we kill the unborn? Yes, if… If the unborn are not human. You have to answer: "What is the unborn?" before you can ask: "Can we kill the unborn?".

Perhaps an example is needed to further the point. Let's say that your younger sibling comes up behind you and asks, "Can I kill this?". Now after you hear this, what is the first question that comes to your mind? Probably "What does he have?". Snail or bug, maybe. Cat or neighbor, uh oh. Other sibling, we need counseling. The fact is, you would never say blindly that your sibling can kill it. You must first know what the thing is. This may be a silly illustration, but it does prove my point. Can we kill the unborn? Yes, if… If the unborn aren't human.

This is the question that most pro-choices like to avoid, ignore. Yet this is the single most important question to answer in order to make a correct judgment.

Science will tell us that the unborn are whole, distinct, and living human beings. What kind of human being? The unborn are humans in the earliest stages. If you consult embryology textbooks world wide, they will all tell you that you were a distinct, whole, living human being right at the moment of conception. [1} You can look at the books yourself, but I'll provide an example. Keith L. Moore and T. V. N. Persaud write, "A zygote is the beginning of a new human being." [2] If science is right, then the intentional death of these innocent lives should not be permitted.

Even without science, philosophy will tell use the same. Philosophy will tell us that there is no significant, essential difference between the embryo you once were and the adult you are today. As Stephen Schwarz points out using the acronym SLED, differences of size, level of dependency, environment, and degree of dependency are not relevant in the way that abortion advocates need them to be: [3]

Size: It is true that embryos are much smaller than adults but since when does size matter? Males are generally larger that females but that does not mean that they should get more rights.
Level of Development: Yes, embryos are less developed that you and I. But, again, how is this relevant? 5 year olds are more developed that 2 year olds; 16 year olds are more developed that their younger siblings; 40 year olds are more developed than teens. Does that mean that the more developed we are, we get more rights, or the right to life? No.
Environment: Does location determine one's worth? Walking across the street or rolling across the bed does not make you worth any more. If this is true, then a 6 inch journey down the birth canal does not determine worth either.
Degree of Dependency: If viability makes us valuable human beings, then all those who depend on insulin or kidney medication are not valuable, and we may kill them.

In summary, yes, the child might be an inconvenience to the mother but does that permit the killing of an innocent human being? No.

[1] Also see: 1. T.W. Sadler, Langman's Embryology, 5th ed. 2. Ronan Odysseus'Rahilly and Fabiola Muller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 2nd ed.
[2] Moore and Persaud, The Developing Human, 2
[3] Stephen Schwarz, The Moral Question of Abortion
rogue

Con

I would like to begin by saying my opponent "agreed" with me on something that I did not agree to. My opponent said: "I fully agree with my opponent that we should "force" the "unwanted child" on other people." I specifically said that we should NOT force the unwanted child on other people and add to the already excruciatingly high amount of orphans in the world.

The "issues" my opponent claims to be "pro-choice" on, are not comparable to letting a woman have a choice about what is done to their bodies. The "issues" he mentions have a tremendously little effect on a woman's life compared to being pregnant.

"Some choices, however, a civilized society should not allow."- A civilized society should dictate what happens to a woman's body?

"Again, if it can be proven by science that the unborn are not human or by philosophy that even if they are, we hold no reason to let them live, I will concede."- Alright then. First off, whether or not we have no reason to let them live or not cannot be proved by science since it is an opinion. Anyway, the fact that Pro believes that every fetus can be killed as long as it is not human is ridiculous. What is so much better or more important about humans? From an objective view, the less humans there are, the better. We have hurt all the other species of the Earth, we've taken away so much of their habitats, we have damaged the planet that sustains us possibly beyond repair, and we are doing so little to fix this damage. The more humans, the bigger our carbon footprint. Out population is already much bigger than it should be.

So what makes someone worth saving? Even though I personally believe in "The inherent worth and dignity of every person" as a Unitarian Universalist, most do not. People gain worth because other people deem them worth something. When someone becomes important to another and the other people would be hurt if they died, that person is worth saving. If the woman wants to have an abortion, obviously the child is not worth very much to the mother or anyone else. Since the mother IS worth something to people and has made a life for herself, she gets priority over the child. Although, the mother will not likely die from pregnancy, it could end up ruining her life. Many mothers have serious illnesses or health problems during or after pregnancy. Also, many mothers suffer from depression after birth. Not to mention that once a mother has had the child, it is often very hard and harmful to the mother to give up the child even though she knows that is what is best for it. I have already shown all the possible bad life changing effects an unwanted pregnancy can have on a woman. Just because the woman doesn't die, does not mean that she doesn't lose a lot because of the pregnancy. Since the fetus is just a little ball of cells without a consciousness at this point that no one cares about, the mother gets priority.

What my opponent says about the fetus being a fully formed human leads me to believe he did not read his own sources. Clearly a fetus is not at all a fully formed human. It begins as a bunch of cells that reproduces and grow into more cells. It isn't until week 12 that the baby looks anything like a human. It does have all the genetic information of a fully formed human, but other than that, it takes nine months for it to become a fully formed human. The difference is that the fetus does not have consciousness, it doesn't feel anything, it has no emotions yet, it hasn't contributed anything to society, no one cares for it; in essence, it lacks everything that makes humans human. In a way, the fetus is not human yet.

"In summary, yes, the child might be an inconvenience to the mother but does that permit the killing of an innocent human being? No."- Thanks for that understatement/straw man. Pregnancy does a little more than "inconvenience" the mother. I have proved this earlier on. When you kill a fetus, you aren't killing a human, you are killing a bunch of cells, a blueprint of what could be a human. If you kill it, it won't suffer, where as if it is kept alive, the mother and possibly it too will suffer. I don't know why my opponent brings up that the child is "innocent". That doesn't make it better or worse than the mother or anyone else. That "innocent" child could just as likely turn out to be like Hitler as it could to be like Mother Theresa. We don't give things value on the basis of what species they are. Personally, I would be more affected by you killing my cat than by you killing someone I don't know. This sounds bad, but it is true because I know and love my cat and would feel its absence and cry where as I would sad for that person for a moment and move on. No one knows this fetus, no one is hurt by its death. Though, if the mother's life was ruined by the pregnancy, a lot of people would be hurt. Mothers are more important than a cellular ball without a consciousness.
Debate Round No. 2
King_da

Pro

Please excuse the mistype in my second paragraph. Obviously, "should" should have been "should not".

Also, please notice that my opponent did little to nothing in rebutting any of my science evidence. Further, it seemed as if she did not even read my philosophical case. Nonetheless, I will point out the flaws in what she said and then add to my case.

It is not that a civilized society should not allow a woman her rights to her body, as my opponent makes my statement seem. If she would read a little more carefully, she would have seen that: "The killing of innocent, unborn humans is one of those choices that should not be allowed", not the unjustified restricting of rights. So it is the killing that should not be allowed.

Though with science it can not be proven if we need to respect innocent human life, science will tell us that the unborn are humans. If the unborn were not human, an abortion would require no more justification than getting a tooth pulled. But since the unborn are human, an abortion requires so much justification that an abortion can never truly be justified. Since my opponent claims to recognize the inherent worth and dignity of every person, I need not go into that realm of the dignity of innocent human life.

Next, the readers will notice that my opponent tweaked my clearly worded point. She claims that I said that the unborn are fully developed human beings and then rambles on for a while about that. Never once did I say that the unborn are fully developed human beings and, in fact, further evidence is found in that I give a paragraph explanation as to why development does not matter. I encourage my opponent to read my stuff a little more closely.

Her final paragraph has little weight to what my point is. A pregnancy may be as inconvenient as hell, but it does not justify the killing of an innocent human being.

In her next response, I hope my opponent provides some science evidence that supports her claim that the unborn are not human. I also hope that she rereads my second round and actually respond to my philosophical argument rather that skip it as she has done.
rogue

Con

For starters, stating what your opponent did not do will just help your opponent not help you. It makes you look condescending and tells you opponent where you think they slacked so they can pick it up the next round.

As for your scientific evidence, I did not pay much heed to it because it really wasn't scientific evidence at all. They were quotes from scientists stating opinions that matched yours. They did not even say why they matched yours. That isn't much evidence, sorry. The quote about them being the "beginnings" of a new human being actually supports my point by implying that they are not yet human beings. As for the other "scientific evidence", frankly, it was completely irrelevant. I never said that they were not human because they were small, undeveloped, had little environment, or were dependent. I never said that they should be killed because of these things. I don't disagree with them so why waste space responding to something unneeded? Also, you must understand that philosophy favors both sides because it is not formed by facts, but ways of thinking and ideas. My argument about fetuses essentially not being human is also philosophy.

"If she would read a little more carefully, she would have seen that: "The killing of innocent, unborn humans is one of those choices that should not be allowed", not the unjustified restricting of rights. So it is the killing that should not be allowed."- I understood what you wrote perfectly thank you. I already have shown more than once that the fact that they are "innocent" is irrelevant. I'm sure Hitler was innocent when born as well. My opponent completely ignores this. I have already shown why a fetus really doesn't have any of the things that make it human.

"Though with science it can not be proven if we need to respect innocent human life, science will tell us that the unborn are humans. If the unborn were not human, an abortion would require no more justification than getting a tooth pulled. But since the unborn are human, an abortion requires so much justification that an abortion can never truly be justified. Since my opponent claims to recognize the inherent worth and dignity of every person, I need not go into that realm of the dignity of innocent human life."- Whether something is justified or not is an opinion. Some people like me think abortion is clearly justified. It is just YOUR opinion that it is unjustified and can't be, although some share your opinion. This point is completely irrelevant because like every action, an abortion will be seen as justified by one person and unjustified by another. I have already proved fetuses do not have what makes us human and why the fact that they are innocent is irrelevant. Please refute that before you go on with that point.

Last round my opponent wrote: "Next, the readers will notice that my opponent tweaked my clearly worded point. She claims that I said that the unborn are fully developed human beings and then rambles on for a while about that. Never once did I say that the unborn are fully developed human beings and, in fact, further evidence is found in that I give a paragraph explanation as to why development does not matter. I encourage my opponent to read my stuff a little more closely."
The round before he wrote: "Science will tell us that the unborn are whole, distinct, and living human beings."

Clearly my opponent needs to read back what he wrote before insulting me. All the things my opponent list only prove the fetus physically has the capability to be human. So what? That isn't what makes one human. If the thing being killed has no emotion, no one that cares about it, no life, then what about it makes it human? Its body? It may as well be a corpse if it does not possess those things. The mother has those things, she gets priority.

"A pregnancy may be as inconvenient as hell, but it does not justify the killing of an innocent human being."- Inconvenient is still an understatement. It can ruin someone life and in the end kill the mother! Who are we going to favor, a bunch of cells they could turn into a human who will take up more space, resources, and continue overpopulation, force others to care about it, has no emotion or anyone who cares about it, or a mother who has a life, people who care about her, and a future that could be ruined?

I ask my opponent to pay less attention to his irrelevant arguments and instead of insulting me, try to refute mine. of course I cannot have scientific evidence that fetuses are not human. if this is what my opponent wanted, then he has expected of me and impossible task. Genetically fetuses are human. But, are your genetics and physicality what makes you human? I think not. At the time of an abortion I have shown that a fetus does not have what makes humans human.
Debate Round No. 3
King_da

Pro

I use science to prove that the unborn are human. By using one direct quote and providing other references, I support my claim that the unborn are human. This has been used to shift the discussion of the argument for "Is it wrong to kill the unborn" to "Is it wrong to kill human for the sake of convenience, ect." I have brought the debate to that level and yet my opponent has not provided any counter claims. with the use of scientific evidence.

I use philosophy not for its direct answers with facts but, rather, with logic. I have provided the acronym SLED to support my case that the unborn are only different from adults in (1) size, (2) level of development, (3) environment, and (4) degree of dependency. I even provide an explanation for each. For the sake of the readers' convenience, I will also provide the explanations here:

"Size: It is true that embryos are much smaller than adults but since when does size matter? Males are generally larger that females but that does not mean that they should get more rights.
Level of Development: Yes, embryos are less developed that you and I. But, again, how is this relevant? 5 year olds are more developed that 2 year olds; 16 year olds are more developed that their younger siblings; 40 year olds are more developed than teens. Does that mean that the more developed we are, we get more rights, or the right to life? No.
Environment: Does location determine one's worth? Walking across the street or rolling across the bed does not make you worth any more. If this is true, then a 6 inch journey down the birth canal does not determine worth either.
Degree of Dependency: If viability makes us valuable human beings, then all those who depend on insulin or kidney medication are not valuable, and we may kill them."

Until my opponent directly refutes each of those 4 points, I will hold my ground and assume that no counter argument can exist.

Though it is true that all humans will lose their innocence at some point or another, we must look to what we know not what we can blindly assume. While the womb, every unborn child in innocent. Thus, we must not permit the killing of them. But if my opponent truly thinks that this is irrelevant and knows that I ignored this, they hopefully she will realize that it's not important since there need not be any discretion between innocent and uninnocent unborn children since they are only innocent while is the womb.

Since this is a debate between two people who both place insurmountable importance on the dignity and value of human life, I do not need to explain this. If someone would like to debate on this topic, I'll think about it.

Whole, distinct, and living human beings =/= fully developed human beings. I'm not show how one can derive the latter from the former.

My opponent makes claims that the unborn have no emotion,no one cares about it, no life and, therefore, are not human. She makes these claims with no support. I'll give her one round to manufacture so support for these claims. I'm not going to argue words with no support because, well, saying the opposite would be just as valid.

Regardless of the pain that a child may cause, killing it is the solution. I don't know what the solution is, but I know that killing he child is not part of that solution. Since I have proven by science that the unborn are human and have shown with philosophy that the unborn are human, I can infer that her solution to any human hardship is the killing of others.

Though it is true that my opponent does not think that genetics and physicality is what makes humans humans, she provides no reason for these (no emotion, no one cares...but with no support). I urge her to answer why having emotion is essential to humans. After all, animals have emotions and yet most say that they are not humans. If others' care is what makes one a human, then I suppose that the nerd is no human either. Until she says why these aspects account for humanity, I can not refute those those points.
rogue

Con

Con fails to recognize that his argument about "sled" is irrelevant. I have stated many times that I do not dispute that. I am not going to refute that fetuses are genetically and physically human. That does not mean that they take priority over all other humans though. I have explained that the mother has priority because he life could be taken or ruined because of the baby, and she already has a life, people who care about her, and other characteristics about her that make her truly human. The baby lacks these important characteristics. What gives someone importance isn't their species, but their importance to others. We could suddenly decide that all cats should be saved because they are cats. Does that makes any sense? Why is one species more important than another? I say they aren't. If you killed my cat I would be more upset than if you killed someone I never knew. It is sad, but true. No one knows this baby, no one cares about this baby. People care about the mother. Therefore, she should get the priority. If your cat was going to be hurt by a pregnancy and could stop it, would you say "Oh we can't kill it because it is a cat!"? No! The cat you've loved for a long time would take priority!

Con has basically proved that the fetus is human and does not deserved to be killed because of "sled". I agree, those are not the reason the fetus should be killed. This does not mean that the fetus should not be aborted for other reasons which I have given and that Con has decided not to refute. The idea that fetuses should not be killed because we are human is rather idiotic. In reality, it would be best for most species and other people of there were less humans. Con has asserted that "fetuses should not be killed because they are human", but I can find no logical reason to support this. "Sled" only proves that the fetus is human and should not be killed for the four reasons it gives, however this does not support Con's argument, nor does it refute other arguments made for abortion being necessary.

"Though it is true that all humans will lose their innocence at some point or another, we must look to what we know not what we can blindly assume. While the womb, every unborn child in innocent. Thus, we must not permit the killing of them. But if my opponent truly thinks that this is irrelevant and knows that I ignored this, they hopefully she will realize that it's not important since there need not be any discretion between innocent and uninnocent unborn children since they are only innocent while is the womb."- I don't know what Con thinks I am blindly assuming, but we do know that every fetus who grows into a fully developed human will lose its innocence, hurt others, and possibly do very horrible things. The mother was also innocent in the womb. Therefore, the fact that it is innocent now has no weight because all humans were innocent at some point. Yet, Con would probably not so vehemently oppose the killing of murders. But they were innocent in the womb too! Just because the fetus is innocent does not give it priority over the mother.

"My opponent makes claims that the unborn have no emotion,no one cares about it, no life and, therefore, are not human. She makes these claims with no support. I'll give her one round to manufacture so support for these claims. I'm not going to argue words with no support because, well, saying the opposite would be just as valid."- Can you show that a fetus has emotion? I have never once seen any evidence of this. I think that if the fetus is being aborted that we can logically assume that people do not care about it very much or at least not as much as the mother. Con likes to make excuses not to refute my claims.

"Though it is true that my opponent does not think that genetics and physicality is what makes humans humans, she provides no reason for these (no emotion, no one cares...but with no support). I urge her to answer why having emotion is essential to humans. After all, animals have emotions and yet most say that they are not humans. If others' care is what makes one a human, then I suppose that the nerd is no human either. Until she says why these aspects account for humanity, I can not refute those points."- I never said a fetus isn't human. I said that it doesn't have the characteristics that make it different from other humans and more than just a body. I did not say that emotions are the only characteristic they are lacking. Other animals lack the intensity of emotions that humans do. Other animals do not care for each other or look out for each other as humans do. They don't have as unique personalities as humans. They cannot comprehend the complex things humans do or accomplish anything close to what humans can. At this point the fetus is not different from any other living organism because it does not have any of the things I have just mentioned. The mother on the other hand does possess these things. Con's assertion about a nerd is quite dumb. A nerd has friends, parents, maybe even a girlfriend or boyfriend. Those are people who care about it. Not to mention it will probably achieve great things.

Con has repeatedly avoided refuting my claims by saying "She has no evidence". Most of this debate is philosophy and philosophy cannot have evidence to back it up because it is just a way of thinking. Con's philosophical argument is that "fetuses shouldn't be killed because they are humans". Well I have given much evidence that that claim makes no sense and has no weight, and provided reasons why the mother should take priority. Con, please stop evading refuting my claims.
Debate Round No. 4
King_da

Pro

Just a clarification, I am actually pro; my opponent is con. It's kind of funny looking back at the previous round with claims about the con and then seeing the her picture with "con" under it. Alright, back to business.

If my opponent is willing to accept that unborn children are human, then her argument can expand to "toddler is making work impossible for the mom... shoot it." She claims that worth is what makes a human life something worth saving. In that sense, there are plenty of grown adults who hinder society and, therefore, should be killed too. Furthermore, I again ask the question, is it a right / an option to kill a toddler of teenager due to circumstances that would make life easier? I would say no and most would agree with me. The agreement would be on the value of human life, regardless of societal worth.

The real con makes remakes about the logic in my claims:

The unborn are innocent humans,
Innocent human life should not be taken for any reason,
Therefore, abortion is wrong.

I don't know how this is illogical, but I'll try to support it even more. As stated almost every where in this debate, human life is very important and should not be taken (debate me on capital punishment and we can go in specifics). y opponent makes two claims that this is wrong: worth and emotion determines the right to life. In my last paragraph, I have proved that worth is irreverent. In this paragraph, I will address the claim that emotion is what determines the right to life. Emotion does not determine one's right to life because animals have emotion and yet they are killed from humans to eat. People is a coma also have no emotion, yet we keep them alive. But I leave this one to my opponent to prove. Last round, I had asked her to say why she though that emotion is so important and rather that proving it, she merely asserted it. For this reason, I will not be able to further address it nor will I be able to refute whatever nonsense she claims, pending she does something more that assert it.

She continues this innocent discussion that she had earlier deemed as irrelevant. I'm not so sure why she keeps pushing it, but ok. I don't really care about this since she is willing to admit that the unborn are innocent and are human. All I'm saying is that it's wrong to kill a human when he's innocent, not necessarily when he's uninnocent.

"Con likes to make excuses not to refute my claims"
Yeah, whatever. You (con) likes to make excuses not to refute my (con) claims. Cograts, you have no idea which side you're on.

She then makes a stab at showing that rational thought is what makes a human a human. My response to this is that a new born also can not achieve rational thought. Many would agree that this does not permit the killing of a new born or even an old person with alzheimers, for that matter. It is also excepted that retarded people are human and should not be killed. Also, I'm not saying that society is always right but, sometimes, knowing the widely excepted position can shed light on the truth.

And as a final thought, when I say that "con"(my opponent, pro) does not ave evidence, I'm not referring to facts, ect. I'm referring to the need support for her "philosophical" arguments as they are lacking any support and are mere assertions. Furthermore, she does need fact for things like the unborn not having emotion, nerds having girlfriends, ect.

For voters, I will simply say that I have proved that the unborn are human. I have refuted her unsupported claims that humans do not diverse to life unless they have (1) emotion, (2) societal worth, and (3) rational thought. My opponent , on the other hand, has said that although the unborn are human, they lack the necessarily mental attributes that would permit anyone form killing them. She gave three reasons for this but never really elaborated on them or give support. For this reason, I found it difficult to refute what she would say regarding these reasons.
rogue

Con

My opponent wants to go around in circles. I am sorry for the mix up last round, I mean to say Pro. I always think he is Con because I am "Pro" abortion.

"then her argument can expand to "toddler is making work impossible for the mom... shoot it." She claims that worth is what makes a human life something worth saving. In that sense, there are plenty of grown adults who hinder society and, therefore, should be killed too."- A strawman if I have ever seen one. I never made an assertion like that. I did not say that people who hinders society should be killed, or that because anything or anyone should be killed because they are inconvenient. In fact, I never said anything should be killed! I just think that if it comes to the mother's life being ruined, not just being inconvenient as my opponent would like to assert while ignoring all the complications and effects of pregnancy, and a baby no one cares about and is just going to burden the world being born, the mother should have the right to choose to not have a baby that she did not plan to have. A toddler is already born, people care about it, and hopefully the mother planned to have it. Either way, the mother chose to have that responsibility and so must live with that. Women can take all the precautions in the world and still get pregnant. Even if she did not, her life is more important that the baby's. Aborting a child is nothing like shooting a toddler or killing people because they are detrimental to society. Everyone hurts and helps society. The difference is that those people already have a place in it, the baby has no consciousness. It is not really a person yet as a toddler or other people are.

"The unborn are innocent humans,
Innocent human life should not be taken for any reason,
Therefore, abortion is wrong.

I don't know how this is illogical, but I'll try to support it even more. As stated almost every where in this debate, human life is very important and should not be taken"- That is funny cause I showed how this was so in the last round at least. "Innocent human life should not be taken for any reason" is an illogical assertion. I have shown how the less humans there are the better, how innocence is irrelevant, and how just because an animal is a certain species does not make it more important than anything else in other rounds.

"y opponent makes two claims that this is wrong: worth and emotion determines the right to life."- Actually I did not say emotion gives someone a right to life. I said that emotion is one of the things that makes a person more than just a living body.

"In my last paragraph, I have proved that worth is irreverent."- What? I think you meant irrelevant, which I did not get from that last paragraph lol.

"Emotion does not determine one's right to life because animals have emotion and yet they are killed from humans to eat. People is a coma also have no emotion, yet we keep them alive. But I leave this one to my opponent to prove."- I refuted this last round. I never even made that claim. Stop misquoting me!

"Last round, I had asked her to say why she though that emotion is so important and rather that proving it, she merely asserted it."- Did you really? I don't remember that, in fact I cannot find it in the debate. Either way, I will answer it now. Emotion causes people to give things meaning and importance. If you had no emotion then you would not care that babies were being aborted. If we had no emotion, we would not be having this debate. The depth of emotion humans possess sets us apart from other animals. No other species cares if other animals of its species is killed.

"I don't really care about this since she is willing to admit that the unborn are innocent and are human. All I'm saying is that it's wrong to kill a human when he's innocent, not necessarily when he's uninnocent."- The point of this debate was not to prove that unborn are human and innocent. The point of the debate was to prove abortion is wrong. This actually goes against an earlier claim that you made that said "Humans should not be killed for any reason." I have already shown innocence is irrelevant, thanks for refuting it. You do not get a free win just because you think killing innocent humans is wrong and can support that a fetus is an innocent human. You had to prove WHY that was wrong. I do not think you have since I have refuted your claims and you refuse to refute mine.

"She then makes a stab at showing that rational thought is what makes a human a human. My response to this is that a new born also can not achieve rational thought. Many would agree that this does not permit the killing of a new born or even an old person with alzheimers, for that matter. It is also excepted that retarded people are human and should not be killed. Also, I'm not saying that society is always right but, sometimes, knowing the widely excepted position can shed light on the truth."- Do you know how to interpret writing? I never said that rational thought is what makes a human human. I said a greater depth in thinking sets humans apart from other animals and sets the mother apart from an unborn fetus. My opponent misinterprets my posts about emotion, people caring about you, and depth in thinking setting the mother apart from the fetus as being more important and more humans as saying that is what makes someone deserving of life. I think that having these things is what sets an human apart from another living human body. This also what makes the mother more important than the fetus. A retarded person, a person with Alzheimer's, and other such examples made by Pro all have these things or had them at some point. A fetus has not yet possessed these traits that make us truly human. Retarded people an Alzheimer's patients are not kept alive because they are human, but because they have people who care about them. Without those who care about them, they would not receive the care they do and would be left to die.

"when I say that "con"(my opponent, pro) does not ave evidence, I'm not referring to facts, ect. I'm referring to the need support for her "philosophical" arguments as they are lacking any support and are mere assertions."- Cause your assertion had more? As I said before, most of these arguments are philosophical. I gave reason why I believe these assertions to be true. I cannot do more than that. Now it is for the voters to decide.

"For voters, I will simply say that I have proved that the unborn are human. I have refuted her unsupported claims that humans do not diverse to life unless they have (1) emotion, (2) societal worth, and (3) rational thought. My opponent , on the other hand, has said that although the unborn are human, they lack the necessarily mental attributes that would permit anyone form killing them. She gave three reasons for this but never really elaborated on them or give support. For this reason, I found it difficult to refute what she would say regarding these reasons."- I never made those assertions. Pro twists my words. I have said that emotion, depth of thought, and having those that care about you are what make a person truly human, not their bodies. The mother has these while the fetus does not, this makes her more human. At this point in the fetus's development it is nothing more than a body. This is why the mother has priority. These traits do not make someone worth not killing, nor does lack of them make it ok to kill them. But, having them does give a person priority over another. I went into detail on these traits when I first presented them, and Pro did not refute them.

Pro has repeatedly not refuted my claims, left out letters, used words that don't exist, i.e.
"uninnocent", and thinks that he has won the debate merely by proving a fetus is an innocent human. I have made claims as to why this is irrelevant, now it is your turn to decide who has made the more convincing arguments. Thank you for reading.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by KeytarHero 5 years ago
KeytarHero
Unfortunately with controversial issues, you're more likely to get vote bombed because people tend to vote based on what they agree with, not with who made stronger arguments.
Posted by King_da 5 years ago
King_da
My spelling errors are due to the lag on ddo. I'd type something and only some letters would show up. I was able to correct most of them with the use of spell check but some would not show up because the missed letters would still spell a word.
Posted by rogue 5 years ago
rogue
Wow I totally got vote-bombed. I don't think that person really read the debate.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by eib10202 5 years ago
eib10202
King_darogueTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: abortion is only her choice
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
King_darogueTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: "is willing to accept that unborn children are human, then her argument can expand to"-indeed arguing that "The woman is more important than the child in this situation because she has people who she is important to, where as the child does not. " a more important person can kill another.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
King_darogueTied
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:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Mediocre debate but Con had better arguments in the end.
Vote Placed by Puck 5 years ago
Puck
King_darogueTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Not the most focused of debates. Con's rebuttals were adequate enough. Pro's source usage was questionable to the claims made, not worth the vote at any rate.
Vote Placed by PervRat 5 years ago
PervRat
King_darogueTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Reasons for voting decision: "Ultimate" is such a cliche word, but I think it fits in the issue of abortion that it is the "ultimate" political issue that almost no one can ever change anyone else's mind on. I think that makes it easier to set aside the fact I am vehemently opposed to abortion to objectively weigh in the validity of either side. Pro made a number of spelling errors, but con confused the argument (even referred to her opponent as 'con' for a whole round) and provided no supporting references.