Instigator / Con
41
1500
rating
0
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#5472

abortion should be legal

Status
Voting

The participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.

Voting will end in:

00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Two weeks
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
Six months
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
12
1271
rating
354
debates
39.83%
won
Description

No information

Round 1
Con
#1
The anti-abortion argument rests on the following 4 claims: 

1. Every living innocent human organism has an inherent right to life 

Life: According to science, the beginning of a life cycle of an organism is fertilization, with the creation of a single-celled zygote. Here is a link to a study detailing that 96% of biologists affirm the fertilization view. Open any biology textbook highs chool and above and you will get the same information, open any embryology/human development textbook and you will get the same information. We know that an unborn child/baby/zygote/embryo/fetus is living because it is made from cells, and it follows the 7 functions of life, and we know it is an organism because it contains the complete set of genetic information, has the natural capacity to survive on its own (is capable of this), is not part of a larger organism (functions independently of the mother) and has the natural capacity to reproduce to produce another member of our species. 

Innocent: Consent to sex is consent to pregnancy, so the an unborn child/baby/zygote/embryo/fetus is not a trespasser. What other crime has an unborn child/baby/zygote/embryo/fetus committed except the supposed crime of existing??? 

Human: We know that an unborn child/baby/zygote/embryo/fetus is human because of deductive reasoning - its parents are human and two human beings cannot give rise to anything outside of a human being (koala bear??? baby yoda??? shark???)  - and because it contains 46 chromosomes unique to the human species (the human genome). 

Right to life: "Right" implies that you are allowed to do/have something, that you are entitled to do/have something. Ex. we are all entitled to food to sustain ourselves, no one is allowed to starve us. There are only two ways in which you can die: natural death (ie I am an 80 year old man and I pass away in the middle of the night, or I have incurable kidney disease and die from it) or someone intervenes to end your life when you are in a healthy state. That intervention = killing. So a right to life must then = a right to not be killed. 

Person: There are different ways of defining personhood, the anti-abortion/pro-life view is that all humans are persons. 

2. Abortion takes away the right to life of an innocent human person. 

It is important to note that when I say abortion, I mean elective abortion. As in abortion when a woman's life is not in danger. Different states in the US/ Different countries will have different laws on what counts as abortion or when it is justified (according to the doctrine of double effect/status of the foetus). 

Through dismemberment, starvation, poisoning abortion kills. Here are links to abortion procedures: 


3. Taking away the right to life of an innocent human person, no matter the circumstances, should never be legal because all human persons are morally relevant. 

I use the term morally relevant to include unconscious fetuses, non sentient fetuses, fetuses without the ability to feel pain.

4. Bodily rights do not justify abortion. 

Our bodies are not sovereign zones, we do not have an absolute right to our bodies. Restrictions exist on bodily autonomy for a reason- to protect others. Killing somebody because "its your body and you can do what you want with it" is not justified outside the womb, why is it justified inside?


Pro
#2
Its wrong to force a baby to be born.
Round 2
Con
#3

Its wrong to force a baby to be born.
Okay. This relates to claim "3.": Taking away the right to life of an innocent human person, no matter the circumstances, should never be legal because all human persons are morally relevant. 

So first we have to examine the claim that a baby is being "forced" to be born. 

I think most people make the assumption that being anti-abortion= pro-birth. No. We are opposed to abortion and abortion only. Let's say that we live in a world where artificial wombs are developed and cheap, so pregnant women can "transplant" their unborn child into one, so that she becomes "unpregnant". The anti-abortion position does not oppose this scenario. We simply oppose killing your child as a solution to the pregnancy. Now, opposing abortion will naturally lead to other things that follow, like childbirth, but this doesn't equate "forcing" a baby to be born.  

A situation of "forced to be born" would look something more like this: A woman is 28 weeks pregnant with a wanted baby. She wants to carry to term (40 weeks) so that her child has the best chance of living. However, the government says that since WW3 has just broken out and it drastically needs to combat a new deadly virus that the enemy is spreading, she has to give birth early via c-section so that the government can experiment on her foetus for cures. 

Now we need to examine the claim that it is wrong to "force" a baby to be born. 

I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that people argue this argument because they equate birth to becoming alive, and so it is wrong to create a life when that life might grow up in poverty, or enter foster care, or is a product of rape, and we generally feel pity for these people in these situations. The anti-abortion position does not give reason as to why it is wrong to kill human beings, we simple state that abortion kills a human being. If it is wrong to force a baby to be born because they might enter any of these three (or more) situations, and so we should kill them, then the same principle must apply outside of the womb. If there is a 5-year-old child whose parents get arrested for drug possession, and they are about to enter foster care due to CPS being called, they should be killed too. If there is a two-year-old whose parents have just lost their jobs and they cannot pay the rent and will become homeless and reliant on food stamps too, we should kill that 2-year-old to prevent them from entering poverty. After all, there is not difference in the humanity inside and outside the womb. Because the prolife/anti-abortion view states that all human persons are morally relevant, we cannot accept this inside or outside of the womb.




Pro
#4
Some people hate their life and have a horrible life they never wanted. You have no right to force people to live horrible lives in pain.
Round 3
Con
#5
Some people hate their life and have a horrible life they never wanted. You have no right to force people to live horrible lives in pain.
Okay. It is important to note two things here. The first is that this argument has turned into an "abortion as euthanasia" argument. The second is the use of "force". 

Abortion as euthanasia 
The anti-abortion argument does not state that if you don't like your life, you cannot choose to end it. It just does not think that someone else, especially your parents, should be allowed to end your life. You should get to make that decision yourself. An unborn child does not choose to die, its parents choose that for itself, and that is incredibly morally wrong in an anti-abortion person's eyes. 

Force
Giving birth does not automatically = living a horrible life. I think a lot of women will tell you differently. And I think a lot of people who were born into poverty, or foster care, do not wish to be dead and did not wish that their parents had the option to kill them. Even if we should kill inside the womb to prevent people from "living horrible lives", that same principle must be applied to those outside the womb, as stated above. 


Pro
#6
Unborn person doesnt choose to live. It is immoral to create a world where unbearable pain is forced on even one person.
Round 4
Con
#7
Unborn person doesnt choose to live.
But this is irrelevant to the abortion debate. What makes killing wrong whether or not a person chooses to live, it's about the value of the person. The anti-abortion side believes that all humans are valuable people worthy of protection.

 It is immoral to create a world where unbearable pain is forced on even one person.
But this statement just affirms the pro-life position! Abortion is a world where unbearable pain is forced onto an unborn child, through dismemberment, poisoning, starvation (as explained in my first argument). 


Pro
#8
In early abortions, unborn child doesnt feel pain. In late abortions, unborn can be given pain medicine, so it doesnt feel pain. So that means abortion should be legal.

My opponent brought up the argument "unborn doesnt choose to die", yet when perfectly countered with "unborn doesnt choose to live", now he wants to say that these are irrelevant arguments. But they are not irrelevant nor equal. It is wrong to force an unborn child to live when it doesnt want to live. My opponent's case suffers from unavoidable use of force, where my case contains no force. Apparently, there are born people who want to die, but there are no unborn people who want to live. There are many born people dying in greatest pain or living in greatest pain, where abortion can be done in a way that is completely painless for an unborn.

So naturally, we see that only my case doesnt contain any force or pain, where my opponent's case uses greatest force and pain against both woman and an unborn.
Round 5
Con
#9
In early abortions, unborn child doesnt feel pain. In late abortions, unborn can be given pain medicine, so it doesnt feel pain. So that means abortion should be legal.
  1. Fetuses in late-term abortions are not given pain medication. Let's say they were though. So then is it okay to kill somebody if they cannot feel the pain of death?
    1. How can it be possible to harm somebody who cannot feel pain? 
      1. Can I kill somebody in a coma? Or somebody in their sleep? If not, then you recognize that killing isn't wrong because we are aware of it.
 
My opponent brought up the argument "unborn doesnt choose to die", yet when perfectly countered with "unborn doesnt choose to live", now he wants to say that these are irrelevant arguments. 

I am a woman. 

But they are not irrelevant nor equal. It is wrong to force an unborn child to live when it doesnt want to live.
I wasn't arguing that an unborn child doesn't choose to die and it is due to this that abortion should be illegal. An unborn child cannot choose whether or not to live or die. You literally admitted it doesn't choose to live. 
The unborn child's choice in the matter is not the reason why abortion should be illegal. It should be illegal because abortion kills an innocent person. 

My opponent's case suffers from unavoidable use of force, where my case contains no force. 
I've already explained that the anti-abortion side does not utilize force. 

Apparently, there are born people who want to die, but there are no unborn people who want to live. 

There are born people who want to die, and the unborn can't choose to live or die. If it wasn't clear before, apologies, that is what I meant to say. 

Pro
#10
  1. How can it be possible to harm somebody who cannot feel pain?
    1. Can I kill somebody in a coma? Or somebody in their sleep? If not, then you recognize that killing isn't wrong because we are aware of it.
We are not debating about if you can kill someone in a coma or in a sleep, so since neither is abortion, that is irrelevant.

I am a woman
Unproven claim.

I wasn't arguing that an unborn child doesn't choose to die and it is due to this that abortion should be illegal. An unborn child cannot choose whether or not to live or die. You literally admitted it doesn't choose to live. 
This is just rambling.

It should be illegal because abortion kills an innocent person. 
Circular reasoning. Abortion is by definition a killing of a fetus.

I've already explained that the anti-abortion side does not utilize force
I dont see how could you have misunderstood my argument after I presented it so clearly. Maybe I am speaking the wrong language. Wait, let me change.

很多人都不想活了。因此,生下他們就意味著強迫他們痛苦地活著,甚至死去,因為生活中會發生很多意外,例如被卡車碾壓。
Hěnduō rén dōu bùxiǎng huóle. Yīncǐ, shēng xià tāmen jiù yìwèizhe qiǎngpò tāmen tòngkǔ de huózhe, shènzhì sǐqù, yīn wéi shēnghuó zhōng huì fāshēng hěnduō yìwài, lìrú bèi kǎchē niǎn yā.