The Instigator
kaiscottonkandy
Pro (for)
The Contender
rsriram
Con (against)

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
kaiscottonkandy 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: 9/5/2018 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 557 times Debate No: 118049
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (0)

 

kaiscottonkandy

Pro

Abortion should be allowed as it might harm the women to carry also, Some kids that were a mistake are abused later on in life. What if the women was raped? Some women wouldn't want to keep carrying that.
rsriram

Con

Abortion is immoral and is murder. Your main argument is, What if the woman went through a tragedy. If the father who committed the crime doesn't get the death penalty why should the baby? There is also the argument of morality. Why does one human get to decide the life of another. The main argument you have is the fact that the baby is inside a woman, So the woman has the right to decide what to do with it. Take this example, What if the mother wants a male child, And believes all female children should be aborted? Why is that any different and not immoral?
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
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
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by John_C_1812 3 years ago
John_C_1812
Missmedic,
There has been consensus for some time according to the medical profession. A formulation to a double standard does not hide a consensus by limiting a Constitutional common defense to the general welfare of the people. The fetus is human until proven by Canada, Or anther Nation"s as not human. There is a confusion between basic human right and Constitutional right for the common defense to the general welfare.

All a debate of life achieves is identifying a public pre-meditation to the office claim made on a Stop order which is said to be taking place. Really the sad part here is that a woman has a Constitutional right to independence and insists on using public knowledge. That independence is set before her as Female Specific Amputation as it places a United State shared by all concerned with a separation of independence from the people. I do not care if a woman does not want to understand her egg is living and has a value set upon it by medicine as a commodity.

There is also a hidden issue in regard to Marriage and Female Specific Amputation or Pregnancy Abortion. As these are a couple who are united and share a burden of a continual state of death of embryo and sperm as a couple who are petitioning a government for citizenship of their progeny.
Posted by missmedic 3 years ago
missmedic
cello
As I said there can be no consensus, Two cells joining is not a person. Some would argue that a heart is needed to be alive, Others will argue that a brain is needed or consciousness. The Criminal Code of Canada says that a fetus does not become a human being until it has completely exited the birth canal, Alive. It is impossible for two beings in the same body to both enjoy rights.
Posted by John_C_1812 3 years ago
John_C_1812
So pregnancy abortion has a scripted debate on the start of life, A scientific definition is used that holds a double standard, While science can hold both egg and sperm in cryogenic stasis as a defense alone for a questionable period of time? Both woman and men cannot? Is this true or is it a united State? Science on the other hand knowingly predicts the termination of any fertilization it make on a person"s behalf, In the name of progress of medicine without a natural process that takes place by creators of egg or sperm.

Does this play a role in the double standard of life?
Does it play a role in creation of a United State?
Female Specific Amputation, Gender Specific Amputation, Pregnancy Abortion, Menstrual Ovulation Abortion, An abortions termination.
Posted by John_C_1812 3 years ago
John_C_1812
Cello242
Doesn"t citizen ship by way of social security number count as a consensus on person-hood? Also an abortion is necessary however it is the context of the wording and use which describe this fact. It is in relationship to pregnancy the word abortion is not necessary as it denotes a admission of guilt without fact and presents itself and united state to all woman.
Posted by John_C_1812 3 years ago
John_C_1812
Yes life begins at conception is a scientific fact. However it is not the only scientific fact and before conception the medical sciences field keeps both egg and sperm alive for use after the receipt of these items by donation. This denotes a conflict of interest. On top of this the words pregnancy abortions are describing the understanding of an official start in themselves. This is due to a legal fact, Had there not been an official start to an event there would be no official end required of that event.

Abortion is all about the understanding of independence granted as liberty by united state and the Constitutional principles that may guide them as a common defense to a general welfare. This also is fact entered as preamble by the United States Constitution. Even if reference to the United States Constitution is ignored the idea is all woman need admit to a homicide by the choice given. That is not Right. That is wrong. The United State shared here is that egg, Sperm, And fetus all die without intervention by a natural process. It is this understanding that must be upheld and not a presumption of guilt honored by a admission with questionable intention.
Posted by cello242 3 years ago
cello242
@missmedic

The statement "life begins at conception" IS a scientific fact. Here is one article example though there are many more.
https://lozierinstitute. Org/a-scientific-view-of-when-life-begins/

The statement "person-hood begins at conception" is a philosophical question, And even though there is no consensus on person-hood this does not mean we can automatically deny person-hood to whoever we want. For this same reason a Nazi cannot murder a Jew because they do not consider them persons.

Also, An abortion is not necessary, Ever. There may need to be emergency medical treatment in which the consequence is the death of the fetus (ectopic pregnancy), But a surgical abortion takes about 3 days to prepare the cervix, Any emergency abortion would be too late to save anyone. Most life threatening pregnancies are solved by inducing labor.

Finally, The moral value of the fetus is the entire center of this debate. If a fetus is not morally valuable or possess person-hood then it doesn't matter if the woman gets rid of it or not, But if it is it needs consideration for its right to life.
Posted by John_C_1812 3 years ago
John_C_1812
Missmedic
A woman is set inside a law of nature the places her in a position to hold a blame for death for simply not choosing to have sexual relationships. This is a Constitutional United State between all women who can become pregnant. On top of this woman are placed in a United State with all men in the same regard as it is spematozoon and egg which die when intercourse does not take place.

The presumption of innocents by state of the union made that woman are simply asking for law of nature to take priority for privacy and safety in a common defense to the general welfare of all woman. Any United State Constitutional Right is by fact in response to an admission of guilt that is being presented as a choice to the public. The best explanation to defend the United States Constitution is Female specific Amputation as this presents a United State that can in fact be shared with all woman. In such a way that it does not require an admission of guilt be shared with all woman.
Posted by missmedic 3 years ago
missmedic
If a fetus is a person? And all person deserve rights, Right? How do you give equal rights to two persons that share the same body? How do you force the obligation and duty of pregnancy on a women that does not want to be pregnant? How? How would do that? Answering this question could end unwanted pregnancies, The number cause of abortion.
Posted by missmedic 3 years ago
missmedic
Most anti-abortionists confidently state as "scientific fact" that human life begins at conception and therefore embryos deserve legal protection. 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.
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.

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