The Instigator
LR4N6FTW4EVA
Pro (for)
Losing
24 Points
The Contender
gahbage
Con (against)
Winning
31 Points

Abortion should be a crime when the life of the mother is not in danger.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/18/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,284 times Debate No: 3693
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (17)

 

LR4N6FTW4EVA

Pro

To define the parameters of this debate, abortion shall be defined as the termination of a pregnancy through the removal of the fetus.

A just society will look towards the maximization of rights, as rights are necessary for happiness, and happiness is inherently good. To uphold rights, those who infringe upon other's rights must be punished. For this debate we must look at whether aborting a fetus infringes on any individual's rights. For the sake of reason we must also conclude that a fetus in itself does not have rights, as it is not self-aware nor does it have much of a mind at all until much later into the pregnancy. This of course gives PRO a hard burden, but I will bear it to the best of my abilities.

Contention 1: Fetuses will have rights.
According to the National Center for Biotechnology Information, two-thirds of pregnancies are carried to term (not including abortions). This means, there is a two-thirds probability of a fetus, at conception becoming a person. After six weeks this probability increases to 92%. If there is a probable chance that the fetus will become a person, there is by definition, a probable chance that a fetus will have rights. This can not be extended to gametes, as only one in billions will develop rights.

Contention 2: If an object will have rights, it must be treated as if it had rights, to a reasonable degree.
A scenario in which we could imagine a similar situation is a case where an individual is offered $10000000 to shoot a bush. In this area however, two-thirds of the bushes contain men. Now, although this will give said individual many benefits, the offer should not be accepted. There is a two thirds probability that he is infringing on a man's right to life. The same applies for abortion. If one aborts, she is denying the fetus the rights it would have as a person that it will likely become. In effect, it is not the rights of the fetus in question. It is the right of that person that that fetus will likely become to live life. Abortion infringes not on the right of the fetus, but on the right of that hypothetical individual. To argue against this would be to argue against rights.

Contention 3: There are safe alternatives to abortion
Adoption. The right of the mother to not have a child is upheld, and the right of the possible individual is upheld. If there is a safe alternative, abortion is not necessary.

Why vote PRO:
1. Abortion infringes on rights
2. Abortion is unnecessary
gahbage

Con

I'll start off Cons with a contention to your contention (haha). Your opening statement, "A just society will look towards the maximization of rights, as rights are necessary for happiness, and happiness is inherently good.", contradicts your argument, since denying the right to an abortion is the opposite of maximizing rights.

Your contention 1: According to the U.S. Constitution, rights are guaranteed to "persons", not "fetuses". Since a fetus, according to said National Center for Biotechnology Information, has a 92% chance of becoming a person, there is no absolute way to tell if it definitely will be a person, and therefore, have rights.

Your contention 2: Although your entire contention 1 protects the rights of fetuses, in this contention you state, "In effect, it is not the rights of the fetus in question. It is the right of that person that that fetus will likely become to live life. Abortion infringes not on the right of the fetus, but on the right of that hypothetical individual." If it is not the right of the fetus, your entire first contention is pointless. In addition, if it is the right of that person, you are infringing their rights by denying them abortion rights. Then, you state abortion infringes on the fetus' rights, a contradiction to your contradiction.

Your contention 3: Adoption is not exactly a safe alternative because the woman would still have to go through labor, which could cause lifelong problems/complications.

Contention 1: It should be the woman's own choice to an abortion. Maybe she does not want a child with a genetic disorder, or did not mean to get pregnant. Whatever the reason, a fetus' "rights" should not take priority over the woman's. To compare abortion with shooting at random bushes that may have people in them is an exaggeration.

Contention 2: Fetuses don't have rights, since they are not a true person yet, and since there may be no chance at all that they will become a person.

Also, if abortion should be a crime, who would be charged? There's no completely fair way of telling.

Why you should vote CON:

1. My opponent hasn't made a strong argument and contradicts himself.
2. There is no decent reason why a woman should not be able to do what she wants with her body.
3. The rights of a fetus, if any, should not take priority over those of a living person.
Debate Round No. 1
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Pro

First, my opponent claims I contradict myself, that my argument denies women the right to an abortion. This is incorrect. There are two problems, one Abortion is not a right. Abortion is the killing of an individual who has rights, but is just not born yet. A person does not have a right to kill other people and never will. Second, even if there was a right to an abortion, the right to life of the individual that the fetus will become trumps the mother's right to an abortion. For this debate, the mother's life is not in danger.

Reaffirming my contentions: For my first contention he invokes the Constitution, saying fetuses are not given rights by the Constitution. First, rights don't come from the Constitution, they come from nature, and are recorded in the Constitution, an incomplete document, and second, I am arguing you are denying the hypothetical person its rights, as a fetus has no rights. He also says there is no absolute way to determine if a fetus will have rights, but in doing this he ignores completely my scenario with men in bushes. Although later on he claims this is an exaggeration, he gives no warrant. I will show how similar the situations are anyways. First, in this scenario, there is only a two-thirds probability that by shooting the bush you would infringe on rights, but that is not okay. If performed in real life, you would be arrested for murder if the bush contained a man. Abortion has parallels to this. When one aborts early on, there is only a two-thirds probability that she is infringing on the rights of that future human. For my second contention, he claims I contradict myself, which I don't, I have always argued that the infringement is on the rights of the future individual, not the fetus. Other than this, he does not refute my claim. He does however, in a later contention claim that the individual will not definitely have rights, therefore should not be treated as such. This is completely false. If I shoot into a bush knowing that there is a strong probability that that bush has a man, with rights, I might as well be infringing on rights, as I have shown a willingness to commit murder if that bush has a man. Abortion is the same. For my third contention he claims that the labor is unsafe, it could lead to lifelong problems. First, if the woman's life is in danger, they can abort. Second, very. very few labors end in complications, this is not a cause to most likely take a life.

Moving onto my opponent's contentions, he claims that women should have a choice. He uses the example of an unwanted pregnancy, this fits in perfectly with my third contention. His second example is of a genetically mutated fetus. It is not the right of the woman to play god, and decide that handicapped individuals are too much to take care of, a woman has no more right than I do to determine if that fetus will live its life or die. Again, there's the claim that my bush scenario is exaggerated, which is completely false as I demonstrated.
His second contention claims that fetuses don't have rights, and may never have them, again, there is a possibility that that bush is empty, but shooting it would be wrong.

Finally, my opponent claims that we don't know who to punish. The anwer is clear, the doctor giving the illegal abortion, as well as the mother who willingly gets the abortion.'

Why vote PRO?
1. The probable rights of the individual take precedence over the right of a woman t control her body.
2. There is a very strong probability that in abortion, one infringes upon rights.
3.I have refuted all of my opponent's arguments and upheld my own.
gahbage

Con

My opponent claims that "abortion is not a right". However, the Supreme Court has ruled that a woman has the "right" to an abortion. Therefore, it is a right. That brings us the second part of his rebuttal. An unborn fetus, not a human, should not have enough rights so that the woman's are denied. It makes no sense that a woman's rights should not be upheld in place of an unborn fetus.

Addressing your next point, the Constitution is a complete document, it can just be amended. Since amendments to the Constitution become part of it, and those amendments grant us rights, the Constitution grants us rights.

"...I am arguing you are denying the hypothetical person its rights, as a fetus has no rights." By not denying the hypothetical fetus its rights, you are denying the rights of the woman. There is also no way a fetus can be denied rights if it doesn't have any to begin with.

Going back to the exaggeration, aborting a fetus that isn't fully developed is not the same as murder by random chance. By using this analogy, you are making abortion sound worse than it is.

"When one aborts early on, there is only a two-thirds probability that she is infringing on the rights of that future human." This statement is questionable for two reasons. First, there is no such thing as a two-thirds chance when it comes to rights - your rights are either infringed, or they aren't. Trimesters are not the same as three bushes with men behind two of them. Also, if the fetus is not yet human (the key word here is "future"), it does not have rights until it is born.

By "unwanted pregnancy", I meant not in a case of rape, but by accidentally getting pregnant. Also, not all women would like to have a child with a major (possible life-threatening) disorder. They would be more money involved, such as payments for doctor's appointments, medication, etc.

I only stated the fetuses may never get rights because my opponent cited that "92% chance a fetus will become a person." Therefore, there is an 8% chance that the fetus will not develop, and therefore, not have rights.

Vote con.
Debate Round No. 2
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Pro

I will simply go down everything that has been said by my opponent against me.

Round 1: He first speaks of a contradiction in my argument, which I have shown does not exist, and whiI ch he drops later on. Next, he says that the Constitution does not give fetuses rights. I will posit my argument again that the Constitution is not a perfect document, just because the Constitution doesn't say something, that doesn't mean that it isn't a right. Besides, I agree fetuses don't have rights, it is the future human that does. He next argues that it is not definite that the fetus will have rights, we should not treat it as such. The bush scenario remains there is two-thirds probability that by shooting the bush, I am infringing on one's right to life, and that is wrong. In an abortion, there is a two-thirds probability I am killing a person, and in doing that infringing on their rights. Killing the fetus is killing the person it would become. Next he brings up my contradiction which I answer the same way. Next he says banning abortion infringes on the right of the mother to have an abortion. There is no right to kill innocents regardless of what the Supreme Court thinks, killing is not a right. Then he says, "Adoption is not exactly a safe alternative because the woman would still have to go through labor, which could cause lifelong problems/complications." He ignores the fact that abortions are more likely to lead to complications than regular labor. Then he says a woman gets to determine whether she wants to give birth or not. The woman cannot determine whether her child can live or not, it is not here choice, she cannot kill her child just because she didn't mean to have it. Next, he calls the bush example an exaggeration, but gives no reason why. Next, he says fetuses don't have rights and may never get them. This brings us to the bush scenario, the bush does not have rights, and may not contain a man, but we can't shoot the bush.

Round 2: First, he says to my argument that abortion is not a right that the Supreme Court said it was. The Supreme Court also said there was a right to own slaves, so their track record is not the best. Later my opponent reaffirms his argument that all rights come from the Constitution, which as I have demonstrated is simply wrong. Then he says that in giving the fetus rights we deny the rights of the mother. First, we are simply treating the fetus as if it would have a FLO or Future Like Ours, in which it would have rights. We can't kill that future person, that infringes on their right to life. Then he again calls my scenario of the bush an exaggeration, this time saying random murder is not the same as abortion. Apparently it is. When you abort, you are in effect murdering a person, the person just happens to not yet be alive, but you are murdering the person which that fetus will most likely become, and that person will have rights. He then says there is no probability of rights, you are either infringing or not infringing. What I am saying is that there is a two-thirds probability that it will be a person. Therefore, there is a two-thirds probability that you are murdering a person in the future. NExt, he says that it costs money to carry the baby to term, but, you cannot put a pricetag on life. Finally he says that there is an 8% chance that the fetus won't have life, therefore, it should not be treated as having rights. If I did something that had an 8% chance of not killing anyone, I would be arrested for reckless endangerment of life, 8% is a pretty small number.

Why vote PRO
1. I have rebutted all of my opponent's arguments.
2. I have shown that abortion infringes on rights.
3. I have shown that the future human's right to life trumps the woman's right to choose.
gahbage

Con

I will start by addressing my opponent's contentions.

My opponent is right about the Constitution - just because a right is not listed, does not mean we have it. This is presented in the ninth amendment. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." However, the ninth amendment only applies to "the people" - and as both of us agree upon, a fetus is not a person. In fact, any part of the Constitution concerning rights, powers, etc. only applies to people, not fetuses. Thus, a fetus does not have rights, because it is not a person. Just because it may be a person, does not mean it should have right NOW.

To give a future human rights, who may not become a human at all, is exactly like punishing a future criminal, who may not become a criminal at all. The future human does not exist yet, nor may it ever. The same is true for said criminal act. You cannot punish someone for something that may or may not happen, and you cannot give rights to a person who may or may not be born.

The problem with giving a future human rights is that the future is not now. In the future, the fetus may have rights. But now, in the present, that fetus does not have rights. Since there is no human NOW, but a fetus, there are no rights.

I have not put "a pricetag on life", I meant that supporting the child would be expensive, obviously, and that the woman may not be able to afford a child.

Why vote CON:
1. My opponent's arguments are not logical, are repetitive and have been rebutted, and his points have not been sufficiently backed up.
2. My arguments, on the other hand, are logical and backed up by the Constitution.
3. The rights of a future person should not take the rights of a "present" person, a person here NOW.
Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by LR4N6FTW4EVA 9 years ago
LR4N6FTW4EVA
What? I was winning for a week. Remember, vote on the debate, not the issue!
Posted by matthewleebrown14 9 years ago
matthewleebrown14
You can see various flaws in the American system. Why is the fetus inside the mother only a life when its wanted? Pro choicers constantly claim that at a very early point of pregnancy, the fetus is not a life, but why is a criminal who kills a pregant women charged for double homicide? This shows the inconsistancy of american law. A life is a life and not just when it's wanted......
Posted by gahbage 9 years ago
gahbage
Thanks jojo. (I enjoyed your book talk. haha (hopefully that didn't sound gay XD))
repete, as odd as it may seem, not all parents are perfectly fine with a genetically mutated child.
Posted by repete21 9 years ago
repete21
I am in no way claiming that he is in any way affiliated with any of those things, I am simply stating that for future reference statements such as the ones I am refering too should probably be avoided in the future, and I am sorry if I insulted you or him
Posted by Sweatingjojo 9 years ago
Sweatingjojo
repete, I know gahbage personally, and I know that he doesn't actually advocate ethnic genocide, eugenics, or any other terrible thing like that. He just made a bad choice of words.
Also I am another pro-choicer for pro this time, simply because his argument was not easy to rebut, and very compelling.
Posted by repete21 9 years ago
repete21
gahbage, killing someone because of their genetic makeup is horrible, equally as bad as racism, sexism, or being ethnicintric, and when it happens on a large scale it is known as genocide... I would sugest you don't support something like this so openly in a debate, for future refernce
Posted by LR4N6FTW4EVA 9 years ago
LR4N6FTW4EVA
In response to the argument that banning abortions would lead to more unwanted pregnancies, which would be bad for both the mother and the child. That's why we have adoption agencies, if the child is not wanted, there are plenty who would love to have it. It makes others happy, and gives the child a loving home.
Posted by HandsOff 9 years ago
HandsOff
"couldn't a ban on abortions result in more unwanted pregnancies and more children being placed in care? Which surely would not be what was best for the parent or the child?"

Once a right is conclusively established, outcome is of no use in its enforcement. Unfortunately there is not specific consensus on when abortion becomes an infringement on another human's rights. It would say we need to focus on two areas that have nothing to do with religion: When can the fetus genuinely feel pain, and when can it survive outside the womb without the mother?
Posted by tooawesometogiveadamn 9 years ago
tooawesometogiveadamn
I personally am neither pro nor con as I think it depends on each individual case. And may I ask when does a person become a person in its own right and stop being an attachment of someone's body? Because if, when first conceived, the fertilized egg is not classed as person, but as a feature of a woman's body, then she has the right to do whatever the hell she wants with it.
For example when scientists experiment on animal cells, fertilize them and allow them to grow before destroying them, this is not classed as animal cruelty because they are not yet classed as fully formed animals, so does the same apply to humans?
As well as this, couldn't a ban on abortions result in more unwanted pregnancies and more children being placed in care? Which surely would not be what was best for the parent or the child?
Posted by HandsOff 9 years ago
HandsOff
Your guess is as good as mine. There are a lot of silly laws out there. Why is marijuana illegal?
17 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by gahbage 8 years ago
gahbage
LR4N6FTW4EVAgahbageTied
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 Issa 9 years ago
Issa
LR4N6FTW4EVAgahbageTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Oolon_Colluphid 9 years ago
Oolon_Colluphid
LR4N6FTW4EVAgahbageTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Sweatingjojo 9 years ago
Sweatingjojo
LR4N6FTW4EVAgahbageTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by repete21 9 years ago
repete21
LR4N6FTW4EVAgahbageTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by tooawesometogiveadamn 9 years ago
tooawesometogiveadamn
LR4N6FTW4EVAgahbageTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by griffinisright 9 years ago
griffinisright
LR4N6FTW4EVAgahbageTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Converge 9 years ago
Converge
LR4N6FTW4EVAgahbageTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by oboeman 9 years ago
oboeman
LR4N6FTW4EVAgahbageTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by matthewleebrown14 9 years ago
matthewleebrown14
LR4N6FTW4EVAgahbageTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30