The Instigator
lmcbride761
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
Omastar
Pro (for)
Winning
9 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 3 votes the winner is...
Omastar
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/15/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 408 times Debate No: 52605
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

lmcbride761

Con

Although it should be a women's right to chose. Aren't we born with certain unalienable rights? Granite the baby has not yet been born, but that doesn't give us a right to disregard it of its rights and take an innocent life. After a certain period of time it is no longer a clump of cells, but a living organism. Therefore abortion is wrong and inhuman.
Omastar

Pro

Hello,

I definitely understand where someone may come from regarding the prevention of a potential human. The problem with this argument is that the point at which you grant the potential organism the right to life is arbitrary.

To illustrate my point, I would like to question the importance of conception. At the instant of conception, the organism-to-be is just a single cell. The only difference between it and other cells, in regards to this debate, is that it will develop into a human being given time and nourishment. That sounds simple enough, but aren't all eggs and sperm capable of developing into humans given contact with the complementary gamete? The only difference between these gametes and the fertilized egg is conception, which is a much simpler process than embryonic development. It wouldn't be reasonable to force a woman constantly be pregnant and to avoid menstruation for fear of wasting an egg cell or for men to have sex as much as possible to avoid allowing sperm to die and become recycled. If you agree with the previous sentence, then you must conclude that there is a time in which the potential human being can be denied its existence while maintaining moral integrity.

Assuming that we agree on that level, the question becomes "When is it no longer acceptable to deny the possible organism its existence?". This part is the tricky part. Some would claim that it is vital to avoid pain, so as soon as the fetus can experience suffering, abortion is no longer an option. Others might say that animals experience pain and we kill them, but we don't kill humans because they are intelligent. Therefore, once the fetus gains self awareness, abortion is no longer an option. Even others will claim that if the embryo cannot survive outside of the womb, then it does not yet deserve to live and abortion is still an option.

In conclusion, I have argued that, if the concern is the potential for a fetus to become a person, then you are left with the problem of demonstrating why the zygotic or embryonic stages of development are the critical point during which the potential life earns its right to existence, rather than pre-conception, the third trimester, or even early infancy (some studies suggest self awareness may not form until after birth). The heart of this issue is determining what merits a right to life in more specific terms than the potential for life.
Debate Round No. 1
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Omastar 2 years ago
Omastar
I'm new to this website and I realize some debates are set like this to collect interest in the comments. If that was your intention, then I am very sorry for the inconvenience.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Geogeer 2 years ago
Geogeer
lmcbride761OmastarTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 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: Neither arguments were very well formed. Con makes assertions without support. Pro makes more elaborate arguments, but based on obvious logical fallacies. "The only difference between the gametes and the fertilized egg is conception." However, Pro put in greater effort into the debate. Con docked spelling for Granite.
Vote Placed by wolf24 2 years ago
wolf24
lmcbride761OmastarTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:61 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had a more convincing argument, and pro better spelling and grammar
Vote Placed by travis18352 2 years ago
travis18352
lmcbride761OmastarTied
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 Checkmark-1 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: con made a very short argument and used no sources. pro made a well structured argument but used no sources so i give all points to pro