The Instigator
LordEnglish
Pro (for)
Winning
29 Points
The Contender
Dilara
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Pro-choice

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
LordEnglish
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/8/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,700 times Debate No: 58685
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (51)
Votes (5)

 

LordEnglish

Pro

The first round is just acceptance, however, there is one requirement:

Religion cannot be used as reasoning.

As a human being with my own free will I am allowed to have my own religious beliefs, just like everyone else. The beliefs of one religion cannot dictate how everyone lives their lives.


Dilara

Con

I accept this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
LordEnglish

Pro

First and foremost I would like to clarify the semantics here that this is a pro-choice argument, not a pro-abortion argument. I myself don't think I would ever get an abortion, but i beileve that women have the right to choose what to do with their own bodies.




1) The US Supreme Court has declared abortion to be a "fundamental right" guaranteed by the US Constitution.

The landmark abortion case Roe v. Wade, decided on Jan. 22, 1973 in favor of abortion rights, remains the law of the land. The 7-2 decision stated that the Constitution gives "a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy," and that "This right of privacy... is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." [Roe v. Wade (342 KB) , US Supreme Court, lp.findlaw.com, Jan. 22, 1973]

2) Reproductive choice empowers women by giving them control over their own bodies.

The choice of when and whether to have children is part of a woman's independence and ability to determine her future. [Our Bodies Ourselves (OBOS, aka Boston Women's Health Book Collective), "Reproductive Choices," ourbodiesourselves.org (accessed July 7, 2014)] Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote in the 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, "The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives." [Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania et al. v. Casey, Governor of Pennsylvania, et al., law.cornell.edu, June 29, 1992] Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in her dissenting opinion in Gonzales v. Carhart (2007) that undue restrictions on abortion infringe upon "a woman's autonomy to determine her life's course, and thus to enjoy equal citizenship stature." [Gonzales, Attorney General v. Carhart et al./Gonzales, Attorney General v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc., et al. (383 KB) , US Supreme Court, lp.findlaw.com, Apr. 18, 2007] CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, JD, stated that Roe v. Wade was "a landmark of what is, in the truest sense, women’s liberation." [Jeffrey Toobin, "The People's Choice," newyorker.com, Jan. 28, 2013]

3) Personhood begins after a fetus becomes "viable" (able to survive outside the womb) or after birth, not at conception. [Kenneth R. Weiss, "Fertility Rates Fall, but Global Population Explosion Goes On," latimes.com, July 22, 2012] Some states even have laws implace that do not recognize a fetus as a baby until it has taken a breath outside of the womb.

[S.D. Mumford and E. Kessel, "Role of Abortion in Control of Global Population Growth," Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mar. 1986] Embryos and fetuses are not independent, self-determining beings, and abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, not a baby. A person's age is calculated from birth date, not conception, and fetuses are not counted in the US Census. The majority opinion in Roe v. Wade states that "the word 'person,' as used in the Fourteenth Amendment [of the US Constitution], does not include the unborn." [Roe v. Wade (342 KB) , US Supreme Court, lp.findlaw.com, Jan. 22, 1973]

Dilara

Con

2. The right to life is not less important than a woman's rights to control her own body.
3. Abortion is the murderer of a person who hasn't even had a chance to live. Everyone was a fetus once. It could have been anyone. Everyone deserves a chance.
Debate Round No. 2
LordEnglish

Pro

1)If my mom was in an accident and needed a blood transfusion to live and I was the only person on earth who could donate blood to save her, no one can force me to give blood. Yes, even to save the life of a fully grown, legally realized person (instead of a group of cells), it would be illegal to force me to donate blood if I didn't want to.
There is this concept called "bodily autonomy," the notion that a person"s control over their own body is above all important and can"t be infringed upon. We can"t even take lifesaving organs from corpses unless they gave consent before they died.
To tell women that they have to sacrifice their bodily autonomy for 9 months against their will in an incredibly expensive, invasive, and risky process to save what you view as another human life (a debatable claim in the early stages of pregnancy when most abortions are performed) is unethical.
You"re asking people who become pregnant to accept less bodily autonomy than we grant dead bodies.

2a) A baby should not come into the world unwanted. Having a child is an important decision that requires consideration, preparation, and planning. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment stated that unintended pregnancies are associated with birth defects, low birth weight, maternal depression, increased risk of child abuse, lower educational attainment, delayed entry into prenatal care, a high risk of physical violence during pregnancy, and reduced rates of breastfeeding. [Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, "Family Planning Program," colorado.gov (accessed July. 7, 2014)] 49% of all pregnancies among American women are unintended. [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), "Unintended Pregnancy Prevention: Home" (159 KB) , cdc.gov (accessed July. 7, 2014)]

2b) Everyone was also a sperm once. An egg once. Does this mean that all women who ovulate without becoming pregnant, and all men who masturbate are "murder[ing] a person who hasn't even had a chance to live?"
Dilara

Con

1. Not giving blood is different than directly killing someone or having a baby murderer doctor kill them.
2. Everyone deserves a chance. A baby may be unwanted but they can become an incredible person. What would you say to a person who was almost aborted?. For example their mom wanted to kill them but wasn't allowed to because of the abortion laws in their state. Because of that abortion law that prevented the mom from killing the baby that person exists today. They can live their life happily.
When you ovulate or masturbate your not harming a person. Women are meant to have periods. Otherwise they would have hundreds of children in a life time if each egg was used. An egg is not a person and neither is a sperm. Once those gamete combine they become a person.
Debate Round No. 3
LordEnglish

Pro

1 and 2a) "Baby murderer doctor" would imply that you can prove that a fetus (remember, at this stage it is called a fetus, not a baby) is a fully realized and legally recognized human. As I have pointed out to you several times now, a fetus is not. You say that when we ovulate or masturbate we are not hurting a human life. No one is hurting a human life when an abortion is preformed, merely taking away the potential for human life, just like when you masturbate or ovulate.

2b) Implying that anyone who causes the "death of a baby" is a "murderer," must mean you believe women who have miscarriages are murderers? If they lift something a little too heavy or fall. Are these women to be held accountable and imprisoned for the "human life" they have ended?

2c)As a child who was almost aborted myself, I don't need to say anything to anyone. I, as a person who has known struggle in my life, understand the things my mother was dealing with and why she wouldn't want to bring a child into that situation.
Dilara

Con

1. A sperm can't become a person on its own. An egg can't become a person on its own. A zygote can become a person on its own. Have you seen pictures of a fetus?. They have toe and fingers, a head and a face. Have you seen pict ores of a dead fetus? The little hands, facial features ect?. That's just some sack of cells?. Haven't you ever heard of people talking to fetuses ?. My dad used to talk to me and my sister when we were in our mom and after we were just born we were in the hospital room with our parents and our dad said his girls and we looked at dad because we recognized him. A fetus has a personality. Some are more active and kick more and some are more mellow. It's been proven that fetuses feel pain when they're being murdered. Also when my dad would talk to us when we were in our moms uterus we would kick because we liked hearing his voice. My pregnant teacher told me about how when she drank orange juice or sugary stuff the baby would kick because he liked it. Haven't you ever felt a pregnant women's belly? Are you sure that baby has no rights? .
2 if a pregnant women accidentally kills the baby by falling or lifting something too heavy than she is not a murderer because she did not mean to kill the baby. That's manslaughter. Murderer is when you kill someone on purpose .
3 you were almost aborted? Do you enjoy your life? Aren't you glad you got a chance?. If you don't enjoy your life than imagine of you were a person who was almost aborted but got a chance and was born and as this person you enjoy your life. Your glad that you got a chance and you believe you could help people and make a positive impact on this world. Would t you believe that your life was not a choice? Wouldn't you be glad your mother didn't make that choice to Abort you? Wouldn't it bother you to imagine what could have happened if you had been killed? You wouldn't have gotten to experience all these wonderful things or hep the people you've helped. Think of all the middle class or upper class people who kill their unborn children. That child would have had a chance to grow up in a nice loving (maybe not loving depending on why the parents got an abortion and how bad they felt about it afterwords) family with enough money but instead their parents were y ready or were focusing on their careers and decided that this baby-their baby wasn't as important as their plans and killed it. Normal people love their children more than anything and would never put their plans or careers in front of their children's life.
Debate Round No. 4
51 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by The_Immortal_Emris 2 years ago
The_Immortal_Emris
A tumor is technically alive, that doesn't make it a person.
Posted by YaHey 2 years ago
YaHey
One) Did you take me seriously? I don't even remember where I said that, but I am sure I was making fun of someone.
Two) No, an obituary for a fetus wouldn't be nice, it'd be a waste of ink.
Three) My point was that life does not equal being a person, and haven't demonstrated that a fetus is.
Posted by Dilara 2 years ago
Dilara
Yahey. An aunt is not going to become a human. A zygote and embryo will become human (though in many ways they all ready are)
Posted by Dilara 2 years ago
Dilara
Yahey. A fetus can't speak so they don't need the right to free speech. And yes an obituary for a fetus would be nice.
Posted by YaHey 2 years ago
YaHey
I talk to my dog. It still isnt a human
Posted by YaHey 2 years ago
YaHey
Please stop commenting willy nilly when neither of us are really ready to respond? You and I are going to have an official and formal debate, so you can finally be beat in an official and formal setting just like you've always dreamed of.

One) You're car case is really stupid. It doesn't even apply to pregnancy right. This is the scenario: "A storm is coming, you park your car outside your house. The car is thrown into your neighbor's house and injures your neighbor." You got that right, congrats. But you shouldn't end on "Now does your neighbor get to kill you" or "Now do you get to kill your neighbor?" The correct question is "Now do you have to attach yourself to your neighbor for months to sustain their life?" NO YOU DO NOT.

Two) Now, why is it wrong to use the kill your neighbor part. Here is why. First, it doesnt properly apply to pregnancy. Two, we have already established that a fetus isnt a human. To quote myself from earlier on, "So far it seems the proof of a fetus being a human being is unyielding chanting "I think i can i think i can i think i can" while pointing at pictures of fetus and giving a look that seems to suggest "But it looks like something that might be alive" while half the group burns downs abortion centers and anywhere that might hold proof to the contrary of their belief"
Posted by kw7319 2 years ago
kw7319
LordEnglish, I see in one of your previous comments, you said you disagreed with the latest birth control ruling. I assume that is the Hobby Lobby case. Do you disagree with the Hobby Lobby case?
Posted by kw7319 2 years ago
kw7319
Really bad typo.

What i typed "Is it not as equally ethical to kill the baby in her womb that was a result of nature's processes"

What i meant "Is it not as equally unethical to kill the baby in her womb that was a result of nature's processes
Posted by kw7319 2 years ago
kw7319
You say it is unethical for a woman to carry a child in her womb that she doesn't want. Is it not as equally enthical to kill the baby in her womb that was a result of nature's processes (and most of the times, the woman is a willing partner.)?

And, yes, I would be willing to allow abortions to rape victims cause the woman was not a willing partner.
Posted by LordEnglish 2 years ago
LordEnglish
Because your neighbor is a grown, legally realized human being????
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by dynamicduodebaters 2 years ago
dynamicduodebaters
LordEnglishDilaraTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro gave sources, con barely did anything.....
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
LordEnglishDilaraTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: pro is only one to use sources, and con really didn't give anything to the debate at all.
Vote Placed by Bennett91 2 years ago
Bennett91
LordEnglishDilaraTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had sources, Con promised not to use religion but it's clear her definition of life and the sanctity thereof stem from religion. Round 2 is a perfect example of why Pro deserves to win.
Vote Placed by Samreay 2 years ago
Samreay
LordEnglishDilaraTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's last arguments were hard to read due to massive block text and bad sentence structure, so S&G to Pro. Pro was the only party to use an sources. As to arguments, it really boils down to the classification of personhood. Pro gave sources showing past deliberation on this, but ultimately both parties did not provide any ethical arguments on the topic. Both parties failed to address any necessary conditions to entail personhood as well, which is where the discussion needed to go. I find con's argument about "giving a chance" extremely weak as it ignores any difference between a potential person and an actual person. Overall, not the strongest debate from both sides,but arguments from Pro were better structured and supported.
Vote Placed by YaHey 2 years ago
YaHey
LordEnglishDilaraTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: S&G: Con used run on sentences and walls of text in their last round. Arguments: Con's entire argument hinges on a huge appeal to emotion and hardly could be said to actually refute Pro's argument. Sources: Pro actually used sources.