The Instigator
Gauen
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Mariodude34500
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Prohibition of 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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/19/2015 Category: Health
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 591 times Debate No: 68539
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

Gauen

Pro

Resolution: Induced abortion should be completely banned in all circumstances in the United States with no exceptions through:
1) Repealing the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court Decision
2) The "Right to Life" amendment to the Constitution of the United States
a) Induced abortion is murder thus,
b) It shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law as first-degree homicide
The main contention will be:
1) Abortion is murder
2) Murder is wrong because human life is sacred
Definition: "a medical procedure used to end a pregnancy and cause the death of the fetus" -Merriam Webster
Contention One: Abortion is Murder
A. The SLED test proves that fetuses are persons:
S-Size: The typical argument is, "That is the size of a dot, how can you call it a human being?" Response: Are larger people more human than smaller people? Are adults more human that children? Men are typically larger than women. Do men deserve more rights? The answer to all of these questions is no, and we can clearly see here that size is not a factor in personhood.
L-Level of Development: The typical argument is, "Fetuses are not self-aware or intelligent, thus they are not persons" Response: I was not self-aware at 3 A.M. this morning, I certainly hope that doesn't mean I stopped being human, and you could have killed me. Additionally, this argument claims that we are all on a giant curve. We start out with no rights to personhood, and as we become smarter and reach our peak level of intelligence, we have full rights to personhood, and as we become older, we lose rights of personhood. Also, it claims that the more intelligent have greater rights to personhood. Thus, in this system, the more intelligent should just be able to exploit the less intelligent because they are more so persons. These are accurate conclusions about the world if evaluated from that perspective, yet they are obviously false, thus that perspective must be false.
E-Environment or location: The typical argument is "Birth makes a fetus human". Response: When you got out of bed to get your computer and accept this debate, you changed location; you changed environment. Did you stop being a person then? If not, then how can a simple journey of eight inches from inside the womb to outside the womb magically change a tissue blob into a person?
D-Degree of Dependency: Typical argument: "Until it's viable it's not a person". Response: What about people who are dependent upon insulin or pacemakers? Are they all of sudden not human, and we can just kill them? If we have to not depend on anything or anyone to be human, then a lot of people on this planet are going to have some serious problems because they will no longer be human, and anyone can kill them at will with nor moral ramifications.
B. Reference the above definition of abortion. Since the fetus is a person, as shown above, causing death to the fetus cause death to a person, and murder can be defined as "The premeditated killing of one human being by another" -Oxford Dictionary Thus, abortion is murder.
Mariodude34500

Con

Ok I'll accept. Need to ask a couple of questions first. One what are you aganist? Abortions when the women is pregent, or any sort of birth control for example condoms, the morning after pill, etc. also do you mean all abortions or just late term abortions?
Debate Round No. 1
Gauen

Pro

Thank you for accepting this debate. I hope it will be a good one!
For the purposes of this debate, contraception will not be considered abortion. Condoms are a non-issue; they do not kill a fetus as they prevent a fetus from being created in the first place. For your last question, you may look to the second mandate of my plan. It reads that we should adopt, "The Right to Life Amendment to the Constitution of the United States," which is described as, "a) induced abortion is murder, thus b) It shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law as first-degree homicide".
Mariodude34500

Con

My Believe abortion should be legal for a few reasons. One there are many cases where child birth would be highly dangerous for the mother. Sometimes it would put the mothers life at risk. My mom is currently pregent. She should be fine but what if next week the doctor says that she is likely to die if she tries to give birth to the baby. Should she have to have the baby anyway? How does that affect me or my step father if she dies and even more if the baby does to and she dies for nothing. Should she still keep the child? Or someone who is too young or to old to safely give birth. What about a mother that got pregent from rape should she keep the kid. I don't think abortion should be taken lightly and other options should be explored first, however I believe in some cases it's the best option.
Debate Round No. 2
Gauen

Pro

Silence is compliance. Since you have conceded most of my case, you agree that 1) fetuses are persons, thus 2) abortion is murder because it ends the life a fetus. The only point you have attacked is the following, "in all circumstances...with no exceptions."

On your first point: While this is a difficult situation, we must look to the fact that abortion is murder, as you have conceded by not attacking that portion of my case. Your unhappiness, your step-father's unhappiness, and the health of your mother are not valid justifications for murder. Let's assume it's a healthy, safe delivery, and there is never a threat to the mother's health. After the child is born, and he or she is an infant, and the mother develops a psychiatric condition that makes her so worried she will harm the child in some way that she tries to kill herself. In this situation, a human being (just like the baby in the womb), through no fault of his or her own, is causing the mother to die. Should this child be killed? Assuming you answer no, you must provide a specific analysis of what makes that child different from the child in the womb, and why it is morally acceptable to kill the pre-born child, but is is morally unacceptable to kill the born child.

On your second point: Assuming a child was conceived through rape, you argue that the mother of that child should be able to abort him or her. Since you have conceded/agreed that abortion is murder, you agree that, even in the case of rape, abortion is murder. What differentiates this child from any other child to the extent that he or she can be murdered? The fact that the child is unwanted does not make him or her a candidate for execution. Were that the case, any child who is unwanted could be aborted, and we would not be having a debate right now. Why would you punish the child for the crimes of his or her father? Why would you punish the child for something that is completely out of his or her control?
Mariodude34500

Con

Fine if I need to spell it out, no I don't think fetuses are people or that abortion is murder. As for your argument that it's not the baby's fault if it was because of a rape the mother became pregent. Why is human life so special. For this argument I will say that a fetuses are humans. They aren't but let's say they where. Why are humans special. We kill cancer cells that could also cause a women to die. Cancer is life it's not cancers fault for being cancer but I bet you have no problem killing it so why are humans so special? If you're going to argue that it's because we have a higher level of awareness a fetus doesn't it's about as aware as cancer is. I don't agree abortion is murder so the entire premise of your argument is invalid because you assumed I agree please start over.
Debate Round No. 3
Gauen

Pro

As to whether or not fetuses are humans, you can reference the arguments made in my first speech that have gone uncontested throughout this entire debate:
"A. The SLED test proves that fetuses are persons:
S-Size: The typical argument is, "That is the size of a dot, how can you call it a human being?" Response: Are larger people more human than smaller people? Are adults more human that children? Men are typically larger than women. Do men deserve more rights? The answer to all of these questions is no, and we can clearly see here that size is not a factor in personhood.
L-Level of Development: The typical argument is, "Fetuses are not self-aware or intelligent, thus they are not persons" Response: I was not self-aware at 3 A.M. this morning, I certainly hope that doesn't mean I stopped being human, and you could have killed me. Additionally, this argument claims that we are all on a giant curve. We start out with no rights to personhood, and as we become smarter and reach our peak level of intelligence, we have full rights to personhood, and as we become older, we lose rights of personhood. Also, it claims that the more intelligent have greater rights to personhood. Thus, in this system, the more intelligent should just be able to exploit the less intelligent because they are more so persons. These are accurate conclusions about the world if evaluated from that perspective, yet they are obviously false, thus that perspective must be false.
E-Environment or location: The typical argument is "Birth makes a fetus human". Response: When you got out of bed to get your computer and accept this debate, you changed location; you changed environment. Did you stop being a person then? If not, then how can a simple journey of eight inches from inside the womb to outside the womb magically change a tissue blob into a person?
D-Degree of Dependency: Typical argument: "Until it's viable it's not a person". Response: What about people who are dependent upon insulin or pacemakers? Are they all of sudden not human, and we can just kill them? If we have to not depend on anything or anyone to be human, then a lot of people on this planet are going to have some serious problems because they will no longer be human, and anyone can kill them at will with nor moral ramifications."
Unless you can disprove these statements, you cannot say that a fetus is not a human being, that a fetus is not a person.
A cancer cell does not have the genetic material necessary to become a fully-fledged human being. If you say that humans are no more special than cancer, what makes mass murders so horrific? By acknowledging the horror of mass-murder, sex trafficking, and any other crimes against humans, we as a species affirm that human life is valuable and cannot be violated.
I assumed you agree that abortion is murder because you did not attack my first speech at all, and it established abortion as murder. If you can legitimately disprove the above, I will gladly accept your view.
You have provided no counter-interpretation as to what a fetus is. If they are not people, what are they? Assuming you say they are not human until a certain, arbitrary point, at what point do fetuses become human? No matter what your answer is, it will be arbitrary and exclusive. We can only assume that there is no magical transformation from non-human to human at some point during gestation. This is going to be one of the biggest questions in this debate.
The biggest question in this debate is: "Are fetuses persons, or aren't they?" If fetuses are indeed persons, then there is never a justification for killing them. If they are not, then elective abortion should require no more thought than having a tooth pulled. As judges, I call on you to evaluate this question most highly in making your decisions.
Mariodude34500

Con

I looked into the sled test and I don't think it's relevant. It's a good argument as to why we shouldn't kill toddlers, but it doesn't help with if a fetuses are alive or not. Lets look into your arguments.

Size: I've never seen anyone argue that. If they do that's a stupid reason
Level of Development: I think that the argument is if you aren't self aware at any one point you can be killed. It's that fetuses aren't self aware, at all period. Plus I advocate abortion only in extreme cases, such as serious health risks to the mother or serious birth defects to the baby when born that will likely lead to it's quick death.
Environment: I get what your saying although the comparison you used makes no sense. I think the fetuses becomes a human in the third trimester personally because that's when it has all of it's functions.
Degree of Dependency: Again I've never seen that argued and it's a stupid argument.

A cancer cell can't be a human but it's alive none of the less. You seem to imply here you only think humans matter. I don't think that's what your saying though.
Yes I agree murder is bad and deserves to be punished. However I don't think fetuses are humans so that's completely irrelevant.
What do I think a fetus is. I think a fetus is a fetus no more no less. I think as stated above a fetus becomes a human in the third trimester. However I still think abortion is acceptable if needed because I think born humans get priority over unborn humans.

The reason abortion is a lot to think about for a person that people get attached to the fetus. If they didn't then it would take the same level of thought as getting a tooth pulled.

In your final argument I would like to see you talk about your thoughts on if born humans should be a priority over unborn babies.
Debate Round No. 4
Gauen

Pro


Level of Development: First, my opponent have provided no reason for self-awareness to be the defining factor in determining one's humanity or lack thereof. He have provided no evidence whatsoever for the idea that once the third trimester begins, babies magically change from being <blank> to being human. One of my opponents biggest errors thus far has been his failure to answer the following question: "If a fetus is not a human person, what is it?" Since my opponent has failed to provide a counter-interpretation as to what a fetus is, we can only assume that my interpretation, that a fetus is a human person, is true. However, I will defend my interpretation anyways. My opponent's basic argument here is that because a fetus doesn't yet have all of its functions (i.e. self-awareness), they are not human. This argument is invalid because of the following counterexamples: The brain is not even fully developed until people are 25. This means people under the age of 25 do not have all of their functions, does that make them less human? As we get older, we tend to lose functions, does that make us less human? Finally, people with mental disabilities often don't have all the same functions as others, does that make them less human? Of course not, these counter-examples show that the definition of humanity as "having a certain function (e.g. self-awareness)" is inherently arbitrary and flawed.


"There have been at least two other instances in American history in which specific groups of human beings were stripped of their rights of personhood as a means of justifying horrific mistreatment. African-Americans and Native-Americans both felt the brunt of a system which tried to create the artificial classification: human, non-person. This distinction wasn't based on an honest evaluation of the evidence, but with an eye towards justifying a specific action. In the case of Native-Americans, they had land. In the case of African-Americans, they had labor. Classifying them as non-persons (even property) provided a moral framework for those in power to forcefully take what they wanted without compensation. Today, "unwanted," unborn children don't hold anything as tangible as land or labor, but their claims on those who would eliminate them are no less significant. They stand in the way of an unencumbered, more self-absorbed lifestyle. Once again, this notion that human beings can be classified as "non-persons" is not built on an objective assessment of the facts, but with an eye towards justifying abortion." -Abort73.com


"At this point, some people define the term "person" according to function (call this view thefunctional view of persons). That is, they say that something qualifies as a person if it can do certain things, like think rationally. But this definition of personhood fails. First, there are clear cases in which something qualifies as a person, but cannot do the things required of the functional view of persons. For example, a human person under a general anesthesia does not qualify as a person under the functional view of persons, since a person in this situation does not have the ability to think rationally. Two, the functional view of persons does not fit certain intuitions about persons. For example, if you had a cat that couldn’t purr, couldn’t chase mice, and couldn’t climb trees, you wouldn’t say that your cat isn’t a feline (though you should if you define "feline" in terms of function). Instead, you would say that your cat is a cat that can’t purr, chase mice, or climb trees. In the same way, if you know a human that can’t think rationally (like a fetus, or a person under a general anesthesia), you shouldn’t say that this human isn’t a person, but that this is a person who (at the moment) can’t think rationally. In light of these reasons, the functional view of persons should be rejected." -Abort73.com


In the majority opinion in Roe v Wade, Harry Blackmun wrote, "The judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to...resolve the difficult question of when life begins..." This statement is blatantly false, and many doctors and scientists agree:


In 1981, a United States Senate judiciary subcommittee received the following testimony from a collection of medical experts (Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, Report, 97th Congress, 1st Session, 1981): "It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive...It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception." Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School


"I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception." Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni, Professor of Pediatrics and Obstetrics, University of Pennsylvania


"After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being. [It] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion...it is plain experimental evidence. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception." Dr. Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Genetics, University of Descartes


"By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception." Professor Hymie Gordon, Mayo Clinic


Even Peter Singer, contemporary philosopher and public abortion advocate, and bioethics proffessor at Princeton joins the chorus in his book, Practical Ethics. He writes: "It is possible to give ‘human being’ a precise meaning. We can use it as equivalent to ‘member of the species Homo sapiens’. Whether a being is a member of a given species is something that can be determined scientifically, by an examination of the nature of the chromosomes in the cells of living organisms. In this sense there is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence an embryo conceived from human sperm and eggs is a human being."


Faye Wattleton, the longest reigning president of the largest abortion provider in the United States—Planned Parenthood—argued as far back as 1997 that everyone already knows that abortion kills. She proclaims the following in an interview with Ms. Magazine: "I think we have deluded ourselves into believing that people don't know that abortion is killing. So any pretense that abortion is not killing is a signal of our ambivalence, a signal that we cannot say yes, it kills a fetus."


Pardon the massive amount of evidence in an argument, but don't miss the significance of these acknowledgements. Prominent defenders of abortion rights publicly admit that abortion kills human beings. They are not saying that abortion is morally defensible because it doesn't kill a distinct human entity. They are admitting that abortion does kill a distinct human entity, but argue it is morally defensible anyway. I'll get to their arguments later, but the point here is this: There is simply no debate among honest, informed people that abortion kills distinctly human beings.


Environment: Refer to the above evidence to refute my opponent's claim that, "I think the fetuses becomes a human in the third triester personally because that's when it has all of its functions." He has provided zero scholarly articles or doctor's opinions to warrant his personal opinion, thus my point of view should be preferred. Aditionally, reference my above argument on this. This argument has nothing to do with environment, it is more of a level of development argument. By saying that a fetus "becomes" a human in the third trimester, he admits that humanity definitely occurrs before birth, so and that is the concern of this argument, so it is a non-issue. However, refer to the fact that this "all of its functions" definition is arbitrary. Who determines what functions make the list of "all functions"? Because this definition is so arbitrary, and because it has been disproven by counter-examples, it must be rejected.


So, and I quote, "I think a fetus is a fetus no more no less." What species is a "fetus"? Are they their own distinct life forms that undergo a magical transformation into a completely different life form at some arbitrary point in time? From Abort73.com, "Human embryos and fetuses have a personal, rational nature because they ARE humans beings. Cognitive function increases over time, but the nature is there, even in the womb." The following video summarizes it well, https://www.youtube.com...


Finally, born humans should be given precisely the same status as unborn humans, that being personhood. From this, my opponent will attempt to extrapolate that I am contradicting myself by saying that I say a born person should have to die to prevent the death of an unborn person. However, I am simply saying that neither of the two should ever be murdered. It is not an issue over whose life is more important, but rather one of whether someone's life being in danger justifies the murder of another.


Once again, judges, when evaluating this round, I call upon you to determine who has made the better case for whether or not fetuses are persons. That question is the sole determiner of whether or not elective abortion is ever justified, and should be weighed most highly of any issue in the debate.
Mariodude34500

Con

I have 5 minutes so I'll make this quick I'm going on some trips and will not be able to post my argument in the next three days and don't have time now. So I have to forfeit the round. Sorry about that it was a good debate
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Gauen 2 years ago
Gauen
No, I first heard of the SLED test from a pro-life speaker I heard. We'll see if health of the mother gets covered in this debate. If it does not, I would love to have a separate debate with you about it.
Posted by Dilara 2 years ago
Dilara
Did you get the sled thing from Scott ollendorf? (I think that's his name) a pro life activist. I agree but there should be exceptions for the mothers health and life.
No votes have been placed for this debate.