The Instigator
breanadawnx3
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
THEBOMB
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points

Abortion

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 2 votes the winner is...
THEBOMB
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/20/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,103 times Debate No: 23002
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

breanadawnx3

Con

I will be debating CON (against) Abortion. Keep it respectful and clean. Round 1 is acceptance. Thanks.
THEBOMB

Pro

I accept. I await my opponent's arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
breanadawnx3

Con

There are many reasons as to why abortion is wrong:

1- It is the act of unlawful killing.
2- People use it as a way on contraception.
3- After the abortion, the woman usually faces psychological pain and stress.
4- Abortion can result in future medical issues for the woman.
5- It teaches the woman and man to "run away" from their problems rather than to be responsible for their actions.
6- Many couples wait on waiting list to adopt a child.
7- Majority of abortions are done by teenagers and young adults.
8- Abortion eliminates the legal rights of the unborn child.
9-Abortion is against doctors' Hippocratic Oath.

Reasonings:

1- Not only is murder (aka abortion) is wrong criminally, but it is also wrong by religion.
-> The 6th Commandment says: "Thou shalt not kill"
2- Instead of using birth control, condoms, or any other form of contraceptives- people wait until they're in this predicament and try to get rid of their issue by just eliminating the issue all together.
3- After the abortion, the mother, and sometimes the father, usually become depressed, experience feeling of regret, post traumatic stress disorder, suicidal thoughts, and repeat abortions.
4- These stressed women can face future problems of fertility. Also, sometimes they look towards alcohol, cigarettes, and drugs- which all have harmful affects on the body. Some women develop eating disorders.
5- If two people are willing to make an adult decision and have sexual intercourse, they should have to face the consequences that sometimes follow.
6- Instead of ending the innocent life of a child, many willing and ready couples wait on waiting lists for years to try to adopt a child. By a child being aborted, that lessens the chance of a willing couple to raise the child.
7- Teenagers and young adults look at sex as a "game", some type of pleasure that has no after effects to them. Therefore, they end up having abortions instead of facing responsibility and maturity of their actions.
8- This "unwanted" child will never be allowed to make decisions on their own, raise a family, have the right to vote, freedom of voice/religion/expression, etc.
9- The doctors' Hippocratic Oath is an oath that doctors have to sign, something like a contract, where they are promising to act of professional ethic standards.

Sources:
*http://afterabortion.org...
*http://www.nlm.nih.gov...
*http://www.balancedpolitics.org...
*http://www.christianaction.org.za...
*http://wholeworldinhishands.com...
*http://womensissues.about.com...
*http://www.bible-knowledge.com...
THEBOMB

Pro

I thank my opponent and will begin by rebutting their case.

1. Murder is not wrong criminally—Roe v. Wade established that abortion is completely legal. Second, my opponent simply states it violates the 6th commandment (which I may add is a Jewish and Christian doctrine there are hundreds of other religions) without providing any analysis. Why is it necessarily wrong to kill a fetus? My opponent is making the inherent claim the fetus has the right to live. I will attack this inherent point in my case.
2. Some people use contraceptives. Over half of abortions are a result of failed contraceptives. (1)
3. Women go through psychological issues because of pregnancy as well (2). Furthermore, unwanted children (those who were not aborted) have a much higher chance of leading a dysfunctional life (3). Should we condemn those children to that fate?
4. These issues can arise from natural pregnancy as well. I cross apply my third attack here.
5. My opponent makes a contract out of sexual intercourse. This is inherently incorrect. People have a constitutional right to have non-procreative sexual intercourse (4, 5). The legality of birth control furthers this point. Consenting to sex does not mean you are consenting to get pregnant as it is a right to have non-procreative sex. If a person consents to non-procreative sex (they use contraceptives) then they are not consenting to have the child develop within them. The acknowledgment of "x" does not equal consent for "x".
6. My opponent wishes to increase the number of children in foster homes. How is this a good thing? You say the needs of those who want to adopt go before the needs of the child. (Cross number 3).
7. I ask my opponent to explain how this is relevant. There is nothing wrong with sexual intercourse.
8. Please explain the relevance here. (Cross apply number 3).
9. Once again explain the relevance. What does the Hippocratic Oath have to do with anything.

Now for my case.

Before I begin, I ask a single question, why does the fetus have a right to live? Where does the fetus get the right to use one person's body for its own good?

Let me present a hypothetical: there is a rock star that is dying from a deadly disease which can only be cured if he is "connected" to your kidneys for 9 months. There is a risk you may die and you definitely will be bedridden, your diet and exercise will be carefully monitored by doctors. The question is: does this rock star have a right to your kidneys? No. The rock star has no right to demand use of your kidneys as his due. He has no right against you to use your kidneys. Only you can decide whether to let him use your kidneys or not. Let us say you consent and allow him to use your kidneys. It still is not his right to have use of your kidneys. It is only out of kindness you allow him to use your kidneys. You still reserve the full right to deny the rock star the use of your kidneys as you have to right to deem who can use your kidneys. A pro-life activist must make the claim the rock star has the right to use your kidneys otherwise they are being hypocritical in thinking the unborn have the right to its mother but, a rock star does not have the right to your kidneys to save his life.

Let's put it in another sense: does someone who needs an organ (a kidney, heart, liver, etc) have the right to another person's organs? My opponent must answer yes. I say no, simply because it is not theirs to demand. A person in need of a liver cannot demand someone give them a piece of their liver. It is not their place to demand someone go through surgery and the many months of recovery. Even if someone initially consents to the surgery they can still recant their consent as that remains their right.

In both of these situations above there is a constant. The person(s) in need do not live because it is their moral right to demand what is not theirs but, because of the kindness of the donor. In the same way the unborn does not develop into a human being because of its inherent right to what is not theirs but, instead, because of the kindness of the mother. In all of these situations, a person is contingent upon another person. This makes their right to the bare necessities of life invalid simply because what they need to live infringes upon what is not and would never be theirs except for the niceness of another human being.

Throughout this argument I have conceded that the unborn were human from fertilization. (That in itself is a debate).
In my first point, I have attacked the premise "the unborn have a right to life" and the premise "every human has an inherent right to life". My second point attacks the unsaid premise that a fetus is completely innocent. My last point directly attacks the conclusions and shows why it is moral to have an abortion.

A human being, and as a human being the unborn, cannot have the right to live if their right to live is contingent upon somebody else as it is transforming from a right into the kindness of another person.

Now let me continue, let us say I am dying from a deadly disease. All that I need to live is for you to come and poke me. Do I have the right that you should come poke me? No. My life is dependent upon something I have no right to demand. I have no right that you should come and poke me. There is no moral right that I should be poked by you. Yes, it would be extremely kind of you. But, kindness is not the same as a right. This applies to pregnancy because the fetus is demanding something which is not theirs to demand. What gives the fetus the right to demand a "poke" from the mother? What gives me the right to demand you poke me? Nothing.

Sources:
1. http://pregnancy.adoption.com...
2. http://womensneuroscience.stanford.edu...
3. David, Henry P. et al., eds. 1988. Born Unwanted: Developmental Effects of Denied Abortion. Springer Publishing Co., New York. (book)
4. Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965 (decision)
5. Eisenstadt v. Baird, 1972 (decision)
Debate Round No. 2
breanadawnx3

Con

I thank my opponent for their reply.

1. I agree with my opponent stating that the commandment is a Jewish and Christian doctrine, so therefore:
- The essence of right conduct is not to injure anyone; one should know only this, that non-injury is religion. (Jainism)
-He who commits murder must be considered as the worst offender, more wicked than a defamer, than a thief, and than he who injures with a staff. (Hinduism)
-Anyone who kills a believer intentionally will have his reward in hell, to remain there. God will be angry with him and curse him, and prepare awful torment for him. (Islam)
Those are just some examples. I'm pretty sure every religion has some belief on murder.
Even though it is only a fetus, in just 9 months, it will be a human being like you and I.

2. My opponent says that half of the abortions are from failed contraceptives, so what are the other half from?

3. Although women go through psychological issues due to pregnancy like my opponent states, the degree of these issues are greater due to abortion. (2). My opponent states that unwanted child "have a higher chance of leading a dysfunctional life", but if the biological parent(s) of the baby looked well into a reliable adoption agency and a reliable couple, they are pretty well assured their baby will live a good life.

4. Although a pregnancy can risk the medical well-being of the mother, these abortions can increase issues of the body such as infections, cervical tearing, failed abortion aka live birth, hemorrhage, and trapped fetal parts to name a few.

5. My opponent says "Consenting to sex does not mean you are consenting to get pregnant" but sex is reproduction, which means to create an offspring (aka baby). When having sex, there is always a chance of becoming pregnant, that's what it is solely for- to REPRODUCE.

6. My opponent assumes I "wish to increase the number of children in foster homes" when I never even spoke of a foster home, I spoke of adoption through ADOPTION agencies that deal with couples who would LOVE for a baby to take care of.

7. I never stated that there was something wrong with sexual intercourse, what is wrong about sexual intercourse is irresponsible, young people making ADULT decisions and not considering the consequences of pregnancy (and STDs/STIs).

8. A fetus is a child, a person, a human being who deserves to live and have their rights.

9. The Hippocratic Oath is about doing the professional thing and not harming their patients; Abortion harms the mother and kills an innocent baby.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

My opponent spoke of a "rockstar" ( a stranger) using a person's body for their own good. A fetus is part of the mother, it is what the mother wished to create when she engaged in sexual intercourse. How does a rockstar equal a fetus?

My opponent then speaks of a organ being needed, once again I say that the fetus is the mother's responsibility; the mother CHOSE to engage in these activities, and the baby is theirs, and therefore it is THEIR responsibility to have their organs shared.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Abortion is legal up to 24 weeks (6 months) of pregnancy. At this 6 month mark, there is a heartbeat and the fetus' movements are stronger. The fetus is approximately 1.3 pounds and 12 inches long. The fetus' eyelids are developed. Most importantly- if the mother had to deliver the baby at this point, the chances of it surviving are extremely high.

*http://www.unification.net...
*http://www.realchoicespcc.org...
*http://www.pregnancy.org...
*http://www.baby2see.com...
THEBOMB

Pro

Thank you for your response.

1. My opponent dropped the criminally wrong point. My opponent goes on to make an appeal to authority saying since religions say it's wrong, it must be wrong. Furthermore, with all these doctrines they cite they presuppose the fetus is a human being. Without providing any reason for us to believe the fetus is a human being.

"Even though it is only a fetus, in just 9 months, it will be a human being like you and I."
This argument basically says, because the fetus will eventual develop into a human being that we should refrain from killing it. But, it does not answer the question of why we should refrain from killing it. As shown above (and below), the fetus's life is dependent upon the kindness of the mother.

2. 50% failed contraceptives. 30% Teen pregnancies. The rest are from rape, incest and other crimes as well as medical reasons. This also brings up another point, what about in the cases where the woman never consented to sexual intercourse, nothing you say applies here. How about when the woman's life is in danger, would an abortion be in order in that case?

3. I do not see where my opponent is getting her information from. According to Stanford, " 20% of women suffer from mood or anxiety disorders during the gestation and postpartum periods". It says nothing about abortions.

4. Concession. Both have medical risks.

5. My opponent completely ignores the fact I provided Supreme Court cases and reasoning behind it. Instead attacking the premise consent to sex =/= consent for pregnancy. I will now defend this premise. Acknowledging sex may get you pregnant does not equal consent for the pregnancy. For example, if I drive a car on a rainy day does this mean I consent to a car accident which can cause harm to me and possibly kill me? Of course not. If an accident does occur all parties are allowed to call 911 to mitigate the effects of the accident. Life is dangerous and almost anything we do has the potential for danger, man acknowledges this but, man does not consent to danger. Why is it that in no other circumstance, other than abortion, do people argue taking the risk equals consent for the damages and the waiving of the right to mitigate these damages? You may argue my example is not natural so therefore, pregnancy should continue unabated by medical intervention. But, then you must also argue other natural things such as disease must be allowed to run their course without treatment, disease is natural and if by having sex you are consenting to pregnancy why wouldn't touching a toilet seat be consenting to whatever disease may be present on the toilet seat? If you argue against this then, your premise regarding abortion is misogynist and only seeks to unequally render the health and bodily integrity of those who can get pregnant meaningless and not the population as a whole.

6. Adoption agencies can only hold "x" amount of children before placing them in foster homes before permanent adoptions can be made. There are "x" children and "y" willing couples. But, "X" is much greater than "y".

7. I refer back to my 5th point. People can have non-procreative sexual intercourse. It is a constitutional right.

8. Prove it. This is basically what you are trying to argue. Person is a legal term. Prove a fetus has legal rights. I concede they are human (possessing human DNA == human) not that they are human beings.

9. Surgery harms a person is that against the Hippocratic Oath? Even when abortions is necessary to save the mother's life is that against the Hippocratic Oath? My opponent still has not proven the fetus is a baby.

My case

The Rockstar Analogy

My opponent did not see what this hypothetical represents instead they ask, "How does a rockstar equal a fetus?" In both cases, the thing in question is dependent upon a person. The fetus is dependent upon the mother. The rockstar is dependent upon you. Cross apply my entire analysis of this hypothetical here. Furthermore, the mother never wished to create the fetus.

Organ Donations

A live organ donor chose at one point to donate his/her organs. They still hold the right to recant their decision. Cross-apply my logic under point 5 here.

"Abortion is legal up to 24 weeks (6 months) of pregnancy. At this 6 month mark, there is a heartbeat and the fetus' movements are stronger. The fetus is approximately 1.3 pounds and 12 inches long. The fetus' eyelids are developed. Most importantly- if the mother had to deliver the baby at this point, the chances of it surviving are extremely high."

Abortion is legal up to this point, thus, it is illegal afterwards. I do not see how this is relevant to the debate at hand.

To conclude, my opponent drops many of the points I made throughout this debate. They completely ignore my last hypothetical (the "poke") and instead focus on such trivial details all while completely ignoring my explanation of the hypothetical situations. My opponent also refuses to answer the two questions I posed before beginning my arguments. Thus, they have no response and we must hold my answer to be the only answer. The fetus does not have one person's body for its own good.
Debate Round No. 3
breanadawnx3

Con

Thank you for your response.

1. Never once in my debate, did i speak of "religions say it's wrong, it must be wrong". A lot of people are highly religious and worry about a higher being. The fetus is a step to a human. Just like a seed is a step to becoming a plant.

2. My opponent speaks of rapes, teen pregnancies, and failed contraceptives- i say ADOPTION, NOT ABORTION. My opponent then says "How about when the woman's life is in danger, would an abortion be in order in that case?" and no offense to my opponent, but he is a male and will never understand the connection between a mother and a fetus. Most mothers give up things for their kids, even if its their life- if necessary.

3. I put the links at the end where I got my information done.

4. Pregnancy and abortion have medical risks, but abortion have more. (Read my previous argument and facts for 4).

5. My opponent implies that I said just because they have consent for sex, they're consenting for pregnancy, but I've never said that. What I said was- "When having sex, there is always a chance of becoming pregnant, that's what it is solely for- to REPRODUCE." This simply means that there is always a chance that pregnancy could be the outcome of sex.

6. Not all adoption agencies "hold" children, there are some agencies that work with the biological parents and the adoptive parents through the pregnancy so therefore the newborn goes to a loving home right after discharge from the hospital.

7. Although it is a constitutional right, well in some cases, people should be responsible when engaging in this activity. When I said "well in some cases", I'm referring to teenagers having sex and going against the state law's age of consent- because there are a lot of young teenagers who engage in sex.

8. Just because the fetus is still inside the womb, it is still developing- the same way we do as an infant, baby, toddler, child, tween, teen, young adult, adult, elderly. It is the HUMAN life cycle.

9. My opponent says "Surgery harms a person". Although there is a chance of harming the patient, surgery is used to benefit the patient, in some way or another.

The Rockstar Analogy

My opponent says- "the mother never wished to create the fetus." But the mother choose to engage in sex and take that chance of creating that fetus. The rockstar is not the person's responsibility, the fetus is though.

Organ Donations

Once again- its a CHOICE, just like sex and contraceptives.

The relevance of the description of a 6 month old fetus is the point that there are people who get abortions at 6 months.

When a fetus is conceived, it automatically becomes the mother's, and the father's, responsibility. The mother has no choice but to share her organs with the fetus since she chose to create the fetus.

*http://www.kinseyinstitute.org...
*http://www.guttmacher.org...
*http://asktheexperts.plannedparenthood.org...
THEBOMB

Pro

Thank you for your response.

1. My opponent was alluding that because religion says it is wrong, it is wrong. They cited several well know religious doctrines how else should that be interpreted?

2. My opponent continues saying adoption not abortion, but, provides no reason why a woman should have to give up part of her life for the sake of the fetus. They keep presupposing a right to life, which I attack with my case. As for her answer to my question it fails for 2 reasons: 1) she never really answers the question, I asked whether it would be morally correct, she cites an unspoken connection between mother and fetus. 2) If there really was a connection there, they the mother would not be considering an abortion to begin with.

3. You may have put links, but, when reading them through, none of them mention psychological conditions resulting from abortion occur more often than having a child. In fact, the opposite is true.

4. Guess what there are a plethora of health problems resulting from pregnancy as well. Both have their medical risks. (1)

5. Yes, you are implying a contract to pregnancy. You completely ignore my argument on this point. You say because there is a chance you can get pregnant if you do get pregnant you must accept that as a consequence. But, to use my analogy from above, if you touch a toilet seat there is a chance you can get sick, should you just accept it and not treat any disease you may get? If you walk across the street you may get hit by a car, does that mean you are consenting to get hit by a car? Should you not go to the hospital if you do get hit by a car? The outcome of sexual intercourse may be pregnancy, but, why does this necessarily mean you are consenting to be pregnant?

6. Some implies a minority. Which means the majority do hold the children being put up for adoption. Furthermore, if the child was not wanted, how exactly is the biological parents home loving? It is not.

7. It is a constitutional right. Since a constitutional right to not have procreative sex trumps the state laws mandating the age of consent, it is your constitutional right, regardless of age, to be able to have non-procreative sexual intercourse.

8. Your basically arguing they have the potential to become a human being. But, they are not a human being just yet. They are utterly dependent upon another human being which turns a right to life into life based upon the kindness of another.

9. Abortions benefit the mother in some way or another although there is a chance of harm. My opponent never answered whether it is morally correct to save the mother at the cost of the fetus.

Defense of my own case.

Rockstar analogy

Right about now I feel like my opponent is not reading anything I said…I already addressed this above. Simply because a mother chooses to take an action does not mean they consented to have a living thing grow inside of them. A mother takes the chance by having sexual intercourse. I take a chance by walking across the seat/touching a toilet bowl. Cross-apply almost my entire hypothetical as her refutation are based upon something I addressed in great detail.

Organ donation analogy

And once again, I cross-apply my points made underneath attack number 5. There is no inherent contract therefore, she is not responsible.

My opponent continues to cite an inherent contract between sexual intercourse and pregnancy, which I have shown to be false. There is no inherent contract. My opponent ignores many of my points and simply tries to avoid refuting them. My opponent drops one of my analogies and completely misinterprets the point of the other two when I explicitly explained how they related. Furthermore, my opponent, in their conclusion, states "when a fetus is conceived, it automatically becomes the mother's, and the father's, responsibility. The mother has no choice but to share her organs with the fetus since she chose to create the fetus." This is exactly what I am arguing against, even if the mother and father made a choice, why can they not have an ability to mitigate the effect. To use the toilet seat analogy, I make a choice when I touch a toilet seat, under my opponent's logic it would be morally unjustified to use medicines to heal myself from any disease. How is this any different? The person(s) in question made a choice. This choice led to ill-effect. Now why is it that I am allowed to help myself while the mother is not?

Source:

1. http://www.thelizlibrary.org...
Debate Round No. 4
breanadawnx3

Con

Thank you for your response.

1. Like I stated before, the religious references were due to many people being religious and worrying about what a higher authority would think of them.

2. My opponent states "If there really was a connection there, they the mother would not be considering an abortion to begin with." If there is no connection with a mother and a fetus, then there s no connection between a woman and her body in general. Plus many women THINK they have legit reasons for abortion. My opponent fails to acknowledge that a male does not have the same connection with a fetus like a female has and, therefore, which may be the reason why he feels this way about abortion.

3. Imagine living the rest of your life in regret and dramatized when you see babies and pregnant women. That's a major issue that happens when a woman has an abortion.

4.My opponent states that both labor/delivery and abortion have medical risks, but fails to realize how much more abortion affects a woman's body during the abortion and after the abortion. These medical issues can last a lifetime.

5. For starters, how does a disease have anything to do with a living thing? Having sex does NOT consent to becoming pregnant, but it is a risk that's being taken, especially for those who decide to not use contraceptives.

6. Never once did I say that the biological parents have a loving home for an unwanted child, I stated that these parents who wish to adopt can provide a loving home.

7. Although it "is a constitutional right", by some laws- for some ages, it is against the law.

8. Regardless of how someone looks at a fetus as a "human being" or "not a human being", the fetus should not have to be aborted, especially for the convenience of the woman.

9. My opponent stated "although there is a chance of harm", which clarifies that he does acknowledge the many negative medical/mental/emotional/psychological effects of abortion- which is why it should be legal.

Rockstar analogy

Like I said before- the rockstar is a STRANGER. The fetus is a part of them, the result of the actions they wish to engage in. The fetus is their responsibility, not the rockstar.

Organ Donation Analogy

My opponent is implying that it is okay for people to do something but run away from the consequence without being responsible. Great way to look at life.

My opponent claims I "cited a contract", which I never did. I simply believe sex is an adult action that has many consequences that can follow it, especially if people are irresponsible.

Summary

Sex is not a game, like people think it is. Sex has a lot of consequences that people should take into consideration before having sex. If there are consequences, whether it is a STD, STI, and/or pregnancy- the two who decided to engage in sex, should take FULL responsibility.

Vote Con.

*http://www.squidoo.com...
*http://afterabortion.org...
*http://www.science20.com...
THEBOMB

Pro

Thank you for your response

1. This is an appeal to authority. What the masses believe is not always correct. Just because someone believes a higher power exists does not mean it exists.

2. "If there is no connection with a mother and a fetus, then there s no connection between a woman and her body in general." This is a non-sequitor. My opponent makes two assertions which are completely unrelated. One deals with a separate entity completely dependant on the woman. The other deals with the woman who is completely dependent upon herself. "Plus many women THINK they have legit reasons for abortion." This is an unsubstantiated claim which should be ignored as such. My opponent provides no reason why this matters. "My opponent fails to acknowledge that a male does not have the same connection with a fetus like a female has and, therefore, which may be the reason why he feels this way about abortion." But, there are quite obviously a number of females who feel the same. Take Mrs. Judith Jarvis for example, my case is based upon her work. I thought this was obvious…

3. "Imagine living the rest of your life in regret and dramatized when you see babies and pregnant women." There are major psychological and physiological issues stemming from pregnancy as well.

4. So can the medical issues arising from natural pregnancy and birth. They can last a lifetime as well.

5. My opponent never really addresses any of my points in this contention. They inadvertedly contradict themselves. If the person is not consenting to become pregnant by engaging in sexual intercourse, then how can you argue they have any responsibility? Simply arguing because they had sexual intercourse is not enough to give them responsibility for another entity. Unless there is specific consent given by the woman, the fetus has no right to utilize the woman's body for its own needs. As I stated above, "life is dangerous and almost anything we do has the potential for danger, man acknowledges this but, man does not consent to danger. Why is it that in no other circumstance, other than abortion, do people argue taking the risk equals consent for the damages and the waiving of the right to mitigate these damages?" Why do you have the right to cure yourself of a disease but, not to have an abortion? If you touch the toilet seat you must be responsible for anything you "picked up". The acknowledgment of a risk does not equate to consent for that risk. My opponent basically concedes this point, "having sex does NOT consent to becoming pregnant, but it is a risk that's being taken". (Also, bacteria are living things. Bacteria can cause disease).

6. I misread my opponent's point. I apologize for that. This is still the minority of adoption agencies. This also does not at all weigh abortion as immoral.

7. A right given by the Constitution is the highest legal right a person can have. I am not arguing age of consent laws are against the constitution. I am merely arguing that those who have sexual intercourse are allowed to have sex without procreating.

8. My opponent concedes that the fetus is not a human being. My opponent has not shown why the fetus has the inherent right to live. In my case, I have shown a fetus does not.

9. There are many negative effects of pregnancy. Should that to be illegal? If everything that caused harm to man was illegal, we would be dead right now. I merely say that as a surgical procedure there could be physical harm to the mother. I will not even argue medical procedures never cause harm. But, pregnancy to causes harm. My opponent also concedes that abortion is permissible if only to save the mother.

My case: a defense.

Rockstar Analogy

My opponent states, "Like I said before- the rockstar is a STRANGER. The fetus is a part of them, the result of the actions they wish to engage in. The fetus is their responsibility, not the rockstar." The point of the hypothetical was to say why does one entity have the right to use another entity for its own good? My opponent really does not refute this premise. And as I stated above (which, I may add, went basically uncontested), "the person(s) in need do not live because it is their moral right to demand what is not theirs but, because of the kindness of the donor. In the same way the unborn does not develop into a human being because of its inherent right to what is not theirs but, instead, because of the kindness of the mother. In all of these situations, a person is contingent upon another person. This makes their right to the bare necessities of life invalid simply because what they need to live infringes upon what is not and would never be theirs except for the niceness of another human being." The points of the hypotheticals were to attack the premise that the unborn have an inherent right to live. Why should I be able to unplug myself from the rockstar if the mother cannot "unplug" herself from the fetus. My opponent says the unborn is the mother's responsibility. But, they never fully explain why this is, why do they have responsibility? Is it because they had sexual intercourse? This implies an inherent sexual contract which is false.

Organ Donation Analogy

My opponent states that, "[PRO] imply[s] that it is okay for people to do something but run away from the consequence without being responsible. Great way to look at life." Now I am going to assume they were being sarcastic in their last sentence (sarcasm does not do well through text by the way), even so, fine, it may be a bad way to live life, but, that does not make it morally wrong. Furthermore, my opponent never explicitly explains how they are responsible seeing how they conceded that having sex does not equal consent for pregnancy. (If I want to take this at face value my opponent just conceded the point…)

My opponent goes on saying "[PRO] claims I "cited a contract", which I never did. I simply believe sex is an adult action that has many consequences that can follow it, especially if people are irresponsible." You inadvertedly did cite a sexual contract. You keep saying the mother is responsible for the unborn because she had sex. Why else could this be without an inherent contract (which is wrong)?

My last analogy (starts with "Now let me continue, let us say I am dying from a deadly disease")

This has not even been addressed by my opponent.

In conclusion, while sex can have consequences. These consequences are not inherently accepted or consented to by the act of sexual intercourse. The mother does not have to accept the burden of the unborn unless she consents to do so. The fetus does not have a right to live because their life is dependent upon the mother and thus, the mother's niceness.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
"Sex is SOLELY to reproduce"

Regardless of how blatantly false this argument is, you and 16k would get along well. You both use this flawed argument and defend it to your last breath.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Mrparkers 4 years ago
Mrparkers
breanadawnx3THEBOMBTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Some of the arguments by Con didn't make a lot of sense, and the ones that did were thoroughly addressed by Pro. Some of Pro's analogies in R2 could have been easily countered by Con if con had put a little more thought into the "moral contract" argument, but since that didn't happen, arguments go to the Pro.
Vote Placed by seraine 4 years ago
seraine
breanadawnx3THEBOMBTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Going to have to vote Pro here. Con's case basically said that if you engage in sex, you take full responsibility for the baby. However, if you want an abortion then you obviously weren't planning to get pregnant, and you didn't consent to the responsibility of a child.