Attention: Debate.org is closing and the website will be shut down on June 5, 2022. New Topics can no longer be posted and Sign Up has been disabled. Existing Topics will still function as usual until the website is taken offline. Members can download their content by using the Download Data button in My Account.
The Instigator
EverlastingMoment
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
omar2345
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Abortion should be banned.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/16/2019 Category: Health
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,644 times Debate No: 120357
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (16)
Votes (0)

 

EverlastingMoment

Pro

Abortion - The deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, Most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy.

Banned - Officially or legally prohibited.


Just to clarify, To avoid any confusion I am advocating for a COMPLETE ban on abortion regardless of the stage of pregnancy or the circumstances surrounding pregnancy. That includes rape and incest.
The only exception I am making is in the case of life-threatening cases, In which case since the mother is at risk, Abortion will be allowed.

Being previously a pro-choice advocade now turned pro-life, I am eager to see another's stance on this.

omar2345

Con

Good luck Pro.

My position that I am Pro abortion.

Now for starters pragmatically you can't stop abortion. Abortion is like you said a termination of a baby. This can be done by falling down a stairs, Using a knife or unforseen circumstances. I am Pro abortion because if that was not the case people would still find a way to abort a baby. Instead of doing a much safer way they will find much less effective of falling down the stairs or using a knife. Pragmatically abortion cannot be stopped and if a person really wanted abortion they can do it. It is really difficult to enforce it without 24/7 survelliance of the mother in question.

This is from an earlier debate I had which I would like to copy if you don't mind. I did not find my opponent really good at rebutting my claims so I will copy it here and see what you think.

What I said in an earlier debate:
Life threatening
First point is when the mother's life is threatened the mother should be allowed to terminate the fetus. Going by the first link below 7% would be what I consider life threatening ("Physical problem with my health", "Possible problems affecting the health of the fetus") which if you are against abortion (assuming you want to ban it) would allow 7% of women to die or face long lasting health problems.

Choice
Second reason is you are pretty much saying the choice of the mother is less than the choice of fetus. Still going by the first link you ban abortion which forces single mothers to have children, Force people who are not ready to have children and stop a woman's careers opportunities due to the banning of abortion. This makes up 19% of the women which you are pretty much saying there choice does not matter and a mistake cannot be undone and she will have to live with that.

Rape
Even though rape rarely occurs. It still does happen. You are forcing the women to carry a child she did not consent to carrying. Going by the first link below the numbers are less then 0. 5 percent. Even though the number is really small it is still a problem. Small one but still a problem.

I will leave it at that as my opening arguments and await your response.

Source:
https://www. Guttmacher. Org/sites/default/files/pdfs/pubs/psrh/full/3711005. Pdf
(Table 3)

Hopefully we both learn something new.

Debate Round No. 1
EverlastingMoment

Pro

Firstly I'd like to thank the opposition for taking up this debate. Best of luck.
Now then, Onto my opening remarks.

"You get to choose a lot of things in life. You don't get to choose another human being's death. " - Ben Shapiro

Having read through my opponents argument, I see mostly what I'd expect to see coming from an ethical standpoint for the mother. However, It's occured to me that at no point during his speech does he distinguish whether the 'baby' that he's advocating a mother's right to abort is a human being or not.
Whether this was accidental or apparently not relevant to the debate from his point of view, This is in fact the main dilemna of the abortion debate.
A baby is a human being. When fertilization occurs, The genetic makeup is already decided. The sex of the baby is determined. The neural network begins to form. By the time four weeks has passed, The heart is already pumping blood around the body. The lungs are forming. The liver, The stomach, The kidneys. All of this happens while the baby is still within the mother's womb.
Simply put, A baby is a human life. And if we draw the line that to some extent killing an innocent human being is acceptable, Then where does that line stop at? What is it that I'm getting at? I'll show you.
Onto my case.

1) A unborn baby is still a human being

Now there are many arguments on both sides as to what determines when a baby is actually considered 'alive'. Quite a few pro-lifers choose to say that a baby is alive anywhere in the time frame after 28 weeks of pregnancy. However, I shall choose to argue a different route.
Even at the first trimester of pregnancy, A baby is still a potential human life. One that (if not interfered with) will develop into a fully developed beautiful little lifeform that will soon open its eyes for the first time. Even though the baby is technically (at least scientifically) not alive within the first trimester, Abortion is still unacceptable. Drawing the line of killing a baby who is not yet alive is no different from killing someone who's in a coma or surviving on medical equipment. A person's brain is not fuctionally active if he's in a coma. Does that mean we have the right to kill him the same way we would kill a unborn child? Personally, I think not.

2) Choice is not the mother's call in abortion

In many governments across the world, (let's say in this example it's the United States) the government has an inherent right to protect its citizens from harm. In this case, Including the potential citizens who will be a part of this world after 9 months. If I attempted to go over to my neighbours house and kill my neighbour with a knife, The government is obliged to stop me. This analogy links into the case of a mother killing her unborn baby. The government should and must step in to prevent murder as killing an innocent human being isn't our choice to make.

Now, My opponent has put forward a rather narrow, Vague and frankly cherry picked argument in the defence of the mother's 'choice'. (Pardon me for being rather critical at times, It does not imply that I'm trying to be disrespectful).
I'll go by this line by line ;-

"Still going by the first link you ban abortion which forces single mothers to have children"
I'm going to answer this by addressing mothers who conceived their child not through rape. I shall address the issues of rape cases in my next argument below.
There is virtually nothing that has 'forced' a mother to conceive a child if she has not been raped. We live in the 21st century, And assuming that we live in a modern and developing society, The access to information regarding safe sex and practicing it is widespread.
If you were not planning to have children, It should not be that hard to learn where your nearest condom shop is to buy a pack for ten bucks. Carelessness and recklessness from the side of the parents is not reasonable grounds for killing an innocent human being.

"and stop a woman's careers opportunities due to the banning of abortion"
First of all, We need to look at the demographics of this. So I'm assuming by the fact that my opponent used the word 'opportunities' he was talking about younger women who get pregnant. According by the studies made by the Guttmacher Institute, 35% of all abortions in the US occured amongst women aged 20-24 and 8% happened from those aged 18-20.
So its fair to assume in this case that these women get pregnant out of wedlock, While they're still finishing high school or a degree course and do not have a job. This seems like the line of argumentation my opponent would run down because we all know that many women who get pregnant while in a career or when they're living with a partner tend to get maternity benefits and are able to plan out parenthood better.
The bottom line is, If you're stupid enough to get pregnant with your partner while you were none of these things then it's clearly your own fault. Your inconvenience and the burden of a baby does not justify that baby's death. This is where the state comes in.

3) Rape

Now, Onto the case of rape. As my opponent stated, Pregnancy as a result of rape is extremely rare and make up only a small fraction of cases. Abortion from rape related pregnancy is an even lower figure and thus makes them a marginally low amount of overall abortion cases.
Now don't get me wrong, I am in no way trying to discriminate or under-represent rape victims in this debate. Nor am I trying to take away from the seriousness of their situation.
However, Making an exception for a marginal amount of cases would set a dangerous precedent which would eventually be manipulated and soon exceptions for abortion will grow greater and greater in percentage. Eventually abortion as a whole would be undermined as the subject of rape in a lot of these cases can be very complex and convoluted.

In addition to that, The moral argument is that the baby should not be punished for the offenses commited by his/her father. Under due process in the court of law, We should be delivering harsh punishment on the rapist who committed the crime. The government's role is also then to assist the mother in recovering from this incident in a manner which does not have to result in the death of the baby. Needless to say, In some cases abortion is just as traumatic upon the mother as the rape itself is. The topic of PASD (Post-Abortion Stress Disorder) is a concept which is also being explored by researchers today.

4) Life Threatening Cases

Now, I did make it clear at the start of the debate that I would be debating under the notion that the only exception will be given to life-threatening cases. However, I will still elaborate on this stance to some degree for the sake of my opponent.
In short, I don't treat life-threatening cases the same way as all the other cases for abortion. Simply put (as a pro-lifer obviously) life threatening cases pose gravious and immediate danger for the mother's life as well as the unborn baby's life. Only in this worst case scenario should an abortion be considered solely to prevent both the mother and the child from losing their lives. This exception is different simply because it would not fall under the parameters of murdering the fetus because there is the very imminent possibility and threat that both the fetus and the mother can lose their lives.
And of course, Obviously, My opponent would want me to say something like the "the baby's life is more important" since earlier in the debate he seemed to make the assumption that we are undermining the mother's will over the baby's will. That is simply not the case.
Just to conclude, At the start of my opponent's debate he brought up the 'pragmatic' limitations of abortion in the real world. However, As pro I do not find my burden to prove its omnipresent effectiveness (which is impossible because virtually anything we do in passing laws will always have realistic limitations to some degree) but rather to prove the moral and national obligation to protecting the baby's life. My opponent saying that we can't stop every abortion is about the equivalent of me saying that I know I'll break my leg on the pavement today because I can telepathically see into the future.


Therefore, I conclude my argument. And now leave it to my opponent to present his next case.

Sources -
https://www. Guttmacher. Org/fact-sheet/induced-abortion-united-states
https://www. Ncbi. Nlm. Nih. Gov/pubmed/8765248
omar2345

Con

"You get to choose a lot of things in life. You don't get to choose another human being's death. " - Ben Shapiro
Your profiles states you are agnostic and support Tottenhum Hotspur. Meaning you are a non-theist living outside the USA. I am to also and also agreed with Ben Shapiro until people like Sam Harris shown how bad his foundation is. This thought that he has is based on Religion. Yeah sure you can get the idea and remove it from Religion but then you wouldn't have added this quote about Ben Shapiro instead paraphrased it as your own words. Ben Shapiro makes the abortion very simple and misses out scenario's that can occur. Even though he agrees that pregnancy can happen due to unforeseen circumstances of the woman and he would still ban abortion. So basically a rape victim would have to carry the child.

A baby is a human being.
Human being: a man, Woman, Or child of the species Homo sapiens, Distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, Power of articulate speech, And upright stance. (Wikipedia)
My definition provides a much better conditions for it be a human being.

The genetic makeup is already decided. The sex of the baby is determined. The neural network begins to form. By the time four weeks has passed, The heart is already pumping blood around the body. The lungs are forming. The liver, The stomach, The kidneys. All of this happens while the baby is still within the mother's womb.
You are saying the reason life stats at contraception is because of the genetic makeup right? If you go by that you can provide no case for why a person in a vegetative state is able to commit Euthanasia. Terri Schiavo comes to mind. She was in a vegetative state which means you lack even the bare minimum of awareness. If we go by what you said we would have to allow her to carry on her existence until she dies. Turns out she was in a vegetative state for 15 years. If the factor which makes a life is cells. You can't give an argument for Terri Schiavo's euthanasia while also remaining consistent.

1) A unborn baby is still a human being
Even at the first trimester of pregnancy,
A baby is still a potential human life. One that (if not interfered with) will develop into a fully developed beautiful little lifeform that will soon open its eyes for the first time.
You are not being consistent here. If you cared consistently about human life then you would consider masturbation mass murder. Even with women when they are menstruating if you are consistent you would not be able to defend them not fertilizing the egg because like you said is still a potential life. So basically if you applied this to women and men individually they would be murderers. Reason is during masturbation sperm is being lost which removes the potential life that could have been with the sperm. Same principle with women. If they are not fertilized then that potential life is lost and by your stance it would be considered murder or maybe you are not consistent with your views.

Even though the baby is technically (at least scientifically) not alive within the first trimester, Abortion is still unacceptable.
If you wanted a unborn baby do die without feeling pain it would need to happen before 20 weeks. This provides a point for me because if the unborn baby feels nothing then we are not actually making the procedure painful.
Source: Do Fetuses Feel Pain? What the Science Says (LiveScience)

Drawing the line of killing a baby who is not yet alive is no different from killing someone who's in a coma or surviving on medical equipment.
This has got to be a joke. A potential life is not yet born or can function in society but an already functioning member was put into a coma is somehow the same? It is not. A baby which is not yet alive is a fetus or a clump of cells.

Does that mean we have the right to kill him the same way we would kill a unborn child? Personally, I think not.
It is not about what you personally feel instead what you propose is a ban. The best you have is your thoughts without justification that can be done with evidence or explanations that are consistent. Which means you have not provided a well thought through ban.

2) Choice is not the mother's call in abortion
In this case, Including the potential citizens who will be a part of this world after 9 months. If I attempted to go over to my neighbours house and kill my neighbour with a knife, The government is obliged to stop me. This analogy links into the case of a mother killing her unborn baby. The government should and must step in to prevent murder as killing an innocent human being isn't our choice to make.
I could have made a better point than this but I am not defending Pro life. If aborting a fetus is not the responsibility of the woman carrying it. Is it the responsibility of the state? This might be a false dichotomy but there are the only two choices for abortion. The government should not have this much power. It leaves to much to corruption and if the leader wills it he can do what he wants due to the amount of power you allowed President to use.

There is virtually nothing that has 'forced' a mother to conceive a child if she has not been raped. We live in the 21st century, And assuming that we live in a modern and developing society, The access to information regarding safe sex and practicing it is widespread.
Saying it is the 21st Century does not provide you point. You want abortion banned as an absolute. Since you are not consistent when the life of the mother is threatened it has ceased to become an absolute. A case can be made that an individual does not see relevant information about sex and did it for the fun of it without knowing the consequences. With this in mind you are saying lets say a 16 year old should live with the consequences of her mistakes even if she did not know what they were. There are examples of 16 year old women pregnant in a show called 16 and pregnant. Since you do not allow dumb people to make mistakes you allow women to be pregnant to up to 40 weeks. Go through childbirth then decide to set the child up for adoption or raise it. Raising it limits what the women can do with her life and giving up the child does lead to psychological effects. Bearing in mind this could have been avoided if we keep abortion. The woman cannot aspire to do well in career opportunities, Find the right person and not be left emotionally scarred while also being a good mother. Lets say the person was not able to make an informed decision when committing the act. You are basically saying they can't make mistakes and have to live with it for the majority of their life or give it up for adoption.

The bottom line is, If you're stupid enough to get pregnant with your partner while you were none of these things then it's clearly your own fault. Your inconvenience and the burden of a baby does not justify that baby's death. This is where the state comes in.
So basically there isn't path to redemption. Mistakes should be with you for the rest of your life. Stopping a better future you could've had only to raise a baby you did not even want. Would also like to know how you are going to make abortion illegal when knifes exist.

3) Rape
However, Making an exception for a marginal amount of cases would set a dangerous precedent which would eventually be manipulated and soon exceptions for abortion will grow greater and greater in percentage. Eventually abortion as a whole would be undermined as the subject of rape in a lot of these cases can be very complex and convoluted.
Your defence for abortion not be allowed to rape victims is that it sets a dangerous precedent. That is the slippery slope fallacy. You are saying a small amount of fetuses being aborted due to rape will lead to major consequences. Not saying why this is bad instead say it will lead to bad things.

The moral argument is that the baby should not be punished for the offenses committed by his/her father.
Morals are relative and I only need to show an outcome where it is more moral to abort the baby instead of bringing it into this world. What if the mother was in Chernobyl? What if the mother was in a battlefield? I gave you two scenarios were I think you would agree aborting the child is a good thing due to the chances of it being born with injuries. As times has changed we can provide more concrete views on where life starts. What you propose is us as a civilisation strip freedom in order for authoritarianism. Woman should be able to fix mistakes instead of allowing them to living with it for a large amount of their life.

Your points for abortion banning for rape victims was a slippery slope fallacy and a women should not be able to fix her mistake instead keep the baby and would have to give up her life in order to raise child for a minimum of 15 years or adoption.

4) Life Threatening Cases
Sorry about that. I'll drop it.

As pro I do not find my burden to prove its omnipresent effectiveness
If you cannot enforce the law why are you advocating for it in the first place? It is basically a meaningless law that people can choose to follow.

My opponent saying that we can't stop every abortion is about the equivalent of me saying that I know I'll break my leg on the pavement today because I can telepathically see into the future.
This is absolutely absurd. To stop abortion we require surveillance of the individual to make sure she does not stab herself with a knife or jump down the stairs. What Pro is proposing is if he wants to actually stop abortion by enforcing it is some sort of surveillance or something to keep an eye on the women so that she does not abort the baby. Giving this power to the state allow them to do other things since with this law you have stripped away your private life and gave it into the hands of the state.


Debate Round No. 2
EverlastingMoment

Pro

Well, I thank my opponent for his second argument.

I didn't quite expect this avenue of the debate to come up, Quite frankly. A lot of what my opponent just brought up (mostly in the first paragraph but also in several other areas in his argument) seems to deviate from the main focus and actually turns into more of a question in semantics.

Now, Re-reading my own argument thoroughly I don't exactly see where my definitions or my conceptualization of an unborn fetus was improperly explained. However, I'll run by the assumption that I did not lay the parameters of my argument clearly enough so now I will reiterate.

"Your profiles states you are agnostic and support Tottenhum Hotspur. Meaning you are a non-theist living outside the USA. "

Originally I did not intend to address this because it's outside the main focus of the debate but I feel that clarifications are needed. First of all, Agnostics are not always strictly 'non-theists'. There are many branches of agnosticism where the practices vary and the application of God differs. I come from a roman catholic family and the details of such do not matter in this debate. So any assumption that I do not to some/any/or in the greatest degree understand or follow religious pretexts on the subject of abortion should be left out. Just to make that clear.

(Also, I know I'm not American. But what's the whole deal with Americans not being able to support European Football Teams? Weird logic if you ask me. The MLS is growing these days you know. Haha. )

But now, Onto the facts.

Case-by-Case Analysis

Case One

Argument - Unborn babies | Human Beings

First of all, Bringing up the definition of what is 'human being' does absolutely nothing to help your case at all. Because this does absolutely nothing to distinguish unborn babies from babies that have just been born. You're advocating for abortion up to 20 weeks in pregnancy. At 19 weeks, The baby already has a developing heart, Brain and spine. What part of this definition does the unborn fetus at 19 weeks not qualify for? There is considerable mental development, They will soon develop their vocal cords providing the ability to speak and walk after they are born. So where exactly is the line drawn that differentiates a baby before 20 weeks of pregnancy and one that is in the last trimester according to your definition?

My opponent has neither clarified nor expanded upon where this distinction lies. This is a major analytical loophole in his line of argumentation.

"You are not being consistent here. If you cared consistently about human life then you would consider masturbation mass murder"

So the word of the day today folks goes to 'consistent'. My opponent has made it his mission to point out apparent inconsistencies in my argumentation with very twistable semantics. Once again, I shall make my point clear for my opponent to understand.

If my first speech did not make this clear enough, I made it clear that the baby becomes a potential human being AFTER fertilization. This means that the process is already underway, And the cells are already multiplying within the mother's womb. Apparently he thought he was on something so he proceeded to blurt out six lines of this analogy which honestly is nothing more than a pointless semantic brought up in place of any real eviddence.

"If you wanted a unborn baby do die without feeling pain it would need to happen before 20 weeks. This provides a point for me because if the unborn baby feels nothing then we are not actually making the procedure painful. "

"This has got to be a joke. A potential life is not yet born or can function in society but an already functioning member was put into a coma is somehow the same? It is not. A baby which is not yet alive is a fetus or a clump of cells. "

I'm taking it that from these two arguments my opponent believes that a baby is 'alive' once it develops its sense to feel pain. From this I've established a couple of main points. One, My opponent is quick to jump on a dangerous precedent because of all the things that could quantify life, He chooses to go for the ‘not yet born’ argument.

So according to you then babies who are in the last trimester should also be aborted as per the mother’s choice? After all, As you’ve said time and time again, The mother’s choice should not be taken away from her. And yet you bring in half-baked notions of what a living person constitutes of and then say you’ll make an exception at 20 weeks because of the sensory pain receptors a child develops.

Again, Sensory receptors are linked to the neural network which connect the body to the brain. The brain is constantly developing as I’ve said. And my opponent has been running his debate in two separate paths because he’s claimed that all potential babies are still not considered human beings but made an exception for babies in the last trimester because they feel pain. This is a dangerous notion to go with because two, There are a lot of studies to show and dispute (as mentioned in my sources below) that a baby can feel pain even before 20 weeks. Because sensory receptors grow as early as 4 weeks into pregnancy, Babies that have abnormal growth hormones (marginal yet still relevant) could possibly feel pain between 4-16 weeks of pregnancy. That’s why a lot of abortion centers prevent abortion after 12 weeks because of that notion. Feel free to dispute.

“The best you have is your thoughts without justification that can be done with evidence or explanations that are consistent. ”

You have still not explained at all where I have not been ‘consistent’ without bringing up obscure semantics. I have routinely followed what I have stated whereas you will see as I’ve pointed out that there are a number of areas in which you have contradicted yourself.


Case Two - Choice

Argument - Role of the State | Mother's Choice

"This might be a false dichotomy but there are the only two choices for abortion. The government should not have this much power. It leaves to much to corruption and if the leader wills it he can do what he wants due to the amount of power you allowed President to use"

I don't think I've quite heard the term of 'abortion corruption' before in my life. I would prefer if you elaborate on how exactly this works before instilling paranoia simply because you displease of the States role in protecting society.

"You want abortion banned as an absolute. Since you are not consistent when the life of the mother is threatened it has ceased to become an absolute"

This is beyond a doubt a completely ridiculous point to bring up. I made it clear at the start of the debate that one exception will be made. I did not advocate for an 'absolute', I advocated for a complete ban on abortion cases that were not life threatening. If that wasn't clear to you then you shouldn't have accepted the debate.

"should live with the consequences of her mistakes even if she did not know what they were"

Sex ed is routinely taught to children both by the schools and by the parents. If she did not know by 16 and got pregnant then clearly that is either the fault of the schools, The parents or her own ignorance. Either way that can be rectified through more rigorous teaching methods, Better parenting or being a little bit more open minded. '16 and pregnant' is a show that often shows ignorance in teens who were clearly not thinking about the consequences of unsafe sex. That is not the fault of the child.

If I murder someone and then claim that it was a 'mistake' and that I'll never do it again I cannot simply go unpunished. I have to deal with the consequences of my actions. The same way a lot of 16 year olds who chose not to be smart but knew exactly what they were doing will have to learn from them the same way.

Case Three - Rape

"That is the slippery slope fallacy. "

"Not saying why this is bad instead say it will lead to bad things. "

The ironic thing is that I was bringing up the slippery slope fallacy. It's clear you did not pick up on what I meant when I was talking about this so I will elaborate on that stance. What I mean is that by making an exception for the 'marginal' amount of rape cases that lead to pregnancy, It sets the precedent that a lot of pregnancy related cases that were out of wedlock will suddenly become rape cases for the convenience of the mother.

Rape just like any crime has to be proven in court. Court cases take a long time (most if not all more than 6 months, Well within pregnancy) so to follow the assumption that the woman was raped is dangerous in that it teaches women that if they want the abortion all they have to do is scream rape even if they weren't raped.

THAT is the real slippery slope fallacy. The loophole in the pro-choice rape argument. I am not disparaging the opinion of women that were raped, I am simply saying it cannot be the exception.


Closing points


"If you cannot enforce the law why are you advocating for it in the first place? It is basically a meaningless law that people can choose to follow. "

The law will be enforced. I am simply saying you can't stop 100% of abortions because OBVIOUSLY some people will find ways around it if they have to. But on the whole it will be effective and stop a majority of abortions. It is by no means 'meaningless' and unless you want to prove that more than 50% of the population will get around it then pipe down.

Also if you've noticed I did not mention my opponent's point about Terri Schiavo simply because I did not want this debate to delve into euthanasia more than abortion. But to make one simple point, Terri Schiavo is one case. If someone is in a coma/vegetative state for an indefinite period of time where they could possibly wake up and regain their senses, Is it right to choose on their behalf? Again, Talking about this will deviate from debate. But if you want we can debate euthanasia after this by all means.



omar2345

Con

Since Pro brought up cases I will also while rebutting claims.

Case one: Human development
From the source it states a fetus will develop the feeling of pain between 7. 5 to 15 weeks. At 7. 5 weeks it will develop receptors around the skin. The abdomen receptors develop around 15 weeks. This might seem like Pro has a point but other facts were given by the source which was that "for neurons in the spinal cord that transmit that signal up to the brain must be developed. Researchers who looked at fetal tissues reported that this happens at around 19 weeks, The review said. " It also states even after 19 weeks the neurons will have to extend to where pain is perceived which means a baby will develop pain between 23 and 24 weeks. Meaning an abortion can be done without the fetus feeling pain before 24 weeks. A painless death of the fetus would be the right thing to do if the child is not wanted for whatever reason.
Source:Do Fetuses Feel Pain? What the Science Says (LiveScience)

Case two: Unwanted children
Unwanted children would be considered children put into care. From the second source out of 770 people surveyed: “Two thirds of the young men and nearly half of the young women had been involved in some way with the juvenile or criminal justice system. ” From this I can state from the emancipated people from foster care homes majority of them do resort to crime. Someone does not turn to crime if their life was decent which means if you were able to make abortion illegal. I am going to assume that the numbers will rise and will increase the amount of people who will turn to crime. With abortion in place it will not be the case and more access of abortion is better than removing it which results in emancipated adults, Which were previously foster children, Turning to crime. In more detail 50. 8% have been arrested

Source: afcars report #24 (Should be the first Pdf link)

Case three: The impact of legalised abortion
This is from the Quarterly Journal of Economics 2001: “with high rates of abortion have experienced roughly a 30 percent drop in crime relative to low-abortion regions since 1985. ” With abortion it has reduced crime in general. Meaning abortion does have an impact on other crimes and if the data is correct in a good way. I would also like to mention the report does not say it was because of abortion instead it states with states that have legalised abortion earlier the drop in crime appeared much sooner. Meaning Pro would be advocating for Abortion being banned and would see an increase in crime. Like you said earlier “the government has an inherent right to protect its citizens from harm. ” Which means you are advocating for harm thus by your own definition going against what a government should be doing. The document also implies that illegal abortion was reduced and the cost of abortions was also reduced due to abortion being legalised. Before Rov v Wade it was $400 to $500 now I am guessing would be in 2001 is $80.

Source: The impact of legalized abortion on crime (Should be the first pdf file link)

I would have liked to know your stance on contraception before so that we can agree or disagree on its use. Yes, It does remove the need for abortion if people who do not want abortion use contraception but as it stands contraception is not always available due to it not being free. Even though we might agree on contraception I still would not ban abortion. Reason is because freedom is better than restrictions. The blanket statement does only work at a point since I do not agree with someone taking someone else’s life but in general the less restriction we oppose the freer the people are. Freer people will have more options to live a fulfilling life thus not revolt against the state.

I would also like Pro to not dodge the entire reason of this debate that the title clearly states “Abortion should be banned”. Pro has not even given evidence or reasons for how is this going to be the case. This “The law will be enforced. I am simply saying you can't stop 100% of abortions because OBVIOUSLY some people will find ways around it if they have to. But on the whole it will be effective and stop a majority of abortions. It is by no means 'meaningless' and unless you want to prove that more than 50% of the population will get around it then pipe down. “is not enough to make his side correct. This is not providing any evidence of his side being correct instead he pushed the burden on me to tell him why making abortion illegal would not work. I have with hypothetical scenarios with common items in a house (knives and stairs) yet Pro cannot even provide counter hypotheticals or even evidence (like in my Case Three) that would mean abortion is possible of preventing illegal abortion or where illegalising has worked as an example. So basically what I am gathering is that Pro wants abortion illegal because of morals not because it is pragmatic. An example of something immoral but since it cannot be pragmatically banned it is still around that would be prostitution. Prostitution can exist illegally and more than likely if both parties are able to keep secrets then the state cannot do anything if it was illegal. The problem is that if the law does not prevent abortion majority of the time then why even have the law in the first place? The meaningless part was an exaggeration but my point did get across. Another thing I would like to mention is that if you cannot provide evidence of legalised abortion working then I would like to know what the punishment would be if someone does abort a baby.

“so to follow the assumption that the woman was raped is dangerous in that it teaches women that if they want the abortion all they have to do is scream rape even if they weren't raped. ”

The NCBI (National Library of Medicine National Institute of Health) have already had this discussion. “the laws usually require women to undergo a medical examination to qualify for a legal abortion. ” Meaning they have already accounted for what you meant. Sure no mention of the 6-9 months court case but it is good enough to assume if medical examination was taking place the women would be able to abort due the evidence (which can be a rape kit) being required in court.

Source: Rape as a legal indication for abortion: implications and consequences of the medical examination requirement. (NCBI)

"If I murder someone and then claim that it was a 'mistake' and that I'll never do it again I cannot simply go unpunished. I have to deal with the consequences of my actions. The same way a lot of 16 year olds who chose not to be smart but knew exactly what they were doing will have to learn from them the same way. ”

Problem with this is that the law does account for the thing I was stating. It is called involuntary manslaughter. About 16 year old women the prefrontal cortex is fully developed at the age of 25. Sure we do punish minors for other crimes but the punishment is reduced for minors so what would be the punishment of minors be for aborting a fetus? Should the minor be charged with murder?

Source: Understanding the Teen Brain (URMC)

Murder United States Law (Wikipedia)

I know I did not address every single point (Doing other things) but have made my point clear. I would like as a must for Pro is evidence or explanation (both would be great) on how abortion will work and what would the punishment be for breaking the law you want in place.



Debate Round No. 3
EverlastingMoment

Pro

I thank Con for his rather informative latest argument. I will now proceed to address these points accordingly.


Case one - Statistical analysis

I want to pull two seperate points that my opponent had stated throughout two different rounds in this debate to illustrate my point. Here I will point out where there is a real 'inconsistency' in my opponent's case.

"If you wanted a unborn baby do die without feeling pain it would need to happen before 20 weeks. " - Round 2

"It also states even after 19 weeks the neurons will have to extend to where pain is perceived which means a baby will develop pain between 23 and 24 weeks. Meaning an abortion can be done without the fetus feeling pain before 24 weeks. " - Round 3

Now, The point I am trying to illustrate isn't the fact that you went from saying 20 weeks to 24 weeks. Your information came from the same source after all. The point I am trying to make is that stated that the neural development of the brain only starts developing at 19 weeks yet pain only develops somewhere between 23-24 weeks. The problem with this is that in round two you made the assumption in no way, Shape or form that pain could occur in a fetus even despite the fact that later on you acknowledged that neural development to the brain happens at 19 weeks.

If you read my case in round three you will have noticed that I was talking about abnormal cases, Where neural development can vary rather considerably. The reason why your sources and my sources vary differently in when pain can be perceived is because it is not always clear when this development occurs. In most cases you would be right, A baby would not perceive pain before 24 weeks. But the perception of pain in a fetus is still a scientific question simply because of the possibility of abnormal cases with varying levels of growth development. This is the reason why your argument is inconsistent in both argumentation and evidence.

Even without all of this information, A fetus still responds to stimuli at 8 weeks of development even though pain is not known to register at this stage. So there are active responses coming from the fetus from outside forces. Why is it that 'pain' quantifies human life? You never really stated that pain defines human life but rather a painless abortion is a more moral way of going about it. You still have not made the distinction about how the definition of a human being that you brought in at the start distinguishes an unborn fetus from a born baby.


Case two - Choice

"From this I can state from the emancipated people from foster care homes majority of them do resort to crime. Someone does not turn to crime if their life was decent which means if you were able to make abortion illegal. "

First of all you are leaving out a great deal of factors of what exactly influences the crime rate. Political factors, Socio-economic factors, Welfare factors, Environmental factors. The topic of the crime rate is a great deal more complicated than simply the legality of abortion. Many studies (one such study is in my sources) show that it is incredibly hard to correlate abortion to crime. Simply doing so is far too vague and leaves out many factors of the human element.

But for the sake of analysis, Say that you were right. Say there hypothetically was a direct correlation between abortion and crime. Instead of actually trying to solve the grassroots of the issue with our social and economic systems that influence crime, You'd rather allow human beings to die at the perceived benefit for society. Note that I used the word 'perceived', Because there is no direct correlation between abortion and crime. If there is a problem in the foster system, Then it is the welfare system that needs overhaul. Not human lives.


Case three - The Unborn Criminal

If you're a regular reader of the Quarterly Journal or in particular the work of Steven Levitt then you would know that there were a great deal of inconsistencies and misrepresentations in his report published back in 2001. A paper published by Yale University showed this in their report (again, Link is in the sources). Allow me to bullet point this illustration -

  • The report showed no evidence which linked the falling crime rate to the legalization of abortion. If it was directly as a result of the legalization, Then crime should have started falling amongst the young population first. Rather, The paper published by Yale showed that crime actually fell amongst the OLDER population first. Therefore something doesn't add up there.
  • The report did not take into account the delay of due process in the legal system after the legalization of abortion. Many crimes that were taken to court roughly 18 years after the law was passed were crimes that happened prior. Some may have happened years before, Long before the law should've showed results. Steven Levitt lumped these figures together without proving that the drop in crime was mainly because of the fall in juvenille crime.
  • Levitt made a gross assumption in his journal that a whopping 80% of crime had dropped as a result of the legalization of abortion. Because no direct link was shown and he made no future case to dispute the fact that older people were less crime in comparison to juvenilles, This shows that the report is grossly inconsistent.

Moving on.

"as it stands contraception is not always available due to it not being free"

I think we can all agree that contraception was never expensive to acquire. It sounds to me that you're talking about lower income families who do not have the monetary means of buying 10$ condoms. If that is the case, How is it that low income families will routinely be able to afford abortions if they weren't able to afford condoms? As my opponent said earlier in the debate -

"cost of abortions was also reduced due to abortion being legalised. Before Rov v Wade it was $400 to $500 now I am guessing would be in 2001 is $80. "

Now I'm not a mathematician but any reasonable person can tell this doesn't make sense if you're talking about the expenses of contraception in comparison to the abortion itself. There is virtually no excuse to not being able to afford contraception in this regard. None. Your own input proves that.

"Reason is because freedom is better than restrictions".

You need to remember one important fact before you start stating this. Liberty and security are two parallels on opposite ends of the spectrum which need to remain balanced. If you have too much liberty, You have very little security. Vise versa, With too much security comes little liberty. To state that freedom is 'always' better is a ridiculous notion in this regard. At the end of the day you still live in a society governed by laws. You do not have the freedom to do absolutely anything and everything you want because you as a citizen live in a governed society. Should I have the freedom to shoot up a school because restricting it is against my personal liberty? No. Because liberty does not triump over life. As a very famous quote once put it, "You cannot put a price on life".


Case four - Rape

There are a number of blaring problems that my opponent has presented with his solution on the topic of rape. First of all, We all know rape kits were never truly effective at all. You'd think that if they were we'd never have the problem of false rape charges in this day and age. What my opponent doesn't understand is that the NCBI published the information on rape kits as guidelines for the procedure in the court of law. It did not mean they were effective. And they aren't. Both my sources referenced below credit this, One from an actual person's account and another from a study conducted on its effectiveness. Simply put in bullet point format once again -

  • Rape kits cannot easily distinguish injuries due to force compared to injuries sustained from rough, Consensual sex.
  • The evidence supplied by rape kits has been reported; both by the journal and by a individual's account, To be often mishandled by police. Rape kits sometimes go into evidence lockers for years before it is produced in a court.
  • Rape kits do not speed up the court of law, As they aren't accurate enough to prove charges. Therefore, Abortions are still impractical because the case will almost certainly take longer than 24 weeks; the timeframe that my opponent is advocating for abortion. The notion my opponent has made that a rape kit alone is enough for a legal charge in the court of law is ridiculous and I sincerely invite him to present evidence where this is the case.


Enforcability

I have already stated this. There is no way to effectively stop all abortions because anything that the government deems as against the law will always have a black market. That's basic economics. Burden of Proof is not based upon 'hypothetical scenarios', It is based upon overall effectiveness.

An easy example of this is Poland. A country that only allows abortions based upon life threatening scenarios. As per my source below when the law was tightened in 1993, The abortion rate fell 95% from reported cases. This alone is enough to support the enforcability of an anti-abortion law. Case closed.

To summarise -

  • My opponent never distinguished the difference between an unborn fetus and a newborn.
  • Mothers do not get to choose whether a baby lives because they have access to the resources necessary to educate them about the impact of unprotected sex.
  • There is no direct correlation between abortion and crime.
  • Allowing abortion cases based on rape paves way for the slippery slope fallacy based on a dangerous precedent.
  • The government is fully capable of effectively enforcing abortion in a real world scenario.

I thank my opponent for the debate. Ciao.



Sources -

"Abortion and Crime" - Yale Law & Economics Research Paper No. 254

"The Problem with Rape Kits" - Splinter News

"The National Problem of Untested Sexual Assault Kits" - Rebecca Campbell

"Historical Abortion Statistics, Poland" - Wm. Robert Johnston


omar2345

Con

I thank Pro for pushing me to find evidence to prove my case due to Pro providing evidence as well. It is only fair to do the same.

Even without all of this information, A fetus still responds to stimuli at 8 weeks of development even though pain is not known to register at this stage.
Responding is the different to actually feeling it. At 8 weeks I clearly stated the fetus would not even have the neurons connected to the brain in order to actually feel tha pain. If the baby does feel pain at 8 weeks then how would it know without the neurons connected to the brain? Pro left that unaswered.

Why is it that 'pain' quantifies human life?
It wasn't pain instead it was the defintion I gave to be a human being. The case was given in order to find out what is a moral time to abort a fetus if the woman cared about the fetus feelings pain and acutally knowing it is. Knowing it is important because if a person is braindead they are actually dead. Brain does so much for a human and if they do not have it they lose out on many fuctions. Memory, Articulate speech, Think etc. If person does not even have a functioning brain the person should and I think be considered dead. If the fetus lacks the capability of knowing about pain then it is comparable to a braindead person who is dead.

First of all you are leaving out a great deal of factors of what exactly influences the crime rate. Political factors, Socio-economic factors, Welfare factors, Environmental factors.
Yes I do know that but that was not necessary in providing a point. The reason why I didn't talk about other factors is because what started these adults into a bad path was their parents failing the children and sending them to a care home. A select are emancipated and then 50. 8% engage in some sort of criminal activity. I am not denying a rich emancipated adult would not resort to crime but I highly doubt that is the norm instead would be the exception. Not having a stable household with parents that can provide and meet your benefits does put a lot of the burden on a child. A care home cannot given the attention parents do due to the amount of children they have to take of which leaves the children to their own devices. What happens is that they do not know right from wrong until it occurs to them that the act of stealing is wrong. If someone does not have their undivided attetion on children then the children would most likely do something wrong due to their lack of ability to know right from wrong. If banning abortion does lead to increase emancipated adults then crime will increase. Pro has not stated what was wrong instead there are many issues while also not stating what was wrong about my assumptions.

You'd rather allow human beings to die at the perceived benefit for society
That is a way in looking at it. Another way is that I much rather bring humans into a world where they are cared for instead the opposite. A hypothetical if I may. I much rather have a population of 100 people who are cared for by society rather then having a population of 1, 000 people who are not cared for by society. The numbers are quite small but if someone is not willing to care about the child they should abort it instead of allowing it to the enter the world where most likely they will commit crime.

Then it is the welfare system that needs overhaul.
A welfare system does not help women love their children and if you decide to allow a mistake to stop women's career paths then all that is going to do is emotionally scar the women and blame the child for the governments ban on abortion. If there was no ban on abortion the women would be able to find career opportunities be fulfilled and then when she is ready have a child. My example gives the women more choice and would result in more affection given by the mother to the child due to it being her choice to bring about a child into the world not a mistake which cannot be undone.

If it was directly as a result of the legalization, Then crime should have started falling amongst the young population first.
I didn’t realise there was a report debunking the claims of that source. Thank you for showing me so that now I require others sources to provide my point or maybe turn to the pro-life position but that remains to be seen. I’ll concede this point.

To state that freedom is 'always' better is a ridiculous notion in this regard.
Just after I made that claim I stated this “The blanket statement does only work at a point since I do not agree with someone taking someone else’s life but in general the less restriction we oppose the freer the people are. Freer people will have more options to live a fulfilling life thus not revolt against the state. ” I don’t really think Pro did that on purpose but if his premise to his arguments are false like I just represented here then I can dismiss his argument that were gained from the false premises.

The evidence supplied by rape kits has been reported; both by the journal and by a individual's account, To be often mishandled by police. Rape kits sometimes go into evidence lockers for years before it is produced in a court.
I will also drop this claim because I couldn’t really find enough evidence to state it to be effective nor the opposite but you did and the professional does help me understand why rape kits don’t actually work.

There is no way to effectively stop all abortions because anything that the government deems as against the law will always have a black market.
I highly doubt it would be effective whatsoever. The only thing it would do is increase the illegal activity of abortion or if people have the money go abroad to abort the baby. The United States have also gone through long enough with abortion that removing it would be too much of a big enough cultural change and would not work.

Burden of Proof is not based upon 'hypothetical scenarios', It is based upon overall effectiveness
Pro does not realise it wasn’t some far-fetched idea which was appealing to the minority instead it was the opposite. More households have knives than don’t. Most households have stairs that don’t which means if a person really wanted to abort a baby they could do it. Instead of allowing publicly funded abortion you instead resort to people using illegal abortion which cannot have the same effectiveness.

A country that only allows abortions based upon life threatening scenarios. As per my source below when the law was tightened in 1993, The abortion rate fell 95% from reported cases. This alone is enough to support the enforcability of an anti-abortion law. Case closed.
First problem is that it is difficult to find out the data for illegal abortion because it is illegal. Similar to saying x amount of illegal’s voted in elections. Another problem I would like to add is that women that can’t get abortion in Poland just decide to go to another country. Instead of stopping abortion it just increases illegal abortion and abortion rates in other countries.

Source: Poland's abortion ban proposal near collapse after mass protests – The Guardian

To summarise: I have made my position clear on when it is right to abort a baby. I have conceded rape kits and abortion leading to less crime because of my lack of knowledge. I have still yet to see how Pro would be able stop abortion and have shown above why simply banning abortion doesn’t actually stop abortion.
Debate Round No. 4
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@Dr. Franklin
Pro Dr. Franklin=Pro stupidity
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
DeletedUser
Pro choice= pro-murder
Posted by EverlastingMoment 3 years ago
EverlastingMoment
I was trying to use hyperlinks. I'll try using your method now. Uno momento.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@EverlastingMoment

It still did not post?
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@EverlastingMoment

It would most likely be the links.
Instead of a URL do this:
Trump is a liar (Politifact)
Posted by EverlastingMoment 3 years ago
EverlastingMoment
Okay well I have no idea what's going on. I can't seem to be able to post my final argument because this timer keeps resetting and saying that I haven't posted it yet. Seems like debate. Org is still flooded with glitches as usual.
I'll try again later or whatnot. If that doesn't work then uh. . . Well. I guess this'll end rather anti-climatically.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@Eugenious

"You cannot rove that a fetus isn't human. "
Don't know what you mean here. Can you say it in another way?
Posted by Eugenious 3 years ago
Eugenious
Should murder be banned? News flash! It is! What's different about abortion? You cannot rove that a fetus isn't human. That's just ridiculous.
Posted by EverlastingMoment 3 years ago
EverlastingMoment
Apologies. I accidentally forgot to copy the sources from the word document which I was writing on, You can find the sources for round three here -

http://www. Bbc. Co. Uk/ethics/abortion/child/alive_1. Shtml
https://oneofus. Eu/2013/05/expert-tells-congress-unborn-babies-can-feel-pain-starting-at-8-weeks/
https://www. Factcheck. Org/2015/05/does-a-fetus-feel-pain-at-20-weeks/
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@EverlastingMoment

Take your time. Not too much that it results in a forfeit.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.