Abortion is wrong under most circumstances
Debate Rounds (3)
Many will argue that these unborn children are not human, and therefore do not deserve the rights of humans. I ask you too look from history to see the fallacy in this argument. Two times in our nation's history have violations of human rights been considered OK by society. The first being slavery, the second being the holocaust. Both times, the mass killing/torture was justified by saying that these people were subhuman. However, today, we know that these were lies.
Many claim that these unborn children are human, but they are not living yet (as of the first trimester). This logic is also severely flawed. First off, even in the first trimester, a fetus has a heartbeat, brain, and spinal column. Even if it did not it is still a living being made up of living cells. If you say that something is only living if it has brain functions, you say that plants, amoebas, fungi, many insects and arthropods, and most liberals are not living things.
People also say that a woman has the right to do what she wants with her body. And she should. She should have the right to choose what to do and not to do. She should choose not to have unprotected sex when she isn't ready.
"But what if she was raped?"
Let's deal with the problem, not punish the child for the sins of the father. I'm suggesting higher punishment and a crackdown on enforcement for rapists. It is completely unacceptable for this kind of a problem to exist in our society. But a child doesn't need to be burned alive by acid because of it.
In conclusion, abortion is a horrible disgrace in our country. It shows a remarkable disregard for human rights, and even under most "special circumstances" it should be considered murder.
My opponent also commits the fallacy of slippery slope. If we allow A to happen (abortion), then H will also happen (never have friends, never grow up, etc), therefore, A should not happen. Instead of discussing the issue, you present these extreme hypotheticals, using fear as a leverage.
"All the happiness this world can offer?"
You have got to be kidding me. 3 million reports of child abuse , an increasingly high number of malnourished mothers, 11, 420 children dead from Syria"s civil war , 120,000 babies born with birth defects  (and that is every year, by the way). This is how children die. As morbid as this sounds, am I supposed to pick the lesser of two evils?
"Two times in our nation's history have violations of human rights been considered OK by society. . .slavery. . .holocaust"
Really? For a good portion of history, women were denied suffrage, economic equality, and the right over their body.
"a fetus has a heartbeat, brain and spinal column. Even if it did not it is still a living being made up of living cells"
First, no sources. Second, my opponent wants you to accept that because a living being is made of living cells, it should be reason enough to conclude it is morally impermissible to abort a fetus. "Even if it did not"? It looks like you yourself are unsure of your own argument.
"She should choose not to have unprotected sex when she isn't ready"
First off, sex is a physiological need, much like sleep and food in Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. To assert that it is a choice not fill this need is faulty. When you say 'country', I will assume the United States. States with the highest teen pregnancy rates are also states with inadequate sex education. If women do not know or cannot understand how pregnancy follows intercourse, should we say they had a choice?
My opponent suggests higher punishment but provides no means of execution. Retribution, 'an eye for an eye'? Rape the rapists? It not a horrible disgrace. It is a decision that will stay with you for the rest of your life. I want this to come from someone who has had an abortion. This is Nicole's story: http://www.mommyish.com...
My opponent accuses me of the rhetorical fallacy of slippery slope, but I don't understand where he gets this idea. It is simple logic that if one is not allowed to live before he even starts breathing, he will not be able to enjoy the happiness in life. It's not A to H, it is just A to B. Of course I use fear as an appeal because it is something worth being afraid of.
Your math adds up to a little over 3 million unfortunate cases in our nation, while I add up 1.21 million abortions in the US EACH YEAR. I'll let the voters decide which is worse. (1)
As a typical liberal, my opponent attempts to point out this imaginary "War on Women" that the conservatives wage. Rather than focusing on how to improve our country, he focuses on our shortcomings in previous centuries. The United States granted women's suffrage at or before most other countries in the world. (2) He still fails to answer to the fact that the pro abortion movement is EXTREMELY close to the justification of slavery and the holocaust. I am not saying that it was permissible for the world to discriminate against women for so long, however I prefer to celebrate how far we have come and work towards the future.
My intentions were to use sources at the end of my final argument, but if it pleases my opponent, I will use them throughout.
The reason that I chose to say, "Even if it did not," was not because I was unsure of my own argument, it was to humor my opponents flawed sense of reason regarding life in order to make my point.
Maybe to an immoral, addicted creature such as my opponent, sex is a necessity. But to a larger, more sophisticated group of thinkers, sex is a want. We have drives toward sex, we desire sex, and sex can be beneficial, but it is not a need. (3) It is unfortunate that so many people are uneducated regarding sex, but once again, let's focus on the problem, not use murder as a solution.
Somehow, my opponent thinks that I suggested an 'eye for an eye,' with rapists, when I never stated anything close to that. I suggest longer prison sentences, and I recommend that more women train and arm themselves to protect against these people. Putting rape aside, no argument can forgive the other 99% of abortions that have nothing to do with rape. (4)
Now, my opponent seems content with ad hominem as an argument, but I hope he realizes that attacking my word choices does not help him conquer his objective. I would actually like to hear an argument that defends abortion, and doesn't focus on attacking my methods.
Pro abortion is not extremely close to slavery or the holocaust. The problem is you have to decide at what point you are going to elevate a fetus to a human being. Just this part will be long debated, so let"s hold off on that. So, at this point, we have to define a human being, or homo sapien. The word is latin for "wise man". We are capable of walking upright, articulate speech, and a highly developed brain.  A fetus is not a separate entity in the first trimester, it is still a part of the mother. Its important to note that this is when most abortions happen. This doesn"t mean fetuses are not potential human beings. Slaves, people of jewish descent, and others are biologically human. To say abortion is to slavery or holocaust is biologically unfair. Also, how come you did not include women? Were they not also treated subhuman?
Let me also mention that some women will get an abortion by any means, and as a consequence most end up dead. The access to legal abortions, using effective and safe methods, is vital to the health of the mother. Yes, in all this craziness, we forget who the victim is. It"s the mother. It is a decision that she has to make, and that decision stays with you. I will address the argument that abortion causes mental health problems right now.
There is no credible evidence, that"s just it. Also, for those who want to point out adoption, it is just as damaging if a woman chose abortion. There are also the economic reasons. As morbid as this sounds, it is a justified way to control population. If abortions were looked down upon, our earth would be exhausted of its resources much faster. That world looks a little worse than this:
As much as abortion is moral, it is also political. If we put anti-abortion laws, placing a higher value on the fetus than the mother, who gets to interpret these laws? That"s right, it"s the government. That itself presents a very dangerous path. We are talking riots and protests if that reproductive choice belongs to someone else. Again, I agree there are always exceptions.
My opponent suggests longer prison sentences and training women to protect themselves, which is very irrelevant. Let us stop trying to worry about who did it, and instead look at how the victims will be hurt
Many people, including my opponent justify abortion because they say that the child is not a human at the point of the first trimester. They say that since the child is still wholly dependent on the mother for it's existence, it cannot be considered a separate living being. However, under this logic, a born child, still in the nursing phase, is not a separate entity either. In truth, nearly all of us as human beings are dependent on others for our well being, whether it be emotionally, physically, or spiritually. Thus, dependency is not a factor in determining whether or not something is human.
My opponent cites the definition for what a homo sapien is: A species of mammal capable of walking upright, articulate speech, and highly developed brain function. And this is a very good definition of a FULLY DEVELOPED human. A tree is defined as "a plant with a permanently woody stem or trunk." (1) A sapling does not have a woody stem it its early stages, and yet we still consider it to be a tree. In the same way, an unborn child does not meet the dictionary definition of a homo sapien, but it should still be considered human.
My opponent says that some women will get an abortion by any means, and therefore we should provide them with a safe alternative. I think that this is a policy of both appeasement, and injustice. This can be considered appeasement because it gives women who desire to have an abortion a legal alternative simply because they threaten to do so illegally. This is also full of injustice because it rewards those who deliberately do wrong. (I will address the reasons why abortion is immoral later.) What if our government provided a quick way for you to murder your friend simply because you threatened to do so illegally if it was not made legal. Obviously that holds no logic. Thus, abortion should not be legal because women threaten to get illegal abortions if denied legal ones.
It is true, by sources including the one that my opponent cites that adoption can be difficult and emotionally stressful. However, it is not as bad as abortion. With adoption, a woman may have emotional problems, and the child too may face emotional problems. But at least with adoption, a child has the opportunity to make his life better and to make his own choices. A woman can have a more clear conscience knowing that they spared a life. With abortion, a woman sits with the knowledge that she denied someone of a life, and she denied the world of a potential genius. In abortion, a child gets no choice, a child gets no freedom. Adoption is by far the less damaging option.
Abortion can only be justified politically by a government that does not value the lives of its citizens. To deprive them of the previously stated benefits is just too much for me to accept as politically ok.
My opponent attempts to say that higher consequences for rape and protection and training of the victims is irrelevant. This could not be farther from the truth. Armed and or trained women, protecting each other and themselves, not allowing themselves to become targets, and the concept of a higher risk for rapists would nearly eliminate rape, and as a result, eliminate this "need" for abortion to solve rape. It's true, I do not spend time focusing on how the victims are hurt from rape, because we already know this. So let's stop these horrible things from happening.
Seeing as this is the final round, I will conclude my argument.
Abortion violates the very principles of a free, safe America. It is a clear violation of human rights, and it hams many while temporarily benefiting only the mother. Rape and incest can be solved without the help of abortion, and actions should be taken to prevent these things, rather than cover up the mess. By depriving mothers and fathers of their good conscience, by depriving society of potential for mankind, and by depriving children of everything good in this world, abortion is neither politically, nor morally acceptable. I urge the American public to do all that is in their power to oppose this legalized genocide.
Stories of abortions hurtfulness:
Jupiter1 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:||1||0|
Reasons for voting decision: See Comments for RFD.
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.