The Instigator
JasperFrancisShickadance
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Cold-Mind
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points

Abortion should be legal in all U.S. states

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Cold-Mind
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/4/2014 Category: People
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 786 times Debate No: 59950
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

JasperFrancisShickadance

Con

1st Round acceptance, 2nd Round arguments/rebuttals, etc. My opponent will be defending abortion and I will argue totally against it.
Cold-Mind

Pro

My majesty is thankful to the sir Jasper for his invitation to this debate. It has only one request for the opposing side - To give their best representing their beliefs.
Debate Round No. 1
JasperFrancisShickadance

Con

I will start by giving arguments for

Point 1
Abortion is morally wrong.

Asked whether abortion is morally acceptable (in a new poll), morally wrong or not a moral issue, only about a quarter of U.S. adults (23%) say they personally do not consider having an abortion to be a moral issue, according to a survey by the Pew Research Center. The percentage of U.S. adults who consider abortion to be morally wrong (49%) far exceeds the percentage who express this view about in vitro fertilization (12%), non-embryonic stem cell research (16%) or embryonic stem cell research (22%). Only 15% of the public thinks that having an abortion is morally acceptable. By comparison, about a third of U.S. adults say they personally view IVF and both forms of stem cell research as morally acceptable practices. Opinions on the morality of abortion differ widely among religious groups. Relatively small percentages of people in all religious groups consider it morally acceptable to have an abortion. However, among the unaffiliated, roughly equal shares say having an abortion is morally acceptable (28%) and morally wrong (25%). About two-thirds of Republicans and independents who lean toward the Republican Party consider having an abortion morally wrong (64%), compared with 38% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents. Similarly, conservatives (67%) are more inclined than either self-described moderates (40%) or liberals (31%) to view having an abortion as morally wrong. [1]

This is all quite fascinating, but the last part goes to say that religious and republican people have a different definition of 'life' and also a different perception of 'human being and of 'rights.' Not to be bias but doesn't it seems like the Right side (politically speaking) cares more about the importance of a human being. Otherwise they wouldn't care whether mothers chose to keep their baby or destruct "it's" life. But they DO care, and the reason probably because they believe that a certain Creator made each and every one of us uniquely and lovingly therefore we should be protective of life. We do not think that fetuses have less "rights" than a 2 year old, and I personally think that abortion is the same concept as the murder of a 2 year old. To me it's not surprising, it's just sad, and - reality.

Is it moral to kill a 2 year old? 99.99% would say no. Anybody who actually DID murder a two year old would probably be life sentenced (to prison), or worse. Why is killing a fetus any more moral, or better? Is it because some people don't believe that a fetus is a form of life? Is it because you can't see the fetus? Is abortion legal only because the fetus is helpless? If not, why else? [3]

http://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com...

Point 2
Abortion Kills

Under all circumstances of abortion, life is discriminated and there is one less intelligent, breathing and feeling human for the future. This cannot be justified.

Christ died so we might live. This is the opposite of abortion. Abortion kills that someone might live differently. -John Piper

By the time an unborn child is 18 days, the baby's heart beats. At 42 days, brain waves are detected. At 52 days, the baby hiccups and yawns. At 8 weeks all of the baby's organs function. 9 weeks: has fingerprints. 10 weeks: can feel pain. At 12 weeks, the baby can smile. Why would a mother want to kill it? To save herself? Or most likely because she wants to keep her life the same rather than care for a child. Personally I don't think a mother should have the right to choose whether she can keep the fetus or abort it because if she was that irresponsible to have sex and become pregnant in the first case why should she be given any right? SHE shouldn't have had the right to have sex, in the first place. In the end, you cannot deny that abortion is a selfish and unmoral object that kills a person's right to live.

http://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com...
http://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com...
http://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com...

Thank you. I look forward to rebuttals.

SOURCES
[1] http://www.lifenews.com...
[2] http://www.mccl.org...
http://www.princeton.edu....
[3] http://www.abort73.com...
Cold-Mind

Pro

Rebuttal:

point 1:
I am challenging my opponent's premise "Abortion is morally wrong" by asking for logical proof or evidence.
Note that number of people believing something is not an argument for. Argumentum ad populum is logical fallacy. [1]

I am challenging my opponent's premise: "the reason probably because they believe that a certain Creator made each and every one of us uniquely and lovingly therefore we should be protective of life", (I will assume "they" means Republicans), by asking for evidence or logical proof.
To avoid "there is no better explanation" argument, I will name very possible reason why Republicans care - Because, they get voters by pretending to care about things that majority of people cares(as shown by my opponent's cited polls)

My opponent's opinion will be taken as argument only if he can back it up with logical proof or evidence. So just in case my opponent wants to use "Fetuses do not have less "rights" than a 2 year old" I am challenging that premise by asking for logical proof or evidence, and with argument:
p1: In some states abortion is legal[2]. p2: Killing a 2 year old is not legal in any state c(p1+p2): 2 year old has more rights than fetus.
In the case that my opponent put word "rights" in quotation mark to indicate he is talking about some imaginary rights, rather than about real rights, his statement should be immediately discredited as irrelevant to this debate, because we are debating real abortions here.

Answering my opponent's questions:
"Why is killing a fetus any more moral, or better?"
- Because fetus is less worth to the society than 2 year old.
"Is it because some people don't believe that a fetus is a form of life?"
- Depends on how we define life, by most definitions is. This does not give him any more rights. Most of the "pro-life" people are Pro on killing mosquitos and mosquitoes are by all definitions form of life, thus they are hypocrites.
"Is abortion legal only because the fetus is helpless?"
- No, there are many other reasons, leading being one I named in the first answer.

point 2: I am challenging my opponent's premise "Under all circumstances of abortion, life is discriminated and there is one less intelligent, breathing and feeling human for the future. This cannot be justified.":
This is justified by overpopulation[3]. Our planet is scarce with resources for number of humans on her. There are many people who don't have enough food to eat or water to drink.

"Christ died so we might live. This is the opposite of abortion. Abortion kills that someone might live differently"
Is clearly an appeal to emotion, which is logical mistake[4]. Christ did say nothing against abortion, but is mentioned here to spark people's strongest feelings.

In his last paragraph, my opponent skilfully listed some facts before stating his personal opinion that has nothing to do with facts.

My arguments:

1) p1: Fetus is inside of woman's body. p2: Everyone owns themselves. c1(p1+p2): Women has a right to throw the fetus out of her. p3: Even if it wasn't caused a smallest harm during its removal, fetus will still die when removed from woman's body. c2(c1+p3): By abortion. woman is not directly killing fetus, but only removing it from her body, and it dies on its own.

2) p1: Fetus is taking food from woman. p2: If woman can not prevent fetus from taking away her food, and does not want to give fetus her food, fetus is taking woman's property by the force. p3: Everyone who takes away from others by force should be punished. c1(p1+p2+p3): Unwanted fetus ought to be aborted. p4: Further taking away from women by the force ought to be prevented if possible. c1(p1+p2+p4)

3) p1: Removing unwanted fetuses from women reduces number of people. p2: US has already much unemployed people c1(p1+p2): By allowing abortion, we are decreasing unemployment p3: There are many Americans who dislike unemployment. c2(c1+p3): Allowing abortion is beneficial to many Americans.

4) p1: Even if abortion was illegal, some woman would still abort. p1.1: Some women would get caught by police. c1(p1+p1.1): Some women would end up in prison because abortion was illegal. p2: Those women do not want to go to prison c2(c1+ p2): Making abortion illegal is harmful to some women. p1.2: Some of these women would abort in worse circumstances, with their health at greater risk. p3: Those women do not want their health at risk. c2(p1.2+p3)
p1.3 Some of those women would travel to foreign country, in order to abort. c3(p1.3): Their fetuses would not benefit from abortion being illegal, and those women would waste their money.

5) p1: Vast majority of people in US know how to and is able to make a fetus. p1.1: If we come to the point where we need more fetuses, we can make even more than we actually need. c1(p1+p1.1): Even if we came to conclusion that abortion is harmful to us, we could fix it.

Sources:
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2]: http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3]: http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4]: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
JasperFrancisShickadance

Con

The reason abortion is wrong is because aborting a fetus is no different than killing a two year old swiftly, except for that the 2 year old actually got two years of life. To me it's just sad reality. I already explained all that earlier.

Quotation marks do not make the word imaginary. Therefore my argument about a fetus's rights are valid.

I asked my opponent why killing a fetus is any more moral or better than killing a 2 y.o.:

"Because fetus is less worth to the society than 2 year old." How? This is wrong in the long run.

Guess what? If every person in the world right now stood shoulder to shoulder, we could all fit inside Los Angeles. Every single person in the world could live in Texas right now, too. Thus over population is not a problem.
http://www.nytimes.com...

If everyone owns themselves, how does reproduction happen?

"By abortion. woman is not directly killing fetus, but only removing it from her body, and it dies on its own." Exactly. You admit it is killing. You admit it dies on it's own. And I know why this is fact: because the fetus has no rights.

"Removing unwanted fetuses from women reduces number of people." Exactly. Why would you want to do that? What if you killed the most skilled genius in the world by abortion? Is that justified?

I don't know what your '4)' gets at. It is sort of irrelevant therefore I will not go into its rebuttals.

Are you saying we could replace all the aborted babies with lab-made fetuses? 1.2 million babies die each year from abortions.
http://www.lifenews.com...
I really don't think that's a good way to justify it in any way, especially by saying "...if abortion is harmful, then we can just do this..." This way of arguing is not good.

I did not find very much to rebut so I will end here.

This concludes Round 3, so thank you and God bless.
Cold-Mind

Pro

Rebuttal of my opponent's round 2:
I gave proof of my opponent's argument not being valid, before saying my argument refers to real rights.

Concept "more moral" is fallacious, because morality is Boolean value. Something is either moral or immoral, there is no scale.

People do not want to stand to each other, they want to live prosperously. And resources are limited.

Everyone does own themselves in US, reproduction is happening is US. I see no point in this question.

If an alcoholic dies of "natural" death, beer factory killed him indirectly. He would certainly live longer if he wasn't drinking bear. This only goes to show that indirect killing is unavoidable, and we have to draw a line somewhere on intensity of influencing someone's health scale.

c2 of 4) is "making abortion illegal is harmful to some women.", which is reason for resolution being true to everyone who cares about women.

I am not saying that "we could replace all the aborted babies with lab-made fetuses". I never said even something that would indicate such thing. Where did my opponent even got this from?

Conclusion:
As my opponent did not defend challenged premises, his arguments(points) are refuted.

Talk:
My majesty thanks sir Jasper for not making this personal and keeping it polite, even though emotions are sparked by the weight of what is at stake.
Debate Round No. 3
JasperFrancisShickadance

Con

(Quick) Rebuttals
"Concept "more moral" is fallacious, because morality is Boolean value. Something is either moral or immoral, there is no scale."
In this particular case, we are talking about whether abortion is moral. I, earlier, compared abortion to murder and questioned whether it is moral. Using real, evident surveys my point--that abortion is NOT moral--can be proven, and the reason this can be considered valid is because my argument for why abortion is murder, in Round 2, was (hopefully) compelling and evident.
"People do not want to stand to each other, they want to live prosperously. And resources are limited."
Excuse my innocent ignorance but I don't see any way this proves anything or is related to this topic.
"Everyone does own themselves in US, reproduction is happening is US."
But what does abortion do?! Abortion discontinues and contradicts the very concept of reproduction.
"If an alcoholic dies of "natural" death, beer factory killed him indirectly. He would certainly live longer if he wasn't drinking bear. This only goes to show that indirect killing is unavoidable, and we have to draw a line somewhere on intensity of influencing someone's health scale."
Is this supposed to be an defensive analogy for abortion, or...am I seeing right? What you're saying is that when a fetus (that is human life) is taken away all chances to live, is aborted, [1] this is equivalent to when an old (man)--alcoholic--dies and when we blame it on a beer factory it's wrong? The difference between these two situations (the reason this analogy is utterly wrong) explains my point precisely. The man has a choice--in life--that's whether to drink beer or not to. The fetus however has no choice and no life yet the reproduct-er chooses to abort "it." Which is more moral to blame, the beer factory or the abortionist?
"I am not saying that "we could replace all the aborted babies with lab-made fetuses". I never said even something that would indicate such thing. Where did my opponent even got this from?"
Because Pro also said, previously, that "...Vast majority of people in US know how to and is able to make a fetus. If we come to the point where we need more fetuses, we can make even more than we actually need." My opponent said that if abortion was suddenly considered "wrong," society could fix it! And worse, he's denying it!
Pre-Conclusion
First, my opponent's conlusion was wrong because he said I (Con) did not "defend challenged premises," even though the only challenges he made (that I can think of) are "Under all circumstances of abortion, life is discriminated and there is one less intelligent, breathing and feeling human for the future. This cannot be justified" and he told me overpopulation justifies it. I refuted this. But CM feel free to point out any other challenges...
Conclusion
I strongly proved how abortion is wrong. My opponent has failed to provide good, valid arguments thus did not prove his point.
Talk
Thank you to my opponent for keeping it light, also! This was a decent debate and I hope we both learned something from it.
Sources
Cold-Mind

Pro

My opponent has ignored the fact that different people have different maxims of morality. What one person finds to be immoral can be moral for another person. Saying something is moral doesn't even mean anything. Saying "something is immoral to me" is not argument for other people not to do it.

My analogy has shown that it is up to us to define what is killing and what is not. Since my opponent argued that alcoholic is committing kind of a suicide, I will give another example. If someone ordered for road to be built by another man's house, then that man would have no choice, but air pollution would still kill him if something else does not before it.

It can't be more obvious, but anyway: vast majority of people in US know how to make fetus by having sex, but they don't know how to make fetus in lab.

My opponent said "only challenges he made that I can think of", and quoted himself. I can only facepalm to this.

It is not up to me to repeat myself, but up to my opponent to read what I have already written.
Here is a tip: Click F3 and type "challenge".

Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Cold-Mind 3 years ago
Cold-Mind
* "challenging"
Posted by Cold-Mind 3 years ago
Cold-Mind
I only say alright when I mean "I will not complain about it". I will not accept another definition for "alright", and if you don't like this one, just remove that word.

As for being moral, I can argue that abortion is moral to me. But I will not argue that abortion is objectively moral, since that doesn't even mean anything except that everyone finds it moral, which is clearly not the case.

My suggestion for resolution(topic) is "Abortion should be legal in all states of US"
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by mishapqueen 3 years ago
mishapqueen
JasperFrancisShickadanceCold-MindTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a confusing debate. Pro did not successfully prove to me that a baby is different from a two-year old. Therefore, Con's point stands.
Vote Placed by Phoenix61397 3 years ago
Phoenix61397
JasperFrancisShickadanceCold-MindTied
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:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro successfully rebutted con's arguments and formulated arguments that were left unrebutted for the entirety of the debate. Pro only sourced Wikipedia, a fairly unreliable source when used alone, while con used several sources, so con wins sources.
Vote Placed by Atheist-Independent 3 years ago
Atheist-Independent
JasperFrancisShickadanceCold-MindTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Both sides brought the generic arguments for why abortion is right or wrong however Pro easily rebutted Cons arguments. Also Con's arguments were confusing as she did not explain them such as overpopulation is not a problem because we could fit everyone in Texas or killing a fetus is just as bad as killing a two year old. Admittedly, Pro had many arguments that were not backed up by evidence, however overall Pro's rebuttals won him the debate.