The Instigator
fo-shizzle0855
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
annawee
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

abortion is wrong

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 1 vote the winner is...
annawee
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/29/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 922 times Debate No: 6084
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)

 

fo-shizzle0855

Pro

since i get the last argument, i think it is only fair if my opponent goes first
annawee

Con

does this mean to say that you would aboslutely opose abortion even if
1) the mother was dying of cancer the only way to save her was to terminate the child
2) the child would be seriously handicapped mentally/physically
3) the child would have poor value of life i.e living on streets etc
Debate Round No. 1
fo-shizzle0855

Pro

Yes, i will say that i will argue even these principals.

1) first we have a mother who is dying of cancer and the only way to save her is to kill the child. First of all i don't know why a cancerous women would be having sex, but besides the point. Ethicly it would be a mother value to put a childs life before her own, out of lofe for him/her. But because the mother is near death does that lessen the value of the childs would-be life?
So the mother who has cancer should weigh her options. first of all she has cancer and there is the likliness of her dying anyway. Then she has to look at the childs perspective. It's her own child to go out and live it's life. She's at least had a chance at life. now it's time for her to make a sacrifice.

2) Second the handicap issue... So are you saying that all mentally hadicapped people on the earth don't have a right to live? It shouldn't matter the childs predicament. he/she is still a living being and has potential to life, and denying them the privilige of life would be cruel just because they have an extra chromosome. So i still apply the same rule from my last argument.

3) Living on the streets. Who are we to say how this childs life will turn out? How do you know he/she would live on the street? If your not even going to give the child a chance to live you can pre-judge what his/her life will be like. Denying them the right to live is murder..

Other than those issues abortion is wrong for many other reasons, which i will argue if my opponent brings up. but for the time being i am going to assume he agrees with the issue other than those three "exceptions" my opponent has stated.
annawee

Con

okay I accept you have made some good points but still I argue,
1) I did not state clearly how the mother got the illness, maybe they only
discovered that she had for example, cervical cancer during her pregnancy.
and cancer isn't the only thing here it could be a serious illness or even a mental illness
like severe depression. your comment " First of all I don't know why a cancerous women would be having
sex," was quite inhumane as all humans ill or not have the right to have sex. and
" Ethicly it would be a mother value to put a child's life
before her own, out of lofe for him/her" I'm not saying that any loving and caring mother out there
would not die for their children, but here maybe the fetus is only 10 weeks old, can this technically be called
a baby ? The martyr could be leaving behind a young family, to deal with the death of the mother is this fair ?
The illness of the mother could also affect the health of the baby.

2) the handicap thing. I did quote " a serious handicap mentally/physically"
I am not saying that all disabled children and adults are not deserving of a life, that is an example of
manipulating my words to make them sound cruel. what I mean is, if the child is going to be born
and live for a week because its got this illness which isn't curable, isn't it more cruel to make it live
for that week of pain rather than having to go through the obvious emotional distress of an abortion. and I didn't use
the downs syndrome suffers as an example either. I am not saying that the disabled and handicapped cannot
live a life, but serious cases whereby the child wouldn't have any sort of fulfilled life then I feel it is more human
to let that child rest before any pain is felt at all.

3) I said " poor quality of life" and used living on the streets as an example.
it could be that the mother and father are drug addicts or child abusers.
the existing family could also suffer as a result of extra expenses the baby needs.
yes I adoption is a choice and I'm not saying that adopted children aren't happy, but
there's always going to be something missing in their life some questions that cannot be answered like
"why didn't my mummy want me " which could eat a child inside out. i am not saying that
we can predict the future, but i also think that if a child is going to seriously suffer in life
because of uncontroble things, then it is less cruel to terminate it.

even strict catholics and buddhists have compassion for women and the value of thier life.
what if for example
1) the mother is a victim of rape and having a child would cause huge emotional turmoil
2) the mother is sexually abused as a child
3) the father of the child is abusive and violent towards its mother.

one final point.
for example, you are a 22 year old women, just got out of uni and youve got a brilliant job,
your newly married with a 1 year old. you found out you were pregnant 2 months ago
and youve been to the doctor and hes told you, you have cervical cancer and have two options
are you truthfully saying that you would be able to give all of that up for a baby your not likely to meet.
i bet over half of people would say they would and they actually wouldnt, because sometimes
you've just got to be a little bit selfish.

over and out my friends :)
Debate Round No. 2
fo-shizzle0855

Pro

1)LOVE OF MOTHER: O.k. to argue your very first point. I hold to my argument about the sickness. What should it matter what the sickness is? either way, it would not be right to end the innocent childs life. I also hold to what i said about "I don't know why a cancerous women would be having sex" It is not inhumane what i said. She knew she was sick which was even worse. She still to the risk to have the child, and it should now be her responsibility to carry out her action. It's not about her having the sex. its about the effects of the sex. She is now going to have to take responsibility of what she brought into life. But throwing it away gives Should not be her decision. MY OPPONENT:"maybe the fetus is only 10 weeks old, can this technically be called a baby?"
Yes it is a baby. he/she still has potential for life. he/she would be a living human being with thoughts and love and feelings just as any other human being. Denying The Child that privilige- no not privilige a better word for that would be freedom- would be unjust and wrong. And about you said with the martyr leaving behind his family. Isn't this his job? he has aceepted it before hand. It apllies to any situation he has to deal with, not just the death of the mother.
2) You say i was manipulating your words to make you sound cruel. I am sorry you feel this way, however that was not my intention. I was trying to argue from every angle i could to prove my point.
MY OPPONENT "if the child is going to be born
and live for a week because its got this illness which isn't curable, isn't it more cruel to make it live
for that week of pain rather than having to go through the obvious emotional distress of an abortion?" How do you know for a fact that the child would be killed? Yes there is a chance. there is always a chance for any little thing to go wrong. But there is the chance of it going possitively as well. How many children survive disease all around the world every day? how many die? its a risk factor for sure, but why not take the risk of having the child survive to grow up and live his/her life? whichever that lifes directon goes is not for us to decide.
It could go good or bad.But because theyre is the liklihood of it going bad, that means we should take it away from them? If that's the case then why not just kill everyone out on the streets who is living a healthy life? to suggest that would be cruel as anyone would know. Again i am not minipulating your words. I did not use a quote on that part. I am going to argue every angle of the situation there though for my side.
MY OPPONENT:"serious cases whereby the child wouldn't have any sort of fulfilled life then I feel it is more human
to let that child rest before any pain is felt at all." O.K. I want to make a point here really strongly to help you better understand. Children such as these, children with less ability, or less capacity, are automatically assumed to be miserable and poor. However that is not case. I will make one example with Helen keler. She had every difficulty iin the world. But she learned. She lived through it. And she was happy. She wasn't constantly in a corner crying and suffering because her life was poor and pitiful. No, she was intellligent and willing and helpful. Her life was challenged, yes, but not impossible to live through. I will make another example with a small boy who was born with out arms or legs. I beleive his name was Colten. His mother had given him up, for reasons unknown. but Either way this boy, found a loving and peaceful family to take care of him. He learned how to swim, how to climb stairs, etc. he made the best of his life. He wasn't unhappy forever because he was born with dis-advantages. On several occasions, i am sure death was a big issue for him. Again Risk factor. But still obviously he had survived and he is not nessecarily unhappy because of these small dis-advantages. This applies to the same aspect of The child life or death being at risk when birth. No one can say this child will die for sure. Not even a doctor. They can give you results leading to the probabability of death, even a high one at that. But To instantly jump to the conclusion that the childs death is the first priority to everyone? How can any happiness come from this decision? Yes the child may die given certain circumstances, but then there wouldn't be any more level of grief for the child than already attained. At least the child had a CHANCE at life. A chance at happiness.
3) This argument is simple. Is there not child abusing parents everywhere? This is where the law steps in and handles these situations. Yes it is miserable, but applies in no way to the childs desicion. The parents SHOULD be responsible and give the child up for adoption. However in some cases they may not always choose that desicion. If they know they can't take care of the child, But however do anyway, That would be saved for an argument on parental responsibility, Not abortion. though i do see why you would bring that up.
Adopted children- MY OPPONENT "there's always going to be something missing in their life some questions that cannot be answered like
"why didn't my mummy want me " which could eat a child inside out." Yes i am sure the question would arise to the child about there parents reasoning for leaving them behind. But should that imply that there whole entire life from that point on will be truly and utterly miserable? To the point where they should not even Have the right to live? Like they don't have every oppurtunity to progress in life as any other? Things such as marriage, and friendship, and their own legacy of children perhaps. No, there is no reason for them not to have those every equal oppurtunites at happiness, Just because there "mummy and daddy" gave them up. As if the child would be trying to commit suicide just to preserve his emotions. These mothers are making that desicion for them. They don't even get the CHOICE to choose happiness or death of bitterness. They assume the latter and just kill the child, which is utterly wrong and cruel.
Those who claim to be pro-choice, look on every aspect of the ideal pro-'choice'. Respect the the childs decision as well. The mother got a chance at life. She got too experience happiness and sadness. Why deny the child of this same freedom?
RAPE- O.K. So the mother got raped. She doesn't want to take responsibility of the child . Then dont! give the child up for adoption or close family member. Carry out through the pain and emoitional turmoil, to be humane. Yes, it was not fair and you didn't choose this decision, But don't act out of selfishness. Is it easier to murder a potential life, then to just Wait out the nine long hard months. You have to ask yourself if your ethics are correct if you negate that. Would you, Could you, risk a little bit of pain, to save a life?
MOTHER SEXUALLY ABUSED AS CHILD- This one is quite simple.first of all children cannot bear children.second of all SO WHAT?Any one old enough to think should be the one making the decision about the abortion.
ABUSIVE PARENTING- i have argued this previously above
IN ANSWER TO YOUR STORY- Obiously if most people would say yes and affirm, then that is the the correct thing to do. Not all people would choose this path because of selfishness you say. If that is the case, then us as people need to notice the flaw in ourselves.If what you say about selfishness being an issue is an any correlation to abortion, I am not manipulating anyone by saying this an issue with abortion. I would argue more on the subject but i am just about out of remaining characters, so for this round I would like to leave any viewers with this simple knowledge.Responsibilty need be take placewith anyone who bears it. This should be anyone with the mind to be able to make decisions. f you can make a decision and know what decision your making, explore every possibilty of that decision before you decide whether good or bad
annawee

Con

wow, very impressive reply there foshizzle :P
lets make the illness thing clear
1) THE WOMAN DIDNT KNOW SHE HAD THE ILLNESS WHEN SHE MADE THE BABY !!
and the sickness is irrelevant i agree, if your arguing that it wouldnt be right to
end the innocent childs life, then wouldnt it been wrong to end the innocent life of the mother too?
i then questioned whether or not a fetus can actaully be called a baby and so you say
"Yes it is a baby. he/she still has potential for life. he/she would be a living human
being with thoughts and love and feelings just as any other human being" when does the baby
develop these features ? are you then suggesting a strong strong belief that life starts in the womb at
some point? at what point do you feel life begins, only when you have asked yourself that can you
decide whether abortion before this point is murder or not.
2) PRO -"And about you said with the martyr leaving behind his family. Isn't
this his job? he has aceepted it before hand. It apllies to any situation he has to deal
with, not just the death of the mother" this bit confused me because i was refering to the
matyr as the mother, who was giving up her life for the babies.
3) the bit about an incurable disease/ilness which has been passsed on to the baby-
PRO-"How do you know for a fact that the child would be
killed? Yes there is a chance. there is always a chance for any little thing
to go wrong. But there is the chance of it going possitively as well. How many
children survive disease all around the world every day? how many die?" so i reply
if there is a minor chance that things will go wrong then i understand why people Would opt
for the chance to live, but for me, if a child was to be born and the chances were greater than
90% of him/her not surviving the first week of it's life, then its more or less going to happen
can you tell me that doctors predictions are mostly wrong ? no ? how many people do you
think would survive a 90% chance of death? especially a weak, fragile baby.
you also said---
"If that's the case then why not just kill
everyone out on the streets who is living a healthy life? to suggest that would
be cruel as anyone would know. Again i am not minipulating your words" ----
i dont understand how you came to this conclusion, the fact that something is bound to happen
is proven by medical experts that the worst is going to happen. i know bad things happen and i know
people live through them, i know people get ill and recover but what are the chances of a
day old baby pulling through brain damage or something ?
4)PRO- "Children such as these, children
with less ability, or less capacity, are automatically assumed to be miserable and poor."
i understand how you could have misinterpreted my argument for the assumption that the disabled
are unhappy or poor. i know first hand this fact is far from the the truth. what i meant was that
if a child isnt going to make it long enough to even experiance any sort of life, if they are just going to be
so SERIOUSLY disabled and SO seriouisly handicapped that they are completely unaware that there is a life to be lived.
i understand the admirable people who have come through tough tough things and barriers in their life and are happy
and successful, but im talking rare cases here.
5) the adopted child thing, yeah i understand your point, im not saying that a child wouldnt grow to be happy with their adopted parents. whos to say that their parents arent responsible to give them up though ?
they would be trapped. child abuse can affect a persons whole emotional life and being victim of abuse is not something you can escape from ever.
6) The whole victim of childhood sexul abuse was misunderstood :P
i mean that a grown up woman wasnt ready to have a child as she had been
sexually abused, and she is emotionally unstable due to her horrific past. out of compassion
wouldnt it be better for the woman and child if there was an abortion.
and the rape thing, how could a woman be expected to go through 9 months of emotional turmoil,
constantly reminded of her terrifying and horrifying ordeal that she was victimised and
unvoluntarly impregnated by a man whom she doesnt love. when the child is inside her
she'll never be able to escape this memory, she'll never be able to forget because a child came out of it
and maybe she'll never love the child because she will maybe feel resentful towards the child.
rape can ruin someones life, not only the womans but the child.
the child may grow up guilty, ashamed and unwanted as their father was a rapist and their mother
a victimised weakling.
7) are you saying that having some form of selfishness is a flaw ?
selfishness is a need, and a must have. you have to be selfish its a fact of life
if you werent selfish you wouldnt survive.
im not talking selfish like, self-obsessed and horrible, but selfish, knowing what you need
how to look after yourself and gonig through with the right decisions. im talking selfish
having some care for yourself and respecting yourself.

and one last thing
"if you can make a decision and know what decision your making, explore every possibilty of that decision
before you decide whether good or bad"- does this mean to say that if you have explored every single possibility and every single angle of the problem/issue and you have decided for abortion , that is acceptable because you have followed what you said. is this you sort of saying its okay to have an abortion as long as you know its the right decision for you. if so there is no point in this debate.

over and out my friend :)
Debate Round No. 3
fo-shizzle0855

Pro

Thankyou for that rebuttal. this debate has been really fun, thankyou for accepting it.

WOMAN ILLNESS- OK even if the woman didn't know she had the sickness, This is where she must decide th RIGHT thing to do. She has had the oppurtunity to live. It's not her fault that she has to die for the baby so i can see why you would feel sorry for her, But that's where i am trying to get with the baby. It doesn't get a choice on whether it lives or dies, and unlike the mother, it doesn't get the Chance to even attempt to live it's life. When it comes down to abortion or the mothers life it is really just a matter of opinion of who's life would be more important in the situation. I would argue for the childs in this case seeing as the mother has already lived and experienced life where as the baby did not even get that chance

BABY FROM BEGINNING- If you do not know this already, you can research this. Embrio's have been proven to be alive. And either way, even if the they weren't, the card has already been pulled. The baby had that oppurtunity at having a life the second the mother was pregnant. There would still have been a life produced whether living at the moment or not. The second that mother gets pregnant, is the second, that potential child is alive. So yes, I would still say that in answer to your question that is murder.OPPONENTS QUOTE IN REBUTTAL TO MINE-"so i reply
if there is a minor chance that things will go wrong then i understand why people Would opt
for the chance to live, but for me, if a child was to be born and the chances were greater than
90% of him/her not surviving the first week of it's life" O.k. so given this mock play of events, the child now only has 10% of a chance of living. My opponent is saying that it is better just to let the child die than taking that 10% chance.
No matter how small the chance of thats childs continued life, we do not choose which higher probability will take place for the child. We assume the child will just die because of the high chances. That is nature and lifes decision to make not ours. We cant say that the child won't some how live through the small percentage. And if the child dies, the child dies and there is nothing anyone can do about it. But at least he got to take the chance and let nature decide whether that child would die or not.
MY OPPONENT-"can you tell me that doctors predictions are mostly wrong?" the answer is no, i cant. but i would also like to point out the the word you used specifically was "predictions". Science is never exact. It's all just theories and predictions. Doctor base their results off of science. There is in-numerable cases where doctors have been wrong due to "predictions". So is killing a child based off an indefinite source the right thing to do in this case? I think not.
MY OPPONENT-"if a child isnt going to make it long enough to even experiance any sort of life, if they are just going to be so SERIOUSLY disabled and SO seriouisly handicapped that they are completely unaware that there is a life to be lived." This in no way correlates with abortion. How could any one knnow that the child would turn out like that. What you are referring to in this case is what is called a "stillborn" A stillborn is a child who does not take in its surroundings or its life in any way. practically dead but alive at the same time. I am not against the killing of stillborns. But i do believe this topic was about abortion. In which doctors have no way of proving that a child will be a stillborn before birth. They can predict birth attained diseases, but not aqquired traits.
MY OPPONENT-"i know people get ill and recover but what are the chances of a day old baby pulling through brain damage or something?" This is the same situation. brain damage is aqquired through birth. Unless the mother drops the baby or something, the baby would not get brain damage. brain damage is not an issue with abortion.

CHILD ABUSE- Again ,as i have stated in the previous round, abusive parenting is not an issue with abortion either. There are parents all over america who are abusive. This is where the law comes in. The law prevents child abuse, and just because the parents didn't want the child and abuse him/her, doesn't mean that its right. This whole debate is based on how the mother decision is wrong. By telling me that she is going to make wrong decisions and abuse the child, you are only strengthening my case.

SEXUALLY ABUSED CHILD- Again this is where adoption comes in. I'm surprised you would bring this topic back up with out arguing that point. Wasn't that the big issue with parental responsibilty/abortion?

RAPE- MY OPPONENT- "the rape thing, how could a woman be expected to go through 9 months of emotional turmoil, constantly reminded of her terrifying and horrifying ordeal that she was victimised and
unvoluntarly impregnated by a man whom she doesnt love." I have argument already, but i will re-state a little more clearly. I know it wasn't the mother fault that she is pregnant. Its not fair to her that she has to go through this. It's not fair for anyone. But is it fair for the child either? To not let that child live because of his/her fathers wrong doing?
Its just as unfair to the child as it is to the mother. That is what i meant when i said the mother can survive 9 months of emotional turmoil. She should carry it out for the child. She doesn't need to keep it. How could you look in to the eyes of you attacker everyday? But that shouldn't suggest that someone else can't care for the child. And the child life isn't going to be dramatically challenged to the point the death would be the answer...

SELFISHNESS- MY OPPONENT-"are you saying that having some form of selfishness is a flaw?" yes to an extent. An extent such as the one your story suggested. Are you saying that selfishness is a good thing? if so than that would be one factor in the abortion problem for sure.

And you have my closing debate sorely mistaken. Though i do understand for some it would be more difficult to understand. a simplified version of my closing argument in Round 3 would be:
Pretty much if you have responsibility, and know how to use it, you would explore your options more thoroughly. Not that your choice is neccesarily best. You should look for the good and bad in the situation. that is the point of this debate, to be openminded.
Noot that every persons decision is what should matter. It should to en extent but, also not be thrown out of proportion to the conclusion of murder. If there was any choice or fairness in the action. then both the child and the mother would get choice. However unfortunately this is not the case.

I look forward to your rebuttal to this. I will continue in the comment section of this debate. If you wish you can argue further there. I am sorry i did not make more rounds to this debate, but i am just used to people forfeitting alot, so i didn't want to wait too long if that were too happen again.
Kudos my friends :)
be sure to check the comment section for my rebuttal.
-Fo-shizzle
annawee

Con

annawee forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by fo-shizzle0855 8 years ago
fo-shizzle0855
ha sorry i would have spaced it more but i had alot to say and not enough characters.
Posted by TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
Use the enter button people!
Posted by ournamestoolong 8 years ago
ournamestoolong
hmmmmmmmm... this could be an interesting debate.
Posted by TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
I'll accept this debate if you fix your opening statement :D (CON gets to end the debate).
Posted by PoeJoe 8 years ago
PoeJoe
Also, keep in mind that spelling and grammar are categories for the voting period.
Posted by Labrat228 8 years ago
Labrat228
You dont get the last argument.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
fo-shizzle0855annaweeTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07