The Instigator
Tulbakra
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Jack212
Con (against)
Winning
17 Points

Abortion should be legal in all instances

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 5 votes the winner is...
Jack212
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/28/2013 Category: Health
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 799 times Debate No: 36094
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (5)

 

Tulbakra

Pro

Women always have the right to choose whether or not to have children, and I think this extends into abortion.
Jack212

Con

Hi Tulbakra.

I am accepting your debate challenge and arguing for the "Con" side - i.e. arguing that abortion should be illegal in one or more cases.

I'll let you make your case, then we'll go from there.
Debate Round No. 1
Tulbakra

Pro

Abortion should be legal in all instances because the human right to your own body covers abortions.
1.A fetus is less conscious then an adult pig or even a cow or chicken, yet we say it is okay to kill them.
2. Abortion is no different than birth control, because the fetus is not conscious, so removing it is the same as preventing it from being created.
3. If you claim the bible condemns it under "thou shall not kill" remember god flooded the world, killing countless pregnant women and fetuses, and has specifically ordered his followers to kill pregnant women, so obviously he does not consider an unborn child sacred.
4. Fetuses are parasites, living inside a women, at her expense.
5. Men should not have a say in abortion unless the women asks for his opinion because he is not forced to bear the brunt of pregnancy and childbirth.
6. Do you remember being in the womb? Do you think you would have felt pain were you aborted?
7. Is it really more ethical to force a women to have a baby and possibly drop out of school or lose her job,, and have a horrible life for her and her baby?
Jack212

Con

I'm going to refute your points, then create a counter-case of my own.

1. That is indeed a double-standard if we define "right to life" by sentience. However, this fails on two accounts. First, it assumes that our motivation is to treat all animals fairly instead of just protecting our young while slaughtering pigs for food (which has been the status quo since time immemorial). And second, it doesn't give us the right to kill fetuses. It could just as easily be a case against killing pigs.

2. An early-stage fetus may not have the same mental capacity as a born human, but it still has a brain and can respond to its environment. It is more than just a fertilized egg at this stage, so aborting it is not the same as preventing it.

3. God wants to cut open pregnant women in the Book of Hosea. I think we're in agreement that the Bible is not a valid source for anything.

4. A parasite exploits another organism to further its own needs, without providing benefit. In this case the fetus does provide the mother a benefit - it passes on her genes.

5. He is forced to bear the financial brunt though. Regardless, many girls get abortions because their boyfriend isn't willing to support the child, or they assumed that. If the dad was consulted, the mother may change her mind.

6. Memory and pain are different. Also, your logic implies that I could brutally torture you for three days as long as I wiped your memory afterwards.

7. Life sucks, but it's better than the alternative.

Now for my counter-case. Remember, I have to show that abortion should be illegal in at least one circumstance.

3rd trimester abortions.

Assuming the baby is viable, there is no reason to perform an abortion. We can simply remove it from the uterus and give it to somebody else to look after. Sure, the baby may have a sh!tty life, but it's still better than the alternative.
Debate Round No. 2
Tulbakra

Pro

1. Just because it is the status quo doesn't make it right. But you squash insects when it inconveiniences you, so why can't a pregnant women "squash" a fetus when it inconnviences her?
2. So can the vast majority of insects. That doesn't make it human.
3. Okay, agreed.
4. That in an intangible benefit, and the women may not want it at the moment.
5. No, the majority of aborted babies would be born out of wedlock. And most fathers in this instance do little to care for the baby. Yes, and if he wasn't willing, why does she have to bear the full brunt?
6. But the fetus cannot BEGIN to feel pain until 24 weeks. The pain argument is ridioculous, because eating animals for meat lowers utility more than killing a fetus.
7. If you were tortured all your life, you would want to die. So life isn't neccasarly better than the alternative.

What does "viable" mean? If the baby has down syndrome, is it fair to force a poor women to take care of it alone? Who would want it? There is an overflowing amount of children up for adoption. Adding yet another because abortion was illegal is obscene. And finally, if abortion is illegal in the third trimester, some women will go "underground" and seek it anyway. Nothing is going to stop them, including the law. So shouldn't abortions be legal and covered by health insurance to prevent a women from getting a dangerous abortion and dying with her baby?

And finally, I assume you are male, so what do you know of any of this? You have never been pregannt, never had to deliver a baby, etc. Why do you think you can tell people what to do based on your ethical idea that a 3rd trimester baby is more important than the mother?
Jack212

Con

1. Being the status quo doesn't make it wrong either. You need to provide a good reason for changing something. The reason we treat insects and fetuses differently is because insects are insignificant, while fetuses are potential people. That may be a bigoted reason, but that's the reason.

2. It's human by having human DNA, what you mean is "person". This is a red herring, as whether it's a person doesn't change whether it exists. Preventing a pregnancy means that you stop the pregnancy from occurring. That is not the same as ending a pregnancy, no matter what stage of development you do it at.

4. Also a red herring. The mother's opinion doesn't change the scientific definition of a parasite.

5. As the saying goes, "it takes two to tango". If she willingly had sex, she knew she ran the risk of getting pregnant. Just because dad has given up doesn't mean mom can, and vice-versa.

6. Exactly when fetuses begin to feel pain is still under debate. We know for certain that they can by 26 weeks, but we don't know if they can earlier. You cannot say for certain that they don't feel pain, as we don't know the facts. This isn't an argument from ignorance fallacy, as I'm not claiming that abortion is therefore wrong. The eating meat thing is a red herring.

7. If I was tortured all my life, I'd want the pain to stop. That's not the same as wanting to die. I've actually been tortured, have you?

If the adoption system is lousy, fix it. You don't need to perform abortions. By your logic, we should kill newborn babies, young children, homeless people, prisoners, welfare recipients, disabled people, the elderly, and anybody else who is clogging up the system. So what if women go underground? People go underground for anything that's illegal. Doesn't mean we shouldn't pass laws.

You're male as well, according to your profile, so our inexperience is equal. It's also irrelevant.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by daniel_t 3 years ago
daniel_t
TulbakraJack212Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pretty good debate, but I would have liked to see some sources to back up some of the arguments. Pro, for example, used the Bible as a source but didn't provide any links. Con talked about a fetus being "viable," he could have cited something, even the dictionary. Con could also have brought in current case law which currently does restrict abortions to non-viable fetuses. Pro also set himself up for failure by making the focus of the debate way too broad. Tulbakra, if you ever want to try this topic again, I suggest you make the subject more focused.
Vote Placed by JayDaylDayJay 3 years ago
JayDaylDayJay
TulbakraJack212Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Jack wins because his arguments were neater, more thought out and did more to convince me. I still hold on my opinion abortion should be legal (to an extent) But Jack still did better.
Vote Placed by Piccini 3 years ago
Piccini
TulbakraJack212Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Easy one to Con. Could have summed it all up to 3rd semester (or even last month) abortions
Vote Placed by PiningForASilverLining 3 years ago
PiningForASilverLining
TulbakraJack212Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: The state should be ready to assume responsibility for any child an unprepared mother gives birth to. Those that are pro-life should put their money where their mouth is and help support the unwanted child. I am in the 3rd trimester camp, barring there is no serious health concerns for mother or child (must be without doubt, tested twice to rule out lab or sampling error, child will have severe physical or mental disability and in such case mother would have choice even after 3rd trimester). I think there is a point where an abortion is wrong. There may come a time in the future where population density creates a need to population control, but we aren't there yet in this country
Vote Placed by Merrit 3 years ago
Merrit
TulbakraJack212Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Both had fine conduct. S&G equal. The arguments were close, but I went with Con. Reason being Con was able to negate more of Pro's arguments. Both of them didn't use sources, therefore, sources remain tied.