The Instigator
YeshuaBought
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
BrutalTruth
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points

Abortion.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
BrutalTruth
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/4/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,241 times Debate No: 118853
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (44)
Votes (3)

 

YeshuaBought

Con

Abortion is the act of killing an unborn child. I believe abortion outside of medical needs is murder. Life begins at conception when people first have their genetic code. Everything after that is just a stage of developement. Proabortion activivist always say my body, My choice. Show me where SCIENCE says the baby is part of the mother's body. You can't do it, Can you? If you don't want a baby, Use birth control, Or be sterilized. I had my tubes removed to prevent conception, Because my meds cause birth defects. It is so wrong to commit murder.
BrutalTruth

Pro

My Position
First, I would like to clarify that I am not "pro abortion. " I am "pro choice. " What that means is that I am not someone who supports abortion itself as a standard tool for birth control. I believe people should always take necessary precautions if it is possible, If they don't want a pregnancy. That being said, I have no issue with abortion. It certainly is not murder.

Argumentation
Before one can call something murder, One must define it. What is murder? How does one know when one has committed murder?

Murder: n. The killing of a human being by a sane person, With intent, Malice aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way) and with no legal excuse or authority. (cite - https://dictionary. Law. Com/Default. Aspx? Selected=1303)

So, Ignoring the fact that abortion not being illegal actually gives the mother the "authority" to kill the fetus, And therefore abortion is not murder(I could actually rest my case right there, But I won't), One can see from this definition that murder can only be committed on a human being. We must then define "human being. " How do we classify a human being?

1 U. S. Code " 8 - "Person", "human being", "child", And "individual" as including born-alive infant
" As used in this section, The term "born alive", With respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, Means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, At any stage of development, Who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, Pulsation of the umbilical cord, Or definite movement of voluntary muscles, Regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, And regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, Cesarean section, Or induced abortion. (cite - https://www. Law. Cornell. Edu/uscode/text/1/8)

As can be seen by this U. S. Code, A fetus cannot be classified as a human being.

Conclusion
My conclusion is really quite simple: My opponent's argument is simply factually incorrect. As one can see from the facts I presented in my above argumentation, Murder can only be committed on a human being, And a fetus cannot be classified as a human being. I have therefore proven that abortion is not murder.

My opponent's other point
My opponent also claims that life begins at conception. This is also factually incorrect.

Life: Life is a characteristic that distinguishes physical entities that have biological processes, Such as signaling and self-sustaining processes, From those that do not, Either because such functions have ceased (they have died), Or because they never had such functions and are classified as inanimate. (cite - https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Life (there are multiple references listed on that page))

Obviously, In order for life to begin at conception, A fertilized embryo would have to fit the above definition. I don't think I need to explain how it doesn't. Neither a fertilized embryo, Nor a fetus, Is classified as a life, Therefore life does not begin at conception.

As for my opponent's final claim: A fetus indeed is not a "part of the female body, " thus I agree on that point, Even though it is irrelevant to this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
YeshuaBought

Con

YeshuaBought forfeited this round.
BrutalTruth

Pro

That's basically what I expected would happen. I've proven my argument beyond refute. I will say nothing further until my opponent attempts a rebuttal to my round one argument.
Debate Round No. 2
YeshuaBought

Con

YeshuaBought forfeited this round.
BrutalTruth

Pro

I guess my opponent gave up. A word of advice my dude: Don't argue claims you can't defend nor prove. I'm sure this debate will get no votes, Because none ever do, But obviously it's safe to say I easily won. We'll see if he rebuts my argument in the final round. Highly doubtful.
Debate Round No. 3
YeshuaBought

Con

YeshuaBought forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
44 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Leaning 3 years ago
Leaning
Undeveloped and unfocused points. And some points bit nonsense and turned the wrong way around. But eh, Discard, Come back to later days. Maybe find a thought in a different mood. And a points useful mainly when you're using it 'on something. I'm not sure what I was arguing for. Ehh, I'm just going to try to leave it alone for a while.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@Leaning

What you said from what I gathered was the point you made:

"I really don't see too much of a difference between emotion and instinct. Fight or flight, Anger or fear.
Sure a person can condition responses all Pavlovian like. But what does it matter? Conditioned over tens of thousands of years or over 25 years"

"Truth, Logic, Science don't determine morality"

"If emotion nurture and instinct has made it so some people value certain parts of empirical reality, How can reality prove them wrong? You can define murder and current law, But that sidesteps the issue doesn't it? Rather than the reality the person identifies or their motivation. "

"And still logic I say, Does not operate without motivation"

"The concept of god himself could not exist without our emotions/instincts or without some physical world"

"Instinct can be a useful function. And perhaps has helps develop our moralities, But it is not morality in itself. "

"Instinct can make a man pleasant and peaceful enough to others out of fear of retaliation or the instinct give rise to a rage that causes the deaths of tens or hundreds to make certain others know his power and be intimidated to never dare harm him. "

"Instinct may cause increase function, But it does not add meaning without mans concepts. "

That is where I gathered you had points.
Posted by Leaning 3 years ago
Leaning
I wasn't able to find my point. If I had, I would have deleted all of that nonsense and put forth a point succinctly here in the comment section. As I said, Part of it was I forget what we were talking about/trying to resolve in our conversation.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@leaning

You did talk about what he said but with a lot of filler. Stick to the point at hand instead of going of on a story. (Not intended to offend you. Was worth it to read but I think it reduces the point you are trying to make)
Posted by Leaning 3 years ago
Leaning
I doubt it. Honestly it's not really a reply. I use that part of the forum as a wastebasket for useless, Unfinished, And nonsense thoughts for the most part. Really that post was just me typing a bunch of different times trying to brainstorm a thought together, But nothing really came of it, But I dislike deleting things at times.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@Leaning

Reading that was something.

Hopefully BrutalTruth understands what you are saying.
Posted by Leaning 3 years ago
Leaning
@BrutalTruth
Eh, My thoughts flew apart. Honestly I can't even recall what my original point might have been. Tried to put some thought together but didn't work. Ended up just tossing my notes into Record attempt at most posts. Most likely not worth a read.
#23532
https://www. Debate. Org/forums/miscellaneous/topic/6418/785/
Posted by BrutalTruth 3 years ago
BrutalTruth
When I say instinct, I mean primal instinct. The base functions of the human brain at its most basic level. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is also based on human survival instinct. It follows logic that actions promote other actions. Do you want to be killed? If you kill others, You raise the likelihood that you will be killed, And so refraining from killing others without good reason(reasons also based on instinct) is considered basic survival technique.

Emotions are not bound to the parameters of reality. They are not bound to truth and fact. This is why "love for God" is not proof of a god's existence, Because the very idea of a god can cause the chemicals in your body to imitate love. Emotion therefore cannot be a valid form of reasoning on any front at all, Including morality(perhaps especially morality).
Posted by Leaning 3 years ago
Leaning
@BrutalTruth
That still seems selective morality to me. Following the path to survival would be following the path to survival, And be referred to as such rather than be called morality I would think. Not that it wouldn't be a form of morality if a person chose to call it morality or base their values of right and wrong off it. Or be able to see some connections with what many people see as right matching well with following the path to survival.

Emotions are among good base part of human I would think. Perhaps instincts are even further down as a driving force and also good. But also bad at times?

When a soldier in war rapes an innocent civilian due to instinct of sex/reproduction/survive in the next generation. This is bad. Though I suppose one could say he also has an instinct to come together/respect/protect other people.

Perhaps one could say that bad instincts only become bad due to culture, Upbringing, Environment messing them up. But that does not seem too different than emotion. Hmm, Or would that be bad behaviors rather than bad instincts. . .

Is it bad to go against ones instincts? Perhaps you might say only if they impede good function, Such as an overactive flight or flight response in a person giving way to anger or anxiety at inappropriate times.

Are you saying that the instinct to survive is the only good instinct? Or mainly that it is the basis of morality, Regardless of 'good or 'bad.
Posted by BrutalTruth 3 years ago
BrutalTruth
@Leaning's original response to my last response:

I will use your example of cannibalism. Human instinct shapes our morality, Along with what is empirically perceived of our reality. These are basic facts. Part of human instinct is survival. It is instinctive for humans to come together and protect each other, Because humans instinctively feel like their chances of survival are greater in numbers(that is why societies exist). That is why murder is morally wrong. To unjustly kill another human being reduces and/or threatens our chances of survival, And so it is shunned. Cannibalism is wrong for the same exact reasons, In the context of murdering another human being so that they can be eaten. A person whom is already dead, However, Can be eaten without moral repercussions, As it does not go against the instinct to survive. Any moral arguments against that would be based on emotion, Which makes them invalid.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
YeshuaBoughtBrutalTruthTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Dsjpk5 is wrong. Brutal Truth did provide the most reliable sources since YeshuaBought did not include a single one. BrutalTruth would have needed to bring on source into the argument then he would get points for it. Instead he brought in 3. YeshuaBought forfeited so Pro wins the better conduct vote. BrutalTruth did make the most convincing argument which he clearly laid out.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 3 years ago
dsjpk5
YeshuaBoughtBrutalTruthTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering Leanings poor source vote.
Vote Placed by Leaning 3 years ago
Leaning
YeshuaBoughtBrutalTruthTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Yes, people generally agree that it is bad to murder/kill. Yes there are ways to be rather sure you will not become pregnant. Statement about being part of body seems arguable/open to interpretation/definition. Part of argument that matters though is argument that a person is being killed. Pro defines human person as beginning once the right ingredients are put together. Perhaps it is not as much of a human as a more developed one, but is still human. And abortion steals a lifetime from person yet to even be born. Pro makes a good job out of cutting to pieces Cons argument in the sense of definitions and legalities. Hmm, not sure why I find Con argument somewhat convincing. Ah well, my thoughts about abortion will likely be neutral in 5 min or an hour again. Failure to show up for later rounds costs conduct points. Mostly unrelated https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0Y5oa8_ENA https://www.webtoons.com/en/fantasy/elf-and-warrior/ch-84-objectively/viewer?title_no=908&episode_no=

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