The Instigator
Deonatus
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
debatojenvo
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Abortion should be illegal

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 4 votes the winner is...
Deonatus
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/25/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 464 times Debate No: 101377
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (3)
Votes (4)

 

Deonatus

Pro

I'd like to start off by saying I appreciate any time that anyone gives to this and also to clarify that I am arguing against abortions of any kind and for any reason except in the instance of danger to the mother. To be clear I am referring to abortions as the deliberate termination of a viable pregnancy and am not referring to instances where the fetus/embryo displays lethal developmental problems or is already dead. Let me also point out that I believe that many things should be legal even though they go against my core values as a religious person. I don't care what others choose to do so long as they don't infringe on the rights of others. I am not looking to impose my religious beliefs on others or reinforce patriarchal dominance over a woman's body. This is where I have an issue with abortion. The government has not only a right, but a responsibility to protect human lives under the constitution. I believe that at conception a zygote is its own human life deserving of its own individual rights that ought not be infringed by anyone even the mother who carries it.
Does a human embryo qualify as living? Yes. It is an indisputable and basic biological fact. There are 7 scientific qualifications for life: it must maintain homeostasis, be composed of cells, undergo metabolism, have capacity for growth, have the ability to adapt to the environment, be able to respond to stimuli, and have the capacity to reproduce. An embryo meets all these criteria. But many things are considered organisms that aren't guaranteed life which brings us to the next question we must consider.
Is a human embryo human? Of course. It has human DNA thus making it both human and a living organism. Given these two things it seems obvious that to destroy an embryo would be to destroy human life.
I have often heard the argument that an embryo is not an individual. That it is simply a part of the woman's body. This is false. It is not a part of the mother's body if it has completely different DNA and as a fetus potentially different sex, hair color, face shape, etc. Just because it is dependent on the mother's body does not make it a part of her body.
Perhaps one of the worst talking points I have heard on the "pro-choice" side is that whether or not to have an a abortion is a deeply personal decision and should be left between the woman and her doctor. This is evil. The government should have a definition for human life if it promises to protect it. Individuals should not be allowed to determine what is and isn't a human being. This same strain of thought was used to justify slavery in the US. People decided that other people weren't people based on personal feelings and for convenience just like with abortion today. A human being is not a subjective concept that changes based on a someone else's desire to afford a car or have more free time or to have a baby with a different gender. A human being is a living, growing being that can and ought to be scientifically defined and governmentally protected.
I believe that most who agree with the pro-choice stance do so with good intentions. I hope that whoever disagrees with my contentions can see my intentions as well. I look forward to any responses.
debatojenvo

Con

I accept the debate. Thank you for arranging it.

I think abortion should be legal because if an embryo was killed it wouldn't feel pain unless it was in the third trimester of pregnancy and it is illegal in the third trimester.

Secondly an embryo's brain hasn't developed enough to make decisions so it can't decide whether it wants to be killed or not.

Thirdly an average chicken is smarter than unborn babies since newly born chicks can keep track of numbers up to five and they have basic understanding of physics which is proved when showed two pictures was shown to chicks and they were interested more in the one that obeyed the laws of physics. Chicks could also understand that an objects gone out of sight still exists while it takes an year for a baby after it's born to grasp that. So should we not eat chicken eggs since that technically counts as chicken abortion.

Now to rebuttals :
You said that since an embryo has human DNA it makes it human. Well guess what we share 50% of our DNA with bananas and 98% with apes so does that make them human, no it doesn't.
You also said that an embryo is an individual. It isn't because it depends on the the woman's body for oxygen and it is attached to the woman's body. An embryo needs a woman.
One of your other arguments said it shouldn't be left between woman and doctor. Well I think it should because it is the woman's body and she has control over it so she should decide what happens to it(which is also why the government can't stop the woman from drinking alcohol when she is pregnant)

I am looking forward to the rest of the debate.
Good luck.
Debate Round No. 1
Deonatus

Pro

First I'd like to thank you for your response. After your acceptance I went over and glanced at your profile and saw a couple of the other debates you are currently engaged in and I was pleased to see you arguing in favor of Android over iOS. I too prefer Android.
Now for the debate, I will start by rebutting your first points in order and then I will rebut your rebuttals and prove that my arguments still stand.
On your first point you claim that only fetuses in their third trimester feel pain, though doctor say they can feel it at 20 weeks which is about halfway through the second trimester. Regardless though, one's ability to feel pain does not confer personhood or human rights. If someone were to kill someone else while they were on painkillers that doesn't make the murder more moral. There are people born with conditions that do not allow them to feel pain. Does that mean that murdering them is less immoral? Of course not. Additionally third trimester abortions are not federally illegal and 11 states don't have state laws preventing it.
Next, you state that they cannot choose for themselves whether or not they want to be killed so it should be the mother's decision. Technically according to consent laws in the US a child could be killed at any point the mother chooses after birth until they are 18 and have a legal right to make decisions for themselves under this logic. This logic also supports elective suicide or euthanasia because it allows the mother (as proxy for the embryo) to decide whether or not the person/embryo wants to be killed.
Your third argument is that unborn babies aren't intelligent enough (though you fail to define how intelligent one would need to be) to be granted human rights. Though in your argument you say it takes a year for a baby to understand that objects out of sight exists. I have a 1 year old sister and she understood this before that time but regardless under this logic killing a one year-old should be acceptable because they didn't develop certain cognitive functions as quickly as chickens. Most people who eat chicken eggs eat them unfertilized which do not meat the criteria for life. Some eat fertilized eggs (mostly in other countries) and although I wouldn't because it seems gross, I don't believe chickens deserve human rights. There are studies show pigs have better memories than 3 year-olds should mother be able to kill 3 year-olds for convenience? Should there be a litmus test to determine who is worthy of human rights? Should the severely mentally ill not be considered sub-human because they lack sufficient cognitive brain function? The answers to all these questions are no. Intelligence does not confer personhood and should not be a prerequisite to human rights.
Now to your rebuttals, you seek to refute my definition of human by saying bananas and apes have similar DNA to that of humans. Similar does not equal same. If a scientist finds ape tissue he can test it and determine that it is ape, and if the scientist find human tissue he can test it and determine that it is human. There is an objective scientific definition of what DNA is human and what isn't.
Next you claim an embryo is not an individual because it depends on the mother for survival. This is similar to your third argument because it too can be applied to infants, toddlers, and even children. Babies depend on mothers well after birth for food, warmth, and various other things that are necessary for life. Mentally and physically handicapped individual can sometimes depend on these things from another for their whole lives. An embryo needs a mother live just as a baby post-birth still needs a parent to live. Just because someone is dependent on someone else does not mean they are not individual human beings deserving of human rights. Therefore it is not just between the mother and doctor because it is not the woman's body. Dependency on the mother's body does not equal part of the mother's body.
I personally don't know/haven't considered the governments role in requiring pregnant women to not drink alcohol while pregnant but I will say that it does not have the same inherent intent to kill or harm the fetus. It is certainly still wrong though, just as it is wrong for parents who smoke to expose their children to second-hand smoke which can also cause health problems and even death.
Lastly, I would like to briefly reiterate my overall argument. Scientific fact dictates that upon conception, a zygote is human life with human DNA. It meets all the criteria of a living organism and contains genetic proof of its humanity. The embryo/ fetus/zygote is dependent on the mother just as children are dependent on their mother for survival but both the unborn and born child have the qualifications of a living organism on their own. Therefore to terminate pregnancy is to destroy an individual human life. This makes abortion is murder. Pregnant women should not have the right to murder another individual because their existence makes life harder for her. It is not for individuals to decide what is and isn't a human being based on subjective feeling or convenience. There is an objective, factual, scientific definition for a human individual and the government ought to guarantee constitutional/human rights to all who fall under that definition. One way the government ought to be ensuring this is through making the intentional termination of a viable pregnancy (abortion) illegal and punishable as any other form of murder.

Thanks for the debate! I look forward to hearing your next response. I have never thought about the role of government as far as second hand smoke and drinking while pregnant it seems like it could lead to a slippery slope argument where the government determines what is and isn't healthy for individuals which I am opposed to but it is interesting.
Have a good one debatojenvo! :)
debatojenvo

Con

You have persuaded me. Nice. Now I think abortion should be illegal. Anything else you want to debate on?
Debate Round No. 2
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Fabersara 1 year ago
Fabersara
"Chicks could also understand that an objects gone out of sight still exists while IT TAKES A YEAR FOR A CHILD AFTER IT'S BORN to grasp that. So should we not eat chicken eggs since that technically counts as chicken abortion."

*ahem* For convenience's sake, I have capitalized the significant portion. Is con comparing one-year-old children to chickens? If con is using this to justify abortion, con could also use this point to justify infanticide. (I really hope not.)
Posted by John_C_1812 1 year ago
John_C_1812
The argument of the legality of Abortion rests on the fact abortion is a confession to a crime of murder and not an accusation as suggested by public debate. The person saying abortion has no way of knowing if in fact a gender specific amputation has taken place or not.
Is gender specific amputation illegal?
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
Well.. Anything you think..Some just do not think anything..
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Jacobbruce 1 year ago
Jacobbruce
DeonatusdebatojenvoTied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: As far as conduct, spelling and grammar go, I believe pro and con tied.Pro was able to rebute all of cons arguments. Con put false information into their arguments.
Vote Placed by Mharman 1 year ago
Mharman
DeonatusdebatojenvoTied
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: FF
Vote Placed by paintballvet18 1 year ago
paintballvet18
DeonatusdebatojenvoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession awards conduct and args to Pro.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
DeonatusdebatojenvoTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession.