The Instigator
TheoEkman
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
LuckyPenny
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Abortion

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 1 vote the winner is...
TheoEkman
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 4/14/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 949 times Debate No: 112790
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (18)
Votes (1)

 

TheoEkman

Con

I think that abortion is immoral in every scenario, and that it should be illegal in every scenario.

The abortion question is rather simple, if you think that the fetus is a life, then it has human rights, and we cant kill it. But if it is not a life, then sure, we can kill it.

I would like to get 3 questions answered before this before the pro choice can start with their arguments;
1. What is your definition of life?
2. Is all life equal?
3. At what point is the fetus considered a human life, and we cant kill it?

(I need to add that I'm not religious in any way)
LuckyPenny

Pro

I"m excited to take part in a debate on this extremely important and complex topic! It was requested in the OP that answers to three questions be given before the debate begins. With that in mind, I plan on using round 1 for that exact purpose to allow myself and my opponent space to flesh out our respective arguments and rebuttals in rounds 2 and 3.

1. What is your definition of life?

I would make two distinctions here.

i. Life as a fundamentally basic biological category (includes things like plants, amoebas, etc.)
ii. Life as a designation of moral consideration

In the abortion debate, ii is the definition that matters. In the proceeding rounds, I plan on making some points related to the properties of entities that we, as rational moral agents, find morally valuable (ability to feel pain, will to live, preferences, subjective sense of reality). Therefore, life, on my view, is applicable to beings who have characteristics like the ones mentioned.

2. Is all life equal?

No. At some level, moral reasoning is able to distinguish the extent of moral obligations and duties. One argument/thought experiment I will be using attempts to show that the anti-abortion advocate"s claims of obligation fails as it leads to absurd conclusions. Also, as a vegan I think that a broader spectrum of life is worthy of moral consideration; however, I still recognize an asymmetry in certain cases.

3. At what point is the fetus considered a human life, and we cant kill it?

I somewhat agree with the idea that a fetus can be considered a human life at conception; however, I would also dispute the idea that mere membership of a biological species alone grants moral worth.

I hope I answered these questions and look forward to the debate!
Debate Round No. 1
TheoEkman

Con

Hello!

I'm pro life because of one reason; I do not think that anyone have the moral right force anything on another human being (or living creature) without its consent. Since we cant ask the child for consent, we do not have the right to kill it.

I believe that life begins at conception, or at least a smaller form of life. When a human sperm penetrates a human ovum, or egg, generally in the upper portion of the Fallopian Tube, a new entity comes into existence. "Zygote" is the name of the first cell formed at conception, the earliest developmental stage of the human embryo, followed by the "Morula" and "Blastocyst" stages. My point is that after conception, the child has its own body, and its own cells. Those are not owned by the mother, so she should not have the right to kill it. A woman has a choice of becoming pregnant (or at least, should have). Because she is aware of the risk by having unprotected sex, she should not be given the right to kill another human being. The woman placed the baby there by choice. The only time when I can accept the right for an individual to take another individual life, is if there is consent from both sides. Since we cant ask the baby for consent, we do not have the right to kill it.

According to the world health organisation, every year in the world there are an estimated 40-50 million abortions. This corresponds to approximately 125,000 abortions per day. This is comparable to the death count from WW2, EVERY YEAR.

People usually talk about sympathy for the woman who would have to go through all the biological reductions as there are of being pregnant. But nobody ever talk about sympathy for the child. The child has nowhere to go, nowhere to hide, did not have a choice to be in that position and the mother wants to kill the him/her. The only one that had a choice of putting him/her in that position is the mother and the father. So why should the mother have the right to kill it, when they were aware of the risk by having s
LuckyPenny

Pro

Abortion is a question that touches on our deepest moral considerations and raises serious philosophical issues to be addressed. Is it morally justifiable to terminate a pregnancy, which results in the termination of the fetus. My position is that abortion is a morally justified action.

The first question regarding abortion is does the fetus have inherent moral worth that warrants moral consideration regardless of any outstanding circumstances or considerations. The burden is on the anti-abortion side, if they posit inherent moral worth, to offer an account of just why the fetus has such a thing. One possible answer is that the fetus is human and deserves the same consideration as you, me, or the mother in virtue of membership to a biological species. This, however, is only an assertion. An argument would need to be given that biological species membership entails, inherently, moral value. I suppose something other than species can be given, but one would need an argument regardless.

The second question is obligation. Is a mother obligated to carry a pregnancy to term just because a fetus is in her womb? The answer, for me, is no. There are two reasons for this. A fetus does not possess the capacities that we, as rational moral agents, value when making moral decisions. We value things like intentions, plans for the future, subjective sense of the world, experience of pain, and so on. A fetus may possess some of these to varying degrees, but by no means to the degree humans and other animals do. Therefore, this doesn"t add any moral weight. We are also not obligated to other beings just because they are human. One thought experiment has a wounded violinist, out of necessity, connected to a donor without consent. If the donor disconnects then the violinist will die (dialysis is the original example); however, the donor must remain in the hospital until the violinist dies, which will take years. If the donor is not obligated then neither is a pregnant mother.
Debate Round No. 2
TheoEkman

Con

Your "violinist" argument is according to me, extremely bad. You said that the violinist is connected to a donor without consent. But this does not match abortion. The mother/donor has given consent, she gave consent to the risk of a pregnancy while having unprotected sex. While the child/violinist has not given any consent of being murdered what so ever, because they did not exist when the choice was being made.

"The burden is on the anti-abortion side, if they posit inherent moral worth, to offer an account of just why the fetus has such a thing" Why would a baby not have a moral value? It is a human, created by humans, if left to its natural processes it will grow into what YOU would consider a human. The fact that people are saying that a baby does not have a moral value is scaring me.

You said "We value things like intentions, plans for the future, subjective sense of the world, experience of pain, and so on" So lets say that I became braindead (No brain activity at all), and we knew for a FACT that in 1-2 months, I would wake up and have a healthy life. Would my mother have the right to kill me? Would I lose my moral value? Because by then, I wont have any experience of pain at all, I wont have a subjective sense of the world, I will definitely not have any plans for the future. But I WILL have all those things if they leave me to my natural processes in a couple of weeks. If this happend, would I then lose all my moral value over this time? Would my mother have the right to kill me over this period?

The total deaths caused by terrorism in the us between 1995-2016 is 3393. The total amount of deaths caused by abortions are 21 000, per WEEK. If you value the life of a fetus even the slightest, you would agree with me that abortion is a bigger issue than terrorism.

sources:
http://www.start.umd.edu...
http://www.worldometers.info...
LuckyPenny

Pro

The main argument against abortion, as far as I can tell, is that pregnancy is a risk agreed to between two consenting sexual partners. My opponent states that the violinist example fails because it is a false analogy; however, it is difficult to see where exactly the falsity lies. The sexual act is a contract, based on consent, between the sexual partners and not between the mother and a fetus. That consent is offered when the pregnancy is carried to term. The logic is also questionable. The possibility of a risk does not entail acceptance of that risk. Capitalists will invest capital in potential business ventures knowing they lose that money or have it stolen in the case of a scam. This does not entail that the capitalist has no right to legal recourse. The violinist analogy holds because no one would claim that the donor is morally obligated to keep someone alive against their consent, much less a fetus in a womb. II would also question the definition of consent here, but I do not have space to pursue this.

My opponent"s account of why a fetus has inherent moral worth is solely because it is a member of the human species. I affirm and repeat the challenge to explain why belonging to a biological species alone transfers moral worth. With you counterexample, typically we wouldn"t expect a good outcome or know something like that. In that case, I would say it is up to the moral deliberation of others (we already have this system in place where family may make decisions on the health care of their ailing relatives). In the case that you outlined, I would say that you do retain moral value solely because the state you are in is temporary. One other significant different is that one can attribute post-life rights to persons. For example, we consider grave robbing wrong because it violates rights we attribute to the dead based on wishes expressed in life. This is not the case with a fetus.

While abortion is an emotional topic, policy demands reasons. Vote Pro!
Debate Round No. 3
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Fiasco 3 years ago
Fiasco
You're very welcome, LuckyPenny!

Surely my vote is biased, I'm not afraid to admit that. You did a great job debating too, and clearly put a lot of thought into what you wrote. Good job to both you and the Con! :)
Posted by LuckyPenny 3 years ago
LuckyPenny
Obviously I"m going to disagree with you Fiasco but I appreciate your feedback! Lol
Posted by LuckyPenny 3 years ago
LuckyPenny
Ben, I think it depends. I think post-birth killing can obviously be acceptable. For example, if a baby is born and has horrible deformities and defects such that it will only live through connection to machines (feeding tube, ventalator, etc.) the doctors and parents are not obligated to raise this child. As I argued earlier, just being human doesn"t get you any biological worth. You need other things. As for the "bit by bit" case, that would, again depend. If it were a necessary procedure then sure; however, I would imagine the mother would feel a good deal of discomfort.
Posted by Fiasco 3 years ago
Fiasco
I was going to vote, but it seems I haven't earned my "voting privileges" ! Haha. So here's a copy/pase of my reasons for my wanna-be vote! Well done, both sides.

In the first argument, the Con provided strong arguments that a baby does have moral worth, as much as anybody. The Pro attempted to refute this claim on the basis that the baby doesn't feel or think to the *degree* that we do was is a weak argument, as the Con's example of a person in a coma-like state pointed out. (And also, the Pro did not provide a reason to define life along these lines, and showed it as an opinion but used it as a fact.) The Pro's dismissal of the Con's example on the basis that it is a "temporary" state does not prove anything - the Con's example held up quite well.

The other argument concerning whether or not a mother is obligated to carry her baby to term was mainly disputed regarding the Pro's example of a dying violist, which does not relate to the case of abortion as the donor is not the violinist's legal guardian!

In the end, the Con provided sound reasoning and examples, while the Pro's arguments were largely inapplicable to the the topic.

I vote Con!
Posted by BenTheViolinist 3 years ago
BenTheViolinist
Hi, I'd like to ask LuckyPenny whether you think it's ok to kill a child once it is born, or murder it prior to birth (by destroying its brain bit by bit, not with a gun or something similar to that)?
Posted by LuckyPenny 3 years ago
LuckyPenny
I appreciated the debate! I wish I had proof read more carefully but what can you do! Haha
Posted by TheoEkman 3 years ago
TheoEkman
Im not sure :D I hope I understood everything correct :D
Posted by LuckyPenny 3 years ago
LuckyPenny
My post was super condensed so let me know if you want some clarification!
Posted by LuckyPenny 3 years ago
LuckyPenny
It"s all good haha
Posted by TheoEkman 3 years ago
TheoEkman
My last word got cut out on the second argument :/

Its "sex?" btw 0.0
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 3 years ago
dsjpk5
TheoEkmanLuckyPenny
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-

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