The Instigator
okuuuuuur
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Thoht
Pro (for)
Winning
4 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 1 vote the winner is...
Thoht
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/6/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 746 times Debate No: 119364
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)

 

okuuuuuur

Con

I don't believe abortion is ethical under any circumstance, Except for when the mother's life is at risk, Because then, Of course the mother comes first. Nobody is going like "if one goes down then both must go down! ", That is simply notresonable or rational in any way.
But, In the case of rape, For example, I don't believe the child in the womb should receive the death penalty for the crimes of the father. The rapist should be tracked down, He should be held at the full extent of the law and killed or castrated. As for the mother, She should be given all the support that she can possibly be given to help her throughout her pregnancy, Through state funded services and charities. Not the baby genocidal organisation of Planned Parenthood!
If you had ever encountered the child of a rape victim or a woman who carried through with her pregnancy after suffering the horrible injustice of rape, You would come to realise that having the child is not as awful as it is made out to be. Actually your very own unique child will help you through the pain of the past.
All governments should stop funding organisations like Planned Parenthood that do not support women in any way, Shape or form and manipulate them into using their abortion services to make billions of dollars for the greedy men at the top and murder 50 million children yearly. Instead, The world needs to start funding services to actually support women through pregnancies and make their difficult situations pleasant and make them feel like they are cared about.
Abortion does not unrape you or make you unpregnant, It just makes you the parent of a deceased child. Does no one have the cop on to realise you cannot solve one violent act by another violent act.
Thoht

Pro

Happy to think with you today.

There are many factors involved in the abortion debate. In order to ban abortions entirely you have to sacrifice a lot more than most people think. For this reason, I am currently pro-choice. However, Tech advancements and a few other things could make this a non-issue.

First of all, Abortion is distasteful. My opinion is that it should be done as little as possible. However, I acknowledge many benefits and see the necessity of it. Allow me to clarify the warring positions in this debate, To the best of my ability. It should be noted that in any respectable discussion of abortion one should list ways each problem could be solved. There are solutions to abortion that anti-abortion and pro-choice people are not discussing or investing in. The primary goal of anti-abortion people seems to be banning abortions without taking the steps that would make it possible for pro-choice people to accept that. They also fail to take steps that could reduce abortions as much as possible. Seeing as how the majority of society (in the US) agrees abortions should be legal, The priority for anti-abortion people should be to reduce the number and to improve technology to where abortion would not be necessary, Not to try to ban it against the will of the people.

Abortion Positions

1. Women's Bodily Autonomy versus the Life of the Fetus

Most people recognize that people have a right to decide what happens to their own body. There are many negative temporary effects of pregnancy, And several that are more permanent. To force a woman to carry a child to term would be to force both sets of negative effects on her. To terminate a fetus ranges from a non-issue if you draw the line any number of ways to infanticide if you draw the line at fertilization/conception.

For myself, A woman's bodily autonomy takes precedent prior to brain activity at the very least. More on this in #2.

2. Person vs Life and where the lines are drawn.

There is, In general, An arbitrary line drawn by most people as to where one becomes a 'person. ' This is often misconstrued as "when life begins, " but is in fact a distinct issue. Eggs and sperm are 'alive. ' A fertilized egg is 'alive. ' You can draw a distinction on the DNA level if you'd like and say human life begins at fertilization. This does not mean that one becomes a 'person' at conception. Your skin cells, Blood cells, Et cetera contain your DNA. That does not make them 'persons. ' Most people who give it thought will conclude that you become a 'person' around when brain activity begins. This does not mean conscious memories, But anything that changes the brain. You learned to babble, To crawl, To flop around et cetera long before you created long-term memories.

I accept brain waves + brain changes as the line to where personhood begins. This is more important to me than when 'life' begins. I don't care about when my full DNA strain was made. I don't care about any individual part of me. What makes me 'me' is my brain. It is therefore not killing a 'person' to kill a fetus that has not yet undergone brain waves. My arbitrary line, Supported with this logic is at that point. Roughly 2-3 months into a pregnancy. However, I don't draw the line at there currently for other reasons I will give later.

Let me expand. Most people agree that a person's death is when we experience brain death. Our full DNA still exists beyond this point, But brain activity has ceased. Why then do some take the opposite view on when personhood begins? That when the DNA exists and brain activity does not, One gains moral value? Few would call people who take their parents off life support after brain death to be 'murderers' yet so many believe allowing a woman to terminate a pregnancy before 'personhood' begins is killing a person. In my view, This is illogical. To say a fetus has a 'small human body' is also an emotional appeal. Dead people have large human bodies. That does not give their bodies moral value.

For life: Eggs and sperm can be said to be alive. Most people don't accept that when you masturbate, Have nocturnal emissions, Or have your period you are killing something by way of not fertilizing it. Every man is a mass murderer if this is your line. If you draw the line at fertilization/conception, You have to deal with the fact that many fertilized eggs never attach to the womb. This means the majority of "humans" to exist have died shortly after being 'created. ' This would be an issue far more important than abortion to you. Heartbeat is an insanely arbitrary line. We do not consider someone dead when their heart stops beating. This is an entirely emotional appeal based position. We can probably both agree nothing magical happens in the birth canal.

3. What constitutes abortions of convenience versus necessity?

You state that you're ok with abortions for rape and health of the mother. If you're being consistent, Why do you say rape? Does the life of the child have less moral value to you if it is a rape baby? Or do you value the cost of the woman's mental health more? How about the physical and mental health issues that arise from being forced to carry a child you do not wish to carry? This is how all women feel, It does not require them to be raped to feel this way. Many women do carry their rapists' child. It is a matter of if the woman is prepared for that sacrifice and financially prepared for the child or not.

If you agree with termination on the grounds of rape for mental health reasons, Why are the physical and mental problems associated with forced pregnancy not a problem for you? In some years over half of the women who got abortions stated they had used some form of contraception prior to having sex. Let's assume a 99% success rate for contraception. That means one out of every 100 chances you have to get pregnant will result in pregnancy. Some have higher chances, Some have lower. This means if we as a society improve contraception half of all abortions immediately go away, To the benefit of everyone. Citing contraception as if it is foolproof and everyone who got an abortion should be ashamed is a disastrously ill informed position. You cite abstinence. So you think all the people who can't find a partner should never have sex? That people who don't want kids should never have sex? You actively seek to diminish the lives of those who are living. Sex feels great and is essential for people to understand society and other people. It adds color to life. There is no reason, Particularly if you accept when personhood begins to be at brain activity, To deny yourself this. There is no reason everyone who exists should be forced to marry.

Not everyone wants to be a mother. Not everyone wants their children to be put up for adoption. Many women want to have kids but only when they're ready.

There's much more to discuss, But this is a good starting ground. I will address solutions in R2.

May your thoughts be clear,

-Thoht
Debate Round No. 1
okuuuuuur

Con

First of all, I would like to thank you Toht for accepting my debate. You have really made me think. However I would just like to point out a few errors in your arguments. First of all I do not think you read my first debate fully, You say I make the exception that abortion as acceptable after rape and you also say I cited to abstonance from sex as a solution to abortions, Which I did not. . However, I am very pro-contraception.

1. I agree that the woman takes precedence over the child in the womb, Therefore if the mother's life is in danger eg. She has cancer and is pregnant and needs the chemo to save her life, But a bi-product of that is that the baby will be aborted. The only logical solution to that situation would be to treat the woman with chemo and any decent obstatrition would know that, Even in a country where abortion is against the law.

However, As I have said before, There is a line that needs to be drawn, When the mother just finds it inconvenient to have the child, Or dislikes the gender, Race or the fact that a child had a disability etc. I think it is totally unethical to have an abortion in any case like this.

A reason for this is because the child in the womb is a human being and that is inarguable, As regards scientific fact.
The other reason is to do with justice and equality, Which are two things nested in your nations most fundamental documents ie. The Constitution, Bill of Rights. All humans deserve to be protected under the law, If you are going to exclude an entire section of the human race, Because they are dependant on others, Or biologically immature, Or temporarily incapable of certain high-level biological functions, That is a legal form of discrimination, And discrimination of the highest order.

2. I believe that human life begins at conception, Because by this point the sperm and egg have fused to form a zygote, (the earliest development stage of a human being). He or she is not merely a potential human, Because there is no such thing (you are either human or not), Therefore an unborn child has the same inherant value as a born child (inherant meaning belonging to it by its nature), Because inherant value is inherant. If human life had conditional value, Human value would be acquired over the years and there would be nothing wrong with slavery, Genocide etc. Also, Just because abortion is legal, Does not make it ok. Slavery and the Holocaust were once legal and I think we can both agree that that does not justify them in any way, Shape or form.
Thoht

Pro

Rebut and Challenge

1. You can call abortion killing, You can't call it 'murder. ' It is a legal term versus a moral term.

2. Zygotes are 'human' by definition. The problem is, Human bodies are also 'human' by definition. It is not 'human' we value, But 'personhood. '

If someone pulls the plug on a human body that is being kept alive on life support, But that body is brain dead do you consider it killing?

If you say no, Your position is inconsistent. If you say no, It isn't the 'human' aspect you care about, But the brain. If you care about the brain you should be fine with abortions before the brain is developed.

If you say yes, Then your position is at least consistent. The problem is I have no idea what 'death' means to you. Where do you draw this line? People's hearts stop beating all the time and we restart them. We transplant every human organ I can think of except for the brain. Do you say people are dead when their bodies decay?

If you don't answer these questions you are conceding the debate to me. You have to answer this. There is no reason the line for life should differ from the line of death. This is the most consistent position I have been able to understand. This challenge will show if you are consistent or not. After answering, You have to convince the audience of why your position of valuing 'human' is superior to my position of valuing 'personhood' in order to win the debate.

If you wish to go a step further, Explain to me how my view that a zygote that has not developed a brain yet is not simply a human cadaver is false.

My arguments cont:

3. Practical Implications of Banning Abortion

Having a child in high school, Or during college, Or before your finances in order can be disastrous. This leads to single motherhood, Being poor, And destroying your personal career. All of these are negatives that effect the mother and the child. The bodily changes during pregnancy can be disastrous. Not everyone can afford to take weeks off of work. Olympic athletes may have contraceptive failures. Are you saying the moment they've been working towards their whole lives should be denied because of this? By denying women the ability to choose when to have their children, You are in fact killing the children they would otherwise have in the future. If a woman is allowed to fulfill her career, She may have 3 well-off kids rather than the 1 poor kid she would have if forced to carry the child. Poor children are more likely to commit crime, Be less educated, And have more sex in less protected ways, Resulting in even more abortions. Abortion bans actively cause this.

Again, If something has justification it cannot be called 'convenience. '

SOLUTIONS

As I said earlier, Any responsible debate on abortion should include solutions that both parties can agree upon. I wish to know my opponent's position on these potential solutions that we should, Theoretically, Both agree on.

4. Abstinence only Sex Ed vs full in-depth sex ed.

Abstinence only education, A form of education that opponents of abortion largely espouse, Has been objectively, Factually, Irrevocably proven to be ineffective at best, Damaging at worst. Alternatively, In countries that have implemented more in-depth sex ed classes, A direct link can be tied with lower teen pregnancy, Fewer STDs, Et cetera.

Around 50% of all abortions are had because birth control failed. Condoms are not 100%. Imagine a world where instead of teaching children to just wait despite all of their emotions that play to the contrary we teach them that condoms fail more often than we'd like to think. Imagine a world where we use logical arguments with children. As a teacher who teaches children as young as 2 how to play classical music, I submit you will be surprised at how children react when given a modicum of respect and well-thought ideas.

Some people, Laugh if you will, Still believe if you have sex in a hot tub that the female cannot get pregnant. They believe pulling out is an excellent form of birth control failing to understand precum in the slightest. They believe anal has a zero percent chance of pregnancy. This is the world of abstinence-only education.

This change alone may stop many abortions. There is no reason this should not be agreed upon by both sides. No reason that someone who lets reason rule emotion could possibly accept.

5. Publicly Funded Contraception

It has also been proven that for every dollar paid into public contraception (condoms currently typically) saves multiple dollars publicly by preventing the births of children most likely to go on welfare. This is again, Vastly preferable both economically and in regards to abortion. Imagine a world in which female could get access to forms of birth control that did not depend on their male sexual partners using a condom. How many males out there refuse to use condoms? Some forms of birth control are superior to condoms statistically in preventing pregnancy.

I submit that this is proven. It is economically more efficient, And the outcomes for society and empowerment of women cannot be denied.

Again, The anti-abortion crowd for some reason seems to not accept this, Calling it socialism, Calling it the government trying to enforce responsibility on people. This is the government saving money directly. The government doesn't force women to use this, It merely empowers them with a choice they can make that many cannot currently make. Call it socialism if you wish, But that is not an argument against a proven system. UHC would make this a reality immediately.

Other anti-abortionists merely disagree with contraceptives on religious grounds. To them, The spread of aids in Africa is an acceptable part of proselytizing their religion. Someone who argues against contraception on religious grounds is rarely an individual who will accept logic over emotion.

6. Funding Artificial Womb research and funding orphan care

This, Along with reducing the unwanted pregnancies via improving technology, Is the only solution to never allowing babies to be aborted. Instead of having an abortion, Females will have the zygote/fetus/etc removed from them, Implanted into an artificial womb, Who would then be born an orphan seeking adoption. With improvements to our adoption system, We may be able to find homes for all such births.

Are there problems with the implementation of artificial wombs, And associated tech? Of course. Is it easy? No. Is it possible? I don't see why not.

Why is our argument centered around what we will never agree upon, Arbitrary lines all around rather than partial solutions that are easily within reach, Easily agreeable by both sides, And a full solution that may be within reach in our lifetimes?

To conclude,

My opponent MUST address my challenge in #2 or I can give him no additional credit. If he is responsible, He will also address the potential solutions that we may both agree upon.

May your thoughts be clear,

-Thoht
Debate Round No. 2
okuuuuuur

Con

okuuuuuur forfeited this round.
Thoht

Pro

I continue to be disappointed in anti-abortion responses to potential solutions. If you check all my debates, Every single anti-abortionist forfeits the following round(s).

It seems to say something about the mindset that focuses on the problem and not the solutions.

If you'd like to debate me on abortion and actually have responsible responses to the solutions we should all agree on, Please direct message me. I really don't understand how we can't all agree to disagree on what we should value as life but continue to work together to solve the problem that arises from this disagreement.

May your thoughts be pure,

-Thoht
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Thoht 3 years ago
Thoht
Do you call human bodies on life support 'persons' Guitar?
Posted by Thoht 3 years ago
Thoht
You can fertilize eggs outside of the womb. Fertilization is when the egg and the sperm merge.

The term 'conception' is the general process of fertilization and implantation. It is then less accurate to say 'conception' if you value when a full set of DNA is established.

Merriam Webster on Fertilization

(2) : the process of union of two gametes whereby the somatic chromosome number is restored and the development of a new individual is initiated

Merriam Webster on Conception

(1) : the process of becoming pregnant involving fertilization or implantation or both

Do you think it is fair for me to say you do not understand this 'natural process' based on your failure to understand these terms, Or to look them up before commenting here?

Your analogy is poor. Letting Grandma die peacefully doesn't affect other people. Letting cancer kill a woman would be 'letting nature take its course. ' Your argument, For you to have a point, Would have to be that we should NEVER step in and ALWAYS let nature take its course. I submit that you don't think like this.

When something YOU do negatively effects another person people will punish you for it, Even if it was unintentional. If you violated a female's autonomy for 9 months, Stole resources from her, And had a significant chance to kill her or do lasting damage to her body, At the very least effecting her hormones for months, Then we would step in and have a decision to make.

The argument you present is that we should NEVER step in and violate the natural course of events. This is a silly position to take.
Posted by GuitarSlinger 3 years ago
GuitarSlinger
The crux of the abortion is the question: Is it a human person?

If it is, It is immensely difficult to justify the killing of another TOTALLY INNOCENT, VULNERABLE, AND DEFENSELESS human person.

If it isn't, Then it's easy to condone the killing of this. . . This. . . Non-human person.

That's why you see the pro-abort crowd go to great lengths to say it's not a person. That's what Thoht is doing. He's going to great lengths to say it's not a person in order to say killing it is ok.

If you've ever seen a 22 week old premature baby, It's hard not to call it a person. It looks like a human baby. And yet, It's perfectly legal to kill this life in the womb.

I'd also disagree with Okuuuuur when they says the mother's life comes first. We would never make the argument when choosing between a child and a mother that the mother's life is more important. And certainly, Almost every mother I know would give her life for her child.
Posted by GuitarSlinger 3 years ago
GuitarSlinger
@Thoht I know you don't like when I chime in, But here I go nonetheless

Your Question:

1. If you value fertilization as the moment life begins, Why do most anti-abortion people not wail over the invisible genocide that is occurring tens of times more often than abortions? For every child that is conceived, I believe 2 fertilized eggs die without attaching to the female's womb. This means more humans have died at fertilization than have ever existed.

People try to get around this by saying conception (when the fertilized egg attaches to the mother's womb) is where life begins. But what is the magical life defining moment that happens by a fertilized egg attaching to the mother's womb? There is none. You can have your moment where life begins at the start of DNA, Which is a line you don't draw for a person's death, But then you have to tell me why we aren't prioritizing the insane number of persons that die unconceived

My Response:

You're missing some key steps. At the moment of fertilization, The baby's genes and the sex (boy or girl) are set. This is before implantation. If I'm not mistaken, Scientists agree that conception is when the sperm and the egg join together in the uterus. Not, As you suggestion, When it's implanted in the womb. The implantation occurs AFTER conception (fertilization). Your use of terms highlights the fact that you do not understand this natural process. If you disagree, Please site resources.

Nonetheless, Intentionally killing (which abortion is) and letting nature takes it's course are two very different things. I know you don't like my analogies, But here I go. It's one thing to let Grandma die peacefully, It's quite another to hasten her death by killing her. Surely you understand that.

Of course, I duly expect you to cast off this comment as mindless gibberish unrelated to the topic lol

Btw, Genocide is the "deliberate killing. . . " the example you gave is not "deliberate killing", Therefore not genocide. . .
Posted by Thoht 3 years ago
Thoht
Also, The distaste I have for abortion pre-brain waves or brain structure is the same distaste I have for ending the life of any animal. It's the same distaste I have for people eating caviar.

You're going to find that I'm a fairly strange person until you know a whole lot more about a lot of things about me.

I don't like having to eat things. I don't like having to sleep. These are some of the things that steal life from us. The sort of things we should ideally be trying to solve. We, As humanity, Are more focused on mundane matters. Allowing life to slip us by.
Posted by Thoht 3 years ago
Thoht
5. You can't just say the baby is independent of the mother besides all the ways it is not independent from the mother. If a baby could be extracted into an artificial womb (one of the solutions to abortion) then there would not be justification for killing it. I can count the number of anti-abortion people who have said we should increase funding for artificial wombs with my ovaries. Of which I have none. It seems contradictory to their argument, Yet here we are.

I don't value DNA as personhood. Dead humans have full sets of DNA. We do not value dead humans as persons. Many of my cells have full strands of my DNA. To value a 'full set of DNA' is an attempt to pin what we value down that quickly falls on its face. It is an attempt to value fertilization instead of sperm and eggs. Logic will eventually point you to the structure of the brain and brain waves as the 'beginning' of personhood. At this point you have no problem with abortion prior to brain waves. The mother only has a dead human body inside her. She is creating the vessel for the future person until brain waves occur. This is my stance.

Here's a question for you.

1. If you value fertilization as the moment life begins, Why do most anti-abortion people not wail over the invisible genocide that is occurring tens of times more often than abortions? For every child that is conceived, I believe 2 fertilized eggs die without attaching to the female's womb. This means more humans have died at fertilization than have ever existed.

People try to get around this by saying conception (when the fertilized egg attaches to the mother's womb) is where life begins. But what is the magical life defining moment that happens by a fertilized egg attaching to the mother's womb? There is none. You can have your moment where life begins at the start of DNA, Which is a line you don't draw for a person's death, But then you have to tell me why we aren't prioritizing the insane number of persons that die unconceived
Posted by Thoht 3 years ago
Thoht
Logicae,

1. I have said I think a person is determined by brain waves. Brain waves do not stop in comatose patients. This is a Ben Shapiro argument that is ridiculous. The woman debating him was not prepared for it. I am. Sentience/Brainwaves do not cease when one is sleeping or comatose.

2. We justify killing in many ways. My argument is that, If all else is unknown, Personhood doesn't start until brain waves occur. I currently justify killing after this point on practical grounds. My goal is the same as yours should be, To reduce or eliminate the necessity for abortion. Most anti-abortion people don't focus on the solutions that would satisfy both parties. I don't have the room to spell out the practical reasons here, But will get to it in this debate. I also have other abortion debates you can browse if you'd like a more full answer. But, 10k characters for 5 rounds isn't sufficient to fully spell out things. It is a flaw of this website.

3. No. This isn't a part of any abortion argument. It's a red herring similar to #1. You have to explain to me why I should value helplessness. Plenty of enemy soldiers on the battlefield are "helpless" when we bomb them. That doesn't play into how we justify killing them at all.

4. Murder is defined as illegal killing. Abortion currently is not 'murder' anywhere in the US. We DO justify self defense if a thief comes into your house and tries to steal things from you. Are you saying that self defense in these situations is not an excuse to use a firearm against a thief? This is justified killing strictly for financial reasons. I don't know what "privacy" means as far as this debate goes. You'll have to elaborate. Convenience? I could define any killing we've ever done as 'convenience' if I desired. I could say the death penalty is 'convenience. ' There are justifications for abortion. This means 'convenience' does not apply. The female takes on permanent changes and risks. Financial risks, Et cetera.

Cont. . .

4.
Posted by logicae 3 years ago
logicae
@Thoht,

Nice to see that you care about the issue at hand, But I want to ask a few fundamental questions (Of which I have thoht about ;)

I am glad that you have a distaste about abortion, But I ask why?

These questions can clear this up:

1. Does sentience determine person hood, If so, Should we be able to kill a coma patient due to be freed of a coma in 9 months. Additionally, Should we be convicted of murder for killing sentient rats?

2. Does stage of life determine when a human can be killed, If so than when does this stage start and why?

3. Does helplessness determine whether a human should be killed or not? If so than can we kill helpless born babies?

4. If something is murder, Can we justify it because of financial concerns, Privacy, Or for convenience?

5. Is an unborn baby a unit independent of the mother's body (besides relying on the mother for sustenance), With its own DNA?

I hope you get to these, Because these are very important to this debate

Sincerely,

To Truth! -logicae
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Leaning 3 years ago
Leaning
okuuuuuurThohtTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: I thought Con made fair arguments in round 1 and 2, but that Pro with his 2nd round pulled a bit ahead. I think that Con could have still made arguments in round 3 that were sufficient to support his position. However, whether due to circumstance preventing or own inclination he did not make any arguments. So Pro wins in arguments and in conduct.

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