The Instigator
AmericaTheFatherland
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
QuestForQuestions
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

Should international law overthrow abortion?

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 3 votes the winner is...
QuestForQuestions
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/4/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 550 times Debate No: 45182
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

AmericaTheFatherland

Pro

For soldier to die is not murder but as an act of war. Aborting a child is considered murder. We, pro-life, say murdering an unborn is not constitutional under international law. Killing as act of war is not murder, but denying the fetus to live is homicide.
QuestForQuestions

Con

It doesn't matter the name you give to it. Whether it is a murder or not, this is just a matter of law, and the law can always change. And I think that denying somebody's life is much more tragic when sending a soldier to a war. This soldier has definitively a life, with parents, friends, wife, children. An unborn baby has not a life at all. He is barely conscient or feels pain until the 5th month. And I defend that abortion could be done until the 3th month.

And a life is worthwhile only if the two most basic necessities, a place to live with dignity and quality food, are available while the child is totally dependent on others. If you can't guarantee these things, it will not be so much a life, but mostly suffering.
While the government cannot guarantee these basic necessities for all unwanted children, abortion should be an option.

And if the woman's life is threatened by the pregnancy or if she was a victim of rape, abortion must be always an option. The mother's life is much more important (even more if she has other children to take care of), and the price of rape is already too high for the government obligate the woman to keep the baby for 9 months.
Debate Round No. 1
AmericaTheFatherland

Pro

Whether the mother is victim of incest or rape, the fetus is still considered at a living being and must be valued first before anyone. What international law does is tyrannical and that value is not constitutional. The soldiers who died got a chance at life BUT not the fetus who is still inside the mother's womb

It does not matter, killing a human being as act of murder is a serious crime. Not letting the fetus live is a serious crime. Why should I support to destroy a living being in case of incest or rape? Like I said before, it does not matter. Every human life is valuable. You should not destroy the living being just because "the population might reach its maximum number". Come on, don't use everyday problems to justify murder.

Think about it, don't use everyday problems to justify murder.
QuestForQuestions

Con

"Just" because the population can reach its maximum number? This kind of phrase shows that you have no conscience of what is happening in your own world. Have you seen the conditions of life in places like India, Africa and China? The lack of sufficient and decent water and food, the lack of hygiene, the lack of health, the conditions the misery of great part of their population, the violence. All these everyday problems happen in this scale also because the population grew without control, and they are serious precisely because they are happening everyday and for millions of people. Everyday problems are far from being always banal like your phrase suggests. I am not talking about traffic jams or overcrowded buses and trains.

The life of the mother is the most important, even more if she has other children or people who depend on her. The death of the baby most probably will only harm directly the baby himself and maybe his parents, and only in the sentimental level. And the baby has no idea of what is happening. A girl who was raped will probably carry this horrible trauma for the rest of her life, and having a baby can harm her even more.

Getting a chance to live has no importance when compared to the quality of this life. I consider it is one of the worst tortures to bring a baby to this world without having conditions to feed and protect him properly.

At least until the third or fourth month, I will never consider abortion a crime, even if the woman was not raped or doesn't have a risky pregnancy. However, in order to the abortion does not become a banal act, I think the women who request an abortion for a second time should be obligated to do the surgery for tubal ligation.
Debate Round No. 2
AmericaTheFatherland

Pro

It doesn't matter if the life of the mother is important. Baby first, mother second. Everyday problems shouldn't determine a unborn's fate. Come on, man. Why use everyday problems to determine a unborn's fate? Poverty, hunger, crime, suffering doesn't determine whether the unborn will live. Only the Lord Jesus Christ determines who lives or who dies, not man. Maximum amount of children should not determine the unborn's fate. The life of the baby is more important than the mother. Animals risk their lives to protect their young, and humans should do the same. That justification for abortion will only cause embarrassment and disappointment. Let me ask you this. Are you saying adults' lives are more important than babies? Don't you and pro-choice have any sense of decency? Letting adults' lives be higher than an infant. Remember, the infant should be placed above everyone in the family. It is sinful to use justification for murder. The Lord Jesus Christ will rule on their behalf and judge those who carelessly murdered their unborn. When judgement day comes, you will give that justification to the Lord. Murdering an unborn only provokes His wrath. Justice will be brought for the unborn. Tell that to the Lord Jesus Christ. Lord Jesus Christ won't take any justification for murder neither will me and pro-life take that excuse. There is no excuse.
QuestForQuestions

Con

Everything you say is based only on what your religion states as being the right thing. Nothing more. These are far from being logical arguments, and that is why they will never convince people who don't share your faith. And the fact is that most people probably don't share your faith (myself, for example. I am atheist).
Besides that, most people don't base their choices only on their religion, but mainly on logic. And in a risky pregnancy, being both mother and baby at risk (even more the baby, since he totally depends on the mother), it is logical for the majority that the better choice is saving the mother's life. She has more chances to survive than the baby, and it is better to lose one than to lose two. This is logic.
In the same way, for many people it makes more sense that it is preferable to do thousands of abortions now than having thousands of children in the future suffering from social negligence, starvation, violence and sexual abuse. And, again, these are not banal everyday problems. Someone who considers these problems as being banal shows a level of fanatism that is very far from what a psychiatrist would call acceptable.
Debate Round No. 3
AmericaTheFatherland

Pro

If you abort unwanted children, the last opportunity to end world problems is in the toilet. These unwanted children might change the world. Do mothers care if their unborn children will change world history. Listen, I know women or men like you want to keep abortion legal in order to justify it. These children might have a dream to change the world. Unwanted unborn children might end world hunger, poverty, and neglect. So think twice before you terminate the chance to end world problems.
QuestForQuestions

Con

This justificative also does not work. Considering the poor conditions of life that many of these children who are aborted would face, the probability that some of them would have become a new big drug dealer, a new mafia boss, a new corrupt or even a new Hitler is higher than the probability of become a world savior.

And also according to your justificative, all the women should have as many children as possible because it would increase the chances of appearing a world savior. This would be totally insane and the chances of sucess would be very low.

Everybody has the potential to become a good person, but whether this potential will be developed depends a lot on the ambient where we live. Just see how it is difficult to raise a child properly in a slum, for example.

Maybe the world savior or saviors that you and many others dream about is/are already among us. However, maybe they are not being able to develop all their good potential because their life conditions are restraining them. This is why the life quality should be a priority instead of the life by itself, and this is why we should give priority to those who were already born. We should try to give them conditions so they can develop their good potential as much as possible, and in this way make them able to change our world effectively.
Debate Round No. 4
AmericaTheFatherland

Pro

In the beginning, you say we shouldn't give an unborn a chance at society just because you said they might face world problems. But to me, you allow the execution of unwanted children is not constitutional. If you terminate their lives. You'll have two problems, one: they might terminate world problems and you denied that opportunity and, two: the death of an innocent unborn child will cling unto you for the rest of your life. You will regret it. It will haunt. Pro-life doesn't care whether the unborn will become criminals or not, they only want the child to live, not die. Like I said that justification of yours will not work here on Earth and in the afterlife. Pro-choice are stubborn and narrow-minded saying it's the mother's body she can do whatever she wants, but believe me,my friend, that is one way you justify murder. All life is precious no matter what. Life is more valuable than money, cars, mansions, and gold. If you don't let the child live, what good does that do the mother? Nothing!

Mothers who abort their unwanted pregnancies only care about themselves and not the adorable unborn child. Whether it is incest or rape, it doesn't matter the child still needs a life. That stubborn justification will not cut it anywhere in the world of pro-life. Like I said before, these unborn might achieve the goal to end world problems. You see everyday on TV, some world problems are being solved. So, I highly recommend in case you have an unwanted pregnancy, let the child live and move with your life. Remember, despite the worldwide problems, all unborn need LIFE. Not death. L-I-F-E. LIFE. Period. End of discussion.
QuestForQuestions

Con

I don't think that aborting babies who could grow on time to see the end of the world problems would be so relevant. All decisions have some risk. For example, when you allow a baby to be born and grow up in a bad ambient, there is the risk of this baby become a big criminal who will kill with violence many other people, including children and pregnant women. In my opinion, this is much worst than an abortion.

About the guilty conscience, maybe it would happen for some people, but I doubt it would be like this for the majority. I myself helped once a friend to have an abortion. It was a horrible moment because it was totally improvised, but I have never regretted it. This friend had already an unplanned child from a past boyfriend, and her new boyfriend was a lazy man who used drugs. She was also far from being responsible even having this 7-years old child to take care of. I doubt another child would make her to improve. Because of these things I have never regretted for having supported this abortion. For what I knew about his mother, I think I did the best thing for that baby.

Secondly, I have always defended that an abortion should be done only after the woman has talked with a psychologist or occupational therapist. The intention would be precisely helping her to take a more conscient decision, and then the chances of regret would be lower.

What you said is precisely what make people like you to sound much more cruel than any pro-choice. You said "Pro-life doesn't care whether the unborn will become criminals or not"... by this it is easy to think that you also don't care whether these children will starve or not, whether these children will suffer violence or not, etc. This sounds much more cruel than abortion.

And when I talk about the importance of life quality I don't mean cars, mansions or anything like this. By quality of life I mean access to adequate food, hygiene, protection and education. "Adequate" doesn't mean superfluous, it means necessary for a dignified life.

And "like I said before", the majority of these unwanted children can end only by perpetuating the vicious cycle of violence and lack of conscience which has prevented so many achievements from reaching all the social classes. It doesn't matter whether you have solutions for so many problems if there are so many social groups unable to accept and understand them.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
AmericaTheFatherlandQuestForQuestionsTied
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: I'm not quite sure how Pro intended to win this debate when his arguments are almost all appeals to emotion. I see some analysis of the potential harms created, but Con does a good job of responding to these and outweighing them. Pro never explains why the life of an unborn child should be preferred to that of an adult. Pro never examines why a life of suffering is better than no life at all. Pro brings in some Christianity, but never explains why Jesus Christ should be the arbiter of what everyone does. Pro says that these children might grow up to do great things, then pulls that argument back when Con rightly argues that they can grow up to do terrible things as well. In fact, over and over again, I see Pro asserting that life is valuable without ever backing up that assertion. Why do we care about life? I feel like I could answer that, but I'm not a part of this debate!
Vote Placed by SchinkBR 3 years ago
SchinkBR
AmericaTheFatherlandQuestForQuestionsTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: No one used any sources to support their claims. So disappointing really.
Vote Placed by Defro 3 years ago
Defro
AmericaTheFatherlandQuestForQuestionsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's points were much more convincing and logical, while Pro's points were tied with religion, which is not the subject and hand, therefore losing him points in conduct and convincing arguments. Also, Pro contradicted him/herself when he/she said that all life is important and proceeded to state that the baby's life is MORE important than the mother's.