Reverse Debate Tag-Team #1: Abortion, 1069-LeftyHenry vs. Felicity-Jerry

LeftyHenry · 01-01-07, 01:34 PM

Okay this is the official tag-team for abortion thread. I'll start off. 1069 and I are pro-choice so we'll be arguing from the pro-life perspective. Jerry and I think Felicity are pro-life so they'll be arguing from a pro-choice perspective.

************************************************** **************

Fetus: In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo.

A fetus is a life that is being formed. It is what will become a baby, and grow into a human being who can contribute to this world. Each year 46 Million babies are denied their life by the barbaric procedure pictured above where the baby becomes the wrath of science and is lethally injected with a needle in the same fashion as a killer or murder. It is the most inhumane procedure and makes no sense. Abortion is an elitist procedure. One person is telling, what is soon to be another, that he doesn't deserve to live, that he is scum and lesser of a person almost like what a rascist would tell a person of a minority race during the Jim Crow period.

Murder: to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously.Source

That said, and considering the pictures above, it is strange how anyone can consider abortion NOT to be murder. Alternate definitions are that murder is the unlawful killing of someone. Isn't every killing unlawful according to God, Yaweh, and Allah's will? Who are we to decide that one slaughter is more lawful that the other.

************************************************** **************

1069 · 01-01-07, 02:11 PM

In the US, abortion has created a culture where promiscuous and indiscriminate premarital sex is normative behavior, and where sex has been entirely disconnected from its original function: procreation.
One does not need to be religious to realize that disconnected from any consequences or responsibility, disconnected from the very act of procreation itself, sex has become a negative force, and has had many detrimental effects on our society in the three decades since Roe, not the least of which has been an incremental but progressive devaluation of regard for the sanctity of human life, not to mention the breakdown of moral values and the deconstruction of gender roles, which is leading to the destruction of the traditional family.

A recent study conducted by the General Social Survey (GSS) of the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago shows that the percentage of kids who live with both biological parents, who remain married, has dropped precipitously from 73% in 1972 to 51.7% in 1998.
Twenty-eight years ago 45% of households consisted of married couples with children. In 1998, that percentage had fallen to 26%.
The report concludes that today "families are smaller and less stable, marriage is less central and cohabitation more common, the value of children and values for children have altered, and within marriages gender roles have become less traditional and more egalitarian."

Globally, abortion has created even greater problems: the practice of sex-selective abortion throughout Asia has created a severe sex-ratio imbalance in favor of males. It is estimated that by the year 2020 there could be more than 35 million young 'surplus males' in China and 25 million in India, which will no doubt give rise to a generation of restless young men who will not find mates. History, biology, and sociology all suggest that these "surplus males" will generate high levels of crime and social disorder.

Felicity · 01-01-07, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeftyHenry

Fetus: In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo.

A fetus is a life that is being formed. It is what will become a baby, and grow into a human being who can contribute to this world.

Right here, you hit upon the crux. It is a life being formed. It is not yet a baby. Nor is it yet a human being. Nor does it contribute to this world. It is merely a “potential” for all of those things and as such—nothing in and of itself. So far, you and I are in total agreement.

Quote:

Each year 46 Million babies are denied their life

..but if the fetus (as you clearly pointed out above) is merely a “potential” baby—that potential not being fulfilled is really nothing and so the baby that may have been never really was so nothing is denied. Your logic falls short by your own definitions.

Quote:

...by the barbaric procedure pictured above where the baby becomes the wrath of science and is lethally injected with a needle in the same fashion as a killer or murder. It is the most inhumane procedure and makes no sense.

When you define pre-born life as merely a potential, then there is no ACTUAL life being taken. The abortion merely disrupts the formation of life before it reaches that point where it becomes actual.

Quote:

Abortion is an elitist procedure. One person is telling, what is soon to be another, that he doesn't deserve to live, that he is scum and lesser of a person almost like what a rascist would tell a person of a minority race during the Jim Crow period.

Again. By your own definition, this is irrelevant. No actual person, no problem. You are the one that defined it as such.

Quote:

Murder: to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously.Source

Look to your source again. Do you see that little thing that specifies that for something to be murder it must be illegal. Abortion is legal.

Quote:

That said, and considering the pictures above, it is strange how anyone can consider abortion NOT to be murder. Alternate definitions are that murder is the unlawful killing of someone. Isn't every killing unlawful according to God, Yaweh, and Allah's will? Who are we to decide that one slaughter is more lawful that the other.

There are many religions that do no condemn the practice of abortion. Furthermore, the OT has places where the killing of life in the womb is sanctioned by God. And nowhere in the NT is abortion explicitly condemned.

Felicity · 01-01-07, 02:32 PM

Quote:

In the US, abortion has created a culture where promiscuous and indiscriminate premarital sex is normative behavior, and where sex has been entirely disconnected from its original function: procreation.

Sex is not simply a means to make babies. It feels good too. It also draws couples closer. And it feels good too.

Quote:

One does not need to be religious to realize that disconnected from any consequences or responsibility, disconnected from the very act of procreation itself, sex has become a negative force, and has had many detrimental effects on our society in the three decades since Roe, not the least of which has been an incremental but progressive devaluation of regard for the sanctity of human life, not to mention the breakdown of moral values and the deconstruction of gender roles, which is leading to the destruction of the traditional family.

Can you provide some documentation of the causal relationship you are suggesting here? Otherwise—you’re just spouting.

Quote:

A recent study conducted by the General Social Survey (GSS) of the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago shows that the percentage of kids who live with both biological parents, who remain married, has dropped precipitously from 73% in 1972 to 51.7% in 1998.
Twenty-eight years ago 45% of households consisted of married couples with children. In 1998, that percentage had fallen to 26%.
The report concludes that today "families are smaller and less stable, marriage is less central and cohabitation more common, the value of children and values for children have altered, and within marriages gender roles have become less traditional and more egalitarian."

Interesting info—how does it relate to abortion? And...do you have a problem with egalitarianism?

Quote:

Globally, abortion has created even greater problems: the practice of sex-selective abortion throughout Asia has created a severe sex-ratio imbalance in favor of males. It is estimated that by the year 2020 there could be more than 35 million young 'surplus males' in China and 25 million in India, which will no doubt give rise to a generation of restless young men who will not find mates.

Perhaps.

But then maybe women will be viewed more valuable and the pendulum will swing. Also—women can mate with more than one man—maybe their society will change to one where women can have more than one husband. Again, I’m not sure what the connection to the availability of abortion is in this tid-bit of info. Will you expand upon it please?

Quote:

History, biology, and sociology all suggest that these "surplus males" will generate high levels of crime and social disorder.

Evidence please. And don’t bother with the unruly teenage African elephant stuff...

Felicity · 01-01-07, 02:34 PM

TAG-to Jerry

(I thought we were keeping to one poster from the team at a time...some-one needs to help me get clear on the "procedure")

1069 · 01-01-07, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Felicity

TAG-to Jerry

(I thought we were keeping to one poster from the team at a time...some-one needs to help me get clear on the "procedure")

Here's from the PM Henry sent me after he posted the thread:

"I've just started the thread. I suggest you post you're opening statement and then we allow them to post theirs. After that, one of us responds to Felicty and the other to Jerry and they do the same? We'll decide who responds to who via PM after every round."

This seems reasonable.
We'll all post our opening statements (meaning Jerry needs to go before anything else can happen).
After that, it will be one person from our team, then one person from your team, etc.
Doesn't really matter which one; you and Jerry can decide that betwixt yourselves.

Felicity · 01-01-07, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1069

Here's from the PM Henry sent me after he posted the thread:

"I've just started the thread. I suggest you post you're opening statement and then we allow them to post theirs. After that, one of us responds to Felicty and the other to Jerry and they do the same? We'll decide who responds to who via PM after every round."

This seems reasonable.
We'll all post our opening statements (meaning Jerry needs to go before anything else can happen).
After that, it will be one person from our team, then one person from your team, etc.
Doesn't really matter which one; you and Jerry can decide that betwixt yourselves.

Well...geee

...now what do I do? I responded to both of your opening posts rather than producing an opening post of my own...Whateveah...I'll wait to hear from Jerry. I'm fine with what I offered so far even if it is responding rather than an actual opening argument--if that's fine w/ you two.

1069 · 01-01-07, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Felicity

Well...geee

...now what do I do? I responded to both of your opening posts rather than producing an opening post of my own...Whateveah...I'll wait to hear from Jerry. I'm fine with what I offered so far even if it is responding rather than an actual opening argument--if that's fine w/ you two.

Actually, as long as we're just sitting here waiting for Jerry, i should probably mention that the person who posts first in a reverse debate is at a distinct disadvantage; basically, they present a position, and then all their opponent has to do is shoot it down, snipe at them with a bunch of questions. How easy is that?

That's part of what went wrong with my first abortion debate.
The threadstarter is placed in the role of defending their position (which isn't even their real position, but its polar opposite) while their opponent doesn't have to do anything but pick away at it.
Gee, I wonder who's gonna be working harder?
That's why, in my "Smoking Ban" RD, I invited Galenrox to go first.

This way is better: we should each make opening statements outlining our positions.
Then the *real* debate can start.
I think, Felicity, you have yet to make your opening statement.
Why don't you do that, while we're waiting for Jer, instead of jumping in and picking away at me and Henry's opening statements.
Tell us why you think abortion should be legal.

(hey, we're making this up as we go along! But I think this is how Reverse-debates will ultimately work; each debator will be required to make an opening statement outlining their position).

LeftyHenry · 01-01-07, 07:23 PM

Yeah I agree. Also someone PM Jerry and see what he's up to. Just to alert you all, I won't be able to post tommorow. I'm certain I'll have lots of work to catch up on.

Felicity · 01-01-07, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1069

Actually, as long as we're just sitting here waiting for Jerry, i should probably mention that the person who posts first in a reverse debate is at a distinct disadvantage; basically, they present a position, and then all their opponent has to do is shoot it down, snipe at them with a bunch of questions. How easy is that?

That's part of what went wrong with my first abortion debate.
The threadstarter is placed in the role of defending their position (which isn't even their real position, but its polar opposite) while their opponent doesn't have to do anything but pick away at it.
Gee, I wonder who's gonna be working harder?
That's why, in my "Smoking Ban" RD, I invited Galenrox to go first.

This way is better: we should each make opening statements outlining our positions.
Then the *real* debate can start.
I think, Felicity, you have yet to make your opening statement.
Why don't you do that, while we're waiting for Jer, instead of jumping in and picking away at me and Henry's opening statements.
Tell us why you think abortion should be legal.

Damn....thought I could slip that by you...

Okay...I'll be succinct.

For the purpose of this debate, I will assert that elective abortion should be legal in the United States for any reason from conception to 20 weeks, and for medical reasons concerning the fetus and/or the woman seeking the abortion at any point in the pregnancy. I will further assert that mental health reasons for a woman's choice to abort should be legal at all stages of pregnancy and that her medical privacy precludes that information from being accessible. I cite the preamble, Article 4 sections 2&4, 4th amendment, the 9th amendment, and the 13th amendment of the US Constitution as my basis for my assumed claims.

Philosophically (as separate from the legal argument), I will assume the claim that the person in the position of seeking an abortion can do so because it is within her ability to do it and it is her sole responsibility as to how her body is maintained.