The Instigator
1dustpelt
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
DakotaKrafick
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points

Abortion

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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...
DakotaKrafick
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/25/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,393 times Debate No: 21493
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (23)
Votes (5)

 

1dustpelt

Con

I, as Con, will be arguing against abortion. Round 1 is for acceptance only.
DakotaKrafick

Pro

I accept this, perhaps deliberately, vague debate.
Debate Round No. 1
1dustpelt

Con

I thank Pro for accepting this debate.

1. Abortion is Murder
The fetus has a right to live just like any other human being. A fetus is a future human being. It is wrong to kill a human being, therefore it is wrong to kill a fetus. Each abortion takes the life of a new, innocent, unique human being.

2. If the woman did not want a baby, she should not have gotten pregnant.
Many arguments for abortion is that women have the right to control their own body. However, this argument can be rebutted by the fact that the woman did control her own body by deciding to get pregnant, therefore it is her fault that she is pregnant.

3. It's not the baby's fault
The baby has no choice to exist or not exist, so you cannot blame the baby.
DakotaKrafick

Pro

Thank you, 1dustpelt, for your response.

Abortion is Murder

First of all, abortion is only murder depending on where you live, as a significant aspect of "murder" is "unlawful". If getting an abortion is legal, then it is, by definition, not murder. Now onto my opponent's logical argument here:

P1: A fetus will become a human being in the future.
P2: It is morally wrong to kill a human being.
C: Therefore, it is morally wrong to kill a fetus.

Premise one is not necessarily true, as a fetus could die due to a miscarriage before it becomes a human being. If, however, it is morally wrong to kill anything which has the potential of eventually becoming a human being, then masturbation must also be morally apprehensible as you are killing millions of sperm cells each ejaculation.

I would not consider premise two necessarily true in its entirety either, as it is morally acceptable to use deadly force as self-defense against a human being who is trying to kill you, for example.

However, even if we grant that both premises are perfect and true, the conclusion still does not logically follow. The conclusion should look more like this: "Therefore, it is morally wrong to kill a fetus in the future when it becomes a human being".

My opponent states a "fetus has a right to live just like any other human being" but warrants no justification for granting things which are not human beings the same rights as human beings.

If the woman did not want a baby, she should not have gotten pregnant.

My opponent asserts the horrendously ignorant assumption that all women who are pregnant became pregnant of their own desire. This should not come as a surprise to anybody reading (except for Con), but contraceptives do sometimes fail. Even if a woman is on the pill and/or the man wears a condom, accidents do happen. Furthermore, (again, sorry for bursting your idealistic worldview, Con) there are such things as rapists, and conception can occur in a rape victim. Perhaps, Con, if the rape victim didn't want to be raped, then she shouldn't have gotten herself raped, eh?

It's not the baby's fault

It's true what my opponent says: the fetus has no choice to exist or not exist. Therefore, we don't know if it wants to exist or not exist. Therefore, that decision should be delegated to someone with a fully-functioning brain, such as the pregnant woman.

No one is blaming the fetus for being a fetus. However, it is still a fetus, a sometimes undesirable parasite in the woman's womb which should be removed immediately upon the request of its host.

Honestly, you might as well have said "It's not the tumor's fault for being a tumor, so the doctors should let it grow".
Debate Round No. 2
1dustpelt

Con

Rebuttals

"First of all, abortion is only murder depending on where you live, as a significant aspect of "murder" is "unlawful". If getting an abortion is legal, then it is, by definition, not murder."
Still, even if abortion is legal, does killing an innocent fetus make it right?

"If, however, it is morally wrong to kill anything which has the potential of eventually becoming a human being, then masturbation must also be morally apprehensive as you are killing millions of sperm cells each ejaculation."
A sperm cell is not a future human, it may help produce a future human, but it is not a future human. Sperm cannot have thought as we do, or be productive to society, or feel pain. A fetus can contribute to society outside of sex. A fetus can feel pain at 8 weeks.

"I would not consider premise two necessarily true in its entirety either, as it is morally acceptable to use deadly force as self-defense against a human being who is trying to kill you, for example."
But it is morally incorrect to kill an innocent person. The fetus is innocent.

"The conclusion should look more like this: "Therefore, it is morally wrong to kill a fetus in the future when it becomes a human being."
If you put it that way, abortion would make it unable become a human being. If you kill a fetus, it is technically killing a human being because it stops the fetus from becoming one. For example, if George Washington was aborted when he was a fetus, he would not have existed as a human.

"My opponent asserts the horrendously ignorant assumption that all women who are pregnant became pregnant of their own desire. This should not come as a surprise to anybody reading (except for Con), but contraceptives do sometimes fail. Even if a woman is on the pill and/or the man wears a condom, accidents do happen. "
I never said that all women are pregnant because of their own desire. I do know that contraceptives do sometimes fail. My opponent states that contraceptives failing is common knowledge. My argument is that if contraceptives failing is common knowledge, the people having intercourse should consider that possibility first.

"Furthermore, (again, sorry for bursting your idealistic worldview, Con) there are such things as rapists, and conception can occur in a rape victim. Perhaps, Con, if the rape victim didn't want to be raped, then she shouldn't have gotten herself raped, eh?"
I know that there are such things as rapists. However, let us sort things out.
Most rapes do not cause pregnancy. One third of rape victims are too old or young to get pregnant. Woman is capable of being fertilized only 3 days of a 30-day period. Most of rape victims are not raped within the three days. Only fifteen percent of men are sterile. All of this would reduce rape pregnancies plenty. Also, I would like to add, that only 1% if abortions are because of rape. 93% of all abortions occur because the woman does not want her child.

"No one is blaming the fetus for being a fetus. However, it is still a fetus, a sometimes undesirable parasite in the woman's womb which should be removed immediately upon the request of its host."
So you are saying that if a cat was trapped in your house, it should be killed?

"Honestly, you might as well have said "It's not the tumor's fault for being a tumor, so the doctors should let it grow'."
Well first of all, a tumor has no brain. It cannot become a human or benefit society.

More arguments

1. A fetus can feel pain. Scientific study has found that a fetus can feel pain at 8 months. Not only will it stop it from becoming a new human being, it would feel the pain of being killed.

2. A human is good for the economy. A human contributes to the economy by buying goods and starting businesses. Abortions means less humans.

Sources:
http://www.abortionfacts.com...
http://www.abort73.com...
http://www.nrlc.org...
Special thanks to 16kadams for helping me with some sources.
DakotaKrafick

Pro


Abortion is "Murder".

"Still, even if abortion is legal, does killing an innocent fetus make it right?"
Not necessarily; in order to determine if terminating an unwanted pregnancy is morally right or wrong, we must delve deeper than legislation. I was merely pointing out that your argument was wrong on the face of it before explaining why it was wrong at the core, too.

"A sperm cell is not a future human, it may help produce a future human, but it is not a future human."
A sperm cell is not necessarily a future human being, but as I stated previously, neither is a fetus. A fetus is still in the developing stages to become a human being. The point was: if you consider it morally wrong to kill anything which has the potential to become a human being, then you must also consider it morally wrong to kill a sperm cell (as it, too, has the potential of becoming a human being).

"If you put it that way, abortion would make it unable become a human being."
That's the idea, yes. Just like wearing a condom prevents my sperm cells from becoming human beings. This is inherently wrong, why?

"If you kill a fetus, it is technically killing a human being because it stops the fetus from becoming one."

No, if you kill a fetus, "technically" it is killing a fetus, not a human being. As you've already conceded, a fetus will eventually become a human being, not is one. And you have failed to explain why a fetus should be considered a human being, and therefore granted the same rights as human beings.

"For example, if George Washington was aborted when he was a fetus, he would not have existed as a human."
This only reiterates the fact that fetuses only eventually become human beings, and still offers no logical reason why they should be considered human beings.

She just shouldn't have gotten pregnant.

"My argument is that if contraceptives failing is common knowledge, the people having intercourse should consider that possibility first."
Many people do consider that possibility and act responsibly in accordance; however, it is impossible to decrease your chances of becoming pregnant to zero percent without getting fixed or practicing abstinence. The former can be far too expensive for some people, and latter is also nonviable as any non-virgin can tell you sex is far too awesome to pass up.
"What?" I hear you gasp, "Thrill-seeking hooligans who only want to perform the holy sacrament of intercourse for their own pleasure? How detestable!"
But tell me, Con, if someone wants to go sky-diving and takes all the necessary precautions and pulls his chute at 10,000 feet to find the string failed, do you really blame that person saying "He should have thought of that first?" It's not necessarily the person's fault for his/her equipment failing, as some accidents simply cannot be foreseen.

"Woman is capable of being fertilized only 3 days of a 30-day period."
I find it disturbing when a man tries to say what a woman should and should not be allowed to do with her body when said man knows virtually nothing about the female body in the first place. In all actuality, the reverse of your statement more accurate to the truth: a woman is incapable of becoming pregnant during about three days out of her menstrual cycle, her period. However, some sperm cells can survive in the uterus for a few days and still join with a new egg when it becomes available.
I think what my opponent meant to say is that a woman's chances of becoming pregnant increase during about three days out of her menstrual cycle, directly preceding and during ovulation, but she is still very much capable of becoming pregnant during the rest of the time.

"Also, I would like to add, that only 1% if abortions are because of rape."
It would hardly matter if this number were .001%. The fact is there are instances where a woman is raped and becomes pregnant. Abortive methods should be available to her and it should not be considered morally wrong to utilize them.

It's not the tumors' fault. Er, I mean fetus.

"So you are saying that if a cat was trapped in your house, it should be killed?"
This is just about the most ineffectual and off-the-wall strawman I have ever encountered in my entire (unpaid) debating career. How in the world did you come to this conclusion based on what I've said, Con? A cat is not a parasite and a house is not a womb; the two scenarios are consequentially far too incomparable.

"Well first of all, a tumor has no brain. It cannot become a human or benefit society."
A fetus certainly does not contribute to society at all, either.

"But it is morally incorrect to kill an innocent person. The fetus is innocent."
I must say, I find it amusing whenever a pro-lifer insinuates that a fetus is "innocent". Innocent of what, Con? Breaking any laws? Tumors are technically innocent as well since they don't break any laws. But they do cause harm, discomfort, and, potentially, death to their hosts.
Childbirth and even pregnancy itself are relatively dangerous processes in our species and could result in multiple complications and possibly death in the mother. For instance, women with weak hearts will suffer a dangerously high risk of heart attack and/or stroke when the fetus grows in the third trimester.
Abortion is not just a means of terminating the possibility of a future human being, but also a means of saving the life of a human being that already exists.

It can feel pain.

"Scientific study has found that a fetus can feel pain at 8 months."
There are many things that need to be said about this. Firstly, I will assume my opponent meant "weeks" not "months".
Secondly, as it is technically impossible to know for sure what a fetus can and cannot feel, and it is a heated controversy in the medical field, there is no conclusive evidence that a fetus can feel pain so early in its development despite whatever my opponent's highly biased sources claim. Instead, any stimuli the fetus shows in response to its environment is more than likely a reflex and not an actual avoidance of pain.
Thirdly, if the avoidance of pain is the ultimate goal here, then we should unquestionably terminate the pregnancy as childbirth is one of the most painful experiences a human being can suffer in the realm of physical possibility (or so I hear). My opponent's own argument defeats itself.

A human is good for the economy.

This is a double-edged sword. First of all, no matter how many people are in a society, the job market will naturally adjust itself to suit the population; the ratio between employers and employees and between producers and consumers will remain relatively the same. Furthermore, overpopulation is becoming an increasingly critical problem in the world, and seeing as the rock we live on does not have an infinite amount of resources to go around, I would argue less people is better at this stage in our species' history.

Sources?

All information I have relayed in my arguments are based off of prior knowledge and, admittedly, I am too lazy to look up sources. However, your sources vote should still go to me as my non-existent sources are still far more reliable than Con's highly biased sources. Plus, he admits 16kadams helped him.
Debate Round No. 3
1dustpelt

Con

Rebuttals

"A sperm cell is not necessarily a future human being, but as I stated previously, neither is a fetus. A fetus is still in the developing stages to become a human being. The point was: if you consider it morally wrong to kill anything which has the potential to become a human being, then you must also consider it morally wrong to kill a sperm cell (as it, too, has the potential of becoming a human being)."
A sperm cell cannot contribute to society, feel pain, or become a future human itself.

"That's the idea, yes. Just like wearing a condom prevents my sperm cells from becoming human beings. This is inherently wrong, why?"
Again, a sperm cell does nothing but fertilize the egg, it is not a human in development. A fetus is a human in development.

"No, if you kill a fetus, "technically" it is killing a fetus, not a human being. As you've already conceded, a fetus will eventually become a human being, not is one. And you have failed to explain why a fetus should be considered a human being, and therefore granted the same rights as human beings."
If a women has a right to her own body, shouldn't a baby have the right to live. By aborting them they don't even get to decide. It's a bit hypocritical. And a cell is the smallest unit of life which is what a fetus starts out as.
This is my opponent's argument:

P1: A fetus is not a human.
P2: Because it is not a human, it does not have the right to live.
C: It is morally correct to kill a fetus.

A fetus is a potential human being. Killing it before it becomes one is immoral. By aborting them, they don't even get to decide. What you are saying is because something is not completely developed yet, they should not have a right to life.

"This is just about the most ineffectual and off-the-wall straw man I have ever encountered in my entire (unpaid) debating career. How in the world did you come to this conclusion based on what I've said, Con? A cat is not a parasite and a house is not a womb; the two scenarios are consequentially far too incomparable."
Neither is a fetus a parasite. A parasite is always a different species from the species it is living on.

"A fetus certainly does not contribute to society at all, either."
A fetus contributes because it(most of the time) becomes a human being.

"Tumors are technically innocent as well since they don't break any laws. But they do cause harm, discomfort, and, potentially, death to their hosts."
Again, a tumor cannot become a human.

"Abortion is not just a means of terminating the possibility of a future human being, but also a means of saving the life of a human being that already exists."
The chance of a women to die in childbirth is very little. The chance of a new human being is very high.

"Secondly, as it is technically impossible to know for sure what a fetus can and cannot feel, and it is a heated controversy in the medical field, there is no conclusive evidence that a fetus can feel pain so early in its development despite whatever my opponent's highly biased sources claim. Instead, any stimuli the fetus shows in response to its environment is more than likely a reflex and not an actual avoidance of pain."
Actually, look at this:

"Pain can be detected when nociceptors (pain receptors) discharge electrical impulses to the spinal cord and brain. These fire impulses outward, telling the muscles and body to react. These can be measured. Mountcastle, Medical Physiology, St. Louis: C.V. Mosby, pp. 391-427 "Lip tactile response may be evoked by the end of the 7th week. At 11 weeks, the face and all parts of the upper and lower extremities are sensitive to touch. By 13 1/2 to 14 weeks, the entire body surface, except for the back and the top of the head, are sensitive to pain." S. Reinis & J. Goldman, The Development of the Brain C. Thomas Pub., 1980"

"Thirdly, if the avoidance of pain is the ultimate goal here, then we should unquestionably terminate the pregnancy as childbirth is one of the most painful experiences a human being can suffer in the realm of physical possibility (or so I hear). My opponent's own argument defeats itself."
If that is the case, is abortion painful? Let's look at some testimonies;


"I had an abortion 12 years ago, and I have suffered from it since the day it was done. There is no grief worse than losing a child, unless it is knowing that you have intentionally killed your own, out of sheer selfishness. I have had nightmares, flashbacks of the procedure including the physical pain I experienced, and periods of severe depression. I am still taking 3 medications for depression and anxiety. I wish I could go back in time and take it all back - but we can only move forward."

...

"I feel that women should be informed about the affects of abortion. I had an abortion once and I live with the guilt and pain every day. When you are in such a vulnerable state, and you turn to these so-called counselors at these clinics, they make it seem unreal, like this is not a baby. And then you are herded into a room like cattle, called by numbers and before you can even really process what is happening, it is over. You are left with so much pain. I know what I did. I will live with it forever. I now have 3 children whom I look at and wander what the one I terminated would have been like. So everyone who feels that we, the ones who go through this, do not know pain, we do. More than you will ever know."

...

"I am 22 years old, and I got pregnant at the age of 20. I was raised in a Christian home, went to a Christian college, and opposed abortion to every degree. When I became pregnant, abortion "seemed" like the only option, but as time went by, I put the abortion in the back of my mind because I dearly loved my little, innocent child… I talked to my child, named my child, and tried to make the person I was with bond with it also. I put the abortion off until the last possible week, my 19th week of pregnancy. By this time the abortion cost $1300 that I did not have. I didn't have the money for anesthesia and I had to stay awake for the 15 minute, very painful and eye-opening experience…There isn't a day that goes by that I don't think about my baby and wish things could be changed somehow.... I want to reach out and tell women the horror I had to live through, to somehow mend what I've done if just a little bit."

Abortion is very painful for the woman.


"However, your sources vote should still go to me as my non-existent sources are still far more reliable than Con's highly biased sources."
My sources are not biased. www.abortionfacts.com is a highly trusted site. This page: http://www.abortionfacts.com... clearly explains that a fetus can feel pain. Same with this article: http://www.abort73.com...
This one explains why a human is good for the economy. :http://www.nrlc.org... . My opponent loses conduct for falsely accusing my sources. My opponent also admits that he is too lazy to find sources.

New sources:
http://news.discovery.com...
http://www.abort73.com...
S. Reinis & J. Goldman, The Development of the Brain C. Thomas Pub., 1980"









DakotaKrafick

Pro

Abortion is "Murder".

"A sperm cell cannot contribute to society, feel pain, or become a future human itself."
A sperm cell CAN become a future human. Not by itself, but it certainly can.
And, like I said, a fetus contributes nothing to society either. Human beings contribute to society, and you've already conceded a fetus is not a human being. How many more times shall you talk in circles?

"Again, a sperm cell does nothing but fertilize the egg, it is not a human in development. A fetus is a human in development."
Yes, you've said this at least eight-hundred times by now. A fetus is not a human being, but in the developing stage to become a human being. Again, there is no reason to grant things which are not humans the rights of humans.

"If a women has a right to her own body, shouldn't a baby have the right to live. By aborting them they don't even get to decide. It's a bit hypocritical."
What's hypocritical is granting a parasite more rights than the woman who's carrying it in her body. Also, please choose your terminology more carefully in the future; a fetus is not a baby. A fetus is in the developing stages in becoming a baby human being.
By aborting them, we not only eliminate their future right to choose existence or non-existence, we eliminate their future cognitive ability to even comprehend it is existing. Terminating a fetus is hardly more vile than terminating a fly. Yes, a fly responds to its environment and naturally tries to avoid being smacked, but it cannot fathom its own existence. Everything it does is a reflex. It does not have the brain functionality necessary to realize it is existing. It's not conscious or sentient, and neither is a fetus.

"This is my opponent's argument:

P1: A fetus is not a human.
P2: Because it is not a human, it does not have the right to live.
C: It is morally correct to kill a fetus."
Needless to say, I never said that a fetus does have the right to live on the basis that it is a non-human. I trust to audience to recognize when I am being horribly strawmaned [sic?]. Nor did I say it's morally "correct" or "right" or "good" to kill a fetus. But it is morally acceptable. It is definitely not, by contrast, morally apprehensible or wicked. I would argue that the issue of terminating an unwanted pregnancy is amoral (that is, neither morally good nor bad, as it is not an issue of the principles of moral behavior).

After all, why is it morally wrong to kill a human being? Just because it's a human being? No. Because it's a sentient and conscious creature. It feels, it breaths, it experiences happiness and sadness. It exists and it knows it exists and it WANTS to exist.

Terminating something that is technically "alive" but otherwise nothing more than a lump of matter, unaware of its existence, unaware of its "life" is neither morally good nor bad. Though forcing a woman to keep this lump of matter in her body while it grows and potentially causes harm to her is unquestionably morally wrong.

She just shouldn't have gotten pregnant.

"Neither is a fetus a parasite. A parasite is always a different species from the species it is living on."
Taken from biology.com, "Parasite: An organism that obtains nourishment and shelter on another organism. Parasites can cause harm or disease to their host. They are generally much smaller than their hosts." [1] Where, Con, in this definition (or any other definition in the universe outside of your imagination) does it say a parasite must be of a different species than its host?

Notice how my opponent completely drops my points about equipment failing due to unforeseeable circumstances, rape, and when during a menstrual cycle a woman is fertile (probably because he realized he was wrong). Extend these arguments and refutations.

It's not the parasite's fault, man.

"Again, a tumor cannot become a human."
This response is quite telling, indeed. Notice just how my opponent defends the removal of a tumor. It's okay because it can't become a human–not because it can potentially kill its host. I suppose, then, if a tumor COULD become a human being, it would be morally wrong to remove it despite the fact it can cause severe harm or even death in its host?

"The chance of a women to die in childbirth is very little. The chance of a new human being is very high."
The odds of a woman dying during childbirth are about 12 in 100,000. [2] Admittedly quite low, but it does happen. Women should not be forced to play Russian Roulette in this way, despite how low the odds are.
Furthermore, there are other complications that can arise during pregnancy, such as high blood pressure. [3] As I said in my last round (which my opponent chose to ignore), this can lead to heart attacks or strokes later in the pregnancy. The only risks a woman is likely to suffer is not just during childbirth, but during almost the entire process.

It can feel pain.

"By 13 1/2 to 14 weeks, the entire body surface, except for the back and the top of the head, are sensitive to pain."
So this study (which occurred in 1980) claims that a fetus is sensitive to pain by about 14 weeks, not 8 weeks. What about abortions that take place before this time? My opponent's argument cannot possibly object to abortions occurring earlier in pregnancy than 13 1/2 weeks.

"If that is the case, is abortion painful? Let's look at some testimonies[...]"
Most of the "pain" my opponent's testimonies refer to is guilt, which would not be a problem if people like my opponent did not demonize abortion so adamantly. It's like when Bill O'Reilly claimed homosexuals should stay in the closet for many reasons, one being that they are treated worse than heterosexuals. Naturally, it wouldn't be a problem if people like you didn't make it a problem.

A human is good for the economy.

My opponent totally drops this argument. Extend arguments and refutations.

My Opponent's Sources

"My sources are not biased. www.abortionfacts.com is a highly trusted site."
Yeah, highly trusted by pro-life fundies. Members of the audience, I challenge you (nay, DARE you) to look at this website and not laugh at the sentiment of its unbiased and objective outlook on abortion. There is a "Baby Hall of Fame" for god's sake with pictures of babies and little captions that read "I was told the best choice was abortion...they were wrong!" and "The baby's father begged the mom to abort the baby, but she wouldn't".
Your claim that this website can offer any medical information worth taking seriously can be classified as nothing less than either a delusion or a futile ploy to trick the audience. Mark off conduct for all I care; I refuse to allow this intellectual dishonesty to mar the sanctity of one of my debates.

My Sources
[1] http://www.biology-online.org...;
[2] http://www.msnbc.msn.com...;
[3] http://www.pregnancy-info.net...;
Debate Round No. 4
1dustpelt

Con

Rebuttals

"A sperm cell CAN become a future human. Not by itself, but it certainly can.

And, like I said, a fetus contributes nothing to society either. Human beings contribute to society, and you've already conceded a fetus is not a human being. How many more times shall you talk in circles?"
A sperm cell is only the male reproductive cell, it is not a future human. It can help create one, but is not one by itself. A fetus contributes by becoming a future human! Besides, there are milions of sperm cells.

"What's hypocritical is granting a parasite more rights than the woman who's carrying it in her body."
Who said we were giving it more rights? Life is the most basic right anyone can think of!


"Also, please choose your terminology more carefully in the future; a fetus is not a baby. A fetus is in the developing stages in becoming a baby human being."
Fine. But in return you must use your terminology correct too. Definition of "parasite":

"An organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment."

Dictionary.com. It clearly says ANOTHER SPECIES.


"By aborting them, we not only eliminate their future right to choose existence or non-existence, we eliminate their future cognitive ability to even comprehend it is existing. Terminating a fetus is hardly more vile than terminating a fly. Yes, a fly responds to its environment and naturally tries to avoid being smacked, but it cannot fathom its own existence. Everything it does is a reflex. It does not have the brain functionality necessary to realize it is existing. It's not conscious or sentient, and neither is a fetus."
Excatly. By doing this, you are eliminating it's purpose to become a human. You are ending the possibility of a new, unique, human being.

"Needless to say, I never said that a fetus does have the right to live on the basis that it is a non-human. I trust to audience to recognize when I am being horribly strawmaned [sic?]. Nor did I say it's morally "correct" or "right" or "good" to kill a fetus. But it is morally acceptable. It is definitely not, by contrast, morally apprehensible or wicked. I would argue that the issue of terminating an unwanted pregnancy is amoral (that is, neither morally good nor bad, as it is not an issue of the principles of moral behavior)."
You did in fact say that a fetus does not have the right to live on the basis it is non-human. You said about a hundred times that life is a human right and a fetus is not a human. Look what you said here: "A fetus is not a human being, but in the developing stage to become a human being. Again, there is no reason to grant things which are not humans the rights of humans."

"Taken from biology.com, "Parasite: An organism that obtains nourishment and shelter on another organism. Parasites can cause harm or disease to their host. They are generally much smaller than their hosts." [1] Where, Con, in this definition (or any other definition in the universe outside of your imagination) does it say a parasite must be of a different species than its host?"
Taken from dictionary.com, "An organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment."

"The odds of a woman dying during childbirth are about 12 in 100,000. [2] Admittedly quite low, but it does happen. Women should not be forced to play Russian Roulette in this way, despite how low the odds are."
So would you rather have 10000 people survive or 1 person? By letting the fetus live, you are gaining countless new humans.

" So this study (which occurred in 1980) claims that a fetus is sensitive to pain by about 14 weeks, not 8 weeks. What about abortions that take place before this time? My opponent's argument cannot possibly object to abortions occurring earlier in pregnancy than 13 1/2 weeks."
So where is this "study"? You provide no source or details.

"It's like when Bill O'Reilly claimed homosexuals should stay in the closet for many reasons, one being that they are treated worse than heterosexuals."
I concede that an abortion is less painful than childbirth.

"Yeah, highly trusted by pro-life fundies. Members of the audience, I challenge you (nay, DARE you) to look at this website and not laugh at the sentiment of its unbiased and objective outlook on abortion. There is a "Baby Hall of Fame" for god's sake with pictures of babies and little captions that read "I was told the best choice was abortion...they were wrong!" and "The baby's father begged the mom to abort the baby, but she wouldn't"."
I dare the audience to look at this site: abortionfacts.com . It is not biased. Also, may the audience realize that two of my opponent's sources are broken links.

New argument:
It is the mother's niche to bear fetuses. You can't just let go of your role. If trees decided that they did not want to be trees, then the world would be in chaos.

Summary


My opponent's main argument is this:

A fetus is not a human.
Life is a human right.
Therefore, it is amoral to kill a fetus.

My rebuttal to it is that a fetus becomes a future human. By aborting them, you are eliminating it's purpose to become a human. You are ending the possibility of a new, unique, human being. A fetus can feel pain too. Also, do notice that my opponent dropped his argument about the fetus moving from pain tests being a reflex. Extend arguments.

Sources:
http://abortionfacts.com...
http://dictionary.reference.com...
http://news.discovery.com...
Just hope that my opponent does not go as far as calling dictionary.com and discovery.com "biased".
DakotaKrafick

Pro

Abortion is "murder"

I don't really feel like repeating myself for the hundredth time on certain points.

"Besides, there are milions of sperm cells."
And therefore it's okay to kill them, because there are millions of them? I sure hope Con never finds out how many people are populating the world or we may just have a serial killer on our hands.

"Who said we were giving it more rights? Life is the most basic right anyone can think of!"
Yes, and you are trying to grant the fetus a right to live that transends the mother's right to live by forcing the mother to give birth which can potentially kill her. You are, for some ludicrous reason (and I don't use that word very often), prioritizing the future human being over the current human being.

"Fine. But in return you must use your terminology correct too. Definition of "parasite" [...]"
I grant you completed my challenge of finding a definition to suit your stance, but I still do trust biology.com over dictionary.com when it comes to biology-related terms. What's ironic, though, is that the second definition of "parasite" of dictionary.com would apply to a fetus if a fetus should be considered a human being: "a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others".

"Excatly. By doing this, you are eliminating it's purpose to become a human. You are ending the possibility of a new, unique, human being."
It's amazing that throughout this entire debate you have only defined the word "abortion" as if the definition is an argument itself. You have yet to validly explain why this should be frowned upon, and I think you are only making sense to the already-convinced.

She just shouldn't have gotten pregnant

My opponent continued to drop my arguments of failed contraceptives and rape. Extend arguments and refutations.

It's not the whatever-it-is' fault

"So would you rather have 10000 people survive or 1 person?"
I'm not saying every pregnant woman should have an abortion. I'm saying that if a woman considers the risks to her health and wants to have an abortion, one should be medically available to her and it should not be considered morally wrong.

It can feel pain

"So where is this "study"? You provide no source or details."
I want to say this in such a way that won't embarrass you, but I'm not sure that's possible so I'll just say it: I was quoting the study you yourself referenced. It was your own argument and I'm not sure how you didn't recognize it.

"I concede that an abortion is less painful than childbirth."
Then this entire argument about avoidance of pain is in favor of pro-choice, not pro-life.

A human is good for the economy

Still ignored. Extend arguments and refutations.

It's a woman's purpose

Posing new arguments in the final round is discouraged, but I will refute it anyway since it is probably your weakest one yet.

"It is the mother's niche to bear fetuses."
You argue that because we have evolved a certain way, or because our body is naturally designed to do a particular thing, we should not be allowed to go against it. In other words, behaviors and actions which go against our primitive natures should not be granted.

I must say, this is the silliest argument for pro-life I've encountered. Wisdom teeth are naturally designed to chew food, so should we not be allowed to remove them? Fingernails are naturally designed to claw at predators and prey, so should we not be allowed to cut them? It is utterly ridiculous to say something is immoral because it goes against the flow of our ancestors' evolution.

"You can't just let go of your role."
Fortunately, you can.

"If trees decided that they did not want to be trees, then the world would be in chaos."
If trees decid... are you serious? I will ignore, for the moment, that trees are incapable of any kind of thought processes. Are you suggesting Hellfire would rain from the cosmos if trees decided they didn't want to be trees, eh? Well, maybe chaos is a good thing then. It's at least better than conformity, subservience, and oppression.

My opponent's rebuttal

"A fetus is not a human.
Life is a human right.
Therefore, it is amoral to kill a fetus.

My rebuttal to it is that a fetus becomes a future human."
Unfortunately, your rebuttal does not attempt to negate the truth of either premise or render the conclusion invalid. Therefore, the argument stands.

My opponent's sources

Both my opponent and I have dared you to view abortionfacts.com, so curiousity will inevitably be your downfall. By viewing it, you will see that this source is worth at least negative ten points, so I will humbly accept your "reliable sources" vote along with your "convincing arguments" vote.

16kadams (in the comments section): "So their now suddenly pro life religious zealots? How?!"
Since he has apparently taken upon himself to be Con's defense attorney in the trial of his sources' credibility (probably because he's the one who gave them to him), he has postulated the implication that abortionfacts.com is, in fact, not religiously motivated. To allay this objection, I merely ask you to look at the goddamn site and notice the sidebar has a "Abortion and the Bible" section.

Case closed. My opponent has not provided a single argument against abortion that could survive even minute scrutiny (and some of his arguments were even easily turned around to be in support of pro-choice). In conclusion, vote Pro or vote for the oppression of human rights.

Debate Round No. 5
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mtue98 4 years ago
mtue98
It was a very good debate for pro. Con tried hard but i would suggest he studies the topic more fully on both sides and weighs the arguments he presents before he presents them. and on a completely unrelated related note, that tree thing made me laugh so hard.
Posted by KeytarHero 4 years ago
KeytarHero
Oh, nevermind. I thought you meant when you voted. I guess you can't change or delete comments.
Posted by KeytarHero 4 years ago
KeytarHero
Illegalcombatant -- you can correct it, if you want. Just change it and then click "cast my vote" again.
Posted by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
1dustpelt
Please do not use foul language like "Godda**" in any future debates. Thank you.
Posted by logicrules 4 years ago
logicrules
Anyone under 80 who argues that potentiality is invalid is on extremely dangerous ground, historically and morally.
Posted by Illegalcombatant 4 years ago
Illegalcombatant
I mixed up Pro & Con in my comments. Pro should read Con, and Con should read Pro.
Posted by Illegalcombatant 4 years ago
Illegalcombatant
Con refuted Pros argument in the first round. Pro then had to back track and change their argument on points like, its wrong to kill a human being changed to its wrong to kill an innocent human being & a woman decides to get pregnant to well not all women who get pregnant had the desire to get pregnant.

After that we got some more arguments from Pro such as avoidance of pain, a woman niche & the potentiality of a human being. The avoidance of pain seems to favor abortion over birth.

Con makes the distinction between potential human being and actual human being and Pro doesn't seem to be able to bridge that gap.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Btw I'm not voting on this as I gave him sources to use.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
So their now suddenly pro life religious zealots? How?!
Posted by DakotaKrafick 4 years ago
DakotaKrafick
"Fundies" = "Funded"?

I, again, question your reading comprehension.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
1dustpeltDakotaKrafickTied
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: Even though I helped con when it came to sources, well who cares lol. Pro won almost all of the arguments presented if not all. Even though I think his arguments where false he made them sound and be more logical then cons. I think pros "scrutiny" as he put it disproved cons arguments. I am tempted to give conduct con for arguing about my comment and the red herring on sources, but whatever.
Vote Placed by Yarely 4 years ago
Yarely
1dustpeltDakotaKrafickTied
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: Pro definitely made much more logical and cohesive arguments while Con never really fully rebutted Con's arguments therefore Pro wins
Vote Placed by KeytarHero 4 years ago
KeytarHero
1dustpeltDakotaKrafickTied
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: I am very much pro-life but am forced to give Pro the win. Con's arguments are incredibly faulty (e.g. the fetus is not a potential human, it *is* a human, just like the embryo and zygote are actual human beings -- this is why it deserves a right to life). I would urge Con to do more research on the pro-life case so he can make a more informed argument in the future.
Vote Placed by Illegalcombatant 4 years ago
Illegalcombatant
1dustpeltDakotaKrafickTied
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: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by Maikuru 4 years ago
Maikuru
1dustpeltDakotaKrafickTied
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 won every argument; Pro showed that a fetus is not yet a human, a fetus cannot legally be considered murdered, pregnancies are not always intentional, a pain-avoiding mindset favors abortion over pregnancy and childbirth, a fetus is parasitic, and birth is an economical wash. Con either dropped these arguments or simply reiterated already defeated points throughout. Con's case was lost the moment he conceded that a fetus is only human after birth, essentially eliminating any possible rights.