The Instigator
thunderbirdak
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Ariesx
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Abortion should be legal.

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/30/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 489 times Debate No: 72604
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

thunderbirdak

Pro

Hello to my opponent. I would like to set some ground rules and regulations for this debat, then explain my stance. I DO NOT want this to be a debat about the MORALITY of abortion, but rather, whether it should be legal in the US. I am fine with morality used as an argument, but not as a debate topoc. Beyond that, sources are not the primarily most important thing, but should be used, nevertheless, and also NO BASHING (ie you are pro-choice, you moraless b@$!ard!). This round is for acceptance of the debate.
Definitions
pro-choice: the mindset that a woman has the right to abortion. This does not mean a pro-choicer thinks abortion is moral, just that a woman has the right to one.
pro-life: The mindset that abortion should be illegal.
abortion: The act of aborting a baby VOLUNTARILY. Not a miscarriage.
Thank you
Ariesx

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for starting this debate. I believe that the only thing in this debate that I have to prove is that Abortion is the "killing" of a child. Therefore, the con will have a hard job, and I am willing to take it. My arguments will be proving proving why logically and scientifically abortion is the killing of a child, and how it violates the unborn child its natural rights. I agree with abortion also only when the mother's life is threatened.
Debate Round No. 1
thunderbirdak

Pro

Hello Ariesx. I would first like to put out my stance on abortion. While I do believe that, after a certain time, abortion is a killing of a baby, and I have moral problems with that, I also believe in a woman's right to an abortion.
First, who said the woman or the man wanted the child. Perhaps she was raped. Perhaps she was drunk. Perhaps a condom broke. In any of following cases, she could simply take an emergency contraception pill (aka morning after pill) and only kill the zygote, which won't necessarily become a baby. After all, according to pro-lifers own numbers, 2 zygotes of 100 women on birth control will die, compared to 6 out of 100 women's not on birth control. Source: http://www.patheos.com...
2. Killing a baby BEFORE its gaining of consciousness could be better than letting it live. For example, if it is apparent that the baby has a serious (and incurable) heart disease that will kill it within hours of its birth, why do we let it live? So it can die a painful death?
3. Some animals, such as geladas (a horrifying monkey species) have built in abortion systems. There is something known as a Bruce Effect observed in geladas. The Bruce Effect is when a new male takes over a gelada tribe, femalea bearing the old alpha's children will abort. Voluntarily. Now, I am not saying you are a theist (note the space and use of a not an), but if you are a theist and Christian, God wouldn't have created aborting animals if He didn't like abortion. If you were to analyze it non-theistically, why would abortion be so wrong if other species abort naturally, but it is WRONG for HUMANS to abort? Sources: http://io9.com...
Thank you and good luck.
Ariesx

Con

Sorry for the late response.

1.My opponent has admitted the reality of abortion being the killing of the child. My opponent has also admitted he has moral problems with. Well that is the heart of the debate. Morality. You are aborting a life that will not be able to live. If I was aborted I would not be here. If my opponent was aborted he would not be here. If the pro-choice crowd were aborted they would not be here. That is reality.
2. What if she was raped? I'd agree to an abortion only if she was going to die. Let me give a story of Steve Jobs's parents. They both were going to have child. They thought they couldn't take care of it. They gave it up for adoption. Jf they aborted the child than we would not have the iPhone.
3. Kill baby before conscience begins- For the people that have been bought by the downplay of absolute death of a child before conscience begins, than all I can say is this
1.Africa- According to world hunger.org, 239 million Africans are starving. We should go and kill them if they are unconscious. That is the logic you would bought by.

4. Animal argument- I am an atheist so the Christian argument does not value any importance to me. Animals can do it. They are not human. If they want to naturally murder their own offspring, they can do it. But, humans are different. We don't eat food off the ground.

Conclusion-As I say to all my right wing friends I think every prochoicer means good. I am interested in hearing my opponents defence
Debate Round No. 2
thunderbirdak

Pro

Before I start my round, I would like to clarify something: This debate is not over the morality of aborting a baby, but rather over the legality. I would also like to say that I did not mean to imply you were a Christian, but rather an if. Now that we have that dine, let's move on to the actual debate.
I would first like to argue the rebuttal to the rape argument. I think it would be better to abort than to let them live a life without hope. I am not saying this is true for all rape cases: only some. What if they were to live in suffering all their life because of some disease that would shorten their lifespan drastically. I'm no medical expert, but couldn't something like HIV/AIDS be genetically transferred?
2. The Africa argument. First of all, I was a little offended by that (then again, I'm not exactly "thick-skinned"). I don't want to kill everyone starving in Africa. First, that's cruel. Second, it's just plain implausible. Dropping a nuke on 240 million people is just impossible, if not unethical.
2a. I also would like to say that by gaining of consciousness I meant before formation of the mind. I'm pretty sure that African's brains are formed.
2b. Since Roe vs. Wade, the number of abortions order year is 1,120,775 per year, rendering a total of 56,662,169, substantially less than starving Africans (or people)
Thank you.
Ariesx

Con

I am sorry that I forgot to say in round 2 that I am trying abortion as murder. I proved that it is murder because it ceases a life's existence. Lets provide a definition for kill. To be a cause of the death of a person,animal, or living thing. So let us put the example of Steve Jobs. His dad wanted an abortion, but the his mother did not do it. If she did it, we would not have iPhones. If she aborted the child this would have caused a death of a person. It is reality. My opponent cannot argue with that.
Rape Argument-My opponent poses the statement that proposes the end of a child before his brain develops because his life will not have hope. Are we going to let him be the supreme judge of what people's lives are going to be like. If we let my opponent judge the Jobs family, my opponent would have said let jobs be aborted because we might not know what would happen to him under the system.

Africa Argument-I never made the claim that your argument implied killing people in Africa. My argument simply stated that if you use the argument(the child is not going to have a good life), I simply mentioned that there are tons of people in Aftica who are living terrible lives and instead of moving to a better solution like charity we would instead go by the argument that if someone does not live a good life, we should kill him to save him from his misery.
Debate Round No. 3
thunderbirdak

Pro

thunderbirdak forfeited this round.
Ariesx

Con

Ariesx forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Chuz-Life 1 year ago
Chuz-Life
Can I ask why you want to debate this issue? I'm curious.
No votes have been placed for this debate.