Instigator / Pro
4
1500
rating
1
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#2606
Abortion is unethical
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
6
Better sources
2
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
0
2
After 2 votes and with 10 points ahead, the winner is...
seldiora
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
14
1417
rating
158
debates
32.59%
won
Description
Is abortion ethical? Do abortions refrain a baby from exercising its rights? Is a baby technically even "alive" when an abortion is carried out? If you disagree that abortion is morally wrong, then please join this debate!
Round 1
Pro
#1
Greetings Seldiora.
Introduction
Abortion, more specifically Planned Parenthood, has been playing a significant role in society. In just 2011, Planned Parenthood brought in a total of approximately 230 million U.S dollars. 230 million dollars brought in mainly by killing babies. From October 2017 to September 2018, Planned Parenthood carried out a little less than 400,000 abortions. 400,000 babies killed.
Here are four potentially possibilities of an abortion.
1. The fetus is a person, and that is known.
2. The fetus is a person, but it is unknown.
3. The fetus is not a person, and that is known.
4. The fetus is not a person, and that is unknown
And the results of each possibility.
1. You have committed homicide.
2. You have committed manslaughter
3. You have done nothing wrong.
4. You have committed criminal negligence.
Planned Parenthood likes to go with option #3. The whole foundation of abortion's argument rests solely on the fact the fetuses aren't really alive. But if I can prove that fetuses are actually alive, then the foundation upon which abortion is built will be destroyed. It's this simple because if it's proven that fetuses are indeed alive then by everyone's definition, they are committing murder.
Questions for the opposing side
Q1. When do you personally say that life begins?
Q2. Why do you justify abortions?
Q3. Would you say it's morally wrong to kill a baby?
Q4. If abortions are so moral, why do the women who have abortions feel so guilty?
Q5. Do abortions cause more harm than good?
Con
#2
Wow. Pro used the exact same argument as MisterChris. The uncertainty argument. But it doesn't work because he hasn't proved the body is alive. Until he gives irrefutable proof, we must choose "innocent until proven guilty" by standard of law system and assume the woman has no ill intentions due to lack of evidence otherwise.
Answers:
Q1. When do you personally say that life begins?
Life begins after 13 weeks, however, *personhood* only begins after birth.
Q2. Why do you justify abortions?
Woman's body, woman's choice.
Q3. Would you say it's morally wrong to kill a baby?
Under threat of liberty and being an equivalent of a slave? It becomes morally ambiguous.
Q4. If abortions are so moral, why do the women who have abortions feel so guilty?
Of course, they could have raised the children feel they didn't do enough of a job. The fact that they didn't get enough raise enough money or support to actually support the potential child makes them feel guilty.
Q5. Do abortions cause more harm than good?
No. Because safe abortions allow women to avoid feeling physical pain and discomfort, potentially dying. In addition, the suffering of the child is immeasurable in deplorable circumstances, and it is difficult to justify if it's worth never being born, versus living a horrible life.
Since pro has used cross-examination, I hope he doesn't mind the same questions I used against MisterChris to further detail his position, as it may or may not differ from Chris's ideas.
Questions that pro should answer to clarify his case:
Q1: What precisely makes it so that all fetuses, or the majority, which are aborted, deserve the same rights as fully functioning baby? The majority are after all, younger than 13 weeks.
Q2: Why don't the parents' authority and status, especially over their own body, give them ability to control over the first few weeks of conception?
Q3: If the fetus does have rights, shouldn't we reduce suffering if they are disabled, physically or mental? Keep in mind, that the earlier you abort, the more of a case you can make, rather than forcing them through an entire life of problems.
Q4: What punishment does pro believe in, if abortion should be a crime? Life sentence? Imprisonment? No punishment? The first two have horrible implications, especially on the woman's future in society, while the third contradicts his case...
Q5: Since pro did not negate rape, what about those cases? Surely the woman isn't at fault here, and shouldn't be forced to give birth.
Q6: what about human cloning? Do you believe in supporting the stem cells' rights? What if we use brain cells instead? What happens?
Round 2
Pro
#3
So Con said we must choose "innocent until proven guilty". If that's the case, then why are we murdering innocent, unborn babies before they have done a single thing wrong?
Con answers Q1. Life begins after 13 weeks, however, *personhood* only begins after birth.
This answer raises a few more questions for me then. Why does life begin only after 13 weeks? The baby's heart starts beating long before that. Is it moral to preform an abortion after 13 weeks? Why does personhood begin only at birth? Is it the first breath? What specifically about birth makes a baby a person? I'll be able to better debate your response once I get a few more details.
Con answers Q2. Woman's body, woman's choice.
But what about the baby? It's their body that's getting destroyed. But the choice isn't up to them.
Con answers Q3. Under threat of liberty and being an equivalent of a slave? It becomes morally ambiguous.
Threat of liberty? Two people had to have been involved to create this "threat". So because these people took a risk, the baby's liberty and right to life have been stripped away. If you read the Declaration of Independence you will find that it says that all people have rights that include the right to life. So the woman may lose some privileges and freedoms due to pregnancy, but those are brought upon her by her own hand, not the baby's. The baby however, is never even given the chance to exercise its right. But even if the baby doesn't begin "personhood" until birth, it was never given the chance for life. Slaves would often never get the freedom of liberty. From the day they were born till the day they died, they would be at the mercy of their master. Their master owned them, controlled them, and the slaves were unable to make their own decisions. The slaves had a right to liberty. So why doesn't an unborn baby have an equal right to life?
Con answers Q4. Of course, they could have raised the children feel they didn't do enough of a job. The fact that they didn't get enough raise enough money or support to actually support the potential child makes them feel guilty.
First of all, the mental side effects of abortion on a women are more than just guilt. There's denial, feeling numb, guilt, survivor's guilt, shame, feelings of grief and loss, sadness, depression, anger, avoidance of children and pregnant women, the inability to bond with other children, nightmares, loss of relationships, emotional coldness or isolation, inability to forgive, increased drug and alcohol usage, eating disorders, anxiety attacks, Post Abortion Syndrome [PAS] (a form of PTSD), suicidal thoughts or tendencies. These are a bunch of potential mental side effects of abortion that often happen after abortions. I don't believe a woman who decided not to go through with an abortion is going to suffer PTSD, survivor's guilt, nightmares, or a good majority of these side effects. If they feel guilty for not being able to properly take care of the child that actually means they have feelings for the child. Also, the pregnant women can still go through with the pregnancy, but after birth put the child up for adoption. I'm not a huge fan of adoption, but it is a much better alternative to abortion. There is also the option of just not having intercourse if you don't want to get pregnant, or just practice safe-sex. Also there is foster care.
Con answers Q5. No. Because safe abortions allow women to avoid feeling physical pain and discomfort, potentially dying. In addition, the suffering of the child is immeasurable in deplorable circumstances, and it is difficult to justify if it's worth never being born, versus living a horrible life.
I beg to differ. Like I stated above, there are so many mental side effects that come with abortion. Also, abortions do indeed cause physical discomfort. For example, intense cramping. If living conditions are unsuitable for a child, there is always adoption and foster care as well.
Questions asked of Pro
Q1: What precisely makes it so that all fetuses, or the majority, which are aborted, deserve the same rights as fully functioning baby? The majority are after all, younger than 13 weeks.
Well for one, the baby has a right to life as stated in the Declaration of Independence. Also, what about the people with with iron lungs or pacemakers? They can't independently function on their own. Neither can those with severe Alzheimers can't either. So by your logic, they don't have the right to live either! Babies much younger than 13 weeks even have their own heartbeat. Their bodies are already beginning to take care of itself. So are you saying that because an unborn baby can't 100% independently take care of itself it deserves to die?
Q2: Why don't the parents' authority and status, especially over their own body, give them ability to control over the first few weeks of conception?
I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to say here.
Q3: If the fetus does have rights, shouldn't we reduce suffering if they are disabled, physically or mental? Keep in mind, that the earlier you abort, the more of a case you can make, rather than forcing them through an entire life of problems.
The unborn baby still has the right to life. Also, disabilities doesn't mean you don't deserve to live. There's a motivational speaker that you may be familiar with. His name is Nick Vujicic. He was born without any limbs. Nevertheless, he went on to become a motivational speaker, positively impacting people all across the globe. He has a beautiful family, a wife and kids. His "disability" isn't even much of a disability. It's more like a different ability. His position gave him the opportunity to influence the world, something that probably wouldn't have happened if he was born "normal".
Q4: What punishment does pro believe in, if abortion should be a crime? Life sentence? Imprisonment? No punishment? The first two have horrible implications, especially on the woman's future in society, while the third contradicts his case...
Abortions should be illegal. Anyone who has one should be punished. Imprisonment would be deserving, but I think a fine and therapy sessions and rehabilitation would be better. Anyone who preforms an abortion on someone else should receive the same punishment as a murderer would.
Q5: Since pro did not negate rape, what about those cases? Surely the woman isn't at fault here, and shouldn't be forced to give birth.
Good question! Cases of abortion due to rape are actually very uncommon. If you go to this link and scroll down to the statistics on the fourth page, you will find that approximately 1% of abortion cases are because of rape. While pregnancy due to rape is extremely unfortunate, abortion (to me) is still unethical and immoral. The woman can still carry the baby, and after birth, put the baby up for adoption, raise it as her own (with the help of family), or put the baby up for foster care.
Q6: What about human cloning? Do you believe in supporting the stem cells' rights? What if we use brain cells instead? What happens?
This isn't really relevant to the subject matter, but I will answer it anyways. I don't think human cloning should be allowed, and I don't believe they hold the same rights as real people. They aren't real humans. They are copies. That's literally what a clone means. A copy. Just like counterfeit money. Someone could manufacture an identical copy of a $10 bill, but it still isn't the real thing. It's a fake. And since it's fake, it doesn't hold the same values.
Con
#4
Pro asks: why are we murdering innocent, unborn babies before they have done a single thing wrong?
I counter: how is violating a woman's right to her body "not a single thing wrong"?
Pro asks: why 13 weeks? What specifically about birth makes a baby a person?
I answer that, response to stimulus has only evidence after 13 weeks. The clump of cells alone cannot be constituted a person. Numerous sources have found that only all organs form at 13 weeks and after. There is a significant difference in statistic with the norm being majority aborted before 13 weeks, making me think that there is a societal barrier that consensus where 13 weeks is the formation of life. The birth makes the baby a person with deserved rights, because the mother no longer serves as "life support", and no longer has burden of her body being invaded.
Pro claims: [the violation of liberty (paraphrased)] those are brought upon her by her own hand.
But rape is not brought upon her own hand. In addition, 92% of abortions are unplanned pregnancies, which refutes the idea that they brought it upon themselves. ("As only a small proportion of abortions terminate intended pregnancies" from a study -- https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2011/05/unintended-pregnancy-and-taxpayer-spending)
Pro claims: There's denial, feeling numb, guilt, survivor's guilt, shame, feelings of grief and loss, sadness, depression, anger, avoidance of children and pregnant women, the inability to bond with other children, nightmares, loss of relationships, emotional coldness or isolation, inability to forgive, increased drug and alcohol usage, eating disorders, anxiety attacks, Post Abortion Syndrome [PAS] (a form of PTSD), suicidal thoughts or tendencies.
He has zero sources whatsoever. He says he's not convinced that people who don't have abortion suffer these problems. I counter with my source from debate against MisterChris: “The inability to control the timing and circumstances of birth affect the children born. Women are much more likely to report poor maternal bonding, such as feeling trapped as a mother or resenting their baby, with the child born after abortion denial than with the next child born after receiving an abortion (9% vs 3%). This may be a consequence of economic hardship and the circumstances that led the woman to want an abortion in the first place. Children born as the result of abortion denial are more likely to live below the federal poverty level (63% vs 55%), an average of 101% vs 132% of federal poverty level among children born subsequently to women who were able to receive an abortion.”
Rebuttals
Q1 are you saying that because an unborn baby can't 100% independently take care of itself it deserves to die?
Correct. If the baby was independent, ex. can be developed in an egg, I'm sure 100% pro abortionist would choose this option and solve the debate once and for all.
Q2 I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to say here.
You have the right to your own body being violated. The baby is almost kind of a parasitic relationship, depriving you of nutrients. What else is there to say?
Q3 Also, disabilities doesn't mean you don't deserve to live
In that case, why do we despise Incest so much? Just support it then. Let suffering children be born, filled with diseases and disabilities. Your argument falls apart at a certain point.
Q4 Pro proposes... fine and therapy sessions and rehabilitation
rehabilitation? For what? You think that's going to stop them, if abortion is truly immoral? How do you convince them?
I will drop Q5 as Pro's response is nicely done.
Q6 They aren't real humans. They are copies.
Really? Even with fertilization inside a mother's womb? you say merely because scientists have say within this problem, then they are no longer human? They can also form fetuses as well, destroying your entire argument and supposition? In that case, to resolve the problem with Q3, would you say, if I genetically modified the human to no longer be blind, lack an arm, etc. I can now successfully abort it, thanks to your artificial involvement? This is clearly contradictory...
Round 3
Pro
#5
Con answers: I counter: how is violating a woman's right to her body "not a single thing wrong"?
Violating a woman's rights are indeed wrong. However, the baby is not at fault here. When the woman engages in "unsafe" intercourse, the baby is the result of it. If she is worried about "violating" the right to her body, and she thinks being pregnant is the cause, then she could've just sustained from intercourse or taken safety precautions. She took a risk, she has the consequences. The baby isn't at fault. Her body was the one who even created its "violation".
Con responds: But rape is not brought upon her own hand. In addition, 92% of abortions are unplanned pregnancies, which refutes the idea that they brought it upon themselves. ("As only a small proportion of abortions terminate intended pregnancies" from a study -- https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2011/05/unintended-pregnancy-and-taxpayer-spending)
Rape is indeed not the woman's fault. I won't go into details here, as I explained this situation in my previous post. However, the fact that 92% of abortions from unplanned pregnancies doesn't help you at all in this argument. She still brought it upon herself by risking getting pregnant by failing to use safety measures.
Con responds: He has zero sources whatsoever. He says he's not convinced that people who don't have abortion suffer these problems. I counter with my source from debate against MisterChris: “The inability to control the timing and circumstances of birth affect the children born. Women are much more likely to report poor maternal bonding, such as feeling trapped as a mother or resenting their baby, with the child born after abortion denial than with the next child born after receiving an abortion (9% vs 3%). This may be a consequence of economic hardship and the circumstances that led the woman to want an abortion in the first place. Children born as the result of abortion denial are more likely to live below the federal poverty level (63% vs 55%), an average of 101% vs 132% of federal poverty level among children born subsequently to women who were able to receive an abortion.”
I do actually have sources. Here's one.
There are three simple solutions to that issue you presented. One, you can place a child up for adoption. It allows the child to live but prevents the woman from those issues. Secondly, the woman could just refrain from sex until she is prepared for a baby. Third, since the second is pretty much impossible for people to do, during intercourse they can just practice safe-sex. Simple solutions to this problem.
There are three simple solutions to that issue you presented. One, you can place a child up for adoption. It allows the child to live but prevents the woman from those issues. Secondly, the woman could just refrain from sex until she is prepared for a baby. Third, since the second is pretty much impossible for people to do, during intercourse they can just practice safe-sex. Simple solutions to this problem.
Con rebuttals: Correct. If the baby was independent, ex. can be developed in an egg, I'm sure 100% pro abortionist would choose this option and solve the debate once and for all.
If that is the case, then you must also be perfectly fine with killing off all the people with pacemakers, iron lungs, and people in comas. Those people can't independently stay alive. They need help from an outside source. Like an unborn baby. If you think that those people should indeed be killed, I highly recommend seeking professional help. If you are in a coma, can I stab and kill you? You can't function on your own, so by your argument, there is nothing immoral about me putting a bullet through your head while in a coma.
Con rebuttals: You have the right to your own body being violated. The baby is almost kind of a parasitic relationship, depriving you of nutrients. What else is there to say?
If the girl is worried about that then, she could've just put a condom on her man. Problem solved. Since she took the risk, she pays the price. Don't commit murder just because you did something reckless.
Con rebuttals: In that case, why do we despise Incest so much? Just support it then. Let suffering children be born, filled with diseases and disabilities. Your argument falls apart at a certain point.
What does incest have anything to do with this? Abortions due to Incest are in fact, extremely rare. Also, it isn't your choice to decide if the baby should die because of disabilities. Disabilities doesn't make a life any less valuable. I'll direct your attention back to something I've already stated. "There's a motivational speaker that you may be familiar with. His name is Nick Vujicic. He was born without any limbs. Nevertheless, he went on to become a motivational speaker, positively impacting people all across the globe. He has a beautiful family, a wife and kids. His 'disability' isn't even much of a disability. It's more like a different ability. His position gave him the opportunity to influence the world, something that probably wouldn't have happened if he was born 'normal'".
So should this man have been killed before birth?
Con rebuttals: rehabilitation [sic]? For what? You think that's going to stop them, if abortion is truly immoral? How do you convince them?
It may not stop them, but making it illegal will help prevent it too.
Con rebuttals: Really? Even with fertilization inside a mother's womb? you [sic] say merely because scientists have say within this problem, then they are no longer human? They can also form fetuses as well, destroying your entire argument and supposition? In that case, to resolve the problem with Q3, would you say, if I genetically modified the human to no longer be blind, lack an arm, etc. I can now successfully abort it, thanks to your artificial involvement? This is clearly contradictory...
I don't believe we should kill clones. I never said that I think we should. I just don't think clones should be created. Technically speaking, they would be humans, but just artificial ones.
Con
#6
Firstly, note that pro has still failed to uphold the crux of his argument and his offense has gone into the periphery. He has failed to show evidence beyond a reasonable doubt why the woman is actually murdering a personhood and why the liberty of the body cannot outweigh this imposition of slavery.
Secondly, Pro tries to show how PTSD may affect those who choose abortion, nevertheless, it is difficult to say for certain whether this outweighs the feeling of being trapped, unable to truly take care of the children, and the increased poverty level that results from this. To put this weight on orphanages or adoption would be ridiculous as there are about 40 million abortions per year, and it would be simply infeasible to take care of 40 million new children each year.
Thirdly, pro tries once again to try pointing out for people in a coma, however, their lives would inherently be different as they were once human and could make the decision before hand whether they wanted to remain alive or not. The baby cannot make the decision for itself to know for certain. Fourthly, Pro says it's the woman's fault for not using contraceptives, but half the women who go through abortion have contradicted this premise. So now Pro wants to punish the half that did things correctly, for the fault of the other half that did things wrong. This is simply absurd.
Finally, Pro wants artificial people to never be created, perhaps for similar reasons that they would be inferior to actual people and suffer while being disabled. This is the same logic for why incestuous relationships would theoretically be allowed to abort under Pro's very same logic. I think that he should not have been born if possible, and that we should have waited for a better opportunity. That is why we stress the development of genetic changing before the baby is born. If we may prevent diseases and disabilities, I do not see why we should not.
Only actual birth gives the people rights. Otherwise, we would punish those who had stillbirth, or smoked/did drugs to make their babies disabled while pregnant. The implication of illegalization is very problematic as the woman may simply claim miscarriage all the while going through the unsafe illegal abortion. It would be incredibly difficult to actually impose this, and thus the illegalization would be even more immoral and implausible than the legalization of abortion.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Let's be clear, I don't think either debater reached their goalpost, so I'll be going off based on who got the closest to it:
Arguments:
There were a lot of assertions thrown around, and one point that was never returned to: Con asserting that personhood started after birth, Pro refuted this, asking for evidence - and the best we got was a lousy analogy from Con? I don't think that stacks up to the evidencial burden placed on them by the assertion they declared. Furthermore the core of the debate - is Abortion unethical, doesn't have a proper foundation for us to accurately judge it, therefore we must use the impacts of the debate to establish a victor in the consequences of abortion. Therefore the entire "personhood" thing is dropped almost entirely.
Some core fronts: Is it the ethical duty of the impreganted to raise their child? Con does present evidence that at least half of women use contraceptives, therefore making the sex safe, which as Pro's primary argument: that the impreganted choose to have sex and must accept the "consequences". Now, I don't think that this entirely rebukes Pros point, but Pros point isn't elaborated on much beyond the initial mention, and no rebuttal was made, thereby I would give the point of this impact to Con.
Next is the mental affects of Abortion on the impregnated. Now Pro provides some examples of PSTD like symptoms as well as a cocophany of others, but Con actually provides a very compelling counter source to it - directly negating it. Pro attempts to argue essentially to either put the baby up for adoption, but Con points out that this is an absurd and non-realistic solution; second Pro attempts the "safe-sex" argument, which I've already discussed as being debunked by Con. In conclusion, this point is also to Con.
Finally we move to the.... "incest" category, this entire section is a mine field for any potential moral philosophers, but we continue on posthaste. It essentially boils down to Con showing that Pro's entire supposition on this regard is contradictory, at one point - Pro asserts that clones are nothing but copies, with no value, then whenever Con points out that directly contradicts the notion that Pro is using to suppose the value of a fetus, Pro backpeddles and says that clones shouldn't be killed, this carries over to the talks of incest, essentially with Con doing the same thing, but in disabilities terms. Con wins this one.
Therefore Con overwhelmingly reaches their goalpost more than pro, not to say that Con did actually prove their side of the resolution, but they did so better than Pro.
Conduct:
Due to two forfeited rounds, Conduct goes to Con.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Arguments: The instigator failed to meet the burden of proof, even in the first round, where no argument was established that proved their argument. Though there were strong and weak arguments on both sides in later rounds, many arguments from PRO were not well supported with sources. Most importantly, the forfeit and failure to respond to CON's response prompts this point to go to CON.
Sources: CON provides sources to back up many claims. PRO depends on a logical argument, though when using facts, the source linked for PTSD is not strong for their argument.
Grammar: Equal.
Conduct: PRO forfeited, thus conduct goes to CON.
In response to your comment “got ‘em”, I would not agree that you “got” anything. The reason I “forfeited” this round was because the time ran out, and I had not posted an argument because I have been extremely busy as of late. So before you think your “argument” was the reason for my lack of response, consider this.
Actually, that's incorrect. I don't support human cloning for reasons being because of my christian beliefs. I don't believe human clones should receive the same rights as actually humans because of fakeness.
Ohohoho... very interesting. This guy doesn't support human cloning because of fakeness rather than disabilities produced. I've only seen that idea a handful of times.
Hey guys! So this is my first time using this site, so please bear with me if I get familiar with this format :)
To seldoria,
I look forward in debating you!
Welcome!
I'm going to try accepting this as practice to improve my pro abortion stance.
Welcome to the site!