The Instigator
joshuaXlawyer
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Pro (for)
Winning
10 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 3 votes the winner is...
Danielle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/4/2010 Category: Health
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,019 times Debate No: 11098
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

joshuaXlawyer

Con

Affirmative constructive:

No life should be taken,without probable cause.
Even if they are in someone inside a person who doesn't want them, because the person couldn't properly or didn't even try to use the pill or some other medication that will prevent pregnancy.
Is it not an injustice to kill someone, the law to stop it from happening, is it the death penalty not protested everyday, let me ask what's the difference.
It is the same as sentencing one to death in a court room the only difference is that those in court got a chance to defend themselves.
Some say "hey its not alive yet" it is alive the moment the sperm cells met the egg its alive.
Some say "It don't have a soul or state of being or opinion" well how do you know. Can anyone prove this?

I now stand ready for Cross-examination.
Danielle

Pro

Thanks, Con, for beginning this debate. I'll begin by responding to your R1 contentions in numerical order. In the second round I'll make a case for my side (more in depth) and then I'll conclude and re-cap all of the final arguments in R3.

1. "No life should be taken,without probable cause."

Con did not even begin to defend this assertion.

2. "Even if they are in someone inside a person who doesn't want them, because the person couldn't properly or didn't even try to use the pill or some other medication that will prevent pregnancy."

Not only is this statement grammatically incoherent, it's also incorrect. Con assumes that every woman who gets pregnant is not on birth control or did not use a form of contraception. That is not necessarily true at all. Women get pregnant who are on the pill and who ensure that their partners wear condoms. Birth control is not 100% effective. Additionally, Con is leaving out the women who get pregnant from rape, date rape, etc.

3. "Is it not an injustice to kill someone, the law to stop it from happening, is it the death penalty not protested everyday, let me ask what's the difference."

Again, this statement makes absolutely no sense. I think my opponent was trying to say that abortion and murder are the same thing, when in fact they are not. Abortion is the the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy [1]. Murder is the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law [2]. Abortion is not considered murder under law, and with good reason. Murder is the taking of a person's life. An embryo or fetus is not a person. It is a "potential" person, which is not the same thing.

4. "Some say 'hey its not alive yet' it is alive the moment the sperm cells met the egg its alive."

Yes, a fetus is alive. It's still not a person.

5. Some say 'It don't have a soul or state of being or opinion' well how do you know. Can anyone prove this?

Yes. Living babies aren't capable of having complex thoughts, let alone unborn fetuses. This can easily be proven with a brain scan and monitoring one's brain waves. Additionally, I do not believe in a soul but that is neither here nor there, as a soul is irrelevant to my position.

I'll leave it at that for now; Con is free to make any clarifications and I will expand on my position further in the second round. Good luck, Con, and thanks again.

[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...
Debate Round No. 1
joshuaXlawyer

Con

#1 assumes that every woman who gets pregnant is not on birth control or did not use a form of contraception. That is not necessarily true at all. Women get pregnant who are on the pill and who ensure that their partners wear condoms. Birth control is not 100% effective. Additionally, Con is leaving out the women who get pregnant from rape, date rape, etc.

Sir, may i ask is it or is it not that most abortions are from young teens or women that were just having sex just to be having it and were irreasponsible.When used correctly and consistently every single time, condoms are about 98% preventive against pregnancy. However, the effectiveness rate for first-year condom users is about 86%, as only an estimated 3% of these users use condoms correctly and consistently during that time. After that milestone, the prevention rate increases, and with typical consistent use the pregnancy rate is 2-4 out of 100 women per year.
Maybe not 100% effect but good enough.
While 100% of the 15 year-olds reported using condoms "usually" or "always", the percentage of 16 (60%), 17 (53%), and 18 (50%) year-olds who did so declined with each year as sexually active females became older.
As they got older at the age of 18 half of american women stopped using a condom.
Also i left them out because according to the crimeandclues.com that most rapists are using condom now a days to prevent DNA evidence.Also i left them out because of my first statement "No life should be taken,without probable cause." that statement automatically ruled out rape even accidentally got pregnant with the condom and pill is also a probable cause. That one statement had a meaning and may i ask why this statement must be defended when its quiet obvious , kill someone with out a just,cause is wrong.

#2
Again, this statement makes absolutely no sense. I think my opponent was trying to say that abortion and murder are the same thing, when in fact they are not. Abortion is the the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy [1]. Murder is the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law [2]. Abortion is not considered murder under law, and with good reason. Murder is the taking of a person's life. An embryo or fetus is not a person. It is a "potential" person, which is not the same thing.

I would like you to refrain from insulting me if it makes no sense to you please say so kindly and don't be arrogant about it, thank you. Next it is a person and embryo is a persons first stage of life,a person who goes brain dead is still living but has no brain function therfore people usually give up on them and pull the plug.But an embryo is fine, growing a soul and you cut the wire before that can happen thats like cutting a babys legs of therefore he did not know what he lost so its fine. let me see how i could better explain take yourself say before you could see i cut out your eyes out therfore i can do that because you havent experienced or developed them yet.

I now stand ready sir.
Danielle

Pro

Danielle forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
joshuaXlawyer

Con

joshuaXlawyer forfeited this round.
Danielle

Pro

First off, I'd like to apologize to my opponent for skipping the last round. I didn't realize that this debate had a 2 hour debating period instead of the typical 72. That said, my opponent has also forfeited a round so the conduct is even and no side has an advantage. Second, I'd like to point out to my opponent that I am in fact a female, so any future references of "sir" should be avoided. Let's move on to my rebuttal...

1A. Con begins with, "is it not that most abortions are from young teens or women that were just having sex just to be having it and were irreasponsible." Obviously this is horrible spelling and grammar and barely makes Con's argument comprehensible. However I believe that Con is trying to imply that women generally get pregnant because they're irresponsible. In fact, only 21.2% of all abortions (roughly 1 out of 5) are performed on teenagers [1].

Even taking into account that only 1/5 women who seek abortion are teens, we still have to keep in mind that sometimes contraception fails, rape occurs, etc. and that accounts for many of the pregnancies in that 1/5 demographic. Nevertheless, even if we are to believe Con that unwanted pregnancy occurs only or mostly to irresponsible teens (which I've already proven is untrue), it still doesn't explain why abortion should be illegal. Even if irresponsible teens made up 90% of the people who sought abortions, I still don't understand why it shouldn't be an option. Con never explains this. If his answer is "they don't deserve it" or "to teach them a lesson"... or anything along those lines... he'll have a really hard time defending why he thinks the State is responsible for parenting its citizens.

1B. Con's second argument sounds something like this: ""No life should be taken,without probable cause." that statement automatically ruled out rape even accidentally got pregnant with the condom and pill is also a probable cause. That one statement had a meaning and may i ask why this statement must be defended when its quiet obvious , kill someone with out a just,cause is wrong." Obviously I cannot make any sense of this statement whatsoever, but will try to refute it as best I can despite the grammatical errors making it nearly impossible to grasp. I suppose my response to this would have to be that Con seems to defend abortion in the case of rape, but not accidents. This of course is an easy argument to tear. If Con's contention is that no life should be taken (because life is sacred) then why should the life suffer just because it came into fruition via a rape? For instance, if my mom's pregnancy with me resulted in a rape, should I be punished or held accountable even though it wasn't my fault or choice? That is the distinction that permissible abortion in rape cases only makes.

Moreover, if people can only get legal abortions in cases of rape, I feel this is enough to presume that more accusations of rape will begin to occur - whether they're true or not. A woman would lie and say she was raped just to get a legalized abortion, which could have devastating effects on innocent men.

2. Next my opponent makes it clear that he and I disagree on personhood. He believes that one becomes a person at conception and I believe one becomes a person when they achieve consciousness (about 6 months into the pregnancy). He also makes it obvious that he believes in a soul; I do not. So let me begin this rebuttal by pointing out that whether or not a soul exists is actually irrelevant to this debate. Even if a soul doesn't exist, personhood does exist, so personhood should be the subject of debate here. Con offers that the embryonic stage is just a stage of personhood; however, fails to mention what personhood is. If we don't have a description or definition of personhood, then how can we agree what the stages of it are?

Dictionary.com states that the definition of person is a human being, but that the philosophical definition is a self-conscious or rational being [2]. Right there we can see that "consciousness" is part of the definition at a mental or medical level. Animals are not privileged to human rights because they do not posses human consciousness. Similarly, if a living, developing human being has not yet developed consciousness, then it has not yet reached personhood and thus not subject to a person's rights.

For proof in our legal system, consider the fact that our legal system does not require a father to pay child support to a woman while she is pregnant with the fetus. Instead, the man is required to pay child support once the baby is born. This is because support is necessary for the well-being and rights of the CHILD, whereas abortion deals with the well-being and rights of the mother. The mother is required to no legal compensation while pregnant, because she is responsible only for herself - not herself and another being. It is not until she's responsible for another being upon birth (in which the baby is conscious) that the father has a legal obligation to the child. This supports a psychological and legal instead of a spiritual argument in my favor.

[ Pro's Arguments Contd. / Re-cap ]

So, I have already fulfilled my burden in arguing against the instigator's resolution. However in addition to my other arguments, I'd like to offer some more contentions. Abortion is an issue of rights: rights to privacy, medical sovereignty, property, etc. Requiring a woman to take unnecessary risks with her life and body - and pregnancy ALWAYS greatly increases medical risks - just because Con wrongfully assumes that every pregnancy is the result of an irresponsible woman -- or for some reason that the government has a right to physically force innocent people to carry children -- is indicative of slavery and a blatant infringement upon her rights.

A woman is not property; she has a right to choose abortion. A fetus is not a person and thus not deserving of a person's rights. Also, the government does not have the right to dictate one's medical choices. Criminalizing abortion leads to back-alley abortions and unsafe and unsanitary conditions. These procedures will also promote and enhance crime, and further corrupt, pollute and slow down our legal system. It will also make a lot of people criminals unnecessarily.

Furthermore, criminalizing abortion makes a bad statement to the feminist movement promoting women's rights. It is against social progression and does not support the values of our country; most people believe in legalized abortion. In a January 2007 Gallup Poll, 59 percent of the public either believes abortion laws should remain as they are (36 percent) or be made less strict (23 percent) [3]. For all of these reasons and more, I stand in affirmation of legalized abortion.

[1] http://www.abortionno.org...
[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[3] http://www.americanprogress.org...
Debate Round No. 3
joshuaXlawyer

Con

First id like to say is your welcome ma'am secoundly im sorry if im vauge do to grammer english is not my best of subjects.Alas i'll try my best.

#1
Even taking into account that only 1/5 women who seek abortion are teens, we still have to keep in mind that sometimes contraception fails, rape occurs, etc. and that accounts for many of the pregnancies in that 1/5 demographic. Nevertheless, even if we are to believe Con that unwanted pregnancy occurs only or mostly to irresponsible teens (which I've already proven is untrue), it still doesn't explain why abortion should be illegal. Even if irresponsible teens made up 90% of the people who sought abortions, I still don't understand why it shouldn't be an option. Con never explains this. If his answer is "they don't deserve it" or "to teach them a lesson"... or anything along those lines... he'll have a really hard time defending why he thinks the State is responsible for parenting its citizens.

Well ma'am if you actually read my arugment i actually proved as teens got older they stopped using condoms and etc.

#2a
1B. Con's second argument sounds something like this: ""No life should be taken,without probable cause." that statement automatically ruled out rape even accidentally got pregnant with the condom and pill is also a probable cause. That one statement had a meaning and may i ask why this statement must be defended when its quiet obvious , kill someone with out a just,cause is wrong." Obviously I cannot make any sense of this statement whatsoever, but will try to refute it as best I can despite the grammatical errors making it nearly impossible to grasp. I suppose my response to this would have to be that Con seems to defend abortion in the case of rape, but not accidents. This of course is an easy argument to tear. If Con's contention is that no life should be taken (because life is sacred) then why should the life suffer just because it came into fruition via a rape? For instance, if my mom's pregnancy with me resulted in a rape, should I be punished or held accountable even though it wasn't my fault or choice? That is the distinction that permissible abortion in rape cases only makes.

Ma'am i belive that in the law,and also common sense that taking a life is wrong with out a cause is just common sense thats why when people kill people they go to jail or sentenced to death.
Also accidents and rape are two different things, definitions:
Rape:Forced sexual intercourse
Sex:Is i chose to have sexual intercourse with this person
So accidents are still their fault they should take responsiblitiy for their actions, may i also ask why you cut your own case down you are pro choice therfore you writing this make no sense.
I don't argree with abortion in anyway,but rape could happen to anybody and may cause problems like : medical or in terms of money and ruining their life as a person.
They did not have intercourse willingly so they have a choice because those who raped them didn't give them one.
Example:Carmen is a 18 year old getting ready for college, one day gets raped and will be forced to drop out of college to pay for the babies needs, she of course my perferd option adpotion,or abortion to save her life from working in taco bell all her life.
This is ok because she had no choice in her pregnacy,but people who have sex to have it and have accidents do should not have this privlage.

#2b
Moreover, if people can only get legal abortions in cases of rape, I feel this is enough to presume that more accusations of rape will begin to occur - whether they're true or not. A woman would lie and say she was raped just to get a legalized abortion, which could have devastating effects on innocent men.

As technolgy has advanced we can tell if someone was raped or not any other dribble would be a he said she said.
#3
Right there we can see that "consciousness" is part of the definition at a mental or medical level. Animals are not privileged to human rights because they do not posses human consciousness. Similarly, if a living, developing human being has not yet developed consciousness, then it has not yet reached personhood and thus not subject to a person's rights

A developing human being , so if i cut out someones eyes before they develop them that makes it ok? Because he didn't grow them yet or prehaps there legs.
#3b
consider the fact that our legal system does not require a father to pay child support to a woman while she is pregnant with the fetus. Instead, the man is required to pay child support once the baby is born.

May i ask ma'am why pay for somthing that isn't in need of money yet like for clothes,food,toys,and etc.

[ Pro's Arguments Contd. / Re-cap ]

Rights you say, no its not, if you rob a bank you go to jail, not to say im comparing but if you have sex to have sex and get pregnant you should have to deal with it. The robber lost his rights after being thrown in jail, why shouldn't a person who gets pregnant just cause she wanted to have sex or whatever the sitution when it envoles their will.

Ending statment

There are rights you have and some you earn, killing is killing no matter how you twist logic to make it not to be murder but think what if you were that person who could have been.
Danielle

Pro

1. Con's only 'rebuttal' to my point was him saying:

"Well ma'am if you actually read my arugment i actually proved as teens got older they stopped using condoms and etc."

This doesn't even begin to address my point. I had mentioned that Con has the burden of explaining why the State is responsible for forcing citizens to carry unwanted pregnancies to term, which obviously his statement does not do. I als said that teenagers only made up 1/5 of those seeking abortions and his idea that unwanted pregnancies only happen to "dumb" or careless teens is false, obviously.

2a. (Which I had listed as 1B... don't know why Con changed it)

I pointed out that it's hypocritical and non-sensical to think that abortion is okay in cases of rape only. Instead of explaining why Con supports that idea despite its flaws, he responded with, "Ma'am i belive that in the law,and also common sense that taking a life is wrong with out a cause is just common sense thats why when people kill people they go to jail or sentenced to death." Obviously this has absolutely nothing to do with my point - besides, I already argued against this notion in another contention (about personhood).

However Con does go on to explain that abortion in cases of rape is permissible because rape is different than accidental pregnancy. The problem is that if Con's case is based on the notion that life begins at conception (which he's argued) then life begins at conception even in cases of rape victims. So, Con was asked to explain why innocent lives (fetuses) were invaluable or able to be taken just because the mother was raped. In either scenario, the "innocent life" dies and does not deserve death. Con failed to make a valid argument in this regard. In saying women who were not raped cannot receive abortions, he's saying that some fetuses are more deserving of life than others which is just backwards and non cohesive with his other arguments.

2B. Con says that technology can be used to determine if one was really raped or not. Obviously Con does not know enough about sexual intercourse if he really believes this to be true. Nevertheless my point still stands; I argued that people would lie about being raped and say they were raped just to receive an abortion, which can have devastating effects and implications. In short, my response is that technology cannot be depended upon to make this distinction.

3. ... I'm not really sure what Con's argument to my 3rd point was, if any. He didn't respond to my contentions directly.

Please extend all of my other arguments from the previous round, as I cannot make sense of Con's lacking rebuttal. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Koopin 6 years ago
Koopin
ha ha, a forfeit from L?
Posted by Koopin 6 years ago
Koopin
Do you know what pills do joshuaXlawyer?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Grantarp 6 years ago
Grantarp
joshuaXlawyerDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by Kenostic 6 years ago
Kenostic
joshuaXlawyerDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Danielle 6 years ago
Danielle
joshuaXlawyerDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06