The Instigator
JRFreak2000
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Agonist
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points

Should abortion be legal

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...
Agonist
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/5/2016 Category: Health
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 562 times Debate No: 97667
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

JRFreak2000

Con

Abortion should not be legal because its killing a real living humans , people from left might say that the women should get to choose if want to abort a baby or not. This is completely untrue, for example if your a mom/dad with a kid just because your "own" them does not mean you get to kill them for your own convenience. I do believe a abortion would be appropriate if the baby affected the mothers health.
Agonist

Pro

Abortion should be legal.

Within this four-word phrase, we already stumble upon ambiguity. When we describe abortion as "legal," do we attach any qualification?

My opponent concedes we should. For instance, in cases in which the mother's health is affected by the child.

I might argue that this concession already cedes the entire debate: if any instance of abortion can be considered appropriate then abortion should be considered legal.

However, I will attempt a more thorough address of the Instigator's points.

The instigator first claims that abortion should be illegal because abortion is equivalent to killing living humans. A complicated subject is difficult to reduce to such concise terms. Therefore, I ask of the instigator: "What is a human?" "What makes it living?" "Should we avoid ending life in and of itself?"

It is my opinion that some address need be made of the the above queries before a proper debate can be entered.

-A first and unedited draft by the Agonist
Debate Round No. 1
JRFreak2000

Con

My opponent said that my claim is false because i said it would be appropriate to abort a baby if it affected the mothers health, my argument is that a abortion for the mothers own convenience is wrong and again is like killing a human outside of the womb. My opponent also said some crazy thing at the end of his argument. The fact is that the baby in the womb is a living human being that feels pain, eats, and drinks like us. And does it matter if its my first debate.
Agonist

Pro

I left my opponent with some questions, and perhaps more for myself, as I am uncertain whether they were answered. Nevertheless, I proceed with the assumption that my opponent claims that a fetus in the womb is a living human being because it feels pain, eats, and drinks like us.

I posit that the crux of the abortion issue is the distinction of a human. Societies differentiate between humans, animals, plants, and other organisms. This differentiation is usually relevant to the acceptability of the being's death. The legal protection of an organism's life rests upon its classification under a certain "category" of existence. The human fetus is one such organism.

The capacity of a human fetus to feel pain, eat, and drink greatly depends on its development. A fetus during an earlier stage of the pregnancy does not feel pain, eat, or drink in the same manner and magnitude as a fetus in a later stage.

If my opponent wishes to claim that a fetus has a "right to life" based upon its capacities (eating, drinking, etc.), I challenge my opponent to describe when in the timeline of mitosis to adulthood this right is consolidated.

On a final note, I apologize for my previous concluding statement. I was in no way referencing my opponent's site-experience. I was simply stating that a definition of ambiguous terms should be agreed upon before headway can be made on this debate topic.

-A first and unedited draft by the Agonist
Debate Round No. 2
JRFreak2000

Con

My opponent is continuously refusing to believe that a baby inside a womb is a living human. Instead they think that the fetus is under a "certain category of existence where the organism is acceptable to be killed. Which still does not change the fact that its a human being . My opponent challenged me "describe when in the timeline of mitosis to adulthood this right consolidated". As soon as the baby is concepted it feeds off the mother nutrients (food and water) to grow until its fully grown
Agonist

Pro

I only refuse to believe that a baby inside a womb is a living being because my opponent has not provided sufficient reason to do so.

My queries still stand: when does the organism's right to life become realized and why?

We certainly do not afford (and for good reason; I am not trying to appeal to the status quo alone) the same right to organisms that display the same faculties and behavior. An apple blossom, after fertilization, feeds off its parent's nutrients to grow. I hope my opponent certainly does not claim we cannot consume apples, yet the analogy seems to suit the characteristics of humanity proposed.

At this point, I will enter into a small argument in favor of legal abortion branching off the previous analogy. If there is not an end-all, be-all right to life for any set of cells, we should concede that the utility of already-participating members of society should receive due deference in relation to the utility of non-participating sets of cells. Such a heuristic is appropriate because it is most likely to increase the overall utility of members of society, while any heuristic that values the utility of non-members does not serve society by definition.

To be clear, without concise distinctions between "human" and "non-human," "being" and "non-being," abortion seems to serve the purpose of providing utility to those we agree as "human being" under any appropriate characterization.

-A first and unedited draft by the Agonist
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by firefalcon0623 1 year ago
firefalcon0623
I have a question. why is killing a pregnant woman considered double homicide because you killed the woman and the baby, yet abortion is completely legal. please explain that to me.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Hylian_3000 1 year ago
Hylian_3000
JRFreak2000AgonistTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Both sides had good conduct for the entire debate S&G: Minor spelling and grammar mistakes on Con's side, but not enough to warrant a point to Pro. Arguments: The absence of definitions made the debate confusing. Pro gave the definition, so that's the definition I will be judging with. However, Con lost the debate immediately in the first round. He stated that it should be legal if it is for the mother's health, therefore undermining his entire case. Since no definition was given in round 1, I used my own definition, which was that Con was advocating for Abortion to be illegal. That single statement in the first round cost him the debate. Additionally, Pro's argument were very good and asked questions that Con never answered. Therefore, Pro wins this point. Sources: No sources used.