The Instigator
KatieKat99
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
alyfish126
Con (against)
Losing
13 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 6 votes the winner is...
KatieKat99
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/29/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 815 times Debate No: 62419
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (6)

 

KatieKat99

Pro

I stand in firm opposition of the resolution Abortion should be made illegal within the US. First round is acceptance. Todays debate should be run in typical Parliamentary format if points are dropped that is a point for the opposing team.
Debate Round No. 1
KatieKat99

Pro

Just to begin I would like to extend thanks to my judges today, my opponent for accepting this educational debate and with that I would like to begin. I would like to begin with a brief road map to help keep my speech clear and understandable.

1. I will be addressing definitions
2. Covering the affirmative case

ok so just to begin I will be defining

Abortion: the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy.
Illegal: contrary to or forbidden by law, especially criminal law
U.S: united states
Now that we have clear terms I would like to restate the resolution. I stand In firm opposition to the resolution Abortion should be made illegal. I stand in opposition today for three main reasons the right to choice, safety, and finally equality

I would like to introduce the weighing criterion of net benefits to US society and with that I would like to jump into the expansion of my case.

1. Constitutionality:
Roe v. Wade,557 the Court established a right of personal privacy protected by the due process clause that includes the right of a woman to determine whether or not to bear a child. We as the united states have the moral obligation to uphold our constitution and by making abortion illegal we would interfering with an individuals 14th amendment. "Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action" includes "a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy"560 and that "[t]his right of privacy . . . is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." ( Roe v. Wade).

2. Safety
A. safety of the child: So one of the arguments against abortion goes a little something like this "Their human we cant kill them" ok so this goes into how you define human but even if you define these fetuses (which by definition are not capable of being considered human definition from Webster dictionary: unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception.) as some form of human you cant neglect the fact that abortions are had because the baby made was not wanted. what happens when a baby goes to term and is born to mother that doesn't want them? Actually its quite a simple answer they end up in custody of CPS. 400,540 kids are in foster care currently in the US (from http://www.acf.hhs.gov...) So by making abortion illegal you would be having that many more kids in foster care. If they don't end up in the system its almost a guarantee that they will end up growing up in a home that it is unfit for child.

B. safety of the mother: So yes we can look at the physical safety of the mother but I would also like us to look at the mental safety of the mother, so lets say that a woman gets pregnant but cant afford to raise a baby. In a world where abortion is illegal this woman would have to carry her baby to term. It has been shown (Dr. Thomas Verny, "The Secret Life of the Unborn Child" is s good example) that at a certain point (much past the point where abortions are legal) a mother develops a bond with her baby that can make it very hard for her to give up the baby after she has carried it for so long. that being said if you buy the whole emotional argument there is also a physical argument to be made. nearly 17% of abortions preformed are done to save the life of a mother who would not be healthy enough to carry their baby to term.
(pro choice.org) that fact alone should be enough of a reason for abortion to remain legal.

3. Equality
A. Class differential: Abortion if it was illegal would become an issue of class it wouldn't just cease to exist the people who could get it would just change. so what I mean by this is pretty simple,Wealthy women can always afford access to abortion, even if it once again becomes illegal. We saw this take place during the 1970s. So why does this matter? Well if make abortion illegal its not going to stop it from happening its just going to stop certain people (who might say need it more) from actually getting it. Also woman would still get abortions it would just turn back into back ally abortions which was incredibly dangerous and more people died thus not providing the most benefits to US society as define by our weighing mechanism.

Thank you for my time again these are my sources

http://socialistworker.org...
Rov v. Wade 557
http://www.emedicinehealth.com...
https://www.childwelfare.gov...
http://womenshistory.about.com...
http://firstresort.org...
alyfish126

Con

alyfish126 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
KatieKat99

Pro

Ok well I"m very sad that my opponent hasn"t provided any of her own contentions or refutations to my points so they flow across, thank you for your time.
alyfish126

Con

**I apologize for missing the last round. No excuse. I will do my best to make it up in this one.

**Thank's to Pro for hosting the debate and a thank you to the readers for your time. I hope the read proves as worth the effort.

**To avoid confusion, bias, or misguidance, I will be referring to the zygote/embryo/fetus/baby/leech/etc. as either "the thing" or "It," from fertilization to birth.



I). Lesson

A. As Pro stated, this is an educational debate. Thus, here is a short education on types of abortion. These are just a few, many more can be found online and in medical dictionaries:
1. Abortion: expulsion from the uterus of the products of conception before the fetus is viable. [4]
2. Involuntary abortion: often called a miscarriage. [5]
3. Induced abortion: brought on intentionally by medication or instrumentation. [4]
4. Voluntary abortion: induced termination of a pregnancy (TOP), usually before the fetus has developed enough to live if born, deemed necessary by the woman carrying it and performed at her request. [4]
5. Elective abortion: decision to proceed is regardless of circumstance. [5]
6. Selective abortion: decision to proceed is based on (1) the thing's gender. (2) the thing's health (3) the mother's health. [5]



II) Rebuttals

A. On Constitutionality:
1. "the right of a woman to determine whether or not to bear a child."
Agreed, we should prosecute those who violate their right. ie. rapists.
2. "We as the united states have the moral obligation to uphold our constitution"
This is an unsupported claim. We have the moral obligation to do the right thing, or else the constitution would never change.
3. "[t]his right of privacy . . . is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy"
This is an interpretation of the fourteenth amendment; it is not included in the constitution. Also, this is an unsupported claim; what makes it broad enough to encompass such a thing?

B. On Safety

1. "So by making abortion illegal you would be having that many more kids in foster care"
This is a "slippery slope" argument. A counter slippery slope argument: By making abortion a punishable crime, there would be fewer unwanted children to begin with.
2. "nearly 17% of abortions preformed are done to save the life of a mother who would not be healthy enough to carry their baby to term"
Apologies, but I could not find the source of that information, is there a direct link? I did, however, find the following quotes from what appears to be unbiased sources:
i. "Between 1967 and 1990, only 151 abortions have been carried out to save the mother's life, a figure amounting to 0.004% of all abortions." [1]
ii. "Less than 1% of all abortions are performed to save the life of the mother." [2]
iii. “In 1987, only 2.8 percent of abortions performed in the United States were done because of risk to the mother’s life, according to a study in International Family Planning Perspectives." [3]
Regardless, the right to life is not debatable. Assuming there are no other options, the relatively few women who are physically at risk of death should not be forced to die. This does not necessarily mean abortion should stay legal. Rather, a doctor—"a person who is trained and licensed to treat sick and injured people" [0]—must practice medicine to the best of his/her ability. So, if a patient needs morphine—that is, an illegal recreational drug—a doctor gives them morphine.

C. On Equality

All-in-all, this is a slippery slope argument. Here is another counter: If abortion were made punishable by incarceration of the doctor and sterilization of the patient, then there would be few unwanted pregnancies. Also, rich people should be punished the same as poor.
1. "Also woman would still get abortions it would just turn back into back ally abortions which was incredibly dangerous and more people died."
Perhaps they should not have turned to back alley abortions?
2. "thus not providing the most benefits to US society as define by our weighing mechanism."
If this is in reference to utilitarianism, it is a topic for an entirely different debate on how flawed and upside-down that kind of thinking is. However, the US is not based in utilitarianism, but contractarianism--the Constitution being the contract.

**Thank you to Pro for presenting your argument. Thank you readers for sticking with us so far. I'm look forward to finding out where this will go!

**I will do my best to keep this short and sweet because, well, “if you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough” [8]. It will get more detailed in whichever area Pro addresses.



III.) Argument


A. Definitions

1. Life: the ability to grow, change, etc., that separates plants and animals from things like water or rocks. [0]
2. Human: a member of the genus Homo and particularly of the species H. sapiens. [4]
3. Human life: a member of the genus Homo and particularly of the species H. sapiens [with] the ability to grow, change, etc., that separates plants and animals from things like water or rocks. [4,0]
4. Liberty: the power to do or choose what you want to [0].
5. Posterity: people in the future [0].


B. Personhood
1. Personhood is human life, which begins at the moment of fertilization. As soon as the thing has all of the chromosomes needed to show growth and development of the human kind, it is a person.
2. If the thing is not life, then what is it? If the thing is not human, then what is it? If a person is not human life, then what is it?
3. Just because It is a person though, the thing is not guaranteed life. So, for my second argument, I will approach via the binding contract that we have called “The Constitution”
4. If you accept my personhood argument, see III.C. If you do not, see III.D

C. The Thing is a person
1. Here is a snippet of the 14th amendment: “…nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property…” [7]
2. The thing is a person. Therefor it shall not be deprived of life.

D. The Thing is not a person
1. Here is the preamble: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America” [6]. The Important line here is “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”
2. Here are a couple more definitions:
3. So, even in the unlikely event that my personhood argument is deemed null and void, any abortion that is not involuntary steals the “blessings” of “the power to do or choose what [one] wants” away from “people in the future.”

**Well, that’s all for now. Thank you readers!
**Looking forward.

[0] Merriam Webster
[1] https://www.spuc.org.uk...
[2] http://www.abortionfacts.com...
[3] http://www.politico.com...
[4] http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...
[5] University ethics course
[6] The preamble
[7] 14th amendment
[8] Albert Einstein
Debate Round No. 3
KatieKat99

Pro

Hi all! glad my opponent has picked this back up since it its quite an interesting topic. Just as a quick road map

On case refutations
A. Constitionality
B. Safety
C. Equality

Off case refutations:
T-Shell (Ill explain when I get there)
A.Personhood
B. The "thing" is a person
c. The thing is not a person.

Ok so first I"m just going to go briefly off case so lets begin!

A. Constitutionality:
1.So lets look at this in a couple different lights. First off my opponent consistent that it is in fact the WOMANS CHOICE not any law maker or raspiest choice. By the Con side of the debate making abortion illegal they would be thus taking away the woman"s right to choice and giving it over to law makers. If my opponent tries to refute this at this point its some what of a mute point because she has already conceit that it should be the woman"s choice.
2. ok the Untied states had no other moral obligation other then to uphold the constituion. It is not a person it it is only bound by the social contract (the constitution) that its has created with its people. Also the constitution changes not because of what is morally fair and right but because of what makes logical sense and what would make sense for the us. An example of this is the 14th amendment and again id like you all to refer to roe vs. wade.
3. My opponent really just tried to side set this argument and really didn"t offer a refutation. nut if you don"t buy that i can simply respond to what she said with its the 14th amendment it encompasses any thing that a private citizen does and AGAIN i would like to point you to roe vs. wade which i would like to point out uses this argument specifically to support my side of the argument and since my opponent really hasn"t refuted this whatsoever it still stands.

B. Safety
1. I don"t see how this is a slippery slop i have provided a clear link story my opponent hasn't been able to follow but ok here ill restate its clearer terms: If you make abortion illegal more babies will be born to woman who don"t want them. Hence they will ether a. put them up for adoption (flooding the system) or b. not take care of them and get them taken away (ether way flooding the system). She claims that by making abortion illegal ether would be less unwanted children to begin with well this simply isn"t true lets just look at the tim period when aortic was illegal the consequences were absolutely horrific
2. WOMAN CAN DIE IN CHILD BIRTH it isn"t just about pain its about death of an actual hymn life not an embryo which as we have established is not a human life (please refer to my off case argumentation for that definition.)
C. Equality
Ok so my opponents main rebuttal to this again is slipper slope which again ahem provide a clear link sorry but since i must defend my case i will restate it woman will still want abortions/ need abortions but do them in less safe environments hence causing more abortion related deaths
1. Its not that they should or shouldn"t it"d just a fact of life! its like drugs are illegal do people not do drugs? no they just do it illegally.
2. ok im not talking about what the US is bound to I"m saying that as i stated how the round should be weighed aka how the voters should vote is which team can show that they have provided the best benefits and most benefits to the United states citizens.

Ok so now that I have sufficiently finnished defending my own case I will move on to my off case arguments
Since my opponent forfeited the first round it is not her first chance to present new terms and definitions thus her editions fall and cannot be taken into account because sit requires to much ground of the pro side to make up.

B. Personhood
1. I really do not want to have a debate over defintions but I will if I really must. A fetus is not a person it has been established time after time let me give you two facts to back me up:
the dictionary: personhood noun
-1.the state or fact of being a person. (and a person is a human being, whether an adult or child)
2.the state or fact of being an individual or having human characteristics and feelings (news flash fetuses can"t actually feel)
- The 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion declared that "person" did not include the unborn.
2. mostly their embryos an organism in its early stages of development, especially before it has reached a distinctively recognizable form.
3. Ok ill address that when i see it.
4. Really? You can"t have it both ways cons ill explain when I get there
C. The thing is s person.
1. Dude! Read the thing if your going to use it as evidence in 3 different court cases one that actually went to the supreme court stated that under the 14th amendment it isn"t person!!!! Roe vs. Wade biggest one please look at it.
2. It isn"t a person... literally look at any dictionary, science site, THE CONSTITUTION it will tell you it is not in fact a person no if ands or buts about it.
D. The thing is not a person
1. Ok this isn"t really an argument?
2. again?
3. Ok I guess I can see what my opponent is trying to say but if you actually boil it down it doesn't make a lot of sense if we"ve established that the "thing" (embryo, fetus) isn"t actually in any shape to become a person at any near point you aren"t actually stealing power or preventing any due happiness and let me just reiterate DUE happiness its not just a random persons its a full person so were talking about if you enslave people or kill LIVING people. So this point again falls

So back to what i said earlier about my opponent not sing able to have both arguments she need to choose one or the other it isn"t fair for her to have access to both its hypocritical and it shows the lack of logic behind her entire case if she can"t make a choice in her own mind why should you or i have to make it for her. It her job to weed out the good from the bad arguments and by presenting both and telling us to just address the one we "agree" with simply goes against the rules of parliamentary debate (which i stated this would be run as and she accepted).

Thank you for reading, I hoped you enjoyed, and a great day!
alyfish126

Con

**Thank's to pro for the ever so passionately presented points.



I) Rebuttals


A. On Constitutionality

1. “First off my opponent consistent that it is in fact the WOMANS CHOICE not any law maker or raspiest choice”
-Correct, I agree with my opponent that it is the woman’s right to choose whether or not to bear a child. When she voluntarily engages in vaginal intercourse, knowing there is a chance of pregnancy (since reproduction is the sole biological purpose of sex), she’s made her choice.
-To illustrate by analogy: Jill is very sick and needs a new kidney. Jane is her sister and Jane’s kidney is a match. Jane volunteers her kidney to Jill even though the doctor informed her of potentially severe weakness she would have to endure for 6-9 months. The simple procedure goes well. One month after, the weakness hits and Jane wants her kidney back. If she gets it back, Jill dies. But, luckily, Jane made her choice already and she cannot simply take her kidney back. Jand made her bed, and now she must lie in it.
2. “the Untied states [has] no other moral obligation other [than] to uphold the constitution”
-The US, being a place, cannot hold any moral obligation. If pro is speaking of the US Government, then I must ask: how is stealing property—that is, via income taxes—and using it to fund elective abortions upholding the Constitution? [1]
3. “id like you all to refer to roe vs. wade”…“i would like to point you to roe vs. wade”… “Dude! Read the thing”… “Roe vs. Wade biggest one please look at it”
-If Pro would kindly demonstrate the argument used by Roe vs. Wade, it would be appreciated, as it seems this is the foundation of Pro’s case.
-What makes Roe vs. Wade set in stone?

B. On Safety

1. “I don"t see how this is a slippery slop”
- My opponent’s slippery slope argument:
i. If abortion is made illegal, then more unwanted babies

ii. Unwanted babies leads to bad things
Therefor:
iii. Abortion should be legal

- The problem with this slippery slope (a logical fallacy), is that the consequences aren’t known. The conclusion goes unproven because the argument’s first premise is false [2].
2. “lets just look at the tim period when aortic [I think pro meant 'abortion'] was illegal the consequences were absolutely horrific”
- Though there could be correlation, there is no proof of causation. Also, what time period is in reference? And what are these horrific consequences?
2. “its about death of an actual hymn life not an embryo which as we have established is not a human life”
- If an embryo is not a human life, then what is it? A nonhuman life form? A frog life perhaps? Or is it not life at all? Like a rock?

C. On Equality

1. “woman will still want abortions/ need abortions but do them in less safe environments hence causing more abortion related deaths”
- Again, this is much like the slippery slope logical fallacy [2] explained earlier, but I will refute this in another way.
- “Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws” [3]. Of course, there will always be lawbreakers. This does not, however, support the conclusion that there should not be a law in the first place.
- The same slippery slope fallacy would apply to drugs—if drugs are illegal then people who still want drugs must do them in unsafe environments, “causing” more drug-related death. Does that mean drugs should be legal and easily accessible? So that drug addicts can carry on safely? This could apply to a number of laws; the conclusion is unrelated to the premise which, again, is based on flimsy predictions.



II) Arguments


A. Personhood
1. If the thing is not a human being, then again, is it a frog being? Or a human that is not being?

*Being: the quality or state of having existence [0].
2. If personhood is based on “being an individual,” or “feelings,” then severe coma patients—brain dead or persisted vegetative state—are not persons and they can be used or disposed of however a doctor feels economically beneficial. However, taking advantage of the organs of a non-donor is illegal because the patients are still protected as persons. Thus, with such criteria, there is inconsistency in declaring the unborn as nonpersons.
3. Also, just because brainwaves have not been recorded earlier than 40 days [4], does not mean that a fetus does not feel at earlier stages. This, like viability, is unsound logic because it is based on current technology.
i. For example: 50 years ago, perhaps viability was at 8 months. In 2011, a 5 month old premie survived [5]. It could be that 50 years from now, technology would be able to support 2 month old premies and so on.

B. The thing is a person

1. “It isn"t a person... literally look at any dictionary, science site, THE CONSTITUTION it will tell you it is not in fact a person no if ands or buts about it.”
- Roe vs. Wade was a significant case, but in fact there are “if ands or buts about it.”
- “Processes through which personhood is recognized vary cross-culturally, demonstrating that notions of personhood are not universal” [6].
2. “After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being. It is no longer a matter of taste or opinion…it is plain experimental evidence. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception” -Dr. Jerome Lejeune, “Father of Modern Genetics” [8].

3. Therefor, the thing is a person protected by the 14th amendment's clear words: "…nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property…"

C. The thing is not a person
1. "the "thing" (embryo, fetus) isn"t actually in any shape to become a person at any near point"
- Considering a healthy thing has the same amount of chromosomes as nearly every other human being, it has every shape necessary to grow to adulthood.

2. "you aren"t actually stealing power or preventing any due happiness and let me just reiterate DUE happiness its not just a random persons its a full person"
-Is preventing a human life from becoming an adult not "preventing any due happiness"?
-So the thing is "just a random person"? Or a half person rather than full?

3. “[we’re] talking about if you enslave people or kill LIVING people”
- If a thing is not living, then it could not be killed and there would be no debate.
4. The point stands: legal abortion makes the "blessings of liberty" insecure to "our porsterity," an act specifically frowned upon by the preamble of the constitution.

D. Benefits

1. Abolishing abortion encourages safer sex practices.
2. Abolishing abortion encourages personal responsibility for one’s choices.
3. Abolishing abortion in the United States protects nearly 3,000 human lives/beings per day [7].



III) Conclusion

Ultimately, Roe vs. Wade is an exhausted case. Legal abortion costs the US over a million human lives every year [7] and the benefits of protecting those lives (by making elective abortions a crime) is incalculable.

**Thank's to the readers for sticking with this debate, please don't abort on it!
**Looking forward.







[0] Merriam Webster
[1] http://www.heritage.org...
[2] http://www.logicalfallacies.info...
[3] Plato
[4] http://www.abortionmyths.ca...
[5] http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[7] http://www.guttmacher.org...
[8] http://www.personhoodusa.com...;
Debate Round No. 4
KatieKat99

Pro

You don't know who it will be, or what their situation is you are not in there shoes and you never will be the question posed today is not whether you like abortion, but whether you think people should be able to make those kinds of choices for themselves. It's easy to say it's "killing babies" -- once you've defined it that way, you don't have to think any more, you can send your brain back out on vacation, and if anyone ever suggests that people should be able to make this kind of decision for themselves, just remember the phrase "baby killers." Because baby killers are bad. People who want to allow baby-killing are bad. Now the world is black and white again. Night-night, brain. The issue cannot be black and white in an educated society Elisabeth Rosenthal states " A comprehensive global study of abortion has concluded that abortion rates are similar in countries where it is legal and those where it is not, suggesting that outlawing the procedure does little to deter women seeking it.” The study here is from World Health Organization in Geneva and the Guttmacher Institute in New York, this shows us that it does not matter legal or not woman will do it. By making it legal we are only making it safer and making it fair and equitable.

Ok since this is the final speech all i will be doing here is giving voter issues since and a two world comparison.

Voters:
1. Evidence:
My opponent misinterprets the Constitution through out her entire case. She claims that Roe vs. Wade is exhausted but provides no alternative court case that interprets the constitution in the way that she has. The reason for this is there are none. She continually asks why Roe vs. Wade is a big deal. Ok so this is why its a big deal it is a supreme court case that hasn’t been over turned or even tested successfully therefore it is entirely relevant and it supports really only the pro side of todays debate. She tries to offer up random websites as sources and Albert Einstein! since when is Albert Einstein a lawyer or even a professional capable of determining what is moral or not? this source doesn’t stand and anything’s he got from him should be dropped. She sites the 14th amendment. If she had bothered to read Roe vs. Wade for herself she would have seen that the 14th amendments is exactly what makes abortion a Connsitiuional right. Because e she couldn’t be bothered to really investigate my evidence or provide real and reliable sources of her own she should loose todays debate on evidential education. Lets just look at my sources again

    • Doctors: Dr. Van look, gynecologist 75 years, Dr. Waldo L. Feilding 80 years gynocologist,Dr. Paul Van social psychologist from W.H.O. Department of Reproductive Health and Research

    • Roe Vs. Wade supreme court case that states teh 14th ammenmnate protects a woman’s right to an abortion

    • 14th amendment

    • Sharon Camp, chief executive of the Guttmacher Institute.

    • New York Times

    • Guttchar institute



2. Hypocrisy:Shee literally says the words "is a human" "is not a human" I said thsi in my secound speech she cant have access to both argument she needs to make a choice. Because she iddnt and because she just contunied to keep it as the way it was before her case basically refutes itself and is some what of a moving target so she should simply be voted down for that because she would only have one very weak poit standing if she did not try to have acess to both of these arguments. SHe really cannot do thsi any fourm of debate not just parli.
3. Harms:

My harms outweigh her supposed benefits:
~Back ally abortions causing more deaths because more woman would die and if you are considering them human so would babies. This is not a slippery slope because I do have evidence to back this thus it cannot be a slippery clop because it isn’t even a logical argument it is a factual argument "Almost any implement you can imagine had been and was used to start an abortion — darning needles, crochet hooks, cut-glass salt shakers, soda bottles, sometimes intact, sometimes with the top broken off.” from WALDO L. FIELDING, M.D. gynecologist for 80 years. Dr. Van Look said. “And the opposite is also true: where it is illegal, it is likely to be unsafe, performed under unsafe conditions by poorly trained providers.”20 million abortions that would be considered unsafe are performed each year and that 67,000 women die as a result of complications from those abortions, most in countries where abortion is illegal.

~ Breaking the constitution would be terrifying would be huge step backward in the woman’s rights movement because their rights and their rights alone would be violated. Specifically their right to privacy stated in the 14th amendment. not only this but it would be making their lives more dangerous as i stated before psychologists found out a long time ago that punishment is not a very effective way to modify behavior. This is the perfect example; making it a crime does not make anybody choose not to do it, it just means that more women will die from it. Woman who are going to get an abortion are going to find a way to get an abortion no matter what and by violating there 14th amendment right we are showing the world that as a country we do not care about our women.

In response to her benefits she says they’ll be safer sex. Hey, there's an idea. Stop having sex except when you want to make babies. Hey, brilliant idea, yeah, that'll work. Let's just get people to stop having sex. That would take care of a whole lot of problems in the world. I wonder why somebody hasn't thought of that already. And let's make people be nice to each other, too, and keep their elbows off the table. In response to her last benefit we’ve already established they are not human ROE VS WADE, 14th amendment people. Don’t buy that the Merrimu Webster dictionary, the American journal of science all agree with me.

Two World Comparisons:
Even if you are not convinced by any of my voting issues I would now like to present a two world comparisons basically turning what both sides have said into a reality and comparing them.

Con world: Abortion is illegal and hundreds of thousands of woman have their 14th amendment violated. There many back ally abortions and thousands of woman die from unsuccessful ones. The woman’s rights movement takes a huge hit and woman no longer have control of their own bodies.
Pro World: The Constitution is upheld and woman are treated as full citizens. AS a whole less woman die and woman are treated as people. We do not go against our for fathers and we do not go against the logical science that has made abortion legal. We support our woman and show the world that we a are a strong nation that is capable of taking care of our women.

What we see from this comparison is that probation is not effective Prohibition of alcohol was a failure. In an ideal world, society would probably be better off without alcohol. However, we do not live in an ideal world. When the supply of a product is made illegal without a dramatic reduction in the demand, the market will just be forced underground. Huge profits will incentivize people to meet this demand. We do not live in a ideal world that is a sad fact but a true one and my opponent and you voters must understand that. I am not arguing or drugs but a 2012 study by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime shows that 8 out of the top 9 countries with the highest murder rates are in the Americas and are heavily involved in the illegal drug trade. This suggests that current prohibition of drugs must also be reconsidered based on its real consequences in this complex world we live in. History has shown over and over again that misguided, idealistic policies can actually cause more harm than good. Prohibition of abortion would be equally as tragic, as it would force women who disagree with this policy to drive to the closest state that allows abortion to get a safe operation. If the woman lacks the resources, she would be forced to find a black market solution to the service.
In closing:
It is important to note that Roe v. Wade did not mean that abortions could be performed. They have always been done, dating from ancient Greek days. Meaning that what Roe said was that ending a pregnancy should be carried out by medical personnel, in a medically acceptable place, thus conferring on women, finally, the full rights of first-class citizens — and freeing their doctors to treat them as such. TO treat woman with the dignity and choice that they in the constitution are guaranteed. Making it illegal doesn't prevent women from having the procedure done, it just makes it more dangerous, the alleyway instead of the sterile doctor's office. Thus I strongly urge you to vote in firm of the affirmation simply because the harms of making abortion illegal far outweigh the benefits that don’t seem to exist. Thank you all for your time.
alyfish126

Con

**Don't confuse me with my argument. I'm the author of the words without asterisks, not the narrating character. I don't know the right answer; if I did then I wouldn't be here.



“You don't know who it will be, [...], you are not in [their] shoes and you never will be[.]”

Not only is this is an appeal to emotion, its also delightfully fitting when applied to the aborted rather than the aborting.

In this educated society pro speaks of, where “things aren’t black and white,” is the Roe’s interpretation of the constitution excluded from that rule? Also, since I “cant have access to both argument[s]” and I need to “make a choice,” should I choose black or white?


“[T]he question posed today is not whether you like abortion, but whether you think people should be able to make those kinds of choices for themselves.”

I think pro has the question wrong. Here:

“the question posed today is not whether you like [pretending to be a feminist], but whether you think [innocent human lives] should be [protected].”

How persuasive.

I say “pretending to be a feminist” because, well, I’ll tell a story:

Rose Ucks loves to say “my body my choice.” She yells it when she makes her choice to open her legs and allow yet another condomless dick in. Of course, Rose Ucks eventually gets her eggo preggo. Happy to have an excuse, she says “I’m eatin’ for two” when she rolls up to the drive-thru for her 30$ order at McDonalds. For 7 months, Rose Ucks does this every day and then smokes a pack of cigarettes and drinks a 6 pack of PBR’s. When people ask “don’t you have a second life to worry about?” and she screams “my body my choice!”

One day she has to pee. She looks down at her stomach and says “why you gotta be sittin on my bladder like that? Ain’t nobody got time for you!”

Rose Ucks pulls up to the clinic and, with her obamacare card in hand, she fist bumps her “my body my choice” bumper sticker on the way in. An hour later, she walks out 7 pounds lighter and more entitled by her choice to end the life of a member of the human species—that is, a human being—because she couldn’t handle the consequences of her first choice and, as a woman, she’s allowed to opt out of the consequences.

To celebrate, Rose Ucks heads straight for the losers trailer and yells “my body my choice” as she opens her legs, and feels empowered by her choice to allow yet another condomless dick in.

The story should demonstrate the irony of the "feminism" played by my opponent. Unfortunately, pro is trying to play chess with a tic-tac-toe strategy.

A real feminist would say “my body my choice” and, if she doesn’t want an accident, she would tell him to use his mouth or get lost.

A faux feminist uses the “my body my choice” at her convenience, but is unwilling to be responsible for her unwillingness to control her body’s urges.


“It's easy to say it's "killing babies" -- once you've defined it that way, you don't have to think any more, you can send your brain back out on vacation.”

This is pro misrepresenting what I have argued—thus making it easier to attack. How satirical.

It’s a shame that pro couldnt come up with a defendable reason for why a human life comprising only of 2 cells is not a person.


“If she had bothered to read Roe vs. Wade for herself she would have seen that the 14th amendments is exactly what makes abortion a Connsitiuional right.”

Here, Pro regurgitates the way something “is” and, without defense, claims it to be the way something “ought” to be.—a sure fire way to halt any change or advances in solving the problem at hand.

In fact I have studied Roe v. Wade once or twice, which is why I have actually used the word “viability” at least once in the earlier rounds.

I don’t need a court case with manipulative lawyers as support; I have a dictionary, the constitution, literacy, and critical thinking.

My personhood argument stands without having been disproved.


“She tries to offer up random websites as sources”

Please see Round 3, con, II.B.2. Here, my opponent is asked for a source to some questionable statistics. That source remains unknown. Thus, I have no trust in any source given by pro.


“Hypocrisy:Shee literally says the words "is a human" "is not a human".”

The above quote from my opponent is a blatant, bold-faced lie.

The difference between “is (not) a human” and “is (not) a person” is the difference between “is (not) a whale” and “is (not) a person.”

I didn’t think it'd really be necessary to explain this but here I go.

Like my opponents separate but applicative arguments (one on Roe, one on the horrible things that are going to happen if abortion isn’t legal, one on Roe, one on sources, one on Roe, etc.), I constructed a separate argument to prepare for a horribly wrong assumption that pro would construct a personhood rebuttal without Roe.

But why refute when lies and blind ignorance (like ignoring my question, “if the thing is not human, then what is it?”) can be used?


“This is not a slippery slope because I do have evidence to back this thus it cannot be a slippery [s]lop[e] because it isn’t even a logical argument it is a factual argument”

Since it seems Pro understands neither “slippery slope,” nor “false cause,” my friend will demonstrate with an easier to follow, cut and paste-type factual argument that will support the con side:

“According to The Guttmacher Institute, the state of New Jersey—one of the nine states with no restrictions on abortions [3]—has an abortion rate more than 11% higher than the average for the United States [1] OK so where there are more allowances for abortions there is less pressure to practice safe sex and because of that, more innocent human lives are lost and the Us’s economy is crashing and more people prolly have STD’s too OK so we must make it a crime so the baby killers can either be punished by carrying the baby or punished by god almighty himself when they get a back alley abortion and die like they’re all gonna do cuz they don’t know how to make any right choices for themselves. Your argument’s wrong and easy and stupid and I know the right answer 100% cuz I knows everything by readin stuff on the interwebs. LITERALLY. OK so ROE ROE ROE YOUR BOAT GENTLY OFF A CLIF DUDE. ”

Okay, so I would like to ask the readers to dismiss the above paragraph for at least two reasons. One being that a slippery slope relies on the future, which is unknown and can be predicted in an infinite number of ways. The other is that there correlation is Not Cause And Effect.

Another game: cause of the effect or strong correlation?

Marriage and divorce

Ice cream and violence

Ok, lets check our answers.

Marriage is always the cause of divorce because without marriage, divorce is inconceivable. The same goes for life and death. When Ice cream purchases spike in the heat of summer, and violence spikes in the heat of summer, it does not mean ice cream causes violence.

The only absolute cause of all elective abortions (including the emotional visualization of alley aborts that pro regurgitated from the retired, 80 year old, Dr. Waldo L. Fielding [2]) is irresponsible pregnancies.

“Back ally abortions causing more deaths because more woman would die and if you are considering them human so would babies.”

I don’t care.

I will not let emotions bond me to close-minded illiteracy of ethical issues. Unless my money is involved. But then it’s an economic issue.

Yes, I agree, women are human. They’re not frogs. Pretty sure they’ll never be frogs. Pretty sure they were human from the start. I mean, unless humans are inbreeding now. Is that a thing these days? I mean, I’ve never seen two humans make a frog. Must be a thing in some places if the Thing that my opponent is talking about is not human. I wonder how many chromosomes it would have…could it be the same as you and me? No. Then it would be human life. But apparently Roe says, “they are not human.” So he must have been into inbreeding. Or maybe aliens. Yeah. Aliens.

In this debate, my opponent has proposed that we shoulder the burden of women’s consequences and keep them safe; that we try to help the careless of humankind, though unwilling to help themselves; that we allow people’s actions and try to remove reaction; that we do not trust in humankind’s ability to make the best decision for themselves; that we do this even if it means that some human life, unable to help themselves, is released from existence.

In this debate, I have proposed that we shoulder the burden of allowing women’s consequences and adopt tough love; that we try to help the innocent of humankind, though unable to help themselves; that we allow people’s actions and try to require a reaction; that we do trust in humankind’s ability to make the best decision for themselves; that we do this even if it means that some human life, unwilling to help themselves, is released from existence.

We the people of the United States of America have the right to Pursue Happiness.

We the people of the United States of America do not have the right to Happiness.

[1] http://www.guttmacher.org...

[2] http://www.nytimes.com...

[3] http://www.nytimes.com...

[everything else] Alyfish126, a junior philosophy & political science major (with a focus on ethics)


**Thank you guys so much if you critically read all of the way through this debate, I hope everyone learned at least one thing from it. Thank you to KatieKat99, not only for hosting the debate, but also for teaching me to bring in more solid, professional quotations as backup and for showing me a new perspective.

**Shortly, I will be creating a debate on the same topic, arguing the opposite position. I would like to invite KatieKat99 to argue from the other side. Just to spread the awareness of the complexity of this problem so that someone, someday, will find the perfect solution. If anybody else would like to debate the subject, shoot me a message and perhaps we could set up teams.

Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by alyfish126 2 years ago
alyfish126
okie
Posted by KatieKat99 2 years ago
KatieKat99
Im for abortion
Posted by alyfish126 2 years ago
alyfish126
I thought you were pro abortion but you're con? Ill argue either side but I'm confused
Posted by KatieKat99 2 years ago
KatieKat99
Oh whoops sorry, thank you for pointing that out. I'm not really sure how to change that though :p
Posted by autodidact 2 years ago
autodidact
um... it sounds like you are anti abortion... perhaps you wish to take the con side...just saying...
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Hanspete 2 years ago
Hanspete
KatieKat99alyfish126Tied
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: Con did better over all, not that Pro was bad, but Con was better in my opinion.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
KatieKat99alyfish126Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Aly forfeited round 2, and has a lovely and factually incorrect story about how abortions and "faux" feminism are related. Katie has terrible grammar. Con uses more sources more effectively. This debate had no clearly defined ethical system, and as such I cannot make any decisions on argumentation (because nothing is meaningful outside of an ethical system). Katie, try going for Utilitarianism, so that impacts from back-alley abortions, etc., matter. Aly, I'd suggest Deontology or other autonomy-based systems.
Vote Placed by Samreay 2 years ago
Samreay
KatieKat99alyfish126Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:43 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Pro, as Con FF a round. Spelling and Grammar to Con, as Con's good grammar, structure and layout made arguments much easier to read. Pro, it takes no effort to actually use the English language properly, please, in future debates, step up your game. Sources to con for clearer, better sources. Pro, I dislike people trying to buff their number of sources by referencing quotes (like the Einstein one). Every source should be a link. For the big one, arguments, I find Pro more convincing. Pro, you could have done a much better job though, an easy refutation to the claims of slippery slope could be given by comparing states and countries: the data does exist that supports your point. Con, your two main arguments failed for me. Your usage of personhood disagrees with all philosophical circles and prior US rulings. Your claim of benefits (safe sex practises, etc) are unsubstantiated. As such, the safety of proper abortions (not back alley) is the best argument presented.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
KatieKat99alyfish126Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: ff....I will read arguments tomorrow!
Vote Placed by RainbowDash52 2 years ago
RainbowDash52
KatieKat99alyfish126Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: conduct for forfeit. Back ally abortions was a good argument.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
KatieKat99alyfish126Tied
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:42 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Pro due to Con's forfeiture. Sources by far goes to Con due to her having a ton more sources and she also used them effectively to back her arguments. Arguments, however, go to Pro on the counter of Con's misinterperation of the Constitution and that there was a lone dropped argument in the debate. If anyone needs this RFD clarified feel free to ask.