The Instigator
Bob13
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Hayd
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Abortion should be illegal.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 1 vote the winner is...
Hayd
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/18/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 570 times Debate No: 79869
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

Bob13

Pro

For the first round, just accept the debate, then say, "I accept" for your response.
Hayd

Con

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.
Debate Round No. 1
Bob13

Pro

Just to clarify: when I say abortion I am referring to the intentional killing of an unborn human. I will now explain my arguments against abortion.
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.
Hayd

Con

Preface

I trust this will be a short, sweet, civil debate on whether abortion should be legal. Without further ado, my arguments.

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. [1] 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. [2]

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.

[1] http://www.thelancet.com...
[2] http://apps.who.int...

Debate Round No. 2
Bob13

Pro

History

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.

Research

This is also irrelevant. The problem can be addressed by enforcing the law.

Back-alley abortions

"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.
Hayd

Con

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 [1] 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 [2]. 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.

[1] http://www.amnh.org...
[2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Debate Round No. 3
Bob13

Pro

Human DNA is the DNA present in the human genome. [1] It is true that chimpanzees and humans share 99% of their DNA. However, humans have about 100,000 genes, [2] 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.


Hayd

Con

In this round I will respond to my opponent’s rebuttal in R3.

History

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.

Research

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.

Back-alley abortions

Pro directly concedes this argument. And ‘hopes’ that women won’t do this. As I have cited with evidence, they ‘do’.

Debate Round No. 4
Bob13

Pro

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.

History

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.

Research

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.

Back-alley abortions

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.

Summary

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.

Vote Pro!
Hayd

Con

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.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: lannan13// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Con (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: I give sources to Con concidering that he used it to help several of his arguments and has used more than Pro has. Arguments also to Con concidering that not only was the BOP on Pro we can see that he didn't get through the debate without actually dropping several of Con's arguments even trying to discard several of Con's key arguments much like the "back-alley" abortion argument and there are multiple other arguments of which Pro had dropped, but that shall conclude my RFD by giving the debate to Con.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The source points are insufficiently explained. The voter cannot afford these points merely because Con had more, and it has to be clearer what the sources were doing for Con's arguments. (2) The arguments vote is incredibly vague, with the voter only pointing to a single argument made by Con and none of the arguments made by Pro. While this may be sufficient, it needs to be explained why that argument is the most important in the debate in order to justify this decision as is.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: JuliusCaesar// Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Con (Arguments, Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: The Cons argument on round 2 sold it for me, and I had already agreed that abortion should be legal. The Pros only argument is that a fetus is a living thing and had nothing else backing him up.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn't explain the conduct point allocation. (2) The arguments explanation is far too vague. It's unclear what argument of Con's was successful or why, or why Pro's argument failed.
************************************************************************
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bsh1 1 year ago
bsh1
Bob13HaydTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
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.