The Instigator
nerosmoke
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
passwordstipulationssuck
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Should late term abortions be legal?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 9/12/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 486 times Debate No: 103930
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

nerosmoke

Pro

Simple debate

I want to argue that late term abortions (up to 324 months) is both perfectly acceptable as a way of birth control and eugenics to control minorities.

Reasons for abortions to be discussed.

*Less black and Hispanics
*Less poor people
*Abortions is a never ending supply of income $$$
*Less pregnant women more sex
*Baby parts can be used for research without harming anyone as they have no human rights

1st round is denial
2nd round is anger
3rd round is bargaining
4th round is depression
5th round is acceptance
passwordstipulationssuck

Con

I believe that abortion should be illegal except for when the pregnancy poses a serious threat to the life of the mother.

Abortion, despite how it may seem, is not a complicated issue. Either the fetus is alive, and thus is a human life. or it isn't.
there are a number of moral arguments to the debate.
the first moral argument is that scientifically the human fetus meets the criterion to be considered alive from conception (1)" Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity." As we can see, the fetus is genetically human and meets every criterion to be considered alive.

now that we have established that the human life begins at conception I may be faced with the argument from many in favor of abortion that though the organism forming in the womb is alive (if they don't fully reject the known science thus committing fallacy) that it is not a person. this leads me to moral argument number two which is: even if you don't consider the humanity of the organism in the womb, there are plenty of things that exist that are A. not persons. and B. has rights and intrinsic value, for example, dogs or other domesticated animals. To state that simply because you don't consider the human fetus (which is what I shall be referring to the developing child as hereinafter.) to be a person, does not mean that it does not have rights and value. Furthermore, even if you deny the humanity of the fetus, you are still dealing with a potential human life which should be held in higher moral regard than the convenience of the mother or father. Another argument that many of those on the pro-choice side of the argument is that women have the human right to control their bodies. And I am in complete agreement. When it is your body that you are doing something to then you should have every right to do so insofar as it's not self-harm. However, the human fetus is not your body. It is IN your body. as I stated in my first card in the scientific portion of my argument, the human fetus has a separate genetic identity with the restoration of the diploid number of chromosomes. therefore, the human fetus is not a part of the mother's body any more than the child would be after (s)he was born. I hold that the time to control your body would have been before conception IE: using birth control or not having sexual intercourse. one thing that society appears to have forgotten, is that sex is not for pleasure. it is the biological process through which most species ensure the continuation of their species through reproduction (2). if you choose to partake in an action the purpose of which is to reproduce. (thus controlling your body.) then you accept the risk of conception.

Moral argument number 3. does the fetus have any rights, any intrinsic value, and any right to live. well, the collective opinion of society is that the fetus has essentially infinite right to live. when? if and only if the mother decides to keep the child. if she does, society and its laws, regard the fetus with infinite worth and considers it so valuable, that if someone were to kill that child they would be prosecuted for homicide. keeping in mind that the definition of homicide is: the deliberate and unlawful killing of one person by another (3). we can, therefore, see that if the mother decides to keep her child then the law recognizes it as a person. if she doesn't, the fetus is considered worthless with essentially no right to live. now, does that make sense? it doesn't seem to. either the fetus has worth, or it doesn't. on what moral grounds does the mother alone have the right to decide the fetus' worth?

most people would consider killing the baby once it exits the womb as murder. however, the deliberate killing of the fetus a mere two months before is no more morally problematic than extracting a tooth.

and finally, we need to recognize that there are instances when an abortion simply cannot be considered moral. take for example if the mother or father aborts a child because they prefer boys to girls. as has happened millions of times in China and elsewhere. or any other form of bias or preference of the mother or father simply cannot offer moral grounds for the termination of the human life.

I look forward to a rational and well thought out debate and wish my opponent the best of luck. I eagerly await your response.

(1) https://www.princeton.edu...............
(2) www.biology-online.org
(3)www.dictionary.com
Debate Round No. 1
nerosmoke

Pro

I am not consercned with morals. How moral is being born Black or Mexican? being born with out a chance in the world?

As marget sanger said Blacks are weeds that must be extermated. https://www.youtube.com...

That is what I am debating here.
passwordstipulationssuck

Con

I see. This is a troll debate. lovely. In order to win arguments, I will rebut your points. However, I would kindly ask that you simply not respond so we can all just move on with our lives. First, you say that it's immoral to be born black or Mexican without a chance in the world. There are many people who are black or Mexican who have achieved great things. Your point is entirely invalid.

Next, you state that Margret Sanger (founder of planned parenthood for those of you who don't know) wanted to exterminate the African population. This is factually correct. Margret Sanger was a eugenicist. If you want to debate the merits of eugenics, That's a debate worth having.
Debate Round No. 2
nerosmoke

Pro

Claiming this to be a "Troll Debate" to try to discredit my claims about how Great abortions are, And how effective they are to control minorities! As if we did not control them they would take over and turn everything into the just look at black culture and how bad it is with the butts hanging out, gangs and people holding guns in cell phone rap videos. All of this can be resolved with with stabbing baby's still in the womb in the skull and cutting the spinal cord at the base of the neck. As the baby's have no rights this is a OK thing to do!

To rebut your own points is that they are to long and I did not read them, and I feel sorry for anyone who went and read all of that is in short a failed moral argument is that is invalid. As morals have no place in science or the money that comes from science selling baby parts for medical research so we can have great products like Pepsi!

https://www.lifesitenews.com... -"Aborted cells are used in the development of artificial flavor enhancers by bio tech company Senomyx, with which PepsiCo signed a four-year, $30 million agreement in 2010 for research and development. No Pepsi products containing Senonymx flavor enhancers should be expected until 2013.

Senomyx’s disputed cell line is HEK-293, derived from the kidney cells of an aborted baby. We could go into the weeds at this point, but Wikipedia offers an easy explanation:

Senomyx develops patented flavor enhancers by using “proprietary taste receptor-based assay systems.” These receptors are made from HEK293. HEK stands for Human Embryonic Kidney cells. These cells, which were cloned, originally came from healthy, electively aborted human embryos. Using information from the human genome sequence, Senomyx has identified hundreds of taste receptors and currently owns 113 patents on their discoveries."


Blacks and Mexicans do crimes at a higher rate then wites and killing them as baby's before they can commit any crimes as this is the most effective way to put a stop them! As most states don't have a death punishment but allow abortions.

You need more context about her and how great she was then read this! https://www.youtube.com...
passwordstipulationssuck

Con

I'm just going to skip to the real arguments. First off we can work towards solving the issues facing the African American community by eradicating politically correct policing, instituting a school choice program to allow people in failing schools to get a proper education. The solution is not, nor has it ever been, eugenics. My opponent states that morals have no place in science. It's clear that your statement about not reading my arguments was factual. I referenced mainly science in my arguments. Moreover, morals and science are in fact inextricably intertwined. That's why we have so many ethics laws in place for medicine and psychology.

My opponent states that aborted fetal cells are in pepsi. The article he cites actually refutes this claim in the first line.

My opponent states that the best way to treat the high crime rate in minority communities is eugenics. I would point you back to my first rebuttal.
Debate Round No. 3
nerosmoke

Pro

Not only did I not read your moral arguments, I think you should apologise to everyone that did! As it was quite a terrible experience to go and try and read all that non-since trying to claim a moral argument for something that our great leader Hillary Clinton claims to be OK! https://www.romper.com... What can be more moral then Hillary Clinton, Who is a woman. I might add and who I can quote saying "I am a woman" -Hillary Clinton 2016. So being a woman who has had abortions she is the most qualified what can be done and what can't https://www.lifesitenews.com... I ask con how many abortions have they had and how they can be more qualified then a woman like Hillary? who has had multiple abortions https://www.youtube.com... She is the one most experienced about this subject.
And I might add Trump said late term abortions are not ok. And he is a racist KKK supporter https://www.youtube.com... You must be a cis gendered white male trying to attack women's rights! https://www.youtube.com...;
Black people targeting Whites https://www.youtube.com... you can't solve this problem with education as (1) you are making the logical fallacy of claiming blacks can be educated. As I see no proof? (2) Black people eat money https://www.youtube.com... is in one reasion why they will never be like Whites as they eat all of the money they have instend of using it to buy things. https://www.youtube.com...;

My oppoent makes the false claim that the news site showing Pepsi uses baby parts proves they do not use baby parts that is false as anyone who read my argument can see.

Obama agency rules Pepsi use of cells derived from aborted fetus ‘ordinary business’ https://www.lifesitenews.com... Here our fearless leader Obama and his great work making sure coperations can use baby parts as flavoring in soft drinks, as everyone knows baby's taste the best! for years Dingo's have been bragging about the taste of a baby, And we have been eating baby cow and lamb with out any problems for thousands of years now! https://www.youtube.com...

You frist rebuttal was to long and I did not read it. As most of your points are a invald moral argument.
passwordstipulationssuck

Con

My opponents first argument is basically stating that since Hillary Clinton says abortions ok, it must be. I would call this an appeal to authority fallacy if that wasn't so laughable. Next, he asks what could be more moral than Hillary Clinton. I don't know, Beelzebub? I have had no abortions to answer my opponents question. and having abortions then saying it's ok is not evidence that it actually is. I'm skipping the stupid Trump argument for obvious reasons. No one has the right to end the life of another human being. If you think that a fetus isn't human then you need to read up on your biology. He claims that there is no proof that blacks can be educated. You mean like Neil DeGrasse Tyson? or Ben Carson? I'm skipping the eating money argument for obvious reasons. He claims that the cite he posted doesn't disprove his own claim if you care enough for some reason, you can follow the link yourself.
Debate Round No. 4
nerosmoke

Pro

I am stating that a honest person like Hillary Clinton who has had multiple abortions is a clear example of why abortions should be allowed, Think about this what if her mother had a abortion how great that would have been, this is clear evidence that abortions should be legal. End of debate in favor of pro.

But to go on to other issues I feel should be taken into consideration

Con has made the claim that blacks can be educated while showing no proof. that Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Ben Carson are educated as here are links that prove other wise.

While here is a claim by Breitbart that he is actually quite stupid. http://www.breitbart.com...

Con also refused to talk about Black people eating money, Butts hanging out and rap videos with people holding 3 handguns in two hands. Eugenics is the best way to deal with this problem has a whole. Debate point 2 favor of Pro.

Before in your long winded moral debate you made the claim that a pronucleus has the combination of 23 chromosomes, while I claim that Dr. Pepper has the combination of 26 flavors! Baby's are a never end source of income for soda producers. Debate point 3 in flavor of Pro!

Debate point 4 More sex with women not even debated points go to Pro. Debate point 5 also Favor of Pro.

I also find Cons remarks about Hillary Clinton to be quite inflammatory as Satanist know that Beelzebub is very reputable, and that his kind of claim is uncalled for.
passwordstipulationssuck

Con

1. I would seriously contest the honesty of Hillary Clinton
2. I can't find any evidence that shows that she ever had an abortion
3. I don't care what Breitbart says. They really aren't reliable evidence.
4.I'm going to skip the next argument for obvious reasons.
5. sex is for reproduction not pleasure
6. This final point isn't even an argument.

Glad that's over.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Ragnar 9 months ago
Ragnar
This was pretty clear intended as a troll debate. I mean abortions legal for the first 27 years?
Posted by Shad0wXx 10 months ago
Shad0wXx
If you're pro-abortion, Why does your profile list you as "abortion: con"?
Also, I'd likely be willing to debate you, but on the broader subject of abortion in general.
No votes have been placed for this debate.