The Instigator
DATXDUDE
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Valar_Dohaeris
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Abortion should be illegal

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Valar_Dohaeris
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/10/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 472 times Debate No: 68101
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

DATXDUDE

Pro

I just had a debate about this, but my opponent didn't challenge me enough. You have to be as ranked as good or better than me to accept. I am aware that this may cause me to lose, but I haven't had an interesting debate in a long time.

First round is acceptance. May the best debater win.
Debate Round No. 1
DATXDUDE

Pro

Abortion should be illegal for the following reasons:

C1:

The mother has lived her life.

A fetus hasn't experienced life yet, and the mother of a fetus has. Picture life as a toy. It isn't fair to give a toy to one child and nothing to another child. Thus, killing a fetus, even if carrying a fetus to term could potentially could kill the mother, is not fair to the fetus because the fetus hasn't had a chance to live.

C2:

Adoption centers.

A common argument for people who are pro choice is that people who get abortions are sometimes very poor. Preventing a mother from killing a baby would supposedly lead to a baby having a horrible quality of life. However, this is obviously false because statistics show that there is a high demand for adoption in the USA, and throughout the world. Killing the fetus would prevent a couple from having the joy of raising a child and it would murder an innocent organism.

Statistics for adoption:

http://liveactionnews.org......

C3:

The fetus is, in fact, a conscious organism. You don't have to go to Harvard to know that cells are the basic unit of life. A fetus is made up of cells, so it is alive. It has been proven, in fact, that a fetus can feel pain before the third trimester, and a fetus has brain activity long before then.

Statistics for fetus consciousness:

http://www.mccl.org......

Back to Con. Good luck.
Valar_Dohaeris

Con

Pros BOP

Ill do contentions this round and refutations in the next.

Resolved - Abortion should be illegal

Meaning abortion should be banned in all cases. Let's get on to the actual topic at hand.

Contention 1 ) Ectopic Pregnancies and Pregnancies that can endanger the mother.

When you have to competing choices in regards to life. All factors must be taken into consideration. First my adversary must establish that the fetus is a human life and that it is in fact murder. If he is not able to do so, then the mother killing a fetus is morally permissible and this is a de facto truth. IF he is able to establish that, then we have to competing lives. How should that be determiner. If one person is going to die regardless, it seems absurd for the government to decide who that will be. The choice itself should be made by the family and the mother herself. Especially the mother. You cannot tell her that she has no right to self defense. Any one under US or most countries laws, have the right to reasonable defend themselves under the law. Meaning if something is causing your body enough harm where it can actually kill you, you have the right to fight back with deadly force. The same is true here. A fetus is engaging the mother and harming her to the point of death. The mother should have the right to reasonably defend herself, just as the fetus should. At that point it should be removed from a government perspective, because you are denying the right of the mother to actually defend herself reasonably.

If you had a baby in a room with you that was going to blow up and the only way to defuse this was talk to the doctor. The issue is that the doctor was not there. The only choice you had was to kill the baby in order to save your own life is it morally permissible to do so? Some would say yes, and so would I. As would any reasonable person. Means to and end is always a question especially in regards to self defense that could save your own life.

Contention 2 ) Rape

Judith Thompson proposed a wonderful analogy for this, called the violinist analogy. It goes like this

" Suppose you wake up one morning, and you find yourself without your knowledge attached to a violinist. Come to find out a society of music lovers kidnapped you in hopes that you could save him, because you were the only person that met the pre requisites to sustain his condition. You call the doctor and he notes and apologies for you being kidnapped and informs you that in 9 months, they will have the stuff that is required to make the guy better. If you remove the chord prior to then the guy will die"

From a moral stand point, there is no real way to answer this question. Morality itself is derived from the situation and there is nothing immoral about removing yourself from pain. 9 months worth of emotional suffered, damage, loss of job activities, etc is reason enough to remove yourself from this person if you feel the need. The main reason being that you had no choice in the matter. You were forced into this. Pregnancy is often the same. Someone forced themselves on you and raped you under no choice of your own, and banning abortion would legally make you responsible for someones else's choice.

There are also legal issuing revolving around this. The federal government cannot force you to do things that violate your right to autonomy. They can not force you to donate a organ to a dying person, as your body is your private property. The stuff in your body is your property. The same is the case here. The federal government cannot compel you to keep a fetus in your body when it was forcibly placed there against your will. You should have the right to chose. This is true with organ donning, and it is true with this situation. The government should have no say over your autonomy in regards to your bodily rights.
Debate Round No. 2
DATXDUDE

Pro

Before I begin, I would like the audience to note that my opponent has only provided two contentions. In his supporting arguments, he has made statements that I have already proven invalid. I realize the first round is for opening arguments, but my opponent should probably read my arguments before making his own.

CONTENTION 1 REBUTTAL:

"When you have to competing choices in regards to life. All factors must be taken into consideration."

First of all, I think my opponent meant to put a comma instead of a period before the word "life".

I do not disagree with this statement, but I do disagree with the factors he would have us consider.

Factor one: Is the fetus a human life?

No, but it is still a life. And soon, it will be a human life. Also, it will probably live a longer life than the mother if if it is not brutally murdered. My first contention provides information on why this is important.

Factor two: Self defense.

This is actually a very common argument that people in favor of keeping/making abortion legal will use, but it is shockingly more flawed than it is common.

A person attacking another person is not comparable to a fetus endangering a woman's life. A fetus is not aware that it is endangering a person's life. However, a person attacking another person is fully aware that they are killing someone.

Factor three: Human rights.

Humans do not have the right to kill an innocent organism. Some rights have limits.

At the end of their first contention, my opponent essentially states that any reasonable person would share their point of view. This is bordering on ad hominem, but I will ignore that for now.

Also, in my opponents analogy, both the baby and the mother would be killed.

CONTENTION 2 REBUTTAL:

I would like everyone to picture a scenario. Someone holds a gun to someone else's head for nine months and makes them carry a kitten for that amount of time. However, if they kill the kitten, the person with a gun to their head can go on with their life. Is the person with a gun to their head justified in killing an innocent kitten, even if carrying the kitten would hinder them from doing things?

Regarding my opponents argument legal argument on abortion, it doesn't matter what is legal in the context of this debate. This is a discussion of whether abortion should be made illegal.

Furthermore, a fetus is not part of a woman's body. It is not a mere organ, but an organism.

As for "bodily rights", again, some rights have limits. For example, you can't use your body to commit arson.
Valar_Dohaeris

Con

Note : I chose to ignore cons contentions because most of them would be refuted, along with the fact I disagree with them in great detail. I will explain why.

R1) A fetus is not a human life

This debate will probably end right here, so I am not going to spend much time on this debate from here on out. He concedes that a fetus is not a human life, but a life. This literally just handed me the debate, I refer you to his own words.

" Factor one: Is the fetus a human life?

No, but it is still a life. And soon, it will be a human life "

What he concedes is that a baby is a human life, but a fetus is not a human life. This gives extra weight to all my arguments. Pro right contenders often try to show that a fetus is a life and by executing a fetus, we are committing murder. All of his points are lost due to this admission

As killing a life is not murder. We kill dear an they are living organisms and it is morally permissible. Killing something that is not a human life is perfectly acceptable under all clauses.

R2) The mother has lived her live

This entire argument is now invalid, as committing an abortion is not ending a life. It's ending a fetus accoridngy to my adversaries own stance. So we can dismiss this.

c2) adoption centers

AS this is no longer a factor, we can dismiss it. A mother can kill a fetus without killing a human life so there is no reason for her to wait for the child to be born. This argument is invalid

r3) organisms

roaches are conscious organisms, that does not stop us from killing them. My adversary did state that a fetus was not a human

= Ending =

When my adversary noted that a fetus is not a human life he effectively handed me the debate. All points regarding rape and a life for a life are extended but with a larger impact. The mother is going to abort a fetus in order to save her life, without the consequence of killing another human life by my contenders own admission. The same extends for rape. All my arguments stand and with his own statement he refuted half of his case.
Debate Round No. 3
DATXDUDE

Pro

My opponent thinks he has somehow won this debate, when, in actuality, he has just handed me the debate by not properly addressing my contentions. Also, he refers to me as "Con". Con is the position he is taking.

CONTENTION 1

My opponent naively states that:

"What he concedes is that a baby is a human life, but a fetus is not a human life. This gives extra weight to all my arguments. Pro right contenders often try to show that a fetus is a life and by executing a fetus, we are committing murder. All of his points are lost due to this admission."

First of all, saying that a fetus is not YET a human life is in no way a concession. A concession would be this: "Abortion should be legal."

A dear will never become a human, so saying that killing a fetus and killing a dear are in any way comparable is completely absurd.

CONTENTION 2 DEFENSE:

A fetus actually is a living organism. I actually said this in my contention 1 rebuttal. And regarding adoption, again, a mother is ending a life by aborting a fetus. A fetus may not be a human yet, but it is much more conscious than, say, a cockroach.

CONCLUSION:

My opponent's case is essentially centered on the idea that, since a mother is human and a fetus is not, abortion should be legal. However, his arguments don't fully, if at all, properly explain why the mother being classified as "human" is important.
Valar_Dohaeris

Con

I apologize for calling him con, but I am use to being pro in abortion debates. He stated the res in a non affirmative stance, so I made that mistake.

I am just going to briefly summarize why I won this because it is not necessary to go into great detail

My primary contentions revolve around weighing the value of a life. My adversary concedes that a fetus is not a human life, thus affirming the pro stance. Negating the possibility of a life is not murder, so it is perfectly acceptable. From there both of my contentions stand

His arguments revolve around a fetus making it to become a human life, which again is no viable reason to side a vote with him. When he conceded that a fetus is not a human life, he is giving the mother legal and moral ground to kill it thus negating half of his own contentions.

This debate clearly sides with me. Thank you
Debate Round No. 4
DATXDUDE

Pro

First of all, Con doesn't know he has won this debate. The voters will decide who won.

It doesn't matter what killing a fetus is called, but I am arguing that it should be illegal, and Con should be arguing the opposite.

I am not going to say anything else about Cons arguments until Con address my contentions.

Vote Pro.
Valar_Dohaeris

Con

at this point I dont even feel my adversary realizes what he has done. By stating a fetus is not a human life he has affirmed all of my contentions along with negating ever one of his points. There is not much left to respond too.

thank you
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by DATXDUDE 1 year ago
DATXDUDE
I said "not a human life", not, "not a life".
Posted by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
Not a human life??????? If it's not human, what.is it? If it's not alive how.does it develop and.grow?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 1 year ago
Blade-of-Truth
DATXDUDEValar_DohaerisTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Tie. Both had adequate conduct throughout. S&G - Tie. Both had minor spelling errors, but this balanced out. Arguments - Con. Pro... idk what you were thinking by stating that a fetus is not a human life. Con accurately picked up on that, and immediately began showing how this cost Pro the debate due to Pro now arguing that a "form of life" is more valuable than a "human life". Pro did try to overcome that by claiming that it "will become" a human life soon, but Con effectively showed that if something is not the same value as human life, it has no precedence over human life. This is a clear win for Con, and an unfortunate error on Pro's part.
Vote Placed by BLAHthedebator 1 year ago
BLAHthedebator
DATXDUDEValar_DohaerisTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro concedes all points. Just because it WILL become human life doesn't make it human life, thus it is not viable to call abortion unacceptable.