The Instigator
Pat
Con (against)
Winning
20 Points
The Contender
swaqqasolves
Pro (for)
Losing
8 Points

Abortion

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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 6 votes the winner is...
Pat
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/1/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,579 times Debate No: 14164
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (6)

 

Pat

Con

As said in the title, this debate is about abortion. I am con, so will argue against. The challenge is open to whomever takes it.

This is my point of view:

Abortion is an act of murder, wherein a human being is removed from the uterus of the mother, resulting in the death of this baby.

Abortion is a violation of human rights. It violates the unborn baby's basic right to live, and should be illegal, except in unusual circumstances.

This would include, but not be limited to, rape, mother's life in danger, SERIOUS disabilities, confirmed uncurable diseases present in the fetus.

My opponent can argue for abortion in any case, or upto a certain period (2nd term, 3rd term) of time. It's up to him/her.

I also wish my opponent and the audience a happy and prosperous New Year.
swaqqasolves

Pro

Thank You Con,

First off I would like to point out that my opponent is using his opinions, not facts. He does have a right to his opinion I must say.

Prefer my definition.

Definition-Abortion: In medicine, an abortion is the premature exit of the products of conception (the fetus, fetal membranes, and placenta) from the uterus. It is the loss of a pregnancy and does not refer to why that pregnancy was lost. (source-http://www.medterms.com...)

My opponent talks of the abortion happening in the 2nd or 3rd term. This is impossible by this definition because doctors would not abort a baby in the 3rd term because if they did, this would indeed be a violation of human rights. But therefore it is not a human rights violation by the interpretation of this definition.

My opponent also talks about human rights. He says "Abortion is a violation of human rights. It violates the unborn baby's basic right to live, and should be illegal, except in unusual circumstances." In this statement is where my opponent contradicts himself. He says that it should only be legal in unusual circumstances. But an abortion is and unusual circumstance. A women does not just want to get an abortion. It is a very hard decision for the women to make. Of course she would not want to do this but she may have no other choice than adoption and some women don't want this either because they don't want someone else to raise their own child.

This is where my opponent violates human rights. If any of these people would happen to vote con they would be taking away the right of the female who is in need of an abortion. Like I said earlier a female may not want an abortion but it may be the last tragic resort. I am not saying that abortion is neccesarly a good thing, just that it is neccesary in today's world. In the 70's 13 year olds were not getting pregnant. In today's world they are getting pregnant. And the age keeps dropping lower and lower. Of course this female would not want to get an abortion. But she may also be too young to have a safe birth whether it be a regular birth or a C-section. Therefore telling a female that she has to give birth to a child she cant care for would be a human rights violation on the female and the child. The female because she is being told that she has to do something that she doesn't want to do(an act of dictatorship by the government). And a human rights violation on the child because they are not properly cared for.

So therefore on the issue of human rights the judges cannot vote con because they contradict on every level of human rights.

This is why abortion should stay legal.

First,
It is the women's body and the government shouldn't have a say in what they do with their body.

Second,
If abortions are illegal then females will go to back alley abortionists. This is very dangerous and can cause disease which my opponent claims regular abortion causes. And it does not cause disease. So therefore we need to keep abortion legal.

And Thirdly,
keeping abortion legal is the best choice. It lets women have control of whether or not they want the child based on if they can take care of them or not. It also PREVENTS DISEASE.

so therefore vote Pro because keeping abortion legal is the best choice in today's world.
Debate Round No. 1
Pat

Con

I thank my opponent for a speedy response. I would like to clarify something that I did not perhaps say clearly in Round 1.

My post was merely an explanation of where I stand on this debate, and I posted my point of view so that my opponent could see exactly what I was arguing, and take his stance in accordance.

I apologise if it was not clear enough.

Back to the issue at hand.

One cannot prefer a definition over another if it's a definition. It's like a fact, it is not subject to a person's point of view.

Doctors do, in certain countries, abort in the third term. 1.4% of abortions in the USA in 2003 were late-term abortions (see SOURCES for information on more countries). Therefore, one can say that doctors do abort even in third term pregnancies. At this stage, most fetuses are viable, and would feel pain. If they were to be therefore killed (my opponent himself asserts that at this stage they are granted personhood, so I shall not argue it), they would feel the pain of death.

Not all women abort because it is absolutely necesary. If it wass absolutely necesary then I'd approve of it because it would be an unusual circumstance. I officially take the stance that abortion should be illegal/legal except for socioeconomic factors, rape, incest, health, mental health, fetal defects. Many women abort because they feel they don't want a child or because they feel they're not ready yet. The minority of abortions are in the unusual circumstances I have highlighted. I assure the audience (many may know from experience) that in most circumstances, a woman does indeed want an abortion, and never considers her fetus in making the decision.

My opponent claims that over time, the number of teenagers getting pregnant has increased. The number of teenage pregnancies has decreased. It is continuing to decrease. Teenage pregnancies were normal in previous centuries. In the 1970s, as my opponent states, this rate was above 90 per 1000. In 2006, it was just over 70. The rate is clearly declining. The solution, in any event, wouldn't be abortion, it would be more education and better provision of contraception.

The logic behind the abortion vs adoption argument seems bizarre. How could somebody prefer to kill a baby rather than put it up for adoption? I would thank my opponent to elaborate before I criticise.

Women's rights, while important, are not as important as HUMAN rights. If there must be a choice between human and women's rights, then we must, unfortunately, opt for human rights.

If we were to use the "woman's body" logic, then why should we have human rights or women's rights at all? Why should the government have laws? Why should there BE a government? No, if we were to use that logic, we'd fall into anarchy.

Again, the back alley argument is also illogical. This is like arguing for the legalisation of murder. It would happen anyway, because when it's illegal people do it in the dark and privately. This is unhealthy because it is done often painfully and without the proper equipment. We should therefore make it legal so that murder can be done properly with the proper equipment and so that it inflicts minimal pain on the victim. I stress, this is illogical.

Disease would fall into unusual circumstances. It is within the scope of health or mental health.

If the woman cannot genuinely take care of the child then she could cite socioeconomic factors for a review of her case, and be ruled for or against accordingly. I don't think that seems too unfair, do you?

SOURCES:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://blog.thenationalcampaign.org...
http://www.thinkinboutstuff.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
swaqqasolves

Pro

Thank you for your response.

My opponent says that one definition can not be preferred over another. But it can. If Obama tells you what political capital is, and someone who is high on drugs tells you what political capital is, who will you believe. This is a rhetorical question that does not require an answer, so please don't give me one. My definition is preferable.

Next

On the early abortion factor. My opponent who created this topic did not say if this was domestic or international. I was under the impression that it was domestic. My opponent wants to talk about illogicality, but this argument is very illogical. You cannot stop one big thing (in this case, abortion) in the whole world. It is impossible. So everything I said was referring to domestic issues in the United States of America. This is VERY illogical and is IMPOSSIBLE. It cannot be stopped in every country, every city, every state, every province, every house, every neighborhood, ect. It can be stopped perhaps in one country. Not every country. You could not make every country to make the drinking age 18, and you cannot force every county to illegalize abortion. And since I was under the impression we were talking about the United States of America, then I was CLEARLY CORRECT on the fact that doctors do not abort babies in the third term.

Next

On the necessity issue. My opponent says " If it wass absolutely necessary then I'd approve of it because it would be an unusual circumstance ". Like I said in my first speech every abortion (99.9+%) is an unusual circumstance. A very small percent of women abort as a way of birth control, this should be illegal, not abortion as a whole. My opponent also says that "Many women abort because they feel they don't want a child or because they feel they're not ready yet."(cross-apply with human rights as seeing that the baby would not be taken care of properly.) Thank you Con, this is my whole point if not the most important. Women should have the right to choose whether or not they can properly care for their child. My opponent says " woman does indeed want an abortion, and never considers her fetus in making the decision." Well my opponent does not realize that a 2 year old doesn't know what they want, therefore not even a newborn Einstein would make his decisions. But the answer is clear, they would love to stay alive unless they are suicidal. And a newborn isn't suicidal. Also cross-apply this argument with the early abortion issue. If doctors don't abort early then there will be no deciding on the fetuses part.

Next

On the teenage pregnancy. H uses evidence from 2006 when I was reading a paper in 2008 that stated teenage pregnancy skyrocketed. Therefore we can see that it is rising. Have you ever seen the Maury Povich show? 14/15 year old girls that are pregnant. This is even more true in the real world. This proves my point.

Next

On the women's rights argument. Women's rights and human rights go hand-in-hand. therefore if we choose human right then we are calling women not human by my opponents logic. End of story, my opponent is being derogatory(that rhymed :) ) by saying that we must choose women's rights over human rights. The judges must hold him accountable on this subject. And the women's body argument is totally logical. We must respect women as humans and give them a say in what happens to their body

Next

On the back-alley abortion issue. It is not a HUGE issue now but it will be a HUGE issue if we illegalize abortion. He is talking A LOT about murder, but this simply depends on perception. It depends on the person. He is the person who thinks it is a horrible thing. I believe it can be justified.

Next

On sources. He uses two wikipedia sources an one blog. These are not trusted sources so what he got from these sources cannot be evaluated.

Source http://www.usatoday.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Pat

Con

I would thank my opponent not to make personal attacks against me or my sources without providing an explanation and proof as to why they're unreliable. Thank you.

Back to the issue at hand.

I never said the issue was domestic. I personally live in Spain, so I would be at a disadvantage debating solely the United States. The figure I gave was, though, from the United States. 1.4% of abortions in the USA in 2003 were late-term abortions. You weren't, therefore, correct on that. The figures I gave on teenage pregnancy rates was also of the USA. So, even if our perspectives vary, it didn't influence the debate that much.

May I see this alleged paper of yours? I agree that teenage pregnancy rates saw a small increase in 2006, 2007 and 2008, but if my opponent were up-to-date, he would know that they declined in 2009 and 2010. However, I find it shocking that my opponent were to claim that the rates jumped by over 20 per 1000 in two years. I would like to see this paper.

Our definitions of unusual seem to differ. I will therefore not hold the 99.9% statement against you. For Round 4, could you provide a definition of what comprises an unusual circumstance as I have in earlier Rounds? Thank you.

I agree that a fetus cannot make decisions for itself, but the mother should do what is in her reach to consider the fetus' sentiments. A discussion with the father may help this. There needs to be tighter regulation on abortion.

No, the woman's body argument is not logical. I once again stress this. Women are being given a choice when they deny to use contraception and have unprotected sex with their partners. Contraception is cheap and available in any pharmacy and, in some cases, even in supermarkets. As far as education goes, Sex Education is a subject in public schools in the USA, if I am not mistaken. So, they know well the risks of unprotected sex. Why do it, then? Why not take the "after-morning" pill then? The vast majority of women have a choice when they have sex. Only a very small percentage are raped. Again, if they feel that they cannot truly accommodate a baby, they can cite socioeconomic factors and be granted a review on the subject. They would get fair judgement.

There is no question of whether back-alley abortions are a huge issue or not. I am saying that if the argument for keeping abortion legal is that people would do it illegally anyway, then why not go ahead and legalise murder and felony? The basis is more or less the same. If proper enforcement is put in place, then there would be no question of back-alley clinics. How can this be used as a basis for keeping abortion legal?

On women's rights. Pro-choicers argue that illegalising abortion is a violation of women's rights. Pro-lifers argue that it is a violation of human rights. Therefore, one must be chosen and the other declined. One would have to be chosen over the other. Women's rights and human rights do not necesarily go hand-in-hand. If they did, we wouldn't need all the Acts calling for sexual equality after the declaration of 1947. Women are claimants of rights, as are children and human beings as a whole. Women's rights deal exclusively with women. There you automatically take out 50% of the human race. How, then, do they go hand-in-hand? I am not denying a woman her rights (see above).

Before I wrap up my argument for Round 3, I'd like to return to my opponent's attack on me and my sources. By citing Wikipedia I am also citing numerous other, reliable, as my opponent calls them, sources. What I got was information and I posted it for reference for both my audience and my opponent. The blog was used solely and exclusively for the graphs. One belongs to the Guttmarcher Institute and the other was made with data from the National Campaign website. Also, please avert from personal attacks. I will not participate in such discussions anymore. Let the audience make the decision of what makes a reliable and citable source and what doesn't. Thank you. I will not participate in criticism of my opponent's sources as that would go against my principles. Thank you.

SOURCES:
All mentioned previously and;
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
swaqqasolves

Pro

I apologize that i asummed that this was an domestic debate.

i also apologize that i cannot post a full argument due to insuffieicient resources.

considering that i dont have enough time just cross-apply everything i said in the last and first round to this round and i will post further i n the last round.

and this is not a foreit. I just do not have a computer at hand and i am doing this by my phone.

so i apologize to my opponent and i will post another argument next round.

and on the sources,
i also apologize its just that i have been debating all year and this was acceptable, maybe online debating is different.

Thank You
Debate Round No. 3
Pat

Con

Apologies accepted. I shall not post any further arguments as it would be unfair on my opponent. Therefore, my argument in Round 4 shall also be my concluding statement.

Abortion should become illegal except for/legal for socioeconomic factors (if a person cites this, (s)he will be granted a review on the subject and be ruled accordingly), health, mental health, rape, incest or fetal defects.

I hold this to be true due to prior Rounds.

I wish my opponent and the audience a happy New Year, and hope the audience enjoyed this debate. May the best man win!
swaqqasolves

Pro

I greatly appreciate con for allowing this debate to take place and making sure there was as much clash as possible.

But on another noTe,

I urge you to vote pro.
We cannot let the governments be dictator-like and tell a woman what she can and cant do.

this is one of the main issues, and herefore definitly a reason to vote.

the other reason is back alley abortionism. They use hangers. RUSTY, DIRTY, NASTY HANGERS TO PERFORM AN ABORTION. We need to prevent this(which causes disease)and make abortions legal just for the woman. I AM NOT JUSTIFIENG IT. Just saying that it is the best option.

this is why i plead for you to vote pro.

and as my opponent said.

MAY THE BEST MAN WIN!!!
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
Con should have written a clear resolution along the lines of "Abortion should be prohibited in all but special circumstances" then gone on to list the circumstances. Con should have given his case in the first round, rather than just stating an opinion. The case clarifies what the debate is about. As it is, Con claimed that abortion is murder, then went on to say that the "murder" could be justified by any number of things, including socioeconomics. That is not a logical position, but Pro didn't really punish Con for it. However, there should be some penalty for Con's ambiguous opening position, so I'll give Pro the Conduct point.

Con did a better job of finding and using evidence. The 1.4% of abortions in the third term are entirely due to the health of the mother, which Con allowed. Pro didn't pick that up. Con claims that teen pregnancies are dropping under permissive abortion rules; Pro should have claimed that proves abortion is necessary.

Con had better S&G. Pro had some random typing errors.
Posted by Pat 5 years ago
Pat
Thank you :D
Posted by Cody_Franklin 5 years ago
Cody_Franklin
Conduct: Tie

S/G: Con - While there weren't huge errors on either, I found Con's writing style to be more articulate and exact.

Arguments: Con - I disagree vehemently, and am quite pro-choice; however, Pro basically gave up and resorted to sensationalistic arguments in the latter rounds, while Con clearly trumped Pro in terms of being coherent and logically consistent. Though I would dispute the legitimacy of Con's arguments, that is a different debate altogether. For now, he comes out on top.

Sources: Con - Pro admitted that his resources were extremely limited. Con not only used a wide variety of credible sources, but he used them in a way that often proved Pro's assertions to be entirely untrue. Well-played, Con.
Posted by Pat 5 years ago
Pat
Sorry, but the challenge expired. You can still take it now.
Posted by vardas0antras 5 years ago
vardas0antras
I'm a bit busy now and for the next few days likewise. Wherefore please be patient Ill accept this challenge eventually.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Deathsun12 5 years ago
Deathsun12
PatswaqqasolvesTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
PatswaqqasolvesTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:61 
Vote Placed by vbaculum 5 years ago
vbaculum
PatswaqqasolvesTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Cody_Franklin 5 years ago
Cody_Franklin
PatswaqqasolvesTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by RobotEars 5 years ago
RobotEars
PatswaqqasolvesTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by arturo 5 years ago
arturo
PatswaqqasolvesTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40