The Instigator
Kelisitaan
Pro (for)
The Contender
Mike_10-4
Con (against)

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Kelisitaan has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/27/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 419 times Debate No: 98465
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

Kelisitaan

Pro

A woman has the right to choose what she wants to do with her body. Therefore, abortion is an accepted practice.

Rules: no new arguments in R4
forfeiting a round=auto loss.
Mike_10-4

Con

Thank you Kelisitaan (Pro) for bringing an important subject to the debating floor.

The freedom to “choose” is a function of the tyranny of governance. In some places throughout the world women can't “choose” the type of clothing they wish to wear, in addition to sex slavery, and other forms of tyranny. I'm assuming, after reviewing Pro's profile, Pro studied in the US (“Brandeis University”), who is an “Atheist” and therefore, I could assume this debate is based on abortion issues raised in the US.

Pro made reference to “rights,” where the US foundation of governance is based on embracing and protecting the individual's “unalienable Rights” (“Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness”) from the crimes of others and from the crimes of government. Since Pro is an atheist and college educated, we could also assume Pro understands the scientific method. And on that note, according to the physical constructal law (http://www.tandfonline.com...) a human entity at conception has “unalienable Rights,” summarized in the following article:
http://www.westernfreepress.com...

Over the last hundred years it is true the ruling-class in DC slowly became unmoored from the US Constitution resulting in unequal justice of one's “unalienable Rights” based on social class, one's wealth, or physical state (the very young, or the very old), etc. Relative to the very young, before birth, or the very old, the medical industry evolved since the 1700's where the masterminds in government gave the medical industry the green light (“accepted practice”) to kill humans for various reasons which includes: genocide (http://www.lifenews.com...), a mother's survival risk during birth, rape, a form of birth control, assisted suicide, etc.

What brings into question is the morality factor concerning the tyranny of government to enslave a segment of society to support the convenience of others to do what they want with their “body.” That is, in a civil society Liberty (freedom), for the most part, is a function of money. To quote Friedrich Hayek, “Money is one of the greatest instruments of freedom ever invented by man” (http://www.azquotes.com...). The more money a person has, the more freedom there is to do and buy things, live in nice neighborhoods, travel, etc. The increase of freedom has the tendency of improving the quality of “Life”, and reducing the amount of energy used during “pursuit” through purchase, control, and movement, money became a positive-feedback mechanism in the drive to achieve (or increase the perception of) “Happiness.” The tendency to flow towards freedom is the nature of the constructal law.

Because money encourages freedom, the bio-program of our “unalienable Rights” provides reason to desire its accumulation. It is hard to deny the powerful effects of money on the perception of freedom; and even harder to deny its potential effects on morality and power, including social manipulation by the institution of government through taxation. In other words, taxing me to support abortion clinics is tyrannically taking a part of my freedom (money) away, effectively enslaving me to support the killing of humans, which I find immorally disgusting.

What about my freedom, to “choose” what I want to do with my “body”? Not to be enslaved paying for someone else to “choose” what they want to do with their “body.”

Abortion, the “accepted practice” by the tyranny of government in the US, enslaves the population to support an institution to kill humans. This is why I took the Con position against abortion. I simply don't care what a woman does to her “body,” but the tyranny from “accepted practice” decreed by the masterminds in DC, I'm forced to contribute to her desires.
Debate Round No. 1
Kelisitaan

Pro

Unfortunately, most of Con's wall of text is irrelevant to the discussion. Instead of writing 3 paragraphs, those 3 paragraphs could have been summarized as: "It is logical to assume from keli's profile that he lives in the usa. The usa has rights that other countries don't have; in other countries they aren't free to choose the clothes they wear, for example. Over time the US has evolved from its archaic thinking and has accepted the practice of killing of humans for various reasons: genocide, where he cites an article by ruth which is actually true: poor people SHOULD have abortions over children because they cannot afford to support children.

Rather than focusing on just the negatives as con likes to, ruth considers both the positves AND the negatives. In other words, ruth is smart enough to realize that poor people have enough struggles as is; the last thing they need is another life to take care of.

Then con goes on to say:

"What brings into question is the morality factor concerning the tyranny of government to enslave a segment of society to support the convenience of others to do what they want with their "body.""

No, just the opposite is true, actually. You want the tyranny government to force YOUR beliefs onto women and TELL them what to do with their own body. If YOU want to not have an abortion, you have that right, unlike in China where you are only allowed 1 kid per family. (It's now kids per family, but same concept.)

https://en.wikipedia.org...

"Because money encourages freedom, the bio-program of our "unalienable Rights" provides reason to desire its accumulation. It is hard to deny the powerful effects of money on the perception of freedom; and even harder to deny its potential effects on morality and power, including social manipulation by the institution of government through taxation. In other words, taxing me to support abortion clinics is tyrannically taking a part of my freedom (money) away, effectively enslaving me to support the killing of humans, which I find immorally disgusting. "

Ah, but on the contrary, making ME pay for babies that YOU cannot afford to support is disgusting. Maybe you should be having more abortions instead? And furthermore, you keep citing the cost of "having to pay for other people to choose..." yes...and don't you think that I'm paying FAR MORE for POOR PEOPLE to choose to have babies when they should be having abortions instead? Yet, YOU and POOR people are STILL free to have babies and force ME to pay part of the 250-350k to support them.

As stated above, abortion is accepted because a woman has the right to choose what she wants to do with her body.

The fetus needs the body of the mother to survive. If human A needs a part of human B to survive, e.g. a kidney transplant, it is entirely up to human B whether or not he wants to give human A a kidney. Even if human B is dying and his kidneys will rot with him, he decides what to do with his own body. Even if human A's life is at stake and human B's life is already over, with rotting kidney's, it's still human B's right to choose what to do with his dead body.

Is this considered murder? No, of course it's not. Is it a little douchey? Perhaps. Is it acceptable? Yes, a person has the right to do whatever he wants with his body.

If the fetus can survive on its own, then abortion is more of an up in the air debate. However, if the fetus needs the mother's body (which it does), abortion comes down to the simple principal of a woman has the right to choose what she wants to do with her body.

By letting the fetus control a woman's body, you are granting a fetus rights to someone else's body. No one has rights to anyone's body but that person. Period

A fetus needs a mother's body to survive. If the mother does not want to let the fetus use her body, it doesn't have to. The fetus is a part of a parasitic relationship; although its body is affected, it's using the body of the mother to survive.
Mike_10-4

Con

Pro failed to understand “rights” come from the physical constructal law and not from government. I should have composed 4 paragraphs, not “3.” The links I supplied describes life's “unalienable Rights” are an animate interpretation of the constructal law; therefore, at conception the human entity has “unalienable Rights.” To be fair, many are under the illusion government gives rights. The Bill of Rights in the US Constitution gave us no rights at all, it is a set of instructions to the institution of government to protect the individual's “unalienable Rights.” This is a common problem, in general, our government controlled schools (aka public schools and colleges) are not required to have courses on Constitutional study. Why?

But I digress, since the US ruling-class in DC became unmoored from the US Constitution, it behaves like most governments imposing tyrannical laws interfering with the individual's “unalienable Rights,” tyrannical laws preventing the market to be free; in fact, there are so many laws on the books the average citizen commits three felonies a day (http://www.amazon.com...). In other words, there are so many lawyers looking for business, you bring them the man, they'll find you the crime.

The less laws the more freedom we have. For example, at one time the tyranny of government prevented women from having an abortion. A segment of the population convinced the masterminds in government to abolish that tyrannical law resulting in freedom for women to have an abortion option. If they want to have an abortion, is a choice they have to live with. However, the DC masterminds turned around and contrive a set of tyrannical laws forcing me to pay for said abortions. This is the problem! I do not support genocide of which Pro has no problem with as Pro stated, “… poor people SHOULD have abortions over children because they cannot afford to support children.”

There are a lot of poor people who have families, and the ones I know, seem happier than most of the rich families I know. I'm not one to judge, however, at this point in our debate, I'm beginning to feel sorry for Pro having such an immoral mindset supporting genocide.

On the other hand, I do agree with Pro's statement, “Ah, but on the contrary, making ME pay for babies that YOU cannot afford to support is disgusting.” BINGO! Having the tyranny of government to enslave me, or Pro, to work for others is simply bondage. One would think we have abolish slavery, but over the last hundred years DC morphed into a modern day plantation. Most who have a job, are enslaved to the government working almost a half a year to pay all their taxes, including those abortions.

At the turn of last century millions of immigrants, most poor, were coming to the US for freedom. There were few laws, DC was following the Constitution embracing and protecting the individual's “unalienable Rights.” There were no government run welfare or social programs. If you can't find a job it was easy to start your own business in a free market; otherwise, you starve or seek help from charity. Those “poor people” showed all the tyrannical governments what freedom can do, in a short period of time, advancing technology, food production, and medicine changing the world like no other social system in recorded history.

Pro said, “The fetus needs the body of the mother to survive.” Well that's obvious, sex education 101.

Then Pro when on some rant about “human A needs a part of human B to survive.” What's up with that? What does that have to do with the tyranny of government forcing me to pay for abortions? Perhaps, Pro wants more tyranny from government to enslave a dead body and chop it up to keep others alive. I would not be surprised one day that will happen.

Then Pro when on with more fetus bio-info. In closing this round, thank you Pro for the fetus education.
Debate Round No. 2
Kelisitaan

Pro

Rather than discussing the positives vs the negatives of abortion, con has simply claimed that "abortion" "enslaves" people into paying for their abortions. Would con be fine then if the woman had to pay for her own abortion? If so, then I don't see the problem; con would therefore agree that abortion is okay if the woman pays for it.

Con's entire argument, however, about being "enslaved" would apply to the pro abortion side, not his side. In other words, con is arguing my side for me. If we became anti-abortion, then we'd all have to pay for unwanted babies that mother's were forced to have. This averages around 250k PER kid. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Not only that, but this is simply the cost of raising a kid until he or she is 18. What if they can't find a job? Due to technology, we are moving AWAY from jobs, not towards jobs. We are already overpopulated as is; imagine what FORCING mother's to have kids they don't want would do to us. Talk about enslavement!

We already have 100k orphans who are not adopted, and that's WITH allowing abortion. If we didn't allow abortion, that number could easily approach 1 million. https://showhope.org...
Mike_10-4

Con

Thank you Pro for your short response and on a more timely festive note, I wish you and your Family a Happy New Year.

Let me make it clear to Pro, so we don't have any miss understanding, to rebut Pro putting words in my mouth, I DO NOT support abortion because of my understanding of the physical laws of nature complemented with my moral support for all of humanity's "unalienable Rights" in any stage of life.

I also agree with Pro that, "A woman has the right to choose what she wants to do with her body"; as Pro defined in the first sentence of Round 1.

My debate with Pro is in his second sentence of Round 1 where he stated, "Therefore, abortion is an accepted practice." NOT with this kid and with many others; or why have this debate in the first place? I do not support abortion for it kills a human entity who has "unalienable Rights" defined by the physical laws of nature of which no philosophy or man-made law can change. On top of that, the tyranny of government is forcing me to pay for such an immoral activity enslaving me to capitulate to their decree.

Just because I do not support abortion, has nothing to do with a woman's freedom to choose what she wants to do with her body. My point is if Pro's claim to "abortion is an accepted practice," then why are we having this debate in the first place? That is, because abortion is NOT "an accepted practice" debunking Pro's claimed in Round 1.

If Pro is concerned about over population, education is the much preferred solution over genocide; but if ignorance prevails, the physical laws of nature will settle the matter.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Mike_10-4 1 year ago
Mike_10-4
I wonder why this debate seems to be stuck.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.