The Instigator
vardas0antras
Pro (for)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
joshuaXlawyer
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

Abortion should be legal

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/29/2010 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,503 times Debate No: 13500
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (14)
Votes (5)

 

vardas0antras

Pro

Everybody seems to have debated this so I should too.
My opponent may begin in the first round.
joshuaXlawyer

Con

Abortion should not be allowed, why you may ask that the fetus my be a incomplete human being its still a human being.

Definitions: Fetus- an unborn or unhatched vertebrate in the later stages of development showing the main recognizable features of the mature animal

Just because it been born doesn't mean it is not alive, in this sense abortion is murder; this is because its kill the unborn child. Since life begins at conception, abortion is akin to murder as it is the act of taking human life. Abortion is in direct defiance of the commonly accepted idea of the sanctity of human life . No civilized society permits one human to intentionally harm or take the life of another human without punishment, and abortion is no different.

For women who demand complete control of their body, control should include preventing the risk of unwanted pregnancy through the responsible use of contraception or, if that is not possible, through abstinence.

Rape victims can always look to adoption, the child should not punished the rapist should.

By allowing abortion we are allowing the killing of unborn children, and is immoral to kill therefore it is immoral.
furthermore murder is a crime, abortion is not any different, if we can punish a murder who kills a pregnant women with two counts of murder then abortion is the same as murder.
Debate Round No. 1
vardas0antras

Pro

Your main argument is that Fetus has the right to life, so heres my response:

Clearly, the notion that all innocent members of the species homo sapiens have a serious right to life is deeply erroneous. Unlike a normally developed adult, a human fetus is lacking attributes in several very important areas. The human fetus does not posses the same mental faculties as a full-grown adult and therefore cannot be said to posses the same serious right to life that conscious persons do. As demonstrated earlier, this moral principle can be recognized in the way humans differentiate between fully conscious adults and those that have experienced a permanent loss of consciousness due to disease or some sort of traumatic accident. And it is in this ethical purview that it is possible to recognize that a fetus does not have a serious right to life since, like a brain dead adult, it does not posses a significant mental life with thoughts and desires. This is why murdering grown adults is wrong whereas killing a fetus is not.

As was argued earlier, a fetus is not a rational or conscious agent and therefore does not hold a serious right to life. The fetus may be a human (in the biological sense), but it is not a person. In her book, On The Moral and Legal Status of Abortion, Mary Anne Warren - an American writer and philosophy professor that taught at San Francisco State University - details five psychological criteria for personhood. According to Warren, these qualities include consciousness and in particular sentience; the capacity to reason; self-motivated activity; the capacity to communicate messages; and lastly, the presence of self-concepts.Since a fetus does not possess any of the above qualities, it can rightfully not be considered a person. Given these criteria, it logically follows that a human fetus cannot possess the same right to life that a grown adult has since it does not qualify as a person.

A fetus' potential to acquire characteristics like rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness is not a sound basis for granting it a right to life. While some may wish to disagree with this, it seems quite clear that potentials cannot justifiably grant something rights. As Peter Singer — the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, and laureate professor at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics (CAPPE), University of Melbourne — points out, this principle simply cannot be adopted as a rights criterion since masturbation, contraception, and abstinence could all be equally condemned by its own standards. In fact, under this ethical framework, even refusing to be raped could be considered unethical since it denies a potential entity the ability to become a person. These are simply an odious and untenable set of conclusions that could be drawn from the notion that entities can acquire rights through undetermined potentials. Therefore, a fetus' potential to become a self-conscious person should be rejected as the foundation for granting it rights.

My point is that abortion isn't murder hence abortion should be legal.
joshuaXlawyer

Con

First I will start off my saying my opponent did not address my case directly at all, there for they stand as so long I can provide why abortion is murder. As my opponent hammered and yammered in his speech, and how abortion is not murder because it cannot think,feel, or communicate which the only quotes and evidence is a philosopher.
Yet I will explain how abortion is in fact murder, again lets define a fetus :an unborn or unhatched vertebrate in the later stages of development showing the main recognizable features of the mature animal.
life: the experience of being alive
A fetus is a living thing, which only possibility of becoming a human being.
in recent history (the Scott Petersen case), when a pregnant woman is murdered, the laws have changed to allow the murderer to be charged with 2 counts of murder, as opposed to 1 count.

Why is this? Since when did we start affording the unborn the same rights and privileges as born citizens? If this precedent is allowed to stand.why is abortion not illegal? What's the difference? If a strange man decides to kill a pregnant woman's fetus, and he can be charged with murder, why can't a doctor be charged with the same?

This is because killing a fetus in the law is murder, it just so happens o abortion isn't why I have no clue its a contradiction in itself.

Now let my point a question to you, before your born I poison your mother with some kinda medication that makes you not to be able to grow legs. well since you never had leg to begin with and all did was prevent you from having them I did no wrong.
SO if i kill you before you get a brain then i am not committing murder great nice to know, This is pretty much the basic principle of my opponents case.
killing a potential life is the same as murder, how? because a fetus will always grow to be a human nothing else , that is all its a human that will grow to be human. If i do something to make you grow into a person with no arms in legs i have done no wrong because you havnt developed it yet . THIS is what my opponent s based this on and is clearly immoral, and wrong.
Debate Round No. 2
vardas0antras

Pro

Abortion as murder

A woman's body knows to dispel a fetus if it has any serious mutations that would prevent it from becoming a functional human being. This is why babies are never born without major organs, since the woman miscarries long before the fetus is carried to term. Abortion is thus something that is routinely practiced by natural biological processes in nature. Hence the argument that abortion is a living things fails because of nature.

Considering what has been said, the logical conclusion is that abortion isn't murder. However the law is right when it says that if a man murders a pregnant woman then he should be charged with two murders. For the woman lost her opportunity to have a child. In this case fetus is like an unborn child which hasn't been born due to murder. However when abortion happens (naturally or not) then the fetus isn't like an unborn child hence its not a murder.

In addition, Brian Elroy points out that the other distinctive feature of a "person" is what we know as "consciousness." In many ways, killing an animal for meat is more inhumane than ending the contingent life of a fetus because the fetus
cannot feel pain at that point in its development but the animal can.

Until my points are refuted, I correctly stand in the position of legalizing abortion.

Now I present my reasons:

The drive to ban ALL abortions is driven by the religious right. It is based on the believe that a human soul is created at the moment of conception.

What moral prerogative would assume the right of the mother can be trumped by the 'rights' of an embryo. Within the first three months or trimester, we are talking about a mass of largely undifferentiated cells. The only reason one could even claim such an absurd sacrifice of the mother to this none human cell mass; is because of religious claim of soul intervention within those cells.

Why do I use the word sacrifice. Because if a women are prevented from having an abortion because of government laws, then by definition she is no longer in ownership of her own body and her right to abort an embryo or indeed a fetus, is sacrificed to government intervention.

Just because a woman becomes pregnant, does not mean that she has sacrificed the right to do with her own body what she so chooses and that includes having an abortion.

The other argument apart from the religious claim of a soul being placed in the embryo at conception, is that to abort an embryo is to kill a human being. This is simply scientifically false. An embryo has no attributes by which one could define it as human. Thus, to call embryo destruction murder is about as absurd as it gets.

The other claim often made is that of potentiality. An embryo has the potential to become human, therefore it should be granted rights based on potential possible future probabilities. If that was the standard, then by the same definition every male sperm is a potential human being and government laws should be passed to prevent male masturbation... because in doing so one is causing a holocaust of potential human beings.

The aborting of fetuses as apposed to embryos, often brought up by pro-life demonstrators, is a 'red herring' argument. The fact is that most abortions are performed in the first trimester embryonic stage. When fetuses are aborted it is almost always because of a serious birth defect or because of complications that put the woman's life at risk.
joshuaXlawyer

Con

1:The other claim often made is that of potentiality. An embryo has the potential to become human, therefore it should be granted rights based on potential possible future probabilities. If that was the standard, then by the same definition every male sperm is a potential human being and government laws should be passed to prevent male masturbation... because in doing so one is causing a holocaust of potential human beings.
Objection!-- Ok looking at this I will explain my argument of why abortion is in fact murder, this potentiality of human being now I will explain how the masturbation is a false statement. One, without the sperm and the egg fusing there is no potential human as long as there is conception then there is that potential because sperm isn't going to grow a baby it self it needs both once it is in the embryo then its truly potential. sperm by its self cannot be considered a potential because by itself is has to potential value of 0 making it not a potential at all.

2Why do I use the word sacrifice. Because if a women are prevented from having an abortion because of government laws, then by definition she is no longer in ownership of her own body and her right to abort an embryo or indeed a fetus, is sacrificed to government intervention.
Objection!-- Ok for this I have 3 words Hobbes social contract, rights,rights,rights complain about rights all you want but according to the social contract people give up rights to be governed and must obey the laws the government ratifies , also point out that abortion or anything relating to it is not in the constitution.

3Considering what has been said, the logical conclusion is that abortion isn't murder. However the law is right when it says that if a man murders a pregnant woman then he should be charged with two murders. For the woman lost her opportunity to have a child. In this case fetus is like an unborn child which hasn't been born due to murder. However when abortion happens (naturally or not) then the fetus isn't like an unborn child hence its not a murder.
Objection!-- doesn't this statement all in itself conflicts with the statement I attacked first number 1 I numbered this clearly conflicts with that statement.

The aborting of fetuses as apposed to embryos, often brought up by pro-life demonstrators, is a 'red herring' argument. The fact is that most abortions are performed in the first trimester embryonic stage. When fetuses are aborted it is almost always because of a serious birth defect or because of complications that put the woman's life at risk. Objection!-- I am arguing that choice abortions should be illegal not mandatory, in this case if the mother

The rest of your points were irrelevant because you mainly address religious dribble, which annoys be to no end every time I debate this that is what people argue and its insulting; Mainly because I never stated anything about religion.
This is what m case is based upon and the rest of your points were irrelevant mainly because you tried to cover all points possible.
Debate Round No. 3
vardas0antras

Pro

This has been an enjoyable debate although because of several factors I couldn't do my best.

1.Argument of potentiality
My opponent has successfully proved that sperm by itself isn't a potential.
2.Abortion happens naturally
This hasn't been addressed
3.Brian Elroy points
This hasn't been addressed
4.Sacrifice
The government in the west runs by the people and for the people. Hence the law should change accordingly to the consensus.Otherwise we're not a democratic nation anymore. Since abortion is widely approved, I believe that it should be legal in whatever countries more people say yes to abortion.
5.Pregnant mothers murder
There seems to be an error because you didn't finish the sentence nor did you make a valid argument.However this is rather irrelevant to begin with since we're not debating whatever law is consistent or not.
6.Religion
Indeed my opponent is right concerning this.

Extra arguments:
1.Abortion is practiced even if its illegal.According to Planned Parenthood, "In 1972 there were 1,000,000 illegal abortions and 5,000 to 10,000 women died from them." When Roe v. Wade passed in 1973 (a year after the above-mentioned statistic), deaths from abortion drastically dropped. This is supported by the National Center for Health Statistics' own statistics.
2.Law doesn't make something right so if abortion is wrong then it still has to be legal because this is a democratic nation hence we have to follow the consensus. However I dont think that abortion is wrong.
3.The government has no right to enforce an opinion on its people if most or even many people disagree. Even if it was a fact the government is allowed to pass a law which contradicts the consensus or even the near majority (unless the near majority is willing to obey)

I await my opponents response
joshuaXlawyer

Con

joshuaXlawyer forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by joshuaXlawyer 6 years ago
joshuaXlawyer
buy? lol i mean busy
Posted by joshuaXlawyer 6 years ago
joshuaXlawyer
nice job sorry for the forfeit I have been buy and all with my actual debate tournaments and stuff so sorry I apologize.
Posted by vardas0antras 6 years ago
vardas0antras
Well I'm done.

Good luck, I hope you win
Posted by dinokiller 6 years ago
dinokiller
Goes off with free win*
Posted by vardas0antras 6 years ago
vardas0antras
"prover" proverb
also hows your response?
Posted by vardas0antras 6 years ago
vardas0antras
Objection !!!
It is more appropriate for me to be the last one to say "objection!" because the third person to speak usually has the last word.You know that prover which says that two argue while the third wins.In conclusion I have proven that you shouldn't have objected my comment even if it has errors. Like I always say "I before logic, buhahaha".
Posted by joshuaXlawyer 6 years ago
joshuaXlawyer
o just for the hell of it Objection sustained.... lolz
Posted by joshuaXlawyer 6 years ago
joshuaXlawyer
Objection!!! ok for one who said i was arguing morality further more moralitiy is relevent fact because yes morals may vary but im arguing the moral obligation of the law which states that murder is a crime and im tend to prove abortion is murder therefore the goverment has a moral obligation to ban it.
Posted by vardas0antras 6 years ago
vardas0antras
OBJECTION !!!!

For starters this debate has nothing to do with morality. The morality of abortion shouldn't be debated because its a matter of opinion and religion. However even if its immoral to have abortion it should still be legal just like lying. Furthermore in world war 2 people lied to Nazis about Jews to save their lives. Hence the morality of abortion in general cant be debated but I must say that in some instances abortion may be plainly immoral and in others it may be the right thing to do. Even so its a "maybe"
when it comes to the morality of abortion.

Thank you for reading and please try to concentrate on the topic next time.
Posted by dinokiller 6 years ago
dinokiller
OBJECTION!!!

You think its selfish just because they get pregnant and wants an abortion?
If my parents decided abort me, then its up to them.

Note that not all things protect you 100% from pregnancy, there would be always a slight chance that you get pregnant, even with the pill. And of course if they don't want a child, they have the right for abortion. (well, good reason needed though...)

Not allowing abortion to those people is what i call immoral :P

Objection sustained (:P)
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Atheism 5 years ago
Atheism
vardas0antrasjoshuaXlawyerTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Poor, poor conduct for plagiarism. That's downright rude.
Vote Placed by Grape 5 years ago
Grape
vardas0antrasjoshuaXlawyerTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro plagiarized the debate from Freeman. http://www.debate.org/debates/Abortion-is-prima-facie-morally-wrong./2/
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
vardas0antrasjoshuaXlawyerTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro Plagerized their entire argument from another member.
Vote Placed by Scyrone 6 years ago
Scyrone
vardas0antrasjoshuaXlawyerTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 
Vote Placed by Lightkeeper 6 years ago
Lightkeeper
vardas0antrasjoshuaXlawyerTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60