CreateDebate


Debate Info

6
6
Yes. No.
Debate Score:12
Arguments:20
Total Votes:16
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes. (5)
 
 No. (5)

Debate Creator

NomLovesMarx(310) pic



Should abortion be legal?

Yes.

Side Score: 6
VS.

No.

Side Score: 6
2 points

Of course it should be legal. For heaven's sake, the planet is massively overpopulated as it is.

I understand the right has much trouble when it comes to things like math, but let me simplify it.

Too many people = Bad.

Side: Yes.
roeun0531(1) Disputed
1 point

What do you mean? We are in a population crisis right now. The total fertility rate is declining since 1968 and the planet for sure is not massively overpopulated.

Side: No.
MrClementine(62) Disputed
1 point

What do you mean? We are in a population crisis right now

Banning abortion in a population crisis is a ridiculously stupid thing to do. Does any part of you comprehend that?

In 1800 there were a billion people on the planet. In the last two hundred years that has increased to almost 8 billion!!!!! Your use of the phrase "right now" is clearly not accurate, is it?

Side: Yes.
roprop06(1) Disputed
1 point

Why don't we just commit a vast massacre then? Are you dumb?

Side: No.
NomLovesMarx(310) Clarified
1 point

I agree that we have too many people, so let's talk about voluntary contraception, to prevention abortion, unwanted people being born, and maternal mortality, rates. My Mom, rocks the house!

Side: Yes.
MrClementine(62) Clarified
1 point

I agree that we have too many people, so let's talk about voluntary contraception, to prevention abortion,

Pretty much all responsible adults already use contraception to prevent not only unwanted pregnancies, but also unwanted sexual diseases.

My Mom, rocks the house!

Awww, that's nice.

Side: Yes.
0 points

Yes.

Generally speaking;- 4 legs=good, two legs=bad.

The earth is crawling with human filth akin to maggots on decaying food.

We contaminate the atmosphere, pollute the oceans and poison the land wherever we go.

NOT ONLY SHOULD ABORTION BE LEGAL, IT SHOULD BE COMPULSORY.

Side: Yes.
roprop06(1) Disputed
1 point

So I guess following your point humans should be eradicated because it's ruining the planet? Non-sense.

Side: No.
MrClementine(62) Disputed
1 point

So I guess following your point humans should be eradicated because it's ruining the planet? Non-sense.

No, that would actually be quite accurate. Humans are ruining the planet. All the data illustrates this. I think the issue is more that you are biased because you are (arguably) human.

Side: Yes.
0 points

Absolutely. None of that "inherent value in a life" garbage or "the fetus has the potential to become a human". That life only has value once it votes democrat and pledges allegiance to the anti-racist cause. Moreover, the convenience of the woman is more important. And so is the climate. We need to kill people to save the planet. May as well kill the most innocent and those with the longest to live first. After all, in my pathetic zero sum game view of the world, that baby could take my place! Unthinkable!

You know what, what about those post-birth fetuses? Can we abort those too? They'll probably live crappy lives anyway, it's a mercy really.

Actually, why not abort the babies that contribute less to society? Like those babies that come from those rich capitalists that steal from all the workers, just abort them before they can continue stealing as part of their oppression dynasty. Then we can just have more productive welfare babies instead.

Side: Yes.
MrClementine(62) Disputed
1 point

Absolutely. None of that "inherent value in a life" garbage or "the fetus has the potential to become a human". That life only has value once it votes democrat and pledges allegiance to the anti-racist cause.

Oh, shut up. You guys want to force women to have kids they can't afford to support, while at the same time you want to dismantle the social security system which keeps them alive!!! The hypocrisy of it is just mad. Pro-life until 18. Anti-life after 18.

Side: No.
Nomoturtle(798) Clarified
1 point

You guys? I'm in the middle. I think a woman should be held responsible for having unprotected sex only if she chooses to, the same way a man should and already is, because the two did so knowing full well the risks and what it means, and consented to it. I think in cases where there was no consent then it may be immoral (as in a two wrongs don't make a right), but fair, to have an abortion. This is literally the mid-way position, the consensus that we're supposed to be sitting in.

However I do think the left's argument for unrestricted abortion is insane. It is quite literally a position where it is acceptable to kill another person for ideological reasons. The same standard does not apply anywhere else. Even killing someone else to survive is morally ambiguous, so why would killing someone for convenience, and to avoid the consequences of your own actions no less, be at all reasonable?

Yeah incidentally I do think the social security system should be dismantled, or rather, limited, it creates an issue of depandance. For example, in the US, black families have been falling apart for 60 years because mothers will kick out the men for a welfare check, and the child suffers overall. So yeah, get rid of it. Not because I want people to suffer and die after they turn 18, but because if it was dismantled, then those people would still survive, but by other more productive means that can go on to save others as well, whether that's towards raising their own kids well, or towards strangers through the economy. But as things are, what do you think people will choose between welfare and a job that pays at or a little above welfare?

Side: Yes.
No arguments found. Add one!