The Instigator
Deathbeforedishonour
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
MilitaryAtheist
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Resolved: Abortion should stay legal in the U.S.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
Deathbeforedishonour
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/27/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 782 times Debate No: 25318
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (4)

 

Deathbeforedishonour

Pro

Hello, here is my challange that you have already agreed to.


The resolution is above. However, here are some rules for the debate.


Rules


8,000 charcter limit


3 days to post argument


First round will be for acceptance only



Definitions


Abortion- the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy.
MilitaryAtheist

Con

I agree.

I also wish semantics will not be used by both Pro and Con.
Debate Round No. 1
Deathbeforedishonour

Pro

Greetings, I would like to take a moment to thank my opponent for his acceptance. I am hoping that this will turn out to be a very good debate.


Contention 1: A fetus and Personhood.


I will begin by first addressing the personhood of the unborn fetus. Now, my opponent is more then likely state that a fetus is a human and therefore, has the right to life and I would agree with him. A fetus is clearly a member of the biological species Homo Sapiens. However, just being human does not intell that one should automaditcally gets rights. I will argue that 'persons' are the ones who are the ones who should be given rights. I will define a person as an entity individual entity,morally conscious being capable of forming a complex thought and possessing the capacity (but not nessasarily the ability) to comunitcate their thoughts through language. This definition includes no animals. All of the said requirements for personhood are far more valuable in determining personhood then apindages. A fetus has none of these, thus it can not be treated like you and I. It can not be treated as the same as a baby that is newly born because a baby has the capabily to do these things and it has the brain capacity to be an individual and form a semi-complex thought. So, since a fetus is not a person then it has no serious right to life.


Contention 2: Self-Ownership

Everyone has self-ownership. To deny it would be to deny your selves, and neither I or my opponent would be in this debate because we would most likely be doing whatever our government told us to do. So with this stated, women have complete dominion over their body's. If something is wrong with it then they have the right to fix it, if they want to make it better or worse in their eyes then that is their choice, and furthermore, if a fetus forms there without their permission then they have the choice on whether or not she is wants to let it stay there whether it be a human/person or not. Despite whatever "right to life" "pro-lifers" may claim it possesses, it has not right to be where it is unwelcomed and invited. Fetus's are not intitled to women's bodies, they do not own women's bodies, and neither do governments.

Contention 3: Overpopulation

I will start out my last contention with a quote by Christ Hedges who is a former "New York Times" correspondent and author of the article "We Are Breeding Ourselves to Extinction". In it he writes:

"All measures to thwart the degradation and destruction of our ecosystem will be useless if we do not cut population growth," Hedges wrote. "By 2050, if we continue to reproduce at the current rate, the planet will have between 8 billion and 10 billion people. This is a 50 percent increase. And yet government-commissioned reviews, such as the Stern report in Britain, do not mention the word population. Books and documentaries that deal with the climate crisis, including Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth," fail to discuss the danger of population growth. This omission is odd, given that a doubling in population, even if we cut back on the use of fossil fuels, shut down all our coal-burning power plants and build seas of wind turbines, will plunge us into an age of extinction and desolation unseen since the end of the Mesozoic era, 65 million years ago, when the dinosaurs disappeared."
[1]

Now, I am sure that not to many people are actually aware of the population crises in America or the world for that matter, but in spite of the small amounts of media and news coverage the threat is very real. At our current birth rate by the year 2050 the Earth's population will be between 8 million people to 10 million people[1]. The U.S. has nearly quadrupled the number of people within its boundaries in the past century; if our population multiplies by that same amount within the coming century we will hold over one billion people. There are two factors that play a part in this and I will get to my point with this soon after.

1. The first being fertility rates, the U.S. has a fertility rate of 2.1 births per woman. the U.S.’s highest fertility rate since 1971. (For comparison, the United Kingdom’s fertility rate is 1.7, Canada's is 1.4, and Germany's is 1.3.)[2].

2. And the next is immegration. Immigration contributes over one million people to the U.S. population annually. The total foreign-born population in the U.S. is now 31.1 million, a record 57 percent increase since 1990 [2].


The following graphs further deminstrates the rapid growth in population in the U.S.







U.S. POPULATION PROJECTIONS


Year Projected
population
Percent change
from
population in
2000
2010 310,233,000 10%
2020 341,387,000 21%
2030 373,504,000 32%
2040 405,655,000 44%
2050 439,010,000 55%

Now immagine an overpopulated disaster in the U.S. Imagine lands that once could be enjoyed for their natural beauty are now concrete jungles, our country's children attend schools that are overloaded and lack the teacher to student interaction we once had, social infrastructures and systems are overloaded, natural resources are being depleted, and our environment is being tasked beyond its limits.


Abortions, though not final solution to this problem can lower the birth rate so we can find a solution to it.

That is all for now, I thank the people who read this.

I will now await my opponent's argument.

Solutions

[1]http://rense.com......
[2]http://www.npg.org......
MilitaryAtheist

Con

I ask Pro to delay his next round as soon as he can. I am busy for the weekend.



Contention 1 rebuttal

I will argue that 'persons' are the ones who are the ones who should be given rights. I will define a person as an entity individual entity,morally conscious being capable of forming a complex thought and possessing the capacity (but not nessasarily the ability) to comunitcate their thoughts through language.

Were you not you when you were in the womb?

actual or potential ability to perform, yield, or withstand: He has a capacity for hard work. The capacity of the oil well was 150 barrels a day. She has the capacity to go two days without sleep.

http://dictionary.reference.com......

'Potential' is the key-word. Are you really saying fetuses cant do things like someone who was just born? What made them human then when they were still in the womb a day before?

"It is possible to give ‘human being' a precise meaning. We can use it as equivalent to ‘member of the species Homo Sapiens'. Whether a being is a member of a given species is something that can be determined scientifically, by an examination of the nature of the chromosomes in the cells of living organisms. In this sense there is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence an embryo conceived from human sperm and eggs is a human being."

Peter Singer,Practical Ethics, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 85-86.

Shall we equivalent humans to beings like us and damn to rest of the 'others' in the 'other pile'?

This definition includes no animals

Humans are animals?

Embryologists, consistently agree that life begins at fertilization. There, a fetus grows to a baby some 9 months later.

I will provide infomation from 2008.

http://www.cdc.gov......

"In 2008, most (62.8%) abortions were performed at ≤8 weeks' gestation, and 91.4% were performed at ≤13 weeks' gestation. Few abortions (7.3%) were performed at 14--20 weeks' gestation, and even fewer (1.3%) were performed at ≥21 weeks' gestation. During 1999--2008, the percentage of abortions performed at ≤13 weeks' gestation remained stable, whereas abortions performed at ≥16 weeks' gestation decreased 13%--17%. Moreover, among the abortions performed at ≤13 weeks' gestation, the distribution shifted toward earlier gestational ages, with the percentage of abortions performed at ≤6 weeks' gestation increasing 53%."

A small amount of fetuses that were aborted suffered as Pro might say, but I ask him of this:

Lets say I go to your house and drug you. You did not notice. And I began to start cutting your organs. You still dont notice. Should you be glad you did not notice your death?

Point is even if they suffer or not the act is still morally wrong and pointless.



Contention point 3 rebuttal.




Aborted babies are little use of the growing human race. The population would still suffer with the other born.


My points



Adoption works!



I know not everyone can enjoy their own child to raise, which is why I am bringing up adoption. There is more then enough families to take one in ( like the gays.) and raise. Little chance that a kid will go untaken.





I am running out of time so I will leave it at this.
Debate Round No. 2
Deathbeforedishonour

Pro

I thank my opponent for his response.

Defense 1

My opponent says:

'Were you not you when you were in the womb?'

No I wasn't, I only became me when I became an individual and had a descent I.Q. size that may be called a 'person'. Until, the embilical cord is cut and I have been born that I may exist outside my mother's body I could not be called 'me'.

Then he goes on to say:

'Potential' is the key-word. Are you really saying fetuses cant do things like someone who was just born? What made them human then when they were still in the womb a day before?

And then he goes on to quote from Peter Singer's Practicle Ethics. However, he seems to think I am arguing against the humanity of the fetus when I have already made it clear that a fetus is a human, but this does not make it a person. I have already presented my case against the personhood of the fetus, in which my opponent has only addressed it with one sentence that I have already refuted.

My opponent then addresses something I 'might' have said and then states a rather horrible example for it. In reality it is the fetus that is uninvited and unwelcomed in the woman's body. If someone comes into you body and causes you to lose your job, get sick, etc I am sure you would remove them. The same goes with a fetus who has invaded a woman's body.

Defense 2

My opponent has dropped my second contention.

Defense 3

As to my opponent's 'rebuttel' (I don't know if I should call it that or not), I will remind him that I have already said that it wouldn't be a solution, I only said that it would slow down the birth rate so that we as a society would be able to come up with a solution to the problem.

Rebuttel

I will agree that adoption is indeed a choice. However, that is what it is, it's a choice. Abortion and adoption are both choices that are on women. However, for different circumstance abortion can be deemed by women as necessary.

I will now await my opponent's next response.

Thank You.
MilitaryAtheist

Con

MilitaryAtheist forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Deathbeforedishonour

Pro

Arguments extended.
MilitaryAtheist

Con

MilitaryAtheist forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by MilitaryAtheist 4 years ago
MilitaryAtheist
Can we tie this? I asked for a delay.
Posted by Deathbeforedishonour 4 years ago
Deathbeforedishonour
Oops. I didn't see that first part. :(
Posted by MilitaryAtheist 4 years ago
MilitaryAtheist
Dick I told you to wait. I can't prepare my argument from a 3DS.
Posted by Deathbeforedishonour 4 years ago
Deathbeforedishonour
Please, I am not proposing that we do what China or Nazi Germany likes. I am merely stating the only reasonable "semi" solution that can buy us some time before more people die then fetus's. :/
Posted by Lordknukle 4 years ago
Lordknukle
"Abortions, though not final solution to this problem can lower the birth rate"

Yes, yes.....Muahahaah. Sig Heil, Mein Fuhrer.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by famer 4 years ago
famer
DeathbeforedishonourMilitaryAtheistTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
DeathbeforedishonourMilitaryAtheistTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Yep 4 years ago
Yep
DeathbeforedishonourMilitaryAtheistTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: FF :/ Round 3 was the only round of debate
Vote Placed by Ron-Paul 4 years ago
Ron-Paul
DeathbeforedishonourMilitaryAtheistTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: FFs, better arguments.