The Instigator
SANTORUM2012
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
girg
Pro (for)
Winning
18 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 5 votes the winner is...
girg
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/1/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 952 times Debate No: 21638
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (5)

 

SANTORUM2012

Con

A fetus is still a human being therefore should have rights
girg

Pro

I accept this debate representing for the PRO side for this.
I stand on the position that:
1. Women should have choice on whether to abort or not

and


2. Abortions should be available to women as needed
Debate Round No. 1
SANTORUM2012

Con

Why should one persons right overide another the fetus is ahuman too. In should have rights. A fetus does feel pain. Where Im from if a woman who is pregnant is murdered the murderer gets charged twice. If a woman beats herself in the stomach during pregnancy and kills the child it is a crime but when a doctor pulls the childs limbs apart it ok?
girg

Pro

Depending on the stage, a "fetus" can be removed as just a few cells. I don't think that a cluster of cells feel pain. Yes, it might hurt the fetus if it is a later stage, but would in some cases save it from months or years or torture.
One example: A woman is given an ultrasound and finds that her baby has a horrible disease that will cause it to go through months or years of pain depending on how long it lives. Think of children that have such severe mental or physical disabilities that they would never aspire to anything in live. It is the merciful thing to abort them,
Example 2: A woman is raped, and finds out she is pregnant. What if she is also young? 17? 16? younger? Should she really have to be harassed for 9 months and then have to give birth and raise a child that has an unknown father or the father is in jail,not supporting it? That's not fair to the mother, child, or family.

There is also the Donahue-Levitt hypothesis, a theory that shows that legalised abortion is linked to lower crime rates. explained here:http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
SANTORUM2012

Con

Example 1: If the baby has a diseise it is God who needs to decide when to take it or when to let it off. If someone is sick who is already on the earth you dont just kill them do you?

Example 2: If a women is raped it is the mans fault. Not the fault of the child produced therefore should not be punished for another mans crime.

Whether a fetus can feel pain or not, its still murder. Somebody in a vegeated state cant talk or dosnt have any brain activity and couldn't feel pain. Should the be killed just cause the doctor dont feel like taking care of them?
girg

Pro

First of all, do not bring God into this. God has nothing to do with this. Who's to say if Buddha has the right to take a baby away? Or Muhammad? You could even argue Ra, the ancient Egyptian sun god. So no higher being decides weather to take a life or spare it.
No you would not kill a person if they are sick. I mean a permanent serious birth defect. Like if someone was born with a serious physical or mental disease and could only live for a year. That baby would have to suffer for a year, as opposed to the few moments it would take to abort it.

Example 2: It doesn't matter who's fault it is. You fail to rebuttal the idea of harassment and pain a young woman would have to go through during and after those 9 months of pregnancy. The father would not be there to support it at all. The mother might not even know who the father is.

Abortion is not meant for lazy doctors who don't want to take care of the baby, as you stated in you last argument. Secondly I do not believe "vegeated" is a word, so I am not going to refute that sentence as a I fail to see what you are trying to convey.

CON has failed to produce solid arguments, and only had one in the beginning. CON also did not rebuttal all of my points and postings. Therefore I may declare that I have won this debate, however the vote goes to the users.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
It's nice when Pro posts first.

And it's nice when the resolution is a clearly stated assertion, like,
"Resolved: Abortion is wrong," or,
"Resolved: Once the PoC reaches the fetal stage, abortion is wrong."

If we had a nice resolution like that in this case, then the initiator would be Pro, and the responder would be Con, and readers and voters would get confused less.
Posted by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
correction:

"Pro should win the debate" _unless_ "Con wins a counter-balancing victory on one of the other arguments."
Posted by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
Conclusion:

Pro says sometimes abortion is a mercy to a would-be-in-constant-pain child, so abortion can be good. Con's response is to proclaim that she has religion. That's a non-cogent response to a strong point by Pro. Pro should win the debate Con wins a counter-balancing victory on one of the other arguments.
Advantage: Pro.

Pro says legal abortion lowers the crime rate. Con doesn't respond to this. We can keep this from being decisive by juxtaposing Con's claim that fetuses have rights because they're human beings. Had that been intended as a response to this argument, it would have had some weight.
Advantage: Not much.

Con says that fetuses have rights. Pro says pregnant women have rights. Con wants us to think abortion is like killing a real person. Con doesn't directly respond to that, but makes clear that real people are sometimes badly hurt by the forbidding of abortion.
Advantage: Not much.

Pro made an argument about rape, about non-consensual pregnancy, but he didn't go anywhere with it, and Con pretty well talked him into treating rape-pregnancies as any other pregnancy.
Advantage: None.

RFD:
Pro's argument that abortion can be for the benefit of the would-be child wins it. Con has nothing to overmatch that.
Posted by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
Con argues that
- Fetus is a human being with rights.
but Pro says the pregnant woman (also a human being) has rights too, including the right not to continue a pregnancy; not to have to raise an unwanted child, a rapist's child, a predictably ill child in constant pain, a child not supported by it's sire.

Pro's argument seems to me stronger, though I could wish Pro had pointed out that the pregnant woman is a real person, a real existing human being, rather than just a hypothetical potential person, rather than just a technically-at-best human being.

Con says:
- why should woman's rights should over-ride fetus's rights?
Pro's response is as above, but, again, I wish Pro had specified what he was responding to, and why the actual existing woman's rights override he hypothetical rights of a hypothetical future person.

Con says:
- there is a location where fetucide is treated as murder.
Again no specific response from Pro. Pro could at least have pointed out that this has no apparent relevance to the issue debated. But Con didn't bother to try to point out the relevance either.

Con says:
- fetus's can feel pain.
Okay, Pro did for this one: Some PoCs can't feel pain. Some abortions are a mercy even if painful.

Con says:
- Leave it up to god.
Pro takes care of this one too: Why? Which god? Leave god out of this.

Con says:
- Don't punish a child for his rapist sire's misbehavior.
Again, we can set against this Pro's argument that pregnant women have rights, including the right not to continue a pregnancy; not to have to raise an unwanted child, a rapist's child, a predictably ill child in constant pain, a child not supported by it's sire.

Pro says:
- Legal abortion lowers the crime rate.
Con doesn't address this.

Pro says:
- Sometimes abortion is a mercy. Sometimes you can tell in advance that if we let the pregnancy continue until it produces a child, that child would suffer unconscionably. Better not to have the c
Posted by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
Just trying to map out the debate here.

Legend:
- Point made by the debater.
[Question raised by the above point.]
<My comment to myself>

===continued===

Con says:
...
- Don't punish a child for his rapist sire's misbehavior.
...
[Why punish a rapist's victim for the rapist's misbehavior.]
- Fetucide is murder.
[No, it's not.]
- Should lazy doctors murder brain-dead patients?
[What would be the harm, specifically?]
[What if the brain-dead patient were implanted in the doctor's womb?]
[Brain-dead patients are human beings; PoC's aren't]

Pro says:
- Whose god? Leave gods out of this. <Bingo!>
- In circumstances, abortion can be a mercy to the would-be child. Less pain to be aborted than not.

- Woman (raped or not) shouldn't have to go thru pregnancy and raise a child by someone else's choice.

<I probably should have done this in Word, on my own computer, and just posted the results rather than the analysis. In any case, having made these notes, I'm going to make a third post in the hopes of finding an RFD.>
Posted by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
Con says:
- a fetus is a human being. Human beings have rights.
[No, it's not.]
[What is the resolution? Is this about all abortions, or only after the fetus has developed?]
[Not all human beings have rights in all situations.]
[Nothing without a mind and desires can have rights. For instance, if a fetus had rights, would it have a right to die? How would the right to live trump the right to die? Imputing rights things without minds is perverse fantasy.]

Pro says:
- women have rights too, the right to abort.
[How would woman's rights trump fetuses rights?]

Con says:
- why should woman's rights should over-ride fetus's rights. [Bingo!]
- there is a location where fetucide is treated as murder. [How is this relevant. There is also a location where abortion is required.]
- fetus's can feel pain. [So, when an abortion is late enough that the PoC feels pain, your objection is to the failure to use anesthetic?]

Pro says:
- PoCs (including early fetuses?) don't always feel pain.
<Pro is taking the resolution to be about all abortions, not just fetal abortions. This amounts to the claim that pre-pain abortions are okay.>
- Pain of abortion, in some cases, is outweighed by pain of not being aborted. Abortion can be a mercy to the would-be child.
- Raped women, if young, shouldn't be forced into parenthood.
[What does rape have to do with it?]
[What does youth have to do with it?]
- A raped young woman might not get child support from the bad sire.
[What does that have to do with it?]
- Crime rate is lower if abortion is legal. Legal abortion, then, improves the common weal.
[Would killing every tenth poor person achieve the same thing?]

Con says:
- Leave it up to god.
[Why?]
[Who's god?]
[If you saw a woman drowning, and could pull her to safety, would you leave that up to god?]
- Don't punish a child for his rapist sire's misbehavior.
[Fetus isn't a child.]
[Abortion isn't punishment.]
[Why punish a rapist's victim for his
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 4 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Rational_Thinker9119 4 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
SANTORUM2012girgTied
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: Pro was the clear winner, Con blindly asserted God exists without any evidence. The neutral starting point is that of a natural one, if someone wants to invoke the supernatural they need evidence. Pro also showed that abortion is the only humane option if it will prevent more suffering in the future in a person who wouldn't amount to anything anyway due to physical conditions that are impossible to reverse.
Vote Placed by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
SANTORUM2012girgTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by phantom 4 years ago
phantom
SANTORUM2012girgTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: There should have been some type of clarification on which stage of abortion was being debated. Pro attempts to refute con by saying it's just a bunch of cells, but this does not apply to abortion as a whole because it was never specified exactly what was being debated. Con assumes Gods existence, when that was never decided on. Overall I don't feel either side fulfilled their burden.
Vote Placed by DakotaKrafick 4 years ago
DakotaKrafick
SANTORUM2012girgTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro refuted every argument, including the otherwise powerfully convincing "it's God's decision". (Really, I don't know how Pro ever managed to refute that one.) Anyway, Pro had some spelling and grammar mistakes, but Con had more. Con had no sources and Pro used only wiki, so I will tie that one.
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
SANTORUM2012girgTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: cons arguments revolved around a bunch of rhetorical questions and God references that were as unconvincing as they were dull sicne those arguments have been used by very religious people since abortion was first an issue. Pro had superior arguments throughout the debate that often went uncontested by the Con and the pro did cite a source showing how abortion and crime is a little connected.