Debate Mash-up Challenge: If an unborn child is gay, abortion should be illegal
Debate Rounds (4)
It's time to ruffle some major feathers and let the most hated debate battle begin!!!
American society is committed in ending marginalization and discrimination. But killing an innocent child is a form of persecution.
Is it because unborn children are not a minority (all of us at some point are), hence they don't deserve choice?
But as some of our morally deficit friends would say - unborn children are not yet fully developed human beings and should not be granted human rights. Although they forget to mention that in human history, the same arguments are used to legalize slavery - some are not fully developed mentally and so slavery upon them is justified.
And so on one hand, we kill unborn children but on the other, we are committed in ending persecution. Is it because the latter is more vocal and visible in the media?
Ladies and gentlement, this debate is not about legalizing gay marriage or criminalizing abortion.
The motion of this debate is not about policy but an attempt at resolving the question of moral philosophy - are our modern values regarding discrimination, homosexuality and abortion, selective, biased and at odds with each other?
First round is for acceptance!
And to the voters please think of this in a situation where only situation abortion is legal because that is really going to be the only way this debate would come up.
;) I knew it !!!
I was expecting (hoping even) that someone will troll this debate. It was unfortunately, however that he/she chose to ignore the introduction.
The motion and introductory text were sprinkled with a good dose of sarcasm because I hoped it will attract the intellectually brave.
Sarcasm, for today, will just have take a punch in the face!
But as always, let's move on
The values of MODERN American culture decree the end to all forms of persecution, and we have finally tackled the one that has always been at our closets for the longest time - HOMOSEXUALITY.
But aren't we being hippocrites?
On one hand, we are convinced we have to change attitudes towards persecution of gays. But on the other, we are willing to perpetuate the most evil of persecutions, one that involves the innocent.
The status quo has now shifted to pro-gay so why not end abortion too?
WHAT? MIND-BOGGLING IS IT NOT?
It obviously will not match everyone's taste, but this was the intention of the mash-up challenge!
I am the PRO
Being the PRO, I am the devil's advocate and will defend the motion that modern values regarding discrimination, homosexuality and abortion are selective, biased and at odds with each other. And therefore, Americans are hippocrites!
There, I laid it all out ;)
A way of defending the CON is to argue that similar to the persecution of homosexuaity, women are victims of domestic abuse and that pregnancy is one of the most potent tools to silence the victims. Pro-choice movements are merely seeking abortion as means to end the cycle of abuse.
So abortion and modern attitudes towards homosexuality, both seeking to end persecution, are very consistent with each other. And so therefore, Americans are not hippocrites!
This debate is not a soliloquy
My opponent has already started his empassioned defense against abortion regardless of the sexual orientation of the unborn.
This is a complete misreading of the motion so how do we proceed?
I shall let my opponent decide, that is if he/she is reading this at all.
alevan forfeited this round.
Openness is the modern agenda and those who keep a backward perspective are not welcome.
Anti-gay has become a taboo. It now even came to the point that anyone who wants to "tackle" any "gay" issue is viewed with distrust and skepticism.
This debate is guilty of the same.
I'm not anti-gay (far from it) but I want to use the recent positive developments in support of gays to propel discussions on a separate but related issue that concerns persecution.
If modern society is willing to end the persecution of homosexuals, it should likewise examine its conscience about the gravest persecution of all, those that involve the innocent unborn children.
In the promotion slavery, some of the greatest minds of the time argued "their mental capacity are not fully developed". In the case of homosexuals, "they are not natural". And in abortion, "they are not humans".
Same issue but society is bent on applying different rules.
Some may think this is adhoc but this is precisely why I called this debate "Mash-up challenge".
alevan forfeited this round.
It goes to show that when it comes to certain issues, some are prejudicial.
Ending persecution is a must and what makes us human is our ability to reach out to another human being, regardless of their color, sexual orientation and geographical location.
So the gravest crime we can make is to decry that some people are not human beings because of where they are situated geographically. A womb afterall is just another point, a space-time coordinate situated in Earth.
Are we are embracing homosexuality because it is fashionable and a vogue in modern pop culture?
Horrible of me to ask this! But if we are sincere about ending persecution, why can't it be inclusive all at once and not selective based on the fashion of the times?
And so if it is selective it must be because our values are selective, and therefore not consistent with each other.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||4||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Two missed rounds, is an FF to me. However the topic itself made me facepalm a little.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.