The Instigator
Shad0wXx
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Youraverageunicorn
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Should Abortion be Legal?

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: 9/10/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,308 times Debate No: 103884
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (60)
Votes (0)

 

Shad0wXx

Con

If you are unwilling to read this debate in its entirety before voting, please do not vote on this. Take your time to read both arguments carefully, and develop your own opinion.

You previously made a comment on abortion that states:

"I believe everyone should have a choice"

If that is true, then the unborn child should have a choice, too.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness...

-Declaration of Independence

How does it make sense for abortion to be legal? Anyone who has researched Common Law should know this basic rule: "Do not Encroach". By aborting a living child, the the basic human rights of that individual are being denied. If, for example, some of the Founding Fathers of the United States of America were aborted, where would we be? This is no good way to advance life on earth.
Youraverageunicorn

Pro

Did you literally state that the unborn child should have a choice? How literal do you take things?! Or do you just assume the child should make a choice?

What I meant by my choice is that it's a women's body, if they choose to have an abortion, they can. Technically, the life is not a life yet. It can't cry, or breathe on it's own. And even if it were, it has no sense of what's going on and hasn't even started a real life yet. Killing a teenager or even a toddler would be different because they already started their life and they have things ahead for them. But the reason why women get abortions is because they can't handle the baby. Would you rather have no life or suffer a life? I choose the first one. Because if they can't handle the baby, they give it up for adoption. Or it has to go into foster care and foster care isn't a good thing. The first and the most important part of their life is gone. Suffered. Or it could be for the rest of their childhood and teen years. No one else should be able to make the decision except for the mother, who is carrying the baby and therefore holds responsibility for everything that happens to it until the baby starts a different life in adoption or whatnot. You're basically saying you want the baby to suffer instead of preventing it, you realize that?
Debate Round No. 1
Shad0wXx

Con

I feel that you're insinuating that they (the unborn children) have to be protected from themselves.

If it has to be either the child, or someone else, that chooses whether the child lives or dies, then it should be the choice of the child. Therefore, since the unborn child is unable to communicate vocally at the time in which an abortion would be performed, and that any logical person should probably be able to come to the conclusion that as long as the choice is not communicated, the choice should be assumed to be life.

The following articles should further my argument:

https://www.liveaction.org...

https://www.liveaction.org...

In response to your question about whether I would rather have no life or suffer a life, I think the choice is rather clearly the latter of the two. In addition, different people may feel differently about this choice, but the choice should be assumed to be life, as I just mentioned.

You said: "And even if it were, it has no sense of what's going on..."

If that is a valid excuse to end a life, then anyone in solitary confinement should be killed if that is the correct moral guideline, since it could be argued that they have "no sense of what's going on".
In response to what you said about foster care, is that truly an excuse to end a life?

The legalization of abortion may seem like a gift to some, but no government, not even the Government of the United States, can give a right. Rights are natural. When a government uses its power in this way, it is abusing the power that the people have entrusted them with, and supporting harm to those who may have made up much of the future population.

Also, I want to make it clear that I do not want the babies/children to suffer, but whether they do or not, it's not rightfully the mother's choice to end the life of the child simply because he/she would be inconvenient. I think that we both agree that human life is important, but you seem to believe that just because a human is unborn, they are of lesser value.

To close my round of argument, I'd also like to point out that you said: "Killing a teenager or ever a toddler would be different..."

I disagree. Human life is Human life, no matter how old or young.
Youraverageunicorn

Pro

As I went over your articles, I realized that the process of abortion is brutal, but once again, the pros outweigh the cons in this situation.

In the life or death scenario, I am saying people would rather pick the first one because you have not fully developed anything to become a real human in the womb. Therefore, a life in the womb is not a real life. You have not started anything yet and no one wants to live a suffered life. Anyone [you] who would pick that choice would immediately regret it afterwards. Why do you think there's such thing as committing suicide? Because of a suffered life. That's now another question. What's better? Ending a life before it starts or ending a life so you suffer and also everyone who knew you has to suffer?

Again you are taking my points too literally of "has no sense of what's going on." Once again it's not a full life yet. Your points are comparing a not even born child to someone who has already lived a life. You keep saying a life is a life which I agree but someone who has not lived a life is obviously not a life. Why do you think children are in womb for 9 months? To develop the skills to start a new life like a brain and all parts of the body.

And when you were talking about foster care being an excuse to end a life, yes it actually IS an excuse because I was not only talking about that I was talking about their life NEVER being the same again. And also, once again, it's not a life so stop calling it that.

About the government nonsense, abortion is already legal and the power has not been yet abused.

Also abortion is a bonus because if you don't get an abortion when you probably needed one, you're bringing a child into an overpopulated world who really didn't need to get brought in because they were going to have a bad life anyway.

Responding to you talking about how it's not the mother's choice, it IS the mother's choice! It's her body and it will be her responsibility to deal with the child she wasn't ready to have. People who don't agree with abortion are usually men who don't understand the true struggles. What if someone got raped and they weren't allowed to have an abortion? It could be a 13 year old who got raped what would happen then? Just raise a child with her parents? Do you know how complicated that would be?

And your last point a life is a life no matter how old or young. But guess what? It's not old OR young! It's not even an age! A fully developed life is someone who is brought out to the world. Not someone who can't develop without the mother's full help.

In conclusion, even if the baby was proven to be a life, the pros outweigh the cons because it didn't even start a life yet and it should be a mother's right, along with some other points I made if you read my argument.
Debate Round No. 2
Shad0wXx

Con

You said: "life in the womb is not real life"
I think I have to disagree with that statement. Human life is Human life, as I previously stated.
To that, I'd like to add a quote from Vincent Van Gogh.

"If I'm worth something later, I'm worth it now, too, for wheat is wheat, though city dwellers take it at first for grass."

You also said: "Anyone [you] who would pick that choice would immediately regret it afterwards."
Again, I disagree. People may have different opinions and make different decisions. Please, don't try to make others' choices for them.

Then, you said: "What's better? Ending a life before it starts or ending a life so you suffer and also everyone who knew you has to suffer?"
This makes the situation sound like an ultimatum, when it's not neccissarily so.

You also said: "About the government nonsense, abortion is already legal and the power has not been yet abused.", "you're bringing a child into an overpopulated world who really didn't need to get brought in because they were going to have a bad life anyway." And "It could be a 13 year old who got raped what would happen then? Just raise a child with her parents? Do you know how complicated that would be?"

I maintain that legalizing abortion is an abuse of power. Is murder really the best we can do against supposed "overpopulation"?. To the last one... I think you're getting desperate. Would you like to share some statistics that we're unaware of?

I maintain that an unborn child is a life, a human life, and with equal rights to born humans. I also maintain that neither the mother, nor any other human, government or other organization has the right to choose to kill that child. I maintain that all men (humans) are created equal.

I'd like to close with this quote from Fyodor Dostoyevsky.

"Above all, don't lie to yourself. The man who lies to himself and listens to his own lie comes to a point that he cannot distinguish the truth within him, and so loses all respect for himself and others. And having to respect he ceases to love.
Youraverageunicorn

Pro

You keep saying a life is a life, while I provided explanation to why it is not, you keep saying that, so a life IS a life but in this case it is not. I mean, obviously you are all about a life being a life. Don't you support capitalism?

Moving on, you keep talking about how some people would probably beg to differ and would make their own decision on whether or not they want a suffered life or never be born. Maybe some people do have that opinion. All in all a majority of the people wouldn't want a suffered life. Again, there's such thing as committing suicide for a reason.

When you responded to my argument on would you rather, I'm saying that abortion should be considered different than an already lived life so it's not as bad as suicide and murder or whatever, because, I will keep saying this until I get the message through, THE LIFE IS NOT A LIFE BECAUSE IT'S NOT EVEN BORN!!! No one's going to suffer the loss of a still developing child so it actually becomes a child, because the mother didn't even want it in the first place which is why people will be more relieved than sad!!!

Which brings me to another point. I know some people consider them still a life so I'm going to make it fair to people like you who think that way and are still not convinced. It IS the mother's choice. I'm sorry if the baby never got to start a life but maybe that's a good thing! The mother is not able to handle a child for a reason! What is she going to do when it's born? Give it up for a adoption? That's not usually the best decision. The world is already overpopulated and squeezing a child into the world so they start their miserable life when it could've been prevented is just sad. That's not the only decision. I stated in my previous argument that the pros outweigh the cons. Literally the only argument you would be able to make is: it's cruel to the baby. But in what way? The process? Sure. But it's over before you know it then everyone can be happy. The fact that they missed out on life? That's a good thing. Bringing a baby into a world for no reason is sad. I mean, everyone wants a good life.

When you mentioned I was desperate. Desperate? How? I'm not saying this is a way to maintain overpopulation by "murdering" a child, I'm saying it's better off for the child and it's a family. It's anything but murder if you ask me. Just like Euthanasia. It's not murder because it's the person's choice. People think it's just ending their lives for no reason but it's because their sickness won't and I repeat WON'T get any better so if they want to stop the suffering, they should be able to. Abortion is ending the suffering before it even starts. If it were really murder, then why isn't it on the top of every newspaper like: This person just got an abortion! Sick and wrong that they wouldn't give a child a chance even though it would be harder for them and their family.

Also, you're main argument that all lives are lives, two things. Like I said before, you have absolutely no evidence about that while I gave an explanation in the last round to WHY it wasn't exactly a life, and two, that argument shouldn't have any place whatsoever at this debate because you're stating it as an opinion, "I maintain that an unborn child is a life, a human life, and with equal rights to born humans."
Stating that you technically agree with this which means this argument should not be allowed to represent anything, which only leaves the rebuts you sent my way.

I hope you read over all my arguments and I look forward to the results.
Debate Round No. 3
60 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ILikePie5 6 months ago
ILikePie5
By all means, please challenge me
Posted by Youraverageunicorn 6 months ago
Youraverageunicorn
I'm sick of posting this in the comments. Let's debate.
Posted by ILikePie5 6 months ago
ILikePie5
You didn't give examples. You just said the Sheriff was racist. The law is emotional for anyone. If you care about the Constitution then you should know the Sheriff was unfairly convicted. Trump doesn't care about the Constitution. Are you serious??? He supports the Constitution and has made an oath to protect it. Who told you that I only read Fox News? I read CNN as well and then do my own research with sources not from the MSM. Trump condemned the white supremacists repeatedly on more than one occasion. Follow the news. You have yet to prove how he's racist. Your only argument right now is that he's white which makes him a racist.
Posted by Youraverageunicorn 6 months ago
Youraverageunicorn
I did give examples for how he is racist and there is no excuse. Imagine if you were in the situation as an illegal immigrant. Just think of people other than yourself for once. Myths about immigrants are made up so privileged people get benefits. I care about the constitution. But he was racist. Trump doesn't care about the constitution either, you know that, right? Just because Fox News says things doesn't make it true. Plus, I believe video evidence, which I have seen. That white supremacist rally, if he really weren't racist, he would've said something about those racist comments that took place but he didn't. I don't care what happened if someone is racist there is absolutely no excuse.
Posted by ILikePie5 6 months ago
ILikePie5
Life isn't fair my friend. The law is the law no matter who you are. End of story. You have yet to prove to me how Trump is prejudice for enforcing the law. You have not said how he's a racist either. I've debunked your claims. If you don't care about a trial then you don't care about the Constitution. Don't just say the Sheriff is a racist because someone said he is. Prove to me HOW he's a racist. As for providing examples of how he's not a racist, I proved to you why the speech didn't make him a racist. Your disregard for evidence portrays your lack of understanding of the issues. Just because CNN, ABC, MSNBC, NBC, and CBS say it, doesn't make it true.
Posted by Youraverageunicorn 6 months ago
Youraverageunicorn
Uh, no. Remember, there are a lot of people who want to help out illegal immigrants. It's just not fair to those who came here when they were very little and then they have to go back even though they didn't do anything. It doesn't matter the percentage of people he got because that doesn't prove he's not racist. I was able to provide some examples even though I said that I couldn't provide everything so the fact that you didn't provide anything makes me wonder. I'm not confusing illegal immigrants with immigrants. I'm saying trump is prejudice. The sheriff was not protecting the country, that's what Trump doesn't think. He's done many racist things before. Even if he's just doing his job, he's not doing it well. That sheriff is racist. I don't care about a stupid trial it's not okay for someone to be racist which is why I didn't look up any eveidence.
Posted by ILikePie5 6 months ago
ILikePie5
If you have a problem with a law, you try to change the law. However, until the law is changed, the law is the law no matter how much you disagree with it. I'm not going to bother reading your arguments about Trump being racist because I've debunked them in my debates. Why would he ask for the votes of African Americans? He was running for President and in case you didn't know, Hillary got a smaller percentage of African Americans compared to Obama while Trump got more compared to Romney. I think you are confusing legal immigrant with illegal immigrant. Legal immigrants are welcome as Trump has said himself. Illegal immigrants are not, and it's not prejudice to enforce the law and deport these illegal immigrants. Sherriff Arpaio was doing his job and protected the county he was in charge of. In fact a reason why Trump pardoned him was because Arpaio didn't get a trial by jury--a violation of the Constitution. I honestly think you need to research your information before debating. The bowl was from his own Trump Tower Restaurant. And if you're asking who would do that? I would if it got me votes.
Posted by Youraverageunicorn 6 months ago
Youraverageunicorn
First of all, just because the law is the law doesn't mean it's a good law. If I wanted to read the examples of him being racist, that would require a debate which I have done. He doesn't care about anyone but himself. He repeatedly asked for black people's vote and no normal person says they have a great relationship with the black community. If he's willing to just deport every immigrant that comes his way, he's prejudice. Bruh, he dismissed the fact that there was a really racist sheriff doing racist things and he was like: he's just doing his job. And for cinco de mayo, he sent a post of him eating a taco bowl from CHIPOTLE, and said he loves mexicans. What's wrong with him?
Posted by ILikePie5 6 months ago
ILikePie5
Like I mentioned earlier: The law is the law. If you come here illegally, you are subject to deportation. It's not prejudice to enforce the law. And for what other reasons is he racist. Please explain.
Posted by Youraverageunicorn 6 months ago
Youraverageunicorn
well, that"s not the only reason why he"s racist, you realize. There are literally criminals everywhere and the fact that he has to worry about people coming to this country is ridiculous. there are always going to be good and bad people and the fact that they"re going to deport everyone who"s an illegal immigrant is called prejudice. When he finds those drug dealers, he can do whatever he wants with them. But he"s scaring people who"re coming here for a better life.
No votes have been placed for this debate.