Resolved: The United States Government should make abortion illegal.
Debate Rounds (4)
Abortion is defined as the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, usually during the first 28 weeks.
All other words in the resolution are self explanatory.
The topic we are debating today is weather or not the United States Gpvernment should make abortion illegal. The United States has already risin over the religious institutions in legalising gay marriage, which is a very big step in the direction of the free mind and body movement. Considering that they have already stated that everyone should have the right to do what they want with their body, shouldn't abortion be legal also? I would consider the baby, part of the mother until the umbilical cord is cut. Until then the baby is basically a parasite, feeding off the strength of the mother. I will go more in depth into this later on in the debate.
My second point is that every child should have the right to grow up in a strong household. Some of the factors that would makeup a strong household would be parents and love, although those are just some of them, they make up the epitome of a good household. A child growing up without a good household is over twice as likely to develop psychotic tendencies and have mental disorders.
I would like to now point out that by requesting an abortion, the mother is stating that she cannot care for, does not want, or cannot have the child inside her body. For better or for worse this puts the child without love if it comes into this world. It will be more likely to be bullied, and abused, by peers at school or by the mother. Or the child could be put into an orphanage, a drain on the system, never knowing its mother, depressed and lonely. Do you want this fate for a child?
This picture would not be complete without a father of course. Weathar it is a teen pregnancy and the father simply denies the girl, to a marriage where both the mother and the father do not want the baby, accidents to happen. Because birth control is never 100% effective, we should not, and have a moral responsibility not to make abortions illegal. Until we can say that you will not get a baby is you use this super condem (or any other form of 100% effective birth control), we should not take abortions away.
Why is this pro lifers might ask? Well it is because, we need to offer the women a foolproof option of getting rid of a child, that will not be loved, cared for and was a stake, weather by not having it made in the first place, or by cutting it off before it is born. We shou;d be attempting as a society to produce children that are wholesome and grow up in a happy and healthy household, with both parents who care for them, as that will produce the best results for a society to grow. We as an advanced society should be promoting the sexual lifestyles of to individuals without allowing a chance of a baby to come in and figuratively and actually wrecking their lives, and their finances.
This moves me onto my final point for this speech. This is that most newly weds and new couples, simply cannot afford to care for a baby. Having another member of the family is extremely expensive (I am sure there are stats on this, but without Internet, I cannot check them), and it should not be forced on people.
Governments should stay out of the bedroom. Like China's one child policy, to restrict population growth, do we need a policy that does not allow us to control our population, and have children being born without love, or caring parents?
It is for these reasons that I do believe that this resolution Resolved that the United States Government should make abortion illegal, must and will fall. Thank you and have a great day! I look forward to my opponents argument.
I disagree that a baby is part of the mother while still connected to the umbilical cord but like you said you will go into that later.
A child who grows up without a strong household is better than no child right? Not only should abortion be considered murder, but theft too, You are robbing a human being of a chance to live. Would you rather be dead or have a chance at least for a good life?
You stated that a mother would request an abortion because she cannot (just using one example) have the baby inside her body, please tell me how one would not be able to maintain a child in her womb. Like I said, would you rather live in an orphanage and have a chance at life or not have any chance and not be able to live?
I hate to repeat the same argument over and over but would you rather have a chance at life even if your mother was a teen and you were an "accident" or would you rather be dead?
Can you guarantee that a child won't be loved or accepted? I that we should strive to bring up wholesome children but they cannot be wholesome if they can't exist.
I am sorry if i repeated the same thing to much, but I couldn't emphasize it more.
Although the Catholic and Lutheran churches oppose abortion, more of their members believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases versus illegal in all or most cases (51% vs. 45%, Lutheran; 48% vs. 45%, Catholic).  This fact would defeat any religious arguments because it states that religious churches, do not actually oppose legalizing abortion.
Now that I have defeated any religious arguments I would now like to move on to rebuttals.
I"m probably not going to convince you that a fetus isn"t a life, as that"s basically the most intractable part of this whole debate, so I"ll be brief. A fetus can"t survive on its own. It is fully dependent on its mother"s body, unlike born human beings. Even if a fetus was alive, the "right to life" doesn"t imply a right to use somebody else"s body. People have the right to refuse to donate their organs, for example, even if doing so would save somebody else"s life. The "right to life" also doesn"t imply a right to live by threatening somebody else's life. Bearing children is always a threat the life of the mother. A "right to life" is, at the end of the day, a right to not have somebody else"s will imposed upon your body. Do women not have this right as well?
In your rebuttals you stated that you would rather have a child alive and in an orphanage. This implies that the only reason a woman would want to get an abortion is to avoid raising a child, and that isn"t the case. Depending on the circumstances, the mere act of having a child in a hospital can cost between $3,000 and $37,000 in the United States. Giving birth is dangerous, too: In the United States, pregnancy complications are the sixth most common cause of death for women between the ages of 20 and 34.
Even before birth, there are costs to pregnancy. In addition to the whole "carrying another human being around in your stomach for nine months" thing, many women, particularly teens, are shunned and shamed for their pregnancies " not only by friends, families, employers, and classmates, but also by advertisements in the subway. There's also the risk of violent retribution from abusive partners and parents. In short, there are a lot of reasons a woman might seek an abortion. Adoption doesn"t address all of them.
Now I will move on to my constructive speech. A woman's risk of dying from having an abortion is 0.6 in 100,000, while the risk of dying from giving birth is around 14 times higher (8.8 in 100,000).  The mortality rate of a colonoscopy is more than 40 times greater than that of an abortion.
The US Supreme Court has declared abortion to be a "fundamental right" guaranteed by the US Constitution. The landmark abortion case Roe v. Wade, decided on Jan. 22, 1973 in favor of abortion rights, remains the law of the land. The 7-2 decision stated that the Constitution gives "a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy," and that "This right of privacy... is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. 
Women who receive abortions are less likely to suffer mental health problems than women denied abortions. A Sep. 2013 peer-reviewed study comparing the mental health of women who received abortions to women denied abortions found that women who were denied abortions "felt more regret and anger" and "less relief and happiness" than women who had abortions. The same study also found that 95% of women who received abortions "felt it was the right decision" a week after the procedure.  Studies by the American Psychological Association (APA), the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges (AMRC), and researchers at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health all concluded that purported links between abortion and mental health problems are unfounded. 
Women who are denied abortions are more likely to become unemployed, to be on public welfare, to be below the poverty line, and to become victims of domestic violence. A University of California at San Francisco study found that women who were turned away from abortion clinics (because they had passed the gestational limit imposed by the clinic) were three times more likely to be below the poverty level two years later than women who were able to obtain abortions. 76% of the "turnaways" ended up on unemployment benefits, compared with 44% of the women who had abortions. The same study found that women unable to obtain abortions were more likely to stay in a relationship with an abusive partner than women who had an abortion, and were more than twice as likely to become victims of domestic violence.  
Abortion reduces crime. According to a study co-written by Freakonomics co-author Steven D. Levitt, PhD, and published in the peer-reviewed Quarterly Journal of Economics, "legalized abortion has contributed significantly to recent crime reductions." Around 18 years after abortion was legalized, crime rates began to drop abruptly, and crime rates dropped earlier in states that allowed abortion earlier. Because "women who have abortions are those most at risk to give birth to children who would engage in criminal activity," and women who had control over the timing of childbearing were more likely to raise children in optimal environments, crime is reduced when there is access to legal abortion. 
It is for the reasons that I have stated above, and in my previous speech that I would encourage a vote against the resolution. I look forward to my opponents rebuttals and speech in the next round. Below you will see a list of the resources that I have used to write my rebuttals and speech. Thank you for your time.
Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, US Religious Landscape Survey: Religious Beliefs and Practices: Diverse and Politically Relevant, religions.pewforum.org, June 2008
E.G. Raymond and D.A. Grimes, "The Comparative Safety of Legal Induced Abortion and Childbirth in the United States," Obstetrics and Gynecology, Feb. 2012
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and American Medical Association, "Brief of Amici Curiae [in Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Surgical Health Services et al. v. Attorney General Gregory Abbot et al.]," acog.org, Dec. 19, 2013
Roe v. Wade (342 KB) , US Supreme Court, lp.findlaw.com, Jan. 22, 1973
Corinne H. Rocca, Katrina Kimport, et al., "Women's Emotions One Week after Receiving or Being Denied an Abortion in the United States," Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, Sep. 2013
Susan A. Cohen, "Still True: Abortion Does Not Increase Women"s Risk of Mental Health Problems," Guttmacher Policy Review, Spring 2013
Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH), University of California at San Francisco, "Turnaway Study," ansirh.org (accessed Apr. 22, 2014)
Annalee Newitz, "What Happens to Women Denied Abortions? This Is the First Scientific Study to Find Out," io9.com, Nov. 13, 2012
John J. Donohue, and Steven D. Levitt, "The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, May 2001 (Despite admitting to an error in one of this study's tables, Levitt has stated that "the story we put forth in the paper is not materially changed by the coding error." See Steven D. Levitt, "Everything in Freakonomics Is Wrong!," freakonomics.com, Nov. 28, 2005)
EvangilisticOmega forfeited this round.
A fetus can't survive on its own. It is fully dependent on its mother"s body, unlike born human beings. Even if a fetus was alive, the "right to life" does not imply a right to use somebody else's body. People have the right to refuse to donate their organs, for example, even if doing so would save somebody else's life. The "right to life" also does not imply a right to live by threatening somebody else's life. Bearing children is always a threat the life of the mother. A "right to life" is, at the end of the day, a right to not have somebody else"s will imposed upon your body.
The US Supreme Court has declared abortion to be a "fundamental right" guaranteed by the US Constitution. The Constitution gives "a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy," and that "This right of privacy... is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.
Women who receive abortions are less likely to suffer mental health problems than women denied abortions.
Women who are denied abortions are more likely to become unemployed, to be on public welfare, to be below the poverty line, and to become victims of domestic violence. Abortion reduces crime, because "women who have abortions are those most at risk to give birth to children who would engage in criminal activity," and women who had control over the timing of childbearing were more likely to raise children in optimal environments, crime is reduced when there is access to legal abortion.
All of these points prove that women should be allowed to receive an abortion under the constitution, and that women who receive abortion gain numerous benefits from it, along with lowering the crime rates among other things.
I thank my opponent for this wonderful debate, and look forward to debating with him in the near future. I would strongly encourage a vote for con in this debate. I look forward to your conclusion, and hope we can be friends hereafter. Thank you!
EvangilisticOmega forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Defro 12 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||6||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro loses conduct for forfeiting two rounds. This rendered Pro unable to refute Con's arguments in R3 and R4, therefore Pro loses arguments as well. Con was the only one who cited credible sources.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.