THW legalise abortion.
Debate Rounds (5)
1st round points
3rd rebuttal only
Pro must ff final round, otherwise they lose the debate.
Let's do this thing!
All right, this is awkward.
I've accidentally reversed the positions.
I'm Pro, she's Con.
I expected Con to begin, but let's do this!
Let's start with some definitions.
The deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks.
Any one of the many free nerve endings throughout the body that warn of potentially harmful changes in the environment, such as excessive pressure or temperature.
As stated in comments, it's up to Con to decide what 'legalise' means.
The fetus does not feel pain up to 20 weeks.
My source for this section is a reputable medical journal. Anyhow, for those who are too lazy to read it, it says (in essence) that at 20 weeks, pain receptors are widespread, and therefore the fetus feels pain(possibly) at that point. However, it goes on to say that the pain receptors are not 'connected' to the brain until 29-30 weeks. This means that most scientists feel that there is no emotional 'pain' until 30 weeks. 28 weeks, which is the standard almost globally, is well short of that, meaning that according to our current science, the fetus does not feel pain, thus refuting a common argument, that of the fetus feeling pain
'My body, my choice'
The fetus is completely dependent upon the mother while in the womb for its nutrition etc. This means that the fetus CAN be considered a part of a mother's body. We give freedom, in our society, for people to do what they want with their body (generally).
Therefore we should allow mothers to 'abort' a part of their body with that same freedom we allow for, for example, plastic surgery.
While looking for information on abortion, I found two images that broke my heart and made me cry:
(My opponent's actual position, Con, referred to as Pro for ease of reading)
It's important to remember, when looking through Pro's arguments, that she has not used any sources, making it her word against mine. Except, in this case, it's not just that. My word is backed up by sources, her word only by some pictures that provided my dangerous click of the day.
A undercurrent running through Pro's arguemnt(such that I can understand) is that of the cut-off. At what date does the foetus become human. That's a very interesting area, and one that I will come back to next round. For now however, we must use reductio ad absurdum. Pro claims that the foetus is human at any point(at least, that's what I gather) So is the ball of cells formed after the conception human, as, as Pro claims, it has the potential to be human? Is a seed a plant because it has the potential to be one? No, that's absurd.
I'd also like to remind Pro that she must define legalise, as agreed in comments.
Now let's go through this statement by statement(Pro has provided no evidence for her views, and so we are forced to take her at her word)
'It may be their body, but now they are sharing it with a whole other human life form.'
R1: Pro provdes no definition or indication of what she believes is, or indeed what is a human life form. Also, when is 'now'?
'Actually this is not their body, it is the child's body. '
R2:This is absurd. Pro has stated that the mother's body is not hers anymore, it belongs to the nonsentient foetus.
'The baby may feel no pain, and after they will never feel anything.'
R3: This is irrelevant
'This other person has no say in what happens to them.'
R4: Do you think, that if we could ask the baby, we would not? Pro has also proceeded with her definition of human being which no one knows.
'This is murder, don't believe me?'
No, I don't. You have no sources for this.
'The definition of murder is the killing of one human being by another. '
'Abortion does not terminate a pregnancy, it terminates a child.'
There you go again with the assumption that this ball of cells is a child.
'Just because the woman is no longer pregnant doesn't mean they are not a mother of a child, but now the are the mother of a dead child.'
False. The definition of a mother is a female who has children. This mother has no children, and it can be surmised that she does not want this ball of cells/child(as Pro insists on labelling it)
'Their little hearts beat inside their mother.'
False, they're dead. Their hearts don't beat.(Couldn't resist)
'You kill one right after another. Why do you want them dead?'
I don't, personally kil them 'right after another'. I object to this personalising of me and other pro-choice people as evil people who kill babies. No doubt, there are deeply inhumane ways to abort, but the ways we have now are humane and the baby feels no pain.
'It's a brand new life, this baby can not even cry.'
Oh, okay, I'll go do some research on sperm cells having tear ducts and crying, shall I?
'It's not your place to stop their hearts.'
Ah, now this is an interesting point. It is indeed not my place, personally, to abort a baby. I am not a qualified doctor, skilled in doing this! Another way of looking at it is the example of a gun. The person makes the choice to pull the trigger, and the results happen. So with abortion. The mother(supported by family members and advice) makes the choice, and the doctor carries it out. In fact, only doctors that want to do it, have to. You can, as a doctor, opt out.
'This child could have been your best friend, they could have been your own little heaven, they could have loved you, and they could have been the perfect child, but not anymore. '
R5: The key word here is 'could have'. It's pointless to focus on what could have been. But while we're on the subject of 'could have', let's examine some actual statistics on the type of women most likely to have an abortion. And guess what? Non-hispanic blacks and Hispanics are most likely to be aborted, as those same groups have the highest rates of unintended pregnancy. Guess what groups have the highest rate of crime? Non-hispanic blacks and Hispanics. This is not to typecast all blacks and Hispanics as criminals, but simply to state that this baby is much more likely to commit crime than whites. This is for various reasons, but the most salient
' Every baby is a gift and a blessing, this gift should not be returned.'
R6: Every baby is a gift/blessing? What about people who have clearly done bad in their lives, and caused widespread misery and pain, such as Hitler/Stalin.
These images made me quite nervous to click on them, knowing the reputation of the pro-life movement for using extremely graphic images. To save the readers having to look at them, I've bravely clicked on them (for science!)
Your first image is from www.orwelltoday.com, a website that's stated aim is
'Comparing the world George Orwell described in "1984"
with the world we are living in today,
It promotes global warming denalism and several JFK conspiracies. This is unlikely to be very reliable, as well as the fact that this poem is irrelevant.
Your second source appears to be from a song.
a)Why is this relevant?
b)We've already established the baby feels no pain.
c)Actual lyrics 'HEY,hey why are they sucking my house'. What? The baby has no 'house'. I think I understand what this is referring to, but this barbaric form of abortion is illegal.
d)Actual lyrics 'Mommy, that's my arm why are they tearing my arm' The baby feels no pain and so would not realise that someone is 'tearing their arm', even though doctors don't 'tear arms'.
e)The baby cannot talk, let alone sing. The baby feels no pain.
NoobyGurl forfeited this round.
NoobyGurl forfeited this round.
NoobyGurl forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.