The Instigator
Deathbeforedishonour
Pro (for)
Winning
40 Points
The Contender
kingcripple
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points

Abortion should stay legal in the United States

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 8 votes the winner is...
Deathbeforedishonour
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/2/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,275 times Debate No: 25404
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (8)

 

Deathbeforedishonour

Pro

Hello, here is my challange that you have already agreed to.


The resolution is above. However, here are some rules for the debate.


Rules


8,000 charcter limit


3 days to post argument


First round will be for acceptance only



Definitions


Abortion- the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy.
kingcripple

Con

Since this is my first debate and round one is for acceptance, I accept
Debate Round No. 1
Deathbeforedishonour

Pro

Greetings, I would like to take a moment to thank my opponent for his acceptance. I am hoping that this will turn out to be a very good debate.


Contention 1: A fetus and Personhood.


I will begin by first addressing the personhood of the unborn fetus. Now, my opponent is more then likely state that a fetus is a human and therefore, has the right to life and I would agree with him. A fetus is clearly a member of the biological species Homo Sapiens. However, just being human does not intell that one should automaditcally gets rights. I will argue that 'persons' are the ones who are the ones who should be given rights. I will define a person as an entity individual entity,morally conscious being capable of forming a complex thought and possessing the capacity (but not nessasarily the ability) to comunitcate their thoughts through language. This definition includes no animals. All of the said requirements for personhood are far more valuable in determining personhood then apindages. A fetus has none of these, thus it can not be treated like you and I. It can not be treated as the same as a baby that is newly born because a baby has the capabily to do these things and it has the brain capacity to be an individual and form a semi-complex thought. So, since a fetus is not a person then it has no serious right to life.


Contention 2: Self-Ownership

Everyone has self-ownership. To deny it would be to deny your selves, and neither I or my opponent would be in this debate because we would most likely be doing whatever our government told us to do. So with this stated, women have complete dominion over their body's. If something is wrong with it then they have the right to fix it, if they want to make it better or worse in their eyes then that is their choice, and furthermore, if a fetus forms there without their permission then they have the choice on whether or not she is wants to let it stay there whether it be a human/person or not. Despite whatever "right to life" "pro-lifers" may claim it possesses, it has not right to be where it is unwelcomed and invited. Fetus's are not intitled to women's bodies, they do not own women's bodies, and neither do governments.

Contention 3: Overpopulation

I will start out my last contention with a quote by Christ Hedges who is a former "New York Times" correspondent and author of the article "We Are Breeding Ourselves to Extinction". In it he writes:

"All measures to thwart the degradation and destruction of our ecosystem will be useless if we do not cut population growth," Hedges wrote. "By 2050, if we continue to reproduce at the current rate, the planet will have between 8 billion and 10 billion people. This is a 50 percent increase. And yet government-commissioned reviews, such as the Stern report in Britain, do not mention the word population. Books and documentaries that deal with the climate crisis, including Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth," fail to discuss the danger of population growth. This omission is odd, given that a doubling in population, even if we cut back on the use of fossil fuels, shut down all our coal-burning power plants and build seas of wind turbines, will plunge us into an age of extinction and desolation unseen since the end of the Mesozoic era, 65 million years ago, when the dinosaurs disappeared."
[1]

Now, I am sure that not to many people are actually aware of the population crises in America or the world for that matter, but in spite of the small amounts of media and news coverage the threat is very real. At our current birth rate by the year 2050 the Earth's population will be between 8 million people to 10 million people[1]. The U.S. has nearly quadrupled the number of people within its boundaries in the past century; if our population multiplies by that same amount within the coming century we will hold over one billion people. There are two factors that play a part in this and I will get to my point with this soon after.

1. The first being fertility rates, the U.S. has a fertility rate of 2.1 births per woman. the U.S.’s highest fertility rate since 1971. (For comparison, the United Kingdom’s fertility rate is 1.7, Canada's is 1.4, and Germany's is 1.3.)[2].

2. And the next is immegration. Immigration contributes over one million people to the U.S. population annually. The total foreign-born population in the U.S. is now 31.1 million, a record 57 percent increase since 1990 [2].


The following graphs further deminstrates the rapid growth in population in the U.S.







U.S. POPULATION PROJECTIONS

Year Projected
population
Percent change
from
population in
2000
2010 310,233,000 10%
2020 341,387,000 21%
2030 373,504,000 32%
2040 405,655,000 44%
2050 439,010,000 55%



Now immagine an overpopulated disaster in the U.S. Imagine lands that once could be enjoyed for their natural beauty are now concrete jungles, our country's children attend schools that are overloaded and lack the teacher to student interaction we once had, social infrastructures and systems are overloaded, natural resources are being depleted, and our environment is being tasked beyond its limits.


Abortions, though not final solution to this problem can lower the birth rate so we can find a solution to it.

That is all for now, I thank the people who read this.

I will now await my opponent's argument.

Solutions

[1]http://rense.com......
[2]http://www.npg.org......
kingcripple

Con

It is really hard to define where life begins. That is impossible to do, there are several people who agree that life begins at conception and there are several who don't. Ultrasounds are conducted during the abortion and have shown signs of the fetus screaming. Explain how the ability to feel pain and scream still does not make the fetus human

Self-Ownership. You say that women have complete dominion over there bodies. While this may be true, I have to wonder why they would make the choice to have sex, protected or unprotected, but not want to bear the consequences of that action? If we are talking about ownership, shouldn't the woman own up to having sex and thus carry the baby to term? if she is too immature to take responsibility for her actions, why not give the baby up for adoption. Another argument that I believe is very important is the father. If two people are participants in the baby making, and the mother wants an abortion but the father is willing to be responsible when the mother is not, it's a deadlock in the decision. The father had equal share in the baby making, why should he not get a say? And there are several deadbeat fathers out there who refuse to own up to their children and help take care of them, to me abortion is allowing the mother to refuse ownership of their actions. The father would be in serious trouble, why shouldn't the mother? If abortion has to stay legal, would you agree to an addendum to give the father a say? What about continuing to have the woman pay for the abortion out of her own pocket instead of it being covered by Obamacare?

I view the concept of over population as kind of nihilistic. Cannot really explain why, but if it is really a problem, why not move to China or join the Church of Euthanasia?
Debate Round No. 2
Deathbeforedishonour

Pro

I thank my opponent for his response.

'It is really hard to define where life begins. That is impossible to do, there are several people who agree that life begins at conception and there are several who don't. Ultrasounds are conducted during the abortion and have shown signs of the fetus screaming. Explain how the ability to feel pain and scream still does not make the fetus human'

I am not arguing for humanity, I am arguing that while human, a fetus is not a 'person' because it does not have a personality, self-aware, conscious, etc. Furthmore, I will sttae that even if a fetus is a human and a person, the woman doesn't have an obligation to let the fetus use her body.

Self-Ownership. You say that women have complete dominion over there bodies. While this may be true

My opponent concedes that women have full control over their bodies, and therefore then options that come with it. Making the rest irrelevant since all are choices and not obligations. Plus, fathers have no control over women's bodies and therefore, have no say in what the woman wants done to it. The rest being further irrelevant since how abortions is funded has nothing to do with whether or not it should be legal.

And finally my opponent states:

I view the concept of over population as kind of nihilistic. Cannot really explain why, but if it is really a problem, why not move to China or join the Church of Euthanasia?

This is a horrible argument since the population problem is a harsh reality and require methods that will fix it so its not nihilistic since it requires the morals to do what is best for everything. Also, we are talking about America not China so I would suggest my opponent do better then that.

I will now await my opponent's response.

Thank you for reading.

kingcripple

Con

I concede the overpopulation point as I just cannot effectively explain my views. I don't really have any views on overpopulation. However you have to realize i said while this MAY be true. that does not in any way shape or form mean I agree with you. I think you could not come up with a legit answer to my questions regarding ownership, you had no rebuttal. Unless you can come up with a rebuttal on the issue of ownership, i suggest you concede this whole debate. I made VERY valid points in which you never touched on. Please, take all the time you need to come up with a rebuttal or concede
Debate Round No. 3
Deathbeforedishonour

Pro

Rebuttal

My opponent says that I didn't touch on the self-ownership contention. However, before I get to that I would like to point out that he concede two contentions out of three so I think that is good for victory on my part see as how he only stated alternatives to abortion rather then meating the issue head on. But I will play along. I did in fact refute his 'argument' against self-ownership being good enough to keep abortion legal. However, I will do it again. I stated that since the fetus was not a person it does not matter if women abort them and furthermore that since my opponent conceded that women have full self-ownership then the whole of the choices is theirs. Whether it be keeping it, allowing the father to have a say, puting it up for adoption, or aborting it, it is all her choice since it is HER body. And my opponent's attack is refuted.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I will state that since a fetus is not a person, and the fact that women have all the power over their bodies. Then abortion should be legal. And since we are overpopulated abortion would be a good thing to have.

Thanks to those who read this debate.
kingcripple

Con

I only conceded one point, I never conceded two. I never mentioned the first contention as my opponent made a silly arguement and there was nothing to comment on. Let's take a look at the points I made:

Fetuses are human and have a right to live

The woman MUST take ownership for her actions

Thank you
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by larztheloser 4 years ago
larztheloser
Putting a comment here to remind myself to vote on this tomorrow.
Posted by larztheloser 4 years ago
larztheloser
Putting a comment here to remind myself to vote on this tomorrow.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 4 years ago
lannan13
DeathbeforedishonourkingcrippleTied
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:61 
Reasons for voting decision: consession= FF, but I'll give con a mercy point
Vote Placed by Jessalyn 4 years ago
Jessalyn
DeathbeforedishonourkingcrippleTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Con presented no standing points of his own, and also ignored those than Pro presented. It was a clear win for Pro.
Vote Placed by famer 4 years ago
famer
DeathbeforedishonourkingcrippleTied
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: CON's arguments were totally crushed by PRO. There was barely an argument even made by CON.
Vote Placed by FREEDO 4 years ago
FREEDO
DeathbeforedishonourkingcrippleTied
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 was completely inadequate at addressing Pro's points.
Vote Placed by Mathaelthedestroyer 4 years ago
Mathaelthedestroyer
DeathbeforedishonourkingcrippleTied
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: No contest here, really. Pro had great arguments and sources and con pretty much didn't have anything.
Vote Placed by bencbartlett 4 years ago
bencbartlett
DeathbeforedishonourkingcrippleTied
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's argument was almost non-existent - use the word limit! There are so many points you could make in this argument, but it was a bit of a wasted opportunity. Pro's argument was fairly solid, thus, the vote goes to pro.
Vote Placed by larztheloser 4 years ago
larztheloser
DeathbeforedishonourkingcrippleTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro presented a pretty strong case for legalising abortion based on rights in R2, meeting BOP. Con showed why abortions could be bad, but never linked that to the topic until the last sentence (but even this was contradictory with earlier material). Con also argued that sex is essentially a contract to have a child. Pro brushed this off and ignored it apart from a throwaway remark. However, con could not respond to the sheer weight of pro's analysis, plus con's own case was weak. 3:1 aff win.
Vote Placed by GenesisCreation 4 years ago
GenesisCreation
DeathbeforedishonourkingcrippleTied
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: Con was outmatched. No organization, dropped arguments, entirely without source. Keep working at it Con. Read a few debates from veterans to get some insight into improving your debate rounds.