The Instigator
Purushadasa
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
RainbowPancakes
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Killing Baby Girls Is Wrong, and by Extension, Abortion in General Is Also Wrong

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 2 votes the winner is...
RainbowPancakes
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/9/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 491 times Debate No: 103476
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

Purushadasa

Pro

Preamble:

Many babies are killed in the womb
because of age bias or gender bias.
Make every day International Women's Day "
stop killing unborn women
based on age bias and personal convenience.
Protect women and girls of all ages.
Babies have the same unique personal characteristics we have:
Fingerprints, DNA, virtues and flaws,
thoughts, pains and pleasures, emotions, and gender.

Formal Argument:

Abortion in general is morally wrong.

P1: Female Feticide is the specific practice of killing baby girls in their mothers" wombs.

P2: If the specific practice of killing baby girls in their mothers" wombs is morally wrong, then the specific practice of killing baby boys in their mothers" wombs must necessarily also be morally wrong.

P3: The specific practice of killing baby girls in their mothers" wombs (AKA Female Feticide) is morally wrong.

P4: Therefore the specific practice of killing baby boys in their mothers" wombs must also be morally wrong.

P5: If the specific practice of killing baby girls in their mothers" wombs is morally wrong, and the specific practice of killing baby boys in their mothers" wombs is also morally wrong, then killing babies in their mothers" wombs in general, without specific regard to their respective genders, is also morally wrong.

P6: Abortion is the general practice of killing babies in their mothers" wombs without specific regard to their respective genders.

Conclusion: Therefore abortion in general is morally wrong.

QED

Bonus video, included for clarity: https://www.youtube.com...
RainbowPancakes

Con

Your argument is that abortion is wrong because it is the same as killing a baby.
This doesn't make sense. There is a significant difference between a fetus (Which, by definition, is an unborn mammal that is at least past two months from conception), and a baby. Although Fetuses have some level of consciousness, it is not to the level where they are capable of being aware. Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, not a baby.

You are saying that abortion is equivalent to murder, murdering a child that has potential to grow up into a wonderful, unique person. The problem with this is that you are stating that every opportunity to have a child should be exercised. Therefore, Condoms and birth control should not be used, and girls should attempt to conceive every month so eggs/ possible life forms are not wasted.

A 2013 study showed that women who are given abortions are much less likely to suffer mental health issues than women who are denied abortions. People suffering from mental health issues are most likely going to have a harder time parenting a child, as well as the fact that mental health is extremely important to maintain.

Some fetuses have conditions that will lead to almost certain death close after birth (Conditions such as Anencephaly). Babies can feel pain after birth, so in some cases, it is wisest to have an abortion, so both the baby and the family suffer much less.

Abortion is a constitutional right that should be exercised when needed.

Sources: ProCon.org (http://abortion.procon.org...)
merriam-webster.com (https://www.merriam-webster.com...)
Debate Round No. 1
Purushadasa

Pro

My opponent wrote:

"Your argument is that abortion is wrong because it is the same as killing a baby."

No, that isn't my argument: That is a straw man logical fallacy on your part. Please address my actual argument instead.

"This doesn't make sense."

No, your straw man doesn't make sense: Please address my actual argument instead.

Fetus is simply the Latin word for "baby." Please communicate in English instead -- Latin is now a dead language.

"You are saying that abortion is equivalent to murder,"

I never made that statement, so that is another straw man logical fallacy on your part.

"you are stating that every opportunity to have a child should be exercised."

That's your third straw man logical fallacy. You have yet to address my actual argument at all.

"Some fetuses have conditions that will lead to almost certain death close after birth"

No they don't.

"Babies can feel pain after birth, so in some cases, it is wisest to have an abortion, so both the baby and the family suffer much less."

What magickal process are you positing that prevents the same baby girl who feels pain after birth from feeling pain prior to her birth?

"Abortion is a constitutional right that should be exercised when needed."

No it isn't.

You failed to address my actual argument at all, choosing instead to make some statements that I never made and argue against your own statements instead of addressing my actual statements.

I won this debate: Thanks for your time! =)
RainbowPancakes

Con

You claim that Abortion is morally wrong, but fail to provide any real evidence. "If the specific practice of killing baby girls in their mothers wombs..." You stated 'if the specific practice...' with out confirming or stating evidence that it is wrong, so your argument is based off an 'If' statement.

You claim that fetus is the Latin word for 'baby', which is true, but we are debating in English, and the definition of fetus in English is "The unborn offspring of a mammal at the later stages of its development, especially a human from eight weeks after fertilization to its birth." (Dictionary.com)

You claim that no fetuses have conditions that will lead to almost certain death close after birth, but fail to state any evidence. "Anencephaly is a serious birth defect in which a baby is born without parts of the brain and skull... about 1,206 pregnancies are affected by these conditions each year in the United States... Anencephaly can be diagnosed during pregnancy... There is no known cure or standard treatment for anencephaly. Almost all babies born with anencephaly will die shortly after birth." (Center for disease control).

As for your statement " What magickal process are you positing that prevents the same baby girl who feels pain after birth from feeling pain prior to her birth?", the 'magical process' is called science. You obviously have failed to do your research. A fetus prior to 22 weeks from conception cannot feel pain, but after that, they can feel some pain, so doctors are required by law to administer pain relief drugs before the abortion.

"'Abortion is a constitutional right that should be exercised when needed' No it isn't." Again, you fail to provide any evidence. January of this year marked the "44th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, which established a woman"s constitutional right to an abortion" (Alexandra DeSanctis, National Review). It is in fact a constitutional right.

You used your entire argument on falsely refuting my arguments, rather than providing more evidence to support your claim.
Debate Round No. 2
Purushadasa

Pro

My opponent wrote:

"You claim that Abortion is morally wrong, but fail to provide any real evidence"

I provided plenty of evidence, but you provided none for your claims, actually.

"You claim that fetus is the Latin word for 'baby', which is true"

Of course it is true.

", but we are debating in English"

Then stop using the Latin term fetus, because it simply means "baby." Your use of that term is intellectually dishonest, and you are simply trying to draw attention away from the fact that this debate is about killing human babies, which is definitely morally wrong.

"Almost all babies born with anencephaly will die shortly after birth."

You made that claim without any supporting evidence.

"As for your statement " What magickal process are you positing that prevents the same baby girl who feels pain after birth from feeling pain prior to her birth?", the 'magical process' is called science."

Science cannot prevent baby girls from feeling pain in the womb, actually.

"A fetus prior to 22 weeks from conception cannot feel pain,"

That is your faith-based religious belief, not observable science: You have no evidence for it.

"'Abortion is a constitutional right that should be exercised when needed'

No it isn't: You failed to provide any evidence for that faith-based religious belief of yours either.

You provided zero evidence for any of your claims (all of which were demonic in nature), so I won this debate: Thanks for your time! =)
RainbowPancakes

Con

My opponent wrote:

"',but we are debating in English' Then stop using the Latin term fetus, because it simply means "baby." Your use of that term is intellectually dishonest, and you are simply trying to draw attention away from the fact that this debate is about killing human babies, which is definitely morally wrong."

It is true that Fetus is a Latin term, but it is also an English term, an English term that means a human from eight weeks after fertilization to its birth. Therefore, this debate is about killing unborn children (fetuses), not babies, and well killing healthy babies that are conscious and feel pain may be wrong, that is not what an abortion is.

"'Almost all babies born with anencephaly will die shortly after birth." You made that claim without any supporting evidence."

Actually that was a quote from a reliable source, the CDC (Center for disease control), which is pretty much the best source for information like that, seeing as the people who run the website are professionals whose careers are based off studying these things.

As for your statement "Science cannot prevent baby girls from feeling pain in the womb, actually." Yes, it can. Science allows for us to develop pain relieving drugs such as Acetaminophen (Tylenol).

You claim that the fact that a fetus prior to 22 weeks from conception cannot feel pain is my faith-based religious belief, when in fact it is scientific. It has been proven by professionals.

You claim that I failed to provide evidence that abortion is a constitutional right, when in fact i cited a reputable news source, and i will cite another: "In Roe v. Wade... the Court established a right of personal privacy protected by the due process clause that includes the right of a woman to determine whether or not to bear a child." (Justia US Law). This is about the most reliable source as for constitutional laws. It is not a faith based religious claim, it is fact.

You claim that i have provided zero evidence for any of my claims, when in fact i have cited multiple sources and explained my reasoning. In fact, since your first post, you have not stated any new information, only refuting my points, and i will state again, your main argument in your first post is based off an if statement, making it invalid:
"If the specific practice of killing baby girls in their mothers wombs is morally wrong..."
You fail to provide any evidence proving that the specific practice of killing baby girls in their mothers wombs is morally wrong, which is the premise of the debate. Your claim is that abortion is morally wrong because killing babies is wrong, which again, doesn't make sense, abortion is not killing babies, it is killing fetuses, which invalidates your argument.
Debate Round No. 3
Purushadasa

Pro

"and well killing healthy babies that are conscious and feel pain may be wrong, that is not what an abortion is."

That is exactly what abortion is, actually: The babies killed in abortions are innocent human beings that are healthy and conscious and can feel pain. Therefore abortion is most definitely wrong.

"'Almost all babies born with anencephaly will die shortly after birth." You made that claim without any supporting evidence."

Actually that was a quote from a reliable source"

The quote from your source was wrong, and it also had no evidence.

"based off [sic] studying these things."

You probably meant "based on." What exactly did they supposedly do to "study" whether or not a baby can feel pain? Did they magically become babies and experience a lack of pain as the babies? If not, then they cannot make the statement that babies in the womb can't feel pain with any scientific accuracy: It cannot be observed. Actually, the notion that babies can't feel pain is part of your atheistic religious belief, which is faith-based, and is not observable science.

"As for your statement "Science cannot prevent baby girls from feeling pain in the womb, actually." Yes, it can. Science allows for us to develop pain relieving drugs such as Acetaminophen (Tylenol)."

Tylenol cannot prevent babies in the womb from feeling pain, actually. I took some Tylenol for a headache once, then I stubbed my toe and it hurt like hell. If you are suggesting that Tylenol could prevent a human being from feeling pain while her body is ripped limb from limb with razor-sharp stainless-steel weapons (as they do to the babies who are victims of abortion), then you are deeply deluded. Actually, believers in atheist Dogma are natural-born liars who make it their business in life to deny the truth and spread lies, so your delusion is no surprise.

Also, anyone who is in favor of killing innocent babies is an individual of demonic mentality, and the demonic mentality is the most extreme form of delusion, so again -- your delusion is no surprise.

"You claim that the fact that a fetus prior to 22 weeks from conception cannot feel pain is my faith-based religious belief, when in fact it is scientific. It has been proven by professionals."

Such a thing is impossible to prove by the scientific method, actually, and it is your faith-badsed religious belief only, not observable science" How could anyone possibly "observe" that a baby in the womb cannot feel pain? That is not possible to observe, so it is your faith-based religious belief, not observable science.

Also, killing an innocent human baby is wrong whether or not that baby being feels pain as a result of her death, so this entire line of lies on your part is not only a blatant pack of lies, but it is also demonic in nature.

"i have cited multiple sources"

Your sources are also wrong.

" and explained my reasoning."

Your reasoning is flawed, and I proved that fact amply. Also, without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between correct and incorrect reasoning.

" In fact, since your first post, you have not stated any new information,"

Yes I have: You are a liar. Believers in atheist Dogma are natural-born liars, and the truth makes them angry, so this is no surprise.

"refuting my points,"

Yes, I did refute your points, and quite easily and thoroughly -- thank you for admitting that fact. =)

"You fail to provide any evidence proving that the specific practice of killing baby girls in their mothers wombs is morally wrong"

Actually, I am satisfied with the entire result of this debate, win or lose, if I can simply expose the fact that believers in atheist Dogma (such as yourself) are of a demonic nature. You just proved that to be a fact with your above demonic statement, so I am very satisfied.

In addition to all of that, I won the debate.

"doesn't make sense,"

Yes it does.

" abortion is not killing babies, it is killing fetuses,"

The word fetus means baby, so yes, killing fetuses IS killing babies. Your attempt to divert attention from the fact that the victim who the abortionist kills is indeed a baby by calling her something other than a baby failed, in addition to being an illogical tactic that is demonic in nature.

"which invalidates your argument."

No it doesn't.

I won this debate: Thanks for your time! =)
RainbowPancakes

Con

"The babies killed in abortions are innocent human beings that are healthy and conscious and can feel pain. Therefore abortion is most definitely wrong." You are ignorant to state this. You are claiming that babies killed in abortions are healthy, conscious babies, able to feel pain, when in fact, they are fetuses, and commonly when abortions take place, they have not developed the nerve systems to be able to feel pain. You claim that I have no proof for that, because I am quoting doctoral sites, and doctors have no way of proving that fetuses cannot feel pain. This is not true at all. With the advancing technologies we have today, it is ignorant to assume that doctors cannot prove it. As well as this, fetuses in abortions are not always healthy. I have cited multiple sources about diseases that fetuses can develop in the womb that cause them to almost certainly die shortly after birth, and i will cite more:

Anencephaly- "Anencephaly is a condition that prevents the normal development of the brain and the bones of the skull...
Because these nervous system abnormalities are so severe, almost all babies with anencephaly die before birth or within a few hours or days after birth." (Genetics Home Reference)
"Anencephaly is not compatible with life. Most babies with anencephaly are stillborn or die within days or hours of birth." (MedicineNet)

"The quote from your source was wrong, and it also had no evidence." You claim that the quote from my source is wrong, when it is a word for word quote, and the evidence for the quote is that it is from a reputable source, that knows what they're talking about, because they have studied this topic.

"'Science allows for us to develop pain relieving drugs such as Acetaminophen (Tylenol).'

Tylenol cannot prevent babies in the womb from feeling pain, actually. "

I never claimed that it would. I only said that it was a pain relieving drug. I used it as an example. They probably would use some sort of sedative.

"Also, killing an innocent human baby is wrong whether or not that baby being feels pain as a result of her death, so this entire line of lies on your part is not only a blatant pack of lies, but it is also demonic in nature."

You aren't addressing the fact that in some cases, abortion is the best option, for instance, with birth defects.

"Your sources are also wrong."

What makes you more reliable than my sources? You are determined to prove that you are correct, but you are ignoring the fact that science is real, and your personal opinion isn't based off fact, while I am citing scientific evidence.

"without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between correct and incorrect reasoning."

You are claiming that my scientific evidence is my faith based religious belief, while you are clearly using your faith based religious belief as fact, while not providing any evidence.

"'You fail to provide any evidence proving that the specific practice of killing baby girls in their mothers wombs is morally wrong' Actually, I am satisfied with the entire result of this debate, win or lose, if I can simply expose the fact that believers in atheist Dogma (such as yourself) are of a demonic nature."

You still fail to provide any evidence, instead making a personal attack, which is a logical fallacy ( Fallacy of relevance).

"'doesn't make sense,' Yes it does."

You are being unprofessional, claiming that your opinion is correct, without providing any evidence.

"The word fetus means baby"

I have stated multiple times that fetuses are not the same as babies, and provided evidence. Your arguments contradict each other. You previously stated that fetus means baby in Latin, but we are not debating in Latin, so that term loses its meaning. As I have previously stated, fetus has a different meaning in English.

"'which invalidates your argument.' No it doesn't."

Again, you failed to provide any evidence whatsoever.

In conclusion, abortion is a constitutional right, and is the best option in some cases.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Purushadasa 5 months ago
Purushadasa
Solipsist wrote:

" I am a creationist theist,"

Cool! I was under the impression for several decades that I was also a Theist (although not a "Creationist"), but I was recently schooled on that point: Actually, I am not a Theist, because in order to be a Theist, one would have to hold at least one belief. I do not hold any beliefs, however, so I am definitely not a Theist.

A better term for my position would be "Theological Realist," because this term does not necessarily entail the holding of any beliefs or disbeliefs.

Thank you for your kind and intelligent comments, and God bless you! =)
Posted by SolispsisticMind 5 months ago
SolispsisticMind
Many thanks P

I think we have very similar views on many points - even the nature of randomness! I am a creationist theist, and so I doubt that randomness exists. I just don't think we have the ability to prove it. That is why we need some element of faith.

I am not voting in this debate by the way, as I so vehemently oppose abortion that my vote would be too heavily biased. I just don't know how any rational person can even attempt to justify the killing of another human at any stage of life. Whether they are a few cells old, or a premature birth at 22 weeks, it's still a developing human being. A HUMAN BEING! What is wrong with you people!!
Posted by Purushadasa 5 months ago
Purushadasa
Excellent points, Solipsist!

=)
Posted by SolispsisticMind 5 months ago
SolispsisticMind
Complete the sentence:

"A Foetus becomes a Person when..."

- the state says so?
- a doctor says so?
- the majority of people says so?

I have listened to no end of pro-abortion arguments; this fundamental point seems all too often sidestepped or just flat ignored.

If you wouldn't argue something post-birth, then why can you argue it pre-birth? A foetus isn't just a random group of cells, any more than I am. They are a frickin' person. No amount of intellectual posturing in a half-baked attempt to justify something that is morally repugnant alters this basic truth. You take a 5 week old foetus out of the womb, it will surely die. You leave a 5 month old baby to feed and fend for itself, it will surely die. Difference?

It is the responsibility of the parents to care for the child until such time as it can adequately care for itself - which frankly is not until adulthood (you send a 9 year old out into the big bad world on their own, they will most likely get manipulated and abused).

In the vast majority of cases, the parents voluntarily* undertook the act that leads to pregnancy. When they did so, they had a responsibility to care for any potential offspring - not the state, not taxing other citizens to pay for it - THE PARENTS must look after it. It is about time we irresponsible Westerners took some responsibility for our actions.

[*yes, of course there are exceptions such as rape; maybe we could look at concessions here - although killing a defenceless human even in such cases doesn't seem entirely fair on that human]

In a nutshell, abortion is only legal because:

- It suits the State, because then they don't have the economic and social impact of unwanted pregnancies to have to deal with

- It suits the irresponsible People, because then they are spared the consequences of their irresponsibility - at the supreme cost of the life of another person! But hey, we can just intellectually moralise that guilt away, right...?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Phenenas 5 months ago
Phenenas
PurushadasaRainbowPancakesTied
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 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: Anyone who isn't Purushadasa deserves to win.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 5 months ago
dsjpk5
PurushadasaRainbowPancakesTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30