The Instigator
Liberals
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TheChristian
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

Abortion Is A Humane Mesaure

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
TheChristian
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/21/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,325 times Debate No: 70474
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (21)
Votes (1)

 

Liberals

Pro

Please, give me a GOOD reason too ban it.
TheChristian

Con

Since you didn't specify, I will assume I may post my argument-

Babies can feel pain at 8 weeks at the latest-http://www.abortionfacts.com...

In a direct quote from the site "

Yes, every abortion kills an innocent human being. Even more alarming is the fact that beginning at the 8th week of development, an unborn baby that is aborted feels pain during the abortion. The baby feels both psychological and real physical, organic pain. Let that sink in. Of course, whether or not abortion is a painful experience to the unborn child being aborted, the child is left no less dead as a result. In talking about the question of fetal pain, we must remember that it ultimately has no bearing on the morality of abortion.


Abortion kills babies. Wait, it actually gets worse. Abortion painfully kills babies."

And worse it gets. There was a case of a baby who, while aborted, was clinging to the womb(http://www.lifenews.com...)

This alone is proof that the baby has feelings. And no matter what the method of abortion, bith is still given, thus the "pain of birth" argument is irrelevant. And, as this seems to be the best way to end this round, Would you be prochoice if you yourself were aborted?

And abortion denies the rights to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness.

So, to recap-

1- Abortion causes pain

2- Abortion is murder

3- The fetus can feel pain (of course, the word "fetus" is an attempt to dehumanize the baby through wording)

4-Abortion is unconstitutional.
Debate Round No. 1
Liberals

Pro

If the drugs are administered, and the birth of the dead fetus is given, it is humane to the baby because it is painless.

But one thing we can do to deter abortion Is if we instill a new adoption system: If a parent does not want a baby, than she should be able to put up the fetus for pre-adoption, and once the woman gives birth then the baby then goes to parents who will love it and care for it. Chances are this will lower abortion rates significantly. And once the woman signs up, she cannot abort the baby.

And the woman can choose to abort if it is a case of rape, incest, or if the fetus will have severe birth defects.

But on the other hand, a fetus is in a woman's body, and is therfore part of a woman's body and she should have the right to to abort it. A detached baby is a son of that woman, not part of her body. Even if the show signs of life, they are not indipendent from the mother. Not everyone may agree with that, but you can't shove your beliefs into a woman's body (no rape pun intended). And a "painful" death can save a fetus from much more pain if it comes out into reality. It may have severe painful diseases or defects that could lead to a lifetime of pain, or maybe the parents are neglectful or abusive, which is terrible and degrading and can lead to severe injuries and lifetime psychological problems. and then think about being raised in an orphanage. Wouldn't it just be so depressing longing and longing for a parent? It does more good than bad. You can say it even saves lives, per se.
TheChristian

Con

"If the drugs are administered, and the birth of the dead fetus is given, it is humane to the baby because it is painless."
That right there is an admission that the fetus is a baby.
"But one thing we can do to deter abortion Is if we instill a new adoption system: If a parent does not want a baby, than she should be able to put up the fetus for pre-adoption, and once the woman gives birth then the baby then goes to parents who will love it and care for it. Chances are this will lower abortion rates significantly. And once the woman signs up, she cannot abort the baby."
Not sure how that argues against any of my points.
"And the woman can choose to abort if it is a case of rape, incest, or if the fetus will have severe birth defects."
Please take a close look at the chart, particularly the elective, incest, rape, and health bits-

REASONS FOR ABORTIONS: COMPILED ESTIMATES

rape 0.3 % (0.1-0.6 %)
incest 0.03 % (0.01-0.1 %)
physical life of mother 0.1 % (0.01-0.3 %)
physical health of mother 1.0 % (0.1-3 %)
fetal health 0.5 % (0.1-1.0 %)
mental health of mother ?? (0.1-8 %)
elective
--too young/immature/not ready for responsibility
--economic
--to avoid adjusting life
--mother single or in poor relationship
--enough children already
--sex selection
98% (87-99 %
Most abortions are because the mother had sex and didn't want a baby. Not because of rape or incest or health. And anyway, it isn't the baby's fault.(http://www.johnstonsarchive.net...)
"But on the other hand, a fetus is in a woman's body, and is therfore part of a woman's body and she should have the right to to abort it. A detached baby is a son of that woman, not part of her body. Even if the show signs of life, they are not indipendent from the mother. Not everyone may agree with that, but you can't shove your beliefs into a woman's body (no rape pun intended). And a "painful" death can save a fetus from much more pain if it comes out into reality. It may have severe painful diseases or defects that could lead to a lifetime of pain, or maybe the parents are neglectful or abusive, which is terrible and degrading and can lead to severe injuries and lifetime psychological problems. and then think about being raised in an orphanage. Wouldn't it just be so depressing longing and longing for a parent? It does more good than bad. You can say it even saves lives, per se."
How can abortion save lives that it kills? And a child/fetus/baby is legally dependant on its parents until it is 18. Does that mean we should legalize murder of all those under 18?
How can you say one would have much less pain if it is brutally butchered in the very body that is supposed to be safe?
My opponent has yet to rebut any of my arguments.
So, in addition to these old arguments, The new ones of
Legal dependance
Painful life
And just plain irresponsibility
And, i appologise, but pro, sorry I have not noticed this before, has the BOP.
With that, I pass the buck to pro.
Debate Round No. 2
Liberals

Pro

That was an accident when is said baby instead of fetus.

Perhaps most of the abortion reasons aren't incest or rape, but it doesn't mean that women don't abort fetus' for those reasons. And plus, all of the other reasons are perfectly good reasons for abortions.

When I said It saves fetus' life per se, I meant saving it from the possibility of a terrible life that most people would rather die than endure. And The parent has legal (the need to have an italics keyboard on this website.) responsibility for the children under 18. But fetus' are they completley reliant on the mothers body to live, And they live inside they're mother, unlike children under 18. A fetus is part of a woman's body, not children under 18.
TheChristian

Con

The rape/incest argument is nullified simply because of this path of reasoning-

A baby did not choose to be resulted from rape (my argument) Minor premise

The baby is innocent of the crime (punish the guilty, not the innocent) Major premise

A baby is not to be aborted (conclusion,my argument)

A parent has responsibility to give birth to you/raise you. That is their entire job. It doesn't matter how good or how bad your life is, it is up to you to make something of yourself. Them aborting you denies you basic constitutional rights. The following is an excerpt from http://indefenseoftheconstitution.blogspot.com... -

"The Court in Roe struck down states’ ability to prohibit abortions, holding that up to a certain point in term a woman’s “right of privacy” encapsulates the right to terminate her pregnancy while outweighing a state’s interest in preventing abortion. However, the Court drew this ruling from an overly broad interpretation of the “liberty” guarantee of the Due Process Clause. The “right of privacy” is not and cannot be guaranteed at all cost. No reasonable person would hold that something such as murder would be protected if done within the privacy of one’s own home. There are limits on what can be done by one even within the realm of privacy. Roe had no basis in the actual text of the Constitution itself. The ruling overlooked the textual guarantee of “life” which precedes “liberty” in the 14th Amendment. Moreover, it did so in preference for a “constitutional right” found nowhere within the text of the Constitution. If a ruling of the Court will have the effect of infringing upon a right guaranteed by the Constitution, the ruling cannot stand. In the case of Roe,the Court made such a ruling. This non-textual exercise of judicial activism cannot be perpetuated by this Court. "

It was unconstitutional then and the same holds today.

The rights our forefathers and the author of the Declaration of Independance wrote this dow


The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid w


http://www.ushistory.org....



I sadly had to remove a large portion of the Declaration due to lack of room,However the emboldened text tells us that abortion is against the Declaration.





Debate Round No. 3
Liberals

Pro

I have stated my argument and faced the BOP with this statement: "a "painful" death can save a fetus from much more pain if it comes out into reality. It may have severe painful diseases or defects that could lead to a lifetime of pain, or maybe the parents are neglectful or abusive, which is terrible and degrading and can lead to severe injuries and lifetime psychological problems. and then think about being raised in an orphanage. Wouldn't it just be so depressing longing and longing for a parent? It does more good than bad. You can say it even saves lives, per se."

Anyways, I belive we have reached what I like to call a split off point. Allow me to elaborate: every major issue has a point were there is really now way to argue for it, only your beliefs are your only argument. Like for instance: the death penalty argument's split off point would be: "is it hypocritical to kill someone because they killed another man?" Only your beliefs can really decide. In our case, it would be: "does abortion take away the freedom to pursuit a life and happiness?" So, I do not belive there is any need for more rounds because we have reached a split off point. Now, we must leave this argument to the voters.
TheChristian

Con

I agree, however, to speed up the elegibility of the debate for voting, I have to post this "accelerated forefeit". In the final round, I will present a summary. Good luck to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 4
Liberals

Pro

Okay. Here is my summary which is tole from round 2:

"But on the other hand, a fetus is in a woman's body, and is therfore part of a woman's body and she should have the right to to abort it. A detached baby is a son of that woman, not part of her body. Even if the show signs of life, they are not indipendent from the mother. Not everyone may agree with that, but you can't shove your beliefs into a woman's body (no rape pun intended). And a "painful" death can save a fetus from much more pain if it comes out into reality. It may have severe painful diseases or defects that could lead to a lifetime of pain, or maybe the parents are neglectful or abusive, which is terrible and degrading and can lead to severe injuries and lifetime psychological problems. and then think about being raised in an orphanage. Wouldn't it just be so depressing longing and longing for a parent? It does more good than bad. You can say it even saves lives, per se."
TheChristian

Con

https://www.youtube.com...... I advise the voters to watch this video before voting. Pro by default had the BOP, which I do not believe he fulfilled, and here is a summary of my points, compiled from earlier rounds-
R1-

Yes, every abortion kills an innocent human being. Even more alarming is the fact that beginning at the 8th week of development, an unborn baby that is aborted feels pain during the abortion. The baby feels both psychological and real physical, organic pain. Let that sink in. Of course, whether or not abortion is a painful experience to the unborn child being aborted, the child is left no less dead as a result. In talking about the question of fetal pain, we must remember that it ultimately has no bearing on the morality of abortion.


Abortion kills babies. Wait, it actually gets worse. Abortion painfully kills babies."
There was a case of a baby who, while aborted, was clinging to the womb(http://www.lifenews.com......)
1- Abortion causes pain

2- Abortion is murder

3- The fetus can feel pain (of course, the word "fetus" is an attempt to dehumanize the baby through wording)

4-Abortion is unconstitutional.
R2-
Most abortions are because the mother had sex and didn't want a baby. Not because of rape or incest or health. And anyway, it isn't the baby's fault.(http://www.johnstonsarchive.net......)
A baby did not choose to be resulted from rape (my argument) Minor premise

The baby is innocent of the crime (punish the guilty, not the innocent) Major premise

A baby is not to be aborted (conclusion,my argument)

A parent has responsibility to give birth to you/raise you. That is their entire job. It doesn't matter how good or how bad your life is, it is up to you to make something of yourself. Them aborting you denies you basic constitutional rights. The following is an excerpt from http://indefenseoftheconstitution.blogspot.com...... -
R3-
"The Court in Roe struck down states’ ability to prohibit abortions, holding that up to a certain point in term a woman’s “right of privacy” encapsulates the right to terminate her pregnancy while outweighing a state’s interest in preventing abortion. However, the Court drew this ruling from an overly broad interpretation of the “liberty” guarantee of the Due Process Clause. The “right of privacy” is not and cannot be guaranteed at all cost. No reasonable person would hold that something such as murder would be protected if done within the privacy of one’s own home. There are limits on what can be done by one even within the realm of privacy. Roe had no basis in the actual text of the Constitution itself. The ruling overlooked the textual guarantee of “life” which precedes “liberty” in the 14th Amendment. Moreover, it did so in preference for a “constitutional right” found nowhere within the text of the Constitution. If a ruling of the Court will have the effect of infringing upon a right guaranteed by the Constitution, the ruling cannot stand. In the case of Roe,the Court made such a ruling. This non-textual exercise of judicial activism cannot be perpetuated by this Court. "

It was unconstitutional then and the same holds today.

The rights our forefathers and the author of the Declaration of Independance wrote this dow


The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid w


http://www.ushistory.org.......



I sadly had to remove a large portion of the Declaration due to lack of room,However the emboldened text tells us that abortion is against the Declaration.

That concludes this summary, I enjoyed this debate, good luck to my opponent. I deleberately kept the misspellings so as not to edit my arguments.




Debate Round No. 5
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Daniel_Nemes 2 years ago
Daniel_Nemes
I am glad TheChristian won this debate.
Posted by TheChristian 2 years ago
TheChristian
Depends on how you vote...
Posted by Hanspete 2 years ago
Hanspete
Is it biased if I vote on this?
Posted by Liberals 2 years ago
Liberals
Yeah, I geuss you are right. I really need to work on my format and sources.
Posted by YamaVonKarma 2 years ago
YamaVonKarma
*Were
Posted by YamaVonKarma 2 years ago
YamaVonKarma
Pro. Where you even attempting to debate? From a very quick glance over; I see no case from you, and no sources. When I eventually to thoroughly read this debate enough to vote on it, I can assure you that you will not be receiving a win here.

To Pro: In the end, you can say whatever you want but you must source your arguments, along with building a case and defending it.

To Both: You need to work on how you format these to make them easier to follow.
Posted by TheChristian 2 years ago
TheChristian
Ok, no body watch this until its posted in the last round,im putting it here so I cant lose it.
https://www.youtube.com...
Posted by TheChristian 2 years ago
TheChristian
Burden of proof, it is something that says that f the instigator is pro, he has to prove himself right, or the other simply has to prove that they are correct or that they might be correct. you have to prove that abortion is humane as a result
Posted by Liberals 2 years ago
Liberals
What does BOP mean?
Posted by TheChristian 2 years ago
TheChristian
At which point most abortions occur, some ripping the baby apart and extracting it while the baby suffers through every second of it, sometimes completely aware of the pain
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bsh1 2 years ago
bsh1
LiberalsTheChristianTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro doesn't really present an argument. Con shows that most abortions are cosmetic, and thus unnecessary. Pro makes his personal opinions his argument, stating at one point that: "every major issue has a point were there is really now way to argue for it, only your beliefs are your only argument." Con effectively address Pro's objections to the rape argument, and establishes a right to life, which rebuts Pro's claim that it is more humane to let the fetus die than enter the world. At this point, Con is winning all of the relevant offense. Con also uses sources, unlike Pro. Thus, I vote Con.