RXR. (PRO)Immoral: im·mor·ali(m)ˈmôrəl/adjective
- not conforming to accepted standards of morality.
> Killing a innocent human being is immoral.
> At the moment of fertilization, a new human being is created.
> Multiple embryologists agree that at the moment of conception is the beginning of a human being.
- >"The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, thespermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, thezygote."
[Langman, Jan.Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]> A embryo"Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism.... At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.... The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life."
[Considine, Douglas (ed.).Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943]is considered a human being according to the book of embryology.> Killing that embryo is the same result as killing a human being.
> Killing a innocent human being is immoral
> Abortion results in killing a embryo, aka a human being.
> Since killing innocent human beings is branded immoral by sane human beings because it destroys human life and potential.
> Abortion = killing of innocent human being
> Killing of innocent human being = immoral
> Abortion = immoral
Methods of abortion:
-Induced abortion: Where the amniotic sac is filled with chloride or salt water to burn the fetus alive.
-Dilation and curettage: The fetus is cut up into pieces and is sucked by a vacuum.
Now tell me, do those methods above me sound ''moral'' ?
DOne.
Return To Top | Posted:
2015-10-30 12:54:01
| Speak Round
admin (CON)I thank my opponent for opening his case.
Have you ever noticed how people say killing is awful, but then are more than happy to kill in times of war? How people are happy to kill in self defence? How people are fine with killing anything that's not "human"? How people are fine with killing the sick who wish to die with dignity? How people are fine with killing criminals? And all of these are routinely defended as moral actions! People say that euthanasia is moral, that wars are just. But by the same token, there are for each of these, people who claim the same to be morally abhorrent. And it leads to many famous problems. The most common in debating, which you hear all the time, is the trolley problem - would you kill one person to save the lives of ten people? As debaters we are routinely exposed to arguments for and against that particular proposition, but more generally, people have a range of responses and justifications to that question.
The idea that there are hard and fast rules, regardless of the situation, that govern the morality thereof is known as "deontological ethics." An example of such a rule might be "if somebody is killed by the actions or inaction of another human being, that other human being". Practically all of the above fails that test, so pro added the additional qualifier of "innocent". But innocence is also a subjective term. "Innocent" of what? People will disagree on these conclusions and impose their own standards ... attempts to impose such standards have been universally met with criticism and debate. More broadly, the very definition of "immoral" pro offered fails this test, since there are no "accepted standards of morality" all people "conform" to.
We note that this is confirmed in how people view abortion. Some people agree that abortion is immoral, others do not. If you took a poll with a statistically significant sample of just about any population, the number of people who disagree on killing a human being in the case of abortion will never be 100% of your sample. In most populations, the number will be closer to 50%. It's undeniably a divisive issue - that's why we're having this debate right now.
Is it human?
We agree that the unborn have human DNA and are close to being "alive", except that they are fully dependant on their mothers. However, we feel that this dependence is what disqualifies them from life, as a mother undergoing an abortion is merely exercising her right to self-defence against a parasite, even if that parasite may be human. We further suggest that bodily autonomy extends so far as to include foreign objects within one's own body, such as the right to determine what to do with cells within the body of a person that do not have the same DNA. Blood cells are the most common example, but there are many rare medical conditions where this becomes a more important factor, such as children born with several sets of DNA by some fluke. Bodily autonomy should also mean not forcing a bodily process on somebody - forcing a woman to give birth against her will also violates her bodily rights.
We would agree that if it were possible to transplant a foetus to a willing recipient, this would be a more moral alternative to abortion - however, this is currently impossible.
We further don't feel a strictly biological definition of humanity is amazingly relevant to this debate. When we talk about a human being, we talk about a human in functional terms. Nobody is ever prosecuted for killing a human being in a permanently vegetative state with no hope of recovery, even though they're clearly "killing an innocent human being" in strictly biological terms. A functional definition of a human - one capable of the basic processes we commonly associate with other people - is far more helpful in this situation, and is a test that is not met by an embryo.
I look forward to reading my opponent's rebuttals.
Return To Top | Posted:
2015-11-02 03:33:53
| Speak RoundRXR. (PRO)''Fetus is a parasite'': Since my opponent says that abortion is permissible, since a fetus/embryo classifies as a parasite. I would kindly disagree with this statement.
A parasite is a 1.Biology An organism that lives and feeds on or in an organism of a different species and causes harm to its host.2.
There are two problems of calling a embryo/fetus a parasite. First is that a fetus/embryo is an organism of the same species. Since a parasite is an organism of a different species. The second problem is saying that the fetus provides no health benefits to the mother. This is scientifically wrong since fetuses repair the mother during pregnancy by giving her stem cells which help rebuild heart tissue.
https://www.fightaging.org/archives/2011/11/fetal-stem-cells-can-repair-the-mother-during-pregnancy.php
''IS IT A HUMAN ?'' I agree with con that just having human dna does not make you a human being. To be a human being, (according to dictionary.com)
human being n1.a member of any of the races of Homo sapiens; person; man, woman, or child
Many embryologists agree at the moment of conception, a new human being is formed. Just look at these quotes from medical dictonaries and encyclopedias.
Return To Top | Posted:
2015-11-04 10:28:03
| Speak Roundadmin (CON)First of all, it's important to note that con has dropped most of my key contentions. Bear in mind that any of my points are individually enough to rebut pro's case.
Chief among these would have to be the contention that killing is not inherently morally abhorrent, and that there are no hard and fast rules regarding when killing is wrong. Indeed a blanket statement such as "abortion is immoral" cannot possibly be true because morality is a subjective statement of opinion, as opposed to an objective statement of fact - people differ in their opinions regarding abortion, so this is relevant to the debate.
Is it human?
Turning to biology, we find pro further defends a strictly biological view. He does not, in any way, engage with my contention that such a view is entirely irrelevant to the moral value of abortion, and that instead a functional view should be taken.
To support his view, con cites dictionaries. That's fine, but it doesn't answer my point. To extend the point another way, dead people, for example, are also covered by pro's definition, but it clearly was not the intention of pro to disallow abortion should the foetus die in the womb of some other cause (which is rare, but can happen). Leaving a dead foetus inside a mother's body is probably not a wise idea.
I argued a number of different points: first, that dependency disqualifies a foetus from the right to life. Second, that a mother is exercising her right to self defence. Third, that bodily autonomy extends to foreign objects. Fourth, that bodily autonomy implies that you should not be allowed to force a bodily process on somebody. Of these four unique arguments, con drops three.
The one he does argue is self-defence, on the grounds that he believes a foetus is not biologically a parasite. Let me explain what I mean by this statement. This here is how a sane dictionary defines parasite:
an organism which lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense.
The foetus is an organism, it lives in another organism (its mother), and benefits by deriving nutrients (food) at the expense of the mother. Therefore, it is a parasite.
But let us assume it wasn't. Is it moral for a woman to eject a human being stealing nutrients out of her own body, to defend her own body from that other human being? Well, isn't this exactly what self-defence entails? If you cannot even guard your own body, by doing the minimum amount to guard it in the case of pregnancy, then you cannot really have a right to self-defence at all.
The resolution is negated.
Return To Top | Posted:
2015-11-07 05:19:24
| Speak RoundRXR. (PRO)''that dependency disqualifies a foetus from the right to life.''
SOme sick people are connected to life support machines. Does the dependency disqualify them from the ''right of life''.
''exercising her right to self defence.''
or (especially British) self-defence
[self-di-fens, self-]Return To Top | Posted:
2015-11-09 10:34:35
| Speak Roundadmin (CON)My opponent again does not respond to about half of my case in the previous round.
He has not shown, for example, why sick people should not be disconnected from life support. I've told you why that's moral.
A woman giving birth is under physical (bodily) attack (in that childbirth and having a child is harmful to a woman's body). Further abortion meets the 3rd definition pro cited, in that the woman is defending her own interests (having a child may not be in her interests) and/or property (having a child is expensive; her body).
Link for pro: https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=define%20parasite
But this debate isn't about definitions, which is all pro questions. This is about a real issue. A foetus is not human, and there is no objective standard of morality.
The resolution is negated.
Return To Top | Posted:
2015-11-12 05:45:12
| Speak Round
Judge: Ineis
Judge: Gabriel Perrott
Posted
Killing is ussual and can be agreed for an advantage that causes disadvantage.
Killing is fine for the one who will not die because it is not their life and it will add no burden for them.
Murder and abortion has the same intention which is ending a life. Fetus is a life that is processing that will come to a complete human specie. (Fetus can die) Posted 2017-12-21 16:07:05
Oh and 99 percent of abortions are done because the condom slipped and other convience reason. And only 1% percent of abortions are done from rape,incest, or if the mothers life is in danger. Posted 2015-10-31 08:21:39
We should all post our arguments in the debate and not forfeit.
We should all be thankful to our mothers for not choosing abortion. Since i don't want to be decapitated and my body parts being sold on amazon.com, i would like to thank admin for accepting this debate on how he wants to defend his liberal views on abortion.Posted 2015-10-30 00:54:46
Rematch of the century.Posted 2015-10-29 02:55:35