The Instigator
scissorhands7
Con (against)
Winning
159 Points
The Contender
Puck
Pro (for)
Losing
107 Points

Abortion

Do you like this debate?NoYes+20
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 47 votes the winner is...
scissorhands7
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/3/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,747 times Debate No: 5257
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (31)
Votes (47)

 

scissorhands7

Con

[Definitions]
For clarity I pose the following definitions.

Trimester: 3 months
Conception: meeting of the sperm and egg

[Contention]
I hereby propose illegalizing abortion after the 21st day of conception except to save a woman's life, or in the case of rape or incest.

[Reasons]

1. On the 21st day after conception the fetal heart starts to beat and most major organs are functioning. The common law definition of death is the stoppage of a heartbeat and most functioning organs. Most of the laws of the United States are based off common law. Since death is considered to be the opposite of life, life should be defined as the start of the human heart.

2. With the advanced medical contraceptives of today such as Condoms, Birth Control, and the Day after pill, Women have a choice whether to have a child or not. And that choice has to be made 3 days within sexual activity. With the day after pill available at local walmarts for considerably less than an abortion would cost, there is little to no reason as to not be protected.

3. In America we have always been a people who have decided things by votes and opinions when surveyed in a CBS News Poll. Oct. 12-16, 2007 registered voters agreed by an overwhelming majority (70%) that greater restictions need to be placed on abortion to (20%) who dont and (5%) who are undecided.
Of that 70%, 56% of voters completely agree with my opinion.

4. On top of that disturbing new evidence is surfacing that the fetus can feel pain during abortions after 20 weeks of conception. An act is being passed through congress requiring mothers who abort to know that their infant will go through pain. This is called the Federal Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act. (http://www.time.com...)

I challenge anyone who will take me on in this debate and will also bring up more points if the above points become exhausted, only if granted permission to by my opponent
Puck

Pro

"On the 21st day after conception the fetal heart starts to beat and most major organs are functioning. The common law definition of death is the stoppage of a heartbeat and most functioning organs. Most of the laws of the United States are based off common law. Since death is considered to be the opposite of life, life should be defined as the start of the human heart."

So before that time the foetus is dead? If you base rights on the basis on a heartbeat then you must accept such equal rights for all entities with a heart. Parasitic worms have hearts - by your premise removal of these would be forbidden. All entities without a heart are then additionally classified as dead - individual cells, bacteria? You create a contradiction - the heart cannot be living because it has no beating heart of its own.

"With the advanced medical contraceptives of today such as Condoms, Birth Control, and the Day after pill, Women have a choice whether to have a child or not. And that choice has to be made 3 days within sexual activity. With the day after pill available at local walmarts for considerably less than an abortion would cost, there is little to no reason as to not be protected."

Such methods are fallible and to give people the choice of one or the other violates rights of privacy. If someone wishes to have sex daily and consistently, the costs will very much exceed abortion. What of those instances where morning after pills were not available at the time of sexual intercourse? It is an arbitrary system and deleterious to personal freedom.

"In America we have always been a people who have decided things by votes and opinions when surveyed in a CBS News Poll. Oct. 12-16, 2007 registered voters agreed by an overwhelming majority (70%) that greater restictions need to be placed on abortion to (20%) who dont and (5%) who are undecided."

I would be concerned if you hold public opinion as the benchmark for truth and what is right. Such things are arbitrary and subject to whim. Slavery was once endorsed - did it make that ok? If you surveyed scientologists I am sure they would endorse their organisations belief - that does not make them right or their beliefs true, nor construct a valid basis for forming policy. If you are still not convinced:

"One adult American in five thinks the Sun revolves around the Earth"
http://www.nytimes.com...

"4. On top of that disturbing new evidence is surfacing that the fetus can feel pain during abortions after 20 weeks of conception. An act is being passed through congress requiring mothers who abort to know that their infant will go through pain. This is called the Federal Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act. (http://www.time.com......)"

Many creatures feel pain, we dispose of them nonetheless. Then often we consume them. :D

A woman is self-governing - with the rational capacities that make it relevant to regard her as having rights and rights are solely derived from the unique nature of humanity - the ability to be rational. Rights are only applicable to those with this characteristic. Rights are based on the reality that the employ of force against others is an unreliable means of gaining values. The rational conclusion to this is to prohibit force from normal, value-seeking exchanges with others. Individual rights, then, define the areas or aspects of action which should be free from force. Forcing a birth is in direct violation of this right. It violates the mothers rights to her own self - punishes her for a non crime of sex. She and she alone is the rational body. The child is wholly dependent upon the mother and the mother is the only one capable of making a rational choice in regards to it.

"I challenge anyone who will take me on in this debate and will also bring up more points if the above points become exhausted, only if granted permission to by my opponent"

Go silly with them. I'm sure I will in turn.
Debate Round No. 1
scissorhands7

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting my debate, and responding with an intelligent rebuttal, below I would like to respond with my arguments.

1.In response to the first section my opponent made two very intelligent conjectures.

He stated that
1. My definition of life is incorrect
2. By the way I stated my conjecture, I have to award the rights to life to all creatures with a heart.

1. The definition of life is one of the most complex and confusing ones, and an entire debate could be given to this topic, so I will try to keep this section clear and concise so as to not overshadow the current debate. Scientists cannot accurately agree on a definition for life. However it is universally agreed that when an organism does have a beating heart, it is alive.

In reference to the contradiction of the heart:
The definition of a live organism and a live tissue is completely different. I think it will be agreed upon by the readers of this debate as well as my opponent that a heart is not an organism. Since we can separate these to entities the definition of a live "organism" and a live "heart" are to separate definitions.

In reference to the fetus comment:
Again you make an excellent point. To determine whether an organism is alive or not is again a universally complex question that has no definite answer. However, it is universally agreed upon that if an organism has a pumping heart, it is alive. Let me fully reply to your question. I believe that before the fetus's heart is beating the tissue of the fetus is alive, but the fetus as an organism is not yet.

I sincerely hope that my explanation adheres to good logic, and I would like to state that the following is pure conjecture, and is not a scientific fact (because there are no definite scientific answers), but pure opinion on my part. I hope this explains my position more further. I would like to keep this section to a minimal (so as not to consume the whole of the debate) However if my opponent would like to debate that an organism with a beating heart is not alive, then by all means post away.

2. In the next section about contraceptives my opponent stated (and Puck if I misinterpret or skew anything you have said/your views please let me know in the next section) that:

A. Contraceptives are fallible
[fallible - capable of making errors]

B. Giving people the choice of contraceptives and the day after pill violates their "rights of privacy"

C. The costs of contraceptives will exceed those of abortion if sexual intercourse is consistent.

D. Morning after pills may not be available at the time of sexual intercourse.

E. That the system of contraceptives, the morning after pill, and illegalizing abortion is determined by chance and is harmful to personal freedom.

A. In response to letter A, The birth control pill itself, when taking consistently is 99.8% accurate. The male condom is 98 percent accurate.
Source: Hatcher, R.A. et al. (2004). Contraceptive technology: Eighteenth revised edition. New York: Ardent Media.

When contraceptives are taken in combination, the possible chance of having a child is extremely remote. However it is conceded that while using contraceptives perfectly there is still a chance and there are still cases.

However, Abstinence is a 100% way of not having a child.

B. In no way is the right to privacy being compromised in any way. In fact in the constitution the word privacy is not even used. No government information is collected upon an individual using contraceptives. The government does not require individuals purchasing birth control to register with them?

C. I never stated that contraceptives would cost less than an abortion, I stated that the morning after pill costs considerably less than an abortion. If sexual intercourse is consistent then the cost of the morning after pill will not exceed that of an abortion. The morning after pill costs 20$ The average abortion costs anywhere from 500-800 dollars. The morning after pill (plan B) is only used when birth control and condoms were forgotten. And it effectively aborts the egg. So unless the person having sexual intercourse forgot 35 times to use birth control or condoms, the costs would not exceed an abortion.

D. Morning-after pill does not need to be available "at the time of sexual intercourse" that's the great thing about the morning after pill, is that it can be used the morning after sex, that's how it has received its name. In fact, the morning after pill can be taken 3 days after unprotected sex and still be 90% effective at aborting a child.

E. The chances as I have described, are extremely remote, but they do exist. That is why sexual intercourse is a choice, and the outcome in remote circumstances (when using contraceptives) can be a child. Just as the choice to smoke a cigarette but at the same time using a filter can lead to cancer. The desire to have sexual intercourse is a choice, or personal freedom. However every choice has consequences. In no way is disallowing the death of a live fetus a restriction to freedom, but rather an enhancement.

---The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a "child in utero" as a legal victim, if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."[2]

The law is codified in two sections of the United States Code: Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), ��1841 (18 USC 1841) and Title 10, Chapter 22 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) ��919a (Article 119a).

As you can see under this section of federal law, a live fetus is considered human.

In 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly declared in article three, "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person." The United States is a member of the United Nations General Assembly, and thus abides and is subjected to their rules. This was unanimously incorporated by the assembly and by the United States. Furthermore, the chairman of this committee was Eleanor Roosevelt.

This is the justification for my conjecture. the recent recognition of fetal rights. In no way is it permissible to take the life of another human except in self defense or as a penalty for murdering another human.

3. I completely agree, public opinion is not how we solely make decisions in the U.S., however we do use it as a factor to our judgements. That's why public opinion was lower on my points, because it adds to my debate, and isn't the core of it. Public opinion however, plays a role in the Supreme Court's decisions.

4. However as previously stated the law recognizes fetus's as humans and thus they should be entitled to the rights of the constitution. Cruel and unusual punishment is one of these basic principals by which the United States has come to run by.

5. Rights are certainly not derived from rationality. Can newly born infants reason? No, so should they also have no rights? Brain-dead and severely mentally retarded persons also cannot reason, but do they have no rights? Elderly citizens who have contracted dementia, are they rational? No. But do they all have the right to live and not be treated with harm? Yes they certainly do. Therefore I strike down your argument that rationality determines the basis for rights, especially the right to live.

No where in the constitution of the United States does it give anyone the the "right" to kill a human being for any reason other than self defense (If your life is being endangered) which as I said if the woman's life was endangered, then my conjecture permits abortion.

I thank my opponent for his respectful rebuttal and look forward to his next set of conjectures.
Puck

Pro

"My definition of life is incorrect"

No. You never gave a definition of life - only when life began which is wholly different - and I definitely did not agree with that. :D

It matters little though, I do not argue that the foetus is not living, it is certainly not a human being though (more on that later). You also never clarified about organisms that are discrete (bacteria, cells) that are also quite clearly living but minus a heart. Many multi cellular organisms are alive but are heartless e.g. Echinoderms (starfish, sea cucumbers etc.).

"2. By the way I stated my conjecture, I have to award the rights to life to all creatures with a heart."

Not that either. Refer to rights by rational basis R1, and the arbitrary nature of rights by heartbeat alone "Parasitic worms have hearts - by your premise removal of these would be forbidden."

"The definition of a live organism ..."

This is a good example of why you should be clear on your definitions. ;)

"Let me fully reply to your question..."

To be clear there are several guidelines that are used to determine what life is. Again I do not contend that the foetus is not alive - I would argue that it is from the first union of sperm and egg. That is not what rights are based on however. You define humanness therefore by the quality of having a heart - which is again an arbitrary value - and you contradict yourself, saying that the heart is the value of life of an organism (foetus) but that its component parts are alive without one. Either the heart is the value of life or it is not. It is only an issue when you view the foetus as an entity and not as the label of development it clearly is.

"A. Contraceptives are fallible
[fallible - capable of making errors]"

Close - likely to fail and make errors.

"A. In response to letter A, The birth control pill itself, when taking consistently is 99.8% accurate. The male condom is 98 percent accurate."

Fantastic - 2 out of every 100 uses of the condom are statistically going to fail. That is just "perfect use" as well, not taking into account how people actually engage in sexual practices. Minus those that are allergic to latex - have a religious belief that prohibits their use, those that cannot take the morning after/the pill due to other medical concerns, availability, location, money...

"However, Abstinence is a 100% way of not having a child."

So you are advocating now that sex should be reserved for procreation ...just to be sure? That rhetoric violates personal freedoms. Individuals should not be pressured from having sex under the threat of the enforcement of birth. Again it is a punishment for the non crime of sex - a punishment that lasts legally for 18 years costing time, money, health and freedom of life.

"In no way is the right to privacy being compromised in any way..."

It refers to the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action (prenumbral rights) - i.e. the punishment (state enforced if you illegalise abortion) of birth for the non crime of sex and getting pregnant. The state in effect is enforcing the use of contraceptives as a deterrent of the now legal punishment of unwanted accidental pregnancy.

"C. I never stated that contraceptives ..."

Over 20 years? I think not. On average 100 times a year over 20 years equates to $40 000. That is being generous - sexual activity frequently occurs before 18. So cheaper? - I think not. Let's be clear, once you start enforcing birth, people will be forced to undergo these costs as the risk factor of unwanted births is now inescapable legally. Unless you are from a lower SES in which case the risk of birth increases.

"So unless the person having sexual intercourse forgot 35 ..."

35 seems reasonable once you consider timing - medical concerns from taking the pill or latex, periods etc. Don't forget the risk factor is now extremely high - if you get pregnant you will in all likelihood by the time of discovery be in a position legally where abortion is not an option - the gamble over 18 years of costs means 1. Illegal abortions rise (probable and unsafe - seen before it became legal) and/or people take extra measures to ensure non pregnancy (extra costs). Still doesn't seem like infringements upon personal liberties?

"E. The chances ..."

Yes sex is a choice - forcing a birth is only a restriction - under your premise it is legally mandated remember - that is most definitely not freedom (no choice).

"---The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a "child in utero" as a legal victim..."

Not exactly. Victim is not equitable to human being. To have full American rights, you must first be an American citizen. To be an American citizen, you must be born in America. One who is not born in America (a foetus is unborn) can not possess American rights. To formulate something illegal in the United States, it must breach the law. Taking a foetus' life is not technically illegal, as a foetus is not a legal U.S. citizen and therefore has no U.S. rights. A foetus, actually, is technically not a citizen of any country and has no rights at all. It would appear contradictory (allowing abortion - punishing crimes against a foetus) however not if you consider the position of the mother in both cases (this is a question about philosophy of law - not the law alone). In both cases the mother's rights are recognised as in control of her body and choices thereof (hence non illegal abortion) likewise from the moment of death or injury to the foetus her right to choice and her body at the moment of crime was the decision of keeping the foetus (by virtue of still being pregnant) - and this is the basis for the punishment of said crimes. In both instances the mother's choice is relevant. Even upon birth the child does not have the full right to life - its death would ensue quickly if this was the case. In fact until the child is 18 it is a prisoner of its home.

" "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person..."

Read above.

"3. I completely agree, public opinion is not how we solely make decisions in the U.S., however we do use it as a factor to our judgements..."

This in no way makes them good or right.

"5. Rights are certainly not derived from rationality..."

Infants cannot reason - correct. They have no ability to that regard - i.e. no experience outside of the womb.
Elderly traditionally lose memory not reason - which is discrete, it may lessen the experience of application but it is not eradicated.
Mentally handicapped - again, similarly it is a reduction not removal. Neither of these cases are irrational beings unlike a foetus, which is.
Debate Round No. 2
scissorhands7

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for being punctual with his rebuttal despite hectic outside conflicts. I would now like to refute my opponents main argument and shall try to be as clear and as concise as possible.

1. Sticking to the definition of life (though my opponent has conceded that fetus's are living) I believe that there is no one definition of the beginning of life for all organisms. I do however believe there is a specific definition on an organism to organism basis (this covers bacteria and single celled organisms) Think of a dead man who had a heart attack, his tissue is living, his organs (minus the heart) are living, but the man himself is not.

2. My opponents main argument towards the continuation of abortion is that fetus's do not have rights as they are not rational. However as the law clearly states, a fetus is part of the human species "The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the --------------> species homo sapiens <---------------------, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."

However let us for now ignore this law and use my opponents argument of rationality equating rights. My opponent states two arguments that argue why a fetus cannot have rights

1. The fetus is not rational and therefore has no rights

2. The fetus is not a born American citizen and therefore does not have the right to life.

A. In response to #1
My opponent argued that mentally handicapped people, and elderly people with dementia qualify as people who are rational. Therefore my opponent defines the basis of rights as an individual with any small part of rationality. Would my opponent also argue that those in a coma are completely rational? What about people who have no brain function at all who we determine "brain dead" but are currently living. If someone were to murder them it would be considered a crime. To abuse a brain dead person would be a horror.

My second question regarding #1:
"no experience outside of the womb."
How are newly born infants any more rational than what they were 8 hours before when they were a fetus?
I really think you should do some research regarding the fetus's "experience inside the womb" this includes eating food,

New research findings on the ability of a fetus to recognize its mother's voice and even distinguish it from other female voices confirms what scientists have speculated about for more than 20 years - that experiences in the womb help shape newborn's preferences and behaviour.

Dr. Barbara Kisilevsky, a Queen's University professor of nursing along with a team of psychologists at Queen's and obstetricians in Hangzhou, China, found that fetuses are capable of learning in the womb and can remember and recognize their mother's voice before they are even born. Their research findings are published in the current issue of the international journal Psychological Science

http://www.sciencedaily.com...

2. B. Citizenship
In 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly declared in article three, "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person." The United States is a member of the United Nations General Assembly, and thus abides and is subjected to their rules. This was unanimously incorporated by the assembly and by the United States. Furthermore, the chairman of this committee was Eleanor Roosevelt.

The right to life is not only reserved to United States Citizens, but to humans in general. Thus, I cannot murder an illegal immigrant from Mexico and expect to get off scot free. I will be punished because every human bears the right to life.

3. No I am not advocating that sex should be reserved for procreation, not in the least. However a child must be considered a side effect of sexual activity. The woman's choice to be involved in sexual activity may result in a child and this should factor into her choice. If the woman does not choose to be involved in sexual activity, (rape) then I am fully in support of abortion. Just as a man smoking a pipe may result in cancer. Should a woman be "pressured from having sex" due to the remote possibility of having a child? No, but the remote possibility of having a child should be considered before doing so. I highly doubt if you would ever ask a mother who has a child if she considers her child as a "punishment"

"Yes sex is a choice - forcing a birth is only a restriction - under your premise it is legally mandated remember - that is most definitely not freedom (no choice)." Killing a human life is murder.

Let me give an example:

Yes driving 100 miles per hour on a busy highway is a choice - putting speed limit signs on the highway is a restriction. Killing the police officer who happens to give you the ticket is murder.

Yes laser eye surgery is a choice - the chances of being blinded are a restriction
killing the faulty doctor is murder

Yes plastic surgery is a choice - the chances of it being messed up are a restriction
killing the surgeon is murder do you get my point?

4. My opponent further misunderstands what the morning after pill is. It is not "the pill" or birth control, or a contraceptive. It is only in case you -----forget to take contraceptives---- then you can take the morning after pill within 72 hours of unprotected sex. My opponent is assuming that the people having sex forget 100 times a year to wear a condom or use birth control. If that were to be the case I would concede my opponents point however this is not the case. And my opponent cannot argue that birth control or other contraceptives outweigh the cost of an abortion ( at $700 a pop) because people having sex would typically have to pay for multiple abortions every year. This argument diminishes my opponents about the cost. Also it does not infringe upon "18 years of personal liberty" adoption is always an option.

The cost of buying a condom, the pill or the day after pill, "infringe on personal liberties"
I think it infringes on personal liberties the same as a filter for a cigarette "infringes on personal liberties"
The liberties of the human are exactly what I am in favor of. If you have to "infringe" upon personal liberties (aka purchasing birth control) of one person to gain the life of another ( human child), then I am in thoroughly in favor of it.

4. "Even upon birth the child does not have the full right to life"
My opponent states that a child upon birth does not have the full right to life. This premise is sorely struck down upon the precedence in the court:
----LAUDERHILL, Fla. – Jail records show that a Lauderhill man accused of shaking his girlfriend's 10-month old son to -----death has been charged with murder.
An 18-year-old charged with first-degree murder in the death of her 4-month-old son shuffled into court Monday afternoon
PLANO, Texas - (KRT) - A 10-month-old girl died Monday after her mother cut her arms off, police said. The 35-year-old woman, who has suffered from postpartum depression, was charged with capital murder.
BERKELEY COUNTY, WV - An infant was pronounced dead at Martinsburg City Hospital, and police have arrested his mother for murder.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com...

[murder- The unlawful killing of one ---->human<---- by another, especially with premeditated malice]

"If you get pregnant you will in all likelihood by the time of discovery be in a position where abortion is not an option."

Conception can only occur during ovulation, 14 days after the woman's last period. If the woman did use birth control, condoms, or used the day after pill and still got pregnant, then my conjecture allows for abortion 3 weeks after conception. Meaning if the woman has not had her period in a month, she can take a pregnancy test and still has a week for an abortion.

I thank my opponent and look forward to his rebuttal.
Puck

Pro

"1. Sticking to the definition of life..."

No, but they are dying a lot more actively - quite soon. An organism is simply a collection of one or more cells, nothing more. A foetus is simply a type of organism with interdependent parts.

"2.. However as the law clearly states..."

The fact the law contends a foetus a member of "species homo sapiens" is irrelevant. They as humans offer no discernible quality to recognise any rights. Human is merely a type of classification, the same process we subject all species to. It is merely a label of differences - a classification of biological discernment. This is why we must look at those qualities other than what is biological that separate us from other animals. Pure taxonomic differences mean nothing; it merely indicates that we are different, much like any other species is different from another. What is the basis for rights - what in essence distinguishes us again, is a philosophical question, not a biological one - and it is the use of a rational mind.

"Would my opponent also argue that those in a coma ..."

A comatose person clearly had prior rational faculties.

How can you murder someone who is already brain dead? You can only (i) sustain an unnatural process through inaction or (ii) let a natural process occur i.e. complete death. It is not murder at all. To go back to your first analogy with the dead man - the cells may still be alive - but it is a purely mechanical life bereft of any single meaning.

"To abuse a brain dead person would be a horror."

If there is no capacity for recognition of anything what abuse occurs? You may have defilement of a family members respect. It is respect and traditions for states of existence - not laws that are relevant in that case.

"How are newly born infants any more rational than what they were 8 hours before when they were a fetus?"

Clearly they are not fully rational beings until several years of age, however once birth occurs it has 2 main implications - moral contract by the mother upon the actioning of birth i.e. By allowing its birth she enters a moral contract for its surival. Secondly the infant becomes a learning entity, by virtue which can only occur upon and after its birth.

"I really think you should do some research .."

I am fully aware of "what happens". Of course it must eat food - it is parasitic in nature, at best symbiotic. Again I am well aware that they hear. However it has no level of existence where this is meaningful (personality or rational) in any way.

Biologically driven preferences are purely that. It is quite easy to condition biological organisms - it does not require a level of rational discernment at all. You may like to conjure a sense of awe or mystery or character to the experience but it is purely conditional in nature.

"In 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights..."

The U.N. is also is rather vague about what a child is; going by its use of ages as definitional however, a child begins at birth.

"The right to life is not only reserved to United States Citizens, but to humans in general..."

I did note "complete" rights. Your illegal immigrant is not recognised the same amounts of rights as you yourself are - and he/she has most definitely already been born.

"3. No I am not advocating ..."

Your analogy is somewhat off. Smoking > Cancer <> Sex > pregnant
That is where the analogy is. No where does the state enforce the cancerous person to die from that cancer. If you want this to be correctly analogous (enforce birth) then that would need to occur. So yes, getting pregnant is the risk factor - but that is where it stops. *Enforcing* a birth and 18 years of servitude to that at the personal cost of money, time, health and freedom - is not analogous nor right by any sense of the term.

"Should a woman be "pressured from having sex..""

Completely meaningless as you have no access to that data at all. Secondly it is not analogous to the point you are making - those you question now would have had the choice to abort - it follows then that your sample would be overly biased.

"Yes driving 100 miles ..."

No one forces you to drive, correct. The state does not enforce you to murder the police. That is not a consequence of driving.
Sex > Pregnant > state enforced birth <> Eye surgery> blinded(outcome not restriction)> =/= killing a doctor.
And again for the next one.
So no, you have not made any relevant point I can see.

"4. My opponent further .."

No I dealt with both. Both are fallible, both have valid reasons for non use, both should not be enforced upon pain of birth either implicitly or explicitly.

"My opponent is assuming ..."

Either getting pregnant is ghastly rare as you claim between all this contraceptive taking or it's not. The point is you are advocating implicitly that people will be required to go to these measures to ensure their non children don't get there before THEY WANT.

You are forcing people to have babies and expect the adoptive parent's availability to increase? I doubt that.

"I think it infringes on personal liberties the same as a filter for a cigarette "infringes on personal liberties""

You can buy filtered ones or papers to make your own. :P And since when did two wrongs make a right?

"The liberties of the human are exactly what I am in favor of.."

You contradict yourself you cannot advocate liberties by taking them away. Let us be clear again what you do advocate. Not only contraception but upon forced birth - on threat of presumably imprisonment for foeticide - the forestalling of one person's life for another.

"Even upon birth the child does not have the full right to life"

It refers to the fact that if you were to grant full life to a child it would quickly die of exposure and/or hunger etc. It is dependant therefore cannot have recognised the full right to life.

"If you get pregnant..."

Periods are not reliable measures by any rate of what is a good time to get tested. The timing is want to change due to both internal and external factors. A 3 week time period is as good as no warning at all.
Debate Round No. 3
31 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by askbob 3 years ago
askbob
@Freeman

And braindead people are still considered living. It's an accurate definition of life, perhaps not an accurate definition of humanity though it was never intended to be one.
Posted by J.Kenyon 4 years ago
J.Kenyon
Meh, 49 if you cancel out the votebombing on PRO's side.
Posted by Atheism 4 years ago
Atheism
70-77 points were given to scissorhands7 because of votebombing.
Ridiculous.
Posted by wjmelements 4 years ago
wjmelements
Sad that this debate was determined by votebombers.
Posted by Puck 5 years ago
Puck
Yar, it's a nonsensical definition of life.
Posted by Freeman 5 years ago
Freeman
1. On the 21st day after conception the fetal heart starts to beat and most major organs are functioning. The common law definition of death is the stoppage of a heartbeat and most functioning organs. Most of the laws of the United States are based off common law. Since death is considered to be the opposite of life, life should be defined as the start of the human heart.

Thats ridiculous, brain dead people also have beating hearts.
Posted by Puck 5 years ago
Puck
I think you missed the point of the comment.
Posted by Lifeisgood 5 years ago
Lifeisgood
"You would think that."

If I were to vote for you, you would have had to have made better points. Your arguments as they stand are just too weak. You did do well though.
Posted by Puck 5 years ago
Puck
You would think that. :P
Posted by Lifeisgood 5 years ago
Lifeisgood
B/A: Con.
Conduct: Tie.
S/G: Tie.
Arguments: Con. Pro did not refute Con's arguments to my satisfaction.
Sources: Con.
47 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by greatstuff479 5 years ago
greatstuff479
scissorhands7PuckTied
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 
Vote Placed by Lifeisgood 5 years ago
Lifeisgood
scissorhands7PuckTied
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:50 
Vote Placed by SlamminSam212 5 years ago
SlamminSam212
scissorhands7PuckTied
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 
Vote Placed by Kefka 5 years ago
Kefka
scissorhands7PuckTied
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 
Vote Placed by Maikuru 5 years ago
Maikuru
scissorhands7PuckTied
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 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 5 years ago
rougeagent21
scissorhands7PuckTied
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 
Vote Placed by NukeTheJuice 5 years ago
NukeTheJuice
scissorhands7PuckTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Vote Placed by Snakepliston 5 years ago
Snakepliston
scissorhands7PuckTied
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 
Vote Placed by Poop2stick 5 years ago
Poop2stick
scissorhands7PuckTied
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 
Vote Placed by chris2956 5 years ago
chris2956
scissorhands7PuckTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50