The Instigator
TouchtheSky
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
NKJVPrewrather
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Should Abortion be legal?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
TouchtheSky
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/6/2018 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 499 times Debate No: 112417
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)

 

TouchtheSky

Con

I've seen you discussing this with other people, and I would love to talk over your views with you. I am also a Christian and would love to hear what you have to say and work through this together. If you're not okay with this, it's totally fine, just reject the debate.

The motion will be this (if you have a problem with it, you can mention it in the comments so that we don't waste rounds):
This house holds that abortion should be made legal, and women should have the right to abort their baby without being prosecuted for doing so.

I will be arguing 'con', you will be arguing 'pro'.

ARGUMENT 1: A CHILD'S LIFE BEGINS WITH CONCEPTION, AND THEREFORE TO ABORT THE CHILD WOULD BE TAKING THEIR LIFE.
I'll examine this by first trying to prove that a child's birth begins at conception. (I saw elsewhere that you already believe this, but for the sake of the debate, I'm going to discuss it publically.)

To begin with, let's look at several definitions of life.

Google's definition of life is "the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death". (https://www.google.com...)

According to this definition, a baby would, therefore, be alive. A baby obviously has the capacity for growth (one only has to look at a pregnant woman's stomach to see that), and although it's reproductive organs have not fully formed, they clearly exist and are developing. A baby is trapped in the womb, but despite this, it kicks and moves around, showing that it does indeed have functional activity. And it continuously changes within the womb as well.

Let's look at another definition of life:
According to Merriam-Webster, life is an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction.

Once again, this fits with what we know of children in their mother's wombs. Although it happens mostly through the mother, a baby does have the capacity for metabolism (https://www.quora.com...), it grows, as we already addressed, it reacts to stimuli (if you hit a pregnant woman's stomach, the baby often kicks back), and it has capacity (even if it isn't fully formed) for reproduction.

We can, therefore, conclude, based on these definitions, that the baby is alive. If we conclude that a child in its mother's womb is alive, then we must, therefore, conclude that it has basic human rights, even before it comes out of the womb.

ARGUMENT 2: THE CHILD'S RIGHT TO LIVE IS GREATER THAN THE WOMAN'S RIGHT TO TAKE THAT LIFE.
Basic human rights include both concrete things like food and water, and abstract things like freedom of speech and freedom to marry whoever you want to marry. The right to life is also clearly stated in the constitution. The fourteenth amendment says clearly that, "No state can deprive any person of LIFE, liberty, or property", emphasis mine.

Pro-choice supporters argue that a woman's right to abort her child is part of the 'liberty' section of the constitution. However, the problem comes when we look at the idea of liberty as a way of saying that anyone can do whatever they want. Liberty is incredibly important, but it does have its limits, and unless we acknowledge those limits, we'll never be able to come to an understanding of what is and what isn't a crime.

For example, should a mass murderer have the 'liberty' to kill hundreds of people and then say that it's constitutionally protected? I would say, 'absolutely not'. The constitution protects someone's rights, but the right to kill hundreds of people is not a right at all. Similarly, if a fetus really is a person, then their right to life should outweigh a woman's right to have an abortion.

ARGUMENT 3: NO CIRCUMSTANCES, NO MATTER HOW GRAVE, SHOULD PERMIT IMMORALITY
As humans, we all have basic ideas of what constitutes morality. Everyone seems to believe something different about this, but overall, almost everyone can agree that murder is wrong. This is for two primary reasons:
-Every person has a right to life that outweighs the other person's right to take that life, as discussed in argument 2.
-It deprives others of a future of value that they could have had.

The first applies only to people who are alive, but the second applies to the fetus whether it is human or not. A fetus is valuable because it has potential to have a life. It has talents, skills, and a new perspective that it never even had a chance to share.

Many people argue that abortion should be permissible in certain circumstances, such as rape and teenage pregnancy. But this is countering an immoral action by performing another immoral action. To state an old cliche, two wrongs don't make a right. Even despite horrific circumstances, nothing should justify sin.
NKJVPrewrather

Pro

I'm ecclectic. I think personhood begins at implantation, and while I doubt if I am either prolife or prochoice, let's give it a go. What if the mother was raped, and the rapist sues for custody? That would stop the adoption both of us want to happen. I was raped, and would have abortioned had the egg implanted in my womb. I want abortion to be restricted, but not abolished. For the record, I am pro moderate on abortion. Let's yslk free healthcare and contraceptive or consensual sterilization access. Make it easier for a woman to have her tubes removed if she consents, sex ed, condom use, and more.
What if the baby will be born paralyzed, the mother is carrying 8 babies, is 10 years old, or is mentally ill? I would risk my life to avoid my baby suffering like me. I love children. I hate abortion. You know what I hate more, Women being driven to suicide by extreme situations. I would rather die than birth a sick baby, so I had my tubes removed, but say no to eugenically forced sterilization, which America and the Nazis have had before. I am promoderate, not prolife, or prochoice
Debate Round No. 1
TouchtheSky

Con

Thank you for your quick response and your outline of your beliefs. Let's talk about them more and dive into the ethics of what you are saying.

Firstly, I'd just like to say that I'm sorry to hear about what happened to you. What happened was truly tragic, and I can't imagine all that you went through in that time. I would like you to know that none of what I say in this is meant to be offensive towards you or towards anyone in your situation. I am simply stating what I believe. I understand that sometimes my views can come off as pushy or forceful, and I apologize ahead of time for if it comes out that way.

You gave several examples of times when an abortion seems like the right solution. They were:
-Rape (and the rapist sues for custody)
-A baby that will be born with defects (being paralyzed, for instance)
-A mother that is carrying many babies
-A mother that is young

Each of these situations is truly tragic, and I don't want to denote anyone's pain when they go through these things. But I do believe that abortion is the wrong choice, even when faced with these horrible scenarios. As I said in my previous argument, just because something immoral and sinful has been done to you, that does not give you any right to do something immoral to your child.

Let me go through each of the situations individually.

Rape: This is a situation that is absolutely horrible, one that I would never, ever wish upon anyone and one that is one of the worst situations that a child can be born into. No one should EVER have a right to use ANYONE like that, and having a child from it would be horrifically shameful. If a rapist does sue for custody, it does seem probable that it would be better for a child to die than to grow up in that kind of home situation. However, even if a child is growing up in horrible circumstances, that is still not an excuse to take their life. If we view the fetus as a person (which you've already established that you do), then it could be compared to trying to kill a little kid with problems at home, just because you don't want them to have to deal with it.

Birth defects: As someone who was handicapped for a portion of my life, I know what it feels like to live without the ability to walk. That pain is personal to me. Although I was not born disabled, I can imagine what it would be like if I was, and my mother decided not to keep me. Disability is never an excuse for taking a life. Nor does it make a person less valuable. You said that "you would rather die than birth a sick baby". Well, that may be your opinion, but disability or not, they are still a child, and therefore they are worthy of your love and respect.

A mother that is carrying many babies: Your example of octuplets is a little extreme, and almost unheard of, but I do see your point when it comes to multiple children. If a mother does not want twins and only wants one child, an abortion would indeed seem reasonable. But once again, the same argument still applies: just because you don't think you can handle the pressure doesn't give you permission to kill the child. There are other options, such as adoption.

A mother that is young: This is always a truly heartbreaking circumstance, and although I don't stand for sex before marriage, it is still always extremely sad when this happens. A young child should not be forced to give birth. But despite this, sometimes there is no other option. Even when the child is an accident and was never meant to happen, they are still a child, and therefore they deserve a healthy life. If you can't offer them that, you need to consider other options, adoption being one of them.
NKJVPrewrather

Pro

I have noticed that you say these situations are truely tragic without being in the mother's or her supportive husband's shoes. The justice rights and choice rights of rape victims come first: alwys. I was RAPED, and you only pretend to care. No rape victim should be forced to parent an unwanted child, or coparent by a rapist. If the mother did not consent to sex without contraception, or medicl situations, she has the right to choose if the baby cannot yet feel pain. You are not entitled to my body without my consent, even if you might die. I have the right to choose e who uses my body. What you are supporting is forced organ donation, and I would be one to die in a back alley abortion if I was raped again, because I don't want to be poregnbant ever. Why do you think I had my tubes removed because I am phobic of pregnancy and forcefu;lly exposing me to something phobic is torture. Mental patients like me are often forced to abortion anyeay because the life saving medications cause birth defects so med providers fail to treat which endangers the mother. No 10 year old should ever give birth because that would severly damage her little body. Medical need: If the mother might die, she gets a pass, and I just demonstrated how such situations do exist. Another is an ectopic pregnancy which has no chance of survival. The baby dies on his own: Not an abortion, just the removal of a dead body. Truely tragic, nd I actually mean it. Too many babies injures the mother or poses risks to unborn people. 10 mbabies? it can happen natually. I do agree that some restrictions should be passed, I would say approve a list of reasons for bortion. When two or more persons are connected, there should be some choice.
Debate Round No. 2
TouchtheSky

Con

I want you to know that I'm sorry. I read over my argument and I understand why my statement was extremely hurtful and offensive because you're right that I don't know what it feels like. I promise I was not pretending to care, I really do care, and as a Christian, you should know that God cares deeply about you as well, even though I do not. Having never been in your shoes, you're right that I don't understand this and therefore should have been much more careful before I made such a blatant accusation. When I compared abortion in rape to the killing of children because they were in a bad home situation, I didn't mean to accuse you of anything. I said it without thinking, and my beliefs were used against you in a way that was extremely cruel and unkind. You have every right to hate me after I said that, and for that, I do apologize. I don't know how to prove that I really do care about you, but all I can give you is my word. From now on, I will pray for you every night.

You are right that everyone needs the right to choose what happens in their own body. But when it comes to fetuses, the child belongs to itself as well as you. Therefore, it also has a right to life, which is where the complications come in. So the question becomes: 'Which need is greater: the child's right to life, or the mother's right to abort?'. And when we consider that the fetus is a human being, and therefore should have an undeniable right to life, then it becomes apparent that the child has a right to be born.

I believe that the only circumstance in which abortion is right is when the mother's life is at stake. If the likelihood is that both of them will die (as with your case with the ten-year-old child), then I believe that abortion may be necessary for the mother to be able to live. So yes, in this circumstance, I would agree with you.

I'm so sorry once again. If this topic is becoming too emotional, please tell me and we will stop.
NKJVPrewrather

Pro

Make it easier to choose life. One cannot abolish abortion, and expect to not have to adress the motivations for abortion. Too many conservatives seem to only care about the fetus, and once he is born, **** off!
Debate Round No. 3
TouchtheSky

Con

Quite the contrary, I care deeply for both the fetus and the mother. I believe that everyone should have freedom of choice, as well as the freedom to live. However, there is a point where these two cross each other, in which case, the question becomes "Which one is more important?" If we are to accept that a fetus is a person, it means that abortion is taking their life away from them. And therefore, you are taking their right to life. I'm not fighting against woman's rights here. I'm fighting for the life of the fetus.
NKJVPrewrather

Pro

Prove it by supporting social programs that help families, and I will listen to what you say.
Debate Round No. 4
TouchtheSky

Con

I'm thirteen years old, and I don't have the money in order to do that. But I do everything I can in order to help other families and people in every way that I can. I'm currently raising money to pay for Bibles to Muslim refugees, and I'm also raising money for a school for orphans called Amazima near where I live.
NKJVPrewrather

Pro

Fair enough, I thought you were 25. Here is what I do: contact lawmakers and ask them to make it easier to choose life. I am sorry for going hard on you, I just know I grow more moderate as I get older. May your life be much better than mine, and have as few or as much children as is safe for your body once your are married. I could easily wax on about how to not be me, but oinstead, I will say, be you safely. This is not a debate I want to win but liberals make it too easy to have an abortion, and conservatives make it too hard to choose life. The person would have the right to live in my opinion at implantation if it were easier to do so, but I'm afraid that it isn't. DM me and I can tell you how I am trying to change this, so mothers don't have to make tragic choices. I will leave you with this: I was raped when I was your age by my father, no joke. I was an untreated mental patient. If I had conceived someone, should I have been forced to birth him. Put aside labels, and practice emphathy.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Bitch_Goddess 3 years ago
Bitch_Goddess
That's like saying it should be illegal for men to masturbate simply because their sperm would go to waste, wasting the opportunity for it to fertilize an egg and become a zygote. There will always be opportunities. If it doesn't have personhood, it isn't a person.
Posted by dsjpk5 3 years ago
dsjpk5
Kj, were you telling your opponent to **** off?
Posted by TouchtheSky 3 years ago
TouchtheSky
But to abort the child means to deprive them of a future of value and meaning- one of several key reasons that murder is wrong. And you'll notice that I don't mention 'God' in my arguments at all.
Posted by Bitch_Goddess 3 years ago
Bitch_Goddess
The so-called "child" doesn't even have it's own individuality/personhood until past 20 weeks. Plus this is a pretty biased argument since not everyone abides by the Bibles' standards.
Posted by canis 3 years ago
canis
Yes if you want to avoid suffering and dead women.
https://www.independent.co.uk...
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by BeckyDawg 3 years ago
BeckyDawg
TouchtheSkyNKJVPrewratherTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: I felt that pro appealed too much to emotion. "I have noticed that you say these situations are truely tragic without being in the mother's or her supportive husband's shoes. The justice rights and choice rights of rape victims come first: alwys." Tragedy doesn't give more weight to an argument.

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