The Instigator
SeniorIntelligentDebator
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Clash
Con (against)
Winning
24 Points

Abortion should be legal.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
Clash
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/21/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,088 times Debate No: 27409
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (5)

 

SeniorIntelligentDebator

Pro

The legality behind abortion is very clear. Our "unalienable rights" -- as implicitly stated in the Constitution -- ensure us "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Without legalizing abortion, women wouldn't be granted the right to care for their own bodies and make decisions regarding their unborn child/children.
Clash

Con

I accept. As Con, I will argue that abortion should not be legal. In what follows now, I will first present my argument and then refute what Pro said in his first round. But before I do this, I would first like to note something important. Although I am against abortion, there is one situation in which I believe that abortion is justifiable, namely, when the life of the mother is directly threatened.

My Argument

Should abortion (the killing of an fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy) be legal? Well, in order to answer that question, we must first know what the fetus is. If the fetus is just a meaningless thing, like for example an insect, then why shouldn't it be legal to kill it? However, what about if the fetus is a human being? Should abortion be legal then? Of course not. It would be absurd to argue that abortion should be legal if the fetus is a human being.

So, what is the fetus? Is it a human being? Yes. We know from science that from the earliest stages of development, the fetus is a distinct and living human being. In fact, we also know from science that a new human being comes into existence at conception, as the standard text of Human Embryology and Teratology states, "Although human life is a continuous process, fertilization/conception is a critical landmark, because under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed." [1]

Indeed, it is surely absurd to say that the unborn isn't a human being. If it isn't a human being, then what is it? A lion? Or maybe a cat? Of course not. The fetus is obviously biologically human, genetically human, and a distinct member of the species homo sapiens. Even Peter Singer himself, although being a pro-choice philosopher, accept the humanity of the unborn:

"It is possible to give 'human being' a precise meaning. We can use it as equivalent to 'member of the species Homo sapiens'. Whether a being is a member of a given species is something that can be determined scientifically, by an examination of the nature of the chromosomes in the cells of living organisms. In this sense there is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence an embryo/fetus conceived from human sperm and eggs is a human being." [2]

David Boonin, also a pro-choice philosopher, writes:

"Perhaps the most straight forward relation between you and me on the one hand and every human fetus on the other is this: All are living members of the same species, homo sapiens. A human fetus after all is simply a human being at a very early stage in his or her development." [3]

Pro's Argument

Pro said two things in his first round. Pro first said that "The legality behind abortion is very clear. Our "unalienable rights" -- as implicitly stated in the Constitution -- ensure us "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

That's exactly right. However, the right to life, liberty and happiness, is something which the fetus should be given too, because as I have clearly showed, the fetus is also a human being.

After saying this, Pro said that "Without legalizing abortion, women wouldn't be granted the right to care for their own bodies and make decisions regarding their unborn child/children."

This is completely mistaken. Without legalizing abortion, what women really wouldn't be granted the right to do, is to kill an innocent human being.


Conclusion

The fetus, as I have clearly showed, is a human being. Thus, abortion (which is the killing of an human being, namely, the fetus) should not be legal.


Sources


[1] http://www.caseforlife.com... This site presents several quotations from medical experts in the field of embryology who all confirms the fact that the fetus is a human being and that a new human being comes into existence at conception.

[2] Peter Singer, Practical Ethics, page 85-86.

[3] David Boonin, A Defense of Abortion, page 20.
Debate Round No. 1
SeniorIntelligentDebator

Pro

If the fetus is a viable and legitimate human being, then sure, it should be illegal; however, there is evidence to provide viable and unvilifiable proof that it is indeed not. To quote http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org..., "this assumption is deeply flawed."

Fetuses are indirectly human beings; however, there is no proof to survey or draw presumptions upon the EXISTENCE of direct evidence that babies, before birthed either via vaginal or caserean, are, in fact, human beings.

Why is it absurd to draw the conclusion that fetuses aren't human beings when there are viable internet sources to prove the contrary? I don't believe Peter Singer is going by his ideological philosophies if he indeed said that "(...) in this sense there is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence an embryo/fetus conceived from human sperm and eggs is a human being," even in spite of evidence from school health books, no matter how supposedly 'accurate' they may be. David Boonin, who you asserted is also a "pro-choice philosopher," also seems like he's been struck with the same political disease Peter has, because he asserted that, "a human fetus after all is simply a human being at a very early stage in his or her development."

You have denied yourself the right to vilify my assertion that humans should have "unalienable rights," especially since you said "(...) is something which the fetus should be given too," "because as I have clearly showed," and "the fetus is also a human being." Are you trying to contradict yourself?
Exacly, sir, woman wouldn't be given the right to "(...) kill an innocent human being" -- if indeed it is "true" that an UNBORN fetus, that is NOT ALIVE, is not a human being.

Your conclusion, in complaince with your other inserted assertions, is a) without viable proof and b) without more than one fabric holding your argument.

Therefore, with all of this being said, I now contend that fetuses aren't human beings. What they are will not be ever known. After all, one cannot crawl back into one's woman's private part and travel back to see first hand how their experience was, so how can one find out unless you're like "Stewie Griffin" from "Family Guy"?
Clash

Con

Thank you for your response.


No direct evidence?

Pro claimed that there is no direct evidence to prove that the unborn is a human being. I didn't give any direct evidences to prove that the fetus is a human being in my second round, because I didn't think Pro would dispute this fact. Apparently, quoting two pro-choice philosophers and giving a site which presents several quotations from medical experts in the field of embryology who all confirms the fact that the fetus is a human being, wasn't enough to convince Pro that the fetus is a human being. I will therefore in what follows now give three direct evidences to prove that the unborn is a human being.

Evidence 1: The fetal development of the unborn

When we look at the unborn's development, we can clearly see that it is a human being. After just three months, you would be able to see your unborn baby's arms and legs moving. The unborn's heart and all major organs is completed. Its face is well formed as well, and looks like a baby.[1] I don't even want to mention how the unborn is at its 7-8 months of development.

Moreover, when you look at the images of the unborn and its development, you can clearly see that it is a very little human being. Its body is completely recognizable to a human body. It has the same heart, arms, legs, face, eyes, ears, and mouth as we have. Its body is only a little bit smaller and less developed compared to us fully developed humans, but we can clearly see that it is a human body, unlike a lion body or rabbit body. Images of the unborn and its development can be seen on this site. [2]

Evidence 2: The law of biogenesis

We can also know that the fetus is a human being because they are the product of human parents. Creatures only reproduce after their own kind, as we very clearly know from the law of biogenesis.[3] To determine what kind of a being the unborn is, we only need to look at its parents. If the parents are human, then the unborn is human as well.

Evidence 3: Genetics

Lastly, we know from science that the unborn has a genetic human code with everything from eye color to sex already determined.[4] What is so amazing with this is that all humans have the same human genetic code, while other species have their own genetic code. For example, the genetic code of a dog is different from the genetic code of a bird or us humans. If you are a lion, then you have a genetic lion code. But if you are a human being, then you have a genetic human code. Indeed, the fact that the unborn has a genetic human code (unlike the genetic code of, for example, a dog or a bird), is strong evidence that it is a human being and member of the human species.

Now, it may be asked: Is the unborn a organism in its own right, or a part of another organism? The answer is clear: The unborn is a organism in its own right; that is, it is not a part of their mother's body or any other organism. From the moment of conception, the unborn is a individual organism which is actively developing itself to the next stage along the maturation process of human organism.

It must be noted that a 'human being' is defined as 'Any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens; a person, especially as distinguished from other animals or as representing the human species.' [5] There is no doubt that the unborn is a human being because it is a member of our species. To say that the unborn isn't a human being and not even a part of our species - despite all the evidence which I have given above - is to go beyond absurdity.


Peter Singer and David Boonin

Recall that I quoted two pro-choice philosophers (Peter Singer and David Boonin) saying that they accept that the fetus is a human being. How did Pro respond to this? He responded by saying that he don't believe Peter Singer is going by his ideological philosophies if he really said what I quoted him saying. But so what? Does it matter if he goes against his ideological philosophies or not by saying that the fetus is a human being? Even if we assume that Pro is right, in no way would this change the fact that Peter Singer, a pro-choice philosopher, clearly stated that the fetus is a human being. It doesn't matter if he "goes against his ideological philosophies" by saying that the unborn is a human being, nor is it wrong to go against your previous flawed beliefs in order to tell the actual truth.

Concerning David Boonin, Pro said that it seems like he's been struck with the same political disease as Peter singer has. Sure, that's fine. However, this doesn't matter. Again, even if we assume that Pro is right, in no way would this change the fact that David Boonin, a pro-choice philosopher, clearly stated that the fetus is a human being.

Now, why did these pro-choice philosophers say that the fetus is a human being, although it may be true that they did go against their ideological philosophies by saying this? The answer is obvious: Science - as I have clearly showed - makes it very clear that a fetus is a human being, and not many pro-choice philosophers can deny this fact. The problem for most pro-choice philosophers is not that the fetus is a human being, but that it isn't a person. Thus, there is no wrong in killing the fetus. However, the argument that it is not wrong to kill the fetus because it is not a person, is a very flawed argument. I will refute this argument if Pro chooses to present and defend this it.


Contradicting myself?

Recall that Pro, in his first round, said that "The legality behind abortion is very clear. Our "unalienable rights" -- as implicitly stated in the Constitution -- ensure us "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." In responding to this, I said 'That's exactly right. However, the right to life, liberty and happiness, is something which the fetus should be given too, because as I have clearly showed, the fetus is also a human being.'

Now, Pro asked me if I am trying to contradict myself by saying this. I want to ask Pro a question: How exactly was I trying to contradict myself by saying this?


Not alive?

Pro said, 'Exacly, sir, woman wouldn't be given the right to "(...) kill an innocent human being" -- if indeed it is "true" that an UNBORN fetus, that is NOT ALIVE, is not a human being.'

I really cannot understand what Pro is trying to say here. However, Pro is completely wrong in saying that an unborn fetus is not alive. The fetus is of course alive, because it grows. Something which isn't alive doesn't grow.

The resolution remains negated.

_______

Sources

[1] http://www.justmommies.com... This site nicely explains the development of the unborn from its first month to its last.

[2] http://www.priestsforlife.org...

[3] http://www.onenesspentecostal.com...

[4] http://www.ncregister.com...

[5] http://liveactionnews.org...
Debate Round No. 2
SeniorIntelligentDebator

Pro

You're welcome, Con. I am always delighted to provide uniform and trustworthy proof to provide substantiated and substantial proof that my claims are, in fact, true.

According to http://www.thefreedictionary.com..., the unborn is defined as "still to come in the future." With the inclusion of this assertion, I'd suggest you surrender because you're being beaten and battered with the overwhelming facts. A world where scientific anecdotes and "proofs" slay dictionary assertions does not exist. If you deny the definition of a word, then you really don't own the right to provide your own presumed connotations by way of "scientific evidence."

Therefore, with the dictionary proof that the unborn contradicts your position on the "existence" of human beings BEFORE birth, you have now been officially and definitely been proven wrong. Anything you say from the next turn on will be an insertion of negation.
Clash

Con

Remember that I gave three evidences in order to prove that the unborn is a human being. All these three evidences goes completely unanswered and unrefuted by Pro. Thus, I extend them all.

Now, let's move on to what Pro said in his third round. Pro said that the unborn is defined as "still to come in the future." Apparently, according to my opponent, this proves that the unborn isn't a human being. However, does this definition of the unborn really prove that the unborn isn't a human being? Absolutely not! This definition of the unborn only means that the unborn hasn't been born yet; that is, it is still in its mother's womb. This is what "still to come in the future" means. It doesn't mean that the unborn isn't a human being; rather, it only means that the unborn hasn't yet been born to the real world from its mother's womb. In no way does Pro's definition of the unborn show that it isn't a human being. It is a human being and is alive inside its mother's womb, but it just hasn't been born yet.

It's really funny to see Pro claiming that I have been beaten because of this. On the contrary, it is Pro who has been beaten, because (1) Pro has completely ignored all my three evidences which scientifically proved that the unborn is a human being, and (2) Pro's claim that the unborn is not a human being because of the definition which he gave, have clearly been refuted and been shown to be completely unreasonable.
Debate Round No. 3
SeniorIntelligentDebator

Pro

Remember that Con said "Remember that I gave three evidences in order to prove that the unborn is a human being. All these three evidences goes completely unanswered and unrefuted by Pro. Thus, I extend them all."

I did not refute your past evidences for two reasons -- they were not reputable enough, and they were answered by way of bracketed refutation. The definition of unborn (the bracketed refutation) provided all that needed to be provided to prove you wrong, thus my assertion that your best and most equitable option is to surrender, which you countered by claiming I should do what you should do.

Yes, as I have implied by way of my comment that you should surrender, providing the definition of "unborn" does, in fact, prove that the unborn isn't a human being in compliance with philosophy, and in compliance with fact. Not only does the definition prove the fact, but the philosophy contained within the definition thereof does as well. The moment the individual exits the woman's genital, they are human -- not before. To say so is to conquer absurdity. "It is a human being and is alive inside its mother's womb, but it just hasn't been born yet." Exactly. You have now proven yourself wrong. A fetus is not a human until it exits its hosts genital. Not before. It could be anything in the womb. It could be an alien. As absurd as that may sound, and as factually inaccurate as that may be deemed, it is still not as absurd as what you claim.
Clash

Con

I would first like to thank my opponent for this debate. I hope no bad feelings have been created between us because of this.


My Evidences

Pro said that he didn't refute my evidences because of two reasons. The first reason was because they were not reputable enough. Well, I would say that they are reputable enough. But anyways, let us just say that they are not reputable enough. Now, does this mean that my opponent doesn't even need to answer them? Of course not. When someone present evidences or arguments in an debate, then these evidences or arguments must be answered to. It doesn't matter if these evidences/arguments are reputable enough or not. Moreover, Pro has not explained why my evidences are not "reputable enough". Rather, he merely just claimed that they aren't reputable enough. Thus, Pro's first reason for not refuting my evidences, is a failure at best.

The second reason was that the definition of the unborn provided all that needed to prove me wrong. As I clearly stated in my previous round, Pro's definition of the unborn only means that the unborn hasn't been born yet. In fact, a more accurate and precise definition of the unborn (as we clearly can see by the name "unborn" itself) is:"Not yet born: an unborn child."[1] This definition of the unborn is from the same site in which Pro referenced his definition of the unborn. So why didn't Pro choose to use this definition instead of the vague definition "still to come in the future"? Well, probably because it would be much more harder for Pro to argue with the definition "Not yet born".

Now, how did Pro respond to the fact that his definition of the unborn only means that it hasn't been born yet? Pro responded to this by saying: "A fetus is not a human until it exits its hosts genital. Not before. It could be anything in the womb. It could be an alien. As absurd as that may sound, and as factually inaccurate as that may be deemed, it is still not as absurd as what you claim."

This is surely much more absurd than what I have claimed. Everybody knows that it's a unborn baby inside the mother's womb, unlike an alien. As most people know, a women can go and get something called an "Ultrasound". This ultrasound gives you the ability to see your unborn child inside your stomach. It works by using high-frequency sound waves to echo, or bounce, off the body and create a picture.[2] When we use this ultrasound, we can clearly see that it is a human being inside the womb. It is therefore just completely false and wrong to say that it could be anything in the womb. Moreover, what is it that comes out of the mother when she gives birth? Isn't it a human being? Of course it is. So it was a human being which was inside the woman's womb. Pro's response to the fact that the definition of the unborn only means that it hasn't been born yet, is unreasonable and completely invalid.

Concerning Pro's claim that a fetus is not a human until it exits its hosts genital, this is merely just an assumption. Pro doesn't give us any evidences as to why this is true. When you give a claim about something, then you need some evidences to back it up. How else are going to determine if this claim is true or false? It is evidences which gives us reasons to believe that a claim is true or false. As for Pro's claim that a fetus is not a human until it exits its hosts genital (whatever that means), no evidences have been given to support this claim. Thus, we have no reasons to believe that this claim is true.


Compliance with philosophy and fact?

Pro said: "Yes, as I have implied by way of my comment that you should surrender, providing the definition of "unborn" does, in fact, prove that the unborn isn't a human being in compliance with philosophy, and in compliance with fact."

This is also merely just an assumption. Pro doesn't explain how his definition of the "unborn" is in compliance with philosophy and fact; he simply just claims it.

The resolution has been negated. Vote Con.

_______

Sources

[1] http://www.debate.org...

[2] http://kidshealth.org...
Debate Round No. 4
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by SeniorIntelligentDebator 4 years ago
SeniorIntelligentDebator
This was my first debate on this site so I am not going to be perfect. Especially with an opponent that's in the 97th percentile.
Posted by Stupidwalrus 4 years ago
Stupidwalrus
"Unalienable rights" and "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" are not in the Constitution - they're in declaration of independence. Random thing that bugged me.
Posted by Clash 4 years ago
Clash
Oops, I have to point out a mistake which I noticed just now. The site at source "[1]" is wrong. It is supposed to be this site: http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Posted by CapitalistPig 4 years ago
CapitalistPig
Pro is arguing poorly; plain and simply - however I feel that the side he has chosen is the correct one. At the same time; it is people who seem to blindly argue their side claiming to bring with them "irrefutable evidence". Pro - I agree with your opinions but please learn to debate better and learn to structure your arguments on better sources. At this point; the debate is losing traction on whose opinion is right or wrong and simply - who has a more accurate argument. That's not to say you can't have an accurate pro argument on this topic - it simply means you personally seem to lack such ability at the current moment.
Posted by Wishing4Winter 4 years ago
Wishing4Winter
SeniorIntelligentDebator, do you seriously believe that The Free Dictionary disproves everything Con stated?
Posted by Clash 4 years ago
Clash
Did I say something funny?
Posted by emospongebob527 4 years ago
emospongebob527
Lol.
Posted by Clash 4 years ago
Clash
Pro, I'm really not interested in answering you in here, let alone debate with you in here. I would very much like to debate with you and refute you on the actual debate rather than the comment section. Thank you very much.
Posted by SeniorIntelligentDebator 4 years ago
SeniorIntelligentDebator
I am not being serious. I am just asserting what I have proven true. You've failed to provide reputable sources to confirm your theory.
Posted by Clash 4 years ago
Clash
Pro, I really hope you aren't actually serious right now.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
SeniorIntelligentDebatorClashTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's arguments were cogent. Pro's seemed confused. Persuasion: Con. Enough of Pro's sentences were confusing, sometimes without apparent meaning, that I'm giving S&G to Con. As to, "vilify," I'm going to quote or paraphrase Inigo: "I don't think that word means what you think it means."
Vote Placed by Justaga 4 years ago
Justaga
SeniorIntelligentDebatorClashTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: I am against abortion!
Vote Placed by Chuz-Life 4 years ago
Chuz-Life
SeniorIntelligentDebatorClashTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: While I agreed strongly with Con going in, I did have hopes of seeing a strong case for Pro. Unfortunately, Pro resorted to the same denials that most do when defending the legality of abortion. The denial of the fact that a child in the womb is a "human Being" is destroyed by the biological fact that a HUMAN child in the womb is "a human being." Congrats to Con.
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
SeniorIntelligentDebatorClashTied
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: Pro kind of collapsed near the end, and somehow tried to settle the entire debate with an appeal to authority. Con's arguments were stronger, so arguments to him.
Vote Placed by martianshark 4 years ago
martianshark
SeniorIntelligentDebatorClashTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con is clearly the winner. Con had flawed and badly sourced arguments that he refused to let go of, and by round 3 he was just trolling.