The Instigator
Xie-Xijivuli
Con (against)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
LB628
Pro (for)
Winning
28 Points

Abortion

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/26/2009 Category: Health
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 837 times Debate No: 7984
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (6)

 

Xie-Xijivuli

Con

Hello, and thanks to LB628 for accepting the debate I have made. I, for one, think this will be very productive and fun.

I shall start arguing once my opponents has answered these questions. If you could do so, LB, thanks!

1) Why do you support abortion?
2) If the fetus was proved human, would you become pro-life?
3) Why doesn't the fetus have any rights, in your opinion? (Or, what rights does it not have and why.)
LB628

Pro

1) Why do you support abortion?
2) If the fetus was proved human, would you become pro-life?
3) Why doesn't the fetus have any rights, in your opinion? (Or, what rights does it not have and why.)

1: I support the right to an abortion for several reasons, the first of which is the right to do what you please to your own body. Seeing as I believe that a fetus is most definitely a part of a woman's body, it is her choice to abort it or not. My second is more of a moral issue. I am a utilitarianist, which is to say that I believe that the morally correct action is the one which produces the most happiness for the largest number of people. Given that there are numerous instances of poor, relatively uneducated, young, women who have gotten pregnant, giving birth to the child would not only cause her more misery, because she would have to support the child, but the child would also have a great amount of unhappiness, because the mother does not have the resources to properly care for it. Abortion is a way to prevent this.

2: No. There are two reasons. The first is that the pro-life position is one of moral absolutism, saying that it is always wrong for an action to occur, which I think is completely untenable. There are instances where it is acceptable to kill a human, and if a fetus were shown to be a human, than those instances would apply to it as well. When there are exceptions to a morally absolutist stance, then that stance does not work.

3: A fetus only has the rights the mother wishes to extend to it. A fetus is, in essence, a parasite. It would be completely unable to survive without leaching resources from an outside source. The host, in this instance the mother, has the ability to dictate what rights the fetus does and does not have because the fetus is leaching off of her. Otherwise, it is akin to advocating that tapeworms should not be killed, because tapeworms have rights. If a mother does not wish to have a fetus is is no different than a tapeworm.

My arguments are actually pretty well detailed above. I support the option of abortion, because I find the pro-life absolutism to be an untenable moral position, and because I believe that people have the right to do whatever they wish to their bodies.
Debate Round No. 1
Xie-Xijivuli

Con

Thanks to LB628! I may not be able to post quickly; I have a busy schedule for the next week. (TAKS)

http://abort73.com...
====
I support the right to an abortion for several reasons, the first of which is the right to do what you please to your own body. Seeing as I believe that a fetus is most definitely a part of a woman's body, it is her choice to abort it or not
====

Okay, I see what you are saying. The woman has right to her own body. Her baby, her choice.

Why then does the fetus not get a voice? The fetus's body is more its own than the mothers! The fetus, at the time of most abortions, can pump its own blood, move, and do many things we humans can do born. You say at the bottom, "... I believe that people have the right to do whatever they wish to their bodies," yet you are not giving everyone the opportunity to choose.

Now, the fetus does not have a voice. The fetus cannot say whether he wants to die or not. However, we have many clues that point to the conclusion that fetuses don't like being sucked to death. (first link I list)

====
I am a utilitarianist, which is to say that I believe that the morally correct action is the one which produces the most happiness for the largest number of people. Given that there are numerous instances of poor . . .
====

Well, first, refer to the video above once again. Secondly, I want you to ask yourself, "Would I be happy if I were the fetus in the situation of abortion?" Let us assume a fetus can at least feel the emotion of happiness or despair. (Now, please -- answer honestly. If you were about to be killed in a similar way to a fetus, would you be "happy?")

Quoted from abortionfacts.com:
Do you believe the new "ethic" should be that we kill the suffering or burdensome? Some of these cases are tragic, some are also inspirational. We cannot assume the responsibility for killing an unborn child simply because the child has not yet been seen in public. The child's place of residence does not change what abortion does - kill a human being.

====
he first is that the pro-life position is one of moral absolutism, saying that it is always wrong for an action to occur, which I think is completely untenable.
====

A fetus isn't killed because of what it has or hasn't done. It is killed for convenience. I am morally absolute on the fact killing a 'clean' baby (One who hasn't sinned or done wrong by our society's standards) shouldn't be legal.

Would you kill a baby 10 seconds before it came out of the womb? 10 seconds after?

====
A fetus only has the rights the mother wishes to extend to it. A fetus is, in essence, a parasite
====

Have you heard of a beneficial parasite? ("Symbiosis"?) Well, the fetus can be a symbiotical relation. For instance, it can raise his/her mother when s/he grows up. He can provide joy. A fetus is a parasite in the sense that it sucks from the mother. However, it is a parasite that will become a human in less than one year. It is a parasite that rarely kills. It is a parasite that has rights. It is not a tapeworm, it is a fetus.

I am dependent on MY mother. I need her to cook for me (I tried to cook once; I am now on the Fire Dept's bad boy list.) I need her to pay for the house and work (My family is divorced). I need her to support my brother and I. Does this mean I am not human?

What about a baby born early? Are they not dependent on their little oxygen tanks? Without them they would die! Dos this mean they cannot receive the rights of a human? (This can also go for an elderly person with breathing issues.)

-

I would smile, LB628 -- YOUR mother chose LIFE.
LB628

Pro

First, as an overview to my opponents case, you can group his arguments, because they all center around the rights of the fetus, primarily the right to life. However, rights are not inviolable when they interfere with the welfare of society as a whole or with that of another individual. Otherwise, people would be free to murder at will, because of freedom of action. So, we can vote Pro just based off of that, but I answer his arguments individually further down.

"Okay, I see what you are saying. The woman has right to her own body. Her baby, her choice.

Why then does the fetus not get a voice? The fetus's body is more its own than the mothers! The fetus, at the time of most abortions, can pump its own blood, move, and do many things we humans can do born. You say at the bottom, "... I believe that people have the right to do whatever they wish to their bodies," yet you are not giving everyone the opportunity to choose.

Now, the fetus does not have a voice. The fetus cannot say whether he wants to die or not. However, we have many clues that point to the conclusion that fetuses don't like being sucked to death. (first link I list)"

======

On the contrary, I would say that the fetus does not posses it's own body. It inhabits the mother, derives sustenance from her, cannot leave her without dying, unless it is ready to be born. It is not an independent organism, and as such, does not have an independent voice.

======

"Well, first, refer to the video above once again. Secondly, I want you to ask yourself, "Would I be happy if I were the fetus in the situation of abortion?" Let us assume a fetus can at least feel the emotion of happiness or despair. (Now, please -- answer honestly. If you were about to be killed in a similar way to a fetus, would you be "happy?")"

=====

First, I disagree with the premise that a fetus can feel happiness or despair, but, if I were to accept it, I do not think I would feel happiness or despair because I would have no knowledge of what was about to happen.

========

"Quoted from abortionfacts.com:
Do you believe the new "ethic" should be that we kill the suffering or burdensome? Some of these cases are tragic, some are also inspirational. We cannot assume the responsibility for killing an unborn child simply because the child has not yet been seen in public. The child's place of residence does not change what abortion does - kill a human being."

========

This has nothing to do with the suffering or burdensome. First, I deny the premise of a fetus' humanity. Fetus' are not able to survive if independent from one particular source of nutrients. Humans are. Second, humans can, at least in a primitive way, express emotions which other humans can interpret. Fetus' have never been shown to do so.
Secondly, however, and this is a point I will refer to later, there is a difference between what I will call a willing and an unwilling parasite. If someone wishes to take care of people who would not be able to do so by themselves, that is fine. But when the person in question has no choice in the matter but is obligated by law to maintain that parasite, there is an issue.

======

"A fetus isn't killed because of what it has or hasn't done. It is killed for convenience. I am morally absolute on the fact killing a 'clean' baby (One who hasn't sinned or done wrong by our society's standards) shouldn't be legal."

=======

So you are certain that there is absolutely no situation, no matter how outlandish, ill-conceived or just plain unlikely, that would make it moral to kill a baby?

=======

"Would you kill a baby 10 seconds before it came out of the womb? 10 seconds after?"

=======

Personally? No I would not. When I am talking about abortion, I talking about the time fairly early in the fetus' development, not just before it comes out the womb, which is something of a gray area(what is the actual moment of birth?).

=======

"Have you heard of a beneficial parasite? ("Symbiosis"?) Well, the fetus can be a symbiotical relation. For instance, it can raise his/her mother when s/he grows up. He can provide joy. A fetus is a parasite in the sense that it sucks from the mother. However, it is a parasite that will become a human in less than one year. It is a parasite that rarely kills. It is a parasite that has rights. It is not a tapeworm, it is a fetus."

=========

First, what you are saying is that the relationship only becomes symbiotic AFTER the fetus is born, not during the period when it can be aborted, which is what we are talking about.
But Second, refer back to my distinction between willing and unwilling parasite. If the mother is willing to take care of the fetus, then yeah, no issues. But if she is not and never wanted the child in the first place, where does society derive the authority to tell her, it does not matter whether you like it or not, you must go through the painful process of birth, then raise this child, including all of the financial costs that incurs, because the other option, which would have a better outcome for everyone, is disliked by some of the population?.

==========

"I am dependent on MY mother. I need her to cook for me (I tried to cook once; I am now on the Fire Dept's bad boy list.) I need her to pay for the house and work (My family is divorced). I need her to support my brother and I. Does this mean I am not human?"

=========

Nope. You are perfectly human. I am not saying dependency removes humanity, I am saying it removes a lot of rights (for instance, while [if] you are under the age of 18, at least in the United States, basically your entire life is subject to legal parental control). My arguments against including fetus' as human are elsewhere.

So, to recap.
My opponent has provided no real alternative philosophy by which to judge this debate, so we use the one I have provided of utilitarianism. This means that in order to decide the winner in this round, we look to which side best provides for greatest happiness. That side is clearly Pro, because it allows for the option of preventing unhappiness in the parent, child and society as a whole, while the Con forces the child to be born, under the idea that being a miserable hobo is better than not being alive to become a miserable hobo. Remember, if I can show any instance where a moral absolute would not hold true, we reject that absolute.

The choice is clear. Vote pro.
Debate Round No. 2
Xie-Xijivuli

Con

====
On the contrary, I would say that the fetus does not posses it's own body
====

According to http://dictionary.reference.com..., Possession (the one that applies most to our current topic) is "the control over oneself, one's mind, etc."

Now, a fetus can move itself. A fetus has simple thought patterns. A fetus can tell itself to kick. A fetus possesses its body. Why do you think that the fetus does not posses its own body?
-
Let me rephrase the question: Would you enjoy being killed in a way similar to that of a fetus?
-

====
First, I deny the premise of a fetus' humanity. Fetus' are not able to survive if independent from one particular source of nutrients. Humans are.
====

Wrong. Humans cannot survive without nutrients we sap from earth. We need the sun, the earth, foood, etc. We aren't self-sufficient. If you base humanity partially on the ability to sustain itself without outside help, then you consider humans un-human.

====
Second, humans can, at least in a primitive way, express emotions which other humans can interpret. Fetus' have never been shown to do so.
====

So, emotion = human and/or sentience? Well, if you look at the video I posted in the argument above, I think you can clearly see the expression of pain and despair on its face. If not, either a) get reading glasses, or b) watch the video in HD.

====
Secondly, however, and this is a point I will refer to later, there is a difference between what I will call a willing and an unwilling parasite. If someone wishes to take care of people who would not be able to do so by themselves, that is fine. But when the person in question has no choice in the matter but is obligated by law to maintain that parasite, there is an issue.
====

A person is not always forced to hold that pregnancy. There are many other options, such as vitro-fertilization. If there is a person who, by law, is killed without a say nor care, there is an issue. I understand that there are people out there who cannot support babies. They can adopt, but they cannot kill.

====
So you are certain that there is absolutely no situation, no matter how outlandish, ill-conceived or just plain unlikely, that would make it moral to kill a baby?
====

Yes. No one has the right to kill another. If the baby is born and the mother dies (Unlikely in the US), it is tragic -- but life for the child can go on.

Let me explain... an abortion can kill any single baby to twins and beyond. Therefore, we can conclude that there are more deaths to abortion than being forced to carry the child. If the baby dies, in my opinion, it is worse -- the mother has had an opportunity to live and experience life, whereas the child has not.

====
Personally? No I would not. When I am talking about abortion, I talking about the time fairly early in the fetus' development, not just before it comes out the womb, which is something of a gray area(what is the actual moment of birth?).
====

Well, even an hour before birth, the baby is dependent on the mother -- and by your own definition, not human. You may not do it personally, but your logic could allow you. (Sorry... by seconds I mean minutes... it was ate at night! :D)

====
First, what you are saying is that the relationship only becomes symbiotic AFTER the fetus is born, not during the period when it can be aborted, which is what we are talking about.
====

Well, I would like to point out that the fetus will usually become beneficial. A baby cannot benefit, but with time, s/he could become productive, moral, and helpful to society.

====
Nope. You are perfectly human. I am not saying dependency removes humanity, I am saying it removes a lot of rights (for instance, while [if] you are under the age of 18, at least in the United States, basically your entire life is subject to legal parental control). My arguments against including fetus' as human are elsewhere.
====

Tell me, why did you not answer my question on the earlt-born: What about a baby born early? Are they not dependent on their little oxygen tanks? Without them they would die! Dos this mean they cannot receive the rights of a human? (This can also go for an elderly person with breathing issues.)

http://www.abortiontv.com...
abortionno.org

Since my opponent wants alternative reasons not to have an abortion, I shall provide another: The health of the woman. Here is a basic overview of consequences of abortion:

By Mrs. Ann Warner
[ Visit http://www.christianliferesources.com... in addition]
Physical Effects:

Miscarriages
Ectopic Pregnancies
Perforated Uterus/Infections
Nervousness
Frigidity
Sterility/Stillbirths
Shock
Fever/Cold Sweats
Loss of Other Organs

Psychological Effects:

Unfulfillment/Sense of Loss
Loss of Confidence in Decision-Making
Intense Interest in Babies
Loss of Interest in Sexual Contact
Feeling of Dehumanization
Feelings of Being exploited
Flashback of the Actual Abortion
Guilt/Suicidal Impulses
Anniversaries (of Actual Due Date and Abortion Date)
Eating Disorders
Sleeping Disorders
Low Self-Esteem
Fear of Something Happening to One of their Other Children
Problem with Trusting Another Partner
Fear of Never Being Given Another Pregnancy
Depression/Anxiety
Interruption of the Bonding Process with Present and/or Future Children
Survival Guilt
Alcohol/Drug Abuse

http://www.nrlc.org...
LB628

Pro

To start off, my opponent has failed to respond to my overview where I explain that rights are not, and cannot be inviolable. So, we vote Pro right there. But I will respond to each of his points.

====

"According to http://dictionary.reference.com......, Possession (the one that applies most to our current topic) is "the control over oneself, one's mind, etc."

Now, a fetus can move itself. A fetus has simple thought patterns. A fetus can tell itself to kick. A fetus possesses its body. Why do you think that the fetus does not posses its own body?
-
Let me rephrase the question: Would you enjoy being killed in a way similar to that of a fetus?"
-

====
No I would not. But I fail to see how this is relevant. Whether or not I would enjoy the process, or indeed, whether or not the fetus enjoys the process is irrelevant to the overall argument. And to answer the possession argument, it really depends on how far you are willing to stretch "control over ones self". I suppose that while technically fetus' have independence of movement, etc, when you consider their surroundings, no, not really. Would you consider someone who was locked in a straight-jacket day and night, and force-fed, to have "control over ones self"? Technically they control their muscle movements, but really, they do not have have control over themselves.
====

Wrong. Humans cannot survive without nutrients we sap from earth. We need the sun, the earth, foood, etc. We aren't self-sufficient. If you base humanity partially on the ability to sustain itself without outside help, then you consider humans un-human.

====
Your analysis of my argument is incorrect. All life is dependent on energy from the sun. That is not what I am talking about. If all humans were only able to derive sustenance from the lining of a polar bear's stomach, and had to live inside said stomach in order to survive, that would be an example of what I am talking about.
====

So, emotion = human and/or sentience? Well, if you look at the video I posted in the argument above, I think you can clearly see the expression of pain and despair on its face. If not, either a) get reading glasses, or b) watch the video in HD.

====
No. Discernable emotion is one characteristic of humanity. If that characteristic is missing, we know the thing is not human. If it exists, it means it may be human. As for the video, all I see are low resolution images of a thing with the same general form of a child. Can't really make out any emotion.
====

A person is not always forced to hold that pregnancy. There are many other options, such as vitro-fertilization. If there is a person who, by law, is killed without a say nor care, there is an issue. I understand that there are people out there who cannot support babies. They can adopt, but they cannot kill.

====
In-vitro fertilization is a method of getting pregnant without having sex, not a way of getting rid of a pregnancy without killing the child(http://en.wikipedia.org...). Furthermore, I am not supporting that law mandate every child is aborted. That would be ridiculous.
====

Yes. No one has the right to kill another. If the baby is born and the mother dies (Unlikely in the US), it is tragic -- but life for the child can go on.

Let me explain... an abortion can kill any single baby to twins and beyond. Therefore, we can conclude that there are more deaths to abortion than being forced to carry the child. If the baby dies, in my opinion, it is worse -- the mother has had an opportunity to live and experience life, whereas the child has not.

====
No, I mean any situation. For example, if killing a child was the only way to stop a nuclear missile launch, would it still be immoral to kill the child? I recognize that this situation is incredibly unlikely to come to pass, but if an absolutist position, such as the pro-life position, cannot stand up to any situation, it is invalid. In this case, it is weighing the lives of one child against that of millions of people, and saying the child is more important.
====

Well, even an hour before birth, the baby is dependent on the mother -- and by your own definition, not human. You may not do it personally, but your logic could allow you. (Sorry... by seconds I mean minutes... it was ate at night! :D)

====
Nope. An hour before birth, it could probably be delivered by Caesarian section. Like I said, the point at which a fetus could be independent of the mother is a gray area.
====

Well, I would like to point out that the fetus will usually become beneficial. A baby cannot benefit, but with time, s/he could become productive, moral, and helpful to society.

====
That is fine, but irrelevant. You, by saying the relationship is symbiotic, rather than parasitic, must show that while the fetus is in the womb, not afterwards, the relationship is symbiotic, which you have not done.
====

Tell me, why did you not answer my question on the earlt-born: What about a baby born early? Are they not dependent on their little oxygen tanks? Without them they would die! Dos this mean they cannot receive the rights of a human? (This can also go for an elderly person with breathing issues.)

====
This is addressed under willing vs unwilling parasite.
====

http://www.abortiontv.com......
abortionno.org

Since my opponent wants alternative reasons not to have an abortion, I shall provide another: The health of the woman. Here is a basic overview of consequences of abortion:

By Mrs. Ann Warner
[ Visit http://www.christianliferesources.com...... in addition]
Physical Effects:

Miscarriages
Ectopic Pregnancies
Perforated Uterus/Infections
Nervousness
Frigidity
Sterility/Stillbirths
Shock
Fever/Cold Sweats
Loss of Other Organs

Psychological Effects:

Unfulfillment/Sense of Loss
Loss of Confidence in Decision-Making
Intense Interest in Babies
Loss of Interest in Sexual Contact
Feeling of Dehumanization
Feelings of Being exploited
Flashback of the Actual Abortion
Guilt/Suicidal Impulses
Anniversaries (of Actual Due Date and Abortion Date)
Eating Disorders
Sleeping Disorders
Low Self-Esteem
Fear of Something Happening to One of their Other Children
Problem with Trusting Another Partner
Fear of Never Being Given Another Pregnancy
Depression/Anxiety
Interruption of the Bonding Process with Present and/or Future Children
Survival Guilt
Alcohol/Drug Abuse

=======
O.k, and all of that is bad stuff. But it does not matter until you show the frequency with which those symptoms actually occur. Otherwise, it could only be one in a hundred or one in a thousand who actually has serious problems. And then the harm is relatively mild.
Second, a lot of the physical issues could occur with any surgery, and all of the psychological issues can be caused by a different thing. Postpartum depression.
From the inestimable Wikipedia
"Symptoms of PPD can occur anytime in the first year postpartum[2] and include, but are not limited to, the following:

* Sadness
* Hopelessness
* Low self-esteem
* Guilt
* Sleep and eating disturbances
* Inability to be comforted
* Exhaustion
* Emptiness
* Anhedonia
* Social withdrawal
* Low or no energy
* Becoming easily frustrated
* Feeling inadequate in taking care of the baby
* Impaired speech and writing
* Spells of anger towards others
* Increased anxiety or panic attacks
* Increased sex drive"
http://en.wikipedia.org...
So you need to show that the consequences of the abortion are worse than could otherwise happen. And you have not.

So, to recap. My opponent continues to accept my evaluation method for this round, of utilitarianism. When we see that we measure things by the happiness produced, and that there are situations where abortion creates a greater amount of happiness than unhappiness, such as in situations where the mother is economically inadequate to the
Debate Round No. 3
Xie-Xijivuli

Con

____
I'm so very sorry! I have an enormous research paper to work on. I cannot finish this. I urge you all to vote PRO for my ignorance and rude behavior. I'm sorry -- I will post my argument as is.
____

I'm going to try this from a new plane and then asses your rebuttals.

Let me tell you the seven requirements for life:

1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
2. Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
3. Metabolism: Consumption of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
4. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and expand as the evolution continues to flourish.
5. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
6. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism) and chemotaxis.
7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms. Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth.

Homeostasis
________
A fetus can do all of these. According to http://physiologyonline.physiology.org... and HP Laburn , "The fetus produces much metabolic heat and loses it mainly via the placental circulation, across a fetomaternal temperature gradient of ~0.5�‚��C. During maternal hyperthermia, the risk of noxious fetal hyperthermia is less than expected. The thermal protection appears to result from the fetus's own thermal inertia and consequences of maternal thermo-regulatory strategies."

Thus, as we can see, a fetus has homeostasis.

Organization
________

Since the fetus' body is composed of cells, it is, by definition, organized.
LB628

Pro

Alright. This is going to be simple, starting with an extension of my points, a rebuttal of my opponents new point, and then voters.

First, my opponent responded to none of my arguments in his last argument, so they are conceded.

Second, my opponents new argument. He essentially argues that fetus' are alive, and while the evidence he shows is incomplete, I get where he was going and will respond to it as such.
There is one primary problem with this argument however. I have never disputed that fetus' are alive. I have merely disputed their humanity, as well as whether or not their rights, if we accept humanity, outweigh those of others. So whether they are alive or not is irrelevant.

Voters. Pretty simple here. My opponent has basically conceded my arguments, as well as my value structure, so we look to the greatest happiness to decide what the correct course of action is. Given that I have shown that there are numerous situations in which the greater happiness occurs through abortion, and given that the burden of proof rests with my opponent, because he is supporting an absolutist moral system, which must be shown to be correct in ALL situations, I have won this debate.

Thank you voters, and thank you Xie, for a very interesting debate, and I am sorry you could not finish it.
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by FemaleGamer 7 years ago
FemaleGamer
I gave you 2 points for effort, Xie.
Posted by FemaleGamer 7 years ago
FemaleGamer
"Childbirth isn't something that JUST happens."
When did I say this?

"So given the fact that the parents have made the concious choice to raise the child, you can't make the argument that you could have just... been aborted."

You very well could have, though.
You are acting as if I am a pro-lifer. Or thier real name (Pro-Death)

"In a nutshell, you are a product of your parent's will, which is not affected by abortion."

If they wanted to abort me, they could have.
Posted by Rob1Billion 7 years ago
Rob1Billion
In reference to your first point, femalegamer, about being aborted at birth:

Childbirth isn't something that JUST happens. It isn't the stork dropping by the bundle, it isn't God deciding that someone has a child out of thin air. Childbirth is two people deciding they are going to take the responsibility to raise a child to adulthood. It is certainly possible that a couple could accidentally get pregnant, but the fact of the matter is that the mother has to make an enormous 9 month contribution to create the baby, and the parents have to then raise the child for 18 years. So given the fact that the parents have made the concious choice to raise the child, you can't make the argument that you could have just... been aborted. Your parents decided to raise you, and then did it. The only way you could make that argument, therefore, is if abortions were somehow forced on people by the state against their will. In a nutshell, you are a product of your parent's will, which is not affected by abortion.
Posted by FemaleGamer 7 years ago
FemaleGamer
I am pro-choice, I just stated what needed to be said. That statement is neither pro-choice nor pro-life.
Posted by Rob1Billion 7 years ago
Rob1Billion
Well I didn't mean to come off like it was not worth saying, I just wanted her to expand on what she said. I can see from her profile that she is pro-choice, so unless she comments again I will have to assume that she believes the first part of her comment doesn't weigh as much as the second... but I would rather have a discourse with her than just assume it.
Posted by Charlie_Danger 7 years ago
Charlie_Danger
That was actually pretty relevant...
Posted by Rob1Billion 7 years ago
Rob1Billion
female what is your point? Do you have a stance on the issue?
Posted by FemaleGamer 7 years ago
FemaleGamer
In order to be Pro-choice you must accept the fact of being aborted at birth.

In order to be pro-Life you must accept staring at your child for 18 years and remembering what the rapist looked like.

Just sayin'
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Larsness 7 years ago
Larsness
Xie-XijivuliLB628Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
Xie-XijivuliLB628Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by pewpewpew 7 years ago
pewpewpew
Xie-XijivuliLB628Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by FemaleGamer 7 years ago
FemaleGamer
Xie-XijivuliLB628Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:25 
Vote Placed by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
Xie-XijivuliLB628Tied
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 
Vote Placed by Charlie_Danger 7 years ago
Charlie_Danger
Xie-XijivuliLB628Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06