Abortion Should Be Legal
I accept. Good luck.
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.
I will make my opening arguments, and my rebuttals this round
Abortion: a medical procedure used to end a pregnancy and cause the death of the fetus 
Legal: To allow
O1: BoP is shared, as both sides will argue.
O2: I have to answer all of my opponent's questions to win.
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. " 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 .
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 ."
Sensitivity - The fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks . This is still time in the fetus, so techinally, this part is met.
Growth - The fetus can grow.
Excretion (Sweat, burn waste) - The fetus can do this.
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.
Thanks for your arguments. I'll post mine
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.
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 , 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." 
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. "
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.
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.
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!!!!!!
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||6|