The Instigator
NadjiGuemar
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
Skynet
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

An Inquiry Into Abortion: Is it morally justifiable?

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Skynet
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/7/2013 Category: Health
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 953 times Debate No: 32199
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

NadjiGuemar

Pro

In my opinion, yes. I can defend this if my opponent is religious or if he is secular. My argument is this: If god exists, what are miscarriages but god performing abortions on infants that would live a short, strenuous life if they were allowed to exist? Isn't the mother of the baby, who understands her own situation better than anyone else does, able to make the decision of whether or not (financially, emotionally or otherwise) she is capable of raising that child? I believe so, and I am open to a change of heart subsequent to any rational evidense or logic that contradicts my present position. (If you are secular -as I am- substitute the word "god" for "nature"). Good luck to whoever wishes to appose me. Poo.
Skynet

Con

Poo,
I accept your challenge, and welcome to DDO.

I do believe in God, and will be making my arguments from the point of view that he does exist.

If I understand my opponent, He argues:

God performs abortions out of mercy to ill children to prevent them a short, strenuous existence.

Also, the mother knows best if she is capable of raising the child, and therefore should be able to decide whether or not the child should continue to live, based on the availability of resources, her emotional state, or other myriad factors.

First, unintended, "natural" death does occur in the womb, commonly known as miscarriage, and if God exists, he is probably the one who has decided, or at least allowed it to occur. If it's OK for God to do, shouldn't the mother be able to do it, too? No.

God has also numbered the days of those of us who lived beyond the womb, and it isn't right for someone to end our lives because those who nurtured us saw us as a burden to them, or they thought our lives became too difficult when we are 3, 5, 14, 30, or 50. That would be unfair, as human life should only intentionally ended if they are guilty of committing a capital crime, and possibly a few other circumstances.

Also, the mother may not have the mental or emotional ability at the time to see beyond the now, and see that she is able to overcome whatever obstacle she faces in raising the child. Poverty or depression are not necessarily permanent, and many people thrive through physical adversity. Even if it is a permanent state of poverty, I cannot abide the notion that an impoverished life is not a life worth living. If that is so, we would be merciful to use our most effective weapons of war to wipe out most of the population of Africa, Asia, and Latin America, sack the territory, and distribute the resources they're no longer using amongst the rest of the living.

Also, a depressed person may not be able to make a rational decision, so I must thoroughly reject emotional state of the mother as reason for an abortion. There are countless capable couples on long adoption waiting lists who cannot conceive who can take in unwanted children.

God is in a unique position of knowing our future, and having sovereignty over the lives of everyone he's created, or has come from his creation. Therefore, we should leave the end of innocent lives up to him, and Christians like myself should focus on helping those who are depressed, poor, and otherwise helpless so they are no longer so, and we should be witnessing about the redemption through Christ to everyone, because even people who can overcome adversity, have an immortal soul.
Debate Round No. 1
NadjiGuemar

Pro

Thanks for the welcoming, although I'll do just fine without it.

"God has also numbered the days of those of us who lived beyond the womb, and it
isn't right for someone to end our lives because those who nurtured us saw us
as a burden to them"


I'm sorry, but are you serious? My first objection is that you, even if a god does exist, cannot, by your very nature, claim to know his intentions- unless, of course, you don't mind looking a bit foolish (which you obviously don't). Now, I'd like to ask you [1] what authority do you claim, if any, that allows you to make judgments on what is right and wrong? [2] what authority have you to actually try to speak in the place of a hardly-developed fetus? That was absolutely ridiculous, sir, so I'll move on, as to make you look as least silly as possible


"the mother may not have the mental or emotional ability at the time to see beyond
the now, and see that she is able to overcome whatever obstacle she faces in
raising the child"

I suppose you'd want us to take that chance do you? But wait, didn't you say that God was the one who's omniscient? Wouldn't that restrict you from trying to predict this woman's future states? I'm sorry, but we are all aware of the risks of listening to people, like you, that think that know what god wants, and that god is on their side. Answer me this question, and make sure that you do: Would you have rathered that "Baby P" had been aborted by his sickly mother, or that he should have lived the life that he lived?



Now, I don't need anymore time to destroy your argument, but just for fun:

"
God is in a unique position of knowing our future, and having sovereignty over the lives of
everyone he's created, or has come from his creation. Therefore, we should leave the end of innocent lives up to him, and Christians like myself should focus on helping those who are depressed, poor, and otherwise helpless so they are no longer so, and we should be witnessing about the redemption through Christ to everyone, because even people who can overcome adversity, have an immortal soul."


Sorry if it's just me, but does anyone else think that this sound a lot like forcing your views upon someone? Now, the audience doesn't have to be too smart to have noticed that you are trying to prove some thing with another unprovable thing. I may as well say; Abortion is okay because Thor told me so. But I wont, because I don't want to make myself look like a complete idiot. Though, as I've just come to notice, there are many that don't seem to mind that as much.

Skynet

Con


Pro says:



I'm sorry, but are you serious? My first objection is that you, even if a god does exist, cannot, by your very nature, claim to know his intentions- unless, of course, you don't mind looking a bit foolish (which you obviously don't). Now, I'd like to ask you [1] what authority do you claim, if any, that allows you to make judgments on what is right and wrong? [2] what authority have you to actually try to speak in the place of a hardly-developed fetus? That was absolutely ridiculous, sir, so I'll move on, as to make you look as least silly as possible





I certainly can claim that. If God does exist, he could certainly communicate with us and make us aware of his intentions if he so chose. Pro does not specify what about my nature makes communication with God impossible.






Also, in round one, he left the assumption that God exists as a valid position for any opponent:





I can defend this if my opponent is religious or if he is secular. My argument is this: If god exists, what are miscarriages but god performing abortions...”





Therefore the questioning of the existance of God, or my belief in God, would seem to be off-subject in this debate. I'd be willing to have that as a seperate debate.




[1] what authority do you claim, if any, that allows you to make judgments on what is right and wrong?”





What authority does Pro claim that allows him to tell me I can't make a moral judgement? Isn't he judging me as doing wrong for claiming to know what right and wrong are? What authority allows him to do this?

I also remind the audience that the title of this debate is "An Inquiry Into Abortion: Is it morally justifiable?," and my opponent has taken the position of Pro. He has posed a question of right and wrong, and taken a position on it, all without showing any more a source of authority than I have.




[2] what authority have you to actually try to speak in the place of a hardly-developed fetus?”





Please specify when I tried to speak for a fetus. My goal is to speak for what is right, and don't care about a fetuses opinion anymore than the opinion of a helpless newborn. The newborn, the fetus, and the 10 year old should receive care it needs, even if it means a spoonful of cough syrup or vaccination needle, or taking away a dangerous toy.




Pro quotes:the mother may not have the mental or emotional ability at the time to see beyond
the now, and see that she is able to overcome whatever obstacle she faces in
raising the child”




Then responds:I suppose you'd want us to take that chance do you?”




What? The chance that things could get better? That the mother would get out of her depression


I'm not sure how to respond. Either:





A) Pro misunderstood my arguments about the hope of rising out of poverty and ignored my arguments about the temporal nature of the mother's emotional state (which he cited as a possible reason for abortion in round 1), and went straight to physical problems of the child. He refers to some “Baby P” which I am unfamiliar with, and provides no source for me to research, but insists I answer about “Baby P's” perdicament. Furthermore, he also gives no answer to my statement that people live fufilling rich lives despite adversities of all kinds.






B) Pro thinks the risk of a bad life for the child at pregancy is good enough grounds that we should perform an abortion. I don't have much of a response for this, more of a question to Pro. Wouldn't it then be logical to carry out genocide in Central Africa and Skid Row in LA? Wouldn't it be a mercy? They can't afford food and clean water, how can they afford an abortion? Helping the mother and child out of their circumstances never enters your argument, not even for a moment. Killing the child does. But what about the mother? If we follow your line of reasoning, the mother is also in a bad position, and even a possibility of a hopeful future should be discounted. Maybe we should kill her, too?



...didn't you say that God was the one who's omniscient? Wouldn't that restrict you from trying to predict this woman's future states?”




Yes, then no. God may know everything, but I don't. Therefore, I guess. And sometimes I choose to be optimistic. I don't think it's outragous to abstain from killing someone because thier life MIGHT not go well. You just don't know that much about someone when they're still in the womb.


I will assume Pro does not claim to be omniscient. So, wouldn't that restrict Pro from assuming the future is unchangeable for the mother and child?





I may as well say; Abortion is okay because Thor told me so. But I wont, because I don't want to make myself look like a complete idiot.”





If you wish, you may take the authority of Thor as the basis for your position. But then you must defend your position based on your understanding of the principals Thor gave you, relate them in an understandable way to reality and conscience, and argue them in a logical manner, as I have for my understanding of the principals God gave me through the Bible. My opponent may scoff, but I remind him and the audience, as I have already shown, that he allowed, and even invited, my viewpoint in his opening argument.

Debate Round No. 2
NadjiGuemar

Pro

It would be self-sacrificially Christian of me to open with any compliments, so I won't.

"If God does exist, he could certainly communicate with us and make us aware of his intentions"

For a reason I can't quite explain, but maybe my opponent can, he hasn't quite managed to think this one through. Now, your argument would start to make some sense if Christianity, which I presume is where you get your information on the intentions of your god, was the only religion that claimed to know the word of god. In reality, as you know, there are a multitude of religions that offer the same promise- and the supposed intentions of their gods vary greatly. I'd like to ask what evidence, so that we may be able to know which god to listen to, my opponent have that suggests his god is any truer than Appolo or Thor or Wotan. This is not irrelevant, and I've highlited reasons as to why it is relevant.

"What authority does Pro claim that allows him to tell me I can't make a moral judgement? Isn't he judging me as doing wrong for claiming to know what right and wrong are? What authority allows him to do this?"


Wait a minute, what? So, according to my opponent, those who make moral judgements don't have to show evidence of authority- but those who oppose them do? That's like a convicted murderer saying to a Judge, "I'm going to send you to prison . . . Oh, on what authority? Well, what authority do you have to stop me? Stop judging me!" What are you talking about, sir? Please, I've I or the audience have misunderstood you, clarify your point.


"I also remind the audience that the title of this debate is "An Inquiry Into Abortion: Is it morally justifiable?," and my opponent has taken the position of Pro. He has posed a question of right and wrong, and taken a position on it, all without showing any more a source of authority than I have"


If I may, I'd also like to offer some advise to the audience, and to you. Read my oppening statement. It won't take you long to read the reasons I gave for making the moral statement that I made. This is what an argument is, if I could just remind my opponent of that. Yet when I ask on what authority he claims, he tells me that it's wrong to judge him.

"Please specify when I tried to speak for a fetus. My goal is to speak for what is right, and don't care about a fetuses opinion anymore than the opinion of a helpless newborn"


Well, then. The argument is over. For those who haven't realised what I mean, I urge you to read that again. He doesn't care about the fetus, nor the newborn baby which may prevail if it isn't gotten rid of. Then why on earth do you even have an opinion? Is it a fetish of yours? Does god speak to you through a celestial cable line and tell you to "deffend" babies against your will? These are all serious questions, I'd like to get a grip on what on earth you are talking about at this point.


My "opponent" goes on to say that I didn't cite any links to a Baby P information website. I am, I think, excused of your ignorance. For the audience: http://en.wikipedia.org...; + (I urge you to at least view the latter). When you view these links, I'd like you to -instead of avoiding and ignoring my question- answer: Would you rather abort a child, or let it live its inevitably short and painful life, at the hand of a mother which is unable to take care of a child.


"God may know everything, but I don't."


Thank's for some honesty, at last. Now, since you don't know whether women in the state of Baby P's mother can get better, but we all do know that there have been more than enough examples to suggest that they won't (See: ;+ +http://www.parental-alienation.info...) ; Anyone with any respect towards their fellow humans would not wager, as you have, on the minimalistic chance that she turns some new leaf.


I will finish with a proposition to our audience. I wish that you use intuative free-though and impassionate judgement -meaning that you only rely upon the facts and reason, and not the blathering that my opponent has offered. Thank you.






Skynet

Con


Let me make an analogy.



A creationist starts a debate: “Did dinosaurs evolve into birds?” An evolutionist biology student accepts the challenge expecting a debate on biology. The creationist spends most of the balance of the debate personally insulting the evolutionist and demanding he prove the Big Bang before talking about birds or dinosaurs, meanwhile responding to precious few arguments his opponent makes about biology. That's not what Pro came here for. If Con wanted a debate on the Big Bang, why didn't he just say so?



I will now only respond to points my opponent made that deal with abortion, and not theology only.



My opponent makes a right or wrong call to start the debate, (abortion is right) then when I take the opposite side, he insists that I answer to him how I dare call anything right or wrong. I point out his hypocrisy, and he responds by telling me he has used reason, implying I have not.



The main thrust of my argument is reasonable, and could be made by an atheist, a Christian, an animist, virtually anyone with good sense.



I said, since we don't know the future, we shouldn't kill a child because of the possibility of trouble in the unknown future. My opponent gives three heart wrenching examples of children who were tortured to death by those who should by nature be their caretakers.



But my opponent has left out one obvious detail in all three examples have in common.



-“Baby P” was born on March 1, 2006. His abuse did not begin until at least 3 months after an abortion was possible.


-Talia Williams was born on March 20, 2000. Her abuse did not begin until December 2004, or January 2005. Nearly 5 years after an abortion was possible, because she had already been born.


-Daniel Valerio was born on April 21, 1988. His abuse did not begin until after February 1990, nearly two years after an abortion would have been possible, because he had already been born.



Is Pro saying the neglectful “guardians” of these children would have known the future months or years in advance, in enough detail to take action? If he is, he says nothing about action against the abusers. He doesn't even say the parent should have avoided a relationship with the abuser. He says kill the child, and nothing about the unhealthy minds that make up unhealthy relationships, or cause the abuse. Nothing about reform of child protective services or police, or other adults in the life of the child stepping up to protect the child. Just kill the child.



I must point out my opponent has not demonstrated that abortion is morally permissible



-as it assumes knowledge of the future on part of the mother,



-and aborting the child is an immoral option compared to intervening in the family's life in a positive manner.


Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by yuiru 3 years ago
yuiru
NadjiGuemarSkynetTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:24 
Reasons for voting decision: Personal insults by pro, pro was mostly off topic and was unclear.
Vote Placed by Gondun 3 years ago
Gondun
NadjiGuemarSkynetTied
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:24 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes to Con for refraining from personal insults. Argument also goes to Con because most of Pro's argument was against religion instead of abortion. Also, there were portions of Con's argument that Pro ignored that contained good arguments. Sources goes to Pro for having the only source.
Vote Placed by Sojourner 3 years ago
Sojourner
NadjiGuemarSkynetTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: I must admit that I was confused by Pro's argumentation. For the most part he seemed to present ad hominem arguments and did not sufficiently rebut Con's case, nor construct his own.