The Instigator
heyitsjay
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
Kleptin
Con (against)
Winning
42 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 8 votes the winner is...
Kleptin
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/24/2009 Category: Health
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,842 times Debate No: 8406
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (8)

 

heyitsjay

Pro

I will be holding the affirmative position of the topic. I will state my reasons in the second round in support of my side.

If my opponent would be so kind to state his/her reasons in a brief statement in this round....
Kleptin

Con

Thank you to both the audience and my opponent for yet another debate on abortion. The resolution is simply "Abortion" and my opponent has stated that he supports the affirmative. I shall then argue against that case.

To begin, I submit the definition of Abortion by Medicine.net Medical Dictionary:

Abortion: In medicine, an abortion is the premature exit of the products of conception (the fetus, fetal membranes, and placenta) from the uterus. It is the loss of a pregnancy and does not refer to why that pregnancy was lost.

http://www.medterms.com...

In addition, here is the wikipedia article in which the introduction defines abortion in the same manner:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Since my opponent has used his first round to merely ask for my opening statement and did not clarify the resolution or offer any sort of framing, I will assume that my opponent is trying to affirm "abortion" in general.

I start by arguing that there are many forms of abortion that should be prevented on moral grounds.

1. Partial Birth Abortions

In which the fetus, nearly fully formed, is destroyed during induced labor. At this point in time, the mother might as well wait until full term and give it up for adoption as the already blurry line of morality in abortion becomes even blurrier.

2. Spontaneous Abortions

In which a woman with an implanted fetus loses the fetus accidentally, commonly known as a miscarriage. This should be avoided because for the most part, women who miscarry actually wanted the child.

3. Abortions inflicted on unwilling people

There is something inherently immoral in the act of walking up to a pregnant woman and kicking in her stomach such that she miscarries. Though this is a form of abortion, I argue that it should in no way be supported.

4. Dangerous abortions

I am against many forms of abortion for health reasons. The use of coat hangers to stimulate an abortion, for example. Or throwing oneself off a flight of stairs. Or going to a back-alley abortionist that doubles as a tattoo parlor. These are all very dangerous ways of abortion.

I look forward to my opponent's rebuttal. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
heyitsjay

Pro

My opponent has offered specific examples of abortion. Even though I was actually anticipating on the idea of medical abortion, I will argue against the evidence anyway.

I will begin by arguing against "Abortions inflicted on unwilling people".
Now, this technically can be classified as abortion. On the other hand, it could be classified as an act of assault as well.
"Assault" can be performed by anyone as well as affecting anyone. There are many cases that are classified assault besides this. So this is not uncommon.

"There is something inherently immoral in the act of walking up to a pregnant woman and kicking in her stomach such that she miscarries. Though this is a form of abortion, I argue that it should in no way be supported."

In these cases, clearly the woman is unwilling to have an abortion anyway. So she does not intend on having an abortion. This is clearly an act of assault performed by the person who kicks her in the stomach.

Immoral:
-not in conformity with accepted principles of right and wrong behavior
-wicked
-not in conformity with the accepted standards of proper sexual behavior; unchaste; lewd
(may I also note that many compare morality with Christianity as well as many other religious beliefs involving Christ)

I care to dispute the fact that abortion is immoral.
Many would say that abortion is immoral because it violates the Bible or it is murder. First of all, the Bible does mention many other things that should not be done besides murder. These would be called "sins". The Bible states that shaving your beard is immoral or is a sin. So, that strikes against everyman who does shave. I dispute this as well.

"not in conformity with accepted principles of right and wrong behavior"
What people think is right and wrong is all conceived by their own understanding. People all have their own idea of what is right or wrong and many care to argue their own opinions. For example this debate, I argue abortion is right and my opponent argues it is wrong. All made up of our own opinions. Some people feel vigilantism is right, others state it is wrong. May I remind the audience and my opponent that there are those who feel murder is right like for example terrorism in the Middle East. They thought 9/11 was justified. Clearly it was not but their own opinions caused the death toll of thousands of innocent lives.

I now argue situations that damage many lives of women. For example rape. Many young women get raped every year as well as some young men. Women end up being pregnant unwillingly. Is it not fair for these people to have their entire life ruined when they can simply stop it.

Pregnant teenagers "usually" result in no college, minimum wage, and no father to even care for the child. These situations affect the woman and child. The child was brought into a life where he/she has an irresponsible mother and father, no school or money, not even given the chance to be brought into a desirable life. This could be avoided through medical abortion when the child is not even anything but a mere cell.

Teenagers who all share irresponsibility do not deserve to have many good opportunities taken away. Yes, they were very idiotic for being so irresponsible for having unprotected sex when unprepared for having a child. But it makes the situation much worse when the child is brought into the world. It is not fair for the teenager to have opportunities taken away and not fair for the child to be brought into the world with no one responsible enough to take care of him or her. These also goes for all women in general.
Kleptin

Con

I thank my opponent for his prompt response and will now begin to offer my counterpoints.

"My opponent has offered specific examples of abortion. Even though I was actually anticipating on the idea of medical abortion, I will argue against the evidence anyway."

My opponent has now agreed to the scope of this debate being applied to abortion in general, despite the fact that he originally wanted to argue for medical abortion specifically. Since he has offered no objection and is responding to my points, I then assume that my opponent is taking upon himself the burden of Abortion in its totality.

1. ABORTIONS INFLICTED ON UNWILLING PEOPLE

"Now, this technically can be classified as abortion. On the other hand, it could be classified as an act of assault as well.
"Assault" can be performed by anyone as well as affecting anyone. There are many cases that are classified assault besides this. So this is not uncommon."

Whether or not abortion can also be classified as assault is irrelevant to this debate. As the Con position of the resolution "Abortion", I am obliged to offer arguments pertaining to how I am against Abortion. This is an act of abortion, I am against it.

"In these cases, clearly the woman is unwilling to have an abortion anyway. So she does not intend on having an abortion. This is clearly an act of assault performed by the person who kicks her in the stomach."

I refer my opponent back to the medical definition I submitted in my first round. It clearly states that Abortion refers only to the act of losing the pregnancy, not how or why. It does not matter whether the mother has the intent of having the abortion performed, the abortion still occurs. The act of kicking a pregnant woman in the stomach, or pushing her off a flight of stairs, with the intention of terminating the pregnancy is abortion, but it is also an act of assault. I am against this, I don't believe I can make my argument any simpler.

2. PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTIONS

My opponent has offered no response to my argument.

SPONTANEOUS ABORTIONS

3. My opponent has offered no response to my argument.

4. DANGEROUS ABORTIONS

My opponent has offered no response to my argument.

**********************************************************

My opponent ends his second round by speaking about immorality. Although his argument would be relevant if we were talking specifically about an intended abortion that did not fall under the 4 categories I listed above, it is regretfully irrelevant now.

My opponent speaks on moral relativity and how he believes it negates my assertion that kicking a woman in the stomach to terminate her pregnancy may or may not be immoral. I find this to be a poor argument as he himself has provided the following definition:

Immoral:
-not in conformity with accepted principles of right and wrong behavior

As such, we can all agree that what is immoral or moral is determined by society or popularity. I ask the audience as well as my opponent a very simple question:

"Is the act of kicking a woman in the stomach to terminate her pregnancy an immoral act?"

The answer is yes.

**********************************************************

My opponent then gives his argument about women who were raped. Women who report the rape or are sent to the hospital get Plan B as a procedural precaution. In the case that women do not report the rape, they have full access to Plan B over the counter. Termination of a pregnancy should be allowed for extremely strange circumstances, such as if a woman is held in some dungeon and raped over the course of an entire month, or such similar case where they have no access to emergency contraception and are already pregnant.

**********************************************************

My opponent's other two arguments about teenage pregnancy and unprotected sex fall under the same category. Emergency contraception is readily available, and there really should be no need for abortion as a common, medical procedure dealing with irresponsibility. My opponent portrays medical abortion as the end-all-be-all to all unwanted pregnancy situations.

The first line of defense is abstinence. There is plenty of porn on the internet and little to no need for sexual activity prior to the development of responsibility. The second line of defense is contraception. There are many forms of them available and they are all quite effective. In addition, there are natural ways to lessen the chance of pregnancy such as monitoring the menstrual cycle. It takes quite a bit of irresponsibility to bypass those. But even at this stage, we have Plan B, the morning-after-pill, which prevents pregnancy as a form of emergency contraception, effective for 72 hours.

If we're dealing with a pair of people who want to have sex, without any sort of protection, who do not withdraw or use any method of pregnancy prevention, and who refuse to purchase Emergency Contraception the day after, then we should probably assume they want to be parents.

There is no lack of information. There is no lack of teaching. There are plenty of ways to prevent pregnancy even well after the act of unprotected sex has occurred. There really is no excuse for requiring an abortion under any circumstances save for the most bizarre and uncommon ones. That having been said, heavily restricting abortion as a means of pregnancy termination will do far more good than harm. The assumption that there is always a last line of defense will only lead to more irresponsible behavior. Thus, by making emergency contraception the last line of defense, we move the line in the sand and the risks are reduced.

**********************************************************

My opponent has ignored three of the four points I made in the first round. I remind my opponent that since he has offered no objection to my arguments regarding scope, he has agreed to the resolution of Abortion in general. Thus, his burden is to show that Abortion is acceptable in all circumstances. Until he does this, he has not met the burden.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
heyitsjay

Pro

I thank my opponent for his response to my previous statement.

"Whether or not abortion can also be classified as assault is irrelevant to this debate"
(I argue this statement)

As a matter of fact it is relevant to this debate. The topic we are discussing is abortion and whether it should be accepted or not. Clearly anyone who is kicked in the stomach has witnessed an act of assault. Abortion is only abortion if it is considered to be or not to be by the child carrier. If not considered abortion, it is only a mere act of assault. This can happen to anyone.

I now argue my opponent's ideology of the "morning after pill". Referring back to my opponent's definition of abortion, the morning after pill is also another form of abortion. It all eliminates the infant correct? Therefore, my opponent provided another form of abortion that he stated is the solution to pregnancy even though he is supposed to argue against it.

Any act of the mother eliminating her child would be classified as abortion only if it is intended by the carrier.

Immorality:
No, I was not intending it to fall under my opponent's four categories. I was only preventing that from being argued. It may not be relevant to the four types of abortion, but it is relevant to the topic at hand.

what is right and wrong?:
The people in this world have their own basic concept of what is right or wrong. This can also relate to morality. Every single person shares the same individual mindset, their own gathered ideas and opinions of what is right and wrong.

I extend my argument referring to morality with only the slightest question...What is moral in this world? Certainly not shaving. This refers to the Bible. It is absolutely hypocritical for someone who shaves to say abortion is immoral.

In addition to my opponent's remark about whether kicking a woman in the stomach is moral or not. Assault is not moral. But then again we are not talking about assault, we are talking about abortion.

Why I did not respond to the other three categories of abortion, well that is the thing....I actually did in a general remark. Referring to my previous statements about morality, intentional abortion and teen pregnancy.

I extend my previous arguments.....

In conclusion, I affirm abortion as a way of preventing further difficulty in life with both the mother and child. Creating problems or preventing them with out the slightest sense of guilt.
Thank you!
Kleptin

Con

I thank my opponent for what has been a most enjoyable debate and hope to debate him again in the future.

My opponent's last response was filled with errors, but thankfully, most of those errors only stem from one source: My opponent has not looked very carefully at the very first definition I stated in my first round.

First and foremost, I shall restate the medical definition of an abortion:

"the premature exit of the products of conception (the fetus, fetal membranes, and placenta) from the uterus. It is the loss of a pregnancy and does not refer to why that pregnancy was lost."

My opponent's first argument was that the assault of a pregnant woman for the purpose of ending her pregnancy was assault and not abortion. This attack causes the premature exit of the products of conception (the fetus, fetal membranes, and placenta) as per the definition. This is abortion. This point is inarguable. Whether or not it is assault is irrelevant because it would be wrong for a woman to ask someone *else* to kick her in the stomach while pregnant. My opponent's argument says that the immorality lies in the assault and not the abortion, but this is illogical because this is the same act. If the kicker is seeking to cause the mother to abort, then this is an abortion, no matter how confusing my opponent wants to get.

My opponent's second argument is that based on my definition, Plan B would be classified as abortion. In that case, so would condoms, birth control pills, withdrawal, masturbation, etc. Thankfully, this is not the case because my opponent has fabricated his own interpretation of abortion and falsely claimed that it was my definition. I ask the audience to quickly reread that definition and read this source:

http://health.howstuffworks.com...

This source clearly states that the morning after pill simply will not work if the mother is already pregnant. This completely negates my opponent's counterargument. However, to be honest, I am a pharmacy student and I know that there is an alternative mechanism whereby conception can occur and that the embryo is just unable to latch onto the uterine lining. Even if this speculative mechanism is true, it still would not be classified as an abortifacient because it would not expel fetal membranes or a placenta, as dictated in the definition.

So thus, my opponent is not just wrong based on known facts, he is wrong based on scientific speculation too.

My opponent's third argument is the following: Any act of the mother eliminating her child would be classified as abortion only if it is intended by the carrier.

First of all, it is very poor conduct to introduce a new and totally different definition in the last round of debate when we have been operating under mine for the past several rounds. And now, my opponent decides to introduce his personal definition of abortion? I think not. I would have accepted this definition if my opponent had not wasted his first round, but I must reject this definition because first, he has no source, and second, he seemed to accept mine in prior rounds.

Now, let us continue on with the other arguments that my opponent is wrong about.

My opponent has admitted the fact that he ignored the four categories I stated. Regretfully, the act of doing so constitutes bad conduct because according to the definition of abortion, all four of those categories I listed count as abortion. My opponent cannot simply ignore that point just because he doesn't like it, because those four categories completely destroy his argument. Thus, I assume he concedes those points along with the debate and at this point, we're just chatting.

My opponent then goes on another rant about moral relativity. However, in the middle of his rant, he said the following: "Assault is not moral". It seems strange that a person arguing moral relativity would make a statement like that, do you not agree, audience? It seems to me that my opponent does not know where he is going with this argument. The problem with complete moral independence is the fact that we all share similar moral views. Thus, the only explanation is that morality is based on society and popularity, negating all my opponent's arguments and strengthening my notion that we as individuals can tell that kicking in a pregnant woman's stomach to induce an abortion is *immoral*.

Afterwards, my opponent states that he *did* respond to my points. I assure the audience that he did no such thing except assume that his definition (Any act of the mother eliminating her child would be classified as abortion only if it is intended by the carrier.) is acceptable. As I have stated before, he has no sources for this definition and this is his last round. This is why his definition is unacceptable and why he has not offered any argument against my points.

As for his final argument: "I extend my previous arguments...."

I regretfully inform my opponent that he has no arguments to extend, because I have countered all of them. The problem is that this is not mutual. My opponent has either intentionally or accidentally ignored over half of the points that I made in this debate.

My opponent claims to be for all forms of abortion with no restrictions. This is evidenced by the fact that he did not disagree with the burden I placed on him. I have stated that miscarriages, unwilling abortions, and unsafe abortions involving coat hangers or flinging oneself off a flight of stairs are most definitely forms of abortion that we should prevent.

My opponent has expressed nothing but silence towards all those points. But curiously, my opponent has spent a considerable amount of time arguing against anti-abortion arguments that I did not make, nor did I even allude to. And as I have debunked all of my opponent's counterpoints with plenty of arguments of my own left standing, I shall keep in good conduct and not introduce new arguments in this final round. As such, I urge the audience to vote CON.

Thank you to my opponent and to the audience. This has been a most enjoyable debate.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Rob1Billion 7 years ago
Rob1Billion
calling yourself dishonorable, Kleptin?
Posted by Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
C: I found many arguments on PRO's part to be extraneous, but the biggest factor was in PRO's refusal to make clear statements on the resolution. However, both sides conducted themselves well and the margin is slim. TIED.

S&G: Not much difference between the two in this category. TIED.

A: Arguments were clearly better on the CON side. It was not a very honorable win, but it was a legitimate one. If PRO had made a clear statement on the resolution in the first round, this might have been avoided. In addition, most of PRO's arguments were structured around CON's arguments instead of directed at them, this is never a good tactic when CON is clear in addressing the audience. Points go to CON.

S: CON definitely used more reliable sources. Points to CON.
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
Pro's failure to state a resolution was fatal. Con was able to define the define the resolution in a way that Pro couldn't defeat.

Pro's opening statement didn't even say the debate was about the legality of abortion.
Posted by Rob1Billion 7 years ago
Rob1Billion
Kleptin started out with a semantical argument, which I am not terribly fond of, but Pro never really acknowledged the fact that he was dying a slow semantical death and I can't justify his lack of attention. All points except conduct go to con.
Posted by sherlockmethod 7 years ago
sherlockmethod
I am new, but I would never take on Kleptin with such a vague pro position, as he will allow you to keep enough rope to hang yourself with ... and logically explain how you provided the rope, not him.
Posted by PoeJoe 7 years ago
PoeJoe
Yeah. This is what I meant. You should give a first round, else something like this happens.
Posted by PoeJoe 7 years ago
PoeJoe
To guy from inferior high school:

I should warn: Through most people's interpretation of BoP, you -- being both PRO and the instigator -- wield the main burden of proof. So don't rely too much on your rebuttal. Your primary focus should be proving your case, which is severely hurt by your one-round lag. I personally assign both debaters a BoP, but you're still on unstable ground. Just warnin' yuh.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
heyitsjayKleptinTied
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 
Vote Placed by Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
heyitsjayKleptinTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by FlashFire 7 years ago
FlashFire
heyitsjayKleptinTied
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:05 
Vote Placed by Rob1Billion 7 years ago
Rob1Billion
heyitsjayKleptinTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by pcmbrown 7 years ago
pcmbrown
heyitsjayKleptinTied
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 NOK_Domination 7 years ago
NOK_Domination
heyitsjayKleptinTied
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 Brock_Meyer 7 years ago
Brock_Meyer
heyitsjayKleptinTied
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:43 
Vote Placed by sherlockmethod 7 years ago
sherlockmethod
heyitsjayKleptinTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06