The Instigator
kcirrone
Pro (for)
Tied
15 Points
The Contender
MoonDragon613
Con (against)
Tied
15 Points

Resolved: Unwanted Pregnancy Abortions should be banned in the US.

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
Pro Tied Con
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: 6/7/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,505 times Debate No: 4365
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (19)
Votes (10)

 

kcirrone

Pro

Resolved: Resolved: Unwanted Pregnancy Abortions should be banned in the US.

Definitions:

Unwanted Pregnancy Abortions: abortions because of an unwanted pregnancy, not because of the endangered life of a mother.

Banned: made illegal

Value: The right to life must be held first and foremost. Throughout history a country is usually deemed as "evil" or "unjust" by the deaths of which they cause. E.g. Nazi Germany and Communist Russia. The right to life is the basic fundamental inherent right of each individual. When the right to life is not seen as foremost, then the action can be claimed unjust and therefore be made illegal.

Contentions:

I. Abortion violates the right to life. Abortion is the willing termination of an unborn child. This violates the right to life on both sides of the idea of life. First, according to the majority of the scientific community, life begins at implantation. Implantation is the attachment of the egg to the uterine lining. I.e. 10-12 days after conception. So, the only way that abortion would be permissible is if its in those 10-12 days. However, that is impossible. A pregnancy test only works after implantation. Therefore, once its implanted, abortion is murder, i.e. the premeditated killing of an innocent. Murder is illegal, therefore abortion should be illegal. Second idea: the judges don't concede the idea of implantation birth, then I would argue that it still violates the right to life because the 3rd section of the right to life, is the right to be born. Abortion takes this right away, therefore violating the right to life.

II. Abortion is genocide. Genocide is defined as the intentional and systematic extermination of a specific group. The unborn is the group, the extermination is the genocide. Genocide is against international law, meaning it should be banned in all countries. Should we be like Hitler? He wanted all Jews exterminated because they were considered "unwanted". Let's not become that of which we wanted stopped. Abortion is genocide, it must be banned.
MoonDragon613

Con

"Throughout history a country is usually deemed as "evil" or "unjust" by the deaths of which they cause."

I love the word Evil. It's a powerful word which conjures a multitude of imagery and innuendo. I ask the readers to evaluate this definition of Evil:

An Evil person is one who is callously indifferent to the well being or suffering of others. He/She is self interested in the extreme and will pursue their self interest even at the extreme pain and suffering of others. He/She is utterly bereft of compassion, even when it comes to individuals to those they owe tremendous obligations.

Why should Unwanted Pregnancy Abortions be allowed in the United States?

Because it would result in the elimination of Evil. And my opponent has already made it abundantly clear that he is an enemy of evil.

What in the world is more evil than a fetus? I will accept kcirrone's position that a fetus is a life. Heck, I will even accept the position that a fetus is a HUMAN life. So What?

Osama Bin Laden is an evil human life. Would you shed a tear at his execution? Just because something is "alive" does not make it sacred. And truthfully there is nothing more evil in the world than a fetus.

A fetus is a living organism that has no motivation other than the parasitic taking of it's host's nutrients. It is without the slightest compassion as it selfishly wants to be born even if it has to subject its mother through excruciating, life threatening pain and agony. Nothing is more important to a fetus than it's food, and it would suck it's mother of all life if it could.

If a mother wishes to allow this evil to exist, then that's certainly her right. As a merciful society, we ALLOW mothers to suffer the requisite agony and loss of life energy to create these bundles of evil, giving them the chance to even rehabilitate them into potentially productive members of society. HOWEVER as a merciful society, we MUST NOT FORCE them to undergo the birth process. It is immoral in the extreme to FORCE our women to give their life energy to the evil that is a fetus, FORCE them to undergo the pain and suffering of child birth just so a bundle of evil could be forced upon society at an adoption agency.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
kcirrone

Pro

Thx for debating moon.

Overview

Extension: My opponent has agreed that the baby is indeed a living being, so whoever is judging can extend that through the whole round.
Extension: (My)Contention 1
Extension: (My) Contention 2

Burden: The way in which we can see who wins this round will come down to this; is the fetus an evil, and does the mother have a right to suppress evil?

My Responses

Mu opponent believes that abortion will rid the world of evil. I have 3 responses: 1) The fetus inherently is not an evil being when its in the womb, society makes a person the way they are. 2) My response to his Bin Laden analogy is that Osama has committed evils himself and therefore deserves the death penalty. An unborn child is innocent, and therefore doesn't deserve death. 3) Your logic is inherently "evil" in the fact its only looking at the consequential, and if we go by that logic, according to you, we should have the right to shoot anyone on the street that we may feel is evil.

My opponent then says that the baby is an evil organism, like a parasite, feeding off the mother. I have 2 responses to that. 1) There is a special bond between a mother and child, equating an unborn child to a parasite dehumanizes it, and my opponent has already agreed its a living being. (Contradiction). 2)The mother knows very well that engaging in sex could result in a child. The mother must accept the fact that all pleasure would lead to some pain. And in this case, a baby's life is at stake. In the case of rape, I would argue that the right to life supersedes that of the mother's right to killing a child.

Voting Issues:

1) My two points are extended.
2) My opponent has failed to adequately link his argument to the value I set for the round.
3) Overall, if you look at my opponents given burden, I better defend the notion that aborting is more of an evil then a "parasite" baby.
4) Since he failed to attack my 2 contention, I should win this round because: a) murder is illegal, and he concedes its murder. b)Genocide violates international law, and he concedes this as well.

PS: LoL, you were once that "parasite" =) Keep that in mind.

Thanks for debatin.
MoonDragon613

Con

"An unborn child is innocent, and therefore doesn't deserve death."
Before my formal arguments I want to first deliver a strenuous objection to this supposed innocence of an unborn child. An unborn child is unbaptized, and therefore guilty of original sin and therefore NOT INNOCENT.

Now you (the reader), I, and kcirrone all agree that there are instances where the administering of death is legitimate.

"Osama has committed evils himself and therefore deserves the death penalty."

So all that matters now is whether or not an unborn fetus commits evil itself. Because according to my opponent, if an unborn fetus commits evil, then it ALSO deserves the death penalty.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

"He whupped a nigger gal 'bout thirteen years old so hard she nearly die, an' allus atterwa'ds she hab spells of fits or somp'n. Dat make Marse John pow'ful mad, so he run dat oberseer off de place an' Mose didn' do no mo' whuppin'."
- Walter Calloway, a Slave Narrative

Is the white slave master who whupped the nigger gal evil? I think so. In fact, I think in the history of America, the institution of forced labor has been a heinous blot on our reputation as a humane and open minded civilization.

And kcirrone wants to now re-establish this institution we fought a war to extinguish. (please overlook the historical inaccuracy of previous statement)

On the one hand, we have a race of women who just want to get on with their lives. On the other hand we have a race of unborn fetuses who want to enslave these women, subjugating them to 42 weeks of slave labor, working for and feeding their small overseers. And then as a reward, these overseers demand that these women undergo excruciating agony in the form of a giant life threatening rip to make way for their oversized heads.

Why do i consider the unborn fetus to be evil? Because IF YOU BAN ABORTIONS then the race of unborn fetuses will become quintessentially slave masters and the race of pregnant women their slaves.
------------------------------------------------------

I know it's a little difficult to accept that a fetus is evil. After all it's cute, it makes funny sounds .... but so what? Just evil should be judged not by appearance but by character and actions.

"He/She is self interested in the extreme and will pursue their self interest even at the extreme pain and suffering of others." -- First Argument

To me, this is evil. To me, slavery is evil. And to me, an overseer who sucks the life out of his/her slave is evil. The sucking of life, the enslavement of the female is an EVIL action. And that's why a fetus is evil.
-------------------------------------------------------------

P.S. My argument was created to apply to all fetuses and all mothers .... but it's ESPECIALLY strong when it comes to a woman who became pregnant from rape. Does the right of the evil slave master supersede the right of the mother to live?
Debate Round No. 2
kcirrone

Pro

Ok, so moondragon and I both agree that it comes down to this: is the fetus evil? He says it is and I say it isn't.

Responses/Rebuttal:

He first brings up that the baby isn't baptized so he/she has original sin. I have 2 responses to that. 1) My opponent is using religion in this round, and this isn't strictly a Catholic/Christian site. However more importantly 2) Even if the baby isn't cured of original sin then you can extend his logic to include all non-baptized people. Then essentially it could be justified to kill any non-baptized person on the street. Say I hate my next door neighbor, and he is idk.....Buddhist.According to moon I have the right to kill him because he is not baptized, and he is guilty of original sin. According to his logic, this is both justified and morally permissible.

He then brings up the slave analogy. I.e. the baby is the slave master while the mother is the salve. Ok, I have 2 responses to that. 1)The slave analogy only works in the case of rape. If the mother wasn't raped, then she has openly put herself into a "slave" situation. And when that happens, the right to life must supersede that of w/e right the mother wishes to defend, e.g. right to privacy. 2)Moondragon is missing one important key issue...Love. A mother loves her child and wants him/her to survive. This can been seen in the animal kingdoms and human behavior. The Slave analogy can only work if there is an absence of love. A slave probably doesn't love the one who whips him. But a baby is a creation of the mother and the mother's love. There is a big difference. And I'm sure the debate community sees this.

Crystallizations of my points:

First extend my 2 points, since he failed to attack them. Also, he concedes the idea of abortion is murder. Essentially the debate community can affirm right there. He also didn't attack my genocide point. Everyone knows genocide is wrong, so you can also affirm right there.

Voting Issues:

1)I have fulfilled moondragon's burden. I.e. I proved the fetus is not inherently evil.
2)My 2 primary contentions stand.
A) Abortion is murder --> Murder is illegal --> Abortion should be illegal.
B) Abortion violates international law --> Therefore should be illegal.
3)I have successfully refuted his above point's and attacks.
4) His overall logic is messed up, and would lead to a slippery slope of bad consequences.
5) I have won both the deontological and consequentialist sides of this debate.

-"I believe this is a clear affirmative/pro ballet."

*I ask the debate community that voting for this round be based off of the actual debate rather then personal issue preference.*

Thank You.

-Kcirrone

Moon, it says on your profile that your anti-abortion...is that true and your just playing devil's advocate?
MoonDragon613

Con

I agree with kcirrone. The debate does come down to the simple question, is the fetus evil. Everything else is pretty much irrelevant at this point.

So first, the issue of slavery.

And oh boy, this is gonna be funny:

"The Slave analogy can only work if there is an absence of love. A slave probably doesn't love the one who whips him. But a baby is a creation of the mother and the mother's love.There is a big difference. And I'm sure the debate community sees this."

So.. let me get this straight ... We should Not allow the mother to Terminate the fetus ... because the mother ... who wants to terminate the fetus ... actually loves the fetus. Even though ... she wants to terminate the pregnancy... And because she actually loves the fetus, despite wanting to terminate it's life ...

I think at the point where the pregnancy becomes UNWANTED (as the resolution states), we've reached this hurdle of the "absence of love."
-----------------------------------

"The slave analogy only works in the case of rape. If the mother wasn't raped, then she has openly put herself into a "slave" situation."

So kcirrone admits that a pregnancy is the equivalent of a slave labor. The only distinction he makes is it's Okay to be a slave if you openly put yourself into a slave situation.

#1: But that's just it ... many women with an UNWANTED PREGNANCY are women who DO NOT, DID NOT, and NEVER WANTED to be a slave. Ignoring rape, they probably just wanted to have sex. But why should wanting to have sex condemn them to slavery?

That's like saying an African wanted to be a slave because he wandered outside of his village, an action which he knew to increase the likelihood of him being captured and sold. So therefore, he deserves his slavery.

#2: AND WHAT ABOUT IN THE INSTANCES OF RAPE???
"And when that happens, the right to life must supersede that of w/e right the mother wishes to defend, e.g. right to privacy."
I don't usually curse... but WTF? Defend the right to privacy? What about the right to freedom?? The right to life gives the fetus the right to enslave the mother?

So let me get this straight ... if I was dying ... and the only way I can survive is to get YOUR kidney, does my right to life supersede your right to the use of YOUR ORGANS? Because that's the only explanation isn't it? IF a woman is raped and you think the fetus' right to live trumps her right to use her organs, why shouldn't my right to live trump your right to use Your organs?
------------------------------------------------------------

At this point, the debate clearly belongs to Con. But there's one more point I've yet to conclude. The evil fetus.

If you are a devout Christian, then an unbaptized human is guilty of original sin. It means he/she is Not innocent. That does not in and of itself make the fetus evil, it just makes the fetus not innocent. This is meant as an argument only for those who are devout Christians.

Now onto the meat of why the fetus is evil:
It has already been conceded that the fetus is the equivalent of a slave master. ("the slave analogy only works in the case of rape.") I believe slave masters are evil. Furthermore, I've offered this unchallenged definition of what it means to be an evil person:

"An Evil person is one who is callously indifferent to the well being or suffering of others. He/She is self interested in the extreme and will pursue their self interest even at the extreme pain and suffering of others. He/She is utterly bereft of compassion, even when it comes to individuals to those they owe tremendous obligations."

Since the fetus matches this description perfectly (and since kcirrone did not challenge my description) the fetus is therefore evil.

And if the fetus is evil, as we agreed upon at the beginning of round 3, the mother should have the power to choose if she WANTS to make the sacrifice of her freedom and her organs to raise and try to rehabilitate this evil. The mother's choice and no one else's.
-------------------------------------

Thank you for the debate kcirrone.

And P.S. look at my profile picture
Debate Round No. 3
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by KommanderWill 9 years ago
KommanderWill
I'll take you in a debate moondragon.

You pick the topic. I will argue pro life in an abortion case, for the legalization of all drugs, or either side of the anarchy-minarchy debate.

Those are just options, any debate you would like?
Posted by MoonDragon613 9 years ago
MoonDragon613
Or if you dare to think beyond the ordinary, feel free to issue me a challenge. I'm ready to argue for or against the increase of social services to indigenous peoples in America, or for that matter any topic you think of.

Heck, feel free to challenge me with a "watertight" case impossible to argue. Any resolution you come up with, I'll take you on.
Posted by PublicForumG-d 9 years ago
PublicForumG-d
A lot of unwarranted assumptions, and false claims. Very reminiscent of your cases.

//You could never have conceived of leading a discussion about abortion through focusing on the soul of the fetus.//

No, I don't think I would've tried to lead a discussion that a fetus is evil. Its an untenable, objectively-false, really just stupid position to defend, and you painted yourself into that corner when you didn't need to. Your own lack of ability attests to the reason you lost this debate. Normally, I would attest the lay-ness of the voters on debate.org to a non-legit loss, but here, you deserved the loss and satisfyingly got it.

Then I move into the area of common sense - an area which you lack. Rather than having complex arguments that echo with universal truths, or ring true, your arguments don't even pass the metaphorical "sniff test". You lose off of common sense, but upon closer examination, your arguments don't even hold up. Frankly, they're horrible.

There is a line between thinking outside of the box, and being idiotic. I think you cross said line. I have no problem with revolutionary arguments or outside of the box thinking, but the argument has no proof empirically, the logical reasoning didn't hold, and the analysis was quite poor.

Overall, you did not and do not deserve to win this debate.

And if you wanna play the big man, challenge me. Resolved:
That the USG should increase social services to indigenous peoples in America.

Your move.
That Civil Disobedience is an appropriate weapon in the pursuit of justice.
Posted by MoonDragon613 9 years ago
MoonDragon613
Well I tried to be nice... but this is the internet and I can only hold back for so long, so here goes.

I find it ironic that you use the word Mediocre. Because you are the Antonio Salieri to the Wolfgang Mozart.

You could never have conceived of leading a discussion about abortion through focusing on the soul of the fetus. Such innovation is beyond your Mediocre mind. You are the brand of Mediocre that attempts to take apart the works of others because those all stand as monuments, reminders, of your inferiority.

All you have, as you admit is your "common sense" because there is nothing else your capable of. True innovation comes from breaking free of "common sense". To you the world is flat and the sun orbits around the Earth because you are never the type to think outside the box in which you are born. You are the resident of the Cave who tries to suck everyone else back in because you fear those who have seen the light of the outside.

So by all means, vote against me. Or attempt to launch a sorry excuse of a criticism. But if you really want to show off, then show it in a debate.
Posted by PublicForumG-d 9 years ago
PublicForumG-d
Yeah, no. Just re-re-read your debate. Mediocre at BEST.

Are you implying the circumstances and conditions surrounding a rape that creates a baby are the same AT ALL to....any other different set of circumstances? It's RIDICULOUS.

This is where I get frusterated. Its so obviously against common sense, and you don't argue it well at ALL, but you are going to tell me off? Give me a break.

I am sad I wasted my time reading this - your argumentation is shoddy at best, your presentation lacking, your diction small. And your premise is one which would require excellence - which you nowhere exhibit - to pull off.

I believe that you clearly lost this debate.
Posted by PublicForumG-d 9 years ago
PublicForumG-d
If you tried to argue that the Holocaust was good to me, I would not listen to the argument.

There is a line of reason that I choose to draw. Calling all babies evil is as much a contradiction of my personal beliefs as it is of common sense.

Frankly, I find your argument position equally ludicrous as trying to argue Holocaust = good.

And don't try to be iconoclastic; Kant has nothing in common with your ideals, and he warranted his assumptions, whereas you just...make them. I've read your debate and am not impressed at all. Whereas, I've read Metaphysics of Morals, and I am impressed.
Posted by MoonDragon613 9 years ago
MoonDragon613
Should ideas be judged on their merits and argumentation or do you judge all ideas on their face value?

Kant must have sounded rather silly with his categorical imperative, an idea that goes against intuition, yet we did not judge his idea by the way it sounded but by the reasoning he presented.

Of course I cannot compel you to take my idea into consideration, and if you want to judge by it's cover, then your welcome to do so. =P but at least don't pretend that you've read it.
Posted by PublicForumG-d 9 years ago
PublicForumG-d
lol I think there's one person looking silly here, and he's arguing that babies are evil....
Posted by MoonDragon613 9 years ago
MoonDragon613
I never said Babies were evil because the Judea-Christian God said so. I never defined evil by biblical scripture either. Unlike you, I offered a real and reasonable definition for what we as a society conceives of as the face of evil.

In fact, why are babies evil? Why not read the debate? I offered an explanation as to why I believed babies to be evil that has nothing to do with God. If I judged the fetus evil, it is because of it's actions and intentions, nothing less.

And for those who ARE Christians, If you paid attention, I did not say Babies were evil because they were sinners. I merely stated they were not innocent by the tenets of Christianity.

Of course everyone's free to vote whichever direction they choose. But I ask that if you wish to comment, at least please first read the debate and pay close attention to the presented arguments before saying anything, if for no other reason than at least not to look silly.
Posted by PublicForumG-d 9 years ago
PublicForumG-d
....what? Strawman city.

The Bible says that all men are bound by the wages of sin - but until they have committed sin, they are innocent. I'm sure you agree that children who die before they can do anything but cry go to heaven - they've never been able to sin.

Since they haven't sinned, they aren't evil.

And even sinners are not 'evil'. They are good people, corrupted by sin. Big diff.

So...no.

And this assumes that everyone reading this is a Christian. What if I don't accept Christianity? You give no proof or warrants other than religious ones too....

Vote Pro.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by matthewleebrown14 9 years ago
matthewleebrown14
kcirroneMoonDragon613Tied
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 advidiun 9 years ago
advidiun
kcirroneMoonDragon613Tied
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 BeatTheDevil89 9 years ago
BeatTheDevil89
kcirroneMoonDragon613Tied
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 Dorian 9 years ago
Dorian
kcirroneMoonDragon613Tied
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 GaryBacon 9 years ago
GaryBacon
kcirroneMoonDragon613Tied
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 critterrice 9 years ago
critterrice
kcirroneMoonDragon613Tied
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 Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
kcirroneMoonDragon613Tied
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 CP 9 years ago
CP
kcirroneMoonDragon613Tied
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 bexy_kelly 9 years ago
bexy_kelly
kcirroneMoonDragon613Tied
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 KommanderWill 9 years ago
KommanderWill
kcirroneMoonDragon613Tied
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