Debate Rounds (4)
I will start out in defining abortion. I'm sure you (and anyone reading) knows what abortion is, but I will do it purely as a formality.
Abortion-the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy. (Merriam-Webster)
Now as my first point I will start out in saying that I think the biggest issue that "pro- choice", and "pro-life" believers have is when life begins. Life begins when the sperm and the egg are joined to form a potential child.
Some questions I have:
1. When do you believe life begins?
2. If you believe (like most pro-choice people) that life begins at birth then why aren't abortions done later in the term?
3. If it isn't a child, than what is it?
Ok now continuing:
The definition of life is-the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death. (Merriam Webster)
Even at that early stage in the womb the child is growing and developing. It is no longer the choice of the mother because it is not her body anymore, it is also the body of a child. I feel that it is un-educated to say that people who are against abortions "hate women" and also that people who are for abortion "hate children". This issue is a difficult matter to understand and discuss so I hope that you will say things to make me think.
I'm sorry that this isn't traditional debating style my thoughts tend to get scattered, I look forward to your reply and feel free to bring up any points you would like me to comment on.
I'm not as much against the people who just think abortion should be illegal as I am against these "pro-life conservatives." These people support the death penalty and military intervention. They also are against school lunch, health care, daycare, food stamps and welfare. How can they be pro-life with these beliefs? The conservatives irk me the most because they have no consistency. I'm sure you have consistency though and can give me a good, strong argument. I also agree that anti-abortionists don't necessarily hate women. Some do, like Rush Limbaugh, but most don't. I think that kind of answered all three questions.
2) A child and a fetus are not the same thing but in the end it's still a human being. An adult and a baby are not the same but they are merely humans in different stages of life, as is a baby and fetus. With that in mind people don't say "I'm pregnant with my first fetus" they say "baby" or "child". Putting a scientific term helps make the situation easier because your not ending a babies life you are terminating a fetus which has no value. Every life has value and it is quite unfair to abuse the power of "women' rights" on a helpless voiceless child.
3)Now I myself am against the death penalty but I do understand the argument and I would love to get into that a different time. To say they are against "school lunch, health care, daycare, food stamps and welfare" is a bit ignorant because they aren't specifically against all those things. Just the way in which they are handled. In the same way most pro-choice liberals are against the choice of being able to own a gun and all that entails. I could go on but lets not get into the conservative and liberal side of things.
4) Back on topic, the way that some abortions are handled and the clinics are gut wrenchingly horrible. Absolutely horrible. I'm sure you've heard about the Gosnell case, and the details are disgusting. Now, when it comes to abortions I feel that it is all done shadily. A fifteen year old girl can walk into an abortion clinic lie about her name, age, any health issues she has, and still receive an abortion. Yet a fifteen year old girl can't walk into the dentist she's gone to for years and receive a simple sealant on her teeth that requires no anesthesia without parental consent! It's outrageous. It has been proven that abortions can kill, and affect fertility in the future but a young girl can go get one without her parents ever knowing. Why hide something if there is nothing to hide?
P.S If you have never seen pictures of an aborted baby I would advise you to, although it is graphic and gruesome you can clearly see developed hands and feet. Then tell me that there is a difference between a fetus and a baby.
Let's take it from a women's point of view now. She's raising three kids on minimum wage and gets pregnant. She can't afford a fourth kid. I think she has a right to abort it. It's the best move for herself and the rest of her family. She is keeping her other three kids alive by getting that abortion. Now, I know you'll say she shouldn't have gotten pregnant in the first place and she needs more personal responsibility but isn't getting an abortion a personal responsibility? That's the move she feels is right and responsible so she should be able to do that. And you end up at the same place if you get an abortion or not get pregnant. You end up not having a kid. It's not like the women wants to have an abortion either. It's a tough choice she has to make and there's definitely no joy involved when it happens.
Now I agree that some abortions aren't handled correctly, but that doesn't mean we should take that option away from women altogether. They can fix those problems and come up with reasonable abortion laws like none after 28 weeks like I said before. I don't believe it's right that a 15 year old can walk into an abortion clinic and not a dentist's office either. I believe a 15 year old should have the right to get an abortion but with an ID.
Also, conservatives are specifically against these programs. If they were given a choice to, they would definitely take away all of them. If you listen to these people and know their ideology you would know they are against them.
I have seen pictures of aborted babies and they are gruesome but most of them are late-term. This is the third time I've said this but 28 weeks should be the deadline. Aborted babies born before this are quite a bit smaller than your hand.
And I want to know why the fetus would be considered a living, breathing, full human being, and no different from a baby or child or even adult. I know it will end up as one but I'm talking about the fetus in its current, physical form without a brain why it is a human being.
A baby's brain, spinal cord, and other vital organs begin forming at week 5 of the pregnancy.
Unless women are expecting to get pregnant most women find out from week 4-6 that they are pregnant.
Week 13-16 the brain is fully developed. By week 28 the baby has eyelashes, and can blink.
There is always adoption. Always. If you don't think you can love and care for your child the way you should, let another set of parents who desperately want a child. Abortion is an easy way out, it is by no means responsible to end a child life to make yours easier. I think the child would rather have the chance to live in not an ideal environment then not to live at all.
So do you think a 15 year old should have the right to get an abortion without parental consent?
Again this isn't about conservatives or liberals.
Answering your question again the fetus begins forming it's brain at week 5
"Jane Roe" (Norma Mcorvey) from the Roe v Wade trial is a pro-life advocate.
"All those years I was wrong. Signing that affidavit, I was wrong. Working in an abortion clinic, I was wrong. No more of this first trimester, second trimester, third trimester stuff. Abortion " at any point " was wrong. It was so clear. Painfully clear."
Margaret Sanger the founder of planned parenthood was a eugenicist and a racist
"The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."
Also, outlawing abortion would cause an increase of unsafe, illegal abortion which 78,000 thousand women die from each year. Outlawing abortion does not take every form of it away. Abortion is a safe medical procedure where less than 0.5% of abortions give women serious complications.
88% of abortions are in the first trimester so why should we completely outlaw it when the fetus is completely dependent on the mother in the uterus at this time cannot think anything or feel anything on its own.
A 15 year old should be able to get an abortion if it is her choice. Abortions do not cause any harm to the mother so her parents should support her decision. Parents who don't allow their kids to have an abortion will make life tougher for their daughter and themselves. Teen mothers will have a tough future. They are more likely to leave school, develop health problems, end up divorced, and rely on public assistance to raise the child.
Just because Jane Roe ended up being against abortion does not mean we should take the option of abortion away from everyone. And Margaret Sanger being racist and a eugenicist has nothing to do with the abortion debate and is an irrational and ignorant argument.
Most people against abortion will allow an abortion if it saves the woman's life. If they allow that, then why can't they allow it when a mother is deeply at risk of going bankrupt. They will not be able to feed themselves or their children so why can't they have an abortion. It may end up as the same result except the children they may already have may die too.
People that are pro-choice do not support abortion, you must realize that. They believe a woman should have that choice given to them.
And can we all agree that the people making these laws in Washington should be a bunch of dumb, middle-aged, white men!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by MrJK 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: I am yet to encounter a decent argument for the criminalization of abortions. Remember...everything is 'legal' until we deem it to be illegal. The instigator did not give any arguments for the purpose of criminalizing abortions (The instigator did not set any case for it being immoral, detrimental to society) and only really hinted at the idea that the foetus may have rights that are being infringed upon. The instigator did not give any arguments for the benefits of criminalizing abortion. The instigator did not argue the case, because of that, pro would win by default, pro didn't really need to argue anything in order to win. That being said, pro did offer strong arguments for the legalization of abortions, especially in the final round.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.