The Instigator
CiRrO
Pro (for)
Losing
29 Points
The Contender
kcougar52
Con (against)
Winning
42 Points

Social Abortions ought to be banned in the US.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/1/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,558 times Debate No: 5219
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (13)

 

CiRrO

Pro

I affirm: Social Abortions ought to be banned in the US.

[Definitions]

Social Abortions: Abortions induced for reasons besides potential harm to the mother, death, or rape.

Ought: a moral obligation.

Banned: made illegal.

[Contentions]

Contention I: Abortion is a form of murder.

First, we must decide when life begins. For this, I will use a new structure of biology that has been merging in the past couple of years. It is known as Systems biology. In short this new biology explains the system of life, etc. Now, according to Systems Biology, human life begins when: "it first appears as a determined embodied process. This embodied process, from the outset, has an active capacity to be manifest in human ways." -Systems Biology Organization.

Explanation: This definition is short means that life begins when potentiality exists. This potentiality exists at the implantation stage. 10 - 12 days after fertilization. Note: It is impossible to detect pregnancy at this time.

So, now we have a clear understanding of when human life begins.

Murder can be defined as: killing a human being with premeditation.

Abortion is the killing of an embryo or fetus.

Now, link the 2 together. Since life begins at implantation, and it is impossible to detect abortion at that time, then abortions occur when the baby does have life. Abortions are premeditated, intentional, and kill a human being. Murder is illegal, and any variation of murder is illegal as well. Therefore, to comply with the rule of law, banning abortion is both a moral and legal imperative.

*I reserve the right to make any new arguments in the 2nd round.

Thank you ladies and gentlemen.
kcougar52

Con

First off I would like to thank CiRrO for offering this thought provoking debate.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Alrighty, here we go.

Observation I: Abortion used to be illegal.

a) According to The Socialist Worker (http://socialistworker.org...), abortion was illegal between the late 1800s and 1973. When abortion was illegal, women had abortions anyway, and often times, this was done in "back-yard" or "back-alley" abortions. These practices were extremely unsafe and killed an estimated 15,000 per year.
b) When this happens, it's obvious to see that when the United States makes 'Social Abortions' illegal, it happens anyway, and therefore causes unneeded deaths.
*Note: I am not condoning abortion in any way. I am just looking at the facts of the matter.

Observation II: Abuse by the Pro

a) If you look at the second to last line the Pro wrote, it says 'I reserve the right to make any new arguments in the 2nd round.'

b) This is extremely abusive because it means that they can scrap their whole first argument and make a new one based on my arguments. It's the Pro's burden to prove the topic/resolution.

c) If the Pro brings up any new arguments not relating to their initial arguments or my arguments, they should lose based on this alone.

Observation III: On Case Arguments

a) My opponent brings up a good point, but the definition they have of when human life begins is easily debated with another definition. There are many many definitions of this floating around on blogs, in dictionaries, and in literature based on science, but the fact that my opponent tries to narrow it down to one is completely bogus.

b) Based on the fact that my opponents definition is too narrow to uphold the topic, all arguments based on this definition should be made null and void.

c) Remember: According to my 2nd observation, if my opponent tries to offer a new definition, they lose.

Thank you. Vote for me!
Debate Round No. 1
CiRrO

Pro

Observation I: Abortion used to be illegal.

a) According to The Socialist Worker (http://socialistworker.org......), abortion was illegal between the late 1800s and 1973. When abortion was illegal, women had abortions anyway, and often times, this was done in "back-yard" or "back-alley" abortions. These practices were extremely unsafe and killed an estimated 15,000 per year.

--> "Back Alley" practices and other criminal activited should not spur the government to condone an immoral act. Furthermore, it's the woman's "choice" to go recieve a back alley abortion, and must accept responsibility for that action.

b) When this happens, it's obvious to see that when the United States makes 'Social Abortions' illegal, it happens anyway, and therefore causes unneeded deaths.

--> Ok, then they must also accept responsibility for for deaths occurred by legally induced abortions as well, plus all the deaths of the living fetuses. so, lets see thats: > 40 million deaths (40 million unborn and roughly 500 - 1000 mothers)

"a) My opponent brings up a good point, but the definition they have of when human life begins is easily debated with another definition. There are many many definitions of this floating around on blogs, in dictionaries, and in literature based on science, but the fact that my opponent tries to narrow it down to one is completely bogus.

b) Based on the fact that my opponents definition is too narrow to uphold the topic, all arguments based on this definition should be made null and void.

c) Remember: According to my 2nd observation, if my opponent tries to offer a new definition, they lose."

--> My opponent has not refuted any of my case. Furthermore, he just drops it by saying my definition is too vague. He hasn't warranted his statement, and he has not provided another stat to counter it. Therefore, my definition plus my case extends for the round. [Extensions]

Thank you ladies and gentlemen.
kcougar52

Con

Here we go!

Obsv. 1: a:
i) Basically all my opponent says in response here is that a woman has a choice to recieve a back alley abortion, and must accept responibility for that action. So the Pro is going against the "Pro-Life" point of view and saying that a woman should indeed have a choice. So, in all reality, he has just given me another point in which he agreed.
ii) Notice that I never said that the government condones an immoral act. (I do not think they should!) We should not debate morals, because everyone's point of view is different. Instead we need to look at reality, and that reality is that if we accept the Pro's theory, we are allowing thousands of women to die!
iii) My opponent talks about morals; how it is immoral to allow the death of a fetus. But, my opponent is allowing the women to die in the name of the Pro's high moral standings. This just doesn't make sense to me.

b:
i) Alrighty, again we see the definition of 'human life' come into play. I will disprove this yet again later in the round.
ii) Again, I do not believe the government should condone abortions, and neither do I. But, when the lives of women who are scared and don't know what to do are at risk because of dirty practices, the government cannot attempt to lessen one problem in order to inflate another. There are other alternatives to attempting to stop a common practice all at once. That is a debate for another time, though.

Obsv. 2:
Thanks to my opponent for not abusing me! :)

Obsv. 3:
i) My opponent said I did not refute any of their case and that I dropped it completely. They also said I gave no warrant to my claim. Apparently they didn't read my Observation Three Subpoint A when I said that there are so many definitions floating around the internet that we cannot seriously take one into consideration without taking others into consideration as well... This means that they are not upholding the entire topic, but only a part. This means they lose on the grounds that I have attacked the entire topic and killed it, but also that they have no case to support it.

ii) I do not need any statistics because it is common knowledge that a person can find someone to say anything on the internet. Just because my opponent brings up a definition they think I should be forced to use throughout the debate doesn't mean that it is correct. They want a warrant from me? They don't even provide a warrant on why I should accept this definition. This is yet another reason their case falls, and why they lose on another point.

In conclusion, my opponent has lost on two out of two arguments. This is an obvious vote for Con. Vote for Me!!
Debate Round No. 2
CiRrO

Pro

i) Basically all my opponent says in response here is that a woman has a choice to recieve a back alley abortion, and must accept responibility for that action. So the Pro is going against the "Pro-Life" point of view and saying that a woman should indeed have a choice. So, in all reality, he has just given me another point in which he agreed.

--> lol, not at all. I am saying that since the woman choose to do an illegal act, there will be consequences, either legal or physical. This only furthers the pro-life case on the fact that social abortions happen because they jsut "don't want it". They must take responsibility for their actions and have the baby. Don't twist my wors of "choice" to prove pro-choice agendas. You got it all wrong.

ii) Notice that I never said that the government condones an immoral act. (I do not think they should!) We should not debate morals, because everyone's point of view is different. Instead we need to look at reality, and that reality is that if we accept the Pro's theory, we are allowing thousands of women to die!

--> You never refuted my definition of "ought", which moves the debate to a moral one. Ought the government condone the action of abortion under moral terms. Obviously not since it degrades the rule of law (contention I), and is an inherently immoral action since you are directly causing death. If you accept my theory you would stop millions of unborn children from being killed. Furthermore, his back alley death point is undermined, however I will make it clearer. E.g. Say I was going out in the middle of the night and I went to a back alley drug dealer. I take cocaine, and i end up dieing. Whose fault is it? The government because they don't condone drugs, or mine because I willingly broke the law and my life was sacrificed for that reason. You can't blame my death on governmental policies. I broke the law, and I payed a price. It's as simple as that. The government shouldn't condone actions that are immoral and unjustified just because others may break the law. I think you can see the ignorance behind my opponents case.

iii) My opponent talks about morals; how it is immoral to allow the death of a fetus. But, my opponent is allowing the women to die in the name of the Pro's high moral standings. This just doesn't make sense to me.

--> Because as I have proven that abortion is a form of murder, which you didn't refute with warranted arguments. Therefore, murder is immoral. The mother losing her life in a back alley abortion was a willing breaking of the law which comes with a cost. Why should the government condone an action jsut because people will break it? That is a logical fallacy.

i) My opponent said I did not refute any of their case and that I dropped it completely. They also said I gave no warrant to my claim. Apparently they didn't read my Observation Three Subpoint A when I said that there are so many definitions floating around the internet that we cannot seriously take one into consideration without taking others into consideration as well... This means that they are not upholding the entire topic, but only a part. This means they lose on the grounds that I have attacked the entire topic and killed it, but also that they have no case to support it.

--> I'm sorry, I'm a strict competitive debater, and this attack doesn't fly. My definition stands on the fact that:

1. Saying there are definitions doesn't refute mine.
2. The only way to refute ity is to provide an opposing definition, which my opponent has not done.

ii) I do not need any statistics because it is common knowledge that a person can find someone to say anything on the internet. Just because my opponent brings up a definition they think I should be forced to use throughout the debate doesn't mean that it is correct. They want a warrant from me? They don't even provide a warrant on why I should accept this definition. This is yet another reason their case falls, and why they lose on another point.

--> no warrant for my definition. Ok....if a scientific community isn't warrant, what do you want? God's definition. We must trust the scientific community in what they claim. Me and my opponents have no basis in Systems biology, etc. Therefore, we must take their word on it. My opponent is correct (He has not warrant to disprove it), it may not be right, however it stands for the round. That's the rules of competitive debate. I.e. LD, Policy, PF, etc.

[Voting Issues]

1. My contention stands on the fact that his attacks were unwarranted. My contention I affirms the resolution.
2. My opponents sole point: back alley abortions is a illogical argument on the fact its basis is rooted in illegal activity.

For these reasons I urge an affirmation.

Thank you ladies and gentlemen.
kcougar52

Con

First things first: this has been one of my favorite debates in a while, whether in an actual competition or online. I'd like to thank the Pro yet again for offering this up... Hobey ho, let's go!
______________________________________________________________________________________________
In my final speech, I'm going to sum up what this debate has boiled down to.

1) Definition of Human Life
So, as we travel through the time machine that is the scroll bar, we see the initial offered definition- it first appears as a determined embodied process. This embodied process, from the outset, has an active capacity to be manifest in human ways. Now, this definition is from a somewhat credible source, aka the 'scientific community'. But, it does not cover the vast majority of definitions floating around the internet. As anyone who has researched for a debate, a school paper, or even for personal knowledge knows, there are always many sides to the same story, or in this case, definition. When my opponent attempts to limit the debate to this singular definition, without looking at the whole spectrum of this phrase mind you, it hinders the resolution. Everyone has a personal connotation of what is the murder of a fetus, and what isn't. Some, like my opponent, say it is extremely early in the pregnancy, or even at conception. Others say it is the moment a woman goes into labor. Some even say it is the moment that child is pronounced born in the hospital/home. Basically what I'm getting at is this; we cannot look at this topic without looking at the numerous definitions and the Pro cannot uphold the resolution without appeasing a majority of the definitions, or even showing that the majority of the scientific community accepts this definition. Unfortunately, they do not do this, and therefore, the whole case falls, leaving only my counterarguments... Speaking of which....

2) Back-Alley Abortion/ Government Involvment
First off, I'd like to clear up the whole 'choice' thing. I'm sorry that I misunderstood what you were saying.
a) Back-Alley Abortion-- I have succefully shown that, if abortions were banned, there would be abortions anyway. Furthermore, they would be dirty and unsafe for the woman. If we look to history, we see that during Prohibition, bootleggers were rampant. Why? Just because the government mandates that an action not be done, doesn't mean it won't be done. I am not saying that the women should. I am not saying that the women who would potentially partake in this illegal action aren't at fault. I AM saying that we should prevent as many deaths as possible. And the illegalization of social abortion is NOT the way to achieve this.
b) Government Involvment-- When the government does not make a mandate forcing an action, they are not condoning the action. They are just keeping the opinions of the public at heart. After all, they need thier votes. ;)

Conclusion/ Voting Issues:
Based on the fact that my opponent's entire case must be dropped because of narrowness; the fact that if we allow this to happen, thousands of women will die; there is no other alternative to a vote to the Con.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by snicker_911 9 years ago
snicker_911
Abortion is BAD! Stop the violence! Break the silence!
Posted by chevy10294 9 years ago
chevy10294
Wow, this was a really good debate by both sides.
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by sgt.peppers 8 years ago
sgt.peppers
CiRrOkcougar52Tied
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 
Vote Placed by bthr004 8 years ago
bthr004
CiRrOkcougar52Tied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by jdwooch 8 years ago
jdwooch
CiRrOkcougar52Tied
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 
Vote Placed by magpie 9 years ago
magpie
CiRrOkcougar52Tied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
CiRrOkcougar52Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by JBlake 9 years ago
JBlake
CiRrOkcougar52Tied
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 
Vote Placed by jmlandf 9 years ago
jmlandf
CiRrOkcougar52Tied
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 
Vote Placed by jokintjboy 9 years ago
jokintjboy
CiRrOkcougar52Tied
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 
Vote Placed by chris2956 9 years ago
chris2956
CiRrOkcougar52Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by Kals 9 years ago
Kals
CiRrOkcougar52Tied
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