AAN Tour: Voluntary Abortion should be legal
This debate is part of the Adopt-a-Noob Tournament.
Pro's contention is that Voluntary Abortion should be legal.
The removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy. 
permitted by law. 
• Round 1 is for establishing the debate, acceptance and pleasantries only.
• 8k characters max. per round
• 4 rounds
• 72 hrs
• Select Winner Voting
• Judges: Ragnar, Mikal, Blade-of-Truth, phantom, YYW, Bladerunner060, and rross.
• 2 Week Voting Period (Please don't take that long judges!)
I thank Con for accepting the debate on this controversial topic.
I will use this round for my arguments on why "Voluntary abortion should be legal".
C1: The ability of a woman to control her body is part of her bodily rights.
This is the main argument that I'm going to present. My position is centered on the argument of bodily rights and bodily integrity. The violation of these is unethical and intrusive.
This argument alone is enough to justify the legalization of abortion.
This is the inviolability of the physical body and it involves different rights that should be guaranteed to women. Some of these rights are related to reproductive and sexual rights.
The bodily integrity ensure total control of the woman's body and the decision to continue a pregnancy or not.
-Abortion in the bodily rights' argument
Every woman has the right to chose what to do with her body and have others respect this bodily autonomy.
Legal abortion ensures the ability of a woman to control her body which is not possible if she is forced to continue a pregnancy.
-Abortion as a reproductive right
Reproductive rights definition is:
"Reproductive rights rest on the recognition of the basic right of all couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children" 
Safe and legal abortion is part of the reproductive rights of every woman and it's heavily related to the bodily rights.
If abortion is illegal, women would be deprived of these rights that are fundamental in a modern society.
-Beginning of life or personhood is irrelevant to the debate
The beginning of life and/or personhood is definitely an interesting topic that is as controversial as this debate, but it is not relevant because of the bodily rights' argument.
The rights should be respected independently of things like if the fetus is alive, a human being or a person.
This is important to note because this is a part of a common argument against abortion and the ability to choose and control of the woman's body.
This is easier to see and understand if we replace the fetus with a grown adult. This adult is alive, is a human being and a person but no one should be forced to donate organs or give his body to save the life of this person.
In other words women should not be forced to continue a pregnancy (donate her womb) to the fetus, even if this is alive/human/person.
For this reason the argument of life and personhood is irrelevant to the discussion.
C2: Making Abortion legal makes the procedure safer.
Abortion is a safe medical procedure when is done properly.
This can only be ensured if abortion is legal.
-Illegal abortion won't stop abortions
Women try to get abortions, even if this is illegal. For example, abortion used to be illegal in the US. Untrained "doctors" and conditions without medical standards were common characteristics of illegal abortion. Inducing own abortions were common too.
This conditions didn't stop women to get these abortions.
Estimates of the number of illegal abortions in the 1950s and 1960s ranged from 200,000 to 1.2 million per year only in the US. 
-Unsafety of illegal abortion
Making abortion illegal is a barrier to accessing safe abortion services and endangers women's health.
Before making abortion legal an estimate of 5000 women died each year because of unsafe abortions 
Illegal abortion is still the leading cause of maternal death. 47000 women die each year because of this. 
-Surgical abortion is a safe medical procedure
When abortion is practiced by a trained person, the procedure is safe with little to no risk.
It's complications are less serious than those related to giving birth. 
Pro has presented a compelling case for the legalization of Voluntary abortion.
The arguments were related to the bodily integrity of women and the safety of abortion in the world.
I await for Con's arguments.
Thanks. Vote PRO.
Pro presented some interesting arguments that I will be addressing at this time as well as bringing up new points. In this post I want to cover the issue of bodily rights, whether the beginning of life is really relevant, whether rape is really solved with abortion, how legality could effect abortion, and whether abortion is really a safe or good idea.
I thank Con for her rebuttals.
I will present now rebuttals for her rebuttals and show the reasons voluntary abortion should be legal.
1. The bodily rights' and reproductive rights
Con starts asking for the bodily rights of the woman's "baby", and claims that they should be respected because they are 2 different persons.
But the bodily rights or the fetus are not being affected. Remember that abortion doesn't mean "killing because it's in the woman's property", but using the woman's right to not donate her womb for 9 months.
In other words, the only rights affected are the woman's bodily rights.
My opponent then calls the pro-choice argument "one sided". This is totally false. Thanks to the bodily rights' argument we can see that having abortion as an option gives equality in the rights. We are not considering the fetus property, we are only showing that the fetus doesn't have the right to use the woman's body, just like no person has the right to use the woman's body.
Con then attacks the reproductive rights argument. She claims that the consent to sex means consent to pregnancy, but this is not true. And even if the woman uses contraceptives, she may still get pregnant.
Abortion deprivation violates her rights because if she gets pregnant, and doesn't consent the pregnancy, the fetus would be using her body without her consent.
2. Personhood and life are not relevant to this debate
My opponent doesn't accept that personhood and life are not relevant to the debate because she was not able to understand the argument. It being a person/alive doesn't affect the argument. You can replace the fetus with an adult human being and the bodily rights of the woman would be affected.
Now, Con claims that if the "baby" is just a blob with no feeling and no life, then abortion is acceptable, but if it's a person with feelings and alive and the ability to feel pain, then abortion is essentially murder.
I disagree here. Abortion is defined as the termination of the pregnancy, not the killing of the fetus. So independently of the status of the fetus, abortion is not murder.
And this is easier to see with example of abortions that result on the baby being alive. Caesarean section is a form of late term abortion because it terminates the pregnancy and the baby most of the times lives.
It's late term because it is practiced when the fetus is viable.
3. The issue of rape
My opponents attacks an argument I did not present. She claims that abortion is not a solution to rape because it doesn't "erase the rape".
But abortion was never intended to be a solution to rape. Abortion would be a solution to a pregnancy without consent. It's part of her rights that she should be able to defend.
Then Con claims "psychological damage" caused by abortion. The source she gives also make that claim but with no substantial evidence of it. But it doesn't matter because it is a myth.
The American Psychological Association(APA) has several studies about the relation between mental health and abortion . All reach the conclusion that "The best scientific evidence published indicates that among adult women who have an unplanned pregnancy, the relative risk of mental health problems is no greater if they have a single elective first-trimester abortion or deliver that pregnancy,"
4. Safety of abortions
1. Con tries to attack the fact that "abortions will not stop because of it being illegal".
She claims that there will be more abortions if abortion is legal. I never claimed that there will be the same amount or more abortions if it was illegal, I just said that abortions will not stop but I still consider Con's evidence insufficient. The chart shows the amount of abortions related to restrictions in different states. The problem lies in the fact that those are "official" and legal abortions only. It doesn't show the complete amount of abortions that are still a considerable amount.
I gave evidence that there is still a considerable amount of abortions in parts of the world where it is still illegal. 
Then Con claims that the legal abortion will cause "STDs, broken relationships, and many more unwanted pregnancies" which is a ridiculous claim.
Legal abortion may mean more abortions but it doesn't mean more sex. Sadly, the source of Con is biased and unreliable.
Con ends implying that legal abortions give a false sense of security to woman, but this is false. Abortions are actually secure and I presented evidence for that in my last round and also in this round.
2. Here Con attacks the safety of "the system". I assume she is referring to the safe of abortion.
She gives some reasons:
a. Loss of money: Even though is not related to safety, it is not a problem at all compared to any other surgery and actions that defend the human rights of the people.
b. Humiliating procedure: This claim is baseless and has no evidence to be true.
c. Health damage: This is another baseless claim. I have provided evidence that shows that there are less risk of complications in abortion than in pregnancy. It is a safe medical procedure.
d. Loss of her child: Con here implies that the fetus is wanted and the result of love between man and woman.
e. Loss of her peace of mind: I already showed evidence that this doesn't happen. Usually mental health problems after abortion are more related to problems before abortions (like rape) than abortion itself. 
f. Adds to current tragedy in cases of rape: Baseless claim. It begs the question as it implies what it is supposed to prove.
g. It takes innocent life: Here it is the first time Con claims the fetus to be alive SINCE CONCEPTION. And although the life of the fetus is irrelevant to the debate, "when does life start?" is a question without an exact answer in science.
That and the fact that abortion is not murder makes this a baseless claim.
h. Deprivation of civil rights: No rights are affected by abortion. First, claiming the fetus is a person without any evidence of it is baseless. Second, even if it was a person, the civil rights of this fetus/person would not be affected as already explained in my last 2 rounds.
i. Kills an innocent child: I think already 3 or 4 of Con's reasons are just this but paraphrased. Abortion is not murder. Abortion is the termination of the pregnancy. The fact that the fetus dies is just a fact of nature. It is not able to survive without the woman.
j. It avoids responsibility for one's action. No it doesn't. For starters, Con is implying that being pregnancy is necessary because of the woman's actions. Then it also implies that consent to sex means consent to pregnancy. And last it forgets that abortions is a way of taking responsibility of the actions the woman made or were made against her will.
Con then tries to attack the argument that "abortion is safer than child birth". Con claims that the damage of abortions is under reported.
She uses here a totally biased and offensive source, a site that calls those who defend the right to choose of a woman, "child disposal apologist". I ask and recommend Con not to use similar sites again. The site claims a lot of things but no evidence is found, only a broken link from a paper I'm not able to read or at least know the name of. The site claims that 50% of complications cause by abortions are not reported.
Con was not able to rebut the bodily rights' argument properly and stands as my main argument for the legalization of abortion.
Legal and safe abortion is necessary to ensure the rights of a lot of women around the world.
Thanks, Vote PRO.
I will present more about the problems with abortion and the reasons why it should not be legal by responding to Pro’s claims.
I thank my opponent for her rebuttals.
I wish her good luck in this last round and now I will present my rebuttals and show that voluntary abortion should be legal.
1. Bodily rights
Here Con still claims that consent to sex is consent to pregnancy but she doesn't give any reason for it.
Consent to sex is NOT consent to pregnancy. Human being is one of the several animal species that have sex for pleasure and not reproduction only. Dolphins and Bonobos do it also, and it's even interesting to note that scientist believe that this behavior makes Bonobos a really peaceful species compared to chimpanzees.
Claiming that consent to sex means consent to pregnancy is like saying that consent to sex means consent to STD. Sure, you could have STD even if you don't want it, and I really don't think you would want it, but the same happens with pregnancy. You could get one even if you didn't want to or didn't planned it. And you can be very secure, the chances will be low, but it's still possible.
2. Reproductive rights
Again, the Con's rebuttal is consent to pregnancy.
She says that except in cases of rape, the woman consents the sexual act, which is true, but again, it doesn't mean consent to pregnancy.
3. Personhood is still irrelevant
Here Con attacks the definition of abortion with a legal definition from an specific country, United States. I don't see any good reason to use that definition considering that she already accepted a definition at the start of the debate.
She also mentions that the doctors have to kill the fetus. This is true for a lot of abortions, but I really don't understand the objection. Is Con suggesting that the doctor should use a C-section to remove the fetus and place it there so it can slowly die?
The fact that the fetus dies is a fact of nature. And talking about C-sections, and I already mentioned this in my last round, it is a form of late term abortion that doesn't kill the fetus.
Con then claims that birth also terminates pregnancy, but remember that the resolution is "voluntary abortions". Maybe it would be better "Premature termination of a pregnancy", but there is no use because I don't see any reason for Con to try to illegalize births.
Now to end this issue, the reason the legislation of US consider abortion as just "early term abortions" is because that's exactly what their laws is about. And even if we accepted the definition of Con, that would not change the fact that abortion is not murder. Abortion is not about killing the fetus. Con can try to convince people that the fetuses should not be killed, make c-sections to women, and let them die naturally, those would still be abortions, but I don't think she will go anywhere with that. Abortion is not murder.
Con then claims that the analogy (replacing the fetus with an adult) is flawed because an adult has free choice where he lives and should pay rent.
Ok, Con can replace it with a 1 year baby or 2 years baby. It will be the same. Sure, now there is parental responsibility, but that will not change the fact that no baby/person/adult/human being should force others to donate.
Again, sure, analogies are not perfect, for that reason I ask Con to address the bodily rights' argument itself instead. The analogies are for easy understanding.
Here Con mentions consent again. She claims that pregnancy without consent is very similar to rape, which is false.
And now she mentions responsibility too. I already answered to this in her safety arguments against abortion. Having an abortion is taking responsibility for the situation a woman is in. And there are no parental responsibility because abortion is a way to abdicate parental rights.
In her next paragraph, Con claims that there are a conflict of rights between the fetus and the woman.
This is implying that the fetus should have all the rights, which I don't agree but I'm fine with because of the bodily righs' argument. If fetus is considered to have all the rights of a person, then it's true, there is a conflict with rights. But the rights that are not being respected are not the fetus rights, but the woman's rights. This is the whole idea of the bodily rights' argument.
Again, Con was not able to prove that abortion is murder. She tried to play with semantics and US law but went nowhere. She didn't rebut the bodily righs' argument correctly either. She addressed consent several times but with no proof or reasons to back her claims up.
5. Psychological damage is still a myth
Abortion does not have negative side effects.
Con is not able to provide reliable sources. She has to use sites that claims the same things she is claiming, but with no real sources. The site Con provided talks about a paper that doesn't seem to exist.
I provided sources from the American Psychological Association with SEVERAL studies about the issue. Con here is just repeating the myths.
And I can also provide the names of studies related to abortion that reach the same conclusion, anyone can buy them and read them. I just posted those from the APA because they were free.
6. Safety of abortions
-Illegal abortions continuing
I never claimed that abortions should be legal because they were not going to stop. It was a part of the safety reasons and it was necessary because of the comparison between safety of abortion being illegal and legal.
And her comparison with theft fails. She is implying that abortion is murder and as bad a theft.
Abortion is not something wrong per se.
Con continues to claim the long term consequences without evidence and provide similar sites with similar claims.
a. Money. She drops the original argument and attacks the rights. Already addressed
b. Procedure. What's not been proved is that it's humiliating.
c. Health damage. I stopped reading that site after the "Almost 100% of women regret abortions". Already addressed.
j. Avoiding responsibility. Abortion is not murder. Already addressed.
The rest arguments were already addressed and rebutted.
No sources were necessary.
I will now finish this debate with an attempt to demonstrate why it is not wise policy to legalize abortion.
The reason why consent to sex is consent to pregnancy is a large part of it is the sperm cells joining the egg cells, resulting in a baby. A sperm does not join a woman's egg without the woman's cooperation in most cases. The woman knows the consequence of having a baby, and has made her decision.
A processer of the bodies of aborted babies, says, “Pulled out 2 well formed arms and then the torso, headless. The head was at the bottom of the container, when I pulled it, he had this expression of such utter horror,” (http://www.lifenews.com...) The body was a baby, and the head showed that the baby felt the pain of abortion. If we found an adult body in such a condition, we would immediately think it was a murder.
The baby is alive at the age it is aborted. A doctor observed, "I think it's totally barbaric that a 24-week foetus will be aborted on one floor of a hospital and in the intensive care unit they'll be trying to save the life of another one." (http://www.dailymail.co.uk...) An aborted baby is a “preemie” that wasn’t lucky enough to have a mother that cared.
Pro never actually proved that abortion is not murder. He just asserted it. I have provided evidence and examples demonstrating just how horrific abortion is.
I addressed the bodily rights argument.
I have tried to show you the horrible things we are doing, and the humanity of the babies and their brutal daily murder.
We are depriving the next generation of their rights, while at the same time we say we value human rights. We murder unborn babies when we have the technology that could save them. We kill babies while we oppose the death penalty. We discriminate against babies because they are unborn, while we proclaim equality. We agree with torturing a child by tearing it apart, but spit upon people that abuse their kids. Our hypocrisy is astounding! We excuse it in our minds by saying that they aren't really people. But they are humans, and as humans, they have rights that should be taken into account. Please vote Con and make such actions illegal and restore our credibility as humans.
|Who won the debate:||-|
|Who won the debate:||-|
|Who won the debate:||-|
|Who won the debate:||-|
|Who won the debate:||-|