Debate Rounds (4)
Abortion : the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy. (according to the dictionary).
Pt1) Abortion is murder
Picture a young girl named Lily.
Imagine her holding out a gun and murdering someone. This was done by her own actions, and this is wrong as well as against the law.
Now picture her pregnant, and having an abortion. Now see that there is not much difference between these two stories.
Both involve one main thing,
Abortion is for a fact the act of killing a child at your own will. Now how is this not murder?
Definition of murder:the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another
I believe abortion fits murder very well. You cannot deny the fact that in the end, no matter how quick or painless the abortion is, the child still dies, and the mother has decided to do it.
Pt2) Why do women want an abortion in the first place? Chances are because they didn't want a baby in the first place. Well It is they're own fault anyway. They brought this responsibility upon themselves, and they should face that responsibility. All women who have abortions are cowards, too scared to face challenges that life offers to them, too afraid to fix what that they have caused upon themselves. Abortion is killing a child, because you do not wish to take care of it. Would you kill off a guest, which you have invited into your own home, because you do not wish to care for him/her? Having a baby when you're a teen sucks. But that's life and you should learn from your mistakes. Not by having an abortion but by nurturing a child. Your child.
Pt3) The unborn child is innocent, and does not deserve this. It did not wish to exist so you have no right to blame the problem on the baby, and yet the mother chooses an abortion. I believe that every human being, no matter how SMALL, deserve a fair chance in life to live. Abortion is the act of WILLINGLY wanting to murder an innocent child, who won't ever be able to experience what you and I have experienced. To see, smell,taste, hear and touch. To never be able to do what you and I have done in our lives.
Therefore, the conclusion is, Abortion should not be legalised. Nobody deserves to be treated this way, it is inhumane.
So that sums up exactly what I think of abortion. I didn't use any sources except for the dictionary, and this site which I found :
It is totally irrelevant to the topic really, but I checked this out as I didn't know how babies were aborted.
I cried. This is so sad...
Anyway, on with the actual debate. I would begin by saying that I agree with your very last sentence. Abortion is sad. It's incredibly sad. I don't think that any woman who has one goes into it lightly, and I would agree that in an ideal world, it would never happen. In an ideal world, women would only fall pregnant when they're ready to have a child.
But we don't live in an ideal world. We live in a flawed world, an imperfect world, where mistakes happen and bad choices are made. And I do believe that there are times when a woman does have the moral right to terminate her own pregnancy.
So let me start by challenging one of your central claims. I do not agree that all abortion is murder. By your own definition, murder is defined as the killing of another human being; but I don't agree that all fetuses are human beings. I'd be happy to accept that an 8 month old fetus is a human being, for instance, but I would think it absurd to claim that an egg, ten seconds after fertilisation, is a human being. Yes, if left alone it will eventually develop into one, but there is an initial period of time where the entity within the woman's womb is not a human being; and so, during this time, I submit that the woman, who has the right of control over her own body, has every right to terminate the pregnancy if she so wishes. And so I believe abortion should be legal during this period of time.
Now, in your second point, you go on to make a very strong claim, namely that "all women who have abortions are cowards, ... too afraid to fix what they have caused upon themselves." My first point would be that you are on very dangerous ground to presume to know the mindset of every single woman who has an abortion. Are some simply scared, in the way that you allege? Quite possibly. But it seems to me that this claim seems to be formed out of emotional prejudice rather than rational fact, based on evidence. Have you not considered the possibility that some women might choose to have an abortion, not because they're scared, but simply because they've come to the rational decision, based on their own individual life circumstances, that they do not wish to have a baby?
Of course, to that you might well say 'Tough! They should have thought about that before they got pregnant.' But not all pregnancies are deliberate. No method of contraception is 100% effective. Furthermore, there is the obvious counterexample of those women who fall pregnant as a result of rape. Such women, obviously, do not plan their pregnancies. Are you saying that all women in this situation should be forced to bear their rapist's child?
Of course, maybe you think that the following sentence: 'I believe that every human being, no matter how SMALL, deserve a fair chance in life to live' still holds, even in that terrible situation. I hope you don't, but if you do, I would ask if you have ever considered just how incredibly wasteful the human reproductive system actually is. During your life, your body will produce around 400 eggs, the vast majority of which will come to nothing. Furthermore, upon ejaculation, the human male produces millions upon millions of sperm, of which only one can fertilise an egg - dooming the rest to oblivion. Each of those sperm, had they been the one to fertilise the egg, would have produced a different human being. Think of all the potential millions of people who could have been born instead of you. Consider how all those millions will, nevertheless, never get to see, smell, taste, hear or touch. This is the biological reality of our reproductive system. And I see no reason to condemn those women who choose to add one more to the pile.
lighth0us3 forfeited this round.
Furthermore, I will be very disappointed if you don't make any further response, lighth0us3; because if I can be quite frank, although you are young, you do come across to me as someone who has a brain and who can think and reason. If I have shown some of your arguments against abortion to be naive (which I think I have) then let your response not be to run away, but instead to make your arguments stronger, and come back at me with better and stronger reasons as to why abortion should be considered morally wrong. That way, we both learn something and improve in our intellectual reasoning!
Hello! I'd like to apologise to Telanian for posting so late, because for one thing I didn't know how to post second round (:s) and for another I was kind busy.And thank you for the warm welcome!
So without further ado let the debate begin!
"But we don't live in an ideal world. We live in a flawed world, an imperfect world,", yes, I do agree with you with no doubt that we lived in a world full of flaws. But we can change this for the better. Our lives depend on our choices, and the right choices are needed to be made. Imagine an abortion free world we could live in.
Definition of fetus: An unborn or unhatched offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception.
Lets say I tell you a lie. A white lie, a simple lie. A lie so obvious that you could tell I'm lying. No matter how small or large this lie is, It is, and always will be, a lie.
This can also be applied in this case.
The woman chooses to abort her baby. Whether the baby is aborted at 10 seconds or eight months after the fertilisation, the baby is still aborted in the end, and the baby dies in the end, and It does not matter who dies when. No matter how little pain the fetus feels before death, It is still death, and this cannot be denied. The definition of a fetus as an unborn human baby. Not animal nor half human, nor almost human. A fetus is still considered a human being.
Okay, I admit that I was wrong on the "all women who have abortions are cowards bit." But If a woman is rational enough to come to a descision to have an abortion, then why didn't she think of that before she had gotten pregnant? This is why I believe people should meet their challenges and face whatever they have caused upon themselves.
You have claimed that "No method of contraception is 100% effective.", everyone knows that. So why take the risk? If you take a risk in life, It is a gamble. You need to be prepared to face the consequences that what might happen to you. If you ever take a bet, you need to think whether it is rational enough to play something by chance. And If that woman has decided to take the risk, she is responsible for getting pregnant herself. Although I sympathise to those who have gone through the horrible stage of being raped, (no one deserves to go through that) I still strongly believe that there is simply not legit an excuse for having an abortion! There is no legit excuse enough for having an abortion, no one deserves to be aborted. And what do they have to say to all the strong women out there, the ones who didn't back down, even when faced with difficult problems such as rape, the ones who were proud of their babies and never gave up on them?
You consider the human production system wasteful? Well yeah, It is wasteful, but thats just the way we are made! We can never change that. I am not sure what you are implying here, but I am definitely not saying that women should use up their 400 eggs and keep getting pregnant.
"Consider how all those millions will, nevertheless, never get to see, smell, taste, hear or touch." But they were never meant to be humans in the first place! Everything happens for a reason, and those millions of other sperms and eggs were never meant to be born, ever. You have said "And I see no reason to condemn those women who choose to add one more to the pile." You are comparing between two different things. Those sperms and eggs never fertilised, and therefore they are 100% not human. So why should we care about non human things? They can be unborn for all I care.
What I am arguing about, Is that woman who have abortions, go against nature. They refuse to accept what is meant to be.
Take note that the life the woman is ending is not hers, so what gives her the right to choose whether her child lives or dies? That is up to nature to decide for sure. And I have read about how babies are aborted, and It is a cruel and terribly inhumane thing to do. But no matter how much the woman will think abortion is alright to do, It will always come back to haunt her. She will not have a clear conscience and always will be thinking of how different her life would be if her unborn child was still alive.
Now think of It this way. Have you ever seen any religion claim that Abortion is encouraged? No. And If you have I'll give up on this debate right now. All, If not most discourage it, in fact, because it is an act of no morality. Killing off the innocent is not right, and never will be.
Now, let me start by noting that you speak as if there is some kind of underlying meaning and purpose to everything that happens. You say for instance: "Everything happens for a reason, and those millions of other sperms and eggs were never meant to be born, ever." In the next paragraph you go on to say: "woman who have abortions, go against nature. They refuse to accept what is meant to be."
This, to me, betrays a fundamental inconsistency in your argument. It cannot be the case, as you claimed before, that your objection to abortion is based simply on the grounds that you are preventing the existence an entity that will never have the chance to experience the life that you and I experience. If it were, then you would have no choice but to care as well about all the eggs and sperm that are wasted all the time. You would have to be against all forms of contraception for instance, for if, for example, a man wears a condom and thereby prevents his sperm from reaching the egg, the effect is still exactly the same as if the egg had been fertilised and subsequently aborted. A human being that could have come into existence, hasn't. But yet you care about the one situation but not the other. Indeed, you display a complete disregard for the egg and the sperm in that situation, saying that they can be unborn for all you care.
So this isn't about allowing everyone who could be born, to be born, at all. And if it weren't already clear where you're really coming from, you somewhat give the game away with your mention of religion in your final paragraph. The hidden subtext that I interpret to be behind your arguments, and your bold assertions, is that you hold the classical Christian belief that all life is created by God, and that we human beings have no right to interfere with God's plan - in this case by destroying the 'life' that he has created.
If I have guessed correctly, then you need to show that God exists and that abortion is against his law. I for one do not deny that as far as I'm aware, no religion encourages abortion, but I don't particularly care what religions say because I am not religious. But even if God does exist, I don't accept your claim that by aborting a fetus, we are going against nature and thereby committing a wrongful act. Human beings go against nature all the time in all kinds of different ways - the computers by which we are currently communicating are most certainly not natural for instance; neither is the Internet. Vaccinations, and indeed medical science in general is most certainly 'against nature' - nature, in these situations is just to let people get sick and die!
So with that argument out of the way, all you have left is the claim that fetuses are human beings and that killing human beings is wrong. Now I of course agree with you that killing human beings is wrong, and I also agree with you in the narrow sense when you imply that we should not care about human beings, so the only issue here is whether or not a fetus is a human being. Let me say now that I do not accept your definition that a fetus is an unborn human baby, and I am not sure where that definition comes from. A fetus is certainly unborn, and will develop into a human baby if left alone, but why should we call it human? Indeed, a better definition comes from the medical part of the online free dictionary, which defines a fetus as the 'developing young in the uterus' , which seems to me to far more sensible.
I would also point out, as a minor point, that according to that definition (and your own), an embryo only becomes a fetus at around 8 weeks since conception, so by your own definition, you have no grounds on which to object to abortion within the first 8 weeks of pregnancy.
More substantially however, I further justify my claim that a fetus sufficiently early in the pregnancy cannot be considered a human being because the fetus itself, up until a given time, is not capable of surviving outside its mother's womb. Generally speaking, most fetuses cannot survive at less than 24 weeks, hence why in the UK abortion is only legal up to the 24'th week of pregnancy. That said, in some extreme cases, medical science has been known to keep fetuses as young as 21 weeks alive, but this is certainly not the norm and it safe to say that those taken outside the womb at 20 weeks or less will perish. And just to put that into perspective, 93% of all abortions carried out in the UK in 2009 were done before the 13th week anyway.  My fundamental point therefore is that fetus of this age, which is biologically incapable of surviving outside its mother's body surely cannot be considered to be an independent human entity, separate from its mother.
Indeed, I argue that until that point, the fetus is simply a part of the mother's body that is in the process of developing into a human entity, but that until that point, she, and she alone, has the right to decide what happens to it - in just the same way that you and I and anyone else have the right to decide what happens to our own bodies. I hold that it is a fundamental human right that every woman should be allowed to determine when she does or does not become a parent and that no-one should have a child forced on them against their will - and I therefore hold your answer to my question about rape to be particularly tragic. Those women who are raped and who nevertheless choose to have the child have every right to do so, but it is a twisted view of morality indeed that says that those women who do not wish to bear their rapist's child should be forced to do so.
For these reasons therefore, I continue to hold that it is the right of any woman who wishes to have an abortion sufficiently early in her pregnancy, to have one.
 = http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...
 = http://www.nhs.uk...
Damn it, Telanian, you have got me yet again.
But did you know, that in Australia, (where I live), It is legal to actually abort a baby, who has already been brought out of the womb, into the world? This is for all those women who kept thinking whether or not to abort the baby, and when the time finally came around, they just decided not to keep the baby, and the baby is killed? Now how is this not murder?
Human babies are precious, and women who actually WANT babies have miscarriages, which is very unfortunate. Yet all these women who are unwilling to care for them, kill them. Human life is precious, and If they don't want to care for the baby, why not give it away to someone who will love and care for it? Someone who actually wants to take the responsibility of the mother, who just can't bothered with her own children? Isn't that so much better? All those babies that were aborted could've reached so much potential, but was only stopped into doing so, by the mother's lack of responsibility
I will tell you a true story that happened to someone I know. And I swear on me and family's life that this is completely true.
A young woman had gotten pregnant, unintentionally, though she knew the risks. She had, at first, planned for an abortion, as she didn't have the money to even have the baby. 6 months later, she now holds her first baby, which looks absolutely perfect, and she could not imagine how she had thought of abortion at all. Do you know where she got the money? She didn't have to pay. It was 100%free of charge because the doctor was willing to carry out her pregnancy without payment.
Do you know why he did this?
It was because he was against abortion, and could not bear to have the thought of her, aborting her baby, when there was nothing wrong with it at all, because of the lack of money.
The baby was actually born last night, and my mother had gone to visit her just this afternoon.
Life could've been prevented in just one take of a pill, or just a bit of medication, and just like that, we wouldn't have the baby that is today.
I have planned to write so much more but there is only two minutes remaining.
I still am strongly against abortion, and though you have tangled me in my own words, I don't think much can change my point of view.
Now, with respect, I don't think you've given me that much to refute with your final round, although I do understand why this is the case. With experience, you get used to working within the time constraints.
Regarding Australia, I would just say that I know nothing about the legal state of affairs in Australia. I could look it up but I don't need to, because it's irrelevant to my position, and I don't want to confuse matters.
If it were the case that babies were being aborted after they had already been born, then I would consider that murder. Any reasonable person would, I think, consider that murder. So on that point we are agreed. My position is not, and never has been, that all abortion is fine. On the contrary, I have been consistently clear that I only support abortion up to a certain point in time - around 24 weeks or so after conception. After that point, I do consider a fetus to be a human being, and I would therefore consider any abortion to be an act of murder.
Regarding the true story that you told (and I'm happy to believe you that it's true) I would say that it is quite horrific that any woman might be made to feel that she has to have an abortion because she can't afford the pregnancy. In my own country (the UK) health care is free, so this is not an issue I have ever considered before. I would argue however that the way to solve this issue is to reform the health care system so that women are not charged to have children. If the UK and other European countries can do it, then I'm sure that an advanced country such as Australia can do it as well.
So, I agree with you that it is incredibly bad for a woman to feel herself forced into an abortion because she can't afford the pregnancy, but the answer to that is not to make abortion itself illegal, but to remove the bad reason itself, and thus not force women to pay for having their baby. This is because, as I outlined in previous reasons, there are perfectly reasonable and legitimate reasons for wanting abortions (such as rape for example) and I see no reason why choice should be restricted for those women who do have a legitimate reason.
In summary, I reiterate that I too believe that a human life is precious, but that a fetus is not a human being until it is sufficiently advanced so as to be able to survive outside the mother's body (at around 24 weeks.) Up until that point, the woman has the right to choose what happens to her own body, and a more fundamental right to choose whether or not she wishes to become a mother - a right that is only overridden by the fetus' right to life once it becomes sufficiently advanced. I submit that my opponent has shown no substantial reasons for restricting the choice of these women, and since there are surely perfectly legitimate grounds for wanting an abortion (rape for example) I must therefore urge a pro vote.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.