The Instigator
Paradigm_Lost
Con (against)
Winning
33 Points
The Contender
FiredUpRepublican
Pro (for)
Losing
15 Points

Only if Mom says so? A debate against abortion.

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/28/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,569 times Debate No: 3420
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (16)

 

Paradigm_Lost

Con

In Wisconsin, a man attempted to spike his girlfriends smoothie with a chemical known in the abortion industry as RU-486. The girlfriend was only made aware of it after growing suspicious of her boyfriend when she noticed him stirring her smoothie. After the libation was handed to her, she noticed a powdery residue on the rim of her cup.

To confirm her suspicions, she took the drink to a laboratory for chemical analysis, which determined that mifepristone was mixed in to her drink.

The defendant, Patel, has been charged with seven felonies and two misdemeanors, including attempted first-degree intentional homicide of an unborn child.

So here is the underlying question, and indeed, the moral of the debate: Why is murder only contingent upon the mother's say-so to terminate a pregnancy? Why does a mother become the arbiter of homicide; of who is human and who is not?

My detractor will say that what made it murder, and immoral, is that he did not gain her consent -- since consent seems to be the grand arbiter these days.

But here's the clincher that makes consent specious: Why the charge of murder? You can only murder a human, right? But a fetus is not human, nor does it retain any rights as such, say pro-abortion activists.

If that's the case, then why was Patel not charged with aggravated assault and battery? Why the charge of murder?
FiredUpRepublican

Pro

To address the topic from another point, her boyfriend mixed a drug into her drink. Mixing any drug into a drink could lead to any situation such as rape or murder of the person themself.

It is true that pro-abortion activists feel the fetus is not ahuman and does not have rights. However, the fetus has the DNA used to develop a human body and organs. The boyfriend's attempt in this was to kill the fetus and stop the growth of a human body. Thus, we have murder.

Calling for assault in this case would change the foundations of just what a crime is in our country. The drug could have very well had effects on the mother's body as well, her boyfriend was putting her in danger as well. It is almost a given that the mother's consent should be given before ANY drug enters her body or any abortion occurs. How can one argue such a point?
Debate Round No. 1
Paradigm_Lost

Con

Thank you for your response, FiredUpRepublican. As best I can tell, you aren't the right person to be debating because you and I are actually in agreement. My post was designed to lead pro-abortionists in to an inescapable conclusion -- namely, that abortion is indeed the homicide of a human being, or at the least, to concede that their position is illogical.

So I certainly agree with the charge given to Patel. Patel was also charged with battery and assault of his girlfriend, as well as a plethora of other charges.He had done this to her numerous times, in fact! She has lost, I believe, 4 children because of this man.

But specifically, I wanted to ask the question why it only becomes murder when the mother wants the child. That is completely illogical from a lawful standpoint.
FiredUpRepublican

Pro

FiredUpRepublican forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Paradigm_Lost

Con

If a fetus is not a human being, then how can double-homicide be a legitimate charge? And why is that charge only predicated on the wishes of the prosepctive mother? Why and how is she the arbiter of such things?
FiredUpRepublican

Pro

FiredUpRepublican forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Appeal to pity. And no one's purpose in life is to love you. That would make them your slave forever.
Posted by Issa 8 years ago
Issa
Abortion is just sick on the highest level and it should be considered murder you are still actually killing someone. Abortion is just two hands you'll never get to hold two arms that will never hug you and someone who you'll never get to love. If you believe in abortion then you're killing someone whose purpose in life is to love you unconditionally
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"
Can you place a thief in your home then claim they are trespassing?
"

No, because in placing them you gave consent. If someone else placed the thief in your home, they are trespassing, however, regardless of will, and they'd best get out.

"
More likely?!?!? May? Its 100%..."

Definitely false, especially if they are using birth control. Fertilization occurs a minority of copulations, not a majority.
Posted by Paradigm_Lost 8 years ago
Paradigm_Lost
"Trespassing is not a matter of "will."

Can you place a thief in your home then claim they are trespassing?

"While "mom and dad" may make the fetus more likely"

More likely?!?!? May? Its 100%... Are you joking me? Seriously...? Are you kidding? Do you honestly believe that fetuses can will themselves in to existence? There are two people responsible for the creating of that fetus. If they don't want one, then they should take precautions not to have one.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Trespassing is not a matter of "will." It is the act that is relevant in determining a response, will is simply the criterion for judging the internal ethics of the fetus (were it to have any), not it's political status.

While "mom and dad" may make the fetus more likely, they do not make it certain, conception happens after the sperm becomes independent of anyone's will in motioning it. It moves automatically after a certain point.
Posted by Paradigm_Lost 8 years ago
Paradigm_Lost
"Not that I agree with labelling this a "murder," but if we were to assume that the fetus were capable of reason, then if the mother wants the fetus in her womb it is not trespassing and would therefore also have reciprocity."

Trespassing? You act as though a fetus can will itself in to existence... Just offhand, I'm pretty sure mom and dad have something to do with that. If you don't want a fetus then don't make one. Nuff said...
Posted by rubbersoul 8 years ago
rubbersoul
But we still have to figure the cause and the ruin that these things that get us by will not harm us!
Posted by sweatycreases2 8 years ago
sweatycreases2
SOMEONE SHOULD ABORT CHRIS CROCKER
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"If a fetus is not a human being, then how can double-homicide be a legitimate charge? And why is that charge only predicated on the wishes of the prosepctive mother? Why and how is she the arbiter of such things?
"

Not that I agree with labelling this a "murder," but if we were to assume that the fetus were capable of reason, then if the mother wants the fetus in her womb it is not trespassing and would therefore also have reciprocity. Reason and reciprocity are the source of rights. A wanted fetus would thus have rights that an unwanted fetus surrendered by violating the mother's rights.
16 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by revleader5 8 years ago
revleader5
Paradigm_LostFiredUpRepublicanTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by jiffy 8 years ago
jiffy
Paradigm_LostFiredUpRepublicanTied
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 
Vote Placed by b3rk 8 years ago
b3rk
Paradigm_LostFiredUpRepublicanTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by VenomousNinja 8 years ago
VenomousNinja
Paradigm_LostFiredUpRepublicanTied
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 
Vote Placed by Issa 8 years ago
Issa
Paradigm_LostFiredUpRepublicanTied
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 
Vote Placed by HoosierPapi 8 years ago
HoosierPapi
Paradigm_LostFiredUpRepublicanTied
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 
Vote Placed by brittwaller 8 years ago
brittwaller
Paradigm_LostFiredUpRepublicanTied
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 
Vote Placed by liberalconservative 8 years ago
liberalconservative
Paradigm_LostFiredUpRepublicanTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by SolaGratia 8 years ago
SolaGratia
Paradigm_LostFiredUpRepublicanTied
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 
Vote Placed by i-win-347 8 years ago
i-win-347
Paradigm_LostFiredUpRepublicanTied
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