The Instigator
Jisallyouget
Pro (for)
The Contender
CraftyMiscreant
Con (against)

That abortion should not be a crime

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Jisallyouget has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/12/2016 Category: Health
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 491 times Debate No: 94662
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

Jisallyouget

Pro

To open the debate:"That abortion should not be a crime", I will state the definition for the topic. Abortion is the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy.*
*https://www.google.com.au...
the definition of a crime is an action or omission which constitutes an offence and is punishable by law.**
**https://www.google.com.au...
As a debater on the affirmative side, I believe that abortion SHOULD NOT be a crime. Abortion is not a crime, it is neither harmful to society nor the environment.
I will represent my two main points on the social aspect regarding the topic:
Firstly, we have to know why crime legislations were created. They were created to make sure our society functions orderly and to prevent as well as punish any act conducted by an individual or a group that may endanger the environment or society.
Is abortion really that dangerous to other people for it to be called a crime? Really, what effect would it have on others that may endanger them? Does having an abortion will create an outbreak in crime or distort the order in the society? The answer is obviously NO. The reason behind the making of crime does not validate the reason for why abortion should be a crime.
Secondly, this topic evokes a related uprising social issue: women's right.
Women are bounded to so many ethnic beliefs and unfair standards in our current society compare to men. A few centuries ago, and of course in some countries up to this day, women were viewed only as a reproduction tool to carry out their husbands' genome. They were not given a choice in the matter, they HAD to do what their husbands and what their society told them to do, otherwise they would be punished. That is violating human's right and freedom. Punish a woman, in some cases: a girl, just because she did not want to have a child? The rights of humans, in short, is to have freedom and is able to pursue happiness. If having a child that is against a woman's wish and that makes her miserable, then she can LEGALLY have an abortion. Making abortion a crime is an act of gender injustice. And we do not want that. We have come so far now from that time when we stoned a girl to death because she was discovered to have sex before marriage, all the while her male lover walked away without a scratch. No, we are a civilisation now, and we believe in justice, in gender equality and in freedom for everyone.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rules: 3 rounds on each side.
Round 1- Affirmative: Give the definition of the topic and state the first two main points.
Negative: Give two rebuttals to the two points that were made by Affirmative debater in Round 1. Then give two points against the topic.
Round 2- Affirmative- rebuttals then two points for his argument.
Negative- Rebuttals then two points for his/her argument.
Round 3- Affirmative: Give rebuttals to the four points that were made by the opposition. Then summarise the case of his/her argument.
Negative- Give rebuttals to the four points that were made by the opposition. Then summarise the case for his/her argument.
CraftyMiscreant

Con

"Is abortion really that dangerous to other people for it to be called a crime? Really, what effect would it have on others that may endanger them? Does having an abortion will create an outbreak in crime or distort the order in the society? The answer is obviously NO. The reason behind the making of crime does not validate the reason for why abortion should be a crime."

This is, fundamentally, not true in the U.S.

http://www.ncsl.org...

As you can see, there are "fetal homicide state laws." In essence, if a man hits a woman in the womb and kills the fetus, regardless of the stage, he will be tried for not one, but possibly two accounts of murder (depending on the mother's health). The fetus, under the law in this regard, is considered a living, human being and is granted the protections of humans.

Another classic contradiction is if a fetus survives the abortion, it is then considered a human life and people have to try to save its life under the Born Alive Infants Act.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

So yes, Abortions ARE dangerous to other people, specifically, the babies being killed. And personally, it was horrific to see a baby squirming for its life when a vacuum was ripping it to pieces from inside (don't mean an emotional appeal to be the foundation of my argument, but I find that some merit can be drawn from this if you want to google it and see what I've seen).

"Does having an abortion will create an outbreak in crime or distort the order in the society?" --Opponent

Nobody is arguing this straw man.

Also, I am very unclear by what you mean when you say "order of society." That's a dubious phrase.

The fact is, it is immoral---perhaps the root of evil---for a person to decide if a human is alive or not on a mere whim. And this is no exaggeration. If a man kicks a baby in the womb and kills it, it's murder. If a mother has an abortion and the baby survives, its THEN considered alive and the mother isn't tried for attempted murder.Essentially, if a mother wants to abort it for any reason she chooses, then its not a human? That's not gender justice, that is literally evil on a deep Orwellian level.

I would argue that Its highly immoral to grant such power over another human life, as to define it as a living thing or not based solely on a decision---whatever the decision may be.

"Women are bounded to so many ethnic beliefs..."

This is a complete mischaracterization of history. Men AND Women were and weren't seen as "tools" in the past. In the U.S., since its inception, women had the right to property. Women had the right to free speech. The only time the rules changed (except for leader rolls and voting) was in the contract of marriage. Both parties were legally bound to carry out certain responsibilities under law. Yes, the property DID, in fact, go to the man, but the man had to legally provide a standard of living suitable to the family. If he didn't, he would be flogged and jailed for failure to support his family. These are but a few examples that show the absurdity in my opponent's mischaracterization of history.

And to the contrary, I would argue men were seen as tools to a higher degree than that of women. The vast majority of deaths in war? Men. Vast majority of bucket brigades? Men. Vast majority of wage slavery? Men. Most valued slaves? Able bodied men. Most homeless (even to this very day)? Men.

My opponent's final contention is that this is an act of "gender injustice."

Allow me to retort.

Women have the same rights today that men have. Unfortunately, your rights and freedoms do bare responsibility, and every action does have a consequence. Women can have sex with whomever they want. Nobody cares. But if you get pregnant, then it should be seen as a responsibility to at least deliver the child and set it up for adoption if you don't want it. Men don't have reproductive rights. If the woman wants child support and decides to come after the man, she's more than likely (if he isn't disabled, AWOL, or dead) going to get it. The man doesn't have the right to self preservation and is forced to work to support the mother and child on THEIR terms. If men are obligated by law to uphold his responsibilities, then the woman should too.

So, no, it isn't "gender injustice." It isn't about the man or the woman at that point. It's about protecting the life of the child who never had a say in any of this.

Unfortunately, your rights end when they infringe on another person's rights, especially the right to life.
Debate Round No. 1
Jisallyouget

Pro

Opposition, ladies and gentlemen. As a debater on the Affirmative side. First, I will provide rebuttals to the two arguments my opponent had made previously in round 1.
Since my opponent had not made any point for his argument against the topic (as the rules assert), but rather give continuous rebuttals to my two points previously made in round 1. I will have to give rebuttals to two of his rebuttals in round 1. I hope next time my opponent will follow the rules and have a more structured debate layout.
Firstly, his rebuttal to my first point on the social aspect:
"Is abortion really that dangerous to other people for it to be called a crime? Really, what effect would it have on others that may endanger them? Does having an abortion will create an outbreak in crime or distort the order in the society? The answer is obviously NO. The reason behind the making of crime does not validate the reason for why abortion should be a crime."
was:
"This is, fundamentally, not true in the U.S.
http://www.ncsl.org......
As you can see, there are "fetal homicide state laws." In essence, if a man hits a woman in the womb and kills the fetus, regardless of the stage, he will be tried for not one, but possibly two accounts of murder (depending on the mother's health). The fetus, under the law in this regard, is considered a living, human being and is granted the protections of humans.
Another classic contradiction is if a fetus survives the abortion, it is then considered a human life and people have to try to save its life under the Born Alive Infants Act."
I agree that if a man causes grievous bodily harm to a woman ( example provided by my opponent as seen above), he should be charged with the crime that he has made. But we are debating on whether abortion should be a crime, not whether someone should be charged because he hit a pregnant woman causing her to lose the foetus since the answer is obviously 'yes'. Furthermore, to persuade you that the first rebuttal that my opponent had made is erroneous, allow me to show you a quote from the opponent's first rebut:
"The fetus, under the law in this regard, is considered a living, human being and is granted the protections of humans."
My opponent stated that ONLY under the law he had provided, does killing a fetus is considered as killing a living. I don't live in the U.S, I live in Australia where abortion is not considered as feticide. Also, fetus - The immediate product of fertilization- is just a potential human being and not a real existing human being.
Secondly, the opponent's rebuttal on my second point:
"Women are bounded to so many ethnic beliefs..."
in Round 1 is:
"This is a complete mischaracterization of history. Men AND Women were and weren't seen as "tools" in the past. In the U.S., since its inception, women had the right to property. Women had the right to free speech. The only time the rules changed (except for leader rolls and voting) was in the contract of marriage. Both parties were legally bound to carry out certain responsibilities under law. Yes, the property DID, in fact, go to the man, but the man had to legally provide a standard of living suitable to the family. If he didn't, he would be flogged and jailed for failure to support his family. These are but a few examples that show the absurdity in my opponent's mischaracterization of history.
And to the contrary, I would argue men were seen as tools to a higher degree than that of women. The vast majority of deaths in war? Men. Vast majority of bucket brigades? Men. Vast majority of wage slavery? Men. Most valued slaves? Able bodied men. Most homeless (even to this very day)? Men."
Let me point out the flaws that the opponent had made. Starting with the opponent's claim that I mischaracterized history. The fact is that I had not mischaracterized history. women were and are still seen as tools to men. What are the ethnic beliefs that bounded a woman in history? That is a woman had to be married to a man, had to provide him with children to prolong his inheritance, had to obey her husband always and was seen as her husband's property. Does it not sound as slavery to you? not a relationship between a master and his female slave/maid? the idea was that if a man does not provide for his family, he would be flogged and jailed. But let think again, have you ever heard of such a thing from the past? no, and most people would not either.
My opponent argued that men were seen as tools to a higher degree than that of a woman e.g vast majority of death in war. Allow me to point out the flaws in his argument.
Who were in charge of a nation into war? Most certainly were not women. Men were in charge, and they wanted only men to go to war even though women asked to be soldiers as well. Woe to them, because of their chauvinism and sexist beliefs, they had voluntarily increased the death rate of their sex.
Ladies and gentlemen, as a debater on the Affirmative side, I strongly believe that abortion should not be a crime. This debate has really been about why abortion should not be a crime. This is because the reason behind the making of crime does not validate the reason for why abortion should be a crime.
I will present my two arguments for the topic on an individual aspect.
Firstly, most abortion happens because of unwanted sex. To be frank, most abortion happens because of rape. According to US National Library of Medicine Institutes of Health:
"The national rape-related pregnancy rate is 5.0% per rape among victims of reproductive age (aged 12 to 45); among adult women an estimated 32,101 pregnancies result from rape each year. Among 34 cases of rape-related pregnancy, the majority occurred among adolescents and resulted from assault by a known, often related perpetrator. Only 11.7% of these victims received immediate medical attention after the assault, and 47.1% received no medical attention related to the rape. A total 32.4% of these victims did not discover they were pregnant until they had already entered the second trimester; 32.2% opted to keep the infant whereas 50% underwent abortion and 5.9% placed the infant for adoption; an additional 11.8% had spontaneous abortion."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
When a man is raped, he may suffer mental damage. But when a woman is raped, she will not just suffer permanent mental damage but also body damage if she is unluckily got pregnant. For instance, a child of 15 years old got raped and is diagnosed to be pregnant, she can have the right to get an abortion because the unwanted pregnancy is endangering her life. At 15 years old, she can not have the life experience motherhood needs, nor the physical ability to carry out a difficult labor. Even a doctor- someone who has to oblige laws and regulations- would advise her to get an abortion. Would you argue that an unborn fetus, not yet a real human being, should be kept despite that its existence will no doubt kill or greatly damage its mother- a very real, living human being-?
Technically speaking, it is an act of negligence. Because giving birth would jeopardize the 15 years-old girl's life, and if you still insist that she should not have an abortion anyway- because you believe abortion is a crime- knowing the risk, then you are feigning ignorance to that girl's well-being.
Secondly, not every pregnancy is equal. Some people cannot give birth to a child because of their limited physical ability and/or the fetus is defected. If a woman cannot give birth and survive the process of giving birth. Then she is advised by the doctor to get an abortion to avoid putting herself at risk. If abortion was a crime, then she would be criminalized just because she does not want to risk her life.
Furthermore, when a fetus is diagnosed as being defected because of certain diseases. The pregnant woman is suggested to getting an abortion. This is because of the safety of the society and the fetus itself.
Let me clarify why. The Darwin's Theory of Evolution asserts that the Natural Selection process continuously filtering out the bad genes and defective genes in order to achieve a more improved human race. If a defected fetus is kept and born into the world, the fetus is already developed into a child who is carrying a bad pool of genes waiting to be released into our civilization, which will halt the formation of a more improved human race.
But this is not just about the safety of society, but also the safety of the defected fetus as well.
What is the purpose of being born? It is to be happy and to have a well-lived life. Most defected fetus being born into children often have difficulty functioning. They are also constantly in pain due to the diseases that were already imprinted on them since they were in the womb. They cannot have a life worth living because they are not happy or not aware of living. They will not be grateful that their parents wanted them to live. Most defected children die young, and when they do die, they are not just a fetus with no understanding of their environment and no emotion. They will die knowing they should not have to suffer this long just to die in the end. Their families also will be absolutely devastated, because now that they have memories of their children, it is more painful for them to die as a human being than die as a fetus.
Opposition, ladies, and gentlemen. Though my opponent may try to convince you otherwise. With these points in mind, indubitably abortion should not be a crime.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rules: 3 rounds on each side.
Round 1- Affirmative: Give the definition of the topic and state the first two main points on the social aspect.
Negative: Give two rebuttals to the two points that were made by Affirmative debater in Round 1. Then give two points against the topic on the social aspect.
Round 2- Affirmative- rebuttals then two points on the individual aspect of his/her argument.
Negative- Rebuttals then two points on individual aspect of his/her argument.
Round 3- Affirmative: Give rebuttals to the four points that were made by the opposition. Then summarise the case of his/her argument.
Negative- Give rebuttals to the four points that were made by the opposition. Then summarise the case for his/her argument.
*********************************************************************
This is merely a debate, do not be personal. Matter, Method and Manner should be taken into consider when voting for a winner.
CraftyMiscreant

Con

I actually gave four points against your topic: 1.Men and women have equal rights. 2. Abortion is literally evil as reasons stated in my argument. 3.Your argument isn't "gender injustice," It's about protecting the life of the child. 4.Your rights end when they infringe on other peoples' rights, especially the right to life. "I agree that if a man..... " --opponent
My opponent obviously missed my ultimate point, and the point pro life people are making. The REASON why abortion is wrong is because the baby isn't seen as a living human, even though Science agrees that it IS a living human. Therefore, since it is considered a living human, then yes, the mother should be charged with a crime. This applies to ANYONE trying to kill the unborn child. It's ALL wrong, and there should be NO acceptions.
Also, according to your own definition, an abortion is, "the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks."
If a man deliberately hits a woman in the stomach, surprisingly, it fits the definition, thus it would be applicable to argue this point.
However, human life in the womb isn't dependent on a definition, which you clearly defended.
The issue as to WHY abortions are evil is based on the fact that killing a human is murder.
Anyone else that kills the child doesn't get charged with assault, they get charged with murder. They killed a human life. Here in lies the inherent contradiction that you have failed to address and side stepped by dismissing it as irrelevant, when it is: If the woman aborts, it is the only case that isn't considered murder. The best argument that the left gives to this is that it is "a woman's body." Of course. But we have this law called the right to life, and I don't think we should make accpetions or give power to any individual to decided who is worthy of being a human and who isn't in our society. Like I've said before, it's wrong. Nay, it's evil. "My opponent stated that ONLY under the law he had provided, does killing a fetus is considered as killing ...-Opponent
First of all, I can't read your mind and know where you are from and what laws you have.
So as the I am the "con" in this debate, I am respectfully asking to see what the laws of Australia in terms of abortion, and what the punishment is for someone who kills the baby of a pregnant woman. I would assume that I won't be that surprised on the outcome of this.
I will also do my own research in this, but I have officially asked for evidence on these two laws. Please provide them.
Furthermore, we have the ability to look beyond the laws of our countries and turn to science for some objectivity, since I've proven that the laws are hypocritical on this subject.

According to Northwestern University, life begins the moment when the sperm meets the egg. We can now measure the stages in human development.
"The immediate product of fertilization- is just a potential human being and not a real existing human being."--Opponent.
This argument is outdated. Scientists can know exactly which egg will survive, and which egg wont:

"This means if you can look at the zinc spark at the time of fertilization, you will know immediately which eggs are the good ones to transfer in in vitro fertilization " --Theresa Woodroof
http://www.northwestern.edu...
Case and point--Abortion is evil, and killing an child, regardless of stage or by WHOM, should be murder.
"Let me point out the flaws that the opponent had made. Starting with the opponent's claim that I mischaracterized history. The fact is that I had not mischaracterized history. women were and are still seen as tools to men." --Opponent
My opponent hasn't provided any evidence to support her contention that "women are still tools to men." She's also using dubious terminology again.
1. What evidence do you have that shows in today's world that men use and see women as tools? What right does a man have that a woman doesn't?
2. What do you mean by the word, "tool?"
"That is a woman had to be married to a man, had to provide him with... -Opponent
What law in the past says that women HAD to get married? Evidence?
"had to obey her husband always and was seen as her husband's property."-- False: In the words of one anti-suffragette Dr. Elizabith Wilkes examining the marital laws in NY state in 1910, she has all the rights of income and property "as if she were unmarried, excepting marriage. The wife cannot absolve the husband of his duty to support her". Regarding property and income, married women became a form of super-citizen--they enjoyed all rights and benefits of property and income as if unmarried, while simultaneously enjoying all rights and benefits of their husbands' legally enforceable obligation of maintenance and support.
"Who were in charge of a nation into war? ...."
So since a gender started wars, it's grounds for dismissal?
Ad Hominem. The character/race/sex/creed of a body of people isn't grounds to refute or dismiss an argument. Also, this one was pretty sexist.
"Firstly, most abortion happens because of unwanted sex....
False. Your quote and study doesn't prove that most abortions are because of unwanted sex.
Since rape is an extremely small factor in AU, the rest of her argument bolstering rape victims isn't worth addressing, since my opponent misrepresented her own study.
Here is the truth:
"Various studies show about 96% of all abortions are performed for psychosocial reasons, half of late-term abortions" https://www.emilysvoice.com... (This website properly cites scientific studies)

Conclusions:

1) No matter what the condition of the mother is, the child is innocent and doesn't deserve to die.

2) I will address Darwinian theory next round. (No more characters)

3). Since the child is a living being (as I have proven), abortion is therefore murder.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by CraftyMiscreant 9 months ago
CraftyMiscreant
I don't mean to come off as rude, but I used a character generator and find the character limits aren't fair. How come my character limitation was 6,000, while my opponent is allowed to type over 9,000 characters? I ran out of space to refute her Darwin claim. I was forced to cut down on words and cut out paragraphs to hit the 6,000 mark.
Posted by YourMomoness 9 months ago
YourMomoness
Bravo both of you. While my views correlate with CraftyMiscreant, I believe that you both are doing well.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.