The Instigator
Mister_Man
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
dan40000000
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

Abortion

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
Mister_Man
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/14/2015 Category: Health
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,435 times Debate No: 78660
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (64)
Votes (3)

 

Mister_Man

Pro

I haven't had a debate in a while so I figured why not end my dry spell with a bang and talk about a lovely subject with a member I found in the Opinions section.

We seem to have opposing views on slaughtering unborn children, so we've talked quickly and decided to have a debate on this.

We've already agreed on the rules, but to clarify, I'm going to be arguing that aborting an embryo/zygote/fetus before approximately 24 weeks of gestation age is okay, and my opponent, Dan, will be arguing that it is not okay to abort any type of fetus, pre-birth, whatsoever.

Four rounds

5,000 characters

3 days per round

First round I'll allow Dan to present any opening arguments he has, and I'll counter followed by bringing up my own arguments and we'll do that until round 4, where I will only counter his arguments and solidify my own.

Okay good luck, Dan! :)
dan40000000

Con

I also would like to thank Mister man for taking time to debate me on this issue and I wish him the best of luck in his endeavors.

To clarify on some of the rules. Aborting a Zygote before it implants in cases of rape should not be considered abortion since fertilization AND implantation are required for conception.

First off are we not a society that requires us to pay the consequences of our actions both good and bad. If I rob a store I repay what I owe or go to jail or sometimes both. The Government doesn't give me an out. Another example that I am sure everyone heard growing up is if you play with fire you are going to get burned. Don't do your homework you fail the class, etc. The list goes on and so it is interesting that in the case of Abortion we take an attitude that's a little different we think we don't want to ruin the persons life and what is really interesting is we make the poor baby pay for the mistakes of the parents. I mean how does that make any sense at all? Imagine if my parents robbed a store and the police went to my house and I had to pay them back and/or go to jail. Doesn't that seem a little twisted?

https://www.guttmacher.org...
http://www.abort73.com...

The above statistics show some startling information. Around 1% of abortions are due to rape so that completely destroys the rape argument since that represents such a small group. But again in the cases of rape is it the babies fault that the father or mother made some really bad choices? Again who is paying the consequence for the actions? Also 58% of abortions are to women that are in their 20's. My wife had our first kid at age 20 ironically and here we are 4 years later and we haven't been financially destroyed at all and it didn't prevent her from going to school outside of 1 semester so we are walking proof that going to school is very possible. So in the end people really abort their kids because they just don't want them. But they obviously enjoyed the part about making them. So how is this right that in our society we allow people to avoid getting burned when they play with fire. In no other circumstance in life is this allowed. What is even crazier is the baby is the one that pays for the mistake.

My last argument for this round is based on this source:
https://www.lifesitenews.com...

Clearly this baby born at 22 weeks is alive and well. So these late term abortions are actually killing babies who can go on to live healthy lives as shown in the article. It's a technical point I know but still it goes to prove that a hard cut off doesn't really exist. On a side note it is very sick and disturbing that Planned Parenthood is selling baby parts. Mister may stand against this and say I don't agree with that but it is after all a fruit of abortions. If you are pro abortions than you must accept the fruit that comes with it. It amazes me how many illegal things are done at planned parenthood those doctors should lose their license. But that is what happens when we support abortions and encourage young women to follow through on them.

Again I would like to thank Mister for taking time to debate me and I look forward to a great debate between the two of us. Good luck to you as well Mister :)
Debate Round No. 1
Mister_Man

Pro

Thanks, Dan, I'm happy with ignoring the Zygote process.

Okay, on to the show.

The first thing I want to do is quickly go over some definitions. I see the pro-life argument mainly consists of using words like "baby" to describe unborn, still gestating embryos, which are basically clumps of cells. The term "baby" refers to a newborn or very young child [1]. So calling a fetus a baby just makes abortion seem a lot worse than it is.

I see the main point you made as to why abortion is actually a bad thing is your final point, about Planned Parenthood "selling baby parts." So I'll touch on that quickly here. As you can see here [2], partial-birth abortions are illegal. To say abortion as a whole is a bad thing because very few people perform illegal activities just doesn't quite work. And finally, regarding "selling baby parts," that's blowing it out of proportion, and is taken completely out of context. Planned Parenthood has been permitted under federal law to donate the organs and tissues, as well as the ability to collect reimbursement fees [3]. So your argument that "they're selling baby parts" is way out of context, and everything done is done legally and the main purpose is finding cures for degenerative neurological diseases, brain tumors, and spinal cord injuries. The actual full-length interview is available on YouTube [4] for anyone to watch. It is (obviously) unedited, unlike the video on the pro-life websites, and the staff are professional and go into detail about everything, and there is no way it sounds anything like a black-market baby-selling industry, and what it does sound like, is a group of people eager on researching cures for diseases and such, allowed by the government.


Now, on to the rest. Your first argument is something I surprisingly haven't heard before, as it makes sense at a first glance. However picking it apart and thinking deeply about parenthood and abortion, it's made clear that there actually is a pretty good reason why "babies are punished" for their parent's actions. To allow an unwanted, unloved, uncared-for embryo to be born into this world, populating it even more and existing in an environment that didn't want it to begin with just doesn't make sense. My last paragraph will tie into this.

With your situation, there's a difference between wanting a child and going through with a pregnancy that you're "unsure" you can afford, and not wanting a child at all and being unable to afford one at all. I will touch on this and the previous paragraph in my next paragraph.

I see you say "the embryo pays..." "people get abortions for bad reasons..." "you can keep the baby and find an alternative to an abortion..." but you missed one major, critically important point in the whole debate. WHY is abortion bad? You haven't said anything (other than illegal activities) bad that's tied to abortion. As far as I know, your position is "abortion is not okay." So far, you've given alternatives to abortion and all that, but you don't say why it's actually not okay.

So let me tell you why it is okay.

Abortion does many things. Keeps the society from overpopulation, disallows a child to grow up in extreme poverty, or an environment filled with hatred and neglect, disallows a child with a severe mental disorder that can ruin his/her life from existing, disallows a child to be thrown into yet another foster home because they have parents who don't want them, and the list goes on. Why is it bad to have an abortion? Does your reasoning actually outweigh my reasoning as to why abortion isn't bad? Well, let's see... yes, we're killing something with the same DNA as a human being. And that being the only thing that makes it human, that sure doesn't outweigh possible reasons to have an abortion. And we can't forget that embryos can't feel any kind of mental or physical pain [5], so the only real argument we can go on is "it has human DNA so we can't terminate it, no matter the reason." It isn't aware. It isn't conscious. It doesn't know it exists to begin with. To deny the mother the right to terminate a pregnancy (for whatever reason) is forcing her to go through nine months that she doesn't want to go through, and endure an agonizing childbirth because... well... you haven't really told me why yet.

So let's actually see why abortion is a bad thing!

Thanks! On to you! :)



Sources

[1] http://dictionary.cambridge.org...

[2] https://www.law.cornell.edu...

[3] http://www.dailydot.com...

[4] https://www.youtube.com...

[5] http://jama.jamanetwork.com...
dan40000000

Con

Thank you Mister! My first round I wanted to only dispel the convenience of abortions and how it is very possible to raise a child in such dire circumstances. I was planning on using this part to show why it is bad but I think you will be disappointed because it is a very short argument.

New Arguments:

If someone asked me is it wrong to kill someone in Asia(just picking a random Continent) and to give me a solid argument for it. Well my argument would be very short of course because Human Rights don't need scientific data or explanations. So my argument on Abortion is "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." [1] To add to this The great Mary Elizabeth Williams a big time abortion advocate admitted "Yes the babies in the womb are human beings, so what?[2]'. So even hard core abortionists admit that babies in the Womb are human beings. And according to the founding principles of our country Humans are all awarded certain unalienable rights.

If I have to explain how these Humans are losing that unalienable rights then there is probably something wrong with you. Just in case you decide babies (I know you didn't like this word but everyone I know pro life or pro choice refers to their babies in the womb as their little babies so it seems wrong to change it in this debate) are not human here is a definition. [3]. Clearly according to Webster babies in the womb are definitely human. For example from even a young age our daughter was crazy active and it turns out she is just like me, super active and full of energy. This clearly shows that human characteristics are shown from way before 24 weeks. Not to mention that a lot of their body work is developed too. [4]. This also refutes your article that babies don't feel pain which is just not true according to those experts which testified in court. At 8-10 weeks babies can feel pain so again their is another Human attribute. These are Humans. If you are bored watch this video. https://www.youtube.com...

Rebuttals:

I will keep these short since my argument was longer than I wanted.

1. Planned Parenthood- I understood the video cherry picked a little but even in the video she clearly states that they do illegal births. It is very clear. The other side where they can except donations for delivering body parts. This smells just like big politicians "accepting" donations from billionaires with "no strings attached". The donations thing is just a bogus cover so that Americans won't get angry and shut them down plus she clearly in the video suggested that the top people in Washington want to be disconnected from them so obviously they know something fishy is going on.

2. Over-population: I love this argument because it is so fundamentally flawed it just makes me smile. And abortionists always like to bring this up even though it doesn't deny that babies have rights it just helps them in their self justification of killing someone. First off there is a lot of propaganda out there that the Earth can't sustain this many people. I am lucky enough to have a father who is an agriculture economist. Which means his whole job is the economics behind food production. Two easy arguments clearly refute over-population 1. We are no where close to max capacity. Not to mention all the technology that will be developed in the future. Plus all the beer and wine we grow if their was a food shortage all beer would be made into food and would be more than enough. 2. as global warming continues hopefully then it will open a lot of new farm land that is currently unused. Plus more CO2 means better, more efficient farms. It is literally the worst argument out there. No offense but really it should never be used.

Look at this map and it will show how humans if needed could easily fit in the world http://static.persquaremile.com....

De toca ti!

[1] http://www.ushistory.org...
[2] http://www.goodreads.com...
[3] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[4] http://www.lifenews.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Mister_Man

Pro

Whenever I debate someone and they say "thanks, Mister!" or "on to you, Mister!" I always picture a little kid in a lemonade stand asking a middle-aged guy in a suit if he wants to buy a glass. "Hey Mister, you want some lemonade?!"

Anyway, thanks Dan. I'm not disappointed at all, don't you worry one bit, sir.

So I hear this argument all the time, and I call it the Hypocrite argument, because your main point is "you're a hypocrite if you don't allow born humans to be killed but you allow unborn ones to be killed." Now there are many differences between an unborn human and a born human, which is why currently abortion is legal in about half of the world. And speaking of the world, I must remind everybody that it is something which is definitely not black and white. Many, many other factors are involved when making decisions, when determining whether or not something is good or bad, etc.

The main thing that determines whether something is human is the DNA is has. So you're basing whether or not something is good or bad on something invisible to the human eye. So technically a two-celled fertilized egg is a human being, simply because it has human DNA. However, like I said before, the world isn't black and white. There are exceptions to the rule. There are such a large amount of differences between an embryo and a born human that I wouldn't be able to list all of them here if that was my entire argument. To determine whether or not something is bad based on what kind of DNA it has instead of it's physical and mental qualities and state, just doesn't really make sense. Sure, it's what we call a human. But it makes logical sense to at least consider the pros and cons to keeping an unwanted embryo than to just flat out assert that it's bad to terminate it "because it has human DNA."

The article you linked actually doesn't prove that embryos feel pain; it shows reflexive withdraws to stimulants, much like a plant or tree if you light a fire near it. I also have scientists to back me up when I say embryos cannot feel pain (the same way a tree cannot feel pain) [1], so I would say it's safe to conclude that embryos "feel pain" in the sense that a tree or plant "feels pain" - by reflexively pulling away from a stimulant. Having a nervous system not connected to the part of the brain that registers pain means you cannot feel pain. It means when the embryo's body reacts to something, it's reflexive, not experiential, and therefore, not actually "feeling pain" [2].

I also want to quickly point out that you obviously wanted your daughter. Not every single woman that is pregnant got pregnant on purpose, or wants to give birth. Saying "abortion is a bad thing because our specific situation worked out the way we wanted" doesn't really apply. I'd also like to point out that it's not that "I don't like the term 'babies'," it's that scientifically speaking, they are not babies. Obviously women who are carrying a fetus and want it are going to refer to it as their babies. My point is that saying "killing babies" is purely for shock factor and sounds a lot worse than what it technically is.

Rebuttals to your rebuttals

Planned Parenthood - Unfortunately for most of your argument, it's filled with your bias against abortion, which leads to you asserting that "she meant this" or "this must be happening," with nothing more than a completely legal matter being discussed. The fact of the matter is she is discussing a completely legal operation, which I've shown in my previous round, and if you chose to interpret that as they're illegally aborting fetuses, my point from earlier still stands - "To say abortion as a whole is a bad thing because very few people perform illegal activities just doesn't quite work." People breaking the law shouldn't have any effect on whether or not something is generally good or bad. People drowning doesn't mean swimming is a bad thing. If you have proof that "something fishy is going on," which isn't an edited video of the few "questionable parts" of a lengthy interview, I'm sure that would help.

Over-population - Ignoring the "slaughtering children" nonsense... You presented no sources to back your assertions up with. So here's something [3], and keep in mind the areas of the Earth that are "over-populated" are the areas with the most famine, disease, crime, and poor mental state [4]. So that's sure saying something.

I also see you STILL haven't given a reason as to why abortion is actually BAD, other than "terminating something with human DNA is wrong." And I've already explained how other factors nullify the fact that the unborn have the same DNA.

Sources
[1] https://www.newscientist.com...
[2] http://www.salon.com...
[3] http://www.nationalgeographic.com...
[4] http://www.newgeography.com...
dan40000000

Con

I wonder if you named yourself Mister so people would feel like a kid talking to you. Smart move :)

New Arguments:

Ironic that the very face of abortion the woman who was in the case has since flipped. We see this all the time that women when they get older decide that babies are real and actually many women have depression issues about past aborted babies. [5][6]. Also interesting that so many women change their mind after they see an ultra sound apparently they agree with me that a little fetus shows human attributes and thus deserve human rights. [7].

Rebuttals:

I like Mister's arguments that "Many, many other factors are involved when making decisions, when determining whether or not something is good or bad" and in almost every case in the world this is a good attitude to have and I wish more people would think like this. However when you talk about issues in Human Rights the only thing to consider is are they Human (hence the word human rights). The gay community was a great example of putting their whole argument on human rights and it worked very well and people feel stupid arguing against it. Ironically those same liberals turn and say well let's define Human rights and start to explain and say we need to go deeper, examine all the facts, etc when it comes to abortion that is very hypocritical in my eyes. And I find it funny when people do that because I have seen in debates about gay marriage whenever people say well we need to go deeper the pro gay marriage group will always laugh and say it's all about human rights so try to stay consistent here. It boils down to this are babies in the womb humans? By definition they clearly are. [1].

Here is why pro-choice people just don't make any sense. Like this debate Mister is saying before 24 weeks a baby is not a human and therefor has no rights. Many pro-choicers have the same opinion it's a week around there somewhere. I ask anyone to read this page and ask themselves what is so significant about 24 weeks (or any other week) that it all of the sudden makes them a human being? [2]. Are you saying that a little weight gain, the baby is a little taller, the taste buds are fully developed, and basically things continue to develop. So all that happens is she continues to develop the only significant event that happens is her taste buds finish(they have been developing for weeks). So how does her taste buds finishing all of the sudden turn her into a baby that now has human rights? I mean I truly fail to see any logical argument there that supports at 24 weeks officially because of taste buds it is given human rights.

That is the problem with this argument if you look at the development of a baby it is so slow it's impossible to find a hard cut off. But you are forced to because you can't say we can abort 36 week babies because that is blatantly wrong but if you work your way back their is really no significant development week by week to warrant a hard cut off date. This is because from it's inception a little fetus has human attributes and SHOULD therefore be classified as a human. Once classified as a Human than they are awarded human rights which is rights to life and not to have their life ended. If the cut off is 24 weeks does that mean at 23 week 6 days 23 hours and 59 minutes its ok to abort a baby but the very next minute it has human rights? [3] How the heck does that make any logical sense in any argument. what happens in that minute that makes it all of the sudden human? Does Mister consider taste buds to be that important to the Human body? That's the problem if you make these cut offs there is a point where 1 minute this is just a fetus who is a nobody and the next minute they are a human with rights? That doesn't even sound right. There is no reasonable explanation to justify why one minute a fetus is not a human and the next they aren't.[4]

I will address over-population later if you really want but my arguments last time are solid. I lived and visited 4 different countries in Latin America and since my father was an Ag Economists I toured dozens of farms and ranches and i can tell you they are incredibly inefficient and we are no where near max capacity. Not to mention all the land used for wine, beer, tobacco could easily be turned into farm land. China and India have the same problem. This honestly isn't even a discussion. If you want to know more and get sources message me and we can talk there. If the world had 25 billion people that is where you START to worry.

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[2] http://www.babycentre.co.uk...
[3] http://www.glennbeck.com...
[4] http://www.lifenews.com...
[5] http://www.lifenews.com...
[6] http://www.lifenews.com...
[7] http://www.politifact.com...
Debate Round No. 3
Mister_Man

Pro

It's actually what Kathy Bates calls James Caan in 'Misery,' a fantastic movie. I'd prefer it if the people I talked to didn't feel like kids lol.

So let's continue.

People performing illegal acts does not make the legal version of that act a bad thing. For example; bondage. Bondage is legal and is broadcast online for hundreds of millions of people to enjoy. However, tying someone up in your basement and keeping them captive against their will for months is not a very nice thing to do. So does that make bondage a bad thing? No. The illegal activity performed is by bad people doing bad things, and has nothing to do with the legal/"okay" aspects. So abortion in the first or second trimester, performed properly, is NOT the same as (I don't want to go into gory detail) violent, illegal late-term abortions.

The difference between the gay community and unborn, undeveloped embryos is that the gay community members have been alive for decades, have developed into full-grown adults with a full working nervous system, thought processes, emotions, mannerisms, consciousness, etc, while embryos have not.

I see your entire argument is based around a man-made law revolving around human rights. You say "human rights are for human beings, and because an unborn embryo is a human, due to sharing the same DNA, the same human rights applied to born humans should apply to the unborn ones." Well like I said earlier, the world isn't that black and white. You basically dismissed my entire argument and rebutted with "well they're humans, so your argument is irrelevant." Like I said - there are many, MANY other factors to consider when dealing with every form of decision-making. The embryo is not aware of what is happening to it, as it's consciousness doesn't "come online" until it's born [1], and even then, the consciousness doesn't even fully develop until a couple years after birth. And I'd say that's a good enough reason to allow abortions - the unborn embryo is unconscious, and is therefore unaware of anything going on. It's unaware of it's own existence. It's unaware of any stimuli (as I stated before, reflexive actions are not a part of an awareness) affecting it, and it's definitely unable to feel any form of pain. This is not the same thing as an awake, aware, conscious, born human being, so I feel this merits the "human rights" part of this is able to have exceptions made for it.

Unfortunately for the rest of your argument, you seem to have misunderstood what I said. On the 2nd line of my 4th paragraph in my round 3 argument, I stated that "...a two-celled fertilized egg is a human being..." so the majority of your next two paragraphs are basically inapplicable to this debate.

With that being said, I noticed the main point you're bringing up is that a fetus/embryo shares so many human traits that it would be "bad" to terminate it. Well, aside from the "human rights" argument that I've already discussed, there's not a whole lot saying that it is "bad" to terminate an unborn fetus. It resembles humans, so I can see the relatability aspect - it looks like you, so you don't want to kill it, however your feelings shouldn't have a huge impact on a woman's life who is unrelated (or even related) to you. It resembles the physical features of a human after a certain stage. It shares similar features (protip: all life forms look pretty much the same up until a certain point) to a born human, but do those features actually matter? It looks like a (born) human, but does it think like a human? It has the blood circulation as a human, but does it feel pain like a human? It exists like a human, but does it KNOW it exists like a human? The list goes on. My point is that the features an embryo/fetus shares with a human are the irrelevant ones - the ones that appeal strictly to emotion - and doesn't have any science/logic/reasoning behind it.

I also noticed you're hung up on the "24 week" thing. And although your entire argument around that is a straw man and doesn't even need to be addressed, I will quickly go over it, to please you. The reason I picked 24 weeks (I'm okay with abortion at any time, I know I'm a monster) is because it's easier to use that as a "cut-off" line - once the third trimester starts, the fetus grows significantly into a more recognizable human, the Thalamus (responsible for consciousness) forms, and it shares many more human characteristics. This is irrelevant though.

You haven't shared a single source yet (something you should easily be able to do if you're so knowledgeable about the economy), so I'll assume we won't bother with sources for this part. All I have to say is if there's a greater population, there's a greater demand for food. There's a higher crime rate. Diseases spread easier. Show me a SOURCE (I did mine last round) that says you can combat these easily, and that population density doesn't matter.

Merci.

[1] http://www.scientificamerican.com...
dan40000000

Con

It has been a positive experience debating you and I thank you for the debate.

Since it is the last round I will introduce no new arguments. I will have a little rebuttal and mainly reinforce my current arguments.

Rebuttal:

Comparing early term abortions to late term abortions was very unclear and made little sense how it relates to bondage. Early term and late term abortions are the exact same just a different stages. So in reality it's like saying what is bad in bondage is it the kidnapping part or the brutality part. It doesn't matter where you are at in the process it is just degrees of bad but in the end it is all bad.

So are you saying as we grow up our rights change? So at what points of our life are we allowed to kidnap people? Rape people? Murder people? Rob people? There are certain unalienable rights that we get at the beginning of life[1]. Which as the sources states is at conception and there is irrefutable science to support that life begins at conception. This is where we receive our certain unalienable rights. That is very scientific.

Consciousness-

Interesting that you consider consciousness to be the key attribute for life. So does this mean we can kill anything without consciousness? Which includes 2 month year old's. So with this logic Mister is saying it is OK to kill something under 4 months old. So if I go to a hospital and start slaughtering newborns that is totally acceptable? I really hope you don't think that. See Mister has a double standard here. If I found 4 different woman who were all at various stages of pregnancy and actually the 4th woman had a little newborn and I killed all 4 babies would you support me going to trail for murder in any of the cases? (I would probably go to trial for abuse and other things but those aren't relevant in our conversation). According to the logic of consciousness I would not go to trail for murder of anyone.

Now how is that logical or even scientific? I would hope in our world I would go to trial for murder in every case. I can tell you as father even if our baby was 2 months along I would feel the same pain I would for 3 year old it would hurt just as bad why? Because biologically that is my offspring and it has a beating heart and dozens of human attributes because it is human.

Bad-

If I went to my neighbor and murdered him would you classify this as bad? Probably and I hope I wouldn't need to give some crazy explanation as to why it is bad. Same situation it is a Human and has human rights case closed.

Reinforcement-

I previously cited a majority of women who see an ultra sound change their mind about aborting a baby. Why? Is it because they notice it is more human than they thought and thus deserves a chance at life? Is it because they immediately form some kind of bond? Who knows but this I do know it is a living human being who just begun at life and apparently most women agree that it deserves a chance to live.

During the babies entire growth period their is not a single event that happens so fast that you can scientifically justify giving a cutoff date for abortions. At some point you have to decide one minute it's a baby the other minute it's not. Even if like Mister you believe in consciousness which means well into the newborns life outside of the womb. There comes a point where one minute it has the right to life and the next it doesn't. Now does that sound as illogical to you as it does to me? I hope so because that is just insane thinking. Could you imagine that one minute it's OK to rob someone but the next minute it's not OK? Who would ever have the crazy impulse to make such a line in our lives it's just nonsense. Ending life is even worse than robbing.

Abortions lead to depression almost always so women who want to get rid of the baby and move on don't realistically ever get the chance to do so and what's worse is we even end a babies life and all for naught because the woman rarely ever let's go of a aborted baby that easily. Just ask Norma McCovery who was the face of the abortion law and has since regretted her decision.

Humans deserve Human rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness
Humans are life with Human attributes
A fetus all along it's life has dozen of human attributes
Therfore it is a Human
Thus it deserves Human rights

[1] http://www.justfactsdaily.com...
Debate Round No. 4
64 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Varrack 1 year ago
Varrack
@Mister_Man - no prob. I have a tendency to write long RFDs, and I'm usually unbiased. It's true I oppose abortion, but I understand the other side well enough to make a rational decision.

@Dan - I get where you're going with your argument, and how you're saying that humans deserve rights. It could be worded in such a way to come off more rational though.. I'd check out this debate http://www.debate.org... and kind of base my argument around Con's second round. Pro does make some good points too so Mr man could look at it too. Basically just show how fetuses are deserving enough of the title of personhood to hold such rights, rather than just saying that they are humans and automatically are included in it. I'm sure there's other pro-life arguments on the web you could look up and base it around, if you're interested in improving your case.
Posted by Mister_Man 1 year ago
Mister_Man
I never said pain is more of an indicator of life than a heart beat. I said it outweighs the fact that it simply has a heartbeat. I agree that a fetus is a living thing, but it's a living thing that cannot feel pain and is not aware of anything happening to it, so terminating it is not a horrible thing. Please refer to my "black and white" statement earlier on. That doesn't make me biased, it means I make calculated decisions and conclusions based on logic and reasoning. And I'm not saying you don't, but it doesn't make me biased at all, and that's a kind of ridiculous thing to say, lol. "You have an opposing opinion because you're biased and that's it." lol.

The reason your human rights argument worked with gay marriage is because those are grown up, born people. I explained the differences between the born and unborn, and there's even bigger differences between those born people who have discovered that they're gay, compared to the unborn. Again, this isn't a bias, it's reasoning.

Tajshar2k - Even the mod was wondering why the vote was reported. It's obvious he reported it because I reported the vote for him, and that's it.

Tlockr - you're right in the sense that that argument was pretty good, and I didn't address it very well. I would also enjoy it if him and I had another debate and we actually went into detail about why abortion is bad, like this debate should have been to start.
Posted by tlockr 1 year ago
tlockr
Dan's justice and accountability argument (taken with the human rights point) was probably his strongest move. I would have liked to see that thought expanded.
Posted by tajshar2k 1 year ago
tajshar2k
Oh trust me, I never give biased votes. Check the debate on the frontpage. The Liberals and Europeans got together and vote bombed the living hell on me. So, ya my vote isn't biased. It would have been nice if you actually explained why my vote is biased?
Posted by dan40000000 1 year ago
dan40000000
I admit I didn't debate very well but it seriously blows my mind that you find pain tolerance to be more important than heart beat or the brain. That is just crazy you don't see the bias there. You have convinced yourself so much that pain is somehow more of an indicator of life than a heart beat. Do you honestly not see that?

Interesting that my Humans right argument was so poorly received because it worked really well for Gay marriage so it truly shows the bias everyone has against abortion. Very interesting.
Posted by Mister_Man 1 year ago
Mister_Man
But you know what, you're right. I don't care about any human life. I've gotta go for a bit, gonna go murder some 3 month old children.
Posted by Mister_Man 1 year ago
Mister_Man
Wow, well thanks a lot for the comments Varrack. After reading what you said and going back over the majority of the debate I can see what you mean by a lot of that, and I guess I kind of dropped the ball at a few places in there. It's really good to see a Christian who is against abortion vote based on the quality of the debate and who they felt won instead of who they agree with more, so thanks :) I was surprised to see a long RFD like that haha.

And now on to my two new best friends.

Tlockr - if you weren't biased at all, then I apologize for calling you biased. You've gotta look at it through my eyes though. Before the debate is even over, you call me inhumane and say I don't care about human life. I knew you were against abortion, and I didn't have a problem with that. It's that you worded your displeasure with me in such a way that it made you seem incredibly biased, which was my (in my opinion) valid reasoning for reporting your vote. If you're telling the truth, that you didn't vote out of bias at all, then I appreciate your vote and I appreciate you explaining it all out for us.

Also, don't forget Dan reported Tajshar2k's vote, so if you want to bash me for reporting a vote because I found the voter biased, you might as well bash him too.

Dan - You've lost it, man, pull yourself together. If you want to have another debate about this, where you actually address why it isn't okay to perform abortions instead of giving me alternatives to abortion, I really would be more than happy to accept. Because your entire argument is pretty much "no, you're wrong and your argument sucks." I explained why the ability (or lack there of) to feel pain trumps simple similarities between born and unborn humans.

"It just means you can't be reasoned with"
We're debating our separate ideas, it'd be pretty miraculous if one member of the debate all of a sudden said, "wow you know what, you're right, I'm on your side now!" We're not "reasoning" with each other.
Posted by Varrack 1 year ago
Varrack
Hey Man and Dan. My RFD is right here: http://www.debate.org... you're welcome to read and reply to any feedback I gave.
Posted by dan40000000 1 year ago
dan40000000
Exactly Mister those "scientific arguments" are just terrible. Consciousness?? So babies under 4/5 months don't have rights to life???? So if I steal a 3 month year old and murder it I get off free? Man if that's not inhumane I don't know what is. And pain???? It looks like you are finding things to fit your opinion and not being so "objective" as you claim to be. How the heck does pain trump heart, brain, lungs, digestive system?? You picked the Nervous system of which it is not conclusive. I hope this shows you that you clearly have no scientific evidence and you just truly don't care about life. Which is fine it just means you can't be reasoned with. Very clear you are fact hunting and either way the pain debate is in no way conclusive since they can't measure fetus very well and so it is very unclear whether or not they actually feel pain.

It was fun debating you Mister because I really learned a lot about people in this debate. I think I also clearly won the 24 week argument which was a primary part of the debate. Just goes to show the bias in you voter as well.
Posted by tlockr 1 year ago
tlockr
I am sorry if you thought I was showing bias when I said you like the 24-week breaking point "because it mask the more inhuman side of you." You seemed to agree with the sentiment by admitting more than once, that things get more "iffy" the closer we move to full-term. Whereas I may not agree with you on a personal level on this particular point, I am able to compartmentalize my own thoughts and objectively look at two sides of a debate and vote based only on what either contender says. That being said, it disappoints me that you would see a perfectly good vote and try to get it thrown out simply because you know the caster's position on the subject before they voted. It may be difficult for some and it may be difficult for you to set aside your own feelings on a certain topic and remain objective, but don't assume evil of someone just because others have a hard time or you struggle with it.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Varrack 1 year ago
Varrack
Mister_Mandan40000000Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: http://www.debate.org/forums/miscellaneous/topic/73122/
Vote Placed by tajshar2k 1 year ago
tajshar2k
Mister_Mandan40000000Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in Comments
Vote Placed by tlockr 1 year ago
tlockr
Mister_Mandan40000000Tied
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:23 
Reasons for voting decision: See the comments section for my vote summary.