The Instigator
walklikeanoldguy
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
TheFoxWolf
Pro (for)
Tied
0 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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/7/2014 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 455 times Debate No: 51799
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

walklikeanoldguy

Con

Abortion goes against so many things. First of all it goes against the law. The fetus is a human being and very alive. The definition of a living thing is anything with cells and the fetus is made of human cells. Therefore, it is alive and you are killing a human being which is against the law. It also goes against basic rights and responsibilities. It is the woman's right to engage in intercourse and it is her responsibility to take care of the child. It also takes away the child's rights. It can also cause regrets and serious depression in the future. Abortion is a terrible process that should not be legal.
TheFoxWolf

Pro

First of all, I would like to establish where I stand on abortion so we have an understanding of where I"m coming from. I don"t personally believe that abortion is either always the right or wrong way to go about things, but I am for it up to a point until there is legitimate pain involved. Meaning, my stance is dependent on the notion of whether the being in question can legitimately feel pain and if it is sentient. Now then, let"s get to replying to your points.

You begin by arguing that abortion is wrong because it goes against the law. The problem with this first argument is that the legality of something speaks very little for the validity of it being illegal or legal. For example, at a time slavery was okay, and women would have to marry their rapists. In some countries, I think they even still do. Simply put, it becomes quite clear that the law isn't always right. So on this matter, what the law has to say is actually quite irrelevant.

Your next argument is that a fetus is a human being and very alive. On the matter of it existing as a human being, all we"ve got are these subjective arguments of when a something is considered a human being. I consider this misdirection, because such notions on when something should be considered "human" aren"t something any one particular person should be able to decide due to personal biases and their own logical perception. Furthermore, I would also like to argue that in its earlier stages, a human fetus looks quite indistinguishable from that of any other fetus. And while I for one don"t believe something being human or animal warrants one to be treated better than the other, I"m simply appealing to the petty short - sighted notion of human worth. There doesn"t seem to be much that separates a human fetus in its earlier stages from that of numerous other animals.

As for fetuses being alive, I would argue that something being alive is ultimately unimportant. It"s not life that matters, but sentience. Plants and flowers for example are alive, but they aren"t capable of either complex thought or feeling. Meanwhile Cows, chickens, and human beings are sentient and even while most of us eat meat; most of us still all want to cause less suffering towards other animals. So, I would propose that what matters here aren"t these subjective short sighted notions of what constitutes humanity or whether it"s living, but instead if the being in question can actually feel pain; something which I"m sure we can all agree is objectively unwanted in our existence.

You next argue that killing a human being is against the law, I would like to once again redirect you to my two arguments I previously made. The first one being that subjective notions of what constitutes humanity being ultimately pointless (I for one choose to believe it"s not a human, and I do this as a compassionate radical vegetarian that feels empathy towards non-human sentient life) and my second one being yet again that it has no distinguishable traits.

This time, I"m going to go ahead and quote you.

"It also goes against basic rights and responsibilities. It is the woman's right to engage in intercourse and it is her responsibility to take care of the child."

You argue from a stance of responsibility. I will not say that it isn"t irresponsible for someone to have sex unprotected (I"m not going to get into the classic "what if she is raped?" because I"m sure I can handle this without delving into that) and not expect actual consequence or responsibility from it, but I would like to argue that it"s no less irresponsible to enforce someone against their will to have a child which they"re not prepared to have. In fact, even if someone was completely willing to have a child after they were impregnated but they happened to be ill prepared I would actually argue that this is far more irresponsible than having an abortion. In short,, I am proposing that abortion is a responsible solution to an outcome of irresponsibility.

"It also takes away the child's rights."

Look at a child and then look at a fetus. Try and communicate to a child and then try and communicate to a fetus. I am hopeful that it becomes quite clear very soon from this point that a child and a fetus are not the same thing. A fetus cannot have "child"s rights" because it is simply not a child.

Your final argument is that abortion can be a regretful procedure which causes depression. It certainly is a serious procedure and I can imagine someone will not be too happy with having to undergo it, but if someone is compelled enough to have an abortion I have no reason to assume that they"re capable of providing for a child, and I simply wouldn"t want a child in that environment if it can be avoided. Furthermore, I"m quite sure women who had an abortion would feel a lot better if we didn"t equate them with child murderers and just continued gnawing and poking at the wound. Take for example what you said earlier, on how nullifying a fetus is legitimately murdering another human being.

So there, I"ve finally responded to all your arguments. Now allow me to propose some points for abortion. While I"ve probably made it clear that I haven"t focused much on the woman"s rights side of the issue, this is certainly one reason we need to keep abortion; because women should have the right to control their own bodies. And if a fetus in its earliest stages cannot feel anything, I do not quite understand where any harm has been done if there is no victim being legitimately harmed.

I"ve done a search on Duckduckgo (I use duckduckgo instead of Google because the latter shows results based around our own browsing history to show us resources which reaffirms our own biases) and here are two sites and what they"ve got to say on fetuses:

Firstly, I would like to give you a link to a website called National Centre for Biotechnological Information which is a branch of the National Library of Medicine. I"m not the brightest guy out there, but I"m sure that we can both agree that it certainly has a credible name.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Since I wouldn"t expect you to spend all your time reading through everything since you"re no doubt a busy man, here is a summary. I would like to post more, but I'm running short on space.

"The neuroanatomical system for pain can be considered complete by 26 weeks' gestation

A developed neuroanatomical system is necessary but not sufficient for pain experience

Pain experience requires development of the brain but also requires development of the mind to accommodate the subjectivity of pain

Development of the mind occurs outside the womb through the actions of the infant and mutual adjustment with primary caregivers

The absence of pain in the fetus does not resolve the morality of abortion but does argue against legal and clinical efforts to prevent such pain during an abortion"

Now, I notice that the website argues that just because a fetus cannot feel pain it doesn"t mean that abortion isn"t immoral, but keep in mind that the heart of "my" argument (and indeed around 80% of my stance on this issue) is based around whether or not a fetus can feel pain.

Here"s the next site.

http://news.discovery.com...

A very short article, but regardless here"s a part which intrigued me:

"Through different interpretations of accumulating evidence, various scientists have estimated that pain becomes possible anywhere from 18 to 29 weeks into gestation, maybe later."

And finally I would like to propose my final argument - that abortion helps in controlling our population. And unlike that of sterilizing or neutering an animal against their will when they're a nuisance at absolute worst, abortion is a choice that's a person chooses, and it's one that helps slightly against any huge problem which our gigantic population contributes to.

(Unfortunately I had to edit out a lot due to limit)
Debate Round No. 1
walklikeanoldguy

Con

You have stated that if the fetus doesn't feel pain then it shouldn't be a problem but that doesn't justify abortion. If something doesn't feel pain it's still not ok to kill them. If someone was in a coma or couldn't feel pain in any circumstance then you shouldn't kill them just because they don't feel pain. You are also taking away the life that that child could live but abortion denies that child (or fetus) to any future life. Life is a gift and should never be taken away from anyone. They could do something great in this world or even save lives. They will never experience love, happiness, or anything joyful in life. Life is an amazing thing that everyone should deserve to live. It also amazes me that everyone that is for abortion has already been born. You also stated that it helps population control but that doesn't mean you should let these children die without a chance in life. Killing helps population control and the Holocaust even helped population control but that didn't make it right.
TheFoxWolf

Pro

'You have stated that if the fetus doesn't feel pain then it shouldn't be a problem but that doesn't justify abortion. If something doesn't feel pain it's still not OK to kill them. If someone was in a coma or couldn't feel pain in any circumstance then you shouldn't kill them just because they don't feel pain.'

I would like to argue that you're utilizing a false equivalency. An unthinking fetus incapable of sentient thought simply cannot be compared to that of a complex, intelligent being capable of thought. Even more so when we consider the difference in context between someone in a coma which may wake up with numerous important relationships established with other people and that of a fetus which isn't capable of thought with no relationships with people. It's simple, a 30 year old man will have friends and family, meanwhile a fetus won't. Furthermore, it's not just that fetuses cannot feel pain, but they simply aren't even aware of their own existence.

'You are also taking away the life that child could live but abortion denies that child (or fetus) to any future life.'

Irrelevant, life is only valuable to those that can experience it.

Also, I'm quite sure I can easily utilize this argument for all the semen that's pointlessly wasted every time someone either masturbates or chooses to engage in sexual acts which don't end up with a baby. These too have no less potential of having a future life, and yet no one seems to care about throwing them away over far more petty reasons.

'Life is a gift and should never be taken away from anyone.'

Once again I would like to redirect you to my quote on how life is only valuable to those that can experience it. I agree with you, life shouldn't be taken away from anyone. Being a vegetarian, I'll even go further on that and say that no living, breathing creature capable of thought should have that taken away from them. But still, a fetus isn't a person nor is it a creature capable of either pain or thought. The only thing we're taking from them is potential. Potential no different and inconsequential than you choosing not to buy that scratch ticket which may or may not have won you a hundred dollars, than going down that road which might have gotten you into a car crash, or going to that website which might have crashed your computer. Reality isn't based around what it can possibly be, but what it is through our choices.

'They could do something great in this world or even save lives.'

It"s kind of interesting to see that I"ve already pre-emptively replied to this point. Yes, a fetus has potential into becoming someone that saves lives. Just as easily though, it also has potential into being a completely terrible person or perhaps your typical schmuck that works a pointless job for the betterment of someone else. This is exactly what I mean when I say that reality isn't based around what it can be, but what it is through our choices. It's interesting to speculate on what 'can' happen, but let"s leave speculation to our imagination and not base our reality on it. Because just as easily as you can say 'They could do something great' I can just as easily argue that 'they could have committed horrible acts, so abortion'. Just imagine if Hitler's mom got an abortion.

. . .

Sorry, I just couldn't help myself from dabbling a bit into dark humor.

'They will never experience love, happiness, or anything joyful in life.'

Once again we return to my point on life only having value for those that can experience it. Furthermore, I'm willing to argue it's far less cruel to have something taken from you before you can comprehend how painful it is to actually lose it. Abortion is a far easier way to go than someone spending their last few moments weak and fearful of their inevitable death. Eventually, we have everything taken from us, and this is one of the better ways to go compared to the likes of being crushed, drowned, murdered, beaten, or what have you.

"It also amazes me that everyone that is for abortion has already been born."

It doesn"t amaze me, because the fact that I was born is irrelevant. If I wouldn"t exist then I wouldn"t exist, and that"s all there is to it. Think back to my earlier statement of speculation on inconsequential potential. If I exist then I can comprehend things. Life is valuable because it has subjective value. If I don"t exist then I cannot comprehend life. Life is not valuable because I have no understanding of it nor can I give it any value. And when you consider all the small decisions throughout our entire history which eventually came down to me being born, I hope it becomes absolutely clear how inconsequential it was for me to either be born or not. What does amaze me, however, is the countless number of people that equate abortion to murder while they enjoy eating their eggs for breakfast and their meat for dinner. It seems quite tragically funny how the worth of life suddenly shifts from being sacred and meaningful to being even less than nothing when we go from a creature that cannot think or feel anything to that of living, breathing creatures that can at least even comprehend what pain even is. I even dare argue that for these creatures that living is actually a detriment; existing actually becomes the unfavorable outcome.

"You also stated that it helps population control but that doesn't mean you should let these children die without a chance in life." A fetus isn"t a child. I believe I"ve established this. A child can communicate, feel, and think, while a fetus can"t.

"Killing helps population control and the Holocaust even helped population control but that didn't make it right."

And we close this with another false equivalence combined with Godwin"s law. The mass systematic killing of living, breathing people that were thrown into horrendous conditions simply cannot be compared to someone having an abortion. These people can comprehend life and pain, a fetus can"t. My argument isn"t that population control is always good no matter the methods utilized; my argument is that abortion is a procedure that doesn"t harm an unthinking being incapable of thought while it also happens to help our population. Nothing is being physically harmed from this and it inadvertently serves for a greater good. Meanwhile for the holocaust, countless people have been harmed in horrific ways and it never served even the smallest possible concept of a greater good.
Debate Round No. 2
walklikeanoldguy

Con

walklikeanoldguy forfeited this round.
TheFoxWolf

Pro

TheFoxWolf forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by TheShadowCupcake 2 years ago
TheShadowCupcake
Sorry I can't affect the actual Debate. Damn you, bugs!
Posted by TheShadowCupcake 2 years ago
TheShadowCupcake
Thanks to a bug in Debate.org that has yet to be fixed (and I suspect that they've stopped trying to fix it), I can't Vote, but here's the message I was trying to post but never did:

"It was quite clear that Con did not care about this argument at all and hardly made an effort. Con did not try to even come up with a single rational argument and was very nonchalant and callous with the argument despite having started it. Pro dutifully argued and made considerable points, was very structured, and actually cared. Pro also used sources when Con didn't. There's a clear winner, here. I wish Con didn't halfass this. I suppose you can say that this had the "potential" to be a very interesting debate, and it's unfortunate that Con aborted it, even if the debate is a non-sentient, non-living creature."
No votes have been placed for this debate.