Abortion laws should be substantially reformed.
Debate Rounds (5)
First round is acceptance. Simply put "challenge accepted" or something of the like in your argument box for round one. For this debate, I will be Pro (P), and you will be Con (C).The following rounds will be as follows:
Round 2 (R2): Opening statements and Cross-Examination
Round 3 (R3): Cross-Ex and Cross-Ex Answers
Round 4 (R4): New Arguments
Round 5 (R5): Closing Statements
Resolved: Abortion laws should be substantially reformed.
I stand resolved that abortion laws should be substantially reformed. The countries of the world should change their laws so that abortion is only legal when the mother's life is threatened.
Currently, a large portion of the world deems abortion as legal. There are those countries that only allow abortion if the woman was raped, is in health or psychological danger, or incapable of caring for the child. And then there are other countries that allow for abortion even if:
the woman consented to sex and was not forced, tricked, or drugged;
the woman is in great mental and physical health;
the woman is completely capable of caring for the unborn child.
These countries essentially allow a woman, who voluntarily engaged herself in sexual activity, to escape any so-called "unwanted" results of being sexually active. These countries (China, North Korea, Singapore, Netherlands, Vietnam, Canada, and parts of the United States) allow a woman to abort her fetus, even after 20 weeks.  (Two of these countries have a 24 week limit.) How have we allowed ourselves to decide the death of an innocent fetus, all so the mother can rid herself of the responsibilities of bearing a child?
There is the weak argument that a 20 week old fetus is not alive. Shall we review what 'life' is, according to biology? Life is an organism that:
With this in mind, let's consider whether or not a human fetus (at 20 weeks) fits these criteria. Can a human fetus (20 weeks)
Well, we see here that clearly, a fetus is alive. At least from biological standards it is. This definition is hotly debated, with most Pro-Choice advocates claiming viability instead of life. It's also interesting to note that in many U.S. states, it is considered a double murder if one were to kill a pregnant woman at any stage in her pregnancy. Obviously the state and federal governments do not agree on the definition of life.
We have made the decision to willingly eliminate human life, simply because we fear the responsibilities that come along with it. Is this at all fair?
We have heard that it is said that abortion should be allowed when the mother is endangered. This is in itself unconstitutional. Take a look at the 14th amendment:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." 1
Notice the amendment says " deprive a person of life."?
The current standards for abortion are that abortion is legal under any circumstances in the United States.2
As we can see, this gruesome process is legal under any circumstance, such as rape or willing pregnancy. Moving on, I noticed a flaw in Pro and his argument. He says that we willingfully take a fetus and kill it without question but then he says that if a mother is terminally ill, abortion is key.
Going back to the argument I made above. Even if the mother is ill, this is unconstitutional. The mother agreed to the pregnancy.
If I take a coin, it will be rusted in two years. Will I be willing to throw this away just because it is rusted? See, the analogy I am trying to make is that....
You have life in you. Will an illness cause life to go away? As statistics show, more people are in support of pregnancies being aborted due to an illness on part of the mother. 3.
Pro has obviously not done any research on this topic, as his sentence affirms that these lawa should be reformed when they are already in favor of the abortion procedure in certain circumstances.
Pro, can you clarify what you meant when you stated that countries should change their laws? That is a strawman.
Hope to have a nice debate.
Due to confusions between the Con and I, we ask that this entire debate not be judged. We have both mutually agreed to end this debate.
This round and debate will not be judged.
Remember friends and judges, this debate is asked to not be judged.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.