The Instigator
Derelict
Con (against)
Losing
31 Points
The Contender
Nobody
Pro (for)
Winning
59 Points

Abortion ought to be fully legalized

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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 14 votes the winner is...
Nobody
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/17/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,168 times Debate No: 6561
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (15)
Votes (14)

 

Derelict

Con

Observations...
1. The affirmative must prove that abortion should be legalized regardless of circumstance
2. The affirmative has the burden of proof, therefore if I, the negative, block each contention, you must negate.

My arguments...
1. Embryos and fetuses have infinite potential, as do toddlers
2. This potential causes them to have "human" characteristics
3. Killing a human is considered murder
4. Murder is fundamentally wrong, as it removes freedoms from the victim
5. Removal of freedoms is dehumanizing and cannot be tolerated in any society
6. It causes irreversible psychological and, at times, physical trauma to the carrier of the child
7. Adoption is a valid practice and always an option
8a. Rape is not a valid contention for the support of abortion; there are preventative measures that can be taken directly after a rape
8b. The violence of abortion parallels the violence of rape and removes the human's autonomy

Thank you, I look forward to an friendly debate
Nobody

Pro

>I thank Derelict for starting this debate and extend a welcome to him in his first debate on this site.

>I accept my opponent's first observation. I amend the second. The Affirmative must prove abortion should be fully legalized. Negative must prove Abortion should not be fully legalized.

>On to my opponent's arguments:

1. Valid

2. Valid

3. Invalid

Given the arrow rule my opponent is attempting to use, I only have to kill 3 for 4-8 to go with it. Opponent's claim:

"Killing a human is considered murder"

I define murder:

Killing another person with malice

Malice:

Feeling a need to see others suffer

Abortion doesn't involve such a thing.

>My argumenT (1,000 cap): Until born, the fetus has no rights. Its mother has a right to keep it in her body, therefore it is her choice. The fetus is essentially a parasite, leeching off of her food. She always has the right to remove it, alive or not. Didn't she make it anyway?

>I wish my opponent good luck.
Debate Round No. 1
Derelict

Con

I would like to begin by reiterating my previous point; since my opponent is affirmative, he has the burden of proof and must substantiate abortion's permissibility, regardless of the child's stage of development.

"Until born, the fetus has no rights."
This is untrue; the fetus ought to have basic human rights. Their rights do not magically appear when they exit the womb, nothing fundamentally has changed when they exit the body, only their location.

"Its mother has a right to keep it in her body, therefore it is her choice."
Location ought not determine rights; she is an adult, which is merely a term describing human development, as are embryo, fetus, child, adolescent, adult. It is no less abhorrent to "terminate" a fetus than it is an adult.

"She always has the right to remove it, alive or not. Didn't she make it anyway?"
By that logic your mother could enter the room at this moment, strangle you with an extension cord, and it wouldn't matter because she made you.

Tha
Nobody

Pro

>I thank Derelict for his response.

>Derelict again says that I have a burden but does not respond to his own. He thus concedes that he does have a burden.

>My opponent, though I did rebut his argument, made no mention of it. He thus concedes that his argument is faulty (this shall carry throughout the round).

>I now dissect my opponent's response to my arguments:

a) My opponent rebuts by saying that fetuses deserve human rights. I define (all from http://www.dictionary.com...) human being:

Any individual of the genus Homo

Individual (Bio):

A single organism capable of independent existence

Fetuses are not human beings. Extend.

b) Given that a fetus is not considered a human, it does not have the same rights as an adult.

c) "By that logic your mother could enter the room at this moment, strangle you with an extension cord, and it wouldn't matter because she made you." This is a strawman argument. I did specify "remove" rather than "strangle."

>Good luck.
Debate Round No. 2
Derelict

Con

I have no burden; I am negating. Because I meet my opponent's contentions you must vote neg.
I need not rebut such a topical argument within the confines of an informal debate. I reiterate my point that you did not sufficiently meet my argument and that you must pose your own, being affirmative.

Let us delve into my opponent's source, dictionary.com, for further clarification of his arguments.
1) Classifying fetuses as anything other than human is ludicrous.
2) His definition of "individual" is only the FIFTH definition for individual, in subtext. This shows that even he recognizes how insubstantial his claim is. I offer the first THREE definitions to support my argument....
1. a single human being, as distinguished from a group.
2. a person
3. a distinct, indivisible entity; a single THING, BEING, instance, OR ITEM.

abc) I simply used your "warrant" to show the lunacy of your claims.

Because his claims are insubstantial and mine stand, you must vote neg. Thank you.
Nobody

Pro

>Thanks to Derelict for his response.

>My opponent has already conceded his burden. Extend it.

>Again, my opponent has not addressed his own arguments (which he would not have made if he had no burden). To his rebuttals:

1) My opponent offers no justification

2) I choose the fifth definition, entitled "biology," as it pertains to the topic at hand (whether or not the fetus is human). No equivocation by my opponent should be counted.

a, b, c) Not rebutted further and therefore conceded.

--Voting--

>My opponent does not fulfill his burden

>My opponent drops his own arguments

>My opponent drops my arguments regarding murder, human rights/fetus' biological status, and the right of the mother to expel a fetus

>My opponent does not adequately refute the defining of the fetus

>The affirmative has filled the burden given my opponent's drops of definitions

>My opponent offers no reason to vote for him

>I thank Derelict and urge an affirmation. Thank you
Debate Round No. 3
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by SchinkBR 8 years ago
SchinkBR
*applauds Rodriguez* If you aren't prepared to deal with the responsibility of children then you shouldn't be having sex. And if you have sex and you get pregnant and you don't want it, don't punish the child by killing it, have it and give it up for adoption.
Posted by Rodriguez47 8 years ago
Rodriguez47
If your pregnant and you don't want the baby...Why in The hell did you Sleep with the guy w/o any birth control and ah rubber friken retart.
Posted by jjmd280 8 years ago
jjmd280
Said it before, I'll say it again -

A fetus does not have a right to be in the womb of any woman, but is there by her permission. This permission may be revoked by the woman at any time, because her womb is part of her body. Permissions are not rights. There is no such thing as the right to live inside the body of another, i.e. there is no right to enslave. Contrary to the opinion of anti-abortion activists (falsely called "pro-lifers" as they are against the right to life of the actual human being involved) a woman is not a breeding pig owned by the state (or church). Even if a fetus were developed to the point of surviving as an independent being outside the pregnant woman's womb, the fetus would still not have the right to be inside the woman's womb.

What applies to a fetus, also applies to a physically dependent adult or child. If an adult—say a medical welfare recipient—must survive by being connected to someone else, they may only do so by the voluntary permission of the person they must be connected to. There is no such thing as the right to live by the efforts of someone else, i.e., there is no such thing as the right to enslave.
Posted by SchinkBR 8 years ago
SchinkBR
You have an odd definiton of existance. Does the food inside of you stomach exist? Does your heart? Your lungs? Of course, so why wouldn't a fetus exist, just because it's inside the womb.

And derelict, for a first debate you did a good job on a big issue
Posted by dvhoose 8 years ago
dvhoose
"'human being:
Any individual of the genus Homo
Individual (Bio):
A single organism capable of independent existence'

A fetus, is an organism. Furthermore, although no definition of independent was given, you could counter this by saying that a 2 year old can't be independent, nor can some senior citizens."

^ SchinkBR, there's a difference between living and existing... a fetus can't exist outside the mother's body, a 2yo can. A 2yo cannot live independently, seeing as it can garner no food or other basic necessities...
Posted by Derelict 8 years ago
Derelict
It's my first debate, I think I did well. The point is that I did counter his arguments sufficiently. Thanks, all, for reading.

"Con's arguments are full of unwarranted assumptions"
Warrant that..
Posted by SchinkBR 8 years ago
SchinkBR
con had so many better options to refute pro ex.

"I define murder:
Killing another person with malice

Malice:
Feeling a need to see others suffer
Abortion doesn't involve such a thing."

Actually, a fetus has a complet nervous system by ten weeks, and most abortions happen after that, thus they do feel pain when they die. So by feeling the need to kill the baby, you are feeling the need to inflict pain.

"human being:
Any individual of the genus Homo
Individual (Bio):
A single organism capable of independent existence"

A fetus, is an organism. Furthermore, although no definition of independent was given, you could counter this by saying that a 2 year old can't be independent, nor can some senior citizens.
Posted by Maya9 8 years ago
Maya9
Con's arguments are so full of unwarranted assumptions and contradictions that it is laughable. Unfortunately, Pro didn't do a very good job of refuting them. More's the pity.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 8 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
Con did not respond to Pro's argument concerning murder and did an inadequate job defending the parasitic claim. Con's attempt to redefine individual out of context was not compelling at all. Con could have easily won this debate by establishing a criteria for personhood and showing that fetuses meet the criteria.
Posted by Nobody 8 years ago
Nobody
And to you as well.
14 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by bgruber93 8 years ago
bgruber93
DerelictNobodyTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Rodriguez47 8 years ago
Rodriguez47
DerelictNobodyTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Panda 8 years ago
Panda
DerelictNobodyTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
DerelictNobodyTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by dvhoose 8 years ago
dvhoose
DerelictNobodyTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Yoni 8 years ago
Yoni
DerelictNobodyTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by crackofdawn_Jr 8 years ago
crackofdawn_Jr
DerelictNobodyTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by Democritas 8 years ago
Democritas
DerelictNobodyTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by SchinkBR 8 years ago
SchinkBR
DerelictNobodyTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Vote Placed by paramore102 8 years ago
paramore102
DerelictNobodyTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70