The Instigator
Ara_Gyonjyan
Pro (for)
The Contender
Selenspire
Con (against)

Abortion Should Be Illegal

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Ara_Gyonjyan has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/23/2019 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 1,284 times Debate No: 120980
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (47)
Votes (0)

 

Ara_Gyonjyan

Pro

This is just an acception round. Do not post your arguments here.
Selenspire

Con

I'd like to participate in this debate, If you'll have me :)
Debate Round No. 1
Ara_Gyonjyan

Pro

I think abortion should be illegal for these because:

The human zygote (fertilized egg) is biologically a human being. The definition of person is "a human being regarded as an individual. " Therefore, The human zygote is a person. The 14th amendment of the U. S. Constitution states that ". . . Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, Liberty, Or property, Without due process of law. " Since we know that a human zygote is a person and since we know that abortions kill human zygotes (and/or fetuses), Then it is reasonable to conclude that abortions kill people (the human zygote/fetus). This means that an abortion deprives a person of his/her life without due process of law. It is now evident and backed with scientific data that abortions are contradictory to the 14th amendment, Making the act of performing an abortion unconstitutional. Unconstitutional acts in the United States are often, If not always illegalized.

https://www. Princeton. Edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb. Html

I'd like to thank my opponent for taking the time to read my argument.
Selenspire

Con

I disagree with the first assertion. A fertilized egg is certainly an example of "life", Thereby being biological, However to refer to it as a human being is somewhat inaccurate. It is of human origin of course, A part of a pregnant women"s body, But if you are equating the fact that it is of humans and therefore possesses personhood" well, It's a bit of a non sequitur. If the term "person" is defined as "a human being regarded as an individual", Then already this assertion breaks down: the keyword here is "regarded", Which is defined as "considered or thought of in a specified way". By using this definition, You acknowledge that the recognition of personhood in this scenario is subjective. It is not a scientific question, But a personal one, Dictated by one"s own experiences and religious beliefs.
An abortion is certainly a termination of life, But not a termination of a person"s life: it is about as morally abhorrent as picking a flower or stepping on an ant. Of course, Situations which may require an abortion should not be treated with such callousness, As the results of either decision can be drastically life-altering: do you choose to have a child, Regardless of whatever circumstances you find yourself in, And tie yourself to another human being for the rest of your life? Or do you go through with the abortion, And live with the stigma of being promiscuous, Irresponsible, And even to some, A cold-blooded killer for the rest of your life?
It will always be a difficult choice, But I believe that people have the right to make that choice. If anything, Preventing them from doing so would be overreaching the bindings of the Constitution, Which was written with the intent of preserving autonomy: if abortions were made illegal, You would stripping that autonomy away from women all across the country. I will not bother to list a long series of scenarios in which an abortion may be deemed necessary, Because whether or not it is necessary to us is not the point. We have absolutely no right in dictating whether or not a woman was in the right. We can have our opinions, We can share our advice and even our faith, But to fight to legally usurp their ability to choose would be going entirely against the spirit of democracy.
To summarize, A fertilized egg is a form of life, But cannot be objectively (or biologically, As you said) defined as a person, Since personhood is completely arbitrary. Secondly, Choosing whether or not to get an abortion can be a very daunting prospect, But preserving a woman"s right to do so is not a violation of the Constitution but rather a law that seeks to maintain the liberty and equality that the Constitution was written to protect.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
Ara_Gyonjyan

Pro

"However, To refer to it as a human being is somewhat inaccurate. It is of human origin, Of course, A part of a pregnant woman's body, But if you are equating the fact that it is of humans and therefore possesses personhood well, It's a bit of a non sequitur. "

First of all, You used no sources at all to back up this claim. But it is a scientific fact that a human fertilized egg is a biological human being, Or human individual. Here's a quote from Ph. D. Dianne N. Irving for Princeton University:

"This new single-cell human being immediately produces specifically human proteins and enzymes (not carrot or frog enzymes and proteins), And genetically directs his/her own growth and development. (In fact, This genetic growth and development has been proven not to be directed by the mother. ) Finally, This new human being the single-cell human zygote is biologically an individual, A living organism an individual member of the human species. Quoting Larsen:

". . . [W]e begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, Which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual. " (Emphasis added. )

In sum, A mature human sperm and a mature human oocyte are products of gametogenesis each has only 23 chromosomes. They each have only half of the required number of chromosomes for a human being. They cannot singly develop further into human beings. They produce only "gamete" proteins and enzymes. They do not direct their own growth and development. And they are not individuals, I. E. , Members of the human species. They are only parts each one a part of a human being. On the other hand, A human being is the immediate product of fertilization. As such he/she is a single-cell embryonic zygote, An organism with 46 chromosomes, The number required of a member of the human species. This human being immediately produces specifically human proteins and enzymes, Directs his/her own further growth and development as human, And is a new, Genetically unique, Newly existing, Live human individual. "

This article had over 40 sources and quoted other biologists. In case you didn't read it in full context, Let me sum this up for you. It is a biological fact that a human zygote is a human being. There should be no debate over the humanity of fetal development at all because this is already universally well-known among biologists.

Since we now know that a zygote actually is a human being ( or individual), I will now proceed to your other point.

"If the term "person" is defined as "a human being regarded as an individual", Then already this assertion breaks down: the keyword here is "regarded", Which is defined as "considered or thought of in a specified way". By using this definition, You acknowledge that the recognition of personhood in this scenario is subjective. It is not a scientific question, But a personal one, Dictated by one"s own experiences and religious beliefs. "

This could not be less true. Applying this logic, Could I regard, Let's say Trump as not a person because of my belief that he is a horrible "pig"? Would this justify me killing him because I do not regard him as a person? Of course not! If it is left up to mere belief or opinion on personhood, People would be killing other people in comas, The death penalty could apply to any criminal, And so on. In my opinion, If it is science that regards a zygote as a human being, Then the law should regard the zygote as a human being as well. Anything else would just be illogical. That's why I also think a new Constitutional amendment should be added stating that a human under all stages of fetal development is a person. We as a society are being very illogical by ignoring facts and appealing to our beliefs and opinions so we can avoid the responsibility of parenthood.

My point is: if science and basic biology regard a human zygote as an individual person, Then so should the law.

"If abortions were made illegal, You would be stripping that autonomy away from women all across the country. "

The zygote or fetus is not a part of a woman's body because he/she is a new and genetically unique individual. Of course every woman as a right to their bodies. But the fetus is not their body. They don't have a right over the fetus to kill them when they please. The right to life always trumps the mother's "right" to avoiding motherhood.
Selenspire

Con

I didn"t need sources to back up this claim, As it wasn"t really a claim, Just an observation of your reasoning: a non sequitur is a conclusion/statement that doesn"t logically follow the previously concluded/stated point. Equating the fact that it is of humanity with having personhood is an easily identifiable example of this logical fallacy.

Also, I already concurred that the fetus was indeed a living thing, And of course, In order to be a living thing, It must be an individual form of life. I would still argue however, That it is a part of a woman"s body. In order to address this however, One cannot simply look to biology. Biology is perfectly legitimate field of science of course, But the main questions within the abortion debate surround the relationship between a mother and the fetus, Which is more properly addressed in metaphysics and philosophy than biology. The main questions being "Is the fetus a totally independent human being, With the mother serving as a vessel? ", "Is the fetus a living part of a pregnant woman"s body? "

According to the part-whole model, Or the parthood model (it is difficult to give a specific name to it, As the line of reasoning it entails is used by many people under different labels, However the previously mentioned are the two names I"ve heard it by), The fetus is a biological, Living component of a pregnant woman"s body, But cannot be acknowledged as an individual until it is fully developed and born. This line of thinking is further supported by the fact that the fetus cannot support itself when taken out of the woman"s body. It is true that a fully developed child will still be heavily reliant on the parent, But a fully developed, Healthy child does not require the conditions of the womb to continue surviving. Also, While all biologists do concede that human life does begin at conception, That does not necessarily mean that form of life deserves legal consideration.

As for your response to my second point, I specifically said that the subjectiveness of this matter is specific to this scenario. Applying it to another does not address the argument. What makes a person a person may be subjective, But regardless of that Trump displays all the attributes one would expect a person to have, While a fetus may not: does it have an opinion on anything? Does it express itself? Does it have set of beliefs? Does it even look like a human being?

And you are not arguing that the law should recognize the fetus as a person, But rather an American citizen, Because you demand that Constitutionally endowed rights are extended to it. But how exactly would you go about this, Legally? What changes would you make to the standards of citizenship in order to include fetuses? To add further complications, There is also the anchor baby law: foreigners who birth children here are afforded citizenship, As well as their child. Does that child get citizenship too as a fetus even if its parents aren"t American? Would the child have to go through legal processes to get his/her citizenship changed once he/she is born? If fetuses being aborted is truly so immoral, Would you personally tolerate only American-born fetuses getting this protection?

Also, Framing abortion as a way for women to simply shirk parenthood is very dishonest. Whether or not to get an abortion is never an easy decision. Many women get abortions because of medical issues or because they simply cannot afford to take care of the child. Despite common belief, Illegalizing abortions does not decrease abortion, Because of abundance of drugs available that can be used for abortion. Illegalizing all of them won"t work either: The World Health Organization lists misoprostol as an essential medicine for treating miscarriages. Instead, Why don"t you directly address the reasons why women usually get abortions? Advocate for the government to invest in welfare, Education, Healthcare or public resources to provide for expectant mothers who won"t otherwise be able to take care of the child. This would greatly reduce the necessity for abortions and would much better address the issue if you have moral reservations about it.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
47 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Ara_Gyonjyan 3 years ago
Ara_Gyonjyan
okay
Posted by Selenspire 3 years ago
Selenspire
Ara_Gyonjyan

I know this is rather abrupt, But I'm afraid that some personal things have transpired in my life that require me to deactivate my account. I am sorry, And I'd really love to continue this conversation with you. It has been very insightful getting to know the other side on this issue, And I thank you for being mostly civil throughout the discussion. If I am ever able to reactivate my account, I hope we will be able to continue. I hope you do not feel as though you wasted your time, As that was never my intent. Thank you again :)
Posted by Ara_Gyonjyan 3 years ago
Ara_Gyonjyan
"I would still argue, However, That it is a part of a woman's body. "

A "woman's body" does not have two different sets of genetic code. Did you even read the quote I gave or visit the website I linked? This shouldn't even be a debate. How can a woman's body have two hearts? 8 limbs? I'm not even going to try to convince you otherwise anymore, Because I know whoever is reading this right now knows that basic biological facts will prevail in this final round.

I think what you are trying to argue here is that since the fetus is dependent on the mother for survival, He/she is not an individual. You also argue since a fetus cannot express emotion or opinion, He/she is not a person. Okay then. Let's have a comparison, Shall we? A fetus and someone in a coma are both biologically human beings. This is a fact. They also share another similarity. They are both non-sentient. They cannot express emotion, Opinion, And are completely dependent on someone else to survive. Is the person in a coma not a person? Can I kill that person? The law says no. The law does not let me kill that person in a coma. So then why do mothers get to kill their kid? This is completely illogical.

Let me ask you this. Compared to the fetus, How is someone in a coma a person, And why?

By the way, There is such a thing as premature birth. A fetus in his/her third trimester can survive outside the womb. Is the fetus in his/her third trimester a person, Or not? Why?

"And you are not arguing that the law should recognize the fetus as a person, But rather as an American citizen. "

No. I'm arguing that the law should recognize the fetus as a person. Quoting the 14th amendment: ". . . Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, Liberty, Or property, Without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. " Notice how the word citizen is not used in this part. I believe the word "person" has been specifically used to also protect immigrants a
Posted by Ara_Gyonjyan 3 years ago
Ara_Gyonjyan
I'm experiencing a weird glitch where I click "submit argument" and it deletes the paragraph I have typed and it won't post anything. Any suggestions?
Posted by John_C_1812_II 3 years ago
John_C_1812_II
@ Blackstream56
The 1st Amendment describes two issue and creates a constitutional grounds for legal separation by representation. Freedom the act of ongoing state in the society of no cost, Or assigned value, Or filed grievance as specification, And the filed grievance issue. Pregnancy abortion which is an admission of guilt and accusation of crime being a filed grievance. It was limited at cost of repent not free only when performed as a human religious sacrifice.

Churches do not have pregnancy abortion they hear admissions of guilt as confession of sin. Not all female specific amputation is a sin, As united state. Woman as a united state pay taxation for representation in separation of church and state, That representation can be as united state of their liking, And approval or not before United state constitutional separation. Prasedera a woman who sits for the future of all woman, For the future of all woman, As all woman are created equal by their creator.
Posted by John_C_1812_II 3 years ago
John_C_1812_II
SickinThe Headz
(Completely untrue of course. )? The self-evident truth being said. When a man and woman act together they are saving a life, Not creating a life. The life has already begun and it is simple extended this is a united state shared in science and medicine as a basic principle explained in deferent words. The truth is not told as it may be self-incrimination as whole truth.

It is just legal precedent. Again the fruits of you understanding that pregnancy abortion is murder either true or untrue. When whole truth be told it is the description to murder, And only the description of murder at all time. It is this use of malpractice that is wrong and illegal when placed in united state.
Posted by PointProven 3 years ago
PointProven
if i were a woman i would get so many abortions you don't even know
Posted by SickInTheHeadz 3 years ago
SickInTheHeadz
"The unlawful premediated death is performed by a woman and man by negligence in relationship to human reproduction by their participation, Or nonparticipation in the process. "
So translation: Those who don't have sex are unlawfully and with intent killing a person?
Completely untrue of course.
But go on. Tell me more.
Posted by John_C_1812_II 3 years ago
John_C_1812_II
Basic principle SickinTheHeadz
The unlawful premediated death is performed by a woman and man by negligence in relationship to human reproduction by their participation, Or nonparticipation in the process. This is not a transferable state to ask for permission in writing or otherwise. To answer the first question female specific amputation is not the admission or accusation of officially giving the order to stop human life. The basic principle in the wording looks to be basic?
Posted by John_C_1812_II 3 years ago
John_C_1812_II
Addressing the third point. Please state whole truth please. Any fetus has human status at thought of performing conceptions, This commitment is made by the human man, And human woman along with medical doctors of both genders as a united state. It should be noted there is legal precedent of this fact as whole truth as well. The issue is over health and general welfare as to how it created self-incrimination into the murder once contained by law with marriage.
As to address the second point. I agree the malpractice was a violation of the 1st Amendment. As there was absence to pursue the filed grievance.
Addressing the first point. It is in whole truth just a lie, The crime of murder already existed its criminalization was never in doubt. Again we are by basic principle debating why and admission is legal to hide as accusation in law? The only obligation was to limit how it was held on public trust by legislation. What is self-incriminating is the constant use of Professional decision.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.