Abortion is wrong and should be outlawed
Debate Rounds (5)
I am accepting this debate.
I believe abortion is not wrong; I believe late term abortion should be avoided at all costs and I think using contraception is a much better way of preventing having a child but I believe there are many circumstances in which abortion is fair and the only thing to be done.
I would like to point out to judges the fact that right at the beggining of this debate you referred to people who get pregnant by accident as 'sluts'. I find this highly offensive even though I myself (being a male) have never been pregnant. I suggest to judges that conduct points go to me beause throwing around insulting terms is out of order.
As you didn't say first round is acceptance only here are my cases:
1. Victims Of Rape
If a woman is raped, she should be able to have an abortion.
Take this case (purely fictional but has probably happened before and is entirely plausible):
-A young woman (22-23) is walking home from work when she is kidnapped by a man. He bundels her in his car and takes her somewhere, locks her up and rapes her. For whatever reason, he doesn't kill her. She is now pregnant and locked up in some nutters basement. He comes back and gives her food and water for around 4 weeks. The next time he comes in she has found some strength again and manages to whack him in the head knocking him unconcious. She escapes and calls the police. The man in arrested and she is taken care of.
In this scenario, a young woman with her whole life ahead of her is pregnant not by her choice. If she has the baby she has to (as a single mother in though economic times) look after a baby she didn't want, with half the genetics of the man who raped and tortured her.
Under your policy, she would have to have the baby and live with the devastating consequences.
Under current law (in the UK and US) she could have the abortion and live her life after she's recovered from her ordeal.
So abortion is vital for rape victims.
2. Abortion in the case of likely genetic problems and/or defects.
I present my next fictional (but likely to have happened before and entirely plausible) case:
-A young couple decide they want a baby and the woman gets pregnant. They are both happy with the pregnancy and can't wait to have their child! They go for their first ultra sound. Everything is going fine until the sonographer tells the couple some awful news. The baby is growing no legs and the baby has some severe bone defects. The baby can be born and survive but will have to live life with no legs and bone defects.
Under your policy, the couple would have to have the child. The child would have a very difficult life and the parents would have a very difficult time looking after the child. All three of their lives would be completely ruined.
Under current policy the parents can abort the foetus so it will not have to live with the problems and the parents won't have to have an awful life looking after a child with those problems. Then they can discuss whether they want to try again and have a child.
3. Killing a foetus isn't murder
A lot of people who are against abortion say that killing a foetus is murder. This isn't actually true.
For a start, no one can remeber anything that happened to them when they were in the womb. A baby in a womb can't think or remember properly because their brain isn't devloped yet.
Foetus's also don't have 'souls'. It is difficult to define a soul but I will define it as:
A person's moral or emotional nature or sense of identity.
You could argue that a sould is made at conception but this can't be true because identical twins split AFTER concpetion and whilst they often have similarities, they don't have 'identical' personalities. Therefore a soul can't have a defined point where it appears, so it develops. Therefore if you abort a foetus you are not killing a soul. The foetus has no identity. It is just a mush of cells and half developed organs. I would compare aborting a foetus to stamping on a plant.
Thank you for this debate, and I look forward to your rebuttals.
2. What is this ancient Sparta where we kill the handicapped there is no guarantee that child will have an awful life if the parents believe they can't take care of the child there are places that can where they can send the child
3. I believe completely that a fetus has a soul that's no reason to think its not murder I believe completely its killing another human being, and also you can not remember things while your sleeping. Does that mean that someone who does not believe that humans have souls can kill you in your sleep and its ok?
I thank my opponent for a interesting round and look forward for the rest.
1. It's irrelivant how often it is used for people who are raped. The fact is that it is at all. Adoption is an option but adopted children also have harder lives than children with biological parents. They are likely to feel depressed that they are adopted and that they are a child of rape. There are many complications with abortion among families. Rejection of parents is one of them if the adopted child just doesn't 'click' with them. Also adoption isn't easy. It's not like shopping for a coat; often it can take years and years for a child to even have potential parents. Furthermore, this way the woman still has to go through labour.
I'm sorry but your conduct is appalling. The way you casually use the term 'whore' is disgusting.
2. But it will be worse than usual; having a disability does what it says in the name. It disables you. Parents shouldn't have to send their kids anywhere. That's bad for the parents and the children.
3. You can't just say "there is no reason to think it's not murder". You need to give evidence. I already have! And anyway you can't prove a negative so the burden of proof is on you. And no killing someone in their sleep is not ok because
a) They have a soul (as I defined it in the previous round).
b) You do remember things in your sleep (they're called dreams) and you have previous memories.
Well if a women is inpregnanted by multiple men especially if none are her husband she is a whore.
2. So its better to kill the child than let it live a possibly good life once again this seems like ancient Sparta
3. The fetus weather you believe its alive or not it will be and you have no right to take away their chance.
vote for me
"if a woman is not willing to go through pain for their child than that is pathetic"
Sickening. Did you know that a woman giving birth has the same pain as a man pissing out a golf ball (assuming his penis didn't rupture)? Would you go through that just for a fetus? I doubt it.
If a woman is impregnated by multiple men she is certainly not a whore. Please stop using this disgusting terminology.
2. This is not like ancient Sparta remotely. The likely hood is their life wouldn't be as good as other peoples lives. Not just the childs though; the parents lives as well. It's much more humane to abort the fetus because what's worse; living a potentially awful, awful life or not having to live that life? Not having to live it obviously so therefore it's more humane to abort the fetus.
3. The fetus is alive but so are flowers and people walk on them all the time! A fetus is just like a flower; it performs all the bodily functions a life form needs to perform, but it doesn't think or remember. From that you could conclude that having an abortion was like stamping on a plant!
And by your logic, that means that if a man masturbates and ejaculates he is 'killing' millions of 'viable' life forms? Should masturbating be outlawed then? Actually abortion clinics do have the right because life is a human right and currently fetuses are not considered humans.
I look forward to your next argument.
american5 forfeited this round.
american5 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 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||1|
Reasons for voting decision: FF
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.