The Instigator
RandomName
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Clash
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

There is no reasonable, non-religious reason for abortion to be illegal.

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Clash
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/10/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,709 times Debate No: 24220
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

RandomName

Pro

First round for acceptance.

There is absolutely no non-religious reason for induced abortion to be illegal. I challenge whoever accepts this debate to name any reason, beyond religious morals; this medical procedure should become restricted at a federal level.

Definitions:

Abortion - noun - The removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy.

Illegal - noun - contrary to or forbidden by official rules, regulations, etc.

Federal - adjective - pertaining to or of the nature of a union of states under a central governmentdistinct from the individual governments of the separate states.

Religion - noun - a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Moral - adjective - of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical.

www.dictionary.reference.com
Clash

Con

Accepted. As Con, I will argue that there are reasons which are non-religious but also still reasonable for abortion to be illegal. I however don't think abortion should be illegal if 1) The woman's life is in danger, 2) If the woman was raped, and 3) If the fetus is very bad and ill, meaning that it will probably die anyway.

In all other situations, I think it should be illegal.

I'm looking forward to debate with you and wish you the best of luck.
Debate Round No. 1
RandomName

Pro

RandomName forfeited this round.
Clash

Con

My opponent has for some reasons unfortunately forfeited his second round. I hope he comes back and engages in what is left of this debate.

Now, in proving my case that there are non-religious but still also reasonable reasons to support the view that abortion should illegal, I will give one argument. That is, the future argument. After that, I will refute some of the objections to this argument.


The Future Argument


Premise 1: A fetus will become a human being in the future.

Premise 2: It is illegal to kill a human being.

Conclusion: Therefore, it should be illegal to kill a fetus (i.e., Abortion).

Premise 2 is very obvious. In USA, and in almost all other countries, killing a human being (unless it is for self defense etc) is completely illegal. If someone kills a human being, he or she will get in prison their whole life or at least in a very long time. You may even get the death penalty.

Now, if a fetus is a human or not is irrelevant. I will not argue that a fetus is a human. I will however argue that even if a fetus is not a human yet, it has the full potential to become one. A fetus is basically a future human being. The fetus will become a human, so by killing it you are not even allowing it the right to become a human and have a life.

What's the difference between killing a fully human and a fetus which is in it's way to become a fully human? And what right do we have to kill a fetus which will become a fully human in the future? By killing a fetus, we are doing nothing but depriving him or she of their future and life. You are basically taken one's right to even have a chance to live, have a life, and a future. I see this as worse than killing someone which had the chance to at least live in a while.

By killing a fetus, you are not even giving it a chance to become a human being and even live for one minute. I and you who are reading this right now was once a fetus and thus, if it is was wrong to kill me and you now, it was wrong to kill me and you then. In fact, if you had killed me when I was a fetus, I would not even have the chance to be here right now and talk to you.

Don Marquis, probably the founder of this argument, says:

'The effect of the loss of my biological life is the loss to me of all those activities, projects, experiences, and enjoyments which would otherwise have constituted my future personal life. These activities, projects, experiences, and enjoyments are either valuable for their own sakes or are means to something else that is valuable for its own sake. Therefore, when I die, I am deprived of all of the value of my future.' [1]

Since fetuses have the same kind of future that we do and will become fully grown humans like us, and since it is wrong to kill innocent humans and to deprive them of their futures, it follows that it is wrong to kill fetuses and thereby rob them of what is of the greatest value to them; Their own life and future.


The objections to this argument

There are many objections to this argument. Although I would love to refute all of those objections because they are all so weak and flawed, I unfortunately can't because of limited space. Therefore, I will only refute the 5 most common objections to this argument.

Objection 1: The fetus is not a person

Some people says that a fetus is not a person. Therefore, it is acceptable or morally right to kill it. Three questions must be asked first:

1) Which features of personhood characterize the human person?

2) In which authority can someone say what is a person and not?

3) Define what makes a person?

The fact of the matter is that there many different opinions of what it means to be a person, and what a person is is not a legal question but a question which is to be decided within many different and specific ethics.
Moreover, even if a fetus is not a person yet (I'm saying yet since the fetus will become and has the full potential to become a person), does that mean that it doesn't have the right and chance to become a fully grown human person and have a life and future like us? Absolutely not.


Even if the fetus is not a person yet, that doesn't mean that it doesn't have the right and chance to become a person and have a life like us. Thus, even if a fetus is not a person or a human yet, it should still not be killed and deprived of it's chance and right to become a person and a human being.

Objection 2: The fetus is a part of the woman

Because of that, she can do whatever she likes with it. However, this is far from the truth. The unborn fetus within the pregnant woman’s body is not part of her body. The fetus is a genetically distinct entity with its own unique and individual gender, blood type, bone-structure, and genetic code.[2] So although the fetus is attached to its mother, it is not part of her.

Objection 3: Self ownership

Someone also brings up the self ownership objection. Because the fetus is owned by the women, she has the right to do whatever she likes with it. That may be true in regards to her car or house for example.

However, the right to self ownership cannot justify killing a fetus which will become a human being and have a future and life like us. Just like it doesn't justify to for example kill our pets just because we own them.

Objection 4: The fetus doesn't feel pain

Because of that, some people argue that it is acceptable to kill the fetus. First of all, how do we really know that a fetus doesn't feel pain when it is killed? What is the evidences for such a claim? These two are those questions which people who believe in this claim must answer first. I myself cannot see how someone can really prove that something doesn't feel pain. At least not a fetus.

Moreover, even if the fetus doesn't feel pain when it is being killed, that doesn't justify killing it and depriving it's right to a life and a future. Just like it doesn't justify killing some fully grown humans who doesn't feel pain, like for example those disabled or those in comas.

Objection 5: The right to have freedom of choice


Many defenders of abortion argue that if the woman choice to take a abortion, then she should have the right to do that. Thus, if you don't allow women to take abortion, you are denying women's rights on their freedom of choice.

That however doesn't mean anything more than that it puts the woman's personal interests and comfort above the value of a unborn baby's life. Indeed, that it is not denying a woman's rights anymore than not having the right to murder or steal.

Moreover, If we are to follow this logic then people should also be allowed to rape or steal as long as those people did it by their own free choice. Hence, this objection is nothing more than a illogical failure.


Conclusion

Abortion is murder no matter when a person believes life becomes official. The fact that a potential life has ended before given a chance remains evidence enough for most people to understand why a person should never have a choice of whether a fetus should live or die.

It is our natural property to have a future and a life. Killing a fetus destroys this natural and very important right, because by killing the fetus you are also killing it's chance to have a future and a life. A fetus has the full potential to become a human being and have a future like us. We have no right whatsoever to take that away from them.

I have given a non-religious but also still a reasonable reason (The future argument) as to why abortion should be illegal. Thus, Con's false claim that there are no reasonable, non-religious reasons for abortion to be illegal, is refuted.

Indeed, the conclusion stands strong: There are reasons which are non-religious but also still reasonable for abortion to be illegal.


Sources

Debate Round No. 2
RandomName

Pro

I am very sorry for forfeiting earlier; my computer was experiencing some technical difficulties.

You say "A fetus is basically a future human being. The fetus will become a human, so by killing it you are not even allowing it the right to become a human and have a life." But what would the quality of that life be?

How do you treat something you don't care about and did not want in the first place? I have trouble believing the average person would "love" someone they did not want to be a part of their life in the first place.

If someone has a child they do not want this would almost always end in a broken home, a home with one parent. This may result in abuse of child emotionally, physically, and possibly sexually.

All of these factors can lead to depression which can lead to suicide meaning the child chooses to end their own life. Suicide is the sixth leading cause of death among those 5-14 years old. Suicide is the third leading cause of death among those 15-24 years old.

I would rather see the life spared before it has to suffer so much.
Clash

Con

Thank you.

Refuting Pro's objection

Pro's objection to my argument is basically that what if the women doesn't want that child to be a part of her life in the first place? This may result in abuse of child emotionally, physically, and possibly sexually. Why? In the words of Pro: 'I have trouble believing the average person would "love" someone they did not want to be a part of their life in the first place.' Since the the women doesn't want that child to be a part of her life in the first place, having it may result in abuse of child emotionally, physically, and possibly sexually. This will then not be a good future for the child, and he or she may take suicide.

However, how can the woman not wanting the child to be a part of her life in the first place when she doesn't even know it yet, nor meet it yet? When she actually sees the child she may change her mind. And even if she still doesn't change her mind and still doesn't want the child to be a part of her life, that doesn't justify killing it and depriving it of our very natural and important right. Namely, our own future and life.

Even if the women doesn't want the child to be a part of her life, she doesn't need to kill it. There is a thing called 'giving the child to someone else after it is born'. Many women give their child to someone else after it is born (i.e Adoption).

This is mostly because they just don't want them or cannot afford having them. If the biological parents want nothing to do with their offspring, there are families all over the nation waiting desperately to adopt a baby, families who are willing to adopt diseased babies of any race or ethnicity.[1] Indeed, this is much better than just killing it. So the objection that the women doesn't want the child to be a part of her life is no excuse, and nor does it justify killing it.

Moreover, giving the child to someone else after it is born will save it from emotionally, physically, and possibly sexually children abuse by the biological mother who didn't want it. Indeed, there is no need to kill anything.


Sources

[1] http://www.abort73.com...
Debate Round No. 3
RandomName

Pro

You say to give the child away, but we must look at the amount of people the Earth is able to keep alive.

In 2010 the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation released a report stating that there are 925 million poeple without enough food to eat. Around 12 million people world wide suffer from Choleria, a desiese spread by infected food and water, typically found in over populated areas.

There are many theories published though-out the years stating a wide range of populations that the world would be able to sustane, from one million people to one trillion.

I know it sounds harsh, it sounds harsh to me too, but the cold hard truth is that it would be better for the entire world and the people that reside upon it, for that person to not be born.
Clash

Con

Thank you again for your rebuttals/objections. It has been a pleasure to have my first debate on abortion with you.

Now, let us see what Pro have said here.

Pro said: 'You say to give the child away, but we must look at the amount of people the Earth is able to keep alive.

In 2010 the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation released a report stating that there are 925 million poeple without enough food to eat. Around 12 million people world wide suffer from Choleria, a desiese spread by infected food and water, typically found in over populated areas.

There are many theories published though-out the years stating a wide range of populations that the world would be able to sustane, from one million people to one trillion.

I know it sounds harsh, it sounds harsh to me too, but the cold hard truth is that it would be better for the entire world and the people that reside upon it, for that person to not be born.'

Rebuttal: So Pro is arguing that it would be better for the entire world and the people that reside upon it for that person to not be born, because many people in the world have not enough food to eat and because many people have diseases like choleria etc.

It is indeed true that our world in many places is harsh. I myself know that our world is not perfect and very harsh in many places. This fact has always been a reality and will probably always be. However, why should our unborn offsprings (which we need if mankind is to survive) pay for this reality? Why should they be killed and be deprived their future and life just because some places in our world are harsh? Do you think you should have been killed when you were a fetus just because some places in our world are harsh? Since when does the value of human life depend upon how harsh our world are? Come on, let us not be irrational now.

The fact that our world is harsh doesn't give us the right to deprive the fetus right to become a fully grown human being like us, and have a future and a life like us - and nor does it justify it. Pro has not given us any reasons why it should.

Moreover, Pro's objection creates one very critical question:

We know that the world is harsh. However, why is it better for the entire world and the people that reside upon it, for that person to not be born just because of that? More importantly, does the fact that the world is harsh justify killing a fetus and thereby depriving it's right to become a fully grown human like us, and have a life and a future like us? If yes, how so?

Pro has failed to answer this question. Thus, Pro's objection fails and should not be given consideration, since Pro's whole objection breaks down when this question doesn't become successfully answered. Therefore, Pro's objection becomes nothing more than a non-evidenced and unsuccessful objection.

You can't just say for example that murder is wrong without answering the important question "why?'. This is exactly what Pro have done. Nevertheless, Pro's objection is really nothing more than a very weak one and just a failure.

Conclusion/Summary

We have no rights whatsoever to deprive someone of their future and life. This is one of our most important and natural rights. By killing the fetus, we are depriving both of these rights from them. A fetus will become a human being like us, have a future like us, and basically a life like us. Isn't that reason enough as to why a fetus shouldn't be killed? Indeed, abortion should be illegal (i.e., Killing the fetus). In fact, abortion ought to be illegal (expect in those three situations which I gave in my first round).

I have given a non-religious but also still a reasonable reason (i.e., The future argument + refuting some of the most common objections to it) as to why abortion should be illegal. Pro has not successfully refuted this argument and his objections to it are all flawed and very weak (as I clearly showed when I refuted them). Thus, Pro's claim (which is also the title of this debate) that there are no non-religious, reasonable arguments for abortion to be illegal, is false and refuted.

Now, I humbly ask the voters to give me the following points:

The conduct point: Why? Because Pro forfeited his round 2 (I know that he did that because his computer was experiencing some technical difficulties, but that's with all due respect not my problem. When you create a debate, it is your responsibility to make sure that you can completely finish it without forfeiting).

The source point: Why? Because Pro gave zero sources. I at least gave some sources in my round 2 and 3 (Two sources in my round 2, and one source in my 3 round).

The argument point: Why? Because Pro didn't give any arguments. He only gave two objections against my argument. And as we can see, these two objections are both very weak and are not successful in refuting the future argument.

Thank you, and thank you Randomname for this debate.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 5 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
RandomNameClashTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD is barely necessary. Pro barely put forth any effort, Con ran a brilliant counterargument, and easily negated the resolution. Pro had no sources, and forfeited.
Vote Placed by Ron-Paul 5 years ago
Ron-Paul
RandomNameClashTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro seemed to put forth minimal effort.