The Instigator
flaming.liberal
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
AKMath
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Legalized Abortion Has Done More Good Than Harm

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/13/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 517 times Debate No: 115533
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

flaming.liberal

Pro

I will first present my case.

Framing: Katha Pollit, "Abortion is part of being a mother and of caring for children, because part of caring for children is knowing when it's not a good idea to bring them into the world." I think that both my opponent and I can agree that doing what is best for the child is the most important thing, and sometimes abortion is the most important way to provide this type of care, because some people don't have the ability to take care of a child.

Now I will move on to my own points:

1. Child's Quality of Life & Well Being:
The most important thing in this debate is the well being of the child. Both sides can agree on this. However, the proposition side fulfills this ideal more than opposition. If a woman doesn't have the ability to take care of a child, then that child will be sent to child welfare programs, or the will be given to adoption centers, which have resulted in low education, absenteeism, trauma, mental disorders, etc. The opposition may say, "well at least you are giving them a chance to live," however, this is a rare occurrence. Most of the time, the quality of life for babies born into families who didn't have access to abortions have a very sad quality of life, and may end up ending their own life. Instead of forcing these fetuses to be born, it may actually increase quality of life if they are aborted.

2. Choice of the Mother:

The mother should have the absolute power in the relationship of the fetus and the mother. According to LifeNews.com: "No, babies don't feel pain in dismemberment abortions." This means that the abortion DOES NOT come at the babies expense or pain. It only helps the mother, and doesn't hurt the fetus.In the end, abortion is an issue of fundamental human rights. To force women to undergo pregnancy and childbirth against their will is to deprive them of the right to make basic decisions about their lives and well-being, and to give that power to the state. The US vice president tweeted a picture of "a meeting about women's rights." The picture is of a bunch of white men sitting around a table. That's right: a meeting about women's rights is directed by only men. This gives men the power to decide what women have the right to do with their bodies. If you can't see the harm in this, then there must be something wrong with you.

3. Rape and Forced Pregnancy:

A lot of pregnancies that end in an abortion are from rape or forced pregnancy. It is an illogical fallacy to say that women who have been raped have the absolute ability to provide for the child and give it a good quality of life. People that are raped should have the ability to undo the stress that has been put onto them, if it is the best thing to do. I will continue on this point after the opposition responds.

Thanks
AKMath

Con

I agree that quality of life, choice of the mother, and rape/forced pregnancies matter. Except I don't agree with you as abortion is murder. My question to you is why isn't a fetus a human life. I support threeoptions; motherhood, abstinence, adoption.
Debate Round No. 1
flaming.liberal

Pro

Okay; I would first like to respond to your challenge. "Why isn't a fetus a human life?" Here is my response: A fetus isn't a human life. Several scientific studies have proven that fetuses don't feel pain, they lack some senses etc. Those are defining characteristics of a human. I will respond with a challenge of my own: "why aren't all sperms human life?" I'm going to use your own logic against you. You say that a fetus is a human life, however, I would love to hear your definition of a human life. Because I think that if you give me your own definition, you will find it hard to encompass fetuses within that definition.

Thanks
AKMath

Con

Life begins at fertilization. They have a heart and a brain which for me is all a human needs to have. Sperm is not a human life as it has no brain or heart.
Debate Round No. 2
flaming.liberal

Pro

Oh I forgot to respond to what you said about the three options. "I support three options; motherhood, abstinence, adoption." Unfortunately, that doesn't happen. Yes, I support that too. BUT, it doesn't happen, and really, it is an illogical fallacy. Abortion solves problems, and it is a proven solution. But your ideals don't exist.

Then I'm going to refute your definition. "Life begins at fertilization. They have a heart and a brain which for me is all a human needs to have." Okay but why does it matter if it happens after conception. You aren't killing someone who has had any experiences, pain, and other things. While yes, they do have a heart and brain, I don't see how that makes a difference.
AKMath

Con

First of all not having pain doesn"t determine if your a life or not. When lobsters are boiled alive they feel no pain, but they still have a life. Please specify the other things. Something with a heart and brain can think and live by itself. Every living thing has a heart and brain so I"d say those are the only things you need to be living. This means the fetuses are in fact living human beings. What gives you the right to murder them.
Debate Round No. 3
flaming.liberal

Pro

I don't understand what you mean, because I think that there must be some flaws in your case. Answer this honestly: Are you a vegetarian? If not, then you are killing something that has a heart and a brain, which was your criteria for being a human. Are you saying that all animals that have a brain and a heart are human? Also, I would like to clarify, that fetuses again, DO NOT FEEL PAIN, DO NOT KNOW THAT THEY HAVE BEEN ABORTED, ARE NOT SAD TO BE ABORTED. So just saying, "they are alive," has not place or impact in this debate. I'm gonna go back to my sperm thing. Sperms could obviously turn into fetuses if they fertilize an egg, so is it that murder of a child if every sperm that you have isn't fertilizing an egg? I'm very confused by this. Pregnant women do have the right to have an abortion because if the baby doesn't have a good quality of life, then there would be no reason to live. Depression, suicide, cutting, and more self harm tactics are results of being put in adoption centers. So these people are often taking their own lives, and murdering themselves anyway. So abortion can actually raise the quality of life for the pregnant woman, and even the fetus being aborted.
AKMath

Con

No I'm not a vegetarian (or vegan). I'm an omnivore. You know what I meant. I'll clarify. Anything with a HUMAN brain and HUMAN heart is a human being. As I have stated before, and I assume you believe a fetus has (human) life. A killing of human life is MURDER. I hope you understand this. So what you're saying is that if I shot a person in the head it is justified. According to you shooting someone in the head gives them no time to know they have been murdered, or enough time to feel sad they have been murdered. And according to you I can go and kill a broke, addicted, homeless, etc. person because their quality of life is bad.
Debate Round No. 4
flaming.liberal

Pro

Okay, what I don't understand is your definition of vegetarian vs omnivore. Also, you said, "Anything with a HUMAN brain and HUMAN heart is a human being." I don't know how this is relevant in any way. You are killing an animal with consciousness, which is something that you have said is okay, but then when it comes to a fetus, you say, "thats over the line." It makes very little sense to me.

Also, I am not justifying shooting someone in the head. And I think you know that, but here is what I am actually trying to say: Fetuses can't feel the pain, they aren't consciousness, etc. If you get shot in the head, you are still conscious and can feel the pain, while you can't do either of those as a fetus.

Now, finally, I am going to address what you said about, "killing homeless people," and people with bad quality of life. No, you shouldn't kill homeless people because they have already created a foundation for their lives. Fetuses just live in a mother's uterus, and not have created any conscious thoughts, while other people do. Its just logic.

Recap: It should be the choice of the mother, it is best for the child, and rape and sexual assault can be helped by an abortion,(which you haven't refuted).

Thank you for a great debate! Sorry I won't be able to respond to your next response, but thanks. You were super thoughtful and logical!

Bye
AKMath

Con

Thank you too. I meant I am NOT a vegetarian. I eat VEGETABLES/FRUITS AND MEATS. Humans are above all other animals making killing any animal besides humans okay. No actually can't feel the pain of being shot through the brain as you instantly die. As I have mentioned before; when boiling lobsters alive in restaurants they feel no pain. This does not deny them of their life. They are still living things whether they feel pain or not. If you switch the lobster with a fetus and boiling with aborting it is now immoral and murder. And it is proven a fetus's brain is fully active inside the stomach, so they do probably have conscious thoughts. And thank you for being such a tolerant debater, and not an idiot far-leftist who just says it's okay with no proof, evidence, or actual argument. You can eeeeemail me at aden.m.kamath at geeeeemail dot com if you'd like to debate this topic further with me.
Thanks.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by hatshepsut 3 years ago
hatshepsut
Pro argues for what I think the more defensible position in the abortion debate, but from the wrong premises. He would have stood much better were his thesis that choice of whether to bring a baby to term can only be assigned to the mother, who must bear what amounts to an obligate parasite for 9 month, then take on years of responsibility for a totally dependent child.

Instead, pro argues that abortion is an element of child rearing and that fetuses feel no pain. The first is clearly incorrect: Abortion is knowing when not to become a mom. Sensory abilities in the fetus depend on gestational age.

It"s likely the embryos and first-trimester fetuses comprising >90% of abortions feel little or no pain, as the tracts in the spinal cord"s dorsal horns are not fully connected to the cerebral cortex via their subcortical synapses in the thalamus. Conscious awareness of pain involves the anterior cingulate gyrus, somatosensory cortex and frontal lobes"structures that develop as late as 5 months into gestation. However, late preterm babies do feel pain, and as Con says, pain is a poor hallmark of humanity, as there exist otherwise fully-functional adult humans whose pain perception is defective or absent.

Pro omits another strong argument, the one for modernity as sufficient condition for legality. Prohibition is nearly impossible to enforce as abortions can be done with equipment used for any other abdominal surgery, or in a perilous, back-alley manner with a knitting needle. While asserting his own points, Pro also fails to address Con"s arguments, emphasizing quality of life issues which dodge the question of whether what"s obviously the taking of a human life stage is moral. Still, I must vote Pro the winner. He states his position in full but Con abbreviates.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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