The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
12 Points
The Contender
policydebategod
Con (against)
Winning
23 Points

abortion should be outlawed, at least later in the pregnancy

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: 12/24/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 897 times Debate No: 934
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (9)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

POLICY ARGUMENTS
If you believe it's not a baby early early on, then sure that's a rational view. But, as for me, I would outlaw it.

If you're for killing a baby five seconds before it gets out of the mother but not when it's out, what's the difference? will you admit you're willing to allow killing to suit the mother's not want of a bother?
why can't someone go on and kill anyone who is a bother to them? they can't, because that infringes another's life.

the mother chose to have sex, she has to pay the consequences. she didn't choose to get pregnant, but she assumed the risk. how do you say she doesn't assume the risk? if i caused a car accident, and the other person was suddenly attahed to my body until it could be surgically removed a few months later, any reasonable person would say the person who caused the crash has no right to termineate the other person.
often i say it's reasonable to have differing beliefs, but here I do not believe it'd be reasonable to say otherwise. it's analogous fully to the baby, in my opinion, and not reasonable to say otherwise.

with that said, you have an argument if you don't think it's a person. we'd probably quibble about when it's reasonable to say it is or isn't a person. but, you have a right to say when you think it is or is not just as much as I do. and you'd have a rational argument if it's based on the personness of the baby, up to a point of course. wihtout that argument, you have no basis to say abortion should be legal.

LEGAL ARGUMENTS
I agree privacy should be implied into the constitution. All the amendments you cite imply it. I would also add, the conservatives like to go on and on about how soverign immunity, that states generally cannot be sued technically, is implied in teh constitution, because of the states rights stuff like the tenth amendment... so if that can be done, surely privacy can be implied too, to be fair.

You cite Court authority, and following stare decisis or precedent, you would be correct that it's technically the law of the land. But, much like brown versus the board of education overturned segretation type laws, these current cases can be overturned as well. you are not resting your argument on a techincal basis that the cases cannot be overturned?

so, i assume you think it's good policy that it be that way. i say it's a policy argument, because there's competing legal theories. one is privacy, the other is protecting human life. surely, you do not have the privacy to kill a person who is born? techincally, they are born, i admit, and not expressly included in the constitution, the unborn. but, are you being a technicalist such that the framers didn't intend to protect a baby five minutes before the baby is born? get real if that's the case.
there's a burden you're putting on people to change the constitution, whatever the court decides. who should the burden be on? are you giong to be a technicalist and say the burden should be on the framers because they didn't clarify babies are included too? it seems natural they'd include the baby at later points at least. it's at least a reasonable person standarnd to read into it given that the baby is clearly a person later on.

now, i suppose given that it's a policy argument, the states could decide like the first one or two semesters since it's arbitrary anyway. we can't avoid arbitrariness afterall, because the standards roe made are themselves arbitrary. this all simply illustrates are laws are man made, and the practical consequences of them bore full face when implmenting and interpreting them. so, policy is a sound way to proceed.

anyway, ultimately, if you disagree, you're drawing an arbitrary line at the birth canal, just as much as i'm being arbitrary saying a point the baby is a person.

if not anything else, the issue should be given to the states. the states have dealt with it up until the 1900s. some had abortion laws, others didn't. the tenth amendment relegates stuff not in the constitution to the states.

i say, don't be a techinalist with the presumption for death.

it seems you're ignoring the principle of preserving life, which is explicitly in the Constitution, and at any rate could be implied just as much as but probably even more than the right to privacy. While you say you're not pushing for this because of your morality, I see no other reason than for you to think privacy should outweigh life with a presumption of death based on your own inclinations, (my guess is augmented by your rhetoric of laws and the woman's body stuff).

If I'm wrong and you simply insist on not changing course, you have not explained why other cases can change, or admit you want to remain ever the same no matter what the Court decides.
policydebategod

Con

POLICY ARGUMENTS
+ If you believe it's not a baby early early on, then sure that's a rational view. But, as for me, I would outlaw it.
- Why would you outlaw killing a non-person? Are we going to outlaw stepping on cockroaches next? Or stabbing calculators? Be reasonable.

+ If you're for killing a baby five seconds before it gets out of the mother but not when it's out, what's the difference?
- abortion is outlawed after the second trimester. a baby is not developed enough to count as a person before this. the status quo is fine.
+ will you admit you're willing to allow killing to suit the mother's not want of a bother?
- yes and ill explain why next.
+ why can't someone go on and kill anyone who is a bother to them?
- a person sized creature living inside of you for 3/4 year, pushed out of you, living with youfor 18 years, taking more than half your outcome after taxes is WAY MORE than a bother. also its for the sake of the child. a child tht is unwanted is bound to be neglected. also most unwanted mothers are poor or teenagers who are incapable of raising a child.
+ the mother chose to have sex, she has to pay the consequences. she didn't choose to get pregnant, but she assumed the risk. how do you say she doesn't assume the risk?
- SEX IS NOT A CRIME. SHE DOES NOT HAVE TO PAY THESE CONSEQENCES. THERE IS A WAY TO STOP THIS UNNECESSARY CONSEQUENCE FOR A NECESSARY ACTION. HOW IS THE CHILD NEVER EXISTING AS AN EMBRYO ANY DIFFERENT FROM IT BEING GOTTEN RID OF THROUGH ABORTION.
+ if i caused a car accident, and the other person was suddenly attahed to my body until it could be surgically removed a few months later, any reasonable person would say the person who caused the crash has no right to termineate the other person.
- this does not even begin to make sense.
+ often i say it's reasonable to have differing beliefs, but here I do not believe it'd be reasonable to say otherwise. it's analogous fully to the baby, in my opinion, and not reasonable to say otherwise.
- well i have a differing opinion and so does the supreme court so oh well.
+ with that said, you have an argument if you don't think it's a person. we'd probably quibble about when it's reasonable to say it is or isn't a person. but, you have a right to say when you think it is or is not just as much as I do. and you'd have a rational argument if it's based on the personness of the baby, up to a point of course. wihtout that argument, you have no basis to say abortion should be legal.
- once again, articulate your arguments. a baby is not capable of life supposedly, feelings, and nerves aftre the second trimester. point blank. why not ask the nine supreme court judges or any bloke with a medical degree?
+ I agree privacy should be implied into the constitution. All the amendments you cite imply it. I would also add, the conservatives like to go on and on about how soverign immunity, that states generally cannot be sued technically, is implied in teh constitution, because of the states rights stuff like the tenth amendment... so if that can be done, surely privacy can be implied too, to be fair.
- i dont understand what youre trying to say. and states can be sued. period. + You cite Court authority, and following stare decisis or precedent, you would be correct that it's technically the law of the land. But, much like brown versus the board of education overturned segretation type laws, these current cases can be overturned as well. you are not resting your argument on a techincal basis that the cases cannot be overturned?
- ppl have tried and failed and as long as the supreme court has 9 brains it will be legal. AND I GAVE NOT CITED ANYTHING, THIS IS THE DEBATE'S FIRST ROUND.
+ surely, you do not have the privacy to kill a person who is born? techincally, they are born, i admit, and not expressly included in the constitution, the unborn. but, are you being a technicalist such that the framers didn't intend to protect a baby five minutes before the baby is born? - what framers? what are you talking about? and an unborn baby is not a born baby.
- there's a burden you're putting on people to change the constitution, whatever the court decides. who should the burden be on?
+ ROE VS WADE DECIDED THAT ABORTION SHOULD BE LEGAL IN ALL STATES.

the last part of your arguments made less than no sense. elaborate on them.
abortion is not the governments right.
neglected children will result.
teen mothers will result and throw away their dreams.
RAPED WOMEN, VIOLENT CRIME VICTIMS, WILL BE FORCED TO SUFFER FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES.
back alley abortions will increase and more women will die along with babies.
LET THE STATUS QUO, ROE VS WADE, STAY!!!
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

dairygirl4u2c forfeited this round.
policydebategod

Con

Thank you sole commentor as of late for congratulating me on "doing my homework." I would appreciate a response. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

dairygirl4u2c forfeited this round.
policydebategod

Con

policydebategod forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by RandmRae 9 years ago
RandmRae
i also go against abortion. I know people who have done it and i am not angry or hold it against them but i dotn think its right.
Posted by mmadderom 9 years ago
mmadderom
"- a person sized creature living inside of you for 3/4 year, pushed out of you, living with youfor 18 years, taking more than half your outcome after taxes is WAY MORE than a bother."

Whoa.

By that rationale the FATHER should also be allowed to compel an abortion. Yet only the woman gets to make the decision.
Posted by flight666 9 years ago
flight666
I really thought this debate was going somewhere, but the Pro forfeited, so my decision was easy.
Posted by policydebategod 9 years ago
policydebategod
- You have done your homework and you actually sound like you may know a little more about life than what your age reflects. But when you reading deeper into your words your age becomes much more prevalent. You have the ability to utilize vocabulary. Good, your english teacher is doing great. However, you contradict yourself in your beleifs.
+ Thanks for the half compliment. And I can manage a vobabulary without my english teacher.

Maybe the embryo is not legally considered a person until it reaches the beginning of the third trimester, but you are overlooking a major part of this whole abortion debate. Sex is for reproduction puposes, yes it is enjoyable but it is not meant to be a leisure activity. If you like it that much and have more and more sex, your odds of reproducing are getting greater.
+ Thats why we have abortion. Its not that I dont understand, its that I disagree. You conservatives are all the same. Welcome to debate.

- Since we are talking about government violating a womans personal privacy, does that mean we should legalize prostitution as well? I mean why cant they do whatever they want? Right? In all of your infinate wisdom I am sure you can help me understand why killing unborn children and prostitution should be legal in a civilized nation.
+ I do think that we should legalise whatever does not hurt anybody else. Welccome to libertarianism. That includes drugs, prostitution, gay rights, abortion, tv porno, tv cursing, etc.

- And I dont care what a judge says, they have a law degree. And when asking a DR. specifically an OBGYN a heartbeat starts in day 10. Most dont even know they are pregnant yet. That thing that isn't alive according to you, has a functioning heart. But I guess thats dead, or non living.
+ The creature has no nerves, no functioning brain, and is not a developed person yet. A roach has a heartbeat...

In response, I fully understand you position and my position.
Posted by jarhead717 9 years ago
jarhead717
You have done your homework and you actually sound like you may know a little more about life than what your age reflects. But when you reading deeper into your words your age becomes much more prevalent. You have the ability to utilize vocabulary. Good, your english teacher is doing great. However, you contradict yourself in your beleifs.

Maybe the embryo is not legally considered a person until it reaches the beginning of the third trimester, but you are overlooking a major part of this whole abortion debate. Sex is for reproduction puposes, yes it is enjoyable but it is not meant to be a leisure activity. If you like it that much and have more and more sex, your odds of reproducing are getting greater.

Since we are talking about government violating a womans personal privacy, does that mean we should legalize prostitution as well? I mean why cant they do whatever they want? Right? In all of your infinate wisdom I am sure you can help me understand why killing unborn children and prostitution should be legal in a civilized nation.

And I dont care what a judge says, they have a law degree. And when asking a DR. specifically an OBGYN a heartbeat starts in day 10. Most dont even know they are pregnant yet. That thing that isn't alive according to you, has a functioning heart. But I guess thats dead, or non living.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
dairygirl4u2cpolicydebategodTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
dairygirl4u2cpolicydebategodTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by beem0r 9 years ago
beem0r
dairygirl4u2cpolicydebategodTied
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 YummyYummCupcake 9 years ago
YummyYummCupcake
dairygirl4u2cpolicydebategodTied
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 NapoleonofNerds 9 years ago
NapoleonofNerds
dairygirl4u2cpolicydebategodTied
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 hjfrutwiufy 9 years ago
hjfrutwiufy
dairygirl4u2cpolicydebategodTied
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 dairygirl4u2c 9 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
dairygirl4u2cpolicydebategodTied
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 Leonitus_Trujillo 9 years ago
Leonitus_Trujillo
dairygirl4u2cpolicydebategodTied
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 EliteEternity 9 years ago
EliteEternity
dairygirl4u2cpolicydebategodTied
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