The Instigator
Oxymoron
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points
The Contender
Rayze
Con (against)
Losing
12 Points

Abortion Ought To Be Illegal

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 7 votes the winner is...
Oxymoron
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/4/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,925 times Debate No: 27811
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (37)
Votes (7)

 

Oxymoron

Pro

-Abortion Ought To Be Illegal-


The primary topic of this argument shall reside in the legality and morality of abortion as it relates to United States law. In the first round, I kindly ask for the Con to articulate his/her argument and then respond to mine.


Definitions:


Fetus: An unborn offspring, from the embryo stage until birth.

Life: A characteristic that distinguishes objects that have signaling and self-sustaining processes from those that do not. [1]


If the Con has a reasonable and logical problem with these definitions, please say so.


The Argument:

Primary Point: A fetus is living and human. The fetus grows, develops, responds, and maintains homeostasis. These are the primary distinctions from living organism and inanimate material. For example, from weeks 9-16, “The 4 chamber heart is finishing developing and the embryonic tail goes away. Breathing-like movement of the fetus is necessary for stimulation of lung development, rather than for obtaining oxygen” [2].

The human fetus, is well - human. Obviously it can’t be a whale fetus or a canine fetus. Living things begat after their own kind. Humans begat humans. It’s a principle of biology - it’s biogenesis [3]. This point might sound silly, even self-evident, but you will be amazed by the number of individuals that will deny it.

Secondary Point:
If it is accepted that a fetus is a living human being, the legal ramifications are dire. In the very same amendment that was cited as justification for the Roe v. Wade decision, i.e. the 14th Amendment, there is the Equal Protection Clause that requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction [4]. If fetuses are accepted as human beings, then the untold millions of babies aborted in the United States alone, were unjustly murdered [5]. An estimated 44 million induced abortions are performed each year [6]. In two years from the time this debate is finished, more fetuses will be aborted than the total death toll of WWII. The amount of deaths in numbers like these are incomprehensible to the human mind and our emotional capabilities. You don’t know if you ought to cry; respond in anger; or, like many, remain in a hazy cloud of emotional emptiness.

Third Point:
On the assertion that women retain the right to terminate a fetus is unjustifiable, with the exception of the endangerment of the mother’s life or other critical complications.






Sources:

[1] Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] Ibid.
[3] Biology-online.org: “The process in which life forms arise from similar life forms.” http://www.biology-online.org...
[4]Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org...
[5] Cdc.gov: “Results: A total of 857,475 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC for 2000 from 49 reporting areas,” http://www.cdc.gov...
[6] http://www.guttmacher.org...
Rayze

Con

I accept this debate, and may the better debater win.

My position is pro-choice as I believe that a women is entitled to her own rights and body.

Contentions:

A woman is entitled to her own body. Men, Especially politicians and clergy should not trample on the rights of women to prevent abortion. The United States constitution protects a women's right to abortion (note the 13th, and 14th amendment).(1) In addition there is also multiple theories of when life begins. Some like my opponent believe that life occurs at conception, while others such as myself believe that life begins when the baby is born. By making abortion illegal without the consensus of when life begins would be forcing a theocratically tinged theory onto everyone.(2)

Rape has been mentioned in the comments so I will also use it as a contention. Rape is a traumatic experience on a woman, and forcing the woman to care for the rapist's child would add unneeded mental stress on the woman after experiencing a traumatic incident. (3)

Then there's also unwanted teen pregnancies. Pregnant teens are often not ready physically nor psychologically prepared to go through with a pregnancy. Also, ignoring health complications, a teenager is not psychologically ready for the responsibilities of raising a child. With a child to support teen moms often drop out of high school so that they could take care of the child despite having low chances for financial success. (3)
Also if, I was a father of a daughter and I find out she's pregnant do I want to punish her by making her stay pregnant and then care for the child? No, I wouldn't, after all that would be considered a cruel and unusual punishment as I am stamping out my daughter's education and future because of her mistake.

Rebuttals:

"Primary Point: A fetus is living and human. The fetus grows, develops, responds, and maintains homeostasis. These are the primary distinctions from living organism and inanimate material. For example, from weeks 9-16, The 4 chamber heart is finishing developing and the embryonic tail goes away. Breathing-like movement of the fetus is necessary for stimulation of lung development, rather than for obtaining oxygen.

The human fetus, is well - human. Obviously it can't be a whale fetus or a canine fetus. Living things begat after their own kind. Humans begat humans. It's a principle of biology - it's biogenesis. This point might sound silly, even self-evident, but you will be amazed by the number of individuals that will deny it."

Now you use Biology to try to show your case, but you are merely stating the obvious since the fetus that we are debating about is a human fetus. Your contention is like saying that sperm cells and eggs are alive so we should respect it with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Cells develop, respond, and maintain homeostasis, so why should the right of a fetus trample on the right of the woman who is burdened by the stress of the unplanned pregnancy? (3)

"Secondary Point: If it is accepted that a fetus is a living human being, the legal ramifications are dire. In the very same amendment that was cited as justification for the Roe v. Wade decision, i.e. the 14th Amendment, there is the Equal Protection Clause that requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction..."

I do not know how you came to this conclusion as the Equal Protection Clause states, "All persons Born or Naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Note how the clause states all persons Born or Naturalized in the United States. This would not apply to a fetus as a fetus is not yet born, therefore your contention has been refuted. (1)

"Third Point: On the assertion that women retain the right to terminate a fetus is unjustifiable, with the exception of the endangerment of the mother's life or other critical complications."

The contention of pro states that a women does not have the right to her own body. This contention violates the 13th amendment which states, "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.". This falls under involuntary servitude as States do not have the right to force a woman to remain pregnant. In addition my opponent will try to refute this rebuttal by stating that a fetus is its own separate entity. However, a fetus relies on the mother for nutrition and health via the placenta and umbilical cord refuting that contention. (1)

1. United States Constitutions Amendments 13 and 14
2. http://www.buzzle.com...
3. http://healthcare.procon.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Oxymoron

Pro

- Going OnThe Offensive -

Con's Unrealistic Expectations:
“In addition there is also multiple theories of when life begins. Some like my opponent believe that life occurs at conception, while others such as myself believe that life begins when the baby is born. By making abortion illegal without the consensus of when life begins would be forcing a theocratically tinged theory onto everyone.(2)”

Here Con attempts at a sort of Nirvana fallacy by requiring a perfect consensus in order to come to a conclusion. There are different opinions on when life begins; therefore we cannot make a conclusion? Obviously that does not logically follow. It’s a desperate attempt to give an argument some validity and, thus, I’d consider his first point invalid.


Con's False Dilemma
: “Rape is a traumatic experience on a woman, and forcing the woman to care for the rapist's child would add unneeded mental stress on the woman after experiencing a traumatic incident. (3)”

Rape is a traumatic and destructive experience for a woman, but it does not follow that the life of the fetus ought to be terminated. Con is attempting to set up a false dichotomy in which there are only two choices:


1. Force the woman to go through the psychological pain of caring for the rapist’s child.
Or
2. Terminate the life of the child.


Obviously those are not the only choices! There is a third choice that completely circumnavigates the murder of the child and the stress of the mother -- adoption.


Con's Arbitrary Assertions and Second False Dilemma:
“Pregnant teens are often not ready physically nor psychologically prepared to go through with a pregnancy. Also, ignoring health complications, a teenager is not psychologically ready for the responsibilities of raising a child.”

To answer the health problems associated with teen pregnancy, I refer back to my Third point, which states: On the assertion that women retain the right to terminate a fetus is unjustifiable, with the exception of the endangerment of the mother’s life or other critical complications. Now, on to your false dilemma. First of all, it is arbitrary to say that teen mothers cannot handle a child. Secondly, you again present only two choices to the teen mother: Kill it or deal with it. These are not the only choices available, however. There is always adoption.


Con Prefers “Financial Success” Over The Sacred Right To Life: “With a child to support teen moms often drop out of high school so that they could take care of the child despite having low chances for financial success. (3)”

Therefore abort it? The conclusion does not follow. The view that financial gain trumps the right to life is, frankly, archaic.


Con Takes “Financial Success” Over Life Again: “Also if, I was a father of a daughter and I find out she's pregnant do I want to punish her by making her stay pregnant and then care for the child? No, I wouldn't, after all that would be considered a cruel and unusual punishment as I am stamping out my daughter's education and future because of her mistake.”

As a father, you ought to understand that the teen does not have to abort the child! There are plenty of families willing to take care of an unwanted child, including mine.



A Closing Remark On Con’s Argument: Con’s argument is lacking on many sides. Have you noticed any attempt on the Con’s part to justify his position on the beginning of life? Neither have I. He has, however, attempted to discredit the theories on the beginning of human life by saying there is no consensus, which, as I have said above, is fallacious.



- Defense of My Argument -


How Are We Different From A Fetus?:
“Your contention is like saying that sperm cells and eggs are alive so we should respect it with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

This leads us to an interesting question. Namely, are humans more than just a pile of cells? For the sake of the debate, I will hold the secular belief that they are not. I will assume that Con also holds this belief.

If a fetus is just a clump of cells and an adult human is just a clump of cells, what is the difference between the two? I will give my response to this question and I expect Con to give his in his next response.


Response: We Aren’t:
On a secular point of view, it would be odd to suggest that we are anything more than a mass of cells (or even smaller atoms, etc.). On the same view, a fetus is also a mass of cells. Is a fetus, before birth, merely a constituent part of a woman like all the other clumps of cells within her, or is the fetus different?

The fetus is a separate and individual entity - entirely separate from the mother and the other cells within her body. There is no concrete difference between individual humans besides their DNA and DNA expression. It is by this standard that we judge differences between individuals within a specific species [1]. The fetus’ DNA is separate and completely unique when compared to both parents [1]. Therefore, the fetus is an unique individual human being (a clump of cells that is within the species of Homo Sapiens) being separate in his mother and father in DNA and DNA expression.


Viability is Not Uniqueness:
“In addition my opponent will try to refute this rebuttal by stating that a fetus is its own separate entity. However, a fetus relies on the mother for nutrition and health via the placenta and umbilical cord refuting that contention. (1)”

The fact that a fetus cannot survive without the mother does not negate the fact that the fetus is a unique and separate human being. Viability does not equate to uniqueness.

The fetus is dependent on the mother, but so is a three-week old baby. How does "dependence" determine humanness, let alone whether that human being has a right to Life or not? We are all dependent on something - it’s our nature.


Con Does Not Recognize the Purpose of My Secondary Point:
“I do not know how you came to this conclusion as the Equal Protection Clause states, "All persons Born or Naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Note how the clause states all persons Born or Naturalized in the United States. This would not apply to a fetus as a fetus is not yet born, therefore your contention has been refuted. (1)”

In my secondary point I state: “If it is accepted that a fetus is a living human being, the legal ramifications are dire. In the very same amendment that was cited as justification for the Roe v. Wade decision, i.e. the 14th Amendment, there is the Equal Protection Clause that requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction..."

Note the bolded contingent clause. It has a purpose in the debate that Con has either ignored or accidentally looked over: I.e. that if my primary point is accepted (that a fetus is human and alive and is, therefore, an individual human being) the law of the United States would have to accommodate this and include fetuses as unborn citizens. I.e. the definition of citizenship would naturally change to include an unborn child. Con’s rebuttal is moot.


Con Uses A Straw man Argument:
“The contention of pro states that a women does not have the right to her own body.”

This statement is completely out of context. My point is this: women do not retain the right to terminate a fetus, without just cause (I.e. the endangerment of the mother’s life or other critical complications). Con is attempting to discredit my argument by associating sweeping generalizations with my stance on abortion.


And with that, I await my opponents response.


Sources:
[1] http://news.sciencemag.org...
Rayze

Con

For the sake of space the rebuttals have been numbered
1.) Con's Unrealistic Expectations
2.) Con's False Dilemma
3.)Con's Arbitrary Assertions and Second False Dilemma
4.)Con Prefers "Financial Success" Over The Sacred Right To Life
5.)Con Takes "Financial Success" Over Life Again
6.)A Closing Remark On Con"s Argument
7.)Viability is Not Uniqueness
8.)Con Does Not Recognize the Purpose of My Secondary Point
9.)Con Uses A Straw man Argument

1. & 6.) I have not stated which theory I believe in to maintain objectivity, but it seems to have backfired with accusations of the nirvana fallacy. I personally believe that life exists after birth, not during conception. In addition because pro could not refute the contention (due to lack of information on my part) he declares that it is a nirvana fallacy when I have not explicitly stated nor implied that consensus must be unanimous. If I had done so then he would be correct that it would be a nirvana fallacy, but because I have not implied nor stated that consensus must be unanimous the fallacy accusation is false. Instead I am stating that consensus be the majority instead of a theocratic minority.

2.) ... It seems that my opponent would rather have the rape victim remember the trauma of rape for 9 months and feel the full effects of the unwanted pregnancy, give birth to the rapists child, and then send the child away for adoption. Is this correct? If it is then it is an arbitrary declaration and goes against the 13th amendment if the state enforces your contention. Because noting the traumatic experience the victim will seek an abortion instead of carrying the child. In addition I must ask you to not equivocate my contentions with false dilemmas which is not the truth.

3.) "First of all, it is arbitrary to say that teen mothers cannot handle a child. Secondly, you again present only two choices to the teen mother: Kill it or deal with it. These are not the only choices available, however. There is always adoption." Actually it is the simple truth not an arbitrary declaration. The Frontal lobe (the part of the brain that determines right from wrong) is not fully developed in adolescents (both male and female) until they are in their early 20's. In addition I did not declare nor imply any false dilemmas, so if I were you I would be careful with declaring false accusations and stick with the facts. I never stated the options which you stated, whether a woman wants to abort the fetus is up to her. If she wants to send it off through adoption that is her choice. I do not dictate what goes on in a woman's body nor do I force people to do something against their will.

4. & 5.) My opponent has committed the Fallacy of quoting out of context. I have stated a theoretical situation to show that I would be violating the US constitution if I followed pro's resolution, but my opponent has declared that financial success must be the reason why I support abortion. Completely fallacious. Also in most cases of unwanted teen pregnancies, economic hardships occur as a result of the pregnancy as the teen drops out of high school severely hampering her career opportunities. Also there have been cases where parents revoke any support they had for their child, forcing the teen to fend for herself and the unborn fetus.

7.) An infant can still survive albeit a brief time without the mother. This has been proven in the orphanages, and in human history. This is proven throughout human history as abandoned infants who are lucky to be found are treated for malnutrition, and saved from death. The unfortunate infants on the other hand often die of exposure, or dehydration. A fetus on the other hand can not survive without the mother. The fetus is not plagued by the same things as the fetus is completely dependent on the mother's health habits. If the mother experienced stress from abuses, then the fetus receives inadequate nutrition from the placenta placing the fetus at risk. This is due to the fact that fear and mental trauma fluctuates blood pressure.

8.) It seems that my opponent has misinterpreted the Equal Protection Clause as he claims that it would include an UNBORN child. When the Amendment clearly refers to Citizens Born or naturalized in the US. If a fetus is born then please correct me.The 9th amendment states, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The 9th amendment states how the Constitution should be read as well as deferring rights to the people. So my opponent's misinterpretation of the equal liberties clause is understandable since most people skip right over most of the text instead zeroing in on retained by the people.

9.) I refute your contention that my rebuttal is a straw man argument as modern medicine has advanced to the point where a mother's or child's life is often not at risk which would basically abolish abortion if your resolution passed politically. This is because we have the technology to treat cleft palates, and other physical defects. The only time abortion would be needed is when the child is still born or is afflicted with diseases similar to Tay-Sachs disease which has no known cure. However, Tay-Sachs disease is often reduced or prevented through in vitro fertilization or prenatal diagnosis. Therefore your contention is exactly what I have stated without its eloquence.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.edinformatics.com...
http://www.buzzle.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Oxymoron

Pro

Con Has Fumbled On The Most Important Issue:

In the paragraphs titled, “Viability is Not Uniqueness“, “How Are We Different From A Fetus?”, and it’s response, “We Aren’t”, I have given my case clearly and to the best of my ability. In contrast, Con has ignored the real question: is a fetus a living, growing, individual human? Instead he has focused on the comparatively rare incident of involuntary conception (I.e. rape).

In response to Viability is Not Uniqueness, Con (instead of contending with my claim on his equivocation) lectures us on how long a three-week old baby and a fetus can survive without a mother. As if it was a horse race. I think we can safely conclude that Con did not adequately respond to any of these paragraphs. In fact, he didn’t even take a stab at “How Are We Different From A Fetus” and its accompanying response, “We Aren’t”.

Since Con has refrained from any counter-argument on the individuality and humanness of a fetus, I will conclude, since this is the last round, that Con has conceded this most important of issues. As a result of his silence on the issue, there is whole new surge of justification to my secondary and third point and nullification of all attempts at justification through the event of rape, financial loss, and the repeatedly used argument through the 13th and 14th amendments.


Another Explanation On My Secondary Point:
My secondary point was meant to be acknowledged as this: If a fetus is found to be a living, developing individual, then United States law ought to reform its definition of citizenship (specifically I wanted the 14th amendment to be reformed). I am not actually declaring that the 14th Amendment currently protects an unborn child from murder -- although it ought to. Con, however, has repeatedly misinterpreted the true meaning of my secondary point. I hope now,Con finally understands it as a theoretical point for the reformation of the U.S. definition of citizenship (specifically in 14th amendments, etc.) with the acceptance of the unborn child as a human individual.


Out Of The Frying Pan And Into The Fire For Con:

Initially, Con accused me of believing “…a women does not have the right to her own body.” I called him out for this as an out of context misrepresentation of my views. As justification for this accusation, Con said this: “modern medicine has advanced to the point where a mother's or child's life is often not at risk which would basically abolish abortion if your resolution passed politically."

He’s saying that if my point of view was taken, abortion would be abolished and, therefore, a woman does not have the right to her own body. This belief necessarily reduces a woman’s right to her body as merely having the right to abort a child. A woman’s right in relation to her body is more than abortion.

I support both women’s and men'sright to their own bodies in all circumstances - as long as it does not infringe or endanger other’s. Con’s sweeping generalization and accusing me of being completely against the rights of a woman in relation to her body is thoroughly unfounded and has unjustly characterized me as opposed to women.


Consensus Is Not The Same As Truth: “By making abortion illegal without the consensus of when life begins would be forcing a theocratically tinged theory onto everyone.”

Consensus simply does not bring about truth (for example, in the middle ages there was a consensus that the earth was flat). It is for this reason, that facts and sound reasoning are the only things that bring the truth to light. The fact that there are different opinions on an issue does not render the facts useless. In this sense, your first contention remains a Nirvana fallacy (1).


My Argument Is Not Of The Minority
: “Instead I am stating that consensus be the majority instead of a theocratic minority.”

Here, Con has made a factual error. In almost every poll, the country is divided almost evenly on abortion (2). I do not represent a minority as Con would like to suggest and I am definitely not theocratic. I am not, either, trying to suggest a consensus trump card. Truth is not found in numbers, but in facts.


The Child Is Not An Accomplice:

Abortion is not justified in the case of rape for two reasons:

1. An abortion does not render the pains and trauma of the rape benign. The abortion is not magical, it fixes nothing. All it does is create another victim - the child, and that’s it. Let’s focus on the real issue (i.e. carrying out justice on the perpetrator). Any counter-arguments are made null by point two.

2. The unborn child is not an accomplice in the crimes of the father and is therefore innocent. There is no justice found in the abortion, there is only death.

The 13th amendments and 14th amendments (and others like them) are void here because you cannot justify taking the innocent life of the unborn child. It’s oxymoronic. The Amendments in the Constitution are meant to protect the self-evident right that all men are created equal. And that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. Any amendment or document that infringes on these unalienable rights are null and void.


Poverty Is Not Justification:“Also in most cases of unwanted teen pregnancies, economic hardships occur as a result of the pregnancy as the teen drops out of high school severely hampering her career opportunities.”

Although there is no outright conclusion, we can all see that Con is attempting to justify abortion because the teen mother would lose financial opportunities. If the fetus is a living, human individual, then the teen mother is not justified to abort it - even if she might lose some financial opportunities. This was the original intention of the paragraphs titled “Con Prefers ‘Financial Success’ Over The Sacred Right To Life” and “Con Takes ‘Financial Success’ Over Life Again”.


Con Remains Ambiguous Throughout The Debate:

Throughout the debate I have constantly tried to give conclusions wherever necessary. Con however has refrained from this - even he admits it when speaking of his first contention:“In addition because pro could not refute the contention (due to lack of information on my part)…”

Con has continuously held back on giving a conclusion on integral contentions in his argument. Here are some examples:

1. “Rape is a traumatic experience on a woman, and forcing the woman to care for the rapist's child would add unneeded mental stress on the woman after experiencing a traumatic incident. (3)”
No conclusion. The fact that rape is tragic and that mental stress hurts does not prove that the unborn child has forfeited his right to live. The unborn child is not an accomplice with the father and remains innocent until proven guilty. He has not given us a clear reason why abortion ought to be legal.

2. “Then there's also unwanted teen pregnancies…”
As the paragraph goes on, Con simply asserts the supposed effect of a teen pregnancy. There are unwanted teen pregnancies, but Con has yet to show why this justifies the termination of an unborn child.

3. “…The Frontal lobe (the part of the brain that determines right from wrong) is not fully developed in adolescents (both male and female) until they are in their early 20's.”
Again, Con refuses to explain why the fact that the Frontal lobe is not fully developed necessarily implies that a teen does not have the capacity to take care of a child. Why? Because his argument is moot to begin with. Even when the Frontal lobe is fully developed we still have bad parents. Therefore, his premise (a teen’s Frontal lobe is undeveloped) does not necessarily lead to the unspoken conclusion (“Therefore teens cannot take care of a child“).

Sources:
(1). Under the section titled: Perfect solution fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org...
(2) “In a Gallup Poll, taken in May 3-6, 2012. With more than a thousand adults polled nation wide” : http://www.pollingreport.com...
Rayze

Con

Pro has sought to

Due to the nature of theological arguments on individuality and humanness of a fetus, I have not responded to Pros contention that a fetus is an individual as the uncertainties of biological theories would draw the remarks of an informal fallacy from Pro. Neither contentions are the most important issue as the resolution that pro has stated is Abortion ought to be illegal. If pro had written in his resolution a fetus is just like a human, then his contentions would warrant a response. However, because the contention does not directly relate to the issue my responses on said points are not required.

Pro still accuses me of the nirvana fallacy in spite of an adequate justification. My opponent's example that the world is flat is false. In the middle ages, actually even before the middle ages in approximately 300 B.C.E in Hellenistic Greece Hellenistic astronomy proved that the world was round. The concept of a round world was generally accepted in the rich well educated nobility, whereas pro's consensus example is derived from at the time poor rural areas of Europe. So his example is false. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Pro's states "The Child Is Not An Accomplice:
Abortion is not justified in the case of rape for two reasons:
1. An abortion does not render the pains and trauma of the rape benign. The abortion is not magical, it fixes nothing. All it does is create another victim - the child, and that"s it. Let"s focus on the real issue (i.e. carrying out justice on the perpetrator). Any counter-arguments are made null by point two.
2. The unborn child is not an accomplice in the crimes of the father and is therefore innocent. There is no justice found in the abortion, there is only death.
The 13th amendments and 14th amendments (and others like them) are void here because you cannot justify taking the innocent life of the unborn child. It"s oxymoronic. The Amendments in the Constitution are meant to protect the self-evident right that all men are created equal. And that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. Any amendment or document that infringes on these unalienable rights are null and void."
Pro's rebuttal is flawed based upon 2 reasons.
1. Abortion actually gives mental closure to the victim. They know that the ordeal is partly over, and that they do not need to endure the morning sickness or other physical/hormonal changes accompanying pregnancy. Pro's appeal to pathos in his reason 2 is in a sense similar to Senator Todd Akin's ignorant statements on Rape. The zygote is only working like biology dictates, it. However, the physical and hormonal effects that the zygote brings with development only rationalizes in the victim's mind that the fetus is an accomplice as she asks what she has done to deserve this trauma.
2. My opponent declares that the US is constitution is null and void on this issue based on his arguments. The amendments are not an oxymoron as they accomplish their purpose which is to provide our citizens who are alive their rights which the state nor federal government can deny. Oh and by the way don't quote the Declaration of Independence when referring to the American Constitution as it connotes the ignorance of one who does not recognize the different messages that each document presents. The Declaration of Independence gave legitimate reasons for American Rebels to declare a new nation by logically explaining grievances of the British crown. The US constitution gave the federal government the mandate needed to adequately govern the nation and safeguard the rights of American Citizens.

Poverty is a justification as one is only delaying the inevitable despair. Economic hardship leads to malnutrition, and starvation or perhaps worse, but as one who has not experienced poverty I will not know all of its options. That is undeniable fact. If the teen is starving, and can not take care of the child, then what? According my opponent send the kid to adoption. Extremely ignorant and ignores the biological aspects that woman endures during pregnancy. In addition why would a woman/teen carry the fetus until its born and then separate from it? That's like working for 15 hrs a day and not getting a pay raise after 9 months of difficulties.

Con has accused me of being ambiguous when I have placed sources which he could have checked to see the validity of my contentions. I will quote my opponent's argument and insert previous sources within each contention.
"1. "Rape is a traumatic experience on a woman, and forcing the woman to care for the rapist's child would add unneeded mental stress on the woman after experiencing a traumatic incident. (3)"
No conclusion. The fact that rape is tragic and that mental stress hurts does not prove that the unborn child has forfeited his right to live. The unborn child is not an accomplice with the father and remains innocent until proven guilty. He has not given us a clear reason why abortion ought to be legal." Check source http://www.buzzle.com...
"2. "Then there's also unwanted teen pregnancies""
As the paragraph goes on, Con simply asserts the supposed effect of a teen pregnancy. There are unwanted teen pregnancies, but Con has yet to show why this justifies the termination of an unborn child." check sourcehttp://www.buzzle.com...
"3. ""The Frontal lobe (the part of the brain that determines right from wrong) is not fully developed in adolescents (both male and female) until they are in their early 20's."
Again, Con refuses to explain why the fact that the Frontal lobe is not fully developed necessarily implies that a teen does not have the capacity to take care of a child. Why? Because his argument is moot to begin with. Even when the Frontal lobe is fully developed we still have bad parents. Therefore, his premise (a teen"s Frontal lobe is undeveloped) does not necessarily lead to the unspoken conclusion ("Therefore teens cannot take care of a child")." check source http://www.edinformatics.com...

My opponent's reply to one of Smidday's contention in the comments section basically means his concession as he states in his reply to Smidday (who says, "using contraception should be illegal as millions of sperm and eggs that could potentially be a person is killed.")
Oxymoron states, "- Wrong, potential life is different from real life. Do not equate the two."
A fetus is potential life, it is not born, it does not feel pain until the 30th week, it is not developed, it maintains homeostasis from the mother, it is a zygote until the 10 week, and is known as fetus until it looks human. So my opponent should be careful about maintaining consistency.

Adoption really isn't viable option when most adoption agencies are funded partially by the federal government. http://www.childwelfare.gov... So if federal spending is reallocated from planned parenthood then what happens to the money? Most likely it will spent on defense instead of adoption agencies, leading to a theoretical decrease in standard of living and space. This is due to the increase in kids, without the increase in cash, but likewise this is hypothetical as politicians are fickle like the people.

Therefore I urge a con vote.
Debate Round No. 3
37 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Fictional_Truths1 3 years ago
Fictional_Truths1
Congratulations, OxyMoron. You have changed my views. More than I can say for most debaters.
Posted by Avamys 4 years ago
Avamys
Abortion, with the exception of rape, is the result of bad measures taken. The foetus is alive, so it is a life. So, abortion equals killing. It is an irresponsible act, as the parents did not plan about what they would do if a child was born.
Posted by Fanghur 4 years ago
Fanghur
I gotta say, it really is sad that there are so many people who hold that the 'life' of a non-sentient, non self-aware mass of cells is of equal or greater value than an adult woman who has a life already.
Posted by Crito 4 years ago
Crito
@Andrewkletzien,

A fetus is self-sustaining as it draws from outside sources to maintain homeostasis. The fetus is dependent on the maintenance of the environment, sure, but so are we. Your point o' view -- that viability equates to life -- smells of a delusional control freak that finds himself qualified to place arbitrary laws upon humanness.
Posted by andrewkletzien 4 years ago
andrewkletzien
Pro should have lost as soon as he defined "life" with the word "self-sustaining." If he were consistent... he would support aborting a fetus until viability with that definition.
Posted by fulltimestudent 4 years ago
fulltimestudent
Actually, aborting is illegal....in 3rd world hellholes that nobody would choose to reside in.
Posted by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
whoops, I meant the DoI, lol...which MIGHT be considered a legal document in the US.
Posted by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
""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." [Emphasis added]

...Enough said."

ROFL, you just quoted the Constitution, a legal document. This document may have ideological and moral perogatives that others may use to their benefit, but it only holds jurisdiction over US citizens.

Nice try though.
Posted by Oxymoron 4 years ago
Oxymoron
I really need to double-check my comments....

"Therefore, we can easily conclude that a human is a living member of the species of Homo Sapiens."

What I meant to say: Therefore, we can easily conclude that a fetus is a living member of the species Homo Sapiens.
Posted by Oxymoron 4 years ago
Oxymoron
Smidday,
"its not even left the womb,"
- Geographic location doesn't determine if you aren't a human.

"it doesn't breath or digest food so it is not a people or person."
- Don't other species of animals do the same exact things? What makes a human a human? The only concrete similarity from human to human is our DNA and DNA expression - something a fetus has. Therefore, we can easily conclude that a human is a living member of the species of Homo Sapiens.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
OxymoronRayzeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments
Vote Placed by RyuuKyuzo 4 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
OxymoronRayzeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter VB The_Master_Riddler
Vote Placed by Chuz-Life 4 years ago
Chuz-Life
OxymoronRayzeTied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: While I agreed with pro at the beginning, I was able to remain undecided and impartial until the point at which Con claimed that the 14th Amendment Equal Protections Clause only protects 'Citizens' (persons born). This is simply not true and I believe that were Con to realize that "ALL persons" are afforded the equal protections under our Constitution, he might change his views.
Vote Placed by The_Master_Riddler 4 years ago
The_Master_Riddler
OxymoronRayzeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con didn't attack case effectively in round one
Vote Placed by Contra 4 years ago
Contra
OxymoronRayzeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: R2 for Con was utterly confusing, as it seemed not to rebut Pro's point and seemed actually to attack himself. Pro's case was structured well with good arguments. If Con had included a point that a woman owns her own body, and government shouldn't violate her privacy and body, this point would of strongly helped his case - as Pro did include a point about human rights, but Con was lacking in this regard.
Vote Placed by Bodhivaka 4 years ago
Bodhivaka
OxymoronRayzeTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate was interesting to read, as both sides presented their fair share of good arguments; however, although I myself am pro-choice, in this particular circumstance, I believe pro ultimately managed to present a stronger case for his point of view.
Vote Placed by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
OxymoronRayzeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:32 
Reasons for voting decision: pro shows himself capable of debating. His arguments are better constructed than con's. Con's sources were more numerous.