Is abortion a justified action? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Is abortion a justified action?
in Philosophy

By OshokeSuleOshokeSule 12 Pts edited May 25
The question that is very popular and important for women children and governments around the world.



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 582 Pts
    edited May 26
    @OshokeSule

    Yes, it is a justifiable action... The right to life doesn't entail the right to use another person's body, in whole or in parts, without consent. 
    all4actt
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • TKDBTKDB 256 Pts
    Adoption is an alternative to abortion.
    PlaffelvohfenZombieguy1987
  • Even though it's absolutely true that adoption is an alternative, it's completely irrelevant to the matter at hand, as usual...
    ZeusAres42Zombieguy1987
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • I would like to give a short answer "It depends on the situation". We can't judge it at all. 
    ZeusAres42
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1793 Pts
    I do not think it is something to be justified. It is just a natural choice that humans make, and it does not infringe on anyone's rights, so there is no reasons to provide any explanation for it.
    Zombieguy1987
  • DeeDee 652 Pts
    Yes , a woman’s body and a woman’s choice to make 
  • John_C_87John_C_87 204 Pts
    The question that is very popular and important for women children and governments around the world.

    So far it is unjustified action to be a justified action the question of why all woman must be placed in a group by admission of guilt of a crime needs to be addressed. Why? Acknowledgement of the admission by shared alibi is not addressing a complete justification of the issue it is the way privacy is taken. 

    Even though it's absolutely true that adoption is an alternative, it's completely irrelevant to the matter at hand, as usual..

    The fact is adoption is an alternative to raising a child not creating a citizen. An adoption as a united state allows a child to change his or her citizen ship. It is not the registration of a person who has never been a citizen.

    Yes , a woman’s body and a woman’s choice to make.

    Woman have been placed in the Armed Services throughout the world. In doing so they right of their body has become limited to the service that all woman are placed by this union of civil service. Female specific amputation is not abortion and the basic principle of returning a person who wishes to be a citizen to where they have come from is not murder.


      

    Plaffelvohfen
  • @Plaffelvohfen Excactly. While I believe personhood begins when the fetus has brainwaves, I still support a woman's right to choose.
  • @Plaffelvohfen Excactly. While I believe personhood begins when the fetus has brainwaves, I still support a woman's right to choose.
  • @Plaffelvohfen Excactly. While I believe personhood begins when the fetus has brainwaves, I still support a woman's right to choose.
  • @Plaffelvohfen Excactly. While I believe personhood begins when the fetus has brainwaves, I still support a woman's right to choose.
  • all4acttall4actt 44 Pts
    @OshokeSule 

    Yes, it is a justifiable action... The right to life doesn't entail the right to use another person's body, in whole or in parts, without consen

    Are you kidding about this justification?

    I believe that consent was given by the woman the moment  she decided to have sex without the proper protection against becoming pregnant.  

    You know the old saying "You play you pay"

    It is all about taking responsibility for your actions or maybe the lack of them.  

    There are too many affective ways to avoid getting pregnant these days to blame the child. 


  • DeeDee 652 Pts


    You say .....

    I believe that consent was given by the woman the moment  she decided to have sex

    My reply .....What if she was raped? So what if she consented there are various different reasons why a woman aborts

    You say .....without the proper protection against becoming pregnant.  

    My reply .....Again if protection was used and she changed her mind you’re saying she cannot why?

    You say ......You know the old saying "You play you pay"

    My reply ....You know the old saying “My body my choice” 

    You say ......It is all about taking responsibility for your actions or maybe the lack of them.  

    My reply .....A woman has a  responsibility to herself her body , her choice she has zero “responsibilities “ to an unborn it’s merely implied 

    You say ......There are too many affective ways to avoid getting pregnant these days to blame the child. 

    My reply .....Read above again
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 582 Pts
    edited June 12
    @all4actt

    Does the right to life entail the right to use another person body, in whole or in parts, without continuous consent? 

    I'm asking you the question, don't read in what is not there... Read the question as it is and answer me, then we can go deeper if you like... 
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 582 Pts
    edited June 12
    @all4actt

    Does the right to life entail the right to use another person body, in whole or in parts, without continuous consent? 

    I'm asking you the question, don't read in what is not there... Read the question as it is and answer me, then we can go deeper if you like... 
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • John_C_87John_C_87 204 Pts
    The question that is very popular and important for women children and governments around the world.

    The claim of any Pregnancy abortion justified, female specific amputation.

    Is abortion a justified action? No, there is always secondary alibi provided as the justification of a des cribbed admission to crime.



  • John_C_87John_C_87 204 Pts
    @all4actt

    Does the right to life doesn't entail the right to use another person's body, in whole or in parts, without consent? 

    I'm asking you the question, don't read in what is not there... Read the question as it is and answer me, then we can go deeper if you like... 

    Yes.
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 582 Pts
    edited June 12
    John_C_87 said:
    @all4actt

    Does the right to life entail the right to use another person body, in whole or in parts, without continuous consent? 

    I'm asking you the question, don't read in what is not there... Read the question as it is and answer me, then we can go deeper if you like... 

    Yes.
    So, if my life depends on it, I could force you to give me a kidney if yours is the only one that can save me, right? I could also force you to give blood or bone marrow to save others, regardless of if you agree or not? You're fine with this?
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 582 Pts
    edited June 12
    John_C_87 said:
    @all4actt

    Does the right to life entail the right to use another person body, in whole or in parts, without continuous consent? 

    I'm asking you the question, don't read in what is not there... Read the question as it is and answer me, then we can go deeper if you like... 

    Yes.
    So, if my life depends on it, I could force you to give me a kidney if yours is the only one that can save me, right? I could also force you to give blood or bone marrow to save others, regardless of if you agree or not? You're fine with this?
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • John_C_87John_C_87 204 Pts
    John_C_87 said:
    @all4actt

    Does the right to life entail the right to use another person body, in whole or in parts, without continuous consent? 

    I'm asking you the question, don't read in what is not there... Read the question as it is and answer me, then we can go deeper if you like... 

    Yes.
    So, if my life depends on it, I could force you to give me a kidney if yours is the only one that can save me, right? I could also force you to give blood or bone marrow to save others, regardless of if you agree or not? You're fine with this?

    You are exaggerating a principle to try and make a point about pregnancy abortion. You asked a question that was expecting a truthful answer. Your second condition set on the response after the answer I gave in honesty is not appropriate. You are changing the original question by add a new condition that was not part of the first question. My answer changes as well to no because of the condition you are adding to the original question.

    I can play this game to, I can choose not to play. There is not reason all woman have to hold an admission that describes a crime as a United State created in law. This is what abortion does in legal precedent, Unless a couple is married.  A witness has really no reason to believe you are registered to allow a person into the United States of America, therefor I can simply say there may be a female specific amputation to deny citizen ship and the person is deported back to were it came. Without marriage a pregnancy is just a dependent as a baby will always be a possible citizen of the nation to which the mother lives.

    Window shopping that all woman united with a accusation of rape is not the only legal precedent that can be tested as a responsible action in any United State under constitutional common defense to preserving of tranquility which is to place justice as a member in this union. 

    You are basically saying all woman can change the choice they have made to have sex and claim rape to have an abortion as a united state. Again Female specific amputation can be said to be a form of deportation all woman can share equally as a united state as the choice of accusation to crime is not required.


  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 582 Pts
    edited June 13
    @John_C_87

    If you think that the right to life entails a right to use someone body, in whole or in part without continuous consent, then it logically follows that you would agree to be coerced into something like giving an organ, blood, etc, to save a life... 

    Read my statement, forget the abortion angle, take it at face value, and tell me how does the right to life, entails the right to use someone else body, in whole or in part, without continuous consent.

    I don't know how you can demonstrate that the first entails the second...
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • @John_C_87

    you're using the Roe v Wade, the privacy principle... I think that it's weak and old, there's a reason the scotus doesn't want to go back and rule again, because there are new stronger arguments to be made and it would upset some ppl to have to argue against those new arguments...

    I think that Roe was a flawed ruling...
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • John_C_87John_C_87 204 Pts

    Read my statement, forget the abortion angle, take it at face value, and tell me how does the right to life, entails the right to use someone else body, in whole or in part, without continuous consent. As a legal precedent it starts by allowing for such things as medical donation of human organs. 

    I don't know how you can demonstrate that the first entails the second... It is hard as many women ask for a right to seek the baby’s approval as  permission on consent given by both parents before an occupation from the child takes place inside the mother.

    I think that Roe was a flawed ruling... Whole truth is often flawed. It is a collection placed in a union made from human truth, a ruling is not a creation of science data meant to be perfect or flawless by its assembly. It is left incomplete which becomes an additional argument for malpractice or crime. This is so legal actions can proceed as all choices made by woman do not match the ruling of the Supreme Court.


  • John_C_87John_C_87 204 Pts
    Basic principle.

    Is a pregnant female child committing a murder when she is taking action to send a immigrant back to the nation of his/her origin?
    Is the gradian of a female child committing a murder when giving orders to send an immigrant back to the nation of his/her origin?


    Is it possible to maintain a presumption of innocence built around the description of a crime?
  • @John_C_87
     As a legal precedent it starts by allowing for such things as medical donation of human organs. 
    John, donations are voluntary... You omitted the "without consent" part...

    You have not yet explained how the right to life, entails a right to the use of someone body without continuous consent...  Also the current laws, legal precedent, etc, are irrelevant to the problem at hand, as what I want is the logical steps from which we can conclude that the right to life entails a right to use someone body without their continuous consent... 
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • John_C_87John_C_87 204 Pts
    Your looking at the principle of the donation of human organ backward, also I didn't include it because it was a correction made by you after you observed your original mistake.



    I'm sorry but we are going to abort this kidney inside you, the donor's family by civil litigation can no longer provide the necessary paper work for you to own the kidney. As a medical need has arisen an it must be placed by court order in its rightful heir a family member.

    By the way all organ donations are not voluntary as a united state. It was a very hard topic any couple works through when planning Estate, guardian, and family funeral arrangements. If there are no specific documents or disease limiting the power of attorney by surviving guardian. This is about legal talk and not in line with preserving a constitutional union.
  • @John_C_87

    It's not like you to deflect and evade... I'm surprised and disappointed... So be it...
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • Hi :) 

    I believe it is a woman’s choice whether or not she wants to go through the trials of having a child. I know that adoption is a better alternative, but some women simply don’t have the time to deal with all of the paperwork, getting a lawyer, money issues, etc. 

    She could’ve been raped. That’s always a possibility. Why would the mother want a reminder of her rapist? Once again, the adoption thing comes up, but if you read through my previous statement, you’ll see what I’m talking about. 

    A fetus does not have any mental development, and once a woman notices she is pregnant and needs to get an abortion, she won’t do it when she’s at the nine month mark. That’s hard on her, for one thing. Most women get abortions when they first notice that they’re pregnant. 

    Sometimes, a woman accidentally gets pregnant, which isn’t always her fault. And even if is, can you blame her for not wanting something she didn’t sign up for? 

    It is completely unconstitutional to hold a woman from having an abortion. It is her body, her freedom. If she wants to live her life that way, nobody should judge her or make unnecessary laws making it extremely difficult for her to have an abortion. 

    A woman might not have enough money to raise the child, or enough resources. Her partner could’ve walked out on her, not wanting the responsibility. It’s very hard to be a single mom and provide for yourself and a child. A mom could not be ready for a child. 



    piloteer
  • TKDBTKDB 256 Pts
    What about the fellows rights, if the fellow wants to be a father? 

    There doesn't seem to much conversation wise, when it comes to this particular point of view? 
  • piloteerpiloteer 427 Pts
    @all4actt

    Rape. Incest. Even just faulty birth control are ways a woman can't avoid becoming pregnant. Now you think they have no right to make decisions about their bodies?!?!
  • piloteerpiloteer 427 Pts
    @TKDB

    What about the fellows rights? They don't have to carry the thing in their stomach for nine months, then go through with the birth. Exactly what rights are you talking about? I don't find any legitimacy in the "fellows" supposed rights to choose.
  • TKDBTKDB 256 Pts
    @piloteer

    The below are legitimate, and real world, questions:

    So if two adults create a baby together, and the lady decides on her own, that an abortion, is her answer to the two adults creating a baby, that maybe, the fellow, should be left in the dark, and told nothing?

    What if the fellow wants a baby, and doesn't have an issue, with the lady being pregnant, is it fair to him, or unfair to him, for the lady to have an abortion, if he's fine with having a baby, but to leave him out of the conversation in regards to a baby, being created because of a mutual intimacy? 

    (Couldn't, she give the baby up to him, if she decides that she doesn't want the baby, but he does?)

    Whether it was a one night stand, an affair, or a long term relationship, that maybe didn't work out? 

    So when it comes to abortions, are you maybe suggesting, that the only rights, are exclusively with the lady?

    My position, is that the abortion conversation, is a conversation, involving three sets of rights; The ladies rights, the babies rights, and the fellows rights

    And you're the first individual, who I've seen refer to an unborn baby, as a "thing?"

    "What about the fellows rights?
    They don't have to carry the thing in their stomach for nine months, then go through with the birth. Exactly what rights are you talking about? I don't find any legitimacy in the "fellows" supposed rights to choose."
  • piloteerpiloteer 427 Pts
    @TKDB

    If the woman chooses to leave the man in the dark about her decisions, that's perfectly logical and ethical. Whether the man wants a baby or not is of no value. Women are not vessels for men's wants or needs. The man should either find a woman who's willing to fulfil his disgusting needs, or he should figure out a way to create a baby himself. Just giving up the baby to the man is not a balanced option, because he can try and collect child support for a child that he didn't create. I am in no way suggesting that the rights are exclusively with the lady. I am absolutely without question stating that the rights are exclusively with the lady! Women are creators, not vessels.
  • John_C_87John_C_87 204 Pts
    @John_C_87

    It's not like you to deflect and evade... I'm surprised and disappointed... So be it..
    I often find my choice in writing topics personal annoying. Not the company.

    I'm not evading.....basic principle, then translated as a stupid answers by truth takes longer to organize for understanding. Being un-smart is not always the simple case use by society of just failing...………
    Any evidence of pregnancy that can be proven as not intentional in united state might be set by findings as attempted murder, not only the failing of contraceptive, or sexual assault as accusation rape.  Basically rape and attempted murder are the same thing by the evidence taken and show before law. The forms of evidence that can be found and shared as united state are the indications of, on the part of woman this describes an unintentional pregnancy as a possibly suicide attempt by her. 

    All of this  after the evidence of is know, a pregnancy abortion is justified by the alibi which is given against the united state made by a self-incrimination from its initial use. After hear a number of arguments, there is no other understanding than woman seek diplomatic immunity at the cost of American United States Constitution. Sadly...…...

    https://www.thefreedictionary.com/sadly



  • TKDBTKDB 256 Pts
    edited June 30
    @piloteer

    "They don't have to carry the thing in their stomach for nine months, then go through with the birth."

    Why no answer, to the below question?

    You're the first individual, who I've seen refer to an unborn baby, as a "thing?"

    What about the unborn babies rights, question?

    No pro babies rights, response on that question?

    Are you refusing to tread over babies rights question, for maybe being, in favor of the ladies rights only? 

    The guys rights question:

    You have plenty to say on that question though, didn't you, being that you treaded, all over it? 

    "If the woman chooses to leave the man in the dark about her decisions, that's perfectly logical and ethical.
    Whether the man wants a baby or not is of no value.
    Women are not vessels for men's wants or needs.
    The man should either find a woman who's willing to fulfil his disgusting needs, or he should figure out a way to create a baby himself.
    Just giving up the baby to the man is not a balanced option, because he can try and collect child support for a child that he didn't create.
    I am in no way suggesting that the rights are exclusively with the lady. I am absolutely without question stating that the rights are exclusively with the lady!
    Women are creators, not vessels. "

    The problem, with your choiced answers, they appear to be unfair, and unequal? 

    "Just giving up the baby to the man is not a balanced option, because he can try and collect child support for a child that he didn't create."

    Maybe to some who might want to be a father, could care less about "child support," and could, through their attorney, in family court, have it written into the documentation, that the father of the baby, doesn't want a penny from the lady. And wouldn't want child support, because the baby, is more important than the money is?

    The court documentation, could be written up, that way, and the Judge signs off on it, making it so.

    That process is called mediation.





  • piloteerpiloteer 427 Pts
    @TKDB


    """"Why no answer, to the below question?"""

    """"You're the first individual, who I've seen refer to an unborn baby, as a "thing?"""

    That's not a question. 

    The rights of the woman override the supposed rights of the thing. As far as being unfair to the man, I guess all I can say is sorry. Womens bodies are not public property and no man has a claim over our bodies. As far as a woman being able to sign a document that stipulates she's not responsible for child support, that's not a legally binding document. Even if a federal judge were to sign it, or Jesus Christ himself, the man can still collect child support from the woman for the thing he didn't create. Women aren't vessels for men's "needs" and desires.

  • TKDBTKDB 256 Pts
    @piloteer

    An unborn baby, is not a thing.

    What educational system, taught piloteer, that a baby is a thing.

    So that it self benefits this mindset?

    "The rights of the woman override the supposed rights of the thing."
  • TKDBTKDB 256 Pts
    @piloteer

    See if you can find the term "thing" in regards to an unborn baby in the below article?

    https://amp-montgomeryadvertiser-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.montgomeryadvertiser.com/amp/1594323001?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQA#referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/story/news/crime/2019/06/28/alabama-prosecute-marshae-jones-pregnant-woman-who-shot/1594323001/ 

    "Alabama district attorney may not pursue charges against Marshae Jones, prosecutors say

    MELISSA BROWN | MONTGOMERY ADVERTISER | 4:32 pm CDT June 28, 2019
       

    Prosecutors may not pursue manslaughter charges after an Alabama woman was arrested for the death of her unborn child, who was shot and killed during a December 2018 fight.  

    Marshae Jones was arrested Wednesday after a local grand jury indicted her on manslaughter charges, igniting a firestorm across the country. But District Attorney Lynneice Washington's office urged caution in a late Thursday news release, saying the office has not yet decided whether to pursue the manslaughter charge, reduce it or drop the case altogether."

    I challenge you to find the word "thing," in this article, about an unborn baby? 

    You created the context, now support your individualized rhetoric, through the very words of this published article? 



    Plaffelvohfen
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch