The Instigator
Olivetree24
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
EndarkenedRationalist
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

Abortions should be banned

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
EndarkenedRationalist
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/1/2013 Category: Health
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 751 times Debate No: 41504
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

Olivetree24

Pro

Lets make this a short one because I am sick of 5 round long debates...
Let the games begin and may the odds be ever in your favour...
I believe that abortions should become illegal. The are so many human breaches of human rights in this issue. The declaration of human right states that every human has the right to life and abortions go against this right as they destroy life before it really has a chance to begin. A real life creature is being killed before it has the right to life. People believe that women should have the option to have an abortion because they may not want the baby. But if they did not want to have the baby in the first place them they should not have gotten themselves pregnant. Not having abortions would force teenagers to be more responsible in what they let themselves do. There woukd be no easy way out and paying the consequences for their actions would teach them not to do those sorts of things.
EndarkenedRationalist

Con

I welcome my opponent and extend my hopes for a great debate!

This is a one round debate, so my opponent will unfortunately not be able to respond to my points. But that seems to be what my opponent wanted.

My opponent's first argument revolves around the Declaration of Human Rights. However, scientific evidence regarding whether or not a fetus is human is unclear. The majority of credible evidence, however, supports the idea that a fetus is not a human for at least the first trimester. How do we decide when a fetus is a human?

The Guardian reports that the fetus' brain is not developed enough to feel pain for the first 24 weeks of its formation [1].

A fetus is incapable of surviving on its own during development. However, this argument also applies to babies, which are conclusively human. I think it can be safely discredited.

Scientific evidence regarding the beginning of a fetus' heartbeat is inconclusive, but most sources seem to agree that it is around four weeks after conception [2].

Not to mention that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights came into effect in 1948 [3], a time when abortions were hardly considered. My opponent's source really cannot apply. (Yes, my source for this is Wikipedia, but I think it is reliable enough for a date).

My opponent states that "a real life creature is being killed before it has a right to life." If it is killed before it has a right to life, then it never had life to begin with. Thus abortion cannot be terminating a life but a pregnancy.

There are plenty of reasons for abortion besides the woman simply not wanting the baby. This is a vast oversimplification of the issue and should be noted by voters. I contend that abortions should not be banned in the case of a) rape and b) when childbirth threatens the life of the mother.

The Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network reports that, in 2004-2005, 64,080 were raped (this of course applies only to reported rapes - many rapes and other unwanted sexual advances go unreported). They also report that around 5% of these rapes resulted in pregnancies - that's about 3,204 pregnancies [4]. So for my opponent to argue that pregnancies requiring abortions only result from irresponsible teenagers having sex is a ludicrous argument.

While mothers dying in childbirth is not as common as it was before, it is still a problem. NBC reported that maternal mortality rates were actually on the rise with 13 deaths per 100,000 live births in 2004 [5]. Now this is only 13 deaths, one might argue, as though the life of a person were but a quantitative figure. If abortion were banned, however, these women would have no other recourse but to die. I have to wonder how much logical sense it makes to allow an established life to die in order to save what might be or might not be a life.

As a note, I do not think all abortions should be legal. But my opponent's resolution argues that all abortions should be banned. I believe that abortions - at the very least in the first trimester - should be legal. I am more skeptical of second trimester abortions, and I do not believe that late-term abortions should be legal. But I only have to defend abortions being legal in one case.

Additionally, teenagers need to be educated about the consequences of sex. Teen pregnancy rates are higher in states that use abstinence-only education statistically have the most teenage pregnancies [7]. Educating teenagers about sex and providing them (and adults) with methods of birth control, such as condoms and the pill, are effective methods of lowering the rate of abortions.

As a final point to my argument, banning abortions will not stop abortions. Women will simply go for back alley abortions, which are even more dangerous, because they threaten both the life of the mother and the baby. The National Organization for Women reports that, in the early 20th century, 50% of maternal deaths resulted from illegal abortions, and in the 1960s, though that number decreased to between 160 and 260, thousands of women were severely injured [6]. Compare that with after Roe v. Wade, when abortions became legal and much safer.

It is more beneficial to society, to the mother, and to the fetus to have abortion available as an option rather than making it an impossibility.

I thank my opponent for this debate and, for all of the above reasons, I ask that the voters vote CON!

[1] http://www.theguardian.com...
[2] http://www.baby2see.com...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://www.rainn.org...
[5] http://www.nbcnews.com...
[6] http://www.now.org...
[7] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Debate Round No. 1
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by EndarkenedRationalist 3 years ago
EndarkenedRationalist
Well - live and learn. That's how you improve for the future ones.
Posted by Olivetree24 3 years ago
Olivetree24
Not exactly
Posted by EndarkenedRationalist 3 years ago
EndarkenedRationalist
Thank you! You did pretty well yourself!
Posted by Olivetree24 3 years ago
Olivetree24
Short and sharp you obviously did your research , good job!
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by btwinch 3 years ago
btwinch
Olivetree24EndarkenedRationalistTied
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: I liked how organized Con's arguments were, Pro's arguments were hard to read because they were all clumped together, and hard to tell when one argument started and finished. Con made much btter arguments, and provided sources, most of which are reliable. Pro did not include sources to back up their arguments.
Vote Placed by doldrums 3 years ago
doldrums
Olivetree24EndarkenedRationalistTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's arguments were more well-thought out than Pro's. Con also used sources for their information, and was successfully able to refute some of Pro's claims.