The Instigator
Firejack
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
FormAndTheFormless
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

Abortion should be illegal everywhere

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: 3/25/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,143 times Debate No: 11549
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)

 

Firejack

Pro

The issue of abortion is one of the most contentious, and emotive dilemmas faced by modern societies. The question is whether one should allow the termination of a child while it is in its mother's womb. For some, the question is even more fundamental: at what stage is the fetus in the womb to be regarded as a child? The battle-lines are drawn between strict, religious (‘pro-life') arguments (that it is never permissible), and those (‘pro-choice') that emphasise the mother's right to choose as the primary concern. While abortion has been accepted by the American state since the land-mark Roe vs. Wade case in the early 1970s, this is by no means a reflection of universal agreement – either international or within America itself – as many Western countries still have considerable restrictions on abortion. For example, the Irish position has softened only recently, and the Catholic Church steadfastly refuses to change its resolutely pro-life stance in the face of criticism from Women's and other lobby-groups.

I welcome anyone to debate this topic with me. I welcome the challenge, and good luck friend.
FormAndTheFormless

Con

I will allow my opponent to post his or her arguments affirming the position that abortion should be illegal everywhere before forming my counter-arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
Firejack

Pro

Human-rights should be respected, but it is never the case that a person has a right to make a decision with no reference to the rights and wishes of others. One might wonder about the rights of the father to have a say in the fate of the fetus. More importantly, though, pro-choice groups actively ignore the most important right – the child's right to life. What is more important than life? All other rights, including the mother's right to choice, surely stem from a prior right to life; if you have no right to any life, then how do you have a right to an autonomous one? The woman may ordinarily have a reasonable right to control her own body, but this does not confer on her the entirely separate (and insupportable) right to decide whether another human lives or dies.
FormAndTheFormless

Con

While I certainly believe that there are some laws which generally benefit society, I do not believe that all of society must accept the rights that descend from said laws to the extent of being undeniable; accepting certain rights as inherent severely bypasses the logical foundation, defense and upheaval of the laws which found our society.

Rights ought to be justified through observable results and our capacity for reason.

My arguments for abortion are as follows:

Abortion can be preventive - Drug use, family history and various other medical factors may significantly increase the probability of disease. With the assistance of a genetic counselor or other medical experts, parents will be able to predict the occurrence of disease with a considerable degree of accuracy. Parents ought to be able to have the choice of receiving an abortion according to the factors previously described if accidental pregnancy were to occur.

Resources - One of the potential benefits of abortion comes from its ability to prevent those with genetic or congenital diseases from entering society. Such diseases reduce an individual's ability to reach a level of physical or mental maturity that would allow them to produce resources at a rate that would meet or exceed those that were expended in order to insure their survival throughout their lifetime; especially when compared to an individual who would not require such treatment (examples include Tay-Sachs Disease and Anencephaly).

Medical Permissibility - Pregnancies that pose a significant medical risk to the female carrying a fetus should be considered allowable according to medical expertise not only because it may be determined that the fetus would not survive in such instances (while posing a significant risk to the mother) but also because the fetus may already be deceased yet still require removal (+1 - see definition of abortion).

+1 - (http://www.merriam-webster.com...)
Debate Round No. 2
Firejack

Pro

Firejack forfeited this round.
FormAndTheFormless

Con

Because my opponent has forfeited, I would like to correct an error I made in the argument "medical permissibility."

The argument should instead read:
Pregnancies that pose a significant medical risk to the female carrying a fetus should be considered for abortion not only because it may be determined that the fetus would not survive in such instances (while posing a significant risk to the mother) but also because the fetus may already be deceased yet still require removal (+1 - see definition of abortion).

My opponent has forfeited the round and has not refuted any of my arguments; vote for con.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Ninja_Tru 6 years ago
Ninja_Tru
Good debate. Good Con arguments. The forfeit of Round 3 gets the Con the conduct vote and the convincing arguments about both the risk to the mother and the inability for the fetus to effectively "survive" after birth were very good. Also, in Round 1, the Pro said "emotive." Is that even a word?
Posted by FormAndTheFormless 6 years ago
FormAndTheFormless
I guess I will just have to Frankenstein my arguments; I should have paid more attention.
Posted by FormAndTheFormless 6 years ago
FormAndTheFormless
People can limit the amount of characters you can post in a debate? I just tried to post a three page argument I have been working on for the few days. My goodness.
Posted by Firejack 6 years ago
Firejack
I am pro to the topic of the debate, which is "Abortion should be illegal everywhere".

I'm debating against abortion.

Sorry for causing any misunderstanding
Posted by FormAndTheFormless 6 years ago
FormAndTheFormless
s. dangit
Posted by FormAndTheFormless 6 years ago
FormAndTheFormless
Oh hahaha, oop.
Posted by wjmelements 6 years ago
wjmelements
Form, his position on his profile is CON Abortion, meaning his position in this debate is properly PRO.
Posted by wjmelements 6 years ago
wjmelements
I can't tell which side you intend to defend.
Posted by FormAndTheFormless 6 years ago
FormAndTheFormless
Your profile says that you're against abortion yet you are taking the PRO position in this debate (Abortion should be illegal everywhere). Are you going to be debating against or for abortion?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ninja_Tru 6 years ago
Ninja_Tru
FirejackFormAndTheFormlessTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04