The Instigator
KingHades1722
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Nomadn
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Should Abortion be Allowed?

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/28/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 454 times Debate No: 100414
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

KingHades1722

Con

Rules:
1. Be polite. No ad hominem or personal attacks, though direct questions to the other debater are acceptable.
2. Use the first debate to introduce yourself and your position.

I will be taking the stance that now, abortion should not be allowed.
Nomadn

Pro

Looking forward, the last abortion debate I got no answer on. I am for abortion, I may use some text from my last abortion debate that was never finished.
Debate Round No. 1
KingHades1722

Con

Sounds good. Let us begin with opening arguments in favor of our distinct sides.

I, as I said before, stand against abortion. I believe that if someone is conceived and has correctly been identified as a child, or future child, then that child deserves every right to life we can offer it. Destruction of a known life is murder, by law, and should apply to all human life, not just what we decide; making arbitrary assumptions as to what is life and what isn't is dangerous, and history has shown that making such assumptions almost always leads to cataclysmic circumstances, and in worst case scenarios full blown genocide.

I look forward to hearing your stance, and continuing from there.
Nomadn

Pro

I do not stand against abortion and do think it should be 'allowed' and 'legal.' Allowed meaning that it can simply take place, legal meaning it should be permitted within the law.

A big problem people have with abortion is that people think it is 'murder.' Using your definition, you say that it is murder because it would be aborting a life. However, the definition of what life is can vary from person to person. I believe that the life of the foetus begins once it heart has begun to beat, at around 28 to 35 days, [1]. Before this, I would define it as the potential for life. I do not think that ending the potential for life is murder. You try to link abortion to making a dangerous assumption and then somehow lead yourself to genocide, I don't really understand there. You seem to think that abortion is an easy choice. It's really not, people have to extensively know that they are ending the life of what could be their child, whether it be because they are not ready and it was a mistake such as through rape or the child has a genetic defect which would be horrible to live with.

Anyway, I again think abortion should be allowed, but like I said it's really what you class as 'life', that's your choice and nobody can tell you what it is, but that also means you shouldn't be allowed to impose your views onto others around you. Besides, making abortion illegal doesn't stop it and only makes it more dangerous for the women involved as they have to do it on their own in an unsafe environment, [2].

[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk...

[2] http://www.independent.co.uk...
Debate Round No. 2
KingHades1722

Con

You admit that a fetus has the potential for life. What makes the potential for life any different that the actual definition of life? When I said that making assumptions about what is life and what isn't, and then lead to genocide, I was showing how making an arbitrary decision(i.e. deciding that life only begins when the heart starts beating, even though there is potential for life before that), can and is proven by history to be dangerous. I am sure that people in the nations most commonly associated with genocides(Nazi Germany, Soviet Union, Cambodia, even the United States)thought at the beginning that the outright killing of whatever minority or people were being targeted was wrong; instead, the consented themselves to doing nothing more than putting them away into places where society couldn't see them, such as work camps in Nazi Germany or reservations in the US. The people who were first opposed to outright killing would get use to this situation, and eventually became okay with the outright killing(hence the Holocaust). When society deems it okay to selectively pick and choose what life to end and what life to keep, even if it may be hard at first, society begins to move towards a situation where some demagogue or certain group of people can claim that their actions are for the good of society, and then proceed to begin killing ALL babies, regardless of whether or not they have what someone would decide is "life". A desensitization would occur, and then abortion stops being such a hard choice and more of just an every day option for those who choose to do it.
I must ask you a question, and your answer will enlighten me a little; how do you define personhood? I assume that it is by the same way you define life, when there is a heartbeat, but I must still ask.
You bring up rape as an example of when abortions would be okay. I agree, but I must ask you; would you be willing to say that all other abortions are bad, and that only those in the cases of 1. rape, 2. incest, or 3. where the mother is in serious danger due to the child, abortions are okay? If not, then using rape as an example is fallacious; rape is only 0.3%(1) of all abortion cases in the USA. Using a sliver of a sliver of a minority of cases to define all of the circumstances is a logic fallacy.

1. http://www.johnstonsarchive.net...
Nomadn

Pro

I'd prefer if you stopped going to off topic and trying to link deciding the definition of life to the holocaust. Instead of a starving, poor, nationalist country looking for a chance to not live in poverty, we're discussing what life could be. Besides, a large amount of the German population did not support the holocaust and were tricked by propaganda or threatened with a bullet.

Back onto life, abortion and such.

"When society deems it okay to selectively pick and choose what life to end and what life to keep, even if it may be hard at first, society begins to move towards a situation where some demagogue or certain group of people can claim that their actions are for the good of society, and then proceed to begin killing ALL babies, regardless of whether or not they have what someone would decide is "life"."

I'm going to be logical in my rebuttal. "When society deems it okay to selectively pick and choose what life to end and what life to keep" It's likely that there would be a vote in this world, but that doesn't change the fact that it's inside the mother and if she does not believe she can provide for the child and does not want to give it an underdeveloped upbringing, she has to make the difficult choice. It's society's destiny to "deem" what is okay and what is not.

"can claim that their actions are for the good of society" If we're going to link "killing ALL babies" to the good of society, then this would probably take place in a time very, very different to ours. While Donald Trump can claim something about Mexicans, millions of people still do not believe it and are against it. And hey, if killing all babies is good for society, then why would you be against it? Because of your morals. Your morals are yours and they shouldn't be taken away from you. Going back to if abortion should be allowed, yes it should because the mother has a choice and her own reasons. Again, we cannot put a finger on what 'life' really is. Does it begin at birth, conception, after 5, 10, 15 weeks? Nobody has the correct answer, but your answer shouldn't be imposed on others.

"just an every day option for those who choose to do it."

Abortion is a very hard undertaking, people don't simply want to end their potential child every day. What are condoms for? Preventing pregnancies.

"I must ask you a question"

I'll answer.

"how do you define personhood?"

I'll go with this definition: "the state or fact of being an individual or having human characteristics and feelings", [1]. A personhood to me 'person'ally, is being able to make conscious choices. To understand those choices, I'd say that this comes around after a few years of life with the introduction of language, culture and knowledge, some of which separate us from animals.

"You bring up rape as an example of when abortions would be okay."

Quite so.

"would you be willing to say that all other abortions are bad, and that only those in the cases of 1. rape, 2. incest, or 3. where the mother is in serious danger due to the child, abortions are okay?"

I'd not be willing to say that. A lot of abortions are from a potential mother not being prepared, therefore it's doing a good for the child, you wouldn't want to be brought up by somebody who isn't ready or can't take care of you fully. You've seen the percentages on [2], I'd say all of them on there apart from... none are completely fine. Mother's choice. Not your choice.

Finally, " If not, then using rape as an example is fallacious; rape is only 0.3%(1) of all abortion cases in the USA. Using a sliver of a sliver of a minority of cases to define all of the circumstances is a logic fallacy."

"all of the circumstances is a logic fallacy." How dare you, I used genetic defect and not being ready as well, strawman logical fallacy!

[1] http://www.dictionary.com...

[2] http://www.johnstonsarchive.net...
Debate Round No. 3
KingHades1722

Con

Using real-world examples to prove a point is not "going off topic", as you so put it. It is using historical evidence where the same type of scenario(someone or someone's deciding life-or-death for another group of people, without considering that they are living beings too) to prove one side of an argument.
I will also be logical in my rebuttal.
"It's likely there would be a vote in this world," I agree. And, if this hypothetical society was to vote that all abortions are allowed, even if there are people against this vote with morals of their own, and open up the possibility for them to then vote in a demagogue who says that killing all babies is for the good of society who then proceeds to follow through with that promise, that vote is not going to make much of a difference.
(As a side note, you criticize me for mentioning genocide, yet did not hesitate to bring Donald Trump into the argument, which seems hypocritical)
"And hey, if killing all babies is good for society, then why would you be against it? Because of your morals. Your morals are yours and they shouldn't be taken away from you." I completely agree. I, and society as a whole(with a couple exceptions) believes that murder is wrong, and will not condone it, even if it is a mother's choice, by her definition of "life" and "personhood". If a murderer decides to kill someone, and then claim he was right in doing so because it fit his "morals" and his definition of "life", why should we punish him? Because it is universally agreed(again, with a couple exceptions) that murder is wrong. Saying that some forms of killing are okay because the baby, or future baby, isn't alive by your definition of "life" is arbitrary.
"Again, we cannot put a finger on what "life" really is. Does it begin at birth, conception, after 5, 10, 15 weeks? Nobody has the correct answer, but your answer shouldn't be imposed on others." See the point made before. By this definition, murderers could kill anyone they wanted and then claim they did not believe their victim fit their definition of "life", and they would not get punished. If ANY form of killing or destruction of "living" matter or of people is allowed, then all should be allowed by the same definitions. Otherwise, no forms of killing should be allowed, period.
"Abortion is a very hard undertaking," Yes, it is, because those who partake in it know in their hearts that they are killing a future person, which is murder.
"People don't simply want to end their potential child every day." Correct. As stated above, these people know they are killing a potential child, which amounts to murder.
"What are condoms for? Preventing pregnancies" I agree. The people who get pregnant "accidentally" should have used one.
"A personhood to me...is being able to make conscious choices. To understand those choices, I'd say that this comes around after a few years of life with the introduction of language...." So, a person is a person when they can make their own decisions, and not before then? Alright. I assume this means I can kill little children, then? They do not know what is best for them; they can not make their own decisions; they are not persons, but animals, and it is okay to kill some animals?
"A lot of abortions are from a potential mother not being prepared" Well, why didn't they use those condoms you brought up earlier, other than for the fact that they wanted to get pregnant and have children, despite the fact that they might not have been ready? If they were so worried about not having children, they could have avoided having sex, or used protection. Since they did neither, I assume they were okay with a scenario where they had children.
"therefore its doing a good for the child" I do not see how killing the child in question is "doing a good(thing)" for it.
"you wouldn't want to be brought up by somebody who isn't read or can't take care of you fully." You're right. I, thankfully, was born to a mom who understood what sex meant, and that she could get pregnant, and then chose to anyway, wanting a family. Sadly, not everyone is like my mom. How about we lock away those moms who get pregnant without being ready and then have abortions? If they are not in a position to take care of a baby, odds are they cannot take care of themselves, and so choosing to get pregnant was a bad choice on their part. Letting them murder is not a good thing; instead, we could keep them off the streets for a while, teach them better habits(like protected sex, with condoms), and then let them go back out when they are ready.
"How dare you, I used genetic defect and not being ready as well, strawman logical fallacy!" This depends on a definition of "not being ready", which varies from person to person, and as such should not be decided on the whims of a mother who decides she does not want a child. She should have used protection, or not had sex, instead of copping out of her mistake with an abortion.
I congratulate my opponent, and I thank him for such a heated and well-thought discussion.
Nomadn

Pro

Jumping right into it.
" you criticise me for mentioning genocide, yet did not hesitate to bring Donald Trump into the argument, which seems hypocritical"

No, it is not.

"I, and society as a whole(with a couple exceptions) believes that murder is wrong, and will not condone it, even if it is a mother's choice, by her definition of "life"

I'm guessing you mean 'murder' as abortion, in this case, considering the use of the mother's choice. Firstly, it's not the 'whole' of society save for a couple of people, that's stupid and you know it. Here on debate.org, the vast majority of people seem to agree with abortion, with around a third saying without restrictions [1].

" If a murderer decides to kill someone, and then claim he was right in doing so because it fit his "morals" and his definition of "life", why should we punish him?"

Because we're not silly. The murder of a sentient being is different to the 'murder' of cells.

"The people who get pregnant "accidentally" should have used one."

This is ridiculous. A condom is only around 98 percent effective, [2], so if 100 people have sex a day, 2 of them could potentially become pregnant accidently. I'm sure we both realise the amount of people having intercourse is a lot higher so condom failure also rises.

"Alright. I assume this means I can kill little children, then?"

No, of course not. You'd be an awful person if you assumed so.

"Well, why didn't they use those condoms you brought up earlier, other than for the fact that they wanted to get pregnant and have children, despite the fact that they might not have been ready? If they were so worried about not having children, they could have avoided having sex, or used protection. Since they did neither, I assume they were okay with a scenario where they had children."

Sigh. Some are just young girls who want a future instead of such a responsibility. I saw a sad post on reddit today, [3] related to this.

"How about we lock away those moms who get pregnant without being ready and then have abortions?"

Ridiculous again.

"like protected sex, with condoms"

I'm actually a bit worried that you genuinely seem to think that contraceptives always work.

My final say:
You're probably reading this and chuckling as you see how contradictory I seem to you. However, the murder of a one-year-old child and a mass of dependent cells is completely different. You can say abortion is wrong because it's murder. I can say I don't consider that little thing life and that the potential for life is not life. You can say that controlling what life is should not be allowed because it leads to another holocaust, I can say that it's the mother's choice. Who's right? Nobody, it's our choice. SO. My final answer to "Should abortion be allowed?" is a definitive yes. You should not impose your ideals onto somebody else, it's their choice no matter what the hell you think. I wouldn't want to make abortion illegal and take away the choice of millions of women, I would like to make it legal and allow the choice for women. If you don't like people having a choice, bugger off with your definition of life.

1: http://www.debate.org...

2: https://sexetc.org...

3: https://www.reddit.com...
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Nomadn 1 year ago
Nomadn
Forgot to add this: " What makes the potential for life any different that the actual definition of life?"
Potential for life is potential, it ain't there yet and doesn't have to be. Life is alive and there.
No votes have been placed for this debate.