The Instigator
questionmark
Con (against)
Losing
14 Points
The Contender
Yraelz
Pro (for)
Winning
16 Points

abortion

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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: 12/20/2008 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 797 times Debate No: 6292
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (5)

 

questionmark

Con

First off, no semantics. It takes away from the debate, and if you have to go with semantics, you shouldn't be debating. So my argument is as follows.
Abortion should not be allowed, because it is basically murder, even if it is still not "alive" yet, it would be alive in a few months, which basically makes it murder before it's even alive.
Good luck to my opponent.
Yraelz

Pro

Evening.

My opponents argument is as such, "even if it is still not "alive" yet, it would be alive in a few months".

Thus my opponents argument hinges on potential life. In a few months they would be born. The question then goes farther. Should someone not wear a condom for the same reason? If someone did not wear a condom during intercourse then a baby would potentially be born in a few months.

Of course we could go even farther than that. Wouldn't it be a bad idea for anybody who could possibly create a baby not to be having sexual intercourse? I mean, if everyone who could create a baby was having intercourse then we'd have a ton of babies in just about nine months. Under my opponents logic everyone should be having sexual intercourse as often as possible that way in a few months a baby would be born. Not having constant sexual intercourse is almost like murdering billions of babies before they are born.

I doubt this logic. I would seriously doubt that potential life ever holds up. A life will thus never considered as such until at the very least after birth. Conception counts as nothing. Potential life holds no weight.
Debate Round No. 1
questionmark

Con

Thank you for accpeting this debate.
I wasn't referring to the possibility, which you pointed out is incredibly vague, but the fact that it is there. it isn't stopping life by not creating it. But if it is created, it should be kept. You chose to create life (cases such as rape, molestation, etc. are discluded) and you should keep it. If you had sex, you chose to create a life, and you should not destroy it. I have no problem with using protection, then the baby is never born, therefore it is also never killed. My problem is that people will constantly say abortion isn't murder, but what is it then? It is the act of destroying an unborn fetus, which is a human and should be given the rights of one. What if the girl who had irresponsible sex had an abortion and killed the next Einstein? I'm not saying we need more people beingborn, just that they shouldn't be killed unless it will
1. Kill the mother
2. Be born from rape or a similar action, or
3.be born in a state of essential non-living, or a vegetated state.
Thank you for the debate again, I
Yraelz

Pro

I thank my opponent for his well thought out argument, but I'm going to have to respectfully disagree.

For starters my opponent says that his argument does not hinge on potential life but I honestly don't think that that is necessarily the case. For instance my opponent says that the act of destroying a fetus is immoral but apparently wearing a condom is completely fine. Furthermore my opponent goes on to say, "What if the girl who had irresponsible sex had an abortion and killed the next Einstein?" I'm not sure what this statement would mean if we're not talking about potential life.

But taking a step back for a moment I'm still failing to see the difference between wearing a condom and aborting a fetus. In fact hinging from my opponents argument on the potential Einstein I'd say wearing a condom would be worse considering one would be destroying the potential for multiple Einsteins. Going on though, a fetus shortly after conception consists of a sperm and an egg. Both of which die on a regular basis constantly. I fail to see how the two combined dying ever holds a moral significance over the two alone.

Finally on this subject, I'd like to point out that even a fetus of 8 months doesn't have a guarantee of being born. A fetus is still a potential being no matter how far along. On top of that I don't think it counts as life anymore than a sperm does especially considering that a fetus has no free will and cannot sustain itself. Two traits that I think we find really prevalent and characteristic of human beings.

Thus I arrive at a new topic. This would be the last four lines of my opponents speech where he or possibly she outlines that not all abortion is wrong. Aside from the fact that I think changing an argument second round could potentially be mildly abusive to myself I'd like to take a look at the third point:

"3.be born in a state of essential non-living, or a vegetated state."

I think we see a rather dire contradiction with this point..... Apparently it is alright to kill a potential being if that being is going to be in vegetated state upon birth. However a fetus is in a vegetated state, in a state where it doesn't really ever do anything. Thus I think under my opponents moral framework it would also be rather permissible to end the life of a fetus, considering that it exists in a vegetated state.

I have about two more arguments but not desire to go over 2,500 char so I'm going to let my opponent answer these first.
Debate Round No. 2
questionmark

Con

questionmark forfeited this round.
Yraelz

Pro

Considering my opponent was unable to make the third round we will consider this round to not count one way or another toward the winner of this debate.
Debate Round No. 3
questionmark

Con

I apologize for not posting in the last round and thank my opponent for not taking advantage of that.
I am not referring to potential life, I am referring to the current life in the womb. It is all but guaranteed that the baby will be born. Not having sex or using a condom means that no baby/fetus is even created, so none is being killed. I don't care if you don't want a baby, but killing it in the womb is no different than waiting nine months and killing it then. If you aren't born yet, why should you be killed? You haven't done anything wrong yet. You mentioned they can't sustain themselves. Neither can anyone at a young/old age! can a ninety-six year old provide for himself? Normally, the answer is no. Can four-years old sustain themselves? No! If it is in the womb, you're right it can't sustain itself, but that doesn't mean it isn't human. Also, say Dr. Jones is told they have to do an abortion. Dr. Jones is LDS (Mormon). We believe that abortion is a sin. Well how is this fair to Dr. Jones? what if he/she doesn't want to sin? It doesn't matter, they are required to by law. You have to think about the doctors as well. When I said being born in a vegetated state, I meant being born unable to basically do anything but breathe and crap. A fetus is only supposed to be vegetated, that's normal. But when they are born and can still not do anything, then it is basically the same as being stillborn.
Thank you for this argument.
Yraelz

Pro

Thanks opponent, onto the debate.

I'm still going to have to deny that my opponent is not talking about potential life. He says that a fetus is all but guaranteed to become a baby but I don't really believe that to be the case. A fetus has every chance of being still born, of being naturally aborted halfway through. My opponent goes on to say that very young or very old people cannot survive themselves either that doesn't mean we should kill them. I disagree with this logic, very young and very old people have a chance to survive for themselves. They have the ability to live and will at the very least for a time. A fetus on the other hand cannot survive outside of the mother for at the very least the first 2 trimesters. Thus I still do not feel a fetus is ever true life.

Going on.... my opponent ignores this entire paragraph from my last round,

"But taking a step back for a moment I'm still failing to see the difference between wearing a condom and aborting a fetus. In fact hinging from my opponents argument on the potential Einstein I'd say wearing a condom would be worse considering one would be destroying the potential for multiple Einsteins. Going on though, a fetus shortly after conception consists of a sperm and an egg. Both of which die on a regular basis constantly. I fail to see how the two combined dying ever holds a moral significance over the two alone."

Thus at the very least we're going to allow a fetus to be aborted for parts of the first trimester.

Next we get to this doctor point. I never said it should be mandatory for abortions to occur. All I'm saying is that they should be legal. Government should have no involvement in the personal decisions of a mother. For instance, currently it is legal for a doctor to give you certain drugs if you are in a lot of pain. However this does not mean that doctor MUST give you the drugs. In much the same way if abortion is legal that does not mean that Dr. Jones MUST give you an abortion.

Finally back on vegetated states, my opponent is once again proving that he is talking about vegetated states. He says a person in a vegetated state is not living, "it is basically the same as being stilllborn". Thus my opponent is saying that a fetus, in it's current state is not living. If a fetus remains in that state after birth is should be considered non-living. Thus it is only at the point where the fetus is no longer a fetus that we consider it to be alive. POTENTIAL LIFE. Apply all potential life arguments, adios.
Debate Round No. 4
questionmark

Con

Thank you for this debate, it certainly opened my eyes at least a little bit. I used to thin my reasons against abortion were rock-solid, but you proved me wrong. However, I am religious, so you didn't convince me, but your arguments certainly bested mine.
Yraelz

Pro

Yraelz forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by anikiforouk 7 years ago
anikiforouk
PRO wins, better expalnation
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Grim_Reaper 7 years ago
Grim_Reaper
questionmarkYraelzTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by questionmark 7 years ago
questionmark
questionmarkYraelzTied
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 PieofLife 7 years ago
PieofLife
questionmarkYraelzTied
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 
Vote Placed by s0m31john 7 years ago
s0m31john
questionmarkYraelzTied
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 Yraelz 7 years ago
Yraelz
questionmarkYraelzTied
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