The Instigator
CAPLlock
Con (against)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
Ron-Paul
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points

Abortion

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 4 votes the winner is...
Ron-Paul
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/13/2012 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,320 times Debate No: 20376
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (4)

 

CAPLlock

Con




Round 2 on our last debate.

http://www.debate.org...

I ask Ron wait intill monday to post a response.

http://www.debate.org...
Ron-Paul

Pro

This is my Round 4 argument from our previous debate which you never responded to.

Response Point 1: Does it really need a source? This goes in favor of the pro-Life argument because I am conceding that only 39 women died of illegal abortions in 1972. But if you really want another source: http://www.abortionfacts.com.......

Response Point 2: I will break this into two seperate points.
Point 1: Having a large population of people supporting abortion means that it can not be a taboo. Most tabooes are excepted to be bad by the vast majority of the population.

Point 2: Poor usually breed poor. And it is not just the normal poor. I am mainly talking about the people that live in the "bad part of town" and have been in jail several times, these types of people almost always breed poor children who turn out just like them.

Response Point 3: Think of it this way: Why does a family generally hid the fact that their child is gay? Because it would tarnish their child's and their family's reputation. This same thing happened even 4 or 5 years after Roe vs. Wade. Now you might be asking, "well everyone has to put a cause of death on a death certificate. There is no way someone can miss the big scar on the woman's body that shows an abortion. The number "39 in 1972" is well documented. There is no way around that. How could this be possible?" Well the families a lot of times would pay off the death certificate composer to change the cause of death. This means that the number of deaths from illegal abortion, even in 1972, could have been hundreds, maybe even thousands of people higher. Clear?

Response Point 4: You have not disproved this statement: " "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.":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 confirm 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......; The decline in crime in the 1990s can be directly traced to the legalization of abortion in 1973 becuase the time frame is just accurate. You have not disproved this, and you need to provide counter-sources instead of denying the connection. And what does Lady Gaga have to do with this? That topic is completely irrelevant to this debate.

Response Point 5: Think of it this way: What is better: Having a fetus to "possibly" experience a slight moment of pain, or for the fetus to grow up into an adult that either most likely will live a life in extreme povery, or either be murdered or commit at least one murder? It is better for society because it decreases the murder rate. My proof is in Response Point 4.

Response Point 6: Looking at the title of the website; "pro life physicians". The word pro life is in the title of the website. This site is most certainly biased. Give me a scientific site that does not have bias in the title. And the question is not whether a fetus belongs in the human species or not, because it most certainly does, but the question is whether the fetus is alive and it's abortion can be considered murder at a certain date of pregnancy.

Response Point 7: Again, this point is irrelevant becuase a fetus is a human, but is it alive a certain date of pregnancy.

Response Point 8: What? Are you going to debate this or not?

Attack Point 1: Now, I am going to use the major pro-Life argument that abortion causes mental illness in the woman, and completely turn it against them. "Kendall said mental health problems seemed to be linked specifically to unwanted pregnancies rather than abortion.": http://www.msnbc.msn.com....... "An unwanted pregnancy may cause mental health problems, a woman may already have problems before becoming pregnant, or it could be a combination of the two, he added.": http://www.guardian.co.uk....... "The evidence shows though that whether these women have abortions - or go on to give birth - their risk of having mental health problems will not increase.": http://www.bbc.co.uk....... What I am trying to prove here is that not only does the unwanted pregnancy, not abortion causes the mental illness, but it is also true that aborting, say in the 10th week would stop the mental illness from getting worse. If the woman had to run the course of the pregnancy, the mental illness would be a lot worse.

Attack Point 2: 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.

Attack Point 3: "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.

Attack Point 4: 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". (the statement "abortion is still illegal" means that Roe vs. Wade did not repeal abortion laws, and they are still in place to this very day).
Debate Round No. 1
CAPLlock

Con


RP1:

Ron has conceded.


Point 2: Poor usually breed poor. And it is not just the normal poor. I am mainly talking about the people that live in the "bad part of town" and have been in jail several times, these types of people almost always breed poor children who turn out just like them.


I felt like I touched off on this, but what ever.


By saying 'Poor breed poor' , you are agreeing that a large portion of the people using abortion.
Not always does 'cant afford it'= poor. Because of this I wish to see some numbers that show that abortion is mostly used by the poor. To me, this seemed like a slippery slope arguement.

Response Point 3: Think of it this way: Why does a family generally hid the fact that their child is gay? Because it would tarnish their child's and their family's reputation. This same thing happened even 4 or 5 years after Roe vs. Wade. Now you might be asking, "well everyone has to put a cause of death on a death certificate. There is no way someone can miss the big scar on the woman's body that shows an abortion. The number "39 in 1972" is well documented. There is no way around that. How could this be possible?" Well the families a lot of times would pay off the death certificate composer to change the cause of death. This means that the number of deaths from illegal abortion, even in 1972, could have been hundreds, maybe even thousands of people higher. Clear?

Assuming they would do that how would they find someone to do that? I doubt a composer would just change the DOA.
I was also puzzled by the gay analogy. There is still a number of gays 'in the closet'. It is common for a gay to admit to being a gay.

The numbers for pro-life/pro-choice are basically equal. Assuming at least ONE person in the family will spill the beans. I will wrap up on this. Abortion still goes on, will it be liked? No. But some person will still 'feel' for you.


Response Point 4: You have not disproved this statement: " "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.":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 confirm 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.........; The decline in crime in the 1990s can be directly traced to the legalization of abortion in 1973 becuase the time frame is just accurate. You have not disproved this, and you need to provide counter-sources instead of denying the connection. And what does Lady Gaga have to do with this? That topic is completely irrelevant to this debate.

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. [1]
So with this intense check most do not get abused.

only 10% of kids in adoption line went unadopted [2]

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.
http://kidshealth.org......; [1]
http://www.chacha.com......; [2]

I will top off that Chicago isn't a good place relating a safe place to rise a family. Use other, smaller cities.

Response Point 5: Think of it this way: What is better: Having a fetus to "possibly" experience a slight moment of pain, or for the fetus to grow up into an adult that either most likely will live a life in extreme povery, or either be murdered or commit at least one murder? It is better for society because it decreases the murder rate. My proof is in Response Point 4.

So you are saying abortion , which , in my view is murder, is a just cause because the future child might feel pain in life?

Response Point 6: Looking at the title of the website; "pro life physicians". The word pro life is in the title of the website. This site is most certainly biased. Give me a scientific site that does not have bias in the title. And the question is not whether a fetus belongs in the human species or not, because it most certainly does, but the question is whether the fetus is alive and it's abortion can be considered murder at a certain date of pregnancy.

First, you have to prove that having your postion on the debate in the URL makes you biased. I think you need more then just a title to see if it is biased. Give more example on the website itself.

Attack Point 1: Now, I am going to use the major pro-Life argument that abortion causes mental illness in the woman, and completely turn it against them. "Kendall said mental health problems seemed to be linked specifically to unwanted pregnancies rather than abortion.": http://www.msnbc.msn.com.......... "An unwanted pregnancy may cause mental health problems, a woman may already have problems before becoming pregnant, or it could be a combination of the two, he added.": http://www.guardian.co.uk.......... "The evidence shows though that whether these women have abortions - or go on to give birth - their risk of having mental health problems will not increase.": http://www.bbc.co.uk.......... What I am trying to prove here is that not only does the unwanted pregnancy, not abortion causes the mental illness, but it is also true that aborting, say in the 10th week would stop the mental illness from getting worse. If the woman had to run the course of the pregnancy, the mental illness would be a lot worse.


Attack Point 2: 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.

But abortion-stopping laws dont target these. if Abortion is legal, the vast majority of abortion will not happen. And your statistic that 130,000 illegal abortions is again flawed because you are only counting documented and speculated.


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.

So she now thinks abortion causes it.



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


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.

These sources will be commented
Ron-Paul

Pro

I find it funny how most of your arguments is just what I said previously in the last round. And I also find it amusing that half of your arguments here was just cut-and-pasted from my earlier debate with 16kadams.

Response Point 1: This was a simple fact. You misinterpreted my point. Just skip over this point.

Response Point 2:
• 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).[6]

• Twenty-seven percent of women obtaining abortions have incomes between 100–199% of the federal poverty level.* [6]
http://www.guttmacher.org....
So 69% of woman who have abortions have a household that makes less than $22,000.

Response Point 3: With money, people can do just about anything. Money can change the COD on the death certificate.

Response Point 4: There is a big difference between adopted and cared for. A lot of adopted children are abused.

Response Point 5: Might is a bad word becuase with the abortion by the poor statistics I have provided, most likely, the child will not grow up in a comfortable surrounding.

Response Point 6: You are using a biased website. Look at the title; pro-life. This is most certainly biased.

Response Point 7: First of all, you did not disprove my statement that prohbiting an abortion would decrease the mental illness rate since abortion causes mental illness. And you have also not refuted the claim that prohibiting abortions would decrease the criminal abortion rate, and not increase crimes.

As for the breast cancer-abortion link:
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.......
http://www.prochoice.org......
http://www.cancer.gov......; a non-biased source.
http://www.cancer.org......; more non-bias

Attack Point 1: I reinstate my previous attack points 3 and 4 since my opponent failed to respond to them.

My final argument will blow this debate out of the water.
Debate Round No. 2
CAPLlock

Con

I hope you realize that 16k gave us the rights to his arguements. So I thought.
I can give you the post and stuff so dont play the VTL CAPS game.




Response Point 2:

Okay. So? You didn't touch off on adoption. Adoption is much better then being killed. IMO.


Response Point 3: I doubt the same people who cant afford a baby would bribe a high-class working. I also think that some of the workers might be zealous pro-lifers. But this has no meaning on the debate.


Response Point 4: Really? Being KILLED is better then adoption? If you can give me numbers that adopted kids with abortion related pasts are abused. Adoptiond seems like a better way to go.


Response Point 5: What happens if the adopted child lands in a nice place?
Again ADOPTION.



Response Point 6: Eariler I have asked Ron to give me ONE example of bias besides the title. He has not done so.
There is nothing wrong with having your mindset on the URL.


Response Point 7: I think Ron is saying if abortions are illegal then the mental illness rate will stay the same. I dont think the problem lays here.




Attack Point 3: "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.

So be it. This is America. The point is that it satys true to America. Why would the poor fly to Europe? THEY"RE POOR.

Attack Point 4: 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". (the statement "abortion is still illegal" means that Roe vs. Wade did not repeal abortion laws, and they are still in place to this very day).


Quote but no link, 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 felt like Ron was avoiding certain parts of my debate. but Ron said he held back this round. Being how this is the last I will see of this debate, ALL new agruements made by him should be forgotten.
Ron-Paul

Pro

Response Point 1 (my response to your response point 2): First of all, you asked for statistics that said that most women who have abortions are poor. I gave them. And second of all, you again misinterpreted the point. Again, as I said, children living in these sorts of poor conditions, a lot of which live in the bad part of town, will grow up to lead miserable life, and may be murdered or murder somebody (or more). They would be better off not being born.

Response Point 2: This has extraordinary purpose to this debate because the "39 women died of illegal abortions in 1972" argument would be blown apart with that kind of knowledge because there could be an indeterminate number of other deaths in 1972 due to illegal abortions. And there is ample evidence to believe this. What is the evidence? Money is power. Money can do just about anything in today's world. Even change the COD on the death certificate.

Response Point 3: The baby does not feel pain. "Fetuses cannot feel pain until at least the 28th week of gestation because they haven't formed the necessary nerve pathways, says Mark Rosen, an obstetrical anesthesiologist at the University of California at San Francisco.": http://discovermagazine.com.... Abortion is not murder. "to be "murder" an action must involve "killing." Something that was alive before the act must be dead as a result of the act. Meeting this criterion alone is insufficient reason to label something a "murder," however, because we often kill things in situations where no one would ever think of uttering the term "murder.": http://www.dbcuuc.org.... And adoption a lot of times results in the abusing of the child and is not better. "Adoption is not better than abortion because by the time a mother's (and father's) child is born the choice is not adoption vs abortion but whether to keep and nurture her already born son or daughter or to abandon him/her legally so some other person may adopt.": http://www.exiledmothers.com.... Abortion can not be considered murder because a lot of the population ACCEPTS abortion. And adoption can not be considered a viable alternative because the child a lot of times will be abused and the child could be refused by the parents and be left on the street. And plus, a lot of children in the adoption system do not get adopted.

Response Point 4: "The cost of a vaginal birth without complication ranges between 9 and 17 THOUSAND dollars. If there are complications, or if a C-section is required, the cost is 14 to 25 thousand.""By contrast, an abortion in the first trimester either by pill or in clinic costs about 300 and 900 dollars without insurance and even less with insurance or if the woman qualifies for financial assistance and even less still if obtained from a non-profit such as Planned Parenthood.": http://goldencoathanger.com.... "36,000 children were adopted from the public foster care system in fiscal year 1998. Big disparity between the 115,000-125,000 children waiting to be adopted and the 36,000 that actually were. And this number doesn't even include children that are in foster care but are NOT available for adoption, which is more like half a million according to this site. So again, if abortion is made illegal and that number jumps by 10 times, or even three or four times, who is going to take care of those children?": http://www.city-data.com....

Response Point 5: "In the back alley days of unsafe abortion in America before Roe v. Wade, the estimates of illegal abortions ranged as high as 1.2 million per year,1 although, of course, no accurate records could be kept of illegal procedures.": http://www.prochoice.org.... Here. Now we are even. Drop this point. Even though you can't spot bias in a title.

Response Point 6: First of all, I did not say that the mental illness rate would stay the same. I said that is abortion was made illegal, that the mental illness rate from pregnancies would increase. Second of all, you provided no rebuttal to my abortion-breast cancer link rebuttal I made.

Response Point 7: What kind of a rebuttal is this? Anyway, as I stated earlier, the plane ticket's price+the abortion's price would be less than having a pregnancy, than putting it up for adoption back at home. Check the prices for the three if you doubt me.

Response Point 8: There is no source. I made it. But that is irrelevant. Anyway, if companies aren't hiring, do you think that putting MORE workers on the market will increase hiring? Impossible. That will just increase the unemployment rate dramatically. The 20 million abortions that took place 18 years ago or more (so if the child was not aborted, he or she would be of working age), that would be 20 million more workers (approximately) on the market at this time, which would raise the unemployment rate by 5-8%. Or today's equvalent of a 14-18% unemployment rate. More kids does not equal more people that will be hired if companies are not hiring. That is just simple logic.

VOTERS: I suggest making the conduct and S/G points ties and I also suggest that I get the source points because I think that is obvious. And I suggest that you decide the convincing arguments points. But my new arguments should not be forgetten like CAPLlock suggested. Please do not vote based on your beliefs. Please.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Oh I VB'd the other one
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Yeah I gave con my debate args, saying he could use them. But I didn't expect 1/3= RP quote,1/4=cons words, 1/3= my args. Kinda drastic, but I let him use them. Why didn't you use my sources? I had so many... Anyway I thought I VB'd this? Yep I admit it.
Posted by CAPLlock 4 years ago
CAPLlock
Okay take your time
Posted by lannan13 4 years ago
lannan13
I would vote on this but THis is to long
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by vmpire321 4 years ago
vmpire321
CAPLlockRon-PaulTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Lol. Close debate. PRO was slightly stronger tho :/ Lol Convincing = My choice Sources+Conduct = Counter VB (Weirdman wtf?)
Vote Placed by wierdman 4 years ago
wierdman
CAPLlockRon-PaulTied
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: m
Vote Placed by Stephen_Hawkins 4 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
CAPLlockRon-PaulTied
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:33 
Reasons for voting decision: CapLlock had better arguments I feel, and Some of Ron's arguments seemed self-defeating. However, he sourced and spelt better.
Vote Placed by lannan13 4 years ago
lannan13
CAPLlockRon-PaulTied
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: Con did the better debate while the adoption contention didn't get touched untill the last round. Pro gets sources