The Instigator
SuperAwesomeMusician
Con (against)
The Contender
SupaDudz
Pro (for)

Abortion

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
SuperAwesomeMusician has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/17/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 834 times Debate No: 105119
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (23)
Votes (0)

 

SuperAwesomeMusician

Con

Abortion has been a very controversial topic for a long time. For those who do not know what an abortion is, the dictionary defines it as "the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy". In other words, ending the baby's life before it is born.

First round is for acceptance and opening arguments. Rounds 2,3, and 4 are for rebuttals and counterarguments, and round 5 is for final countering and conclusions.

As implied, I will be taking the con side, meaning that I am against abortion. It is nothing less than killing of another human being, and unless continuing through a pregnancy would threaten the life of the mother, ending a human life is not the answer.

I would like to wish the best of luck to my opponent, and look forward to a great debate!
SupaDudz

Pro

Hello Sir... I am against abortion myself, but I think this will be good practice for the future as I am on a competitive debate team. Without further a do, my arguments

1) Victims of rape should not be obliged to keep the baby. Not only are they scared for life by being such violated in that manner, but they are subject to be outcasts from society

2)
SOURCE: Princeton https://www.princeton.edu...

They state that the embryo is developing the baby, not the baby itself. the definition you satted was clearly stating an embryo. Embryo only develops the baby, not the baby itself. So getting rid of the embryo means you taking away a potential of life, when things like miscarriages can happen, which would demoralize a women more

3) More people are in favor or abortion than are not. If congress votes no, then social uproar will increase, which will ruin Trump political capital, and if he has weak political capital, he can't get things done like deals w/countries.

4) Abortion is up to the women, if she wants the baby she has it. If she doesn't want it, she doesn't need to have. Too much federal control would disrupt the people

CONCLUDING ARGUMENT
An embryo is not considered life in the eyes of Princeton. We should not subject these victims of rape to having more stress in their life. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
SuperAwesomeMusician

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate, I'm looking forward to a great discussion. I also would like to thank him for his respectful manner in this discussion, as I have debated with people who think they have the right to harass those who disagree with them.

With that being said, because my opponent is against abortion, there is really not much for me to do here. This debate was supposed to be for someone who was in favor of abortions. However, my opponent has made some claims that I disagree with, so I will address those without further adeu.

My opponent has brought up a common argument that appears a lot from the pro-choice side, which is that those who have been victims of rape should be able to get abortions. Before I counter this, let's create an imaginary situation in which we have a woman that has been raped and is looking to get an abortion. First and foremost, the rapist should be hunted down and killed. What happened to this woman was a terrible act of lust and inhumanity. However, to me, the fact that this woman conceived against her will does not justify ending another human life. Those who commit terrible crimes, such as killing people, should be killed. Babies, who are innocent and have not killed anybody, should not be killed. My extreme sympathies would be with this woman as she struggles to recover from what happened to her. She would indeed face troubles from society. Yet, why can't we have some sympathy for the child? It seems as though my opponent is giving all of the sympathy to the woman. This child is facing the risk of being killed, while he had no choice in the matter.

My opponent's next argument moves to the baby itself, and whether or not he believes it should be classified as a human upon conception. My argument is that a human life begins at conception (when sperm meets egg). Whether or not an embryo is developed into a baby, it is still a human being in the making. If my opponent disagrees with this, I would like him to tell me when that developing bundle of cells becomes a human being.

I don't care about what the rest of the population thinks about abortion, that's beside what we are debating here. People can protest and do whatever else they see fit, that doesn't change the fact that abortion is still killing babies.

If a woman doesn't want a baby, or is unsure if she will want one in the future, she shouldn't have had sex in the first place. They made that decision and they need to deal with the results of that choice. Killing babies is not the way to solve her problems from making that sexual decision. End of story.

I look forward to hearing my opponent's responses.
SupaDudz

Pro

Hello Sir...Thank you for accepting the debate in peace, I am looking forward to this

First off I would like to say that just because I am against it because of my religion, does not mean I can not argue for it. I should not be discounted for believing something. Like I said, I am on a debate team, and I would like to get practice with arguments I either don't agree with, or have never practice. Just wanted to clear that, so without further a do, here are my rebuttals
R2 ARG 1 REB
"My opponent has brought up a common argument that appears a lot from the pro-choice side, which is that those who have been victims of rape should be able to get abortions. Before I counter this, let's create an imaginary situation in which we have a woman that has been raped and is looking to get an abortion. First and foremost, the rapist should be hunted down and killed. What happened to this woman was a terrible act of lust and inhumanity. However, to me, the fact that this woman conceived against her will does not justify ending another human life. Those who commit terrible crimes, such as killing people, should be killed. Babies, who are innocent and have not killed anybody, should not be killed. My extreme sympathies would be with this woman as she struggles to recover from what happened to her. She would indeed face troubles from society. Yet, why can't we have some sympathy for the child? It seems as though my opponent is giving all of the sympathy to the woman. This child is facing the risk of being killed, while he had no choice in the matter."

The rapists are hunted down and sentenced to a harsh punishments already and some are even killed as well. Therefore the status quo already solves that matter. A women having to support a child with no income and no job would be even worse because 44% of rape victims are children. When the parents find out they're pregnant, they're not going to support another child. It is the best interest that parents have an abortion. If abortions are illegal, rape victims are 33% likely to have suicidal thoughts and 17% carry on and do it. This is a staggering number. Since 44% of raped teens are under, they are considered children. So suicide is taking a child's life, one who is equally as innocent as a baby. In fact some can argue even more innocent because of the way she was abused
SOURCE: http://www.suicide.org...

R2 ARG 2 REB
"My opponent's next argument moves to the baby itself, and whether or not he believes it should be classified as a human upon conception. My argument is that a human life begins at conception (when sperm meets egg). Whether or not an embryo is developed into a baby, it is still a human being in the making. If my opponent disagrees with this, I would like him to tell me when that developing bundle of cells becomes a human being."

Scientist can not define when a human life starts because there are so many questions to be asked. The embryo can not think or do things that have human traits, but it is a start. There is no clear definition on this, only sources that are biased provide a clear definition but biased arguments and sources do not help this debate. For this, we need to use or best interpretation, not religious interpretation, which is when the baby comes out of that region of the female body parts. This is because it has its first breath of human air and it can have a cognitive mind, while if it is in it's early stages, it does not have those abilities.
ANSWER TO QUESTION: Around the fifth week of pregnancy do tissues actually become forming to a human life, abortion gets rid of embryo around week 2-3 of pregnancy.

SOURCE: https://www.wired.com...
SOURCE:

R2 ARG3 REB

"I don't care about what the rest of the population thinks about abortion, that's beside what we are debating here. People can protest and do whatever else they see fit, that doesn't change the fact that abortion is still killing babies."

Yes you the person I am versing may not care, but the president of the U.S.A will care. 57% of people are in favor of legalizing abortion. If Trump votes no, he favors the minority, which would cause his Political Capital to go down, and like I said, he would not be able to get anything done. I bring that up in R1 which was missing in his ROUND 2. You can answer my claim and say that you yourself don't care. Therefore since that argument is dropped, take that into consideration judges. Also what people do fit supports my argument because if they don't want an abortion, they don't have one, while if they do, they do. Too much federal control will lead to tensions between people. That claim you state supports my point that people can choose. There is also no reasonable evidence saying government voice doesn't matter in abortion.

SOURCE:http://www.pewforum.org...

R2 ARG 4
"If a woman doesn't want a baby, or is unsure if she will want one in the future, she shouldn't have had sex in the first place. They made that decision and they need to deal with the results of that choice. Killing babies is not the way to solve her problems from making that sexual decision. End of story."

I would like to link that to my first argument I make with rape but take it extended. It is up to women to decide what they want to keep the child if they are raped. Some even choose to keep it, just because. they are required to by religious reasons. The country should be accepting to all peoples, not just favoring a certain religion. Let that religious leaders decide these rules, not the federal government.

CONCLUDING THOUGHT
My opponent had a very weak response in Arg 3, dropping some arguments I made in that R1 claim only tieing back to his beliefs. We should not say, I don't care about other people, because they get to decide. There is also no reasonable evidence saying government voice doesn't matter in abortion. Giver Arg 3 to PRO SIDE

SIDE NOTE: If I did come off harsh or kind of rude, I am sorry. This is just the style I debate, full front attack on the claims. I lose lots of speaker points in real life for this. You did a great job rebuttaling my arguments.

I cant wait to hear your response

Regards,
SupaDudz(PRO)
Debate Round No. 2
SuperAwesomeMusician

Con

First of all I would like to apologize to my opponent if I came across a bit rude in my last round. I did not intend any kind of disrespect. I would like him to know that even though I'm not on a competitive debate team, I do know that learning the other arguments and arguing from their side is excellent practice. I acknowledge that my opponent's true beliefs are against abortion, but I will continue with this debate pretending that he isn't, just to fit his purpose of trying to argue from the other side. Now on to my rebuttals.

One thing that needs to be made clear regarding abortions in cases of rape is that they are very slim in numbers. Out of all the abortions in the nation, according to a study, only 1% of them were due to rape/incest. One common thing that pro-choice people will do is take this very marginal case of abortions, and apply that to all the other cases that there are (which are much more numerous), using this as an excuse to make all of the other cases acceptable. When an argument is made that abortion is wrong, almost every time the pro-choice side says "but what about in cases of rape or incest?" This is faulty thinking. If my opponent and I can agree (still assuming his assumed position in this debate, not his actual opinion) that all of the other cases of abortion are bad, then we can continue to discuss rape/incest cases.
Source: http://www.nytimes.com...

My opponent is correct in that scientists have no clear way of discovering when the actual baby begins development. However, this is aside from when I believe that human life begins. This is not a religious interpretation, for secular reasons I believe that the human life begins upon conception, regardless of whether or not it has developed into a baby yet. If my opponent is arguing that the baby does not become a human until it exits the birth canal and takes its first breath, I would like him to consider this: if you were to take a fully-formed baby that was just about to exit the womb and stab them in the head with a knife, that baby was not a person? You didn't kill another human being? If my opponent is trying to define the terms on which they become a person based on convenience, that is the nature of evil. Life begins upon conception.

Regarding the arguments on America's views on abortion, I never said that this debate would be about whether abortion should be illegal or not, I am simply arguing against abortion itself. Also, if we were talking about it becoming illegal, I don't think that Trump himself would get the final say, as that's just not how our economy works. That would be up to the American population to decide. (By the way, this is where I feel that I may have been a bit rude. By saying that I didn't care, that could have been taken the wrong way. I just explained what I meant by that.)

Taking a brief step back to the rape cases, I do agree with my opponent in that the final decision is the woman's. However, because that is still a human being, my opinion is that it should not be killed, regardless of the way it was put there.

Let's take a moment and step away from the ethical side of this debate and look at the different ways abortions are performed. Although there are many different techniques, many of them involve the dismemberment of the baby. The body is cut into pieces. If the head is too big, it is crushed in order to remove it. In other techniques, the skull is punctured and the contents drained out before pulling the dead baby out.
Source: http://studentsforlife.org...

As I tie ethics back in, this is truly awful to me to see that human lives are ended this way. Regardless of the way you feel about abortion, techniques such as these should not be used.

In conclusion, my opponent falsely stated my religious beliefs, yet brought in the point that religion should be left out of this debate as much as possible, which I agree with, however I would like the voters to consider this as well. I look forward to what my opponent has to say next.
SupaDudz

Pro

No worries...this is a sensitive topic and some people tend to feel a certain way. Let's get started ladies and gentlemen
R3 ARG1
"One thing that needs to be made clear regarding abortions in cases of rape is that they are very slim in numbers. Out of all the abortions in the nation, according to a study, only 1% of them were due to rape/incest. One common thing that pro-choice people will do is take this very marginal case of abortions, and apply that to all the other cases that there are (which are much more numerous), using this as an excuse to make all of the other cases acceptable. When an argument is made that abortion is wrong, almost every time the pro-choice side says "but what about in cases of rape or incest?" This is faulty thinking. If my opponent and I can agree (still assuming his assumed position in this debate, not his actual opinion) that all of the other cases of abortion are bad, then we can continue to discuss rape/incest cases."

Sure, it is a very small number, but just remember, it is still a number that is used in determining abortions. It may be small at this current moment, but it is still a percentage in this study. This percentage could keep increasing and increasing. If we don't do anything now, the rape rates will increase. That's a fact, but when this number rises and keeps growing because of rape, shouldn't we provide support? Give these victims a way to deal. Because 44% of rape victims are under 18, which is labeled as a child. A young child being forced to have a child, without any financial care, would be a wicked thing. Have a child suffering from this abuse, and taking care of a child that was not at their own will. Looking how rape is increasing more and more, the percentage will go up. Think about the future. A book from A Thousand Splendid Suns says how these children and their babies are ridiculed, and called harami's, aka bastard child. As Americans, we have this bias too. Parents would have to say their child was an accident, making them even more depressed. Yes, the percentage is low now. But the future will determine how we reacted in the past. Sure judges can think of the present, but if you want to see this world succeed, think of the future
R3 ARG2
"My opponent is correct in that scientists have no clear way of discovering when the actual baby begins development. However, this is aside from when I believe that human life begins. This is not a religious interpretation, for secular reasons I believe that the human life begins upon conception, regardless of whether or not it has developed into a baby yet. If my opponent is arguing that the baby does not become a human until it exits the birth canal and takes its first breath, I would like him to consider this: if you were to take a fully-formed baby that was just about to exit the womb and stab them in the head with a knife, that baby was not a person? You didn't kill another human being? If my opponent is trying to define the terms on which they become a person based on convenience, that is the nature of evil. Life begins upon conception."

My opponent says scientist can not define where life starts. I think that is fair point and I respect the fact he disregards religious perspectives because the Church says life starts from conception. However the Bible has bias so it's best we don't use this source. The best and most reliable thing for this debate would be that we can agree on is that life officially starts in the actual birth. I'm going to use this for my next rebuttal. The claim about a knife in the baby is just not true. This is used in third world country where medicine is not available. We are talking about the U.S here folks, where most if not all people go to the hospital. In clinic abortions are safe and effective. They work 99/100 times. They don't cause any pain to the baby in fact the vacuum procedure does not damage the baby at all. Anyway, there are treatments that get rid of the embryo which is not considered life in U.S law, so if there are procedures that do that, the claim is illegitimate
SOURCE:https://www.plannedparenthood.org...

R3 ARG 3
"Regarding the arguments on America's views on abortion, I never said that this debate would be about whether abortion should be illegal or not, I am simply arguing against abortion itself. Also, if we were talking about it becoming illegal, I don't think that Trump himself would get the final say, as that's just not how our economy works. That would be up to the American population to decide. (By the way, this is where I feel that I may have been a bit rude. By saying that I didn't care, that could have been taken the wrong way. I just explained what I meant by that.)"

I completely understand why you may think this, but my ARG1 Claim was that if abortion were to be illegal, it would cause a chilling effect and cause social tension. I am just stating an impact that would happen if abortion were to be illegal, which is the question for this debate, Should Abortion be Illegal? I was just stating an impact, no rudeness taken. Also the political system does work like that. The house creates a bill and if it goes through the entire congress it gets put on the presidents desk to veto or pass the bill. There is a lot of evidence that proves Trump is against abortion, so if an illegal abortion bill where to pass, he would vote. I am saying the impact would cause social disorder through the country, which would ruin its image to the world with the protests. I would like to ask CON for evidence that Trump would not pass a bill making abortion illegal so i can respond because based off his views, he is against it.

R3 ARG 4, EXT TECHNIQUE DA
"Taking a brief step back to the rape cases, I do agree with my opponent in that the final decision is the woman's. However, because that is still a human being, my opinion is that it should not be killed, regardless of the way it was put there.
Let's take a moment and step away from the ethical side of this debate and look at the different ways abortions are performed. Although there are many different techniques, many of them involve the dismemberment of the baby. The body is cut into pieces. If the head is too big, it is crushed in order to remove it. In other techniques, the skull is punctured and the contents drained out before pulling the dead baby out."

Why should federal government control women's bodies. Women do what is right for them. They are not the women deciding, so they should not have any federal control, when federal control is already a very hot topic. The women is in control of the body, not the government. So therefore, the federal government should not play a role in deciding abortions, when they already in the hot seat for too much control in government. For your techniques argument, please read ARG @

Also your source is prolife.org. This source should NOT be used. It clearly has bias in it with no backing up evidence to support this. Prolife has bias so judge take that into consideration

CONCLUDE
Judges should not vote on a claim of false religious claims. I did not make any false claims. I just said don't use it. CON is doing a good job of not using religious sources. However judges vote PRO due to obvious impacts with passing abortion, which CON has been weak. My case has outweighed, judges vote PRO because PRO outweighs CON cases and is weak with impact.

SIDE NOTE: Impact is referring to what would happen if abortion where to pass and if it would pass

I am anxiously waiting my opponents arguments :)
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by SupaDudz 9 months ago
SupaDudz
I am also guilty of forfeiting a debate :D! No worries
Posted by SupaDudz 9 months ago
SupaDudz
Thx Super! That stinks I was looking forward to a great finish...oh well. It was joy to debate and I wish the best of luck
Posted by SuperAwesomeMusician 10 months ago
SuperAwesomeMusician
SupaDudz I am so sorry for forfeiting this debate. I have just been so busy with school recently, and the trip my family took for Thanksgiving made that even harder. You were a great person to debate with, and I wish you the best! :)
Posted by SuperAwesomeMusician 10 months ago
SuperAwesomeMusician
backwardseden I'm sorry to hear that, that must have been frustrating. If you would still like to have some discussions, we could do it over email maybe? What do you think?
Posted by SuperAwesomeMusician 10 months ago
SuperAwesomeMusician
I'm looking forward to it! :)
Posted by SupaDudz 10 months ago
SupaDudz
Good that we have an understanding on that first one! It's ok, you weren't coming off rude at all, just trying to answer that claim. No worries.

My arguments should be coming later today or tmrw. I got hmwrk n stuff
Posted by backwardseden 10 months ago
backwardseden
@SuperAwesomeMusician - I do not have skype nor facetime. Maids threw out my camera when they were cleaning my apartment even though I SPECIFICALLY told them not to. Its so frustrating and wayyyyyyyyyy beyond anything that is annoying. I mean they pretty much got EVERYTHING. They got nearly all of my DVD's. My Reason program. So if for some reason my computer crashes, I need to buy it all over and would not be able to create any music until I do even though I haven't in quite some time. Now I am unfamiliar with facetime. Yeah. Who knows perhas we can have a good discussion. And it doesn't have to be about god, religion or the bible. Have you visited my other debate.org page I posted a few days ago?
http://www.debate.org... - Some of the weirdest, strangest, vile, wonderful, original, mega-talented music of all time? Granted most you will probably hate, but a few you'd probably like a lot... Btw, once there, there's links, so just click them on... Buckethead to me the greatest guitar player who has EVER lived, Victor Borge 31:15 true genius and hilarious, Walk off the Earth these kids are super mega talented and very uplifting, Alma Deutscher she's only 12 and is considered to be the next Mozart. She composed her first OPERA, yes that's right at age 10, Pu$$y Riot knows America better than American's do. Extremely political and they are from Russia. Rasputina - cello's and drum. Yep! But who knows, you may even like the strangest of the strange which are Melt Banana, Igorr and can't miss The Residents who have inspired nearly everybody you can think of who are slightly strange like Primus, Buckethead, etc etc etc. .
Posted by John_C_1812 10 months ago
John_C_1812
The use of abortion has purpose. The illegal issue is and has always been in the fact that abortion is a self-incriminating confession. With nothing more than a public retraction at the end. No-body by force of law should have never been advised otherwise.

A Constitutional right is Gender specific amputation as it does not ask others to self-incriminate.]
Posted by SuperAwesomeMusician 10 months ago
SuperAwesomeMusician
Tell you what backwardseden, how would you like to talk with me over skype or facetime? I'd rather do that than have a debate in the comments. I also think we could have a more effective discussion when we are actually talking to each other. If you are okay with this, message me your skype username. I would love to talk with you! :)
Posted by SupaDudz 10 months ago
SupaDudz
My source for Arg 2 was Medical Pregnancy
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.