The Instigator
Tivas2235
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Capitalistslave
Pro (for)
Tied
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/29/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 560 times Debate No: 98511
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

Tivas2235

Con

I can never understand legal abortion beyond 6 weeks. I'll address possible arguments below. Note, the arguments in bold are not my beliefs but the most likely beliefs of someone who would disagree with me.

Argument 1: Men shouldn"t have a voice in the conversation

I"m not sure why I started with this one. Maybe its because it always bothered me the most. For decades, the most admirable quality of liberals has been their cry for equal representation of everybody in the political field. For them to turn around on the issue of abortion is frankly insane. The idea that I shouldn"t have an "voice" in one of the biggest problems in our country today goes against everything this country stands for. Arguing that a man shouldn"t contribute to the conversation is like a man saying in the 1920"s a woman shouldn"t discuss politics because she couldn"t vote. Holding this stance just hurts democracy. Pro choice people will argue that men cannot possibly know anything about the issue as only women get pregnant and we cannot "understand what women go through." That is like saying we shouldn"t ever have a female coach or general manager simply because women don"t play in the MLB, NFL, NBA, or NHL, and cannot possibly understand what goes on. Therefore they shouldn"t make decisions for men. No sensible person would ever agree with that sentiment. Athough you could argue being a coach doesn"t take away the rights of the players, I believe anti-abortion laws don"t take away rights. I"ll get to that later.

Argument 2: For most abortions, you just kill a "ball of cells."

This to me is one of the most ridiculous pro-choice arguments. When you perform an abortion, you are killing a human life. Most abortions take place after 4 weeks. When I google, "when do most abortions occur" this was the result: (feel free to Google it I couldn't insert a picture.) A babies heart beats as early as 26 days. Brain waves at 7 weeks. Every organ neccessary for life a week later. Even if most abortions don"t occur after this point, the fact that they are even legal is astounding. I'd honestly would not argue too much with abortions at a stage like 3.5 weeks. The idea though that you can kill the baby a month or more later when it is much more developed is horrendous. You have to understand that when you perform an abortion, you are killing a human life. Some would say it is not a life until it is born, but this seems arbitrary. A fetus at 8.5 weeks resembles a new born much more than a new born resembles a 30 year old. Therefore, killing a new born and killing a fetus developed that much should both be illegal.

Argument 3: "Don"t impose your Christian values on me" or "Don"t impose your morals on me."

Okay, for me at least, I don"t view my pro life stance as a Christian value. I think if you agree that a baby is a human life, then abortion is murder. I believe this, and I think murder is wrong. US laws agree with me and murder is outlawed in many forms. Obviously. But it would be silly to argue that these laws impose the Christian faith on people. These laws are kept to improve society and ensure safety and order. I think pro-life laws would improve society undoubtedly. People who have been put up for adoption instead of being aborted have had huge impacts on society. The argument that the kid will just end up in a terrible orphanage/foster home doesn"t hold up when one considers that people such as Steve Jobs, Babe Ruth, and Malcom X were all given up at birth and raised in orphanages/foster homes. To say that the roughly 57,000,000 babies murdered since Roe V. Wade in 1973 wouldn"t have positively impacted our society is ignorant. Therefore, to improve society, and not to enforce Christian values, anti-abortion laws should be put in place. Even if one were to argue that morals differ from person to person at a secular level and the government shouldn"t determine morals, government can make laws that reflect the moral belief of the nation. According to a Gallup poll, a majority of the country considers abortion to be morally wrong. A small majority, to be fair, but if you include people who would make certain expections (like I would for life of the mother) it's above 50%. A nation can reflect the morals of its citizens, and these morals wouldn"t even be based in religion. But even if you believe the morals of a minority should be respected, just refer to my previous point about how pro-life laws improve society.

Argument 4: Its a women"s right to chose; the government should respect that right.

It's really not a choice women should have. At all. I know I"m going to offend a lot of women with this, but when it comes to reproduction, here is what I believe should be a women"s rights:

1) Right to readily available contraceptives.

2) Right to choose when and if they want to engage in intercourse.

3) Right to proper pre natal care.

4) Right to a high quality abortion in the cases of rape, mothers life, incest.

Now I am aware there are certain realities that get in the way of these rights. Even though many countries and cities have made free contraceptives widely available, use clearly has not worked. Rape is the obvious caveat for number two, and any bill increasing spending on pre natal care would be shut down by budgeting adverse Republicans. Also, having a board decide if a women has been raped would similarly be an issue. However, despite these exceptions and problems, those are the factors that women get to chose. After making those decisions, if they get pregnant, they have responsibility over the life they have created. In no other facet of society do you have the choice to murder someone. Many pro-choice activists would argue that since the fetus is relying and using the women's body to survive, its the women's choice of whether or not to support this baby. This doesn"t hold up when someone actually thinks about it. If I were holding someone off a bridge, and I voluntarily let them go, it's murder. Although they were using my body and physical strength to survive, I"ll most likely be charged with a crime if I voluntarily release them. The example pro choicers would use is, "you can"t be forced to give blood or donate a kidney if you don"t want to." Yes, this is true. However, you aren"t responsible for that person getting sick or needing a kidney. But if you are responsible for the pregnancy, you need to bring the child to term.

Also, I kind of find it ironic that liberals argue freedom in this scenario. In literally every other political field, liberals argue for more control and less personal freedoms. Gun control, healthcare, and economic policies are all prime examples. But suddenly, they flip this stance on abortion.

How about this: what about the freedom to not have to fund abortions with taxpayer dollars? A columnist at Forbes complied a rough estimate and stated that roughly 24% of abortions recieve federal or state funding.

Why should I be forced as a (future) taxpayer to support an action I find morally reprehensible? (Shoutout to Steven Crowder for giving me this idea.)

I was running short on characters but I'll address any other arguments later.
Capitalistslave

Pro

Since this is a complex topic that not everyone has a black-and-white stance on, even my opponent believes abortion can be used in three instances, in the case of rape, mother's life endangerment, and incest. I am in favor of it used in more cases than that, so I shall argue for that. However, In a perfect world(I recognize there are reasons, which I will address in argument 2, that it needs to be further than this) I am not in favor of it after a certain point, that point being once the fetus has developed a brain, which is generally between week 6 and 7 of a pregnancy[1]. Prior to this time, I believe an abortion should be legal for all women to get for any reason. After this point, I believe like my opponent does that it should only be legal in the cases of rape, incest, or harm of the mother. The reason for this being, is it's hard to argue that a fetus is not human once it has a brain. We often consider that the distinguishing factor for humanity.

Now: I'll first point out that the United State Supreme Court(assuming we are talking about the United States) and many other western nations, have declared abortion legal for at least the first trimester.

Next, I will address each of the points I disagree with and comment on the ones I agree with from my opponent. If I don't respond to something my opponent said, I either agreed with it or I didn't see a need to respond.

"Argument 1: Men shouldn't have a voice in the conversation"
Here's where I disagree with my opponent: I believe it is only the mother's choice to do a physical abortion. The reason why is because the fetus is the one using the mother's body without her consent, it's not using the man's body without consent. Since Personal Autonomy is a right in the United States[2] (I assume we are all in the United States here, but if my opponent is not, I can offer a source reflective of what their country considers to be rights) we have a right to decide who, what, and when someone uses our body. When someone or something is putting us through an unwanted experience, this is grounds to get that person or thing to stop, even with force. Thus, it is solely the mother's right to get the fetus to stop, and usually that means an abortion. The fetus is not harming the father's right to personal autonomy.

Where I agree with my opponent is that the man should have some sort of say with abortion. The way I would give men a say, is by allowing them to have what is called a financial abortion. It can often happen that a man did not consent to having a baby, but the woman decides to allow it to be born anyways. I would say that a man should have a right to give up all parental responsibility and privileges within the first 6 weeks of pregnancy as well. I do find it remarkably unfair and wrong that a man is stuck with having to pay for a baby they didn't want. This would give men some sort of say with abortions in a different way. The reason why this would have to be done within the first 6 weeks of the pregnancy is also to allow the mother to be able to make a proper decision on whether they would want to abort. They may, perhaps, decide to abort if they found out the father is not wanting any parental responsibility or privileges.

"Argument 2: For most abortions, you just kill a "ball of cells."

"The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that 66 percent of legal abortions occur within the first eight weeks of gestation, and 92 percent are performed within the first 13 weeks."[3] However, there are various reasons why the third of abortions occur after the first 8 weeks, and that is because:
1) Some women have to travel more than 100 miles to get to a place who will perform the abortion, so it takes a while to be able to finally get one [3]
2) 89% of counties in the United States have no known abortion providers [3]
3) The cost of an abortion is very high [3]
If all of these problems were to be solved, I would say we should definitely restrict abortion to the first 7 weeks, before brain development, like I said. Otherwise, we will need to offer abortions beyond that because of problems that were outside of the mother's control.

"Argument 3: "Don"t impose your Christian values on me" or "Don"t impose your morals on me."
My opponent claimed that "US laws agree with me and murder is outlawed in many forms." However, abortion is legal in the United States generally up until 24-26 weeks of pregnancy. [4]

I would like to point out that my opponent also stated "Even if one were to argue that morals differ from person to person at a secular level and the government shouldn"t determine morals, government can make laws that reflect the moral belief of the nation." I believe government should make laws that reflect the moral belief of the nation as well, however I don't know whether we can trust any given polls on abortion support because it's a complex topic. It would need to be a poll that allowed for more than just 2 options, a I don't believe most people fall into these two positions: "Abortion should always be illegal" or "Abortion should always be legal". I'm pretty certain the majority of people fall in between those positions, so if a poll only offers two choices, it will not be reflective of what the general population believes. In fact, now that I looked it up, a vast majority(79%) of people either believe abortion should be legal under all circumstances, or legal under certain circumstances [5]. A small minority(19%) believe it should always be illegal. So, the fact that the United States has set certain circumstances under which abortion is legal, that seems to be reflective of the majority position, or is at least a compromise.

"Argument 4: Its a women"s right to chose; the government should respect that right."
I agree with the four rights you listed here as well.

Now, one thing that I noticed was that your analogy was weak: "If I were holding someone off a bridge, and I voluntarily let them go, it's murder. Although they were using my body and physical strength to survive, I"ll most likely be charged with a crime if I voluntarily release them."
This is weak because in this instance, you had to have actively got the person in that position where they were dependent on you and did so with malicious intent. In the case of a mother, they didn't actively get the fetus into the position where they were dependent upon the mother for life, at least not in every case. If the mother had an unexpected pregnancy, they didn't intentionally put the fetus in a position to be dependent upon them. In your example, the only way someone would be holding onto your arms over a bridge is if you intented to put them there.

"Also, I kind of find it ironic that liberals argue freedom in this scenario. In literally every other political field, liberals argue for more control and less personal freedoms. Gun control, healthcare, and economic policies are all prime examples. But suddenly, they flip this stance on abortion."
Well, this is irrelevant since not only liberals support a woman's right to choose to have an abortion. Libertarians, and most non-liberal left-wingers do too. In this case of this debate, I'm not a liberal, but I identify as a libertarian socialist. I support gun freedoms, weak government that only protects freedoms, etc.

"How about this: what about the freedom to not have to fund abortions with taxpayer dollars? A columnist at Forbes complied a rough estimate and stated that roughly 24% of abortions recieve federal or state funding.

Why should I be forced as a (future) taxpayer to support an action I find morally reprehensible? (Shoutout to Steven Crowder for giving me this idea.)"
Well, if someone finds the military morally reprehensible, does that suddenly mean that they can choose to not pay taxes or that the military shouldn't be funded through taxes? However, that said, I would support the ability for states to secede from the union, so if the people in a state disagree with how tax payer money is spent, they should be allowed to secede. In addition, I would rather have a democracy than a republic, but in general, what the people decide is law. If majority want abortions to be funded through taxes, then it should be. I do, however, support a very decentralized model of democracy to the point where pretty much only like-minded people would be in that democratic government. So, the chances are is that a very large majority would be supporting abortions to be funded by tax money. The very few who disagree with it would easily be able to move to another democratic association that disagrees with it and doesn't pay abortions through tax payer money.

It's kind of irrelevant that I started talking about democratic associations, I just did that so you'd understand where I'm coming from that I don't exactly support the idea of imposing things on other people and prefer decentralized democracies in which majority agree to something so that it's easy for someone to move out if they disagree with the majority. You shouldn't attack this belief in decentralized democracies, though, because it has nothing to do with the topic of abortion. So, if you do, I'll point out that you're not staying on topic. And again, I had reason to bring this up since you brought up the idea of imposing on tax payers something they don't want to pay for. Decentralized democracy is my solution to that problem.


And I'm actually almost out of characters. I was going to say that I didn't get to make much argument, but I guess I did when I rebutted points by con. I kind of made all my main arguments in response to con.
Sources:
[1] https://medlineplus.gov...
[2] https://www.law.cornell.edu...
[3] https://www.plannedparenthood.org...
[4] https://www.google.com...;
[5] http://www.gallup.com...;
Debate Round No. 1
Tivas2235

Con

First of all, I fully agree that this is a very, very, complex topic to talk about. I am also located in the United States, for future points. Over the last couple months, I have grown to understand the pro choice argument far more than I had previously known. I would agree with every aspect of the pro choice, whether its women's rights, autonomy, freedom of choice, etc, if the consequence wasn't the loss of a life. I even can understand abortion before 8 weeks of pregnancy, as this is this is where the the baby is still an embryo.[1] But after this point, a human life is clearly being taken. Although there are many negative impacts a human mother may experience, none of these (except life of the mother) can outweigh the loss of a human life. This, on its face, means abortion should be outlawed. My opponent said the following, "However, there are various reasons why the third of abortions occur after the first 8 weeks, and that is because, (lists valid reasons)". I simply cannot view this as a negative. The accessibility of an abortion or limiting factors on an abortion does not justify the loss of a human life. If a women is unable to recieve an abortion before 8 weeks, this is unfortunate. However, this child must be brought to term because any difficulty a women goes through does not outweigh the loss of the life of a child. It seems like we agree that the fetus represents a human life after 8 weeks. If not then, that can be a topic of debate for round 3. Now I will answer the arguments point by point.

"Argument 1: Men shouldn't have a voice in the conversation."
I strongly disagree with you on this point. Maybe men shouldn't have as strong of an opinion whether or not a women personally chooses to abort a child in the first weeks of pregnancy. However, men should absolutely have a voice in terms of policy of abortion. If a man believes that abortion should be banned after 6 weeks for moral and societal reasons, "well you're a man and this is only a discussion for women" is not an appropiate or acceptable response. Abortion is the one of the most pressing issue society faces, and it needs to be discussed with everyone it affects. Second, I don't buy the argument that a women has personal autonomy over a human fetus inside of her body outside of 8 weeks. Just because a fetus is causing a woman discomfort doesn't mean that is is justified to kill that life. The women is responsible for the creation of that life, (except for obvious cases that have been mentioned before), and therefore cannot let go of her responsibility by ending a life.

I also have to disagree with you with the point of men having a choice in an abortion personally. Unless a women somehow intentionally sabotaged a contraceptive or lied, a man was directly responsible for the creation of that life. Just because he does not want to hold responsiblity over him/her doesn't mean he has the right to force a women to kill that fetus. Although this isn't an official source by any means, J Cole provides an interesting perspective on this issue in his song, "Lost Ones".

"Argument 2: For most abortions, you just kill a 'ball of cells'".
I wont argue with you statistics, even though it is worth noting that they're many issues with the way the CDC reports statistics for abortion [2]. However, 1/3 of all abortions performed is still an insanely large figure. Since Roe v. Wade, there have been roughly 58 million abortions performed. [3] 1/3 of that is roughly 16 million, and we can take a couple million off that due to the exemptions I had previously mentioned. That leaves roughly 13 million lives, give or take, not present in our country today. Although it is tragic some women don't have access to contraceptives, or early term abortions (although I would obviously prefer all babies brought to term), no personal struggle or difficulty outweighs this extraordinary loss of life.

If any women is not able to recieve an early term abortion, the future life of the child or the ability for a women to raise that child should not be a factor in whether or not to abort the child. Numerous laws exist, such as the safe haven law, that allows the mother to leave the child at a polic/fire station and give the child up for adoption with no questions asked. I fully realize that it may be difficult to give up your child. However, it's impossible to argue that killing the child is a suitable alternative. And although a child may have a difficult life in a adoption system, at least the child has a chance to live. That's more than can be said of any of the aborted children since 1973.

"Argument 3: Don't impose your morals or Christian values on me."
Okay, first of all, the idea I was trying to get with this argument is if you accept my fetus=human life framework, than arguing "the government is imposing morals by outlawing abortion" would be the same as "government is imposing morals by outlawing murder." Abortion has had a negative impact upon society, as demonstrated in my first argument, and any argument that abortion decreases crime by removing crime prone people from society is edging dangerously near genocide. I don't see how this argument makes sense.

When it comes to stats, yours are misleading. As prolife as I am, I would fall under that "majority" category simply because I believe there should be a time frame and exceptions for abortion. I will point out, however, that a majority of people consider themselves pro life and a majority view abortion as morally wrong. [4] My point is, I don't think abortion is inherently a religious issue, and I don't think being pro life makes you a Christian extremeist. I think any pro life law enacted would respect the morals of the nation.

"It's a women's right to choose"
It's not a women's right to end a life. I've argued this throughout the round and I maintain that position, just as it is true a man does not have the fit to end a life. Therefore it is not a "women's right to choose". Although I don't agree on necessarily every position, I believe in most "women's rights." I just don't believe that abortion can or should be one of them.

I also want to point out that my example makes sense as a women does have an active role in putting a fetus in a position where it is dependant on a women for help. Except for scenarios that I have previously outlined, a women made certain choices that lead to her being pregnant. Even in the incredibly rare example where there was an accident, it once again does not jusitfy the loss of the baby's life.

I just want to end my argument by providing an overview of my position. I agree with the mindset of pro choicers. I want women's life's to be easier and I think people in general should have more freedom in their lives However, if you agree with me that a fetus becomes a life after 6 or 8 weeks, then it is clear that abortions should not remain legal after this time period. I acknowledge that creating such a law would cause several negative consequences. However, these consequences are clearly outweighed by the millions of lives that would be saved. For this reason I am pro life and against abortion.

P.S. Sorry for the long time to respond. Also, if you want to make more arguments in your next speech, feel free to go beyond simply responding to my points,

[1] http://blogs.plos.org...
[2] http://www.nrlc.org...
[3] http://www.lifenews.com...
[4]http://www.gallup.com...
Capitalistslave

Pro

I think I will go about this another way, rather than responding to each of my opponent's rebuttals, I will try to address the reason why they think abortion should be illegal beyond a certain point and let my opponent's arguments stand as they are against what I brought up.


My opponent admitted that, "Although there are many negative impacts a human mother may experience, none of these (except life of the mother) can outweigh the loss of a human life. "

The parentheses is what matters for my next argument.

Despite our ability to predict whether a mother would die from pregnancy, there are still hundreds of women who die every year from pregnancy, unexpectedly[1]. Since there is a chance for any mother to die from a pregnancy, they should then be allowed to terminate the pregnancy, since the fetus could potentially harm the mother's right to life, even beyond the first 6 months until we have the issues I outlined above preventing women from being able to get an abortion are addressed.



Sources:
[1] https://www.cdc.gov...;

Debate Round No. 2
Tivas2235

Con

I understand your argument; however, I simply cannot see how it applies to real world abortion discussions or compares in impact to the cost of an abortion. First off, any policy restricting abortion past 6-8 weeks would have the obvious exception clause for danger to a mothers life. This could be medically determined by any practicing doctor. Even countries with the strictest abortion laws, such as Poland or Ireland, have these exceptions. [1] Another factor to look at is the amount of women that die each year in childbirth. The accepted statistic is 17.8 in every 100,000. For sake of enhancing the opponents argument, lets round this to 20 in every 100,000. Since 4 million children are born a year [2], we can assume the number of women that die during childbirth is somewhere below 800 a year. Many of these deaths could be prevented with the abortion procedure exception, and the rest are true tragedies. However, roughly 1 million abortions occur a year [3], according to the most recent data, and at least ten or up to a hundred thousand of those deaths would be past the point where we determined a fetus becomes a human earlier in the round. A few hundred women simply cannot outweigh the tens of thousands of human babies that are killed each year. Therefore, the answer to maternal deaths simply cannot be legal and widespread abortion. Instead, better pre-natal and pregnancy treatment should be made available to pregnant women to prevent these deaths instead. Addressing your last line, the mere possibility of a women being killed by a fetus does not justify the act of abortion. Guaranteeing your own life by sacrificing another is not a choice that should be legal to make in society.

P.S. Since this is my closing argument, I would prefer it if you would only respond to issues brought up in this and the last round, as I will not have a chance to respond.

[1]http://www.bbc.com...
[2]http://www.susps.org...
[3]https://www.guttmacher.org...
Capitalistslave

Pro

Since this is my closing argument, I would prefer it if you would only respond to issues brought up in this and the last round, as I will not have a chance to respond.
Right, as you've seen with my previous rounds, I've actually only been responding to what you said in the same round. I'm not going to suddenly respond to what you've said in previous rounds with new arguments, I find that unfair.


Instead, better pre-natal and pregnancy treatment should be made available to pregnant women to prevent these deaths instead.
I agree that this should take place as well, however I don't know that we would ever be able to eliminate all maternal deaths from pregnancy. It's really surprising we haven't yet with how far advanced technology is.

I think abortion should be a last resort if it takes place after 7 weeks. Having it highly discouraged would be a good idea, but not in every situation was it the mother's fault that they didn't abort before 7 weeks was up. Why should the mother be punished and have to carry the fetus to term for something that was not their own fault?

Guaranteeing your own life by sacrificing another is not a choice that should be legal to make in society.
However, as pointed out before, there's not only the mother's right to life at risk, but also the mother's bodily integrity/autonomy. One right of the mother's is certainly violated, and the second, the right to life, is a possibility. Preventing the violation of 1 right and the potential of a second right by violating only one right(the fetus' right to life) seems to be the more moral and logical decision. Again, if we had a perfect world where it was possible for any mother to get an abortion, then we should have it illegal past 7 weeks, but until we have that perfect situation where every mother can get an abortion, I think it needs to be allowed past 7 weeks.

Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Capitalistslave 1 year ago
Capitalistslave
VyridosVhasselion: I was going to say something similar that a man needs to know about the pregnancy, but they could easily lie about not being told, and there's no way to determine whether they did have prior knowledge, unless the way they found out was through text message or in a written form.
Posted by VyridosVhasselion 1 year ago
VyridosVhasselion
To add to the pro argument, the man should have the right to give up all parental responsibility and privileges within the first 6 weeks, or if he did not know of the pregnancy, 2 weeks after knowing.
Posted by John_C_1812 1 year ago
John_C_1812
Tivas2235
Abortion is a confession to a crime not the crime itself. There is no legal way to invoke a time limit on a criminal confession. Gender Specific Amputation describes a medical process that is clearly not a confession. A medical doctor should have never been directed to make a criminal confession to perform what can be a emergency medical treatment.
No votes have been placed for this debate.