The Instigator
Elias33
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TheoEkman
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Abortion

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
TheoEkman
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 4/8/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 724 times Debate No: 112515
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)

 

Elias33

Pro

A woman should have the right to make decisions about her own body. We"re in 2018, and people (mostly men, it seems) are still debating about whether or not a woman should be allowed to make the choice to have an abortion.

It is her body, it is her choice.
TheoEkman

Con

I agree with you, a woman should have the right to make her own decisions about her own body. But what if there were another body involved? What if her baby would be considered a life?

I believe that a life begins at conception.

If the woman's baby would be considered a life would you then consider abortion to be murderer? At what point is it no longer okay to abort the baby? At what point do you consider the baby to be a living human being?
Debate Round No. 1
Elias33

Pro

I agree with your statement. If the baby would be another life then yes, it would be murderer. I believe that the baby is considered a life when it is breathing on its own. Because it is by then that it can continue to live on its own.

But what if a 14 year old girl would be raped?

A pregnancy is a huge responsibility. A child has basic needs: food, shelter, water, and health care. On top of these things, a child also needs attention, love, and support. Do you think that a 14 year old girl can provide that?
TheoEkman

Con

If you think that the baby not a life until it is breathing, then what if the baby is not breathing when it comes out of the womb? Would you still have the right to kill it?

Rape is no excuse for murder/abortion. Rape is a bad thing, but just because someone got raped, does not mean that the woman can start killing babies.

It sounded like you wanted all abortions to be legal, but yet you are using the rape argument. Less then 1% of all abortions are because of rape ( https://www.operationrescue.org... ). Now you are using a really small example in order to make all examples sound okay. But its not, rape is bad, killing babies is bad. Rape does not justify killing babies.

My question: what if the baby is not breathing when it comes out of the womb? Would the woman still have the right to kill it?
Debate Round No. 2
Elias33

Pro

You did not answer my question: Do you think that a raped 14 year old girl would be able to provide food, shelter, water and more to her baby?

Rape does justify abortion. We need to have a little sympathy for the girl that got raped. She would have to live 9 months with it, it is taking her energy as a human and the only reason that the baby is alive is because of the woman.

Don't you have any sympathy for the woman?
TheoEkman

Con

Your question: Do you think that a raped 14 year old girl would be able to provide food, shelter, water and more to her baby?

Answer: No I don't think that a 14 year old girl would be able to provide this, but the same thing can be said about homeless people, they can not afford food, shelter or water for their kids, but they don't have the right to kill them do they?

My questions:
what if the baby is not breathing when it comes out of the womb? Would the woman still have the right to kill it?

If the parents don't have money to support their kids, do they have the right to kill them?
Debate Round No. 3
Elias33

Pro

If the baby is not breathing when it comes out of the womb, then no you do not have the right to kill it, but that is far from the same thing. When the baby is outside of the womb then I consider it to be an independent life.

If the parent would not have money to support their kids, then no, they would still not have the right to kill them. But again, that is far from the same thing.

Condoms also break sometimes. Forcing a woman to become pregnant.
TheoEkman

Con

So now you are saying that if the baby is outside of the womb, then we cant kill it? But if it is inside, then we can? Even though there are no biological difference 1 day before the woman gives birth, and 1 day after you still think that it should be the deciding factor if the baby gets to live or not?

Condoms do break yes, but if a condom breaks, how does that give someone the right to kill someone? One event like this can not justify a crime. If the baby does not want to be killed, it should not be killed. Sadly there are no way for us to ask the baby if it wants to live or not, therefore there is no consent, and there is no right to kill another human being.
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by TheoEkman 3 years ago
TheoEkman
Okay, what if I were brain-dead, then I have no brain activity at all, and I'm alive simply because of machines. If I were in this stage, and we knew that I would be completely fine in 1 month, would my mother still have the right to kill me?
Posted by ElijaHall 3 years ago
ElijaHall
I figured you would respond with this argument. Your coma analogy does not fit what I am saying at all. One with a comma still has brain activity and arguably some form of sub consciousness. A fetus without brain activity has yet to even reach the capacity to be a person. One in a coma does have that capacity.
Posted by TheoEkman 3 years ago
TheoEkman
So, ElijaHall, what if I'm braindead or in a deep coma, without any brain activity. Am I still a person? Does my mother have the right to kill me if she wants?
Posted by ElijaHall 3 years ago
ElijaHall
How many children have you adopted? Adoption is not a good option. The simple fact is that a fetus does not have brain activity until about 14 weeks. This means that although it is a human fetus that is alive, it is NOT a person. It is a fetus. Fetus is the only accurate word to describe it in the first 14 weeks. That is why one should be allowed to abort in the first trimester. After, is when it can be argued that a baby has a mind or consciousness. I do not believe that the state should have that level of authority. The FETUS is a human fetus that is alive in the first 14 months. I believe that the state should only be allowed to protect the rights of actual human beings.
Posted by asta 3 years ago
asta
+ John_C_1812

Your comment doesn't make sense.
Posted by John_C_1812 3 years ago
John_C_1812
Tell the world one time please why all woman must confess to murder? Why must there be a united state created by admission to murder? This state is neither fact or truth Anti-abortion means no confession to murder for all woman is tolerable.

Pregnancy Abortion does not describe a woman"s constitutional right over her own body. It is dictating that all people including woman self-incriminate to a felony confession of crime. This set as a united State by legislation in writing for all to see and witness. The lack of Constitutional common defense provided no protection to the United States Constitution or the general welfare of the voting public, and the fast lack of representation is mind staggering on this issue.

Any woman could have demonstrated the ability to for a United State set on basic principle of impartiality by addressing the matter as female specific amputation. Yet a crime was written to law to facilitate a united state built on criminal accusation and presumption of guild made by a confession to crime publicly.
Posted by asta 3 years ago
asta
Whether or not a woman believes that a fetus is a human being is irrelevant. If I believed that my brother wasen't human, that's fine, but it's wrong because science would confirm that my brother is a human being.

What does the science say about the fetus?

1)Science says that in order to be a human being, you must have the right amount of chromosomes in the right format.

2)In order to be alive, you must meet the necessary criteria to be alive.

A fetus satisfies both requirements, so a fetus therefore is a human being, even from the moment of conception.

P.S. Missmedic is assuming something that he thinks Pro lifers assume in his first paragraph. Since this is stereotypical, the one making an assumption is him.
Posted by missmedic 3 years ago
missmedic
Anti-abortionists tend to assume that without restrictions on abortion, women are lining up for last-minute abortions during their 9th month of pregnancy, and doctors are obligingly doing them. This irrational claim is insulting to both women and doctors, and has zero basis in fact. The number of abortions after 20 weeks has always been extremely low, as it is in every country with legalized abortion. Another anti-abortion assumption is that a criminal law is needed to regulate abortions, even though the medical profession normally regulates itself through internal codes and policies.
The question of when life begins is a philosophical issue, not a scientific one, and there can be no consensus. The moral value of a fetus is also a matter of personal opinion, so it must be left up to individual women to decide what their fetus means to them, if anything. But even women who believe abortion is murder often need abortions, so the nature of the fetus and its moral status are ultimately beside the point. Women"s lives, health, and basic human rights depend on the availability of abortion, and those are the only factors necessary to justify abortion.
Posted by asta 3 years ago
asta
+ Pro

If a woman gets raped, she can set the kid up for adoption.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 3 years ago
dsjpk5
Elias33TheoEkman
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark

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