The Instigator
elizabeth2468
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
JohnMaynardKeynes
Con (against)
Winning
17 Points

it it wrong to have an 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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
JohnMaynardKeynes
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/19/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 570 times Debate No: 56843
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (4)

 

elizabeth2468

Pro

morally it's wrong because as soon as a sperm and egg meet it's a baby soon why kill it when you've just given it life. Even if it's by accidence you should have abortion because you're validating one of the human rights;the right the be born free.

if the mother doesn't want the child she can always give it up for adoption or give it to someone who can care for the baby but the mother can have easy access to see the baby.
JohnMaynardKeynes

Con

I accept this debate and will be arguing Con for the following resolution:

It is wrong to have an abortion


Definitions

Abortion -- the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus (1)

Wrong -- "something wrong, immoral, or unethical; especially : principles, practices, or conduct contrary to justice, goodness, equity, or law" (2)


Obviously Pro, in affirming this resolution and instigating this debate, will possess the sole burden of proof to demonstrate to us that abortion is categorically wrong.


I will now rebut her arguments, and then provide several of my own.

Pro states, "morally it's wrong because as soon as a sperm and egg meet it's a baby soon why kill it when you've just given it life."

First, Pro makes an appeal to objective morality, which she must be able to bear out. If morality is subjective -- differing between individuals, societies, cultures, etc. -- this claim and this resolution fall apart. She must be able to prove that morality transcends human beings and that abortion is ipso facto wrong.

Next, she says that sperm + egg = baby, and therefore it is morally wrong to "kill."

It is indeed true that cell division begins at conception, but how do we equate this with personhood? For instance, when does personhood begin, when does pregnancy begin, and when does what began as a zygote gain legal rights? Is it before or after successful implantation, before which many zygotes miscarry? If miscarriage itself murder? My opponent could make the case that this occurs at conception, though legal rights are not conferred until viability, per Roe v. Wade. However, she needs to back up this claim and demonstrate to us why this must be the case, bearing in mind that appeals to religion and ensolument cannot establish a universal framework since, of course, not everyone follows her brand of religion or even any religion.

Po states, "morally it's wrong because as soon as a sperm and egg meet it's a baby soon why kill it when you've just given it life."

Pro suggests that not having an abortion affirms the "right to be born free." However, this doesn't impact that right at all; if a fetus is aborted, the fetus is by definition not born. If the right to be born free were extended to pre-born beings, then there would be a moral obligation to "be fruitful and multiply." If that were the case, then debating on Debate.Org instead of getting busy multiplying would be a violation of moral conduct. Would Pro like to argue this case?

Pro states, "if the mother doesn't want the child she can always give it up for adoption or give it to someone who can care for the baby but the mother can have easy access to see the baby."

Pro ignores the gruesome process of 9 months of pregnancy along with the physical and financial burden not only of carrying the fetus to term, but with giving up it either for adoption or to "someone who can care for it," the latter of which is nothing more than a hypothetical fantasy. Not to mention, adoption centers are near full to capacity. Why would Pro want to make this problem worse?


C1) Bodily Autonomy

This is the most common argument in favor of abortion rights. The argument essentially boils down to this: her body, her choice as to what she does with it. This certainly wouldn't extend to the entirety of the pregnancy -- that is, most people would agree that there is a good argument for restricting late-term abortions. However, I don't need to defend late-term abortions; rather, my opponent needs to prove to us why abortion is categorically wrong in all cases, and why the rights of the fetus supplant the rights of the moher.

C2) Extreme Cases

For my opponent to prove to us that abortion is categorically wrong, she must prove that it its therefore wrong in every case without exception. But how about cases of rape or incest? Are you going to force a woman or girl who has just been traumatized to carry the baby to term? How about in the case of a teenager who was sexually assaulted? What if the mother's life or health is at risk? What if she may die if she carries the fetus to term? What if the fetus has a severe abnormality and will not survive the course of the pregnancy?

These represent several moral gray areas, which is why abortion should be best be left to the people most intimately involved, instead of enforced by the government.

C3) Morality is Subjective

My opponent's assertion, essentially, is that abortion is categorcially wrong. However, can she prove objective morality? Can she prove that morality transcends the human condition and isn't subjective to opinion and disagreement? To uphold her own BOP, she must demonstrate that objective morality exists and that abortion is objectively wrong in all cases.


(1) http://www.merriam-webster.com...;

Debate Round No. 1
elizabeth2468

Pro

elizabeth2468 forfeited this round.
JohnMaynardKeynes

Con

Extending.
Debate Round No. 2
elizabeth2468

Pro

first of all are you studying this at a degree or something.
so now it's my turn.
I did state morally not scientifically like you were. If I was stating the question in scientific form I main question would be when do you define a baby someone say it's as some as a sperm and egg meet others say a certain amount of weeks.
you comment when I on the point of being born free.to be born free doesn't mean that the woman is aloud abortion since the born isn't born yet. I fact it means that no harm should be inflicted on them on purpose. The baby should be free of death in the womb and out outside the womb.

adoption centre maybe full in some parts of the USA but they are barley full in the UK meaning the child can have a peaceful, health and most important happy life with either a new family or the care workers till the age of eighteen when they'll be able to live on their own.it is illegal to kill anyone disable or not so then why is it ok to kill a disable baby isn't decimation against disable person saying their live is worthless if they're unable to speak or they're missing few limbs.

in all types of situation it's wrong to kill a baby even if they were an accident
would you kill your know child if he/she is an accident?????
if you wouldn't
vote for me

I think as soon as the sperm and egg meet it's a new live.
let me give you a scenario about abortion;
JohnMaynardKeynes

Con

Resolution: It is wrong to have an abortion


This is the resolution, and PRO had the entirety of the BOP to prove to us that abortion is, in all cases, categorically wrong. She has failed to do that; therefore, this debate is already over. Nevertheless, I will respond to her contentions.


Pro states, "I did state morally not scientifically like you were."

I was speaking in terms of morality, but the scientific question is relevant, as well, because PRO used it as the justification for her position: she said in Round 1, "morally it's wrong because as soon as sperm and egg meet it's a baby." I merely pointed out not only that she hadn't backed up this point, hadn't proven objective morality, and hadn't established personhood and distinguished it from life. She hasn't addressed these points.

Pro states, "If I was stating the question in scientific form I main question would be when do you define a baby someone say it's as some as a sperm and egg meet others say a certain amount of weeks."

Again, PRO used an appeal to science in an attempt to justify her position, but is not admitting that other people may disagree with her as to when a fetus or a zygote is a "baby." This is a concession on my point that morality is subjective. If morality is subjective, then PRO's attempt to state that abortion is categorically wrong falls flat.

Pro states, "you comment when I on the point of being born free.to be born free doesn't mean that the woman is aloud abortion since the born isn't born yet. I fact it means that no harm should be inflicted on them on purpose. The baby should be free of death in the womb and out outside the womb."

Note that PRO argued in Round 1 that you have a right to be BORN free, but a child in the womb hasn't yet been born. If she is applying this to yet-to-be-born lifeforms, why doesn't it apply to yet-to-be-conceived lifeforms? She dropped the point I made about "being fruitful and multiplying."

Next, she points to a "baby" inside the womb, but admits herself that when we define the fetus as a baby is subjective, so this point once again falls flat.

Then, she says that "no harm should be inflicted on them on purpose." This, of course, is an appeal to objective morality, when she has already conceded that it doesn't exist, and even this point falls flat because committing an act on purpose is not, necessarily, out of sptie. If a mother is going to die if she carries a baby to term, and gets an abortion because of it, she is merely protecting her own life. How can PRO assert that this is a categorical wrong, when no matter how you frame the discussion, a life -- in fact, if the mother didn't get the abortion, it's quite possible that TWO lives could be lost, so in fact the utlitarian case is on my side -- will be lost?


Pro states, "adoption centre maybe full in some parts of the USA but they are barley full in the UK meaning the child can have a peaceful, health and most important happy life with either a new family or the care workers till the age of eighteen when they'll be able to live on their own"

First, she concedes that adoption centers are full in the U.S. and doesn't contest that this is a viable point AGAINST her argument. Then she asserts that adoption centers are "barely full" in the U.K. She has the BOP. Where is her evidence for this claim? Without any evidence, the point has to be discarded, as can the rest of her piece because she fails to account for (1) how this would be possible (2) that it would be morally justified for people involved to have to go though the trouble of carrying a child to term whom they don't want (3) how it could be justified for the child involved and (4) that adoption centers themselves may be a cruel existence.

She again refers to a "child." But she conceded earlier that the fetus in the womb may not be a baby by everyone's standards, so her language is nothing more than deceptive.

Pro states, "[I]t is illegal to kill anyone disable or not so then why is it ok to kill a disable baby isn't decimation against disable person saying their live is worthless if they're unable to speak or they're missing few limbs."

Pro is AGAIN obfuscating because she conceded earlier that people may differ in terms of when they define a fetus as a "baby." So equating a fetus in the womb to maliciouslly killing a sentinent, breathing, disabled person is nothing more than a false equivalency.

Pro states, "in all types of situation it's wrong to kill a baby even if they were an accident"

Pro DROPS my points on extreme cases -- rape, incest, endangerment to the mother's life, etc. She hasn't proved this point in the slightest and has already conceded on objective morality.

Pro asks, "would you kill your know child if he/she is an accident?????"

This point is once again deceptive as Pro has concede that a fetus is not by everyone's standards a baby.

Pro says, "if you wouldn't [then] vote for me."

This point is unbelievably fallacious, because no only was her earlier point wildly deceptive, but people do not vote with respect to their opinions on a topic being debated, but only on their judgment of the debate itself. I think it is quite offensive that Pro would ask our audience to do this. Again, she had the BOP and hasn't met it, so it's obvious for whom you should vote.

Pro says, "I think as soon as the sperm and egg meet it's a new live."

Pro states this as her opinion. Please note the points I have made over and over about the distinction between life and personhood, about when you define a life as a baby, the points about objective versus subjective morality, et cetera.

Pro says, "let me give you a scenario about abortion;"

She didn't give us a scenario, so there is nothing to rebut.


With my remaining character space, I am going to rebuild my contentions:



(1) Pro never denied that she had the burden of proof.

(2) Pro conceded on objective versus subjective morality, though kept asserting her point -- only asserting, without providing any evidence or justification for it.

(3) Pro didn't address the point I made about a concession on subjective morality meaning that her burden was impossible to fulfill.

(4) Pro drops the distinction between life and personhood.

(5) Pros drops the point on implanation and miscarriage.

(6) Pro drops my point about yet-to-be-born lives -- notice that I didn't say "babies."

(7) Pro drops my point about the physical and financial burden to the mother and the family of carrying a child to term.

(8) Pro did not provide adequate justification for her point on adoption clinics, and why even the mere existence of them would justify imposing this burden on a mother and a family.

(9) Pro drops my bodily autonomy argument.

(10) Pro completely drops my "extreme cases" argument. She needed to adequately address this in order to prove that abortion is categorically wrong.

(11) Pro dropped my "gray areas" point, and how the fact that there exist gray areas is an argument for abortion being left to the people most intimately involved, instead of legislated by the government.

(12) Pro effectively conceded on my points about subjective morality.



There isn't anything left to rebut. Pro hasn't fulfilled her burden of proof and has dropped far too many points. She needed to prove to us that abortion is categorically wrong, and has failed to do so.


Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Domr 2 years ago
Domr
Very true Dilara. If a women had made the choice to become (or not prevent) pregnancy she should have to live with consequences. If people were afraid of becoming pregnant they wouldn't have sex at all. Yes, this means if a condom breaks, or birth control fails, this still means the pregnancy is warranted and the baby should be given life. ABORTION IS NOT A MEANS OF BIRTH CONTROL.

However, stating "Women who get abortions are evil or the have just made a really bad choice" ... What if it was not their choice. As stated in the debate, what if the women is sexually assaulted? Why is she responsible when her freedoms were taken from her, and she never wanted to get pregnant in the first place?
Posted by Dilara 2 years ago
Dilara
Women who get abortions are evil or the have just made a really bad choice. A humans life is not some girls choice that you can just destroy because your not ready or you want to focus on school. Give me a break. Of you were focusing in school you wouldn't be having unprotected sex. And if you did have protected sex but you still get pregnant that's just too bad. No innocent person should die because of some psychopathic women's choice.
Posted by schachdame 2 years ago
schachdame
You have a fundamentally wrong understanding of the part "born free". The Declaration of Human Rights states that everyone IS born free. That implies that for holding any right of the Declaration you first have to be born.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by texans14 2 years ago
texans14
elizabeth2468JohnMaynardKeynesTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture. Con had the best arguments and he provided good sources. Pro provided no sources, forfeited and had horrible capitalization and grammar.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
elizabeth2468JohnMaynardKeynesTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by ArcTImes 2 years ago
ArcTImes
elizabeth2468JohnMaynardKeynesTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Points of conduct to Con because Pro FF one round. S&G to Con because Pro made a lot of mistakes. Con had better arguments and Pro was not able to meet the burden of proof. Sources were used only for definitions, so it's a tie.
Vote Placed by ESocialBookworm 2 years ago
ESocialBookworm
elizabeth2468JohnMaynardKeynesTied
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:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF