The Instigator
Mikal
Con (against)
Winning
28 Points
The Contender
Voice_Of_The_People
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Abortion should be illegal in the United States

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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...
Mikal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/27/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,471 times Debate No: 47925
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (17)
Votes (4)

 

Mikal

Con

Definitions for this debate shall be as follows

Abortion - the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy.

Illegal - To place a Ban on or to completely remove the practice of


Pro is not arguing for the removal of abortion in certain situations but rather a complete ban on the practice all together. He has the BOP


Rounds

Me

(1) Rules
(2) Opening Arguments/ Contentions
(3) Closing Arguments, Crystallizing points, Closing Remarks.


Adversary

(1) Opening Arguments/Contentions
(2) Closing Arguments, Crystallizing Points, Closing Remarks
(3) Shall Type "No round as agreed upon"


Rules

(1) Failure to type no round as agreed upon will result in a full 7 point FF due to my adversary having an extra round
(2) FFs or Multiple FFs will result in the loss of a conduct point and possibly a full drop at the discretion of the judges
(3) 10k Words
(4) Votes shall contain a valid and proper RFD.
Voice_Of_The_People

Pro

Hi, It will be a pleasure to debate you on this topic. Now lets begin.

For my first point I would like to say that the planed parenthood started out as a racial thing. Margaret Sanger, founder of planed parenthood, wrote an unfortunate sentence in a private letter about needing to clarify the ideals and goals of the birth control movement, "we do not want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population."

Next, abortion is also unsafe. Compared with other medical procedures, the abortion industry is largely unregulated. Although there are no exact statistics for the number of women who die from botched procedures, LifeDynamics.com compiled a list of 347 women killed by legal abortions since 1973. Furthermore, the National Cancer Institute commissioned a study lead by Dr. Janet Daling, an abortion supporter, and her colleagues at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center which found a link between abortion and cancer: "among women who had been pregnant at least once, the risk of breast cancer in those who had experienced an induced abortion was 50% higher than among other women."
The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer reports: "28 out of 37 worldwide studies have independently linked induced abortion with breast cancer. Thirteen out of fifteen studies conducted on American women report increased risk. Seventeen studies are statistically significant, sixteen of which found increased risk. Most of the studies have been conducted by abortion supporters."

Thirdly, abortion causes mental anguish for the mother. Women who go through an abortion have to always carry that thought with them. They often wonder what their child would have looked like, acted like, and what type of person he/she would have been. No matter how strong a woman is, an abortion causes mental anguish that never truly goes away. At least with adoption a mother or father has the chance to see what their child has become.

Finally, we are killing humans. Life starts at the moment of conception. This is the definition given in any respectable medical textbook. To declare a beginning of life at any point after the fusing of a wife"s egg and a husband"s contribution is irrational and an exercise in sophistical chicanery. Only machines such as clocks and cars come into existence part by part. Living beings come into existence all at once and gradually unfold their world of innate potential. A living human person begins to exist at the moment of conception, even though only as a cell. What is important is not the accident of size or weight but the essence " which is fully human. The unborn baby has a distinct, unchanging and unrepeatable genetic code, unique in all of history, from the moment of conception till death. Nothing is added except nutrition and oxygen.

For these reasons listed, I strongly suggest that abortion be illegalized.
Debate Round No. 1
Mikal

Con

My adversaries response was relativity short, so I am going to keep mine pretty simple too.

By the resolution and first round we can clearly see what we are debating

" Abortion should be illegal"

Illegal is defined as

Illegal - not allowed by the law [1]

So what I must do to win is show a scenario in where an abortion should legal. Is there is a circumstance that could warrant an abortion, that would mean abortion should remain legal. This is not a debate about whether abortion should be legal in (x) or not legal in (y). This is referring to the fact that abortion is murder.


Premise 1 : Right to self defense

We under US law are permitted the right to defined ourselves from bodily harm, especially in cases that could result in death.

Justifiable homicide - "killing without evil or criminal intent, for which there can be no blame, such as self-defense to protect oneself or to protect another, or the shooting by a law enforcement officer in fulfilling his/her duties. This is not to be confused with a crime of passion or claim of diminished capacity which refer to defenses aimed at reducing the penalty or degree of crime"

There are also stand your ground laws, that give you the right to kill a person in self defense

This is even in certain state statues such as Florida

" A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another" [3]

Even the founding fathers thought self defense was an unalienable right. [4]


You even see this in the Constitution

"Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of HIMSELF or the state" [5]

So we can clearly see that self defense is justified by the law, even if you take another persons life.



Premise 2 : There are Cases where the fetus and mother could die or the fetus could kill the mother

At this point the Fetus is inflicting bodily harm on the mother and threatening her life. We see this in ectopic pregnancies.

Ectiopic Pregnancy - An ectopic pregnancy is a pregnancy that occurs outside the womb (uterus). It is life-threatening to the mother.[6]

"In most pregnancies, the fertilized egg travels through the fallopian tube to the womb (uterus). Anything that blocks or slows the movement of this egg through these tubes can lead to ectopic pregnancy"[6]

In addition to this fatal pregnancies occur all the time in the US. This is true in both the US and World wide. 15 percent of pregnancies result in fatal complications. [7]. Granted it is a low number but it even occurs in the US, per 100,000 births an estimated 21 deaths occur in the United States[8].

" According to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2010, 3,999,386 infants were born in the United States, 3% less than in 2009. The number of births fell for nearly all races and Hispanic origin groups. The birth rate in 2010 was 13.0 per 1,000 people " [9]


According to the studies provided every 100,000 births result in 21 deaths.

There are an estimated 3,999,386 births that occurred in 2010 according to the CDC. Let's round that up to 4,000,000 flat


4,000,000 / 100,000 = 40


40 * 21 = 840 maternal deaths on a yearly basis in the United States


We can in fact acknowledge deaths happen in pregnancy. Granted I did round up, but even without rounding up it would be over 800.


Conclusion

[a] We have the right to self defense, and can defend ourselves from death and certain harm. This is promised by the constitution
[b] There are pregnancies that can result in fatalities. Around 800 yearly in the US
[c] If abortion were illegal, practicing abortion would be a criminal offense.
[d] This would deny the mother the right to kill the fetus in extreme cases, and violate her right to self defense
[e] Abortion should be legal in the United States.





[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[2] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...
[3] http://www.leg.state.fl.us... [4] For example, Elbridge Gerry asserted that "Self-defense is a primary law of nature, which no subsequent law of society can abolish. (Emphasis added.) [Gerry, "Observations on the New Constitution, and on Federal and State Conventions," Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, ed. Paul Ford, p. 4.]
[5] http://www2.law.ucla.edu...
[6] http://www.nlm.nih.gov...
[7] http://www.savethemothers.org...
[8] https://www.cia.gov...
[9] http://www.nichd.nih.gov...
Voice_Of_The_People

Pro

To end round 2 two of this debate, I would like to begin by refuting your argument. So lets begin.

" There are Cases where the fetus and mother could die or the fetus could kill the mother"

Argument 1

At first, your argument sounds reasonable. So abortions sound very necessary. But if you do a little bit more research you will find that this argument cannot stand.

You stated that about 840 maternal deaths happen on a yearly basis as a result of pregnancy complications. This seams like a reasonably large amount of deaths that could be avoided if abortion is legal. With abortion though, the death rates of unborn children are astronomical.

"Guttmacher reported 1,212,400 abortions in 2008. They reported an abortion rate of 22.4 per 100 pregnancies, and 9.6 abortions per 1,000 women of reproductive age. The Centers for Disease Control"s numbers, from 2009, report 784,507 abortions in that year. Keep in mind that the CDC is missing information from several states, including California, New Hampshire, Delaware, and Maryland, among others." [1]

"January 23, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) " A new analysis from the National Right to Life Committee"s (NCLC) education department estimates that since the infamous Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision in 1973, over 54.5 million American babies have died through abortion." [2]

"But what it means is that there are over 3,300 abortions every day"137 per hour"or about one dead baby every thirty seconds." [2]

Looking at these statistics, we find that about 1.2 million babies die each year because of abortion. If we illegalize abortion, about 840 lives will be lost each year; but if we legalize abortion, about 1.2 million lives will be lost.

Argument 2

An abortion for a ectopic pregnancy isn't always necessary. Sometimes the ectopic pregnancy isn't life threatening, so an abortion for one would be killing the baby for no reason.

"What is rarely realized is that there are several cases in the medical literature where abdominal ectopic pregnancies have survived! There are no cases of ectopic pregnancies in a fallopian tube surviving, but several large studies have confirmed that time and patience will allow for spontaneous regression of the tubal ectopic pregnancy the vast majority of the time. So chemical or surgical removal of an ectopic pregnancy is not always necessary to save the mother"s life after all." [3]

Argument 3

If the ectopic pregnancy can be fatal there is still no reason for abortion. To explain this I'll use the following quote:

" We find it extremely unfortunate that many pro-lifers have regarded the health of the mother to be a consideration in whether or not she should have the right to terminate the life of her pre-born baby. Politicians who herald the title "pro-life" on the campaign trail frequently tout this health exception, as well as exceptions for rape and incest, as pragmatic compromises that will not offend political moderates and not alienate the pro-life community. We do not consider this compromise consistent with pro-life Hippocratic principles at all. To intentionally kill or condone the intentional killing of one innocent human being precludes one from being considered "pro-life" at all. A murderer of one person is not any less a murderer if he allows thousands to live, nor if he saves thousands from dying!

When the life of the mother is truly threatened by her pregnancy, if both lives cannot simultaneously be saved, then saving the mother"s life must be the primary aim. If through our careful treatment of the mother"s illness the pre-born patient inadvertently dies or is injured, this is tragic and, if unintentional, is not unethical and is consistent with the pro-life ethic. But the intentional killing of an unborn baby by abortion is never necessary.

Most of what passes as a therapeutic, or medically-necessary abortion, is not necessary at all to save the mother"s life. For example, if a mother has breast cancer and requires immediate chemotherapy to survive that can kill the baby, the physician will frequently recommend a therapeutic abortion. Another example: if a mother has life-threatening seizures that can only be controlled by medication that will kill or severely deform her unborn child, the physician will frequently prescribe a therapeutic abortion. In both of these cases, the abortion is not necessary to protect the mother"s health. The necessary medication may injure or kill the pre-born child, but this is no justification for intentionally killing the child. If the child is injured or dies from the medication prescribed to the mother to save her life, the injury was unintentional and, if truly medically necessary, not unethical.

Let us illustrate this principle further: if a rescuer is venturing into a burning vehicle to try to save its injured occupants, and is only able to save one of the two occupants, is it justifiable for him to then take out his gun and shoot the occupant he was unable to save? Of course not! Intentionally killing those you were not able to save is never justified in healthcare. We have the technology and expertise to provide quality healthcare to a pregnant woman without intentionally killing her unborn baby, regardless of the severity of her disease." [3]

[1]http://www.lifenews.com...
[2]http://www.lifesitenews.com...
[3] http://www.prolifephysicians.org...

( By the way, adversaries needs an apostrophe, and you spelled ectopic incorrectly.)
Debate Round No. 2
Mikal

Con

Rebuttals


My adversary is trying to compare deaths in pregnancy to the numbers of number abortions. First there are a few major flaws in this along with some other issues that come up

(a) We have to admit the fetus is a life.

So is the fetus a life or in fact a person? What characteristics do most people share in common. They feel pain, they have conscious behavior, they can think, feel, touch, and smell. The bulk of the scientific literature on the abortion finds that the brain connections needed to feel pain are not in place until at least 24 weeks, which is also the earliest possible time a fetus becomes viable outside the womb [1].

A fetus does not start exhibiting the traits most humans have until the end of a pregnancy. So we have to ask ourselves is it just a life or a human life. Why do we not blink when we kill animals or plants? They are all living things but we do not hesitate to end life. That is because we don't think these things are comparative to ourselves.

My adversary is trying to play a numbers game but I really want to allow the point he is trying to make to sink in. There are nearly 1 thousand mothers who could die from this on a yearly basis. These are people anywhere from any age group.

Imagine going to an emergency room and having a mother or a child beg to have her life saved. Then having to tell them that they are not allowed to have an abortion and must carry the child through even if it costs them there life. Now at this point abortion should be legal and it should remain on the table. Having to sentence a living breathing human to death in order to try and save a fetus is a cruel thing to do. I know if they tried to sentence my girlfriend to death because she had to try and deliver a fetus that could die, there would be some major issues.

this is not even considering cases where the fetus and the mother both will die if the abortion does not happen. My adversary claims a fetus is a human life, but cited no evidence to support this. For his argument to be sound, he would have to show that we are committing murder by killing a fetus. He cited nothing to show this is murder, nor provided evidence to support this claim.

He does keep mixing up a fetus with a baby though, in his entire argument the word fetus hardly ever came up. He assumes we are killing living breathing babies. We are ending something with he potential to become a baby, not the baby itself.

Note : For his argument to have any credibility he would had to have shown how the fetus is a living person. This was never brought up so this argument is null

(b) Banning abortions would not stop them

If women do not want the kid, they are not going to have the kid. They will either try to kill it themselves or have a back alley abortion where it could and probably would kill them.

"Estimates of the annual number of illegal abortions in the United States during the 1950s and 1960s range from 200,000 to 1.2 million. Prior to Roe v. Wade, as many as 5,000 American women died annually as a direct result of unsafe abortions."[2]

(c) Costs

This is kind of crazy but studies show that 90 percent of women would still have an abortion even if it were banned if they really wanted it done[3]. Now take into consideration to actually process someone for life in the judicial system roughly costs around 600,000 to 1,000,000.

I want to make a note about the life part. My adversary has to agree to a life sentence for an abortion, if he is trying to argue the fact that a fetus is a living person he must admit to the fact that having an abortion if it were illegal would result in life or prison or the death sentence because it is ending another human life

If it is around 600,000 per person that is caught having an illegal abortion and 90 percent of women would still have an abortion, just think about the numbers that would come up. It would add over 100 billion dollars in cost to our economy on a year to year basis.



Ectopic Pregnancy, Rape, and Situations of severe discomfort.

Whether or not it is fatal is irrelevant. It is bringing excruciating pain to the mother. At his point the self defense argument stands. If there is severe pain and enough to threaten the mother physically she is entitled to defend herself. The entire premise of this argument is that pain and death is enough reason to implement the self defense clause. Ectopic pregnancies are also just one type of fatal pregnancy with many more that occur.

Imagine this as an illustration of the violation of autonomy, consider the following scenario which is loosely based on that of Judith Thompson’s Violinist hypothetical in “A Defense of Abortion.”

"You go to a party, get really drunk, and pass out. The next morning, you wake up next to a 90 year old man with a fatal kidney disease. You remove the covers to find that you and the man are now connected by a bunch of wires and tubes. A doctor walks into the room and tells you that you got alcohol poisoning and your friends brought you to the hospital. While you were passed out, they decided to attach this man to you so that you can filter his blood for him. If you disconnect this man or pull out the tubes, he will die. The doctor then sends the two of you on your way. "

If the point comes where a pregnancy can be fatal, harmful, or was forced we are giving the state the right to force that mother to unwillingly carry a child that could kill her or that she had no desire to have.


My adversary brings up another scenario where a traveler could kill two to save one. His metaphor is flawed first and i want to quote it.


" Let us illustrate this principle further: if a rescuer is venturing into a burning vehicle to try to save its injured occupants, and is only able to save one of the two occupants, is it justifiable for him to then take out his gun and shoot the occupant he was unable to save? Of course not! Intentionally killing those you were not able to save is never justified in healthcare. We have the technology and expertise to provide quality healthcare to a pregnant woman without intentionally killing her unborn baby, regardless of the severity of her disease. "


This is such a flawed analogy. The metaphor should go like this (In cases terminal pregnancies)

There are two people trapped in a car. You are only going to be able to get one out but both are fighting to live. As you are trying to pull one out the other grabs him and tries to pull himself out. If you keep this up both of them are going to die. Is it morally acceptable to kill one of them so both don't die, or to kill one of them so that you know for sure at least one will make it out alive?

I think it is perfectly moral to do this. If you know both could die, or one is going to die regardless why would you let them both die. If you can kill one to stop them both from dying it is morally permissible even without involving nihlism. Even in the case of abortion in severe situations someone is going to die. Whom is dying should be left up to that family specifically. They should have the right to chose if the baby or mother is going to live or not, not the government. With a federal ban on abortion we are promising the government the right to chose in every situation like that. We are taking away the families choice in the matter and violating the mothers right to her body. We are taking away her ability to protect herself in the hopes of saving a fetus that may not even live.

Conclussion

(1) My adversary has proposed a fetus is a human life at all points during the pregnancy and has provided or cited no evidence to show this. He just calls a fetus a baby and leaves the argument at that. Every point that stems from this is null because it is his own opinion and he has provided no evidence to show this to be true

(2) He tried to make a case that we have the capability to address some severe pregnancies but does not address the cases where the mother could actually die and we are left with a choice between the mother or the baby. His self defense argument also falls apart because anything that is inflicting severe pain on the body, we have the right to defend ourselves from it

Abortion should remain legal in the united states for the sake of the mothers, their rights, and for the families that have to chose in severe situations .















[1] http://blogs.law.harvard.edu...
[2] http://www.ourbodiesourselves.org...
[3]http://www3.nd.edu...
Voice_Of_The_People

Pro

Thank you for this fine debate and making my job easy. In this final debate I will be showing how my adversary's arguments do not stand as well as bring up a few dropped arguments.

Argument 1
(We have to admit the fetus is a (human) life.)

In your evidence, you define that life has to feel pain, have conscious behavior, and think, feel, touch, and smell.
This definition is vague and extremely flawed, and I am going to show why.

Life has to feel pain to be considered human life. If this is true consider the following quotes.

" About 5.6 million Americans have some degree of paralysis " far more than previously thought, according to the findings of a telephone survey released today by the Christopher & Dana Reeve Foundation." [1]

"That means one in 50 Americans is living with some form of paralysis, whether caused by disease, spinal cord injury or neurological damage," said Peter T. Wilderotter, President and CEO of the Christopher & Dana Reeve Foundation. "Someone you know is living with paralysis " a family member, a friend or a work colleague." [2]

To be paralyzed is defined as: "to make (a person or animal) unable to move or feel all or part of the body." [3] So does this mean that these 5.6 million Americans aren't considered human life? Of course not! These unfortunate people are considered just as human as you and I are.

Life has to have conscious behavior to be considered human life. This is very true. If something had conscience behavior it would have emotions, it would be aware of its surroundings, and a multitude of other things. The fetus/baby does have these qualities. For example,

"The girl is moving in the womb; displays a heartbeat of 140 per minute; and is at times sucking her thumb.

As the abortionist"s suction tip begins to invade the womb, the child rears and moves violently in an attempt to avoid the instrument. Her mouth is visibly open in a "silent scream." The child"s heart rate speeds up dramatically (to 200 beats per minute) as she senses aggression. She moves violently away in a pathetic attempt to escape the instrument.

The abortionist"s suction tip begins to rip the baby"s limbs from its body, ultimately leaving only her head in the uterus (too large to be pulled from the uterus in one piece). The abortionist attempts to crush her head with his forceps, allowing it to be removed. "

This girl was still considered a fetus, before she was brutally ripped apart. If this fetus was a mindless organism, it wouldn't know that it was in harm's way. Instead this fetus showed that it was aware of its danger and tried to avoid it. Therefore the human fetus/baby shows that it indeed has conscious behavior.

Life has to be able to think, feel, touch, and smell to be human life. I think by this point you get the idea. There are diseases which can prohibit feeling and the sense of smell.

This definition of what is human life is flawed beyond repair, but there is a definition of human life which most science text books accept.

"A scientific textbook called "Basics of Biology" gives five characteristics of living things; these five criteria are found in all modern elementary scientific textbooks:

1. Living things are highly organized.

2. All living things have an ability to acquire materials and energy.

3. All living things have an ability to respond to their environment.

4. All living things have an ability to reproduce.

5. All living things have an ability to adapt.

According to this elementary definition of life, life begins at fertilization, when a sperm unites with an oocyte. From this moment, the being is highly organized, has the ability to acquire materials and energy, has the ability to respond to his or her environment, has the ability to adapt, and has the ability to reproduce (the cells divide, then divide again, etc., and barring pathology and pending reproductive maturity has the potential to reproduce other members of the species). Non-living things do not do these things. Even before the mother is aware that she is pregnant, a distinct, unique life has begun his or her existence inside her.

Furthermore, that life is unquestionably human. A human being is a member of the species homo sapiens. Human beings are products of conception, which is when a human male sperm unites with a human female oocyte (egg). When humans procreate, they don't make non-humans like slugs, monkeys, cactuses, bacteria, or any such thing. Empirically-verifiable proof is as close as your nearest abortion clinic: send a sample of an aborted fetus to a laboratory and have them test the DNA to see if its human or not. Genetically, a new human being comes into existence from the earliest moment of conception." [4]

Under this definition a fetus is indeed human life. So this argument flows to the affirmative (pro).

Argument 2
(Banning abortions would not stop them)

This argument is not only incorrect, but also illogical. To deal with the logicalness of this argument, lets refer to the previous argument. Since the human fetus is indeed a human life, legalizing abortions doesn't justify it in any way. Consider the following evidence.

"This argument begs the question: it assumes the unborn are not human. Otherwise, this argument is tantamount to saying, "Because some people will die attempting to kill others, the state should make it safe and legal for them to do so." As Professor Schwarz points out, this is not really an argument for abortion (i.e. it does nothing to show that abortion does not murder a child or that the choice being offered is morally justified), but is a kind of veiled threat: "Give us choice or else!" Its appeal is psychological, not moral. (The Moral Question of Abortion, Loyola University Press, 1990" [5]

To illustrate this subject further, look at the following example.

"Racists once argued that equal treatment for blacks would result in terrible riots and cause untold suffering among law abiding citizens. But this in no way proved that blacks did not have equal rights or that a policy of racial discrimination could be morally justified." [5]

So as you can see, abortions are morally wrong and can't be justified in any way.

Now that we have discussed the illogicalness of this matter, I will show you how it is incorrect. You claim that about 5,000 women die as a result of unsafe abortions, but this number is highly exaggerated.

"In 1972, the year prior to legalization, the Centers for Disease Control recorded 39 deaths from illegal abortion, not 5,000 to 10,000." [5]

Even before abortions were legalized, the numbers are extremely low. So this argument flows to the affirmative.

Argument 4
(Costs)

If abortions were illegal it would end up as the person who does the abortion would end up under the death sentence. This would be rather expensive, if every mother who wanted an abortion got one. With the threat of the death penalty, they will be detoured from aborting children.

"What gets little notice, however, is a series of academic studies over the last half-dozen years that claim to settle a once hotly debated argument _ whether the death penalty acts as a deterrent to murder. The analyses say yes. They count between three and 18 lives that would be saved by the execution of each convicted killer." [6]

"A 2003 study he co-authored, and a 2006 study that re-examined the data, found that each execution results in five fewer homicides, and commuting a death sentence means five more homicides." [6]

What we see here is the crime rates go down because of capital punishment. The same is true for abortion, illegal abortions will go down.

Argument 4
(Ectopic Pregnancy, Rape, and Situations of severe discomfort.)

You clearly do not understand the ectopic pregnancy argument. Yes it is sad that if we illegalize abortion, 840 mothers will die each year due to ectopic pregnancy or other pregnancy related problems, but it is even more drastic that if we legalize abortion, 1.2 MILLION babies will die each year. As modern technology gets better we may find a way to save these unfortunate mothers, but abortion isn't an option.

Rape is still not an excuse to abort babies. What did this poor child do to deserve death? We are killing a child for the fathers sin. if the mother doesn't want the child she could set him/her up for adoption. There is still no good excuse for abortion to take place. So these arguments flow to the affirmative.

Now that I have shown how your arguments do not stand, I will bring up some dropped arguments.

Argument 1

You have failed to respond to my argument which states that planed parenthood had racial origins. Therefore you agree with this argument, and it flows to the affirmative.

Argument 2

You have failed to refute my argument which states that abortion is unsafe for the mother. Therefore you agree with my argument, and it flows to the affirmative.

Argument 3

You have failed to address my argument which states that abortion causes mental anguish for the mother. Therefore you agree with this argument, and it flows to the affirmative.

Summary

To end this fine debate I have proven that abortion brings a multitude of harms to the mother an that my opponents argument simply do not stand. For all these reason which I have listed abortion should be illegal in America.

[1] http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...
[2] http://myelitis.org...
[3] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[4] http://www.prolifephysicians.org...
[5] http://www.priestsforlife.org...
[6] http://www.washingtonpost.com...
Debate Round No. 3
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Mikal 2 years ago
Mikal
I am always up for an abortion debate, let me finish up with the ones I have and I will send it. Will prob be tom or the next day some time. I have over 7 up right now
Posted by Voice_Of_The_People 2 years ago
Voice_Of_The_People
All right, I apologize for breaking the rules, but I would like a rematch, if it is fine with you.
Posted by Voice_Of_The_People 2 years ago
Voice_Of_The_People
Fine, we won't argue in the comments.
Posted by Mikal 2 years ago
Mikal
How do I link them lol

Just had to type costs in round 1 which I forgot to do. That all plays off abortion being illegal. I noted that I did not type it and even if they ignored those I won.

Note : While it was not a contention it was part of a rebuttal to abortion procedures being unsafe. I still think it was allotted. You saying abortion is not a safe procedure. That just left me to throw out facts and show that banning abortion will not stop them and abortions had far more causalities before they actually were legalized. That is a viable rebuttals, just the wording was bad and it looked like a contention so yes tech i could have linked them. It is just not in the form of a contention. That is on the judges if they want to allow that, but it really does not matter at this point

I am also not retyping all of what I wrote. You were taking self defense to strictly situations of death and completely ignored the point about "reasonable pain" and the right to defend yourself. I also but a bullet in that horrible analogy you presented.

But that is all I am responding too, Hate arguing in the comments. Let the votes speak about conduct and arguments.
Posted by Voice_Of_The_People 2 years ago
Voice_Of_The_People
Here are two things for you to do.

1) Show me how you could link them.

2) Show me where you addressed my arguments like you should in a rebuttal.
Posted by Mikal 2 years ago
Mikal
I could have linked everything under premise 1 had i worded it better and yeah it is the lesser of two evils. Worst case scenario they just discard two of my arguments and you still end up with an entire extra round. Even with those two arguments gone, I still win.

the issue is you had an entire round of refutations when that is bolded in R1

Rules

(1) Failure to type no round as agreed upon will result in a full 7 point FF due to my adversary having an extra round

Clear as it can get right in front of your face. Even if they were to dismiss the costs argument then that still leaves you to respond to my points about severe discomfort, pain and self defense

Along with that entire round 1 refutation

its 3 rounds vs 2 which was strictly against the rules and in broad daylight for you to read. you just chose not to pay attention to the stipulations before you accepted
Posted by Voice_Of_The_People 2 years ago
Voice_Of_The_People
So you breaking the rules of debating is the lesser evil?
Posted by Voice_Of_The_People 2 years ago
Voice_Of_The_People
There was no link at all. You broke the rule of debating.
Posted by Mikal 2 years ago
Mikal
When the contention is the fact it is legal?

Abortions and harm > do not stop them > Rape, cost , self defense

Granted I could have worded it better and showed how it was linking, but that is still no where near as bad as blatantly avoiding a rule
Posted by Voice_Of_The_People 2 years ago
Voice_Of_The_People
Not being able to stop abortions is a new argument.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by TheHitchslap 2 years ago
TheHitchslap
MikalVoice_Of_The_PeopleTied
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 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: rule violation Very clear; last round was "no comment as agreed upon" and pro violated it. As such he automatically loses.
Vote Placed by bluesteel 2 years ago
bluesteel
MikalVoice_Of_The_PeopleTied
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 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: Rules violation. Pro did a better job debating anyway. Ignoring Con's last round (as per the rules), Con had no chance to refute that "a fetus is not a life." Without that argument, Con had nothing persuasive. I don't think "Planned Parenthood started as a racist organization" is a very good argument against abortion. Con also fails to realize that he is arguing for banning medical abortions by saying that these are outweighed by fetal deaths in normal abortions, but I don't see why they are mutually exclusive (i.e. why abortion can't be allowed in one case and severely restricted in another).
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
MikalVoice_Of_The_PeopleTied
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 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: I did not read pro's arguments in the final round as pro shouldn't have had any. Con did bring up some new arguments in the last round, but that wasn't nearly as bad as pro's conduct. Con had better arguments and pro didn't refute the necessary details that were the pillars of con's conclusion. Good luck to both of you, in future debates. After rereading the agreed upon rules in the first round I'm amending this to give con all points.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
MikalVoice_Of_The_PeopleTied
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: Pro really has to pay closer attention to the outline. Con specified that, in order to have the same number of rounds for argumentation, Pro must type something akin to "no round as agreed upon" in the last round. He did not. As a result, from the rules stipulated in R1, Con gets all 7 points. Pay more attention to the rules next time.