The Instigator
ModerateConservative456
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Complicated_Mind
Pro (for)
Winning
3 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 1 vote the winner is...
Complicated_Mind
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/19/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 472 times Debate No: 68547
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

ModerateConservative456

Con

I personally am opposed to abortion EXCEPT in cases of rape, incest, or danger to the mother or child's life, even though I feel that abortion no matter what is morally wrong, I think in those circumstances, in the end, it's the right thing to do. I am also opposed to "partial birth" abortions and "Tax-payer funded" abortions. I would highly encourage building technologies that could take out the fetus of a mother that doesn't want the child and put it into a new mother that is infertile and/or looking to adopt or have a child. And, I would also recommend schools to provide condoms for students, but not to encourage them to have sex, but merely just in case their "feelings" and "Hormones" gets the better of them to reduce the spread of STDs and abortions.
Complicated_Mind

Pro

I thank Con for instigating this debate.

If I am able to prove to the audience that there is at least one justifiable circumstance other than rape, incest, and risking the lives of those involved (namely the mother and child) of which abortion should be permitted, I win this debate as that would refute my opponent's entire resolution and case.

I wish Con good luck.

====MY CASE====

My case is very simple. I am here to prove that there is at least one situation in which abortion should be permitted excluding the circumstances already listed by my opponent. Consider the following hypothetical:

You live in a ghetto area ravaged by crime, homelessness, and lack of education. There are murders daily, and it is *NOT* a safe place to raise a child. You yourself have no one to turn to and are homeless. You are alone in this world, and you know your child cannot be safe. You cannot afford proper nutritious food, and didn't know that you were a couple months into your pregnancy. You feel the baby weakly kicking, and you know you have been smoking and using drugs for the duration of the entire pregnancy thus far. The first few months are vital to your baby's growth.

You know the baby cannot and will not be healthy. Regardless on whether it is healthy or not, the life it will live would be unlivable. Their quality of life would be poor, they would recieve a non-sheltered life, and they would be exposed to a plethora of crime.

You have seen it yourself. The babies your fellow homeless acquantances have had, and they either ended up comitting crimes with many health issues, or ended up getting hurt and contuing the severe hardship faced by their dangerous everyday life.

Don't you believe that a rational, living, mature mother should be able to decide that if their child would have health issues and would be in constant danger, they should be able to decide to spare them the hardship?

The mother's opinion matters most in such a situation for many reasons, including the fact that the mother is a functional, rational, breathing, thinking human being who has already started her life. In 99% of cases she is capable of making logical decisions, can feel pain, and can provide the life's necessities without much help. (She can feed herself, clothe herself, walk herself, etc.). The baby hasn't started doing any of this yet. In extreme cases such as when the child's life would be endangered by a destructive environment, the mother, for these reasons, should have the right to judge whether or not the baby should live in the environment that they would live in.

In fact, add to this scenario an abusive boyfriend who protects the mother from death. She has to accept her fate, and be submissive and stay with her boyfriend or she will face certain death. The child would then be put into a physically and emotionally abusive environment where they would suffer brutal, daily beatings.

Let's say the mother has visited a doctor because of a few dollars she has worked up through odd jobs. The doctor says the fetus is not a living thing yet. It is still in the early stages. It has no heartbeat, no capacity to feel pain, and lacks a consciousness. The mother knows the child would face nothing but a terrible life, and wants to spare that potential child the emotional, psychological, and physical pain. Who are we to tell her what to do with her own body?

Not letting her choose what to do with her own body before the zygote is actually a living thing is a major violation of human rights to the mother.

So, basically, to summarize my case:

I. The child may face hardship. This includes malnutrition, starvation, exposement to crime, and so on. If the mother's intuition tells her that it will be a misreable life to the child, then she should have a say on whether or not to bring the child into such an environment.

II. Before the fetus gains ANY human-like quality, and lacks the simplest things, like recognizable body parts, a heartbeat, a capacity to feel pain, consciousness, and so forth, the mother has a right to her own body. If you are against a rational-thinking mother choosing what to do with her own body before the fetus is a living thing, then that is violating her rights. You may as well be against birth control, and condoms.

If my opponent fails to confront ANY of my points, they lose this debate and I win. As their title is vague, we are simply debating on the morality of abortion. Since I have provided cases that are not listed by my opponent as exceptions, if they fail to negate my moral standpoints in such a situation, their resolution falls apart, and I will emerge from this debate victorious.

I thank Con again for this debate.





Debate Round No. 1
ModerateConservative456

Con

I thank PRO for accepting my challenge to this debate. As a matter of fact, this will be my first official debate on this website.

May the best debater win.

1. Assuming that the circumstance provided by my opponent in Round 1 didn't include rape, incest, or having unprotected sex as I had described in Round 1, this would definitely be a tight-spot to be in, however, this does not mean the mother has to necessarily accept the situation she's in as unchangeable. For instance, couldn't she just move out of the neighborhood if its an unfit place to raise a child? And even If she's unable to afford to move out at the time, she could go to the Department of Human Services to find out what assistance she could receive pertaining to programs for food, clothing, shelter, job-training, day-care funding, college assistance, and other programs that would help her meet her current needs as well as obtaining goals for the future.

2. My opponent had said "Before the fetus gains ANY human-like quality, and lacks the simplest things, such as recognizable body-parts, a heartbeat, a capacity to feel pain, consciousness, the mother has a right to her own body."
I hate to break it to my opponent, but just because something doesn't have recognizable body parts, a heartbeat, or anything else my opponent has mentioned above doesn't necessarily disprove that something is a living thing. For example, cells are biologically considered living things because they can carry out several functions, including but not limited to reproduction (cells can divide themselves asexually), growth (cellular metabolism), homeostasis (cell membranes can control chemicals going in and out of the cell), transform and use energy (photosynthesis and ATP), and more. So far as it comes to consciousness, let's say that (hypothetically speaking) someone broke into your neighbors house at 3 A.M. in the morning and killed them in their sleep, would it be a legitimate excuse for the criminal to claim that since your neighbor wasn't conscious at the time that their actions were acceptable? No, I didn't think so. Not to mention, the fetus itself isn't considered a part of the women's body, because it is attacked by the mothers immune system because it sees the fetus as an enemy, although its not. The chemicals isoleamine and dioxygenase (IDO for short) come to the fetus's rescue, however, and stop the attack from destroying it. So to say that a women has a right to do what she wants with her own body pertaining to something that isn't a part of it is invalid.
Complicated_Mind

Pro

My apologies for the sh!t arguments. I have two hours left, and I have to be somewhere in a little, so this is all I could do on an iPad with a fifteen minute timeframe. Thanks for patiently waiting, Con.

"Assuming that the circumstance provided by my opponent in Round 1 didn't include rape, incest, or having unprotected sex as I had described in Round 1, this would definitely be a tight-spot to be in, however, this does not mean the mother has to necessarily accept the situation she's in as unchangeable. For instance, couldn't she just move out of the neighborhood if its an unfit place to raise a child?" -Con.

In the hypothetical I gave out, she is homeless and can't simply move. It is not so simple, as you think. This is a poverty-stricken mother-to-be in an extremely dangerous environment for a child. She's doesn't know anywhere else and is afraid to leave. Further, she lives in a big city, so she would have to hitchhike or something to leave where she currently resides which poses high safety risks. As such, given that she doesn't know where the closest town is, she doesn't want to risk it.

Additionally hitchhiking poses risk of one of the exceptions you stated - rape.

"And even If she's unable to afford to move out at the time, she could go to the Department of Human Services to find out what assistance she could receive pertaining to programs for food, clothing, shelter, job-training, day-care funding, college assistance, and other programs that would help her meet her current needs as well as obtaining goals for the future." -Con.

Not every city has such places readily available with the knowledge of EVERY citizen. She is uneducated and cannot locate such a place, nor does she know it exists. If a mother in this situation feels she cannot go ANYWHERE or do ANYTHING to ensure a safe and proper environment for her child, then SHE a rational, thinking, breathing human being that has already lived life, should not be forced to bring a baby into such a situation. There isn't always a strangely convenient place to turn for immediate help.

The only option is to bring a life into the dysfunctional place stated above, or terminate the pregnancy for the time being, and probably have kids at a later time in a healthier environment.

"My opponent had said "Before the fetus gains ANY human-like quality, and lacks the simplest things, such as recognizable body-parts, a heartbeat, a capacity to feel pain, consciousness, the mother has a right to her own body."
I hate to break it to my opponent, but just because something doesn't have recognizable body parts, a heartbeat, or anything else my opponent has mentioned above doesn't necessarily disprove that something is a living thing. For example, cells are biologically considered living things because they can carry out several functions, including but not limited to reproduction (cells can divide themselves asexually), growth (cellular metabolism), homeostasis (cell membranes can control chemicals going in and out of the cell), transform and use energy (photosynthesis and ATP), and more." -Con.

This argument is irrelevant. These functions are present in things as minuscule as bacteria and plants. Should it be illegal to step on a plant? Plants can grow through photosynthesis, bacteria can reproduce asexually, and so forth. According to Con's logic, it should be illegal to step on a plant, and the law should be obligated to preserve all bacteria as it is immoral to consciously allow bacteria to be eliminated.

Furthermore, my opponent is playing semantics games. Con should know it is blatantly obvious that I met sentient life. The fact that he made this argument is ridiculous.

I urge the voters to take this into account when voting on conduct.

"So far as it comes to consciousness, let's say that (hypothetically speaking) someone broke into your neighbors house at 3 A.M. in the morning and killed them in their sleep, would it be a legitimate excuse for the criminal to claim that since your neighbor wasn't conscious at the time that their actions were acceptable? No, I didn't think so." -Con.

This argument is both asinine and absurd. My neighbors have all lived life, accomplished things, have jobs/go to school, and are WAY past the zygote stage. They have had a heartbeat and consciousness for years, or even decades. We are thinking of two different kinds of unconsciousness.

The same cannot be said for something that has never had a consciousness, or a heartbeat. They have not been a living thing yet. Through Con's logic, birth control should be illegal.

Your hypothetical would be homicidal murder whereas the termination of a pregnancy that has not yet produced a LIVING thing is simply an early-term abortion which is morally justifiable for reasons already stated above.

"Not to mention, the fetus itself isn't considered a part of the women's body, because it is attacked by the mothers immune system because it sees the fetus as an enemy, although its not. The chemicals isoleamine and dioxygenase (IDO for short) come to the fetus's rescue, however, and stop the attack from destroying it. So to say that a women has a right to do what she wants with her own body pertaining to something that isn't a part of it is invalid." -Con.

The chemicals that save the fetus would not be produced nor utilized if it were not part of the woman's internal systems which are located in her body. Therefore, things in her body help keep another thing in her body alive, which is a common process with many different examples.

Moreover, there are many reasons this argument is inane as shown below.

How is a not yet living thing that dictates the mother's food cravings, gives her morning sickness, and pains her NOT part of her body?

It is INSIDE the mother, just like lungs, a heart, or a liver. In the stages before it is alive, it is a part of the mother's body. It is an extension of her internals, which is helped by other parts of her body. This is similar to many other internal body structures (e.g the heart has many functions in order to help keep something alive). By the way, a heart, something which determines whether something is living, is something an early-term fetus lacks. This discredits my opponent's argument that something that lacks a heart is a living, sentient being.

Your turn, Con.
Debate Round No. 2
ModerateConservative456

Con

1. In the hypothetical I gave out, she is homeless and can't simply move. It is not so simple, as you think. This is a poverty-stricken mother-to-be in an extremely dangerous environment for a child. She's doesn't know anywhere else and is afraid to leave. Further, she lives in a big city, so she would have to hitchhike or something to leave where she currently resides which poses high safety risks. As such, given that she doesn't know where the closest town is, she doesn't want to risk it."

It goes without saying that my opponent, whether intentionally or not, changed the circumstances of the hypothetical situation he/she gave me above in Round 1. They had said the mother in question lived in a bad neighborhood with crime and murder, is homeless, and had no one to turn to. He/she did NOT state, however, that the mother didn't know where the nearest town(s)/city(s) was. (And even IF, hypothetically speaking, she didn't, couldn't she research areas nearby that would be more suitable for her and her child to live in?) Not to mention, she could use "zero-fare" (meaning fully-subsidized, so it wouldn't cost her a cent) public transporation to get to a safer place to raise her child, thus avoiding the possibility of being raped while hitchhiking, as my opponent had mentioned earlier.

2. "Not every city has such places readily available with the knowledge of EVERY citizen. She is uneducated and cannot locate such a place, nor does she know it exists. If a mother in this situation feels she cannot go ANYWHERE or do ANYTHING to ensure a safe and proper environment for her child, then SHE a rational, thinking, breathing human being that has already lived life, should not be forced to bring a baby into such a situation. There isn't always a strangely convenient place to turn for immediate help."

Sigh, my opponent yet again added additional circumstances which did not apply to the hypothetical situation he/she provided in the first round, not to mention what they had said flies face-first into reality. If that were the case, why are there so many programs, resources and people in general out there wanting and willing to help? As a matter of fact, there are ways to find out what resources are available for you, like going to a public library and researching on the internet, especially since the mother wouldnt be able to afford a computer or phone herself anyway. Its a win-win in this situation because she'll not only learn of the wide-variety of resources available to her, (I.e. including but not limited to the U.S. Department of Labor, http://www.dol.gov..., U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, http://portal.hud.gov..., Homelessness Resource Center, http://homeless.samhsa.gov..., and more.), but the internet provided by the library is free for anyone to use.

3. "This argument is irrelevant. These functions are present in things as minuscule as bacteria and plants. Should it be illegal to step on a plant? Plants can grow through photosynthesis, bacteria can reproduce asexually, and so forth. According to Con's logic, it should be illegal to step on a plant, and the law should be obligated to preserve all bacteria as it is immoral to consciously allow bacteria to be eliminated."

I did not expect my opponent to blow this way out of proportion. While bacteria and plants are life too, does not deny the fact that cells are biologically considered life, let alone that were talking about a HUMAN fetus. Furthermore, he/she helps me prove my point that if cells didn't exist or arent living things themselves, life altogether would cease to exist. For example, if a plants cells didn't photosynthesize, the plant couldn't make or use energy and would perish, or how the cells in our own bodies reproduce and multiply so that we can grow, because if they didn't we'd stay small forever. In other words, if cells aren't living things, then why are they able to carry out all of those processes that living things need to do to survive as I had mentioned in Round 2? I'd kindly suggest my opponent to study biology a little more before jumping to conclusions that something NEEDS a heart or consciousness to be living, when cells are proof on the contrary.

4. "Your hypothetical would be homicidal murder whereas the termination of a pregnancy that has not yet produced a LIVING thing is simply an early-term abortion which is morally justifiable for reasons already stated above."

Its clear my opponent denies the fact that cells themselves are living things when I had provided the evidence that they were. He/she apparently didn't specify so far as it comes to what KIND of life he/she was talking about.

"Before the fetus gains ANY human-like quality, and lacks the simplest things, like recognizable body parts, a heart-beat, consciousness, a capacity to feel pain, and so forth, the mother has a right to her own body. If you are against a rational-thinking mother choosing what to do with her own body before the fetus is a living thing, then that is violation her rights."

This was a statement they made in round 1. Now look at the statement they made in round 2.

"Furthermore, my opponent is playing semantics games. Con should know it is blatantly obvious that I'm talking about sentiatic life."

Ironic, isn't it? I had proven cells were living things, and a fetus is made of cells. I would encourage voters to take THAT into consideration when the time comes to vote.

I bid PRO good luck in the final round.
Complicated_Mind

Pro

I thank Pro for his argumentation. My apologies to both my opponent and the readers for the crappy formatting. My writing program was glitching out. I responded to my opponent's rebuttals through the same numbered format that they did (what they numbered "1" I also numbered "1" so readers can tell what I am refuting).

1. Unsurprisingly, my opponent has failed to consider the fact that not EVERY single mother in such a situation would be aware of such resources. When reading my hypothetical, I am surprised my opponent didn't catch on to the fact that there are places in even the US where people barely know how to read and write (namely places like I have described) and is a very frequent occurence in third-world countries. Additionally, not EVERY ghetto has places such as those listed by Con (namely foreign, ghetto places).

Despite my opponent pointing out such things, he has still failed to prove that the mother giving birth and raising a child in such an environment is more beneficial than harmful to the child.

Further, my opponent has failed to get the gist of my main argument: before the baby is actually a *LIVING AND SENTIENT* being, and the mother knows the child will be raised in a harmful environment, then before the baby gains consciousness, a heartbeat, or other basic signs of sentient life, the mother should have the right to spare the potential child the hardship. Regardless of how my opponent wants to put it, the sentient mother has the right to terminate a potential unsentient life (much like birth control) that is inside of HER. Otherwise, it is a violation of basic human rights.

2. Sigh, my opponent has shown yet another sign of mental deficiency, since he clearly does not have the mental capacity to have reading comprehension above an elementary level.

Some places don't have libraries, FYI. Predictably, opponent did not have the intelligence to specify a certain country/region. What if the mother lived in Somalia, for example? I am not contradicting my hypothetical by utilizing this country to support my point. Most parts of Somalia are ghetto, ravaged by murder among other crimes, and have an uneducated population. Somalia has some of the highest murder rates in the world . In some lists, it is rated as the most dangerous country in the world [ http://answersafrica.com... and http://www.english-online.at...] to name a few.

Also, it has a whopping 25.8% literacy population for females aged 15+ [ http://www.indexmundi.com... ] so even if she found a library, which are a rarity there, she would have a rougly 75% of not being able to read. Additionally, Somalia has few computers in the entire country, especially compared to other places in the world. This negates my opponent's entire rebuttal.

I wish to stress to the audience I am *NOT* contradicting my hypothetical from the first round. "You live in a ghetto area ravaged by crime, homelessness, and lack of education. There are murders daily, and it is *NOT* a safe place to raise a child. You yourself have no one to turn to and are homeless. You are alone in this world, and you know your child cannot be safe." -Pro.

Any place in Somalia fits all the criteria of my hypothetical.


3. I'm facepalming so hard right now...

Not only is this argument completely irrelevant, but my opponent is playing semantics games, which is NOT a sign of good conduct.

I never denied life couldn't exist without cells, molecules, and all that biological stuff. However, abortion is a different case entirely. Sentient life, and non-sentient life are different things. It would be impossible to eliminate all photosynthesis and homeostasis as they are natural processes that happen by the miracle of nature.

However, if something is NON-sentient for the timebeing, is living INSIDE of a sentient being, and wil SUFFER if s/he becomes sentient, then the already sentient mother should have the right to prevent the suffering. Otherwise, her rights are being violated in the worst way possible. Terminating a pregnancy that will only lead to suffering (it may lead to the mom suffering emotionally) if the prengnancy is carried out is very moral. It goes without saying that child death and starvation rates are high in Somalia. I doubt many mothers could bear seeing their child suffer to dramatically in such harsh circumstances.

4. "Its clear my opponent denies the fact that cells themselves are living things when I had provided the evidence that they were. He/she apparently didn't specify so far as it comes to what KIND of life he/she was talking about." -Con.

I never denied that cells were living duma$$, but they are not sentient (self-aware, able to perceive surroundings etc.), therefore that is completely unrelated to the topic at hand. Regardless, this is refuted by me above. Early abortion is justifiable for a plethora of reasons that I have already stated other than exceptions stated in round one.


"Ironic, isn't it? I had proven cells were living things, and a fetus is made of cells. I would encourage voters to take THAT into consideration when the time comes to vote." -Con.

I encourage voters to take my above arguments into consideration. Clearly if a mother was in a bad circumstances, even for Somalian standards, and the cells are not sentient, then she should be able to terminate the pregnancy before sentiency in the zygote settles in. Me supporting terminating a batch of non-sentient cells to save it unbearable hardship in the future does not equate to me supporting the elimination of photosynthesis or the function of cells and their various organelles, nor does such things have any relations to abortion.

SUMMARY OF THIS DEBATE:

REASONS WHY I HAVE WON THIS DEBATE:

My opponent has failed to properly refute either of the two parts of my case: a mother preventing a potential baby of being in a dangerous and unhealthy environment such as Somalia. Con attempts to refute this by talking of photosynthesis, homeostasis, and so on. This has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Second, my opponent suggests a library can help the mother find resources. But they fail to consider that many females in destructive areas (Somalia, lots of the Middle East, and other African countries) cannot read due to lack of education. Further, they may not know where the nearest library is.

POINTS DROPPED BY MY OPPONENT:

-If photosynthesis and other such processes are so relevant to this debate, should it be illegal to step on a plant? Where must we draw the line of what's immoral and moral???
-How is photosynthesis and non-sentient living cells relevant to abortion, when terminating a pregnancy will not eliminate the named processes?
-Preventing early-term abortions is violating the rights of the mother.
-The topic of early-term abortion being similar to that of birth control. My opponent didn't bother to rebut this at all. Is he against birth control as well?

I could go on on dropped points, but I'll stop there. Since I have A. Successfully defended both parts of my case and my opponent has failed to do the same, and B. There are a sh!t ton of dropped points, of which should all go into my favor when voting.

Thanks to my opponent for the debate, and thanks to any readers and voters out there.

Goodbye to this debate. I half-regret being "rude" for much of this round, but my opponent had bad conduc first (semantic games, irrelevant arguments, lobbed false accusations at me, and repeatedly strawmanned me and this debate) but I digress. I hope my opponent continues debating, but he could use improvement, (as can I).

Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Complicated_Mind 1 year ago
Complicated_Mind
Due to character limits in the final round, I had to end the debate. This may be bad conduct on my part, however my opponent has also demonstrated non-optimal conduct. After this comment,mI will abstain from further commenting on this debate.

However there are additional points that Con dropped:

-The homicide of unconscious people that are sentient beings are different than early-term abortion.
-The baby, before consciousness sets in, is pretty much part of the mother.
-The abusive boyfriend scenario.

Just thought I'd put out that my opponent has pretty much dropped most of the debate, and all these un-addressed points of mine should mean an automatic win for me.

I once again thank Pro for their valiant effort in this debate.
Posted by platoscaveman 1 year ago
platoscaveman
What I don't agree with is the premise that rape is somehow a viable reason for abortion. The rapist does not get a death sentence in any US state, yet the innocent result of the rape, the child, does get a death sentence. From conception there is unique human dna. That is a human being. Now we either believe that human life is sacred and the right to life for all humans is sacrosanct, or it is sacred and sacrosanct for no one. So if murder is illegal, it must be illegal at all stages of life. If human life is not held sacred, then why is murder illegal? Prior to the 1920's women weren't legally considered persons, should the murder of a woman been legal?

the pro debate so far as been completely about quality of life. Well since the homeless irresponsible woman in the debate has such a poor quality of life, the pro side must feel it is acceptable for her to be killed to prevent her suffering. In fact the whole community she lives in should likely be exterminated to alleviate their suffering. If quality of life is the measurement used to define whether or not it is acceptable to kill someone then who is the arbiter?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Sandra888 1 year ago
Sandra888
ModerateConservative456Complicated_MindTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: I agree with Pro that there were many dropped points. Con did seem to prove that foetuses are alive and human though. Pro kept saying that foetuses are not alive and used this as the main basis of his argument, but con proved they are. However pro seemed to have given a reasonable situation in which abortion was justified, which was unsuccessfully rebutted by con. I give arguments to pro, as he successfully gave a situation in which abortion was justified other than the parameters of the OP. Pro said that he should gain the conduct point because of strawmanning by con. That is not part of conduct IMO. I give the conduct point to con because of pro's rudeness in the last round.