The Instigator
wingnut2280
Pro (for)
Tied
18 Points
The Contender
iadebater
Con (against)
Tied
18 Points

Another Abortion Debate

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/20/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,042 times Debate No: 2007
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (12)

 

wingnut2280

Pro

I'm not one of those impassioned pro-life people that go out and call everyone genocidal maniacs and baby-killers. However, I am against abortion.

My main point is that abortion is unconstitutional and fundamentally against our country's paradigm.

America has always had this notion that someone can do what they want, as long as they don't interfere with someone else's rights. I don't see how abortion doesn't fly in the face of this entirely. I believe that a government doesn't have the right to tell a woman what to do with her body, but in the interest of protecting another life, shouldn't they be able to?

I guess this leads the debate to the question "When does life begin?". I think it is undeniable that life begins at conception. Denying the ensured future of that life is to deny all rational forethought at all.

Also, I think that some abortion is OK. When the women's life is endanger, the chances of survival between the two lives make it acceptable to save the mother.

Based on its apparent unconstitutional nature, I think abortion should be only allowable in situations of medical emergency.
iadebater

Con

Ok, first I would like to clarify that I am also against abortion. I have one question - are you saying that we should make abortion illegal unless it is in medical emergencies? If not, how do you plan to solve the problem?
Debate Round No. 1
wingnut2280

Pro

Well, it is against the constitution, so I don't see how it could be legal. I'm basically arguing its unconstitutionality. So you agree?
iadebater

Con

No, I don't agree. I am totally against abortion, but i don't see in the constitution where it says a thing about it. Also to the point where you look at something that is unconstitutional but not illegal - there are many things that are this way. Paper money is a good example - so something could be unconstitutional but still legal. Also, abortion is inevitable. If we try to prevent it, people are going to go underground and use the coat hanger method - which would harm both the baby and the mother. At least when it is legal we can monitor it. It should be up to the states because it is immoral but it should still be legalized. It is a free country - based upon the constitution.
Debate Round No. 2
wingnut2280

Pro

Just because things that are against the consitution and are legal exist doesn't mean they should. I think we should abide by the constitution.

No, the consitution does not specifically address abortion, but it does say that your actions can not and should not infringe on the rights of others. Abortion is in direct conflict with this fundamental principle, as the actions of the mother and doctor infringe on the rights of the child.

Assuming that mothers will take coathangers to their babies is a thirty-year-old argument. True, this could still happen. But, in a day and age where the societal shame has faded, it is exponentially less likely. Your argument is like saying "people are going to sell drugs anyway, why not just legalize them?" Your argument means that would should permit millions of rights violations in the name of potentially ensuring the health of the reckless mothers that would inflict that risk upon themselves and their child.

The point is, legalized abortion is sanctioning millions of rights violations a year. You don't refute the fact that it is against the constitution. You merely argue that unconsitutionality is OK. I think our country should abide by its constitution and stop the rights violations that are occuring. The mothers that are going to take coathangers to themselves are not as much of a risk today as they were. Protecting these people from themselves is not worth sanctioning the millions more abortions that occur each year because of its legal status.
iadebater

Con

First of all, you can't prove that women will not take coat hangers to themselves as it has been PROVEN in the past - also along with that the argument that they will not do it nowadays turns on yourself because the number of illegitimate births has gone up and so has the number of people having underage sex.

To the drugs argument, drugs are not as immoral as abortion so this is clearly the most important issue. I am not saying that we should legalize drugs because they are going to happen anyway - they happen anyway but doing them underground has always happen and they pose a less serious threat than a baby being killed, possibly the mother too. When abortion is legal, we can moniter it and we make sure the abortion is done in a "sane" way.

If you agree with me that a blastocyst is a child, you should also agree with me that that child goes through stages of development. Under our current Abortion laws it states that the child being aborted cannot be over x number of weeks. This shows that our current government knows that the blastocyst eventually becomes a baby and at least we are keeping an eye out for signs of cognition in the child.

The Constitution is also infallible. We cannot always look to it. Slavery was specifically in the Constitution and was amended because we knew it was immoral. This shows that things can be in the constitution that need to be amended. You agreed that there is no specific place to look so anything dealing with constitutionality.

I believe we should both agree that abortion is immoral, but we have to keep it up to the states, not the feds. If we kept it within the states, those states would moniter it and others would still deem it immoral, thus reaching a compromise.
Debate Round No. 3
wingnut2280

Pro

I'm not saying absolutely no women would do this. I'm saying less would than before. True, illegitimate births are on the rise, but there isn't the social stigma that comes with a bastard child that there used to be. Teenage mothers are more and more common and therefore there is less and less pressure on the mother to feel the need to go to extreme lengths. Furthermore, we shouldn't legitimize millions of 'safe' abortions in the name of saving a small number of radicalized mother, potentially. Because abortion is sanctioned, there are millions more deaths a year than there would be if abortion was illegal. True, we run the risk of mothers hurting themselves, but this is a risk we NEED to take in order to stop millions of deaths a year.

I'm not saying you sanction drug legalization. I'm merely making an analogy. Saying that since something is inherently going to happen, so therefore we should legalize it is bad. It leads to more widespread use of the undesirable act. If we legalize abortion simply because a small number of mothers are going to risk the coathanger approach, we are sanctioning and indirectly causing millions more abortions each year.

Our current abortion laws attempt to walk on eggshells between two heated groups. The fact that they recognize the potential for the child absent its cognition is proof that this should be extrapolated to conception. If the government protects children 3 months from birth because of the future child, they have an equal burden to protect a child 9 months from birth. There is no reason to draw the line, only politics.

You mean to say fallible. I agree that the Constitution is not always right, but I think the basic ideals that our country is built on should be followed. I'm not talking about some small clause in the document. I'm referencing the prime principle of rights infringement that have been cited throughout history.

Slavery is actually a perfect example. The federal government ammended the Constitution (which didn't directly sanction slavery) in order to disallow the states from making their own decisions on such an atrocity. The federal government felt that slavery was so wrong that no states should condone it. This should be the same as abortion, because it is a massive rights violation and a severe breach of constitutional values.

Having compromise on an issue like this would be similar to allowing some states to still condone slavery. It shouldn't be left up to the states because it is such a massive wrong.
iadebater

Con

First of all voters, at the point where you vote for my opponent you immediately dis-value human life. He specifically states.."I'm not saying absolutely no mother would do this...and we shouldn't legitimize millions of 'safe' abortions in the name of saving a small number of radicalized mothers." He doesn't value life because he agrees that there is a potential for death. He also states... "Because abortion is sanctioned, there are millions more deaths a year than there would be if abortion was illegal." This is completely false. I don't see how monitoring abortions rather than not monitoring them would lead to MORE deaths. It is completely illogical to say so. He says..."True, we run the risk of mothers hurting themselves, but this is a risk we NEED to take in order to stop millions of deaths a year." But he then is valuing one human life over another and saying basically that the mother doesn't matter as long as we save the child. Ends do NOT justify the means. We could dehumanize the mother and still have her living just to save the baby. We must value both lives in this case, and keeping it legal is the only way to do so.

He then states: "It leads to more widespread use of the undesirable act." I don't see how it would be more widespread if it was inevitable. He states "If we legalize abortion simply because a small number of mothers are going to risk the coat hanger approach, we are sanctioning and indirectly causing millions more abortions each year." This is a good thing not a bad thing because the mothers lives are saved .

My opponent states: "Our current abortion laws attempt to walk on eggshells between two heated groups. The fact that they recognize the potential for the child absent its cognition is proof that this should be extrapolated to conception. If the government protects children 3 months from birth because of the future child, they have an equal burden to protect a child 9 months from birth. There is no reason to draw the line, only politics." but this doesn't respond to the fact that our government is still keeping the deaths as moral as possible.

He then states..."I agree that the Constitution is not always right, but I think the basic ideals that our country is built on should be followed." He agrees that the constitution is fallible and that we can't always look to it. He gives no distiuguishment between the good and the bad... therefore it is impossible to evaluate the morality of everything in the constitution seeing as there is no weighing agent.

Onto slavery... it was only an example of a bad thing in the Constitution, proving that it is fallible. See the past paragraph for further explanation.

On a last note... Abortion SHOULD NOT be put in the hands of the federal government because of infringement of rights on the mother. My opponent neglects the fact that the right to life is one of the most important rights and he then states that we shouldn't value the lives of the mothers because abortion is such a "massive wrong." Allowing abortion saves more lives - as proven, so you must vote CON.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by ellyphant 9 years ago
ellyphant
I can't tell who won because I can't tell what the main point was. I suppose it was the unconstitutionality of abortion... but it seemed like wingnut kept evading a complete description of how it applied. He did give a brief explanation, but I personally wasn't satisified. However, while a formidable opponent, iadebater simply played Devil's advocate, choosing simply to nitpick at the details of an argument that he almost agrees with. Both presented well-worded, well-presented arguments initially; however, iadebater's choice to say, "at the point where you vote for my opponent you immediately dis-value human life," I lost confidence in his argument; this was a sidetrack intended only to attack the personal identity of the opposition. Yes, for anyone who's counting, it's Ad Hominim--AGAIN.
Posted by iadebater 9 years ago
iadebater
Im saying that if we make abortion illegal, it will only cause more trouble.
Ends DO NOT JUSTIFY THE MEANS. That is immoral because that means that we could kill the mother to save the child. It means that as long as we accomplish the ends, the means may mean anything. You make good points though SchinkBR
Posted by SchinkBR 9 years ago
SchinkBR
I think wingnut really did a good job on the constituion point and I'm sorry iadebater, i really don't follow your logic in the first paragraph of your last round. How are you valuing (sic) both lifes if you are killing one. How does saving millions of lives in exchange for a few not justify the means. It just doesn't add up for me.
Posted by wingnut2280 9 years ago
wingnut2280
On a real-world level, how many mothers would hold out for adoption as opposed to now? Abortion is legal and convenient, making it more numerous. Millions of mothers have abortions because it is available and more convenient than adoption. Legalized abortion costs us lots of babies and lives.
Posted by iadebater 9 years ago
iadebater
Please review my points, especially my last round before voting. Don't vote based on personal opinion please.
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by DrAlexander 9 years ago
DrAlexander
wingnut2280iadebaterTied
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 
Vote Placed by Darth_Grievous_42 9 years ago
Darth_Grievous_42
wingnut2280iadebaterTied
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 
Vote Placed by ellyphant 9 years ago
ellyphant
wingnut2280iadebaterTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by iadebater 9 years ago
iadebater
wingnut2280iadebaterTied
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 
Vote Placed by MatterOfFact 9 years ago
MatterOfFact
wingnut2280iadebaterTied
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 
Vote Placed by Luna3 9 years ago
Luna3
wingnut2280iadebaterTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by goldspurs 9 years ago
goldspurs
wingnut2280iadebaterTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by SchinkBR 9 years ago
SchinkBR
wingnut2280iadebaterTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Black.Nite17 9 years ago
Black.Nite17
wingnut2280iadebaterTied
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 
Vote Placed by skiies23 9 years ago
skiies23
wingnut2280iadebaterTied
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