The Instigator
bellawins
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
sengejuri
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Abortion should continue to be allowed

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 1 vote the winner is...
bellawins
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/17/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 307 times Debate No: 86751
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

bellawins

Pro

Many republicans are against abortions. While I do not stand clearly in one party, I disagree with these republicans. The most simple reason that I believe in abortions is this. If your family member is dying and needs blood or organs, and you are the only one who can give it to them, no one can force you to donate. When people die, their organs cannot be donated unless they said before death that they could. This is called bodily anatomy. We have a right to our bodies and no one can take that away. But we expect pregnant women to give up the rights to their bodies for those nine months while they carry the baby. We give less bodily anatomy to pregnant women than to dead bodies.

Another reason that I believe in abortion is that I feel that there are many instances where if the child was born, it would have a horrible life. For instance, if a woman was raped at the age of thirteen, and she became impregnated, you cannot expect her to raise the child. That would ruin her life, and the child's life.

Also, 90% of abortions are performed before the child becomes a human, while it is still just a bundle of cells. It has no heartbeat and no brain. It is not any where near being alive. This isn't killing, its preventing.

Abortion does have its downsides, but it is still very necessary.
sengejuri

Con

I'll jump right into rebuttals:

1. "Bodily anatomy"

Pro uses "bodily anatomy" (I assume they meant "autonomy") to argue that a woman should not be required to continue an unwanted pregnancy. As the argument goes, no one can force you to donate an organ, so no one can force you to endure a pregnancy. Unfortunately, this is a terrible analogy. An kidney is not a human life, but a fetus is. As such, Pro cannot compare the two as if they were similar. A kidney has no rights of its own, but an unborn child does. U.S. Federal Law confirms that the unborn are both alive and human, possessing rights equal to those of the mother. The 2004 Unborn Victims of Violence Act (UVVA), Section 1841, says that any person who injures a child in utero can be punished as if they injured the mother herself, even if the offender acted unintentionally or had no knowledge she was pregnant. Furthermore, UVVA says, "As used in this section, the term 'child in utero' or 'child, who is in utero' means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb." [https://www.congress.gov......] Incredibly, this means that if a pregnant woman on her way to the abortion clinic gets hit by a texting driver, survives, but loses the baby, then that driver can be charged with manslaughter, just as if the mother herself was killed. So we can see that unborn child also has rights protected by law, which means it is not a simple question of a woman's right to her own body, but rather a woman's right to her baby's body.

The claim that "we have a right to our bodies and no one can take that way" is totally untrue. The government takes it away all the time. As an experiment, try walking through the mall naked, or prostituting yourself, or performing surgery on yourself in pubic, see what happens....

Lest Pro question whether the fetus is indeed a unique human life deserving of equal rights, let us consider the following: In addition to U.S. Law confirming the humanity of a fetus, science also overwhelmingly confirms that the unborn, even at the earliest stage, are human. At the first moments of conception, the zygote has unique and completely human DNA. Humans have 46 chromosomes with DNA specific to the Homo Sapiens species. All 46 chromosomes, as well as the human specific DNA that comes with them, are present the moment the fertilized egg begins dividing. According to the book Human Embryology & Teratology, "fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. [1]".

Even if an abortion happens just after pregnancy is usually detected, the embryo has already begun developing its own unique brain, spinal cord, fingerprints, and heart. By week 6, the arms, legs, eyes, and bones develop. The heart also begins beating [2]. The brain and spine of a fetus are not the organs of some separate sub-human species. They are genetically and fully Homo Sapien. There is not a single scientific argument to justify why a fetus is not a member of the human species.

2. "there are many instance where if the child was born, it would have a horrible life..."

This is absurd. Abortion, according to this logic, is a type of mercy killing. Pro is implying that a child is better off dead than unwanted. The only way these justifications are acceptable is if a fetus is not human, which Pro has yet to prove. I suspect that if anyone had given Pro a choice between living a hard life or being killed, they would choose life, as would almost anyone. Furthermore, what gives the mother the right to decide that her child's life will be ruined? There is no way she can possibly know that. There are innumerable examples of children born into bad situations growing up to do great and inspiring things. This is a very, very weak argument.

3. "90% of abortions are performed before the child becomes a human..."

This is a totally baseless claim. Pro has not cited any source for this claim, so we have no reason to believe it. I challenge Pro to justify why a "bundle of cells" should not be considered human life, and to therefore define the point where human life begins if not conception. As I stated earlier, science overwhelmingly confirms that a genetically complete homo sapien exists after conception. Pro's claim that most abortions happen before the baby has a heartbeat or brain is completely untrue.
A fetus begins developing their brain and has a regular heartbeat by week 6, and yet according to the Guttmacher Institute, 66.5% of abortions happen after 7 weeks [3].

All of Pro's arguments so far are invalid.

[1] O'Rahilly, Ronan and Muller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996), 8-29
[2] https://www.nlm.nih.gov............
[3] http://www.guttmacher.org......
Debate Round No. 1
bellawins

Pro

First off, I would like to thank Con for correcting me on bodily autonomy, that is what I meant to say. I would like to point out, though while the Con has done an excellent job rebutting me, he did not give any more reasons why abortion is a bad idea. I will admit, though it wont help my case, that Con has very good points. But just imagine this, a thirteen year old girl has been sexually assaulted and impregnated. She's not allowed to get an abortion, so she must deal with trying to raise this child. Sure, you may be thinking that someone else could raise it, or she could give it up for adoption. But some people don't have anyone they trust to raise a child for them and even if they did, as a young girl, how are you supposed to make that decision? She would be scared. And I know from knowing of people in this situation, we're selfish. You wouldn't want to give up your kid, even if you don't want them.

Also, Con has rebutted my case on bringing the child into a horrible life unwanted is better than dying. The embryo may be already developing, but according to recent studies http://www.scientificamerican.com... babies do not have coherent thought while in the mothers stomach so they wouldn't know they are being "killed". Being born into a life where you are deserted or mistreated and you end up dying anyway for any reason is, in my opinion, way worse. At this point you understand the loss of life.

I accept that the Con has a good debate, but I still will not change my mind on this issue. I believe in our rights as humans. Our rights to do what we want with our bodies, internally. I know others have different opinions, but this is mine. I hope people vote for mine.
sengejuri

Con

1) I have deep empathy for any woman who finds herself in a scenario like Pro describes. Sexual assault is a terrible, evil crime and one can only imagine how difficult and scary it would be to live through that. But we must return to the central question - is the fetus a human or not? If it is (I believe it is, and Pro has not disputed this claim), then even the horror of rape is not justification to destroy a third, innocent human life. Rebecca Kiessling, who was conceived by rape and carried to term by her victim mother, said: "When you make that rape exception, it's like you're saying to me that I deserved the death penalty for the crimes of my father. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, my father didn't even deserve the death penalty. The Supreme Court has said there is no death penalty for rapists. But you say that I, as the innocent child of rape, deserved the death penalty?" Rape is terrible. Carrying a rapist's child would be horrifically painful. Yet that pain still does not justify killing another human life. As Rebecca Kiessling said, even the rapist himself cannot be charged with the death penalty for his crime. Is this fair to the mother? No, but it's also not fair to kill an unborn child who has no ability to defend itself and took no part in the crime. The only way to justify abortion is to ignore the humanity of a fetus, which defies all scientific and logical evidence.

2) A fetus does not know its being killed and would probably end up dying anyway....

This continues to be a rather absurd and callous claim made by Pro. True, a fetus may not be consciously aware of death, but neither is a mentally disabled or sleeping adult. With this logic, we could also justify the killing of a sleeping teenager because she "wouldn't know she was being killed." Clearly this is not something anyone would advocate. Pro continues to assume that a mother can know that an unborn child will be mistreated and "end up dying anyway" after birth. This is impossible - I direct readers again to the example of Rebecca Kiessling, who was not aborted and is now a highly successful adult.

In closing, I agree with Pro that we have rights as humans. Since, scientifically, logically, and legally, unborn children are also humans, they too have rights. As such, abortion is the killing of a human being endowed with human rights, which is largely unacceptable. Pro has not shown this claim to be false, so I ask the vote go to Con.
Debate Round No. 2
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by whiteflame 9 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: matt8800// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: "Also, 90% of abortions are performed before the child becomes a human, while it is still just a bundle of cells. It has no heartbeat and no brain. It is not any where near being alive. This isn't killing, its preventing." While that is poorly worded, I interpret that as meaning that if there is no brain activity, a conscious person does not yet exist. Con's argument centered around human rights and proving that the fetus will eventually grow into a conscious human. Con did not provide a satisfactory argument as to why ending the progression to what would eventually become a conscious human, at a point when no conscious human exists, is immoral.

[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter clearly addresses specific points made in the debate by both sides and addresses how they fit into the resolution.

Note: It's unclear what the reporter views as insufficient about this vote. That should be clarified in future reports if any are made.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 9 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: matt8800// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 point to Pro (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: "Also, 90% of abortions are performed before the child becomes a human, while it is still just a bundle of cells. It has no heartbeat and no brain. It is not any where near being alive. This isn't killing, its preventing." While that is poorly worded, I interpret that as meaning that if there is no brain activity, a conscious person does not yet exist. Con's argument centered around human rights and proving that the fetus will eventually grow into a conscious human. Con did not provide a satisfactory argument as to why ending the progression to what would eventually become a conscious human, at a point when no conscious human exists, is immoral.

[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter clearly addresses specific points made in the debate by both sides and addresses how they fit into the resolution.
************************************************************************
Posted by sengejuri 9 months ago
sengejuri
@matt8800 - that's a ridiculous vote and I think we both know it. First, you can't say Pro had a "poorly worded" argument and then say spelling/grammar were tied. Also, Pro used only one source, so that can't be a tie either. The part of Pro's argument that you quoted had no source citation, so it should be rejected outright. Even so, I very clearly refuted it in Round 1 by showing (using a credible source) that a fetus actually DOES have a brain and heartbeat before those supposed "90%" of abortions happen.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by matt8800 9 months ago
matt8800
bellawinssengejuriTied
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: "Also, 90% of abortions are performed before the child becomes a human, while it is still just a bundle of cells. It has no heartbeat and no brain. It is not any where near being alive. This isn't killing, its preventing." While that is poorly worded, I interpret that as meaning that if there is no brain activity, a conscious person does not yet exist. Con's argument centered around human rights and proving that the fetus will eventually grow into a conscious human. Con did not provide a satisfactory argument as to why ending the progression to what would eventually become a conscious human, at a point when no conscious human exists, is immoral.