The Instigator
fire_wings
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
Bob13
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

DDOlympic: Abortion should be illegal

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
fire_wings
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 8/19/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,019 times Debate No: 94822
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (24)
Votes (2)

 

fire_wings

Con

Preface

I thank Bob in advance for selecting this topic with me. He desired to debate this, when I didn't, but this was the only topic we could do. This is for the DDOlympic single debate's tourney, and it is round 1. The topic is abortion. My opponent needs to say that abortion is illegal, and should be banned, when I have to say abortion should not be banned, and it should be legal.

Full Resolution: Abortion should be illegal, and banned when the Abortion is under 28 weeks

Rules


1. No forfeiting, if you forfeit, then you automatically lose the debate
2. BoP is on Pro. I can, or cannot provide offense
3. No trolling
4. No kritiks, and no semantics
5. 8000 characters
6. Not follwing rules means loss.

Structure

R1. Con makes rules/ Pro makes arguments
R2. Con can make arguments, and makes rebuttals/ Pro can make rebuttals if Con makes arguments, and defense
R3. Con makes Defense if made arguments, and rebuttals of defense/ Pro makes rebuttals of defense if Con makes arguments, and makes conclusion
R4. Con makes his conclusion/ Pro waives

Definitions

Abortion: a medical procedure used to end a pregnancy and cause the death of the fetus [1]. (It has to be under 28 weeks)

Banned: to forbid people from using (something) : to say that something cannot be used or done [2].

With that, now it's time to start the debate. Good luck to Bob for the debate, and thanks for bsh to host the Olympics.


Sources

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...

[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...



Bob13

Pro

I have been busy recently and the amount of time I have available to spend on DDO has declined. I apologize for the inconvenience, but the round structure will need a slight change. I will be available later this week.
Debate Round No. 1
fire_wings

Con

Ave

My opponent unexpectedly says that he was busy, and says we need a structure change. First of all, the voters must think of this, because I am wasting time and character space, and I will make a structure, and my opponent MUST accept it, because I won't waste more characters for it.

1. Acceptance

2. Arguments from Con/ Arguments and Rebuttals from Pro
3. Rebuttals from Con/ Defense from Pro, and conclusion

4. Defense from Con, and conclusion/ Pro waives.

Now I will go onto my arguments.

Framework

My framework will be centered around liberty. If a fetus is a human, or a living thing, then it has liberty, and the right of life. Though the liberty of the mother is also there. If it doesn't, then it has no liberty, and it is harming the mother's liberty to her body, so abortion should be legal. My framework will be important around the debate to see if the fetus has the liberty and right of life. If we are still banning abortion, then it is a harm to the mother's liberty, which contradicts this framework, making it ILLEGAL, as liberty is the 1st amendment [7], and the government needs to give the life, liberty and security of one's self, and does not do its job, hence it is illegal.

Argument 1: The Fetus is not alive


My first argument will be about the fetus not being alive. There are 7 categories a living thing must have in order to be called living, and if it doesn't even match one of the case, it is not considered living. 1.4 percent of abortions are after 21 weeks [1], so in the part of senstivity, I will be using this 21 week thing, not the 28 week thing according to the definitons, as a really rare number, only 1.4% of people make abortions in that time. I will now list the 7 categories, and see if the fetus makes it, or not [2].

Movement: The Fetus can move [3].


Respiration: The fetus cannot breathe in it's own. It needs help from its mother [4].

Sensitivity: The fetus can sense at 17 weeks in his earliest, but as in average, 26 weeks, which is over a month before most abortions occur [5].

Growth: A fetus can grow

Reproduction: A fetus cannot reproduce

Excretion: The fetus is usually not going to excrete, but it is likely [6].

Nutrition: A fetus cannot take nutrients by its own, the mother takes it for the fetus.

A fetus needs to match ALL of these 7 following to be considered living. The fetus can only reasonably do 4, but if it is a late abortion, or if it unlikely excretes, it goes to 4 categories. The fetus doesn't match all of them, so the fetus does not have the right of life, so we can kill it, because it is not a living thing, hence doesn't have any right, or liberty, so we should make abortion legal, according to my framework. The resolution is negated, vote for CON.

Argument 2: The Right of Life


This will be my shortest argument, because it is mostly explained in my previous argument, but I will explain it a bit more. As I explained in my 1st argument, the fetus is not living. Hence, as it says in my framework, that if the fetus is not alive, and the mother has liberty of her body, the fetus should be killed, it has no right, and it is harming the mother's body, who has liberty. The fetus doesn't have the right of life, so we should ban abortion by saying that abortion is murder, because it is not, according to my arguments and my sourced evidence, so as abortion is not murder, and harms the mother who has rights, abortion should not be illegal, or should be legal. The resolution is negated, and abortion should be legal because the fetus has no right, and is not murder if we kill it.

Argument 3: Liberty


The mother has liberty to her body. In the previous arugments above I have shown that the fetus is NOT living. The mother is. As in the framework, and the 2nd argument, the fetus is not living, so it has no rights to life, or liberty. The mother, who is living has rights of life, and has liberty. Many mothers every year die because of not having an abortion, because a baby costs money, and gives you stress, and the mothers don't bear the stress, and in the end die because of these fetus, who aren't even living. The mother has the liberty to do what her body, and she does not need to care for a fetus that isn't even living. Abortion is constitional, because it shows that you own your body, not this fetus. If abortion is illegal, or banned, then that means that the women doesn't own her body, which is unconstitional, therefore, abortion should be legal.

Argument 4: Illegal Abortions


My argument will be about illegal abortions. An illegal abortion is very useless because of 2 reasons. 1) It is dangerous. 2.16 million women experience unsafe and illegal abortions, and 47000 women died from it each year [8], and 2) it is very expensive. The women are not doctors, so they can't produce safe abortions, and they are illegal abortions. So there are no reasons why we should have an illegal abortion, because women do produce abortions anyways, and they are more dangerous, so we should just have abortion legalized. The resolution is affirmed because of this argument, that illegal abortions are dangerous and bad, so we should just legalize it.

Argument 5: 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. [9]"

This shows that teenagers have babies too. This totally wrecks the teenagers life. The 20s of your life is when you go to college, and earn lots of money, but these people need to care for the babies.


There is a website to see how much your baby costs. The region is texas to florida all the way to New York, earns over 60,000 to 100,000. A average household earns around 50,000 dollars every year [10], so it is generous to make it over the average, a public school also. The cost was over 319,000 dollars [11]. That is an really high amount, around over 6 times over a normal household earns. Teenagers must earn less, but lets just go for that example. If abortion is illegal, then that means that the teenager has to take care of all the things. If abortion is legal, then the teenager can remove its stress. So, abortion should be legal.

Conclusion

I have shown lot's of sourced evidence that abortions should be legal, and that the fetus is not alive. Therefore it doesn't have rights. Therefore, please vote for CON. In this debate, as I had shown lots of good sourced evidence to show that abortion is legal. Therefore, please vote for Con, as the mother has liberty to her body also. The resolution is negated, therefore, vote for CON.

Bob13

Pro

Framework

I'll use a simple framework of libertarianism. Every individual has the right to life, liberty, and property, and no person should be allowed to take away those rights from another unless he is being intentionally harmed.

Argument

Every human being is an individual, and that includes unborn children. Abortion is an infringement on an individual's right to life, but an unborn fetus also causes harm to the mother. However, unless the woman was raped, she is responsible for creating that child which now harms her unintentionally by causing pain. She created her own problem; therefore, infringing on a person's right to life is not justified.

Even if she was raped, she is not being intentionally harmed by her child, so killing it would not be justified. She's not going to die from pregnancy. It's not a big deal if you compare it to the child's situation of helplessness and the looming threat of death.

In conclusion, abortion is a severe infringement on an individual's rights, so it should be illegal according to a libertarian framework, which my opponent also seems to be using.

Rebuttals

"A fetus needs to match ALL of these 7 following to be considered living. The fetus can only reasonably do 4, but if it is a late abortion, or if it unlikely excretes, it goes to 4 categories."

The criteria for a living thing is meant to be applied to species, not humans at different stages of development. By your reasoning, any prepubescent child is considered non-living because of inability to reproduce, a paralytic is non-living because of inability to move, and an elderly person is non-living because of inability to grow. Since prepubescents, paralytics, and the elderly are clearly living beings, your argument is highly flawed and doesn't prove that fetuses are non-living. They are humans and humans are living; therefore, fetuses are living.

"As I explained in my 1st argument, the fetus is not living. Hence, as it says in my framework, that if the fetus is not alive, and the mother has liberty of her body, the fetus should be killed, it has no right, and it is harming the mother's body, who has liberty. The fetus doesn't have the right of life, so we should ban abortion by saying that abortion is murder, because it is not, according to my arguments and my sourced evidence, so as abortion is not murder, and harms the mother who has rights, abortion should not be illegal, or should be legal."

This rests on the assumption that the fetus is non-living, which I have proven false.

"So there are no reasons why we should have an illegal abortion, because women do produce abortions anyways, and they are more dangerous, so we should just have abortion legalized."

But abortion is legal, so why do illegal abortions happen anyway? Take a look at this spreadsheet:https://docs.google.com...
It shows abortion rates and abortion laws for each country. It leaves out developing countries and shows that in the developed world, the number of abortions is greatly reduced by laws restricting or banning abortion. Illegal abortions are not as common as you suggest.

"This shows that teenagers have babies too. This totally wrecks the teenagers life. The 20s of your life is when you go to college, and earn lots of money, but these people need to care for the babies."

Actually, they don't need to care for the babies. They can put them up for adoption so that they can get more capable parents.

Conclusion

Fetuses are living humans, and thus have human rights. My opponent's arguments have been refuted.
Debate Round No. 2
fire_wings

Con

I thank my opponent for his arguments in this debate. My opponent's arguments are very short, so my rebuttal will be short also. This round will *just* be for rebuttals from me, as the structure says, and the next round will be about the defense of my arguments as my opponent rebutted them last round, and the conclusion of the debate.

My opponent in the debate shows an libertarianism. Same as me, which is weird, as I showed that the framework is basically my side. But we have the same framework, so it makes the debate easier. Okay, now I will make my rebuttals of my opponent's arguments.

My opponent has a very short argument, so I will be rebutting it turn by turn. My opponent argues that every human being is an invividual. I agree with this part of the statement. Then my opponent says that it includes unborn children, and this is false. My opponent, suprisinly doesn't work hard on his arguments, and doesn't say *anything* about the fetus in the debate only just say that it is a human, and gives a bare assertion for this. I showed many reasons and evidence about the 7 things needed for living, and if the fetus is living or not, and I have shown that the fetus is not a living being. My opponent doesn't give *any* reasons and sources/evidence on the claim that unborn children, or a fetus is a human being. As I showed a reason, and evidence, when my opponent had *nothing*, voters *must* come from my side, as I am the only one who gave *any* evidence about if the fetus is human or not, and with sources, I have showed that a fetus is not a human being, so voters must buy my argument then my opponent's. My opponent *can't* give any more evidence about this, because it counts as an argument, and according to the rules, it is a violation of conduct. So if my opponent makes any evidence or reasons for this, voters cannot buy it, and *should* think of the violation of conduct in his/her vote.

My opponent says that an unborn fetus also causes harm to the mother. If my opponent is talking about if we don't do an abortion, and the fetus causes harm, that is basically an argument for me, showing that the fetus, which is not living, causes harm to the mother, and takes away her liberty, so abortion should be legal. My opponent will probably not talk about this, as he won't make an argument out of his side, so he *must* have talked about it in another side, when we do an abortion, it will cause harm. First of all, if it is an illegal abortion, then yes. That is why we should legalize abortion, so it is an beneficial arugment for me, and a concession from my opponent's side. So my opponent would probably talk about the other side, that a normal abortion. However my opponent's argument is a bare assertion, and basically false, and doctors are good at preparing this. So my opponent's argument is refuted. I will give a premise to make it easier.

P1: My opponent can talk about a non-abortion
P2: My opponent can talk about an illegal abortion
P3: My opponent can talk about a safe abortion
C1: P1 is my side, so my opponent won't talk about it. P2 also. So my opponent must talk about P3.
C2: My opponent's argument is a bare assertion, and false
C3: As my opponent's argument is failed in all ways, vote for CON.

My opponent says that the women is responsible for creating the child. First of all, as in my teenager argument, the teenagers for example [1] don't even know that they were getting a baby. It's not *their* fault to create the "baby". Many more of these situations will come, the evidence was only from teenagers, but logically, there will be more counting non-teenagers. So we can't fault them for creating the "baby", as it is not their fault. The reason why I put a quotation mark of "baby" is that, as I said they are not babies, or human beings. So we can't care if they are getting hurt, as they aren't living anyways. So my opponent's statement of this is false, and I can't forget!!! My opponent's argument again, is a BARE ASSERTION.

My opponent in his next paragraph says like, "...so killing will not be justified", and "it is not a big deal... compare to the child's situation of helplessness... looming threat of death". First of all, as I said in all my arguments, the fetus is not a human being. My opponent just says that it is a human being, but gives no evidence for this claim. So it is not killing, and it does not have the right of life, so it will be justified if it harms someone else's life. And, my opponent says it is not a big deal. A human being dead is a big deal. My opponent thinks it is a big deal when a non-living fetus dies, but not a living mother. This is unlogical, and really strange. Killing is immoral, and it is a big deal. Everyone related to her will be sad and very tormented when they hear that she died because of the non-living fetus. It is not a child, so my opponent's statement of this is wrong. And I almost forgot, but this is a BARE ASSERTION again. My opponent doesn't give *any* sources or evidence in the whole debate. So all of his cases are bare assertions.

In conclusion, my opponent's short arguments are bare assertions, poorly explained, doesn't explain *anything* about the fetus being living, and I showed it is not, so voters should buy my argument, as I used sources, and I refuted all of his poorly explained statements in the debate. Pro cannot make more evidence for his arguments, as it is a rule violation, and if this happens, voters will be urged to think about it. I showed that the framework is not the side, and my opponent doesn't link his arguments with his framework, when I did, and the framework showed that abortion should be legal. As I refuted all of my opponent's arguments, therefore vote for Con in this debate!!! Thank you, and please vote for CON!!!

[1] My teenage argument in round 2 (I don't need sources, because this is for rebuttal)
Bob13

Pro

"Then my opponent says that it includes unborn children, and this is false. My opponent, suprisinly doesn't work hard on his arguments, and doesn't say *anything* about the fetus in the debate only just say that it is a human, and gives a bare assertion for this. I showed many reasons and evidence about the 7 things needed for living, and if the fetus is living or not, and I have shown that the fetus is not a living being."

I explained why your argument is wrong in my first rebuttal. Saying I have no evidence is not only a bare assertion, but you would know that it's obviously false if you actually read my rebuttal. I explained why it's misleading to use the 7 requirements on a fetus. They are meant to be used for various species in general, and humans meet the requirements, so they are living in every stage of development. As long as a human is developing, it is living, so a fetus is living.

"That is why we should legalize abortion, so it is an beneficial arugment for me, and a concession from my opponent's side."

No it's not. I admitted that a fetus causes harm to the mother, but I explained why that does not justify killing.

"P1: My opponent can talk about a non-abortion
P2: My opponent can talk about an illegal abortion
P3: My opponent can talk about a safe abortion
C1: P1 is my side, so my opponent won't talk about it. P2 also. So my opponent must talk about P3.
C2: My opponent's argument is a bare assertion, and false
C3: As my opponent's argument is failed in all ways, vote for CON."

What kind of logic is that? I have and will talk about P2, P1 and P2 are not just your side, and C2 does not logically follow from the premises.

"My opponent says that the women is responsible for creating the child. First of all, as in my teenager argument, the teenagers for example [1] don't even know that they were getting a baby. It's not *their* fault to create the "baby". Many more of these situations will come, the evidence was only from teenagers, but logically, there will be more counting non-teenagers."

I don't think you understand how getting a baby works. I'm not going to explain in detail, but it involves a consensual act between two people. People who do that don't know that they're getting a baby, but they're aware that it's a risk. Therefore, it's their fault if they get a baby, and getting an abortion would be like inviting someone to your house, locking them inside, and then killing them because you don't want them there. It violates an individual's right to life, so it should be illegal according to our framework.

"My opponent thinks it is a big deal when a non-living fetus dies, but not a living mother."

The mother isn't going to die from the fetus. I don't know where you get that idea, but with modern medicine, that shouldn't be a problem. A living fetus has the right to life, so killing it because it unintentionally caused harm is not justified.

In conclusion, I have explained that the right to life applies to every human being, including fetuses, that killing a fetus is not justified and should be illegal according to a libertarian framework, and that my opponent has not proven or disproven anything.
Debate Round No. 3
fire_wings

Con

I thank my opponent Bob for doing this debate with me, and this will be the last round of the debate. I won't be bringing *any* new arguments in this round. I will be posting my defense in this round, and the conclusion of the debate. My opponent will have to waive next round.

My opponent doesn't say anything else about the framework, so I will assume it is the same as what he did say in this second round.

My opponent says that living things are meant to be applied to species, not humans at different stages of development. Yes, but as I showed, a fetus is not a human being, which makes them different species. And, you do not rebut anything about the 7 catgeories, only making an assumption, which is false, so vote for Con. And my opponent doesn't show that the fetus is living anyways. He says that my evidence is wrong, so the fetus is living. He has no evidence, and I showed evidence, and I showed it is right, therefore voters must buy my claim. Most bad babies come from non-abortions, look at here: http://www.debate.org...

My opponent says about non-living, which I showed is false, so my opponent's rebuttal is wrong. My opponent also doesn't say anything about the mother's liberty, and that was the main point of that argument, and as my opponent doesn't rebut anything from it, please vote for Con for just this argument alone.

My opponent also says that abortion is legal. We are talking about if abortion should be legal, or not. So, logically, we can't legalize something which is legal, so we are talking about illegal abortions, for common sense. It says that of all abortions, nearly half are illegal abortions [1]. That is a very big number, and they are very common, if it is half of the time. But we aren't talking about the number here. We are talking *if* there is an illegal abortion, and causes deaths, or *if* there is no abortion which is illegal. And there are illegal abortions, which do cause deaths, which means be should ban illegal abortions, so we should just legalize abortions altogether, as if we ban all abortion, there will be more illegal abortions than ever. Therefore, vote for Con on this argument alone, as this is the most important argument in the whole debate, and my opponent fails to rebut this argument.

My opponent says that they don't need to care for the babies, they can put them in adoption. First of all, it cost money in the hospital to even get a baby out. Few thousands of dollars in the hospital itself. That is a lot of money, and we are basically throwing away that much money by just giving the baby to others. My opponent doesn't rebut anything about the teenage argument, so vote for Con from this argument.

As a conclusion, In this debate, I said that A Fetus is not alive, A fetus has no right of life, The mother's liberty, Illegal Abortions, and Teenagers. My opponent said that the fetus is alive, that it is the mother's fault of creating the child, and That killing is not justified. I showed a fetus is not alive through 1.7 categories of life, and 2. the fetus only meets two of them, so the fetus is not living; A fetus has no right of life through reasons above in my 3. first argument and 4. that non-living things have no rights, and the fetus is no living; The mother's liberty through reasons that 5. the fetus is not living, when the mother is a living being, and 6. that living beings have liberty; The Illegal Abortion argument was through reasons 7. that many people get illegal abortions, and many die from it, so we should just legalize abortion, because it we ban abortion, there will be more illegal abortions; And the Teenage Argument was supported by 8. that many teenagers need to pay money for a baby, and they can't, so we should have abortion. My opponent rebuts the arguments by saying about species, but that does not rebut reason 1 and 2. The fetus is not living. My opponent gives no other rebuttals, so all of my arguments are not refuted. My opponent's argument, that the fetus is alive, was supported by no reasons, as my opponent gave no evidence. My reasons 1 and 2 had evidence, so they overwhelmed his first argument. My opponent's argument that it is the mother's fault of creating the child was supported by any reasons, my opponent only gave an assertion, and he gave no evidence. Also, I rebutted the argument by saying that a baby can come out ridiculously, and it is not their fault, and also, my arguments outweigh the magnitude of this argument, as my arguments had more magnitude then this one. My opponent's argument that killing is not justified is true that killing is not justified, but rebutted by my first argument and second argument, because the fetus is not alive. So, we cannot count it as killing. I have won all my arguments, when my opponent has no arguments, as I refuted all of them, vote for me.

Thanks for the debate, and please vote for Con, because of the strong defense, good rebuttals, and good arguments from Con. This is basically the last round, as my opponent needs to waive the last round. My arguments outweigh my opponent's arguments, so it is an easy win for Con, so vote for Con.
Bob13

Pro

I will waive this round as agreed upon.
Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 4
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by fire_wings 1 year ago
fire_wings
No, you can't!!!! Jk, lol, you can, I don't care
Posted by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
Fire_Wings I need your permission to vote on it.
Posted by Bob13 1 year ago
Bob13
Assuming it's not against DDOlympic rules, yes.
Posted by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
Am I allowed to vote on this?
Posted by fire_wings 1 year ago
fire_wings
For me it is not, but lol
Posted by missmozart 1 year ago
missmozart
@Feu
Lol. This is why I don't call ThinkBig "TB" because it sounds like I'm calling him 'tuberculosis'.
Posted by fire_wings 1 year ago
fire_wings
Thanks TB
Posted by fire_wings 1 year ago
fire_wings
Uh...., Bob, so just do that structure in the first place...
Posted by fire_wings 1 year ago
fire_wings
Well, it should, I never thought about that....
Posted by ThinkBig 1 year ago
ThinkBig
I am working on my RFD for this.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
fire_wingsBob13
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: This vote was brought to you in part by the DDO Voters' Union. RFD is located here. http://www.debate.org/forums/miscellaneous/topic/92647/1/#2572094
Vote Placed by Hayd 1 year ago
Hayd
fire_wingsBob13
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YUsS3ck0h6EO4N-XaQ55jZ5H982xgnb1y3ExZYogPd0