The Instigator
Crevaux
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
cameronl35
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

Abortion should be legal in every case, even late-term

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
cameronl35
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/17/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,895 times Debate No: 19351
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (4)

 

Crevaux

Pro

Abortion is a very controversial issue in the United States, as well as in several developed nations of the world. I come forward with a position that is even more controversial.

I believe abortion should be legalized. But not only during the first trimester, or limited to rape and incest cases, but rather throughout the pregnancy of a woman, whatever her reason for aborting is.

I take an evictionist point of view, according to which the womb of a mother should remain the woman's property as it is her body, and an unborn child does not have the right to occupy it without consent.

I am looking forward an interesting debate with the opposite side, to whom I wish the best of luck.
cameronl35

Con

I accept the debate.

For clarity here are some definitions

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

legal-permitted by law

every-used to refer to all the individual members of a set without exception

late-term abortion- abortions which are performed during a later stage of pregnancy.

http://oxforddictionaries.com...

Thanks and I am eager to hear my opponent's case.
Debate Round No. 1
Crevaux

Pro

I would like to thank Con for accepting this debate, and I would also like to apologize for my delayed answer as I was taken by other things.

Also, I would like to precise that when I say "every" case, I imply every voluntary case, of course. A woman should not be forced to have an abortion, and I hope both the reader and my opponent understood that.

First of all, I would like to point out that abortion is not always a bad thing. In this 21st century, we are witnessing a considerable population growth that might result threatening our planet in ways we may not imagine. Overpopulation is a problem we need to look at, and it is clear that abortion is a much more humane technique than forced population control and one-child policies.

Abortion can also be justified in common cases such as rape. If a woman does not consent to be pregnant, she shouldn't be forced to keep the fruit of a crime. It was not her choice to have a child, and so her having this child shouldn't be forced upon her.

When the woman's life is in danger because she is not able to receive enough nutrients with the fetus in her womb or such medical problems, there is a clear argument about the morality of abortion. Abortion can be moral, indeed, in such a case, as it would save the carrier's life rather than letting both the mother and the unborn child die.

But the most important case is the philosophical one. I come to the debate floor arguing that a woman, as an individual, is the sole owner of her body and what's inside of it. Just like she should be free to insert anything within her body, she should be free to take away intruders in it.

I ask, What right does anybody have to live as a parasite within someone else's womb? Surely, no one has the right to exploit the property of others and decide, for instance, to come to live within your house without your consent. The same applies to unborn children. They have no right to live there if the mother does not want to.
cameronl35

Con

I thank my opponent for his intent response. I will first refute my opponents arguments and perhaps include a few of my own at the end if the limit permits.

I agree that we are debating about voluntary abortion, involuntary abortion is of course unjust and can be discarded for the benefit of both sides.

Observation: Due to the fact that the resolution offers a complete extension of abortion, as long as I can prove one type of voluntary abortion immoral or some criteria that determines that it should not be legal, I have proved the resolution false
and win.

R1: Overpopulation Argument

At what point is murdering humans not a bad thing? I'll go over this in my
case however it is a bad thing that we are murdering humans. Annually, 46 million babies die from abortion worldwide. That’s approximately one baby being aborted every two seconds. [1] Abortion only provides a hinder for population growth. Also, what population growth are you referring to? America is not increasing very rapidly in terms of population by birth for it is mostly immigration. Besides I could say that genocide can control populations therefore it is just, no? "Humane" or not, this is still murder. We can kill everyone with anesthesia, is that not humane? There is no real apparent argument for this and is rather whimsical.

R2: Rape Argument

First off, this does not even close to nearly prove the resolution true. John Willke, MD explains:

Let’s look, using the figure of 200,000 rapes each year.

  • Of the 200,000 women who were forcibly raped, one-third were either too old or too young to get pregnant. That leaves 133,000 at risk for pregnancy.

  • A woman is capable of being fertilized only 3 days (perhaps 5) out of a 30-day month. Multiply our figure of 133,000 by three tenths. Three days out of 30 is one out of ten, divide 133 by ten and we have 13,300 women remaining. If we use five days out of 30 it is one out of six. Divide one hundred and thirty three thousand by six and we have 22,166 remaining.

  • One-fourth of all women in the United States of childbearing age have been sterilized, so the remaining three-fourths come out to 10,000 (or 15,000).

  • Only half of assailants penetrate her body and/or deposit sperm in her vagina,1 so let’s cut the remaining figures in half. This gives us numbers of 5,000 (or 7,500).

  • Fifteen percent of men are sterile, that drops that figure to 4,250 (or 6,375).

  • Fifteen percent of non-surgically sterilized women are naturally sterile. That reduces the number to 3,600 (or 5,400).

  • Another fifteen percent are on the pill and/or already pregnant. That reduces the number to 3,070 (or 4,600).

  • Now factor in the fact that it takes 5-10 months for the average couple to achieve a pregnancy. Use the smaller figure of 5 months to be conservative and divide the above figures by 5. The number drops to 600 (or 920).

  • In an average population, the miscarriage rate is about 15 percent. In this case we have incredible emotional trauma. Her body is upset. Even if she conceives, the miscarriage rate will be higher than in a more normal pregnancy. If 20 percent of raped women miscarry, the figure drops to 450 (or 740). [2]

Now that we have established the minuscule quantity of the argument, let's look towards the moral aspect. Now I agree that the woman should not have the obligation to necessarily care for the baby however that does not justify abortion. Some options include adoption, foster homes, etc. I know my opponent will bring up the cost argument however due to the irregular repetition there will be no apparent problem. It is still prima facie morally wrong to kill a human, I'll refer to that later.


R3: Self-Ownership/House Argument

To truly deconstruct this argument we have to look at what the Pro is advocating. Pro is basically saying the woman has her own life and the fetus has no right to occupy it. However this is completely incorrect because using the same exact logic that my opponent uses, the fetus has a right to live. The fact is when the woman decides to have a baby due to sexual intercourse there are intrinsic values that come as a maternal figure. Regardless if she wants to due to the epistemic normative that conducts morality she is responsible for the being. She has no right to murder the innocent being. Most of the cases are not rape/unintentional pregnancy so morality must conduct her to bear the baby. It's a responsibility. In terms of the house metaphor this is completely irrelevant. In the house argument the person is not invited. At the point at which the maternal figure has decided to have a baby or engage in sexual intercourse (which comes with intrinsic responsibilities), she has no right to kill it. If you invited someone over for a day long, do you have the right to kill him/her at your own arbitrary whim? No, of course not. This argument is completely invalid and should be discarded for sake of argument.

C1: Abortion is murder and is prima facie morally wrong.

I'll be using a commonly used acronym for this debate:
Size: It is true that embryos/fetuses are smaller than newborns, children, and adults, but how is that relevant? Are larger people more human than smaller people? Are men more human than women, since men are generally larger? Are people with achondroplasia (dwarfism) less human, and less valuable, than average-sized people, because they are smaller? No. Size does not equal value.

Level of Dependency: Yes, embryos/fetuses are less developed than you and I. But, how is this relevant? A 6 year old child is less developed than a 12 year old. Should the older child have more rights, simply because he/she is more developed? Some people claim that self-awareness is what makes someone human. But if that is true, then newborns are not valuable human beings. Six-week old infants have a limited capacity for human mental function, but this is the same with people who are sleeping, comatose, and elderly people with Alzheimer's disease. Does this make them less valuable human beings? No.

Environment: Your location does not define who or how valuable your life is. Does crossing a street or moving to a different state change your value? No. Every human being's original environment is in the womb. How does travelling 8 inches down the birth canal change a non-human into a human? If preborn humans were, for some reason, not human, changing their environment wouldn't magically transform them into valuable humans. A human is a human from conception, and location does not define value.

Dependency: If being viable makes one a valuable human beings, then there are many people that shouldn't be considered "valuable." Diabetics who rely on insulin, people who depend on kidney medication, people who need life support, conjoined twins who share body systems, and the elderly who are bed-ridden - by this logic, all of these people listed are "non-valuable" human beings.[3]

Thus now that we have established that these are not the criteria in which we determine what is human or not, what is? Human nature at its simplest is the criteria. Thus it is immoral to kill the baby or innocent human being.

C2: Abortion has lead to millions of innocent deaths.

Ever since the Roe vs. Wade debate we have seen abortion kill millions and millions of people because we allow the woman to “choose” to do something immoral. According to the CDC, since 1973, the year of the Supreme Court Decision Roe vs. Wade, 13 million (13,000,000) African American lives have been lost to abortion. The CDC reports that of the approximately 4000 abortions that are performed daily in the United States, 1452 of them are performed on African American women and their pre-born children. This means that although African Americans represent only 12% of the population of the United States, they account for 35% of the abortions performed in this country. [4] Unfortunately I have to end it here because of lack of space. Vote CON and see comments for sources. I will elaborate on more arguments next round.

Debate Round No. 2
Crevaux

Pro

I would like to thank Con for his prompt answer, while I apologize for my long delay (even though I barely did make it this time).

Let me begin by saying there are two controversial cases that were established until now that determine whether abortion should be accepted in certain cases or not. The first one is when it comes to the mother's health, while the second one is related to the complicated issue of rape-related pregnancy.

The first argument was not countered by Con, so we can assume that he agrees that if the woman's life or long-term health is in danger due to childbearing, aborting the fetus is morally not wrong but even necessary. If so, then this actually signifies that there is an advantage in being the mother as she is not always FORCED to carry the child. The fetus, by this definition, has less importance than the mother.

When it comes to the rape argument, I do not see how all these statistical numbers are anyhow relevant. Just look at this case: http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

Sure, the mother did not have an abortion but she was pregnant following her rape when she was only 14 years old. This shows that while chances of becoming pregnant after a rape are slim, they still do exist. Also, CON stated well that the mother had no right to abort the fetus as the later was "invited" within her. In this case, there is no such thing as an invitation to rape or forced fertilization. The woman, or girl, will have to bear, in Con's scenario, the psychological pressure of carrying an unwanted fetus that will remind her for the close future the dramatic case that happened to her, i.e. the rape.

Now, while abortion is certainly not a large factor to the decrease of the rate of population growth, it still is a factor. If there are 46 million fetuses aborted every year, it is, on average, 33 million less parents that will exponentially give birth to several children, etc. It is like saying that certain government programs are so small (i.e., NASA, NPR), they do not require cuts from public spending in times of severe debt crises. Cruel comparison, maybe, but realistic.

For the self-ownership debate, I do not back off. The mother might have certain matriarcal values, but values are not necessarily obligations: while it might be a value to respect proudly your nation, it is not a moral obligation. Now, Con says that if someone is invited within somebody else's property, that does not give the owner the right to murder that person. While this is true, the owner still has the right to kick the visitor, the invitee, off his or her property whenever he wishes to. My self-ownership case is not based on murdering, but rather evicting the fetus.

Capitalism Magazine, an Objectivist newspaper, clearly summed up this position in this way, "A fetus does not have a right to be in the womb of any woman, but is there by her permission. This permission may be revoked by the woman at any time, because her womb is part of her body... There is no such thing as the right to live inside the body of another, i.e. there is no right to enslave... a woman is not a breeding pig owned by the state (or church). Even if a fetus were developed to the point of surviving as an independent being outside the pregnant woman's womb, the fetus would still not have the right to be inside the woman's womb."

Murray Rothbard, an anarcho-capitalist economist and political thinker, also advocated the evictionist point of view. He sees the fetus as a trespasser that is only allowed within the woman's body. (For a New Liberty, pg. 131-132).

Con also pointed out that the environment in which the fetus is does not matter in its qualification as a human being. Well that's exactly the point I'm trying to make, isn't it? If the womb is no different from the woman's house as they both are the individual's property, why should the fetus receive preferential treatment because it is living within the woman? Property is property, I agree, and property rights should not change based on the nature of the physical property.

Finally, I do not see the African-American disproportionate abortion rate as the problem there. It might be an argument against federal funding for abortion clinics and abortion institutions such as Planned Parenthood (in which case, I'm on Con's boat) but it has no particular interest in this debate.

Having no more time, I have to end my argument there. But I would like Con to put the resources he could not include in his second round.
cameronl35

Con

I thank my opponent for his response.

Let me first clarify that the debate is NOT about whether abortion should be accepted in certain circumstances. The resolution proposed that abortion must be legal in ALL cases. Pro has not even came close to fulfilling his BOP or even proving the resolution generally true.

I do believe that the only circumstance in which abortion is acceptable is when the mother's life is at risk, yes. That does not at all imply that I believe the fetus is "less important" than the mother. Due to the fact that the mother is going to die, life would be terrible for the fetus as well because of the mother-less life he/she would have to live. I think it is more beneficial to let the mother abort in that one minuscule circumstance.

My opponent goes on to state that my evidence is irrelevant??? He also brings up one specific case? I don't see how using one example is relevant. I already established how seldom the rape case is so I don't comprehend what my opponent's point is.

I also would like to point out that there is a time period after the rape in which the woman can take a birth control pill. The woman has 120 hours to significantly reduce the chances of pregnancy and if taken soon after the rape prevent the pregnancy. [1]

My opponent goes on to make an abstract point about population. He seems to be advocating for abortion as a population control method, yet again? I have proven this argument whimsical. My opponent must also think that it is justified to humanely kill all seniors who are incapable of providing anything for society as well, since it's humane by his standards if they do not feel pain. There is no solidification of this point and I urge for it to be discarded unless my opponent can adequately justify the lavish claim.

Then he goes on to quote a Capitalist magazine practically restating the argument he has stood by throughout the debate. The quote states that the fetus has no right to occupy the mother's womb but I ask my opponent this question: What right does a doctor have to murder an innocent human being?

Murray Rothbard did advocate for abortion true, but how is this relevant? If my opponent wants to compare intelligent advocates for each side we can perhaps do that in another debate. I don't see a point in stating other strong anti-abortion intellects.

Property Argument:
I still stand strongly against the fatalistic property argument. I do not believe that the woman has the right to infringe upon the well-being of another individual. If you were in my house, I would have no right to kill you. I would have the right to evict you from my house however that is completely different. If somehow it was possible to preserve the life of the fetus by eviction then by all means I would be for it but the fact that we are talking about murder here is where it goes wrong. The woman has no right to murder an innocent human being for it is prima facie morally wrong as I have proved in today's debate.

Finally my opponent goes on to state that my African argument has no particular interest in today's debate. He also states that this is not a problem? It is not a problem that more children are being aborted in the black community than being born? Is this not an extreme degradation and does it not form a negative connotation for the African American society? I don't see where my opponent's logic is. One may ask well why does this occur? Partially because of the fact that they are young and do not want to bear a child however because by making all cases of abortion illegal you are advocating that it is ok to kill the fetus. The woman does not know that it is immoral and it is technically murder. Perhaps she does, but instinctively she chooses to prioritise her individual arbitrary whim over the right of an individual.

Conclusion:
My opponent provides virtually no adequate response to my two contentions. He as a matter of fact agreed with a small portion of my first contention and completely ignored the rest. In my second contention he dodged it by saying it was irrelevant? My opponent also provides almost no solidification for any of his arguments and rather restates them. He has not refuted the fact that he isn't proving the resolution generally true. He also has not refuted that a fetus is a human meaning he agrees with the statement. Therefore I am winning on a moral context since it is prima facie morally wrong to kill an innocent human being. Finally, my opponent has not by any means fulfilled his BOP thus I urge a CON ballot.

Sources: (Round 3)
http://ec.princeton.edu...

Round 2:
1. http://bound4life.com......
2. http://www.christianliferesources.com.........
3. Stephen Swarz, The Moral Question of Abortion
4. http://www.nbccongress.org......
Debate Round No. 3
Crevaux

Pro

Crevaux forfeited this round.
cameronl35

Con

Unfortunately my opponent forfeited so vote CON.

Why?

The primary reason that you should vote con is because Pro has not even came close to fulfilling his BoP. His argument revolves around the rape case and the instance in which the mother's life is at risk. However as I have proven this is not proving the resolution even close to generally true, thus I win the arguments. Conduct goes to me for forfeit. Sources go to me for I provided several sources while Con only provided one that wasn't pertaining to the case well. Thus for these reasons I urge a vote for CON.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Dilara 1 year ago
Dilara
People are born at 8 months. 5 months is plenty of time to find out your pregnant and make the decision to abort. By the fourth or fifth month the baby can feel pain. Why would you put a 8 month baby through pain and suffering so that a women can have a month of bodily autonomy--as she only has to wait a month to stop being pregnant.
Why should any baby be denied a right to have a chance at life because he is an inconvenience?
Posted by cameronl35 5 years ago
cameronl35
Thanks, Raisor. I'm just used to everyone not doing much their last round so I guess I was misinformed. Thanks though!
Posted by Raisor 5 years ago
Raisor
When your opponent forfeits you should still post a full round. If you just post a paragraph or a one liner that he forfeited that effectively ends the debate at the last completed round, meaning that the forfeit gives no competitive advantage since both sides have the same number of arguments. Basically, if you dont post an argument after your opponent forfeits you are saying "well my opponent forfeited his round so I will forfeit mine too."

Instead you should post an argument that bolsters and clarifies all your arguments and highlights all the points your opponent didnt address because he failed to post an argument. This probably wont wind up being nearly as in depth or as work intensive as your previous arguments - you just need enough to make the forfeit really hurt, which isnt hard to do.
Posted by cameronl35 5 years ago
cameronl35
1. http://bound4life.com...
2. http://www.christianliferesources.com......
3. Stephen Swarz, The Moral Question of Abortion
4. http://www.nbccongress.org...
Posted by TeenageApologist 5 years ago
TeenageApologist
I was as well.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
hmmm tempted to take this one.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Nur-Ab-Sal 5 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
Crevauxcameronl35Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources and conduct, as well as convincing arguments, go to Con. I applaud Pro's effort.
Vote Placed by Mr.Infidel 5 years ago
Mr.Infidel
Crevauxcameronl35Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeits and con fulfilled his bop.
Vote Placed by EthanHuOnDebateOrg 5 years ago
EthanHuOnDebateOrg
Crevauxcameronl35Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: not even close.
Vote Placed by Raisor 5 years ago
Raisor
Crevauxcameronl35Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01