The Instigator
SPF
Pro (for)
Winning
42 Points
The Contender
JTSmith
Con (against)
Losing
30 Points

There is an immoral side of the Pro Life side of Abortion.

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  
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: 5/16/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,555 times Debate No: 4067
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (18)

 

SPF

Pro

The "Right to Life" movement claims to be the moral side of the abortion issue, but there are things which are highly immoral about making it illegal to perform an abortion.

First of all, it is very likely that this child will be unwanted, and unwanted children aren't going to be treated well. It is also likely that this child will be brought up in poverty, either in an orphanage, or in a poor household.

It is fair to assert therefore that there is a high probability that this child will grow up in misery. It is therefore immoral,and irresponsible for the government to make it illegal to prevent such a tragic situation.

It would also be difficult for the parrents who planed the abortion,and so outlawing an abbortion will make it painfull for the parrents and children alike.

The population of the Planet is growing at a very rapid rate. Before World War Two the population of Earth was at about two billion people. Now the population of Earth is at about six billion people. That means that over the thousands of years we've been on this planet, mankind has multiplied to two billion people, and over the past sixty years our population has increased by four billion people.

Our growing population is troubling for a few reasons. One is that there is less food and water to go around for everyone,creating problems of poverty. Another reason is that the more people there are, the more people pollute and therefore the more contributers to CLIMATE CHANGE.

I am not saying that abbortion is the solution to this problem. However, outlawing abbortion will make this economical\ecological issue much worse. This is a reason which, in my opinion makes it even more immoral to outlaw abbortion then the first one I used.
JTSmith

Con

My agrument is simple and short.

Abortion is the murder of a human being. Murder is ALWAYS bad and SUPER immoral.

Sure there are certain consequences to holding a pro-life viewpoint, but those who hold a pro-life viewpoint are protecting the lives of innocent human beings being slaughtered for the convenience of others. The protection of human life will ALWAYS outway the small undesirable consequences.

My point is this:
Because the Pro-Life movement is out to protect the sanctity of human life, it is a completely Moral standpoint. It is out to protect human life and that easily outways any undesirable consequences.
Debate Round No. 1
SPF

Pro

There are two main points in my opponents argument I will rebut.

"of innocent human beings being slaughtered at the convenience of others."

-First of all embryos aren't human beings.

-Second of all it isn't just at the convenience of others. In most cases, as I said in my first argument, it is in the "human's" best interest to be aborted, when one considers poverty,and an unstable home of being an unwanted child.

That's what makes my opponenants first point invalid.

"The protection of human life will 'allways' outweigh the 'small' undesireable consequences."

First of all not all the consequences are not 'small.' Issues of world poverty, and global warming being caused by our rapidly growing population are not small, they're some of the biggest consequenses of over population, which would be obviosly much worse if abortion was made illegal.

Second of all I believe these 'consequenses' heavily outweigh the protection of human life.

As I said earlier, for these reasons, and a few others I mentioned, it would be highly unethical, and irrisponsible of the government, to make abortion illegal.
JTSmith

Con

My points are very much NOT invalid

First, embryos ARE human.
Scientifically speaking, a human can best be defined as a member of the genus "Homo" and the species "Sapien". That is a scientific fact.

Scientifically speaking, A species is determined by its genetic make-up. Its DNA

"A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. While in many cases this definition is adequate, more precise or differing measures are often used, such as based on similarity of DNA or morphology."
-http://en.wikipedia.org......

As stated by the definition, DNA is a more precise way to define a species.

Finally, A fetus is, in fact, human because it is a member of the genus Homo and the Species, Sapien. So, scientifically, a fetus is human as long as it is alive.

Second, your logic sucks.
"This baby's life is gunna suck so lets just kill it!"
Thats exactly what you are saying without all of the political fluff.
Thats not okay. The baby has just as much of a chance at having a great life. Even if the cards aren't all on the table there are other options. There is adoption and living with relatives. If the child cant live a comfortable life with the parents then he shouldn't live with the parents, not not live at all. They should live with someone other than the parents.
Killing a baby because its life is going to suck is euthanizing. That, is illegal.

Lastly, all of the consequences are inevitable!! Why would we end human lives to "fix" a problem that cant actually be fixed. We would have to kill off every baby other baby that is born to have even a small chance at avoiding overpopulation. These are problems that need to be fixed in other ways. Killing off our children is not the answer. It is barbaric and primitive answer to the problem. Most of all it is beneath us as sentient and empathetic beings. That is exactly why Pro-Life is the moral side. Because it protects the sanctity of human life.
Debate Round No. 2
SPF

Pro

I never said that abortion should fix the big problems I have mentioned. What I was trying to say was that if you outlawed abortion in one of the biggest countries in the world, you would be making the problems caused by over population much worse. So why dig deeper in a deep hole? Why add insult to injury? Why make a big problem bigger? I think it would be immoral and irresponsible of the government to outlaw abortion because of this reason.

One reason which I haven't mentioned is medical. If there is a situation when a mother isn't healthy enough to give birth then she should have the right to have an abortion. I believe this is yet another reason why outlawing abortion would be immoral and irrisponsible of the government.

The issues of Global Warming, and World Poverty are moral issues. They both CAN be solved. However World Poverty is an issue that is partially caused by over population. It is harder to reduce our carbon footprint since we are becoming overly populated. Out lawing abortion will make the issue of overpopulation much worse.

My opponent thinks that my logic sucks just because part of my argument is that the life will probably be miserable. That doesn't mean it sucks, that just means we disagree which is obviosly true considering that this debate is taking place between us.

To start, not all people who adopt children are good people. Secondly this is not the alternative many people choose. Thirdly, a common alternative other people do choose, is to give the child to an orphanage. Orphanages aren't nice places for kids. Even worse are often, foster homes. It is still fair to assert that the life will likely be miserable.

"Killing a baby because it's life is gonna suck is euthanizing."

Random House Webster's College Dictionary definition of euthanize: to subject to euthanasia.

Random House Webster's College Dictionary definition of euthanasia: Also called mercy killing. the act of putting to death painlessly or allowing to die, as by withholding medical measures from a person or animal suffering from an incurable, esp. a painfull disease or condition.

Euthanizing is, as Webster's put it, 'for a person or animal suffering from an incurable, painfull disease or condition.' Not for a Fetus who is not suffering from an incurable, painfull disease or condition.

Once again my opponent made a false point.

What I ment by " not human " was that a Fetus doesn't breathe, is not aware it's alive, and is still devoloping it's body parts. It has no idea it will be a baby.

When my opponent says "killing babies" he forgets that it is killing embryos and fetuses. What is more likely is that he is stretching the facts.

I urge you to vote Pro because I have given more reasons than my opponent why, there is an immoral, even irrisponsible side of the Pro Life side of the abortion issue, than my opponent did to the contrary.

I thank my opponent, for accepting my challenge.
JTSmith

Con

JTSmith forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by C-Mach 8 years ago
C-Mach
I had to agree with Simon (SPF) on this issue, as well as presenting a better argument. However, there are still some things I have to disagree on with both of you.

JTSmith, embryos are Homo sapiens, just not developed Homo sapiens. The minimum point where a fetus would be considered capable of living outside of the womb [in today's world] is six months gestation. They cannot live outside of the womb before six months gestation (Am I repeating myself?), and can be aborted before that period (After the Second Trimester). Simon (SPF), after the Second Trimester has passed, fetuses can live outside of the womb (with some assistance). If aborted AFTER that period, it should be considered murder, as a human being that is capable of surviving outside of the womb should be protected under law.

Also, Simon (SPF), how is global warming a moral issue? It is merely a scientific one. There is still disagreement (Ahem, I am one of the aforementioned group.) about what causes it. Also, it has actually cooled since Winter 2007 (Simon [SPF], you remember that, right? I certainly do. Our ficus hedges froze over, they're still recovering, and we live close to Malibu. It even SNOWED in Malibu. In MALIBU!). A lot of you might think cooling is good news, but it's not. However, this is for another day. TA-TAA!!!
Posted by Scyrone 8 years ago
Scyrone
JTSmith has not got my vote. The point of the debate was the prove either PRO: There is some immoral side to pro-life, CON: There is not an immoral side to pro-life OR CON: Pro-life is FULLY immoral. JTSmith tried to prove that pro-abortion was completely immoral. He had the wrong idea. My vote goes to SPF.
Posted by SnoopyDaniels 8 years ago
SnoopyDaniels
Oh good lord SPF... I don't know where to begin...

So, it's immoral to prevent the murder of an unwanted child?

"It is fair to assert therefore that there is a high probability that this child will grow up in misery."

So, it's immoral to defend a child's right to live because they'll PROBABLY be miserable? There are thousands of adopted children out there that would disagree with you. I know two of them personally, and I your statement simultaneously repugnant and ignorant.

"It would also be difficult for the parrents who planed the abortion,and so outlawing an abbortion will make it painfull for the parrents and children alike."

By that logic, it is immoral to outlaw murder, robbery, and fraud because it makes it hard on the culperit. If the parents of the child didn't want to have a kid, they should have thought twice about doing the deed.

"Our growing population is troubling for a few reasons. One is...poverty. Another reason is...CLIMATE CHANGE."

So, its immoral to defend the sanctity of life because it contributes to poverty and climate change? If that's your measure of morality, then it would be moral to kill all the extra people alive on earth to prevent climate change and reduce poverty. I could go on with your other arguments, but I think it's already fairly clear that you're a moron.
Posted by faye_seventeen17 8 years ago
faye_seventeen17
aborting actually deprives the right to live/ right of life of the person being aborted.
Posted by LR4N6FTW4EVA 8 years ago
LR4N6FTW4EVA
"Because the Pro-Life movement is out to protect the sanctity of human life, it is a completely Moral standpoint. It is out to protect human life and that easily outways any undesirable consequences."
Tell me why life is valuable, otherwise I can't vote for you.

"
What I ment by " not human " was that a Fetus doesn't breathe, is not aware it's alive, and is still devoloping it's body parts. It has no idea it will be a baby."
Good point, but JTSmith should have easily rebutted your point.
18 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by SPF 6 years ago
SPF
SPFJTSmithTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by C-Mach 7 years ago
C-Mach
SPFJTSmithTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by JBlake 7 years ago
JBlake
SPFJTSmithTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Vote Placed by ANSmith 8 years ago
ANSmith
SPFJTSmithTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by advidiun 8 years ago
advidiun
SPFJTSmithTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by JTSmith 8 years ago
JTSmith
SPFJTSmithTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Ayame 8 years ago
Ayame
SPFJTSmithTied
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 bipasha 8 years ago
bipasha
SPFJTSmithTied
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 cloppbeast 8 years ago
cloppbeast
SPFJTSmithTied
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 Vodyanoi 8 years ago
Vodyanoi
SPFJTSmithTied
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