The Instigator
SMEBATE
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
azrael777
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

The government should not regulate abortion

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  
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: 12/23/2007 Category: Health
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,441 times Debate No: 894
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (9)

 

SMEBATE

Pro

I understand that this is a complex issue and to fully evaluate it, you must take into account much more than can be argued in a few rounds on an internet blog but I would like to point out that I do not take a moral stance on this issue, I am pro choice, not pro-abortion. I will focus my position on some of the major points:

First is the question of whether or not aborted fetuses are at a point of development when it can be considered a life. On the account that does best by the critic of abortion's own standards, the fetus acquires the right to life that you and I have when it begins to have conscious desires.Development of a fetus does not allow this until a certain kind of electrical activity begins in its cerebral cortex, 25-32 weeks after fertilization. If all of this is correct, then the vast majority of abortions take place well before the point at which the fetus acquires a right to life. This does not in itself demonstrate that such abortions are morally permissible, but it does show that the rights-based argument against abortion fails to show that they are impermissible.

If you do think that a fetus has the right to life, I would also like to point out that regulating abortions does not mean you decrease the number of abortions that take place. You can evaluate this issue from a supply and demand paradigm. While making them illegal could deter some women from seeking abortions it does not address the fundamental causes of abortion- social pressures (the reason that there is a demand for abortions now). Thus, regulating abortions only takes away part of the supply, but none of the demand. The alternative to women seeking safe, legal abortions is for women to engage in back alley abortions with button hooks, or women throwing themselves down stairs.. This is a proven impact of making abortions illegal- On President Bush's first day in office he reinstated the global gag rule which suppressed all aid foreign aid that went to NGOs that engaged in abortion activity. The result was hundreds of thousands of deaths of deaths of women and children who sought the illegal methods described above. (this statistic is for Sub Saharan Africa alone)If women in the US want an abortion they will find a method for doing so. If you want to make this debate about morality, it seems that we should do everything in our power to no let women suffer the same fate.

Finally is the issue of women's rights. As I stated above I am not pro-abortion, I am pro-choice. A woman should be in control of her reproductive rights. The same explanation you will use for justifying restricting abortion rights could easily be used to infringe upon all of our personal decisions. The constitution protects such civil rights violations and is the reason why the government has not regulated abortion activity.
azrael777

Con

Your position is " The government should not regulate abortion". Then you posted "On the account that does best by the critic of abortion's own standards, the fetus acquires the right to life that you and I have when it begins to have conscious desires.Development of a fetus does not allow this until a certain kind of electrical activity begins in its cerebral cortex, 25-32 weeks after fertilization." If we assume that your statement is correct then you have defeated your own position. If a child does acquire the right to life at 25-32 weeks as you have stated then the government is totally obligated to regulate abortion at this point because as you stated it has acquired the right to life that you and I have.
Debate Round No. 1
SMEBATE

Pro

You make a mistake by only addressing one part of this debate. At this point this is your position- a very small number of abortions occur after the 25-32 weeks so the government has the obligation to regulate abortions. Please stick to your original argument. This debate is only three rounds which means if you were to bring up any new arguments I would only have one opportunity to respond. One response is not enough to have a developed debate.

The rights based argument, with which you say I defeat my own position, only accounts for .08% of all abortions that take place- an insignificant number when you consider my other two arguments- regulating abortion doesn't actually decrease the number of abortions that take place and protecting women's reproductive rights. But what is the reason for these late term abortions? The majority of these abortions stem from a failing health care system especially for women's prenatal care. These problems are all descriptive of the status quo, but in no way does regulating abortion actually solve for these problems. Not allowing women to consult with professionals when seeking abortion services only poses more of a threat to women's reproductive health. Unless you can prove that regulating abortions will result in the immediate halt of all abortions- there is no reason that the government should intervene on such decisions.

These late term abortions also occur because a problem with the fetus has occurred that could threaten women's health during delivery. Denying women access to medical services that enable them to regulate their fertility or terminate a dangerous pregnancy amounts to a refusal to provide health care to women. The small number of abortions that take place is outweighed by the fact that these abortions will take place post-legislation which guarantees the terminated pregnancy but also threatens the mother's life.

Even if those voting think that I have lost the rights-based argument, this does not mean that I have lost the debate. The government cannot and never does legislate morality. My opponent may try and say that laws against murder, stealing, speeding etc. are legislations of morality, but these laws were instated for completely different reasons- to prevent anarchy. While these laws in some way affect a large part of society, only a woman has to deal with the emotional consequences of terminating a pregnancy.

You have also disregarded two thirds of this debate. I have mentioned the first so I will not go in depth on this issue. You concede that abortions will take place no matter what and making abortions illegal only denies women access to safe abortions. It is simply a part of human nature- if a women wants an abortion she will find a method to do so. The alternative to legal and safe abortions would be the illegal "back alley" abortions. Allowing women access to safe abortions, in addition to the prior consultation which ensures a safer operation, is comparatively advantageous to what you are advocating.

Finally- the issue of women's rights. Women should be involved in decisions that affect their lives and futures. To refuse on principle to permit a woman to consider her life or welfare when it seems threatened by pregnancy is to say that only men are the recipients of political freedom and responsibility. It is also to say that the primacy of the right to bodily life of the fetus places all other considerations, including the health, worth, and dignity of women, on a lower level. It is a form of gender discrimination. According to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, discrimination against women includes laws that have either the effect or the purpose of preventing a woman from exercising any of her human rights or fundamental freedoms on a basis of equality with men. Laws that ban abortion have just that effect. Restricting abortion has the effect of denying women access to a procedure that may be necessary for their enjoyment of their right to health. Also you do not contest that allowing the government to intervene on personal decisions sets a dangerous precedent.

Also, I have a few questions:
1. If the fetus you save is a homosexual, will you still fight for its rights?
2. Do you believe in protecting all life(human)?
3. Are you in favor of taxes/our welfare system?

Happy Holidays
azrael777

Con

You Posted:"You make a mistake by only addressing one part of this debate. At this point this is your position- a very small number of abortions occur after the 25-32 weeks so the government has the obligation to regulate abortions. Please stick to your original argument."

One part is all I needed to address, you defeated your own position. If you concede that a child gains the right to life at a certain point in the womb then the government has an obligation to regulate abortions even if it is only to make the determination that in a life threatening situation the most viable life must be saved. However for the sake of debate I will address your other points.

You posted:"The government cannot and never does legislate morality.:"

This is an uninformed and naive statement. Animal cruelty laws are morality laws.
Abolishing slavery ,civil rights,women's right to vote, charitable organizations being tax free,child protection laws, and a host of others are all moral laws. Take any of these laws away and anarchy would not ensue.

You posted:"regulating abortion doesn't actually decrease the number of abortions that take place"

Another naive statement. Of course some women would still have abortions anyway but this would be a criminal act. When an act is deemed illegal the instances that the act are committed generally decrease. This is because we live in a civilized society. The amount of doctors willing to perform legal abortions is shrinking so much that there has been a 50% decrease in abortion training in hospitals over the last 10 years. The number of doctors willing to train for or perform an illegal abortion would be minuscule. If you take into consideration that a woman would have to;

A. Break the law.
b. Have the procedure performed by an untrained person who is not a doctor.

one can logically conclude that the number of abortions would decrease. Using statistics we can also conclude the same thing. The number of abortions performed in 1973 was 744,600. In 2000 the number was 1,313,000. That is an increase far beyond women population growth. We can conclude from this that legalizing abortion contributed to the number of abortions performed. Making the act illegal would have the opposite effect.

You posted:" Finally- the issue of women's rights.:"

This is actually the weakest point of your argument. I will address point by point to point out why.

You posted:"Women should be involved in decisions that affect their lives and futures."

In America this is true for everyone, to a point. I can decide that the best thing for my future is to have a lot of money. I can make the decision to increase my wealth by any means necessary, including illegal means. At the point where I rob a bank my right to be involved in my decisions that affect my life and future ends. Because I impeded the right of someone else. A baby is the only form of innocence that humanity ever knows, impeding upon the baby's right to life for the sake of what is best for the woman is the ultimate act of
selfishness.

You posted:"To refuse on principle to permit a woman to consider her life or welfare when it seems threatened by pregnancy is to say that only men are the recipients of political freedom and responsibility."

Wrong, If a man kills a child in the womb by killing the mother he is usually charged with two murders. If a woman kills the child in her womb she is not charged with anything. It seems to me that the woman actually has more political fredom and responsibility.

You posted:". According to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, discrimination against women includes laws that have either the effect or the purpose of preventing a woman from exercising any of her human rights or fundamental freedoms on a basis of equality with men. Laws that ban abortion have just that effect. Restricting abortion has the effect of denying women access to a procedure that may be necessary for their enjoyment of their right to health. Also you do not contest that allowing the government to intervene on personal decisions sets a dangerous precedent."

Siting the Convention for abortion laws is akin to siting the kkk on civil liberties. They are not an unbiased source of information. As stated before the
woman's rights to enjoyment and health end when they impede upon another's rights. This is the precedent of all of the laws in the USA. The government intervenes in personal decisions from investments to violence they are all set into motion by a personal decision.
Debate Round No. 2
SMEBATE

Pro

SMEBATE forfeited this round.
azrael777

Con

Regardless of personal belief of abortion, the government is obligated to regulate it one way or another. We as a nation have to decide whether or not this
and other issues will effect the way we live,vote, and conduct our personal lives. I believe this issue, and many others, are being dodged by our elected officials. Until we take a stand and let the government know we are serious about
our morality,ethics, and values, there will be no end to the debate. The media dictates to us what is right and wrong and who the best person to uphold these pseudo morals is. We were told Bush would be the one to take up our causes, he did not. We were told something would get done about our current over taxation, only duct tape and bubble gum were applied. We were told something would get done
about abortion, and we got the partial birth abortion bill which actually did next to nothing for the pro life cause. Enough preaching from me on the issues though, Happy New Year all! God Bless you in the upcoming year.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by rockstarman11 9 years ago
rockstarman11
abortion iz not bad or aganist God in my way there iz no soul n the body onless it sees the light of the world
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by ally93 8 years ago
ally93
SMEBATEazrael777Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Sludge 9 years ago
Sludge
SMEBATEazrael777Tied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by mikelwallace 9 years ago
mikelwallace
SMEBATEazrael777Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Chob 9 years ago
Chob
SMEBATEazrael777Tied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Mikel 9 years ago
Mikel
SMEBATEazrael777Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Korezaan 9 years ago
Korezaan
SMEBATEazrael777Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by coolman 9 years ago
coolman
SMEBATEazrael777Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by RMK 9 years ago
RMK
SMEBATEazrael777Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by azrael777 9 years ago
azrael777
SMEBATEazrael777Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03