Choose Any Topic!
|Voting Style:||Open with Elo Restrictions||Point System:||Select Winner|
|Updated:||12 months ago||Status:||Post Voting Period|
|Viewed:||442 times||Debate No:||83122|
In R1 you will state 4 topics. I will then in R2 choose one topic and begin to argue my case. I must be Pro and you must be Con. Any definitions necessary must be provided by my opponent in R2.
Depending on the debate the BOP may vary
No new arguments in the final round
If you break any of the folloing rules you automatically lose.
R1: Rules and definitions by me, you will state your 4 topics
R2: I will choose a topic, you will define terms that can be debated by me
R5: Counter Rebuttals
These will be provided by my opponent once the
1. Ban the Death Penalty
2. Legalize Abortion
3. The Right to Be Forgotten
4. Experimentation on Animal Does More Harm Than Good
I choose the topic of legalizing abortion. I am Pro and my opponent is Con.
My opponent must now provide definitions which I will be able to contest with if I feel the need to (per R1 rules).
Abortion- the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy.
I thank my opponent for their acceptance and definitions. I would like to contest with my opponent's definition of abortion before I get onto my case. It is more accurate to change 28 weeks to 24 weeks since my case will primarily revolve around the abortion in countries such as the UK where abortion is only considered legal up to 24 weeks into the pregnancy. I’m sure that this will not affect my opponent’s case in any way and that they will agree to my definition. The burden of proof is split. I must argue for the legalization of abortion. My opponent must argue for abortion to be illegal.
My framework for this debate will be based around libertarianism and the fact that the government has no right to interfere with our choices. My opponent must provide an alternative framework and a reason as to why there framework is preferable in order to gain a huge advantage in this debate. Without a response or sufficient acknowledgement of my framework libertarianism will stand and therefore voters ought to look at this debate from the libertarian perspective brought up in this debate by me.
This is a case that is very controversial amongst libertarians however with the support of my contentions I will attempt to eliminate the other side of the debate (at least from a libertarian onset). Would you find it acceptable if you went to get some food and the government stopped you from doing so? The reasonable and rational answer is no. So why would you allow the government to step in and stop you from doing what is best for you and your baby. The baby is yours and the government have no right to make decisions on your behalf - especially when there is no personal look upon the situation. If abortion is to remain illegal (as my opponent proposes), then the government won’t come in and look to see if there is no hope of anything good coming out of the pregnancy and allowing an abortion. The government will simply not allow the act to occur no matter what the circumstances because abortion is illegal. Simple enough. No that this has been explained I will reiterate the food analogy. You have some food, the government then come in and stop you from having this food. This is unacceptable, as any rational person would argue. Now put the fetus into this perspective. You have a baby. The government try to stop you from aborting this baby. Is this acceptable - no. You have the choice and the right to do what you feel is beneficial for the baby and due to this you ought to prefer the legalization of abortion over the illegalization of abortion.
Contention 1: Is the fetus alive?
The requirements of being alive require many things. The acronym that is usually taught is MRS GREN (1). I will address each individual one separately. Remember that each of these requirements must be met in order for the fetus to be classified as living (1).
Movement - The fetus can move so this part is met.
Respiration - The fetus cannot respire on its own (2).
Sensitivity - The fetus cannot sense at 24 weeks or even 28 weeks (3).
Reproduction - Whilst it is a fetus, no it cannot reproduce (4).
Excretion - This is possible however very rare and unlikely (5).
Nutrition - The fetus cannot independently take in nutrition.
If one of these wasn’t met then the fetus would not be considered alive. The fetus was only able to meet 2 of these. Making it considered not alive (1).
Contention 2: Illegal Abortions
This statistic is shocking but demonstrates my point very well. These unsafe abortions are illegal abortions and this is what is currently happening because abortions are illegal in places.
Contention 3: Underaged teenagers
“19% of teens who have had sexual intercourse become pregnant each year. 78% of these pregnancies are unplanned. 6 in 10 teen pregnancies occur among 18-19 year olds.” (7)
This statistic is extremely significant for many reasons. Firstly, if this occurs amongst 18 - 19 year olds then this is extremely bad. Having to look after and care for a child ruins their chances of going to college / university. Your twenties are your most important period of your lives according to many sources (8,9,10). Having to look after a child in this period of time is extremely stressful and prevents you from getting proper qualifications and more importantly, it prevents you from getting a full time job and a house. Children are extremely expensive to have and having a child at the time when you should be looking for a job makes income problematic. On top of this you will have to pay huge amounts of money.
“To raise a child born in 2013 to the age of 18, it will cost a middle-income couple just over $245,000, according to newly released estimates from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. That's up $4,260, or almost 2%, from the year before.”(11)
Now let's compare this to the average income of a family:
“The typical U.S. households pulls in $51,371 per year.”
Now teenage parents are most likely to make a lot less than this but let's take this statistic anyway. Assuming that this ‘average’ family spend no money at all on anything. It will still cost them almost 5 times their yearly income to equate to that amount. Of course they will need food, clothes, mortgage, heating, electricity etc. on top of this sum of money.
Now if this seems like a lot you should double the cost of a child figures (assuming that they have another child), what will you do then? Not allow an abortion? Allow these teengagers to pay almost $500,000, earning (most likely) less than $51,371 per year.
Contention 4: Gender Equality
Pregnancies have a huge impact upon people’s lives - in particular the mother. As Sarah Weddington stated:
“A pregnancy to a woman is perhaps one of the most determinative aspects of her life. It disrupts her body. It disrupts her education. It disrupts her employment. And it often disrupts her entire family life.” (13)
“[And we feel that], because of the impact on the woman, this … is a matter which is of such fundamental and basic concern to the woman involved that she should be allowed to make the choice as to whether to continue or to terminate her pregnancy.” (13)
This was a very important case showing that without the right to a termination, you are denying women a right and therefore what my opponent is advocating is gender inequality.
The great philosopher, Judith Thomson said:
“If abortion rights are denied, then a constraint is imposed on women's freedom to act in a way that is of great importance to them, both for its own sake and for the sake of their achievement of equality .... and if the constraint is imposed on the ground that the foetus has a right to life from the moment of conception, then it is imposed on a ground that neither reason nor the rest of morality requires women to accept, or even to give any weight at all.” (13)
This emphasizes my previous point in regards to the denial of gender rights and equality and therefore we come to the following conclusion:
P1: Denying women an abortion is gender inequality
P2: Gender inequality is a violation of human rights
C1: Abortion legalization stops gender inequality (in terms of this right)
C2: Abortions should be legalized
So without further ado, I would like to begin.
Observation #1- Our morals have taught us that murder is wrong.
Starting from school, children are taught that murder is wrong. They are told that murder is immoral and that those who do commit this crime are terrible people who deserve to be punished. Teachers explain to students that they should never commit crimes in order to ensure the wellbeing of society
Observation #2 - Life begins from conception.
Life begins from conception. The fetus is alive. Life is there starting from conception and ending with death. So murdering a person before the correct time of death, is the unethical termination of human life. http://naapc.org..., Dr. Jerome LeJeune, professor of genetics at the University of Descartes in Paris, was the discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down syndrome. Dr. LeJeune testified to the Judiciary Subcommittee, "after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being." He stated that this "is no longer a matter of taste or opinion," and "not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence." He added, "Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception."
So that leads to my assertion
Assertion #1- Abortion is murder.
Murder is the killing of another citizen. And fetuses are already considered to be alive. So what is abortion? Murder. 146.Guttmacher Institute, "Are You in the Know?: Abortion: Cost of Abortion Services in the United States," guttmacher.org, The federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which was enacted "to protect unborn children from assault and murder," states that under federal law, anybody intentionally killing or attempting to kill an unborn child should "be punished... for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being." The act also states that an unborn child is a "member of the species homo sapiens." At the end, this debate will probably rely on one question. Is the fetus human or not? And the pro gave no evidence. the con however, has scientific research on her side. Let me provide some more support for my argument, https://www.princeton.edu... "Development of the embryo begins at Stage 1 when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte and together they form a zygote.". Also, "Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).
"Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."
Assertion #2- We need to reproduce in order to sustain the human race.
This assertion is self explanatory. Humans need to reproduce in order to sustain the population. Abortion stops that process. After a women has sex, she can possibly have a child. That child will have a child. And so on. You ask. Why? Because this is what keeps the human race going. Without reproduction and with abortion, the human race would clearly become extinct. http://darwinstudents.blogspot.com..., The evolution of sexual reproduction is not widely discussed or questioned in non-academic circles, it is taken as a given that humans, and the majority of species throughout time, reproduce through the fusion of gametes. Yet it is uncertain whether this is the most efficient and secure way of continuation of our species. Asexual reproduction is accepted as the most rapid way to expand a population from one generation to the next, as described by John Maynard Smith, so why do humans not reproduce in such a way? Many theories have been put forth for all sexually reproducing species, some only apply to certain species and many explanations intertwine with one another. One justification is the increased capacity for genetic variation to occur, which links closely to the hypothesis that sexual reproduction is primarily in order to resist parasites. Both are countered by the suggestion that the occurrence is necessary to remove deleterious genes or is an adaptation to substantial chromosomal damage and mutation. These theories have been combined along with my own thoughts in order to ascertain in my own mind why Homo sapiens have evolved to reproduce sexually.
Charles Darwin, the father of modern evolutionary thinking, stated that the advantage of sex is "the offspring of two individuals, especially if their progenitors have been subjected to very different conditions, have a great advantage in weight, constitutional vigour and fertility over the self fertilized offspring from either one of the same parents." Thus he suggests that a genetically superior individual is created by two sexes, rather than asexually.
Darwin"s thought that the birth of a genetically stronger human is the main reason for the evolution of sex points to the ability to survive, and thus can be linked with the Red Queen Hypothesis, where the fundamental advantage of sexual reproduction over asexual reproduction is the resistance to parasites. This hypothesises that the underlying purpose of sexual reproduction is to allow enough genetic variation for evolution to occur quickly enough to maintain a population despite the evolution of its parasites. This seems to suggest that sexual reproduction is not only an outcome of evolution, but also the cause of continued evolution once it manifested itself in our ancestors.
Assertion #3- Women will hide rape with abortion.
What is easier for the women, to go through the police investigation, or a quick abortion? The second. However, we want to make sure that criminals are put in jail. Rape is wrong and abortion may turn women from reporting it. https://en.wikipedia.org..., A 2013 study found that rape is grossly underreported in the United States. Furthermore, police departments around the country eliminate rapes from official records to "create the illusion of success in fighting violent crime". Based on the available data, 21.8% of American rapes of female victims are gang rapes. For the last reported year, 2013, the prevalence rate for all sexual assaults including rape was 0.1% (prevalence represents the number of victims, rather than the number of assaults since some are victimized more than once during the reporting period). The survey included males and females aged 12+. Since rapes are a subset of all sexual assaults, the prevalence of rape is lower than the combined statistic. Of those assaults, the BJS stated that 34.8% were reported to the police, up from 29.3% in 2004.
Legalization of abortion encourages hiding rape. Women will perhaps not hide rape if they could only get abortion AFTER THEY REPORTED RAPE. This is what will help decrease abortions- reporting.
Thank you, please vote opp.
This round is solely dedicated to rebuttals to each other's case as per the rules stated in R1.
This is merely an assertion however I do agree that murder is wrong. I’m not exactly sure why murder has been brought into this since it is evident that the fetus is not alive and therefore the termination of the fetus should not be considered as murder.
Murder is defined as: “the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.”  The fetus is not a human being (as described in my contentions).
Now this is where fetus life is attempted to be explained by my opponent. My opponent’s case is dependant on evidence from members of authority. My opponent has not explained why this evidence is credible in any way other than that ONE doctor said that abortion is wrong and the fetus is alive. Now onto my counter arguments
A - Firstly, a fetus is not a human because it is not capable of doing things that humans are able to do. This is like stating that a corpse is a human because it has been a human and once possessed human attributes. It no longer possess these attributes and therefore should no longer be considered as the person that it previously was. 
B - My arguments pre-refute this argument but nevertheless, I will expand. Since my arguments refer to MRS GREN, I will make a comparison to put this into my opponent’s perspective in order to refute their case further. Viruses depend on host cells.  The fetus depends on its mother.  The comparison between the virus and the mother is undeniable. The virus is scientifically considered to be not alive. [3,4] Therefore, the comparison allows us to put this analogy into the perspective of the fetus.
Rebuttal 1: Abortion is Murder
Now firstly, I would like to point out that at the very minimum my opponent has lost themselves the conduct point. I will quote from my opponent:
“ Is the fetus human or not? And the pro gave no evidence.”
Now, this is problematic for their case. They have made a rebuttal in the round solely dedicated for arguments. It can be argued that a rebuttal is a type of argument however it is evident that rebuttals and arguments can be distinguished in this scenario since there are separate round for rebuttals and arguments. This shows us that they are separate things. My opponent’s arguments is an attempt at a mitigation of my case and this is clearly against the R1 structure.
Telling me that abortion is illegal is pointless. The debate is in regards to a legalization and this means that I have acknowledged that it is currently illegal in various parts of the world. As well as this, an abortion is legal in many parts of the world too and this debate is not specific to any area of the world in particular so stating that an abortion is illegal in one part of the world is almost pointless in regards to its impact on the resolution. I could easily say that abortion is legal in the UK  (which is where I come from) but I didn’t because I acknowledged that this is not specific to any part of the world.
Now I will refute what my opponent said about in regards to my argument not being backed up by scientific evidence. My opponent made a rebuttal on this point in the arguments round so they lose conduct however since I am merely rebutting their rebuttals round, any rebuttals that I make regarding this point do not have a negative impact upon my case.
My point was backed up by the BBC. Now in case my opponent is now aware of how accurate the BBC really is, I will explain. The BBC is the largest british resource company which has the biggest TV, radio, school resource, news and weather reports that the british economy sees.  The BBC makes £8.3 billion yearly for the British economy and this is pounds, not dollars. In dollars that would be $12,401,860,000 for the economy alone. The BBC is considered to be one of the most reliable and factual sites on the internet! 
I find it difficult to believe that my opponent understand the huge chunk of scientific fact that they quoted in their argument in regards to this contention. The reason for this being, simply, that there argument in no way whatsoever proves that abortion is wrong, immoral or should be legalized. All their arguments merely define key terminology and explain the scientific processes involved in human birth and foetus development. I agree that the embryo begins developing when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte and together they form a zygote but that doesn’t mean that the fetus is alive. I also agree that when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte and together they form a zygote. Human development does not equate to human life. Development is in regards to growth. Life is in regards to meeting all the life processes as my contentions describe not just growth.
Rebuttal 2: We need to reproduce in order to sustain the human race.
2% of American women aged 15–44 have an abortion.  This is an extremely low statistic and will surely not cause us low population issues. My opponent’s argument is extremely short but includes a huge explanation in regards to sexual reproduction and Charles Darwin.
On the subject of Charles Darwin, his ideals and beliefs actually result in the resolution being affirmed. Darwin believed in survival of the fittest. 
If the mother cannot afford the baby then the baby will be subjected to a life of poverty and poor health care and education. This makes them unfit and under the Darwinian principle that my opponent brought up an abortion is necessary due to the fact that they are unfit. This intertwines with school / career concerns, relationship issues, rape and fetal health concerns. You cannot pick and choose elements of Darwinian beliefs. You either accept the Darwinian ideology or don’t accept it.
Rebuttal 3:Women will hide rape with abortion
I have no issues with my opponent’s statistics however my opponent merely asserts that abortions are the reasons for these statistics. The source never says that it’s the abortions fault that rape is unreported so much, as a matter of fact, rape cases are hardly ever aborted, as my diagram and this source suggests [10,11]. Therefore, assuming that all rape abortions are hiding it from society, this means that a maximum of 1% of abortion cases are used to hide or cover rape. The statistic is most likely lower and it is part of my opponent’s burden to show how abortions even coincide with their statistics provided in regards to this contention.
You ought to vote for the affirmative case based on strong arguments and strong rebuttals. My opponent has riddled rebuttals into his arguments round and therefore this justifies the loss of the conduct point at a minimum. Vote Pro based on this.
Forever23 forfeited this round.
The rules have been broken. This is an automatic loss.
Forever23 forfeited this round.