The Instigator
ChristopherWalkin
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
CaylaMichelle
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

why abortion should be legal

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
Pro Tied Con
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: 5/13/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,454 times Debate No: 8252
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

ChristopherWalkin

Pro

abortion should be legal because there are some women out there who feel that they desperately need one, and if it were illegal there would be no proffesionals to perform the procedure. some women would then become desperate enough to perform the procedure themselves or have someone in a basement with a close hanger do it.
CaylaMichelle

Con

I have more than one argument to this.
I do believe that there should be emergency abortions allowed. but only when it endangers the life of the mother.
But if we legalize emergency abortion they will try to push the line and people will become more accepting of abortion over time.
My first argument is that A fetus is more than a piece of tissue.
Yes, there has been argument over this issue for centuries.

Regarding Science and Medicine: Currently, all valid science and medicine is 100% clear that a fetus is a person. Practically, 100% of a person's genetic makeup is determined at the moment of conception. Science and medicine define being a person (human) by genetic means. According to science and medicine, a fetus is a distinct organism.
Regarding Religion: Religion, on the other hand, is not as clearly defined as medicine and science, because religion introduces the soul into the situation. However, no religious leader would say that a fetus does not have a soul and that because of this a fetus may be capriciously aborted. Religious opinion is slowly beginning to accept science and medicine. Any religious leader with a strong practical grounding in scientific knowledge will have to admit that every embryo has a soul. However, regardless of when a person gains a soul, religious opinion does not show any support at all for abortion. In fact, religion is one of the strongest opponents of abortion.
Regarding Philosophy: Philosophical opinion does show some variety regarding when a baby becomes a person. This is due solely to the fact that most philosophy is of ancient origin. Regardless of whether a philosopher believes ancient philosophies (which were developed before the discovery of cells, heredity, and DNA), the philosopher would not support capricious abortions.
Conclusion: Neither science, nor medicine, nor religion, nor philosophy supports capricious abortions. In fact, there is a narrow band of belief in science, medicine, religion, and philosophy that life is valuable, should be supported, and should not be killed when the killing is reasonably avoided. In fact, those who believe strongly in science, in medicine, in religion, or in philosophy are some of the strongest opponents of abortion.
Regarding Choice: Currently, some small groups run large campaigns to convince people that women have a "right to choose" to abort their babies. This is absurd. The choice comes in when the women decide to have risky sex. When people make choices, they must accept certain ramifications of these choices. Sometimes, people don't want to accept the ramifications of their choices, and try to find an unethical means to avoid taking responsibility for their actions. (By the way, how can any woman with a conscience abort her baby?)
Regarding Rights: No one is saying that babies should have "rights equal to or superior to a woman's". That would be absurd. Pro-life proponents are simply saying that babies have a right to life. That is all. A right to life. If anyone can tell me how a baby having a right to life in any way makes its "rights equal to or superior to a woman's", I would greatly appreciate being informed about this!
Regarding Development: You imply that a fetus is not "a thinking, feeling, conscious human being." Current, valid science indicates that a fetus is not a senseless mass of tissue, as some people have believed in the past. According to Planned Parenthood, a fetus is "the organism that develops from the embryo at the end of eight weeks of pregnancy and receives nourishment through the placenta; the fetus continues to develop until the pregnancy ends." According to Merriam-Webster's Collegiate´┐Ż Dictionary, Tenth Edition, an organism is "an individual constituted to carry on the activities of life by means of organs separate in function but mutually dependent : a living being". In other words, Planned Parenthood admits that a fetus is an individual, and a living being! According to Dr. Ruth's Encyclopedia of Sex, "The beginning of the fetal period [is] arbitrarily designated by most embryologists to occur eight weeks after fertilization. At this time, the embryo is nearly one and one-half inches long. Few, if any, major new structures are formed thereafter; development during the fetal period of gestation consists of the maturation of structures formed during the embryonic period." In other words, the basic structure of the baby has already been formed! Planned Parenthood admits this. Now, remember, this is still within the first "trimester"! The baby has a small brain. The baby can feel pain. The baby can feel vibrations. The baby has vague vision and hearing. The baby has reactions which indicate a simple intelligence. Who knows whether a baby is conscious at this point? Admittedly, the baby is undeveloped enough at this point that its sensations and thoughts are not similar to adults'. However, the baby is a thinking, feeling human being, though admittedly undeveloped.
Regarding Diminishment: For women to have the legal right to freely take the lives of their babies, whether on a whim, for their own selfish reasons, or for their own selfish comfort, "is arrogant and absurd".

http://www.mrdata.net...

My second reason is Legal abortion is discriminatory.

Low income women have much support and many options. Often, the families of the mothers are willing to assist the mother. Many government programs are also designed to help low income women throughout all phases of bearing and raising children. Finally, adoption is an excellent choice for those women who don't have the financial strength to bear parenting. All expenses are paid, and more, for women who are willing to adopt out their newborn babies.
Legal abortion discriminates against babies. Any law which allows the callous, cold blooded killing of a life must be considered as discriminatory (at the very least!). Even the cold blooded killing of animals is proscribed by law, yet some campaign for less restrictions on killing unborn babies!
Legal abortion discriminates against fathers.

http://civilliberty.about.com...

And third Legalized abortion is incompatible with a free society.
How anyone can talk about "compulsory pregnancy laws" with a straight face is beyond me. Women who abort their babies were not compelled to become pregnant. Unless they are forced to engage in unprotected intercourse, they have many opportunities to avoid pregnancy.

http://www.planetpapers.com...

So regular everyday abortion should not be legal!
Debate Round No. 1
ChristopherWalkin

Pro

ChristopherWalkin forfeited this round.
CaylaMichelle

Con

Its a shame that my opponent could not support his theory after I gave a bomb explanation to his debate:)
Debate Round No. 2
ChristopherWalkin

Pro

ChristopherWalkin forfeited this round.
CaylaMichelle

Con

CaylaMichelle forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
ChristopherWalkinCaylaMichelleTied
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: Pro dropped out, con stuck around a little.