The Instigator
Juarez3rd
Pro (for)
Losing
14 Points
The Contender
Procrastarian
Con (against)
Winning
40 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 11 votes the winner is...
Procrastarian
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/27/2010 Category: Health
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,659 times Debate No: 12423
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (11)

 

Juarez3rd

Pro

Abortion is something that should be kept open as in option to the cases in which it is the best option in the opinion of the mother. The abortion of a fetus is the best choice for some mothers who have been the victim of rape, have no resources to care for a child or for births that were unintended. These three reasons are all enough for a mother to decide what to do with her own body. There is no legal or medical reason not to allow a mother to abort. Nor is there a religious one that could govern all women such as those those who have no religious preference. The control over what happens to ones body is something that one but that person has the right to call the shots. To make a law over this would be a law is no constitutional.
Procrastarian

Con

Resolution: If the mother wants it, abortion should be allowed.

Pro C1: No legal/medical reason.
Legal =/= moral, which is what's important in answering "should". Abortion causes severe harm to the growing human inside it's mother's womb. This is a medical reason.

Pro C2: Not all women are religious.
Strawman; I'm not using religion to argue this.

Pro C3: One should have the right to control one's own body.
The fetus has unique DNA and is its own growing entity. When "controlling" one's own body destroys an innocent life, something terrible has happened.

Con Argument: Any competent biologist will tell you that fetuses are human. We shouldn't devalue human life by allowing its destruction to be carried out on the whim of one i
Debate Round No. 1
Juarez3rd

Pro

Responding to Pro C1 : The harm that is caused from the abortion is what's supposed to be done as to perform the abortion. This can not be considered a Medical reason because the risks of an abortion are explained well before hand, and the choice to perform the abortion is completely optional.

Responding to Pro C2 : agreed

Responding to Pro C3 : While the Fetus is still inside the womb and is apart of its Mothers life. All rights concerning rather it is allowed to be born belongs to its Mother. While from a biological point of view it may be considered alive. Between the two lives obviously only the Mother is capable of making decisions concerning both their health and lives.
Procrastarian

Con

Pro C1: Medical =/= moral. This contention is irrelevant.
Pro C3: Pro does little to support his assumption that the unborn baby deserves no rights. Pro does nothing to support his claim that the mother deserves all rights over the child's life. If she's allowed to kill the baby before it's born, why shouldn't she be allowed to kill it shortly after it's born? Why not a week after? Abortion can include killing the baby seconds before it's born. For pro to win he must show why a child should go from being worthless one moment to being legally protected seconds later.

I support my side by appealing to the value of human life and the scientific fact that fetuses are growing humans. My opponent has simply stated his unsupported opinion.
Debate Round No. 2
Juarez3rd

Pro

C3: The fact is that there is no laws in existence that state the unborn fetus has any rights at all obviously because it has no ability to act upon any rights if it had any. Hence if the fetus has no ability to act then the mother would be the only one to do so.
After the child is brought into the world it is protected by law, because after the child is born then it against the law to destroy its life.
Birth is the fine line because it changes things a baby outside the mother alive on its own accord versus the unborn growing child inside the mother are not the same.
Murder is as the unlawful killing of a human being by the act of another. Before the fetus is born it can not be murdered because its not a human being and not protected.
Procrastarian

Con

Throughout this short debate, my opponent has made the error of thinking that because something is legal it is morally correct. The resolution isn't about whether abortion is legal - it's about whether it /should/ be "left open as an option." For this reason no arguments about current laws apply.

Pro has not responded to my value of human life. I have indicated that human life should be protected and all he has done is state that fetuses aren't human beings. He has given no criteria for what constitutes a human being (I argue that all humans are human beings). Finally, pro's argument about the baby's inability to "act on its rights" makes no sense. How does anyone act on a right to live? By living? Fetuses are alive and actively growing
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Brandonmaciel333 6 years ago
Brandonmaciel333
the only way abortion is cool with me is if the baby is already dead in u then ull have no other choice but to remove it cuz yea man its dead
Posted by ChuckHenryII 6 years ago
ChuckHenryII
Why get an abortion and kill something inocent when you can always put the baby up for adoption?
Posted by JaLo757 6 years ago
JaLo757
what most people dont know is that less than 1 percent of all abortions result from rape or incest. Id gladly submit to those cases if we weren't defending the other 99 percent and their "right to their own body". it isn't their body being sucked through a vacuum and chopped up
Posted by Procrastarian 6 years ago
Procrastarian
I better get the spelling/grammar point... it took all I had not to remove all my vowels so I could write more.
Posted by dmarais 6 years ago
dmarais
which is my point...
Posted by Juarez3rd 6 years ago
Juarez3rd
@ dmarais

Your example may sound like its in comparison but only if you don't think about it for more than a few seconds. On the surface of course they SHOULD have had rights at the time because they were still humans that walked, talked and felt just like the whites did. However the fact is still that the laws did not grant them rights.
Posted by dmarais 6 years ago
dmarais
black people weren't considered human legally at one point. does that mean they had no human rights just because the law said so? pro is losing this argument by a mile.
Posted by Juarez3rd 6 years ago
Juarez3rd
Yes i will post sources in the comment section, and agreed 750 words is not enough. Perhaps we could have a longer debate another time.
Posted by Procrastarian 6 years ago
Procrastarian
The final word was "individual"

I'm not sure why it was cut off; the round now only has 739 of the allotted 750 characters.
Posted by Procrastarian 6 years ago
Procrastarian
@Juarez3rd,

If one of us wants to fact check the other, do you mind the posting sources in the comments? 750 characters is pretty constricting.
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by X_mitchell 6 years ago
X_mitchell
Juarez3rdProcrastarianTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Wayfarer 6 years ago
Wayfarer
Juarez3rdProcrastarianTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by vbaculum 6 years ago
vbaculum
Juarez3rdProcrastarianTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by Valtarov 6 years ago
Valtarov
Juarez3rdProcrastarianTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Guardian 6 years ago
Guardian
Juarez3rdProcrastarianTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by ArtTheWino 6 years ago
ArtTheWino
Juarez3rdProcrastarianTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41 
Vote Placed by Brandonmaciel333 6 years ago
Brandonmaciel333
Juarez3rdProcrastarianTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by ChuckHenryII 6 years ago
ChuckHenryII
Juarez3rdProcrastarianTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by JaLo757 6 years ago
JaLo757
Juarez3rdProcrastarianTied
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 
Vote Placed by Juarez3rd 6 years ago
Juarez3rd
Juarez3rdProcrastarianTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31