Debate Rounds (5)
I argue that abortion is the killing of an innocent human being, the right to life is an inalienable right given to every innocent human being, therefore, abortion, as the direct result of the killing of an innocent human child, violates the inalienable right to life. Thus, abortion is wrong.
There are no restrictions to this debate. There is no formal layout other than that my opponent should provide a retort to my main argument in the first round. Feel free to debate however you so choose as long as it remains respectful and courteous.
1. What if the parents are dead broke? It is immoral to bring a child into this world with parents that cannot provide. If the parents cannot provide than how will the child live? Do you really think it is moral for children to live without daily access to food, shelter, and education? In those circumstances, the child will end up living a harsh life with the probability of being abused, bullied, or turn to a life of crime. The mother suffers. The father suffers. The child suffers. The whole family will suffer in Con's world.
2. Teen pregnancy-Humans make mistakes. It is fair to say that a teen pregnancy is probably the most horrible decisions people make in their life. Usually, what happens is the male makes a fatal mistake, and forgets to wear a condom. Either the male is scared of having a child, or he embraces Con's viewpoint and is going to have the child. Same applies to female. Lets say they agree to have the child. The male has to stop going to school, and get a job. The female is going to either become a housewife or get a job. Most likely get a job because they have to provide for their family. Think about it. Do you really think its going to end pretty well with two teenagers(going through hormones) taking care of a kid. I would not want to be the kid. The kid will suffer. Big shock, The parents find out they don't like each other. They get divorced, and the kid has to deal with a divorced family. The kid is screwed. The father is screwed. The mother is screwed. But, it will work out in Con's worldview.
3. Why are the parents thinking about killing their kid- Isn't it sad enough that the kid has to deal with the fact that his parents thought about killing him? Isn't it sad that his parents are sad, and are wishing back the times they weren't married? I would not want to live with parents that hate each other, because they have to take the extra time to provide for my services. Every child should have the opportunity to live healthy lives which includes food, shelter, and education. We should not motivate our society to just have kids when its not the right time to. It is immoral to do that. Life can be hard to live. Sometimes you have to make the decision to relieve somebody of the pain their going to have if their born. People would typically have bias against abortion, because simplistically it could be perceived as the killing of a child. But, in reality people who even think of having an abortion are probably not in a situation that has the status of wealth.
Essentially the only thing you have claimed that it is alright to kill people struggling based solely on financial reasons and on the mistakes of others. You have not yet attempted to refute wether the fetus is a human being or not, which is alright but makes my debate easier.
1. Should we kill those struggling with financial circumstances?
In this case, we would be arguing that we would be willing the fetus out of mercy. However, how is killing an unborn human being showing any compassion? The truly merciful and compassionate reasoning leads us to protect the lives of those without a voice in all circumstances, whether that person may be the son of a billionaire or a poor man. We cannot determine the destiny and fate of anyone. Modern revelation of morality clearly shows that killing someone for how poor they might end up being is wrong.
In this case as well, how are we to limit the time frame of the killing? With your reasoning, it would be just as merciful to kill a week old baby because they have been born into poverty merely based on the financial situation. Would you also be ok with this?
Alveda King, the niece of MLK, a speaker on racial inequality and poverty, says this "The abortion industry plants abortion clinics in minority neighborhoods and grey upon women who think they have no hope. The greatest irony of abortion is that abortion has done what the Klan (KKK) dreamed of."
2. The actions of others do not grant the condemnation of another human being. We are all responsible for our actions, and guess what, if you get pregnant you cant run away from your problems no more than a gambler can run away from his debt. It may not feel good, but at that point, people understand the risks involved in sex and therefore, that person is now responsible for the child. However, as I personally know four adopted people very well, adoption is always an option. Wouldn't you say adoption is better than killing?
3.There is nothing immoral about suggesting when to have kids. However, we cannot legally force people to not have sex. That is when it crosses the legal border. And yes, every child should have the chance to live a healthy life, but you say being poor eliminates that chance which is why abortion is ok? That is a contradiction because abortion does the same thing. Abortion eliminates the chance that the child may live a healthy life. Abortion removes all chance of life itself, all the struggles, but all the opportunities as well. So abortion essentially denies all opportunity, more so than any level of poverty.
My opponent just brought the question of a fetus being a human being or not. I'm sorry, but you never made that claim in the first round, so it would be counted as a new claim in this round.
1. "Should we kill those struggling with financial circumstances?"My opponent has totally misinterpreted my arguments. I don't know if you know this, but life is tough. The fact that my opponent is willing to let children go through financial burdens, parents that might hate each other, and he is the good guy. Teen moms develop symptoms that can be very hurtful to them. Would you want to live with a mother who is depressed of the fact that she never had a normal teenage life? Would you want your mother to be the one who thinks back to the days in where she could finish her high school, and get pregnant her mid twenties? Reality shows that this does happen. Mothers get depressed when they have pregnancies this early. www.parents.com/parenting/dynamics/single-parenting/life-as-teenage-mom/
My opponent has the audacity to cloud my argument as an argument used for the justification of killing poor people. Are you really going to compare a fetus with a human? Are you really going to confuse a developing with a born child? Fetuses and humans are not the same. The burden of proof falls on my opponent to prove that a fetus is the same thing as a normal human being. You can say what all the pro-lifers say which is what happens to the fetus in the future; But you have the decision to stop the process. Usually, people stop the process because they want to be mature about it. They don't want to live to be depressed in the future, and have a kid live in a torn up family. They don't want this to happen. Do you really think that abortion is this one second solution. People think about these things. Don't paint it as an argument of killing living humans. Humans are not the same thing as a fetus.
Are you going to quote Alveda King? Just because your a niece of one of the heads of the civil rights movement does not give you credibility.
2. My opponent argues in his second argument how humans cannot decide for other humans. He compares women who are thinking about fates of a family to a gambler. He calls people who consider abortion people who run away from debt. That is outrageous. The problem with this argument is that it is not aligned with facts. My opponent is using his own logic, and presenting it as fact. www.parents.com/parenting/dynamics/single-parenting/life-as-teenage-mom/
Women have more of a probability of being depressed when they have the kid.
3. I never said it was immoral to have a kid. I would think it is immoral if you were careless about it. Two twenty year olds from college who have dated for two months now want to start a family. You can be the judge of that decision. You have to be responsible when having a child. Life is not something you can play with. It is not something you can gamble over. And that is exactly what Pro is doing. He is gambling the idea that maybe that kid who is going to be reproduced by those two high school sweat hearts is going to live a happy life. This what happens when they split up. "For the young child, divorce shakes trust in dependency on parents who now behave in an extremely undependable way. They surgically divide the family unit into two different households between which the child must learn to transit back and forth, for a while creating unfamiliarity, instability, and insecurity, never being able to be with one parent without having to be apart from the other.
"Convincing a young child of the permanence of divorce can be hard when his intense longing fantasizes that somehow, some way, mom and dad will be living back together again someday. He relies on wishful thinking to help allay the pain of loss, holding onto hope for a parental reunion much longer than does the adolescent who is quicker to accept the finality of this unwelcome family change. Thus parents who put in a joint presence at special family celebrations and holiday events to recreate family closeness for the child only feed the child's fantasy and delay his adjustment."
Life is tough, but that doesn't mean the solution to dealing with our issues is mercy killing. Killing of an innocent is an unjust action and can never be justified. The ends never justify the means, you can always choose to do good. And yes some women do respond to pregnancy by becoming depressed, However, if this is your argumwnt for abortion, then why are you ignoring these statistics:
In studies taken from coroners offices by two separate studies in Finland showed that women who received abortions were 6 to 7 times more likely to commit suicide. (They gathered this information by cause of death statements on the official coroners report).
Another study in Great Britain revealed similar statistics showing that women were 8.1% more likely to die of suicide if they had received an abortion, as opposed to a rate of 1.9% in women who had chosen to carry the child. Doesn't it appear abortion is linked to suicide rates?
Heres another one. Teen girls were shown to be ten times more likely to attempt suicide after abortion than if they had carried the child to term. So yeah, abortion, if anything, statistically makes depression and suicide more apparent.
And yes a fetus is a human being and here is why:
The fetus has unique human DNA unlike that which has ever existed making it a solely new individual on whose genetic code from conception rests all of life. The fetus also is living, thus now making the fetus a living human being who just doesnt look like you or I. Nothing is conceived in its full potential, rather, everything is conceived with its full potential (aka genetic coding)
The fetal stage is the youngest stage of the life of a human being, who will grow into a chid, teenager, then adult.
Yeah that alone wouldn't give her credit so I will quote what will:
"Alveda Celeste King (born January 22, 1951) is Director of African American Outreach with Priests for Life, an NAACP member, American, civil rights activist, Christian minister, conservative, pro-life activist, and author. She is a niece of civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr. and daughter of civil rights activist Rev. A. D. King and his wife Naomi Barber King. She is a Fox News Channel contributor. She once served as a Senior Fellow at the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution, a conservative Washington, D.C. think-tank. She is a former member of the Georgia House of Representatives and the founder of Alveda King Ministries."
Once again, your claim of depression is hardly a claim at all. As of right now, you have not provided statistical analysis of the numbers involving depression, unlike what I have done.
Yes it would be immoral to be careless for the child and I agree with you on that. However, once again, an immoral action does not justify "fixing" a bad situation. No matter how hard anyone tries, it is never ok to take an innocent life. Maybe the kid wont be happy, but that is not a death sentence. Poverty is not a death sentence. No matter how unhappy someone is, that does not justify the taking of someone else's life or even your own. It is better for the child to have been born and lived a life than to have died without ever getting a chance at something more. Never having a chance at a single opportunity in life. Not even one. That is the injustice I see.
< https://www.lifesitenews.com... >.
< https://en.wikipedia.org... >.
I don't know what mistake your talking about, but what you are saying is very wrong.
Professor Diane V. Irving of Princeton University says this in his essay:"B. "Scientific" myths and scientific fact:
Given these basic facts of human embryology, it is easier to recognize the many scientifically inaccurate claims that have been advanced in the discussions about abortion, human embryo research, cloning, stem cell research, the formation of chimeras, and the use of abortifacientsA533;and why these discussions obfuscate the objective scientific facts. The following is just a sampling of these current "scientific" myths.
Myth 1: "Prolifers claim that the abortion of a human embryo or a human fetus is wrong because it destroys human life. But human sperms and human ova are human life, too. So prolifers would also have to agree that the destruction of human sperms and human ova are no different from abortionsA533;and that is ridiculous!"
Fact 1: As pointed out above in the background section, there is a radical difference, scientifically, between parts of a human being that only possess "human life" and a human embryo or human fetus that is an actual "human being." Abortion is the destruction of a human being. Destroying a human sperm or a human oocyte would not constitute abortion, since neither are human beings. The issue is not when does human life begin, but rather when does the life of every human being begin. A human kidney or liver, a human skin cell, a sperm or an oocyte all possess human life, but they are not human beingsA533;they are only parts of a human being. If a single sperm or a single oocyte were implanted into a womanA533;s uterus, they would not grow; they would simply disintegrate."
My opponent attacks my argument(Life is tough) by saying "doesn't mean the solution to dealing with our issues is mercy killing. Killing of an innocent is an unjust action and can never be justified." http://nakedlaw.avvo.com...
50% of couples between 20-24 are more likely to divorce. "The younger a person marries, the more likely it is they will get divorced. As it turns out, age plays a big role in determining a marriage's fate. Those who marry under the age of 20 have the highest rate of divorce. These couples are nearly 1.5 times as likely to get divorced as those who get married between the ages of 20 to 24 years old. Those who marry after the age of 25 are even less likely to get divorced."
This source also says it is four times more likely to get a divorce if you are economically disadvantaged. "The most recent data suggests that the disparity has only gotten larger. Today, a full 42 percent of women having abortions live under the poverty line, and another 27 percent have incomes within 200 percent of the poverty line. Taken together, 69 percent of women who have abortions are economically disadvantaged. Given recent attacks on Planned Parenthood"Texas, for instance, has rejected federal funding of the organization entirely"this trend is likely to continue. One can only hope the expansion of health-care coverage"with the contraception mandate included"under the Affordable Care Act can repair the damage." http://prospect.org...
Now, with all this evidence aside your going to make a child cope with this.
"Generally, it is better for children to suffer a bad marriage than to cope with divorce. According to University of Michigan psychologist and divorce expert Neil Kalter, the misery of an unhappy marriage is less significant than the changes after a divorce. The children would rather their parents keep fighting and not get divorced (Marriage 64). Although this does not seem logical, it shows that children want their parents together at all costs. Also, contrary to popular belief, the alternative to most divorces is not life in a war zone (Zinmeister 30). In the vast number of divorces there is no strife or violence that could ruin a person"s childhood; the divorce is usually driven by a quest for "greener grass." These divorces almost always make the child worse off and create a number of unnecessary problems for the child. If parents would concentrate harder on working conflicts out rather than their own personal happiness, the children would be much better off."http://www.public.iastate.edu...
My opponent has argued innocence. He has argued that abortion is murder. First of all a Princeton professor already settled the fact that the fetus is not an organism. If it was to live on its own, than it would be destroyed. It is not a living thing. You cannot classify it as one. But, if it was an organism in Con's world; Con is willing to put a couple through divorce, physiologically torture a kid, and he is willing to say that it is the moral thing to do. That is wrong. But, of course the fetus is not even a living organism. You can argue that as long as you want, but the science does not back Con. "In studies taken from coroners offices by two separate studies in Finland showed that women who received abortions were 6 to 7 times more likely to commit suicide. (They gathered this information by cause of death statements on the official coroners report)."
We live in America. We are not the Finland people. We are not the British people. You can't just quote studies in different countries, and apply it to our people. My sources are in America. That is why they are different. My sources are more reliable, because they are based in America, rather than his studies which are based in Europe.
"Heres another one. Teen girls were shown to be ten times more likely to attempt suicide after abortion than if they had carried the child to term. So yeah, abortion, if anything, statistically makes depression and suicide more apparent."
This source is from Europe. Teen Moms get depressed even more when they have kids. They are at the time of raging hormones. Don't think that teen moms are alone. Husbands are with them too, because usually teens that keep the baby live in very conservative areas. The husband and the wife are 4 times more likely to divorce causing a child to wonder what it is like to have a decent family. But, if you want you can take the risk.
By the way, Con's sources are from pro-life sites. His sources are completely biast. You cannot count those sources.
Is Alveda Celeste King a scientist? Is she a professor? Does she have a PHD in human biology? No, she doesn't. She cannot be a worthy person trusted with explaining abortion.
In conclusion, are you really going to take the risk, and let a child be physiologically torture? Are you really going to make a couple go through all that stress, and then in the end a divorce? Are you really even going to treat a fetus as a living organism? It is not. A Princeton professor solved that one for us. Are you going to trust a bunch of pro-lifers that are using their own illogical senses to conclude a problem that should be left in the scientific field? I will be the first one to say no. I will not let a child go through all of that. I will not trust a side that quotes countries that they don't even live in.
a_janis1 forfeited this round.
Ariesx forfeited this round.
a_janis1 forfeited this round.
Ariesx forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.