abortion is immoral

thank you, Just! and welcome to the site!

Hi! Im new here, in fact I registered about an hour ago and I came across your profile, I reviewed some of your debates and you're amazing!

Thanks for voting!

Thanks for voting!

Thanks for voting!

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Conservallectual // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 5 to pro, 1 to con.
>Reason for Decision: Con uses unreliable sources like Wikipedia to defend his case. Also Pro had good arguments based on the life of the child. Although Pro forfeited once.
>Reason for Mod Action:
No argument analysis, and highly questionable source analysis (I don't see where pro used the reliability to challenge any of cons sources).

Arguments must always be reviewed even if left a tie (in which case less detail is required, but some reason for said tie based on the debate content must still be comprehensible within the vote).
Arguments go to the side that, within the context of the debate rounds, successfully affirms (vote pro) or negates (vote con) the resolution. Ties are possible, particularly with pre-agreed competing claims, but in most cases failing to affirm the resolution means pro loses by default.
Weighing entails analyzing the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments and their impacts against another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.
**************************************************

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: zing_book // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 6 to pro.
>Reason for Decision: Con uses unreliable sources like Wikipedia. This platform can be easily hacked and people can change information presented.
>Reason for Mod Action:

In essence, this vote was just too vague... This can be avoided in future by just commenting on the core contention (and the main counterpoint or the lack thereof), listing a single source you found important (if voting sources), saying what conduct violation distracted you (if voting conduct)... You need not write a thesis, but some minimal level of detail is required to verify knowledge of what you're grading.

To cast a sufficient vote, for each category awarded, a voter must explicitly perform the following tasks:
(1) Provide specific references to each side’s utilization within the said category.
(2) Weigh the impacts against each other, including if any precluded others.
(3) Explain the decision within the greater context of the debate.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#casting-votes

The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
**************************************************

I think Vici won this debate, however, my vote shall not change the unjust outcome, as the situation presents itself.

Thanks for voting!

Thanks for voting!

Thanks for voting!

Thanks for voting!

I copied all the points of your argument. Maybe actually read what you write. Its not anyones fault but yours that your argument fails.

Thanks for voting!

"Well, thats the most retarded argument I ever read. "

I guess that makes you the retard since you composed the argument and your argument bears no resemblance to my argument in any way.

So lets put your argument to actual logic test:
Murder is okay if:
1) if it solves or helps solve overpopulation
2) if the individual is committing it voluntary(!)
3) if its self selective
4) if it terminates unwanted individuals(!)
5) when decision is made by the most relevant stakeholder
6) when it causes least destruction

Well, thats the most retarded argument I ever read. Your argument allows not just abortions, but also killing of any children and eldery and disabled people. It also allows for a person to voluntairly by self selection kill any eldery or child or disabled person they find unwanted, as that solves the overpopulation and hence saves the society and the individuals who are all the most relevant stakeholders while causing least destruction by destroying the most useless members of the society. So basically, your nazi logic has justified eldery murder, death penalty, child murder, murdering of the disabled ones, murder of anyone who is ill and needs care, forced sterilizations...ect. I could also use it to justify forced abortions within families, since no abortions are really voluntary as no fetus consents to be aborted. But in case of forced abortions, there would likely be more people(more volunteers) agreeing to force someone to an abortion. I am pretty sure that forced abortions along with allowing volunteers to kill people are a much quicker way of solving overpopulation and will make lives easier for the rest of us. I prefer the idea that everyone kills within his own family. So basically, if a father wanted a son but he got a daughter, he should be allowed to kill her. It will help with overpopulation, so why not?

"You can say you like Bernie (I like him too) but unless you support raising your taxes 35-50% on day one of his administration, you can't say that you support his political plan because everything Bernie wants to do depends on that transfer of funds to the state."

Its evident to me that America needs to modernise a bit, take on a social democracy type economic policy (seen in Europe with higher taxes). It seems inevitable.

So long as overpopulation threatens the preservation of the human race (and other species), we ought not to indulge any prohibition against voluntary self-selective termination of unwanted individuals, which seems far preferable to any involuntary selection and gives the decision-making authority to the most relevant stakeholder. Give women complete control over baby-making decisions and I believe women will naturally, instinctively find the least destructive path to solving overpopulation.

Abortion is very moral.

Population control.

Keeping undesirables out of the population.

Reducing crime.

Aiding girls and women to continue their life goals without the struggle and burden of 18 years of legal attachment to a child they never wanted. So they can live their lives to the fullest.

Have you ever spoken to literal communists? they're ultimate sceptics. They deny everything.

That's because their communism is phony. To be a communist you have to believe that a viable economic model can be derived from stateless, voluntary organization of small communities around their own means of production. That takes powerful optimism in human nature.

You can say you like Bernie (I like him too) but unless you support raising your taxes 35-50% on day one of his administration, you can't say that you support his political plan because everything Bernie wants to do depends on that transfer of funds to the state.

sorry, i completely misread what you said.

I disagree. We can, of course, debate the topic one day, if you want. You can have immoral dispositions and I'd hold true to that. To deny it, you would have to go into communist absolute skeptic mode.

there's a pretty vast difference between humans are not biologically compelled to rape or murder and "humans don't have immoral desires" There's really no reason to infer the later from the former.

> Do other species have abortions? Just asking, not picking sides.

Some species of monkeys have been known to spontaneously abort when the troop is taken over by different male leaders. Angel sharks often abort when they are captured.

Isn't an All Perfect,All Knowing God creating cancer , immoral?

Well stated.

"If you are educated about what Communism means then you realize it is an entirely unrealistic utopia."
Maybe you should change the school that educates you. Capitalism killed more people and animals than all other systems combined, destroyed the nature, created unsustainable agriculture, created unhealthy food, established the dictatorship of the rich, created mass exploitation, separated the worker from the means of production and the fruit of his labour, led the world to the point of near total destruction, consistently produced crisis throughout its entire history, increased the suicide and homicide rates to the point which was never seen before...ect.
And no, you cant fix capitalism. The rich control the media and the government. If you think raising the taxes will solve the problem, it wont. Never did, never will. Capitalist media actively promotes hate every day. You cant have peace in a system that has the incentive to promote hate.

Leftists are usually loser nihilists/absurdist's who believe there's no meaning to existence and that everything is atheism.

I'm not a communist. But I'm on the left, and from reading your debates it seems like you are too. Bernie is based ASF, best American politician. I completely disagree that leftists have a good view of human nature. Have you ever spoken to literal communists? they're ultimate sceptics. They deny everything.

I've never met a sincere Communist in my life. If you are educated about what Communism means then you realize it is an entirely unrealistic utopia. If you claiming to be a fan of Communism you almost certainly have a distorted view of Communism. As Marx said, "Well, if that's what Marxism means, then I am no Marxist!"

It's like the whole Bernie thing. All these dudes talk about Bernie and then you run through Bernie's number one agenda item, his tax plan, and you find 3% support among Bernie voters, less than 1% support in the Democratic. In other words, it is all just talk and there no serious political juice behind it.

I do believe that Republicans are more skeptical about human nature (sin if you like) and Democrats more optimistic.

I'm very much on the left. Since you're so much into politics. Do you want to accept my current right vs left debate? I think most republicans would say most humans have a sinful nature. I think most leftists would too, I don't think its a political thing. Most leftists would argue its actually a benefit to the self to be in a communist society. They're well aware most bourgeoise will reject it.

"I think it's common sense to say most humans will be far more immoral if they can get away with it."

I think that's the main difference in outlook between Republicans and Democrats.

To argue humans don't have immoral desires (like a hamster or spider) is akin to arguing we cannot do moral wrong. If we had no immoral desires, it should be impossible to do evil.

Maybe it's not directly in our genetics to eat our children. Yet other things we definitely wouldn't consider virtuous, such as greed, envy, and hate. Certainly they are, and are all things that lead to harm. Paedophilia seems to have strong genetic links, as does depression. Being natural doesn't make them morally neutral. Although we see ageing as a natural part of life, we still may deem it "incorrect" or "unjust" that this is the case. I still cried when my grandad died, despite knowing it would one day happen and it is natural.
-
I think it's common sense to say most humans will be far more immoral if they can get away with it. This was discussed in Socrates's republic, actually. Just looking at history, we can see that during times of war, men DO rape. Look at the Japanese in China, the soviets in Germany. The Russians currently in Ukraine. Humans are slightly more malleable to the environment due to being a more social species. Yet, its evident we have "immoral" desires.

Do other species have abortions? Just asking, not picking sides.

Black widows eat their mates as they fuck. Hamsters eat their children. I don't think of those as human nature. I guess the definition I'm thinking of is something like "innate to species, inherent to species"

but this isn't my debate, you do you.

As long as you cant prove the foetus isn't a human. All you point out is the idea that people can be insensitive to another human life if it doesn't benefit them in some form. I would argue that natural fact doesn't make it moral or acceptable.

Why is rape not a naturally evolutionary form of conduct? We see it within the animal kingdom. Male geese literally have a penis like a padlock opener so they can rape female geese.

What does something have to be to be quantified as "natural" for you? what does something being natural look like?

I don't think of rape including all pedophilia or murder as natural processes.

The fact mothers grief over their miscarried children shows they view it as an injustice that their child had to be hurt in such a cruel manner.

Women's reactions are a lot more varied than that and heavily linked to whether the woman is trying to get pregnant or not. Later term is usually more painful and emotional then early. First spontaneous abortions are usually more emotional than later ones. Women who've waited until relatively late to get pregnant sometimes worry that they might have blown their chance. Throughout most of human history, one fourth of children didn't live to one years old (my grandmothers first two children died in their first year) and half of all children died before 12 years old- so on the spectrum of grief, abortions ranked relatively low. I don't think there much evidence for fetal pain before the third trimester.

It could be argued that it is human nature for most men to rape in times of war, when they know they can get away with it. Hate, which leads to killing others, is not one would say is virtuous, yet it remains part of the nature of being a human. It is evident we are in constant war with ourselves, constantly monitoring and judging if an action is acceptable, natural or not. Paedophilia and psychopathy seem to have genetic ties, and therefore are "natural". That doesn't mean we find such things morally permissible.
-
The fact mothers grief over their miscarried children shows they view it as an injustice that their child had to be hurt in such a cruel manner.

Sure but few people are going to think of a natural process that happens to them as violation a of norms or standards or think of themselves as doing something wrong. Dying of natural causes, for example, always implies a lack of foul play.

Something can be natural while being immoral. Calling a miscarriage an abortion feels like a strawman too. Although technically correct, no one says they "had an abortion" when they had a miscarriage. It's like someone saying gay people are bad and someone goes, "Actually, gay just means happy!"

CON's R1 SOURCES

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abortion
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/abortion
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/immoral
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immorality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4443861/
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/06/13/about-six-in-ten-americans-say-abortion-should-be-legal-in-all-or-most-cases-2/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion
https://www.npr.org/2022/05/18/1099542962/abortion-ben-franklin-roe-wade-supreme-court-leak
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_of_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human

no forfiet lets go whoever poses the best case wins.

just for you