Abortion should be illegal.
Debate Rounds (5)
I accept the debate resolution. I will be arguing against the notion "Abortion should be illegal", therefore I will be arguing that abortion should be legal. I trust that my opponent will post their opening arguments in R2 as will I, I look forward to a good debate.
A fetus is still a human.
A fetus has human DNA, so it is ridiculous that you wouldn't treat it as such.
A woman has a right to her body, but a person's right to life is more important.
I don't know what else I need to say. I await your response.
I trust this will be a short, sweet, civil debate on whether abortion should be legal. Without further ado, my arguments.
History has shown that mothers have always, and will always, try to get rid of unwanted pregnancies.
Research reveals that banning abortions does not actually deter the amount of abortion procedures.  In other words, whether abortion is legal or not, the same amount of abortions will occur.
Yet when abortions are made illegal, women are forced to seek unsafe “back-alley” abortions instead of a professional hospital.
The World Health Organization (WHO) found that about 68,000 women die every year as the result of unsafe “back-alley” abortions, and between 2 million and 7 million women each year survive but receive long-term damage; incomplete abortion, infections, haemorrhages, injury to the internal organs, and puncturing or tearing of the uterus. 
Making abortions illegal will not deter the amount of abortion procedures done each year, instead it will only force women to get dangerous ‘back-alley’ abortions, leading to the death and injury of millions of women.
This is an irrelevant argument. If history showed that people had a natural desire to murder people, would that mean that murder should be legal? Of course not. You are basically saying that whatever people want to do is what they should be allowed to do.
This is also irrelevant. The problem can be addressed by enforcing the law.
"Back-alley" abortions are dangerous. Hopefully, women will have enough sense to avoid these. The ones who do will have direct consequences.
For your response, address my original arguments from round 2 and any of the ones above that you want to respond to.
Pro’s only argument against abortion runs like so:
P1) A fetus is still a human.
P2) A fetus has human DNA, so it is ridiculous that you wouldn't treat it as such.
I think what my opponent meant to say was something along the lines of:
P1) A fetus has human DNA
P2) A fetus is therefore a human
C1) We should therefore treat a fetus as a human.
In this viewpoint, a human is defined as something with ‘human DNA’. Yet the problem is that every human has different genes in the DNA that makes them an ‘individual’ and different from every other human in the species. The term ‘human DNA’ is not specified and implies there is a standard for human DNA, when there is not.
Chimpanzees and humans share 99% of their DNA  According to Pro, would chimpanzees be considered humans as well? Every male sperm contains ‘human DNA’, and every time a male ejaculates 100 million sperm are released and killed . According to Pro, 100 million ‘humans’ are killed every time a male ejaculates, should this be made illegal?
Pro’s viewpoint is not logical nor realistic.
Human DNA is the DNA present in the human genome.  It is true that chimpanzees and humans share 99% of their DNA. However, humans have about 100,000 genes,  so there are many that are not shared. Male sperm have human DNA, but they are not a human until they combine with an egg, form a zygote, and begin to develop. A fetus is alive and developing, so it should be treated like an infant.
In this round I will respond to my opponent’s rebuttal in R3.
This wasn’t exactly my argument but I will respond to it anyways. The point that I was trying to make was that making abortions illegal would have no effect on the amount of abortion procedures. The only effect of it would be negative, more unsafe abortions. If making murder illegal would do nothing to stop how many murders occur, and there is an added negative on top of that, then I would agree that murder should be legal. But that does not have to do with the topic at hand.
I sadly have no idea what my opponent is referring to here. If Pro is referring to my evidence, this is extremely relevant to my side of the debate.
Pro directly concedes this argument. And ‘hopes’ that women won’t do this. As I have cited with evidence, they ‘do’.
For the last round we will post conclusions. Do not read my conclusion until you have posted yours. For your conclusion just make a conclusion for the debate and try to convince viewers of the debate that you won. After reading both conclusions, viewers will vote on the winner.
Con's argument was that abortions will still happen if abortion is outlawed. I have refuted this by saying that adequate law enforcement will fix the problem, although Con ignores this.
I have also refuted this the same way that I refuted the history argument; the reason that countries with abortions outlawed have the same abortion rate as countries with abortion legal is that they do not do enough to enforce the law. The solution is yet again law enforcement.
These are dangerous. If women are harmed by them, that is their own fault. Con has not been able to explain why this is a reason to legalize abortion.
Right to life
Con has dropped this argument. A fetus' right to live outweighs a woman's right to her body. This is the basis of my argument, which Con has not refuted.
I have proven that abortion is murder and should be illegal. Con has only said that a law against abortion would be ineffective. The problem can be addressed through law enforcement. Thus Con's whole argument is invalid.
I have not read my opponent's conclusion as Pro asked me to.
I will conclude by saying that making abortion illegal would not reduce the amount of abortions at all, its only effect would be forcing women to have "back-alley" abortions, which puts their life at risk. Pro has failed to negate my case and I have succeeded in negating Pro's. Thank you and I ask you to vote against the motion.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bsh1 1 year 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:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Con could've come up with better examples to illustrate that human DNA =/= human being. A Chimp doesn't share all our DNA, and sperm only has half of our chromosomes. A better example may have been an amputated leg. It has fully human DNA, but it is not a "human being." The leg does not have "human rights." Given Con's examples, I am not really persuaded by his rebuttal here. However, if making abortions illegal does not reduce the number of abortions, there seems to be only negative utility in the policy, as it increases back-alley abortions. Pro says stricter enforcement will reduce abortions; I don't buy this, particularly when there is no evidence supporting it, and Con has evidence showing me that abortion rates will stay unchanged even if abortion is illegal. I buy also that back-alley abortions are riskier. So, comparing the two worlds, both have the same amount of abortions (this equalizes), but Pro's world kills more pregnant women. Pro's world is worse. Thus, I vote Con.
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.