The Instigator
DATXDUDE
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
condeelmaster
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

(Resolved)On Balance:Middleclassandrichwomenwho get abortions past their first trimester are selfish

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 1 vote the winner is...
condeelmaster
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/31/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 758 times Debate No: 85799
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (24)
Votes (1)

 

DATXDUDE

Pro

Notes:
1. I take the stuff about Reformist back. I actually got to know the user better, and it turns out he/she isn't that bad of a guy/ girl.

2. I opened up this debate to everyone.

3. Sorry I couldn't put spaces in between certain words in my resolution. I meant to put "On balance" on my other debate too, but I didn't because there wasn't enough space to do so.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Provided that semantics are common on this site, I will provide a list of rules to prevent anyone from twisting this debate to their advantage.

1. Violation of rules 2-7 and rules 8-10 will result in forfeiture.

2. The resolution is this:
"(On balance)Middle class and rich women who get abortions past their first trimester are selfish". Pro nor Con may not change or attempt to change this resolution.

3. This is the definition of selfish that me and my opponent will use for this debate. (Of a person, action, or motive) "Lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one"s own personal profit or pleasure". Pro nor Con may not change or attempt to change this definition.

4. NO SEMANTICS ALLOWED. (With the exception of rule 11).

5. No k's.

6. It is implied that women who get abortions during their first trimester or use birth control to prevent pregnancy are not selfish. Ignoring this will result in immediate forfeiture.

7. Grammar errors occurring in round 1 will not count (provided I can read your spelling of ("I accept").

8. Contentions are optional. (This is because organizing debates takes time, and I'm busy.)

9. Colloquial language is allowed (to a point. Don't push it.)

10. This is a serious debate. No trolling is allowed, although some jokes are permitted.

11. IT IS ENTIRELY UP TO ME TO INTERPRET THESE RULES.

12. HAVE FUN XPDDDDDPPPPP:):):333333333
condeelmaster

Con

I accept the debate. Good luck to my opponent. Looking forward to a great debate.
Debate Round No. 1
DATXDUDE

Pro

Note: I am going to use the same argument to the one I used in my last debate because it's why I believe in my resolution. This is important because I want to have my viewpoint challenged

The reason I think rich or middle class women who get abortions past their first trimester are selfish is self explanatory. Anyone who lacks consideration for others and is concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure is selfish. This is certainly the case for women who get abortions past their first trimester, because by doing this they show a blatant disregard for the well being of the unborn baby they have in their womb. This is different from women who use birth control or get the abortion they may need in the first trimester.

The reason that poor women who get abortions past their first trimester are not selfish is because they may not have the resources to get one before the second or (hopefully not) the third trimester. This is not the case for rich or middle class women who almost always have the ability to get the procedure done by the end of the first trimester. Also, rich and middle class women have more access to birth control such as condoms and pills than poor women do.

Please understand that I recognize that abortion is necessary under certain circumstances, such as heath concerns. However, these are the VAST minority of abortions (only 12%).

Source for heath related abortions:
http://www.lifenews.com...
condeelmaster

Con

Let's remember the definition of selfish:

(Of a person, action, or motive) "Lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one"s own personal profit or pleasure"

So to prove that middle class and rich women who get abortions past their first trimester are selfish, I will have to prove that when they do this they are think not only in them selves but in the others.

1- The not loved child.

One of the worst thing that could happen to someone is having parents who don't love him. If a mother is conscious that she won't love that baby that will born nearly, It's nonsense to bring him to the world.

I know that if those mothers can give their babies in adoption instead of killing them, because they will find someone that adopts them and loves them. However, we are not discussing the moral implications of abortion, just the selfish aspect.

As you can see, when middle class and rich women get abortions they are thinking about that baby. They are thinking that they won't be able to love him, and that they will be unhappy. In conclusion, they are thinking in the others, they are not being selfish.

2- Illegality problems

Another plausible scenario is the next one. As abortion is illegal in some places, we have to take into account that. If abortion is illegal, getting an abortion is quite difficult. Then delaying the abortion could be a cause of the complications of the process, not being selfish.


Debate Round No. 2
DATXDUDE

Pro

1- Not loved? Everyone has a place in this world. Even if the mother of a child doesn't love them, this doesn't mean that the child can't live a rich and fulfilling life. Who knows, maybe the mother could have affection for the child when it he/she grows and develops. However, we will never know this if the child is killed before birth.

Although this argument may seem like it contradicts my resolution, it actually supports it because the mother is really thinking about herself in this scenario. The reasoning the mother has is that if SHE doesn't care about the baby, it doesn't deserve to exist. In my opinion, not only is this line of reasoning INCREDIBLY selfish, but it is also extremely callous.

2- Most American women get abortions in the first trimester(1). Why is it that 90% of women are perfectly capable of getting an abortion before the end of the first trimester if the process is so difficult? Granted, getting an abortion may be difficult for poor women who may or may not have the resources to do so, but they are not included in my resolution.

Regardless:
1. In most first world countries, abortion is perfectly legal. See for yourself(2)!
2. Middle class and rich women, by definition, have more than enough money to go to other countries to get the procedure done quickly if need be.

Et viola.

Sources:
http://www.webmd.com...
http://abortion.procon.org...
condeelmaster

Con

1)

"Not loved? Everyone has a place in this world."

I've never argued that this reasoning was logical or morally correct. That is out of topic. If you want to debate the morality of Middle class and rich women who get abortions past their first trimester put up another debate. In this debate we are arguing about the selfishness related to this decision. As I showed, mothers do think in the baby when they get an abortion. They make a rather silly reasoning but they think in others,thus they are not being selfish.


So, although It is an "extremely callous line of reasoning", it is not a selfish one. They are thinking about the baby.


2)

" In most first world countries, abortion is perfectly legal. See for yourself"

If you look at the map provided by Pro, you will see that this claim is false. Only in the green countries mothers can have abortion, in the others abortion only happens if it is the only way to save a mother's life. Then, nearly a bit less than half of the globe rather than in most countries.


" Middle class and rich women, by definition, have more than enough money to go to other countries to get the procedure done quickly if need be."

So Pro here assumes that in countries where abortion is legal there exists an "abortion tourism". This is far from truth. In countries where abortion is legal the government does not allow tourists to get abortions. You must be a citizen, living in the countries and you also have to pass certain tests. So this is invalid argumentation.


3)

Reading the study which Pro quoted I found this interesting piece of information. Reasons why women get abortions. Let's examine them.
  • Three-fourths of women cite concern for other individuals.
  • three-fourths say they cannot afford a child
  • half say they are having problems with their husband or partner
As you can see all the reasons are not selfish. They are always thinking about the others. Then, they are not being selfish at all.

4)

"Et viola"

Is "et voilà", please don't pretend to know French when you don't.


5)

Lastly, I want to emphasise the generalising nature of the resolution. Pro is stating that all middle class and rich women who get abortions past their first trimester are selfish. However, He/She is just showing that the possibility of selfishness in this decision exists. I can deny that, for sure some women get abortions because they are selfish, but this does not mean that all of them are selfish. This is like saying, all black people are criminals. For sure some of them are criminals, but not all of them. Saying all black people are criminals is absurd. Then, the same happens with the resolution of this debate.


Et voilà!

The resolution is negated.

Debate Round No. 3
DATXDUDE

Pro

Oh wonderful, a retarded "debater" who twists what I say to fit their agenda.

1- Oh, I'm SURE those pathetic killers would like you to THINK they care about their unborn baby. However, this is almost never the main reason why women get abortions. They are ALMOST ALWAYS thinking of themselves(1). Also, if Con had actually read my argument instead of skimming it, they would see that the beginning of my argument was addressing this:

I will now point out that Con has contradicted him/herself.

"One of the worst thing that could happen to someone is having parents who don't love him. If a mother is conscious that she won't love that baby that will born nearly, It's nonsense to bring him to the world."

In his/her next argument, Con says this:

"I've never argued that this reasoning was logical or morally correct." BULLSHlT. I'm aware that in the second round Con makes a (failed) attempt to defend this statement in the next quote.

"I know that if those mothers can give their babies in adoption instead of killing them, because they will find someone that adopts them and loves them. However, we are not discussing the moral implications of abortion, just the selfish aspect." There is one thing that is very wrong with this statement.

1. Con states that "One of the worst thing that could happen to someone is having parents who don't love him. If a mother is conscious that she won't love that baby that will born nearly, It's nonsense to bring him to the world.

I would like to point out this part of Con's statement specifically:

"One of the worst thing that could happen to someone is having parents who don't love him. If a mother is conscious that she won't love that baby that will born nearly, It's nonsense to bring him to the world."

Con is saying that it is nonsense to bring a child into the world if they are unloved. They are not saying that this is what the mother thinks, they are saying that this is what they think.

2- "Only in the green countries mothers can have abortion, in the others abortion only happens if it is the only way to save a mother's life."

Do I need to repeat myself? I said "FIRST WORLD COUNTRIES".

"So Pro here assumes that in countries where abortion is legal there exists an "abortion tourism". This is far from truth."

Sources please? I don't need to provide any because it is a well known fact that "abortion tourism", as you like to call it, occurs on a daily basis. Even Pro Choicers know this.

"In countries where abortion is legal the government does not allow tourists to get abortions."

You mean illegal, right? You are correct, but this doesn't mean that women don't get abortions in those countries anyways.

"You must be a citizen, living in the countries and you also have to pass certain tests."

This depends on the country you are talking about.

3-"Three-fourths of women cite concern for other individuals."

Oh, I'm sure they do, to an extent. However, there are two reasons why this argument is innefective in supporting Con's point of view.

1. This is the definition of selfish that is used in this debate:

"Lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one"s own personal profit or pleasure". Most rich/middle class women who get abortions are doing so CHEIFLY for their own benifit, most of the time at the overall expense of the child.

4- (It's funny that you even made this into a contention) Oh what ever shall I do, I misspelled the word "voila". You do realize that the "o" and "i" keys are next to each other, right?
"'Et viola'"
"Is "et voilà", please don't pretend to know French when you don't."

I studied French for three years, but let's look at some of your grammar errors.

"they are thinking in the others,
they are not being selfish."

"Then, nearly a bit less than half of the globe rather than in most countries."

"2- Illegality problems" (WTF is an "illegality problem"?)

5-"Lastly, I want to emphasise the generalising nature of the resolution. Pro is stating that all middle class and rich women who get abortions past their first trimester are selfish."

You forfiet this debate.

This is the resolution:"(On balance)Middle class and rich women who get abortions past their first trimester are selfish". Pro nor Con may not change or attempt to change this resolution."

On balance
does not mean ALL.

By attempting to change the resolution, you have violated rule 2.

"The resolution is negated."


Mhm. I'm SURE the resolution is negated. You get a gold star. Since you probably didn't notice, that was sarcasm. Idiotic mongoloid. It took you TWO DAYS to write that poorly written "argument". Do really I need to mention that you haven't used any sources of any kind whatsoever in your past two pathetic excuses for rebuttals? Probably not (it's more than you deserve), but I'm doing it anyways.

Source for contention 1:

http://www.guttmacher.org...

condeelmaster

Con

I really laughed a lot while reading the last argument. It seems like Pro thinks insulting his adversary will make him win. Or maybe he thinks that insulting me will make me cry like a baby and concede the debate. Well this will not happen.

I have to emphasise the hostile attitude of Pro, using terms such as "retarded", "pathetic", "bullsh*t", "idiotic mongoloid", and others. This is a flagrant violation of the rules and should be taken into account by the judges.

This violation of the rules is almost like forfeiting the whole debate, so I have won by now, but let's value sportsmanship and refute the pseudo argument Pro posted.


"Oh, I'm SURE those pathetic killers would like you to THINK they care about their unborn baby. However, this is almost never the main reason why women get abortions. They are ALMOST ALWAYS thinking of themselves"

This is all subjective information. Not valid.


Pro then tries to invent a contradiction in my argumentation:


"I will now point out that Con has contradicted him/herself.

"One of the worst thing that could happen to someone is having parents who don't love him. If a mother is conscious that she won't love that baby that will born nearly, It's nonsense to bring him to the world."

In his/her next argument, Con says this:

"I've never argued that this reasoning was logical or morally correct." BULLSHlT. I'm aware that in the second round Con makes a (failed) attempt to defend this statement in the next quote.

"I know that if those mothers can give their babies in adoption instead of killing them, because they will find someone that adopts them and loves them. However, we are not discussing the moral implications of abortion, just the selfish aspect." There is one thing that is very wrong with this statement.

1. Con states that "One of the worst thing that could happen to someone is having parents who don't love him. If a mother is conscious that she won't love that baby that will born nearly, It's nonsense to bring him to the world.

I would like to point out this part of Con's statement specifically:

"One of the worst thing that could happen to someone is having parents who don't love him. If a mother is conscious that she won't love that baby that will born nearly, It's nonsense to bring him to the world."

Con is saying that it is nonsense to bring a child into the world if they are unloved. They are not saying that this is what the mother thinks, they are saying that this is what they think. "

Let's organize this. I first said what mothers think, then I said what I personally think. How is that contradictory?? In this debate I'm defending what abortive mothers think, not what I think. Anyway, I conceded that the mothers line of reasoning was flawed, but to show that's not what we are talking about. We are debating if mothers are selfish, not if they are intelligent.


""Only in the green countries mothers can have abortion, in the others abortion only happens if it is the only way to save a mother's life."

Do I need to repeat myself? I said "FIRST WORLD COUNTRIES".

"So Pro here assumes that in countries where abortion is legal there exists an "abortion tourism". This is far from truth."

Sources please? I don't need to provide any because it is a well known fact that "abortion tourism", as you like to call it, occurs on a daily basis. Even Pro Choicers know this.

"In countries where abortion is legal the government does not allow tourists to get abortions."

You mean illegal, right? You are correct, but this doesn't mean that women don't get abortions in those countries anyways.

"You must be a citizen, living in the countries and you also have to pass certain tests."

This depends on the country you are talking about"

Come on!! Read the law texts please!! Pro wants sources, let's give him sources: USA's law, UK's law, Uruguay's law, Canada's law...



""Three-fourths of women cite concern for other individuals."

Oh, I'm sure they do, to an extent. However, there are two reasons why this argument is innefective in supporting Con's point of view.
This is the definition of selfish that is used in this debate:

"Lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one"s own personal profit or pleasure"."



Pro made some jokes again. 3/4 of women cite concern for others. Then he reminds us of the definition of selfishness: "Lacking consideration for others". How are mothers selfish if they do not lack consideration for others? How is my argument ineffective??


"You do realize that the "o" and "i" keys are next to each other, right? "

You do realize that you can read your argument twice to check for errors, right?? Didn't they teach you that on school??


"let's look at some of your grammar errors.

"they are thinking in the others,
they are not being selfish."

"Then, nearly a bit less than half of the globe rather than in most countries." "


As an English teacher I can confidently say there's no error in those statements. But maybe Pro is costumed to bad writing, so my god writing bothers him, I don't know....


"On balance does not mean ALL."

On balance means to conclude, in conclusion, to sum up, summarizing.... On balance is a conclusion mark. So basically the resolution is that you conclude Middle class and rich women who get abortions past their first trimester are selfish. That means all women. If you didn't want to say so then you would have written something like "almost all middle class bla bla bla" or "nearly all blablabla" or "some middle blablabla". But you didn't, so I have to assume you are talking about all the category of middle class and rich women who get abortions past their first trimester.


Conclusion

This women are not being selfish. As I showed earlier, they are think about the others when they take such a significant decision. They think about their baby, their family, their boyfriend, and other individuals. Then how is it that they are selfish if they think about others??

Is this decision morally correct? Maybe it isn't, but we are not discussing that here. Is this line of thinking smart? Maybe it isn't, but again, this is out off topic.

I refuted all of Pro's argument, and he has the burden of proof, so that is enough. However, I also made my own arguments against the resolution. As well as this, I always wrote in a polite fashion, while Pro was insulting and rude, breaking the rules of the site.

So, On balance, Middle class and rich women who get abortions past their first trimester are not selfish.


Sources for the whole debate:

- Common sense
- Induced Abortion in the United States (2014) Guttmacher Institute
- Re-thinking Abortion: Psychology, Gender and the Law (1997) Mary Boyle
- Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality (1905) Sigmund Freud
- The Ego and the Id (1923) Sigmund Freud

Good luck for my opponent! Cheers!
Debate Round No. 4
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by DATXDUDE 1 year ago
DATXDUDE
You know what? You're wasting my time. I hope you get spat on, you pathetic cretin.

I'll leave you with this: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
Posted by condeelmaster 1 year ago
condeelmaster
" you support the killing of unborn babies for no reason." I have reasons so don't lie to people

" I only insult people who deserve " so humans deserve to be mistreated?

"Violent? You don't know me, so don't make assumptions you f ucking imbred mongaloid."

It's fun to see how you say you are not violent and then you insult again.
Posted by DATXDUDE 1 year ago
DATXDUDE
Didn't notice my comment was gone. Oh well, I'll just post a shortened version.

Linkstart- You think it's ok to beat children with belts.

condeelf aggot- A small portion of the reason women have abortions (specifically after the first trimester) may be because of the fetus, but the main reason women get abortions is because they were too retarded to use birth control or get the abortion before the end of the first trimester, and they don't want to pay the price. They're pathetic, you're pathetic, and Linkstart is pathetic.
Posted by condeelmaster 1 year ago
condeelmaster
What a nice guy datxdude. Insulting, violent, hostile.... the future of our world is saved hahaha
Posted by Linkstart 1 year ago
Linkstart
*Keeps saying I need to kill myself*.

*Doesn't give a valid reason*.

Seems legit.

I still do not know why you even joined the debate if you were just going to make stupid insults have no argument whats so ever.
Posted by condeelmaster 1 year ago
condeelmaster
Did you read the actual study the biased article you quoted was based upon?? Did you read the part where it says main reasons why women get abortions? The part where it says 3/4 are concerned for the others??
If you quote something, at least look if it doesn't go against you.

And maybe I'm not the master of a lot of things, but at least I'm the master of this debate hahaha ;)
Posted by DATXDUDE 1 year ago
DATXDUDE
Linkstart- You only "won" the debate because I didn't even try to refute your stupid resolution. Parents should be able to beat their children with belts? F ucking kill yourself, jesus christ.

condeel"master" (you aren't really the master of anything, pathetic fetus killer) - As a main reason? This was never mentioned in the debate.
Posted by Linkstart 1 year ago
Linkstart
Why would I be salty over you ? I pretty much won the debate. I have no reason to be salty.
Posted by condeelmaster 1 year ago
condeelmaster
So citein concern for others as a main reason is a small degree of concern for others?? come on don't be self defeating
Posted by DATXDUDE 1 year ago
DATXDUDE
Also, I did read the RFD. Retard.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by RainbowDash52 1 year ago
RainbowDash52
DATXDUDEcondeelmasterTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: both sides gave reason for why getting abortions can be selfish or unselfish. Con's argument on how 3/4 women who get abortions report concern for others directly ties into the resolution showing a majority of women who get abortions are not selfish based on the definition of selfish that was provided. Con stated that he got that fact from Pro's source, but I checked and wasn't able to find it. Pro argued that 90% of women who got a late abortion could have had it in the first trimester, but I don't see how that relates to the resolution.