The Instigator
Neily
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
dnerd
Pro (for)
Winning
5 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...
dnerd
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/15/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 503 times Debate No: 60511
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)

 

Neily

Con

I believe abortion should be illegal and I don't believe an unborn baby should be aborted under any circumstances, such as: rape, a mistake, etc. I believe this because I believe abortion is punishing an unborn baby's future just because someone else has been raped or made a mistake which I believe is unfair. Also, there are alternatives to abortion, such as: adoption,interim foster care or asking for support whilst parenting.
dnerd

Pro

I accept this challenge and await your second-round arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
Neily

Con

I think most people are for abortion because they believe the woman should be able to exercise her right of choice but I believe abortion is taking the right to live from the unborn baby. Also, many women are endangered by abortions, not all abortions are handled in a manner that is both sanitary and done by a professional. Abortions can be very expensive, which causes some women to seek services wherever possible. There has been several cases of women dying, becoming sterile from a botched abortion, or ending up in the hospital with further complications. I don't understand why a women would want to abort her unborn child as well as put herself at risk when adoption can give her what she wants with less risk, by putting up her child for adoption she can abort the baby out of her life with less risk and without aborting the baby from life itself.
dnerd

Pro

I'll be refuting not only my opponents premise that he delivered in round one, which is all that I have to refute to win the debate, but the entire topic itself, along with the idea of personhood before birth.

Starting with my opponent's premise:
He posits that people who have been raped should not have the option to abort. This is an unacceptable concept. First, because we make the victim suffer not only the atrocity of rape, but be continually reminded every second of every day that she is pregnant with the seed of her rapist. This kind of psychological torture is not something that a government should force on its women after being raped. Secondly, whether you believe that rape is an expression of sexual urges or an exertion of power, forcing the victim to keep the fetus is a symbolic and real victory for the rapist. If the rapists motive is sexual desire, his motive is realized when the victim gives birth to his baby, because the root of sexual desire is reproduction. If his motive is exerting power over his victim, forcing the victim to keep his child literally inside of her is so emotionally scarring to the victim, and is thus an ultimate display of power. We can't prolong the suffering caused by a rape, and we can't let rapists realize their motives, so abortion must be allowed, at the very minimum in the case of rape.

Keep in mind, refuting this is sufficient for a vote in the affirmative, because my opponent sets up his own burden of proof in round 1 to show ALL abortion is wrong.

Moving on to affirming for abortion in any and all circumstances:
My opponent's case rests on the idea that an unborn baby deserves the title of a person, and the rights and protections thereof. Thus, proving that an unborn baby does not qualify a reasonable definition of a person is sufficient to take down their entire case against abortion. In order to be a person, an entity must recognize their own existence and the implications thereof.

Brain development is a very slow process, and the evidence shows that the human brain does not fully develop until late adolescence. Now, this doesn't mean it's ok to go around killing tweens because their brains aren't fully developed, but it is very unlikely that a fetus can recognize their own existence, far less the implications thereof. The fact that a fetus shares the genetic makeup with most people does not mean it is philosophically speaking a person. We kill animals for food, and animals are clearly more intelligent than a late term fetus, which can't experience fear, love, emotion, suffering, or survive outside of huge amounts of medical attention. My opponents answer to this would be that even if the fetus isn't a person, we take away its chance to become a person in the future, but the issue with this argumentation is that a non-person entity can't own a chance to become a person, can't have dreams of what it will do once it is a person, and, crucially, can't suffer because we take that chance away.

I'll be rebutting my opponents round one arguments in the second round. Thank you for reading.
Debate Round No. 2
Neily

Con

Neily forfeited this round.
dnerd

Pro

I'll be responding to my opponent's round one arguments.
First, as established in my round one arguments, an unborn baby has no right to life, because its life is a potential future good, not something that can be taken away.

Second, my opponent says that abortions are dangerous for the women. This is sometimes true, but he brings up the fact that it's because abortions are performed in poor sanitary conditions. Legal abortions are always performed in safe, clean conditions. Banning abortions would just lead to all those abortions being self-administered or performed in unsafe places by unregistered surgeons. The main safeguard against unsafe abortion is regulation. He also says abortions are very expensive. Again, this is only exacerbated by banning abortions. The free market will charge the maximum possible for abortions, health insurance won't pay for abortions, and safe abortions will only be available to the rich, who pay off illegal doctors.

Third, he provides the alternative of putting the child up for adoption, but with orphanages already full, we don't need more unwanted children

Since my opponent hasn't responded, my previous points are still true.
Debate Round No. 3
Neily

Con

Neily forfeited this round.
dnerd

Pro

my opponent isn't arguing so im going to just post some nifty links
https://www.youtube.com...
Debate Round No. 4
Neily

Con

Neily forfeited this round.
dnerd

Pro

dnerd forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by kingcripple 2 years ago
kingcripple
Crap Con! why did you forfeit?
Posted by kingcripple 2 years ago
kingcripple
Aerogant, your handle speaks volumes of your character.

dnerd, undestood.
Posted by dnerd 2 years ago
dnerd
KCripple, I'm going to be addressing the arguments that con made in the 2nd round in the 3rd round. I prefer to use the second round purely as reasons to vote con, not reasons not to vote pro, if that makes any sense.
Posted by Aerogant 2 years ago
Aerogant
cripple, the baby is in fact the mother's bearing. All motherly animals are in charge of her kin - you have no say in what a mother wants to do with a child that is not sentient yet, which is a great time to put an end to a lifetime of misery because people like you do not understand how to handle big situations, so you just speak with your heart through petty emotions without realizing just how hypocritical you really are.
Posted by kingcripple 2 years ago
kingcripple
Just focusing on Con's arguments that rape and "not being ready", these arguments are valid. I don't feel pro adequately debunked them, instead taking the feminist veiwpoint of a woman being able to do what she wants with her body. the baby is not the woman's body. it is an entirely different body all together. case closed.

However, I don't like Con's resolution that abortion should be illegal simply because making abortions illegal would lead to irresponsible women getting back ally abortions which are much more dangerous than legal abortions
Posted by TruthHurts 2 years ago
TruthHurts
So many things Con says are just not true. They just aren't.
Posted by Aerogant 2 years ago
Aerogant
If you think there can be a future by being born into a terrible childhood that is just screwed up from the beginning, then clearly you never had a future for yourself, which is to say, you do not have the character to tell us what a future is, as the only reason why you failed to have a future is because you, yourself, are a failure and want to include more failures in life solely because you, yourself, cannot accept failure, hence why you never got through failure to create a future!
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by MasturDebatur 2 years ago
MasturDebatur
NeilydnerdTied
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: Although Con brought up alright points when he was here, he left the debate, leading to an automatic forfeit. I would have liked to hear his side of this even though I disagree with him.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
NeilydnerdTied
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: How unfortunate that Con chose to waste Pro's time. Conduct for the forfeits. Arguments for the complete lack of response to Pro's case.