The Instigator
TheDeadLeafEcho
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Stonewall
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

Women Have The Right To Abortion

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...
Stonewall
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/5/2013 Category: Health
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 669 times Debate No: 41781
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)

 

TheDeadLeafEcho

Pro

I believe women have the right to abort an unborn child. The child has no specific right whatsoever, anyway, and because it is still a foetus, you cannot say that it is a complete human being. Is it murder? Well, hunting deer is murder. So what's the difference? If a woman does not want to have the child or she knows she cannot completely support it, she has the right to not give birth to a poor baby into such an awful life it MAY lead.
Stonewall

Con

Thank you for the opportunity to debate this topic.

"The child has no specific right whatsoever, anyway, and because it is still a foetus, you cannot say that it is a complete human being."

The child has no specific rights? It has the right to life, to be sure. That's one of those three guarantees in the U.S.'s Declaration of Independence, right next to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They're all unalienable rights, and cannot be denied to anyone. In any sense, fetushood is not a synonym for an "(in)complete human being" (which begs the question... can a person without arms be considered a complete human being?). It is, as Merriam-Webster calls it, "a human being or animal in the later stages of development before it is born" (1). It is not only a human being after it is born, but before so as well. Thus, it is guaranteed those same rights to life.

"Is it murder? Well, hunting deer is murder. So what's the difference?"

So, am I safe in saying that you do agree it's murder, then?

Also, hunting deer is not murder. It's hunting. Murder is defined, again by Merriam-Webster, as "the crime of deliberately killing a person". If we really need to define person, M-W says a person is "a human being" (2, 3). Murder is murder is murder, whether it's an adult, an unborn child, a person who is brain dead and in a coma, or even a person without arms.

"If a woman does not want to have the child or she knows she cannot completely support it, she has the right to not give birth to a poor baby into such an awful life it MAY lead."

That's an awful big "may" you put in there. I think you pretty much said it yourself-- there's no guarantee that these "poor" babies will be born into "such an awful life," especially if they're given up for adoption, which is always a viable option.

There are some who believe that people who get pregnant should not be punished with a baby. It seems like that would be backwards... There's no reason for a child to be punished to death due to two people's mistake. They have been given the opportunity for life, and we cannot decide that they don't deserve it, for better or worse. If that were the case, we could abort every child based simply on the fact they might just have an awful life. That's obviously not a clear way of thinking. Life is not necessarily full of misery, pain, and suffering.

I look forward to your response.

1. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
2. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
3. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate Round No. 1
TheDeadLeafEcho

Pro

I must stop you at your first couple of sentences.
Specific rights. That "child" is not a human at all. Or at least not yet, but in the few weeks where it can be aborted, it is not a human. A right to live? Perhaps so, but the mother is in charge of keeping care of the "baby". You have excellent arguments, but they completely bore me. I apologise.
A child itself doesn't have many rights to begin with, whether that child be a couple of months to 5 years old. It's still under its mother's care.
Now, it's murder. Of course. "Killing" anything is murder. But "murder" is quite the strong term to something that really isn't considered human. I'm sure you have killed an ant or a fly before, correct? Would you call it "murder". Would you really consider it murder?
If the mother cannot support the child, what can the mother do? Give birth to the child, then what?
But, not to mention, a mother can die from giving birth. Remember that. Then the child can suffer without a mother.
If the mother gives birth to a healthy child, they both can have emotional scarring. A mother gives up a child she could have loved but could not raise. But a child will not be raised by their own mother but a different, not biological mother.
Stonewall

Con

"That 'child' is not a human at all. Or at least not yet, but in the few weeks where it can be aborted, it is not a human."

I just gave you a dictionary definition for proof. Where's yours?

"A right to live? Perhaps so, but the mother is in charge of keeping care of the 'baby'."

I think life takes precedent over inconveniencing the mother.

"You have excellent arguments, but they completely bore me. I apologise."

Nice asinine response, there. Then why did you start a debate in the first place?

"A child itself doesn't have many rights to begin with..."

But it has the right to life (as you yourself admitted). That's what this debate's about. Nothing else matters here.

"I'm sure you have killed an ant or a fly before, correct? Would you call it 'murder'."

No, because flies and ants aren't people like I explained last round.

"But 'murder' is quite the strong term to something that really isn't considered human."

But fetuses are human. I showed you proof last round. You have one more round to prove me wrong.

"If the mother cannot support the child, what can the mother do? Give birth to the child, then what?"

Cripes, you really didn't read my argument at all, did you? Adoption.

"(A) mother can die from giving birth. Remember that."

You say that like it's a regular thing. One study found that .006 percent of all abortions are for the health of the mother. (1) I think we can make a fair but extremely rare exception for this blip on the abortion radar, as you can't have one without the other.

"(With adoption,) a mother gives up a child she could have loved but could not raise."

Or the mother could just kill the child! That would solve her problems!

"But a child will not be raised by their own mother but a different, not biological mother... (and) have emotional scarring."

Adopted children do quite well, as the adoptive parents show great affection for their new child (2).

___


If my arguments are still boring you, you could just forfeit. Just sayin'.

1. http://www.patheos.com...

2. http://www.npr.org...
Debate Round No. 2
TheDeadLeafEcho

Pro

TheDeadLeafEcho forfeited this round.
Stonewall

Con

Ladies and gentleman, I feel this debate speaks for itself. Vote for whoever made the better argument.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by sheila49 3 years ago
sheila49
God would disagree with you life starts at conception as you had a rite to be born so does every child and its murder in wich all who have abortions and abortion doctors will answer to God judgement day the creator of life
Posted by OtakuJordan 3 years ago
OtakuJordan
"Foetus" is an alternative but acceptable spelling.
Posted by macmack1234 3 years ago
macmack1234
"But, not to mention, a mother can die from giving birth. Remember that. Then the child can suffer without a mother."

I DIDN'T REALIZE WE WERE SPEAKING ABOUT THE EARLY 1900s. MAYBE I SHOULD GO BACK AND CHANGE MY COMMENT.
Posted by macmack1234 3 years ago
macmack1234
"I believe women have the right to abort an unborn child. The child has no specific right whatsoever, anyway, and because it is still a foetus, you cannot say that it is a complete human being. Is it murder? Well, hunting deer is murder. So what's the difference? If a woman does not want to have the child or she knows she cannot completely support it, she has the right to not give birth to a poor baby into such an awful life it MAY lead."

This was literally painful to read. #1 "fetus" was not even spelled correctly. As for comparing an unborn child to a deer, that is just completely inaccurate and repulsive. Even if it was remotely on point, at least that deer had the chance to live. And if a woman doesn't want to have a child or can't support she really shouldn't be having sex considering reproduction is the reason for sex. I agree that it's sad when a child is born into immature parents that didn't want them or couldn't support them but seriously the least they can do is put the poor baby up for adoption. For my final statement I would like to say that although the child inside the mother is unborn and a "fetus", you are denying it's right to be born into the world no matter what stage of life it is in. How can you look into an innocent baby's face and think that thousands of women a day are denying this purity of entering the world because they made a stupid mistake.
Posted by macmack1234 3 years ago
macmack1234
"I believe women have the right to abort an unborn child. The child has no specific right whatsoever, anyway, and because it is still a foetus, you cannot say that it is a complete human being. Is it murder? Well, hunting deer is murder. So what's the difference? If a woman does not want to have the child or she knows she cannot completely support it, she has the right to not give birth to a poor baby into such an awful life it MAY lead."

This was literally painful to read. #1 "fetus" was not even spelled correctly. As for comparing an unborn child to a deer, that is just completely inaccurate and repulsive. Even if it was remotely on point, at least that deer had the chance to live. And if a woman doesn't want to have a child or can't support she really shouldn't be having sex considering reproduction is the reason for sex. I agree that it's sad when a child is born into immature parents that didn't want them or couldn't support them but seriously the least they can do is put the poor baby up for adoption. For my final statement I would like to say that although the child inside the mother is unborn and a "fetus", you are denying it's right to be born into the world no matter what stage of life it is in. How can you look into an innocent baby's face and think that thousands of women a day are denying this purity of entering the world because they made a stupid mistake.
Posted by OtakuJordan 3 years ago
OtakuJordan
Yeah, DeadLeaf got pretty well owned here.
Posted by Taggie16 3 years ago
Taggie16
Why doesn't anybody care about the child's rights? I am all for helping both women and right exercise the rights that they are granted but I will forever stand up for the children who don't yet have a voice.
Posted by TrueScotsman 3 years ago
TrueScotsman
This debate... "You have excellent arguments, but they completely bore me." Or.. "That "child" is not a human at all." What species would that fetus be then? Is it a Walrus unborn until it is birthed? What insane statements. lol
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by OtakuJordan 3 years ago
OtakuJordan
TheDeadLeafEchoStonewallTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: These are all obvious. Pro forfeited, called Con's arguments "boring," raised logical fallacies and then raised them again after they were refuted. It was a miserable excuse for a debate.
Vote Placed by AndrewB686 3 years ago
AndrewB686
TheDeadLeafEchoStonewallTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate wasn't even close...I applaud con for his dismantling of pro. I side with pro's arguments, but they were so poorly constructed and argued. Continually posting nonsensical and incomprehensible phrases that did not support his/her argument, sigh...I needed to debate this, oh well. Good debating to con, because of my objectivity I award him/her the debate.