The Instigator
Fruit-Salad
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Lee001
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

Should Women Have the Option of Abortion?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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 1 vote the winner is...
Lee001
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/16/2015 Category: Health
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 834 times Debate No: 79802
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)

 

Fruit-Salad

Pro

First, let me start of by saying that this is for practice.

The definition of abortion is: "the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy."
I think that women should be allowed to have an abortion because no in should be forced to carry a child they don't want. Most religious people argue that life begins in the womb. I find this to be partially true. Yes, physical life begins in the womb, but actual consciousness begins after the child is born. A fetus at the age is it is aborted is simply a lump of flesh. It has no hope of surviving outside the womb and therefore cannot be considered human. When a woman is raped, she should not carry the rapist's child. I will now let you formulate your argument.
Lee001

Con


Thanks Pro for starting this debate!

I will begin by rebutting some of your points.

First off Pro states:

"I think that women should be allowed to have an abortion because no in should be forced to carry a child they don't want"

[1] For women who demand complete control of their body, control should include preventing the risk of unwanted pregnancy through the responsible use of contraception or, if that is not possible, through abstinence.

Well, I think that women should take the necessary precautions and saftey before having sex to avoid becoming pregnant. This is simple, have your partner use a condom, and to be extra safe, the women should be on birth control. Its ridiculous to think you will have un-safe sex and NOT become pregnant.

Pro says:

" Most religious people argue that life begins in the womb. I find this to be partially true. Yes, physical life begins in the womb, but actual consciousness begins after the child is born"

[1] Since life begins at conception, abortion is akin to murder as it is the act of taking human life. Abortion is in direct defiance of the commonly accepted idea of the sanctity of human life.

This is simply murder. [2] After the egg is released, it moves into the fallopian tube. It stays there for about 24 hours, waiting for a single sperm to fertilize it. All this happens, on average, about 2 weeks after your last period. If no sperm is around to fertilize the egg, it moves through the uterus and disintegrates.

We can see, conception means "in-the making" of a child. A living human. You have NO right to kill someone. This leads to my next argument.

[1] No civilized society permits one human to intentionally harm or take the life of another human without punishment, and abortion is no different.

Killing someone is illegal. It's common sense and un-moral. So whats the difference between killing a baby, and a person lving on this planent? Both are a crume, thus there should be a major consequence. We shouldnt get to choose which we think is moral and not moral. Killing is wrong.

MY CASE;

WHY WOMEN HAVE ABORTIONS:

Acording to a study ;


Why Women Have Abortions:

The reasons they gave in 2004

25% Not ready for a(nother) child/timing is wrong

23% Can't afford a baby now

19% Have completed my childbearing/have other people depending on me/children are grown

8% Don't want to be a single mother/am having relationship problems

7% Don't feel mature enough to raise a(nother) child/feel too young

4% Would interfere with education or career plans

4% Physical problem with my health

3% Possible problems affecting the health of the fetus

<0.5% Was a victim of rape

<0.5% Husband or partner wants me to have an abortion

<0.5% Parents want me to have an abortion

<0.5% Don't want people to know I had sex or got pregnant

As you can see, many of the resons for an abortion are the fear of not being able to take care of the child once its born. There is a solution to this, adoption.

[1] Adoption is a viable alternative to abortion and accomplishes the same result. And with 1.5 million American families wanting to adopt a child, there is no such thing as an unwanted child.

Why not give the child a chance? There are millions of willing families who are capable of raising and taking care of a child. The mother who aboirts, knowing abortion is a option but yet abortiong, is comitting murder.



Sources:


[1] http://womensissues.about.com...
[2] https://www.google.com...
[3]http://www.actionlife.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Fruit-Salad

Pro

(You're welcome)

First off, let me quote some of your argument.
"For women who demand complete control of their body, control should include preventing the risk of unwanted pregnancy through the responsible use of contraception or, if that is not possible, through abstinence."
This is not always possible. My father and his younger brother were both conceived while their parents were using condoms and birth control. Their parents decided against an abortion because they were adults and ready for children. Abstinence is also an option, yes, but some teens and adults are pressured into sex. Overall, this is an option, but it's honesty not going to solve the issue.

Con says:
"Since life begins at conception, abortion is akin to murder as it is the act of taking human life. Abortion is in direct defiance of the commonly accepted idea of the sanctity of human life."
You completely ignored my previous statement. When life begins is entirely up to your personal beliefs. A fetus is nothing more than a parasite of sorts. It cannot survive without the mother and has no level of intelligence. When you say a child is "in the making" it only proves my point. It isn't a child, it's a child being made.

Con says:
"Killing someone is illegal. It's common sense and un-moral. So whats the difference between killing a baby, and a person lving on this planent? Both are a crume, thus there should be a major consequence. We shouldnt get to choose which we think is moral and not moral. Killing is wrong. "
A fetus is not a baby. The definition of baby is "a very young child, especially one newly or recently born."
As you can see, it says nothing about a fetus.

You also included some statistics. The top result is not ready for a baby. These women are completely right. Being pregnant can have a very negative effect on your life. You get cravings, aches, nausea, and too many other symptoms to count. If you aren't ready to support the baby financially, you shouldn't be forced to bare it.

Con says:
"Adoption is a viable alternative to abortion and accomplishes the same result. And with 1.5 million American families wanting to adopt a child, there is no such thing as an unwanted child."
Yes, there is. Only about 120,000 children are adopted each year. That is about a third of the amount there are. Thousands of children grow up in foster care without being adopted. Would you want someone to go through that? If the government forces a girl to have a baby, they should provide for it after it is born.

Sources
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
http://mobile.aacap.org...
Lee001

Con

Pro states;

"This is not always possible. My father and his younger brother were both conceived while their parents were using condoms and birth control"

Pro is mixing up "personal experiences" with facts. You have no proof to show this. You could be making this up for all we know.

Pro then says: "Their parents decided against an abortion because they were adults and ready for children."

Pro here simply conceded that the majority of people who abort their babies are unable to take care of them. Thus, parents know that adoption is always an option which makes abortion uneccesary.

Pro says:

"You completely ignored my previous statement. When life begins is entirely up to your personal beliefs."

No. Its called science. "Fetal Development" is the making of a child. Science has proof to back the conception stage up.

Pro states:

You also included some statistics. The top result is not ready for a baby. These women are completely right. Being pregnant can have a very negative effect on your life. You get cravings, aches, nausea, and too many other symptoms to count. If you aren't ready to support the baby financially, you shouldn't be forced to bare it.

Pro here simply agrees that the reason why mothers abort babies is because they can't support the baby financially and are unable to raise them. Thus, she also agreed that adoption is always an option. You have an option to kill the baby or let it live. By denying the baby life, you are murdering.

"Yes, there is. Only about 120,000 children are adopted each year. That is about a third of the amount there are. Thousands of children grow up in foster care without being adopted. Would you want someone to go through that? If the government forces a girl to have a baby, they should provide for it after it is born."

Again, Pro uses no facts or evidence for her "claims". Unlike her, I have proof that adoption is a good alternative;

[1] " Approximately 5 million Americans alive today are adoptees, 2-4 percent of all families have adopted, and 2.5 percent of all children under 18 are adopted. Adoptive families are more racially diverse, better educated, and more affluent than families in general. " https://www.google.com...

Many children DO get adopted, and there are enough willing families to adopt.



Debate Round No. 2
Fruit-Salad

Pro

Con says:
"Pro is mixing up "personal experiences" with facts. You have no proof to show this. You could be making this up for all we know."
While it's true i could be making this up, I'm not. Condoms and birth control aren't always effective.
http://kidshealth.org...

Con says:
"Pro here simply conceded that the majority of people who abort their babies are unable to take care of them. Thus, parents know that adoption is always an option which makes abortion uneccesary."
Abortions are neccasary. They can save the life of the woman. Plus, pregnancies and adoption processes are very complicated and lengthy. Some teens don't want their parents to find out either.

Con says:
"No. Its called science. "Fetal Development" is the making of a child. Science has proof to back the conception stage up."

There is no scientific consensus as to when human life begins. It is a matter of philosophic opinion or religious belief. Human life is a continuum---sperm and eggs are also alive, and represent potential human beings, but virtually all sperm and eggs are wasted. Also, two-thirds of human conceptions are spontaneously aborted by nature.

Con says:
"Pro here simply agrees that the reason why mothers abort babies is because they can't support the baby financially and are unable to raise them. Thus, she also agreed that adoption is always an option. You have an option to kill the baby or let it live. By denying the baby life, you are murdering."

I never said adoption is always an option. I said it is an option, but not always. The definition of murder is "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another." As I have already concluded that it isn't a human, your point is invalid.

Con says:
"Again, Pro uses no facts or evidence for her "claims". Unlike her, I have proof that adoption is a good alternative;"

Honey, I got that number from a reliable source. Look in the links.

Con says:
"Many children DO get adopted, and there are enough willing families to adopt."

You DO know that not all children get adopted, right? Some are too ugly or just aren't wanted. They are doomed to being rejected over and over again.

As I conclude my final argument, I would like to say something;
If you don't like abortions, don't get one!
Lee001

Con

*Sigh* I was expecting Pro to have valid arguemnts and proof to back them up.
Pro tells me to "Honey, I got that number from a reliable source. Look in the links."
Well its kind of hard because..uhm, you didnt number your sources LIKE YOU ARE SUPPOSE TO.

I really dont have time to go and validate your claim in your misc jumbled sources.
I argue that aborting a baby, while adoption is an option is murder. You have a choice to let the baby live or die, and you decide to kill it.
[1] Murder- the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another
Abortion fits the definitin of murder.
This is pretty clear who wins.
Oh by the way, Pro says "If you don't like abortions, don't get one!"
Oh I wont. Trust me. I'm smart enough to have safe sex and I'm not easily persuaded into having sex ;)
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Berend 1 year ago
Berend
Abortion isn't murder because it was made lawful. So even if you say it's killing of anoter human, it's still been made lawful, therefor not murder by very definition.
Posted by Blazzered 1 year ago
Blazzered
RFD(4) Conduct:
Pro was respectful throughout the entire debate and remained civil giving no insults and no rude attitude, while Con distorted Pro's points with with the adoption argument and had a rather smug attitude about who the winner may be in round 3.
Posted by Blazzered 1 year ago
Blazzered
RFD(3): Reliable Sources:
Pro used 3 sources through out the debate.
The first source which was a definition.
The second being a website homepages that displayed 0 information.
The third being a source for how effective condoms are.

Con used 4 sources.
The first being a source for arguments against abortion.
The second being a google search about conception that does give info.
The third being an article names "The Real Reason Women Choose an Abortion" which provides statistics.
The fourth being another google search, that did NOT provide information.

Overall while both provided weak sources, Con did give 3 sources with information to support their claims, while Pro only gave 1 source with information and 1 source with a definition. Thus sources go to Con.
Posted by Blazzered 1 year ago
Blazzered
RFD(2): Convincing Arguments(2):
Round 3
Pro provides evidence to support their claim that protection does not always work. Pro also successfully rebuttals Cons claim about Fetal development, while I would be on Con's side for this if evidence had been provided, there was none, so Pro's points stand on the beginning of life being more of a matter of opinion, until the facts show otherwise. Pro also successfully points out what I did in my part one of RFD, that Con is distorting Pro's words and saying that they are agreeing on adoption, when Pro said nothing of the sort. Pro then does fails to refute Con's claim "Again, Pro uses no facts or evidence for her "claims". Unlike her, I have proof that adoption is a good alternative". Pro states to just look in one of the sources, however when I look into the sources, there is only a definition, an article on birth control and condoms, and a website homepage that provided no info at all. Pro then says "You DO know that not all children get adopted, right? Some are too ugly or just aren't wanted. They are doomed to being rejected over and over again" which is just meaningless conjecture. Lastly Pro says "If you don't like abortions, don't get one!", Irrelevant. Does not help their case.

Con does not do much in Round 3 except brush off Pro's round 3 rebuttals. Con only points out that Pro did not have good sources, and was not going to search for the evidence when it should be conspicuous in the debate. Con then brings back an argument, which Pro refuted by pointing out the difference between a baby and a fetus.

Overall, while I am close to thinking that neither side did a good job proving their case to 100%, I do think Con did a better job, since Con did provide more evidence, and stayed with the facts. Despite the distorting of Pro's conclusions and the perverse attitude in the final round. Pro needed more evidence for their claims, and kept with postulations and conjecture. Thus I award convincing arguments to Con
Posted by Blazzered 1 year ago
Blazzered
RFD(1): Convincing Arguments(1):
Round1
In Round 1 Pro began by giving her opinions to start off the debate.
Con on the other hand started debuting immediately and gave her opening arguments right after. Con presented her case with sources to back up her claims. I do not see why Con felt the need to rebuttal Pro's opinions, but regardless I am not judging the first round, since it is only the beginning.

Round2
In Round 2 Pro begins giving personal experiences, which are not important to a debate. What is important are the facts. Pro then makes the claim that abstinence will not solve the issue, but then provides no evidence to back up her claim. The rest of Pro's rebuttals are well, such as mentioning the difference between a baby and a fetus, until the end where she claims "Only about 120,000 children are adopted each year". Pro provides no evidence for this claim. I looked at Pro's sources, and one was a definition source, and the other was just to a website homepage.
Con mentions how Pro gave personal experiences, and as I said, only facts are important, not personal experiences that indeed could be made up. Con makes the claim that science has proof to back the conception stage up, however, Con does not provide that proof, or any kind of source. Con also keeps distorting Pro's words, saying that since they agree on statistics, they must agree on the outcome. But Con says that if someone can't support having a child, they can turn to adoption, Pro is NOT agreeing to that and in fact stated how they are against turning to adoption because of not many children being adopted, so they claim at least. Pro is saying that if someone can't support having a child, they can turn to abortion. Nowhere does Pro agree in the quote Con gives of Pro in Round 2. Con then points out how Pro is not providing evidence for their claims, while Con is indeed providing sources to support their claims.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Blazzered 1 year ago
Blazzered
Fruit-SaladLee001Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments