The Instigator
Amphia
Con (against)
The Contender
pi3.14
Pro (for)

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
Amphia 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: 2/5/2018 Category: Health
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 353 times Debate No: 107601
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

Amphia

Con

I firmly believe that in America we need to respect everyone's rights. Making abortion illegal would hinder the rights of women who are already dealing with the wage gap, sexual harassment and assault, and the ever persistent patriarchy. The reason women are getting abortions are numerous. Here are some:

1. Not ready for a child emotionally or phsyically
2. Cannot support a child financially
3. Having the child will kill them
4. The child is the product of rape or incest

These women are not monsters as people would like to make you believe. They are real people with real reasons for making their decision. They have weighed the costs and benefits of having a child and decided that there are more costs than benefits. I'll ask you something, if there are more costs to a decision than benefits, is it worth it? No, of course not, I think that is something we can all agree on.

While I myself would never have an abortion, that doesn't make it okay for me to decide what other women do. Being pro-choice is about letting everyone make their own decision about what to do with their body. To make abortion illegal is a hindrance upon women's rights and is an overstep of boundaries that cannot be allowed in our free country.
pi3.14

Pro

"Making abortion illegal would hinder the rights of women who are already dealing with the wage gap, sexual harassment and assault, and the ever persistent patriarchy." First off, I firmly believe that the baby's right to life is much more important than the woman's right to choose. Secondly, not all women who get abortions suffer from things like the wage gap, sexual harassment, and assault. Third, just because some women suffer some injustices doesn't mean that they should get to do whatever they want and hinder the rights of their baby.

"1. Not ready for a child emotionally or physically" Then don't lie with a man if you don't want a baby. Also, they could give their child up for adoption.
"2. Cannot support a child financially" Same argument as above. Also, I'm sure you could get financial support from somewhere. Plus, if a single mother lost her job and could no longer support her kids, does that mean she get to shoot them? No, of course not!
"3. Having the child will kill them" This is very rare, but sometimes it does happen. When two lives are at stake but you can only save one, I would agree that you should save the on. Pro-life doesn't mean "against all abortions, even against ones that could save the mother."
"4. The child is the product of rape or incest" If a woman is raped, the rapist should be punished, not the innocent baby. if a man robs a bank and leaves a young child on the front steps or something, the teller doesn't get to kill the baby. The baby didn't commit any crime; it's father did! Don't punish somebody for the sins of their father!

"They have weighed the costs and benefits of having a child and decided that there are more costs than benefits." I would argue that human life is much more beneficial than not having to go through with a pregnancy. Also, many times the women are pressured by their family/boyfriend/friends to get an abortion and don't actually want one.

"While I myself would never have an abortion, that doesn't make it okay for me to decide what other women do." But it's okay for you to decide that slave owners, nazis, murderers, rapists, and other criminals are doing the wrong thing. I call hypocrisy.

"Being pro-choice is about letting everyone make their own decision about what to do with their body." You don't let the innocent babies choose what to do with their body. Also, you could use this logic to argue that rapists can "make their own decision about what to do with their body."

"To make abortion illegal is a hindrance upon women's rights and is an overstep of boundaries that cannot be allowed in our free country." Being a free country doesn't mean everyone gets to do whatever they want. They still have limits on things like murder. To make murder legal is a hindrance upon the victim's rights and is an overstep of boundaries that cannot be allowed in our free country.

Here are two websites that I found to have particularly good arguments against abortion. Please do read them and take into consideration what they say. The second one goes into more detail than the first and explains everything in great detail and it includes lots of quotes, references to different studies, and facts in general.
https://www.lifesitenews.com...
http://www.abort73.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Amphia

Con

You said not all women who get abortions suffer from the wage gap and sexual harassment and assault. Maybe not but regardless I believe that they deserve the right to choose.

"Third, just because some women suffer some injustices doesn't mean that they should get to do whatever they want and hinder the rights of their baby." Your argument is based on the fact that a baby has rights. With that I totally agree. HOWEVER, abortions only happen to FETUSES which do not have rights.

"Then don't lie with a man if you don't want a baby. Also, they could give their child up for adoption." This argument is based on the idea that one should never have sex unless they want children which implies sex is only for procreation. This is untrue, we are in the 21st century for goodness sakes. I would also like to add that in many places where there are high rates of abortion, they are of low economic situations and because they don't have adequate access to proper contraception they get pregnant. They weigh the costs and benefits of having a child and decide it isn't worth it. Regarding adoption, Do you realize how problem-ridden our adoption and foster system is? "Young people who age-out of the foster care system without being adopted are over-represented in rates of incarceration, suicide and substance abuse." (Huffington Post) Putting up a child for adoption is a huge gamble.

"Same argument as above. Also, I'm sure you could get financial support from somewhere. Plus, if a single mother lost her job and could no longer support her kids, does that mean she get to shoot them? No, of course not!" You're sure they could get financial support form somewhere? Where? From who? That argument comes from a sense of optimistic naivety that shows you don't truly understand the plight of such women. You also made an analogy but it is irrelevant because yes, of course kids have rights, but FETUSES do not have rights. Aborting a fetus is called aborting because it is not murder. Search it up in a dictionary. You will never find MURDER as a synonym to ABORTION because they are not the same thing at all. I will skip 3.

You said if a woman is raped, the man should be punished, not the baby. Abortions are not punishing the baby. They are protecting it from being born into a world where the mother might hate the child because it represents her rape or where she gives it up for adoption and the child is abused. And to your analogy, see 3.

"I would argue that human life is much more beneficial than not having to go through with a pregnancy. Also, many times the women are pressured by their family/boyfriend/friends to get an abortion and don't actually want one." I would argue that too.... if fetuses were human beings...And I am sure there are forced abortions but that is irrelevant because I am arguing that abortion should not be illegal for those who want to have an abortion. Pro-choice means we all make our own choice and if a woman wants to keep the baby, I'm not against that, I'm just saying that if she doesn't then we need to leave her alone.

"But it's okay for you to decide that slave owners, nazis, murderers, rapists, and other criminals are doing the wrong thing. I call hypocrisy." You call hypocrisy? What are you saying? Are you implying that since I think abortion should not be illegal I don't deserve to say slave-owning is bad? I'm sorry but slave-owning, raping, murdering are bad in my book, in your book, in everyone's book because they are evil. Why isn't abortion evil? Because it isn't murder.
Of course being a free country doesn't mean everyone can do whatever they want, but abortion is not murder.

I am running out of space so on to your articles. They run on the basis that abortion is immoral because it is murder, however as I have stated numerous times, abortion is not murder and therefore not immoral. What is immoral is stampeding on women's rights and trying to control their bodies.
pi3.14

Pro

Sorry, I don't have much time to make an argument, so I may not be able to adress all the things you said in round 2.

"Abortions only happen to FETUSES which do not have rights. . . I would argue that too... if fetuses were human beings... . . . Why isn't abortion evil? Because it isn't murder. . . abortion is not murder. . . abortion is not murder and therefore not immoral." As you've stated numerous times, you don't believe that life begins at conception. A simple google search of "definition of life" will result in it saying, "The condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproductiion, functional activity, and continual change preceding death." (Search "definition of life" in Google) Let's think about this definition... newly conceived babies have the capacity for growth, and they in fact do grow very quicly during pregnancy. In later years, they will be able to reproduce which means they have the capacity for it. They can function and do things like move around in the womb. They are continually changing during pregnancy too. They check all the boxes for life right at conception, which means that they in fact are living. I hope that gets things cleared up since your whole argument is based on the foundation that fetuses are NOT living. (In your rebuttal, please state exactly when you do think life begins so I can counter it in more detail.)

That covers most of your argument, but I will still counter some other, more minor, points that you made. "The argument is based on the idea that one should never have... unless they want children which implies... is only for procreation." Yes, lying with a man is for having kids. That is why God made it possible in the first place, but this is a minor point and we can discuss it in greater detail in a different debate.

"I would also like to add that in many places where there are high rates of abortion, they are of low economic situations and because they don't have adequate access to proper contraception they get pregnant." If they can't support a child financially or don't want one, I would again say that they shouldn't lie with a man.

"Regarding adoption, Do you realize how problem-ridden our adoption and foster system is? 'Young people who age-out of the foster care system without being adopted are over-represented in rater of incarceration, suicide and substance abuse.' (Huffington Post) Putting a child up for adoption is a huge gamble." Do you realize how bad of an argument that is? (Also, please put a link to the Huffington Post article you got that quote from in the next round.) Just because they are more likely to be incarcerated and everything else, it doesn't give us a right to kill them! If our adoption and foster care system is so screwed up, we should fix it instead of killing all the people that need it! If soup kitchen X doesn't serve good soup, we don't go around killing all the poor people! We fix the soup kitchen. The same thing applies with the adoption and foster care system! Also, ANYBODY can age-out of the foster care system, not just the children of pro-choice people. Even though putting a baby up for adoptiong could be "a huge gamble," it's better than imminent murder!

"Abortions are not punishing the baby." (Even you realize fetuses are babies! Hooray!) They are brutally murdering the baby for something they didn't do. I would call that punishment.

"And I am sure there are forced abortions but that is irrelevant." You argue that women should have the right to choose to kill their baby, but when they are forced to do so without their consent, now you are saying it is okay? Again, I call hypocrisy!

"I am running out of space so on to your articles." Same. Next time, please put the character limit at 10,000 insterad of 4,000. Anyway, I believe that abortion is immoral because it is murder and you are stampeding on the baby's right to live and control its own body. I await your rebuttal.
Debate Round No. 2
Amphia

Con

You provided a definition of life to which I provide a counter. This is what scientists use to define is something is living. We should prefer this definition because as scientists are using it, I would say it's more reliable than a simple google search.
To count as living, something must fit every one of these aspects: Movement, Respiration, Sensitivity, Growth, Reproduction, Excretion, Nutrition
https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz...

Movement: check
Respiration: The fetus does not actually breathe in the womb. The mother breathes for the fetus, and essential oxygen is passed to the fetus through the umbilical cord. (http://www.beginbeforebirth.org...)
Sensitivity: Often people say that fetuses can feel pain but there are many studies that disprove this.
"In reviewing the neuroanatomical and physiological evidence in the fetus, it was apparent that connections from the periphery to the cortex are not intact before 24 weeks of gestation and, as most neuroscientists believe that the cortex is necessary for pain perception, it can be concluded that the fetus cannot experience pain in any sense prior to this gestation."
https://www.factcheck.org...
Growth: Check
Reproduction: Fetuses CANNOT reproduce.
Excretion: Check
Nutrition: Check
Okay so they fit into everything except reproduction, respiration, or sensitivity which means that they are not alive or living. Being 100% honest, there are many arguments for when life begins. I don't know exactly when I would say "LIFE BEGINS HERE" but I know for sure it is NOT at conception. Literally, at conception the "baby" people speak of is tissue. I don't think that is living. Not by my definition nor by yours.

"Yes, lying with a man is for having kids...." Different debate.
"Just because they are more likely to be incarcerated and everything else, it doesn't give us a right to kill them!...imminent murder"" I will reiterate: terminating a pregnancy is not murder. "If soup kitchen X doesn't serve good soup, we don't go around killing all the poor people! We fix the soup kitchen..." Stop comparing grown people to fetuses. They are not the same. "You argue that women should have the right to choose to kill their baby, but when they are forced to do so without their consent, now you are saying it is okay? Again, I call hypocrisy!" Please stop twisting my words. I said said forced abortions are wrong but they are not what we are debating. We are debating that abortion should not be illegal. I already said how women have a choice to do WHATEVER THEY PLEASE, whether that is getting an abortion or not.
""you are stampeding on the baby's right to live and control its own body." I like this because it is an interesting argument. That a fetus should be able to control its own body. This is an argument I read (it is not from an article so I cannot cite it):
"If a fetus does have a right to itself so does its mother. However, the fetus does not have a right to its mother's womb. Pro-lifers often assume that sex establishes a contract in which the mother submits her womb for the fetus's utility. Such a contract neither has been made nor can be made given the mother is forced in to it and the fetus cannot dictate terms. (That would in fact be a slave contract.)
The right to abort is identical to the right to expel someone from your home. Now that person may starve; that person may die under unfavorable weather conditions, but your discretion to behave your home supersedes any utility others might bear. The fetus doesn't die because it was "murdered." It dies because it's physiologically too underdeveloped to sustain itself outside of its mother's womb. To hold the mother liable for denying her womb would suggest that she's somehow denied the fetus's alleged right to said womb; therefore, the concept of self-ownership you just put forward would be contradicted."

I set more words next time haha.
pi3.14

Pro

This is what scientists use to define is something is living." Maybe, but I would like to add that some scientists have differing definitions and they don't all agree on one specific definition.

"To count as living, something must fit every one of these aspects: Movement, Respiration, Sensitivity, Growth, Reproduction, Excretion, Nutrition." Actually, not EVERY living thing meets these requirements. For example, mules can't reproduce. Also, young newborns and old people can't reproduce, but they are still living. Also, what do you mean by nutrition?

"Often people say that fetuses can feel pain but there are many studies that disprove this." (You) "Many pro-life doctors maintain that fetuses can feel pain by 8 weeks after fertilization (about the time most surgical abortions take place). Pro-abortion doctors tend to argue that fetuses don't experience pain until the very end of pregnancy. Whose testimony is more reliable, those who have a financial interest in the availability of abortion or those who don't?" (abort73.com)

http://abort73.com...

"Reproduction: Fetuses CANNOT reproduce." Neither can newborns. Neither can 5 year olds. Neither can 90 year olds. Neither can mules. Neither can sterilized dogs. Are all of those things I listed not living simply because they can't reproduce?

"Literally, at conception the 'baby' people speak of is tissue. I don't think that is living, Not by my definition nor by yours." Actually, conception is when I believe life begins. That is one of the main things we are debating.

"'If a fetus has a right to itself so does its mother. However, the fetus does not have a right to its mother's womb..." Even after birth the babies need *ahem* stuff from the mother, but that doesn't mean the mother can kill the newborn because the newborn still needs some *cough cough* stuff from her body. Sorry it's probably not the perfect argument, but I don't have much time.

"The right to abort is identical to the right to expel someone from your home." I disagree. First off, abortion is much worse than expelling someone from your home because it is murder as I have said many times before. Also, if I remember correctly (sorry, I don't have time to research it), you can't just "expel someone from your home" if they are a minor. You can't just leave a newborn outside and let it starve!

"The fetus doesn't die because it was 'murdered.' It dies because it's physiologically too underdeveloped to sustain itself outside of its mother's womb." So you call dismemberment and a baby getting its skull crushed "too underdeveloped to sustain itself outside of its mother's womb." I'm sure that even a full-grown adult couldn't survive being dismembered and getting its skull crushed! Also, (I know this example is absurd; I am just putting it forth to get my point across) if full-grown adults were launched into space without spacesuits and forced out of their ship, you wouldn't just say, "Oh, they are just to physiologically [I do have to say that that is a nice big vocabulary word] underdeveloped, it's okay!"

"To hold the mother liable for denying her womb would suggest that she's somehow denied the fetus's alleged right to said womb; therefore, the concept of self-ownership you just put forward would be contradicted." Again, the baby's right to life, supersedes the mother's "right to have an empty womb" (or whatever you would call it). The baby can't live outside the womb and needs it to survive. Also, the woman chose to do something that she should have known would potentially produce a baby.

*If my arguments aren't that great this round, I'm sorry; I didn't have much time to make this argument.

Also, please remember that when I debate, I'm not trying to make you mad or twist your words or anything; I'm just trying to get my point across. I await your argument for round four.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by BJanders 8 months ago
BJanders
Okay... I don't understand why nobody has made the point of the unborn child/fetus' potential for good and their choice of whether thei life is worth living... Every future child deserves the chance of life, independant of whether the mother or father made a mistake. If the mother can't afford to have a baby, then don't go through the steps of creating one. Don't even start!

Amphia made the argument that we live in the 21st Century, so this justifies women sleeping around with whomever is within arms-reach? There needs to be RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR ACTIONS... With every decision there is either a positive or a negative consequence. Having sex will often times lead to the mother getting pregnant, independent of whether you are ready to have a child. Don't go trying to erase you mistake by destroying the (future) of an unborn child.
Posted by Amphia 8 months ago
Amphia
@John_C_1812 could you please explain what you mean? I don't really understand the jargon you are using haha :)
Posted by John_C_1812 8 months ago
John_C_1812
So tell me why men and woman alike have to confess to a felony crime by legislation of law to address equal right. Isn"t that a drastic measure? The problem was a self-incriminating confession should have been placed before impartial judicial separation, or removed all together by woman to insure the general welfare.
Gender Specific Amputation is not a self-incrimination, nor can it be seen as an attempt to obtain control of a public trial dealing with Capital punishment.
This debate has 2 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.