The Instigator
mandorangerwolf777
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Jukebox101
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The Voting Period Ends In
01day06hours38minutes11seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/5/2019 Category: Health
Updated: 1 week ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 376 times Debate No: 122918
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (19)
Votes (0)

 

mandorangerwolf777

Pro

Is abortion morally wrong? I say yes, For the following simple reason.

1. It is morally wrong to kill an innocent human being.
2. Abortion kills innocent human beings.
3. Abortion is morally wrong.
Jukebox101

Con

Beforehand, I would like to say that I personally agree with pro. I am taking this debate as both a challenge and practice for a remarkably similar one I am having later in a public setting.

Before I provide arguable points, I would prefer to know what system morals you propose that abortion contradicts. Also, Do you believe all abortions are wrong, Or only post first trimester, Or etc? This is necessary as there are many different positions.

I hope this is a profitable exchange.

-Juke
Debate Round No. 1
mandorangerwolf777

Pro

I also hope this is a profitable exchange. Good luck, And may there be no animosity between us.

Moral: (According to google) concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.

It is a bit of an ambiguous term, But when I say morally wrong I am referring to the standards civilized society has today.
Specifically, That killing innocent human beings is wrong, Bad, And should no be done.

I believe ALL abortions are wrong, Except for one situation I have heard of in which the egg is lodged in the fallopian tube and birth would kill both the child and the mother.

This is including children conceived by rape.

The law (again according to google) in America is that

"Rape is punished by a maximum of fifteen years' criminal imprisonment. Rape is punished by a maximum of twenty years' criminal imprisonment in certain aggravating factors (including victim under age of 15). Rape is punished by a maximum of thirty years' criminal imprisonment where it caused the death of the victim. "

It is considered 'cruel and unusual punishment' to execute the rapist. Why is it then acceptable to kill the child, Who did nothing wrong and is completely innocent of all crimes?
Jukebox101

Con

I am assuming you believe in the soul, Mind, And the specific personality everyone has. The mind is inseperable from the brain. You can cut your arm off, But still be you. If you mess with parts of the brain, It can affect who you are as a person greatly. But that's just it. The brain (mind) is where our personality and persona is located. Without it, We are dead and not people anymore. Our society values personhood, Not really just life.

Why is it okay to kill plants? They lack personhood. Why is it okay to kill animals? They lack personhood. Why is it not accepted to kill your pets? Because (1) of their intelligence/sentience, (2) because we value them, And (3) we can form a relationship with them. Why is it okay to not kill people? Same reasons. All human beings eventually develop into people. Human beings in the womb, Before they develop brain waves and a brain itself, Are not people yet (abortions after this I am not arguing for (around 6 weeks)). They are, In essence, Just part of the mom.

So, In summary, The human being, Before it develops its own personhood and character, Is not a person. It is immoral to kill a person. Therefore, It is not immoral to perform abortions before personhood.
Debate Round No. 2
mandorangerwolf777

Pro

The zygote, The fertilized egg, Is actually not considered part of the mom, But it's own uniquely separate being.

According to an article written by Maureen Condic, PH. D. , Of the Charolotte Lozier Institute, (A Scientific View of When Life Begins)

"Human embryos from the one-cell (zygote) stage forward show uniquely integrated, Organismal behavior that is unlike the behavior of mere human cells. . . The cells, Tissues and organs produced during development do not somehow generate the embryo. . . They are produced by the embryo as it directs its own development to more mature stages of human life. This organized, Coordinated behavior of the embryo is the defining characteristic of a human organism. "

It goes on to say that human cells can under some circumstances assemble into primitive structures, But under no circumstances to mere human cells make the coordinated efforts needed to make a full human body. They behave like cells, Not organisms.

The article goes on to state that

"The conclusion that human life begins at sperm-egg fusion is uncontested, Objective, Based on the univerally accepted scientific method of distinguishing different cell types from each other and on ample scientific evidence (Thousands of independent, Peer-reviewed publications). . . A neutral examination of the evidence merely establishes the onset of a new human life at a scientifically well-defined 'moment of conception, ' a conclusion that unequivocally indicates that human embryos from the one-cell stage forward are indeed living individuals of the human species; i. E. , Human beings. "

So the science of embryology has indeed established that human life begins at conception.

According to that, Then, Even at six weeks abortion is purposefully terminating the life of an innocent human being.

So what makes that human being not a person?
You named 3 reasons it is not accepted to kill pets.

1) they have intelligence and sentience. Obviously, The zygote has both, Because it is acting independently from the mother and creating an entire body for itself.

2) we value them. This is a dangerous requirement to make, Because then we get into the realm of, Say, The Nazi's, Who executed millions they deemed of lesser value. Despite that - I value every unborn child. I could name hundreds, And know thousands of people who also do.

3)we can form a relationship with them. Have you ever seen a recently pregnant woman who loves their child? They are everywhere. Most mothers love their unborn children. Obviously, Then, The capability is there.

So how else is the child not as good as the rest of us? When do you consider the child to become human?
Jukebox101

Con

The zygote, The fertilized egg, Is actually not considered part of the mom, But it's own uniquely separate being.

This is true, Which is why I said in essence.

It goes on to say that human cells can under some circumstances assemble into primitive structures, But under no circumstances to mere human cells make the coordinated efforts needed to make a full human body. They behave like cells, Not organisms.

This doesn't seem to condradict what I wrote.

So the science of embryology has indeed established that human life begins at conception.
According to that, Then, Even at six weeks abortion is purposefully terminating the life of an innocent human being.

Yes, Human life begins at conception. Not personhood. I explained in my previous argument why the two are not the same.

Obviously, The zygote has both, Because it is acting independently from the mother and creating an entire body for itself.

A zygote, Or diploid cell, Does not have intelligence or sentience, Simply because of the fact that it lacks a mind, Or brain. This is the same reason plants lack intelligence and/or sentience. Animals have one. The zygote does not create the body for itself, Cellular processes do. With an abortion, You are terminating cellular processes (that don't deal with personhood or personality).

we value them. This is a dangerous requirement to make Because then we get into the realm of, Say, The Nazi's, Who executed millions they deemed of lesser value. Despite that - I value every unborn child. I could name hundreds, And know thousands of people who also do.

The people whom the Nazis executed where human beings who were persons (have personhood). Fetuses in the womb (before six weeks) are potential persons. That makes what you stated a false analogy. Now, After they develop their own mind and brain, I would say you have a point there.

we can form a relationship with them. Have you ever seen a recently pregnant woman who loves their child? They are everywhere. Most mothers love their unborn children. Obviously, Then, The capability is there.

After they develop their own personhood, They are a person. I'm trying not to sound too technical here, But before what I previously stated happens, You are loving a potential person. Yes, They are a human being, But as I've stated before, They are not a person.

So how else is the child not as good as the rest of us? When do you consider the child to become human?

I consider the human being in the womb to always be a human being. I don't always consider them to be a person. If they are not a person, They aren't entitled to the same rights as one.


I await your response,
-Juke
Debate Round No. 3
mandorangerwolf777

Pro

Let's revisit for a moment why exactly we think killing people is wrong.

It isn't because we are ending a life - If that were so, It would be generally accepted that it is wrong to kill animals and plants and germs. All of those are, Technically, Alive.

If you think about it, It is the termination of the future of a person that is unacceptable. The potential of that person has been cut short.

Abortion does that exact same thing. Each child, No matter how young or undeveloped, Has the same potential all of us have for a full, Influential life. The intentional killing of that undeveloped child, Then, Is exactly the same as the intentional killing of an adult.
Jukebox101

Con

It isn't because we are ending a life. . .

Agreed.

If you think about it, It is the termination of the future of a person that is unacceptable. The potential of that person has been cut short.

This is what it ultimately comes down to from your perspective, Yes.

Abortion does that exact same thing. Each child, No matter how young or undeveloped, Has the same potential all of us have for a full, Influential life.

When you use the word child, You are implying that the human being is a person. This makes a big difference in regards to morality. I don't think the unborn human being (before six weeks) is a child, But alternatively a developing human being (i am intentionally being redundant). As I've been repeating throughout the debate, A person (or child) is different than a life. In regards to potential, Where do you draw the line? Every sperm or egg has the potential to become a person, But millions upon millions of them are purposely stopped. Because of the similarities between an unborn human being (before six weeks) and other life, Say animal fetuses or plant saplings, It is allowable to state that if performing abortions is wrong, Then cutting short an animal's or plant's life is wrong. You are cutting off their potential. The concept these all share is lack of personhood.

The intentional killing of that undeveloped child, Then, Is exactly the same as the intentional killing of an adult.

1. The undeveloped child is not a child (or person), But a combination of cellular processes.
2. The developed adult is a person, With a unique personhood.
3. Killing persons for certain reasons is morally wrong.
4. Killing something that is not a person for justifiable reasons is not morally wrong.
5. Therefore, The abortion of a human being who has not developed into a person is not morally wrong.

Summarization:

Human beings who have not developed a brain or waves (before six weeks) are not persons. They don't have their own personality or mind (soul). They are basically on life support from the mother, And just an amalgamation of cellular processes. They are life, But with humanity we value personhood, Not just life. To object because we are ending the potential of the fetus to become a person is fallacious, As demonstrated above. You stated that the potential of that person is cut short. Rather, It should be: the potential of that human being to become a person is cut short.

Why do you consider a human being, Before they devlop a brain and/or mind, To be a person? Is it because they have the potential to be one?

Is there a certain point around the time a zygote forms where the life is considered a person?


I await your response,
-Juke
Debate Round No. 4
mandorangerwolf777

Pro

I personally believe that every human being has a unique soul from conception, And that each child, From conception, Is a person.

From what I understand, Your argument is this - the zygote is not considered a person until around 6 weeks in, After which abortion is morally wrong.

I want you to realize how dangerous it is to assume we have the knowledge to assume whether someone is a person or not. Slavery was justified by a lack of personhood. Almost any atrocity can be justified by saying 'oh, They don't count as a person'.
You have made the claim that because the undeveloped child does not have a physical brain, That means it must have no personality. How can you be absolutely certain of this?

I would make the claim that it is better to act on the side of mercy than be promoting mass killings. We don't know absolutely that the zygote has no personhood. What we do know is that, Uninterrupted, The zygote WILL eventually grow up to be a fully formed adult. Killing a person is wrong. It is impossible to know absolutely that zygotes are not people - persons, And humans.

You asked where I draw the line between a sperm, Egg, And zygote. I draw the line at conception.
The sperm and egg are not an indistinct, Unique human being, Where as the zygote is. The sperm and egg will not become a human being 100% of the time, Whereas the zygote already is one.

In addition, What exactly would you say was 'justifiable means'? I would say that anything that would be acceptable for people, Could be acceptable for the undeveloped child who could be a person.
Has the child committed a crime? Are we at war with that child?

We have the policy of 'innocent until proven guilty' in the USA. I would dare say that this also applies in this situation. An unborn child, No matter how young, Is a person, Because it is impossible to prove otherwise and the potential is definitely there.
It is wrong to kill an innocent human being, Destroying that potential, And so abortion is morally wrong.

-I look forward to your response, And may the best debater win.
Jukebox101

Con

I personally believe that every human being has a unique soul from conception, And that each child, From conception, Is a person.

Alright. The unfortunate thing about this is that your statement above is unfalsifiable. There is no scientific way you can really defend it. It is faith-based, And as a consequence, Really can't be debated. My position here would be that the mind is really part of the soul and resides in the brain.

I want you to realize how dangerous it is to assume we have the knowledge to assume whether someone is a person or not. Slavery was justified by a lack of personhood. Almost any atrocity can be justified by saying 'oh, They don't count as a person'.

You haven't really brought up any counters to the idea that the presence of a mind/soul/personality makes a person. Therefore, It seems to be a perfectly moral and natural way to define what a person is. Plants and nonliving things don't have one. Slavery was justified by a fallacious definition of personhood (race).

You have made the claim that because the undeveloped child does not have a physical brain, That means it must have no personality. How can you be absolutely certain of this?

Because there's no where else in the body that it would reside. If you cut your arm off, You're still you. If you tear your ear, You're still you. If you don't have a brain, You fulfill none of the requirements you would think a person would be able to fill. The brain, Mind and soul are like the trinity, In a way. They are separate, But the same.

We don't know absolutely that the zygote has no personhood. . . It is impossible to know absolutely that zygotes are not people- persons, And humans.

I would say philosophically we do. Also, All scientific knowledge of the mind points to it. The mind resides in the brain. Zygotes don't have a brain. Therefore, Zygotes don't have a mind. The mind is inseparable from the soul or brain. Therefore, A zygote does not have a soul. Killing a person without justifiable reason is wrong.

In addition, What exactly would you say was 'justifiable means'? I would say that anything that would be acceptable for people, Could be acceptable for the undeveloped child who could be a person.
Has the child committed a crime? Are we at war with that child?

Where I used justifiable in my previous argument's syllogism, I meant within reasonable action. Cutting a tree down isn't really anything, But burning down, For say, The entire Amazon rainforest, Is not okay. Society, And laws created by it, Limit us. The problem here is that, As I'm sure I've shown, The fact that human beings, Before a certain stage of development, Aren't people. They don't have the same rights as people. If a armadillo, For instance, Was burrowing around your house, You could kill it reasonably. If a child (2 years) digging up holes, You couldn't do the same. Why? Because of the fact that we value personhood more than life. The child has done nothing wrong, But neither has the armadillo. They are both, However interfering with something. People's lives.

We have the policy of 'innocent until proven guilty' in the USA. I would dare say that this also applies in this situation. An unborn child, No matter how young, Is a person, Because it is impossible to prove otherwise and the potential is definitely there.
It is wrong to kill an innocent human being, Destroying that potential, And so abortion is morally wrong.

This is the heart of our disagreement. An unborn human being, Up until a certain point, Cannot be a person. Personhood is irrevocably tied to the physical brain, And where there is an absence of one, There is an absence of a person. Innocence, Therefore, Should not be applied. Anyone may value the future and potential of a fetus, But up until a certain point, It is still morally justifiable to end the life.



This has been an interesting debate, Playing devil's advocate.

May the best win,

-Juke


Debate Round No. 5
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by missmedic 2 weeks ago
missmedic
Does the America education system a comprehensive sex education from k through 12?
Does America have free and accessible birth control?
Does America have counselling and support systems for pregnant and new mothers?
The answer is "no" to all three questions and you ask why abortion is the best choice.
Abortion pill 17$ giving birth 20 to 30 thousand dollars. There is no need for societies to defend fetal interests directly, As the best way to protect fetuses is to provide resources directly to pregnant women. When a pregnant woman is safe and healthy, So is her fetus.
Posted by Anonymous03 2 weeks ago
Anonymous03
I disagree, There are multiple states which have banned abortion or made it mandatory for individuals seeking abortions to get 'counselling' in which religious fanatics preach about how God's life is within them and that they shouldn't kill God's gift.
If American society is pro-choice why isn't there enough outcry about these things? What makes you think American society allows abortion to be the best choice?
Posted by missmedic 2 weeks ago
missmedic
The America society makes abortion the best option. Why is that?
Posted by Anonymous03 2 weeks ago
Anonymous03
@PrettyYoung,

I'd much rather we at least continued this on a debate where everything's structured and we can at least tell who said what arguments when. We don't have to officially start a debate, You can just continue the argument on there. I'd much rather sift through one chunk of text than have to split my arguments into four different comments because of a character limit.
Posted by Anonymous03 2 weeks ago
Anonymous03
'You also stated that "many scientists" have supported the fact that "a bundle of cells is not a human being". Well, What if I told you that many biologists have also supported the fact that "a bundle of cells" is the beginning of a human's life which is yet to grow and mature just as you and I are growing and maturing right now, Tell me again why it is OK to kill an unborn child? ' Not sure where you were going with this argument. You've just said again, 'some biologists have support the fact that a bundle of cells is the beginning of life - while some don't. You've established that NO-ONE KNOWS when life begins. Great! So why do you just pop in with 'Tell me again why it is OK to kill an unborn child' when we haven't even established whether abortion is murder of an unborn child or not? Plus, I've already told you, A woman's rights is more important than something with no rights nor what scientists even KNOW is a 'life'. Can you rebut that before aggressively demanding for my explaining why it's okay to 'kill an unborn child'? I've given you my point. Where's yours?

"Please look to the NHS website's article on abortion. " Not only is it bad conduct to only cite another source without quoting it, The NHS site doesn't mention that this bundle of cells feels pain at all. So this doesn't support your point.

'According to Google, Life is defined as: "the existence of an individual HUMAN BEING or animal". I'm not gonna go into detail because my point is pretty self explanatory here. Again is this just your side of delusion or complete hypocrisy? '
I mean, Ignoring that terrible conduct, I question what you were aiming to achieve by quoting Google's definition of life? You were trying to rebut my argument that it's not immoral to end the life of something that feels no pain by saying that Google says that life is the existence of a 'HUMAN BEING or animal'. Sorry about my delusion or complete hypocrisy, But I don't think your point is at all self-explanatory.
Posted by Anonymous03 2 weeks ago
Anonymous03
'Oh you sound very foolish with this one. Once again, Eggs and zygotes? Not the same thing kid:)'
First of all, Lemme reprimand you for that condescension, We don't do that here, I thought it was a nice reasonable debate but it looks like you think otherwise.
Secondly, You keep trying to cling to this idea that a zygote is somehow a human being when no-one really knows when human life begins. I'll elaborate by addressing your next point.

'Well this statement is illogical on so many levels. Perhaps you've already misread my point when I clearly stated that a human life begins at CONCEPTION. Jacking off is not the same as the process where the zygote is formed by the fusion of an egg and sperm cell. '
I'll say this only one more time since it appears that it has slipped your mind. THERE IS NO DEFINITIVE ESTABLISHMENT THAT SAYS THAT HUMAN LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION. You can't base your argument around something that has never been definitely answered scientifically. Try reading a few articles yourself.

'Thankyou for this unnecessary point which pretty much got you nowhere in this argument. By your logic, It is completely justified to end the life of one that cannot feel pain, Think or remember anything? '
Euthanasia is a completely different topic as it doesn't put a mother's life at risk and all people in comas have the plug pulled ANYWAY. You're putting my points out of context.

'Yet I bet anyone with the right mind would consider that killing them would be immoral and a very wicked action to do so. How's that for blatant hypocrisy? '
Interesting how you think that 'anyone with the right mind' are only people who agree with you. Many people support euthanasia because no brainwaves = dead and basically it's completely moral to kill what's basically a body that is getting its' lungs inflated and some nutrients pumped into it. I'll extricate myself from this completely irrelevant topic you seem to want to veer down as it's completely different to the idea of
Posted by Anonymous03 2 weeks ago
Anonymous03
I think that it's very confusing to continue an argument over comments rather than during a debate but eh whatever floats your boat I guess.

The ant being run over analogy was purposefully illogical as it was a mockery of your inexplicable attempt to connect doctors performing abortions to their going out into the world and murdering people and I'm confused as to why you were trying to rebut that at all.

'According to Google, Abortion is defined as the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy. So you're telling me that the termination/ ending of life is not equal to murder. Excuse me for stating this, But I definitely think that we've established that we definitely are KILLING. '
Let me stop you right there and reiterate that Google states that it is the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy and it doesn't state that it is murder. We haven't ever established that abortion is murder and your newer arguments don't establish this at all. Please tell me when we've established 'the fact' that abortion is murder, Or at least attempt to establish this at all.

'"Human pregnancy" is also found within that quote. That's funny, HUMAN pregnancy doesn't really sound much like a "bundle of cells" at all, Does it? '
Entirely subjective and pretty absurd logic too. It may not sound like 'a bundle of cells' to you but that's what it is- abortion is the termination of a bundle of cells. Not sure what you were planning to achieve through that point. Keep in mind I'll be addressing your euthanasia point too so don't put your panties in a twist, I'll back up what I said.

'I don't remember claiming that the child DOES have more of a right to life than the woman does though, Do you? ' I worded it to say that it WOULD BE absurd to suggest that the child would have more of a right to life, And I never claimed that you made such a claim either. Try and read through my arguments again. I said that *it would be* a huge statement. Not sure how you managed to interpret that
Posted by zapshe 2 weeks ago
zapshe
"Again, I would ask: What moral system is not performing abortions infringing upon? "

Easy. A woman get's pregnant due to rape. No abortion? Is that moral?

The woman has children already and has several jobs to try and care for them. No abortion? Is that moral?

The woman was going to college, Trying to get an education so she can find a good job. No abortion? Is that moral?

An underage girl, Made a mistake. No abortion? Is that moral?

Countless examples. But IDK, Apparently abortions are bad because f*ck the woman.
Posted by PrettyYoung 2 weeks ago
PrettyYoung
@Anonymous03, "If I run over an ant, It may lead to who knows what. . . " Please be reassured (or perhaps initially assured) that human life>ant life and you cannot compare a human's life to an ant being run over, That seems like an over statement to me. Also, It may seem illogical to you but have you considered the invention of the guillotine? During the Reign of Terror (June 1793 to July 1794) about 17, 000 people were guillotined. This was only a year after it's invention in 1792. If the guillotine's invention itself had murdered so many, How can abortion just be thrown to the side? Try comparing this to an estimated 56 million induced abortions occurring each year worldwide. That's 56 million human lives ended. It's a shame.
"We haven't even established whether abortion is killing something" According to Google, Abortion is defined as the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy. So you're telling me that the termination/ ending of life is not equal to murder. Excuse me for stating this, But I definitely think that we've established that we definitely are KILLING. "Human pregnancy" is also found within that quote. That's funny, HUMAN pregnancy doesn't really sound much like a "bundle of cells" at all, Does it?
" It would be a huge statement to perhaps suggest that the unborn child has more of a right to life than the woman does". I don't remember claiming that the child DOES have more of a right to life than the woman does though, Do you?
"All the eggs killed in a period, Did they have a right to life" Oh you sound very foolish with this one. Once again, Eggs and zygotes? Not the same thing kid:)
Posted by PrettyYoung 2 weeks ago
PrettyYoung
@Anonymous03, Alright time to knock some common sense back into your brain. . .
"A bundle of cells is not a human being, It cannot actually think, It cannot remember nor feel pain". Thankyou for this unnecessary point which pretty much got you nowhere in this argument. By your logic, It is completely justified to end the life of one that cannot feel pain, Think or remember anything? Suggest a living, Breathing human being was in a coma. Surely this living, Breathing human being couldn't possible feel pain, Think or remember anything while in a state of unconsciousness, Yet I bet anyone with the right mind would consider that killing them would be immoral and a very wicked action to do so. How's that for blatant hypocrisy?
Furthermore, You also stated that "many scientists" have supported the fact that "a bundle of cells is not a human being". Well, What if I told you that many biologists have also supported the fact that "a bundle of cells" is the beginning of a human's life which is yet to grow and mature just as you and I are growing and maturing right now, Tell me again why it is OK to kill an unborn child?

"Jacking off is killing millions of kids". Well this statement is illogical on so many levels. Perhaps you've already misread my point when I clearly stated that a human life begins at CONCEPTION. Jacking off is not the same as the process where the zygote is formed by the fusion of an egg and sperm cell. The unfertilized egg before conception> Jacking off :)
"Who says that this is an indicator that it does feel pain? " -> Please look to the NHS website's article on abortion.
"Quickly ending the life of something that many scientists agree cannot feel pain? " According to Google, Life is defined as: "the existence of an individual HUMAN BEING or animal". I'm not gonna go into detail because my point is pretty self explanatory here. Again is this just your side of delusion or complete hypocrisy?
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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