The Instigator
NathanGimel
Con (against)
The Contender
asdfmajor
Pro (for)

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
asdfmajor has forfeited round #1.
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: 12/1/2017 Category: Society
Updated: 1 month ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 48 times Debate No: 105446
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

NathanGimel

Con

Let"s go through this slowly. After all, I have 2931 characters left.

We"ll start with something simple: what is a position that everyone sensible, educated human being would agree with? Here"s one: no human being who has done nothing wrong, and poses no life-threatening harm to another, should be killed. Now, hold your horses. To the other side, that clause about no harm is meant to brush away the usual distractions that are cries of fury at the lack of regard for the mother: I am arguing now against abortion, but allowing for it in the case that the mother"s physical life is in danger. Mental health will be dealt with later. And anyway, around 98.3% of all abortions are undergone for purely socio-economic reasons, naught to do with health, rape, incest, etc. (A tiny 0.1% caused by fatal risk to the mother), this from official data taken from surveys done by state agencies and the Alan Guttmacher Institute. (Note: please cite relevant sources so this doesn"t degenerate into nasty talk)

So, everyone agreed on that relatively uncontroversial statement? OK, let"s move on. If we all agree on that, we need only prove to each other that 1. the foetus is a human being, the crucial point, and 2. the foetus has done nothing wrong (again uncontroversial).

Showing 1: there are many arguments showing that the foetus is human, and since this is a multi-round debate, I will just outline them. First, the S.L.E.D. classic. The second is a new one: what is the difference between a 1-day old newborn and a 1-second old newborn with respect to (wrt) our statement? There is no difference. Neither have done anything wrong. All would agree that they are humans. Next, what is the difference wrt our statement between a 1-day old newborn and a unborn child one day away from birth? Again, none would say that there is a difference. Now, chop up the entire time period between conception and birth into seconds, and walk back from that one-day-away-from-birth. At which of those seconds can you say "before this second, the foetus was just a bunch of cells, not a human, but after this second, it"s a human whom we should treat as such"? Most people would struggle to make such a heartless statement.

Now that we have shown that the foetus is human, we need only show that it is innocent of all crimes to agree that abortion, the killing of the foetus, is wrong. Now, that"s obvious. The only crime that you could lay on it is it"s own existence: an idea so alien to the core of Western thought to render it ridiculous.

This is why abortion is wrong.

By the end of the three rounds of debate, I sincerely hope that all who followed it are either strengthened in their conviction that abortion is wrong, or if they believe otherwise, are changed in mind.

Gimel
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 4 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.