The Instigator
Shadowhuntress
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ArcTImes
Pro (for)
Winning
5 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 1 vote the winner is...
ArcTImes
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/29/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 443 times Debate No: 53663
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

Shadowhuntress

Con

Abortion should not be legal. It is the taking away of a life. Once a child is born, you cannot kill it without legal consequences. What is so different about that child once it is born? It's the same genes, same DNA, same person.
I know you say it isn't human, but that is a lie. A human is human because it has human genes and human DNA. Those thousands of innocent babies your killing have human DNA and human genes. That makes them human. That makes abortion murder.
You may also say that it is the mothers choice. But is it the mom dying? Is it the mom's life being taken away? No. So why is it her choice?
Before I submit this, I have one final question for you. Would you still be pro-choice if you where the one being chosen?
ArcTImes

Pro

Thanks for creating a debate on this controversial topic.

I will start this round clarifying that Con is making the absolute claim that "Abortion should not be legal". Therefore I only have to find 1 case where abortion is justifiable to win this debate.

Before I give my arguments, I will rebut Con's arguments.

Rebuttal:

"Abortion should not be legal. It is the taking away of a life."

This is not always the case.
The definition of voluntary abortion is:

Abortion: "the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy." [1]

Now, since what moment is the unborn child considered alive? Since when does it have life?

Life: "
the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally."

It is false to say that abortions always take life away because most of the cases the children is not able to live independent of the mother. This is important because you can't compare it with a case of murder.

"I know you say it isn't human, but that is a lie. A human is human because it has human genes and human DNA. "
"That makes them human. That makes abortion murder."

It's irrelevant if it's human or not. Murder needs more than only humans, they need them to be alive. An adult dead human has the same DNA, but you can't kill an adult dead human, then this is irrelevant. Only because they are human doesn't mean we are talking about murder.

"You may also say that it is the mothers choice. But is it the mom dying? Is it the mom's life being taken away? No. So why is it her choice?"

It is the mother choice. It is her right. Before the child can be independent of the mother, it is part of her body.
And there are cases where the life of the mother is in danger and abortion is the only way to save her life. Sometimes the child can't be saved, then there is no reason not to perform an abortion. There are some cases where only one life can be saved, but it's not necessarily the mother's. Then the mother has to decide.

"Before I submit this, I have one final question for you. Would you still be pro-choice if you where the one being chosen?"

This is a fallacy. This is an argumentum ad passiones or appeal to emotions.

Argument of Pro:

C1: Most of abortions happen before the fetus is able to exist independent to the mother.

I already addressed this in the rebuttal, but this is an important argument. 88% of abortions are performed before the first trimester.
Most of abortions happen within the first 8 weeks. [3]

C2: Abortion is a safe medical procedure

Medical abortions have very low risk of serious complications. This is specially relevant when one is asked if abortion should be legal. Legal abortion would make the medical procedure safer. [4]

C3: Legalization of abortion cause drop in crime

"Crime began to fall roughly 18 years after abortion legalization. The five states that allowed abortion in 1970 experienced declines earlier than the rest of the nation". [5] The reason of this are economical and social.[6] Most of the woman that obtain abortions have really low income.

Conclusion:

Abortion has several cases where it is justified.
Legalization of abortion has a lot of benefits.

Thanks for the debate. Vote PRO.

Source:

1. http://dictionary.reference.com...
2. http://dictionary.reference.com...
3. http://www.cdc.gov...
4. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
5. http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu...
6. http://www.guttmacher.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Shadowhuntress

Con

Round two: rebuttals and arguments

Rebuttal one:
"Most abortions take place before the fetus can exist separately from the mother."
While this is true, babies cannot exist separately from their mom for a good amount of time. A baby left alone will not be able to feed itself, get water...etc. But if a mom where to kill a baby at this point in it's life, it is still considered murder. Also, babies are able to survive outside of the womb at 21 weeks (http://www.tfpstudentaction.org...) .

R2
"Abortion is a safe medical procedure."
Not for the unborn child, who ends up dead, non-existent, how ever you wish to put it. It has also been proved by a study by the Cancer Research Center that of woman who have been pregnant, those who have an abortion are 50% more likely to develop breast cancer. ( number five on http://www.tfpstudentaction.org...)

R3
Is there an absolute link that 100% proves that abortion causes less crime? If so, it's because there are less humans, therefore less people to commit crime.

I wish to prove to you that the fetus is indeed living. Being alive is defined as having life ( http://www.biology-online.org...). No matter how far along in a pregnancy, a fetus always have cells. Cells are living organisms, which would make the fetus alive.
As another matter, enough fetus's have died from abortion to recreate the population of Spain. (56 mill.) (http://www.tfpstudentaction.org...)
And, if I may bring up the fact that there is an adoption program in the USA that will take children you don't wish to keep. It's just selfish to kill when there are people willing to care for your baby for you.
ArcTImes

Pro

Rebuttal:

"babies cannot exist separately from their mom for a good amount of time. A baby left alone will not be able to feed itself, get water...etc."

This is false. They can exist separately from their mom. Ther dad can feed them or give them water, so this is totally false.
In other hand, an embryo is not able to live outside the womb.

"babies are able to survive outside of the womb at 21 weeks"

This is irrelevant. 88% of abortions are within the first 12 weeks and more than 50% is within the first 8 weeks.

"Not for the unborn child"

It is safe for the mother. And that's what abortion is about, a right to choose for the mother. Still, my others points are relevant to this.

"It has also been proved by a study by the Cancer Research Center that of woman who have been pregnant, those who have an abortion are 50% more likely to develop breast cancer."

This was already refuted in 2003 in a study by the National Cancer Institute. [1]

"Is there an absolute link that 100% proves that abortion causes less crime? If so, it's because there are less humans, therefore less people to commit crime."

Yes there is. I explained why in the last round with 2 sources. First one the research that proves that abortion has a correlation with less crime and the economical statistics that are part of my explanation.
And it's false that there are less humans.

Population of USA 1970: 203.4 million[2]
Population of USA 2014: 317.9 million[3]

"I wish to prove to you that the fetus is indeed living. Being alive is defined as having life"

This doesn't change my points in the last round. Con should remember that embryo and fetus are not the same thing and most of abortions occur in the first trimester so it's talking about embryo. And the definition from your source also adds "being in a state in which the organs perform their functions" is not working on embryos. Their organs can't function without the womb.

"No matter how far along in a pregnancy, a fetus always have cells. Cells are living organisms, which would make the fetus alive."

This is another fallacy. Although Con is calling it fetus, he is talking about the child in all the phases.
Cells doesn't make everything alive. My hand has cells too, but If I separate my hand from the rest of my body, my hand can't function, it is not alive.

"As another matter, enough fetus's have died from abortion to recreate the population of Spain. (56 mill.) "

Interesting statistic, but irrelevant to the resolution.

"And, if I may bring up the fact that there is an adoption program in the USA that will take children you don't wish to keep."

The problem is that this is not only about USA. And waiting times are really long [4][5]. This makes a lot of US families to adopt from foreign countries.

More Arguments of Con:

c4: Legalization of abortion makes the procedure safer

Women abort even when abortion is illegal. The quality of the procedure in this circumstances is really bad compared to its legal counterpart. [6] The quality and safety of abortion increases when it's legal.

C5: Abortion is a reproductive right

The ability of a woman to control her body is part of her civil and reproductive rights. [7] This is also related to the last point.

Conclusion:

There are too many cases where Abortion is justified.
It is a woman's reproductive right.
Legalization has more advantages than disadvantages.
Con is unable to justify his absolute claim.

I would like to use this space to recommend Con to look for another "source of sources". All his arguments and rebuttals are taken from the same site. This site is unreliable for scientific topics. The use of source-less claims, some unscientific source, fallacies and as you can see in their "political incorrect" section [8], they are against some rights, proved scientific theories and technologies, and ideologies. This is related to prejudice caused by certain set of beliefs.

Remember that specially for this topic that shares science and politics, the separation of church and state is really important. And I know you are not using religious arguments and I thank you for that, but a site that is against some of the most important scientific topics can't be used as a reliable scientific source. If that site has a reference or link to a scientific document or a more reliable site, that link or document is recommended.

Thanks. Vote for CON.

Source:

1. http://www.cancer.gov...
2. https://en.wikipedia.org...
3. http://www.census.gov...
4. http://www.americanadoptions.com...
5. http://www.adoptionservices.org...
6. http://www.prochoiceamerica.org...
7. http://beta.congress.gov...={%22search%22%3A[%22reproductive+rights%22]}
8. http://www.tfpstudentaction.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Shadowhuntress

Con

In conclusion, I think abortion is wrong because there are other options, such as adoption.
ArcTImes

Pro

"In conclusion, I think abortion is wrong because there are other options, such as adoption."

Adoption is not an option to Abortion. Abortion is a right for the woman. It is not about the right to not raise a child. It is the right for her body.
No one can force a woman to continue a pregnancy.

Con whole argumentation is about life, but even if the embryo or fetus was alive, it doesn't change this right.
No one can force a person to donate a kidney or blood for another person. You can't force legally. The same thing happens with abortion.

Con didn't give any more argument and he didn't rebut anymore argument either.

Thanks for the debate VOTE PRO.

Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Dishoungh 2 years ago
Dishoungh
I guess it is rightful to commit abortion. It's not killing because killing, in definition, is to "cause the death of (a person, animal, or other living thing)."

Embryos is not the same as it being a human. They're not technically living. They're living when it has fully developed into its proper form and has gained the ability to breathe. So, no, abortion is not murder.

It's like baking a cake. When you put the ingredients of a cake and slap it in the oven, it's not a cake yet. So, when you put those ingredients in, you wouldn't call it cake wouldn't you? It's called a cake when it has fully developed and the chemical change process has been complete.

I do think; however, that abortion should not be attempted when a newborn is nearly at its birth state. I think that abortion should be committed when the embryo is only just developing its human characteristics.
Posted by Shadowhuntress 2 years ago
Shadowhuntress
Haha, I hate it when autocorrect fails me.
Posted by ArcTImes 2 years ago
ArcTImes
I swear I read it 2 times and used the spellchecker and didn't see that "Ther dad"
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
ShadowhuntressArcTImesTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Tie. Both debaters maintained good conduct throughout the debate. Neither did anything that would cost points. S & G - Tie. Even throughout, both practiced proper spelling and grammar. Arguments - Pro. Con dropped most of Pro's arguments including all further arguments raised by Pro in Round 2. This was unfortunate because Con did make strong points in R2 and although Pro rebutted them well in his response, I would have liked to see Con spend more time fleshing out her arguments and fully providing rebuttals instead of dropping points. Con will be a strong debater if she can manage to not drop so many points. Good job Pro for maintaining your position throughout and properly addressing all of Con's arguments. Sources - Pro. Con used sources as well, but only two and one of them was used to strengthen three separate points from a biased website. Pro effectively shared quality evidence that came from several sources that weren't all necessarily biased for one position.