The Instigator
xicanaspice
Pro (for)
The Contender
SJM
Con (against)

Abortion Should Be Legal and Unrestricted

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
xicanaspice has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/3/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 261 times Debate No: 93319
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

xicanaspice

Pro

Restrictions placed on abortion by U.S. lawmakers have no factual or substantial reasoning. A woman's bodily autonomy should be her decision only, and she has the right to terminate her own pregnancy for any reason. Abortion is necessary for many women that become pregnant, and taking away reasonable access will only harm the woman (and possibly her potential child.)
SJM

Con

My opponent states that women deserve autonomy when it comes to decide whether they want to kill another human, but my opponent is hypocritical when making such a decision because they are taking away the autonomy of the baby. Therefore this point my opponent made is refuted because of hypocrisy.

Then my opponent states that women have to right to kill someone for any reason, which is seldom used as an argument by pro abortionists because it"s easily refuted. My opponent proposes that someone should be able to kill another human being for any reason, such as for their inconvenience. But it is immoral to kill another human being, and especially so for someone who kills someone just because they don"t want to deal with the person. This is similar to kill someone because they annoy you.

My opponent says that abortion is NECESSARY, but I see no situation in which it is and would like my opponent to provide it

"and taking away reasonable access will only harm the woman (and possibly her potential child.)" Pro basically states that making abortion illegal, will harm the child, but making it legal will not harm child. Therefore saying killing is not harming someone, which doesn"t make sense. Point is that my opponent is trying to justify killing someone for any reason.
Debate Round No. 1
xicanaspice

Pro

What's important to realize about abortion is the fact that it is absolutely not murder. If abortion actually did involve the killing of a child, it would have never been a legal option in the first place. You simply cannot logically argue that a child is killed if said child would not be able to survive outside of the womb at the point of abortion. Additionally, a baby/fetus cannot have autonomy because their brains are not capable of making such a complicated decision as abortion.
And yes, I absolutely believe that there are circumstances in which abortion would be necessary, such as if the birth of the child would lead to the death of the mother. This is not to say that the woman would be forced to abort, because it a right and not a responsibility. Women do deserve the right to abortion for their own individual reasons, as there are many cases that would harm the lives of the mother and/or child. Women that are raped deserve the right to abortion if they wish it, as a child is a huge commitment to which they did consent. If women become pregnant due to misuse or faulty birth control methods, they too deserve the right to abortion. Caring for a child is extremely costly and time consuming; women that cannot afford to care for another human being deserve the right to terminate a pregnancy.
Lastly, if abortion were to be made illegal, it would not stop abortions from happening. Abortion is extremely common; as many as 1 in 3 women will have an abortion in their lifetime. To make abortion illegal would only make it much more dangerous for the women who have them. The women that would not attempt abortions would end up raising a child in poverty and/or neglect, which would absolutely be detrimental to the child's life.
SJM

Con

My opponent states that the fetus isn"t human because why would it be an option in the first place, but I could also say that if it wasn"t anything but goo, why would people be fighting against abortion? The point neglects that abortion being illegal, is a valid legal option because there are people who argue that it is a life, therefore it comes down to whether this fetus is human or not. The only reason why this abortion decision goes both sides is because there are different thoughts as to whether the fetus is a human. It"s not like the against abortion people think the fetus is not human. I will bring up why I think it"s a human later on, but now I will address the point where my opponent thinks because someone can not live on its own, it"s therefore not a human. I find that there is no reason to think that because someone is dependent on something, that they"re not human. People are dependent on machines but we surely consider them human. The only requirement for someone to be human, is for them to have been past any amount of time after conception. And autonomy does not mean that someone has to make decisions for themselves, it means that they aren"t controlled externally, like independence.

"And yes, I absolutely believe that there are circumstances in which abortion would be necessary, such as if the birth of the child would lead to the death of the mother." This illustrates that my opponent does not understand the meaning of necessary. In this case, it is not necessary because the mother could refuse, even if it would lead to her death, therefore it isn"t an necessary because it"s an option.

"Caring for a child is extremely costly and time consuming; women that cannot afford to care for another human being deserve the right to terminate a pregnancy." My opponent is taking a really cruel stance, this quote essentially states that if something is inconvenient for someone, they have the right to kill it. My opponent is undermining the value of life. Pro is neglecting the right any human has to life. A human is not an object that if someone does not want, they have the right to terminate it. Plus where are the alternatives my opponent is not considering in their whole case? In every situation stated, the option for adoption or foster care is available except with the point about the mother dying but I will address that later as well.

Rape

People who become pregnant from rape and decide to abort are not doing anything good by it. There is no reason why a victim of rape should be able to create another victim of murder. Killing a baby does not get rid of the memory of rape, nor is it justified. In fact, by aborting the baby the mother is not only letting the rapist commit the horrible act of rape, but the mother is also indirectly letting him get away with murder because the mother chooses termination. Since the mother chooses to kill the child because of the rape, the rapist had put her into that position, thus making the rapist somewhat responsible. But this is not to say this completely removes the responsibility from the mother, she is still culpable because there are alternatives. For example, adoption, foster care, family, or raising it herself. Also it is not justified to kill another human due to someone"s inconvenience.

Why it"s a human

Fetus- "an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth"
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Fertilization- "the process of union of two gametes whereby the somatic chromosome number is restored and the development of a new individual is initiated"
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Ok, a fetus is by definition past the period of conception, and conception which is essentially fertilization, is the beginning of the life of an individual. Therefore any point after conception, the fetus is human. Yes it"s developing because it"s undeveloped but so is everyone before they hit puberty. The mother can't really abort the fetus before it"s living, because the fetus starts living at conception which is when they could be told they are pregnant. They won"t abort if they don"t know they are pregnant.

Mother dying

In this case, it is still unjustified to kill the baby due to human error. Doctors may not give correct judgements as they often do, which makes it worth taking the chance. This is not saying that the baby"s life is worth more than the mother"s, (someone"s life being worth more than someone else, is essentially what the opposition is saying when they say that you can kill another human being if your life is at risk) but that in one situation you are killing the baby, and in the other one an individual is passing away in which no one is culpable. It is simply an act of nature. Not only that, but I have found no story of someone being told they will die if they have a baby (if anyone has one post it), but i"m not saying people haven"t died from birthing.
Debate Round No. 2
xicanaspice

Pro

I can argue that dihydrogen monoxide is not water, that doesn't mean my argument has truth behind it. Additionally, human's dependence on computers is extremely different from a fetus' dependence on its mother. Humans would be able to survive without any use of computers, whereas a 14-week old fetus removed from the womb would not be able to survive without its womb.
Inconvenience is very different from inability. For the sake of focus, I'm ignoring your repetitive referring to abortion as "killing." Poverty is essentially inescapable in the economic and political systems in which most of us live. Why would a woman want to bring up a child in an environment that would not provide their most basic needs? Would you rather have a child die as a result of their poverty (as 22,000 do every day, according to UNICEF)? Adoption cannot be easily considered, as there are currently millions of children worldwide awaiting adoption and not nearly enough willing parents to take them in. Fostercare is also not a simple solution, as many foster parents only take children in for financial benefit. Would you rather terminate a bundle of cells (which cannot even feel pain until somewhere into the third trimester, http://www.factcheck.org... ) or have to give away your own living, breathing child staring up at you?
I never stated that a fetus is not a human being. It just does not deserve precedence over its mother.
The mother's death doesn't necessarily have to mean absolute evidence that the mother would die in childbirth. It also is an important consideration to make when young girls are pregnant (below age 20) because pregnancy is the leading cause of death for 15 to 19 year old women (http://www.advocatesforyouth.org... ). Also considering the fact that women under the age of 15 are five times more likely to die from giving birth than adult women, and you have yourself some pretty grim odds to beat.
Your argument is rooted in your equating of termination of a pregnancy to murder, yet you have not yet shown evidence as to why that is the case in the first place.
SJM

Con

"I can argue that dihydrogen monoxide is not water, that doesn't mean my argument has truth behind it."

What"s the purpose of this statement? This is basically saying that when people say something they could be lying which is obvious. Second, when you state that my analogy is different because babies outside of the wombs can"t live but people living on computers can, this is just ignorance. For example, "He is confined to his bed in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) because he needs a piece of equipment known as a ventilator to assist him to breathe. Left to breathe on his own, he would soon die.", this is the story of someone who needs a machine to live, without it he would die. Therefore my analogy still works. http://mobile.nation.co.ke...

"It also is an important consideration to make when young girls are pregnant "

In this case, there are the options for her to let her family raise it, give it up for adoption, foster care, and etc. Now, if the reason why this happened is because of rape or molestation refer to my point about rape cases. If it was a product of reckless sex, then it would be absurd to let them kill someone due to their misconduct. If anything it would teach the certain responsibilities of life, and discipline them.

Humans have an innate right to life, since it is in accordance with nature. This is why cultures strive to make advancements to prolong life and please people. People aim for a utilitarian society. And the government's duty is to establish a system where it maximizes good, therefore if they were to make abortion legal in any practical circumstances it would be wrong, and that would be against their obligation. Thus abortion should be illegal in all circumstances.

" I'm ignoring your repetitive referring to abortion as "killing."

But you have to attack at least once. You essentially just ignored my whole point about why it"s human which is one of my main points.

"Why would a woman want to bring up a child in an environment that would not provide their most basic needs?"

Saying that a baby can not be supported in the stages where the fetus is developing in the womb is making the assumption that a baby can"t be supported which one can not know for certainty. When someone is in a tough spot they feel it to be worth aborting a life in order to make their life more convenient for them. But instead of choosing to terminate a human"s life, they can choose the free alternative which is to set it up for adoption. "At American Adoptions, 100 percent of a birth mother"s expenses are paid for by the adoptive family" The soon to be murderers can change their decision from being immoral, to one where they give someone a chance to live. They are in the wrong when choosing murder over giving the fetus a chance to live when it"s available to do so, even if they can not support it. Now let"s say that they can"t support the fetus and there happen to be no adoption centers around. Murdering is not the answer as opposed to trying to support the baby. Because no one can say that for sure they are not able to support the baby unless they are soothsayers, which they aren"t. Even if the circumstances are very likely, the position they are putting themselves in is one where they decide to kill, rather than letting it die to nature , even though they have the right of being able to live. The family may be able to support it, but they don"t realize it at the time and kills an innocent human for nothing. It"s insane to choose to kill someone because there is a chance you can"t provide for them. One can not so easily give up on someone else's life.

"Fostercare is also not a simple solution, as many foster parents only take children in for financial benefit."

To put it simply, my opponent is basically saying that because there is a CHANCE that there will be a bad foster parent, that it justifies killing the child. However a bad foster parent is subjective, therefore the parent may be good for the child. My opponent likes to pretend to be a fortune teller, and know for a fact that their child will be raised by bad parents, thus we can kill them because we made of it. This is of course me mocking the idea that we can judge someone"s life as to whether they will rather die than live with a foster parent. Instead of mothers making that decision, it should be made by the person who is the owner of the life. Let"s say that it was a bad foster parent, how would one know that the child wouldn"t rather live with the parent then die? Also a foster parent providing services for financial benefits, does not entail that they are bad parents, therefore I would like my opponent to provide statistics for "most".

My opponent again ignores another paragraph, the one about the mother dying. I stated how the situation should be continued, but my opponent basically just asserts "It just does not deserve precedence over its mother." Therefore I will past the argument again so my opponent can actually refute my points. I don"t say that the baby"s life is worth more than the mothers, nor the other way around. I specifically say how it should be addressed, and why we should take it that way.

Mother dying

In this case, it is still unjustified to kill the baby due to human error. Doctors may not give correct judgements as they often do, which makes it worth taking the chance. This is not saying that the baby"s life is worth more than the mother"s, (someone"s life being worth more than someone else, is essentially what the opposition is saying when they say that you can kill another human being if your life is at risk) but that in one situation you are killing the baby, and in the other one an individual is passing away in which no one is culpable. It is simply an act of nature. Not only that, but I have found no story of someone being told they will die if they have a baby (if anyone has one post it), but i"m not saying people haven"t died from birthing.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by DaMagickDragon 5 months ago
DaMagickDragon
The baby is not the "woman's body" within 3 to 5 months the baby already begins growing a nervous system
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.