The Instigator
Iamthejuan
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Ragnar
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Abortion as birth control should be illegal.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 2 votes the winner is...
Ragnar
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/6/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,832 times Debate No: 43488
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)

 

Iamthejuan

Pro

Hello, I know this is an old topic, but I like to debate it every now and then to get a fresh perspective on it. I have so far remained mostly against abortion...could someone on here be the one to change my mind? (I admit when it happens.)

Let me be clear. I am not saying the clinics should be shut down. I am saying they should only give abortions to people who would either risk their lives to carry, or who were victims of rape or incest.

I am arguing that abortion for the purpose of birth control should be illegal, for the following reasons:

Social and Parental responsibility. --The message we send to our kids about respecting life and making good decisions.

Equality --Men have no choice to either ask for or say no to an abortion, though they will always bear the legal responsibility of a child that is born. It takes one person to carry the baby, but you still need a man to make him/her. If a man wants their child to be born and has means to support it, is it right the mother can still go have an abortion?

Lack of pity/sympathy --There are other options, such as the morning after pill, condoms, withdrawal, IUD's, and etc. Seeking an abortion, particularly past the first trimester, is the ultimate reflection of irresponsible behavior and we should treat it as such.

Respond however you like to debate. I will work my argument around yours.
Ragnar

Con

In short:
Unenforceable.

In detail:
Abortion is a complex issue to which even the opposition to it tends to agree that it's a valid medical procedure, unfortunate, but sometimes necessary. This is compounded by the number of things that are likely to go wrong for the woman during a pregnancy, to include: Anemia, Depression, Ectopic pregnancy, Gestational diabetes, High blood pressure, Hyperemesis gravidarum, Placenta previa, Placental abruption, Toxemia [1].
Such problems are further compounded by high cost of medical care even if nothing goes wrong, which one expert summarized as: "So how much does it cost to have a kid without insurance? According to my experience, just about $12,638.31" [2].

Attempting to have no exceptions to allow abortion, leads to the level of negative intelligence seen in the United States House Committee on Science, Space and Technology's "legitimate rape" comments [3].

However once decent and logical exceptions to allow it are in place, it becomes foolish to try to over regulate under what circumstances a woman is allowed the procedure... For sake of clarity, such reasons shall be laid out in the rebuttals, and use cross examination.

Rebuttals:
"Clinics ... should only give abortions to people who would either risk their lives to carry, or who were victims of rape or incest."
In the case I rape I wholly agree she has a right to an abortion, due to the growing tissue inside her being a continuance of the initial violation.
For rape or incest (both illegal in the USA), would a conviction be required before she gets the procedure, or a mere accusation? If a conviction: our legal system is very slow, possibly setting the abortion only being finally allowed sometime after the third trimester. If an accusation: innocent people would likely be accused, similar to the current problem of paternity fraud.

"The message we send to our kids about respecting life and making good decisions."
Good decisions include financial decisions. Pregnancy as proven above, is very often a bad decision for such.

"If a man wants their child to be born and has means to support it, is it right the mother can still go have an abortion?"
In such cases she could easily claim it's a different father. If any man claiming to be the father was enough to prevent (or delay until genetic testing is done) an abortion, there would probably be nutjobs activists going in and claiming to have fathered the child of any woman entering an abortion clinic (yes this would be fraud, but seeing how they've already done murders and kidnappings over the issue, I believe it's a fair prediction of their behavior).

"There are other options, such as the morning after pill, condoms, withdrawal, IUD's, and etc."
No option is guaranteed. Further getting into these moral areas, some states have inflicted the social experiment of teaching abstinence only, leading directly to increased pregnancy rates among the already financially disadvantaged [4].

Sources:
[1] http://www.womenshealth.gov...
[2] http://www.babybankruptcy.com...
[3] http://www.cnn.com...
[4] http://thinkprogress.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Iamthejuan

Pro

Thanks again con for accepting this debate. I will reply in order with your comments.

"Unenforceable" --It wouldn't be difficult to check for things like the age of the mother, how far along she is, and whether or not she was a victim of rape or incest. There would be patient confidentiality as always, of course. Would there still be underground abortions? Maybe...but should we feel bad for people who break the law? If they weren't raped, they put themselves in such a position.

"Abortion is a complex issue to which even the opposition to it tends to agree that it's a valid medical procedure, unfortunate, but sometimes necessary."

--I completely agree.

Such problems are further compounded by high cost of medical care even if nothing goes wrong, which one expert summarized as: "So how much does it cost to have a kid without insurance? According to my experience, just about $12,638.31"

--This is a problem with our healthcare industry that needs to be corrected also. That said, many would argue that you should not have a child if you can't afford one.

Attempting to have no exceptions to allow abortion, leads to the level of negative intelligence seen in the United States House Committee on Science, Space and Technology's "legitimate rape"

--Do you mean no exceptions other than medical or rape? I already conceded those as morally neutral.

However once decent and logical exceptions to allow it are in place, it becomes foolish to try to over regulate under what circumstances a woman is allowed the procedure..

--The problem is figuring out what's decent and logical.

"For rape or incest (both illegal in the USA), would a conviction be required before she gets the procedure, or a mere accusation?"

--Good point. I would say on accusation for obvious reasons, but if she turns out to be lying she should go to jail. False rape accounts are uncool, whether to hurt a guy or dodge parental responsibility. But I doubt a lot of women would lie about such a thing.

"Good decisions include financial decisions. Pregnancy as proven above, is very often a bad decision for such."

--So we should address the problem with an easy cop out? This is going to increase responsibility amongst youth and young women? When they know they can have unprotected sex and get pregnant over and over and have abortions? And then one day when they want to get pregnant and find that they can't due to scarring? Is this really teaching them to face their choices head on and do the right thing?

"If any man claiming to be the father was enough to prevent (or delay until genetic testing is done) an abortion, there would probably be nutjobs activists going in and claiming to have fathered the child of any woman entering an abortion clinic"

--LMAO!! You are probably right. But they get those anyways...and paternity tests are not uncommon especially when applying for state assistance anyways. Tanif requires one, for instance, at the father's expense if the child turns out to be his. Like 90$

"No option is guaranteed. Further getting into these moral areas, some states have inflicted the social experiment of teaching abstinence only, leading directly to increased pregnancy rates among the already financially disadvantaged"

--Few things in life are guaranteed, save death and taxes. Birth control methods mentioned above are 90-99% effective. Abortion also has a chance of causing infertility or even infection and death in rare cases.

Speaking of the financially disadvantaged, the poor, minorities, and women under 25 are most likely to seek abortions. This is inherently tied to socioeconomics, and THAT is where we should begin in trying to address these issues of birth control, parenthood, and poverty that leads to abortions.

" In the United States alone, there are millions of women like me, spending at least some of their waking life in an agony of anxiety and longing and hope and prayer and grief, trying everything from herbal supplements to special lubricants to expensive pills to having holes drilled in their ovaries to get pregnant. They obsessively pee on sticks to the point that it becomes a literal addiction, and many of them suffer repeated, heart-wrenching miscarriages. Meanwhile, every day, 125,000 women a day pay a doctor to murder the miracle we would literally give our right arms for." -- http://www.lifesitenews.com...

"You can look at any chart showing historical fertility rates in the United States and see it bottom out after the Roe v Wade decision in 1973 and staying around those levels.

Because fewer and fewer are working for every retiree, our current level of taxation nowhere near covers what the requirements for Social Security and Medicare will soon be." -- http://townhall.com...
Ragnar

Con

For ease of reference: Any quote from my opponent shall be bolded, any quote from an outside source shall be italicised. Source numbering continues across rounds, sometimes referencing back to previous sources (as opposed to source spamming the same data with a dozen extra links). Multiple quotes from within a single source, shall have the source listed at the end of that paragraph.


While I shall mostly reply in order, one quote stands out too much...
"many would argue that you should not have a child if you can't afford one"
Agreed.

"It wouldn't be difficult to check for things like the age of the mother, how far along she is, and whether or not she was a victim of rape or incest."
Really? Please explain details on this reliable test on the fetus to determine if it was the offspring of rape.

Currently only an estimated 40% of sexual assaults are reported to law enforcement, with only 4% leading to a conviction which is half the rate prosecuted [5].
1. Justice Department, National Crime Victimization Survey: 2008-2012<br>2. FBI, Uniform Crime Reports: 2006-2010<br>3. National Center for Policy Analysis, Crime and Punishment in America, 1999<br>4. Department of Justice, Felony Defendents in Large Urban Counties: average of 2002-2006<br>5. Department of Justice, Felony Defendents in Large Urban Counties: average of 2002-2006

Of course some anti-abortion legislators actually claim pregnancy is proof that it was not rape [3]. I do not believe Pro falls into that camp, but it shows how scary the legal environment is for the victim.

"There would be patient confidentiality as always,"
Regarding the case of incest, a blood sample is needed from the accused father, throwing confidentiality right out the window.

"our health care industry that needs to be corrected also"
Irrelevant. While I agree, larger changes to society do not affect the issue as it currently stands. It's along the lines of how rape shouldn't be a factor, since rape really shouldn't happen.

"if she turns out to be lying she should go to jail."
Proving that she is lying is pretty hard, and she's already likely in a bad emotional place regardless of if she is lying or not. In our legal system, her honesty would probably often be questioned by whomever has a better lawyer; often further victimizing the victim. Considering that "15% of sexual assault and rape victims are under age 12" and "44% are under age 18" [6], this continues my line of reasoning regarding inequality against the already financially disadvantaged.

To bolster this point of inequality, let us consider the infamous R. Kelly trail which was delayed by his lawyers a full six years (which was vital to throwing off Jury recognition of the victim)... He literally made a "27-minute sex tape with an under-age female. But a high-powered defense team convinced the jury of nine men and three women that the identity of the girl was not conclusive." The positive identity of the victim was questioned, not the clear fact that she was under aged (assuming the correct victim, a 12 year old girl). "14 witnesses for the prosecution identified the girl in the tape, and some identified Mr. Kelly as well," another of his under aged victims (who was not filmed) was compared by his highly paid defense team to Satan [7].

"Birth control methods mentioned above are 90-99% effective"
Yes (aside from the mentioned pull-out-method), but we are talking about government regulation, when the government decides people shouldn't know about those methods [4].

"Abortion also has a chance of causing infertility or even infection and death in rare cases."
Getting away from the days of underground abortions, myths based on them continue regardless of medical advancement. Today in the United States including from late term, "the death rate for abortion is currently 0.6 per 100 000 procedures, making it as safe or safer than receiving an injection of penicillin." Less than half will ever seek a second abortion. Sadly connecting to the issue in the previous paragraph, "teens are more likely than older women to delay having an abortion until 15 weeks of pregnancy, when the medical risks associated with abortion are significantly higher" [8].

"Lifesitenews.com"
While the entire site is highly biased, this particular author is off the deep end. She writes "violence against the zombie is reminiscent of violence against the fetus," thus if we are pro life we should not harm zombies (assuming they're real) or watch zombie related films? She also writes "the reason why people are pro-abortion is not because they believe that the fetus isn’t a person, but because they know that the fetus is a person, and they don’t particularly like people" [9].

"Townhall.com"
1. Slavery is a poor answer to budget problems. And yes demanding people have more kids so that those kids can give offerings to the elder caste is approaching that line. This should already be apparent considering the repeated points about legislators doing social experiments which have been proven to cause increased unplanned pregnancies [4].
2. The Roe v Wade connection does not in fact line up if looking at a graph [10].
Roe v Wade should not be confused with the Time War.

Education plays a factor, so does economic downturns. Seeing how the drop was already in place before that ruling, you've failed to raise that point to even a decent Post Hoc Fallacy, it barely even qualifies as a Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy. Here's a better comparison
Recessions on the other hand, seem a valid theory.

Sources:
[5] http://www.rainn.org...
[6] http://www.rainn.org...
[7] http://www.nytimes.com...
[8] http://www.womenscenter.com...

[9] http://www.lifesitenews.com...
[10] http://stephenpruis.wordpress.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Iamthejuan

Pro

"Really? Please explain details on this reliable test on the fetus to determine if it was the offspring of rape."

--I meant just ask for the police report. Most women aren't going to take it that far just to get an abortion, though I have seen one women file a false rape report before so it is possible. Still, this would effectively reduce abortions and also encourage more rape victims to report the crime.

"Currently only an estimated 40% of sexual assaults are reported to law enforcement, with only 4% leading to a conviction which is half the rate prosecuted"

--Gonna save this one for the end; should make sense when you get there.

Of course some anti-abortion legislators actually claim pregnancy is proof that it was not rape .

--The "natural defense" argument won't be making an appearance in this debate. ;-)


"it shows how scary the legal environment is for the victim."

--Yes, our legal system sucks for pretty much everybody except lawyers.


Regarding the case of incest, a blood sample is needed from the accused father, throwing confidentiality right out the window.

--If he raped his daughter, I couldn't see too many people being concerned with his confidentiality. If she is lying, she should go to jail (or jeuvie).

"our health care industry that needs to be corrected also"
Irrelevant. While I agree, larger changes to society do not affect the issue as it currently stands. It's along the lines of how rape shouldn't be a factor, since rape really shouldn't happen.

--It isn't irrelevent, but I will get to this as well at the end.

Proving that she is lying is pretty hard

--That's why we have polygraphs and police do rape-kits if reported in time. Again, I doubt too many women would lie about this. Part of the reason conviction rates are so low is that many women wait until after it is too late for a rape kit-- no D.N.A. (or latex), no solid evidence.

she's already likely in a bad emotional place regardless of if she is lying or not

--While their emotional state is not something to be dismissed, rape victims need to know how important it is to come forward right away, for reasons I just stated. Also, if she is lying, her emotional state is completely irrelevant, unless she has a legitimate psychological disorder.


In our legal system, her honesty would probably often be questioned by whomever has a better lawyer; often further victimizing the victim.

--This is a problem faced by everyone, not just rape victims. However, rape charges should be taken as seriously as murder charges. It is a very serious claim that can destroy a man's life even if he is acquitted. Giving them a silent abortion and sending them on their way isn't going to help rape victims get justice or feel better in the end.

Case1: Woman get's raped, has an abortion. Feels like crap the rest of her life because her attacker got away.

Case2: Woman get's raped, has a rape kit, then an abortion, and has her assailant convicted because she came forward. The present is riddled with emotion, but soon she will be able to begin the healing process.

R-Kelly...

--You seem to be focusing mostly on problems with our legal system now. This brings me back to something else you said earlier:

Currently only an estimated 40% of sexual assaults are reported to law enforcement, with only 4% leading to a conviction which is half the rate prosecuted

and

"our health care industry that needs to be corrected also"
Irrelevant. While I agree, larger changes to society do not affect the issue as it currently stands. It's along the lines of how rape shouldn't be a factor, since rape really shouldn't happen.

--You are basically arguing that because of a messed up legal system and problems which we can't immediately solve, that we should turn to abortion as an easy out. What this does is not address the problems, but ignores them altogether-- the poverty, the inequality, the sexism and racism. This is why I get mad when women think abortion is an awesome right --it actually blinds them to their rights to enjoy parenthood and live comfortably like the rich people who can have as many kids as they want and not worry about it. Minorities and young women are far more likely to have abortions, as are the poor (who are often one in the same).

"many would argue that you should not have a child if you can't afford one"
Agreed.

--Unfortunately, there is an ever widening income gap in America, while childbearing and sex remain basic human drives. There is also a choice long before the point of considering an abortion, of whether to have sex, with whom, and how.
Ragnar

Con

throwing confidentiality right out the window: "If he raped his daughter, I couldn't see too many people being concerned with his confidentiality. If she is lying, she should go to jail (or jeuvie)."
Her confidentiality! One of the key issues to Roe v Wade, and the 14th Constitutional Amendment; which the reason to reject has been refuted (the drop in birth rates, which actually happened prior to it).

The amount of courage it would take for one of these girls to report her father, is immeasurable. Demanding she either birth her father's (or other relatives) child, or attempt to send someone she loves (due to Stockholm syndrome [11]) to prison and face everyone knowing what happened (school bullying etc), is a borderline evil choice. Of course she might go a third option and seek an underground abortion, "but should we feel bad for people who break the law?" I'm guessing according to pro the answer is no, and that anything which goes wrong is acceptable collateral damage because she's a lawbreaking criminal. I highly disagree with this sentiment.

Proving that she is lying is pretty hard: "That's why we have polygraphs"

It's a subjective test easily influenced by emotions, proven too unreliable to be used in court, and you wish to send people to prison and force them to bare children if they fail it? Granted in prison they don't have to go bankrupt over it, but that is another very poor solution to the social problems in question.

"Giving them a silent abortion and sending them on their way isn't going to help rape victims get justice or feel better in the end."
Rape is the one crime to which the victim is placed on trail, sometimes more so than the accused (comparing her to Satan, is acceptable behavior). This proposal would likely backfire on this proposed benefit of more convictions, as women receiving an abortion for rape would have to live in fear of failing their trail; thus encouraging them to either get an underground abortion or suck it up and give birth to the rapists offspring. I hope we can both agree those are both horrible options, and a victim should never be placed in a position to have to consider such.

I believe the above serves very effectively to refute the "Case1" and "Case2" false dilemma fallacy.

"You seem to be focusing mostly on problems with our legal system now."
Yes. We both live in the United States, therefore I assumed this debate is over the United States today, not some utopia with universal health care etceteria.

While I never called abortion an "easy out," a woman not needing the permission of men to make medical decisions that often affect her for the rest of her life, is an "awesome right" they have in western society. Should medical advances allow men to carry the children for them, which would actually satisfy the Roe v Wade ruling in regards to when it's too late to have an abortion (sustainability even if by artificial means), than this issue would be worth revisiting.

"it actually blinds them to their rights to enjoy parenthood and live comfortably like the rich people who can have as many kids as they want and not worry about it."
Your arguments have begun to directly contradict themselves, for example: "many would argue that you should not have a child if you can't afford one." "Minorities and young women are far more likely to have abortions, as are the poor" I believe I have already countered with the cost of merely birthing a child ("$12,638.31") being more than enough to bankrupt someone, forcing that cost upon them would only maintain whomever is in the lower class staying there.

"There is also a choice long before the point of considering an abortion, of whether to have sex, with whom, and how."
Seriously? You point out that people "should not have a child if you can't afford one," and then imply if they don't have that money they shouldn't have sex either? Or is this a plea for them to restrict themselves to same sex sex? ... If relying with the "how," keep in mind that abstinence only programs have failed badly, yet are still inflicted upon youths; those programs as their name implies, excludes the teaching such things as how to use a condom [12].

Reminder:
As things stand right now...

My sources have gone unchallenged, pro's have been refuted. However some of my conduct is questionable.
The suggested changes seem to apply to a utopia, whereas attempting to enforce them risks a dystopia of Victim Blaming (subjectively rejecting my "unenforceable" motion, as such a society as that, really could enforce it).
In my opinion there has yet to be a clear reason to reject either Roe V Wade or the 14th Constitutional Amendment.

Sources:
[11] http://counsellingresource.com...
[12] http://rhrealitycheck.org...
Debate Round No. 3
Iamthejuan

Pro

Iamthejuan forfeited this round.
Ragnar

Con

When asked directly for a "reason to reject either Roe V Wade or the 14th Constitutional Amendment," none has been provided. I have even offered to include any closing remarks from pro in with my own.

Closing Remarks:
My case was not actually in favor of abortion being a good thing, yet it remains a necessary option for many women, for a host of reasons men will never have. As men lack the ability to understand what the woman is going through, it should not fall to men to declare what a woman is or is not allowed to do to her body (notice the lack of changes in the male body during pregnancy, and men having never had to write their wills once pregnancy was discovered).

I agree with this guy.

Pro's resolution is thoroughly rejected. Vote con.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
@Iamthejuan: It's a shame you ran out of time. If you have any closing remarks, I could include them in with mine.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
I didn't think that would be an issue, which is why I made such a short point about it.
Posted by Iamthejuan 3 years ago
Iamthejuan
Went back through and just got your "legitimate rape" comment...I forgot about that idiot. Trust me, I won't be arguing that angle.
Posted by Iamthejuan 3 years ago
Iamthejuan
Certainly!
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
Do you mind if I take a crack at this?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
IamthejuanRagnarTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
IamthejuanRagnarTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: It seems like a pretty straightforward vote to me. As Con points out, his links went completely unrefuted while Pro's links got hit hard without response. The issue of causing undue harm to rape victims is one that carries strongly throughout the debate, and I don't think we hear sufficient response from Pro. Their mental anguish is weighed within the round, but the loss of the lives of many fetuses is not, therefore it carries more weight, as do the classist issues. I think a balance could have been made, but as Pro forfeited his final round, it never comes to pass. Lastly, I just want to include something I was surprised didn't come into the round. Con contested the issue of enforcing the rape exemption, but not the health one. Who is going to be deciding what is a sufficient health issue? How likely does the mother have to be to die? How much pain should they be allowed to endure? Should crippling be included? And what about children born with Tay-Sachs or Edwards Syndrome?