The Instigator
oboeman
Pro (for)
Winning
30 Points
The Contender
revleader5
Con (against)
Losing
18 Points

Abortion should remain legal in the United States

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: 5/25/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,520 times Debate No: 4190
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (16)

 

oboeman

Pro

I am advocating that abortions, at least those occurring during the first trimester, should remain legal in the United States. Just as a note, I am still undecided about second-trimester abortion ethics, and therefore will not be arguing that in this specific debate.

My initial claim - first trimester abortions should remain legal in the United States.

I will allow my opponent to make the first argument against my initial claim before I debate my views.
revleader5

Con

Well my opponent obviously has an very restricted standpoint on abortions.

Still, first trimester is only 90 days away from the second. Women usually figure out that they are pregnant about 2-3 weeks away from the day of the "deed", I'll call it. 3 weeks= 21 days. 90 days- 21 days= 59 days. So a little bit less than two months away from you not being so fast to decide it is okay to abort it.

A first trimester baby is a mere two months away from you thinking, "Hey, is this thing a baby or not?"

Let's take a look at the word, abortion. ABORTion.

Dictionary.com Unabridged definition of abort?
to fail, cease, or stop at an early or premature stage.

To stop at an early stage. To end it before it is ready basically, no?

Let me ask you this, let's say a friend of yours sees some chicken eggs. The farmer says you guys can have them. They were just laid today. Either you can raise them, kill them, or give them away.

Would you smash the eggs on the ground, raise them, or give them away. The same thing with a baby no? The mothers for the most part aren't ready to have a child. They can't take care of it, correct? Why not give it away for adoption? Two reasons: 1)The mother can't bear the thought of giving away her baby. 2)To much pain and time to have a baby.

So basically the mother is selfish enough that she would end her baby's life at an "early stage" so she wouldn't have to sleep at night knowing that her baby was being LOVED by someone else. So that she could spare herself, I'll admit excruciating pain, but still a life vs pain? A few doctors have proven that most of the time the baby or in your mind "first trimester embryo" can feel pain. Remind me to cite my source on that one next time, would you?
Debate Round No. 1
oboeman

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this challenge.
Allow me to proceed with my rebuttal.

All words in quotation marks refer to your text.

First of all, just because some may be skeptical about whether or not to get the abortion during the first trimester, it does not mean it should be outlawed.

And remember, as made evident in my opening round, I have no clear stance yet regarding second term abortions, and therefore will exclude them from this particular debate. This debate only regards first trimester abortions.

"To stop at an early stage. To end it before it is ready."

Assuming you mean "ready" as in the stage of birth, then, indeed, abortion does put a stop to it.

"Would you smash the eggs on the ground, raise them, or give them away."

Well, I would definitely not smash them on the ground. In fact I would most likely give them away.

"The same thing with a baby no?"

The analogy you used does NOT apply to abortion, and let me explain why. Firstly, you were merely asking what I would do. And even though I am not a woman, if the choice to have an abortion was presented to me, I would most likely refuse it. Again, that is my own personal view. However, my own personal views do not dictate the inherent views and morals of other people, and therefore, if they choose to have an abortion, my own personal morals should not interfere with their decision. Therefore, such abortions should remain legal.

"Why not give it away for adoption? Two reasons: 1)The mother can't bear the thought of giving away her baby. 2)To much pain and time to have a baby."

Indeed, those may be two main reasons the mother chooses not to give it away for adoption. As well, these are valid concerns, and by no means should be considered "selfish."

"So basically the mother is selfish enough that she would end her baby's life at an "early stage" so she wouldn't have to sleep at night knowing that her baby was being LOVED by someone else. So that she could spare herself, I'll admit excruciating pain, but still a life vs pain? A few doctors have proven that most of the time the baby or in your mind "first trimester embryo" can feel pain. Remind me to cite my source on that one next time, would you?"

Perhaps most importantly, you keep stating that she would be ending her "baby's" life. Any abortion taking place during the first trimester would hardly be killing a baby, obviously dependent upon how you define "baby." To be more accurate, allow me to use the term fetus.
And you basically state that taking the fetus's life away is bad, and should be illegal. However, let me ask you this: if such an abortion is so bad, why do you continuously eat meat? Meat is derived from living animals, killed solely for the purpose of consumption. By outlawing abortions, perhaps we should also make everyone become a vegetarian? By the way, I assumed that you eat meat, considering the fact that you said on your profile that you were against vegetarianism.

And indeed, if you could cite that source you were referring to, that would be great.

Once again, thanks for accepting the debate,
Oboeman
revleader5

Con

Babies do feel pain before 24 week abortion limit.(1)

"And you basically state that taking the fetus's life away is bad, and should be illegal. However, let me ask you this: if such an abortion is so bad, why do you continuously eat meat? Meat is derived from living animals, killed solely for the purpose of consumption." Well then why do you eat meat? In your profile it clearly states that you are against vegetarianism too. Also let me give you some info, if I can't compare cracking a chicken's egg (one with life inside of coursE) to a baby, how can you compare eating meat to a baby? Besides, unless someone is eating the dead baby, or embryo to you, then what is the point of killing it? Please answer that.

It's let Eric Cartman(as Cartmanes) said in the South Park Episode Eek, a P****!.
Cartman: (As Cartmanes) Abortion is the ultimate form of cheating! You're cheating nature itself! Why do rich white girls get ahead in life? Because they get abortions when they are young. They get pregnant but they still want to go to college, so whatever, they just cheat. They cheat that little critter in their belly right out of a chance at life. (2)

See what I mean?

Sources---
(1)http://www.blogicus.com...
(2)http://www.tv.com...
Debate Round No. 2
oboeman

Pro

"Well then why do you eat meat? In your profile it clearly states that you are against vegetarianism too."

Contrary, when possible, I try to avoid meat. The main reason I said on my profile I was opposed to vegetarianism/PETA was because of PETA itself, the organization of which I think has a lot of its logic flawed. I am for vegetarianism, but merely against the (in my view) flawed organization.

The reason I try to avoid eating meat is because of the rights of the animal itself. This brings us to a new level of the debate – who deserves the fundamental rights acquired with life, such as the right TO live? Obviously, not every living cell has these fundamental rights, and let me explain myself. Consider each and every living sex cell. Only one sperm cell becomes fused with an egg cell to form a zygote, and ultimately a human life. But what about all of the other ones? Simply because each sex cell, by conventional definitions, is considered living, does it retain the fundamental rights to life? Obviously not, as, otherwise, all remaining sex cells would be continuously preserved, and the population growth would be even more exponentially booming.

The reason I try to avoid eating meat is because the animals DO deserve the fundamental rights.
I argue that a first trimester fetus does not yet meet the requirements to acquire such fundamental rights.
The requirements, more importantly, entail sentience. Sentience, however, can only be correlated with neural activity within an organism. Therefore, the reason I support vegetarianism is because the animals killed for meat have such a high degree of cephalized neural activity, significantly higher than a first trimester fetus. A first trimester fetus does not yet have a well-developed brain and nervous system. Such advanced development has not yet occurred.

"Also let me give you some info, if I can't compare cracking a chicken's egg (one with life inside of coursE) to a baby, how can you compare eating meat to a baby? Besides, unless someone is eating the dead baby, or embryo to you, then what is the point of killing it?"

Personal views, opinions, and beliefs have no place in public debate that requires debating members to think for a collective society. Like I said previously, just because I would give the chicken egg away, people are still entitled to have their own views regarding it. I was merely offering my personal view. I brought up meat, because, considering that you are pro-life yourself, I wanted to identify what you consider to be deserving of the right to life. Obviously, for reasons still unknown, you consider it alright to eat meat.
The point of having an abortion may be to relieve the mother for actions which may not have been her fault, as well as those not ready to raise a child, and not wanting to give it up for adoption. Such abortions, during the first trimester, are ethical.
revleader5

Con

I'll keep this short and sweet.

I wouldn't eat a baby fish, but I would eat an adult fish.

I wouldn't kill a baby for no reason whatsoever either.

Go ahead and say, "Well by that logic would you kill an adult person?"
Debate Round No. 3
oboeman

Pro

"I wouldn't eat a baby fish, but I would eat an adult fish."

The next logical course of action for me would be to inquire about why this is so, and what shapes your reasoning. However, considering that this is the final round of the debate, I will make an assumption. I am assuming that you would not eat a baby fish because it has not yet had the chance to experience life in its fullest. It is, therefore, on a personal level for you, immoral to eat a baby fish. I am also assuming that you would eat an adult fish because you consider it morally permissible to eat fish in general.
Allow me to apply this to the issue of abortion.

Subsequently, you state that you would not kill a baby. (I am assuming that you accidentally used a double negative.) I am also assuming that the reasoning behind this involves the fundamental respect to life. May I remind you that babies have already developed considerably from a first trimester fetus. Due to such a high degree of neural capability and possessing sentience, if would be unethical to kill a baby. As well, for the same reasons, an adult human also possesses fundamental rights associated with sentience.
As well, you did not refute some of my claims regarding first trimester fetuses and their limited neural progression at such early stages of development. I, again, am arguing that it is ethical to have first trimester abortions remain legal.

Finally, I would like to thank my opponent, revleader5, for accepting this debate. The debate was fun.
Thanks,
Oboeman.
revleader5

Con

Yes this debate was good and yes I accidentally used a double negative.

For my closing argument, I'dust like to say that who are we to decide that a baby shouldn't be concieved. Killing anything that is alive is wrong and killing anything that can become a life is wrong. This is not talking about eggs and sperm though because they cannot become life until the sperm fertilizes the other.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by oboeman 6 years ago
oboeman
NowJewSeeMeNowJewDont, it seems that you are ignoring that LOGIC is on my side. During first trimester abortions, the fetus (not the conventional "baby") has little biological development. Therefore, logically, it has the same inherent value, at this time in development, as it is as specialized as many primitive life forms. As its neural capacity is still quite low, which also goes to prove my point. Whether you think it to be so or not, first trimester abortions are, quite logically, ethical on a universal scale.
Posted by I_am_always_right 6 years ago
I_am_always_right
NowJewSeeMeNowJewDont
you can not be calling him an idiot. On your profile you put you are in favor of abortion that makes no sense
Posted by I_am_always_right 6 years ago
I_am_always_right
NowJewSeeMeNowJewDont
i agree with you i would whether kill a tree than a life anyday
Posted by NowJewSeeMeNowJewDont 6 years ago
NowJewSeeMeNowJewDont
You Baby killing IDIOT! And I bet you wish that we could save the environment too. You would rather save a tree than save a life you ignorant fool.
Posted by libertarian 6 years ago
libertarian
I voted for Oboe because his opponent's arguments did not adress all of the points stated. His opponent also used one bogus source and a source that that was contrary to his own belief. It stated that after the third trimester (24 - 30 weeks) a baby feels much pain, which is irrelevant to the baby except that it is contrary to his arguments.
The opponents only good point was adoption, which Oboe [poorly] responded to, and then his opponent dropped it.
My vote goes to you Oboe. Although, you could have a better debate performance. Good job with rebuttals, however.
Posted by oboeman 6 years ago
oboeman
Pluto2493, I briefly set my profile a while back, not sure if all MN towns were listed, so I just choose Minneapolis. But in fact, I am from Winona, MN.
Posted by Pluto2493 6 years ago
Pluto2493
I see you are from Minneapolis- what school do you go to???
16 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by utdebater 6 years ago
utdebater
oboemanrevleader5Tied
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 
Vote Placed by edwardsdebater 6 years ago
edwardsdebater
oboemanrevleader5Tied
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 
Vote Placed by I_am_always_right 6 years ago
I_am_always_right
oboemanrevleader5Tied
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:03 
Vote Placed by CaliBeachgirl 6 years ago
CaliBeachgirl
oboemanrevleader5Tied
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:03 
Vote Placed by NowJewSeeMeNowJewDont 6 years ago
NowJewSeeMeNowJewDont
oboemanrevleader5Tied
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:03 
Vote Placed by MossPond 6 years ago
MossPond
oboemanrevleader5Tied
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:03 
Vote Placed by Derek.Gunn 6 years ago
Derek.Gunn
oboemanrevleader5Tied
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 
Vote Placed by johnwooding1 6 years ago
johnwooding1
oboemanrevleader5Tied
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 
Vote Placed by youseeovermyhead 6 years ago
youseeovermyhead
oboemanrevleader5Tied
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 
Vote Placed by biophil 6 years ago
biophil
oboemanrevleader5Tied
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