The Instigator
JP
Pro (for)
Winning
31 Points
The Contender
abard124
Con (against)
Losing
26 Points

tobacco rights/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 9 votes the winner is...
JP
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/31/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,504 times Debate No: 7627
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (29)
Votes (9)

 

JP

Pro

Ok, I was looking at your profile, and I saw some serious inconsistencies and was just wondering if you'd maybe back it up.

Here's my argument: If someone (you) was pro abortion, then they are saying that, even though a fetus is being killed it's ok because it is the mother's choice and we live in a free country so they should be allowed to choose. Ok, that's fine.
The problem is that you're against tobacco rights. This makes absolutely no sense. I can't understand why anyone would be against tobacco rights, but I'm assuming it's because it would have a negative effect on people who use it. now tobacco is bad for you, but abortion is bad for the baby. If you're arguing in one case(abortion) that even though it's bad for the fetus, it's still the people's right to choose, and then you come back and argue that tobacco should be illegal because it's bad for you, then that makes zero sense. I thought you said it was the people's choice?

Please explain.
Thanks
abard124

Con

I'm glad you took the time to check out my profile!
Now, there are a few little things I would like to clear up. First of all, the widget on the home pages which give all of our beliefs are not structured very well. The reason I say that is there are a few things on there that could be more clear, or less biased. I wish there was a "somewhat (dis)agree" button. Also, I'm not sure if you noticed (you probably did), that I filled in almost all of the reasons on my profile. But, I can go more in to depth here. There was one thing you said that immediately popped out at me as a fallacy that I would like to clear up. I am not pro abortion. Politics is all marketing. Pro-Choice is not the same as pro-abortion. I realize that is one of the issues with the widget, but I just wanted to clear that up. I think abortion is horrible. I wish people would not as readily think of abortion as an option. The main difference between me and a so-called "pro-life" person is that they believe that the government has a place in regulating Abortion, and I don't think the government has that right.
Now, in reference to the tobacco rights, you might want to check back on my other debate, "Smoking should be made illegal." I would also just like to add that, although I think it is disgusting, I am not against chewing tobacco, or snuff, or snus, or any unsmoked tobacco. The only reason I am against smoking rights is that it impedes upon other peoples' rights. The can impose as many regulations as they want, but the only way to tackle secondhand smoke is to outlaw smoking.
Now, to reference it back to Abortion, yes, a fetus is life, I won't deny that. So are cows, chickens, pigs, and even broccoli. And yes, fetuses are technically human. However it is really a debate of whether they are simply human life, or if they are actually humans. If that made any sense. Let me clarify, as it seemed a bit confusing. There is no question that it is living. There is no question that it is human life. The question is whether there is a difference between a human being and an embryo/fetus. I attest that there is. Murder is only against adult humans (adult beginning at birth that is... *sigh,* you become a confusing person when you start understanding biology too much). And b the way, I am completely against partial birth abortion. By the time a baby could be born and survive without an incubator, they become an adult in my book.
"I can't understand why anyone would be against tobacco rights, but I'm assuming it's because it would have a negative effect on people who use it."
You assume wrong. Read my other debate, but basically it is about secondhand smoke. And, as I said, I am not against smokeless tobacco. And by that, I mean that it is nasty, but it should be legal. Perhaps, in a later round, you can try and bring it back with that logic.

So, I believe I did an adequate job defining the difference between abortion and smoking. I am looking forward to your rebuttal, and it will be a challenge, but I think we are both up to it.
Debate Round No. 1
JP

Pro

Thank you for accepting the debate.

Well I guess that makes more sense about your beliefs on tobacco rights and abortion. This makes it a tougher debate on me, but I think my main argument will still hold up.

You start out by saying you are pro choice, I assumed this. And while I'm glad to hear that you disagree with abortion, I don't think this changes anything about what I was saying.

I'll restate what I'm arguing for clarification to the reader and my next debate: Basically, how could you be pro choice on abortion, but not on tobacco rights.

That is the question, and your response to that was that, you feel more concerned about the people around the smoker than the person actually smoking it. This is a valid point, but still doesn't quite hold up with your abortion argument.

Basically what you are saying is that if someone is smoking around others, then the other people will receive a negative effect based on someone else's decision to smoke.

Well the thing I would like to point out, may be obvious, but can't be overlooked, and that is: The baby doesn't have a choice either. It's the same thing. One person receiving a negative effect based on someone else's poor decision. Only the result of abortion is death, and the result of inhaling second hand smoke is far less. Which brings me to my next point.

While second hand smoke can be very harmful, Inhaling second hand smoke for a limited amount of time won't have that much of a lasting effect on people. If you go out for an hour or so and someone is smoking near-by, the effect on you would be very small. Damage comes from a continued exposure to smoke.

Lastly, some states are now making smoking illegal in all public places. This eliminates the possibility for you to inhale unwanted second hand smoke. This makes the risk of second hand smoke even less .

Abortion kills millions of innocent lives every year. If you want to stand for that then that's fine, even though you're wrong, that's a different debate, but at least be consistent.

Thank you for accepting the debate, I look forward to your next argument.
abard124

Con

You made some very good points. They were all valid, and I definitely hear what you are saying.

Let me restate that I think that I think that abortion is horrible. I also think that suicide is horrible, but I feel that its illegality is one of our more stupid laws. I support the Oregon Death with Dignity act, but I'm not going to visit Dr. Kevorkian anytime soon, and I would urge anyone not to. That might seem off topic, but that is just providing basis on my pro-choice basis. Now, you are correct that it takes life. Once again, I would urge anyone and everyone in the world not to abort. However, (1) it is inconclusive as to whether (a) it knows that it is alive, and (b) that it can feel pain. Lastly, if you can't trust someone to make the right decision with a abortion, can you really trust them as a parent?

Now, to connect that to the smoking debate, I will connect it to yet a third debate (sorry). Gun rights. Is this not similar to the fact that most liberals are pro-choice and anti-gun? People enjoy owning guns, but most liberals (and a few conservatives) agree that the ramifications outweigh the benefits of the current interpretation of the second amendment. Now, back to smoking. I agree that smokers enjoy smoking. And, as I said earlier, I support the right to end one's own life (as I consider smoking). However, smoking is really the smoking gun (unfortunately, that phrase is just a wee bit too literal for this situation) behind so many nonsmokers getting lung cancer or other horrible diseases. Whilst reading your argument, I immediately noticed a factual error. Here is your error. "While second hand smoke can be very harmful, Inhaling second hand smoke for a limited amount of time won't have that much of a lasting effect on people. If you go out for an hour or so and someone is smoking near-by, the effect on you would be very small. Damage comes from a continued exposure to smoke."
Yes, you are correct that it isn't too much damage, but you might want to read this website: http://www.lungusa.org...
Yes, I know that that is a biased source. However, it is a compilation of information from viable sources, so it is still a viable site for me to cite.
Also, if you spend an hour in a smoky environment, then you spend another hour next week, and another the week after that, it begins to build up.
Also, you can't ignore those who are not smokers themselves, but live with smokers. If they can't smoke in public places, they are confined to home. And most people wouldn't go out in the back yard if they have a craving at 4 in the morning, especially if they live in a high rise apartment without any sort of patio or anything.
And, unlike abortion, the people affected by the secondhand smoke, if of sound mind, know that they are alive, and can feel pain.

One last thing: you do not support abortion, and do support tobacco rights. Could you not make the same arguments for yourself?

This is a very interesting debate, and I am looking forward to the last round!
Debate Round No. 2
JP

Pro

Well, I'll start by answering your last question. and you were asking me to explain my view on the two issues, because you're saying that I'm doing the same thing you are only just reversed. Well this is the answer: Abortion is the taking of the life of a fetus, a human in its early stages. I don't think it should be the parents choice to take their, soon to be, child's life. That's not right. Especially because usually the reasoning behind it is because they just don't want to take responsibility. It's not fair to the child. I think that a fetus should have the right to life. That's my stand on that. Basically, the parent should not be able to choose to take the life of a developing baby (especially if it's just for birth control reasons). So I am not pro choice there. As for my stance on tobacco: firstly the people who are choosing to do it are adults who can think through and contemplate the consequences of their actions. I mean we're talking about adults and we aren't talking about the killing of an innocent life without their say. I'm not arguing that smoking can't be harmful to people other than the smoker, but if you're bothered by someone smoking nearby, then move (you aren't helpless like a fetus). The people who might be effected by second hand smoke are also adults who can think for themselves. I think that there should for sure be regulations on where you can smoke, but outlawing it completely isn't necessary, and could even have some unnecessary negative effects on society. Now, everyone is pro choice in some areas but not in others. The case I'm trying to make against you is that yours are backward. You are for in in a case where a helpless fetus is being killed, and for it in a case where the consequences would effect adults who can take care of themselves and would mostly effect the people who are choosing to do it. Which is fine if that's what they want to do to themselves.

You said "(1) it is inconclusive as to whether (a) it knows that it is alive, and (b) that it can feel pain."

A)Whether or not it knows it's alive is irrelevant. We know it's alive. And we know that this will someday be a human being. This would be someone's friend, or family member. They would have a life. Unfortunately they don't get a chance because their parents didn't think they were worth it. That's not right. The fact is, it is alive, we know it, and we should take care of it. That's its right.

B) Actually, there is conclusive evidence that a baby can feel, and react to pain. Even so, You wouldn't feel pain either if someone came up behind you and shot you in the back of the head. This too is irrelevant.

You close the paragraph by saying this "Lastly, if you can't trust someone to make the right decision with a abortion, can you really trust them as a parent?"
Well, maybe not, but there are a ton of families who would love to adopt a healthy child (or unhealthy).

Now I'll move on to smoking. I can definitely see your point about smoking effecting other people. This is a problem. The difference, as I kind of stated earlier is that the people being effected are able to take care of themselves. As for someone who smokes around their family, they need to use good judgement as to whether they should do that or not. If they have a family, then they need to be smart enough to know not to do it around their family. I understand some people aren't, but it's not the governments place to say whether or not they can do that around their family. There should be regulations on where people can smoke, but if you are on private property, then it's your choice. The government can't make every decision for people.

Thank you for your good arguments and courtesy, I really enjoyed the debate. Thank you.
abard124

Con

"Especially because usually the reasoning behind it is because they just don't want to take responsibility."
Yes, that is occasionally the reasoning, but I would need a viable source to confirm that it is USUALLY the reason. I always thought that most abortions were because of financial issues with supporting a baby. Or perhaps emotional or physical stress on the mother. But the meaning of the word "want" is a bit too liberal in your reasoning.

" I'm not arguing that smoking can't be harmful to people other than the smoker, but if you're bothered by someone smoking nearby, then move (you aren't helpless like a fetus)."
Once again, what if you live with a smoker who smokes inside? And what if you are a fetus, and Mom smokes. Then you are born with birth defects, and you are helpless for longer than intended by science (or God, if you prefer).

"The people who might be effected [sic] by second hand smoke are also adults who can think for themselves."
Yes, but they might not be able to move themselves readily, especially if it is at home, and as I said, any exposure is harmful.

"You are for in in a case where a helpless fetus is being killed, and for it in a case where the consequences would effect adults who can take care of themselves and would mostly effect the people who are choosing to do it. Which is fine if that's what they want to do to themselves."
I know plenty of people who have died from lung cancer, and never smoked a single cigarette. While there are other ways to get lung cancer, first and second hand smoke are the leading causes.

"Well, maybe not, but there are a ton of families who would love to adopt a healthy child (or unhealthy)."
Easier said than done. A friend of mine adopted a child (from a smoker, by the way). The bio mother (and even bio grandma) are having severe separation anxiety, and even at one point asked to have the baby back. Our friend said no, of course, but the hormones are hard to control. Yes, adoption is preferable to abortion, but you seem to be walking the fine line between pro-choice and pro-abortion. I am not pro-abortion in any way. I am simply pro-choice.

"I understand some people aren't, but it's not the governments place to say whether or not they can do that around their family."
How about incest? By your logic, the government should be fine with that.

I would like to thank you for starting this debate, as it was very interesting, and raised a stimulating point in human nature. I never thought of it this way, and although you did not change my opinion, you did make some great points that made perfect sense (and had you used the right a/effect, they would have been even better... Sorry, that's one of my pet peeves). So, thank you, and may the best man win!
Debate Round No. 3
29 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by abard124 7 years ago
abard124
I wonder if maybe one of the voters lost their account or something... Oh well, no changing it now....
Posted by JP 7 years ago
JP
haha, i don't know how that happened. but I'll take it
Posted by abard124 7 years ago
abard124
What happened?
I un-won somehow...
Posted by JP 7 years ago
JP
yeah
Posted by abard124 7 years ago
abard124
Ya... And you were winning for a really long time...
Posted by JP 7 years ago
JP
ah man. I can't believe I lost. I thought I had this one.
Posted by abard124 7 years ago
abard124
I'd like to thank the academy :-)
But on a more serious note, I'd like to thank JP for a very interesting (and very, VERY close debate).
Posted by michellular091 7 years ago
michellular091
"The government certainly cannot impose beliefs INTO anybody - I'm not certain as to what that would look like..."

By making it illegal to have an abortion, people believe that it is wrong. I believe it is wrong but there are some that a pro-abortion that don't think it's wrong.

"How far are you willing to take this sentiment? What if these decisions affect the lives of others? Moreover, people do make the decision themselves - whether it has legal ramifications is entirely different."

It was the person's choice to abort the child that they created before it can suffer the consequences of the person. People who have abortions may do it for the child's best interest. It's not right to make the decision for the individual about her body.

"Where you came to understand that we have "rights" to do anything notwithstanding - the question that abortion raises has nothing to do with what you do with yourself, but what you do to the human being growing inside you."

Well I don't know about you, but I definately would like to have full control over MY body. If they outlawed piercings, do you think people would feel independent and free if they can't choose what to do with their bodies?
Posted by abard124 7 years ago
abard124
I meant that it was horrible in excess. Sorry about being unclear. And yes, I was implying that it was wrong.
I would have been more specific if it was real debate.
Posted by InquireTruth 7 years ago
InquireTruth
*excess
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
JPabard124Tied
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:70 
Vote Placed by wpfairbanks 7 years ago
wpfairbanks
JPabard124Tied
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 Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
JPabard124Tied
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 
Vote Placed by grayron 7 years ago
grayron
JPabard124Tied
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 
Vote Placed by JP 7 years ago
JP
JPabard124Tied
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:70 
Vote Placed by charles15 7 years ago
charles15
JPabard124Tied
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:70 
Vote Placed by snelld7 7 years ago
snelld7
JPabard124Tied
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 NOK_Domination 7 years ago
NOK_Domination
JPabard124Tied
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:70 
Vote Placed by abard124 7 years ago
abard124
JPabard124Tied
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