Instigator / Pro
4
1491
rating
10
debates
45.0%
won
Topic
#925
Abortion
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
3
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1
After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
Our_Boat_is_Right
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
7
1500
rating
16
debates
40.63%
won
Description
As pro, I take the stand as pro choice. The timeframe of possible abortion should be a time when the baby is not alive, but is confirmed as a fetus in early development. Abortion should be safe and legal in all states, for all reasons, and the final choice should come down to a point that will be specified in my arguments.
Round 1
Pro
#1
My stance is that of pro choice. Here's why.
1.) When people abort, they do not do it lightly. They are cancelling themselves from giving life to a human being. This decision is a very hard one, but it is the mother's choice to make. If someone has a reason to abort, they should be allowed to legally and safely carry out the process.
2.) Reasons to abort that are sensible include: A woman was raped, a child was raped, birth control failed, mother cannot support a child, the child was discovered to be incestual, the couple does not want to have a child before marriage, and many, many more.
Reasons to abort that are senseless: The mother wants to stick it to the father, someone other than the mother wants to abort yet the mother does not, the child is the incorrect gender/skin color, the mother was cheating on their lover with someone else, and probably a few more.
3.) If someone really, truly needs to abort, they will do it whether legal or not. Would anybody rather have a coat hanger abortion compared to a safe, monitored abortion in a clinic or hospital?
What IS abortion:
Destroying a fetus before a certain point in pregnancy for a specific reason.
What IS NOT abortion:
Infanticide, Miscarriages/stillbirths, C-sections, use of birth control, Forceful abortions (Without mother's consent), and early births.
People will say that destroying a fetus is similar to killing a living person. This is philosophically incorrect. A person who has a life worth living has somebody who loves them/ takes the responsibility to care for them, a person who has breathed by their own will and had their own thoughts, and a person who, as a living being, functions independently. Fetuses that are aborted have none of those things. Fetuses that aren't aborted have someone who is prepared to be responsible for them.
A certain case: If the mother wants an abortion, and the father wants to keep the baby, it makes an outstanding dilemma. In this case, if the father would likely be abusive to the mother if there was an abortion, the mother should be granted both the abortion and protective rights. If the father will not be abusive, a third party can help decide. The mother can move away from the father and leave him to care for the baby at his own will, if he wants, but other than that, abortion is rather straightforwardly the mother's choice.
THE RELIGIOUS POINTS:
I am an atheist personally, so I obviously have not read and memorized the bible. What I do know, though, is that religious people say that all life is important, and a "Gift from god". So I think of it this way, in a rather simple math equation.
One life prevented < at least two lives ruined.
If a woman doesn't want a baby, why would she want to care for it if she was forced to? Just because someone is pro-choice doesn't mean they want to get an abortion themselves, same as people who claim to be pro life try to get an abortion when they find of their own pregnancy.
My final point: Abortion is a technology we possess. It has been proven safe and widely practiced, as well as being a personal matter (rather than a government matter). With the technology available and ready, we cannot just stop using it, especially if it is useful and helps prevent a girl's life from being ruined.
Con
#2
I will go through my opponent's arguments as reasons to abort that I disagree with for argument purposes:
mother cannot support a child
If a mother truly can not support their child, they should give it up for adoption. Murdering a life because they can't support it is not a valid reason.
the couple does not want to have a child before marriage
Abortion out of convenience is not an excuse to murder. They knew the consequences of sex. If they did not want a child they should have used abstinence or contraception. If they do not want it, they should put it up for adoption. Killing a child because it is inconvenient or life will be hard is not an excuse.
People will say that destroying a fetus is similar to killing a living person. This is philosophically incorrect. A person who has a life worth living has somebody who loves them/ takes the responsibility to care for them, a person who has breathed by their own will and had their own thoughts, and a person who, as a living being, functions independently. Fetuses that are aborted have none of those things. Fetuses that aren't aborted have someone who is prepared to be responsible for them.
1) There are plenty of people who can't have a child who would love to adopt one.
2) Breathed and thoughts) Why does a person have to breathe on their own to be worth something? What about people on breathing machines? Should we kill them? Why does a person have to have thoughts to live? Babies are first conscious in 24-28 weeks from conception.(https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-does-consciousness-arise/) What about a person in a coma who will lose all their thoughts but still eventually wake up, let's say, in 9 months?
3) Functions independently) Can you define this? Babies already born can't function independently, they would die with no help.
I will not argue religious points because I did not argue politics from a religious basis.
We were all a fetus. The only difference between us and them is time. Would you have liked to be murdered just out of convenience? You are depriving the fetus of the right to life.
Round 2
Pro
#3
There are plenty of people who can't have a child who would love to adopt one.
There are 107,918 foster children eligible for and waiting to be adopted.
As a rebuttal to all your previous rebuttals referring to adoption, I say this: The amount of eligible children are already very, very high. Taking, for example, Alabama, with the new abortion law being passed, the foster care system there will be flooded with all of the babies that couldn't be aborted. The effects of this will be:
1.) Tougher competition to be adopted, leaving more children poor and on the streets in 18 years.
2.) Higher crime rate in poverty areas as children who were not wanted grow up.
3.) Few abortions below the poverty line, but a consistent rate above the line with people being able to leave the state and receive an abortion, or move to another state entirely for the abortion.
What about people on breathing machines? Should we kill them?
You didn't read my argument as a whole. People on breathing machines have memories, people who love them/ want them, and their own thoughts.
It is the same thing for the argument about a person in a coma.
Babies are first conscious in 24-28 weeks from conception.
Great, that means you have a 6-7 month period (Or 75 percent of the pregnancy) to abort the child before they exist consciously. Current abortion laws shoot near that mark as the deadline, and it is frowned upon and illegal to abort after that mark.
In the argument of safe, legal abortion, there will be a deadline to abort. Don't make abortion entirely illegal or legal, but find the middle ground that lets mothers safely abort without killing anything that existed in the past.
My definition of functions independently is this:
Their skin is exposed to air and light, they take in nutrients through their mouth (Primarily), and they expel waste by themselves. People who are assisted by machines do not count against this, as they rely on machines rather than a human body.
We were all a fetus. The only difference between us and them is time. Would you have liked to be murdered just out of convenience? You are depriving the fetus of the right to life.
1.) If done correctly, I would have no opinion of being "murdered for convenience" because I don't know what life is, I don't know what death is, and I literally haven't existed yet.
2.) I am not depriving "the" fetus from the right to life. People who are pro choice don't all abort their children, same as people who are pro-life secretly do.
We are not destroying lives that existed, we are trying to save lives that do. After all, for a woman to become pregnant she has to be at least nine, and many years can be ruined through either raising a child, or the trauma of giving birth in the first place.
In conclusion, Abortion should be legal and safe everywhere up until the consciousness limit, which is the point of no return. It should be decided by women as well, because male lawmakers have a hard time getting experience in that field.
Con
#4
Taking, for example, Alabama, with the new abortion law being passed, the foster care system there will be flooded with all of the babies that couldn't be aborted. The effects of this will be:1.) Tougher competition to be adopted, leaving more children poor and on the streets in 18 years.
This is hypothetical. How can you prove this? I am a little confused about the wording on that point. Still is not an excuse to take a life from an innocent child.
2.) Higher crime rate in poverty areas as children who were not wanted grow up.
What do you mean? Are you talking about biological parents who hate their kids but raise them anyway? Or adopted children? Please clarify, I am trying to solve puzzles on some of your points.
3.) Few abortions below the poverty line, but a consistent rate above the line with people being able to leave the state and receive an abortion, or move to another state entirely for the abortion.
um ok what is your point exactly?
You didn't read my argument as a whole. People on breathing machines have memories, people who love them/ want them, and their own thoughts.It is the same thing for the argument about a person in a coma.
Not the same for a person in a coma. You did not respond to my coma argument. I said "What about a person in a coma who will lose all their thoughts but still eventually wake up, let's say, in 9 months?" There is a condition called amnesia, where you lose all your memories and identity as well. Do we murder them?
My definition of functions independently is this:Their skin is exposed to air and light, they take in nutrients through their mouth (Primarily), and they expel waste by themselves. People who are assisted by machines do not count against this, as they rely on machines rather than a human body.
This does not define or explain what life is or what life is worth. Life begins at conception with a human organism through meiosis, they are simply at a early stage in life. Life develops. Children develop. A early stage of life does not mean we can kill a child in the womb. Murdering a human being at any stage of life is depriving them of the right to life.
If done correctly, I would have no opinion of being "murdered for convenience" because I don't know what life is, I don't know what death is, and I literally haven't existed yet.
Neither does an infant. Should we kill them? You know what those things are now. Would you have like to be murdered? You are choosing for the baby. The baby can feel pain when being aborted, when its arms and legs are being pulled apart and skull is being crushed. Then they throw it in a trashcan. How despicable. Abortion is evil.
I am not depriving "the" fetus from the right to life. People who are pro choice don't all abort their children, same as people who are pro-life secretly do.
I am talking about the babies who do get aborted. Obviously there are children who don't get aborted. You are depriving the right to life to the babies in the womb. Abortion is a modern day holocaust.
We are not destroying lives that existed, we are trying to save lives that do. After all, for a woman to become pregnant she has to be at least nine, and many years can be ruined through either raising a child, or the trauma of giving birth in the first place.
So because life will be hard due to the women's own decision of sex, knowing of the consequences, we can kill the child. I don't think so. If she doesn't want it give it to a loving family that will. It doesn't have to be foster care adoption. Contrary to your point, many women suffer post-abortion trauma(https://www.rachelsvineyard.org/PDF/Articles/Abortion%20and%20Post%20Traumatic%20Stress%20Disorder%20-%20Theresa%20.pdf). Imagine what that child who was aborted could have become. I was in my mother's womb years ago, and I am thankful she didn't abort me. If she had, I wouldn't have experienced his great life I have.
Round 3
Pro
#5
This is hypothetical. How can you prove this?
This is a simple case of connecting two and two. I will include your other quote first to get two birds with one rebuttal
What do you mean? Are you talking about biological parents who hate their kids but raise them anyway? Or adopted children?
Say, hypothetically, there is a standard infant turnover rate to foster care of about 5% a year, and there are about 1000 babies born every year. However, there is also 500 babies that are aborted each year in low income neighborhoods from rape and untrustworthy birth control failing. Now, say, that about 40 of the kids in foster care are adopted in a year in this area. So, doing the math, with abortions, foster care gets 50 babies a year, and 40 are adopted. This will lead up to a slow buildup of children, but the kids that don't get adopted will slightly start to slip through cracks, never get adopted, and go out on the streets as a small crime figure. (Say, 1 out of 10 that are on the streets commit a violent crime).
Now, there are no abortions, so suddenly, there is a violent spike in births. These babies that would be aborted are unwanted anyways, so they have a turnover rate of about 50-60 percent from people unprepared to raise them. For the math to be simple, we will make it 50 percent. This means that 250 kids flood the foster system because they are fully alive yet not wanted. So, 300 kids a year join the system, yet only 40 are still adopted per year. That makes these outcomes:
Competition goes from 50 kids for 40 spots to 300 kids for 40 spots, leaving a buildup of 260 kids a year not adopted.
These 260 kids eventually become 18, and they all need jobs to survive. They flood the low income jobs and the amount of homelessness increases all around.
Large amounts of homeless young adults are all in the areas, increasing violent crimes per year from one to 26.
Overall, lack of abortion leads to higher crime rates and more trouble, and it is unfortunately a snowballing effect. My math is not entirely accurate, and I forgot to factor in people that go to college or move out, but the base principle is there. Safe and legal abortions means less unwanted children, which means safer streets in the future.
3.) Few abortions below the poverty line, but a consistent rate above the line with people being able to leave the state and receive an abortion, or move to another state entirely for the abortion.um ok what is your point exactly?
I was attempting to make commentary about how abortions would primarily affect lower income people because they would not have any options to get rid of their baby versus wealthy people who have options outside of Alabama to get abortions and be better off. If you need further explanation, I can tell you in the comments.
Not the same for a person in a coma. You did not respond to my coma argument. I said "What about a person in a coma who will lose all their thoughts but still eventually wake up, let's say, in 9 months?" There is a condition called amnesia, where you lose all your memories and identity as well. Do we murder them?
People on breathing machines don't have X, but do have everything else, where X equals the ability to breathe on their own accord. People in a coma don't have Y, where Y is thoughts and memories, but they have everything else (I think, not a coma expert) . Fetuses that are aborted don't have XYZ, With Z being people willing to take care of them. People on breathing machines do have YZ, People in comas do have XZ, fetuses that aren't aborted have Z, and fetuses that are have none.
(Sidenote, if people in comas can't breathe alone I will acknowledge that. People stuck in comas who won't have a set time to wake up, or don't have anybody to pay their bills will have the plug pulled on them. People in comas waking up won't make a woman's life harder or flood the job market. )
Murdering a human being at any stage of life is depriving them of the right to life.
Yes, there is no longer a fetus. Yes, they may have had good potential. But if you were forced to kill, say, a random stray or your own dog, you would kill the stray, because you don't know about its past or future life. All you know is that its life would be a life of struggle as the unwanted being that it has unfortunately become.
. The baby can feel pain when being aborted, when its arms and legs are being pulled apart and skull is being crushed. Then they throw it in a trashcan. How despicable. Abortion is evil.
For people to learn this, they would've had to monitor a baby as it was being aborted, which would probably be more evil than the abortion itself. But in the spirit of the argument, I will also refute this.
In one episode of odd jobs, the host was told to help castrate sheep. He read his information packet, and it told him to put a rubber band around the sheep's balls and tail. (Follow me here, I have a point) When he got to filming, the farmer pulled out a knife and went for the first sheep. The host stopped him and asked what he was doing, and talked about the rubber band method that he had learned previously. The farmer demonstrated the rubber band method, and the sheep started bleating in pain. When asked how long the method would take, the farmer said "about a week, they usually stop bleating after a few days". The host found this unacceptably cruel, so they went with the knife method (Which was slitting open the sack and sucking out the testies) for recording. They did this to the sheep because even though it was more bloody and slightly painful, it was temporary pain. The rubber band method and knife method led to the same effect, same as
abortion vs. natural death, yet the rubber band method was much more painful. This lines up with the abortion argument like this:
Parents with an unwanted child will neglect, disown, and berate the child for most of the child's life. The child, (Likely in low income) will maybe get to college, and maybe do something with their life, but it's probably more likely it will die in youth from sickness or drug use.
Parents that abort a child will cause the child to feel a sense of pain, but no sense of betrayal, no sense of loss, no sense of hate. Meanwhile, the parents can be unburdened by the child they didn't have, and can live a happier life without them.
Abortion is a modern day holocaust.
As in: systematic killing of men, women, and children because of their religion? Torture, property seizure, and neglect? Prison camps and ghettos?
If you are going to argue like that, you must realize that the holocaust is not something to be thrown around lightly. Abortion is abortion. Lives are prevented by people who willingly consent to it, (Hopefully), and lives are saved through lack of burden. Comparing abortion to the holocaust would mean that fetuses are the Jewish people. (Right?) Which means that they were blamed for something, generalized, stereotyped, and discriminated against. I do not see any connections to true fetuses. Safe abortions are individual choices, by independent people, against an early stage of human life, so early that they don't even know what is happening.
Fetuses have no spiritual connections, they have no loves, no property, no bonds with family. They have a very basic physical connection between the person who will need to care for them for 18 years, and if that person doesn't want to care for them, they have no reason to live a long and painful life because some senator told their mom that their kid is more important than it is.
It doesn't have to be foster care adoption. Contrary to your point, many women suffer post-abortion trauma
Wow, it went full circle. My first statement:
When people abort, they do not do it lightly. They are cancelling themselves from giving life to a human being. This decision is a very hard one, but it is the mother's choice to make. If someone has a reason to abort, they should be allowed to legally and safely carry out the process.
If a woman has a reason to go through the possible trauma, she sees it as a better option than going through 18 years of bad times.
This is my final argument, so I will conclude by saying this. I have rebutted every point con made, with very in-depth reasoning and logic. I have clarified every point asked, and I have put up a full and reasonable argument. I apologize for being so long, (I'm almost at 10,000 words) but when it comes to such a big topic it cannot be taken lightly. I thank my opponent and whoever reads this for a hard and meaningful debate.
Con
#6
However, there is also 500 babies that are aborted each year in low income neighborhoods from rape and untrustworthy birth control failing. Now, say, that about 40 of the kids in foster care are adopted in a year in this area. So, doing the math, with abortions, foster care gets 50 babies a year, and 40 are adopted. This will lead up to a slow buildup of children, but the kids that don't get adopted will slightly start to slip through cracks, never get adopted, and go out on the streets as a small crime figure. (Say, 1 out of 10 that are on the streets commit a violent crime).
First off, rape is a very minute percentage of births so using that as an argument is deceiving. This is all hypothetical with the crime in their later years, and no real stats to show it. Even if 1 in 10 become criminals, why does that make it OK for all of the abortions and the bigger percentage that don't commit crimes?
All of your math and violent crimes with an increase in foster care children is all hypothetical and can not be proven. The average wait is 7 years, so it is unlikely people would stay until they are 18. There are programs to give your child to families that would take it upon birth, so foster care is not the only adoption solution.
Safe and legal abortions means less unwanted children
There are plenty of children who are born who are unwanted, so do we kill all of them?
People on breathing machines don't have X, but do have everything else, where X equals the ability to breathe on their own accord. People in a coma don't have Y, where Y is thoughts and memories, but they have everything else (I think, not a coma expert) . Fetuses that are aborted don't have XYZ, With Z being people willing to take care of them. People on breathing machines do have YZ, People in comas do have XZ, fetuses that aren't aborted have Z, and fetuses that are have none.
So to live you have to be able to breathe on your own, have thoughts and memories, or people willing to take care of you? According to who? What constitutes this as life? What if someone was in a coma and will wake up with amnesia, they also have to have breathing machine when they wake up to live, and their parents ditch them so they don't have people who love him. Do we have the right to kill him? I noticed you say unborn babies have to have people willing to take care of them. This is exactly what adoption is for! People who want to take care of it.
Yes, there is no longer a fetus. Yes, they may have had good potential. But if you were forced to kill, say, a random stray or your own dog, you would kill the stray, because you don't know about its past or future life. All you know is that its life would be a life of struggle as the unwanted being that it has unfortunately become.
First flaw, in abortion, there is only one person you can kill, not 2. Second flaw, it is not as black and white as "chose which one you will murder between these 2," because that is not how human life works in these cases. Even if it is a life of struggle, should we kill it? Most people will grow up to become successful. Should we kill all the struggling people and homeless right now?
For people to learn this, they would've had to monitor a baby as it was being aborted, which would probably be more evil than the abortion itself.
I guess medical research is more evil than murdering a child. Who would have thought.
This whole sheep argument about destroying their balls and tying them up or whatever is irrelevant. My point was in abortion there are peaceful ways to do it and torturing the baby and not doing those other methods just makes abortion worse.
[Holocaust] As in: systematic killing of men, women, and children because of their religion? Torture, property seizure, and neglect? Prison camps and ghettos?
No. Holocaust is the "destruction or slaughter on a mass scale." (google def.'s)
If you are going to argue like that, you must realize that the holocaust is not something to be thrown around lightly. Abortion is abortion. Lives are prevented by people who willingly consent to it, (Hopefully), and lives are saved through lack of burden. Comparing abortion to the holocaust would mean that fetuses are the Jewish people. (Right?) Which means that they were blamed for something, generalized, stereotyped, and discriminated against. I do not see any connections to true fetuses. Safe abortions are individual choices, by independent people, against an early stage of human life, so early that they don't even know what is happening.
Holocaust is destruction or slaughter on a mass scale. Lives are not saved through lack of burden. Just because women's lives will be difficult if they choose to keep the baby(there is adoption which will exempt them from this), that doesn't mean the women dies. The women lives, just through a harder life (*as a consequence of their own actions*), but she doesn't die. Remember their conceived child is a consequence of their actions, so they should be aware and live through the repercussions.
fetuses have no spiritual connections, they have no loves, no property, no bonds with family. They have a very basic physical connection between the person who will need to care for them for 18 years, and if that person doesn't want to care for them, they have no reason to live a long and painful life because some senator told their mom that their kid is more important than it is.
Who says the small children won't live a productive life? Perhaps some won't, but then you are also murdering the kids that will.
Conclusion--
I have proven abortion is murder and it is wrong to end someone's life through murder, no matter what stage of life they are in. Thanks for the debate. Abortion is evil, vote 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:
As normal abortion debates are almost invariably about whether an unborn child at some level can be afforded the right to life.
The remaining practicality that pro and con largely talk about flow from proving their inherent burden. For example, number of kids waiting for adoption is largely irrelevant - you wouldn’t murder the kids if there were too many waiting for adoption, so why would you before they were born?
The issue here, is who does a better job of convincing me an unborn fetus. has the right to life?
Pros main opening argument largely ducks this, and spends only a short time talking about the properties of the fetus being different.
The entire debate should be on personhood, and qualifying the rights of the woman and her body vs that of an unborn child, why womens - or anyone’s - ability to control and be master of their own body and what happens to it - should be a paramount point in a land of personal freedom, irrespective of what that entails.
The set up by pro on the properties of a fetus was clunky and focused on odd properties (breathing, cared for), and was easy batted away by con, by giving multiple other examples of individuals in a situations such as a coma. Pro doesn’t really recover from here and lets con dictate that appeal to intuition about the right to life.
While con doesn’t offer anything more to this appeal to intuition, pros properties for why he feels the unborn do not earn the right to life were naive, oversimplifying, and trumped easily by con.
On these grounds I have to accept that fetuses have the right to the life. As pro doesn’t show why his implications for adoption, or any others outweighs this right to life, I have to side with con on arguments.
On this emotive subject. It’s often the con case that is better able to express their objection, pro often implicitly rather than explicitly talks about the real issue and justification, which often means that those taking pro position here have a tougher time, and focus more on irrelevant side notes than proving their contention. Unfortunate this was the same here.
Arguments to con.
Honestly, I probably won't, I'm pretty busy irl so I'll be very inactive during summer it looks like.
And to be frank, I don't like abortion debates.
They're oversaturated and both sides use the same boring arguments.
The contender here is probably just going to go, "but what if person A isn't sentient or person B is mentality deficient, do we kill them????"
Right now I can't vote cause I didn't fulfill all of the tedious requirements, but you can, so do you agree with instigator or contender?
If it were up to me, I guess I would:
Give arguments to instigator (both sides had strong arguments, but the instigator provided more strong arguments than the contender did, even though the instigator was drawing false lines at things)
Tie sources (although I recommend that the instigator avoid using nylon.com as a source, simply because it loaded with dozens of ads, pop-ups, fancy pictures, and links to purchase shoes, glasses, t-shirts, and other lame products, all of which can slow down certain peoples' browsers and computers; if it wasn't for my adblock plus, my computer probably would have frozen and/or crashed)
Tie spelling/grammar ('cause let's be honest, most people who vote aren't going to waste time checking every single sentence for a spelling error anyways, and vote moderators aren't going to waste time checking hundreds if not thousands of words and sentences to see if there is a spelling error)
Give conduct to contender (because like I said, instigator kept trying to draw false lines over and over for no reason, prompting the contender to keep applying it to live people, thus making the debate go nowhere)
I generally don't even like debates on whether or not abortion is "morally okay" because it just leads nowhere, and both sides of the debated get frustrated with each other.
The " take away valuable trait so I can kill you" argument is very weak and has a very simple way to get around it.
Non-Sentient beings are essentially property.
This is why houses since they aren't sentient, don't have moral consideration.
However, if you destroy someone's house than their well being is affected.
Applied to this scenario, if the person was in a coma then it is the decision of their family members or spouse to decide their fate.
Another example would be the intelligence trait.
Mentally deficient people aren't intelligent, therefore they don't have moral consideration.
However, if you kill a child who is mentally deficient the parents well being is affected.
I believe Ben Shapiro explains it best, in this short video where he debates with a university kid on abortion.
https://youtu.be/PbNYOyPRpgg?t=23
"The real question is where do you draw the line? You gonna draw the line at the heartbeat? Because it's very hard to draw the line at the heartbeat. There are people who are adults who are alive because of a pacemaker and they need some sort of outside force generating their heartbeat. You gonna do it based on brain function? Okay, well what about people who are in a coma? Should we just kill them. The problem is, anytime you draw any line other than the inception of the child, you end up a drawing a false line that can also be applied to people who are adults."
Here the college student argues "I believe that sentient is what gives something moral value" and then Ben Shapiro responds with "When you're asleep can I stab you?" followed by "If you are in a coma from which you may awake, can I stab you?" followed by "You know what else is potential sentient? Being a fetus". Here, the college student realizes that he has failed to draw a proper line at the sentient of a baby, so he then tries to draw a new line at the level of burden that a fetus presents, which also fails.
Looking at this video, and then looking back at your arguments and the contender's arguments, we can see how you keep drawing lines at different parts, the same way that this college kid draws lines at different parts. The contender just keeps taking it and applying to something else. When it fails, you keep doing it over again, so the contender just refutes it again the same way.
You don't want to make the same mistake that this college kid makes. I also recommend that you keep your religious affiliations out of all debates, unless the debate specifically has to do with religion. The contender even made it clear that he does not debate from religious standpoints.
This debate is anyone's game. I can't wait to see the outcome.
Now I think the instigator did some things wrong too. One main piece of advice I would give the instigator is, be careful when using arguments like:
1) A person who has a life worth living has somebody who loves them/ takes the responsibility to care for them
2) My definition of functions independently is this: Their skin is exposed to air and light, they take in nutrients through their mouth (Primarily), and they expel waste by themselves.
3) Fetuses that are aborted don't have XYZ
When you make arguments like these, you actually make the whole debate harder for yourself because your arguments went something like this:
"A fetus doesn't count as a person because a fetus lacks X"
then the opponent simply goes "but a person A lacks X too, so should we kill person A simply because they lack X?"
then you would say "but a fetus also lacks Y"
then the opponent simply goes "but person B lacks Y as well, so should be kill person B?"
"well, yes, but a fetus also lacks this and that"
"but person C lacks this and that too!"
This kind of interaction would go on back and forth, and would get nowhere.
Like, you would say "A person who has a life worth living has somebody who loves them/ takes the responsibility to care for them, a person who has breathed by their own will" and the opponent responds "What about people on breathing machines? Should we kill them?" then you respond "People on breathing machines have memories, people who love them/ want them, and their own thoughts. It is the same thing for the argument about a person in a coma." and then the opponent goes "What if someone was in a coma and will wake up with amnesia, they also have to have breathing machine when they wake up to live, and their parents ditch them so they don't have people who love him."
See what I mean? Sometimes it's better to simply drop/abandon arguments like these that lead nowhere, shift gears, and focus on different and stronger arguments.
I think both sides could have debated this better. I'll start by responding to a couple of the contender's arguments from the last round.
"First off, rape is a very minute percentage of births so using that as an argument is deceiving."
So what if it's a small percentage? That doesn't mean that a woman who was raped shouldn't have an abortion simply because they are within that small percentage.
"There are plenty of children who are born who are unwanted, so do we kill all of them?"
Depends if it's legal or not and what laws that the area has. Some areas ban it outright, while other areas allow it during specific times and/or circumstances, as explained in this article. https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/overview-abortion-laws
"Who says the small children won't live a productive life? Perhaps some won't, but then you are also murdering the kids that will."
I don't think the mother is going to concern herself with whether or not the baby will live a productive life. She just wants to get rid of a baby that she doesn't want.
"Conclusion I have proven abortion is murder and it is wrong to end someone's life through murder, no matter what stage of life they are in."
The definition of murder, according to google: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. The key word here, is unlawful. In other words, it doesn't count as actual murder if it is lawful and legal. I agree that it is wrong to murder, but as far as I can tell, abortion doesn't actually count as that. It's better to simply that you don't like killing babies no matter what stage of life they are in.
I'm not trying to convince the contender that abortion is okay. I believe that people should look at any upsides and downsides to abortion and then make their own judgement. I'm just responding to a few of these arguments that I find very weak.
Get removed my guy lol
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Bazza97125 // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 2 points to pro for source, 1 point to con for s/g
RFD: Con is cool
Reason for mod action: In order to be eligible to vote, Accounts must have read the site's COC AND completed at least 2 non-troll debates without any forfeits OR posted 100 forum posts
The voter should review the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
The voter should also review this: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346?page=1&post_number=4
*******************************************************************
this isnt ddo my guy lol
llolololol
uno reverse card
No U
buttface
Oh I see it, nevermind
I also responded to the sheep ball argument. I refuted both. Stop making arguments in the comments.
I want to point out that Con cherry picked my argument in the third round. I said:
"For people to learn this, they would've had to monitor a baby as it was being aborted, which would probably be more evil than the abortion itself. "
then followed it with:
"But in the spirit of the argument, I will also refute this. "
and gave my rebuttal.
Con only provided rebuttal for the first quote, and ignored the rest.
(Vote Pro)
I will try, but I can't promise I will be able to make one in time with finals and everything.
One day left
By conscious, I mean it is able to manipulate itself (to a degree), and has instinctual but complex reactions to things.
Measuring brain activity is a primary way to tell if they have thoughts, and memories start to be formed and stick around 3-4 (Not that that means you can kill one after birth)
By function independently, I did not get my point across correctly. What I meant by that was a series of things (that I learned in bio) such as:
* Skin starts to harden and protect against light dust.
* Eyes gain clarity and can learn to recognize environments.
* Cardio-respiratory cycle runs on its own accord.
* Skeleton protects and reinforces child's brain and body
* Intestinal tract works, food is taken in through the mouth, processed, and defecated through the rear.
So thank you for the recommendation, but these things are definitely necessary for a child to be alive and growing for more than a couple minutes.
"A baby left on the delivery table will die if not fed by another human."
And a 10 year old will starve if left on the streets by their parents. We aren't completely self sufficient for the first 25 YEARS of our life, but we don't need to be protected with a second layer of skin and bone just to not die.
Thanks for clarifying. Might I ask for more clarification?
1) What do you mean, exactly, by "conscious"?
2) How can you now for certain (without a doubt) that a being has thoughts/memories?
I think I won't ask about the "function independently". I don't believe that is a requirement for being "alive". A newborn baby can only breathe on it's own (and it even needs help to start doing THAT!)-- a baby left on the delivery table will die if not fed by another human. So I would cross "function independently" off your "evidence it's alive" list....
You did get me there. I see where I contradicted myself. I believe, for clarification, that it would be you'd have to have at least one of those things to be alive, because things that aren't alive (At least in this sense, ignoring the actual 9 or so things you need for your species to be classified as alive) have none of them.
Curious, must all 3 things be present in order to be classified as "alive"
a) You are conscious (24-28 weeks) in the womb
b) function independently (breathe and take in nutrients)
c) Have thoughts/memories
Is it "You must have all 3 in order to be alive" or is it "If you have at least 1 to be alive?"
For Dr Franklin, it would be punishing the woman for forcing her to have a baby from sex she didn't consent to, rather than avoiding punishing something that isn't yet a human being.
For guitar slinger, leaving the baby to die is infanticide, and I stated in my first argument that it is different from abortion. Also, the entire purpose of abortion is for couples that really don't want the child do prevent it from being born, not for couples who are on the fence long enough for the child to be born. I am not basing the right to life entirely on someone who loves them. As stated in my arguments, you are classified as alive when you are conscious (24-28 weeks in the womb), function independently (breathe and take nutrients), and have had thoughts/ memories. If a person has none of these things, either they are not alive or don't have reason to live. I bring the same thing to a hypothetical person outside the womb. If they were born brain-dead, require machines for all functions to stay alive, and have nobody willing to pay their medical bills or even visit them, they will be considered non-valuable. A living corpse, basically. In this case, even the hospitals would find it easier to pull the plug, with the final nail (Not the entire reason, just the last one) being that nobody loves or wants them.
Sorry for confusing formatting, couldn't find a good spot for a paragraph break.
Your argument is based on a lot of assumptions, and you conveniently use different words in effort to keep the person in the womb totally different from the person outside the womb, and not eligible for any rights that the person outside the womb has.
So you are basing the right to life simply on the fact that the person outside the womb has someone to love them, whereas the fetus doesn't? So if a baby is born, and yet it's parent do not love it (or want it), are you ok with that baby just being left to die? Choose your answer carefully, You say that fetuses that aren't aborted have someone that will care for them, etc. However, if a baby doesn't have someone to care for it are you ok with it being left to die?
Why are we punishing the baby.
And that means 1% are, so it should be granted to those cases.
99% of abortions are not rape cases
Hopefully you get a non-troll contender...