The Instigator
Hunt
Pro (for)
Winning
31 Points
The Contender
iholland95
Con (against)
Losing
9 Points

Abortion - should it 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 6 votes the winner is...
Hunt
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/14/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,086 times Debate No: 20386
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (6)

 

Hunt

Pro

Hey guys, I'm new to DDO so please bear with me.


Debate Structure:
  • Round 1: Acceptance + Definitions.
  • Round 2: Arguments + Rebuttals.
  • Round 3: Arguments + Rebuttals.
  • Round 4: Rebuttals+ Closing statements/reaffirmations; no new arguments.


Debates Scope:
  • This debate will cover abortion at any stage.
  • This debate may include, and should at the very least tangent on the morals of abortion.
  • This debate is about whether abortion should or shouldn't be illegal.

Rules:
  • I'm tempted to say no semantics, but in this topic I think it is somewhat unavoidable - use discretion.
  • Follow debate structure - failure to do so is misconduct.

Resolution:
  • Pro wins if they have put the best arguments forth that abortion should be legal.
  • Con wins if they have put the best arguments forth that abortion shouldn't be legal.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Definitions:

Abortion - Abortion is "the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy." [1]

Life - The unborn child is considered to be alive at the moment of conception. [2] As such, I don't think any definition of life is needed.

Natural and Legal Rights - There is a distinction between the two. Natural and legal rights are two types of rights theoretically distinct according to philosophers andpolitical scientists. Natural rights are rights not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable. In contrast, legal rights are those bestowed on to a person by the law of a particular political and legal system, and therefore relative to specific cultures and governments. [3]

Should - Should is not to be defined as must. As such, voters and Con should not look to interchange them. Should indicates something that is desirable but not absolutely necessary. For example: you should eat breakfast everyday (hopefully there is no semantics here).

I don't think there are any cardinal concepts that should be covered here. I look forward to this debate, and hope Con makes my first debate a thoroughly enjoyable one.

Sources:
[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[2] http://www.princeton.edu...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
iholland95

Con

"Unsafe abortions are a major cause of injury and death among women worldwide. Although data are imprecise, it is estimated that approximately 20 million unsafe abortions are performed annually, with 97% taking place in developing countries." says Wikipedia.

"In a number of cases, abortion providers and these facilities have been subjected to various forms of violence, including murder, attempted murder, kidnapping, stalking, assault, arson, and bombing. Anti-abortion violence has been classified by governmental and scholarly sources as terrorism." says Wikipedia

"Always remember our Biblical mandate, Thou shalt not kill, Exodus 20:13, which is one of the Ten Commandments." says the website Wholeworldinhishands.com.

" 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" says 10 Arguments Against Abortion.

"Adoption is a viable alternative to abortion and accomplishes the same result. And with 1.5 million American families wanting to adopt a child, there is no such thing as an unwanted child." says 10 Arguments Against Abortion.

"The abortion decision is often made by minors or young adults, who don't have the maturity and life experiences to make good decisions" says the website BalencedPolitics.org
Debate Round No. 1
Hunt

Pro

While I thank my opponent for his prompt response, I'd ask him to please stick to the debate structure as stipulated in the rules. I'm not sure what definitions he is trying to put forth as his quotes seem to be arguments. Nevertheless, I shall proceed to rebut my opponent before making my case for abortion.

R 1:

Con says: "Unsafe abortions are a major cause of injury and death among women worldwide. Although data are imprecise, it is estimated that approximately 20 million unsafe abortions are performed annually, with 97% taking place in developing countries.". I would like to direct Con to wikipedia's citation (note: I will post wikipedias citation). It states here http://www.who.int..., that: "Unsafe abortion mainly endangers women in developing countries where abortion is highly restricted by laws and countries where although legally permitted, safe abortion is not easily accessible". It then goes on to say that: "By contrast, legal abortion in industrialised nations has emerged as one of the safest procedures in contemporary medical practice, with minimum morbidity and a negligible risk of death."

From my opponents own citation, it has shown that indeed, abortion is "one of the safest procedures in contemporary medical practice". We must ask ourselves, how can a safe procedure cause 68,000 deaths (shown in that source)? Well the answer is simple. Safe procedures DO NOT cause deaths to that scale, unsafe procedures do. The question then becomes, why do women perform unsafe procedures? This source has stated that "safe abortion is not easily accessible". I contend that since Con seems to care about other peoples lives, which, I do as well, it seems most logical to make abortion more easily accessible. One way of making abortion more easily accessible is to legalize it, and to go further, perhaps make it for free!

R 2:

Con says: "In a number of cases, abortion providers and these facilities have been subjected to various forms of violence, including murder, attempted murder, kidnapping, stalking, assault, arson, and bombing. Anti-abortion violence has been classified by governmental and scholarly sources as terrorism.". My opponent has shown that a very few amount of people that are against abortion are violent. I agree. If my opponent is arguing that because some people hate abortion therefore it should remain illegal, I think this an axiomatically false position. Many atheists hate religion, do we now intend to ban religion?

R 3:

Con says: "Always remember our Biblical mandate, Thou shalt not kill, Exodus 20:13, which is one of the Ten Commandments.". My opponent has appealed to authority in the bible. This fallacy is essentially: x says this about y, therefore y is correct. I won't spend much time on this point, we live in a secular country, this means the state is separate from religion. To reintroduce religion as a reason for implementing laws violating constitutionally granted liberty is ill-advised.

R 4:

Con says: "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". I will focus on this below; their shall be a redirect below.

R 5:

Con says: "The abortion decision is often made by minors or young adults, who don't have the maturity and life experiences to make good decisions". If you think these kids are so immature and naive, how can you possibly let them be mothers to babies? I think I'll answer this question, you want to send these kids to adoption? Excellent, first we shall force young people to endure 9-10 months of agonizing pain against their will, then we should steal their kids away from them if they change their minds (which does happen). This point will be covered in more detail in future rounds.

It should be noted to voters, that Con has not presented any of his own arguments, rather, he has copied directly from other websites. I shall now proceed to make a few of my own arguments for abortion.

The Fetus or Embryo has no rights.

This is a cardinal issue. If we assume it to be axiomatic (for now) that adult humans have unalienable natural rights, namely, the right to life, we must ask ourselves does a homo sapien zygote have these rights as well? The answer is no. There is only one common denominator between a one celled zygote and an adult. They are both part of the homo sapien species. A question here must be asked, why does being part of a particular species grant one rights? It doesn't, this is an entirely arbitrary statement to say this species has rights, and all these million others do not. However, what about a fetus, these resemble adults more (visually), do they get rights? The answer is still no. What more do they have in common now? They have perhaps 2 bags of oxygen (lungs), a brain, skin, perhaps a few fingers, a mouth. Why do any of these grant rights? Many mammals have lungs, a brain, skin, fingers, a mouth.

The burden of proof is on Con to show that a fetus has rights, as by default, things are not assumed to have certain characteristics until proven otherwise. In order for abortion to be classified as murder, it must be shown that a fetus has rights. Despite the definition of murder (semantics), we cannot be arbitrary over our classifications. We have no problem whatsoever in purging life, who here washes their hands? However when all of a sudden it's human life we want to make it impermissible. Why?

A logical argument for this is below:

Murder is the act of killing another lifeform that has rights.
This act of killing another lifeform that has rights is unacceptable because it violates their natural right to life.
Not all life forms get a right to life.
A fetus does not get any of these natural rights, including the right to life.
Therefore killing a fetus is not murder.

I will prepare more arguments in future rounds due to character limit, I look forward to Cons response.
iholland95

Con

Abortion SHOULDN'T be legal. Don't you even care that innocent people are being killed. That isn't right!!! Omg!!!!
Debate Round No. 2
Hunt

Pro

My opponent has again not followed the structure of this debate. This round is for arguments or rebuttals, for which my opponents four sentences are neither. My opponent has not contended any of my points or rebuttals of his, so I presume that he is either unable to do so, or is to lazy to do so (which is misconduct).

I will start this off by addressing all four of Cons sentences.

Con says: "Abortion SHOULDN'T be legal". This is an opinion and a tautologcal when taking into consideration Con's objective, to argue that abortion shouldn't be legal. Con has not justified this opinion.

Con says: "Don't you even care that innocent people are being killed". This is an appeal to emotion fallacy, although this implies that this statement is an argument, which, it is not. I'll also point out that the fetus is not a person, and will make an argument to say that it is not innocent.

Con says: "That isn't right". There is no justification for this statement.

Con says: "Omg". This statement highlights the frustration in my opponent for being unable to proffer any counter-arguments to my case. This contention of inability spurs from the 3 day time allowance for my opponent to profer an argument. I ask that if my opponent does not wish to engage in this debate any longer, that he forfeit.

I will make two more argument to address the fact that the baby is not "innocent", and that abortion is self-defense.

The baby is violating the mothers rights via enslavement.

Enslavement is morally unacceptable.
Enslavement is the act of making someone lose their freedom of choice or action.
The fetus is located inside the mother.
The fetus is unwanted by the mother.
The fetus is violating the mothers rights remaining in her body against her will.
The fetus is enslaving the mother by impinging her freedom of choice and action.
The freedom for one to choose what they do is a natural right.
The fetus has violated the natural rights of the mother.
The fetus has therefore commited moral turpitude by violating the mothers natural rights.
Therefore the fetus is not innocent, and guilty of moral turpitude.

This argument shows that the baby is not innocent and is infact guilty of moral turpitude.

Abortion is self-defense.

The fetus is enslaving the mother, endangering the mother, and causing the mother pain.
Self-defense is justifiable in situations where a persons life is in danger, or is suffering pain as a result of another life form actions.
Abortion is act of the mother defending herself from the fetus both potentially endangering her life, and causing her discomforting pain.
Therefore abortion is acceptable as a means of self-defense.

This argument shows that by using abortion, the mother is defending herself from potential death, and unnecessary pain.

I would ask my opponent that should he not want to engage in a debate involving arguments and rebuttals, that he please forfeit the next 2 rounds in order to save time. If my opponent wishes to continue in this debate but refuses to debate according to the structure of this debate, then let it be known that such an act is egregious misconduct.
iholland95

Con

"The abortion decision is often made by minors or young adults, who don't have the maturity and life experiences to make good decisions" says BalencedPolitics.org

"Abortion is against doctors' Hippocratic Oath." says BalencedPolitics.org

"People have the right not to see their tax dollars go to something they find immoral." says BalencedPolitics.org
Debate Round No. 3
Hunt

Pro

I shall keep my rebuttals short.

My opponent says: "The abortion decision is often made by minors or young adults, who don't have the maturity and life experiences to make good decisions". He used this argument before in a previous round. I rebutted this argument, and he has commented on my rebuttal.

My opponent says: "Abortion is against doctors' Hippocratic Oath." I'd like to point out, that the modernized version of the archaic Hippocratic Oath makes mention of life in general. It makes no mention of human life. Doctors constantly purge life from sick humans, are you saying that these actions, such as taking tablets, violate the Hippocratic Oath? Even still, my opponent has to show that the Hippocratic Oath is an ethical absolute, and violating it would be morally wrong.

My opponent says: "People have the right not to see their tax dollars go to something they find immoral." This statement can be applied to everything, many people think that the government is morally bankrupt yet they are still forced to pay taxes anyway! People also have the right to choose what they do with their own body, and people also axiomatically own their own body. If you disagree with what they can do with their own body, this is a performative contradiction as you are doing many things with your body right now. If you disagree that people don't own their own body, then you won't mind if we harvest those organs in that body of 'yours'? You don't own them, afterall.

This round has been rushed due to my opponents unwillingness to engage in an intellectual debate and failure to use his own arguments. My opponent has also refuted none of my arguments, as such, it is implied that he either accepts them, or cannot rebut them.
iholland95

Con

1. It is not self-defense at all and if it is, then that is even more wrong

2. The baby is not violating any rights. It's a BABY! Your blaming it before it's even born. Wow. That's sad. Even if the fetus is enslaving the moher by inpinging her freedon of choice and action, that has nothing to do with the baby. The baby doesn't even have any thoughts yet so how could the baby plan for that to happen? IT CAN'T.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Hunt 5 years ago
Hunt
Thanks for the heads up; I did think of this, and I think that it provides for a more challenging and subsequently rewarding debate.
Posted by Thrasymachus 5 years ago
Thrasymachus
I'd be careful about this. Most folks will think abortion at late stages is not on, but abortion at earlier stages is okay. If your scope really will cover abortion at any stage, be prepared for your opponent to focus on abortion at 39w+6 or whatever.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by popculturepooka 5 years ago
popculturepooka
Huntiholland95Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con didn't show up for the debate.
Vote Placed by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
Huntiholland95Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con didn't show up for this debate. He shouldn't troll. He shouldn't accept a debate that he doesn't intend to put thought and effort into. He shouldn't violate the stipulated rules of the debate. He shouldn't copy and past rather than write his own argument.
Vote Placed by Hardcore.Pwnography 5 years ago
Hardcore.Pwnography
Huntiholland95Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: countering babygirl23 vote bomb
Vote Placed by babygirl23 5 years ago
babygirl23
Huntiholland95Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: i think that the con side had way better point then pro and plus why would u wanna kill inocent people and one day they could change the world for many people
Vote Placed by THEBOMB 5 years ago
THEBOMB
Huntiholland95Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did not put a lot of thought into the debate so conduct-Pro S&G- text speak in round 2 so Pro Arguments- well if you just look at the debate Pro is the only one with any real arguments
Vote Placed by debateme 5 years ago
debateme
Huntiholland95Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:52 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct- Con used all caps in round two. S/G- Con overused punctuation and used text language in round two. Arguments- Con rarely to never addressed Pro's arguments, while Pro always addressed Con's arguments and made his own. Sources- Pro only used sources for definitions, Con used sources in other rounds.