The Instigator
flakypie
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
charlee
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Should abortion be legal?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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: 10/6/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 811 times Debate No: 118476
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (19)
Votes (0)

 

flakypie

Pro

Abortion should be legal due to pure circumstance and chance. Not only are several areas of the world suffering from overpopulation, But women can be victims of rape and get pregnant, And they shouldn't have to look at the face of their child and see the man who raped them, And it's not fair to the child either, Because the father may have been drinking/doing drugs/smoking at the time of pregnancy, Which could deform the child. You also have to remember that this isn't an easy choice to make. If you assume that they don't know that they are killing the child they are conceiving, You'd be wrong.

I realize that sometimes it is uncalled for and there are other choices like adoption available, But they may be complications in birthing, And they might not want to risk killing themselves for their child.
charlee

Con

First of all, Abortion is legal already in the US.
Second, When the word "should" is brought into the discussion, That implies the moral question regarding the legality of abortion.
So, I will submit that the law allowing abortion is immoral and therefore, Abortion should be illegal.
Argument: 1. It is wrong to take the life of an innocent person. 2. The unborn baby is a innocent person. 3. Therefore, Abortion is wrong i. E. Immoral, And the law should be changed so that elective abortion is illegal.

Note: I am talking about the 95% of abortions that are performed in the US for convenience reasons, Not because of rape, Serious deformity with the unborn hold or serious medical health risks to the mother.
Debate Round No. 1
flakypie

Pro

flakypie forfeited this round.
charlee

Con

charlee forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
flakypie

Pro

flakypie forfeited this round.
charlee

Con

charlee forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by flakypie 3 years ago
flakypie
If I want to have a life without a baby, That is fine. And if the thing that could become a baby dies, That's okay. If it's a 9-12 moth stage of pregnancy, I don't really support the killing of what is now a baby, But earlier on when it can't even feel anything is fine. You can always make another fetus, But in my mind a fetus is not a baby.
Posted by flakypie 3 years ago
flakypie
lol sorry
Posted by Block19 3 years ago
Block19
Does not do what job?
Posted by charlee 3 years ago
charlee
Thanks Block19, But your response does not do the job. Thanks for your thoughts.
Posted by Block19 3 years ago
Block19
Your life was not in the hands of the doctor, But it is up to your next of kin to sign off on any treatment, Be it a parent or spouse. They do not typically present letting a patient die as an option, When there is a good chance they will make a recovery. However if a the patient such as yourself had been unresponsive and had no chance of surviving without serious medical assistance, Then it is an option for the next of kin to allow the patients to die, And if the patient is a John Doe or has no next of kin, Then a hospital staffer does have the right to make that call.
Posted by charlee 3 years ago
charlee
Block19. . . . . . I completely understand that the unborn is totally dependent on the mother particularly the first 22-24 weeks of gestation. And certainly if born early, Such as around 24 weeks, The baby would be totally dependent on a host of machines, Medications and professionals. So absolutely babies at various ages from conception on are dependent on others for their survival. Adults also can be just as dependent. For example, I recently had surgery and was rendered unconscious (thanks to modern Anesthesia and Anesthesiologists) and was placed on various life-support medications and machines. I was totally dependent on the machines and drugs at the hands of the Anesthesiologists. In no way, Was it his choice to end my life. If he electively "aborted" me (please don't take the word literally) he would be accused of murder. There are many, Many such examples where post-womb humans are totally dependent on others and various survival elements for life. And these "others" cannot electively end a life. These complete degrees of "adult" dependency seem very similar to the dependency of the baby in the womb. Yet, We can arbitrarily abort the unborn. So degree of dependency of the individual shouldn't be an argument for abortion. Wouldn't you agree? If not, Why not?
Posted by Block19 3 years ago
Block19
You do not seem to understand, A fetus in the first trimester could not live outside the womb and is not conscious, To say that it has say over the host mother is ridiculous. There are people in the world now who can not think for themselves nor can they sustain their own life independent of machines, These peoples lives are in the hands of their host/guardian and it is not illegal to end these peoples lives through medical procedures. So your point does not really hold up. Personally I prefer to consider a person to be "alive" the way it is stated in Genesis 2:7, But that is just my personal opinion.
Posted by charlee 3 years ago
charlee
Block19. . . . . Of course you are correct. Abortion is killing an innocent human person in the womb. I was using the term a bit figuratively. My purpose in responding to your comment was to articulate that there are many innocent living human persons outside the womb who are of small height and undeveloped organs, Just like the unborn person. Since you raised those criteria as justifying killing one within the womb, One could apply those criteria to individuals outside the womb. So, Why can't we kill those who are of small stature with undeveloped organs who happen to live outside the womb?
(of course, I am not advocating that position, But trying to make a point)
Posted by Block19 3 years ago
Block19
charlee. . . . . . . . . . . You can only abort a fetus that is in the womb.
Posted by charlee 3 years ago
charlee
deathtank55555. . . . .
1. All laws essentially are based on some underlying moral principle(s). This includes abortion laws whether or not it is legal or illegal. Where do you get your moral principles?
2. The https://www. Law. Cornell. Edu/uscode/text/1/8, Is certainly one definition. If it were widely accepted then if you were to go an deliberately kill a baby in the womb of another, Then you would not be guilty of murder. However, If you should do such a heinous act, You would indeed by charged with murder in every state in the US. This clearly defeats the definition of human personhood that you sited. The scientific definition of when life begins is when an organism has the capacity to grow into a full grown representative of it complete genetic material. That is the organism is self-contained in the sense it needs no further basic genetic material to become fully developed. It is self-organizing. That is to say it has the internal stuff it needs to self-organize and self-determine the growth and development process. (there are a few other descriptives but can't think of them right now)
3. I am not clear what you mean by agreeing that the womb is dangerous, But "doesn't mean it is dangerous at all? "
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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