The Instigator
Lee001
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
kasmic
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

Abortion is Just.

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...
kasmic
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/29/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,396 times Debate No: 75934
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (29)
Votes (2)

 

Lee001

Pro

This debate will be between Kasmic and I. This will be a short and quick debate. 4 Rounds, 24 Hours to post your argument and 2,000 character limit.

The debate here will be "Abortion is Just"

The debate shall follow this structure.

R1. Definitions from Pro/ Acceptance from Con.
R2. Rebuttal/Argument from both sides.
R3. Rebuttal/Argument from both sides.
R4. Conclusion

Definitions:

Abortion [1] Also called voluntary abortion. the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy.

Just [2] agreeing with what is considered morally right or good

treating people in a way that is considered morally right

reasonable or proper

Sources:
[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...

[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
kasmic

Con

I accept, gl.
Debate Round No. 1
Lee001

Pro

The Right to Abortion.

Section 1. of the 14th ammendment clearly states that [1] "Section 1. 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 that, the state shall not deprive someone of life, they can't take away a individuals rights, nor can they deprive them of life. [2] Deprive- deny (a person or place) the possession or use of something. If a women wishes to have an abortion, she should be able to because it is her right. As stated in the 14th amendment "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property," A women's body is her own property. The government can't tell her what to do with her body, they guarantee these rights to all Americans.

Well-Being of the Mother

Studies have shown, women whom are denied abortions suffer long term health and or mental problems. [3] "A Sep. 2013 peer-reviewed study comparing the mental health of women who received abortions to women denied abortions found that women who were denied abortions "felt more regret and anger" and "less relief and happiness" than women who had abortions. The same study also found that 95% of women who received abortions "felt it was the right decision" a week after the procedure.

The goverment promises not to deprive someone of life. Women are deprived of happiness. Instead, they live with regret and anger. They are unable to live a healthy life, because they were denied of their rights.


Sources

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...

[3] http://abortion.procon.org...




kasmic

Con

Justice:

My opponent has defined Justice as
"agreeing with what is considered morally right or good, treating people in a way that is considered morally right, reasonable or proper"

B.O.P. My opponent as pro must fill the burden of proof that Abortion is

"considered morally right or good"

"treating people in a way that is considered morally right"

"reasonable or proper"

The Right to Abortion

The Fourteenth Amendment has to do with interaction between the State and the person who may have the abortion. It is not concerned with whether the action of abortion is just.

Pro says"The government can't tell her what to do with her body, they guarantee these rights to all Americans."

We are not debating the legality of abortion, rather the action itself.

Well-Being of the Mother

This debate is not about whether people should be "denied" abortion, rather about the action itself. Likewise this debate is not about the governments involvement. It is simply about whether Abortion is Just.

Conclusion:

As my opponent has the burden to prove abortion "Just" she must show abortion is morally right or good. She must show it is reasonable or proper. None of which has been done. Rather she has affirmed the value of freedom, that people be able to choose for themselves. This only clarifies that freedom is just" not abortion.

Abortion is not "good." It is painful, harmful, and sad.

As the BOP is not filled, I will send it back to pro.
Debate Round No. 2
Lee001

Pro

Thank you Con.

I have sucessfully showed that, letting a women abort her child is reasonable, and yet a propper decision because she wished to do so. It *is* considered morally right, because it is not illegal. she has the freedom to do so.

Con then states "interaction between the State and the person who may have the abortion" so, is aborting a baby was such a crime, they would make it illegal right? They would make it illegal becuase it is inhumane to the child. Yet, they allow the women to have the right to abortions. They shall not deprive a women of her rights, or make her feel guilty for her actions and choices. The goverment allows abortions, because it is just.

Con the gose on to claim that we arent debating "the legality of abortion, rather the action itself." Yet, is abourtions were un-just wouldn't they make abortions illegal. Making it legal proves that it *is* just.

Con then says "This debate is not about whether people should be "denied" abortion, rather about the action itself. Likewise this debate is not about the governments involvement. It is simply about whether Abortion is Just." Again, the same rule applys. The goverment guarentees the well-being and saftey of individuals. The definition of Just is "agreeing with what is considered morally right or good" Basically, the goverment allows abortions because it is moraly right, and good. Individuals have freedom to choose what they wish.

Conlusion:

* Note that not mande a new argument in this round. He didn't follow the debate structure. He did not provide any arguments asy to *why* aboirtion is un-just. Instead, he corrected my argument. To be fair to him, I will not post a new argument, instead I extend.
kasmic

Con

Pro says “I have sucessfully showed that, letting a women abort is reasonable”

Justice allowing someone to be free to choose something is not the same as indorsing what they choose.

“It *is* considered morally right, because it is not illegal. she has the freedom to do so.”

Many things in history have been “Legal” yet unjust. Is my opponent suggesting that slavery was just because it was legal? Legal =/= Just

“if aborting a baby was such a crime, they would make it illegal right?”

Abortion is not legal everywhere… For example in Nicaragua. (http://en.wikipedia.org...)

“They would make it illegal because it is inhumane to the child.”

“Making it legal proves that it *is* just.”

My opponent has argued that if something is legal it proves it is just. This means my opponent agrees that slavery (when legal) is just. Likewise we see that Abortion is Illegal in many places. This makes it clear that Legal=/=Just.

I did make an argument last round. I argued that Abortion is not "good." It is painful, harmful, and sad.


My opponent has not filled her burden of proof, being that her only arguement relevent to the resolve was legal = just. This is obviously not the case and thus her case is negated and the burden is left unfilled.
Debate Round No. 3
Lee001

Pro

Conclusion:

My opponent says he did make an argument by saying "good." It is painful, harmful, and sad." His argument includes 7 words. He provides no facts, nor does he use any sources to prove his claim. He is simply implying a belief/statement. I had provided you with facts and evidence to show that Abortion is just. It is just because it is a moral right. It is moral because it is done humanley, and not only is it dont humanley but it is a benefit to the mother because it relieves her of stress, and by denying her an abortion is causes mental problems. I'm sorry for making this so short, I had a situation pop up. But I have made myself pretty clear. Vote Pro.

kasmic

Con

Thank you Lee for this short debate. I want to note that she has been a great sport and agreed to do this debate at my invitation. Thanks Lee!

Conclusion:

My opponent implies that because my argument is only 7 words long with no sources to back it up that it falls to the weight of her arguments. On the contrary the only argument that stands at the end of the debate is my 7 word argument.

No where did my opponent refute the idea that abortion is painful, harmful or sad. From this I concluded that abortion is not “good” Thus she concedes this argument. As Justice was defined this shows that abortion is not just.

Pro has dropped not only my argument but her own arguments as well. She argued that legal makes just. Yet after I refuted that, it is not included in her conclusion.(Dropped) Instead her conclusion argues something new entirely. “It is moral because it is done humanley.” Per rules, arguments were to be presented in the middle rounds, not in the conclusion.

The only valid argument standing is that
Abortion
is not "good." It is painful, harmful, and sad. Pro has failed to fill her burden. The resolution is negated, Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
29 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by bluesteel 1 year ago
bluesteel
=======================================================
>Reported vote: Daboss_McSwag // Moderator action: Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: Con clearly had a more on topic debate, and pointed out the moral problems with abortion. A woman has sex, and expects... what? Not a baby? It's murder of a child because someone can't bear to have had a baby by doing the act of making one. Rape, incest, etc. are reasons to give the baby to someone who can care for it, not to murder it. Con clearly pointed this out and pro just made legal arguments which wasn't the point of this debate. I therefore give all my points over to con.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Conduct, S&G, sources. No attempt made to explain these points. (2) Arguments. This RFD merely expresses the user's personal opinion.
===================================================================
Posted by Lee001 1 year ago
Lee001
@Kasmic
Thanks...

Clearly bias vote.
Posted by kasmic 1 year ago
kasmic
@mcswag.... Your rfd contains arguements that are not in the debate. It also does not justify all the points you awarded. I have reported it.
Posted by Lee001 1 year ago
Lee001
Thanks for the feedback!
Posted by kasmic 1 year ago
kasmic
Great feedback, thanks for reading and voting.
Posted by Biodome 1 year ago
Biodome
c) "Abortion is not "good." It is painful, harmful, and sad." This is indeed a laughable attempt at an argument and Pro noted that, yet, surprisingly, she didn't contest it in any shape or form, except for stating that Con did not provide any sources or justification for his assertions. But those weren't needed, since it should be obvious that Abortion may result in pain, harm and sadness. Instead of dodging the argument, Pro should have tried to refute it by showing that it had not necessarily anything to do with what is moral and just. Quite unexpectedly, it is indeed the only argument left standing at the end of the debate.

d) There were some attempts at new arguments in the final round, but I should probably ignore those, as the last round should not be intended for new arguments. Pro should probably have focused on expanding and revising her rebuttals, instead of a short conclusion.

Sources: Tied (No points)

---

In general, it seemed to me that kasmic demonstrated a better understanding of the issue, that is, this was a debate about justice and morality, not the legality of abortion and its legal implications. Pro went the wrong way by completely ignoring the concept of morality, and I think that this was the main mistake she made. Indeed, there were a lot of philosophical and ethical theories she could have used in order to justify her position, yet she went the wrong path, produced red herrings and never had a strong case, which was simply rebutted by kasmic.

All in all, this was interesting to read through. Thanks to both Lee001 and kasmic for their efforts.
Posted by Biodome 1 year ago
Biodome
A quick and easy debate to read through - thanks to both of the participants for providing their insights.
I will now provide my RFD:

Agreed Before & After: Lee001 (No points)

Conduct: Tied (No points)

Spelling & Grammar: Normally I disregard the occasional mistakes, but here I will award the points to kasmic, because Lee001's grammar was really off in several places and made it difficult to comprehend what she was saying. There were issues with capitalization, punctuation, syntax and spelling. For instance, in Round 3 she used words like "propper", "becuase", "goverment", "gose", "arent", "abourtions", "un-just", "applys", "saftey", "moraly", "conlusion", "mande", "asy", "aboirtion" - all of which could have been corrected with the quick spelling checker. Since she didn't do that, it shows that Pro was not even interested in reviewing and checking her grammar.

Arguments: Points go to kasmic here for the reasons outlined below.

a) The Right to Abortion argument. Lee001 tried to show that since the government guarantees the right to abortion, abortion itself is just. Kasmic here correctly noted that one cannot use the legal system as an argument for morality, because something can be legal, yet unjust or immoral (the slavery example, as pointed out by kasmic). I can only agree with this, especially, since Lee001 never really managed to contest this point and only repeated the argument, which really began to sound like circular reasoning at that point.

b) Well-Being of the Mother. Lee001 tried to argue that since abortions resulted in increased psychological well-being and health, abortions should be allowed. Kasmic successfully argued that this has nothing to do with the resolution, as they should be talking about the inherent justification of abortion, i.e. whether it is moral or not; not whether it should be allowed/criminalized due to health effects.

Continued...
Posted by bluesteel 1 year ago
bluesteel
===============================================================
>Reported vote: PatriotPerson // Moderator action: Removed<

2 points to Pro (Sources), 4 points to Con (arguments, S&G). Reasons for voting decision: S&G goes to Con because Pro made several mistakes (i.e. "propper", "women" and "the gose"). Arguments to Con because he was right in saying Pro never refuted his, and highlighted the fact that something is not just simply because of being legal. Sources to Pro because she used more.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Arguments. Too generic: Pro never refuted. Incoherent: "something is not just simply because of being illegal." (2) Sources. Quantity is not a valid factor for reliability.
================================================================
Posted by Lee001 1 year ago
Lee001
Good job Kasmic :)
Posted by kasmic 1 year ago
kasmic
On a very serious topic though.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Biodome 1 year ago
Biodome
Lee001kasmicTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in Comments
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
Lee001kasmicTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro misspelled "proper", didn't capitalize "she" when it began a sentence, and used the phrase "the gose". She also didn't use an apostrophe when using "aren't", and misspelled "because". S and G to Con.