The Instigator
iamapelican
Pro (for)
Losing
39 Points
The Contender
clsmooth
Con (against)
Winning
47 Points

Abortion should be legalized.

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: 12/22/2007 Category: Health
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 16,273 times Debate No: 800
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (34)
Votes (29)

 

iamapelican

Pro

Abortion should be legal, definitely. Ask a pro-lifer what their position represents - what is being a pro-lifer? They'll usually give you a definition of something along the lines of someone who believes that a fetus is a life, and the sanctity of life should not be compromised by legalizing a form of murder. Ask them further if they would take measures against death occurring. Would they, if they had the power, pass a legislation that would save more lives than not? If adhering to their position as pro-lifers, they should. At this point, the terms pro-lifer and pro-choicer would become synonymous, because any pro-lifer who is not a hypocrite, and wants to save lives as opposed to inflicting punishment will want to legalize abortion.

A study came out recently showing that rates of abortion occur in countries where abortion is legal and where it is not. (Source: http://www.nytimes.com... ) Despite the ruling of the land, women are not deterred in ending their pregnancy when they want to. More often than not in areas where it is not legal, unsafe abortions occur and the mother is injured or killed. In places where abortion is legal, unsafe abortion is hardly a problem, and abortions usually occur legally and safely. So the citizen has their choice: legalize a process that kills one person (accepting the definition that the fetus is a life - which I would contest, but I'm using it here for the sake of argument), or ban a process, thereby killing two people for every one that could have gone.

If the "pro-lifer" sticks to their moral compass that they defined earlier, they'll find that legal abortion is a necessary privilege, and banning abortion is contradictory to their philosophy, killing more people than could have been saved.
clsmooth

Con

Like most Americans, I am conflicted on the issue of abortion. But like most of the loudest voices in this debate (on both sides), you present the issue as if it were black and white: Pro-life or pro-choice, with no room in the middle for nuance. The reality is that the vast majority of Americans are somewhere in the middle. Very few are for making abortion illegal in every single case, and even fewer are for allowing abortion up to the last second before natural birth. But these are the two extremes you present in your argument.

To the extent that I am "pro-life," I am so on the basis of Natural Rights. At some point, the living thing inside a woman's womb becomes a human being. I do not believe this to be at conception, and I cannot define exactly when that point is. But it is fairly clear to me that it is not one instant before birth. My daughter was born six weeks premature. If she had not been premature, would it have been legitimate to abort her two weeks later? Would it be legitimate for a woman to delay labor via drugs and have her baby aborted past the time it was actually due? And finally, most late-term abortions amount to clear infanticide, as the baby is actually living outside of the womb before it is killed. Must I accept this in order to be "pro-choice" in your eyes? Must I oppose a first-trimester abortion of a rape or incest victim in order to be "pro-life"?

You make the argument that "pro-life" people should be for legal abortion, since legal abortion leads to fewer abortions and deaths of mothers having abortions. I question these data. Most of the countries where abortion is illegal are poorer and have other problems -- it is thus hard to isolate the effect of abortion laws on abortion rates.

But, for the sake of argument, let's say you are right: Would this then also justify any other crime? What if the legalization of murdering one person a year was demonstrated to reduce the total number of violent crimes -- could it be justified? You are using utilitarian ethics, whereas many non-religious and some religious abortion opponents use Natural Rights ethics. Utilitarianism allows for any abrogation of rights if it can be seen as being "in the common good," whereas Natural Rights allow for no such abrogations. There is nothing hypocritical about being a Natural Rights-based opponent of abortion.
Debate Round No. 1
iamapelican

Pro

I should have clarified on my terminology. I believe that a pro-lifer is defined as one who wishes that abortion should not be legal at any point in a pregnancy. That is a relatively straight-forward viewpoint, compared to pro-choice, which I hold to encompass people who hold that abortion should be legal for at least some alloted time of a pregnancy. So the term "pro-choicer" is an ambiguous one when referenced to generally. Personally, I believe that abortion should be legal for the first and second trimesters, but not the third, so I will defend that viewpoint from here on out. Which means when coming to the case of your daughter, I would not like to have permit abortion, as at that point your daughter would be extensively neurologically developed. Most neurologists hold one of the most defining points of the beginning of life to be between 24 and 27 weeks in a pregnancy, when the child starts emitting a recognizable EEG pattern. I think that clarifies your first set of questions. Except for:

"Must I oppose a first-trimester abortion of a rape or incest victim in order to be "pro-life"?"

On the contrary, I think anyone who genuinely is against abortion, who believes that from the moment of conception that abortion is murder, then it is hypocritical to support abortions for rape or incest victims. If the pro-lifer truly believes that their philosophy on abortion is about life, and not responsibility, punishment, or retribution, then there is no difference. The circumstances surrounding conception would have no bearing on the life of the fetus.

"Would this then also justify any other crime? What if the legalization of murdering one person a year was demonstrated to reduce the total number of violent crimes -- could it be justified?"

I suppose this is where I have to establish my reasoning behind why I don't believe ending the life of a fetus is analogous to that of cold-blooded murder. You could argue that this wouldn't negate my previous argument, using utilitarian ethics to appeal to pro-lifers, but I believe there's an obvious distinction between an abortion and a definitive murder - the women do not believe they are committing an act as heinous as murder. So whereas a murderer undeniably knows he or she is committing murder, the woman could not consider the fetus as a life and be innocent in that regard. At this point, we have to establish what the state should consider life, and if the state should consider abortion murder.

I mentioned earlier that I believe in abortions in the first and second trimester, and not the third. Therefore, I agree with the ban on partial-birth and late-term abortions, and I generally believe that current abortion laws in the United States should be upheld. My basis for believing this is primarily neurology and capability.

In what ways does a human being differ from other animals? Why is it, by most, considered exceptionally more unethical to kill a living human being as opposed to a living, say, cow? I would assume this bias exists on two levels. Firstly, a human being is of our own species. Every species that wants to rationally continue existing has a genetic predisposition towards saving their own kind, so as not to risk extinction and to properly propagate the genes of their species. While most, even all, humans may have an inherent feeling of this bias, I don't think it fully accounts for the human race's love of itself. I think the matter mostly has to do with distinct sentience. Very little other creatures have traces of the level of sentience that humans do, and those who come close are the epitome of the phrase "so close, yet so far." Raise a cow up to the level of intelligence and development of humans. Disregarding matters of hostility that may arise, if cows had intelligence and civilizations of the stature of humans, along with language and means of communication with each other and ourselves, I'd be willing to bet murdering that creature would merit a punishment analogous to the charge of murder of a human. Of course, no such creature exists, but you can see my point that our compassion is with those of sentience, and hardly anything otherwise, save for small clusters of animal rights activists who are dwarfed by the rest of the apathetic human race.

So, compassion and legalities are deduced to apply to the sentient. They do not apply to creatures such as cows, which are not as intelligent or developed as humans. So, then, should the rights of the fetus not lie within its stage of development, making it a more punishable offense the later stage in its life you abort it?

Here is where you may object, to say that the fetus, as a life that will develop into a human, has potential for sentience and humanity, and the application of laws to it. This is all so, but any actions taken against the fetus prior to that point, by any standards, do not make those actions immoral or unethical. I find embryology studies compelling, as they show that development of embryos in all species are relatively the same, and all have traces of past evolution in them.

http://upload.wikimedia.org...

There is an interesting diagram for you - the relative developments of animal fetuses. Note the exceptional prenatal similarities. It begs the question: where does the difference lay? And we have answered that question: in sentience, and in development. So it does become more unethical to abort the further on in the stage the child is, which is why procedures such as partial birth and late term abortions have been banned. What about prior to those, though? I see no ethical dilemma in abortion, as the development of the fetus is insufficient, and the function of the body systems is greatly impaired. The cerebrum, the part of the brain that makes the most difference in distinction from animals, and in life functioning, is the last part of a fetus to develop.

I am willing to trade the existence of a developing creature, indistinguishable for many stages in development in regards to what animal it is, for one capable of fully functioning, feeling pain, thinking, building, and progressing. I put more of a priority on people who already definitely exist and are sentient, such as women who are pregnant and wish an abortion. You can see the great degree of immorality I see in letting women severely injure and kill themselves, usually in a painful fashion, for aborting beings that are, on a philosophical level, debatable of being lives. Allowing the painful disfiguration and often death of a woman as amends to the abortion of a creature which hardly feels any pain, not for any other reason than it hardly is able to feel any pain as a corollary of its underdeveloped nervous system and body structure, is an tyrannical ruling analogous to taking 2 eyes for a badly functioning eye. Such a ruling is only suitable for tyrannies and only acceptable by those who decree themselves punishers.
clsmooth

Con

In your Round 1 argument, you made no qualifications for when abortion should be legal -- thus implying that it should always be legal. There are radical pro-choicers who would call you a woman hater or a "reactionary," etc. There are those whose motto is "free abortion on demand and without apology!" So just as you charitably want to include me in the "pro-choice" camp (only based on my professing that I think abortion one second after conception is not murder), they too would count you on the "pro-life" side of the ledger. This just proves that this issue is very delicate and sticky.

The main thrust of your Round 1 argument was that pro-lifers who are against legal abortion are hypocritical, based on your assertion (with evidence) that countries that do not allow legal abortion have more abortion-related deaths than countries that do allow legal abortion. In Round 1, I argued a non-hypocritical Natural Rights-based reasoning for making abortion (in some or all cases) illegal. You don't challenge my argument, thus, I can only assume that you agree that not all arguments against legal abortion are necessarily hypocritical.

Going further, I must state that I'm not sure where I stand on abortion. There is a lot of gray area. I am definitely for choice a moment after conception and definitely against it a moment before birth. All the time in between is tough for me to say, but I do think the nature of the act that led to pregnancy -- i.e. consensual sex vs. rap -- is relevant, and here's why:

No matter what precautions an individual takes prior to (heterosexual) sex, he/she must acknowledge the possibility -- however remote -- of pregnancy. It is "unfair," of course, that the woman bears the greater responsibility in this matter, but it is a fact of biology. Point being, if she consents to sex, she is admitting the possibility that she may become pregnant, and if she does, she will have become so willingly. However, if she is raped, she did not consent, and thus cannot (at least in my eyes) be made to "take responsibility" for the result.

You make a good point that (most) women who have abortions do not consider the act "murder," and thus, there is no "intent." However, if the state were to legalize infanticide -- as many states have throughout time -- would this make the act of killing one's own child (outside the womb -- maybe a year or two later) not murder?

You know more about neurology than me, and certainly more than most legislators (who know very little about anything). Based on my own (limited) knowledge, I can't say when a fetus becomes an individual with rights. You seem to have better insight into this matter, but I'm guessing that there are plenty of rational people who would disagree with you. Point being: A one-size-fits-all solution is not for the best, in my opinion.

Here is a mindbender. I do not support the federal anti-partial birth abortion ban (while you do). I do not believe abortion is any issue for the federal government, and that's why I'm also against Roe v. Wade. If the states were to decide abortion's legality, then there would be some states that got it right and others that got it wrong. This is preferable to ALL states getting it wrong -- which pro-lifers would say is the case now, but the tables could just as easily be turned under a centralist regime.

SUMMATION: All pro-life arguments need not be hypocritical. One who believes in Natural Rights could be against legal abortion even if the illegality led to net negative consequences. And one can believe in Natural Rights and life at conception without being a hypocrite. Even if you believe (as I do), that life does not begin at conception, it is not hypocritical to think that it does.
Debate Round No. 2
iamapelican

Pro

I suppose I agree that not all arguments for legal abortion are hypocritical. Albeit, I still believe they are deeply flawed. In regards to applying Natural Rights ethics, I think the main flaw of the pro-lifer argument is that there is ambiguity in what defines life. There is not ambiguity in that the woman is a life. The very existence of the debate would, to myself, indicate the life of the woman should be prioritized. It would also indicate to me that as long as the debate continued, abortion should be legal as otherwise, it would definitely take lives and MAYBE advocate murder. I believe it is the place of a government to establish and uphold laws that protect its citizens, so in this case, the government (or state) has two options.

1) Legalize abortion. Women are not being killed, the unborn might be.
2) Ban abortion. Women are being killed, the unborn might be.

Even accepting Natural Rights arguments, the ambiguity in what defines a life also muddles how clear it is whether or not the woman is a criminal, or whether or not she deserves to die for taking another life. I am of the opinion that we should prioritize what we definitely know as life, and so it seems comparatively more immoral to myself that we ban abortion, definitely killing people who didn't deserve it, than if we legalized abortion, possibly killing people who didn't deserve it.

In regards to your paragraph highlighting the difference between consensual sex and rape, I agree with you. I believe there is a significant difference in regards to responsibility. My point was that if one is truly a pro-lifer, then the circumstances should make no difference, as the pro-lifer's argument is not that people shouldn't get abortions because of responsibility, but rather because abortions are murder. However, the child conceived is not responsible for how it was conceived, and the circumstances of conception should not compromise the value of life, if one truly believes it is a life.

My point in presenting the situation of a woman not acknowledging the fetus as a life was primarily to note that there is a necessity for government and state definition on what defines a life. In your hypothetical situation of the legalization of infanticide, I would contest the state's ruling.

It seems what we keep coming back to is establishing what exactly "life" is. To myself, the distinction between humans and animals is primarily in mental capacities, and thus once the fetus has a mind developed enough to emit EEG, it can be considered, legally, a human life. You do bring up the point that there are plenty of rational people, probably more knowledgeable than myself on science, who would disagree, but I believe I've already constructed and presented my argument in regards to how we should consider the fetus, and you seem to agree with me to an extent, providing no other real counter-argument than 'Well, there are people who disagree.'

I hold these views regardless of how they should be legalized or implemented. If you believe it is an argument to be held at the state level, then this is my reasoning for legalizing abortion at the state level. To those who believe it is a federal matter, then this is my reasoning for legalizing abortion at the federal level. Regardless of how the system implements it, I believe abortion a necessary right.
clsmooth

Con

I agree that there is ambiguity, and you agree that there is ambiguity. But the very nature of "ambiguity" means that there are some people to whom there is no ambiguity. To the pro-life absolutist, it matters not that others view the issue with ambiguity -- a baby is a 100% person on par with the mother. The fact that you allow ambiguity means you acknowledge this extreme (and the opposite extreme), however "flawed" you (or I) might perceive it to be.

Yes, the majority of radical pro-lifers may be hypocrites. But that should not smear the non-hypocritical ones by association. Dr. Ron Paul, for example, is not hypocritical. He is pro-life on Natural Rights grounds, and against Roe on constitutional grounds. He is also against the death penalty and war, and he would make adoption much, much easier via free-market reforms. Your thesis was that all pro-lifers are hypocrites, and I think I've defeated that thesis. This is one of the most meaningful debates I've been in, and I've learned a lot (and will learn more as I investigate your neurology leads), but I hope you have learned this fact, as well.

Again, why the absolutism? Why are there only two options? There is a third option: Abortion is legal in some cases and not in others. Furthermore, there's no reason there needs to be one national law (this is constitutionally illegitimate, and bad policy on top of that).

I never argued for the death penalty for anyone, much less women who have abortions. But again, what you think MAY be life, others (think they) KNOW to be life. To them, they are not dealing with the "possibility" of a "maybe" life, but a full-fledged life. This is the same of someone having a 1% chance of dying the first time they do cocaine, but to the person it happens to, they are 100% dead.

As for rape vs. consent: You make a good point. However, if one thinks of abortion as killing a human being, then one could still be influenced to allow that killing given the circumstances (rape). Maybe this makes them not "pro-life" by your definition, but I think someone who is steadfastly pro-life except in the case of rape or incest typically considers themselves pro-life.

My counter-argument to your assertion of when life beings is not simply "there are people who disagree." It's the fact, that you admit, that the determination is ambiguous. You are correct that I admit I know less about neurology than you (I know virtually nothing), and maybe I could be convinced of your point if (when) I learn more. But the question of when life begins is not one that science can answer, definitively. And the question of when that life has equal rights to an indisputable human outside the womb is yet another matter, that certainly is not scientific in nature.

Again, the thrust of your argument was that pro-lifers are hypocritical. I think I refuted that argument early on, and we then moved on to other matters. Abortion is a tricky issue, which even you admit. That's why its legality should be decided by the most local level of government possible, certainly not the Supreme Court inventing penumbra that wouldn't even apply to state governments under the Original Intent anyway.
Debate Round No. 3
34 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by UberCryxic 6 years ago
UberCryxic
In a few rare instances, like the ones we've been discussing, I see nothing wrong with paternalistic intervention from the government, even as a liberal. After all, I justify such interventions through liberally-inspired social contract theories: the people gave the government these abilities when the Constitution was framed and ratified. And both in the word and spirit of the Constitution, I lose no sleep when the government does nearly everything it can to protect persecuted minorities. It is not a naive thought at all.....but even if it was, I'd rather be naive than downright heartless. If people are suffering because of their existence within a particular group, or because of their identification within such a group, then I want my government to do almost anything to end that suffering....immediately. Not five years down the road, but now.
Posted by UberCryxic 6 years ago
UberCryxic
In a society that allows the dominant ethnic group to be freely racist, without castigating and reprimanding, those racists themselves suffer absolutely nothing. This "premium" on racist businesses is about the most bogus idea I've ever heard of: if they gained new customers by integrating, then they'd lose many of the old customers. It's a very risky proposition because the new customers are also likely to be poorer than the older ones; no way a sane racist business would integrate. And you know what? They didn't! Not out of their own volition anyway; the government had to force them to comply with federal regulations. I could argue this on economic theory, but I don't have to. There's a whole wave of history behind us, and what happened is exactly what I just described: in the vast majority of cases, the relevant sociopolitical institutions desegregated under governmental pressure because they knew that they would suffer a loss of stature and power (that is, the dominant ethnic group would suffer: "white people").

Your catawampus terminology for capitalism and women is a bit laughable. Back in the the 1950s, that stuff wasn't generally thought of as "sexist." What's regarded as sexist and what isn't has clearly changed with the times. Capitalist forces maintained that kind of pressure on women because the people behind those forces viewed gender as a naturally derived concept, not as a socially constructed role. Now, as a capitalist myself, I am thankful to the women, being the primary consumers that they are, for strengthening the economy by buying all this stuff, but as a feminist, I also realize that it was detrimental to their position in society. And although the situation has improved since then, we still have similar problems today: the paradox between being thankful that women are such strong consumers and being angry that what they're buying reinforces negative and unreliable stereotypes.
Posted by Stashu18 6 years ago
Stashu18
wow u just showed how unwise and childish you really are to judge someone on appearance or ethnicity is a horrible injustice to them never should you ever judge someone based on those two things simply because we are all human and to say a guy with alot of taboos with blue hair is not to be trusted when maybe thats his form of art and is hoe expresses himself or maybe he does that because he has a skin disorder and that is a way he found that counteracts that disorder i mean he could be straight edge or a father of 3 and a great dad you dont know so how can you base your judgments on looks its a moronic and childish method and should stop because it is the people who are not mainstream people that make the world interesting and give us the diversity we need to survive because otherwise we would live in a world that is completely controlled so why dont you just stop typing stuff cause the more you do the more offensive you become and the more ignorant you seem
Posted by Solarman1969 6 years ago
Solarman1969
can minorities be racist?

not according to the mainstream media

only white males can be

correction

only heterosexual white male Christians

you cant outlaw stupidity

If someone wants to judge based on skin color alone, then let them- thats their problem

If I want to judge someone who has 150 tattoos, blue hair, and what not and being kinds of foolish- thats acutually smart

DISCRIMINATION is a GOOD THING if applied correctly

its the only way you will survive
Posted by clsmooth 6 years ago
clsmooth
I think racists are the scum of the Earth and I literally hate them. But racists pay a cost in a FREE society. A white racist business owner will sacrifice productivity in order to pay a white premium. Even if this premium can be passed on to white racist customers, then it is still the white racists who pay a free-market "racist tax." What is the cost to the black man or woman in this case? That they are not hired, under government force, by a boss that despises them?

Minorities and women pay the costs of state-sponsored racism today, just as they did (in reverse form) in the past. How many blacks, women, etc., today have their accomplishments and credentials "adjusted" for perceived racial/gender preference and affirmative action? You liberals are the number-one proponents of this "racial discount" -- just do a search for Clarence Thomas on Debate.org and you'll see what I mean.

Capitalism may have created products to cater to the desires of sexists, as you illustrate. But it is capitalism that ultimately liberated women from unpaid household slavery.

You are very naive to think a government elite -- elected from the "dumb" masses -- can serve as a paternal authority, mandating racial equality in the heart through coercive policies. This absurd belief, though not as evil, is just as divorced from reality as the odious creeds of white supremacy and male chauvinism.
Posted by UberCryxic 6 years ago
UberCryxic
Actually I maintained that most of the people fundamentally are not racist, at least in modern industrialized societies. I do not why you are suggesting that I am saying something else. Discriminatory practices have existed in our society and in others for lengthy periods of time, but in all cases governmental authority reversed and crushed them. You are right in mentioning those "pre-capitalist" cultural values, but the problem is that the mere onset of capitalism did not expunge those values - they just merely festered under its weight. For example, just refer to the bonanza of home products commercialized to women in the 1950s, products that encouraged a life of domesticity. That's usually a prime example of how free markets could instill archaic ideas about the world. Free markets by themselves create a positive economic framework for growth, I believe, but the gruntwork of changing people's mind is multi-faceted and must involve a wide variety of institutions.

You again totally ignore the cost to the people whom we discriminate against. You are constantly harping about the cost that racists pay, but not those suffering from racism. Beyond being a simple matter of compassion as a human being, it is also something practical that we can, and largely have, resolved through legislative activity.
Posted by clsmooth 6 years ago
clsmooth
To the extent that such discrimination would exist in a free society, the market would correct for it. You believe in an omnipotent government, where the elite know better than the people. If the people are racist, then making them pretend not to be racist in public does no good. Making people not be racist is no better than laws that legislated racism -- i.e. Jim Crow, etc.

Historical discrimination was not an effect of free markets. It was an effect of pre-capitalist cultural values and state interventionism. In a free market, discrimination bears a cost. If racist people are willing to pay a racist premium, then that is a problem that the government cannot fix -- it is a societal sin that cannot be legislated away. I'm confident that this is no longer the case, though.
Posted by UberCryxic 6 years ago
UberCryxic
Smooth, the whole notion that the Civil Rights Act somehow sabotages private property rights is a total canard. I have no idea what is even inciting this claim, but have no worries: it is a ridiculous claim. People by and large still have the ability to use and control their property; just refer to my earlier reductio ad absurdum "proof" if that were not the case: there would be a total revolution. A modern society like ours would never tolerate a government that went as far as you are unjustifiably insinuating.

Most people in Western societies today are not fundamentally racist, but racist thoughts and tendencies, often subtly manifested, still exist, to the detriment of the people they target (African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, and others in the United States). Through legislation like the Civil Rights Act, the government defends liberty by allowing those disadvantaged minorities to display and exercise their individual expression. Who is to defend their liberty when liberty is coerced from them? To you and I this is something like an intellectual exercise, but to them that discrimination was (and in some respect still is) the stonecold fact of life, the fact that largely made their lives miserable and drowned them in penury.

In an ideal world where race did not factor in at all, we'd be in 100 percent agreement. However, whether we like it or not, it is true that people with "black-sounding" names are less likely to be hired, and it is also true that women out of college, despite having the same experience and education as their male counterparts, start off with lower pay. These tragedies are the creations of those free-market forces that you tout so mightily; they are also a good reminder of why we need some government intervention, however sparingly.
Posted by Stashu18 6 years ago
Stashu18
green lover i like you haha
Posted by greenlover 6 years ago
greenlover
"you are simply too young to ponder these heavy arguments

wait until you experience some real trauma in your life."

Please don't bring age into this. Age isn't always a reflection of wisdom, even the oldest of people can be complete fools in life. Also it is quite insulting that you are inferring the amount of trauma we could have suffered from a internet post! Trauma has nothing to do with whether you are pro-life or pro-choice; i was born with a hearing impairment, my mother left my family at a young age, my father can barely afford to pay the bills, my sister is suffering from severe depression, and she has tried to commit suicide. My dad also has to pay for her treatment, as well as the fact that she's going to be in college soon, and he's going to help her pay for that. Apparently your life must have been traumatizing, but you turned out to be pro-life.

Human life is always precious, but desperation is a slippery slope. These to-be mothers would get illegal abortions, and the conditions of the illegal abortion would be so poor the women would contract horrible bacterial infections, and in many cases women die. Even if they don't resort to an abortion, they might attempt to do enough drugs to kill the fetus in the womb, etc. and you still have the same problem of the mother's death/health issues.
29 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by marin24 5 years ago
marin24
iamapelicanclsmoothTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Vote Placed by Im_always_right 6 years ago
Im_always_right
iamapelicanclsmoothTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by InquireTruth 6 years ago
InquireTruth
iamapelicanclsmoothTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by Kierkegaard 6 years ago
Kierkegaard
iamapelicanclsmoothTied
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 
Vote Placed by els21 6 years ago
els21
iamapelicanclsmoothTied
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 
Vote Placed by gogott 6 years ago
gogott
iamapelicanclsmoothTied
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 
Vote Placed by sully 6 years ago
sully
iamapelicanclsmoothTied
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 
Vote Placed by mikelwallace 6 years ago
mikelwallace
iamapelicanclsmoothTied
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 
Vote Placed by solo 6 years ago
solo
iamapelicanclsmoothTied
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 
Vote Placed by agonzalez_esp 6 years ago
agonzalez_esp
iamapelicanclsmoothTied
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:03