The Instigator
rodgerthatjerry
Con (against)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
Dan4reason
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points

Should Pro-Life propaganda be shown to kids?

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...
Dan4reason
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/6/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,127 times Debate No: 40044
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (5)

 

rodgerthatjerry

Con

I recently read a story where, during Beggar's Night, a house was attaching Pro-Life pamphlets to candy and giving it to kids. The pamphlets included pictures of dead fetuses and standard Pro-Life propaganda. It got me thinking whether adults should be pressing such taboo issues onto young children. Although parents have the right to teach their kids whatever they chose, whether it be Pro-Life or Pro-Choice, I don't think public schools, or the community for that matter has any right to infringe their Pro-Life beliefs to kids.
Dan4reason

Pro

I will take up this challenge. Abortion in the majority of cases is murder, and this really does not deserve to be some fringe opinion. One hundred years ago, slavery was a controversial issue, and some may have claimed the exact same thing; that anti-slavery propaganda a political opinion should not be taught to children in schools. The problem here is that slavery, like most abortions is a violation of human rights, and children need to be taught that human rights, all human rights, must be respected.

Personally, I believe that early-term abortion is not murder because the fetus shares so few characteristics with fully developed humans. However later on, the fetus shares enough characteristics, that they can be considered human beings. I have always believed that it is morally wrong to kill a human being in order to assert one's right to her body when under my plan, a woman would have three months to have an abortion, and she could always let her child be adopted once it is born.
Debate Round No. 1
rodgerthatjerry

Con

I simply don't agree with calling it murder. Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of another person. A fetus is not a person in my opinion. It is a human life under construction. It does not become a person until it's born. An unborn fetus should not have more rights than the mother carrying it. A woman should not be forced to carry a fetus to its full term, providing it with nutrients from her own body, if she doesn't want to.

It's a common argument that she can just "give it up for adoption", but most people don't recognize how difficult that process really is. It's an extremely tough decision that a woman shouldn't be forced to make just because someone else believes her unborn fetus, with no experience with the outside world and still in creation, should have more rights than the woman herself. The reason adoption is such a hard decision for a mother is because after a woman gives birth, her body releases a hormone called oxytocin. The effects of this hormone could be described as the feeling one would get when they're in love. This hormone, mixed with plenty of others and the relief after nine months of the body changing an embryo to a fetus to a human, is what causes the mother to rethink keeping her child, even though she may not be financially supportive or the environment she lives in is unstable, etc. The woman is forced to make a decision to either keep her baby and raise it an environment she knows is not fit or give it up for adoption.

Why should a woman be forced to go through these sometimes traumatic events? A woman has the right to choose whether she should get an abortion. That's why I'm Pro-Choice. I'm not Pro-Abortion, I'm Pro-Choice.

Furthermore, your argument seems to be ruling out the cases of pregnancy from rape. Should a woman be forced to keep a child rape if she doesn't want it? I think she shouldn't.

Women have the right to choose whether or not she wants an abortion. People shouldn't be defending a fetus that has not been born, and therefore does not have the same rights as a born baby.

Anyway, back to the original prompt. My stance was that young children shouldn't been shown pictures of dead fetuses and Pro-Life propaganda. It's disgusting, and Pro-Life is a belief, usually a religious one, and it shouldn't be imprinted on impressionable minds.
Dan4reason

Pro

A fetus is not a person in my opinion. It is a human life under construction. It does not become a person until it's born.

Lets take the case of a fetus one day before birth. According to my opponent, this fetus, who is conscious, can feel pain, emotion, has a beating heart, and has all the physical characteristics of human beings who have been born, is not a human being. I simply see no justification for this wild assumption. At that point in pregnancy, it is exactly like a newborn baby, the only difference is that it is in the womb. I fail to see how being in or out of a womb can transform you from a human being to a thing with no rights. What is important is that late-term fetuses share almost all the mental and physical characteristics of newborns.

A fetus is not a human life under construction. According to biology, a fetus satisfies all the requirements of what is a life just like any other animal, even including bacteria. Surely, if bacteria are considered by science to be life then so can a late-term fetus. A fetus is human because it has human DNA. According to science, a fetus is already a human life. This does not mean it is a person. In order to be a person, it have a certain set of very basic mental and physical characteristics, which a new born, and late-term fetuses share.

An unborn fetus should not have more rights than the mother carrying it. A woman should not be forced to carry a fetus to its full term, providing it with nutrients from her own body, if she doesn't want to.

A late-term fetus is a human being and so has the rights of a human being. When a women is forced to not have an abortion then her right to her body has been violated at least for a temporary amount of time. When an abortion does happen then the fetus' right to life has been violated. What this debate is about is choosing which right is more important. The right to one's life is more important than one's right not to be pregnant, this point should be obvious.

Also, abortion would be allowed in the first three months under my plan, so the woman would have ample time to have an abortion. If she waits after three months to have an abortion, or changes her mind, then she is killing a human being when this situation could have been prevented by aborting the fetus when it was too undeveloped to be a human being. At this point, I would have to root for the fetus's right to life over the woman's right not to be pregnant.

The reason adoption is such a hard decision for a mother is because after a woman gives birth, her body releases a hormone called oxytocin. The effects of this hormone could be described as the feeling one would get when they're in love. This hormone, mixed with plenty of others and the relief after nine months of the body changing an embryo to a fetus to a human, is what causes the mother to rethink keeping her child, even though she may not be financially supportive or the environment she lives in is unstable, etc. The woman is forced to make a decision to either keep her baby and raise it an environment she knows is not fit or give it up for adoption.

The women may be affected by this emotion however she is still an adult who is responsible for her choices, and that sometimes that means making choices that are not easy to make. So it is her fault if she makes an irresponsible choice to keep the child. The argument remains that killing a fetus is a real waste of a life when she can give allow it away to be adopted allowing it a chance to go through both the pleasures and trials of life.

Furthermore, your argument seems to be ruling out the cases of pregnancy from rape. Should a woman be forced to keep a child rape if she doesn't want it? I think she shouldn't.

Under my plan, she would have three months to abort the fetus. This is ample time for her to have an abortion if she does not want the fetus.

Anyway, back to the original prompt. My stance was that young children shouldn't been shown pictures of dead fetuses and Pro-Life propaganda. It's disgusting, and Pro-Life is a belief, usually a religious one, and it shouldn't be imprinted on impressionable minds.

I fail to see the problem with showing children pictures of the unborn children we are killing. As an analogy, if a teacher in Nazi Germany was showing child pictures of the Jews who were being killed and condemning what was happening, I would not blame the teacher. She is doing her job by making children aware of a human rights violation. The problem is with the people who are killing the Jews, or the politicians who are making laws that allow unborn human beings to be murdered.
Debate Round No. 2
rodgerthatjerry

Con

What this debate is about is choosing which right is more important. The right to one's life is more important than one's right not to be pregnant, this point should be obvious.

My opponent seems to be missing the point of this debate. It's not about whether abortion should be legal or whose belief is right. It's about whether or not it is morally right for adults to be showing young children, who are not their own children, Pro-Life propaganda. I would love to go back and forth all night on abortion in general, but that's not what the prompt asks.


I fail to see the problem with showing children pictures of the unborn children we are killing. As an analogy, if a teacher in Nazi Germany was showing child pictures of the Jews who were being killed and condemning what was happening, I would not blame the teacher. She is doing her job by making children aware of a human rights violation. The problem is with the people who are killing the Jews, or the politicians who are making laws that allow unborn human beings to be murdered.


My opponent also advocates traumatizing young children by showing them graphic images of unborn children. No one wants to see a dead fetus, anyone can it admit that it is unnerving and can make lots of people uncomfortable. But children would be horrified at the sight of a bloodied, dead fetus. My opponent, in the first sentence of this statement is advocating scaring kids with lurid images to try to teach a kid about something they may not completely understand. I feel I should establish that when I reference a kid, I mean children who have not been taught about sexual education. In most states, that applies to all elementary school kids. Children at this age should not be shown any sort of graphic image in the name of education, for they are simply not mature enough to handle it. Most of the time, the photographic truth about anything educational in shown in middle schools and high schools. My opponent didn't make it clear what he/she end meant in terms of what they perceive as a kid.

In this statement, if my opponent perceived kids as elementary age children, then he/she advocates showing graphic images of a dead fetus to minds that are not developed enough to understand sexual reproduction, the growth of an embryo to a child, and the logistics of the abortion process. Keep in mind that most kids in the later years of elementary still have not entered puberty.

If in this statement, my opponent perceived kids as middle school age, the he/she advocates focusing completely on scaring pre-teens and teens away from the idea of choice. My opponent advocates, according to this statement, scaring young teen mothers away from having a choice upon whether or not she should get an abortion by showing her explicit images of dead fetuses, labeling abortion as murder, and claiming that fetuses have rights and to terminate the fetus would be morally corrupt.

I believe that children in elementary schools shouldn't even be introduced to the idea of abortion. It is a topic that is too closely bound to sex, considering the fact that most elementary kids don't have a firm understanding of what sex is until they reach middle school. I believe that pre-teens and teens in middle school should be taught about abortion and be taught that a woman has the right to choose if she wants an abortion or not because she DOES have that right.

Pre-teens and teens shouldn't be scared away from the choice about whether or not a woman wants an abortion. Women have that right and shouldn't be taken away because some people perceive a fetus differently than others.
Dan4reason

Pro

I do think that at a certain age, children simply won't understand the idea of abortion and so it is pointless to teach them that it is wrong. The age of nine is a good age to start teaching children about the humans rights violations that are being done in abortion clinics. For the purposes of this debate, when I say abortion is wrong, I mean mid or late-term abortion.

My opponent seems to be missing the point of this debate. It's not about whether abortion should be legal or whose belief is right. It's about whether or not it is morally right for adults to be showing young children, who are not their own children,

That is a good point. However, if abortion is murder then it obvious that our children must be taught that it is wrong. I find that whether or not pro-life arguments should be taught to children greatly depends on whether or not abortion is murder. Since my opponent did not respond to my arguments that abortion is murder in this round I will assume that at least for this round that this point has been established.

But children would be horrified at the sight of a bloodied, dead fetus. My opponent, in the first sentence of this statement is advocating scaring kids with lurid images to try to teach a kid about something they may not completely understand. Children at this age should not be shown any sort of graphic image in the name of education, for they are simply not mature enough to handle it.

It is certainly not appropriate to constantly bombard children with pictures with dead fetuses. That would be really creepy. However showing them the victims of abortion abuse a few times will not scar them for life as long as the image is not too gross. It could be made a picture in a textbook explaining abortion. It is important to show our children these images because showing them the victims of murder will go a long way in convincing them that this is wrong.

If we teach children at an early age that this practice is wrong, then they will be less likely to engage in this practice legally or illegally. Doing this will save lives. Sure, it may horrify them, but that is what we want. As long as we don't do it too graphically or too often, it won't scar them for life and it will teach them an important lesson.

In this statement, if my opponent perceived kids as elementary age children, then he/she advocates showing graphic images of a dead fetus to minds that are not developed enough to understand sexual reproduction, the growth of an embryo to a child, and the logistics of the abortion process

Children understand the idea of pregnancy so they can understand the idea of killing a fetus. Elementary age children do not need to be taught complex pro-life arguments that involve sex, they only need to be taught that abortion kills human beings and therefore is wrong.

A weaker point is that a lot of kids already see graphic images in TV, movies, and video games. They often use graphic language too. I am not saying any of this is right, but showing them a few images of murdered fetuses will not affect them as much as you think. Plus, if fetuses are not people, then why is the psychological affect of showing them these images according to my opponent so massive and scarring?

If in this statement, my opponent perceived kids as middle school age, the he/she advocates focusing completely on scaring pre-teens and teens away from the idea of choice. My opponent advocates, according to this statement, scaring young teen mothers away from having a choice upon whether or not she should get an abortion by showing her explicit images of dead fetuses, labeling abortion as murder, and claiming that fetuses have rights and to terminate the fetus would be morally corrupt.

I have already demonstrated that abortion is murder and my opponent has not responded to my latest arguments arguing that point. If abortion is murder then showing them graphic images of murdered fetuses will help them choose not to murder their unborn children. This sounds like a good thing to me.

Another reason that we need to show children images of murdered fetuses is because the issue is so controversial. The fact that so many people believe in this murder is shocking and we need to use every tool at our disposal to teach our children and the populace that this practice is wrong.
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by drhead 3 years ago
drhead
How did you do that quote in round 3?
Posted by Haroush 3 years ago
Haroush
So, it's inappropriate to show these kids these things on holidays, but yet, it is okay for kids to be handed out contraceptives to go have sex. Great thinking!
Posted by Brennan-Huff 3 years ago
Brennan-Huff
I think people are getting the idea that if you can do something you should. Is it appropriate to show kids these things on a holiday? No, it's inappropriate and should be postponed to be taught in a more sensitive environment. What kid wants to go out to get candy and instead end up with a grotesque picture. Develop some common sense and wait until the issue can be presented in a civilized way.
Another solution would be to leave out the picture and provide information on your opinion as an alternative. How well would it bode if gay rights activists handed out pictures of gay and lesbian couples in sexual acts? Not very well I presume.
Also why on a holiday?
Posted by neptune1bond 3 years ago
neptune1bond
Of course kids should be exposed to the realities of abortion. That way they can make an informed decision later about safe sex, and if they do get pregnant from being irresponsible, they are less likely to try and justify murder by detaching themselves from the realities and just saying that it "isn't alive yet" or some ridiculous garbage about the child living in the system when the parent's actual only reason to abort is because it would be inconvenient for them. Most children living in "the system" would rather live or, at the very least, be able to choose for themselves. If we are going to even consider allowing teenagers to have a decision to murder babies because "it's their body and they can do what they want with it", then it is only reasonable that they actually know the reality of abortion and what they are choosing. People should not be allowed to just detach themselves from the consequences of their choices because it might be unpleasant or scary to think about.

For this very reason, children should also be shown the actual realities of what happens to drug-abusers and also the effects of hate-crimes against gay people (and other minorities). If people are taught from a young age that drugs, abortion, and bigotry are not funny and that there are real consequences, then they will be more likely to consider their actions more thoroughly. People shouldn't be allowed to enter into these decisions lightly just because the truth is unpleasant. They shouldn't be allowed to just say,"Whoops! I'm pregnant again! I guess I'll just go have another abortion." or "Hey that fairy was prancing around class like a prissy girl. How about we kick the crap out of him after school?" or "I think I'll just give meth a try. I don't think it's really as big a deal as people say." People need to see things for what they are and murder is murder, no matter how a person tries to *justify* it. A person in development is still a person, as inconvenient as that may be.
Posted by Haroush 3 years ago
Haroush
The premise of this question is inaccurate anyways. Pro-life people don't put out propaganda, but facts.
Posted by joshmarsh1996 3 years ago
joshmarsh1996
@rogerthatjerry So what if it scares them. That is a good thing. Since you want to not let people hand out scary pamphlets do you also want to make Halloween a night with nothing scary. According to you no one should be allowed to dress up like goblins or witches or etc. because it is to scary. You can't stop one scary thing with out stopping the other.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
Pro I understand you are replying to people, but you are treading dangerously close to adding debate rounds in the comment section.
Posted by rodgerthatjerry 3 years ago
rodgerthatjerry
@glowingdisco Telling kids that it's okay to be gay isn't propaganda. Propaganda is defined as information, rumors, doctrine, ideas, etc. that is widely spread for the purpose of helping or harming an organization. Reassuring kids that it's okay be gay isn't meant to harm any religious groups nor help any LGBT organization. It's to teach kids to be accepting of themselves if they are gay and to not feel alienated. It's to keep kids from getting depressed or going so far as to kill themselves. Telling kids it's okay to be gay is also meant for straight kids to accept gay people as they are: normal people. It teaches kids tolerance and is meant to prevent bullying. It has nothing to do with politics, it's purpose is to teach kids to be more accepting if people.
Posted by rodgerthatjerry 3 years ago
rodgerthatjerry
@joshmarsh1996 These people can have all the signs they want any other time but Beggar's Night isn't the time to play politics with kids. All they want is candy and they were handing out graphic picturs of dead fetuses. Could you imagine being a kid and looking at that kind of stuff? It would scare them. My big point here is that they shouldn't be giving out propaganda to kids that aren't their own. If the parents want to do that-fine. But no one else has any right to do other wise because it's not their kid
Posted by joshmarsh1996 3 years ago
joshmarsh1996
People putting pro life pamphlets on candy are not shoving it down kids throats. These people are allowed to do what they please and voice their opinions in whatever way they deem necessary as long as it does not hurt others.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by 1Historygenius 3 years ago
1Historygenius
rodgerthatjerryDan4reasonTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: Pro made out his case better while Con was pretty much stuck. This have Pro the victory.
Vote Placed by Juris_Naturalis 3 years ago
Juris_Naturalis
rodgerthatjerryDan4reasonTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: Pro's logic in the end was pretty concrete. Neither used sources and grammar was the same.
Vote Placed by johnnyvbassist 3 years ago
johnnyvbassist
rodgerthatjerryDan4reasonTied
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: Pro established concrete definitions for both the children shown and the fetuses. This debate got off-topic but perhaps the discussion had to take place. Con should have allowed more rounds. Con also had poor conduct by accusing Pro of saying things he never actually said. Poor debate for the thesis, but Pro adequately proved that there was no harm in showing Pro-life Propaganda.
Vote Placed by TheOncomingStorm 3 years ago
TheOncomingStorm
rodgerthatjerryDan4reasonTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: The debate flipped for me when a child was defined and a reasonable analysis of levels of children who could accept the images was presented by the Pro. The Pro got the monopoly on that, and to me it seems I would be obligated to vote for Pro.
Vote Placed by Putt-Putt 3 years ago
Putt-Putt
rodgerthatjerryDan4reasonTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con ended up changing my decision from the beginning where I sided with Pro. Granted the debates were more over Pro-Life v. Pro-Choice, the topic was over letting children watch TV, and make their own decisions. I did not see this part brought up much in the debate.