CreateDebate


Debate Info

10
26
Pro-Choice Pro-Life
Debate Score:36
Arguments:16
Total Votes:46
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Pro-Choice (5)
 
 Pro-Life (8)

Debate Creator

Logically(192) pic



"Pro-Choice" vs "Pro-Life"

Just looking for fresh opinions on this tired topic. What is your stance on whether or not abortion should be legal in the United States? Please check your emotions at the door and stick to facts and evidence that back your position. I've seen this discussion riddled with trolls and closed-minded emotional rants that make close to no sense from both sides; Discuss any direct or implied consequence of either position including government spending requirements, bodily autonomy, or morals and ethics.

Pro-Choice

Side Score: 10
VS.

Pro-Life

Side Score: 26
2 points

I don't feel like giving the same old full blown argument today, but if one wants to argue along the lines of whether it is morally acceptable to kill a fetus then I think they should have to explain why murder is normally considered wrong first, and then argue whether those conditions are satisfied by killing a fetus or not, rather than blindly making assertions about right and wrong.

Side: Pro-Choice
1 point

The mother deserves to choose whether she wants to have the baby. There should be reason behind it, and it must be in the early stages. If you keep to that, then there is no moral conundrum.

Side: Pro-Choice
5 points

then there is no moral conundrum.

Except for the moral conundrum of killing a baby. Or, are we not counting that?

Side: Pro-Life
Polaris95(247) Clarified
2 points

Except you're not killing a baby. You're killing a tiny non-developed fetus.

Side: Pro-Choice
Logically(192) Disputed
2 points

Both of your points are rather ambiguous and vague. What if the reason is simply "I want to." or "I hate children."? Is any reason they can fathom viable, or are you saying we should allot medical professionals the authority to accept or deny their reason for wanting an abortion? That gives way to an entire plethora of moral conundrum as you now have to account for the stance of every practicing physician that would be authorized to deny or approve someone from having an abortion. Also, what are the "early stages"? Is it before a certain time period, such as before the end of the first or second trimester? Before a particular development, such as the heart beating or the muscles contracting? For something to be set into law, it should be a little more definite than that.

Side: Pro-Choice
1 point

It's amazing how many people defend THEIR right to own a weapon that spits out very late term abortions @ a thousand rounds a minute, but won't allow a woman HER right to control her own life! The lives that could be saved are also sons or daughters! After they come through the birth canal they're on their own! Take away their health care (unless they have plenty of money!) Shut off Meals-on-Wheels for those who came through that canal long ago! Take away affordable education from those who may eventually be able to afford health care .. let them "abort" if they can't! Abort as many as possible if they can't, for some reason "hack it"! Leave the world (and its money) for US .... the kind, concerned ones, the "right" ones.

Side: Pro-Choice
6 points

The lives that could be saved are also sons or daughters!

Where's your proof that gun control solves mass shootings? The Constitution says two things that relate to gun control and abortion respectively. Well, actually, the Bill of Rights talks about gun control, that being the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment gives American citizens the right to bear arms, nowhere does it say "The President may write into law restrictions limiting this amendment". Where the Constitution talks about abortion is the second paragraph: "All men are created equal". Nowhere in the Constitution does it say "All men are created equal, accept for babies".

Take away (insert noun)

No, babies aren't on their own when they come through the birth canal. Health care isn't taken away, it's just not universal because of the insane tax rate accompanying it. Same goes for affordable education.

Lastly, is it possible for you to go on a more incoherent, idiotic, Bernie Sanders-esque tangent? I think not.

Side: Pro-Life
achilles_(51) Disputed
2 points

We have guns, and other firearms to protect ourselves from those who try to harm us. Lives have been saved because people have weapons, and if they didnt they would have been killed, or at least severely injured. In America, we have the second amendment in the Bill of Rights, which grants us the right to bear arms, to protect ourselves from tyranny. But you should also note that guns aren't the only things that kill people. Cars, knives, floods, etc. So if those things kill people, should we ban them? Of course they have uses, but so do guns, which are to protect us, not to murder other people. Sure, there will be people that take guns, and use them for mass shootings, but the gun is just an object, the person is the one with full authority of the gun.

Abortions kill many more times than guns do. In June, 2016, abortion killed over 500,000 babies, where as to murder by guns, are just over 5,000. You see the difference here? But in 2014, there were 8,000 murders by guns, but there were 136,000 deaths by accidents. But ever since abortion was made legal in 1973, nearly 57 MILLION babies have been violently destroyed... Also, it's not HER right to control HER life, it's the babies life, not hers. The baby inside the womb, is a human life. It's stupid and disgusting to think that you should kill a baby because you don't want it. After they come through the birth canal, they have have their parents, and the doctors, they're not "on their own." And why should we take things away from them, like health care and education?

Side: Pro-Life
AlofRI(2805) Clarified
1 point

I've been here for over 80 years, been in the most dangerous places in the country, Chicago's south side, NY's Fort Apache, LA's "Spanish Harlem", Baltimore, several Chinatowns, "Joisey" and others around the world. Never needed a gun for protection unless I was in a war zone, certainly not an assault weapon. Are YOU afraid?

If I was the victim of an abortion I'm sure I wouldn't remember it. It, likely wouldn't have been without reason, but, some win the lottery, some don't. Think about getting REAL.

Side: Pro-Choice

I’m pro life. It’s because I feel that the child should at least get to have a feel for the outside world before it dies. Understand that I mean no hate in anyway to anyone when I say this but, maybe you should wear a condom if you don’t want a child.

Side: Pro-Life
Logically(192) Disputed
2 points

So you believe abortion should be illegal? Would that apply to pregnancies that threaten the mothers' life? I agree if you aren't ready to have a child you should use contraceptives, but can you really blame the youth for making the mistake of not using it when the educational system so poorly informs children on the importance of doing so? Why blame the 17 year old who made the mistake of having unprotected sex by severely hindering a majority of their lives going forward? Most teens give up on plans to go to college if they have an unexpected child, simply because they have to work full time and raise their child which usually occupies their entire day as is. Also, you have to realize that if people get desperate and have no alternative, illegal abortions are very commonly turned to; which are hundreds of times more likely to result in the mother dying along with the child. Or what if the parents just aren't ready to accept the responsibility of having a child, and the baby ends up neglected or improperly raised? Then you end up with psychologically, emotionally and even physically abused children who could have been spared all that if the parents were just able to abort the pregnancy and wait until they were financially and emotionally stable enough to raise a child. It seems to be the case, frankly, that "pro-life" people are really just pro-birth, and give no thought to what the child has to go through after it's born. It's quite literally the only reason you gave for being pro life.

Side: Pro-Choice
1 point

Would that apply to pregnancies that threaten the mother's life?

I would genuinely like to see cases of life-threatening pregnancies because I always hear pro-choice supporters saying "what about the mother's life", but I haven't seen evidence of it happening as of yet.

but can you really blame the youth for making the mistake of not using it

No, of course you can't blame someone for something when they didn't know any better.

which are hundreds of times more likely to result in the mother dying along with the child

No one endorses illegal abortion, and this is common sense. I would also like to see the evidence you have for the "hundreds of times more likely" claim.

Or what if the parents just aren't ready to accept the responsibility of having a child

Adoption. If you don't think you can handle taking care of a child either emotionally or physically, then you should definitely consider adoption. Even if you think it's wrong, it's not at bad as murder.

It seems to be the case, frankly, that "pro-life" people are really just pro-birth

No, pro-life people aren't just pro-birth. Pro-life people care about the child. For example, if a mother isn't emotionally ready for a child, pro-life people will strongly suggest adoption.

Side: Pro-Life