The Instigator
Jzmn282
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
OtakuJordan
Pro (for)
Winning
20 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 3 votes the winner is...
OtakuJordan
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/19/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 797 times Debate No: 44266
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (3)

 

Jzmn282

Con

Abortion isn't always wrong.
OtakuJordan

Pro

I accept my opponent's challenge.

I would like to ask my opponent to clarify her position. She has stated that "abortion isn't always wrong." I request that she explain in which cases she believes it to be a moral wrong, in which cases she does not, and why.
Debate Round No. 1
Jzmn282

Con

My position is that abortion isn't wrong. My position isn't necessarily a moral issue, however if you wish to argue through morals I can make that argument quite clearly. I don't believe that abortion is wrong because it should be the mothers choice whether or not to have a child. I do understand that it is essentially "killing a potential life form" however if it's a case of murder wouldn't it then be wrong to have the death penalty? After all the person there would be being killed as well. Another thing to consider is that some of the mothers getting abortions are far too young to have children, whether they knew it was a possibility to get pregnant or not in some cases it's much better to not have the child be brought on the earth than to have it live a terrible life with an inexperienced mother, is it not? Or do you perhaps believe that a child deserves to live a bad life because "abortion is wrong".
Another thing to take into consideration is that some of the women getting abortions were raped. Do you think it's fair to ask a woman to have a child she never asked for? Whose father abused her mentally and physically? Is it right to make her keep that child and to always have the memory of what happened to her? For her to have to support a child she never wanted and never asked for whose father would never be present?
OtakuJordan

Pro

I shall lay out my case before responding to Con so that my rebuttals will have a framework.

My case
I will be making three contentions.

1. The zygote/embryo/fetus is a human life
2. There is a moral obligation to preserve innocent human life
3. This moral obligation is of the highest order

Throughout this debate round, "unborn" may be used to mean an unborn human at any of the three stages of zygote, embryo or fetus.

Contention #1 - The unborn is a human life
The standard, biology textbook definition of life is 1) the ability to grow and 2) the ability to reproduce.[1] In other words, if something grows and possesses the ability to reproduce at some point in its life cycle (barring some sort of defect), then it is considered by the scientific community to be alive.

By this standard, the unborn can be considered to be a life. But what if we use a more advanced definition such as the one below?



          1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.





          1. Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells â€" the basic units of life.





          1. Metabolism Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.





          1. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.





          1. Adaptation: The ability to change over time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity, diet, and external factors.





          1. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion; for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototroism), and chemotaxis.





          1. Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms.[1][2]



Once again, the unborn meets all the criteria for life.

However, this is somewhat irrelevant. After all, bacteria and blades of grass are also alive, and we feel no moral qualms about killing them. Why, then, is the zygote/embryo/fetus different? Put simply, because it is a human life. By definition, a product of reproduction is of the same kind as its "parents."[3] I offer this Merriam-Webster definition of fetus as further proof: "a human being or animal in the later stages of development before it is born."[4]

Contention #2 - There is a moral obligation to preserve innocent human life
This statement is accpeted as a general truth by most of humanity regardless of what moral system a person adheres to. Even the somewhat amoral utilitarianism can be leveraged against the destruction of innocent life. However, I present this contention in the off chance that Con disagrees with its tagline.

To quote from my personal blog, we can prove that there is a moral obligation to preserve life using assumptions made by the pro-choice side itself. If abortion is necessary, as they claim, to ensure quality of life for women, we may infer that life has some value. Because they claim that government has no right to interfere with their reproductive decisions (and, thus, their quality of life), we may also infer that they believe their quality of life to have value that exceeds governmental law. God, divine law, higher law, natural law, morality, ethics—whatever one chooses to call it, the pro-choice community indirectly references it when placing value upon life.

Contention #3 - This moral obligation is of the highest order
As can be evidenced by Kant's Formulations of the Imperative, ignoring this moral obligation results in greater devastation than the violation of any other moral obligation can (including such hypothetical consequences as the extinction of the human race).

Also, remember that the pro-choice community references a "higher law" when making their claims, unintentionally implying that life is valuable.

Clearly, then, the protection of innocent life supersedes any other demands upon our free will.

Rebuttals

I shall now proceed to respond to Con's case line by line.

"My position is that abortion isn't wrong. My position isn't necessarily a moral issue, however if you wish to argue through morals I can make that argument quite clearly."

Given that the topic of this debate and your position is that abortion isn't wrong (wrong meaning "behavior that is not morally good or correct)[9] how could this be argued as anything other than a moral issue?

"I don't believe that abortion is wrong because it should be the mothers choice whether or not to have a child."

Since those who argue for abortion are arguing that the mother has the right to choose whether to carry her pregnancy to term or not, this statement is like saying that abortion is not wrong because abortion is not wrong.

The nonsensicality of this sentence aside, I must point out that it begs the question of whether or not the child has the right to life, the issue that entire debate revolves around. If it does, then your claim that the mother has the right to terminate the pregnancy is false.

"I do understand that it is essentially 'killing a potential life form' however if it's a case of murder wouldn't it then be wrong to have the death penalty? After all the person there would be being killed as well."

This assumes that the death penalty is not wrong, which is a separate debate. Also, there is a moral difference between killing an innocent (abortion) and killing someone who merits death due to his or her actions (capital punishment).

"Another thing to consider is that some of the mothers getting abortions are far too young to have children, whether they knew it was a possibility to get pregnant or not in some cases it's much better to not have the child be brought on the earth than to have it live a terrible life with an inexperienced mother, is it not? Or do you perhaps believe that a child deserves to live a bad life because 'abortion is wrong'."

Why do you have the moral right to decide for someone else that their living conditions are so poor that they would be better off dead? Is it justifiable to "cleanse" slums and orphanages in your worldview?

"Another thing to take into consideration is that some of the women getting abortions were raped. Do you think it's fair to ask a woman to have a child she never asked for? Whose father abused her mentally and physically? Is it right to make her keep that child and to always have the memory of what happened to her? For her to have to support a child she never wanted and never asked for whose father would never be present?"

I would like to ask Con to explain why she believes it is acceptable to kill someone because they remind one of an unpleasant person or experience. Are there any other instances in which this is acceptable?

Also, let us recall that there is a moral obligation to sacrifice in order to preserve innocent life. Mental trauma, though highly unfortunate, is a secondary evil to death.

Sources
1. http://www2.una.edu...
2. http://phoenix.lpl.arizona.edu...
3. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
4. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
5. http://sevenpillarsinstitute.org...
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid.
9. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Jzmn282

Con

Jzmn282 forfeited this round.
OtakuJordan

Pro

My arguments stand. Please vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by OtakuJordan 2 years ago
OtakuJordan
From one of my other debates, yes. What is wrong with that?
Posted by PiercedPanda 2 years ago
PiercedPanda
He copy pasted.
Posted by OtakuJordan 2 years ago
OtakuJordan
Thank you, guys.
Posted by CynicalDiogenes 2 years ago
CynicalDiogenes
Excellent argument OtakuJordan.......You deserve a round of applause...:)
Posted by kingcripple 2 years ago
kingcripple
I definitely applaud pro in his argument. Absolutely destroyed every supporting argument of abortion. I salute you.
Posted by kingcripple 2 years ago
kingcripple
if anyone wants to see a better debate on the topic (until my opponent got upset and gave up) here you go: http://www.debate.org... I am perfectly content being a point behind but rate anyway, I'd like to see what you guys think
Posted by OtakuJordan 2 years ago
OtakuJordan
@dtaylor Actually, she sent me a challenge. There was no way you could have accepted it.
Posted by kingcripple 2 years ago
kingcripple
Oh good Lord Jzmn.... you are comparing apples and oranges your entire argument. The only viable argument for abortion is that of the physical (not mental) health of the mother and/or child. 3 rounds is going to be tough to make a decent judgement on this, but i can already say that Con soundly loses
Posted by FluffyCactus 2 years ago
FluffyCactus
Ohhh I want this debate so bad. Bioethics is my speciality
Posted by dtaylor971 2 years ago
dtaylor971
I would've liked to take up this debate. Sadly, Otaku beat me to it.

Rest assured, I am rooting for Otaku on this one.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Swagmasterpoopoo 2 years ago
Swagmasterpoopoo
Jzmn282OtakuJordanTied
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: Con had better everything
Vote Placed by mir9 2 years ago
mir9
Jzmn282OtakuJordanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Good job pro.
Vote Placed by kingcripple 2 years ago
kingcripple
Jzmn282OtakuJordanTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro took this easily. Con simply had the argument "it isn't always wrong" and when she elaborated, she could not do a very good job