I accept your challenge to this touchy subject. I believe that it is the individuals choice whether that person wants an abortion or not. In my opinion it is not murder nor "evil" to do. I will await your opening argument and am excited for this debate.
Ok this will be my opening argument but let me first touch briefly on what Con said.
Is it an individuals choice to murder? Yes and that is illegal but thats not what an abortion is. Lets take the numerous definitions for example.
noun: murder; plural noun: murders
1.the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another
kill (someone) unlawfully and with premeditation.
Hopefully you agree with these definitions. Now how is abortion not murder? Lets see if it matches these in order to be murder-
"Number one: to be "murder" an action must involve "killing." Something that was alive before the act must be dead as a result of the act. Meeting this criterion alone is insufficient reason to label something a "murder," however, because we often kill things in situations where no one would ever think of uttering the term "murder." We kill germs with disinfectants, and weeds with defoliants. We kill insects and rodents and cows and pigs and never get charged with murder. We even kill each other in accidents, in war, in self-defense and no one screams out the dreaded "m"-word. "Killing" is not the problem: we do it all the time.
Number two: to be "murder" an action must involve the killing of "life." I mention this obvious fact in order to get the word "life" into the discussion. Notice, I did not say, "a life." I did not because the term "a life" has been misused by many people who have turned it into a stealth term: a euphemism they have secretly substituted for a different, much more important term, a term which represents the last, the most difficult to meet, and yet, the most crucial of all these six criteria.
Number three: to be "murder" an action must involve the killing of "human" life. When you kill bacteria by gargling Listerine, you have not committed murder. When butchers slaughter pigs for hot dogs and cows for steaks, they have not committed murder. If the life you kill is porcine, bovine, feline, canine, or anything other than "human," then your action cannot ethically be described as "murder."
Number four: to be "murder" an action must involve the "intentional" killing of human life. Imagine two scenarios. In each one you hurriedly back your car out of your driveway. In one scenario, you fail to notice that your elderly neighbor has just walked behind your car. In the second scenario you notice that someone you despise has just walked behind your car. In both scenarios you back your car over the victim and kill him. In the first case you did so by accident, and in the second case you did so intentionally. No one would doubt that the second killing was a "murder"; but, whatever else they might call it-an accident, a tragedy, a misfortune-no one would label the first scenario a "murder" precisely because it was not done intentionally.
Number five: to be "murder" an action must involve the intentional killing of "innocent" human life. As history shows, intentionally killing human life is not an ethical problem. We do it all the time, and usually congratulate ourselves on a deed well done. We do it in wartime. We do it in capital punishment, and we do it in self-defense. English versions of the Old Testament may say, "Thou shalt not 'kill,'" but the meaning really is: thou shalt not "murder," because killings-in war, in capital punishment, and in self-defense-were long ago recognized as ethically justifiable forms of killing. The term "murder" was used to refer to forms of killing which were considered ethically unjustifiable. What is it about war, capital punishment, and self-defense which justifies killing? It is the fact that none of the deceased individuals was "innocent": all had become a "clear and present danger" to the lives and welfare of others, and as such, each had relinquished whatever "right to life" he or she had previously possessed.
Number six: to be "murder" an action must involve the intentional killing of innocent human life which is a "person." This is the sine qua non, the absolute key, essential element of the whole definition. If the innocent human life which is intentionally killed does not constitute a person, than no "murder" has been committed.""Does it pass the criteria?...No.
As for criteria #1 and #2: does abortion involve the killing of life? The answer is, yes, in 99% of all abortions, the living content of the womb is killed. However, in some extremely rare, late-term abortions, a viable fetus emerges; and in all such cases, by law, it is not killed nor allowed to die, but emergency measures are taken to preserve its life.
As for criterion #3: is the life killed by abortions "human" life? Again, the answer is, yes, because it is genetically human and belongs to no other species. However: this is not the same as saying that "a human life" has been killed, for the term "a life" refers to "personhood," which is a different matter.
As for criterion #4: is the killing of human life in an abortion done "intentionally"? Abortion is done intentionally to terminate a pregnancy. That poses no ethical problems unless criterion #6 is met, and the fetus turns out to be a "person."
A further implication is raised by abortion opponents. They claim that the intention to terminate a pregnancy also involves a determined effort to kill a person. If that were true, that would deserve our ethical condemnation. Granted that no one can ever really know the intentions which motivate other individuals' actions, I would nevertheless argue that the burden of proving such a dastardly charge falls on those who would so impugn the medical profession, especially in light of the cases in which physicians and nurses have fought hard to preserve the lives of viable post-abortion fetuses.
As for criterion #5: is the human life killed in abortions "innocent"? In most cases, the answer is, yes. However, when a pregnancy endangers the life or emotional welfare of the woman, the fetus can no longer be considered "innocent." It is irrelevant whether the fetus has "intentionally" endangered the woman. Viruses, bacteria, rabid dogs, drunk drivers, sportsmen out hunting-none of these really "intends" to harm or kill anyone, and yet all of us have the right to try and protect ourselves from them. Even if the fetus turns out to be a person, the pregnant woman is a person, too, and as such she retains the inherent right of self-defense against whatever or whoever attacks her. (Remember: killing in self-defense, even if the non-innocent human life killed is a person, is not murder, ethically!)
Finally, as for criterion #6: is the human life killed in an abortion a "person"? This is the "ontological question." It asks: "What kind of being is a fetus?" The answer given will determine the ethical status of a fetus, and that will determine how it ought to be treated."
"In the case of a fetus, there simply is no brain present during the first few weeks of pregnancy, and consequently no personhood."
All my work cited above is in this following link-
So readressing your last statment-
"is it an individuals choice to murder, because that's what abortion is"
If the abortion is done in an early stage it is not murder.
I await your rebuttal.
No civilized society permits one human to intentionally harm or take the life of another human without punishment, and abortion is no different.
Adoption is a viable alternative to abortion and accomplishes the same result. And with 1.5 million American families wanting to adopt a child, there is no such thing as an unwanted child.
An abortion can result in medical complications later in life; the risk of ectopic pregnancies doubles, and the chance of a miscarriage and pelvic inflammatory disease also increases.
In the instance of rape and incest, proper medical care can ensure that a woman will not get pregnant. Abortion punishes the unborn child who committed no crime; instead, it is the perpetrator who should be punished.
Abortion should not be used as another form of contraception.
For women who demand complete control of their body, control should include preventing the risk of unwanted pregnancy through the responsible use of contraception or, if that is not possible, through abstinence.
Many Americans who pay taxes are opposed to abortion, therefore it's morally wrong to use tax dollars to fund abortion.
Those who choose abortions are often minors or young women with insufficient life experience to understand fully what they are doing. Many have lifelong regrets afterwards.
Abortion frequently causes intense psychological pain and stress.
You made some good points that a fetus is not truly a person I would disagree though. Although it is not fully grown it is a spark of life a life in the making. To destroy the fetuses opportunity to live is murder. As you were saying about how we kill animals all the time the only reason we do this is because that is the natural order. Humans are on the top of the food chain. We kill animals below us for food ( in less it is in the case of hunting for game which I am against), we eat animals to survive. But to kill one of our own species is not the natural order. Killing a fetus which is a life of our own species is morally wrong.
information found on about.com
This is definatley geting interseting however you didnt have a direct link to your information your rebuttal but I managed to find it and would like to counter argue using the same source to even the playing field.
1."Nearly all abortions take place in the first trimester, when a fetus cannot exist independent of the mother. As it is attached by the placenta and umbilical cord, its health is dependent on her health, and cannot be regarded as a separate entity as it cannot exist outside her womb.
2.The concept of personhood is different from the concept of human life. Human life occurs at conception, but fertilized eggs used for in vitro fertilization are also human lives and those not implanted are routinely thrown away. Is this murder, and if not, then how is abortion murder?
3.Adoption is not an alternative to abortion, because it remains the woman's choice whether or not to give her child up for adoption. Statistics show that very few women who give birth choose to give up their babies - less than 3% of white unmarried women and less than 2% of black unmarried women.
4.Abortion is a safe medical procedure. The vast majority of women - 88% - who have an abortion do so in their first trimester. Medical abortions have less than 0.5% risk of serious complications and do not affect a woman's health or future ability to become pregnant or give birth.
5.In the case of rape or incest, forcing a woman made pregnant by this violent act would cause further psychological harm to the victim. Often a woman is too afraid to speak up or is unaware she is pregnant, thus the morning after pill is ineffective in these situations.
6.Abortion is not used as a form of contraception. Pregnancy can occur even with responsible contraceptive use. Only 8% of women who have abortions do not use any form of birth control, and that is due more to individual carelessness than to the availability of abortion.
7.The ability of a woman to have control of her body is critical to civil rights. Take away her reproductive choice and you step onto a slippery slope. If the government can force a woman to continue a pregnancy, what about forcing a woman to use contraception or undergo sterilization?
8.Taxpayer dollars are used to enable poor women to access the same medical services as rich women, and abortion is one of these services. Funding abortion is no different from funding a war in the Mideast. For those who are opposed, the place to express outrage is in the voting booth.
9.Teenagers who become mothers have grim prospects for the future. They are much more likely to leave of school; receive inadequate prenatal care; rely on public assistance to raise a child; develop health problems; or end up divorced.
10.Like any other difficult situation, abortion creates stress. Yet the American Psychological Association found that stress was greatest prior to an abortion, and that there was no evidence of post-abortion syndrome."
Sources: The Minnesota Family Council Alcorn, Randy. Pro-Life: Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments. Multnomah Books 1994. Messerli, Joe. "Should Abortion Be Banned (Except in Special Circumstances Like Saving the Mother's Life)?" Balanced Politics 17 March 2007. "Legal Abortion: Arguments Pro & Con." Westchester Coalition for Legal Abortion "Placing children." Adoption.com National Abortion Federation
The work cited above is at
With those out of the way I will state that my source on the same page outweighs the evidence and argument submitted by you.
I await your next argument.
"I agree with you on one thing. I think that abortion should be available only when it is a case of rape or incest or if the mother's life is threatened, and only then. But thye destruction of anothers life is immoral and wrong"
Morality and "wrong" is very vauge. Can you extend your argument?
inde forfeited this round.
WyattEarp19 forfeited this round.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||5|