The Instigator
Flametiger200
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
H501
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Abortions should be illegal

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: 5/27/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 330 times Debate No: 91966
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

Flametiger200

Pro

I'll be arguing that abortions should be illegal, and that the only exception should be if the woman and/ or the child is in very critical condition.
H501

Con

Hello Pro. I'd definitely like to argue this topic with you, but first could you explain why you are against abortion? There are many reasons why people oppose it, and I would like to know yours, to make this a little easier.
Debate Round No. 1
Flametiger200

Pro

Flametiger200 forfeited this round.
H501

Con

Thank you, Flametiger, for rudely ignoring me.
Debate Round No. 2
Flametiger200

Pro

Sorry for not replying sooner. I was out on vacation with some friends plus I had work.

Alright, I'll explain to you why abortion is wrong.

The killing of an innocent human being is wrong, even if that human being has yet to be born. Unborn babies are considered human beings by the US government. The federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which was enacted "to protect unborn children from assault and murder," states that under federal law, anybody intentionally killing or attempting to kill an unborn child should "be punished... for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being." The act also states that an unborn child is a "member of the species homo sapiens." So it's technically murder.

Also killing that developing child is like stepping on the sequoia (the biggest tree in the world) when it was an acorn.

It could've had the chance to become something great, but the chance of the baby was ruined because the mother wanted to be selfish. (Why not adoption?)
H501

Con

I understand if you're busy, but honestly, never start a debate if you can't follow through. Anyway. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act states that "the term "unborn child" means a child in utero, and the term "child in utero" or "child, who is in utero" means a member of the species homo sapiens". Notice the wording. A member of the species homo sapiens. Let me ask you, is one cell a person? Two cells? When does a person become a person? To say that a person is a person as soon as they are conceived is nonsensical, because you are arguing that a single cell is a person. By this argument, birth control should also be illegal. Therefore, there is no logical moral argument against abortion (Of course, late abortion is a completely different story, but that's already illegal unless the mother is in danger.)

That doesn't mean that there is no argument whatsoever, though. You raise an interesting point with your sequoia analogy. However, the fetus could grow up to be a serial killer too. Most likely, it will just be another average, everyday person.

Also, what would our population be without abortion? Estimates range from just a little over 7 billion to 9 billion. Let's assume 8 billion. 8,000,000,000 people. There are already millions starving with 7 ,000,000,000. Do we need another billion? And, assuming that this trend continues, by 2100, there would be at least 14 billion people. With abortion, a number like 10 billion is more likely. 10 billion is horrible, but 14 billion could spell extinction. This is not an exaggeration.
Debate Round No. 3
Flametiger200

Pro

"A member of the species homo sapiens. Let me ask you, is one cell a person? Two cells? When does a person become a person? To say that a person is a person as soon as they are conceived is nonsensical, because you are arguing that a single cell is a person. By this argument, birth control should also be illegal.
Therefore, there is no logical moral argument against abortion (Of course, late abortion is a completely different story, but that's already illegal unless the mother is in danger.)"

Lmao! Come on dude. Please tell me you're joking.
Your whole definition of the word homo-sapien is COMPLETELY incorrect.
Homo-sapien doesn't mean single cell....homo-sapien means Humans, or human beings, are bipedal primates belonging to the mammalian species Homo sapiens.
Homosapien is a combination of two Latin words "homo" meaning "man" and "sapien" meaning "being" and not "knowledge" as some people believe the case to be.
So basically it's the scientific term for human....not single cell.

The fetus maybe a serial killer, or it could be a gold medalist at the Olympics, or it could be the next Steve Jobs or find the cure for cancer, or an average everyday person. At least let the baby experience life, make friends, go to school, play sports....taking away the child's opportunity to experience life is just cruel. A little Worse than being serial killer if you think about it. At least give it that chance to become something great, or experience life.

Oh, boy. "Overpopulation", and no...14 billion is not nearly enough to overpopulate the earth. I tend to think that this whole overpopulation nonsense is a huge myth.

I'm kind of tired and don't really want to explain why since I'm a little tired, and it's a bit off topic, but I'll do it anyways.

Most people seem to believe in overpopulation because "Food... there isn"t enough!..."

Well actually since the time of Thomas Malthus, who lived in the early 1800s, doomsayers have gloomily predicted that mankind would outbreed its food supply, resulting in catastrophic famines. Yet the world currently produces enough food to feed 10 billion people, and there are only 7 billion of us. That is, with 7 billion human minds at work, we produce enough food for 10 billion human bodies.

You'll probably say something like "But there are still hungry people in the world!" Yeah, hunger remains a problem in some parts of the world, but it is not caused by the number of people. Commenting on the recent Somali famine, Oxfam, an international humanitarian organization, stated, "Famines are not natural phenomena, they are catastrophic political failures."

"You'll probably think humans now eat higher up the food chain that we used to. We can"t keep that up and still have enough for everyone!"

Sure, people in the developed nations eat more meat, which require much more energy input per calorie eaten than if we ate grains and plant proteins. But that doesn"t mean that we will run out of food. We are eating higher energy foods because they are relatively cheaper than they used to be"and prices don"t fall when goods are scarce. The falling price of high energy foods indicates that they are becoming more plentiful, not less so. According to the World Education Service, "world agriculture produces 17% more calories per person today than it did 30 years ago...This is enough to provide everyone in the world with at least 2,720 kilocalories (kcal) per person per day.....

Alot of people tend to believe in overpopulation because they think that "We are running out of water!"

The earth is awash in water. Oceans cover 70 percent of the planet"s surface to an average depth of 6,000 feet. That"s why the earth looks blue from space. You cannot use up or destroy water... you can only change its state (from liquid to solid or gas) or contaminate it so that it is undrinkable.

I know what you're thinking. "There is not enough fresh water for everyone!"

Actually...There is..... Since 1900, freshwater withdrawals (i.e. production of usable water) have increased much faster than the human population has increased. Freshwater withdrawals have increased seven-fold since 1900 while the world population has increased only four-fold. This suggests our ability to access usable water increases faster than population growth.

Now, one of the other main reasons people think we're overpopulated is because, "we"re growing exponentially!"

Um,...No. We"re not. We are growing, but definitely not at an exponential rate. In fact, our rates of growth are declining. Between 1950 and 2000, the world population grew at a rate of 1.76%. Between 2000 and 2050, it is expected to grow by 0.77 percent. So yes, because 0.77 is greater than zero, it is a positive growth rate, and the world population will continue to grow. Most of this growth will come from developing countries"their life expectancies are expected to shoot up in the next 50 years, contributing to their population growth. Africa"s growth is not something to worry about. Europe"s decline, however, is something to worry about. A UN report titled "World Population to 2300" paints a picture of Europe"s future if European fertility rates don"t rise above current levels: "The European Union, which has recently expanded to encompass 452-455 million people (according to 2000-2005 figures) would fall by 2300 to only 59 million. About half the countries of Europe would lose 95 per cent or more of their population, and such countries as the Russian Federation and Italy would have only 1 per cent of their population left." In other words, the French, German, Italians and British will virtually cease to exist.

Also. Here are a few sites that support the overpopulation myth.

http://www.economist.com...

^^^^^^ that one's interesting.

It says that If we wanted to squeeze close, everyone in the world could stand shoulder-to-shoulder on the island of Zanzibar.

http://www.un.org...

https://www.cia.gov...

http://www.unfpa.org...

http://www.bbc.co.uk...

Here are all my references
http://www.economist.com...

http://www.bbc.co.uk...

https://www.cia.gov...

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

http://www.unfpa.org...

http://www.un.org...

http://www.worldhunger.org...

So yeah. I think using "overpopulation" in support of abortion is a huge copout/excuse. The world isn't overpopulated.
H501

Con

Lmao! Come on dude. Please tell me you're joking.
Your interpretation of what I said is COMPLETELY incorrect.
Homo-sapien doesn't mean single cell....obviously. Homo-sapien means Humans, or human beings, are bipedal primates belonging to the mammalian species Homo sapiens. Therefore, a cell is not a person. Therefore, abortion is not morally wrong.
Homosapien is a combination of two Latin words "homo" meaning "man" and "sapien" meaning "being" and not "knowledge" as some people believe the case to be.
So basically it's the scientific term for a human...not a single cell. This is what I was saying.

The fetus maybe a gold medalist , or it could be an evil dictator or create a new deadly biological weapon, but most likely it will be an average everyday person. At least let the baby experience life, suffering, living on a planet with billions of people more than it can support....aborting this child is not cruel, and will allow others to live.

Oh, boy. "Overpopulation is a myth", and yes...14 billion (but as I said, probably more, maybe 16 or 17) is enough to overpopulate the earth. I tend to think that this whole "overpopulation is a huge myth" nonsense is only believed by people who can't read graphs.
http://www.susps.org...
Note that this graph is with (not without) abortion.

I'm kind of tired and don't really want to explain why overpopulation is a threat since I'm a little tired, and it's a bit off topic, but I'll do it anyways.

Most people believe in overpopulation because "Food... there isn"t enough!..." This is a legitimate concern,.

Well it's actually true that since the time of Thomas Malthus, who lived in the early 1800s, doomsayers have gloomily predicted that mankind would outbreed its food supply, resulting in catastrophic famines. Yet the world currently produces enough food to feed 10 billion people, and there are only 7 billion of us. That is, with 7 billion human minds at work, we produce enough food for 10 billion human bodies. However, there will soon be a lot more than 10 billion people on this planet. By 2100, we should be- at our current rate- at 11 billion people. Without abortion, we would be looking at a minimum of 14 billion and a maximum that could be- worst case scenario- 18 billion.

"You'll probably think humans now eat higher up the food chain that we used to. We can"t keep that up and still have enough for everyone!" That's actually not the concern

Sure, people in the developed nations eat more meat, which require much more energy input per calorie eaten than if we ate grains and plant proteins. But that doesn"t mean that we will run out of food. What will make us run out of food is sheer numbers. We are eating higher energy foods because they are relatively cheaper than they used to be"and prices don"t fall when goods are scarce. The falling price of high energy foods indicates that they are becoming more plentiful, not less so. According to the World Education Service, "world agriculture produces 17% more calories per person today than it did 30 years ago...This is enough to provide everyone in the world with at least 2,720 kilocalories (kcal) per person per day..... But this will change rapidly as our numbers increase. And it would, without abortion, change even faster.

No intelligent people believe in overpopulation because they think that "We are running out of water!"

The earth is awash in water. Oceans cover 70 percent of the planet"s surface to an average depth of 6,000 feet. That"s why the earth looks blue from space. You cannot use up or destroy water... you can only change its state (from liquid to solid or gas) or contaminate it so that it is undrinkable. And most people know this, and know that food is the problem.

I know what you're thinking. "There is enough fresh water for everyone!" This is true.

Yes...it is...Since 1900, freshwater withdrawals (i.e. production of usable water) have increased much faster than the human population has increased. Freshwater withdrawals have increased seven-fold since 1900 while the world population has increased only four-fold. This suggests our ability to access usable water increases faster than population growth. This will not be true forever, but it probably will be for hundreds of years. Again, food is the problem.

Now, one of the other main reasons people think we're overpopulated is because, "we"re growing exponentially!"

Fortunately, I am not one of these people. However, even though we are not growing exponentially, we are growing at a positively alarming rate. Take a big enough number, and add a small percentage of that number to itself (Like 0.77, even though that will change soon) , and it will get much bigger.

Also. Here are a few sites that support my rebuttal of your argument.

http://www.marketwatch.com...

https://www.quora.com...

http://www.independent.co.uk...

https://www.savingadvice.com...

http://www.conserve-energy-future.com...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

http://planetsave.com...

http://www.salon.com...

So yeah. I think using overpopulation in support of abortion is a legitimate argument. The world is only slightly overpopulated- but it will get worse, and fast. With abortion illegal, the scenario could be even worse.

I would say thank you for debating me, but your forfeit and refusal to read my argument (You obviously just skimmed it, or you would have understood), is incredibly rude, and I see no reason to thank you.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Flametiger200 6 months ago
Flametiger200
I wish we I've added more rounds. Theres TOO MUCH to refute.
Anyways. It was nice debating ya.
Posted by H501 6 months ago
H501
No, don't restart. You forfeited a round, that's not my fault.
Posted by Flametiger200 6 months ago
Flametiger200
I can restart the debate if you want.
Posted by missmedic 6 months ago
missmedic
When something is illegal, the control of the something is put in the hands of the criminal.
Do you want to eliminate abortion or put people in jail??????????????????
Abortion is a symptom of a bigger problem.....................
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Posted by SirSocrates 6 months ago
SirSocrates
I would accept, but I agree with you.
No votes have been placed for this debate.