The Instigator
chrmon2
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
greenlicorice
Con (against)
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: 12/26/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 630 times Debate No: 119620
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (12)
Votes (0)

 

chrmon2

Pro

I will argue that abortion should generally be illegal, Even in cases of rape or if the life of the mother is in danger. I am not arguing for or against abortion in other sorts of extreme cases (fetus doesn't have a brain, Etc. ) Post "I accept" as your first argument and then we will begin.
greenlicorice

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
greenlicorice

Con

greenlicorice forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
chrmon2

Pro

Con forfeited. Vote Pro!
greenlicorice

Con

greenlicorice forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
chrmon2

Pro

chrmon2 forfeited this round.
greenlicorice

Con

greenlicorice forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
chrmon2

Pro

chrmon2 forfeited this round.
greenlicorice

Con

greenlicorice forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Th3D3bat3r 3 years ago
Th3D3bat3r
https://www. Theguardian. Com/us-news/2018/jan/22/abortion-lets-call-the-pro-lifers-what-they-are-pro-death
Posted by valganis 3 years ago
valganis
@John What hoo-dah are you spouting, Sir.
Posted by John_C_1812_II 3 years ago
John_C_1812_II
A very interesting topic of debate becomes was this action against the United States Constitution the Second U. S. Civil War and was its topic allowed promoted globally to grow to become the III World War? Again Female Specific Amputation is a phrase much like In Vitro Fertilization a choice of wording which removes self-incrimination.
Posted by John_C_1812_II 3 years ago
John_C_1812_II
"This idea is highly dependent on the circumstances. " Yes, I agree. The circumstance that is relied upon is the double standard created by both admission and accusation of guilt made by a self-incrimination. What we can also say is the self-incrimination is not shared equally throughout the groups who act as peer"s in this debate.
Posted by valganis 3 years ago
valganis
This idea is highly dependent on the circumstances that have led the mother to wish for an abortion to take place. For instance, Assume this woman was raped and subsequently impregnated. This woman, To be specific, Is only barely able to afford an abortion, And could not provide for the child developing in her womb as the consequence of this rape. Would it be more fair to simply terminate the pregnancy, Or subject the child at birth to be shuffled through the foster care system assuming this is the only option available to the mother?
Posted by John_C_1812_II 3 years ago
John_C_1812_II
The point chrmon2 is that the admission of guilt made by the word abortion is self-incriminating with no limitation set to protect the public from becoming an accomplice to the crime that tis admitted. In saying abortion is illegal does that mean that In Vitro Fertilization is also illegal? The question is addressing a type of abortion that is called something else, As the pregnancy is aborted by the woman. All fertilization takes place outside the woman"s body then it is either started successfully or not.

People are demonstrating an ability to use, Possibly abuse the United States Constitution, Those people are just not preserve or protect it in that process. Like claimed is pregnancy abortion a whole truth as a united state?
Posted by John_C_1812_II 3 years ago
John_C_1812_II
The argument of debate is on a partial truth and not a whole truth. Pregnancy abortion is and admission and accusation to a crime and should have gone through United State Constitutional separation to preserve the general welfare. The crime that is directed by its legislation is perjury and one consequence is the potential loss of civil Right to Vote.

A person is play a fool as they are publicly asked to participate in a crime and are expected not to file grievance against this action. A woman who has a pregnancy abortion could be telling a lie she may have simple had a Female Specific Amputation.

It is not should abortion be illegal, The question is when does abortion become illegal. When it is the admission of guilt or the accusation of guilt?

Pro-choice, Pro-Life, Simple imply that the idea of the crime is motivated publicly for money making it even greater controversial issue.
Posted by Th3D3bat3r 3 years ago
Th3D3bat3r
It will depend on the situation for the people. Mothers have been unwillingly killed because of having cancer but were not able to get rid of the cancer because of the law trying to protect the potential baby growing inside of the mothers with cancer. And some of those mothers tried to get an abortion, But the law said no to them. This means the law favors children's lives more than mothers' lives. It is unequal, Unfair, And countries that are patriarchal usually ban abortion. Not that I am surprised by that. It is basically a way to control women more by not letting them control their own bodies when they are dealing with a disease that may kill them anyway. It is sickening and evil.

https://www. Christianpost. Com/news/texas-governor-promises-teen-with-cancer-hell-fight-to-ban-all-abortions. Html
Posted by tonyrobinson 3 years ago
tonyrobinson
As always, The pro-choice people are afraid of a real debate.
Posted by John_C_1812_II 3 years ago
John_C_1812_II
Pregnancy Abortion is a public admission of guilt that is treated as if it can only be understood as accusation. It would be more changing to debate pregnancy abortion as the whole truth, And nothing but truth like other admission of guilt made publicly. Pregnancy Abortion is illegal as an admission of guilt there is no debate like other crimes a defendant has a Untied State Constitutional Right to question an accusation or their own admission of guilt.

Female Specific Amputation is not a pregnancy abortion though it may be proven to be one. Is it illegal?
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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