Debate Rounds (3)
1. In the United States, rape has been a big issue. One in six American women have been raped or had someone try to rape them in their lives . With so many women being raped, so many babies can be born crust is why abortion can then be an option for women who were raped. Since it is an unwanted baby, it should be fine because it was a result if rape.
2. Abortion saves women the hardships of raising an unwanted baby. This second reason actually links with my first one. The cost of raising is very high. The cost in 2013 to raise a child was close to $250,00 . For middle class or upper class incomes, this may not be much of a big problem. But with lower class incomes, this can be a huge problem. They would have to pay for rent, food and water, electricity and gas bills, and on top of all that, the cost for raising a child. This is another reason on why abortion is fine because it benefits everyone.
These are my two reasons that I can start with and I look forward to my opponent's response.
 Wall Street Journal
In this debate I shall first establish that the unborn child is alive and that killing is is bad. I will also prove that abortion is harmful to women.
Firstly lets define the terms.
Fine: Choice, excellent, or admirable:
Bad: Having a wicked or evil character; morally reprehensible
Kill: To deprive of life in any manner; cause the death of; slay. (1)
Life: Living matter and, as such, matter that shows certain attributes that include responsiveness, growth, metabolism, energy transformation and reproduction. (2)
So using these definitions lets run through the logic. Killing an innocent being, is generally accepted to be bad. So, if the unborn child is alive, then killing it, would be bad.
So we must determine if an unborn child is alive or not. It is well accepted that a fetus can respond to stimuli (3), similarly I don't think we need to debate that it is growing. Embryo's have metabolism within one or two days of conception (4) so we can move on to energy transformation. Much like metabolism and growth, this happens almost instantly as an embryo will transfer chemical energy into minor movements, new cells and general growth. At first glance, one may say that an unborn child lacks the ability to reproduce and thus is not alive. However this is only true if you misinterpret what the definition of life means by reproduction. It does not mean that the organism can literally reproduce at that moment in time, it means that the organism has the potential to do so in adulthood. This is true of most complex organisms and humans are no different. (5)
Therefore, using the scientific facts above, we can determine that an unborn child, is in fact, alive and it logically follows then that abortion kills this life. Since killing is bad, we must conclude that abortion is bad.
As for my second point, there are numerous reasons why abortion is actually bad for women. One is that abortions have been linked to an increase risk of breast cancer. This is often considered controversial in the press, but the science is clear. Since 1957, there have been 77 studies on this topic and 79% of those studies indicate that there is a positive correlation. If we only look at the 37 studies that were considered statistically significant, then the figure becomes 97%. (6)
In addition to physical health, there are mental effects to abortion as well. According to a 2009 study done by the British Journal of Psychiatry, women who have an abortion are 81% more likely to experience an increased risk of mental health problems to include anxiety, drug abuse, depression and suicidal behavior. Furthermore, 10% of those problems are directly related to the abortion (7). This study reinforces others before it, most notably a 1996 Finnish study that showed women who had abortions were nearly 6 times more likely to attempt suicide (8).
Finally, abortion can lead to death as well. According to the CDC, 480 women died from having abortions between 1972-2010 (9). Of those abortions, 411 of them were legal and yet the mother still perished despite the claim of the procedure being safe. It should be noted that after 1997, four states, most notably California, stopped providing the required data to the CDC so these values are likely lower than reality.
So I must ask the voters, how can abortion be considered good? Science has led us to the fact that abortion kills a living human. We know that killing an innocent being is wrong, so therefore we can logically conclude that abortion is bad. Likewise, we can see through numerous scientific studies, that abortion is bad for the mothers as well. Therefore it must be concluded that abortion, is bad.
1. Living, not dead.
2. Alert and active, animated.
3. Aware of and interested in, responsive.
Now let's talk a little bit about this definition. People like you and me should have a birth cirtificate, which is a document that records our birth, or our coming of exsistence into this world. This birth certificate tells us exactly when we took our first breath, when a new life was born. This is when we are alive. This is the definition of the opposite of alive, dead: 
1. No longer alive.
2. Complete, absolute.
These are pretty depressing definitions, but it is what it is. So let's compare the definition of dead and alive. Alive is when you are moving and learning, while dead is when you are done and no longer functioning. So what is the status of a baby in the woman's womb? The answer: it is neither dead nor alive. It makes sense. The baby is not still, but it is not exactly fully functioning either. This argument counters my opponent's on the matter of the status or a baby.
My opponent mentions that abortions can have serious effects on the women who have them. This may be true, but I didn't say that all women should get an abortion. This is only for women who understand the risks and are willing to take it.
: See 
As for my opponent's case in R2, I have no objection to either of his sources. Tragically, rapes do happen and as a father, I certainly know that children cost a lot of money. However I believe there are flaws in the logic of both of his arguments.
1. First, let me just point out that according to the CDC (previously cited), less than 1% of abortions occur due to rape. So if we are talking about most cases and/or the greater good, than these cases are not pivotal to this debate. That being said, there is no doubt that rape is terrible and no reasonable person would ever argue otherwise. While I'm unsure what "...many babies can be born crust is why abortion can then be an option..." mean, my best guess is that he is trying to say that since the child was conceived against the will of the mother, that the mother should be able to abort the child. This is an emotionally driven challenge to be sure. Carrying a child to term is a challenge under the best of circumstances, let alone when it is conceived under such horrendous conditions. However, that doesn't mean aborting the child is the right things to do. The child is still an innocent life and shouldn't be punished for the sins of its father. The old saying, two wrongs don't make a right, comes to mind here. There are better solutions to the issue which will be address when I move onto point 2.
However, I would also argue that by offering abortions in these circumstances, we are actually compounding the problem. Now, not only do the survivors have to deal with the emotional damage of the rape, now they have to deal with the side effects of abortions as well. Furthermore, according to a survey done by the Elliot Institute, 80% of women who had an abortion after being raped said they regretted doing so and 43% of those women said they only did so because they were forced to by family members or healthcare providers. In the same survey, 69% of the women carried the baby to term and either kept the child or gave the child up to adoption. Of those women, not one of them regretted their decision. In summary, that means 80% of women who aborted a child that was conceived by rape, whereas 0% of the women who gave birth to it regretted their choice (1).
2. As I mentioned above, there is no denying the cost of raising a child. However can we really put a cost on the value of life? Is that not the path of eugenics? It is a cold and calculated solution that is simply not ethical. Much like the case above, there is a better solution. Adoption is the obvious solution. My opponent argues that abortion benefits everyone, but doesn't adoption benefit more people since the child gets to live and the adopting parents get to have a child? In fact, with all of the side affects of abortion that I listed above, I would argue that abortion benefits no one.
There is a less obvious solution though. In the U.S. we often focus on quick answers to long term problems. Abortion is just that. It's like amputating an arm for a gash rather than opting for a skin graft or stitches. What if, instead of the quick fix that has lasting consequences, we aimed to help mothers through their pregnancies? If this is truly a debate of what is good versus what is bad, would it not be better to construct a system where we help moms through their pregnancies by making sure that they have healthcare. If they decide to keep the child, then we should make sure they have the resources to take care of the child. If they chose to put the child up for adoption, then we owe it to them and to their child to make sure the child is united with a caring family. If the child is conceived by rape, than the mother should be given whatever counseling she wants in order to help her through that lifelong pain. The goal here is to find a better solution to these issues than abortion, and that solution is to support the mothers of all children. In this way, we truly find solutions that benefit everyone.
In R2, I defined fine, bad, kill and life. I applied scientific logic to those definitions to show that an unborn child is alive, and that killing innocent lives is bad, therefore abortion is bad. I also cited numerous studies that showed that abortion is bad for the mothers as well.
R3 was used to refute my opponents R2 arguments. In it, I pointed out that less than 1% of abortions occur because of rape. Additionally I showed that two wrongs don't make a right, and most importantly, I showed that abortion is not the best solution to a child conceived in rape.
I also argued that there should not be a cost value attached to the value of life. To do so implies that higher class lives are more valuable and that's simply not true. Additionally I argued for the benefits of adoption and for a system that supports mothers during and after their pregnancy, thus benefiting many lives, rather than ending one and damaging another.
In the end I believe that my case is concrete and uses numerous facts and scientific studies to support my case. Conversely I have shown flaws in the logic used by my opponents emotionally driven case. I encourage all voters to use their minds when voting and evaluate the content of the argument and vote for whichever side they believe did the best job building their case.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.