The Instigator
one2one
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
sapere_aude
Pro (for)
Losing
0 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...
one2one
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/4/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 252 times Debate No: 87687
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

one2one

Con

Humans beings have a right to life. To willfully end someone's life should always be a criminal act. So it follows that all humans (born or unborn) should be protected by this law and thus making abortion illegal.
sapere_aude

Pro

Humans beings do have the right to life but they also have the right to there own bodies and to have a say what happens to their bodies. People have the right to refuse medical care and they have a right not to have there body harvested for the medical needs for others like blood, organs, and bone marrow. Even in death what happens to ones body is the right of each individual. For someone to hold a person body hostage to drain them of resource and comfort against their will even someone who's life may depend on that body is not right. A women's body is her own and babies do not get special rights to use a females body to live if that women does not wish it. The fact that a fetus may no longer sustain life once removed from a females body is because the fetus is unable to sustain life on its own and is no different than taking someone who is dieing off life support. Fetus may be lives and they may even be lives worth protecting but they do not get special rights to use another persons body against there will. We don't allow it in medical practices even when lives are on the line and we shouldn't do it with pregnancies either.
Debate Round No. 1
one2one

Con

Let me first state that I agree that people should have control of their own bodies.

Ok so your first point that unborn children don't have special rights to use a woman's body is disturbing to me. No child was asked to be brought into this world and to deny they safty in the own mothers wombs seems like the greatest violation of rights out there. But enough personal opinions and more arguments.

If we follow your premise that all humans also have a right to use their own bodies how they please, why doesn't this apply to the unborn? Are big humans rights more valuable to little humans rights? What criteria must a human meet before they get rights just as the mother has? You say, "The fact that a fetus may no longer sustain life once removed from a females body is because the fetus is unable to sustain life on its own and is no different than taking someone who is dieing off life support" but then why don't we do this with other born humans. If you put your 2 month old on your back porch in the cold they would no longer be able to sustain life. They are almost equally as dependent on the mother as the unborn. Is level of dependency what gives a human personhood? If we separate personhood from human beings based on age, level of dependency, size, or utility then we have set criteria that denies many born humans the right of personhood, making them too despoible.

I think if we come to see ( as modern science has) that the unborn are infact unique human life then to deny one set of humans rights of personhood lets them become disposable. We don't do that for big humans so we shouldn't for little ones.
sapere_aude

Pro

A child does not have a right to their mother"s womb or any other part of their body. A woman is not an incubator or something to be used she has a say in what happens to her own body. And you are right the baby did not ask to be born and you have absolutely no way of knowing if that child even wants to be born. There are many people in the world who wish they had not been born but were forced into the world so here they must live. And if their mother does not want the pregnancy obviously she did not mean for the child to be created either. The child may have the definition of living but their ability to understand and reason is not to a point that they would even understood that they ever lived. The right of a human to use their body as they please does apply to the baby. The baby can do whatever it wants with its body but it cannot stay in a body that does not want it there. If a person is unable to breath well enough to sustain their own life and allowing them to pass on is different than not giving them food and water when they are not able to feed themselves. The first is unable to stain life due to functions of their body and the second is just simply not helping a person when there are weak. Big difference. A baby is not able to sustain its own life outside the womb. It cannot use a women"s body as a life support machine against her will any more than we would force a kidney out of someone to save another"s life if they do not wish to donate it. With your leaving a child on the back porch analogy the baby is able to sustain their own life. They can breathe and digest nutrients. The don"t require using another person"s body to live. They do need help to live in being protected and feed but that is two different things. If a parent did not want that child she only gives it to someone who would take care of it. To help protect their right to live as a person. At a fetus age there is nothing to do once removed from the uterus to help keep it alive. Neglect is different than simply changing a person"s geography. Both are people the mother has a right to her body and a baby has the right to live if it can on its own without violating a women"s right to her body.
Debate Round No. 2
one2one

Con

This whole attitude that we can separate sex from procreation is nonsense to me, the thought that we must end one life to keep the comfort of another is sad. Except in the case of rape a women has engaged in an act that by its nature has the possibility of creating life. To act like the unborn child is some alien that has taken over a woman's body is a mistake.

Also just because we don't know if people want to live doesn't give us a reason to kill them. We don't kill those with autism because they can't communicate whether they want to live or not. Also as a society we see the horrible effects of suicide but by your logic it's fine because they don't want to live. Why have crisis workers then.

Further you say the unborn's ability to reason makes them worthless and because they aren't conscious we can just kill them. But again that logic doesn't work to born people, we don't throw away human life outside the womb when they are infants and incapable to reason their own existence. Or someone when they sleep and they will never know they died.

You say that the unborn can't live because of a change of location. Well if we took you to the moon and changed your location you would also die so why is it different? Taking someone out of an environment where they need to live is always immoral and always killing.

The only difference between us and the unborn are our: Size, Level of development, Environment (where we live), and Level of dependency.

basically our arguments go as such: you say the unborn don't have a right to their own mothers bodies. I say that the unborn are humans (based on science) and you can't kill humans because they are a burden to you. It is absurd to think that carrying a child is some act of goodwill towards this thing inside a mother, and that abortion is just denying some charity.

I'll finish with this, If the unborn is a human then it there is no reason that justifies killing them. The unborn are healthy and not in imminent danger of death. The only way to kill them is to purposefully deny them what they need to live. Since doing that with born people is wrong it is also wrong to do with unborn people.
sapere_aude

Pro

I don"t think that anyone can honestly say that sex does not lead to potential procreation. However, there are ways to prevent that. Sex is a natural impulse and a necessity to a happy and healthy life. The fact of ending a life for the comfort of another is not what I am saying I am saying that we have no right to force something on to someone who does not want it. Are you saying that we should be allowed to use other people"s bodies if it means saving another life? A pregnancy is not nothing it can have lifelong consequences and damage done to the body. And no women should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term if she does not want it. People have the right to have sex and sex does not always lead to a child and with modern technology of birth control and other forms of contraceptives it is not something that even has to be a part of the equation. It is natural to eat but even through eating you run the risk of getting a parasite and ultimately that is what a baby is. A foreign creature eating up nutrients and doing damage to the body. If a woman wishes to remove it she has the right to do so. Again abortion is merely moving a creature from one place to another. The fact that that creature cannot support its own life function is an unfortunate by product. What I am talking about with weather a person wants to live or not is that, do we even have the right to bring life into this world at all? Now of course people will for their own happiness with little thought of the child but that"s another debate. You don"t seem to be addressing my main issue that a women"s body should not be used as a life support system against her will any more then we should rip out a person"s liver to give it to someone who needs it to stay alive. Weather that person engaged in a natural action of sex is irrelevant. Your moon analogy it just a play to make a point you want viewed. It is irresponsible to expect someone to breath under water or in a none oxygen environment no one can do that without assistance. But to except a creature to breath oxygen or and digest food is not. There is a difference between us and the unborn with or without assistance I can live unlike a new born who can"t. after that baby is removed you want to hook them up to a life support system and help them live fine but they don"t get to hold a person"s body hostage to do it. I have never said that a baby is not alive or a person I have only said that they do not have special rights to use other people"s bodies to stay alive.
"basically our arguments go as such: you say the unborn don't have a right to their own mother"s bodies. I say that the unborn are humans (based on science) and you can't kill humans because they are a burden to you. It is absurd to think that carrying a child is some act of goodwill towards this thing inside a mother, and that abortion is just denying some charity."
They are not killing them to kill them they are not allowing them to residence in their body when they don"t want them there. Which a woman has a right to do. It"s not a matter of a burden or not you have no right no matter your size or need to use my body for anything unless I give permission. If a baby does not have permission to be inside a women"s body she has the right to remove it.
Debate Round No. 3
one2one

Con

Since i'm not going to re state everything I did earlier I will only focus on the point i haven't addressed yet. You bring up the violinist argument, basically that you don't need to give your body to save someone against your will. Let me state why pregnancy is different from that.

First, even if you are the cause of someone needing your organs whatever act you committed is not naturally oriented to having a person dependent on you. On the other hand sex has a natural order that puts someone's life in your hands. It should follow then that you are now responsible for that life.

Second, there is a difference between letting someone die and purposefully killing them. As I said earlier that the unborn are healthy and in no way need to die unless you deliberately rip them apart limb by limb and kill them. Someone dying who needs your organ isn't killed by you if you say no, they just die because of natural causes. There is nothing natural about abortion, you don't see abortions happening in the animal kingdom. It's not like a woman gives birth and then they just say, "oh sorry buddy, we are just going to leave you here and see if you can make it on your own". No, infact abortion is tearing this child apart piece by piece, It's horrible.

Third, the woman's uterus and body is MADE to support the life of the unborn. To compare an unborn child to a parasite is like saying our bodies are made to carry parasites, which obviously is not true. On the other hand a woman's body isn't made to donate organs, it can but it isn't a proper function.

Lastly I'd like to quote Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta " if we can accept that a mother can kill her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?"

thanks for the debate
sapere_aude

Pro

The fact that sex can lead to procreation and the process of a pregnancy being natural does not negate the fact that a woman still has the right to decide what she wants to do with her own body and as far as a responsibility to that life I do not agree especially given the fact under law the moment that baby is born the mother can give that baby to the state and claim no responsibility for the child.

"Second, there is a difference between letting someone die and purposefully killing them. As I said earlier that the unborn are healthy and in no way need to die unless you deliberately rip them apart limb by limb and kill them."
They may be healthy but they are in no way able to sustain their own life. If the fetus came out of the womb unharmed it would still not be able to live on its own. It could not be feed by any means. It could not be helped to breath by any means or any other bodily function. One does not have to tear the fetus apart for the fetus to die outside the womb.
"There is nothing natural about abortion, you don't see abortions happening in the animal kingdom."
This is false statement. We see many examples of infanticide in the animal kingdom especially in mammals. For example, baboons, dolphins, golden eagles, hyenas, bees and lions to name only a few. I am sure if they had the same capabilities as humans did they would take a similar road from time to time.
Just because women"s uterus function is to support a baby still does not mean that a baby can occupy that uterus without the women"s consent. A women"s pregnancy can drain a lot of energy and nutrient from a women and can do damage even long term damage to a women"s body. Before modern medicine dying in child birth was not an unlikely option. Even with modern medicine it is still a remote possibility. Being pregnant is not some under the radar event that a woman has to or even should be excepted to do if it is not something she chooses to undergo. Yes, a women"s body can support life if she chooses to do so but it is her decision. The definition of a parasite is "an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment. a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others." So despite the fact that it is natural to get pregnant and the uterus function is to support a baby the baby is by definition a parasite. A parasite desired by many yes but still in definition a parasite and in life and death situations it is the default position to save the mother not the child in a pregnancy. It can in very rare cases even be necessary to have an abortion to save the mother"s life.
"Lastly I'd like to quote Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta " if we can accept that a mother can kill her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?""
Again there is a difference between deciding the fate of your own body and simply going up to another and killing them.
Margaret Sanger said "No woman can call herself free who does not control her own body."

thank you for the debate and for viewing your thoughts and ideas. It was a pleasure.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Stonehe4rt 9 months ago
Stonehe4rt
one2onesapere_audeTied
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: Ok this is a simple reason, Neither side used sources. Both had good conduct, both were readable. It comes down to the fact that Pro did not debunk anything Con had stated. As Con is the Instigator his arguement was the first to be made and without being Debunked it was left to stand. Pro argued that The Mother should have control of her body since the baby is attached to her. But her arguement is full of flaws since the Baby is attached to the mother, does that not mean the Baby should have the rights over what the baby's mother? Since the Mother is connected to the Baby, the Baby should have the rights. Anyhow, this is a major flaw in her arguement that did not debunk Con at all. She said humans have the right to live but also the right to control their body, So the Baby by her own logic should be able to control what happens to its body! It is as simple as that. Con was more convincing and refuted better.