The Instigator
Billdekel
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Chaos88
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points

Is abortion morally justified and should it be legal?

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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 1 vote the winner is...
Chaos88
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/29/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,066 times Debate No: 25339
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)

 

Billdekel

Con

Rules

1. No semantics.
2. Nothing about religion or God will be discussed
3. Pro in Round 1 will just say they're accepting the debate and rules.
4. Arguments will start in round 2.
Chaos88

Pro

I accept, and am looking forward to an interesting debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Billdekel

Con



  1. What is growing in the womb of the woman is alive.

    • Even one-celled creatures are alive.

    • What is growing in the woman is more than a one-celled creature.



  2. The nature of the life in the woman is human.

  3. To abort the life, which is human in nature, is to kill that which is human in nature.

  4. Therefore, abortion is killing a life which is human by nature.

    • Where, then, does the mother get the right to kill the human within her?




Chaos88

Pro

Our legal system is full of examples of killing humans for various purposes: military action, self-preservation, capital punishment, and even abortion. Is Pro suggesting these should all be criminal acts?

Where does Pro get the authority to claim that a human life worth more than a non-human life? If all life is equal, then a virus, germ, parasite, and tumor should all have protection.

The mother gets the right from controlling her body, and, as a result, that which grows in it. If we think of an abortion, not as killing a life, but expelling that life into the world (yes, where it immediately dies due to its own inability to survive), then we see that it is moral and should be legal.
Debate Round No. 2
Billdekel

Con

Our legal system is full of examples of killing humans for various purposes: military action, self-preservation, capital punishment, and even abortion. Is Pro suggesting these should all be criminal acts?

Our legal system does permit the killing of humans sometimes. Yet just because something is legal doesn't make it right. Slavery was legal 150 years ago, but that did not make it right.
Military action:Needs to be a good reason for it. Its usually because a nation is a threat to another.
Self-preservation: I don't see how this is an example of killing. Its done to stay alive
Capital punishment:An individual needs to of done something to get this.
These all have reasons why,that involve a human acting, yet what has an unborn baby done to deserve death?

Where does Pro get the authority to claim that a human life worth more than a non-human life? If all life is equal, then a virus, germ, parasite, and tumor should all have protection.

What do you mean by the first part?

Though it is true that what you listed is alive,but something like a cell (muscle cell, skin cell, etc.) has the nature of being only what it is -- not a human. In other words, a muscle cell is by nature a muscle cell. A skin cell is by nature a skin cell. But the fertilized egg of a human is, by nature, that very thing which becomes a fully developed human. Its nature is different than that of muscle or skin cells because these do not grow into humans. Therefore, a human cell and a human egg are not the same thing.
A fertilized human egg has the nature of human development and it is alive. This is not so with a skin cell,germ,virus(it is debated if viruses are living organisms or not), and the others.

The mother gets the right from controlling her body, and, as a result, that which grows in it. If we think of an abortion, not as killing a life, but expelling that life into the world (yes, where it immediately dies due to its own inability to survive), then we see that it is moral and should be legal.

What is the difference between expelling something needed to live from a life and killing a life?

If it is part of the woman, then does the woman have four arms, four legs, two heads, and four eyes? Is that what a human is?
It is part of the woman only in the sense that the life is living and growing inside the mother.
    • Her body is feeding the life. Her body is separate from the life growing in her.

    • The life growing in the womb can have a different blood type than the mother, and it has separate brain waves. It is, therefore, an independent life with its own human DNA, its nature is human, and its life is separate from the mother.
Chaos88

Pro

Con: Where does Pro get the authority to claim that a human life worth more than a non-human life? If all life is equal, then a virus, germ, parasite, and tumor should all have protection.

Pro: What do you mean by the first part?


What I mean is why is a human life worth more than a non-human life? Is a plant not alive? Yet we kill it when it is inconvienent or to eat, wheather we are hungry or not. Is a fox not alive? Yet we kill it for sport, food, or to protect our livestock. Is a rabbit not alive? Yet we kill it for eating our crops, which affect our livlihood.

So, why are these lives easily discarded, while a human's is not? What is your moral authority?


What is the difference between expelling something needed to live from a life and killing a life?

So, if I kick my adult child out of my house (cutting off support), and he dies because he's too lazy to get a job and buy food, is that me killing him?
If a woman carries a child to term, then gives her up and the adoptive parents kill the child due to neglect, is that woman responsible for the death?
Therefore, the act of removing the child from the womb is not murder, as the child is alive. It is unfortunate that the child will certainly die (assuming first trimester).

However, if you tell the woman she is not allowed to remove this human who is literally feeding off her, when it is unwanted (because any abortion is an unwanted child), doesn't that make the child an aggressor? Is the mother its slave, as she is not allowed to do as she pleases (she cannot drink or smoke or even lie down properly)?

Therefore, legally, the unborn child is not "human" under the law. If it were, and the mother were to die giving birth, is that not a form of murder (involuntary homicide)? If the mother is under a lot of stress, which is bad for the baby, is that child abuse?


My final point is that even Pro says self-preservation is not murder. So, if the pregnant mother's life is threatened by carrying her child to term, in order to save her life, she must kill this human life. Therefore, abortion is moral and must be legal.
Debate Round No. 3
Billdekel

Con

So, why are these lives easily discarded, while a human's is not? What is your moral authority?

I think you know what my answer would be, but
"2. Nothing about religion or God will be discussed"

Anyway, Human life is distinct from a plant,a fox, and a rabbit. Humans being the most intelligent of the organisms (that we know of) on this planet,our life comes first. Humans should not be killed without a good reason.

Therefore, the act of removing the child from the womb is not murder, as the child is alive. It is unfortunate that the child will certainly die (assuming first trimester).

An adult child can do something about getting a job and buying food. A baby cannot. Like the adoptive parents, they can do something about the baby. A baby cannot

However, if you tell the woman she is not allowed to remove this human who is literally feeding off her, when it is unwanted (because any abortion is an unwanted child), doesn't that make the child an aggressor? Is the mother its slave, as she is not allowed to do as she pleases (she cannot drink or smoke or even lie down properly)?

Can we kill the child outside the womb, if its unwanted? Since outside the womb the child is living off her,smoking around the baby does do damage, and its not a good idea to care for a child drunk.

Therefore, legally, the unborn child is not "human" under the law.

Again being legal doesn't mean its right.

If it were, and the mother were to die giving birth, is that not a form of murder (involuntary homicide)?

Your mixing a biological function and a choice. Abortion is a choice, the baby has no choice in being birthed. A C-section can be done in this case.

My final point is that even Pro says self-preservation is not murder. So, if the pregnant mother's life is threatened by carrying her child to term, in order to save her life, she must kill this human life. Therefore, abortion is moral and must be legal.

Only if abortion is the sole choice
Chaos88

Pro

So, why are these lives easily discarded, while a human's is not? What is your moral authority?

I think you know what my answer would be, but
"2. Nothing about religion or God will be discussed"

I know that rule, and I am exploiting it. Without the moral authority to claim a human is superior to other life, the fact that a fetus is human is irrelevant. All life must then be equally precious. So, a cancer cell is no less deserving eradication than an embryonic cell is.

Anyway, Human life is distinct from a plant,a fox, and a rabbit. Humans being the most intelligent of the organisms (that we know of) on this planet,our life comes first. Humans should not be killed without a good reason.


Distinct, yes, deserving to be killed without good reason, no.

Pro claims humans come first, so if a growth in the womb is hindering another human’s life, in any capacity, the adult human comes first. Just as if the growth was a tumor or other lifeform.
Therefore, the act of removing the child from the womb is not murder, as the child is alive. It is unfortunate that the child will certainly die (assuming first trimester).

An adult child can do something about getting a job and buying food. A baby cannot. Like the adoptive parents, they can do something about the baby. A baby cannot

An adult, or even a baby, can also breath on its own, a two week old fetus cannot.

However, if you tell the woman she is not allowed to remove this human who is literally feeding off her, when it is unwanted (because any abortion is an unwanted child), doesn't that make the child an aggressor? Is the mother its slave, as she is not allowed to do as she pleases (she cannot drink or smoke or even lie down properly)?

Can we kill the child outside the womb, if its unwanted? Since outside the womb the child is living off her,smoking around the baby does do damage, and its not a good idea to care for a child drunk.


The decision to keep the child has already been made. The decision to birth the child has already been made. The consequences for neglecting the choices you made are criminal and wrong. However, the unwanted life is literally feeding on the one that doesn’t want it.

This is a fundamental difference in these examples, and to say that the one being fed upon is not allowed to take action against its aggressor is to say that self-preservation is not allowed. Therefore, killing in self-defense is immoral and illegal, as is killing a soldier for the actions of its leaders.

Regardless of whether self-preservation is defined as life-or-death, merely needing sleep/energy to keep a job, or desiring to keep one’s image, is not irrelevant. The fact of the matter is self-preservation is a moral and legal rationale to eliminate the aggressor, no matter how shallow the self being preserved is.




Therefore, legally, the unborn child is not "human" under the law.

Again being legal doesn't mean its right.
And you need to prove it is neither. The fact is, regardless of morality, it is legal and should be legal, and you have yet to prove otherwise.


If it were, and the mother were to die giving birth, is that not a form of murder (involuntary homicide)?

Your mixing a biological function and a choice. Abortion is a choice, the baby has no choice in being birthed. A C-section can be done in this case.
If it is not a crime, then it was suicide, as the mother was responsible for the choice that led to her death. Just as if a careless mother left a gun out and her child shot someone.

However, if this is not murder, the reason is what? The baby lacks thought to act? If so, then it is no cogent than a fox or rabbit or plant, which would be "excused" from killing a human. Since the fetus lacks the cognitive qualities that Pro says warrant its preferential treatment, the fetus should be, for moral and legal purposes, considered NOT human.


My final point is that even Pro says self-preservation is not murder. So, if the pregnant mother's life is threatened by carrying her child to term, in order to save her life, she must kill this human life. Therefore, abortion is moral and must be legal.

Only if abortion is the sole choice

So, you still admit that it can be a moral choice.

Because Pro admits that abortion, in at least one instance, is moral, you must vote Con. Con has proven abortion is moral in all instances, even if it is distasteful. Con has also shown it is legal absurdity to treat a fetus as a “human”. Please vote Con.

Debate Round No. 4
Billdekel

Con

Pro claims humans come first, so if a growth in the womb is hindering another human’s life, in any capacity, the adult human comes first. Just as if the growth was a tumor or other lifeform.

So we should kill a human because another human hindering another? You can use this logic for the baby outside the womb. If it is hindering the women in anyway kill it, even when its born. When does it stop 10 years? 20 years? When the child is out of the house?


An adult, or even a baby, can also breath on its own, a two week old fetus cannot.

Yes that was my point. The fetus doesn't have a choice. Life is not based solely on breathing, it still needs an independent adult to take care of it

The decision to keep the child has already been made. The decision to birth the child has already been made. The consequences for neglecting the choices you made are criminal and wrong. However, the unwanted life is literally feeding on the one that doesn’t want it.
This is a fundamental difference in these examples, and to say that the one being fed upon is not allowed to take action against its aggressor is to say that self-preservation is not allowed. Therefore, killing in self-defense is immoral and illegal, as is killing a soldier for the actions of its leaders.

Regardless of whether self-preservation is defined as life-or-death, merely needing sleep/energy to keep a job, or desiring to keep one’s image, is not irrelevant. The fact of the matter is self-preservation is a moral and legal rationale to eliminate the aggressor, no matter how shallow the self being preserved is.


Whether or not a baby is "unwanted" is irrelevant. Just because a human being is not wanted does not mean that the human being has no value or should be killed. In addition, there are huge numbers of families who are willing to adopt those "unwanted" babies. So, those babies are wanted, not unwanted. You're now using a broad definition of "self-preservation". Ruling out adoption.

Yes Abortion reduces the number of unwanted children. Murder also reduces the number of unwanted people, as does dropping a nuclear bomb on a city, or poisoning the water supply, etc. If the reduction of unwanted people is the goal, then that opens us up for all kinds of genocide-type possibilities.

And you need to prove it is neither. The fact is, regardless of morality, it is legal and should be legal, and you have yet to prove otherwise.


In my opening argument I've demonstrated that the baby is human in nature therefore killing it is killing what is human. Killing a human life is wrong.

You can also use this as an argument for slavery to.

If it is not a crime, then it was suicide, as the mother was responsible for the choice that led to her death. Just as if a careless mother left a gun out and her child shot someone.


I don't really understand what you mean. I gave a medical practice that could be done to save both.

However, if this is not murder, the reason is what? The baby lacks thought to act? If so, then it is no cogent than a fox or rabbit or plant, which would be "excused" from killing a human. Since the fetus lacks the cognitive qualities that Pro says warrant its preferential treatment, the fetus should be, for moral and legal purposes, considered NOT human.


A baby outside the womb lacks thought to act and cognitive abilities.
This disregards the fact that the nature of the life is human. It has human DNA and is alive. How can its nature not be human if it is alive and has human DNA?

This asserts a false premise that someone is not human until he/she is fully developed, but what constitutes full development? One hour before birth or one hour after? Is there really a difference? How about if the child is going to be mentally handicapped? Can we kill it under your view points outside the womb then?

So, you still admit that it can be a moral choice.

Because Pro admits that abortion, in at least one instance, is moral, you must vote Con. Con has proven abortion is moral in all instances, even if it is distasteful. Con has also shown it is legal absurdity to treat a fetus as a “human”. Please vote Con.

I didn't say it is moral in ALL instances. This is both a fallacy of division(occurs when one reasons logically that something true of a thing must also be true of all or some of its parts) and a straw man.


In my closing.

The fetus is human in nature. Killing that which is human in nature is taking a life. If you agree taking a life is wrong then you agree abortion is wrong. I don't feel the opposition has demonstrated what in nature the fetus is if,it isn't a human.
Chaos88

Pro

First, let me thank you for a pleasurable debate, and my first wholly completed one (i.e. not forfeited by other person). Second, let me apologize to you, and everyone, for my misuse of Pro and Con throughout the rounds. I think it is known what I meant, but I often (if not always) referred to the instigator as Pro, most problematic here:

Because Pro admits that abortion, in at least one instance, is moral, you must vote Con. Con has proven abortion is moral in all instances, even if it is distasteful. Con has also shown it is legal absurdity to treat a fetus as a “human”. Please vote Con.
I sincerely apologize for any confusion. Except for the above quote, it didn’t seem to faze either of the debaters. I have taken extra procaution to make sure my use is correct this round.

On to the debate:

Con states that the fetus is human, that is not in dispute. However, without a moral authority, the life of a human is not worth more than another life. Therefore, to kill a human is no worse than killing a parasite within the body or swatting a mosquito.

Con says abortion should be illegal because it is killing a human, yet Con admits that killing a human in self-preservation is acceptable, as is the killing of a soldier. So, my being forced to kill another man in a war (draft) because my country’s leader has a problem with your leader is acceptable, yet a woman must be subject to having a life literally feed off of her because that life is somehow more innocent than those serving in a draft?

Pro has stated that abortion is not murder; it is merely cutting all support from the child. Con rebuts with saying it should not matter how old the child is, and it doesn’t. If a woman wants to cut off support to a child of two weeks (fetus), and the child dies due to its lack of viability, it is not the woman’s fault. If the child were two years old and all support were cut off, the child would be taken in by another family (adoption if proactive, social services if reactive). So, does an intervention by another magically make the cutting off support moral?

Pro has also stated that if the child were to be legally treated as a human, and it was unwanted, then the child is an aggressor. This is akin to a burglar demanding food and shelter. It is absurd.

Con has on more than one occassion stated that just because something is legal does not make it moral. The opposite is also true (e.g. adultery is legal and immoral). While Con has built his case on why abortion is immoral, he has made little effort to prove why it should be illegal. Con has not met his BOP.

The bottom line is that Con has admitted that abortion is moral in one instance, self-preservation. Pro has argued that self-preservation can be expanded to include almost anything, because the fetus is literally feeding off the woman, sapping her strength, energy, and money (maternity clothes, food). Regardless if one believes my expanded definition of self-preservation, Con admits that abortion CAN be moral, and in accordance to our legal heritage, it MUST be legal.

Con has not met his BOP, please vote Pro.

Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
Correction:
Firstguy said, absurdly, that there is NO non-religious morality. And he forbade the discussion of religion in this debate. So, he can't begin to support his claim that abortion is immoral. This is absolutely a concession.
Posted by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
In round 2 Firstguy failed to state a case. He asked a question instead, as if hoping Secondguy would state his case for him. This is essentially a concession from the getgo.

In round 3, Firstguy came close to making a case, but veered away and asked a question again. Second guys have no ability or obligation to refute questions.

Firstguy said, absurdly, that there is non-religious morality. And he forbade the discussion of religion in this debate. So, he can't begin to support his claim that abortion is immoral. This is absolutely a concession.

Firstguy says that, because killing in self defense is done in self defense, it is not killing. That is so obviously absurd that it should have alerted him to the fact that he is out of his depth, defending he indefensible.

Firstguy concedes that some abortions are okay. Secondguy wants this to be treated as a concession, or at least as dispositive. It might or might not be dispositive if we knew what Firstguy's case was. Does Firstguy really believe that piercing your ears is as bad as murder? All we can really say is that Firstguy hasn't met his burden of proof.
Posted by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
Going first as Con, and arguing first, is needlessly confusing. I suggest that next time, you title the debate something like, "Abortion Is Not Morally Justified," and be Pro.
Posted by adontimasu 4 years ago
adontimasu
Also, if I were to accept it, it should be pointed out that I do not necessarily regard abortion to be morally good, but rather that, in some instances, abortion is justifiable, and - no matter what I view as moral - the mother has control over her own body regardless of what I think.
Posted by adontimasu 4 years ago
adontimasu
Are you for or against it?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
BilldekelChaos88Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.