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

THW construct additional abortion clinics in populated areas where there are few

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 5/14/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 394 times Debate No: 91240
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)





Imagine that you’re pregnant. You can’t bear to go on with the pregnancy, because your newborn would surely not fare well under your current economic state, in which you are burdened with so much debt that you could barely provide for yourself, let alone a newborn. The nearest abortion clinic is a few hundred miles away in another city—another city that you cannot travel to, considering the fact that your car has been repossessed. Desperate, you look into your kitchen cabinet and try to find out a way to end the pregnancy on your own. [4]

In our world, when women have too little access to abortion clinics because they aren’t close enough to where they live, tragedies like this happen; in places with harsh regulations on abortion, abortion clinics might not even be built, forcing women to travel elsewhere to end unwanted pregnancies. This often isn’t an option, since many of the same women who cannot afford raising a family are also people who cannot afford travelling long distances. Thus, as a solution to this problem, I am proud to propose the motion that this house would construct additional abortion clinics in populated areas with none close by.


In this debate, this house shall be modelled as the United States, where both politicians and citizens are more opposed to abortions than their counterparts in other western liberal democracies.

This proposal means that the government would construct an abortion clinic in each city where there is none.


In order to demonstrate why my proposal must be put in place, I first demonstrate that abortions benefit society and then analyse why, knowing that, we must use this proposal to make it more accessible.

Constructive points:

1. Benefits of abortion

Abortions could benefit both the potential mother and the potential child and, in some cases, are better than their alternatives. With abortions, mothers’ lives could be saved from complications that would otherwise arise from continuing on with the pregnancy, such as severe infections, heart disease, or stroke. [1] They could also help prevent unwanted pregnancies from happening to poor women who otherwise would have given birth to a child that would financially burden them. At the same time, abortions could prevent children from being born in bad situations. The two options available to a mother who has an unwanted child are adoption and raising him on her own; neither alternative to abortion is always feasible. Children in foster care are generally in a bad state; 75% of them have been sexually abused at one point while under foster care. [5] On the other hand, having the parent raise the child isn’t always an option; the mother could be too impoverished, and the child might end up in prison or in a life of crime due to being born in a bad situation. Thus, we can see that abortions sometimes bring a benefit to both parties involved: the mother and the child.

2. Accessibility of abortion

Since, at least in some cases, abortions are good or even necessary, mothers everywhere should be able to choose to get an abortion. However, in the status quo, abortion clinics can be hard to find in some areas such as Mississippi or North Dakota,[2][3] and state legislatures are constantly trying to pass new bills that would make abortion clinics even rarer. This means that many women wishing to have an abortion would have to travel long distances to get one, which makes abortions practically inaccessible for poorer women who cannot afford such travel, the same women who abortions would likely benefit. The inaccessibility of abortions prevents women from benefitting from them in the manner described above, and also causes harms of its own. In states with few abortion clinics, attempts at do-it-yourself abortions are drastically higher than in states with more abortion clinics; Google search results show that users from states like Mississippi with very few clinics are more than 10% more likely to search about DIY abortions than the national average. [6] In one instance, a woman who couldn’t travel to San Antonio for an abortion called an abortion clinic and asked “what if I tell you what I have in my kitchen cabinet and you can tell me what I can do?”[4] DIY abortions are harmful to the health of women because they aren’t conducted by trained professionals and are often unsanitary. In addition, desperate impoverished women have a great incentive not to have kids; if they are unable to get an abortion in time, one possible alternative would be to abandon or even murder the child.

Under my proposal, abortions would become far more accessible because there would be a clinic in every moderately sized city. Thus, the incidences of harmful DIY abortions would be reduced drastically.


As I have demonstrated above, abortion clinics serve an important role but, in some places, aren’t accessible enough to actually help people; constructing additional clinics would aid in solving problems such as DIY abortions. Thus, this house should construct additional abortion clinics in areas where there exist few.



Pro stated in the Round 1:


In this debate, this house shall be modelled as the United States, where both politicians and citizens are more opposed to abortions than their counterparts in other western liberal democracies.

This proposal means that the government would construct an abortion clinic in each city where there is none."

As per this model I will argue that the united states government should not construct an abortion clinic in cities where there are none and that abortion clinics should be legalized and should have any and all regulations be significantly reduced if not wholly removed in order to allow for the market to create its own abortion clinics as a result of supply and demand, fostered and improved by the competition between abortion clinics that would exist in a free market. Oftentimes government control of a commodity causes that commodity to lose its quality.
The reason why there are so few abortion clinics in the united states is because of prohibitive government regulations and sticky legal concerns, plus the high risk of starting an abortion clinic considering that the laws for abortion clinics and their legality is so unstable at this time. We don't need more government, we need less.

1. Abortion clinics would be improved where legalized and significantly deregulated:

Pro states that the government should be the one to make abortion clinics in cities where there are none, in other words advocating for government controlled abortion clinics in the united states.

There are various examples of government control of a commodity resulting in that commodity's loss of quality.

In communist East Germany, the Trabant was a vehicle which was built under East Germany's strict regulations and controls and is known as a very poorly made vehicle for many years.

"Due to its outdated and inefficient two-stroke engine (which produced poor fuel economy for its low power output and thick, smoky exhaust), and production shortages, the Trabant was regarded with derisive affection as a symbol of the extinct former East Germany and of the fall of the Eastern Bloc."[1]

And because of government control of its production, the technology would stagnate and would improve only very slowly for abortion technology. As in the example of the yugo, the yugo:

"was produced for nearly 30 years with almost no significant changes"[1]

The Yugo, another vehicle produced under government regulations in socialist yugoslavia, has been named amongst one of "the 50 worst cars of all time" according to TIME:

"Built in Soviet-bloc Yugoslavia, the Yugo had the distinct feeling of something assembled at gunpoint. Interestingly, in a car where "carpet" was listed as a standard feature, the Yugo had a rear-window defroster — reportedly to keep your hands warm while you pushed it. The engines went ka-blooey, the electrical system — such as it was — would sizzle, and things would just fall off."[2]

Imagine what the practice of abortion would look like under government monopoly, control, and regulation in light of these examples alone. Imagine what your abortion would look like if your abortion doctor inserted a foot-and-a-half long hypodermic needle into your body and then, as TIME so graphically puts it for the yugo, it "went ka-blooey".

Under government control, abortion technology would stagnate over time and have its quality diminished.

2. Who will pay for these government controlled abortion clinics?

Practically all the money used by the government is money taken under threat of imprisonment from the people of the united states. Thusly, not only would the quality of abortion clinics be badly hindered by government control, but taxpayers will be paying for these horrible quality abortion clinics whether whether they have the money or not, and whether they like it or not. I will make this point in two parts:

A - For starters, people working low wage jobs would be seriously hurt by an increase in taxes to pay for these abortion clinics. Trying to live on a low wage job is extremely difficult. Even one dollar - even spare change - can make a world of a difference if you are trying to feed yourself with a job that pays $9 an hour, or, in some states, even less than that. As of right now, in 2016, the minimum wage in Idaho is only $7.25 an hour. In Georgia, a mere $5.15 an hour [3]. An increase in taxes for these low wage workers could be devastating.

B - Furthermore, forcing people to pay for something which is so polarized over its controversial status is wrong; many people believe that abortion is tantamount to murder of a child. Imagine forcing people to pay for euthanasia whether they like it or not. Imagine forcing people whos families were ruined by heroin addiction to pay for safe injection sites for heroin addicts. Imagine forcing LGBT persons to pay for conservative christian missionary organizations in africa which try to teach african tribes about a love-centered religion on the one hand while encouraging those tribes to become homophobic on the other hand. Forcing people to pay for abortion whether they like it or not is far from ethical by any stretch of the term.

3. Supply and Demand, and Free Market Competition, would be a better answer to the United State's abortion problems.

Although Keynesian economics falls short in its advocacy for government intervention, it's one good observation is this: aggregate demand of a good will increase the economic output of that good.

So lets say that there is aggregate demand for abortion - and there is - and lets apply it to the united states. Many people want abortions. Thus, many businesses would appear which would create the supply for those abortions. Furthermore, as observed by the austrian school of economics:

"The market economy develops out of people’s natural inclination to better their situation and, in so doing, to discover the mutually beneficial exchanges that will accomplish that goal."[4] and "severe doubt would be raised about the ability of government officials to intervene optimally within the economic system, let alone to rationally manage the economy."[4]

The best thing about leaving abortion to the free market is competition. According to, competition is what led to "unprecedented material progress since the industrial revolution".


"Suppliers also engage in nonprice competition. They try to improve their products to gain a competitive advantage over their rivals. To this end, they incur the costs and risks of product innovation. This type of competition has inspired innumerable evolutionary steps—between the Wright brothers’ first fence hopper and the latest Boeing 747, for example. Such competition has driven unprecedented material progress since the industrial revolution."[4]

By leaving abortion to the free market, abortion clinics would still be created, and free market competition would ensure that the quality of abortion clinics would continue improve dramatically.


Thus, I conclude that government control/monopolies of abortion clinics would reduce the quality of of abortion clinics and abortion technology would stagnate. Furthermore, abortion would be paid for by horrendously unethical means. Leaving abortion to the free market would allow abortion clinics to be formed out of demand for them, and the technology and quality of abortion clinics would significantly improve.

[1] -
[2] -
[3] -
[4] -
[5] -

Debate Round No. 1



Despite the supposed flaws my opponent has picked out in my plan, my arguments still hold true. Abortion clinics ought to be constructed in areas where there are few.


1. Quality

My opponent has argued that governmental control over abortion would significantly diminish the quality of abortion services, or at least cause stagnation. However, my opponent hasn’t shown the idea that government control causes stagnation to be a general fact, nor has Con shown that government control of abortion specifically would cause stagnation or a diminishing of quality; Con simply provided examples of failed governmental projects from countries like Yugoslavia and East Germany, both of which were communist states that by no means resemble the United States.

Examples from other western liberal democracies such as Britain would be more relevant in determining how governmental control would affect the quality of abortion services because they have governments and cultures more similar to that of the United States. In countries like Britain, the NHS uses less money than its private counterparts but still maintains a similar standard of care[1], showing that government-controlled services could work out very well.

Thus, we can see that abortion services would not be harmed by having some government control, since our government is more like Britain and less like the incompetent governments at Yugoslavia and East Germany.

In addition, this motion would not actually give the government a complete control of the abortion “industry”; no place in the motion stated that private clinics would be banned. By introducing government-run clinics into the system to compete against private clinics, we actually give them more of an incentive to innovate rather than stagnate.

2. Taxation

Con argued that by creating more abortion clinics, we are burdening low-income families with taxes. In reality, this is far from the truth. Our current taxation system is cutting taxes on the poor and raising taxes on the rich, who are very well able to stand taxation. [2][3] Thus, the effects of abortion clinics on the middle and lower class are negligible.

Con has also argued that it is principally wrong to make people pay taxes for something they disagree with, regardless of if they have a good reason for opposing it. Since my plan to increase abortion clinics helps society, it is immoral to simply block it because some disagree with it. Some people disagree with funding the military because they think it’s immoral to fund wars. Others think they have an obligation not to support an education system because they disagree with what is taught in it. If we follow Con’s point, we would have a government that does nothing because it can’t make people pay taxes if they don’t like the purpose of the taxes.

3. Free Market

Con has argued that making the free market build abortion clinics would be the best choice. However, my side of the house, in which government clinics would compete against private clinics, is actually superior; having the government compete against private businesses ultimately made fields like education better. [4]

In addition, when we build government clinics in places with fewer clinics, we cause private businesses to also expand into these areas to capture the sales that the government is siphoning from their existing places. It’s a win-win for the consumer.


Today, we’ve had an opponent who has failed to prove that his solution of letting the free market manage abortion would be superior to a government-funded solution. I have, in fact, shown that government control can be actively beneficial. Thus, let it be resolved that
THW construct additional abortion clinics in populated areas where there are few



1. Quality

Pro argues that government control of abortion would not diminish the quality of abortion services or at least cause stagnation. I disagree. Not only could these problems happen with abortion, but it is already happening with other government controlled businesses, namely Amtrak. Amtrak is a government owned train system which dominates the country in a way such that it practically creates a monopoly on railroad transportation. If government got into the abortion business, it would have the power to regulate and control the abortion business enough to the extent that the government would crush all of its opposition in the free market. According to NR,

"In 2008, Congress passed the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act (PRIIA), which endowed Amtrak with the powers of a regulatory agency that makes decisions, in conjunction with the Department of Transportation, about scheduling, uses of available tracks, maintenance, and other metrics and standards that compel certain behavior by the entire U.S. rail industry. Freight rail entities, which actually are private, understandably objected, and the D.C. Circuit agreed with them that PRIIA was an unconstitutional delegation of governmental regulatory power to a private entity."[1]

Furthermore, see a picture of an amtrak train here:

That hardly looks like a technologically advanced train. Compare this to Japan, which has privatized train systems instead.[2] Just look at this picture of a train from Japan:

I'm no train expert, but I have a feeling that the japanese train shown is more technologically advanced than any government controlled amtrak train.

2. Taxation

Pro says two things in response to my criticism on taxes for abortion: firstly, pro says that taxes would not burden the poor because the united states runs on a progressive tax. Okay; but the poor would still be taxed extra for this. Pro specifically says "our current taxtion system is cutting taxes on the poor..." but cutting taxes is not the same as removing taxes. The poor would still be taxed to pay for government abortion clinics. Like I said, even dollars and change can mean the world to people who live eating only one meal a day while living paycheck to paycheck, and the government would literally be stealing those dollars and change from the poor in order to pay for the abortions of rich people who just didn't feel like wearing a condom one day.

Pro continues to say that it is immoral to stop the government from forcing people to pay for things against their will. This makes absolutely no sense; for one, this is in defense of government aggression. Two, this defense of government aggression is outright authoritarianism. It is absolutely not moral in the slightest to be in favor of either of these things.

Pro goes on to essentially say that the government threatens people with fines/violence/imprisonment to pay for a lot of other things they don't like anyway, so why not have the government threaten people with fines/violence/imprisonment to pay for abortion clinics too? This is an absurd and downright sociopathic way of perceiving the government. Sure, pro didn't explicitly say that the government would threaten people with fines/violence/imprisonment in order to make them pay for abortion clinics, but I say, how else would the government get people to pay for things if they refuse? With drum circles? Singing kumbayah? I don't think so in the slightest.

3. Free Market

Basically my opponent eschews that government controlled abortion clinics would be better than free market abortion clinics. Again, I point the audience to the example I provided for the usa's government controlled amtrak business versus japan's privatized train business.

Pro says:

"In addition, when we build government clinics in places with fewer clinics, we cause private businesses to also expand into these areas to capture the sales that the government is siphoning from their existing places. It’s a win-win for the consumer."

No, that's not going to happen. Again, look at amtrak; if the government is controlling the commoddity (trains, abortion, etc) then it would be in the best interest of the government to create a monopoly for itself with cumbersome regutions and licensing so that they can make more money. People generally tend to do what is in their best interest, and the government being made of people, when can safely predict that the government would create an abortion monopoly which would shun all competition.

[1] -
[2] -

Debate Round No. 2


Quick and short response since it"s getting late.

1. Competition

My opponent has claimed that allowing some governmental control into abortions would somehow mean crushing the private abortion clinics"which would somehow create horrifying abortions done using rusty saws. We tell you that this simply cannot happen under our model, because it would only lead to the construction of abortion clinics in places where there are few; in places already with abortion clinics, no new government clinics would actually be built.

In addition, in states with private abortion clinics only in big cities, having more government clinics would siphon customers from the private clinics, forcing them to expand and offer better services to make themselves stand out from the cookie-cutter government solutions. It actually creates more competition, not less.

2. Burden on the poor

My opponent has claimed that despite our progressive tax, the abortion clinics would burden the poor. In the real world, our progressive tax would simply prevent that from happening. Plus, the more affordable abortions from an increase in supply would allow poor families to choose not to raise unwanted children, which would actually reduce the burden on some poor families, as I have clearly explained in the first round.

3. Morality of taxation

Con claims that I am supporting governmental aggression. In reality, if an action would benefit society from a utilitarian perspective"as I have proven above, my proposal will"then stopping it simply because it"s being done through taxation on people who can"t see its benefits would actively harm society. Thus, it is immoral to stop such an action. Con ridicules the idea of using taxes to serve a utilitarian goal, but does nothing to demonstrate that the logic behind it is in any way flawed.


Impact94 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Udel 4 months ago
Pro said it would be useful to have access to abortion. Con does not deny this but explained that when government provides a service, competition goes down due to government barriers of entry and gave the example of Amtrak. Pro was not able to defeat this notion and so Con proved there would be less access to abortion if the government got involved. But Pro said one would be built in every city by the government, so we should already accept competition isn't a factor so money is the factor. The debaters arguments cancel each other out so far. Then Con said it's immoral to force tax payers to pay for things they don't agree with, but Pro said that happens anyway by nature of government. Con cannot contest that point, so thus far Pro has 1 point in his favor and Con has 0. Since Con's other point of government inefficiency was deemed irrelevant, because Pro said all cities should have clinics, he doesn't have a winning argument and Pro has 1 (proving that tax payers do pay for things that are proven to have utility, whether they agree with them or not). Con did not explain that abortion clinics dont provide utility, so he has no arguments in his favor, and Pro's burden is fulfilled anyway.
Posted by whiteflame 4 months ago
>Reported vote: Udel// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: Con explained that when government provides a service, competition goes down due to government barriers of entry and gave the example of Amtrak. Pro was not able to defeat this notion and so by Con's logic there would be less access to abortion if the government got involved. But Pro said one would be built in every city by the government, so we should already accept competition isn't a factor so money is the factor. Con said it's immoral to force tax payers to pay for things they don't agree with, but Pro said that happens anyway by nature of government. Pro cannot contest that and his point of government inefficiency was deemed irrelevant so in this close debate, Pro wins.

[*Reason for removal*] The voter does do a sufficient job of analyzing individual arguments, but fails to explain how those contributed to the decision. It's clear both sides were winning at least some points, and that situation requires the voter to do at least some weighing of points and to explain that weighing mechanism in the RFD. In this case, the voter merely stated their decision without explanation, and as such, it is insufficient.
********************************************************** **************
Posted by Danielle 5 months ago
[RFD Part 1]

Pro begins by establishing the utility of easily accessible abortion clinics in the U.S. Con agrees with this and suggests that less abortion clinics exist due in part to the USFG. As such, he suggests the market ought to be responsible for providing the clinics and not the government.

Con claims that govt. take over of a commodity would decrease quality and efficiency. Further, he posits tax payers (especially the unwilling) should not have to fund this endeavor. Instead, the tenants of capitalism, supply and demand, would ensure there were clinics where demand for said clinics exist.

Pro responds to Con's contentions by noting his examples of govt. failure occured in Communist countries where different legal standards apply across the board. In more liberal, western societies, he suggests the service government provides is often better. Moreover, Pro notes that government facilitating the market does not give the government complete control over the market. Ergo, he believes the effects of supply and demand would still apply.

Pro claims that low-income people would not be disenfranchised by the taxation necessary to provide these clinics. He also contends that if we were to prevent taxes being used from funding everything people disagree with, no government would exist.

On Con's market points, Pro again posits govt. can coexist with the market and provide superior results. He claims when we build government clinics in places with fewer clinics, we cause private businesses to also expand into these areas to capture the sales that the government is siphoning from their existing places which is a win/win.
Posted by Danielle 5 months ago
[RFD Part 2]

In the next round, Con dropped Pro's arguments about poor govt. regulation mostly existing in Communist countries, and his examples of more successful liberal nations. However he does provide the example of Amtrak trains as one instance where govt. takeover of a commodity weakened the entire industry. He claimed it established an artificial monopoly which ultimately led to worse products for the consumer.

Con then goes on to say that Pro's point on taxation supposes and supports unjust authoritarianism.

He claims the taxes imposed on low-income earners would still exist and should still be considered.

Con reminds Pro that when government gets in the business of providing a service, they often impose excessive regulations or burdens on private providers in order to become the sole provider of that service (or retain a lot of business).

So let's get to the conclusion of this debate. It's noted that Con has dropped Pro's point about regulation in western countries. Pro also reiterates that govt. abortion clinics would not stop the establishment of other clinics, however he drops Con's contention and Amtrak example here; Con explained why govt. imposes regulation that inhibit competition, which Pro has not addressed (we'll see if he gets to it later).

Thus far Arguments are a tie because they have each dropped a valid point of each others.

Pro repeats that a progressive tax system would not place an undue burden on the poor in funding these clinics. Con explained why an extra tax and anything less than a tax cut would stoll be a burden. Pro did not deny this, and instead mentioned that low income people would be helped by having access to more abortion clinics which would reduce the cost of an abortion. This argument is irrelevant however, as just because some low-income people have abortions doesn't mean all would benefit whereas Con's point was that this affects all low-income people, and not just the ones seeking or supporting a
Posted by Danielle 5 months ago
[RFD Part 3]

Pro also claims taxation is justified under the moral standard of utilitarianism. He claims it is immoral to prevent something that would be useful. However this supposes that more clinics would in fact be provided by his standard, whereas Con was arguing that this would INHIBIT the creation of more clinics due to government regulation and barriers of entry. Pro dropped this argument. Therefore even though I want to accept Pro's standard of utilitarianism... which I personally don't agree with, but Con dropped the final round and did not negate it... Pro did not actually refute Con's point and prove that his proposal would lead to more clinics. If he had, he would have won the debate based on Con's concession.

Instead, I will have to vote the debate a tie. Pro would have won Conduct points, but that was not measured in this debate. Only arguments are being considered and I feel neither proved their case. On the point of competition, Con did not refute Pro's point that liberal govts. do better than Communist ones. However Pro did not refute that govt. takeover of a commodity has negative effects on the entire industry. Both of these are equally valid points; neither debater has the edge.

On taxation and the market, Pro is correct that cheaper abortions would benefit the poor, however higher taxes hurt the poor. The debater's points on financial burden cancel each other out. And (again) ultimately what would have won Pro the debate due to Con's concession, i.e. failure to negate the standard of utilitarianism, is that Pro hasn't proven the value of utilitarian applies because he did not prove more clinics are to be expected.

And so, arguments are a tie. Great debate! Too bad it wasn't finished.
Posted by Danielle 5 months ago
This should be a really interesting debate. Someone please link me to it upon completion. I wanted to accept since I actually agree with the Con position -- but thought of ways to beat my own arguments :P Good luck to both debaters. I look forward to reading.
Posted by tejretics 5 months ago
Leugen9001, do you debate formally?
Posted by Oromagi 5 months ago
Why not simply remove govt restrictions on safe, effective, private, and inexpensive abortifacients and remove any public involvement in abortion altogether?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Udel 4 months ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: My previous vote was removed so I elaborated on it and will post in the comments section.
Vote Placed by Danielle 5 months ago
Who won the debate:--
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments section