Instigator / Pro
0
1500
rating
1
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#5816
Abortion should be a basic right because every individual deserves autonomy over their own body and the freedom to make personal healthcare decisions without political or societal interference.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 2 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...
befairbruh
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
2
1500
rating
2
debates
75.0%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
Pro Argument: Abortion as a Fundamental Right
The question of whether abortion should be a fundamental right is intrinsically tied to the concepts of bodily autonomy, personal freedom, and equitable healthcare. Denying individuals the right to make decisions about their own reproductive health is not only a violation of personal liberty but also an infringement on basic human rights. Here’s why abortion should be recognized as a fundamental right:
1. Bodily Autonomy Is Non-Negotiable
At the core of the pro-choice argument is the principle of bodily autonomy—the right of every individual to govern what happens to their body. No one should be forced to use their body in a way they do not consent to, even to preserve another life. This principle is foundational to medical ethics; for instance, people cannot be compelled to donate organs or blood, even if it could save a life. Forcing someone to carry a pregnancy to term against their will violates this basic tenet of bodily autonomy.
2. Abortion as Healthcare
Abortion is a necessary component of comprehensive healthcare. People seek abortions for a variety of reasons, including health risks to the pregnant person, non-viable pregnancies, or personal circumstances that make parenting untenable. By framing abortion as healthcare, we acknowledge it as a deeply personal and medical decision that should be made between the individual and their healthcare provider—not dictated by politicians or societal pressures.
3. Economic and Social Impacts
Forcing someone to carry an unwanted pregnancy can have profound economic and social consequences. Many individuals who seek abortions cite financial instability or lack of support as key factors in their decision. Restricting access to abortion exacerbates cycles of poverty, as unplanned pregnancies can limit educational and professional opportunities. The ability to make reproductive choices empowers individuals to pursue their goals and contribute meaningfully to society.
4. Gender Equality and Reproductive Justice
The right to abortion is inseparable from gender equality. Denying abortion access disproportionately affects women and individuals who can become pregnant, perpetuating systemic inequalities. Moreover, marginalized communities, including people of color, low-income individuals, and those in rural areas, face additional barriers to reproductive healthcare. Ensuring abortion access is a matter of reproductive justice, which seeks to dismantle these disparities and guarantee equitable healthcare for all.
5. Protecting Mental and Physical Health
Unwanted pregnancies can take a significant toll on a person's mental and physical health. Studies show that individuals denied abortion care are more likely to experience financial distress, mental health struggles, and adverse health outcomes compared to those who can access the procedure. Recognizing abortion as a right ensures that individuals can make choices that prioritize their well-being.
6. Safeguarding Against Unsafe Abortions
Restricting abortion access does not eliminate abortions; it merely drives them underground, leading to unsafe procedures that endanger lives. Before the legalization of abortion in many countries, unsafe abortions were a leading cause of maternal mortality. Ensuring legal and accessible abortion services saves lives by providing safe, regulated medical care.
7. A Matter of Privacy
The decision to have an abortion is deeply personal and should be protected as a matter of privacy. This right to privacy was upheld in Roe v. Wade (1973) in the United States, recognizing that reproductive choices are an intimate aspect of life that should not be subject to government intrusion. This precedent underscores the importance of respecting individual liberty.
Conclusion
Abortion is not merely a medical procedure; it is a fundamental right tied to autonomy, equality, and dignity. Denying access to abortion undermines these principles, disproportionately harms marginalized groups, and erodes trust in healthcare systems. Recognizing abortion as a basic right ensures that individuals can live with the freedom to make personal decisions about their bodies and futures without interference.
The question of whether abortion should be a fundamental right is intrinsically tied to the concepts of bodily autonomy, personal freedom, and equitable healthcare. Denying individuals the right to make decisions about their own reproductive health is not only a violation of personal liberty but also an infringement on basic human rights. Here’s why abortion should be recognized as a fundamental right:
1. Bodily Autonomy Is Non-Negotiable
At the core of the pro-choice argument is the principle of bodily autonomy—the right of every individual to govern what happens to their body. No one should be forced to use their body in a way they do not consent to, even to preserve another life. This principle is foundational to medical ethics; for instance, people cannot be compelled to donate organs or blood, even if it could save a life. Forcing someone to carry a pregnancy to term against their will violates this basic tenet of bodily autonomy.
2. Abortion as Healthcare
Abortion is a necessary component of comprehensive healthcare. People seek abortions for a variety of reasons, including health risks to the pregnant person, non-viable pregnancies, or personal circumstances that make parenting untenable. By framing abortion as healthcare, we acknowledge it as a deeply personal and medical decision that should be made between the individual and their healthcare provider—not dictated by politicians or societal pressures.
3. Economic and Social Impacts
Forcing someone to carry an unwanted pregnancy can have profound economic and social consequences. Many individuals who seek abortions cite financial instability or lack of support as key factors in their decision. Restricting access to abortion exacerbates cycles of poverty, as unplanned pregnancies can limit educational and professional opportunities. The ability to make reproductive choices empowers individuals to pursue their goals and contribute meaningfully to society.
4. Gender Equality and Reproductive Justice
The right to abortion is inseparable from gender equality. Denying abortion access disproportionately affects women and individuals who can become pregnant, perpetuating systemic inequalities. Moreover, marginalized communities, including people of color, low-income individuals, and those in rural areas, face additional barriers to reproductive healthcare. Ensuring abortion access is a matter of reproductive justice, which seeks to dismantle these disparities and guarantee equitable healthcare for all.
5. Protecting Mental and Physical Health
Unwanted pregnancies can take a significant toll on a person's mental and physical health. Studies show that individuals denied abortion care are more likely to experience financial distress, mental health struggles, and adverse health outcomes compared to those who can access the procedure. Recognizing abortion as a right ensures that individuals can make choices that prioritize their well-being.
6. Safeguarding Against Unsafe Abortions
Restricting abortion access does not eliminate abortions; it merely drives them underground, leading to unsafe procedures that endanger lives. Before the legalization of abortion in many countries, unsafe abortions were a leading cause of maternal mortality. Ensuring legal and accessible abortion services saves lives by providing safe, regulated medical care.
7. A Matter of Privacy
The decision to have an abortion is deeply personal and should be protected as a matter of privacy. This right to privacy was upheld in Roe v. Wade (1973) in the United States, recognizing that reproductive choices are an intimate aspect of life that should not be subject to government intrusion. This precedent underscores the importance of respecting individual liberty.
Conclusion
Abortion is not merely a medical procedure; it is a fundamental right tied to autonomy, equality, and dignity. Denying access to abortion undermines these principles, disproportionately harms marginalized groups, and erodes trust in healthcare systems. Recognizing abortion as a basic right ensures that individuals can live with the freedom to make personal decisions about their bodies and futures without interference.
1. Bodily Autonomy Is Non-Negotiable
Pro-Choice Argument: The principle of bodily autonomy means no one should be forced to use their body to sustain another life without consent. Forcing someone to carry a pregnancy to term violates their right to govern their body.
Pro-Life Counterargument:
While bodily autonomy is important, it is not an absolute right, especially when it directly impacts another life. The unborn child is a unique human being with its own DNA, heartbeat, and potential for life. Society already imposes limits on bodily autonomy when another life is at stake, such as prohibiting harm to others or mandating care for children after birth. In pregnancy, the unborn life depends on the mother, but this dependence does not negate the unborn's right to life.
2. Abortion as Healthcare
Pro-Choice Argument: Abortion is a necessary part of comprehensive healthcare, addressing health risks, non-viable pregnancies, or personal circumstances.
Pro-Life Counterargument:
While healthcare should prioritize saving lives, abortion intentionally ends a human life, which contradicts the goal of medical ethics. In cases of health risks, pro-life perspectives support treatments that prioritize saving the mother while attempting to save the child when possible. For example, early delivery in life-threatening cases respects both lives. Non-viable pregnancies, such as ectopic pregnancies, are distinct because they cannot result in a viable birth, and removing the embryo in these cases is not considered abortion in many pro-life frameworks.
3. Economic and Social Impacts
Pro-Choice Argument: Forcing someone to carry an unwanted pregnancy perpetuates cycles of poverty and limits opportunities, undermining personal and societal growth.
Pro-Life Counterargument:
While financial and social challenges are valid concerns, they do not justify ending a human life. Society can address these issues by providing better support systems, including affordable childcare, paid parental leave, and adoption resources. Empowering women through resources, not abortion, can alleviate economic and social hardships while respecting the unborn's right to life. A pro-life society can thrive by supporting both mother and child, ensuring their dignity and potential.
4. Gender Equality and Reproductive Justice
Pro-Choice Argument: Denying abortion access perpetuates systemic gender inequality and disproportionately affects marginalized groups.
Pro-Life Counterargument:
True gender equality respects the unique biological roles of women without devaluing motherhood or life. Suggesting that equality requires abortion undermines the inherent value of women as life-givers. Instead, society should dismantle inequalities by accommodating pregnancy and parenting through policy changes, such as workplace protections and healthcare access, rather than expecting women to sacrifice their unborn children for equality. Equality should uplift both the mother and her child.
5. Protecting Mental and Physical Health
Pro-Choice Argument: Unwanted pregnancies can harm mental and physical health, while denying abortion care leads to worse outcomes.
Pro-Life Counterargument:
The pro-life position recognizes the challenges of pregnancy but asserts that mental and physical hardships do not justify ending an innocent life. Post-abortion mental health studies often show regret, grief, and depression in women, undermining the claim that abortion always improves well-being. Pro-life solutions advocate for counseling, medical care, and social support to address these challenges compassionately while protecting both mother and child.
6. Safeguarding Against Unsafe Abortions
Pro-Choice Argument: Restricting abortion access forces individuals to seek unsafe procedures, increasing maternal mortality.
Pro-Life Counterargument:
Instead of legalizing abortion to prevent unsafe practices, society should address the root causes through education, contraception access, and robust healthcare. Legal abortion itself can carry risks and often leads to undervaluing the importance of human life. The solution lies in providing alternatives, such as comprehensive support for pregnant women and encouraging life-affirming choices rather than promoting abortion as a default option.
7. A Matter of Privacy
Pro-Choice Argument: Decisions about abortion are deeply personal and protected under the right to privacy.
Pro-Life Counterargument:
While privacy is important, it cannot justify actions that harm another human being. Just as laws prevent private acts of abuse or violence, they must also protect the unborn, who cannot advocate for themselves. The right to privacy does not override the right to life, especially when the life in question is innocent and vulnerable.
Conclusion
Pro-Choice Argument: Abortion is tied to autonomy, equality, and dignity. Denying it harms marginalized groups and personal freedom.
Pro-Life Counterargument:
The pro-life perspective asserts that true autonomy, equality, and dignity include valuing every human life, born and unborn. Instead of focusing on abortion as a solution, society should address the systemic issues that lead to unplanned pregnancies and support all lives involved. Protecting the unborn does not diminish personal freedom; it affirms the inherent value of every human being and fosters a culture of life.
and also individual liberty, and the bare idea of freedom, all rely and are fundamented on the principle of non-aggression wich abortion fails to address.
Round 2
Let's talk about some of the religious sides of this question.
As someone who is raised catholic, and still believes, it's important to talk about the religious views on abortion. Although, I do know that you shouldn't throw religion in every debate, I think it's educational and important. And it's also the reason I have put in four rounds!
Christianity
- Catholicism:The Catholic Church opposes abortion, considering it the taking of innocent life. The Church teaches that life begins at conception and views abortion as intrinsically evil, though some theologians debate exceptions to save the mother’s life (e.g., double effect principle).
- Protestantism:Views vary significantly among Protestant denominations. Evangelicals and conservative Protestants generally oppose abortion, aligning with the belief that life begins at conception. Mainline Protestant groups, such as the United Church of Christ and some Episcopalians, support abortion rights, emphasizing individual conscience and the complexity of moral decisions.
Islam
Islamic views on abortion depend on interpretations of Sharia (Islamic law). Generally:
- Permitted Before Ensoulment: Most Islamic scholars believe abortion is permissible before 120 days of gestation (when ensoulment is believed to occur), particularly in cases of risk to the mother’s life or severe fetal abnormalities.
- After Ensoulment: Abortion is generally prohibited unless the mother’s life is in danger.Interpretations vary by school of thought, with more conservative scholars opposing abortion entirely and others allowing it under specific conditions.
Judaism
- Reform, Conservative, and Orthodox Judaism:Judaism generally prioritizes the life and well-being of the pregnant individual over the potential life of the fetus. The Talmud teaches that the fetus does not attain full personhood until birth, making abortion permissible—and sometimes mandatory—if the pregnancy endangers the mother’s life. Reform and Conservative branches are more likely to support abortion rights broadly, emphasizing individual choice and moral reasoning.
Hinduism
Hinduism values life but does not have a single doctrinal stance on abortion. The religion generally discourages abortion, viewing it as potentially harmful to karmic balance and dharma. However, exceptions are often made when the mother’s life is at risk or in cases of severe fetal abnormalities. The emphasis on ahimsa (non-violence) sometimes leads to debates about whether abortion is a lesser evil in complex circumstances.
Hinduism values life but does not have a single doctrinal stance on abortion. The religion generally discourages abortion, viewing it as potentially harmful to karmic balance and dharma. However, exceptions are often made when the mother’s life is at risk or in cases of severe fetal abnormalities. The emphasis on ahimsa (non-violence) sometimes leads to debates about whether abortion is a lesser evil in complex circumstances.
These are just some examples of different beliefs.
Religions That Accept Abortion (With Conditions):
- Judaism – Permitted, especially if the mother's life or health is at risk.
- Islam – Permitted before 120 days (ensoulment) for specific reasons like health risks or fetal abnormalities.
- Hinduism – Permitted in cases of severe fetal abnormalities or danger to the mother’s life.
- Buddhism – Generally discouraged, but allowed depending on intent and circumstances.
Religions That Do Not Accept Abortion:
- Catholicism – Strongly opposes abortion, viewing it as the taking of innocent life.
- Sikhism – Opposes abortion as it conflicts with the sanctity of life.
I haven't included all religions, because that's a bit much.
I am Catholic. But I still believe that abortion is acceptable.
In Islam it says: Permitted before 120 days (ensoulment) for specific reasons like health risks or fetal abnormalities. I partly agree with the Islamic believe. The thing that I would change about that sentence is this part: for specific reasons like health risks or fetal abnormalities. I stronly feel like every woman should have the choice wether to abort or not, before the fetus has a life.
A popular question that a lot of people have is: Where does life begin?
A popular question that a lot of people have is: Where does life begin?
Does life begin right after the sperm cells have reached the egg?
I don't think so. If we look at the growth of the fetus, we can see that afer 9 weeks it starts to grow it's important organs. And a lot of religious people believe that this is the point where the fetus receives a soul, and actually starts a life.
I don't think so. If we look at the growth of the fetus, we can see that afer 9 weeks it starts to grow it's important organs. And a lot of religious people believe that this is the point where the fetus receives a soul, and actually starts a life.
Conclusion:
In my opinion abortion is acceptable up and until the third month of the pregnancy, since I believe that this is where the life actually begins.
But there is one exception for me.
I think that, and I think people would agree with me. Aborting a severly disabled and/or severly ill after the 24th week, causes less stress and mental damage than having the baby. Because for some parents it just isn't an option to raise a severly disabled or ill child.
im also catholic btw and sure lets see it from this point of view.
From Catholicism:
The Catholic Church teaches that life begins at conception, grounded in the belief that every human being is created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27) and that life is sacred from the moment of conception. This belief is supported by Jeremiah 1:5, which states, "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you." Aborting a fetus at any stage is seen as a violation of the sanctity of life and as interrupting God's divine plan.
The Catholic view emphasizes that suffering, including raising a severely disabled or ill child, has spiritual significance. Pope John Paul II's writings in Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life) suggest that such trials can bring parents closer to God and deepen their faith. Terminating a pregnancy, even in cases of severe illness or disability, is considered morally unacceptable, as it denies the inherent dignity and potential of the unborn child.
From Islam:
Islam permits abortion only under strict conditions, typically limited to preserving the mother’s life or addressing severe fetal abnormalities before ensoulment (120 days). However, many Islamic scholars emphasize that the decision must be made with caution and prioritize the sanctity of life as a gift from Allah. Post-ensoulment, abortion is almost universally prohibited, as the fetus is considered to have a soul and is treated as a full person.
Your argument for allowing abortion in cases of severe disability after 24 weeks contradicts Islamic teachings on accepting divine will (Qadr). Many Muslim scholars argue that caring for a child with disabilities is a test of faith and patience, offering opportunities for spiritual growth and reward in the afterlife.
From Judaism:
Judaism is one of the more permissive religions regarding abortion, prioritizing the life and health of the mother over the potential life of the fetus. However, even in Judaism, the decision to terminate a pregnancy due to severe disability would be heavily debated and typically requires rabbinical consultation. The fetus is not considered a full person until birth, but terminating a pregnancy without sufficient cause may still be viewed as morally problematic.
The argument that raising a severely disabled child causes more stress than aborting the child may not align with Jewish values of preserving life and fulfilling one’s obligations. Judaism teaches that all life has intrinsic value, and the community is called to support parents in difficult circumstances, minimizing stress without resorting to abortion.
From Hinduism:
Hinduism discourages abortion due to the principle of ahimsa (non-violence)(wich also resembles the value of individual freedom and how it comes from the non aggression principle of liberalism). While exceptions are made for saving the mother's life, terminating a fetus with severe disabilities could be seen as disrupting the soul's karma and dharma. Hindus believe in reincarnation, and the disabled child might be fulfilling their karmic journey. Terminating their life might prevent them from achieving spiritual progress or resolution in this life.
From a Broader Religious Perspective on Disability:
Across many religious traditions, the argument that parenting a severely disabled or ill child is "not an option" challenges the belief that all life is imbued with purpose, even in suffering. The concept of inherent dignity and worth is central to most faiths. In Catholicism, Islam, and Hinduism, caring for those who are vulnerable is seen as a way to serve God or fulfill dharma. Many religious teachings advocate for the community and society to step in to support families facing such challenges, rather than resorting to abortion.
The Catholic Church teaches that life begins at conception, grounded in the belief that every human being is created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27) and that life is sacred from the moment of conception. This belief is supported by Jeremiah 1:5, which states, "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you." Aborting a fetus at any stage is seen as a violation of the sanctity of life and as interrupting God's divine plan.
The Catholic view emphasizes that suffering, including raising a severely disabled or ill child, has spiritual significance. Pope John Paul II's writings in Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life) suggest that such trials can bring parents closer to God and deepen their faith. Terminating a pregnancy, even in cases of severe illness or disability, is considered morally unacceptable, as it denies the inherent dignity and potential of the unborn child.
From Islam:
Islam permits abortion only under strict conditions, typically limited to preserving the mother’s life or addressing severe fetal abnormalities before ensoulment (120 days). However, many Islamic scholars emphasize that the decision must be made with caution and prioritize the sanctity of life as a gift from Allah. Post-ensoulment, abortion is almost universally prohibited, as the fetus is considered to have a soul and is treated as a full person.
Your argument for allowing abortion in cases of severe disability after 24 weeks contradicts Islamic teachings on accepting divine will (Qadr). Many Muslim scholars argue that caring for a child with disabilities is a test of faith and patience, offering opportunities for spiritual growth and reward in the afterlife.
From Judaism:
Judaism is one of the more permissive religions regarding abortion, prioritizing the life and health of the mother over the potential life of the fetus. However, even in Judaism, the decision to terminate a pregnancy due to severe disability would be heavily debated and typically requires rabbinical consultation. The fetus is not considered a full person until birth, but terminating a pregnancy without sufficient cause may still be viewed as morally problematic.
The argument that raising a severely disabled child causes more stress than aborting the child may not align with Jewish values of preserving life and fulfilling one’s obligations. Judaism teaches that all life has intrinsic value, and the community is called to support parents in difficult circumstances, minimizing stress without resorting to abortion.
From Hinduism:
Hinduism discourages abortion due to the principle of ahimsa (non-violence)(wich also resembles the value of individual freedom and how it comes from the non aggression principle of liberalism). While exceptions are made for saving the mother's life, terminating a fetus with severe disabilities could be seen as disrupting the soul's karma and dharma. Hindus believe in reincarnation, and the disabled child might be fulfilling their karmic journey. Terminating their life might prevent them from achieving spiritual progress or resolution in this life.
From a Broader Religious Perspective on Disability:
Across many religious traditions, the argument that parenting a severely disabled or ill child is "not an option" challenges the belief that all life is imbued with purpose, even in suffering. The concept of inherent dignity and worth is central to most faiths. In Catholicism, Islam, and Hinduism, caring for those who are vulnerable is seen as a way to serve God or fulfill dharma. Many religious teachings advocate for the community and society to step in to support families facing such challenges, rather than resorting to abortion.
in the end religious traditions generally emphasize the sanctity of life, the divine purpose behind it, and the transformative power of facing trials. so killing it would mean ending or disrupting that divine holy/sacred process.
Round 3
Forfeited
Forfeited
Round 4
Forfeited
well no one answered so idk go read something else bro
RFV Part 1
Title and Description,
I think Abortion is vaguely defined here.
WellThatsIntellectual R1
0. Abortion 'does have ties to bodily autonomy, personal freedom, and healthcare,
But I 'really think you should have defined and set the limits of what you mean by abortion in the description 'or round 1. . . But you 'do state what 'you mean by abortion in comment 4 of debate, I 'suppose.
1. I'm not sure bodily autonomy 'is non-negotiable. We've had the draft before in America (Not that I am saying I agree or disagree with the draft)
I can imagine people forcing another person to let them on their boat, if the first people's boat sinks. Good Samaritan laws (Not that I am saying I agree or disagree with such)
Other examples I imagine.
2. People 'do argue various cases medically warrant abortion.
3. Orphanages 'do exist as an option. Not that such worked out too well for Nicolae Ceaușescu and Romania, but one could argue particulars.
But Question is often when is a human life a human life.
4. Eh, some Dad's don't 'want a kid either, don't want the bills or obligation. Though of course 'does effect a woman more. But that's biology, war often going to effect men more, but that's biology.
South was economically hurt by not having slaves and didn't have the North's infrastructure. Doesn't mean they 'should have slaves. As one might argue women being worse off doesn't mean they 'should abort an unborn.
5. True, it's a mental and physical drain. I'm reminded of the South Park Episode with the 'really late term abortion Cartman's mom considered, eight years a bit late.
But of course Pro 'does say in comments 'when they think an abortion should be done.
But for some Pro Life people, a life is a life.
6. While there 'is an argument for regulating bad behaviors, some people still hold to a dislike of normalizing said action, dislike participating in said action, or practice Deontological Ethics on the question.
7. Privacy 'is important, but some people still like child services checking on some parents.
Pro brings up relevant considerations, my contrary thoughts aside.
befairbruh R1
1. Brings up the Pro Life high valuation of the unborn.
2. Brings up the Pro Life valuation, and that other methods can/could be pursued.
3. Brings up the Pro Life valuation, and argues for trying other methods.
One could argue such methods are not always easily available in society though.
4. Suggests societal considerations that could be made for women.
5. Brings up that some people are mentally harmed or haunted by their abortions.
This one a 'bit arguable, as societies vary, as well as it lacking statistics, but Pro's also lacked statistics.
It also lacks a bit in 'physical harm, compared to Pro's, though mental pain 'can result in physical harm.
6. Suggests focus on education and healthcare rather than focusing on making the practice legal.
'Questionable how well it would 'work though.
7. Brings up the Pro Life valuation.
I think Con manages to address all of Pros points, though Pro is still capable of addressing and blunting Cons arguments.
Hm, how does one address a difference in value?
I suppose one can disprove other side, Pro could claim/argue that Abortions done early enough are not killing people.
I suppose one can point out contrary goals and actions, as Pro did with 6. Just need to further argument.
RFV Part 2
WellThatsIntellectual R2
I see various religions and beliefs about abortion,
But then does debate not then become regional on whether people would agree of disagree?
Pro says when fetus starts to get important organs, is when it gets it's soul.
It seems a but of a jump to me.
Pro argues for killing (By there perspective) ensouled fetuses (24 weeks), as mercy killings.
I think Pro could have done better in mercy killing argument by giving specific examples of said unborn. Fetuses who are expected to die in agonizing pain within a week of birth, or are missing 95% of their brain or something.
Though the most extreme of Pro Lifes might still disagree, it 'would allow 'some abortions.
I still think not 'specifically defining what type of abortions in the debate description was a mistake, but Pro arguably 'is describing what they meant in Round 2.
A 'problem though, is that Pro has not yet addressed Cons arguments in Round 1.
Cons arguments aren't 'perfect, but in my view they 'do Address Pros arguments, Con's arguments in Round 1 have faults, same as Pros arguments, but Con has addressed Pro's arguments. Con has not quite fully.
befairbruh R2
Makes arguments on how some religions ban or discourage abortions.
Con 'still has problem of comment section number 4.
"One: An abortion within 24 weeks of the pregnancy
Two: If the parent finds out that the child is severely disabled and/or severely ill after the 24th week, they should still have the right to abort the child."
R3 and R4
No show for WellThatsIntellectual.
My conclusions
Hm, should I assume debate is whether said 2 abortions should be legal in all countries? This country? That countries 'ought take this view?
I think Pro has stronger argument for the severely disabled and/or severely ill unborn.
But that Con makes sufficient arguments against "An abortion within 24 weeks of the pregnancy" for various reasons stated in R1.
I think Pro 'could have argued against Cons arguments in round 1, but they were not. Though religion 'was addressed in R2 by Pro, so did Con.
Anyway, my vote to Con. Arguments.
Neither used sources.
Both understandable.
Pro missing rounds, a conduct hit.
@Round 2
I don't think it's 'bad to use religion in debate.
But I think it works best when one's audience and/or opponent shares your religious values.
The arguments that appeal to people, depend on their values,
Even for something such as guns,
People will use different arguments in different countries, I assume.
i think there are exceptions like rape or incest perhaps risks of the pregnancy itself for the mother, but in general abortion to a degree is murder
Well, no. I think aborting should be legal in two situations.
One: An abortion within 24 weeks of the pregnancy
Two: If the parent finds out that the child is severly disabled and/or severly ill after the 24th week, they should still have the right to abort the child.
In my opinion, and I think people would agree with me. Aborting a severly disabled and/or severly ill after the 24th week, causes less stress and mental damage than having the baby. Because for some parents it just isn't an option to raise a severly disabled or ill child.
And in some cases, the doctors tell the parents that their child will only be able to survive for let's say two years. I think they should also have the right to abort after the 24th week.
Thanks for the clarification,
It still sounds like political or societal interference,
But I get what you mean.
It's similar to people saying owning a gun or driving a car should be a basic right,
But many places have 'some sort of limit, requirements, tests, times you can lose said right/privilege.
I imagine a number of people end up in the middle between extremes, for a number of policies and laws.
But there 'are laws and people at the extreme ends.
Would your opponent then have to argue for no abortions for 'any reasons?
You can not abort a child after the 24th week of a pregnancy.
After that point, you will have to carry the baby until it is born. If there are dangerous circumstances during a pregnancy the doctors will try to safe both the childs and mothers life.
As the pro in this debate, I support abortion as a basic right but acknowledge that rights come with moral and ethical considerations. In the specific scenario of a viable fetus minutes before natural birth, where there is no risk to the mother’s life, no pain, and no bodily damage, I do **not** support abortion. At this stage, the fetus is effectively an independent life that could survive outside the womb, and terminating it would no longer align with the principles of bodily autonomy—it would instead shift into a moral question about ending a viable life unnecessarily. My stance emphasizes that the right to abortion is about protecting bodily autonomy and mitigating harm, not permitting arbitrary termination of viable life without cause.
So no, I do not. I believe that after the 24 weeks, a mother should carry the baby. (She would have no choice but to, because that's what the law states) And what she does with the baby after it's birth is her own decision. Keep it or give it up for adoption.
Are there any 'limits to this freedom of abortion?
Say 5 minutes before a child would be born naturally, and the mother is in a 0.00023% chance of death.
Does Pro in this debate support abortion at that point?
Suppose there was no chance of death, suppose there was no pain, suppose no bodily damage,
Just a person wanting bodily autonomy over themself,
Does Pro in this debate support abortion at that point?
I only ask, for clarification of the debate parameters.