The Instigator
cstidham
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
birthdayfan
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Abortion should be outlawed in all cases with exceptions like the mother's life and rape.

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 3 votes the winner is...
birthdayfan
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/3/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 922 times Debate No: 33270
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

cstidham

Pro

Abortion is murder. Killing an innocent is wrong and shouldn't be allowed in a civilized nation. There are a few exceptions like rape and the mother's health.
birthdayfan

Con

I will accept this debate. I assume the first round is simply for acceptance. Thus, I accept the responsibility negate the set resolution, "Abortion should be outlawed in all cases with exceptions like the mother's life and rape."
Debate Round No. 1
cstidham

Pro

Thank you for accepting my debate. When a baby is conceived, a new organism is created. This organism is in its first stages to becoming a human being. It is no less than murder to terminate this organism, especially after weeks or months of it growing. Millions of innocent lives have been taken in America in the last 40 years. Lets end this barbaric practice.
birthdayfan

Con

First of all, I cast doubt on his statistic, as it is not sourced.
Though, I agree with my opponent that when a baby is conceived, a new organism, a developing human being is created. Thus, abortion is murder. I agree that it should be outlawed, except in some cases. However, the clash in this debate is going to be what are the exceptions. I argue that abortion should be outlawed in all cases with the exception of when the mother's life is at risk. I do not believe that rape is a valid reason to abort a human being.

1. Spread of Suffering
I truly sympathize with all women who have been raped and impregnated by the rapist. However, that terrible pain should be isolated to the mother and should not spread to anyone else. There is enough suffering occurring with the mother, that terrible suffering shouldn't affect the child, the living, developing human being. As my opponent said, "It is no less than murder to terminate this organism, especially after weeks or months of it growing." Thus, it should not be allowed to let the child suffer the worst human rights violation of them all, the violation of life, for something it could not control.

2. Two Wrongs do not Make a Right.
Rape is obviously a moral wrong. However, committing a moral wrong, to try to solve or accommodate another moral wrong, does not make anything right. Even my opponent agreed that abortion is murder, thus killing an innocent child to try to accommdate the moral wrong of being raped, does not make anything right. All you end up with is a suffering mother and a dead child.

3. Fulfilling Responsibilities.
My responsibility as the negative or 'Con' is to negate the resolution, "Abortion should be outlawed in all cases with exceptions like the mother's life and rape." I have successfully fulfilled my responsibility as I have negated the resolution, wich states that exceptions to abortion include not only when the mother's life is in danger, but also in the case of rape. I have shown why rape should not be an exception. Thus, the resolution is now negated, I have fulfilled my responsibilities, and a negative/Con vote is warranted.
Debate Round No. 2
cstidham

Pro

I truly understand my opponents argument. I agree that abortion under any circumstance is morally wrong. Con is right that the suffering shouldn't have to spread, and that two wrongs don't make a right. The problem is that I personally take issue with a women having to deliver a child that was conceived while she was raped. It does not sit well with me that she has a reminder for nine months. I understand that there is adoption, and that the child shouldn't have to suffer. It just doesn't seem right to me that a women has to deal with this for nine months. Let her move on with her life. I agree with con morally, and I have wavered on this issue myself, but I don't think it is fair to the women.
birthdayfan

Con

1. Concessions
My opponent has conceded his entire position and foundation for his position. He has founded his position throughout this entire debate on the issue of morality. However, he just conceded his position and his foundation. He has agreed that I am right and that my arguments stand in this debate. This obviously warrants a negative/Con vote.

2. Feel-Good Fallacy
My opponent flip-flopped from valuing morality and having that as his foundation to believing that it is unfair and doesn't "sit well". However, simply because something does not "sit well" with my opponent does not warrant a vote in his favour. Sitting well is entirely subjective from person to person, thus it cannot stand in today's debate as a reason to warrant a vote towards either side.

3. Fairness
My opponent, as part of his flip-flopping in this debate, has said that it isn't fair for woman to have the child. However, we must ask, is it fair to kill a child for something it couldn't control? This idea of fairness is shaky, this argument can warrant a vote for either side. Thus, again, it shouldn't change or alter your decision. It isn't fair for the woman nor is it fair for the child.

4. Voting for the Negative/Con
I have successfully upheld my responsibility to negate the resolution. My opponent has conceded his arguments and have agreed with mine. For replacement, he brought up subjective arguments that shouldn't alter your vote. I have refuted all of my opponent's arguments and have upheld my arguments and my position, while my opponent's position fails.

It is for these reasons that I strongly urge a vote for the Negative/Con.

Finally, I thank the Affirmative/Pro for this debate.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by birthdayfan 3 years ago
birthdayfan
For clarification, the Resolution was "Abortion should be outlawed in all cases with exceptions like the mother's life and rape." I was required to negate the resolution. I was not required to show why it shouldn't be outlawed. All I was required to do was negate the resolution as a whole. Showing why rape isn't an exclusion negates the resolution. That approach, while may annoy people and seem obscure, is absolutely legitimate.
Posted by jgku 3 years ago
jgku
The debate about pro-choice and pro-life is a very controversial topic in society today. I am conducting some research on personal views pertaining to this very topic. Please take some time to fill out this very short survey by clicking the following link. All information you provide will remain anonymous. Thank you!
http://tolu.na...
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Kenneth_Stokes 3 years ago
Kenneth_Stokes
cstidhambirthdayfanTied
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: Am I the only one who think that both debators went off course? I feel that Con was supposed to argue that abortion SHOULD be legal in all cases, not spar about the morality of rape. Void debate.
Vote Placed by philochristos 3 years ago
philochristos
cstidhambirthdayfanTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con gave an argument for why rape should not be an exception to prohibitions against abortion, but Pro gave no refutation. He agreed with Con that it was immoral, but his only response was that it didn't sit well with him to for a rape victim to carry the offspring of her rapist. That's not much of an argument. Contra Con, Pro's admission that it's immoral is not a concession of the resolution since the resolution was over whether it should be outlawed.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
cstidhambirthdayfanTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did a great job catching most fallacies, and keeping a clear head when making his own points.