The Instigator
snowydaysnowgirl
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
WAM
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

Should abortion be illegal?

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...
WAM
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/18/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 433 times Debate No: 81140
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

snowydaysnowgirl

Pro

Abortion has long been a subject that people tiptoe around. I don't want any tiptoeing here. State your beliefs, and I will state mine.
Aboriton stops a beating heart. This is scientifically proven. In all cases, unless both the mother's and the child's life are at risk, abortion is never the right choice. You say that it is just a blob of tissue, yet I have never heard anyone say, "Hey, do you want to feel my blob of tissue kick my stomach?"
Your parents choose life for you, why would you choose death for your children?
WAM

Con

Kind Regards for this Debate

I will be debating the Con side, meaning that I will be debating that abortion should not be illegal.
Furthermore I will state Facts, and not believes. This is not about religion, which is why believes are quite inadequate.

Opening Statement:

First of all the definition of the word 'Abortion' should be clarified. As the word comes from 'abort', which comes from the Latin 'aboriri', from 'ab', away, and 'oriri', birth, the English translation is 'miscarry', and not what the majority of individuals think. It is also to note that the standard medical definition of 'abortion' is "termination of a pregnancy when the foetus is not viable". Once again, this is not exclusively the removal of an unborn child through the means of medication, surgery or any other ways similar, a deliberate termination of pregnancy. Therefore, as abortion can occur naturally without any involvement of the mother or anybody else and as such should not be illegal.

However, I will take this further. Pro claims that "Aboriton stops a beating heart. This is scientifically proven.". Incorrect. The heart of an embryo starts beating after around 5 weeks. This means that any abortion prior will not stop a beating heart. (http://www.bbc.co.uk...)

Now to one of the more ethical parts. Pro claims that "In all cases, unless both the mother's and the child's life are at risk, abortion is never the right choice.", however seems to limit this to cases were only the mother's and the child's life are in danger. This is logically flawed. Due to modern medical testing it can be determined with extremely high, if not accuracy, if a child will potentially have illness that will cause the child to die within the first few days of birth, may cause miscarriage during pregnancy or cause a disability. In these cases, keeping the mental health of the mother in mind, would a deliberate termination of the foetus not be more adequate than birth and then death occurring almost immediately after? Would this not address suffering of both mother and child more ethically than keeping the child and letting it die? This is considering that brain activity starts , depending on sources, around weeks 8 to 12, when brain activity, in the form of electrical signals, can be measured. However, this brain activity is to be compared to a sea slug, and in no way capable of thought. I would be of the personal opinion that the majority of individuals would have little to no thought about killing a sea slug. Supermarkets sell plenty of supply for killing animals, be it ants, snails, cockroaches, or even mammals, such as mice, for which humans seem to have no compassion. What is the difference between such a creature and an embryo that is less capable than them? Why can they be killed without any thought?

The above should both address both the 'blob of tissue', as well as the statement of deliberate termination being only acceptable when both the mother's and child's life are in danger.

To broaden the controversy, a foetus is thought to be capable of feeling pain around 24 weeks after conception (http://www.lemauricien.com...). A child born around that time, being around the earliest possible time when a child can actually survive, has a very low chance of survival (less than 25%, made possible majorly through modern medical science), just as it is to be considered that the majority of abortions are not conducted in that time frame nor are they legal in the majority of countries. Yet most people have no problem eating meat coming from a fully functioning animal, capable of thought, feelings and many times killed in inhumane ways. This is certainly more cruel than the act of deliberate pregnancy termination of an embryo or foetus, possibly neither having a heart nor brain activity, most likely not able to feel, nor aware, or is it not? Especially if seen that in Europe the majority of deliberate abortions are conducted within the first few weeks, in England 90% are performed before 13 weeks, the majority, nearly 80% prior to week 10 (http://www.theguardian.com...)

This seems to address Pro's assumption that 'kicking blob's of tissue' are being aborted. While there is movement around week 8, 'kicking' will be recognizable from about week 18. Long after the majority of abortions have been conducted. At around 10 weeks the foetus would be around 3 cm, weighing 4 gram. That is smaller and less capable than this mouse, yet there is no uproar about killing mice.



It should be noted that around 30% of pregnancies are not planned. A pregnancy can 'mess' up a whole life, especially when considering that a child costs several hundred thousand dollars to raise (western countries). This thus creates the question of moral, if a possible parent, incapable of raising a child at that point in time, should give birth to said child. Would a child not be better off if it was adequately cared for? Then could it possibly not be better if a child would not be born into a life of poverty, foster care and the such? Would that not be more humane? Or a better choice for the parent? After all, you are potentially ruining a life, especially when seen in the context of developing countries, where there is no government assistance, nor foster care or reliable adoption. Would abortion really be the wrong option in such cases?

Next would be Pro's assumption that "Your parents choose life for you, why would you choose death for your children?". This has no validity in this debate. Their situation may have been different. They may not have had the possibility of abortion. At any rate, this can not be considered a valid argument.

Finally I would like to address that nearly 60%, in 1965, before today's opinion of Pro-choice being so popular, stated that rape would make abortion acceptable, with less when the child's health, in the form of birth defects, was at risk. Is that not extremely contradictory? Seemingly the child's health or life is not that important.

Conclusion:

To conclude, the majority of deliberate pregnancy terminations are conducted well before one could talk of a human life being effectively existent. This is the case while humans, without much protest, kill animals and other creatures which have more capability of life, which seemingly is quite contradicting.

Abortion is a choice of the bearing individual, and while it should not be the 'go to solution' in the case of pregnancy or substitution for contraception, in no way should it be illegal. Abortion has been conducted nearly 5000 years ago, while there have been up to 70.000 deaths due to unsafe abortion practices in the past decade. Keeping abortion legal, or legalizing abortion, can, as in the case of South Africa, decrease abortion related deaths by 90% or more. Abortions will be conducted whether they are legal or not. However, how safe will the individuals be?

Kind Regards, I am looking forward to the next round.
Debate Round No. 1
snowydaysnowgirl

Pro

I want for you to know, Con, that Abortion is murder. No matter what, it has always been that way. When Roe vs Wade occurred, abortion had yet to become legal so there was an equal amount of for and against abortion people. Now because of abortion, the amount of pro-abortion people is going down, but the amount of anti-abortion people is going up. I ask you, if you aren't killing a human being with all of your abortions, what are you killing? Puppies? Kitties? Even if the heart doesn't start beating until 5 weeks, does that mean it's not a human before then? What is it if it is not a baby inside the woman? When a human dies and their heart stops beating, they aren't human anymore. That is what you are saying by claiming abortion isn't murder before the heart starts beating.
I respect your opinions and this debate is not about beliefs on abortion, it is on whether or not abortion should be legal. I say no because it is killing a human child. Our population will disappear soon if we don't out law abortion. Every time someone pulls into Planned Parenthood I feel sick to my stomach, and when they drive out an hour or so later, I start sobbing. I know that a life was lost, because I can feel it. God gave me a gift of speech, and I will use it to save lives.
WAM

Con

Kind regards for your arguments.

Arguments and Rebuttals:

First of all it is to point out that Pro is yet to state any evidence. Until now, Pro has not proven anything but simply asserted their opinion.

For the first rebuttal I want to use Pro's statement of "I want for you to know, Con, that Abortion is murder.". Actually, no it is not. Murder is defined as 'the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.'. As Pro is yet to provide any evidence that Embryos or foetuses actually are Humans and not just have the potential to become a Human, this is invalid.

Also, as myself, Con had established last round, abortion has the definition of 'termination of pregnancy when the foetus (or embryo) is not viable'. As Pro neither agreed nor disagreed with this, it seemingly stands. Therefore, and as Pro stated, that "Abortion is murder. No matter what, it has always been that way.", it should be provided that around 30%-50% of pregnancies experience miscarriages naturally (https://books.google.ca...). According to Pro, the majority of females are murderers, as abortion, which can be defined as natural occurring miscarriage, is murder, as 30%-50% of (many of which are unknown pregnancies) occur in a natural abortion. This would now either mean that the females are murderers, or, even worse, behold, God is aborting babies en masse.


This brings me to the next controversy, I am mentioning this solely because my opponent is claiming to do 'God's work' because "God gave me a gift of speech, and I will use it to save lives.". Well, according to this you are not...

5: 11-22

Seemingly, if seen that the Bible is 'God's word', God is providing abortion methods in the Bible. And as I am one to actually back up what I say and not just state opinion, this is the verse, 5: 11-22. While it is quite similar in all versions, I will quote the NIV version as found here (https://www.biblegateway.com...)

'may the Lord cause you to become a curse among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”

“‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.”'

This verse, talking about how the Lord said to Moses that he should advise Israelites, who believe that their wife may have been unfaithful (that doesn't changes anything about this by the way, it still can be seen as abortion), to see a priest, who with the use of Holy Water will abort the unborn child and sterilize the woman at the same time. So please, don't bring anything God related into this, because if it actually was God who gave you your gift of speech, he wouldn't have given you your 'gift' because you are contradicting the Lord with your opinion about abortion. Unless you agree that women who have committed adultery, as well as 'sexual immorality', should have abortions and be sterilized.
And just to address this quickly, if a women is sterilized when she is pregnant, the child will be miscarried.

The next sentence of Pro makes little sense, as polls show quite clearly that pro abortion is going up and anti abortion down, but once again Pro supplies no evidence, so here you go (http://www.gallup.com...) Also, while I do not see this as a prime source, let's quote the Christians themselves on this, as Pro's profile states they are a Christian Catholic. (The page is made by Catholics, using the same poll service as listed above as a source) 'Polls typically show that about 28% of people in the U.S. say abortion should be legal in all circumstances. Another 17% say abortion should be illegal in all circumstances. A majority, 54%, favor legal abortion in some circumstances. The Roman Catholic Church is strongly associated with the movement to outlaw abortion, but the polls actually show that the views of Catholics on this issue do not differ from the rest of the population.'
Seemingly around 83% are Pro abortion in some sense. That is a grand majority. This once again dispels Pro's statement about numbers going 'up and down'

"I ask you, if you aren't killing a human being with all of your abortions, what are you killing? Puppies? Kitties?". For this purpose I would like you to identify the human out of this selection. Preferably, though most likely not possible for you, without research.




"Even if the heart doesn't start beating until 5 weeks, does that mean it's not a human before then?". I will, for hopefully the last time, quote the Bible. Genesis 2:7, 'Then the Lord God formed a man[a] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.' (https://www.biblegateway.com...). Seemingly, if you don't breathe you are not a human. That takes a lot longer than 5 weeks, normally around 9 months. But once again, I would like to refer to above image and the identification of the 'Human'.

"When a human dies and their heart stops beating, they aren't human anymore. That is what you are saying by claiming abortion isn't murder before the heart starts beating.". No. That is not what I am saying. Nor did I state that anywhere. Something that has the potential to become Human, but is not a viable Human yet, implies, due to the definition of murder in the dictionary, that a foetus, embryo or zygote, cannot be murdered. Potentially Pro's case could be broadened out to the field of evolution, thus stating while animals may not be Human, some could have the potential to evolve into something similar and/or are connected to the evolved Human in some way, shape or form, are thus equal to Humans. This again opens the question posed in round 1 by Con, but unanswered by Pro why it is morally acceptable to kill a creature more capable than an embryo.

However, I do agree that a foetus which would be viable should not be aborted. But as this is not the case in the overwhelming majority of deliberate abortions, I will not comment further on this.

As for Pro's next line, "I respect your opinions and this debate is not about beliefs on abortion, it is on whether or not abortion should be legal.", the following is to be said:

1.) I have not supplied any opinion, other than out of nearly 1200 words in my previous round, 8 were of a opinionated nature. That is around 0.67%. Compared to Pro's nearly 100% opinion, backed by 0% evidence, it's looking pretty good for myself.

2.) Yes, this Debate is about whether abortion should be illegal or not. And until now, Pro has not provided anything other than 'it's murder', without any sort of evidence that it actually is.

"I say no because it is killing a human child". And I say yes, because, as of definition, child implies a born, viable human being. Therefore, children are not being aborted. Embryos and foetuses are. Big difference.

I will now come to one of the possibly most stupid statements I have ever seen. Shame should be on a person for uttering such incredible nonsense.
But first, a round of facepalm.



Of course the statement I am talking about is this: "Our population will disappear soon if we don't out law abortion". Really?????? As stated in my last round, deliberate abortion has been practised for over 4000 years, not to mention that abortion occurs naturally, not that Pro would even acknowledge that though. In fact, one of the earliest medical texts ever written was, who could think, about abortion, more exactly around 2700 BCE China, by emperor Shen Nung. The Egyptians have some texts containing abortion (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...) while in the Roman Empire, abortion, as well as infanticide, which actually is murder, were legal. Not to mention this was around the time Jesus apparently walked the earth.
The point at which I am hinting at though is, that if Pro's assumption of "Our population will disappear soon if we don't out law abortion", would be factually correct in any way shape or form, 'our population' (whatever that may mean) would have disappeared a long, long time ago. Needless to say that abortion would be committed even if it was illegal, but Pro does not consider that fact. According to the WHO, around 40 million pregnancies were voluntarily terminated in 2003, nearly 50% of which (20 million for anyone who can't calculate) were done 'unsafe', meaning mostly in countries where abortion is illegal. Around 50% of abortions are committed in countries where abortions are illegal. This should sufficiently prove that outlawing will have no effect on abortion occurring, only altering how safely they are conducted. 1 in 8 pregnancy related deaths worldwide are associated with unsafe abortion. And Pro is advocating this.

Finally, no, you cannot feel that 'a life was lost'. You are not psychic, nor able to feel 'lost life'. Besides, you are killing more creatures in your daily life and seemingly are not 'sobbing' about that. Why do you even care? A random person wilfully terminating their pregnancy in no way affects you. At least reasonably logically speaking. But oh well.


Conclusion:

Pro is yet to provide any evidence for their claims. Or voice a valid reason, supported or based on facts, why abortion should be illegal.

Kind Regards, I am looking forward to the next round.
Debate Round No. 2
snowydaysnowgirl

Pro

snowydaysnowgirl forfeited this round.
WAM

Con

Kind Regards for this debate.

Final Conclusion:

As Pro forfeited the last round, there are no new rebuttals to be made.

As for an analysis of the debate, Pro did not provide any evidence, other than the assertion that 'abortion is murder', yet did not provide any sort of proof, nor without any proof for any other statements Pro made, for all of which I provided proof in my rounds.

First it was established that abortion means 'termination of pregnancy', or simply miscarriage. This means that, according to Pro, that the majority of women are murderers, as they experience a miscarriage.

Next was that abortion, as claimed by Pro, stops a beating heart, which is incorrect in many cases.

The ethical topic was shortly touched on, with a question as to why it is accepted to kill animals more capable than embryos and foetuses, that abortion will be conducted whether legal or not, and that abortion related deaths have highly decreased in countries in which abortion was legalized.

However, Pro did not address any of these.

The next round was the same as Pro's previous, 'it's murder'. Yet, as in the previous, no evidence.
Also, it is not to forget that Pro possibly stated the most intelligent line I have ever read, 'Our population will disappear soon if we don't out law abortion', then claiming 'God' gave her a gift of voice to save life.

Well, in Con's next round, as Pro stated that 'God' gave them a gift of speech, was proven as unlikely, as verses of the Bible are actually pro abortion, and with reasonable thinking, it would be stupid for an apparent intelligent creator to give someone 'the gift of speech', when they contradict you.

The rest of both rounds (Pro's and Con's) could be seen as quite event less, besides Pro's hilarious 'Our population will disappear statement, also because Pro forfeited the final round.

As such, and as Pro has not provided any evidence or any valid reasoning, it needs to be said that I still stand by my beginning argument, being that abortion should not be illegal.


Kind regards to all Voters and Readers, have a nice day.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by WAM 1 year ago
WAM
You are correct. However, you still have to see that many 'abortions' are not even conducted when the unborn is a foetus, but when it is an embryo.
Posted by MizzEnigma 1 year ago
MizzEnigma
A fetus isn't a baby . . . just like a baby isn't a fetus . . . they're two different stages. A fetus also isn't a child, because it's an unborn . . . A fetus is just a potential. .-.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Stefanwaal 1 year ago
Stefanwaal
snowydaysnowgirlWAMTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: *Claps* Nice debating over there, con. I really like your style. I suspect it isn't required to elaborate a lot on why I voted this way, but because the demands for RFDs are pretty high: Pro provided very blurry arguments and 0 sources. Most of his comments were based on opinions and believes. He also forfeited one round. On the other hand, con provided many facts and sources. His arguments were also very easy to follow. Con was pretty rude at times, but because the level of pro's arguments I consider it justified.