Abortion should be legal
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with the same amount of points on both sides...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- One day
- Max argument characters
- 1,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
No information
While I disagree with the assertion that terminating a fetus constitutes 'MURDER'—since murder is a legal definition distinct from morality—I do concur that it involves taking a life. Additionally, although I understand the argument regarding the absence of pain, I align with the counterargument that the inability to experience pain does not morally justify the act of termination. The argument would be stronger if it addressed the potential suffering in the world that the fetus would be spared from by not being born.
A deep topic hampered by a minuscule character limit. Pro asserts that a fetus is not yet a human, which Con agrees at first agrees with, though they argue that preventing it from being human is still as immoral as killing a human. However, Pro responds that the well-being of the mother should take precedent, and I buy this argument more. Con tries to backtrack and claim that life actually does begin at conception, but as this statement is not clearly sourced and contradicts their earlier arguments, I can't let it pass.
Pro's strongest point is their argument that criminalizing abortion does little to nothing to prevent it from happening, but legalizing it can prevent unnecessary deaths and decrease suffering, a common argument in favor of legalizing abortion. Con argues that regardless, it's immoral so it should be banned, but I don't really buy this. I can buy that something may be immoral, but if criminalizing it leads to worse outcomes than not, it should be allowed to remain legal. Con tries to refute the idea that criminalizing abortion is ineffective, but their arguments mainly come from inferences about how criminalization is meant to work, whereas Pro actually used reliable sources to argue that it is ineffective. Reliable sources outweigh inferences, so Pro wins on that pont. Con tries to argue in the last round that funding for abortion services detracts from funding for other services like adoption and maternal healthcare, but this is unsourced, and even if it is true, I feel like the impacts from Pro's argument about reduced mortality and overall suffering are greater.
In the end, I feel like Pro's arguments won out and had the greater impacts.
It's your vote and you can do whatever you want, but my opponent offered no effective rebuttal.
By the way, welcome to DART! I hope you stay. A lot of people who join this website never end up finishing a single debate, so kudos to you for actually completing an entire debate, and doing so reasonably well!
source for argument 1
https://abortion.procon.org/