The Instigator
chrmon2
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
Anonymous
Tied
0 Points

Should abortion be Illegal?

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: 12/29/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 490 times Debate No: 119661
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

chrmon2

Pro

My argument is that abortion should be wrong even in cases of rape or when the life of the mother is in danger.

First round is for acceptance.

Con

i accept?
Debate Round No. 1
chrmon2

Pro

I will define a "person" as someone/something with moral value.

1. A fetus is an innocent person

2. If a fetus is an innocent person, Killing a fetus is wrong.

3. Abortion is the killing of a fetus

4. If abortion is wrong, Abortion should be illegal

(1) A fetus will be sentient in the future. This is the fundamental difference between a dead person and a person in a coma. (Technically, The real victim of abortion is the future person who is being killed, But I refer to a fetus as a person the same way we call someone who is comatose a "person") As we might expect, Stabbing someone in a coma is wrong, But stabbing a dead person is far less so. Also, It doesn't make sense for someone with future sentience not to have rights. For example, It is moral to create a child you know will die. Everyone dies eventually, So this happens all the time. However, Poisoning a fetus so it dies at age 10 would be immoral. If a fetus was not a person, Then this would simply be part of creating a child you know will die. Furthermore, If it is immoral to shorten a fetus' lifespan to 10 years, How could it be any more moral to shorten its lifespan to zero?

(2) is often opposed on the basis of bodily autonomy. However, Parents are responsible for taking care of their children because they are responsible for their children needing to be taken care of. Therefore, They have an obligation to allocate their resources in order to take care of their children. This is the reason for child support. Opponents will often contend that parents have no obligation to take care of their children. In Ancient Rome, Babies were often left to die. If parents did not have an obligation to take care of their children, Then who does?

Opponents often sometimes contend that a fetus is "part of the woman's body". According to their definition, Anything attached to the woman is part of her body, And she has a right to control what happens to it. However, This definition has some serious problems with it.

First of all, A part of someone's body that is detached from them is still their property. If my hair falls off and I made clear that I wanted to keep it afterward, Then it would still be my property. If the fetus was part of the woman's body, She would own her child after they are born, And infanticide would be permissible.

Second, Conjoined twins do not have the right to kill each other, Even though they are attached to one another. If being attached to something makes it part of your body, This would not be the case.

It seems to me then that when the fetus is created it has the rights to its body and the woman no longer does.

(3) is true by definition. Someone might contend that it is simply failing to provide the fetus with essential nutrients, But I explained in my response to (2) why the woman has the obligation to do this.

(4) is often opposed on the grounds that making abortion illegal won't decrease the rate; it will simply make people have abortions in unsafe ways. However, There are a few objections to this.

This assumes that we should be caring about the safety of the woman. Even if there was a good chance that making infanticide illegal would just make parents do it at a risk for themselves, Why should we care about the safety of a parent who is killing their child? Several studies do show that making abortion illegal decreases the rate [1] and that studies showing the opposite don't control for other factors. If there was even a chance that making murder illegal will decrease the rate, It seems like it would be a good idea to do so, Even if we are risking the life of the murderer.

The punishments for abortion are not very strict. For example, In India abortion is only punished with a fine and several years in prison [2]. Punishing the provider causes more demand, So the way to decrease an illegal activity is to punish the consumer harshly. Life in prison for abortion would not be unrealistic, And it might be much more effective.

In summary, Sometimes making abortion illegal decreases the rate. Sometimes it doesn't. However, The punishments for abortion are very lenient, So we shouldn't expect to see much change with such small consequences. Better safe than sorry. If the government was actually serious about enforcing an abortion ban, They could almost definitely come up with a way. It wouldn't even need to be expensive. There are plenty of pro-life people who would be willing to pose as fake abortion providers and catch people in the act, Free of charge.

1) https://lozierinstitute. Org/how-the-legal-status-of-abortion-impacts-abortion-rates/

2) https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Abortion_in_India

Con

wow you made a really good argument good job. I don't know what to say back, I quit
Debate Round No. 2
chrmon2

Pro

chrmon2 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
chrmon2

Pro

chrmon2 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
chrmon2

Pro

chrmon2 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
NDECD1441
Just real quick for pro, Never use Wikipedia as a source, Unless you want to lose credibility. The sites are open to the public to edit and this opens up a way to spread false facts. While it doesn't always happen, The chances have been high nonetheless, That's why it's greatly denounced as a reliable source.
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
John_C_1812_II
Keep something in mind. When we say abortion, Meaning Pregnancy Abortion is illegal in itself we are addressing an admission of guilt that is described to the public as precedent. The admissions of guilt of a description of an official stop set to take place for all condition is illegal for no other reason than being confused as accusations by the public.
Row Versus Wade described a loss of privacy the judicial separation did not dictate were it was lost, It did not dictate how the privacy was lost, Nor who is to blame for the forfeit. So?
The United State that can be shared with all woman creating them as equal, And the united states shared with all men creating them as equal, Can be said to be something like female Specific Amputation, Gender Specific Amputation, Or even other descriptions established specifically to remove self-incrimination, As these identifications must form a union of united state.
Medical Science does not call failed attempts at engineered pregnancies In Vitro De-fertilization, And successful fertilizations abortions as the pregnancy of the woman is postponed in this process. As this does not describe a self-incrimination to be shares among science in direct relationship to the united state.
Keep in mind Pregnancy abortion is an admission of guilt that can someday be proven to cost a voter there Civil right to vote by their unwitting participation in a described murder. Having a reason for the crime described does not built an common defense as immunity.
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
John_C_1812_II
@vaiganis
This is not subjective. It is a contradiction in which the two sides are united by a described crime, As Pregnancy abortion is an admission of guilt along with an accusation of guilt. The idea of an alibi is not enough to have all woman for a Constitutional Civil Right around it. A Pregnancy abortion takes place when doctors/lab technician perform an In Vitro Fertilization, You do not hear these researchers uniting all donors of human sperm, And human embryo around the Pregnancy abortion principle.

What reason is there that all woman should ever be asked to make a statement that can be described as an admission of guilt. At some point there are undoubtable some woman who will indeed the use of an admission of guilt. At no point will it be all woman. All woman are created equal by a united state of admission of guilt, They are all confessed criminal.
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
valganis
This is subjective, But a few scenarios where it should NEVER be outlawed in the case that an abortion is requested for the following reasons. . .
1. The fetus is a result of rape and is not wanted by the mother.
2. The fetus is a source of cancer.
3. The parent does not believe themselves capable of raising a child financially and does not want to throw them into the foster system out of fear, In reference to the harm (mental and physical) it could result in. (my opinion)
4. The fetus is growing in a minor and is not approved of by the parents, Or is in danger due to varying reasons.
5. Birthing the fetus would cause far more harm than an abortion.

A variety of other circumstances exists, But I personally would not mind abortion being outlawed in the case of a careless couple who does not wish to face the consequences of their actions.
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
John_C_1812_II
Oops; meant to type Pregnancy abortion is a criminal admission of guilt as well as a criminal accusation of guilt. A Constitutional separation of the two principals was required before legislating around the basic understanding which is creating the united state.

Due to negligence a self-incrimination is openly shared in the pubic which has civil Right to vote implications. Abortion is a public shared religious belief that does not demonstrate a United State Constitutional Right. Female Specific Amputation is a united state which can be explained as constitutional as it removes a self-incrimination.
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
John_C_1812_II
"A state of the Union. "

Rape is not a Constitutional argument by United State, It is Assault as a crime which is a united states by basic principle. To understand the severity of the crime a sexual assault is a united states with attempted murder due to the natural risks that are involved.

Pregnancy abortion is an admission of guilt and a criminal admission of guilt, It required a constitutional separation to be set as a united states for legislation.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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