The Instigator
moshra
Pro (for)
The Contender
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2
Con (against)

Abortion should illegal

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
moshra has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Judge Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/3/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 weeks ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 330 times Debate No: 107472
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (18)
Votes (0)

 

moshra

Pro

First round is accepting the debate. Debate starts thereafter.

I will make my initial arguments after my opponent accepts. 3 rounds per debater.
Debate Round No. 1
moshra

Pro

For the sake of clarity, I'm using "personhood" and "human being or individual with moral status" interchangeably. I define both as having all the fundamental rights of another citizen in your respective country.

Abortion should be illegal for the same reason that murder is illegal. We are all endowed with natural rights including (1) the right to life, (2) liberty and (3) property.

But rights are not inherent within individuals, rights are responsibilities. My right to speech is your responsibility to allow me to speak freely in public. In the same way, the right to life is the responsibility of all the individuals not to kill. This is a basic social contract that we all share as human beings that is codified into our legal system.

This is also why we have the responsibility not to kill an unborn child. Some might argue that a fetus is not a human being. But it is impossible to provide a standard that determines when a baby reaches personhood or not.

For example, let's say I were to make the claim that after X amount of time or X amount of days a fetus reaches moral status.

Does that mean at time X minus 1 second or X minus 1 hour the fetus is not a person? This is not a valid argument to make, that today a fetus is my child and 10 seconds ago that same fetus is just an organism that has the same moral status as a plant. As a result, it is impossible to have any standard that specifically states when a fetus reaches personhood without using some arbitrary moral standards regarding life.

Here's a better way to look at the abortion debate. Rather than inductively trying to find a line as to when personhood begins, we can work deductively from an established premise that we can all agree on. I am a person with moral status, my opponent is also a person with moral status. Since we can't draw a line in the sand for personhood from the moment of conception to our current state, then logically all instances of existence since conception we are an entity endowed with moral status.

Unless my opponents wants to make the claim that he has an arbitrary standard for personhood that allows him or her to murder other individuals through mob rule, I believe we can both agree that a fetus is a being with moral status.

Therefore fetuses have the right to live like all human beings. This right is just like any other right, all members of society must adopt the responsibility of allowing a fetus to live and this must be codified into a legal system to be enforced by the government.

In short, abortion should be illegal.

Thank you Bryan for accepting this debate. I look forward to your rebuttals.
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2

Con

Here is the overview of The United States Pro-Choice Movement, according to Wikipedia (for an example).

"Abortion-rights advocates argue that whether or not a pregnant woman continues with a pregnancy should be her personal choice, as it involves her body, personal health, and future. They also argue that the availability of legal abortions reduces the exposure of women to the risks associated with illegal abortions. More broadly, abortion-rights advocates frame their arguments in terms of individual liberty, reproductive freedom, and reproductive rights. The first of these terms was widely used to describe many of the political movements of the 19th and 20th centuries (such as in the abolition of slavery in Europe and the United States, and in the spread of popular democracy) whereas the latter terms derive from changing perspectives on sexual freedom and bodily integrity.

Abortion-rights individuals rarely consider themselves "pro-abortion", because they consider termination of a pregnancy as a bodily autonomy issue, and find forced abortion to be as legally and morally indefensible as the outlawing of abortion. Indeed, some who support abortion rights consider themselves opposed to some or all abortions on a moral basis, but believe that abortions would happen in any case and that legal abortion under medically controlled conditions is preferable to illegal back-alley abortion without proper medical supervision. Such people believe the death rate of women due to such procedures in areas where abortions are only available outside of the medical establishment is unacceptable.

Some who argue from a philosophical viewpoint believe that an embryo has no rights as it is only a potential and not an actual person and that it should not have rights that override those of the pregnant woman at least until it is viable.

Many abortion-rights campaigners also note that some anti-abortion activists also oppose sex education and the ready availability of contraception, two policies which in practice increase the demand for abortion. Proponents of this argument point to cases of areas with limited sex education and contraceptive access that have high abortion rates, either legal or illegal. Some women also travel to another jurisdiction or country where they may obtain an abortion. For example, a large number of Irish women would visit the United Kingdom for abortions, as would Belgian women who travelled to France before Belgium legalized abortion. Similarly, women would travel to the Netherlands when it became legal to have abortions there in the 1970s.

Some people who support abortion rights see abortion as a last resort and focus on a number of situations where they feel abortion is a necessary option. Among these situations are those where the woman was raped, her health or life (or that of the fetus) is at risk, contraception was used but failed, the fetus has acute congenital disorder and defects, incest, financial constraints, overpopulation, or she feels unable to raise a child. Some abortion-rights moderates, who would otherwise be willing to accept certain restrictions on abortion, feel that political pragmatism compels them to oppose any such restrictions, as they could be used to form a slippery slope against all abortions. On the other hand, even some pro-choice advocates feel uncomfortable with the use of abortion for sex-selection, as is practised in some countries, such as India." [1]

Wikipedia is the most reliable source for any argument because it has a much broader overview.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org...

Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by moshra 1 week ago
moshra
So I had to go to a conference so I missed my round which is fine. I'll give my opponent time to address my arguments instead of posting a copy and paste generic argument against abortion.
Posted by Ragnar 1 week ago
Ragnar
"Abortion is but a symptom of a greater problem" well said!
Posted by missmedic 2 weeks ago
missmedic
In America with little or no support for the pregnant mothers, abortion (sadly) is still the better option. Why is that, in a country as rich as America? Because both the people that govern and it's citizens lack the will, the knowledge and the understanding. Law enforcement is not a solution. Abortion is but a symptom of a greater problem.
Posted by BJanders 2 weeks ago
BJanders
Moshra, I'm also too biased to judge, but I want to bring up a point...
Pro-choicers have the opinion of the fetus not being alive, but rather are just a bundle of cells that are in the mother's womb/are part of the mother.

Pro-lifers have the opinion of the fetus being alive from conception (or roughly within the first week or so), and therefore believe that any aborting of the baby after this is considered the killing of an unprotected infant yet within the womb.

My point is is this...
Regardless of whether the fetus is alive right now or in 12 weeks, you are still destroying the potential of a life to be born. That is still murder whether the fetus is considered alive now or it would have been in the future had it been left to develop. If a fetus, left unaborted, has the potential of being born and being a baby/human, it is alive.

Another point to make is that the DNA within the cells of the fetus are different from the mother's. Also, the mother cannot contorol the movement of the baby while inside the womb, so the baby clearly has independent motor movement. This should be another sign that the baby is just that: a baby human with the potential to have a life.

I don't understand why so many people are declaring war on our most precious and defensless citizens...
ALL LIFE IS SACRED!!! Whether it currently alive or it is still being cultivated...

And thus we see my clear bias. :P
Posted by Ragnar 2 weeks ago
Ragnar
R2 to pro. Pointing to a source instead of making a direct reply, is better than plagiarism, but it's not the same as engaging with the debate itself.
Posted by BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2 2 weeks ago
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2
I'm back.
Posted by Ragnar 2 weeks ago
Ragnar
I'll look forward to reading the arguments.
Posted by moshra 2 weeks ago
moshra
I just realized I titled my argument as "abortion should illegal" instead of "abortion should be illegal". LMAO

Guys my bad, this is not a shitpost argument.
Posted by moshra 2 weeks ago
moshra
First of all guys, I don't believe in God. I'm not making a religious argument, I'm making a objective moral argument.

Also, I made the right decision by inviting guest judges. It seems there's a lot biased people(Miss Medic calling me "emotional" before I even made an argument. Kudos to you Ragnar, for being able to see you were too biased to judge.
Posted by missmedic 2 weeks ago
missmedic
A pregnancy has a major effect on a woman"s body and emotional state, and every pregnancy carries some risk of serious complication or death. The crucial decision to take on that risk"no matter how small"can only be decided by the pregnant woman herself.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.