The Instigator
Lickdafoot
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
seraine
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

New Member Tournament: Abortion

Do you like this debate?NoYes+12
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 4 votes the winner is...
seraine
Started: 9/19/2011 Category: Health
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,009 times Debate No: 18403
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (38)
Votes (4)

 

Lickdafoot

Pro

Second try at this debate because I set the wrong round numbers. My apologies.

Resolution:
A woman has the right to choose whether to abort a child.


I will be arguing for women's choice. Con will be arguing against women's choice (pro life.)


Round 1: Acceptance, definitions

Round 2: Opening Arguments, rebuttals

Round 3: Rebuttals

Round 4: Rebuttals, Closing Arguments.


Definitions

Woman: An adult female over the age of 18.

Right: a just claim or title; whether legal, prescriptive, or moral [1]


abort: to bring forth a fetus from the uterus before the fetus is viable; miscarry.
to fail, cease, or stop at an early or premature stage. [2]

1. http://dictionary.reference.com...
2. http://dictionary.reference.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Lickdafoot

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate. I intend to show you that a woman has the right to choose whether to abort a child.

Self -Ownership

Self-Ownership is a natural right; one which is universal and evident beyond that of legal rights. Self-Ownership is the right that an individual has to own his body, and to own the decisions made about his person.

Although it is debatable whether or not Self-Ownership is fully covered in the American Constitution, we can see examples of how this natural right is implemented in our society. For example, we are given the right to Emergency medical services without insurance or a form of up-front payment. This allows us to make the appropriate decision concerning our body and its needs.

Pregnancy changes a womens body and comes with an onslaught of complications. Even the most common of pregnancy complications; such as an ectopic pregancy, Rh Negative diseases, group b strep, preterm labor, and gestational diabeties, can result in a serious risk of the woman's health and the possibility of death. [1] Denying a woman the right to terminate these risks is denying the right to self-ownership and subsequently denying the right to save ones own life.

Because universal rights will always override legal rights, we know that many women get abortions regardless of it being illegal. Legality does not affect the rate at which people decide to get abortions, although it does affect the dangers. The World Health Organization conducted a research in 2003 where they found that approximately 20 million unsafe abortions are performed each year and 67,000 of those women die, most in countries where abortion is illegal. Between 2 and 7 million of these unsafe abortions result in long-term damage or disease. [2]

Taking the premeptive steps to allow women to have their self-ownership rights will result in safer choices for women and their babies.

Responsibility of the Parent

Parents are responsible for making the best decisions for their children. Sometimes this can mean cutting the chord of life in order to end a childs suffering. It is only appropriate that the same can be said for a fetus growing in the womb. The mother reserves the right to make the appropriate decisions that could affect her and her childs health and well being.

Some examples of concern for well-being:

- Alcoholism and addictions resulting in fetal alcohol syndrom or other birth defects. [3]
- Fatal diseases, such as AIDS, being passed on to the baby.
- Risk of life for the mother.

Value of Life

Life doesn't necessarily equate to valuable life. This is an extension of my last point in that it is the paren'ts responsibility to decide for themselves what determines the value of life, and at what extent that value is being compromised for the sake of pro-life. Not all parents will make the best decision at which point it would be advisable to seek out professional advice. This could be legally implemented. With professional adivse, one would be more prepared in their decision. The fact of the matter is that someoe can guide but not force a parent into the right choice.

Some examples of concern for value of life:

- A rape victim, in which the baby would be susceptible to the mothers negative feelings associated with the event surrounding his birth.
- When the mother has mental health issues that could result in a dangerous living environment for the child.

Conclusion

Everyone has their own beliefs about the morality of abortion. I am not advocating that abortion is the right thing to do. In fact, I feel very personally about my body and know that terminating a baby would be terminating a part of my spirit. I have the right to this desicion, and so does every woman. Forcing someone not to abort is as wrong as forcing someone to abort.

1. http://www.americanpregnancy.org...
2. http://www.nytimes.com...
3. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
seraine

Con

I am going to be arguing that a fetus has the same rights as a person, and thus abortion is comparable to murder and should almost always be illegal.

My argument is as follows:

P1: A fetus is a human.
P2: It is morally wrong to kill a human.
C: It is morally wrong to kill a fetus.

This is a logically valid argument, so it can only be false if the premises are false. My opening argument is going to be short as I do not know how my opponent will argue against it.

P1. A fetus is a person.

I think most of the debate will be on premise one, so I will devote little to no time to P2 and my conclusion. If my opponent does wish to argue those points, I will take them up.

A fetus is merely someone who is going to be a person. If it is not interrupted, it will be a thinking, rationalizing human being no different from you and I.

While a fetus is not currently thinking and rationalizing, it will be. It is essentially a person in a temporary coma. Neither can think and do other things that we identify as human, but they both will be able to. A situation: A baby is born. However, it is born into a coma that will last for 9 months.

Would the parents be justified in killing the baby? If not, why? Until my opponent can give a reason why a fetus is not a person, I will not further argue this position.

P2: It is morally wrong to kill a human.

I do not see this point being contested.

Conclusion: It is morally wrong to kill a fetus.

If the premises are true, then it must necessarily follow that the conclusion is true.

Refutations

1. Self-Ownership

My opponent has listed the risks of pregnancy and argued that the right to self-ownership trumps the right to life. Does she believe that these justify a murder? If a fetus is a person, would these arguments also justify the murder of a completely sentient human being? Does the right to self ownership justify murder?

"Legality does not affect the rate at which people decide to get abortions"

People still murder despite murder laws. Does that mean murder should be legal?
Not only that, legality does effect abortion rates.

"the number of legal abortions declined by 22.22 percent[...] one factor that played a role was the increased amount of anti-abortion legislation that was passed at the state level."[1]

In fact, simple things like reducing Medicaid funding lessens abortion rates[1]. If things as small as a hike in price reduce abortion rates, it seems obvious that abortion rates would lessen because of legality.

The link my opponent posted used this study[2] as its source. In it, it says "Almost all unsafe abortions (97%) are in developing countries". Almost all of the data is comparing unsafe abortions in developing countries where abortion is illegal to safe abortion is first world countries where it is legal. Applying data gathered in third world countries to first world countries is a wee bit flawed.

2. Responsibility of Parent and Value of Life.

The parent's responsibility does not extend to the right to kill their child. If it is "the paren'ts responsibility to decide for themselves what determines the value of life" then they should have free reign to kill their own children. If we take the view that a fetus is a human, then abortion must necessarily be immoral.

Conclusion

A fetus is a human. If things like self-ownership and the responsibility of a parent give the right to kill fetuses, they must also extend to the right to kill other human beings. If killing a human is immoral, killing a fetus should be immoral, and abortion should be illegal in almost all cases.

Sources

[1] http://spa.sagepub.com...
[2] http://www.who.int...
Debate Round No. 2
Lickdafoot

Pro

I thank my opponent for his response and wish him luck on the remainder of the debate!

Let's start with rebuttals on my points.

P1. Self- Ownership

My Opponent's point here is that the right to life should override the right to self- ownership. What he misses is that an override of self-ownership is in fact an override of the right of life. Take for instance a situation where a woman is at an extremely high risk for death because of her pregnancy. It is justified that a woman would terminate a fetus to save her own life.

To extend this point further, we can see that about 13% of deaths in pregnancy are due to unsafe abortions. [1] We are killing women because they are forced into aborting their child illegally. Life trumps self-ownership? Not when self-ownership is supporting life!

"the number of legal abortions declined by 22.22 percent[...] one factor that played a role was the increased amount of anti-abortion legislation that was passed at the state level."

This quote by my opponent can be negated. This specifically says that legal abortions have declined, when in fact we already know that there are a number of illegal abortions going on. If the law is too restriction, or the pay to expensive, one will resort to illegal abortion.

My opponent says it is faulty to compare abortions in developing and developed countries, when in fact, this isn't quite so. Comparing the results between countries shows that similar amounts of people are aborting regardless of it being legal or not. I'll again provide this link. [2] Abortion does not stop because it is illegal.

Restrictions against abortion are killing women.

P2. Responsibility of Parent & Value of Life

My opponent says here that responsibility of the parent does not extend to the right to kill ones child. This is faulty because in fact, we know that this does happen. When the kid is in a state of deteriorating health, it is sometimes the parent's responsibility to pull the chord on them. They are the ones with the final say on what happens; the ones that have to make the decision and live with the consequences. Here is a heart-wrenching account of a mother's need to end her babies life. [3]

We know that sometimes the best decision is not the most happy one. In the case of abortion, sometimes this unhappy decision is needed for the mothers safety, or to prevent suffering of the baby. It is the mothers responsibility to choose this.

Now let's move on to rebuttals of my opponents case.

C1. A fetus is a human.

I agree with my opponent in that a fetus, regardless of the arguable time frame, does turn into a human. This does not necessarily equate to quality of that humans life. Let's look at my opponent's example to see how this applies. He equates a fetus to a baby in a coma; while in fact people in comas can think and feel. [4] One might say that it is more morally permissible to kill something that cannot think or feel. Smashing a rock is a lot more benign than killing a loved one, and there are many steps on this spectrum that have their own weight of moral acceptability.

For example, killing a fetus, which cannot yet think or feel, is doing less harm than killing an animal; yet there are very minimal laws restricting us from killing a wild animal or even a pet.

My opponent might say here that the fetus will grow into one that can think and feel. Yes it does, but in the next point I will show why sometimes killing a human is morally acceptable, and it is easier and more justified to kill a human preventative, when it has no thoughts or feelings, than to kill one that is fully grown and aware.

C2. It is morally wrong to kill a human.

This point is the one in which I think my opponents case ultimately fails. There are instances in which it is morally acceptable to kill a human.

Take the example of a parasitic twin.[5] This is essentially a living being (it can think and feel) that cannot fully function, and is relying on the nutrients of the fully healthy body. Whether the "full" twin is at risk of death, or the parasitic twin is dampening the quality of the full twin's life, in this case it is held as normal and morally acceptable for the parasitic twin to be removed, die, and save the life of its twin.

So lets see how Con's claim is really stacking up:

1. A fetus will develop into a human being.
2. It is sometimes morally wrong to kill a human.
C. It is sometimes morally wrong to kill a fetus.

Now let's see how this compares to the resolution "A woman has the right to choose whether or not to abort." Because there are times when abortion is a necessary act, there are times when a woman's choice to abort a baby is morally acceptable. The woman is the one who has final say over her body, and her baby's body, (remember, in the a example about the parasitic twin, the parent will decide the course of action) so it is justified to say that a woman has the right to choose whether or not to abort her child.

I have shown, through self-ownership and parent's responsibility, that abortion is a decision that must be made by the mother. The woman has the right to determine the well-being of herself and her baby, and therefore has the right to abort.

1. http://www.who.int...
2. http://www.nytimes.com...
3. http://www.aish.com...
4. http://aubreyallyn.hubpages.com...
5. http://en.wikipedia.org...
seraine

Con

I am going to start off by refuting my opponent's points and then reiterate my points.

1. Self Ownership

Though there is a few cases in which abortion is justified, there is also a few cases in which killing is justified, such as in self defense. Indeed, if the mother is in danger of dying, abortion would be justified as self defense. However, that does not mean that abortion should be available in all cases, just like killing should not be legal because it is legal in the few cases of self defense.

"we can see that about 13% of deaths in pregnancy are due to unsafe abortions. We are killing women because they are forced into aborting their child illegally."

Most of the deaths from the unsafe abortions occur in developing countries. In 1972, when abortion in America was illegal, only 39 women died from unsafe abortions[1]. Approximately 529,000 women die during pregnancy every year, and approximately 13% of those deaths are due to unsafe abortions[2]. 13% of 529,000 is 68,770. Most of the deaths do not occur in developed countries, they occur in undeveloped countries were abortion happens to be legal.

In fact, when abortion is criminalized in developed countries, not much happens to the death rate from abortions. In Poland, there was 59,000 registered abortions in 1990 and 0 deaths from abortion. In 1994, after abortion was criminalized, 0 people died[2]. In developed countries, there is little to no difference between illegal and legal abortions[2], and indeed, why should there be?

"Comparing the results between countries shows that similar amounts of people are aborting regardless of it being legal or not"

The problem is is that there is not the same factors in developed and undeveloped countries. Developed countries tend to have legalized abortion, and undeveloped countries don't. Similar rates should not matter, because they do not have the same factors.

In addition, I ask my opponent a question. Could the fact that people still perform murders be used to justify legalizing murder?

2. Responsibility of Parent and the Value of Life

"When the kid is in a state of deteriorating health, it is sometimes the parent's responsibility to pull the chord on them"

The problem is is that the fetus is not in a state of deteriorating health, it is growing into a healthy, thinking human being. Could your statement be used to kill a random child in perfect health, or one in a temporary coma? If not, how is that different from a fetus?

1. A fetus is a human.

"He equates a fetus to a baby in a coma; while in fact people in comas can think and feel. "

Some people in a coma can think and feel, but most can not. The brain is usually involved with the most basic functions of keeping the person alive[3].

"it is easier and more justified to kill a human preventative, when it has no thoughts or feelings, than to kill one that is fully grown and aware"

This assumes that the grown up fetus is going to have to be killed. However, there is no reason to believe that.

2. It is morally wrong to kill a human.

"There are instances in which it is morally acceptable to kill a human. "

That does not mean that it is always acceptable to kill a human being, just as though there are a few times when abortion is justified, that does not always mean it is justified.

"a parasitic twin [...] that cannot fully function, and is relying on the nutrients of the fully healthy body"

There is a difference between a parasitic twin and a fetus, and that is that the parasitic twin never will develop to anything near that of a normal human being. In fact, your own source says "one [twin] ceases development during gestation".

A fetus does not cease develop, and your analogy fails.

"there are times when abortion is a necessary act, there are times when a woman's choice to abort a baby is morally acceptable"

There is also times when killing is morally acceptable, but that does not mean it should be my choice on whether or not to murder.

"The woman is the one who has final say over her body, and her baby's body, (remember, in the a example about the parasitic twin, the parent will decide the course of action)"

The siamese twin is essentially dead and will never develop, while a fetus will. A women does not have the final say over her baby's body. Infanticide is a crime[4].

Conclusion

My opponent's case basically comes down to "there is a few times when abortion is justified, thus abortion should be legal". However, this does not work. Killing is sometimes justified in self defense, but killing is still illegal. Just because abortion is sometimes justified does not mean it is always justified.

Sources

[1] http://www.abortionfacts.com...
[2] http://www.who.int...
[3] http://science.howstuffworks.com...
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
Lickdafoot

Pro

I thank my opponent for this debate and wish him luck for the remainder of the tournament!

Self- Ownership

My opponent agrees that abortion in the risk of death is permitted due to self-defense. If we agree to this, then it only follows that we agree to let the woman chose to abort. This is because the risk of death is inherent in all pregnancies, and who decides when the risk is great enough to abort other than the mother? Remember that pregnancy complications become more severe the closer to full-term, so a doctors diagnosis might be too late. Though the percentage of child labor death rates are relatively small in America, there are still slightly under 600 deaths each year. Some statisticians say that the numbers are rising due to Obesity and the onslaught of Cesarian sections. Excessive bleeding/ hemoraging is one of the other leading causes of death. [1] Should an obese woman, who has a higher chance of dying, be expected to carry out her full term which could end in her own death, subsequently putting the baby at risk? Finally, hemoraging can happen to anyone, so the risk of dying is existent in any pregnancy. If aborting in self-defense is okay, then choosing to abort for self-defense is okay.

My opponent also says that most unsafe abortions happen in developing countries. But if we apply our universal human right to self-ownership, we understand that all women should have the same rights. Accepting a women's right to abort puts all women at a safer chance of allowing that universal right, and allowing them the right to live.


My opponent also asks if murders should be allowed because some people murder. This type of analogy would not apply to abortions, because murderers, in most cases, are performing these acts out of malice towards another human. They have intent to kill another human. Because we cannot be positive that the act of the mother was to hurt her child, or prevent her child from suffering, we cannot say that she was intending to kill something that has not yet been living. This is based off of values to living that a fetus has not yet developed, such as perceiving. Even if there were questions about a women's sanity and intent to harm, a psychiatric visit could be necessary to confirm this; many countries have this option available as a law. A woman should not be labelled a murderer for doing what was needed to keep herself from risk; or potentially keep her child out of danger or in a poor quality of life.


Responsibility of the parent/ Value of life

My opponent's point here is that fetuses are growing towards a healthy existence. This is not always the case. Sometimes the fetus grows outside of the womb, putting the mother and baby at serious risk. Should the mother be denied the right to get this baby out of her? There are other risks that could potentially destroy the child's value of life; which the mother has the right to prevent.

The point here is that the parent's have the responsibility to feed, protect and care for their child. If this is not accessible, it is in the parent's right to stop this from happening. This is where the value of life argument comes in. Life doesn't necessarily mean valuable life, and each person has their own beliefs about value. If a child is to grow hungry, or be grown into a life of danger, the woman can prevent this. If a woman is a drug addiction, would it be appropriate to say that a child should grow up in that lifestyle? Should the child have to suffer from being born with that dependency, and have serious health risks involved?


A Fetus is a human

A fetus is something that will grow into a human. Stopping a fetus from growing into a devalued life will stop this from happening without the fetus being aware or experiencing the pain. No, it is not always possible to tell if a fetus will grow into a child that will die, but there are instances where the babies health risks are prevalent.


It is morally wrong to kill a human

My opponent again relates abortion to murder. Abortion is not always justified just as murder is not always justified. Here, the lines are blurred a bit more because what is justified to one is not to another. A person is not killing another, but preventing themselves and the baby from danger. Therefore it is always justified in a legal aspect and should be allowed. Murder is a more clear act of vengeance or hate; where an unjustified murderer goes to jail.

A fetus is not the same thing as a parasitic twin, but sometimes the death of one living thing is justified to save the other. Is it justified to force a woman to keep her life at risk?

Conclusion

Abortion should not be equated to murder due to value of life and a parent's responsibility. Therefore, abortion should be made legal to protect those mothers who want to abort and consequentially keep them at a greater chance of survival.



1.http://www.msnbc.msn.com...
seraine

Con

I am going to start this round off with quick rebuttals before moving onto a summary of the arguments presented.

Self Ownership

"My opponent agrees that abortion in the risk of death is permitted due to self-defense. If we agree to this, then it only follows that we agree to let the woman chose to abort. This is because the risk of death is inherent in all pregnancies"

Approximately 0.1% of pregnancies end in death[1]. If a fetus is indeed a human, a 0.1% risk should not constitute justification for a murder. If the mother is at a significant risk, then it would be justified to kill one and save the other. However, in the vast majority of cases it would be not be necessary to kill the fetus to save the mother.

"A woman should not be labelled a murderer for doing what was needed to keep herself from risk; or potentially keep her child out of danger or in a poor quality of life."

I am not saying that a mother should be labeled as a murder, mainly for the reasons you listed. I was saying that abortion was comparable to killing or murder without the malice.

Responsibility of the Parent/Value of Life

"My opponent's point here is that fetuses are growing towards a healthy existence. This is not always the case. Sometimes the fetus grows outside of the womb, putting the mother and baby at serious risk."

In the few cases where the baby and/or mother is not likely to make it, abortion is justified. However, in the vast majority of cases, neither the baby nor the mother is at any significant risk.

"The point here is that the parent's have the responsibility to feed, protect and care for their child. If this is not accessible, it is in the parent's right to stop this from happening."

If a mother discovered after she gave birth that she would have trouble feeding her child, would she be justified in killing her child? Though a child may be hungry, atleast s/he isn't dead.

A Fetus is a Human

"Stopping a fetus from growing into a devalued life will stop this from happening without the fetus being aware or experiencing the pain."

In the vast majority of cases, a person in a coma would not be aware of death.

"A person is not killing another, but preventing themselves and the baby from danger. Therefore it is always justified in a legal aspect and should be allowed. Murder is a more clear act of vengeance or hate; where an unjustified murderer goes to jail. "

Though the mother may not be committing her act out of any particular malice, abortion is still killing. The motive only effects whether or not criminal is punishable for his acts (in this case the mother is not), but not the effects of the crime. The motive does not matter, the outcome does.

Summary

My opponent's case is basically "abortion should be made legal to protect those mothers who want to abort and consequentially keep them at a greater chance of survival"

However, if a fetus is a person, then abortion is almost always not killing one to save the other. In the vast majority of cases, a fetus will be killed for no reason. Remember, only 1 out of a 1000 mothers die in childbirth. Would you want to kill 1000 to save 1?

My case is essentially

P1: A fetus is a human.
P2: It is morally wrong to kill a human.
C: It is morally wrong to kill a fetus.

Though there may be a few cases in which abortion and killing are justified, that does not mean that both must always be legal. Just because they are sometimes justified does not mean that they are always justified.

Sources

[1] https://docs.google.com...
Debate Round No. 4
38 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 21 through 30 records.
Posted by seraine 2 years ago
seraine
It sounds like I may have came off as believing that those who commit abortion are comparable to murderers. In the debate, my position is basically abortion can be compared to murder but those who commit abortion are not comparable to murderers.
Posted by WriterSelbe 2 years ago
WriterSelbe
v That down there... that is funny stuff. Ftw, Falcon.
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 2 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Macroscope, stop posting ignorant things about other countries. You make no sense.
Posted by WriterSelbe 2 years ago
WriterSelbe
Legally, of course. This argument is more a fight of human rights than morality, though morality can be tied in. The winner pretty much depends on how many catholics stumble across this debate...
Posted by Lickdafoot 2 years ago
Lickdafoot
@Blackvoid, that's a good point. carry on then :P
Posted by BlackVoid 2 years ago
BlackVoid
Hey, its good to have a comment war every once in a while. It draws attention to the debate, but it won't affect it because they're not indicating which side is winning.
Posted by Lickdafoot 2 years ago
Lickdafoot
It's nice that you guys want to share your thoughts and all, I appreciate you commenting on my debate, but this is a debate, and a tournament. it's not a good idea to be adding your insight in such a way that could sway the debate.
Posted by JuiceSqueeze 2 years ago
JuiceSqueeze
when evaluating the morality of abortion we must IGNORE the women and focus solely on the fetus.

people often refuse to evaluate the conditions of the fetus, instead deferring to the rights of women and their needs. and ultimately, the needs of women trump the needs of a fetus. perhaps this is true.

these are the facts:

*A fetus has its own genes and DNA instructions to grow into a full person.
*A fetus develops the characteristics of human within the first 6 weeks of gestation. A heart beat can be measured within the 8 weeks.
*Hands, feet, head, and toes are in early states of development within the first month of pregnancy.

Now, this begs the question - where do we draw the line when a fetus becomes an independent human being? fact is a fetus already has all the necessary qualities to become a fully-functioning adult at the time of conception. life is GUARANTEED at conception.

okay, so - counter argument is.

*fetus is dependent on the woman to survive, thus the woman has a right to plan her baby.
-the fetus is dependent on the woman to survive, but so is an infant. what separates an infant from an unborn child?

*fetus is merely a cluster of cells, not living.
-this is patently false and no pro-choice movements actually state this explicitly.

as far as rape and violence goes, 99.9% of all abortions are not done following rape, incest, or forced sexual abuse.

in terms of the economics of pro-creation, the #1 human right is the right to live. in countries where abortion is a natural past time, economies are in ruins. check out russia, their projected population is expected to decline exponentially by 2050.

china abortion laws are not justified by economic means but long-standing socialist and communist ideals. china has the capacity and economic potential to support billions of people.

personally, i believe the act of abortion is amoral and fiscally irresponsible. and i am not religious at all.
Posted by Macroscope 2 years ago
Macroscope
This is a matter best left to science.

Shortest argument winner ever: Are women able to have abortions on their own through the power of their mind? No?

Then as far as genes are concerned it isnt natural. And when genes are concerned natural does equal good.

Need more?

In india when they have a child thats a girl, they somtimes just leave it in the wilderness to die. Maybe thats why natural = good. Because india is a sausage fest.

Whichever way you cut it, its still more of a mental insanity human thing than a natural thing.
Posted by craft105 2 years ago
craft105
You can't make the blank statement whether abortion is right, or wrong. Because it just depends on the circumstances.
When it may be right- Let's say a woman was walking down a street and a homeless person "WITH AIDS" comes up to her drags her down an ally and rapes her.
in that instance it may be "morally" right to get an abortion.

But when it may be wrong- Let's say there's a really really hot girl that weighs 120 pounds and has a D-Cup XD she's going to college and all she does is have unprotected sex and parties. And about every other month she's getting an abortion.
That's is when "in my opinion" when it's morally wrong for a woman to have an abortion.

Sadly in this world the second option happens alot more than the first, so in turn most of the time it is morally wrong to have an abortion.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by kkjnay 2 years ago
kkjnay
LickdafootseraineTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:42 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a close debate. Pro kind of backed down on their arguments at the end. I'm not seeing any great arguments from Con. Con also didn't really seem to refute any of Pro's, without Pro justifying it again. Pro gets more convincing arguments. Con gets sources. Pro also has better grammar in this debate.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 2 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
LickdafootseraineTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: Comments
Vote Placed by thett3 2 years ago
thett3
LickdafootseraineTied
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: Comments
Vote Placed by BlackVoid 2 years ago
BlackVoid
LickdafootseraineTied
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: Comments