The Instigator
Nivvi
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
socratits
Pro (for)
Winning
23 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 4 votes the winner is...
socratits
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/7/2014 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 711 times Debate No: 58653
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (4)

 

Nivvi

Con

(3 rounds in 72 hours)
Abortion is Murder no matter what people say. As soon as the baby is created it is has a soul. People say a baby is not a baby until it is born; as in breathing air, eating food, and can see the world. People say it is the women's choice whether or not to abort.

People can say things but that doesn't mean its true. A baby or if you want to call it a fetus is feeding off of you but that doesn't mean it is part of you. You shouldn't have the choice to murder you child or not. You aren't giving her/him a chance to live.

If you can't seriously take care of your baby, put it up for adoption, don't kill him/her because you were irresponsible and became pregnant when you didn't want to/or couldn't take care of her/him.
socratits

Pro

Hi thanks for the debate.

I believe that abortion should be permissible under certain circumstances such as when the mother's life is in danger, when it's the result of rape or other similar harms, and when the mother does not feel ready to bear a child yet and decides to have an abortion under a certain timeframe. In my case, it would be before the third-trimester, where after this, it is believed that the fetus develops neurological abilities. Ultimately, one sees that my arguments favor the woman's decisions over the fetus because it was the woman's decision to have a child in the first place (generalization.) Moreover, I do not deem a fetus to be the same as a baby for the difference is a ball of cells vs working organs. Therefore, the definition of a "baby" for me, is after the 3rd trimester. If a mother decides to have an abortion after the third-trimester, then it really depends on the situation and reason for having an abortion at such a late timeframe. However, for the sake of time and character limits, I will limit it to the last assertion that made earlier (abortion before 3rd trimester is permissible.)

Given my stance, I have to comment on the fact that CON makes many assertions with no supporting evidence. I will address them now:

Abortion is Murder no matter what people say.

Your assertion is weak when you do not provide a reason to why its considered murder. Your argument holds the same weight as me saying that, "I am god." You cannot prove nor disapprove my assertion without further details of my definition of God.

As soon as the baby is created it is has a soul.

Lets assume that as soon as fertilization occurs, the fetus has a soul. If this is true then how does one differentiate between a fetus' souls and other souls such as dogs, pigs, and oranatangs? (sp)

Also, what makes an organism having a soul protect them from envrionmental, social, and moral factors?

...People say it is the women's choice whether or not to abort.
People can say things but that doesn't mean its true.

Youre right, women have no rights whatsoever.

A baby or if you want to call it a fetus is feeding off of you but that doesn't mean it is part of you.

Im assuming youre saying that it's an individual since its fertilization, even if this is true, it doesn't prove that mothers cannot abort. The baby is using her for her resources. Without her, the baby cannot live. So why is it moral for someone to steal one's resources without having any moral consequences for his/her actions? Your statement is very hard to prove because it would be hard to define someone as an individual when it doesnt have neurological or physical abilities whatsoever.

If you can't seriously take care of your baby, put it up for adoption, don't kill him/her because you were irresponsible and became pregnant when you didn't want to/or couldn't take care of her/him.

The real question is, is it better to not live at all or to live a life of torture?

If the mother isn't ready to have a child, according to you, she still should suffer those 9 months, not taking into consideration how she became pregnant and if shes a single-mother. After those 9 months of suffering, she will then have to force her child away because she cannot take care of her. Clearly, adoption centers are a great place for children to grow up in. I'm just surprised that the general population haven't given up their babies yet to adoption centers.

Debate Round No. 1
Nivvi

Con

I am gonna go back to Murder part because you weren't clear on that so
the definition of Murder: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
Now Abortion isn't illegal BUT hear me out, abortion is the killing of a human being by another human being. (the baby is sucked out (the doctor is doing that with a tool) and then thrown into a trash can)
therefore by definition abortion is legal but still murder.

Another thing is whats the difference between the fetus getting nutrition from the mother inside versus the baby getting milk from his/her mother's breast. Now I know not all babies get milk from their mothers breast and/or another women, but there is no difference, so then why is it mortal for a baby to take milk form a women's breast.

Going on from the Rape stand of point. Yes the mother wasn't responsible or irresponsible, because she was raped, but it is still considered her child whether or not the father of the child is with her. And yes she may not be ready to carry the baby in her stomach for the 9 months and go through all of that, but don't you agree it is selfish to take away someone's life just to not be pregnant for 9 months?
Around the the 10th week of your pregnancy your baby becomes a fetus, meaning its been developing ever since it was transferred from a guy to a girl. Your stopping the possibility of life of your child. That goes along with the selfishness of abortion.

By the 10th week of pregnancy, your baby probably measures more than 1 inch, or roughly the length of a quarter.
By the end of the 1st trimester, your baby will grow to be about 3 inches " around the length of a kiwi fruit. This measurement doesn't even take into account arms and legs. That's because in the 1st trimester, your baby is measured from the top of the head to the bottom of the rump.
By the beginning of the 10th week of pregnancy, all of your baby's vital organs have formed.
His embryonic tail, located at the bottom of his spinal cord, has disappeared.
His bones continue to develop. On an ultrasound, your baby's bones appear white.
At 10 weeks pregnant, his ears get close to their final form.
His teeth buds emerge, and his eyelids develop further.
His testes start producing the male hormone testosterone around the 10th week of pregnancy.
Tiny fingers and toes are fully separated (no more webbing).
Plus, your baby's brain growth really takes off. Every minute, 250,000 new neurons (or first brain cells) are produced

This proves right there it is a baby not just a fetus but a human being, and it's only the first trimester of your pregnancy.

Now Your response in the first round

You said: a fetus to be the same as a baby for the difference is a ball of cells vs working organs.

10th week- fingers start to grow along with bones, eyelids, no more webbing
11th week -The blood vessels in your placenta grow larger to prepare for this time of accelerated growth in your baby.
this proves they baby/fetus isn't just a ball of cells, there's arms, legs, organs developing along with body formations developing.
socratits

Pro

OK the problem I have with your rebuttals is that you failed to go into sufficient details as to why you make such an argument. The reason being is that you mention several different topics that fall within the Abortion issue, but instead of sticking to one topic, you briefly mention several, making it hard to defend or attack your assertions. For example, the first statement you make is that abortion is considered murder. You gave me a defintion of murder, yet you have failed to demonstrate WHY a fetus/baby is human and why it's immoral. If a fetus/baby, is considered human (again we didn't define it) then you have to show that it is murder. If it's not a human, then your whole argument fails.

The only argument I can make is to demonstrate that neurological activity doesnt FULLY develop until around the 3rd trimester. It is true that there will be simple neurological brain activity by the 6th week, however, they are very basic firings that do not define as it as a human ability. The article that I provided states that it has the same neurological activity as a patient minutes after death. http://www.nytimes.com...;

I take a neurological approach because I believe that humans are ultimately defined by our brains. All other organs are accessory organs mediated for our survival. What makes us, human, and ourselves, is really just our brain. Since CON hasn't rebutted my argument about abortion being permissible before the 3rd trimester, my case still holds.

The next topic you go on about is nutrition. To be frank, this argument is ridiculous. I dont see how it relates to abortion and even if it did, I dont know what point youre trying to make with this. The fetus gets its nutrients from the placenta, while the baby, after conception, gets it from the mothers breasts. A placenta is not the same thing as a mother's breasts. They're even located on different areas of the human body. The nutrients aren't even the same. The placenta brings in nutrients and hormones for growth and differentiation of cells. The breasts provide milk for specific development of differentiated cells. If they served the same purpose, then why would women have two different organs providing for the same thing?

The third topic, rebutting a brief point I made in R1 (which by the way, isnt the crux of my argument) was about abortion in the case of rape. I don't understand why a fetus, who has no activiy of any kind whatsoever and who isnt born yet, has more rights than the mother, who has been living for several years and has contributed to society. Please elaborate why you think a ball of cells has more rights than a living human being.

Even if the fetus does have rights, that doesnt mean that it has the right to violate someone else's rights. So no, I do not think it's selfish. In fact, I think in the case of rape, it's selfish from the fetus standpoint to force the mother carry it to term and then another 18 years. Your burden is to prove to me why an inanimate object's rights is greater than a human being's life.

The next paragraph you list on development stages, which I dont understand the point. Just because one develops a leg means that it's human? So all types of mammals are now considered human and should have the same human rights as us, is that what youre suggesting?

The only relevant argument, to a small degree, is the formaiton of neurons. While it is true that lots of neurons form, one gotta realize that most of those neurons aren't used at all. It's a form of development where the neurons overdevelop to increase the chances of making the correct connections with other parts of the brain. The ones that aren't used, the failed connections, are degraded over time. It's called the neurotrophic hypothesis. For further information please read the abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...;
While I do realize that you need a subscription to pubmed and most of the people here do not have it, one should realize that you just need to read the abstract to get a basic understanding of the hypothesis.

Lastly, you rebut a small point that I made in R1 about the fetus vs baby. While organs do form, they are nonfunctioning in a fetus. It is essentially a prep time before actual use. It's making sure everything works before the irreversible step of conception. Anyways, it doesnt weaken my argument about abortion at all.

Before I submit my responses, one should realize that CON has failed to rebut the crux of my issue on abortion. She cherry-picked small, superfiical information that I made about my opinions on abortion, but not on my actual arguments. I hope the readers realizes that ALL my arguments still stands.
Debate Round No. 2
Nivvi

Con

OK so you said I failed to tell you why the fetus/baby is a human and your right but I will now tell you why it is a human being going off of several definitions
Human being: a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.
Human being: A member of any of the races of Homo sapiens; person; man, woman, or child
You see these do not state the fact that the fetus/baby has to be born yet. It is a child (Human being) a female to start off and then either stays a female or develops male-like features.
therefore going back to the murder statement:
Murder: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
since we have now established that the fetus/baby is a human being you can now see that this is in fact murder.
the fetus/baby (human being) is being sucked out (killing the fetus/baby) by another human being.

Although you could say it is Justifiable Homicide (only if the abortion is legal in most cases it is)
there is no difference between when abortion was illegal and now when it is legal besides the fact that it is legal.
there is a slight difference between murder and Justifiable Homicide.
but the thing is, is it really justifiable besides the fact that it is now legal to kill an innocent fetus/baby.
You can not say that it isn't innocent, because it hasn't done anything, the father did something

continuing on I am also going to go on to your rape statement along with the murder and justifiable homicide.
If a teenager is raped and she gets pregnant (now this is rare for a teenager to get pregnant from a rape so you can barely make this point but I will address it anyways)
who is there to blame, the father, not the child. The teenager is living with her parents and in this case there are several people who can in fact take care of the child. even if they are poor the teenager and parent(s) can take care of child giving the baby more support than a wanting child.
If the teenager is too scared to take care of a child she decides to get an abortion but, can it be justified besides it being a legal abortion
JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE: That which is committed with the intention to kill, or to do a grievous bodily injury, under circumstances which the law holds sufficient to exculpate the person who commits it.
2. It is justifiable, 1. When a judge or other magistrate acts in obedience to the law. 2. When a ministerial officer acts in obedience to a lawful warrant, issued by a competent tribunal. 3. When a subaltern officer, or soldier, kills in obedience to the lawful commands of his superior. 4. When the party kills in lawful self-defence.
3.-1. A judge who, in pursuance of his duty, pronounces sentence of death, is not guilty of homicide; for it is evident, that as the law prescribes the punishment of death for certain offences, it must protect those who are entrusted with its execution. A judge, therefore, who pronounces sentence of death, in a legal manner, on a legal indictment, legally brought before him, for a capital offence committed within his jurisdiction, after a lawful trial and conviction, of the defendant, is guilty of no offence.
4.-2. Magistrates, or other officers entrusted with the preservation of the public peace, are justified in committing homicide, or giving orders which lead to it, if the excesses of a riotous assembly cannot be otherwise be repressed.
5-2. An officer entrusted with a legal warrant, criminal or civil, and lawfully commanded by a competent tribunal to execute it, will be justified in committing homicide, if, in the course of advancing to discharge his duty, he be brought into such perils that, without doing so, he cannot either save his life, or discharge the duty which he is commanded by the warrant to perform. And when the warrant commands him to put a criminal to death, he is justified in obeying it.
6.-3. A soldier on duty is justified in committing homicide, in obedience to the command of his officer, unless the command was something plainly unlawful.
7.-4. A private individual will, in many cases, be justified in committing homicide, while acting in self-defense. See Self-defense. Vide, generally,

It's not any of these reason's its a justifiable homicide besides the fact that it is because it is some how legal.
she's not defending herself (no one is coming at her)
she's not a solider
she's not a officer
she's not a judge

now going back to the human being definition: there by it can't be a mammal because of the difference between a human being and a mammal, that a fetus is developing even before the mother aborts the fetus/baby.

OK the nutrition part. Why is there two different things, because they need different things because they are developing differently.
Why is it in two different spots, because the baby is inside the mother for nine months and outside afterwards.
She's not stealing those things either. when you get your period it's preparing your body for pregnancy some of those stuff is just for pregnancy. the body is for pregnancies. You can't say the baby is taking away and it's not right because your womb prepared for it not so you can kill the baby and say it was taking away the nutrition and now it's your right to kill it, just because you can.
socratits

Pro

Thank you for letting me debate this with you.

So you try to defend your definition of murder and how abortion is murder by giving me two definitions of a Human being summarized below (copy and pasted directly):

1) a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.

2) A member of any of the races of Homo sapiens; person; man, woman, or child

While I agree that those definitions do not state that they have to be born to be considered a human, yet it holds no weight because you do not give a link as to where you got these definitions. I realize thats just being picky, but I do wanted to state that fact. Just because you have a definition of something doesnt mean that it is an accepted truth. For future debates, it would be beneficial for you to give supporting evidences to back up your claim. :)

Anyways your own definitions fail you if we first consider (1). A baby/fetus not born yet does not meet any of the requriremens you listed. It does not have superior mental development, speech, nor upright stance. (I dont think I need to further explain why these are not true.)

(2) This definition is so broad that it essentially encompasses everything that's deemed human, but yet fails to explain why these traits are deemed of human charateristics. Likewise, I can say that the Animal kindom consists of all organisms that are not prokaryotes and one cannot either refute or defend the assertion. My point that it's so broad that one can use the definition for any scenario without properly being able to refute or defend against it. As a result, it is a very weak definition of human beings.

Lastly, you gave the definition of murder as UNLAWFUL premeditated killing of... but you conceded to the fact that abortion is legal in most cases thereby conceding to the fact that abortion is not murder.

Although you could say it is Justifiable Homicide (only if the abortion is legal in most cases it is)

Thus, we can conclude that you have failed to demonstrate why abortion is considered murder.

The next argument about justifiable homicide vs "murder" is flat out wrong. While I agree that the results of abortion are the same wheter its legal or not, we are not debating about the law, we are debating about the moralilty behind abortion. Morality in certain circumstances do not have to follow proposed statutes on behavior. i.e. Roe vs. Wade.

Your comparision between murder and homicide is a selfish view. You fail to consider that its not the baby itself who is the concern, the mother has to be taken into consideration too. What you failed to explain on is why this unborn baby has more rights than a living mother.

If a teenager is raped and she gets pregnant (now this is rare for a teenager to get pregnant from a rape so you can barely make this point but I will address it anyways)

"An estimated 60 percent of teen girls’ first pregnancies are preceded by experiences of molestation, rape, or attempted rape."
http://www.feministe.us...

I guess over half of the population isn't high enough for you.

You go on to argue that it's the fathers fault, which is partially true, but why suffer for something when you've done nothing wrong?

You fail to realize that just because there are people who can take care of a baby doesnt mean they have the time, resources, or ability to handle a child. If it was easy to rear a child then we should have babies at the start of puberty, because the younger we are, the more likely we are to have healthier babies.

Moreover, assuming that the child is born as a result of unwanted pregnancy, if one does not have the resources or ability to take care of a child, why let a child into this world when all hes gonna do is suffer?

By the way, abortion isnt considered justfiable homicide at least most of society doesnt consider it. YOU put that definition towards abortion. Im only disaproving the issues you decide to talk about.

now going back to the human being definition: there by it can't be a mammal because of the difference between a human being and a mammal, that a fetus is developing even before the mother aborts the fetus/baby.

I do not understand what you mean. It seems to me that you are conceding to my point in R2? Humans are mammals, but a mammal doesnt have to be a human. If we are not mammasl then we are not human, which means abortion is irrelevant to humans.

My question in R2 referencing to mammals was for you to clarify your statement. I never made any assertions about mammals or humans.

You failed to understand the points im making about the nutrition argument. IM rebutting what you said in r1. I'm not gonna respond back to this because nutrients is irelevnat and moreover, you failed to understand your own arguments.

Conclusion

I'm pretty sure ive made my argument clear considering con hasn't bothered with refuting my assertions.
Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by YamaVonKarma 2 years ago
YamaVonKarma
Con also lost sources. And my threats usually involve knives.
Posted by socratits 2 years ago
socratits
No, you were clearly threatening me when you said that I was throwing out insults, which was a retaliation from your attack. The fact that you would deduct a point from my debate with Nivvi, which is a completely separate topic, demonstrates abuse of the system.
Posted by YamaVonKarma 2 years ago
YamaVonKarma
And if someone votes against you, they get reported?
Posted by YamaVonKarma 2 years ago
YamaVonKarma
And... con has lost sources.
Posted by socratits 2 years ago
socratits
Sorry for the spam, but this is addressed to @jikpamu, its not really conctraception at all more like Abortion Contraceptives only if you are of a certain faith Act
Posted by socratits 2 years ago
socratits
I get this feeling that this debate isnt really a debate. From the comments alone, it seems to me that people will vote based on their own beliefs and not on the style and arguments made in the debate.
Posted by socratits 2 years ago
socratits
Yama, you threw the first punch. I'm just returning fire. You can vote but im just gonna get a moderator to remove your vote.
Posted by HailedPanic913 2 years ago
HailedPanic913
What if a women is sexually violated and she doesn't want the baby. Its not very fair for her if its illegal.
Posted by YamaVonKarma 2 years ago
YamaVonKarma
And for throwing insults, you've lost a conduct point already.
Posted by Jelera 2 years ago
Jelera
Well written, Pro. Enough said.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by NathanDuclos 2 years ago
NathanDuclos
NivvisocratitsTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: sorry, it was a very one sided debate .
Vote Placed by ben671176 2 years ago
ben671176
NivvisocratitsTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: "Only The Good Die Young"
Vote Placed by YamaVonKarma 2 years ago
YamaVonKarma
NivvisocratitsTied
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:16 
Reasons for voting decision: As high hopes as I had for con, a Yama judges properly.
Vote Placed by LordEnglish 2 years ago
LordEnglish
NivvisocratitsTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro