Attention: Debate.org is closing and the website will be shut down on June 5, 2022. New Topics can no longer be posted and Sign Up has been disabled. Existing Topics will still function as usual until the website is taken offline. Members can download their content by using the Download Data button in My Account.
The Instigator
Christfollower
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
squeakly54n6
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: 3/3/2019 Category: Economics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 779 times Debate No: 120609
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

Christfollower

Con

Abortion is wrong because it is killing a human which is against the law.
squeakly54n6

Pro

Because my opponent is not specifying what abortions are ok and which ones aren't, I am going to assume they are against ALL abortions in any context. That being said I'll begin with my argument of why abortion is justified for most scenarios.

" Abortion is wrong because it is killing a human "
- Abortion is not killing if it's done within the first 5 months of pregnancy as in the first 5 months, The fetus isn't even sentient nor has any levels of intelligence. Therefore why should you care about a being that doesn't experience pain nor has a consciousness? If your counter-argument is that at that point in development the fetus has a potential to be alive then you should be against masturbation or women not getting their ovulated eggs fertilized, Which in and of itself is utterly ridiculous.

- Abortion can also be justified if the mother was raped or if a condom breaks. While these events are rare, They still happen and denying an abortion in these scenarios are unfair and possibly deadly if the women are underage.

Case and point, Abortions are justifiable in certain scenarios and therefore should be legal in those situations whether it be the women were raped, If the mother would die in the baby's birth, Or if it's within the first 5 months when the fetus isn't sentient.

Sources,
https://www. Sciencemag. Org. . .
Debate Round No. 1
Christfollower

Con

Hello, Sorry I forgot to specify.
You have done a fine job in displaying your argument. I will do my best to debunk it.

What makes it not human? Is it ok to kill the baby at 14 weeks when the heart is pumping blood? How about 1 month when bone marrow starts to form? What about 9-10 weeks when the teeth and fingernails start forming? How about 2 months when the baby can turn its head and make faces and hiccup? When is it right to murder that kid? As for rape, The court has said that a death penalty is to much for the criminal, Why should the baby die? I could see arguments if the mothers life is at stake. Then, It might be justifiable. A humans life is worth more than somebody's inconvenience.
squeakly54n6

Pro

" What makes it not human? "
- I don't know if you even read my argument because I stated that what makes someone human is their sentience or intelligence if a human being has neither than why should you care about its existence? If your counter-argument is that the fetus has the potential to be a life, Then you should be against mothers not fertilizing their eggs or masturbation.
" When is it right to murder that kid? "
- At this point, I don't think my opponent even read my counter argument at all, Which by the way is very poor conduct because I specifically stated that I am fine with abortions being used when the baby isn't sentient or if the mother was raped.
" A humans life is worth more than somebody's inconvenience. "
- Having an unwanted child isn't just an " inconvenience", It potentially can ruin someone's life. For example, Many young teens lives could be ruined because of unwanted pregnancy as raising a child is very costly and time-consuming which may, In turn, Ruin a young women's chances at receiving higher education or being able to live above the poverty line.

The bottom line is my opponent is asking questions that I already answered in my previous argument, Which shows to me that he didn't even read my counter-argument which in turn is very poor conduct.
Debate Round No. 2
Christfollower

Con

To be clear, I read your argument. I was trying to prove a point. My argument will have nothing to do with the potential to life. I will prove that it is a life. I agree that having an unwanted child can potentially be harming. However, There are alternatives.

Premise 1: Murdering humans is wrong
Premise 2: Human life starts at conception (when the sperm fertilizes the ovum)
Conclusion: Abortion at any time after conception is wrong

Fetus is a human life and has moral value.
A first-trimester fetus has moral value because whether you consider it a potential human life or a full-on human life, It has more value than just a cluster of cells. If left to its natural processes, It will grow into a baby. So the real question is, Where do you draw the line? So, You"re going to draw the line at the heartbeat " because it"s very hard to draw the line at the heartbeat? There are people who are adults who are alive because of a pacemaker, They need some sort of outside force generating their heartbeat. Are you going to do it based on brain function? Okay, Well, What about people who are in a coma? Should we just kill them? " The problem is if you draw any line other than the inception of the child, You end up drawing a false line that can be applied to people who are adults. I believe we can both agree that an adults life has intrinsic value. As for sentient, If you are in a coma from which you may awake, Can I stab you?

Below is the chronological development of a baby up to 5 months. 5 months was the "feel free to kill this baby" deadline according to you.

1st week (1st month)
Already has different DNA
Sex of baby is determined.
Genetic traits are determined.
Embryo travels from fallopian tube to the uterus.

2nd week (1st month)
Egg is implanted on the wall of the uterus.
Placenta develops.

3rd week (1st month)
Heart begins to develop, 18-25 days.
Brain begins to develop.
Intestinal tract begins to develop.

4th-5th weeks (1st month)
Vertebra begins to develop.
Blood flow begins.
Eye development begins.
Arm and leg development begins.
The umbilical cord begins to form.

6th week (1-2 months)
Fingers and the toes appear.
Nose and ears develop.
Joints are developing.

7th week (1-2 months)
All essential organs are developing.
Eyelids form.

8th week (2 months)
Muscle contraction occurs.
Facial features become more prominent.
Heart has four chambers.

9th-12th week (2-3 months)
The baby is about 3 inches long.
The neck develops.
Arms and legs begin to lengthen.
Genitals are well defined.

13th-16th weeks (3-4 months)
The baby is about 6 inches.
Hair begins to develop.
The baby moves.
Lungs develop.
If female, The ovaries contain about 2 million eggs.
The face is more developed.
The baby can suck its thumb.

17th-20th weeks (4-5 months)
The baby is about 8 inches.
Eyebrows form.
Nails on fingers and toes form.
Movement can be felt by mother.
The circulatory system is working.
Swallowing begins to occur

It is a human life and has moral value. There is no changing that.
squeakly54n6

Pro

" Human life starts at conception (when the sperm fertilizes the ovum)"
- What is the difference between a just recently fertilized egg or an unfertilized egg? There is no difference neither have sentience nor any intelligence. Why would I care about something that has no intelligence or sentience? I mean by that logic you would be killing trillions of lives daily due to bacteria.
" So, You"re going to draw the line at the heartbeat "
- Um no I specifically stated I draw the line when the baby has no sentience nor any intelligence. See statements like these are why I don't think you read my argument.
" Okay, Well, What about people who are in a coma? Should we just kill them? "
- False, People in coma's have the ability to feel pain, Therefore they have a right to life. Even if the person couldn't feel pain, I would be fine with his family killing him if they give their consent. If however the family isn't fine with the person dieing, Than I don't feel like anyone else has the right to kill him.
" It is a human life and has moral value. "
- No it's not a human life, It doesn't have sentience nor any level of intelligence. Just because it has the potential to become a human, Doesn't give it a right to life.
"There are people who are adults who are alive because of a pacemaker, They need some sort of outside force generating their heartbeat. "
- I already stated previously that while sentience is more important, The person still has a level of intelligence and therefore has a right to life.
Debate Round No. 3
Christfollower

Con

- What is the difference between a just recently fertilized egg or an unfertilized egg?
The difference is a fertilized egg is a human life, An unfertilized egg is not.

- False, People in coma's have the ability to feel pain, Therefore they have a right to life. Even if the person couldn't feel pain, I would be fine with his family killing him if they give their consent. If however the family isn't fine with the person dying, Than I don't feel like anyone else has the right to kill him.
First of all, That is just cruel, But that is beside the point. My opponent has just lied. People in coma's cannot feel pain. People in a coma are completely unresponsive. They do not move, Do not react to light or sound and cannot feel pain.
http://www. Healthtalk. Org/peoples-experiences/nerves-brain/family-experiences-vegetative-and-minimally-conscious-states/what-coma-and-what-vegetative-state

- No, It's not a human life, It doesn't have sentience nor any level of intelligence. Just because it has the potential to become a human, Doesn't give it a right to life.
I will return to the coma argument. Can I go around killing people in a coma? They are completely unresponsive. That means it doesn't have any sentience.
Sentience is the ability to perceive one's environment, And experience sensations such as pain and suffering, Or pleasure and comfort.
"Someone who is in a coma is unconscious and has minimal brain activity. "
-brainfoundation. Org. Au/disorders/coma
squeakly54n6

Pro

" The difference is a fertilized egg is a human life, An unfertilized egg is not. "
- Explain how it is a human life when it has no sentience nor any level of intelligence.
" My opponent has just lied. People in coma's cannot feel pain. People in a coma are completely unresponsive. They do not move, Do not react to light or sound and cannot feel pain. "
- This statement is false, My opponent is referring to people in vegetable states whom are brain dead, NOT people in coma's. There is substantial evidence that people in coma do feel pain just the same way as healthy people do.
" Can I go around killing people in a coma? They are completely unresponsive. That means it doesn't have any sentience. "
- Once again people in coma's whom aren't in vegetable states do feel pain. Even so I already stated that I believe that only the family can give consent to the killing of someone in a vegetable state.

Sources,
- https://www. Newscientist. Com. . . .
- https://www. Sciencemag. Org. . .
- https://www. Theonion. Com. . .
Debate Round No. 4
Christfollower

Con

First, I congratulate my opponent on his debating skills. This was my first debate online so being formal is not something I am used to. I fully expect to lose this. I would like to offer a rematch to my opponent. I made a lot of rookie mistakes.
Back to the debate.
The point I was trying to make when I was talking about the coma was is if you draw any line other than the inception of the child, You end up drawing a line that can be applied to people who are adults. We can argue on whether people in a coma feel pain but that is off topic. Just because they don't have any sentience, Doesn't mean it has moral value or is a human life.
If abortions are all about killing humans that do not have sentience, Then not just a "fetus" will be killed. Why can only the family give consent to killing someone in a vegetable state if they have no sentience? I should be able to go around killing anyone who doesn't have any sentience. I want you to imagine yourself. Then go back to when you were a baby. Then to when you just came out of the womb, Then 1 sec before your mom gave birth. Is it still you? Go back 5 months. Is it still you?
The answer is yes. Therefore, If it is a human life, It doesn't have to be sentient to have value.
squeakly54n6

Pro

" This was my first debate online so being formal is not something I am used to. I fully expect to lose this. I would like to offer a rematch to my opponent. I made a lot of rookie mistakes. "
- Its no problem, When I first started using debate. Org around 6 months ago I made tons of mistakes too in regards to spelling and formatting my arguments clearly and logically.
- I am open to a rematch, Just send me a debate challenge when you're ready.
- Anyways back to the debate,
"Just because they don't have any sentience, Doesn't mean it has moral value or is a human life. "
- Without the ability to feel pain, Pleasure, Or have any level of consciousness, It is hard to argue the being is even alive. Especially when the baby doesn't have any level of intelligence either, By this logic you murder trillions of lives daily due to micro bacteria in the world.
" Why can only the family give consent to killing someone in a vegetable state if they have no sentience? I should be able to go around killing anyone who doesn't have any sentience. "
- Well the family should have to give consent to the person being put to death as the person may mean something to the family whether or not it has sentience or not. If the family gives consent to the beings death, Than I believe it would be perfectly fine. If however the family doesn't want the person to die, Than the person should be kept alive for the family's sake.
" Then to when you just came out of the womb, Then 1 sec before your mom gave birth. Is it still you? "
- At that point I have consciousness, And the ability to feel pain and pleasure, So yes it is me and I have a right to life.
" Go back 5 months. Is it still you? "
- Well no because at that point I lacked sentience and intelligence. If my parents wanted to they could have aborted me and it would have been justified.
Closing Argument:
- Abortions are indeed justifiable in many circumstances such as if the mother was raped, If a condom breaks, Or if the baby isn't sentient.
- If however the baby is sentient and the mother wasn't raped or wouldn't die from the pregnancy, Than it would be immoral and wrong to abort the child.
- 5 months is enough time to discovery the pregnancy and enough time to make a clear decision of whether or not to abort the fetus.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by squeakly54n6 3 years ago
squeakly54n6
@John_C_1812_II
Are you referring to me or my opponent?
Posted by John_C_1812_II 3 years ago
John_C_1812_II
So your saying it is wrong for a woman not to have sex?

A woman who does not have sex is performing and taking part in an abortion. Life that has started will officially stop, As it will not receive the care it needs to continue by her actions. Fertilization is the continuation of life, Not the start of life.
Posted by WrickItRalph 3 years ago
WrickItRalph
Is it wrong in all situations?
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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