Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Negating in abortion debates

EvanescentEfflorescence
Posts: 303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 5:46:42 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
I am wondering what kinds of arguments people use to negate abortion resolutions. I know that this isn't overly specific, but if you were to come across a resolution which supported abortion, how would you negate that resolution?

For instance, what about a debate wherein it was claimed abortion isn't always moral? Or an 'on balance' policy debate?

Alternatively, if you had the BoP, how would you affirm that abortion is immoral/net harm to society?

I looked at the site statistics, and I can see that the site is roughly even in its opinion on this. However, I do not see many high-profile debates going in favour of people against abortion.

Also, I'm not interested in responses such as, "My religion says it's wrong." Please substantiated your claims.

Feel free to answer all or one of these questions. Thank you.
Free vote -- short read. I've spent well over 15 hours researching abortion in the past week, so there might be something there for you. I recommend reading Con's counter-arguments first to come to a quick decisions, but the choice is all yours:

http://www.debate.org...

The opponent didn't respond:

http://www.debate.org...

No response:

http://www.debate.org...
someloser
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 5:54:02 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
Depending on your definitions, it's infanticide in most cases. Which, in turn, may or may not be bad, depending on your moral framework.
Ego sum qui sum. Deus lo vult.

"America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea." - Simon Bolivar

"A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again." - George Bernard Shaw
EvanescentEfflorescence
Posts: 303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 6:00:32 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/21/2016 5:54:02 AM, someloser wrote:
Depending on your definitions, it's infanticide in most cases. Which, in turn, may or may not be bad, depending on your moral framework.

Is not infanticide a legal definition? If so, I think that line of argument would incur stiff opposition, because it is entirely possible that something can be legal yet immoral. Even with various definitions (as you wrote), I think this is incorrectly converging legality with morality.
Free vote -- short read. I've spent well over 15 hours researching abortion in the past week, so there might be something there for you. I recommend reading Con's counter-arguments first to come to a quick decisions, but the choice is all yours:

http://www.debate.org...

The opponent didn't respond:

http://www.debate.org...

No response:

http://www.debate.org...
someloser
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 6:01:23 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/21/2016 6:00:32 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/21/2016 5:54:02 AM, someloser wrote:
Depending on your definitions, it's infanticide in most cases. Which, in turn, may or may not be bad, depending on your moral framework.

Is not infanticide a legal definition?
Not necessarily
Ego sum qui sum. Deus lo vult.

"America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea." - Simon Bolivar

"A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again." - George Bernard Shaw
EvanescentEfflorescence
Posts: 303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 6:03:59 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/21/2016 6:01:23 AM, someloser wrote:
At 4/21/2016 6:00:32 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/21/2016 5:54:02 AM, someloser wrote:
Depending on your definitions, it's infanticide in most cases. Which, in turn, may or may not be bad, depending on your moral framework.

Is not infanticide a legal definition?
Not necessarily

You're right; my mistake....
Free vote -- short read. I've spent well over 15 hours researching abortion in the past week, so there might be something there for you. I recommend reading Con's counter-arguments first to come to a quick decisions, but the choice is all yours:

http://www.debate.org...

The opponent didn't respond:

http://www.debate.org...

No response:

http://www.debate.org...
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 6:52:50 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
The anti-abortion argument is that abortion is murder. Murder is the deliberate unjustified killing of a human being. Therefore a fetus must be proved to be a human being.

There is no doubt that a fetus is human. That's proved by DNA. But so is your hair, tonsils, and gall bladder. No one argues that removing a gall bladder or getting a hair cut is murder, so we must seek the distinction.

Right after conception, the zygote is an undifferentiated sphere of cells, unable to think, feel pain, have memories, or be self-aware. Therefore it has no human characteristic in common with all conventional murders. Therefore, abortion of a zygote cannot be murder. It might be good or bad for society, but it is not murder.

At some point the developing fetus may be considered to have developed enough of the human characteristics to be considered a person. A second before the umbicilical cord is cut most people other than Hillary Clinton think personhood is achieved. However, that is not the subject of the debate, which is that whether abortion is ever morally acceptable.

About half of all pregnancies end in spontaneous miscarriage, usually very early in pregnancy. If the fetus were considered by anti-abortionists to always be a person, then a miscarriage would always be treated like the death of an independent human. But there is no such concern with the death of zygotes. It's only miscarriages of fetuses recognized as "babies" that are mourned. There is no concern with preventing natural abortion of zygotes. So even anti-abortionists recognized the difference between non-person and person.

Abortion early in pregnancy is less dangerous to the mother than carrying the pregnancy to term. As to the benefit to society, that's a practical question that depends upon the circumstances. If society is facing overpopulation it's not a benefit. Because the issue of benefit depends upon circumstance, and clearly in some circumstance it is not beneficial, that is not an argument supporting a universal ban.
EvanescentEfflorescence
Posts: 303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 4:48:48 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
Forgive me if I appear an upstart; I'm merely responding in a contrarian fashion to test the conception you've espoused. I also understand that you might not hold this view, given the nature of the question.

At 4/21/2016 6:52:50 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
The anti-abortion argument is that abortion is murder. Murder is the deliberate unjustified killing of a human being. Therefore a fetus must be proved to be a human being.

I'm not convinced this argument is acceptable. I don't think murder is a term that has business in morality, largely because, from all the definitions I have seen, it is tied to the legal system. For example, Random House, Princeton's Wordnet, Kernerman English Learner's Dictionary, and Webster's dictionary (just to name a few -- I elaborate on these definitions, too) all have definitions which imply that murder is a legal definition.

Of course, this might be purely semantical, but "unjustified" seems rather vague, and thus might imply legality, rather than morality. In other words, I'm not sure of the meaning of your definition for murder, and I've only found definitions which defend a legal conception.

Anyway, let's use "Murder is the deliberate unjustified killing of a human being."


There is no doubt that a fetus is human. That's proved by DNA. But so is your hair, tonsils, and gall bladder. No one argues that removing a gall bladder or getting a hair cut is murder, so we must seek the distinction.

Agreed.


Right after conception, the zygote is an undifferentiated sphere of cells, unable to think, feel pain, have memories, or be self-aware. Therefore it has no human characteristic in common with all conventional murders.

With your initial definition, it has the part "of a human being." I'm not convinced that because a zygote has "no human characteristic in common with all conventional murders", that the zygote is not human. I mean, defining "conventional murder" as the status quo, and therefore the way to judge morality, seems circular.

If the zygote is a human being (they're genetically distinct human organisms), then would you definition for murder make killing zygotes murder?

Therefore, abortion of a zygote cannot be murder. It might be good or bad for society, but it is not murder.

At some point the developing fetus may be considered to have developed enough of the human characteristics to be considered a person. A second before the umbicilical cord is cut most people other than Hillary Clinton think personhood is achieved. However, that is not the subject of the debate, which is that whether abortion is ever morally acceptable.

So the argument is that the human organism has to accrue enough "human characteristics" in order for its deliberate, unjustified killing to be murder. I can't understand the point of the delineation -- it seems arbitrary. Why does it have to be here when at the moment of conception, a zygote is a distinctly human entity? Your definition of murder did not have the clause, "Murder is the deliberate unjustified killing of a human being, as long as the human being has accrued a certain number of human characteristics."


About half of all pregnancies end in spontaneous miscarriage, usually very early in pregnancy. If the fetus were considered by anti-abortionists to always be a person, then a miscarriage would always be treated like the death of an independent human.

Arguably manslaughter, correct? Or just merely a "death?"

But there is no such concern with the death of zygotes. It's only miscarriages of fetuses recognized as "babies" that are mourned. There is no concern with preventing natural abortion of zygotes. So even anti-abortionists recognized the difference between non-person and person.

This seems a pragmatic consideration, although it's a very damning one. I'd be, prima facie, quite draconian to convict women, who have virtually no control in the matter, involved in miscarriages of manslaughter/murder if a fetus died, let alone if a zygote died (given the 50% death rate). This is a very compelling argument.


Abortion early in pregnancy is less dangerous to the mother than carrying the pregnancy to term. As to the benefit to society, that's a practical question that depends upon the circumstances. If society is facing overpopulation it's not a benefit. Because the issue of benefit depends upon circumstance, and clearly in some circumstance it is not beneficial, that is not an argument supporting a universal ban.

Mmm so universal ban is a bit too extreme, given that benefit can be determined from scenario to scenario.

Just as an aside, as a potential counter-argument, I can imagine a study which shows that abortion devalues how humans perceive life, and thus overrides the lesser good of deciding benefits on an individual basis. Having said this, I cannot find this study.

Thank you for taking the time to write this very useful post, Roy.
Free vote -- short read. I've spent well over 15 hours researching abortion in the past week, so there might be something there for you. I recommend reading Con's counter-arguments first to come to a quick decisions, but the choice is all yours:

http://www.debate.org...

The opponent didn't respond:

http://www.debate.org...

No response:

http://www.debate.org...
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 6:00:48 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 4:48:48 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
I'm not convinced this argument is acceptable. I don't think murder is a term that has business in morality, largely because, from all the definitions I have seen, it is tied to the legal system.

Murder, along with robbery, assault, and littering, all have legal definitions. That does not mean that the words have no meaning outside of the legal system. Religions typically are concerned with what is justified and what is not justified, as are rational humanists.

Of course, this might be purely semantical, but "unjustified" seems rather vague, and thus might imply legality, rather than morality. In other words, I'm not sure of the meaning of your definition for murder, and I've only found definitions which defend a legal conception.

Therefore if abortion is legal than by definition it is not murder and abortion debate ends. I think the dictionaries are adopting the legal defintion as a matte rof convenience. For example, the mass execution of Jews was legal under Nazi law, but there are few people who would not call it "murder."

Anyway, let's use "Murder is the deliberate unjustified killing of a human being."


With your initial definition, it has the part "of a human being." I'm not convinced that because a zygote has "no human characteristic in common with all conventional murders", that the zygote is not human. I mean, defining "conventional murder" as the status quo, and therefore the way to judge morality, seems circular.

All I've established are the characteristics that cannot be used to identify a "human being." An anti-abortionist would argue that "the ability to acquire human characteristics" should suffice as the definition of a human being. But we don't say every block of marble is a bust of George Washington because it has the ability to become a bust of George Washington.

The argument that "abortion" is murder depends upon accepting the conventional definition of murder as an agreed-upon immoral activity. That's countered by the argument that the zygote is not a human. But couldn't we separately find that abortion, per se, is immoral, without any reference to the agreement that murder is immoral. Yes, one can posit that it is immoral. But that's not a debatable argument. I think the ultimate conclusion is then that the abortion issue cannot be resolved by debate, and I agree with that. It should be resolved by a vote of how people judge the morality, state-by-state. You can, however, still defeat the claim "abortion is murder." If you are going to debate the subject, take care with the wording of the resolution.

If the zygote is a human being (they're genetically distinct human organisms), then would you definition for murder make killing zygotes murder?

Yes. And if you define a hamburger as a human being, then the people at McDonald's are cannibals. The issue is whether the definition is reasonable.

So the argument is that the human organism has to accrue enough "human characteristics" in order for its deliberate, unjustified killing to be murder. I can't understand the point of the delineation -- it seems arbitrary.

The defining line is arbitrary, but that doesn't mean the extremes are arbitrary. The classic example is to try to define a "chair" so it is distinct from a "bench" or "stool." It's difficult to the point of impossibility to provide an agreed-upon precise definition that sorts the marginal cases Nonetheless, about everyone recognizes many cases of chairs that are indisputably chairs. For abortion, I think a zygote is clearly not a person, and a baby a minute before birth is clearly a person. The Supreme Court arbitrarily picked 23 weeks using "can survive without the mother" as the standard. many of the European countries have settled on about 14 weeks as the arbitrary dividing line.

Why does it have to be here when at the moment of conception, a zygote is a distinctly human entity? Your definition of murder did not have the clause, "Murder is the deliberate unjustified killing of a human being, as long as the human being has accrued a certain number of human characteristics."

Remember it isn't when the entity is human, it when the entity is a person, because the agreed upon immorality of murder is for persons. We classify everything in the world by having a sufficient number of the associated defining characteristics. Its how we distinguish cats from dogs and everything else.

About half of all pregnancies end in spontaneous miscarriage, usually very early in pregnancy. If the fetus were considered by anti-abortionists to always be a person, then a miscarriage would always be treated like the death of an independent human.

Arguably manslaughter, correct? Or just merely a "death?"

It is accidental death. The point here is to show that even anti-abortionists do not consider a zygote to be a person. If a person dies in, say, a car accident there will be a funeral, grieving, and sometimes ensuing discussion of how accidents like it can be prevented. None of that accompanies a natural early miscarriage, which often happens unnoticed. That's because a zygote is not considered to be a person.

This seems a pragmatic consideration, although it's a very damning one. I'd be, prima facie, quite draconian to convict women, who have virtually no control in the matter, involved in miscarriages of manslaughter/murder if a fetus died, let alone if a zygote died (given the 50% death rate). This is a very compelling argument.

I wouldn't be murder, because it's an accident. It could be negligent homicide if it was preventable.

Mmm so universal ban is a bit too extreme, given that benefit can be determined from scenario to scenario.

Ah, but who then is best qualified to assess the cost and benefit? Only the pragmatic costs and benefits are consiidered in this part of the argument, not the morality. For an adult woman, it seems to be the woman who is best qualified to judge. although there might be exceptions. For underage girls, it might be the parents. I don't see an obvious resolution.

Just as an aside, as a potential counter-argument, I can imagine a study which shows that abortion devalues how humans perceive life, and thus overrides the lesser good of deciding benefits on an individual basis. Having said this, I cannot find this study.

Studies are averages. On average, people are better off going to college. That's a good argument for considering going to college. But it's not a good argument for requiring everyone to go. If in general abortion has negative effects, that's not an argument for banning it, because some cases will nonetheless be beneficial.

You can see why I don't like abortion debates. I don't think there is a logical resolution unless the resolution is carefully worded.
EvanescentEfflorescence
Posts: 303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 11:43:18 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 6:00:48 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 4/22/2016 4:48:48 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
I'm not convinced this argument is acceptable. I don't think murder is a term that has business in morality, largely because, from all the definitions I have seen, it is tied to the legal system.

Murder, along with robbery, assault, and littering, all have legal definitions. That does not mean that the words have no meaning outside of the legal system. Religions typically are concerned with what is justified and what is not justified, as are rational humanists.

I guess ultimately, the issue is word definitions, rather than meaning. Although, as you stated, it is only religions and rational humanists who seem to use this particular definition.


Of course, this might be purely semantical, but "unjustified" seems rather vague, and thus might imply legality, rather than morality. In other words, I'm not sure of the meaning of your definition for murder, and I've only found definitions which defend a legal conception.

Therefore if abortion is legal than by definition it is not murder and abortion debate ends.

Yes.

I think the dictionaries are adopting the legal defintion as a matte rof convenience. For example, the mass execution of Jews was legal under Nazi law, but there are few people who would not call it "murder."

A reasonable hypotheses. I think, as your example demonstrates, this exposes the faultiness of the word "unjustified" in the definition.


Anyway, let's use "Murder is the deliberate unjustified killing of a human being."


With your initial definition, it has the part "of a human being." I'm not convinced that because a zygote has "no human characteristic in common with all conventional murders", that the zygote is not human. I mean, defining "conventional murder" as the status quo, and therefore the way to judge morality, seems circular.

All I've established are the characteristics that cannot be used to identify a "human being." An anti-abortionist would argue that "the ability to acquire human characteristics" should suffice as the definition of a human being. But we don't say every block of marble is a bust of George Washington because it has the ability to become a bust of George Washington.

I don't think the analogy aligns. There are various ways in which a block of marble could be carved. However, there is only one way a zygote can develop, and that is towards a fully-developed human.

That being said, I don't think that "the ability to acquire human characteristics" is a feasible way of approaching this for anti-abortionists. I think that arguing zygotes are humans is the only way to go, backed with sources which say, for example, that conception creates a "new, genetically unique, newly existing, individual, whole living human being". In other words, "a single-cell embryonic human zygote" (https://www.princeton.edu...). If anti-abortionists don't do this, then they are assaulted with viability (Roe vs. Wade), necessary human characteristics etc.-, which is far harder to defend, in light of how you described a zygote (an entity with virtually no human characteristics).


The argument that "abortion" is murder depends upon accepting the conventional definition of murder as an agreed-upon immoral activity. That's countered by the argument that the zygote is not a human.

Depending on the definitions of "human", I think that there are definitions which could have a zygote being considered human. As elaborated with the source above, zygotes are genetically human and will develop into nothing but a human.

But couldn't we separately find that abortion, per se, is immoral, without any reference to the agreement that murder is immoral. Yes, one can posit that it is immoral. But that's not a debatable argument.

Yes, but it could be agreed upon as axiomatic (especially if allowed further distinction, for example, murder is immoral if it kills the innocent).

I think the ultimate conclusion is then that the abortion issue cannot be resolved by debate, and I agree with that. It should be resolved by a vote of how people judge the morality, state-by-state. You can, however, still defeat the claim "abortion is murder." If you are going to debate the subject, take care with the wording of the resolution.

I can see why you think this; I don't see it as unreasonable, given what you've said.


If the zygote is a human being (they're genetically distinct human organisms), then would you definition for murder make killing zygotes murder?

Yes. And if you define a hamburger as a human being, then the people at McDonald's are cannibals. The issue is whether the definition is reasonable.

I think something is harbours human genetics (zygote) could far more easily be considered human than something which is not genetically human (hamburger). I think your point harks to the earlier point on "human characteristics", and I think your point shows here how quickly trouble can brew for the anti-abortionist if he/she agrees to determine whether something is human via "human characteristics".


So the argument is that the human organism has to accrue enough "human characteristics" in order for its deliberate, unjustified killing to be murder. I can't understand the point of the delineation -- it seems arbitrary.

The defining line is arbitrary, but that doesn't mean the extremes are arbitrary. The classic example is to try to define a "chair" so it is distinct from a "bench" or "stool." It's difficult to the point of impossibility to provide an agreed-upon precise definition that sorts the marginal cases Nonetheless, about everyone recognizes many cases of chairs that are indisputably chairs. For abortion, I think a zygote is clearly not a person, and a baby a minute before birth is clearly a person.

This part doesn't make sense. On what basis do you claim that a zygote is clearly not a person? Simply because it is the extreme? Is it not possible that at *all* stages of human development can a pre-born entity be considered human? Not to the mention the fact that because "about everyone" believes that something is true, that must mean it's right -- appeal to popularity.

This appears to me this: that because the defining line is arbitrary, let's, because it's popular, place defining points at the end of the spectrum, and then use our feelings to figure the rest out. But perhaps this is more a critique of how poorly meaning can be construed, given the fact that your analogy fits snuggly.

The Supreme Court arbitrarily picked 23 weeks using "can survive without the mother" as the standard. many of the European countries have settled on about 14 weeks as the arbitrary dividing line.

Why does it have to be here when at the moment of conception, a zygote is a distinctly human entity? Your definition of murder did not have the clause, "Murder is the deliberate unjustified killing of a human being, as long as the human being has accrued a certain number of human characteristics."

Remember it isn't when the entity is human, it when the entity is a person, because the agreed upon immorality of murder is for persons.

Um: "Murder is the deliberate unjustified killing of a human being."

We classify everything in the world by having a sufficient number of the associated defining characteristics. Its how we distinguish cats from dogs and everything else.

True, but as expanded upon above, perhaps this method lends to faulty conceptions. Could not the "defining characteristics" be radically different for different people?- how would you know who is wrong? Also, could we not fail to gather all characteristics, too, and then incorrectly define something? Varying states of "human" are far more nebulous than cats vs. dogs, right?
Free vote -- short read. I've spent well over 15 hours researching abortion in the past week, so there might be something there for you. I recommend reading Con's counter-arguments first to come to a quick decisions, but the choice is all yours:

http://www.debate.org...

The opponent didn't respond:

http://www.debate.org...

No response:

http://www.debate.org...
EvanescentEfflorescence
Posts: 303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 11:57:14 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
About half of all pregnancies end in spontaneous miscarriage, usually very early in pregnancy. If the fetus were considered by anti-abortionists to always be a person, then a miscarriage would always be treated like the death of an independent human.

Arguably manslaughter, correct? Or just merely a "death?"

It is accidental death. The point here is to show that even anti-abortionists do not consider a zygote to be a person. If a person dies in, say, a car accident there will be a funeral, grieving, and sometimes ensuing discussion of how accidents like it can be prevented. None of that accompanies a natural early miscarriage, which often happens unnoticed. That's because a zygote is not considered to be a person.

Well yes, this is the generally accepted view, even for anti-abortionists. However, is it formed upon convenience, rather than factual reality. As I elaborated upon in the last post, are our popular delineations well-founded?


This seems a pragmatic consideration, although it's a very damning one. I'd be, prima facie, quite draconian to convict women, who have virtually no control in the matter, involved in miscarriages of manslaughter/murder if a fetus died, let alone if a zygote died (given the 50% death rate). This is a very compelling argument.

I wouldn't be murder, because it's an accident. It could be negligent homicide if it was preventable.

Yes, I don't think it could reasonable be shown as murder. I agree that it could be "negligent homicide" if it was preventable. No qualms here.


Mmm so universal ban is a bit too extreme, given that benefit can be determined from scenario to scenario.

Ah, but who then is best qualified to assess the cost and benefit? Only the pragmatic costs and benefits are consiidered in this part of the argument, not the morality. For an adult woman, it seems to be the woman who is best qualified to judge. although there might be exceptions. For underage girls, it might be the parents. I don't see an obvious resolution.

Why not allow a group of people? Roe vs. Wade, the mother, the doctor(s), the father, and the state? Or are you suggesting that there should be one person ultimately responsible for this decision?


Just as an aside, as a potential counter-argument, I can imagine a study which shows that abortion devalues how humans perceive life, and thus overrides the lesser good of deciding benefits on an individual basis. Having said this, I cannot find this study.

Studies are averages. On average, people are better off going to college. That's a good argument for considering going to college. But it's not a good argument for requiring everyone to go. If in general abortion has negative effects, that's not an argument for banning it, because some cases will nonetheless be beneficial.

Oh I get that some cases will be beneficial, but perhaps only if you view that in a vacuum. Perhaps macro-societal impacts could outweigh the cost of making some cases which could be beneficial not be so. For example, if banning abortion made a general population value life more, than that might be more useful than having the best outcome for a minority of cases. This might allow for people who would otherwise abort, to push through the hard times and reap the rewards (the assumption being that humans, and more importantly their moods, adapt to their environment).

Of course, this is purely hypothetical, at the moment.

You can see why I don't like abortion debates. I don't think there is a logical resolution unless the resolution is carefully worded.

Yeah, I agree with you.
Free vote -- short read. I've spent well over 15 hours researching abortion in the past week, so there might be something there for you. I recommend reading Con's counter-arguments first to come to a quick decisions, but the choice is all yours:

http://www.debate.org...

The opponent didn't respond:

http://www.debate.org...

No response:

http://www.debate.org...
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 2:27:29 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 11:57:14 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:

Just as an aside, as a potential counter-argument, I can imagine a study which shows that abortion devalues how humans perceive life, and thus overrides the lesser good of deciding benefits on an individual basis. Having said this, I cannot find this study.

Studies are averages. On average, people are better off going to college. That's a good argument for considering going to college. But it's not a good argument for requiring everyone to go. If in general abortion has negative effects, that's not an argument for banning it, because some cases will nonetheless be beneficial.

Oh I get that some cases will be beneficial, but perhaps only if you view that in a vacuum. Perhaps macro-societal impacts could outweigh the cost of making some cases which could be beneficial not be so. For example, if banning abortion made a general population value life more, than that might be more useful than having the best outcome for a minority of cases. This might allow for people who would otherwise abort, to push through the hard times and reap the rewards (the assumption being that humans, and more importantly their moods, adapt to their environment).

This is the general argument for authoritarian imposed uniformity, and many people believe it. For example, "If everyone is required to go college, then society in general will come better appreciate the value of education." Or how about, "If everyone were forced to serve in the armed forces, then society would better appreciate the vale of service." The general form is "If X is forced, then Y will be better appreciated." There are two problems with the general argument. One is that one something is forced there is no alternative to measure it against. But the stronger argument is that in each case someone other than the individual is empowered to impose a value system and behavior upon others, negating freedom. Consider, "Slaves were better off in america than in the the primitive and violent conditions of Africa." The argument fails immediately because it subordinates the value of freedom for each individual to a general social value (economic well being, say) determined by somebody else. The merits don't have to be debated; it's subordinating freedom. Every leftist in the world believes in the superiority of the collective.
EvanescentEfflorescence
Posts: 303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 9:46:51 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 2:27:29 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 4/22/2016 11:57:14 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:

Just as an aside, as a potential counter-argument, I can imagine a study which shows that abortion devalues how humans perceive life, and thus overrides the lesser good of deciding benefits on an individual basis. Having said this, I cannot find this study.

Studies are averages. On average, people are better off going to college. That's a good argument for considering going to college. But it's not a good argument for requiring everyone to go. If in general abortion has negative effects, that's not an argument for banning it, because some cases will nonetheless be beneficial.

Oh I get that some cases will be beneficial, but perhaps only if you view that in a vacuum. Perhaps macro-societal impacts could outweigh the cost of making some cases which could be beneficial not be so. For example, if banning abortion made a general population value life more, than that might be more useful than having the best outcome for a minority of cases. This might allow for people who would otherwise abort, to push through the hard times and reap the rewards (the assumption being that humans, and more importantly their moods, adapt to their environment).

This is the general argument for authoritarian imposed uniformity, and many people believe it. For example, "If everyone is required to go college, then society in general will come better appreciate the value of education." Or how about, "If everyone were forced to serve in the armed forces, then society would better appreciate the vale of service." The general form is "If X is forced, then Y will be better appreciated." There are two problems with the general argument. One is that one something is forced there is no alternative to measure it against.

Well sure, unless a society lived previously where that was not the case. Also, just because something cannot be measured, that does not necessarily mean that it is bad for society. But if it can't be measured, then it can't be debated, so it looks like your argument is better for debate.

But the stronger argument is that in each case someone other than the individual is empowered to impose a value system and behavior upon others, negating freedom. Consider, "Slaves were better off in america than in the the primitive and violent conditions of Africa." The argument fails immediately because it subordinates the value of freedom for each individual to a general social value (economic well being, say) determined by somebody else. The merits don't have to be debated; it's subordinating freedom. Every leftist in the world believes in the superiority of the collective.

I'm not convinced "subordinating freedom" is axiomatically bad. For example, we don't have the freedom to stop paying taxes. We also don't have the freedom to murder whoever we want. A bird in a cage lives a happier life than a free one who is beaten, scarred, and pulverised in the wild.
Free vote -- short read. I've spent well over 15 hours researching abortion in the past week, so there might be something there for you. I recommend reading Con's counter-arguments first to come to a quick decisions, but the choice is all yours:

http://www.debate.org...

The opponent didn't respond:

http://www.debate.org...

No response:

http://www.debate.org...
Dilara
Posts: 661
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2016 12:13:10 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
1. Human life begins at conception, therefore abortion kills a human life. 2. Fetuses and embryos are not clumps of cells, they have heart weeks by 3 weeks, and by 12 weeks they have all their organs. Here is some more info on their developmental://www.babycenter.com/6_your-pregnancy-8-weeks_1097.bc
3. Abortion kills these innocent lives in brutal barbaric savage ways, especially when done late term. http://americanpregnancy.org... Early on babies are killed by being sucked or scraped out of the wombs and later on they are killed by chemical solutions and by being dismembered with forceps. No civilized society should allow their children to be dismembered with vacuums or forceps.
4. Everyone deserves a chance at life. Would abortion supporters tell abortion survivors like Melissa Ohden and Gianna Jessen that they should have been aborted?https://en.wikipedia.org... https://en.wikipedia.org...
Dilara
Posts: 661
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2016 12:15:53 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/21/2016 6:52:50 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
The anti-abortion argument is that abortion is murder. Murder is the deliberate unjustified killing of a human being. Therefore a fetus must be proved to be a human being.

There is no doubt that a fetus is human. That's proved by DNA. But so is your hair, tonsils, and gall bladder. No one argues that removing a gall bladder or getting a hair cut is murder, so we must seek the distinction.

Right after conception, the zygote is an undifferentiated sphere of cells, unable to think, feel pain, have memories, or be self-aware. Therefore it has no human characteristic in common with all conventional murders. Therefore, abortion of a zygote cannot be murder. It might be good or bad for society, but it is not murder.

At some point the developing fetus may be considered to have developed enough of the human characteristics to be considered a person. A second before the umbicilical cord is cut most people other than Hillary Clinton think personhood is achieved. However, that is not the subject of the debate, which is that whether abortion is ever morally acceptable.

About half of all pregnancies end in spontaneous miscarriage, usually very early in pregnancy. If the fetus were considered by anti-abortionists to always be a person, then a miscarriage would always be treated like the death of an independent human. But there is no such concern with the death of zygotes. It's only miscarriages of fetuses recognized as "babies" that are mourned. There is no concern with preventing natural abortion of zygotes. So even anti-abortionists recognized the difference between non-person and person.

Abortion early in pregnancy is less dangerous to the mother than carrying the pregnancy to term. As to the benefit to society, that's a practical question that depends upon the circumstances. If society is facing overpopulation it's not a benefit. Because the issue of benefit depends upon circumstance, and clearly in some circumstance it is not beneficial, that is not an argument supporting a universal ban.
Nails and hair are part of human bodies, not their own human bodies like unborn babies.
The zygote stage only exists a couple f hours. Most abortions are around 12 weeks.
EvanescentEfflorescence
Posts: 303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2016 6:12:31 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/23/2016 12:13:10 AM, Dilara wrote:
1. Human life begins at conception, therefore abortion kills a human life.

True, but is human life at the form valuable, or "viable" (as Roe vs. Wade would have it)? How would you generate value from this?

2. Fetuses and embryos are not clumps of cells, they have heart weeks by 3 weeks, and by 12 weeks they have all their organs. Here is some more info on their developmental://www.babycenter.com/6_your-pregnancy-8-weeks_1097.bc

Right, so they have structure and share developmental features that mature humans have.

3. Abortion kills these innocent lives in brutal barbaric savage ways, especially when done late term. http://americanpregnancy.org... Early on babies are killed by being sucked or scraped out of the wombs and later on they are killed by chemical solutions and by being dismembered with forceps. No civilized society should allow their children to be dismembered with vacuums or forceps.

But there isn't suffering unless the act is done after the 3rd Trimester, right? It sounds gruesome and all, but is there any valuable damage done?

4. Everyone deserves a chance at life. Would abortion supporters tell abortion survivors like Melissa Ohden and Gianna Jessen that they should have been aborted?https://en.wikipedia.org... https://en.wikipedia.org...

I don't think there would be any serious argument which advocates flippant aborting of everyone (correct me if I'm wrong). Obviously, since those people have gone on to become healthy people (Prima Facie), they shouldn't have been aborted.
Free vote -- short read. I've spent well over 15 hours researching abortion in the past week, so there might be something there for you. I recommend reading Con's counter-arguments first to come to a quick decisions, but the choice is all yours:

http://www.debate.org...

The opponent didn't respond:

http://www.debate.org...

No response:

http://www.debate.org...
Dilara
Posts: 661
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2016 3:19:34 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/23/2016 6:12:31 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/23/2016 12:13:10 AM, Dilara wrote:
1. Human life begins at conception, therefore abortion kills a human life.

True, but is human life at the form valuable, or "viable" (as Roe vs. Wade would have it)? How would you generate value from this?
Even a zygote has the potential to become a fully formed human who can live a great life and do great things. Whether they are viable outside the womb (5 months) doesn't matter.
2. Fetuses and embryos are not clumps of cells, they have heart weeks by 3 weeks, and by 12 weeks they have all their organs. Here is some more info on their developmental://www.babycenter.com/6_your-pregnancy-8-weeks_1097.bc

Right, so they have structure and share developmental features that mature humans have.

3. Abortion kills these innocent lives in brutal barbaric savage ways, especially when done late term. http://americanpregnancy.org... Early on babies are killed by being sucked or scraped out of the wombs and later on they are killed by chemical solutions and by being dismembered with forceps. No civilized society should allow their children to be dismembered with vacuums or forceps.

But there isn't suffering unless the act is done after the 3rd Trimester, right? It sounds gruesome and all, but is there any valuable damage done?
Babies can feel pain by the second trimester. By than they will react to things touching their moms bellys. Even if they couldn't feel pain, it still wouldn't be right to dismember them. Would it be ok to dismember a brain dead person? These are pople with potential and thwy ashould not be treated like chew toys.
4. Everyone deserves a chance at life. Would abortion supporters tell abortion survivors like Melissa Ohden and Gianna Jessen that they should have been aborted?https://en.wikipedia.org... https://en.wikipedia.org...

I don't think there would be any serious argument which advocates flippant aborting of everyone (correct me if I'm wrong). Obviously, since those people have gone on to become healthy people (Prima Facie), they shouldn't have been aborted.
Lots of people who would have become healthy people were aborted.
EvanescentEfflorescence
Posts: 303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2016 3:22:49 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/24/2016 3:19:34 AM, Dilara wrote:
At 4/23/2016 6:12:31 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/23/2016 12:13:10 AM, Dilara wrote:
1. Human life begins at conception, therefore abortion kills a human life.

True, but is human life at the form valuable, or "viable" (as Roe vs. Wade would have it)? How would you generate value from this?
Even a zygote has the potential to become a fully formed human who can live a great life and do great things. Whether they are viable outside the womb (5 months) doesn't matter.
2. Fetuses and embryos are not clumps of cells, they have heart weeks by 3 weeks, and by 12 weeks they have all their organs. Here is some more info on their developmental://www.babycenter.com/6_your-pregnancy-8-weeks_1097.bc

Right, so they have structure and share developmental features that mature humans have.

3. Abortion kills these innocent lives in brutal barbaric savage ways, especially when done late term. http://americanpregnancy.org... Early on babies are killed by being sucked or scraped out of the wombs and later on they are killed by chemical solutions and by being dismembered with forceps. No civilized society should allow their children to be dismembered with vacuums or forceps.

But there isn't suffering unless the act is done after the 3rd Trimester, right? It sounds gruesome and all, but is there any valuable damage done?
Babies can feel pain by the second trimester. By than they will react to things touching their moms bellys. Even if they couldn't feel pain, it still wouldn't be right to dismember them. Would it be ok to dismember a brain dead person? These are pople with potential and thwy ashould not be treated like chew toys.
4. Everyone deserves a chance at life. Would abortion supporters tell abortion survivors like Melissa Ohden and Gianna Jessen that they should have been aborted?https://en.wikipedia.org... https://en.wikipedia.org...

I don't think there would be any serious argument which advocates flippant aborting of everyone (correct me if I'm wrong). Obviously, since those people have gone on to become healthy people (Prima Facie), they shouldn't have been aborted.
Lots of people who would have become healthy people were aborted.

Unless you're a soothsayer, I am not sure how you could substantiate this. I could entertain the argument that it is *likely* that these people would have become healthy people (I would contest this, though), but to say that *would have* become healthy, I think, grants a BoP far too great for your case.
Free vote -- short read. I've spent well over 15 hours researching abortion in the past week, so there might be something there for you. I recommend reading Con's counter-arguments first to come to a quick decisions, but the choice is all yours:

http://www.debate.org...

The opponent didn't respond:

http://www.debate.org...

No response:

http://www.debate.org...
Dilara
Posts: 661
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2016 3:24:31 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/23/2016 6:12:31 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/23/2016 12:13:10 AM, Dilara wrote:
1. Human life begins at conception, therefore abortion kills a human life.

True, but is human life at the form valuable, or "viable" (as Roe vs. Wade would have it)? How would you generate value from this?

2. Fetuses and embryos are not clumps of cells, they have heart weeks by 3 weeks, and by 12 weeks they have all their organs. Here is some more info on their developmental://www.babycenter.com/6_your-pregnancy-8-weeks_1097.bc

Right, so they have structure and share developmental features that mature humans have.

3. Abortion kills these innocent lives in brutal barbaric savage ways, especially when done late term. http://americanpregnancy.org... Early on babies are killed by being sucked or scraped out of the wombs and later on they are killed by chemical solutions and by being dismembered with forceps. No civilized society should allow their children to be dismembered with vacuums or forceps.

But there isn't suffering unless the act is done after the 3rd Trimester, right? It sounds gruesome and all, but is there any valuable damage done?

4. Everyone deserves a chance at life. Would abortion supporters tell abortion survivors like Melissa Ohden and Gianna Jessen that they should have been aborted?https://en.wikipedia.org... https://en.wikipedia.org...

I don't think there would be any serious argument which advocates flippant aborting of everyone (correct me if I'm wrong). Obviously, since those people have gone on to become healthy people (Prima Facie), they shouldn't have been aborted.

1. Even a zygote has the potential to become a fully formed human who can be happy and do good. Whether they are viable (5 months) or not doesn't matter.
3. Babies can feel pain around the 15th week By than if you poke their moms belly they;'ll squirm away. Even before than they'll cringe at cigarette smoke. Even if they couldn't feel pain it wouldn't be ok to dismember them. Would it be ok to dismember a brain dead person?
4. Lots of people, who would have gone on to become healthy happy people were aborted. What about them.
Dilara
Posts: 661
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2016 3:25:34 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/24/2016 3:22:49 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/24/2016 3:19:34 AM, Dilara wrote:
At 4/23/2016 6:12:31 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/23/2016 12:13:10 AM, Dilara wrote:
1. Human life begins at conception, therefore abortion kills a human life.

True, but is human life at the form valuable, or "viable" (as Roe vs. Wade would have it)? How would you generate value from this?
Even a zygote has the potential to become a fully formed human who can live a great life and do great things. Whether they are viable outside the womb (5 months) doesn't matter.
2. Fetuses and embryos are not clumps of cells, they have heart weeks by 3 weeks, and by 12 weeks they have all their organs. Here is some more info on their developmental://www.babycenter.com/6_your-pregnancy-8-weeks_1097.bc

Right, so they have structure and share developmental features that mature humans have.

3. Abortion kills these innocent lives in brutal barbaric savage ways, especially when done late term. http://americanpregnancy.org... Early on babies are killed by being sucked or scraped out of the wombs and later on they are killed by chemical solutions and by being dismembered with forceps. No civilized society should allow their children to be dismembered with vacuums or forceps.

But there isn't suffering unless the act is done after the 3rd Trimester, right? It sounds gruesome and all, but is there any valuable damage done?
Babies can feel pain by the second trimester. By than they will react to things touching their moms bellys. Even if they couldn't feel pain, it still wouldn't be right to dismember them. Would it be ok to dismember a brain dead person? These are pople with potential and thwy ashould not be treated like chew toys.
4. Everyone deserves a chance at life. Would abortion supporters tell abortion survivors like Melissa Ohden and Gianna Jessen that they should have been aborted?https://en.wikipedia.org... https://en.wikipedia.org...

I don't think there would be any serious argument which advocates flippant aborting of everyone (correct me if I'm wrong). Obviously, since those people have gone on to become healthy people (Prima Facie), they shouldn't have been aborted.
Lots of people who would have become healthy people were aborted.

Unless you're a soothsayer, I am not sure how you could substantiate this. I could entertain the argument that it is *likely* that these people would have become healthy people (I would contest this, though), but to say that *would have* become healthy, I think, grants a BoP far too great for your case.

50million people in America have been aborted since 1973. At least some were bound to lead good lives.
EvanescentEfflorescence
Posts: 303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2016 3:34:42 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/24/2016 3:24:31 AM, Dilara wrote:
At 4/23/2016 6:12:31 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/23/2016 12:13:10 AM, Dilara wrote:
1. Human life begins at conception, therefore abortion kills a human life.

True, but is human life at the form valuable, or "viable" (as Roe vs. Wade would have it)? How would you generate value from this?

2. Fetuses and embryos are not clumps of cells, they have heart weeks by 3 weeks, and by 12 weeks they have all their organs. Here is some more info on their developmental://www.babycenter.com/6_your-pregnancy-8-weeks_1097.bc

Right, so they have structure and share developmental features that mature humans have.

3. Abortion kills these innocent lives in brutal barbaric savage ways, especially when done late term. http://americanpregnancy.org... Early on babies are killed by being sucked or scraped out of the wombs and later on they are killed by chemical solutions and by being dismembered with forceps. No civilized society should allow their children to be dismembered with vacuums or forceps.

But there isn't suffering unless the act is done after the 3rd Trimester, right? It sounds gruesome and all, but is there any valuable damage done?

4. Everyone deserves a chance at life. Would abortion supporters tell abortion survivors like Melissa Ohden and Gianna Jessen that they should have been aborted?https://en.wikipedia.org... https://en.wikipedia.org...

I don't think there would be any serious argument which advocates flippant aborting of everyone (correct me if I'm wrong). Obviously, since those people have gone on to become healthy people (Prima Facie), they shouldn't have been aborted.

1. Even a zygote has the potential to become a fully formed human who can be happy and do good. Whether they are viable (5 months) or not doesn't matter.

Yes, but the key word is *can*. Whether they *will be* is another question.

3. Babies can feel pain around the 15th week

Do you have a source for this?

By than if you poke their moms belly they;'ll squirm away. Even before than they'll cringe at cigarette smoke.

Could this be accounted for by impulsive reactions, rather than sentient feeling? For example, stamping near a cockroach makes it flee, but not in fear, but by compulsion.

Even if they couldn't feel pain it wouldn't be ok to dismember them. Would it be ok to dismember a brain dead person?

The difference is that a brain dead person has matured, and therefore has far more faculties that are currently dormant. A fetus does not have these faculties until later on. Just to be clear, I'm not convinced abortion is okay for the 3rd Trimester and thereafter.

4. Lots of people, who would have gone on to become healthy happy people were aborted. What about them.

Dilara, you don't know this. Do you understand the difference between saying that this is *likely* and *definite*?
Free vote -- short read. I've spent well over 15 hours researching abortion in the past week, so there might be something there for you. I recommend reading Con's counter-arguments first to come to a quick decisions, but the choice is all yours:

http://www.debate.org...

The opponent didn't respond:

http://www.debate.org...

No response:

http://www.debate.org...
EvanescentEfflorescence
Posts: 303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2016 3:36:44 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/24/2016 3:25:34 AM, Dilara wrote:
At 4/24/2016 3:22:49 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/24/2016 3:19:34 AM, Dilara wrote:
At 4/23/2016 6:12:31 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/23/2016 12:13:10 AM, Dilara wrote:
1. Human life begins at conception, therefore abortion kills a human life.

True, but is human life at the form valuable, or "viable" (as Roe vs. Wade would have it)? How would you generate value from this?
Even a zygote has the potential to become a fully formed human who can live a great life and do great things. Whether they are viable outside the womb (5 months) doesn't matter.
2. Fetuses and embryos are not clumps of cells, they have heart weeks by 3 weeks, and by 12 weeks they have all their organs. Here is some more info on their developmental://www.babycenter.com/6_your-pregnancy-8-weeks_1097.bc

Right, so they have structure and share developmental features that mature humans have.

3. Abortion kills these innocent lives in brutal barbaric savage ways, especially when done late term. http://americanpregnancy.org... Early on babies are killed by being sucked or scraped out of the wombs and later on they are killed by chemical solutions and by being dismembered with forceps. No civilized society should allow their children to be dismembered with vacuums or forceps.

But there isn't suffering unless the act is done after the 3rd Trimester, right? It sounds gruesome and all, but is there any valuable damage done?
Babies can feel pain by the second trimester. By than they will react to things touching their moms bellys. Even if they couldn't feel pain, it still wouldn't be right to dismember them. Would it be ok to dismember a brain dead person? These are pople with potential and thwy ashould not be treated like chew toys.
4. Everyone deserves a chance at life. Would abortion supporters tell abortion survivors like Melissa Ohden and Gianna Jessen that they should have been aborted?https://en.wikipedia.org... https://en.wikipedia.org...

I don't think there would be any serious argument which advocates flippant aborting of everyone (correct me if I'm wrong). Obviously, since those people have gone on to become healthy people (Prima Facie), they shouldn't have been aborted.
Lots of people who would have become healthy people were aborted.

Unless you're a soothsayer, I am not sure how you could substantiate this. I could entertain the argument that it is *likely* that these people would have become healthy people (I would contest this, though), but to say that *would have* become healthy, I think, grants a BoP far too great for your case.

50million people in America have been aborted since 1973. At least some were bound to lead good lives.

It's plausible -- sure.
Free vote -- short read. I've spent well over 15 hours researching abortion in the past week, so there might be something there for you. I recommend reading Con's counter-arguments first to come to a quick decisions, but the choice is all yours:

http://www.debate.org...

The opponent didn't respond:

http://www.debate.org...

No response:

http://www.debate.org...
Dilara
Posts: 661
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2016 9:31:03 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/24/2016 3:34:42 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/24/2016 3:24:31 AM, Dilara wrote:
At 4/23/2016 6:12:31 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/23/2016 12:13:10 AM, Dilara wrote:
1. Human life begins at conception, therefore abortion kills a human life.

True, but is human life at the form valuable, or "viable" (as Roe vs. Wade would have it)? How would you generate value from this?

2. Fetuses and embryos are not clumps of cells, they have heart weeks by 3 weeks, and by 12 weeks they have all their organs. Here is some more info on their developmental://www.babycenter.com/6_your-pregnancy-8-weeks_1097.bc

Right, so they have structure and share developmental features that mature humans have.

3. Abortion kills these innocent lives in brutal barbaric savage ways, especially when done late term. http://americanpregnancy.org... Early on babies are killed by being sucked or scraped out of the wombs and later on they are killed by chemical solutions and by being dismembered with forceps. No civilized society should allow their children to be dismembered with vacuums or forceps.

But there isn't suffering unless the act is done after the 3rd Trimester, right? It sounds gruesome and all, but is there any valuable damage done?

4. Everyone deserves a chance at life. Would abortion supporters tell abortion survivors like Melissa Ohden and Gianna Jessen that they should have been aborted?https://en.wikipedia.org... https://en.wikipedia.org...

I don't think there would be any serious argument which advocates flippant aborting of everyone (correct me if I'm wrong). Obviously, since those people have gone on to become healthy people (Prima Facie), they shouldn't have been aborted.

1. Even a zygote has the potential to become a fully formed human who can be happy and do good. Whether they are viable (5 months) or not doesn't matter.

Yes, but the key word is *can*. Whether they *will be* is another question.

3. Babies can feel pain around the 15th week

Do you have a source for this?

By than if you poke their moms belly they;'ll squirm away. Even before than they'll cringe at cigarette smoke.

Could this be accounted for by impulsive reactions, rather than sentient feeling? For example, stamping near a cockroach makes it flee, but not in fear, but by compulsion.

Even if they couldn't feel pain it wouldn't be ok to dismember them. Would it be ok to dismember a brain dead person?

The difference is that a brain dead person has matured, and therefore has far more faculties that are currently dormant. A fetus does not have these faculties until later on. Just to be clear, I'm not convinced abortion is okay for the 3rd Trimester and thereafter.

4. Lots of people, who would have gone on to become healthy happy people were aborted. What about them.

Dilara, you don't know this. Do you understand the difference between saying that this is *likely* and *definite*?
1. Newborn babies can become happy good adults, but many will not. Is it ok to kill them? You can't kill someone because there is a chance they won't become normal adults.
3. http://www.medscape.com... http://www.whattoexpect.com... We don't know whether its pain or instinct that does this, but it shouldn't matter because there is a chance that its pain.
4. Out of the 50 million babies who have been aborted since 1973 at least some were going to become normal happy people. Its definite that at least some would have been, had they been given the chance.
EvanescentEfflorescence
Posts: 303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2016 10:58:13 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/24/2016 9:31:03 PM, Dilara wrote:
At 4/24/2016 3:34:42 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/24/2016 3:24:31 AM, Dilara wrote:
At 4/23/2016 6:12:31 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/23/2016 12:13:10 AM, Dilara wrote:
1. Human life begins at conception, therefore abortion kills a human life.

True, but is human life at the form valuable, or "viable" (as Roe vs. Wade would have it)? How would you generate value from this?

2. Fetuses and embryos are not clumps of cells, they have heart weeks by 3 weeks, and by 12 weeks they have all their organs. Here is some more info on their developmental://www.babycenter.com/6_your-pregnancy-8-weeks_1097.bc

Right, so they have structure and share developmental features that mature humans have.

3. Abortion kills these innocent lives in brutal barbaric savage ways, especially when done late term. http://americanpregnancy.org... Early on babies are killed by being sucked or scraped out of the wombs and later on they are killed by chemical solutions and by being dismembered with forceps. No civilized society should allow their children to be dismembered with vacuums or forceps.

But there isn't suffering unless the act is done after the 3rd Trimester, right? It sounds gruesome and all, but is there any valuable damage done?

4. Everyone deserves a chance at life. Would abortion supporters tell abortion survivors like Melissa Ohden and Gianna Jessen that they should have been aborted?https://en.wikipedia.org... https://en.wikipedia.org...

I don't think there would be any serious argument which advocates flippant aborting of everyone (correct me if I'm wrong). Obviously, since those people have gone on to become healthy people (Prima Facie), they shouldn't have been aborted.

1. Even a zygote has the potential to become a fully formed human who can be happy and do good. Whether they are viable (5 months) or not doesn't matter.

Yes, but the key word is *can*. Whether they *will be* is another question.

3. Babies can feel pain around the 15th week

Do you have a source for this?

By than if you poke their moms belly they;'ll squirm away. Even before than they'll cringe at cigarette smoke.

Could this be accounted for by impulsive reactions, rather than sentient feeling? For example, stamping near a cockroach makes it flee, but not in fear, but by compulsion.

Even if they couldn't feel pain it wouldn't be ok to dismember them. Would it be ok to dismember a brain dead person?

The difference is that a brain dead person has matured, and therefore has far more faculties that are currently dormant. A fetus does not have these faculties until later on. Just to be clear, I'm not convinced abortion is okay for the 3rd Trimester and thereafter.

4. Lots of people, who would have gone on to become healthy happy people were aborted. What about them.

Dilara, you don't know this. Do you understand the difference between saying that this is *likely* and *definite*?
1. Newborn babies can become happy good adults, but many will not. Is it ok to kill them? You can't kill someone because there is a chance they won't become normal adults.

Would you like to live wherein you're hideously deformed, in constant agony and are shunned by the general public as a freak? What if the doctors told your parents that there was 98% "chance" that this would happen to you, and your parents went through with it anyway? Face it: humans don't take too kindly to genetic aberrations.

3. http://www.medscape.com...

Need to log-in for this...

http://www.whattoexpect.com...

I couldn't find where it says 14 weeks for pain faculties to develop...

We don't know whether its pain or instinct that does this, but it shouldn't matter because there is a chance that its pain.

Um, whether it's pain or instinct is the entire point of this debate. If it's not pain, then it's obviously less bad. I mean really? Do I really have to spell this out?

4. Out of the 50 million babies who have been aborted since 1973 at least some were going to become normal happy people. Its definite that at least some would have been, had they been given the chance.

Just forget this point -- it's obviously gone over your head.
Free vote -- short read. I've spent well over 15 hours researching abortion in the past week, so there might be something there for you. I recommend reading Con's counter-arguments first to come to a quick decisions, but the choice is all yours:

http://www.debate.org...

The opponent didn't respond:

http://www.debate.org...

No response:

http://www.debate.org...
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 1:40:18 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/23/2016 12:15:53 AM, Dilara wrote:
At 4/21/2016 6:52:50 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
The anti-abortion argument is that abortion is murder. Murder is the deliberate unjustified killing of a human being. Therefore a fetus must be proved to be a human being.
...
Nails and hair are part of human bodies, not their own human bodies like unborn babies.
The zygote stage only exists a couple f hours. Most abortions are around 12 weeks.

That's setting up the debate, which is about when the fetus becomes a person. You seem to grant that a zygote is not a person, because it lacks the charateristics of perhood. If so, a "morning after" pill should be an acceptable form of abortion, because nothing happens in a few hours to form the defining characteristics of a person. So is personhood achieved in twelve weeks? My opinion is no better than yours. The best that can be done is let people vote on it, state-by-state, and have it decided democratically. I tend to believe it's about 14 weeks, which I understand is what the Europeans have settled on.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 1:43:14 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/21/2016 5:54:02 AM, someloser wrote:
Depending on your definitions, it's infanticide in most cases. Which, in turn, may or may not be bad, depending on your moral framework.

The thread argues that since a zygote is an indofferentiate sphere, it has none of the characteristics of a person and cannot logically be called a person. When personhood is achieved after that is a matter of opinion for the public to decide.
musicalone
Posts: 163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 1:58:05 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/21/2016 5:46:42 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
I am wondering what kinds of arguments people use to negate abortion resolutions. I know that this isn't overly specific, but if you were to come across a resolution which supported abortion, how would you negate that resolution?

For instance, what about a debate wherein it was claimed abortion isn't always moral? Or an 'on balance' policy debate?

Alternatively, if you had the BoP, how would you affirm that abortion is immoral/net harm to society?

I looked at the site statistics, and I can see that the site is roughly even in its opinion on this. However, I do not see many high-profile debates going in favour of people against abortion.

Also, I'm not interested in responses such as, "My religion says it's wrong." Please substantiated your claims.

Feel free to answer all or one of these questions. Thank you. : :

Since God created all the illusions we observe in our minds, then all abortions were planned by him. So blame our Creator for everything that we observe as good or evil.
Dilara
Posts: 661
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2016 3:40:18 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/24/2016 10:58:13 PM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/24/2016 9:31:03 PM, Dilara wrote:
At 4/24/2016 3:34:42 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/24/2016 3:24:31 AM, Dilara wrote:
At 4/23/2016 6:12:31 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/23/2016 12:13:10 AM, Dilara wrote:
1. Human life begins at conception, therefore abortion kills a human life.

True, but is human life at the form valuable, or "viable" (as Roe vs. Wade would have it)? How would you generate value from this?

2. Fetuses and embryos are not clumps of cells, they have heart weeks by 3 weeks, and by 12 weeks they have all their organs. Here is some more info on their developmental://www.babycenter.com/6_your-pregnancy-8-weeks_1097.bc

Right, so they have structure and share developmental features that mature humans have.

3. Abortion kills these innocent lives in brutal barbaric savage ways, especially when done late term. http://americanpregnancy.org... Early on babies are killed by being sucked or scraped out of the wombs and later on they are killed by chemical solutions and by being dismembered with forceps. No civilized society should allow their children to be dismembered with vacuums or forceps.

But there isn't suffering unless the act is done after the 3rd Trimester, right? It sounds gruesome and all, but is there any valuable damage done?

4. Everyone deserves a chance at life. Would abortion supporters tell abortion survivors like Melissa Ohden and Gianna Jessen that they should have been aborted?https://en.wikipedia.org... https://en.wikipedia.org...

I don't think there would be any serious argument which advocates flippant aborting of everyone (correct me if I'm wrong). Obviously, since those people have gone on to become healthy people (Prima Facie), they shouldn't have been aborted.

1. Even a zygote has the potential to become a fully formed human who can be happy and do good. Whether they are viable (5 months) or not doesn't matter.

Yes, but the key word is *can*. Whether they *will be* is another question.

3. Babies can feel pain around the 15th week

Do you have a source for this?

By than if you poke their moms belly they;'ll squirm away. Even before than they'll cringe at cigarette smoke.

Could this be accounted for by impulsive reactions, rather than sentient feeling? For example, stamping near a cockroach makes it flee, but not in fear, but by compulsion.

Even if they couldn't feel pain it wouldn't be ok to dismember them. Would it be ok to dismember a brain dead person?

The difference is that a brain dead person has matured, and therefore has far more faculties that are currently dormant. A fetus does not have these faculties until later on. Just to be clear, I'm not convinced abortion is okay for the 3rd Trimester and thereafter.

4. Lots of people, who would have gone on to become healthy happy people were aborted. What about them.

Dilara, you don't know this. Do you understand the difference between saying that this is *likely* and *definite*?
1. Newborn babies can become happy good adults, but many will not. Is it ok to kill them? You can't kill someone because there is a chance they won't become normal adults.

Would you like to live wherein you're hideously deformed, in constant agony and are shunned by the general public as a freak? What if the doctors told your parents that there was 98% "chance" that this would happen to you, and your parents went through with it anyway? Face it: humans don't take too kindly to genetic aberrations.

3. http://www.medscape.com...

Need to log-in for this...

http://www.whattoexpect.com...

I couldn't find where it says 14 weeks for pain faculties to develop...

We don't know whether its pain or instinct that does this, but it shouldn't matter because there is a chance that its pain.

Um, whether it's pain or instinct is the entire point of this debate. If it's not pain, then it's obviously less bad. I mean really? Do I really have to spell this out?

4. Out of the 50 million babies who have been aborted since 1973 at least some were going to become normal happy people. Its definite that at least some would have been, had they been given the chance.

Just forget this point -- it's obviously gone over your head.

I think that babies who have a very low chance of happiness and normal life, or even life outside the womb, due to severe abnormalities, should be aborted if their parents choose that. If the parents decide that dying is better than living a short life with a painful disability, than, while tragic, it might be the only choice.
If there was a born person who was about to undergo an unnecessary procedure and you didn't know if their reflexes were because of pain or instinct what would you do? Would you allow them to go through that even though their reflexes could be caused by pain or would you spare them? Would you take that chance?
The idea that all 50 million babies who have been aborted in America would have been unhappy is impossible. Some would have become happy normal people.
Dilara
Posts: 661
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2016 3:46:48 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 1:40:18 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 4/23/2016 12:15:53 AM, Dilara wrote:
At 4/21/2016 6:52:50 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
The anti-abortion argument is that abortion is murder. Murder is the deliberate unjustified killing of a human being. Therefore a fetus must be proved to be a human being.
...
Nails and hair are part of human bodies, not their own human bodies like unborn babies.
The zygote stage only exists a couple f hours. Most abortions are around 12 weeks.

That's setting up the debate, which is about when the fetus becomes a person. You seem to grant that a zygote is not a person, because it lacks the charateristics of perhood. If so, a "morning after" pill should be an acceptable form of abortion, because nothing happens in a few hours to form the defining characteristics of a person. So is personhood achieved in twelve weeks? My opinion is no better than yours. The best that can be done is let people vote on it, state-by-state, and have it decided democratically. I tend to believe it's about 14 weeks, which I understand is what the Europeans have settled on.
I believe that zygotes are people, but not the same type of people as more developed embryos and fetuses. Morning after pills do not kill zygotes, they create the sperm from fertilizing the egg and therefor create the zygote from being made. Its like if you prevented a baker from mixing ingredients to form a cake. You didn't destroy the cake you stopped it from coming into existence.
If we are defining personhood by charactaristics, it begins very early as fetuses resemble born babies by 8 weeks.
Its best to let most of thus be decided on the state level. Only some extreme things should be nationally banned. For example partial birth abortion, saline abortion and any abortion passed four months should not be allowed no matter how many people i the state want it.
14 weeks is around the time when vaccuum aspiration method of abortion ends. and an even more brutal grotesque one begins. Up to around 14 weeks unborn babies are killed by being sucked out of womns with vacuums. Passed that point they are too big and are killed by being scraped out of wombs with curettes or pulled apart piece by piece with forceps.
upsucker
Posts: 14
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2016 5:38:58 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Cut the crap. Life does not begin at conception and embryos are not babies.
What you people are opposed to is the lifestyle of the modern middle class American woman.
Today's woman sees having a child as an option she may do in later life. Birth control and abortion make this possible. So we have your typical white girl going to college and getting a high paying job.
these high paying jobs become unavailable to men, so your typical 29 year old finds herself alone, and all the good men are allready married , and the available men are losers who earn less than she does.
While this is going on, poor women are still doing what poor women do, getting pregnant and becoming mothers, whether or not they have a husband. As a result the percentage of Americans who are white and middle (or upper) class, keeps going down.
If somehow you people can get rid of abortion, maybe white girls will be getting married again. Admit it , this is what the conflict is really about.
EvanescentEfflorescence
Posts: 303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 10:39:20 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/2/2016 5:38:58 PM, upsucker wrote:
Cut the crap. Life does not begin at conception and embryos are not babies.

This is more than a statement than an argument.

What you people are opposed to is the lifestyle of the modern middle class American woman.
Today's woman sees having a child as an option she may do in later life. Birth control and abortion make this possible. So we have your typical white girl going to college and getting a high paying job.
these high paying jobs become unavailable to men, so your typical 29 year old finds herself alone, and all the good men are allready married , and the available men are losers who earn less than she does.
While this is going on, poor women are still doing what poor women do, getting pregnant and becoming mothers, whether or not they have a husband. As a result the percentage of Americans who are white and middle (or upper) class, keeps going down.
If somehow you people can get rid of abortion, maybe white girls will be getting married again. Admit it , this is what the conflict is really about.

This seems like a reasonable line of argument, one of which I haven't seen before (I haven't seen anyone try to negate abortion based on socioeconomic factors). Do you have any sources for this?
Free vote -- short read. I've spent well over 15 hours researching abortion in the past week, so there might be something there for you. I recommend reading Con's counter-arguments first to come to a quick decisions, but the choice is all yours:

http://www.debate.org...

The opponent didn't respond:

http://www.debate.org...

No response:

http://www.debate.org...