The Instigator
EdVinton
Con (against)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
Mangani
Pro (for)
Winning
24 Points

Should abortion be unpenalized in specific cases?

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...
Mangani
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/27/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,361 times Debate No: 5827
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (4)

 

EdVinton

Con

Abortion: The loss of an embryo or fetus either spontaneously (miscarriage) or induced (when a pregnancy is terminated on purpose) before 20 weeks. After 20 weeks, the spontaneous loss of a fetus is called a stillbirth.(1)

the discution taken on several countries in Latin America is weather to legalize, or unpenalize abortion, they have had state that and embryo can be taken out the carriers body without hurting it, or the carrier before the 12th week of the pregnancy period.

The proposing part suggest that by penalizing license doctors and qualified people would be the ones taking the practice, and assuring safety for the carrier.
Truth is that, even thought abortion like this looks like a good way to reduce the number of dead due to abortion(and its illegal practice)(2) it is not as nice as it could sound.

Studies have had give us proof that an abortion brings a series of psychological, and physical consequence that are harmful for the ex-carrier(as the abortion should be all ready practiced)(3) and lead us to believe that those transtornations would surely bring social consequences, allow me to explain:

The most important consequence in a physical matter, would be that the person that is getting the abortion, is in a high danger/risk, of end up infertile, and with huge transtornation on the period.
then, we have the psychological transtornations, which should be the ones that should worry our society, because they are the only ones that could have a huge impact on it(considering that it is not the majority of the population who is having an abortion, because then the population decreasing would be the main issue).

Is there anybody that wants his/her society to be a sick one?, is there anybody who enjoys a transtorned depress society?, i can't think of no one... i can't think of it myself.
Abortion is proved to bring alteration, transtornation, and negative impact of the victim(and i call it victim, because today, it is still considered illegal) such as:

• Denial: A sense of relief followed by repressed guilt, sadness, and grieving at the death of the aborted baby that would be a woman's natural, feminine feelings and emotions.

• More than 100 different psychological reactions including alcoholism, smoking, drug abuse, eating disorders, sexual addictions, and self-destructive behavior.

• Post abortion syndrome -- a series of psychological effects experienced by 19% to 60% of women, ranging from mild depression to suicide or attempted suicide.

• Overwhelming feelings of regret or guilt during later pregnancies.

• Flashbacks and nightmares.

• Destruction of trust between men and women.

• Increased rates of divorce, domestic violence and child abuse.

• Feelings of guilt or regret among fathers of aborted children

if we accept the unpenalization/legalization of the abortion practice in any, specific or not, cases we will be accepting this conditions for our society.
thank you for the attention lady's and gentleman i now leave you to my opponent.

(1)www.whattoexpect.com/pregnancy/glossary/a.aspx
(2) http://www.abortionno.org...
(3)http://www.straight-talk.net...
Mangani

Pro

I don't know if my opponent has actually presented an argument. From what I read it simply states A= some of the possible consequences of abortion and therefore B= abortion should not be legal because it would allow for A. This seems like to simple an argument, and does not address key issues with regard to abortion.

1. Abortion is practiced illegally where it is illegal. This is dangerous for everyone involved. Women who are allowed proper access to abortions do not face the same risks as women having them performed illegally. Worldwide, some 20-30 million legal abortions are performed each year, with another 10-20 million abortions performed illegally. Illegal abortions are unsafe and account for 13% of all deaths of women because of serious complications. Death from abortion is almost unknown in the United States or in other countries where abortion is legally available.

2. In opposition to complete outlaw of abortion, if pro-choicers conceded to pro-lifers and agreed to limiting abortions to cases of rape, incest, or cases when the mother's life is in danger, legal abortions would go down by 96%. In the US where illegal abortions are virtually non-existent, this would mean a great rise in the number of illegal abortions, and the concurrent rise of deaths from illegal abortion complications.

3. My opponent doesn't even attempt to address the issues of the right to choice for the woman, or the right to life of the child.

Again, my opponent has not presented a clear argument against allowing the unpenalized practice of abortion even in specific areas. I will await his response, and see if he restructures his argument. As of how he really doesn't have one. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
EdVinton

Con

So, if my argument is not valid because it is not applicable to each person is not an argument, then my opponents ONLY argument it is not a valid one, why is the carrier's life more important than the baby's?, who are we to decide?, when we can keep them both.

When we forbid abortion, we are not necessarily encouraging people to practice it illegally, as forbidding it is to punish it, and we punish it because it, when practiced, brings CONSEQUENCES that would be HARMFUL.
of course if it is practiced it is going to be illegal, because it would not be legal, if i sell drugs, and it is not legal it WILL be an illegal action, and it is illegal precisely because i harm people around me, as the BABY would be in an abortion case.
The only thing that my opponent is defending is that if it is not legal it will still be practiced and will kill more people, so government should allow the killing of babies in other to stop SUICIDE.
i really think that if something is illegal it is for a reason, and if that law is broken, then it will stay in the criminal mind the action he committed, and will be him that has to deal with his punishment.
If abortion is illegal and you still want to abort(because of an irresponsibility) then the action you will take will bring consequences, either you die as my opponent says, or you confront state in to a law-criminal relation to receive your punishment, so if people die because they practice abortion in an insecure way because government does not authorize this practice it is not state's fault, it is individually incorrect to disobey the law, in any way, and abortion is no exception, we cannot blame state for the actions we have to take, that will be less dangerous if legal, that result in a bad way when its illegal.
Then we can consider the abortion as a threat to society, because it is like drugs, if legal or illegal, are still consumed, it will just make it easier if government accept it, but government cannot accept what is wrong so it is less harmful, government has to forbid what is wrong to promote the stop of this conducts.

in a certain way my opponent can be right, if we legalize abortion the dead rate will decrease, because we don't count in this number the deaths that occur to people that are not breathing our air, even though this would be acceptiong something that is wrong, and could be taken as spoiling a child by giving him all that he asks for just to stop him from crying.
Still this is not about saving one person's life, but to save society from the transformation and sickness that legal abortion would bring... a society that accepts murder and degrades life to a choice of irresponsibility level, is a sick one.

Who are we to decide if our irresponsibility is worth for taking a baby's life? and if the carrier is certain she cannot manage to keep her child, well, she'll have to take responsibility to take that child to where he can be raised, but ending with life is in no way a human solution to problems.

the only thing that differentiates us from animals is that we have at least potential criteria, and even if we scientifically prove that an embryo in sometime in his development is not alive, it is still potentially a human, it is potential criteria so, it is considered murder, ladies and gentleman, i present now abortion as a great way to evade consequences to irresponsibility, but we, as humans, are able to take them and transform them in to develop... (explain in next round)

THankyou for the attention....
Mangani

Pro

I did not say your argument was not valid, I said you did not make an argument. You began the debate by stating that in "Latin American countries" the discussion is "such" and went on to write what the discussion on the anti-abortion side is. You presented the consequence of "accepting this conditions for our society" as the conclusion to R1. I contend that you did not, in fact, present an argument.

My opponent then starts R2 with a contradiction. He says "who are we to decide", then follows up with the statement "we can keep them both". My opponent completely ignores several key facts.

1. "We" are not both. There is a pregnant woman, or would be mother, and there is an unborn fetus or child.

2. "We" cannot "keep" either. Indeed, who are we to decide? It is for the woman to decide whether she is merely a "carrier" as you say, or a "mother". It is her decision. Not yours. Not mine.

3. Abortion statistics show that in the US 96.2% of abortions are performed before gestational maturity is reached. This means the baby is not viable outside the womb. Who is going to keep these babies? YOU?

Furthermore, I have not stated the mother's life is more important than that of her baby- but it is her choice wether or not she will have it, legal or not.

My opponent denies the statistics with a simple claim- "we are not necessarily encouraging people to practice it (abortions) illegally". The statistics show that an equal number of legal and illegal abortions are performed worldwide. Illegal abortions are performed with drastically higher frequencies in countries where abortion is illegal, compared to nearly nil in the US where it is legal. Abortion has been practiced for thousands of years, and making abortion illegal indeed encourages illegal abortions because it does not erase from society the fact that there will always be women that for some reason or another will want or need an abortion.

My opponent contends that if something is illegal it is for a reason, and implies that it is illegal because it should be. Why, then, is abortion legal in some countries and not in others? The argument is baseless as laws are enacted according to the government where the laws are enacted and enforced. At one point it was illegal for people of different races to marry. Were breakers of those laws criminals as well?

My opponent makes an argument about the illegality and legality of abortions and it's relation to the dangers of illegal abortions. The fact of the matter is that abortion is a medical procedure. When the government involves itself in outlawing established medical procedures- this one in particular spans several thousands of years- it becomes responsible for the obvious consequences of an unnecessary law. There is no statistical evidence in favor of outlawing abortions. Where it is illegal abortions do not go down. Women continue to have abortions at similar rates (if not higher) to those in countries where abortion is legal- with one major drawback, a 13+% mortality rate for the mothers. Doctors performing illegal abortions do not have to be real doctors. They do not practice in proper clinics. The dangers of legal abortion do not compare to the legalization of drugs as my opponent contends. If crime were crime and it were that simple, we wouldn't even be having this debate. Medical procedures should be governed by medical doctors. Doctors contend that the benefits of legal abortion when compared to illegal abortions far outweigh the negatives. There are no benefits associated with illegal abortions.

My opponent contends that legal abortions somehow corrupt society. I contend that abortion is a private matter between a woman and her doctor, and that society should have no say or even knowledge that the abortion took place. How would it affect you if you don't know it's happening? I'm sure you have a mother. Why don't you ask her when was the last time she had a pap smear and measure her reaction. It is her business, and she would probably slap you. Abortion is just as private, if not more private a matter. If personal private liberties are given to the discretion of others in society, what then would be legal? Alcohol affects society in more negative ways than positive- yet it is legal in nearly every society. Cars give off carbon emissions and radiation, yet driving cars is legal. Premarital sex, unsafe sex, homosexual sex- all these things are potentially harmful to the persons partaking, and some argue it is harmful to society... where will the hijacking of personal freedoms stop???

Again, my arguments says "who are we to decide". Who are YOU to decide? You are not a woman, and you will never have to face that decision, but 40% of women in the US have or will have an abortion at some point in their life. That is 4 out of 10 of our mothers, sisters, daughters, aunts, grandmothers, cousins, mothers in law, girlfriends, wives, and sisters in law. If you live in the US, or know 10 women in the US, chances are 4 of them have had or will have an abortion. Who are YOU to decide? It is not for the government to decide. It is for a woman and her doctor to decide.

My opponent contends now that abortion is murder. I contend that my opponent is not a doctor to make that decision. There are philosophical and medical debates that can go on forever about whether or not a fetus is a living, viable, human life. Personally I am against abortion once the baby is formed and "looks" human. "Potential" for life would make ejaculation the murder of millions of "potential" babies. So lets keep to verifiable facts.

Even if my opponent were to make a logical argument for the potential of life- he fails to address three key cases in which abortion cannot rationally be denied to a woman- incest, rape, and when the mother's life is at risk. Arguments are made against partial birth abortion where the womans "health" is put into quotes, but the fact is that partial birth abortion is hardly practiced in the US. I do not support any form of partial birth abortion, but there are times when the baby must be taken out in order for the mother to live, and the baby may not be viable at that time. It is always the mother's decision to make, and personally I do not see any morals in forcing a mother to die in order to save a child she will not be alive to raise- especially when she has other children. That case aside, there is incest and rape. No woman or child should be forced to have her father's baby, or the baby of a man who raped her. You say it is saving a life, I say it is destroying TWO. A 12 year old girl, if raped by her father an empregnated, under my opponent's contention, would be forced to be the mother of her brother at a very early age. Her son would have to live knowing that his father is also his grandfather, and his mother is also his sister. Both children would be psycologically traumatized for the rest of their lives. Adoption you say? The mother would still have to carry to term her father's child. She would be forced to give up a child she did not want to be empregnated with in the first place, and that child would be raised by complete strangers. At some point in that child's curious life it will search for his biological parents. What he finds out could devastate his life. Lets say this child becomes a criminal. DNA evidence would point to the mother who would be an exact mytochodrial and nucleic DNA match! THAT is what is sickening.

Lets not mention all the crackheads who have abortions all the time, and the number of un-adopted children in this world. WHO takes care of them? YOU? No... I don't see pro-lifers lining up at orphanages or foster homes looking to raise crack babies, or any babies PERIOD. UNICEF estimates there are between 143 million and 210 million orphans worldwide. I am not saying abortion is the fix for these numbers, rather that pro-life does not equal pro-adoption, and that is a problem.
Debate Round No. 2
EdVinton

Con

Even thought i don't entirely agree with my opponent, for i have reed son facts that are not necessarily true or are subject to ethics, im here to give up.

My opponent is not irrational at all, in fact he did contend cleverly to my arguments, but, this debate cannot take place when we are discussing two different things, will legal abortion be the safest way to keep our society individually safe?, and will society be heavily and deeply psychological affected by the simple acceptance of this practice?.

if it is not clear yet, i do believe that abortion is evading responsibilities, but now i know what an unwanted child means, as it is not as simple as someone in the world exist that needs children, it is much more profound and it is in touch to the actual develop of the fetus or baby.

There are more facts that lead me to believe that abortion is more wrong that right but as the actual debate is weather pro-chose or pro-life i think it is a decision to be taken by the people that CAN abort... woman... i can think that abortion is completely wrong, and therefore i defend my point, but i am certainly not in the
I don't believe that my argument was contradicting, as if those consecuensses truly affect us, it will be on everyones matter but as you said it is mor harmfull to carrier and child than to society...
Good debate thank you hahaha
Mangani

Pro

EdVinton: Creo que el problema tuyo es que no has podido comunicar muy bien. Como quiera, en Mejico ya legalizaron el aborto en casos de violacion.

Though I would like to accept my opponent's concession, I know that is not how debate.org works. He will cede his point, yet others will vote in his favor. So I will continue with whatever arguments I can.

I have not claimed that "legal abortion is the safest way to keep our society individually safe". That is not the subject of my contentions. My arguments for or against legal abortion were to highlight certain dangers that affect society as a whole, versus the psychological consequences my opponent points out as results of abortion- which he also claims is "evading responsibilities". I deny neither. I am very aware of the psychological consequences of abortion, but I am also aware that pregnancy and child birth affect women psychologically either way because of all the chemical signals, physical and emotional strain, etc. I am not saying childbirth poses greater psychological consequences either, rather that people with mental problems will have them, and either deal with them appropriately or exacerbate them. Either way it is an issue of personal choice and responsibility, and it is a medical issue- not a legal one. Society is not affected as a whole with the legality of personal matters, but making them illegal DOES affect us all.

On whether or not abortion is evading responsibilities- I do not feel it is the responsibility of a 12 year old girl to bear or give birth to the child of her incestuous father. Abortion is not evading responsibility in every case, and the alternative my opponent proposes- give the child up for adoption- simply places the opportunity to evade responsibility in someone else's hands, and with the number of unadopted orphans- which didn't include children given up for adoption, children in foster care, etc. (the number of which would make that statistic a lot higher)- it is clear that noone else is willing to take up that responsibility.

Is abortion more "wrong than right"? Absolutely. This is not to take away from the fact that it is a personal choice, and individual burden, and a medical decision- not a legal one. Personally I am pro-life. That is to say that I got a girl pregnant I would advise her to have the child, and I would be pretty upset if she had an abortion. The same woman not being pregnant with MY baby would have my full support as it is not a child that I would be willing to raise completely on my own. Get it? I would rather sacrifice my entire life for a mistake I may have made with a woman who was not willing to take up that responsibility, but I can completely understand her point of view and would support her if there was no person willing to take that same responsibility. My opponent does not offer that alternative view, and would allow the adoption system to become overcrowded with unwanted babies who would become the responsibility of the government.

My opponent has ceded this round, and I would hope he presents a closing argument for round 4. I would also ask that you vote according to the debate, and not just your personal choice or belief.
Debate Round No. 3
EdVinton

Con

haha, there ur right, im pretty much used to a PARLIMENTARY debate, so i actually get to win points by speaking and expressing.
normally even i dont agree with my possition i still continue to debate on it, but, in this specific case i really think it is not debatable because we are certainly defienfing, nothing wrong, but diferent things hahaha anyways, finish your arguments and may be we'll debate some other time.

E J. Vinton
Mangani

Pro

No problem. I am sure we will meet again! Thanks for the debate!
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by EdVinton 8 years ago
EdVinton
thnx haha u r right it is not my first language although in a certain way i don't have one, because i live in mexico so i speak spanish, but my family is american so i speak english at home, it is just the way i write things, and i dont pay that much attention sometimes i write things as they come to my mind haha but thnx for the comment ill for sure pay more attention in that for future debates
Posted by Kleptin 8 years ago
Kleptin
Kleptin- Voting as a Cleaner

Conduct: PRO. Both parties conducted themselves well in the beginning, but in the latter rounds, CON broke character and because quite informal, laughing and talking about the debate rather than continuing to debate, it shows bad form (even though he did concede).

Spelling and Grammar- PRO. I am sure that English is not CON's first language, and since this is the case, I feel somewhat mixed about having to award the points to PRO. The fact remains, however, that CON's arguments were grammatically awkward, and there were several spelling errors throughout this debate in his end.

Arguments- PRO. PRO's counterpoints were undoubtedly superior as CON's points were difficult to understand sometimes. On top of that, his arguments were based on faulty information. He also offered very weak responses to CON's first round of counterpoints.

Sources- CON. CON was the only one to cite relevant sources, so I am awarding him this category.

**If you would like your debates reviewed by The Cleaners, a group of over a dozen intelligent and unbiased debaters who love to lend a helping hand, please send me a message or post on our forum topics under "debate.org" :)**
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by KRFournier 8 years ago
KRFournier
EdVintonManganiTied
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 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 JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
EdVintonManganiTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:25 
Vote Placed by Kleptin 8 years ago
Kleptin
EdVintonManganiTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:25 
Vote Placed by Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
EdVintonManganiTied
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:07