The Instigator
Black.Nite17
Pro (for)
Losing
22 Points
The Contender
wingnut2280
Con (against)
Winning
42 Points

Abortions has scientific benefits and should be legal.

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
Pro Tied Con
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: 1/22/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,839 times Debate No: 2105
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (20)

 

Black.Nite17

Pro

A very heavily debated subject, that i thought i would indulge my in.People say that abortion is wrong because your taking the life of a unborn fetus. But the scientific studies show that things we can do with stem cells(which come with the unborn fetus) outweigh any ethical problems. futhermore, there should be no problems because obviusly if a women goes in for an abortion she has a reason and the right to get an abortion.

Anyone welcome and thank you.
wingnut2280

Con

In what way does taking a life to save someone else's outweigh the ethical dillemna? Claiming that taking the fetus' life and saving someone else's via stem cells is analogous to the following scenario.

Lets say your in a hospital. Someone is dying due to heart failure. You are taking a nap in the lobby. Should we cut your heart out and give it to him in order to save his life at the cost of yours? We'd be saving his life after all.

What about multiple people? Say we could save three or four lives with your organs. Should we be able to kill you without your consent and harvest your organs to save their lives?

Obviously we don't condone this. The only reason this even seems plausible when dealing with a fetus is because some people don't view it as a human life. This is ignorant. To deny a fetus as a life is to deny all rational forethought. Its obvious that a fetus is a person. Even if you don't believe life begins at conception, the potential for life equates it to a living breathing person.

As far as the mothers decision being righteous, that is obviously a brave assumption. Does the law condone the taking of a life for simply any reason that someone else sees fit? Does any reason, other than to save her own life, warrant the taking of another life? The legal system says no. We aren't allowed to just kill people on the assumption that the murderer 'must have a good reason'. Why is abortion different?
Debate Round No. 1
Black.Nite17

Pro

First off i will begin my debate with a thank you for accepting my debate.I hope this becomes a reputable debate.

"Lets say your in a hospital. Someone is dying due to heart failure. You are taking a nap in the lobby. Should we cut your heart out and give it to him in order to save his life at the cost of yours? We'd be saving his life after all."- Wingnut

"What about multiple people? Say we could save three or four lives with your organs. Should we be able to kill you without your consent and harvest your organs to save their lives?"- Wingnut

First and foremost i find these analogies far from the reality which is abortion. I will continue an arguement about this in a few.

Example A:Lets say a coke-addict is pregnant,

http://www.fetal-exposure.org...

http://www.sciencedaily.com...

Now after reading those do you think that a baby really stands a chance? Its abortions like this that need to be done. Do YOU think it would more cruel for a baby to come out 5 months early or with a cocaine addiction or possibly brain damage that wont allow them to participate in society? I am in no way denying life of a fetus but its cases like this that strethgen stem cell research as benefitial thing to the world.

Researches are coming out now that prove an stem cells can be extracted and the embryo would be safe.

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

"As far as the mothers decision being righteous, that is obviously a brave assumption. Does the law condone the taking of a life for simply any reason that someone else sees fit? Does any reason, other than to save her own life, warrant the taking of another life? The legal system says no. We aren't allowed to just kill people on the assumption that the murderer 'must have a good reason'. Why is abortion different?"- Wingnut

Well i have proven that it is possible to save an embryo after extract the stem cells which have the ability to cure MILLIONS. Which ends the point of "killing" another. Ill save any other info for a future rebuttle.

I await your rebuttle if you disagree.
wingnut2280

Con

How is that situation not analogous? Because you don't want it to be?

You are taking an unconsenting life, which YOU recognize, in order to save another. The situation seems perfectly analogous. The reason that you don't think it is is simply because it is damaging to your stance and the stigma that is placed on the unborn to typically not be recognized as a life. But, you recognize this life, so there is no reason to think that the situations are not virtually identical.

I agree, I think that in medical emergencies, abortions are legitimate. I don't think a mother should be able to have an abortion for just any 'good' reason. I also don't think taking a life in the name of saving others is legitimate. I have proved these points above.

If stem cells can be extracted and the embryo is safe, I don't see the relevance to the debate. This debate is about abortion, not stem cell research. If we aren't killing the embryo, than it isn't relevant to the topic. This doesn't effect the argument.

So, if the baby is going to be born prematurely, we should kill it and save it from a 'terrible' life? Should we kill all handicapped people then because they don't have a 'full' life? This is a terrible mentality. To think that kids with birth defects don't deserve to live is pretty terrible.

Since you have proved that it is possible to save an embryo without killing it, what is the 'scientific' advantages of abortion. You just won me the debate. If it is possible to access all of the 'saving millions' advantages you claim without performing abortions, what reasons do you have left to support abortion?

I think you have forgotten that the debate is on abortion, not stem cell research. The reasons you have provided is that the mother should have the choice to abort because she probably has a good reason and that we can save a bunch of people with stem cells. The mother doesn't have the right to take a life on a whim. This is a rights violation. You admit this by observing fetus' as life. Abortion isn't necessary to get the benefits of stem cell research. You were kind enough to point this out. We no longer have a reason to support abortion.
Debate Round No. 2
Black.Nite17

Pro

"I think you have forgotten that the debate is on abortion, not stem cell research. The reasons you have provided is that the mother should have the choice to abort because she probably has a good reason and that we can save a bunch of people with stem cells. The mother doesn't have the right to take a life on a whim. This is a rights violation. You admit this by observing fetus' as life. Abortion isn't necessary to get the benefits of stem cell research. You were kind enough to point this out. We no longer have a reason to support abortion."-Wingnut

Ok first off, im going to point out that im saying abortions should be legal because of stem cell research and should be legal, so i have not in anyway contradicted myself. Clearly you didnt understand, that scientific benefits refers to stem cell research.

"Abortion isn't necessary to get the benefits of stem cell research. You were kind enough to point this out."-Wingnut

I never said such thing, Abortion is necessary. I simpily showed that if somebody wanted to get an abortion, then we could simpily keep the embryo and the baby could ultimately still born. I believe this ends your side of the debate due to it solves ehtical problems which you obviously have.

"I agree, I think that in medical emergencies, abortions are legitimate. I don't think a mother should be able to have an abortion for just any 'good' reason. I also don't think taking a life in the name of saving others is legitimate. I have proved these points above."- Wingnut

how do you decide the medical emergencies? How do you seperate who deserves it more? If abortion was legal and we could get stem cells like that* everyone could be saved, not everyone but obviously people that could use it.

Now i know you will say i already admitted to a fetus being a baby, but in reality this is my personal opinion, but here is the truth.

http://medical.merriam-webster.com...

Websters declares a fetus is unborn baby, yet to take a breath or become a human being. When abortions are being done they doing nothing but ejecting parts of their body. One might ask why do this but ive allready given some examples why this is more than appropriate.

Last but not least.

"So, if the baby is going to be born prematurely, we should kill it and save it from a 'terrible' life? Should we kill all handicapped people then because they don't have a 'full' life? This is a terrible mentality. To think that kids with birth defects don't deserve to live is pretty terrible." Wingnut

Honestly you took this in a different way. this is what i said:

"Now after reading those do you think that a baby really stands a chance? Its abortions like this that need to be done. Do YOU think it would more cruel for a baby to come out 5 months early or with a cocaine addiction or possibly brain damage that wont allow them to participate in society? I am in no way denying life of a fetus but its cases like this that strethgen stem cell research as benefitial thing to the world."- ME

Would you be happy if you couldnt function in society, because you had down syndrome? It is perfectly fine to have down syndrome, i am in no way saying that they have less of a reason to live.but also what about a coke addicted baby? Ultimatly it would surely die. The chemicals that already been in its body?

Being my last statement i would like to thank my oppostion, i think it was a good debate.
wingnut2280

Con

"Researches are coming out now that prove an stem cells can be extracted and the embryo would be safe." This means we can access all of your scientific advantages without aborting the child. So, why should we have abortion? We can save all of these lives and get all of your stem cell benefits without abortion.

"then we could simpily keep the embryo and the baby could ultimately still born" So, we don't have abortion then.

So, despite the fact that you agreed with me throughout the debate on whether or not the fetus is a life, we have this definition now that you claim proves us both wrong. " a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth" So, a fetus is a person two months after conception. So, this definition means that abortions after two months are rights violations because fetus' are people by definition. Again, as you pointed out. If we look at the definition of embryo "the developing human individual from the time of implantation to the end of the eighth week after conception". Based on the definitions we have each provided, fetus and embryos are people. Thus, abortion is a rights violation as you are killing a person by its very definition. Also, to deny that a fetus is a child is to deny any kind of rational forethought, as I stated earlier. This point goes unanswered throoughout the debate. Finally, you agree with me! " I am in no way denying life of a fetus." -blacknite

Medical emergencies are defined by the legislation before Roe v. Wade. This isn't a new idea.

Now, we get to the idea of babies with birth defects. "Would you be happy if you couldnt function in society, because you had down syndrome". So, you are saying that since they wouldn't be normal people, we should abort them and harvest their scientific resources. This is like saying "We should kill handicapped people and harvest their organs because they aren't functional members of society anyway." Thats pretty messed up. I think handicapped people and people with birth defects have just as much a right to live as you and I do.

Next, you say that premature babies or babies with drug addiction or something similar are going to die anyway, so we should harvest them. Well, the eldery are also going to die relatively soon. So, since they are inconvenient to take care of, I vote we execute them. They are going to ultimately die anyway. How messed up is that logic? I think the child should at least have a shot.

Your argument is that babies who aren't fully functional or have a large chance of dying should be killed and harvested for scientific research. This is possibly the most terrible logic ever. I think everyone has the right to live, regardless of their health being poor.

You essentially have two arguments. First, you claim that scientific resources from fetus should be harvested in order to save lives. This is unnecessary as you pointed out. We can harvested these resources without terminating the embryo. Even if this isn't the case, killing an unconsenting person in order to save others is illegitimate (see my hospital example from the first round that goes unanswered). Second, mothers have a pretty good reason to abort, so they should be allowed to. We agreed that fetus are people. Then, you changed your mind so I proved it by definition. Since fetus are people, killing them is a rights violation. One of our fundamental constitutional principles is that our actions can't infringe on the rights of others. Abortion is a glaring example of this.

So, not only do we have no reason to abort, the scientific resources are not a legitimate reason to warrant killing someone. A woman should have control over her body, but not when that control infringes on the rights of someone else, especially to the degree of taking a life. Abortion has no legitimate benefits and is unconstitutional.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by sadolite 9 years ago
sadolite
Hey Blacknight 17, Killing you would also have scientific benifits, as a matter of fact more more. First off, all your organs could be used for transplants or scientific study. And the rest of your body could be used for countless other things in the way of science.
Posted by mmadderom 9 years ago
mmadderom
Doesn't stem cell research depend on a once living human? Doesn't it's very existence negate the claim that a fetus is "part of a womans body" and not a completely separate entity?

Embryonic stem cell research is the BEST thing to ever happen to the pro-life side of this debate if they'd open their eyes and argue it correctly.
Posted by Cobjob 9 years ago
Cobjob
Embryonic stem cells are the only type of stem cells that have not been used to treat a medical condition. Not only is killing babies not necessary, but less useful.
Posted by SchinkBR 9 years ago
SchinkBR
You really hurt yourself black by proving that the science can be done w/o the killing. Most of your case did not, in fact relate to the topic of scientific advantage, and the parts that did, wingnut won those points.
Posted by buletman 9 years ago
buletman
While I think abortion should remain legal, wingnut won this debate, imo.

Good debate, both of you.
Posted by texas 9 years ago
texas
abortion should be illegal in the us ye dig
20 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by atheistman 7 years ago
atheistman
Black.Nite17wingnut2280Tied
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:70 
Vote Placed by sadolite 9 years ago
sadolite
Black.Nite17wingnut2280Tied
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:03 
Vote Placed by Gao 9 years ago
Gao
Black.Nite17wingnut2280Tied
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:03 
Vote Placed by AntiPatriot 9 years ago
AntiPatriot
Black.Nite17wingnut2280Tied
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:03 
Vote Placed by mmadderom 9 years ago
mmadderom
Black.Nite17wingnut2280Tied
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:03 
Vote Placed by R.evoloution 9 years ago
R.evoloution
Black.Nite17wingnut2280Tied
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 
Vote Placed by MadLib.eral 9 years ago
MadLib.eral
Black.Nite17wingnut2280Tied
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 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
Black.Nite17wingnut2280Tied
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:03 
Vote Placed by goldspurs 9 years ago
goldspurs
Black.Nite17wingnut2280Tied
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:03 
Vote Placed by Defenestrator 9 years ago
Defenestrator
Black.Nite17wingnut2280Tied
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:03