The Instigator
marquettelddebate
Pro (for)
The Contender
CosmoJarvis
Con (against)

The United States Should Stop Abortions

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
CosmoJarvis has forfeited round #1.
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: 1/4/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 213 times Debate No: 98681
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

marquettelddebate

Pro

Now, we need to consider the fact that an unborn baby is a life. This has been made clear by many scientists: depending on how you define life, the time in which the fetus is alive is different, but each interpretation is before most abortions. (http://www.bbc.co.uk...) Due to this, it seems clear that we must debate under the assumption that most aborted babies are considered live human beings. So now, we must consider the arguments for the con that the life debate is about a woman's right to choose. It becomes clear that this debate is actually about a child's right to live. This will always outweigh this so-called "woman's right to choose." It is sad that our society has reached the point that woman's rights is linked to the choice whether or not to kill a living human being. The abortion debate has nothing to do with a woman's right to choose. I am a firm supporter of women's rights, but it is not a right of a woman to kill a living child, no matter what the con might say. Also, ignore any worst case scenario arguments the con might bring up. According to http://www.johnstonsarchive.net..., an unbiased source of information about abortions, only 7% of abortions are from rape, incest, or health issues. As this information clearly proves, judges cannot vote on this debate based on the worst case scenarios the con might present. The rest of the reasons are all related to various reasons the woman does not want the baby. Every human life has value, no matter how small. When we, as a society, set the precedent that some human lives don't matter, we must look back at history. Every time we, as human beings, try to decide which other human beings' lives do not matter, awful things happen. (Like holocaust). The lives of unborn children matter as well, and we cannot take their lives away from them. Therefore, this debate is not about a woman's right to choose, but rather a child's right to live.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 1
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by marquettelddebate 1 year ago
marquettelddebate
That is a good , rational argument. I still don't agree, but I believe you are a good debater who knows what they are talking about.
Posted by CosmoJarvis 1 year ago
CosmoJarvis
Apparently, I can't post my argument.
Here's my argument:

Though I'm not a firm supporter of abortions, I do believe that there should be abortion facilities open to the public.

If abortions are unavailable to the public then women will still likely have abortions, though they will be conducted by untrained "doctors," which may likely result in the death of both the fetus and the woman due to an infection or misconduct. Another alternative might be to simply go to another country where abortions are legal and carry out an abortion there.

I'd like to use prohibition in the "Roaring Twenties" as my prime example for this. During Prohibition, alcoholic beverages were illegal. Thus, speakeasies arose. Because alcoholic beverages were hard to brew due to the long fermentation process, many speakeasies chose to use rubbing alcohol in their beverages. Unfortunately, the rubbing alcohol had chemicals which either caused the consumer blindness or death. Regardless of the health and legal risks, people still persisted in purchasing and consuming alcohol.

Secondly, though my opponent said "Also, ignore any worst case scenario arguments the con might bring up," I feel that it is important to bring in some scenarios that are realistic. We have to face the inevitability that these cases may come up. There are some cases where a lady's life will be threatened during pregnancy. Either you have an abortion, or let the child and lady die. Without the availability of abortion clinics, these cases will result in the death of both the fetus and lady. Claiming that this debate is "not about a woman's right to choose, but rather a child's right to live," is hypocritical if you choose to ignore the health of the pregnant woman.

By no means am I claiming that these unborn children don't have a right to live. Every human being, I believe, have natural rights ("life, liberty and property), but I don't support the radical decision to abolish all abortions.
Posted by marquettelddebate 1 year ago
marquettelddebate
I wish the best of luck to my opponent in future debates. Thank you for the great debate.
This debate has 0 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.