Should abortion be legal
Debate Rounds (4)
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.
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.
"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.
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
"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.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Stonehe4rt 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|
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.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.