The Instigator
FrizzyHairInc
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Anwinsalan101
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Abortion after 3 months of the baby being concieved is immoral and wrong

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/30/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,083 times Debate No: 119255
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (26)
Votes (0)

 

FrizzyHairInc

Pro

Before 3 months the baby is NOT sentient meaning that the baby can feel no pain. Going off this I believe if you have an abortion before 3 months have passed, It is morally justified to get an abortion. However after the baby becomes sentient unless the women was raped and kidnapped for 3 months or longer, Killing the baby is immoral and a horrible thing to do.
Anwinsalan101

Con

I am pro-life and so I believe that abortion is wrong no matter what the stage of fetal development or the circumstances that brought about the child(e. G. Rape, Incest). The ability to feel pain does not change the fact that it is a human life. There are adults who are unable to feel pain because of damage to the nervous system, Does this mean that killing them is justified also?
Debate Round No. 1
FrizzyHairInc

Pro

" abortion is wrong no matter what the stage of fetal development or the circumstances that brought about the child(e. G. Rape, Incest). "
Forcing a women against her will to have a baby even if that women was 10 years old and was raped, Is immoral and wrong as it would probably lead to that 10 year old girl to die or suffer severe injury.
" The ability to feel pain does not change the fact that it is a human life "
Well before 3 months the baby isn't even alive so it can't even be considered a human life yet. By your logic are you against masturbation? Also if the baby has no intellect or pain it is probably not alive. Oh and for people who are unable to feel pain, They still are alive and have some sort of intelligence. And no I am not saying that mentally retarded people with no intellect can be killed, I am simply stating that if a being has no sentience, And no intelligence than it is morally justified to kill them.
Anwinsalan101

Con

Your argument stating that intelligence and pain are what defines life is hugely flawed as we can adapt that in terms of adults and kill many who are in coma's etc.
I believe that life begins at conception this is the only viable option since choosing any stage of development would make it morally right to kill adults who don't have these characteristics(e. G. Patients on ventilators, Patients with mechanical Hearts). So sentience is far from what defines a human life.
On the case of rape, Rape makes up under 2% of actual abortions. Rape is a horrible act, But it doesn't justify for an equally horrible act which is abortion. I am not forcing anyone to do anything by this, The forcible act was already done(rape), I am simply saying that you can't kill the child.
I am also pro-choice in the sense that I agree with four choices:
Contraception, Adoption, Abstinence or motherhood.
Masturbation is not mass genocide as it is part of the man's body and individually a sperm cannot bring about a child.
Debate Round No. 2
FrizzyHairInc

Pro

" Your argument stating that intelligence and pain are what defines life is hugely flawed as we can adapt that in terms of adults and kill many who are in coma's etc ".
As Ive already stated in the comment section, I believe that if the family orders the person in the coma to die than it would be morally justified to kill that person as they have no sentience and have no intelligence.
" I am not forcing anyone to do anything by this, The forcible act was already done(rape), I am simply saying that you can't kill the child. "
Yes you actually are as your forcing innocent women who were raped to under go a painful pregnancy and if at a young age could even lead to death. By your logic a 10 year old girl who was raped and was pregnant, Should have the kid anyways even though it would result in her and possibly the babies death.
" Masturbation is not mass genocide as it is part of the man's body and individually a sperm cannot bring about a child. "
With all do respect I don't think you even read my comment clearly and in fact you took me out of context. What I meant was that you said that at any stage during fetal development. Meaning that even a sperm that hasn't even reached the egg constitutes as immoral to abort the baby. Going by that logic, You must be against masturbation and using condoms.
" I believe that life begins at conception this is the only viable option since choosing any stage of development would make it morally right to kill adults who don't have these characteristics(e. G. Patients on ventilators, Patients with mechanical Hearts). So sentience is far from what defines a human life"
Once again you took be blatantly out of context. I did not say that sentience is the ONLY thing that constitutes as life, I said that if a being has no sentience OR intelligence than it is not alive therefore it would be morally justified to kill that being.
Anwinsalan101

Con

Anwinsalan101 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
26 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by logicae 3 years ago
logicae
@ John_C_1812_II

Hey John, I'm sorry but the way you shape these terms is a bit confusing, When you say "pregnancy abortion" do you mean to have an abortion during pregnancy? If so this is a bit redundant, Because an abortion by definition is the ending of a pregnancy and so you can just simply say abortion.

"Tell me if I have your grievance right, Are you saying pregnancy abortion is a lie and therefore wrong because it unites people under governing of crime? Yes. "

Well no, When I say abortion is wrong, I mean that killing a human being is wrong no matter what phase of life it's in. Simple

Also what do you mean by "Pregnancy abortion is directing a self-incrimination and in the process it also incriminates others into acts of crime at the least three crimes are not the same crime. " What other crimes are committed? Who is self-incriminating?

"The lie takes place on an official document making a list of different crimes that can be added as choice"

Ok I think I get what you are saying (otherwise stop me XD)

You are saying that these laws are subjective and so can be "added as choice" to be a crime or not. Is that the lie you are talking about? If so, I think you have to examine first if abortion is wrong or not. If it is fine, Then limiting it is indeed a barrier to women, But if it is wrong, It is not a "lie", But instead is a horrendous crime (currently genocide) that has to be stopped.

Cheers my friend!

To truth! -logicae
Posted by John_C_1812_II 3 years ago
John_C_1812_II
I would word it this way, Tell me if I have your grievance right, Are you saying pregnancy abortion is a lie and therefore wrong because it unites people under governing of crime? Yes.
Pregnancy abortion is directing a self-incrimination and in the process it also incriminates others into acts of crime at the least three crimes are not the same crime. So, Yes people are taking part in promoting organized crime. Pregnancy abortion is a lie. The lie takes place on an official document making a list of different crimes that can be added as choice
Posted by John_C_1812_II 3 years ago
John_C_1812_II
as well.
A person who donates human sperm and human egg to science is taking part in a pregnancy abortion by the meaning of abort. It may, Or may not be legal as this process is set on official stopping pregnancy, Not officially stopping life. The pregnancy abortion a woman can have by her choice alone by separation created by definition of truth takes place when she decides to participate, Or not take part in sexual copulation. This use of pregnancy abortion follows the meaning of its definition as a united state to all by truth.
There are two ways a pregnancy can be aborted by the meaning of abort. There are other ways that pregnancy process can be terminated, Ended. It is not a case of interpretation it is a common defense as I simple object to becoming a part of an organized lie anymore. Pregnancy abortion the way it has been legislated is a recorded documented lie taken from the public. Female specific amputation is my response to this lie I have been told to take part in.
The goal of any debate on pregnancy abortion is not over if it is a crime. The debate is if pregnancy is an admission of guilt, Or not. The United State of use of alibi is enough to believe it is an admission of guilt. The United state of alibi also details it is known as lie for there is an excuse made for it.
Posted by logicae 3 years ago
logicae
@ John_C_1812_II

Tell me if I got your case right, Are you saying that abortion is wrong because it unites people to committing a crime?
Posted by John_C_1812_II 3 years ago
John_C_1812_II
@logicae
It might be put clear this way. Abortion is immoral and wrong by the admission of guilt it uses to unite all people by.
Posted by John_C_1812_II 3 years ago
John_C_1812_II
In basic principle a pregnancy abortion is treated as if it is the accusation to a person, This point is not true as pregnancy abortion is the description of type of crime being performed by a person. That is the given an alibi for the crime as part of the confession. The truth is the description is just one of the many ways a person can say in a hard to understand intellectual fashion they are committing murder in many ways shapes and form.
How United State Constitutional understanding, When placed in a public union can still by basic principle describe all admission of guilt made under false pretense are immoral and loss of privacy by united state. Roe Verus Wade only made ruling about privacy, There was no limits set as governing by law as to how the privacy was is to be seen as lost in the first place.
Self-incrimination of a crime in public allow the translation of crime to take place creating other crimes that effect the common defense of a society. This is not the description given simply as immoral and describes a united state as understanding that can be shared as basic principle with people.
Example: What reason can be given that all woman should admit to a crime publicly can be given in defense of Pregnancy abortion?
Are woman who are united by legislation under a constitutional state of medical condition such as female specific amputation asked to admit, Self-incriminate, And imply a wrong?
Posted by logicae 3 years ago
logicae
@John_C_1812_II

Thanks for responding!

In the first of your last two posts, Your language was too strong for me to understand (if you could make that simpler, That would be awesome! )
Now in your last post, Let me know if I get this right, You stated that the current debate here is about the admission (meaning to find the truth about) of abortion, But not on its legal status or application. I agree with this statement, But I would like to point out the consequence of determining abortion moral or not, Is that it asks for a change in law. Like how slavery was deemed immoral in the old U. S south and was consequently made illegal.

Hope to hear from you soon,

To truth!
Posted by John_C_1812_II 3 years ago
John_C_1812_II
@ logicae
It might be easier to explain this way the pregnancy abortion debate is all about the admission to word abortion created when connected to a pregnancy. The debate is not addressing the legality of how the admission is exposed to the public as a different crime by this union.
Posted by John_C_1812_II 3 years ago
John_C_1812_II
@logicae
Hi, Logicae
The Supreme Court makes a ruling on findings that are presented in the order they are presented to the judicial process. This sets the standard of separation set for united state by constitutional principle. In order to create a union perfect or not a precedent must be address, Then it must be linked to a basic principle that is connected to the question of right or wrong that is being publicly challenged.
The admission of guilt in the wording pregnancy abortion and the ruling found of privacy with Roe Vs. Wade create a fracture in a union of wrong. There is one wrong that is connecting the couple of one woman and one man as they are placed in union by the human reproductive state of pregnancy.
There is a second union to wrong created in privacy as this loss to privacy precedent now connects a self-incrimination that is directed into the public when a person details a wrong openly with others. The wrong that is being described if tested and fails creates a conviction that has a punishment which effects a person"s Civil Right to Vote in a Republic democracy.
The threat to the couple is being set against the threat to the common defense of the people. In order to achieve an objective of immunity to only one of the wrongs that are created by the issue. This is not a proper united state. In defense, And preservation of the United States Constitution Right it is at this point we must look at the action of precedent set by peers in this matter. The object is to present an argument of constitutional principle in a way that forms a united state that does not depend on admission, Confession, And self-incrimination with no regulation by self or judicial separation.
Posted by logicae 3 years ago
logicae
@John_C_1812_II

Hello John! Thank you for taking part in this discussion

In regards to your second post,

Why are you comparing privacy to abortion? I think this case is a legal characterization (which is why they were able to validate roe v wade, As issues of privacy are far less significant than that of life). So I ask, Do you think that ending an unborn human being"s life is the same as disregarding its privacy?

Taking a look at your first post,
"The truth is that a fetus, Or human egg of a woman has no constitutional right of independence. "
1. I agree that a human egg doesn"t have rights as it is part of the women, But a fetus is not part of the women, It is instead an autonomous human with its own dna. So I have to ask for what reasons do you think it loses the right to live.

2. The rest of this post seems to argue for the right to women"s privacy, However (as I"m sure you agree) the Supreme Court is not always right. In this case they disregard the unborn babies right to live, Making it just about women"s convenience. Additionally, Legality does not determine ethicality.

I hope that you respond, So we can get some solid discussion in. But in the meantime may our thoughts be ever open minded.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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