The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
9 Points

abortion should be illegal including first trimester, but not investigated nor punished*

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/1/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 935 times Debate No: 58409
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)




*aside from rape and mother's health, and perhaps fetal defect, abortion should be illegal including the first trimester, but not investigated nor punished.

given there are no legal consequences involved, these are more about arguments on principle.

abortion should be illegal, because we should recognize that we should be giving the benefit of the doubt to human life. it is clear enough that we should outlaw it, but not clear enough that we should be punishing them. for example, to establish the uncertainty, note that a snowball is not a snow man, and a lego is not lego man. same could be argued for the cell in early pregnancy. at what point does a lego or snowball become the corresponding man? it's unclear there, as it could be said to be with personhood. but, on the other hand, the earliest cell does meet the requirements for what would constitute an 'organism', albeit it could probably be viewed as more like a parasitic organism given it must live off of the mother. and it's not like every other cell, given not every other cell can grow into a person. indeed, if we saw a snowball or lego growing into the corresponding person, we wouldn't and shouldnt treat it the same as a regular snowball, lego. the pro and con about human life here are enough to say in principle we should defer to human life, but not clear enough to make any meaningful punishments for it.
human life is such a strong factor to be weighed, that it is not unreasonable for a person to be against abortion, and want to punish so as to deter and for justice's sake. but, i would not go that far. i would take that same reasoning, though, and argue that it's such a strong consideration, that it should at least be illegal, albeit with no legal consequences.

and the last reason it should be illegal in principal, is because the mother assumed the risk of pregnancy. having sex is something that can result in pregnancy. it's not like it just happened, getting pregnant, out of no where. also, while this doesn't apply at first, as the pregnancy continues, the mother assumes the fact that the pregnancy continues to exist, and she is not aborting when it is morally grayer. also, if you were to look at it in terms of analogies, there are seveeral at the end of this post that it could be compared to.

another reason why we shouldn't punish is deferment. while we are deferring to human life, we are respecting the autonomy of the woman involved. given there is uncertainty, who should decide? should the government decide? why not give the autonomy to decide to the person most affected by it, the mother?
plus,there are uncertainties involved, but there are other considerations as well. while the mother assumed the risk of pregnancy, she may have tried her best not to get pregnant, and got pregnant anyways. things happen, plus she has a lot of other things to consider like making sure she can hold down a job, or continue in school. or maybe she's poor and doesn't want to bring another kid into the mix. the common arguments in favor of abortion should be used here, as holistic approach to why she should be able to decide given the various moral considerations involved. but again, this stuff is just sufficient so as to not make legal consequences for the abortion, but not enough to make it legal.


the responsibilties in getting pregnant are like causing an accident, and rupturing someone's kidneys and causing them to lose blood. couldn't it be said that the wrong doer should be forced to give that person blood, and maybe even a kidney, at least as long as the wrong doer would not die? many insist on absolute bodily autonomy, even in an accident situation, and so would reject that. but i would argue the moral obligation is there.

another analogy. someone causes an accident in while planes are in mid air. the planes crash on the island of the person who caused the crash. the person who caused the crash should not be able to evict the victim, by tossing them to sea, or killing them.
you could replace planes and islands, with cars and the wrong doers home.

it is also like. and this is bizarre but it is not much more bizarre that that 'well respected' (really a joke of a publication) violinist debate. you cause a car accident. the victim is caused to be attached to you kidneys. they are sustained by your kidneys and need them for awihle to live. hardly no one would say the person who caused the accident should be able to kill the victim.

and what makes birth the magic point that changes the parents responsibitlies? a person could argue... the child was a burglar in my house. i let the burglar stay until he was ready to leave. then i let him leave. why am i obligated to take care of them... they were burglars to begin with and i was going a nice thing for them letting them stay.
society might have laws that frown on this thinking, but if you take the burglar analogy to its consequence, it was still a burglar at birth too. you just happened to let him live awhile instead of legally killing him. why should mother's liberty continue to be hindered due to someone who came as a burglar to begin with?
this shouldn't be allowed, i'm just taking the 'burglar' analogy to its consequence.


Law1 [law] Show IPA
the principles and regulations established in a community by some authority and applicable to its people, whether in the form of legislation or of custom and policies recognized and enforced by judicial decision.

Since my opponent did not offer a definition of a law, I thought it would be prudent to do so. Notice the last few words of the definition: "enforced by judicial decision". So a law is something that is "enforced". This makes my opponent's resolution impossible. This is because for something to be illegal, it must violate a law. And for something to be a law, it must be enforced. With all due respect to my opponent, this debate is basically over. It was over before it began. Please vote Con.

Debate Round No. 1


the word law has many definitions. such as.

"any written or positive rule or collection of rules prescribed under the authority of the state or nation"

really though, this is beside the point. semantics are always beside the point. there's no reason we can't have laws that are not enforced, no matter what's customary.

it is unfortunate con wishes to engage in semantics instead of engage in substance. it makes you wonder about whether he really has much to say in terms of substance at all.

the debate was only over once con took the debate.


My opponent has admitted this debate was over as soon as "Con took the debate". I am glad we can agree on something. Having said that, I am still willing to continue our discussion despite it having a foregone conclusion. To quote another member of DDO, "Why have a law if you're not going to enforce it?" (See debate comments). Creating laws cost money. It costs money that could be better spent on programs that provide benefits to society. [2] A law that is not enforced is a waste of taxpayer money. If, as my opponent says, "abortion should be illegal", then it only makes sense that the law should be enforced.

Time magazine [2]
Debate Round No. 2


yes, i'm glad we could agree on it....

the cost to make that sort of law would be de minimus in the bigger picture.
there's a ton of things done in principle or about honor and such in the government. that could be argued to include money we could spend on something else. that doesn't mean we should.

it would reflect that we see it as wrong, but that we also recognize the difficulties involved, so we do not wish to punish it.


" the cost to make that sort of law would be de minimus in the bigger picture."

I am unable to decipher what my opponent is saying here. It would've been nice if she could've explained what she was trying to say.

"there's a ton of things done in principle or about honor and such in the government. that could be argued to include money we could spend on something else. that doesn't mean we should."

My opponent has made a rather bold claim here, but offers no examples of any kind to support her claim. I wish she would've offered us a source for her claim, but unfortunately, she didn't give us any sources at all in this debate.

Again, what good is a law if it's not enforced? What incentive is there to obey a law if everyone knows it's not enforced? Why spend the money to create a law if you have no intention to enforce the law?

Please vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by dsjpk5 7 years ago
Thanks for the clarification. I wasn't trying to debunk anything. I was trying to get you to support your claim.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 7 years ago
i just looked it up. it took two seconds in a google search. it's latin. why r u getting caught up on trying to debunk 'claims' and such on such inconsequential and irrelevant matters?
Posted by dsjpk5 7 years ago
How can we be sure what you claim is true since you can't even know what language it's in?
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 7 years ago
'de minimums' means very little in latin or some language like that.

i was thinking mostly of military and holiday honor for stuff in the government. but i'm sure we could find more and more examples
Posted by TruthHurts 7 years ago
Why even have a law if we're not going to enforce it?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by ZenoCitium 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro conceded debade in round 2. Pro had a few grammar mistakes, esspecially forgetting to capotalize the first word in senteses. Sorry if that seems nitpicky but grammar is a category. Pro had no sources. Con sources were reprutable.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro concedes the debate and as such Con wins argument points. Honestly I am not sure if this was meant to be a debate as basically it was more a manifesto than building an argument. The rest of the points I am not awarding as I feel they are split. The source points could have gone to Con, however one is a dictionary and one is subscription.

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