The Instigator
1Historygenius
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Deathbeforedishonour
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points

Abortion Should be Legal

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 3 votes the winner is...
Deathbeforedishonour
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/20/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,980 times Debate No: 25192
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (3)

 

1Historygenius

Con

My opponent wanted to challenge me to this debate, so I opened it!

Rules

As con, I must prove why abortion should not be legal. Pro must prove why it should.

No semantics or trolling!

Round 1 is for acceptance.
Deathbeforedishonour

Pro

I accept, but first definitions.


Abortion- the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy.



Plus, I would like to clarify that we are talking about abortion should stay legal in the U.S.



Good Luck to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 1
1Historygenius

Con

My Case

Argument 1: A Fetus is a Human

When a zygote is made at the moment of conception it already has the attributes needed to be alive. It has the reproduction cells, metabolism, growth, etc. so because of these facts a fetus is already a human and killing it is murder. So if abortion is murder it should be illegal. When fertilization begins a new being has been made with human DNA and it has the qualities needed for life. By the third day several organs including a nervous system are being created. [1,2,3]

Argument 2: Abortion is Bad for the Economy

Population growth is linked to urbanization. Its obvious that urban countries tend to be wealthier. More abortions would mean less population growth. When you have less consumers, less goods are purchased. Less goods purchased means slower economic growth. When more abortions occur, you are shrinking the labor force. A study has shown that for every baby aborted, the country loses $15,000,000. Just like less consumers, there would be less workers to produce goods. That means less money is being put into the economy. 40 million people have been killed from abortion. The less people, the less money the government gets on taxes. Abortion does not benefit society. [4,5,6,7,8,9]

Argument 3: Abortion Increases the Risk of Breast Cancer

The number of abortions tends to correlate with an increase in breast cancer. This is certainely true in Finland. Thirty studies concluded that abortions do increase the risk of breast cancer. An abortion increases this risk by 50%. Eight medical associations have accepted this fact. [1,9,10,11]

Conclusion

Abortion is bad because it does not benefit society and it increases breast cancer. In addition, it lowers economic growth. Abortion should not be legal.

Sources


[1] F. Beck, D. B. Moffat, and D. P. Davies, Human Embryology, Second edition
[2] Subcommittee on Separation of Powers, report to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session, 1981
[3] Stephen M. Krason, Abortion: Politics, Morality, and the Constitution(Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1984)
[4] http://blogs.worldbank.org...
[5] http://www.nrlc.org...
[6] Miriam Cain, Fight For Life - A Pro-life Handbook for Southern Africa (1995 Africa Christian Action, Cape Town)
[7] http://www.lifenews.com...
[8] http://suite101.com...
[9] Lime 5, by Mark Crutcher, 1996, Life Dynamics Inc. Denton, Texas. p223-238
[10] http://www.newswithviews.com...
[11] http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com...

Deathbeforedishonour

Pro

Greetings, I would like to thank my opponent for challanging me to this debate and posting his case somewhat quickley. I would like to thank the people reading this debate and I hope that you will take the time to vote and vote fair and wisely.


Now, I will begin by stating that I will start by laying out my case by refuting my opponent's contentions and then procede to lay out one contention that I see is really the heart of the mass debate over legal abortions in the United States and all over the world. So with that said I will begin my refutation of my opponent's contentions.



Refutation 1: The Human fetus vs Personhood.


I will start my first counterpoint out by saying that I somewhat agree with my opponent. While, I don't accept his statements that Zygotes and Embryos are humans, I accept the notion that he is giving off that fetuses are humans. However, even though the fetus is a member of the biological species "Homo Sapiens", it is not a person. The fact that a fetus is of one species or another does not mean that it gets rights. I will define a person as an entity individual entity,morally conscious being capable of forming a complex thought and possessing the capacity (but not nessasarily the ability) to comunitcate their thoughts through language. This definition includes no animals. All of the said requirements for personhood are far more valuable in determining personhood then apindages. So, since a fetus is not a person then it has no serious right to life.


My opponent calls the act of abortion murder, but what does the word murder really mean? The dictionary defines it as follows:

' The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated
malice.' [1]


However, abortions are fully legal making his statement rather empty.



Refutation 2: Economy vs Overpopulation


My opponent's second contention has two things wrong with it.


1. My opponent is saying that abortion should not be legal, because it doesn't make the state as much money as they would like to have. Now, I don't know about the readers, but I in particular would just like to state that the United States government's jobs is not to protect it's interests but rather the interests of its people. As was told by the founding fathers when it was first created, it is a government for the people. The majority of Americans want safe abortions to be legal so it is the government's duty to make sure the people get what they want. Furthermore, it uses the word 'people' when fetuses are not people because they are not persons.


2. The other thing that is wrong with his contention is that he ignores a major detail. The U.S. as well as the rest of the world is overpopulated. Chris Hedges (a former New York Times correspondent) said this in his article known as "We Are Breeding Ourselves to Extinction":

"All measures to thwart the degradation and destruction of our
ecosystem will be useless if we do not cut population growth," Hedges wrote. "By
2050, if we continue to reproduce at the current rate, the planet will have
between 8 billion and 10 billion people. This is a 50 percent increase. And yet
government-commissioned reviews, such as the Stern report in Britain, do not
mention the word population. Books and documentaries that deal with the climate
crisis, including Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth," fail to discuss the danger
of population growth. This omission is odd, given that a doubling in population,
even if we cut back on the use of fossil fuels, shut down all our coal-burning
power plants and build seas of wind turbines, will plunge us into an age of
extinction and desolation unseen since the end of the Mesozoic era, 65 million
years ago, when the dinosaurs disappeared."
[2]

While abortion would not be the final solution to this problem, it would help in decreasing the birth rate in our country. Just face it! Our coun try has quadrupaled in size in the last century, and now we are paying the price for it. We have areas that were once known for there natural beauty now turned into concrete jungles, we have schools that our overloaded and barely any teachers, and the enviroment is being pushed to its breaking point. Abortion needs to stay legal, because it actually does help society.


Refutation 3: Health Risks vs Choice


While my opponent is right when it comes to the health risks of abortion, it still isn't proper cause for making abortions illegal. Tobacco smoking and drink casue health problems, but they are not made illegal. Why? Because they (like abortion) are personal choices that come with consequences.


Now I will state my contention.

Contention 1: Women and Self Ownership

My opponent started out his case by stating the ussual arguments that the fetus is a human and the fetus is being murdered. Like the rest of the people who have debated the issue before him he makes a critical error. He commits what is often called "The Fetus Focus Fallacy". However, the fetus even if it were a person with a right to life, would not be the only person with rights. The woman has total control over her own body and it's functions under the constitution. Under the 5th Amendment all 'persons' (notice the word person) have rights to life, liberty, and private property. Life is refering to ' the right to life', liberty refers to the freedom to live their life as they please (this intells that they have control over their bodies), and private property just confirms my last statement since one must first own themselves before they can own something from their surroundings. So, the government has no just cause to violate women's rights. It is their bodies and if they don't want a fetus in it then they don't have to [3].


I will now await my opponent's response.


Thanks for reading.




Sources


[1]http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
[2]http://rense.com...
[3]http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...







Debate Round No. 2
1Historygenius

Con

My Refutations

Refutation #1: Personhood vs. Human

Allow me to explain how under my opponent's logic, killing people who are asleep would be legal! Now yes, a fetus cannot practice its ability of self-awarness, but it has the ability to practice it in the near future. This is the same with people who are in asleep or in a coma. So people who are asleep or in a coma are not conscious or aware. However, we do not kill them because they have the ability to practice self-awarness in the near future. Thus, a fetus and a sleeping person would both be a person because they both have the ability to become conscious. So a fetus is a person and killing a person is illegal.

This logic is also flawed. If we judged equal rights based on qualities like consciousness, then what that means is that those who practice their consciouness better would be more valuable than those who cannot. This is the logic I see from my opponent. Since all humans are considered equal, that means all humans should have equal rights. [1,2]

Refutation #2: Economy vs. Overpopulation

I am sure tha majority of Americans would want economic growth and more wealth as well. That is why population growth is key to producing a good economy. Many voters would argue that the most important issue to them is improving the economy so to simplify: economic growth > abortion. Thus, abortion cane be justified because the people would be much more happier with economic growth than if abortion was legal.

My opponent has argued that overpopulation is a reason to allow abortions. However, this is flawed because the U.S. is not overpopulated. In terms of total fertility rates, the U.S. is ranked 121 out of 222 countries. Overall, the population is western countries is expected to decline over the next 50 years. This is because global fertility rates are in general decline. Oh, by the way, we aren't overpopulated anyway. [3,4,5]

Refutation #3: Health Risks vs. Choice

Many women actually have low incomes (57% do). This means that since most of them are uninsured they get to go to the ER and get care from tax payers. This means that their cancer harms of them and Americans in general. This is unfair. Breast cancer effects everyone, not just the woman, so the American tax payers would be paying for anyone who cannot afford it. So in other words; saying it only effects the woman is a lie and refutes the point of my opponent's rebuttals. [6,7]

Refuting My Opponent's Case

This argument is incredibly illogical. If a fetus is not a person, its a prosperity. If it is a person, then it cannot be property. It is very clear that a fetus is a person and therefore it is not property. A person cannot be owned and a fetus is a person. Here is a quote:

"Every one of us began our existence as an embryo. The embryo we were was not an entity distinct from us; it was us. Sure, as an embryo we did not exhibit the same properties we do today, but we did possess those properties intrinsically as part of our nature. This invites a question to the pro-abortion advocate: If it is wrong to kill me now (as a child/adult), how could it have been permissible to kill me then (as an embryo/fetus)? Both instances involve the same entity. The unborn differ from the born in their stage of development, not their kind, much the same way newborns differ from adults in their stage of development, not their kind. If we recognize the latter, why do so many deny the former?" [8]

Conclusion

I have proven that abortion should remain illegal to not kill a person, to keep the American people happy through better economic growth (and the country is not overpopulated), and that breast cancer hurts everyone (abortion causes breast cancer). My opponent's contention is illogical. Vote con!

Sources

1. http://socrates.berkeley.edu...
2. http://www.prolifetraining.com...
3. https://www.cia.gov...
4. http://www.economist.com...
5. http://www.thefreemanonline.org...
6. http://www.prochoice.org...
7. http://en.wikipedia.org...
8. http://theosophical.wordpress.com...
Deathbeforedishonour

Pro

I thank my opponent for his response.



Refutation 1: Personhood vs Human


My opponent does not really understand the difference between sleeping person and a fetus. The difference is that a sleeping person or a person in a coma have already developed enough to be conscious and has already started consciousness and has already became a person, a fetus has done neither.


Also, my opponent's logic is fallacious. The fetus may be in the process of developing self-awarness, but it still doesn't have it yet. By my opponent's logic masturbation, birth contol, condoms, even turning down sex should be illegal because it is disrupting a chance for a future person to become a person, and of course this logic is absurd.


My opponent then makes the error of saying the fetus has Constitutional rights in the U.S. however, this untrue. Non-citizens do not and should not get constituional rights because the U.S. Constitution only applies to U.S. citizens. A fetus is not a U.S. citizen and if it invades a U.S. citizens body without concent, then it has done something against our citizen and should be removed [1].


Refutation 2: Economy vs Overpopulation

My opponent fails to realize that the world as a whole is overpopulated [2]. All countries that were stated in that CIA report that were ahead of the U.S. in fertility rates were all overpopulated. Just because they were ahead of us, does not make us any less overpolulated, we are just not as overpopulated. There are severial factors one should look at when it comes to overpopulation.



1. There is obviously the birth rate. The U.S. currently has a birth rate of 2.1 per woman, which is the highest since 1971.


2. Is our immigration rates. Immigration contributes over one million people to the U.S. population annually. The total foreign-born population in the U.S. is now 31.1 million, a record 57 percent increase since 1990. About 8 million of those are here illegally--a 4.5 million increase since 1990. Almost one-third of all immigration during the 1990s was illegal. An NPG demographic analysis of age distribution, fertility, and mortality data
shows that if there had been no immigration to the U.S. since 1990, the population in 2000 would have been 262 million–19 million less than the 281
million counted. Thus, post-1990 immigrants and their children accounted for 61 percent of population growth during the last decade. [ stated in source #3].


More information is stated in the folowing graphs.






U.S. POPULATION PROJECTIONS


Year Projected
population
Percent change
from
population in
2000
2010 310,233,000 10%
2020 341,387,000 21%
2030 373,504,000 32%
2040 405,655,000 44%
2050 439,010,000 55%

[3]

So, as the readers and my opponent can see there is obviously a current population problem, and a future population disaster. Therefore, we as a country both people and government are going to have to face the fact that are economy wont mean anything if our country becomes devoid of vegitation, animal life, and faced with food shortages. Our government is ment to keep society safe and make descisions on the common. By keeping abortion legal and easy to access we don't dismantel women's rights and we lower the birth rate enough to solve the U.S.'s overpopulation problem.



Refutation 3: Health Risks vs Choice

The majority of americans support abortion. The majortity of americans support medicaid, and furthermore the majority of americans support public funded abortions in spite of the risks [4,5,6]. So in the end taking away these rights would spike an uproar of by the public. It does matter how much money it costs the public because the public is will to pay for it.



Defense of Contention 1

My opponent fails to see what I was point out. I stated that even if the fetus is a person (it is not) it is inside the woman's body without permission. If the woman doesn't want the fetus in HER body(her bodyis her private property, not the governments and not the fetus's) then she has every right to expell it from her body because she has complete control of her body. I hope my opponent sees what I was saying now.

I will now await my opponent's response.


Thank You.


Sources


[1]http://ricochet.com...
[2]http://www.sixpak.org...
[3]http://www.npg.org...
[4]http://health.usnews.com...
[5]http://www.rhrealitycheck.org...
[6]http://www.prochoiceamerica.org...
Debate Round No. 3
1Historygenius

Con

I Bow Out Gracefully

If you have not read that post in the forum today, I am heading to the Republican National Covention. We pack today so I am very busy and will not be able to post a full response to you. If possible I wish my opponent could I accept my request for this debate to be a draw, then we can debate in the future. So I give my opponent two options:

1. He can claim victory.

2. He can agree to the draw and we will debate this after my vacation at the RNC.

I leave it to him.
Deathbeforedishonour

Pro

I my opponent for teling me this, I think the past rounds of hour debate were really good. However, I have decided to claim victory but I do not mind debating him again if he wishes after his convention.
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by adontimasu 4 years ago
adontimasu
Fetuses don't feel pain during the trimesters in which it is legal to abort it.
Posted by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
1dustpelt
Add the point about the Fetus feeling pain.
Posted by 1Historygenius 4 years ago
1Historygenius
Kirby likes it nasty!
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
I see a point con dropped.

Death, I am not a fascist. I disagree with them on everything. Economics: they favor regulations. They favor national identity, I dont. They favor national training programs, I dont. They think people based on race are different. I dont. I only agree with them on nationalism... to an extent. Patriotism is a better words for my belief.
http://www.americanfascistmovement.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Posted by Deathbeforedishonour 4 years ago
Deathbeforedishonour
I will write my rebuttal tomorrow.
Posted by Deathbeforedishonour 4 years ago
Deathbeforedishonour
Whatever you say my fascist friend. ;P lol
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Pros rebuttal too 1 is weak, and if Con wins 1 pros point fails.
Posted by 1Historygenius 4 years ago
1Historygenius
I'm waiting......
Posted by Deathbeforedishonour 4 years ago
Deathbeforedishonour
Ok.
Posted by 1Historygenius 4 years ago
1Historygenius
OK, I will respond to you in the morning, I am way to tired to type a debate right now.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Maikuru 4 years ago
Maikuru
1HistorygeniusDeathbeforedishonourTied
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: Con conceded.
Vote Placed by Microsuck 4 years ago
Microsuck
1HistorygeniusDeathbeforedishonourTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit. Pro was winning anyways. Have fun at the RNC
Vote Placed by RyuuKyuzo 4 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
1HistorygeniusDeathbeforedishonourTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Con for bowing out. Arguments to Pro for claiming victory in accordance with the option con offered.