The Instigator
Ron-Paul
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
KeytarHero
Con (against)
Winning
35 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 7 votes the winner is...
KeytarHero
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/22/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,023 times Debate No: 21386
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (29)
Votes (7)

 

Ron-Paul

Pro

The first round is for acceptance.

For All: You must be above my percentile, 95.82% to accept this debate.
KeytarHero

Con

My percentile is 98.40%, so I meet your requirement.

I accept the debate, although simply being "pro" abortion is kind of vague. What, specifically, will you be arguing?

I await your opening argument.
Debate Round No. 1
Ron-Paul

Pro

The resolution is: Abortion should be legal in all cases through the first trimester (in other words, we are not debating late-term abortion).

Contention 1: Pregnancy causes a higher rate of breast cancer than abortion. Therefore, a forced birth of the fetus puts the mother at a greater risk for breast cancer than if she was allowed to have an abortion.

It's not the abortion that causes breast cancer so much as it is the hormones that run through her body when she is pregnant. These hormones put her at a greater chance of breast cancer than otherwise. These hormones intensify thorugh the course of pregnancy, meaning that a first-trimester abortion would mean fewer hormones running through her body than during birth, meaning that a forced birth puts the mother at a great risk for breast cancer than if she was alllowed to have an abortion. The earlier, the better.

"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 �€œwell established�€� (the highest level)."[1] This pretty much proves my point. Pregnancy-->more hormones-->greater risk for breast cancer. Abortion helps REDUCE the risk of breast cancer.

Then why is there such a strong belief that abortion causes breast cancer?

Two reasons. One, pro-life people are very adement about their cause. They accept whatever information they are given, no matter the sources or quality of the study. So naturally, there will be significant flaws in their findings. But why the flaws? Because pro-lifers are using old data. They care so much about their cause that they don't even check the date of the study. Years ago, there were several studies linking abortion to an increased chance of breast cancer. But since then, there has been an enormous amount of studies debunking the claim. "Extremist, religious anti-choice web sites are using old data from an old study as proof of a cause and effect relationship even while the National Cancer Institute and one of the study's own authors clearly state that over the course of years of research, including those old studies, overall evidence indicates no connection between the two. "[2]

Contention 2: The major crime decline in the 1990s was partially caused by the Roe vs. Wade 1973 overturn of the abortion ban.

Many people have been trying to debunk this connection, but it is very easy to see the link.

"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.""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." Now for the killer: "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."[3]

Not to mention, the groups of people who commit crime more often had higher abortion rates than low-crime groups. This is even more evidence of the connection.

"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.""Non-Hispanic white women account for 36% of abortions, non-Hispanic black women for 30%, Hispanic women for 25% and women of other races for 9%." (please take into account of percentage of these races in porportion of the population)[4] What does this show? That the higher-crime groups have a higher abortion rate, and so the crime rate is measurable.

Contention 3: Prohibiting abortion will increase the amount of crimes and will be bypassed.

"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."[4] 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.

"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."[4] 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.

Contention 4: Prohibiting abortion would increase the unemployment rate and the Government debt.

Here is some 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.

Now some might say more people=greater GDP. But I have proved earlier that the poor are more likely to have abortions, and so the contribution is small. You might also say more people=more people to hire. But this is refuted with simple logic again. If there are only 1,000 jobs available, it dosen't matter if there are 100, 1000, 10000, or 100000 ready to fill the job because there are only 1,000 jobs available.

Contention 5: The non-aborted babies would lead a bad life.

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.

Sources:

[1]:http://www.cancer.org...
[2]:http://www.rhrealitycheck.org...
[3]:http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu...
[4]:http://www.guttmacher.org...
KeytarHero

Con

Again, I thank Ron-Paul for issuing this challenge. In the future, I would hope that Pro would make his resolution clear at the beginning so as to ensure that someone would take the debate knowing exactly what they're getting into.

I will first make my case for why abortion is immoral, then tackle Pro's contentions (which are by and large irrelevant to the morality of abortion).

I will put my argument in the form of a syllogism and then support my premises with evidence.

Premise 1: From fertilization, the preborn are biological members of humanity.
Premise 2: All members of humanity are intrinsically valuable based on the kind of thing they are, humans.
Premise 3: It is prima facie wrong to kill an innocent human being.
Premise 4: Abortion takes the life of an innocent human being.
Conclusion: Therefore, abortion is generally immoral.

Premise 1

Embryologists, who are the experts in the field, consistently agree that life begins at fertilization. For example, from the most-used textbook on embryology, the authors note: "Although life is a continuous process, fertilization (which, incidentally, is not a 'moment') is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte." [1]

On top of that, the more sophisticated pro-choice philosophers, like Judith Jarvis Thompson (who came up with the famous analogy of the violinist), and Peter Singer, accept the full humanity of the preborn. Peter Singer has noted, “It is possible to give ‘human being’ a precise meaning. We can use it as equivalent to ‘member of the species Homo sapiens’. Whether a being is a member of a given species is something that can be determined scientifically, by an examination of the nature of the chromosomes in the cells of living organisms. In this sense there is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence an embryo conceived from human sperm and eggs is a human being.” [2]

It's simply common sense. We know the preborn are alive because they grow. Non-living and dead things don't grow. They also exhibit the four signs of life: metabolism, growth, cell division, response to stimuli, and cell reproduction. [3] The preborn have human DNA, and they are the product of human parents. Creatures reproduce after their own kind; dogs have dogs, cats have cats, and humans have humans. At no point in human development is a member of humanity a "non-human."

This is also different from saying that a hair follicle has human DNA, so it is wrong to pluck them out. Zygotes/embryos/fetuses are unique individual humans, developing from within, made up of all the individual parts. A hair follicle must stay plugged in to the parent organism to function. However, the parent organism can still function even if he/she loses parts of their body. The zygote/embryo/fetus is a full human organism made up of individual parts of which it develops from within, not constructed like a car.

The pro-life position is that life begins at fertilization, which is supported by science. The pro-choice position places "human life" at certain arbitrary points which change from human to human. The pro-life position is the only consistent one.

Premise 2

Human value is an intrinsic value, not an instrumental one. Most people agree that humans outside the womb are valuable and should be protected. People decry the loss of innocent human life, especially when those lives lost are children. Human value is not something we get in degrees, it's something we either have or don't have. A pre-born human is just as valuable as a born human, and any reason used to rationalize abortion due to the preborn human being "different" leads to discrimination and would allow us to discriminate against someone outside the womb who fits those same characteristics.

Premise 3

When I say the preborn are innocent human beings, I am not talking "spiritually" innocent, but physically innocent. They have committed no crime, and certainly not anything worthy of being killed for it. The only thing they have done is exist, and in the vast majority of cases it was through a consensual action of two people. If two people engage in a consensual act that results in the creation of a new, needy human life, they bear a responsibility to care for that life.

Premise 4

Every abortion takes the life of a new, unique, living member of humanity, which has an intrinsic value just based on being human. Abortions take the life of an innocent, unique human being and is therefore immoral.

My contention is that because the preborn are biological members of humanity, and killing an innocent member of humanity is wrong. If Con is to win this debate, he must show why the preborn are not members of humanity. For if they are not human, then no justification for abortion is necessary. But if they are human, then not justification for abortion is sufficient.

Now on to Pro's contentions:

Contention 1: Pro makes a case that is counter-intuitive, that carrying a child to term, for a short time, leads a woman to have a higher risk of breast cancer. However, the studies that Pro has shown from NCI have been proven, in a peer-reviewed study, that the original studies had severe methodological weaknesses and flaws and therefore do not invalidate the conclusion that there is an increased risk of breast cancer. [4]

The reason a woman is at increased risk of breast cancer after an abortion is because of lobes in her breasts. There are three stages, based on the maturity of the lobules. They start as immature, stage 1, mature and become stage 2 after puberty, and finally mature completely once her first full-term pregnancy has been carried and the child delivered. These lobules then produce the milk that her child feeds on. While not every woman who has an abortion will develop breast cancer, it does increase her risk. [5]

However, whether a woman may or may not develop breast cancer is not the issue. Women are allowed to do dangerous activities (such as smoking or sky diving). What is the issue is that abortion takes a human life and unless Pro can refute this, then I have shown that abortion is immoral and the breast cancer risk irrelevant.

Contention 2: The crime increase does not matter whether or not abortion is illegal, but on how well the child was treated. If given away for adoption to a loving family, the child will most likely not fall into a life of crime. If a child grows up in a family where they are unwanted and hated, then they may become criminals when they get older. The solution is not to kill them but to put them in a home with a loving family.

Contention 3: The law should not be faulted for making it more dangerous to commit crimes. We should not legalize bank robbery even though that would make it safer for bank robbers, and people are going to rob banks anyway.

Contention 4: Here I think Pro uses faulty logic. For example, with more people, more jobs are needed. If there's a large population, there would be more jobs because more people would need to be serviced. Businesses would be making more money and, in return, could hire more employees. But again, why not just kill all the homeless people in the world, or kill babies in poor families because the other kids could eat better? Why is that wrong but killing an unborn child for the same reason is okay?

Contention 5: What does Pro mean by a bad life? Many people in poor families grow up to lead productive lives. So again, why not just kill two-year-old children? Why is that wrong but killing preborn children is okay?

[1] Ronan O'Rahilly and Fabiola Müller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.
[2] Peter Singer, Practical Ethics, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 85-86.
[3] http://www.merriam-webster.com.........;
[4] Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Vol. 10, No. 4, Winter 2005
[5] http://www.womenshealthzone.net...;
Debate Round No. 2
Ron-Paul

Pro

Is this debate about whether a fetus is a human being or whether it is justified to kill a human being? I wanted the latter one.

I would not counter your premsies.

Besides, I haven't had time to formulate arguments.

I will just give you the win.

Until next time.
KeytarHero

Con

I was arguing that it's not justified to kill human beings, which were my second and third premises. You would have to counter those to show how it would be justified.

But at any rate, unfortunately Pro has conceded so please vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
Ron-Paul

Pro

My five contentions were my arguments for the justification of abortion. Your premises I would not refute.
KeytarHero

Con

I did argue against your contentions. But if you would not refute my premises, then you would agree that since the unborn are biologically human, and it's prima facie wrong to kill an innocent human. So why would you support abortion, that being the case? If it's wrong to kill an innocent human, then the contentions you brought up would be irrelevant to the topic.

At any rate, Pro has conceded so please vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
29 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by KeytarHero 4 years ago
KeytarHero
It displays signs of life, so we know it's alive. We know that it's human because it comes from human parents and it has separate human DNA from the mother. As a result, we know it's human life (as I showed in my opening argument).
Posted by ejh238 4 years ago
ejh238
Does it display signs of 'human life' or just 'life'? Because plants display signs of 'life'. And I constantly kill them. Same with bugs.
Posted by KeytarHero 4 years ago
KeytarHero
Ron-Paul, embryologists would disagree with you. From fertilization, the preborn human exhibits all the signs of life. Calling it not alive or non-human is pretty much indefensible.
Posted by Ron-Paul 4 years ago
Ron-Paul
The fetus is not alive at that point. And most parents keep their children, not send them out for adoption.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
The majority of aborted children would still live life well as the kids where 16 in average households and the parents of the 16 year could raise it or it could be adopted. Also murder is illegal so... the baby feels pain so... its morally wrong so... etc.
Posted by Ron-Paul 4 years ago
Ron-Paul
Well we are protecting the majority through abortion. And abortion is immoral, but that is not the question. There are lots of things I find immoral that I think should be legalized.
Posted by KeytarHero 4 years ago
KeytarHero
Ron-Paul, while it's possible some may lead bad lives, the point is you don't know which ones would. Also, just because someone may live a "bad life" does not give us the moral right to end that person's life for them.
Posted by Ron-Paul 4 years ago
Ron-Paul
Well then yes.
Posted by ejh238 4 years ago
ejh238
Apologies, that should have said, 'what if a 5 out of a group of 10. Not to be misinterpreted as 50% of the entire population.
Posted by Ron-Paul 4 years ago
Ron-Paul
No because that act would end the world.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
1dustpelt
Ron-PaulKeytarHeroTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession
Vote Placed by HeartOfGod 4 years ago
HeartOfGod
Ron-PaulKeytarHeroTied
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: Considering that Paul conceded, this is a pretty clear win for Con (con had better spelling as well).
Vote Placed by SuburbiaSurvivor 4 years ago
SuburbiaSurvivor
Ron-PaulKeytarHeroTied
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: Sources because Pro cited a source that later on posts an article that contradicts the source Pro cited. Arguments etc for Pro's forfeit.
Vote Placed by Guitar_Guru 4 years ago
Guitar_Guru
Ron-PaulKeytarHeroTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments goes to KeytarHero since Ron-Paul Conceded, however, I give conduct to Pro since he was at least man enough to say I concede rather than allow the system to forfeit for him each time.
Vote Placed by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
Ron-PaulKeytarHeroTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit.
Vote Placed by LlamaMan 4 years ago
LlamaMan
Ron-PaulKeytarHeroTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: same as stated below
Vote Placed by Xerge 4 years ago
Xerge
Ron-PaulKeytarHeroTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession...