The Instigator
daynereese
Con (against)
The Contender
PMarshall
Pro (for)

Abortion

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
PMarshall 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: Select Winner
Started: 1/25/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 559 times Debate No: 107089
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (15)
Votes (0)

 

daynereese

Con

I would like to debate someone who is completely for abortion with minimal restrictions that way there would be more to debate. My format for the first round will be going point by point of different arguments used by pro-choicers and refuting them all, which is why I set the character limit to 10,000 and 5 rounds. After that you may counter-argue as many of my points as you would like. Please keep this debate civil and respectful. No name calling or identity politics. Thank you.

1.It Empowers Women. Abortion does not empower women. There is no evidence to support this claim. How does killing a human being empower women? That is a trick question; it does not. What if the "fetus" is a female? Killing a female baby does not empower them. Abortion is also a sign that a woman is weak. Abortion is saying that women kill their baby because they are incompetent to carry it to terms and to raise it.
2.A Fetus is not a Life. Then at what stage does it become a life? Does it become a life at four weeks when the brain and heart begin to form? At eight weeks when the heart begins to beat, and the face starts developing features, and when you can tell the gender of the baby (then again, you must wait until they are born for them to choose)? At twelve weeks when the baby can make a fist? All these features dignify a human being. Some leftist believe that life begins at the first sign of brain activity, which is indeed in the first trimester, ergo, they should be in favor of limited abortions after the first trimester. Other leftists believe that life begins at birth, so by that logic, they believe that all abortions up to the day before the due date should be legal. They claim that an abortion in the ninth month is called a C-section; while that might be true, it is not a C-section when the purpose of removing the baby is kill it and throw it away. Another argument is if it is in fact a life and killing it is wrong, why is masturbating okay when it is doing the same thing that abortion is doing- killing life. All these claims are false- life begins at conception. When sperm meets egg is when life begins.
3.It is a Woman"s Right. Which specific amendment gives women the right to murder another human being? There is none. The fact that leftists and radical feminists believe that somewhere in the Constitution it says that they have the right to murder a baby- it does not. The reason that Roe v. Wade was granted in Roe"s favor was because the Fourth Amendment stated that it was within her privacy and that the government had no business to tell her what to do with it. What was overlooked was that the government has a duty to protect the life of a U.S. citizen. They only examined the constitutional rights of the mother, but overlooked those of the baby. If a mother beats their born child, does that make it okay because it is the woman"s privacy? Of course not! It is always the duty of the government to protect the right to life of its citizens.
4.The Constitutional Right. All United States citizens have the right to life, liberty, and property. Focusing on the right to life, if a "fetus" is to two U.S. citizens, it is, ipso facto, a U.S. citizen, ipso facto, it has the right to life. It is the government"s job to protect that right, that is why the government should have a say, in this case, what someone can do with their body. The government should not, however, tell someone that they can not get a tattoo, but one is saying that they can not have ink on their skin and one is saying that they can not murder a baby.
5.What if a Woman is Raped? The woman is already raped; aborting the innocent baby will not reverse the horrendous tragedy that has been bestowed upon the victim, but just because the woman is a victim does not mean that there must be two victims- the baby. This is not condoning rape. Rapists should be imprisoned for life, castrated, or put to death for their crime. If the woman does not want to keep the child post-birth, she should give it up for adoption. If she can not financially support herself, it is not her fault that she got impregnated, either the rapist should pay for all medical bills or a government program to help those in need. This is not to say that all woman who want abortions for their own mistake should get free money for health bills.
6.Sometimes Prevention Does Not Work. There are multiple types of prevention. Condoms, birth-control pills, and planning are all types of prevention, but only work 95-98% of the time. There is one type of prevention that works 100% of the time- not having sex. Unless the woman is the Virgin Mary, then there is no one who has gotten pregnant who has not had sex. 0% of virgins have gotten pregnant. Unless they have an IQ of 50, they should know that pregnancy is a direct effect of sex. If they are aware of this fact of life, they should not have sex before they are ready for children. It is called adulthood; have some responsibility.
7."My Body, My Choice". Sorry sweetheart, last time I checked, that baby had its own brain, its own heart, which is pumping blood that may be a different blood type from the mother"s, its own set of organs, and its own body. Radical feminists believe that a human baby is the same think as an appendix, that they can do whatever they want with it. That is not even true. If you walk into the hospital and demand that they remove your appendix for no reason, they will deny you. Unless the appendix is endangering your life, then it will not be removed because there is no reason. The same principle applies to babies and pregnancy. If carrying the baby to terms will endanger the mother"s life, then in that extreme circumstance will it be okay to terminate the pregnancy. There are ways to terminate a pregnancy without having Planned Parenthood. Any gynecologist can perform the procedure in a doctor"s office.
8."My Body is Not a Battleground". This is another slogan of the pro-choice movement. It is also incorrect just like the other 800 of them. Your body is obviously a battleground, but not between you and the government, it is between you and the unborn baby inside of it. Your body should not be a battleground, but it should also not be a gas chamber.
9."Save Both". "Save both" is yet another (inaccurate) slogan by the pro-choice movement to demonstrate the need for clinic abortions. It is trying to say that America needs to keep abortion clinics open because they are safer than back-alley abortions. If they really wanted to save both, they would illegalize abortion to save the mother and the child. By keeping abortion legal, they are not saving the child, by which they are admitting to being a life. If they "care so much" about saving both they would illegalize abortion
10."Keep Abortion Safe, Legal, and Rare". Yet another asinine slogan by the asinine pro-choice movement. There is not a single abortion that is safe. When they mean safe, to whom are they referring? It is definitely not safe for the baby who is having its head cut off its body and having its organs suck out the uterus. Even though it is not rare, having 58,000 abortions since January 1, 2018, why does it need to be rare? If there is nothing wrong with having an abortion, why can there not be more abortions? According to them, abortion empowers women, so let them have more abortions. They are contradicting their own argument in their own argument.
PMarshall

Pro

I would like to make the point that America is the "land of the free". We are free people, not slaves. That is why we can practice whatever religion that we want to. And we likewise are not forced into adhering to the ideals of the Abrahamic religions. The catch? We have to practice the controversial parts of our religions ON OUR OWN LAND rather than bringing it to the public space. At least this was the original compromise to keep the peace. Over time, Europe has found a new way to enslave us because the could not beat us in an arms fight. We obviously won that fight many years ago when we kicked the red coats back to England. Their new strategy, communism under the guise of socialism. What has happened is that they have ever so slowly entrapped us into a socialist society that we didn't even realize what was happening... like a toad in a slow boiling pot. So what once was considered being a part of society being only when you left your own land to go to public space, now means something completely different. Now it means accepting the will of society on your own property. The Abrahamic religions have become so mighty that their will is imposed on everyone, even on private property. They decided that they would imprison or kill (death penalty) anyone who didn't live by their moral code. It went far beyond policing their own property to know policing your morality on your own property and policing what you do with your own property. For many religions, the sacrifice of their own children is a crucial aspect. The Abrahamic religions has forbidden you to practice this religion even on your own property. This is a violation of your most fundamental rights as a person and as the sole guardian of your offspring. To be able to practice your religion as a free person is empowering. So to be hindered from practicing your religion is un-empowering. Likewise, the power to determine your own blood line is stated in it's premise - empowering! So if you have a deformed child or it doesn't develop right, you should be in your POWER to decide after some time that the child is not worth the investment. Life is cruel and ugly, but that's how we survive. Survival isn't always pretty. Look what you've done to make dinner tonight... slaughtered an innocent beast. But that's alright in your Abrahamic religion so it hasn't been made illegal for all people despite their different religion. Looking around the world, many religious practices make your stomach churn... the animal slaughter in the Hindu religion, circumcision in Judaism, female genital mutilation in Islam, etc etc. This is no different, ugly but none of your business if it's not happening on your property. You cannot deny another person their rights to practice their religion, and is not the use & care of your body/soul and it's health care not the most fundamental aspect of religion?
Debate Round No. 1
daynereese

Con

This is not a religious issue, this is a moral issue. You compared telling people not to have abortions to slavery because they are telling them what to do with their private property, but slavery was the exact same thing, but opposite. Slavery existed in the United States for about a hundred year and during that time, other states who were against slavery could not abolish slavery because that would be telling them what to do with their property, but that did not make slavery morally justified. It is the same thing if a parent is abusing their children; the government needs to step in and do something- they should not stand back because it is taking place on their private property. The right to life supersedes the right to privacy. It is the government's job to protect these rights, which is why the government needs to step in to protect the baby's right to life. Regardless of your religion- whether you are Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Atheist, or do not belong to any organized religion- killing babies should not be socially, nor morally acceptable. It is not a religious belief that life begins at conception, it is a scientific belief. By saying the land of the free, does that not include babies? Are babies not free and subject to murder?
PMarshall

Pro

You didn"t prove or disprove anything. You only replied with communist propaganda. Perhaps try again so that I have something concrete to dispute. Would you rather instead debate whether we should be free versus slaves to communist government?
Debate Round No. 2
daynereese

Con

Your initial argument was that the government should not should not step in when it comes to religious beliefs. Abortion is not a religious belief though. Which religion believes in killing babies? Which religion are they discriminating? The government needs to step into religion when human lives are at stake. And yes, when Muslims are genitally mutilating women, the government needs to step in and do something about it. If I formed a religion that believes in killing people for sport (on my private property), should the government stand back and watch it happen because it is my religious belief, or should they step in and stop it. The answer should be step in and stop it. I did not present communist propaganda, I presented logic. Stating that killing people is wrong is not communist propaganda. Being free does not mean anarchy. Sure America is free, does that mean we should have the freedom to go around killing people because we are free? We need to have laws to protect its citizens. Without laws, we now have anarchy, which by your arguments, I think you are in favor of. You did not prove anything either. All you stated was basically that we should be able to kill people because it is our religious right. It does not work that way. Babies are people too and need to be protected by the government from being killed, regardless of religion.

https://www.princeton.edu...
http://naapc.org...
https://www.liveaction.org...
https://www.acpeds.org...
PMarshall

Pro

You've imposed this false notion of anarchy. You're implying that without authority (military and police with guns to make everyone behave) that there will be disorder on earth. That is exactly false. The earth and all life on it finds it's balance and homeostasis when everyone tends to their own business. It becomes disordered when one set of men decide to play God and impose their will on the entirety of mankind because they think they have superior moral reasoning and know what is best for all living and non-living on earth. By trying to force order you actually create catastrophe. We have seen this over and over with war after war. We are free, and yes, that does mean that you can do whatever you want on your own piece of the earthy rock. Just because you had the misfortune of being born human doesn't mean that suddenly your entire existence and every action has to meet the approval of a set group of humans that have appointed themselves authority over you and gotten a large amount of people to agree to letting them play God. What we can agree on is that, even in the freest society, we do not allow one set of people to go around randomly killing others. We all use self-defense. That is just self-preservation. Anyone who has decided to not defend themselves is no longer alive to be a factor in the discussion. Or won't be for long. What we are discussing here isn't the random murders of other peoples. We are discussing the decision of parents to decide the fate of their own bloodline and determining which of their offspring is well-suited for life and worth the continued investment. These children are not yet considered "free persons". The constitution grants citizens "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Citizens in the constitution implies adult of voting age who owns property. Yes the definition has been ruined since it's creation, and now children have optional social security numbers where they are actually able to be counted as a positive in the gross domestic product due to their use as medical research subjects. However, for those who still opt out of signing their children up for a financial contract with the government via the use of social security numbers and social services, and for those who do own and live on their own property and whose children haven't been entered into a financial agreement with the government they are not yet citizens and have no more right to life than does the cattle, the chickens, and the hogs that you ate today. To interfere with the natural life decisions of free people is the real anarchy as it creates all disorder on earth.
Debate Round No. 3
daynereese

Con

I retract what I said about citizenship, but that does not mean they are not human people. You could compare unborn babies to immigrants. If I kill a French immigrant, I would obviously go to prison because I killed someone. Personhood is properly defined by membership in the human species, not by stage of development within that species. A living being's designation to a species is determined not by the stage of development but by the sum total of its biological characteristics. Killing people is wrong. There is no way around it. You can not say because it is someone's property that you can kill them. That is not how it works. It is not a religious premise, it is a moral premise that killing people is wrong. You can not justify the murder of an innocent human being.

Sources:
http://www.abortionfacts.com...
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by PMarshall 3 months ago
PMarshall
I didn"t post my final argument in time. But I"d like to say that immigrants are citizens. I think he meant to say "people who sneak into the country" and therefore are not citizens. And it isn"t illegal to kill them. It also isn"t immoral to kill in general. What is morality? Germs kill, weather kills, floods kill, fire kills, we kill food every day, food kills us. It"s a natural part of the cycle. Sometimes we must kill for our benefit.
Posted by daynereese 3 months ago
daynereese
Ben Shapiro disagrees with abortion, Jack.
Posted by DawnBringerRiven 3 months ago
DawnBringerRiven
Just because someone holds a difderent belief than you doesn't mean you can't like them ya derp.
Posted by jack00100 3 months ago
jack00100
Why is your profile picture Ben Shapiro (who is a great person) if you disagree with abortion?
Posted by MR.PRESIDENTGETDOWN 3 months ago
MR.PRESIDENTGETDOWN
Use http://www.abortionfacts.com... during the debate.
Posted by PMarshall 3 months ago
PMarshall
I would like to add that "freedom of religion" is also "freedom from religion" and also that there is no greater authority that nature itself and no man can ever be "God" or the highest authority. The real anarchy is to try to undermine the authority of nature and "God" by imposing the law of man.
Posted by BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2 3 months ago
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2
@Debatwinnerpro Abortion is right, you cry baby.

Grow up
Posted by Debatwinnerpro 3 months ago
Debatwinnerpro
Abortion is wrong
Posted by John_C_1812 3 months ago
John_C_1812
It might be better stated this way.
The United States Constitutional beginning of human life starts medically in two places. One at the fluid produced by a male. The second at the embryo produced by a female. The total produced created by these two living organism only may prolong longevity of each it is not insurable by United States Constitution as murder.

Abortion describes it as murder and all woman make this confession guilty or not. That is not a Constitutional right that is being fought for. It isn"t even American.
Posted by John_C_1812 3 months ago
John_C_1812
DawnBringerRiver
Sure it must be my English couldn"t be the fact abortion isn"t even American, it is foreign born, and imported into the United States. That is my first issue. Abortion has a very limited legal scope to which it can be used. In legislation of law it has no total legal scope at all. Period. It is not tested often due to the multiple states of the crime. It is not one crime like the Confession abortion suggest. It is multiple crimes that are simple nothing more than an attack on the Unite States Constitution and without representation the United States Constitution is sacrificed publicly.
Abortion is legal just not as law, it is describing a confessing a woman can make religiously while not in need, or unaware of her United States Constitutional rights. A group of people, any number of people who share this confession are all self-incriminating themselves into multiple counts of many crime, or flooding one crime with multiple accessories to that single crime. There is you choice. Hidden by intellectual interpretation.
The United States Constitution can rephrase the word abortion legally as Gender Specific Amputation. So that a group, Church, or Cult discussing the authorizing of legal immunity made on behalf of officially end human life can be fully placed before law, with impartiality meaning no deals. Abortion is used for something like a woman telling a priest in secrete, not what a doctor would tell a patient, not what person would want tell a friend, or not what a woman would want to tell a court under oath. Unless sure she wants to confess a crime. There is no right to fight for in the wording abortion, none. Do you understand that? None! Zero, hero. It is why a justification is made and used to try and fabricate a right, a right after the damage has been done by publicly confessing. Even if a woman is not participating yet.
The inalienable right to abortion is made unmovable by the type confession it is. On behalf of all woman the United S
This debate has 2 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.