The Instigator
Xie-Xijivuli
Con (against)
Losing
11 Points
The Contender
pewpewpew
Pro (for)
Winning
25 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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/22/2010 Category: Health
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 992 times Debate No: 11507
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (7)

 

Xie-Xijivuli

Con

It's time for an age-old rematch :)

This round is simply confirmation and definitions, etc. The definitions are as follows:

Abortion -- the intentional killing of a premature fetus, especially one in the womb of a human female.
Kill -- to cause something living to die, specifically, stop all activities that identify life.
Human Fetus -- (referred to from hereon as simply a fetus) an unborn human baby.
pewpewpew

Pro

"Abortion -- the intentional killing of a premature fetus, especially one in the womb of a human female.
Kill -- to cause something living to die, specifically, stop all activities that identify life.
Human Fetus -- (referred to from hereon as simply a fetus) an unborn human baby."

I do agree with you on these definitions, now I shall say my part in why I think it's good (It only morally wrong in my view point when done for no legitimate reason.)

Abortion is beneficial at some point, mainly because it helps with women who are a potential health risk to remove what may cause them a fatality.

- http://www.nytimes.com...

In this, calling it killing is pretty subjective, I personally have a bias towards it being a some what reasonable procedure only if it's followed through for legitimate reasons.

If not for saving the life of a mother, halting the pregnancy of a child who may have attributed deformities, autoimmune conditions that harm the fetus or its future life or halting a child based on the financial level they are in, then it's murder to me.
Debate Round No. 1
Xie-Xijivuli

Con

Less than 1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; about 7% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient). [1; 2; 3]

I think this pretty much, by my opponent's criteria, shows abortion is wrong. He says he only wants it done for the less than 8% of the 1.2 million fetuses aborted a year. Quite frankly, I am con abortion fr the reason that over 90% are selfish reasons. I believe that the only cases abortion should be accepted are when the mother and fetus are in grave danger.

SOURCES
1: http://www.abortionno.org...
2: http://www.guttmacher.org...
3: http://womensissues.about.com... (PAGE 113)
pewpewpew

Pro

*...and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient).*

I have a way for allowing abortions to still be carried out with, we should impose a high tax added on with all other fees that occur with abortion, this will help discourage any other *logically unjustified* abortions from occurring.

Along with that you could penalize the couple from conceiving a child for a period of time so that they can think twice before committing another action like this.

*I believe that the only cases abortion should be accepted are when the mother and fetus are in grave danger.*

But what about those families that are in a financial pit of disgrace?
I mean sure, some facilities do provide abortion patients with ways to pay for the procedure...

I.E: http://www.nyabortion.com...

But some just don't, and since some people don't have insurance to cover for it, they are left in a debt hole.
Or is that covered by the new Health Care reform?
Debate Round No. 2
Xie-Xijivuli

Con

I'm going to try to prove a fetus is a human being.

First let us talk about the definition of a human. A human is any member of the hominid family, characterized by upright walking, and articulate speech; A human is a member of the genus Homo and especially a member or Homo Sapiens.

Now, in order to fit into the species Homo Sapiens, which all of us are, you must:
- Have eukaryotic cells. E cells are cells that have many complex structures called organelles, each with its own purpose. All things in Kingdom Animalia have eukaryotic cells.
- Have the same DNA sequence. Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is what makes us individuals and who we are. If I am not mistaken, about 98% of a human gene is the same as anyone else; it is that other 2% that makes us different from everyone else.
- As said before, have the potential to walk upright (usually, for instance, paraplegics cannot walk upright -- but they are still human) and articulate (again, if you cannot do this because of a disease, you are still human). Fetuses have the potential to do this if given enough time.

Those are the requirements for being a human. However, the main requirements are a and b, because c has exceptions (Again, such as disease, paralysis, etc). The question now: Does a human fetus meet these requirements? The answer to all of them is yes.

Does the fetus have eukaryotic cells? Genetic inheritance: When the sperm and egg, both eukaryotic cells, collide, they create another eukaryotic cell -- the zygote, which is something we all were. A fetus has eukaryotic cells.

Do fetuses have the same DNA sequence? All fetuses share the same 96-98% of DNA with us. The same is with all people; the remaining two to four percent are what make us individual.

Do fetuses walk upright and speak? Well, no. However, the fetus has the potential to -- and will, within two years, when they are physically and mentally able (which varies between everyone) speak and walk upright.

It is quite safe to say a human fetus is, indeed, human.

Now, that being said, I'd like to ask my opponent -- do you think that for the killing of an innocent human life, that a mere fine should be imposed? I also ask for my opponent to dispute my above article if needed.
pewpewpew

Pro

"Do fetuses walk upright and speak? Well, no. However, the fetus has the potential to..."

Has, it has the potential to, but if endangered it either will most likely not have the potential to.

If early signs from ultrasounds and sonograms point out that there is a deformity/disability in the fetus then you can't really state that the human fetus is really a human.

"Now, that being said, I'd like to ask my opponent -- do you think that for the killing of an innocent human life, that a mere fine should be imposed?"

Regardless of whether a fetus is considered a human being or not, women will continue to carry out abortions.

Considering to that labeling a fetus with the title human is very subjective, you can't really call abortion the killing of an innocent human life.

Maybe you're right, a mere fine probably won't stop women from having abortions, but what else would you incorporate?

Levying a high tax on the abortion clinics? And adding an even higher tax on a woman's bill after her abortion?

Going back to considering if a human fetus should be considered human...
The fetus has been considered human very rarely, not until there have been noticeable movements of the fetus called "quickening".

The Catholic Church actually allowed abortions to be carried out until they heard of this in 1869.
http://www.religioustolerance.org...

Along with that, today's laws from through out the world are written to protect the rights of BORN human beings and their rights. And no one has really applied these laws legally towards fetuses.

So now back to your question, you ask me if I consider the fine I have presented to be a good punishment for a person who has had an abortion?

My answer: Yes, because abortion should be considered a misdemeanor, and it only should be a misdemeanor if and only if the fetus is in grave danger or has a deformity or life long illness.

Commencing an abortion on a fetus that is already close to, or already fully developed should have much stricter action taken upon than just a minuscule fine.
Debate Round No. 3
Xie-Xijivuli

Con

===
Has, it has the potential to, but if endangered it either will most likely not have the potential to.

If early signs from ultrasounds and sonograms point out that there is a deformity/disability in the fetus then you can't really state that the human fetus is really a human.
===

By this logic someone in a wheelchair isn't human. Note that the potential is enough, because there are always variables -- but they generally do not change the species itself.

===
Regardless of whether a fetus is considered a human being or not, women will continue to carry out abortions.
...
My answer: Yes, because abortion should be considered a misdemeanor, and it only should be a misdemeanor if and only if the fetus is in grave danger or has a deformity or life long illness
===

From dictionary.com: innocent as it applies to our discussion:
–adjective
1.
free from moral wrong; without sin; pure: innocent children.
2.
free from legal or specific wrong; guiltless: innocent of the crime.

Since you have failed to contest the whole of my argument that a fetus is human, I'll assume you agree. According to the definition and my argument in the previous post, a fetus is, quite literally, the killing of an innocent human.

No, a fine won't stop illegal abortions, and neither will a full-blown law, I acknowledge that. However, I believe it will slow them and put those responsible in prison. Murder is against the law, but there are still murders -- but this does not mean we need to repeal the laws against murder because it is not 100% effective.

Furthermore, you have not presented scientific evidence against my argument that a fetus is not human. You have presented legal evidence. We are NOT discussing legal evidence. The law is pro-choice, of course it will not consider the fetus a human.

In conclusion, I have tried to prove that:

1) A fetus is human. (My opponent has not presented scientific evidence as to why this is not so.)
2) A fetus is innocent.
3) An abortion is the killing of an innocent human being.
4) Therefore, abortion should be illegal.

Thanks for the debate!
pewpewpew

Pro

I will have to cut this part of my last argument short because of my time shortages.
I thank you in advance for this interesting debate!

And I'd like to point something out before I continue the debate:
"According to the definition and my argument in the previous post, a fetus is, quite literally, the killing of an innocent human."

You mean abortion? Sorry to find holes in your argument but that led me to question the sentence.

Now to my rebuttal.

"Furthermore, you have not presented scientific evidence against my argument that a fetus is not human."

Is an egg a chicken?
A fetus is a potential human being, but it cannot live independently from it's host for obvious reasons and therefore is not yet a person.

And since nearly all abortions take place during the first trimester where the fetus is in this position, it's probably not going to be considered a human.

It's like saying a piece of dandruff or hair from my head is human, BUT not a human being.
In that sense, neither would a zygote that would form into a parasitic like fetus.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
Why do people use the 'potential' argument? You could say the baby has the potential to become a new Hitler. On those grounds, abortion should be permissible. Argument against abortion negated.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by TheDizziestLemon 6 years ago
TheDizziestLemon
Xie-XijivulipewpewpewTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Xie-Xijivuli 6 years ago
Xie-Xijivuli
Xie-XijivulipewpewpewTied
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:50 
Vote Placed by Rockylightning 6 years ago
Rockylightning
Xie-XijivulipewpewpewTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by SirColton 6 years ago
SirColton
Xie-XijivulipewpewpewTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by pewpewpew 6 years ago
pewpewpew
Xie-XijivulipewpewpewTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by popculturepooka 6 years ago
popculturepooka
Xie-XijivulipewpewpewTied
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 
Vote Placed by Radicalguy44 6 years ago
Radicalguy44
Xie-XijivulipewpewpewTied
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:32