The Instigator
Alexander_The_Great
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Adam_The_Analyst
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

The law concerning abortion rights for Americans, should stay the way it is.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/13/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 896 times Debate No: 17033
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

Alexander_The_Great

Pro

Today, if a woman decides to go to a hospital or abortion clinic, she can. Abortion law should stay in place.
Adam_The_Analyst

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for challenging me to this debate. It is something that I feel quite passionately about
and I hope that we can instigate an intellectually stimulating debate. Good luck!

Before I argue, I would like to clarify that the "Abortion Law" my opponent is referring to is the U.S. Supreme Court decision regarding Roe V. Wade. Technically, rather than legalizing abortion, this decision ruled it unconstitutional to hinder a women's right to privacy, a right that extends even to abortion. I am saying this, rather than to harp over semantics, to make it clear that this "Abortion law", effectively, made it illegal for states to make abortion illegal. Operating under the general assumption that abortion was made legal because of the Roe V. Wade decision could lead someone reading this to think that abortion was illegal before that decision. Although it was illegal in thirty of the states, it was legal in the case of rape in 1, of danger to the woman's health in 2, of the danger to woman's health, incest, or likely damaged fetus in 13, and lastly, legal for any reason upon request in 4 states.

I will argue that the Roe V. Wade decision should be reversed, effectively
making abortion illegal in the United States.

To begin, I would like to say that this controversy boils down to whether or not we regard the unborn to be humanly and morally equivalent to that of a mature, or just born, human. This is the basis of it because none, or very few, agree with killing innocent human beings. What is required to qualify to be a innocent human being? Where do we draw the line?

I draw the line at the instant of concept.

If my parents had kept a kept a photo-book of me, and every year they added a picture documenting my progress, for memorabilia's sake. Each picture is a depiction of me. You can agree that each photo recognizes me at a different stage of development, still basically being the same entity in each of the photos. As we peruse the book we reach when I was 4 years old, and had just begun my pre-kindergarten year. I still matter just as much as i did when I graduated high school. Most still agree with me at this point. Next, we reach the day i was born when i was zero years old, so to speak. I still matter just as much, right? Now, we flip one last page back, and we see a picture of my sonogram. Is this still an image of me? Yes. Just like the picture of me entering Pre-K, I am at a different, earlier stage in my development. Even when I was a Zygote and Blastocyst(the earliest stages of my development) I still mattered just as much as I do now. Simply, the reason i say this for is, if I was killed at any point in my life, including when I was the most miniscule likeness of an embryo, I wouldn't be here to write this argument. So, at least to me, my life began as soon as it could have been ended, at conception.
Debate Round No. 1
Alexander_The_Great

Pro

Thank you for clarifying what we are debating about.

My opponent's argument is that a human being should not be killed at any stage in his/her life.
But let me start off by giving a hypothetical scenario.
let's say there is a train coming down the track that is about to hit two people and the only way to stop the train from killing them would be for someone to pull a lever, switching the train on another track. But, by doing this, the train if switched onto the other track, it would kill one person.
Would you rather let two people die? or kill one to save two?

With this in mind, say there is a young 15 year old girl who had just been raped and gets pregnant. And lets say she does not want the baby.
That girl is going to do everything in her power to get rid of that baby. She might go get a back ally abortion. Or go to another country to get this done. This would kill the baby and harm the girl.
People are going to do this whether or not they think its the right thing to do.
So, the right thing to do for us, would be to allow a woman to go to a clean abortion clinic to get an abortion.

Another example. It would be the worst thing ever for me to get my girl friend pregnant at this age. having a baby at my age, without a college education or a decent paying job, it would ruin my life, her life, and the baby's life.
And she would do anything, to not let her parents know if she was pregnant.
And that speaks for all young girls, they will do anything to get rid of their baby.
so why not make it safe?
Adam_The_Analyst

Con

To answer my opponents first question, I would rather warn the people to get off the damn tracks. But in all seriousness, I would agree with killing one to save the two. I wonder what this is meaning to convey? Are you saying that in having the (one) child, it would kill both the parents (two)? That is nonsensical.

By admitting that the different time periods during one's life(even the zygote/blastocyst period) I mentioned in Round 1, ARE INDEED stages in one's life("My opponent's argument is that a human being should not be killed at any stage in his/her life."), it would seem as though he agrees with me that life begins at conception. Correct me if I am wrong.

The next hypothetical regarding a rape victim is, out of all the possible hypothetical situations in the abortion subject, probably the hardest to defend in favor of not aborting the child. But we have to remember that the fetus*, even one being a result of rape, is still a life. It is not the baby's fault that his/her mother was raped. Is it just to punish or kill the innocent? And if "she does not want the baby", why can she not consider the method of adoption?

Next, according to what my opponent says the girl would do next, go to a "back ally" abortion clinic, the fetus will, of course, definitely die, and the girl will definitely be harmed. In his words: "This will kill the baby and harm the girl."

My opponents purpose in providing this scenario is to convince me that, girls, when they get pregnant and don't want to be pregnant, will 100% of the time get an abortion, so why not have "clean" and "safe" abortion clinics, so that the girl is not harmed?

How can we assume that the girl is definitely going to get harmed in this back-alley procedure. Now don't think I'm in support of this method. But, I definitely fail to see the logic in saying: because we can't stop people from murdering, we might as well make it easier for them. It seems parallel to saying- we should legalize cocaine, because cocaine-addicts are going to get their cocaine one way or another. How is it different from saying- we should legalize rape, because rapists are going to find a victim one way or another.

With my opponents second example, I once again ask why adoption cannot be an option? If you get the baby adopted, then it will have no bearing on yours' or your girlfriends' life. You're Pro-Choice, I'm Pro-Adoption.

The next thing my opponent says bothers me a great deal. He says that having the baby under these conditions would ruin the BABY'S life. So, does that mean getting an abortion and ending it's life would NOT ruin his/her life? It would definitely ruin my life to be killed at any point, so how can this be any different? I, for one, would rather lead a 'crappy' and/or 'poor' life than not leading one at all.

I don't think you can generalize and speak for all young girls in that they will do anything they can to abort the baby. While some may be very unhappy with their situation, if they understand that they are killing someone(their own child!), then perhaps they will think twice before making this decision.

Basically, I do not agree that any circumstance justifies in killing an innocent human being**. My opponent has made no effort to argue the point of the qualifications to be considered a human... so bluntly put, is he okay with killing the innocent? I know he is not, so how can his two hypothetical situations be anything but dismissed?

*Although a human does not become a "fetus" until the 8th week after, I will use the term interchangeably with the term before this point, to retain simplicity.
**Unless, of course, you can indeed save two lives at the cost of one. But no situation has been presented to me in which this is the issue.
Debate Round No. 2
Alexander_The_Great

Pro

//Are you saying that in having the (one) child, it would kill both the parents (two)? That is nonsensical.//
I never said or implied that having a child is going to kill both parents. You obviously need to read it again.

//it would seem as though he agrees with me that life begins at conception. Correct me if I am wrong.//
Yes, I agree that life begins at conception

//Is it just to punish or kill the innocent?//
You are right, it is not just to punish or kill the innocent. But the people who are going to get the baby aborted anyway, need a way to remove the human without harming themselves.
And there are many cases where aborting the baby is best for the baby.
One last scenario, I actually heard a story like this a while back but I cant seem to find the article.
lets say a mother and her husband want to have a baby. A few weeks in the pregnancy and it's time for a check up. After the doctor analyzes the baby's health, the doctor says, "Miss, your baby is very deformed, if you give birth to this baby, it is going to die a slow, painful death. The only way to lessen the pain of your baby is to abort it." If abortion was illegal in the United states, that baby would have gone through a slow, agonizing death!

//And if "she does not want the baby", why can she not consider the method of adoption?//
honestly, I don't know why a 15 year old girl would not want to give birth to a baby, maybe because...she is 15?? Just a guess.

//My opponents purpose in providing this scenario is to convince me that, girls, when they get pregnant and don't want to be pregnant, will 100% of the time get an abortion//
I never said that it was going to happen 100% of the time. You need to read that part again too.

//because we can't stop people from murdering, we might as well make it easier for them.//
I don't think the woman crying over her dead baby's body is a 'murderer'. And comparing an abortion to a rape event is a little extreme. But for the woman( in my scenario in round 3), if abortion was illegal, then that baby, again, would have died slowly.

//With my opponents second example, I once again ask why adoption cannot be an option? If you get the baby adopted, then it will have no bearing on yours' or your girlfriends' life. You're Pro-Choice, I'm Pro-Adoption//
You have to understand, that if I got my girl pregnant, I would want to give it up for adoption. I would hate to kill a baby, let alone my own child just as much as anyone else.
But, a woman doesn't want to deal with pregnancy stress, body image, issues or pain when giving birth. Plus, she might not want everyone knowing that she got pregnant.

//Basically, I do not agree that any circumstance justifies in killing an innocent human being**. //
By making abortion Illegal, my opponent is, in a way, for what he tried so hard to fight against in this debate.
If having an abortion was Illegal, (for the woman who had the deformed child in this round.) That baby would have died a horrible painful death.

My opponent and I both agree that life begins at conception, and that killing a human being is wrong. But making abortion Illegal in the United states is not helping anyone. The woman who is crying next to the corps of her lifeless baby, is NOT a murderer. Girls would continue the practice of unsafe abortions and it is our job as human beings to help lessen the pain of others.

I want all the voters to realize that people that are pro choice, are not cold heartless monsters that kill babies for fun. We are all Pro life, just not all of us are pro choice.
I thank my opponent, hopefully that by having this debate society can get closer to making the right choice dealing with abortion.
Adam_The_Analyst

Con

>>I never said or implied that having a child is going to kill both parents. You obviously need to read it again.<<

I was taking a 'stab in the dark' as to what your "hypothetical scenario" was meaning to convey. You never told me what it meant. You told me to keep the scenario in mind as I read the next venture pertaining to the 15-year-old girl. AT NO POINT did i see any relevance to it. I regret that there isn't another round, so you could explain what you DID say/imply with that well-thought out and detailed scenario you very kindly blessed us with.

>>But the people who are going to get the baby aborted anyway, need a way to remove the human without harming themselves.<<

This logic is very weak. We have deemed it unethical to kill the innocent, and getting an abortion is indeed killing the innocent. Why, then, do the people killing the innocent DESERVE the, dare I say, luxury of the insurance that if they decide to kill their kid, then we have a safe way for them to do so. By making it illegal, and forcing them to choose to have an abortion the unsafe way, we are actually passively persuading these people to not go through with it. I guarantee that a substantially lesser amount of people(even people under circumstances that my opponent has mentioned i.e., 15-y-o girl) will go get abortion when it's in a back alley, known to be dangerous, and unsafe, than they would if it was clean, easy, and accessible. [3]

>>And there are many cases where aborting the baby is best for the baby.<<

While the case you give after this is indeed one that is best for the baby, there are not many. In the cases, like the one you mention, that are better for the baby, then I completely agree that the baby should be aborted. But only when the doctor's diagnosing the deformation that is going to lead to a slow, painful death is 100% positive that this is going to happen. We have to give the baby the benefit of the doubt in any other circumstance, because everyone deserves a chance for a fruitful life, unless we know for CERTAIN that the chance does not exist. Realize that this still leaves ~95%(at the minimum) of abortion instances that should still be illegal. [1]

>>honestly, I don't know why a 15 year old girl would not want to give birth to a baby, maybe because...she is 15?? Just a guess.<<

Albeit giving birth at 15 years of age would be an inconvenience(a MAJOR inconvenience), it can be done. So we must question ourselves... Is avoiding this inconvenience worth the cost of a life?

>>I never said that it was going to happen 100% of the time. You need to read that part again too.<<

Oh, but you did. You first gave the precedent involving a 15yo getting pregnant. Then here are your words:
"That girl is going to do everything in her power to get rid of that baby"
Using "is" in this context signifies an absolute. An absolute is 100%. Therefore, you did say it was going to happen 100% of the time.

>>I don't think the woman crying over her dead baby's body is a 'murderer'.<<

Even a women showing sadness or even remorse for her actions, does not negate these actions. There are people locked up in Alcatraz that are sorry and probably cry over what they've done. It doesn't bring the victim back. [2]

>>And comparing an abortion to a rape event is a little extreme.<<

I agree. It is a bit extreme. But following the line of logic that you presented, this is what follows.

>>But for the woman( in my scenario in round 3), if abortion was illegal, then that baby, again, would have died slowly.<<

Extend my argument i have denoted as [1].

>>You have to understand, that if I got my girl pregnant, I would want to give it up for adoption. I would hate to kill a baby, let alone my own child just as much as anyone else.
But, a woman doesn't want to deal with **pregnancy stress, body image, issues or pain when giving birth. Plus, she might not want everyone knowing that she got pregnant.**<<

Yes. These things{between the double asterisks(**)} that a woman would have to deal with would be quite difficult. I can't imagine the immeasurable pain that ensues when giving birth(of course, with modern technology, we now have drugs that lessen this pain greatly. This, perhaps, nullifies having to "deal" with this).
BUT*:
Is it worth a human life so that a woman can retain her body image? Of course not.
Is it worth a human life to relieve the women's stress? Of course not.
Lastly, is it worth a human life so that a women does not have to deal with rumors and scorn? No.
None of these come close to justifying the loss of the human life.

>>By making abortion Illegal, my opponent is, in a way, for what he tried so hard to fight against in this debate.
If having an abortion was Illegal, (for the woman who had the deformed child in this round.) That baby would have died a horrible painful death.<<

Here, my opponent is reiterating what he said earlier, regarding the deformed child scenario. Extend my arguments @ [1].

>>But making abortion Illegal in the United states is not helping anyone.<<

It's helping the thousands and thousands of human beings that are currently being killed, and the one's in the future that will die, if we don't put a stop to it.

>>The woman who is crying next to the corps of her lifeless baby, is NOT a murderer.<<

Extend argument denoted as [2].

>>Girls would continue the practice of unsafe abortions and it is our job as human beings to help lessen the pain of others.<<

Extend argument denoted as [3]. (My 2nd response in this round)
Also, I didn't know that was our job. It sure is a good thing to do, but honestly, it isn't our job.

This issue really comes down to when you think life begins. Doesn't it begin as soon as it can be ended?

Thank you, Alexander_The_Great, for a great(aha) debate. You included some very thoughtful scenarios. I had not thought of the exception that you proved to me regarding the deformed, pained child. At the very least, you have convinced me that abortions should be legal in that case. Hope to debate again :)
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Adam_The_Analyst 5 years ago
Adam_The_Analyst
Man, complete 3 debates :p I might need your vote.
Posted by LeoL 5 years ago
LeoL
Unfortunately I cannot vote, as I have not completed 3 debates yet. However, I would have voted for Adam. He was able to make all of pros arguments look weak. His arguments were not weakened whatsoever by pro. Pro said this : " My opponent and I both agree that life begins at conception, and that killing a human being is wrong. ". By not opposing the fact that a fetus is/is not a human, pro had no chance in this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
Alexander_The_GreatAdam_The_AnalystTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: We should not make it illegal because people will do it anyway? Weak arguments from Pro, Con could have taken this as instigator with the BoP. 3:1 Con
Vote Placed by ThunderNick 5 years ago
ThunderNick
Alexander_The_GreatAdam_The_AnalystTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Reasons for voting decision: It always never made sense to my why people get abortions. I didn't have a good answer for why life began at conseption, but I like Adam_the_Analyst,s reasoning in Round one. Still, some of Alexander_the_greats scenarios are pretty good. It was sort of a tie, but it seems that as long as pro agrees life begins at conseption, con really has my vote. I didnt see many sources...
Vote Placed by baggins 5 years ago
baggins
Alexander_The_GreatAdam_The_AnalystTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro conceded Con's argument that life begins at conception. His example of 15 year old girl was valid, but was not developed properly - allowing Con to raise sufficient objections. 3:1 to Con