The Instigator
karislovesyeww
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
whiteflame
Con (against)
Winning
22 Points

abortion should be banned

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
whiteflame
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/14/2014 Category: Health
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 924 times Debate No: 65151
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (5)

 

karislovesyeww

Pro

abortion is murder taking away the life of an innocent unborn child.
whiteflame

Con

Alright, thanks to my opponent, who's new to the site, for challenging me to a debate on this topic. As he has not posted actual arguments, but rather summarized his overall position on the issue, I will respond in kind:

Abortion should not be banned on the basis that its ban would harm women's rights, remove it as a method of medical intervention, and lead to child abuse and neglect.
Debate Round No. 1
karislovesyeww

Pro

Well yes a women's body is hers and she should have the right to decide yes? well in that case is it also so she should be able to inject into her body drugs or sale her body for any reason she may choose?? because it is her body so she has the right to decide right? and the child would not be neglected there is nothing saying you just keep the child that is why there is Adoption that child has a perfectly good chance at a happy full life if its not stolen from them.
whiteflame

Con

Alright, thanks to Pro. As he has kept his round short, I will endeavor to do the same, though I have quite a bit of material to go through.

To start, he hasn't really supported his assertion from the opening round. Saying that abortion is murder implies that abortion is a) unlawful, b) always premeditated, and c) that the fetus is, by definition, human. It is not my burden to show that these things are untrue, it is his to prove them true, which he has not yet done. I would say that abortion is most certainly lawful under the status quo, and that Pro hasn't really provided a reason why that's unreasonable. I would say that there are many medical cases in which an abortion becomes suddenly necessary, removing any premeditation from the equation (remember, Pro is banning all abortions, not just some). Lastly, I'd argue that humanity is contingent on personhood, something that a fetus has yet to obtain. An individual zygote doesn't have any human traits beyond its strands of DNA, and DNA is not, by itself, reaching the quota for what is human. Pro is building his case entirely on the premise that a potential human can be murdered, and he'll have to support that by either proving that the early stages of development include the acquiring of personhood, or that the supposition that the child will eventually obtain personhood is sufficient reason to call it murder.

But onto the rebuttals.

Pro has not yet actually countered any of my assertions. He asks a number of questions, but none of them are particularly relevant to the debate. Yes, a woman should be able to inject drugs into her own body if she is of legal age and sound mind. I'd also argue for legalized prostitution. However, this is irrelevant. When I'm talking about women's rights, I'm discussing the importance of ensuring that women be able to act autonomously, and that decisions involving their body and the invasion of it be left to them. That autonomy disappears at the moment that society places a legal burden on you that prevents you from acting towards your own interests. Whether the woman got pregnant by mistake, by rape, or did so purposefully, but now faces severe medical or financial pressures, it is their body that has to bear that baby for 9 months, and no external body should be able to require that of them.

Pro is completely non-responsive to my point regarding medical interventions. There are numerous complications which can threaten the lives of both mother and child during pregnancy. Banning abortion effectively bans an essential medical procedure to protect that mother's life, and thereby ensures the deaths of many women for the sake of children who will likely die with them.

Lastly, he mentions adoption. First off, not everyone is going to pursue adoption. Those that don't will still feel like the child is a burden forced upon them, and will treat that child terribly. Second, we're talking about a lot of adoptions here. I can provide numbers if necessary, but consider the numerous abortions that happen in this country. Try adding all those children to an already overburdened, underfunded adoption system that rarely finds homes for the children it has, and basically all you get is a tremendous number of orphaned children who will be similarly neglected by society at large.
Debate Round No. 2
karislovesyeww

Pro

The coment i just read did give me some insight and they are right the fetus is not the mothers body but an organisim inside it. Also it is a human being The moment when the fertilized egg is implanted in the womb. This happens about a week after conception. And all abortions are done after they are able to tell they are pregnet and if they are able to tell they are pregnet that means there is a heartbeat. a heartbeat means there is life. Abortion is killing a life that has not yet had the chance to live.
whiteflame

Con

Alright, final round!

Pro was basically responsive to only one of my points in this round - namely, whether a fetus is a person. He added another argument (that a fetus is separate from the mother), which I'll address, but otherwise, he's left all of my arguments standing. Even if you buy both of these arguments, Pro has not proven that it is murder, as he has failed to show that abortion is either unlawful, or that it's always premeditated. Remember, Pro's argument is that all abortions should be banned. If you think that even one type of abortion should still exist because it doesn't meet the definition of "murder" (recall that this is Pro's whole case), then you're voting Con.

Not that any of this is necessary in order to get to that point. Pro drops my arguments regarding autonomy, medical intervention, and neglect and abuse. These are the sole certainties in this debate, so they're sufficient reason to vote Con as well.

But onto the arguments given. Pro makes a lot of assertions in this round without warrant, claiming that a fertilized egg is human without contesting the fact that it's only human on the basis of its DNA. He never argues why DNA is a sufficient standard for personhood, nor does he argue why a heartbeat is a sufficient standard. I would argue that neither is. Every cell on our bodies has human DNA, that doesn't make every cell a person. Nor does the presence of a beating heart make a person - might as well just point to any essential organ and proclaim it the essence of personhood. I don't disagree that a heartbeat showcases life (at a certain stage), but life =/= personhood. Pro still fails to provide any reasoning for why a fetus, which has yet to achieve personhood, should be considered a person.

Lastly, the new argument. While I'm not upset that someone posted a suggested argument in the comments, it is kind of stepping on some toes here, so SebUK, try not to do that. The substance of that argument, however, never makes it into the debate. I don't see why the fetus being a separate entity has anything to do with this - the fetus has no way to make its wishes known, is entirely dependent on the mother for its survival, and resides within the mother's body. Pro has given no analysis as to why this change in perception should also alter the calculation here. I suppose this is meant to be responsive to my autonomy point, but since the mother's body and her control over it is still very much involved, it still stands firm.
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by karislovesyeww 2 years ago
karislovesyeww
alright thank you
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
Alright, I'll send you a friend request and we'll discuss it by PM.
Posted by karislovesyeww 2 years ago
karislovesyeww
please it would be greatly apreciated. im a junior in high school and i want to become a lawer. i think this website will help me tremendisoly
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
If you want, I'd be happy to discuss it with you. I don't mind giving you some pointers on how to improve what you wrote here.
Posted by karislovesyeww 2 years ago
karislovesyeww
ok im not a dude i am a girl quite frankly tired of being called he and dude etc i know there is no way of yall to know this but just sharing that ... anyway i am working on getting better with my arguments i know they are ehh not so great yettt
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
*sees dude challenge Whiteflame
*Gasps, expecting massive 8,000 character argument in round 2
*Sees real argument
*Phew
Posted by karislovesyeww 2 years ago
karislovesyeww
im new to all this sorry
Posted by SebUK 2 years ago
SebUK
Um I believe in legalization of all recreational drugs and prostitution , a women should have the right to her own body however a fetus is not her body, it's a separate organism . I wish Pro would use that argument.
Posted by karislovesyeww 2 years ago
karislovesyeww
i fixed it!!
Posted by karislovesyeww 2 years ago
karislovesyeww
how do i fix it? i noticed it.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Tweka 2 years ago
Tweka
karislovesyewwwhiteflameTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Con has refuted everything that Pro says.
Vote Placed by Renagade 2 years ago
Renagade
karislovesyewwwhiteflameTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was simply outclassed, outmatched, and unable to bring forth a reasonable argument. The win belongs to the con.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
karislovesyewwwhiteflameTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Tie. Both had proper conduct throughout the debate. S&G - Con. Pro had several grammatical and spelling errors which can be seen throughout in the form of non-capitalized sentences and run-on sentences. Con did not commit such errors. Arguments - Con. Pro failed to provide rebuttals to a majority of Con's arguments. This left Pro unable to maintain the burden placed on him in regards of affirming the resolution at hand. Con was able to provide solid rebuttals to each challenge raised by Pro. Due to this, I believe Con won arguments. Sources - Tie. Neither utilized sources throughout this debate.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
karislovesyewwwhiteflameTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I feel like pro insufficiently rebuts con with his incomplete mere assertions. Not that he'd have a chance anyways.
Vote Placed by Samreay 2 years ago
Samreay
karislovesyewwwhiteflameTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to construct a single complete argument, and the closest he/she got was to assert value on life that would otherwise be aborted, but failed to actually illustrate why said life had value. Con pointed this out (the life != person point), and actually formed cohesive paragraphs with complete points.