The Instigator
Con (against)
6 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Resolved: Planned Parenthood should be abolished

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/5/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 301 times Debate No: 92352
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)





  1. 1. No forfeiting

  2. 2. No kritiks

  3. 3. Please comment to express interest before accepting

  4. 4. Be courteous

Round structure

R1) Give your constructive case

R2) I will provide my case, you may refute my case

R3) Refutation and defending cases

R4) Opponent waives last round



I accept.
Debate Round No. 1


Next time you accept a debate read the round structure first. I’ll change it now.

R2- My constructive, your constructive

R3- My rebuttal, your rebuttal

R4- My final focus, your final focus

I understand, it happens, just read next time.


We need to look at today’s debate through the assumption that lives matter more than economics. Thus, if I can provide the judges with enough evidence that Planned Parenthood is a benefit to lives, then I win.

Contention 1: Provides needed services for women, and others

Many claim that Planned Parenthood is simply an abortion palace, however, this is misconstrued. If we were to look at a recent NPR article in 2015, we would see that the majority of the government funds given to Planned Parenthood end up in research for multiple types of cancer as well as treating and screening for sexually transmitted disease (1). To see this, let us observe the graph.

This is the amount of spending in each field. However, the three percent statistic for the amount of abortion services used is often debated, and people would be right to be skeptical. The actual percentage, according to Politifact, comes out to be 12% of all services being abortion (2). Regardless, it also states that testing and treating sexually transmitted diseases also account for over 4 million services as well, which is the largest share out of any service provided by Planned Parenthood (2). This is important due to the amount of people who currently have these diseases. According to the Center for Disease and Control Center in 2015, we see that chlamydia, only one out of dozens of STDs, now has claimed people at a 2.8% increase from 2013, or 456.1 cases per 1,000 (3). The STDs are harmful for many reasons, mainly their often harmful nature. If left untreated, according to a recent US News and World Report, one could become sterile, increase the chance of getting HIV, be inflicted with damage to internal organs, and may ultimately result in death depending on the STD in question and whether someone is treated (4). With the amount of help given from the Planned Parenthood organization, we would see a higher death rate among those with STDs because of the amount of treatment that is given in Planned Parenthood. We would be seeing lives lost, which is an important factor in today’s debate under the framework I provided because we value the lives affected over the economic benefits or harms of having Planned Parenthood.

Contention 2: Prevent black market abortions

Simply because we get rid of Planned Parenthood does not mean we ultimately rid ourselves of abortion. In fact, by getting rid of abortion, we would be seeing an increase in black market abortions that would spread like wildfire. This was already done in Texas, where nearly every abortion clinic was shut down resulting in women looking for alternative ways to induce abortion (5). This involved Misoprostol, a drug which is for stomach ulcers which due to inflation because of women using it for abortions is now valued at over 100 British pounds, which easily translates to over $100 dollars (5). However, the main problem is the link to death due to illegal abortions. According to the World Health Organization, about 20-30% of unsafe abortions result in upper genital tract infection, of which 20-40% result in infection and infertility (6). Not only this, but the World Health organization has stated this:

“When abortion is made legal, safe, and easily accessible, women’s health rapidly improves. By contrast, women’s health deteriorates when access to safe abortion is made more difficult or illegal.” (6)

Ergo, by keeping an entity that does safe abortions, we could mitigate the impact of American women dying from unsuccessful and illegal abortions.

As a side note, we can see that the Planned Parenthood organization actually decreases the amount of abortions had. Politifact has gathered statistics from the CDC and has proffered the following graph (7):

As seen there is actually a downward trend in abortions, contrary to many opponents of Planned Parenthood. This can be linked to Planned Parenthood because of a recent study done by the Guttmacher Institute which states that without family planning services, which are usually given from Planned Parenthood, we would be seeing an increase of 345,000 abortions every year (8). So, we would be preventing illegal abortion which often results in death and harm to women, while also appeasing the pro-life crowd by lowering the amount of abortions.

Contention 3: Potential progress

My opponent may remember me pointing out the fact that there are different types of services that Planned Parenthood participates in. The most important is the research of many cancers. We can observe the immediate aftermath of the attacks on Planned Parenthood via edited and objectively false videos that tarnished the name of Planned Parenthood and see the impacts clearly (9). Mother Jones shows the fact that many labs, including the Birth Defects Research Lab in the University of Seattle has had its supply of fetal tissue cut off, so that no progress is made in the specific field (9). This is important due to the potential scientific progress being mitigated by not allowing the practice. According to the Time Magazine, scientific contributions with fetal tissue has led to many vaccines being created, and can possibly treat Parkinson’s disease, although it is currently not as successful (10). However, we need to see the potential of scientific progress that could result in progress. In fact, the New York Times reports that Scientists in the University of California have been using fetal tissue to advance studies for cures to cancer, HIV, Alzheimer’s, and other such diseases that result in net harms to society (11). Since Planned Parenthood does provide some of this fetal tissue, we need to see that a negative vote is warranted to further societal progress.


Clearly, on the metric of lives, the negation wins due to the increased medical progress, less black market abortions, and the fact that Planned Parenthood provides services for people. For this, I urge a negative vote.

Works Cited

  1. 1. (
  2. 2. (
  3. 3. (
  4. 4. (
  5. 5. (
  6. 6. (
  7. 7. (
  8. 8. (
  9. 9. (
  10. 10. (
  11. 11. (



Planned Parenthood is selling fetal tissue, thus, EVIL!
Debate Round No. 2


Rebuttal 1: Selling fetal tissue

My opponent, without evidence, has claimed that Planned Parenthood is selling fetal tissue. This is not true as when we look toward NPR in 2016, we see the opposite (1). In fact, the grand jury has indicted the people in charge of the spread of misinformation from the scandal because it misconstrued the facts (1). Not only this, but despite the investigation ongoing, there is no signs of body parts being sold. Thus, the only point my opponent has made is completely null. This is backed up by Politifact, that determined that the statement "…some Planned Parenthood chapters have been selling the body parts of aborted fetuses for profit…" is actually false. In fact, if you read my case, I have shown that the fetal tissue was donated, researched, and used to further scientific progress. Thus, one must negate.

  1. 1. (
  2. 2. (



Well it's a private corporation, Goveronment shouldn't fund corporations.
Debate Round No. 3


Rebuttal 1: Should not fund corporations

Actually, under the constitution there is a clause commonly referred to as the commerce clause that states the following:

“The Commerce Clause refers to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” (1)

Constitutionally speaking, giving funding toward Planned Parenthood is constitutional. Since my opponent has not specified the problem with funding corporations, I will simply assume that this answer will suffice.

If you still remain unconvinced that Planned Parenthood should not be funded, remember the fact that they have aided research and treatment relating to STDs and other types of diseases which are widespread today. Thus, regardless of the “laissez faire” ideas that my opponent has, we need to see that my impacts still occur regardless, and the entirety of my case is extended.


  1. 1. (

Side Note

I would like to ask that no new points be presented in the final round.



I accepted this debate by mistake and had 5 others going on since, sorry for not debating.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by ThinkBig 4 months ago
Con gets the conduct point as pro violated the terms of the debate and the debate structure.

Con begins his opening case by stating that planned parenthood should continue to be funded because they provide many services for women, prevent black market abortions, and provide for scientific progress. Pro's contentions are that Planned parenthood is evil because they were caught selling fetal tissue, and that government should not fund corporations.
Pro does not respond to any of con's arguments and so they all stand.
Con effectively responded to pro's two arguments by pointing out that the videos were doctored and shown to be fake. He also responds to the second contention by pointing out that the Constitution permits funding to corporations.
Finally, pro admitted that he accepted the debate by mistake and so by default, con wins.

Con was the only one to cite sources and used very thorough and very good sources.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ThinkBig 4 months ago
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments