The Instigator
SebUK
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
radicaalllll
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points

Series 1 Episode 1: Another Abortion debate

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 3 votes the winner is...
SebUK
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/25/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,540 times Debate No: 53370
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

SebUK

Con

Con is against Abortion Pro is for abortion , Round1 is for acceptance only . Requirements : at least 2 week membership of the website , Minimal use of swear words , be polite . This is the first debate of my first series . In Which I will defend my views .
radicaalllll

Pro

This is going to be a hard one, not mentioning rape. But I guess i'll give it a go!

Well I would firstly like to start, as I always start out in abortion debates that it is a woman's body and that she has a choice on what she wants to do with it as far as reproductive rights. Now, just imagine you're a woman who feels she is not financially stable to have a child, you're pregnant, and as soon as you give birth to this child, that child has to live the life of poverty and you as the mother as well.

A proven study shows that women who are denied to have an abortion is a lot more likely to become unemployed, on public welfare, and is more likely to experience domestic violence.

Let's not forget to mention that abortion does reduce crime. How? Because women who give birth who are denied an abortion is more likely to birth a child who will commit a crime. It just makes sense:

A mother who is denied an abortion has a child, the mother is poor, the child is poor, child grows up in a poor and un-stable environment, child commits crimes such as robbery, murder, and possibly rape. Now I'm not saying all children will commit crimes, but it is more likely so just keep that in mind.

And lets also keep in mind that this will keep out population down. Let's not forget that currently there are about 7 billion people on this planet, and studies show by 2050 our worlds popular can sky-rocket up to about 9 million. That's basically like adding another china to the world.

At the end of the day, a woman has the right to do what she wants, and if she feels she cannot take care of a child, and that this child will suffer, then well she should have the right to save her and that child.
Debate Round No. 1
SebUK

Con

My Opponent seemed to have ignored that i wrote 'Round 1 is for acceptance only' but that's okay I will make my own case and refute my opponents arguments . As much as feminists would want it to be the issue of abortion is not about choice you made the choice to have sex with your partner now pregnancy is a consequence , In fact women after giving birth can obviously give it to adoption which is a great alternative to abortion , If you dont want to raise the baby dont kill it , give it in adoption . I am against abortion because i see it as no different than murder it doesnt matter if it is early abortion the outcome is the same a baby isnt going to be born , it will die . It does not matter if it is unconcious a 3 month old baby is also unconcious this doesnt justify murder . I didn't write too much because I would repeat myself . So that's just my little introduction to how I feel about it . 'it is a woman's body and that she has a choice on what she wants to do with it ' I feel like this argument has flaws with the major one being the fact that this is not just what the women does to her own body rather it is what she does to what is growing inside of her (fetus or baby) . 'and as soon as you give birth to this child, that child has to live the life of poverty and you as the mother as well.' Taking away a life because it will cost you money is highly immoral and doesn't change the fact that it's murder , if you don't feel like you have enough money to support the child you can put it up for adoption , which i'm sure the child would prefer rather than dieing . Is it moral to kill a 1 month old baby because you don't have the money to support it ? I don't think so . 'Let's not forget to mention that abortion does reduce crime. ' any source to prove your claim? 'A mother who is denied an abortion has a child, the mother is poor, the child is poor, child grows up in a poor and un-stable environment, child commits crimes such as robbery, murder, and possibly rape. Now I'm not saying all children will commit crimes, but it is more likely so just keep that in mind.' when you are a fetus you are innocent therefore it is wrong to murder it since he has done nothing wrong yet , what you are supporting is death penalty for something that hasn't even happened , I could use the same argument to kill babies in poor families . 'And lets also keep in mind that this will keep out population down. Let's not forget that currently there are about 7 billion people on this planet, and studies show by 2050 our worlds popular can sky-rocket up to about 9 million. That's basically like adding another china to the world.' Over Population is only a problem in the third world , In the West people are having less and less children which is my bigger worry - https://www.youtube.com... population is a myth . 'At the end of the day, a woman has the right to do what she wants,' Can a women drive drunk? can a women murder someone ? can a women brake any type of law? I don't think so . I await my opponents response .
radicaalllll

Pro

Con states that abortion is murder, well It starts with an unfertilized egg, then a fertilized egg. The fertilized egg isn't even aware of it's own existence and does not have a brain. Aborting a fertilized egg is definitely not murder. It had no brain and never knew it existed.

Even at the end of the second trimester, the fertilized egg still has a nervous system no more conscious than that of an animal fetus.It is still not self aware. If it is aborted it doesn't even matter because it never even knew it existed in the first place.

Con claims that adopting could resolve the issue of a woman not wanting a child. And you're right! But let's not forget that over 300,000 children are in foster homes, waiting, waiting and waiting for someone to adopt them. Some kids get adopted as soon as they come out of the womb, and some don't get adopted until about the age of 5. Not mentioning the abuse that goes on in those foster homes. So yes, sometimes adoption could be a good options, and sometimes it can be a bad one, and unfortunately I'm going to look at the negatives of this.

http://www.childrensrights.org...
Debate Round No. 2
SebUK

Con

just how in your other debate about abortion your opponent said 'a zygote is alive because it has all the basic requirements for life--growth, metabolism, reproduction, and reaction to stimuli. ' , to a similar argument . It does not matter if it is aware of its own existance , it is still murder of an innocane therefore immoral . If someone suddenly lost consciencious and you decided to kill him because of that is that moral? should it be legal? . 'But let's not forget that over 300,000 children are in foster homes' . Living in a foster home is better than being killed I mean I would prefer living in a foster home than being killed . You are still taking away someones life even though you don't know if he will enjoy it or not . 'Not mentioning the abuse that goes on in those foster homes. So yes, sometimes adoption could be a good options, and sometimes it can be a bad one, and unfortunately I'm going to look at the negatives of this.' how many kids would rather die in the name of not being in a foster home? what is more immoral giving a baby away or killing another human (the fetus through abotion) which is highly immoral .
radicaalllll

Pro

I'm sick of repeating myself, Con.

ONCE AGAIN. It is not murder, the fertilized egg doesn't even know it exists and it does not have a fully grown brain or a beating heart.

If my heart were to stop right now and my brain were to stop functioning then what would happen? Oh yeah thats right, I wouldn't be alive.

And perhaps someone started to stab my corpse? Would it be murder? No because I was also dead before.

If someone were to stab and shoot or even set my dead corpse on fire, that person would not me a murderer and therefore I was not murdered.
Debate Round No. 3
SebUK

Con

'ONCE AGAIN. It is not murder, the fertilized egg doesn't even know it exists and it does not have a fully grown brain or a beating heart.' I Already explained in the previous round that it doesn't matter if it is unconscious or not just like if any other human being suddenly lost conciousness it is not moral to kill him . It doesw not matter if it hasn't got a brain or a beating heart it has been scientifically proven that a fetus or a zygote is a human just in the early process of development and doesn't need a grown brain or a beating heart , a one month old baby doesn't have a grown brain either is it moral to kill him? a zygote has all the basic requirements basic requirements for life which are --growth, metabolism, reproduction, and reaction to stimuli. 'If my heart were to stop right now and my brain were to stop functioning then what would happen? Oh yeah thats right, I wouldn't be alive.'
lol that doesn't mean a zygote without a heartbeat is dead. Humans require different organs to be alive at different stages of development . The claim that my opponent is making is ridiciolous . A zygote is alive . http://dictionary.reference.com...;
radicaalllll

Pro

I'm not repeating myself, you know what I said in the other round. A zygote isn't alive, and if you don't like abortions than don't get one. Stop worrying about what other people do.
Debate Round No. 4
SebUK

Con

My opponent has made another stupid argument . as a counter argument to 'If you don't like abortions than don't get one.Stop worrying about what other people do' my opponent is making the claim that it is not okay to make a law to stop immoral behaviour . should we make robbery legal because 'If you don't like robbery don't rob people' should we legalize murder because 'if you don't like murder don't murder . Stop worrying about people dieing' . Thank You for listening and Vote Con
radicaalllll

Pro

~Not repeating my myself~ Abortion isn't murder and I have stated the reasons why in my previous rounds. So therefore it should be legalized.

Now the people will decided who wins this.

Sources : http://www.news24.com...
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by SebUK 3 years ago
SebUK
Yes people will decide who will win this well said Radical.
Posted by SebUK 3 years ago
SebUK
This debate is about 'general abortion' so do not argue when it is in the case of rape , a deformed fetus or the possibility of the mother dieing .
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by philochristos 3 years ago
philochristos
SebUKradicaalllllTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro completely gave up arguing by the fourth round. Instead of trying to defend her views against Con's critique, she just repeated her point of view. Con addressed all of Pro's arguments and left with Pro without a leg to stand on. Spelling and grammar were pretty bad with both debaters.
Vote Placed by Conservative101 3 years ago
Conservative101
SebUKradicaalllllTied
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 Checkmark1 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 rebutted many of Pro's arguments, while Pro completely dropped some of her arguments like overpopulation and foster homes. Pro did not counter the murder argument, but instead said she wasn't going to repeat herself. Pro also ignored the boilerplate Con set in Round 1, and appears overall to be very ignorant of Con's arguments.
Vote Placed by Greedav 3 years ago
Greedav
SebUKradicaalllllTied
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:61 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not adapt her argument when one of her points was refuted; she repeated herself quite a few times, though she claimed otherwise. She also points to a "proven study" which she does not link to. Con however, lumped her arguments into one paragraph, so S/G points to Pro. Pro ignored the "Round 1 for acceptance only" provision made by Con, so conduct points go to Con.