The Instigator
Taniya_Avery
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Illegalcombatant
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Abortion: Right or Wrong?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Illegalcombatant
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/8/2015 Category: Health
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 414 times Debate No: 78501
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

Taniya_Avery

Pro

Abortion should be legal because if we make it illegal, it won't stop it, only make it more dangerous.
Illegalcombatant

Con

Judging by Pros opening argument, I am operating on the understanding that Pro is seeking to justify that abortion should be legal in the general sense. That is to say without or little restriction when a person can choose to have an abortion.

As Con I will seek to refute Pro arguments in support that abortion should be legal and seek to make argument to support the proposition that abortion should be illegal.

Examining Pros argument

Consider Pros claim..."Abortion should be legal because if we make it illegal, it won't stop it, only make it more dangerous."

I don't doubt that abortion being illegal won't stop abortion BUT is that a justification that can stand up to scrutiny ? Should we allow rape because even if it is illegal it won't stop all rape ?

The point being you can't justify that X should be legal on the basis that X being illegal won't result in X being completely eliminated.

Argument for keeping abortion illegal

1) Absent justification we should not allow humans to kill other humans
2) Abortion is a human killing another human
3) There is an absence of justification for allowing abortion
C) Therefore we should not allow abortion

Defending P1)

Hardly controversial and for most people if not all something that is already assumed. If not on principle at least for pragmatic purposes.

Defending P2)

What is human and thus what is not in this argument is defined on scientific dna/biological grounds as Peter Singer explains..."It is possible to give "human being" a precise meaning. We can use it as equivalent to "member of the species Homo Sapiens". Whether a being is a member of a given species is something that can be determined scientifically, by an examination of the nature of the chromosomes in the cells of living organisms. In this sense there is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence an embryo conceived from human sperm and eggs is a human being." [1]

Defending P3

It should be noted here that justification has more narrow scope than may appear to be the case at first glance. A reason/explanation in of it's self is not sufficient to establish justification. For example it could be said that a reason/explanation that a cop shot the black man is that black man was not respectful to the cop thus the cop decided to make an example out of him and shoot him.

Although a reason/explanation most people would not consider this a justification for a killing in such a circumstance..........well why not ? Because a justification when it comes to human beings killing other human beings requires a high burden and we don't give out free passes for killing for any ole reason. The justification has to be able to hold up to scrutiny.

Thus my argument here is that Pro has not being able to provide a justification for abortion at least in the general sense.

C) Therefore we should not allow abortion

I look forward to Pros reply.

Sources

[1] Peter Singer, Practical Ethics, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 85-86.
Debate Round No. 1
Taniya_Avery

Pro

Sorry for the short body of my argument. It was my first post, but I reassure my retorts and defenses will be better this time.

In the case that you said an abortion is a human killing another human, it can go either way. Yes, a pregnancy can kill, and it's obvious why.

The fact that a woman"I know men can have female reproductive systems"has to make a baby from scratch on her own, despite the fact that it's an involuntary process, it's also a very draining process, one that can lead to depression post-baby.

Depression includes: loss of appetite (called anorexia in medical terms), insomnia, low self-esteem, low energy levels and memory loss are just a few.

Yes, it's basically killing a human and I know that goes against a lot of religions"I'm Christian, so it goes against mine" but it's the woman's body also and you have to take into consideration that it isn't free to give birth to a baby, especially in America, it cost nearly $50,000 dollars.

What if the mother doesn't have enough money? What if she doesn't have any help from the father? What if she was wrapped?

Being raped is already bad enough. You have flashbacks, nightmares of the horrid event. Imagine a baby. If you force her to birth a child that wasn't created out of love, the exact opposite actually, then there will definitely be some trauma.

The mother probably won't want to look at the child, and if you rewind a little into the pregnancy, the movement of the fetus might bring up horrible experiences from the rape.

Also, an abortion cost much less than the care and birthing of a child. Abortion cost about $350-$500 dollars depending on when she gets the abortions.

Think about it this way: There's an adoption convention going on, and you have no interest in taking care of the child probably because of opportunities in life or because you just don't have enough money to take care of that child.

Imagine a bunch of people that will never understand your situation because they are all male and will never have to birth a child, this is representitive of all men in power that oppose abortions, and they are constantly chanting into your ear that it's nasically murder to allow children to stay in an orphanage.

It makes the situation interesting when you think about ut that way doens't it?
Illegalcombatant

Con

I thank Pro for their reply.

Recall my argument against abortion that being......

1) Absent justification we should not allow humans to kill other humans
2) Abortion is a human killing another human
3) There is an absence of justification for allowing abortion
C) Therefore we should not allow abortion

After reading Pros reply it seems to me what Pro was trying to do was not so much try and refute premises 1,2 but rather provide justification for abortion and thus refute P3).

But should these implied reasons given by Pro be accepted as justifications for the intentional killing of a human of another human that occurs during abortion ?

[Financial Cost]

Pro seems to throw out financial cost as a justification as Pro says..."it isn't free to give birth to a baby, especially in America, it cost nearly $50,000 dollars."

But does financial consideration justify killing here ? would we give a free pass to an assassin who to pay off a gambling debt kills some one for 50 grand ? I don't think so.

Thus my argument here is that financial difficulty does not justify killing and thus does not justify abortion.

I would also note in at least rich countries, if giving birth did incur such a debt then the REAL PROBLEM is lack of health care affordability. Yes admittedly the USA is seen as a bit of a joke in this regard in the western world since most other places have more socialized health care and thus the user probably won't find themselves in such debt.

[Bodily autonomy]

Consider where Pro says..." but it's the woman's body also"

Yes it is, but as the saying goes your right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins. In other words bodily autonomy only gets you so far and it doesn't justify killing other human beings.

[Rape/trauma]

Consider where Pro says..." Being raped is already bad enough. You have flashbacks, nightmares of the horrid event. Imagine a baby. If you force her to birth a child that wasn't created out of love, the exact opposite actually, then there will definitely be some trauma."

Remember the trauma that Pro here is referring to is things like, nightmares, flashbacks. Does anyone really think that is a good precedent to set ? Yes you can kill another human if you can show that your not killing that human will result in nightmares and or flashbacks for yourself or some one else.

As such my argument here is that that eliminating the trauma referred to by Pro does not justify killing.

[People who don't understand]

Consider where Pro says..." Imagine a bunch of people that will never understand your situation because they are all male and will never have to birth a child,"

It's true there will be people who won't understand sufficiently other peoples situations in life. But is this a justification to be accepted for killing ?

What is the argument then ? if you don't understand my situation this gives me the justification for killing another human ?

We don't accept that kind of reasoning any where else, as such I would argue there is no reason to accept that here.

[Closing comments]

As far as I can tell Pro doesn't oppose that we should not allow humans to kill other humans, abortion included unless there is justification for said killing.

I maintain that Pros attempt to provide justification for abortion have being shown to be insufficient.

I look forward to Pros reply.
Debate Round No. 2
Taniya_Avery

Pro

Thank you for replying in such a timely matter.

Con claims that: Not understanding a victim's situation isn't accepted in any other murder case then why should it be accepted in the case of abortion.

There are two points here. The fact that in a murder case isn't the same as an abortion case. In fact, murder cases are where one person, who isn't inside the culprits womb, is murdered.

Murder is illegal, abortion is legal. I'll agree that abortion is a moral sin, but it's not wrong completely, only to an extent.

This is America, supposedly the land of the free. When did making decisions for when a woman's supposed to have a baby and if a woman's supposed to have a baby become acceptable in the case of our nation's slogan?

It's their body, and that baby is theirs also. In any other case, such as cancer, HIV/AIDS, diabetes and much more, there's no question about treatment because if you don't treat those diseases, somebody might die, but when it comes to a woman not wanting to have a baby, she's a murderer?

Yes, the child is a human, the child will never deviate from the path of humanity, but don't you think it's inhumane to force a woman to birth a child she doesn't want to birth? Financially care for a child that she wasn't planning to have?

It's a responsibility that many teenagers get judged for because they're too young. When will society be happy with the choices that women make? Teenage pregnancy is a sign of immaturity, in that case, abortion is appropriate, but if it's a woman that seems to have her life under control it's wrong?

Also, it's not just women suggesting abortion, it's men too. Some husbands and boyfriends might not be ready for a child, so they tell their expectant partner to get an abortion. Most of the time, they don't listen to them, sometimes they do.

The point is, people in society and in politics are in no position to tell a woman what to do with her body and the child that she's carrying. But, once the child is born, where are all the pro-lifers going to be? Not there helping the woman with her finances.

All pro-lifers care about is the child, not the mother's health. Plus, when a child's life begins isn't a moral question, it's one of biology and science. A child's life, as in experience and such, begins when they are born, that's why we celebrate birthdays, not conception days.

I'm not saying that abortion is right, I'm saying that abortion is a choice left up to the parents, or more importantly, the mother, not people in politics or in society.

How would you feel if somebody told you how to educate your children, take care of your children, love your children and discipline your children? You'd feel like somebodies trying to tell you what to do with something that has nothing to do with them.

It's all a matter of staying in your lane and not overstepping your boundaries.
Illegalcombatant

Con

I thank Pro for their reply.

Recall my original and sustained argument that being........

1) Absent justification we should not allow humans to kill other humans
2) Abortion is a human killing another human
3) There is an absence of justification for allowing abortion
C) Therefore we should not allow abortion

Pro seems to have no answer for my counter arguments from the previous round so mostly in the next round attempts some new justifications in an attempt to justify the killing that will take place at abortion.

[Location]

Pro says..."There are two points here. The fact that in a murder case isn't the same as an abortion case. In fact, murder cases are where one person, who isn't inside the culprits womb, is murdered"

But should how does the change of location justify killing here ? We wouldn't accept that all things being equal that a man who is murdered on earth would be ok had that killing taken place in a different country or on the moon.

Point being here that location is a non relevant factor.

[Legalism]

Pro says..."Murder is illegal, abortion is legal. I'll agree that abortion is a moral sin, but it's not wrong completely, only to an extent."

This is just legalism. Also it's a double standard cause I bet Pro wouldn't place to much value on the fact that in some place it's legal to kill women in honor killings.

The law can be wrong, this is about what the law SHOULD be as opposed to what it is or is not. Let us not hide behind the law.

[Freedom]

Pro says..."This is America, supposedly the land of the free. When did making decisions for when a woman's supposed to have a baby and if a woman's supposed to have a baby become acceptable in the case of our nation's slogan?"

Because it's just a meaningless slogan on its own, like support the troops or strong family values. The reality is more along the lines of well there are some things you can do some things you can't. But that isn't as catchy as land of the free home of the brave now is it ?

So no America or anywhere else is not built upon the ideal of unlimited, unrestricted freedom.

Pro says..."It's their body, and that baby is theirs also. In any other case, such as cancer, HIV/AIDS, diabetes and much more, there's no question about treatment because if you don't treat those diseases, somebody might die, but when it comes to a woman not wanting to have a baby, she's a murderer?" & "The point is, people in society and in politics are in no position to tell a woman what to do with her body "

The bodily autonomy argument was already addressed in the previous round. As I said before that only gets you so far, it doesn't get you the freedom to kill other humans.

It seems to me that Pro is making some sort of analogy between disease/cancer and a pregnancy. What exactly the analogy is and how this justifies abortion is unclear to me.

[Forced continuation pregnancy/inhumane]

Pro says..."Yes, the child is a human, the child will never deviate from the path of humanity, but don't you think it's inhumane to force a woman to birth a child she doesn't want to birth? Financially care for a child that she wasn't planning to have?"

The financial considerations was dealt with in the previous round.

But the charged of inhumane works both ways, it can be claimed it's inhumane to kill a human. So when it comes to the inhumane justification who has more ammunition on their side here ? The let her have an abortion side results in one more killing than the no abortion side. That would seem to me to tip the scale in favor of the no abortion side in the name of what is less inhumane.

[Society]

Pro rants against society in their attitudes to young people getting pregnant. I would draw Pro attention back to justifying the killing of a human that occurs during abortion.

[Pro life people]

Pro rants against pro life (or at least some pro life people). Yes some pro life people leave alot to be desired, but once again I would draw Pros attention back to justifying the killing of a human that occurs during abortion.

[Woman and men suggesting abortion]

People suggest alot of things, once again I would draw Pros attention to the core of the matter.

[When does a new human life begin ?]

Pro says..." Plus, when a child's life begins isn't a moral question, it's one of biology and science. A child's life, as in experience and such, begins when they are born, that's why we celebrate birthdays, not conception days."

So what does the science say ?..."Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte." [1]

So according to the science the new human life exists long before birth takes place.

[Closing comments]

Pro doesn't oppose that we should not allow humans to kill other humans, abortion included, unless there is justification for said killing.

I maintain that Pros attempt to provide justification for abortion have being shown to be insufficient.

I look forward to Pros reply.

Sources

[1] Ronan O'Rahilly and Fabiola M"ller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by hellywon 1 year ago
hellywon
Taniya_AveryIllegalcombatantTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a very good debate. Both sides did very well to maintain their sides defensive. The arguments I see were not as organized, rather the refutations have better structure. I have to say however, that I give the winning to Con. Con showed to us that there shouldn't be an exception to killing -emphasizing how it leads up to murder- and he as well reasoned that abortion is in fact the same as murder. Well done to both sides.