The Instigator
Vi_Veri
Pro (for)
Winning
17 Points
The Contender
PoeJoe
Con (against)
Losing
8 Points

Kleptin Tournament: Abortion

Do you like this debate?NoYes+7
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 4 votes the winner is...
Vi_Veri
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/22/2010 Category: Health
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 9,419 times Debate No: 11841
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (116)
Votes (4)

 

Vi_Veri

Pro

Thank you, PoeJoe, for participation in this tournament and for gladly accepting my debate challenge!

This is a special debate for Kleptin's special debate tourney:

http://www.debate.org...

The debate this is based off of is:

http://www.debate.org...

Voting rules:

"The categories give you 7 points to play with. The contender will always be the one trying to defeat his or her old arguments.

"Use the 7 points to show how well the contender managed to respond to his/her old arguments. A link to the contender's old debate should be available.

"If the contender made some roundabout attempt to avoid arguing against his/her old argument, then be the judge. If you felt it was clever and applicable, award full points. If you found it desperate and unconvincing, give points to the opponent."

Finally, only people participating in this tournament may vote.

__________________________________________________________________

ARGUMENTS:

Conclusion: Abortion should remain legal.

Reasons:

1. A fetus is not a human being.
2. Potential life is not equal to actual life.
3. Anti-abortion laws infringe on a woman's rights.
4. Illegal abortions are dangerous.
5. A human's essence is not premeditatedly determined by some destiny.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. A Fetus is Not a Human Being

In order for killing to be illegal, it must fall under the category of "murder." A murder is defined by US law Code, at Title 18, as:

"Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought."

Abortion does not fall under the category of "murder" because a fetus is not a human being. Wiktionary, for instance, defines a human being as, "A human being, whether man, woman, or child; Of or belonging to the species Homo sapiens or its closest relatives." --- You will not find a single unbiased, professional dictionary that adds "fetus" to what a human being is.

One does not consider a dead human body a "human being." We consider it the remains. One does not consider sperm or eggs as human beings. We do not consider a baby born without a brain a human being - only an empty body void of any life. What makes one a human being is a functioning brain, a body that can sustain the brain, and complete development as according to the plans of it's DNA.

A quick metaphor:

When you are building a car, you do not call the engine the car. You call it the engine. When you are halfway done with the car, it is still not the car yet. Once the car has been completed can it be considered an actual car.

The same applies for a human being. Until a human being is fully developed, it is not a human but stem cells forming and developing into a complete human.

2. Potential Life is Not Equal to Actual Life

Because a cellular structure that is moving toward the development of a full human being does not have all of the properties of a fully developed human (just as an engine, seats, and spark plugs don't make you a car alone), they are not equal according to Leibniz Law of identity (X is the same as Y if, and only if, X and Y have all the same properties and relations; thus, whatever is true of X is also true of Y, and vice-versa).

If the act of destroying potential life ought to be illegal, then masturbation ought to be illegal as well. Any person who knowingly masturbates is committing a murder. We should condemn men to imprisonment for manslaughter when they have a wet dream (they destroyed tons of potential life making sperm). Women who have a period every month should also be condemned to imprisonment for manslaughter. A person who fights rape should be condemned to prison for murder, refusing to be promiscuous should be condemned as murder, and so forth.

Potential life does not equal actual life, just as your potential to murder someone does not equal you actually murdering someone until the full act has been committed.

3. Anti-abortion laws infringe on a woman's rights.

Abortion is necessary in cases where a mother's life is at jeopardy if she gives birth. When a doctor diagnoses a woman with such a condition, then she should have the opportunity to abort the fetus and save herself. A woman should not be forced to give up her life. A human being has the right, under our legal system, to protect their property and life.

A woman has the right to do with her body as she pleases. If someone wishes to tattoo, brand, or pierce themselves, it is perfectly legal. If someone wishes to chop off their finger, it is perfectly legal. If a woman decides she wants to get rid of a growing mass of cells in her uterus, it should be perfectly legal for her to do so just as it is perfectly legal for her to remove a cancerous mass or use an anti-biotic to kill a bacteria in her body.

4. Illegal Abortions are Dangerous

If abortions were made illegal, women would not stop having abortions. Back ally abortions would become the popular method, and the past has taught us the fallacious nature of assuming an illegal status on an activity will stop it from happening. According to Planned Parenthood, "In 1972 there were 1,000,000 illegal abortions and 5,000 to 10,000 women died from them." When Roe v. Wade passed in 1973 (a year after the above-mentioned statistic), deaths from abortion drastically dropped. This is supported by the National Center for Health Statistics' own statistics.

Even if you believe that a fetus is a human being, an illegal abortion can kill two individuals instead of one where a professionally performed abortion is nowhere near as hazardous. It is far healthier, far more moral, and far more reasonable to have abortion available for people who are just going to do it anyway. It will at least save the mother and keep her healthy.

5. A Human's Essence is Not Premeditatedly Determined by Some Destiny.

To go against the argument that a fetus may in fact become a genius that saves millions of human beings: A human's essence is not premeditatedly determined by some destiny, but is determined by his genes and environment. Assuming that a human's essence is determined by a destiny is an invalid claim, and therefore destroys the argument all together.

-----------------------------------

Conclusion: Abortion should remain legal.
PoeJoe

Con

I'd like to thank Vi for engaging with me in this truly controversial debate, and would also like to thank Kleptin for hosting this tournament.

---- Counterarguments ----

1. Fetus is not a human being

My opponent states that for a fetus to be considered a human being, he or she must have a fully developed brain. To establish this point, my opponent states, "You will not find a single unbiased, professional dictionary that adds 'fetus' to what a human being is."

I would thus like to point my opponent to Marriam Webster, which defines a fetus as, "a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth."

So, even if my opponent does not consider a fetus a human being, she must concede that they are developing ones. Given this information, who is to draw the line between what is developed and what is not? Is a newborn developed? What about a child with down syndrome? An eight month old fetus? Such lines are arbitrary, because a human is a human regardless of his or her development.

2. Potential Life is Not Equal to Actual Life

My opponent states that if I were consistent with my position, I should want to outlaw masturbation, because masturbation destroys potential life.

My opponent, however, is missing the entire point: a fetus is alive. On EEGs, electrical brainwaves have been recorded as soon as 43 days.

In biology, the criteria for life are that a life form must exhibit homeostasis, organization, metabolism, growth, adaption to stimuli, and reproduction (source: http://www.sciencemag.org...).

I ask my opponent which of these criteria a fetus fails to pass?

3. Anti-abortion laws infringe on a woman's rights.

Unfortunately, my opponent (being even more of a noob when he created this argument) failed to provide a resolution. I thus propose the resolution, "Abortion should be illegal in the United States except in the instances when the mother's life is at stake."

Vi_Veri, do you accept this resolution? I think it is reasonable, given that even the most battle-hardened pro-lifers agree to abortion under this exception.

4. Illegal Abortions are Dangerous

My opponent states that the number of women dying from back alley abortions would increase if abortion were illegalized.

This, however, is not the case, and it is known that all fetuses die from abortions. So, if it is true that the legality of abortions does not decrease the number of back alley abortions, then my opponent's argument is void.

Let's see what the experts say.

Senator James Buckley stated in front of congress, "Data from foreign countries having far longer experience with legalized abortion than we have had in the US, suggest that legalization has no effect on the criminal abortion rate. In at least three countries, the criminal abortion rate has actually risen since legalization. Legalized abortion moves the back alley abortionists into the front office where their trade can be practiced without fear of criminal prosecution."

Furthermore, according to studies done by David Reardon, between 40 and 85% of women who murdered their unborn children would not have murder their children if abortion were illegal.

Besides, why protect murderers? If you have unprotected (heterosexual) sex, you should accept the responsibilities. You are knowingly accepting the possibility of a baby. I mean, should we outlaw social responsibility?

5. A Human's Essence is Not Premeditatedly Determined by Some Destiny.

My opponent argues, "To go against the argument that a fetus may in fact become a genius that saves millions of human beings: A human's essence is not premeditatedly determined by some destiny, but is determined by his genes and environment. Assuming that a human's essence is determined by a destiny is an invalid claim, and therefore destroys the argument all together."

But God does in fact control our destiny. He has a plan for all of us, and we are destroying His creation and His plans for the murdered baby. God does not discriminate. He loves us all. He wants all to live and prosper. Fetuses are no exception.

Here are a few of my favorite Bible versus that I memorized at Bible Camp last summer:

"For you created my inmost being. You knit me together in my mother's womb.... Your eyes say my unformed body." Psalm 139:13-16

"You shall not murder." Exodus 20:13

"Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves." Proverbs 31:8

---- Arguments ----

Along with negating my opponent's claims, I shall present positive claims as to why abortion should be illegal.

1. Adoption exists

If a mother acts irresponsibly and gets impregnated without wanting to be, she needs not murder her child. If worse comes to worst, she can always kick it Old Testament style, and send that baby down river.

2. Abortion is unhealthy for a mother

According to Dr Jeffrey Barrett, women who have had abortions are seven to fifteen times more likely to develop placenta praevia.

According to Dr Joel Brind, women who have had abortions are at least fifty percent more likely to develop breast cancer--one hundred forty percent more likely if you're a Chinese woman.

Not to mention, the chance of ectopic pregnancies doubles, the chance for miscarriage and pelvic inflammatory disease increases, and depression and regret are very likely. Why allow a mother to harm herself so much? We don't allow people to take heroine, so why should society allow a mother to murder her child and harm herself in the process, also?
Debate Round No. 1
Vi_Veri

Pro

1. A Fetus is Not a Human Being

My opponent brings up the Marriam Webster definition of a fetus that reads, "a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth."

First off, my opponent disregards the fact that I said you will not find a definition of "HUMAN BEING" that has "fetus" listed off. Secondly, a developing human being is not a human being. Just as a developing plan is not yet a plan, or a develping car is not yet a car. I have already explained this in my prior round. Defenition negated.

To answer my opponent's questions: Yes, a new born is a fully developed human being, and so is a child with down's syndrom. The process of becoming a living, independent organism has been completed (even if the child has problems or not). New borns, children with mental disabilities, adults, teenagers, etc all have the same characteristics that make them Homo sapiens. Just as your nervous system alone, or your arm or leg alone are not Homo sapiens, a fetus is not a homo sapien. The organism as a whole is the species. A fetus is not a whole Homo sapien yet.

2. Potential Life is Not Equal to Actual Life

My opponent states that the criteria for life are, "must exhibit [1]homeostasis, [2]organization, [3]metabolism, [4]growth, [5]adaption to stimuli, and [6]reproduction."

I will assume from his point that he wishes to make the statement that if something does not have all 6 of these points, it is not alive. We will follow from here...

[1] To begin, a fetus can not survive outside of the human body. This is a criteria for life. A fetus relies on the mother's womb for homeostasis. Sperm relies on the male body for homeostasis. Sperm, unlike a fetus, can survive outside of the male body for up to 48 hours. A fetus can not surivive outside of the mother's womb (until it is fully developed).

[2] Cells have organization. Sperm are cells.

[3] All cells have metabolism. Sperm are cells.

[4] All life started from a single cell organism. Single cells are highly differentiated, and definetly alive. Sperm are at the uni-cellular stage (which all organisms go through). Humans can "grow" because of their capacity to organize more and more cells. A single celled organism is still alive, even though it doesn't technically "grow." If my oppeonent wishes to push this point, then he must also prove that an amoeba is not alive.

[5] Sperm can respond to stimuli. A fetus only starts responding to stimuli after its brain organization has been completed up to a certain point. Plants even respond to stimuli. If this was the only criteria for life, then uprooting plants would be murder.

[6] A fetus can not reproduce until it is a fully developed human being. A fetus does not have a fully developed reproductive system yet. Sperm, however, can reproduce. Sperm go through meiosis.

As we can see, sperm are alive. What we are arguing about is "Human" life. Organisms are killed every day. From brushing our teeth, to walking on the ground, we kill every single day. What is of deep concern to human beings is the killing of a human being. A fetus is not yet a human being.

3. Anti-Abortion Laws Infringe on a Woman's Rights

I do not agree with my opponent switching up the resultion. The resolution which I have provided is, "Abortion should remain legal." This is a nice tactic to win this point from my opponent, but I will not allow this. Abortion is abortion - even when it is done to save the mother. It is still an abortion. The original opponent proposed that abortion is wrong because it is taking an innocent human life. If my opponent's old opponent was inconsistent with his beliefs, that is of no concern to this debate in which PoeJoe must defeat his old arguments.

4. Illegal Abortions are Dangerous

Let us begin with this statement, "Besides, why protect murderers? If you have unprotected (heterosexual) sex, you should accept the responsibilities. You are knowingly accepting the possibility of a baby. I mean, should we outlaw social responsibility?"

Accidents happen. Even when heterosexual couples use protection, they still have the chance of the condom breaking, etc. Also, rape does occure. Women who are raped should not have to go through pregnancy on top of being sexually violated. My opponent is also begging the question. He has yet to prove that these women are "murderers."

My opponent then goes on to make this statement, "This, however, is not the case, and it is known that all fetuses die from abortions. So, if it is true that the legality of abortions does not decrease the number of back alley abortions, then my opponent's argument is void."

And then he provides two sources which he has conveniently left out of the debate and finally posted in the comments section after I questioned him for them. For the sources of James Buckley and David Reardon, he has supplied the following two websites:

[1] http://www.abortionfacts.com...

[2] http://www.cmf.org.za...

As we can see right off the bat, source number 2 is by a Christian Medical Fellowship. If we look up their Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org...), we see that they are a Christian Evangelical group that links together Christian doctors. In their medical ethics portion, you can see that they take a Pro-life, and hence biased stance on the issue. I refuse, and so should the judges, to take such a biased source. I demand an unbiased source that gives the information Con deems to possess.

When you look at the bottom of the first page of source number 1, you will see that it is sponsored by a group called Heritage House. Here is the link to their website: http://www.heritagehouse76.com...;

I don't think anyone should take a source seriously when the sponsor sells dvd's called "The Silent Scream" with a fetus on the front, and fetus models, among much more anti-abortion propaganda.

Point negated.

5. A Human's Essence is Not Premeditatedly Determined by Some Destiny.

Argument negated on the grounds that the women having abortions may not believe in a destiny god has given them, or believe in god at all. The implementation of anti-abortion laws under a religious clause such as this is violating the division between religion and state. My opponent must supply falsifiable evidence. Bible quotes are not sufficient philosophy or scientific proof.

-----------------

1. Adoption Exists

Adoption means unwanted children. Our orphanages are over crowded. Children are neglected through the system like animals. The majority who do not get adopted are some of society's most tragic cases. . When they grow up, these children are often seriously disadvantaged, and sometimes inclined to brutal behavior toward others. This is not good for children, for families or for the country. There are hundreds of thousands of children up for adoption right now. Why would con want to put more children in this already over crowded system go through this horrible, psychologically damaging up-bringing?

Also, my opponent is assuming all women who get pregnant are irresponsible. Again, con, accidents happen. A woman can take all precautions, and an accident can still happen. Also, again, rape happens.

It should be noted that my opponent thinks it is a good idea to send a baby down river.

2. Abortion is unhealthy for a mother

My opponent has not supplied a single source link to any of his claims. But even if he manages to dig up the actual sources, a woman's decision to do what she wishes to her body is her business. All that professional abortions offer is a SAFER way to perform an abortion that the woman would be performing in a much more hazardous way that leads to either immediate death or mutilation.
PoeJoe

Con

As per the tournament director's decree, the resolution is, "that abortion should be illegal in the United States except in the instances when the mother's life is at stake."

---- Counterarguments ----

1. A Fetus is Not a Human Being.

My opponent seems to believe a developing human being is not a human being. Under this logic, she says it is okay to murder this developing human being. So, I must ask: what is the true difference between a child one day before being released from the womb and a child a day after being released from the womb? And if my opponent's logic is to remain consistent, would it be morally permissible to kill a premature baby?

The answer is of course no.

Again, the line between being released from the womb and not being released from the womb is completely arbitrary, because everyone is developing. A child is developing. A baby a day after being released from the womb is developing. So too is a baby a day before being released, or a week before, or a month, or two months, or...

A human being is developing since the moment of conception. To stop such development is murder.

I want to ask my opponent very explicitly: in what way is being released from the womb not an arbitrary moment in the time of development? Clearly the moment that I have defined (conception) is not arbitrary; it is the moment when development starts. So, what is so special about being released from the womb?

2. Potential Life is Not Equal to Actual Life

My opponent has conceded that a fetus is not potential life but actual life. Where the disagreement lies is in whether a fetus constitutes *human* life. But this is the first point, not the second.

Point negated.

But just to repeat, the reason a fetus constitutes human life is that being released from the womb is a completely arbitrary distinction. Again, what is the difference between a baby before being released from the womb and a day after? Nothing. Extend that all the way to conception.

And that makes sense. If left alone, a fetus will develop. If left alone, a child will also develop. But sperm cells if left alone will not develop into anything. That is, they will not development unless they come into contact with an egg. That is, conception.

3. Anti-Abortion Laws Infringe on a Woman's Rights

As per the tournament director's decree, this point is moot.

Having the abortion when the fetus threatens the life of the mother is called self-defense, but having an abortion simply because you were irresponsible is murder--just like how killing a random stranger on the street would be murder while killing someone who was going to kill you first if did nothing about it is self-defense.

4. Illegal Abortions are Dangerous

In response to my statement that those who engage in unprotected (heterosexual) sex are knowingly accepting the chance of pregnancy, my opponent stated, "Accidents happen. Even when heterosexual couples use protection, they still have the chance of the condom breaking, etc. Also, rape does occure [sic]."

But my opponent seems to be missing my entire point.

I stated that heterosexual couples should accept the risks if they choose to engage in sex. My opponent stated that condoms break. Well, no duh. Couples should also accept the risk that a condom can break. Seriously, what ever happened to social responsibility? Take care of your own actions. If you mess up, you mess up, but there is no need to kill human life. And besides, the pill has a less than one percent failure rate. ("Failure rate" refers to the chance a form of contraception will fail within a year.) When used in combination with the condom, which has a failure rate of three percent, the chance of an accident is negligible to the individual: less than .03% rate of failure..

And insofar as rape goes, let me say this: need we add another tragedy to more tragedy? Murder on top of rape? A mother knowing that she not only has been raped but has murdered her child as well?

My opponent goes on to state that my sources are biased. Thus I ask her: what's so biased about them? What exactly about their science is faulty? What statistical data was too sloppily recorded?

If anything, these highly respected doctors should be commended for their research, as they are clearly experts, even my opponent admits--just "biased ones," she thinks, because they happen to make money off their beliefs. But who doesn't?

Let's say a doctor tells you to eat less junk food. Should you ignore the doctor, simply because he or she makes money off of making people healthy? No, that would be silly. Of course you listen to the doctor.

5. A Human's Essence is Not Premeditatedly Determined by Some Destiny.

God defines objective morals for us. God says murder is wrong. Therefore, acts of murder, such as abortion, are objectively wrong. I mean, what's so hard to understand?

Besides, we were founded as a Christian nation, with laws deeply rooted in Christianity, and it should remain that way.

For example, the first thing the First Continental Congress did was perform a Christian prayer, ending with: "...the merits of Jesus Christ, Thy Son, our Savior. Amen" (source: http://www.afn.org...).

John Adams stated, "The general principles on which the fathers achieved Independence were ... the general principles of Christianity ... I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that the general principles of Christianity are as etemal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God."

In 1892 the Supreme Court stated, "No purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people.... This is a Christian nation."

Furthermore, the reason people like Thomas Jefferson created the idea of separation of church and state in the first place was that they feared that the government would dilute the importance of God and that the church would be weakened by the state. The silly idea of the first amendment in separating church and state was to get rid of the evident fact that we are a Christian nation, as a 1799 court stated, "By our form of government the Christian religion is the established religion."

As President George H. W. Bush eloquently put it, "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."

These are word I think we should live by.

---- Arguments ----

1. Adoption Exists

My opponent sates that orphanages are psychologically damaging but provides no evidence to support this claim.

Even still, is murder an appropriate reaction to perhaps an unfortunate upbringing? Should all pregnant mothers in, for example, Darfur abort?

If you asked an orphan whether he or she would rather never have been born or be stuck in the orphanage even until the age of eighteen, I'm pretty sure the orphan would choose the orphanage. In fact, I think most children in America would choose the orphanage. My opponent can correct me if I'm wrong.

2. Abortion is unhealthy for a mother

My opponent wants sources. Conveniently, unlike for the other sources, she did not ask for these. I suspect she perceives these to be valid.

- Postabortal Pelvic Infection Associated with Chlamydia Tracomatis and the Influence of Humoral Immunity," by Allan Osser, MD, American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, November 1984, p669-703

- "Induced Abortion: A Risk Factor for Placental Praevia." by Jeffrey M Barrett, MD, American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, December 1981, p769

- Aborted Women, Reardon, p106

She continues by saying, "All that professional abortions offer is a SAFER way to perform an abortion that the woman would be performing in a much more hazardous way that leads to either immediate death or mutilation."

But that's just the thing, isn't it? Under "Illegal Abortions are Dangerous," I've shown th
Debate Round No. 2
Vi_Veri

Pro

1. A Fetus is Not a Human Being

A pre-mature baby has been released by the womb. This means that according to the mother's body, the baby is ready to be born. Now, if a doctor wishes to deliver a pre-mature baby because of health concerns, then I see no issue (the baby has to develop into a capable human being using machines for a few more days instead of the mother's womb). A fetus, no matter what the time line, should be allowed to be aborted. If we disallow abortion at any moment of pregnancy, we are barring women from performing abortions for their health (be it mental or physical). If we make it illegal to abort a baby 1 day before it is due, then we are making it illegal for mothers to abort who will die if they deliver. My opponent must take this into consideration.

Also, it is apparent that children develop, that adults develop, etc. I addressed this in my previous round. My opponent should remember that there is a difference between a human child developing into a human teenager, and a fetus developing into a human.

To end this point and answer my opponent's last question: Exit of the womb is not arbitrary. The child exits the womb when the mother's body (or the child) biologically is ready to exit the womb. Babies that are delivered pre-maturely are done forcefully and then kept on machines to survive. There is something to be said about full development.

2. Potential Life is Not Equal to Actual Life

I don't understand how my point was negated what so ever. Can my opponent elaborate, please? A fetus does not constitute as a human life. A fetus is a fetus. Also, a fetus will not develop on it's own. A fetus needs the body of a female in order to develop. A fetus is not independent.

In addition, see point 1.

3. Anti-Abortion Laws Infringe on a Woman's Rights

Again, my opponent is assuming that all women who have abortions are "irresponsible." Must I repeat? Rape victims, accidents, health concerns, etc. Not all women who have abortions are irresponsible.

4. Illegal Abortions are Dangerous

To begin, I ask the judges to acknowledge that my opponent's sources were in fact bias and thus not worthy of being proper sources in this debate. My opponent should find an unbiased medical association to back his claims instead of extremest Christian propaganda groups.

My opponent also wishes to not allow rape victims to abort a fetus that will cause them tremendous physical, psychological, and financial burdens that they did not choose.

There are plenty of cases where couples use both condoms and pills and still end up with a child. People who take pre-cautions should not be limited in their choices just because some groups consider aborting a fetus a murder. Aborting a fetus is not a murder, and thus these people are committing no wrong.

Also, if my opponent is offering the "morning after" pill for women, he should re-think his values. This pill is considered the "abortion" pill by many pro-life people as it stifles fertilization. Actually, all contraceptives in some way stifle fertilization. So why my opponent is really advocating is abstinence.

In other words - my opponent wishes to bar the act of sex from billions of people to use as only a form of breeding. Obviously he knows nothing of human nature, and how sex helps your health. People who have frequent sex have:

1. Better heart health
2. Live longer
3. More energy
4. Lower rates of cancer
5. healthier sperm
6. fewer menopause symptoms [http://www.cnn.com...]

etc. etc. The Large benefits of sex for humans is enough to make the thought of mandatory abstinence for all laughable (especially if the only concern is aborting a fetus).

5. A Human's Essence is Not Premeditedly Determined by Some Destiny

This is not Christian country. There may be Christians living here, and a hand full of the founding fathers may have been Christian, but this is not a theocracy. This is a democracy. This country is home to many religions (and non-religious people). We have the separation of Church and State in this country. You can not make a theocratic law. There must be other reasoning behind your law other than religious mandate.

---------------------------

1. Adoptions Exists

Sure, a child would say "of course I'd rather have been born!" because they were born and can make that decision. If they were never born, they would never have had this problem. Faulty reasoning on my opponent's side. Also, if that is the case, then my opponent must give up allowing mother's to have an abortion if their life is at stake. Those children, under his reasoning, would have wanted a life as well.

Also, a medical study on orphanages being bad for children's psychology: http://medind.nic.in...

2. Abortion is unhealthy for a mother

Again, illegal abortions are less safe than professionally done abortions. If the mother is going to have an abortion done anyway, offering her a safer alternative is better then having her perform an illegal abortion that will either kill her or leave her physically damaged.

Also, my opponent's Reardon studies are biased (as I explained in the previous round.) So ignore his information he has obtained from David Reardon.

Also, can my opponent provide studies that we can actually read? None of these studies are showing up on Google. If he could please link them, I can review them and can offer an appropriate rebuttal. This is both necessary for myself and for the judges (as they should know what they are judging, and should be able to judge the sources).

Thank you,

Regards,

Vi Veri
PoeJoe

Con

Many apologies. AP tests have made me want to scream my lungs out. Time is quickly running out for me to post for this round. This will be condensed. Again, many apologies.

1. A Fetus is Not a Human Being

"If we make it illegal to abort a baby 1 day before it is due, then we are making it illegal for mothers to abort who will die if they deliver. My opponent must take this into consideration."

What? No. If a doctor says a mother will die if she does not abort, then it becomes OK. There is a huge difference.

"My opponent should remember that there is a difference between a human child developing into a human teenager, and a fetus developing into a human."

All development changes one sort of human to another sort of human. No difference. What makes the fetus stage of a human not a human? Again, such a distinction is arbitrary.

"There is something to be said about full development."

A baby is released from the womb often on accident.

I want to ask very explicitly: if my opponent remains logically consistent, is it OK to kill a prematurely developed baby.

2. Potential Life is Not Equal to Actual Life

"I don't understand how my point was negated what so ever. Can my opponent elaborate, please?"

In the original debate, the point was brought up that fetuses aren't actually alive. But my opponent has conceded that fetuses are actually alive. She went so far as to say sperm is alive!

Where my opponent disagrees with me is whether a fetus constitutes *human* life. But that's the first point! Not this one.

3. Anti-Abortion Laws Infringe on a Woman's Rights

"Again, my opponent is assuming that all women who have abortions are 'irresponsible.' Must I repeat? Rape victims, accidents, health concerns, etc. Not all women who have abortions are irresponsible."

Let's say in addition to using the condom and the pill, a heterosexual couple also practices "pulling out." But the guy doesn't have much control over his body, so let's say he messes up one third of the time. Even still, the chance of pregnancy over the course of a year is less than .01%.

Is this chance too high for you? Okay, then use more forms of contraception.

Do all these forms of contraception seem excessive, especially given the individually negligible chance of pregnancy? Okay, then use fewer forms of contraception, and increase your risk for pregnancy.

Either way, the information is out there. You can research it and decide what form of contraception is right for you.

If you have sex, you are accepting the risk, however small, of pregnancy. Live with it.

And as for rape, like I said, we need not add more travesty. Let not murder be added upon these sins.

4. Illegal Abortions are Dangerous

"To begin, I ask the judges to acknowledge that my opponent's sources were in fact bias and thus not worthy of being proper sources in this debate. My opponent should find an unbiased medical association to back his claims instead of extremest Christian propaganda groups."

Again I ask: what is wrong with the science? My opponent still has not said what.

Also, if she wants me to prove a negative, let me ask her to prove a positive: please provide sources showing that the illegalization of abortion increases the rate of dangerous back alley abortions in any significant way (ie not anecdotal).

"There are plenty of cases where couples use both condoms and pills and still end up with a child."

Extremely rare. You're more likely to get cancer in your life time.

Besides, you should accept the risks (however small) if you're going to engage in heterosexual sex.

...and then my opponent goes on to strawman me, making arguments that I haven't made.

Please ignore her last comments on this point.

5. A Human's Essence is Not Premeditedly Determined by Some Destiny

"This is not Christian country. There may be Christians living here, and a hand full of the founding fathers may have been Christian, but this is not a theocracy. This is a democracy."

Yes, this is a democracy, but a democracy based on and deeply rooted in Christianity.

"You can not make a theocratic law. There must be other reasoning behind your law other than religious mandate."

Yes, you can. We force young children to say "under God" in the pledge. We have "in God we trust" on our money. The idea that America is a secular nation is absurd.

Notice, too, how my opponent has yet to negate my sources. I suspect she can't, and thus hasn't.

---------------------------

1. Adoptions Exists

"Sure, a child would say 'of course I'd rather have been born!' because they were born and can make that decision. If they were never born, they would never have had this problem. Faulty reasoning on my opponent's side. Also, if that is the case, then my opponent must give up allowing mother's to have an abortion if their life is at stake. Those children, under his reasoning, would have wanted a life as well."

A birth that would kill the mother will kill the fetus, too. So, it comes down to mitigation: one life dead, or two?

"Also, a medical study on orphanages being bad for children's psychology"

Again, would you rather have a crappy upbringing or not have been born at all.

Besides, many kids have a crappy upbringing but we all them to be born. For example, should we abort all babies whose parents both have been charge with violent offenses multiple times? Of course not! After all, like I've said, there's always adoption.

2. Abortion is unhealthy for a mother

"If the mother is going to have an abortion done anyway, offering her a safer alternative is better then having her perform an illegal abortion that will either kill her or leave her physically damaged."

That's just the thing. If abortion were not legal, mothers WOULDN'T abort.

And even if my opponent does not agree with my sources that prove a negative, she has yet to prove this positive. I ask her to please do so.

"Also, can my opponent provide studies that we can actually read? None of these studies are showing up on Google."

Huh? All my sources can easily be found on Google. This one, for example, has been replicated more than five thousand times: http://www.google.com...;.
Debate Round No. 3
Vi_Veri

Pro

Vi_Veri forfeited this round.
PoeJoe

Con

I would like to thank Kleptin for hosting this tournament, and Vi_Veri for participating with me in this delightful debate.

I shall now attempt to summarize the debate.

1. A Fetus is Not a Human Being

My opponent claimed that a fetus does not constitute *human* life. I then posited that development is irrelevant and arbitrary, given that we all have been developing ever since conception. My opponent responded by saying that a baby is released when a mother's body feels it is necessary. I countered this by noting premature birth and by demonstrating that all development is the same--that in no development stage does a fetus suddenly "become" human, because a fetus is always a human since the moment of conception.

These last statements have not been disputed.

2. Potential Life is Not Equal to Actual Life

My opponent conceded this second point, and then merged it with the first.

Unequivocally negated.

3. Anti-Abortion Laws Infringe on a Woman's Rights

I have shown that accidental pregnancy is extremely rare (less than .01%)--this has not been disputed--and how one should accept the risk, however small, of pregnancy if one wants to engage in heterosexual sex. It's called social responsibility.

Nothing justifies murder.

4. Illegal Abortions are Dangerous

I have demonstrated that the illegality of abortion would not increase the number of deaths of back alley abortions. My opponent called my sources biased, but has not demonstrated how they are biased. We must assume they are accurate.

Ironically, my opponent asserts statistics from planned parenthood, though never providing links. In any case, how is Planned Parenthood supposed to be a reliable source, using my opponent own grading criteria? Planned Parenthood actually makes *DIRECT* money--multifold than that of any individual church--from their propaganda. In addition, Planned Parenthood is known for the countless lawsuits of fraud and coercion that have been brought up against them.

5. A Human's Essence is Not Premeditedly Determined by Some Destiny

I have shown how this is a Christian nations with laws deeply rooted in Christianity.

My opponent's few rebuttals to this have been random assertions. In contrast, I have provided numerous sources and examples. These points of mine--particularly my later ones--have not been contested. They therefore stand.

---------------------------

1. Adoptions Exists

Even if a mother is irresponsible, there is always adoption. Murder is not necessary.

My opponent has brought up a few counterarguments, but I have proven these counterarguments moot. For example, even if a child will have a crappy upbringing, a crappy upbringing is infinitely better than no upbringing (that is, being murdered in the womb) at all.

2. Abortion is unhealthy for a mother

My sources have not been rebutted.

---------------------------

Thank you again to Vi_Veri and Kleptin.

I would also like to thank the judges for taking the time to read this.

I hope this has been informative.

One more time: thank you.
Debate Round No. 4
116 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by tBoonePickens 7 years ago
tBoonePickens
yayawhatever
"How dare u intentionally joke about a woman being sexually violated. Most women that have been raped are also diagnosed with PTSD. It is NOT a joking matter." Sure, but the only one making light of rape is yourself. The only thing I jested about was YOUR emotional pleas, yet here you have presented yet another one: a clear sign of a weak mind & a loosing argument.

"and NO...your self described *ludicrous comments* are NOT identical, theyre quite contradictory...perhaps u need a dictionary?" Again, you are befudled by the simplest of concepts: satire. I'll break it down for you in iddie biddie pieces so you can "digest" it. Let's begin. My comments that you referred to as "all over the place" are:

(A) "...make sure that it (rape) gets reported..."
(B) "...SUGGESTING that someone report a crime (rape)..."

But these are practically identical. Now let's look at my satirical comment. This comment was a rephrase of your emotional plea:

"Yes. It's quite cold and sinister to REPORT a crime." Obviously, it is NOT sinister or wrong to report a crime. Clearly you reasoning is extremely faulty to suggest this. Furthermore, it is immoral to do what you have suggested: cover up injustice and wrong doing.
Posted by tBoonePickens 7 years ago
tBoonePickens
"Uh, I seriously doubt most women would intentionally imprison men for rape when there was no rape." I never said that MOST women would intentionally imprison men for rape; only YOU have suggested this. I merely stated that the false accusastion of rape would also increase. It is a logical conclusion.

"Do u really believe that the majority of women that claim being raped are misandrists?" No. Just you!

"Also, please do post your source that says abortions would decrease if abortions were illegal--moronic misogynistic politicians don't count!" Do misguided altruistic hippies count? Actually, if you were able to put your ideology aside, you would be able to figure this one out for yourself.

"You're an idiot." Ah, yes!
The sign of a true errudite & possible Mensa candidate!

"Fact of the matter is that less than 40% of those that get treated at hospitals for the physiological ramifactions of rape EVER press charges against those that violated them." That is very unfortunate. I truly hope that this trend changes so that ALL wrong doers pay for their transgressions.

"I guess in your opinion, the vast majority of those that are violated are weak for not doing what u fantasize u would do." Well...You guessed wrong! First of all, I don't "fantisize" about rape. Second, I think that with enough love, support, & unity victims would be capable to accuse their assailants and make sure such vermin is never able to repeat such a heinous crime.

"I am a woman and in no way say that women are weak." Perhaps, but with the comments you made previously one might wonder if the latter part of your statement is true.

"Fact is that the smartest person in the world to this day is a woman-- Marilyn vos Savant with an IQ of 229." That's very nice dear, but what does that have to do with the subject at hand? Answer: nothing.
Posted by PoeJoe 7 years ago
PoeJoe
You do realize that this was a tournament debate, right? That I'm actually arguing against my real position?

You've got about four people engaged in a private debate. Very much do I doubt anyone else is reading these comments. (I've read less than five.) Thus, you've got the perfect recipe for a PM, and it'd be beneficial because PMs are more linear (no pages), among other advantages.

Look, do what you will. I'm just recommending something I think would benefit yall.
Posted by yayawhatever 7 years ago
yayawhatever
Seriously poejoe, it is quite cute how you ignore my post directly to u calling u on the silly stuff made in your *argument*..only for u to say* Pms are great thing*

Dodge reality! Dodge facts! Dodge Qs at u! Just tell others to be quiet on the topic youre supposed to be able to debate
some debate!
Posted by yayawhatever 7 years ago
yayawhatever
PoeJoe says: Seriously, PMs are great things.

I say: Ya, esp when u have no argument on something you're supposedly debating
Keep it Private!

LOL
Posted by PoeJoe 7 years ago
PoeJoe
Seriously, PMs are great things.
Posted by yayawhatever 7 years ago
yayawhatever
tBoonePickens said: I meant it (quite obviously) to be a ludicrous comment

I say: How dare u intentionally joke about a woman being sexually violated. Most women that have been raped are also diagnosed with PTSD. It is NOT a joking matter.
and NO...your self described *ludicrous comments* are NOT identical, theyre quite contradictory...perhaps u need a dictionary?

TPB said: As would the conviction rate for false accusations of rape. Also, the amount of repeat abortions would greatly decrease.
in response to: "Fact is that if abortions were legal only in instances of rape, that the *rape rate* would skyrocket."

I say: Uh, I seriously doubt most women would intentionally imprison men for rape when there was no rape.
Do u really believe that the majority of women that claim being raped are misandrists?
Also, please do post your source that says abortions would decrease if abortions were illegal--moronic misogynistic politicians dont count!

TBP said: I strongly disagree; I know that women are stronger than that. I think that you should seriously reconsider your opinion of women because you seem to have an incorrect view of women as weak minded.
In response to me saying: "And if women were only treated for rape when they came forward with names, fewer women would even go to hospitals for the physiological ramifications of rape...let alone the psychological trauma of rape."

I say: You're an idiot. Fact of the matter is that less than 40% of those that get treated at hospitals for the physiological ramifactions of rape EVER press charges against those that violated them. I guess in your opinion, the vast majority of those that are violated are weak for not doing what u fantasize u would do. I am a woman and in no way say that women are weak. Fact is that the smartest person in the world to this day is a woman-- Marilyn vos Savant with an IQ of 229. I adore ballsy Gloria Allred and kindly point out that we have a black hole, not a black pole
Posted by tBoonePickens 7 years ago
tBoonePickens
Vi_Veri-
"I'm saying that if someone can fake getting raped to get an abortion, then your rule doesn't work."

Fraud or false accusations are always possible, that does't mean we shouldn't enforce a law; it means that we should make it as difficult as possible to make false claims. For example, one can require that a report of rape be made to police in order to get the abortion. These would deter many from filing false police reports as doing so is punishable by law. It would also heavily deter multiple abortions from the same person, etc.
**************************************

yayawhatever,
How am I "all over the place?" What are you on? I said:
(A) "...make sure that it gets reported..."
(B) "...SUGGESTING that someone report a crime..."
How are these comments all over the place, when in fact they are almost IDENTICAL? I seriously hope you were not refering to my faceteous comment: "Yes. It's quite cold and sinister to REPORT a crime."

I meant it (quite obviously) to be a ludicrous comment. One that showed the blatant lack of reasoning in your emotional plea: "slap in the face." Other than confusing this comment, I cannot fathom what you mean about "being all over the place."

"Fact is that if abortions were legal only in instances of rape, that the *rape rate* would skyrocket." As would the conviction rate for false accusations of rape. Also, the amount of repeat abortions would greatly decrease.

"And if women were only treated for rape when they came forward with names, fewer women would even go to hospitals for the physiological ramifications of rape...let alone the psychological trauma of rape." I strongly disagree; I know that women are stronger than that. I think that you should seriously reconsider your opinion of women because you seem to have an incorrect view of women as weak minded.

"NOT gonna happen." Never said it was going to; merely made a suggestion which you clearly have not adequately countered.
Posted by yayawhatever 7 years ago
yayawhatever
Voltar: Tis ok. Abortion is a heated issue that many get emotional about.
:)
Posted by yayawhatever 7 years ago
yayawhatever
PoeJoe said: electrical brainwaves have been recorded as soon as 43 days
I say: please site your source. I googled that and no respectable site came up. Silly blogs and heavily biased religious sites against my right to choose came up.

PoeJoe said: Senator James Buckley stated that legalization has no effect on the criminal abortion rate
I say: World Health Org says otherwise. I personally believe that WHO would be a tad less biased about a medical issue than a politican

PoeJoe said: What makes one a human being is a functioning brain, a body that can sustain the brain, and complete development as according to the plans of it's DNA.
I say: But you see, it cant sustain anything w/o leeching off the woman, and how developed do u believe the brain is in the first trimester?

PoeJoe said: But God does in fact control our destiny
I say: keep your rosaries off my ovaries
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by yayawhatever 7 years ago
yayawhatever
Vi_VeriPoeJoeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by Voltar143 7 years ago
Voltar143
Vi_VeriPoeJoeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
Vi_VeriPoeJoeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Vote Placed by Lovebotlass17 7 years ago
Lovebotlass17
Vi_VeriPoeJoeTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70