The Instigator
LiamKNOW
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Actionsspeak
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points

Is abortion moral in cases where rape or the mother's life are not involved?

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...
Actionsspeak
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/14/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 535 times Debate No: 45994
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (5)
Votes (3)

 

LiamKNOW

Con

I will arguing that -- in cases in which the mother's life is not in danger and the pregnancy is not the result of a rape -- abortion is not morally permissible.
Actionsspeak

Pro

Abortion[1]- a medical procedure used to end a pregnancy and cause the death of the fetus.
Moral[1]- concerning or relating to what is right and wrong in human behavior.

My argument:

Population growth has experienced exponential growth due to technology, and has now led to a nearly overpopulated world. This overpopulation is completely avoidable using abortions [2]. Abortion aids in avoiding overpopulation, and overpopulation is immoral for many reasons: Overpopulation leads to many environmentally devastating things such as overuse of net primary production by up to 30,000% in some large cities[3]. Overpopulation leads to more land used for energy/food[4]. Overpopulation to overfishing[5], overharvesting[6], and less land available for endemic species[7], but some people have morals with little regard to the environment they leave to the next generation so onto a new argument.

Abortion is moral, the con is that you're killing something but you're not. A fetus is far away from a fully functioning human being as a dog/cat/racoon has more functions, it's more like a vegetable than a human being. You may think it's immoral but the number of women who get abortions does not change based on legality the only thing that changes is more women die. Every year, 78,000 women die from unsafe abortions.

"If someone is able to show me that what I think or do is not right, I will happily change, for I seek the truth, by which no one was ever truly harmed. It is the person who continues in his self-deception and ignorance who is harmed."
R13; Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

Much more next round, best of luck Con.

Sources:
[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov...
[4] http://www.learner.org...
[5] http://overfishing.org...
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[7] http://biology.about.com...
Debate Round No. 1
LiamKNOW

Con

Thanks for accepting to participate in this debate.

Your first argument in support of (seemingly unrestricted) abortion is that abortion promotes small, prosperous societies and helps reduce the harm that overpopulation often involves. The response is simple: it is unethical to kill one innocent human being to save the life of another (or should adults in overpopulated regions be systematically killed to relieve the strain on the environment)?

Next, you claim that the fetus is not a living thing, or at least not ethically comparable to adult humans. As a biologist, I have to smile at seeing this myth propagated. From the moment of conception -- and the formation of a zygote --, a child in the womb differs from adult humans being in a single respect: level of development. It is undeniable that a prenatal child is not as developed as an adult. Yet, given nine months and the nurturing environment of their mother's womb, they become fully functioning (the same cannot be said for the vegetables you brought up in your example). Since when have we considered people with developmental retardation (such as people with autism) to be non-human?

Your final argument is to say, whatever the legal status of abortion, women will seek out the procedure anyway. Hence, if abortion is legal and a structured medical system is in place to administer the procedure, fewer women will die. First, I want to point out that it is blissfully ignorant to suggest that the same number of women undergo abortions regardless of legal constraints; when abortion was illegal in the United States and other countries, significantly fewer total abortions occurred. Second, as the recent Gosnell case revealed, legal abortion clinics often provide inadequate services that put women's lives at risk. Finally, as I stated earlier, it is unethical to kill one innocent person in some vague, indistinct effort to save another person. Women decide to seek illegal abortions. No fetus decides to die.
Actionsspeak

Pro

Good to see you aren't good without a fight, however I immediatly noticed:
- you didn't have a single source or refernce to back you.
- You said: "Next, you claim that the fetus is not a living thing, or at least not ethically comparable to adult humans. As a biologist, I have to smile at seeing this myth propagated." However I found this impossible since your 17 and becoming a biologist requires atleast a bachelor's degree.[1]
- You also said: "or should adults in overpopulated regions be systematically killed to relieve the strain on the environment)?"
This is actually a terrible idea since adults are fully functional Humans who have already been invested with literally thousands of pounds of resources and multiple years of development while a women can typically just have another pregnancy (depending on age and medical conditions)
- You also said "Yet, given nine months and the nurturing environment of their mother's womb, they become fully functioning"
Actually it's far from fully functional and cannot interpret languages, walk talk, run, speak a language, and well even see clearly. [2]
- You also said: "Since when have we considered people with developmental retardation (such as people with autism) to be non-human?
In actuality they are functional they just have different functions
for example Einstein and Newton had aspergers syndrome yet he still functioned just slightly different from an average person [3]
- you also said: "it is blissfully ignorant to suggest that the same number of women undergo abortions regardless of legal constraints"
However it is blissfully ignorant to not mention the 78,000 women who die for no reason every year (197 today) and many instances of abortion use to go unreported.

I enjoyed this debate and thanks for reading, and thanks for participating Con.

Sources:
[1] http://m.wikihow.com...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...(biology)
[3] http://news.bbc.co.uk...
Debate Round No. 2
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
All that and still did not think to list even one source, such as a news article about one of your original research projects? Too late now for this debate, in future I suggest backing your claims.
Posted by LiamKNOW 2 years ago
LiamKNOW
Though I do not blame those who have questioned my credentials as a biologist (after all, we seventeen-year-old biologists are a rare breed), I think people should be more careful in accusing others of dishonesty. I have a bachelor's degree in Biology and have conducted original biological research at a world-class biomedical organization.
Posted by Actionsspeak 2 years ago
Actionsspeak
I enjoyed this debate, and only wish I could have typed more thanks to anyone who votes and/or comments.
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
2000 is a really good character limit, as it leaves arguments distilled.
Anyway good first round; I defiantly like the professional job on sources (the choice for next round, if any new sources are called; is to continue the numbering or to restart it; I prefer continuous since a reused source does not need to be reposted).
Posted by Actionsspeak 2 years ago
Actionsspeak
I look forward to a worthy debate, I had much more typed in notes for round one but the character limit was set at 2,000. Anyways good luck
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
LiamKNOWActionsspeakTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Firstly the question is not if it should be allowed, but is it moral... The instigator himself missed such, and did not advance any of his own ideas toward the debate. CONDUCT: Favors pro, but not by quite enough to award points. S&G: Seemed fine. ARGUMENT: Con begs the question, and makes appeals to false authority (nothing was advanced to convince us he's a genius with advanced degrees at age 17); worse for him he got caught in a probable lie. Cons response to the nearly hundred thousand women who die by poorly preformed medical procedures every year, is "Women decide to seek illegal abortions." I found this pretty offensive, and disrespectful to human life... I admit I had to check pro's argument a few times, as it looked like a copy/paste job at times (paraphrased, but fine due to proper citations). SOURCES: No contest in this area, which bled over into argument since pro's case is warranted by evidence, con's is presented as no more than his own opinion.
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
LiamKNOWActionsspeakTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con loses conduct for claiming to be a biologist when he is clearly not. Pro was able to refute all con's arguments and provided some that went unchallenged himself and gets arguments. Pro was the only one to use sources.
Vote Placed by jdtroughton 2 years ago
jdtroughton
LiamKNOWActionsspeakTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: It appears more work went into Pro's arguments, and there were enough large assumptions in Con's to warrant the arguments point going to Pro. **EDIT: I was unaware the first two vote categories do not actually award points, where I think these should be at least tied with the convincing argument vote. In that spirit, given that I am actually convinced more by Con, in real consideration of this topic, as opposed to merely in the context of this debate, I've changed that category to Con. ** Also, Pro cited sources, Con did not, so point to Pro. Conduct and style were tied. Thanks for making this debate easy to read. I must still go with Con, in whom I agree with however, as the only cases I could justify abortion are excluded from the terms of the debate, and the crux of Pro's case -overpopulation- is much more reliably and healthily controlled preventatively, and culturally, not reparatively, treating a symptom.