It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Round 1. shorty v.s. SkyFox2: Abortion

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 05:04 PM
link   
The topic for this debate is "Abortion is for the well-being of the mother and should be kept legal."

shorty will be arguing for this proposition and will open the debate.
skyfox2 will argue against this proposition.

Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.

No post will be longer than 800 words and in the case of the closing statement no longer than 500 words. In the event of a debater posting more than the stated word limit then the excess words will be deleted by me from the bottom. Credits or references at the bottom do not count towards the word total.

Editing is Strictly forbidden. This means any editing, for any reason. Any edited posts will be completely deleted.

Excluding both the opening and closing statements only one image may be included in each post. No more than 5 references can be included at the bottom of each post. Opening and closing statements must not contain any images, and must have no more than 3 references.

Responses should be made within 24 hours, if people are late with their replies, they run the risk of forfeiting their reply and possibly the debate.

Judging will be done by an anonymous panel of 11 judges. After each debate is completed it will be locked and the judges will begin making their decision. Results will be posted by me as soon as a majority (6) is reached.

This debate is now open, good luck to both of you.




posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 05:59 PM
link   
Abortion is for the well-being of the mother and should be kept legal. Surely bringing a baby into this world without the means to provide for it or without the quality of life we all deserve is immoral . In many cases the option of abortion is used for the well-being of the child rather than the well-being of the mother or in some cases the father. Would it be right to bring a child into this world if you couldn't care for it? Would it be more moral to have the child and give it up for adoption? I think the answer to both questions is a loud and resounding no.



"Abortion is legal in the UK up to the 24th week of pregnancy. However, if there is a substantial risk to the woman's life or if there are fetal abnormalities there is no time limit." (UK Law)

Do you really think this law should be changed just because of a few religious fundamentalists ? And lets face it, it is for the sake of a few fundys.

Should a women not control her own destiny?

And if it were banned put yourself in the place of a women who has been raped and became pregnant. She could not have an abortion and the child would either end up as just another kid up for adoption or having to live with the knowledge his father is rotting in prison for terrible crimes against his mother. He would know that his mother never really wanted him and if she could turn the clock back she probably would.

Would you want that for a child?

Very few complications occur in abortion operations. There are on average around 13% of maternal deaths are caused by un-safe abortion. Around 210 million pregnancies occur a year. 22% of them decide to have an abortion. 49 million abortions are carried out globally a year.

Source:

www.mariestopes.org.uk...

Shorty



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 09:40 PM
link   
Abortion in most (if not all) cases is quite simply, murder. To terminate a pregnacy is depriving an individual who has not yet experienced life in any sense of the chance to live. Think of all the think you would have missed out on if you had been destroyed before your birth. You would never have eaten your first icecream bar, given or recieved your first kiss, known a friend, fought the good fight, laughed at a joke, made love, etc.

To assume that because the child has not yet been born that it does not have any rights is no better than assuming because a persons skin is black he/she should be a slave. The child is in creation and as soon as there is any sign of life (heart beating, neuro activity) it IS alive. If you can dispute that, be my guest. It is the truth, and you know it.

Let's pretend for a moment that you went to a party last month. At that party, someone impregnated you. You have recently seen the doctor and he has told you to prepare for a baby on its way. Now, you don't want a child, you don't even know the name of the guy that seeded you, does this mean it would be fair to have an abortion? I most certainly think not.

What would you say to that child, if I might ask? Would you tell it you don't feel the need to take responsibility for your actions? Would you say that it's not your fault that you're impregnated, the alcohol altered your state of mind? Or would you tell it that it has no rights because it is not yet born and it is you that gets to decide whether or not it will be able to live?

No, I'm sure you wouldn't say any of those things, but I'm also sure you don't have a clue what you would tell that child to be. The reason for this is clear, deep down you know it is wrong, but you just don't want to take morality into account. You don't want your life to change and you don't want your teenage years nor your adult years to be spent taking care of the child which you yourself caused to be created.

I don't have to be a Christain to see just how evil and disgusting abortion is. In fact, I am not a Christain but instead, agnostic. I believe anything is possible. However, to believe abortion is nor murder without evidence is rediculous and shameful. If I could not support my child on the way, I would give it up for adoption. Why? Because atleast then the child could experience life, and not have its chance snuffed away from him or her. Atleast then a competent person would be taking care of my creation. If I were to even consider abortion, I do not deserve the right of making decisions for that human being as I have demonstrated that I am not mature enough to see the obvious.

Without a doubt in my mind, to slaughter the most innocent of innocents is a crime against humanity just as atrocious as the Nazis killing the Jews and the reasons for these acts are both just as bad as the other.

Sorry it took so long to reply, btw. First time I've been to the site since I signed up and wasn't aware the debates began today.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 09:53 AM
link   
Also, as didn't do this in the opening statement I would like to thank MacKiller for setting this up and SK2 for being my opponent



Nature is aborting the whole time. The female 'period' is a case in point, where the unused 'womb' is aborted. Then how many fetus go down the loo has never been calculated, whether deliberately or accidentally.
An expelled fetus can be looked upon as a mass of fibers, which of course is what a 'cancer' is.

Is a child in the womb any more than a bio-mass? Can it think or if given the choice between life or death which would it choose? It wouldn't. It couldn't.

Is saving one life at the expense of another murder?

God once destroyed what he had created. Is it not a mothers right to destroy that of an un-born, bio-mass that doesn't think. Especially if it is for the well-being of the child or even the mother. If in your mind the answer is no then does that make our god evil? Whether or not he exists. If it were simply written by mere men then does it make those men evil?

What if this child was to be the next Hitler? If he himself would end up killing hundreds, thousands of Jews.

So in that case I guess you wouldn't have wanted Hitler's good ol' mum to have an abortion. If it were possible.

If a friend of yours said she was going to have an abortion would you step in and say you would look after this child. Would you give your money and your time to help an un-born mass of biological fibers? And if it was the case of a robot with AI would you stop it's creator from killing it. After all it would be the same as a baby. Except a mass of artificial fibers and wires. I think most people would answer that with a no. But Is that not murder too? Is a robot with intelligence not living and not feeling? It would be except instead of sleep it would recharge its battery and instead of eating it would re-fuel. It is still a living, thinking entity of sorts and yet most people would sentence it to a death just as cruel as that of a babies abortion.

Primitive tribes have their own abortion methods. Pharmacists have tried for years to find the preparation that Aboriginal woman used before the 'white man' arrived - the lore has been lost. ( but all the big pharmaceutical companies have teams in the 'wilds of the worlds' searching for 'bush medicine'. )

If even the oldest of tribes and cultures do this and without the evils of this 'brave new world' we live in to affect there judgment. Are they all evil?

I think that abortion is too readily available. I think in cases where a women with cancer gets pregnant she should be able to have an abortion. But in many cases abortion is the best option for both the baby and/or the mother.

Abortions, in our world, are big big business. Today there are clinics and sometimes those operating them are killed by fanatics. The backyarders, carry on girls and their boy friends do the thing themselves, make a mess and the girl dies. Medically the operation is a Dilate and Curettage. The reason, there has been some problem with the monthly period, the placenta was not expelled naturally, so the doc has to open up, and scoop away - all legal.

Think of the money that would be lost and the people put of work. Think of the knock-on effects that would be caused.

And like I mentioned the truth is we are already extremely over populated. One day we will bleed ourselves dry. Will that be a great laugh for the un-aborted children?

Contraception and abortion are parallel subjects. Is contraception evil and murderous?


If the sperm is prevented from entering the vaginal canal to do it's natural job, is that abortion. Is masturbation abortion ? . " cursed be he who spilleth his seed upon the ground" in the Bible.

Murder is defined as unjustified killing but is killing someone in self-defense murder? Because killing a fetus to save your own life is self-defense. As in the defending of one's self.

Murder in revenge can be justified by the bible. So who is anyone to throw morals at me?

In the US you can kill a murderer and it's dressed up and called "capitol punishment".

Shorty



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 08:31 PM
link   


Is saving one life at the expense of another murder?

Sure it is. Say I have a bad heart, and need a transplant but there are no donors. For me to kill and remove another persons heart to save my own life is still murder. While I am not suggesting a woman who will die if she gives birth should allow the fetus to grow, I am saying it's still not as "clearly right" as you seem to believe.



Especially if it is for the well-being of the child or even the mother.

The well being of the child, I should doubt that the well-being of the child is normally taken into account when the decision to kill the child is being made. As far as the well-being of the mother goes, in the vast majority of abortion cases, the mother is not in any immediate danger. The reasons are almost never justified of there is in fact a justifiable reason.



What if this child was to be the next Hitler? If he himself would end up killing hundreds, thousands of Jews.

How could one decide to kill an unborn because of the possibility that it may commit some horrible crime? That's not even an argument. That's rediculous. How do I know you won't be the next Hitler? Should I kill you in attempt of avoiding such a thing? Should I then kill myself because anything is possible including my being the next Hitler regardless of the improbability?



If a friend of yours said she was going to have an abortion would you step in and say you would look after this child.

I am not capable of raising a child. I haven't the resources or the time necessary. I would suggest the baby be put up for adoption as there are people out there willing and able to raise a child however cannot create one themselves.



Primitive tribes have their own abortion methods.

Yes, primitive. The cavemen were primitive, do you think they were intelligent enough to value human life as we do?



If even the oldest of tribes and cultures do this and without the evils of this 'brave new world' we live in to affect there judgment. Are they all evil?

In your own words, those tribes and cultures were "primitive." This means they hadn't developed much philosophy. As you are aware it takes philospohy to have an understanding of morality. So not necessarily evil but instead unknowledgable.



Think of the money that would be lost and the people put of work. Think of the knock-on effects that would be caused.

Oh gosh! How sad! The killers of innocents would lose their precious jobs of slaughter! :sobs:



And like I mentioned the truth is we are already extremely over populated. One day we will bleed ourselves dry. Will that be a great laugh for the un-aborted children?

If you are worried about over-population then practice safe sex. If you're worried about the childeren don't be. It is better to have lived than to have never lived at all. Give them a chance to fix the problems within the world, don't just assume it can't be done and take away their lives.



Contraception and abortion are parallel subjects. Is contraception evil and murderous?

Not parallel in any sense. I am not Catholic, but agnostic as I stated in an earlier post. This means I can look at it like this: Sperm is the begining of the creation, the catalyst. The fetus or embryo is the result of the catalyst and the human in progress.



Murder in revenge can be justified by the bible. So who is anyone to throw morals at me?

There is no throwing of morals. The morals are just there and obvious. It is obvious killing a baby is wrong. Killing for revenge is also wrong. It's like Hammurabis' Code Of Law, fundementally flawed. An eye for an eye is just not right. To hurt another because they hurt you is immature. Goes to show you how logical a "primitive" culture can be.



In the US you can kill a murderer and it's dressed up and called "capitol punishment".

This is an entirely different argument, one which can't be completely won, just like the John Titor argument. It relates so sloppily as if you wish to convey that you believe childeren can be killed before birth because they have somehow "sinned" in allowing their mothers to become pregnant. Once again, not the mothers fault, the blame always falls elsewhere.



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 04:06 PM
link   
Skyfox, about half of what you wrote above is my own text. About 50% is your own. I also noticed that you replied to this question: " Is takings one’s life at the expense of another murder?" with a yes. However this, as far as the law is concerned killing in self defense and is allowed by law in many states of America. And America isn't that small really.



Someone jumps you in the street. You defend yourself. You thought your life was in danger and the person who jumped you ends up dead. Do you plead guilty to murder? Or do you claim that you didn't know that he was just trying to nick your wallet/purse.

"How could one decide to kill an unborn because of the possibility that it may commit some horrible crime?"


But when you put it together as it was meant to be it tells quite a different story.



"What if this child was to be the next Hitler? If he himself would end up killing hundreds, thousands of Jews.



So in that case I guess you wouldn't have wanted Hitler's good ol' mum to have an abortion. If it were possible."



That is the statement in it's entirety.



But I do not intend to simply quote you the whole time to feel up space or for whatever other reason. Neither do I intend to simply go over what I have said over and over again.



It becomes clear once some thought is given to the subject that on no moral grounds other than on the flimsy grounds of religion can this subject be debated.



So it should be put up for adoption. which will in effect leave this child with nobody. If a family doesn't take a fancy to him he may end up between foster families which is likely to do no favors for the child. All of this will cause emotional damage that could have been prevented. Not only could all of it been prevented it would mean his mother would be left alive.



We must also take into account that the death of the babies mother will cause much more emotional damage to many more people. But I think less people will feel the effects of an un-born baby's death. Of course I am not saying it should be done just because it wont cause long lasting emotional damage. An un-born baby's death, I think would cause less damage even to its family than that of loosing a child of five years old or even five month old. So what I am saying is what you don't know won't hurt you.


Do you really think that our morals and our modern philosophies are greater than that of a world un-corrupter by money, greed and materialism. I think not. You implied this in your comments about the primitive cultures that practice abortion.



What if you had a child. A thirteen year old child. And she got pregnant. Wouldn't the thought that her life is never ever going to be the same again slip thorugh your mind, that the years of her youth are going to be taken by a child. That by the time she was 23 the child would be 13 and wouldn't if only for a second the thought that all this can be resolved with one thing dirft through youy mind? Of course it would and of course this should not be looked down upon. You want the best for your child but if the answer is yes, which it must be. Even the most devoted Catholic would give it some thought. If the answer to the question "would you concider if just for a second abortion" is yes then this is clearly resolved.

Shorty



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 02:09 PM
link   
Yes, I quoted you quite a bit, Shorty. Though I was in a hurry, I have been rather busy lately with school an other parts of real life, I really didn't see it as a problem to reply to your statments by using the "quote" feature. I quickly replied, effectivly communication my message and did it without the time to do so. In fact, I am replying now from class, in the middle of a lecture. If you have any further concerns, I will probably be in ATS chat later on tonight.

"A new Gallup survey of teens finds 72 percent believe abortion is morally wrong." Full Article - About.Com

These numbers are huge. The young men and women of that poll were able to see just how wrong abortion is. The reason for this is clear, the killing of an innocent cannot be justified. If we as a society are to consider ourselves anything more than a group of savvage beasts or animals, then we must show better judgment in many realms of thought. A definate value of life must be found in our doings or we may not be able to good conciously refer to ourselves as "people of character." We already show a lack of integrity by stating that we value human life when in fact, we destroy it for rediculous reasons.

"Even though 51% claimed to be “pro-choice” only 36% believe that abortion was not morally wrong" Reference - God And Science

Wow! 15% of the 51% (yes, I can count) belive what they are doing is wrong! If it is wrong,they why do they also think it is okay? This baffles me. Could the answer be selfishness? Is it..stupidity? Or would it be a lack of integrity as I said before? Whatever the case may be, we can assume their judgment is, at very least, "wrong." They basically admited it.

"My religion says that abortion is wrong. And while I may believe that life begins when the sperm meets the egg, and that only God should decide whether to take a life, I will not stand in the way of a woman's right to choose. If women do not have a right to choose, then it's a civil rights violation." Reference - Al Sharpton

Again, lack of integrity. What a contradiction that is. If life begins when the sperm meets the egg as he said, and women should have the "right" to choose, then what about the child? The unborn child certainly deserves the right to choose, but it cannot. Does this mean it has forfited its choice? No, it means it is not yet competant to make such a decision. Keyword "yet." Thusly, at a later time, after its birth, it will have the ability to make the decision. If it chooses it does not wish to live, there is always suicide. Funny thing thing is, it's not legal to kill oneself, but only to be killed before birth.

As I search the Internet for further sources I am bombarded by people attesting abortion is wrong, it is evil, it is horrible. It's really quite difficult to see all of the people screaming shame in the direction of the killers of the innocent and supporters of. There is a reason this subject seems to be so hot, because the masses are enraged that something so disturbing, so holocaust like is allowed to go on.

"Fifty-three percent of Americans find abortion "morally wrong"
Full Article - Tennessee Right To Life
Good ole Tennessee, my lover once lived there. She is genius and more so ethical than most others I have ever met. It's no wonder they would care enough to post such findings. The rest of America seems as if they feel the same. From my search today of the Internet, it seems the rest of the world, or majority of I should say, also feel the same. Abortion should most assuredly be illegalized. Why is this? Because the majority desires it! The government serves the people, so laws should be based on what the majority views as criminal, right?

In the future, when the people come around and see just how horrible abortion is, and the women learn that the condom doesn't take away ALL feeling, things will change. I can't imagine how childeren will be taught about abortion. Could abortion later on be seen as on the scale of genocide? Probably, the death toll is there. Will the childeren consider whether are not abortion actually is bad? Sure, but once they consider that some of their classmates, or even themselves, may not be alive that day had it not been made illegal.



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 01:14 PM
link   
There are three types of lies.

1. Lies

2. Damn lies

3. Statistics



So you say that "A new Gallup survey of teens finds 72 percent believe abortion is morally wrong.". How intelligent is your average teen to way up the pros and cons?




What you failed to mention is this quote "About 47% of teens said it should be legal under some circumstances, while 55% of adults agreed". So over half of the adults in America believe, as I do that in some circumstances it is a valuable option.



It is also well worth noting these stats


"Seventy-nine percent of Americans identify themselves with what they call "Christian" denominations, while fifteen percent do not identify themselves as Christian (2001). "



This means that seventy nine percent of Americans are tied to the blind beliefs of their religion. Most can only see what their religion says and would never even dream of questioning it. Which means that at least 79 percent of American's judgments cannot be trusted.

www.lifeway.com...=153614&M=200023,00.html


The truth is quite simple. It is not a form of contraception. It is a way is a measure put in place to keep you as safe as possible. From death in some cases and to save the babies' quality of life in others.

The world, whether we agree with it or not is turning to measures such as abortion as a form of contraception. I don't agree with this but it is happening. If you want to raise awareness about something, if you want to rebel against something then fight to raise awareness that abortion should only be used in certain circumstances.

But if you want it to be made illegal then lets say it is now illegal in the states. Now, let me tell you something about England. Euthanasia is not legal in England. So people are going to other countries for this service more and more often. Another case springs to mind an ex-cop (last weak news I think this is) killed his wife who had MS, it was her wish. He tried to slit his owns wrists after but survived. However, she died. This is still classed as murder. So did he get put in prison for this "murder" ? No. The judge let he off totally free. No repercussions what so ever. This will inevitablely become more common. Eventually leading to its legalization in Britain.

Do you want the same thing for the abortion laws. All that bother , all the un-necessary and messy killings that will follow just to its re-legalization. Is this what you want? More home made abortions? Or worse it could well become a black market medical trade! Being done by un-licensed doctors and people who have no medical back ground. All that would probably lead to more deaths than if it was to be left legal. You can't argue with that it is a fact. It is the full truth. It is what would happen in the event of a ban. Is it really what you want?

Think about the repercussions. The ones you don"t notice or think of before it is far far far to late.

This is what you want? I'm glad. Because if you continue you just might get what you want.

Always, always be careful what you wish for you just might get it one of these days…

Please note that the hyper-link button isn't working. Which is why i couldn't post the link prpperly.



posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 07:35 AM
link   
Killing a person is killing a person. It doesn't matter how far past conception the individual is killed, 4 years past the night of intimacy or 4 months. It doesn't matter what the current location of the individual is either, sitting at their desk at work, or within the womb of the mother as he/she has not yet been born.

Every unborn child has the potential to one day be the greatest man or woman to have ever lived. Perhaps through influence, intelligence or just coincidence. The possibilities for a "blank slate" are endless. Say John Locke had never been born. Our world would have developed much differently. I'll even go as far as to say we would lack the freedoms we take pride in today. John Locke did great things to our society in through his writtings, many governments were able to properly establish a constitution as well as free themselves in other ways. Both your government and my government is in a sense based on his words, Shorty.

The womans right to choose is just wrong. It's not religion that tells me this, it is ethics. Jesus was a great philosopher and that's the only reason why Religion should even consider poking its head into the debate. The words of Jesus were wise, as are the commandments. While people do seem to blindly follow the Bible, it's teachings are also wise in most areas. So if you think because people have faith (belief without proof) in a moral teaching detracts merrit from Pro-Life, then you're wrong. I will, however, "turn the other cheek" or however that phrase goes.

Abortion should not be kept legal because some people will fail to follow the laws. If that's the reason it is legal today, then it's nothing but a double standard. How many people do you know that have recieved a speeding ticket? Or have you yourself recieved one? Seems like nobody is following that law, guess we should just be allowed to speed, huh? Oh, but the reprecussions. If we all speed, then traffic accidents will occur at a much higher rate. The streets will become alot more bloodly. Then, of course, what about road rage? That'll certainly increase. I wonder how many people would put those ramming bumpers on their cars to knock the slower drivers out of the way. You know people would do that. It wouldn't be too difficult to accidently hit someone going 20 when you're going 120. Though I'm not sure how helpful a police ramming bumper thing would be in that case..

Like you said, "This is what you want? I'm glad. Because if you continue you just might get what you want. " Double standards can't last forever, people seem to eventually wise up to them and make a successful effort to "fair it up."

We need to look at this with less bias. Not "Do I want this baby?" But instead "Can this baby survive with another mother?" You may not want the child, but it will do just fine without you. The world doesn't revolve around you, it is perfectly capable of having a nice life. It's not even yours really, it's a seperate person from you. Why do you get to choose whether or not it lives? Sounds a bit judge, jury and executioner to me. Do what you know is right, not what you know is right for you.

For those who do believe in a God, what will you tell that entity (both the God and the child you slautered) in the event you do meet up with them in the afterlife? "I'm sorry I destroyed your creation." "I'm sorry I killed you for a reason which is even more so rediculous than my being allowed to be in your proximity." It really doesn't matter what you say I guess, you would being going to "Hell" no matter how brilliant the words you utter at that point. If there is no afterlife, then well, you just suck, know this.



posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 04:27 PM
link   
So here we come to the end of our debate. In the next few days we shall discover who, between the pair of us are most worthy to continue to the next round of the debate tournament or whatever you would like to call this event.

I have composed my argument from but a few possible points made by various people and have shown that the only possible moral course of action would be to keep abortion legal but not to encourage it as a form of contraception.

In fact I would propose some form of system be implemented by hospitals to make sure that it is a course of action for only the needy. However I think this is unrealistic.

I will also bring a point skyfox2 made in this closing statement: "We need to look at this with less bias. Not "Do I want this baby?" But instead "Can this baby survive with another mother?" Indeed this is true. As I have said several times before in this debate. In some cases the child wont have the right quality of life. It wont even survive. You still think the baby should be born even though a lot of pain and emotional damage could have been saved to both the baby and the mother. What about this thought. "Will I survive if I have this child" that's another way of looking at it. Isn't it. And of course worse case scenario "Will either of us survive if I have this child" Then what? I ask you.


It would seem that I have little left to say on the subject. As I have shown that if illegalized the following would happen (just a recap folks)

1. Unlicensed doctors and people without a medical background at all would be performing the operation, which would without a doubt be worse for the child and probably fund and be funded by organized crime syndicates.

2. People would simply travel abroad for the operation. Therefore making pointless the illigalization of it in the first place.

You mention what would happen if certain people weren't born and I counter that with waht would happen if others were. Although I do find both cases pointless as he was born and he wasn't born.

I also pointed out several other things but I do not intend to re-write everything I have written in my posts previous to this one. I could stretch this post out but it seems a pointless effort just for the sake of making it look longer. I have brought up all the points necessary in my opinion.


Now I thanks the judges for making this possible. As well as MacKiller for moderating this all. It is no mean feet. Or feat either. And skyfox for participating. Thanks everyone


And I shall close my side of the debate with this quote.

"I am pro-choice with limitations, pro-life with exceptions"
John W. Warner



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 10:38 AM
link   
SkyFox2 has decided not to post a closing statement, off to the judges we go...



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 04:48 PM
link   
A very good debate to the both of you.

Shorty advances to the second round.

[edit on 31/1/05 by MacKiller]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join