The Instigator
EvanescentEfflorescence
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
Americaspearjade
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Abortion should be legal

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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...
EvanescentEfflorescence
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/23/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,206 times Debate No: 90094
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (60)
Votes (4)

 

EvanescentEfflorescence

Pro

Hello. I'm relatively new here. Let's have a super debate =)

Full resolution: In the United States, abortion should be legal


Rules:

1. First round is for acceptance (do not argue in the first round).
2. Please do not present new arguments in the final round. Counter-arguments are fine.
3. No trolling.
4. No Kritiks of the topic
5. References/citations need to be provided in text and in the debate

Violation of these rules will give voters ammunition for conduct breeches or worse.

Don't go too hard on me ;)
Americaspearjade

Con

Why do you believe that abortion should be legal
Debate Round No. 1
EvanescentEfflorescence

Pro

Thank you, Americanspearjade for accepting this debate. I wish you strength in argument =)


Affirmative Case


The following arguments are the reasons that abortion should be legal in the United States.


Argument 1: Unwanted children negatively impact society


Section I: Sexual and psychological abuse of children

Firstly, I believe it to be axiomatic (i.e. obvious) that there are not enough people to adopt unwanted children, hence the existence of foster care and the frightful statistics that follow.

Of the children sent to foster care, a study by Orlow (2009) found that, “As many as 75 percent of all children in foster care, upon leaving the system, will have experienced sexual abuse” [1]. Given that in 2011, the amount of children in foster care was roughly 400,000, approximately 300,000 children will experience sexual abuse [2]. Worse still is there is a global trend towards “newborn abandonment,” which means that if unwanted children are not aborted, these instances of sexual abuse committed against children will happen at an increased rate [3]. Clearly, permitting abortion would prevent sexual abuse of children.

As for psychological abuse, it is well documented that children suffer from a range of things, even if the adoption is considered “successful”. For example, Adopted Child Syndrome, which is a Dissociative Disorder (basically, a condition wherein the adopted feels “rejected” no matter what), is such a powerful psychological disorder that it has been used in successful legal defences [7].

Legalising abortion would prevent these soul-destroying psychological disorders from burdening these people and society at large.


Section II: Better crime outcomes

Steven Levitt, studying the homicide rate since Roe vs. Wade (wherein it was declared that the interest of the fetus should not come before the interest of the mother), found that there was a 40% decline in homicide rates which was tied to a decline in unwanted children [4].

To corroborate this conclusion, another study found that, “One of the strongest predictors of criminal activity, and the externalities that result, is family background.” From this, it was found that children who are adopted are more likely to commit crimes *of all types* than kids who are not adopted [5].

If abortion were legal, there would be better crime outcomes for the community.


Section III: Non-adopted children

For children who are not adopted, when they exceed the age restriction of foster care, they will have to find work, enter college, enlist in the military etc. *all on their own*. They do not have the luxuriant wallets/purses of their parents to burrow. There are many, many instances of where these children end up “not falling off a cliff, but definitely clinging to the edge” [6].

Clearly, by not being aborted, these unwanted children are left on their own eventually, struggling to fend for themselves.


Argument 2: Rape pregnancies devastate mother and child

Section I: Psychological impacts on the mother

In the United States, the national rape-related pregnancy rate is 32,101 for females aged 12-45 [8]. Of this 32,101, a study found that rape pregnancies were closely linked to family and domestic violence, so much so that 50% of rape pregnancy women abandon or leave their child for adoption (for further impacts on the latter, see the previous argument) [9].

Other psychological difficulties routinely found in these women include: ambivalence towards the child (which harms the mother in the sense that she feels distant from the child, and this obviously harms the child, too), trouble telling the child about the rape pregnancy (once the child gets older), and distress and pathological denial of pregnancy (cognitive dissonance) [3].

Rape pregnancy women normally have to share custody with their rapist. In the constant interaction with the rapist, the mother has to pretend that she likes her attacker, of which has a tethering effect. This tethering effect dissolves her resolve, which leads to experiencing and re-experiencing feelings of rape continually. This causes serious psychological harm: depressive symptoms and suicidal ideation [8].

A clear majority of rape victims suffer from a form of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTDS), and a further third of rape victims develop a particularly vicious form of PTDS: rape-related PTDS (RR-PTSD). Suffering from PTSD and sometimes RR-PTSD negatively effects the ability of the mother to parent properly, as she fears any sort of contact with the rape event in order to avoid flash-back of the rape [8].

Finally, rape trauma (which is basically reliving the rape within her mind) can be reactivated by giving birth to a child conceived through a rape, regardless of the mode of birth. This has been found to occur often for women who have rape pregnancies [10].

Aborting rape pregnancies would avoid these devastating outcomes for these 32,101 women.


Section II: Harms to children

There is often found a stigma attached to children produced through rape, one which is found throughout the world. Some communities in Rwanda call them “devil’s children.” Communities in Timor-Leste engage in calling these children “children of shame”. In Nicaragua, “monster babies” is the term used. “Dust of life” is what they are called in Vietnam [11]. This perception is compounded by the previously cited “ambivalence” of the mother towards the child, easily instils a feeling of neglect within many of these children [3].

For women who birth rape children, there is a greater risk of: preterm delivery, low birth weight and infection [12].

Finally, consider the mother and parenting climate in which these children are raised. Mothers are very often deeply psychologically scarred (for example, with PTSD or suicidal ideation), which contributes to poor parenting decisions, such as the decision to outright abandon the child (which is part of the 50% statistic wherein mothers either give the child up for adoption or abandon the child).


Argument 3: Aborting to save a mother’s life

There are documented cases wherein the life of the pregnant is at risk, and the only way to save her is to abort the child.

To quote the gynaecologists of this article, “Abortions are necessary in a number of circumstances to save the life of a woman or to preserve her health.”

Quoted within the article, a study published in Guttmacher’s International Family Planning Perspectives, found that a “risk to a woman’s health” was the primary reason for 2.8% of United States abortions [13].

An example of this “risk to a woman’s health” can be found in an article at the Salon. With the fetus going to die anyway, the mother almost lost her life because of failure to abort the already doomed fetus. There was only risk of the mother dying due to the refusal of doctors to perform the abortion. This is so obviously a case wherein abortion would allow the best case scenario (and it it) [14].


Argument 4: Outlawing abortions leads to many dangerous abortions

Abortions do not cease when they become illegal. An article in the New York Times writes, “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.” To elaborate, the researchers saw that abortion performed in a safe way in countries which it were legal, but dangerously in countries where it was outlawed. On a global scale, these illegal abortions account for 13% of women’s deaths during childbirth and pregnancy [15].


References

[1] http://www.hg.org...

[2] http://www.acf.hhs.gov...

[3] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

[4] http://tinyurl.com...

[5] http://www.mit.edu...

[6] http://www.npr.org...

[7] http://www.amfor.net...

[8] http://georgetownlawjournal.org...

[9] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

[10] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

[11] http://www.thelancet.com...

[12] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

[13] http://www.usatoday.com...

[14] http://www.salon.com...

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

Americaspearjade

Con

true but the Bible says though shalt not murder and don't you think what that child has to go through
Debate Round No. 2
EvanescentEfflorescence

Pro

Thank you, Americanspearjade.

Affirmative Case

Not only does my opponent my opponent not contest any of my points, but she concedes them with "true". Thus, both my opponent and I agree that these are reasons you should affirm the resolution with me.


Counter-arguments

Con provides us with, well, shall we say "terse" argument. Let's explore them:

"true but the Bible says though shalt not murder"

My opponent fails to do several things here.

Firstly, my opponent fails to demonstrate how murder occurs in any abortions. In reality, she merely imply that it has been confirmed as murder. This is unfounded, and thus is a bare assertion, which is a logical fallacy [1].

Secondly, because there is no logical framework which suppor this argument, this is an appeal to authority as the implication is that The Bible's word is all that matters [2].

Due to the logically falacious nature of this argument, it gains no traction in this debate.


"and don't you think what that child has to go through"

Con hasn't demonstrated how "what the child has to go through" is sufficient to outweigh my impacts in my affirmation case (of which she agrees to all the points), let alone existent. This is another bare assertion [1].


Point of conduct

My opponent decided to reference in the comments section, something which is against the rules of this debate. Not only that, but she specifically said, "here is my refrences". It's actually only one reference, but this is a breech in rules. I'll leave it to the judges to decide if this warrants conduct violation.


Conclusion

My opponent agrees with *all* of my arguments! This only is enough for me to win the debate, giving the impacts of my arguments (i.e. what positive benefits of abortion I have shown). For this reason, it should be entirely transparent as why you should vote for Pro. So, vote Pro!

References

[1] http://dictionary.sensagent.com...
[2] http://www.nizkor.org...
Americaspearjade

Con

that child has the right to live and if a parent doesn't want kids don't have any.
Debate Round No. 3
60 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by its.chandler 6 months ago
its.chandler
haha okay thank you!
Posted by EvanescentEfflorescence 6 months ago
EvanescentEfflorescence
Chandler, I agree with both of your comments. There are also plenty of impacts to support this line of argument, too. I'm constructing an argument to argue Con on abortion, so this is how I know this.

Anyway, I 100% agree.
Posted by its.chandler 6 months ago
its.chandler
This could solve the problem for A LOT of abortions
Posted by its.chandler 6 months ago
its.chandler
I believe that it can save a mothers life, but that's not the only reason people have abortions.Young girls will go out and have sex, once they find out that they are pregnant they believe that abortion will solve the problem. You know what bothers me, is that teenagers are getting pregnant more frequently, and they don't want to have a baby. If you can't support a baby in the way it needs to be, don't have sex.
Posted by EvanescentEfflorescence 6 months ago
EvanescentEfflorescence
I'm not actually sure that it should be legal. For the Pro side, I'm not sure that there is a "main reason". I can understand why you wrote that, though, considering that you're Con (Con's line of argument is, generally, that killing is wrong).

I guess the best argument is that abortion can save a mother's life, but I don't think that quite answers your question.
Posted by its.chandler 6 months ago
its.chandler
So can I just ask you a question? What is the main reason that you think abortion should be legal. Like the very main reason, not a bunch of little reasons (I'm not debating, its just a question)
Posted by its.chandler 6 months ago
its.chandler
okay thanks! I'll do my best!
Posted by EvanescentEfflorescence 6 months ago
EvanescentEfflorescence
Oh okay. Well try to link your arguments to resolution, and then explain why it matters.
Posted by its.chandler 6 months ago
its.chandler
I made an account like a week ago :)))
Posted by its.chandler 6 months ago
its.chandler
Yes I am--(laughing) I suck at it!!
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by fire_wings 7 months ago
fire_wings
EvanescentEfflorescenceAmericaspearjadeTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments
Vote Placed by 16kadams 7 months ago
16kadams
EvanescentEfflorescenceAmericaspearjadeTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro provided REALLY strong arguments from a utilitarian perspective. She discussed how abortion reduces crime, how banning abortion makes it DANGEROUS, and how banning it may lead to more ABUSE! The HORROR! Con provides no arguments, simply citing the bible. But Con does not demonstrate why the Bible is relevant to public policy decisions--only to spiritual ones! Not only that, but he doesn't even cite the chapter and verse!! Pro cites many really, really, REALLY good sources. Georgetown law review, government publications, and peer-reviewed papers to back up the abortion crime link, abuse increases (and harms of abuse), and even the DANGEROUS abortions a ban will cause! I hope this new vote is up to the standards. It was a THRILLING debate that needed to be dissected and critiqued!
Vote Placed by Leugen9001 7 months ago
Leugen9001
EvanescentEfflorescenceAmericaspearjadeTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: In the first round, to show that abortion should be legal, Pro listed several reasons why: unwanted children are treated poorly and harm others in the community, rape pregnancies harm children and the mother, and abortion can be used, in some cases, to save a mother's life. Con does not counter Pro's points, but does make a positive point: that abortion is immoral on the virtue that it is murder. As explained by Pro, Con doesn't explain why abortion is murder or why its immorality should outweigh its benefits. Con also doesn't explain why abortion's immorality would be solved by a ban, since they didn't counter Pro's point about how abortions would still carry on, just illegally. Thus, Pro has demonstrated well that abortion is beneficial for the aborted, the aborting, and society, the three main actors in the debate.
Vote Placed by tejretics 7 months ago
tejretics
EvanescentEfflorescenceAmericaspearjadeTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con fails to advance their burden by any offensive means outside of appealing to the authority of the Bible, the reliability of which is not explained. Pro's burden, by contrast, is sufficiently fulfilled by the impacts of crime, back-alley abortions, and psychological effects to both mother and child. This strong offense stands completely dropped by Con. Objective win for Pro.