The Instigator
KeithKroeger91
Con (against)
Losing
18 Points
The Contender
Mangani
Pro (for)
Winning
67 Points

Abortion

Do you like this debate?NoYes+8
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 13 votes the winner is...
Mangani
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/26/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,473 times Debate No: 6050
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (13)

 

KeithKroeger91

Con

Abortion is murder and it should be illegal. There is no excuse for an abortion there are many alternatives too them, one example would be adoption. I would say that the ONLY reason why there should to be an abortion is in case the baby is acting as a cancer and its killing the mother, but that should be the last resort. I will await for my opponents arguments
Mangani

Pro

abor�tion 1: the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: as a: spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation — compare miscarriage b: induced expulsion of a human fetus c: expulsion of a fetus by a domestic animal often due to infection at any time before completion of pregnancy (http://www.merriam-webster.com...)
Abortion cannot be defined as murder, as it doesn't always involve the induced death of an embryo or fetus.

Embryo: The organism in the early stages of growth and differentiation from fertilization to, in humans, the beginning of the third month of pregnancy. After that point in time, it is termed a fetus. (http://www.medterms.com...)

1.a. An organism in its early stages of development, especially before it has reached a distinctively recognizable form.
b. An organism at any time before full development, birth, or hatching.
2.a. The fertilized egg of a vertebrate animal following cleavage.
b. In humans, the prefetal product of conception from implantation through the eighth week of development. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...)

Murder: 1: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought (http://www.merriam-webster.com...)

In order for my opponent's first statement to be valid: "Abortion is murder and it should be illegal.", abortion would have to first be illegal, and murder would have to be redefined in the US Code as the taking of human life including at the earliest stages of development. Abortion is a medical procedure, and should only be defined by medical doctors. In modern American history, the Christian Right has attempted to sequester this medical procedure and redefine it according to their own morals with complete disregard for the consequences of illegalizing abortion, the toll it will have on adoption rates in the US which are already dismal, and the social consequences of perpetuating a rise in illegal abortions.

My opponent claims that an alternative for abortion is adoption. There are perpetually about 500,000 kids in foster care each year. With all the movement in and out of foster care, there is a constant 130,000 children awaiting adoption. In total, in 2007, 783,000 children were in the foster care system at some point. Only about 50,000 American children are adopted every year (http://www.acf.hhs.gov...).

Abortion is currently LEGAL. In 2005, 1.21 million abortions were performed, down from 1.31 million in 2000. From 1973 through 2005, more than 45 million legal abortions occurred. What would my opponent propose happen with this rise in unwanted children if already there are only 50,000 adoptions per year in the US? An extra 1.2 million children born per year would be disastrous to our economy, our orphanages, and the children doomed to live their lives in these institutions. (http://www.guttmacher.org...).

My opponent states that the "only reason why there should be an abortion is in case the baby is acting as a cancer and its killing the mother". I refute that my opponent can make this claim because he cannot get into the heads of millions of women who have had, and do have abortions and discern for them whether or not they had a good reason to have an abortion. Even lacking this argument, my opponent ignores the conditions of rape and incest. Who will father these children? Will he? Who will provide psychiatric support for these women- too often children themselves- who have been violated and impregnated by disgusting criminals? Who will provide the psychiatric support for the children themselves when they are born?

My opponent ignores several issues related to illegalizing abortion, besides the ones I have mentioned above. Illegalizing abortion would not lower abortion rates, rather it will raise illegal abortion rates, and the mortality rates associated with abortion. In 1972, a year before abortion became legal, there were a reported 130,000 illegal abortions. From 1975-1979 there were 11,300 illegal abortions reported. (http://findarticles.com...) Repealing Roe v. Wade (one of the steps required to illegalize abortion) would most likely result in a rise in illegal abortions.

Now, rather than opposing the right of a woman and her doctor to choose what she should do medically with her own body, we should be advocating education of controceptive use, education in alternatives to abortion, laws that would ease adoption rather than make it more difficult (like the recent Arkansas Unmarried Couple adoption ban, http://ballotpedia.org...(2008), and help for single mothers and families living in poverty. It is this work that helps reduce the number of annual abortions, and reducing the number of annual abortions should be everyone's goal rather than attacking the rights of a woman, and a medical procedure while not being medically qualified to judge what is and isn't good for the human body, what defines human life, and what is or isn't ethical/unethical in medicine.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
KeithKroeger91

Con

My opponent said:

"An extra 1.2 million children born per year would be disastrous to our economy, our orphanages, and the children doomed to live their lives in these institutions."

My opponent stated that our economy,orphanages,and the children would suffer from illegalizing abortion. Well, here are some quick and easy facts, if we were too Illegalize abortion you will find that their is MORE taxpayers, MORE people to buy products in the U.S,MORE people in the work force and AND more people to enlist in the military. In fact Abortions actually hurt the United States economy in the state of Illinois alone it costs the tax payers $1 million each year.

My opponent also stated:

"There are perpetually about 500,000 kids in foster care each year. With all the movement in and out of foster care, there is a constant 130,000 children awaiting adoption. In total, in 2007, 783,000 children were in the foster care system at some point. Only about 50,000 American children are adopted every year "

If the United States were to illegalize abortion tomorrow my opponent is right the Adoption Industry would boom and you would find that there would be a need to build more orphanages and there would be a need to get the kids in permanent households. So, he is right that the orphanages would be greatly impacted at FIRST, but over a period of time both the government and the orphanages as individuals would begin to build more orphanages to house all the kids,(which by the way would create countless jobs across America and further boost the economy.)and they would also find ways to give up children at less costlier of a price and there would be a significant increase in adoption advertisements which always helps a cause. In the long run the problems in the overcrowded orphanages would correct its self.
As for this statement " children doomed to live their lives in these institutions." In my opinion and I hope the voters agree with me on this, the worst doom of all is not even getting the chance to live and the right to life.

As for this argument:
" my opponent ignores the conditions of rape and incest. Who will father these children? Will he? Who will provide psychiatric support for these women- too often children themselves- who have been violated and impregnated by disgusting criminals? Who will provide the psychiatric support for the children themselves when they are born?"

With all the abortions that occur each year in the U.S. only 1% of all abortions are from a result from rape and incest. "who will provide psychiatric support for these women?" Well, to answer the question I guess I'd have to say by loved ones whom they trust or by a therapist or both. But, I also don't see how illegalizing abortion is going to effect the needs of psychiatric needs of the woman. You cannot punish an unborn child through abortion due to the evils of another human. I don't know about you but I would rather know that I was born through a rape then to be aborted and not living at all.

Also.... my opponent states:

" Illegalizing abortion would not lower abortion rates, rather it will raise illegal abortion rates, and the mortality rates associated with abortion. In 1972, a year before abortion became legal, there were a reported 130,000 illegal abortions. From 1975-1979 there were 11,300 illegal abortions reported. (http://findarticles.com......) Repealing Roe v. Wade (one of the steps required to illegalize abortion) would most likely result in a rise in illegal abortions."

Again my opponent is correct on one thing the Illegal abortion rates WOULD go up a few years after it becomes illegal because our society is conditioned to believe abortion is okay. But, you will find that in the long run assuming our government enforces the law and arrests people and keep people in line, you will find that Illegal abortions will decrease significantly and 130,000 abortions is a heck of a lot less then an estimated 1.3 million each year.

My opponent also says that is the right of a woman to decide what she wants to do with her body. But this is not the case, It is the right of the babies right to life that abortion infringes on. I'm going to ask the voters and my opponent a question would have wanted to be aborted while in the mothers womb?

Thanks for accepting this debate

Also my two main sources for the debate: Abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html and citizenlink.org/clnews/A000006052.cfm
Mangani

Pro

It seems my opponent believes that presenting made up statistics is somehow a rebuttal to the truth. I will explain...

In response to my claim that 1.2 million more unwanted children will be born per year (an estimate based on the amount of legal abortions reported in 2007 in the US) he claims these extra births would somehow be a boon to the economy. He cites his own "quick and easy 'facts'" as his rebuttal. I will refute each of these "quick and easy facts" one by one.

"if we were too Illegalize abortion you will find that their is MORE taxpayers"
-Babies don't pay taxes.
"MORE people to buy products in the U.S"
-Babies don't buy anything.

"MORE people in the work force and AND more people to enlist in the military"
-Babies can't work, and though some may consider 17 year olds their "baby", babies can't enlist in the military.

"In fact Abortions actually hurt the United States economy in the state of Illinois alone it costs the tax payers $1 million each year."
-Though I would like to see that measly estimate ($1 million is not a lot of money when considering the alternatives; I will explain), because Illinois was mentioned, let's do a quick study on Illinois...

-Most children placed by DCFS (Department of Children and Family Services) were from homes so abusive or neglectful that it would be unsafe for them to return.
-Illinois spends an annual $14,871,200 in the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services Foster Homes/Specialized Foster Care and Prevention line
-$8,100,000 for DCFS funding of personal services to prevent the layoff of frontline staff
(http://childcareillinois.wordpress.com...)
-In 2007 there were 111,742 reports of child abuse and neglect in the state of Illinois
-In 2003 there were 25,344 substantiated cases of child abuse and neglect, more than 4,000 children removed from their homes, and 58 confirmed child deaths due to abuse.(http://www.fightcrime.org...)

I know I provided more information than necessary to refute my opponent's claims, but this information is relevant when considering foster care and adoption as a viable alternative to abortion. The truth is many children are abused in foster care, and many homeless in America come from the foster care system.
-20,000 youth "age out" or emancipate from foster care each year.
-Up to 50% of former foster/probation youth become homeless within the first 18 months of emancipation.
-Twenty seven percent (27%) of the homeless population spent time in foster care.
-Fifty-eight percent (58%) of all young adults accessing federally funded youth shelters in 1997 had previously been in foster care.
-Less than half of former foster youth are employed 2.5-4 years after leaving foster care, and only 38% have maintained employment for at least one year.
-Youth in foster care are 44% less likely to graduate from high school and after emancipation, 40 – 50 percent never complete high school.
-Girls in foster care are six times more likely to give birth before the age of 21 than the general population.
-Sixty percent (60%) of women who emancipate from foster care become parents within 2.5-4 years after exiting care.
-Parents with a history of foster care are almost twice as likely as parents with no such history to see their own children placed in foster care or become homeless.
(http://fosterculture.wordpress.com...)

Now, these statistics not only refute my opponent's claims, but they support my claim that illegalizing abortion is more likely to have a negative impact on our economy than my opponent's alternative claim.

My opponent admits that I am right about the burden illegalizing abortion would be on the adoption industry. He then claims that the system will "correct itself", and the result will be a boon to the economy. The statistics I provided above suggest otherwise. In fact the statistics imply there would be a vicious circle of children in foster care, homelessness, and even crime (http://www.fightcrime.org...).

My opponent claims that the right to life is more important to a child who is, as I suggested, doomed to live in these institutions.
-7.6% vs 3.1% adoptees vs. non-adoptees are likely to attempt suicide
-16.9% vs 8.2% adoptees vs. non-adoptess were likely to have received psychological and/or emotional counseling
-Attempted suicide is more common among adolescents who live with adoptive parents than among adolescents who live with biological parents (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org...)

I believe many of those who have actually suffered through living in these institutions would disagree with my opponent.

My opponent claims that "only" 1% of abortions in the US are a result of rape and/or incest. Even so, he does not argue that rape and incest should be an exception, rather that a baby acting as a cancer should be the ONLY exception. Acknowledgment of 1 single abortion performed due to rape and/or incest is justification that that abortion should be allowed. He does not make this argument. Instead he says that "loved ones whom they trust" would provide psychiatric support, as well as therapists. What if a girl was raped by a family member (incest), or even her own father? My opponent does not address this. My opponent says he does not see how illegalizing abortion would affect the psychiatric needs of these women and girls. Well, most health insurance does not cover mental health. Mental health already costs the US $150 billion annually. (http://www.apa.org...)

My opponent claims that he would rather be born than aborted as the result of rape or incest. I argue that my opponent cannot possibly fathom the mental effects these children suffer, and given the suicide statistics for adoption quoted above, the suicide rates related to depression, and the depression that would occur when finding out you are the child of a rapist, or that your mother is also your sister- I am sure none of us, unless we have suffered through this, can possibly say it is better to be born.

My opponent admits illegal abortion rates would go up, and then expects us all to assume (without reason) that the rates will eventually go down. The statistics state otherwise- abortion rates are similar worldwide whether legal or illegal (http://www.iht.com...), and illegalization is not a deterrent from the world's most prevalent medical procedure. The difference is the mortality and injury rates of the women having illegal abortions performed, versus legal abortions (http://www.womensenews.org...).

My opponent claims that abortion is an infringement upon the unborn's "right to life". I have addressed this in my first round argument- it is not for the law to determine when life begins, and when a "person" has the right to live, rather it is for medicine and science to decide. According to medicine, an embryo is not a developed human being (references in R1). Asking whether or not we would have wanted to be aborted does not matter because 1 out of 3 of our mothers have had or will have an abortion by age 45 (http://www.ourbodiesourselves.org...). The question is spiritual, and not scientific- at which point does the human soul enter the human body. Would I have been me had I been born rather than have previously been aborted? I would argue yes- I would still be me whether I was aborted during the conception in which I was actually born and born later, or if I had been born previously. How many millions more of us are lost when our fathers masturbate, or when our mothers perform oral sex? I see no difference in this line of questioning.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
KeithKroeger91

Con

My opponent uses the arguments:

"-Babies don't pay taxes."
"-Babies don't buy anything."
"Babies can't work, and though some may consider 17 year olds their "baby", babies can't enlist in the military."

Well, in response to these arguments I'll say this. Babies do NOT stay babies forever and also sure babies cannot buy anything but the parents will buy things for them such as: food, clothes, toys, ect. There is an entire Industry revolved around babies. Some examples: baby showers, baby clothing, baby toys, baby furniture and many other things.

My opponent's next argument:

"-Most children placed by DCFS (Department of Children and Family Services) were from homes so abusive or neglectful that it would be unsafe for them to return.
-Illinois spends an annual $14,871,200 in the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services Foster Homes/Specialized Foster Care and Prevention line
-$8,100,000 for DCFS funding of personal services to prevent the layoff of frontline staff
(http://childcareillinois.wordpress.com......)
-In 2007 there were 111,742 reports of child abuse and neglect in the state of Illinois
-In 2003 there were 25,344 substantiated cases of child abuse and neglect, more than 4,000 children removed from their homes, and 58 confirmed child deaths due to abuse.(http://www.fightcrime.org......)"

Is my opponent suggesting that DCFS is a bad thing? My opponent's argument has no relevance to the topic we are debating and I will explain. Most of the children removed from the parents are abused and neglected and the major cause of the abuse and the neglect is that the parents are either hooked on drugs, suffering from a mental illness or the father is abusing the mother. Those are also the parents that belong to the class of lower socioeconomic Incomes and these people have to rely on the government(DCFS) more so then the middle class and wealthy. So unless my opponent claims that the majority of people who go to get abortions who belong to the Lower Socioeconomic Income class and either have a problem with drugs, mental health. or domestic violence then his argument is irrelevant.

Another argument:

"I know I provided more information than necessary to refute my opponent's claims, but this information is relevant when considering foster care and adoption as a viable alternative to abortion. The truth is many children are abused in foster care, and many homeless in America come from the foster care system.
-20,000 youth "age out" or emancipate from foster care each year.
-Up to 50% of former foster/probation youth become homeless within the first 18 months of emancipation.
-Twenty seven percent (27%) of the homeless population spent time in foster care.
-Fifty-eight percent (58%) of all young adults accessing federally funded youth shelters in 1997 had previously been in foster care.
-Less than half of former foster youth are employed 2.5-4 years after leaving foster care, and only 38% have maintained employment for at least one year.
-Youth in foster care are 44% less likely to graduate from high school and after emancipation, 40 �€" 50 percent never complete high school.
-Girls in foster care are six times more likely to give birth before the age of 21 than the general population.
-Sixty percent (60%) of women who emancipate from foster care become parents within 2.5-4 years after exiting care.
-Parents with a history of foster care are almost twice as likely as parents with no such history to see their own children placed in foster care or become homeless.
(http://fosterculture.wordpress.com......)

Now, these statistics not only refute my opponent's claims, but they support my claim that illegalizing abortion is more likely to have a negative impact on our economy than my opponent's alternative claim."

Again my opponent seems to keep going on about the Adoption Industry. He is right the Industry would boom due to the few people out there who actually can't afford to take care of a kid. Only 21% of all people who get an abortion is because of the amount of money that they make. My opponent states that "7.6% vs 3.1% adoptees vs. non-adoptees are likely to attempt suicide" Now I am going to use one of his own arguments against him how do you know what is really going on in the adoptees minds? You do not know what they are thinking. Lets assume that his statistics are even true. 7.6% adoptees who would rather commit suicide then to tough it out and survive vs 92.7% who would rather live,is a big difference and it further proves my point that the vast majority of people would rather have the right to life then to be aborted by their mothers.

My opponent says:
"I believe many of those who have actually suffered through living in these institutions would disagree with my opponent." Take it from me my father actually was an adopted child and he actually had a good experience out of it better then he would have had if his parents would have kept him. So according to my source which happens to be my own father contradicts with this statement.

Also he says... "Even so, he does not argue that rape and incest should be an exception"
People should NOT be permitted to have an abortion in a case of these as I said earlier you cannot punish the innocent due to the evils of the guilty.

He says:

My opponent claims that "only" 1% of abortions in the US are a result of rape and/or incest. Even so, he does not argue that rape and incest should be an exception, rather that a baby acting as a cancer should be the ONLY exception. Acknowledgment of 1 single abortion performed due to rape and/or incest is justification that that abortion should be allowed. He does not make this argument. Instead he says that "loved ones whom they trust" would provide psychiatric support, as well as therapists. What if a girl was raped by a family member (incest), or even her own father?

As I said earlier they should look for counsel by a family member who they TRUST. Like I said only 1%is due to rape and incest. Again his arguments have no revelance to the topic, Illegalizing abortion has nothing to do with the counseling needs of a woman that has been raped.

He also states:

"The statistics state otherwise- abortion rates are similar worldwide whether legal or illegal (http://www.iht.com......), and illegalization is not a deterrent from the world's most prevalent medical procedure. The difference is the mortality and injury rates of the women having illegal abortions performed, versus legal abortions."

Of course there would be a deterrent from getting an illegal abortion. Firstly a lot of women would be uncomfortable getting illegal abortions knowing they wouldn't be as safe as they would be legally. Also the law its self would be a deterrent people wont want to take the chance getting caught and arrested for getting an abortion.

He says: "I have addressed this in my first round argument- it is not for the law to determine when life begins, and when a "person" has the right to live, rather it is for medicine and science to decide."

Well, then why is it that when somebody commits a murder of a pregnant woman he is charged with double homicide, but somehow when a woman gets an abortion its somehow no longer human. For example The Scott and Lacy Peterson trial.

He says:

"How many millions more of us are lost when our fathers masturbate, or when our mothers perform oral sex? I see no difference in this line of questioning."

Life does not begin until the sperm meets with the egg its as simple as that.

Well, thanks for the debate, aren't you glad your mother didn't abort you?
Mangani

Pro

Ladies and gentlemen, it is evident my opponent has a disregard for statistics. He would rather you believe his own claims with no sources to back up these claims. He questions my statistics without reading the sources. He questions the relevance of my arguments, and in doing so ignores the fact that they were written in response to his own arguments. In effect, he is disregarding his own arguments as irrelevant. Though I know the readers can follow, it seems my opponent cannot, and so I will explain:

"(1)Babies do NOT stay babies forever...(2)parents will buy things for them...(3)There is an entire Industry revolved around babies...etc."

1-I provided statistics regarding the vicious circle of the foster care system. Not only will it be at least 18 years before children grow out of the system, I provided statistics on children who are adopted before then. Yes, there are many adopted children- even the vast majority- who become productive members of our society, however it is a demographic which now contributes in greater majorities to homelessness, crime, and to the very demographic they come from- foster care and/or adoptive children. Please see my sources in R2.

2-We are speaking about parents who would not want their children, and would most likely give them up for adoption.

3- Again, these are children who won't be wanted by their parents because they were forced to have them after they already wanted to have them aborted.

"Is my opponent suggesting that DCFS is a bad thing?"
-My mention of DCFS was to show statistically the expenditure by the state of Illinois in comparison to my opponent's claim that abortions cost the state $1 million annually.

"So unless my opponent claims that the majority of people who go to get abortions who belong to the Lower Socioeconomic Income class"
-I thank my opponent for making my argument relevant. I will give several sources' statements on demographics:
* 56% of women having abortions are in their 20s;
* 61% have one or more children;
* 67% have never married;
* 57% are economically disadvantaged;
* 88% live in a metropolitan area; and
* 78% report a religious affiliation.
http://www.guttmacher.org...

-67% of abortions occur amongst minority (non-white) women.
-The abortion rate among women living below the federal poverty level ($9,570 for a single woman with no children) is more than four times that of women above 300% of the poverty level (44 vs. 10 abortions per 1,000 women). This is partly because the rate of unintended pregnancies among poor women (below 100% of poverty) is nearly four times that of women above 200% of poverty* (112 vs. 29 per 1,000 women
-75% of women who had an abortion say they couldn't afford to have a child
http://www.guttmacher.org...

Now, I don't know if I have to link poverty to drug abuse, as that is common sense, but I will nonetheless provide some sources so as not to rely simply on my opinion and assumptions as my opponent has. My sources say there are links between poverty as the cause of drug abuse, and vice versa. There are also links between abortion and drug abuse, and vice versa. Poor, unmarried women are both more likely to have abortions (as evidenced in the sources above), and they are also more likely to use drugs.
http://www.policelink.com...
http://www.guttmacher.org...
http://www.apa.org...

"Again my opponent seems to keep going on about the Adoption Industry."
- It is the only alternative my opponent provided to abortion. I have presented the options of education on contraceptive use, help for single mothers, etc. My opponent seems to not want me to address an issue that he brought up.

"Now I am going to use one of his own arguments against him how do you know what is really going on in the adoptees minds? You do not know what they are thinking."
-I did not claim to know what they were thinking, rather I was pointing out their higher prevalence for suicide attempts in response to your claim that "the worst doom of all is not even getting the chance to live and the right to life." Though I don't condone suicide, it is easy to understand why a child not wanted by his/her birth parents might wish that he/she were not alive. Yes, it is a drastic thought, and suicide is a drastic measure, but it is an issue that we have to deal with. Illegalizing abortion would contribute to the demographic most prone to attempting suicide amongst youths.

"People should NOT be permitted to have an abortion in a case of these as I said earlier you cannot punish the innocent due to the evils of the guilty."
-By that same token a girl who is raped by her father should not be punished by having to bear his child. At the time of conception it is not the conceived child who will suffer, rather the child who was raped. No one has the right to impose that on a child, and to claim ethical and moral superiority on this issue is ridiculous.

My opponent makes other statements that completely disregard my arguments, yet has presented no counter-argument of his own, even if you disregard my arguments. He never defended my statements on abortion not being murder, nor my scientific definition of embryo, and so we must assume he has accepted both. What reason, then, remains to illegalize abortion in his arguments? He claimed in R2 "it is the right of the baby's right to life that abortion infringes on", but that argument does not hold when considering the definition of embryo, and the fact that most abortions occur at that stage of pregnancy (before the start of the third month). My opponent asks a question, but doesn't provide an answer: "Well, then why is it that when somebody commits a murder of a pregnant woman he is charged with double homicide, but somehow when a woman gets an abortion its somehow no longer human. For example The Scott and Lacy Peterson trial." I contend that the reason it is considered a double homicide is because it was not the woman's choice to end the child's life. Her life was taken, as well as the life of the child she INTENDED to have.

My opponent claims that life begins when the sperm meets the egg, and that it is as simple as that. I refute this statement because a sperm is a living cell independent from all other cells in our body, and an egg is a cell independent from all other cells in our body. When the sperm enters the egg, they become one lving cell called a zygote. How is a zygote a living human, yet a sperm cell or an egg- both which contain the information to develop a human, both building blocks of life- not a living human? The truth is a zygote is not a living human. It is merely a cell. When it divides, and continues to divide, it eventually forms an embryo- also not a living human.

I will close with some passages from the bible:

Hosea 9:11-16"Ephraim shall bring forth his children to the murderer. Give them, 0 Lord: what wilt thou give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. . .Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit: yea though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb."

Numbers 5:11-21 Priest ordered to cause abortion of woman who conceives child of another man.

Hosea 13:16 God promises to dash to pieces the infants of Samaria and the "their women with child shall be ripped up".

I do not condone abortion, nor do I support it. I support the right of a woman to choose, and I oppose the arguments against abortion based on morality or ethics. My morality should not impose on the personal choices of others which do not affect me. The above passages are not intended to offend Christians, rather to point out that morality can be taken out of context, and manipulated to one's own views. I ask the readers to judge on the merits of the arguments, not their own
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Mangani 7 years ago
Mangani
That statement is a logical fallacy as it is wishful thinking. By ejaculating on the floor I am preventing the growth of over a million babies that can do the same. An embryo is not a baby, it is a mass of cells formed from other cells. An innocent baby can survive without living internally to it's mother. The debate is over and decided. If you want to debate me, challenge me.
Posted by navygirlfriend_x3 7 years ago
navygirlfriend_x3
i agree with CON!

your killing an innocent baby that might have been able to grow up and become the next doctor who finds the cure for cancer, or the next president of the United States.
Posted by Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
Either way neither you, nor I will ever face this decision. It is arrogant to imply higher morality on abortion when you do not respect the views of others. Opposition to abortion is simply that- the lack of respect of a woman's right to decide what to do with her own body, and the lack of respect for the medical community and science to decide when life begins.

Debate or shut up about it. Vote and move on. Comment if you will, but don't try to debate me in the comments section.
Posted by Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
Your comment just made no sense. You did not understand my point, and it doesn't sound like you understand the point you are trying to make yourself. You gave all points to Con based on your own beliefs, not on the content of the debate- otherwise you would have pointed to his argument rather than your own.

Abortion is not a question of ethics- it is a medical procedure, and a personal decision between a woman and her doctor. We can disagree about this as men, or we can act like children and try to impose our "morality" on others.
Posted by fo-shizzle0855 8 years ago
fo-shizzle0855
MANGANI "My morality should not impose on the personal choices of others which do not affect me. The above passages are not intended to offend Christians, rather to point out that morality can be taken out of context, and manipulated to one's own views." IF YOUR MORALITY IS IS NO WAY EFFECTIVE TOWARDS THAT DECISION, WHAT WOULD EVEN BE THE POINT OF THE DEBATE? ABORTION IS A TOPIC BASED OFF OF ETHICS AND MORALITY AND THE ARGUMENT HE MADE TO BEGIN WITH WAS THE QUESTIONING ON IT'S WRONGNESS OR RIGHTNESS. THE CON DID OFFER A GOOD DEBATE, BUT I THINK THAT PART SHOULD HAVE BEEN LEFT OUT
Posted by fo-shizzle0855 8 years ago
fo-shizzle0855
con con con con con con should in
Posted by jjmd280 8 years ago
jjmd280
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Pro.
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Pro
Who had better conduct?
Tie
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Pro
Who made more convincing arguments?
Pro
Who used the most reliable sources?
Pro

The essential question concerning abortion is: does the fetus have an inalienable right to be in the body of its' host against the host's will? Abortion is a right. Abortion is not a violation of any right, because there is no such thing as the freedom to live inside (or outside) of another human being as a parasite, i.e., against the will of that person.

This principle applies to both fetuses and adults. As a woman has a right to choose who she has sex with (as her body is her property), so is it a woman's right to choose what can and cannot remain inside her body (as her body is her property). As it is evil for someone else to dictate the use of her body by raping her, so it is evil for someone else to dictate the use of her body by forcing her to remain pregnant.
Posted by Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
Thanks!
Posted by KRFournier 8 years ago
KRFournier
Agreement - Con - I am convinced that abortion is criminally immoral, and though my points went to Pro, I do not agree with His position.

Conduct - Tie - Both sides were within the bounds of good debate etiquette

Spelling and Grammar - Pro - Pro had excellent grammar and his writing flowed easily. Con wrote well too, but it was not quite as smooth.

Convincing Argument - Pro - Once the debate enters into the arena of socioeconomic impact, Pro is at an advantage insofar as statistics are concerned. The heart of the debate is the value of life and an unborn human's rights. Pro was able to steer the debate towards economics thereby forcing Con into a tough corner to get out of. Con had some good rebuttals here and there, but it wasn't enough to give him the logical win in my opinion.

Most Reliable Sources - Pro - Pro is simply devastating with the sheer amount of material used to back his claims.
Posted by Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
You did not cite any DCFS sources... I did.

The last words of my argument were cut off. They were supposed to say "beliefs. Thank you."

Thank you.
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by HighLikePlanes 8 years ago
HighLikePlanes
KeithKroeger91ManganiTied
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 
Vote Placed by dieguixd 8 years ago
dieguixd
KeithKroeger91ManganiTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by Rickymadeja 8 years ago
Rickymadeja
KeithKroeger91ManganiTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by jjmd280 8 years ago
jjmd280
KeithKroeger91ManganiTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by RainhaDoViolino 8 years ago
RainhaDoViolino
KeithKroeger91ManganiTied
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 KRFournier 8 years ago
KRFournier
KeithKroeger91ManganiTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
KeithKroeger91ManganiTied
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 JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
KeithKroeger91ManganiTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by Jim92 8 years ago
Jim92
KeithKroeger91ManganiTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:42 
Vote Placed by huskies5565 8 years ago
huskies5565
KeithKroeger91ManganiTied
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