The Instigator
blimp456
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
Hazey
Pro (for)
Losing
5 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 3 votes the winner is...
blimp456
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/25/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,015 times Debate No: 60925
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (22)
Votes (3)

 

blimp456

Con

[Before I go on, two things will be cleared up right away; 1- God will not be brought into this. 2- The fact is that every single organism on Earth and pretty much in the entire universe is either a cell or a mass of cells.]

This is how the debate will be organized;
Round 1: Acceptance and stating initial argument (Usually a sentence or maybe two)
Round 2: Extending argument stated in Round 1 with some details.
Round 3: Rebutting arguments stated in Round 2.
Round 4: Rebutting rebuttals that were stated in Round 3 about Round 2. Round 4 will also contain your closing statement.
====================================
My argument is that abortion should be illegal for several reasons which will be stated in Round 2 when my argument is extended.
Hazey

Pro

I accept Con's delicious cookie and my argument shall be pro abortion. I find a fetus to be sort of a leech (lacking of cognitive ability) that a woman should have the right to remove and no longer provide her own bodily substance to.
Debate Round No. 1
blimp456

Con

I would like to thank Pro for accepting and I look forward to a civilized debate.
[As I stated this Round will not have any rebuttals; it will only extend what your argument is.]

I believe that abortion should be illegal in the United States of America for the following reasons;

1. Scientifically, the definition of a human is a member of the homo sapien species, (Meaning that the organism has human DNA) This makes killing the unborn child a crime as it is then murder; (Murder: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human by another.)

2. The fetus has rights.

3. If the woman didn't want to have a baby or wasn't ready to raise one then she shouldn't have had sex. Although most people have sex purely for the pleasure, it's true and natural purpose is sexual reproduction. During sexual intercourse, the woman is basically consenting to any eggs that may become fertilized that they may use her body to grow and develop until birth.

4. The fetus is, in fact, a living human, and therefore morally and legally should not be killed.
Hazey

Pro

1. A woman has certain rights to her own body just like any other human and I think that includes if something depends on your body for survival than you should have the right to cut it off from leeching even if it is a human. 2. A fetus is not fairly developed to say it is cognitive to a "human" level, like how killing an ant is a lot different from killing a human, a part of society, which you do not wish to anger other cognitive, developed beings out of consequences which Fetus's are quite a different story since not only do they not impose a threat, but they do not impose much at all. (My apologies if it turns to rebuttals somehow, but I'm simply trying to detail my position which fairly obviously conflicts with yours) 3. Things such as rape and unplanned parenthood should be taken into consideration, and you should ask yourself if it's okay to impose such a burden upon living, cognitive, developed people for the... not yet or perhaps ever.
Debate Round No. 2
blimp456

Con

[This Round is for Rebuttals to the statements made in Round 2]

"A woman has certain rights to her own body just like any other human"

-A woman's body does not have two different types of DNA. Nor does a woman's body have 2 heads, 4 arms, or 4 legs.

"A fetus is not fairly developed to say it is cognitive to a 'human' level."

-Scientific facts agree with me in saying that a fetus is human. Remember, a human is a member of the homo sapien race.
-There are severe cases of disabilities and mental disorders in which the person cannot communicate in anyway or show signs of understanding anything or thinking for themselves. According to a Pro-Abortionist logic, you are saying it is ok for me to kill that disabled human.

"You should ask yourself if it's okay to impose such a burden upon living, cognitive, developed people."

-It is okay because they put the burden on themselves. They chose to have sexual intercourse. They know that it can get them pregnant but they go ahead anyway.
-A fetus is living.

"Things such as rape and unplanned parenthood should be taken into consideration."

-I must have forgotten to mention that in cases of rape or a threat to the mother's life I think it's okay for abortion.
-Just because someone had sex and didn't expect to become a parent doesn't give them the right to kill a living human.

"Fetus's are quite a different story since not only do they not impose a threat, but they do not impose much at all."

-According to Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which was agreed upon by the General Assembly of the United Nations, "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person." "Everyone," refers to members of the human race. That means since a fetus is scientifically human it has the right to life. You might ask why some people get away with killing in self defense, the answer to that would also be found in the Declaration where it talks about punishments for trying to violate others' rights.
-Not only do I believe it is morally wrong for abortion, but, all morals aside, the Constitution of the United States protects citizens, (Which the fetus is due to it's mother being a citizen), this includes protecting the citizens' rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
-Again, I say that the severely disabled do not impose much at all either, but it is illegal for me to go and kill one of them.
Hazey

Pro

(1.) Yes, but that is not what I am speaking when I say "human." I'd say that is picking at straws. When I say "human" I mean on a cognitive level. (2.) Rights are subjective, and I think a woman should have more of a right to her body than the fetus. https://www.youtube.com... (God is put into that, but perhaps you can overlook that) 3. Do you mean unprotected sex? I'll go with that. If the woman doesn't want a baby then she should use protection, condoms, morning after pills, etc. or, if it's too late for that then get an abortion. I wouldn't really say that people having sex for pleasure works for your anti-abortion case, but instead for the fact there are unwanted pregnancies which work more towards pro-abortion cases in my eyes. No, she is not, she is consenting towards the sex itself however. So if the other person lies about wearing a condom it is not consented to just because they had intercourse. 4. It doesn't have a personality, emotions, a mind, or a memory. See (1.)
Debate Round No. 3
blimp456

Con

"That is not what I am speaking when I say, 'human."

-Your argument is invalid. Cultural definitions of what a person/human is vary so you have to look at a scientific one that is universally accepted and not culturally biased. Also, one of the definitions of a person, (socially/culturally), is having potential to contribute to society. Which a fetus does have the potential because once it is born and grows up it can contribute. Again, I don't even support that because cultural definitions are biased to that area's beliefs. Scientific definitions are fact. (Facts that in the majority of cases you can't argue with, by the way.)

"It doesn't have a personality, emotions, a mind, or a memory."

-This can be argued for the severely disabled but killing them would be murder. With that said, your argument on that point is invalid, because it is a human being therefore it should be illegal. If its mother is a citizen then it is determined even before the birth that it is a U.S. citizen protected nationally by the Constitution and internationally by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
-All humans are equal under the law, and the law shall be enforced upon everyone equally.

"I think a woman should have more of a right to her body than the fetus."

-It is not just "her" body, her body does not have 2 heads, 4 arms, and 4 legs.
-But the fetus has its right to its own body, which the woman would be interfering with. Again, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says that every human being has the right to life, liberty, and security of person.

"I mean on a cognitive level."

-With your logic a newborn has not reached that level either so I could shoot it in the face on the hospital bed. (I would be charged with murder in that case so abortion should be the same)
-The Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognizes, EVERY, human being on Earth.

"She is consenting towards the sex itself."

-She knows that she can get pregnant and have a child therefore she is acknowledging the fact that fertilized eggs will be using her body to grow and develop until birth.
-It doesn't matter. She knows the consequences of having sex. She knows that a condom could break or that a pill might fail.
-If you don't want a baby then you shouldn't have sex. It truly is a simple concept. It has been known for many years now that the only way to 100% prevent pregnancies is the not have sex. If you are not ready for a child don't do something that could create one.
-This also goes for someone lying about a condom. It may not be the woman's fault but sex is always a risk. If I had a one year old child and decided I didn't want it anymore then I couldn't kill it. Yet, it also lacks the ability to make decisions.
-Sex is just a shortened word to mean sexual reproduction. Sexual reproduction; the keyword being reproduction. Any true intelligent human can put two and two together to see that sex will produce a baby. Being a irresponsible and/or stupid is not an excuse for killing another human. (That includes protected sex because there is still always a risk and people need to understand that abstinence is the only 100% surefire way; having sex means you understand the risks associated with it.)

*The youtube link you posted*

-George Carlin says that we don't have rights...this is completely false. Even if it were true, it is now international and national LAW that we have rights.
-If we didn't have rights then I could kill anyone I wanted to because that means they wouldn't have the right to life.
-How about the right of free speech both you and I are using to debate this?
-The above ^ statement is just an extension to show that his argument is not reliable.

[Closing Arguments]

-Abortion is both morally and legally a violation of a fetus' rights as a human being, (Which it is as it has human DNA.)
-In order to avoid being pregnant women should just abstain from sex. (If they really want pleasure they should just masturbate.)
-A fetus is both literally and scientifically an individual human being and therefore has rights granted in the Constitution as well as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (As I said above it is also socially a human depending on what definition you use.)
-If you asked failed abortions if they would rather not exist or have their life be the way it was even if they had a crappy childhood they would say that they are happy that they were born.
-The fetus is a separate entity with its own DNA and individual rights.

Thank you Pro for participating and to all the viewers/readers, please vote Con.
Hazey

Pro

-1. May I remind con that we are speaking of morality which falls under such areas as culture. Machines have potential to contribute to society, but is destroying a calculator morally wrong? You're protecting cognitive people that have yet to exist while potentially causing harm to someone's life that is already a cognitive being. It is a fact that a fetus is homo sapien, sure, but a pointless/irrelevant one. --2. Killing someone that's brain dead (i.g.: pulling the plug) is very different from killing a cognitive being. It is not immoral. Let us also please separate law from morality, because law=/=morality. ---3. It is "her" body. Yes, her body most likely does not have those features... but I guess I'm missing your "point". Her body, is not the fetus's body which the fetus is using even if it's against her will. The fetus would be interfering with her body not the other way around, mostly because the fetus would not even have the mental ownership over its own body such as the child bearer has. If a person was surgically attached to me, and I decided to cut the person off ultimately killing, heck, perhaps both of us, it is not treading on their bodily rights, but instead acting out my individual, bodily rights especially if the other person was on a much smaller cognitive level (See first sentence of --2). ----4. A newborn forms a better cognitive level and has already gained some individuality from the mother's substances... so it's quite a change of direction from talking about a fetus. -----5. There is a very low chance of a pill not working or a condom (depends on the condom, like maybe you call a candy wrapper a condom). She knows that there's a chance of getting a pregnant, sure (for most people, some people even think the "pull out" trick works), but I don't see how this relates to if an abortion of that pregnancy is wrong. "If you don't have a baby then don't have sex" which would be true, if abortion and protection didn't exist as options. Again, with the older babies already separated from the mother's body, not fairly relevant. Sex does not have to be for reproduction as we're one of the species that does it out of pleasure. See first sentence of "--2" yet again for "killing another human". ------6. You couldn't kill anybody you wanted to because you wouldn't be able to, that is why we have such constructs as immorality. Try to destroy society and society will then turn on you. Rights, like morality, are subjective. Just like "free" speech is not black&white. You can't yell profanity, you can't threaten people etc. Closing Argument- Abortion is not moral or immoral. -A fetus is not even close to a developed, cognitive, human nor is it an "separate individual". Thank you Con for participating and to all the viewers/readers, please vote for anyone of us, as long as it's in good, fair, thought out, reasons.
Debate Round No. 4
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Hazey 2 years ago
Hazey
Okay, well go imprison abortion doctors now or even execute them. Tell me how that works out.
;)
Posted by blimp456 2 years ago
blimp456
Yeah, ok. ;3
Posted by Hazey 2 years ago
Hazey
"And gg well played no redo ;3" You only won by one point, and that's mostly because I didn't know how to edit at that time. 6-5, so literally," Due to Pro's terrible one paragraph formatting I give S&G to Con" you won by that inch. What's ";3" suppose to be? As far as I'm concerned you've lost the main points, mostly repeating yourself. I think I'll go have ten abortions now.
Posted by Hazey 2 years ago
Hazey
My plant argument is not invalid. It went towards your whole "life begins at conception." It doesn't matter. Why don't all living things have rights? Because rights is more of a human made-up concept that is not necessarily moral neither is law. Saying that I shouldn't have secular morality because I'm an Atheist is ridiculous. And science doesn't say that morality is wrong. Science=/=philosophy. You're just interpreting science of it says abortions is wrong, it doesn't. Like I said, it being a Homo Sapien, doesn't make it the same us as. Ants have legs, we have legs, science, what does that tell you? Probably the same thing to you as telling me a fetus is Homo Sapien does to me; not much. But should it result in an arrest for murder? No. It should result in an arrest for being too loud or possibly damaging something etc. Of course you have to stray from pulling the plug to shooting someone, as if it's going to put me in awe, I will say that it sounds more interesting though. I think that just shows you that the law=/=morality. There have been many edits to laws for a very long time, one moment it's legal to stone gays and as time passes Jay-walking is illegal, even if you check both sides of the road, because giant chunks of mobile metal was invented. And if someone's blind enough not to notice someone walking down the middle of a street after they turned the corner, then why are they going that fast to turn the corner and make it over there to hit them? Is it really that wrong to risk your life to get to another side? Even though it's a very low chance if they, and the other person are spending attention, which a driver is heavily responsible to do. Laws are questionable especially when you try to pertain them to morality.
Posted by blimp456 2 years ago
blimp456
And gg well played no redo ;3
Posted by blimp456 2 years ago
blimp456
Sperm does not have the required chromosomes to be considered human DNA. And I'm not talking about the rights of the cognitive. I'm talking about the rights we have for simply being human. HUMAN: A member of the homo sapien species. Your argument commenting on plants is invalid. They do not have human rights for obvious reasons. I never said all living things had rights, I said human beings have rights. And I never brought in religious interpretation, I used science, which you should agree with since you have said that you are an atheist. In addition, Law is based on morality. That's why it is illegal to kill, steal, etc. It is immoral to do so. Laws are based on a society's values. And the difference of killing a brain dead person with a gun and pulling the plug? I would be arrested for shooting him. My point is that legally, killing a brain dead person would result in an arrest but an abortion wouldn't even though both result in the death of a human being.
Posted by Hazey 2 years ago
Hazey
Sperm is Homo Sapien juice. Potential human which was part of your argument. So you are contradicting yourself.
Posted by Hazey 2 years ago
Hazey
Claiming that an argument is invalid doesn't get you anywhere. Oh, wow, still with this Homo Sapien shtick. We weren't talking about religious interpretation (I am an Atheist). It is, an irrelevant/unimportant fact. It is a fact that fetus's are not cognitive (I've already explained this) yet you dismiss that. Why? Because just because you throw a fact in, it doesn't make your argument invincible. You can have a fact that doesn't necessarily support you as much as you think it does, so get over it. And plant are alive. We've already covered this random jumble of throwing in "rights" as if it controls morality. "Life begins at conception" So? Now you're throwing us all in the pot? Late-term, Born, and fully developed, wow. You do a really good job avoiding cognitive/independent levels of something, but instead go on this pointless emphasize on just life. Which is as simple as a tree or a fly. How would killing a brain dead person with a gun be that different than by pulling the plug? Except messier. That's poor logic, and I've already told you law=/=morality.
Posted by blimp456 2 years ago
blimp456
@Hazey This is where your argument is completely invalid, a rock does not have the DNA of a homo sapien. A fetus does. And my argument is valid. You can't use a cultural definition for a human being because it would be biased. You definition might make abortion be ok but the Catholics cultural definition is biased toward being against abortion. So, we have to look at unbiased, non-partisan science. Therefore, a human being is simply a member of the homo-sapien species. Trying to argue against fact is folly. All human beings have rights, including those unborn. Not just Catholics, but science, say that life begins at conception. Many people say things like, "So when someone masturbates they are a serial killer." Well, no. They are so proud to "defeat" me but they seem to forget that sperm is not a member of the homo sapien species. And a few comments below, I did not say having a brain dead person have the, "plug pulled." I'm talking about murdering that brain dead person with a gun. I would go to jail for that so with that logic abortion should also be illegal.
Posted by Hazey 2 years ago
Hazey
Fetus's in the womb are not aware of their surroundings and have no values, reasoning or understanding of anything, and therefor basically have no rights. That's like saying a rock has rights because I drew a heart and a smiley face on it.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Theunkown 2 years ago
Theunkown
blimp456HazeyTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Reasons for voting decision: No sources were used so that is tied, Though there was a text taken from declaration of human rights, there was no link, so that cannot be validated. Due to Pro's terrible one paragraph formatting I give S&G to Con, while arguments and Conduct go to Pro due to the fact that con said that abortion is justified in rape cases which reads to us voters as an obvious concession.
Vote Placed by Chuz-Life 2 years ago
Chuz-Life
blimp456HazeyTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for me was too close to call on this one - though I was leaning towards giving conduct to Con after viewing Pro's link to a comedian's rant on the subject as support for his views. Spelling and Grammar only barely goes to Con - for the same reasons that 'Realist' gave. Though objectively judging arguments is difficult for me because I agree with Con already... Pro's concession that a human fetus is a "homo sapien' only strengthens the truth in Con's arguments about human rights being EQUAL. Sources might have gone to Con if links to the relative text of the Universal declaration of Human Rights was actually linked to. Pro's link to George Carlin is not a reliable source either - so sources should be a tie in my view. Kudos for both pro and Con for staying pretty much on point.
Vote Placed by Relativist 2 years ago
Relativist
blimp456HazeyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:11 
Reasons for voting decision: The debate was quite hard to swallow. Con's opening statements was to affirm that Abortion is illegal yet Con concedes that under rape cases, Abortion is justified. Con went on explaining how it is immoral all the while 'rape' was on his list contradicting the integrity of Con's contentions. By conceding that point, you are affirming Pro's statement that abortion should be in the hands of the woman, not the fetus. Concession-Conduct point Pro. S&G was for the mumbo jumbo format of which Pro clunks everything into one small paragraph. Even still, his arguments are straight to the point on contesting Con's case so the rest is a tie.