The Instigator
Pixel_Innovator
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
fire_wings
Con (against)
Winning
12 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 3 votes the winner is...
fire_wings
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/9/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 299 times Debate No: 90956
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (3)

 

Pixel_Innovator

Pro

I believe it should be legal. Because if you look at what a baby is doing and the definition of parasite
par"a"site
G2;perəG6;sīt/
noun
1. an organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense.
derogatory
2. a person who habitually relies on or exploits others and gives nothing in return.
synonyms:hanger-on, cadger, leech, passenger

You can clearly see for definition two that a baby is pretty much a parasite. So the people out there saying that it isn't the mothers' choice, it is! The mother is supplying everything to the baby and if the mother wants the baby gone let her do it! The people saying it's murder, you're pretty much saying killing a piece of meat, that isn't sentient, is murder. You're basically killing a rock.
fire_wings

Con

I accept the debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Pixel_Innovator

Pro

Okay, what is your reasoning that abortion should be illegal? If it's religion, don't bother, I'm an atheist.
fire_wings

Con

I will make my opening arguments, and maybe my rebuttals this round (probably :D )

Definitions

Abortion: a medical procedure used to end a pregnancy and cause the death of the fetus [1]

Legal: To allow

Observations

O1: BoP is shared, as both sides will argue.

Framework

My framework will be centered around the Right of Life. "The right to life is a moral principle based on the belief that a human being has the right to live and, in particular, should not be killed by another human being. [2]" Therefore, It means that all people have the right to live. In my case I will explain that fetus are alive, and therefore they have the right of life. The right of life is approved in America, and it has been one of the oldest laws, all the way from 1968 [3].

Contentions

Contention 1: The Fetus is alive

There are many reasons to support that the fetus is living. These are the seven categories to prove something is living. If it matches at least one, then the thing is living.

Movement - The Fetus can move, so this is met.

Respiration (Breathe) - " The fetus does not actually breathe in the womb. The mother breathes for the fetus, and essential oxygen is passed to the fetus through the umbilical cord. The fetus does make breathing-like movements though. These begin at 9 weeks of pregnancy and allow the fetus to practice this breathing movement [4]."

Even though the Fetus doesn't actually breathe, the mother does breathe for the fetus, and they are connected from the Umbilical cord. Therefore, they are techinally breathing their mother's oxygen, and they can breathe.

Sensitivity - The fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks [5]. This is still time in the fetus, so techinally, this part is met.

Growth - The fetus can grow.

Reproduce- The fetus cannot reproduce

Excretion (Sweat, burn waste) - The fetus can do this.

Nutrition- The fetus cannot actually take in nutrition, but then they can take their mother's nutrition and energy from the cord. Therefore, the point is met.

People might say, "Well it has to meet all categories." Not true. Lets see, can a non-living thing do anything of this, like move, feel pain, breathe, grow, etc.? No! Non-living things can't match all of the things. This means that if one is met, then it is living. As I showed 4 really possible, 2 not quite, and 1 cannot, therefore the fetus is a living organism.

Contention 2: The Right of Life

As I said in my framework, all living things have the right of life. As I showed in my first argument, the fetus is alive, therefore it has the right of life. As I showed in my definition, abortion is to cause the death of a fetus, and it is on purpose.

Now, onto my argument. As I said, "The right to life is a moral principle based on the belief that a human being has the right to live and, in particular, should not be killed by another human being. [2]" This means that a human being has the right to live, and in particular not be killed by another human being. Abortion is the fetus dying by the mom, or anyone. Therefore, this is violating the laws of the right of life.

Pope Pius XII says,

"Every human being, even the child in the womb, has the right to life directly from God and not from his parents, not from any society or human authority. Therefore, there is no man, no society, no human authority, no science, no “indication” at all whether it be medical, eugenic, social, economic, or moral that may offer or give a valid judicial title for a direct deliberate disposal of an innocent human life… "--- Pope Pius XII, Address to Midwives on the Nature of Their ProfessionPapal Encyclical, October 29, 1951. [6]

Because abortion violates the laws of the Right of Life, it is illegal, therefore, Vote for Con.

Rebuttals

Rebuttal 1: Mother's choice

Pro says that it is the mother's choice. Pro says that the mother is supplying everything to the baby. My opponent says you are basically killing a piece of meat or rock. This is not true. I already explained that the fetus is living, and my opponent fails to think about the right of life. Also, the baby owns herself, self-ownership [7]. If Pro disagrees, then Pro agrees with slavery which is illegal, so not having self-ownership is illegal also.

Conclusion

I proved that the fetus is living, the Right of Life and Self-ownership, two very old and important laws agree with this too. Therefore, you should vote for Con!

Sources

https://en.wikipedia.org...

http://www.nrlc.org...

http://www.beginbeforebirth.org...

http://www.doctorsonfetalpain.com...

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Address to Midwives on the Nature of Their Profession", 29 October 1951. Pope Pius XII.



https://en.wikipedia.org...







Debate Round No. 2
Pixel_Innovator

Pro

That is very true, that the fetus is a living thing, but the sensitivity on the 20 week mark, 24 weeks is the cut off for abortion meaning that only 4 weeks to wait till abortion isn't an option and by that time the mother would've already made her decision. On the topic of breathing your source states otherwise that the fetus doesn't breathe. The rebuttal saying that I'm Pro-Slavery if I disagree is wrong. I admit defeat to those scientific facts, but not the religious one. But, if abortion is outlawed, people will still do it. It just won't be under sanitary conditions and by a licensed professional, making the procedure a lot more dangerous. It's just a point you'll have to take into consideration. As I've said before I graciously admit defeat.
fire_wings

Con

I extend my case. My opponent concedes. But, I will just defend my 3rd round for fun. My opponent says that the mother would probably make the decision in 20 weeks. However, my argument was about the fetus. Also, there are quite a few cases of after 20 weeks. Yes, OTHERWISE. I told otherwise, but it is techically breathing the mother's air.

I EXTEND MY CASE, VOTE FOR CON!!! MY OPPONENT CONCEDES. THANK YOU FOR THE DEBATE. PLEASE GIVE CONDUCT TO PRO FOR THE GRACIOUS CONCESSION, AND ARGUMENT POINTS FOR ME!!!
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by cwt002 6 months ago
cwt002
I think the true science of a parasite should be looked at, rather than a surface definition. You may change your perspective on using that argument. A
Posted by fire_wings 6 months ago
fire_wings
lol
Posted by Ragnar 6 months ago
Ragnar
Here is what it looks like on my computer: http://www.debate.org...
Posted by fire_wings 6 months ago
fire_wings
why?
Posted by Ragnar 6 months ago
Ragnar
I could not read your R2.
Posted by fire_wings 6 months ago
fire_wings
On sources:

[1] is the first source, [5] is the fifth.
Posted by fire_wings 6 months ago
fire_wings
devils advocate :)
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Danielle 6 months ago
Danielle
Pixel_Innovatorfire_wingsTied
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:16 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's last round was unnecessary in terms of enthusiasm lol. I don't mind giving the points to Pro there since s/he lost so blatantly in every other respect. S/he didn't even try to refute Con's points.
Vote Placed by famousdebater 6 months ago
famousdebater
Pixel_Innovatorfire_wingsTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 6 months ago
dsjpk5
Pixel_Innovatorfire_wingsTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Pro for graciously conceding. Arguments to Con due to the concession.