The Instigator
wolfman4711
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Mangani
Pro (for)
Winning
20 Points

abortion funds

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
Mangani
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/16/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,952 times Debate No: 29272
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (4)

 

wolfman4711

Con

I personally hate abortion but I think its okay in the case of rape.

But the topic is abortion funds, The government taxes you so that wiping out mankind becomes instantly easier. 0.4% of taxes help kill thousands of children every day. 0.4% might not sound like much but the government regulates about 3 billion dollars of taxes every month. so 12 million dollars for abortion every month or 144 million dollars every year!
Mangani

Pro

I thank my opponent for posting this debate.

First of all, I'd like to point out that my opponent did not make a clear argument. He is arguing Con, but makes many assertions that are untrue, and unfairly assume Pro agrees with. These must be clarified.

1- Abortions are not funded by tax payer dollars. The Hyde Amendment, which is voted on every year, currently allows for federal funding of abortions in cases of rape, incest, or if the mother's life is endangered by the pregnancy. Availability of these options vary from year to year, but for the sake of semantics, the Hyde Amendment bans federal funding of non-medical abortions/non-rape/incest abortions.

2- 0.4% of taxes are NOT used for abortion. My opponent's numbers are completely off. Planned Parenthood receives 0.008% of the annual federal budget, or about $300 million annually. Though Planned Parenthood is banned from using federal funds for abortions, only 3% of Planned Parenthood's services go towards abortion to begin with. So even if my opponent's completely skewed numbers are to be believed, Planned Parenthood would be using about $3 million annually on abortion- not $12 million monthly as he claims.

With these two points clarified, I think it is justified to say that even though I am Pro, the burden of proof is on my opponent to prove that:
1- The Federal Government provides significant funding of non-medical/non-abuse abortions through tax payer dollars, and
2- The amount of Federal dollars used to fund non-medical/non-abuse abortions is not justified.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
wolfman4711

Con

There are quite a bit of taxes actually though it may not have been as much as discussed earlier. But the people pay some of there annual income to help out murder man kinds most innocent citizens the unborn. You post a strong argument but the bills at the end of the month don't lie. Abortion is an issue because a whole kids fate is chosen by his mother. And if do pay you make that much easier. I think we should lower the taxes by about 50 percent and women should get a extensive reviews before she makes the choice. The government can't force citizen to pay for deaths of the poor children. People do not belong in the governments affairs to kill our children.
Mangani

Pro

I would like to remind the judges (the readers) that this debate is not about the aspects of abortion, rather about whether or not the Federal government funds/should fund abortions through tax payer dollars. My opponent has ignored my contentions that:

1) Federal funding for abortion is banned except in cases of rape, incest, and in the current version of the Hyde Amendment, where the pregnancy poses a significant risk to the life of the mother [A]

2) My opponent has already conceded that abortion is "okay in the case of rape." Incest is rape. Neither situation pose a significant risk to the life of the mother, so it would be rational that if you support the right to an abortion in the case of rape or incest, which does not amount to a medical necessity, a medical emergency would just as rationally justify an abortion, if not more rationally.

3) My opponent has to prove that abortion is funded by the Federal government to the degree he has claimed, and outside of the situations he has conceded are appropriate for government funded abortions.

If this were an argument about the government funding the deaths of children, my opponent would also have to argue why death by abortion is worse than death by unmanned aerial vehicle. He would also have to argue why children are allowed to join the US Military, and their lives put at risk. He would have to argue why the government allows the death of children who don't have health care, or who's parents can't afford food. He would also have to argue why the government does not fund medical care of all children in the United States once they are born. Of course, my opponent would never make these arguments as they are against his conservative ideals, which are what dictates his opposition to abortion, rather than a genuine concern for life. Alas, this is not a debate about what my opponent alludes to, nor about what my opponent now tries to argue.

This debate is about whether or not the government:
A) Funds abortion with tax payer dollars, and

B) Whether or not they should.

I contend that A is false, save for in cases my opponent deems that funding necessary, or at least "okay." I would also agree with B- the government should fund abortion in some cases.

[A] http://www.nrlc.org...
Debate Round No. 2
wolfman4711

Con

Really I hate abortion pretty much until it comes down to the health of the mother. In the case of rape the woman should really bare the child. If the moms poor she doesn't have to take care of the child. There is adoption and adoption numbers have been flying due to the fact gay marriage is legal. Kids should be able to live there lives wether there parents love them or not. You cannot kill one for the needs of another. There's an estimated 15,000 abortions every year. That's 15,000 deaths in just one year because there parents don't want them.
Mangani

Pro

My opponent's final argument is completely irrelevant. All my arguments carry over. Vote Pro.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
No worries. It's how we learn. I lost my first debate, too! :)
Posted by wolfman4711 4 years ago
wolfman4711
Yeah I could have done a lot better sorry my first debate got to my head
Posted by Mangani 4 years ago
Mangani
GarrettKade, your vote is obviously in retaliation and not genuine. My criticism of my opponent was not an ad-hominem argument, as it was not used to support any of my positions rather to criticize his motive for debate. This is not bad conduct- this is pointing something out to my opponent in hopes of greater debate.
Posted by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
I second that. Wolfman, the problem is more that you didn't know the facts of the issue you were debating, and so your opponent dismantled the basis you presented for your beliefs. It's not that a reasonable argument couldn't have been made for both sides of this issue.
Posted by Mangani 4 years ago
Mangani
It wasn't your topic of choice, rather the manner in which you chose to argue... which was to not debate at all.
Posted by wolfman4711 4 years ago
wolfman4711
Sorry messed that up meant increased adoption of kids

It's actually my first debate, I should picked a different topic
Posted by Luggs 4 years ago
Luggs
How does gay marriage increase adoption numbers (I suppose he means number of kids up for adoption)? If anything it increases the kids adopted from the centers.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 4 years ago
lannan13
wolfman4711ManganiTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Many of Con's arguments were irrelevent to the debate so that is why arguments goes to Pro, Pro used sources.
Vote Placed by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
wolfman4711ManganiTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: See comments for RFD. Pro sourced the text of the Hyde Ammendment.
Vote Placed by GarretKadeDupre 4 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
wolfman4711ManganiTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Con because of Pro's indirect ad hominem: "Of course, my opponent would never make these arguments as they are against his conservative ideals, which are what dictates his opposition to abortion, rather than a genuine concern for life." Arguments are tied because both sides contradicted themselves multiple times. Con couldn't do his math and Pro doesn't understand that incest does not necessarily equal rape. Source to Pro because he was the only one who cited a source. Spelling & Grammar to Pro because of his proper use of punctuation.
Vote Placed by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
wolfman4711ManganiTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Con didn't argue his own debate. When confronted with his inaccurate figured, he relied solely on his own beliefs rather than any facts. He also had noticeable grammar errors. Pro, on the other hand, used reliable, sourced figures in his arguments. I voted for "tie" on the agreement parts because the very premise was flawed, thus I can neither agree nor disagree.