Should elective abortion be legal?
Debate Rounds (5)
Didn't realize the 500 character limit. Voters beware
The Parasite Argument
parasite: an organism that lives on another being and consumes the hosts nutrients
By definition, a baby is a parasite.
It cannot be said that, for any reason, a person should be forced to host a parasite on their body. In the case of babies, the only method of removing the parasite is abortion. Disallowing abortion forces the parasite to remain on the host, which we've determined is unethical.
Thus, abortion should be legal.
The opponent arbitrarily ignores the definition of parasite, instead making the unfounded (and incorrect) assertion that "a baby ... is not a parasite."
Unless the opponent can demonstrate that it is ethical to force a person to harbor a parasite and the difficulties that entails, his point fails.
Abortion should be legal in the case that the mother and baby will die without it. Clearly, one death is better than two and abortion is necessary to reduce the death toll.
The opponent again ignores my definition, choosing not to provide counterevidence. Argument one flows to me.
The opponent doesn't even refer to my second argument, which can only count as a dropped argument which should also be flowed to me.
-Opponent doesn't present alternative definitions.
-Makes unbased assertions.
The Case Where No Abortion Will Cause Mother and Child Death
-Opponent flat out doesn't address this argument.
The opponent makes an ethical claim but provides no evidence for it.
The opponent fails to see the connection between baby parasitism and elective abortion.
Again, a baby is, by definition, a parasite. A person should not be forced to harbor a parasite on their body. The only way to remove this parasite is through elective abortion. Illegalizing elective abortion forces a person to harbor a parasite on their body. Therefore, elective abortion should be legal.
Finally, the opponent again drops argument #2, meaning it flows Pro. I've won the debate on arg 2 alone.
Opponent again drops Argument 2 and fails to adequately address Argument 1.
The vote is clearly for Pro here, since the opponent failed to meet the minimum Con requirement of rebutting the opponent's arguments.
Because of Arg 1 (parasitism) and Arg 2 (special cases), elective abortion should be legal. Regardless of your personal feelings, it is clear the opponent failed to support her/his side here.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by BackCommander 5 months 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:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro started off by stating that a baby fits the definition of a parasite and therefore outlawing abortions is forcing a person to host a parasite. Con then states that a baby is not a parasite, that it is a human, and spends the rest of the debate simply repeating this. Con fails to point out how a baby is in any way not a parasite. Pro eventually adds to their argument that abortion should be acceptable if either the mother or child are in danger of dying, but this doesn't fit as the argument is for elective abortions and not ones in case of medical emergencies. Pro's argument stands throughout the entire debate without Con ever countering it, and Con's argument serves as an appeal to emotion without any real basis. Convincing argument vote goes to Pro.
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.