The Instigator
prodigyofaristotle
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
fire_wings
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Abortion Should Be Legal

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
fire_wings
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/8/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 315 times Debate No: 93484
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)

 

prodigyofaristotle

Pro

Abortion is not immoral. It should be legal.
fire_wings

Con

I accept. Good luck.
Debate Round No. 1
prodigyofaristotle

Pro

Thank you for accepting my debate, I look forward to a pleasant exchange of ideas.

To start things off, I will be presenting some points that prove why abortion is not really immoral and that it should be legal.
Judith Jarvis Thomas makes three valid points. First, if you deny the mothers right to an abortion, you are dehumanizing her and giving more rights to the fetus than to her. This is not fair. Everyone should have equal rights. Second, say you are kidnapped and forced to provide life support to a random stranger. Is it your responsibility to provide support for this stranger? Third, say the women does not want a child and she uses contraception. Still, she winds up pregnant. Now she is forced to give birth and raise a child who she does not love or want. Also what if the Woman if raped? What if the child is the result of incest and is going to be born with countless birth defects? What if carrying the child to term endangers the mother's life? What if the mother is too young to care for a child? There are so many circumstances in which abortion should be allowed. It should be legal.

Thank You
fire_wings

Con

I will make my opening arguments, and my rebuttals this round

Definitions

Abortion: a medical procedure used to end a pregnancy and cause the death of the fetus [1]

Legal: To allow

Observations

O1: BoP is shared, as both sides will argue.

O2: I have to answer all of my opponent's questions to win.

Framework

My framework will be centered around the Right of Life. "The right to life is a moral principle based on the belief that a human being has the rightto live and, in particular, should not be killed by another human being. [2]" Therefore, It means that all people have the right to live. In my case I will explain that fetus are alive, and therefore they have the right of life. The right of life is approved in America, and it has been one of the oldest laws, all the way from 1968 [3].

Contentions

Contention 1: The Fetus is alive

There are many reasons to support that the fetus is living. These are the seven categories to prove something is living. If it matches at least one, then the thing is living.

Movement - The Fetus can move, so this is met.

Respiration (Breathe) - " The fetus does not actually breathe in the womb. The mother breathes for the fetus, and essential oxygen is passed to the fetus through the umbilical cord. The fetus does make breathing-like movements though. These begin at 9 weeks of pregnancy and allow the fetus to practice this breathing movement [4]."

Even though the Fetus doesn't actually breathe, the mother does breathe for the fetus, and they are connected from the Umbilical cord. Therefore, they are techinally breathing their mother's oxygen, and they can breathe.

Sensitivity - The fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks [5]. This is still time in the fetus, so techinally, this part is met.

Growth - The fetus can grow.

Reproduce- The fetus cannot reproduce

Excretion (Sweat, burn waste) - The fetus can do this.

Nutrition- The fetus cannot actually take in nutrition, but then they can take their mother's nutrition and energy from the cord. Therefore, the point is met.

People might say, "Well it has to meet all categories." Not true. Lets see, can a non-living thing do anything of this, like move, feel pain, breathe, grow, etc.? No! Non-living things can't match all of the things. This means that if one is met, then it is living. As I showed 4 really possible, 2 not quite, and 1 cannot, therefore the fetus is a living organism.

Contention 2: The Right of Life

As I said in my framework, all living things have the right of life. As I showed in my first argument, the fetus is alive, therefore it has the right of life. As I showed in my definition, abortion is to cause the death of a fetus, and it is on purpose.

Now, onto my argument. As I said, "The right to life is a moral principle based on the belief that a human being has the right to live and, in particular, should not be killed by another human being. [2]" This means that a human being has the right to live, and in particular not be killed by another human being. Abortion is the fetus dying by the mom, or anyone. Therefore, this is violating the laws of the right of life.

Pope Pius XII says,

"Every human being, even the child in the womb, has the right to life directly from God and not from his parents, not from any society or human authority. Therefore, there is no man, no society, no human authority, no science, no “indication” at all whether it be medical, eugenic, social, economic, or moral that may offer or give a valid judicial title for a direct deliberate disposal of an innocent human life… "--- Pope Pius XII,Address to Midwives on the Nature of Their ProfessionPapal Encyclical, October 29, 1951. [6]

Because abortion violates the laws of the Right of Life, it is illegal, therefore, Vote for Con.

Rebuttals

Pro concedes that the fetus is alive. Pro says that people have the equal amount of rights, and giving more rights to the fetus than the mom. Pro says we need equal rights. Not allowing abortion is the most equal we can get, because we will not kill the baby, and the mother will probably not die. That is the most fair we can get. Allowing an abortion makes fetus, which is living die. The mother survives. If this happens, then they will not get equal rights, which is rebutting Pro's own argument.

Next, Pro just gives a few thousand questions. For my Burden, if I answer all the questions, then I win.

My opponent's first question is, "is it your respon. to provide support for the stranger?" It is not a stranger, for a fact, it is your baby. He has your DNA. He is not a stranger. You aren't exactly giving him support either, you are just letting him live. If we don't do this, then there will be no more babies, and humans will eventually be extinct.

My opponent's second question is, "Also what if the Woman if raped?" Pro doesn't contest why we should allow abortion just becase of rape. My opponent's third question is, "What if the child is the result of incest and is going to be born with countless birth defects?" Birth defects are better than actually dying. Fetuses are living, and they have the right of life, we can't just kill them just because they might have birth defects. Pro's 4th question is, "What if carrying the child to term endangers the mother's life?" We can easily adopt children, and the mother would be safe. Adopting is better than killing a fetus. We are killing the fetus. 100% killing a fetus is worse then possibly endangering the mother's life. Pro's last question is, "What if the mother is too young to care for a child?" Adoptation, then other's can care for the child.

Even not rebutting, Pro's arguments fall because they have no claim, warrant, or impact, and they are all bare assertions. Pro just provides questions. Pro doesn't say why Pro's questions provide an impact to the resolution. Therefore, vote Con, and have a nice day.

Sources

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...

[2] http://www.nrlc.org...

[3] http://www.beginbeforebirth.org...

[4] http://www.doctorsonfetalpain.com...

[5] http://www.merriam-webster.com...

[6] "Address to Midwives on the Nature of Their Profession", 29 October 1951. Pope Pius XII.

Thank you. Vote CON.

Debate Round No. 2
prodigyofaristotle

Pro

Yes, ill claim that the fetus is alive, but this does not make abortion morally wrong.

You neglect the fact that pregnancy is not easy for the mother. Is painful, stressful, and exhausting. You are definitely giving the fetus support. It lives off of you like a parasite. And your claim about responsibility due to DNA and blood is a fallacy. Why adopt a kid, it is not my blood? That kind of thinking is awful. Not to mention foster kids often live the worst lives possible. They may not get adopted and they have to grow up thinking that no one loved them. Back on point, forcing a rape victim to give birth to the rapist child is sick and is torture. For nine months it would constantly remind her of how she has no right to her body. It would show everyone in the world that she was raped. That whole things is terrible. If you are too young, adoption is not an option. What if you are an 11 year old child? That is crazy. Most kids would have to drop out of school. It would ruin their lives. You do not actually answer what to do if carrying the fetus to term would kill the mother. There are so many circumstances in which abortion is acceptable. It should be made legal. My arguments in round 2 prove it is not immoral.
fire_wings

Con

Thanks for your arguments. I'll post mine

Observations

O1: My opponent doesn't post anything about the BoP, so I assume that BoP is shared

O2: My opponent doesn't post anything on the questions, so I assume that if I answered all the questions I win. And I did answer all of them, so vote Con.

O3: My opponent drops my framework, therefore voters must buy my framework, as I am the only one with a framework.

Defense


My opponent concedes that the fetus is alive, then that automatically means my Right of Life argument and the fetus is alive argument is automatically conceded, so vote for Con just for the Right of Life argument. Because of this argument, Pro concedes that humans do not have the right to live.

My opponent says that I neglect the fact that pregnancy is not easy. My opponent makes a bare assertion that pregnancy is not easy, and makes no source, this argument is invalid. And even if it is not easy, almost nothing is easy, and we shouldn't just always do the easy thing, because in this case it is killing, as my opponent drops my right of life argument.

My opponent says that my argument about DNA is a fallacy. My opponent doesn't show why it is a fallacy, so my opponent's claim is wrong. Pro makes a false assertion that is a stranger, but I showed that you child is part of your DNA, and my opponent says it is false, but doesn't show why, so my opponent's rebuttal is false.

My opponent asks, "Why adopt a kid, it is not my blood?" This doesn't really make sense, but I'll try understaniding it. By asking this question, my opponent concedes the DNA argument, because he says, "not my blood." Why do we do anything? Some people might want to adopt children, like some people who want children, and they have reasons. Around 135,000 children are adopted each year [1], so there will be many reasons for each of them.

My opponent says that it is awful, and foster kids often have the worst lives possible. My opponent makes a bare assertion again, so voters cannot buy this argument. My opponent doesn't say why it is awful. It is certainly better than killing, as killing is said immoral.

Missbailey says this in this debate, ""We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." [2]

According to The Declaration of Independence, we are born with unalienable rights and we must secure these rights. One of those rights happen to be life. The Government shouldn't be able to take life through capital punishment as unalienable rights may not be taken away. [3]"

Source: http://www.debate.org...

This argument clearly shows that murder is immoral, and adoptation is moral, as it invovles no killing, and moral is automatically better than immoral, murdering is more awful then adoptation.

Pro says that the mother will think for nine months that she has no right for her body. She does have rights, but not the right to kill, because the fetus in the mother's belly has rights too, like the right of life. My opponent provides a bare assertion, so anyways, there is no reason to by this claim.

My opponent basically says that adoptation is bad because we miss school, and that will ruin your life. My opponent doesn't say why you miss school. Of course some adopted kids can go to school, and you can get homeschooled also. This is a bare assertion from my opponent too. My opponent doesn't say how this is ruining lives.

Abortion is not acceptable because all humans have the right of life, and killing is immoral. Therefore, vote Con. My opponent says that his arguments prove that it is not immoral. I rebutted them, and he has no weight.

Conclusion

My opponent doesn't rebut my arguments at all. Extend them. He drops that the fetus is alive, and the right of life argument. I rebutted all of my opponent's arguments, and all of my opponent's arguments are bare assertion. Voters have no choice but to vote Con, as voters cannot buy my opponent's claims because they are all bare assertions. Therefore, vote Con. I extend my arguments.

Sources

[1] http://www.pbs.org...

[2] http://www.archives.gov...

[3] http://www.dictionary.com...

I couldn't get permission from MB8 to post her argument, but she normally allows it, and she deactivated so I did it. Anyways I posted quotes, and wrote it was from MB8. I thank her for that.

Please vote Con!!!!!!
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by DavidMancke 4 months ago
DavidMancke
Too bad that Pro didn't have the ounce of common sense to point out Fire_Wings case was BS "personhood" and arguably extra-topical.

Though Pro did a crap job, in reality Con presented a personhood case, so he should have to show that a fetus is a person for his framework to even apply. He skipped that entirely. I would have dropped Fire_wings for smuggling in a premise.
Posted by whiteflame 4 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: MissLuLu// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: At the end of the debate, I still feel that abortion should be legal, but Pro did not make an argument. Con's right of life has religious connotations, which I do not agree with on principle. I left that as a tie. Better conduct goes to Con because Con participated in this debate by creating an argument, not just listing questions that prove nothing. Reliable sources goes to Con, for they were provided.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn't explain S&G. (2) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter seems to state that they tied this based on disagreement with a point Con made and a lack of arguments by Pro, but that is not a sufficient explanation. If Pro didn't make an argument in this debate and Con made relevant points, then arguments should be awarded to Con. The voter's personal opinion should not change the outcome. (3) Sources are insufficiently explained. The voter has to establish that the sources given were reliable (i.e. relevant to the debate), and not just that only one side had them.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 4 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: migmag// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: well argued prodigy

[*Reason for removal*] Not an RFD.
************************************************************************
Posted by migmag 4 months ago
migmag
this is black and white, conservatives and republicans do NOT have the right to tell OTHER People how to live their lives (women re abortion, gays re marriage)
Posted by whiteflame 5 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Muslimdebater// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: I agree with the pro because the argument is better and the evidence and ideas too. The con had basically tried to neglect the point without any real proof.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn't explain conduct or S&G. (2) Arguments and sources are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to specifically assess arguments made in the debate, and to explain why the evidence and "ideas" are better for one side.
************************************************************************
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by SegBeg 4 months ago
SegBeg
prodigyofaristotlefire_wingsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: It is clear that Con was the only one who provided resources to back up their arguments against abortion. Con took time to debunk Pro's arguments. Pro could have done better in his/her debate if they had debunked some of Con's arguments. Con was clever in exposing Pro's contradictory points such as "My opponent concedes that the fetus is alive, then that automatically means my Right of Life argument and the fetus is alive argument is automatically conceded, so vote for Con just for the Right of Life argument. Because of this argument, Pro concedes that humans do not have the right to live." Conduct is awarded to Con because their argument was more objective whereas Pro's was more subjective as can eb shown when they say, " Why adopt a kid, it is not my blood?" So in conclusion Con wins the debate.