The Instigator
studentathletechristian8
Pro (for)
Losing
37 Points
The Contender
TheSkeptic
Con (against)
Winning
85 Points

Abortion is wrong

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/3/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 22,139 times Debate No: 7669
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (68)
Votes (21)

 

studentathletechristian8

Pro

Hello. The resolution is, "Abortion is wrong." I will present the affirmative (pro), and my opponent will present the negative (con).

first, I would like to define "abortion":

abortion- the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy; any of various surgical methods for terminating a pregnancy.

next, I would like to define "wrong":

wrong- not in accordance with what is morally right or good; not correct in action, judgment, opinion, method, etc.

both of these definitions are taken verbatim from dictionary.com

this round I have posted no argument towards my case, and I would appreciate it if my opponent does not post arguments for this round either. I just wanted to clarify the resolution. I simply would like the opponent to state that they accept the challenge and if they accept the definitions I have stated. If the opponent needs me to clarify anything, it would be sufficient to ask me about it in this round. Very much appreciated. Thank you.
TheSkeptic

Con

I thank my opponent for creating this open debate, and I agree with all definitions. Onto the debate!
Debate Round No. 1
studentathletechristian8

Pro

THE SAD FACTS:

1 out of every 67 deaths in the WORLD is an American abortion.

1 out every 4 deaths in America is an American abortion.

Half of the deaths in the world are from abortions.

Abortion is the leading cause of death in the world. It kills as many people as ALL of the other causes of death combined.

We have lost more Americans through abortions than we did in all our wars (12 wars) combined.
64 Times More!

The world kills more people through abortion than all of the deaths combined.
22 times as many!

The D-Day Invasion of France (WWII) was the bloodiest in history. There were 53,714 allied soldiers killed in the "Battle of Normandy."

Yet, our world kills more people than that in just 9 hours of abortions.
That's right, just 9 hours!

America has lost 589 soldiers in its first year of fighting the Iraqi war.

The world, however, kills more people than that in just 6 minutes through abortion.
That's right, just 6 minutes!

These facts show that abortion certainly is murder. In fact, over half of the American population consider abortion as murder. (check out the video website on bottom of argument) Murder is a capital offense - it is worthy of receiving the sentence of capital punishment. Obviously, the government and majority of people view murder as wrong, and because abortion is murder, then abortion is wrong as well.

Many times, abortion is viewed as the mother's "freedom of choice." But what about the unborn baby's freedom of choice? In the cases excluding rape and incest (which only amount to .5% of reasons for abortion), the mother chose to have sexual intercourse and chose to take the risk of possibly bearing a child in the womb. The mother consequently has responsibility of the unborn child, for she must be held responsible for her actions. The unborn child has the innate right to live. The fetus cannot directly state that it wants to be kept alive, but every unborn child has the potential of life and the rights that are entitled to living beings. These rights cannot logically be crossed, and because abortion violates these rights and opportunities, it supports the resolution that abortion is wrong. In effect, it is highly condemned by a lot of religions as well.

Abortion is taking away future progress and people who can possibly end up doing miraculous things. Out of the millions of unborn children killed due to abortion, they include future presidents, military leaders, political figureheads, award-winning scientists who can find cures for cancers and other diseases, etc. Abortion affects the development of unborn children and takes away fetuses that have the ability to do great things to benefit mankind in the future.

Abortion is the process in which the developing child is removed from a mother's womb. Keeping all situations and instances in mind, abortion was and still stays, an act of violence against the unborn child as well as the woman about to have a baby, apart from being a moral crime in itself.

Life and death are closely related, and so are the arguments to it. What right do humans have to curtail the life of something that providence has created? Abortion was considered as a sin in many religions till some years ago. Children are a gift of god, and the parents are just the people who take care of them, God's gift.

Another moral argument is yet again a phrase instilled into humankind since time incarnate - If providence has given, it shall arrange for it too. Simply put, this means that a child has been brought on earth, he or she should be given a full chance to live a life, as God must have planned something for them. While the above arguments may not find favor amongst the modern generation or even the atheists, who consider life forming as a simple scientific process, here are some various psychological, medical and human-emotions related facts against abortion.

While it cannot be said whether an abortion is an unforgivable event, it is of course an unforgettable event. An abortion plays havoc with the psychology and the future life of the entire family. The woman who has lost her child, at any time between the pregnancy, will never be the same. While the woman may be the hardest hit by an abortion, one also has to think about the mental and emotional state of the entire family. While physically only the woman undergoes an abortion, mentally and emotionally it is the entire family who loses a part of their mind and body forever. Anesthesia is available only for the physical structure of the human body, not for the emotional and mental state of a person.

Abortion also emanates into various medical complications in the woman which can be considered as the cons of abortion. Some of the general complications arising in women due to abortions are:
1.Blocked fallopian tubes
2.Weakened cervix
3.uterine scarring
4.damage to the woman's reproductive system which may make her unable to conceive in the future

Apart from these common problems, women may also:
1.face the increase in the probability of an increase in tubule babies
2.hysterectomies
3.miscarriages
4.stillbirths
5.premature births

Abortion is also related to the increase of chances of breast, uterine and cervical cancer in women. Apart from the other facts about abortion, it is a fact that almost ninety percent of the abortions taking place in the United States of America are illegal. These illegal abortionists work on almost an assembly line basis, and not every product they deliver is top-of-the-rack. Illegal abortions greatly increases the health risk to the mother, apart from the above described situations. Illegal abortions may not be hundred percent hygienic and may create a leeway for hundreds of types of infections and other medical malpractice situations for the mother.

Overall, there are a lot of arguments against abortion, that proves it is not only a moral sin, but can also create great problems to the woman and the family. The cons of abortion are great and uncountable and women and families should think twice, thrice, forever before affirming to an abortion.

For a speedy conclusion, I am obviously supporting the resolution that abortion is wrong. Abortion takes away the innocent lives of unborn babies, causes a heavy loss of potential lives in the world, infringes on the innate rights of unborn children (like the right to live), and causes great depression and havoc within the mother and the mother's family. Also, abortion greatly hurts the mother by increasing the existence of certain health problems and organ malfunctions. Abortion is murder, and murder is wrong (based on public opinion and the government's stand) so hence abortion is wrong. (supports the resolution) I await the counterarguments. (P.S., The Skeptic, I would appreciate if you could possibly come up with a couple new points to pin against my side)

http://healtheland.wordpress.com... you can look at this video to learn more about abortion and why it is wrong
TheSkeptic

Con

====================
The "SAD FACTS"
====================

Wow, interesting facts. I suspect it was all copy-pasted? But that's besides the point. Your entire list of "sad facts" can be all piled into the one very nice package: the appeal to emotion. It's committed when someone "manipulates peoples' emotions in order to get them to accept a claim as being true"[1].

How can I claim that you are committing the fallacy, and not just making an interesting introduction? Simply by the first sentence of your argument: "These facts show that abortion certainly is murder.". No, these facts show that you are committing a fallacy.

====================
Whether or not abortion is murder
====================

{quote}In fact, over half of the American population consider abortion as murder{endquote}
---->So? Just because the majority believes in something doesn't make it true. In fact, you should be at least familiar with argumentum ad populum, which states that someone is committing a fallacy "when attempting to prove a conclusion on the grounds that all or most people think or believe it is true"[2].

My argument is that abortion is NOT murder, because a fetus is not a person. A person is an organism that is self-aware, meaning it has a developed brain of sorts, and can be aware of it's environment and of itself intrinsically. Because a fetus does not fulfill these requirements, it is NOT a person. Because it's not a person, it's not murder, which is defined as "the unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice"[3]. My opponent may try to distinguish a human from a person, but there is none in relevance to this debate. While not all persons are humans, all humans are persons.

====================
Potential of fetuses' and other various aspects
====================

{quote}Abortion is taking away future progress and people who can possibly end up doing miraculous things...[abortion] takes away fetuses that have the ability to do great things to benefit mankind in the future.{endquote}
---->So should masturbation be illegal? Because every time I spill my "seeds", I could have possibly done away with political figures or award-winning scientists as well. See the problem here? And secondly, what if it was murderers, dictators, and terrorists who were "done away" with rather than good-doers? Would it then be a moral thing for me to do? No, we can't tell anyway, so judging abortion on such silly ideas like this is useless.

{quote}Abortion is...an act of violence against the unborn child as well as the woman about to have a baby{endquote}
---->So if I kick a flower, which is an act of violence, I should be arrested? Of course not. That would be silly, as would thinking that abortion is wrong because it may seem "violent". And how is it an act of violence against the woman when it is SHE who consents to the abortion (most abortions are like that obviously - we aren't talking about a forced abortion).

{quote}Abortion was considered as a sin in many religions till some years ago. Children are a gift of god, and the parents are just the people who take care of them, God's gift...Simply put, this means that a child has been brought on earth, he or she should be given a full chance to live a life, as God must have planned something for them.{quote}
---->God doesn't exist, ergo this argument has no weight.

====================
The psychological, medical, and emotional aspects of abortion
====================

{quote}An abortion plays havoc with the psychology and the future life of the entire family. The woman who has lost her child, at any time between the pregnancy, will never be the same.{quote}
---->Sometimes, having an abortion is hard. Sure. But it is the choice of the mother, therefore it's her right to. Just because it makes everyone sad, doesn't mean it's wrong. If I decide to marry a girl who my family doesn't like, is it morally wrong of me to do so? No. If I become an atheist, and the rest of my family are adamant Christians, is it morally wrong of me to do so? No. Same analogy with abortion.

Concerning the medical related aspects, I am starting to have stronger suspicions that you have simply copy-pasted this argument. Either that, or you really aren't paying attention to the resolution: abortion is wrong. Just because something is dangerous DOES NOT MEAN it's morally wrong. Is skydiving morally wrong? Is sports morally wrong? No and no. So how do we fix these problems with abortion? Acceptance and technology. By pursuing more into the science of abortions, we can come out with better and safer ways of abortion. By making it acceptable amongst the public, we can help the process of science.

{quote}...it is a fact that almost ninety percent of the abortions taking place in the United States of America are illegal.{quote}
---->Because people like you make abortion seem to evil! If abortion were to be accepted as NOT being wrong, then your usual pregnant teen will not resort to such measures. Also, it's because of bills who warn underage teen's parents of when an abortion is happening that also leads to more kids going through illegal abortions. It's interesting when your own argument backfires.

===================
Conclusion
===================

My opponent's argument contains tons of red herrings, and is overall barely effective. He rarely gets into the ethical aspects of abortion, and until he can actually focus his arguments, I have nothing much to refute. I wait his response.

---References---
1. http://www.nizkor.org...
2. http://philosophy.lander.edu...
3. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Debate Round No. 2
studentathletechristian8

Pro

First off, I would like to thank you for responding so quickly. Secondly, I just want to say I really hope one day you realize that there is an all-powerful and all-loving God, and even though you don't recognize God right now, God is still looking out for you and loves you. Now onto the debate.

=============
THE "SAD FACTS"
=============
quote:"your entire list of "sad facts" can be all piled into the one very nice package: the appeal to emotion."

Obviously they appeal to emotion, but that is not the only thing they do. They show that abortion is a holocaust that is wiping out millions of fetuses every single year. People find Hitler's Holocaust very offensive, and how many people did he kill? I believe a little over ten million. More people now find abortion acceptable, and ABORTION IS RESPONSIBLE FOR KILLING ALMOST THREE TIMES AS MANY SOULS AS HITLER'S HOLOCAUST(and this only regards abortion in America) Obviously, killing unbron fetuses cannot be justified

quote:"it's committed when someone "manipulates peoples' emotions in order to get them to accept a claim as being true."

The sad facts may appeal to peoples' emotions, but that was not the point of putting them on my argument. They show how many souls and unborn children that abortion is responsible for killing and obliterating, and obviously killing unborn children who have done absolutely nothing wrong is certainly morally wrong.

quote: No, these facts show that you are committing a fallacy."

No they do not. How can I commit a fallacy when my facts are actual statistics and are the real calculations? A fallacy is defined as a misleading or false notion. None of the facts I presented where misleading or false, they are all true statistics. So, henceforth, my initial argument was not a fallacy. You saying that my facts were a fallacy make you commit the fallacy, for you are expressing a false notion by trying to mislead the readers from my TRUE FACTS.

=======================
Whether or not abortion is murder
=======================

quote: "Just because the majority believes in something doesn't make it true."

Well obviously it does not make it true. That would be nonsense. When I said my sentiment, I was just verifying that abortion certainly is considered murder, and indefinitely is so by many people, over half of the American population. So generally speaking, abortion is as a majority viewed as murder, so I would need evidence that the minority of people who think abortion is not murder are viable.

quote: "My argument is that abortion is NOT murder, because a fetus is not a person."

This is most certainly a red herring. (red herring is defined as something intended to divert attention from the real problem or matter at hand; A MISLEADING CLUE) Your definition of a person is correct, but so what if a fetus does not directly conform to that definition? Doesn't an unborn fetus have the potential for life and to become a person? The unborn fetus will indefinitely be born in around 9 months and will eventually become a human, a person, and a living, breathing creation. Saying that it is not murder just because the fetus is not a person is just absurd. The fetus will come to be a person in a number of months, so saying it is technically not murder because it has not been born is a fallacy. Killing something that has done nothing wrong and has its innate rights being crossed is certainly morally wrong. You are simply confirming that abortion is not murder just because the fetus has not "officially" become a person. The fetus will become a person, and you are just using your justification of murder to make your argument deceptive to the reader, which is a fallacy in itself.

===================================
Potential of fetuses' and other various aspects
===================================

Your argument on masturbation is completely irrelevant. Sperm cells are continuously being produced, so you will continuously be able to masturbate. Your wasting of sperm cells will be replenished with your own body's replenishment of sperm, so when you actually want to have a child, the child would still receive the same genetics it would have if you never masturbated. The fetuses in the mother's womb can only be produced once, however. The fetus cannot be aborted once and then be replenished. When a fetus is aborted from the mother, the mother usually finds it hard to reproduce and create another child again. Your argument of masturbation is not relevant.

It does not matter how fetuses could have turned out in real life. The whole jest of it is that fetuses do become people, and as so have rights to choose what they want in their life. It is immoral to kill a fetus when the fetus has not committed an act of aggression or anything that deserves to be killed for. Most women abort their babies because they simply do not want it. Is that moral? Certainly not. Just because I do not want Obama as president does not mean I have the right to kill him. Just because a mother does not want a baby does not give her the right to kill the unborn fetus. It was the responsibility and choice of the mom to have sexual intercourse, and the mom has to take responsibility of the consequences.

Abortion is obviously an act of brutal violence against the unborn fetus because the fetus is being killed and its soul is being taken away. Abortion is also INDIRECTLY an act of violence against the woman. Who cares is she consents to abortion? Didn't you read how abortions negatively affect women later if life and are responsible for increases in the chances of breast, uterine, and cervical cancer in the mom? Those are all stated in my round 2 argument. Obviously, abortion is violent against the baby and mom.

quote: "God doesn't exist, ergo this argument has no weight."
I would like to affirm that God does exist. So my argument appealed to mainly Christians. But also, to non-believers, it is believed that nature is responsible for the development of a fetus. If a fetus is in the womb by nature, then why mess with the intentions of nature and kill it?

=====================================
Psychological, medical, and emotional aspects of abortion
=====================================

It is not the choice of the mother. How about the choice of the unborn fetus? The mother chose to have sex, so she consented to the fact that having a baby may be possible. It was her choice to risk having a baby, so she cannot morally choose abortion- for it goes against the choice and right of the unborn fetus.

morally- conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior

Concerning the medical related aspects, it is morally wrong to have an abortion. It is not just or right in behavior to kill an unborn fetus that has done nothing wrong itself. It is also wrong to give the mother risks of developing certain diseases and having greater chances of not reproducing in the future. That is not right or just in behavior, for it is not right to infringe on the rights of others.

About abortion being illegal, THAT IMMEDIATELY MAKES IT WRONG, because doing something that is illegal is not right or just in behavior. YOUR OWN ARGUMENT BACKFIRED. You conform that there are many illegal abortions taking place, so you are proving that abortion is morally wrong. I would like you to expand on abortion being illegal and why it is not wrong.

========
Conclusion
========

My opponent's argument contains tons of red herrings, and I tried to identify several. When my opponent criticized me of having red herrings, he did not expand on his idea. ABORTION IS WRONG. The innocent killing of fetuses is not right or just in behavior, so therefore abortion is morally wrong. Abortion also leaves negative effects on the mother. The burden of proof on you is to prove effectively that abortion is not wrong-trying to prove that it is right or just in behavior. Thanks
TheSkeptic

Con

I thank my opponent for his quick response, and I have to mention to him that me becoming a Christian is quite unlikely. Seeing as how I was a Christian, and now I realize the funny logic of it, I doubt it's going to happen. But nice try ;D.

====================
The "SAD FACTS"
====================

{quote}They show that abortion is a holocaust that is wiping out millions of fetuses every single year.{endquote}

----> As I have argued in the previous, comparing abortion to a widespread event of murder is erroneous. Fetuses' are not people, therefore it's not considered murder when they are killed.

{quote}They show how many souls and unborn children that abortion is responsible for killing and obliterating, and obviously killing unborn children who have done absolutely nothing wrong is certainly morally wrong.{endquote}

---->I first want to note your interesting diction; you say "unborn children" instead of a fetus. Obviously a rhetorical play at emotions, once again :). Sneaky tactics don't work. In response to your quote, you are still begging the question. You have NOT shown how abortion is absolutely wrong, so stop saying it's "obvious".

{quote}No they do not. How can I commit a fallacy when my facts are actual statistics and are the real calculations?{endquote}

----->Obviously I am not saying your statistics are wrong. In fact, there mere fact that you think that me accusing you of a fallacy means me accusing you of wrong calculations SHOWS that you don't even understand what a fallacy is. A fallacy is a flaw in logic or reasoning. Your argument of "sad facts" failed because it only relied on emotional facts, and has no argument. It does NOT show why abortion is wrong, because it hasn't even grounded the philosophical aspect of being a person. If it's not a person, it doesn't matter!

Your entire list of sad facts is still irrelevant and a waste of time.

====================
Whether or not abortion is murder
====================

{quote}So generally speaking, abortion is as a majority viewed as murder, so I would need evidence that the minority of people who think abortion is not murder are viable.{endquote}

---->And you would need evidence from the majority as well. But no matter, we both agree that both sides need evidence, no need for further discussion.

Because my opponent does not contend my definition of a person, he has now switched his counterargument to the common argument that fetuses' have a "potential". As such, I will move my responses for this argument to the next one, as they are both the same.

===================
Potential of fetuses' and other various aspects
===================

{quote}Doesn't an unborn fetus have the potential for life and to become a person?{endquote}

---->My opponent accuses my argument as being as red herring - amusing, since his argument is full of it. He argues that because a fetus has the POTENTIAL to become a person, then we shouldn't allow abortion. This argument, though common, is horrendously ridiculous. I will repeat my original counterargument, and offer a few more.

If we should allow abortion because a fetus has the POTENTIAL, then should it be illegal to masturbate? Because each of those sperm that are now on the floor or somewhere have POTENTIAL.

Should it be illegal for me to NOT have sex with every woman I see? After all, I have sperm and she has eggs, so should it be wrong for me to NOT have sex voraciously? Ridiculous as well. If we could invent a self-aware computer, effectively qualifying it as a person (A.I. robots in futuristic sci-fi movies), then would it be wrong for me to NOT turn it on? Of course not. It doesn't matter if something has the potential of being a person - the defining mark is when it does become one.

{quote}Your argument on masturbation is completely irrelevant...Your wasting of sperm cells will be replenished with your own body's replenishment of sperm, so when you actually want to have a child, the child would still receive the same genetics it would have if you never masturbated.{endquote}

---->Are you kidding me? Each sperm cell is unique, meaning a different child with different variations can come out, depending on what sperm cell got to the egg. Why do you think the same parents will produce different looking children?! For example, I am the oldest son of three boys. My parents have never been divorced, and I'm sure my mother did not cheat on my father. From your argument, should my two younger brothers (age 12 and 5) look exactly like me and have the "same genetics"? No.

{quote}Most women abort their babies because they simply do not want it. Is that moral? Certainly not. Just because I do not want Obama as president does not mean I have the right to kill him. Just because a mother does not want a baby does not give her the right to kill the unborn fetus.{endquote}

---->There's so many things wrong with this quote I actually have to number it:

1. Women don't abort babies, they abort fetuses.
2. Obama is a person, therefore you can't kill him. And he doesn't live in your gut for 9 months.
3. Just because a mother does not want a BABY does not giver her a right to kill the unborn..fetus? Bad play at words, stop trying to switch around the words when you know perfectly well the distinction between a baby and a fetus.

{quote}Abortion is obviously an act of brutal violence against the unborn fetus because the fetus is being killed and its soul is being taken away.{endquote}

----> There is no soul, ergo this argument holds no weight. And so what if it's "violent"? Kicking a flower is a brutal act of violence towards the flower, does that matter?

{quote}Abortion is also INDIRECTLY an act of violence against the woman. Who cares is she consents to abortion?{quote}

----> BECAUSE SHE CHOSE TO DO IT HERSELF. If I cut myself is it WRONG of me? Should I be penalized? There is absolutely nothing immoral you can do to yourself.

{quote}If a fetus is in the womb by nature, then why mess with the intentions of nature and kill it?{endquote}

----> Are you kidding me? We mess with nature all the time. We cut down trees. We use medicine. We wear clothes. We drive cars. We fly airplanes. We use ships. We create synthetic food products and drinks. The entirety of human civilization has screwed nature over, don't think abortion is anything different. Just because soemthing is natural, does NOT make it good or bad. That would be the appeal to nature fallacy[1].

====================
Psychological, medical, and emotional aspects of abortion
====================

{quote}[Abortion] goes against the choice and right of the unborn fetus...It is not...right to kill an unborn fetus that has done nothing wrong itself. {endquote}

The fetus is not a person, therefore it has no rights.

{quote}It is also wrong to give the mother risks of developing certain diseases and having greater chances of not reproducing in the future.{endquote}

IT'S HER OWN CHOICE. IT DOESN'T MATTER IF IT'S HARMFUL. Drugs are harmful, but it's not immoral (unless your killing other people with it).

{quote}YOUR OWN ARGUMENT BACKFIRED. You conform that there are many illegal abortions taking place, so you are proving that abortion is morally wrong.{endquote}

This is truly laughable. My opponent tries to use the same phrases, fallacies, and problems with his own argument against me. What he doesn't realize is not only his argument are pitifully weak, but he doesn't even understand mine. I said ILLEGAL ABORTIONS (done in the back-alley) are harmful for women BECAUSE of pro-lifers like my opponent. They are forced to do abortions in obscurity because of societal pressure against it!

====================
Conclusion
====================

My opponent's argument is full of incredibly erroneous reasoning, and faulty assumptions. It's amusing when he attempts to use the same words as I do, but it's not convincing.
Debate Round No. 3
studentathletechristian8

Pro

I truly do hope that you realize there is no funny logic in being a Christian. I know we have different views on this, but I just wanted to let you know God is always looking out for you.

==================
ABORTION IS MURDER
==================
abortion-termination of a pregnancy by expulsion of the fetus

murder- unlawful killing of a living person by another

First off, I would like to say that a fetus is the same thing as an unborn child, they are two different terms referring to the same thing. Abortion is the killing of an innocent child while they are still in the womb. But, even though they are not born yet, this child is still a living creature and deserves every chance to live, and not be disposed of like a piece of unwanted junk mail. Abortion is the killing of a human being. Many pro-abortion people will argue that a child is not living until it is born, but this is simply not true. When a child is first conceived, it is alive. Life begins at conception. Even though it may not look like a person at the time, it is still a living being. It grows, eats, and breathes, all of which constitute it being alive. Many people, though, have been brainwashed into believing the idea that because the baby has not been born, it is not a living person. That would be false. Life begins at conception, and because the fetus is certainly alive, abortion is downright murder. Murder is wrong and immoral, so therefore abortion is wrong and immoral.

The "Sad Facts" were listed to show how devastating abortion has been to the world and how many lives it has taken.
Abortion has killed millions of unborn children and will continue to do so until more people understand that abortion is wrong.

How would you feel if you were aborted? You may say that I am appealing to emotion, but I am not. I ask this question earnestly, how would you feel if you were aborted? Would you feel that it would have been right for your parents o abort you, an unborn child who has committed no crime and has freedom of choice? Of course you would feel that it is wrong for your parents to abort you, so wouldn't it make sense that abortion itself is wrong? If abortion would have wronged your life, than it must also wrong the life of others. Fetuses are living and alive. They may not look like people, but they have beating hearts and developing brains. People are born without a lung or a kidney, but they are still people. You do not need all your bodily organs to be considered a person; you need to be a living human, which a fetus/unborn child is. Abortion is the killing of fetuses, so it is classified as murder and is wrong.

Whatever way you look at it, a fetus will eventually become a person outside of the womb. The fetus is already living, and potentially outside the womb it will become a living person.

Dude I'm really sorry but I have no time for arguing anymore. I've been really sick and now I've got to go somewhere and there are no computers. I wish to debate another time on this, for i feel I could have made a better argument. But I still hope the readers can understand the argument I just gave. Abortion is murder, murder is wrong, therefore abortion is wrong, which is the resolution. please vote!
TheSkeptic

Con

My opponent has dropped countless arguments, failed to respond to countless rebuttals, and has simply reiterated the same arguments. As such, there is no need for me to follow the same format - he has simply ignored most of my arguments. I will now systematically quite passages from his arguments, and reply to each.

{quote}But, even though they are not born yet, this child is still a living creature and deserves every chance to live, and not be disposed of like a piece of unwanted junk mail...Many pro-abortion people will argue that a child is not living until it is born, but this is simply not true...{endquote]

---->A strawman. I never argued that abortion is right because "life doesn't start at conception". I said it's not a PERSON. We kill many things today that are living. Hell, you can't even survive without eating living things! Animals are living. Plants are living.

{quote}Life begins at conception, and because the fetus is certainly alive, abortion is downright murder.{endquote}

---->To say killing life is murder is to say that EVERYONE on this PLANET is a murderer. Unless you can somehow survive by drinking water and eating rocks.

{quote}How would you feel if you were aborted? You may say that I am appealing to emotion, but I am not. I ask this question earnestly, how would you feel if you were aborted?{endquote}

----> I wouldn't feel anything because I WOULDN'T BE ALIVE. And yes, you are appealing to emotion. Just because you say you aren't, doesn't mean it's true.

{quote}People are born without a lung or a kidney, but they are still people. You do not need all your bodily organs to be considered a person...{endquote}

----> I'm sorry, did you read my arguments? I never said fetuses' don't have all their organs, therefore abortion is right. No. I said fetuses' aren't SELF-AWARE.

===========================================================================
Conclusion - Summary - Arguments opponent has failed to refute
===========================================================================

My opponent's final round demonstrates that this debate goes to CON. His final round has simply been centered on one, extremely bad argument: that fetuses' are alive, therefore abortion is murder. Of course a fetus is alive! I never said otherwise. But when does "killing life" mean "murder"? If we can go back to the first rounds, murder is defined as killing a human being, a person. Not all life is a human (unless you think animals and plants are not living).

Are we murderers if we eat meat? Are we murderers if we eat vegetables?! I hope my opponent doesn't believe that, because his argument certainly entials it.

Here are the following arguments and points my opponent has either ignored or dropped:
1. Sad facts are irrelevant because fetuses' aren't people
2. Sad facts argument is an appeal to emotion fallacy
3. Murder only encompasses people
4. Fetuses are not people
5. To be a person, you need to be self-aware
6. Medical aspects of abortion have nothing to do with the ethics of abortion - it's simply a lack of scientific and technological knowledge.
7. Illegal abortions have nothing to do with the ethics of abortion - in fact, making it known that abortion is okay will DECREASE the amount of illegal abortions because teens won't feel it's "bad"
8. The potential argument fails, because of analogies such as a sentient computer, or masturbation
9. Psychological effects have nothing to do with the ethics of abortion - it's the women who chose to go through with it herself
10. Abortion isn't wrong because it's "brutal violence" against the fetus (which doesn't matter because it's not a person) and the mother - the woman chose to have it, therefore it's not immoral

Voters, can the winner be any more obvious?
Debate Round No. 4
68 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by faith-reason 4 years ago
faith-reason
If I go into a coma Im not aware of myself therefore not a person by his definition, but Im going to wake up, dont kill me, and a fetus, if it doesnt die, is CERTAINLY gonna wake up. And the Skeptic has also said that all humans are persons and since human DNA found in a living thing means it is human therefore the fetus is a person.
Posted by Freeman 7 years ago
Freeman
"If we should allow abortion because a fetus has the POTENTIAL, then should it be illegal to masturbate?"
I should have used that. It's more striking than voting rights analogies.
Posted by Biggbrother 7 years ago
Biggbrother
a group of cells with a different genetic code that feeds and grows = life

it is up to the host to decide whether to or to not kill said parasite or disease.

if said life shares your genetic code and is part of your body essentially you are killing part of your life. so the question at hand should not be about abortion it should be about euthanasia if we follow the con. as for the pro which is losing because people will vote for their selfish rights more than the right of a helpless being, that will eventually walk, talk, act but hopefully not vote like you
Posted by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
Sure, I'll try to carve one up when I have the time ;)
Posted by PervRat 7 years ago
PervRat
Maybe you've been studying Bushisms too much. :P

Anyway, if you really want to know, challenge me to a debate. I much hunger for another one!
Posted by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
"...is the inequivalent..."

I meant "equivalent". Darn, my clever rhetoric fails when spelling sucks X_X
Posted by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
The person asleep is not conscious of their environment, but still unconsciously active - they dream. Besides, it's by their will that they go to sleep and wake up every day - if they wanted out, they would kill themselves.

People in a coma or a vegetative state - I would argue yes, no rights.

If you believe that the ability to visualize abstract concepts like justice is the inequivalent to introspection...then yeah, 8 years old is the mark. But obviously, introspection doesn't need this.

" The pro-abortion (Con in this debate of 'Abortion is wrong') side had tried to use scientific reasons (in my estimation) to judge the morality of abortion, when rights-of-man philosophies are required, not natural science."

What were they exactly?
Posted by PervRat 7 years ago
PervRat
Skeptic, re-read my argument. I was saying Science (nature) was the wrong place to support or oppose an issue concerning murder, because murder is a law of man and not nature. The pro-abortion (Con in this debate of 'Abortion is wrong') side had tried to use scientific reasons (in my estimation) to judge the morality of abortion, when rights-of-man philosophies are required, not natural science.
Posted by PervRat 7 years ago
PervRat
Well, that for starters, that a person is a "self perceiving human (conscious)"

Using that definition, the following are not persons and could be "abortioned":
Anyone asleep (if you are asleep, you are NOT CONSCIOUS)
Anyone in a coma (again, NOT CONSCIOUS)
Anyone too young to perceive themselves (infants, toddlers, up to maybe even 7 or 8 years old)
Posted by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
"...when science has no definitive answers as to whether or not abortion is murder because murder is a human law, not a law of nature."

Nature does not recognize "murder" - nature is lawless and amoral. Shall we imprison lions for killing gazelles, or tigers for humans? Sure, we kill the tiger-eating-humans to protect us from them, but we don't wag a finger at them and say "bad tiger". I'd say that nature would be the worst place to start off your argument ;)
21 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by brokenboy 5 years ago
brokenboy
studentathletechristian8TheSkepticTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by jat93 6 years ago
jat93
studentathletechristian8TheSkepticTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Da_King 7 years ago
Da_King
studentathletechristian8TheSkepticTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by greatstuff479 7 years ago
greatstuff479
studentathletechristian8TheSkepticTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by blue_10_9 7 years ago
blue_10_9
studentathletechristian8TheSkepticTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by SlamminSam212 7 years ago
SlamminSam212
studentathletechristian8TheSkepticTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by wpfairbanks 7 years ago
wpfairbanks
studentathletechristian8TheSkepticTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by PervRat 7 years ago
PervRat
studentathletechristian8TheSkepticTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by lamills 7 years ago
lamills
studentathletechristian8TheSkepticTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by brycef 7 years ago
brycef
studentathletechristian8TheSkepticTied
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:25