The Instigator
Wayzde
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Sonofcharl
Pro (for)
Tied
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/5/2019 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 580 times Debate No: 120178
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

Wayzde

Con

I believe abortion is wrong. Prove me wrong.
Sonofcharl

Pro

My opponent has taken the Con side of the debate. Which in effect means that they believe abortion is right.

So because I am not sure of what they actually believe to be right or wrong, I will adopt a more philosophical approach.

Whatever one might assume to believe. Is what it Is. An independently assimilated concept that does does not need to be subjected to external scrutiny.

Fortunately for the time being at least, Freedom of thought is unconditional.

Despite what one might choose to believe, Realistically there is no greater authority to judge human thoughts or actions.
Therefore at best, Right and wrong are only collective human decisions that may or may not be legislatively applied to a society as a whole.

We may or may not agree with social legislation. But it is incumbent upon us to uphold the law in order to maintain a respectable level of social stability.
Debate Round No. 1
Wayzde

Con

I believe abortion is wrong, As I have already stated. You believe that freedom of thought is unconditional, And so do I. The self-righteousness prevalent in our society will be our downfall. People are and should be allowed to think whatever they want. WHO AM I to judge THEM when I have thoughts of hate every day? Indeed, You make a great point. People focus on other people's wrongdoings to distract them from their own. Everyone should be allowed to have their own opinions on abortion and speak them as well. Taken into practice though, Is COMPLETELY different. You very well know that the taking of an innocent life is never justified. Everyone believes that enforcement of justice is needed when an innocent life is taken. The baby has done nothing wrong. So the debate comes down to whether the baby is a human life. Science says so. Human life begins at conception. This is a fact, Not a belief. Not debatable. If so, Killing this is nothing less than murder. Your turn:
Sonofcharl

Pro

Firstly there is a clear distinction to be made between a baby and a foetus. And no rationally minded person would ever advocate the killing of a baby.

Murder is a term that is relevant to legislation. Therefore if a society legislates in favour of conditional abortion, Then in this instance abortion cannot be regarded as murder. A personal dislike of abortion is simply a personal dislike of abortion.

As I always point out in abortion debates, Anti abortionists always tend to display selective morality in their regard for life. So answer me these two questions:

1) Are you a vegetarian or a vegan.

2) Do you support the U. S. Lead, "war on terror" and therefore also justify the consequent deaths of innocent civilians as well as political opponents. Innocent civilians which includes many hundreds of children and babies.

If you are genuinely "pro life" then it is incumbent upon you to answer Yes to the first question and No to the second.

As we have five rounds to debate I will not expand my argument any further for now. But will leave you to consider your response to these two issues.
Debate Round No. 2
Wayzde

Con

OoooKaaay. So you respond by asking me if I am vegan or I support the war on terror. I am not vegan and I do support the war on terror, But not that much. That's a different topic anyway.

To start, I just want to point out that the although there are many physical differences between the baby and the fetus, (there are less than you think, Just look up a picture of a 13-week fetus) the fetus is scientifically considered human life, And consequently is of the same moral value as the baby.

The vegan/vegetarian question is a logical fallacy that would not stand a second in a actual debate and is not taken seriously anywhere. Pro-lifers stand for HUMAN life. My belief is that it is a law of nature for humans to eat animals and for animals to eat other animals and plants. I think that humans are of more value than animals, And everyone can agree on that. We should not disrupt the structure of nature. Also, We kill animals to eat food, We have no purpose other than our own convenience for the killing of an unborn child.

Your second question is more interesting. The War on Terror is what needs to be done. Terrorism is a HUGE problem. I am completely aware that many innocent people are dying at the hands of the US, And I do think that minimizing civilian deaths should be a top priority for our military forces across the world. However, The taking of human life is required in order to save greater populations of human life and stop this evil of terrorism once and for all. We have to make sacrifices if we want to do something like this. Nothing as significant as stopping terrorism comes without sacrifice. The civilian deaths are for the greater good, And abortion of human life is not. YOUR CONVENIENCE IS NOT WORTH MORE THAN SOMEBODY ELSE'S LIFE. Back to you:
Sonofcharl

Pro

As I expected.

Typically selective morals and double standards of the anti-abortionist.
I will kill what I like and who I like, When I like, As long as it suits me to do so. But abortion is always unacceptable because that suits me too. But actually. Killing pregnant women as a consequence of the U. S lead war on terror is acceptable, Because that also suits me too.

And the vegan/vegetarian question will not be taken seriously only by those that would rather ignore it.

Life is:
Life is what separates everything that is organic from everything that is not and who is Pro or anybody else for that matter to judge that human life is any different to any other life.

Does Pro know what life actually is.
How does Pro differentiate between the spark of life found in their cells and that which occurs within a bacterial cell?

And who is to say that life on Earth is anything more than an inconsequential meaningless chance event, Anyway?

And humans are obviously and instinctively biased in favour of themselves, Just as every other species is.

A baby is a baby and a foetus is a foetus. A baby has experienced consciousness whereas a foetus has not.
A baby responds consciously to it's surroundings whereas a foetus responds instinctively. As such a foetus does not have a conscious awareness of it's existence and therefore also has no awareness of human conceptualities such as quality of life or choice or innocence etc etc.

Pro's argument is simply emotion and concept based. They have their own selectively stylised view of the world which they expect everyone else to subscribe to. They select emotive words and stylised foetal images and disregard the reality of the human condition whenever it suits them to do so.

And for people like Pro:
Murder is murder when it suits them to be so and the justifiable taking of human life is justifiable when it suits them to be so.
They are selectively moral and have double standards and therefore cannot be considered righteous. Because they cannot decide if there is a difference between right and wrong.

And civilian deaths are only for the greater good of the self righteous hypocrites.

AND ONE MANS INCONVENIENCE IS ANOTHER WOMANS NECESSITY. And who is Pro to deny her that choice.
Debate Round No. 3
Wayzde

Con

"Pro's argument is simply emotion and concept based. They have their own selectively stylised view of the world which they expect everyone else to subscribe to. They select emotive words and stylised foetal images and disregard the reality of the human condition whenever it suits them to do so. " WHAT! I'M THE SCIENCE DENIER! I'M THE ONE WHO USES EMOTIONAL ARGUMENTS AND IGNORES FACTS? ! HOW ABOUT THIS FACT: A FETUS IS SCIENTIFICALLY HUMAN LIFE AND NOTHING YOU CAN SAY CAN COUNTER THIS. YOU ARE THE ONE IGNORING FACTS! YOU ARE THE ONE WHO IS IGNORING THIS BY TALKING ABOUT VEGANISM AND THE WAR ON TERROR. MY VIEWS ON VEGANISM AND THE WAR ON TERROR HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER THE FETUS IS HUMAN LIFE. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO IS DENYING SIMPLE FACTS OF SCIENCE ARE TALKING ABOUT VEGANISM AND THE WAR ON TERROR AND A BUNCH OF OFF TOPIC BS* SIMPLE BECAUSE YOU can't' FACE UP TO THE FACTS! Whew! Calm down. Take a deep breath. Not everybody can understand basic science. Be nice to them and help them learn. Okay. I'll be nice now. Your response is giving me the feeling that you haven't understood my argument at all, Probably because you are just incapable of understanding it. (Whoops) "Your argument completely ignores my argument and simply restates the propaganda you put forward in your previous response but just in harsher words. Just to squash an argument that you mentioned offhand, You say that "A baby is a baby and a foetus is a foetus. " The fetus is obviously not a baby. The definition of baby is different among many people and "baby" is a loose term. However, All available science proves that the fetus is indeed human life. Given that it is human life, The moral value of the fetus is no different than the moral value of the baby. So that argument is out of the way. You interpret my view as: "I will kill what I like and who I like, When I like, As long as it suits me to do so. But abortion is always unacceptable because that suits me too. But actually. Killing pregnant women as a consequence of the U. S lead war on terror is acceptable, Because that also suits me too. " You clearly haven't understood my response. The vegetarian/vegan question was answered, But since you weren't able to understand it I will put it in simpler terms. It is the law of nature that humans are omnivores, Meaning that they eat plants AND animals. Humans are at the top of the food chain. This means we eat animals below us on the food chain, And many of the animals we eat also eat animals. Are those animals all heartless and cruel? No! And let me provide you with a CLEAR DISTINCTION BETWEEN HUMANS AND ANIMALS. Humans are the top of the influence pyramid, Which means that it is a law of nature for humans to shape their environment and for animals, Their environment shapes them. It's a law of nature. Also these beliefs are founded on religious grounds, But we'll stay away from there for now. Also, Your response hasn't acknowledged that the purpose we have for killing animals is a FAR greater cause than the cause we have for killing human life. You say that humans don't NEED to kill animals to eat, But science shows that it's actually not healthy to be vegan, Because the human body needs meat to achieve maximum performance. Abortion is never a necessity, Unless the physical safety of the mother is at risk. I am a reasonable person to deny her that choice because she has no choice to take the life of another human. (Yes, It is a human. ) Another misunderstanding of my argument that you included in your response was that I am FOR the killing of innocent civilians due to the war on terror. First of all, EVEN IF I WAS for the killing of innocent people due to the war on terror, Which I am not, It does nothing to neutralize the fact that abortion is wrong and that a fetus is a human life, Which science proves. You are trying to steer the conversation away from the topic, But nothing you say can correctly prove that the fetus is not human life. Whether I am vegan or not does not matter at all. Whether I am for the war on terror does not matter at all. Nothing provided in an argument in either of these topics can justify abortion in the case of no physical risk of the mother. I specifically made a statement contrary to what you said, But since you didn't see it I'll say it again. I think it's horrible that innocent people are being killed each week due to the war on terror. Just to mention another thing, It's not the US army massacring civilians on a day-to-day basis. It's the terrorists who are killing probably about 95% of the civilians being killed. That fact alone should show you how important it is to completely obliterate these terrorists groups and make sure they stay down. THEY are the ones doing most of the innocent civilian killing. I support the war on terror simple because I think we need to do everything in our power to stop these terrorists from killing even more innocent civilians. Murder is not murder when it suit me. YOU are the one who thinks that if a human is in another human and can't feel things as well, It has less moral value than a human outside another human who can feel things. This is stupid. According to your standard, I should just be able to kill someone in a coma. I agree with the judicial definition of murder, That murder is, "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. " I agree with this definition and given that a fetus is a living human being, Abortion fits this definition like a glove. Stop being a hypocrite. Accusing ME of using emotional arguments when you have ZERO facts on your side, Accusing ME of having a double standard on murder when clearly I don't, Accusing ME of having no regard to life! I encourage you to vote con on this issue. And pro, Please read this response at least three times to make sure you have no more misunderstandings of basic science and logic. Back to you:
Sonofcharl

Pro

Con the debater, Seems not to understand the concept of debating.

And Con the scientist still hasn't explained to me what life is.

And Con the ultimately righteous one, Does not explain why they can be selectively moral and yet deny this option to others.

And Con seems to have overlooked the fact that I have agreed, That foetal life by association is obviously human life. As it would clearly be foolish to suggest otherwise.

And wealthy married woman are just as likely to seek an abortion as poorer unmarried women. Con seems to be not only selectively moral, But also discriminatory towards a certain sector of society, Who for some reason offend Con's selective sensibilities.

And a 13 week old foetal mass looks like a 13 week old foetal mass. Con is pointing out the obvious again.
And if a 13 week old foetal mass were not connected to the maternal mass it would die anyway.

And Con's points still stand and my points still stand. And I do not make accusations, I simply attempt to debate.
But it seems that Con does not really wish to debate.

Con seems to think that they, For some unexplained reason are righteous beyond questioning and that debate is designed exclusively for them to proclaim their hypocritical sensibilities.

Realistically: In an already overcrowded world the loss of a foetus is of no consequence. It is only of consequence to those that care to think about it too much. And those that care to think about it too much are usually those most detached from the mental trauma and social burdens of unwanted pregnancy.

And one person will suffer the mental trauma of abortion and a handful of overzealous hypocrites will pontificate about it.
And the other 7. 7 billion will carry on as if nothing has happened. Such is the reality of the human condition.

And Universal Reality exceeds all human frailty anyway.
Debate Round No. 4
Wayzde

Con

Your points do not stand. I just took them apart in my last response. I encourage all voters to vote con.
Sonofcharl

Pro

Con does not really want to debate.

Their argument is repetitive and they display double standards throughout.

They also avoid questioning that presumably doesn't suit their agenda.

And their agenda is dictatorial.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Sonofcharl 3 years ago
Sonofcharl
Glitch.

My round4 appears to have vanished.

And my round5 has now replaced myround4.

It also appears that Con now has a second round5 option.

Shame. As it was an enjoyable debate.

But I imagine that Con doesn't have anything new to offer.

Unless they now sneakily descend into the realms of piety.
Posted by John_C_1812_II 3 years ago
John_C_1812_II
Really our discussion may be a change in the 5th Amendment as the right to remain silent is also about how we bear witness and not just self-incrimination. Truthfully as presented as whole truth to which we may not have all information required to make that choice.
Posted by John_C_1812_II 3 years ago
John_C_1812_II
It is not hypocritical the standard is addressing the legal precedent set by Supreme Court on privacy. The principle of saying a pregnancy is aborted, Is in truth the process of female pregnancy be officially terminated. Which all woman do in nature when ovulation is not aborted, Officially stopped. The difference between abort and terminate is the degree and planed commitment to an official stop that is created.

The truth of what makes pregnancy abortion wrong is unlike termination the action abort describes both admission and/or accusation to the same end result. The end result is a detail describing crime which may not be truth and/or whole truth requiring by constitution a judicial separation to protect the general welfare of all people from actively taking part in the crime describe to them.

We have the right to remain silent. We have the right to protect the general welfare by how we bear witness.
Posted by Sonofcharl 3 years ago
Sonofcharl
Is masturbation, Pregnancy abortion?

Because you sound like a couple of hypocritical tossers to me.
Posted by John_C_1812_II 3 years ago
John_C_1812_II
In Vitro Fertilization is a pregnancy abortion. Abstinence from fornication is pregnancy abortion. Donating egg or sperm to a fertility clinic is pregnancy abortion.
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
DeletedUser
you are right
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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