Instigator / Con
3
1488
rating
1
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#903
Against Abortion
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 4 votes and with 25 points ahead, the winner is...
Pinkfreud08
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Pro
28
1614
rating
17
debates
85.29%
won
Description
I beileve abortion is wrong. Change my mind.
Round 1
I want to start this off by addressing one of the comments. Your argument assumes that I beileve in the concept of heaven/hell, which I don't.
I beileve that abortion is the killing of an innocent life, that if given the chance to survive, would lead a life similiar to any other life. Using the excuse that the child would be a burden or that it wouldn't lead a good life is stupid in my opinion. You can't just kill a 3 year old child if you don't want it, thats murder. Why is abortion any different?
P.S Sorry if my english is terrible, its not my first language.
I want to start this off by addressing one of the comments. Your argument assumes that I beileve in the concept of heaven/hell, which I don't.
Never made that claim, that was someone else.
Thankfully my opponent isn't religious which will save us a lot of time.
I beileve that abortion is the killing of an innocent life, that if given the chance to survive, would lead a life similiar to any other life.
My opponent here is clearly making an appeal to the potentiality of life to justify its existence.
Well by this same logical extension my opponent would have to be against masturbation since that's the killing of sperm which is potential lives,
Against woman not fertilizing their eggs since those eggs have the potential of life,
If my opponent does bite the bullet and is also against these things, then his logic is absurd and I'll address why it's absurd.
If my opponent Doesn't bite the bullet and isn't against these concepts than my opponent is a hypocrite and is being logically inconsistent.
You can't just kill a 3 year old child if you don't want it, thats murder. Why is abortion any different?
This is a poor analogy on my opponents part which doesn't model the situation at all,
A more accurate analogy would be this,
You have Jenny a 16-year-old girl ready to go to college, gets good grades, and stays out of trouble.
One day Jenny get's raped by a 40-year-old man and is traumatized,
She also gets pregnant.
Her giving birth to the baby will be a financial burden, most likely live a horrible life, the woman will be scarred physically and mentally.
So in this scenario, we have to judge which life is worth more value. So let's run this down, which life is more valuable?
- A 16-year-old girl who is intelligent and sentient.
- A less than 5-month fetus which is not sentient nor intelligent.
Whether or not you value the less than 5-month fetus is almost irrelevant, if you are going to bite the bullet and state that the unborn fetus's life is more important,
Then by this same logical extension if a mother was in danger and the fetus would kill the mother, then since you'd value the fetus's life more you'd have to not terminate the pregnancy which in turn would kill the mother.
This is defiantly a more accurate depiction in this scenario and is the most accurate.
Now that my rebuttal is completed, I will now give you probable reasons as to why fetus's less than 5 months old shouldn't have a right to life, let alone over a woman.
- The unborn fetus below the 5month mark doesn't have sentience.
Without sentience it is hard to argue the being is even alive, this is exactly the same reason why as a society we've realized micro bacteria aren't worth saving.
Nextly I would like to ask my opponent to specify how extreme he is on this issue.
Are you against ALL abortions? Or allow abortions in certain scenarios?
Anyways I look forward to your response and I hope we both learn something from this debate.
SOURCES,
Round 2
Forfeited
Arguments extended
Round 3
Forfeited
Always a shame
Round 4
Forfeited
xxx
Round 5
Forfeited
Very poor conduct on my opponents part
https://facts.net/history/culture/adoption-facts says that 80% of foster kids get adopted within 5 years. The quote I found is:
"Nearly one in five children in this system remains in foster care for five years or more before being adopted."
This was the least promising stat I found about this.
https://adoptionnetwork.com/adoption-statistics states that 89% of foster kids get adopted within 5 years. The quote I found is:
"11 percent spend 5 years or more waiting for a family"
Of course the system is going to display their stats in a negative way, but if an overwhelming majority of foster kids get adopted within 5 years, and some get adopted beyond 5 years, it would seem that the foster kids end up fine.
That's assuming anyone else is going to even want to adopt the baby
I feel like reviving this debate, but it's what adoption is for.
I mean, sure you can put the rapist in jail, but you still have to deal with a baby that nobody wants or asked for.
Correct. They can't all be true :)
We put the rapist in jail. Killing the baby makes no sense.
At most, only 1 religion is correct. If 10 people witness a hit and run, all their accounts will be similar. But the bible and the Quran contradict each other. For example, the Bible claims Jesus is God whereas the Quran does not claim this.
Interesting. I'm curious how you arrived at the Conclusion that because there are multiple religions, this means God doesn't exist. 10 people that witness a hit and run may have 10 different depictions of the suspect. Does the fact that they defer, perhaps even contradict each other, mean that the suspect doesn't exist? Perhaps it means only 1 of them is correct?
My rationale is that if God doesn't exist due to the multiple different religions, then there is no incentive to kill a fetus to send them to a heaven that doesn't exist.
oh yea? If you're being sarcastic, the sarcasm doesn't translate well on this thingy...
I'm pro life now.
Eh, you can't really pick and choose Scripture in order to make your position "right". SOrry, it doesn't work like that.
Abortion is evil. Killing babies is evil. Murdering is evil.
>>By mentioning rape, your basically conceding all abortions where the women doesn't get raped.
You don't even understand what is happening in the debate if you made that response.
The creator of the debate used an analogy as his/her argument. The burden is on the other side to provide an analogy where they would consider them to be for that analogy but against in the position they are defending which would mean it is contradictory.
Thankfully the contender brought sources because they didn't get into evidence behind abortions or their stances on abortion. You have again you don't know what you are talking about.
By mentioning rape, your basically conceding all abortions where the women doesn't get raped.
What country are you from if English isn't your 1st language?
A dead baby goes to heaven. A living baby will probably go to hell according to Mathew 7:13. What's better for the baby? I used to be pro life, but now, I'm pro choice.