The Instigator
MR.PRESIDENTGETDOWN
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
SirDave
Pro (for)
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: 1/18/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 396 times Debate No: 106834
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (0)

 

MR.PRESIDENTGETDOWN

Con

I think that abortion is murder and should have some law prohibiting average abortions. I would like to hear the other side and think this would be a lot of fun to debate.
SirDave

Pro

Why do you think abortion is murder? Many would argue, including myself, that murder is the unlawful killing of another human. When we abort a pregnancy we do it within a time frame that the fetus cannot live outside the womb, it cannot feel pain, and cannot live outside the womb without the mother. I wouldn't constitute that as a human.

Abortion is more than just "I don't want to have a kid" in most cases. The majority of women who get abortions do it for medical reasons or because they were raped. Do you think abortion is wrong, even if it risks the life of the mother? What if it risks the life of the mother and child? What if the mother were to have been raped and did not want the child of their rapist? Would it be wrong then? What if the child were to have ALS and doomed to have a life of suffering?

Abortion is perfectly reasonable in these instances. The mother is already living and will continue to live with an abortion. If both child and mother are at risk. then it's much more reasonable to save the life of the mother, then let the mother die, and a potential child too. The mother should not have to have a reminder of what could possibly be the worst experience in her life, and I believe that it is morally wrong to damn a person to have a terminal disease, a very painful one, then to get an abortion.

If your answer to these is that it is perfectly reasonable, but with proper documentation, I disagree. It's not the government's job to make sure that I'm getting an abortion for the "right reasons." It's the government's job to make sure that someone can get an abortion safely.
Debate Round No. 1
MR.PRESIDENTGETDOWN

Con

Thanks for accepting the debate. First of all I said average abortions but whatever. Normally, I would use the Bible to back my points but today I will try not to. According to two different scientific articles, "human life begins at sperm-egg fusion" because when classifying cells it is considered a living organism. If this is true it"s not a debate about whether or not it is alive but about the moral complications that come with the fact that your taking a human life. If abortion is legal why should murder be illegal. " The greatest destroyer of peace is abortion because if a mother can kill her own child what is left for me to kill you and you to kill me. There is nothing between."-Mother Teresa. Also for those extreme cases "Abortion isn't a lesser evil, it's a crime. Taking one's life to save another, that's what mafia does. It's a crime. It's an absolute evil."- Pope Francis. And for rape "Abortion isn"t a health care, a woman has a right to her body, but that is not her body. What about the baby?"- Alveda King, Personally I am not an extremist for abortion however.
Citing
https://www.npr.org...

https://lozierinstitute.org...

https://lozierinstitute.org......

https://www.brainyquote.com...
SirDave

Pro

I'd like to take the time at right now to point out that there is no "average case" of abortion. Each case is different. Much like each case of cancer is different. That's not to say that abortion is of the same as cancer, it is only to compare how each is different.

"According to two different scientific articles, "human life begins at sperm-egg fusion" because when classifying cells it is considered a living organism"

I'll concede the point you make.

What gives the fetus a right to life? Is it murder for me to refuse someone one of my kidneys, and because of that they die in the process. The fetus is essentially using its mother's body in order to live. A right to life doesn't imply that you get to sustain your life on someone else's body.

Murder should be illegal because we already have a right to life, that we do not depend on others for.

I don't see how Mother Teresa can speak on acts such as abortion, as she has committed atrocities that are considerably much worse. Seeing how she allowed thousands of people to suffer and die from curable diseases, to get closer to god. She was effectively torturing and murdering people herself.

All of the further arguments from authority are rebutted with a right to life section of my argument.
Debate Round No. 2
MR.PRESIDENTGETDOWN

Con

"What gives the fetus a right to life?" That"s dark, and we already covered that, it"s not just a fetus but a baby. Also the constitution has a right to life law"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Secondly what I mean by average abortions are no rape, and no mothers death. "Is it murder for me to refuse someone one of my kidneys, and because of that they die in the process. The fetus is essentially using its mother's body in order to live. A right to life doesn't imply that you get to sustain your life on someone else's body." Well cutting a baby to pieces isn"t the same as refusing to donate an organ. "Murder should be illegal because we already have a right to life, that we do not depend on others for." So disabled people who rely on others to live don"t have a right to life?" I don't see how Mother Teresa can speak on acts such as abortion, as she has committed atrocities that are considerably much worse. Seeing how she allowed thousands of people to suffer and die from curable diseases, to get closer to god. She was effectively torturing and murdering people herself." Ok well to be honest, it"s was about the words anyway and she also got a Nobel Peace Prize and opened up orphanages and hospitals I don"t know if you can fully blame her on lack of medical needs as she provided needs in the first place. Plus she dedicated her life to the poor and did many things to help them. She did very good things and bad things.

https://www.biographyonline.net...

https://www.thoughtco.com...

SirDave

Pro

"That"s dark, and we already covered that, it"s not just a fetus but a baby."

No. It's a fetus. It hasn't developed organs, it hasn't developed nerves. It can't feel pain, it can't feel anything. There isn't a consciousness.

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

I'd like to see the part in the constitution that relegates these rights to an unborn potential citizen.

"Well cutting a baby to pieces isn't the same as refusing to donate an organ"

You're right. The only problem here is that you're falsely equivalencing a fetus as a baby. A baby can feel pain, a baby has a consciousness, and above all else, a baby can live without a host. A baby does not depend on its host for oxygen, it doesn't depend on the host for nutrients. A baby can physically do these things for itself. Furthermore, your mistaken if you think that a fetus gets "cut to pieces" during an abortion.

"So disabled people who rely on others to live don"t have a right to life?"

You'd have to define disabled better. If they require another person to breathe for them, no. If they require another person to digest their food, and deliver nutrients to them, no, but you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone like that.

To be fair, Mother Theresa also murdered people, or at the least manslaughter, so I don't think she has a right to talk about murder.

What's shocking is that since the Roe v. Wade decision, abortion rates have been the lowest it has ever been.

https://www.scientificamerican.com...

https://www.npr.org...
Debate Round No. 3
MR.PRESIDENTGETDOWN

Con

No. It's a fetus. It hasn't developed organs, it hasn't developed nerves. It can't feel pain, it can't feel anything. There isn't a consciousness."

Your right it is a fetus
"It is scientifically inaccurate to say an embryo or a fetus is not a human being simply because he is at an earlier stage of development than a born infant. This is like saying that a toddler is not a human being"or is less of a human being" because he is not yet an adolescent. Or that an adolescent is not a human being because he is not yet an adult."
- - -
"You're right. The only problem here is that you're falsely equivalencing a fetus as a baby. A baby can feel pain, a baby has a consciousness, and above all else, a baby can live without a host. A baby does not depend on its host for oxygen, it doesn't depend on the host for nutrients. A baby can physically do these things for itself."

Babies are helpless when they are born. What can they do for themselves, they are super dependent? They cry when they need stuff but that"s it."There isn't a person alive who is radically independent from the universe we live in. We all need food, water, rest, and oxygen. We're all vulnerable to a million different bodily breakdowns. Are those who must rely on kidney machines, pace-makers or insulin shots for their survival less deserving of basic human rights than anyone else?"
- - -
"I'd like to see the part in the constitution that relegates these rights to an unborn potential citizen."

Well laws inplace don"t relegates these rights, that"s my whole debate that they should.
"A person, as defined by the dictionary, is nothing more or less than a living human. Anyone who tries to narrow this general definition of person hood does so in an attempt to eliminate a certain group of people who is either getting in their way or has something they want. Creating self-defined definitions of person hood, which are uniquely crafted to eliminate certain individuals from protection under the law, has long been the method of choice for implementing all manner of genocidal atrocities."
- - -
"To be fair, Mother Theresa also murdered people, or at the least manslaughter, so I don't think she has a right to talk about murder."

I said before it"s mainly about the words not the person who said them. She did bad things and good things.
- - -
"Physical and/or intellectual development has nothing to do with determining personhood outside the womb. It is equally insignificant for determining personhood inside the womb.

Children are generally less developed than adults. People with developmental disabilities may be less developed than some children, and those with extraordinary mental capacity are no more human than those with lesser IQs. It is humanity, not brain capacity or arm strength that determines personhood."

In conclusion the "fetus" is human and abortion should be prohibited by some laws.
SirDave

Pro

It is scientifically inaccurate to say an embryo or a fetus is not a human being simply because he is at an earlier stage of development than a born infant. This is like saying that a toddler is not a human being"or is less of a human being" because he is not yet an adolescent. Or that an adolescent is not a human being because he is not yet an adult."

It may become a human, but if you're going to be scientifically accurate, it's just as accurate to call a fetus a parasite.

"In biology, parasitism is a non-mutual relationship between species, where one species, the parasite, benefits at the expense of the other, the host."

The mother is not physically gaining anything, the fetus benefits at the expense of the mother, and while the expense is not as noticeable it still fits.

"Well laws in place don"t relegates these rights, that"s my whole debate that they should."

The laws in place don't relegate these rights because it is not yet a citizen. An analogy to this is giving illegal immigrants these rights because it could become a citizen. If a miscarriage happened should that be considered manslaughter? Should a fetus have the right to privacy, to free speech, when it could not yet speak or understand privacy? It's all or none in these types of deals, you cannot cherry pick which laws apply to a fetus and the mother.

"A person, as defined by the dictionary, is nothing more or less than a living human. Anyone who tries to narrow this general definition of person hood does so in an attempt to eliminate a certain group of people who is either getting in their way or has something they want. Creating self-defined definitions of person hood, which are uniquely crafted to eliminate certain individuals from protection under the law, has long been the method of choice for implementing all manner of genocidal atrocities."

This is exactly my point more or less. A fetus is not living, not without its host.

Children are generally less developed than adults. People with developmental disabilities may be less developed than some children, and those with extraordinary mental capacity are no more human than those with lesser IQs. It is humanity, not brain capacity or arm strength that determines personhood."

I agree with this wholeheartedly. The problem I have is restricting the rights of women who are already alive, who already have the capacity to feel, to think, to live, all because of potential life.

I don't think that every woman who gets pregnant should get an abortion, I don't think abortion should even be the first option. I also don't think that it is your right or anyone's right to tell her what she has to do with it. It should be legal, it should be regulated like it is now. That way, when the need arises, it can be done safely and securely.
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MR.PRESIDENTGETDOWN 6 months ago
MR.PRESIDENTGETDOWN
And that makes it stupid?BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2
Posted by BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2 6 months ago
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2
Because everyone debates about it.
Posted by MR.PRESIDENTGETDOWN 6 months ago
MR.PRESIDENTGETDOWN
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2 why is it a stupid topic?
Posted by BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2 6 months ago
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2
Same old, same old. Abortion is a stupid topic.
Posted by MR.PRESIDENTGETDOWN 7 months ago
MR.PRESIDENTGETDOWN
And my whole areguement is that they are not a "potential life" but a life. We covered that they are living humans, part of human species and living organism. If they are living and human then they are a life "the existence of an individual human being or animal"
Posted by MR.PRESIDENTGETDOWN 7 months ago
MR.PRESIDENTGETDOWN
One more thing
"In biology, parasitism is a non-mutual relationship between species, where one species, the parasite, benefits at the expense of the other, the host."

They are the SAME species.
Posted by MR.PRESIDENTGETDOWN 7 months ago
MR.PRESIDENTGETDOWN
Also since I didn"t do this during the debate, I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate. I have learned more about debating in general and about the other side. Your arguments were very good and it was difficult to counteract. May the best debater win.
Posted by MR.PRESIDENTGETDOWN 7 months ago
MR.PRESIDENTGETDOWN
Forgot to put sources in last argument.

http://www.abortionfacts.com...
Posted by John_C_1812 7 months ago
John_C_1812
Rennerpetey
I do not think you understand the full Constructional repercussion of the self-incrimination created that had been chosen for woman by word choice abortion. The nature of self-incrimination of the confession of a official end of life is not old age. The way the official stop of life is being describe it doesn"t matter when the child will developed, or how old the child can get before, the plan is to take control and officially end life, the child"s death is made as a prediction.

You are making an argument that would have been better made in effort to protect the United States Constitution described a process in a safer way to befit all woman. Something like Gender Specific Amputation this description has no publicly shared self-incrimination. It is a simple Constitutional statement of fact.
Posted by rennerpetey 7 months ago
rennerpetey
A 2 month old fetus may be a living organism, but it is not fully human, as it is not an independent fully functioning organism. What if i stepped on a bug; that's a living organism.
No votes have been placed for this debate.