The Instigator
lord_megatron
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Brompton
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

Abortion

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
Brompton
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/5/2016 Category: Health
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 457 times Debate No: 93372
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (19)
Votes (3)

 

lord_megatron

Pro

Its funny how people against abortion say killing a potential life is wrong, yet the same people eat chicken eggs and call themselves 100 percent vegetarian.
Brompton

Con

Not really that humorous given that chicken eggs are unfertilised. Do you know what I find hilarious, though? The fact that every single proponent of abortion has been born. I wonder how a foetus would argue if he could.

I look forward to this debate and wish you luck.
Debate Round No. 1
lord_megatron

Pro

Not all chicken eggs are unfertilised (poultry standards are different everywhere), and they too have the potential for life.
Furthermore, several living plants have to be killed to obtain food or wood, but no value of life over there eh?
Or what about killing of living chickens and cattle for meat?
And not every single proponent of a foetus should count as living. After all, it is not functional during that time period.

Humans are superior to other organisms, but that doesn't reduce the value of a "life". Animals and plants are just as living as, if not more than a foetus. Yet we utilise them for our resources and benefits, and in case of hunting, for pleasure. Therefore abortion can be done as it will save our resources/benefit us, and not reduce pleasure. Furthermore, we can discard pets anytime we want, yet we have to always keep a child? That hasn't even come into the world yet? Pets are fully living and functional, they love us even more than children at times (dog=man's best friend), yet if they even get slightly injured or start taking up more funds than allocated for it, we send it away? This is unfair.

If the parents are not ready for a child, or they changed their decision, it should within their rights to kill the foetus. One reason for abortion would be financial problems, for many families may not have the time or the money required to give their child the right growth. Or a surprise loan/ accident cripples the person, and causes problems for the upcoming child. We shouldn't force parents to keep a child they don't want. This will be bad for the child due to ill-treatment from the parents, and will be bad for the parents for the reason they wanted abortion.

Suppose if we find out that the unborn child has some deformities/ infection, shouldn't we give it a merciful death rather than an impaired, handicapped life?
Brompton

Con

"Not all chicken eggs are unfertilised..."
If you were to crack open an unfertilized chicken egg, you would notice. [1]

"Furthermore, several living plants have to be killed to obtain food or wood, but no value of life over there eh?"
You are incredibly mistaken, the reason we kill these organisms is because their products are very valuable. Vegetables and wood are valuable commodities. Humans, however early in development, are valuable in their own right.

"Or what about [the] killing of living chickens and cattle for meat?"
I think you will be surprised to know that livestock animals are only bred and kept for the purposes of their products. They do not exist but to feed us. It is basic supply and demand. Without the demand, there is no supply. Without our hunger for meat, these animals would not have been bred.

"And not every single proponent of a foetus should count as living. After all, it is not functional during that time period."
Really? A foetus does not function? The function of a foetus is to develop his characteristics as to be able to perform the functions of a prenatal being. I think the majority of foetuses perform that function very well.

"Animals and plants are just as living as, if not more than a foetus."
Of course, but do animals and plants, in their mature, yea, even their developing stages possess even a fraction of the potential for greatness, a fraction of the potential beneficial impact on the world as a foetus? The answer is no. The second an ovum is fertilised by a sperm cell the DNA, what makes us unique, is exchanged between the mother and the father in a mostly random way which creates the first metre of the tapestry of life. You will develop this way. You will have these eyes, this facial structure and other such characteristics. That's definite. If some crazy murderer doesn't come along and pluck you from your developmental chamber before you are ready, you will definitely be this person and there will never be another like you. That is the miracle of human life.

The probability of your mother meeting your father is 1 in 20,000, the probability of them reproducing is thereafter 1 in 2000. The probability of the exact sperm and egg meeting after this sexual exchange that would lead to you existing exactly as you do is 1 in 400,000,000,000,000,000. The probability of every one of your ancestors following the aforementioned processed is one in [4x10^17]150,000 W76; 10^2,640,000. The probability of you being born is 10^2,685,000. Again, that is the miracle of human life.[2]

"We shouldn't force parents to keep a child they don't want. This will be bad for the child due to ill-treatment from the parents, and will be bad for the parents for the reason they wanted abortion."
There are multiple viable alternatives to this, in the first instance: condoms. In later instances, adoption. No one should be killed for the irresponsibility of his parents.

"Suppose if we find out that the unborn child has some deformities/ infection, shouldn't we give it a merciful death rather than an impaired, handicapped life?"
I think we should give him or her the best life he or she could possibly hope for. I think we should provide the utmost in palliative care. I mean, by your Hitleresque logic, Stephen Hawkins should have been shown mercy and killed as soon as he showed symptoms of motor neurone disease.

[1] http://www.poultryhub.org...
[2] Second-hand source initially cited by Mel Robbins during her talk at TEDx San Francisco.
Debate Round No. 2
lord_megatron

Pro

"I think you will be surprised to know that livestock animals are only bred and kept for the purposes of their products. They do not exist but to feed us."
The method for abortion was made for abortion. Without it, there would be no abortion.
Why not promote cannibalism then? Most humans do not exist for your benefit. Kill them all. Abortion is necessary as it is pre-determined that the foetus will not benefit the family.
"Really? A foetus does not function? The function of a foetus is to develop his characteristics as to be able to perform the functions of a prenatal being."
That function serves no purpose for us. If the child isn't helpful, why does it live?

"Of course, but do animals and plants, in their mature, yea, even their developing stages possess even a fraction of the potential for greatness, a fraction of the potential beneficial impact on the world as a foetus? The answer is no. "

You continue on to say that a sperm and an ovum are unique cells, and we are unique. Yet you forget that many animals reproduce sexually as well. Also, we have more of a potential of harming this world than achieving so called greatness. Before the humans rapid development, animals could roam freely, global warming, waste disposal and pollution weren't major problems. But now, they are big problems, and we are proving harmful for everyone but our own species.

"The probability of your mother meeting your father is 1 in 20,000, the probability of them reproducing is thereafter 1 in 2000."
Where's your source? Ted talks are usually more expressing of opinions than facts.

"There are multiple viable alternatives to this, in the first instance: condoms. In later instances, adoption. No one should be killed for the irresponsibility of his parents."
It could be possible the parents at first wanted the child but later the situation changed and they didn't want it. As for adoption, all parents feel a certain kinship to their own blood, and would feel distressed to send their own child down such a hard part. Who knows whether anyone would adopt the child or not? What if he dies anyway? If he dies due to ill-treatment from foster parents or lack of resources, the parents would be haunted for their entire lives, knowing they killed a fully sentient being. Yet a foetus isn't sentient, and is easy to think of like a disposable seed than a growing crop. Get the idea? You can throw fruit seeds, but you wouldn't want a plant that grew because of you to die because of you.

"I think we should give him or her the best life he or she could possibly hope for. I think we should provide the utmost in palliative care. I mean, by your Hitleresque logic, Stephen Hawking should have been shown mercy and killed as soon as he showed symptoms of motor neurone disease."
Might as well, I don't think there was such a high probability of him being a genius. Not every child turns into a genius, you know. He didn't even make any inventions but just gave some theories. If he is later proved wrong, wouldn't your argument fall? What if it had some sort of contagious disease? Then you are eliminating a threat to society.

"You are incredibly mistaken, the reason we kill these organisms is because their products are very valuable. Vegetables and wood are valuable commodities. Humans, however early in development, are valuable in their own right."
Yet when they fail to be valuable, they must be killed. It works the opposite way for humans, does it not? Kill the baby if you don't need it. Let it live if you need it.

"If you were to crack open an unfertilized chicken egg, you would notice."
There are some eggs that have a faster expiry date than other due to being fertilized. Day 1, 2, and 3 eggs are still sold in some markets. You just killed a potential life for your own pleasure/food.

Adoption
A parent suffering so many months just to give away the baby seems rather a waste of effort. Plus, foster homes aren't always the best of homes. If the real parents just see the child suffering again, they would feel extremely bad that the doomed it to this fate. It is easier to kill a foetus than allowing a living child to suffer. You may say that parents shouldn't track their child, but natural instinct and blood binds takeover. If the child dies due to ill-treatment, they will surely be reported about it, and that would be sad. Furthermore, adoption is a discreet method, while giving a child to a foster home will attract unwanted attention and call for social retribution and inquisition.

"Freedom is the right of all sentient beings" prime
sentient- able to see, hear, taste, smell, feel
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Foetus don't have the 5 senses fully activated yet, therefore freedom is not within their rights. Optimus Prime says so.
Brompton

Con

"The method for abortion was made for abortion. Without it, there would be no abortion."
I'm not sure I follow, what point are you trying to make here, because if it that we should limit the supply, ergo the demand of abortions, I fully agree with you.

"Why not promote cannibalism then?"
Because it is wrong, just like the murder of the prenatal child. You wouldn't murder a newborn.

"Most humans do not exist for your benefit. Kill them all."
No, because in every human exists the potential for greatness, the potential to contribute something amazing to society. In every human, there are complex processes of emotion and skill. In every foetus is the genetic tapestry for an amazing iteration of man. The next Issac Newton, the Elon Musk of the future, the Da Vinci of tomorrow and for you to estimate a human with so much potential as worthless purely because he is not yet independent of his mother is sickening.

"Abortion is necessary as it is pre-determined that the foetus will not benefit the family."
I don't think you fully grasp the concept of bringing new life into the world. What it means to have new ways of thinking, what it is to welcome another living, breathing human being. I think you underestimate the fact that a foetus is more than just a collection of cells. You are also a collection of cells, why shouldn't I kill you? Because I respect your potential and your right as an individual. I also respect the right of the prenatal individual at whatever stage in pregnancy he or she may exist. Being able to father children is an amazing gift. It is more than the replication of DNA, it is the very act of creation.

"That function serves no purpose for us. If the child isn't helpful, why does it live?"
When you were a foetus, you performed the function. I'm sure you contribute a lot to society. When my doctor was a foetus, he performed his function and now that he has left the womb and developed even more outside of the body, he heals the sick, saving countless lives. The same goes for the police officer, the fireman, the binman. Just because you don't perform a useful function doesn't mean you won't. You certainly shouldn't be killed before you have the chance to.

"You continue on to say that a sperm and an ovum are unique cells, and we are unique. Yet you forget that many animals reproduce sexually as well."
I didn't claim that gametes are unique, I pointed out the fact that the survival chances of gametes and the exact connection needed to make you exactly as you exist now are very slim. It is true that the majority of animals produce sexually, but you cannot compare human mating practices to that of animals. We are very different in that respect. For instance, female spiders eat male sexual partners for nutrition. Apes have no concept of monogamous fidelity. You cannot set the standards of the species that walked on the moon to the species that rests next to your Yorkshire puddings.

"Also, we have more of a potential of harming this world than achieving so called greatness."
Really, in comparison to animals? Can you point out the species which painted the Mona Lisa? Or the species that discovered electricity? The fact of the matter is. Humans are very different from animals, and yes, whilst we can be classified into certain groups, we far outmatch any other in those groups based purely on our mental faculty.

"..and we are proving harmful for everyone but our own species."
Says the person advocating for the practice of killing your offspring before they have a chance to leave the uterus. In the game of life, some win and some lose but we should all have an opportunity, whether we are ants, tigers, prenatal humans or a pensioner. Opportunity to shine and flourish. To develop skills and technology. To form relationships, societies, governments. To change the landscape of the world. That is a power that was won by humans, that is a power that we must grant the opportunity of every life form, born or not, to seize.

"Where's your source? Ted talks are usually more expressing of opinions than facts."
You have the guts to ask me for sources when you haven't put forth a single one? How dare you. I mentioned that it is a secondary source meaning you can watch the talk and the citation will be present somewhere during it.

"It could be possible the parents at first wanted the child but later the situation changed and they didn't want it."
Well, tough, they made the decision, they live with the potential consequences.

"As for adoption, all parents feel a certain kinship to their own blood, and would feel distressed to send their own child down such a hard part."
But they wouldn't feel 'distressed' to cause their child to die before it had seen the unfiltered light of day? You have a strange logic, my friend. That a child born is somehow more valuable than a child unborn.

"Who knows whether anyone would adopt the child or not? What if he dies anyway?"
Who knows whether the murdered child would have become the next Shakespeare, what if he would have become the next Winston Churchill? What if he'd have found the cure to cancer? What if he'd have solved the mysteries of dark matter?

"Might as well, I don't think there was such a high probability of him being a genius. Not every child turns into a genius, you know. He didn't even make any inventions but just gave some theories. If he is later proved wrong, wouldn't your argument fall? What if it had some sort of contagious disease? Then you are eliminating a threat to society."
Are you hearing this ladies and gentlemen? One of the greatest cosmologists of our time should have been killed because of his disability. You really are Hitler reincarnate, aren't you? You see nothing more than the superficial "value" of people and are willing to kill based upon characteristics that are uncontrollable. How sick.

"Yet when they fail to be valuable, they must be killed. It works the opposite way for humans, does it not? Kill the baby if you don't need it. Let it live if you need it."
Absolutely not! The first duty of a parent is to protect and provide for his or her children. The child isn't some possession, he is merely in the custody of his parents until such a time as he reaches maturity. Similar to how a prenatal child is merely in the custody of his mother's womb until such a time as he is able to leave her womb. If a mother neglects a postnatal child, she has committed an offence under every sane legal system that exists. Why then, if she neglects a prenatal child is she not? Imagine my opponent stating that his three-year-old child was of "no value" to him and he was going to have him killed. The physical custody of a womb is no different to the abstract custody of postnatal parenthood.

"There are some eggs that have a faster expiry date than other due to being [fertilised]. Day 1, 2, and 3 eggs are still sold in some markets. You just killed a potential life for your own pleasure/food."
No, I haven't. In the majority of cases, eggs next to my bangers are unfertilised. The goal of farming eggs is not to prevent the life of a chicken but to feed humans. The goal of abortion is simply to kill as to alleviate a 'burden' which could equally be alleviated by adoption.

"If the real parents just see the child suffering again, they would feel extremely bad that the doomed it to this fate."
And yet they wouldn't feel bad for the dismembered foetus? They wouldn't feel bad for the fact that they have prevented the fate of someone they were supposed to nurture and protect?

"'Freedom is the right of all sentient beings' [Prime]
sentient- able to see, hear, taste, smell, feel"
By your logic, a newborn, who isn't able to see until his second day is not entitled to freedom. Neither is the blind man, or the deaf man, or the man with nerve damage who cannot feel. A heart starts beating at 4 weeks after conception, it doesn't stop until death, be that because someone has forcibily brought it about or after a long life.
Debate Round No. 3
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 4 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: migmag// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: well argued joskoo

[*Reason for removal*] Not an RFD.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 4 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: migmag// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: well argued megatron, i agree with your points you made

[*Reason for removal*] Not an RFD.
************************************************************************
Posted by Brompton 4 months ago
Brompton
Not true, before fertilisation the potential for the exact same life as after fertilisation are different.
Posted by rezleader 4 months ago
rezleader
If you outlaw abortion on the basis of the potential for life, then you must also outlaw male masturbation that reaches climax and menstruation. Both of these acts deny the potential for life to exist. It's women's bodies who care for and nurture the development of human life as we know it. Males obviously contribute to this and should have a say as well, but essentially the choice should be up to them. I would not make it. I would want the baby given up for adoption and I think, depending on the term of the baby, that the decision to terminate a pregnancy might border on being immoral, but, even with that consideration, I believe terminating a pregnancy should be up to the man and women who conceived it in the first place, not someone else trying to make judgements for them.
Posted by whiteflame 4 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: SchinkBR// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments don't seem to follow any type of logical flow, and are really rather disturbing (cannibalism). Can makes solid arguments and includes citations. Almost lost my vote for conduct after say "how dare you" but overall his conduct was still better.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn't explain S&G. (2) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to assess specific points made by both debaters, and does so for neither. (3) Conduct is insufficiently explained. The voter only points to a perceived conduct violation from Con, but still states that Con's conduct is better without explanation. (4) Sources are isnufficiently explained. The voter has to establish that the sources given were reliable, i.e. that they were relevant to the debate.
************************************************************************
Posted by Brompton 4 months ago
Brompton
One must respect with will of votes, regardless of how they vote.
Posted by lord_megatron 5 months ago
lord_megatron
ha look at schinx br vote. Times like these I think its good moderators are present
Posted by lord_megatron 5 months ago
lord_megatron
there are far too less active voters and far too much active moderators
Posted by lord_megatron 5 months ago
lord_megatron
you should state some points from my side in the rfd as well, or whiteflame might delete the vote. Just see, this debate too will end in a tie
Posted by Brompton 5 months ago
Brompton
I agree with you Sashil, Round 3 wasn't the best from me. I disagree with you, however, on the point of spelling and grammar. I respect your vote, nonetheless, and shall take your criticism on board.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by SchinkBR 4 months ago
SchinkBR
lord_megatronBromptonTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Con, Pro is repeatedly condescending and rude ex "Ted talks are usually more expressing of opinions than facts." SP: Tie, both participants did well in this regard Arguments: Con Pro's arguments don't build upon each other nor do many of them have logic to support them. They also use a lot rhetorical questions rather than build arguments or defenses. The worst such was "Why not promote cannibalism then?" Sources: Con uses valid sources several times in their argument. Pro used Optimus Prime as a source, therefore is not reliable.
Vote Placed by LaL36 4 months ago
LaL36
lord_megatronBromptonTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Didn't notice anything significant regarding s & g or conduct. Regarding the arguments: Pro had the burden of proof and didn't really fulfill it. His opening remarks were vague and nonsensical. It's actually egregious that people who are for killing a baby are often against eating meat. I think Pro's case was actually very evil and scary. In his second round argument he is basically making a case that we decide who should live and who should die based on convenience. He didn't really even argue that the fetus was not a baby. It would be no different than to kill the baby after he was born. Con made this point well with regard to Stephen Hawking about once they found his deformities. Pro also I feel tried to put the BOP on con saying essentially that it should be aborted until proven otherwise. Give sources to con because he actually used one for a valid point about the probability of a life but not for that egg one because that was a bit of non-sense from both sides.
Vote Placed by Sashil 5 months ago
Sashil
lord_megatronBromptonTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments. Should mention the quality of CON's case was really good considering this being the first debate for him, on this site. Overall I found some well articulated points from both sides though there is room for a lot of improvement. Good Luck :)