The Instigator
DanaForYeshua
Pro (for)
The Contender
Jerry947
Con (against)

Should abortion be safe, legal, and rare? Pro (yes) Con (no).

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
DanaForYeshua has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/3/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 480 times Debate No: 100528
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)

 

DanaForYeshua

Pro

My name is Dana. I will attempt to prove the prochoice position. Pro is prochoice, and Con is prolife. Let's debate.
Jerry947

Con

I accept this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
DanaForYeshua

Pro

Cool beans. Let's go back to the days when contraception and abortion were banned here in America. Women were literally forced to give birth. Women resorted to self abortion, and died from blood loss, organ damage, poisoning from at home remedies. Some like the Duggar family want to return to those days. Thankfully, contraception was legalized and abortion soon after. Question 1: Should a rape victim be forced to give birth? Question 2: Should a mental patient br gorced to give birth? I have 4 mental illnesses, and not only would I be forced to go off my life saving meds, but that would make me suicidal. I would need an abortion to save my life. My Statement: The just get your tubes tied argument would work if that procedure were more available to consenting adult women on request covered by any insurance.
Jerry947

Con

My opponent argues that self-abortion is dangerous due to the fact that women could kill themselves. However, it should be obvious that abortion is dangerous even if women's lives are not at risk. Why? Well, because the baby is sure to die in these procedures. Besides, abortions done today are not completely safe. Not only is a baby murdered, but women still have a small chance of bleeding to death. Furthermore, why should people feel bad for baby murderers that accidentally kill themselves? As for rape victims, a wrong action does not justify another one. Rape is horrible but why would murdering a baby be the right thing to do? Adoption is the better option if the woman does not want her baby. As for mental patients, I must ask, is money more important than a human life? My opponent says that losing their life savings would make them suicidal. But surely this is not the proper response to a disaster. In life, one shouldn't give up and die just to escape their personal problems.
Debate Round No. 2
DanaForYeshua

Pro

I am not saying that abortion is ideal, because it is homicide. However, in certain situations, it is justifiable homicide. People have the right to make the difficult choices for themselves. Religious hypocrites need to have more compassion on women instead of seeing them as wombs. I have a womb, but I am not a womb.
Jerry947

Con

My opponent admits that abortion is homicide. This means that abortion is unlawful murder (https://www.google.com...;*). There isn't a such thing as justified homicide. That is a contradiction in terms. As for people having the right to make difficult choices for themselves, can my opponent objectively establish that right's existence or did she just make it up? And lastly, my opponent argues that religious hypocrites need to have more compassion. It seems to me that it is good to have compassion towards the mother and the defenseless baby. If the mother is allowed to murder her baby, then how are pro-choicers showing compassion to the child? My opponent mentions for a second time that she is not a womb. Fair enough, but the point is that if there is a person in that womb, then the baby should be recognized as well.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Jerry947 1 year ago
Jerry947
@Smorfy

Thinking is not required in order to be considered a person. A person in a comma would still be a person right? Besides, children can't even develop memories until the age of four. Do you think that parents should be able to kill four year olds as well?

As for a mother not wanting to send her child to an orphanage, I don't really see the logic here. Isn't being sent to an orphanage better than being torn to pieces at an abortion clinic? Or why not find a good orphanage for the child? I just don't see how anything could justify murder.

As for rights, they still exist regardless if one understands them. For example, a man with dementia still has the right to life even if he forgot about it. Don't you agree? Lastly, I might consider doing a debate. I happen to be prepared for an abortion debate and I can make the time for it if you challenge me.
Posted by Smorfy 1 year ago
Smorfy
@Jerry947
The fetus is not a person yet. It doesn't think. It is a mass of tissues. Why should women not be able to choose what to do with their body and their child? Technically, parents own their offspring until they are 18, unless they are emancipated. If children cannot do whatever they want because their brain isn't close enough to being fully developed until they're 18, then surely something that cannot think should be owned by its parents, then. Am I missing something? Also, what if the mother does not want her child to go to an orphanage and, quite possibly and probably, suffer? It would be more humane to painlessly kill the child. It is a mass of tissues that can't think and is legally owned by its parents. How can it exercise its rights if it cannot understand them, and doesn't have the thing that makes humans human; a brain that can think and remember? Maybe we could start a debate as well, I think it would be fun and educational! Thank you.
Posted by chrisl3 1 year ago
chrisl3
That is my one exception. When the life of the mother is at stack(including suicide). But let me ask you this. Ill throw in rape and incest and life of the mother. That is less than 2 percent of abortions. Would you say that the other 98 percent of abortions are bad? Or are you using the marginal case to justify the normal case? And exactly one human being does not have the right to ruin another persons life. Killing the baby is ruining that babies life.
Posted by DanaForYeshua 1 year ago
DanaForYeshua
Because one hum has no right to ruin another person's life. I would be forced to go off all my mental health meds if pregnant, and would become suicidal. I should not have to be suicidal for anyone. I have the right to choose.
Posted by chrisl3 1 year ago
chrisl3
Abortion is a very straight forward debate. You either believe the "fetus" is a human being therefore you can't kill it. Or you believe it's just flesh and therefore you can do whatever you want. But the fundamental question is still whether it's a human being or not
Posted by chrisl3 1 year ago
chrisl3
Because if the baby is a human being the rights of the mother are irrelevant. Because you don't get to kill someone over the concept of the mothers rights. Whether you believe it is or isn't a human being in the womb that question is more than relevant it IS the question.
Posted by DanaForYeshua 1 year ago
DanaForYeshua
Irrelevant. What about the rights of the mother?
Posted by chrisl3 1 year ago
chrisl3
Seems the fundamental question needs to be answered first on whether the baby is a human being and has rights before you can get into the other questions.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.