The Instigator
Kelisitaan
Pro (for)
The Contender
Grovenshar
Con (against)

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Grovenshar has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/27/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 297 times Debate No: 98467
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

Kelisitaan

Pro

A woman has the right to choose what to do with her body. Therefore, abortion is to be accepted.

Rules: No new arguments in R4. Forfeiting a round=autoloss
Grovenshar

Con

A woman does not have the right to kill somebody else, regardless of their right to bodily autonomy. The reason being is that violating the right to life violates all other rights, which is bad.
Debate Round No. 1
Kelisitaan

Pro

Abortion is not killing innocent life. Rather, it's letting a woman control her own body. Abortion is accepted because a woman has the right to choose what she wants to do with her 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. Even if human A's life is at stake and human B's life is already over, with rotting kidney's, it's still human B's right to choose what to do with his dead body.

Is this considered murder? No, of course it's not. Is it a little douchey? Perhaps. Is it acceptable? Yes, a person has the right to do whatever he wants with his body.

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.

By letting the fetus control a woman's body, you are granting a fetus rights to someone else's body. No one has rights to anyone's body but that person. Period

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.
Grovenshar

Con

Here's the thing, it is considered murder if a person kills a fetus inside the womb of a mother. This person is prosecutable. Abortion is similar to this, so what is so magical about who holds the power to end this person's life.

Keep in mind, the kidney analogy isn't apt either. A far better analogy would be if somebody (Human A) were forced to spend their time with somebody on life support (Human B). If, knowing that Human B will not have to be a part of Human A's life after nine months, Human A doesn't suddenly have the right to murder Human B.

Another thing worth mentioning is that several rights have reasonable restrictions. If I said that the right to bear arms was not a right to be restricted, period, I would be absolutely wrong. The fact of the matter is is that several restrictions have been placed on this right in order to save people's lives, even at the inconvenience of several people's jobs and property. It is absolutely true that bodily autonomy is a right, and, as such, it should be subject to the restrictions that other rights face. To say that this one right can't have restrictions that are reasonable would morally require that all other rights cease to have restrictions, which is beyond untenable.
Debate Round No. 2
Kelisitaan

Pro

"Here's the thing, it is considered murder if a person kills a fetus inside the womb of a mother. This person is prosecutable. Abortion is similar to this, so what is so magical about who holds the power to end this person's life."

Again, the concept is that a woman has the right to choose what happens to her body. If a person kills the fetus, then it's murder because no one OTHER than the woman is allowed to make that choice. It's her body, remember? Evidence debunked.

You keep using the word murder. Not helping someone who is dying is NOT considered murder. Is it murder to not give a man dying of thirst water? No. Is it murder to not give someone dying a kidney? No. Is it murder to not give the fetus its mother's body against her will? No.

You seem to not understand the definition of murder. It's the act of killing someone. Although in all of these cases death occurs, it's not murder, because the act is simply not letting them use resources you own. That may be douchey, but it's not murder. Evidence debunked.

The right to bear arms was made because the founding fathers wanted people to be able to protect themselves from a tyrannical government. To compare this to abortion is absurd. This is your strongest argument, yet it's incredibly weak since both are completely different rights. The right to bear arms is not even close to as sacred as the right to do what you want with your body, so it is a strawman to compare the two.

Furthermore, you ignore the externalities of having unwanted kids. There are already 100,000 unadopted kids in the USA alone WITH the laws letting people have abortions. (https://showhope.org...) How many unadopted kids would there be if we forced everyone to have kids? The number would probably be close to 1 million. This would DRASTICALLY negatively affect everyone; now we have a bunch of unwanted kids sucking up resources from other kids.
Grovenshar

Con

I would like to deal with the biggest misconception that you have "You seem to not understand the definition of murder. It's the act of killing someone. Although in all of these cases death occurs, it's not murder, because the act is simply not letting them use resources you own. That may be douchey, but it's not murder. Evidence debunked." This is simply untrue. There are multiple procedures that I will summarize here: (http://americanpregnancy.org...)

Aspiration: (6-16 weeks)
Over the course of 10-15 minutes a fetus will be removed by vacuum from a woman's womb. This results in the death of the fetus.

Dilation & Evacuation: (16+ weeks)
A lethal injection is given to the fetus. Afterwards, a cannula and curette will be employed to remove smaller bits of tissue. If there are large chunks, forceps will be used as well. Finally, a sweep with a vacuum is used to ensure that there are no bits remaining.

Dilation & Extraction: (21+ weeks)
The fetus is partially removed from the womb and an incision is made at the base of the skull. After this, a suction catheter is used to remove the brain matter and collapse the skull. Once the skull collapses, the fetus is completely removed.

Tell me, which one of these procedures doesn't involve the killing of the fetus. Which one? There isn't one. To cover it up by saying "the act is simply not letting them use resources you own" is a euphemism and nothing more. Evidence debunked.

Also, when you say that the right to bear arms and the right to bodily autonomy are different rights, you are correct. However, the right to life is even more sacred than the right to bodily autonomy. If you are to talk about the sacredness of rights, you have to acknowledge this. Otherwise, you would be saying that rape is worse than murder, which it clearly isn't.

Finally, who cares if there will be more unwanted kids. The solution isn't to slaughter them all. That's the advocacy of murder.

Don't murder.
Debate Round No. 3
Kelisitaan

Pro

Actually, what you fail to realize is that the fetus cannot live on its own without its mother's body. Therefore, rather than just removing it and letting it die a slower death, they use techniques to speed up the process. The act is not murder...is it murder to help a cancer patient who is terminally ill to end his or her life? No, that's not murder, and neither is this. Argument debunked.

The right to life is NOT more sacred than the right to bodily autonomy has I have proven already with the kidney example and with the water example as well. (Which is far less "sacred" than bodily autonomy.) In other words, like I said, if you aren't even forced to give a man dying of thirst water, then the "right to life" is really not that sacred at all. Argument debunked (Again).

Who cares if they will be more unwanted kids? This shows CLEAR lack of reasoning abilities; ignoring evidence which disagrees with your point and only focusing on evidence which agrees with your point. Rather than come up with a pre-determined conclusion and then throw out evidence which doesn't agree with it, try using the evidence to guide you to a conclusion.

Abortion is not murder as I have proven multiple times. Instead of ignoring evidence which doesn't agree with your point, try taking the entire situation into account. Your view will evolve to the correct view once you take off your biased glasses and consider all of the evidence instead of just focusing on the evidence which supports your view.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by TruthSeeker87 1 year ago
TruthSeeker87
Should the con forfeit, I will gladly tap in.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.