The Instigator
mattrodstrom
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
stylezco
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Late term abortion is wrong, and ought to be illegal

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
stylezco
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/20/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,853 times Debate No: 9756
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (28)
Votes (2)

 

mattrodstrom

Pro

Reasonable arguments regarding abortion are arguments about rights.

Pro-choice people claim that a woman's right to privacy, and right to act in regard to her own body ought to be protected.
Pro-life people argue that unborn children have rights that must be protected as well

I would argue that since late term unborn babies are developed to a level of physiological complexity at which thought can occur, their is no reason whatsoever that they ought not be treated as persons, and be acknowledged as having human rights.
I acknowledge that women have a right to privacy, and to act in regard to their body, but submit that in this kind of case in which two peoples rights conflict, they must be measured and balanced. That is, it is not reasonable to simply ignore the rights of one party.
In measuring the two parties rights, it becomes quite clear that simply allowing the killing of one party to avoid getting involved in the intimate affairs of the other is not a just solution.
Babies of said development are already treated as people when they are born pre-mature. Not doing so for their un-birthed counterparts begs for an answer to the question: why?
Their is no good answer. When people attempt to explain "why" they invariably claim that the babe is not deserving of rights because factors which lie outside of the physiological system in consideration (such as that system being dependent). Being that a person is deserving of rights based upon their being a person, That is, based upon their own internal characteristics. Arguments which claim outside factors as justification for the claim that such a babe has no rights are not reasonable.

I claim that such abortions ought to be illegal on the basis that they are morally wrong in that they violate human rights. Additionally, despite the legally mandated impositions upon the mother such legislation necessarily imposes I take comfort in the fact that the act of childbirth is now rarely very dangerous due to the regular practice of C-sections.

I hope that anyone who disagrees with me will jump at the opportunity to explain to me in just how many ways I am wrong. Though I must admit if we disagree on too much there probably won't be much "debate".
stylezco

Con

Ok I will accept. First, let me state right off the bat that I am a newbie to this. I signed up today and thought I would give this a try. Second, let me state that personally I agree with the Pro side but for the sake of debate I will try to argue the con side. That being said, please have patience with me as I engage in this debate.

First, is appears that you are defining a "person" as someone who has "physiological complexity at which thought can occur." Please correct me if I am wrong. If this is the case then I would argue that the pro has a flawed definition of a "person". What about individuals that have mental retardation or people who are brain damaged (I guess to what degree would be of debate)? Are they a person and should they be excluded from human rights? Or what about animals (which I guess could include humans) do they have thoughts? Should animals have "human rights "and be regarded as a "person" according to this defintion? I would argue they should not.

Secondly, who determines who has human rights? The government? Science? God? Who determines that human rights should be granted? I would argue that humans don't actually have rights.

Further I would ask, is it ok to abort babies before they have "physiological complexity at which thought can occur?"

My contention 1: I say abort the baby. The more babies aborted the more room there is for me to live. In short, it is population control. We have limited resources as it is. The more babies aborted the more resources we have for those who are already here. The more consumption on our resources (demand) the higher prices go. It is just better universally.

I am sure I will have more arguments as soon as the previous questions are answered and we have agreed on a definition.

Finally, Thank you for the opportunity for the debate. I urge voters to judge not with their emotions but on logic and the arguments presented. Please forgive me for the simplicity of this argument.
Debate Round No. 1
mattrodstrom

Pro

Hello stylezco, thanks for joining me. This happens to be my first debate as well, and I signed up last night.

Anyways... I will rebut your objections one by one, beginning with the broadest.

You object to the idea of "Human Rights", and I understand your objection. The natural world, it initially seems, does not provide us with any "rights". Insects steal our blood, coyotes our children, and natural disasters our societies, lives and livelihoods, all without any consideration whatsoever upon the effects these things have upon our well being.

Many people look to the supernatural to provide an explanation as to how we are in some way different from the rest of nature, and bound by "higher" laws in how we treat one another, though this argument would in one way provide a source for these rights, being that such an assertion is quite beyond my reasoning capability I will not try to tackle it.

Instead I submit that nature does provide these "Human Rights" of which I speak. Specifically, they are the natural product of Human emotional feeling and reason which develops when people interact, and need a framework for their interaction. Human feeling, reason and interaction, are all natural realities dictated by our natural evolution. Rights are concepts, that is they are developed in people and I am not claiming that they are written directly into our DNA, nor am I claiming that all people develop the same said concepts, or necessarily any at all. I am claiming that such types of concepts naturally and dependably arise in groups of people.
If you do not believe in the idea of "human rights" there is not much that I can debate with you on this matter, this is one of the scenario's I was worried about when I said in my 1st post: "Though I must admit if we disagree on too much there probably won't be much of a debate." Though I again submit that, thanks to the reasons stated above, said rights are naturally provided in regards to interaction between peoples, through Human nature and dependable social constructs which encourage said conceptual "rights" (governing human interaction) to come into being.

Secondly, I did not define a "person" because I am not absolutely certain as to whether or not I would wish to confine the definition to only those stages of Homo Sapien development which are capable of thought. Instead I chose to submit that if a stage of Homo Sapien development is capable of thought, there is no reason to judge that it is to be denied Human Rights which others enjoy. My careful wording is because I believe that the argument that brain dead bodies are dead bodies, and not really what we mean when we say "people", has some merit, and I do not wish to argue against it. I do Not submit that that provably brain dead un-birthed babies ought to be protected. What I think on that is not material to the argument I am making.

As to whether or not such "Human Rights" would extend to our furry friends, I hope that all my talk of Homo Sapien life stages made that clear, and though it is immaterial to my argument, I do happen to think that those which can be shown to think and feel in some manner, are sympathetic to people, and that they are also often naturally deigned worthy of rights in a manner similar to that I sketched out for people.

As to your argument of population control, though I am generally of the opinion that such detached weighing of outcomes is not a "moral" practice (largely because I think it obvious that morality comes from a combination of natural feeling and reason, and though perhaps such weighing is logical and so in some sense "reasonable", I find it that I feel it is abhorrent), I must argue that even if one feels morally compelled to weigh matters of importance as such, that the abolition of late term abortion does not cause one to completely abandon the idea of population control, as types of effective contraceptives are many, and early abortions quite easy to carry out.

No more
stylezco

Con

Thanks again for the debate. You are most gracious. Now back to the debate.

I will argue in the following manner. 1. I will attack your conclusion that nature defines human rights. 2. I will return to the population control argument that I offered in round 1.

I disagree that Human Rights evolves out of "nature." Especially the notion that emotional feeling and reason develops when people interact. I would argue that people are not naturally inclined to interact. I think this is evident in the fact that more and more families are experiencing broken relationships and divorces. Relationships and social structures take work. They are not natural. More natural to humans is selfishness. "Looking out for ourselves," and self preservation and self-centered actions are natural to humans. Selfishness is natural not human interaction.

In nature, we see natural selection (Charles Darwin) or what Herbert Spencer would call "survival of the fittest." A very selfish concept, if you ask me. However you changed your argument to say Homo sapiens. So let's look at the Homo sapien.

Take a look at any babies or toddlers. They are by nature selfish. A baby is all out for itself. "Feed me, change me, burp me." A baby is by nature selfish. Or a toddler in the grocery store throwing a huge fit because the child doesn't get what he wants. The child is selfish. How many times have you seen a child "naturally" share without the prompting of a parent or teacher?" It doesn't happen. All mankind is naturally inclined to selfishness and self-reliance. Thus, the feelings and rights of others are irrelevant.

So your definition of human rights coming from nature is flawed. I remain that there are no human rights. You don't have a right to live. Life is a privilege not a right.

As to your statement: "If you do not believe in the idea of "human rights" there is not much that I can debate with you on this matter..." The problem is not that I don't believe in human rights. The problem is you failed in your definition of human rights based in nature. Thus, my argument that no one has human rights must stand.

I do see a problem with the statement you made that: "I do happen to think that those which can be shown to think and feel in some manner, are sympathetic to people, and that they are also often naturally deigned worthy of rights in a manner similar to that I sketched out for people." This is a week statement to which I will give a historical fact to rebut.

I believe Adolph Hitler could think and feel. But as discussed in my earlier argument, Hitler sought out what was best for himself. He did not give the Jews any rights except extermination. So once again your thought that those people which can "think and feel" are sympathetic to people is flawed. People don't have to show others "rights" if it is beneficial to the self as Mr. Hitler proved.

You failed to adequately attack my argument (1) about how late term abortion would help population control. What you personally "feel," "think" or your personal "opinion" on the argument is irrelevant. It doesn't matter that you feel it is "immoral" or "abhorrent". Respectfully, your personal feelings just are not relevant to the truth that abortion is a sure way of population control. In addition, contraceptives would also provide good population control. I would argue for both (I give you credit for that addition that helps my argument) . To control population I would say abort and have safe sex.

You obviously don't deny that there is a population problem or else you would have stated it. There is a population problem. You obviously don't deny that this population problem is causing a depletion of our resources. Which in turn increases demand, lowering supply, and causing world resources prices to go up.

This is a real wide problem that you haven't taken the time to argue at all except by saying that you don't "feel" or "think" it is moral.
Debate Round No. 2
mattrodstrom

Pro

Correction: I did not say emotional feeling and reason develop, but that the rights do:
" nature does provide these "Human Rights" of which I speak. Specifically, they are the natural product of Human emotional feeling and reason which develops when people interact, and need a framework for their interaction."
That is Human Rights develop.

You say: "I would argue that people are not naturally inclined to interact."
I say: Balderdash!
Not only is your statement refuted by the existence of social structures, or rules, in all groups of people ever encountered, but is refuted by logical evolutionary analysis. Group structures, and their cohesion, would logically play a role in a persons ability to live and reproduce, and thus it would make sense that traits which encouraged it would evolve, or at least not be thrown out, being that pretty much all mammals have grouping tendencies.
Behavior is extremely regular+there is logical evolutionary benefit = There is strong evidence to call behavior NATURAL

If you look to my argument that human rights are products of our natural qualities you will see that it is logical, and based off of premises which are evident, that is that reason, feeling and interaction are natural qualities of people.

"People don't have to show others "rights" if it is beneficial to the self as Mr. Hitler proved." - Absolutely, I never claimed that they did have to. However those that do not, are felt to be abhorrent and immoral by people who have a full knowledge of the facts (that is including knowledge that there is No reason to think of Jews,gays,etc as sub-human)

Being that (as I stated in arg.1): "their is no reason whatsoever that... (the babes in question) ought not be treated as persons", and your lack of demonstration of such reasons, their extermination ought logically to be as abhorrent as was that perpetrated by Hitler.

You essentially claim that the good of the self is what makes natural morality, I say that this proves you have a misunderstanding of what morality traditionally means, and probably lack any understanding of contemporary evolutionary theory on the matter.

In your population control argument you state: "The more babies aborted the more room there is for me to live" which follows with your above flawed perspective on natural morality. By the same token one could say Hitler was eminently moral on the basis that he killed a lot of people, and this is just not how people understand the term morality.

I do not claim that there is no population problem, and I do not claim that it is not morally imperative that we in some way deal with it, though I do claim that your understanding of the morality of the situation is quite impaired. You are right to say that I did not directly address it though. I would say that in all cases of moral quandary including one must look at the possible scenarios, measure each part, and weigh out the best outcome. To morally justify population control which includes late term abortions, you must first measure late term abortions on its own merits, and compare it to the moral imperative of population control.

As I stated in my first argument: "Babies of said development are already treated as people when they are born pre-mature. Not doing so for their un-birthed counterparts begs for an answer to the question: why? There is no good answer." You have not provided any reason for treating babies of the same development differently, and I still maintain that there is not any good reason for doing such, on the basis that we respect people for what they are in themselves, not on the basis of external factors like particular location, or dependancy.

Finally I admit that, whether or not you are planning to argue that I have not proven that late term abortions ought to be illegal, I have not proven such a thing, and based on your objection of population control no less, though not your immoral reasoning for it. Such a thing would take a lot m
stylezco

Con

Pro:"[Human Rights] …are the natural product of Human emotional feeling and reason which develops when people interact, and need a framework for their interaction."

Again I say this is false. There is no such thing as human rights even in social structures. I use again the Hitler example. There was a social framework and government system in place. That didn't stop human life from being exterminated. Look at the Rwandan genocide. Again, social structures are in place but that didn't stop mass extermination. Social structures do not make or provide human rights.

Pro says: "Not only is your statement refuted by the existence of social structures, or rules, in ALL groups of people ever encountered, but is refuted by logical evolutionary analysis.

You said "in all groups." I have proven through the historical examples of Hitler's Nazi regime and the case of Rwandan genocide that human rights is not the result of social structures from "all groups." Since I proved that human rights does not result from social structures in "all groups" the con should win this argument.

The pro side makes comments about logic but with no evidence. I have stated two historical accounts of social structures that do not lead to human rights.

Pro says: "People don't have to show others "rights" if it is beneficial to the self as Mr. Hitler proved." - Absolutely, I never claimed that they did have to…

Contradiction: You said "ALL groups." result in a framework of human rights. The Nazi's are group thus fit in with "all groups." No more need be said.

Pro says:"their is no reason whatsoever that... (the babes in question) ought not be treated as persons" [sic]

I say this is false. The one reason I give (not debated by pro) is that they ought not be treated as persons so we can exterminate them for population control. I gave a reason (whether good or not) why babies should not be treated as a person. This defeats your premise that "there is NO reason WHATSOEVER." Sorry, I just gave one.

You have never defined what you mean by morality. What you deem immoral I deem moral. This is essentially a "he said, she said" argument. Morality is subjective. You say they ought to be treated as persons I disagree. The burden of proof is on you. I just simply debate and refute your argument. You have not proven your case.

Pro says: "You essentially claim that the good of the self is what makes natural morality"

I never said that. Trying to misrepresent what I said is not good debate etiquette. No where do I claim that statement. Sorry your conclusion is so off base.

Pro says: I do not claim that there is no population problem, and I do not claim that it is not morally imperative that we in some way deal with it…

First, you do not deny that population is not a problem (see round 2 pro's last paragraph). Secondly, it is not a moral imperative that you deal with it, but it is a debate imperative that you deal with it. Population control is my counter argument why babies ought not be treated as persons and be aborted. You may feel that it not worthy to argue but as a debater you must engage in debate because it is my argument, which you fail to counter.

Babies ought to be not treated as persons because they are not persons and do not have human rights. Human rights is not guaranteed by social structure as pro has argued. In fact, aborting babies would help with the population control issue affecting our world.

Pro has argued with absolutely no evidence for his claims. I have given two pieces of historical data disputing Pro's ideas. Secondly, pro has failed to counter the fact that abortion assists in population control. His reason is that he "feels" that my argument is immoral. Who cares what you feel? This is a debate and you cannot dispute fact with your personal feelings. Every argument Pro has brought forth I have debated whether one feels it is a strong or weak argument. The same cannot be said for pro. Thank you
Debate Round No. 3
28 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MaxZero 5 years ago
MaxZero
Am i reading correctly that con voted for himself? What a cheap "victory".
Posted by lovelife 6 years ago
lovelife
Con only won because he voted for himself....thats like cheating IMO
Posted by stylezco 7 years ago
stylezco
Message me... privately and lets discuss it.
Posted by mattrodstrom 7 years ago
mattrodstrom
Perhaps I am taking it personal, and this isn't the right forum in which to yell at you, though I did not post my comments to appeal to voters.
Posted by stylezco 7 years ago
stylezco
The debate is over. For you to comment about the debate before the judges have cast their votes is wrong. I really sense you feel like you have lost, otherwise you wouldn't be so defensive. I find it hard to believe you do this in normal debating avenues. Don't take is so personal. You had your chance to make your case and I had my chance. If you win congratulations. If you lose then live with it. Don't be a poor sport and sore loser.

You also assume that the judges are stupid and can't read for themselves whether or not there was any misrepresentation which is why you posted the comment. Just because you address it to me, it is after the fact and in a place where judges can read. The judges will make that conclusion for themselves. If there wasn't a misrepresentation, I will be found wrong. If there was then you will be found wrong. So please stop your whining. It is not very professional and certainly not respectful.
Posted by mattrodstrom 7 years ago
mattrodstrom
quite
Posted by stylezco 7 years ago
stylezco
Are you serious?
Posted by mattrodstrom 7 years ago
mattrodstrom
To Stylezco
VOTERS: Please don't read!!!!
((((((((((((((()))))))))))(((((((())))))))))))((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
(((((( ---" )))))))))))((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
Trying to misrepresent what I said is not good debate etiquette."
Argh! I didn't but thats the only way you represent what I say!
Posted by mattrodstrom 7 years ago
mattrodstrom
Plus 1, and wjmelements, I for one do think that plus signs are more... how did you put it??.. oh yes... "Optimistic"
Posted by mattrodstrom 7 years ago
mattrodstrom
"m" = more charecters
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by stylezco 7 years ago
stylezco
mattrodstromstylezcoTied
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 
Vote Placed by Alex 7 years ago
Alex
mattrodstromstylezcoTied
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