The Instigator
CaoimheWalsh
Con (against)
The Contender
haywire4fun
Pro (for)

Should abortion be legalized?

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
CaoimheWalsh has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/15/2018 Category: People
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 439 times Debate No: 113958
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

CaoimheWalsh

Con

Let's just strip abortion down to it's bones. What are we doing? Well, we are killing a baby, there is nothing more to it, you will get the argument that it is just a "blob" of tissue, this is dehumanizing an unborn baby and trying to make the women fell better about killing her undeveloped child does this mean that an unripe apple has another name? No it is still called a apple, therefore meaning that the "blob" can only be labelled as a baby. When you think about it birth is just a change in location from inside the womb to outside the womb, the baby does not magically develop during this period of time, so why is it social acceptable to kill a baby in the womb and call it abortion but outside the womb it's first degree murder and results in time in prison. Therefore meaning the abortion is breaking the law and should never be preformed under any circumstance except if the baby has a zero percent chance of survival
haywire4fun

Pro

(Well, I have the same view as you so i'll attempt to keep it competitive in a way.) Abortion while killing of a "fetus" (because a baby is outside of the mother an embryo and fetus are the gestation period terms.) isn't always due to the mother being negligent it could be for reasons of health such as the fetus is killing the mother or the mother was raped and the baby is a product of rape. I know it's not always for those reasons but the proposition you are boding for has no clause for subjectory cases such as those.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by haywire4fun 3 years ago
haywire4fun
Hey im also pro life. i just wanted someone to debate with but hes a no show. *yawn*
Posted by ecksdee123 3 years ago
ecksdee123
All 3 people here have the same views, why is there still arguing and debate?
Posted by John_C_1812 3 years ago
John_C_1812
No we are not on the same side. The issue is about public deception abortion describes that all woman should confess to a crime, that woman should be allowed to transfer a self-incrimination by law as if married to everyone. This idea is supported by woman themselves as soon after the statement is made to an official start it is then recanted by a statement questioning the very meaning of the word used to describe the admission""to begin with.

So a woman and others may understands this clearly it is the same basic principle that takes place when a woman might consent to sexual conduct, then claim rape after copulation has taken place. The basis for fraud is that the word abortion was not the only choice a woman or man could have ever made verbally. Female specific Amputation does not describe the same public transferable self-incrimination. Not only is this not a United States issue it is not a Constitutional argument that should be allowed in a United State under law, it is a form of organized crime by basic principle if truth must be told under oath.
Posted by haywire4fun 3 years ago
haywire4fun
were all on the same side here pal, calm down.
Posted by John_C_1812 3 years ago
John_C_1812
A confession or admission to crime is legal. The issue of debate with abortion is that there is no judicial liberty granted to the person making the confession to the crime. Worst yet the self-incrimination of the crime has no restriction set by legislation in the general public.

Legalizing abortion is unnecessary as it is the admission and not the crime which needs to be legalized. Do you want to make murder legal, or would you much rather address the issue inside a court of law to provide a common defense? As a witness who is tired of being associated to criminal activity as a self-incriminating confession is by basic principle organized crime as a United State. I would argue before a Prasedera that Female Specific Amputation does not unite the idea of crime when explaining a general medial process a woman may undergo.
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

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