There is nothing wrong with abortion
Debate Rounds (4)
1. No semantics; use your own common sense to know that this means.
2. No vulgarity; keep it clean
These definitions are simply for structure, and understanding of what this debate is about as a whole. If my opponent feels any of these definitions are abusive, they may offer an alternative definition so long as it fits in the same train of linear thought.
Also, they may offer more definitions as they see necessary.
1.  Abortion: "termination of pregnancy"
2.  Wrong: "that which is contrary to the principles of justice or law"
3.  Nothing: "in no respect; to no degree"
All definitions from http://wordnet.princeton.edu...
Round 1: Acceptance/ Definitions
Round 2: Constructive ideas; After this round, no new arguments may be brought into the debate. Also note that this round is not meant for clash of arguments, but for presentation of each sides' stance.
Round 3-4: Debate and clash; Use you own common sense for this.
Obs1: The resolution says "There is nothing wrong with abortion" meaning that if I am able to show even one thing to be "wrong" with abortion, I will win this debate.
Obs2: BOP is on I, the Con. However the moment I make an argument, my opponent has the BOP of refutation, if my arguments are not refuted, then I win them,
1. termination of a human fetus is murder
Many pro-choice advocates claim that since the fetus has not yet been born, it is not a human; this is however incredibly untrue. Even at the earliest stage of development, the fetus has it's own unique string of DNA, not it's Mother's; but even more so than that it is human DNA.
Even more so, to say that it is alright to kill the unborn fetus because it is not full developed, is the same as saying it is okay to kill a child or a teenager because they are not fully developed.
2. by aborting a fetus, we destroy limitless potential
3. Many women experience severe health problems after having abortions. 
Including; 30% Increased risk of breast cancer, Sterility, bladder injury, ectopic pregnancy, hemorrhaging, hepatitis, and many many more.
4. Many women die due to botched abortions, or due to complications with the procedure 
5. Many women suffer psychological distress after having an abortion 
6. Abortion violates the unborn Child's right to life 
From the declaration of independence; "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Also interesting to note, that In this clause the wording, "All me are created equal" means that even if the prior logic that murder is being committed isn't accepted, then it is still wrong (unjust) because the unborn child's rights are still being violated as the declaration claims that they are created equal, not born equal
I have presented 7 very basic arguments, and as needed will further explain and expand them. but at this point in the debate, I am winning 7 times over.
R1 - comparing the fetus to a teenager or a child is impossible mainly because that's what this debate is about a fetus in not viable or developed as a human being. Having DNA does technically make you human however there is more than one criteria you need to fill to be called human like one of them is being born. A fetus has more in common with a tumor the first few weeks after a while it becomes more a parasite than anything else stealing nurtrients from it's host.
R2 - I am not fazed by the potentiality argument it is not proof that abortion is wrong nor has it any weight for it is only theory and does not make abortion wrong.
R3 - This is an appeal to consequence, furthermore it does not make abortion wrong. You have made a poor decision in defining wrong as contrary to justice or law. A women who has a fetus is justified in taking the fetus out of her body since she is capable and knows what the meaning of risk is. Also since the fetus is not capable of making decisions and is not sentient it is not wrong to terminate it.
R4 - This seems like an extenionsn of the third point if the women getting an abortion does die which is exteremly rare but the women decided to end her pregnancy an accepted any risk in doing it does not make abortion wrong claiming that a women might die.
R5 - The effects after an abortion or what might happen after an abortion are not relevant whether an abortion is wrong. You have not related the effects of what a pregnant women experiences to how abortion is wrong.
R6 - you have not made an argument as to how an unborn child is alive; Furthermore, Their is specific criteria that one must meet to be considered alive 1 you must be born 2 you must be able to make think. 3 you must be able 4 you must be able to feel
For the record you only presented 6 arguments and they have all been refuted
I'm just going to go right down the arguments
1. My opponent claims that there is one more requirement for some-one to be a human; they have to have been born. However they never warrant why this is necessary. They claim that they are closer to a tumor than a human being, however this is not true; where a person to get a tumor, that tumor would have the same DNA code as them - whereas a fetus has a completely unique DNA code to either the mother or the father.
And a fetus is not a parasite, a parasite in an organism that drains the life out of it's host via unnatural means. Pregnancy is not unnatural, in fact once a women becomes pregnant her body takes that into account and she is not lacking in any of her own necessities.
2. My opponent doesn't refute this argument; thus it is a drop. I have won this debate as of this point.
3. First, My opponent is completely disregarding my argument; the purpose of a legitimate government is to protect it's people; if a woman is injured or could possibly die because of a "medical procedure" that is malpractice, thus unjust.
Secondly, my opponent's defense here is completely and utterly semantic; the fact that he pulls attention to my definition and indicates that where it a wider range definition, it would be wrong.
Third, my opponent claims that since the woman is capable of terminating the pregnancy, it is just to do so; that is the same thing as saying that because I could rob a bank, or kill a kindergarten class it is justified to for me to do so.
Fourth, my opponent claims that since the fetus isn't sentient there's nothing wrong with killing it; this is a multiple causation fallacy. One because we cannot know that the fetus isn't sentient, two because saying it's alright to kill those who aren't capable of making decisions is the same thing as saying it's okay to kill Children, the mentally handicapped, elderly, and sick because they aren't capable of making decisions.
4. Again, allowing such dangerous "medical Practices" is malpractice.
5. There is no warrant here, the woman suffers mental distress; thus it is wrong.
6. I have made plenty of argument about how the unborn child is alive; especially since I have a direct quote from the constitution that states all "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life..." At the moment of conception (i.e. creation) the Child has a right to life, abortion violates this right thus it is wrong.
R1 - My opponent does not address my argument but sidesteps it by saying what warrant do I have for saying that to be considered human there is more than one criteria to be filled besides having DNA. Note my opponent does not make an argument for being human based solely on having DNA. To be considered human you have to have DNA and be born because if you are not born you are not able to think or be sentient or feel, a fetus can not do any of those things; Furthermore, a baby is much like a parasite you use the word 'unnatural' but a parasite takes nutrients by it's natural means. The baby is much like a parasite even if it is born there are many complications in the postpartum of the pregnancy like "cadriomyopathy" many women die during childbirth more so than if they abort making many of your arguments moot. If the argument is that an abortion might harm the women childbirth might harm the women more. Also women get majorly depressed after having a child so should women stop giving birth because of some complications?
R2 - Technically you didn't make an argument it is not proof that abortion is wrong it's a theory ( if it can so be called that). Their is no warrant for why this is relevant to the debate.
R3 - I have already addressed this argument you do realize that childbirth is technically a "medical procedure." And I pull attention to your definition because it's the parameters we agreed on it isn't a semantical argument it's a practical one I didn't offer a different definition nor did I try to change the meaning of the definition I simply pointed out that you were deviating from your parameters. And you could rob a bank if you think you're justified in robbing a bank if you think it is just that's what we're dealing with individuals not the collective good. Furthermore it's not okay t kill children, mentally handicapped, elderly, or sick because they are sentient they were born and they can think and feel.
R4 - already pointed out how this point is moot.
R5 - Many women suffer mental distress after they have a child is does that make having a child wrong?
R6 - This argument has an implication that children are created by a "Creator" capital C meaning a being/entity meaning my opponent is asserting the existence of a higher order which cannot be proven. My opponents real argument seems to be that we all have unalienable rights (life,liberty, and property), but we are not operating solely in America many children are aborted elsewhere do only fetus's that are aborted in America have this right? Your arguments is a geographical one not a moral one or logical one so it should be dismissed.
2. My opponent offers no refutation here, and in fact that way they've responded shows that my argument is true.
3. it is indeed a semantic argument because you arguing this point so rigidly; while of course we have to take into play the basic definition provided, there is no reason why an argument should be based solely on a definition.
The point of defining terms and such in the first place, is for clarity and understanding; not to make arguments based on technicalities.
4. I have shown how it is not moot, please vote base on the debate.
5. The point is in magnitude; when having a child only 10-15% of women suffer post-pardum depression and these symptoms are temporary and caused by hormonal imbalances. whereas after having an abortion, a good majority of women suffer long-term effects of guilt, depression, and anxiety. 
6. My opponent is not attacking my argument, but what they want my argument to be; my point still stands that because the declaration of independence states it is immoral, it makes it unjust. This is not a debate about , however if my opponent wishes we can have a debate such as that later; however at this point in time I ask for a Con Vote, I have shown that there are things wrong with abortion!
Vote Con Please!
headphonegut forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years 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:||3||2|
Reasons for voting decision: Note an appeal to consequence is an argument that a proposition is true because a consequence is desired, it is not an appeal to consequence to argue something is wrong because of the consequences. This was close until the last round, BangBang had the BoP and weighing that I would have balanced it, the forfeit seals it though 3:2 BangBang
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.