The Instigator
Valar_Dohaeris
Pro (for)
Winning
35 Points
The Contender
TheRussian
Con (against)
Losing
14 Points

Abortion should be legal

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 7 votes the winner is...
Valar_Dohaeris
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 1/7/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 750 times Debate No: 67908
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (7)

 

Valar_Dohaeris

Pro

It should be
TheRussian

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
Valar_Dohaeris

Pro

1) Constitutional Right in the US

In Roe vs Wade it was ruled as a violation of the Constitution to prohibit abortions under the 9th and 14th amendments. It is a woman's choice and right to her own body in regards to having an abortion ( http://www.lawnix.com... ).

2) Self Defense

We have the right to self defense in the united states. If and when a fetus is damaging a woman to the point it can endanger her life, the mother should be able to reasonably defend herself against the fetus. ( http://en.wikipedia.org... ) This basically states that someone can murder another person ( assuming the baby is a person ) under the pretense of self defense. Think of it like this, if someone is coming at you with a knife do you have the right to kill that person? The answer is yes. If a fetus is endangering your life, you should be able to reasonably defend yourself.

a) consequences

This should be the mothers choice to end the pregnancy. The fetus is sapping nutrients, increasing how tired the mother is, making her miss work, etc. This could effectively mess up her real life. If you cannot maintain having a baby, and a fetus was conceived on accident, you should be able to opt out. Some people are not financially capable of carrying out the entire pregnancy, and missing work, the effects it has on their health, and other impacts could negatively impact their life in a way where they may actually grow to hate the child and or give it away. Child's that are adopted are three times more likely to commit crimes, than those that are raised properly.

3 ) Rape

Almost 1 percent of all pregnancies are from rape ( http://www.operationrescue.org... ). Rape is a net detriment all around, as the mother has no choice in the pregnancy. The most applicable scenario to this is the violinist analogy. ( http://spot.colorado.edu... )

This basically asks you if you were at a party and someone smacked you upside the head. They then proceeded to drag you to a room where you had no say, and while you were still knocked out they connected a man to you via a tube that was keeping him alive. When you woke up, you realized you had this man connected to you. If you removed the tube he died, if you did not he lived. The issue is this tube causes you severe emotion distress, health problems, and other things that you must endure for 9 months and you were put in this situation by no fault of your own. Is it wrong to pull the tube out? Most would say no as you had no choice about whether or not you were put in that situation. A situation that could possibly kill you, endanger your health or various other things. The same thing applies to rape.

You are telling a girl who had no say in the matter, that she must have a child that she does not want because it's her responsibility. That is literally just wrong on so many levels.
TheRussian

Con

I thank my opponent for providing this interesting and controversial topic of debate.

1) I believe this to be an irrelevant point as we are arguing whether or not it SHOULD be legal, not whether or not it IS legal.

2) Once again, my opponent is using already-existing legal documents to prove his point. I believe this should be disregarded for the same reason as his first point.
a) If the mother cannot handle a child for whatever reason, then it is her responsibility to make sure she doesn't have one.

3) My opponent mentioned that not even 1% of pregnancies are from rape. In fact, his source says that "LESS than 1% of all abortions take place because of rape and/or incest." So, part of that "less than 1%" is incest, meaning that even less is rape. Now, considering that minuscule percentage, I believe that the downsides of abortion heavily outweigh the benefit of less than 1% of pregnant women getting an abortion. (Plus, not all women want an abortion, even after rape. So the percentage becomes even smaller).

Now, onto why abortion should NOT be legal.
A) Killing a person: Abortion can be compared to murder, as it is the killing of an embryo, a human. That embryo could have been a great benefit to society, but will no longer be. Abortion is murder, just under a different name.

B) Devaluation of human life: Abortion is like a "cancel" button. The cancellation of human life becoming a regular occurrence makes human life worth nothing as you can simply make it or take it away at any time.

C) Less responsibility: Legal abortion results in men and women taking less responsibility for their actions as they can just cancel it at any time, which leads to the further devaluation of human life.

D) Contraception: In our time, contraceptives are very accessible. This means that couples have no excuse to have an unexpected child, and if they don't want one, then it is their responsibility to use contraceptives. Use of contraceptives is a better alternative to abortion in every way.

I await my opponent's response.
Debate Round No. 2
Valar_Dohaeris

Pro

Dropped - Self Defense

Dropped - Bad Childhoods /Mother can not take of the kid

Rebuild) Constitutional Right

My adversary says we are debating about whether it should be legal and I agree. The reason it already is legal is because it *should be* legal. The constitution was established because it granted us the greatest possible freedom. Denying someone the right to govern their own body denies them the freedom granted under the Constitution. A woman has her right to her own body as does anyone. Taking that away from her is going against a document that was made to provide us with the greatest possible freedom. The same is true in other countries, which is a womans body is her own.

Rebuild ) My adversary says because of rape being such a small number, we should then enforce it because there is such a massive number against it. What he is stating is that is is perfectly fine to tell around 30,000 women yearly that they have to carry a child because they were sexually assaulted on no fault of their own, even if it could mess up their lives forever. HE is basically saying that 30,000 people could be traumatized and it would be okay. Also per the analogy it's telling someone they have a moral responsibility to keep someone alive (if the fetus is even a life). HE left the analogy untouched. A fetus is not the same as a person that has been living for years. They already have a life, the fetus just has the potential to be a life and the terms by which a fetus is a life is *so* subjective that it varies state to state and from country to country. Fetal homicide laws literally vary, so these numbers my adversary are saying, are not considering when a fetus is considered viable, but the total number of abortions (this is not accurate).

Rebuttal ) My adversary just asserts that an embryo is a living human, without providing any evidence to support it. A fetus has the potential to be a life, but the stages at which it is considered to be a life *vary* everywhere. That is how subjective this issue is. We have been looking over this for years, and no one can determine viability well. Viability in most senses is commonly around 20 - 28 weeks which is basically a late term abortion (most are already illegal as is) so the numbers are drastically smaller than my adversary makes them out to be

Rebuttal ) this is an assertion with not facts. People should be able to opt out of abortions because it prevents bad cases of children being raised in homes that cannot afford them, or going through adopted care. If you can stop the life while it has the potential to become a life, to prevent harms that should be allowed. You are not terminating a life, but the chance of a life existing.

Contraception ) He just asserts contraceptives work all the times, and cases where they don't work the women still should be forced to carry a fetus. A fetus is the potential to become a life, and contraceptive don't always work. People should be able to opt out.
TheRussian

Con

"Dropped - Self Defense"
As mentioned, my opponent is using a legal document to prove this point. We are arguing whether or not it SHOULD be legal, and using existing legal documents to prove this is the same as using the Bible to prove the existence of Jesus.

"Dropped - Bad Childhoods /Mother can not take of the kid"
As mentioned, if the woman cannot take care of a child, it is HER responsibility not to have one.

"The reason it already is legal is because it *should be* legal."
This is silly logic, as the legality of something does not mean it should be. The fact that something happens doesn't mean it should happen, just like since rape happens, that doesn't mean it should.

"A woman has her right to her own body as does anyone. Taking that away from her is going against a document that was made to provide us with the greatest possible freedom."
The problem with this statement is that we're not talking about the woman's body, but the growing body inside her. No one has the right to the growing human.

"What he is stating is that is is perfectly fine to tell around 30,000 women yearly that they have to carry a child because they were sexually assaulted on no fault of their own, even if it could mess up their lives forever."
I have not once said that. I said that the negatives of abortion outweigh the positives of far less than 1% of pregnant women getting an abortion. My opponent fails to provide a source for his "30,000 women" statistic, so I could ignore this all together.

"My adversary just asserts that an embryo is a living human, without providing any evidence to support it."
My opponent questions if a fetus/embryo can be called alive. A fetus/embryo is made of living cells, making it a living organism.

"You are not terminating a life, but the chance of a life existing."
My opponent is mistaken, as he does not believe an embryo is a living thing. I proved above that an embryo is, in fact, a living thing and therefore, abortion is the killing of that living thing.

I would like to note that my opponent has dropped my argument about the devaluation of human life.

"He just asserts contraceptives work all the times"
I never said that either. This is the second time my opponent is putting words into my mouth. I said that contraceptives are easily accessible in most modern societies and that they are a better option than abortion.

Indeed, contraceptives don't always work, but they are very effective. The best methods fail only 0.05%!
http://www.cdc.gov...

"so the numbers are drastically smaller than my adversary makes them out to be"
I did not include any numbers other than rape statistics in my Round 2 argument. I do not know what my opponent is referring to (it is now up to the voters to decide).

"... it prevents bad cases of children being raised in homes that cannot afford them"
Once again, if the couple cannot afford, it is their responsibility not to have a child.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Valar_Dohaeris 1 year ago
Valar_Dohaeris
pro or con?
Posted by TheRussian 1 year ago
TheRussian
Valar, I am extremely impressed with your debate record, especially considering that you have won 10-15 debates within the last 3-4 days. Therefore, I wanted to challenge you to another debate, on the subject of Death Penalty.
Posted by dtaylor971 1 year ago
dtaylor971
1) Constitutional Rights

The basis of this short argument relied on the Roe v. Wade decision. This is a very risky path for the pro to take, but it did speak to me. While the Roe v. Wade is definitely a controversial decision, pro pointed out that it was ruled (officially) that abortion is allowed under the 9th and 14th amendment. Con attempted to counter by saying the debate was about whether or not abortion SHOULD be legal, not IS it legal. While this is a legitimate point, con overlooks that a decision by the supreme court definitely mandates at least some form of legalization, which somewhat supports pro's BoP. This is a very strong point by pro (in my eyes,) and it was dropped by the con.

2) Self Defense

Another interesting argument by the pro. When we look deeply into this point, pro is essentially saying that abortion should not be illegal if there are some cases that mandate an abortion, and self-defense can be regarded as one. However, I am skeptical as to using wikipedia as a source. Regardless, this is a strong point. Once again, this was practically dropped by con, as he argued it was irrelevant. Not irrelevant in my eyes under any circumstances. Insofar, we have 2 strong, dropped arguments for the pro.

3) Rape

As I understand it, the resolution is "abortion should be legal." Hence, rape doesn't necessarily apply to the resolution, as the pro pointed out (himself, for some reason) that less than 1% of pregnancies are from rape. There's no real need for a rebuttal from con, as this point basically refutes itself in my opinion.

Con's points

Con's points were quite short, and I am disappointed that he did not express them in further detail. His first point does not prove that a fetus should be considered a human (as pointed out by pro,) which makes it invalidated. The rest of con's points relied mainly on responsibility and a "cancel" button, which were refuted effortlessly by pro. Needless to say, pro won this one easily.
Posted by Valar_Dohaeris 1 year ago
Valar_Dohaeris
Just a notation, i completely disagree with that previous RFD. Asserting a fetus is a living organism without proof is not stating it is a human life. Since the RFD hinged on that fact, it was counter productive
Posted by TheRussian 1 year ago
TheRussian
Hmm, alright
Posted by Valar_Dohaeris 1 year ago
Valar_Dohaeris
on a general basis
Posted by Valar_Dohaeris 1 year ago
Valar_Dohaeris
I was stating abortion in all scenarios should be legal.
Posted by TheRussian 1 year ago
TheRussian
I will accept if I can argue that abortion should be illegal unless it's a rape or the life of the mother is in danger. Is that acceptable?
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Shadowguynick 1 year ago
Shadowguynick
Valar_DohaerisTheRussian
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Pro won, but only because con didn't actually argue against the rape scenario, only saying that it doesn't happen a lot, therefore we shouldn't care. This doesn't remotely make sense, and was a terrible position. Same with the contraceptives. Con also made no effort to disprove the negatives of a child being raised in a household that can't raise said child. It is negative not only for the mother/father but the child suffers as well.
Vote Placed by Mr.Chorlton 1 year ago
Mr.Chorlton
Valar_DohaerisTheRussian
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Although PRO made good arguments that I happen to agree with, CON was able to answer those arguments whilst adding his own which was very effective. It feels strange siding with the point of view that I don't agree with but just felt it was a better argument.
Vote Placed by dtaylor971 1 year ago
dtaylor971
Valar_DohaerisTheRussian
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Voted in comments.
Vote Placed by Codedlogic 1 year ago
Codedlogic
Valar_DohaerisTheRussian
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Con failed to rebut abortion in cases of rape. Con also failed to address the constitutional validity of banning abortions.
Vote Placed by imabench 1 year ago
imabench
Valar_DohaerisTheRussian
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: con flat out dropped the constitution argument and made several other bad arguments for why abortion shouldnt be legal, one of which included an argument that 'contraceptives' work, so abortion shouldnt be necessary. He also insists that the rape argument pro makes isnt a good one since the negative side effects of rape outwiegh any gain, but failed to prove that as well. Points to the pro
Vote Placed by 16kadams 1 year ago
16kadams
Valar_DohaerisTheRussian
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: CON really failed to demonstrate that a fetus was a person... It is impossible to win an abortion debate without demonstrating this. Although he showed that many of pro's points on 'harm' were untrue, the fact is, if abortion does not harm anyone, there is no reason to ban it. Therefore, I am forced to vote PRO.
Vote Placed by Defro 1 year ago
Defro
Valar_DohaerisTheRussian
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: I've been a part of several abortion debates on DDO. Normally, pro would always win. However in this particular debate, con is the clear winner. Pro initially provided a steong argument, but con provided a stronger rebuttal that pro couldn't effectively counter. The main contention that won con the debate was the contention about whether or not a fetus is considered a human life. While pro argued that it is not considered human, he was too vague and didn't support his assertion. Had he proven that a fetus truly isn't human, he would have won. That is not to say con's arguments were perfect. In clause A of con's round 2 argument, he appealed to possibility, which is a logical fallacy.