The Instigator
NerdiestNerder
Pro (for)
The Contender
JRMeagher
Con (against)

Abortion Is Morally Wrong

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
JRMeagher has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/4/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 390 times Debate No: 116284
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

NerdiestNerder

Pro

Well, well, well. Here is the infamous debate back again, with new topics, and new discussions that should be discussed.

Before I begin the argument, I believe a few ground rules should be put in place before I get started. First of all, I'd like to say that I WILL NOT, and let me repeat that, WILL NOT tolerate immaturity, rudeness, impoliteness, or any slandering. I realize that yes, we are in a debate, but we should never lose our civility.

Secondly, I'd like to say that the first round is for an introduction to your side of an argument. This is like a pitch to the readers, and your opponent, on what the argument is about and why you're choosing the side that you are chose.

The 2nd, 3rd and 4th debate rounds are for the arguments. If you can, I request to my opponent that you have clear points and flagpoles. In fact, the last time I debated someone with abortion, found here: http://www.debate.org... I continued to get to the opponents end flag, but, he continued to move it farther and farther back. Not only does this hurt your credibility, but it also hurts the debate as a whole.

Finally, the 5th round is a final argument, and then another pitch, now using the evidence that you've brought to the table, to bring the audience to your side one last time. It also is a respectful closing between opponents.

Whew! That was probably a bit too long, so I'm sorry if you fell asleep while reading that. Now, my pitch and first argument can be found below:

--------------------------------------

Hello, opponent. I'm glad you decided to accept. Just read the rules above, and know a bit on the subject, and I'm sure we'll have ...fun... doing this.

My obvious stance on the issue is that abortion is morally wrong, and therefore be illegal and frowned upon. I believe abortion is the murder of human beings, so, again, should be illegal and frowned upon. Here's why.

First of all, let's look at some terms, so me and my opponent understand each other, and are on the same page:

Murder: "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another." -Google

Abortion: "Abortion is the ending of pregnancy by removing an embryo or fetus before it can survive outside the uterus." -https://en.wikipedia.org...

There we go. So, in theory, all I have to do to destroy the opponent is to prove two things, which I will do now:

1) Abortion is unlawful and premeditated
2) A fetus, from fertilization to newborn, is a human being

Alright, so #1 is fairly easy to debunk. It's premeditated, obviously, and just because abortion is lawful does not mean its good. Slavery was lawful, and plenty of other hideous things throughout history were lawful. Not even this, but abortion itself is unlawful In some places around the world today!

Now, some of you may be scratching your heads and thinking, "Who the hell would actually defend abortion by saying that it's a law right now!" Well, just one example can be found in the video right beneath this paragraph, found at the time mark 1:15...

It's the killing of a human. The main argument that leftist take is that a fetus is not a human, merely a bundle of cells. Is this true? No. But don"t take my word for it. Take Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D."s word for it. She states:

i."As pointed out above in the background section, there is a radical difference, scientifically, between parts of a human being that only possess "human life" and a human embryo or human fetus that is an actual "human being." Abortion is the destruction of a human being. Destroying a human sperm or a human oocyte would not constitute abortion, since neither are human beings. The issue is not when does human life begin, but rather when does the life of every human being begin. A human kidney or liver, a human skin cell, a sperm or an oocyte all possess human life, but they are not human beings: they are only parts of a human being. If a single sperm or a single oocyte were implanted into a woman"s uterus, they would not grow; they would simply disintegrate.

Note: This destroys the argument for "If Abortion is murder, then masturbation is murder as well!!!" as well. Hmm. Neat!

ii.As pointed out above in the background section, there is a radical difference, scientifically, between parts of a human being that only possess "human life" and a human embryo or human fetus that is an actual "human being." Abortion is the destruction of a human being. Destroying a human sperm or a human oocyte would not constitute abortion, since neither are human beings. The issue is not when does human life begin, but rather when does the life of every human being begin. A human kidney or liver, a human skin cell, a sperm or an oocyte all possess human life, but they are not human beings: they are only parts of a human being. If a single sperm or a single oocyte were implanted into a woman"s uterus, they would not grow; they would simply disintegrate."

Note- This article was published in 1999. Still, though legal standards on abortion may have changed, to my knowledge, the scientific facts and evidence are not like goo. They stay in concrete. I also suggest you check out the website, as it is very useful: https://www.princeton.edu...

There you have the definition if something is a human being. If it can grow in a woman's uterus. And, anything from fertilization to newborn is a human being, and of course, anything after that is one also.

Now, my final point I wish to make is the "A fetus doesn't have most organs until very very late!" Well, my response to you is that the number of organs you have don't constitute whether you are a human being or not.

If that was true, I could walk over to the hospital and kill someone who was brain dead or without life support. A lot of humans are missing many organs, but they still constitute as a human, right? And besides, a fetus is GROWING these organs. It is developing them, and therefore that, by itself, should constitute it as a human.

Overall, I want to say good luck to my opponent, for I hope you'll discuss fairly and learn something. I also request that readers comment on their opinions on either side of the debate.

With that said...

You better respond before 48 hours or up, because then I would have wasted half an hour creating this argument...
JRMeagher

Con

morality
noun
principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
synonyms:ethics, rights and wrongs, ethicality More
a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society.

When deciding if something is moral or immoral one is with absolute influence and subjectivity. Morality is relative to experience. What one calls immoral another calls righteous. In other words, there is no such thing as objective morality.
Many believe in the Christian Bible and look to it as a source for morality, in spite of countless orders to stone one another for perceived sins or trespasses. Its believers still cling to its passages as if it's contents were their only source of sustenance.
It is immoral in some venues to dance or simply enjoy watching a movie on television.
Morality regarding abortion. There are many arguments in terms of whether abortion is murder or whether abortion is a right. I am engaging in neither. My belief in regards to abortion is irrelevant to the manner in which we approach legality in America.
What constitutes law? In order for something to be illegal it has to meet constitutional constraints.
In the United States we operate against using subjective morality as a basis to institute sanctions.
Rather, we determine legality on more of an impact basis. If an action has a negative impact and it's damage is provable it is determined illegal on a spectrum for example classes of felonies and misdemeanor. Laws are changed as individuals take argument with the manner of impact positive or negative for example: marijuana having medicinal benefits now being legalized for this purpose. We understand that if someone does something and the consequence has a negative impact on another that is tyoically illegal in our country. Stealing goods from your neighbor. We define it well enough that depending on the value of stolen items deyermines the consequence and level of punitive damage.
That being said, whether abortion is legal should never be determined based upon perceived, subjective morality. As morality cannot be objective by definition, it cannot be used in merit towards the passing of laws.
All humans are born absolutely free. It takes laws to remove freedoms and restrict behavior. How we determine legality and impose sanctions cannot and should never be based upon a perceived morality as morality is determined by experience. Whether abortion is right, or wrong should not be based on a moral compass, but by clear definition. For example: if we define human life as early as embryos and charge the destruction of such with murder, do we ban fertility clinics as well? Do we impose sanctions that all fertilized embryos become implanted? This is why laws and definitions are imperative to society.
Debate Round No. 1
NerdiestNerder

Pro

Thanks for responding. I'll try to take your argument bit by bit, because you have a lot for me to chew on.

"When deciding if something is moral or immoral one is with absolute influence and subjectivity. Morality is relative to experience. What one calls immoral another calls righteous. In other words, there is no such thing as objective morality."

I agree with that statement. There can be no completely agreed upon basis of what is moral and what is not. That's why I tried to prove abortion was murder. See, there are certain things in Western Civilization that can be agreed upon by the majority of citizens. Murder, theft and rape are some of these things. Still, there will always be someone who thinks differently, but that doesn't mean that we should allow that thing (say murder) to still take place.

"What constitutes law? In order for something to be illegal it has to meet constitutional constraints."
You're forgetting, it seems, that the law changes, and new constraints are added. I am suggesting one should be added.

"Rather, we determine legality on more of an impact basis. If an action has a negative impact and it's damage is provable it is determined illegal on a spectrum for example classes of felonies and misdemeanor."

Another amazing point. Now I'm really happy you decided to choose my debate in the first 20 minutes of your time on this site!
So, to debunk this, I must prove that abortion has its downsides, and has a negative impact basis. Here's my following evidence for this:

[A] "According to the best record based study of deaths following pregnancy and abortion... women who abort are approximately four times more likely to die in the following year than women who carry their pregnancies to term." -http://afterabortion.org...

[B] "...researchers found that compared to women who carried to term, women who aborted in the year prior to their deaths were 60 percent more likely to die of natural causes, seven times more likely to die of suicide, four times more likely to die of injuries related to accidents, and 14 times more likely to die from homicide. Researchers believe the higher rate of deaths related to accidents and homicide may be linked to higher rates of suicidal or risk-taking behavior." -http://afterabortion.org...

[C] "Legal abortion is reported as the fifth leading cause of maternal death in the United States..." -http://afterabortion.org...

NOTE: I encourage the reader to visit the site for evidence A-C. It is very useful, and has staggering charts that show how much more abortion hurts the mothers.

Finally, this is not even accounting for all the could-be children that died before they were in the world. It's important to not only look at where the fetus is now, but where it will be in 30 years. It could have been an amazing person, friend, doctor, politician, or, a crime lord. That's the risk humanity has to take.

For example, would you rip up the blueprints to a skyscraper, and then claim that you lost nothing? Sure you did! You lost the skyscraper! Or what if you broke your computer while it was being made in the factory? You lost it! Now, you may say that you invested in those two things, but not in your baby.

But, if you conceived a human being, you have already invested in the entire life of that human being. That thing has a future, contrary to a sperm cell. You therefore lose a human being and a negative impact is created.

"For example: if we define human life as early as embryos and charge the destruction of such with murder, do we ban fertility clinics as well? Do we impose sanctions that all fertilized embryos become implanted? This is why laws and definitions are imperative to society"

My response to this may seem stupid, but it's truly,

I don't know.

It is not my job to create laws. I am not a legal person, more of a politician. We could discuss the changes that would have to be made all day, and honestly, that's not what this debate is for. Fertility Clinics would have to adapt, and I'm sure there would be middle ground, where they would still be running, but possibly have less embryos.

I still see you main point here, and that's we shouldn't perceive things on morality. But, you can't morality. No matter how far you trace something back, it always leads to morals.

For example: you say laws are based on negative impacts. Well, "negative" is based on subjective morals, and destroys your entire point. We must all speak the language of morality, even though it contrasts in us all. Constitutions and legal documents are the result of melding different kinds of morality and created one unified morality. And I am saying that abortion is wrong in that unified morality that is the morality of America.

Good luck.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 6 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.