The Instigator
Kelisitaan
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
LaL36
Con (against)
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 1 vote the winner is...
LaL36
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/23/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 567 times Debate No: 98362
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

Kelisitaan

Pro

Women should have the right to choose whether or not to get an abortion.
LaL36

Con

Thanks Pro for starting the debate and good luck. I apologize for the delay.

I will be arguing against abortion.

I hope that round 1 was not all of Pro's argument but all Pro seems to indicate that abortion is a right. I am unaware of such a right. Since pro did not make many arguments for abortion I will give a brief outline of arguments against abortion and I will try to incorporate some counterclaims as well.

Life Begins at Conception

It is a foregone conclusion that what is in a mother's stomach is a living being and not simply a body part of the woman's body. End of story. [1]

Those who are pro-choice tend to avoid calling to murder by pointing out that since the baby isn't viable it is more justifiable. I am assuming pro is fine with pretty much all forms of abortion that take place because pro did not give any period of time. If we use what I just gave as a reference, babies can become viable sometimes as early as 22 weeks. [2]

Even prior to that, why is there any justification for killing a living baby just because it cannot survive on its own? Plus if one were to just wait a few weeks, the baby will become viable.



Proponents of abortion, especially those who consider it a right, tend to argue that since abortion is the deliberate termination of a baby in the womb, if the government would outlaw abortion they would be "forcing" women to have a baby which is unjust. This is blatantly false. The government is not "forcing" people to have babies by preventing the murder of them. The government is simply executing one of its primary roles which is to protect the life of people. The government has every right to prevent people from murdering each other. And guess what? A women has every right to not get pregnant.

I look forward to your response.




Sources:

[1]: https://www.princeton.edu...

[2]: http://www.nytimes.com...



Debate Round No. 1
Kelisitaan

Pro

There is a MAJOR difference between "life" and "human life." A fetus is alive, but it is not a human. You claim to have sources that say a fetus is human; however, there are plenty of sources which claim that a fetus is not. Here is one of many: http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org...

I'll ask you some simple questions from yet another source: http://addictinginfo.org...
if human life were to start before birth, then why is age counted from the start of birth, rather than from the start of pregnancy?
If a fetus is a person then why aren"t adoptions finalized until after the baby is born?
If a fetus is a person, why is no one (I shouldn"t speak too soon) suggesting the death penalty for women who have abortions?
If a fetus is a person does that mean a pregnant woman is two people? Can she drive in the carpool lane? Can she buy two items when a store advertises "one per customer" sales?

The list of questions goes on. Just because you have a "source" claiming the fetus is a human does not mean it is. In fact, it shows a lack of understanding how sources work. I could just make a website, claim a fetus is human, give faulty logic, and then you could use that as a source. In fact, that's what you did right now: use a source with faulty logic.

Moreover, just because a fetus BECOMES a human doesn't mean that it IS a human. A caterpillar BECOMES a butterfly, but it is not yet a butterfly. A baby BECOMES an adult, but it is not yet an adult. A fetus BECOMES a human, but it is not yet a human. It is a fetus.

However, EVEN IF YOU FALSELY ASSUME A FETUS IS HUMAN, WHICH IT IS NOT, ABORTION STILL IS ALLOWED. It comes down to the argument of "A woman has the right to choose what she wants to do with her own body."

The fetus needs the body of the mother to survive. If human A needs a part of human B to survive, e.g. a kidney transplant, it is entirely up to human B whether or not he wants to give human A a kidney. Even if human B is dying and his kidneys will rot with him, he decides what to do with his own body. Is human B not letting human A use his kidney considered murder? No. Is a mother not letting a fetus use her body considered murder? Again, no.

If the fetus can survive on its own, then abortion is more of an up in the air debate. However, if the fetus needs the mother's body (which it does), abortion comes down to the simple principal of a woman has the right to choose what she wants to do with her body.

A fetus needs a mother's body to survive. If the mother does not want to let the fetus use her body, it doesn't have to. The fetus is a part of a parasitic relationship; although its body is affected, it's using the body of the mother to survive.
LaL36

Con

Thank you for your response.


I would like to start to by giving the current status of the debate. Pro is attempting to make an affirmative case for abortion or at least a “right” to abortion. Pro has agreed that a fetus (still refuses to specify how many weeks) is alive but makes a distinction between life and human life.


Life begins at conception


Again, pro does not seem to dispute this point but asserts that life and human life is different. Pro attacks me for stating it is the exact same thing as any human life and while I do not completely disagree with this point, I did no such thing last round. I simply asserted and proved what pro agreed to which is that the science dictates that life begins at conception. Pro on the other hand did not even outline the information. Rather, pro just dropped a link and this is not considered evidence. Not only that Pro equates the validity of a website with pro-choice in its name to Princeton.


A human?


Pro additionally brings up a series of questions from an ardent pro-choice advocate and calls it a “source” and has the audacity to say Princeton source uses “faulty logic” but is yet to refute any of the evidence. It is actually clear that Pro did not look at my source and even did not look at my round 1 arguments properly. I did not use the source to say it is a human. The purpose of the source is to prove what I literally put in bold and underlined I do not know how pro missed it and that is that life begins at conception. Pro recognizes the distinction when it is made by pro but not if I do hat with regards to my evidence.


It is nonsense for Pro to present these questions because they are based on claims I haven’t even made and most them are not even valid questions for such a discussion.



“if human life were to start before birth, then why is age counted from the start of birth, rather than from the start of pregnancy?” Pro you attack my evidence from Princeton but you believe that not counting age is sufficient evidence? That bares absolutely zero significance to how “human” the baby is. First of all age is definitely taken into account of the fetus for the mother’s pregnancy. I proved that in round 1 as well. If you were taking scientific aspects into account you perhaps would have referred to my second source when a fetus is “22 weeks old”, and not something as trivial as how we refer to people’s age.



I could give cultural evidence as well to why a fetus is a human being. Can you answer me why it is that when people want the baby people kiss the mother’s stomach and people who don’t want the baby just call it something like a bundle of tissues?


This is the logic of Pro’s own “source!” The opinion of the pro-choice person you refer agrees that people who want the baby believe that it is a human being and people who don’t believe it is not. She explains that the only opinion that matters is the mother’s and she should make that decision. Let me be extra clear: No human being should be able to decide what is or isn’t a human being based on their convenience.



“If a fetus is a person then why aren’t adoptions finalized until after the baby is born?”



I think this is a good question for a separate but have the same issue with the other question. Pro doesn’t give evidence to this but I am honestly no expert with adoptions. But very simply, the baby can be aborted! I am sure others still make the plans prior to birth.



“If a fetus is a person, why is no one (I shouldn"t speak too soon) suggesting the death penalty for women who have abortions?”


I can’t speak for other people pro. The punishment for it is a separate debate. We are debating simply whether it should be allowed or not. But I want to present you a question with similar logic: If a fetus is not a person, why do many women experience distress after doing an abortion?


This distress can often translate into negative effects on a women’s mental health [1].


“If a fetus is a person does that mean a pregnant woman is two people? Can she drive in the carpool lane? Can she buy two items when a store advertises "one per customer" sales?”


That was amusing. But my priority is saving the unborn baby’s life and then I will advocate for these very important issues.


Women’s body


Pro has yet to provide any evidence of this “right” to kill a human being. Pro may not believe that the unborn baby is a human being but Pro clearly makes the case that even if it is a human being a woman is allowed to kill the human being because it is a part of a woman’s body. This is egregious. You are never allowed to kill a human being. The government has every right and it is their obligation to stop people from murdering. This is clearly not an issue of a women’s body. And pro answer me this question: Based on your logic why can’t that right continue after the baby is born? The baby originated from the mother’s body why can’t the mother have the right to kill the baby in her own house? Doesn’t the baby belong to her?


Viability


Pro gives a beyond false comparison to a kidney transplant. There is a major difference between letting someone die and you actively deciding to kill someone for your convenience. I pretty much agree with the logic behind the kidney case but it is definitely not applicable. Respectfully, I think you are unaware of how abortions are done. It is not as simple as stopping the baby from using the mother’s body to live. During the first three months they plunge a tube with an edged tip into the womb then they use the suction power of the tube to tear apart the baby while it is alive they then suck the pieces of the baby out of the womb and this is called suction aspiration or Dilation [2]. And last part about your example, one does not actively choose to make their friend need a kidney as one most of the time chooses to engage in sexual activity. They are therefore responsible for their own decisions.



Pro still did not define the terms of abortion. I proved that the baby can be viable as early as 22 weeks. This is still considered abortion not murder. Pro is yet to address it and seems to classify this as “up in the air”.


It has also been proven that by 20 weeks for sure the baby is capable of feeling pain [3].


Overall the viability claim is nonsense. Once the baby is born the baby still needs the mother to survive! The baby cannot survive on its own. Why does it make a difference if it is outside the body? Pro why don’t we start counting age when someone is capable of living on their own?


I will try to give a more valid comparison. Can we compare an unborn baby to somebody on life support? They both cannot survive on their own and some people believe that one should pull the plug if it is a lifelong coma and that is a separate debate. But I believe almost any just human being would agree to not pull the plug if they know that within just weeks the person will be fully functioning again. Would you suggest pro that someone on life support is not a human being because they are not viable?


I await your response.

Debate Round No. 2
Kelisitaan

Pro

"Rather, pro just dropped a link and this is not considered evidence. Not only that Pro equates the validity of a website with pro-choice in its name to Princeton."

You're right, I never claimed that it was evidence. Neither is dropping a link coming from Princeton. You are aware that students can use that link as well, correct? Therefore, any student from Princeton who is anti-abortion could write that article and post it to the link.

As for being biased, guess what, both sources are biased. If you really think a link isn't biased because it contains the word "princeton" in it, then you'd be wrong.

The reality is, very few people are unbiased. In fact, I am actually one of these people; I've looked at both the pros and the negatives and weighed them appropriately. The pros of being pro-choice VASTLY outweigh the cons.

2) As for your princeton link, it literally says, www.princeton.edu/~prolife. You are claiming MY source is biased for using prochoice in the title, yet you are claiming yours isn't biased for having prolife in the title? Whereas I'm claiming BOTH are obviously biased sources, because relatively few people are NOT biased. Argument and Evidence debunked; you are clearly wrong.

I actually DID read the arguments; all they say is quotes from people claiming that human life begins at fertilization. They do NOT provide any evidence whatsoever. Instead, I have asked YOU questions, and your answers are lackluster.

"If you were taking scientific aspects into account you perhaps would have referred to my second source when a fetus is "22 weeks old", and not something as trivial as how we refer to people"s age."

So, why is the fetus' age considered DIFFERENT than the human's age? You realize that all life forms are measured in years, correct? If a fetus is a HUMAN life, and not just a life, then why are they counted separately? You have proved my point. Argument debunked.

As for your question: "Can you answer me why it is that when people want the baby people kiss the mother"s stomach and people who don"t want the baby just call it something like a bundle of tissues?"

This has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not something is to be considered human life. It's a matter of perspective; like the glass being half full vs half empty. An irrelevant point.

Rather than writing long walls of texts, I highly suggest you think about what you write instead.

"No human being should be able to decide what is or isn"t a human being based on their convenience"

READING COMPREHENSION ERROR. This is something I agree with and never said, nor I claimed. The mother isn't deciding whether or not it is a human being. Like I said, IF a fetus is a human being, then why can't you answer those questions? And why did the only one that you did answer help prove my point?

"I think this is a good question for a separate but have the same issue with the other question. Pro doesn"t give evidence to this but I am honestly no expert with adoptions. But very simply, the baby can be aborted! I am sure others still make the plans prior to birth."

No evidence to this? So you need EVIDENCE that adoptions aren't finalized until after the baby is born? If you have evidence to DEBUNK my claim, then feel free to share it. Do I need to provide evidence to you that prolife=anti abortion as well? Do I need to provide evidence that a woman is in pain while giving birth? No, of course not. If you disagree with obvious claims that shouldn't need evidence, then provide evidence and humiliate me, JUST LIKE I DID WHEN YOU CLAIMED THAT BECAUSE YOU COUNT A FETUS' AGE THAT MEANS IT IS HUMAN WHEN IT MEANS THE EXACT OPPOSITE; ALL LIFE IS COUNTED IN AGE, AND IF A FETUS WERE HUMAN, THEN IT WOULDN'T HAVE AN AGE SEPARATE FROM A BABY.

"If a fetus is not a person, why do many women experience distress after doing an abortion?"

Because it is a form of life, remember? Argument debunked.

""If a fetus is a person does that mean a pregnant woman is two people? Can she drive in the carpool lane? Can she buy two items when a store advertises "one per customer" sales?"

That was amusing. But my priority is saving the unborn baby"s life and then I will advocate for these very important issues."

Again, ignoring the question. IF A FETUS IS A HUMAN, THEN WHY IS IT NOT COUNTED AS ONE BY ANYONE OR ANY STANDARD OTHER THAN ANTIABORTION PEOPLE LIKE YOURSELF? HINT: IT'S BECAUSE YOU'RE BIASED AND WRONG.

Women's body:

"Pro has yet to provide any evidence of this "right" to kill a human being. "

AGAIN, THIS IS NOT KILLING. I'LL ASK YOU THE SAME POINT AGAIN, WHICH I'VE MENTIONED THREE TIMES TO YOU NOW: IS IT KILLING A MAN TO NOT LET HIM USE YOUR KIDNEY? YES/NO? NOT LETTING SOMEONE USE YOUR BODY TO SURVIVE IS NOT MURDER, IT IS NOT KILLING, ETC. Argument debunked (for the 3rd time now)

"Based on your logic why can"t that right continue after the baby is born? The baby originated from the mother"s body why can"t the mother have the right to kill the baby in her own house? Doesn"t the baby belong to her?"

No, the baby is no longer using HER body to survive, AND it is now a human. Argument debunked, and you helped prove my point again. You're not doing very well :(

"Pro still did not define the terms of abortion. I proved that the baby can be viable as early as 22 weeks. This is still considered abortion not murder. Pro is yet to address it and seems to classify this as "up in the air"."

As I stated very clearly, MULTIPLE times, a woman has the right to choose what she wants with her body. Until the fetus can live on its own WITHOUT the help of a woman's body, abortion is accepted.

"I will try to give a more valid comparison. Can we compare an unborn baby to somebody on life support? They both cannot survive on their own and some people believe that one should pull the plug if it is a lifelong coma and that is a separate debate. "

BECAUSE THE LUNG MACHINE ISN'T SOMEONE ELSE'S BODY. /DEBATE /THREAD
LaL36

Con

I apologize for not posting sources form last round here they are: [1]: http://www.lifenews.com...


[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org...


[3]: http://www.lifenews.com...


Life begins at conception


I do not understand why pro is undermining my source and point here. It goes against one of pro’s previous key distinctions. Pro previously asserted that there is a big difference between life and human life. Of course sources can be biased. If you are saying that all sources are biased why did you begin by attacking my source in the first place. I was not citing their opinion on the morality of the matter but rather a universally accepted scientific fact. The key is what is being sourced. Pro sourced an article about the opinion of somebody who is pro-choice. Pro claims that my argument is debunked because all sources are biased but based on that logic Pro’s is also debunked and no objectivity exists.


I proved something that pro is objecting to here but agrees to in pro’s later arguments. Pro agrees that a life is at stake but makes a distinction that this is not a human life.


I will try one more time. A life begins at conception also known as fertilization when the sperm meats the egg [1].


Pro is still yet to refute the evidence saying a source is biased doesn’t fulfill this purpose therefore the point still stands.


A human?


I’d like to establish where pro’s argument stands. Even if I accept pro’s proposed distinction between a life and a human life why is it moral to kill an innocent life? Additionally this life will become a human life even according to pro.


Regarding pro’s first question about why are humans’ lives not counted while they are fetus, the main point I was making last round was that this question is not relevant to the science of whether a fetus is a human. It is purely cultural. Of course I agree that the status of a baby in the womb and out of the womb is different. We start counting people’s age not because now we can’t murder them by your standards but because our culture decided to do so when a baby is outside of the womb and living in the womb.


When I came along and brought up cultural evidence you actually gave a similar response and said it was irrelevant to whether the baby is human: “This has absolutely nothing to do with whether something is to be considered human life. It's a matter of perspective; like the glass being half full vs half empty. An irrelevant point.”


A key distinction is I said your point is irrelevant and still addressed it you did not. Killing a human life is not a matter of perspective! I understand pro that you did not say this directly but when you are saying that it is a matter of perspective whether something is a human life the effect is some people believe it is murdering a human life and others do not.


I made the point that nobody should decide what a human being is based on their convenience, pro responded: “READING COMPREHENSION ERROR. This is something I agree with and never said, nor I claimed. The mother isn't deciding whether or not it is a human being.”


This is utterly not true. Pro just said above that it is a matter of perspective and part of this debate is about whether or not this baby is a human being and if you are allowed to kill it.


Pro’s second question was regarding adoptions. I answered it perfectly and said it is because the baby can be aborted before then. Again, our culture’s response has absolutely nothing to do with the science behind whether or not the baby is human or more importantly if this is a moral act. Pro concedes to the idea of women having moral distress for killing a “form of life” but still maintains that this is a moral act and that my argument is debunked rather than strengthened.


Pro wrote: “Again, ignoring the question. IF A FETUS IS A HUMAN, THEN WHY IS IT NOT COUNTED AS ONE BY ANYONE OR ANY STANDARD OTHER THAN ANTIABORTION PEOPLE LIKE YOURSELF? HINT: IT'S BECAUSE YOU'RE BIASED AND WRONG.”


Pro you are literally citing the pettiest examples of everyday life and using it as justifications for killing what you would call “a form of life”. I concede to you that it is not a functioning being in our world that is capable of receiving the most important human right of buying items from a store. It does not mean that you can murder the baby.


Women’s body


Pro wrote: “AGAIN, THIS IS NOT KILLING. I'LL ASK YOU THE SAME POINT AGAIN, WHICH I'VE MENTIONED THREE TIMES TO YOU NOW: IS IT KILLING A MAN TO NOT LET HIM USE YOUR KIDNEY? YES/NO? NOT LETTING SOMEONE USE YOUR BODY TO SURVIVE IS NOT MURDER, IT IS NOT KILLING, ETC. Argument debunked (for the 3rd time now)”


Pro is not being consistent. Why is this not killing? You can kill something that isn’t a human being. If you want to make the case that it is not a human being fine. But it is dishonest for you to say that it is not killing.


As for your other point, I addressed it directly last round you ignored it. I will quote it for you: “There is a major difference between letting someone die and you actively deciding to kill someone for your convenience. I pretty much agree with the logic behind the kidney case but it is definitely not applicable.”


Again, if you do not want the baby to “use your body” you can make that choice by not getting pregnant. Most of the times nobody is forcing a woman to become pregnant.


Pro suggests that the killing of the baby is fine when the baby is “using the woman’s body” but when I asked my example if this can continue after the baby is born pro was quick to say no. The baby still uses the woman’s body to survive after it is born. The baby needs to be breastfed and can be killed if not [2].


Is it fine for the woman to refuse to breastfeed the baby? Or refuse to feed or take care of the baby and just let it die after it is born? She doesn’t have to take of it just like somebody doesn’t have to give a kidney.


The reality is that once you get pregnant before and after the baby is wrong you have a responsibility to not kill it or let it die.


Pro wrote: “As I stated very clearly, MULTIPLE times, a woman has the right to choose what she wants with her body. Until the fetus can live on its own WITHOUT the help of a woman's body, abortion is accepted.”


These statements are contradictory. Again, if a woman is 22 weeks pregnant and beyond the baby can live outside of the mother but is still “part of the woman’s body”. It can only be one or the other. If the way to determine whether we could kill a baby is if it is part of the woman’s body than any abortion is fine even the ones where I proved that the babies can feel pain which you seem to have ignored. If it is based on living on its own, then 22 weeks and beyond should not be allowed according to this logic.


Pro you need to separate your arguments. I was making the life support comparison to the viability argument not to the women’s body argument. Your response is proof that you can’t have both arguments because they contradict each other.


Conclusion: Once again, my points about babies feeling pain during abortions went unaddressed. I think it is far more important for the morality of abortion if a baby can feel pain than if the baby can ride in the carpool lane. Pro had the burden of proof and it has not been fulfilled.


Thank you pro for the debate and thanks to anyone who is reading.


Sources:


[1]: http://study.com...


[2]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...;

Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by LaL36 1 year ago
LaL36
I apologize I just realized I forgot to post my sources for last round. I will do so in the following round.
Posted by Kelisitaan 1 year ago
Kelisitaan
Not sure how to do that as I just joined this site 30 minutes ago. Tell me?
Posted by Chris330 1 year ago
Chris330
I'll take you up on the challenge of this debate if you define the Resolution.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by David_Debates 1 year ago
David_Debates
KelisitaanLaL36Tied
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: RFD is found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-LxbLGAxd1DKPtGcLxjcHb9_fusVsZMYM0L32CK26WY/edit