The Instigator
FREEDO
Pro (for)
Winning
20 Points
The Contender
tvellalott
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points

Abortion is Bad for the Economy

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 8 votes the winner is...
FREEDO
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/31/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,249 times Debate No: 14612
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (44)
Votes (8)

 

FREEDO

Pro

I assert that legalized abortion is likely a bad thing for the economy. "Bad" in that it may lower the GDP. Definition of abortion: The premature medical termination of a human fetus.

Whoever dares to accept my challenge may do so.

Debating begins in round two.
tvellalott

Con

I accept your challenge Mr. Freedo.
Lets rock out with our proverbial cocks out.

Debate Round No. 1
FREEDO

Pro

Excellent.
=== ARGUMENTS ===

1. Abortion reduces crime. Crime is good for the economy.

Abortion has been proven to reduce crime. [1,2]

This is largely because the great mass of people who commit crimes are poor and the great mass of people who get abortions are poor. Makes perfect sense.

Crime is an indispensable business in our Capitalist economy.

If crime were to suddenly disappear tomorrow millions of people would lose their jobs. Over 800,000 standard police officers are employed in the United States alone. [3] Many prisons, used to store these criminals, are owned by private corporations that make a profit off them. [4] Prisoners are also often sold off to corporations as cheap slave labor. [5]
Legalizing abortion would destroy these essential businesses!

2. Abortion reduces sick people. Sick people are good for the economy.

About 1/5th of those who have had abortions report in a survey that it was either due to "fetal health problems" or "can't afford a baby". [6] If the mothers were forced to bare these one in five then there would undoubtedly be more revenue for the healthcare industry. Those with birth defects would have to be specially cared for and those who are poor are expected to have more health problems later on. [7]

Healthcare makes up a huge chunk of America's GDP. [8] Abortion would get rid of a large proportion of all those sick and dieing people who make up the backbone of such a prosperous industry. Not to mention all the victims of all those aborted who would have ended up in the hospital.

3. Abortion means less recruitment for the Army. War is good for the economy.

The largest pool of people Army recruiters like to pull from are the poor. [9,10] This is because they are able to pull them into recruitment so much easier with promises of a better future after the military(poor saps fall for it every time, haha). We must force poor mothers to continue producing poor children or else we will simply not be able to meet up on the quota of needed recruitments which means less death and destructive to help our economy grow.

War is the single largest industry for the United States. [11] There more limbs blown off, the more homes destroyed, the more families ripped apart, the more control we exert over other societies, the better off we are going to be. That's what makes this the greatest country in the world, it's how we've always done things around here(after all, we've been in non stop war since the Korean war about 60 years ago) and I'm not about to see that all given up! What are you?--A commie?!

=== SOURCES ===
1. http://papers.ssrn.com...;
2. http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu...
3. http://en.wikipedia.org...
4. http://en.wikipedia.org...
5. http://www.itsabouttimebpp.com...
6. http://www.johnstonsarchive.net...
7. http://www.alternativeinsight.com...
8. http://en.wikipedia.org...
9. http://www.boston.com...
10. http://news.newamericamedia.org...
11. http://upload.wikimedia.org...
tvellalott

Con

Though I don't live in America, I'll follow my opponents lead and focus on the US economy.

REBUTTALS

Abortion reduces crime. Crime is good for the economy.

“Abortion has been proven to reduce crime.”

This is the statement my opponent has made. I actually think this supports my position more than his. Allow me to explain:

“Over 800,000 standard police officers are employed in the United States alone.”

Indeed. Each one of those police officers is paid between approximately $35,000 and $60,000 a year [1]. Simple maths tells us that employing all of these police officers costs the United States government between 28 and 48 billion dollars a year.

“Many prisons are owned by private corporations that make a profit off them.”

Indeed, but I ask that my opponent explains how adding to the pockets of these private corporations helps the United States economy.

“Prisoners are also often sold off to corporations as cheap slave labor.”


This point seems to contradict my opponent’s first point about keeping police employed. Does this ‘slave labour’ not put an unskilled American out of employment?

Crime costs the United States economy billions of dollars. [2] This source [3] suggests that each of the 15,000 murders [4] committed in 2009 cost the US around 10 million dollars; that’s 150 billion, just for murder.


Abortion reduces sick people. Sick people are good for the economy.

'About 1/5th of those who have had abortions report in a survey that it was either due to "fetal health problems" or "can't afford a baby".'


Actually your source seems to suggest that between 0.1 and 1.0% of abortions (in the “compiled estimates” table) were due to fetal health problems and I don’t see how “can’t afford a baby” supports your resolution. Perhaps I missed some vital piece of information that boasts this 1% up to 20%; otherwise your point is invalid.

Not to mention the fact [5] that each Medical Abortion costs $300-$500; money that goes back into the economy.


Abortion means less recruitment for the Army. War is good for the economy.

Here [6] [7] we see that economists are predicting the Iraq war could end up costing more than a trillion dollars. Here [8] we see the combined Iraq and Afghanistan war costing three trillion.

War is BAD for the Economy.



COUNTER ARGUMENTS

Welfare
P1: Abortions detract from the number of Americans who will rely on welfare
P2: Welfare costs the United States government $225,000 per person living in poverty. [9]
C: Abortions save the United State government money.



CONCLUSION

The resolution is refuted.

VOTE Con



SOURCES


[1] http://www.payscale.com...
[2] http://law.jrank.org...
[3] http://www.slate.com...
[4] http://www.disastercenter.com...
[5] http://www.medicationabortion.com...
[6] http://www.msnbc.msn.com...
[7] http://www.msnbc.msn.com...
[8] http://www.timesonline.co.uk...
[9] http://www.cato.org...
Debate Round No. 2
FREEDO

Pro

REPLIES
In his arguments, my opponent founds them upon an assumption that spending is bad. Nothing could be further from the truth. It's all about the spending. As I stated in the first round, the measure of what is "good for the economy" is whatever increases the GDP, since that is the most popular model. It turns out GDP is literally a measure of how much we are spending[1].

So thank you to my opponent for pointing out that all those police officers need to be paid; thank you to my opponent for pointing out how much we need to spend on crime; thank you to my opponent for pointing out how much the war costs.

My opponent asks me to explain "how adding to the pockets of these private helps the United States economy?"
The economy is simple a construct of businesses. When businesses do better the economy does better. It's not even that one causes the other, they are simply both the same thing.

Regarding sickness, my opponent didn't seem to completely understand my argument because he said "I don't see how 'can't afford a baby' supports your resolution. I clearly made the case, with sources presented, that poor people are less healthy than rich people. This is why I coupled "fetal health problems" with "can't afford a baby" in my statistic of "1/5th". My assertion is thus absolutely valid.

My opponent makes a good point that abortions cost money which means business. However, "$300-$500" is incredibly insignificant compared to how much the average person spends on medical costs over a lifetime which is about $316,579. [2] They can't spend that money if they're dead. Keep in mind that many of those who got aborted had health issues and were overwhelmingly poor which means their medical costs would have been even higher than the average person.

On welfare, my opponent says abortions detract from people on welfare and are thus good for the economy. There is a fallacy here. First, he makes the assumption that welfare is bad for the economy. I'm not going to assume whether it is or not. Rather, I will point this out; if it is bad for the economy, as he says, then his point is mute because it's a case against welfare and not against abortion, if he is wrong and welfare is good for the economy then it actually means that this is a case in favor of abortion.

I have shown how my opponent's arguments are actually arguments for me.

SOURCES
1. http://en.wikipedia.org... [see expenditure approach]
2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
tvellalott

Con

My opponent’s entire argument rests entirely on the premise that ANY AND ALL spending is good for the economy. Given the multi-trillion dollar debt the United States is currently in, I can safely assume he is basing his argument on the presumption that deficit spending works (ie, Keynesian economics).

"As I stated in the first round, the measure of what is "good for the economy" is whatever increases the GDP, since that is the most popular model."

I believe this is called "argumentum ad populum".

It is my opponent burdon of proof to not to show that spending is good for the Economy (after all, that isn't the resolution) but that any the worst, most socially-detrimental (and you know it's socially detrimental FREEDO you vegetarian, non-violence advocator you) deficit spending you can think of is good for the Economy.

There are several schools of Economics (the Austrian school of Economics, for example) and Political groups (Fiscal conservatives, for example) which reject any deficit spending, let alone a premise which ridiculously promotes war, sickness and crime.

Has he forfilled that burdon? I think not.



Perhaps I'll make the resolution "Child porn is good for the Economy" and argue that because money is both spent on it and by the Goverment trying to prevent it, it is clearly a double home-run win for the US.

Whoops, that's a straw man. Disregard.

Debate Round No. 3
FREEDO

Pro

My computer is completely messed up right now. The screen is so dim I can barely see anything. I thought I might just throw in the towel and apologize for not being able to post this round but I changed my mind and decided I would destroy my eye-balls and try to post it. Sorry if it's really short.

REPLIES

//My opponent’s entire argument rests entirely on the premise that ANY AND ALL spending is good for the economy. Given the multi-trillion dollar debt the United States is currently in, I can safely assume he is basing his argument on the presumption that deficit spending works (ie, Keynesian economics).//

Actually, it's not a premise, that's just how I defined it. I defined the growth of an economy as the growth of GDP, then I showed that GDP can be measured by--YES--any and all spending. However, it is true that spending which creates debt can cause less spending to occur in the future due to having to pay it back with interest. However still! Does anyone really think the United States is planning to pay back the debt? The idea is laughable. It is simply impossible to do so. It's most likely going to be repudiated. OH GOODY!--Just imagine if we told China we won't pay them back and it gets us into a war! Yes sir, there are bright days for business ahead.

And you want to hurt these businesses just so you can kill babies? What a morbid person you must be.

Remember, if you don't support war you must also not support our troops! That means you hate our freedom! Burn in hell terrorist scum!

//I believe this is called "argumentum ad populum". //

You would be incorrect. It's not a fallacy because I'm not making an argument, it is simply a rule I stated in the first round. I am not arguing that GDP should be the measure of a good economy because most people say so, I simply set out a definition of a good economy and gave a reason for why I chose it.

//It is my opponent burdon of proof to not to show that spending is good for the Economy (after all, that isn't the resolution) but that any the worst, most socially-detrimental (and you know it's socially detrimental FREEDO you vegetarian, non-violence advocator you) deficit spending you can think of is good for the Economy.//

I'm sorry but I just can't see how this statement is coherent. Is that just me?

Hope you all liked the debate as much as I did! VOTE PRO!
tvellalott

Con

My opponent has made a fatal flaw. His resolution relies on the voters simply accepting the Economic model he has proposed (I called it Keynesian economics and he didn’t disagree, so I assume he accepts it).

However, I know that won’t be the case.

His arguments against abortion:
  • Abortion decreases crime, war and sickness
  • Crime, war and sickness increase Government spending.
  • Spending is good for the economy.
Therefore, Abortion is bad for the Economy.

My counter-arguments:
  • Increasing crime, war and sickness WILL cause the Economy further and in this case, unnecessary debt.
  • Spending may be good for the Economy(unproven, only assumed), but deficit spending for the sake of GDP growth is foolish.

Furthermore, my opponent made one statement of forfeit and one plain ridiculous statement in his last round:
“However, it is true that spending which creates debt can cause less spending to occur in the future due to having to pay it back with interest.”

Here he concedes my second point. His only rebuttal to it was that America won’t pay the debt back anyway, so who cares. LOL.

Here is his rebuttal to me accusing him of making the common logical fallacy "argumentum ad populum":
“It's not a fallacy because I'm not making an argument, it is simply a rule I stated in the first round.”

Fortunately for me Mr Freedo, you don’t get to define the rules of Economics otherwise this debate would have been impossible for me to win. As I said in the first line of this conclusion, this is your fatal flaw. You haven’t proven that this school of Economics is the correct one; therefore nothing else you have said is relevant. This was the point of the possibly incoherent paragraph you quoted.

This resolution has been refuted.
VOTE Con.
Debate Round No. 4
44 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by FREEDO 2 years ago
FREEDO
I used to be kind of a dick.

This debate was a pre-conceived piece of satire and I used tv as a pawn to fulfill that evil scheme.

Tv, I am sorry.
Posted by tvellalott 6 years ago
tvellalott
Maybe I will...
Posted by FREEDO 6 years ago
FREEDO
Go cry about it.
Posted by tvellalott 6 years ago
tvellalott
It's a shame i'm going to lose this on a technicality.
Posted by tvellalott 6 years ago
tvellalott
I didn't realise that I wasn't able to contest your definition of what was good for the economy after the first round and you didn't state otherwise.
Posted by darkkermit 6 years ago
darkkermit
Veru well done debate FREEDO. I originally looked at the first round and thought to myself 'is this guy serious? Does he know anything about economics?' but I underestimated FREEDO and the debate was very thought provoking.
Posted by tvellalott 6 years ago
tvellalott
Wait, I see what you mean. Never mind. >_<
Posted by tvellalott 6 years ago
tvellalott
Cliff.Stamp: I repeatedly contested his definition of economics, so what the fvck are you talking about?
Posted by SuperRobotWars 6 years ago
SuperRobotWars
I agree with LaissezFaire
Posted by LaissezFaire 6 years ago
LaissezFaire
Yes, I'm referring to the American economy. It doesn't matter if it's not us getting bombed, the resources used to make the bombs are still wasted.

GDP doesn't measure the health of the economy very well, yes. But war still doesn't help GDP. If those wasted resources weren't used in war, they'd be used to create some combination of consumer goods and capital goods. The creation of capital increases the productivity of the nation, increasing GDP.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by BlackVoid 6 years ago
BlackVoid
FREEDOtvellalottTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: tvellalott didnt dispute the guidelines for determining the economy until it was too late.
Vote Placed by Grape 6 years ago
Grape
FREEDOtvellalottTied
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: "I assert that legalized abortion is likely a bad thing for the economy. "Bad" in that it may lower the GDP. " If Con disagreed with this first sentence, he should have disputed it right away.
Vote Placed by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
FREEDOtvellalottTied
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: Two former party-party-ers, going at it. I believe Con won this one in a tight debate. Good job to both sides, for sure.
Vote Placed by FREEDO 6 years ago
FREEDO
FREEDOtvellalottTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: The only way Con could have refuted my argument is by proving either: A. Spending does not increase GDP or B. The things I described do not increase spending. Con was unable to do either of these. Furthermore, he said I can't "define the rules of economics". This is ridiculous. I laid out clearly in the first round the definition of what I meant by a good economy, which by the way is the traditional model, and by accepting my debate he accepted my definition. I'd also like to point out that
Vote Placed by darkkermit 6 years ago
darkkermit
FREEDOtvellalottTied
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: FREEDO defiend what is 'good' for the economy, which was spending. Since tv didn't rebute it, or show that more spending would occur w/out abortions, FREEDO won. Tv didn't agree with the definition, which although IMO wrong, it was uncontested in round 1, making it legit.
Vote Placed by mongeese 6 years ago
mongeese
FREEDOtvellalottTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro seemed to use numerous fallacies and ad hominems, losing conduct. As far as arguments go, Con did show that abortion could lower GDP, even if it is the future GDP, fulfilling the resolution.
Vote Placed by sllewuy 6 years ago
sllewuy
FREEDOtvellalottTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
FREEDOtvellalottTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: you don’t get to define the rules of Economics - he can in a debate and it was accepted without contesting.