The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
As pro, I take the stand as pro choice. The timeframe of possible abortion should be a time when the baby is not alive, but is confirmed as a fetus in early development. Abortion should be safe and legal in all states, for all reasons, and the final choice should come down to a point that will be specified in my arguments.
mother cannot support a child
the couple does not want to have a child before marriage
People will say that destroying a fetus is similar to killing a living person. This is philosophically incorrect. A person who has a life worth living has somebody who loves them/ takes the responsibility to care for them, a person who has breathed by their own will and had their own thoughts, and a person who, as a living being, functions independently. Fetuses that are aborted have none of those things. Fetuses that aren't aborted have someone who is prepared to be responsible for them.
There are plenty of people who can't have a child who would love to adopt one.
There are 107,918 foster children eligible for and waiting to be adopted.
What about people on breathing machines? Should we kill them?
Babies are first conscious in 24-28 weeks from conception.
We were all a fetus. The only difference between us and them is time. Would you have liked to be murdered just out of convenience? You are depriving the fetus of the right to life.
Taking, for example, Alabama, with the new abortion law being passed, the foster care system there will be flooded with all of the babies that couldn't be aborted. The effects of this will be:1.) Tougher competition to be adopted, leaving more children poor and on the streets in 18 years.
2.) Higher crime rate in poverty areas as children who were not wanted grow up.
3.) Few abortions below the poverty line, but a consistent rate above the line with people being able to leave the state and receive an abortion, or move to another state entirely for the abortion.
You didn't read my argument as a whole. People on breathing machines have memories, people who love them/ want them, and their own thoughts.It is the same thing for the argument about a person in a coma.
My definition of functions independently is this:Their skin is exposed to air and light, they take in nutrients through their mouth (Primarily), and they expel waste by themselves. People who are assisted by machines do not count against this, as they rely on machines rather than a human body.
If done correctly, I would have no opinion of being "murdered for convenience" because I don't know what life is, I don't know what death is, and I literally haven't existed yet.
I am not depriving "the" fetus from the right to life. People who are pro choice don't all abort their children, same as people who are pro-life secretly do.
We are not destroying lives that existed, we are trying to save lives that do. After all, for a woman to become pregnant she has to be at least nine, and many years can be ruined through either raising a child, or the trauma of giving birth in the first place.
This is hypothetical. How can you prove this?
What do you mean? Are you talking about biological parents who hate their kids but raise them anyway? Or adopted children?
3.) Few abortions below the poverty line, but a consistent rate above the line with people being able to leave the state and receive an abortion, or move to another state entirely for the abortion.um ok what is your point exactly?
Not the same for a person in a coma. You did not respond to my coma argument. I said "What about a person in a coma who will lose all their thoughts but still eventually wake up, let's say, in 9 months?" There is a condition called amnesia, where you lose all your memories and identity as well. Do we murder them?
Murdering a human being at any stage of life is depriving them of the right to life.
. The baby can feel pain when being aborted, when its arms and legs are being pulled apart and skull is being crushed. Then they throw it in a trashcan. How despicable. Abortion is evil.
Abortion is a modern day holocaust.
It doesn't have to be foster care adoption. Contrary to your point, many women suffer post-abortion trauma
When people abort, they do not do it lightly. They are cancelling themselves from giving life to a human being. This decision is a very hard one, but it is the mother's choice to make. If someone has a reason to abort, they should be allowed to legally and safely carry out the process.
However, there is also 500 babies that are aborted each year in low income neighborhoods from rape and untrustworthy birth control failing. Now, say, that about 40 of the kids in foster care are adopted in a year in this area. So, doing the math, with abortions, foster care gets 50 babies a year, and 40 are adopted. This will lead up to a slow buildup of children, but the kids that don't get adopted will slightly start to slip through cracks, never get adopted, and go out on the streets as a small crime figure. (Say, 1 out of 10 that are on the streets commit a violent crime).
Safe and legal abortions means less unwanted children
People on breathing machines don't have X, but do have everything else, where X equals the ability to breathe on their own accord. People in a coma don't have Y, where Y is thoughts and memories, but they have everything else (I think, not a coma expert) . Fetuses that are aborted don't have XYZ, With Z being people willing to take care of them. People on breathing machines do have YZ, People in comas do have XZ, fetuses that aren't aborted have Z, and fetuses that are have none.
Yes, there is no longer a fetus. Yes, they may have had good potential. But if you were forced to kill, say, a random stray or your own dog, you would kill the stray, because you don't know about its past or future life. All you know is that its life would be a life of struggle as the unwanted being that it has unfortunately become.
For people to learn this, they would've had to monitor a baby as it was being aborted, which would probably be more evil than the abortion itself.
[Holocaust] As in: systematic killing of men, women, and children because of their religion? Torture, property seizure, and neglect? Prison camps and ghettos?
If you are going to argue like that, you must realize that the holocaust is not something to be thrown around lightly. Abortion is abortion. Lives are prevented by people who willingly consent to it, (Hopefully), and lives are saved through lack of burden. Comparing abortion to the holocaust would mean that fetuses are the Jewish people. (Right?) Which means that they were blamed for something, generalized, stereotyped, and discriminated against. I do not see any connections to true fetuses. Safe abortions are individual choices, by independent people, against an early stage of human life, so early that they don't even know what is happening.
fetuses have no spiritual connections, they have no loves, no property, no bonds with family. They have a very basic physical connection between the person who will need to care for them for 18 years, and if that person doesn't want to care for them, they have no reason to live a long and painful life because some senator told their mom that their kid is more important than it is.