The Instigator
forever_anaiya
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
Hematite12
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points

Should Abortion be abolished?

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 5 votes the winner is...
Hematite12
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/28/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,995 times Debate No: 51165
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (23)
Votes (5)

 

forever_anaiya

Pro

Should abortion be abolished? I think that it should because your taking another life away from a human being that you were once in their position when you were a baby. How would you feel if you knew that your mom decided to kill something that would have been her blessing?
Hematite12

Con

A set of cells is not a human being. You've mowed grass before, or trimmed bushes I'm sure? Did you have any moral qualms about that? Both bushes and an embryo (before it develops the ability to think) are just sets of cells. Killing an embryo in the early stages is not any less moral than mowing a lawn.

"I" wasn't once in the embryo's position, because "I" was never and am not a set of mindless cells. My identity is inextricably linked with my consciousness, which an embryo does not have, until it develops the ability to comprehend things.

In a similar vein as your question, why do you call the baby an inherent blessing? Do you disagree with birth control then? Should all women who can reproduce be constantly pregnant? Because, by your logic, all babies are automatic blessings.
Debate Round No. 1
forever_anaiya

Pro

But those cells forms into a baby or human being. Our government, Supreme Court, and society as a whole have deemed preborn killing acceptable and even necessary to the point of funding the murderous act.

Think about it. Other crimes against humanity, such as rape, sex slavery and child abuse, are just that crimes. Although they may still occur, there is a system which speaks on behalf of those victimized. An attorney, through our justice system, will advocate for the oppressed, the slain, and the violated to see that the responsible party is properly punished and justice is served.

Even criminals have the right to an attorney. But the preborn children, whose lives are snuffed out every day, have no voice. No one fights for their rights. No one seeks justice for them. No one, that is, except you and me and all abortion abolitionists who dedicate their lives to ending this travesty.

We must not equate abortion solely with politics. Abortion transcends politics. If we treat abortion for what it truly is: a mass genocide, a human rights violation, a tragedy and an evil act, then we would never push it to the side as just a political issue.
Hematite12

Con

But those cells forms into a baby or human being.

Sperm and eggs also have the potential to form into a baby, but you don't seem to have a problem with destruction of sperm and eggs. Furthermore, why does potential even matter? Are you against birth control/condoms/etc then as well, since they prevent a potential human as well?

Our government, Supreme Court, and society as a whole have deemed preborn killing acceptable and even necessary to the point of funding the murderous act.


Think about it. Other crimes against humanity, such as rape, sex slavery and child abuse, are just that crimes. Although they may still occur, there is a system which speaks on behalf of those victimized. An attorney, through our justice system, will advocate for the oppressed, the slain, and the violated to see that the responsible party is properly punished and justice is served.

Assumes that abortion IS a crime. I'm not defending a crime, I'm arguing it isn't a crime, so this is totally unrelated to the argument at hand. Of course crimes should be punished.

Even criminals have the right to an attorney. But the preborn children, whose lives are snuffed out every day, have no voice. No one fights for their rights. No one seeks justice for them. No one, that is, except you and me and all abortion abolitionists who dedicate their lives to ending this travesty.

Mindless and consciousnessless sets of cells are not children. You are making the assumption that it is a "travesty", which is what we are debating. I am perfectly aware that crimes should not be allowed. I am saying it isn't a crime.

We must not equate abortion solely with politics. Abortion transcends politics. If we treat abortion for what it truly is: a mass genocide, a human rights violation, a tragedy and an evil act, then we would never push it to the side as just a political issue.

Once again... we are debating. This is just unimportant rhetoric, nowhere did I argue that politics justifies the retention of abortion.
Debate Round No. 2
forever_anaiya

Pro

Some consider abortion to be murder since the being inside the mother is living. The definition of something living includes the ability to grow, which is exactly what is going on inside a woman who is pregnant. An abortion ceases the growing process, therefore ending the future life of a human being. This little being may not start off with a heartbeat or brain activity, but cells are still dividing and allowing it to grow.

Abortion involves killing a human being, which defies a commandment from God. The Sixth Commandment of the Bible's Old Testament (Exodus 20:13) is "Thou shalt not kill."

Fetuses feel pain during the abortion procedure. According to Kanwaljeet J. S. Anand, MBBS, DPhil, Professor of Pediatrics, Anesthesiology and Neurobiology at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center, "If the fetus is beyond 20 weeks of gestation, I would assume that there will be pain caused to the fetus. And I believe it will be severe and excruciating pain."

Abortions cause psychological damage. A 2002 peer-reviewed study published by the Southern Medical Journal of more than 173,000 American women found that women who aborted were 154% more likely to commit suicide than women who carried to term. An Apr. 1998 Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology study of men whose partners had abortions found that 51.6% of the men reported regret, 45.2% felt sadness, and 25.8% experienced depression.
Abortion providers are in business to make money rather than to assist their clients. The abortion industry generates an estimated $831 million annually. An abortion can cost anywhere from around $350 to more than $1,000

Abortion increases the likelihood that women will develop breast cancer. In early pregnancy, levels of estrogen increase, leading to breast growth in preparation for breastfeeding. When a pregnancy is interrupted by abortion, immature cells are left in the woman's breasts, increasing the potential risk of breast cancer. Since 2006, eight medical organizations, including the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, the Catholic Medical Association, and the National Physicians Center for Family Resources, have recognized the connection between abortion and breast cancer.
Hematite12

Con

Why are you bringing out all of your sources now? Is it an attempt at catching me off guard? You should've provided these in your opening arguments.

Furthermore, you literally didn't respond to any of my arguments, so I extend those, and since this is the last round, the majority of my arguments are left unanswered by you.

Rebuttal:

Some consider abortion to be murder since the being inside the mother is living. The definition of something living includes the ability to grow, which is exactly what is going on inside a woman who is pregnant. An abortion ceases the growing process, therefore ending the future life of a human being. This little being may not start off with a heartbeat or brain activity, but cells are still dividing and allowing it to grow.

Destroying life is not necessarily an evil. Every time you eat anything, you are destroying some type of life, whether it be plant or animal. Washing your hands kills bacteria. So, should eating and sanitation be outlawed? The point is whether the living thing is meaningful life, of course. A set of consciousless cells is not meaningful life, and has no more "right" to life than a bacterium.

Abortion involves killing a human being, which defies a commandment from God. The Sixth Commandment of the Bible's Old Testament (Exodus 20:13) is "Thou shalt not kill."

Invalid, because the Bible is not a legitimate source. Even if it were, any reasonable person doesn't strictly hold that commandment. You would kill Hitler, I hope? As I explained above, the fact that it is killing says nothing about its immorality.

Fetuses feel pain during the abortion procedure. According to Kanwaljeet J. S. Anand, MBBS, DPhil, Professor of Pediatrics, Anesthesiology and Neurobiology at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center, "If the fetus is beyond 20 weeks of gestation, I would assume that there will be pain caused to the fetus. And I believe it will be severe and excruciating pain."

Right. 20 weeks is two thirds of the way through the 2nd trimester, you do realize? I agree that abortion after this point is immoral, because the fetus is capable of conscious thought and true experience of pain. I never argued for abortion after this point. You are arguing that ALL abortion should be abolished, and this just shows that 3rd trimester abortion should be "abolished", which I agree with, but that isn't the debate. We are talking about every single case of abortion. That is the resolution.

Abortions cause psychological damage. A 2002 peer-reviewed study published by the Southern Medical Journal of more than 173,000 American women found that women who aborted were 154% more likely to commit suicide than women who carried to term. An Apr. 1998 Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology study of men whose partners had abortions found that 51.6% of the men reported regret, 45.2% felt sadness, and 25.8% experienced depression.

Correlation does not equal causation. Any teenager who gets pregnant and aborts is obviously more likely to be depressed and have suicidal tendencies, but this has nothing to do with the act of abortion, this has to do with the issues that they probably had in their lives leading up to and following the pregnancy. You are drawing conclusions that aren't there.

Abortion providers are in business to make money rather than to assist their clients. The abortion industry generates an estimated $831 million annually. An abortion can cost anywhere from around $350 to more than $1,000

Every hospital in America is in it for the money, it's called capitalism. This doesn't even remotely support your argument.

Abortion increases the likelihood that women will develop breast cancer. In early pregnancy, levels of estrogen increase, leading to breast growth in preparation for breastfeeding. When a pregnancy is interrupted by abortion, immature cells are left in the woman's breasts, increasing the potential risk of breast cancer. Since 2006, eight medical organizations, including the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, the Catholic Medical Association, and the National Physicians Center for Family Resources, have recognized the connection between abortion and breast cancer.

With all due respect, now you are just spouting irrelevant data. I will grant you the truth of the correlation. What does this have to do with whether abortion should be totally outlawed? All this means is that women who are planning to abort should be informed of the risks by their medical professionals. Many women would rather have breast cancer than take care of a child they don't want/didn't intend. You can't deprive them of their choice to do so on basis of breast cancer being bad. That is their decision. It's basic patient autonomy.

Conclusion:

Pro only responded to my Round 1 argument with about 7 words. When I pointed out the flaws in this "rebuttal" and made several new arguments in Round 2, Pro didn't respond to a single one of them in any way whatsoever in Round 3. I refuted all of my opponent's points clearly, responding to every single sentence. Pro parroted the same statements over and over even after I refuted them, and they failed to respond to my refutations.

Pro used 5 sources in Round 3, but they were all illegitimate or irrelevant to the debate. Pro quoted the Bible, which is blatant religious bias and not fit for any serious debate. Their second source only showed that 3rd trimester abortion may be immoral, which I agree with, but this is not the topic of debate, we are debating ALL abortion. Pro's third source mistook correlation for causation, and they jumped to unreasonable conclusions from the data and made it fit their argument. Their 4th source could be made as a claim against ALL American medicine; abortion clinics are the same as all other hospitals- they do what they do for money. Lastly, Pro's use of their 5th source fails to understand the fundamental medicinal concept of patient autonomy. All it shows is that potential aborters should be informed of possible risks.

I believe my opponent showed bad conduct when they pulled out all of their sources in the last round, when these should have been provided in the first or second. This was clearly an attempt to throw me off and win by bringing in many new arguments near the end when I would be less able to respond to everything.

For these reasons, I believe Pro should not be credited for their sources, because they did not support her argument at all and had little to nothing to do with the debate at hand, and they were disrespectfully placed at the end.
Debate Round No. 3
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Hematite12 2 years ago
Hematite12
"How in the world did you become so smart? Oh yeah, you hit 15 and now you have been omnicient for all of one year so you threw your dictionary out the window."

You spelled "omniscient" wrong :)

In all seriousness, ad hominem is the last recourse of the one who is incapable of winning a debate with logic and calm discussion. Act your age, for God's sake.

"The unborn child would vote in favor of removing the constitutional right to abortion."

No they wouldn't, because they can't even feel pain or think, let alone vote.

"Being a constitutional right does not make it right."

I never said it did, I have never once brought up the constitution OR legal rights. I am arguing on philosophical grounds.

"All who are arguing that abortion is a right would not be arguing this way if they could argue before they were born."

If I could argue as a zygote, then the zygote would actually have identity and meaningful existence. But that isn't the case, so stop acting like you are defending "someone's" "rights". Why not defend the rights of bushes? Because if THEY could argue, they would argue against bush-trimming. Your argument is meaningless and moot.

"Abortion is evil selfishness turned into murder."

Provide a coherent argument as to why it is murder.

"How cold hearted can you be, more than to sacrifice the life of a child who is not able to defend himself or herself?"

A child can think and thus has identity, and embryo does not. Besides that, ad hominem.

"Abortion is murder."

Again, provide a coherent argument.

"You had to dodge this legalized murder or you would not be able to argue in favor of it........and you would not be promoting more of it or looking the other way while the evil is tolerated."

More ad hominem. You aren't arguing the point, just postulating some ludicrous ulterior motives. I think you're just paranoid, but it doesn't matter in the slightest for the debate, so I exercise basic maturity and leave it out of the di
Posted by Hematite12 2 years ago
Hematite12
"It does not matter what time frame you try to say you became you, it was you from the moment you were conceived and nobody else could have came from that conception and you could not have come from any different conception."

Baseless assertion, I have given PLENTY of justification for why I was not me when there was only a zygote or a conscious-less embryo. I am not me if my intelligence and memories are removed. Take someone who has been put into vegetative state. That's why a lot of families would rather let their relative die than live a meaningless existence as a vegetable. The person they knew simply doesn't EXIST. Why is that? It obviously indicates that a person's IDENTITY and existence are IMPOSSIBLE to separate from the person's consciousness.

So, if this is the case, an embryo or early-stage fetus is NOT me. I have provided thorough logical arguments for my position, you are still making the baseless assertion that a zygote is me, a ridiculous and reductionist claim that you definitely need to provide evidence and logical justification for, which you have yet to do in any serious way.
Posted by Hematite12 2 years ago
Hematite12
"somebody needs to learn how to use a dictionary. "Fetus" means unborn child. The term is used ignorantly by pro-baby killers in an attempt to downplay their heinous act of murder.

fetus /fe"tus/ (fēt"us) [L.] the developing young in the uterus, specifically the unborn offspring in the postembryonic period, in humans from nine weeks after fertilization until birth.

Looks like you need to learn how to use a dictionary. Fetus is post-embryonic, something that you still somehow extraordinarily fail to get through your head. Post-embryonic, as the DICTIONARY you so vehemently "support" states, means after 3 months, or the first trimester.

So, please tell me how, EVEN IF it is immoral to abort fetuses, first trimester abortion is "murder"? Even if you win this battle, all that you've shown is that 2nd and 3rd trimester abortion is immoral, CERTAINLY not all abortion.

Somebody needs to learn how to apply a dictionary.

"If you were aborted, which could have taken place at any time after the moment you were conceived (yes, the moment of your conception, it was not anybody but you when you were conceived in your mother's womb.....unless you were an implanted test tube baby, but still you were you from the moment you were conceived, and nobody else could have come from that conception other than you."

Stop right there. What did you say before about dictionaries? That's right, use them. As is CLEARLY stated, a "fetus" only exists 9 weeks into pregnancy. And, a FETUS is the only thing that could POSSIBLY and ARGUABLY be connected to "me" as I exist, with consciousness. So, how exactly did you suddenly move this 9 week cutoff back to CONCEPTION? You are applying your fetus logic (which is already awful and questionable) to the embryonic and NOT fetus stage.

Really, don't throw rocks when you live in a glass house. Obviously you aren't even reading the dictionary that you claims supports your position. But ignorance is bliss, I suppose.
Posted by Finalfan 2 years ago
Finalfan
Abortion is murder.. but so is war. Sometimes death is necessary!
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
you'll have to pardon the grammar.......of course if you had been aborted at any time after you were conceived, grammar would not bother you now.
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
abortion is murder. plain and simple. You have to use a lot of phony intellectualization to twist a lot of excuses and perverted reasoning to say it's ok or good.
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
somebody needs to learn how to use a dictionary. "Fetus" means unborn child. The term is used ignorantly by pro-baby killers in an attempt to downplay their heinous act of murder.

If you were aborted, which could have taken place at any time after the moment you were conceived (yes, the moment of your conception, it was not anybody but you when you were conceived in your mother's womb.....unless you were an implanted test tube baby, but still you were you from the moment you were conceived, and nobody else could have come from that conception other than you.
It does not matter what time frame you try to say you became you, it was you from the moment you were conceived and nobody else could have came from that conception and you could not have come from any different conception. How in the world did you become so smart? Oh yeah, you hit 15 and now you have been omnicient for all of one year so you threw your dictionary out the window.The unborn child would vote in favor of removing the constitutional right to abortion. Being a constitutional right does not make it right. All who are arguing that abortion is a right would not be arguing this way if they could argue before they were born. Abortion is evil selfishness turned into murder. How cold hearted can you be, more than to sacrifice the life of a child who is not able to defend himself or herself? Abortion is murder. You had to dodge this legalized murder or you would not be able to argue in favor of it........and you would not be promoting more of it or looking the other way while the evil is tolerated.
Posted by LogicalLib.org 2 years ago
LogicalLib.org
@forever_anaiya no one is making an abortion museum. No one. People are however outraged that we have the worst child poverty rate in the developed countries. So for those who have to make the already hard decision to abort a child, you would rather them give birth to a child in a country where 16million go hungry. And a kid drops out of high school every 22 seconds. And 75% of violent crime is committed by those without a college education. And theres a cut in social programs and support for struggling families. What your doing is setting people up to fail. And i hope u realize some of these States are saying you can't have an abortion even if your raped. So not only is a woman have to deliver and care for a baby in an unsupportive system if the child was a product of rape she has to look at that every single day. If u respect lives, respect that of the living and those who are competent enough to make decisions about their own lives without a moral judgement on an already difficult situation.
Posted by Finalfan 2 years ago
Finalfan
I have to ask.. what about war? Shouldn't that be more of a concern? I'm just saying.. morality is a slippery devil. To pro lifers: Have you even truly thought about it or are you too focused on "dead babies"! Also I can't believe I need to talk about the 7 Billion pound elephant in the room! We are like a mold on this earth.. the more people there are.. the faster we eat the bread!
Posted by Hematite12 2 years ago
Hematite12
Haha thanks for the legit RFD
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Finalfan 2 years ago
Finalfan
forever_anaiyaHematite12Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made some great arguments that pro did not refute: Cutting grass and eating food = killing living things. Conduct to con because pro used final round to bring up sources broadsiding Con in the process and also left no round to counter cons argument!
Vote Placed by Complicated_Mind 2 years ago
Complicated_Mind
forever_anaiyaHematite12Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by judeifeanyi 2 years ago
judeifeanyi
forever_anaiyaHematite12Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made a better argument, by addressing the motion. Pro used a better source whereas con did not.
Vote Placed by MrJosh 2 years ago
MrJosh
forever_anaiyaHematite12Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO never really formulated an argument, she just played the emotion card.
Vote Placed by Juris 2 years ago
Juris
forever_anaiyaHematite12Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: There is no doubt when life begins, it is at conception. But the point in this debate is when life matters? Pro simple asserted that abortion is wrong because it is killing similar to murder, but that assertion was rebutted by Con by saying that abortion is not necessarily killing because the purpose is different than other crimes. Pro committed a fallacy when he/she said that Killing is wrong. As Con pointed out Killing is not necessarily wrong if done in different purpose like in self-defense or in this case in abortion. The debate is whether abortion falls to that wrongful killing not if killing is wrong because certainly that is. Pro is a bit misleading. He further committed appeal to heaven fallacy by using the Bible as evidence. The Bible is respected but it should not be used as evidence because it is not scientific nor historical, it is a fiction. "A marriage shall be valid only if the wife is virgin, if the wife is not virgin she shall be executed." --deuteronomy 22:13-21