The Instigator
Aysia
Pro (for)
Tied
3 Points
The Contender
EvanK
Con (against)
Tied
3 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 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/16/2012 Category: Health
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 848 times Debate No: 22895
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

Aysia

Pro

First round is acceptance. Good luck.
EvanK

Con

I accept this challenge. I will argue against (con) abortion.
Debate Round No. 1
Aysia

Pro

I am for abortion mainly because of our economic state as well as government funding. In our present day economy unemployment rates are at 8.2% in the United States. Also being as the job market isn't great jobs aren't plentiful. Many people are still on pins and needles about their jobs because people are still being let go every day for different reasons. For instance companies are moving, shutting down, being taken over by new owners, and/or just downsizing. So many people feel unsettled in their jobs because of the job market. So if they don't feel secure I believe abortion is a proper option to choose.

Aside from the job market not being all that great right now you have the issue of unemployment. The government already pays so much in helping those that are unemployed sustain life and income because of the economy. Then on top of that they use "income" from FICA to support those that are receiving Social Security as well as those that receive Social Security Disability. Then, the government puts out a lot of money to fund programs such as welfare. So if you can't afford to have a child and give it what it needs then I'm all for abortion. You as the parents should have that choice because the government can only do so much, especially with our rising deficit. So at the end of the day, its done around the world amongst people as well as animals because they don't want to see their children starve.
EvanK

Con

Economically, it doesn't make as much sense to have an abortion, especially if we want to continue entitlement programs, such as social security. We have millions of Baby boomers who have retired, or will be retiring within the near future. If we want to lessen the burden on ourselves, and on our children, it makes sense to have more children to pay into the programs. The more people that are paying into the program, the less an individual actually has to pay. Furthermore, we have an unbelievable amount of debt. Someone is going to have to pay this off, to avoid complete economic meltdown. People used to have several kids, on the single income of the father. It is difficult (I know, because I lived it). However, it surely is not impossible. You will have to pay the costs of raising a child, however, you can get tax breaks, and, depending on the state, you may be eligible for programs such as school vouchers, to lessen the costs of school. In the end, you will have to make sacrifices. You may not have two new cars, or expensive vacations, but economically speaking, having kids obviously make sense

All you have to do is look at any European country to see the effects of abortion, and low fertility rates as the result of abortion. The people are getting older, and less people are paying into public retirement programs or other entitlement programs. Soon, these countries will be in serious trouble (as if they weren't already). No one will be able to take care of the elderly, and they won't have any money (save for whatever savings they may have), and there will be a complete economic collapse as a result of the debt of the euro. If people continue to abort their children here in America, we will continue to go down this same path.

But the question arises: What about the women on welfare. That's where it gets messy. If you look back to a time when the economy was good, and there weren't so many single women or families on welfare, you have to look at how people lived. Women didn't get pregnant in high school, when they weren't married, and weren't in any state to get pregnant. They wait until they were married, and had a husband with a good job, and then they had children. Now, women selfishly get pregnant, when they can't afford it, and aren't married, when they easily could have either abstained, or used a form of birth control.

So, you may say that is all fine and dandy, but what is the solution? Should abortion be allowed for poor women, and does it make sense, economically? The solution isn't easy by any means. The problem is, we need jobs, but we also need people. People to pay off the debt that has been racked up, and to help pay for these expensive entitlement programs. While women can't afford to have kids, we can't afford to follow in Europe's footsteps. What has to be done is, end abortion, because we can't afford to kill off the next generation of Americans, who are needed to help avoid complete economic collapse. It's horrible to look at human life that way, that they are only useful economically. But from an economic standpoint, it's true. If you're a poor woman, don't get pregnant. Use a form a contraception. If you do happen to get pregnant, many Catholic hospitals will help you have the child, and take the child into an adoption facility, with little to no cost from you. It makes more sense this way, rather then to allow abortions, not only to poor women, but to any woman, and have a serious population problem in the future. Not over population, under population. It can and will happen. Don't think it won't.
Debate Round No. 2
Aysia

Pro

At this rate there will be no social security for the younger generations to collect. If we were to have more children brought into the world especially if this economy persists there wouldn't be that many people working to keep the government sustained to supply people with their social security. What we don't have that we promise to people we must then borrow for which increases our deficit. There can be many people in the world working but what jobs do they have? Even those with degrees are now forced to flip burgers for income. It's not necessarily the more people you have the more jobs available to pay into Social Security. The less income you have usually the less taxes taken out but most people who have taxes taken out wind up getting most of their money back through filing income taxes therefore that's less spending that they do during the year to boost the economy. Also, since income taxes are the federal government's main source of income if they wind up paying back most of it they aren't exactly receiving the income they need to run the country. Therefore, taxes are then raised and in this economy that's one of the last things you want to do because many people already have taken pay cuts and inflation is very much a factor.

Well we for sure aren't Europe and actually we're much bigger. With that our country has been known to have immigrants for decades. In doing so they add to our population. This also accumulates to the wastes that we produce which for the most part we have no place to put and the amount of cars on the road which creates even more pollution which is one of the causes of global warming. As for looking at how people live though you should step outside of your community and see what it's like in various ghettos verses the suburbs. Everyone isn't privileged. The areas where the majority of people are on welfare is where the areas tend to be more populated. Look at the statistics in those areas they are through the roof. When it comes to that thing called sex it takes two people. So broaden your perspective on women getting pregnant and their circumstances. This has been occurring since before slavery. Also account for all of the females that were, are, and will be raped in the future. Is it right for them to have to keep a child, regardless of their situation, that's a part of an act they didn't consult to? By the way no birth control is a 100% effective and those who practice abstinence but, usually, don't prepare for a sexual encounter are the ones who usually wind up pregnant because they aren't prepared.

So just saying that it's all the women's fault for getting pregnant is very biased and not a valid reason for your claim. Not only are poor women the ones that come across being pregnant or have pregnancy scares. That sort of thing doesn't discriminate. Remember men are as much responsible in a court of law as a female for bringing a child into this world. If you can't do right by that child, were raped, molested, and etc. you have a right to decide your fate as well as the fate of your unborn child. It's not fair for a child to be selfishly brought in this world to starve, go without a warm bed to sleep in, or left to fend for itself. So people should have the option of abortion. What's worse deciding early that a child can't be given what it needs and is therefore spared by abortion or having a rise in the murder rates of parents killing or harming their children because their inability to provide, especially for those mentally unstable, and winding up in prison? If they go to prison that's one less person working and paying the government and now one more person we the people and government have to pay as they carry out their life in prison.
EvanK

Con

The majority of women who become pregnant, do so willingly. Yes, there are those who are raped, or are victims of incest, but they are a minority. If you don't want to have a baby, don't become pregnant. Period. And if you do happen to become pregnant by the ways of incest or rape, then that's a different story. But if you willingly become pregnant, then you should have to take responsibility of the baby you created.

As for the economy, aborting babies will not solve anything. Even during the great depression, people still had several children, and survived on a single income, which was far less than what people make today (even when you take inflation into consideration). And if they couldn't afford a child, they didn't get pregnant. So to say that having people get pregnant and get an abortion will help the economy isn't true. It only benefits the abortion clinics.

And it isn't like there haven't been poor children before. There are lots of people who grew up poor, and turned out to be great people. To say that aborting them would be for their better good is very hypocritical. Two presidents come to mind, Bill Clinton and Abraham Lincoln. Both grew up poor, and both became the President. Everyone has to endure hardships at some point in their lifes, maybe early on, maybe when they're older. If that's the case, why even have kids? There are plenty of bad things that could happen. They could get cancer, they could grow up and become jobless and homeless, etc. So, once again, to say that aborting them would be for their better good is very hypocritical, because you never know who they could become.

In the end, your general person should not be allowed to have an abortion. There are extreme circumstances where one may be permitable, but it should otherwise be illegal.
Debate Round No. 3
Aysia

Pro

Being as that's your opening statement are you saying that eggs fertilize eggs because sex ed shows that you need an egg and a sperm. That means both men and females are responsible. Most people that get pregnant get pregnant by "accident." In these terms this means that the pregnancy was not planned. Regardless of whether those that are raped or victims of incest being minorities, in your opinion, they are still very relevant to the topic. It's easy for you to say if you don't want a baby don't get pregnant but there's also human nature that has played a huge part since the beginning of time. We are here to examine all aspects. That's the point of the debate. You don't pick and choose what you think is more relevant if both points are relevant. Taking responsibility for your actions could be, especially if you can't afford to keep a baby, to have the pregnancy aborted.

When it comes to the economy those who had children during the Great Depression are a huge part of the reason why when we retire social security probably won't exist. That's why Financial Planning/Financial Well Being classes are offered in high schools as well as colleges now because we need to learn to save our own money for retirement as well as to invest in the right investments to live comfortably in our old age. We can't rely on adding more people to a depleting fund to support us for the rest of our lives. You should definitely gain exposure to the proper statistics because back in the time that you were talking about people still had children even if they couldn't afford them but they also lived off the land. Most people don't have that option now.

It's your choice to make a change in your life as well as the fact that you have the option to endure certain hardships. As with every thing that happens in our life you have a decision to choose what is best for you. you may not want to be on welfare all of your life because it's hard to get off once you get on plus there are many stipulations. There's nothing wrong with wanting kids at a different time along with the ability to give them something that you didn't have. Most ideal parents only want to be able to give their child the best. If they know they can't and there's a possibility that the child could die from starvation, not have a place to sleep, and etc they have a right to say no to the pregnancy, get an abortion, and therefore decide what is in the best interest of their child(ren).
EvanK

Con

I did not say that eggs fertilize themselves, what I said was that most women have consensual sex, and therefore, should take responsibility for their actions. For those that did not take part of consensual sex, is a whole different story. I have been examining all aspects of the subject, and my opinion is, is that you should not be allowed an abortion if you willingly had sex to create the baby. Abortions should only be allowed in extreme circumstances, where the mother was raped, the victim of incest, or has a life threatening problem, otherwise, for a perfectly healthy women, who willingly had sex, abortion should not be an option. If you murder a pregnant woman, you are charged with two murders, so why is abortion allowed?

And just for the record, Social Security shouldn't even exist. When I brought it up, I was implying (I admit not very clearly) that we need to salvage it for a period of time, for the elderly who are on it, and will have to either go on welfare, or try to get a job, which will be next to impossible. So, over the next few decades, there will be massive amounts of people on welfare (assuming that Social Security does in fact end, and the elderly are forced to go on to it), and we need people to support it. Yes, we need jobs, but we need workers to. Abortion is, yes just one small factor, but it is still a factor, no matter how small, so we can't have perfectly able women murdering potential citizens who are needed to support our ever weakening economy (I again apologize for looking at human life that way, but it is true).

I understand that parents only want the best for their children, but killing them is hardly the best. So much good can happen to this person, and because of this person. He or She may grow up to save lifes, to lead people, to make the world a better place, or perhaps just live their lifes and help people in small ways we may not see. Either way, abortion, except in extreme circumstances, is morally wrong, and economically, in the long run, also wrong.
Debate Round No. 4
Aysia

Pro

My point is that men have some sort of say in the matter if they're the father. It's not all just about the female. It is usually an act that is done with someone else and therefore the outcomes involves more than one opinion. People should have the choice of whether or not they bring a child into this world just as we have a choice with almost everything else. It doesn't matter the situation, which could range from rape to abortions occurring due to health reasons. Abortion is allowed because until that baby is born and takes it's first breath it isn't considered human.

Also, social security thanks to the baby boomers, scam artists, and not very well planned retirements most likely won't exist, at least not by the time that our generation needs to use it. Therefore, the less people on it the better. So many government programs of this sort have been shut down because they have too high of a demand and not enough funds which is due to many people having children that aren't financially stable. So the right to abortions can decrease the amount of people on these programs therefore increasing the people in the job market who contribute to funding our country and decreasing the amount of people who are just sitting at home collecting checks.

You mention that you agree that parents only want the best for their kids yet you say you don't think killing them is the best way. So if a parent has nothing to offer a child and by nothing I mean no bed, food, clothes, living quarters, and etc then that would be the best for them? To bring a child into the world under those conditions is selfish. So therefore in many cases abortion would be a better option. The government can only support so many people living off it. So it's in the best interest of our government and its programs.
EvanK

Con

If a baby is conceived via consensual sex, then the woman has helped make that decision. Yes, the man has too, however, men don't have a say when it comes to deciding whether their child is killed or not.

And I didn't intend to imply that Social Security be salvaged entirely, just enough for those who are already on it, and have little to no savings, and little to no chance at getting a job. Otherwise, it has to go, and pretty soon it will go. And when that happens, be prepared for millions of elderly to get on welfare. someone eventually will have to pay. That, or there will be millions of elderly living in the streets.

Yes, I do believe that parents only want the best for their kids, however what may be seen as a "mercy killing" is completely the opposite. How is taking away someone's only chance at life "for their better good"? You have no idea what could happen in these kids' futures. And if you are worried about their living conditions, then you can easily give them up for adoption. It may not be the greatest thing for a child, but it is a much better option than taking away their only chance at life.

In the end, I don't believe there is any good reason, aside from rape or the mother's health condition, for an abortion to be performed. It is both a physically and mentally dangerous decision to make, and just an overall selfish act. Because most mothers seek an abortion for themselves, rather than for the baby, which is incredibly hypocritical if you ask me.

I would also like to say that this is my first debate on this site, so it may not be the best, but I did enjoy it.

Peace.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by K.GKevinGeary 4 years ago
K.GKevinGeary
AysiaEvanKTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: The argument to have more children to work jobs idea falls apart. Yes the baby boomer are on their way out. Even with abortions the population according to the U.S. Sensus Bureau will increase from 307 million currently to 439 million by 2050. Earth in general is overpopulated and its resources are being drained. The U.S. is a nation of immigrants anyway. It does take to people to have a child. What pro was getting at was that half of the people who have had an abortion are under the age of 25
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
AysiaEvanKTied
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: CON significantly looked into fertility rates, the economy, but I truly think CONS round 2 made him win the debate, PRO never refuted those arguments, and dropped may of them. Hence CON wins, guys I recommend formatting and sources.