The Instigator
JakeBoatman96
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Lordknukle
Con (against)
Winning
20 Points

Abortion is acceptable in the circumstances of rape.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 4 votes the winner is...
Lordknukle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/11/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,888 times Debate No: 19233
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (19)
Votes (4)

 

JakeBoatman96

Pro

I believe that abortion is acceptable in the circumstances of rape. No other time is it acceptable.

First round is acceptance and clarification.
Rounds 2-3 is the argument.

you have 72 hours to respond to each argument.
Argument max is 8,000 characters.

I thank my opponent in advance for accepting my challenge.
Lordknukle

Con

Accepted.

This ought to be fun.
Debate Round No. 1
JakeBoatman96

Pro

I would like to point out that we are only debating on abortion under the circumstance of rape.

a�bor�tion [uh-bawr-shuhn]
noun
1. Also called voluntary abortion. the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy.
2. Any of various surgical methods for terminating a pregnancy, especially during the first six months.

rape [reyp]
noun
1. The unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.
2. Any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.
-verb, raped, rap�‚��ing.

If that woman did't get the abortion:

Women who are raped or victims of incest should not be forced to carry out a pregnancy. Odds are that 1 in 3 women will be victims of sexual violence in her lifetime. Does this mean that 33% of all women should be forced to carry out a pregnancy from this violation? Considering how many people are killed during childbirth, should we allow this further risk to be endured on top of what has already been done?

Many would argue that these women could endure the pregnancy, spending nearly a year of her life simply re-living the rape and its effects over and over again, to give up a baby at the end of it for adoption. However, we all are aware of the fact that there are millions of unwanted children awaiting adoption as we speak who remain unclaimed; in fact, UNICEF estimates that there are 210 million orphans in the world right now. If they have no one willing to be their parent or guardian, why would another baby have a better chance?

My theory is that people who spend so much time, energy, and money on anti-abortion campaigns should instead spend it on the precious children they say need saving so- the ones who are alive and parentless. Imagine if all the funds spent on all those billboards and flyers and campaigns were instead either spent adopting or donating to places that are overrun with orphaned children... perhaps some actual credibility would be given to these people who claim to love children so much.

Also, there is the fact of the matter of the more than one million homeless youth in America alone. The number one factor for a child being homeless is physical or sexual abuse at home. Perhaps these "child-lovers"� should step in and care for these already-born children as well. [1]

http://www.amplifyyourvoice.org...
Lordknukle

Con

I thank my opponent for his arguments.

First I shall present my main case and then the rebuttals.

I accept my opponent's definitions.

My 2 main contentions will be:

C1: Rape pregnancies are very rare
C2:Rape does not make the fetus any less human

C1: Rape pregnancies are very rare

According to J. C. Willke, MD, :

Let's look, using the figure of 200,000 rapes each year.

  • Of the 200,000 women who were forcibly raped, one-third were either too old or too young to get pregnant. That leaves 133,000 at risk for pregnancy.
  • A woman is capable of being fertilized only 3 days (perhaps 5) out of a 30-day month. Multiply our figure of 133,000 by three tenths. Three days out of 30 is one out of ten, divide 133 by ten and we have 13,300 women remaining. If we use five days out of 30 it is one out of six. Divide one hundred and thirty three thousand by six and we have 22,166 remaining.
  • One-fourth of all women in the United States of childbearing age have been sterilized, so the remaining three-fourths come out to 10,000 (or 15,000).
  • Only half of assailants penetrate her body and/or deposit sperm in her vagina,so let's cut the remaining figures in half. This gives us numbers of 5,000 (or 7,500).
  • Fifteen percent of men are sterile, that drops that figure to 4,250 (or 6,375).
  • Fifteen percent of non-surgically sterilized women are naturally sterile. That reduces the number to 3,600 (or 5,400).
  • Another fifteen percent are on the pill and/or already pregnant. That reduces the number to 3,070 (or 4,600).
  • Now factor in the fact that it takes 5-10 months for the average couple to achieve a pregnancy. Use the smaller figure of 5 months to be conservative and divide the above figures by 5. The number drops to 600 (or 920).
  • In an average population, the miscarriage rate is about 15 percent. In this case we have incredible emotional trauma. Her body is upset. Even if she conceives, the miscarriage rate will be higher than in a more normal pregnancy. If 20 percent of raped women miscarry, the figure drops to 450 (or 740).(1)
The amount of women raped and pregnant is in fact minuscule.

Now, we know that humans are naturally greedy. You give them an inch, and they demand a mile. If you make abortions acceptable for rape pregnancies, then all the crazy feminists (I'm looking at you, Hillary Clinton) shall unite to make abortion in general legal.
This is unacceptable.
Nothing only has one consequence, by making abortion acceptable for these very few women (0.0000001%), you make abortion acceptable for everybody.

C2: Rape pregnancies do not make the baby any less human(2)
A rape is a horrible occurrence, but it does not make the baby any less human
  • A fetus is alive

It is a misnomer to refer to this entity as a “fertilized ovum.” For both ovum and sperm, which are genetically each a part of its owner (mother and father, respectively), cease to exist at the moment of conception. There is no doubt that the zygote is biologically alive. It fulfills the four criteria needed to establish biological life: (1) metabolism, (2) growth, (3) reaction to stimuli, and (4) reproduction.

  • A fetus has human DNA

It has its own unique genetic code (with forty-six chromosomes), which is neither the mother's nor the father's. From this point until death, no new genetic information is needed to make the unborn entity a unique individual human.

Her (or his) genetic make-up is established at conception, determining her unique individual physical characteristics—gender, eye color, bone structure, hair color, skin color, susceptibility to certain diseases, etc. That is to say, at conception, the “genotype”—the inherited characteristics of a unique human being—is established and will remain in force for the entire life of this individual.

  • Human is the same body all throughout its lifetime

Unlike a snake or a caterpillar, which either sheds its skin throughout its lifetime or evolves into a different form, humans remain a constant form all throughout their lifetime. A fetus is the same form as a baby. An easy to understand example of this would be this:

You did not come from a zygote.

You once were a zygote.

You did not come from an embryo.

You once were an embryo.

You did not come from a fetus.

You once were a fetus.

You did not come from an adolescent.

You once were an adolescent.

To say that an adolescent is different from a fetus is oxymoronic. An adolescent was once a fetus and an embryo.


Also, lets not forget that:
"Since conception does not occur immediately following intercourse, pregnancy can be eliminated in all rape cases if the rape victim receives immediate medical treatment by having all the male semen removed from her uterus"(3)

Also psychological studies have shown that:
"psychological studies have shown that, when given the proper support, most pregnant rape victims progressively change their attitudes about their unborn child from something repulsive to someone who is innocent and uniquely worthwhile."(3)

"Women who are raped or victims of incest should not be forced to carry out a pregnancy. Odds are that 1 in 3 women will be victims of sexual violence in her lifetime. Does this mean that 33% of all women should be forced to carry out a pregnancy from this violation? Considering how many people are killed during childbirth, should we allow this further risk to be endured on top of what has already been done?"

My opponent is largely exaggerating the numbers. Rare pregnancies are very rare, as previously stated. There are only about 400 per year.
Also, the maternal death rate in the US is 11 per 100 000. That is a 1.1 death rate every 10 000.
Chances are that none of those women will die if giving birth to the child.

"Many would argue that these women could endure the pregnancy, spending nearly a year of her life simply re-living the rape and its effects over and over again, to give up a baby at the end of it for adoption. However, we all are aware of the fact that there are millions of unwanted children awaiting adoption as we speak who remain unclaimed; in fact, UNICEF estimates that there are 210 million orphans in the world right now. If they have no one willing to be their parent or guardian, why would another baby have a better chance?"

As previously stated, psychological treatment can be given to women who suffer rape.
Also, the number of rape pregnancies are so few, that the amount of adopted kids caused by them would be unnoticed compared to other factors.

"My theory is that people who spend so much time, energy, and money on anti-abortion campaigns should instead spend it on the precious children they say need saving so- the ones who are alive and parentless. Imagine if all the funds spent on all those billboards and flyers and campaigns were instead either spent adopting or donating to places that are overrun with orphaned children... perhaps some actual credibility would be given to these people who claim to love children so much."

Because there are soooo many rape babies.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I have shown that the amount of rape babies are so low, that they are not worth considering. Also rape pregnancies can be prevented and psychologically treated. Rape babies are not any less human than other babies. I have rebutted all of my opponents cases.

Vote Con
Good luck to PRO
(1)http://www.christianliferesources.com...
(2)http://www.christiananswers.net...
(3)http://www.christiananswers.net...
(4)http://en.wikipedia.org...

Debate Round No. 2
JakeBoatman96

Pro

I thank my opponent for a timely response.

I would like to point out that my opponent used only biased and unreliable resources. Anyone can go on Wikipedia and put anything they desire.

First my rebuttals:

1) Even if Wikipedia was a reliable source, it doesn't help when you take things out of context. I quote my opponent: "...the maternal death rate in the US is 11 per 100,000. That is a 1.1 death rate every 10,000." Wikipedia claims that for the United States of America, we have anywhere from 11-30. So yes, 11 is possible, but not likely to be that low if it ranges all the way up to 30.

Here is the link for anyone who wishes to pursue further. http://en.wikipedia.org...

2) My opponent has used biased resources such as christianliferesouces.com and christiananswers.com. It seems that my opponent was desperate for information considering he is Agnostic himself, yet turned to Christian websites.

I rest my case. No further arguments will be made.

VOTE PRO
Lordknukle

Con

My opponent has completely dropped my cases and instead goes on to attack my sources.

Even if the maternal rate was 30 per 100 000, then we would have a 1.1 death rate for every 3 333 women.

Still, unlikely that a woman will die from childbirth.

My opponent has not rebutted any of my cases.

I rest my case

VOTE CON
Debate Round No. 3
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Lordknukle 5 years ago
Lordknukle
Yeah... I guess rarity really doesn't matter in this regard. Stupid argument.
Posted by Maikuru 5 years ago
Maikuru
Since abortion is currently legal and the debate maintains this reality, it doesn't constitute special treatment. In fact, it would be a special exclusion. I assume your point is that all abortion should be illegal, right? I still don't see how rarity plays into that.

Out of curiosity, how large does a group need to be to warrant case-specific treatment?
Posted by Lordknukle 5 years ago
Lordknukle
The fact that it is such of a small minority does not warrant special treatment.
Posted by Maikuru 5 years ago
Maikuru
I don't understand how the rarity of the event benefits the Con position.
Posted by Lordknukle 5 years ago
Lordknukle
Less than 1%. I think I mentioned it. Something like

0.0000001%
Posted by Jbrownell 5 years ago
Jbrownell
There is only 1% of women that will become pregnant because of rape or incest. There are other options avalible. Adoption is an option. Thousands of couples are waiting to adopt that cannot biologically conceive.
Posted by Lordknukle 5 years ago
Lordknukle
FYI my opponent copied and pasted his argument from the website he listed.
Posted by lotus_flower 5 years ago
lotus_flower
@katieDC
Since I cannot comment on your profile, I will respond here.
"You do realize that if all pregnancies ended in abortion the human race would die out, right? And that by saying that all pregnancies should end in abortion, you believe that your mother's pregnancy (with you) should have ended in abortion. So clearly you wish you were never born by that logic and that is not a healthy way to think of yourself. Just saying."

Of coarse I realize this.I was being facetious. people do that, and I thought that people on here could tell when a person IS being facetious, but obviously not. (:
facetious
Adjective:
Treating serious issues with deliberately inappropriate humor.
Posted by caveat 5 years ago
caveat
I never mentioned DNA at all. I am referring to your point stating "Human is the same body all throughout its lifetime".

Explain to me how one can compare a single-cell zygote with no self-cognizance, rationality, sentience, or any trait that distinguishes a human being is the same as a multi-trillion celled organism with all of the above.

"You were not once a sperm cell or an ovum."

I'm almost certain that I was. Also, I said 'and', not 'or'. Humans are made of many different types of cells, how is being a sperm cell and an egg cell any different by your logic? The DNA is all there!
Posted by Lordknukle 5 years ago
Lordknukle
You were not once a sperm cell or an ovum.

Those two combined to make a completely different human being with different DNA, you.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
JakeBoatman96LordknukleTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I was sorry to see Pro only attack sources after Con's case. When he began to attack Con's sources I actually went and checked them. Even though they were from mostly Christian websites, the material on the pages was sourced. I hope Pro realizes that all references are available at the bottom of the page for verification in each of Con's sources. Since Con's sources were transparent in their verifications, Pro should have been able to point out bias if there was any. He did not. So vote to Con.
Vote Placed by Rockylightning 5 years ago
Rockylightning
JakeBoatman96LordknukleTied
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: Wikipedia is a completely reliable source. All edits are verified, seriously. Not a reason to drop all of con's arguments.
Vote Placed by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
JakeBoatman96LordknukleTied
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: Con's arguments seem rebutable, but Pro didn't bother to rebut them. Advantage: Con.
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
JakeBoatman96LordknukleTied
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: pro started off string but then abandoned both his own arguments and his rebuttals to denounce cons sourcing of wikipedia, which is a good source, complete win for con