Proving that Abortion is Immoral Using Logical Deduction

You lost me on the premise. I don't even think its murder so how can it be immoral. And I get what you say about the chromosomes but under that logic pulling the plug on someone who is brain dead is murder and I don't think that is either. Humanity is self awareness and conscious not genes and chromosomes.

As my argument is flawless and subsequently impervious to all counter-arguments, I hereby rebut all further counter-arguments in advance and declare myself winner of this thread.

SIncerely, BluRayHiDef - The Undefeated Master Debater

As my argument is flawless and subsequently impervious to all counter-arguments, I hereby rebut all further counter-arguments in advance and declare myself winner of this thread.

Sincerely, BluRayHiDef - The Undefeated Master Debater

Must also be immoral to take someone off life support as well by this logic.

Depends on the type of life support. Taking away their food, water and oxygen supply would be equivalent in this case. Taking away a machine that is actively pumping blood through their body not so much.

Ever seen a teenage girl with a kid? It is a pathetic spectacle. Instead of being out enjoying their youth they are tied down with a kid. I wonder what they would choose given a do over?

Should had thought about that before they did the deed.

As my argument is flawless and subsequently impervious to all counter-arguments, I hereby rebut all further counter-arguments in advance and declare myself winner of this thread.

Sincerely, BluRayHiDef - The Undefeated Master Debater

Ding-ding-ding-ding. We have a decision from the scorecards:

• Judge Michael Lewis scored it: 118-109
• Judge Christine Madison scored it: 119-108
• and Judge Miguel Herrera scored it: 118-109

For the winner...and STILL Master Debater.The Undefeated...

Undisputed...

Reigning Master Debater of the World:

The Bluuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaambler!!!!

I take it that you're pro-life?

I think abortion should be legal, safe and (extremely) rare. These people that think of abortion as some kind of next day pill are irresponsible, disgusting, appalling and scum as far as I'm concern. I'm the president of the "if you are gonna do it (abortion), do it as early as possible, lady" club. I would also encourage adoption as an alternative.

Are you still a moderator? I don't see the moderator emblem/ sign on your avatar.

Both have the same result, death. A fetus can't support their own oxygen supply until birth whether premature or not(it's still birth) so still equal in both cases. An abortion is just cutting the supply of everything at once, oxygen, food, water the lot.

Nah, left that post more than a month ago.

Why?

Because I already made enough to retire to my own private Island (ain't that right Korvus?). GS moderating group is great, it was a good experience but I felt that to express myself fully in the way I wanted it was better if I left the moderating team.

As my argument is flawless and subsequently impervious to all counter-arguments, I hereby rebut all further counter-arguments in advance and declare myself winner of this thread.

Sincerely, BluRayHiDef - The Undefeated Master Debater

Before we begin, we must agree on a premise, without which the following argument would have no basis.

Premise: To murder or kill an infant is immoral.

Argument: Despite the fact that an infant lacks consciousness in the first few months of its life, it is immoral to murder or kill an infant. As a zygote or fetus possesses all forty six chromosomes which are present in a fully developed Human, they are both Human lifeforms - despite a lack of consciousness, just as a newborn is a Human life-form regardless of whether it has reached the age at which it forms a consciousness or not. Hence, to abort a zygote or fetus is tantamount to murdering or killing a newborn which has yet to form a consciousness. So, as murdering or killing a newborn is immoral, so is aborting a zygote or fetus.

Conclusion: Abortion is immoral.

First problem: You assume that your morals and my morals are the same

Second problem: You are assuming that it is more humane to bring the fetus to term and make it live a poor life in pain and suffering rather than end that suffering before it starts.

Third problem: You assume that an infant lacks consciousness. This is incorrect. Studies have shown that infants as young as two weeks are able to react with awareness.

Your morals don't blanket humanity. It isn't immoral to get an abortion. Fact.

This is an automated message.

As my argument is flawless and subsequently impervious to all counter-arguments, your counter-argument has been automatically rebutted.

Thank you for your acknowledgment.

Good day, Good SIr.

You can't just claim something is moral as fact without providing an argument as to why that action is moral or immoral. Why can't there be a universal morality?

A zygote is not a human, for the same reason a seed is not a tree or an egg isn't a chicken.

Before we begin, we must agree on a premise, without which the following argument would have no basis.

Premise: To murder or kill an infant is immoral.

Argument: Despite the fact that an infant lacks consciousness in the first few months of its life, it is immoral to murder or kill an infant. As a zygote or fetus possesses all forty six chromosomes which are present in a fully developed Human, they are both Human lifeforms - despite a lack of consciousness, just as a newborn is a Human life-form regardless of whether it has reached the age at which it forms a consciousness or not. Hence, to abort a zygote or fetus is tantamount to murdering or killing a newborn which has yet to form a consciousness. So, as murdering or killing a newborn is immoral, so is aborting a zygote or fetus.

Conclusion: Abortion is immoral.

Before we begin, we must agree on a premise, without which the following argument would have no basis.

Premise: To murder or kill an infant is immoral.

Argument: Despite the fact that an infant lacks consciousness in the first few months of its life, it is immoral to murder or kill an infant. As a zygote or fetus possesses all forty six chromosomes which are present in a fully developed Human, they are both Human lifeforms - despite a lack of consciousness, just as a newborn is a Human life-form regardless of whether it has reached the age at which it forms a consciousness or not. Hence, to abort a zygote or fetus is tantamount to murdering or killing a newborn which has yet to form a consciousness. So, as murdering or killing a newborn is immoral, so is aborting a zygote or fetus.

Conclusion: Abortion is immoral.

To condense such a controversial and complicated discussion into such a tiny little statement does the entire thing a disservice.

Is it also immoral to allow a child to enter life with a genetic disorder that will cause every living day to be filled with unending pain and to die a prolonged death while still barely into their teenage years? What about allowing a child to enter a world of poverty and abuse that is caused by the mother being addicted to drugs, and the child never receiving the love and affection it deserves, only to grow up and repeat the same mistakes and continue the unending cycle?

Abortion isn't the best option, and definitely shouldn't be used as a form of retroactive birth control... but to call it immoral, full stop, without considering the ramifications of what a life for an unwanted child could be like, or one that will only be filled with suffering, is equally as immoral. And until we can discover a way to remove an unwanted foetus from the mother and either implant it into a willing mother, or raise it in an artificial environment (i.e. in a lab), in addition to providing the child with the necessary emotional and financial support to become a productive member of society, abortion should never be removed as an option for expecting mothers, no matter how "immoral" some people might believe it to be.

I was just making the distinction between actively keeping a heart pumping, a fetus' heart pumps on it's own and providing necessary care. There's necessity life support, and non-necessity life support. Things like blood pumps, medicine and other things that keep you alive artificially. While feeding tubes and oxygen supply give you necessary things to continue to live. Not all life support is equal.

BTW I've found that most gamers tend to be agnostics/atheists and pro-abortion (within limits)

Hi, we've never met, but I'm a gamer and I'm Catholic and pro-life. Does that change the statistics at all, if even just a little?

Hi, we've never met, but I'm a gamer and I'm Catholic and pro-life. Does that change the statistics at all, if even just a little?

IOT prove that abortion is immoral you first have to prove the standards for morality. Morality is, by its nature, subjective.

IOT say that abortion is immoral because murder is immoral you first must PROVE that murder is immoral. That is something that you can not do. You can believe that murder is immoral, and you can prove that it is unlawful, but you can't prove that it is immoral.

Considering the initial premise doesn't hold true, no.