The Instigator
Scribs
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
PoeJoe
Pro (for)
Winning
42 Points

abortion

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 7 votes the winner is...
PoeJoe
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/9/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,929 times Debate No: 6182
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (7)

 

Scribs

Con

Abortion is taking the life of an innocent , why is it right that we choose to call killing someone on the street a crime, but killing a child that hasn't been born is acceptable.
PoeJoe

Pro

Much thanks to my opponent for creating such a delightful debate. I look forward to it.

---- Argument ----

My opponent's argument begins with an over-generalization. He maintains that because killing is "wrong", therefore abortion is also wrong: "Abortion is taking the life of an innocent". However, this assumption is wrong -- killing in it of itself is perfectly okay. From hunting, to fishing, to the zooplankton in our toothpastes, killing occurs all the time. What I believe my opponent was trying to say though, was that the forced termination of human life is "wrong".

That it true, and I will not attempt to argue that point. However, a fetus is NOT a human being. Wiktionary, for instance, defines a human being as, "A human being, whether man, woman, or child; Of or belonging to the species Homo sapiens or its closest relatives." There is no mention of fetuses anywhere in that definition. And in fact, if you can find a mainstream, unbiased source (from a dictionary, online dictionary, or otherwise) that defines humans to include fetuses, I will forfeit the sources vote.

Furthermore, your conception of the word "killing" is also flawed. If we can assume that preventing life to become life is in fact killing, then every moment you are not engaging in the act of reproduction, you are killing potential life. In other words, if at any time in your life you were not procreating, you just destroyed potential life. This notion, however, is quite ridiculous; the notion of disallowing abortion is similarly absurd. The idea of "potential life" is neither equatable, nor comparable with actual life.

But even if a fetus were a human being, its "rights" still would not trump the rights of the mother. Who are we to expect pregnant women to voluntarily donate their body and life support systems to something else? Who are we to force a mother to devote eighteen years to taking care of a child? That is both unreasonable, and, arguably, sexist. Therefore, my opponent's argument that abortions deprive the rights of future humans should be ignored.

Besides, even if abortions were made illegal, women would still seek them, and this would be extremely dangerous. According to Planned Parenthood, "In 1972 there were 1,000,000 illegal abortions and 5,000 to 10,000 women died from them." When Roe v. Wade passed in 1973 (a year after the above-mentioned statistic), deaths from abortion drastically dropped. This is supported by the National Center for Health Statistics' own statistics.

But above all, the fundamental reason Sribs expresses his opinion this way in his opening argument, is because he wants to inflict her morals upon the different people around her. The government has extremely little right to control the morals of its people, and above all, that is why you must allow abortions. And that is why I strongly urge the audience to vote PRO.

---- Cross Examination ----

I request that my opponent answer the following questions.

1) Do you support any one of the following: The death penalty, the War in Iraq, the War in Afghanistan, or gun rights? Or possibly: Are you against human embryonic research?

2) Do you support the statement: Life begins at conception? Or do you support other definitions, such as "when the hearts starts beating"?

3) What do you believe should be done in the instances of (1) rape, (2) incest, (3) a severe genetic deformity, and (4) when the fetus poses a health threat toward the mother?
Debate Round No. 1
Scribs

Con

Thank you, first of all to answer your questions. I am against the war in Iraq, the death penalty and the other ones. Two I believe in the conception of life. If you think about it, you were a fetus and you would not be here if your mother had an abortion. But not only you, also if other people had abortions we might not even have the abortion or Microsoft and other technologies. because of the years we haven't had abortion we have maybe had technologies that we wouldn't have. Then you think about it this fetus we are talking about, will become a child, maybe even the greatest president or reformer. Maybe he is the one who will stop war, create peace across the world. Third I do not feel that abortion should be COMPLETELY wiped out, I just feel that it should have more restrictions. I don't feel that someone should walk into a clinic and get an abortion. They need to have a special circumstance on what they are doing. In the form of a disability, for if it will kill the mother, for these yes and for just regular old reasons such as you weren't responsible, no that is just using an excuse to get out of what you did wrong.

Thank you and here is my question.

If you knew that a certain fetus that was about to be aborted would change the world when it grew up into a developed adult but the birth would kill the mother, what would you do and if you would continue the abortion, how would you let this go on?
PoeJoe

Pro

---- Debate ----

Let the audience note: My opponent has only addressed the cross examination section of my rebuttal. By not responding to any of my arguments and counterarguments, he concedes all his arguments and accepts all my arguments; thereby conceding this entire debate. For the sake of an interesting debate, I urge my opponent to address the arguments I made in my opening statement for his closing argument, even if it breaks traditional debate rules. That said...

---- Cross Examination Redux ----

1) My opponent writes that he believes life begins at conception. That means he believes a human becomes a human when the sperm enters the egg -- two cells. However, this is clearly not the case. If he believes it would be murder to even terminate two cells, then what does he believe about killing the millions of cells in an ant or fly. Had my opponent stated something like the introduction of the nervous system or a beating heart, I could understand more. Two cells do not define a human.

2) My opponent commits the Beethoven fallacy. My opponent writes, "If other people had abortions we might not even have the abortion or Microsoft and other technologies." Well, not to evoke Godwin's law or anything, but if Hitler's mother had just had an abortion, the mass devastation he caused would have not happened. Had Karl Marx been aborted... Had Stalin been aborted... Point being: A human's essence is not premeditatedly determined by some destiny, but is determined by his genes and environment. And furthermore, potential life IS NOT life. Fighting rape potentially destroys potential life. Refusing sex potentially destroys potential life. Not being promiscuous almost certainly destroys potential life...

---- RE: Question ----

My opponent writes, "If you knew that a certain fetus that was about to be aborted would change the world when it grew up into a developed adult but the birth would kill the mother, what would you do and if you would continue the abortion, how would you let this go on?" My response: A human's essence is not premeditatedly determined by some destiny, but is determined by his genes and environment. My opponent's (rather pointed) question begins with an invalid premise; therefore, any attempt to answer it will also be invalid.

---- Conclusion ----

1) I have put forth many arguments my opponent has not responded to.
2) I countered all my opponent's arguments in my opening statement. My opponent has not responded.
3) I have successfully countered all my opponent's new arguments.

I believe the winner of this debate is beyond clear.
Debate Round No. 2
Scribs

Con

Scribs forfeited this round.
PoeJoe

Pro

The irony is: I'll probably lose this debate due to vote bombing. 'Tis a real shame.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by PoeJoe 7 years ago
PoeJoe
Yea I know... I am surprised.
Posted by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
Is josh dead?
Posted by knick-knack 7 years ago
knick-knack
All points to PoeJoe
Posted by Scribs 7 years ago
Scribs
sorry for the forfiet i got stuck at school at debate when i was supposed to have a practice round for saturday but it got canceled and i was stuck till 5
Posted by PoeJoe 7 years ago
PoeJoe
Conduct - PRO - CON forfeited a round.
English - PRO - CON used many sentence fragments.
Argument - PRO - PRO refuted all arguments and presented many unchallenged arguments.
Sources - PRO - PRO provided many sources; CON provided none.
Posted by PoeJoe 7 years ago
PoeJoe
The instigators' opening arguments were identical. I didn't feel the need to completely redo it... and there's nothing wrong with plagiarizing yourself anyway.
Posted by masterzanzibar 7 years ago
masterzanzibar
I read A Contenting response to abortion almost identical to yours on this site once Poe Joe, did you copy it?
Posted by Scribs 7 years ago
Scribs
thank you for letting them know that and you really know this topic so thank you for a good debate

good luck
Posted by PoeJoe 7 years ago
PoeJoe
I request that readers please refrain from giving either side evidence/arguments. Please wait until after the debate has concluded.

Thank you.
Posted by questionmark 7 years ago
questionmark
dude, i totally agree with you.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Scribs 7 years ago
Scribs
ScribsPoeJoeTied
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 Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
ScribsPoeJoeTied
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 
Vote Placed by Labrat228 7 years ago
Labrat228
ScribsPoeJoeTied
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 JBlake 7 years ago
JBlake
ScribsPoeJoeTied
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 
Vote Placed by knick-knack 7 years ago
knick-knack
ScribsPoeJoeTied
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 s0m31john 7 years ago
s0m31john
ScribsPoeJoeTied
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 PoeJoe 7 years ago
PoeJoe
ScribsPoeJoeTied
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