The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free! Abortion is immoralin Philosophy

funperson

I think embryos are people and therefore deserve protection, what do you think?

NISHANT

We already have so much population on this earth .....If we don't stop yet people start eating each other

NISHANT

We must not think morally but scientifically to save our planet....

Pogue

Why do you think "embryos are people"? What about them makes you think that way?

WokeWhale

@NISHANT The topic is whether abortion is moral or not. I understand that it is another thing to address overpopulation but this debate is merely on the morality of abortion. I myself find it distasteful and immoral, for there is almost no moral justification of taking a human life.

WokeWhale

Embryos and fetuses are human, but abortion is justified in two cases. 

1. When the birthing of the baby posts a life endangering threat to both the baby and the mother

2. When the fetus is inevitably going to die

In cases other than these, it is no longer sacrificing a life to save another, or putting it out of its misery. Rather, it is the willing, intentional taking of a human life.

Vaulk

Q: What type of fetus is it?
A: Human.

Q: What's the end-state of an abortion?
A: The fetus is killed.

Q: Can you kill something that isn't alive?
A: No, by definition you cannot.

Q: Does that mean that Human fetuses are alive?
A: Yes, it does.

Q: Is it immoral to take the life of a Human fetus?
A: Sounds pretty bad when you put it that way.

Q: You mean logically?
A: Yea I guess so.

someone234

@Vaulk How does that prove the killing is immoral overall?

Vaulk

Killing is socially immoral in our society, even in self-defense.  Soldiers kill professionally and still...it's not looked upon with pride or admiration, it's frowned upon and the action taken is generally pitied as something unfortunate that they had to do...and rightfully so. 

Objectively I suppose it's not immoral,  Subjectively it is though and since consequences are subjective...that's all that really matters.  You can't really argue that something's objectively moral in court when our laws are founded upon subjective ideology.

someone234

@Vaulk You, a conservative born and bred, looks down on soldiers killing? xD

whiteflame

Feels like we've been here before, and it always feels like the answers to these questions are polarizing because no one's answering the basic question.

Is an embryo functionally equivalent to a person under the law? Or, put another way, should an embryo be treated as functionally equivalent to a person under the law? These questions broaden out quite a bit when we talk about abortion because abortion isn't solely an issue of how we designate an embryo or fetus. There are a variety of concerns at play, particularly for the potential mother. Depending on your answers to those first two questions, you might think that the answer is simple, but I would argue that the morality of abortion is inherently complex whether or not you think an embryo or a fetus warrants the same rights as any viable human being. 

Is abortion immoral? That depends who you ask and whose rights they favor. The vast majority of the population would probably agree that embryos and fetuses are not wholly dispensable, so the question is less "should these lives be valued?" and more "how should the law treat these lives?"

Vaulk

@someone234

It's not looking down on anyone to make the admission that the act of killing someone isn't good.  It might bring about more good than bad in the end, but in the moment, at the time of action...the killing is not good.  To attempt to re-brand this ideology as "Looking down on Soldiers killing" speaks volumes sir, that effectively sums up enough for everyone here...of that I'm sure.

Ampersand

Vaulk said:

Q: What type of fetus is it?
A: Human.

Q: What's the end-state of an abortion?
A: The fetus is killed.

Q: Can you kill something that isn't alive?
A: No, by definition you cannot.

Q: Does that mean that Human fetuses are alive?
A: Yes, it does.

Q: Is it immoral to take the life of a Human fetus?
A: Sounds pretty bad when you put it that way.

Q: You mean logically?
A: Yea I guess so.

Not only is this a semantic argument, it's not even a correct semantic argument. As per your link it is possible to kill things that aren't alive, e.g

 Put an end to or cause the failure or defeat of (something)

‘two fast goals from Dublin killed any hopes of a famous Sligo victory’

someone234

Vaulk said:

To attempt to re-brand this ideology as "Looking down on Soldiers killing" speaks volumes sir, that effectively sums up enough for everyone here...of that I'm sure.

Vaulk said:

Soldiers kill professionally and still...it's not looked upon with pride or admiration, it's frowned upon 

Vaulk

someone234 said:

Vaulk said:

To attempt to re-brand this ideology as "Looking down on Soldiers killing" speaks volumes sir, that effectively sums up enough for everyone here...of that I'm sure.

Vaulk said:

Soldiers kill professionally and still...it's not looked upon with pride or admiration, it's frowned upon 

Here's my quote in its entirety...because using quotes properly is still important kids.

Vaulk said:

Soldiers kill professionally and still...it's not looked upon with pride or admiration, it's frowned upon and the action taken is generally pitied as something unfortunate that they had to do...and rightfully so. 

Objectively I suppose it's not immoral,  Subjectively it is though and since consequences are subjective...that's all that really matters.  You can't really argue that something's objectively moral in court when our laws are founded upon subjective ideology.

The context of "Frowned upon" is further elaborated and clarified by the statement "Is generally pitied as something unfortunate that they had to do...and rightfully so".  

We all make mistakes, I made some yesterday, I made some today and I'll make more tomorrow...but using half of someone's statement in order to justify a strawman argument is hardly a simple mistake.

someone234

No idea how that proves that killing humans is always immoral.

Vaulk

And the argument switches back instantly.  No concession, no admission, no acknowledgement what-so-ever...ever notice how that happens with certain people?

someone234

@Vaulk When you're on the side of truth you needn't concede or acknowledge the lies of the opposition what-so-ever.

Vaulk

@someone234

Well I acknowledge what you say regardless of how bold the lie but I respect your choice.  Good luck sir.

funperson

@pogue, fancy seeing you here . What I do is look at the differences between an embryo and a newborn, then I look at the qualities that just the newborn has (and subsequently, the embryo does not) and ask myself "would somebody not be a person because they don't have this quality?" For example, a newborn is a lot larger, but of course humans come in all sizes, and that doesn't mean bigger people are more human than smaller people, right? That is one quality, there are more, what do you think?