The Instigator
TouchtheSky
Con (against)
The Contender
Eric567
Pro (for)

Should Abortion be legal?

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Eric567 has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/6/2018 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 423 times Debate No: 112418
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (13)
Votes (0)

 

TouchtheSky

Con

The motion will be this:
This house holds that abortion should be made legal, and women should have the right to abort their baby without being prosecuted for doing so.

I will be arguing 'con', and whoever accepts this will be arguing 'pro'.

ARGUMENT 1: A CHILD'S LIFE BEGINS WITH CONCEPTION, AND THEREFORE TO ABORT THE CHILD WOULD BE TAKING THEIR LIFE.
I'll examine this by first trying to prove that a child's birth begins at conception.

To begin with, let's look at several definitions of life.

Google's definition of life is "the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death". (https://www.google.com......)

According to this definition, a baby would, therefore, be alive. A baby obviously has the capacity for growth (one only has to look at a pregnant woman's stomach to see that), and although it's reproductive organs have not fully formed, they clearly exist and are developing. A baby is trapped in the womb, but despite this, it kicks and moves around, showing that it does indeed have functional activity. And it continuously changes within the womb as well.

Let's look at another definition of life:
According to Merriam-Webster, life is an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction.

Once again, this fits with what we know of children in their mother's wombs. Although it happens mostly through the mother, a baby does have the capacity for metabolism (https://www.quora.com......), it grows, as we already addressed, it reacts to stimuli (if you hit a pregnant woman's stomach, the baby often kicks back), and it has capacity (even if it isn't fully formed) for reproduction.

We can, therefore, conclude, based on these definitions, that the baby is alive. If we conclude that a child in its mother's womb is alive, then we must, therefore, conclude that it has basic human rights, even before it comes out of the womb.

ARGUMENT 2: THE CHILD'S RIGHT TO LIVE IS GREATER THAN THE WOMAN'S RIGHT TO TAKE THAT LIFE.
Basic human rights include both concrete things like food and water, and abstract things like freedom of speech and freedom to marry whoever you want to marry. The right to life is also clearly stated in the constitution. The fourteenth amendment says clearly that, "No state can deprive any person of LIFE, liberty, or property", emphasis mine.

Pro-choice supporters argue that a woman's right to abort her child is part of the 'liberty' section of the constitution. However, the problem comes when we look at the idea of liberty as a way of saying that anyone can do whatever they want. Liberty is incredibly important, but it does have its limits, and unless we acknowledge those limits, we'll never be able to come to an understanding of what is and what isn't a crime.

For example, should a mass murderer have the 'liberty' to kill hundreds of people and then say that it's constitutionally protected? I would say, 'absolutely not'. The constitution protects someone's rights, but the right to kill hundreds of people is not a right at all. Similarly, if a fetus really is a person, then their right to life should outweigh a woman's right to have an abortion.

ARGUMENT 3: NO CIRCUMSTANCES, NO MATTER HOW GRAVE, SHOULD PERMIT IMMORALITY
As humans, we all have basic ideas of what constitutes morality. Everyone seems to believe something different about this, but overall, almost everyone can agree that murder is wrong. This is for two primary reasons:
-Every person has a right to life that outweighs the other person's right to take that life, as discussed in argument 2.
-It deprives others of a future of value that they could have had.

The first applies only to people who are alive, but the second applies to the fetus whether it is human or not. A fetus is valuable because it has potential to have a life. It has talents, skills, and a new perspective that it never even had a chance to share.

Many people argue that abortion should be permissible in certain circumstances, such as rape and teenage pregnancy. But this is countering an immoral action by performing another immoral action. To state an old cliche, two wrongs don't make a right. Even despite horrific circumstances, nothing should justify sin.
Eric567

Pro

(BEFORE I BEGIN, I AM A REPUBLICAN)
Abortion is a humane act, rather than a "sinful" one, under very specific given circumstances.
For starters, even if the fetus was human, anyone who would want or need an abortion typically finds it to have serious problems at an early stage, or is in a financial/social position where they cannot afford that child. Assuming these two conditions are met, an abortion is a logical step to spare that soul a lifetime of pain and suffering. Yet, at the same time, you shouldn't just be able to walk into any clinic after intercourse (Hopefully not for money or random pleasure), and take away your child IF you can afford and/or he has no issues with development. There goes a saying: "A mind is a terrible thing to waste." And for the second scenario, this reigns especially true! I believe that abortions should be regulated to a fetus with abnormal growth, exposed to drugs/chemicals during pregnancy, or social/living conditions will pain its existence.
Debate Round No. 1
TouchtheSky

Con

Eric567, thank you for your quick response and your feedback. I'll do my best to address your concerns.

Both of those two situations (a child that has serious problems, and a child that the parents cannot afford) are difficult issues, and an abortion does seem like a logical alternative. However, there ARE other alternatives, adoption being one of them. Just because you cannot support a child does not give you permission to abort it. Abortion may seem like it will spare the child "a lifetime of pain and suffering", but I don't believe that taking the fetus' life is the right way to do that. Just because a child is likely to go through pain doesn't make abortion a logical alternative. Everyone will have to go through pain at one point in their lives, and denying the child of that right to life will not solve the problem.
Eric567

Pro

Essentially, not only are you causing them pain, but you are harming our system. With severe poverty, even if they relinquish the child, depending on the region, they will be stuck in that same lifestyle. You have, in a way, not only violated the mother's rights but CONDEMNED that child to a life of poverty (again, depending on the region and its opportunities). The exact same life can occur for those with severe abnormalities in the brain. They will, not only, live in a pain most likely, but also, they have very low chances of being adopted. I've looked on many sites, such as PBS, stating only 12-15% of adopted children are American. Not only that, but a fetus that is likely to have mental defects could grow into someone dangerous! Your stubborn old-world proposal could DAMAGE our SYSTEM!

You continuously make the argument "We don't have the right", but the matter of fact, is we do. If the father, and mother, the people who created the child, want it gone, not only is it still part of her body, but it's technically their property. Studies have shown that a fetus cannot think to higher degrees than animals, which is very low, all it knows to do at early stages is eat, and excrete. It is their right to choose what children they want. You also state: "Everyone has to go through pain." which shows blatant disregard for the problem in the first place: SEVERE DEFORMATION AND ABNORMALITY. Could you imagine, it causes pain to move, or think, in basic ways? Having to spend your life in a hospital? It's the humane thing to do. And as people, if another human being has severe pain, or is a danger to society, the government, or people involved, have a moral right to take that life. This is why criminals are killed, this is why cancerous patients who want euthanasia deserve it, this is why parents with a fetus with severe social, physical, and mental problems should be able to choose whether to condemn it to suffer or choose an abortion.

Also, you act as if these are healthy children, which they are not, and I, in fact, am against abortion for normal, healthy, economically safe pregnancies.
Debate Round No. 2
TouchtheSky

Con

You argue that to ask a woman to give birth to a child against their will would both violate their rights and condemn the child to a life of pain. However, I disagree that this is the way that it is. Let me talk about each of these:

Would it violate the mother's rights?
To find the answer to this question, we have to first ask, "IS the mother's ability to choose to abort a right?" And, although I completely agree that a woman should have the right to chose, I believe that when it comes to the fetus, the fetus needs to have a right as well. To allow the mother to abort the fetus would be to deny the fetus the right to life, and therefore, would be harming the fetus' rights as well as the mother's. So then the question is, which is more important, the fetus' right to live, or the mother's right to abort? And if we view the fetus as a living person, it becomes obvious that the answer will be the fetus' right to live.

Would it condemn the child to a life of pain?
In many cases, you can't deny that the child will be unwanted and therefore will have a very painful life. But there ARE other alternatives that mothers need to be aware of. Adoption is significantly possible, and foster care as well. If you feel that your child is going to grow up in pain or poverty, then you need to know that there are other options for the child to be with people who care about them more. You argued that only 12-15% of adopted people are American, but I'm not sure I understand your argument. Of course, only a small amount of adopted children are American- adoption happens in other countries as well. My brother is adopted from Uganda, and my other brother is adopted from Rwanda.

You said that the mother and father, as the ones who created the child, should have the right to get rid of it as well. You argued that the fetus cannot even think to a higher degree than animals, and therefore, the parent's rights are greater.

But just because a baby's brain is still in it's developing stages, does that mean that it does not have a right to live? Would you argue that if an adult isn't very smart, that they shouldn't have the right to live? Why then, would the development of the brain affect the fetus' right to life, but not an adult's? What is the difference?

Next, you went on to talk about unhealthy fetus', and children with deformities or abnormality. As someone who was in a wheelchair for a long period of my life, I think I'm qualified to address these concerns.

Just because someone is in pain or cannot function like other people can do not give you the right to take their life. The fetus may not be able to live in the way that other people can, but it's better to give it a hope of a future than no future at all. Sometimes, death does seem better than life, but the body is still precious and valuable, and therefore to take a life just because you judge it to be 'happier for the baby' won't help the baby to learn to hope.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by missmedic 4 months ago
missmedic
Abortion for the poor, adoption for the rich, ah America..................................
Posted by canis 4 months ago
canis
But it will not change anything. Anyway there are millions of children ww. who could need adoption or better die. Think we should take care of those who are born ww.
https://www.independent.co.uk...
Posted by asta 4 months ago
asta
Pro said that only 12-15% of kids get adopted. I would like to see the link for this, because I have one of my own that sais something else:

According to http://www.adopt.org..., it states that over 94% of kids who
get set up for adoption get adopted within 4 years. Not only that, but since adoption costs a lot of money, this may sound like a negative but in reality, it means that only rich people are adopting.

In conclusion, over 94% of kids who get set up for adoption get adopted and they get adopted to relatively well off families who want to adopt. How"s adoption bad?

The next paragraph states how many got adopted in that year. Any that don't get adopted in that one fiscal year carries over to the next year like with school. In middle school, most kids don't graduate in 2012 because 8th graders tended to graduate whereas the other grades tended to not graduate in that year. This is okay because the 7th graders carry over to the next year.
Posted by asta 4 months ago
asta
+ Con

You shouldn't reveal your age on the internet. You did so when you said your parents blocked you from certain cites.
Posted by missmedic 4 months ago
missmedic
If it is not legal it is illegal, if it is illegal then someone is going to jail. I am glad that you think women should have rights, because they do, the same as yours. It is impossible for two beings in the same body to both enjoy rights. So the two main issues to tackle are: 1) does the fetus have rights, and 2) if so, does it also have the right to remain in the womb against the mothers wishes.
Posted by TouchtheSky 4 months ago
TouchtheSky
I said absolutely nothing about putting women in jail. All that I said was that I do not believe abortion should be legal. I do believe that a woman should have rights, absolutely. But a baby should have rights as well. I absolutely agree that it is important to work hard to protect the woman and her health. But the baby's health is important as well.
Posted by missmedic 4 months ago
missmedic
So you want to take away women's rights, put them in jail and use law enforcement to regulate the healthcare system. It"s ironic that abortion laws are motivated by a desire to limit abortions, yet one of the best ways to reduce abortion is to liberalize or repeal anti-abortion laws. That"s not the only factor of course. The real key is to promote women"s rights, with particular attention to their reproductive rights. governments can significantly reduce abortion numbers by building a more stable, prosperous society and making child-rearing economically feasible. There is no need for societies to defend fetal interests directly, as the best way to protect fetuses is to provide resources directly to pregnant women. When a pregnant woman is safe and healthy, so is her fetus.
Posted by TouchtheSky 4 months ago
TouchtheSky
I just did some research on that, and I did read your article. That's really interesting and really sad, so thank you for sharing.

But how can we should people that abortion is not okay if we don't take action on it? Maybe the reason that so many women are speaking out is that they don't realize the dangers of what they are doing, and until people can speak out and do something about it, they won't begin to try to change.
Posted by canis 4 months ago
canis
What you are up against.
https://www.independent.co.uk...
Posted by TouchtheSky 4 months ago
TouchtheSky
Unfortunately, I couldn't look at the article. My parents have installed an internet blocker that disables me from being able to read certain programs. I'm sorry about that.
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.