The Instigator
Scratch
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Midnight1131
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points

Abortion

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Midnight1131
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/12/2015 Category: Health
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 710 times Debate No: 76497
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

Scratch

Con

Abortion is morally wrong and barbaric. The unborn child has rights as an American (obviously for Americans) and a God-given right to live.
Midnight1131

Pro

I accept this debate, and I await my opponent's opening arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
Scratch

Con

From biology, it is obvious that life begins at the moment of conception. This life can coherently only be described as human because it possesses human DNA and is the progeny of human parents.
One of the main issues of abortion lies behind the vague lines of ones worldview; namely, the origin of life. In essence, according to the evolutionary model,(we'll leave the creation-evolution debate for an other day) life was a spontaneous eruption that emerged from a can of Campbell's Soup. More seriously, according to: http://evolution.berkeley.edu..., life originated when: "simple organic molecules were formed."
Either life arose from non-life, or life is a unique creation of a purposeful Creator. If the evolution model is factually correct, man is but a higher form of animals, an advanced species; therefore abortion is just a fact of life regardless of the consequences for the developing life inside. In contrast, biblical creationists attribute the creation of man distinct to that of the animal kingdom. The Creator gave people unique linguistic, aesthetic, rational, moral, and spiritual faculties not given to animals. Therefore, the sanctity of life is of utmost importance and life begins long before birth.
I am not necessarily implying that all evolutionists are anti-life, but solely that the basic evolutionary model justifies abortion and involuntarily supports it.

Ethics aside, considering the underwritten information, the unborn is human and should be protected as a human.

Imperative facts concerning the developing baby taken from: http://www.prolifeaction.org...

A baby's heart begins to beat 18 days from conception, and by 21 days the heart is pumping blood through a closed circulatory system.
A baby's brainwaves can be detected at 6 weeks from conception.
Fingerprints have formed on an unborn child's hands by 14 weeks from conception.
By 9 weeks from conception, all the structures necessary for pain sensation are functioning.
At 4 weeks from conception, a baby's eye, ear, and respiratory systems begin to form.
Thumb-sucking has been documented at 7 weeks from conception.
At 8 weeks from conception, a baby's heartbeat can be detected by ultrasonic stethoscope.
By 9 weeks from conception, a baby is able to bend her fingers around an object in her hand.
By 11 to 12 weeks from conception, the baby is breathing fluid steadily and continues to do so until birth.
By 11 weeks from conception, a baby can swallow.
Between 13 and 15 weeks from conception, a baby's taste buds are present and functioning.
At 20 weeks, and perhaps as early as 16 weeks from conception, a baby is capable of hearing his mother's heartbeat and external noises like music.
At 23 weeks from conception, babies have been shown to demonstrate rapid eye movements (REM), which are characteristic of active dream states.
At six months from conception, a baby's oil and sweat glands are functioning.
At seven months from conception, a baby frequently "exercises" in preparation for birth by stretching and kicking.
At eight months from conception, a baby's skin begins to thicken, and swallows a gallon of amniotic fluid each day and often hiccups.
During the ninth month from conception, a baby gains half a pound per week. Of the 45 generations of cell divisions before adulthood, 41 have already taken place.
Midnight1131

Pro

I thank my opponent for their response, I'll start off with rebuttals.

From biology, it is obvious that life begins at the moment of conception. This life can coherently only be described as human because it possesses human DNA and is the progeny of human parents.

My opponent has no evidence to back up the statement that simply because something has DNA, it does not mean it has a right to life that surpasses the rights of a woman to control her own body.

Now, concerning my opponents detour into evolution and creationism, this has nothing to do with the debate. My opponent simply states that the basic evolutionary model justifies abortion, I'd like them to explain what this has to do with the argument.

Now moving on to their facts about a fetus's development, which I'd like voters to know are taken from a very baised site. These facts actually have no substance, as they just tell you what happens in a child's developmental stage, my opponent gives no reason why any of these facts mean abortion is wrong. Not to mention that their statement that "by 9 weeks, pain can be felt," is supported by no evidence. In fact, recent studies have shown that unborn babies can feel pain at 20 weeks, not 9 [1.] And since most abortions take place in the first trimester, which is from conception to week 12-13, this fact is irrelevant.
  1. http://www.mccl.org...

Now moving on to my own arguments.

Opening Arguments


Laws against abortions do not stop abortion from happening
Consider the following scenario, a woman wants an abortion, but since abortion is illegal, she can't have one. This isn't true, because she can infact attempt an abortion without the help of people with the necessary skills. If she desperately wants an abortion, she will probably resort to unsafe abortions. Each year, 20 million unsafe abortions are estimated to take place each year, and out of these, 67,000 women die due to complications of unsafe abortion. Also, before the 1973 decision to legalizing abortion, there were still 1 million abortions every year, and it had become the leading cause of maternal death and mutilation.

http://www.who.int......
http://www.thecrimson.com......


Women who are raped should always have the option for abortion
The general stats are that 9000 rape victimes will become pregnant each year. My opponent states that abortion should only be legal if the mother's life is at risk, but my opponent ignores women who were raped. If a woman living in a state where abortion was illegal, was raped, and then became pregnant. She would have two options, try for an unsafe abortion, where the risk to her life is much greater than a proper abortion, or give birth to the child. Let's consider she gives birth to the child, chances are, the child will not experience a happy childhood, given the fact that it was born to a mother who did not want it alive. If the child is given up for adoption, then the child will cost taxpayers much more money than a Medicaid abortion would. An abortion during the first trimester of a pregnancy costs around $350 - $400. But providing for a child in an adoption centre for many years would cost much more.

http://www.lifenews.com......


A woman has a right to control over her body
A fetus cannot survive independant of a woman's body during the first trimester of pregnancy, as it is attached by the placenta and the umblicical cord, it's health depends on the health of the mother, and at this point, the fetus cannot be considered as a seperate lifeform. Abortion isn't equivalent to killing a newborn, because the fetus isn't capable of living an independant life. And I know that most people would bring up late term abortions, but there are stats that show 90% of abortions occur in the first 13 weeks of the pregnancy. And at this point, the fetus isn't capable of living as an independent being.




http://www.cdc.gov......


Right to privacy
A supreme court decision stated that the Right to Privacy, a constitutional human right, extends to the issue of abortion.

The right to privacy is our right to keep a domain around us, which includes all those things that are part of us, such as our body, home, property, thoughts, feelings, secrets and identity. The right to privacy gives us the ability to choose which parts in this domain can be accessed by others, and to control the extent, manner and timing of the use of those parts we choose to disclose.


The court ruled 7-2 that a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion.
http://www.pbs.org......

Debate Round No. 2
Scratch

Con

After thanking Pro for responding to this debate, I would like to point out that: baised, victimes, independant, umblicical and seperate are spelled: biased, victims, independent, umbilical and separate respectively. Also, infact and lifeform are correctly written as: "in fact" and "life form". Some statements are also poorly written. For example: "Each year, 20 million unsafe abortions are estimated to take place each year" and "A woman has a right to control over her body"

Your links are very generic. Instead of simply posting links to the home page please provide links to the specific content referred to. Although I brought up the unborn"s rights as an American, I was surprised you mentioned the 14th amendment because according to your profile you are Canadian. Your arguments also appear to defend the legalization of abortion while I was referring to abortion on the moral scale. That"s why I mentioned the creation-evolution debate. Considering this debate took the legalization path I will address this matter and leave the moral debate for later. I figure this information will be useful when you "copy-paste" your arguments on your next abortion debate as you did on this one. [1.]http://www.debate.org... round 2
That said, I will first clarify and defend my opening statements then present my rebuttals:

"My opponent has no evidence to back up the statement that simply because something has DNA, it does not mean it has a right to life that surpasses the rights of a woman to control her own body."---Midnight
Although your wording is a bit confusing I think I understand your meaning. As you used the term "right to life" you"ve said the unborn is alive. Life is matter that shows certain attributes that include responsiveness, growth, metabolism, energy transformation, and reproduction---- http://www.britannica.com...
That said, let"s compare "the unborn/ woman"s right to control her body" and "you/ Canada"s right to control her country".
The unborn contributes nothing to his mother, he is a burden to her system, he takes her nutrition and he emits poisons in her body. Being a minor you compare nicely to the analogy between woman"s rights and Canada"s rights. Currently you are useless to Canada. You pay no taxes, you burden the healthcare system, you take from the schools; you breath air, you drink water and you emit poisons into Canadian atmosphere. Since Canada has the right to control those in her jurisdiction, I propose a law that all non-tax paying residents can be "aborted" on will. These eliminations are limited to safe-abortion methods which include: a powerful vacuum with a knife-edged tip that tears the flesh and vacuums it into a disposal bin, a hook shaped knife, and the method when forceps latch to a part of the unwanted; the teeth of the forceps twist and tear the bones of the person. This process is repeated until the victim is totally dismembered; usually the spine must be snapped and the skull crushed in order to remove them. Chemicals that commonly decapitate and removing the source of nutrition and oxygen can also be used.
This proposal is viable because laws against homicide do not stop homicides from happening, with immigrates (rape) Canada should always have the option for elimination, Canada has the right to control her country, and the she has the right to privacy. With that analogy, why is abortion fine but eliminating non-tax paying residents not?? Your right to life does not surpass the rights of a country to control her own country. Btw, I also am an immigrant.

"Now, concerning my opponents detour into evolution and creationism, this has nothing to do with the debate. My opponent simply states that the basic evolutionary model justifies abortion, I'd like them to explain what this has to do with the argument"----Midnight

Like I previously stated, I, as the challenger was focusing on the moral debate not the legalization debate. The creation-evolution debate is so closely intertwined with the morals behind abortion that to leave it unaddressed would have been a sign of ignorance. But as mentioned, we"ll leave that debate for later.

"Now moving on to their facts about a fetus's development, which I'd like voters to know are taken from a very baised site." ---midnight
1. And who taught you bias is wrong?? Almost every website is biased. evolution.berkeley.edu is biased toward evolution, www.who.int/en/ is biased toward abortion and http://www.tacobell.com... is biased towards Taco Bell!
2. Even if that site is totally biased, you called the information facts. If they are facts, they are true.
3. This is a debate that will be voted on, but really?? If you are solely concerned about votes, I perceive politician blood runs thick through your veins!

"These facts actually have no substance, as they just tell you what happens in a child's developmental stage, my opponent gives no reason why any of these facts mean abortion is wrong."---Midnight
Uh, the facts disagree. I stated that: "considering the underwritten information, [the unborn developing] the unborn is human and should be protected as a human." These facts mean abortion is wrong because the child is a "human and should be protected as a human""..

"Not to mention that their statement that "by 9 weeks, pain can be felt," is supported by no evidence. In fact, recent studies have shown that unborn babies can feel pain at 20 weeks, not 9"----Midnight

1. Again, the facts prove different. It said: "By 9 weeks from conception, all the structures necessary for pain sensation are functioning." It did not say: "by 9 weeks, pain can be felt". Although similar, these excerpts are quite different. The first clarifies that the "structures necessary" are functioning.
2. According to Campbell Neil and Butler Nance Cunningham in "Infants, pain and what health care professionals should want to know": "Studies indicate that cortical, subcortical, and peripheral centres necessary for pain per- caption begin developing early in the second trimester." Early in the second trimester would be approx. 14-15 weeks. From my research, it appears that the debate is focused around the definition of pain. But think about it: Is conventional murder permissible if the victim is "drugged out" and feels no pain?
3. According to your link, "At 20 weeks, the fetal brain has the full complement of brain cells present in adulthood, ready and waiting to receive pain signals from the body, and their electrical activity can be recorded by standard electroencephalography (EEG)." " Dr. Paul Ranalli, neurologist, University of Toronto. S So, is abortion wrong after 20 weeks?

"And since most abortions take place in the first trimester, which is from conception to week 12-13, this fact is irrelevant."----Midnight
Irrelevant: not relating or pertinent to the matter at hand; not important---http://www.collinsdictionary.com...
These facts are quite relevant because abortions, however rare, still take place after 20 weeks. It is related, it is pertinent and it is important.

"Laws against abortions do not stop abortion from happening"---Midnight
Not impressed. Laws against conventional murder, rape, incest, embezzlers and theft do not stop murder, rape, incest, embezzlement and theft from happening. So what??

Consider the following scenario, Honduras wants to commit a conventional murder, but since its illegal, she can"t. This isn"t true, because she can in fact attempt to murder without the help of people with the necessary skills. If she desperately wants to eliminate, she will probably resort to unsafe abortions. In 2014, over 90.4 out of 100,000 people were murdered in Honduras. Since many complications arise during the murdering process, we should make murder legal.
http://www.unodc.org...

And I'm out of space...
Midnight1131

Pro

I thank my opponent for the previous round, and my apologies for the broken sources, here are the working links.

http://www.pbs.org...

http://www.cdc.gov...

http://www.lifenews.com...

http://www.thecrimson.com...

http://www.who.int...

I’d also like to point out that it is completely fine on this site to copy and paste opening arguments that are ORIGINAL and CREATED BY THE POSTER. Those arguments WERE NOT plagiarized, as they were arguments that I WROTE in a previous debate. I’d also like voters to know that my opponent has at this point agreed to keep this debate about legalization of abortion, and not morals. Now, onto rebuttals.

As you used the term "right to life" you"ve said the unborn is alive.

I haven’t said that the unborn is alive, because in my view an unborn child is potential life, therefore the term “right to life” still applies here.

Now, I will address my opponent’s analogy between abortion and how a nation deals with its population.

First off, my opponent says this, “let’s compare “the unborn/woman’s right to control her body” and “you/Canada’s right to control her country.” This statement has not been backed up by any sources, Canada is not a living being, so I will assume my opponent talks of the Canadian Government. My opponent states that “Since Canada has the right to control those in her jurisdiction, I propose a law that all non-paying tax residents can be “aborted” on will.” What right? My opponent hasn’t shown any source that says the gov’t has full control of the nation and its population. My opponent should know the gov’t doesn’t own the country, but a woman owns her body, therefore this analogy is irrelevant, as the gov’t doesn’t have the same control over the nation is governing as a human being has over their body.

“Your right to life does not surpass the rights of a country to control her own country.”

I’m sorry, “the rights of a country to control her own country?” You mean the rights of the gov’t to control the country, and the “country” is a piece of land, not a human body. Not to mention, the fetus does not have a right to life, as it is completely dependent upon the mother’s body, and cannot exist without it. This claim was rejected by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade [1 (IX – A).]

Canada has the right to control her country, and the she has the right to privacy.

The right to privacy states that, it is a person’sright to keep a domain around them, which includes all those things that are part of them, such as their body, home, property, thoughts, feelings, secrets and identity. The right to privacy gives them the ability to choose which parts in this domain can be accessed by others, and to control the extent, manner and timing of the use of those parts they choose to disclose.

It's obvious, "Canada" is not a person, and neither is the government, so they have no right to privacy, as they don’t own the nation. Since this analogy is not an accurate comparison, the right to privacy argument still stands.

“With immigrates (rape) Canada should always have the option for elimination”

This analogy is incorrect, as immigration is regulated by the Canadian government, which means it is consented to by both parties, immigrant and the Canadian government. Rape is not consented to by both parties. So the point “Raped women should always have the option for abortion,” still stands.

Now, moving on.

The facts that my opponent provided in their first round actually give no evidence that a developing fetus is a human. My opponent even conceded that the unborn is a developing human, in the following statement. My opponent cannot simply give information about the developmental phase of a fetus, and pretend that’s enough to prove that the fetus has a right to life.

“Considering the underwritten information, [the unborn developing] the unborn is human and should be protected as a human."”

I’d also like to address my opponent’s views on biased sources, which contradict themselves.

First, my opponent tells me that bias is not wrong.

“1. And who taught you bias is wrong?? Almost every website is biased. evolution.berkeley.edu is biased toward evolution, www.who.int/en/ is biased toward abortion and http://www.tacobell.com...... is biased towards Taco Bell!”

Then, shortly after, they ask me to provide a source that isn’t biased.

“Says who? Please document this assumption from a non-biased site or a peer-reviewed professional journal.”

I would like my opponent to clearly state their view on biased sources in the next round, but until then, I’ll assume that all sources with evidence regardless of opinion are viable in this debate.

“These facts are quite relevant because abortions, however rare, still take place after 20 weeks. It is related, it is pertinent and it is important.”

This is my opponent responding to my point of how the majority of abortions take place in the first trimester [12-13 weeks,] which is before the fetus is developed, or capable of functioning independently. Since my opponent specified before that we are talking about legality, the “rare occurrences” should not determine the law. It doesn’t make sense to ban abortions simply because in rare cases they take place after 20 weeks. Not to mention that if the mother waited 20 weeks before abortion, she most likely would’ve wanted the child, and the only reason to abort would be health related issues.

Next, my opponent states that laws against murder, rape, incest, embezzlers etc. are not effective. Therefore they say that my unsafe abortions doesn’t stand. However it is on my opponent to show how abortion is a crime, which they haven’t done yet. So my point here still stands.

Now I will address the points raised by my opponent in the comments section.

Again, not necessarily. Sure he was conceived against her will, but that is her offspring!!

My opponent is saying that a mother might still want to keep a child that was conceived against her will, however this point is irrelevant to this debate, as if the mother wanted to keep the child, abortion wouldn’t even come to mind.

"A woman has a right to control over her body"---Midnight
Approx. 51% of babies are male. How can it be only her body if it"s male? And the baby has a father"

Here my opponent claims that a pregnant women’s body is not actually her own body. It doesn’t matter if the child is a male or female, the body in which it resides is the woman’s body. The father of the baby also has no right to control a woman’s body. Since my opponent has not provided any real evidence, my point still stands. This leads me to one more argument.

Thirteenth Amendment

This states in section 1 that –

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. [2]

Now, it says “involuntary servitude,” which I define below.

Involuntary servitude is a United States legal and constitutional term for a person laboring against that person's will to benefit another.

Forcing a woman to carry out a pregnancy is obviously involuntary servitude, as it is going against the will of the woman, and she is labouring to benefit an unborn child and the father [at times], and she’s being forced by the state to carry through with the pregnancy.

With that I conclude this round, and toss the ball back to my opponent.

Sources

  1. https://www.law.cornell.edu...
  2. https://www.law.cornell.edu...

Debate Round No. 3
Scratch

Con

As this is the fourth and final round I will comment on a few points then make my conclusion.


“I’d also like to point out that it is completely fine on this site to copy and paste opening arguments that are ORIGINAL and CREATED BY THE POSTER.”---Midnight

I wasn’t condemning the copy-paste, but was observing that more care should be taken when employing this tactic; “Cookie cutter” answers should always be thoroughly critiqued and revised to obtain optimal coherence and relevance.



“I haven’t said that the unborn is alive, because in my view an unborn child is potential life, therefore the term “right to life” still applies here.”---M

Life is matter that shows certain attributes that include responsiveness, growth, metabolism, energy transformation, and reproduction---- http://www.britannica.com... The unborn is responsive, grows, metabolizes, has energy transformation and will reproduce. Therefore its alive.

“I’d also like to address my opponent’s views on biased sources, which contradict themselves. First, my opponent tells me that bias is not wrong. “1. And who taught you bias is wrong?? Almost every website is biased. evolution.berkeley.edu is biased toward evolution, www.who.int/en/ is biased toward abortion and http://www.tacobell.com......... is biased towards Taco Bell!” Then, shortly after, they ask me to provide a source that isn’t biased. “Says who? Please document this assumption from a non-biased site or a peer-reviewed professional journal.” I would like my opponent to clearly state their view on biased sources in the next round”----M

I perceive my humorous intent was missed. My full comment was: "The child will [probably] not experience a happy childhood"[if born of rape]---Midnight “Says who? Please document this assumption from a non-biased site or a peer-reviewed professional journal.”-----S My point was approaching sarcasm. As you noted, I already stated unbiased sites are rare. Therefore any site that refers to abortion, rape and the child’s happiness will more than likely be biased.


“With immigrates (rape) Canada should always have the option for elimination” This analogy is incorrect, as immigration is regulated by the Canadian government, which means it is consented to by both parties, immigrant and the Canadian government. Rape is not consented to by both parties.”----M

What about illegal aliens? Is it right to eliminate them??


“So the point “Raped women should always have the option for abortion,” still stands.”---M

Not. Why kill the innocent baby?? If you are so abort-happy, kill the rapist!! The offspring of rape is still human. BTW, if the mother opted to birth the child, does she have the right to “abort” it 3 years later?? "

A woman has a right to control over her body"---Midnight “Approx. 51% of babies are male. How can it be only her body if it"s male? And the baby has a father" ---S Here my opponent claims that a pregnant women’s body is not actually her own body. It doesn’t matter if the child is a male or female, the body in which it resides is the woman’s body.”

The unborn is not the woman’s body. He has 50% chance of being male, has his own DNA, two arms, two legs, a heart, lungs, and half of him comes from his father!! The 13th amendment is a different subject that does not apply because you are not American.

In conclusion, the child is a human and murder is not justified. Thanks for the great debate and I truly hope in the near future your abortion views will change.


P.S. Isn’t it great your mother was pro-life??



Midnight1131

Pro


I thank my opponent for the final round. This was their first debate on DDO, and I welcome them to the site, and congratulate them on finishing their first debate. Now, I will move on to some rebuttals, then a closing statement.



My opponent showed how the unborn is alive, according to a general definition. However they fail to show how the unborn has a right to life. As I had mentioned before, in arguments unrefuted by Con. That when it is impossible for the fetus to live independent of the mother’s body [fetal viability,] then it does not have a right to life, as it is a burden to the woman’s body, and could not exist without it.



Next, my opponent goes back to defending their “abortion rights and country’s rights” analogy. But only responds to my rebuttal about immigrants, and doesn’t refute it, but simply brings up another point, therefore we can assume that all arguments I made against the analogy were dropped, so they still stand, and the analogy does not. But my opponent talks about illegal aliens, and asks “is it right to eliminate them.”



Illegal immigrant


A foreigner who enters the U.S. without an entry or immigrant visa



This analogy is also incorrect, because the US gov’t has taken action concerning illegal immigrants, for example the Bush administration proposed to give illegal immigrants guest worker status, and citizenship opportunities. The key point in this, is that the government makes the final decision on illegal immigrants, and decides whether or not they stay. Since my opponent is arguing against abortion, and is against a woman deciding, this analogy is incorrect, as the government does indeed take action on illegal immigrants, and it’s their choice as to which actions to carry out.



The unborn is not the woman’s body. He has 50% chance of being male, has his own DNA, two arms, two legs, a heart, lungs, and half of him comes from his father!!



My opponent has missed the point of this statement. Again, I was arguing for fetal viability. If the unborn is unable to survive independent of the woman’s body, then it is a part of the woman’s body, and the woman can decide whether or not to keep it. The woman’s body isn’t simply a container for a fetus. The fetus is intertwined and connected to a woman’s body, and cannot survive without it, therefore it is a part of the woman’s body, and its rights are not above those of the woman herself.



Not. Why kill the innocent baby?? If you are so abort-happy, kill the rapist!! The offspring of rape is still human. BTW, if the mother opted to birth the child, does she have the right to “abort” it 3 years later?? "



First off, my opponent doesn’t even address the fact that by forcing a woman to undergo a pregnancy, you are saying that it doesn’t matter whether or not she consented to being impregnated, and her body is simply a container for the fetus, and she doesn’t have any rights over it during this time. Also, if the mother birthed the child, at that point IT CAN SURVIVE INDEPENDENTLY. This is where fetal viability comes to play again, the child has rights now because its body is capable of functioning on its own. When the fetus is completely dependent on its mother’s body for support, it is the mother’s decision whether or not she wants to keep this burden [I’m using the word burden without any emotional appeal, I’m not saying in any way that the burden of childbirth is a bad thing] attached to her body.




Thirteenth & Fourteenth Amendment


My opponent completely drops these arguments on the basis that I’m a Canadian. This is ridiculous, my opponent doesn’t even bother to explain why this is an acceptable reason to drop arguments. Not to mention that it was my opponent who instigated this debate, and at the beginning they stated - Abortion is morally wrong and barbaric. The unborn child has rights as an American (obviously for Americans) and a God-given right to live. – My opponent fully stated that this debate is “obviously for Americans.” Then later, when I present my fourteenth amendment argument, they state - I was surprised you mentioned the 14th amendment because according to your profile you are Canadian. – And when I presented my argument for the thirteenth amendment they said - the 13th amendment is a different subject that does not apply because you are not American. My opponent dropped all of these arguments stating that they do not apply “because I’m Canadian.” But they do apply, because they are American, and my opponent, who created the debate, stated that the debate was concerning the USA. So these 2 arguments, along with a number of other’s that my opponent dropped/did not refute, still stand.



That’s all for this debate, I thank my opponent, and vote Pro.


Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Scratch 1 year ago
Scratch
I am slightly disappointed and grieved by our voter"s apparent ignorance concerning "ad hominem and personal attacks. " According to Dr. Michael C. Labossiere (2002"2010). In "42 Fallacies: Ad Hominem", http://dictionary.reference.com... and http://www.nizkor.org... :

"Argumentum ad hominem, means responding to arguments by attacking a person's character, rather than to the content of their arguments. When used inappropriately, it is a fallacy in which a claim or argument is dismissed on the basis of some irrelevant fact or supposition about the author or the person being criticized"
"An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting)."
"Ad hominem: appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason."

I never attacked the character of my opponent, his circumstances or his actions. I used him as a generic example and am confident my opponent would testify that he was not belittled or personally attacked in any fashion. If my attempt at a relevant illustration was misunderstood, I extend my sincere apologies unto my worth opponent.
Posted by Midnight1131 1 year ago
Midnight1131
"If you are solely concerned about votes, I perceive politician blood runs thick through your veins!"

Thanks for the compliment!
Posted by Scratch 1 year ago
Scratch
Some more observations:

"My opponent states that abortion should only be legal if the mother's life is at risk"---Midnight
"Copy-Paste" error. I never said that.

"The child will [probably] not experience a happy childhood"[if born of rape]---Midnight
Says who? Please document this assumption from a non-biased site or a peer-reviewed professional journal.

"given the fact that it was born to a mother who did not want it alive"---Midnight
Again, not necessarily. Sure he was conceived against her will, but that is her offspring!!

"An abortion during the first trimester of a pregnancy costs around $350 - $400. But providing for a child in an adoption centre for many years would cost much more." Midnight
So money justifies homicide? The average cost of raising a child is $245,000. If your parents experience an economic downturn would that justify aborting you tomorrow?? Should we abort all on food stamps because it is a burden to taxpayers??
http://money.cnn.com...

"A woman has a right to control over her body"---Midnight
Approx. 51% of babies are male. How can it be only her body if it"s male? And the baby has a father"

"A fetus cannot survive independant of a woman's body during the first trimester of pregnancy,"---Midnight
How would you fare wet, without food and naked on the North Pole? How would you fare alone in the desert?
Posted by trevor32192 1 year ago
trevor32192
Seriously con? Your facts are from a site that is extremely bias. Please use more thought when choosing resources.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by tajshar2k 1 year ago
tajshar2k
ScratchMidnight1131Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had the better arguments, he sucessfully refuted Con's arguments, while showing how Women should have the right to their own bodies. Regarding the 13th and 14th ammendment arguments. Con simply cannot dismiss it, due to the fact that Pro is Canadian. Him being a different nationality is information that is not relevant to the debate. Also his ad hominem attacks in round 2 costs him points for conduct"Currently you are useless to Canada. You pay no taxes, you burden the healthcare system, you take from the schools; you breath air, you drink water and you emit poisons into Canadian atmosphere".
Vote Placed by Death23 1 year ago
Death23
ScratchMidnight1131Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Entire debate was off topic. There were discussions that had little to do with the morality of abortions. These other topics included murder, rape, incest, constitutional amendments, taxation, and evolution vs. creationism. Re: Conduct - Con's personal attacks in round 2 were not appropriate. "Currently you are useless to Canada. You pay no taxes, you burden the healthcare system, you take from the schools; you breath air, you drink water and you emit poisons into Canadian atmosphere." Come on...