The Instigator
Gabbie222
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
THEBOMB
Pro (for)
Winning
26 Points

abortion

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...
THEBOMB
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/11/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,168 times Debate No: 21912
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (16)
Votes (5)

 

Gabbie222

Con

I believe abortion is wrong, therefore I don't think it should be aloud. Killing innocent unborn babies is disgusting. If you were "grown up" enough to have sex then your "grown up" enough to take care of the child. Children are a gift to have. No abortion! Vote for me!
THEBOMB

Pro

I accept this.

My opponent takes the BOP in an attempt to fulfill it presents three main arguments which I will show below:

1. Innocence

P1. All unborn are babies.
P2. All unborn are innocent
C. Killing unborn innocent babies is wrong

2. Pregnancy is a contract (keep in mind they imply many of these claims)

P1. If you have sex you must accept the consequences, pregnancy
P2. You had sex.
C. You must accept pregnancy

3. The gift of a child

P1. A child is a gift
C. No abortion

I will now refute these claims.

1. The innocence argument

P1. All unborn are babies

Throughout this debate, I am not even going to argue the humanity of the unborn, rather I am going to argue that not all unborn are babies. But, how exactly is a zygote human? For the first two weeks of pregnancy the "baby" is little more than a clump of cells. (1) Its not until week 20 that the central nervous system is fully developed (1). You cannot define a clump of cells as a person or else your defining flakes of dead skin as people to. An acorn is never defined as an oak tree, so why should a clump of cells be defined as a person?

P2. Innocence

I am not going to argue this.

C. It is wrong to kill unborn innocent babies

The conclusion does not follow because it relies upon the first two premises.

2. The contract argument

P1. If you have sex you must accept responsibility

I know ask the question, why is sexual intercourse a contract for pregnancy? It is not. People have the right to have non-procreative sex. (2, 3) Furthermore, the legality of birth control, in most countries, inherently shows people have this right. Consenting to sex does not mean you are consenting to get pregnant as it is a right to have non-procreative sex. If a person consents to non-procreative sex (they use contraceptives) then they are not consenting to have the child develop within them. So now the child is nothing more than an unwanted guest. This becomes clearer when you see "More than half of all the women who have an abortion are pregnant because of failed contraception" (4). Most abortions are a result of contraception failing creating an unwanted human. Since there was no consent for the creation of the human, the human is akin to being the product of rape.

To further my point, simply acknowledging a risk does not mean implicit consent for the risk. Acknowledging sex may get you pregnant does not equal consent for the pregnancy. For example, if I drive a car on a rainy day does this mean I consent to a car accident which can cause harm to me and possibly kill me? Of course not. If an accident does occur all parties are allowed to call 911 to mitigate the effects of the accident. Life is dangerous and almost anything we do has the potential for danger, man acknowledges this but, man does not consent to danger. Why is it that in no other circumstance, other than abortion, do people argue taking the risk equals consent for the damages and the waiving of the right to mitigate these damages? You may argue my example is not natural, so therefore, pregnancy should continue unabated by medical intervention. But, then you must also argue other natural things such as disease must be allowed to run their course without treatment, disease is natural and if by having sex you are consenting to pregnancy why wouldn't touching a toilet seat be consenting to whatever disease may be present on the toilet seat? If you argue against this then, your premise regarding abortion is misogynist and only seeks to unequally render the health and bodily integrity of those who can get pregnant meaningless and not the population as a whole. In other words, your argument is sexist.

P2 + C

The rest of this argument fails to show why abortion should be illegal as it relies upon P1.

3. The "gift" of an unborn child

I have one thing to say, if a child is such a gift why do abortions occur? Simply put, many people feel the unborn are not a gift.

Now I present my own argument.

C1. Abortion to save a woman's life

Let me give you a hypothetical situation (advocated by Judith Jarvis). "A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own." A doctor now tells you that you will die. The person in question has the right to unplug themselves in order to save their life. When applied to a pregnant woman, does the woman have the right to have an abortion (unplug themselves) to save their life? A woman may defend themselves against the threat posed by the unborn.

1. http://tips-getting-pregnant-info.com...
2. Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965 (decision)
3. Eisenstadt v. Baird, 1972 (decision)
4. pregnancy.adoption.com/pregnant/common-reasons-people-choose-abortion.html
5. http://spot.colorado.edu...
Debate Round No. 1
Gabbie222

Con

first off I believe that even "a clump of cells" is still life.... it is forming into something so precious that god has given you. I think abortion is wrong in any and all ways. so if you want to have sex then you will have to deal with the consequences. I rest my case :)
THEBOMB

Pro

"I believe that even "a clump of cells" is still life.... it is forming into something so precious that god has given you"

I never denied it was life. I never even denied the unborns humanity. What I did deny was whether the unborn are people. You have not even touched this aspect of my argument.

"I think abortion is wrong in any and all ways."

You still have to prove it.

"if you want to have sex then you will have to deal with the consequences."

My case has been basically dropped by my opponent.

I believe I addressed this above. Extend my attack.
Debate Round No. 2
Gabbie222

Con

well it is still a living thing :) and it is wrong because you are basically murdering an innocent child so I believe that you should not kill innocent children unless you want to be known as a murderer
THEBOMB

Pro

"well it is still a living thing"

animals are living things and people eat them. Is that wrong?

"you are basically murdering an innocent child"

Once again you've never proven it was a person or even a child. No scientific proof. Nothing.

"you should not kill innocent children unless you want to be known as a murderer"

I agree. Killing children is wrong. But, you haven't proven the unborn to be children yet.
Debate Round No. 3
Gabbie222

Con

unborn children are still children it even says it in there name I think it is wrong to have an abortion and that is final
THEBOMB

Pro

"unborn children are still children it even says it in there name"

All this implies is unborn children have the potential to become children. Just like an acorn has the potential to become an oak tree. You could call an acorn an "unborn" oak tree. That does not make it an oak tree.

Seeing how my opponent has dropped almost everything I said...vote for me :p
Debate Round No. 4
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by hunnydew 4 years ago
hunnydew
well if they are so called "facts" you should be able to back them up with a recourse so the one that is debating you can justify your facts. The can think if they are t/f
Posted by Gabbie222 4 years ago
Gabbie222
wow u guys are mean
Posted by TUF 4 years ago
TUF
This girl really just needs to leave already.
Posted by Gabbie222 4 years ago
Gabbie222
okay im sorry your not a murder :( i sowwy
Posted by THEBOMB 4 years ago
THEBOMB
I'm being as nice as I can to the person who unjustifiably called me a murderer...
Posted by THEBOMB 4 years ago
THEBOMB
umm google works as a great place for finding information...
Posted by Gabbie222 4 years ago
Gabbie222
u r mean lol :p
Posted by THEBOMB 4 years ago
THEBOMB
haha why should I? :p
Posted by Gabbie222 4 years ago
Gabbie222
im 13 not 16 i dont have that much knowledge im just trying to do a debate this is my first time
Posted by Gabbie222 4 years ago
Gabbie222
OMG just shut up
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by TUF 4 years ago
TUF
Gabbie222THEBOMBTied
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: This girl really needs to leave this site already.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
1dustpelt
Gabbie222THEBOMBTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Lamest, stupidest, arguments by Con.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Gabbie222THEBOMBTied
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 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: Sorry, con, I cannot vote for you like in your request. He won all of the points which you dropped and he proved in this debate a fetus was not a human.
Vote Placed by Double_R 4 years ago
Double_R
Gabbie222THEBOMBTied
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: Obvious. Con only gave opinions that she was unable to support and did not even attempt to refute Pros arguments. Her only response to Pros arguments was basically "So what? My argument is better!". That may work for her, but does not work in a debate.
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
Gabbie222THEBOMBTied
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 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: the lamest arguments ever by the con.... gave conduct to the pro after the con started calling me an idiot through PM's...