The Instigator
wwb371
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Bitz
Pro (for)
Winning
32 Points

the topic of this debate is 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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/14/2008 Category: News
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,858 times Debate No: 4035
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (21)
Votes (9)

 

wwb371

Con

my opening argument is that abortion should be illegal because your killing an innocent person. So when u think about it your committing murder. abortion sould not be a choice b/c it was there fault for having unprotected sex
Bitz

Pro

I assume we are debating weather Abortion should be legal or not.

Although I agree with my opponent, I'm in the mood to debate and will play the devil's advocate. I'm going to define 1 term here.

Dictionary.com defines abortion as: The removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy.

My opponent stated that abortion is killing a person; he has yet to demonstrate how an embryo or a fetus is a person.

However, for the sake of an interesting debate, I will concede this contention and agree with my opponent that an embryo, as well as a fetus is a complete, full fledged person, with 100% human rights. Now I will show you how abortion should still be permissible.

The person inside the mother may have 100% percent human rights; however, the fetus is in a state of leeching off the mother's body without the mother's permission.
If I needed a bone marrow transplant and only one other person on the entire planet had a perfect bone marrow match, and I needed her bone marrow to save my life, do I have the right to forcibly take her bone marrow? Of course not! The same thing applies to a fetus, even though the fetus is a person, it does not have the right to leech off other people's nutrients without their permission.

Possible objections to my argument:

Objection#1) the analogy is flawed because the mother caused the fetus to be in a state of dependence to begin with, therefore the mother is obligated to give nutrients she can spare to the fetus.

Rebuttle#1) it may be true that the mother caused the fetus to be in a state of dependence, but had the mother not caused the fetus to be dependent on her, the fetus would have never existed in the first place. Objection number 1 would work if I caused damage to someone and because of that damage, that person needed a bone marrow transplant, then he would have the right to take my bone marrow without my permission, however this is not the case with abortion, the mother caused no damage to the fetus, in fact, she did just the opposite, she brought the fetus into a state of being, from non-existence.

If a doctor performs an operation that saves a persons life, and because of that operation, the person will need a bone marrow transplant in 5 years, can the patient now force the doctor to give up his bone marrow without the doctors permission? Of course not! It's about damage, not causality. The doctor had causality of dependence on his patient, yet he is still not obligated to donate his bone marrow. Likewise, the Doctor did not have damage on his hands, and therefore he is exempt from giving up his bone marrow to his patient.

The same reasoning applies for abortion. The mother has causality of dependence on the fetus, but she did not have damage. In fact, she did just the opposite of damage to the fetus, she brought it into being. Therefore objection #1 does not give the fetus the right to forcibly take nutrients from the mother's body without the permission of the mother, anymore than the patient has the right to forcibly take nutrients from the doctor in the case listed above.

Objection # 2) Your analogy is flawed. Abortion cuts up little babies; it doesn't just take them out of the womb to sever the nutrients from the mother. It directly attacks the fetus that is dependent.

Rebuttal #2) This is somewhat true. Some forms of abortion specifically target the fetus, rather than just severing the umbilical cord. I will concede the point that these forms of abortions are wrong. However, not all forms of abortions do that. Many abortions simply cut the umbilical cord, thus severing the flow of nutrients from the mother to child, until the child suffocates. Other forms deliver the baby prematurely fully intact. These forms of abortion are supported by my analogies, and thus, should be permissible.

Objection#3) But the mother agreed to have sex! Thus she agrees to take full responsibility of the consequences of her actions. And if having a baby that is dependent on her body is one of the consequences, so be it!

Rebuttal #3) Imagine a hypothetical scenario if you will: There is a park, notoriously filled with criminals. These criminals have one special objective: to kidnap women and force them to undergo a bone marrow transplant operation. If a woman knows this can happen, and still chooses to take a walk in that park, does that make it right for the criminals to force her to donate nutrients from her body? Just like sex, the woman knew the possible consequences of her actions; she knew the risks of walking in that park. However, that does not make it right for another person to forcibly /use her body any way he wishes. Remember, the fetus is a 100% person after all 

So there's some food for thought, devil's advocate, signing off!
Debate Round No. 1
wwb371

Con

wwb371 forfeited this round.
Bitz

Pro

Extend my arguments...I guess....Come on wwb371. This whole forfeiting thing is really not cool.....
Debate Round No. 2
wwb371

Con

wwb371 forfeited this round.
Bitz

Pro

Straight forfeits...yuck.

The minimum character limit has to go. I have nothing more to say yet this site forces me to say more...
Debate Round No. 3
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
All con had to do was say:

The topic of this debate is not abortion, it is "the topic of this debate is abortion"

Easy win.
Posted by Bitz 8 years ago
Bitz
If you are reffering to our involvement in the middle east, and us shelling money out there, I am against that too! Although I would like to know more on the subject with reguards as to which specific terrorist orginizations the US is supporting.

Like I said, war does not have to be the answer, but any form of the supporting of cut-throat murderers has to end.
Posted by leethal 8 years ago
leethal
OK, Bitz, so I suppose that you're also for a war on the U.S.A., seeing as how the U.S. government has and continues to fund terrorist organizations?
Posted by Bitz 8 years ago
Bitz
Well, as for Iran, (I really don't know what that has to do with abortion)

The problem with Iran is their support for terrorists groups such as Hizballah. Of the many terrorist groups that Iran has sponsored, none is more important to Tehran than the Lebanese Hizballah. Their close relationship is perhaps the strongest and most effective relationship between a state sponsor and a terrorist group in history. Iran helped found, organize, and train Hizballah, eventually creating a strong and relatively independent terrorist group. In exchange, Hizballah has served Iran loyally, striking Iran's various foreign enemies, helping assassinate Iranian dissidents, and otherwise advance the interests of the Islamic Republic.

Also, it brings me closer to my stance when I see crap like this in Iran. http://youtube.com...

Of course, war doesn't have to be the answer, if Iran stopps supporting terrorist groups and such, then I haven o problem with them.
Posted by HellKat 8 years ago
HellKat
I don't see the connection between birth control and abortion is what I'm saying. Logically it doesn't really stand together in my opinion.
Posted by Lydie 8 years ago
Lydie
bitz...
I dont want to debate it..I dont know enough about it but..

will you PLEASE explain the pro WAR ON IRAN STANCE?

(what??)
Posted by Lydie 8 years ago
Lydie
really?
Prolifers think brainactivity is the cutoff? I would think that would be logical. Wheres the problem then? seems like everyone agrees...?
Not many people argue in favor of late term abortion (what are they called?)

Hell cat- what? What isnt logical? Its logical thats not the problem...the problem for most people is the moral. clarification?

haha and for the record my name is Lydia, it was just taken as a screen name. hahaha. although I kinda like being called Lydie
Posted by Rob1Billion 8 years ago
Rob1Billion
The brain waves argument is pretty much what I use as well... brain activity=the first POSSIBLE start for sentience. However, despite the last comment by bitz, I've found that pro-lifers are usually arguing from a religious standpoint, not a logical one, so this argument will not do much to sate them. I would say Bitz that you have talked to some pretty lax pro-lifers if you have gotten them to agree that brain activity is the cut-off for a morally-sound abortion... I wouldn't even call those people pro-life in the first place!
Posted by Bitz 8 years ago
Bitz
EIDT: Brain waves not rain waves :)
Posted by Bitz 8 years ago
Bitz
Well lydie, I think the problem is your only seeing the 2 extreme PRO life/PRO choice sides.

"And if the birthcontrol fails you? Condem breaks? Then what? You were responsible, you used it, it didnt work, and what youre going to have a baby when youre 22? What is the difference for the would-be parents at that point? None."

Like I said, even some pro lifers don't think a zygote is human life, they define human life to begin when brain waves begin. So even if the condom breaks and things get messed up, you can still get an abortion so long as no rain waves are being given off.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
wwb371BitzTied
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 
Vote Placed by Bitz 8 years ago
Bitz
wwb371BitzTied
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 
Vote Placed by HellKat 8 years ago
HellKat
wwb371BitzTied
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 
Vote Placed by wwb371 8 years ago
wwb371
wwb371BitzTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by tremendoustie 8 years ago
tremendoustie
wwb371BitzTied
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 
Vote Placed by zdog234 8 years ago
zdog234
wwb371BitzTied
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 
Vote Placed by Spiral 8 years ago
Spiral
wwb371BitzTied
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 
Vote Placed by CP 8 years ago
CP
wwb371BitzTied
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 
Vote Placed by Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Derek.Gunn
wwb371BitzTied
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