The Instigator
Erick
Pro (for)
Losing
15 Points
The Contender
bluesteel
Con (against)
Winning
27 Points

Abortion should be illegal.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/2/2010 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,533 times Debate No: 13257
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (10)

 

Erick

Pro

Hello, and welcome to my debate.
Resolve: Abortion should be illegal.
Definitions:

Abortion- : the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus:

Illegal- : not according to or authorized by law

Sources:
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

First argument: Abortion is killing. As it states from the definition, it says abortion is followed by the DEATH of a fetus; that means that it was alive and since it got its life taken away it means it was KILLED. Killing is immoral and since abortion is legal, it is legalizing killing innocent lifes.

Second Arguement: The parent could choose something else for that life , that could be benefitial for the parent(s) as well for the future child. One thing they could do is, place the child or baby for adoption. There are many couples out there looking for a child to take care of; it would benefit the parents, the child, and a couple out there looking to adopt a child.

This is why you should vote Pro, Abortion is plain killing and that life should have the right to live; as all of us do.
bluesteel

Con

I negate the resolution to show that abortion should continue to be legal.

Building my own case:

1. Making abortions illegal doesn't mean they will stop

Before abortion was made legal, illegal abortions were widespread. According to Associated Content, in 1932, 15,000 women died each year due to illegally and improperly performed abortions. [1] Making abortion legal, for the most part, removed the need to perform illegal, dangerous abortions in backwater clinics under unsafe conditions. However, a study by Planned Parenthood in 2010 of immigrant women found that due to poverty, women would try to induce an abortion by taking a beverage of alcohol and aspirin, throwing themselves down stairs and having someone punch them in the stomach. [2] Women also attempt to inject dangerous chemicals into their uterus or employ a coat hangar or other sharp object to remove the fetus.

You must realize that just because you believe that "personhood" starts at the moment when the sperm breaches the ovum doesn't mean that other people do. And the people who do not believe so have empirically shown that they are willing to seek abortions, whether or not they are legal. At least when abortions are legal, they are subject to reasonable medical standards, and women don't need to die seeking unsafe back-alley abortions.

2. Alternatives

The alternative to banning abortions is to promote safe sex using proper sex education. All the empirical evidence points to the fact that children will not stop having sex just because we tell them to do so. The Guttmacher Institute reports in 2006 that 13% of teens aged 15 and under admit to engaging in sexual intercourse, while 70% of 19 year olds admit to having had sex. [3] The problem is with abstinence only sex education programs, such as the one that Bristol Palin attended, which don't teach teens safe alternative to abstinence, such as condom usage. The Sexuality Information and Education Council reports that Congress has funneled $1.5 billion to abstinence only programs in recent years. [4] However, a British Medical Journal meta-analysis of 13 studies done to date found that all the studies point to the following result: that abstinence only education (compared to students not receiving ANY sex education) does not decrease the rate of vaginal sex or the number of sexual partners; does not increase condom use, and (unsurprisingly based on the former) does not decrease pregnancy or STD transmission rates. [5] If we taught children how to have safe sex, we could decrease the number of abortions performed. This is the most practical policy method for anti-abortion advocates to pursue, if they want the number of abortions to decrease.

3. Motives for abortion

Despite some characterizations, women who get abortions are usually women who have already had a child, use birth control but had it fail, and cannot afford another child. The Center for Disease Control reports that 60% of women who get abortions have already had one child. [6] According to studies by the Guttmacher Institute. "a majority of women who report their reasons for seeking abortion say they can't afford a child or are unready to raise one. Women living below the federal poverty level are more than four times more likely to terminate a pregnancy than women earning above 300 percent of the poverty level. Latina women and Black women terminate pregnancies at two and three times the rate of white women." [7] Acclaimed economist Steven Levitt notes that when we legalized abortion, the crime rate started declining rapidly approximately 15-20 years later. His explanation is that unwanted children, whose mothers could not afford to raise them without sinking further into poverty, were instead aborted. These children would have been most at-risk for committing crimes or joining gangs. [8] It is a bad idea to flood society either with unwanted children or children that families cannot afford to raise.

4. Exceptional cases

There is one case where no one can argue that abortion should not be legal: in situations where carrying the child to term will undoubtedly result in the death of the mother (and thus also the fetus). One such case is an ectopic pregnancy, where the fetus is growing somewhere outside the uterus, usually in a fallopian tube. This pregnancy could not be carried to term – both the mother and fetus would die long before the fetus could survive on its own. Women on the Web reports that abortions to end ectopic pregnancies are allowed, even in places where abortion is severely restricted. [9]

Responding to my opponent's case:

1. Abortion is murder

If this is the case, women's bodies routinely murder their offspring. A woman's body knows to dispel a fetus if it has any serious mutations that would prevent it from becoming a functional human being. This is why babies are never born without major organs, since the woman miscarries long before the fetus is carried to term. Abortion is thus something that is routinely practiced by natural biological processes in nature.

In addition, murder is defined as killing another person, not killing a living thing. All people agree that the fetus is living. Whether it is a "person" yet is up for debate. Webster's Dictionary defines a person as "being an individual or existing as an indivisible whole; existing as a distinct entity." [10] A fetus is essentially on life support from its mother and cannot survive on its own. Most moderate pro-choice advocates like myself are willing to concede that late term abortions should not occur, since at that point the fetus has fully developed lungs and heart, so it can survive on its own. But before the third trimester, the fetus cannot survive without the umbilical cord. In addition, Brian Elroy points out that the other distinctive feature of a "person" is what we know as "consciousness." [11] In many ways, killing an animal for meat is more inhumane than ending the contingent life of a fetus because the fetus cannot feel pain at that point in its development but the animal can.

So an abortion ends a life, but does not kill a person (a distinct, conscious being). An abortion ends the life of a potential person, much as a women's body would in nature during a miscarriage.

Consider the following thought experiment based on the one created by philosopher Judith Jarvis Thompson. [12] In the middle of the night, a stranger drugs you and then attaches you to a dying person via a cord of some kind, through which flows many of your vital life giving juices. You are then told that the cord is necessary to keep the person alive and that if you sever the cord, the person will die. If you choose not to live the rest of your life attached by a short cord to this person and decide to sever the cord, can you really be said to have committed murder?

2. Adoption

Not all babies get adopted. Remember from above that African American women terminate pregnancies at three times the rate of white women. And African American babies are the least likely to get adopted. The New York Times cites a study that Black, male babies are considered by prospective parents as the least adoptable. [13] NPR reports that 50% of children waiting to be placed within the foster children are African American. [14] I don't know how pro-lifers feel about this, but NPR continues that many African American babies are placed with gay couples because gay couples often times get last priority from adoption agencies. Living as an unwanted child in the foster care system is a terrible experience. HG Legal Directories reports that ""As many as 75 percent of all children in foster care, upon leaving the system, will have experienced sexual abuse." [15] Banning abortions would likely inundate the foster care/adoption system with more children that they are capable of handling. Many of these children will be racial minorities that are the most difficult to place in loving homes.
Debate Round No. 1
Erick

Pro

Thank you for your reply.

Attacking your case:

1- "Making abortions illegal doesn't mean they will stop"

Laws are made and sometimes they are broken, that doesn't neccesarily mean that they shouldn't be made JUST because people will not completely stop doing those certain things; it does reduce the amount of it happening though which is the overall wanting of a law. Drugs are still illegal and people find a way to get them illegaly, that doesn't mean we should allow them to just because some still find a way to get them. Which comes back to my original statement, we shouldn't mantain abortion legal just because it means some people will keep trying to have abortions.
And about the "reasonable medical standards" you are making a Hasty Generalization that all women die when they do unsafe back alley abortions. Really, when in fact the risk of abortion complications is minimal: Fewer than 0.3% of abortion patients experience a complication that requires hospitalization [1] which means, that you are making it seem that most women that try to get an abortion die or have a complication when in fact FEWER than 0.3% do so which is a really small percentage that shouldn't be considered a problem when the overall number of fetuses dying overlap the number of women dying because of it by 99.7%.

2- "Alternatives"

You JUST proved that promoting safe sex using proper sex education does nothing to help the ratio of girls getting pregnat, it would cost the government another $1.5 billion dollars; and as you said it didn't make a difference then, how would it make a difference now, if we are doing nothing differently? It is an irrational alternative, and it leads nowhere as your proved facts showed.

3- "Motives for abortion"

I understand that women have there certain motives for wanting to have an abortion but that doesn't mean they have to keep it. Adoption like i mentioned in one of my arguements is one of the solutions and if they were responsible enough to have sex they should be responsible enough to either take care of the child or put it up for adoption. Even if the child ends up being a criminal, doctor, or teacher; it should have the right to live just like all of us do. Once it is aborted, it is not given a chance to live it's life to its potential. And again you are making a hasty generalization that ALL kids that would of been aborted are going to be "unwanted children" when easily they could be with an adoptive family, its own family, or a foster home where it would be taken care of.

4- "Exceptional cases"

As i used before, Fewer than 0.3% of abortion patients experience a complication that requires hospitalization [1], and these cases are VERY rare and unfortunate and you can't do anything about it like you said "the mother and fetus would die long before the fetus could survive on its own"; which means the mother would die too, so this arguement is irrational because both would die either way and this doesn't mean abortion should be illegal; its just adding fallacy.

Response to response of own arguements:

1- The body also can attack its own cells, that doesn't neccesarily mean were going to let it do that just because it is reacting that way. And a miscarriage is different from an abortion, a miscarriage is because the body knows the fetus couldn't survive; abortion is like you said ending a life of a POTENTIAL person. That person could be anything and anyone unlike the miscarriage which occur because the fetus isn't developing normally. [2] which means it would die. Abortion is forcing a life to die for personal reasons a miscarriage is doing it because it knows it wouldn't be able to survive.

2- Wheter they get adopted or not they still have a CHANCE to live, like they had if the parents would have been prepared to have a child. So what if there life isn't perfect? Every human experiances struggles in there lifes, some more than others. People in general learn from there lives and learn to move on. But that child should have the right to live. We could potentially have the future president of The United States or a criminal, either way they should be part of our society because they are potential people. How they wish to take upon there lifes would be there choice, and then as a human being they would take the consquences and rewards which comes upon those choices.

Sources:
1- http://www.guttmacher.org...
2- http://www.bing.com...

Thank you.
bluesteel

Con

1. Making abortions illegal doesn't mean they will stop

My opponent, by arguing that back-alley abortions are not that bad, compromises his own moral mission. If abortions are bad or morally wrong, the goal should be to decrease them. By admitting that the law would result in dangerous illegal abortions, my opponent admits that his policy action, banning abortions, does not solve his moral objections, that abortion is murder.

The Guttmacher Institute website that my opponent cites to say that back-alley abortions only kill women 0.3% of the time actually says that modern legal abortions, using hospitals/clinics, sanitized equipment, and overseen by a licensed physician, only result in hospitalization 0.3% of the time. This is a drastic improvement over pre-Roe v. Wade statistics. In fact, comparing countries where abortion is illegal and legal, the rates of abortion are the same, but the death rates are not. The New York Times reports that "A comprehensive global study of abortion has concluded that abortion rates are similar in countries where it is legal and those where it is not, suggesting that outlawing the procedure does little to deter women seeking it. Moreover, the researchers found that abortion was safe in countries where it was legal, but dangerous in countries where it was outlawed and performed clandestinely. Globally, abortion accounts for 13 percent of women's deaths during pregnancy and childbirth." [1] Illegal abortions are not safe; legal ones are.

My opponent cites the example of drugs being illegal, but there is empirical evidence to suggest that illegality of drugs does decrease their usage. The study just cited, however, proves that illegality has no effect on abortion rates. So if the policy yields no practical results but simply makes the abortions performed more dangerous, how does that accomplish anything?

2. Alternatives

My opponent claims my case proves that sex education fails. My case proves that abstinence-only sex education, of the kind Sarah Palin's daughter received, does not work. Sex education that emphasizes condom usage and safe sex does decrease teen pregnancy. According to UC San Francisco Medical School, "In contrast to the limited and discouraging results for studies on abstinence-only programs, the published research on sex and HIV education programs is far more conclusive and encouraging. . . . A large body of evaluation research clearly shows that sex and HIV education programs included in this review do not increase sexual activity. . . . Several specific studies have demonstrated positive outcomes from sex education curricula, including delayed initiation of sexual activity, increased condom use, and decreased number of sexual partners." [2] We need more sex education in this country that teaches alternatives to abstinence. More contraceptive use would decrease the number of abortions performed.

3. Motives

Giving up a child is not as easy as you make it sound. When she carries a baby to term, a mother's body releases a number of hormones designed to bond her to the new baby. Giving up the child can be far more psychologically scarring than having an abortion in the early months of pregnancy. In addition, many low-income women cannot afford the leave they would need to take from work during the third trimester and during the birthing process. My opponent says if the women are "responsible enough to have sex" they should be responsible enough to carry the child to term. The Guttmacher Institute page he cites points out that the majority of women seeking abortion used birth control, but the method they were using failed.

The potential person argument: my opponent argues that fetuses are potential people. True. But so is every one of the 500 million sperm emitted per ejaculation and every one of the 400 mature eggs that women produce during their lifetime. Under his standard of potential person, how is menstruation not murder? If the woman had had more sex, that potential person could have realized life. The logical result of the potential person argument is a terrible amount of overpopulation in the world, resulting in shorter and worse lives for everyone as resources run out.

Also, if life is so important to people who are pro-life, why do they concern themselves so much with abortion but so little with all the lives that are cut short by violence in Sudan, for example. International aid in the U.S. remains at an all time low and much lower than other countries, as a share of GDP. In contrast, OpenSecrets reports that the pro-life lobby spent $1.4 million on lobbying in 2008. That money could have saved a lot of lives in the Third World. We don't mind when real children's lives worldwide are cut short by easily solved starvation, but we care about the death of what can only be described during the early stages of develop as a mass of undifferentiated cells. The above exposes the flaw in the potential person argument and how it is applied. Saving actual people first and ensuring we have enough worldwide resources for everyone who is already here should supersede efforts to birth more potential people.

4. Exceptional cases

I think my opponent misunderstands my point here. Ectopic pregnancies can be solved by an abortion. If the fetus is not aborted, it will rupture the fallopian tube, killing the mother and itself. What function does banning abortion in this case serve? The fetus will die either way, but abortion means the mother can live.

My opponent's case

1. Miscarriage

Women's bodies miscarry for many reasons, one of which is developmental problems with the fetus. Another is a lack of resources. If there is not enough food for both the women and the fetus to survive, the body makes a calculation and decides to abort the fetus naturally. How is this different from the decision to abort so a woman can continue working and providing for the children she already has? This is particularly important when there are multiple fetuses. When a woman has three viable fetuses, her body is much more likely to abort one naturally so that the remaining fetuses have more resources and a greater survival chance.

Does my opponent object to fertility treatments? These give potential people a chance to live in a loving home. But doctors usually implant at least 3 fetuses at a time because the chance the pregnancy will "take" and the fetus will attach to the uterine wall is low (near 30%). Is it okay to knowingly create the death of a few fetuses in order to give one of them a good life?

2. I think I've answered the potential person argument – we can't possibly let all potential people be born. It would strain women's bodies physically to birth all their eggs and it would lead to overpopulation. Second, your argument assumes there are no tradeoffs to allowing the potential person to be born, but the mother has to go through 9 months of difficult pregnancy, a difficult labor, must pay for the birth herself in most cases, must take time off work (which will result in her losing her job in some cases, especially if the job is part-time or off-the-books, like many housekeeping jobs), and must undergo the psychological pain of giving up a child. All those reasons is why it should be here choice.

In addition, in foster care, the child has a three in four chance of being raped. Foster care is not a nice place to live. Article Base cites a number of studies proving that suicide rates among foster care youth are alarmingly high. "Recent years, researchers admit high rates of suicides among youth within the foster care system." [3] Suicide can be taken as a statement that one wishes they were never born.

In addition, if the fetus were aborted, under Catholic doctrine, it would now go to heaven (the Pope changed his mind and declared that they no longer go to Purgatory). However, if the child commits suicide, he or she goes to hell. Which is more acceptable to you?
Debate Round No. 2
Erick

Pro

1. Making abortions illegal doesn't mean they will stop.

I never stated that back-alley abortions are not bad, that is an invalid statement. By making abortion illegal, it is obvious at first the number of abortions will lower and lower and the goal is to stop anyone from having an abortion; it would be a small start, but the goal is to get there. As a famous and wise greek philosopher called Aesop said "Slow but steady wins the race".

Since my opponent seems to want to change this topic to something else i am gladly to attack these issues too. Now as far as the death rates go you may say that banning abortions will cause more deaths, well you are not looking the far more health problems that comes with having ANY kind of abortion.

The Breast Cancer Association has had recent studies have pointed out that there is what some might term a "dramatic relationship" between the rate of abortion and the rising incidence of breast cancer among women who have aborted. In fact, as the rate of abortion rises in America, so does the rate of breast cancer, with the most increased rate being among those women who have had abortions.

In human medicine it has been studied that post-abortion grief as a serious complication of induced abortion.

The British Medical Journal says women that have had an abortion experience Acute Grief reaction, in fact 3 in 4 (77%) that has had an abortion feel this if the abortion was for genetic reasons.

The British Columbia Report says every 1 in 2 women that do have an abortion feel emotional and physical disturbances.

Gynecology from Scandinavia informed everyone that 1 in 4 women that had an abortion had complications in future pregnancies.

The American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology had a research and found out that a first-trimester abortion can result in bacterial vaginosis leading to Pelvic inflammatory disease --a condition that must be treated.

The Bernadell Technical Bulletin found that uterine perforations can go unrecognized and untreated then later being a problem with the woman's health.

The British Journal of Cancer recognized that there is 140% increased risk of Cancer following an abortion.

The American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology found legal abortion appears to contribute to an increase in ectopic pregnancy in younger women when associated with pelvic inflammatory disease 30% increased risk after one abortion. 160% increased risk after two or more abortions. They also found 600% increased risk of getting Placenta Previa a condition producing extremely severe, life-threatening bleeding in future pregnancies. Also, that abortions increase bleeding during subsequent pregnancies.

The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry found that abortions cause decreased maternal bonding, the loss of a baby through abortion may cause a mother to be less affectionate toward future children and may contribute to child abuse.

The Canadian Journal of Public Health found that 1 in 24 (4.1%) women that had an abortion have experienced immediate medical complications.

The New England Journal of Medicine revealed that women that had an abortion had 150% greater risk of cervical injury than for women over 30 years of age.

The Journal of the American Medical Association found women that had an abortion had a 200% increased risk of miscarriage after two or more abortions.

Now my opponent said illegal abortions are not safe and I agree there not, but with all of the information I have just given you, do you still think legal abortions are still safe and don't bring many risks for the woman's health? Not considering, also taking the life of the potential human being.

2- Alternatives.

I am not trying to make sound anything easy, do not use Ad hominem in this debate. And as i just showed in my previous facts, the scars left physically and mentally from when you have an abortion and when you give the baby for adoption have some similarities and some differences. For example, if a woman has an abortion it could lead to health and mental problems for her; but as far as adoption goes it could only be mental, if that even takes place. Plus, the child would be able to live. Yes, the Guttmatcher Institute does state that but, even if you did use birth control you should know that there is a small percentage that it could still fail.

Potential person arguement: I think my opponent misunderstood my point. What i meant to come across as the "potential people" was the fetus inside of the mother, not the eggs. The eggs are not mixed with the sperm yet so therefore it is not a developing person. Once the eggs mix with the sperm then it is a process you can't change and produces a potential human being. The eggs alone are not potential people until it is mixed with sperm. I never pledged the idea that i wanted to destroy the world by resulting in shorter resources, a little paranoid don't you think?
And i beleive my opponent is going way off topic but, I gladly am responding to his arguements.

As far as the "pro-life people" you are going WAY off subject again. Abortions cost about $320-$500 according to www.costhelper.com

According to the Alan Guttmatcher Institute there is about 42 million abortions each year. That would mean people are giving up AT LEAST $13440000000 to take a life away, big difference from what the pro-life people spend right? Don't you think that could be used to build more foster homes? Or to help take care of the child? Or as you said help the lives of the children in the Third World? I'm pretty sure you cannot control all of the worlds money and I can't either. This arguement is irrevelant to the resolution and the point you are trying to prove, Abortion shouldn't be illegal.

4- Exceptional cases

This case is very rare and unfortunate but either way it is wrong to have an abortion just because the mother might die. What makes the mother more important than the fetus? In this case both have a chance at living but only time would tell. But again, this case is VERY rare in fact, only .02% of pregnancies are Eptopic pregnancies.

1- Miscarriage

My opponent is assuming all of the women that want to have an abortion have children already, which is not the case. And when the body dispulses a fetus it is because it knows it will not survive, unlike when you have an abortion where the reasons to take the life of a fetus are personal reasons knowing the fetus can potentially survive and live a happy life, that is the difference between natural miscarriage and abortion.

2- Potential person.

As i had said before, there are more mental and physicall health problems that come with having an abortion than to giving it up for adoption. Foster care homes are the last alternative if the child has no family that has adopted him/her, anyone can get raped anywhere your "three in four chance" fact does not prove they are going to be raped. Suicides are comitted with the young,old and everything in between.

My opponent brought religion into this, what indicates that i'm a Catholic? There are no proven facts that say that if you commit suicide you will go to "hell"; there is no proven fact that says you will go to "heaven" if you do this or that. My opponent brought religion in, which should never be done. If there are no proven facts that say the person will go to hell or heaven, his statement is invalid; just like many of his other arguements.

I urge you to vote Pro, my opponent went of talking about other things besides the point that abortion is as he said before taking a life away and it is immoral and it should be illegal because you know what? That is a life and it should have the right to live just like all of us do, plain and simple.
bluesteel

Con

My opponent says it is "obvious" that abortions will decrease if illegal. But remember the study cited in the NY Times. "A comprehensive global study of abortion has concluded that abortion rates are similar in countries where it is legal and those where it is not, suggesting that outlawing the procedure does little to deter women seeking it. Moreover, the researchers found that abortion was safe in countries where it was legal, but dangerous in countries where it was outlawed and performed clandestinely." [1] Outlawing abortions does nothing but make them more dangerous. I have three responses to all of my opponents arguments about how even legal abortions have side effects.

1. Making abortions illegal won't decrease their number, but simply make them more dangerous.
2. Legal medical procedures require informed consent, a medical principal meaning that the patient is informed of all the side effects and allowed to make her own decision. Illegal procedures do not result in women being informed of potential side effects.
3. The Guttmacher Institute evidence my opponent already cited in a previous round says that women are hospitalized after abortions only 0.3% of the time, meaning all of the physical side effects he cites are extremely rare (like pelvic inflammatory infection).

The Bernadell Techinical Bulletin evidence my opponent cites is actually about how illegal abortions (with coat hangars) can result in uterine perforations. Legal abortions would avoid this risk.

On the psychological side effects, if empirical evidence reveals that women will all still seek abortions, these will still exist but will be worse if the operation is more traumatic and if society tells her that what she is doing is wrong by making it illegal.

At the end of the day, knowing the side effects, a woman should be allowed to choose whether to terminate a pregnancy. People usually are better at deciding for themselves what is in their own self-interest, rather than being proselytized to by the State.

Potential person

My opponent claims that a "potential person" starts when the sperm hits the egg. This is arbitrary. A potential person could be born whenever we have sex without contraception. The Catholic Church used a similar argument against birth control: without intervention, sex will result in a potential person. If we believe that all potential people must become actual people, then we should stop using contraception.

I'm not paranoid about there not being enough resources. We already don't have enough food to provide for everyone in the world, which is why millions starve to death each year. Let's provide for these actual people before trying to birth more potential people.

It may cost $320 to have an abortion, which is small compared to the million dollars it takes to raise a child to adulthood in the United States. In contrast, rather than spending so much opposing abortion, anti-abortionists could instead use the money to save actual lives – that's my argument.

My opponent never answers my question as to whether fertility treatments should be disallowed because fertility doctors create 3 potential people (fetuses) to implant because they know that statistically, only one will "take" (survive). This meets his definition of murder.

Exceptional cases

My opponent is still agreeing that in the rare case that the fetus is trying to grow in the fallopian tube, he would ban abortion and let both mother and fetus die when the fetus grows too big and ruptures the fallopian tube, causing massive internal bleeding. My opponent seems to think the child could still survive in this case, but a full sized baby cannot grow inside the tiny fallopian tube.

In conclusion, empirical studies looking both at our nation's past and at countries where abortion is currently illegal show that making abortion illegal does not decrease the incidence of abortion, but just makes the abortions performed more dangerous. Sex education is a much more effective method of decreasing unwanted pregnancies and thus abortions. Women have legitimate reasons for seeking abortions, mostly because they cannot afford to have the child (to take time off work or to raise it). Women need abortion as a medical procedure if the fetus is killing them (like in ectopic pregnancies).

In addition, abortion is not murder; it ends the life of an undifferentiated mass of cells (in most cases) that cannot feel consciousness or pain. 88% of abortions are performed during the first trimester and over 50% in the first 8 weeks. [2] The body commits "abortion" naturally when we have scarce resources, meaning the mother does not have enough nutrients for both herself and the fetus. This is the same case when a mother cannot afford to have the baby.

Adoption is not a viable alternative. My opponent keeps brushing off the fact that 75% of kids in foster care get raped. This rate is much higher than for the general population. The vast majority of children who would be created if abortions completely stopped are considered unadoptable by most people and would end up in foster care. But foster care could not handle that many children. ProChoice.org reports that there are 1.3 million abortions per year in the United States. [3] The foster care system could not handle an influx of 1.3 million children per year, and the quality of life would further decline in foster care if this were to happen.

Let's first learn to care for the people who are already here in this world now. There are currently 17 million food insecure children in the U.S. [4] There are clearly limited resources in this country. Let's ensure that all children in the U.S. lead good lives before indiscriminately trying to adopt policies that result in many more kids.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com...

[2] http://www.prochoice.org...

[3] Ibid

[4] http://www.frac.org...
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by rogerdodger91 6 years ago
rogerdodger91
I can see the pros and cons of both of these arguements. For instance abortion is okay for someone who was perhaps raped, or will die because of complications. I just dont see the morality in someone killing a fetus because they like to have sex for pleasure. The point is, if you feel like your mature enough to have sex then you should be mature enough to raise children. But thats not the case as the majority of the world doesnt think about the consequences of the their actions. It always makes me wonder that perhaps if Albert Einstine was aborted, that we may not have atomic bombs. But then again what if abraham lincoln was aborted. We might still have slaves and be called the confederate states of america. The point is, everytime someone is aborted you are killing off a potential scientist that cures cancer, or a mass murderer like hitler. I think the laws should be changed where your given one abortion in your life or in case of a life threatening emergency. People need to take responsibility for their promiscuous ways.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Blank 6 years ago
Blank
ErickbluesteelTied
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 
Vote Placed by TheDiabeticDemocrat 6 years ago
TheDiabeticDemocrat
ErickbluesteelTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by LaissezFaire 6 years ago
LaissezFaire
ErickbluesteelTied
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 
Vote Placed by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
ErickbluesteelTied
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 
Vote Placed by chengste 6 years ago
chengste
ErickbluesteelTied
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 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
ErickbluesteelTied
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 
Vote Placed by Postup10101 6 years ago
Postup10101
ErickbluesteelTied
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 
Vote Placed by loseexe 6 years ago
loseexe
ErickbluesteelTied
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 
Vote Placed by J.Kenyon 6 years ago
J.Kenyon
ErickbluesteelTied
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 
Vote Placed by TPF 6 years ago
TPF
ErickbluesteelTied
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:30