The Instigator
Zaradi
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
BigSky
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Abortion ought to be permissible in the case of rape

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 3 votes the winner is...
Zaradi
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/13/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,719 times Debate No: 31291
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (3)

 

Zaradi

Pro

Ths debate spins off of a comment made in the following forum (http://www.debate.org...)

Resolved: Abortion ought to be permissible in the case of rape

Definitons are fairly straght-forward. I don't expect a semantics approach on this topic, given the fervor of my opponent's opinion.

Standard debate etiquete applies. First round acceptance. No new arguments final rounds. Restrict yourself to the character limit (idk if people still go over it now but who knows).

The burden of proof for the debate will be split. I must prove why it ought to be permissble, while my opponent must prove why it ought not.
I await my opponent's acceptance.
BigSky

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
Zaradi

Pro

To begin with, I think there needs to be a few things outlined before we begin:

First of all, the point of this debate isn't on whether or not abortion is murder or it's immoral or something like that. For this reason, arguments like "abortion is murder, so it's never permissible" don't really apply to the situation the resolution is questioning. I suppose if my opponent wanted he could really argue for that, but that just defeats the entire purpose of the specificty of the resolution.

My case is fairly simple: there are plenty of harms to both mother and child upon forcing a mother who was raped to give birth, and abortion solves for these harms, thus it should be permissible.

Harm One: Harms to the Child:

Whenever a baby born from rape is brought into the world, society tends to have a downward outlook on that child simply because it's a product of an immoral action. For example, communities in Rwanda call them "devil's children", "children of shame" in Timor-Leste, "monster babies" in Nicaragua, "dust of life" in Vietnam, among others(1). The World Health Organization (WHO) report that children born from rape are at risk of neglection, stigmatization, becoming ostrasized, and abandonment(1). Children born from rape are also at risk of infanticide(1).

Moreover, the relationship between mother and child suffers when the child is born from rape. Clinical studies report a high rate of ambivelent and abusive parent-child relationships(1) as well as a high rate of discrimination within the society(1). These stigmatizations have serious psychological harms to the child's well-being, such as attachment disorders, disturbances in psychosocial development, and identity issues(1). All of these harms are avoidable by abortion.



Harm Two: Harms to the Mother:

Ignoring the obvious physical and emotional difficulties of bringing a child through pregnancy to birth, there are many harms placed upon the mother who has to give birth to a child conceived through rape. Women who give birth from rape generally have to share custody of the child with the rapist(2). The constant interaction with the attacker acts like a tethering effect, forcing the mother to pretend to like her attacker in order to keep her primary custody. This tethering effects creates a cycle of experiencing and re-experiencing the feelings from the rape over and over again, causing psychological harms such as depressive symptoms and suicidal ideation(2).

Moreover, the majority of rape victims develope a form of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), as well as nearly one-third of rape victims developing rape-related Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (RR-PTSD)(2). Having PTSD AND RR-PTSD negatively affects the ability of the mother to parent, fearing any sort of contact with the event of the rape in order to avoid a flash-back, which could lead to things such as child negligence.

Both harms are able to be solved by solely abortion. Thus, it ought to be permissible.


Sources:
BigSky

Con

BigSky forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Zaradi

Pro

And just when you call them out....

I'll wait a little longer.
BigSky

Con

Forgive me for my forfeiture, I honestly haven't been able to be at a computer in quite a while. I will concede my points of conduct. "First of all, the point of this debate isn't on whether or not abortion is murder or it's immoral or something like that. For this reason, arguments like "abortion is murder, so it's never permissible."

My opponent clearly doesn't want a real debate if he says that the murder debate is irrelevant, which was the basis of my argument.
Debate Round No. 3
Zaradi

Pro

At this point, sadly, my opponent cannot win. He has yet to provide a single argument as to why abortion ought not be permissible in the case of rape. Since it's the last round, and the rules state that no new arguments may be made in the final round, he has no arguments in favor of his side. And since he did not address mine, you may extend them all out and vote affirmative.

Just so I may address everything in the round, my opponent makes this claim instead of actually arguing:

"My opponent clearly doesn't want a real debate if he says that the murder debate is irrelevant, which was the basis of my argument."

To begin with, let's take a look at the full context of things. This is the full paragraph that he botched to quote in partial:

"First of all, the point of this debate isn't on whether or not abortion is murder or it's immoral or something like that. For this reason, arguments like "abortion is murder, so it's never permissible" don't really apply to the situation the resolution is questioning. I suppose if my opponent wanted he could really argue for that, but that just defeats the entire purpose of the specificty of the resolution. "

The bolded basically invalidates his entire complaint.

And I'm also a little skeptical that murder was the "basis of his argument" as we can specifically see from the thread where this debate originates from, this was the reasoning he initially stated:

"In the case of rape, the mother should not be selfish and not have the baby because she will have "bad memories."

I may not have the greatest grade in English right now, but I'm pretty sure I don't see a mention of the word "murder" anywhere in there.

Methinks I may have a semi-compelling rebuttal to the "derp bad memories aren't good enough derp" argument.

Anyway, I thank con for at least not forfeiting the second round as well as the first and thank the readers for voting.
BigSky

Con

When my opponent doesn't want to waste my time by ruling out any arguments I might make, I will challenge him to this same debate.
Debate Round No. 4
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by BigSky 4 years ago
BigSky
Come at me broooo!!!!!
Posted by BigSky 4 years ago
BigSky
Alright dude, well whenever your ready to challenge me you know where to find me.
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
You didn't miss the deadline at all. You still had a round to make arguments and instead you chose to b*tch about something I was fine with you arguing to begin with. I don't give two fvcks if you can't make a round, I miss some all the time. But then you proceeded to waste the other two rounds when we could've had a productive debate. Forgive me if I'm not jumping off the blocks to send you another challenge.
Posted by BigSky 4 years ago
BigSky
I am genuinely sorry for missing the deadline, please challenge me again, sir.
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
Already did. As you can see, you wussied out.
Posted by BigSky 4 years ago
BigSky
Brah, you're the one wussin out if you don't challenge meh :)
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
You had the debate right here. You wussied out. Why would I do the same thing when you'll do the same thing?
Posted by BigSky 4 years ago
BigSky
Challeneg me again, same rules, same everything, I won't forfeit brah.
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
.....really BigSky? Really? You couldn't even finish the paragraph where I said "if he really wanted to he probably could"? That's an absolute cop-out.
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
Awh. And I thought my case was pretty poor.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 4 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
ZaradiBigSkyTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: F.F.
Vote Placed by THEVIRUS 4 years ago
THEVIRUS
ZaradiBigSkyTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: BigSky didn't do sh!t. I am sorry, but he avoided everything in what I think was an attempted troll.
Vote Placed by Bull_Diesel 4 years ago
Bull_Diesel
ZaradiBigSkyTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: forfeit/ arguments vote goes to zaradi