Abortion is not a woman's right
Debate Rounds (5)
Abortion: Also called voluntary abortion. the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy.
Right: a just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or moral.
Next I'll state my contentions:
1. A fetus/embryo is a life.
Life is the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.
2. Abortion is not a right. It's an infringement upon rights.
An abortion should not be considered the right of a woman because it infringes upon the rights of that fetus. All humans have rights. A fetus/embryo is a baby human. Where one person's rights end another begins.
3. Our definitions of life tend to vary to make us not feel bad about our bad decisions.
Humans use this thing called excuses. We skew definitions, we bend the truth, we reason out our mistakes to bring peace to our minds and hearts. On this certain topic we vary the definition of life.
4. If we were to find the tiniest cell on another planet we would be jumping at calling it "life on another planet".
If we finally were able to come in contact with it no one would be allowed to kill it because it would be considered "precious life". Same with the scientists who are working so hard to "recreate life" or "clone life". If they were to succeed at making a living organism they wouldn't want someone to come in and crush that life or kill it. It's precious. It's alive.
These are my main 4 points. I am not bringing in religion, morals, or any other element that could change the pace of this debate. I'm using scientific meanings and definitions.
I believe abortion is a woman's right, and that a woman has the choice to make when it comes to her own child/fetus/embryo.
I would like to introduce a term autonomy. This is considered a human right. Bodily autonomy has control over what or who
uses their body or body parts for as long as that being decides to do so without the person's continuous consent to do so, which, although a fetus does not choose to terminate the use of the mother's body, similar principles apply, as it is still using the mother's body/body parts to remain alive.
No living being has right to someone else's body. They can only use it with permission. A right is when someone deserves what they are using/doing. Permission is when someone allows you to do so. A right is being violated when a mother does not grant the fetus permission to use her body.
Autonomy is why no one is allowed to touch, have sex, or use your body without that person's continuous consent. This is why necrophilia is illegal, and why no one can take your organs without your permission after you die. Even if you are dead, and your organs and blood can save or improve 20 other people's lives, no one can take anything from your body without your consent prior to your death, even if a family member says it's okay. A fetus is equal in this concept, because if you or I needed someone else's body to live, they can deny us, and we would have to live with that. If a fetus is equal to us in terms of natural born rights, and the mother of that fetus is equal to us in terms of natural born rights, then that means a mother can deny a fetus a right to it's body. If you deny a woman abortion, thus denying a human right of denying someone the use of your body, you are granting a dead person more rights than a pregnant mother because, as previously mentioned, a dead person can deny someone the permission to use their body parts. Now, this is sometimes the point in a debate (I don't expect this argument from my opponent) is when someone says 'well because the mother agreed to have unprotected sex (which isn't always true), then she should be responsible for her actions. That's saying that it is not okay for me to sign up for a blood drive, then change my mind about it. It is perfectly okay for me to sign up for the blood drive, and then change my mind about it, regardless of the reason.
I have not argued any of my opponent's points, as I am saving rebuttals for a later round because this is a five round debate
You are correct. An embryo/fetus has to have a host body to be able to survive.
You did a simple pre-assumption that I would argue back with the unprotected sex point.
In a sense I would. When it comes to blindly or ignorantly participating in sex that is permission being given. Although, not every case is consented. Instances with rape victims would defy this completely. Does this give them the right to abort/kill a baby? No.
Your example of the blood drive is actually a very inaccurate comparison. If you sign up for a blood drive and then change your mind no life has been taken away. In fact nothing has changed. When you become pregnant and then decide you don't want the baby anymore you must take a life.
Your comparison to a dead organ donor is also inaccurate. In this sense, the donor has no obligation whatsoever to remove their own body parts in attempt to replace another's. With a fetus, they are not taking any parts away from a mother/host body. There is nothing being removed from them. i.e. heart, lung, liver, etc. They are a completely new being.
To say that a woman has a right to an abortion is justifying her right to take a life. It is justifying murder.
Now, to one your points in the original argument: when do we determine life begins? This is similar to when do we call Earth Earth, as it took billions of years for it to form in to what we know it as today. When life begins is really up to one's own personal view. I say life began a few billion years ago, and it's a continuous cycle. Normally people on the opposite side of my position say that life starts at conception. I will go a step further and say that life started even before. Does a living being form? No, but life is still there.
The reason for my blood drive comparison is that you are stopping a life from continuing, or at least contributing to it. If you have something that someone else can use, and you refuse to give it to them, no, you're not really killing them yourself, but your allowing the dying process to continue or at least contributing to it. The same way if you don't pay your taxes, you're not taking anything away from the government, but you're not aiding the government even though you could have.
Another thing is, women do involuntarily abort embryos all the time. 80% of the time a sperm fertilizes an egg, the egg is flushed out do to the natural cycle of woman's reproductive organs (http://www.unc.edu...) Because she naturally killed it makes it okay? People naturally secrete feces from their bodies all the time, even food working employees, and sometimes they fail to cleanse their hands, and the food is contaminated, and if the proper medical treatment isn't sought by the consumer, the consumer dies. Natural processes killed that person. Why does that person's family get compensated for their loss, but not family of the fertilized egg? No, not a direct and probably not even the best of comparisons, but at what point is it okay/acceptable for a natural occurrence to kill someone? Why is it okay at some points and not another? Because a fertilized egg being released is not something that can be stopped and it's natural? Yes, it's natural. No, it can be stopped. Try to make the child more than 12 days before the woman's next menstruation. If there is something you can do about, then do it.
To say a woman is justified having unprotected sex 12 days before her menstruation period, knowing it will fertilize an egg and knowing it is possible for it to be released is the same as justifying her taking a life. Now, does a fertilize egg always get released between 0-12 days before a woman's period? No, it does not, but you're still taking a chance. Does E Coli from fecal matter always kill a person? No, it does not, but you're still taking a chance.
Is suicide ever justifiable? Why, putting an animal to sleep to stop it's pain is. People are practicing suicide in first world countries around the world to stop pain and/or they have a fatal irreversible disease. Is justifiable? Well, that's a debate all on it's own, but let's say it is. What if a woman never planned to have a child, and planned to just live her life recklessly forever, and is raped and an egg is fertilized? Or even not raped, and just stupid enough to have unprotected sex and an egg is fertilized. The doctor, this far ahead of time, has evidence to show that this egg can grow in to a fatal problem for the mother. Is it not the woman's right to choose to have her life saved? If it's a battle for life, then the mother has the right to choose, being the mother, the provider, and the permission granter of the child to live off of her body parts, going through a struggle without this fatal problem, because being pregnant is a struggle, and unless you are a woman, do not even think about saying it's not, she has every right to choose who is going to make it through this.
I would like to jump back to a point made by my opponent, how nothing is being taken away from the woman's body from an embryo or a fetus. Not quite, but it is still wrong to live off of someone else like that. Saying you will give it back grants you no right to go in to my wallet and take fifty dollars out of my wallet without permission. Again, regardless of what it will do for you, and regardless of me not needing it, and regardless of you paying it back, you are never allowed to do so. Doesn't matter if you need it to make rent, need it to get food, need it to pay for a doctor's appointment that will save your life, it is still unjustified. Is that a matter of life and death? No, but it is still someone living off of someone else without their permission. And you don't even need a reason to deny permission. You just have to deny it. That is your right as a human being.
youngANDopinionated forfeited this round.
youngANDopinionated forfeited this round.
youngANDopinionated forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Geogeer 2 years ago
|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||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeits, points con.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.