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

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
AmericanNick has forfeited round #3.
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: 3/9/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 426 times Debate No: 110466
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

AmericanNick

Con

It is preferable to err on the side of liberty when an action is not obviously immoral. Abortion is a highly debated topic and is thus not obviously immoral. Abortion should thus be legal.
pi3.14

Pro

"Abortion is a highly debated topic and is thus not obviously immoral." I disagree. Just because something is highly debated doesn't mean it isn't obvious if it is immoral or not. Slavery was probably "highly debated" back in the Civil War time, but now we can say that it was immoral. Just because it is debated doesn't make it immoral.
Debate Round No. 1
AmericanNick

Con

Slavery brings harm to human beings, and is thus a much clearer issue than abortion. Abortion involves "harming" something that is not obviously a person. If it is obvious that a fetus is a human, what is your argument that it is obviously a person?
pi3.14

Pro

Sorry, I was extremely busy today and didn't have time to make an argument. Is it okay if I post one in the comments tomorrow morning? I have to go to bed an can't make an argument now either. I am so sorry for the inconvenience!
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
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
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by AmericanNick 3 years ago
AmericanNick
I'm going to assume you meant fetuses when you said babies. A fetus, especially at the early stages, cannot survive or grow on its own. A fetus can't reproduce. As for a small amount making a ton of difference, I would argue that 9 months, the standard time for a fetus in the womb, can make a ton of difference. If 1% can make the difference between something having equal moral rights and not, then the immense changes that occur while in the womb can make that same difference.
Posted by pi3.14 3 years ago
pi3.14
When learning about life, we pretty much learned a checklist for what life is. For example, like I stated earlier, something must have the potential for growth, reproduction, homeostasis, etc. (though I'll admit it isn't perfect, because we can probably agree that mules are alive even though they can't reproduce). Anyway, I would argue that babies still meet those standards. And no, chimpanzees are not 99% human. That 1% of DNA that they do not share makes a ton of difference. Also, sperm/eggs aren't human. Yes, they are part of humans, but they aren't a unique human. They cannot survive on their own, no matter what conditions they are in. They can't reproduce, grow, etc. on their own. When they combine, AKA conception, is when new life begins.
Posted by AmericanNick 3 years ago
AmericanNick
I think it's unclear what makes a something alive/a person/ a human. How exactly to define those terms has been an ongoing debate for centuries and I doubt it's going to be resolved anytime soon.
Distinct DNA: Chimpanzees share 99% of our DNA. Does that make them 99% human?
Potential: Human sperm has the potential to combine with an egg to make a fetus. Does that make sperm human?
Posted by pi3.14 3 years ago
pi3.14
My argument is that they are humans because they have their own distinct DNA, have the potential to grow, reproduce, and have homeostasis (adapt/change based on the surrounding environment [sorry if that is a bad definition]). Also, when do you think an unborn baby has enough proof to make it alive/a person/a human?
Posted by AmericanNick 3 years ago
AmericanNick
Sorry I just used two different words on accident. I wasn't meaning to distinguish. My views considering rights is not due to age, but due to the nuanced nature of being a human/ a person. A good analogy would be sand and beaches. At what point do you have enough grains of sand next to water for it to be considered a beach? It isn't obvious
Posted by pi3.14 3 years ago
pi3.14
You say that slavery was wrong because it harmed humans. You also seem to claim that while unborn babies are human, you don't think they are persons. A simple google search will show the two are indeed synonyms. Please, in the next round, explain what you think the difference between person and human is. Many slaveholders believed that black people didn't deserve the same rights as they did because of the color of their skin. You think unborn babies don't deserve rights because of their age. This is not fair because you don't give them any chance at all.
This debate has 4 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.