Login/Sign Up




Abortion
People

Ali Slim
Apr 16, 2016
10 votes
8 debaters
3
1
1
1


+ Add Argument

4
getting an abortion is not taking a life as the fetus is not alive yet


Austin Wu
Apr 28, 2016
2 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: Scout Surf Show

First of all, your citations are from news sites and in no way "prove" many of the things you say that prove. For example, "pre-embryos do not exist" is heavily dependent on the definition of "pre-embryo"; proving they do not exist would require the use of a dictionary rather than a news article.

1. Responding to this quote: "First of all he is already wrong because embryos can split into two after implantation resulting in a siamese twin or a fetus-in-fetu."

I would like to note that you have merely confirmed McCormick's stance with that rather than disproven it. That just shows that an embryo is not a single, coherent individual; sometimes it can be two, as your case shows.

2. Responding to: "So an embryo, right from fertilization is an INDIVIDUAL, DEVELOPING, HUMAN, PERSON, provided with all the unique instructions he needs in his 46 chromosomes."

Note that all cells in your body have these 46 chromosomes. That does not make any of them fully human. Frankly, having unique DNA does not define a person; each person has many cells with different DNA due to natural mutations.

In addition, I would like to point out that the entire paragraph does not make very much sense, and clarification may help your point.

3. "Biology and embryology continues to debunk the rumors and lies sent by scientists who either make mistakes, or say things on purpose."

You need to give more concrete examples. Saying something does not necessarily make it true.

4. I consider your fourth paragraph to be quite an excellent argument, but it doesn't prove that unborn children are fully functional humans; rather, it helps refute the idea that measurements of a person's psychometrics are relevant in this discussion.

 
Rochelle Romo
Apr 18, 2016
1 convinced
Rebuttal
abortion is ok, yeah you are 'taking the life away of someone who might have become an amazing person', but when it's clinically correct to remove the fetus, it isn't even alive, it does not have the capacity to think or feel. In my opinion it's only 'correct' when you were a victim of sexual assault, or when you don't have the economy capacities to properly raise a child, not when you made a 'mistake'.

 
Austin Wu
Apr 28, 2016
1 convinced
Rebuttal
First, to clarify, it appears that this topic concerns whether killing an embryo/blastocyst/etc is essentially the same as murder and is not related to whether promoting abortion or lack thereof is a good public policy.

My stance is that getting rid of an embryo within one's own body is no more nor less ethical than cutting off an arm or a leg.

An embryo is essentially an organ; it carries out a certain function of one's body (reproduction), and it relies on the body to survive. As long as the unborn child is not capable of surviving outside the body (with some help, of course), it should be considered an organ because by definition, it has the same properties as that of an organ.

Fetuses that are capable of surviving outside the womb (presumably with the help of current medical technology) can be simply kept alive after they are removed from the mother.

The question of abortion is weaker this: If a person is dependent on your blood and has to be connected to you at all times to stay alive, should it be considered murder to stop doing that? A person has no obligation to sacrifice one's own interests for another; while it may be magnanimous to do so, _requiring_ someone to do so would be too much.

With abortion, you are essentially doing the same thing, except this "person" has not gained consciousness yet.

[Definition of an organ as given by google: a part of an organism that is typically self-contained and has a specific vital function, such as the heart or liver in humans.]

 
Thomas Mortensen
May 01, 2016
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: Scout Surf Show

Since the argument above responded to most of what I wanted to, I'll just continue from where he said your fourth paragraph is excellent, because I whole-heartily disagree. It reads like a further condemnation of abortion in a much more ignorant tone. Obviously, it's his closing remarks, but even the attempted call to humanity of,

"There are leaders of the pro-choice movement who say that if the unborn fetus has a right to live and if he was a person, then he would have the right to die because he might not want to live and the parent can make that decision."

is just another ideological argument that abortion as a whole is an ethical black hole. If you break it down it makes little to no sense, and is just an argument from emotion.

1. An unborn fetus doesn't even have a heart until a month into pregnancy, let alone a functioning brain. To compare the rights to life of a mature adult to what would still fit on a petri dish is odd. This entire essay disregards the whole host of conditions the can endanger the life of the mother and/or the child which abortions are necessary for. And in the case of voluntary abortion, a farmer can only support so many seedlings into adults on an acre. If we saved every miscarriage, potentially fatal pregnancy, and voluntary abortion you'd have a legitimate problem, unlike any of those your essay addresses.

2. An adult begging for death outside of circumstance of having a fatal illness or age, is likely a mental disturbance. We don't define the mentally disturbed as capable of making those decisions, and in many places the idea of letting a fatally ill, or elderly individual choose their time to die is often accepted as kind/empathetic (but often not legal). Euthanasia is not a good comparison to whatever the reason a mother uses to justify an abortion (many are medically necessary).

3. The parents of a fetus obviously have the right to make that choice because the third party isn't even capable yet. It doesn't know what life, or the words you are writing mean yet. It doesn't have eyes, a brain, a heart until almost 2 months after fertilization.

In my opinion, if the pro-life movement was actually concerned with what it's name implies, they would look into the issues of the already-born. Abortion is trivially small compared to the numbers that die to disease, poverty, drought, famine, and war. If the fervor used outside clinics was used to solve global crisis, they'd be doing more good.

Lastly, to lay this "fetus's right" argument to bed, I will just bring up the case of Elisabeth Fritzl. Many of you know it already but she was kept imprisoned in her father's basement for 24 years, and had seven incestuous children. I won't waste my time explaining the obvious and terrible risks associated with that, I'm merely bringing it up to show how positively vile one would have to be to tell Elisabeth, "Sorry, your father's child has a right to life even if you would never want to be it's mother." Often pro-lifers do not see rape, even in the case of forced imprisonment, as justification for allowing a mother to choose to abort. You must take into account who the parents are, and if the conception is the product of a crime, AT LEAST. Surely THAT is grounds enough for a mother to decide; if she wants to raise a child born of an attacker, her nightmare's fuel, to absorb all of her time for the next 18 years. That's not even considering if she would be of sound mind enough not to associate that child with her attacker.

In short, your pro-life stance ignores:
-feelings of the mother
-situation of the parents
-medical issues complicating pregnancy
-effects nationally/globally of preventing every abortion possible

All to accommodate the future feelings that the equivalent of a human seed would have years later, or that you're projecting while thinking of yourself being aborted.

 
Tim Houton
May 30, 2016
0 convinced
Rebuttal
If you were raped are you saying you would keep the child? I find that very unlikely.
Other common circumstances include contraception not working and not being able to afford a child.
Some people are responsible and use contraception, but still get pregnant. Contraception is not 100% effective so it is selfish to make a woman give birth to a child she does not want or can't support. You're putting her through immense pain to save something that can't even feel anything. They could put the child up for adoption, but parting with your child, even if it wasn't a planned child must be traumatic.

 
Hannah Mendoza
Jul 01, 2016
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: Jessica Dann Show

It is not a baby. It's a fetus biologically. The argument what if that child could change the world !11!1 is irrelevant. What if the women who is forced to have a fetus she didn't want and is forced to give up her education for a fetus she didn't want, what if she was the one who could have changed the world.

 
+ Add Argument

6
abortion is immoral and is equivalent to murder


Scout Surf
Apr 19, 2016
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Hello Everyone, this is part of an essay I wrote... READ IT

Our government also makes killing normalized to suit certain goods. The form it takes is abortion. People think abortion is not evil because the undeveloped human is supposedly not a human being. However, biology proves he must be one. When sperm and egg cells combine into an embryo, they make a cell with 46 unique chromosomes, the amount all humans have. Pre-Embryos do not exist. This subcategory has been proven to be false. However, scientists continue to quote and follow severely flawed bioethics sources from Jesuit theologian McCormick, frog developmental biologist Grobstein, and others, that “proved” the pre-embryo to justify things otherwise unjustifiable.(When Do Human Beings Begin?) McCormick states many inaccuracies. Most of the inaccuracies do not matter, because they are all proven wrong by his largest-grounded “proof”. He claims that someone attains personhood at the attainment of developmental individuality and this is true. His largest grounded proof states that because an embryo can split into two different embryos before implantation, and not after, he is not an individual until implantation, and therefore not a person.(When Do Human Beings Begin?) First of all he is already wrong because embryos can split into two after implantation resulting in a siamese twin or a fetus-in-fetu. But the reason he is an individual comes with biology and reason.

People are always in the state of becoming, but they are also always in a state of being. In other words, people are always on the whole, human beings, but they also change over time. It does not matter what development changes they go through. If an embryo is in a state of being a human, that will never change, he might split into two embryos, but the original one never lost its status as a human and the new one gains a status a human. The same goes for any cellular organism, a skin cell never loses its status as a skin cell, and when it splits into another one, the new one then receives the status of a skin cell. So an embryo, right from fertilization is an INDIVIDUAL, DEVELOPING, HUMAN, PERSON, provided with all the unique instructions he needs in his 46 chromosomes. And while identical twins almost have the same DNA, it is changed a bit for each individual.

Biology and embryology continues to debunk the rumors and lies sent by scientists who either make mistakes, or say things on purpose. The myth that a human person takes place at brain birth is wrong for two reasons. The theory of brain birth is actually the gradual acquisition of a neural system rather than a brain. The theory also states that incapacity for consciousness becomes capacity for consciousness at a certain point, which scientifically and reasonably makes no sense. How can a living object have no capacity for brain development and then suddenly have some? It is not even a brain yet, it is just a neural net.

There is another myth in which "A person is defined in terms of the active exercising of rational attributes (e.g., thinking, willing, choosing, self-consciousness, relating to the world around one, etc.), and/or the active exercising of sentience (e.g., the feeling of pain and pleasure)."(When Do Human Beings Begin?). Again that is contradictory. There are people in the world who can not feel anything, who can not move, and who can not think properly or perhaps at all. It only makes sense that the human embryo is a developing person. Most young adults are still developing as well, even when they do not have to grow new limbs they are developing and changing.

Abortion must be evil because it kills the person in the womb. People will take a baby and kill him to save a pregnant woman, rather than removing him and doing what they can to save him. There are leaders of the pro-choice movement who say that if the unborn fetus has a right to live and if he was a person, then he would have the right to die because he might not want to live and the parent can make that decision. Again the world lies because people do not know if he wants to die, and they can not make that decision for him.

Works Cited
Irving, Dianne N. "When Do Human Beings Begin? "Scientific" Myths and Scientific Facts."
Princeton.edu. N.p., Feb. 1999. Web. 18 Jan. 2016. .
Terzo, Sarah. "Life Begins at Conception, Science Teaches." Live Action News.
Live Action, Inc., 13 Jan. 2013. Web. 18 Jan. 2016. .


 
Jessica Dann
May 13, 2016
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Don't kill babies. Its selfish. Babies are people too, its discrimination to treat a baby of less value than of any other human being. If you don't want to look after the child give it to someone who does. That child could change the world. Its not our choice to decide who lives and who doesn't. People need to stop being so selfish. #HUMAN RIGHTS.

There's so many people I know that would do anything to have children but they cant. Yet those who are lucky enough to be blessed with pregnancy just take it for granted don't even care about the life they have created and just kill it. This world is so messed up.

 
Love Cece
Jul 27, 2016
0 convinced
Rebuttal
You shouldn't take a babies life away just because you weren't ready to have one. If you aren't ready for the responsibilities of babies then don't have sex. Babies are precious and we shouldn't just kill them. Some people will say that they aren't babies yet nut they are when that sperm went in the girl. Anyways don't kill babies, give them up for adoption because some people can't have babies and they would be lucky to have one, instead of killing babies just give them to a family who needs her/him.

 


Use these tags to find similiar debates

abortion africa Alcohol America animal animals bad Barack battle better birth born bush Canada Celebrities change charity Cheney children choice christmas Convince convinceme convinceme.net crime culture dating death Debate debator education evil facebook faceoff family fat feminism fight Frankie Fun gay Girls god good Government gun healthcare heartbreak help Hillary Homosexual homosexuality hot human humans husband intelligence internet iran iraq judge action language Law legal lies Life love man marriage media Men morality Murder Muslim Nature obama opinion parenting parents Peace people philosophy Politics porn propaganda race racism relationships religion romance sex sexuality sexy site society tech terror terrorism VanCam veto violence vote vs war Weed wife woman Women world