The Instigator
Kelisitaan
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
TheTaxiDriver
Con (against)
Tied
0 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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/25/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 573 times Debate No: 98438
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)

 

Kelisitaan

Pro

A woman has the right to choose what she wants to do with her own body.

Rules: No new arguments in last round. (R4)
TheTaxiDriver

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for this debate.

First of all we need to get one of the most important points of this controversial issue out of the way, when does life actually start ? At what point does the life inside of a woman actually become considered a human and therefore a woman is no longer just dealing with her own body ? Whilst this is highly disputed and there is no one scientific answer many, including those not even religious believe that life begins at conception. When a sperm fertilizes an egg there is a whole new entity then created inside the mother. This new cell will soon develop into a foetus and continue its development until it becomes a human being. This concept is represented best in the following statement:
"At the completion of the process of fertilization, the human creature emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species homo sapiens" (When Human Life Begins, American College of Pediatricians, March 2004)

Therefore if many experts believe that life begins at fertilization or conflicting opinions make it impossible for science to find an answer we cannot fully know when life actually begins. To then give the power to have an abortion when there is no positive way of telling if it is a living being is potentially dangerous.

I will let my opponent refute and give his own arguments before continuing with my own.

http://www.justfactsdaily.com...
http://www.justthefacts.org...
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. I'll ask you a simple question: 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?

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 that a fetus is human (which it's not), abortion is STILL to be allowed. As the topic states, it comes back 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.

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.
TheTaxiDriver

Con

Both are living though. The fetus is alive and so is a human. In fact like I previously mentioned their is various definitions of when a fetus is actually considered a human life. Keith Leon Moore is a professor emeritus in the division of anatomy, in the Faculty of Surgery, at the University of Toronto who defined the formation of the new cell:
"Zygote: This cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo)."
He believes that fertilization is the process in which a human being is created. Whilst in the stage of an embroyo it is still a human being.

I suppose that the exact time of conception will be difficult to prove. The moment a baby comes out of the mother everyone knows the exact time and date. It would be near impossible to keep tabs on the moment the sperm fertilized the egg.

Just because a caterpillar is not a butterfly mean it has any less rights or chance to live ? If the end result is something beautiful and alive then why should it be considered any less of just because it is a caterpillar ?

At what point does it stop becoming her body though. When a developing human is growing insider her, or a potential to become a human is it still her own body ?

An almost fully grown baby still requires the mother to survive. This is very much the point of the reproductive system. I see no similarities between the rights of a child/fetus and of the kidney situation.

The mother most likely (except in some circumstances like incest or rape but this about everyone woman's right) made the consensual decision to have sex and therefore was aware of the consequences of the choice she made and her partner as well. If as a result, intentionally or unintentionally a baby is growing inside of her why should the potential for life be punished ? If the potential for a unique human being is killed then we have deprived the world of a great person.

Sources:
https://www.princeton.edu...
Debate Round No. 2
Kelisitaan

Pro

It is irrelevant that both are living. Is a tree a human? It lives too. What about an ant? Being a living organism does NOT mean you are human. That argument is debunked.

Moreover, Just because you have sources that say a fetus is a human does not mean a fetus is considered a human. I can find plenty of sources to claim a fetus is not a human. Here is a source for you: http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org.... There are obviously MANY more sources claiming this as well.

If a fetus is a human:

why don"t they issue conception certificates?
why do they go to an OB/GYN for medical care instead of a pediatrician?
why is no one (I shouldn"t speak too soon) suggesting the death penalty for women who have abortions?

The list of questions goes on.

HOWEVER, AS I STATED BEFORE, IT IS IRRELEVANT WHETHER OR NOT A FETUS IS HUMAN. As I stated, a woman has the right to choose what to do with her own body. In your example, "An almost fully grown baby still requires the mother to survive." This is UNTRUE. An almost full grown body does NOT need the mother's body to survive. It may need a caretaker, although it could be easily argued that some babies could feasibly care for themselves, but it doesn't need a specific person's body to survive. Your argument is debunked.

As for your argument about having to deal with the consequences of actions, say are driving to work. By your logic, you accept all responsibility of driving, including the possibility of accidents. Now, you get into a horrible accident and require a trip to the hospital in order to survive. Your logic states that you should not be allowed to the hospital because you "accepted the responsibility of driving." Again, your argument is debunked.

Your last argument is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT; however, although abortion may have deprived the world of a "great person," it may have also deprived the world of a Hitler as well. Argument debunked again.
TheTaxiDriver

Con

Does it give you any more right to say that they should die ? Point refuted.

This is my point all the sources disagree. Therefore we cannot make a presumption without full proof. If the scientific community cannot agree on when human life actually starts how can we actually give the right to end a life ? If multiple sources confirm that human life begins at conception then abortion is technically murder. However many sources will disagree and therefore it is termination of a not-yet-a-human entity. How can we invest full power into the rights of a woman if potentially it includes murder as according to some sources, but not all.

There is difference between the conscious choice of humans and the potential breakdowns of vehicles. Anyway that was not the main part of the argument. The main part was if a conscious decision results in the formation of life why should it be punished ?
The analogy should go if two people decided to drive and got into a car crash why should a nearby bystander be punished ?

Who has the right though ? The mother has the right to decide what to do with her body. What about the father ? If they consensually decide to have a child which impregnates her as a result and she changes her mind and wants an abortion does she automatically get the right to terminate the father's potential child ? Or does her rights get decided by the court before she can end another man's child. What about paternal rights ?
Debate Round No. 3
Kelisitaan

Pro

I have made the same argument 3 times now, and instead of responding to it, you have ignored it and posted irrelevant drivel. Here is the argument one last time for you:

A woman has the right to choose what she wants to do with her own body. If she doesn't want to let a fetus use it to live, she has that right. If she doesn't want to donate a kidney to someone who is dying, she has that right.

It's not that the fetus' wants, wishes, etc. don't matter, it's that the fetus needs the body of the woman to survive. It doesn't need the body of the father to survive. It needs the body of the mother. Therefore, the decision is up to the mother, not the father or the fetus.

Let's see if you can actually respond to this argument this time rather than posting irrelevant information, all of which I have debunked.
TheTaxiDriver

Con

By doing this we are ignoring the right to life though. If this is a potential human being or a human being (some sources, not all) then this is murder. Regardless of a woman's right to choose her body does not supersede the law. Nothing I have posted is irrelevant, we'll see how your conduct and your lack of professionalism gets you when the debate is voted on. A word to the wise, it will not benefit you.

Allowing women to access abortion on demand because its their right means that they will use it as contraception. That destroys the concept of the sanctity of life. The preciousness and validity of life is no longer the same when it can be ended easily. The fetus is apart of her body though. She is no longer responsible for just herself. For example behavior during pregnancy such as severe alcoholism can impact the baby. Clearly, it's no longer just her own body and it is debatable how far her rights to end the life inside her go.

So therefore the father and his wishes do not matter ? This is infringing on his paternal rights. The mother has agreed to birth the child but withdraws the decision in favour of an abortion but the father still wants the child. So just tell him his child is going to be terminated ? It does not work like that. Woman's rights and choice have to be subject before the law just as the rights of the father will. A woman does not have the automatic ability to have an abortion whenever she wants.

I would like to thank in advance all the people who will read and vote on the winner of this debate. I sincerely hope that you recognize who argued the points better and had better conduct throughout. I appreciate it.
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Cat47// Mod action: Removed<

2 points to Con (Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Nothing bad. Spelling and Grammar: Nothing Bad. Arguments: They were both really good in arguing. Sources: Pro used extremely biased sources, whereas Con did not.

[*Reason for removal*] The voter is required to justify their statement that the sources of one side were biased and those of the other were not. Lacking that, the vote is insufficient.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: jo154676// Mod action: Removed<

2 points to Con (Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Pro used a very biased source, pro choice was in the domain name, while con used more reliable sources like princeton's website.

[*Reason for removal*] In order to award source points, the voter is required to compare sources based on their content and not simply based on the link itself. That requires more than just stating that one side used a source with "pro choice" in the name and stating that Princeton"s a good source.
************************************************************************
Posted by John_C_1812 1 year ago
John_C_1812
I apologize if it appears as though this information is meant to heckle the debate. You both make reasonable arguments.
TheTaxiDriver
The debate is about a woman"s right to have access to an abortion.
Keslisitaan
A woman has the right to choose what she wants to do with her own body.

That is not what is presented in principle as a non-biased goal, most all debate of abortion, are in fact an inquiry by a woman, into how a woman can lose control of her right to abortion, during legislation of law. As by her understandable position, abortion (the confession) is about her body and nothing else.
This is an international issue, it is a matter of National Security of the United States Constitution.
Posted by John_C_1812 1 year ago
John_C_1812
A woman has asking for Licensed Medical Assistance.
A woman will ask for Licensed Medial Assistance.
A woman can choose to give birth to a child.
The medical doctor is under Oath to perform an obligation to public service that supersedes the desire of a woman"s personal liberty in this matter.
Posted by John_C_1812 1 year ago
John_C_1812
No, any abortion debate is about if the woman and doctor have access to Gender Specific Amputation. As these three words describe abortion publicly representing a constitutional way to express something that is not a confession. Abortion is a confession unless it can be public describe how it is not self-incriminating.
The legal issue is not about the woman at all. It is about the State licensed doctor, the person who is being asked to confess along with the woman to a murder to provide emergency medical care. This is a constitutional issue in which a woman is incriminating others by her confession to a crime. There is an obligation to representation which is clearly not being met.
Lawyers might not have ever notice this as they are licensed by the Constitutional separation process to sell justice as a manufacture product of none biased separation.
Posted by SalmaX33 1 year ago
SalmaX33
ok taxidriver, i see your argument, but imagine a women was raped, then what will she do? think about it. she might not be able to afford a child, she might be able too, but in the end, especially if she was raped, its her own choice, and you can never take that away from her, because it wouldnt be your right would it? And remember its also her body, she could also be scared or horrified of child birth, in my opinion, i think that she shouldnt do it unless its a reason like being raped, dont you think so?
Posted by TheTaxiDriver 1 year ago
TheTaxiDriver
John

The debate is about a woman's right to have access to an abortion. Not really on the morality of abortion and whether it constitutes murder.
Posted by John_C_1812 1 year ago
John_C_1812
TaxiDriver
The most important part of the issue of abortion is its constitutional understanding. You and many other are failing to see, or ignore that abortion is a confession to the crime of murder, it is not an accusation.
The blame is instantly being passed from the person who is making the confession publicly. To the person who may inadvertently understands it to be a confession. Without fully understand why they feel it is wrong.
When a person tells a group of people or just one person they are officially stopping life. Is it the same as saying they are going to kill someone? If not, how is it different?
Is it excitable for a Medical professional to confess to officially ending life? These are people who must make a medical emergency decision dealing with life and death. The common defense to the general welfare and Hippocratic Oath here is Gender Specific Amputation.
No votes have been placed for this debate.