The Instigator
Ron-Paul
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
joshuaXlawyer
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Abortion

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Ron-Paul
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/8/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,058 times Debate No: 20955
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (14)
Votes (1)

 

Ron-Paul

Pro

The first round is for acceptance.
joshuaXlawyer

Con

Challenge Accepted
Debate Round No. 1
Ron-Paul

Pro

Point 1: "When safe medical procedures are banned by law, they have resorted to dangerous--sometimes deadly--"back-alley" abortions."http://socialistworker.org....... This means that when safe medical practices are banned by law, then women are still going to seek abortions, but this time, they will be illegal, and therefore less safe.

Point 2: 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.

Point 3: "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?

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 4: "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 5: "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 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 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....... 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.

"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 7: "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 8: 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.......

This shows that with breast cancer involved, it is more dangerous to have a pregnancy than to have an abortion. So if the woman was forced to have an abortion, she would be put at a greater risk of breast cancer and mental illness (I will show that study if you want).

Point 9: 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 because it was illegal and immoral and would tarnish the family name.

Point 10: "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 11: "Despite the potential that a fetus has for becoming a human being, and its similarities to a human being, we cannot say that a fetus is a human being. A fetus resides in a legal and social no-man's land, where rights and personhood can have no force or meaning, unless women are kept thoroughly oppressed. Plus, there are many significant differences between a born human being and a fetus, which creates reasonable doubt as to its status. Because there can be no consensus on the matter, the value accorded to a fetus is a subjective, personal matter. Individuals, not society as a whole, must choose what the status of a fetus should be, based on their personal beliefs, morality, and circumstances. And ultimately, this choice belongs only to pregnant women.": http://www.abortionaccess.info....... This quote sums it up. The matter of when a fetus is a human is subjective, and will likely never be proven scientifically. But legally, and fetus should not be considered a human with rights. And it is not for us to decide whether a pregnant woman can have an abortion or not. That should be her own decision. We should have no say in an individual's choices, and should stay out of their business.
joshuaXlawyer

Con

joshuaXlawyer forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Ron-Paul

Pro

The arguments I used in Round 2 are extended into this round.
joshuaXlawyer

Con

joshuaXlawyer forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Ron-Paul

Pro

Vote pro.
joshuaXlawyer

Con

joshuaXlawyer forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
joshuaXlawyer

Con

joshuaXlawyer forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Ron-Paul 4 years ago
Ron-Paul
For joshuaXlawyer: Just counter my arguments and post your arguments if you have any room.
Posted by joshuaXlawyer 4 years ago
joshuaXlawyer
The resolutions doesn't say the legality of Abortion and you didn't define anything so I guess im going to set up definitons and such. Ps. Morality of abortion is what i will argue.
Posted by Ron-Paul 4 years ago
Ron-Paul
For KeytarHero: I've provided 11 seperate attack points. My opponent has to defend them all. They are pretty well-written, informative, and not to short.
Posted by KeytarHero 4 years ago
KeytarHero
Ron-Paul, you made 11 points during your opening argument. How on earth do you expect to debate 11 points and stay within the maximum number of characters? It's usually better just to argue two or three, four probably at the most. Neither one of you are going to be able to debate all 11 points very well.
Posted by Ron-Paul 4 years ago
Ron-Paul
What?
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
?

Nac
Posted by Ron-Paul 4 years ago
Ron-Paul
These debates are "get-ready" debates.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
My ratio is 4-1 win ahead on abortion debates
Posted by Ron-Paul 4 years ago
Ron-Paul
Yah. I know. I can't wait to re-challenge you soon. That'll be in several weeks, I am preparing.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Good ratio.

I know I vote bombed, I did it to see how pissed people got, I planned to fix it but forgot.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by KeytarHero 4 years ago
KeytarHero
Ron-PauljoshuaXlawyerTied
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: All points to Pro since Con forfeited and didn't argue a single round.