The Instigator
passwordstipulationssuck
Con (against)
The Contender
Averna_1
Pro (for)

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Averna_1 has forfeited round #2.
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: 1/30/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 238 times Debate No: 107292
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

passwordstipulationssuck

Con

#1 no ad hominems.
#2 standard rules regarding dropped arguments apply
#3 no new arguments in final rebuttals.

I believe that abortion should be illegal except for when the pregnancy poses an abnormal threat to the life of the mother.
Averna_1

Pro

I think abortion should be legal without a doubt, It's the mother's choice to abort the foetus they are carrying ; you might argue why doesn't the father of the child have a choice in the decision too? Men are not the one that has carry the child throughout the 9 months of pregnancy and give birth to it. It is unfair in a way but women have a bigger responsibility until the child's birth where responsibility is spilt equally between each parent.
To make abortion completely illegal except for the circumstance that it could pose a threat on the mother's health is foolish. For example If a woman was raped and found to be pregnant with the rapist's child, would you have the nerve to tell her that she would have to carry that foetus throughout the whole pregnancy?. I doubt most women would want to be reminded of their assault through their innocent child.
Debate Round No. 1
passwordstipulationssuck

Con

Abortion, despite how it may seem, is not a complicated issue. Either the fetus is alive, and thus is a human life. or it isn't.
there are a number of moral arguments to the debate.
the first moral argument is that scientifically the human fetus meets the criterion to be considered alive from conception (1)" Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity." As we can see, the fetus is genetically human and meets every criterion to be considered alive.

now that we have established that the human life begins at conception I may be faced with the argument from many in favor of abortion that though the organism forming in the womb is alive (if they don't fully reject the known science thus committing fallacy) that it is not a person. this leads me to moral argument number two which is: even if you don't consider the humanity of the organism in the womb, there are plenty of things that exist that are A. not persons. and B. has rights and intrinsic value, for example, dogs or other domesticated animals. To state that simply because you don't consider the human fetus (which is what I shall be referring to the developing child as hereinafter.) to be a person, does not mean that it does not have rights and value. Furthermore, even if you deny the humanity of the fetus, you are still dealing with a potential human life which should be held in higher moral regard than the convenience of the mother or father. Another argument that many of those on the pro-choice side of the argument is that women have the human right to control their bodies. And I am in complete agreement. When it is your body that you are doing something to then you should have every right to do so insofar as it's not self-harm. However, the human fetus is not your body. It is IN your body. as I stated in my first card in the scientific portion of my argument, the human fetus has a separate genetic identity with the restoration of the diploid number of chromosomes. therefore, the human fetus is not a part of the mother's body any more than the child would be after (s)he was born. I hold that the time to control your body would have been before conception IE: using birth control or not having sexual intercourse. one thing that society appears to have forgotten, is that sex is not for pleasure. it is the biological process through which most species ensure the continuation of their species through reproduction (2). if you choose to partake in an action the purpose of which is to reproduce. (thus controlling your body.) then you accept the risk of conception.

Moral argument number 3. does the fetus have any rights, any intrinsic value, and any right to live. well, the collective opinion of society is that the fetus has essentially infinite right to live. when? if and only if the mother decides to keep the child. if she does, society and its laws, regard the fetus with infinite worth and considers it so valuable, that if someone were to kill that child they would be prosecuted for homicide. keeping in mind that the definition of homicide is: the deliberate and unlawful killing of one person by another (3). we can, therefore, see that if the mother decides to keep her child then the law recognizes it as a person. if she doesn't, the fetus is considered worthless with essentially no right to live. now, does that make sense? it doesn't seem to. either the fetus has worth, or it doesn't. on what moral grounds does the mother alone have the right to decide the fetus' worth?

most people would consider killing the baby once it exits the womb as murder. however, the deliberate killing of the fetus a mere two months before is no more morally problematic than extracting a tooth.

and finally, we need to recognize that there are instances when an abortion simply cannot be considered moral. take for example if the mother or father aborts a child because they prefer boys to girls. as has happened millions of times in China and elsewhere. or any other form of bias or preference of the mother or father simply cannot offer moral grounds for the termination of the human life.

I look forward to a rational and well thought out debate and wish my opponent the best of luck. I eagerly await your response.

(1) https://www.princeton.edu...............
(2) www.biology-online.org
(3)www.dictionary.com

Now I will address my opponents case. First, my opponent states that it is the mothers choice to kill her baby. (I don't use euphemisms in general) However, no one has the right to kill another innocent human being. No one gets to make that choice. second, my opponent states that the father should not have a say because he doesn't have to carry the child. However, this assertion fails to address the emotional attachment that they may have and second, even if the father and mother concur on the killing of the child that wouldn't make it okay. and finally, my opponent makes the "what about rape" argument. fine. I'll make you a deal. since rape makes up around .1% of abortions(1) I will make an exception in that case. does that satisfy you? that's a legitimate question. please answer it.

For these reasons and innumerable others, I ask for you all to vote con.

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net...
This round has not been posted yet.
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
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 6 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.