The Instigator
passwordstipulationssuck
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
frankfurter50
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Abortion should in most cases be illegal.

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 2 votes the winner is...
passwordstipulationssuck
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/5/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,037 times Debate No: 102403
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (29)
Votes (2)

 

passwordstipulationssuck

Pro

As this was a direct challenge, if you don't agree with the con side of this argument you can just decline.

a few rules before I state my position.
1. no argumentum ad hominems (personal attacks and the like.)
2. no new arguments in final rebuttals per standard debate rules.
3. standard debate rules regarding dropped arguments apply.

The first rounds will just be for acceptance, after that comes arguments (and for the second speaker attacks on my case.)

I believe that abortion should be illegal in all circumstances except for when the pregnancy endangers the life of the mother.

I look forward to a civil discourse on the matter and I hope you accept.
frankfurter50

Con

I accept your challenge, republican. (That's not an ad hominem because I'm just stating what you are.)
Debate Round No. 1
passwordstipulationssuck

Pro

I am pleased to have such an interesting moral and philosophical debate and wish the warmest regards to my opponent.

Abortion, despite how it may seem, is not a complicated issue. Either the fetus is alive, and thus is a human life. or it isn't.
there are a number of moral arguments to the debate.
the first moral argument is that scientifically the human fetus meets the criterion to be considered alive from conception (1)" Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity." As we can see, the fetus is genetically human and meets every criterion to be considered alive.

now that we have established that the human life begins at conception I may be faced with the argument from many in favor of abortion that though the organism forming in the womb is alive (if they don't fully reject the known science thus committing fallacy) that it is not a person. this leads me to moral argument number two which is: even if you don't consider the humanity of the organism in the womb, there are plenty of things that exist that are A. not persons. and B. has rights and intrinsic value, for example, dogs or other domesticated animals. To state that simply because you don't consider the human fetus (which is what I shall be referring to the developing child as hereinafter.) to be a person, does not mean that it does not have rights and value. Furthermore, even if you deny the humanity of the fetus, you are still dealing with a potential human life which should be held in higher moral regard than the convenience of the mother or father. Another argument that many of those on the pro-choice side of the argument is that women have the human right to control their bodies. And I am in complete agreement. When it is your body that you are doing something to then you should have every right to do so insofar as it's not self-harm. However, the human fetus is not your body. It is IN your body. as I stated in my first card in the scientific portion of my argument, the human fetus has a separate genetic identity with the restoration of the diploid number of chromosomes. therefore, the human fetus is not a part of the mother's body any more than the child would be after (s)he was born. I hold that the time to control your body would have been before conception IE: using birth control or not having sexual intercourse. one thing that society appears to have forgotten, is that sex is not for pleasure. it is the biological process through which most species ensure the continuation of their species through reproduction (2). if you choose to partake in an action the purpose of which is to reproduce. (thus controlling your body.) then you accept the risk of conception.

Moral argument number 3. does the fetus have any rights, any intrinsic value, and any right to live. well, the collective opinion of society is that the fetus has essentially infinite right to live. when? if and only if the mother decides to keep the child. if she does, society and its laws, regard the fetus with infinite worth and considers it so valuable, that if someone were to kill that child they would be prosecuted for homicide. keeping in mind that the definition of homicide is: the deliberate and unlawful killing of one person by another (3). we can, therefore, see that if the mother decides to keep her child then the law recognizes it as a person. if she doesn't, the fetus is considered worthless with essentially no right to live. now, does that make sense? it doesn't seem to. either the fetus has worth, or it doesn't. on what moral grounds does the mother alone have the right to decide the fetus' worth?

most people would consider killing the baby once it exits the womb as murder. however, the deliberate killing of the fetus a mere two months before is no more morally problematic than extracting a tooth.

and finally, we need to recognize that there are instances when an abortion simply cannot be considered moral. take for example if the mother or father aborts a child because they prefer boys to girls. as has happened millions of times in China and elsewhere. or any other form of bias or preference of the mother or father simply cannot offer moral grounds for the termination of the human life.

I look forward to a rational and well thought out debate and wish my opponent the best of luck. I eagerly await your response.

(1) https://www.princeton.edu.........
(2) www.biology-online.org
(3)www.dictionary.com
frankfurter50

Con

Your standpoint is very republican. babies could be unlimited if they did not require food and medicine, both of which cost money, because we live in an oppressive capitalist land which is controlled by republicans like you.

Abortions should not be unlimited either, and i admit, mothers should be responsible for their wild sexuality, but humans are biologically forced to mate, and can rarely choose otherwise, unless they have the will power of an elephant. either certain couples could choose not to do it, or the price of abortions could be slightly raised.

you said that abortions should not be allowed unless the baby being born endangers the life of the mother. Endangerment is why all abortions happen. excess children can drive parents into poverty, which, in turn, causes them to die. If they were rich republicans, they would not need an abortion in the first place.

Please, do go on.
Debate Round No. 2
passwordstipulationssuck

Pro

Indeed I will go on. There's a fair bit to address in my opponents arguments.

1. He did not challenge my point that a fetus is scientifically alive and human, therefore I'm going to invoke rule #3.
2. My opponent states that babies could be "unlimited" (whatever that means.) if they didn't require food and medicine. However, my opponent fails to recognize that there are options other than to eliminate the child. For example, you could leave the child at a fire station no questions asked. If you can't afford to carry the child, you made a drastic logical error by participating in sexual reproduction. A possible solution would be to seek financial support from a local church or other charity. Most of them would gladly give you financial aid.

3. My opponent blames the "oppressive capitalist land which is controlled by republican like me" which is not only a broad and sweeping generalization, but the idea that capitalism is to blame is simply not correct. Capitalism exists mainly in the private sector which allows for people of all types to participate in the market economy and make money. Capitalism, in short, allows for tremendous upward mobility. If my opponent opposes capitalism he most likely supports socialism. If you want to see the effect that socialism has on keeping people from being able to afford to have families and support themselves you simply need to turn your gaze to Venezuela or the USSR. My opponent has unfortunately fallen into the trap of American exceptionalism. The belief that we can do what many others have destroyed themselves implementing is illogical.

4. My opponent makes the claim that Humans are biologically forced to mate. While we do have a natural sex drive, we have also developed other parts of our brain that allow for reason, logic, and executive decisions. The history of clinical frontal lobe study is long and rich and provides valuable insights into neuropsychologic determinants of functions of the prefrontal cortex (PFC). PFC is often classified as multimodal association cortex as extremely processed information from various sensory modalities is integrated here in a precise fashion to form the physiologic constructs of memory, perception, and diverse cognitive processes. (1) As we can see, we have the ability to reason which sets us above common animals. We can choose not to give in to our primal desires.

(5) My opponent states that children force parents into poverty. And then they die. Slippery slope fallacy aside, my opponent again fails to recognize that there are alternatives to either eliminating the child or raising it yourself. The example I provided previously is valid here as well as the examples of foster care or an orphanage.

(1) www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
frankfurter50

Con

I concur, sir! your infinite babble will likely not be read by any potential judges.

Many parents do not wish to leave babies at a fire station, because although it is legal, the firemen are probably busy and can't handle the bother of a child to take care of and put somewhere. Orphanages are rare, and usually have poor living conditions and low access to food. Many parents can't bear the hassle and paperwork involved, which can take months.

I'll talk as to your "fetuses are alive" statement now. They may be, but their brains are underdeveloped and having an abortion is much less severe than killing someone outside of the womb. Plants are alive, and yet we kill quite a few each year. Why don't you care about that?

I still argue that leaving a baby who can think in the hands of someone else is much worse than killing a baby who can't. I also still believe that yours is the standpoint of a republican who refuses to accept the fact that babies are expensive and the rich are driving the poor mad.
Debate Round No. 3
passwordstipulationssuck

Pro

My opponent says that my infinite babble will likely not be read by any potential judges. confused, I looked back through my previous argument and I remain unclear on what he is concurring with.

He states that parent's don't wish to leave their babies at a fire station because they might be to busy to handle it. This is nothing more than an unfounded assumption. My opponent has provided no evidence to support this claim and as he is asserting that the firemen would not go through with one of their duties I would recommend that he provide a source. I would argue that even if orphanages have poor living conditions and a lack of food is true (again, no source.) It would be preferable to non-existence.

My opponent dropped the argument regarding my scientific point, but as he did provide an argument anyway I will address it. The fact that their brain is underdeveloped is irrelevant. your profile says you're fifteen years old, therefore your brain is underdeveloped as well. it doesn't matter. As for his point that killing someone outside of the womb is more severe than killing someone inside of the womb. Why? they are human. they are alive. Next he states that Plants are alive, and therefore I should object to killing them. My opponent has once again presented us with a fallacy. this argument falls under the fallacy colloquially known as "apples and oranges" or drawing comparisons between events or sets of circumstances that seem to share a common denominator but are in fact distinct from one another by virtue of having occurred during different time periods, in different places, under different socio-economic conditions, to different groups of people, etc., can lead to the incorrect assumption that, just because something is true under one set of circumstances, it will necessarily hold true for all circumstances of a similar sort. The act of making such comparisons is sometimes referred to as "comparing apples and oranges." a fetus is not a plant. It's entirely different and thus my opponents argument is invalid. I hope that sufficiently answers your question about why I don't care about "killing" fruits and vegetables.

and finally, my opponent states that leaving a baby who can think in the hands of someone else is much worse than killing a baby who can't. I thought of a couple things this argument could mean. either he's arguing that while the human fetus is alive, it is not a person. for this I have a rather lengthy response. if this were the case, then they would have to recognize that what we would call consciousness does begin in the womb. (1) or perhaps he means the ability to exercise "rational attributes? One should also consider simply the logical and very real consequences if a "person" is defined only in terms of the actual exercising of "rational attributes" or of "sentience." What would this mean for the following list of adult human beings with diminished "rational attributes": e.g., the mentally ill, the mentally disabled, the depressed elderly, Alzheimers and Parkinsons patients, drug addicts, alcoholics and for those with diminished "sentience," e.g., the comatose, patients in a "vegetative state," paraplegics, and other paralyzed and disabled patients, diabetics or other patients with nerve or brain damage, etc.? Would they then be considered as only human beings but not also as human persons? Would that mean that they would not have the same ethical and legal rights and protections as those adult human beings who are considered as persons? Is there really such a "split" between a human being and a human person?

My opponent once again attacks my political stance as a republican (as if that somehow makes my arguments hold less weight.) and proceeds to say that babies are expensive and the rich are "driving the poor mad" in stating this, my opponent has made the illogical argument (and black and white fallacy) by assuming that the only option is terminating the pregnancy or raising the child yourself. next my opponent makes a point about the rich driving the poor mad. I have shown that my opponents likely position ( and as he hasn't stated his true position if I was incorrect) is not only invalid but immoral as it has destroyed the lives (and yes, taken the lives) of millions upon millions of people. He has also provided no evidence to support his positions (any of them) almost everything he's said has been either an assumption or a fallacy.

Hopefully this hasn't terribly reminded you of infinite babbling.

(1)(2)https://www.princeton.edu......
frankfurter50

Con

You poor, poor pundit. I already know that I will win, because I have decreed that I will do so, and therefore, by logic, i must.

You republicans always seem to want sources, as if sources are necessary for a valid argument. they are not. I refuse to provide any, because, due to the unbearable amount of republicans in the nation right now, all articles online are written by republicans, and are therefore biased.

You often point to articles taken right from the Trump website. seriously, why would he contradict his own opinions? Of course he will say that he hates mexicans and muslims. If you showed me a source where a DEMOCRAT accepted a republican opinion, then I would be impressed. a little incredulous, maybe, but nonetheless accepting that republican opinion as true. you cannot show sources where republicans agree with republicans. they always will.

Abortion is also necessary to keep the overwhelming population down. currently, it is damaging the ecosystem, and, to quote the bad guy in the matrix, humanity is a virus that eventually kills its host. population control is a way to slow this down. If not given an abortion, mothers may produce offspring which have nothing to eat, nowhere to sleep, nowhere to live. But of course you republicans pay no attention to third world countries. Why should you, when you have immense mansions and infinite disposable income? You make me wish to retch, sir.

I swear, most of this site is republicans. if there are any good old democrats out there, could you please vote for me? i haven't seen a single democrat on here since i signed up six months ago, and it's starting to bug me a little.
Debate Round No. 4
29 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by frankfurter50 8 months ago
frankfurter50
okay, sure. you have too. I didn't know the point was to be amusing, and even if it was, i've been more amusing than you.
Posted by frankfurter50 8 months ago
frankfurter50
okay, sure. you have too. I didn't know the point was to be amusing, and even if it was, i've been more amusing than you.
Posted by passwordstipulationssuck 8 months ago
passwordstipulationssuck
I'm done with you now. You have ceased to amuse me.
Posted by frankfurter50 8 months ago
frankfurter50
look, what I'm saying is incredibly obvious, and purely the truth. You're just winning because you're a republican!
Posted by passwordstipulationssuck 8 months ago
passwordstipulationssuck
See, what you're doing right now is an exact example of why you're losing. You make huge assumptions about things you could never possibly measure or know, you present them as facts, and get all upset when no one takes them at face value.
Posted by frankfurter50 8 months ago
frankfurter50
RIGHT, but they're REPUBLICANS. even if their arguments weren't valid, they still would have voted for you. even if they didn't read any of it. they just like you because you're a repubbo like they are. How do you not get this?
Posted by passwordstipulationssuck 8 months ago
passwordstipulationssuck
I did look. And it's irrelevant all of the points that jimshady and dsjpk5 made against your case were completely valid.
Posted by frankfurter50 8 months ago
frankfurter50
no, really, LOOK at your voters! one is a republican and the other is a libertarian. do you REALLY think they'd vote for me? heck no. It's just biased, is all it is.
Posted by passwordstipulationssuck 8 months ago
passwordstipulationssuck
oh, and you didn't cite any sources. And no, sources aren't just for Republicans.
Posted by passwordstipulationssuck 8 months ago
passwordstipulationssuck
No, I'm winning because you made terrible arguments, committed ad hominem fallacies, and failed to take down any of my points sufficiently. and here you go again making assumptions. you'll never win a debate like that.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 8 months ago
dsjpk5
passwordstipulationssuckfrankfurter50Tied
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: Con calling Pro's arguments "infinite babble" is rude.
Vote Placed by JimShady 8 months ago
JimShady
passwordstipulationssuckfrankfurter50Tied
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Right now I'm wondering if this is a troll debate on frankfurter50's part, because I'm really just not sure... I'm Pro-Life, so that explains who I agree with before and after this debate. As for conduct, Con keeps calling passwordstipulationssuck a rich republican in a mocking way and without any evidence he is rich. He also unjustly calls Pro's debate infinite babble. For sources, Pro had a bunch of reliable ones, and in the comments he even says he has no Trump ones. I find it really lame how Con tried attacking all of Pro's reliable sources. Convincing arguments is won by a wide margin by Pro. He pulls out science/genetics, explains well how human fetuses are human indeed, and his moral argument 3 that a mother can not choose the value of a fetus is well founded. Con's points on overpopulation may have some value, but his endangerment argument in Round 2 and killing plants in Round 3 fall flat to Pro's rebuttals. Victory for Pro by far in my opinion.