The Instigator
ceruleanpolymer
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
BangBang-Coconut
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

The U.S. should eliminate all restictions on a woman's right to an abortion.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-3
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 5 votes the winner is...
BangBang-Coconut
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/12/2011 Category: Health
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,351 times Debate No: 15335
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (5)

 

ceruleanpolymer

Pro

the first round is for acceptance. debating will begin in the second round.
BangBang-Coconut

Con

I accept, and will represent the con :D
Also, I know this round is just for acceptance so I won;t present an argument here;

But I propose that if any single round is forfeited, the one who forfeited will lose all seven points.
If Pro disagrees, they may say so in their next speech and this point will be abolished.
Debate Round No. 1
ceruleanpolymer

Pro

The Supreme Court, in the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, recognized a woman's right to abortion in the United States. All legal restrictions on this right, including "informed consent" laws, "spousal notification" laws, "parental consent" laws, waiting periods for women, and restrictions on late-term abortions for serious reasons should be eliminated.

1. Other developed countries, including Canada, have no legal restrictions on abortion, and have far lower abortion rates than countries that place legal restrictions on the procedure, namely the U.S. and countries in South America. Generally, the more advanced and developed a country is, the more lenient its abortion laws are.

2. "Informed consent" laws are wrong and should be abolished. In some U.S. States, informed consent laws (sometimes called "right to know" laws) require that a woman seeking an elective abortion be given factual information by the abortion provider about her legal rights, alternatives to abortion (such as adoption), available public and private assistance, and medical facts. While pro-life advocates have hoped these would reduce abortion in the U.S., many are unfair and contain complex language designed to confuse women, and attempts to "personify" a fetus. Women have counseling services available and need not be coerced by documents designed to interfere with their right to have an abortion.

3. Spousal notification laws ought to overturned. Several states require that a woman notify her husband of her decision to have an abortion. A woman's husband should have no business knowing or consenting to his wife's medical procedures. There is simply no reason why a woman should be burdened with allowing her husband to know about a private decision. Since domestic abuse occurs in the U.S., a husband may physically try to stop his wife from obtaining an abortion. Additionally, many women in the U.S. are separated, but not legally divorced yet from their husbands. Requiring them to notify their legal spouse regardless of the status for their marriage is unfair and should not be legally required. Women are not property of their spouses.

4. Parental notification laws should be abolished. A mother or father of a minor seeking abortion should not be involved in the decision. If parents are allowed to influence their daughter's decisions, the daughter may resort to dangerous, risky means in order to obtain an abortion. In addition, in some cases a woman could be putting her life in danger by attempting to obtain an abortion with her parent's knowledge. Additionally, her parents or guardians may be hard to contact and delay a medical procedure for the daughter. Counseling is available for most women at clinics throughout the nation. Females should have complete control of their bodies: their bodies are not owned by their parents.

5. Mandatory waiting periods for women should be abolished. Given that abortion is a personal decision, a woman seeking one has obviously thought about obtaining one, and therefore an unnecessary, extra period makes obtaining the abortion needlessly delayed. Women have busy lives and generally do not have infinite time to schedule an appointment for an abortion. Waiting periods generally serve no purpose; the fetus continues to develop the longer that a woman waits for an abortion.

6. Late-term abortions would only be performed in extenuating circumstances, such as when the physical health of the woman is placed in severe jeopardy. Placing legal restrictions on them are wholly unnecessary. They are very rare, and there is always a very good reason why they would performed. For example, if a rare genetic disorder was discovered that would create a baby born with a severe physical or mental impairment that was not correctable and would lead to a short, depressing lifespan ,or if a woman life would be seriously endangered by continuing with the pregnancy. A physician is a much better consultant for a woman's decision to have an abortion later in a pregnancy than a representative or senator.
BangBang-Coconut

Con

I know I said I was going to post a Video response, but I'm far too tired to speak eloquently enough to warrant that being fair to either myself or my opponent. so at least for this round, My response will be written.

Now for maximum clarity, I will frame the round a bit, then I will be going Pro, then Con and finishing up with an argument summary

Frame-
I simply want to point out here that the Burden of proof is on the Pro, as they are advocating a change to the current state of events. So in order to win they must warrant their stance beyond the shadow of a doubt. Meaning they must over-overwhelmingly win the clash first off, and also win all six points they presented in their constructive.

so now, let's cover the Pro stance
Pro-
Frame: My opponent presents us the presidency case of Roe V.S. Wade. However they never actually expand on the decision made in this case, so until they do so it can have no effect in this round, simple because we cannot weigh it in this round. Accordingly this Frame-work falls

1. I suppose then my opponent contends we should allow something like say, partial birth abortion, Home abortion, or even the infamous Back alley abortion?

Point being there are restrictions.

2. Plain and simple, my opponent advocates ignorance here. Pregnancy is an emotionally and physically stressful time for women, and they deserve to know about the procedure before under-going it. If we feel the need to present information to persons want to drive a vehicle, then we sincerely need this to be reciprocal for some-one who wishes to terminate and kill their unborn child.

3. Now to say that an abortion is strictly a "personal" decision is ridiculous. The father helped to create the child, therefore they have joint rights to the child. Therefore by the father/spouse not being notified there will be expansive mental, and emotional damage being payed to an undeserving recipient.

Not to mention that when a couple is married it is a commitment to one another. The woman's spouse will likely already have access to her medical information; so something like this is completely deceptive.

4. So let's assume my opponent means a minor here. The human brain is not fully developed until the age of 21;not only that but until this age of 21 children are still legally bound to their parents, therefore they have a legal right to this information.
So let's talk about mental development; Until the age of about 21 the human brain has yet to become fully developed in the area of critical thinking. With-out proper counseling, this could very well be a decision they regret for the rest of their lives.

5. Again pregnancy is a stressful time for women; they deserve time to think on such a huge decision; I also want to extend my arguments on point 2 here.

6. This is a restriction all the same, and violates the Burden of proof my opponent has by simply framing the topic the way he did. I win.

Con-

For now I will just present the tags and expand on them as later. The bulk of their content is in my attacks on the Pro case as it is already, and the topic does not give me a burden to provide an alternative, but simply to disprove the Pro. This is simply for my opponent's benefit.

1. Moral Decay-

2. Emotional Backlash-

3. Physical damage to the mother-

Argument summary-
It's too early in the debate for me to summarize just yet, especially since my opponent has not had an opportunity to respond to my constructive arguments. But if anything We need to look to my opponent's contradiction in his sixth point.
Debate Round No. 2
ceruleanpolymer

Pro

I accept that I have the burden of proof for this argument, as most debaters advocating for a specific change should do. Beyond the "shadow of doubt" does not necessarily apply here however. This is not a trial: rather is it a arbitration, which in the courts, required one side to have above a 50% likelihood that their side is the best. I do not need to win ALL six points in my constructive to win this speech, this is completely abusive and was not agreed upon before the debate.

1. Advocating that the government remove legal restrictions on a medical procedure is the very thing that prevents the unfortunate back-alley and home abortions. Women who resort to these unfortunate choices often due so because of legal restrictions placed upon them. They would not be legally prosecuted, but treated medically if they need to. Removing restrictions on the right to have one's appendix removed could very well lead to home procedures or back-alley procedures. So called "partial-birth" abortions, not even recognized by the American Medical Association as proper terminology. This procedure is called intact dilation and extraction is rarely necessary to preserve the life of a woman in later term.

2. Advocating ignorance is what my opponent supports by continuing to confuse women with convoluted informed consent laws which ultimately attempt to deny them their rights to an abortion. Also, pregnancy can be emotionally your physically stressful, but this is not a universal fact for all women. I would request that my opponent refrain from unscientific, emotionalizing language such as "unborn baby" when in fact we are talking about an nonviable fetus.

3. Abortion is an extremely personal decision. Why should you or anyone else have the right to tell another woman what she can or cannot do with her own boy?! A man did indeed help to create a fetus, and has only join rights in many cases, with the child, not the fetus. A fetus is a part of tissue inside a woman that has. My opponent fails to answer my argument that spouses can be abusive or hard to contact and can have undue influence over their woman's right to an abortion. Women have full rights to their own bodies.

4. The woman's level of mental development is irrelevant in determining her right to an abortion. Her parents could be abusive or even threaten her life if they knew she were pregnant. Proper counseling is available at the vast majority of Planned Parenthood clinics. Younger women are encourage to seek counself from their parents but should not be quired to inform them or thave them to consent to a procedure.

5. My opponent is non-responsive to my arugments here. Extend my arguments from Round 2.

6. Again, my opponent avoids the arugments here.

The government has no busiess regulating morally in relation to personal health.

Vote Pro on all of these grounds
BangBang-Coconut

Con

I thank my opponent for their responses!

Now since this is my final word in this debate, and also the last word; I will use this speech as follows

1. Rebuttals
2. Extensions
3. Closing Arguments

So with that, let's look to the Pro side of the debate

Pro-
First on the framework; My opponent accepts the burden of proof, but claims that it is abusive to say they must win all six of their points to win this debate. This simply isn't true, it is completely fair. If my opponent cannot prove the contentions they've presented not only warrant removing all restrictions on an already controversial topic, but also have no negative backlash, then it is not only morally wrong to change the status quo but it is Unjust.
Secondly, there was nothing agreed on before the debate. If my opponent didn't want to defend so many arguments, he should not have presented so many arguments. This is a technique known as "squirrel killing" and by looking to such a thing we lose all sense of having a debate, but instead weighing the round on technicalities.

So no; I have warranted my opponent needing to win all six points in my prior speech (which my opponent never touches on) and I have further clarified it here. Of course it will all come down to the voter's thoughts on which of us is correct, but all the same I can still will more than 50% of the arguments

1. Now my opponent claims that it is these legal restrictions on abortions that lead to such unfortunate events such as Partial Birth abortions, and Back alley abortions. But what they do not understand, is it is these restrictions that make such atrocities not happen in the first place. If we where to remove all restrictions on abortion as my opponent contends we should, such horrible things would become common-place. As for my opponent's claim that partial birth abortion is rarely necessary, it is actually never "necessary" so my opponent's claims here are completely baseless. He also provides you with not proof on this refutation.

2. My opponent never addresses my arguments here, but instead opts to simply extend their own points. His "scientific" refutation also has not evidence to support his claim. He instead uses the same kind emotional that he demonizes me for using. As for the argument of whether or not a fetus is an unborn baby, or a nonviable fetus; First that is an entirely different debate for another time. I choose to refer to the baby as what I believe it is, which is completely fair in terms of the stance I am advocating. Second, My opponent never warrants that it is just a "nonviable fetus" so this argument is two-fold not applicable.

3. This claim is so wrong on so many levels. First extend my prior argument as my opponent hardly touched on it. Second, my opponent makes the statement "Why should you or anyone else have the right to tell another woman what she can or cannot do with her own boy?!" he therefore recognizes that the fetus is a human and along with his later assertions that the father has joint rights to only the child makes this refutation actually in sync with the Con line of logic here.
Second, I did not answer the abuse issue because it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. and on side note, I want to point out a bit of hypocrisy here from my opponent. He is again using these emotionally based arguments the demonized himself in his last refutation.

4. My opponent does not cover my argument, but simply dismisses it as being irrelevant. This is both extremely abusive to me, but is incredibly contradictory with the basis of my opponent's advocation to remove all restrictions on abortion. Also, my opponent never warrants why mental development is irrelevant, so my argument here is still relevant and this point is irrefutably Con

5. My opponent never tells you why my response here doesn't have anything to do with what he said. Accepting this argument is completely unfair to me. My character limit makes it impossible for me to not only copy/paste my prior arguments and expand on them, but it would also be irrelevant since is the last round and my opponent could not argue it back.

6. I offer the same refutation as I did on point 5. My opponent never tells us why my arguments don't have anything to do with the topic at hand. It's abusive and unfair to make such a vague claim as I don't even know what I supposedly did wrong. Obviously if my arguments had nothing to do with this debate, I would not waste mine, or my opponents typing it up.

Now as for the Con side, my opponent does not touch the three points I offer, so they also go to the Con.

Now for my closing statements; My opponent advocates that this debate is strictly that concerning "personal health" but it goes far beyond that. You see it comes down to personal health, family health, mental health, religious faith, and so much more. But not only that, my opponent consistently offers these double-minded claims on the topic, which really don't have anything to do with personal health, but have to do with rights, and what is just. My opponent utterly fails to prove why we should make such a drastic claim to the status quo, and then demonizes me for opposing his opinions

therefore I urge you all, vote Con in this debate simply because my opponent gives you no reason to vote for them.
Thank you all :3
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by BangBang-Coconut 5 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
Oh really?
Well it fits all the same :P; I honestly thought that was intentional.
Posted by ceruleanpolymer 5 years ago
ceruleanpolymer
i meant "body" not "boy" in my third round, as in "Why should you or anyone else have the right to tell another woman what she can or cannot do with her own boy?!" i just realized the typo.
Posted by BangBang-Coconut 5 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
@Jillianl How are you going to vote on something not said in the debate?

@Sylux That has nothing to do with the debate, you're voting based on your opinions. That is completely unfair.
Posted by ceruleanpolymer 5 years ago
ceruleanpolymer
yes.
Posted by BangBang-Coconut 5 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
Is it okay with you if I post a video response?
Posted by ceruleanpolymer 5 years ago
ceruleanpolymer
that's okay. =)
Posted by BangBang-Coconut 5 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
Wow, didn't expect such a quick rebuttal! XD
I'm sorry to say it will be a while before I'm able to post my case.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Zealous1 5 years ago
Zealous1
ceruleanpolymerBangBang-CoconutTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Grammar because of non-capitalized beginning.
Vote Placed by Jillianl 5 years ago
Jillianl
ceruleanpolymerBangBang-CoconutTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments were more convincing and I know to be backed up with credible evidence, even if they didn't provide sources . . .
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
ceruleanpolymerBangBang-CoconutTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro could not refute the objects from Pro, some of which as noted contradict with existing law and medical BP (informed consent, etc.) .
Vote Placed by Sylux 5 years ago
Sylux
ceruleanpolymerBangBang-CoconutTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm a firm believer in personal liberties.
Vote Placed by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
ceruleanpolymerBangBang-CoconutTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made a better argument.