The Instigator
Turi
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
wiploc
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points

Is abortion morally correct?

Do you like this debate?NoYes-3
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...
wiploc
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/28/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,275 times Debate No: 26558
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

Turi

Con

In a nutshell: Abortion is not morally correct because it kills a human being inside's a mother's womb. Abortion even has the capacity to kill both mother and baby when used incorrectly. In addition, it is harmful towards a woman's body because at the long run it causes infertility and general damage to a woman's reproductive organs.
From the following arguments we ca conclude that abortion is not morally correct because it is harmful to the human body and also lethal to the underdeveloped life is killing.
wiploc

Pro

On Names:

Firstguy initiated and argued first, so he should call himself "Pro." But he didn't. He calls himself "Con," which makes me "Pro." I don't know why people do that. It's just confusing. He made an argument; I have to refute that argument. He has the burden of proof; I don't. Firstguy (I minimize my confusion in these cases by thinking of the parties as Firstguy and Secondguy) could have eliminated the problem by rephrasing the resolution
. Instead of saying, "Is Abortion Morally Correct?" as he did in the title, he could have said, "Abortion is not morally correct," as he did in his opening post. Then he could have called himself "Pro," and avoided the confusion.


I don't mention this to affect the voting. Nobody should vote against Firstguy for confusing our titles. I mention it because there is liable to be confusion. I am Pro. I am refuting, but I am Pro. I don't have the burden of proof, but I am Pro.

I will try to end each of my posts with "Vote Pro," and hope that keeps people straight. I encourage Firstguy to end his posts with "Vote Con."

Firstguy's First Argument: Killing Human Beings.

Firstguy wrote:
: Abortion is not morally correct because it kills a human being inside's a mother's womb.

I assume we can strike the "inside a mother's womb" part; Firstguy presumably isn't claiming that it's okay to kill human beings outside the womb.

So his claim is that it is wrong to kill human beings. He has given no justification for this claim, has not argued in favor of it. Most people would disagree with Firstguy's claim in some cases. Examples come to mind: war, punishment for certain crimes, self defence, brain death, and to ease the suffering of those dying painfully.

Another problem with Firstguy's argument is that he tries to equate the PoCs (products of conception, that is, zygotes, embryos, and fetuses) with human beings. Why didn't he include sperm cells and fingernails and human cancerous growths? The more we stretch the label "human beings" to include non-persons, the harder it would be to justify the claim that killing human beings is wrong.

And Firstguy's claim is wrong anyway. Killing people, free moral agents, is what is wrong. Would it be moral to---without justifying cause---kill ET? Or Hal, from 2001? Or the computer from The Moon is a Harsh Mistress? Godzilla? Spock? Chewbacca? No, those are people, having the same rights and deserving the same protection as human persons. Zygotes and embryos, on the other hand, are obviously not persons. There's nothing wrong with killing them.

Or at least we can say that Firstguy has yet to make a case against killing zygotes and embryos. He has not met his burden of proof.


Firstguy's Second Argument: Endangerment.

: Abortion even has the capacity to kill both mother and baby when used incorrectly.

First,

The principle is not obviously true. Anything that endangers is immoral? Is driving cars immoral? Flying? Enlisting in the military? Getting a tattoo? Is it immoral for a pregnant woman to run into a burning building to save someone else's baby?
Firstguy has stated his claim without attempting to justify it. He has not met his burden of proof.

Second,

It is preposterous to claim that abortion is more dangerous than giving birth. It is patently false.

It is not a way to be taken seriously.

Firstguy's Third Argument: Endangering Reproduction.

: In addition, it is harmful towards a woman's body because at the long run it causes infertility and
: general d
amage to a woman's reproductive organs.

There is no rule that we have to reproduce. Even if we stipulated that abortions reduce fertility, that wouldn't make them immoral. Was my vasectomy immoral? Is women tying their tubes immoral? Is abstinence immoral?

Once again, Firstguy has made an unsupported claim. He has not explained or justified himself. He has not even tried to meet his burden of proof.

Conclusion:

Firstguy has given us no reason to believe that abortion is immoral.

Vote Pro.







Debate Round No. 1
Turi

Con

Turi forfeited this round.
wiploc

Pro

Firstguy has dropped all arguments.

Vote Pro.

Debate Round No. 2
Turi

Con

Turi forfeited this round.
wiploc

Pro

Con forfeited again. Please vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by yuiru 4 years ago
yuiru
Funk...
Posted by Turi 4 years ago
Turi
deal
Posted by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
I was going to accept, but I can't agree to 24 hour rounds. Make the rounds 72 hours, and I'm good.

I'd also prefer a one or two week voting period, but that's not a deal breaker.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Clash 4 years ago
Clash
TuriwiplocTied
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: Forfeit by Con.
Vote Placed by emj32 4 years ago
emj32
TuriwiplocTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Full Forfeit
Vote Placed by Magicr 4 years ago
Magicr
TuriwiplocTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Ff