Abortion is acceptable in the circumstances of rape.
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
Lordknukle
| Started: | 11/11/2011 | Category: | Society |
| Updated: | 1 year ago | Status: | Post Voting Period |
| Viewed: | 1,963 times | Debate No: | 19233 |
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (19)
Votes (4)
 Pro 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. |
 |
|
Pro 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...  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.
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
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.
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.
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... |
 |
|
Pro 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 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 |
 |
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 1 year ago
| JakeBoatman96 | Lordknukle | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - |  | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 5 |
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 1 year ago
| JakeBoatman96 | Lordknukle | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | | - | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | | - | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 6 |
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 1 year ago
| JakeBoatman96 | Lordknukle | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | | - | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | | - | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 3 |
Reasons for voting decision: Con's arguments seem rebutable, but Pro didn't bother to rebut them.
Advantage: Con.
Vote Placed by imabench 1 year ago
| JakeBoatman96 | Lordknukle | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | | - | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | | - | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 6 |
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
I may have been a zygote at one point, but I was also a sperm cell and an ovum. By your terms, Lordknukle, that would simply be a regressed form of my current being and consequently, the disposal of sperm cells and/or ova would also be classified as abortion, which is ludicrous.
I will agree in the comparison of forms up until the third trimester where one can argue the presence of a "highly-developed brain" capable of self-awareness and what not, a quality that defines the homo sapiens. However in zygotes, embryos, and fetuses to an extent, one cannot.
There are about 450-740 rape pregnancies in the US per year.
The ones with a cyst are very few if none
-If both can be saved, save them both.
-BUT, if both are at risk, and the outcome was between both dying, or just the baby dies, obviously save the mother.
This debate has nothing to do with cysts on a woman's ovary though!
But what if she has a cyst on her ovary, and has a serious chance of harm or death to both her and the baby if she carries it?
But, if a mother is carrying a child that is causing her harm, and she decides to have an abortion, that just seems selfish to me.