Instigator / Pro
seldiora's avatar
8
seldiora
1417
rating
158
debates
32.59%
won
Topic
#2457

Global Warming is a more pressing issue than Abortion

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
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2

After 2 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...

MisterChris
Tags
Miscellaneous
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
5,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
MisterChris's avatar
14
MisterChris
1762
rating
45
debates
88.89%
won
Description

I've been curious which issue is more concerning

more pressing: more important, influential, should be resolved first

Round 1
seldiora's avatar
seldiora
Pro
#1
1) Economic impact

This is one of Global Warming's one of major problems that Abortion does not cost. The lost of finance is definitively incredibly influential. Trustworthy scholar source states, " New research shows that if present trends continue, the total cost of global warming will be as high as 3.6 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). Four global warming impacts alone—hurricane damage, real estate losses, energy costs, and water costs—will come with a price tag of 1.8 percent of U.S. GDP, or almost $1.9 trillion annually (in today’s dollars) by 2100." As you can see, the staggering costs of Global Warming far surpass any of abortion.

2) Environment impact

Global Warming concerns the entire world, from Antarctica all the way to Greenland, while abortion is less concerning in major countries that give people rights and are fair to women. Not only so, abortion is only relevant to humans, in contrast to GW's power over all animals. Experts note, "global warming raises the sea level; brings drought in tropical regions near the equator; increases hurricanes, tornadoes, and floods; and causes the spread of diseases. The consequences are serious and have the potential to bring tremendous unrest in the world." The fact that they ask for humanity's concentrated effort to combine together go to show the power of GW. While abortion can be solved by convincing each individual country in disagreement for better practices, or even moving to a different country, GW is not so easy to resolve, and is thus far more pressing. 

3) Deaths

As con's own source from his debate arguing GW more severe than Coronavirus, he has noted that it is responsible for more than 150,000 deaths annually. The injuries and suffering are also very clear as frontier notes: “A rapidly changing climate has dire implications for every aspect of human life, exposing vulnerable populations to extremes of weather, altering patterns of infectious disease, and compromising food security, safe drinking water, and clean air”. US Environment also noted, "“nearly one quarter of all deaths globally in 2012 could be attributed to modifiable environmental risks, with a greater portion occurring in populations in a vulnerable situation and in developing countries” 
MisterChris's avatar
MisterChris
Con
#2
Thanks Seldiora!

Resolved: Global Warming is a more pressing issue than Abortion

OBSERVATIONS:

  • Two of PRO’s definitions of “more pressing” (more important, influential) ignores the time-sensitivity of the word “pressing,” which is defined as “(of a problem, need, or situation) requiring quick or immediate action or attention.” by the esteemed Oxford dictionary. Thus, we should prefer PRO’s third definition: “should be resolved first”
  • The resolution does NOT imply that we must resolve only one or the other. It only implies that one should be resolved BEFORE the other. It follows, then, that voters should prefer the side which proves that their issue is more potentially impactful currently than the other. Potential global warming impacts 100 years into the future, for example, are far from our biggest priority. Much deliberation, debate, and action can be done from now until then. 
CONSTRUCTIVE:

CONTENTION 1: THE COST OF ABORTION

A. DEATH

There is one central question to abortion that we must resolve: when does human life begin? 

To quote my previous debate with Vector:

“Upon conception, 23 chromosomes from each parent combine to create a new and unique genetic entity that drives its own growth and development independently. This means that human life begins at conception.
As Princeton cites:
"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."

This argument has horrendous implications. If life begins at conception, then we can confidently label abortion as murder.

If that’s the case, then we have already killed 32,695,106 people this year alone at the time of this writing. You can see this number go up here. 

Indeed, “According to WHO, every year in the world there are an estimated 40-50 million abortions. This corresponds to approximately 125,000 abortions per day.”
 
This means in one DAY, abortion kills about as many people as climate change kills in one YEAR according to PRO’s own source.

Put in other terms, abortion kills about 333 TIMES more people than climate change in the span of a year.

This alone settles the debate instantly. 

Now, PRO’s predictable refutation here is that “there are arguments against life starting at conception.” Voters will agree, though, that even though there is not consensus, the potential impacts are so astronomically huge that they warrant immediate attention and further investigation. Otherwise, we would be doing a disservice to humanity. 

B. ECONOMICS

Abortions kill off people who would have contributed to the world economy as consumers and job creators. Let’s do some math to figure out how much is roughly being lost monetarily due to abortion (of course, assuming current rates stay constant.)

In 2016, the average individual contributed $14,574 to the world economy. Let’s assume that those who were aborted started contributing like this when they turned 18 and lived until the life expectancy of the world at 72.

That’s 54 years of contribution X 14,574 which equals $786,996 per person for lifetime economic contribution. 

Multiply this number times 32,695,106, and you get a whopping $25,730,918,000,000 lost over 54 years in the world economy. And this is using 2020’s abortion deaths alone. 

Let’s calculate how much is lost in the world economy by 2100, then, just to compare with PRO’s numbers. It is 80 years until 2100, so multiplying that times the yearly death rate given by the WHO should tell us how many abortions will happen by 2100. 

80 X 50 million is 4,000,000,000 people dead by 2100 (yikes). 

4,000,000,000 X 786,996 is a moderate $3,147,984,000,000,000. No biggie. Only 3 quadrillion dollars lost in the world economy spread out over 80 years. 


REFUTATIONS:

1) Economic impact

Outweigh. 

2.) Environment impact

Outweigh. 

3.) Deaths

Outweigh. 

Additionally, PRO’s “modifiable environmental factors” figure can be thrown out immediately, as the definition of modifiable environmental factors is so broad that the contribution of global warming to it is impossible to measure:

“A definition of the modifiable environment for measuring the environmental impact on health includes:
  • Air, soil & water pollution with chemicals or biological agents
  • Ultraviolet and ionizing radiation
  • Built environment
  • Noise, electromagnetic fields
  • Occupational risks
  • Agricultural methods, irrigation schemes
  • Anthropogenic climate changes, ecosystem degradation
  • Individual behaviors related to the environment, such as hand-washing, food contamination with unsafe water or dirty hands”
Back to you, Seldiora.


Round 2
seldiora's avatar
seldiora
Pro
#3
con's argument is absurd, and relies on DNA being equal to human. He has not successfully managed to tackle this problem. There is much separating mere DNA from having human rights, including but not limited to consciousness, ability to respond to stimuli, so on and so forth. The idea that abortion kills way more than Global warming is absolutely insane and makes no sense.

1) NO new life
As billinggazette notes, "No new life is formed — the egg and the sperm were already alive — and fertilization is not instantaneous. Nearly 48 hours pass from the time sperm first bind to the outside of the zona pellucida, the human eggshell, until the first cell division of the fertilized egg. The two newly formed cells then have the potential to give rise to a human being, but only if they are appropriately nurtured so that they continue to divide and then successfully implant in the uterus."

2) JUST cells

Timeunion agrees as such: "The multicellular pre-implantation embryo cannot be equated with a human being. It is a collection of stem cells, each of which has the capacity to grow into any part of the placenta, as well as fetal tissues and organs, but it is not itself a new human life. "

3) Not guaranteed to be life

Romper also highlights the issue with con's stand. "There are lots of fertilized eggs that never become human beings. Humans are notoriously inefficient producers, and we believe most [fertilized eggs] actually go out with a woman's menstrual flow." It says. Along with the fact that " Early miscarriages are incredibly common — many women miscarry before they even realize they are pregnant — and most are due to nothing more than a chromosomal mixup. " The obvious fact that without mother, the cells would not survive highlight con's stand against abortion and arguing that it should be banned, that it is a more pressing issue than global warming. 

Conclusion: Life does not begin at conception, this is an absurd concept and a straw man for sure. The fact that con's arg solely relies on this goes to show his lack of understanding and overestimating how important abortion is.
MisterChris's avatar
MisterChris
Con
#4
Thanks, Seldiora.

REFUTATIONS:

“con's argument is absurd, and relies on DNA being equal to human. He has not successfully managed to tackle this problem.”

CON argues that if life did not begin at conception, it would have to begin at some point along the journey to birth. 

If it did not, we would introduce absurdity into the equation: a baby one day before birth could be aborted. 

PRO’s predictable counter is that only a small percentage of abortion deaths are after the first trimester (first 12 weeks) or so, and that they do not believe life starts before then. 

Abort73 finds:
“By the eighth week of pregnancy, every organ is present and in place. The embryonic period is now over. Ninety percent of the structures found in an adult human being can be found in this tiny embryo (now called a fetus) which is only about an inch and a half long.”

Additionally, even if only 1% of abortions were actual humans in PRO’s eyes, it would still equate to a massive toll of 40,000,000 people dead by 2100 (meaning 500,000 people per year, still far more than PRO’s 150k number.)

“There is much separating mere DNA from having human rights, including but not limited to consciousness, ability to respond to stimuli, so on and so forth. The idea that abortion kills way more than Global warming is absolutely insane and makes no sense.”

CON will assume PRO thinks human rights begin when life begins.

If not conception, where does life begin? There is no other coherent choice logically. Indeed, humans continually develop from conception to death, so physical development is not a good measure of whether a person is human or not. 

However, there are additional absurdities with each potential candidate.

If PRO thinks life begins with consciousness, then people in a vegetable state, suffering brain damage, or severely developmentally handicapped are “not alive” under PRO’s logic.

Additionally, quoting my debate with Vector:

“science has demonstrated that the baby is capable of consciousness while still in the womb, it is only asleep due to its environment. ”

If PRO thinks life begins with the “ability to respond to stimuli,” we run into the same logical blunders: what about people in a vegetative state? 

The baby is also able to respond to stimuli as early as 8 weeks, well within the first trimester, when the majority of abortions happen.

Maybe PRO thinks it is “viability,” that is also nonsensical. Are people on life support who are technically “unviable” less than human? 

Notably, fetuses become “viable” as early as 23 weeks.

“1) NO new life
As billinggazette notes, "No new life is formed — the egg and the sperm were already alive — and fertilization is not instantaneous. Nearly 48 hours pass from the time sperm first bind to the outside of the zona pellucida, the human eggshell, until the first cell division of the fertilized egg.”
CON is not saying the sperm or egg stopped and then started being alive again. CON is instead arguing that a new human is formed, and that is when the new human’s life begins.

CON regards the time it takes for fertilization to happen irrelevant.

“The multicellular pre-implantation embryo cannot be equated with a human being. It is a collection of stem cells”
They are a collection of cells that are made up of a unique genetic identity, and those “collections of cells” drive their own development at startling speed. 

RECALL: humans continually develop from conception to death, so physical development is not a good measure of whether a person is human or not. 


“According to the law of biogenesis, a fetus conceived by human parents, and growing according to the instructions in its own human genetic code, is by definition human.”
 
“The obvious fact that without mother, the cells would not survive highlight con's stand against abortion and arguing that it should be banned, that it is a more pressing issue than global warming.”
CON fails to see how a baby in the womb relying on their mother, as someone might rely on life support, makes them less than human. 
 
THE UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE:
 
CON’s final argument to be presented is that of the uncertainty principle.
 
The uncertainty principle states that there are 4 potential possibilities of 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

There are ramifications to each:

1. You have committed brazen homicide.
2. You have committed manslaughter
3. You have done nothing wrong.
4. You have committed criminal negligence. 

In 2/4 scenarios, a person dies, and in 3/4 scenarios, abortion is not justifiable. It is logical, then, that this risk poses enough of a threat to address abortion over global warming, given the impacts of CON’s first contention.

Back to you, Seldiora.






Round 3
seldiora's avatar
seldiora
Pro
#5
con continuously exaggerates and puts numbers in absurdly high situations. Let's assume that I conceded late term abortions to be enough to be human, and not at the cost of the woman's life (as 1 for 1 would still defeat con's argument; one person would die in either case). Take a look at this table. That's right. No matter how you add up the numbers they can't beat Global Warming's 150,000 amount. Con speaks of the potential contribution of the people, but does not consider the fact that "average" is useless; the bottom 10% of the world lives under poverty and the bottom 25% of the world lives without proper job or education to fulfill the massive $45,000 claim of each "individual life". 

To say that each life has the same financial value is absurd and doesn't stack up against the solid financial costs that are actually backed by figures. Consider the fact that most of the money is also circulated by government means that persons working for a job not being born, is not equal to actually spending resources to resolve a problem. Con's argument becomes more and more absurd the longer you think about it. Punishing inaction is absurd. It would be like saying that "people not being born is an issue, due to potentially lost money". Do you see how exaggerated con's problems are? So based on con, we should force people to have sex so that as many people would be born as possible, since your inaction (unwillingness to have sex) caused "one potential fetus to die in 9 months", leading to con's vague financial arguments. To violate the woman's autonomy to her body would be similar to my dystopian scenario (as people would have restricted free will with a sex oriented world). So the urge to ban abortion is completely unfounded and completely insane. 

Con Asks:
Are people on life support who are technically “unviable” less than human? 
Actually, yes. If the life support was sentient, had say over his life, and had its own rights (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness). If the person's drain of life support could kill the life support. If the life support knew what pleasure and suffering were. If the life support had a loving partner who supported their decision. You can see the problem with con's analogy here.

Con mentions:
we run into the same logical blunders: what about people in a vegetative state
If the mother had to constantly carry that person around physically (who, had no response, no memories, no feelings), be deprived of physical ability, and suffer for 9 months as a result, would Con still think the same? Wouldn't the mother have the right to say, enough is enough, I don't want to carry this vegetable son for 9 months and lose my autonomy, and painlessly drop this burden? Otherwise, con vouches for slavery, and the mother might as well give millionaires a piggyback ride for 9 months in a row, vegetable or not.

Con says:
CON fails to see how a baby in the womb relying on their mother, as someone might rely on life support, makes them less than human. 
By this analogy, con would be fine to disable the life support to save the person. Which is completely nonsense. You get rid of the exact support that helped them survive. This is contradictory.

"UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE"?

Negated. The case is 3 in most cases. In case of 1, most women would only do so with their lives in danger. 

CONCLUSION

The "potential finance" and the "lost life" of the unborn baby is absurd, as my scientific facts were dropped; a baby only is truly formed with evidence after 21 weeks, the minority of women. This doesn't stack up against Global Warming costs. The pollution and disease concerns the entire world. Even if Con was correct, half the countries in the world already support his stance, so the problem does not concern the majority or all of the world. His stance also stifles women's' rights to their own body and offers troubling implications towards our world of liberty and autonomy. It is also too late for con to flip the table on me and try to argue that women's liberty is more important than finance and environment, as he has been arguing the counter argument the whole debate. Vote for me.
MisterChris's avatar
MisterChris
Con
#6
OBSERVATIONS:

  • PRO does not respond to the majority of CON’s arguments regarding the humanity of the fetus.
REFUTATIONS:

“Take a look at this table. That's right. No matter how you add up the numbers they can't beat Global Warming's 150,000 amount.”

PRO’s source appears to be a bit of a last-ditch hail mary. Several responses:

A. This source is just for the US. We are talking about worldwide effects.

B. In the very first line, the source says: “In the United States, abortion reporting at the national level is incomplete and out of date”

Later, it says: 
“This data does not include 8 states and the District of Columbia… Reports are only on abortions performed on state residents...”

C. The CDC finds instead that 1.2% of abortions in the US were late-term. Assuming this rate is close to the world average, CON’s original estimate of 1% was very accurate.

“Con speaks of the potential contribution of the people, but does not consider the fact that "average" is useless; the bottom 10% of the world lives under poverty and the bottom 25% of the world lives without proper job or education to fulfill the massive $45,000 claim of each "individual life".
A. PRO asserts that anyone in poverty is useless and does not contribute anything economically, intellectually, socially, or politically.

B. PRO’s argument is a fundamental misunderstanding of what an average is. Those people in poverty have been taken into account in CON’s calculations.

C. Even if the real wealth generated by all those people were 1% of what CON originally calculated, that would still be a massive price tag of over $31 trillion by 2100.

“Punishing inaction is absurd. It would be like saying that "people not being born is an issue, due to potentially lost money"... So based on con, we should force people to have sex so that as many people would be born as possible
PRO presents a nonsensical refutation here. What about abortion is inaction? What about banning abortion is punishing inaction? 

Abortion is an action that kills real fetuses, demonstrated to be human beings created by choice by people.

This is not a “hypothetical loss of money,” by killing our young before they are even born we are literally flushing money down the drain. And no, CON is not advocating to have wild sex as often as possible. CON is simply arguing to not vacuum your baby out of your womb.

“Con Asks:
Are people on life support who are technically “unviable” less than human? 
Actually, yes. If the life support was sentient, had say over his life, and had its own rights (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness).”
This is a non-response. PRO does not address the core issue. What makes someone relying on someone else less than human?

“Con mentions:
... what about people in a vegetative state?"
If the mother had to constantly carry that person around physically (who, had no response, no memories, no feelings)...”
PRO advocates for murder of vegetables if they are inconvenient enough. Once again, PRO does not address the core issue and gives a cold, callous non-response with horrifying implications. Infants still rely on their mothers, does PRO endorse infanticide?
  
Additionally, PRO’s argument that the fetus is “an unfeeling clump of cells” has been addressed into oblivion already. 
 
RECALL: “The baby is also able to respond to stimuli as early as 8 weeks, well within the first trimester, when the majority of abortions happen.”

“By this analogy, con would be fine to disable the life support to save the person. Which is completely nonsense. You get rid of the exact support that helped them survive. This is contradictory.”

CON is not even sure what PRO is saying here. If they are pointing out that in some cases maternal life is at risk, CON would like to point out this is in a barely relevant 0.1% of cases.

“"UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE"?
 
Negated. The case is 3 in most cases. In case of 1, most women would only do so with their lives in danger.”
Voters should drop this argument, as CON mistakenly neglected to include the explanation behind the argument last round *facepalm*.
 
The idea behind the argument is that there is uncertainty to the issue of abortion. No one can say with absolute certainty that abortion does not kill a human person. At best, someone can be strongly convinced that it does not, but they have no capacity to prove so.
 
That throws out cases 1 & 3 and  leaves options 2 & 4, both of which are negative. 
 
“Even if Con was correct, half the countries in the world already support his stance,”
The numbers speak for themselves, does not matter very much where those numbers are distributed.
 
“His stance also stifles women's' rights to their own body and offers troubling implications towards our world of liberty and autonomy.”
CON’s stance does no such thing, as previously shown. Another thing: what about the rights of all the women being aborted? PRO should not be selective about which women deserve rights. 
 
Vote CON.