CreateDebate


Debate Info

55
35
Yes! I totally agree! Never!
Debate Score:90
Arguments:119
Total Votes:94
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes! I totally agree! (42)
 
 Never! (33)

Debate Creator

Joel_Mathews(2278) pic



Should Abortion Be Legal?

The woman has the choice whether she wants to abort but does't it affect you that abortion is murder! Abortion is a killing of a human body, doesn't that defy the Word of God? Would you Christians vote for legalisation of abortion of babies? People think that fetuses are incapable of feeling pain when abortion are performed. But that is not true, research has shown that when an abortion is done, the baby mouth opens as if it was a silent scream coming out. The act of abortion is just so sickening and it disgusts me. How could a human being do this to an another. It is simply INHUMANE!!! What is wrong with humans nowadays! I know population is high and all that crap but this is a human life, we are talking about!! This is unacceptable and we should stand up against this! Is this what we humans are capable of?? Sometimes, I just think and reflect on the crappy things that humans do in their everyday choices of life. If you are disagreeing with what I am saying, are you agreeing that humans are disposable? If I don't want you in my life, I just up and leave and throw you away? Please be more appreciative of human life as every single of our lives are precious and unique. Please vote for no abortion!

Yes! I totally agree!

Side Score: 55
VS.

Never!

Side Score: 35
3 points

To start off with my argument I want to make one thing strait; I am not "pro" abortion. No one is pro abortion. I have never seen a person go out with a smile on their face and say "I'm going to go get an abortion today!" No. Abortion is a hard and emotional decision for most if not all people that need to make that kind of choice. I simply respect a woman's right to receive an abortion for reasons that are her's and her's alone.

If you are going to say that "abortion is murder" and that it is too immoral to do, that is your prerogative. However to say that because of your position someone else shouldn't be allowed to get one is horrible. There are many cases when an unwanted child can ruin a person's economical stability and make their life extremely difficult. Everyone deserves to have a child when they want, if they are not ready that is fine.

As a follow-up, many women that receive abortions are rape victims, people that were taken advantage of, impregnated, and left on their own. They should not feel the long term punishments of rape just because someone else feels that they have to keep their unwanted, unborn child.

Side: Yes! I totally agree!

I think the real conservative argument is what if its the day before the baby would come out and you abort, then you know its already alive. People have told me that it is alive a period before it comes out. But its not alive as soon as its sperm, so then there's a process. If the rule was "you have this long to abort because we've scientifically proven the amount of time", a ton of conservatives (at least the less religious ones) would probably be all for abortion (or would have less of an argument) and we may even be able to say problem solved. There's nothing wrong with aborting something that isn't alive yet. So, in general, yes it should be legal.

I also agree that its not ok to force a child on someone who isn't ready. I think if anything they shouldn't allow someone who isn't ready to have a child because those children are miserable or they have mental illness. I've met people like that and its really true, at least in my limited experience being friends with adopted kids and grown ups who were adopted as kids before.

The people like that that I know (maybe this sample means nothing), seem to be rude or criminal. One guy I know who was an unwanted child and he was adopted and now he has no clue who his real parents are (neither do I). All anyone knows is he was aborted by a 16 year old and now he's a grown man who has a guardianship with his adopted mom because of his medical issues. I'm not going to say who it is. All I'm going to say is if you have the baby then you force the child to go through a lot whether the mom decides to keep the baby or not.

For this reason, I don't believe in forcing either side because what I just described is an issue that can be worked out (whether the child is kept or not). I'm just saying if I had to pick between forced abortion and forcing women not to abort, I'd say forced abortion. And the make the conservatives happy, I'd say as soon as possible BEFORE the grey period where people keep talking about how they don't know if its alive or not. So then, the rule is a minimum of a month before what I've heard called "the grey period", you'd have to abort. That's only if I have to pick between forcing one and the other. I'd actually pick choice, but that might be a fair compromise if you believe in that sort of thing.

Feel free to disagree with me.

Side: Yes! I totally agree!
WastingAway(340) Clarified
1 point

There are laws in every state that has abortion legal telling by when you must have an abortion if you want one.

Side: Yes! I totally agree!
1 point

Just to make it clear, I'm agreeing that abortion should be legal. I don't know whether the two sides are responding to the statement "abortion is immoral" or the title of the debate.

So, why I'm pro-choice:

1. In some cases, it's inhumane to have a child, either for the mother or the child. There are stories all over the world about teenaged girls, or even girls younger than that, getting raped and becoming pregnant. It would be immoral in these cases to force a girl who was 10 to have a child that she couldn't prevent. Even if a 30 year old, or any other woman, is raped, then it would be immoral to force them to have a child. It would also be immoral to have someone give birth to a child if they couldn't provide a good lifestyle. If the child would have abusive parents, or grow up in a poverty-stricken environment, then it would be better for the child to never have been born.

2. If abortion is outlawed, then people will still get them illegally. But these abortions won't be done by licensed professionals. They will be done by criminals who don't really know what they're doing. People will die from getting these, so it's better to have regulated, government approved abortions.

3. You have the right to do what you want with your own body. If you don't want to have a baby, then you shouldn't have to. Men can walk away from a pregnancy, especially if they aren't married to the woman they got pregnant. Women should be able to at least have a way to get out of a pregnancy as well.

Side: Yes! I totally agree!
GoneFishing(126) Disputed
1 point

"I'm pro-choice"

I'm sorry.

"In some cases, it's inhumane to have a child, either for the mother or the child. There are stories all over the world about teenaged girls, or even girls younger than that, getting raped and becoming pregnant. It would be immoral in these cases to force a girl who was 10 to have a child that she couldn't prevent."

Such an extreme case that most definitely seems highly unreasonable to even inject the this idea in the first place. I would love to see any data supporting that this happens. In the case a child's conceived through such events, it is still a child; eventually a person with thoughts, feeling and goals.

"If abortion is outlawed, then people will still get them illegally."

Yes they would, but we would not be supporting murder anymore.

"But these abortions won't be done by licensed professionals. They will be done by criminals who don't really know what they're doing."

That's with any risk you take when you break the law. Actions always have results. "People will die from getting these, so it's better to have regulated, government approved abortions."

We should allow murder, so we don't have people dying from their attempts in murdering. That's the actions you're approving. While you're at you introduce the idea that we should allow assassins to be legal, because they're professionals (less people dying while trying to murder) and they know how to get the job done (they're professionals that are trained).

"You have the right to do what you want with your own body."

Yes, you do. The life-form within you, has its right too.

"If you don't want to have a baby, then you shouldn't have to."

Incorrect. The choice does not belong to anyone at this point.

"Men can walk away from a pregnancy, especially if they aren't married to the woman they got pregnant."

How's this the babies fault?

"Women should be able to at least have a way to get out of a pregnancy as well"

Honestly, i cant believe you said something like that. It is justifiable to kill a baby because it would be hard to raise? That's actually kind of offensive.

Side: Never!
dcb9242000(167) Disputed
1 point

Let's say that a girl in high school gets raped. She becomes pregnant. That means that she has to live 9 months with a fetus inside of her. She has to skip classes for appointments with doctors, is viewed as a freak by classmates, and can't play the sport that she was really good at and might have gotten a scholarship for. Pregnancy could literally ruin someone's life. On top of that, the girl doesn't know how to keep the fetus healthy, so the baby would end up being born with Down's syndrome or some birth defect. There's a high probability that either the baby or the mother would die during the birth. Let's add the assumption that the girl's parents probably aren't able to support a child, so the baby would grow up in a poor environment. The girl would have to give up everything to take care of the child she was unprepared for. That's two lives doomed to fail, and one of them had that fate before its life even began. In this situation, it would be immoral to everyone involved to force the girl to give birth. What if it was someone you knew in that situation? This kind of thing is actually pretty common. I live in a town that is fairly high-class, and my son knew three girls that became unexpectedly pregnant. One of them died, one now has a child that is missing a leg because she didn't know how to take care of the fetus inside her, and the other dropped out of school because their GPA dropped from a 4 to a 1. I'm not saying that abortion should be treated as some kind of protection, but it should at least be available to those with a valid reason for not being able to raise a child.

Side: Yes! I totally agree!
1 point

I'll argue with anyone who comes along. For now, all I will say is yes. It should be because it's not anyone else's choice.

Side: Yes! I totally agree!
Jace(4665) Disputed
1 point

Governments restrict personal choice all of the time. Why should abortion be a protected choice?

Side: Yes! I totally agree!
CutMe(109) Disputed
1 point

You mean according to them? Well, they just don't care... or maybe they do. But I think it should be protected because sometimes it is necessary. Some people who are already born, no matter the age, still deserve to live as much as the fetus. But the fetus isn't born. It hasn't started breathing yet. It can't think. Therefore, I think already born humans are more important than an unborn fetus.

Side: Never!
GoneFishing(126) Disputed
1 point

"I'll argue with anyone who comes along."

I'm glad you're willing to defend you claim.

"For now, all I will say is yes."

I will say no, it should not be.

"It should be because it's not anyone else's choice."

It's not anyone else's choice why?

Side: Never!

The woman has the choice whether she wants to abort but does't it affect you that abortion is murder!

Most people who think that Abortion should be legal do not consider it murder because they do not consider the fetus to be a human life.

Abortion is a killing of a human body, doesn't that defy the Word of God?*

How would you argue that a month old zygote is a human body?

People think that fetuses are incapable of feeling pain when abortion are performed. But that is not true, research has shown that when an abortion is done, the baby mouth opens as if it was a silent scream coming out.

Citation?

The act of abortion is just so sickening and it disgusts me. How could a human being do this to an another

Like I said, generally because they don't think the fetus or zygote is "another".

If you are disagreeing with what I am saying, are you agreeing that humans are disposable?

For actual humans, no.

Side: Never!
0 points

You are pathetic. Trying to irritate everyone argument you put. Thank God I don't waste my time explaining myself to people like you

Side: Never!
Cartman(18192) Disputed
4 points

Facts can be real irritating to a moron.

Side: Yes! I totally agree!
3 points

Not a single thing I said was meant to irritate anyone. It was a legitimate response posted from the perspective of someone that disagrees with your stance on this issue. If you consider dissenting opinions "pathetic", "irritating" and a "waste of my time", then you should not be on a debate website.

Side: Yes! I totally agree!
2 points

No. I believe that every human being has the right and is deserving of the chance to live and it is wrong for us to deprive them of that. I also find it sorrowful that the significant value of a life when desired can be so easily diminished to almost nothing when an undesired consequence.

Side: Never!
Jace(4665) Disputed
2 points

From what basis do you substantiate your claim...

... that a fetus is a human being?

... that the right to life exists? And that it then exists for all humans?

... that anyone deserves anything in life?

... that morality is itself valid?

... that context is irrelevant to the value we place on life?

Side: Yes! I totally agree!
1 point

... Most people would say it is human just because it is the offspring of a human, and they would never call it a fetus because they're sensitive to that word.

... That's what they all say, unless a mother is dying then SAVE THE BABIEZ!!!!!!!!!

... I don't know if anyone could agree to that.

... This one I don't quite understand.

... Isn't context always valid?

Side: Yes! I totally agree!
Saintnow(3684) Disputed
1 point

Abortion is murder. If all of the people who say it is not murder were killed before they were born, we would not be having an argument. It's so simple a child can understand...only a diabolical mind can believe it is not murder to kill somebody after they were conceived and before they were born.

Every one of us was conceived at a point in time, and none of us would be here if we were killed at any point in time past the moment of our conception.

Abortion is murder. If there is nothing wrong with murdering somebody after they are conceived and before they are born, there is nothing wrong with murdering you...the elderly and handicapped are next, and whatever other group is determined to be of no value. Of course murder is always wrong, for the unborn or for any person at any point in time after their conception.

Side: Never!
Foxglove(205) Clarified
1 point

From what basis do you substantiate your claim...

... that a fetus is a human being?

The business of deciding that human life begins at a certain stage of development long after the act committed to activate such a process is somewhat perplexing. From the moment of conception we possess the capacity for development of parts that constitute what we would characterise as being human. The abortion limit is currently up to 24 weeks, prior to which time the fetal anatomy is well formed, enough that features exist which are recognisable as human and nothing else, yet that amounts to nought where abortion is concerned. I do not see what is so significant about the 24 week developmental stage that indicates human life can only commence then and not before.

... that the right to life exists? And that it then exists for all humans?

There is no one human being that has the monopoly on human existence to exert judgment over the termination of life, therefore no justification exists for doing so to another human being. In regard to anything the only one justified in exercising any authority is the one who provided it, similar to how the owner of a business is the only authority justified in firing a worker. Therefore, there is no reason why life, when had, should not continue to exist for anyone, irrespective of how unsettling it may be for those around them.

... that anyone deserves anything in life?

I guess this continues on from my answer to the aforementioned question. There is no reason for an experience of life to be denied someone on account of another’s feeling because we do not have the right to that say so. Yet with abortion that is effectively what we are saying. There is a difference between not deserving things in life and not deserving life altogether. The former at least allows for the state of being to be encountered first and foremost, and worthiness for certain things would be weighed by how the individual chooses to conduct themselves through the course of their existence; the latter consists of an individual being denied that initial encounter and the chance to have a presence as other human beings do.

...that morality is itself valid?

The human experience is effectively shaped by morality. It is the principal construct that governs our behaviour in accordance with our superiority as a species and is the foundation of our lived experience. If morality were invalid, then we would not have an inherent need for its feature in reality. As it is, this provision of ethics, the acknowledgment of right and wrong is what generates guidance and order, both of which human beings are shown to thrive on and is intrinsic to our survival. Consequently this forms the blueprint for societal structure universally. Not a single society exists that does not factor morality.

... that context is irrelevant to the value we place on life?

When I referenced context in this way I was alluding to the double standards of the medical profession when it comes to the value of life. Of course, there are some woeful circumstances which regretfully may occasion someone to seek an abortion but that decision does not lessen the value of said life any more than if the circumstance was a welcome one. It is standard medical advice that a woman take especial care of her health during the first trimester of her pregnancy due to its tentative nature (this being the period of the most rapid development). She is cautioned to examine her lifestyle, eliminating all potentially threatening habits out of love and for the sake of her unborn child. But let the scenario be turned on its head and there is no sake to be had. In the case of rape for instance, the unborn child is stripped of its status as a human being, denied of an identity and anything he or she possesses alluding thereto is minimized and "fetus"becomes the only term used thereafter, despite the fact that ‘it’ will feel the sensation of pain just as a human being would if they were being destroyed.

Side: Yes! I totally agree!
GoneFishing(126) Disputed
1 point

that a fetus is a human being - Yes. "an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception."

that the right to life exists - why wouldnt their be a right?

that anyone deserves anything in life - according to our constitution and the bible, yes.

Side: Never!
1 point

This is one of the saddest things about the whole mess. The civil legality of this horror has over time dulled the cultural psyche to the sanctity of all human life. I wish I knew the answer. How to bring the cultural conscience back to sanity, and more importantly to love.

Side: Never!
Jace(4665) Disputed
1 point

Abortion as older than humanity and has been a long-standing practice of our own species. This is not a new phenomenon condoned by some unprecedented shift in the "cultural psyche" regarding the sanctity of human life. The notion that the cultural conscience has ever been cleanly moral, sane, or loving is quite simply erroneous.

Side: Yes! I totally agree!
Saintnow(3684) Clarified
1 point

You are a Christian and you don't know the answer? When is the last time you read your Bible?

Side: Yes! I totally agree!

Very well put. Life is a miracle, why would someone want to destroy it. If you don't want kids, use protection. If you REALLY dont want kids... don't have sex.

Side: Never!
1 point

No. It should not be legal to seek and procure abortion. It is barbaric. It's contract murder.

There are some rare exceptions, which account for less than 1% of all abortions which are performed. (rape, incest, save life of mother). These are not valid reasons to murder a child either, but could be considered on a case by case basis, as they occur, in an environment where procured abortion is NOT legal.

Side: Never!
1 point

If you believe it is murder, why do you then think some murder is justified? If it is justified, is it still murder?

Side: Yes! I totally agree!
stevetc(65) Clarified
1 point

Yes. It is still murder. And no, I don't personally condone the exceptions. I am being conciliatory. I'll take what I can get. If the pro-aborts would really concede to no abortion save for those few exceptions which they wish to keep it legal for, then we're more than 99 percent on the road to restoring the sense of the sanctify of human life. But, I think the "exceptions" are disingenuous rote learned talking points used to assuage the conscience of the pro-aborts, and to keep the whole shebang legal.

Side: Yes! I totally agree!
Jace(4665) Disputed
1 point

It is only murder because you consider the fetus to be a living human being, which is a contentious and unresolved philosophical question about the meaning of life itself. What makes your view on this matter correct? From what basis can you substantiate your claim that human life exists from conception?

Your quasi-concession that certain conditions could bear consideration yet are still not valid belies a certain degree of unresolved perspective on the issue, unless I am seriously misunderstanding your statements. Either it is invalid and should be just as categorically condemned or it is valid and ought to be legal; it is inconsistent to your expressed views on the matter to have it both ways.

Side: Yes! I totally agree!
stevetc(65) Disputed
1 point

The idea that a fetus is a human being, while you may be correct that there is some miniscule fragments of contention still lingering, they are contending a fiction by emotion. It is quite resolved, settled science that a human being is formed at conception. The question, then is whether or not a woman has a "right" granted by ?_? to end the development of the human life to full potential by contracting for the killing of her own child. This "right" would not be granted by God, who is the genesis of life, so it can come only from a secular body, removing the baby from the realms of both biology and theology, and placing the baby at the mercy of 20th century western politics and civics. On it's face, this hardly seems the proper arbiter for matters as important as the nurturing of human life.

Regarding your second paragraph, you're referring to a "quasi-concession" that the taking of human life be allowed in some instances. I've been gone for a while, and will have to re-read my original premise to see what exactly I said, but I can guess I was willing, as a STARTING point, and for political reasons to put those who advocate for abortion on demand to a test. When pressed in the political arena, even the most hard core abortion advocates come up with the challenges "What about in the instance of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother". Well of course, in the instance of rape, it would not be right. It is simply adding violence to violence. The innocent child did not commit a crime, and deserves the right to live. Same with incest. As regards "saving the life of the mother", this is I think what the call a "straw man" argument. That is disingenuous. First because it is so rare, and second, this potential doctor/surgeon is supposed to do all he/she can to save the lives of the mother AND her baby. Sometimes in the course of efforts to do so, the baby would die. But this is a secondary effect, and not the INTENTION of an ethical doctor. So that instance doesn't really belong in the argument.

You are correct that abortion is wrong in every instance. My false willingness to allow (for political reasons ONLY), the rape/incest idea, is actually intended only to make a point. When presented with this offer or idea, the political parties who are in favor of abortion, who use this argument to keep abortion legal, would still not actually put an abortion restriction law into practice if given a chance. It's just something they say to themselves to make themselves not feel like monsters for fighting for abortion rights.

No. I am not personally in favor of ANY procured abortion happening. But law is only a part of this. Hearts must change. So perhaps if you COULD get people to go for an abortion ban with the 2 exceptions, it would be enough of a start, that down the road, as the facts about human life and development became more commonly known, it would then be politically possible to lose he exceptions as well, over time. Meanwhile, a law allowing only for those exceptions will successfully put an end to 99% of abortions, and they would then indeed be quite rare as a procedure.

Side: Never!
1 point

Abortion should be illegal...it is technically murder of a person who has great potential.There is plenty of protectents that can keeps a woman from getting pregnant... therefore she had the option to have that child.

Side: Never!
1 point

It's not murder if it's not living (when it has no brain waves which is the main sign of life.)

Also if abortion was illegal it would still be done illegally as it was when it was illegal. But because it was illegal is was done unsterilized which caused sickness.

Side: Yes! I totally agree!
GoneFishing(126) Disputed
1 point

"It's not murder if it's not living (when it has no brain waves which is the main sign of life.)"

Just because the organs are not fully developed does not mean it is alive. Microorganisms do not have "brains" but they sure as hell are alive.

"Also if abortion was illegal it would still be done illegally as it was when it was illegal. But because it was illegal is was done unsterilized which caused sickness."

That's who's fault and concern? Just because you don't want the living child to be born, does not mean you can murder it.

Side: Never!
1 point

Abortion is murder unless the child is ectopic. It is wrong to kill babies. If you don't want a baby, use contraception.

Side: Never!
TheCapConKid(293) Clarified
1 point

If you abort before it is living (before it has brain waves) than it is not living... You cannot kill something that doesn't have life.

Side: Yes! I totally agree!
1 point

Who is to say that 'living' means that it has brain waves? Why do you choose to define it that way?

Side: Yes! I totally agree!
Sitar(3682) Clarified
1 point

The life at brainwaves theory sounds credible on the surface and while I used to hold this belief, I now believe that life begins with the creation of the zygote, because that is when the baby has her own genetic code. That is when the ethnicity and gender of the baby is decided. For me, this is not a religious issue, but one of science. :) <3

Side: Yes! I totally agree!
TheCapConKid(293) Clarified
1 point

Also it takes two months for it to produce brain waves which is the sign of it being a living being.

Side: Yes! I totally agree!
1 point

What if contraceptives fail? Is it ok to abort?

Side: Yes! I totally agree!
Sitar(3682) Disputed
1 point

That is not an excuse to kill babies. Use multiple forms of contraception, or get your tubes removed. This is my plan if I meet someone. :) <3

Side: Never!

Or is it okay to abort if a woman is raped and conceives through it.

Side: Yes! I totally agree!