The Instigator
ABoleman
Pro (for)
The Contender
asta
Con (against)

I"m Pro-choice, tell me why you aren"t

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  
Argument Due
We are waiting for asta to post argument for round #4. If you are asta, login to see your options.
Time Remaining
02days08hours28minutes22seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/13/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 15 hours ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 240 times Debate No: 116497
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)

 

ABoleman

Pro

I"ve been seeing a lot of "pro-life" people on my facebook friends lately. They argue that abortion is murder and tend to post pictures that I would consider propaganda because they do not accurately portray what the fetus looks like in its stages. I can honestly probably list one hundred reasons why I am pro-choice, but I am
insterested to debate with someone who feels otherwise, as most people I debate with on this subject have no intention on an open dialogue. I can understand someone being against abortion in the sense that they would never choose one for themselves/partner, however I have a hard time understanding someone wanting to overturn Roe vs Wade and make abortion illegal, I struggle to understand how someone would want to take away a woman"s right to choose, & if you are for that: do you support a higher percentage of our taxes going towards welfare?
asta

Con

I'm pro life because science confirms that a fetus is a human being. Science says that a fetus, even a zygote has all the necessary chromosomes to be alive and they meet all the necessary criteria to be alive. This is why I want Roe v Wade overturned.

"do you support a higher percentage of our taxes going towards welfare?" No. If a woman does not want to take care of a child, she can set the kid up for adoption. I don't think the foster system uses tax dollars because they get the money by other ways.
Debate Round No. 1
ABoleman

Pro

Actually, scientists have not been able to agree on when a fetus is considered a human-being. Something having chromosomes is not equivalent to personhood. The arguments on when "life begins" varies greatly depending on who you"re speaking to: some argue that life starts at conception, some argue that even wasting sperm is equivalent to throwing away life, some argue that it is when the fetus develops a heartbeat, some argue it is when a fetus can feel pain, some argue that it is when the fetal brain activity exhibits regular wave patterns (25 weeks), etc. My point being, there is no final consensus on when a fetus is considered a person and therefore a fetus does not carry rights over the woman"s choice if she wants to carry the fetus to term.
You also may be surprised to learn that state and federal taxes contribute to over $4 billion dollars annually on the foster care system. There are currently over 400,000 children in and out of the foster care system. You are saying that if a woman doesn"t want to take care of a child she can just set it up for adoption, but in reality it"s not that simple. The first concern is that the US is one of the most expensive places in the world to give birth. It costs an estimated $10,000-15,000 for a childbirth with no complications. Secondly, some women who choose abortion are alcoholics, drug addicts, etc. You think they are going to discontinue their lifestyle in order to nurture a child they do not want? Some women have disorders and they would have to cease taking medication in order to carry a fetus to term. There are many reasons a woman will choose to have an abortion and it"s not the governments job to ban her from doing so. Most women who carry a fetus to term do not give their child up for adoption, even if that was initially the plan. There are many cases where women backed out of an adoption planned 6 months earlier immediately after giving birth. Therefore, adoption is not a reasonable alternative. The majority of women who have abortions are under or near the poverty line and are single mothers, if you don"t encourage paying higher taxes going towards welfare, are you really pro life or are you just pro birth?
Another thing I would like to point out on this subject is that over turning Roe vs Wade will not eliminate or likely substantially decrease abortion. The countries where abortion is outlawed have a higher rate of abortion than countries where it is legal. In overturning Roe vs Wade, illegal abortions will increase and place women at risk. There also is the issue on how to criminalize abortion and how to defer a miscarriage from an abortion. For example, there have been multiple women in El Salvador who are serving 15 years in prison over a miscarriage that was falsely deemed an abortion.
Evidence has shown that the answer to greatly reducing abortion rates is access to affordable birth control and adequate sex education, not banning it.
asta

Con

"Actually, scientists have not been able to agree on when a fetus is considered a human-being. Something having chromosomes is not equivalent to person hood." The claim that a fetus is a human being is not an opinion, but a fact and one that's backed up by scientific evidence. Person is a legal term. Unfortunately a fetus is not a person, but they should be because they are a scientific human.

"You also may be surprised to learn that state and federal taxes contribute to over $4 billion dollars annually on the foster care system" Can you cite this?

You said that a woman setting up a child for adoption is hard. How? With few exceptions if any, kids don't get messed up in the system. According to http://www.adopt.org..., it states that over 94% of kids who
get set up for adoption get adopted within 4 years. I imagine they all get adopted within 7 years. Not only that, but since adoption costs a lot of money, this may sound like a negative but in reality, it means that only rich people are adopting.

In conclusion, over 94% of kids who get set up for adoption get adopted and they get adopted to relatively well off families who want to adopt. How's adoption bad?

Any that don't get adopted in that one fiscal year carry over to the next year.

My theory on this is that the foster system gets their money from kids being adopted since it costs lots of money to adopt from the foster system.

"Some women have disorders and they would have to cease taking medication in order to carry a fetus to term. There are many reasons a woman will choose to have an abortion and it's not the governments job to ban her from doing so." They might be able to live their drug addict lifestyle anyway, but that's a digression. If they planned to set a kid up for adoption and they don't want to anymore, then why would they change their minds?

"Another thing I would like to point out on this subject is that over turning Roe vs Wade will not eliminate or likely substantially decrease abortion." Yes it will. When abortion became legal in 1973, the abortion rate skyrocketed. It then fell down due to contraception control, which I support and so do 80% of Republicans.

"The countries where abortion is outlawed have a higher rate of abortion than countries where it is legal." It's comparable and due to other factors, like Conception control.

In overturning Roe vs Wade, illegal abortions will increase and place women at risk. "There also is the issue on how to criminalize abortion and how to defer a miscarriage from an abortion." Women should get punished for abortions. Once abortion becomes classified as murder, then it should be treated like murder. Anyone who commits an abortion when it is illegal should get punished like a murderer.

"Evidence has shown that the answer to greatly reducing abortion rates is access to affordable birth control and adequate sex education, not banning it." I don't want to ban condoms or sex ed classes. I want abstinence to be encouraged but IUDs and condoms to be a last resort. Also, people should pay for their own conception control.
Debate Round No. 2
ABoleman

Pro

"The claim that a fetus is a human being is not an opinion, but a fact and one that's backed up by scientific evidence. Person is a legal term. Unfortunately a fetus is not a person, but they should be because they are a scientific human." Scientists agree that "life" begins at conception & this life is capable of becoming a person, but life is a broad definition. Which is why I said a human-being/person. Science is constantly evolving and scientists cannot collectively agree on when a fetus is a human-being. One argument is the "twinning argument", where up to two weeks after fertilization the zygote can split into multiple zygotes. If at conception a zygote is considered a human-being, it does not make sense that a human-being split themselves in half and create an entire new human-being with the same DNA. Here is a link to scientists opposing theories on when a fetus is considered human-being: http://science.jburroughs.org...

Here is the citation for foster care systems costing $4.3 billion dollars and over 600,000 kids in the system. For all these people who want to adopt so badly, where are they for these kids, who are actual sentient human-beings: http://www.adoptioncouncil.org...

You stated that 94% of children get adopted within 4 years. Yes, because only 4% of women choose adoption for their unwanted pregnancies. After a few years of forcing women to carry pregnancies to term supply will outweigh demand and there will be even more children in the foster care system. "With few exceptions, if any kids don"t get messed up in the system." What? There are thousands of horror stories about children who have suffered both physically and psychologically in the foster care system. Again, all these supposed people so desperate to adopt should focus firstly on the actual children in this world and not a fetus.

I never said adoption was bad, I said it is not a good alternative. Carrying a pregnancy to term even when you want the child take a toll on women physically and emotionally. Giving birth is a huge commitment & there are risks for complications. No body should be forced to do that if they don"t want to, because a fetus is not a person, whereas a woman is a person and should choose what she decides to do with her body.

"They might be able to live their drug addict lifestyle anyway, but that's a digression. If they planned to set a kid up for adoption and they don't want to anymore, then why would they change their minds?" How is that a digression? Again are you pro-life or pro-birth. Would you not argue that a fundamental aspect of pro-life would be wanting a child to be healthy or not risk dying in complications due to the mother using drugs and drinking throughout her pregnancy? You just said they might live their drug addicted lifestyle anyway, but it"s okay as long as they"re born. It"s preferable to birth a drug addicted baby that will suffer and feel pain than to abort a fetus when it is incapable of feeling pain. Women do sometimes change their mind about adoption, maybe after being forced to go through all that she would want something out of it. However, if we are taking away a woman"s right to choose perhaps we can also deem unfit mothers to have to give up their newborns as well.

There will be no way to measure exactly how many abortions are performed if they are being done illegally. In fact, you can literally have an abortion by taking a pill now, if successful there will be no way to know one has had an abortion but if it"s unsuccessful the woman will be placed at risk. Again, studies show that banning abortion does not stop abortion but increases dangerous abortions.

You are saying anyone who gets an abortion should be treated as a murderer? That"s honestly ridiculous to me as there are so many layers to a women"s choice to abort and a fetus is again not equivalent to an actual person. & as I argued before, it is not always detectable when someone has had an abortion versus when they miscarry. You are risking giving women a life sentence for miscarriage, I never thought I would see the day where we wanted to be our society to align with El Salvador.

You want abstinence to be encouraged but that"s unrealistic lol. People want to have sex and they are going to, especially when abstinence is encouraged. Birth control is not always effective. Many people who had abortions used some method of birth control. If my birth control fails me, I am 100% getting an abortion & no one is going to force me to have a child. That is my choice and my choice only & just because you think conception is a human-being is completely irrelevant to what I choose to do with my body. If you feel that way, don"t have an abortion.
asta

Con

Which is why I said a human-being/person. Science is constantly evolving and scientists cannot collectively agree on when a fetus is a human-being." It only evolves on some issues. Either a fetus is a human being or a fetus isn't. And the evidence like chromosomes and meeting the criteria for life are evidence that a fetus is a human being.

"If at conception a zygote is considered a human-being, it does not make sense that a human-being split themselves in half and create an entire new human-being with the same DNA." Why not. The cell asexually reproduced. It happens right now. My cells are doing it, so are yours, it"s just on a more significant scale for the zygote.

"Here is a link to scientists opposing theories on when a fetus is considered human-being: http://science.jburroughs.org...;

Some scientists are for and against abortion. But saying that pro choice scientists represent true science is just like saying an evangelical pastor represents true Christianity. Just because you have a title and believe that you truly represent something does not mean you do.
A true christian would live by the way they interpret the bible. This requires biblical evidence
A true pro science person would believe what science confirms. This requires scientific evidence.
Is there any pro choice scientific evidence? Your site said something about a fetus being conscious/feeling pain. A sleeping person feels less pain when killed then a conscious person does when being punched. Does this mean that it should only be a misdemeanor to kill a sleeping person if they can only barely feel pain? No. Pain isn't the only thing that makes an action bad.
"Here is the citation for foster care systems costing $4.3 billion dollars and over 600,000 kids in the system. For all these people who want to adopt so badly, where are they for these kids, who are actual sentient human-beings: http://www.adoptioncouncil.org...;
The foster system should get funded by other ways, but that"s a tangent. Those 600,000 kids will eventually get adopted. It"s like school. It takes time to move through the process.
"You stated that 94% of children get adopted within 4 years. Yes, because only 4% of women choose adoption for their unwanted pregnancies." I think these statistics are unrelated. And more then 4% of women set their unwanted pregnancies up for adoption. Currently, 43% of unwanted pregnencies end in abortion (http://shriverreport.org...). This is a left leaning site. Some people choose to parent their child, which is their choice. Assuming all unwanted people get set up for adoption, which is free(http://www.americanadoptions.com...), 57% of the kids form this will end up in foster systems, and that"s the current status quo. If abortion was illegal, and all would be aborted kids were set up for adoption, although the adoption rate rises, it only doubles. The adoption agency becomes twice as powerful. It would only cost only about $3.24 billion extra dollars, about $10 per US citizen in tax money. The adoption system ideally should get funded differently, but I only have so many characters and I digress a lot. I apologize for the digression.
"There are thousands of horror stories about children who have suffered both physically and psychologically in the foster care system." Can you site this? I know some foster kids myself and they aren"t messed up. CNN also claims they don"t get messed up(http://ireport.cnn.com...). The foster system may be messed up, that doesn"t mean the kids inside it are.

"Again, all these supposed people so desperate to adopt should focus firstly on the actual children in this world and not a fetus." What if the children are already fine?

"Carrying a pregnancy to term even when you want the child take a toll on women physically and emotionally." I don"t want them to make the woman feel bad. I want them to live. If the woman didn"t want the child, she could have not have had sex or if she did, she could use an IUD.

"because a fetus is not a person, whereas a woman is a person and should choose what she decides to do with her body." A fetus should be classified as a person because of bullet point #1.

"Would you not argue that a fundamental aspect of pro-life would be wanting a child to be healthy or not risk dying in complications due to the mother using drugs and drinking throughout her pregnancy?" When I said that, I meant they MIGHT be allowed to do that. If their drug addiction is weed, then fine. If it"s crack, then no.

"You just said they might live their drug addicted lifestyle anyway, but it"s okay as long as they"re born." No one is born a drug addict. My grandmother smokes but my Mom never was addicted to smoking. Just because a pregnant woman smokes does not mean the baby will get addicted.

"Women do sometimes change their mind about adoption, maybe after being forced to go through all that she would want something out of it." If she wants to parent the kid, then fine.

"However, if we are taking away a woman"s right to choose perhaps we can also deem unfit mothers to have to give up their newborns as well." Depends on your definition of unfit. My definition of an unfit parent is one who can"t afford to take care of the child without the government and/or is a child abuser.

"There will be no way to measure exactly how many abortions are performed if they are being done illegally." Websites already measure it.

Again, studies show that banning abortion does not stop abortion but increases dangerous abortions." Every abortion is dangerous since it kills a human life. This will sound harsh but when women had abortions when it was illegal, they kindof deserved to die because at that time, they murdered a baby. This is a tangent on the death penalty.

"You are saying anyone who gets an abortion should be treated as a murderer?" How is this ridiculous? It"s ideological consistency. It only applies to people who have an abortion once it"s illegal.

"there are so many layers to a woman's choice to abort and a fetus is again not equivalent to an actual person." There are also many pro life lawyers.

"It is not always detectable when someone has had an abortion versus when they miscarry." When illegal, the judicial system gets information that would be proof of a deliberate abortion and that would cause the woman to get punished, if there is enough proof.

"I never thought I would see the day where we wanted to be our society to align with El Salvador." This is just like me saying, "You want abortion to be legal! I never thought I would see the day where we wanted to be our society to align with North Korea and China". Whether or not other countries have abortion restrictions should not determine our laws. We should not be influenced by them. Yet, scientists who claim to be independent are pro choice often because the church is pro life. That"s not being independent. That"s depending on what the church had to say. If thee church was pro choice, science would probably be pro life.

"You want abstinence to be encouraged but that"s unrealistic lol." Why not? I do it until marriage. There should be a punishment for premarital sex like a $500 fine unless done with an IUD to deter dangerous sex.

"Birth control is not always effective." If abortion were illegal, people would make safer sex decisions. It"s not like countries where it is illegal have MASSIVE abortion rates. THeir rates are comparable to the west because of conception control differences and I support conception control.

"If my birth control fails me, I am 100% getting an abortion & no one is going to force me to have a child." Thanks for the motivation to convince you not to get an abortion.
Debate Round No. 3
ABoleman

Pro

Science works by developing theories that can later be discredited or proven wrong. One example is pluto no longer being considered a planet, despite previous conviction the definition of what is considered a planet changed . so while technically a zygote/ fetus is considered human "life", scientists can not agree on when it is considered a human-being, that same definition classifies bacteria as life.
pro-life or pro-choice scientists are equivalent as long as they provide evidence for their theories. Evangelical pastors do represent christianity. Just because they are not the majority does not mean they don"t carry representation. By using biblical evidence alone, the bible advocates for genocide, rape, murder, slavery, women being properties etc.
A sleeping person is: a human-being, alive outside of the womb, developed brain/organs, not dependent on someone else"s body to exist, etc. i never said a fetus not experiencing pain was the sole reason for an abortion being ethical.
The fact that it takes four years for an already small amount of children to be adopted and the fact that this figure is not 100%, 20,000 people annually age out of the foster care system without being adopted. If all of women were forced into carrying that fetus to term, that is an extra 3 million kids in the foster care system or on welfare within 5 years.. Here is just one example from the state of California https://boothkoskoff.com.... Social workers in the foster care system are understaffed, overworked and have a high turnover rate, meaning that they struggle with the time or resources to properly monitor foster homes. In less than 2 years: "276 cases of foster abuse in the state of California. However, an investigation by the Los Angeles Times uncovered that the state underreported foster abuse cases to meet the national standard of 0.32%..". That's good that your friends weren't messed up in the foster care system, unfortunately that is not everyone's reality. I know a pair of siblings that were aged out in the foster care system and changed group homes over 10 times and were constantly abused. I also knew someone who was a foster parent for the income, mentally abused the kids and pocketed most of the money for herself, barely taking care of them. Also: http://www.tampabay.com.... The opioid epidemic is a great example of what can happen when there are too many children in the system and not enough resources. "The instability that comes from being bounced from home to home causes emotional, psychological, and physical harm. We literally cannot take care of all of the children in the system today, so putting hundreds and thousands more in the system is only going to cause further issues.

Adoption is not an alternative for abortion because you still would be required to carry the pregnancy for 9 months & birth it. Some women get extremely sick, experience a lot of pain, struggle with mental disorders from the change in hormones (ie post partnum depression). Having a complicated or painful pregnancy can get in the way of a woman"s career or education. Mind you, the US has one of the worst maternity leave options for women of developed countries. Most of maternity leave is unpaid. Then you are either required to go through labor or have a major surgery to remove it. The United States has the highest maternal mortality rate of all of the first world developed countries. Why should someone be forced to risk their life over a fetus they do not want? I have a right to bodily autonomy therefore I have the right to choose if I want to put my body through that or take those risks,no one is required to give blood, or a kidney transplant even if that results in the death of the person needing one. Almost everyone agrees with the sentiment that abortion should be allowed in the case of incest or rape, or at the very least if the woman's life is at risk - which further proves that while a fetus is biologically human "life" it is not the same thing as an actual human-being.

"When I said that, I meant they MIGHT be allowed to do that. If their drug addiction is weed, then fine. If it"s crack, then no." Just so you know, you can't decide or control what people's addictions are.Should women who are addicts and admit won"t quit be banned from abortion? The rate of babies born addicted to drugs has quadrupled in the last two decades, some hospitals are opening up seperate wings specifically for these babies.
IUDs can cost over $1,000 without insurance, many women cannot afford this and unless the government wants to provide free IUD"s to everyone, this cannot be required or expected."When abortion is legal, data can be measured more accurately by health statistics and reports. when Abortion is illegal, they rely on other methods such as looking at " abortion-related" complications in hospitals and surveys. Some people have no complications, or would not admit they had one in the survey out of fear of persecution. So that estimated number could be much higher."
"Every abortion is dangerous since it kills a human life. This will"sound harsh but when when women had abortions when it was illegal, they kindof deserved to die because at that time, they murdered a baby. This is a tangent on the death penalty." Again, something being biologically life is not a person/baby."50% of pregnancies result in a miscarriage in the first trimester, should they be charged with manslaughter in the same way accidentally killing a person is charged? No, this is because a fetus is not equivalent. And I don"t understand the logic of being pro-life and supporting the death penalty, makes no sense but anyway,
I completely understand that there are pro-life layers, I respect your decision. That is why you don"t have to ever get an abortion, and I would fight for your right to make that choice.
The judicial system is incredibly flawed. A woman could be wrongfully convicted or tried as a criminal for a miscarriage.
Comparing us to El Salvador is not comparable to saying having legal abortions makes us like China and North Korea. El Salvador had abortions completely illegal and jails women for getting them, which is what you want. China and North Korea have forced abortions. Pro-choice is not pro-abortion, I don"t think anyone should be forced what to do with her body.
Science does not depend on what the church thinks. The fact that science contradicts the Bible is simply a matter of being educated & actually studying and questioning things before accepting them in blind faith. Your whole argument is based on a scientific term for "life" yet you are questioning scientists and saying their options rely on the church. Do you believe in science or do you not? You want to fine people $500 for having sex, how will that be monitored? How are they gonna pay for that? Lots of poor people have sex, but no worries let"s just throw them in jail when they don"t pay along with anyone who aborts, and put people with miscarriages on trial costing us a bunch of tax-payer dollars. Meanwhile, have to open more foster cares for all these children who"s parents are in jail/ don"t want them. This is the material made for a dystopian novel."
You could never convince me to be anti-choice bc I respect every person"s right to choose. A fetus is not equivalent to a person, until you pro-lifers decide to carry our unwanted fetuses in your own womb, I will decide what to do with my body.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by mosc 10 hours ago
mosc
@ABoleman
The American Civil War did not directly concern slavery as such, but rather States Rights. The question of how to interpret the commerce clause within the Constitution. Slaves existed as property. Did the Federal Government have the authority to regulate trade between States and Territories, lands not part of and outside the Union of the States of the Republic?

The Confederate States argued that State rights gave economic autonomy to the States. The Yankee Washington held that the Central Government had the power to regulate not only inter State trade but also trade conducted by States and Territories and foreign governments as well.

Lincoln did not free the slaves until following the battle of Gettysburg in 1864 - the 4th year of the Civil War!

You write: ""no state may deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.""

No. The above quote refers strictly and only to US citizens N O T to illegal aliens or stateless refugees from foreign countries.

The American revolution wherein American attained independence from England did not supernaturally bestow powers upon the American people to give rights to people of foreign countries. If an American citizen - who enjoys Constitutional rights - if this woman gets pregnant, ignoring the Roe vs Wade error made by the Supreme Court, b/c a nation no one generation makes, the Constitution which gives rights to its citizens gives rights by definition to its future born citizens as well. Why? Because no one generation makes a nation and the US Constitution protects the rights of all citizens of America - both currently living and those born into the future.
Posted by ABoleman 15 hours ago
ABoleman
@mosc, that"s awkward.. why was the whole slavery thing removed from the constitution then. Also illegals and refugees do have some rights, in the exact amendment you were quoting; "no state may deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Does not specify citizens. Fetuses are not people nor are they citizens lol. They don"t have their papers any more than the illegals do lol
Posted by mosc 2 days ago
mosc
@ABoleman
" I said a fetus is not equivalent to a human-being, it simply has the capability to become one " BUNK.

The fetus in the womb, that's the future generations of the nation. Trees make a forest, they do not make a nation. Big difference.

" The constitution is written in terminology that is outdated and can be is not translated verbatim in today"s society." Bunk. The Constitution its the law of the country. George Bush who called it just a GD piece of paper besides being a vile war criminal - that pig he's an idiot. He swore an oath to up hold and defend the Constitution. If a man's word exists only as lies, that man constitutes as a pig.

Its the Constitutional function of the Supreme Court to interpret the intent of the Framers. Frankly the Supreme Court of the 1880s totally sucked eggs when those morons ruled that Corporations are People. The same holds true with the SC ruling of Roe vs. Wade!

"A life is a human-being , an undeveloped fetus is not a human-being protected under the constitution." Bunk. The Constitution extends rights to all citizens and future born citizens. Illegal aliens and stateless refugees have no Constitutional rights because they do not exist as US citizens. But an American woman just as she has Constitutional rights so too does the children - future American citizens - have Constitutional rights. Why? B/c a nation its not determined by one generation. Duh.
Posted by ABoleman 2 days ago
ABoleman
@ Mosc, no single generation makes a nation. I never said that. I said a fetus is not equivalent to a human-being, it simply has the capability to become one . That is like comparing a seed to a tree.
2. The constitution is written in terminology that is outdated and can be is not translated verbatim in today"s society. For example, a "well regulated militia" is not any random person buying a gun on a 2 day waiting period without any training, however that is how that language is trainslated today. A life is a human-being , an undeveloped fetus is not a human-being protected under the constitution. This same constitution has also considered slaves as 2/3 of a person so please don"t take it so literally lmao . Number 3, since i refuted both of the above sentiments, i guess the simple answer is no, lol if fetuses were protected under the constitution, abortion would not have been legal for 30+ years. People stand by the second amendment as a constitutional right so strongly that we can have 400+ mass shootings a year but can"t change anything regarding gun laws lol. Conclusively, a fetus is not a human-being, a woman"s choice over her body comes first and foremost.
Posted by mosc 2 days ago
mosc
Bunk on Science. 1. No single generation makes a nation. 2. The Constitution protects : Life liberty and the pursuit of wealth. 3. The lives of the future, as yet unborn generations, the Constitution protects their rights of #2 because of #1.
Posted by asta 3 days ago
asta
According to http://www.adopt.org......, it states that over 94% of kids who
get set up for adoption get adopted within 4 years. I imagine they all get adopted within 7 years. Not only that, but since adoption costs a lot of money, this may sound like a negative but in reality, it means that only rich people are adopting.

In conclusion, over 94% of kids who get set up for adoption get adopted and they get adopted to relatively well off families who want to adopt. How's adoption bad?

Any that don't get adopted in that one fiscal year carry over to the next year.
Posted by kwbc 3 days ago
kwbc
"I care a lot about strangers kids, which is why I want them to be neglected for their entire youth by placing them in federally funded foster homes where they will face abuse, emotional problems and will cost the taxpayer exponentially more in the long run than a simple abortion."
There is no justification for being "pro-life"
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.