Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Best cases project #1 -- Abortion

bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2014 8:04:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
This is an idea I floated to blade-of-truth while back. The idea is to get a list of the best arguments against a given position to help debaters starting out. Basically, it's just ProCon.org, but we're smart than the people who do that, right? So we should be able to come up with better stuff. I call it the DDO Best Cases Compendium Project (BCCP).

Please discuss below what you think are the best arguments for and against abortion and at the end, we'll compile a model case based on what we think are the best arguments.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Lucky_Luciano
Posts: 4,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2014 8:09:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/13/2014 8:04:12 PM, bluesteel wrote:
This is an idea I floated to blade-of-truth while back. The idea is to get a list of the best arguments against a given position to help debaters starting out. Basically, it's just ProCon.org, but we're smart than the people who do that, right? So we should be able to come up with better stuff. I call it the DDO Best Cases Compendium Project (BCCP).

Please discuss below what you think are the best arguments for and against abortion and at the end, we'll compile a model case based on what we think are the best arguments.
"Age is not important" - Airmax 2014
"Australia... is that a place?" - Airmax 2014
Zaradi
Posts: 14,124
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2014 8:32:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/13/2014 8:09:51 PM, Lucky_Luciano wrote:
At 11/13/2014 8:04:12 PM, bluesteel wrote:
This is an idea I floated to blade-of-truth while back. The idea is to get a list of the best arguments against a given position to help debaters starting out. Basically, it's just ProCon.org, but we're smart than the people who do that, right? So we should be able to come up with better stuff. I call it the DDO Best Cases Compendium Project (BCCP).

Please discuss below what you think are the best arguments for and against abortion and at the end, we'll compile a model case based on what we think are the best arguments.

Lol....
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2014 9:24:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/13/2014 8:09:51 PM, Lucky_Luciano wrote:
At 11/13/2014 8:04:12 PM, bluesteel wrote:
This is an idea I floated to blade-of-truth while back. The idea is to get a list of the best arguments against a given position to help debaters starting out. Basically, it's just ProCon.org, but we're smart than the people who do that, right? So we should be able to come up with better stuff. I call it the DDO Best Cases Compendium Project (BCCP).

Please discuss below what you think are the best arguments for and against abortion and at the end, we'll compile a model case based on what we think are the best arguments.

You know what, fine! You win this time ProCon.org. You're way better at proofreading.

/concede
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2014 9:25:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Do I have to get us started on the discussion:

okay, argument one for Pro abortion:

Contention 1: dead baby jokes are hilarious

discuss.....
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
YYW
Posts: 36,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2014 9:38:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/13/2014 9:25:51 PM, bluesteel wrote:
Do I have to get us started on the discussion:

okay, argument one for Pro abortion:

Contention 1: dead baby jokes are hilarious

discuss.....

Why is this important?
Tsar of DDO
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,020
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2014 10:05:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/13/2014 8:04:12 PM, bluesteel wrote:
This is an idea I floated to blade-of-truth while back. The idea is to get a list of the best arguments against a given position to help debaters starting out. Basically, it's just ProCon.org, but we're smart than the people who do that, right? So we should be able to come up with better stuff. I call it the DDO Best Cases Compendium Project (BCCP).

Please discuss below what you think are the best arguments for and against abortion and at the end, we'll compile a model case based on what we think are the best arguments.

Yes! I'm happy to see you're starting this up! I can't stay online tonight but will try to contribute tomorrow afternoon when I get home from work.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2014 10:40:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/13/2014 9:25:51 PM, bluesteel wrote:
Do I have to get us started on the discussion:

okay, argument one for Pro abortion:

Contention 1: dead baby jokes are hilarious

discuss.....

An argument against the pro-choice position: people like you are so god-damn attractive that under no circumstances are your children to be aborted. Subtle eugenics.
UchihaMadara
Posts: 1,049
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2014 11:44:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/13/2014 9:25:51 PM, bluesteel wrote:

Argument 2:

"A woman's body is a woman's body! She should be allowed to do what she wants with her body! It's just like how she is allowed to kill rapists who are trespassing on her body without permission... in the same way, she should also be allowed to kill babies who are trespassing on her body without permission! It's the perfect analogy. 'Pro-life' people don't even have any ground to stand on anymore." (http://www.debate.org...)
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 12:32:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/13/2014 11:44:56 PM, UchihaMadara wrote:
At 11/13/2014 9:25:51 PM, bluesteel wrote:

Argument 2:

"A woman's body is a woman's body! She should be allowed to do what she wants with her body! It's just like how she is allowed to kill rapists who are trespassing on her body without permission... in the same way, she should also be allowed to kill babies who are trespassing on her body without permission! It's the perfect analogy. 'Pro-life' people don't even have any ground to stand on anymore." (http://www.debate.org...)

How do you respond to the argument that it's not trespassing because she assumed the risk of the baby being there by having sex? It's like inviting a guest into your home and then getting mad at them and saying they are trespassing because they did something unexpected.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 12:42:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
In my opinion, the strongest Pro argument is just to concede that a fetus is a "human" and that it therefore acquires moral rights. However, the rights of the fetus are still in conflict with the rights of the mother, and the debate is really about whose rights should win out. Because the woman's bodily autonomy outweighs the fetus' more feeble moral claims to her body prior to the fetus' becoming self-aware and being able to feel pain, abortion is morally permissible.

I don't think the debate over whether a fetus is a "human" is worth having. And I don't think it's worth asserting that fetus' have no right to life. There is a right to life. It's just outweighed.

Rights come into conflict all the time. My right to quiet enjoyment of my property; your right to do whatever you want on yours. But we have nuisance laws because my right to quiet enjoyment outweighs your right to do absolutely anything you want, i.e. if you are holding a monster truck derby in your backyard, I can object. It is society's job to determine whose rights should come first. To say the fetus' rights come first is to essentially conscript women's bodies and turn them into the Tleilaxu axolotl tanks from Dune, where women's bodies are used as nothing more than to grow a fetus. There are literally older US court cases where a woman was *ordered* by a court to bring a baby to term, even though the mother's health was in jeopardy, and then both baby and mother end up dying.

The rights-conflict argument basically forces Con to either argue that a fetus' rights outweigh the mothers or that the mother has no rights at all. Neither is an easy position.

The Con position that abortion is just always prima facie wrong because it's murder ignores the definition of murder, which is merely an "unlawful killing," leaving room for killings that society deems "lawful" because rights come into conflict, e.g. self-defense (rights of attacker vs. rights of victim), war (rights of one side's soldiers vs. rights of the others), suicide (right to determine your own fate, i.e. people who attempt suicide cannot be prosecuted for attempted murder). Abortion is just another extension of a lawful killing because two people's rights are in conflict, and so we can't call it murder, which is really reserved for killing someone who absolutely didn't deserve it because their rights were in no way impinging on yours. We even reserve mitigating factors for murder, i.e. if someone is sleeping with your wife and you kill him in a fit of rage, you're charged with manslaugther, not murder. Murder is reserved only for crimes where the victim in no way impinged on the attacker's rights.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
TUF
Posts: 21,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 9:31:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/14/2014 12:42:19 AM, bluesteel wrote:
In my opinion, the strongest Pro argument is just to concede that a fetus is a "human" and that it therefore acquires moral rights. However, the rights of the fetus are still in conflict with the rights of the mother, and the debate is really about whose rights should win out. Because the woman's bodily autonomy outweighs the fetus' more feeble moral claims to her body prior to the fetus' becoming self-aware and being able to feel pain, abortion is morally permissible.

I don't think the debate over whether a fetus is a "human" is worth having. And I don't think it's worth asserting that fetus' have no right to life. There is a right to life. It's just outweighed.

Rights come into conflict all the time. My right to quiet enjoyment of my property; your right to do whatever you want on yours. But we have nuisance laws because my right to quiet enjoyment outweighs your right to do absolutely anything you want, i.e. if you are holding a monster truck derby in your backyard, I can object. It is society's job to determine whose rights should come first. To say the fetus' rights come first is to essentially conscript women's bodies and turn them into the Tleilaxu axolotl tanks from Dune, where women's bodies are used as nothing more than to grow a fetus. There are literally older US court cases where a woman was *ordered* by a court to bring a baby to term, even though the mother's health was in jeopardy, and then both baby and mother end up dying.

The rights-conflict argument basically forces Con to either argue that a fetus' rights outweigh the mothers or that the mother has no rights at all. Neither is an easy position.

The Con position that abortion is just always prima facie wrong because it's murder ignores the definition of murder, which is merely an "unlawful killing," leaving room for killings that society deems "lawful" because rights come into conflict, e.g. self-defense (rights of attacker vs. rights of victim), war (rights of one side's soldiers vs. rights of the others), suicide (right to determine your own fate, i.e. people who attempt suicide cannot be prosecuted for attempted murder). Abortion is just another extension of a lawful killing because two people's rights are in conflict, and so we can't call it murder, which is really reserved for killing someone who absolutely didn't deserve it because their rights were in no way impinging on yours. We even reserve mitigating factors for murder, i.e. if someone is sleeping with your wife and you kill him in a fit of rage, you're charged with manslaugther, not murder. Murder is reserved only for crimes where the victim in no way impinged on the attacker's rights.

Interesting view points, thanks for sharing.

A couple years ago I was actually very strongly Con on this issue, and did several debates with my old accounts on this issue (I went back and read some of those debates recently to find many of my arguments were just horrible).

My position has changed though, and a lot of it stems from my moral philosophies.

I think there is way too much emphasis on the argument about whether the fetus is actually alive or not, which is really not something that a serious "pro-lifer" should even be focusing on. It is a pretty slippery line, but I think that line favors the Con side of the issue a little more. Under a nihilistic mind-set, you can start to view things a little differently I think. People have babies for selfish reasons; generally people don't have a baby because they want to create the next Ghandi. They have children on accident (IE pleasure), because they want something else in their life or relationship, etc. Under certain circumstances, many people aren't fit to be parents when they have children and may even subject them to having a pretty bad start at life.

It seems like there is too much emphasis given to perceived "importance" to the priority of life. This commonly seems to be attached to the argument of fairness, who gets to live, who doesn't, who should decide, etc. But in life, people seem to forget that many things aren't exactly fair anyway. Why do we get to kill animals for food, or enslave them for our entertainment as pets or in zoos? If you see a big nasty spider with eggs on it's back, many people will squish them because they simply are a difference species than us and creep us out. We only have morality because our dominant species has been allowed to grow socially to a point where we are able to have them, but at the end of the day we are just animals with instincts too.

Anyways long story short, aborting a fetus isn't any more unfair than than many of the other socially accepted things we do every day. Human life isn't so valuable or rare that as a species we will suffer from this type of act. Put morals aside, this is a non-issue. But it is interesting to look at how controversial this issue is in today's society, compared to other things that should at least be of an equal caliber putting things into perspective.
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,067
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 10:48:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Anti-Abortion Argument 1:
In the event of a Theistic God's existence, human beings have souls, which is separate from their level of physical and mental development, meaning that people with Down Syndrome, people who are comatose, fetuses, and people with Alzheimer's Disease all have souls that have the same worth of a "normal" person.

Anti-Abortion Argument 2: Currently, the population in some nations, namely Europe, Russia, and Japan, are declining. Outlawing abortion and making adoption easier can cause these populations to not eventually die out.

Anti-Abortion Argument 3: If Theistic God exists, abortion is wrong. If Deistic God exists, abortion might be wrong. If no God exists, abortion is only wrong if people agree that abortion is wrong.
Therefore, since you cannot be sure, other alternatives, such as making adoption easier, developing technologies to make pregnancy easier to bear, and have the Government pay the costs of childbirth, should be done instead.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,067
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 10:52:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/14/2014 12:42:19 AM, bluesteel wrote:
In my opinion, the strongest Pro argument is just to concede that a fetus is a "human" and that it therefore acquires moral rights. However, the rights of the fetus are still in conflict with the rights of the mother, and the debate is really about whose rights should win out. Because the woman's bodily autonomy outweighs the fetus' more feeble moral claims to her body prior to the fetus' becoming self-aware and being able to feel pain, abortion is morally permissible.

I don't think the debate over whether a fetus is a "human" is worth having. And I don't think it's worth asserting that fetus' have no right to life. There is a right to life. It's just outweighed.

Rights come into conflict all the time. My right to quiet enjoyment of my property; your right to do whatever you want on yours. But we have nuisance laws because my right to quiet enjoyment outweighs your right to do absolutely anything you want, i.e. if you are holding a monster truck derby in your backyard, I can object. It is society's job to determine whose rights should come first. To say the fetus' rights come first is to essentially conscript women's bodies and turn them into the Tleilaxu axolotl tanks from Dune, where women's bodies are used as nothing more than to grow a fetus. There are literally older US court cases where a woman was *ordered* by a court to bring a baby to term, even though the mother's health was in jeopardy, and then both baby and mother end up dying.

The rights-conflict argument basically forces Con to either argue that a fetus' rights outweigh the mothers or that the mother has no rights at all. Neither is an easy position.

The Con position that abortion is just always prima facie wrong because it's murder ignores the definition of murder, which is merely an "unlawful killing," leaving room for killings that society deems "lawful" because rights come into conflict, e.g. self-defense (rights of attacker vs. rights of victim), war (rights of one side's soldiers vs. rights of the others), suicide (right to determine your own fate, i.e. people who attempt suicide cannot be prosecuted for attempted murder). Abortion is just another extension of a lawful killing because two people's rights are in conflict, and so we can't call it murder, which is really reserved for killing someone who absolutely didn't deserve it because their rights were in no way impinging on yours. We even reserve mitigating factors for murder, i.e. if someone is sleeping with your wife and you kill him in a fit of rage, you're charged with manslaugther, not murder. Murder is reserved only for crimes where the victim in no way impinged on the attacker's rights.

Then come up with a compromise which respects the rights of both the Fetus and the mother.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 2:08:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/14/2014 10:52:13 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 11/14/2014 12:42:19 AM, bluesteel wrote:
In my opinion, the strongest Pro argument is just to concede that a fetus is a "human" and that it therefore acquires moral rights. However, the rights of the fetus are still in conflict with the rights of the mother, and the debate is really about whose rights should win out. Because the woman's bodily autonomy outweighs the fetus' more feeble moral claims to her body prior to the fetus' becoming self-aware and being able to feel pain, abortion is morally permissible.

I don't think the debate over whether a fetus is a "human" is worth having. And I don't think it's worth asserting that fetus' have no right to life. There is a right to life. It's just outweighed.

Rights come into conflict all the time. My right to quiet enjoyment of my property; your right to do whatever you want on yours. But we have nuisance laws because my right to quiet enjoyment outweighs your right to do absolutely anything you want, i.e. if you are holding a monster truck derby in your backyard, I can object. It is society's job to determine whose rights should come first. To say the fetus' rights come first is to essentially conscript women's bodies and turn them into the Tleilaxu axolotl tanks from Dune, where women's bodies are used as nothing more than to grow a fetus. There are literally older US court cases where a woman was *ordered* by a court to bring a baby to term, even though the mother's health was in jeopardy, and then both baby and mother end up dying.

The rights-conflict argument basically forces Con to either argue that a fetus' rights outweigh the mothers or that the mother has no rights at all. Neither is an easy position.

The Con position that abortion is just always prima facie wrong because it's murder ignores the definition of murder, which is merely an "unlawful killing," leaving room for killings that society deems "lawful" because rights come into conflict, e.g. self-defense (rights of attacker vs. rights of victim), war (rights of one side's soldiers vs. rights of the others), suicide (right to determine your own fate, i.e. people who attempt suicide cannot be prosecuted for attempted murder). Abortion is just another extension of a lawful killing because two people's rights are in conflict, and so we can't call it murder, which is really reserved for killing someone who absolutely didn't deserve it because their rights were in no way impinging on yours. We even reserve mitigating factors for murder, i.e. if someone is sleeping with your wife and you kill him in a fit of rage, you're charged with manslaugther, not murder. Murder is reserved only for crimes where the victim in no way impinged on the attacker's rights.

Then come up with a compromise which respects the rights of both the Fetus and the mother.

The "compromise" is that abortion gets banned in the third trimester, when the fetus can feel pain and may be conscious, so it has more rights at this stage.

There is no other "compromise." You can't always make everyone happy. Nuisance laws aren't a "compromise" to try to make both landowners happy. It picks a winner. Sometimes you can't upheld both people's rights at the same time. Anything short of allowing abortion conscripts a woman's body into the state's servitude and forces it to deliver a baby she doesn't want, turning her into nothing more than a human incubator in the eyes of the state. You can't respect a woman's bodily autonomy while forcing her to carry the baby to term against her will.

Anyways, if this is a debate, you have the BOP to propose a "compromise." And I doubt that you can.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
9spaceking
Posts: 4,213
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 2:24:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Discussion between me and this debater named Tarik that conceded Abortion should be allowed in most cases, but not at all times
Posted by:
Profile Card
Tarik

Why do you think abortion should be legal?
Wednesday, November 05, 2014 @ 2:08:26 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card9spaceking

women have choices. Also, they can die without abortion.
Wednesday, November 05, 2014 @ 2:13:10 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card
Tarik

How?
Wednesday, November 05, 2014 @ 2:16:15 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card9spaceking

Accidents happen.
Wednesday, November 05, 2014 @ 2:16:32 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card9spaceking

http://www.midlandlifecenter.org......
Wednesday, November 05, 2014 @ 2:18:53 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card
Tarik

So do you think women should manipulate the government into providing them abortions?
Wednesday, November 05, 2014 @ 2:24:15 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card9spaceking

"Manipulate"? More like overthrow, if it gets to that
Wednesday, November 05, 2014 @ 2:28:08 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card
Tarik

There's countries where abortion is illegal so fortunately it wouldn't get to that, the only thing it would get to is a lot of pissed off pro choicers.
Wednesday, November 05, 2014 @ 2:38:01 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card9spaceking

People gonna die.
Wednesday, November 05, 2014 @ 2:41:12 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card
Tarik

The government isn't responsible for that.
If your girlfriend threatens to commit suicide if you break up with her isn't that manipulation how is the abortion situation any different?
Wednesday, November 05, 2014 @ 2:50:18 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card9spaceking

The abortion situation is different because without abortion, the women would be dead.
Wednesday, November 05, 2014 @ 2:50:34 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card9spaceking

It ain't the woman's choice to die
Wednesday, November 05, 2014 @ 2:50:49 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card9spaceking

If you really aren't convinced just debate me on the subject of matter
Wednesday, November 05, 2014 @ 2:50:58 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card9spaceking

challenge me if you dare
Wednesday, November 05, 2014 @ 4:32:06 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card
Tarik

I agree that if the woman's life is in danger abortion should be legal, however under any other circumstances it should be illegal because if the mothers life is in danger chances are her offspring wouldn't survive either and in this case it's a life and death situation where two deaths is worse then one death, besides the mother needs an abortion rather then wants an abortion. And I thought I was debating you, however challenging you proves nothing because those debates are limited and more then have the users of this site are pro choice besides just because you have more votes it doesn't always make you right it can mean more people are also wrong.
Wednesday, November 05, 2014 @ 4:41:33 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card9spaceking

Any? She can still suffer extreme pain without dying.
Wednesday, November 05, 2014 @ 4:44:17 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card
Tarik

How is her pain justified?
Wednesday, November 05, 2014 @ 4:44:47 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card9spaceking

It ain't. Therefore abortion shouldn't be illegal
Wednesday, November 05, 2014 @ 4:49:09 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card
Tarik

What pain can she suffer from without dying.
Wednesday, November 05, 2014 @ 5:48:11 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card9spaceking

A lot.
Wednesday, November 05, 2014 @ 6:56:55 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card
Tarik

Should murder be legal?
Wednesday, November 05, 2014 @ 6:57:24 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card9spaceking

no.
Wednesday, November 05, 2014 @ 6:59:12 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card
Tarik

What if a person suffers extreme pain knowing a person they despise is still alive?
Wednesday, November 05, 2014 @ 7:21:56 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card9spaceking

exactly.
Wednesday, November 05, 2014 @ 7:24:44 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card
Tarik

So someone developed a hatred for you it's okay if they killed you?
Wednesday, November 05, 2014 @ 7:58:42 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card9spaceking

No.
Wednesday, November 05, 2014 @ 8:08:06 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card
Tarik

Why should the government care about the mother and not the fetus?
Thursday, November 06, 2014 @ 5:10:03 AM
Posted by:
Profile Card9spaceking

The fetus isn't a baby yet. Not life, ain't worth as much as the mother.
Bonus:
The baby can't pay health care bills but the mother can. :P
Thursday, November 06, 2014 @ 8:32:43 AM
Posted by:
Profile Card
Tarik

If I proved to you that a fetus is a baby would that convince you otherwise? And a father can also suffer extreme pain knowing his offspring was aborted.
Thursday, November 06, 2014 @ 1:38:31 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card9spaceking

If a fetus was a baby that'd be even worse! Two lives lost! Whew. The father may have crumbled in your scenery, but without abortion....man, he's just dead long gone
Thursday, November 06, 2014 @ 2:20:50 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card
Tarik

What would be even worse?, Why would two lives be lost?, and why would the father die without abortion?
Thursday, November 06, 2014 @ 2:24:50 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card9spaceking

Two lives would be lost: babies and the mother's.

The father dies on the inside.
Thursday, November 06, 2014 @ 2:37:06 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card
Tarik

Why would the baby and mother lose their life?
Thursday, November 06, 2014 @ 2:39:54 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card9spaceking

without the mother the baby dies. Mother die because
http://thinkprogress.org......
Posted by:
Profile Card
Tarik

We'll I agree in cases like this abortion should be legal.
Thursday, November 06, 2014 @ 6:11:26 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card
Tarik

But only in cases like this in other cases abortion should be illegal.
Thursday, November 06, 2014 @ 7:49:03 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card9spaceking

Okay, when should it be illegal?
Thursday, November 06, 2014 @ 8:34:44 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card
Tarik

In all cases with the exception of the mother's life being in danger and maybe if the offsprings life is in danger.
Friday, November 07, 2014 @ 5:08:36 AM
Posted by:
Profile Card9spaceking

ah. Now that makes sense.
But wait, now there's the problem of rape...... :(
Friday, November 07, 2014 @ 7:21:26 AM
Posted by:
Profile Card
Tarik

Yes rape is a problem but abortion should still be illegal in that case, and you said now that makes sense what do you mean by that?
Friday, November 07, 2014 @ 1:47:00 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card9spaceking

it's the other guy's forcing her to make a baby. Even without pain or the threat of death, does a woman have the right to be forced to take care of a baby that's not hers? No way.
Friday, November 07, 2014 @ 1:51:24 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card
Tarik

You didn't answer my question what did you mean when you said now that makes sense?
And the baby is hers.
Friday, November 07, 2014 @ 1:52:21 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card9spaceking

No, the baby is a combo of her and the guy's.
Friday, November 07, 2014 @ 1:55:12 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card
Tarik

Yes it is what's your point and you didn't answer my question what did you mean when you said now that makes sense?
Friday, November 07, 2014 @ 1:56:57 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card9spaceking

Okay, let's just assume some guy beat you up and has surgically attached the TV to you. The TV is technically yours now, so you should be able to abort (surgically remove) the TV as you wish.
Friday, November 07, 2014 @ 1:57:13 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card9spaceking

(he's a mad man who steals TV)
Friday, November 07, 2014 @ 2:03:06 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card
Tarik

That analogy doesn't apply to abortion in fact most analogies fail when compared to abortion because there's nothing like it but anyway to answer your question although you fail to answer mine yes you should be able to remove the TV as you wis
Equestrian election
http://www.debate.org...

This House would impose democracy
http://www.debate.org...

Reign of Terror is unjustified
http://www.debate.org...

Raise min. wage to $10.10
http://www.debate.org...
9spaceking
Posts: 4,213
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 2:25:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
part 2

But in abortion cases that you're referring to a doctor has control and he/she shouldn't.
Friday, November 07, 2014 @ 2:08:45 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card9spaceking

what? Can you word that more clearly?
Friday, November 07, 2014 @ 2:12:50 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card
Tarik

If a woman wants an abortion she goes to a doctor and the doctor has the choice to perform or not to perform because the doctor is in control I think doctors shouldn't be allowed that choice.
Friday, November 07, 2014 @ 2:14:11 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card9spaceking

WTF of course the doctors should have that choice. Would you force an inabled or inexperienced doctor to do something he isn't confident of? Of course not.
Friday, November 07, 2014 @ 2:15:46 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card
Tarik

Forcing them to perform is different then forcing them not to perform.
Friday, November 07, 2014 @ 2:19:32 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card9spaceking

How does one "force them not to perform"?
Friday, November 07, 2014 @ 2:20:47 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card
Tarik

The government can threaten to abort their license.
Friday, November 07, 2014 @ 2:56:45 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card9spaceking

And the government will be not well recieved.
Friday, November 07, 2014 @ 2:59:41 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card
Tarik

It will by pro lifers.
Friday, November 07, 2014 @ 3:05:03 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card9spaceking

And some con-lifers will probably convert too.
Friday, November 07, 2014 @ 3:06:32 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card
Tarik

Hopefully
Friday, November 07, 2014 @ 6:58:56 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card
Tarik

Did you convert if not why'd you say con-lifers will probably convert too?
Friday, November 07, 2014 @ 7:47:30 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card9spaceking

what?
Friday, November 07, 2014 @ 7:49:47 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card
Tarik

Did you not say con-lifers will probably convert too that's why i'm asking if you converted to pro life.
Friday, November 07, 2014 @ 7:52:18 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card9spaceking

No, I was never a con-lifer to begin with.
Friday, November 07, 2014 @ 7:58:45 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card
Tarik

Then why did you mention con-lifers in the first place and what do you think about doctors getting their license aborted if they perform illegal abortions.
Friday, November 07, 2014 @ 8:05:33 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card9spaceking

because my argument is super convincing?
The abortion of licenses is terrible.
Friday, November 07, 2014 @ 8:09:56 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card
Tarik

Why do you think the abortion of licenses is terrible?
Friday, November 07, 2014 @ 8:10:25 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card9spaceking

it is terrible without good reason.
Friday, November 07, 2014 @ 8:12:27 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card
Tarik

To prevent a fetus from being aborted is a good reason wouldn't you agree?
Friday, November 07, 2014 @ 8:13:58 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card9spaceking

Not if the woman would also die without the abortion.
Friday, November 07, 2014 @ 8:17:14 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card
Tarik

Why bring that up again I thought we found common ground on that issue already don't act brand new is it wrong to abort the license of a doctor for performing an abortion if the mother's life isn't in danger?
Friday, November 07, 2014 @ 8:30:41 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card9spaceking

why abort the license. He can still perform other surgeries. -.-
Friday, November 07, 2014 @ 8:37:36 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card
Tarik

Because he/she broke the law. The government shouldn't care if he can perform other surgeries once you break the law you should suffer the consequences wouldn't you agree?

Friday, November 07, 2014 @ 8:39:44 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card9spaceking

he wouldn't have broken the law if abortion was allowed
Friday, November 07, 2014 @ 8:41:07 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card
Tarik

What's your point?
Friday, November 07, 2014 @ 9:02:52 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card9spaceking

abortion is good.
Friday, November 07, 2014 @ 9:03:54 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card
Tarik

Why?
Monday, November 10, 2014 @ 4:31:16 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card9spaceking

It gives the woman choices and rights to her body!
Monday, November 10, 2014 @ 5:22:22 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card
Tarik

No it gives the doctor choices the woman always had rights to her body even in cases where abortion is illegal.
Monday, November 10, 2014 @ 5:26:43 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card9spaceking

my god you are stubborn...

Yes it gives doctor choices, doctor are human beings too so why shouldn't they have the right to choose?
Monday, November 10, 2014 @ 5:33:40 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card
Tarik

How am I stubborn?

Because aborting a fetus is wrong.
Monday, November 10, 2014 @ 5:35:14 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card9spaceking

Yet killing a woman is also wrong.
Monday, November 10, 2014 @ 5:35:33 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card9spaceking

Plus, fetus is not yet considered to be a life form before 3 months.
Monday, November 10, 2014 @ 5:39:07 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card
Tarik

That argument is discredited because I said in cases where the mother's life is danger it should be legal don't act brand new I made that very clear plenty of times before.

A fetus should be considered a life form at conception.
Monday, November 10, 2014 @ 5:40:25 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card9spaceking

Okay, alright, abortion should not be legal to fetuses at conception unless any case mentioned above! Good to know!
Case adjourned!
Monday, November 10, 2014 @ 5:42:55 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card
Tarik

Well I'm glad that you feel this way I hope you will be re updating your stand on the big issues.
Monday, November 10, 2014 @ 5:54:18 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card
Tarik

Abortion is a choice made by the doctor and the doctor only because if the doctor says no to performing the woman still remains pregnant.
Monday, November 10, 2014 @ 6:06:15 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card9spaceking

then the woman will not pay the doctor and instead seek another doc.
Monday, November 10, 2014 @ 6:09:43 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card
Tarik

Yes and the next doctor she seeks will have the same choice the previous doctor had.
Tuesday, November 11, 2014 @ 2:16:06 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card
Tarik

And the next doctor she seeks can also say no to performing and so on and so forth and the woman still will remain pregnant.
Equestrian election
http://www.debate.org...

This House would impose democracy
http://www.debate.org...

Reign of Terror is unjustified
http://www.debate.org...

Raise min. wage to $10.10
http://www.debate.org...
9spaceking
Posts: 4,213
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 2:30:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/13/2014 8:04:12 PM, bluesteel wrote:
This is an idea I floated to blade-of-truth while back. The idea is to get a list of the best arguments against a given position to help debaters starting out. Basically, it's just ProCon.org, but we're smart than the people who do that, right? So we should be able to come up with better stuff. I call it the DDO Best Cases Compendium Project (BCCP).

Please discuss below what you think are the best arguments for and against abortion and at the end, we'll compile a model case based on what we think are the best arguments.

cool idea. I debated with myself on gay marriage to testify every single argument possible (with the possible exception of "my opponent's majority rule argument defeats himself) right here: http://gaymarriagedebate.jimdo.com...
And wow, WTF!! 18 people voted "Tie"!! I guess it's really too close for them to decide. I personally chose myself because I felt like con's accusations were too fallicious, and most of the strong ones were at the end, too.
Equestrian election
http://www.debate.org...

This House would impose democracy
http://www.debate.org...

Reign of Terror is unjustified
http://www.debate.org...

Raise min. wage to $10.10
http://www.debate.org...
TUF
Posts: 21,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 3:50:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/14/2014 10:48:52 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Anti-Abortion Argument 1:
In the event of a Theistic God's existence, human beings have souls,

Why does a hypothetical God's mere existence automatically mean humans have souls?

which is separate from their level of physical and mental development, meaning that people with Down Syndrome, people who are comatose, fetuses, and people with Alzheimer's Disease all have souls that have the same worth of a "normal" person.

Anti-Abortion Argument 2: Currently, the population in some nations, namely Europe, Russia, and Japan, are declining. Outlawing abortion and making adoption easier can cause these populations to not eventually die out.

Die out?!

Japan

Since 2004, the population increase has barely changed.
http://www.statista.com...

But from the 70's to now, the population has increased from 96.81 million to 127 + million. The decrease they have been facing is literally in the decimals, and has continuously shown small trends of spiking and rising like this throughout the past 30+ years.

In 1963 Russia was sitting at 124 million people, and today is reaching 143 million. The spike for Russia was at 148, but went as far down as 141 and is obviously already rising back up.

https://www.google.com...

Are you really suggesting that small decreases (like insanely small in the spectrum of even just a very minuscule amount of time) is going to result in the entire country "Dying out"?!

All of this aside, why is a human population decrease so important? We already are the largest species of mammals on the planet.

Anti-Abortion Argument 3: If Theistic God exists, abortion is wrong.

Again why is this automatically true? If you are just suggesting one exists, how do we automatically know what morals he does and does not approve of?

If Deistic God exists, abortion might be wrong. If no God exists, abortion is only wrong if people agree that abortion is wrong.
Therefore, since you cannot be sure, other alternatives, such as making adoption easier, developing technologies to make pregnancy easier to bear,

That's all fine and well, but this really isn't one of the major reasons many woman have abortions.

and have the Government pay the costs of childbirth, should be done instead.

Right, because we currently do not have any issues with the lack of Government spending on things for it's own people. I'll let you figure out what I am talking about there, though this is a pretty broad subject.
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,020
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 4:54:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/13/2014 8:04:12 PM, bluesteel wrote:
Please discuss below what you think are the best arguments for and against abortion and at the end, we'll compile a model case based on what we think are the best arguments.

These are a few of the strongest arguments for each camp that I've seen.

For:

1) Religious ideology is no foundation for any law. Freedom of religion is guaranteed to any citizen in the United States; so why would the beliefs and values of one religion mandate actual laws for all citizens? It would be unfair, unjust and immoral. We do not have laws against eating fish, nor do we have laws that declare it is legal to sell one"s daughter, rape someone, or keep a person as a slave"all things that are promoted in religious text.

2) Women who are raped or victims of incest should not be forced to carry out a pregnancy. Many would argue that these women could endure the pregnancy, spending nearly a year of her life simply re-living the rape and its effects over and over again, to give up a baby at the end of it for adoption. However, there are millions of unwanted children awaiting adoption as we speak who remain unclaimed; in fact, UNICEF estimates that there are 210 million orphans in the world right now. If they have no one willing to be their parent or guardian, why would another baby have a better chance?

3) Reproductive choice can be the only thing that stands between a woman and death. Women who face deadly consequences of a pregnancy deserve to choose to live. Teen girls, whose bodies are not yet ready for childbirth, are five times more likely to die. Not only do 70,000 girls ages 15-19 die each year from pregnancy and childbirth, but the babies that do survive have a 60% higher chance of dying as well.

4) Reproductive choice can be the only thing that stands between a woman and poverty. There is a reason that the 1 billion poorest people on the planet are female. In sub-Saharan Africa and west Asia, women typically have five to six children, which leaves them powerless to provide for not only their own families, but themselves.

5) Doctors, not governments, should be the people to make medical recommendations and opinions. Would you allow the government to tell you if you could have a kidney transplant or a blood transfusion? Of course not. The fact that we even consider, let alone allow, governments to regulate a medical procedure is both illogical and foolish.

6) Women have a moral right to decide what to do with their bodies. Classic argument, pretty self-explanatory.

Against:

1) Since life begins at conception, abortion is akin to murder as it is the act of taking human life. Abortion is in direct defiance of the commonly accepted idea of the sanctity of human life.
--- This is the one that I think has divulged into whether a fetus is a human or not. I also think this might be the only one still standing strongly for people against abortion. I'll share a few more just because...

2) Adoption is a viable alternative to abortion and accomplishes the same result. And with 1.5 million American families wanting to adopt a child, there is no such thing as an unwanted child.

3) An abortion can result in medical complications later in life; the risk of ectopic pregnancies doubles, and the chance of a miscarriage and pelvic inflammatory disease also increases.

4) For women who demand complete control of their body, control should include preventing the risk of unwanted pregnancy through the responsible use of contraception or, if that is not possible, through abstinence.

5) Many Americans who pay taxes are opposed to abortion, therefore it's morally wrong to use tax dollars to fund abortion.

6) Those who choose abortions are often minors or young women with insufficient life experience to understand fully what they are doing. Many have lifelong regrets afterwards.

__________________________________________________

So these are 6 of the strongest arguments I've seen from both sides...
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 5:28:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/14/2014 4:54:34 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 11/13/2014 8:04:12 PM, bluesteel wrote:
Please discuss below what you think are the best arguments for and against abortion and at the end, we'll compile a model case based on what we think are the best arguments.

These are a few of the strongest arguments for each camp that I've seen.

For:

1) Religious ideology is no foundation for any law. Freedom of religion is guaranteed to any citizen in the United States; so why would the beliefs and values of one religion mandate actual laws for all citizens? It would be unfair, unjust and immoral. We do not have laws against eating fish, nor do we have laws that declare it is legal to sell one"s daughter, rape someone, or keep a person as a slave"all things that are promoted in religious text.

2) Women who are raped or victims of incest should not be forced to carry out a pregnancy. Many would argue that these women could endure the pregnancy, spending nearly a year of her life simply re-living the rape and its effects over and over again, to give up a baby at the end of it for adoption. However, there are millions of unwanted children awaiting adoption as we speak who remain unclaimed; in fact, UNICEF estimates that there are 210 million orphans in the world right now. If they have no one willing to be their parent or guardian, why would another baby have a better chance?

3) Reproductive choice can be the only thing that stands between a woman and death. Women who face deadly consequences of a pregnancy deserve to choose to live. Teen girls, whose bodies are not yet ready for childbirth, are five times more likely to die. Not only do 70,000 girls ages 15-19 die each year from pregnancy and childbirth, but the babies that do survive have a 60% higher chance of dying as well.

4) Reproductive choice can be the only thing that stands between a woman and poverty. There is a reason that the 1 billion poorest people on the planet are female. In sub-Saharan Africa and west Asia, women typically have five to six children, which leaves them powerless to provide for not only their own families, but themselves.

5) Doctors, not governments, should be the people to make medical recommendations and opinions. Would you allow the government to tell you if you could have a kidney transplant or a blood transfusion? Of course not. The fact that we even consider, let alone allow, governments to regulate a medical procedure is both illogical and foolish.

6) Women have a moral right to decide what to do with their bodies. Classic argument, pretty self-explanatory.

Against:

1) Since life begins at conception, abortion is akin to murder as it is the act of taking human life. Abortion is in direct defiance of the commonly accepted idea of the sanctity of human life.
--- This is the one that I think has divulged into whether a fetus is a human or not. I also think this might be the only one still standing strongly for people against abortion. I'll share a few more just because...

2) Adoption is a viable alternative to abortion and accomplishes the same result. And with 1.5 million American families wanting to adopt a child, there is no such thing as an unwanted child.

3) An abortion can result in medical complications later in life; the risk of ectopic pregnancies doubles, and the chance of a miscarriage and pelvic inflammatory disease also increases.

4) For women who demand complete control of their body, control should include preventing the risk of unwanted pregnancy through the responsible use of contraception or, if that is not possible, through abstinence.

5) Many Americans who pay taxes are opposed to abortion, therefore it's morally wrong to use tax dollars to fund abortion.

6) Those who choose abortions are often minors or young women with insufficient life experience to understand fully what they are doing. Many have lifelong regrets afterwards.

__________________________________________________

So these are 6 of the strongest arguments I've seen from both sides...

I think this is a really great list. Unfortunately, I still haven't found an anti-abortion position I think is defensible. All of your arguments for the Con side fall victim to the problems of paternalism and the government forcing a woman to become an incubator. Adoption is great, but women aren't incubators. Same problem with the idea that just because you make abortion illegal doesn't mean women won't get abortion. The health complications are worse for back-alley abortions.

I think the best Con strategy has to be that abortion is immoral. If you start going into policy-type arguments (like adoption = better), then you're going to lose imo because on a policy level, abortion bans make no sense since putting women in jail and forcing them to stick coat hangers into themselves is going to be worse in the long run. I think that's probably why the FLO is the most popular anti-abortion argument. It keeps the debate in the realm of morality rather than going into the policy outcomes. If you talk about policy outcomes, you're almost conceding a utilitarian framework, under which you will definitely use because of the way that women react to abortion bans (predominantly by getting back alley abortions rather than relying on adoption).
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,020
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 5:44:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/14/2014 5:28:42 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 11/14/2014 4:54:34 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 11/13/2014 8:04:12 PM, bluesteel wrote:
Please discuss below what you think are the best arguments for and against abortion and at the end, we'll compile a model case based on what we think are the best arguments.

These are a few of the strongest arguments for each camp that I've seen.

For:

1) Religious ideology is no foundation for any law. Freedom of religion is guaranteed to any citizen in the United States; so why would the beliefs and values of one religion mandate actual laws for all citizens? It would be unfair, unjust and immoral. We do not have laws against eating fish, nor do we have laws that declare it is legal to sell one"s daughter, rape someone, or keep a person as a slave"all things that are promoted in religious text.

2) Women who are raped or victims of incest should not be forced to carry out a pregnancy. Many would argue that these women could endure the pregnancy, spending nearly a year of her life simply re-living the rape and its effects over and over again, to give up a baby at the end of it for adoption. However, there are millions of unwanted children awaiting adoption as we speak who remain unclaimed; in fact, UNICEF estimates that there are 210 million orphans in the world right now. If they have no one willing to be their parent or guardian, why would another baby have a better chance?

3) Reproductive choice can be the only thing that stands between a woman and death. Women who face deadly consequences of a pregnancy deserve to choose to live. Teen girls, whose bodies are not yet ready for childbirth, are five times more likely to die. Not only do 70,000 girls ages 15-19 die each year from pregnancy and childbirth, but the babies that do survive have a 60% higher chance of dying as well.

4) Reproductive choice can be the only thing that stands between a woman and poverty. There is a reason that the 1 billion poorest people on the planet are female. In sub-Saharan Africa and west Asia, women typically have five to six children, which leaves them powerless to provide for not only their own families, but themselves.

5) Doctors, not governments, should be the people to make medical recommendations and opinions. Would you allow the government to tell you if you could have a kidney transplant or a blood transfusion? Of course not. The fact that we even consider, let alone allow, governments to regulate a medical procedure is both illogical and foolish.

6) Women have a moral right to decide what to do with their bodies. Classic argument, pretty self-explanatory.

Against:

1) Since life begins at conception, abortion is akin to murder as it is the act of taking human life. Abortion is in direct defiance of the commonly accepted idea of the sanctity of human life.
--- This is the one that I think has divulged into whether a fetus is a human or not. I also think this might be the only one still standing strongly for people against abortion. I'll share a few more just because...

2) Adoption is a viable alternative to abortion and accomplishes the same result. And with 1.5 million American families wanting to adopt a child, there is no such thing as an unwanted child.

3) An abortion can result in medical complications later in life; the risk of ectopic pregnancies doubles, and the chance of a miscarriage and pelvic inflammatory disease also increases.

4) For women who demand complete control of their body, control should include preventing the risk of unwanted pregnancy through the responsible use of contraception or, if that is not possible, through abstinence.

5) Many Americans who pay taxes are opposed to abortion, therefore it's morally wrong to use tax dollars to fund abortion.

6) Those who choose abortions are often minors or young women with insufficient life experience to understand fully what they are doing. Many have lifelong regrets afterwards.

__________________________________________________

So these are 6 of the strongest arguments I've seen from both sides...

I think this is a really great list. Unfortunately, I still haven't found an anti-abortion position I think is defensible. All of your arguments for the Con side fall victim to the problems of paternalism and the government forcing a woman to become an incubator. Adoption is great, but women aren't incubators. Same problem with the idea that just because you make abortion illegal doesn't mean women won't get abortion. The health complications are worse for back-alley abortions.

Thanks! I agree with what you're saying as well. I'm Pro on this issue, so it was interesting for me to even materialize arguments for Con, lol.

I think the best Con strategy has to be that abortion is immoral. If you start going into policy-type arguments (like adoption = better), then you're going to lose imo because on a policy level, abortion bans make no sense since putting women in jail and forcing them to stick coat hangers into themselves is going to be worse in the long run. I think that's probably why the FLO is the most popular anti-abortion argument. It keeps the debate in the realm of morality rather than going into the policy outcomes. If you talk about policy outcomes, you're almost conceding a utilitarian framework, under which you will definitely use because of the way that women react to abortion bans (predominantly by getting back alley abortions rather than relying on adoption).

I'm going to have to catch myself up on the FLO argument. I just found this while searching for it: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

It seems like a solid source to get a better understanding of that argument (although it looks a little dated itself) so I'm going to read up on it. I do think that morality would be the best grounds for anti-abortionists to stand on as well, especially for the reasons you've provided.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,067
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 6:54:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/14/2014 3:50:48 PM, TUF wrote:
At 11/14/2014 10:48:52 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Anti-Abortion Argument 1:
In the event of a Theistic God's existence, human beings have souls,

Why does a hypothetical God's mere existence automatically mean humans have souls?

which is separate from their level of physical and mental development, meaning that people with Down Syndrome, people who are comatose, fetuses, and people with Alzheimer's Disease all have souls that have the same worth of a "normal" person.

Anti-Abortion Argument 2: Currently, the population in some nations, namely Europe, Russia, and Japan, are declining. Outlawing abortion and making adoption easier can cause these populations to not eventually die out.


Die out?!

Japan

Have you ever heard of the aging of Japan and Europe? It's what happens whenever there's a high number of old people and not enough young people being born. Obviously, when you've got a large percentage of the population who's old and retired, you've got to have young working people to support them. In a place like Japan, where people generally live insanely long, you've got three solutions:
1. Force the old people to work. (Not such a good idea)
2. Have more kids so that you constantly have a fairly young workforce to support the elderly population.
3. Euthanize the elderly. (Sieg Heil der Fuhrer!)

http://en.m.wikipedia.org...
http://en.m.wikipedia.org...


Since 2004, the population increase has barely changed.
http://www.statista.com...

But from the 70's to now, the population has increased from 96.81 million to 127 + million. The decrease they have been facing is literally in the decimals, and has continuously shown small trends of spiking and rising like this throughout the past 30+ years.

In 1963 Russia was sitting at 124 million people, and today is reaching 143 million. The spike for Russia was at 148, but went as far down as 141 and is obviously already rising back up.

https://www.google.com...

Are you really suggesting that small decreases (like insanely small in the spectrum of even just a very minuscule amount of time) is going to result in the entire country "Dying out"?!

All of this aside, why is a human population decrease so important? We already are the largest species of mammals on the planet.

Anti-Abortion Argument 3: If Theistic God exists, abortion is wrong.

Again why is this automatically true? If you are just suggesting one exists, how do we automatically know what morals he does and does not approve of?

If Deistic God exists, abortion might be wrong. If no God exists, abortion is only wrong if people agree that abortion is wrong.
Therefore, since you cannot be sure, other alternatives, such as making adoption easier, developing technologies to make pregnancy easier to bear,

That's all fine and well, but this really isn't one of the major reasons many woman have abortions.

and have the Government pay the costs of childbirth, should be done instead.

Right, because we currently do not have any issues with the lack of Government spending on things for it's own people. I'll let you figure out what I am talking about there, though this is a pretty broad subject.

Cut spending in the unimportant areas then. I am generally an extreme Minarchist, but I think that the Government should pay for education and childbirth.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 7:16:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/14/2014 6:54:41 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:


Forcing women to carry babies that they otherwise would have aborted to term is not exactly a solution to low birth rates. It's not enough children to make a dent in the birth rate, and although Steven Levitt's article was wrong to conclude that abortion caused the large crime decline we saw in the 90s, there is something to be said for not having a society that depends entirely on unwanted children as its backbone. Providing better tax breaks for having children and providing for more immigration visa for skilled laborers would be a far superior solution to demographic problems than forcing women to carry unwanted fetuses to term.

I guarantee you that on Con, if you turn an abortion debate into a policy debate instead of a morality debate, you're going to lose. It's not good policymaking if you take the morality issue out of it.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,067
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 7:25:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/14/2014 7:16:33 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 11/14/2014 6:54:41 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:

It's not enough children to make a dent in the birth rate.

A million extra kids a year will not significantly affect the birth rate? Wow! I never knew that!

I guarantee you that on Con, if you turn an abortion debate into a policy debate instead of a morality debate, you're going to lose. It's not good policymaking if you take the morality issue out of it.

Eh. I think that both apply; morality and policy.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 8:13:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/14/2014 7:25:17 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 11/14/2014 7:16:33 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 11/14/2014 6:54:41 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:

It's not enough children to make a dent in the birth rate.

A million extra kids a year will not significantly affect the birth rate? Wow! I never knew that!

It adds 0.006 to the birthrate. We need 2.1 births per female to be at replacement levels. If that drops to 2.0, then no, 1 million more kids per year isn't going to do much of anything. We're still below replacement at 2.006. A million may sound like a lot in the abstract, but not when compared to the total size of the US population.

Plus, you're saying we need these kids to support the aging population (e.g. pay into Social Security). That only works if the kids aren't also a burden on the state. It's naive to think that they will all be adopted, given the racial preferences people show in adoption. You're merely burdening the foster care system, not providing a solution to aging population problem.


I guarantee you that on Con, if you turn an abortion debate into a policy debate instead of a morality debate, you're going to lose. It's not good policymaking if you take the morality issue out of it.

Eh. I think that both apply; morality and policy.

Ok, good luck with that. You can't win the policy arguments, for the reasons I've outlined above (i.e. 90% of women still get abortions even if they're illegal, so you're merely endangering women's health).
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 10:18:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I wouldn't touch an abortion debate unless I was con and I approached it from a policy stand point. I disagree that it can't be argued well from that angle.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 10:22:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/14/2014 10:18:56 PM, Wylted wrote:
I wouldn't touch an abortion debate unless I was con and I approached it from a policy stand point. I disagree that it can't be argued well from that angle.

K, I guess we found our next debate.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 10:25:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/14/2014 10:22:52 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 11/14/2014 10:18:56 PM, Wylted wrote:
I wouldn't touch an abortion debate unless I was con and I approached it from a policy stand point. I disagree that it can't be argued well from that angle.

K, I guess we found our next debate.

I guess we do. I was going to share my arguments here but I guess I'll just wait since you made that comment.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 10:27:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'm just such a logical amoral person that it's actually hard for me to look at abortion from the moral angle and I can only look at it from a policy standpoint and that certainly hasn't made me pro on the issue as most people would suspect.