The Instigator
Jallen289
Con (against)
Losing
16 Points
The Contender
tigg13
Pro (for)
Winning
20 Points

Abortion

Do you like this debate?NoYes+7
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 8 votes the winner is...
tigg13
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/25/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,358 times Debate No: 14934
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (28)
Votes (8)

 

Jallen289

Con

Before I start, I urge anyone who is taking the time to read this to always make it a point to research, research and research any topic you hear in school, or on the news, or read in a magazine or newspaper that you are even the slightest bit interested in. There are points taught in public schools that cover only one side of any given subject. Rarely is the entire spectrum of a given subject covered completely.

The topic of abortion hit me after a recent debate on a current story out of Canada. I won't go into details on the story, I'll just state that a judge in Canada ordered a couple to terminate life support for their baby boy claiming "the best treatment for the boy is to let him die". (1)

I've seen multiple people on forums and blog sites defended this judge's order, saying that the parents should not be so selfish and let the child go. Also, the parents should "think about the baby's feelings and not their own".

These people all share something in common. They all belong to a political group that overwhelmingly supports abortion.

How can you claim that it is selfish for a parent to want to prolong their child's life for a time, so that the child may be able to rest at home with the family for the time the child has left, yet it is not selfish for a young mother to murder another human life, simply because she does not want to deal with the stress that comes with parenthood?

I don't use the term "murder" lightly. The Latin word "fetus" means "offspring" or "hatching of young". (2)

Kathy Sparks, who worked in a Granite City, Illinois abortion clinic, with whom author Gloria Williamson did an interview and wrote a book on, said during the interview...
"Sometimes we lied. A girl might ask what her baby was like at a certain point in the pregnancy: Was it a baby yet? Even as early as 12 weeks a baby is totally formed, he has fingerprints, turns his head, fans his toes, feels pain. But we would say, 'it's not a baby yet, just tissue, like a clot.'" (3)

"In fact many women will come to me considering abortion, and I have been personally told that I am to turn the monitor away from her view so that seeing her baby jump around on the screen does not influence her choice." (4)
These are the words of Shari Richards, another worker at an abortion clinic.

A Dallas women, Carol Everett actually had an abortion, than went on to run five abortion clinics. She admits that she and her staff, like most abortionists, routinely lied to the pregnant girls who came to them. She wrote in an article for "All About Issues" magazine, "Every woman who walks into the clinic has two questions. Does it hurt? and Is it a baby? No, the counselor assures her. It's a blood clot or a ball of cells. Even though these counselors see six-week babies daily, with arms, legs, toes and eyes that are closed like newborn puppies, they lie to the women. How many people would have an abortion, if we told them the truth?"
In a testimonial to students at Vanderbilt University, she wrote "I cannot tell you one thing that happens in an abortion clinic that is not a lie"(5)

A lot of people have responded to my pro-life stance by saying that there is no way to know when a life begins and that it's just a religious stance and not a scientific fact. It amazes me at how people, who have done little to no research on the matter, all of the sudden know so much about it. It is a undisputed biological scientific fact that human life begins at conception.(6)

Conception is the union of the father's sperm and the mother's ovum. The process is called fertilization. From the very moment of conception, the fetus has all of the genetic information that the baby will have for the remainder of his or her lifetime. This new human is a defined sex and is alive, complete and growing. The fetus has the same 46 chromosomes he or she will have until death. Fetuses are living humans separate and unique from their mothers. If scientifically they are human, don't they deserve the same rights that every other human is entitled to?

I can understand that there are bad men out there. There are men that may rape a young woman, in the process impregnating her, but less than 1% of all abortions are products of rape.(7)

"I agree that there is never a situation in the law or in the ethical practice of medicine where a pre-born child's life need be intentionally destroyed by a procured abortion for the purpose of saving the life of the mother. A physician must do everything possible to save the lives of both of his patients, mother and child. He must never intend the death of either"
This declaration was created by the public policy department of American Life League, Inc. It was circulated to members of the medical and scientific communities for review and endorsement. 116 members of the medical and scientific communities signed this. Their signed statements are on file at American Life League, P.O. Box 1350, Stafford, VA 22555 - (8)

Dr. C. Everett Koop, former U.S. Surgeon General, stated publicly that in his thirty-eight years as a pediatric surgeon, he was never aware of a single situation in which a pre-born child's life had to be taken in order to save the life of the mother. He said the use of this argument to justify abortion, in general, was a "smoke screen," (9)

Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers admitted he "lied through his teeth" when he claimed late-term abortions were uncommon and used only in the most extreme situations. He admitted partial birth abortion was almost always performed on healthy mothers with healthy babies. (10)

Of course abortion is a touchy subject and being a Christian, I obviously am against it completely. However, there are other factors. Being a parent I couldn't imagine anyone agreeing to terminate the life of a child, if they know the truth. Women who go through this procedure are almost always lied to. Told that the baby will not feel the pain and that the baby is not even formed when scientifically, this is not true. Scientifically the baby is completely formed and growing.

I'll refrain from going into detail on how abortions are carried out. I'll refrain from the photos of the fetuses inside the mother's womb during some of these procedures. It isn't something anyone should have to see.

A mother has the right to do what she will with her body, but the fetus is not her body. It is completely separate genetically from the mother. The mother can choose to eat what she wants, but cannot choose to murder another human life. There really should be no debate on the subject.

People who support abortion should be forced to justify their support of murder. Many people have no clue of the scientific facts that go along with the subject and public schools will never teach all of the facts. Sometimes, it's more than just about facts. Sometimes it's about what is right for the country.

All of the Constitutional laws in place today were not always laws. It all started with our Founding Fathers doing what they thought was morally right for the people of America.

(1) http://www.foxnews.com...
(2) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(3) Gloria Williamson "The Conversion of Kathy Sparks" Christian Herald January 1986 p 28
(4) John Ankerburg Show, March 7. 1990
(5) Conservative Comebacks to Liberal Lies, Gregg Jackson 2006
(6) http://www.princeton.edu...
(7) www.epm.org/.../abortion-right-when-pregnancy-due-rape-or-incest/ - although there are many websites and sources that will comfirm this fact.
(8) http://www.abortiontv.com...
(9) aipnews.com/talk/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=18533&posts=3
(10) http://en.wikipedia.org...
tigg13

Pro

I find it interesting that Con has created a situation where, as his opponent, I must both make a case for abortion and rebut his position at the same time. I will do my best.

Rebuttal:

Con begins by asking readers to research topics completely but at least 7 of his 10 references all come from either pro-choice or conservative Christian sources and the three that aren't really don't support his position.

His first anecdote, for example, is about the Canadian baby on life support. If you read his reference carefully you'll notice that the baby is a baby not a fetus, that it is in a vegetative state that it will not recover from, and the only question left to be decided is whether it will die at home, at his father's convenience, or in a hospital, which will save money that can be spent on saving the lives of babies who aren't terminal. The ironic part of this story is that, if this baby, who will never wake up, were aborted in it's first trimester, this whole situation would have been avoided.

Con then goes on to quote Cathy Sparks, John Ankerburg, and Gregg Jackson, and – big surprise – they all think that abortion is bad and that people who provide abortions are even worse. They tell us that abortion providers are evil and deceptive people who want to force everyone to have abortions whether they want one or not. What they don't mention, though, is, if this much unethical behavior was going on, why aren't there hundreds of lawsuits being filed daily against these people. This is the problem with anecdotal evidence – it rarely resembles reality.

Con also gives us a quote from the American Life League on the sanctity of life – which is about as useful and informative as a quote from the American Bar Association on the sanctity of law firms.

But what I found most amusing was when Con trotted out Ron Fitzsimmons' admission that he had told a lie about abortions. Who was Ron Fitzsimmons? He was a lobbyist (A lobbyist told a lie? What is the world coming to?) Where did he tell it? On a television news show. How was this lie discovered? He went on another news show to correct his earlier statement because he felt it was wrong not to tell the whole truth. When did this all take place? In 1997! And 13 years later propagandists are still trying to blow it out of proportion.

Con concludes by expressing his personal and theological views on the subject which I feel are really the basis for his whole argument. It really doesn't matter to Con whether abortions are safe or if women are given complete and concise information; Con simply doesn't want women to have this option.

The Case for Abortion:

Pro life advocates are always quick to try and push the issue of life and when it begins as if this were the only question that needs to be addressed. And while it isn't as clear cut as Con's anonymous source from Princeton would have us believe, I am willing to concede that life begins at conception and that aborting a fetus equates to ending a human life.

So what?

There are plenty of examples of ways that human lives can be ended that aren't perceived as acts of murder. Killing someone in self defense, for example, or accidental death. In some places euthanasia, crimes of passion, seppuku and even stoning family members for adultery are not considered to be murder. Acts of war and capital punishment aren't even considered to be crimes.

To say that abortion is wrong you need to do more than demonstrate that a human life has ended, you need to show that it is ended unjustly. And to do that, you have to first grant fetuses the right to live independent of their mother in the first place. This would solve everything if fetuses could live independently from their mothers. But they can't. So, upon what basis should the right to live be granted to a fetus? It's genetically separate? Monkeys and cows are genetically separate and they don't have a right to life. Fetuses are human? Traitors and murders are human and they don't have a right to life either.

Because it's a person?

Here is the real issue at the center of the debate. Are fetuses people? And the problem here is that there is no biological or scientific definition for what makes a person a person. It can't just be the presence of brain activity or motor skills because dogs and cats would qualify as people. And that child in Canada that Con mentioned would not. You could say that just being human makes a person a person, but that is just as arbitrary as saying being a person is more than just being human. You could say that having a soul is what makes a person a person, but then you're just replacing facts with dogma.

This is a question for philosophers and theologians not doctors and legislators.

And now for some facts:

Even when abortion was illegal women still had them. In 1972 (before Roe v Wade) there were 586760 reported abortions and this number rose less than 5% in 1973 (after Roe v Wade). http://en.wikipedia.org...

The "less than 1%" of abortions due to rape that Con mentioned represent 14000 instances of rape that led to an unwanted pregnancy.
www.epm.org/.../abortion-right-when-pregnancy-due-rape-or-incest

Fewer than 0.3% of abortions have complications that lead to hospitalization and abortions pose virtually no long term risks to the women who have them.
http://www.guttmacher.org...

Informed consent, in general, is the law in all 50 states so, by law, all abortion providers must provide patients with complete and accurate information about the procedures they provide. 32 states have special informed consent laws that deal specifically with abortion most of which provide inaccurate and/or misleading information.
http://www.abortionusa.com...
http://www.guttmacher.org...

Conclusion:

If the fetus isn't a person then aborting it isn't murder and the question of whether or not a fetus is a person is one of personal belief not scientific fact. Thus, there is no justification for those who hold this belief to usurp a woman's actual right to privacy and liberty by forcing her to give birth against her will. And killing a fetus is only wrong to those who think it's wrong.
Debate Round No. 1
Jallen289

Con

"the Canadian baby on life support. If you read his reference carefully you'll notice that the baby is a baby not a fetus, that it is in a vegetative state that it will not recover from, and the only question left to be decided is whether it will die at home, at his father's convenience, or in a hospital, which will save money that can be spent on saving the lives of babies who aren't terminal."

In the second paragraph I am not debating rather the Canadian baby is a fetus or not. And again, the Latin word fetus literally means "offspring" or "hatching of young". (1) Also, most of the time, when a procedure is done in a hospital, the hospital is paid for their time and the doctor for his skills.

I also would like to point out that while Tigg13 pointed out that I chose sources that are either pro-life or Conservative Christian, he gave no details, nor did he point out which sources were pro-life and which ones actually "don't support his position." – meaning my position.

I would now like to comment on Tigg13's fourth paragraph in which he states, "Con then goes on to quote Cathy Sparks, John Ankerburg, and Gregg Jackson, and – big surprise – they all think that abortion is bad and that people who provide abortions are even worse. They tell us that abortion providers are evil and deceptive people who want to force everyone to have abortions whether they want one or not. What they don't mention, though, is, if this much unethical behavior was going on, why aren't there hundreds of lawsuits being filed daily against these people. This is the problem with anecdotal evidence – it rarely resembles reality."
It's interesting he would make these statements when Kathy Sparks is a former abortionist herself - (2), and John Ankerburg has a long list of accomplishments which would establish any person as a well referenced source - (3). While he may be a Christian, it's hard to find a non-Christian or a Liberal Democrat who will back up pro-life arguments and I assume that a person fitting that description would constitute a reputable source for my opponent.

Gregg Jackson is a well established author and with little research on Gregg Jackson, you will find he is a Conservative and obviously this is what my opponent did and is now just using that as ammunition.

"why aren't there hundreds of lawsuits being filed daily against these people."
This is an example of the lack of attention by my opponent. Other than the grammatical errors of his post, if these women were lying as good as they claim, why would there be lawsuits? A young mother would have no reason to file a lawsuit against someone who helped them...would they?

My opponent's arguments about Fitzsimmons are literally baseless. Yes lobbyists lie, but that doesn't argue what he lied about. And this man was the Director of Government Relations for the National Abortion Rights Action League from 1982 to 1985, and the Executive Director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers (NCAP) from its founding in 1990 until 2004. In 1993, he was named one of the top 50 "Hired Guns" on Capitol Hill by Washingtonian magazine. - (4)
So I personally believe that he would be a reputable source when talking about abortion.

I won't address my opponents closing arguments as it is opinion and my entire argument goes against it.

My "anonymous source from Princeton" is actually multiple sources and behind every statement, there is a name and date. - (5)

"In some places euthanasia, crimes of passion, seppuku and even stoning family members for adultery are not considered to be murder. Acts of war and capital punishment aren't even considered to be crimes."
Is my opponent suggesting that we result to the way of life in the Middle East and punish people accordingly? Obviously, comparing abortion and stoning a woman to death would be a dangerous comparison.

"Fewer than 0.3% of abortions have complications that lead to hospitalization and abortions pose virtually no long term risks to the women who have them."
This is not the argument at all. Providing the fact that women are not at much risk when aborting a fetus does not argue my case.

"And the problem here is that there is no biological or scientific definition for what makes a person a person."
This is odd. I believe we could all agree a person, becomes a person, when life begins.

"The "less than 1%" of abortions due to rape that Con mentioned represent 14000 instances of rape that led to an unwanted pregnancy."
As I did not mention a date, I find it hard to believe that my opponent would have a reputable counter-fact. And if I use 1972 and 73, which my opponent proposed, I come up with a number much less than 14000. I come up with under 6,000.

"Informed consent, in general, is the law in all 50 states so, by law, all abortion providers must provide patients with complete and accurate information about the procedures they provide. 32 states have special informed consent laws that deal specifically with abortion most of which provide inaccurate and/or misleading information."
Obviously, by the testimonies of the women who have worked at abortionist clinics, which more than just the ones I've posted can easily be found online, accurate information is not provided.

Laws say a lot of things. Obviously they are not always followed as my opponent argues for me, "Even when abortion was illegal women still had them. In 1972 (before Roe v Wade) there were 586760 reported abortions and this number rose less than 5% in 1973 (after Roe v Wade)."

My opponent agreed that life begins at conception, and then contradicted this in his conclusion.

And finally, killing a fetus is only right to those who think its right. But think about the fact that even a pro-choice person, has to use the term "killing a fetus", when we've established that fetus literally means "child".

In closing, I'd like to say that my opponent has given very little source for his information, a total of 4 sources, and has rushed through his argument with multiple grammatical errors being evidence of this. He accused me of giving sources that are not reputable and that's about it. He gives no details on this and then uses one of the same sources. I don't believe this opponent did research at all. Other than a few facts he may have "Googled", I think that my opponent simply does not agree with me, but does not hold the desire to prove me wrong.

Sources -
(2) - http://www.abortionfacts.com... (also a good source for other statements from former abortionists.)
tigg13

Pro

I'd like to begin this round with a word about references. The issue of abortion has been a fiercely debated topic for over 40 years and there are very few people who have involved themselves in this issue who haven't taken one side or the other, so finding a source that isn't biased, or seems to be biased, one way or the other is a very hard thing to do. I have pointed out the obvious prejudice of my opponent's sources and he has countered by challenging me to provide sources of my own – which he will undoubtedly attack as being prejudiced themselves.

Personally, I'd like to rely on the merits of my argument rather than the authority of my sources, so I will ignore my opponents requests for sources except where I feel it necessary.

Apparently, my opponent would also like to turn this into a question of semantics and proper grammar. I guess if you have no real argument the best you can hope for is to win on points. He insists that the word "fetus" should defined as meaning "child" so that abortion should be seen as being equal to child killing. I would like to point out the the word "wife" originally meant "cook" but that shouldn't mean that married women should be confined to the kitchen. Abortion only applies to the unborn whether they be children, fetuses or what have you.

I would also like to point out that, even though I was willing to assume the burden of proof and defend my position, Con has chosen to ignore my argument almost completely and instead defend against my rebuttal. The only time he even touched on my position was when he said, "I believe we could all agree a person, becomes a person, when life begins.", and "I won't address my opponents closing arguments as it is opinion and my entire argument goes against it."

If we all agreed that a person becomes a person when life begins there wouldn't be reason to debate this issue. The fact is, there is no agreement on this issue. There are lots of people who don't think fetuses qualify as people and feel justified in removing them before they become people. So, by what right does my opponent feel that he can assert his beliefs as though they are facts and deny others the right to to hold differing beliefs? My opponent likes to feel he is arguing from a position of authority. I would like to see what facts he has that support his assertion that a person becomes a person when life begins. Otherwise, his whole argument boils down to an assertion that his opinion should have more merit than mine.

And since he has chosen not to rebut my position I cannot see why I should not win by default.

Rebuttal:

"I am not debating rather the Canadian baby is a fetus or not."
Then why bring it up? This child has already been born so even if the doctors remove the breathing tube it still technically isn't an abortion.

"Also, most of the time, when a procedure is done in a hospital, the hospital is paid for their time and the doctor for his skills."
Paid by who? If the father could afford to pay for this why is he asking for donations? And remember, this is in Canada where they have socialized medicine. If the family can't pay, then the tax payers will wind up footing the bill.

And while we're on the topic of money, who exactly is supposed to handle the financial burden of raising all of these children who Con would rather not see aborted? There is, at any given time, over 100,000 children in this country in foster care costing tax payers millions of dollars each year to feed, house and clothe. And each year there are more entering the system than are being adopted. Even if 9 out of every 10 mothers raised their child themselves instead of aborting them, that would still double the amount of children without any means of support except for foster care. Apparently Con only cares about the welfare of children before they are born and couldn't care less about them afterwords.
http://www.acf.hhs.gov...
http://www.davethomasfoundation.org...
http://www.abortionno.org...

Con then pointed out that I didn't note which of his sources were pro-life and which weren't. I'll leave it to the reader to decide that for themselves. If I was mistaken, so be it.

Con then tries to polish his sources. As I stated earlier, a biased source, no matter how sweet, is still a biased source. But let's consider some other sources; Michael Griffen, Paul Hill, John Salvi, James Kopp and Scott Roeder all gunned down innocent people because they were connected to abortion clinics, Eric Rudolph, David McMenemy, John Earl, Martin Uphoff, amongst others, have tried to bomb or burn down clinics, and organizations like the Army of God, the American Coalition of Life Activists and Operation Rescue not only have condoned violence against abortionists but have actively cultivated it. Now I'm not saying all pro-choice advocates are terrorists and murderers, but, if there are those willing to to go to these measures for this cause, how much of a stretch is it to believe that some might provide false testimony or fabricate or embellish their facts?
http://www.kansas.com...
http://www.worldlingo.com...
http://www.clarkprosecutor.org...
http://www.washingtonpost.com...
http://www.cbsnews.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.cbsnews.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://mediamatters.org...

In response to my question, why aren't there hundreds of lawsuits being filed against abortion clinics if they're lying to patients, Con responded "if these women were lying as good as they claim, why would there be lawsuits?"
So Pro-life advocates are willing to kill doctors, bomb buildings and spend millions on lobbyists and lawyers but they can't investigate crimes that they already have witnesses to?

"Obviously, comparing abortion and stoning a woman to death would be a dangerous comparison"
And yet, this is exactly what my opponent wishes to do.

"Obviously, by the testimonies of the women who have worked at abortionist clinics...accurate information is not provided."
If my opponent had bothered to read my source he would have noted that the misinformation I was referring to is being generated by pro-life advocates who have used local politicians to force doctors and clinics to lie to patients about fictitious dangers and hazards in order to scare them away.

"Laws say a lot of things. Obviously they are not always followed as my opponent argues for me."
Excuse me, but where exactly did you argue that laws shouldn't be followed?

"My opponent agreed that life begins at conception, and then contradicted this in his conclusion."
No I didn't. And I'm sure if I did, you would've actually presented it instead of just making an accusation.

"But think about the fact that even a pro-choice person, has to use the term "killing a fetus", when we've established that fetus literally means "child"."
When did "we" establish this? If anyone is confused let me spell it out. A fetus is an unborn child and as an unborn child, it does not automatically gain the quality of person-hood that a child that has been born receives.

Conclusion:

Con's position is simple; he believes that unborn children are people and should be given all the rights and privileges that all other people get no matter what the cost. He has no real foundation for this belief so has instead tried to erase the line between the born and the unborn, make emotional pleas, use arguments from authority and attack my credibility. What he has not done is give a single reason why his beliefs should take precedence over the beliefs of others.

Everyone should get a choice, not just Con.
Debate Round No. 2
Jallen289

Con

I would like to say that, after a small comment about my opponent’s spelling and grammar, he took the whole thing out of context and wrote a paragraph on it. I was simply pointing out that I feel like my opponent rushed through his arguments, and pointed at multiple spelling and grammatical errors as evidence.

It is not possible to “involve” yourself in an argument and debate with an opponent and not pick one side or the other. It seems like that is the point of debating a topic. And one that is as controversial a subject as abortion is, it seems even more unlikely that a person could involve themselves in a debate and not pick one side or the other. My opponent attacked my sources and then turned his stance around and stated, “, so finding a source that isn't biased, or seems to be biased, one way or the other is a very hard thing to do.

Moving on, comparing the definitions of the word “wife” and the word “fetus” is a foolish thing to do. Most people would go on definitions readily available in today’s standards, not definitions from, I’m guessing, centuries ago, as I have not found a definition of the word “wife” that refers to it as a “cook” and my opponent, in usual fashion has not provided a source for this claim.

Again, I’m not sure how I have not argued my opponents positions, I have argued his positions word for the word the entire debate. This is one of many attempts my opponent has made to frame the debate for his liking and quite literally make up random unspoken rules like, “And since he has chosen not to rebut my position I cannot see why I should not win by default.

I brought up the story of the Canadian boy simply to give the readers an idea of what brought the issue of abortion to my mind. If you read the paragraph good enough, you would see where the connection is. Obviously I understand that this boy is already born, and I feel that my opponent is trying to make it seem that this is a decent argument when, in fact, it is a baseless attempt to frame the debate. I was not using the story as an argument against abortion. I was simply stating that my liberal friend cared about the feelings of the child and thought the parents were selfish, yet didn’t care about the feelings of a fetus inside of the mother’s womb.

If the family can't pay, then the tax payers will wind up footing the bill.

The point is the bill gets paid. In the U.S. the same thing happens. Millions of people every year refuse to pay medical bills. However, we still have hospitals.

To address my opponent’s statement about who is supposed to handle the financial burden of “all of these children who Con would rather not see aborted”, there was an estimated 463,000 children in foster care in 2008. (1)

Now I will attack my opponent’s source, but not on grounds of rather this source is biased or not. His sources tell him that “at any given time there are over 100,000 children in this country in foster care”. My source, which for this stat can be found by (1) – below, states a much higher number. And while this means more “millions” spent by taxpaying Americans, there are many more programs that the government has instituted and suggested we pay for that we could attack all day. Some my opponent and I would probably agree on.

My opponent’s statement about rather or not I could care about children after they are born, “Apparently Con only cares about the welfare of children before they are born and couldn't care less about them afterwords. Make no sense when the first thing I type about is about the Canadian child whose family is being ordered to take off of life support. Moreover, I have two children and couldn’t care more about my family, or the lives of children in foster care.

Con then pointed out that I didn't note which of his sources were pro-life and which weren't. I'll leave it to the reader to decide that for themselves. If I was mistaken, so be it.

This quote from my opponent’s argument is a clear indication of someone going back on their own arguments and a indicator that my opponent makes statements with no base or foundation to those statements.

Con then tries to polish his sources. As I stated earlier, a biased source, no matter how sweet, is still a biased source. But let's consider some other sources;” My opponent then goes on to name drop people who he feels are not “biased” But I thought, as my opponent stated earlier, “so finding a source that isn't biased, or seems to be biased, one way or the other is a very hard thing to do.” I’m not attacked my opponent’s sources here, he is.

Addressing my opponent’s claims of organizations bombing or burning down clinics and etc, I do not condone these actions and any true Christian would not condone these actions either. Any true “Army of God” would never want to kill or hurt another individual simply because of beliefs. Some people claim to be Christians and commit acts of terror in the “name of God”. Some Muslims claim to be calm and move to America when the Koran calls for the death of every person who does not convert, or pay Jizya (non-believer tax). My point here is that people always pervert a religion.

So Pro-life advocates are willing to kill doctors, bomb buildings and spend millions on lobbyists and lawyers but they can't investigate crimes that they already have witnesses to?

Now, since both sides obvious pay lobbyists and lawyers, it isn’t fair to use this as an argument at all. My opponent said himself “Now I'm not saying all pro-choice advocates are terrorists and murderers,”, but now he has just labeled the entire group of Pro-Life advocates as people who are willing to bomb and kill. This, in my opinion, is an obvious contradiction.

And while it isn't as clear cut as Con's anonymous source from Princeton would have us believe, I am willing to concede that life begins at conception and that aborting a fetus equates to ending a human life.

If my opponent would have read my source, he would have seen that the “anonymous source from Princeton” is actually a list of sources, plural as in more than one. Another interesting point I’d like to bring up dealing with this quote is it is part of the contradiction my opponent claims he did not make, “My opponent agreed that life begins at conception, and then contradicted this in his conclusion."
No I didn't. And I'm sure if I did, you would've actually presented it instead of just making an accusation.

If you read his quote in the beginning of his debate, “And while it isn't as clear cut as Con's anonymous source from Princeton would have us believe, I am willing to concede that life begins at conception and that aborting a fetus equates to ending a human life.” Then compare this statement to his conclusion, “If the fetus isn't a person then aborting it isn't murder and the question of whether or not a fetus is a person is one of personal belief not scientific fact.” You can see that at the beginning he is willing to agree that life begins at conception and that aborting a fetus equates to ending a human life, yet in his conclusion, as if he talked himself out of it, he states that it isn’t a person and that aborting it isn’t murder. This, by definition is a contradiction and a contradiction, my friends, means that someone is wrong. Case and point.

In conclusion I’d like to say that an unborn child is still just that, a child. He is separate from his mother in a scientific sense, as he has all of his own chromosomes and has his own feelings and habits.
tigg13

Pro

I would like to begin by thanking my opponent for giving me the opportunity to have this debate.

"Again, I am not sure how I have not argued my opponents position..."
My position is that:
A) If a fetus is not a person then there is nothing wrong with killing it.
B) There is no objective way to determine whether or not a fetus is a person.
C) It is wrong to deny people the right to decide for themselves whether or not a fetus is a person.
All Con has said with regard to these points is that he considers his beliefs should be accepted as fact without any justification.

"I brought up the story of the Canadian boy simply to give the readers an idea of what brought the issue of abortion to my mind. … I was not using the story as an argument against abortion."
Thank you for this admission.

"The point is the bill gets paid."
Really? Then why have health care costs been sky rocketing for the last few years? To just assume that the money needed to pay for an extra million babies a year is going to appear out of nowhere is irresponsible.

"there was an estimated 463,000 children in foster care in 2008."
And only 57,466 of them were adopted in 2009 (same source). I find it strange that Con did not even try to address what could be done to solve this problem or how there might be a way to criminalize abortions without aggravating it. Obviously, he can't.

"And while this means more "millions" spent by taxpaying Americans, there are many more programs that the government has instituted and suggested we pay for that we could attack all day."
So we just turn it over to the government and let them find a way to pay for it? Con wants the authority to force women to have children but isn't ready to take the responsibility of dealing with the consequences.

"I have two children and couldn't care more about my family, or the lives of the children in foster care."
Then why aren't you spending your time and energy on making their lives better instead of suggesting we make it worse by dumping a million more unwanted children into the system?

"My opponent then goes on to name drop people who he feels are not "biased""
I never said any of those people were not biased. On the contrary, I brought them up to show just how prejudiced pro-lifers can be. If Con is referring to the sources I listed regarding these people ( i.e. CNN, CBS News, The Washington Post, etc.) again, I will leave it to the reader to decide how fair these sources are.

""So Pro-life advocates are willing to kill doctors, bomb buildings...Now I'm not saying all pro-choice advocates are terrorists and murderers," ,but now he has just labeled the entire group of Pro-Life advocates as people who are willing to bomb and kill. This, in my opinion, is an obvious contradiction."
First, I would like to apologize for my obvious blunder. When I typed "Pro-Choice" I meant "Pro-Life". And I appreciate that my opponent didn't try to use this error against me.
Second, if I had said that "all Pro-Life advocates are willing to to kill and murder", then I would have contradicted myself. But I didn't, so I haven't.

"If my opponent would have read my source, he would have seen that the "anonymous source from Princeton" is actually a list of sources, plural as in more than one.
But who put these quotes together? Was it a student, a professor, a janitor? The web site itself does not identify who authored the web site. To title the source as coming from Princeton gives a false impression that the author actually has some authority. And a closer look at the list shows that these are quotes from biology text books – some over 20 years old – cherry picked to support the author's (whoever it was) assertion that life begins at conception (a point I agreed with, mind you). It's a facade without any real substance.

"You can see that at the beginning he is willing to agree that life begins at conception and that aborting a fetus equates to ending a human life, yet in his conclusion, as if he talked himself out of it, he states that it isn't a person and that abortion isn't murder. This, by definition is a contradiction..."
My opponent is either unable or unwilling to comprehend the difference between being human and being a person. "Human" is a biological classification that can be tested for and proved to a high degree of certainty. "Person" is a philosophical concept which can be defined different ways under different circumstances. This is especially true when dealing with legal issues. To say that a human fetus isn't human would be ridiculous. What I am saying is that they aren't necessarily people. And Con has failed to show any reason why they should be considered to be people.

"In conclusion I'd like to say that an unborn child is still just that, a child. He is separate from his mother in a scientific sense.."

Fine. Then I propose that Pro-Life advocates dedicate all of their time and money to finding a way to preserve and incubate aborted fetuses so that they can live on without any help from their mothers and that the Pro-Lifers should be legally and financially responsible for the these children until they reach adulthood.

But, as Con has demonstrated, they are not interested in actually bearing any of the burden for these children. They want to leave it up to the birth parents (who are already separate from these children in a "scientific sense") or the government or the tax payers.

Conclusion:

I have demonstrated that there are circumstances where human beings have been morally and legally deprived of their right to life and I have shown that there are circumstances where it is morally and legally permissible to take the life of a human being. So simply acknowledging that fetuses are human does not automatically guarantee them a right to live.

I have raised the philosophical question of how does one define what a person is legally and pointed out that there is no reason why something that has not been born should be considered to be a person. And therefore, anyone who wishes to abort a fetus is both morally and legally justified in doing so.

I have pointed out that my opponent's argument is built on biased sources that are riddled with anecdotal evidence, unsubstantiated accusations, anonymous authorities, emotional pleas and blatant propaganda. And when I asked my opponent to show why fetuses should be considered to be people and what would be done to deal with the consequences of prohibiting abortions he ignored and avoided these issues.

I feel I have presented a winning case and I hope those who read it will agree with me.
Debate Round No. 3
28 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by xHeySavvy 5 years ago
xHeySavvy
I understand what tigg13 is saying. We all make mistakes. tigg13 corrected it and tigg13 had enough courage to say that they made a mistake. Then, all Jallen289 did was attack the mistake after tigg13 had already made the correction. Stop attacking that mistake and showing people that the mistake may be the only reason people shouldn't vote for tigg13. Obviously now one cares about the mistake because tigg13 won.
Posted by themanofearth 5 years ago
themanofearth
At this time both side's arguments are ineffectual and they miss the issues but it's not entirely their fault. The premise of the debate itself forces both sides to ask questions that have virtually nothing to do with an actual issue. Abortion is an ambiguous topic: What about abortion? Pro-abortion is not a position I'm aware of that anyone takes seriously and pro-choice is not the same thing.

Abortion is a symptom of (and A - as in one of the - solution to) a problem, not the problem itself. The only place where either side grazes an issue worthy of note is when they talk about what constitutes humanity (and not simply life) and whether keeping abortion causes harm to society at large. It seems to me that those issues were set aside in favor of virtually meaningless squables about where the word fetus came from or childish debates on who's side is more willing to kill practitioners on which side.
Posted by Jallen289 5 years ago
Jallen289
I said I wouldn't comment anymore, but I have to comment on this last comment redd....the topic is not safe sex. And as a pro-life American, I would promote safe sex always, unless you actually wanted a child. I'm not sure where you got your information from, but it's wrong.

NOW I won't post anymore, lol.
Posted by reddj2 5 years ago
reddj2
I messed up :P
Posted by reddj2 5 years ago
reddj2
The problem with the Pro-life argument is that most of the time they don't promote safe sex or birth control, they just say: its bad, don't do it, and you WILL get a std.
Which the std thing is kinda true but it comes down to, know your partner .
You can have sex and prevent a pregnancy:
-Condoms with spermicidal lube (good brands not cheap ones)
-Birth control pills or shots
-And extra spermicide
-Also if the condom breaks (pfft) you can get a emergency contraceptive which works best 1-4 days after it happened
If you have a baby after that then it is probably the next Jesus
There was this report stating that most girls who get pregnant taking the pill missed dosed ,meaning they fucked up
Having sex with someone you know is different than doing it with a stranger
that is Safe-sex vs UnSafe-sex
Heres a video of a condom filled with water
<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ucOe8tt14fE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Posted by tatter_d 5 years ago
tatter_d
Well. Very interesting. As usual, it seems that when one debater starts having a problem defending their view, they resort to what usually amounts to unfounded accusations of one type or another. Con, many times, accused Pro of contradicting himself but never managed to show any proof of it, although he certainly managed to try and twist Pro's words into meanings that, in truth, did not apply. It is obvious to me that Con was not interested in having any kind of open-minded debate on this subject. Most people who call themselves "pro-life" are simple "pro-Christian" and only will believe what their religion tells them to believe. The winner of this debate will only come down to how many voters already held Con's views and how many did not.
Posted by Jallen289 5 years ago
Jallen289
I'm going to stop commenting now and let the voters comment if they wish. I don't like filling it up with more debate. You've asked for contradictions and I've supplied all you need to come to the conclusion that your argument was baseless and inferior.
Posted by tigg13 5 years ago
tigg13
Jallen, did you even bother to read my side of the debate?

I carefully explained the distinction between a "human" (a scientific term) and a "person" (a philosophical term) I'm sorry if you cannot comprehend this, but because these are two different things, I did not contradict myself.

I never agreed that killing an unborn child was the same as killing a child that has been born and if you had an ounce of integrity you wouldn't even try to make it sound as though I did.

My list of names were not the names of people who had been killed but a list of the people who had been tried and convicted of violent crimes and terrorist acts in the name of the pro-life movement. This would have been immediately apparent if had actually researched them.

And I've been honest. I don't know if you simply cannot comprehend the distinction I have made between fetus being human but not being people of if you just want to muddy the waters as much as possible. And given nature of your sources and your argument it could go either way.
Posted by Jallen289 5 years ago
Jallen289
Now as my opponent did not literally say that the names he lists are not biased, he inclines this by insulting my sources as being biased, then states but let's consider some other sources, then he names off people who were apparently gunned down because they were connected to abortion clinics, as if these people are sources.
Now this is just a few things, there are more that I don't have the urge to track down.
I'll leave you with this. My opponent was so blinded by his own beliefs that he refused to admit that he did contradict himself with the statements, "I am willing to concede that life begins at conception and that aborting a fetus equates to ending a human life." And the statements of his conclusion, "If the fetus isn't a person then aborting it isn't murder and the question of whether or not a fetus is a person is one of personal belief not scientific fact. This is evident by the fact that I actually addressed these issues in the debate when I stated, "My opponent agreed that life begins at conception, and then contradicted this in his conclusion", and my opponent replied "No I didn't. And I'm sure if I did, you would've actually presented it instead of just making an accusation."
Of course, when I presented the contradiction, my opponent rebutted with insulting comments referring to my inability to comprehend the difference between a human life and a person when, let's be honest tigg, you and I both know what you meant. Just like other comments, you just made a "blunder"? I don't think so.
Posted by Jallen289 5 years ago
Jallen289
While I don't much like filling a comment section up with more debate, I've already done that, as has my opponent, so I might as well oblige him and give him a few of the contradictions I have found.

My opponent stated, "I am willing to concede that life begins at conception and that aborting a fetus equates to ending a human life." In his conclusion however, he clearly goes back on this, as I have already stated before, by saying "If the fetus isn't a person then aborting it isn't murder and the question of whether or not a fetus is a person is one of personal belief not scientific fact."
I will use the first quote, "I am willing to concede that life begins at conception and that aborting a fetus equates to ending a human life", again with another contradiction.
My opponent stated that, "He insists that the word "fetus" should defined as meaning "child" so that abortion should be seen as being equal to child killing." Now obviously when he said "he", he was referring to me. And again, compared to his quote about conceding that aborting a fetus equates to ending a human life, it would seem that he agrees that abortion should be seen as killing a child. He literally said he agreed.
This may not be a contradiction, but it is incorrect. My opponent stated that "Traitors and murders are human and they don't have a right to life either." I'm sure how they don't have the right to life.
My opponent stated in his second argument, "so finding a source that isn't biased, or seems to be biased, one way or the other is a very hard thing to do." And while I agree with my opponent, he goes on to attack my sources by stating this, "Con then tries to polish his sources. As I stated earlier, a biased source, no matter how sweet, is still a biased source. But let's consider some other sources"
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
Jallen289tigg13Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: con did not properly establish what a person was
Vote Placed by gavin.ogden 5 years ago
gavin.ogden
Jallen289tigg13Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: CAPLlock counter bomb, however, Tigg certainly put forward the superior argument as well as the most legit sources. Sad that people can't just vote straight up. The key argument is the woman's right to choose what she does with her body, without government control.
Vote Placed by Jillianl 5 years ago
Jillianl
Jallen289tigg13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had more rational reasons for when a person established personhood.
Vote Placed by MrCarroll 5 years ago
MrCarroll
Jallen289tigg13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con won.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
Jallen289tigg13Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: "Con's position is simple; he believes that unborn children are people and should be given all the rights and privileges that all other people get no matter what the cost. He has no real foundation for this belief "- argument to Pro.
Vote Placed by CAPLlock 5 years ago
CAPLlock
Jallen289tigg13Tied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: just a all win for me
Vote Placed by KRFournier 5 years ago
KRFournier
Jallen289tigg13Tied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro spent too much time arguing against Con's sources and religious influences than against Con's argument. Pro only asserted his position (that parent's should get to choose when a fetus becomes human) but never argued why I should accept it. Thus, I found Con's arguments--on balance--more convincing. I gave conduct to Con for Pro condemning Con's sources while also admitting that there are no unbiased sources. Both sides had grammatical errors and used reliable enough sources.
Vote Placed by boredinclass 5 years ago
boredinclass
Jallen289tigg13Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:12 
Reasons for voting decision: It came down to the source argument. The fetus argument was ok, but too rebutted to vote on. And it doesn't really matter who the advocates of something are, the con should argue that the philosophy of killing anything is wrong. The con basically concedes that their sources are biased. This destroys your entire ground. But I really liked the line-by-line.