frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.





pro life is good

Debate Information

I completely disagree with the idea that abortion should be allowed, unless it kills the mother and the baby, and the mother will survive if the baby is aborted. What i find the the pro-choice crowd will do is they will use word choice like "fetus" to make it sound like the child doesn't matter, while the pro-choice people will use the words "child" or "baby" which are the more traditional terms. Taking the life of someone else or if you prefer, something else for your own convenience is the literal definition of evil. When we start putting deadlines on when it's too late to abort something, like you can abort a baby up until the third trimester, we can apply that same logic to adults. Let me give you an example. Do you think that it's okay to abort someone on the first month? Most pro-choice people will say yes because the baby is not yet developed. By this time the baby will have a heart. What about people in a pacemaker then? Should we kill them? When we have certain requirements for what a baby must have in order to not be allowed we can apply the same logic to an adult or a newborn without those things, yet we as a society have already established that killing a newborn or an adult is not okay. And this is one of the fatal mistakes that the pro-choice crowd will make. Some will say "What about rape?" Even if the mother is raped, the baby should not be killed. It doesn't matter where the baby comes from, they will be subject to the same rules as everyone else, and there is no good reason for kill a life just because the mother didn't want that life in the first place. Pro-choice people are taking the lives of thousands of children per year just for their own convenience. This is why I believe that we should end this. Thank you!
randalanonymousdebater
  1. Live Poll

    Is abortion okay?

    3 votes
    1. Yes
        0.00%
    2. No
      66.67%
    3. Yes unless it would kill the mother
      33.33%
    4. Yes unless it's rape
        0.00%



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • randalrandal 67 Pts   -  
    Abortion should not be allowed due to it killing babies. Also, planned parenthood shouldn’t not be funded by the government due to it possibly being a democratic organization.
  • AmericanFurryBoyAmericanFurryBoy 531 Pts   -  
    I think, that abortion should be illegal. It’s murder.
    And have you noticed that a lot of pro choices are anti-war activists? They’ll care about the ones out of the womb but could care less for our future America.
    But, abortion does help. Would you want a child to grow up in poverty? No, you probably wouldnt. This is why I’m in the middle about this issue. There are good arguments for both sides.
    Not every quote you read on the internet is true- Abraham Lincoln
  • FascismFascism 344 Pts   -  
    @AmericanFurryBoy Generalizing pro-choice people is not a valid argument. I support abortion and war. 

    @PyromanGaming I support abortion before the second trimester because the baby doesn't have a mind at that point. It is no different from any other organ. Sure it has living cells, but so does any other organ. 
    So what is the difference between a normal organ and a fetus then? Both the organ and the fetus have living cells but no mind. It can be argued that the fetus will eventually become a child and the organ won't, but that doesn't change the fact that the fetus itself isn't living. This would make ejaculation genocide due to the fact that sperm cells contain cells, no mind, and will eventually become a child. 
    Adults will always have a mind so there is no case where they could be alive without a mind. Even when in a coma their mind is active to an extent. 
  • PyromanGamingPyromanGaming 63 Pts   -  
    @Fascism I mentioned a similar point in my argument regarding what you just said. You say that the baby should be allowed to be aborted when it doesn't have a formed mind yet. I assume you believe this because the baby will not feel the pain of the abortion, am I correct? Well then, what about people in a coma? Can I stab them? They won't feel the pain. They won't mentally suffer. This is the contradictory issue I find with people who use the argument you use because any good person will say that I cannot stab a person in a coma.
    Secondly, you mention how by my logic I supposedly must assert that ejaculation should therefore then be mass genocide or else i will be contradicting myself. I would define the sperm cells as still a part of my body because they have the same genetic code as everything else. Once the sperm has fertilized the egg, i define it as a viable life. It is a viable life once the sperm has fertilized the egg because it now has a new genetic code that makes it unique from any other life, unlike a sperm cell or an organ.
  • FascismFascism 344 Pts   -  
    @PyromanGaming ;
    Your argument revolves around your assumption that "[I] believe this because the baby will not feel the pain of the abortion". This isn't true. 

    Let me first respond to your argument in the case that your assumption was true. The person in a coma would still have rights unlike the fetus because the fetus never value, while the person in a coma had his or her value taken away. Therefore, the fetus doesn't deserve value since it never had it. The person in a coma lost it, most likely, against his will. So giving it back is different from giving it in the first place. 

    But of course, all of this doesn't matter considering the assumption is false. I used the mind as a distinction from any other organ. This is what differentiates an organ from a fetus that matters. 

    I chose a mind in particular because the whole concept of life is the presence of consciousness. What separates a human from a robot that acts exactly like a human? The only difference is the presence of a mind. Of course, that particular robot would have the same processing power as a human and will be programmed to act exactly the same as a human would to certain stimulus including social interaction hypothetically, but it cannot truly think and feel from its consciousness. It is just a machine. This is why I chose the presence of a mind as the deciding feature. 
  • PyromanGamingPyromanGaming 63 Pts   -  
    @Fascism ok, i apologize that i misrepresented your argument. So you would define a life as something that has a non-artificial mind. My question would then be why does the addition of a mind to a baby automatically give it rights? I believe that because the child has the enormous potential to become a life or something valuable by your definition, it then has value to society. The idea that you are going to end that value and what is a functioning (what i would call) lifeform for your own convenience is the literal definition of evil. I understand your utilitarian viewpoint that the child does nothing productive for society, but it can if you nurture it and take care of it. You and I grew from a tiny fetus into beings capable of complicated thinking, doesn't the potential of the fetus to become something like us have value?
  • FascismFascism 344 Pts   -   edited March 2018
    @PyromanGaming ;
    "ok, i apologize that I misrepresented your argument."
    You accepted that it was an assumption when you made the argument and asked me if it was true, so it's fine. 

    Your argument is centralized on the statement that "since a fetus has the potential for becoming a valuable child, it should be saved," am I right? 

    If so, I present you with the following situation. In Nazi Germany, girls were indoctrinated into radical nationalism and were convinced to have as many babies as possible. The future of Nazi Germany would force women to get pregnant as much as possible in the future. 

    Now this ideology is gone (mostly) and with it, the idea that women should get pregnant whenever they can. However, this means that many babies who could have been born, are now not born, because this idea is not followed. 

    So should we force women to get pregnant? In this alternate timeline, there will be many more babies than in our normal timeline. Does this mean this timeline is immoral? After all, many potential babies are not being born because women don't want to get pregnant. 

    I'm not equating your argument with Nazism or rape, but I'm simply pointing out that if fetuses should be saved without the consent of the mother (given that it hasn't developed its mind yet) because they are potential lives, then women should also be forced to get pregnant since that also potentially leads to life. When we stop a man from raping a women, there is a chance that a baby is never born due to this action. 

    This is why I don't think potential lives don't matter. 
  • PyromanGamingPyromanGaming 63 Pts   -  
    @Fascism I already explained in my first response for your arguments that i consider a sperm cell a life once it has fertilized the womb because it has a unique genetic code separate from the mothers' and the fathers'. I don't support Nazism or rape I'm not suggesting you are saying that I'm just agreeing with you that rape and Nazism aren't okay. Before fertilization, the sperm is just like what you said, an organ. But once it has a unique genetic code separate from the parents, it is not a life. It is just a part of your body that you own and can do whatever the hell you want with. I just want to say that this has been a very fun debate, and thanks for having it with me. Topics like this are very important to talk about.
  • someone234someone234 647 Pts   -  
    @PyromanGaming congrats you just saved baby Hitler.
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -   edited March 2018
    I support a woman’s right to choice and the fact she is entitled to full autonomy over her own body regarding abortion 

    A fetus is being provided with sustenance it has no right to and if the woman decides to abort or not it’s none of my business as it’s her body her choice 
  • PyromanGamingPyromanGaming 63 Pts   -  
    @Dee you bring up a common argument that pro-choice people use. I don't think that providing something or someone nourishment justifies having full control over it or killing it. My issue with this is that you are killing someone else for your convenience to not have to provide a human child nourishment, and that's just evil.
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -   edited March 2018
    @PyromanGaming

    @*Dee you bring up a common argument that pro-choice people use. I don't think that providing something or someone nourishment justifies having full control over it or killing it. My issue with this is that you are killing someone else for your convenience to not have to provide a human child nourishment, and that's just evil “


    A fetus has zero right to sustenance provided by the woman , no justification is required to withdraw sustenance from the fetus .

    You are not killing “ someone “ and how is a fetus suddenly elevated to “ child “ now ? 
  • PyromanGamingPyromanGaming 63 Pts   -  
    @Dee just like how you are legally responsible to provide sustenance for the child you own (I'm referring to outside the womb), I believe that you should be responsible (lets use your words) for the fetus that you are now taking care of. You seem to be using the "appeal to authority fallacy" by asserting that because the fetus has no right to sustenance provided by the woman according to society, it automatically makes it right. People used to think that slavery is okay, that doesn't make it right. Next I'm going to answer your question on how is a fetus suddenly called a child. We are both appealing to morality in this discussion in different ways. Fetus and child mean the same thing in this context. You appeal to morality by calling that baby a fetus so that it doesn't matter, it's not born, it looks weird so we should be allowed to kill it, while I appeal to morality by using the word child, because by calling it a child it now appeals to the idea that it has worth. These two words don't really matter in this discussion it's the arguments we just use these words to justify our feelings for the baby in the womb.
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @PyromanGaming ;


    You say ......just like how you are legally responsible to provide sustenance for the child you own (I'm referring to outside the womb), I believe that you should be responsible (lets use your words) for the fetus that you are now taking care of.

    Yes , that’s your opinion I don’t share it obviously and they are not “my words “ they are correct terminology 

     You seem to be using the "appeal to authority fallacy" by asserting that because the fetus has no right to sustenance provided by the woman according to society, it automatically makes it right.


    No I'm not using any “ appeal to authority “ what authority am I appealing to ?

    It is right an the law backs me up you are using fallacious thinking as in an appeal to emotion 



    People used to think that slavery is okay, that doesn't make it right.

    So what ? How does that make my claim wrong ?

    Thats an apples and oranges fallacy you’re using 

    Next I'm going to answer your question on how is a fetus suddenly called a child.

    Suddenly ? There is no suddenly it’s gradual 

     We are both appealing to morality in this discussion in different ways
    .

    You may be I’m not 

    Fetus and child mean the same thing in this context.

    In a moral “ context “ you base this assumption on what 

    You appeal to morality by calling that baby a fetus so that it doesn't matter,

    How is that “ appealing “ to morality 

     it's not born, it looks weird so we should be allowed to kill it,

    I never said that at all 

    while I appeal to morality by using the word child,

    You  use the term incorrectly 

    because by calling it a child it now appeals to the idea that it has worth.

    Yes , by calling it a “ child “ you’re yet again appealing to emotion 

    These two words don't really matter in this discussion

    Why are you arguing about them then ?

    it's the arguments we just use these words to justify our feelings for the baby in the womb. 

    You mean feelings for the fetus ?
    Debra AI Analytics  
     
       +   

  • PyromanGamingPyromanGaming 63 Pts   -  
    No I'm not using any “ appeal to authority “ what authority am I appealing to?
    You are appealing to the societal standards and authority you say that the child has no rights therefore appealing to societal standards and authority what am I missing?

    People used to think that slavery is okay, that doesn't make it right. 
    So what? How does that make my claim wrong?
    Again, you are appealing to the societal standards and authority. I am using slavery as an example because we have seen time and time again that societal authority has been wrong about certain things and I am arguing that society is wrong about abortion.

     We are both appealing to morality in this discussion in different ways. 
    You may be I’m not
    You are appealing to morality by stating that the child or as you put it "fetus" has no rights and therefore, it is not immoral to abort it. Again, what am I missing here?

    These two words don't really matter in this discussion 
    Why are you arguing about them then?
    What the... You're the one who was asking why I called the fetus a child and now I'm being held responsible for making an invalid point!?!


    You're either the most ignorant person I've ever met, or you're playing the largest straw man fallacy I've ever seen!
  • EmeryPearsonEmeryPearson 151 Pts   -  
    I disagree.

    It is impractical and dangerous to legislate that women must provide their bodies for a fetus.

    Under no circumstance do we demand this of anyone else. It's not logically consistent. 
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @PyromanGaming


    You say ......You are appealing to the societal standards and authority you say that the child has no rights therefore appealing to societal standards and authority what am I missing
    ?

    What your missing is you haven’t a clue what the appeal to authority fallacy is let me help you 

    Appeal to authority 


    Description: Insisting that a claim is true simply because a valid authority or expert on the issue said it was true, without any other supporting evidence offered. 


    There you go , say thank you 



    Again, you are appealing to the societal standards and authority
    .

    Here you go again , 

    Appeal to authority 


    Description: Insisting that a claim is true simply because a valid authority or expert on the issue said it was true, without any other supporting evidence offered. 


    Say thank you 



    I am using slavery as an example because we have seen time and time again that societal authority has been wrong about certain things and I am arguing that society is wrong about aborti
    on.

    So people that agree with abortion are wrong because you say so ,ooookay 



    You are appealing to morality by stating that the child or as you put it "fetus" has no rights and therefore, it is not immoral to abort it. Again, what am I missing here?

    Appealing to morality what in gods name are you talking about ? 



    What the... You're the one who was asking why I called the fetus a child and now I'm being held responsible for making an invalid point!?!

    Who else is responsible for your invalid point and thank you for admitting it was invalid 


    You're either the most ignorant person I've ever met,

    Just because I schooled you ,
  • PyromanGamingPyromanGaming 63 Pts   -  
    @Dee
    What your missing is you haven’t a clue what the appeal to authority fallacy is let me help you 

    Appeal to authority 


    Description: Insisting that a claim is true simply because a valid authority or expert on the issue said it was true, without any other supporting evidence offered. 


    There you go , say thank you 


    Thank you for saying something I already knew. I already mentioned how you used the appeal to authority fallacy earlier, yet use straw man once again. Here, I'll quote myself to help you become less ignorant:

     You seem to be using the "appeal to authority fallacy"

    I find it very suspicious that you say this to cover up the fact that you are using an appeal to authority fallacy. So we both agree on what the definition of an appeal to authority fallacy is. Your only argument against abortion is that the baby has no right to nourishment, which I already refuted using the example of how a newborn has the right to nourishment, but somehow a baby in the womb doesn't?!? If you can explain this to me we can get back on track to this debate and ending your dis war.


    I am using slavery as an example because we have seen time and time again that societal authority has been wrong about certain things and I am arguing that society is wrong about abortion.

    So people that agree with abortion are wrong because you say so ,ooookay

    I have provided evidence for my case. Again, the newborn-fetus contradiction. What evidence have you provided?


    I'm just going to ignore the rest of the straw men you've made. I leave you with one question: what evidence do you have for your claim that aborting a fetus is ethical?

  • PyromanGamingPyromanGaming 63 Pts   -  
    @EmeryPearson
    I don't see why it's dangerous to dictate whether or not the mother should be allowed to kill a baby. I believe that it should be condemned. The child in there has it's own unique genetic code so I believe that it is a lifeform that has importance due to the potential that it has of being a productive member of society. What I find logically inconsistent is how a newborn has the rights to nourishment but a fetus doesn't.
  • EmeryPearsonEmeryPearson 151 Pts   -  
    @PyromanGaming

    You're dictating someone must use their biology in support of a fetus. Under no circumstance do we enforce or even entertain this idea in any other section of the law or society. 

    "I don't see why it's dangerous to dictate whether or not the mother should be allowed to kill a baby. "

    Forcing someone unwilling, to remain pregnant is dangerous. Simply outlawing abortion doesn't make them unattainable, those who do wish an abortion will be taking greater personal risk to get one.

    "
    the child in there has it's own unique genetic code so I believe that it is a lifeform that has importance due to the potential that it has of being a productive member of society."

    We are not short members of society. There are 7.4 Billion people on Earth. Every member of society also demands resources.

    "
    What I find logically inconsistent is how a newborn has the rights to nourishment but a fetus doesn't."

    Why? A fetus requires the biological functions of a additional human body to retain nutrients. A baby does not.
  • EmeryPearsonEmeryPearson 151 Pts   -   edited March 2018
    Double Post. Please delete.
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -   edited March 2018


    @PyromanGaming



    You say .....Thank you for saying something I already knew.

    You didn’t know that’s why I had to correct you 

     I already mentioned how you used the appeal to authority fallacy earlier, 

    No , you demonstrated you do not comprehend what it means 


    yet use straw man once again

    Incorrect again 


    . Here, I'll quote myself to help you become less ignorant:

    The ignorance is yours 



     You seem to be using the "appeal to authority fallacy"

    You don’t understand it 

    I find it very suspicious that you say this to cover up the fact that you are using an appeal to authority fallacy

    You don’t even know what that means 

    . So we both agree on what the definition of an appeal to authority fallacy is. 

    Again you fail to comprehend simple English 

    Your only argument against abortion is that the baby has no right to nourishment, 

    I have loads more to but that will do for now as it’s a fact 

    which I already refuted using the example of how a newborn has the right to nourishment,

    You have refuted nothing as a newborn is not a fetus 

     but somehow a baby in the womb doesn't?!? 

    No it doesn’t , the law agrees with me making you wrong yet again 

    If you can explain this to me we can get back on track to this debate and ending your dis war.

    You were never on track so getting back on will prove a bridge to far for you , so ends your “ dis “ war 


    I am using slavery as an example because we have seen time and time again that societal authority has been wrong about certain things and I am arguing that society is wrong about abortion.
     

    Apples and oranges fallacy as in more nonsense 



    I have provided evidence for my case. 

    Not yet you haven’t as you have none 


    Again, the newborn-fetus contradiction

    Glad you admit you’re contradicting yourself 

    . What evidence have you provided?

    Evidence for  what oh wait .... abortion is legal .... get over it buddy 




    I'm just going to ignore the rest of the straw men you've made

    You mean the ones you know you have made along with your half dozen fallacies ? 

    . I leave you with one question: what evidence do you have for your claim that aborting a fetus is ethical?

    The law , it agree with me making you wrong ...... again .... abortion is legal

  • PyromanGamingPyromanGaming 63 Pts   -  
    @Dee how does the law automatically make something right? Again, slavery used to be allowed by law. I guess according to your logic slavery is good because the law allows it.
  • PyromanGamingPyromanGaming 63 Pts   -  
    You're dictating someone must use their biology in support of a fetus. Under no circumstance do we enforce or even entertain this idea in any other section of the law or society. 

    "I don't see why it's dangerous to dictate whether or not the mother should be allowed to kill a baby. "

    Forcing someone unwilling, to remain pregnant is dangerous. Simply outlawing abortion doesn't make them unattainable, those who do wish an abortion will be taking greater personal risk to get one.

    "the child in there has it's own unique genetic code so I believe that it is a lifeform that has importance due to the potential that it has of being a productive member of society."


    We are not short members of society. There are 7.4 Billion people on Earth. Every member of society also demands resources.

    "What I find logically inconsistent is how a newborn has the rights to nourishment but a fetus doesn't."


    Why? A fetus requires the biological functions of a additional human body to retain nutrients. A baby does not.

    @EmeryPearson

    You're dictating someone must use their biology in support of a fetus. Under no circumstance do we enforce or even entertain this idea in any other section of the law or society. 
    We already dictate that someone must use their biology in support of a 3 year old child. What's the difference?:

    You mention how we are not short of members of society. That doesn't justify killing someone. The earth isn't sustainable for this population. Should we then go on mass genocide? No! Why should we kill a lifeform that has the potential to be helpful for humanity for our own convenience? That is the literal definition of evil!
    EmeryPearson
  • PyromanGamingPyromanGaming 63 Pts   -  
    Sorry I copy pasted your argument to respond and I forgot to delete it lol!
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  


    @PyromanGaming

     How does the law automatically make something right?

    It doesn’t automatically make something right but makes laws based on what is deemed fair and just 

    Again, slavery used to be allowed by law.

    In your country yes and ? 

    I guess according to your logic slavery is good because the law allows it.

    Again incorrect , I have a personal position on abortion like you have on many things , right ?

    Example I’m totally anti gun if you’re American chances are you’re pro , now that’s a position we both take on an issue and in your country I would be in the minority but in mine I would be in the majority does that make me and the people of my country pro slavery simply because we disagree with you ? 
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch