The Instigator
Ariesz
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
Alexforpresident
Con (against)
Losing
0 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 1 vote the winner is...
Ariesz
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/27/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 266 times Debate No: 90300
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (1)

 

Ariesz

Pro

Round 1-Acceptance, Round 2-Cases, Round 3-Rebuttals, Round 4-Defense
In this debate, we will strictly be talking about the benefits, harms, and morality of abortion. I will be arguing that abortion has more benefits than harms, while my opponent disagrees on moral reasons. It will be pro's job to argue that the benefits outweigh the harms, and that it is indeed moral for one to acquire an abortion. Con will argue that abortion is immoral, and that it is indeed the killing of the child.
Alexforpresident

Con

I acept this debate, and look forward to debating this issue.
I will argue abortion is killing and immoral.
I will ask for you to tell what week you think abortion should go to, or if your like Hilary and think it's good until birth.
Debate Round No. 1
Ariesz

Pro

Contention 1-Demographics
Demographics are essential to understanding the real benefits of an abortion. Abortion is usually the better choice rather than going through with the pregnancy:
-42% of women that get an abortion are below the poverty line
-27 percent have incomes within 200 percent of the poverty line.
-Together that makes 69% percent of the women getting an abortion economically disadvantaged.
-Women under 20 account for 18% of the abortions
-http://prospect.org......
Having a child for any of these women would create a negative impact on them and the child.

Contention 2-Benefits
I will be specifically talking about the benefits that the women listed in the demographics would receive from the abortion.
It is hard to raise a child if one is below the poverty line. It takes 241,000 dollars to raise a child. This already creates a negative impact on all women listed in the demographics. 42% of Women that get abortions make less than 23,000 dollars.
You have to think about the negative implications of raising a child when you are below the poverty line. One cannot just have a child. You have to think about:
1. The well-being of the child.
2. Can you provide food for the child?
3. Can you provide food for yourself?
Life below the poverty line is stressful.
One must be able to create a stable income in order to raise a child. Also, the woman who is pregnant also needs to have a stable life, and not drive herself to the breaking point. Single parents must provide greater support for their children while they themselves may feel alone.
Benefits:
Not making a poor woman's life harder.
Making a poor person's objective to create a stable foundation for having children.
Not making the child's life harder.
Not having parent's feel the emotional impact of being lonely.

Contention 3-Harms of not having an Abortion
The harms of not having an abortion effect both the child and the parent. The average cost of raising a child is 241,000 dollars. The actual effects it has on poor families is devastating for everyone involved. Here is an excerpt of a book that gives just a tiny hint on what it is like everyday as a single mom.
"As a homeless, unwed, teen mom, I often wondered if anyone could hear me. Did anyone hear me cry at night? Did anyone hear the screams? Did anyone understand my struggles? Was the pain on the outside of me as loud as it was on the inside? Would we eat tonight or go hungry again?"-By Jennifer Barnes Maggio
Research was done by Jacqueline Kirby, M.S. from Ohio State University which give empirical evidence of the harms of single-parenting.
Research:
-Indicates that children from single-parent families live less healthy lives.
-Children growing up with one parent have a higher probability of dropping out of school.
-Trouble keeping jobs as young adults.
-Mother-only families are more likely to be poor because of the lower earning capacity of women,
-The median annual income for female-headed households with children under six years old is roughly one-fourth that of two-parent families.
-Approximately 53 percent of single mothers are not in the work force because they are unable to find affordable, quality, child care
- The majority of these mothers have no high school diploma, leaving them with few job opportunities or jobs that pay only the minimum wage.
-Parents with two or more children often have little money left after paying taxes and child care.
-Single parents experience a variety of stressors related to poverty (i.e., financial, emotional, social).
-Financial strain is one of the strongest predictors of depression in single parents

Sources:
http://prospect.org...
http://www3.uakron.edu...
Alexforpresident

Con

First I will show how abortion Is killing.
From a religious standpoint, conception begins life, and I agree to that. It is a human with the right amount of chromosomes, and will grow and develop.

Of course this holds no water with scientists, so I'll go ahead a few weeks. I asked you to say what week you think abortion should be stopped at, you failed to say.

babies born at 22 weeks had a nearly 25 percent survival rate if actively treated in a hospital according to the new England journal of medicine.http://www.newsweek.com...

Now we know morally killing one who has a 1/4 chance of survival is without question morally wrong. So now we look back to before 22 weeks.
At week 6-7 the baby's heart BEATS at a regular rythm. At this tine, the brain has developed into 5 parts. The brain doesn't need to be fully developed for one to be considered alive hunan.

I don't think anyone will deny that the fetus at week 6 is not alive, some say it's not human, which is strange, since it has 1. A brain 2. A beating heart 3. 46 pairs of chromosomes.

Killing an Alive human is immoral, there are speacial cases that account for <1% of all abortions in which a baby may be killed.

If the baby isn't alive, tell me how.
If it isn't a hunan, tell what it is.

A mother low on money can apply for charity, goverment assistance, or put the baby up for adoption.

I see no benifit that outweighs killing of a fetus in 99.9% of the time.
Debate Round No. 2
Ariesz

Pro

I knew that my opponent would take this debate on moral and religious backgrounds. I will be dedicating this round to be explaining how abortion is actually moral and an ethical decision to make.
Terms:
Morality-principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
Utilitarianism-the doctrine that actions are right if they are useful or for the benefit of a majority. The doctrine that an action is right in so far as it promotes happiness, and that the greatest happiness of the greatest number should be the guiding principle of conduct.
Oxford dictionaries
My opponent claims that he himself has the upper hand when it comes to morality. I will refute these claims by equating Abortion to real life scenarios where morality is a matter of much debate:

Warfare-There are many examples that I could pull that prove that morality is very variable when it comes to intense situations. This is especially true when it comes to warfare.
Japan-As we all know, America launched an atomic bomb on Nagasaki. 60,000 to 70,000 people were innocently killed in this bombing. Did America have to take those innocent lives? This is just an example where there can be a debate about morality. Morality is very variable when it comes to certain situations as represented here. My opponent could claim that Japan was the enemy, and we needed to drop the bomb in order to end this war. That is also true, but America could have won the war in a very different way. We could have launched an invasion without taking innocent lives. The problem with that is we risk loosing a significant amount of soldiers on our side. Again, there can be a debate when it comes to morality here. I feel like I have to address this, because pro-lifers usually will assume they are the most accurate when it comes to defining morality. I will be arguing utilitarianism which is also an ethical value.

Utilitarianism-I support Abortion, because I believe that it is the greatest benefit for the mother. However, I do believe that there should be regulation when it comes to the amount of the times a mother can abort there child. Now, lets apply utilitarianism to mothers that are faced with this difficult decision.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-42% of women that get an abortion are below the poverty line:
Poverty line-If one makes below16,000 dollars per year.
How much does it cost to raise a child?
A child's cost per year is $12,800 - $14,970.
Now, try to make a single mother raise a child with that much money coming in per year. My opponent would be na"ve to not know the reality, consequences, and long term effects of this given what I provided in round 2.
---------------
"As a homeless, unwed, teen mom, I often wondered if anyone could hear me. Did anyone hear me cry at night? Did anyone hear the screams? Did anyone understand my struggles? Was the pain on the outside of me as loud as it was on the inside? Would we eat tonight or go hungry again?"-By Jennifer Barnes Maggio
One can look at this empirical evidence, and see how this example can be applied to many that are going to have to experience this lifestyle if they decide to have that child. This also is not about just the mother. The greatest benefit would be for her not to have that child. The child should not even have to experience that kind of lifestyle with that mother. It is actually a negative.
The reality is that a family will experience these harms if my opponent makes it harder for one to acquire an abortion.
-Children growing up with one parent have a higher probability of dropping out of school.
-Trouble keeping jobs as young adults.
-Mother-only families are more likely to be poor because of the lower earning capacity of women,
-The median annual income for female-headed households with children under six years old is roughly one-fourth that of two-parent families.
-Approximately 53 percent of single mothers are not in the work force because they are unable to find affordable, quality, child care
- The majority of these mothers have no high school diploma, leaving them with few job opportunities or jobs that pay only the minimum wage.
-Parents with two or more children often have little money left after paying taxes and child care.
-Single parents experience a variety of stressors related to poverty (i.e., financial, emotional, social).
-Financial strain is one of the strongest predictors of depression in single parents.
I think that it is clear that the benefits outweigh the harms in this scenario. I offer these questions to my opponent.
1. Why do you want a family, or single parent to experience this lifestyle?
2. Is it moral for you to have a family experience this?
3. What is your reaction to how the child is predicted to live?
I think that it cannot be more obvious that utilitarianism wins here. The greatest benefit would be for the woman to acquire an abortion in order to save her, the father, and the child from depression, stress, and eventually suicidal thoughts.

"A mother low on money can apply for charity, goverment assistance, or put the baby up for adoption."
How easy is it for a poor person to apply for government assistance? How easy is it? How come poverty has not been dissolved already if it is so easy. It might be easy for you and I, because we have had an education about this matter. But, it is probably very hard for a poor person who does not have a substantial education matter to apply for government aid.
Adoption costs 50,000 dollars. The people that are in these demographics cannot possibly afford that.

http://www.bing.com...
Alexforpresident

Con

Japan bombings having nothing to do with the abortion debate. I think bombing Japan was moral and saved lives
http://www.newsweek.com... It is common for pro-abortionists to look at any exude to try to justify abortion.

You say 69% of woman who get abortions don't have money.
That, I'll admit, is true, or just about true. But why does not having money justify killing? Let's look at the other options that don't cost money, yet don't kill. 1. Adoption. - I know adoption isn't ideal, but an Alive kid is better then a dead one. 2. There are hundreds of charities that are dedicated to pregnant woman, and their babies. Instead of getting the quick way out via abortion, one can simply apply for charity, or government assistance if necessary.

18% of woman who get abortions are under 20. Why have sex under 20? That's stupid, and actions deserve consequences. The mother makes a bad choice, but is told she can get away with it by killing- and killing, to my knowledge, creates a negative impact on both the killer, and killed, and all who consciencely concentrate to the act.

Nobody is leaving a poor mother to take care of a baby alone. If the mother is a good person, she will receive charity money or government assistance. If the mother doesn't deserve charity or government assistance, the baby will be tacken away.

What would you rather have
a. A bellow- average well being (keep in mind this is america where one can achieve greatness out of nothing), or b. No shot at life?
a. Little food, food stamps, or charity food. b. No food cause your dead.
b. Little food, food stamps, or charity food. b. having to kill to get conformable food.
One could also use adoption. For those who don't know adoption is getting rid of a baby without killing it.

One of your "benifits" is "not making the child's life harder" it seems like your saying it's better for a child to die, then to go though a bit of hard times and have a shot at greatness.
Another one of the benifits is that the parents won't feel lonely. What would a person feel more lonely about- being alone, or having a kid to talk to? Seems easy.

You keep repeating the same thing about money, ice already said charities, goverment assistance, or adoption.

"Children from single parent families live less healthy lives" - in my opinion, death isn't too healthy.
"Children growing up with one parent have a higher probabilityof dropping out of school" so the solution is to kill them. I believe hitler did a similar thing.
The earning capacity of woman thing is for another debate

You also think that not making a lot of money is justificarion to kill.
Also you think saying "I can't find child care, I'll get an abortion" is correct because nothing says great child care like killing
Debate Round No. 3
Ariesz

Pro

Con has subconsciously just confirmed everything I just said in the rebuttal. I will be addressing why.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
" Japan bombings having nothing to do with the abortion debate. I think bombing Japan was moral and saved lives."
You think causing the deaths of 60,000 to 70,000 Japanese people was moral. Good. You have just confirmed to me that you believe you can kill an innocent civilian for the greater good. I completely win this point. My whole rebuttals was just dedicated to proving that abortion is a greater benefit.

"You say 69% of woman who get abortions don't have money.
That, I'll admit, is true, or just about true. But why does not having money justify killing? "
Alright, you now apply the morality(killing one person is one too much) logic again. How come your logic does not pull through on the civilian casualties on the bombing of Japan? How come your logic does not pull through on the civilian casualties on the War on Terror? How come your logic does not pull through on German casualties in WW2? How come your logic does not pull through on the soldiers that died on our side as well? The answer is utilitarianism. We were committing these acts, because it was the greatest benefit for the greatest number of people. The same applies to Abortion. I am simply stating that abortion is the greatest benefit for a parent who is under the poverty line, single, and financially insufficient. This leads to me to your other point. You concede to the idea that adoption is not ideal. Listen, if there was a government program that made adoption cheaper; I would completely support that program. But, it is not. You than argue that one can simply apply for charity. Remember when I asked you to give some evidence stating that this was a simple process. If this was a simple process, than how come the poverty rates haven't declined as rapidly as they should.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"18% of woman who get abortions are under 20. Why have sex under 20?"
I agree with your point to an extent. I believe that teenagers should be allowed to practice safe sex. Just because I am pro-choice does not mean I support government programs that degrade the chances of an individual being put in those certain circumstances. Remember that it is usually educated and financially sufficient people that do not acquire abortions. We have to improve the lives of those people that are below the poverty wage. We have to make sure they have the same opportunities as we do. #FEELTHEBERN

My opponent gives choices on basically depressing choices. Just look at them.
a. Little food, food stamps, or charity food. b. No food cause your dead.
Listen, you need to add a lot more to A.
If I picked A, I would inflict:
Indicates that children from single-parent families live less healthy lives.
-Children growing up with one parent have a higher probability of dropping out of school.
-Trouble keeping jobs as young adults.
-Mother-only families are more likely to be poor because of the lower earning capacity of women,
-The median annual income for female-headed households with children under six years old is roughly one-fourth that of two-parent families.
-Approximately 53 percent of single mothers are not in the work force because they are unable to find affordable, quality, child care
- The majority of these mothers have no high school diploma, leaving them with few job opportunities or jobs that pay only the minimum wage.
-Parents with two or more children often have little money left after paying taxes and child care.
-Single parents experience a variety of stressors related to poverty (i.e., financial, emotional, social).
-Financial strain is one of the strongest predictors of depression in single parents.
The greater benefit is for the woman to live out her life, and try to make herself financially acceptable for a child.
Let me represent my own choice for Con.
Would you launch a bomb on a military camp full of panzer tanks that would take out 80%(unrealistic) of German tanks?
If you do, there is an innocent man who is a janitor there. He probably has a family that will miss him. Either way, you approve of bombing Japan.

"You keep repeating the same thing about money, ice already said charities, goverment assistance, or adoption."
I asked you a question about this, but you prove unfailingly to never answer it. Why is it that poverty has not gone down if it is so easy to file for government assistance? You did not answer this question. Answering it next case is unfair, because I have no other opportunity to respond to it.

Why Pro wins.
This debate was about the benefits, harms, and morality of Abortion.
All my opponent could do was argue morality. But, I have argued that the benefits outweigh the harms when it comes to abortion. I have argued that there are more harms than benefits when it comes to not acquiring an abortion. I have proved that it is a utilitarian good, because of the proof that the benefits outweigh the harms. My opponent has in fact conceded to the fact that the majority of people acquiring abortions have a hard life with financial burden. He has conceded to the point that a kid will actually cause more financial burden in his choice selection. Pro has been able to prove not just that Abortion is beneficial, but also a utilitarian good.
Alexforpresident

Con

Anyone who has any understanding of morality knows that tines of war are different from times of peace.

Japan bombed us, we hit back to end the war, and show power to prevent another war.

Abortion isn't war, unless you have a war on babies, which would be strange.
Abortion also doesn't save lives, as the bombing on Japan does. Abortion may give one a littler more money since they won't care for a child, but do does adoption. Since these two do the same we look at which is better. Death or life. Most people pick life. Adoption is not only financially better to the parents, but saves a life.
Abortion may be saving the mother from a bit of delivery pain, but it kills to do so.

The problem with charity is charity funds aren't infinite, charity relies on the people giving, the number of people eligible for charity is way greater then the number of donated stuff. "We have to make sure they have the same opportunities as we do" #the American dream only under capitalism is this possible. Burnie doesn't bring the poor up, he brings the rich down.

In your rebuttal to my a or b questions you gave me material for more of the same instead of answering. A. Have a bad job or no job as a young adult b. Have no job cause your dead and never got a chance
Your repeating the same things you said ealier.

I've conceded facts, yes, I hope everyone does that.
Why con wins:
I have proved that the benifits of abortion can be received with not having an abortion, but also saving lives. Pro has attempted to prove his point by using killing in war as proof. Since abortion isn't war we can see this point as void. Pro has clearly no understanding of morality and fails to recognize killing one person as a greater harm then a little less money for another person. I have proved that abortion is life, with no rebuttal from Pro, which means I won that point.
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Alexforpresident 7 months ago
Alexforpresident
Bombing of Japan saved more lives then it killed. Abortion doesn't save lives. See the difference. A better life is a lot different then saving lives. If there is a president of a company who is going to lay of 5 people, is it okay to kill him? That is your logic right there. You say yes.
Posted by Ariesz 7 months ago
Ariesz
So you agree that morality can be variable accordingly to each situation. You agree that there were benefits of bombing Japan that would outweigh the harms. That is utilitarianism. In my case, I have showed the harms a woman has to endure when they are poverty stricken, and cannot provide for her child. Utilitarianism works here too. The same logic of bombing Japan can apply to something as simple as acquiring an abortion. A life maybe lost, but those two lives would have been damaged from the start. I even provided evidence that showed through empiricism how poor children with single moms live there lives.
Posted by Alexforpresident 7 months ago
Alexforpresident
Again that's WAR. morality is different in WAR. WAR has different circumstances. It's my personal belief that it was moral to bomb Japan, many disagree with me
Posted by Ariesz 7 months ago
Ariesz
Did you give the people bombed by Japan a chance to live a great life? What about the war on Iraq? Did you give the people that died in that war a chance?
Posted by Alexforpresident 7 months ago
Alexforpresident
My point still stands. Giving a child no chance for a great life to give the mother a bit of conform is immoral. If the mother doesn't want a kid. DON'T HAVE A KID.
Posted by Ariesz 7 months ago
Ariesz
Exactly. But, what you have to understand is that the Americans that acquire abortions do not have those benefits. They are below the poverty level, young, and na"ve. Forcing a woman to have the child just creates more problems, and makes both lives miserable. You saw the statistics I provided in the debate. The child would most likely be living a horrible life. Again, a bill that includes preventing young pregnancies and making adoption costs cheap should be past.
Posted by Alexforpresident 7 months ago
Alexforpresident
Both those things (preventing young pregnancies and losing adoption costs) should be done.
Posted by Ariesz 7 months ago
Ariesz
But, don't you see that it is hard for people who are living below the poverty level to pay 50,000 dollars. The pro-life movement needs to understand CIRCUMSTANCE. They simply do not have the big picture. What the movement should be focused on is preventing females from getting pregnant below the age of 21, and making it cheaper to adopt a child. This would be a bill both liberals and conservatives could get behind.
Posted by Alexforpresident 7 months ago
Alexforpresident
My argument was those harms can be avoided with adoption and stuff, the remaining harms will be less then death.
Posted by Ariesz 7 months ago
Ariesz
You still never answered my question.
You also completely dropped utilitarianism. That was the whole point of bringing in war which you seem to not understand. Utilitarianism means the greatest benefit for the greatest benefit of people. This is a form of ethical conduct. I was arguing abortion actually has the greater benefit, because families do not have to go through the harms that pro-lifers want them to.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Conspiracyrisk 7 months ago
Conspiracyrisk
ArieszAlexforpresidentTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a good debate. All in all, I have to give the arguments to Ariesz (Pro). Pro's case basically boiled down to the idea that children can cause stress, anxiety, and financial problems, and abortions can relieve these. Con's case boiled down to the idea that unborn babies are alive and to abort them is murder. Pro refutes Con's case with the mention of the atomic bombing of Japan. Con says it was moral. Pro uses this as an example that sometimes killing can be moral. Con says this does not apply, but I find Pro's case here to be stronger. Con refutes Pro's case by saying that things can be done to prevent pregnancy, and that it'd be better to give a child a chance to succeed than to kill them. Pro responds to this by saying that the conditions the child would likely grow up in are much worse than Con suggests, maybe worse than not being born. I find Pro's case to be stronger in this case as well. Overall, I found Pro to have the stronger case. Good debate, though.