The Instigator
zak61099
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
MasturDbtor
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points

Abortion

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/16/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 854 times Debate No: 16546
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

zak61099

Con

I believe that abortion is murder and should not be tolerated. Why do you think abortion should be accepted?
MasturDbtor

Pro

Definition of murder:

Dictionary.com defines murder as "the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder)."

Clearly abortion is not murder as Pro attests, since the definition says "the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law". Abortion is not "specifically covered in law" as murder, because it is legal. Therefore, abortion is not murder. The government could make it murder by changing the law, but regardless of whether or not it should or should not do that it stands to fact that presently abortion is not murder no matter whether Pro would like it to be or not.


Laws Against Abortion Are Slavery:

1. If a woman is forced not to have an abortion the only option she has is to carry the pregnancy to term. This includes pain, at least during labor at the end and a lot of work and energy-spending she must go through to deliver the fetus. Technically, when the fetus is in the womb it is a parasite. A parasite is "an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment." The fetus gets its resources from the woman.

So by not allowing the woman to have an abortion she is forced to carry out labor and to give her food to the fetus. Forced labor is slavery. By making the woman go through the pregnancy against her will the state is enslaving the woman to the fetus.

The woman owns herself just like every person owns their self. Even if the fetus is a "person" she has the right to decide which persons are allowed within her property. As an analogy if you had a guest in your house and wanted them to leave you would have the legal right to do that even if outside your house there was no food, water, or transportation for miles and so by kicking out the guest you were dooming them to die. Since it is your property you could still kick out the guest. Similarly, it is the woman's body and she should have the right to kick out the fetus. Banning abortion is the equivalent(except worse since a person's body is more personal than their house) of not only forcing the owner to keep the guest but forcing the owner to feed and take care of the guest.


Sentience:

Furthermore, we must consider the root of human rights itself. We have rights based on personhood but other species do not. The clear difference is our ability to think and reason. A fetus does not even have a brain stem up until the 7th week of gestation.
http://brainmind.com...

For most of its development a fetus has less sentience than most animals, including animals that people hunt, fish, butcher, and eat all the time without legal ramifications.


Legal Implications of Fetal Personhood:

Recognizing fetuses as legal persons would legally require an illogical outcome. If abortion was illegal and fetuses treated as legal persons then when a pregnant woman committed a crime and was locked up in jail legally there would be 2 people locked up, and 1 of them, the fetus would be innocent and would be being held there without due process.


When Life Begins:

Abortion is often framed as an argument over when life begins, birth or conception. But that's beating around the bush. Life begins before conception. The sperm and the egg are both alive too. Arguing that killing an embryo is murder is like arguing that masturbation or menstruation is murder, because they involve the death of sperm and egg.
Debate Round No. 1
zak61099

Con

Obviously Pro is very educated and/or interested in this topic as Pro has made some very interesting and crucial points.

As for your first section about murder and it's legal definitions, you are entirely correct and I applaud the Pro.

As for Pro's section about how the mother must endure pain is true except about the parasitic argument. Technically, women do not have to eat anymore with the baby then with without.

What I found exceptionally interesting about Pro's argument was Pro talking about enslavement. Pro makes a very good point yet I look at his entire dilemma in an, obviously, more moral manner. To look at this enslavement section more legally, I can see Pro's point of view. Yet looking at this morally, I see it entirely inhumane to look at pregnancy (while abortion is illegal) as a type of forced enslavement.

Now let me give one of my point of views on this. Pro is looking at fetuses as what they are when you perform abortion. But why not what they could become? This fetus could become something- someone, yet you completely eliminate any possibility of that future human helping our society and environment.

Anyone who considers a fetus to be the source of a forced enslavement lacks humanity, kindness, and compassion. Ultimately, Pro considers human life to be trivial.

Abortion could potentially create population decrease over many years. But, please, look at it morally. Think of PEOPLE, not the law.


MasturDbtor

Pro

Con has conceded that abortion is not murder. Thank you. I win the debate.

But I will still elaborate.

"Technically, women do not have to eat anymore with the baby then with without."

Not true. It is common knowledge that appetite increases during pregnancy. This appetite increase is to feed the baby and otherwise would not have happened. The pregnancy forces the woman to spend extra money on food to feed the baby.

http://www.whattoexpect.com...

"Yet looking at this morally, I see it entirely inhumane to look at pregnancy (while abortion is illegal) as a type of forced enslavement."

Morally, it can not be preferable to believe a fiction over a truth, especially when the truth is glaringly obvious with just a minute of research. Nothing in the definition of either forced or enslavement includes a requirement that the thing described be wrong or immoral in order to qualify as "forced enslavement". Hence, even if the "forced enslavement" involved in banning abortion was morally justified it would still be "forced enslavement". The immorality and the consequences of slavery are well known. It is on Pro to show why morally this special case of "forced enslavement" is justified.

"This fetus could become something- someone, yet you completely eliminate any possibility of that future human helping our society and environment."

The fetus could just as easily become a human hurting society and the environment. History is full of examples of tyrants, serial killers, rapists, thieves, criminals, etc. Considering the women most likely to opt for abortion are ones who often feel they are not ready to raise a child, thrusting a child onto them is not wise and the child stands more of a chance of growing up to be a criminal if the mother is not ready to parent.

Some science shows that abortion decreased the crime rate.
http://chronicle.uchicago.edu...

Besides that it would make as much sense to look at "sperm" or "unfertilized egg" and think of "what it could become" and based on Pro's logic that would make masturbation and menstruation murder.

"Pro considers human life to be trivial."

Considering human life is more than just considering its continued existence, it also means considering quality of life. It can significantly reduce a woman's quality of life for her to face pregnancy if she is not ready. As with other activities forcing a woman to go through pregnancy against her will is harmful to quality of life.

"Abortion could potentially create population decrease over many years."

The world is already overpopulated. Population decrease is unlikely. The most that might happen is a decrease in the rate of population increase, which would be positive because it would decrease overpopulation.
Debate Round No. 2
zak61099

Con

Obviously you are very close-minded. I will no longer continue a debate with someone so stubborn.
MasturDbtor

Pro

Since Con has conceded I win this debate.
Debate Round No. 3
zak61099

Con

zak61099 forfeited this round.
MasturDbtor

Pro

MasturDbtor forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
zak61099

Con

zak61099 forfeited this round.
MasturDbtor

Pro

Just starting up the Voting Period 3 and a half hours earlier.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by zak61099 5 years ago
zak61099
Good point.....
Posted by Jillianl 5 years ago
Jillianl
Con just did a rather lame cop out.

I think everyone should vote pro, just for that.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
zak61099MasturDbtorTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Bm ff
Vote Placed by baggins 5 years ago
baggins
zak61099MasturDbtorTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Poor presentation from Con forfeit. Pro should not have forfeited one round. You can just write - argument extended or something like that.