The Instigator
Artur
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
xXCryptoXx
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

abortion must be free in every country

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...
xXCryptoXx
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/30/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,582 times Debate No: 38327
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (17)
Votes (2)

 

Artur

Pro

Abortion is the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo prior to viability. it is the meaning of abortion.

no point in wasting a round for acceptance, this round is both for acceptance and arguement.

I think abortion must be free, it must be up to the pregnant woman. it is her body, and maybe she does not want to carry her baby inside her body, it is her choice.

you may bring an arguement which says abortion must be banned because it is injustice and e.t.c and I will give answer if it is wrong.
xXCryptoXx

Con

Introduction

I will be arguing that the woman should not have the choice to abort a child due our unalienable right to life and the very basics of our human dignity.

Before we begin this debate I would like to thank Keyarhero for being the inspiration of my arguments.


Introduction Argument

Through the very foundation of our human dignity and unalienable rights that we as humans have established, the right to life is the most important of them all, for all other rights, including our other unalienable rights transcend from this. As Americans, we have established that the right to life is an unalienable right and is to never be taken away, unless the rights of the individual is taken away due to actions they have committed against the society. Since an unborn baby has committed no evil against said society, it still retains the right to life.

To abort a baby is to not only disregard all human dignity of this full-fledged member of humanity, but is also to go against the very foundation of human dignity and unalienable rights that not only society has established, but humans as a whole have morally established.


Abortion is Immoral

P1. The unborn entity, from fertilization [1], is a full-fledged member of the human community.
P2. It is prima facie morally wrong to kill any member of that community.
P3. Every successful abortion kills an unborn entity, a full-fledged member of the human community.
C1. Therefore, every successful abortion is prima facie morally wrong. [2]

From the moment of conception to our death, we are all full-fledged members of humanity. At no point during life do we become human, but instead from the moment we begin to live we are human. We are not something different than what we were at conception, but instead we are the same being, at a different stage of development, much like how a child is still of the same biological material an adult is, but is not at the same stage of growth.

"Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual." [3]

As explained in my introduction, through human dignity and our unalienable rights, we are afforded the right to life, not only by society, but by humanity as a whole. It goes further than this though, for the unborn unlike most humans, are spiritually and physically innocent. They have done no wrong; they have simply existed. It is of absolute hypocrisy to terminate the life of the unborn for their existence, yet not punish yourselves for the evils you have committed. In most cases of abortion, the child is the result of two consenting adults. Since they consented into the action of intercourse, it is their own responsibility to care for the life that arises out of intercourse.

We possess the same humanity that we possessed in the womb. Seeing this as true, if there is a morally justifiable reason that I be killed, there must also be a morally justifiable reason for killing an unborn child, but because that child has done no evil, it’s life should not be terminated.


Conclusion

Every abortion takes the life of an unborn member of the human race, violating the unalienable right to life of that human and eroding the human dignity of that child.

If there must be justification for killing me, there must also be a reason to kill that child. Since that child is of absolute spiritual and physical innocence, it should therefore not be aborted.

I hope these arguments were enlightening to you, and I hope they may give you a change of heart and the ever controversial issue of abortion.

I look forward to your response.


Sources

[1] Francis J. Beckwith, Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice, (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, New York, 2007), p. xii.

[2] Beckwith argues from the "moment of conception." I have changed this to fertilization. Conception is not actually a "moment," and the process of bringing a human into existence occurs sometime during the fertilization process, even though the exact point has not yet been
Debate Round No. 1
Artur

Pro

{{{these symbols are used to quote either my opponent or citation from another source}}}

as my opponent says:{{{the right to life is the most important of them all, for all other rights, including our other unalienable rights transcend from this. }}}

you have a right to leave, baby has a right to live on BUT the woman has also right not to destroy her life so that the baby can live on(as I stated on the first round).

{{{As Americans, we have established that the right to life is an unalienable right and is to never be taken away, unless the rights of the individual is taken away due to actions they have committed against the society. Since an unborn baby has committed no evil against said society, it still retains the right to life.}}}

if your laws are wrong then it is time to change your law.
maybe the has done nothing against society but still woman has right not to carry baby inside the body of herself.

and abortion does not mean "kill the baby inside me", if you want and can let the baby live, the woman will not say my baby has to die, she just does not want to carry her.


{{{To abort a baby is to not only disregard all human dignity of this full-fledged member of humanity, but is also to go against the very foundation of human dignity and unalienable rights that not only society has established, but humans as a whole have morally established.}}}

you may have a moral rules/laws and maybe abortion is out of moral but you can not require or force somebody to live according to the rules set by society, if it contradicts the liberty of person, you have no choice.


this part is also answer to the rest of your arguement. but still, for the rest of your arguement, I want to answer with this example:

imagine a pregnant woman, when she has an abortion she does not kill the baby, she provides baby with the needs he/she needs to survive, and when she has an abortion she stops providing and stopping providing is her right.

she is providing baby, and at any time, she may stop providing, it is her right. abortion means providing baby, if I provide somebody with the needs of him, I can stop providing at any time, can not I? is not it my right? it is like this.


let me give you example. imagine I am a rich man, we live in the same street. you have an illness, and just I have a financial status which can pay your hospital bills and your medicines. you need a treatment for 3 months, you came to me and say: Artur, you are a rich man, I have an illness, I need treatment, please provide me with the money needs for medicines. and I ask you: how much do you need. you answer: 560 000 dollars for this month, I gave you this moneym and then you had a chance to survive and now you are alive, but second month comes and you still need money, you come to me and ask:

-Artur, you are a rich man, without your help I have no chance to survive, please give me 560 000 which supplies all the money I need for the treatment of this month, if you dont provide me with the money I need, then I can not survive.

at the moment, do I have a right not to give you money? or is it rule for me to give you my money so that you can survive?

baby abortion is like that, woman provides him with the things that the baby needs in order to survive, and now that woman wants to stop providing!

she does not say that kill my baby, if you can make the baby living in a diffrent way, but she can not be required to provide for others life, how come can you think that she has to destroy her own life for that baby? how come can you think that I am required to give 560 000 dollars for your life? it is my right not to help you, as it is my right not to help you, it is also her right not to help to baby.

I provide you with money so that you can survive and woman provides baby with the things that the baby needs in order to survive, can you have a right to force me to give you money? is it justice? abortion is also like this, you can not force woman to carry baby, to provide baby so that the baby can survive.
xXCryptoXx

Con

Introduction

Thank you for your response.

My opponent has basically dropped my entire argument on the right to life and human dignity.

He chooses to contend to about three statements, yet leaves every one of my other arguments unrefuted. The arguments he left unrefuted are arguments that must be refuted in order to justify abortion, for if you cannot refute that life begins at conception, therefore the right to life begins at conception, then you cannot justify a pro-choice position.


In response to my argument on the importance of the right to life, my opponent says “you have a right to leave, baby has a right to live on BUT the woman has also right not to destroy her life so that the baby can live on”

I do not understand what my opponent is saying due to atrocious grammatical mistakes. I ask my opponent to clarify in his next response.


In response to me stressing the importance to the right to life, my opponent says “if your laws are wrong then it is time to change your law. maybe the has done nothing against society but still woman has right not to carry baby inside the body of herself. and abortion does not mean "kill the baby inside me", if you want and can let the baby live, the woman will not say my baby has to die, she just does not want to carry her.”

My opponent does not actually legitimate contend to my statement. My opponent however does concede that the baby is of absolute innocence, but then goes onto say that the woman has the right not to carry a baby (Therefore meaning the child can be aborted?).

The woman has no right to simply “not carry a baby”, if that means the baby’s life be terminated.

This is because the ease of the life of the woman does not transcend the absolute innocent life of the unborn child.

Also, I’d like to point out that abortion is the termination of a child’s life while still inside the womb.


In response to me arguing that innocent, human life is not to be terminated do to respect for human dignity and the right to life, my opponent responds “you may have a moral rules/laws and maybe abortion is out of moral but you can not require or force somebody to live according to the rules set by society, if it contradicts the liberty of person, you have no choice.”

Here’s the thing though, by allowing abortion you are directly destroying the liberty that unborn human has to live. Much like how a man’s right to murder ends at the human’s right to live, the woman’s right to have an abortion ends at that child’s right to live.

Let’s also think about what my opponent is saying here.

My opponent is in essence arguing that we cannot force anyone to go against their own personal liberty; therefore the individual should have the right to do anything even if it means the termination of another’s life.

The reason unalienable rights exist is because we need an objective foundation from which all rights may transcend in order to make the most efficient, and morally sound society as possible. This includes the respect for human dignity, and the personal freedoms of others.

Unalienable rights are not rights that were created, but trough human nature itself, have always existed.

You cannot choose to have unalienable rights or not in a society, because unalienable rights are not something that is bestowed, but rather, have always existed.

Argument from Provision

The rest of my opponent’s arguments are dedicated to providing stories that are supposed to be examples comparable to abortion. The thing is, the stories are extremely flawed and cannot be compared to abortion at all.

My opponent argues that humans have the right to stop providing for someone who is dependent others, even if it means their death.

My opponent’s arguments are also flawed because under his logic a parent can simply stop providing for a very young child that can’t take care of itself because we apparently have the right to stop providing others. I argue that the parent has a moral obligation to take care of this child, whether this means having to put it up for adoption or directly taking care of it themselves.

Under no circumstance can the parent simply allow the child to die though.

The same goes for abortion. The unborn child has complete dependency on the mother, therefore meaning that the woman has the moral obligation to carry this child, and then when possible may either choose to continue caring for the child, or give it up for adoption.

This moral obligation comes from the obligation all humans have to uphold our unalienable rights.

The stories my opponent presented are flawed because the people used in the story were humans that had the ability to think, move, make personal choices, ect. and these people did not have absolute reliance on those providing for them.


Conclusion

My opponent does not properly contend to my opening arguments and therefore drops nearly all of them. My opponent finishes his arguments by providing stories that are supposed to be comparable to abortion, but instead brings stories that are flawed due to the human not having absolute dependency on the provider.

I look forward to your response.

Debate Round No. 2
Artur

Pro

my opponent says that I have not refuted his arguements but if you understand no need to write anything except my exapmle about a right not to help to another one. that example refutes and can refute any kind of arguement against liberty on abortion, that is just enough to understand and explain that abortion is the right of a human but yet I will answer him, when I worte in short words I thought that he will understand, seems he did not. ok, I will answer both rounds.

again {{{these symbols will be used to quote my opponent}}}

{{{Through the very foundation of our human dignity and unalienable rights that we as humans have established, the right to life is the most important of them all, for all other rights, including our other unalienable rights transcend from this.}}}
(RULES WHICH DOES NOT EXIST BUT THOUGHT TO EXIST)

first there is no standart form of a rules named {{{unalienable rights}}} and we have not established a rule like that? from his words I can understand that he is american or he lives in america, americans have never gathered, confessed to establish a right or rule like that and such rules does not exist, anyway, americans have never discussed about such rules, and I think no society did it, hence there is not standart/declared version of rules named {{{unalienable rights}}}, hence you can not require somebody to live according to the rules which you presume as a right.

when the standart form of rules like that gets created, come and use it as an arguement, at this point there is no rules or rights like that, or there iis a rule like that and do not I know it? even google does not know it I have googled it:

https://www.google.com.tr...; (no need to google it but for accuracy for arguement I did it.)

even if we say that rules exist, however, the usa is multinational country and there are so many types of nationalities in the usa, each nationality may have its own unalienable rules, then it is not justice to force somebody according to YOUR unalienable rules. for example, the chinese live in the usa, italians live in the usa, turks live in the usa, and theya re also society, eastern and western societies differ in mentality, what will happen if turks judge a chinese according to the unalienable rules set by their own society? as it is not justice, forcing a woman is not, if we were a society in america, according to our society presumptions, before marriage it is illegal for girls to date with boyfriend, now in the usa there are so many girls who have BFs, is it justice to penalise them because our society presumtios rules does not allow it? your abortion is like this. however, let me make it clear for you(for an american):

The Declaration of Independence lists life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as unalienable rights. The Constitution lists certain rights, but they aren't unalienable. and everybody is not to live according to it http://bit.ly...

this part is also answer to: {{{I will be arguing that the woman should not have the choice to abort a child due our unalienable right to life and the very basics of our human dignity.}}}

{{{As Americans, we have established that the right to life is an unalienable right and is to never be taken away, unless the rights of the individual is taken away due to actions they have committed against the society.}}}

I wrote it but again I will write: when have you done it? it is not a fact, it is not a standart constituition and hence you can not force somebody to live on your rules, by your logic: the society I belong does also live in the usa too, now we can force any girl in the usa not to have a BF before marriage because our unalienable rules require it. we can penalise them, if you say: no you can penalise the girls who belong to your society, then force women who belong to your society to help the baby in order to survive, not others.

{{{Abortion is Immoral}}}
I didnot quote all paragraph because my character limit will not suffice If I do this, he says, moral also has no standart form or constituition and to so many societies drinking alcohol, prostituition, having sex before marriage is also crime according to their unalienable rules, now every society can penalise or force people according to their unalienable rights. according to our rules(RULES WHICH DOES NOT EXIST BUT THOUGHT TO EXIST) like that every action I counted is crime, then we have a right to penalise anybody who drinks alcohol, has sex before marriage and e.t.c because our unalienable rules let us penalise such person. how many types of society does the US have? and according to which people of the US needs to live? our morality lets us penalise such person, our unalienable rules gives us right to penalise such person.

according to his words, he says human development begins at fertilisation, who ignores it? who ignores that the baby is human? will be human in the future? all I say is that: woman has right not to help. no one denies that the baby is innocent(except christianity, because their original sin destroys innocence of everybody), no one denies that the baby has a right to live but you the one who denies the woman has a right not to help.

{{{Every abortion takes the life of an unborn member of the human race}}}
let us consider him the human, no matter born or not, you are destroying the right of the woman not to help.

{{{If there must be justification for killing me, there must also be a reason to kill that child.}}}
we are not killing the child, I am not saying to kill child, I just say: the woman wants not to help the baby, invent something which can keep baby alive.

{{{Since that child is of absolute spiritual and physical innocence, it should therefore not be aborted.}}}
I do not say that the abortion is required because that baby is sinner or guil;ty, I say: we do not want to help that baby, and it is our right.

{{{I hope these arguments were enlightening to you, and I hope they may give you a change of heart and the ever controversial issue of abortion.}}}
I hope this refutations will help you to understand that we are not killing nor trying to kill, we just want to use our right not to help to the person we do not want to help.

{{{

“you have a right to leave, baby has a right to live on BUT the woman has also right not to destroy her life so that the baby can live on”

I do not understand what my opponent is saying due to atrocious grammatical mistakes. I ask my opponent to clarify in his next response.

}}}
you are right, it was mistake, I meant: baby has a right to LIVE but the woman has right not to help.

and my opponent says that: {{{The woman has no right to simply “not carry a baby”}}} by this logic: every rich man can be forced to help to the pool ill people so that they can survive, if I am ill and no money for treatment then society can force a rich man to help so that I can survive.

{{{This is because the ease of the life of the woman does not transcend the absolute innocent life of the unborn child.}}}
I have never said that the baby is guilty or committed a crime, I just said: the one who does not want to help others, he/she has a right not to help, I have never said that we have to kill that baby, I just said: the woman who does not want to help or wants not to help we have to let him not help. that is all.

{{{ In response to me arguing that innocent, human life is not to be terminated do to respect for human dignity and the right to life}}}
I hav enever said that the baby needs to be killed.

{{{Here’s the thing though, by allowing abortion you are directly destroying the liberty that unborn human has to live}}}
no, u r wrong. I am n ot killing him, or requesting to kill him, if you set, let the baby live, but you are destroying the liberty of woman so that the baby can live, I say: the woman wants to stop providing baby's needs, if you can keep the baby alive do it, that is the problem of the people who want baby not to die, we want not to help baby, that is all, we do not care if baby lives or not, we just want not to help him.


{{{Much like how a man’s right to murder ends at the human’s right to live, the woman’s right to have an abortion ends at that child’s right to live.}}}
we are not killing or murdering, the pregnant woman provides baby's needs, we are just stopping to provide, that is all we do.
{{{The reason unalienable rights exist}}} that rules does not exist, just presumed to be existing, in fact no rule like that, and there are so many types of unalienable rules in the usa too, according to which we have to live? according to our socity's rules havng sex before marriage is also illegal and our unalienable rights give us a right to kill such person, then by your logic: we have a right every person in the world who has sex beforee marriage, we have a right to penalise him/her. do you agree with me?
{{{Unalienable rights are not rights that were created, but trough human nature itself, have always existed. You cannot choose to have unalienable rights or not in a society, because unalienable rights are not something that is bestowed, but rather, have always existed.}}}
has never existed and always believed to exist and you can not require and force somebody to your beliefs and you rpresumptious rules, if you can I also can, this will result with the civil war in the usa and the world, do you agree with me?

{{{The rest of my opponent’s arguments are dedicated to providing stories that are supposed to be examples comparable to abortion. The thing is, the stories are extremely flawed and cannot be compared to abortion at all.}}}
can be compared and nothing has been flawed, this example refutes every arguement against abortion that is why they name it: FLAWED (:
THIS EXAPMLE REFUTES ALL THE ARGUEMENTS AGAINST ABORTION.
{{{Under no circumstance can the parent simply allow the child to die though.}}}yes he can.


my limit is about to end, now: what about new debate? I have a right not to help others, so that the pregnant woman.
xXCryptoXx

Con

Introduction

Thank you for your response.

Now, most of my opponent’s arguments rested on the fallacy that unalienable rights are subjective, and that since we as a people have no right (?) to force laws among other people then women still retain the freedom to have an abortion, whether that choice is moral or immoral.

Since my opponent also seems to be confused about what an abortion is, I will provide them a definition.

Abortion - the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy.

This means the life itself is ended. My opponent seems to think that you can have an abortion and still allow the child to live.

I will separate my overall argument against abortion into three arguments clearing up my opponent’s misconceptions.

These will be:


Unalienable Rights

This section will explain the objectivity of unalienable rights, and how unalienable rights don’t cease to exist, but instead always exist, and can be chosen to be ignored.


Abortion Should Be Illegal because it Violates the Unalienable Right to Life

I will reiterate my past arguments here.


Women Have The Moral Obligation to Provide for an Unborn Child

This section will finally focus on how humans have a moral obligation to provide for those who have absolute dependency on you in order to fully respect our human dignity and the right to life. I will also argue that women also only have to provide for a temporary period of time, therefore enforcing their moral obligation to carry the child.


I will not be directly contending to my opponent’s arguments, rather the arguments I present will contend to them.


Unalienable Rights

Unalienable Rights - “incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred.

You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual's have unalienable rights.” (1)

“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. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”

- Declaration of Independence

Unalienable rights, as shown above from a paragraph taken from the Declaration of Independence, are inherent among humans, and rather them being given or taken away, they have always existed from the moment each individual was created.

The laws of the government exist to respect these unalienable rights. The most important of these rights is the right to life, for all other rights transcend from this.

It has already been shown that life begins at conception, and seeing that true the right to life has been granted to the unborn child. The government fails in it’s duty to respect the most important of unalienable rights, and since the government’s duty is to uphold these rights, the government should therefore make abortion illegal.


Abortion Should Be Illegal because it Violates the Unalienable Right to Life

The government makes laws in order to ultimately protect unalienable rights and to lead an efficient society, even when it takes away an individual’s freedom.

Here’s an example:

We have the unalienable right to life.

A man has the desire to murder another man.

This conflicts with the right to life.

Therefore murder is illegal.


In the same:

We have the unalienable right to life.

A woman has the desire to abort her child.

This conflicts with the right to life.

Therefore abortion should be illegal.


In both cases, the person who desires to take the life of another is denied because they conflict with our unalienable rights.

The only time where someone forfeits these unalienable rights is when they have done a crime against the society. Since unborn children are of absolute innocence, they have not forfeited these rights and still retain them all.


Women Have The Moral Obligation to Carry an Unborn Child

Women are morally obligated to provide for a child during pregnancy for the following reasons:

Absolute Dependency

One of these reasons is that the child has absolute dependency on the mother. This is unlike the stories my opponent provided where a man chooses to be dependent on one person, however they do not have full dependency on that person. A fetus however, does have full dependency on the mother to live. Since it is our duty as a whole to hold up unalienable rights, and the very life of the human being in the womb has full dependency on the mother, then the mother has a moral duty to carry the child.


Temporary Provision

The mother does not have to provide for the child for a very prolonged time. Seeing that the mother only has to carry the child for a certain amount of time, and then the child may be given up for adoption ect. it would be absolutely unnecessary to terminate the unborn child’s life. The ease of the mother is not to be granted over the valuable life of a human being.


Abortion is Immoral

My arguments still stand unrefuted under this section. My opponent’s only argument against it is that no one should have to obey my moral standards, so screw you I get to do whatever I want.

By claiming this he wishes to live in a world of hypocrisy, immorality, selfishness, and ultimately in a world that completely undermines our most basic human rights.

How did I come to this conclusion? My arguments on the immorality of abortion and how it undermines our human rights have been completely sound and instead of my arguments being questioned my opponent instead chose to argue that no one must obey another’s moral standards.


Conclusion

To take the child’s life is to value the ease of your own life over the unalienable rights of the unborn child. Since it is the duty of the government to create laws that protect our unalienable rights, and it is the moral obligation of human beings as a whole to protect unalienable rights, I declare that abortion should therefore be illegal.

Debate Round No. 3
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Artur 3 years ago
Artur
do you know what is defamation? I think you know it well...

as you did in debate, you did it again, anyway, thanks for making me laughing while travelling in the past. sanx for contributions in making me laugh.
Posted by xXCryptoXx 3 years ago
xXCryptoXx
Lol
Posted by Artur 3 years ago
Artur
nor troll neither dumb, realist and objective.
Posted by xXCryptoXx 3 years ago
xXCryptoXx
I can't tell if you are trolling, but if you aren't than you are very dumb.
Posted by Artur 3 years ago
Artur
he says abortion is immoral and then says: {{{My arguments still stand unrefuted under this section.}}}}
unrefuted he says, abortion is moral, it is not immoral I have repeated it over and over again but I think my english was not good enough or was my opponent's english was too weak to understand what I said?

this debate makes me laugh as I read it :)
Posted by Artur 3 years ago
Artur
travelling in the past :) I have won this debate but I have not been voted :) all the arguements of my opponent were refuted while none of my were not touched. he just repeated the same arguement despite the fact I have refuted it.

it makes me laugh, he just says: moral obligation(which is refuted) and unalienable right(which is also refuted) both were refuted in my arguement for 3 round but then he still repeated it again. it makes me laugh. :)
Posted by Artur 4 years ago
Artur
it is not banned not to cover your breast fully,*************

I meant.
Posted by Artur 4 years ago
Artur
that example is not illogical, not immoral, not wrong.

moral has no standart rules, for you it maybe immoral, for another one it is moral. for me: to force somebody to do something is immoral.

if the woman is to be forced to help baby so that baby can survive than all the rich are to be forced to help the poor who are about to die. all parents are to be forced in case the child is ill.

let me ask, do you think that parents need to be forced to help child even if parents do not want to help? does a man have right not to help? if my son is ill and if I do not want to help, is it justice to force me to help? to take my money from my account by the government? by your logic, if I do not help I have to be sent to the jail by the government, government needs to force me in order to help.

prohibition of abortion is thism you are forcing woman to help the baby.

anyway, let us think about morality:

having sex before marriage is immoral I can say.(to the majority of societites in the world)

or woman's not hiding her breasts, not covering her breast is also immoral. in the usa or so many countries excpet sharia law countries it is not banned to cover your breast fully, when walking in the street you may see so many women whose breast are not fully covered, it is also immoral but still it is not banned.

or not covering your bottom is also immoral and it is not banned, you may see so many women who wears only a small underpant which hides just a very very little part of the body(you understand where that parts are) and a brassier, it is also immoral.

according to the logic: "abortion must be banned because it is immoral" all the situation I counted here need to be banned they are also immoral situations.

as long as women are free to cover their breast and other parts completely or not cover it, abortion also needs to be not banned.

this immoral examples refute the morality reason why abortion needs to be banned.
my exaple refutes others.
Posted by xXCryptoXx 4 years ago
xXCryptoXx
Actually no, the fetus maintains the exact same rights as a woman which is why it is to not be aborted. Also, only human life has this value.
Posted by GDawg 4 years ago
GDawg
Wait, so a small little fetus has more rights than a woman, but antibacterial soap is alright? How is one little super small life worth more than another? In your eyes, all life is the same because it is a life.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Chrysippus 4 years ago
Chrysippus
ArturxXCryptoXxTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
ArturxXCryptoXxTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: The debate was about whether or not abortion should be free in every country or not, but con for some reason thought it was whether or not abortion should be legal in every country. Neither side gave arguments relevant to why abortion should be free, only about whether or not it should be legal. Its pro's job to argue why abortion should not only be legal, but also free, and free in every country. He failed to do that but he didnt because con wasnt even debating the resolution. So no points to either side