The Instigator
awesome_joey
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Forever23
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

Banning Abortion: War on Women or Life-Saving Judgement?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
Forever23
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/17/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 483 times Debate No: 82683
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

awesome_joey

Pro

Abortion is murder. Of course, women have the right to choose what to do with their bodies; however, they have conceived, whether on purpose or on accident, a child with the same rights as all other human beings. Have they been given the choice to live in those circumstances? No.
Conception due to rape is awful, but again, the baby is not at fault. There are homes for them and the victims.
Planned Parenthood shouldn't close if abortion is banned, because it performs other life-saving tasks. But abortion should not be part of their practice. There are other NATURAL family planning options.
Forever23

Con

Hello, my name is Forever 23 and I am here bring forth my premise which is that abortions should be legal.

My ensuing roadmap will include first, defining this debate since prop didn't do so, abrogating props points and finally divulging 2 of my own assertions into the debate.

Should- used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions.

Abortions- the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy.

Legal- permitted by law.

Their first argument was that abortion is murder of the fetus.

However, according to James Davison Hunter, Before the Shooting Begins: Searching for Democracy in America's Culture War, Embryos and fetuses are not independent, self-determining beings, and abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, not a baby. A person's age is calculated from birth date, not conception, and fetuses are not counted in the US Census.

The majority opinion in Roe v. Wade states that "the word 'person,' as used in the Fourteenth Amendment [of the US Constitution], does not include the unborn."

Their second assertion was that the baby is not at fault because a woman got raped.

However, the woman did not want the child. So yes, while the child isn't at fault, the woman should still have a choice to have a child or not.

Their last assertion was that Planned Parenthood shouldn't close if abortion is banned because it performs other life saving tasks.

However, I would just like to point out that PP wont close if we ban or do not ban abortion.

Having abortion however will help Planned Parenthood with business.

Now onto introducing my assertions

My first argument is that women should have control over their own bodies.

Your body belongs to no one but you and yourself. You are the one to make the decisions about what happens to it. The right to decide what will happen to you includes abortion.

Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote in the 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, "The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives."

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in her dissenting opinion in Gonzales v. Carhart (2007) that undue restrictions on abortion infringe upon "a woman's autonomy to determine her life's course, and thus to enjoy equal citizenship stature."

CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, JD, stated that Roe v. Wade was "a landmark of what is, in the truest sense, women"s liberation. This is significant because being able to have control over yourself and your actions is a basic fundamental right.

As a result, by taking it away from women, we are defying and disobeying the Constitution written by our founding fathers.

My second assertion is that woman who receive abortion are less likely to suffer mental health problems than women denied abortions.

Many women are not ready to have children. They will be stresses if they know that they will need to face motherhood at sometimes such a young age. Many women never want to become mothers and that should be their choice.

A Sep. 2013 peer-reviewed study comparing the mental health of women who received abortions to women denied abortions found that women who were denied abortions "felt more regret and anger" and "less relief and happiness" than women who had abortions.

The same study also found that 95% of women who received abortions "felt it was the right decision" a week after the procedure. Studies by the American Psychological Association (APA), the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges (AMRC), and researchers at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health all concluded that purported links between abortion and mental health problems are unfounded. We want happy, healthy women in the United States.

By banning abortion, we are not letting some woman be like that. As a result, many women will be depressed and the child can even ruin their lives.

Thank you. please vote for the proposition
Debate Round No. 1
awesome_joey

Pro

Thank you for participating. I enjoy having discussions with other individuals on important issues. I'm sorry I did not use a formal debate format at the beginning - I am fairly new to this website and will utilize this format from now on.

I will first protect my former points.

CONTENTION 1:
My opponent stated that the fetus is not a self-providing individual and therefore was never legalized as a "citizen." However, there are several things wrong with that conclusion. Young children out of the womb are in need of care as they cannot feed, clothe, or shelter themselves. Many newborns rely on their mother's breast fluids for feeding. Are you saying that they are not worthy of protection from murder? Also, while the baby (or fetus, as called) is not a census-designated resident in the womb, they are a future member of society. They are being subtracted from all other censuses to ever be held, and are ridden of any contributions they may have offered while living. The consequences are not immediate or direct, but are certainly present.

CONTENTION 2:
My opponent said next that the child should be aborted if the woman does not want the child due to rape or other circumstances. This is, once again, denying any morals whatsoever. Do you kill your spouse because you do not love them enough or cannot provide for them? No -that is illegal. If we recognize abortion as murder, then we can also see that abortion is the awful alternative to other choices - foster families, homes for victims and children, church organizations and charities, etc.

CONTENTION 3:
The argument on whether Planned Parenthood should stay opened or closed is not one of economy. If abortion is banned, they will be running "murder shops" essentially. That is a basis for closure. However, if they abide by the law and end the murder of fetuses, they have every right to stay open as a business and life-saver.
(I suggest that my opponent and I drop this contention as to focus more closely on the matter at hand - banning abortion.)

I shall now attack my opponent's arguments.

ARGUEMENT 1:
My opponent makes the case that women have the right to do what they want to their bodies. Of course, that is true. However, the fetus is not of their bodies because it has been conceived. Women have aright to remove their reproductive organs (i.e. birth control, which in my eyes is immoral but still legal) but a life, that could separate from the mother at any moment, is not of the woman's body.

ARGUMENT 2:
My opponent states next that women suffer less mental stress by having an abortion performed. This is in several ways false. Please read the following:

(Excerpt from the Elliot Institute"s article: The Aftereffects of Abortion)
Temporary feelings of relief are frequently followed by a period psychiatrists identify as emotional "paralysis," or post-abortion "numbness." Like shell-shocked soldiers, these aborted women are unable to express or even feel their own emotions. Their focus is primarily on having survived the ordeal and they are at least temporarily out of touch with their feelings.

Studies within the first few weeks after the abortion have found that between 40 and 60 percent of women questioned report negative reactions. Within 8 weeks after their abortions, 55 percent expressed guilt, 44 percent complained of nervous disorders, 36 percent had experienced sleep disturbances, 31 percent had regrets about their decision, and 11 percent had been prescribed psychotropic medicine by their family doctor.

In one study of 500 aborted women, researchers found that 50 percent expressed negative feelings, and up to 10 percent were classified as having developed "serious psychiatric complications."

Thirty to fifty percent of aborted women report experiencing sexual dysfunctions, of both short and long duration, beginning immediately after their abortions. These problems may include one or more of the following: loss of pleasure from intercourse, increased pain, an aversion to sex and/or males in general, or the development of a promiscuous life-style.

Up to 33 percent of aborted women develop an intense longing to become pregnant again in order to "make up" for the lost pregnancy, with 18 percent succeeding within one year of the abortion. Unfortunately, many women who succeed at obtaining their "wanted" replacement pregnancies discover that the same problems which pressured them into having their first abortion still exist, and so they end up feeling "forced" into yet another abortion.

In a study of teenage abortion patients, half suffered a worsening of psychosocial functioning within 7 months after the abortion. The immediate impact appeared to be greatest on the patients who were under 17 years of age and for those with previous psychosocial problems. Symptoms included: self-reproach, depression, social regression, withdrawal, obsession with need to become pregnant again, and hasty marriages.

The best available data indicates that on average there is a five to ten year period of denial during which a woman who was traumatized by her abortion will repress her feelings. During this time, the woman may go to great lengths to avoid people, situations, or events which she associates with her abortion and she may even become vocally defensive of abortion in order to convince others, and herself, that she made the right choice and is satisfied with the outcome. In reality, these women who are subsequently identified as having been severely traumatized, have failed to reach a true state of "closure" with regard to their experiences.

Repressed feelings of any sort can result in psychological and behavioral difficulties which exhibit themselves in other areas of one"s life. An increasing number of counselors are reporting that unacknowledged post-abortion distress is the causative factor in many of their female patients, even though their patients have come to them seeking therapy for seemingly unrelated problems.

Other women who would otherwise appear to have been satisfied with their abortion experience, are reported to enter into emotional crisis decades later with the onset of menopause or after their youngest child leaves home.

Numerous researchers have reported that postabortion crises are often precipitated by the anniversary date of the abortion or the unachieved "due date." These emotional crises may appear to be inexplicable and short-lived, occurring for many years until a connection is finally established during counseling sessions.

As you can see, the results of the study (ONLY A WEEK AFTER) my opponent mentioned do not describe the long-term effects. It not only cause psychological trauma, but physical pain, too.

Once again, thank you for reading, and thanks to my opponent for engaging in this battle for life.
Forever23

Con

Hello, my name is Forever 23 and I am here upon this platform to bring forth the premise which is that abortion is a life-saving judge ment.

My roadmap will include refuting my opponents points, restating my own points and finally adding a new point(s) to this debate.

Their first contention was that the fetus is a person which has a right to life just like everyone else. In my refutation, I never stated that the fetus is not a person because he can not feed himself. A fetus is not a person because until the 28th week before which most abortions are done. Until that week the fetus has no humane qualities.

Their second assertion was that the child should not be aborted due to rape or circumstances. However, that is up to no one but the women. The future of a woman should not be up to the government to decide.

Their third argument was that planned parenthood will turn into a killing center. However, abortion is not the only thing that PP does and that argument is clearly irrelevant to the debate of abortion.

Now to repeat my own assertions:
1. women should have control over their own bodies.
2. woman who receive abortion are less likely to suffer mental health problems

Now let be introduce a new assertion.

Doctors approve of abortion. Doctors dedicated their whole lives to health studies and they do know what is good for the public and what is not. I quote from USAToday, Abortions are sometimes needed to save the lives or health of pregnant women, several medical experts said Friday, countering comments that were made and then partially retracted by Illinois Rep. Joe Walsh. Even a leading group opposing abortion, the National Right to Life Committee, issued a statement saying that its position is "to allow abortion if necessary to prevent the death of the mother."

Walsh, who is seeking reelection, told reporters Thursday that "advances in science and technology," had eliminated any need for abortions to save the lives or health of women and said, "'Health of the mother' has become a tool for abortions anytime, for any reason." On Friday, he backed off the statement somewhat, saying there are "very rare circumstances" in which the procedure is necessary to save a woman's life.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists issued a statement saying: "Abortions are necessary in a number of circumstances to save the life of a woman or to preserve her health. Unfortunately, pregnancy is not a risk-free life event."

Conditions that might lead to ending a pregnancy to save a woman's life include severe infections, heart failure and severe cases of preeclampsia, a condition in which a woman develops very high blood pressure and is at risk for stroke, says Erika Levi, a obstetrician and gynecologist at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

"There are certain cases where ending the pregnancy is the only option, cases where it would be putting the mother's life at risk to continue the pregnancy," she says.

When a pregnancy must be ended before a fetus is viable, "the result is an abortion," says Vanessa Cullins, Vice President for External Medical Affairs for Planned Parenthood Federation of America. But she says there also are cases after viability in which an abortion is safer than an induced childbirth or surgical delivery.

Cecily Kellogg, 44, a writer who lives near Philadelphia, says that was the situation she faced when she was nearly six months pregnant with twin boys in 2004 and developed severe preeclampsia. One fetus had already died and "my liver had shut down, my kidneys had shut down and they were expecting me to start seizing at any minute," she says. The doctors said they had to quickly dilate her cervix and perform an abortion to save her. "I fought it," she says. "But they told me I would die " that it was either me and my son or just my son."

She says it was a "horrible experience," but the right thing to do. She and her husband had a daughter in 2006. Her story is at her blog.

The National Right to Life Committee would not elaborate on its brief statement saying abortions should be allowed if they are needed to save women's lives, said communications official Jessica Rogers. A more absolute view is expressed by the American Life League, a group opposing abortion which has a statement at its web site signed by 481 doctors who agree that: "There is never a situation in the law or in the ethical practice of medicine where a preborn child's life need be intentionally destroyed. ... A physician must do everything possible to save the lives of both of his patients, mother and child. He must never intend the death of either."

Cassing Hammond, an associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Northwestern Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, says cases in which doctors must decide whether it is safe for a pregnant woman to deliver a fetus in a medical crisis are complex and outside the expertise of doctors who do not perform the procedures. He says he sees many such cases.

Most abortions are not for health reasons. The non-profit Guttmacher Institute says three-quarters of women having abortions say they can't afford a child, and an equal number say having a baby would interfere with work, school and the ability to care for others, including existing children. A study published in Guttmacher's International Family Planning Perspectives in 1998 said risk to a woman's health was the main reason for 2.8% of U.S. abortions in 1987-88.

Thank you, please vote con.
Debate Round No. 2
awesome_joey

Pro

awesome_joey forfeited this round.
Forever23

Con

Forever23 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
awesome_joey

Pro

awesome_joey forfeited this round.
Forever23

Con

Forever23 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
awesome_joey

Pro

awesome_joey forfeited this round.
Forever23

Con

Extend....

FF by pro vote con
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by obliviousmassacre 12 months ago
obliviousmassacre
...the emotional status of a woman concerning her abortion. This means that over a 3 year period, 6 phone interviews were conducted. In each, the participants of the study were asked whether they feel more positive or negative emotions about their abortion, and the conclusion was that 98% overwhelmingly felt more positive emotions than negative emotions about their abortion. So that study **did** record the long-term effects of abortion on women.

As a conclusion, I would like to say that it is offensive when you use outdated and biased sources in order to manipulate people. This isn't just some debate; this is a hot issue that deserves to be spoken about truthfully. The pro-life side continuously spreads misinformation about abortion. For instance, they keep saying that abortion heightens the risk of developing breast cancer and get crisis family planning centers to spread this misinformation as well. Multiple medical groups have consistently denied that there is any correlation between abortion and the risk of developing breast cancer, yet the pro-life side continues to lie about this. Another example: the pro-life side of the debate continuously says that fetuses feel pain at 20 weeks gestation, even though science has proved that the pathways between the nervous system and brain required to feel pain are not developed enough to function until at least 24 weeks gestation.

Sorry I ended up debating you in the comments, but I can't stand it when a pro-life person spreads misinformation and straight-up lies in order to support their agenda. There is nothing wrong with abortion. Women have the right to decide what happens to their bodies and fetuses have no rights as they are not yet citizens because they don't have the consciousness to be considered persons. These two facts alone tell us that, logically, abortion is morally okay. It is only when religion or irrational beliefs are brought into the equation that the morality of abortion is questioned.
Posted by obliviousmassacre 12 months ago
obliviousmassacre
...as I was saying... Both of those statement are completely false. A study conducted in 2012 found that abortion is 14 times safer than childbirth and that, "...between 1998 and 2005, one woman died during childbirth for every 11,000 or so babies born. That compared to one woman of every 167,000 who died from a legal abortion." So that fact proves you are getting your figures from a biased and outdated source.

You asked Forever23 if the fact that newborns rely on others for survival would allow a person to murder them. There is a huge difference between a fetus using a person's insides of their body in order to live and a baby using a mother's teat to live. One absolutely **must** use another person's body in order to live and the other can use baby formula if necessary. So the difference is that a fetus can only rely on one person in order to live while a baby has many people it can depend on for survival.

You say that a fetus is not a part of the woman's body. Well, excuse me, but I completely disagree. The fetus does not use its own mouth or nose to breathe; it uses the umbilical cord to derive oxygen directly from the mother's body. The fetus does not use its mouth to gain nutrients or water for hydration; it uses the umbilical cord to derive nutrients and water directly from the mother's body. The fetus does not use its genitalia or anus to get rid of bodily waste; it uses the umbilical cord to expel bodily waste directly into the mother's body. So I'd say that if it can't use its own body to get its basic essentials in order to live and has to use the mother's body, it is a part of the mother's body. As such, she gets to make the ultimate decision on the fate of the fetus.

Oh and I would also like to mention that the study Forever23 used to make her points wasn't conducted over only a one-week period. That study looked at 600 women who had abortions and conducted semi-annual phone interviews over a 3 year period in order to determine...(cont.)
Posted by obliviousmassacre 12 months ago
obliviousmassacre
...as I was saying... Both of those statement are completely false. A study conducted in 2012 found that abortion is 14 times safer than childbirth and that, "...between 1998 and 2005, one woman died during childbirth for every 11,000 or so babies born. That compared to one woman of every 167,000 who died from a legal abortion." So that fact proves you are getting your figures from a biased and outdated source.

You asked Forever23 if the fact that newborns rely on others for survival would allow a person to murder them. There is a huge difference between a fetus using a person's insides of their body in order to live and a baby using a mother's teat to live. One absolutely **must** use another person's body in order to live and the other can use baby formula if necessary. So the difference is that a fetus can only rely on one person in order to live while a baby has many people it can depend on for survival.

You say that a fetus is not a part of the woman's body. Well, excuse me, but I completely disagree. The fetus does not use its own mouth or nose to breathe; it uses the umbilical cord to derive oxygen directly from the mother's body. The fetus does not use its mouth to gain nutrients or water for hydration; it uses the umbilical cord to derive nutrients and water directly from the mother's body. The fetus does not use its genitalia or anus to get rid of bodily waste; it uses the umbilical cord to expel bodily waste directly into the mother's body. So I'd say that if it can't use its own body to get its basic essentials in order to live and has to use the mother's body, it is a part of the mother's body. As such, she gets to make the ultimate decision on the fate of the fetus.

Oh and I would also like to mention that the study Forever23 used to make her points wasn't conducted over only a one-week period. That study looked at 600 women who had abortions and conducted semi-annual phone interviews over a 3 year period in order to determine...(cont.)
Posted by obliviousmassacre 12 months ago
obliviousmassacre
Forever23: You might want to point out that the statistics on the after effects of abortion awesome_joey is using come from a pro-life website, so they are obviously biased. Besides, the first article that popped up on their site references a study from 1997, so they are way behind the times.

awesome_joey: Like I said to Forever23, you are being misleading with your figures by using outdated data and a biased source. If you wanted to have an open and honest debate. you would use figures from this decade that weren't biased. Forever23 referenced a relatively new study that found that 98% of women who had an abortion felt more positive emotions than negative emotions up to 3 years after the procedure. I trust these figures as I've had many family members and friends who've had abortions and not one of them has told me they regret it. My mom had an abortion before she had me and still says to this day that she does not regret it one bit. I escorted my sister to an abortion clinic to have her abortion. It's been a year since then and she doesn't have one negative emotion about it because she, like my mom, knows it was the right decision for her. One of my best friends in high school had an abortion. It's been 7 years since she had it done and she still doesn't regret it.

The truth is that most women who have go through with an abortion know exactly what they want to do and have a reason behind it, so they don't feel bad about their decision even years down the line. You are not being honest when you report figures from biased source that conducted a study almost 10 years ago to back up your claim that most women feel regret after an abortion. The same site you got your figures from also says that, "A single induced abortion increases the risk of maternal death by 45 percent," and, "...women who abort are 4 times more likely to die in the following year compared to women who carry their pregnancies to term." I will continue in another comment...
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by famousdebater 11 months ago
famousdebater
awesome_joeyForever23Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had less forfeitures.
Vote Placed by Vane01 11 months ago
Vane01
awesome_joeyForever23Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF by pro