Abotion as the solution of problem
Debate Rounds (2)
: Firstly, it goes without saying that abortion is terrible procedure.
It goes without saying? Parenthood can be terrible. Being raised by parents who don't want you can be terrible. But how is it necessarily terrible for people who don't want children to not have children?
Perhaps Con refers to the terribleness of the operation itself? Early-term abortion by D&C is pretty simple and non-traumatic. If we're calling surgery terrible, abortions can be much less terrible than, say, hip replacements or nose jobs. Even less terrible than tattoos.
Are hip replacements, nose jobs, and tattoos so terrible that we should conclude that they are never solutions to problems?
: I am personally against abortions, but I understand in some situations in which abortion maybe seen as an appropiate option.
It seems appropriate because it solves problems, right? At least in some cases?
Con has the burden of proof: He has to prove that abortion does not solve problems. But, with the above line, he has effectively surrendered. He has as much as agreed that abortion does sometimes solve problems.
: I am a firm believer in God all that goes with it, but in my case it's not so much a religion belief as it is a personal belief.
It's a point of view. Implausible and unsupported, but a point of view nonetheless.
: I don't fully grasp the idea of harming an unborn soul because one would simply not want the responsibility.
I don't at all grasp how Con thinks abortion would harm a soul.
: There are many other options as opposed to aborting that are also much healthier.
Yes, explain to a pregnant twelve year old that there are safer options. Explain it to her doctor.
: As I have said many times before, "To each their own."
If your husband is killed, so you have to go to work and no longer want a baby; if you are raped, and never wanted a baby; if you got confused about what day it was, and neglected to take a birth control pill---in any of these cases, and countless others abortion can be the solution to a problem.
Con initiated the debate and argued first. By ether standard, he has the burden of proof. He undertook to prove that abortion does not solve problems. He has failed to do so.
Aizhukash forfeited this round.
Con initiated and argued first. That's confusing, so I'll just remind people that---even though I'm refuting---I am Pro.
Con had the burden of proof, but he never really argued for the resolution. He didn't meet his burden of proof.
Even though I didn't have the burden of proof, I pointed out that there are times when abortion can solve a problem. Therefore, the resolution is defeated.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by RyuuKyuzo 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: ff
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.