The Instigator
Geogeer
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
Artur
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points

Abortion should be illegal

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 2 votes the winner is...
Geogeer
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/10/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,175 times Debate No: 45574
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (18)
Votes (2)

 

Geogeer

Pro

Abortion results in the death of an innocent human being and cannot be justified. As such it should be made illegal.
Artur

Con

INTRODUCTION:
I thank my opponent for challenging me on this topic and I happily accepted the challenge. but I wanna ask my oponent: it is the first debate of yours, seems u r new, why and how you challenged me to this debate? how you knew that I am PROabortion? I very doubt that you are new member here.

the subject is: "abortion should be illegal." My case is against it, it should not be illegal, it should be legal. during the debate, when I am going to refer to women who want abortion I am going to use "we".

I am so lazy but for this challenge I will try to avoid lazyness


since there is no a rule which ban me from setting arguement in this round, I am going to start from now on. p.s: english is not my first language and I am not so good at it, I may make mistake when I use words.

MY CASE:
in the opening, he says {Abortion results in the death of an innocent human being and cannot be justified. As such it should be made illegal} which I take as he is against abortion in all cases becasue he didnt give any exception criterias. My position is "Abortion should be legal"
more than that, I support: "it should be allowed at least under some conditions and some situations as well."


REBUTTAL:
my opponent said: {Abortion results in the death of an innocent human being and cannot be justified}
response: by saying this, does my opponent claim that fetus=human being? I would kindly want to ask him to provide us scientific evidence/proof for fetus being=human being. Burden of proof is on him about this.

I dont think that fetus=human, however I am going to provide my arguements about fetus=/=human just a little later, now I am going to refure my opponent IN CASE fetus=human being.

"even if" or/and "in case" Fetus=human, it is still justice for women to have abortion. antiabortionists claim that:
"by having abortion you are KILLING the baby/human/fetus". first thing I am going to say about this is: we are not killing the baby nor the human, pregnant women help that fetus/baby/human to survive, at the time we have abortion we stop the help given by us, so we are not killing a baby/human/fetus. we are just stopping the help we give to them, after this it dies or it takes damages that is not our problem.

as a person, we have right not to help others and you dont have right to force us to help others. so, even if the fetus=human, it can still be justified sicne we have right NOT to help others.

does not "not allowing women to stop the help she gives" mean to force her to do something which she does not want to do? HUman rights Article 5.
  • No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment[1]

when we look at dictionary, it says that one of the meanings of torture is: To bring great physical or mental pain upon (another)[2]
considering "no one shall be subjected to tortue or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment", we cant force woman to carry that baby nor to do something.

at the same time, HUman rights decleration Article 3.
  • Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.[1]

so, everyone has the right to "LIBERTY." not allowing women not to carry the baby violates his liberty.
(my opponent may say everyone has the right to life too I ask him: to prove that fetus is human. even if he can, I have showed above that it is still right of woman.)
considering we have right not to help others, it can be justified and should not be made illegal.
we can not force somebody to help somebody.


MY ARGUEMENTS ABOUT: ABORTION SHOULD BE LEGAL at least UNDER THESE CONDITIONS:


1. ABORTION SHOULD BE ALLOWED AT LEAST IN THE EARLY STAGES OF PREGNANCY
:
when we eat or break an egg of a hen or crocodile, it does not mean that we have killed a chicken or a crocodile. similarly, early stages of pregnancy is a fertilised egg and it does not mean that we have killed a human. as long as the fetus is not conscious yet, I would want to say we have to allow mother to have abortion.
Most abortions (88%) are obtained in the first trimester of pregnancy. In fact, over half of all abortions are obtained within the first 8 weeks. [5]

2. IF A WOMAN IS RAPED/unintended pregnancy:
I think, it makes no sense to force woman to help to the child of his rapist to survive, do you think that it makes sense?
Many of the youngest women in this group (70% of those age 13 or under) report having had sex forced on them. [4]
Each year, almost half of all pregnancies among American women are unintended. [5]


3. if the girl is not ready:
imagine a girl at 14, she had sex for the first time and became pregnant, after 9 months, the maximum age she can be is 15, a girl at 15 can be not ready for motherhood.
not just a girl at 14, maybe a girl at 25 who studies at university and works for part time, she can be not ready to carry the baby and then become a mother.
even if the government is to ban abortion, I think in this case we need to allow women to have.
Many of the youngest women in this group (70% of those age 13 or under) report having had sex forced on them. [4]
Women between the ages of 15 and 19 account for about 19% of all abortions; women 20 to 24 account for another 33%; and about 25% of abortions are obtained by women who are 30 or older.[5]


4. INSUFFICIENCY OF FINANCIAL PLIGHT:
imagine, I get married and have sex with my wife, she became pregnant and I got expelled from my job, we are ppor now, if we have child: she/he may be suffering from hunger/starvation.
Of the women obtaining abortions in 2000: 57% percent were low-income. [5]

5. SURPRISES OF people:
in case a girl has sex with her BF/anybody and becomes pregnant, there are so many societies in the world who see it as humiliation, it is humiliation according to their traditions, relatives and family of a girl will kill her if they know that she is pregnant without being married, the government is to protect the person, so in this case in order to save girl, the government needs to allow her to have abortion.


6. HEALTH OR MEDICAL PROBLEMS:
today, science is able to know before birth whether child will have a disease or a huge illness, in case the parents are warned that their children will suffer from a huge illness, then I think the government needs to allow woman to abort her child, if the government does not allow her then the child will be born and suffer from illness, not only this parents will have difficulties to look after that child. it will have many problems starting from: financial problem, health problem, time problem, problem inside the family and it goes on.

ONE MORE ARGUEMENT:
prohibiting abortion means not allowing woman to have her right, it means to force woman to help to another THING/person.
now, let me give you example:
imagine a pregnant woman, when she has an abortion she does not kill the baby, she provides baby with the needs he/she needs to survive, and when she has an abortion she stops providing and stopping providing is her right.
she is providing baby, and at any time, she may stop providing, it is her right. abortion means providing baby, if I provide somebody with the needs of him, I can stop providing at any time, can not I? is not it my right? it is like this.

imagine I am a rich man, we live in the same street. you have an illness, and just I have a financial status which can pay your hospital bills and your medicines. you need a treatment for 3 months, you came to me and say: Artur, you are a rich man, I have an illness, I need treatment, please provide me with the money needs for medicines. and I ask you: how much do you need. you answer: 560 000 dollars for this month, I gave you this moneym and then you had a chance to survive and now you are alive, but second month comes and you still need money, you come to me and ask:

-Artur, you are a rich man, without your help I have no chance to survive, please give me 560 000 which supplies all the money I need for the treatment of this month, if you dont provide me with the money I need, then I can not survive.

at the moment, do I have a right not to give you money? or is it rule for me to give you my money so that you can survive?
women can also stop the help they give to the fetus inside them.

if the government or people can force woman to help to the baby, then the government needs to set a new rule which forces rich people to help to the poor people.

as rich people have right not to help others, women also have right not to help the fetus inside her or any person.


ADVANTAGE OF MAKING ABORTION LEGAL:
1.IF THE GOVERNment bans the abortion then there will be some women and doctors who will do it secretly, without the hospital or standart medical instructions, it will cause corruoption to develop and women to have ilnesses as well.
2. if the government makes this legal, then it will bring income to both government or private hospitals. now, when I searched about the income of abortion I saw:
In general, though, women getting an abortion between six and ten weeks' gestation can expect to pay about $350 at an abortion clinic and $500 at a physician's office. Providing abortions later in pregnancy is somewhat more complicated, and is usually more expensive. For example, at 16 weeks gestation, abortion clinics generally charge around $650 and physicians' offices generally charge around $700. After the 20th week, the cost rises to above $1,000.2 [3]

if government makes abortion illegal, these money will be contribution to the development of corruption, let this money go to the government/hospitals instead of going the doctors who do it illegally and unsafely.

QUESTION TO OPPONENT:
since he made just one arguement in his opening statement, I ask him to come with proof that fetus is equal to human. I hope he will come with that.

I wish you good luck.


REFERENCES:
[1] http://www.un.org...
[2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
[3] http://www.prochoice.org...
[4] http://www.prochoice.org...;
[5] http://www.prochoice.org...

Debate Round No. 1
Geogeer

Pro

I wish to thank my worthy opponent for accepting this debate, and I appreciate him taking the initiative and posting his arguments up front.

To satisfy his curiosity, I challenged him to a debate because his position in the Abortion Section was listed as Pro with the comment “open to challenges.”


Proof of life beginning at conception

This is really basic high school biology. When the male and female gametes join, a new member of that species comes into being; whether it is a fish, a dog, or a human being.

A fish will lay her eggs in the water and the male will inseminate those eggs. Those eggs will settle to the floor of the body of water and undergo further development. As they have no further interaction with the parents from that time forth, they must logically be alive from the joining of the sperm and eggs. Additionally, since they experience no change in DNA, they are the same species from fertilization onwards.

Likewise, as the basics of sexual reproduction remains the same, the combination of sperm and egg results in a new human being. However, mammals have an advantage in that they are able to protect their young inside the mother until a later stage of development.

This argument has been confirmed by medical experts under oath in front of a US Senate judiciary subcommittee [1]:

Dr. Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Genetics at the University of Descartes and discoverer of the genetic anomaly resulting Down Syndrome:

"After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being. [It] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion...it is plain experimental evidence. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception."

Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard University:

"It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive...It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception."

Professor Professor Hymie Gordon, Mayo Clinic:

"By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception."

While I could trot out more testimony I’ll skip to the conclusion of the official Senate Report:

Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being - a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.


Additionally we can use general audience sources on this [2]:

"Biologically speaking, human development begins at fertilization."


Or we can use modern teaching texts:

A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).[3]

Development begins with fertilization, the process by which the male gamete, the sperm, and the femal gamete, the oocyte, unite to give rise to a zygote.[4]

A fundamental aspect of our legal system is that everyone is equal before the law as eloquently stated by the US founding fathers in the declaration of independence [5]:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

In this simple, yet complete, philosophical statement we clearly see that all humans are equal and that there is a priority of fundamental rights. To pursue Happiness all must have Liberty, and to have true Liberty you must have the Right to Life - the most fundamental of all rights. If the government has the right to assign or remove the right to life from anyone, it is no longer a right, but a privilege. if it is only a privilege then it can logically be removed from anyone. If the government can remove the right to life then there are no rights at all.

As such it is quite clear that by simply being a member of the human race should legally entitle one to fundamental human rights, especially the most basic of which being the right to life.


Rebuttal

My opponent does not seem to understand what an abortion is. He asserts that an abortion is not killing the unborn, but that it is the cessation of help to the unborn. These are the following forms of abortion:[6]

Suction Aspiration: A suction curette (hollow tube with a knife-edged tip) attached to a vacuum is inserted into the womb. The vacuum suction tears the fetus and placenta into small pieces which are sucked through the tube into a bottle and discarded.

Dilation and Curettage (D&C): As above except the knife on the curette is used to cut the unborn into pieces prior to being suctioned out.

Saline Injection: A long needle injects a strong salt solution through the mother's abdomen into the baby's sac. The baby swallows this fluid and is poisoned by it. It also acts as a corrosive, burning off the outer layer of skin. It normally takes somewhat over an hour for the baby to die from this.

All of these methods are a direct attack on the unborn and not a simple denial of aid.


My opponent appears to claim that a natural and necessary process for the continuation of the species constitutes a cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Biologically speaking, on a physical level, the fundamental purpose of every member of any species is the propagation of its own genes and of the species. As such, pregnancy cannot be construed as fundamentally cruel, inhuman, or degrading.


I’ll briefly address the 6 conditions my opponent proposed when abortion should be legal.

1. Early stages of Pregnancy: Actually when you eat a fertilized egg, you have killed an animal of that species. Egg, chick and hen are just age identifiers. If all humans are equal, logically the age of that human does not matter.

2a. Rape: Conventional wisdom is that women who have been raped just want the problem gone. However, it is not necessarily the truth. Dr. Sandra Mahkorn, a professional rape councelor, studied women who had become pregnant through rape.[7] Only 15%-25% of those studied had abortions.

Of those who had abortions most said it was pressure from boyfriends, family, etc. that caused them to have the abortion. The stigma is on the woman as to what she did to invite being raped. It is often those around her who want the “problem” to be gone so that they can pretend it never happened. In fact many women reported that the abortion felt like a medical rape [8]:

This association between abortion and rape is not hard to understand. Abortion involves a painful examination of a woman's sexual organs by a masked stranger who is invading her body. Once she is on the operating table, she loses control over her body. If she protests and asks for the abortionist to stop, she will likely be ignored or told: "It's too late to change your mind. This is what you wanted. We have to finish now." And while she lies there tense and helpless, the life hidden within her is literally sucked out of her womb. The difference? In a sexual rape, a woman is robbed of her purity; in this medical rape she is robbed of her maternity.

Those women who carried their pregnancy though often healed better mentally as they proved they were better than the rapist in that they created something good out of something evil.

In a similar manner women who are physically abused by their husbands often repeat that abuse on their children. While it is understandable, it cannot be considered acceptable.

2b. Unintended. While it was not intended, the sexual act must be fundamentally understood as a procreative act. An innocent third party cannot legally be held responsible for the unintended consequences of the first and second party.

3. The girl is not ready. Once again the unborn child is an innocent third party who cannot be held responsible for the actions of others. Adoption is an option

4. Financial plight. We hold parents as guardians responsible for the care of their children, regardless of financial circumstances. Parents of a newborn would be thrown in jail for dismembering an infant because they thought it was too expensive to take care of. A woman is equipped by nature with all she need to feed a child. If the parents feel the financial burden will be too great, they can put the child up for adoption.

5. Societal pressure. So the basics of your argument is that the government should enable a girl to kill her child instead of changing laws and enforcement to prevent the murder of that girl. That is illogical and not in keeping with the truth that we have already established, i.e. the unborn is a unique human being.

6. Health of child. Once again I would not be permitted to kill an older human being with the same ailment. Once again since the child is a human being, what right do you have to kill that child? Nobody is more vulnerable or has less of a voice than the unborn who cannot be seen or heard.

"A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members." - Ghandi


Rich man argument: This is a false equivalency. In this case the rich man is trying to avert a natural, though undesirable, effect from occurring to his friend. His intervention attempts to prevent the natural death of his friend. In the other case the woman has intentionally interfered with a natural process directly resulting in the death of the unborn child.


[1] Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981, 7.
[2] The Biology of Prenatal Development, National Geographic, 2006
[3] http://tinyurl.com...;
[4] http://tinyurl.com...;
[5] http://www.archives.gov...;
[6] http://www.lifesitenews.com...
[7] Sandra Kathleen Mahkorn, M.D. and William V. Dolan, M.D. “Sexual Assault and Pregnancy” in Thomas Hulgers, Dennis Horan and David Mall, “New Perspectives on Human Abortion” (Frederick, MD: University Publications of America, 1981) 194
[8] https://www.youtube.com...

Artur

Con

a man sign up to debate.org and then visits my profile and challenges me? still doubting him of challenging me for particular reason, anyway, not important.

{parts written in Italic inside these brackets mean I am quoting my opponent}

REBUTTAL:
he was asked proof for fetus=human.

he gave one reference from "National Geographic", I checked it and it was to be bought, hence I wasnt able to check it, however, since national geographic can be said neutral source, let us conclude: he proved. (I am not going to speak about other sources since this one is enough)

PRO: {My opponent does not seem to understand what an abortion is. He asserts that an abortion is not killing the unborn, but that it is the cessation of help to the unborn.}
indeed my opponent doesnt seem to understand me.
I understand what abortion is. I didnt assert it.
I never say that: unborn does not die after abortion. child dies "after/at" the time abortion happens,what I asserted is: it is not women who is killing that, when we have abortion we rescue ourself from burden&load&freight&e.t.c and it is the right of ours. it is right of woman to disconnect herself from fetus and it is right of doctors to help her to disconnect herself.

PRO: {All of these methods are a direct attack on the unborn and not a simple denial of aid.}
all of these methods can be direct attack on the unborn but it doesnt change that it is denial of aid. do we have right to force somebody in order to save anotherone from an attack? no, we dont have that right.

PRO: {My opponent appears to claim that a natural and necessary process for the continuation of the species constitutes a cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.}
I did not claim that process for the continuation constitutes a cruelness, inhuman&degrading treatment.

what I claimed is: to force somebody to do something constitutes cruelness. when we force woman to have pregnancy is cruelty, not to allow her freedom is cruelty.
however, to force somebody "to carry it 7-9 months, have a great suffer for bearing it" is more than that. yes, it is cruelness.
I am not claiming every pregnancy/birth is cruelness, if a woman does it with her will, I wont say anything.

PRO seems to have misunderstood me, I deduced it when I read these: {Biologically speaking, on a physical level, the fundamental purpose of every member of any species is the propagation of its own genes and of the species. As such, pregnancy cannot be construed as fundamentally cruel, inhuman, or degrading.}
I didnt say that pregnancy is cruelness/inhumanity. where did you deduce it from?
but not allowing woman who wants to avoid this burden is cruelty, torture and inhumanity.

and then he went on talking about conditions.
1){If all humans are equal, logically the age of that human does not matter.}
equality of all humans doesnt give us right to force somebody/woman to do something.
it doesnt give us to prevent somebody from avoiding something..

2) {Only 15%-25% of those studied had abortions.
Of those who had abortions most said it was pressure from boyfriends, family, etc. that caused them to have the abortion.}
it doesnt mean that 100% of raped pregnants indeed didnot want to have abortion.
may be there are women who had abortion due to pressure from his environment, it doesnt mean that there's no any rapedn who wants abortion with own will. there may still be women who want abortion with their own will.

PRO: {The stigma is on the woman as to what she did to invite being raped.}
isnt it fallacy? if I rape somebody, the culpable one is the woman I raped, because she did to invite being raped.
almost every crimer can be defended with this logic: if I kill somebody, The stigma is on the one I killed as to what she/he did to invite being killed.
even, when we have abortion, The stigma is on the fetus as to what she/he did to invite being aborted.
what kind of logic is this?

PRO: {It is often those around her who want the “problem” to be gone so that they can pretend it never happened.}
by using this logic: I may rape every girl I am around of because I am the one around her who wanted the problem to be gone. it does not make raping right, nor makes it justified.

PRO: {In fact many women reported that the abortion felt like a medical rape}
it doesnt mean there is no raped pregnant who wants abortion, there may till be woman who wants to avoid it.

2)B):{an innocent third party cannot legally be held responsible for the unintended consequences of the first and second party}
in the same way, a woman who wants to avoid can not legally be held responsible for the vulnerability of a fetus.

3) {Once again the unborn child is an innocent third party who cannot be held responsible for the actions of others.}
a woman can not be held responsible for the vulnerability of a fetus. if fetus dies due to disconnection, that is not our problem, woman has right not to help fetus to survive.

4) {We hold parents as guardians responsible for the care of their children, regardless of financial circumstances.}
who are you? we are not compulsory to live according toyou..
if one does not want to spend money forsomething, that is his right not to spend
{Parents of a newborn would be thrown in jail for dismembering an infant because they thought it was too expensive to take care of.}
what codex has such rule?
{A woman is equipped by nature with all she need to feed a child.}
it does not end with feeding, however woman is not equipped by nature, woman needs to eat, to eat she needs to buy/spend moeny.
{If the parents feel the financial burden will be too great, they can put the child up for adoption.}
what can they do till birth? in order this arguement to be sensical, till birth government needs to meet the woman till the birth.

5){So the basics of your argument is that the government should enable a girl to kill her child}
girl is not killing her child, she is rescuing herself, more: she quits feeding the child, not killing her..
{instead of changing laws and enforcement to prevent the murder of that girl}
that is tradition cant be changed by government at once. this is logical fallacy.
to prevent the murder, government needs to watch her 9 months 24 hours because government can not know who&how will kill her.
the government can act in case girl explains that she may/wil be killed if her pregnancy gets known, but there may be a girl who wants to abort without complainin.
it may be humiliation for her&family, the government can not prevent the girl from being humiliated, to avoid humiliation girl wants abortion.

6){ I would not be permitted to kill an older human being with the same ailment.}
older man lives in his own when he is struggling with ailment but the fetus doesnt, he is being protected by woman and the woman doesnt want to protect ill child
however, you'dnt be permitted to kill but we are not asking to kill the child when we have abortion,we are asking to stop the help we give and that is our right.

{since the child is a human being, what right do you have to kill that child?}
I sincerely admit that I have no right to kill that child or anybody, BUT ANY PERSON HAS RIGHT NOT TO HELP THAT CHILD. if he dies without my help, that is not my problem.

{Nobody is more vulnerable or has less of a voice than the unborn who cannot be seen or heard.}
again, woman can not be held responsible for vulnerability of fetus.
whatt right do you have to force women to help to vulnerable one?

rich man arguement: that is not falsen, both help somebody to survive and both stop the help they give.
p.s:this is an arguuement of a russian comunist from 80's, I wanted to give citation but didnt find it on internet, so incase you find it dont accuse me of plagirising.


MY ARGUEMENTS:
1)The World Health Organization estimated in 2006 that "back-alley" abortions cause 68,000 maternal deaths each year in countries where abortion is not legal.[1] do you want this numbers to increase? then, support abortion to be made illegal.
2)additional to CONDITION6 abortion is less risky than birth for the health of woman. "The risk of a woman’s death from abortion is less than one in 100,000,[3] whereas the risk of a woman dying from giving birth is 13.3 deaths per 100,000 pregnancies."[4] this means: when we dont allow woman for abortion under health condition, we put him under bigger risk.
3)if you read "advantage 1&2" from previous round, you know that I claimed illegality of abortion increases crime and corruption, if we make abortion legal this will reduce it. "Some estimates claim legalized abortion accounted for as much as 50% of the drop in murder, property crime, and violent crime between 1973 and 2001." [5] but if antiabortionists want this rate to increase again, then you have a chance, ask abortion to be made illegal.
4) woman has the right to decide whether the foetus remains in her body. basic rights and logic:
  • every human being has the right to own their body
  • a foetus is part of a woman's body and women are humans, not container or machine for fetus
  • therefore that woman has the right to abort a foetus they are carrying

if you wan to keep that alive, then that is you problem, if you so want, invite something which can keep fetus alive. and, if you see women as container or machine for fetus, ask abortion to be made illegal.
5)I presented 6 conditions in previous round which were replied by my opponent in this one, but I replied him in this round and I can say that that 6 conditions are still valid arguements. in general, it is up to readers.
I could write on but I almost reached limit.

REFERENCES:

[1]David A Grimes, MD, et al., "Unsafe Abortion: The Preventable Pandemic," Lancet, Oct. 2006
[3] The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, "Induced Abortion," www.acog.org, Nov. 2008
[4] Amnesty International, "Deadly Delivery: The Maternal Health Care Crisis in the USA," www.amnesty.org, 2010
[5] John J. Donohue, PhD, and Steven D. Levitt, JD, PhD, "The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, May 2001
Debate Round No. 2
Geogeer

Pro

I thank my opponent for conceding the obvious point that the unborn is a human being, but am amused at the source he chose to accept as proof.



I am going to begin this round of arguments by properly defining several key words and issues to negate each of my opponents arguments:



Liberty: the power or scope to act as one pleases [1]



Licence: freedom to behave as one wishes, especially in a way which results in excessive or unacceptable behaviour [2]



First Degree Murder: Murder occurs where the person who causes the death of a human being means to cause his death, or means to cause him bodily harm that he knows is likely to cause his death, and is reckless whether death ensues or not. [3]



and it becomes first degree when:



was planned and deliberate [3]



Failure to Provide the Necessities of Life: Everyone is under a legal duty as a parent, foster parent, guardian or head of a family, to provide necessaries of life for a child under the age of sixteen years [4]




Rebuttal



My opponent's arguments misconstrue the word Liberty to mean Licence. Liberty obviously has limits as all laws limit liberties.



Example: I have the liberty to walk down the sidewalk. I do not have the licence to punch the people standing on the sidewalk talking.



This confusion between liberty and licence is made clear in my opponents argument that an abortion is merely a denial of service and not an attack on the unborn. This like a restaurant owner saying that he was only denying a customer service when he shot him in the head and disposed his body in the dumpster.



The fact that women have a liberty is not a licence to maintain that liberty at any cost.



My opponent’s argument seems to rest solely on a misused definition of torture. If we re-examine his original sources:



No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment [5]



and



torture is: To bring great physical or mental pain upon (another) [6]



As [5] is a UN Document we understand torture as the UN describes it:



Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions. [7]



As we can clearly see the third party must be intentionally causing the pain. The definition put forth by my opponent is interpreted in a clearly erroneous manner. As such the definition by the UN does not support his argument.



Using the clearly defined terms and concepts codified above my opponent's additional comments on his original 6 points will be shown to be false.



1) "equality of all humans doesnt give us right to force somebody/woman to do something. it doesnt give us to prevent somebody from avoiding something."



Once again my opponent has confused liberty with licence. Equality of all humans is precisely what limits our freedoms. I am prevented from stealing, raping, and murdering precisely because of the inherent equality of humans. Additionally, as I showed in round 2 there is a hierarchy of rights in that they all build upon the most fundamental right - the right to life. While it is an incorrect argument, even if we assumed that the woman’s right to her body is being violated, killing the child would be a greater violation as the child’s right to live is more fundamental than the woman's to her own body.




2a) "it doesnt mean that 100% of raped pregnants indeed did not want to have abortion."



This was addressed above as a liberty vs licence. The woman does not have absolute power to enforce her liberty. The fact that a woman wants an abortion doesn’t mean that she is entitled to it (hence this debate). It was the rapist who committed the crime, the unborn child is an innocent third party. As such the woman has no right to redress against the unborn, but does against the rapist. The argument greater violation of rights, as explained above, would favour the child.



As for the rest of the comments in this section, my opponent misunderstood the context of the quote.




2b) "in the same way, a woman who wants to avoid can not legally be held responsible for the vulnerability of a fetus."



As she is the parent of the child, she is the guardian of the child until such time as she safely transfers that guardianship to another. See 4 below for more.



3) "a woman can not be held responsible for the vulnerability of a fetus. if fetus dies due to disconnection, that is not our problem, woman has right not to help fetus to survive."



See 2 above and 4 below.




4a) "Me: We hold parents as guardians responsible for the care of their children, regardless of financial circumstances."


"Opponent: who are you? we are not compulsory to live according to you..if one does not want to spend money for something, that is his right not to spend"



Worldwide governments require parents to provide the necessities of life for those who are unable to do so for themselves; this is rooted in Natural and Common Law. Quotes from Canadian and Irish Law as examples:



Failure to Provide the Necessities of Life: Everyone is under a legal duty as a parent, foster parent, guardian or head of a family, to provide necessaries of life for a child under the age of sixteen years [4]



Guardianship is the legal relationship between parents and their child…Guardianship involves: The duty to maintain and properly care for a child [8]



Parents are obligated to provide for their children until they reach an age where they are capable of providing for themselves.




4b) Me: Parents of a newborn would be thrown in jail for dismembering an infant because they thought it was too expensive to take care of


Opponent: what codex has such rule



I’m sorry, but this is embarrassing to answer because it shows a complete lack of rationality to my opponents argument. Suffice to say please refer to sources [3], [7] & [8].



4c) "what can they do till birth? in order this arguement to be sensical, till birth government needs to meet the woman till the birth"



Once again this is already resolved by the liberty vs. licence argument above. Given that people in the third world manage to deliver children, while living well below what we would consider the poverty line, illustrates that this is not a valid argument. The cost of the abortion is likely more than the cost of any additional food necessary to sustain the mother as a result of being pregnant.




5) "that is tradition cant be changed by government at once. this is logical fallacy. to prevent the murder, government needs to watch her 9 months 24 hours because government can not know who&how will kill her."



My opponent seems to misunderstand the role of the government and laws. The purpose of the government is to institute just laws based on truth and to enforce them when people fail to adhere to them. Without instituting such laws, you have an unjust society based on cowardice and intimidation to avoid dealing with an unjust social tradition.



6) & Richman



Once again my opponent fails to understand the difference between non-intervention resulting in death and active intervention resulting in death. Doing nothing ≠ causing. Not pulling someone away from in front of a speeding train is different than pushing them in front of it.



Additionally, parent to child responsibility has been clearly established. [4] [8]




Additional Arguments



1. That people die in committing crime is not justification to legalize an activity. Particularly when the activity being committed results in the death of an innocent human being.



2. If we extend my opponent’s argument we should legalize and license hit men. That way the proceeds do not go to organized crime, but instead assasinations would be more affordable and provide tax revenue.



3. Increase in crime from prohibition of abortion. What crime is worse than the slaughter of innocents? Now in excess of 55,000,000 in the US alone. Additionally, the validity of the research by Levitt has been brought into question:



…contrary to Levitt's theory, there was at the state level, a positive correlation (when appropriately weighted by population of state), between the legal abortion rate in the early 1970s and the teen homicide offending rate in the late 1980s and early 1990s among those youths born after legalization. Unfortunately, Dr. Levitt initially only looked at crime rates for the years 1985 and 1997 (and only looked at the uselessly crude age groups of over and under 25), so he completely missed how his theory had catastrophically failed its most obvious historical test. [9]



4. “a foetus is part of a woman's body”



We have already concluded that the unborn is an individual human being and thus not part of the mother’s body. Argument is nullified.




Arguments



That the unborn is a human has been proven.



That bearing a child is not torture has been proven.



That a liberty to something does not equal an unlimited license to achieve it has been proven.



That parents are bound by law to provide for the needs of the child has been proven.



Equality of humans has not been refuted or even questioned and is therefore proven.



That life is the most fundamental right has not been refuted is therefore proven.






[1] http://tinyurl.com...


[2] http://tinyurl.com...


[3] http://tinyurl.com...


[4] http://tinyurl.com...


[5] http://tinyurl.com...


[6] http://tinyurl.com...


[7] http://tinyurl.com...


[8] http://tinyurl.com...


[9] http://tinyurl.com...

Artur

Con

Liberty: the power or scope to act as one pleases
as we can see, not allowing woman to have abortion is against her liberty.

not allowing woman to avoid bearing is against her power to act as he pleases. making abortion illegal is against woman's liberty.

REBUTTAL:
This like a restaurant owner saying that he was only denying a customer service when he shot him
the right comparison:
This like a restaurant owner saying that he was only denying a customer service when he did not serve him.
even this is not a right comparison, when you go to restaurant you pay and as provısıon you ask to be served, the fetus doesnt pay us.

when we have abortion we rescue ourselves from fetus, comparing "not helping to somebody" with "shoting at somebody" is a fallacy?
woman doesnt hit the fetus, she stops serving.



My opponent's arguments misconstrue the word Liberty to mean Licence.
have no realtion with this

Liberty obviously has limits as all laws limit liberties
avoiding to help is inside that limit. all laws may limit libirties but they do not forbid you from avoiding help to somebody.


and he gave example about liberty. I wanna know what relation does that have with abortion? nothing more than a fallacy. yes, we dont have a licence/right to punch people standing on street, when we have abortion do we ask such licence?

liberty is not a licence to maintain it but at the same time licenceLESS of woman is not a right for us to force her.



PRO gave definition of torture form UN:
As we can clearly see the third party must be intentionally causing the pain.
when you force somebody, does not that have mental pain?
from the definition he gave:

Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental...

when we force women to carry that fetus for 9 months, it includes both: mental and physical pain. with what kind of logic PRO said:

{The definition put forth by my opponent is interpreted in a clearly erroneous manner.}
that is not interpreted in an erroneous manner:


{As such the definition by the UN does not support his argument.} is it not supported? the UN supports Any act by which severe pain or suffering ANY act. the UN is talking about confession, but it also talks about for such purposes

6 conditions.

1) Equality of all humans is precisely what limits our freedoms.
it limit our freedoms, we dont say: "our liberty means we have no boundaries in our liberty even if we want to attack somebody"

but does not limit us from forcing somebody?

I am prevented from stealing, raping, and murdering precisely because of the inherent equality.
but not prevented from forcing woman to do something?


when you steal/rape/murder that is the time when you enter into the liberty zone of somebody else, when you have abortion, it is sending somebody out from your liberty zone.
I woner how a person can compare this two things: "protecting your liberty zone" vs "attacking liberty of somebody."

we send fetus out from our liberty zone, while when we steal/rape/murder we attack the liberty zone of somebody.
comparing these is a fallacy.

most fundamental right - the right to life.
for the right to life of somebody gives us a right to force somebody else? if my life is up to you, then we have right to force you?
this is what rich man arguement solves this problem when antiabortionists make such excuse.

even if we assumed that the woman’s right to her body is being violated, killing the child would be a greater violation as the child’s right to live is more fundamental than the woman's to her own body
more fundamental right of somebody doesnt mean we can force somebody whose right is less fundamental in that case


2)The woman does not have absolute power to enforce her liberty
it is not licence for us to force her to do something. including to save the life of somebody.
woman has no power to enforce, it doesnt mean we can force her to do something.

woman wants an abortion doesn’t mean that she is entitled to it

she needs to be entitled to have abortion in case wants

It was the rapist who committed the crime, the unborn child is an innocent third party
if rapist is culpable one, then force the raper to do something so that the child can live, not woman. woman is more innocent than the child.

a long as child can't be left due to his innocence, women can also not be forced due to her innocence.

As such the woman has no right to redress against the unborn, but does against the rapist
if woman has no right to that, ]we also have no right to force her, we have to redress the rapist. you have to force rapist to do something, not raped one.

{The argument greater violation of rights as explained above would favour the child.}
greater violation is held against the woman in case abortion is not allowed in this case as explained above

2b){As she is the parent of the child, she is the guardian of the child until such time as she safely transfers that guardianship to another. }
a person is not a parent till his/her child is born.

a person is not compulsory to be a guardian of the child no matter he transfers it or not. I will answer section 4 too. women arent guardians of others.


4A)PRO said worldwide governments require the country I live doesnt require it. we are free to do it or to avoid it. so, it is up to governments.
it is against the liberty of a person.

4b) this is embarrassing to answer because it shows a complete lack of rationality to my opponents argument.

the country I come from has no such requirement by law, we are free to do it or to avoid.

becoming required in one country does not mean it is the way it needs to be. if government forces me to do such thing, it is against my liberty. I dont want to look after him, that is my right not to look after it.
it shows lack of rationality of PRO.



4c)Once again this is already resolved by the liberty vs. licence argument above
no relation, all PRO did is to missquote me.

Given that people in the third world manage to deliver children, while living well below what we would consider the poverty line, illustrates that this is not a valid argument
it does not mean "eveybody can do it if they can do it", I may have more needs than they have, for example.
I may have million dollars but I dont want to spend my money for such thing, it may be out of my plans. it illustrates that what PRO said is a fallacy.

The cost of the abortion is likely more than the cost of any additional food necessary to sustain the mother as a result of being pregnant
it is not like that.
abortion may even be so cheap. in my country, it can be done with $3.5, maximum: $35. it is up to country.


5) The purpose of the government is to institute just laws based on truth and to enforce them when people fail to adhere to them.
it is one of the purposes of it.. btw, as government needs to create such laws, abortion is also one of that.

what PRO needs to understand is government cant change the tradition, it is up to society. government may prohibit tradition but it doesnt guarantee that no one will act that banned tradition. prohibition of it doesnt mean it wont occur, even after prohibition they may kill the girl.

{Without instituting such laws, you have an unjust society based on cowardice and intimidation to avoid dealing with an unjust social tradition.

I hope till the next round, PRO will learn diffrence between: "tradition and law" and "dejuro and defacto"
legislative body can make laws against it but it doesnot mean: it will never happen, it may happen even though it is banned.

6) richman arguement:
once again what antiabortionists ignore:
when we have abortion, we ignore to help as rich man ignored to help other person.
we are not pushing fetus infront of train, we jsut pull ourselves from a burden, that is all.

but if my opponent says: abortion is pushing a man infront of train, rich man can also be classified such, they both avoid to help.

additionally, PRO said parent responsibility to child is established, that is in CAnada, I didnt find the codex of my country in english, even not in spanish or russian, but we are free to do it.
and that is agaisnt the liberty of a human.

additional arguements:

1)that is not justification of legalising crime, but to avoid helping is not crime, that is right of person, inside her liberty.
in the same way, that is not justification for forcing woman to do smthg.


2)hitting men is attacking somebody while abortion is not attacking the right of somebody, it is avoding to do something.
if we have right to force woman to carry fetus,, we have right to force riches to help others.

3)that maybe the worst, but worst crime doesnt give us right to force others to do something.

4) if fetus is part of woman, it gives me more chance, as I have a right to cut my hairs [which is part of my body], as I have a right to cut fingernail [which is also part of my body], then I also have right to have abortion. I have right to chop of my finger too.

arguements:

unborn may be human, but not having a right of us to force others is proven and not refuted.
bearing child isnt not torture, forcing somebody is a torture.

liberty to something does not equal an unlimited license to achieve
doesnt give us right to force woman.

That parents are bound by law to provide for the needs that is the error of canada, if you have knowledge of my language, I can send you codexes not availabe in english.

that is against the freedom of person. we are not required


Equality of humans has not been refuted
Im not against it, why need to refute? all people are equal, we can't force woman.

That life is the most fundamental right has not been refuted
Im not against it, why need to refute?



WIDENING RICHMAN ARGUEMENT:
now let me widen it:
I offer somebody to drink alcohol as a rich man, he drinks and becomes ill, then you have right to force me to help him as we have right to force woman.

ADDITIONAL:
since we have no right to force person to save other person:
since we cant torture others:
since "not helping" others is inside our liberty: I ask govenrment to make abortion legal.

character limit

Debate Round No. 3
Geogeer

Pro

A couple of final terms to close out my arguments:

Parent: an animal or plant from which new ones are derived [1]

Child: a son or daughter of any age [2]

Draft: compulsory recruitment for military service [3]


Rebuttal:

As this is the final round I will attempt to be brief. As my opponent used no new sources in the last round, he simply restated arguments that have already been refuted. My round will clarify areas where he attempted to sow confusion.

As previously noted my opponent still does not understand the difference between liberty and licence.

As my opponent continues to argue the UN definition of torture applies to abortion I will reiterate:

Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions. [4]

No further argument is necessary as his argument has been proven wrong.

My opponent continues to argue that the government does not have the right to force us to help others. To add to my previous arguments there are several other obvious areas where the government does indeed force people to provide aid to others.

1) Income tax. The government imposes taxes on individuals. [5] These taxes are used to support the common good. Thus the government effectively forces you to provide a percentage of your labour in the general aid of others.
2) The government can force you to fight for the general good of the nation by drafting you into military service. [3]

3) The government forces men who have fathered a child to provide financial aid to the raising of a child.

Regardless of how you became a parent, you are required to pay child support. Canada's Child Support Guidelines is based on parenthood, whether the child is a result of a long-term relationship or a one-night stand. [6]

On Wednesday, a Kansas judge ruled that a man who provided sperm to a lesbian couple in response to an ad on Craigslist must pay child support for the child born from the arrangement. Though he pleaded with the judge saying he never intended to be a father to the child, the judge found that William Marotta is, in fact, the child’s father and must pay child support as a result. [7]

This is a condition directly related to specifically forcing the a citizen to provide a percentage of his labour in support of his child.

My opponent argued that:

“a person is not a parent till his/her child is born”

As we have previously established, the unborn child is a human being. Scientifically, the parents are the ones whose gametes joined to form the child. Thus the definition [1] above holds true from fertilization until death. Additionally, following the definition [2] above the Child is always the child as it is the biological creation of the two parents from fertilization onwards.

My opponent argues that:

“legislative body can make laws against it but it does not mean: it will never happen, it may happen even though it is banned.”

By extending this faulty argument, since we still have murders, thefts and rapes we should not have laws against these items, because those laws will be broken. This is a fallacious argument.

Finally I will quickly address the expanded rich man argument.

If the rich man had foreknowledge that his actions would endanger his friend, he could be found liable for his friends illness. If the person was a minor, he could be found liable for his minor friend’s illness due the minor’s inability to properly judge such things for himself. If giving his friend this drink could reasonably be foreseen to cause his friend harm (giving him methanol instead of ethanol) - even if he didn’t intend for it to harm - then yes he could be found liable for any negative results to his friend. If by giving the drink to his friend, caused an unknown reaction resulting in his friend harm then no, he would not have a legal obligation.

Much of this falls under a Duty to Rescue [8]

A duty to rescue is a concept in tort law that arises in a number of cases, describing a circumstance in which a partycan be held liable for failing to come to the rescue of another party in peril. In common law systems, it is rarely formalized in statutes which would bring the penalty of law down upon those who fail to rescue. This does not necessarily obviate a moral duty to rescue: though law is binding and carries government-authorized sanctions, there are also separate ethical arguments for a duty to rescue that may prevail even where law does not punish failure to rescue.

In the common law of most anglosphere countries, there is no general duty to come to the rescue of another. Generally, a person cannot be held liable for doing nothing while another person is in peril. However, such a duty may arise in two situations:
1. A duty to rescue arises where a person creates a hazardous situation. If another person then falls into peril because of this hazardous situation, the creator of the hazard – who may not necessarily have been a negligent tortfeasor – has a duty to rescue the individual in peril.
2. Such a duty may also arise where a "special relationship" exists. For example:
a. Parents have a duty to rescue their minor children. This duty also applies to those acting in loco parentis, such as schools or babysitters.
b. Property owners have a duty to rescue invitees but not trespassers from all dangers on the property.


Final arguments

The child has a natural right to be protected and provided for by its parents because it is impossible for the child and thus the race to survive otherwise. Logically speaking this must be true. Thus, intuitively, one cannot have a right that is fundamentally harmful to the species if everyone enforces this right. It goes agains all logic and natural law. As rights must logically be a fundamentally to the good of the species in nature, a right to abortion cannot be valid as it actively works against the fundament right to life we previously established.

The principle of double effect details an effective means of determining whether an action is morally permissible. It gives 4 statements to which all must be true for an action be a morally valid.

  1. The nature of the act: The action must be either morally good or indifferent.
  2. The motivation of the act: The negative effect must not be the means by which one achieves the good effect.
  3. The circumstances of the condition. The intention must be the achieving of only the good effect, with the bad effect being only an unintended side effect.
  4. The proportionality condition. The good effect must be at least equivalent in importance to the bad effect.

The second of these four conditions is an application of the more general principle that good ends do not justify evil means.

By this ethical framework we can see that abortion can never be ethical as the negative effect (the death of the child) is precisely the means by which the good effect (preservation of autonomy is achieved)


Concluding argument

We have established that the unborn child is a human being, that all human beings have equal rights, and that the right to life is the most fundamental right of all human beings. Additionally, it has been shown that parents have both a natural and legal obligation to provide for their children until the age of majority. It was further detailed how an abortion is a direct attack on the unborn child.

Additionally, the right to enforce one’s liberties at the expense of an innocent 2nd party’s life is both fundamentally immoral, and a greater abuse of the 2nd party’s fundamental rights than that of the 1st party’s rights.

Thus the act of abortion is fundamentally akin to murder in that it is an action that directly or indirectly targets an innocent human being resulting in her death. As such not only can abortion not be considered to be a right, but it has been shown to be wrong and immoral based on other legal and moral principles that we live by.

For these reasons the current situation surrounding abortion is immoral by logic and natural law, inconsistent with other aspects of our legal system, and thus abortion should be illegal.

[1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

[2] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

[3] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...;

[5] http://www.law.cornell.edu...

[6] http://www.childsupportlaws.ca...

[7] http://www.medicaldaily.com...

[8 ]http://en.wikipedia.org...

I would like to thank my opponent for a spirited debate.

As this is my first formal debate I look forward to the comments from the judges.

Finally I would ask the voters to take into account that my opponent’s first language isn’t english when considering grammar and spelling.

Artur

Con

UN definition of torture applies to abortion:
Article 2 of the convention prohibits torture, and requires parties to take effective measures to prevent it in any territory under its jurisdiction. This prohibition is absolute and non-derogable. "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever"[5] may be invoked to justify torture, including war, threat of war, internal political instability, public emergency, terrorist acts, violent crime, or any form of armed conflict.[6] Torture cannot be justified as a means to protect public safety or prevent emergencies. http://bit.ly...

forcements said by PRO:
1)Income tax: firstly, when we pay this, we are not forced to help others, we are asked to pay the bill/e.t.c.

that is not forcing, we are asked to pay tax but we are not forced when we pay tax, that is a result of agreement, if you dont want to pay, you will not work/manage your business. it is your choice. when you start business or work, you make a covenant between government, that is your choice, government is not forcing. is it comparable with pregnancy&abortion? no. pregnancy is not provision of something you took from government, hence government cant force us for pregnancy.

not forcing. Has no even similarity with abortion.
2) conscription: when we are taken into army, that is not forcement, that is our debt. that is our debt&duty. a provision for the services of government, government serves you because you are its citizien and as a debt it. when you accept the citizienship of that country you accept that condition, that is agreement, not force. but pregnancy is not like that, pregnancy is not provision of something taken from government. to compare this with forcing for pregnancy: pregnancy needs to be provision of something taken from government, provision of service of government, but is pregnancy provision of something taken from governmetn?

in so many countries you are free to do it: you can see it here: http://bit.ly...

and in so many countries you can deny it by delivering your citizienship. for exaple: the country I came from.

3) he shows Canada's codex, in my country we are free to do it, we have right not to supply children. our codex is not available even electronically&online, but I can send you word file.
so, forcing person to supply for his child is against hsi liberty, if it is compulsory in canada, it is free in my country.

about parent:
person who is a father or mother : a person who has a child http://bit.ly...
person is not parent till chat child comes into the world.

PRO missquoted:
By extending this faulty argument, since we still have murders, thefts and rapes we should not have laws against these items, because those laws will be broken. This is a fallacious argument.
I didnt use such logic, in fact, what PRO deduced is a fallacy. what I meant is:
even if government makes laws against tradition which says girl needs to be killed, it does not prevent girl from being killed due to her pregnancy. what I argued is: girl rescues herself from being killed by having abortion. she may be killed even if it is banned, I didnt argue we shouldnt have laws, I argued: it doesnt protect girl.

having laws which prohibit killing doesnt guarantee the security of the girl.
in order to make abortion illegal in this case, government needs to save girl, laws cant save girl. we can not let girl be killed for another one.

rich man:
it was about alcohol, but PRO added red-herrings by adding harmfull drinks, we were not talking about such poisons or e.t.c the arguement is about an alcohol, in such cases as we have no right to force the rich, then it is irrational to force woman for pregnancy.

in alcoholic case:
it is the same thing with abortion, both help to other person, if both doesnt help, it will result with death, in order to make abortion illegal, we need right to force rich to help the poor.

if we can force woman for pregnancy, then government needs to give us right to force rich people to help the poor. he quoted about duty to rescue, from the source he gave:
In the common law of most anglosphere countries, there is no general duty to come to the rescue of another.Generally, a person cannot be held liable for doing nothing while another person is in peril. http://bit.ly...
what we can see is: we have no duty to rescue others. PART WRITTEN WITH BOLD is enough to refute.

if government doesnt force the rich to help the poor, then we cant force woman to help the fetus.
in the same way, when I(richman) give you alcohol, in case you become ill when you drink, I am not forced to help you. that rule doesnt work here.

A duty to rescue arises where a person creates a hazardous situation. If another person then falls into peril because of this hazardous situation
has no relation with pregnancy, in order this to have relation with abortion, both pregnancy&abortion needs to be hazardious situation.



fianl arguements:
the child has a right to be protected=>red-herring, are we against this? do we assert: children have no right for this? no. what we assert: we have right not to help the child.
it is impossible for the child and thus the race to survive otherwise.
being impossibel for them doesnt give us right to attack the liberty of somebody.

one cannot have a right that is fundamentally harmful to the species if everyone enforces this right.
one can that right, even driving is harmfull to the atmosphere which cause harm to the whole world, as we have right for driving, we can say taht we have such right.
2)everyone doesnt enforce it, for example: me and people like me.

rights must logically be a fundamentally to the good of the species
rights not have to be to the good of species, drinking alcohol is my right but it is not good of species, saying rights must logically be a fundamentally to the good of the species in nature is fallacy. no need to write about it more.
right to abortion can be valid, that is our liberty.
making it illegal can not be be valid as it actively works against the freedom of us.

responding concluding arguements:
unborn may be human being, all humans may have equal right, we arent against these.
we have right not to help others, so we have right not to help to the fetus.

parents have no any kind of obligation to help to the child, that is against our liberty, in my country we are free to do it.
and forcing parents to supply children is against the liberty of people.

the right to enforce one’s liberties at the expense of an innocent 2nd party’s life is both fundamentally immoral, and a greater abuse of the 2nd party’s fundamental rights than that of the 1st party’s rights.
rich people are free to help to the poor, so do the women.
by this logic, to defendrich man's liberty not to help others is immoral.

and one may ask, what is morale? it is a subjective perspective, for PRO it may be immoral,, for me it is not immoral, for so many people having sex without getting married is immoral for so many it is moral. immorality and morality has no standard thing, saying it is immoral is pointless, I think.

making abortion illegal is against our liberty.
since we have right not to help others even if they are about to die, act of abortion is our right. for such reasons, abortion is 100% true in any case.

as such, not only prohibitinhg abortion can not be something logical, it has also been shown that it is our right. ABORTION SHOULD BE LEAGL.



making abortion illegal is against our liberty, because:
*we have right not to help others.=>forcing women to carry fetus is against her right not to help others.
*women are not container or machine for fetus.>forcing women to carry it is like seeing her as a container.
*body is our body and we can use it as we wish>>not allowing women to send fetus out of her body is against her right to use her body freely.

additional:
PRO sometimes argued that abortion is harmfull to the species, even if we think in that way, when we look at statistics I presented in round2, making abortion illegal is bigger harm to the world. it increases corruption and crime rates.

6 conditions:
out of that 6 conditions, against just one contion we have shown rational arguement.


I have written so much things, taht is enough, it made me tired. I conclude:
CONSIDERING SUCH REASONS, ABORTION SHOULD BE LEGAL.
Debate Round No. 4
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Artur 2 years ago
Artur
@Dialra, abortion is not murder, it is just stopping the help you give.
Posted by Artur 2 years ago
Artur
I reread this debate now. main points:

no where in the debate it is shown that we have right to force woman to help others. this was the main point of the debate.

2. rich man arguement solved all the fallacies of antiabortionists. all I failed to do is to show our codex.

I do not know how voted the voters.
Posted by Dilara 2 years ago
Dilara
Abortion is murderer
Posted by Artur 2 years ago
Artur
nothing was sarcasm, be sure :)
Posted by Geogeer 2 years ago
Geogeer
It was fun thanks for a good debate.
Posted by Artur 2 years ago
Artur
anyway, not important. congrats.

at the time opponent is better, I know to admit it,CONGRATS.
in my first debate, I did it to my opponent.
Posted by Geogeer 2 years ago
Geogeer
The UN Rights of the Child agrees with me, but since we were late in the debate I didn't want to introduce that... There were enough arguments already in play.
Posted by Artur 2 years ago
Artur
opponent was better in this debate, I also predict he will win. I couldnt give a reference for some of my rebuttals, for example: we are free to supply our children in my country but I could not give reference because our codex and constitute is not available electroniccally even in our own language. just our constitution is available electronically and that is not in english. on the other hand, PRo gave reference for the codex of canada.

I wish our codexes were available.
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 2 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
Yea it happens with me too.
Posted by Geogeer 2 years ago
Geogeer
I'm sorry about the wide spacing that shows up between the lines of my text. I'm unsure what is happening here, but it must have something to do with typing in a text editor and doing a copy paste.

I hope it doesn't ruin the readability. I'll have to figure out how to avoid this in the future.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by laker7745 2 years ago
laker7745
GeogeerArturTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Good debate but I think Geogeer wins it.
Vote Placed by GarretKadeDupre 2 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
GeogeerArturTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: For a non-native English speaker, Con presented his arguments very well, despite many errors. Pro had more convincing arguments. Many of Con's arguments relied on the premise that fetus is not a human, which Pro thoroughly refuted. Another point that won Pro the debate was the duty of parents to protect their children. Con conceded to this, but still tried to argue that abortion is not hazardous to the child, which I simply do not buy. As Pro described, abortion is a graphic, murderous procedure, and for Con to claim it isn't hazardous to the baby without actually arguing why was a big mistake.