The Instigator
TeenDebater0236
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Swindenland
Pro (for)
Winning
5 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...
Swindenland
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/25/2017 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 592 times Debate No: 102198
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

TeenDebater0236

Con

Whether or not you're a religious person, abortion is wrong in all ways. Recently, I wrote an Argumentative Essay about abortion. I am stunned by all the evidences that it is wrong. The common argument, "It's the woman's body, she has the right to choose", is scientifically wrong. Every cell of the mother's tonsils, appendix, heart, and lungs shares the same genetic code. The unborn child also has a genetic code, distinctly different from his mother's. Every cell of his body is uniquely his, each different than every cell of his mother's body. If one body is inside another, but each has its own unique genetic code, then there is not one person, but two separate people. If the woman's body is the only one involved in a pregnancy, then she must have 2 noses, 4 legs, 2 sets of fingerprints, 2 brains, two circulatory systems, and two skeletal systems.
How then can it be said, "It's the women's choice, it's her body."? Any other views about abortion I will be happy to debate.
Swindenland

Pro

Hi there.

This is my first political debate on Debate.org and hopefully we will have a nice debate, I wish good luck to Con.

I will deliver arguments in round 2 and 3, but I'm already going to answer the question that my opponent has set.
Indeed the unborn child and the mother are two separate human organisms, with other words they have a different genetic code and are separate entities.

How then can it be said, "It's the women's choice, it's her body."?

You've probably misinterpreted that sentence. The woman and the unborn child are two separate entities, however the child as long as it isn't born is dependent on the mother to develop. As such the mother is the person de facto containing the unborn child in her body. The sentence essentially means that we give women the right to do what they want to do with their bodies, especially since they're going to go through the whole pregnancy.

The Con should now present his arguments, thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
TeenDebater0236

Con

Thank you, good luck to you too. :)

To my understanding, I have not misinterpreted that statement, I simply took it quite literally and disputed the mistaken fact that the baby is not a part of the woman's body, thus disputing the first statement I quoted and the following statement, "Give women the right to do what they want to do with their bodies.." Women already do not have control over their bodies, it is proven by that once a month period of time.

I do agree with you that the child is dependent on the mother, but that does not mean she has the right to abort. Children depend on their parents to develop, should the parents simply decide to murder them, get rid of them, because they are not a convenience for the parents?

You state that the woman has the right to abort or not to abort. I disagree. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me as if you're saying that if a baby resides in the mother's womb she has the right to abort just because it resides temporarily in her womb. What if I said, "My cousin is staying in my room for her visit, but because it's my room, I guess I'll kill her." Stupid, right? You're probably thinking, "This is a totally different situation", but it's not. Same logic.

If people wanted to understand that in the womb a living, breathing human resides, abortion would not be a controversial issue. Consider this true-to-life scenario. Two women became pregnant on the same day. Six months later Women A has a premature baby, small but healthy. Women B is still pregnant. One week later both women decide they don't want their babies anymore. Why should Women B be allowed to kill her baby and Women A not be allowed to kill hers? Since there is no difference in the nature or development of the two babies, why would Women B's action be exercising a legitimate right to choose, while Women A's action would be a heinous crime subjecting her to prosecution for a first-degree murder?
Swindenland

Pro

Abortion is justified.

Women, just like everybody else, have the right do to whatever they want with their body. Unless you live in a dictatorship, you're a free individual.

The unborn child is a living organism, with human genes. But the embryo is fully dependent on the mother's metabolism and the being does not posses an independent complex catabolic system. It cannot survive outside the mother, embryogenesis and early fetal development can't be performed without the metabolism of, you know it, the mother's body. Additionally the unborn child is not conscious. After the development of more complex centres of the nervous system, these beings are still not conscious. Invasive experiments in rat and lamb pups and observational studies using ultrasound and electrical recordings in humans show that the third-trimester fetus is almost always in one of two sleep states. Called active and quiet sleep, these states can be distinguished using electroencephalography.
Therefore we can conclude that unborn children, especially in their early stages are not persons.

Abortions enable us to remove unborn children that have defects. They can range from hormonal errors (which can result in missing limbs) to severe genetic disorders (such as the polycystic kidney disease). People with defects are going to live bad lives, they will suffer (but not neccessarily) and the people around them will love them, but will also suffer. Such people are also huge financial burdens. We can prevent future suffering with abortions.

There are economic reasons to why abortion is good. Unwanted and unexpected pregnancies will deliver children, if abortions are not performed. But children are a huge financial burden. Large families are bad, because already limited financial resources have to be distributed, within a family, to a greater number of children. Economics frequently drive women to seek an abortion in the first place. Unintended pregnancies have become increasingly concentrated among low-income women, who by 2011 were more than five times as likely to experience one as those with greater means. Among women getting an abortion, a 2004 study found, the most frequently cited reasons were that a new child would interfere with education or work or that women couldn’t afford to have a baby at that time. Abortion rates roseduring the recent recession, particularly among low-income women, as they and their partners lost jobs and income.
Additionally abortions offer an excellent way for population control, if contraception failed you, afterall our population is growing beyond 7.5 billion.

Family planning is extremely important and any unwanted pregnancy and children can or most likely will damage someone's life objectives, dreams or things they've enjoyed. Unwanted preganancies usually result because of improper sexual intercourse and very rarely when contraception is used. Well lad, teenage pregnancies do happen and they are not rare. Also imagine a bunch of other irresponsible, but young slackers, who may even succeed in life, but are suddenly stopped from achievening that, because they have to raise a child.
Children of these irresponsible parents, too often won't have normal childhoods and just imagine the suffering they will have to go through in life.

According to Wikipedia, abortions, when allowed by law, in developed countries are one of the safest procedures in medicine. Abortions have been a part of human history since at least ancient times. Even when it was illegal in the western world, it was still practised. However when such an activity as abortion is illegal, women will perform them in secrecy under poor circumstances with no available help if needed, because they would be arrested otherwise. All around the world many women die due to unsafe abortions, each year 47,000 deaths and 5 million hospital admissions. Abortions eliminate the possiblity of infanticide and especially child abandonment.

With abortions we're technically killing a living being, but I honestly can't feel any empathy for a chunk of flesh, despite it having human genes.
In fact, using abortions, we're eliminating future suffering and sadness for the mother and the never born child. An child can feel pain and sadness, but an embryo can't.

My argumentation is over and I shall now answer and comment Con's questions and arguments.

Women already do not have control over their bodies, it is proven by that once a month period of time.
-I'm not even going to comment on that, but I can say we men also don't have absolute control over our bodies. While you may not have control over your body, you still can do whatever you want to it.

Children depend on their parents to develop, should the parents simply decide to murder them, get rid of them, because they are not a convenience for the parents?
-
No they shouldn't and you're right, but only once they've been born. I meant that the unborn child's metabolism is dependent on the mother's body and therefore she can choose whether she wants to keep an depedent, but seperate developing organism in her.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me as if you're saying that if a baby resides in the mother's womb she has the right to abort just because it resides temporarily in her womb. What if I said, "My cousin is staying in my room for her visit, but because it's my room, I guess I'll kill her." Stupid, right? You're probably thinking, "This is a totally different situation", but it's not. Same logic.
-I see what you meant to say, but let me modify your example using the same logic, but in a more fitting situation, because I love correcting people:
What if I said, "My brain-dead cousin has been situated in my room, but to keep him alive I'm risking my financial future. Should I stop keeping his body alive or should I dedicate my life to him?

Debate Round No. 2
TeenDebater0236

Con

This is my last argument on this topic, I shall thank you for making me think and research. Whether I lose or win, I feel as this has been a learning experience for me. :)

I should like to answer your question, "My brain-dead cousin has been situated in my room, but to keep him alive I'm risking my financial future. Should I stop keeping his body alive or should I dedicate my life to him?
The brain-dead person is no longer alive, they have no brain. The person in charge of them must make the right decision. The baby's brain starts developing almost at the moment of conception, according to the Long Island Spectrum Center website. By the end of 3 weeks, the developing embryo has formed a neural groove, which is the foundation for the brain structure. By the time the baby is born, it's brain will have over 100 billion neurons.

Abortions enable us to remove unborn children that have defects.
Myself, knowing several handicapped children and adults, and loving them, I am horrified at this comment. Our society is hypocritical in its attitude toward handicapped children. On the one hand, we provide special parking and elevators for the handicapped. We talk tenderly about those poster children with MS, spina bifida, and leukemia. We sponsor the Special Olympics and cheer on the Down syndrome competitiors, speaking of the joy and inspiration they bring us. But when we hear that a woman is carrying one of these very children, we say, "Kill it before it is born." Handicapped children are often happy, always precious, and usually delighted to be alive. To be sure, it is hard to raise a handicapped child. He requires extra attention and effort. What makes this a hard case, however, is not whether the child deserves to live or die. What is hard is the difficult responsibilities that letting him live will require of his parents. Many families have drawn together and found joy and strength in having a child with mental or physical handicaps. You argue that it's unfair to bring a handicapped child into the world, because he will be unhappy. Yet studies show that suicide rates are no higher for the handicapped. Experience confirms that many people with severe handicaps are happy and well adjusted, often more so than "normal" people. Some argue: "It's cruel to let a handicapped child be born to a miserable and meaningless life." We may define a meaningful life one way, but we should ask ourseles what is meaningful to the handicapped themselves. A number of spina bifida patients were asked whether their handicaps made life meaningless and if they should have been allowed to die after birth. "Their unamous respons we forceful. Of course they wanted to live! In fact, they thought the question was ridiculous."

There are economic reasons to why abortion is good.
You stated that children are financial burdens and that large families are bad. I honestly take a little bit of offense at this. I am the 3rd of 8 children in my family. My father is the respected, loved Pastor of an extremely small church, he has a couple other jobs to make money. I have never heard my Father complain and we all help in whichever way we can, we have never been in need. The rich, not the poor and minorities, are most committed to unrestricted abortion. The truth is, they feel trapped into abortion because it is the only alternative they know. As Frederica Matthews-Green puts it, "No one wants an abortion as she wants an ice-cream cone or a Porsche. She wants an abortion as an animal, caught in a trap, wants to gnaw off its own leg. Abortion is a tragic attempt to escape a desperate situation by an act of violence and self-loss. Studies show that "abortion finds its heaviest support not among lower or lower-middle class women, but among white upper-middle class women for whom child-bearing may conflict with career goals. Because rich people can afford something and other can't makes it neither right nor advantageous. Rich people have greater access to cocaine and can more easily hire a hit man or commit any crime. Is the solution to subsidize a harmful activity so all can have equal opportunity to do it? Shall we make burgulary legal so it would be a more viable alternative for the poor and minorities? The poor and minorities do not want abortion for themselves nearly as much as the rich what abortions for them. Prochoice advocates want the poor and minorities to have abortions, but oppose requirements that abortion risks and alternatives be explained to them. Since minorities have many more abortions, they suffer most from misinformation. Prochoice groups do not favor the poor and minorities making informed choices; they favor the poor and minorities having abortions.

Family planning is extremely important and any unwanted pregnancy and children can or most likely will damage someone's life objectives, dreams or things they've enjoyed.
The obvious answer, so the woman won't have to sacrifice is to simply give the child up for adoption. Every child is wanted by someone; there is no such thing as an unwanted child. One and a half million American families want to adopt, some so badly that the scarcity of adoptable babies is a source of major depression. There is such a demand for babies that a black market has developed where babies have been sold for as much as $35,000. Not just "normal" babies are wanted-many people request babies with Down syndrome, and there have been lists of over a hundred couples waiting to adopt babies with spina bifida. "Unwanted" describes not a condition of the child, but an attitude of adults. The unwanted child is a real person regardless of anyone elses's feelings toward her. For years women were degraded when their value was judged by whether or not a man recognizes it, so a baby's value is real whether or not a mother or father recognizes it. "Every woman or child a wanted woman or child" is a good goal, but if a woman or child is not wanted, it does not justify killing her. Planned Parenthood argues that unwanted children "get lower grades, particulary in language skills." It says unwanted adolescents "perform increasingly poorly in school" and are "less likely to excel under increased school pressure". And "they are less than half as likely as wanted children to pursue higher education." I don't question the accuracy of these findings. They tell us what we should already know-the importance of wanting our children. Instead, prochoice advocates use such research to justify aborting the unwanted. They say the solution to having unwanted children who don't perform well in school is to eliminate them. But isn't this a backwards approach? Aren't there better ways to cure the disease than killing the patient? Most abused children were wanted by their parents. A landmark study of 674 abused children was conducted by University of Southern California professor Edward Lenoski. He discovered that 91 percent were from planned pregnancies; they were wanted by their parents. Child abuse has not decreased since abortion was legalized, but has dramatically increased. Statistics reveal a sharp rise in child abuse in countries that legalize abortion. The United States has one of the worst records among industrialized nations - losing on average between 4 and 7 children every day to child abuse and neglect.


According to Wikipedia, abortions, when allowed by law, in developed countries are one of the safest procedures in medicine.
For decades prior to its legalization, 90 percent of abortions were done by physicians in their offices, not in back alleys. 15 years before abortion was legal in America, around 85 percent of illegal abortions were done by "reputable physicians in good standing in their local medical associations." In 1960, Planned Parenthood stated that "90% of all illegal abortions are presently done by physicians." The majority of physicians performing abortions after legalization were the same ones doing it before legalization. It is not true that tens of thousands of women were dying from illegeal abortions before abortion was legalized. Former abortion-rights activist Bernard Nathanson admits that he and his cofounders of NARAL fabricated the figure that a million women were getting illegal abortions in America each year. The average, he says, was actually 98,000 per year. Nonetheless, the abortion advocates fed their concoted figures to the media, who eagerly disseminated the false information. Nathanson says that he and his associates also invented the "nice, round shocking figure" for the number of deaths from illegal abortions. He states, "It was always "5,000 to 10,000 deaths a year." I confess that I knew the figures were totally false, and I suppose the others did too if they stopped to think of it. But in the "morality" of our revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics? The overriding conern was to get the laws [against abortion] eliminated, and anything within reason that had to be done was permissible.
Women still die from legal abortions in America. Abortion is normally not life threatening to the mother. However, the fatality rate is much higher than many prochoice advocates admit. For instance, a widely disseminated prochoice video produced in the late 1980s states, "By 1979 the Federal government could not identify a single mother anywhere in this country who died of abortion." Since public health officials stopped looking for abortion-caused deaths after abortion became legal, the opportunity to overlook or cover up abortion-caused deaths is now much greater. When the Chicago Sun-Times investigated Chicago-area abortion clinics in 1978, it uncovered the cases of 12 women who died of legal abortion but whose deaths had not been reported as abortion-related.

Finishing off my side of the debate, I again ask you, how can abortion in any way be right? Don't believe everything you hear or read without knowing for yourself. Research both sides of the story.
Swindenland

Pro

I would like to thank Con for debating with me and for keeping a civilised debate. It's been a great experience for both of us.

I will begin my last argument by answering your last question, namely how can abortion be right.
I would first like to point out, that I did in fact research both sides of the "story". The main and perhaps only meaningful argument by the pro-life side is the right to life. Agreed, noone has the right to take someone's life away. But this only applies once the human being is born, this is also the reason behind why we register people only once they've been born and not when a woman is pregnant. The embryo/fetus is a nonindependent organism, if the woman's body dies or halts to supply it with nutrients, it will die. But if the embryo/fetus dies, the woman does not. Since we all have the right to do what we want to with our bodies, we should also be allowed to dump the embryo/fetus. You can cut off your leg, if you want to, the unborn child is different only in that it's another body, but it cannot survive on its own.

Now let's jog to the Con's responses and counter-arguments.

The brain-dead person is no longer alive, they have no brain.
They are alive, because their brain stem still controls the basic functions in their body and their body obviously works. But since the rest of the brain is dead, they are not even capable of thinking.

By the time the baby is born, it's brain will have over 100 billion neurons.
So what? Whales and elephants have bigger brains and consequently more neurons, but aren't any smarter than a squirrel. Even when someone is born, he is not conscious, it is quickly gained afterwards in very early childhood.


A beautiful magpie is smarter than a newborn human and the only non-mammal to self-recognise in the mirror, which is a sign of conscience.

Handicapped children are often happy, always precious, and usually delighted to be alive.
Con fails to see the big picture and is only focused on the few examples he's known of, while not acknowledging the statistics. I in no way disdain handicapped people, especially because of my egalitarian world views. But people with defects won't be able to live the same good life in the same way as we do, it's not fair to them. Most of them, there are exceptions but we've to focus on the majority, don't live the good life and are a financial burden to society. Suicide rates of people, who've become disabled later in life are actually much higher that those of lucky people. Many handicapped people are also incapable of properly perceiving their environment and therefore are not capable of committing suicide.

You stated that children are financial burdens and that large families are bad. I honestly take a little bit of offense at this. I am the 3rd of 8 children in my family.
So what? Con fails to see the big picture and is only focused on his own experience. Statistically bigger families are worse off and poorer people have a tendency of having big families. It's due to economic reasons. There are always exceptions and deviations, but demographics clearly indicate greater families and higher birth rates under poorer people. Poorer people have more abortions simply because they are more reproductive and have lesser access and information in regards to contraception. I found 2 great arguments on this field:








        • Teenagers who become mothers have grim prospects for the future. They are much more likely to leave of school; receive inadequate prenatal care; rely on public assistance to raise a child; develop health problems; or end up divorced.















        • Like any other difficult situation, abortion creates stress. Yet the American Psychological Association found that stress was greatest prior to an abortion, and that there was no evidence of post-abortion syndrome.









The obvious answer, so the woman won't have to sacrifice is to simply give the child up for adoption.
In a sarcastic tone, this is the easiest and most moral possible thing to do! Giving a child up for adoption is very rare, due to pressures from society and due to natural, but powerful maternal instincts. Most people simply won't pick this option as statistics have shown us. One and a half million American families want to adopt a child, although laws very from state to state and I'm not very familiar with the federal situation, as far as I know adoption-laws in Minnesota there are very strict regulations and the adoption process is very, but very long. In fact the America's adoption agency strongly recommends using attorneys, when adopting a child. Punitive, but necessary regulations take a lot of time and this is the capital reason behind why so many children are left in orphanages. Not just "normal" babies are wanted-many people request babies with Down syndrome, and there have been lists of over a hundred couples waiting to adopt babies with spina bifida, again Con focused on one exceptionally positive story and not on the big picture. Children with disabilities are not nearly as requested as "normal" ones, according to charts provided by the American adoption agency.

The Cons response to my argument regarding the safety of abortion was again flawed as Con failed to see the big picture. Since 1973, when abortions have been legalised in the US, only 400 women died because of it. Every medical procedure carries some risk, but abortions are by far the safest. As said only 400 women died because of abortions, while 59 million have been performed since 1973. The fatality rate is even lower in Canada and in the EU. I know only about the abortion laws in Minnesota and Germany and in both states, doctors are obligated to provide information regarding the risks associated with abortion, as written in:









        • Minnesota Statutes section 145.4241 - 145.4249 [Woman's Right to Know Act] &















        • § 24b - Schwangerschaftsabbruch- und Sterilisationsgesetz








I was surprised that Con did not comment on my argumentation regarding the biological dependency of the embryo/fetus on the mother and on the application of the right to do whatever you want to do to your body, which is the backbone of pro-choice movements and current law in most developed countries.

I would like to apologise for forgetting to post my sources. Here they are:
(1)https://www.thoughtco.com...
(2)https://en.wikipedia.org...
(3)http://www.independent.co.uk...
(4)http://www.lifenews.com...
(5)http://www.health.state.mn.us...
(6)https://dejure.org...
(7)https://www.scientificamerican.com...
(8)https://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Coveny 1 year ago
Coveny
TeenDebater0236SwindenlandTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I feel like Con lost the debate when indicated it was ok to kill a brain dead person. Pro's argument that fetuses had no consciousness was never contested, and had a supporting article. It was a compelling comparison which given the consciousness did not exist in either situation. Con (family of 8) supported pros argument of burden when he said his father worked full time and had two other jobs. As previously stated I believe Pros source on consciousness was reliable (Scientific America) and in some ways won the debate.