The Instigator
guess_who
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
RavenDebater
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Abortion is murder and it should be banned worldwide

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...
guess_who
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/16/2015 Category: Health
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 740 times Debate No: 70148
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)

 

guess_who

Pro

When an abortion is carried out, you"re killing a small, innocent human being. You"re terminating a life. Terminating a life is wrong and should be punished. Anyone performing abortions - legally and illegally - should be put in jail and given a huge fine. It"s never okay to have an abortion, and there"s no valid reasons for killing an innocent human being.

Abortion should be banned worldwide, because it"s killing a human being. And killing - murder - is illegal. Abortion is murder and not only murder, but first-degree murder since the woman carrying the baby is planning to terminate her baby"s life. First-degree murder is defined as a killing, which is deliberate and premeditated, so abortion is indeed first-degree murder. Here in the US, murder is punished by everything from prison sentences to death penalty, and first-degree murder is punished the harshest. Usually with a lifelong prison sentence or death penalty. So why should it be illegal to kill an adult but totally okay to kill a small, innocent baby? The baby has no voice, no way of saying no. No way of telling the world that it wants to live. When carrying a baby, the woman is the baby"s only option for having a voice - the baby"s only opportunity to be part of the world until it"s born. But this does not mean that the woman is allowed to make the decision of whether the baby should have the right to live or not. Nobody but the person self should make such a decision. One of the human rights say: "Everybody has the right to life." This includes babies of all races as well as adults of all races.
RavenDebater

Con

I accept. In this I will be arguing for Abortion.

Despite moral and religious objections for abortion, it is a simple fact that we need them.

Overpopulation:

At the time of writing the current population of the Earth is 7,295,403,875 people (1) and is increasing at an exponential rate. Just today there have been 183,345 births(1) (at the time of this writing). To ban abortion Worldwide my opponent wishes to would increase these births exponentially. The current population of humans is already three time the sustainable level (2). We simply can't afford to have more babies on this planet. Is it not the right thing to do to give a unborn embryo a quick death rather than have a small child suffer through starvation? Even in America we face huge food insecurity rates (14.6% of American households suffer from food insecurity as it is) (3). Banning abortion will only increase this, because the average cost to raise a child is $245,000 (4). Why put not only the child, but the parents through horrible poverty and food insecurity just for moral justification?

Child Security:

If a mother wants an abortion she obviously doesn't want a baby. So why force a small child to endure a lack of love from a mother who does not want him? Of course my opponent may argue that kids can be put up for adoption but few realize the absolute horror of foster care systems. Kids in foster care have sometimes been put through horror and unspeakable things to the children they are suppose to be protecting. (5). Why put kids through such misery when you can give them a quick death when they are young and entirely innocent.

I will rebuttal my opponents arguments next round.

Sources:
1:http://www.worldometers.info...
2: http://www.worldpopulationbalance.org...
3:http://www.feedingamerica.org...
4:http://money.cnn.com...
5:http://www.upworthy.com...
Debate Round No. 1
guess_who

Pro

When an abortion is carried out, you"re killing a small, innocent human being. You"re terminating a life. Terminating a life is wrong and should be punished. Anyone performing abortions - legally and illegally - should be put in jail and given a huge fine. It"s never okay to have an abortion, and there"s no valid reasons for killing an innocent human being.

Abortion should be banned worldwide, because it"s killing a human being. And killing - murder - is illegal. Abortion is murder and not only murder, but first-degree murder since the woman carrying the baby is planning to terminate her baby"s life. First-degree murder is defined as a killing, which is deliberate and premeditated, so abortion is indeed first-degree murder. Here in the US, murder is punished by everything from prison sentences to death penalty, and first-degree murder is punished the harshest. Usually with a lifelong prison sentence or death penalty. So why should it be illegal to kill an adult but totally okay to kill a small, innocent baby? The baby has no voice, no way of saying no. No way of telling the world that it wants to live. When carrying a baby, the woman is the baby"s only option for having a voice - the baby"s only opportunity to be part of the world until it"s born. But this does not mean that the woman is allowed to make the decision of whether the baby should have the right to live or not. Nobody but the person self should make such a decision. One of the human rights say: "Everybody has the right to life." This includes babies of all races as well as adults of all races.

I see what you mean about overpopulation, and I agree. Starvation and food insecurity is not something to want. But why not just use a contraceptive? Many abortions are caused by unprotected sex - especially between the ages 16-25 years old. Of all abortions in the US, 49% was because of unprotected sex. I believe that it"s a responsibility to make sure you do not get pregnant when having sex, unless you want a child.

Adoption is indeed an option, but should only be used if you all of a sudden become incompetent of caring for your child. Adoption is not a place to put your child because you "don"t have the time or can"t cope with having a baby." The excuses for abortion are for example:
- Not wanting to be a single parent.
- Having problems with their partner.
- Having a baby would interfere with work. (1)
These reasons are selfish. How did you get pregnant if you"re single? Properly by an unprotected one-night-stand. Having problems with your partner? Problems are created to be solved. The baby would interfere with work? You get maternity leave. It"s totally okay to not want a baby, but if you don"t want it all I"m saying is: don"t get pregnant.
Why should someone innocently, when they could have a life - a normal, happy and long life and die of old age in the end? I agree, not all are equally great parents at first, but you learn. There"s a learningcurve for everything - for riding a bike as well as parenting.

1: https://www.guttmacher.org...
RavenDebater

Con

"Abortion should be banned worldwide, because it"s killing a human being."

An unborn fetus is technically not a person and therefore impossible to murder. The court case Roe vs Wade established an unborn fetus not a person. (1). In order for murder to be constituted you must willingly and knowingly kill a sentient being. And while there is much controversy over the matter, until definitive evidence is given that a fetus is in fact a person, we certainly cannot call the termination of one a "first degree murder". I you wish to see what constitutes a first degree murder I encourage you to visit this site.
http://criminal.findlaw.com...

"Of all abortions in the US, 49% was because of unprotected sex."

May I ask about the other 51%? To quote the source my opponent used last round "Fifty-one percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method in the month they got pregnant, most commonly condoms (27%) or a hormonal method (17%)". Now from what that says we can infer that the majority of abortions are from woman who used protection. These woman were being responsible and still got pregnant. Why punish them with a child that they can't care for because of that? My opponent also agrees with me that food insecurity is bad and harmful, but she does not provide any arguments of how banning abortions will not negatively affect this, or even how banning them will make woman more responsible!

"Adoption is indeed an option, but should only be used if you all of a sudden become incompetent of caring for your child. "

While this may seem like an idealistic scenario, this is not how the world works. My opponent goes on in her argument to basically rant about the excuses for an abortion. While I agree that these are somewhat flimsy reasons, the abortion seekers don't think so. The single parent may neglect her child, taking out her anger on the "one night standee" on the only thing that she has left of him, the innocent child who just happens to contain half his DNA. Why put a kid through that? Why drop a kid into a household where the parents are feuding, and the child is likely to get caught in the crossfire? Why force a kid to endure a mother who cares more about work than her own offspring? What I am saying is banning abortion will not increase morals, it will not install a sense of responsibility in a mother. No, it will only serve to create unwanted children, some perhaps destined to be neglected or abused by their supposed caretakers.
Debate Round No. 2
guess_who

Pro

"An unborn fetus is technically not a person and therefore impossible to murder."

An unborn fetus is just as much a human being as any other human - child or adult. The fetus has a heartbeat just like you and me. It has fingernails, eyes and a brain just like everybody else.

Banning abortions will take away an "easy out" for women, and they will have to take sex more seriously. If abortions were banned, they would have to think twice before having unprotected and careless sex.
The world has been developing for many centuries now. Our technology, our society and even agriculture has only been improved. Agriculture is one of the main food sources we have. The world"s population"s estimated to be about 7,2 billion people right now. By 2050 experts estimate the population level to be above 9 billion people. Still, they are not concerned about overpopulation or food insecurity. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations still believe that all of the 9 billion could be supported as long as countries continue to trade with one another.
"There really is no such thing as a human carrying capacity." (1)

"There is no environmental reason for people to go hungry now or in the future." (1) This means that food insecurity is not necessary to think about - at least not relating to whether abortion should be legalized or not. My opponent seems believes that the children would have an awful life - almost not worth living - if abortions were banned globally. Why should these children be any less happy than the currently living children? Life is not always a bed of roses I realise that. But being born does not affect this for the worse. Childhood is the happiest and carefree period of a person"s life. This can"t be argued against. Nobody laughs more than a child. Why kill so many unborn children and take away their entire life out of convenience? There"s no valid reason for making a so cruel and self-interested decision.

1: http://www.nytimes.com...
RavenDebater

Con

RavenDebater forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Philocat 2 years ago
Philocat
If you truly believe that foster care is worse than death, surely you have a moral obligation to go and kill all foster kids?
Posted by TheMaskedGentlemen 2 years ago
TheMaskedGentlemen
Here is a teenager, barely 17 years old. She has safe, protected sex, but accidents happen and she becomes pregnant. A child is a responsibility she knows she can not handle, and she has her own hopes, dreams, and desires The world of foster care is a horrifying one, and I would not wish that my worst enemy be a part of it, let alone an innocent child. Abortion is a method of saving the hopes and desires of a mother (and sometimes father) from an unwanted child. And because the fetus is not classified as living, it is most certainly not murder. The mother is not eliminating the fetus "out of mere convenience" as you say, but in order to wait until she is ready to have a child, when she is responsible enough and wishes to start a family at the appropriate time in her life.
Posted by cwt002 2 years ago
cwt002
How is having a baby ruining multiple peoples lives? Honestly, the mother is eliminating the baby out of mere convenience, usually no other reason. You have no value for the potential that baby has in their life like it does not matter. Also, you are saying just go ahead eliminate the child out of possibilities that may happen in their life. I am sure it would be better to give life and put up for adoption than abortion. Also, overpopulation is a myth that has been debunked for many years, hopefully pro provides significant evidence in the next round.
Posted by TheMaskedGentlemen 2 years ago
TheMaskedGentlemen
cwt002, Your entire argument is the reason you are blind to an entire side of this issue. The moment I read the words "I only see" I knew anything said after that has no weight whatsoever. The fact is, a fetus has no idea of its own existence, nor can it think, or be aware in any way. It has no hopes, dreams, or desires. You want to ruin a mothers life with an unwanted child on the off chance this specific child may actually amount to something? I think when weighing the life of a fully functioning human being against a non sentient fetus that is not even classified as a living thing yet, the happy life of the mother takes precedent. If this offends you, I encourage you to reply to this, or privately message me if you have things to say.
Posted by cwt002 2 years ago
cwt002
I only see that abortion ruins the life of the future baby and child that will have hopes, dreams, and desires. Just because a single person wants to eliminate a baby's future which could be a beneficial person for the world, a group of people, or one person they should be eradicated? I do not think so.
Posted by TheMaskedGentlemen 2 years ago
TheMaskedGentlemen
Unwanted pregnancy can ruin multiple lives. The option of abortion obviously isn't suitable for everyone due to religious opinion, but if your religion was against cars, would you want to eradicate them and thus destroy a beneficial product that helps the world? An Amish person does not use the technology that is used worldwide, yet somehow they can get by in their lives knowing others use the technology. If you're against abortions, don't get one, and leave the rest of us in peace.
Posted by Philocat 2 years ago
Philocat
All Con's arguments centre around justifying the killing of the foetus in order to prevent its suffering. But if we can justify this for abortion, why can't we justify it for children?
Let the orphanage massacres commence!
Posted by cwt002 2 years ago
cwt002
I hate how one of Con's point is basically abortion could be doing the baby a favor because of a possibility. Seriously? acting like the baby is not going to be an individual with hopes, dreams, desires......Sure if a child goes into the foster system it is never ideal but the child still has a great chance at life.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by SlovakiaKentros 2 years ago
SlovakiaKentros
guess_whoRavenDebaterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Another Abortion debate. I had a slight hope like bias toward pro, trying to believe that people that would be pro abortion and have a reason for it. I think pro at the start had very opinion based arguments and were very flawed in the way they presented them. Pro also used bias sources (Guttmasher.com, and an anti abortion author for the new york times which pro could have known if they researched more on the author). Both used equal amounts of statistics that were equally flawed and unflawed. Overall: A slight Con win. Considering a time constraint based forfit.