The Instigator
koolkid
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Yep
Pro (for)
Winning
24 Points

Choose

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 5 votes the winner is...
Yep
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/18/2012 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 460 times Debate No: 22116
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (5)

 

koolkid

Con

My opponent gets to choose the topic of this debate. I'll argue against whatever it is!

Yea bro! Lolololololololz. LEt's have some fun nubs.
Yep

Pro

The Topic will be on Abortion.

As con, my opponent will be against abortion. As Pro, I will be for abortion. Cons BOP in this debate will be to refute every single argument by pro, thereby proving Abortion is wrong. Pro's BOP will be to present a case and attempt to rebut any and all arguments made by con against the case. Any offcase arguments are not valid.

No semantics, no ambiguity arguments, we all know exactly what i mean. Any attempt to troll will result in the other person recieving all 7 points. This is a serious debate and should be treated as such.

To clarify the resolution, we will be looking at both the moral and legal aspects of Abortion or whether it is

A) Moral

and

B) Legal

Now onto the Pro case, on why abortion is legal and moral. The Pro case will be laid out based on the points above

1st- Morality

Morality is defined as a "Code of Conduct that would be put forth by all rational persons" By the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy[1]

Personhood- [3]
Murder- The crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought [2].
Is Abortion truly murder? Well, to answer that question, we must look at what allegedly is being murdered during the process of an abortion.
A Fetus is NOT a Person, A.K.A a human being.

A-Is a Fetus a human being?

Fetus are essentially completely reliant on their host, in which they reside. Only that one host can truly take care and sustain that Fetus. This characteristic represents that of an organism that is inhumane, in that human beings do not rely on one human being, and only that human being, for sustenance. Simply saying that Fetus will grow is a weak argument on the grounds of abortion, because we look towards what is technically going to die. In no way at any point of an abortion is a human being going to die. A Fetus, can clearly be distinguished from a human being, and as such, Abortion cannot be considered a murder.

B- The Right to life of a Fetus

There is a major contradiction in giving a Fetus a right to life, anyone who does is completely undermining the host from which it lives. As stated in point 1, Fetus' do not share any characteristics of a human being, they reflect a parasite in fact, one that sustains itself solely off a host organism, and continues to grow, while feeding off the host. By giving a Fetus the right to life, the mother's life is basically worthless, it must sustain a parasite it does not want to sustain, and this is indeed an infringement upon the rights of the mother. To better state this, i will Quote Joyce Arthur- "The free exercise of one's moral conscience is a fundamental right in our society. And since pregnancy entails profound physical, psychological, and long-lasting consequences for a woman (it is not a mere "inconvenience"), her freedoms are significantly restricted if she is forced to carry to term." [3]

C-The Choice of abortion (Quality of Life)

Has anyone ever stopped to ask themselves why women have abortions? Does the quality of life mean nothing to Pro-Life people? A Moral outlook on abortion shows the many reasons women choose to have abortions. Not only may it be unwanted, but many times the Rape victim or the Soon-To-Be Single mother cannot successfully sustain their baby. The Fact is, Quality of life is just as important to the mother as it is to all of us looking at this issue from a 3rd person perspective. If a mother is living in such harsh conditions where she can barely make a living herself, why would she want to bring into this world a being which she must watch suffer unless cared for, and then diminish the already bad quality of her life as well? No Justification exists for allowing a being into this world if it WILL SUFFER. On top of that, the it should be the mother's choice based off of her right to life, and her quality of life. Why do we make the innocent pay? By Diminishing a mother's life, and allowing a baby to suffer, we as human beings are inherently immoral. This point in no way advocates unwanted pregnancies, but a pregnancy cannot be planned, and no specification has been made on how women become pregnant in the first place. An easy assumption is through unwanted means such as- Forgetting Birth Control or the much more gruesome- Rape.



2nd Legality of Abortion

A- Roe vs Wade (1973)

The U.S. Supreme Court stated that abortion bans were unconstitutional in every state, legalizing abortion throughout the United States. There are multiple reasons for this.

1) Forced Permittence
This may sound silly, but a burden is a burden, just as a man walking into your house and using your bed without any permittence is unlawful so too is having to carry an unborn organism that feeds off of you. Just as that man eats your food and takes all of your stuff, so too does that unborn organism. The truth of the matter is, just like a house is owned, so is a body, whatever is inside that house or body is what is permitted to be inside based on he owner.To make things clearer- Whatever exists inside my body is at my disposal, any organism is inherently infringing upon my rights by taking up space in my body. Just as a Tapeworm is an unwanted organism in your body, so too is an unborn fetus, unwanted by the mother, yet the mother is forced to carry it.

2)Infringing upon the Quality of Life (Sound Familiar?)
This point may sound familiar, and it should, because it applies to both legality and morality.
Quality of life is everything, many philosophers argue the quality of life is what defines life, without happiness and joy there is no point to life. If a women was forced to carry a burden which she knew she could not carry, and had no way of disposing it legally, this would be in reality torture. We cannot justify denying the rights of Freedom, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. By not allowing for a woman to have an abortion, we are deterring and infringing upon that woman's rights.

B- Fetus' Rights [3]

Do Fetus' Have rights? Let's say we somehow gave an unborn Fetus all the constitutional rights an American Citizen was given. Could it truly exercise any rights at all? What would be the point? Giving Rights to an organism that cannot use a single one is meaningless. By Giving Rights to the Fetus or Zygote, a weighing factor would be put into play. Who's life would be worth more then? The Woman or the Unborn Fetus that cannot exercise a single right given to it? This is completely unfair to the woman, not only is this Fetus' life given weight equivalent to hers, it's also given rights it can't even use, and it isn't even alive! Logically, we cannot give an organism rights if they cannot exercise those rights.Thus it is legal for a woman to have an abortion on the grounds of rights.

Thank you for taking the time to read this debate, i wish you all good luck and thank my opponent for an intellectually stimulating debate. I hope for the best :)



[1] http://plato.stanford.edu......
[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com......
[3] http://www.abortionaccess.info......





Debate Round No. 1
koolkid

Con

Many years later, as he faced the firing squad, Colonel Aureliano Buendia was to remember that distant afternoon when his father took him to discover ice. At that time, Macondo was a village of twenty adobe houses, built on the bank of a river of clear water that ran along a bed of polished stones, which were white and enormous, like prehistoric eggs. The world was so recent that many things lacked names, and in order to indicate them it was necessary to point.

Every year during the month of March a family of ragged gypsies would set up their tents near the village, and with a great uproar of pipes and kettledrums they would display new inventions. First they brought the magnet. A heavy gypsy with an untamed beard and sparrow hands, who introduced himself as Melquiades, put on a bold public demonstration of what he himself called the eighth wonder of the learned alchemists of Macedonia. He went from house to house dragging two metal ingots and everybody was amazed to see pots, pans, tongs, and braziers tumble down from their places and beams creak from the desperation of nails and screws trying to energy, and even objects that had been lost for a long time appeared from where they had been searched for most and went dragging along in a turbulent confusion Melquiades' magical irons.

Jose Arcadio Buendia, whose unbridled imagination always went beyond the genius of nature and even beyond miracles and magic, thought that it would be possible to make use of that useless invention to extract gold from the bowels of the earth. Melquiades, who was an honest man, warned him. "It won't work for that." But Jose Arcadio Buendia at that time did not believe him in the honesty of gypsies, so he traded his mule and a pair of goats for the two magnetized ingots. Ursula Iguaran, his wife, who relied on those animals to increase their poor domestic holdings, was unable to dissuade him.

"Very soon we'll have gold enough to more to pave the floors of the house," her husband replied. For several months he worked hard to demonstrate the truth of his idea. He explored every inch of the region, even the riverbed, dragging the two iron ingots along and reciting Melquiades' incantation aloud. The only thing he succeeded in doing was to unearth a suit of fifteenth-century armour which had all of its pieces soldered together with rust and inside of which there was the hollowed resonance of an enormous stone-filled gourd. When Jose Arcadio Buendia and the four men of his expedition managed to take the armour apart, they found inside a calcified skeleton with a copper locket containing a woman's hair around its neck.

In March, the gypsies returned.

This time, the gypsies introduced to the village their new invention that they called the "fireworks". This invention was supposed to determine the moods of their respected gods. If they lit the fireworks and they flew into the sky and exploded, it means that the gods were happy, and if it failed, the gods weren't happy.

Firstly, a gypsy of a solid build by the name of Yakumo Koizumi prepared a public demonstration of his set of fireworks in the village during the day. The fireworks lit and exploded high in the air with some beautiful orange marks that remained in the sky for a few seconds. The villagers were amazed by the invention of the fireworks and their respect towards the gypsies, once again, increased.

During times when it rained and lightning was around, the gypsies would prove the disappointment experienced by the gods by attempting to light up the fireworks. Although the real reason was the substance that caused the supposed "happy reaction" (current emotion of the gods) did not ignite was because the main ingredient gunpowder, was soaked by water.

Jose Arcadio, convinced that this would make himself a fortune, traded all his crops and a horse to be taught how to create and use a set of fireworks. The gypsies kindly accepted his offer, offered him a quality set of fireworks and taught him how to set it up and light it.

His wife was concerned at the legitimacy of these fireworks and the reliability as to whether they actually determine the emotions of the gods.

"Don't worry Iguaran. This marvellous creation will give us a fortune. It's just a matter of time and knowing who will pay for these fascinating demonstrations. I'm sure a church full of Christians would be happy to hear about God's emotions to them."

With the knowledge of creating and lighting a set of fireworks, Buendia set off to the city church, many miles away from the village. He talked to the pope of the church and the marvellous creation that he has come up with. The pope, gullible as he was accepted the lie and paid him a small fortune to determine the emotions of god once a day.

Not more than a week later, the pope discovered the mechanisms within the fireworks and questioned Buendia. Jose confessed that he was told from the gypsies many miles away that these fireworks did indeed determine the emotions of the spirits in heaven.

The pope, a much more educated man than Buendia himself understood the fireworks much more than Buendia did himself. The pope demanded that Buendia return him all the money that was given to him. Buendia, confused as he was, gave the pope back the money that he was paid with and ran for his life from the church back to the village.
Yep

Pro

Wow... Judges i think we've been trolled. Troll is obvious troll...

Vote Pro as pro met his BOP and kept with the seriousness and regulations of this debate. Thus you affirm. Thank you all
Debate Round No. 2
koolkid

Con

I am not trolling nub
Yep

Pro

His only refutation was "I'm not trolling nub" Extend all arguments, conduct to pro for abiding by the rules, and of course sources. Thank you all very much.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 2 years ago
1dustpelt
koolkidYepTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: lEt'S TrOlL aRouNd HeRE!
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 2 years ago
RoyLatham
koolkidYepTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Yeah, troll.
Vote Placed by Lordknukle 2 years ago
Lordknukle
koolkidYepTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Con trolled majorly and never presented any coherent argument. Arg: Pro. Sources: Pro. Conduct: Pro. S
Vote Placed by Buddamoose 2 years ago
Buddamoose
koolkidYepTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: FF(essentially)
Vote Placed by SuburbiaSurvivor 2 years ago
SuburbiaSurvivor
koolkidYepTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Convincing arguments, yes? Well I was convinced.