The Instigator
justin.graves
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
Bruinshockeyfan
Con (against)
Losing
5 Points

Abortion should be illegal

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 2 votes the winner is...
justin.graves
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/27/2013 Category: Health
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,155 times Debate No: 36059
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (22)
Votes (2)

 

justin.graves

Pro

Good day to you, Bruinshockeyfan. I'd like to challenge you to a debate pertaining to abortion. I have a few rules and clarifications of rules.

Rules:

I. Use reliable sources
A. Definition of "reliable source" in this debate
1. A valid source. (i.e. Not the National Enquirer)
2. Source cannot be denounced as invalid just because it is from a site or piece of literature that disagrees with your opinion.
B. Types of sources
1. Book - Give title, chapter, and page, and author
2. Website - give specific http to specific page
3. Magazine - Give title, article, page
4. Study - Give title, date, and researchers
II. Good conduct
A. Crass and/or inappropriate language
1. No cursing (F-bomb, S-word, D-word, etc.) I do give leniency to "heck" and "darn."
2. No insults. This includes calling researchers or speakers names.
III. Format
A. Round One is acceptance
B. Round Two is just for contentions
C. Round Three is for contentions and rebuttals
D. Round Four is closing arguments. No rebuttals or new arguments.




Accept is you agree to these rules and wish to debate this topic. Oh, and please use spell check.
Bruinshockeyfan

Con

I accept. Look forward to your argument.
Debate Round No. 1
justin.graves

Pro

Abortion is the killing of an unborn child while it is still developing in the womb. This is done through a number of means. Before the eighth week, these abortions are usually done using drugs (Abortion: Questions and Answers, Dr. J.C. Wilke, 1985). From the eighth week to the twelfth week, suction aspiration is the primary means of abortion. It is done by the insertion of a tube into the womb and sucking the child out through it. (Wilke, 1985) At that point, the child can has almost complete use of its limbs, can somersault, swallow, and has started growing hair.

By the twelfth week, the baby has a fully functioning brain, although it is not completely developed. From then until the eighteenth week, the baby is killed using "dilation and evacuation." This is done by inserting forceps into the womb, grabbing the child, and twisting it around over and over until it is completely dismembered and sucked out through a tube (Wilke, 1985).

At week twenty, a baby in the womb can feel pain.* By that time, a new form of torturous abortion has begun: "saline injection."(Wilke, 1985) This involves injected a saline solution into the womb. The baby ingests this solution and is poisoned. It is also a corrosive liquid that burns the skin. It usually takes a baby between 1 and 24 hours to die from this, all the while in terrible agony, but sometimes a baby is born after labor is induced still alive! A few have even been saved and put up for adoption afterwards. This form of abortions continues until six months.


At six months, a baby sucks on its thumb and can listen to conversations. At that point, a new, horrific abortion type begins:"prostaglandin chemical abortion." (Wilke, 1985) The chemical causes contractions to occur that are much more violent then usual. It crushes the baby, sometimes decapitating it. C-sections are also a popular way to remove the baby. The umbilical cord is cut and the baby is taken out alive to suffocate on a table.

By the 32nd week, there is evidence that a baby can dream (Wilke, 1985). After that time, partial birth abortions occur. It is simply the killing of the baby as it is being born, usually by the insertion of scissors into the baby's skull, which is the only thing not born. The scissors open the skull, a tube is inserted, and the baby's brain is sucked out through the tube.

These are the horrors of abortion. Pain, suffering, and death. The death of a human child. We are still not sure when exactly a baby can feel pain. It may be as early as before twelve weeks. Even before that, the baby is obviously a child, with human form and a developing nervous system.

Those pictures say it all. Who can deny the photos of dead children? It is like a present day Holocaust, nay, it is one! This is not a fight over religious ideas, but the fight for millions of children! More than 50 million children have been murdered in this fashion, their bodies dumped in the trash or researched upon! The majority of Nazi's believed the Holocaust was right, the majority of Americans think abortion is right. I see no difference.

Abortion Photos:









Bruinshockeyfan

Con

To start off, it shouldn't be considered a child. Children are living. A fetus isnt. A fetus is a group of cells and tissue inside of the mother. It doesn't have any human like qualities. For example, it depends on the mother for nutrients and other vitals. Humans dont, they eat, breath, and dont depend on their "host" for thoes. So technically the fetus can also be considered a parasite for that reason.

Also, if abortion is illegal people are still gonna do it. Take drugs for example, like heroin and cocaine. Thoese are illegal but people still use them. If anortions are going to be illegal women they will just be on the black market like drugs and other stuff. According to the guttmacher institute, 47 million women died from abortions because of restrictions. Millions more got injured, many pernamently. Guttmacher institute also stated 1.21 millions of abortions where performed in 2008. Imagine how many women would get unsafe abortions if it was illegal. Then we would just be killing women and removing fetuses.

To add, abortion also has many pros to it. It will reduce poverty, especially for women and children. Because women cant get abortions they have to take care of a child they dont want. They will have to live in poverty, and so will the children. The child might also be abused since its not wanted. I understand you may be thinking women should have the child up for adoption if they dont want it. Some women dont have the time to be pregnant. They have to work and provide. If they can't they will also be trapped in poverty. This would be unfair to the women. Pregnancy also takes its toll on the body. A womens body will never be the same after childbirth. And what about younger women, teens even? Theyre body's arent ready for that so why make them? We shouldn't have to tell a women what and what not to do with HER body.

I still want to adress one more point. A lot of abortions go to help stem cell research. ( i got this from a friend whos parent works at the U of M) . Since fetal cells do better in labs and for research they allow the research to progress more and more. Stem cells are vital to living humans and if we find a way to transplant them effectively we would save more lives than lives taken.

My info all from guttmacher institute and the stem cell stuff from a doctor at the U of M
Debate Round No. 2
justin.graves

Pro

Let me start with some complaints about my opponent's sources. My opponent broke her agreement to the rules in this debate specifically pertaining to the way sources are to be listed. Appropriate way: (Abortion Is Fine, 1998, Smith & Jones) My opponent's way: "My info all from guttmacher institute and the stem cell stuff from a doctor at the U of M" I ask my opponent to correct her behavior.

Now for the rebuttals:

"Children are living. A fetus isnt. A fetus is a group of cells and tissue inside of the mother. It doesn't have any human like qualities."

None? At all? Just a group of cells and tissue? How about some pictures?
(1)
This is what a baby looks like at just eight weeks. I'm seeing a lot of human qualities. Most abortions happen at, or just around this period. (1) I see several human qualities? Don't you?


" 47 million women died from abortions because of restrictions."

This is incredibly vague. During what period? Abortion hasn't been legal for very long, are you referring to the thousands of years before abortion was oft legal around the world? The idea that 47 million women have died from abortion restrictions is near preposterous, unless you count the millions of murdered children.

"imagine how many women would get unsafe abortions if it was illegal"

Oh my word! Think about how dangerous killing Jews would be if it were illegal!

" It will reduce poverty, especially for women and children."

Says... who? Killing kids will reduce poverty... ever seen "The Purge." Basic idea. yes, killing people can reduce poverty.

"Because women cant get abortions they have to take care of a child they dont want."

So what's the difference between killing toddlers they can't take care of and killing an unborn baby they might not be able to take care of?


"We shouldn't have to tell a women what and what not to do with HER body."
Right... I don't have the right to tell a woman not to kill children... that TOTALLY makes sense. Yes, it is her body. For the most part. Except for:



Thank you and good night.

Sources:
http://www.prochoice.org...

Logic
Bruinshockeyfan

Con

Yes, i understand your picture looks somewhat like a child. Note that children aren't physically connected to their mother and dont depend on them for nutrients and vitals. So because of that you cant call it a child. To add, since the fetus is just part of the mother, abortion could be classified and removing tissue. After getting an abortion, many women donate the fetus to medical research, especially stem cell research. This can also be compared to organ donating, since its going to a good cause, increasing research, and saving future lives. Stem cells are vital to humans so getting research done is crucial to the medical field. (http://www.stemcellresearch.umich.edu... ) (this is where i got my stem cell information for last argument too)

To be more clear, according to guttermacher institute (http://www.guttmacher.org...) 47,000 women die per year because they are forced to get unsafe abortions because of restrictions. Millions are also injured, mostly seriously and permanently. Making abortion illegal isn't going to stop it, its going to force women to extreme mesures and unsafe procedures. Thats just going to take away more lives.

Having less children will reduce poverty. Its simple. Say you have two kids and 20 dollars between them. Each will get 10. Say you have five kids, three you didn't even plan to have. Between all of them each will only get 4. If they all needed 10 per day then the parents will need extra money which means spending less on other needs. Just do the math. Also, some women have to work to provide income. If they cant do it because of they are pregnant then they'll have a good chance of being in poverty. Also, as stated earlier, abortion isn't killing.

Toddlers are already alive. You'd easily be able to give them up for adoption. A mother is going to know before giving birth if she is financially ready for a child. I understand you think she should give it up for adoption. Younger women and especially teens are more likely to suffer from injuries and death giving birth. Some women have medical conditions that will kill them if they have to give birth. Its unfair for them to have to die when there is one simple procedure out there to save them. Also being pregnant is going to change the woman's body forever. Its not right to make her go through that if she isn't ready.

I said earlier the tissue is part of her body. Its growing inside her and feeding off nutrients. Its like having the government tell people they cant donate kidneys, or other organs. Both are part of the body and if she wishes to have it removed why should you tell her? If she gets an abortion it isn't going to effect your life.

I have a few questions I'd like you to answer

First, if abortion is murder does that make a miscarriage involuntary man slaughter?
Second, Does your religion effect your views on abortion?
Debate Round No. 3
justin.graves

Pro

This round was meant to be strictly for closing statements, however, my opponent has asked me two questions and she requires a response. So, I declare Rule (III D) to be null and void for this debate for the mutual interests of both parties.

I will answer my opponent's questions first.

1. " First, if abortion is murder does that make a miscarriage involuntary man slaughter?" (sic)
Involuntary manslaughter is defined as: " the unlawful killing of another person without premeditation or so-called 'malice aforethought.' Involuntary manslaughter occurs when a death is caused by a violation of a non-felony." So, if no laws were broken, then a miscarriage is not involuntary manslaughter.

2. " Second, Does your religion effect your views on abortion?" (sic)
Affect? Yes. Influence? Yes. Define? No. I'm a Jesus Freak. If I decided to "quit on God," I would still be Pro-Life. And for the record, I don't have a "religion." I don't follow a denomination, theology, or leader. I don't need to stare at stained-glass and a steeple. I don't need to dress up to impress all the people. I don't need a priest. I don't need a pew. My religion is Jesus. He is my priest. He is my truth. He is my religion.

Back to ground zero.

"Note that children aren't physically connected to their mother and dont depend on them for nutrients and vitals."
Wait a second... two thoughts... First, even after birth, the body of the mother is still connected to the baby through the umbilical cord. So, your logic states that it is OK to kill that baby since it is still getting nutrients and some essentials from the mother until it is cut. Congrats. Your logic means you support infanticide.

Second, newborns around the world depend on their mothers for food and water. Whether it's from the mother's own body through breast feeding or by going to the store. Take this situation: Abby gives birth to a baby boy named Jake. Abby doesn't have much money for expensive formula, but she has enough money to cover the essentials for herself and her baby. She can buy herself food, she pays the rest, she buys the diapers. Life seems good. Until one day Jake dies and Abby is arrested. Why? Because she refused to breastfeed her child and he starved to death. She screams as she as pulled out of her house and by the front of the TV cameras: "The government can't tell me what I want to do with MY body!"

Again, my opponent's logic, if it were sound, extends to outside the womb to born children.


"Stem cells are vital to humans so getting research done is crucial to the medical field."

Again, the logic here extends to outside the room if it were valid. Hitler had children killed to experiment with genetics. Must be fine then. The experiments saved lives after all... right? I mean, Hitler didn't know the Jewish babies were human, so he must have been right. One of his men once said "The Jews may have certain human attributes, but make no mistake, they are not human in the natural sense. They have neither the conscience, nor the development, to truly be human." Sound familiar?

" 47,000 women die per year because they are forced to get unsafe abortions because of restrictions."
My opponent's own source shows that the majority of those "unsafe abortions" take place in countries where any medical procedure is dangerous. Oh, and by the way, 13,000,000 abortions were carried out last year in China alone. A good deal of those were female. So, more than 7,000,000 girls were killed last year because of safe or unsafe abortion.
And stop with the nonsense about abortion protecting women. By 1990, 23 years ago, there were 100,000,000 "missing" women in Africa and Asia because of Gendercide, specifically killing unborn babies because they are female.

"Having less children will reduce poverty. "
If this is an OK reason to have an abortion, why don't we just kill the down and out of our society like China does? That reduces poverty!

"Also, as stated earlier, abortion isn't killing."

My opponent has pretty much been running in circles this entire time. She started off with: "It doesn't have any human like qualities. " I showed that it does. Then she went with " children aren't physically connected to their mother and dont depend on them for nutrients and vitals." I've shown that infants need mothers, or at least caregivers. She has not given foundation for what "human" is. She has not given foundation to her statement.

My opponent has pretty much used circular reasoning this entire debate. Observe: "Abortion isn't killing because the fetus is not human. And the fetus isn't human because abortion is not killing!" That makes no sense.

"Toddlers are already alive."

My opponent has not given a reason why this idea of "alive" is different then an unborn baby. This has been the royal run around the whole time. The majority of her reasons that abortion is OK extends into the life of a born child.


"I said earlier the tissue is part of her body. Its growing inside her and feeding off nutrients."
Remember my story of Abby? Yeah, that child needed her nutrients too. And don't forget the umbilical cord.


OK, this is the end of my arguments. I'd like to summarize.

1. My opponent has given no set in stone reason that an unborn child is not human.

2. My opponent's arguments extend into a born child's life.

3. Genetically and physically, an unborn child is human. It is a developing human. Just like a teenager. I'm not quite fully developed. Guess that means you can abort me now.

To finish off, I'd like to address something. I've drummed up some controversy with my abortion photos. Why did I put them there? William Wilberforce once said:

Thank you and goodnight. I hope I have done something to curb the American Holocaust.
Bruinshockeyfan

Con

Bruinshockeyfan forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Magic8000 3 years ago
Magic8000
No this isn't a vote bomb!

Conduct to Pro for the forfeit.

Pro's main argument was trying to show the fetus was a person, so aborting it would ultimately be killing it. Con's arguments were from the fetus not having human like properties, the Roe Person-hood argument, unsafe illegal abortions would be done if it's made illegal, reduction of poverty, and stem cell research. Pro responded in showing pictures that show human like properties of a fetus and he rebutted his other argument showing they could be applied outside the womb. Con came back saying a child isn't connect to its mother, but Con said the fetus had no human properties, it wasn't just the Roe v wade personhood argument. Con never responded to Pro's response to the poverty argument. Nor does Con respond to Pro's reducto ad absurdem response to the woman's body argument. He just restates it. Pro then applies Con's reasoning outside the womb, when it comes to the personhood argument. While, I think it was flawed, Con never responded because he forfeited. Pro also points out Con's source were studying countries were medical procedures in general are dangerous. Con ignored a lot of Pro's arguments, therefore, I give arguments to Pro

Sources goes to Pro. Con never gave the correct type of sources per round one. One source was "a friend whos parent works at the U of M". This isn't verifiable, nor does it fit the criteria.

S&G goes to Pro. Con used "its" instead of "it's", "effect" instead of "affect", "they're" instead of "their", had between man and slaughter, and various errors in capitalization.
Posted by Bruinshockeyfan 3 years ago
Bruinshockeyfan
I read the story. Thats really cute.
Posted by justin.graves 3 years ago
justin.graves
I've gone to Haiti twice. Last time I was there I signed up for a sponsorship program. For $35 a month, the little girl I'm holding gets education, food, clothes, and medical attention. She's four now, her birthday was this week, and she doesn't have a real dad. So while I was there, she called me "Papa." We had a blast together all week.
Posted by Bruinshockeyfan 3 years ago
Bruinshockeyfan
Okay. I just didnt get to make a closing argument. Thanks for your understanding. Your profile pic is adorable. Whos the kid?
Posted by justin.graves 3 years ago
justin.graves
It's all good. I totally understand. I'm probably going to have to forfeit one of my debates late. It's seriously all good.
Posted by Bruinshockeyfan 3 years ago
Bruinshockeyfan
Okay. I would have like it if you stated that im your argument. I was real busy and didnt have time to make an argument. Im sorry.
Posted by justin.graves 3 years ago
justin.graves
The story was made up in my head. It was something I though I while I was sitting in my bed.
Posted by Bruinshockeyfan 3 years ago
Bruinshockeyfan
I was real busy and didnt have time for a long argument. Sorry
Posted by Bruinshockeyfan 3 years ago
Bruinshockeyfan
Quite question, where did that Abby and jake thing come from?
Posted by justin.graves 3 years ago
justin.graves
Hey, Bruinshockeyfan, if you wouldn't mind commenting that my sources for round four are in the comment section that would be great.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Nataliella 3 years ago
Nataliella
justin.gravesBruinshockeyfanTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments were better on Con's side. Con used more sources that were factual, unlike Pro who used fewer sources that were biased.
Vote Placed by Magic8000 3 years ago
Magic8000
justin.gravesBruinshockeyfanTied
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: RFD in comments