The Instigator
Brabus
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
Tough
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Abortion

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Brabus
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/29/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 540 times Debate No: 79154
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (3)

 

Brabus

Con

Hello! I am semi new to this debate website so bear with me. I would like to debate someone who is for abortion.
First round is acceptance.
Second round is opening arguments
third round is rebuttal
fourth round is closing arguments
My argument will have a few main points.
1) Abortion in the second and third trimester is wrong and should be illegal.
2) Abortion after 10 weeks (heartbeat) is murder of a child, a human being and infringes on it's legal rights given to it in the Declaration of independence, and the Constitution.
3) This argument is only about abortion without cases or rape/incest, or mothers life in danger. Those situations create a separate set of moral circumstances that most people agree allow for abortion.
4) Murder of the innocent is wrong.
5) The fetuses are innocent.
6) Therefore Murder of fetuses is wrong.
7) The Government should not fund abortion because it is morally wrong, and government shouldn't give money to organizations that the constitution doesn't give them the right to give money to.
8) just because the supreme court decides something is moral doesn't make it moral. For example the Dred Scott decision
In advance thank you for accepting.
JN
Tough

Pro

I accept.

I suppose I am meant to state my main points too though?

My main points will be this:

1) Banning abortion both increases highly damaging back-alley abortions as well as increasing the stress placed on women, only, without placing any on males.

2) Abortion is the only method by which someone who wants to pass on their DNA but can't charm someone or afford a surrogate to produce a child. Rapists tend to be psychopathic and the tendency to be psychopathic is hereditary.

3) When the child appears conscious and/or independent of the mother to a significant enough degree it then becomes murder to kill it. Until then it is no more than a parasite to the mother's body.
Debate Round No. 1
Brabus

Con

I would like to start by thanking Tough for accepting my challenge. I realize it is a very divisive issue, so in the comments please be respectful with your opinions.
1) Abortion in the Second and third trimester is wrong and should be illegal.
Abortion is the taking of a fetuses' life before it has been given the chance to live. In America today you can kill a child that is a month away from being born through the use of abortion. This is sick. If that fetus were to be given one month and a day and were to be killed that would be illegal and the mother would go to jail, with abortion however the mother does not go to jail, but rather she is glorified by the left as a symbol of feminism. The idea that things that are pre birth have rights is nothing new, in fact the federal government already protects bald eagle eggs because it considers them life.[1] My question is this if protecting bald eagle fetuses' in eggs is important, shouldn't human fetuses' be even more important?
2) The Declaration of independence says " 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."[2] Notice it says all men are created equal, not born equal. This implies that once we confirm that the child is alive, whether in the womb or not has the same rights as the rest of us. Now to figure out when life begins, I think we should look at when we decide life ends. When a person dies and doesn't have a pulse I.E. their heart isn't working they are dead. Therefore once someone develops a heartbeat and the ability of that to help the fetus sustain itself they are a person and have all of the rights of people. A babies heart begins to beat as early as the 6th week and can be heard as early as the 8th week.[3] Any abortion after this point is murdering a person plain and simple.
3) As a reasonable person I see that their are obviously exceptions to saying there should never be an abortion. I think that someone who is raped, or has their life in danger should have the right to have an abortion. However I would point out that these two exemptions make up for less than 3% of all abortions.[4]
4) Most people agree that murdering innocent people is wrong. I think we can all agree what Hitler did to the Jews was wrong because they weren't guilty of anything other than being Jewish. If someone is innocent they should not be murdered.
5) Fetuses in the womb have never done anything wrong and therefore there is no reason for people to have the ability to kill them. The only time the legal system allows for murder/killing is in capital punishment, and war. They are not guilty, and therefore can't be sentenced to capital punishment. So unless we want to declare war on babies we have no right to have babies killed.
6) Murdering the innocent is wrong, and fetuses are innocent therefore killing fetuses is wrong.
7) The government should not be in the business of financing murder, and unfortunately it is by supporting planned parenthood. Even though under law the money cannot directly go towards funding abortion, it indirectly goes there because money that would be spent on something else is redirected to abortion services. The government gives Planned Parenthood a large amount of their money. in 2012-2013 45% of planned parenthood's money came from the government.[5]
8) The supreme court doesn't decide what is moral or not moral, it simply tries to decide what is best for legality. On some occasions the supreme court has been wrong. Like in the Dred Scott decision when they said that black people didn't have the legal right to represent themselves, or when they voted that segregated schools were unconstitutional. These were both completely ethically and morally wrong, so just because the supreme court rules one way doesn't mean that we should accept it. Therefore Roe v Wade should not be considered as something we have to accept because it is still morally a wrong decision.
Thank You!
[1] http://www.fws.gov...
[2]http://www.archives.gov...
[3]http://www.babycenter.com...
[4]http://www.texasrighttolife.com...
[5]http://cnsnews.com...
Tough

Pro

Abortion is already illegal in the third trimester in many nations. It's far more usually to do with the baby having a severe hereditary disease rather than the mother simply saying 'screw it, I didn't want this baby'. http://www.drhern.com... As for the second trimester (and first) you are support to be against it in all trimesters as you are for the banning of it altogether so why on Earth you chose to raise a point specific to certain trimesters is beyond me and irrelevant to this debate as a whole.

The bald eagle lays eggs, the egg can just as easily be removed from the eagle and taken care of in a veterinary care if not even better so. A fetus is vastly different as the mother's body literally gets diminished by it in order for it to survive to conception. Livebearing childbirth has both advantages and disadvantages to egg laying [http://animals.mom.me...] but one major advantage to egg laying is indeed the mother dying or leaving the young scenario being less hampering to the survival of the next generation.

It says all men are created equal, not all women... You really want to play semantics with the Declaration of independence? It says men, not boys. It says men, not fetuses. It says created not fertilized or conceived. Please don't be so childish in debates as it can backfire severely. Playing semantics is a filthy tactic and never succeeds if multiple interpretations can be applied to something. Why is the mother's need for comfort inferior to the fetus' need for survival before it's even conscious? The Declaration of Independence is not clear on any of this and since it says 'men' it could mean that women are in fact created superior so thanks and bye with that ridiculous point.

Firstly the reason you think they make up for less than 4% of abortions is that it's no always raised as a point in the abortion since it's legal to do it without any such reason. Would you feel the need to say 'I do this because I got raped" if you could just silently get it over and done with? Stop relying on useless survey results in order to prove something unrelated. It's not relevant how often they occur, it's relevant that you somehow see the need for ending the fetus' life being okay if the mother has been somewhat tortured mentally and/or physically either by rape or being told she has passed on a life-ruining disease or will die if she gives birth but cannot see that in many situations the mother is simply too poor to afford taking the time off work to bear the child let alone raising it if she doesn't feel comfortable giving up for adoption. This 'adoption' backdoor that abortionists use to escape any argument of the mother's financial state is ridiculous. If you had gone through 9 months of hell just to raise this fetus to a baby you may feel it was all a waste if you then give the baby away. There's so much you are forcing the mother to go through including weakening and mental deterioration slightly too which can hamper exams results by entire grades.
Teenage pregnancies literally have been proven to lead to lower income for mothers and also are proven to increasingly occur in low income neighborhoods. If you expect barely educated poor women to then cope in life after having been knocked up either by being half-raped while drunk by some guy they barely knew or deserted by a not-so-horny-anymore boyfriend, then you're delusional. You are making the vulnerable more vulnerable and the weak weaker. It's no secret that slums in abortion-wary nations are always far worse off than those in abortion-accepting nations. The reasons are literally as simple as you think.

http://www.healthywomen.org...
http://www.healthcommunities.com...

Compare these two sources against one another to see that abortion legalization is linked to higher Human Development within nations (hence less severe slums etc):
http://worldabortionlaws.com...
http://hdr.undp.org...


You say that murdering innocent people is wrong but it's only murder if it is illegal to begin with. If you are murdering someone who is innocent, you are being cruel for no reason and breaking the law for no moral superlative.

The entire supreme court morality rant was irrelevant to the debate entirely. I never said that it was the only source of morality so you cannot defend against it if I never attacked with it.

You agree with abortion In certain cases and times in pregnancy yet cherry pick when you disagree with it for no explained reason. If you see it, ever, as justifiable to kill the fetus for the mother's sake, then you are agreeing that abortion can and should be legal in certain situations. You have yet to explain why your specific set of situations and time sin pregnancy make it okay to kill the innocent fetus while at others you disagree that it's okay.
Debate Round No. 2
Brabus

Con

Thank you Tough for your thoughtful response. It seems that your post was a response to my post,rather than a post of your points. So I will try my best to rebuttal your response rather than respond to points you are trying to present for yourself.
1) I understand that most abortions do not happen in the third trimester, however there are still some that happen in that period which makes it still wrong. Also just because they have a hereditary disease doesn't mean you can kill the fetus. If you can't kill a human baby that has a disease you shouldn't be allowed to kill a fetus with that same disease. I separated abortion into separate trimesters because many people have decided that there are certain times where it's ok and others when it's not. I wanted to point out that even as early as the 6th week it's a human being and has rights.
2) Yes an Egg is biologically separate to it's mother, but that doesn't give it more rights than a fetus just because the fetus is inside the mother. The baby is not a blood sucking parasite, it is a separate entity that has it's own heart, brain, and DNA. I was just making a point that we protect life before birth for other species but not our own.
3) The declaration applies to all human life. The courts have held that it gives these rights to people of all races, sexes, and sexual orientations, so it should also apply to humans of all ages including fetuses. The mothers need for comfort is inferior to the child's right to life, just like a 1 year old babies life is superior to a mothers comfort. The mother cannot just decide that it is uncomfortable to take care of the child and let it die. She would be charged with manslaughter, or murder. It is not a ridiculous point because it shows that we should support life and liberty for all humans.
4) I think that because studies, and surveys support that. While that evidence might not be the only things that paint a picture it is the only thing we can go off of. The fact is as far as we know most abortions are not because of life in danger or rape. Even if the number is doubled from the surveys, 90% of abortions are still not under the 2 exemptions. We do know most of the numbers for life in danger.
5) I took abortion in those certain circumstances and didn't want to debate because most agree that there are certain circumstances where it is permissible. However because you seem to think it is important I will address it. I personally feel that even if you are raped you should have the child, however I don't think I have the moral authority to force someone through law to not have an abortion if they have been raped. The child still did nothing wrong. Let me ask this: should a mother who was raped kill a 1 year old baby after birth because she was raped? No I don't think she should, so the same logic applies for a fetus. However I don't see how I have the authority to tell a 14 year old who just got raped that she has to have a child. It was not her fault it happened, but it's not the child's either. As far as life in danger, It's not my job to tell them what to decide in that situation. They can decide and I think they are not morally wrong either way. I would also point out with all the advances in medical technology this is very uncommon compared to 50 years ago.
6) With your point about a poor mother, if you wouldn't let a mother who has a 1 year old kill the child because she's poor ( which every rational person would say) then you shouldn't support her killing her child before birth just because it's a fetus. While there are physical difficulties that go with pregnancy it is only a temporary pain, having an abortion increases the chances of having mental health problems compared to going through with the pregnancy by 138%.[1] So it is far more dangerous for there health to have an abortion. Your stating a very violent solution to a problem. I would say that we should try to get those girls on birth control and making wiser decisions with their boyfriends than murder innocent children.
7) As to your point of human development and abortion you are forgetting one of the basics of statistics: Correlation does not imply causation. Meaning just because the two correlate doesn't mean they directly affect each other.
8) Under your logic Hitler wasn't a murderer because everything he did was legal. Killing the innocent is wrong whether it's legal or not. So was what Hitler did to the Jews moral?
9) Wasn't trying to respond to you, I was just making a point because I was setting up all my arguments to build a base for my argument.
10) I answered this question in 5)
I hope these responses cleared up any questions you had about my views, and helped to solidify my point of view better. I await your rebuttal! Thanks!
JN
Tough

Pro

Tough forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Brabus

Con

Unfortunately my opponent didn't post in the last round so I don't have much to respond to that I haven't already talked about. So I will try to briefly sum up my views and opinions on this issue.
I believe that we as a nation are supporting politically, and financially the process of murder through abortion. I also think this is immoral for us to do as a country. Whenever a country decides that some life doesn't matter it doesn't work out well (think Nazi germany and the Jews). We have been told it's about choice, it's not. I support people having the right to choose in 95% of circumstances, however you do not have the right to murder someone just because you have the "choice". The medical evidence is clear that the fetus is a human being. It has it's own heart, own brain and own DNA. It is human life and deserves to have the same protections that all the rest of us enjoy. Think about the potential that has been lost because of abortion. Think about all the Steve Jobs we lost, or the Walt Disney's who never got a chance at life. It is horrible the amount of human potential that we have destroyed through this horrible process. I ask for all good people of good conscience to put politics aside, and fight for life against the lie that is abortion. Thank you all for your time.
Tough

Pro

Tough forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Brabus 1 year ago
Brabus
Hey Guys my opponent wasn't able to comment in all the rounds, so I would love to debate someone else if someone is up to it. Thanks!
Posted by panthera99 1 year ago
panthera99
tough, by definition the word men/ man does not necessarily mean just the male of the species. it also can mean a human being of either sex, and or human beings in general. also and individual: one. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... definition 2 is what you would be looking at
Posted by Brabus 1 year ago
Brabus
Hey Tough I thought I made it clear that the second round was for opening statements not rebuttal? Your response seems to be more of a rebuttal than an opening statement. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough.
JN
Posted by Lee001 1 year ago
Lee001
I will accept if you make it 72hrs, instead of 24. And change the 5,000 character limit to 10,000.
Posted by Brabus 1 year ago
Brabus
Sorry sarra. Yes I do want to debate someone who is pro abortion, or rather pro choice. I apologize for the conclusion. It was my bad.
JN
Posted by Sarra 1 year ago
Sarra
You write that you want to debate someone who is against abortion, yet you both took the con side and stated typical con positions. Do you really want to debate someone who is for abortion and/or a woman's right to choose?
Posted by Mister_Man 1 year ago
Mister_Man
I just took part in an abortion debate which went south quickly and am not in a good mood from it LOL. However right off the bat, you've brought up some good points and it looks like it would be a good debate. If nobody accepts this in a couple days I'd be happy to take you up on this :) Also, welcome to the site!
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Unbelievable.Time 1 year ago
Unbelievable.Time
BrabusToughTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 1 year ago
Midnight1131
BrabusToughTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
BrabusToughTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff many times, so conduct to Con.