The Instigator
Ron-Paul
Pro (for)
Losing
13 Points
The Contender
16kadams
Con (against)
Winning
23 Points

Abortion

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
16kadams
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/30/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,558 times Debate No: 20124
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (49)
Votes (8)

 

Ron-Paul

Pro

This is intended as an intelligent debate. I am a Conservative too, but I see abortion a little differently. I hope to keep this a friendly debate. I just wanted to instigate the debate now. You can accept anytime in the next 7 days and post your Round 1 in the next 9 days.

The opening shots:

Point 1: The prohibition of abortion will just make more deaths due to abortion. It will be in the same fashion as the prohibition on alcohol in the 1920s. The prohibition of abortion will lead some women to seek "underground" doctors, who will abort illegally. These doctors are usually dangerous for mother and baby. So instead in the style of a regular abortion where only the baby dies, under these circumstances, the chances of the woman dying skyrocket.

Point 2: Prohibiting abortion will just increase crime and poverty. The kind of people that abort are either young or poor. The young will not take care of the baby for society has already cast her out. She will get rid of the baby. The poor will not take care of the baby either. Because poor tends to breed poor. Crime tends to breed crime. If the woman does not abort, the baby could grow up into a criminal, or live an under-privaliged childhood. The baby would be better off not being born. Plus, chances are high that he or she will be murdered when they are older if they are poor and live in a bad part of town.

Point 3: Every woman has rights. Being able to abort is one of them.

Rebuttal?
16kadams

Con

couldn't wait had to accept

" The prohibition of abortion will just make more deaths due to abortion."

This is false.

when illegal backstreet unsafe abortions decrease:

Speaking before the 93rd Congress of the US, Senator James Buckley stated: "Data from foreign countries having far longer experience with legalised abortion than we have had in the US, suggest that legalisation has no effect on the criminal abortion rate. In at least three countries, the criminal abortion rate has actually risen since legalisation. Legalised abortion moves the back alley abortionists into the front office where their trade can be practised without fear of criminal prosecution." [1]


also

Dr Christopher Tietze, an abortion advocate, concedes: "Although one of the major goals of the liberalisation of abortion laws in Scandinavia was to reduce the incidence of illegal abortion, this was not accomplished. Rather as we know from a variety of sources, both criminal and total abortions increased." [2]

Also that is a myth behind those abortions:

Prior to legalization, 90 percent of illegal abortions were done by physicians. Most of the remainder were done by nurses, midwives or others with at least some medical training. [3]

In 1972, there were only 32 maternal deaths related to illegal abortion, not the thousands proclaimed by pro-abortionists. [3]



"Prohibiting abortion will just increase crime and poverty. "


The normal cost of a first-trimester abortion runs between $350 and $550, depending on subsidies, the method used, and other variables such as cost of living. [4]

people in poverty seldom wan't to lose all of this money. Also many poor people are on welfare and welfare gives you more money if you have more kids. So a lady with 5 kids will get more money then a lady with 1. So not aborting would help them. Your argument is a fallacy. I also don't see how it would increase the trouble.

"Every woman has rights. Being able to abort is one of them."

right is defined as:

behaviour that is considered good or moral

I decided to do that since abortions debate dewll into that category.

http://www.macmillandictionary.com...


Now how can it be moral if the baby can feel pain:

  1. Fetuses feel pain during an abortion according to Kanwaljeet J. S. Anand, MBBS, DPhil, Professor of Pediatrics, Anesthesiology and Neurobiology at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center. "If the fetus is beyond 20 weeks of gestation, I would assume that there will be pain caused to the fetus. And I believe it will be severe and excruciating pain." [5]




also women get mental issues after abortion:

A study of the medical records of 56,741 California medicaid patients revealed that women who had abortions were 160 percent more likely than delivering women to be hospitalized for psychiatric treatment in the first 90 days following abortion or delivery. Rates of psychiatric treatment remained significantly higher for at least four years. [6]

In a study of post-abortion patients only 8 weeks after their abortion, researchers found that 44% complained of nervous disorders, 36% had experienced sleep disturbances, 31% had regrets about their decision, and 11% had been prescribed psychotropic medicine by their family doctor. [6]

=end rebutals=

My arguments

C1: a fetus is a human therefore killing a fetus is a killing


A scientific textbook called “Basics of Biology” gives five characteristics of living things; these five criteria are found in all modern elementary scientific textbooks:

1. Living things are highly organized.

2. All living things have an ability to acquire materials and energy.

3. All living things have an ability to respond to their environment.

4. All living things have an ability to reproduce.

5. All living things have an ability to adapt.

According to this elementary definition of life, life begins at fertilization, when a sperm unites with an oocyte. From this moment, the being is highly organized, has the ability to acquire materials and energy, has the ability to respond to his or her environment, has the ability to adapt, and has the ability to reproduce (the cells divide, then divide again, etc., and barring pathology and pending reproductive maturity has the potential to reproduce other members of the species). Non-living things do not do these things. Even before the mother is aware that she is pregnant, a distinct, unique life has begun his or her existence inside her. [7]

A fetus is a human.

C2: it is possible that aboritons causes breat cancer

this is still a contested issue but here's what I found:

Most women in the United States are unaware that having an abortion increases the risk of developing breast cancer. [8]

More than 30 studies have confirmed a relationship between having an abortion and the subsequent development of breast cancer. [8]

Dr. Joel Brind, Professor of Biology and Endocrinology at Baruch College of the City College of New York has been crusading to get the information that abortion is a major factor in the causation of breast cancer to the public. Not one magazine or newspaper was willing to print his findings. His research was finally reported in Lancet, a fine English medical journal. [8]

abortion might cause breast cancer.

due to lack of space i am rushing this.

C3: adoption is another option

  1. Adoption is a viable alternative to abortion and accomplishes the same result. And with 1.5 million American families wanting to adopt a child, there is no such thing as an unwanted child. [9]


C4: other complications occur during abortion

Complications of spontaneous miscarriages and therapeutic abortions include the following:

  • Complications of anesthesia
  • Postabortion triad (ie, pain, bleeding, low-grade fever)
  • Hematometra
  • Retained products of conception
  • Uterine perforation
  • Bowel and bladder injury
  • Failed abortion
  • Septic abortion
  • Cervical shock
  • Cervical laceration [10]

==out of room almost==

conclusion:

I have refuted my opponents case and I have my own. I would have had more contentions sadley there is a limit to space. (they should make a 15,000 option ;) ) but I will provide a video I made a while back (yes I made it) and you can watch it. I do not know if you can read it but hey, its catchy music. I will post a link, not a video square so it is easier to read. I refer to the video here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=5t1lLEOFuco
did it work?

I hope it did, watch it.

sources
The Least of These: What Everyone Should Know About Abortion, Curt Young, 1984, Moody Press, Chicago, IL, p215 [1]
"Abortion in Europe" Christopher Tietze, MD. Cited in Diamond, This Curette, p102 [2]
http://www.physiciansforlife.org...;[3]
http://civilliberty.about.com...;[4]
Kanwaljeet J. S. Anand, MBBS, DPhil [5]
http://afterabortion.org...;[6]
http://prolifephysicians.org...;[7]
http://www.newswithviews.com...;[8]
http://womensissues.about.com...;[9]
http://emedicine.medscape.com...;[10]
Debate Round No. 1
Ron-Paul

Pro

Point 1:
I will start with three articles pertaining to the Prohibition of Alcohol
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

These three articles show what is wrong with prohibition of alcohol, and in general, prohibition of anything. The prohibition of something will only increase crime. Crime spiked during the prohibition years, as gangs started forming. Crimes related to prohibition included, organized crime to sell alcohol on the black market, fixing up cars to speed past prohibition cars, and making alcohol at home. The prohibition of alcohol directly contributed to the St. Valentine's Day Massacre. This is exactly what will happen with abortion. Abortion will be done on the black market or underground.

Point 2:
"When safe medical procedures are banned by law, they have resorted to dangerous--sometimes deadly--"back-alley" abortions." This comes from this website: http://socialistworker.org.... I do hope you read the whole article. The many great quotes in this passage are too numerous to quote them all. "In 1964, 28-year-old Geraldine Santoro bled to death on the floor of a Connecticut hotel room after she and her former lover, Clyde Dixon, attempted an abortion on their own. Dixon, who had no medical experience of any kind, used a textbook and some borrowed tools. When things went terribly wrong, he fled the scene, and Santoro died alone". This quote alone sums up what it was like for the thousands of women who died at the hands of untrained specialists. "Of these, tens upon tens of thousands died from illegal abortions or complications arising from them. One 1932 study estimated that illegal abortions or complications from them were the cause of death for 15,000 women each year. Current, more conservative, estimates of the death toll still stand at between 5,000 and 10,000 deaths per year". This quote shows the horror of the pre-Roe vs. Wade years. "Six months after abortion was legalized in Guyana in 1995, admissions for septic and incomplete abortion dropped by 41%. Previously, septic abortion had been the third largest, and incomplete abortion the eighth largest, cause of admissions to the country's public hospitals. One year after Romania legalized abortion in 1990, its abortion-related mortality rate fell from 142 to 47 deaths per 100,000 live births.7 These are examples of the positive impact legalizing abortion has on women's health." This quote comes from:
http://www.ourbodiesourselves.org.... This quote shows what happens after a country that has outlawed abortion has legalized abortion. As shown, legalized abortion has drastrically reduced the number of complications in abortion, and has saved the lives of tens of thousands of women.

Point 3:
Abortion "Costs about $300-$950 in the first trimester" Source: http://www.plannedparenthood.org...
The cost of raising a child as a single parent with a yearly salary less than $57,000 and not planning on taking that child through college is $152,340. Source: http://www.babycenter.com.... Anything significantly less than that would be depriving the child of necessaary materials. That lady with five kids will be spending over $750,000.
I am sure the amount of welfare money received from having a child does not equal the difference between the price of abortion, and the price of having one child. In fact, this article should point out the dangers of receiving welfare: http://www.heritage.org.... "When past and estimated future receipts of AFDC are combined, the estimated average length of stay on AFDC, among those families currently receiving benefits, is 13 years." This quote comes from the previous website. This quote points to the fact that if a child is on welfare, the child is likely to be on welfare for over half his or her childhood. This suggests that your claim that having children will increase welfare in fact is wrong. Why? Because if they are on welfare, they are likely very poor, and the child will have a bad childhood, and most likely, and bad rest of his life.

Point 4:
"Forty-two percent of women obtaining abortions have incomes below 100% of the federal poverty level ($10,830 for a single woman with no children)"
"Twenty-seven percent of women obtaining abortions have incomes between 100–199% of the federal poverty level" These two quotes come from http://www.guttmacher.org....
Do you think the babies that were aborted by these 69% of women who are single, and make a yearly income of less then $21,660 would have had a very good life? Do you think they would ever have a chance?

Point 5:
Say those 69% of women were not able to abort. Those children grew up in terrible surroundings surrounded by violence, murder, want, and laziness. I am sure a lot of those children would grow up to become theives and even murderers. And I am sure a lot of those would end up in jail. These children would be better off not being born.

Point 6:
A right is defined as: "Rights are entitlements (not) to perform certain actions, or (not) to be in certain states; or entitlements that others (not) perform certain actions or (not) be in certain states" from the website: http://plato.stanford.edu...

Point 7:
"98.5% of abortions are before the 21st week of pregnancy and 61.9 are before the 9th week of pregnancy." From: http://www.guttmacher.org.... So most aborted babies do not feel pain.

Point 8:
Again, a lot of these symptoms probably have to do with the fact that most women who have abortions are poor. This creates psychological problems.

Point 9:
The link that having an abortion causes breast cancer has not been proven yet. Why was the study not published? Becuase they knew it was wrong.

Point 10:
There are millions of adopted children that have either never been adopted, or has just bounced from family to family to family for years. And not to mention that there are thousands of reported cases of abuse caused by the family on the child. Few adopted children are in a "good" home and has not been abused.

Point 11:
There are also a lot of side effects of pregnancy and giving birth too.

Point 12:
Abortion is also a popular choice among young women. I think these are necessary also because young women will either not want to take care of the child, or can not take care of it well. The young women will send the child through the bumpy and sometimes not successful ride of adoption.

Point 13:
Also, what if a woman is raped, and becomes pregnant? Here, the woman isn't even prepared for a child. Do you think she will be able to take good care of the child? Do you think she could stand looking at the product of her rape?

==Conclusion==

My return arguments provide ample proof that abortion is sometimes a necessary course of action when either the woman is young and will not take care of the child, or when the woman is young, and she will not be able to provide adequetly for the child and the child will turn to a life of crime that is good to neither the child nor the rest of the population. And the child's ride through adoption is rarely successful. Please read this: http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu.... It will explain a lot about abortion and how legalization of it will help society.
16kadams

Con

Thank you for a quick reply :)

"These three articles show what is wrong with prohibition of alcohol, and in general, prohibition of anything."

You are relating alchohol to a medical procedure. Also I have statistics that I proved, you don't. I have proven that when illegal abortion backstreets decline, and legal ones diminish.


"Point 2:"

Yes you found one example, I have proof that most of these are done by doctors. Some will not but most will. You also use a 1932 study which is out dated.


"Point 3"

You are assuming that the parent would have to raise the kid, which is false. Give it to a freind, an adoption center, do the classical leave at doorstep (just kidding), etc. so you assume that they will raise the child which is not the case, also if they can't afford to raie it or abort it why have s3x. I think people should pay for their mistakes.


"Point 4:"


"I overheard a woman make that statement at one of my favorite coffee shops. I was shocked by the blatant comment and had to find out why she felt that way. I asked and she kindly explained that she feels access to more money and family support can lead to more abortions. Her theory starts with the understanding that young women with Prada purses are no less sexually active then girls with empty purses. She said, “For a wealthy family, a $500 abortion is a quick fix to an embarrassing problem, while women like me would have difficulty coming up with that kind of money quick enough to safely have the procedure. It would take months for me to save that much money!” Then she spoke of the “those girls” in high school and college, and I was left to assume they were wealthy/popular/ones that would not give her the time of day. She explained how they would take “family vacations” during the middle of a school week and everyone knew they were abortion vacations. So I ask, has anyone else ever heard of this theory or is this just the opinion of one angry woman?"

quoted from my 1 source.

And even if it affect the poor more you still haven't proven your origional words: " prohibiting abortion would just increase crime and poverty"


"Point 6"

girls weren't entitled to abortions until roe v. wade. So now prove it's a right they absolutly need.


"Point 7"

Try sticking an 8 week old human fetus in the palm of his hand. He opens his mouth and pulls his hand away. [2]

so according to this more modern study they feel pain at 8 weeks.

"Pain can be detected when nociceptors (pain receptors) discharge electrical impulses to the spinal cord and brain. These fire impulses outward, telling the muscles and body to react. These can be measured. Mountcastle, Medical Physiology, St. Louis: C.V. Mosby, pp. 391-427 "Lip tactile response may be evoked by the end of the 7th week. At 11 weeks, the face and all parts of the upper and lower extremities are sensitive to touch. By 13 1/2 to 14 weeks, the entire body surface, except for the back and the top of the head, are sensitive to pain." [2]

this study claims 7.

Not 20.


"Point 8"

sounds like class warfare, why would poor people be more...vunerable to this.


"Point 9"

Answer this:


As of 2006, eight medical organizations recognize that abortion raises a woman's risk for breast cancer, independently of the risk of delaying the birth of a first child [3]

U.S. National Cancer Institute researcher Dr. Louise Brinton, who was the chief organizer of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) workshop in 2003 that persuaded women that it was "well established" that "abortion is not associated with increased breast cancer risk," has reversed her position and now admits that abortion and oral contraceptives raise breast cancer risks. [4]

So she now thinks abortion causes it.



Dr. Brinton and her colleagues that abortion raises breast cancer risk by 40% [4]


Yes, Dr. H. Ownby did this in 1983. This was a study of women who had breast cancer that had been treated and gone into remission. Ownby studied how many of these developed a recurrence of their cancer. His research showed that among women who had carried their first pregnancy to term, 10% had a recurrence of their cancer within three years. Of those women who had aborted their first pregnancy 20% had a recurrence. Among those who had aborted their second and/or third pregnancy also, 30% had recurrences. [5]

"Point 10:"


Adoptions are usually handled by a government agency or a private group. These groups work hard to investigate the people who say they want to adopt a child. Before letting them adopt a child, adoption workers need to find out a lot of stuff about the adoptive couple. [6]

So with this intense check most do not get abused.

only 10% of kids in adoption line went unadopted [7]

Now here is where you say 10% is a lot:

If you are not adopted you go in to foster care where you go with a goverment person (same thing as adoption except it's a waiting line of people waiting for unadopted kids), aka foster homes.

"Point 11"

There are but if you watched my video it shows you can get placenta previa. That may lead to death during pregnancy and hemmorage. So sure you can get bad births but abortiosn are bad too and help lead to bad births. only 15% of women get birth problems [8]


"Point 12"


You just said murder is ok when she is young. So you just said I can go kill someone because I am young, is 14 young enough? that's literally what you said. The parent of the young kid can take care of it, a freind, grandparents, aunts, uncles, adoption, foster care, a nanny etc. If the woman didn't have an abortion the baby would still get cared for.



"Point 13:"

Most rapes do not cause pregnancy.

Of the 200,000 women who were forcibly raped, one-third were either too old or too young to get pregnant. [9]

so right of the bat scratch 1/3.


woman is capable of being fertilized only 3 days (perhaps 5) out of a 30-day month. [9]

So right there take of more because chances are you will not be raped in that 3 day period.

Only half of assailants penetrate her body and/or deposit sperm in her vagina [9]

take off some there.


Fifteen percent of men are sterile [9]

so some rapists do not have sperm, lower that number

Fifteen percent of non-surgically sterilized women are naturally sterile [9]

so the number of possibly women pregnant from rape is below 5,000 from the origional 200,000

The average couple takes 5-9 months to get prego [9]

SO according to the source the origional 200,000 lowers to 450. Most do not become pregnanant.

Also she can send it to the other options listed above. So in the rare case she becomes pregnant, she can still send it away.

can't refute rest of conclusion out of room:

==conclusion==

I have proven my point abortion is bad. The BOP is = shared and I feel I have fit it better then he has. Vote con!

==out of room==

sources:
http://thesociallyaware.com...;[1]
http://www.abortionfacts.com...[2]
http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com...;[3]
http://www.lifesitenews.com...;[4]

[5] http://www.abortionfacts.com...?
http://kidshealth.org...;[6]
http://www.chacha.com...;[7]
http://en.wikipedia.org...;[8]
http://www.christianliferesources.com...;[9]
Debate Round No. 2
Ron-Paul

Pro

Point 1:
I am sorry, but your comment about my Point 1 from Round 2 I do not get. I was trying to say that the prohibition of abortion will end up like the prohibition of alcohol. Abortions will start being done in the home by someone with no medical training, and there will be an increase in illegal abortion.

Point 2:
"For 1972, the last full year before Roe, the federal Centers for Disease Control reported that 39 women died due to illegal abortion.":http://www.straightdope.com.... Yes, only 39 women died of illegal abortion in the United States in 1972.

Point 3:
"The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that in 1972 alone, 130,000 women obtained illegal or self-induced procedures, 39 of whom died.":http://www.guttmacher.org.... This means that at least 260,000 people broke the law by having an illegal abortion. That number only takes into account the woman and the doctor. There could be more the 2 involced in one abortion. The prohibition of abortion will again cause 130,000+ crimes. And they need solving. Police are already having a hard time controlling crime. Adding 130,000+ crimes with at least 260,000 people involved will make the police department a mess.

Point 4:
"In 1967, England liberalized its abortion law to permit any woman to have an abortion with the written consent of two physicians. More than 600 American women made the trip to the United Kingdom during the last three months of 1969 alone" "The year before the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade, just over 100,000 women left their own state to obtain a legal abortion in New York City":http://www.guttmacher.org.... This means that is abortion is made illegal, then thousands of women will travel to a foreign country that legalizes abortion. In other words, they will bypass the law.

Point 5:
"The proportion of abortions obtained early in the first trimester has risen from 20% in 1970 to 56% in 1998": http://www.guttmacher.org.... This means that since the legalization of abortion in 1973, there has been a sharp increase in the percentage of abortions, legal or illegal, done in the first trimester. And approximately 55% of abortions in the year 2000 were done before the 8th week of pregnancy; up from 23% in 1972.: Website: http://www.guttmacher.org... ; Website's source: Trends in Abortion in the United States, 1973-2000 and Abortion and Women's Health. So most babies aborted do not feel any pain.

Point 6:
One of the four major factors that decreased crime in the 1990s was abortion: http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu.... "The underlying theory rests on two premises: 1) unwanted children are at greater risk for crime, and 2) legalized abortion leads to a reduction
in the number of unwanted births." :http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu... "These children who were born because their mothers were denied a nabortion were substantially more likely to be involved in crime, even when controlling for the income, age, education and health of the mother.":http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu.... "For instance, homicide fell 25.9 percent in high-abortion states between 1985 and 1997 compared to an INCREASE of 4.1 percent in low-abortion states. Panel data estimates confi�rm the strong negative relationship between lagged abortion and crime. An analysis of arrest rates by age reveal that only arrests of those born after abortion legalization are affected by the law change.":http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu.... There are so many great passages on this website to list all here. To have a better understanding of what this article is saying, read the article from the bottom of page 19 to the top of page 21. Also, look at the graphs throughout the article. Here is the article again: http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu.... And no, I can not prove the prohibiting abortion would just increase crime and poverty in the United States, but I can prove the legalizing abortion has decreased crime.

Point 7:
"For example, Dagg (1991) reports that these women overwhelmingly kept their babies, rather than giving them up for adoption, but that they often resented the unwanted children.": http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu.... This shows that if a woman is denied an abortion, she will most likely keep it instead of putting it up for adoption.

Point 8:
"I think people should pay for their mistakes." Yes, I think the mother should have to pay, but why make an innocent child pay? As pointed previously, an overwhelming percentage of poor people have abortions. So if they were denied an abortion, you are not only making the mother pay, but you are also making the child pay. You are making the child pay through making him or her live in poverty for 18 years, and most likely, in poverty his or her whole life.

Point 9:
Also with the last few points, I have proved that legalizing abortion does not increase the number of people in poverty, and the prohibition of abortion will increase the number of people in poverty,

Point 10:
Proving that abortion is a right that women need is unnecessary. They have the right to abort if necessary.

Point 11:
"Preemies begin to feel pain around a woman's 35th week of pregnancy, about two to four weeks before delivery, according to a new study from University College London.": http://abcnews.go.com.... The exact date when fetuses begin to feel pain will probably never be answered. It is all a matter of one's opinion and of one's stance on abortion. I am sure it is not the 35th week of pregnancy, but there are extreme and radical answers on both sides. But the major concensus is 20 weeks: http://www.omaha.com..., http://www.godandscience.org...,
http://news.discovery.com....

Point 12:
Having a lower social status makes you more vulnerable to mental diseases or the other way around depending on what side you take: http://en.wikipedia.org.... A good article on the relationship between low income and social status to mental disorders: http://epirev.oxfordjournals.org...

Point 13:
In February 2003, the US National Cancer Institute (NCI) held a workshop of more than 100 of the world's leading experts who study pregnancy and breast cancer risk. The experts reviewed human and animal studies that looked at the link between pregnancy and breast cancer risk, including studies of induced and spontaneous abortions. Some of their findings were:
• Breast cancer risk is increased for a short time after a full-term pregnancy (that is, a pregnancy that results in the birth of a living child).
• Induced abortion is not linked to an increase in breast cancer risk.
• Spontaneous abortion is not linked to an increase in breast cancer risk.

The level of scientific evidence for these findings was considered to be "well established" (the highest level): http://www.cancer.org....

Point 14:
Adoption is a bumpy ride for most children.

Point 15:
Young people do not know how to take care of a baby, and most likely, the parent is not willing to help. So its either the baby suffer from bad parenting at the hands of the girl, or go through the bumpy ride of adoption. Abortion seems like a very logical choice.

==Conclusion==

My return arguments disprove most of my opponents claims. I have now proven that the legalization of abortion has decreased crime significantly.
16kadams

Con

My opponent has dropped many of his arguments and his rebuttals, but I will not name them as drops count as concessions and I want to keep it that way.


"I am sorry, but your comment about my Point 1 from Round 2 I do not get."

You related alchohol to abortion, I related abortion to abortion proving that when abortions are legal there are more "unsafe" abortions and when it is illegalnumber is lower. So you did a comparison of two different things, I used hard cold abortion statistics.

Point 2

My opponent concedes that only a few died of illegal abortions in 1972, therefore conceding that most backstreet abortions are safer than not.

Point 3

I do not trust that source at the moment, maybe I will open to it. But ok I proved that when it was illegal less illegal abortions occured. Unlike now where backstreets are still illegal but it is still done. SO let's look at raw numbers I will use your source:

In 2008, 1.21 million abortions were performed [1]

So 1.21 murders happened (that is one thing that you didn't refute)


When it was illegal only 130,000 babies where killed [2]

SO there is a visable decrease, now lets look at illegal backstreet ones:

1972: 130,000 [2]
1973: about 40 [3]

So there is a small increase in deaths. My sources are Senators and Doctors (so it is reliable).

Let's do norway


http://en.wikipedia.org...

when legalized you see many up's and downs but at the end in 2005 it is highr than it was in 1980. Point proven? Yes.

Point 4

GOOD! We are arguing america and you brought in UK so I did likewise with Norway. If our laws do that you again prove my argument above, if it is illegal that WILL NOT do it here. So you once again PROVE my argument above that legawould raise illegal abortions rates and illegalizing it lowers them. You have proven my point, abortion laws work in the countries they are used in.


Point 5

You prove that more aborti occur on the first trimester (12 weeks) I proved a bbls paithin the first trimester, therefore all your argument does if prove my point. If a baby can feel pain at 6 or 8 weeks then most abortions will make the fetus feel pain. So your argument doesn't help.

Point 6

1. You proved MY point with earlier arguemnts.
2. My sources where people in congress and a pro-abortion doctor that concedes my point.
3. I trust doctors and goverment people more than an edu site.

Also you link 1990s.

The majority (86%) of the decline in the teen pregnancy rate between 1995 and 2002 was the result of dramatic improvements in contraceptive use [4]

This is all from pro abortion sites. This proves that it was the after night pill not abortion. I am ok with an after night pill.

about 9% of kids where tought absinence in 1995 [4]


So right there -9%.

Also logically how does abortion lower this? It lowers the amount of babies but I have proven it increases crime with some of the best soures.

Women should use contraceptives, not abortion, to prevent unwanted pregnancies. A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) study showed that 19-25% of women who received abortions in 2006 had previously had one or more abortions. [5]

It does't prevent anything, people just do it again and again.

Point 7

Your pro choice correct? Then let them do as they please with their kids after their out, as killing a child is illegal (my point). But adoption is another option.

this source says OVER 2,000,000 people want adoption [6]
So if they wanted to give aay their kid then the kid would get adopted. So who cares if they keep the kid? I belive in pro-choice after birth (as long as its not killing the kid). So keeping it is their choice. If she is raped and in the very low chance that she becomes pregnant (as I have proven it's rare) then she will surely give it to adoption. So whats yur point here?

Point 8

he he: " but why make an innocent child pay"

That's the whole point of my argument! Why kill a chid for what it has not done! Thats like saying you take away something you are dening them freich is not always the case. As you have the BOP to prove that it is a god right (well that's what the consitution says) nd you have yet done so. Also when poor will do 2 things : 1. I know many poor people and they hate abortion they would give it away to adoption, 2. peo choice pro people would give it away, or 3. let it grow uo with them.

Living poor isn't bad as albert eistein was poor. Look where he got. Barack obama was poor, look where he is now. herman cain was poor, he became a CEO.

Poor people in poverty are more likely to abandon their kids at an orphanage. [7]
They are more likely to abort and give away their children. So adoption is a big option for them.


Point 9


Well here we go since you have provided no proof for either side just statements I will go:

poverty levels in 1973: 11.1% [8]
poverty levels in 1971: about 9% [9]

They rose after legalization.

Point 10

You need to prove it or else your argument is null and void. I cannot refute a non-existing argument.

Point 11

Mine prove otherwise.

Point 12

Abortion causes mental illness:

Abortions cause psychological damage. A 2002 peer-reviewed study published by the Southern Medical Journal of more than 173,000 American women found that women who aborted were 154% more likely to commit suicide than women who carried to term. [10]

An Apr. 1998 Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology study on men whose partners had abortions found that 51.6% of the men reported regret, 45.2% felt sadness, and 25.8% experienced depression. [11]

So based on that male patners get damage too.

Point 13

Abortion increases the likelihood that women will develop breast cancer. In early pregnancy, levels of estrogen increase, leading to breast growth in preparation for a woman to milk her child. When the process is interrupted by abortion, immature cells are left in the woman's breasts, resulting in a greater potential risk of breast cancer. [12]

Since 2006, eight medical organizations including the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, the Catholic Medical Association, and the National Physicians Center for Family Resources have recognized the connection between abortion and breast cancer. [13]


I'll keep coming with more.

Point 14

proof?

Point 15

My former argument disproves this.

==conclusion==

I have refuted all of his claims with facts and even used pro abortions sites that concede what he want's to prove. Vote CON!


sources:

http://www.guttmacher.org... [1]
your argument [2]
My previous sources on the topic [3]
http://www.guttmacher.org... [4]
Terry Eastland, "The Forgotten Option," The Weekly Standard, Jan. 29, 2003 [5]
"Landmark Study Shows Vast Majority of Americans Support Adoption," www.adoption.com (accessed Apr. 1, 2010) [6]
http://en.wikipedia.org... [7]
http://www.freerepublic.com... [8]
http://www.census.gov... [9]
David. C. Reardon, PhD, et. al., "Deaths Associated With Pregnancy Outcome: A Record Linkage Study of Low Income Women," Southern Medical Journal, Aug. 2002. [10]
Priscilla Coleman, PhD, and Eileen S. Nelson, EdD, "The Quality of Abortion Decisions and College Students' Reports of Post-Abortion Emotional Sequelae and Abortion Attitudes," Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, Apr. 1998 [11]
Jose Russo, MD, and Irma Russo, MD, "Susceptibility of the Mammary Gland to Carcinogenesis. Pregnancy Interruption as a Risk Factor in Tumor Incidence," The American Journal of Pathology, Aug. 1980 [12]
The Coalition on Breast Cancer, "Medical Groups Recognizing Link," www.AbortionBreastCancer.com (accessed Apr. 7, 2010) [13]
Debate Round No. 3
Ron-Paul

Pro

Point 1:
There were no "illegal" abortions after Roe vs. Wade in 1973. But there were "underground" abortions not done in a hospital for a couple of years after Roe vs. Wade. Why? Because having an abortion was still not something that people told everyone becuase abortion was still considered immoral by the vast majority of the population (Kind of like gays today). As a result, thousands of women who had abortions did not tell anyone because it would tarnish their reputation forever. So as a result, thousands if not tens of thousands of women went to doctors who would not put the information on the women's abortion on file, unlike a hospital. This of course, is illegal. But as abortion became more accepted and widespread, women shifted from these "underground" doctors to hospitals. This is a shot to the whole pro-life argument because if they didn't protest abortion, abortion would not be scrutinized, and women would not seek "underground" doctors. If you can provide statistics on illegal abortion after the year 2000 that provide reasonable evidence, I will concede this part of the argument.

Point 2:
I only said that 39 deaths from illegal abortion were DOCUMENTED. Since their wasn't really a major crackdown of these "underground" aborters prior to Roe vs. Wade, thousands could have gone undocumented. And once the family learned of the woman's death from an abortion, the family usually hid it, for as the same reasons above, it was illegal and immoral and would tarnish the family name.

Point 3:
Remember, this whole debate is whether abortion is justified or not. So I do not consider the vast majority of the 1.21 million abortions to be murder. And your statistic that 130,000 illegal abortions is again flawed because you are only counting documented and speculated. And what is your point about Norway? One, the abortion rate is about the same, and naturally there would be more abortions as the population increases.

Point 4:
I did not say that leaving a country for a country that legalizes abortion was illegal. In fact, it is justified and understandable. I just said that thousands of women would just leave America for some other country that legalizes abortion.

Point 5:
I will clump two points in one argument. This is regarding when fetuses feel pain.
http://news.discovery.com...: 18-29 weeks.
http://discovermagazine.com...: 28 weeks.
http://www.time.com...: 20-26 weeks.
http://www.godandscience.org...: Nothing less than 20 weeks.
http://www.religioustolerance.org...: Nothing less than 20 weeks.
http://www.omaha.com...: 18-22 weeks.
http://www.gargaro.com...: 12-20 weeks.
http://abcnews.go.com...: 35-37 weeks.
I want more of your "6-8 week" sources because I sure have the force of numbers.

And I proved that since Roe vs. Wade, the percentage of abortions done in the first trimester, legal or illegal, has more than doubled, making the legalization less painful for the percentage of babies.

Point 6:
Why do you not trust an edu site? And why you of all people trust Government sites?
Anyway, your comment about contraceptive has two fundumental flaws. One, we are talking about children conceived and aborted in the few years just after Roe vs. Wade. The decline in the teen pregnancy rate was not attributed to this. This has no bearing on the decline in crime in the 1990s. Two, even if your comment was logical, you still can't explain this statement: "The magnitude of the differences in the crime decline between high- and low-abortion states was over 25 percent for homicide, violent crime and property crime. For instance, homicide fell 25.9 percent in high-abortion states between 1985 and 1997 compared to an increase of 4.1 percent in low-abortion states. Panel data estimates confi�rm the strong negative relationship between lagged abortion and crime. An analysis of arrest rates by age reveal that only arrests of those born after abortion legalization are affected by the law change.":http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu.... And again, as I pointed out from a source, almost 50% of the women having abortions had a salary below the US poverty level of $10660. And the percentage of poor people who commit a crime is a lot higher than for the other two classes.
And here is another article linking the crime decrease to abortion: http://www.slate.com....

Point 7:
What was so hard to get about that statement? Here is the full quote:
"A number of studies have looked at cases of women living in jurisdictions in which governmental approval to have an abortion was required, who sought to have an abortion, but were denied the ability to do so (Dagg, 1991; David, Dytrych, Matejcek and Schuller, 1988). For example, Dagg (1991) reports that these women overwhelmingly kept their babies, rather than giving them up for adoption, but that they often resented the unwanted children. These children who were born because their mothers were denied an abortion were substantially more likely to be involved in crime, even when controlling for the income, age, education and health of the mother." Does this clear your confusion up?

Point 8:
Barack Obama and Herman Cain were a select few. The vast vast majority of poor people are never able to even get into the middle class. Millions of children who under abortion prohibiting laws would live terrible lives in poverty for the rest of their life. What is better, one moment of suffering under abortion, or a lifetime of suffering with no abortion? That was my point.

Point 9:
"The Recession of 1969–1970 was a relatively mild recession in the United States... The recession followed the second longest economic expansion in U.S. history.":http://en.wikipedia.org.... The recession officially ended in November of 1970. So at the end of 1971 saw the near peak of the growth period between 1971 and 1973. Naturally, poverty levels would be lower. "The 1973–75 recession in the United States or 1970s recession was a period of economic stagnation, putting an end to the general post-World War II economic boom.":
http://en.wikipedia.org.... This means that poverty was beginning to increase at the end of 1973. Naturally, there would be a 2-3% difference. Better statistics please.

Point 10:
Women should be able to decide to abort pregnancies when the child can not be provided for. That is smart.

Point 11:
You have one source claiming 6-8 weeks. I have 8 sources claiming 15-37 weeks. More sources please.

Point 12:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com...
http://www.guardian.co.uk.... This source claims that the unwanted pregnancy is the cause of mental illness, not the abortion itself.
http://feministing.com.... This source cites at least three studies denying the claim.

Point 13:
http://www.prochoice.org...
http://www.cancer.gov...; a non-biased source.
http://www.cancer.org...; more non-bias
I have the strength in numbers again.

Point 14:
There are more children entering foster care than leaving and abuse rates are going up. This is pretty mainstream. Everyone knows there is a problem with today's child care system.

Point 15:
There is the same argument for the young and the poor. They both are usually not adequate parents.

END

I have crushed the pro-life argument.
16kadams

Con

Point 1:

Yes but I have proved my point.

Point 2:

You use an excuse that people would hide the deaths, wh a fallacy. When one dies they would have ot bury her and the goverment uch of the time mus tinspect the body and such, therefore they would catch the mistake. Also they could have cought it in the act and if she was dying she would go to the hospital no? The ER and get treated for free regardless. So don't their poor. Also they doctors would see what happened and would be obligated to tell.

Point 3:

I have proven it was unjustified. Also My graph showed underground abortions. Also further more I have proven it wa sunjustified and you haven't ted my main contention yet, which will not be named would like it to stay unscathed.

Point 4:

It is not here's a poll:

85% of the women said they would not have aborted their babies if it had been illegal. [1]

that means most wouldn't travel. Also sit people who have abortions are poor how would they afford a flight?

Point 5

I won't refute links. post words not blue scrambled letters.


Point 6:

did you really just say an edu ad a goverment site ar eunreliable? Ha! They are the sited recomended. EDU sites are very reliable and are often times itten by doctors. And gov sites are considered the best. oh I trusted an edu site sorry I misread. But that source looked...odd to me. Also it says legalization only affects for born kids. That means abortion when legal increases child abuse, which it does:

If children are viewed as expendable before birth, they will be viewed as expendable after birth. A study by Dr Phillip Ney, Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Christ Church, New Zealand, clearly pointed to the fact that abortion (and its acceptance of the violence of killing the unborn) lowered a parent's psychic resistance to violence and abuse of the born. [2]

SO it being legal increaseld abuse, raising crime.

Point 7:

I agree but that means that they still have that option. You are just saying "well they keep it". That proves htey love the baby and killing it would actulaly hurt their minds. SO logically you helped my case. But I have proved in NEEDED adoption was another option. You have droped those other arguments on this.

Point 8:

Yes but killing those few could be terrible. It would ruin society, and even for the average shmuck it is bad. Killing = less population. Less populaiton = small aer workforce which = worse economy.

Btw abortion is bad for the econmy:

"The murder of millions of babies since Roe has had a profound impact on the demographics of the United States. As a result of removing that staggering number of lives, the population – and tax base – are far smaller. If we assume a fairly steady rate of abortions since the last year of reporting (2008), then there have been almost 56M aborted babies in this country – nearly the population of California and Texas combined. Given an average federal tax revenue of approximately $8500/citizen, and assuming that those aborted between 1975 and 1990 (approx 23,782,000 lives, based on Guttermacher estimates) would now be productive taxpayers, the U.S. economy is losing roughly $202 billion per year in tax payments as of 2012."[3]

yep so it's burden on the tax payers in turn hurts the economy.

Point 9:

Um my sources are from goverment sites, not wikipedia. Which do you trust more?

Point 10:

you have mostly rebuttals your arguemnts provide first round where completly destroyed. Your BOP is to prove this, which you ahve not done.

Point 11

you wan't sources on pain? ok:

8 weeks [4]

8 weeks [5]

8 weeks [6]

good?

Point 12

I will use a goverment site to prove this:

"RESULTS:

Forty-one percent of women had become pregnant on at least one occasion prior to age 25, with 14.6% having an abortion. Those having an abortion had elevated rates of subsequent mental health problems including depression, anxiety, suicidal behaviours and substance use disorders. This association persisted after adjustment for confounding factors.

CONCLUSIONS:

The findings suggest that abortion in young women may be associated with increased risks of mental health problems." [7]

Point 13

This isn't a link war.

"Every study of induced abortions performed before the first live birth is consistent with an initial increase in risk of at least 50 percent," reports Dr Joel Brind, professor of endocrinology at Baruch College, City University of New York, who is also a breast cancer researcher on staff at Beth Israel Hospital and Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City. [8]

Brazil, more breast cancer patients reported having had abortions than did the control group. The rate of breast cancer among women in Finland increased with the number of abortions. The risk among Italian women with one of more legal abortions before a first live birth was increased by 42 percent. Among Chinese women who developed breast cancer before the age of 40, abortion before first full-term pregnancy led to an increased risk of 140 percent. The Soviets have one of the world's highest abortion rates and the incidence of breast cancer among Russian, Estonian and Soviet Georgian women tripled between 1960 and 1987 [9]

Point 14

lacking logic and sources. mine had at least logic. I belive mine had asource on how the system was secure as well.

Point 15

again lacking logic. If they TRULY couldn't care for the kid they would have given it to adoption. truly. they would, so logic states that if you can parent then you give him/her away.

==conclusion==
I have refuted my opponents contentions with facts and viable sources and studies I urge you to vote con.

PS: I request that we end debate now as school has statrted, so just sy vote pro and I'll di likewise. You can always say no in the comments and continue but it would be a geniune kindness to end it now.

sources:

Aborted Women: Silent No More, by David C Reardon, 1987, Crossway, Westchester, IL p321-322 [1]
"Relationship Between Abortion and Child Abuse" by Dr P Ney. Canada Journal of Psychiatry, vol 24, 1979, p610-620 [2]
http://www.redstate.com... [3]
http://www.abortionfacts.com... [4]
http://www.whyprolife.com... [5]
http://www.humanrightsforunbornchildren.com... [6]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [7]
Journal of the American Medical Association for peer review (Nov 1993). [8]
Lime 5, by Mark Crutcher, 1996, Life Dynamics Inc. Denton, Texas. p223-238 [9]
Debate Round No. 4
Ron-Paul

Pro

I am just clarifying some of the things you asked and adding some sources to my previous arguments.

Point 1:
You have not proven anything. The 93rd Congress was held in 1973 and 1974, and your doctor has no statistics to back his argument up. You have no statistics from after the year 2000 like I asked. Since you have not produced any statistics from even after the year 1985, then I guess you can not find a source for the year 2000.

Point 2:
Do you think the body was handed back to the family? There is no way to get the body besides going to the aborter himself, and he has probably fled the scene by then. The aborter may have even destoryed the body to destory the incriminating evidence.

Point 3:
Again, you have not proven abortion is unjustified. There are few, unbiased facts on the abortion debate. Your graph showed "induced abortions". Underground or illegal is not used in the graph or article. Your point was completely false. Plus, we are proving whether or not abortion is justified in this debate.

Point 4:
Going to a foreign country to have an abortion is not illegal, but it is bypassing the law. It is not illegal. And it's better to afford the one round-trip airplane ticket than the price of one child meantioned in Round 3.

Point 5:
There is no need to post a quote because I have the week(s) that the article states. Check the article if you do not believe me.

Point 6:
A simple logic rebuttal is this: Would the poor treat their children any better if abortion was prohibited? The simple answer is no. In fact, they have more children to abuse under the prohibition of abortion.

Point 7:
I don't think you read the whole quote. Especially this part: "These children who were born because their mothers were denied an abortion were substantially more likely to be involved in crime, even when controlling for the income, age, education and health of the mother." And another logic failure on your part is your phrase: "You are just saying "well they keep it". That proves htey love the baby and killing it would actulaly hurt their minds". Wrong. They wanted to abort the baby in the first place. But when born, they don't want their child to suffer the horrors of the foster care system. And I have never heard you use the phrase: "needed adoption". You have not used it.

Point 8:
More logic failure. Here is more simple logic. "Say abortion is still illegal. Then the 1 million babies aborted each year would raise the unemployment rate tremendously (based on Guttermacher estimates on abortion, unemployment would be between 15-20%). More babies from the 1980s now=a higher unemployment and povery rate." And more simple logic. "Say abortion is still illegal. Than the 56 million babies that would have survived may pay more taxes, but since over 90% are in the bottom 47% of the population (money wise), they don't pay any taxes (Look it up if you doubt me about the 47% not paying taxes). Also, they are sucking up Government Welfare money. So they would increase the Government Debt, not decrease".

Point 9:
Your sources may be from Government websites, but your statistics do not take into account that we were in a boom period for your earlier statistic, and headed into a recession for your later statistic. Naturally, the later year would have a higher poverty level than the earlier year. And my wikipedia source was on when the recessions started, nothing on abortion. Better statistics please.

Point 10:
This point is irrelevant now. Now we are debating on the cases of crime, poverty, and health.

Point 11:
Again, me; 8 sources vs. you; 4 sources. I will even add more. These are additional sources.
http://www.thedailybeast.com...; After the 24th week
http://www.cbsnews.com...; 20-28 weeks
http://theweek.com...; After the 24th week
http://journals.lww.com...; 28-30 weeks
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...; 26 weeks
http://www.newscientist.com...; 26 weeks
Statistics:
Me; 15-37 weeks; 14 sources
You; 6-8 weeks; 4 sources.
14 to 4 lead for me.
First Page of Google: 1 in your favor, 8 in mine
Second Page of Google none in your favor; 7 in mine
Next.

HINT: I am not trying to have a link war. I am just proving that the vast majority and accepted theory on when fetuses feel pain is 20-30 weeks.

Point 12:
In addition to the three sources posted earlier,
"About 11 to 12 percent of women in general suffer from mental health issues like anxiety or depression, but among women with unwanted pregnancies that figure rises to about one third""We should be looking at what it is about the unwanted pregnancy stage that is so problematic.":http://yourlife.usatoday.com...
"This review identified several factors that are predictive of more negative psychological responses following first-trimester abortion among women in the United States. Those factors included:Perceptions of stigma, need for secrecy, and low or anticipated social support for the abortion decision; A prior history of mental health problems; Personality factors such as low self-esteem and use of avoidance and denial coping strategies; and Characteristics of the particular pregnancy, including the extent to which the woman wanted and felt committed to it.":http://www.apa.org...
"To obtain the conclusion it did, the RCP picked and chose among the available studies, excluding many of those offering strong evidence of the connection between abortion and mental health issues. Coleman identified 19 literature reviews and 20 empirical studies involving risk factors for post-abortion health problems that were ignored by the RCP team.":http://www.nationalrighttolifenews.org...

I have proved my point about lower social status and mental illness, and tied abortion to it. Meaning, its the lower social status, not the abortion causing the mental illness. But the main reason is the stress of the unwanted pregnancy. The long the unwanted pregnancy, the more mental effects. So if women are denied an abortion, there will be a significant increase in mental illness.

Point 13:
http://www.usatoday.com...; non-bias
http://feministsforchoice.com...
http://reproductiverights.org...; three more studies

Again, as stated earlier, higher stress women have more mental problems. This extends to breast cancer. Again, that unwanted pregnancy.

Point 14:
Proving it is likely, but will take a long time. Plus, there is a difference between adopted and cared for.

Point 15:
Relate to the foster care debate. But more importantly, that comment that parents will overwhelmingly keep children that were born because she was denied an abortion disproves your point.

==End Conclusion==
I have essentially crushed the pro-Life argument. Through logic and sources, I have proved my arguments and disproved my opponent's arguments.

VOTERS: Please read this whole debate. It will serve you better. Sorry to have to make you read such a long debate.

16KADAMS: Thank you for this great debate. Thank you for accepting this debate, and thank you for debating with me. This was a good and clean debate. Thank you.
16kadams

Con

My opponent didn't accept my offer :( * tear*

Point 1:

You just conceded my case as you have not had any good rebuttals right now. But yes he did provide statistics in his whole book, further more he said STATISTICS prove his conclusion and hypothesis correct. Also the 93rd congress referred to statistics and their authors for those who disagree. So in all technicalities you have shown no proof for your side, therefore I win point one.

Point 2:

You say you like facts, yet you have provided none. Also when the abortion occurs the family is usually there, which makes sense as they wold say hey guys help me not feel pain. It is logical one family member or friend will be there, also the woman wouldn't die (if she did) immediately, it would be over the course of a few hours or days, by then people would a. notice, b. tell on her, c. get caught.

Point 3:

I have proven a fetus is a human therefore murder, you didn't refute. You seem to have had weak arguments that it was dangerous, and the fetus feels pain has turned in to a link war. I have my whole case either ill refuted or unscathed. Also you have NOT defended your arguments, therefore conceding them to me. Also you have to prove aboriton is justified, which you have not.

Point 4:

hm lol. A plane ticket to Europe is expensive: http://www.planetickets.com...

Also they can put up the kid for adoption if they truly cannot support him. So if they know they can't they will put him up and give him away. Also bypassing a law is no reason to allow it.

Point 5

No you just said it feels pain but you have turned this into a link war. It is really bugging me ;(.

Point 6:

a few questions:

1. facts?
2. I have proven and shown the psychology of this
3. I will provide evidence as I am bored and you had no good rebuttal (So I will win this argument much more):

"These figures clearly contradict the pro-abortionists' claim that abortion of "unwanted children" prevents child abuse. Ignoring the obvious illogic of this argument--which suggests that killing children is better than beating them--there is not a single scientific study that supports this theory. Instead, there is a clear statistical association between increased rates of abortion and increased rates of child abuse. Indeed, statistical and clinical research support not only an association, but a causal connection between abortion and subsequent child abuse." [1]

Point 7:

lol once again you fail to understand my logic. If they honestly truly can't take care of the child they will give it away. It is a simple argument. You have prove proof that he foster care system is flawed, I have proven the system is secured as they check the family. From an adoption website nonetheless. Proving that this system is fairly safe .

Point 8:

You had a quote but no link, indicating it may be fake. You forgot this logic:

more kids = more people that will hire.

So you say more kids = less jobs, from a possibly fake quote. I have proven with logic it = more employers.

And it is bad for the economy:

In terms of the economy, abortion undermines future growth. [2]

Point 9:

you have not proven it is later in the year, that was a year average. And still really you say Wikipedia is more credible then a goverment source? If anything I should say better stats please.

Point 10:

It is valid as I have to prove adoption is another option, thanks for conceding that.

Point 11:

ok fine you have 8, (really what a link war) I will throw out 15 if need be:

8 weeks [3]
8 weeks [4]
8 weeks [5]
8 weeks [6]
lol I posted my links out of order at one point.
8-12 weeks [7]
8 weeks at least [8]
feels some pain in 12 weeks, major pain at 20, and in the second trimester ok pain. So in the first trimester it is still painful. [9]

8 weeks [10]

You say more sources = better, so in that logic have won this argument.

Point 12:

ok so you still push for sources,although mine are written by doctors yours by a news anchor. So I will provide more as you are insistent:

causes mental health issues [11]
depression [12]
depression [13]
Ron I am sure your a good kid, but a debate tip, don't force people to enter link wars it is really annoying and not fun to read. So stop with the red herring on sources, i have proven my argument with medical journals.

point 13;

what? how does an unwanted pregnancy cause breast cancer? Also your sources are one biased, 3 usatoday is liberal, biased, the only good source here is your 3rd one. So I will add on 4 to top you as you demand a link war.

abortion increases risk of breast cancer [14]
increases risk of breast cancer [15]
increases chance breast cancer by 150% [16]
increases breast cancer by 150% [17]

No really though this debate is becoming very downgraded due to you demanding more links.

Point 14:

um ok I have proved adoption is safe. Have you even tried? No you have conceded this to me.

Point 15:

You have not provided that illegal abortion would raise the rate of kids kept. Your argument is a fallacy, therefor oyu basically concede this to me as I refuted it early on. You didn't defend it.

==conclusion==

my opponent created a link war that was unpleasant, but in his sense I have won this war. Further more, my opponent neither defends his arguments with any great grace nor attacks mine without logical answers. That is h=why i urge you to vote con. My point his proven, his debunked. I have proven that abortion is murder as a fetus is a human (you didn't tack this argument) and also it is bad for the woman. So I have proven abortion is bad, and/or unjustified, I ha fulfilled the BOP, my opponent hasn't. That is why I must end as I am low on room and have PROVEN my case and debunked his. I urge you to vote con, I report you decide.

sources:

http://www.abortionfacts.com... [1]
Fight for Life - a pro-life handbook for Southern Africa, by Miriam Cain. 1995 Africa Christian Action, Cape Town, p27 [2]
http://www.gargaro.com... [3]
http://www.doctorsonfetalpain.com... [5]
http://www.whyprolife.com... [4]
http://unitedfamiliesinternational.wordpress.com... [6]
http://rationalwiki.org... [7]
http://www.lifeissues.net... [8]
http://www.fetalfacts.net... [9]
http://www.tumblr.com... [10]
http://www.lifenews.com... [11]
http://www.lifenews.com... [12]
http://www.abortiontv.com... [13]
http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com... [14]
http://www.lifesitenews.com... [15]
http://www.etters.net... [16]
http://www.pregnantpause.org... [17]
Debate Round No. 5
49 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Man-is-good 2 years ago
Man-is-good
Okay. That happens to me sometimes.
Posted by Chrysippus 2 years ago
Chrysippus
RFD:

Conduct tied. Nothing to complain of.

SP/G: Pro. Con, I could understand what you wrote, but it is rather rough going; you should invest in a little capitalization and a spell-checker.

Arguments: Tied. Both were rather weak, overall; potent arguments were touched on by both sides, but far too little space was given to any arguments. Two sentences is hardly sufficient; yet, round after round, some very controversial points were granted scarcely a paragraph each. You each suffer from the aliment known as "shotgun debating," where he weakness of your positions are hidden under the blizzard of separate arguments thrown at your opponent. There simply isn't room to adequately address them all, and no-one in this debate was gutsy enough to call the red herrings and concentrate on the essentials; hence reaching point 15.

A good rule of thumb: if you are ever tempted to write "point 15" in any debate, you are doing something wrong. SIMPLIFY.

Sources: tied. I approve of the number of sources given; I just wish the arguments they bury were sufficiently fleshed out to warrant that kind of sourcing.

Russianfish: you are a cad. Looking forward to seeing Innomen turn you into lutfisk. Stop voting.
Posted by Chrysippus 2 years ago
Chrysippus
MIG, I selected my vote to counter Russian before you did; but I spent so much time writing out my scathing RFD that you voted while I was still writing.
Posted by Chrysippus 2 years ago
Chrysippus
Blast. Just wrote out my RFD and lost it. Stupid computer.
Posted by Man-is-good 2 years ago
Man-is-good
AHEM!, Chrysippus!
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
dang it russian fish
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
lol they gave you sources cause you had more, I counted them up I have 5 more then you.
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
nope you didn't accept my offer, also I will throw down 15 sources to prove you wrong on the fetus thing.
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
hey so let's end it after I make my argument, either way it doesn't matter cause even if you respond I still have last words.
Posted by Ron-Paul 2 years ago
Ron-Paul
For 16kadams: Again, maybe. Have you already read my Round 4 post?
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by esisCOA 2 years ago
esisCOA
Ron-Paul16kadamsTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro wins due to round 2 point 6. women should be able to abort due to the rights they have. need has nothing to do with it. Both made S G mistakes but con made more (forgetting to end sentences with periods and start them with a capital letter)
Vote Placed by OberHerr 2 years ago
OberHerr
Ron-Paul16kadamsTied
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:16 
Reasons for voting decision: I will say the Con should really consider using Spellcheck. His arguments are good, but they appear bad under all those mistakes. As for the main debate, Con essentially refuted well most, if not all, of Pro's arguments. The same cannot be said for Pro. As for the sources, Pro used some unreliable ones. And as for conduct, that was for Pro 1) turning this into a link war and 2) The "win assumption" at the end.
Vote Placed by Chrysippus 2 years ago
Chrysippus
Ron-Paul16kadamsTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 2 years ago
Man-is-good
Ron-Paul16kadamsTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm sorry that I couldn't read through this debate, but I am now counter-vote bombing RussianFish who supplied seven points to Pro without any rhyme or reason.
Vote Placed by RussianFish99 2 years ago
RussianFish99
Ron-Paul16kadamsTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: .
Vote Placed by CAPLlock 2 years ago
CAPLlock
Ron-Paul16kadamsTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro created a link war. I think generally Con should have arguements
Vote Placed by vmpire321 2 years ago
vmpire321
Ron-Paul16kadamsTied
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:32 
Reasons for voting decision: Hmm. PRO, imo, made more logical sense to me. However CON provided better/more sources.
Vote Placed by Lordknukle 2 years ago
Lordknukle
Ron-Paul16kadamsTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con in general, had stronger arguments. Pro tried to turn this into a source war which many readers highly detest. -1 conduct.