The Instigator
justsayin
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points

Abortion

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 4 votes the winner is...
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/27/2012 Category: Health
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 621 times Debate No: 23891
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (4)

 

justsayin

Pro

You said you would like to accept if I made the time to argue longer, someone has already accepted, but if you would like to debate with me about this situation I have increased it to 24 hours. If you would like me to increase it more, than comment and I will do so.
AlwaysMoreThanYou

Con

First, I would like to thank justsayin for offering me this debate even though I failed to accept the open one. I expect that a slightly more productive debate might be had in 24 hours/round instead of only three.

I am taking the side of Con. I assume that Burden of Proof is shared, with slight emphasis towards Pro for instigation and being Pro.

I define "abortion" as meaning "The expulsion or removal from the womb of a developing embryo or fetus, spec. (Med.) in the period before it is capable of independent survival, occurring as a result of a deliberate act (more fully induced abortion); the early or premature termination of pregnancy with loss of the fetus; an instance of this.", a slightly modified version of the definition found in the Oxford English Dictionary. I'm not trying to play semantics here, I think this is the only logical definition of the word anyway.

With that having bene said, I turn it over to my opponent and wish them luck for what I hope will be an interesting debate!
Debate Round No. 1
justsayin

Pro

Yes, abortion IS that definition. However, it is a fetus, it is not yet a baby. Will it continue on to become a human being? Yes. But this is not killing a human being. It is getting rid of the fetus BEFORE it turns into a human being fully. If someone is against this simply because it is getting rid of something BEFORE it turns into a human being, this said person should also be against other things such as masturbation. This is the same thing, it kills sperm cells. Sperm cells which would become a human being. So are these the same things? Or is one okay and the other not?
Also, while I will agree that abortion because someone does not use protection is wrong, in the cases that said protection fails or this person is raped.. should abortion not be an option? Sure you could put the child up for adoption, but will the child not face more emotion damage due to their own parents giving them away? If the woman does NOT want the child, why not let her make that decision? No one else should choose except for the woman carrying the child. It is her body, let her do with it as she wants.
AlwaysMoreThanYou

Con

It appears, in no way unexpectedly, that much of this argument will consist over whether or not a fetus is a human being. It is much more difficult to justifying killing an innocent human than it is to justify killing a cell. For this reason, I will address the humanity of the unborn last. However, I would like to ask my opponent when she believes the unborn become human beings.

I am glad that my opponent agrees that abortion because someone does not use protection is wrong.

I will now begin my rebuttals.

justsayin wrote "in the cases that said protection fails or this person is raped.. should abortion not be an option?"

If you consider the unborn a human being, the only way I can see justifying an abortion is if both the mother and baby were certain to die if no action was taken. So in a word, no.

justsayin wrote "Sure you could put the child up for adoption, but will the child not face more emotion damage due to their own parents giving them away?"

I counter-ask "Would the child not face more emotional damage from dying?". In general, I think most people would rather have been born than have been aborted. I know for sure that I would rather be put up for adoption than killed.

justsayin wrote "If the woman does NOT want the child, why not let her make that decision?"

Because it's not her decision. What about infanticide? I change my mind post-birth, let me just smother the kid with a pillow. I can't afford to feed this kid and I don't want to put them up for adoption because it might traumatize them, let me drown them in the river Thames. That's fine, right?

justsayin wrote "No one else should choose except for the woman carrying the child. It is her body, let her do with it as she wants"

The only problem is, it isn't her only her body, it's also the body of the child. :/

Let's turn to some arguments against abortion from famous philosophers.

The notable debater Zaradi writes in his great work Abortion is generally wrong

"In the understandable attempt to find the game-winning argument that proves your side 100% of the time, we as debaters have delved out of the realistic zone of our world and delved into argumentation that hardly applies to our modern society, if ever. The answer to the question of whether abortion should be allowed in our society, in my opinion, is rather simple. It comes down to one principle that I feel we acknowledge exists without ever giving it thought:
Treat others how you wish to be treated." [1].

This is a quite compelling argument against abortion that I have already touched on earlier. If necessary, I will expand on this in future rounds.

The Unborn as Human Beings
In abortion debates, this is easily one of the most important points to address. After all, if the unborn are human beings, it becomes much harder to justify killing them. If they are not human beings, it becomes much easier.

My opponent pretty much claims that a fetus is not a human being. I ask ye, why not? It is common knowledge that a separate and genetically unique (unless cloned/twined) entity comes into being at conception. At that point it is human, and it is an individual being. What else could it be if not a human being?

Sperm cells are not individual human beings. Therefore, they do not apply.

It is true that fetuses are still growing and developing, but the same could be said for any non-adult. Does that mean killing children is justified?

Sources:
1. http://www.debate.org...
Debate Round No. 2
justsayin

Pro

justsayin forfeited this round.
AlwaysMoreThanYou

Con

My opponent has forfeited, how regrettable. Extend all my arguments and vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
justsayinAlwaysMoreThanYouTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Obvious win is obvious. And no, I'm not doing this because he quoted me, but because he easily won this one. Although TBI's guy is definitely my new best friend.
Vote Placed by K.GKevinGeary 4 years ago
K.GKevinGeary
justsayinAlwaysMoreThanYouTied
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 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: I stand on the Pro side of the debate, still do. Pros arguments were weak, FF = conduct, Fetus debate Cliche but was still adressed by the con and pro never refuted it to the pro abortion fetus point of view, con wins without a doubt, sources Con for presenting his case with Zardis piece and extending it (the source) that couldnt be expanded due to the FF. Con was more persuasive in cons arguments, pro did not match con at all and FFed. EAsy read. Con wins simply put.
Vote Placed by Meatros 4 years ago
Meatros
justsayinAlwaysMoreThanYouTied
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: Conduct goes to Con, as Pro FF. Arguments go to Con as Con rebutted Pro's contentions and were unopposed.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
justsayinAlwaysMoreThanYouTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF