The Instigator
TheoEkman
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
Noga
Pro (for)
Losing
0 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 2 votes the winner is...
TheoEkman
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 4/14/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 606 times Debate No: 112784
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

TheoEkman

Con

I think that abortion is immoral in every scenario, and that it should be illegal in every scenario.

The abortion question is rather simple, if you think that the fetus is a life, then it has human rights, and we cant kill it. But if it is not a life, then sure, we can kill it.

I would like to get 2 questions answered before this before the pro choice can start with their arguments;
1. What is your defenition of life?
2. Is all life equal?

(I need to add that I'm not religious in any way)
Noga

Pro

I'll start by answering your two questions and then present my argument.
1. "The condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally." (dictionary.com)

2. For the purpose of this debate, yes.

Any person has a right to govern their own body without regard to the impact such decisions would have on others. For example, McFall v. Shimp, in which a 39y.o. man was in desperate need of a bone marrow transplant which would save his life. The only available match was his cousin who refused to donate. The court ruled in favor of the cousin, effectively declaring that "it is unacceptable to force another person to donate body parts, even in a situation of medical necessity".[1]

Likewise, a pregnant woman has a right to govern her body.
The potential effects of pregnancy include:
pain in the back, abdomen, groin area, thighs, general pain due to her body stretching, congestion, frequent urination, symptoms of calcium deficiency, bleeding gums, shortness of breath, constipation, heartburn, gas, morning sickness, swelling of the face, hands, and feet, nosebleeds, UTIs, and more.[2][3][4] Permanent effects of pregnancy might include the pelvic bone widening, changes in the size of feet, hands, thighs, stomach, and pelvic floor, urinary incontinence, melasma, hair loss, stretch marks, changes in the brain, weaker bones, thyroid problems, and many more.[5][6]

Terminating the pregnancy would exempt her from experiencing any and all of these symptoms, and also from experiencing the childbirth itself, commonly considered to be one of the worst pains there are.

For this reason, I urge you to vote Pro. Thank you.
-N

(Links shortened because of character count.)
#1 https://goo.gl...
#2 https://goo.gl...
#3 https://goo.gl...
#4 https://goo.gl...
#5 https://goo.gl...
#6 https://goo.gl...
Debate Round No. 1
TheoEkman

Con

Hi Noga!

First of all, I totally agree with you on the aspect that everyone have the right to their own body. But what if there were another body involved? What if the fetus would be considered another human being? Would she still have the right to kill it? People usually talk about sympathy for the woman who would have to go through all the biological reductions as you mentioned. But nobody ever talk about sympathy for the child. The child has nowhere to go, nowhere to hide, did not have a choice to be in that position and the mother wants to kill the him/her. The only one that had a choice of putting him/her in that position is the mother and the father. By having unprotected sex they are aware of the risk involved. By proceeding, they accept the risks involved. Since she has been aware of the risk involved, she cant be given the right to take another life without its consent. In your McFall v. Shimp example, the man who was in need for a bone marrow. His cousin did not put him in that position, he did not force him into a position like this. Which means that he/she has the right to deny if he would like. But the pregnant woman however, she had a choice of becoming pregnant, just imagine if the cousin would have put him into that position and then refused to donate. That would have been a different scenario.

I believe that life begins at conception. At the moment when a human sperm penetrates a human ovum, or egg, generally in the upper portion of the Fallopian Tube, a new entity comes into existence. "Zygote" is the name of the first cell formed at conception, the earliest developmental stage of the human embryo, followed by the "Morula" and "Blastocyst" stages.

I forgot to ask, when do you think that the baby is considered a life? At what point is it no longer okay to kill it according to you?
Noga

Pro

Thank you for your argument.
“What if the fetus...being?”(line 2)
Since we established all life is equal, it is of equal value to a human.
“when...considered a life?”(last line)
Refer to definition of life in my first argument.
“At what point is it no longer …?”(last line)
An irrelevant attempt at straw-manning.

“By...aware of the risk involved.”(line 6)
In 2011 in the US, 45% of pregnancies were unwanted.[1]
Often times, women getting abortions are poor (“75% of abortion patients in 2014 were poor or low-income”[3], “Rate of unintended pregnancy among poor women...[was] more than five times the rate among women with incomes of at least 200% of the federal poverty level”[6]) and hence are far less likely to have gone through proper sex ed[5], or were using contraceptives/did not intend to have sex (53.6% reported using contraceptives, 0.6% reported being raped when they conceived[2] ).
The Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found “Unintended pregnancy is the major contributor to induced abortion” and that “intended pregnancies account for a very small percentage of abortions (The grand majority of these women did not want to be pregnant- it was a bodily function they couldn't have helped. If they could’ve helped it they would have, which is exactly what abortion is- it is them controlling their involuntary bodily functions.

I feel from where you’re coming from, Theo. The loss of human life is certainly tragic, but there are better ways to avoid abortion.
CDC[4] found “Increasing access to and use of effective contraception can reduce unintended pregnancies and further reduce the number of abortions performed in the United States”. We must teach women how to not become pregnant so that they don’t have to abort.
Women mustn't be seen as carrying vessels for whom unwarranted physical pain, suffering, and huge involuntary life changes are a mere part of their purpose. We must continue to allow them bodily self-governing rights.

Vote “Pro”.
-N
(Sources in comments)
#5
Debate Round No. 2
TheoEkman

Con

You said that my: At what point is it no longer okay to kill? question was a strawmanning attempt. Yes it was, but it is still a very important question for this debate, so its definitely not irrelevant as you said. If we want abortions to be legal, then we need a specific point on when someone gets classified as a human being and an individual. So if you got to decide everything about abortion, at what point would the legal limit be to have an abortion?

My point is that the difference between killing and not killing is very extreme. So something very large or important must have happened to the baby in order for you not having the right to kill it (if you had the right in the first place). So if you cant give me something specific that has happened between "killable" and "non-killable" then I think that it is a very irrational claim to be pro choice.

I don't think that a fetus is not a life until a specific point. I believe that it is a process, more of a spectrum. At conception, life is created, but is a very small form of life. But again, just because he/she seems small and meaningless to someone, does not give them the right to kill it

I do agree on your last statements; there are better ways to avoid abortion, such as the things you mentioned. But even then, while having protected sex, there is a risk. A risk that the woman and the man are aware of, and by proceeding, they accept the risk. If they get unlucky, then the baby should not have to suffer for his/her parents mistakes.

"Women.. be seen as carrying vessels" Well, I don't view women that way, and I don't think that most people view them that way either. But women are the only ones that are going to be pregnant.

You mentioned that abortion is involuntary, but they were aware of the risk, which they took voluntary.

"We must continue... bodily self-governing rights" Agreed, but we don't have to give women the right to kill other human beings. How is killing other humans a "self-governing right?
Noga

Pro

My opponent has failed to disprove any of my arguments, instead choosing to concede to most of them and fixate on his definition on life which I prooved irelevant in my first argument: " Any person has a right to govern their own body without regard to the impact such decisions would have on others".

"You mentioned that abortion is involuntary" again, straw-manning.
"they were aware of the risk, which they took voluntary" my opponant fails to address my previous argument, in which I argued 75% of abortion patients are extremely unlikely to have gone through proper sex ed and thus are unaware of risks of unportected sex and of availanle contraceptives, making them unaware of this "risk" they take.

"Agreed, but we don't have to give women the right to kill other human beings. How is killing other humans a "self-governing right"?"
Time and time again it seems my opponant simply did not read my arguments. As I stated in my very first argument, one has control over what they do with their body, even if the implications of such decisions include the death of another, like in McFal v. Shimp.

To conclude my case,
I have presented 2 points:
-Pregnant women have rights to govern their own body, which include refusing to do something to sustain another life as we have seen in McFall v. Shimp.
-The extremely vast majority of abortion patients' pregnancies were not planned. Many of them are likely to have been unaware that they might become pregnant, unaware of contraceptives available to them, or have used contraceptives that failed them, thus are "stuck in this situation" just as much as their fetus.

My opponent did not present any points which I did not disprove, and has either conceded to or ignored all of my arguments.
Since the voting for this debate is a "who won", I want to emphasize my extensive use of credible outside resources.

Thank you very much for this debate, I enjoyed it.
I urge you to vote Pro.
-Noga
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by TheoEkman 3 years ago
TheoEkman
Hey!

yea, well the only part that I did agree on, was that it were better ways to avoid abortion, than abortion itself.

The reason that I did not respond to your "45% of pregnancies are unwanted" response, was because I thought that it were clearly irrelevant. Sure its a problem, but it is a separate problem in itself ://The second reason, is that I had no space for it lol :D

I usually respond with "agreed" when people say something that the other side don't have to disagree with,. I did for example respond with "agreed" when you mentioned that we cant deny someone their self governing rights. Nobody can disagree with such a statement, the question is only, what is a self governing right? I don't believe that abortion is, which is why I questioned it the next thing I did.

But thank you for your feedback :)
Posted by Noga 3 years ago
Noga
Hey Theo! It was a good debate. I appreciate you were honest and addmited you agree with my arguments when you did agree.
For the future, I advise to seperate between your personal opinions and your arguments for the debate, which means you should continue to stand your ground even if you dont believe in it. If you can't disprove an opponent's point usiqng logic, try to find contradictory statistics to undermine their credability, or just ignore the argument entirely- whatever you do, don't just go "agreed". Agreeing is a very good practice in coversations, but not in formal debate.
Overall, I had fun. Hoping to debate with you again in the future and would love to get some feedback if you have any. :)
-Noga
Posted by Noga 3 years ago
Noga
Sources for my argument from round 2 are listed here due to the character count.
#1 https://goo.gl...
#2 https://goo.gl...
#3 https://goo.gl...
#4 https://goo.gl...
#5 the photo is in the argument. It is from https://goo.gl...
#6 https://goo.gl...
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Varrack 3 years ago
Varrack
TheoEkmanNoga
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Pro argued that (1) abortion exempts women from uncomfortable pregnancy symptoms, and (2) one has a right to govern their body, as is evident by a court case. Con drops the first point, but the 2nd point he disputes: the bone marrow case is incomparable because pregnancy is voluntary. Pro responds that it's often unintended, and Con replies that there's always some choice involved. I don't think this point really went anywhere, so we're left with a small negating impact from Pro (the discomfort argument). On Con's end is the assertion life begins at conception and that taking life is wrong. Pro doesn't actually dispute either of these, and agrees that "the loss of human life is certainly tragic". Pro insists that other ways of avoiding abortion exist. I get that they do, but why are these better options, and why does it mean abortion should be legal? Con's life argument stands, then, and nothing Pro said outweighed that (we can all agree saving life is more important than comfort).
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 3 years ago
dsjpk5
TheoEkmanNoga
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-

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