The Instigator
alysonreid
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
YatesUni
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Abortion. Yes or No?

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/23/2016 Category: Health
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 561 times Debate No: 95605
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

alysonreid

Pro

Many religious families teach their children to not believe in abortion. Often, people believe that aborting a baby, kills it. But what about the children who are already born? The kids who were abandoned and left homeless because their mother couldn't take care of the child? What if they died just because they were forced to be born when the mother wasn't healthy enough? With protesters constantly trying to close abortion clinics, scenarios such as the ones I just listed are happening more and more, and that is truly not acceptable.

Aborting is not murder. The embryo/fetus is unborn, and it will not affect anyone. If it is not already out of the womb, and into the world, they are NOT alive.

It should always be the mother's choice on whether they want the child, or if they do not. What if they were raped? What of the sex was drunk and unwanted? What if their boyfriend left her after getting pregnant? What if the mother wasn't financially stable to care for the child? Protesters are trying to shut down abortion clinics, but what if the mother dies if she gives birth? There are so many factors to pregnancy, and the mother shouldn't have to suffer through the pain of childbirth if she doesn't want to, or doesn't deserve to.
YatesUni

Con

My belief which I will be defending is as follows: If the mother is healthy, and the fetus is healthy. Provided the pregnancy is not the result of rape, incest, or anything that that would either lead to a high probability of the child being born with complications or reason to believe the birth would bring harm to the mother, no abortion should take place.

I will start by saying that under the prior circumstances, it is an immoral act, and while a women does have the right to voice in most other cases, the case of abortion involves the determination of whether or not a life can happen. I feel that since the unborn child cannot speak for itself, it should be defended. If there is no reason to believe it will have any health abnormalities, where to we gain the right to deny its right to life? Isn't the right to life a constant value? Why should one get to take it away for their own convinience? I understand that having a baby is no easy task, but I still believe the baby has the right to live regardless.

Now, I know many pro choice people often question the governments authority to "control what a women does with her body" but this is analyzing actions without intent, the action would be preferably avoided, given the circumstance didn't happen, but the only reason they would step in would be to insure the unborn citizen their God given right to live.

Things to note: I hope to make later rounds with more solid arguments, but I didn't have much time and preferred to get this up and running, so I hope you don't mind.

Also, my use of the term "God given" does not symbolize a religious take on this argument, it was simply word choice, so I hope to keep my religion (Christianity) out of this. I hope people understand they don't have to be Christian to know people have the right to live

I have refrained of my own choice from first round rebuttals, as I find it rude to do to a new debater.
Debate Round No. 1
alysonreid

Pro

The aborted child isn't even alive. It isn't not granting them a life when they already didn't have one. An embryo has no emotion. Getting rid of it will do it no harm.

The mother shouldn't have to have the baby, even if she wasn't raped. It is ALWAYS her choice.

I know this was short, but aborting the baby doesn't do anyone harm. If anything, it's making life easier.

There's already plenty of people on earth and not having one will not be the end of the world.
YatesUni

Con

So, I take it there is nothing wrong with ending the pregnancy, correct? Well, if I take a water soluble pill that kills embryos or fetuses and put it into women's drink, I have done nothing wrong, right? Of course, I am no half wit, so I know the response will be "Its the mothers choice". But why? Why does the fetus/embryo have no intrinsic value upon the mothers wish? They may not be considered a human being, but why does this mean there is no right or value to life?

"There are plenty of people on earth and not having one will not be the end of the world."

Of course, under the condition that only one abortion will ever happen. Well, as of July, over half a million abortions have been taken in 2016 alone, more than one. Of course I know you are referencing individual cases, and of course, it won't be the end of the world for us, but it will be for it. "The embryo has no emotion" By that logic, I can stomp on chicken eggs with no moral reprecussions, after all, they have no emotion.

Again, when you bring up infringement of choice(a right) you must realize that people should lose rights when those infringe on others rights, like the right to live.
Debate Round No. 2
alysonreid

Pro

It shouldn't HAVE to be a problem. If the mother wants the baby gone, get rid of it. I don't care if do it clinically or through a pill. The baby has no emotion, and it wouldn't even know it wasn't granted a life, because it was never there, and nothing changed for it. An unborn baby simply starts as sperm, not a human. It is not considered a human to me until it is out of the womb.

Even if there were over half a million abortions this year, that doesn't affect the current population. They are unborn, it isn't dropping the population numbers at all. And if you feel the need to stomp on chicken eggs, go for it. If you don't want the chickens to live, or if they aren't healthy enough, stomp on them as you please.

You keep bringing up the right to live argument, but the babies who are aborted are unborn. They have no rights. Aborting them doesn't affect anyone.
YatesUni

Con

May I ask, why must the fetus be out of the womb to have any value or rights? It is in fact a human life, as is consists of organic human cells, it's just not an a full being, per say. Why does no emotion equal no value or rights? If that is true, since a coma victim won't know I killed them, there is nothing wrong with killing them, correct? Well, again, I guess your argument will be that only the mother can kill it. Then a mother should be able to kill her son if he is in a coma? Again, your probable argument will be that it would only be allowed because the fetus or embryo is not living (untrue). Either way, this leads to the question, why does that lead to no value or rights?

Of course, you agree there are cases where it would by no means be moral whatsoever to do, not that any case involving both being healthy is EVER moral. But what if someone used this system to abort a female baby, simply because they wanted a male baby, you are fine with this?

Also, while I could care less about the affects it has on population, I don't understand your math, you seem to think it would be the same, but of abortion wasn't allowed in 2016, half a million more lives would be able to be fulfilled. Now, why didn't they deserve life. I urge you to think of them as people, not numbers, as most would. Why is life more valuable outside of the womb than in the womb.
Debate Round No. 3
alysonreid

Pro

If it isn't out of the womb, it isn't alive. There's a big difference between someone sleeping because of sickness, and simply not living on Earth.

If the person is sexist enough and doesn't want a female baby, go ahead. I don't care. It's not my child, it isn't affecting me.

Do you think doctors record a newborn before they're into the world? No, they don't. It's because there's no trace of them on Earth, and they're not fully people yet. Even if there were another 0.5 million on Earth, there just isn't, and it doesn't affect the current population because they were never here.
YatesUni

Con

"If it isn't out of the womb, it simply isn't alive."

Simply untrue. It is growing and developing, it is alive.

In reply to your claim on population, I don't see why it matters really, but still what you said made no sense. If thy were alive, it would have affected the lives of others, fact.

This is all I have to say, thanks for the debate.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by whiteflame 7 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: tonyrobinson// Mod action: Removed<

3 point to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Both had good conduct and was respectful to the other. Neither one used any sources of information. Pro simply stated his opinions without making any arguments as to why he felt that way. Con did use logic to defend views.

[*Reason for removal*] Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter needs to specifically assess arguments made by both sides, and fails to do so for either one. Generalizing based on the voter's views of how well each side backed up their points is insufficient.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 7 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Iacov// Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Con (Conduct, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: I agree with pro but regarding conduct I felt a sense of frustration in pro's wording and I believe con did better at presenting and explaining their points.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter needs to specifically assess arguments made by both sides, and fails to do so for either one. (2) Conduct is insufficiently explained. "A sense of frustration" in one side's wording is subjective at best, but more importantly, it's not sufficient reason to award this point. Conduct may only be awarded in the case of forfeits or personal attacks.
************************************************************************
Posted by BackCommander 8 months ago
BackCommander
You may also be aborting SuperHitler, so seriously you guys, abort as much as possible.
Posted by sarah_joseph_21 8 months ago
sarah_joseph_21
Abortion is in fact killing the child. There are other safer ways of dealing with a rape situation like adoption. You have no idea what that child's potential is. You may be murdering the future president or someone that will have a great impact on the world we live in.
Posted by QuanumIND 8 months ago
QuanumIND
A book I read called Freakonomics says that abortion actually lowers crime because a mothers whose children are statistically more likely to become criminals are usually the ones who get an abortion. The ones who wont really love the child because they never wanted it in the first place
No votes have been placed for this debate.