The Instigator
briannecarias
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
PointyDelta
Pro (for)
Winning
2 Points

Is abortion bad

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 1 vote the winner is...
PointyDelta
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/19/2016 Category: Health
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 502 times Debate No: 85198
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)

 

briannecarias

Con

I feel like abortion is the most horrific way to hurt a child. i am against abortion no matter what.
PointyDelta

Pro

I accept. glhf
Debate Round No. 1
briannecarias

Con

I feel like abortion is the most horrific way to hurt a child. I am against abortion no matter what. Abortion is a sad cruel way to end a baby's life. Over 1.2 million babies die because of abortion each year. What if the child that died could have grown up and become a doctor or cure cancer. While you are reading this a child is dying because of an adults ignorance. As early as 12 weeks a fetus has already formed a small full human body. By 8 weeks a fetus has formed a spine which means the fetus can feel pain. Dr. Nathan's an early proponent became a pro-life campaigner after he saw a 12 week old fetus scream during an abortion. If murder is not allowed, neither should abortion. In 2011 7.3% of all abortions occurs between 14-20 weeks gestation. 1.4% occurred 21 weeks gestation according to the CDC. The birth of a child is beautiful. Every year 2.4 million women or 14% of women are wanting to adopt, at least 1% of these women manage to complete an adoption.
PointyDelta

Pro

Thank you Con.
Okay.

A couple of things.
1.) There has been no definition of what abortion is. I'll get along to that later.

2.)We have heard lots of opinions, but no backupable facts viz. 'I am against abortion no matter what'

3.) The 'facts' that have been provided are sourceless- you could have just made them up.

On to line by line rebuttal.

'I feel like abortion is the most horrific way to hurt a child. I am against abortion no matter what. Abortion is a sad cruel way to end a baby's life. '

Opinions, no facts.

'Over 1.2 million babies die because of abortion each year. '

Irrelevant. Also, where does this 1.2m figure come from? I'd also object to the calling of foetuses 'babies', but, again, I'd like to get on to that later.

'What if the child that died could have grown up and become a doctor or cure cancer. '
Irrelevant. What could have been is incredibly unreliable - the baby could just have easily been a mass murderer or a junkie.

'While you are reading this a child is dying because of an adults ignorance.'
Irrelevant. Again, this is NOT a child. It is very important to understand the difference.

'As early as 12 weeks a fetus has already formed a small full human body.'
Proof?

' By 8 weeks a fetus has formed a spine which means the fetus can feel pain.'
Ummm, no. The nervous system (which enables humans to feel pain) is propagated by the nerve endings, travelling up the spinal cord, and then to the brain. While it is true that the spinal cord is important to the nervous system, it is not an end in and of itself. [4]

' Dr. Nathan's an early proponent became a pro-life campaigner after he saw a 12 week old fetus scream during an abortion.'
Who is 'Dr. Nathan's' [sic]? Why should we care about his opinion?

'If murder is not allowed, neither should abortion.
Why?

'In 2011 7.3% of all abortions occurs between 14-20 weeks gestation. 1.4% occurred 21 weeks gestation according to the CDC. '
OK. I fail to see how this is relevant to your case- and these figures (should they actually be true) are actively harmful- as they suggest a very small minority of abortions are after 14 weeks.

'The birth of a child is beautiful.'
Subjective, irrelevant.

'Every year 2.4 million women or 14% of women are wanting to adopt, at least 1% of these women manage to complete an adoption.'
Irrelevant.

All of these figures are unsubstantiated, and so they can be disregarded.

On to my points.
Let's start with some definitions.

Abortion =
The deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks.[1]
Pain receptors=
Any one of the many free nerve endings throughout the body that warn of potentially harmful changes in the environment, such as excessive pressure or temperature.[2]
POINTS

P1
The fetus does not feel pain up to 20 weeks.[3]

My source for this section is a reputable medical journal. Anyhow, for those who are too lazy to read it, it says (in essence) that at 20 weeks, pain receptors are widespread, and therefore the fetus feels pain(possibly) at that point. However, it goes on to say that the pain receptors are not 'connected' to the brain until 29-30 weeks. This means that most scientists feel that there is no emotional 'pain' until 30 weeks. 28 weeks, which is the standard almost globally, is well short of that, meaning that according to our current science, the fetus does not feel pain, thus refuting a common argument, that of the fetus feeling pain

P2
'My body, my choice'
The fetus is completely dependent upon the mother while in the womb for its nutrition etc. This means that the fetus CAN be considered a part of a mother's body. We give freedom, in our society, for people to do what they want with their body (generally).
Therefore we should allow mothers to 'abort' a part of their body with that same freedom we allow for, for example, plastic surgery.

NOTE: This argument was taken from another of my debates on abortion.

1.)https://www.google.co.uk......
2.)http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com......
3.)http://anes-som.ucsd.edu......;
4.)http://www.highlands.edu...
Debate Round No. 2
briannecarias

Con

okay here's my arguments.
!. abortion can not only kill the baby but may cause future medical problems for the mother.
2. abortion promotes a culture in witch human life is disposable
3. the original Hippocratic oath traditionally taken by doctors when swearing to practice medicine ethically, forbids abortions
4. if women should become pregnant they should accept the responsibility that comes with producing a child.
5.women should not use abortion as a form of contraception. Many women have undergone three or more previous abortions. using it as a contraception method many women are using contraception are using it as birth control.
links
1.http://afterabortion.org...
2. http://www.jillstanek.com...
3.http://www.abort73.com...
4.http://abortion.procon.org...
PointyDelta

Pro

Thank you Con (Pro?)

REBUTTAL

R1
'abortion can not only kill the baby'
Whoa, whoa. Hold up. There is no baby here that we are talking about. The correct term is foetus.
'but may cause future medical problems'


Okay. I think it's very important that the reader of this debate understand the website that this claim comes from. This website is www.afterabortion.org.

This website describes itself as 'More Than 25 Years of Pro-Woman/Pro-Life Leadership'. This is highly unlikely to be unbiased, and a reliable source. However, it does raise a valid concern- it references a Swedish study in 1997 which supposedly showed a higher death rate for abortion [1] - Gissler et al. I found this study [2].

Here are a couple of problems with it.
1.) Of 9,192 women of all 'fertile aged women' (whatever that means), only 281 of them actually were pregnant during their last year of life. This is a very small sample size and as such is not very good to back up such a sweeping statement as 'abortion kills' (made by the website)
2.)According to the website mentioned in Con's (Pro's?) argument 'Approximately 10% of women undergoing induced abortion suffer from immediate complications, of which one-fifth (2%) were considered major.' All right. so we take that, and we apply it to our 281. We get 5.62, which we can round up to six. In the whole of Finland, six died from (possibly)abortion-based complications.
3.)Six. This is categorically not enough to make the statement 'abortion kills mothers'
4.) And as the study (quite rightly) admits 'The current official classification of maternal deaths as indirect, direct and fortuitous is arbitrary'
5.)The point of this study was only to look at the classification of maternal deaths, NOT to look at abortion in any way
6.)The study, again says 'The classification of other than direct maternal deaths was ambiguous', meaning the assertion of abortion leads to suicide by this website BY ITS OWN EVIDENCE is disproven

NOTE: The study in question is a good piece of scientific work, and I am not attempting to 'diss' or otherwise demean its methodology, simply that the argument made by the website is invalid.

R2

Ohhkay. First things first, www.jillstanek.com is run by (suprise)
'Jill Stanek [who is] a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.'
Again, not a unbiased source.

This is actually a good learning opportunity. This is a perfect example of the fallacy of authority- assuming something must be correct because it is said by an authority figure (in this case the Pope). It is not, there is no other evidence that 'abortion promotes a culture in witch human life is disposable'

R3
Sigh. Again, abort73.com is not a unbiased etc etc

This is the Hippocratic Oath, as reproduced by the webpage (here for amusement purposes)
I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.'

I'd like to know just why the website thinks that the original version is in any way 'better' than the modern version, which is now taken by all doctors.

The modern version [3] contains the phrase
' But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty.', which you may find personally pertinent. However, as I stated above, this is not a life that we are 'taking', and Con (pro?) has failed to refute this point.


R4
Why?

This is the same as plagarism, so I am going to disregard it and I would encourage the reader to do the same.

R5
No source, and so can also be disregarded.

My arguments currently stand, extend. If Con(Pro) does not rebut them next round this debate should be considered an autowin for me.

1.)http://afterabortion.org...;
2.) http://www.tandfonline.com...
3.)http://www.imaapstate.com...;
Debate Round No. 3
briannecarias

Con

Since life begins at conception, abortion is akin to murder as it is the act of taking human life. Abortion is in direct defiance of the commonly accepted idea of the sanctity of human life
No civilized society permits one human to intentionally harm or take the life of another human without punishment, and abortion is no different.
Adoption is a viable alternative to abortion and accomplishes the same result. And with 1.5 million American families wanting to adopt a child, there is no such thing as an unwanted child.
An abortion can result in medical complications later in life; the risk of ectopic pregnancies doubles, and the chance of a miscarriage and pelvic inflammatory disease also increases.
In the instance of rape and incest, proper medical care can ensure that a woman will not get pregnant. Abortion punishes the unborn child who committed no crime; instead, it is the perpetrator who should be punished.
Abortion should not be used as another form of contraception.
For women who demand complete control of their body, control should include preventing the risk of unwanted pregnancy through the responsible use of contraception or, if that is not possible, through abstinence.
Many Americans who pay taxes are opposed to abortion, therefore it's morally wrong to use tax dollars to fund abortion.
Those who choose abortions are often minors or young women with insufficient life experience to understand fully what they are doing. Many have lifelong regrets afterwards.
Abortion frequently causes intense psychological pain and stress.
P.S. im doing this so i can pass my debate class. sorry im not that good. btw your really good dont give up on debate.
PointyDelta

Pro

Thank you Con (Pro?)

Again, Con's argument suffers from the same flaw in her first and second round - no sources.

My points stand - Vote Pro(Con?)

A few pointers for the future to Con

1.) Sources, sources, sources. You absolutely need to use sources, and not just let them do the work for you. Also, check the biasses(?) of your source- and dig deeper into it if needed!

2.)Structure. You seemed to just be having a sort of 'rant' - make sure you say things like 'now on to the points'

3.)Rebuttal is very important. If you do not rebut, then your opponents points always stand, meaning they autowin the debate! (not good)

Good luck in your future debate and I hope you pass your class :)

Vote Pro!
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by PointyDelta 10 months ago
PointyDelta
Jerry states that a fetus is simply an unborn baby. False, the fetus has the potential to become a baby. Potential and actually being are two different things.
Posted by whiteflame 10 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Tashasays// Mod action: Removed<

6 points to Pro (S&G, Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: While I would like to give con points for a valiant effort, there is no section for more emotionally compelling. I think pro could have been more sensitive and less factual due to con's apparent appeal for sympathy. Nevertheless, pro was ruthless, calculating and methodical. Pro easily won all categories with facts, logic and reliable sources. Con also had a few grammatical errors. Actually, I change my mind. For conduct, it was a tie.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) S&G: the presence of grammatical mistakes doesn't warrant this point allocation. The voter has to have a difficult time reading the arguments of one side, otherwise this point cannot be awarded. (2) Sources: the voter has to explain why one side's sources were dramatically more reliable than the other's. This RFD does not. (3) Arguments: The voter needs to point to specific arguments made in the debate and directly address why certain arguments outstripped others. While emotional arguments may be worse than factual ones, the voter has to compare specific points and not just state that they fall into these two camps.
************************************************************************
Posted by Jerry947 10 months ago
Jerry947
Pro stated this "Whoa, whoa. Hold up. There is no baby here that we are talking about. The correct term is fetus."

I hope they realize that a fetus is merely an unborn baby?

I can't believe people get away with these type of arguments...
Posted by Cobalt 10 months ago
Cobalt
Hey, I wouldn't have been harsh like that if it didn't look like you had talent. I'm looking forward to your doping debate.
Posted by PointyDelta 10 months ago
PointyDelta
Thank you Cobalt. I'm always looking for feedback! :)
Posted by Cobalt 10 months ago
Cobalt
I was quite unhappy with PointyDelta's performance. Clearly he/she is an intelligent person, but the debate style he/she utilized seemed cheap.

Conduct - Con. Pro spent most of his time criticizing Con's sources, most often claiming that the point in question didn't need to be addressed because it was unsourced or from a biased source. If militantatheists.org says "according to the Bible, Jesus is the son of God", it doesn't discredit the claim. A biased claim can still be true or false. Your job is not to only point out the bias, but to demonstrate where the bias specifically exists and how it impacts the claim. Most importantly, it is your job to defeat the logic presented in the biased claim.

Debaters are given reasonable leeway when making claims and sources should really only affect a voter's opinion of that claim when it's debater A's claim verses debater B's claim to the contrary.

As such, I am giving conduct to Con.

S&G - Null. Pro had better spelling and grammar overall, but I don't award this point unless a debater's s&g was so bad as to negatively affect the readability of the debate.

Most convincing arguments - Null. Pro made many good arguments backed up by evidence, but Pro also failed to adequately address many of Con's arguments. As previously noted, "Claim A is bad because evidence A is probably biased" does not alone constitute a good argument.

Sources - Pro. Pro had more sources and the sources provided were more from more reliable sources. (Meaning the evidence that was clashing was won by Pro.)

I chose the distribution of points such that Pro did effectively win my ballot, since he did win the debate. But Pro should make sure to adequately address sourced arguments in his next debate.
Posted by NocturnalStelal 10 months ago
NocturnalStelal
Could you provide links to where you receive your information in your debate so that we may look at it ourselves, too?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Cobalt 10 months ago
Cobalt
briannecariasPointyDeltaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:12 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.