The Instigator
Freakoutimaninja235
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
ConserativeDemocrat
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Abortion is 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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/12/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 446 times Debate No: 94660
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (26)
Votes (0)

 

Freakoutimaninja235

Pro

Abortion is Wrong- I've often debated this topic online casually but I'd like to have a civilised debate between myself and one other opponent, where facts are discussed and the discussion does not dissolve into name calling or meaningless profanity.
I will be taking the pro side- I do believe abortion is wrong in all circumstances and I will defend this happily.
My opponent will take the con side and defend abortion itself.
Round one is for acceptance of the challenge. I eagerly await the acceptance of my opponent.
ConserativeDemocrat

Con

I accept. First time debating on abortion, so here I go.
Debate Round No. 1
Freakoutimaninja235

Pro

I'd like to thank my opponent for accepting my challenge.

My first point will be that abortion is murder, because the baby is alive, growing, showing vital signs, and developing. It is easy for a lot of people to say that the baby/foetus is not alive from the moment of conception because it neither looks like a more developed human nor can they see it. But it is alive, as it is carrying out cellular functions like mitosis and it is growing further into a more developed human. As with all things, this does take time, during which the baby should be most protected and at its safest as it cannot help itself.
The baby is human. It has a complete set of human DNA which contains the information for all the different parts of its body that have not fully developed yet. Just because you cannot see those body parts doesn't mean they aren't actually there. The most unnatural thing a woman can do to her baby is kill it. It goes against every motherly instinct and shows only selfishness.
Babies in the womb are often simply called "clumps of cells". This is a very stupid argument on the part of pro-abortion people as, while it is true, it is exactly what any living thing is. We are all made up of cells. So yes, the baby is a clump of cells, but so are you and so is the next person and everyone else living on this planet. What separates you from that baby is a matter of time and development.
Babies also show human emotion/responses/behaviours while in the womb. Ultrasounds have shown babies sucking their thumbs in the womb, responding with joy to their parents loving talk to them despite not being able to see them, and responding with fear to the mother's stress etc.

Today, killing another human being is considered murder, unless you do it in the name of choice. Despite all the clear evidence that a baby in the womb is alive and human (what else could it be, if it is a human's offspring and must be killed/terminated?) , the murder of that baby is legal and accepted by many. If your four year old sister was brutally murdered by way of dismemberment while she was still alive, would you not seek justice? This is what happens to babies in the womb. They are pulled out piece by piece in a method compared to "a shark attack in the womb" because someone did not want them.
If the argument of not being fully developed enough to be called human stands in this case, and one might say that the baby is not fully developed therefore not fully human (I've heard this argument before), then where is the line? A human's brain is not fully developed until approximately the age of 25 years. "The rational part of a teen's brain isn't fully developed and won't be until he or she is 25 years old or so." (1). So why is abortion limited to babies in the womb, if the argument is enough development? What if you decided you didn't want your five year old? Would that still be your choice? "My child, my time, my choice" will be the next pro-abortion slogan. As it is, women are deluded by the saying "my body, my choice". Yes, it is your choice in the end, but it's not your body being aborted. It's not your body being scraped out of the place where it should be safest, of all places. It's not your body being torn to shreds, or injected with poison, or simply pulled out alive and dropped in a bucket of burning chemical solution to die screaming and later be tossed in the trash. It does happen. But the cruelty is ignored by those who wish to stick their heads in the sand because they are fighting for "women's rights".
What if the child was a girl? Where are her women's rights?

Abortion is dangerous. More dangerous than childbirth. While, if you look it up, the official statement is that "abortion is safer than childbirth", the fact remains that many deaths by legal abortion are not reported. I keep as up to date as I can in the pro-life vs pro-abortion stuff as I can, and so often I see reports there of women dying in botched abortions, while less than one in ten thousand women die in childbirth.
For those women who do survive abortion and go on to have children later, abortion prior to that time will actually increase the chances of maternal deaths in full-term pregnancies. Studies show that the risk of ectopic pregnancies is twice as high for women who have had one abortion, and up to four times as high for women with two or more previous abortions. There has been a 300% increase of ectopic pregnancies since abortion was legalised. Ectopic pregnancies account for 12% of pregnancy-related maternal deaths (2).
Not only is abortion usually fatal for the child, but it is dangerous for the mother also. While it can cause physical problems for her, it also causes mental and emotional problems. A May 2010 study put out by the University of Manitoba in Canada found women who have had abortions are about four times more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol as those who carried their pregnancy to term (3). Researchers in Finland interviewed 600,000 women for a study that showed women who became pregnant and had abortions were six times more likely to commit suicids than women who carried their pregnancies to term. The statistics are even grimmer for teenagers. One study found that teenage girls who had one or more abortions were 10 times more likely to commit suicide than those who never aborted. Another study revealed that the rate of psychiatric hospitalisation for teenagers who had abortions is three times higher than that of other teens (4).

So you see, not only are the children very highly likely to die in abortion (occasionally one is botched and the child survives, though is often left to die by doctors), but the risk is quite high for mothers as well.

I await my opponent's rebuttal.

(1) https://www.urmc.rochester.edu...
(2) www.abortionfacts.com/facts/11#2
(3) www.lifenews.com/2010/09/28/nat-6733/
(4) liveactionnews.org/studies-show-risk-of-suicide-elevated-in-women-after-abortion/
ConserativeDemocrat

Con

Since you didn't post definitions, I will post my own.

Abortion: The deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy.

Wrong: Unjust, dishonest, or immoral.

Murder: The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

First off, it is foolish to debate morals, as they are subjective. So instead, I will base my argument off of this statement by my opponent: "I do believe abortion is wrong in all circumstances and I will defend this happily."

So is abortion really wrong in all circumstances? First I will rebut my opponent's statements, then put out my own.

"It is easy for a lot of people to say that the baby/foetus is not alive from the moment of conception because it neither looks like a more developed human nor can they see it. But it is alive, as it is carrying out cellular functions like mitosis and it is growing further into a more developed human"
- This is because it is the view supported by science. First, a fetus isn't alive. For something to be alive, it needs to fit these 7 criteria:

1.) Is it composed of cells? Yes
2.) Does it have different levels of organization? Yes
3.) Does it use energy? Yes
4.) Does it respond to stimuli? Yes and no. A fetus doesn't think or feel pain until around week 30. [1]
5) Does it grow? Yes, but it needs the mother for growth
6) Does it reproduce? No
7) Does it adapt to its' environment? It depends on the fetus.

(1-7) [2]

So a fetus is not alive.

(I believe fetuses are alive later in a pregnancy.)

Is a fetus a human? No.

Definition of Human Being: A man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.

It is obvious that a fetus is not a human, because it doesn't fit the traits of a human. Fetuses can't think, stand upright, or live on their own. They are totally dependent on the mother.

My opponents argument here is that aborting a fetus is murder, however, this is false. A fetus isn't alive until late in the pregnancy, so how can you kill something that isn't alive? A fetus can't think or feel pain until late in the pregnancy. It isn't a human being.

Before I go any further, I would like to clarify this. Once a fetus feels pain and can think, the only reason why an abortion is to save the mothers life. Before it can think, it should be legal for rape cases, the mother is too young, or to help the fetus (It would die when it is born, or it has a terminal illness.)

More of my opponents argument.

"Babies in the womb are often simply called "clumps of cells". This is a very stupid argument on the part of pro-abortion people as, while it is true, it is exactly what any living thing is. We are all made up of cells. So yes, the baby is a clump of cells, but so are you and so is the next person and everyone else living on this planet. What separates you from that baby is a matter of time and development."
- What Pro-Choicers mean by this is that the fetus can not feel pain. It can't think. It isn't conscious. When you abort it, you are not killing a human.

"Babies also show human emotion/responses/behaviours while in the womb. Ultrasounds have shown babies sucking their thumbs in the womb, responding with joy to their parents loving talk to them despite not being able to see them, and responding with fear to the mother's stress etc."
- Yes. But, this is late in the pregnancy.

"Today, killing another human being is considered murder, unless you do it in the name of choice. Despite all the clear evidence that a baby in the womb is alive and human (what else could it be, if it is a human's offspring and must be killed/terminated?) , the murder of that baby is legal and accepted by many. If your four year old sister was brutally murdered by way of dismemberment while she was alive, would you not seek justice?"
- First off, a fetus is not a human being. A human has to be a separate individual, living on its' own [3]. A fetus does not fill these traits. A 4 year old can live on its own. It eats without help. It breaths without help. It is conscious. It thinks. A fetus has none of those traits.

I will not post your full next point, for it is too long. Here is my response:

Yes, kids are not fully developed. But we are human beings. We live independently. We can communicate. We are conscious. A fetus isn't. And as I said again, people don't abort fetuses for fun. They do it to help the fetus. 3/4 of American women say they can't afford a child. Is that what you would prefer? The child being neglected because it can't be provided for? 12% of women included a Heath reason for their abortion. Is what you would prefer? Causing major damage to a women's Heath in favor of a fetus that can't even feel, much less understand pain? 1/2 said they had abortions because they were single parents or they had an abusive partner. Would you prefer for the child to be abused when in can feel pain? Or have it never feel pain? [4]

"Abortion is dangerous. More dangerous than childbirth. While, if you look it up, the official statement is that "abortion is safer than childbirth", the fact remains that many deaths by legal abortion are not reported. I keep as up to date as I can in the pro-life vs pro-abortion stuff as I can, and so often I see reports there of women dying in botched abortions, while less than one in ten thousand women die in childbirth."
- If the deaths are not reported, how do you know they exist? Here is a link to a study showing abortion is safer then childbirth [5]. Plus, it is the women's choice to get an abortion. She knows the risks. It isn't your job to stop her from getting an abortion because it is "dangerous."

"For those women who do survive abortion and go on to have children later, abortion prior to that time will actually increase the chances of maternal deaths in full-term pregnancies. Studies show that the risk of ectopic pregnancies is twice as high for women who have had one abortion, and up to four times as high for women with two or more previous abortions. There has been a 300% increase of ectopic pregnancies since abortion was legalised. Ectopic pregnancies account for 12% of pregnancy-related maternal deaths."
- Once again, it is the women's choice. She knows the risks. It isn't your job to decide what risks people can take.

For your point about mental health, what do you think would happen if they wanted an abortion but they were not allowed one? If a poor women gives birth to a child she can't support, what do you think the mental health effects would be? Keep in mind that 3/4 of American women cite money as a reason for abortion. What do you think the mental health effects would be then? Plus, it isn't the abortion that causes the mental health problems.

Now onto my argument.

Pro states that abortion should be wrong for all circumstances. First, as TheWorldIsComplicated points out in the comments section, what if the women had cancer? If she gets treatment, the fetus will stop developing. If she doesn't get treatment she will die, and the fetus with her. If you refuse to let the woman get treatment, then you lose 2 lives, instead of just one.

What if the fetus will die when it is born? Would abortion not be better to save the baby's suffering and potential pregnancy problems? Why should the fetus and mother go through so much pain in vain?

What if the mother will die when she gives birth? Why would you place a higher value over a non-living being over a mother who could have kids and a husband? Let me focus on that. What if the women has 2 kids and a husband, and she will die if she gives birth? How will the kids feel? Having their mom die so early? What about her husband? Losing one of the people he loves the most? What will happen to their family, having their income cut? What about the mother's parents? How will they feel, losing one of their kids? Earlier in the debate, you asked me how I would feel if one of my kids died. I would feel like the parents of this hypothetical mother.

What is the mother is a young girl? Why should she go through all the pain and have to raise a child so young? 1/2 of high school girls who have kids drop out of school to care for the kid [6]. Why put the girl through all that, when the fetus can be aborted at a time where it isn't alive, can't think, and can't feel pain.

What if the pregnancy comes from rape? Why should the women have to go through the pain and mental problems of giving birth to a child she was forced to have? This is like saying if you get shot, you are not allowed to have the bullet removed.

What if the women is too poor to support the child? It would be neglected, probably end up in jail, not have enough food, and won't get enough attention from the mother. Abortion can save that kid from so much suffering.

All of these are valid reasons for abortion. You need to respond to each one of these in your next argument.

To conclude, I have proven a fetus isn't alive nor is it a human, so abortion isn't murder. I have then provided multiple examples of when abortion should be allowed. Good luck!

Sources:
[1] http://www.livescience.com...
[2] http://infohost.nmt.edu...
[3] http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org...
[4] http://www.abort73.com...
[5] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
[6] http://www.progressivepolicy.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Freakoutimaninja235

Pro

My apologies for not posting definitions. If that's how you want to do this, fine by me. But debating morals is not foolish. What is foolish is believing that morals are only subjective- then we have the argument "what is right for you may not be right for me", and there is a whole lot of vague and deliberately blurred points in that itself. In terms of definitions, "wrong" is better defined not by synonyms that only express part of it, but by a true definition, such as "not in accordance with what is morally right or good", or "not correct in action, judgement, opinio, method, etc" (www.dictionary.com/browse/wrong).

Now, there is one theme that you have carried through your entire argument so far that I wish to address- the assertion that a foetus is not human or alive. Both of these are wrong- incorrect in judgement and opinion- and I must repeat myself that a foetus has to be human. It is a part of our species, and the mere fact that it is less developed and may only be a small number of cells does not change this. There are single-celled organisms out there that are still part of a species. A human is a human, whether still undeveloped or not. If you wish to argue by way or definitions, I will give you the accepted definition of a species: "two or more organisms that can reproduce together to produce viable offspring." Therefore we have a species, made up those old enough to reproduce, and those who are not- the one who are not old enough to reproduce (typically those humans under the age of eleven or so) are still considered viable offspring. Therefore I can safely conclude that a human foetus/baby is human, as it is part of our species. It is certainly not part of some other species.
And that you say it is not alive- I've already explained in my first argument why it is alive. If we are still playing the definition game, I'll define alive for you: "having life; living; existing; not dead or lifeless" (www.dictionary.com/browse/alive). It is quite clear that a foetus is not dead- it is growing and developing more all the time, which only things that are alive can do. I have never seen a dead thing grow. Have you?
Now, as for needing its mother for growth, well of course it does! What baby doesn't? What is the purpose of a mother, if not to cherish and nurture her offspring and to raise them up to be independent? Plants rely on the sun for growth. Baby animals rely on their mothers. Human children rely on their parents both. I'm not sure why something needs to reproduce to be alive, that's like implying a three year old isn't alive.
Also, your statement, "I believe a foetus is alive later in a pregnancy". On what grounds do you believe this? Because the baby has started to look a bit more like your idea of a human?
"It is obvious a foetus is not a human...foetuses can't think, stand upright, or live on their own." Indeed. Have you ever seen a newborn creature of any species? They cannot do those things either, but does that classify them as something other than part of that species? Please take a biology class.
As I have clarified that a foetus is, indeed, alive and human, I do not need to defend myself to your arguments that abortion is not murder. Your own definition, "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another", supports this. Abortion is not legal everywhere, so the "unlawful" part is still debatable I suppose, but it fits the criteria nonetheless.

"The foetus cannot feel pain. It can't think. It isn't conscious. When you abort it, you are not killing a human."
By week 6, the baby already has blood pumping through its heart. By week 7, the neural tube is already developing, and in week 8, the brain has already divided into three parts and is growing rapidly. The baby has movement and is even starting to look human, despite being so tiny (about 0.6 inches, 0.04 ounces)!
Since we have ascertained already that a human brain is not fully developed until 25 years of age, I thought I'd let you know when it starts to develop. You said abortion usually occurs before 28 weeks, but what really happens during that time? In only seven weeks counted towards due date- which is just five weeks since conception!- the brain is already developing.
Thumb sucking begins in week 12 (www.parents.com/pregnancy/stages/fetal-development/first-trimester-images-of-your-developing-baby/).

"A four year old can live on its own."
Untrue. Good luck having a four year old survive without its parents. It may be able to physically shovel food into its mouth alone, but what four year old can provide its own food, its own home, manage its own health and hygiene, and all the other things a really independent human being can do? A four year old is barely less helpless than a foetus/baby.

"People don't abort the foetus for fun. They do it to help the foetus."
Again, incorrect. They do it because they do not want the responsibility that comes with being a parent, or because they don't think they can handle it financially. The majority of abortions are performed because people think they can't handle it financially, but there is this wonderful thing that has been around longer than abortion- adoption. It happens even in nature, and it is certainly more likely to help a foetus than killing it. Single parents are not a reason to abort the baby. I know plenty of single parents who have kept the baby and still managed. A partner isn't the only way to keep a baby- many of those women would have family who would be happy to help them out.
Also, most of the women getting abortions do not know the risks. They have been led to believe that childbirth is more dangerous and that abortion is "okay". If they were shown the statistics of abortion-related deaths compared to child-birth related deaths, they'd most likely be surprised. AbortIon doctors have mandated quotas. They cannot afford to inform every woman looking for an answer.

Abortion is legal because of all the women who threatened to kill themselves to their psychologists/therapists if they couldn't have an abortion. They would say the right things, get written permission, and go have the abortion. Now it's legal, and more people are doing it who would have been fine without it. Suicide and depression are more common among those who aborted than those who didn't. It's a fact. It has been studied many times.

What if the foetus will die when it's born? It still has a better chance of survival than if it was aborted.
What if the mother will die when she gives birth? The chances of that are one in ten thousand, as I've said, but still, there are no certainties except that abortion kills the child and is more likely to kill the mother than childbirth.

What if the girl is young? Surprisingly, this does not change anything. Girls as young as twelve have successfully had children. Girls as young as that have also, in the face of having been raped, been amazingly brave and said that they would rather have the child than abort it. Twelve year old girls can change the world.
Rape is not a good enough reason. An abortion won't change the fact that they were raped. They can give the child up for adoption. Abortion will only make things worse. Besides, why punish a child for the crimes of its father? Don't kill the baby, punish the rapist so it doesn't happen again.
If the woman cannot support the child financially and it is actually a problem- adoption. I've said it before. There are kids who protest again abortion and they have signs that say "I'm so glad I was adopted instead of aborted". What can you say to that kid? "You should be dead"? "Every child a wanted child"? "You're not important enough for your mother to die for"? Being a mother will not ruin one's life. It is a blessing. It is a privilege worth fighting for. If a woman is willing to kill her baby, she doesn't deserve it.

I believe I have answered each of your arguments. I have proven a foetus is human and alive, therefore nullifying several of your arguments. I have also explained why I think abortion should not be allowed at all.
I await your next installment in the debate.
ConserativeDemocrat

Con

" a foetus has to be human. It is a part of our species, and the mere fact that it is less developed and may only be a small number of cells does not change this. There are single-celled organisms out there that are still part of a species. A human is a human, whether still undeveloped or not. If you wish to argue by way or definitions, I will give you the accepted definition of a species: "two or more organisms that can reproduce together to produce viable offspring." Therefore we have a species, made up those old enough to reproduce, and those who are not- the one who are not old enough to reproduce (typically those humans under the age of eleven or so) are still considered viable offspring. Therefore I can safely conclude that a human foetus/baby is human, as it is part of our species. It is certainly not part of some other species."
- No, you can't. First, as I pointed out before, a human being has to be a separate individual, capable of living on its' own. A fetus is not a separate individual, nor can it live independently, so it isn't a human. Yes, a fetus is part of our species, but it isn't a human being. Plus, how can you even compare a fetus to a human? Fetuses are not conscious, they can't think, they can't eat, they can't breath, they can't live on their own, they can't run - they are not human beings.

"And that you say it is not alive- I've already explained in my first argument why it is alive. If we are still playing the definition game, I'll define alive for you: "having life; living; existing; not dead or lifeless" (www.dictionary.com/browse/alive). It is quite clear that a foetus is not dead- it is growing and developing more all the time, which only things that are alive can do. I have never seen a dead thing grow. Have you?"
- As I pointed out before, fetuses don't respond to stimuli until late in the pregnancy, nor can they reproduce, so they are not alive. And yes, I have seen dead things grow. First, when I die, my nails and hair still grow. Secondly, viruses are not living, but they still grow. [1], [2].

"Now, as for needing its mother for growth, well of course it does! What baby doesn't? What is the purpose of a mother, if not to cherish and nurture her offspring and to raise them up to be independent? Plants rely on the sun for growth. Baby animals rely on their mothers. Human children rely on their parents both. I'm not sure why something needs to reproduce to be alive, that's like implying a three year old isn't alive."
- What I mean by it needs its' mother for growth is that it can not survive without the mother. Only the mother can make the fetus grow. It is totally dependent on the mother. Technically, anyone can nurture a baby. You don't have to force nutrients, blood, and other things into a baby to make it grow. The baby can grow on its' own. The fetus can't. As for your point about 3 year olds, how is that relevant? If you want an answer, 3 year olds are human beings, and human beings can reproduce, so they are alive. Fetuses are not human beings, so this trait isn't fulfilled.

"Also, your statement, "I believe a foetus is alive later in a pregnancy". On what grounds do you believe this? Because the baby has started to look a bit more like your idea of a human?"
- No, because it is close to the development of an infant. It can think, feel pain, is conscious, can live independently if removed from womb [3]. This is why I consider fetuses of this age to be alive.

"It is obvious a foetus is not a human...foetuses can't think, stand upright, or live on their own." Indeed. Have you ever seen a newborn creature of any species? They cannot do those things either, but does that classify them as something other than part of that species? Please take a biology class."
- Funny enough, I am taking honors biology in 9th grade. But yes, babies can do those things. A baby doesn't need nutrients forced into it. It can stand upright with help. It can think.

"The foetus cannot feel pain. It can't think. It isn't conscious. When you abort it, you are not killing a human."
By week 6, the baby already has blood pumping through its heart. By week 7, the neural tube is already developing, and in week 8, the brain has already divided into three parts and is growing rapidly. The baby has movement and is even starting to look human, despite being so tiny!
Since we have ascertained already that a human brain is not fully developed until 25 years of age, I thought I'd let you know when it starts to develop. You said abortion usually occurs before 28 weeks, but what really happens during that time? In only seven weeks counted towards due date- which is just five weeks since conception!- the brain is already developing.
Thumb sucking begins in week 12"
- This is unscientific. These traits do not make the fetus alive, or a human being.

"A four year old can live on its own."
Untrue. Good luck a four year old survive without its parents. It may be able to physically shovel food into its mouth alone, but what four year old can provide its own food, its own home, manage its own health and hygiene, and all the other things a really independent human being can do? A 4 year old is barely less helpless then a fetus."
- Except that makes a crucial difference. If given food, shelter, water, and help, etc, a 4 year old can live on its' own. A fetus needs these tasks taken care of by the mother. It needs nutrients forced into it. 4 year olds are conscious, thinking, and breathing human beings.

"People don't abort the foetus for fun. They do it to help the foetus."
Again, incorrect. They do it because they do not want the responsibility that comes with being a parent, or because they don't think they can handle it financially. The majority of abortions are performed because people think they can't handle it financially, but there is this wonderful thing that has been around longer than abortion- adoption. It happens even in nature, and it is certainly more likely to help a foetus."
- Here is the problem. You are now shifting the problem to adoption centers. Let's do some math. In 2008, there were 135,813 adoptions [4]. In 2008, there were 825,564 abortions [5]. Do you see the problem? Let's say that 750,000 of those abortions can be stopped, as the other ones are needed because of rape, to save the mothers life, or the mother is underage. If you do the math, there would be 5.5 times more kids up for adoption! That simply can't be done. Yes, life is precious. But do we really need so many more people per year?

"Single parents are not a reason to abort the baby. I know plenty of single parents who have kept the baby and still managed. A partner isn't the only way to keep a baby- many of those women would have family who would be happy to help them out."
- But what about the ones can't manage if they keep the baby?

"Also, most of the women getting abortions do not know the risks. They have been led to believe that childbirth is more dangerous and that abortion is "okay". If they were shown the statistics of abortion-related deaths compared to child-birth related deaths, they'd most likely be surprised. AbortIon doctors have mandated quotas. They cannot afford to inform every woman looking for an answer."
- Citation needed.

"Abortion is legal because of all the women who threatened to kill themselves to their psychologists/therapists if they couldn't have an abortion. They would say the right things, get written permission, and go have the abortion. Now it's legal, and more people are doing it who would have been fine without it. Suicide and depression are more common among those who aborted than those who didn't. It's a fact. It has been studied many times."
- Citation needed. Oh, and you know how depression rates are higher for those who got abortions? What about those who would be denied abortions. What do you think their health effects would be? If a women who was raped wanted an abortion, and she was denied, what about her mental health?

"What if the foetus will die when it's born? It still has a better chance of survival than if it was aborted."
- That is horrible. You are saying that because of the few hypothetical fetuses that would survive is worth the amount kf babies that die when they are born? No, it isn't. And if you know the fetus will die, why put it and the mother through so much pain?

"What if the mother will die when she gives birth? The chances of that are one in ten thousand, as I've said, but still, there are no certainties except that abortion kills the child and is more likely to kill the mother than childbirth."
- But if you know the mother will die in childhood, can't you let her have an abortion. And no. Abortion is safer. Here is a link:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

If you know the mother will die, if we know that for sure, how can you tell me with a straight face that you still believe that she can't he an abortion. Have fun telling her family that their daughter, wife, Mom, or grandma will die.

"What if the girl is young? Surprisingly, this does not change anything. Girls as young as twelve have successfully had children. Girls as young as that have also, in the face of having been raped, been amazingly brave and said that they would rather have the child than abort it. Twelve year old girls can change the world."
- So? Not all girls will be willing to give birth to a child they can't support. How can you tell me that you would deny a 12 year old girl an abortion?

"Rape is not a good enough reason. An abortion won't change the fact that they were raped. They can give the child up for adoption. Abortion will only make things worse. Besides, why punish a child for the crimes of its father? Don't kill the baby, punish the rapist so it doesn't happen again."
- As I pointed out before, adoption isn't a solution. And how is rape not a good enough reason?

Respond to my cancer argument.

Links in comments.
Debate Round No. 3
Freakoutimaninja235

Pro

I will not be replying again to your "human" argument. You clearly do not understand what I have said and therefore I will only respond to your ignorant statement with a question: if a person is disabled and in a wheelchair and requiring someone to look after them, are they also not human since they cannot help themselves or live on their own? Foetuses do eat- they are fed nutrients by their mother. Just because it doesn't go through their mouth doesn't mean anything. They are also given oxygen by their mother- there is no air bubble inside the mother so they can't use their lungs even when they're developed. This doesn't make them part of some other species. Please try to understand that a baby/foetus can't be anything but human.
Also, even when they're born, they can't reproduce straight away. A foetus is not "nails and hair". It is alive and growing and developing. And viruses are not cellular organisms, or they would be alive. And no, a baby can't grow on its own. It has to be fed by someone or it will die. What is the difference between breast/bottle feeding and being fed through an umbilical cord? Don't sick people have to be fed intravenously through tubes when they can't eat? By your reasoning, a sick person is not a human being.
I'm going to skip all your arguments that imply the foetus is not human or alive because they are irrelevant, as evidence points to a foetus actually being human and alive.
I am now going to expand on why I believe abortion is unnecessary.

In Ireland, abortion is illegal, but doctors cannot refuse treatment to pregnant mothers. Therefore they are forced to work to their utmost to protect both mother and baby. Abortion is not offered as a solution because it is not needed. While the child may die inadvertently due to the treatment, the chances of this are far lower than if every sick mother was offered abortion instead. Ireland has been quoted, by the UN, to be one of the safest places in the world to have a baby. World renowned cancer expert Dr Fr"d"ric Amant says, "In the case of cancer complicating a pregnancy, termination of pregnancy does not improve maternal prognosis."(1)
For further reasoning on why abortion is unnecessary and how Ireland has progressed medically and morally, go to the cited source.

On the topic of rape pregnancy:
How can you know that a rape victim even wants an abortion? Here are some reasons why most rape victims choose not to have an abortion:
~70% of women believe abortion is immoral, though some believe that it should be available as a legal choice for others. About the same percentage of rape victims see it as just another act of violence against them. Some believe their child's life may have some meaning or purpose they don't know of yet. Others yet become introspective, and their sense of value for human life increases. They've been victimised, and the idea of victimising others (including their own innocent child) is unbearable. Also, at a subconscious level, the victim may believe that by carrying the pregnancy to term, they are able to conquer and overcome the rape. By giving birth, she may regain some of the self esteem she lost.
Abortion is not some magical surgery that makes a woman ""unpregnant". It is a stressful and traumatic experience. (2)
(1) www.thelifeinstitute.net/current-projects/abortion-never-saves-a-life/
(2) www.abortionfacts.com/reardon/rape-incest-and-abortion-searching-beyond-the-myths#1
Sorry if this seemed rushed, I had like twenty minutes to post
ConserativeDemocrat

Con

"I will not be replying again to your "human" argument. You clearly do not understand what I have said and therefore I will only respond to your ignorant statement with a question: if a person is disabled and in a wheelchair and requiring someone to look after them, are they also not human since they cannot help themselves or live on their own? "
- If I have no idea what I am talking about, then why don't you absolutely obliterate me? Answer to your question: Irrelevant to this debate.

"Foetuses do eat- they are fed nutrients by their mother. Just because it doesn't go through their mouth doesn't mean anything."
- Actually, this is what decides the debate completely. Fetuses are not indepent beings. This means they are not human beings. This is why they are not human beings. Since they have nutrients forced into them, they are not independent. They are not human beings then.

"They are also given oxygen by their mother- there is no air bubble inside the mother so they can't use their lungs even when they're developed. This doesn't make them part of some other species. Please try to understand that a baby/foetus can't be anything but human."
- As I stated before, the fact that o2 is forced into them makes them not independent. And as I stated before, you have to be independent to be a human being. Since no fetus is independent until late in the pregnancy, therefore, they are not human beings.

"A foetus is not "nails and hair". It is alive and growing and developing. And viruses are not cellular organisms, or they would be alive."
- What is the point of this? You asked for examples of things that are not living, yet still grow. I gave you 3 examples.

"What is the difference between breast/bottle feeding and being fed through an umbilical cord? Don't sick people have to be fed intravenously through tubes when they can't eat? By your reasoning, a sick person is not a human being."
- The baby is independent, the fetus isn't. The baby can choose to eat, the fetus can't.

"I'm going to skip all your arguments that imply the foetus is not human or alive because they are irrelevant, as evidence points to a foetus actually being human and alive."
- What? Your entire argument is that abortion is murder, but murder only applies to human beings. My point is that fetuses are not human beings, so abortion isn't murder.

"In Ireland, abortion is illegal, but doctors cannot refuse treatment to pregnant mothers. Therefore they are forced to work to their utmost to protect both mother and baby. Abortion is not offered as a solution because it is not needed. While the child may die inadvertently due to the treatment, the chances of this are far lower than if every sick mother was offered abortion instead. Ireland has been quoted, by the UN, to be one of the safest places in the world to have a baby. World renowned cancer expert Dr Fr"d"ric Amant says, "In the case of cancer complicating a pregnancy, termination of pregnancy does not improve maternal prognosis."(1)"
- Completely irrelevant.

As for your rape point, your argument is that many women don't want abortions when they were raped, so no women can get an abortion when they were raped. This is obviously flawed, because you are ignoring the women who do? They were forced to have a pregnancy. Why should they go through the physical, emotional pain, and the feeling of embarrassment because you don't like abortion? You talk about mental health; what about the mental health of a person who was denied an abortion because they were raped? How will they feel?

You completely dropped my cancer argument, my young girl argument, my save the life of the mother argument, and my financial argument.

To conclude, my opponent shot himself in the foot early on. They said, "Abortion should be banned in all circumstances." This severely weaken their position, as I pointed out several examples of where abortion should be allowed, and at what time. If Pro agreed with only one of these examples, they lose, as they agree that abortion can be allowed sometimes, so it isn't wrong. Perhaps my strongest point came from TheWorldIsComplicated. He said, "What if the women had cancer, and the treatment would kill the fetus but save the mother, but not giving the treatment would kill both." Simple math tells us to give the cancer treatment, as this would save one life, as opposed to losing 2. He also dropped several other examples, so I effectively won. I provided examples of where abortion should be legal, so abortion shouldn't always be illegal. I also showed that in order for something to be alive, it had to follow the 7 characteristics of life. Fetuses didn't follow these characteristics, so they are not alive. They also are not human beings, as they are not independent, so abortion isn't murder. I will end with a question to the voters: If you were a kid, and your mom was going to die in childbirth, would you let her get an abortion?

Sources above and in comments.
Debate Round No. 4
26 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by famousdebater 3 months ago
famousdebater
Whiteflame is the voting moderator. Whenever anybody reports a vote it is his job to post whether the vote is removed or not removed and to provide an explanation why.
Posted by Freakoutimaninja235 3 months ago
Freakoutimaninja235
Lol sorry I'm sorry I'm not trying to accuse you, I was just saying what I thought I noticed
Posted by famousdebater 3 months ago
famousdebater
I think a lot of people assume that whiteflame is reporting the votes because he is posting the reason for removal/non-removal.
Posted by whiteflame 3 months ago
whiteflame
@fire_wings

Maybe so, but this wouldn't be the first time I've been accused of broadly reporting votes on the site.
Posted by fire_wings 3 months ago
fire_wings
@whiteflame, she's talking about the thing you write in the comments.
Posted by whiteflame 3 months ago
whiteflame
It should be noted that the vast majority of votes removed are done after someone else reports them.
Posted by whiteflame 3 months ago
whiteflame
@Freakoutimaninja235

I don't report votes. I think in the last year, I've reported a total of 5, and all of those were counter vote bombs. The standards are pretty clearly laid out here, in post 4:

http://www.debate.org...
Posted by Freakoutimaninja235 3 months ago
Freakoutimaninja235
@whiteflame I'd swear you have been reporting votes on half the debates I've seen. How specific do we need to be? No wonder hardly anyone votes anymore
Posted by Freakoutimaninja235 3 months ago
Freakoutimaninja235
@whiteflame I'd swear you have been reporting votes on half the debates I've seen. How specific do we need to be? No wonder hardly anyone votes anymore
Posted by whiteflame 3 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: arrowjaw// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: I have to say this was one of the best debates on this website I have seen in a while. Logic was reasonable on both sides and, for the most part, the arguments were tight. In the second and third rounds there were a lot of logical issues which could have resulted in a crushing defeat for either, but both managed to stay afloat. Good job, but Opposition was better in the end, convinced me.

[*Reason for removal*] The voter is required to specifically assess arguments made by both debaters as part of their decision. That requires more than just stating that there were generalized logical issues and that one side convinced him. It must be clear what was convincing and why the other side was not.
************************************************************************
No votes have been placed for this debate.