CreateDebate


Debate Info

49
45
it is it is not
Debate Score:94
Arguments:77
Total Votes:145
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 it is (34)
 
 it is not (36)

Debate Creator

Sir-Galahad pic



Is abortion morally justified?

Abortion is wrong. Why? Because it's wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings and that is exactly what abortion does.

Abortion is "the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus."[1]

That this is an act of intentional killing is even admitted by pro-abortionists[2] [3]

Science (and embryology in particular) informs us that life begins at fertilization.[4] “95% of all biologists [affirm] the biological view that a human's life begins at fertilization.”[5]

The fetus, is a genetically distinct, individual, human being. This view is affirmed leading embryology textbooks.

Science establishes a new, distinct, individual human being is formed at conception. Further, there isn't any morally relevant difference between the born and the unborn that would justify killing the unborn, whether that be size, level of development, degree of dependency, or environment.  Hence abortion results in the intentional taking of innocent human life. And that is why abortion is wrong.

it is

Side Score: 49
VS.

it is not

Side Score: 45
2 points

A MUCH more important question right now is, "Is the IMMORAL ADULTERER, LIAR, PUSSY-GRABBER IN THE WHITE HOUSE ... morally justified?" HE is responsible for the deaths of thousands because he tried to cover up the virus that everyone, including Obama, warned him about .... and HE ignored! Is HE morally justified?? Can anyone say he didn't intentionally kill them, or he DID?? No, He just didn't try to STOP IT! To ME that's not "morally justifiable." If I thought I'd have to live my life under HIS vision of America ... I'd take abortion!

Side: it is
Sir-Galahad Disputed
0 points

Your claim that this is a much more important question is entirely arbitrary.

It is also a very obvious red herring fallacy. Even if the president did intentionally kill innocent people, that does not make it justified for us to do so. It is completely irrelevant.

And for you to conclude from your arbitrary claim that abortion is morally justified is a non-sequitur fallacy. It simply does not follow.

Side: it is not
BurritoLunch(4976) Disputed Banned
2 points

Your claim that this is a much more important question is entirely arbitrary.

Your belief that abortion is morally wrong is entirely arbitrary you utterly ridiculous hypocrite. You are making sweeping arbitrary statements about what is moral and what is not moral, so your attack here beggars all belief. In the real world occupied by adults, double standards equals zero credibility.

Side: it is
AlofRI(3140) Clarified
2 points

Killing people is never "irrelevant". My "Arbitrary claim" is no more arbitrary than YOUR arbitrary claim. You have a good night.

Side: it is

There are several possible moral justifications of abortion:

Prevent pain for the unborn in the case of severe abnormalities like microcephaly, etc.

In the case of twins, triplets, etc., selective abortions can improve the chances for those that remain.

All abortions can be morally justified the same way self-defense can.

----

There are other reasons against restricting abortion as well - ref

Side: it is
Sir-Galahad Disputed
1 point

Your first argument proves too much. As this argument can be used to justify killing anyone--born or unborn--who has severe abnormalities. Yet in most cases that would be considered murder. And if you argue that it isn't murder if they give their consent, that would still work against abortion, since the unborn didn't give their consent.

Your second argument merely assumes the unborn aren't human beings, because if they are, then your argument implies that it is right to intentionally kill innocent human beings to improve the chances of others.

You give no support for your third argument, even though it is a huge claim. Further, it is begging the question. The question is "Is abortion morally justified?" So your argument is the same as saying "Abortion is morally justified because abortion can be morally justified in all cases."

The only situation where killing the unborn may be justified, in a similar way that self-defense can, is if the mother's life is at stake and an operation is necesary to save the life of the mother, and as an unfortunate but unintended consequence, it dies. Ectopic pregnancies are an example of this. However, your sweeping claim about "all abortions" is not true.

Side: it is not
1 point

second argument ... "implies that it is right to intentionally kill innocent human beings to improve the chances of others"

Are wars and the death penalty moral - even if there may be collateral damage and errors in the justice system?

Side: it is
0 points

first argument ... "can be used to justify killing anyone--born or unborn--who has severe abnormalities"

While people may have differences of opinion on where that line is - brain dead vs terminally ill and in pain - all I suggest is consistency. If it is moral to pull the plug when someone is on life support, apply that same standard here.

Side: it is
0 points

"You give no support for your third argument"

Sorry, I've made the case on here a few times and wasn't going to rehash it all unless you demonstrated interest.

Here is the boiled-down version.

Elements of self-defense:

-Reasonable fear of harm: while there are many possible complications from pregnancy that can result in severe organ damage or death, we only need to focus on the harms common to all; every successful pregnancy results in either a Caesarian-section or a vaginal delivery. If anyone were to attempt to perform similar actions on a woman outside the context of pregnancy, she would surely have a self-defense right to defend against it.

-Imminent threat: imminent does not have a strict timeline and centers more around unavoidability. If an enormous asteroid is on-track to hit Earth in 9 months, the threat to humanity is imminent. Likewise, if action is not taken, the pregnancy will unavoidably continue toward the above harm.

-Proportional force: some jurisdictions require a retreat to the wall or limits on the use of force above what is required to prevent the harms. In the case of pregnancy, abortion is the only, and therefore minimum-force, remedy.

Some common questions:

- What about consent?

While this wouldn't apply to rape, etc., let's consider two scenarios where a consent is given.

1) If a woman consents to sex, then changes her mind, can she then say no to the sex continuing? Consent does not continue perpetually into the future.

2) If a woman chooses to walk down a dark alley, does she still have a right to defend herself against a mugger? Taking some level of risk does not remove a future right of self-defense.

- But the baby is innocent and doesn't intend to harm the mother

Intent is not a required element of self-defense. Imagine the case of a person with a fake gun trying to rob a store. They certainly don't intent to kill the clerk, but the clerk still has a right to self-defense. The requirement (noted above) is a reasonable fear.

"if the mother's life is at stake"

Different states have have different standards - including just protecting your neighbor's tv, etc. - but all protect not just life, but also serious bodily injury (see the note on harm above.)

Side: it is
2 points

Zygote, blastocyst and embryo. None of these are human beings.

A better question would be: Do religious fanatics have the right to force women to bear children they don't want?

Answer: Are you crazy? Of course not!

Side: it is
Transit(21) Disputed
1 point

A better question would be: Do religious fanatics have the right to force women to bear children they don't want?

You skipped right over the obvious question. Do people have the right to wear protection or close their legs?

Answer: uh duh George.

Side: it is not
Sir-Galahad Disputed
-1 points

You assert: "Zygote, blastocyst and embryo. None of these are human beings."

Yet you provide no evidence for this. Indeed, it is contrary to the findings of science.

Let me here quote some of the leading embryology textbooks.

"Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception). "Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."

[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]

"The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote." [Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]

"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." [O'Rahilly, Ronan and Muller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29. This textbook lists "pre-embryo" among "discarded and replaced terms" in modern embryology, describing it as "ill-defined and inaccurate" (p. 12}]

"Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zyg tos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being. The common expression 'fertilized ovum' refers to the zygote." [Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1]

And, for your information, there is a consensus on this matter among biologists. Just see the link at the top of this page.

No, religious fanatics don't have the right to force women to bear children. But notice the debate isn't about whether women should be forced to have children. Rather it is about whether it is right to kill their children.

Side: it is not
BobBarker Disputed Banned
1 point

Yet you provide no evidence for this. Indeed, it is contrary to the findings of science.

You assert that a Zygote, blastocyst and embryo are found by science to be human beings. Then you quote excerpts which assert the complete opposite, for example:-

"Human development BEGINS after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception). This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the BEGINNING, or BEGINNING primordium, of a human being."

So development into a human being only begins after the ovum is fertilized, disproving your assertion that it is human at the point of fertilisation.

Congratulations on disproving yourself you idiotic Bible-bashing halfwit.

Side: it is
1 point

Using this played out topic as a means for points harvesting is blatantly obvious.

Write out 100 times;-

I must create more original debates in future.

What about;-

Do black lives matter more than those of unborn babies?.

Side: it is
Sir-Galahad Disputed
1 point

Nothing you said is relevant to whether abortion is right or wrong.

In fact, you didn't even argue anything. You just said things.

"Do black lives matter more than those of unborn babies?"

I believe in human equality, so I would say no. And what about black babies who get aborted? Do their lives matter? It's no secret that Planned Parenthood has a greater presence in the black community.

Side: it is not
0 points

"It's no secret that Planned Parenthood has a greater presence in the black community."

"About six in 10 abortion providers are located in neighborhoods where more than half of residents are white."

"Fewer than one in 10 abortion providers are located in neighborhoods where more than half of residents are black."

ref

Side: it is

Would choosing not to wear a face-mask during a pandemic be morally justifiable?

Can the government require it?

Isn't that a much easier demand than carrying a baby to term?

Side: it is
Sir-Galahad Disputed
0 points

It is unclear what exactly you are arguing for.

Are you arguing that the government has the right to impose restrictions, so they are justified in imposing at least some restrictions on abortion?

Or are you arguing that the government shouldn't impose any restrictions on abortion since pregnancy is a greater demand?

Or are you simply making an irrelevant point?

I think it is the latter, since this is a question of the morality not the legality of abortion.

Side: it is not
1 point

You'll have to make a better argument. And it will have to be relevant.

Side: it is not
1 point

The suggestion that the government can require people to wear masks to protect others has many people incensed and some even filing lawsuits. This is to elucidate the hypocrisy for anyone within the intersection of those people and the ones who believe the government should require a woman to carry a child to term.

Side: it is
1 point

Natalism is the most reprehensible position. Procreation, the most reprehensible act.

It is reprehensible because it is harmful to intentionally force sentient life into an existence where it is guaranteed to suffer, especially given the purely selfish interests of the procreators. This is exactly what procreation does.

Although the unborn are genetically distinct members of our species, the unborn and infants up to 15 months of age are not individuals or persons in any meaningful sense because they do not posses a self-concept. [A]

An entity which lacks self-conception is not an entity that can be harmed or benefited. Absent a self concept, there is no person - no "I" - in which harm or benefit can adhere. It makes no more sense to talk about harming or benefiting the unborn (or infants up to 15 months) than it does to talk about harming or benefiting a rock.

Permitting the unborn or the infant to mature until they develop a self-conception is the original and necessary foundation for all harm and benefit that will accrue to the organism. Harm and benefit do not exist as in an accountant's ledger, where the good may balance out the bad; any suffering experienced is experienced and nothing undoes that.

If it is reprehensible to harm another being, then it is most reprehensible to procreate because it is the original and necessary condition for all suffering. Not only is abortion not immoral, procreation is reprehensible and there is an imperative to abort and commit infanticide up to the age of 15 months.

Side: it is
1 point

It is wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings.

Abortion intentionally kills innocent human beings.

Therefore abortion is wrong.

Side: it is not
BurritoLunch(4976) Disputed Banned
1 point

It is wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings.

Abortion intentionally kills innocent human beings.

Therefore abortion is wrong.

Nice false syllogism.

A) The universe contains no such thing as right and wrong.

B) Abortion terminates a loose collection of cells which cannot be human since it cannot survive independently of a host, feel pain, or breathe.

C) Therefore, you're making an appeal to emotion and trying to disguise it as something which is logical.

Side: it is
Sir-Galahad Disputed
1 point

A syllogism cannot be true either true or false. It is either valid or invalid, sound or unsound. If the premises are true and the form is valid, then the conclusion must be true.

For an argument to be valid, all that is required is that its conclusion follows from it's premises. The conclusion that abortion is wrong follows from its premises, so my argument is valid.

It is also sound, as it's premises are true.

You claim:

"A) The universe contains no such thing as right and wrong."

But this is a controversial claim that most people do not accept. I challenge you to prove this claim. This is a question of whether abortion is morally justified. If you do not believe there is a right and wrong, you are not qualified to answer this question.

"B) Abortion terminates a loose collection of cells which cannot be human since it cannot survive independently of a host, feel pain, or breathe."

Yet you provide no evidence for this. It is an arbitrary claim that is contrary to the findings of science. And your criteria for humanity are biologically irrelevant to whether an entity is human or not.

Let me quote "Essentials of Human Embryology," an embryology textbook by Keith L. Moore:

"Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).

"Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."

Science overwhelmingly affirms the humanity of the unborn, from the very beginning of their existence at conception.

An embryo is not “a clump of cells,” but rather a distinct, whole, and self-developing human organism, with each of its parts functioning for the good of the whole.

As embryologists Ronan O'Rahilly and Fabiola Müller state, “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 embryo now exists as a genetic UNITY.” (Human Embryology & Teratology.) "

Embryos are “living creatures with all the properties that define any organism as distinct from a group of cells; embryos are capable of growing, maturing, maintaining a physiologic balance between various organ systems, adapting to changing circumstances, and repairing injury. Mere groups of human cells do nothing like this under any circumstances.” (Maureen Condic, “Life: Defining the Beginning by the End.”)

You conclude,

"C) Therefore, you're making an appeal to emotion and trying to disguise it as something which is logical."

This claim is both arbitrary and demonstrably false. As I mentioned already, my argument is absolutely valid, and therefore it is absolutely logical. Never did I make an emotional appeal. Your claims are unjustified and unjustifiable.

Side: it is not
Jace(4990) Disputed
1 point

Why is it wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings?

What constitutes innocence? What constitutes intention?

What foundation does your morality have?

Side: it is