The Instigator
The_Tom
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
urapai
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Should abortion be allowed?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
The_Tom
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/10/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 539 times Debate No: 42098
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

The_Tom

Pro

The topic is simple. I argue that abortion should be allowed, my opponent will argue that abortion shouldn't be allowed. Pro life vs pro choice. My challenge may use the first round to present his or her points.
urapai

Con

Abortion is basically eliminating the child within a pregnant women. In other words killing it. Which is the same thing as murder. You may ask, "Since it is her baby, she should have the right to kill it, does she not?" However if you think like this, than it is not wrong to kill your 12 year old daughter for disobeying you, is it not? Murder is wrong no matter how you see it, and abortion is just a unpublishable way to do such.
Debate Round No. 1
The_Tom

Pro

The tricky part of the abortion debate is deciding where to draw the line. Should abortion be allowed if the woman was raped? What about if the baby is guaranteed to grow up in poverty?? What if the woman's life is on the line, should she risk killing both herself to avoid the unthinkable moral crime of abortion? Where should exceptions be made?

For the sake of simplicity, let's imagine that none of these questions apply. Even if this was the case, a pro choice argument can still be made.

1. The birth control argument:
Abortion is essentially preventing a human life. If this is considered morally and ethically wrong, then logically; condoms, birth control, and oral sex should also be outlawed. Condoms prevent what could potentially be a life. any form of birth control would.

The problem here is essentially, where does life begin? This brings me to my next point.

2. Can you murder what is not yet alive?
Fetus's develop the capacity to become conscious sometime between 24-28 weeks (1). This is the point where the part of the fetus's brain responsible for consciousness starts to develop. Consciousness develops sometime after this point. Before this, the fetus cannot feel pain, it does not know it's alive, it is essentially a growth.

So essentially, aborting the baby before this point, (during the first trimester) is as morally wrong as preventing a life, or using birth control. So what about after this point?

3. Human rights
In North America, if a person falls into a vegetative state , they forfeit their decision making rights to their next of kin. If this person is hooked up to a life support system, their next of kin can legally decide to "pull the plug". Similarly, the fetus is dependent on it's mothers "life support system", and has not obtained the mental capacity to make its own choices. So shouldn't the mother be allowed to "pull the plug" ?

4. Population control
This may seem cruel, but it is a valid point. The human race is grossly overpopulated. Science estimates that the earth is only fit to handle about 12-13 billion people. The human population has doubled in the last hundred years. This is what you call exponential growth. What happens when the population of any species exceeds its capacity? Well they die out. DRAMATICALLY. As the amount of people increase, so does world hunger and poverty. Abortion (and other types of birth control) provides a healthy means of controlling this. (2)(3)

The rebuttal:
My challenger says, "Since it is her baby, she should have the right to kill it, does she not?" However if you think like this, than it is not wrong to kill your 12 year old daughter for disobeying you, is it not?"

Here my opponent is comparing a mother killing her 12 year old daughter, to aborting an unborn child. This is an extreme logical jump. Murdering a child with conscious life, self awareness, is not the same thing as preventing a baby from being born. This brings me to my final argument:

The Pro-choice argument:
If it is assumed that a fetus is part of the mother, (not a separate person) then shouldn't the mother have the right to decide what to do with her body? And if a fetus is considered to be a separate person, then where do you draw the line?

So I ask my opponent, where do you draw the line? Should a mother who was raped be allowed to abort her child? What about if her life is at risk? What if she can't support the child? What if the fetus hasn't gained the capacity for consciousness?

I look forward to your response, and what I hope will be a lively debate.

1. http://www.scientificamerican.com...
2. http://www.worldometers.info...
3. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
urapai

Con

urapai forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
The_Tom

Pro

I guess my opponent couldn't find the time to defend his stance. I'm going to use this time to present one last argument.

Let's say that abortion was completely outlawed.
If a women doesn't want her child, there exists other, less sanitary means of abortion. It stands to reason that anti-abortion laws would raise the number of "at home abortions", as well as raising the number of children in the foster system.

So once again I ask my opponent, where do you draw the line?
urapai

Con

I am sorry, I was unable to answer, so it essence, it was a forfeit. I would also like to mention that your arguments are well thought out, I especially enjoyed the recent one. First of, (Paraphrased) you explained something along the lines of how can you murder something that is not yet born. I guess I didn't explain that very well. But I would think of it more as, you are not giving someone the opportunity to live. This is not right. Also, population control. If you thought of it like that, then murder and suicide would not be wrong, because it is controlling the population. You also explained in your most recent argument that there would be more home abortions. If abortion was not allowed, there would be home abortions, however there would be less abortions now that it is not permitted.
Debate Round No. 3
The_Tom

Pro

I would like to summarize my arguments:

1. Using birth control prevents a potential child from having the opportunity to live. If abortion is wrong for this reason, then so is using condoms.

2. If a pregnant woman is going to abort her child no matter what, I would rather it be at a clinic than at home.

3. Abortion provides a healthy means of controlling the population. Murder, is not a healthy way of doing this.

4. If a fetus is considered to be part of the mother, and not a separate person, then shouldn't the mother have the right to choose? If the fetus is considered to be a person, then where do you draw the line?
Thank you for the debate.
urapai

Con

urapai forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by MyDinosaurHands 2 years ago
MyDinosaurHands
The_TomurapaiTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: The_Tom was actually present for the debate, and his arguments were far superior. Hey Tom if you'd like a better Abortion debate I can give you that.