CreateDebate


Debate Info

85
95
Of course not! Of course!
Debate Score:180
Arguments:149
Total Votes:195
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Of course not! (59)
 
 Of course! (63)

Debate Creator

SplooSplodie(25) pic



Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?

I was going to be funny and put for the Negative Position "Kill all the unwanted babies!" Because well that's what abortions are! You're murdering an unwanted child. (Murder as in killing something alive. Don't get started on animals and vegetarians stay on topic!) And that's terrible. I firmly stand on the opinion of "No, abortions should not be allowed in the USA." I've read other people's opinions on the matter and it gives me even MORE reasons to hate abortions. For starters, in statistics shown there is no good result for teens and how their will take pregnancies with abortions around! I hate teen sex enough as it is. And to think that abortions will allow teenagers to have sex and not fear a baby is.. just horrible.

Look on Google images for abortions.. (Warning: Much blood and decapitated babies. Horrible sadness and depression may occur.)

Also abortions are no better than disposing of your problems. Someone can't just dispose of their problems. Or someone unwanted. Especially a baby. That person chose to have sex and now they must deal with their result!

(I do have a few exceptions to the abortion deal. But abortion should be something that rarely occurs. Very few exceptions)

Of course not!

Side Score: 85
VS.

Of course!

Side Score: 95
6 points

I don't think murder should be allowed anywhere... but some people think it's okay... -.-

Side: Of course not!
blacklab2287(34) Disputed
3 points

Murder and killing is human nature. We are a violent species, no debate there. But it isn't up to you to make that call for someone. It is her body and her child (possibly) and we can't pretend to know the circumstances, especially us men. Your views are yours, but don't force your views on others with no proof that your side is the right one. It is just your opinion, same as me.

Side: Of course!
lolzors93(3225) Disputed
4 points

You do realize that you just implicitly admitted that it was murder, correct? You also, therefore, implicitly admitted that murder should not go punished, since our views might be different from the one murdering.... wow.....

Side: Of course not!
Nox0(1393) Disputed
3 points

Fetus is not born human, ergo cannot be murdered, you are again failing to separate religious shit from real world.

Side: Of course!
lolzors93(3225) Disputed
2 points

How is it not a human? Is it a giraffe? Does it have its own species?

Side: Of course not!
WillStorm(6) Disputed
1 point

Biology informs us that, as do some religions, that a unique living thing with its own genes is an individual. If those genes came from human beings then it the individual is a human being.

Side: Of course not!
2 points

It ins't murder if it is in the early stages of the pregnancy. You can't murder something that lacks consciousness, that's like saying you can murder a plant.

Side: Of course!
lolzors93(3225) Disputed
1 point

You can't murder something that lacks consciousness, that's like saying you can murder a plant.

Thats begging the question sooo much. Who cares whether there is consciousness? Would you kill a sleeping person? No. Do they have consciousness? No. Do they have disposed consciousness? Yes. But so too do babies. You're playing a dangerous game of picking and choosing. Human life is what is valuable in and of itself; if it isn't, then the killing of sleeping people is acceptable.

Side: Of course not!
2 points

Abortion is not murder. .

Side: Of course!
lolzors93(3225) Disputed
3 points

Well, would you consider chocking an elderly person to death murder? I sure would.

Side: Of course not!
2 points

Women have the right to choose what to do with their bodies. Every woman has the right to control her body. Forcing a woman to give birth is reproductive slavery.

Side: Of course!
thousandin1(1933) Clarified
1 point

It isn't murder, at least not so long as it is legal.

Murder is the intentional, unlawful killing of another person. Intentionally killing a person in a lawful way (such as acting in self defense, or being a soldier in wartime) is not murder. Unintentionally killing a person in an unlawful way is also not murder; it's manslaughter and criminal negligence. Intentionally killing a non-person in either a lawful or unlawful way is not murder; it is something to the effect of animal cruelty/euthenasia.

As you can see, there are three criteria for killing to be classified as murder. It must be intentional, it must be unlawful, and the victim must be a person. In the case of abortion, Intentional is a given, but unlawful, at current, is not. Even then, the status of a fetus as a person is debateable.

Pro-lifers, vegans, animal rights activists, etc love to do this- 'abortion/meat/fur is murder.' It's sensational, and an excellent way to underscore and convey your feelings on the matter through hyperbole. If your intent is to simply make yourself feel better by having stood up for what you believe in, then that's fine. But, if you want to help meaningful change take place, you need to consider your audience. You are trying to sway those who are pro-life to your side- accusing them of being in support of murder is not likely to do this. In the first place, disparaging those who you want on your side is rarely a good idea, and in the second it's obviously untrue. Calling it murder weakens your position on the matter overall.

TLDR: Murder is never allowed anywhere- legal killing is not murder by definition.

Side: Of course not!
lolzors93(3225) Clarified
2 points

Governments do not set what murder is. They set what they will classify as murder, based upon what moral law dictates. Its murder, and it is allowed in many nations.

Side: Of course not!
h2o98(9) Disputed
1 point

Well, I don't think children being born in violent homes, homes with parents with drug or alcohol issues or homes with parents who do not have ability to take care of the child should be allowed either...

Side: Of course!
lolzors93(3225) Disputed
1 point

There is such a thing called adoption.

Side: Of course not!
2 points

I think this would be best in a Perspective Debate, but whatever.

Alright, yes, I am not okay with abortions. But, it depends on why you are aborting the baby. If it's because it was unplanned, aw hell naw, you keepin' dat baby! But if it was serious, as in like an apocalypse where there was no hope.... Still no, really, because the baby would be a help to the group by bringing up the next generation of humans.... Forget what I said about the apocalypse. Anyway, if it was an absolute serious "I can't have this baby," then I guess I'm okay with it. But abortions should be avoided as much as we can, but think about the population, if abortion was completely illegal before the human race could spread out among the stars, what would be the affect? There would be restrictions on how many babies people could have, how old they were allowed to grow, stuff like that. To sum up; Humans should start slowly reducing the amount of abortions, and once we spread out over the solar system, stop abortions (for the most part). Boom.

Side: Of course not!
2 points

I agree! Abortions do need to be avoided as much as possible. Yes defiantly there, if it was unplanned they're keeping that baby! (and they're going to love it too.) And yes that's where the exceptions come into place. (Don't we all just love exceptions and the confusion they make?) If there is truly a time where "I can't have this baby." Then maybe.. But then again they chose to have sex. Sex makes babies. You can't really complain.

Side: Of course not!
blacklab2287(34) Disputed
1 point

And if organized religion didn't make birth control so hard to obtain, we would have no need for abortion (except in extreme cases). They did this to themselves. You can't stop the basics of human nature. The only thing to do is to try to help the women who are left with this hard choice.

Side: Of course!
Nox0(1393) Disputed
1 point

Agreeing to yoursel? JC ?

Side: Of course!
0 points

I agree because if one didn't wanted a baby than they would not have had sex.

Side: Of course not!
h2o98(9) Disputed
2 points

Tell me whats the difference between an unplanned baby and "an absolute serious I can't have this baby".

I totally agree with you in the sense that people need to take their consequences. But an abortion is not something you just go through with, without any thought trough. It's a lot of feelings mixed into this situation. A woman who has found out that she is pregnant with an unplanned baby would probably think it through a million times before she would go through with the abortion, and if she decides to go through with the abortion she would probably give you an absolute serious "I can't have this baby"

Side: Of course!
Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

If it's because it was unplanned, aw hell naw, you keepin' dat baby!

Do I get to make some rules that you have to live your life by?

But if it was serious, as in like an apocalypse where there was no hope

Forget what I said about the apocalypse.

Why write it at all? There is a backspace key for a reason.

But abortions should be avoided as much as we can, but think about the population, if abortion was completely illegal before the human race could spread out among the stars, what would be the affect? There would be restrictions on how many babies people could have, how old they were allowed to grow, stuff like that.

This doesn't make any sense. You are saying that getting rid of abortions would cause a massive problem of having to decide who can and can't have kids. Why would we want baby restrictions? You haven't solved anything. You admit that abortions are a solution.

Side: Of course!

There is always a way to save the babies life no matter the situation.

Side: Of course not!
3 points

This is not true. 'Usually' rather than always, or even just the word 'almost' before always would have made it true.

Fact is, even in this day and age, there are sometimes cases where either the choice is between losing mother and baby, or just baby. This is also the only circumstance under which I could personally stomach late term abortion.

Side: Of course!
2 points

That's better you then me then.

Side: Of course not!
1 point

Not in my case. If for some tragic reason I became pregnant, would need an abortion for mental health reasons. Shrinks would refuse to prescribe my medications because they cause birth defects, any child I would have would have a 100% chance of major medical problems, and pregnancy would make me suicidal. I wont get into how, but pregnancy would trigger my PTSD to the point that i would overdose on pills, and I doubt that is prolife, and before you ask: i refuse to have unprotected sex. Im not even having sex right now, but if I do, I will use contraception.

Side: Of course!

That good for you in your case not mine though still a way around it if you want it bad enough.

Side: Of course!
2 points

Sorry but I'm not for killing baby's and I don't know why anybody would be for hurting a innocent baby.

Side: Of course not!
1 point

Sure, ok, if you are a woman who would personally chose to have an abortion, having one could save your education and future career... At the expense of women who are pressured to have abortions but refuse. For the sperm donor of these women, they see their responsibilities to be a father as void because the woman apparently made an active decision to keep the baby. It comes at the expense of women who have abortions and later regret it, leading to depression and suicide. It comes to the expense of the rare breed of men who would joyfully step up an start a family, but are not given the choice.

Side: Of course not!
1 point

Men dont have the right to the womans body. The one carrying the fetus has the final say.

Side: Of course!
thousandin1(1933) Clarified
2 points

While this is about control for some people, certainly, I don't think pro-lifers in general see themselves as having some sort of right to the womans body; they simply see the woman as having limited rights regarding what they can do to the body of the fetus. They anthropomorphize the fetus and assign it rights. This is misguided for many reasons, but I don't believe it's fair to continually speak as if a pro-life stance is about invading a woman's body.

Side: Of course not!
Jace(4665) Clarified
2 points

Men are not the only ones opposed to legal abortions. Just saying...

Side: Of course not!
1 point

When there is a child involved, neither the man nor the woman have rights to their own body they have become one now. So they own each others body, so all decisions should be done together, not through one person.

Understandable that its your body but you have to accept responsibility for letting the seed inside of you, unless it was rape.

You can't just say "well I want an abortion now"

Its the mans child too, so if you aborted a child and the man said no, how is that fair at all?

Do you have no empathy?

Side: Of course not!
AngryGenX(463) Disputed
0 points

Men dont have the right to the womans body.

If only all the mall zombies felt the same way when they chose to spread their legs in the first place.........................

Side: Of course not!

No since it has causes detrimental risks to the mother and the child. It also has a respectable failure rate causing unplanned deaths.

Side: Of course not!
Jace(4665) Disputed
1 point

Source citations?

Side: Of course!
1 point

A fetus is a living thing and no one under ANY circumstance should have the right to take that away.

Side: Of course not!

It's a form of murder. I don't see how that's OK. If you didn't want to have a baby, you could have made that decisions in the bedroom. I think that in some cases-like rape- abortion should be allowed. If you wanted to have sex, you are going to have to deal with the consequences, not murder it. I don't see how abortion is any different than cutting off the baby's head once it is born.

Side: Of course not!
1 point

No, its murder.

If you don't want the baby: give it up for adoption.

The baby doesn't deserve

To lose its life because you made a bad decision.

- possible add a law that there has to be proof of rape for there to be an abortion.

Side: Of course not!

It ins't murder if it is in the early stages of the pregnancy. You can't murder something that lacks consciousness, that's like saying you can murder a plant.

Side: Of course not!
1 point

Only in very exceptional circumstances (when the mother's life is in danger etc.)

For small reasons, such as a persons financial circumstances changing, I think that it is most definitely wrong to rid the world of someone who could contribute so much good to it: the person who could cure cancer or a new technological inovater. Furthermore, when their are so many people in the world who can't have kids of their own, adoption by a happy and loving family is a far better solution than an abortion.

Side: Of course not!
1 point

Biology informs us that a living thing with a unique set of genes is an individual. If it comes from a giraffe, it is an individual of that species. If it comes from a human, it is of the human species.

We shouldn't permit the killing of innocent members of the human species.

Side: Of course not!
6 points

Abortions are at least as old as humanity. They are a part of our nature, however repugnant a person may find them. Consequentially, they will persist regardless of their legality. The primary difference is whether the practice is driven underground and left wholly unregulated, which opens up room for black market abuses of women, or not.

The solution to the abortion issue is not to make abortions illegal, but to target the root causes of unwanted pregnancies: poverty, lack of education, poor sexual education, etc. If you genuinely care about saving the lives of the unborn then you should care at least as much about these issues (though that is rarely the case for anti-abortionists). Anything less and you are giving superficial lip service to an ideal without fully and genuinely addressing it.

Side: Of course!
WillStorm(6) Disputed
1 point

target the root causes of unwanted pregnancies: poverty, lack of education, poor sexual education, etc.

- Agreed.

The primary difference is whether the practice is driven underground and left wholly unregulated, which opens up room for black market abuses of women, or not.

- If the fetus is a human being, then why would we make it safer for a person to kill it? Perhaps this analogy would help:

If you murder a pregnant woman you are charged with the death of two people. That is a dirty business, murdering people. It isn't safe. A person who does that is often mixed up in the black market of untraceable guns which is very dangerous and a person is likely to be taken advantage of or abused, aside from becoming acquainted with all kinds of undesirable people.

We shouldn't make it safer for that person or for those who are getting abortions.

What we should do is make pregnancy as safe and as comfortable for pregnant women as possible.

Side: Of course not!
Jace(4665) Disputed
2 points

- If the fetus is a human being, then why would we make it safer for a person to kill it? Perhaps this analogy would help [...].

The analogy does not help, largely because it non-responsive to my point. Abortion is as hold as humanity (older, probably). Criminalizing it will not make it go away; that is a fact. I am wholly uninterested in the morality of the matter, and entirely invested in the pragmatics. If we know a thing is going to happen and we do not want it to, then we should both take action to deter it and also to ameliorate its harms.

I would also charge you to substantiate your claim that those who kill pregnant women are caught up in the black market, and also that those persons become victims themselves in that context.

What we should do is make pregnancy as safe and as comfortable for pregnant women as possible.

We should do that regardless, and whether we do that is wholly independent of whether we also permit legal abortions.

Side: Of course!
3 points

The woman who is pregnant should be the only one making the decisions about her body. Other people should have no say in the matter. Politics need to stay out of women's bodies.

Side: Of course!
WillStorm(6) Disputed
1 point

What about the woman (or man) in the womb who cannot make decisions?

Side: Of course not!
2 points

Why is it wrong to get rid of a bundle of cells? You do the same when you bite your fingernails.

I bet most abortions occur when the fertilised cell has only matured to a zygote, and no further, so there is nothing to constitute an infant.

Perhaps it become less moral upon fetal development, but still, imagine a baby being born into a poor family, that cannot fend for themselves as it is, or a young single mother. That is no life to live - a constant struggle. I wouldn't want a child of my own to experience such daily hardship.

Side: Of course!
2 points

Of course! I would definitely say it would be better to "kill an unwanted child" than bringing a child to the world who would live a life without security. To have parents who are loving and ambulatory is everything a child needs. No one deserves to be born into a living hell with parents who are not able to take care of them. To be born into a troubled life is something no one deserves, and I would definitely say that if thats the case, abortion should be allowed.

To say that allowing abortions will cause more teenage sex and would make the teenagers not understanding the seriousness in getting pregnant, is a bad argument in my point of view. To get pregnant with an unwanted child is in any part of life a terrible mistake, but the ones who do go though with abortion have to live with this for the rest of their life, this feeling of killing a living organism, in my point of view this is a very big consequence to live with.

It is the parents' fault that the child was made, but why should this unwanted child get all the consequences of a mistake their parents did?

Side: Of course!

Yes but only in the first trimester. Abortions at like 20 weeks and later in my opinion are immoral but an early fetus doesn't have brain activity so isn't a person.

Side: Of course!
Nox0(1393) Disputed
1 point

Brain activity does not means thoughts, ideas or dreams, for something like that you need input first...

Side: Of course!
thousandin1(1933) Clarified
1 point

I don't believe that thoughts, ideas, and dreams are being asserted here; since he's using the 20 week figure, I presume what he is concerned with is pain. We go out of our way to avoid causing excessive pain to our livestock. In those states in the US that still have the death penalty, the majority opt for the most painless execution methods possible. Partway through the second trimester, generally by around week 25 or so, the central and peripheral nervous systems have developed to the point where stimuli, including pain, and the fundamentals of emotions can be experienced. More complex emotions aren't present, but more basic primal ones such as fear are; this is evident from analysis of brain activity.

Abortion in the first trimester, while still causing death, does not cause pain or fear; it is physically impossible for the fetus to feel these during that stage. Late term abortion is horrific specifically because of the things you noted- no thoughts, no ideas, no dreams, and negligible stimuli until the procedure; a fetus who is aborted late has had essentially no emotion or sensation other than pain and fear for its entire existence. It doesn't need to be a person yet for that to be wrong; that's worse than the way we treat veal calves.

Side: Of course not!
whygod(159) Disputed
1 point

God put a person in the sperm that goes into the women body.

Side: Of course not!
WillStorm(6) Disputed
1 point

What about born people without brain activity? Can we kill them too, because they are costing us a lot of money.

Side: Of course not!

Yes. Life begins at birth and women have the right to choose what to do with their pregnancy. The one carrying the fetus should have the final say.

Side: Of course!
thousandin1(1933) Clarified
1 point

I'm not going to dispute you because I'm pro-choice and don't want to add a vote to the other side, but...

"Life begins at birth" is quite possibly the most incorrect analysis one can make. Biologically, life begins at conception. Capacity to feel begins during the second trimester. Nothing particularly special happens at birth aside from the fact that suddenly stimuli are available to the fetus. Actual 'personhood,' the development of self-awareness and independent thought, however rudimentary, does not begin in most cases until well into the first year after birth.

Being anti-abortion means holding that life as sacred from the moment of conception; I don't agree with this angle.

Being pro-choice but opposed to causing suffering means allowing early abortion, but not late term abortion.

But late-term abortion is something I can't support; if abortion is fine up until the moment of birth, then infanticide within the first few months should be equally fine. Of course, cases where the mother is at significant risk are an exception to this.

I'm not trying to push women to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term, mind you- but if the decision is made to abort, it should be made early enough so as to not be causing pain. Cases of denial notwithstanding, it's exceedingly rare (though far from impossible) for a woman to get to the second trimester without realizing that something is up. Pregnancy tests are cheap- the Dollar Tree near my house sells them for, you guessed it, $1.

Side: Of course not!
0 points

"Life begins at birth" is quite possibly the most incorrect analysis one can make. Biologically, life begins at conception. Capacity to feel begins during the second trimester. Nothing particularly special happens at birth aside from the fact that suddenly stimuli are available to the fetus. Actual 'personhood,' the development of self-awareness and independent thought, however rudimentary, does not begin in most cases until well into the first year after birth. It is your belief that is crap. Everyone with a brain know that life begins at birth. Born infants have self awareness and you are really insulting the prochoice movement by saying that. Edit: Im the one who downvoted this my own comment.

Side: Of course not!
1 point

for people saying it is murder, please go back to 1st grade.................................................

Side: Of course!
1 point

I say no u shouldn't,get rid of ur child u have a baby and its ur fault u have a baby u able to stop ur self from having a baby anyways

Side: Of course!
1 point

If abortions aren't allowed already, then they should!

If you're saying that abortions shouldn't be used as a method of contraception, then you are absolutely right. There are health risks involved in it, so i agree with you.

But if it was an unplanned pregnancy, and both the parents (or just the guy and the girl) are not ready to be parents yet, then you simply can't force them. It's important to remember that the parents' lives are changed forever once they have a child.

if, as you say, abortions were made illegal, then every unplanned/unwanted child will be given away or left on the streets (as we know happens in asian countries). If the child is lucky enough to be adopted, then that's great! But not all kids will get to be so lucky.

Side: Of course!
1 point

Pro-life advocates are so often ignorant when it comes to the natural processes of a woman's body. The female body naturally rejects about 80% of fertilized eggs (read, the female body naturally aborts about 80% fertilized eggs) (sourcex2). So I'd love to see a pro-lifer try to drag Mother Nature into court and call "her" a murderer.

That aside, abortions are a personal decision the mother, and sometimes the father, makes. It's no one's damn business what she decides to do with her body, whether you like it or not. And if you have a problem with your tax dollars going towards the upkeep and operation of abortion clinics, maybe you should either work harder to change the socialist-type economy you live in or consider relocating to an area more suited to your ideals. Because the fact of the matter is, in a country revered (outwardly, anyway) for its individual freedom, you cannot claim to support such an ideology only when it suits your personal beliefs.

Side: Of course!

Does a woman have the right to an abortion under the U.S. Constitution? If someone is a strict constructionist who interprets the Constitution word for word, the sanction for abortion is given under the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Fourteenth Amendment of our U.S. Constitution defines a citizen “a citizen” at birth. If a woman is carrying a fetus in the womb, the U.S. Constitution does not designate the fetus as “a citizen.” It would take an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to declare a fetus a citizen. You have to be born in order to be recognized as a citizen. Therefore, a woman does have the right to choose. A fetus inside the womb is not designated as a citizen according to the U.S. Constitution so by default is not entitled to life, liberty, or prosperity. You have to be born in order to be endowed with those privileges. To conclude, neither the Federal government nor any of the States can deny a woman the right to choose.

If abortion is murder, abortion would have been terminated years ago due to the cruel and unusual punishment clause under the Eighth Amendment. Again, proof that a fetus is not recognized as a citizen of the United States of America.

Side: Of course!

Of course!

Side: Of course!