The Instigator
dwcrabb
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
BoggyB
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

Abortion is a legal right that EVERYONE deserves

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 3 votes the winner is...
BoggyB
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/27/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 649 times Debate No: 68991
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

dwcrabb

Pro

I am proposing that abortion is a right that should be open to ALL.

OK, rules of the debate:

First round is a laying down of the rules and definitions, and 2nd is proposing arguments, and the last two are rebuttals.

No appealing to emotions, you can argue ethically, but do not personalize it. EX. "How would you feel if your mom KILLED you!"

Like previously stated, arguments can be ethical OR constitutional, you can argue about if abortion is right, OR about if it should be a right according to the constitution.

Right now abortion is legal in all states until the start of the 2nd trimester, and after that it is up to the states' jurisdiction, (you can argue about state vs. federal decisions if you would like to)

Like said, I am pro-choice, and I do agree with the way the laws are now, and hopefully someone pro-life will accept.

I am really up for any argument about any aspect of abortions wrongness.

Thanks! and hopefully we can have a good debate.
BoggyB

Con

Greetings, and good luck.
Debate Round No. 1
dwcrabb

Pro

Alright, first of all I'd like to preface this with the fact that when I said EVERYONE deserves the right to an abortion, I mean men too. By this I mean that men should have the right to decide WITH the mother, on whether or not an abortion should be performed. This of course is implying that the father is willing to be with the mother the whole time. By all means, if the father is convicted or leaves the mother, the woman has complete rights to make the decision on whether to have the procedure. I DID NOT mean that men would have the procedure on themselves, just that they should, if they want to, have a say in whether or not they will take the kid, put them up for adoption, or go through with the abortion. Now that that is out of the way, I would like to say, I would like to keep the ruling of Roe V. Wade the same, although many people, both conservatives and liberals, are interested in shutting down abortion clinics and passing laws to make it illegal. Preferably more rights would be given, but with a Republican controlled Senate and House, I doubt that will happen. Ethically, I think life should be defined as when the fetus can live outside of the womb, or, Viability as it is more appropriately called. Therefore, "killing" to me can only be defined as when a fetus has above a 75% chance to live outside of the womb. That threshold is passed at 26 weeks, or 6-7 months. That's into the 3rd Trimester! So, like I said before, The laws are already very relaxed, and nobody should complain about not having enough strictness on the topic of abortion, as the laws are already benefiting the people who are pro-life.
BoggyB

Con

My argument against abortion will be from an ethical standpoint. No one should have the legal right to abort a fetus. My reasoning for this is that it is the unlawful killing of human being. If we look at the dictionary, murder is the "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another." The definition of killing is the "act of causing death." Obviously we can all agree that abortion is killing fetuses, but the gray area is whether or not that is lawful or not (murder) and if that fetus should be labeled life. Obviously that fetus can't live out in the world by itself. Despite that, It is still alive. Let's look at the definition of life. "the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death." The fetus is certainly alive as it has organic matter, and has the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity and change before its eventual death. Are these fetuses human? "A man, woman, or child of the species Homo spins, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance." If we took apart a fetuses DNA, we would see it's a homo sapien and it is distinguished by its developement that it is currently undergoing. Ok, so far we've established that a fetus is living, it is human, and that killing is causing death, so thus abortion is killing a human. We haven't quite established that this killing is murder (unlawful) yet. People deduct that since it can't live on its own, it doesn't have any rights to life. That fetus has just as much potential as any other human being that is alive. The brain is not fully developed until it is 30-40 years old. [1]. Take a five year old for example. Although theoretically it can survive on its own, it is still developing to its full potential. Since it is still dependent on its parents, and isn't completely developed, then we should be able to abort its life, correct? No! That fetus has the same potential a 5 year old has, a 10 year old has, or a college graduate has. That fetus has the potential to do the same thing as Bill Gates, or anyone that is alive, it's just not at that point yet. For us to expect a fetus to live up to our expectations of a fully functioning human is unfair. It is a scary fault in logic to be honest. Humans have the capacity for change up to its preceding death. That fetus is changing and developing to the same thing as everyone else. If an NFL team signed a 10 year old to play QB for the super bowl, and lost because of that, it would be unfair to blame it on the kid. We all know that the kid can't live up to NFL expectations. That Kid shouldn't undergo the same criticism Tom Brady should endure, because that kid Isn't as developed as Brady. Likewise that fetus isn't as developed as a born child, so we shouldn't hold it to the standard of life it isn't capable of holding. [1] (phys.org).
Debate Round No. 2
dwcrabb

Pro

Alright, fair enough, good argument, but you kind of lost me with the Tom Brady part, I do not see how anyone is comparing an unborn baby to Tom Brady. But otherwise, I applaud you. But the fault, to me, in your argument, is that you are basing your belief of the wrongness of abortion on the fact that you are metering the value of a baby on their potential. We do not judge criminals on their potential to build a new life, we just punish them, sometimes for life. You are fine with judging the value of something that has no feelings, no thought, and no self-worth on their potential, but we live in a system in which no second chances are given. OK, so that segment of my argument is open for you to argue against, and I based it partly on my belief that you may be a conservative? Am I right in that assumption? But here goes my section of my argument with statistics that you can not refute. OK, lets agree that the age at which most crimes are committed is about 16-24 [1]. I challenge you to look at any chart of U.S crime rate and tell me that there is no correlation between a crime drop, and the effect of the absence of the the criminals. Simplified, look at the crime rate during the period from 1990-1998, that is 16-24 years after abortion was legalized, and you will notice that the people who would be committing the crimes, just aren't there. So we've established that there is a correlation between abortion and crime drop, but there are other benefits to it. But before we talk about this any further, I have realized that we have not agreed on the type of abortion we are talking about, if you could, please in your next post say your standings on rape and incest, two circumstances that the laws are a little bit more relaxed on. Those are two aspects I need to know before I argue anymore.

[1] http://www.aic.gov.au...
BoggyB

Con

A common reasoning from some people as to why it's ok to abort fetuses is because it doesn't have feelings, doesn't think, isn't fully developed etc. My illustration for Tom Brady, is that we cant judge a child if he can't measure up to Tom Brady's expectations. We can't expect the 10 year old to be the same as TB because he isn't fully grown or fulfilled his potential. Likewise, you can't judge a fetuses worth on the things it can't do (think, emotions etc). You haven't given that baby the chance to do what it can do, likewise that child can't play at a NFL skill level, they both still are human and have worth. To address your comparison of criminals: No, we don't give criminals a second chance, because they committed a crime that they were aware they were committing. That fetus did nothing against the law, and like you even said, isn't aware of anything. I judge that fetus on its potential, and on what we all know will happen: it grows and develops into a conscious human being. We judge criminals and don't give them second chances because they knowingly broke a law. This is a very unfair comparison to our justice system and society where there are no second chances. I'm conservative, but that shouldn't impact this debate greatly. To address your numbers on crime, 16/24 is definitely the peak age of committing crimes. On a chart the crime rate does drop in correlation to the 1970 legalization of abortion. These may point towards Abortion, but there may be other factors. In the 80's is when the crack epidemic began. [1]. By 1990 the crack epidemic has been in full swing for many years, and lasted a few years into the 90's. This epidemic caused a rise in crime in the 80's [2]. By the time the 90's rolled around, when the peak age of crime would be happening of the abortions in the 70's, we see a decline in crime like you suggest. Since the epidemic had been going on, and we saw rise in crime in previous 5 years, the drop in '92 can be attributed to the extra arrests and crimes In late '80s. When the supposed Roe vs. Wade babies would be committing crimes, there was an extra amount of crime going on, which left the early 90's to its equilibrium. Rise of crime with crack in 80's=drop of crime plus drop of crack in early 90s. "The studies have also found a striking drop in crack use, particularly among young people, beginning about 1989, which may help account for the decline in violent crime since 1992." [2]. This accounts for much of the crime drop, but the abortions of the 70's did have to play at least some role as you say. Just because the crime may have been slightly reduced doesn't justify it. Judging those fetuses, then and now, on what there was a lack of in 90's isn't a rigid argument. 1. http://www.drugfreeworld.org... 2. http://www.nytimes.com... Rape and incest babies shouldn't be aborted. I'll expand later, I've run out of characters
Debate Round No. 3
dwcrabb

Pro

dwcrabb forfeited this round.
BoggyB

Con

All arguments extended, Pro forfeits and concedes, please vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by thatawesome 2 years ago
thatawesome
No it means that everyone who chooses to have one not like everyone has to like in a concentration camp...it means that women who choose to should have the right to get one no matter who they are or what they do
Posted by dtaylor971 2 years ago
dtaylor971
That EVERYONE deserves?

Men have the right to get abortions...?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
dwcrabbBoggyBTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Ff
Vote Placed by chrisjachimiak 2 years ago
chrisjachimiak
dwcrabbBoggyBTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did everything better than pro and deserved to win.
Vote Placed by Paleophyte 2 years ago
Paleophyte
dwcrabbBoggyBTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit by Pro