Ban All Forms of Abortion
Debate Rounds (5)
I shall present my arguments in Round 2 after Pro presents his case for banning abortion.
Note : I shall also be talking about the issue of banning abortion in the US from a political (as well as moral) standpoint.
Well, since Pro requests me to argue my case first, I shall do so (but for the future, say that you want the opponent to argue, and also should i post anything for round 5 or not? to make things even)
Argument A - Moral
When pro suggests 'Banning all forms of abortion' this must include abortion during cases where:
a) Pregnancy complications which could kill the mother and the baby if she does not abort the baby. Is it right to force the woman and baby to die just because killing the baby is wrong? Is not sentencing both to die twice as bad abortion, in my opponents viewpoint? So the women who get such complications are basically sentenced to death
b) Unwanted Pregancy - I doubt rapists will bother to use condoms, this could result in female victim to become impregnated without her will. Is it right to force her to to have her baby with a rapist? Whats more, what if the victim is not financially secure or a teenager who is not mentally ready to raise a baby with care, love and lots and lots of patienece. In that case, it is obvious that there should be no child, but rape victims who are either too young or too poor will not be able to abort their child even though they are not ready to raise their child or will only give the child a life of poverty and guess what's next? A life of crime.
Argument B - Political
The people of the United States of America is fairly split on this issue, despite during my research having encountered numerous sources where there are claims where the majority people think abortion should be legal and other sources saying the majority should be illegal.
So let's argue on the premise that it is around 50-50. Even so, I doubt that there would be a majority of radical anti abortionists who would want abortion reguardless of whether or not the pregnant woman has a risk of dying or is not financially sound enough to raise a child.
Most people are in the gray area. And and extreme move such as outright banning abortion will bring much controversy to the United States. And this is a country already receiving so much controversy and hate from other people from around the world, other national governments and even their own people. This will only make things worse for them.
Argument C - abortion and murder
My opponent seems to think that abortion is like murder. So if a poor person gets raped and impregnated and cannot afford to raise a baby, she obviously gets an abortion, does this mean that she should get charged with murder?
Another point I would like to emphasize. If a woman gets complications which means she has to abort her pregnancy or die, then isn't forcing her not to get an abortion the same as the government killing 2 people?
If abortion becomes illegal. My opponent has to argue that the penalty for abortion should be the same as murder, otherwise what seems to be his primary moral argument of comparing abortion to murder obviously goes away.
Response to Argument A: My opponent has pointed out two situations in which (as he claims) abortion is appropriate.
a) Pregnancy Complications - Perhaps it is moral in this instance to use abortion. I apologize if I have spoken too quickly. I do believe that abortion would be necessary in this instance, but only if neither the mother nor the baby would be able to survive these complications.
b) Unwanted Pregnancy - As a Christian, I believe that pregnancy resulting from rape is merely what God has intended. Besides, without the abortion, both the baby and the woman would survive. Besides, which is worse: a woman suffering from pregnancy and childbirth or an innocent baby dying merely for having been conceived by a rapist? We always exploit all the other members of the animal kingdom, sometimes for mere pleasure. We hunt, we eat meat, we keep them has pets, and we even make money off of them by putting them in cages and having them do tricks so people can pay to see them. But we do not exploit humans in this way. For instance, everybody leaves their pet dog all by himself, but nobody would dare leave a human baby by himself/herself for a minute. So why should we sacrifice another human simply to avoid suffering pregnancy. How is a fetus any different from a newborn baby? And how would it be possible to tell if a woman was actually raped or if she is just inventing the story to get herself an abortion? How can we allow a rape victim to get an abortion without letting everybody else get abortions just because they "feel like it"?
Response to Argument B: While some people may support abortion, others may not approve of it. The conservative Christians feel under-represented in government and would accept a ban on abortion. By not banning abortion, we transgress God's commandments. The Bible says' "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it." (James 2:10 NIV). In allowing abortion, we openly support murder and therefore anger God. We must not allow the murder of innocent babies.
Response to Argument C: My opponent has stated that it is wrong to accuse a rape victim of murder if she gets an abortion. Pregnancy from rape is God's plan. God either intends to punish us for our sins or wants to test our faith. It is a terrible sin to go against God's plan. Those who transgress against Him and do not repent will never reach heaven but will instead burn in hell for the rest of eternity. I believe that both the woman and the individual performing the operation must be charged with second-degree murder.
Trying to Justify that Abortion is wrong, My opponent has committed multiple logical fallacies. Which should be noted and will be emphazised during my rebuttals. (Note : Italicized and underlined words are quotes from pro)
Counter response to Argument A - Moral
a) Pro has conceded that abortion is justified in cases where the life of the mother and the fetus are in danger. This immediately means that I technically win the debate, since Pro wants ALL types of abortion illegalized. However, it would be a waste to end the debate here and I understand Pro has made too absolute a statement. So I am willing to continue the debate.
b) I believe that pregnancy resulting from rape is merely what God has intended.
Yes, please tell this to the millions of rape victims around the world, including teenagers who indeed do get impregnated due to rape at times.
The story in the source is of a young 13 year old girl who was completely innocent and was a good person. She got raped and gave birth to a boy. Luckily, the girl was financially stable enough to take care of the baby. But what if the girl's family was poor and simply could not afford to take care of this child? Does this mean the family is evil and commits a lot of sins?
If people in poverty who were very religious and kind at heart had a daughter who was raped and impregnated, does this mean that they should suffer the burden of raising a child when they can barely feed themselves?
This same quote brings me to argue Pro's first fallacious argument
God intending pregnancy from rape is directly implying that God intends the rape to occur in the first place. I do not wish to take moral advice from a being that advocates (supports) rape and even plans it advance.
And how would it be possible to tell if a woman was actually raped or if she is just inventing the story to get herself an abortion
Fair point raised. However, you can know if the woman is lying or not. The police can confirm that rape actually took place or not.
How can we allow a rape victim to get an abortion without letting everybody else get abortions just because they "feel like it"
I never said ONLY rape victims should get an abortion. I was just saying that there are cases where rape victims NEED to get an abortion (in poverty, not mentally ready etc.) and thus abortion should not be illegalized in all cases while the resolution wanted the illegalization.
Counter response to Argument B - Political
The conservative Christians feel under-represented in government and would accept a ban on abortion.
I have one question to ask here
Why does abortion that OTHER people CHOOSE to do even affect the conservative christians personally?
Nobody is forcing the conservative christians to abort their babies. So why should they force others to not abort?
I live in a muslim country but pork is not consummed by muslims. Consuming pork is a major sin in Islam (do not underestimate this sin, it is a big sin). Yet I am legally allowed to eat pork in this country because it is my own personal choice as a non muslim.
And also, the country I live in (UAE) is an openly islamic country, this can be seen in the national anthem. Where the third line says that UAE's religion is Islam and guided by the Quran which forbids the eating of pork.
Now back to the US. The USA is not a christian country (seperation of church and state, first amendment). So it would be absurd for a secular United States to be more religious in their laws than an openly islamic state and would be the subject of much international controversy, which at this moment (or any moment) is not good for the US.
Counter response to Argument C - Abortion and Murder
My opponent has stated that it is wrong to accuse a rape victim of murder if she gets an abortion. Pregnancy from rape is God's plan.
God's plan? What plan? Oh right... the plan where a guy rapes innocent young women to 'test their faith'.
Which brings me to a great fallacy by pro,
What about the rapist, when are his sins punished? Why in the world is this god even planning for the sin (rape) to take place?
- Pro has conceded that abortion is justifed in life threatning cases, thus meaning that I technically won the debate (but let it continue).
- First amendement - Seperation of church and state, it would be unconstitutional, extremely controversial and unsecular of the USA to ban abortion because it is 'murder' according to the christian viewpoint . After all, the UAE does not ban things forbidden in Islam to non-muslims.
- Pro says that God 'plans' the pregnancy due to the rape which is DIRECT IMPLICATION that god planned the rape and thus there should be no abortion. I am absolutely apalled and disgusted at this rebuttal. I refuse to take moral biblical arguments seriously, because no moral being condones rape let alone planning it.
JohnDoe2014 forfeited this round.
I extend my previous arguments and encourage Pro to make some concluding points in the final round.
JohnDoe2014 forfeited this round.
If I may be so blunt, there is a clear winner in this debate. And I believe voters know why Con should be voted the winner (I mean, come on, its obvious, Pro basically debated one round and Forfeited. Plus Pro made many fallacious arguments.)
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 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.