The Instigator
MUNER287
Con (against)
The Contender
Sonofcharl
Pro (for)

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
MUNER287 has forfeited round #5.
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: 5/12/2018 Category: Health
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 484 times Debate No: 113809
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)

 

MUNER287

Con

Abortion is stripping a fetus from its most basic human right, the right to live. Parents do not have the right to choose to inhumanly murder a human being when conception may easily avoided by using things such as condoms. Couples have a right to choose, they have the right to choose wether to engage in unprotected sexual activity which may result in another human life, this human life is as valuable as ours, and can not be taken away.
Sonofcharl

Pro

Hello MUNER287.

I will accept your challenge.

Abortion.
An emotive issue.

Including expressions such as "stripping a fetus" in any dialogue is sure to raise eyebrows. I'm more pragmatic though, I always prefer to take a more realistic, godless approach to such issues.

Let me ask you a few questions.
At what point do you think a fetus becomes aware of existence?

That is to say. We do not fear death itself, what we fear is non-existence.
So does a fetus have knowledge of life and death?
Can a fetus fear non-existence?
Debate Round No. 1
MUNER287

Con

I surely do believe we should take a more realistic approach too. More than 90% of abortions occur during the 13th week of pregnancy, at this time fetuses have already developed finger prints, vocal chords, and the part of the brain which is responsible for complex thoughts is developing. This is a human life that cannot be taken away.

Now to answering your questions

"At what point do you think a fetus becomes aware of existence?"
I as a non religious person believe life cannot be judged on awareness, for example when a person is in coma they aren"t aware of themselves nor environment. Do you believe it would be fine to murder a human being that is in coma just because they aren"t aware of their current state, and existence?

"Does a fetus have knowledge of life and death?"
Fetuses do have knowledge of life and death. One of, if not the most used abortion method is MVA. In this process a vacuum is used to retire contents from uterine. During this process the fetus"s body is completely destroyed by the vacuum. Doctors who have performed this form of abortion have recalled observing fetuses desperately moving to stay in womb. Fetuses are aware of their life, and will try to stay alive.

"Does a fetus fear non-existence?"
This is a question impossible to answer. If fetuses didn"t fear non-existence this does still not justify the killing of them. A suicidal person may often not fear non-existence, however would you kill them?

Now I"d like to ask you a few questions?

At what point in a fetuses life do you believe abortion shouldn"t be allowed anymore?

How can a parent(s) justify the decision to have an abortion?

Do you consider fetuses to be alive?
Sonofcharl

Pro

I am also non-religious.
Ultimately I accept the fundamentality of existence and the universe. I, like everyone else, have no truthful answers to the big question. As a consequence I can not attribute real significance to anything, including life.
Ok. I'm happy to conform with the conventions of society, it will obviously makes my short life a whole lot easier if I do so.

Your questions.
1) Difficult question, for a socially conforming realist.
I debate for debating's sake and my debating stance does no necessarily conform with my personal, socially based opinion. That is to say. from a social perspective I would say that I am anti-abortion. But society is also about billions of other people with individual opinions and should also be about their personal freedom of choice.
Nonetheless, where a legislative decision allowing abortion has been made, I have to be prepared to accept that decision. So under these circumstances my answer to your question would be: Up to ten weeks.
Given that the recognised transition from the embryonic stage of development to the fetal stage of development occurs around the eleventh week of gestation. Even so If we pay regard to "awareness". It is fair to suggest that for a period of development after the eleventh week, major organs, including the brain are not sufficiently developed as to be properly functional.

2) An easier question to answer.
Everyone has a personal opinion and everyone should be allowed the freedom of choice within the constraints of social legislation. We are not all affected by morals and principles in the same way and should not have the high morals and principles of others forced upon us.
I will now list three reasons for your consideration.
A) Forced pregnancy arising from a rape situation.
B) An individual or a couple may consider themselves to be unready to cope with parenthood. Given the demands and expectancies of Modern Society.
C) The one all consuming Global God is money. The financial demands of children may be considered to be overwhelming and unsustainable.

3) Yes. Life is that absurdly amazing thing. I would suggest that the spark of life is already present in the sperm and the egg.

As a realist I regard all life as absurd and amazing and with equal measure.
What is your point of view here?
At this point in abortion debates religious people will usually ascribe to the Orwellian notion that, All life is equal, but some lives are more equal than others.
Do you eat? Are you omnivorous or even vegetarian or vegan? If so you have to be prepared extinguish the spark of life, out of necessity and with impunity.

Despite the amazing absurdity of life, it is still only transient and extremely tenuous, it can wiped out in the blink of an eye
for all manner of reasons and without consideration.
Isn't it simply the human condition? That we have a highly developed sense of memory and therefore continually subjugate ourselves to our own consciences. That is to say, we tend to worry excessively about things that are no more than intangible concepts, things that have little or no importance in the greater reality of the universe.
Debate Round No. 2
MUNER287

Con

1) "Society is also built of other people with individual opinions and should also be their personal freedom of choice."
Do you mean the freedom to kill an innocent human life, this freedom cannot be granted.

"Where a legaslative decision allowing abortion has been made, I have to prepare to accept this decision."
So from what I understood you believe we should accept everything our government does. If the government (I"m assuming you are American) decided to make murder legal which is what they are doing, would you prepare to accept that? You can"t accept everything your government does, you cant grant them that power.

You believe abortion should be allowed until 10 weeks, but why do more than 90% of abortion occur on the 13th week. Why does the stage of development the fetus is at even matter to you? Your main argument is fetuses haven"t fully developed to become a human being, however newborn babies and even children haven"t fully developed yet. Do you believe killing a baby, or even a kid is fine?

2) A) forced pregnancy arising from a rape situation.
Are you aware that less than 0.1% of abortions are caused because of a forced pregnancy. This 0.1% does not justify the killing of millions of human beings.

B) An individual or a couple may find themselves unready to cope with parenthood. Given the demands of modern society.
In what way unready?

C) The financial demands of children may be considered to be overwhelming and unsustainable.
The financial state of a family does not determine how good the life of the offspring will be.
Many insanely rich people started off poor
Oprah Winfrey
Howard Schultz
Just to name a few. This is no reason to kill a human being

3) All life is not equal, but all life is precious.
We have no importance in the greater reality of the universe, but what we are experiencing is our reality, our only reality.
Life is intangible, therefore shouldn"t be touched.
Sonofcharl

Pro

You avoided two key questions in my previous round.

1) Do you regard all life with equal measure? (Especially as you claim to be a non-religious person).

2) Do you eat? If so, you are prepared to extinguish the spark of life, out of necessity and with impunity.
And yet in your final statement you claim "Life is tangible, Therefore shouldn't be touched". Double standards perhaps.

In response.
1) If we do not have government and social conformity then we have anarchy. Anarchy means anything goes, especially murder, with no recriminations. As John Lydgate said. "You can't please all of the people all of the time". If you wish to live in a comparatively stable and safe society, then you have to be prepared to accept the rules of that society.

I do not believe anything. I merely suggested a time limit, in response to your previous questioning. (Explanation given previously).
It is possible to make a clear (realistic not emotive) distinction between an embryo or undeveloped fetus and a newborn child.
Social legislation should be guided by rationale and not be driven purely by emotion.

2) I merely listed three commonly cited reasons for unwanted pregnancies. It's easy to take the moral high ground here and give no regard to people who find themselves in desperate situations.

3) Why is all life not equal? You either know the answer to the big question or you are being completely hypocritical.

Explain what life is.
Not human life, but life. The absurdly amazing spark of potential that occurs in all living organisms. Explain how the spark of life that occurs in humans, is different. I would suggest that your assertion is understandably human centred but nonetheless, selfish.

Addendum.
I am British, I assume you are American. Together are governments blunder around the world bombing and killing people in the name of freedom and democracy. Do you regard this taking of life as justifiable?
Debate Round No. 3
MUNER287

Con

Sorry that my rebuttal took so long, I have been busy

Regarding the questions I "avoided"

1) Do you regard all life with an equal measure?
No, I do not believe all existing life is equal to our human life. Bacteria are alive, however they are not equal to human life.

2) Do you eat? If so, you are prepared to extinguish the spark of life out of necessity and Impunity.
Yes, however this does not correlate with abortion. The only justifiable reason for abortion is the mother not being able to endure giving birth. This is a life and death situation, so is eating. If you don't eat you die, however how is having a child a life and death situation? I do understand a child is a financial burden, but couples can easily avoid pregnancy.

I stated that life is intangible, not tangible. Now let's go to my supposed double standards. OUR, as in humans. If you would have taken a minute to analyze the last paragraph you would have realized I'm talking about human life.

Social legislation should be guided by rationale and not driven purely by emotion. Yes, many things mostly economic legislations are and should be guided by rationale. However by stating all legislation should purely be rational is utter nonesense. Murder, rape, cannibalism, and etc are prohibited by law in most of the world, especially western countries. However these fundamental laws are moral and emotional, the emotion that bringing in suffering to another human being is wrong. Many of these things were legal, and even endorsed centuries or in some countries decades ago. As morals change, laws change.

Why is all life not equal?
Have you ever heard of a keystone species, other organisms depend on these organisms, therefore from a logical/moral standpoint these keystone species's life is more valuable than others. Why? Whole ecosystems can crumble if a keystone species is not present or goes extinct.

Explain what life is?
Life is an organism that presents all 6 characteristics of life. The spark of life in humans is different.
https://www.researchgate.net..., browse that page. It states exactly what I wanted to tell you, but couldn't find a way to spend less than 2 hours writing it.

Addendum response:
Yes and no, in some instances the taking of life is justifiable and in most others not. It is a way too broad question to be able to answer with a yes or a no, as these 2 governments have been doing this for decades.
Sonofcharl

Pro

Life: The condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter.

It took me 5 seconds to find this explanation of life. Why would it take Con 2 hours to write the same.

What Con differentiates between, is the value they are prepared to attribute to the lives of different species. and not life itself.
This is simply a human centred, selfish disregard for all other species. Life is a singular almost magical property that is present and equal in all species.
The questions are. Does life have real value. Is life merely a quirk of evolution Does life have any significance beyond it's Earth bound home. The honest answer to these questions is, we do not know. All we have is theories and theories are guess work.

Keystone species:
Another and completely different debate really. But I would assert that in proffering this argument,Con exacerbates their misunderstanding and consequent double standards with regard to the value of life.

Addendum response:
Con's response to this quite simple question is confused to say the least. Either they accept that the taking of human life is justifiable or they do not. They say yes, but then wish to pick and choose which lives they take. Once again, double standards. Which clearly suggests that Con's arguments are based on emotive thought and not logical thought.
From a logical and realistic debating standpoint, I would assert that the life contained within an embryo or fetus has exactly the same value as the life contained within a terrorist bomber. Society makes rational collective decisions, that justify the taking of life, whether it be the life of a terrorist or the life of an embryo or undeveloped fetus. Not everyone will agree with those decisions, but accepting those decisions is the price we have to pay to be able to live in a relatively safe and stable society. One day our respective nations may decide to legislate against abortion and I for one will whole heartedly support that decision.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Our_Boat_is_Right 3 years ago
Our_Boat_is_Right
why did that post twice idk
Posted by Our_Boat_is_Right 3 years ago
Our_Boat_is_Right
"My body, My choice! " No one gives a crap. It shouldn't be your choice to murder a living being.
Posted by Our_Boat_is_Right 3 years ago
Our_Boat_is_Right
"My body, My choice! " No one gives a crap. It shouldn't be your choice to murder a living being.
Posted by logicalreasoning101 3 years ago
logicalreasoning101
May I just add on to the fact that your also killing yourself every abortion you make.A study found in Finland reported that women who aborted are four times more likely to die the following year then women who carry their pregnancy full term while 60% will die from natural causes,seven times likely to die of suicide,while also considerations to consider.While LEGAL abortion has been in the fifth leading cause of death in the US.
Posted by MarkK.1068 3 years ago
MarkK.1068
At conception, and only at conception, does the sperm no longer resemble a sperm and the egg an egg. The zygote has DNA specifically human and specifically different than both parents. It's a developing human being from that point on. And a human being continues to develop long after birth. It's equally dependant after birth as before - it cannot survive on its own. It's utterly innocent and utterly defenseless and, therefore, murder of the worst kind.
Posted by MarkK.1068 3 years ago
MarkK.1068
At conception, and only at conception, does the sperm no longer resemble a sperm and the egg an egg. The zygote has DNA specifically human and specifically different than both parents. It's a developing human being from that point on. And a human being continues to develop long after birth. It's equally dependant after birth as before - it cannot survive on its own.
Posted by MarkK.1068 3 years ago
MarkK.1068
Why does Pro immediately ask at what point does the fetus become aware of its existence? Who knows, and what's that matter? That's the type of changing the issue that always happens with Pro-abortion people.
Posted by John_C_1812 3 years ago
John_C_1812
Sonofchart,
The issue of any debate might be seen as the knowledge of the potential victim of a confessed crime. However the3 more important question a impartial person might ask is. Why do all woman have to make a self-incrimination to a felony crime that the very argument disputes from the start?

A large part of this debate topic abortion being unconstitutional is that it fails to united all woman in a single state that is not a crime at the very beginning of its application. This was a failure of legislators and woman as a whole. The idea was woman had an obligation as they set out for control of executive office to preserve protect and defend the United States Constitution.

Which description offers this quality female specific amputation or abortion? The word abortion is stating as fact the recognition that life has begun and it is the burden of the doctor and woman who are in fact ending that life. Yet the public has no exposure to facts and depends only on the confession that is given to them. Is this right?
This debate has 0 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.