The Instigator
Kelisitaan
Pro (for)
Winning
2 Points
The Contender
VulpeLegatus
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Kelisitaan
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/26/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 496 times Debate No: 98452
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

Kelisitaan

Pro

A woman has the right to choose what she wants to do with her own body. Therefore, abortion is allowed.

Rules: No new arguments in R4, just rebuttals.
VulpeLegatus

Con

Good Day, I am pleased to debate with you, and wish you luck in the arguments ahead.

The right of the unborn child to live outweights the right of the woman to choose what she does with her body. In any other circumstance, I believe a woman can do what she wants with her body, but when another life is involved - even unborn - the child has the right to exist over the woman's comfort or safety. Therefore, I say abortion should be banned in all situations where a potential life can be born.
Debate Round No. 1
Kelisitaan

Pro

The fetus needs the body of the mother to survive. If human A needs a part of human B to survive, e.g. a kidney transplant, it is entirely up to human B whether or not he wants to give human A a kidney. Even if human B is dying and his kidneys will rot with him, he decides what to do with his own body. Even if human A's life is at stake and human B's life is already over, with rotting kidney's, it's still human B's right to choose what to do with his dead body.

If the fetus can survive on its own, then abortion is more of an up in the air debate. However, if the fetus needs the mother's body (which it does), abortion comes down to the simple principal of a woman has the right to choose what she wants to do with her body.

By letting the fetus control a woman's body, you are granting a fetus rights to someone else's body. No one has rights to anyone's body but that person. Period

A fetus needs a mother's body to survive. If the mother does not want to let the fetus use her body, it doesn't have to. The fetus is a part of a parasitic relationship; although its body is affected, it's using the body of the mother to survive.
VulpeLegatus

Con

In your example of 'Human A and Human B', I would like to note the simplicity of the situation. Most countries use an 'opt-out' organ donation system. This means, if you do not want your organs to be donated, you must actively remove your name from the register. If you do nothing, it is assumed you want your organs to be transplanted. In your example, Human A needs Human B specifically. Very rarely is there only one possible donor for an organ transplant, in opt-out countries, it is nearly impossible for you to have only one donor. If you do happen to have only one donor, or you live in an opt-in country, your donor must be your family. And in the case of a kidney transplant, no family member would not donate their kidney to you. Even in opt-in countries where you must actively register, there is still a relatively large amount of organs in the organ bank. Your example does not apply to the situation of abortion.

All people, whether born or unborn, have the right to exist. From the moment the sperm enters the ovum, the organism has become a human and deserves a human's rights. A newborn baby needs their mother to survive, they quite literally feed off the mother's body, but no government approves of the murder of a newborn baby simply because the mother does not care, or is not able to sustain their life. This continues throughout childhood, of the children draining resources from the mother and father, in order to sustain their survival. This relationship, you could consider, is 'parasitical'.
Debate Round No. 2
Kelisitaan

Pro

It's irrelevant whether or not it's an opt in or opt out system. Abortion would technically be an "opt out" system as well, since you need to "opt out" of the pregnancy. If you do nothing, you give birth. Example debunked.

How do you know no family member wouldn't donate his or her kidney? You can't speak for everyone like that. I wouldn't donate my kidney to my horrible brother. Neither would my mother or father. Example debunked.

Whether or not there are a number of organs is irrelevant as well. You can't force anyone to give an organ they don't want to, because people can choose to do what they want to do with their own bodies. Example debunked.

What you don't understand is that when a baby is born, it does not need its mother or father's body to survive. It can survive with different parents, and it doesn't need their bodies. It may need assistance in other areas, but it doesn't need their bodies. Did you not read the argument? A woman has the right to do whatever she wants with her own BODY. So, that example is debunked.
VulpeLegatus

Con

You misunderstand my point on opt-in and opt-out organ donation systems, it has nothing to do with my point on abortion. I was simply trying to explain that in your example of Human A and Human B, it is almost impossible for Human A to only have one possible donor, or for all their possible donors to reject donating a kidney.

If your brother is so horrible that even your mother or father would not donate their one of their kidneys, he has probably committed numerous unforgivable felonies, or you exagerrate. If the former is true, I could understand why you don't see him as a part of your family.

Your third point confuses me, do you mean to say that people who have registered their organs in an organ bank but simply do not want to donate them? Again, my first paragraph outlines why your example is impossible so doesn't apply to the debate on abortion.

When a baby is born, it needs at least one parent or guardian to live, it cannot live on its own. A newborn child can be sent to an orphanage to new parents, similar to an unborn child. There will be an emotional cost, but this is unfortunately unavoidable.

This brings me to another point, adoption. If a parent cannot raise a child, another family will always want to help. Why must we punish the unborn child for doing nothing wrong, other than existing in the way of the woman's comfort? Adoption is a much better solution to abortion, it comes at much less of an emotional cost and you are not unfairly punishing an unborn child.
Debate Round No. 3
Kelisitaan

Pro

Actually, there are a lack of organs available. http://www.americantransplantfoundation.org...

"On average, 22 people die every day from the lack of available organs for transplant."

Theory debunked. But it was irrelevant anyway

My third point was simple. You cannot force someone to donate organs. Even though there are 22 people per day dying of lack of transfers, no one can be forced to donate these organs. Everyone can do whatever they please with their body.

"When a baby is born, it needs at least one parent or guardian to live, it cannot live on its own. A newborn child can be sent to an orphanage to new parents, similar to an unborn child. There will be an emotional cost, but this is unfortunately unavoidable."

Again, you aren't understanding the argument. Let me state it for you again. A WOMAN HAS THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE WHAT SHE WANTS TO DO WITH HER OWN BODY. PERIOD. A baby does NOT need a specific woman's body to survive. A fetus needs its mother's body to survive.

"This brings me to another point, adoption. If a parent cannot raise a child, another family will always want to help."

Untrue. https://showhope.org....

"There are roughly 400,000 children in the US foster care system. Of that number, approximately 100,000 are waiting to be adopted."

Again, none of this matters. It all goes back to the basic principle. A woman has the right to do whatever she wants with her own body. A fetus needs its mother's body to survive. A woman has the right to not share her body with anyone, including her fetus.

Q.E.D
VulpeLegatus

Con

You seem to have misunderstood my point. There is a near-impossible chance of you only having one possible organ donor, either you have multiple possible organ donors, or none. I was simply saying your example couldn't hold out because in a real organ donation situation, there would not be only one possible donor.

To reuse your tone, A WOMAN HAS THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE WHAT SHE WANTS TO DO WITH HER BODY, UNLESS AN UNBORN LIFE IS INVOLVED. A fetus has not done any wrong, or committed a crime in existing in her mother's womb. A baby will demand at least one person's body, if that person feels uncomfortable or unable to cope, they can give care to someone else. In the case of an unborn child, the mother will have to wait until she gives birth to assign care to someone else. There are numerous ways to soften the pains of pregnancy, the woman will have to endure because another life is involved.

I do agree, there is a major issue with orphans not finding a home, but in Asia, the Carribean, Europe and North America, rates of orphaned children are down. This is a problem which is slowly being solved.

What did the fetus do against the woman? Why does the fetus deserve to die simply because the woman wanted it to? You cannot simply allow a woman to do what she wants with her body, regardless of other lives involved. The fetus has the right to live, and its right to live outweights the woman's comfort.

I thank you for debating with me, it was a pleasure and I hope to debate again some time with you again.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by VulpeLegatus 1 year ago
VulpeLegatus
Isn't
"Sources go to pro because they used sources from the American Transplant Foundation and Show Hope, which are organizations who are committed to the causes that Pro used them to show facts about. This makes them more reliable than if it came from a news article who can often report the wrong thing about the primary source. Con did not provide any sources, and thus there is nothing to compare pro's sources to."
also a non-general comment?
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: jo154676// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Con gets arguments because everytime pro said"debunked" to one of con's comments it was rebutted and proved to be accurate.

[*Reason for removal*] The voter is required to specifically assess arguments made by both debaters. Making general statements about what happened on every rebuttal is not sufficient.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Matpat// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: .

[*Reason for removal*] Not an RFD.
************************************************************************
Posted by John_C_1812 1 year ago
John_C_1812
A woman has at the least a Constitutional right to try and dictate what happens to all female bodies. Gender Specific Amputation may be necessary choice because, she, as a woman is asking for State and Federal licensed guidance to help take control. Without providing United States Constitutional separation, prior to this attack on basic Separation.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Capitalistslave 1 year ago
Capitalistslave
KelisitaanVulpeLegatusTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources go to pro because they used sources from the American Transplant Foundation and Show Hope, which are organizations who are committed to the causes that Pro used them to show facts about. This makes them more reliable than if it came from a news article who can often report the wrong thing about the primary source. Con did not provide any sources, and thus there is nothing to compare pro's sources to.