The Instigator
WorkingGlass
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
gametimer
Con (against)
Losing
4 Points

Should abortion be legal?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 4 votes the winner is...
WorkingGlass
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/27/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,656 times Debate No: 75862
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (22)
Votes (4)

 

WorkingGlass

Pro

I believe that abortion should be legal, it is a citizen's personal right as the holder of their life and body and is not an action that encompasses criminal individuals or behavior.
gametimer

Con

I believe abortion should be illegal because you are taking a human life before they have a chance to live. If your are going to die from carrying the baby is the only time such a indecent act should take place. If it is because you are too lazy to take care of it, or too poor, foster care is an option. Once the baby comes out, I'm sure the mother will adore it and regret ever thinking of killing her baby. Murder is wrong. And killing the baby is wrong, it is a person, it is alive. I and many others believe the same, but that is why we are debating right?
Debate Round No. 1
WorkingGlass

Pro

If abortion was illegal, what should be done with the women who have illegal abortion?
gametimer

Con

About 1-2 years prison. Unless a medical emergency. Then none.It is murder. It has to be punishable.
Debate Round No. 2
WorkingGlass

Pro

Why would abortion if it was a form of murder constitute a lesser punishment because of the age of the human? If it is murder it should be dealt with as murder and have the same punishment, life imprisonment. It is a life changing decision of whether to abort or not and it takes away the rights to their own bodies.
gametimer

Con

Yeah. It gets a lesser punishment because it would cause serious uprisings in the united states. We do own our bodies, and the bodies inside our bodies, but is it right? You are not just killing a baby, you are killing a generation. That baby was going to grow up and have a baby of its own. This repeats forever 90 percent of the time. Kill the baby, hundreds of babies actually die. Fully comprehend that. One selfish decision kills hundreds over time.
Debate Round No. 3
WorkingGlass

Pro

If you agree that it would cause major uprisings in the United States, then it definitely isn't something that as a democratic choice that could be constituted. It isn't in the way that someone like you would see on T.V where a mother decides to not abort and is happy for the rest of their life. For many poor decisions that mothers would make, the life quality of the child after birth would decline and the life of the mother could be emotionally, socially, and financially stressful. On top of all this they would be in prison ruining two lives. Two wrongs does not make a right and forcing the child set for a bad upbringing to remain in the world as well as putting their mother into jails and prisons not intended for post-pregnant women is not morally acceptable. Personally I believe that the world has overpopulation problems specifically in regards to food supply and reducing the future population would not prove to be dangerous, it would possibly even benefit our civilization mathematically in terms of resources and crowding.
gametimer

Con

The children won't be miserable "in a overpopulated world" in fact it would take at least 200 or so years to overpopulate. The child who was considered to be aborted would be in care with someone who cares, loves and wants a deserving child. As I said to Grace whatever and another, it was her irresponsibility that brought this child in this world. Rape victims shouldn't be allowed to kill it. I would ultimately understand as my nephew is a Rape brought baby. My sister thought she would abort. I told her that that baby isn't just his, it is yours too. She had him and we cherish him. By the way, I just wanted you to know, I know we disagree here, but please no hard feelings. I don't judge you, or other abortion supporters, but does it not seem selfish that you want to kill it because you want to accomplish your dreams and continue your life without giving the baby a simple chance. And as for uprisings, people need to accept that things change. Ethics, Morales, etc.
Debate Round No. 4
WorkingGlass

Pro

How come when it's us it's an abortion and when its a chicken its an omellete? An egg is not a chicken, a grain of wild cotton is not a dress, a seed is not a weed, and an acorn is not a tree. At the maturity of a fetus there is no moral purpose to let it arrive as an unwanted child. Its still just growing cells and its mind has yet to form any non-instinctive memories. Abortion is health care and health care is a right. It is simply unthinkable to allow complete strangers, whether individually or collectively as state legislators or others in government, to make such personal decisions for someone else.
gametimer

Con

An Egg is still a Chicken, just undeveloped. Same with the acorn. A egg becomes an omelette. If we go by your theory, a fawn is not a deer a toddler is not an adult. Same exact thing. A life is a life simple as that. Your taking your life for granted, Just because you weren't aborted, is it right to condemn other simple lifeforms that one day very well may save your life?
Debate Round No. 5
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Thegreatdebate98 1 year ago
Thegreatdebate98
This debate will never be resolved, eventually they may be able to agree, but not on the bottom line. Is that human life valuable or not? Pro-choicers agree (hopefully) that it is in fact an undeveloped human being, but not one that has a conscious or pain receptors, and the woman has free will and choice to do what she pleases. Pro-lifers believe that it is in fact an undeveloped human being, but so are children compared to adults, so what's the difference? They believe a life doesn't automatically become valuable when it exists the womb. There is a bottom line, the rest could eventually be agreed on, but that's what everyone is truly debating.
Posted by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 1 year ago
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
alright guys, I think its time for another debate to get up here...
Posted by BrandonMS 1 year ago
BrandonMS
If they don't yet have a chance to live, how are we robbing them of their life? They don't even have one at that point.
Posted by Midnight1131 1 year ago
Midnight1131
28MLZ, actually, it is dangerous for young teens to carry out a pregnancy, so abortion is a much better option for them. Not to mention that your entire "argument" here is an appeal to emotion, I can't picture myself being the baby waiting to be aborted, because most likely I would be aborted before I was conscious and capable of feeling anything.
Posted by 28MLZ 1 year ago
28MLZ
Do you ever picture yourself being the baby waiting to be aborted because you're only created by a mistake? What would you feel if you're not even given a chance to open your eyes and try to see if the world would be better for you? .. Being a practical can be done in many ways. But rather than killing an innocent baby, why don't you give them their precious life? Bring them to foster homes, find someone who will support them, and then blame yourself for being the most selfish person! Hmm.. I know you've heard that before.. Give a chance blah blah blah. So here's my second opinion! Abortion is not safe (especially to those young teenagers). If you do care for your loved ones, you wouldn't agreed to this! Some people are saying it's for the best. But the moment you'd think about aborting your child. You are a stone-cold killer.
Posted by PericIes 1 year ago
PericIes
Instead of debating this, you both could have read the eleventy quadrillion other debates on the subject.
Posted by NeatCrown 1 year ago
NeatCrown
Pro was more logical. Con made a few idiotic arguments, such as "If we go by your a fawn is not a deer a toddler is not an adult. Same exact thing." No, a fawn is not a fetus and a toddler is not one either... This, in fact is completely irrelevant. "A egg becomes an omelette." is quite humorous. You were not arguing over cannibalism.
Posted by bluesteel 1 year ago
bluesteel
==========================================================
>brandenschirpke117 // Moderator action: Removed<

5 points to Pro (arguments, S&G, conduct). Reasons for voting decision: con provides no convincing arguments

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Failure to explain S&G and conduct. (2) Too generic on arguments.
=========================================================
Posted by bluesteel 1 year ago
bluesteel
==================================================================
>Reported vote: BadGuy72 // Moderator action: Removed<

3 points to Con (arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Abortion is disgusting

[*Reason for removal*] This RFD merely expresses the user's personal opinion. It fails to refer to any arguments that were actually made in the debate.
=================================================================
Posted by WorkingGlass 1 year ago
WorkingGlass
Having been given to step-parents from being an unexpected child, I saw all the legal battles and fights that the two families had later on and I would rather have saved my mother as well as my step family the stress by not being born. My mother didn't have the opportunity to paint or follow her passions, and she was fired from her factory job after her religious boss heard that she unsuccessfully requested abortion
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 1 year ago
Midnight1131
WorkingGlassgametimerTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: The main point that Pro gave that stood strong was the argument that a fetus is a potential human, but is not an actual human. Pro talked about how an egg is an egg, not a chicken, and an acorn is an acorn, not a tree. Con responds to this saying "An Egg is still a Chicken, just undeveloped. A fawn is not a deer a toddler is not an adult. Same exact thing." This doesn't refute the point, Con just states that an Egg is an underdeveloped chicken. However Con fails to note the difference between a fetus and a baby, versus the difference between a toddler and an adult. By law, both the rights of a toddler and an adult are recognized, and the rights of a baby as well. Since Con was arguing against the current laws of abortion, they were trying to overturn the decision, and simply stating that killing potential life, even though it is allowed in other instances, is not enough to change the law.
Vote Placed by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 1 year ago
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
WorkingGlassgametimerTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: The only important argument here is murder. If abortion was murder, then logically it should be illegal. Pro only refutes this at the end but does so in a good way. He points out that a fetus is not a person, as a seed is not a tree and thus murder doesn't happen in abortion. Con's response to this is weak, he says that a seed is just an undeveloped tree, but that doesn't matter, the point remains that, even though that seed has the potential to be a tree, it currently is not one, and thus the argument on murder is wrong. From there I can consider the other arguments, such as over population, but the one that wins it for Pro is invasion of privacy by restricting control over the body of another individual. Thus Pro wins. I award sources to pro as I would a conduct point because con makes claims negligently without sources while con doesn't do this. I found that pro had better mannerisms in general, and over all better vocabulary.
Vote Placed by o0jeannie0o 1 year ago
o0jeannie0o
WorkingGlassgametimerTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: con had better mannerism, but pro was more convincing. I must say abortion is selfish. You are not giving up 18 years of your life, but 9 months. There are many people willing and waiting to adopt your baby. I stay pro choice as there are people who cant carry a baby for 9 months (ie drug addicts, mentally unsound, ect.) and abortion needs to be an option. Also your chicken egg thing is idiotic on both sides. A chicken egg is unfertalized or we dont eat it. It is a chicken period.
Vote Placed by TheHitchslap 1 year ago
TheHitchslap
WorkingGlassgametimerTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Unfortunately, arguments to con (I'm pro-choice), in a lot of rounds pro just asks questions instead of making a compelling case of why abortion ought to be permissible. Further, major points were completely missed by pro and spun by con. Con points out we differentiate toddlers from adults for instance, pro needed to argue that a fetus is permissible to kill on the basis that it is not a baby (outside the womb) and the law does not recognize the right of a fetus only the right of a baby. Pro doesn't, thus arguments con.