The Instigator
Prez_Siler
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Rational_Thinker9119
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points

Abortion

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Rational_Thinker9119
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/23/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 811 times Debate No: 24832
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

Prez_Siler

Con

I am arguing that abortion is murder of an innocent life, and that Roe v. Wade should be overturned.
Rational_Thinker9119

Pro

My opponent did not say that first round was for acceptance, so I am just going to jump in. This debate was suicide for my opponent from the get go. Con wants to argue that abortion is an unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another (murder), and that a decision making abortion more lawful than it already is, should be overturned.

mur·der/ˈmərdər/




Noun:

The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
Verb:

Kill (someone) unlawfully and with premeditation.

[1]




My opponent's position is incoherent. This is because, if Roe v. Wade exists, then abortion cannot be unlawful (Roe v. Wade enhances the lawfulness of abortion), and therefore it is not murder. On the other hand, if abortion is murder, then Roe v. Wade wouldn't exist, and therefore, it being overturned would be impossible.

Vote Pro.

Sources

[1] http://oxforddictionaries.com...



Debate Round No. 1
Prez_Siler

Con

Law does not define terms. By what you are saying if the government made murder legal then there would be no murder. There would still be murder, it just wouldn't be prosecuted. I would like it if you actually argued the issue that is at hand instead of trying to jump on a technicality, in my first sentence. For you I will restate my opening argument.

I am arguing that abortion is the immoral killing of another human innocent life. It is not the choice of the mother to decide whether or not the fetus is aborted.

I am sorry for my confusing opening statement but I hope that you will continue a serious debate on my restated argument.
Rational_Thinker9119

Pro

Rebutting My Opponent

"
Law does not define terms."

Murder is defined as unlawful. Therefore, being unlawful is a necessary condition which needs to be in place, for a murder to take place.

"By what you are saying if the government made murder legal then there would be no murder."

If the government made killing of any kind was lawful, then murder would not exist.

"There would still be murder, it just wouldn't be prosecuted. I would like it if you actually argued the issue that is at hand instead of trying to jump on a technicality, in my first sentence. For you I will restate my opening argument."

There would not be murder, because it wouldn't be against the law. Murder is defined as unlawful. Here is another definition:

"mur·der
n.
1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice."[1]


"I am arguing that abortion is the immoral killing of another human innocent life. It is not the choice of the mother to decide whether or not the fetus is aborted."

This is great, but I accepted the debate on the terms my opponent provided in the first round. For trying to change it mid-debate, I urge a conduct vote for Pro. Regardless, I will still debate with this new argument for fun, but I hope the voters are aware the resolution has already been negated, and an argument vote for Pro is warranted regardless of any further argumentation.

"I am sorry for my confusing opening statement but I hope that you will continue a serious debate on my restated argument."

When one doesn't make serious opening arguments, how can one expect to get serious responses? It doesn't matter anyway, my response was very serious.


Argument In Favor Of Abortion Not Being Immoral

P1: Human life gains moral value when when consciousness is obtained, and/ or pain can be felt
P2: A first and second trimester fetus is not conscious (about as conscious as a kidney), and can feel no pain.
P3: Most abortions (99%) are obtained in the first and second trimester of pregnancy
P4: Abortion is not unethical


Regarding Premise 1:

Human life's value begins when consciousness begins and/or pain can be felt is more than a fair statement. It's only rational to assume that human life's value is based on the actions and feelings of conscious beings. It's also rational to assume that if a being isn't conscious and can feel no pain, then there is nothing immoral which can be done to this being. It is morally dead.


Regarding Premise 2:

Abortions carried out in the first and second trimester have absolutely no moral implications once so ever, due to the fact that a first trimester embryo is not conscious [2]. Also, first and second trimester embryos can feel absolutely no pain once so ever because pain receptors are required for this. Pain receptors need a neotox which is not formed until the third trimester [2].


Regarding Premise 3

Over 88% of all abortions are actually done within the first trimester [3]. Some sources even claim that the number is more around 88-92% [4]. What about second trimester abortions?


"About 140,000 second trimester abortions are performed yearly. They represent 9% of the total"

So, I think it is safe to say that close to all abortions

Regarding Premise 4

Since first and second trimester embryos have no consciousness and cannot feel pain, and 99% abortions are carried out in the first and second trimester, then the majority of abortions don't really imply any genuine negative moral implications (and therefore, should not be considered unethical).


A Woman Has a Right To Choose

A woman has a right to do with her own body as she pleases. Even is she commits suicide after like some women do, that wouldn't mean the woman didn't have the right to do it or it was unethical. What is unethical is restricting someone's right to chose what they want to do with their own body, especially when we are dealing with a subject that isn't even aware it exists and can feel no pain.


Since this woman a conscious being and can feel pain, while the subject in question does not meet the requirements, then not letting this woman have the right to chose to have an abortion would be extremely unethical.

Conclusion

I amused my opponent by rebutting her the argument, but the one I agreed to debate to has been negated clearly without sufficient rebuttal.


Sources

[1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
[2] http://civilliberty.about.com...
[3] http://contraception.about.com...
[4] http://www.abort73.com...

Debate Round No. 2
Prez_Siler

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for continuing the argument in spite of my faulty first sentence. I do not mind if anyone votes Pro because of that. However I did not start this debate so I could add a win to my stat column. I started this debate so that hopefully I could change some minds. So despite the confusion in the first to rounds I hope to place forth my case as well as possible in this 3rd and final round.

I will argue purely against my opponents four premises.

P1&P2."Human life gains moral value when when Human life gains moral value when consciousness is obtained, and/ or pain can be felt"

Three years ago I was in a high school football game. I went out on a fly passing route and was clipped on the side of my helmet by the free safety of the opposing team. I was out cold. I was unconscious for 3 minutes and I was put on an ambulance to go to the hospital. When I was knocked out consciousness was not present, neither could I feel pain, but we would all acknowledge it would be immoral to have killed me on the spot. And while, yes, everyone knew I was going to regain consciousness, everyone knows that if you give a fetus time to develop in the womb and en birth it, it will gain consciousness and feel pain.

P3. If my rebuttal to P1&P2 stands then it doesn't matter that the fetus is in the first or second trimester.
During your argument you first stated that a human life loses value when it loses consciousness and feeling of pain. Then throughout your argument you mainly quoted pain.
"Also, first and second trimester embryos can feel absolutely no pain once so ever because pain receptors are required for this." This is because fetuses are conscious through week 10. [1]

Now you are arguing purely for killing living humans just because they can't feel pain, since the fetus is conscious. My friend Bethany has no feeling in her left arm. She was born that way. It would still be immoral for me to cut off her right arm because it doesn't feel pain. Just because something doesn't feel does not mean it loses its worth.

(P4) Even according to your own argument, a portion of abortions are immoral, so I am wondering if you would support making it illegal to commit an abortion in the third trimester. If so, what if a woman wants to have an abortion one day before or after the 3rd trimester starts? What about minutes or seconds after the 3rd trimester starts?

Woman's Right to Choose

I completely agree that a woman, as well as a man has every right to do whatever they want to with their own body.
I even agree that humans have the right to drink, eat, and smoke whatever they want to and the government has no role to play in humans personal lives. I believe all humans have the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The fetus also has the same rights. The fetus is a separate being to the mother. It is dependant on its mother just like an asthmatic is dependant on an inhaler as well as an infant is dependant on its mother. The mother has no right to infringe on the right of the fetus.

[1]http://www.eheart.com...
Rational_Thinker9119

Pro

Rebutting My Opponent's Arguments

"Three years ago I was in a high school football game. I went out on a fly passing route and was clipped on the side of my helmet by the free safety of the opposing team. I was out cold. I was unconscious for 3 minutes and I was put on an ambulance to go to the hospital. When I was knocked out consciousness was not present, neither could I feel pain, but we would all acknowledge it would be immoral to have killed me on the spot. And while, yes, everyone knew I was going to regain consciousness, everyone knows that if you give a fetus time to develop in the womb and en birth it, it will gain consciousness and feel pain."

This has nothing to do with my argument, thus the entire paragraph above can be disregarded. My argument, is that human life gains moral value when when consciousness is obtained, and/ or pain can be felt. Consciousness would have obviously been obtained before my opponent got knocked unconscious, or else, my opponent couldn't have been knocked unconscious because he never would have been conscious to begin with.

Since my opponent is using examples that have nothing to do with my argument, they can be dismissed. Con would still have moral value because Con would have reached consciousness and the ability to feel pain. Temporarily losing any of these things has no bearing on whether they have been obtained or not to begin with.

"If my rebuttal to P1&P2 stands then it doesn't matter that the fetus is in the first or second trimester."

Con's rebuttal had nothing to do with my argument. My argument deals with a subject that has not obtained consciousness at all, Con's rebuttal deals with a subject that obtained consciousness but temporarily lost it. Therefore, Con's rebuttal clearly does not stand.

"During your argument you first stated that a human life loses value when it loses consciousness and feeling of pain."

This is not what I said. I never claimed that human life loses it's value when it loses consciousness temporarily or stops feeling pain temporarily. I claimed that human life gains moral value when when consciousness is obtained, and/ or pain can be felt in the first place.

"Now you are arguing purely for killing living humans just because they can't feel pain, since the fetus is conscious."

When did I argue this? I never argued this, once. I argued that the being has to not be able to feel pain, and the being has to not have obtained consciousness yet.

"My friend Bethany has no feeling in her left arm. She was born that way. It would still be immoral for me to cut off her right arm because it doesn't feel pain. Just because something doesn't feel does not mean it loses its worth."


This friend would be conscious though, a fetus is not conscious. I said that if a being has any of the two qualities (has obtained consciousness, can feel pain), then this being is morally valuable. Also, if Bethany allowed Con to cut it off, there is nothing wrong with that. I fail to see how anything my opponent said, undermined any of my claims in the slightest.


"Even according to your own argument, a portion of abortions are immoral, so I am wondering if you would support making it illegal to commit an abortion in the third trimester. If so, what if a woman wants to have an abortion one day before or after the 3rd trimester starts? What about minutes or seconds after the 3rd trimester starts?"

Yes, 1% of abortions are not done in the proper manner (done in the third trimester). However, a higher percentage of drivers drive in a non proper manner, and kill more people. Of course, driving isn't immoral because a small percentage of drivers do not do it properly.

Also, a line has to be drawn somewhere. I say the third trimester is a good place to draw it.

I completely agree that a woman, as well as a man has every right to do whatever they want to with their own body.
I even agree that humans have the right to drink, eat, and smoke whatever they want to and the government has no role to play in humans personal lives. I believe all humans have the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The fetus also has the same rights. The fetus is a separate being to the mother. It is dependant on its mother just like an asthmatic is dependant on an inhaler as well as an infant is dependant on its mother. The mother has no right to infringe on the right of the fetus.

A fetus has no moral rights. It has no consciousness or ability to feel pain, and is as morally valuable as an ant. The only thing one could say, is that it has the potential to be morally valuable. Well, so do the sperm that get wasted every time I masturbate or pull out. I lose no sleep over it, and neither should anybody else.

Conclusion

I already won this debate, due to the fact that the the initial position of my opponent was incoherent. Even if this wasn't the case, my opponent's whole case for abortion being immoral was baseless. I clearly showed that abortion as a whole is not immoral at all. I urge a vote for Pro, for obvious reasons.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Stupidwalrus 4 years ago
Stupidwalrus
Hah, never mind. It was accepted in the time it took to type out 10 words.
Posted by Stupidwalrus 4 years ago
Stupidwalrus
Would you mind clarifying burden of proof for this debate? I might be interested.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Numidious 4 years ago
Numidious
Prez_SilerRational_Thinker9119Tied
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 found Rational Thinker's arguments to be coherent and convincing, whereas Prez_Siler's were not convincing, or more correctly, Prez_Siler's were correctly countere by Rational Thinker, I thought the response to the anecdote on unconsciousness especially convincing and it was something I had wondered about myself for a time.