argument
stringlengths 18
10.3k
| stance
int64 -1
1
| definition
stringlengths 1
275
| model
stringclasses 5
values | topic
stringclasses 1
value | plausible_an1
stringclasses 2
values | plausible_an2
stringclasses 2
values | definition_stance_an1
stringclasses 3
values | definition_stance_an2
stringclasses 3
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
"My framework will be based around libertarianism. Within libertarianism, there is controversy on abortions because it depends on if the fetus is alive. If the fetus is alive then libertarians are against abortions because libertarians are individualists and therefore value the life of the individual heavily [1]. If the fetus is not alive then libertarians advocate abortion because libertarians belief in a less powerful and restrictive government. In our first contention we will prove the fetus to be living. I will explain why we should have an abortion under libertarian belief." Correct me if I am wrong here, your first point is that liberals support abortion, therefore abortion is morally acceptable because the liberals must be right. This is a poorly attempted appeal to authority. "She is the individual that libertarians prioritize, due to their individualist beliefs [2]. Since libertarians believe in a less restrictive government, the outcome is clear. The government should NOT be involved in something so personal to the person since by intervening in this person"s choice, you are restricting them and are violating libertarian ideology [3]." The fetus had no choice in it being in the woman"s womb either, that fetus is like a prisoner there, it had no choice I the matter, here is a story to illustrate this: "it would be like if I came home one day, and some guy was tied by his feet upside down, he wants to get down so he can leave my house, so I can either A shoot the innocent victim (abortion), or B untie him and let him go (continue with pregnancy), what would you do?" Additionally, if said fetus is not a product of rape, then that means that the mother consented to it being there. "Only 1.4% of abortions occur after 21 weeks into the pregnancy [3,4]. This means that that most abortions are done before the fetus is even formed. It is an embryo, and an embryo is proven to be not alive. It isn't a subject of discussion when talking about the embryo [5]." If it consumes energy, grows and develops, and responds to stimuli, according to the definition of life provided by biology, it is alive. I will now address the fetus - which is mitigated due to the small percentage of abortions that occur at this period. "There are 7 categories in which life can be identified [6]. The categories have been compiled by biologists over a long period of time with great discussion [6]. The fetus only meets 2 of these. Movement - The fetus can move so this part is met. Respiration - The fetus cannot respire on its own (7). Is a fish alive? Yes, it is, but it never respires, it absorbs oxygen through the liquid surrounding, like a fetus. Sensitivity - The fetus cannot sense at 24 weeks or even 28 weeks (8). Actually, as soon as grey matter has been formed, it can feel. Growth - The fetus does grow. Reproduction - Whilst it is a fetus, no it cannot reproduce (9). By that logic children that have not yet hit puberty are not alive, hence killing them is OK. Excretion - This is possible however very rare and unlikely (10). I guess people who are constipated are not alive either. Nutrition - The fetus cannot independently take in nutrition. So people dependent on injected nutrition are not alive either, wow, there"s a lot of dead people walking around these days eh? "When an abortion is legal there is absolutely no point in having an illegal abortion because they have been proven to be very dangerous and expensive. If abortion are legal then illegal abortions will negatively correlate (11). These illegal abortions have been known to kill both the mother and the baby and sometimes result in extreme suffering on the mother"s part (11). Mothers are not doctors (most of the time) so these illegal abortions also occur later than 24 (and even 28) weeks meaning that the babies suffer too (11)!" That is because these mothers are deranged psychopaths, under some circumstances, something not so good should be legalized seeing what happened as a result of prohibition, but in other circumstances, it is too evil to allow. This is one of them. "This statistic is shocking but demonstrates my point very well. These unsafe abortions are illegal and this is what is currently happening because abortions are illegal in places. They have no option to a safe abortion and are so desperate for abortion that they attempt to have an unsafe abortion. Therefore, we can conclude that there are a huge number of unsafe abortions (13% of all pregnancy related deaths). From this we can then follow up an argument suggesting that making abortions illegal will not necessarily get rid of all abortions therefore rendering our opponent"s aim to be mitigated." I think you missed my point, if it isn"t rape, incest, or a medical issue, they should be forced to go forward, so if they NEED one, they can get one, but it they DO NOT need one, they should go forward, and we should put harsh punishments on trying to abort when they o not need to. "This statistic is significant for many reasons. If this occurs amongst 18 - 19 year olds then this is extremely bad. Having to look after and care for a child ruins their chances of going to university. Your twenties are your most important period of your lives according to many sources (13,14,15). Having to look after a child in this period of time is extremely stressful and prevents you from getting proper qualifications and more importantly, it prevents you from getting a full time job and a house. Children are extremely expensive to have and having a child at the time when you should be looking for a job makes income problematic. On top of this you will have to pay huge amounts of money." This would fit under an issue that harms both the mother and the child. "A pregnancy to a woman is perhaps one of the most determinative aspects of her life. It disrupts her body. It disrupts her education. It disrupts her employment. And it often disrupts her entire family life." (17) She continued: "[And we feel that], because of the impact on the woman, this " is a matter which is of such fundamental and basic concern to the woman involved that she should be allowed to make the choice as to whether to continue or to terminate her pregnancy." (17) This was a case showing that without the right to a termination, you are denying women a right and therefore what my opponent is advocating is gender inequality. So let me get this straight, women have the right to murder, because it makes their lives easier? There are a lot of people in everyone"s lives that if they were to go missing then their lives would be so much easier, but it does not justify murder. The philosopher, Judith Thomson said: "If abortion rights are denied, then a constraint is imposed on women's freedom to act in a way that is of great importance to them, both for its own sake and for the sake of their achievement of equality .... and if the constraint is imposed on the ground that the fetus has a right to life from the moment of conception, then it is imposed on a ground that neither reason nor the rest of morality requires women to accept, or even to give any weight at all." (17) This emphasizes my previous point in regards to the denial of gender rights and equality. That"s how nature set them up, women were made for pregnancy, and men were made for getting themselves killed. Correct me if I am wrong, this is your argument: a baby makes a woman"s life harder, something that men don"t have to deal with, hence, they have the right to kill to make their lives easier. I have to listen to my mom, something that adults don"t have to deal with, does that justify the same action, yes or no?
| -1 |
the act of terminating a pregnancy as a means of preventing birth
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Hi thanks for the debate.I believe that abortion should be permissible under certain circumstances such as when the mother's life is in danger, when it's the result of rape or other similar harms, and when the mother does not feel ready to bear a child yet and decides to have an abortion under a certain timeframe. In my case, it would be before the third-trimester, where after this, it is believed that the fetus develops neurological abilities. Ultimately, one sees that my arguments favor the woman's decisions over the fetus because it was the woman's decision to have a child in the first place (generalization.) Moreover, I do not deem a fetus to be the same as a baby for the difference is a ball of cells vs working organs. Therefore, the definition of a "baby" for me, is after the 3rd trimester. If a mother decides to have an abortion after the third-trimester, then it really depends on the situation and reason for having an abortion at such a late timeframe. However, for the sake of time and character limits, I will limit it to the last assertion that made earlier (abortion before 3rd trimester is permissible.)Given my stance, I have to comment on the fact that CON makes many assertions with no supporting evidence. I will address them now:Abortion is Murder no matter what people say.Your assertion is weak when you do not provide a reason to why its considered murder. Your argument holds the same weight as me saying that, "I am god." You cannot prove nor disapprove my assertion without further details of my definition of God. As soon as the baby is created it is has a soul. Lets assume that as soon as fertilization occurs, the fetus has a soul. If this is true then how does one differentiate between a fetus' souls and other souls such as dogs, pigs, and oranatangs? (sp) Also, what makes an organism having a soul protect them from envrionmental, social, and moral factors? ...People say it is the women's choice whether or not to abort. People can say things but that doesn't mean its true. Youre right, women have no rights whatsoever. A baby or if you want to call it a fetus is feeding off of you but that doesn't mean it is part of you. Im assuming youre saying that it's an individual since its fertilization, even if this is true, it doesn't prove that mothers cannot abort. The baby is using her for her resources. Without her, the baby cannot live. So why is it moral for someone to steal one's resources without having any moral consequences for his/her actions? Your statement is very hard to prove because it would be hard to define someone as an individual when it doesnt have neurological or physical abilities whatsoever. If you can't seriously take care of your baby, put it up for adoption, don't kill him/her because you were irresponsible and became pregnant when you didn't want to/or couldn't take care of her/him.The real question is, is it better to not live at all or to live a life of torture?If the mother isn't ready to have a child, according to you, she still should suffer those 9 months, not taking into consideration how she became pregnant and if shes a single-mother. After those 9 months of suffering, she will then have to force her child away because she cannot take care of her. Clearly, adoption centers are a great place for children to grow up in. I'm just surprised that the general population haven't given up their babies yet to adoption centers.
| 1 |
the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy -- usually before the 28th week of pregnancy
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
According to mayoclinic.com a babies heart starts beating 4 weeks after conception therfore it is to be considered a living human being, making an abortion after four weeks murder, and murder is illegal, yes? Why should a fetus with a heartbeat be any different? A woman has many ways to protect against pregnancy (under normal circumstances) failure to protect against unwanted pregnancy is NOT reason enough to warrent killing a human being.
| -1 |
the act of deliberately causing the death of an unborn child
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
con
|
con
|
Hello, and thank you for posting this debate. Should be good I hope. My opponent has set up the parameters of this debate, and he is trying to prove to you that abortion should never be illegal. If I can convince you that abortion should be illegal in ANY case ever, I win. These are the parameters that my opponent has set up. As abortion is illegal in some cases currently, my opponent does have the burden of proof. My arguments for why abortion should be illegal in some cases are as follows: 1. Abortion should be illegal after the second trimester. If you have no idea that you're pregnant after six months? I mean, honestly, you should know by then. If in the first six months you want to have an abortion, fine. You may be surprised by the fact that you're pregnant. But after six months, the baby can feel pain and is much more human in a biological sense. To abort at that point (26 weeks) is to cause pain to a human child, and you should have made the realization and decision far before 6 months into the pregnancy. (http://discovermagazine.com...) 2. I would be interested to hear your contention that life is not sacred. Does that mean it would be okay to kill a newborn baby as well? Just curious. As to your third contention, why is a fetus not a person at say, 35 weeks? Is it okay to abort at 35 weeks? The medical definition of a fetus is the unborn offspring from the 8th week after conception to birth (http://www.medterms.com...). Therefore, you must believe it is okay to abort up until birth? I believe you must explain the difference between a 38 week-old fetus and a just-born infant. What you are proposing sounds much like infanticide. There are few differences between a fetus that is that old and a newborn. You must justify your opinion here. (http://www.leaderu.com...) These are just my opening arguments and I await your retort. Thank you.
| -1 |
a change of mind that reverses an earlier decision
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
On your contention that life is not sacred: What exactly does this have to do with abortion? I use life being valuable in terms of not killing a human being, I guess. Would you be in favor of killing innocent people because life is not sacred? On your contention that human life does not begin at conception: It is not that hard to make an argument for having abortion illegal in at least ONE case without this point. Abortion should be illegal at 38 weeks. Anyone who is convinced by this statement should vote CON. That has nothing to do with life beginning at conception, but of life being existent/valued at 38 weeks. On your contention that a fetus is not a person: A fatal mistake, this is not. In fact, the mistake is on your part. I would ask people to read the article for themselves. The article states that the fetus can feel pain in the 28th week - two weeks into the third trimester. Even pro-abortion groups have said 26 weeks is the time when a fetus can feel pain. Look at this article: Control F "26" and it is near the bottom: (http://www.theinterim.com...) "However, others in the pro-abortion camp continue to argue that, for example, pain cannot be felt before 26 weeks' gestation." Therefore, no mistake was made on my part; you simply did not properly read the article and only looked at the first paragraph. Please, no more false accusations of faulty reading and "fatal mistakes." " When a baby is born, and the mother accepts responsibility for raising it, it's very first personal relationship is formed (beforehand it is part of the mother's body)." - This makes it a human, you say. If the personal relationship is only formed after birth, why do parents name their children in the womb? Care about said child in the womb? Just because it cannot physically be touched, it is not human? Just to make this clear: You are in favor of aborting a 38 week old baby/fetus? You think that should be legal?
| -1 |
the deliberate termination of a human life
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
con
|
con
|
How I abortion any further murder than using birth control or masturbate? Both are hindering the potential life of a human which seems to be the only argument that my opponent had to offer. And I think we've passed the "maybe she will learn her lesson and never have sex."I don't think that a one night fling with a condom that breaks really should be a punishable act with the fine of more than 18 year of commitment, 9 month pregnancy which is a pain already, birth, a complete lack of sleep for the first year or so, having her entire life limited hundredfold, and paying a minimum fine of $241.080: The costs of lego not included.Would you honestly be willing to choose between only having sex when you absolutely are certain you want children (because accidents do happen), something men don't really have to consider since they can sleep with whomever they want and then vanish off the face of the earth for all she knows, and have little or no restrictions. However, making abortion illegal poses serious restrictions to females and gives off the message that women do not have the rights to themselves and to choose. Either they have sex and if an accident does happen they just have to shut up and face the punishment or not be allowed to do what they want to, even if that is just to have a little fun under the starlight. This is a massive step backwards when it comes to female social position and equality: That women do not have a choice, do not have the ability to decide for themselves and should just be there for reproductive purposes. It is either the "murder" of something that never lived against brutally breaking the rights of someone that has been living for q minimum of nearly two decades, give or take a few years. To conclude:In the beginning of my case I asked my opponent a few questions that his entire case hung on, a few questions that he really needed to answer in order for his case to hold up. He did not answer these question; and in hindsight he didn't do much to even protect his case. I showed you, dear readers, how abortion, be it moral or not, is a needed thing and making it illegal is not a steo forward, it isn't saving anyone and there are a lot of cases where it just does not apply. abortions are not going away soon, they'll just change form if we would try and stop them. Abortions would no longer just remove the fetus, but possibly harm the woman and even killing her. This is not a future for us, and thus we conclude that abortion is not the dreaded thing my opponent wishes it was.thank you also for the debate.
| 1 |
the act of deliberately causing an unborn child to be killed in the womb
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
con
|
con
|
you keep using the term "unsafe abortion" If you go to a clinic where this is practiced is is way more safe than getting it from that hobo down the street. And another thing, you have a better likely hood to gain depression when you have a child as well. And it isn't our place to say anything about mothers who have abortions. What if it wasn't there fault. What if the condom broke, what if the birth control pills didn't work? Why should it be there fault then. Why should we get to judge them based on their decision. This is their choice. And yeah it's very sad, and suicide sadly is an option for them. But if you can't handle a baby then wouldn't it be better to bring a baby into the world when they, THE PARENTS are prepared?
| 1 |
termination of pregnancy before the fetus is fully developed
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
To use the term baby is incorrect a child born at 24 weeks after fertilization is a human, while one in womb at 37 weeks is not. So you can't say that 'the baby has no chance at life'. However the mother still has a say in whether or not she gives birth. But, if you want to think about it from the child's point of view, the child will feel like it was a mistake everyone hates. Personally I would rather die than think that my own mother didn't even want me. This topic is so conditional that you can't say 'It was the mothers own fault to decide to go out and get pregnant with out protection.' You can be on the pill and use a condom, there is still a chance of getting pregnant. However slim, there is a chance. And I don't agree with 'the only option' you give. A mother has free agency. She should be allowed to choose. And the consequences should not be determined by the state. Whatever God one believes in or your own guilt is by far a worse punishment. Not to mention the mothers who give birth because they are given no other option might go beat the child they were forced to give life. And back to the rape topic. I want the option to be selfish sometimes! Everyone does. And if you take away the option of abortion some of these people who were forced into this situation people might start doing abortions unprofessionally to make a quick dollar. Lets face it, it will happen. And if its not professionally done bad things can happen, its guaranteed to happen, as it does with any medical procedure.
| 1 |
the deliberate destruction of a fetus especially in the first months of pregnancy
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
con
|
con
|
I am also non-religious. Ultimately I accept the fundamentality of existence and the universe. I, like everyone else, have no truthful answers to the big question. As a consequence I can not attribute real significance to anything, including life. Ok. I'm happy to conform with the conventions of society, it will obviously makes my short life a whole lot easier if I do so. Your questions. 1) Difficult question, for a socially conforming realist. I debate for debating's sake and my debating stance does no necessarily conform with my personal, socially based opinion. That is to say. from a social perspective I would say that I am anti-abortion. But society is also about billions of other people with individual opinions and should also be about their personal freedom of choice. Nonetheless, where a legislative decision allowing abortion has been made, I have to be prepared to accept that decision. So under these circumstances my answer to your question would be: Up to ten weeks. Given that the recognised transition from the embryonic stage of development to the fetal stage of development occurs around the eleventh week of gestation. Even so If we pay regard to "awareness". It is fair to suggest that for a period of development after the eleventh week, major organs, including the brain are not sufficiently developed as to be properly functional. 2) An easier question to answer. Everyone has a personal opinion and everyone should be allowed the freedom of choice within the constraints of social legislation. We are not all affected by morals and principles in the same way and should not have the high morals and principles of others forced upon us. I will now list three reasons for your consideration. A) Forced pregnancy arising from a rape situation. B) An individual or a couple may consider themselves to be unready to cope with parenthood. Given the demands and expectancies of Modern Society. C) The one all consuming Global God is money. The financial demands of children may be considered to be overwhelming and unsustainable. 3) Yes. Life is that absurdly amazing thing. I would suggest that the spark of life is already present in the sperm and the egg. As a realist I regard all life as absurd and amazing and with equal measure. What is your point of view here? At this point in abortion debates religious people will usually ascribe to the Orwellian notion that, All life is equal, but some lives are more equal than others. Do you eat? Are you omnivorous or even vegetarian or vegan? If so you have to be prepared extinguish the spark of life, out of necessity and with impunity. Despite the amazing absurdity of life, it is still only transient and extremely tenuous, it can wiped out in the blink of an eye for all manner of reasons and without consideration. Isn't it simply the human condition? That we have a highly developed sense of memory and therefore continually subjugate ourselves to our own consciences. That is to say, we tend to worry excessively about things that are no more than intangible concepts, things that have little or no importance in the greater reality of the universe.
| 1 |
the act of terminating a pregnancy as a means of birth control
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Abortion, despite how it may seem, is not a complicated issue. Either the fetus is alive, and thus is a human life. or it isn't. there are a number of moral arguments to the debate. the first moral argument is that scientifically the human fetus meets the criterion to be considered alive from conception (1)" Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity." As we can see, the fetus is genetically human and meets every criterion to be considered alive. now that we have established that the human life begins at conception I may be faced with the argument from many in favor of abortion that though the organism forming in the womb is alive (if they don't fully reject the known science thus committing fallacy) that it is not a person. this leads me to moral argument number two which is: even if you don't consider the humanity of the organism in the womb, there are plenty of things that exist that are A. not persons. and B. has rights and intrinsic value, for example, dogs or other domesticated animals. To state that simply because you don't consider the human fetus (which is what I shall be referring to the developing child as hereinafter.) to be a person, does not mean that it does not have rights and value. Furthermore, even if you deny the humanity of the fetus, you are still dealing with a potential human life which should be held in higher moral regard than the convenience of the mother or father. Another argument that many of those on the pro-choice side of the argument is that women have the human right to control their bodies. And I am in complete agreement. When it is your body that you are doing something to then you should have every right to do so insofar as it's not self-harm. However, the human fetus is not your body. It is IN your body. as I stated in my first card in the scientific portion of my argument, the human fetus has a separate genetic identity with the restoration of the diploid number of chromosomes. therefore, the human fetus is not a part of the mother's body any more than the child would be after (s)he was born. I hold that the time to control your body would have been before conception IE: using birth control or not having sexual intercourse. one thing that society appears to have forgotten, is that sex is not for pleasure. it is the biological process through which most species ensure the continuation of their species through reproduction (2). if you choose to partake in an action the purpose of which is to reproduce. (thus controlling your body.) then you accept the risk of conception. Moral argument number 3. does the fetus have any rights, any intrinsic value, and any right to live. well, the collective opinion of society is that the fetus has essentially infinite right to live. when? if and only if the mother decides to keep the child. if she does, society and its laws, regard the fetus with infinite worth and considers it so valuable, that if someone were to kill that child they would be prosecuted for homicide. keeping in mind that the definition of homicide is: the deliberate and unlawful killing of one person by another (3). we can, therefore, see that if the mother decides to keep her child then the law recognizes it as a person. if she doesn't, the fetus is considered worthless with essentially no right to live. now, does that make sense? it doesn't seem to. either the fetus has worth, or it doesn't. on what moral grounds does the mother alone have the right to decide the fetus' worth? most people would consider killing the baby once it exits the womb as murder. however, the deliberate killing of the fetus a mere two months before is no more morally problematic than extracting a tooth. and finally, we need to recognize that there are instances when an abortion simply cannot be considered moral. take for example if the mother or father aborts a child because they prefer boys to girls. as has happened millions of times in China and elsewhere. or any other form of bias or preference of the mother or father simply cannot offer moral grounds for the termination of the human life. I look forward to a rational and well thought out debate and wish my opponent the best of luck. I eagerly await your response. (1) https://www.princeton.edu..................... (2) www.biology-online.org (3)www.dictionary.com Now to address my opponents arguments. My opponent makes the "what about rape?" argument. I'll make you a deal. I think it's a terrible deal but I'll make it. since only .03% of abortions are because of rape(1) I will allow for rape as well in order to save 99% of babies even though this sins of the father argument for killing a baby is morally reprehensible. as for a last resort being necessary when "two human lives are connected" nothing. I repeat, nothing beyond the life of the mother exception I gave earlier, gives you the right to kill a baby. Ever. Beyond life endangerment because of a pregnancy, you should not be allowed to kill your baby. I don't care about your organs. I don't care if you have your appendix removed. I don't care if you donate a kidney. a baby is not an organ. At no point is a baby an organ. this assertion is frankly ridiculous. Branching from my previous point, I don't care what you do with your body. A baby is not your body. At no point is a baby your body. A baby from the moment of fertilization is a genetically distinct human being completely separate in identity from the mother. To say anything else is to deny facts, to deny science, to deny the truth. No one of faith can support killing a baby. when you say last resort, unless you mean the life endangerment exception, it isn't really a last resort. it's an easy out that removes responsibility for a parent's actions. I already stated, and you have acknowledged, that I will only accept an abortion as correct if the life of the mother is endangered. If a woman will die because of a pregnancy, I would have that be legal. so your point on endangerment falls flat unless you want to make the argument that it is a post birth endangerment at which point you can't kill the baby anyway. (1) Alan Guttmacher institute.
| -1 |
the termination of a pregnancy after implantation which separates the fertilized ovum from the mother's body
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Abortion, despite how it may seem, is not a complicated issue. Either the fetus is alive, and thus is a human life. or it isn't. there are a number of moral arguments to the debate. the first moral argument is that scientifically the human fetus meets the criterion to be considered alive from conception (1)" Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity." As we can see, the fetus is genetically human and meets every criterion to be considered alive. now that we have established that the human life begins at conception I may be faced with the argument from many in favor of abortion that though the organism forming in the womb is alive (if they don't fully reject the known science thus committing fallacy) that it is not a person. this leads me to moral argument number two which is: even if you don't consider the humanity of the organism in the womb, there are plenty of things that exist that are A. not persons. and B. has rights and intrinsic value, for example, dogs or other domesticated animals. To state that simply because you don't consider the human fetus (which is what I shall be referring to the developing child as hereinafter.) to be a person, does not mean that it does not have rights and value. Furthermore, even if you deny the humanity of the fetus, you are still dealing with a potential human life which should be held in higher moral regard than the convenience of the mother or father. Another argument that many of those on the pro-choice side of the argument is that women have the human right to control their bodies. And I am in complete agreement. When it is your body that you are doing something to then you should have every right to do so insofar as it's not self-harm. However, the human fetus is not your body. It is IN your body. as I stated in my first card in the scientific portion of my argument, the human fetus has a separate genetic identity with the restoration of the diploid number of chromosomes. therefore, the human fetus is not a part of the mother's body any more than the child would be after (s)he was born. I hold that the time to control your body would have been before conception IE: using birth control or not having sexual intercourse. one thing that society appears to have forgotten, is that sex is not for pleasure. it is the biological process through which most species ensure the continuation of their species through reproduction (2). if you choose to partake in an action the purpose of which is to reproduce. (thus controlling your body.) then you accept the risk of conception. Moral argument number 3. does the fetus have any rights, any intrinsic value, and any right to live. well, the collective opinion of society is that the fetus has essentially infinite right to live. when? if and only if the mother decides to keep the child. if she does, society and its laws, regard the fetus with infinite worth and considers it so valuable, that if someone were to kill that child they would be prosecuted for homicide. keeping in mind that the definition of homicide is: the deliberate and unlawful killing of one person by another (3). we can, therefore, see that if the mother decides to keep her child then the law recognizes it as a person. if she doesn't, the fetus is considered worthless with essentially no right to live. now, does that make sense? it doesn't seem to. either the fetus has worth, or it doesn't. on what moral grounds does the mother alone have the right to decide the fetus' worth? most people would consider killing the baby once it exits the womb as murder. however, the deliberate killing of the fetus a mere two months before is no more morally problematic than extracting a tooth. and finally, we need to recognize that there are instances when an abortion simply cannot be considered moral. take for example if the mother or father aborts a child because they prefer boys to girls. as has happened millions of times in China and elsewhere. or any other form of bias or preference of the mother or father simply cannot offer moral grounds for the termination of the human life. I look forward to a rational and well thought out debate and wish my opponent the best of luck. I eagerly await your response. (1) https://www.princeton.edu.................. (2) www.biology-online.org (3)www.dictionary.com
| -1 |
the termination of a pregnancy after implantation but before it is clinically recognizable as a separate being
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
yes
|
no
|
pro
|
pro
|
I accept. Though I'd like to provide a definition for "abortion" and clarify my stance on the issue. Abortion: the termination of a pregnancy by removing the fetus or embro from the woman's uterus before it can survive. In most states, abortion is legal up to around 20 weeks (if I did my research correctly) unless it poses a serious health risk for the woman, in which case exceptions are made to this rule. I will be arguing that we not change the status quo on this issue and that abortion continue to be legal up to around this period of pregnancy.
| 1 |
the termination of a pregnancy
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Let's get to it. I'll respond to his arguments in order (opening, cross-ex, and rebuttal). Contention 1All humans, including the embryo/fetus, have a right to life. The reason the embryos' right to life trumps a right to a woman's bodily autonomy is because in the vast majority of cases, she (and the father) are responsible for its being there. They are responsible for the creation of a naturally needy child, so they bear a responsibility for caring for it. Say you come a cross a button on a wall that says "baby-making machine" that offers a pleasurable experience, that has a 1/100 chance of creating a baby. Say you press the button and receive your pleasurable experience, but a baby pops out. You are not justified in just walking away and letting the child die. You must now take responsibility for that child. The Fourteenth Amendment only says one must be born in the United States to be a citizen. The Amendment says that the state shall deprive no person of life. We are not justified in killing illegal immigrants, neither are we justified in killing the unborn simply because they are not citizens. Additionally, before Roe v. Wade, the unborn were persons, legally protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. [1]The embryo/fetus has rights, despite not having interests at the moment. Someone who is asleep or in a coma does not have an interest in remaining alive, but one is assumed. Also, newborns do not have awareness, expectation, etc. , but we still believe it is immoral to kill them (with the exception of some pro-choice philosophers who support infanticide). That's why it's illegal to kill someone who is asleep or in a coma. Plus, if personality and rationality were traits that bestowed a right to life, then humans would not be inherently valuable, personality and rationality would be. This would mean it would be morally justifiable to kill someone if it were possible to bring about two people with these inherently valuable traits. Contention 2Once a woman becomes pregnant, she has already reproduced. Abortion is not about reproduction rights, but the right to end the life of an innocent human. A woman does not have absolute right to her own body. She cannot take illegal drugs, she must obey seatbelt laws, and she cannot strike someone without just cause. Contention 3Banning rape, murder, and theft doesn't stop all rapes, murders, and thefts from happening. But we should not legalize them anyway. Pregnancy is not inherently dangerous. A woman has less than a 1% chance of dying in childbirth or in pregnancy. [2] The reality is that even before Roe v. Wade, the vast number of pregnancies were still done by licensed medical professionals, not unsafe "home" abortions. Dr. Mary Calderone, medical director of Planned Parenthood, stated, "90% of illegal abortions are being done by physicians. Call them what you will, abortionists, or anything else, they are still physicians, trained as such. .. They must do a pretty good job if the death rate is as low as it is. .. Abortion, whether therapeutic or illegal, is in the main no longer dangerous, because it is being done well by physicians. " [3] That was in 1960, thirteen years before Roe v. Wade was passed. In fact, the numbers of illegal abortion deaths was greatly inflated by the pro-choice side. Dr. Bernard Nathanson, former abortionist and founder of NARAL, has written: "How many deaths were we talking about when abortion was illegal? In NARAL, we generally emphasized the frame of the individual case, not the mass statistics, but when we spoke of the latter it was always 5,000 to 10,000 deaths a year. I confess that I knew the figures were totally false, and I suppose the others did too if they stopped to think of it. But in the morality of our revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics? The overriding concern was to get the [anti-abortion] laws eliminated, and anything within reason that had to be done was permissible. " [4]Cross-examinationPro says he only believes homemade abortions should be restricted, but goes on to say that he believes a woman's bodily autonomy does not justify abortion after viability. There is some conflict here, since he apparently believes late-term abortions should be restricted. There is further conflict, since if a woman has ultimate right to her bodily autonomy, then the fetus would not be safe after viability. The woman, under bodily autonomy arguments, has no obligation to keep the fetus alive until the point of birth. She can "unplug," as the euphemism goes, at any time she wants. Perhaps Pro can clarify a bit next round. According to scientific understanding, the unborn are living human organisms (human beings) from fertilization. The problem about viability is it's a moving target. Currently, viability is considered to be at about 24 weeks, but 50 years ago it was at 28 or 29 weeks. Are we to assume 24 week fetuses are human beings now but that same human would not have been 50 years ago? Viability is a moving target that changes with advancements in technology. Plus, according to Pro's criterion, people on life support are not human beings. It would be morally permissible to end their lives for any reason, even if they have a good chance of survival. I don't see any reason not to consider pre-viable embyros and fetuses human beings, especially since the viable fetus is the same entity as the pre-viable one. He has ignored my question about Thalidomide, but it is definitely relevant. If a woman has a right to her bodily autonomy, then there should be nothing wrong with taking Thalidomide which will cause birth defect, despite the fact that her child will be born without limbs. RebuttalUsing Joyce Arthur is a fallacious appeal to authority on Pro's part. First, just because there is no consensus does not mean that everyone is wrong or that no one is right. Second, there is scientific consensus on when human life begins. It is at fertilization (I gave a scientific case in round one, and also gave quotes by embryologists, the experts on human embryology, that human life begins at fertilization). It's simply false to say that no one knows. Also, if no one knows, the benefit of the doubt should go to life. If you don't know there whether there is anyone inside a condemned building, it would be utterly irresponsible to blow it up anyway. You would check to make sure there is no one alive in the building before blowing it up. Joyce Arthur simply appears ignorant of the scientific facts. Being dependent on only one person does not mean that someone is not a human being. That's simply bad reasoning. Plus, if you are the last one out of a pool but you hear a splash and, upon investigating, there is a toddler in the pool drowning, totally dependent on you for survival, are you justified in walking away and leaving the child to drown or are you responsible for saving the child? Pro's reasoning is bad. Having human DNA and showing signs of life makes you a living human organism. Pro has not offered any compelling reason for not considering the unborn human beings. As I illustrated, viability is not adequate. Being a living human organism from fertilization is sufficient for being a human being. To claim otherwise is semantic nonsense. I don't have room for my second contention, so I'll go ahead and drop it. But my case against abortion succeeds anyway, and I have shown why Pro's case for it fails. I look forward to our next round. [1] Francis J. Beckwith, Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice, (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, New York, 2007), p.22. [2] . http://health.usnews.com...[3] Mary Calderone, American Journal of Public Health, July 1960. [4] Bernard Nathanson, Aborting America, New York, Doubleday, 1979, p. 193
| -1 |
the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy especially in the first 28 or 30 weeks after conception
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
You are basically living a double standard life dealing with abortion. I say that because you say that you morally don't agree with abortion, but you basically think it is okay because the law has made it legal. I believe that if you were against abortion then you would not say it was okay because it is legal. By sitting back and not doing anything about it is saying that it is ok. What make aborting an unborn child any different than me going out and killing someone
| -1 |
the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy often resulting in the death of the embryo or fetus
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Not all chicken eggs are unfertilised (poultry standards are different everywhere), and they too have the potential for life. Furthermore, several living plants have to be killed to obtain food or wood, but no value of life over there eh? Or what about killing of living chickens and cattle for meat? And not every single proponent of a foetus should count as living. After all, it is not functional during that time period. Humans are superior to other organisms, but that doesn't reduce the value of a "life". Animals and plants are just as living as, if not more than a foetus. Yet we utilise them for our resources and benefits, and in case of hunting, for pleasure. Therefore abortion can be done as it will save our resources/benefit us, and not reduce pleasure. Furthermore, we can discard pets anytime we want, yet we have to always keep a child? That hasn't even come into the world yet? Pets are fully living and functional, they love us even more than children at times (dog=man's best friend), yet if they even get slightly injured or start taking up more funds than allocated for it, we send it away? This is unfair. If the parents are not ready for a child, or they changed their decision, it should within their rights to kill the foetus. One reason for abortion would be financial problems, for many families may not have the time or the money required to give their child the right growth. Or a surprise loan/ accident cripples the person, and causes problems for the upcoming child. We shouldn't force parents to keep a child they don't want. This will be bad for the child due to ill-treatment from the parents, and will be bad for the parents for the reason they wanted abortion. Suppose if we find out that the unborn child has some deformities/ infection, shouldn't we give it a merciful death rather than an impaired, handicapped life?
| 1 |
the act of destroying or neutralizing the fertilized ovum
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
con
|
Actually, life becomes life after conception, its not as simple as a seed, the seed has already been sown, forming a living, breathing being. In your point of view, the baby isn't alive yet, so if it isn't alive yet then why does it need food, and nutrients, why is the umbilical chord even there if the baby is yet a seed? So now, since I have established my view on when the life takes place, I will like to rebuttal your argument about abortion protecting life. .. With your views "destroying the seed" is protecting human life. I see where you're going though, but let me ask you, would you rather NOT have a voice/choice in life and that being chose for you, or would you like to give life a chance? If the mother cannot provide for the child then put him/her up for adoption, even though the chances of him/her being adopted are slim, its still better that being dead, don't you agree? Babies grow up, they make choices (in the future), they live their life, when they die, we grieve the death. .. Whats the point of grieving human death if the idea of another life beings' life in general is a CHOICE by the mother?
| -1 |
the deliberate destruction of a fetus
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
con
|
con
|
I believe that abortion should become illegal, and that's the case I will be supporting here. I have basically two main reasons for believing abortion should generally be illegal (leaving an exception in case the mother's life is in immediate jeopardy, and the child could not be delivered and be saved). Contention OneWe are the same entity in the womb as we are outside the womb. Embryologists, who are the experts in the field, consistently agree that life begins at fertilization. For example, from the most-used textbook on embryology, the authors note: "Although life is a continuous process, fertilization (which, incidentally, is not a 'moment') is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte. " [1]Another embryologist has written the following: "Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual. " [2]On top of that, the more sophisticated pro-choice philosophers, like Judith Jarvis Thompson (who came up with the famous analogy of the violinist), and Peter Singer, accept the full humanity of the preborn. Peter Singer has noted, “It is possible to give ‘human being’ a precise meaning. We can use it as equivalent to ‘member of the species Homo Sapiens’. Whether a being is a member of a given species is something that can be determined scientifically, by an examination of the nature of the chromosomes in the cells of living organisms. In this sense there is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence an embryo conceived from human sperm and eggs is a human being. ” [3]Additionally, pro-choice philosopher David Boonin writes: "Perhaps the most straightforward relation between you and me on the one hand and every human fetus on the other is this: All are living members of the same species, homo sapiens. A human fetus after all is simply a human being at a very early stage in his or her development. " [4]It's simply common sense. We know the preborn are alive because they grow. Non-living and dead things don't grow. They also exhibit the other signs of life, such as metabolism and cell division. The preborn have human DNA, and they are the product of human parents. Creatures reproduce after their own kind; dogs have dogs, cats have cats, and humans have humans. At no point in human development is a member of humanity a "non-human. "This is also different from saying that a hair follicle has human DNA, so it is wrong to pluck them out. Zygotes/embryos/fetuses are unique individual humans, developing from within, made up of all the individual parts. A hair follicle must stay plugged in to the parent organism to function. However, the parent organism can still function even if he/she loses parts of their body. The zygote/embryo/fetus is a full human organism made up of individual parts of which it develops from within, not constructed like a car. Essentially, you didn't come from an embryo, you once were an embryo. Since we are the same entity in the womb as outside, if a morally justifiable reason is required to kill someone outside the womb, an equally morally justifiable reason is needed to kill someone inside the womb. Since killing someone outside the womb without moral justification (e. g. self-defense and just war are morally justifiable reasons) is illegal, then killing someone without moral justification inside the womb should also be illegal. Contention TwoRoe v. Wade is the single worst piece of legislation ever passed. The Supreme Court had no justification for passing it. However, rather than defending that contention here, I will wait until my rebuttal round (since most of what I have to say on this matter directly conflicts with Pro's first contention). I look forward to our next round. [1] Ronan O'Rahilly and Fabiola Müller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8. [2] Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition, Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. p. 16. [3] Peter Singer,Practical Ethics, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 85-86. [4] David Boonin, A Defense of Abortion. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003) 20.
| -1 |
the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy usually resulting in the death of the fetus
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
yes
|
neutral
|
con
|
We are debating "Abortion should remain legal." Anyways, let me start. P.S. The Affirmative Constructive and Negative Constructive will only have their case but won't refute arguments (in case you didn't know that). Contention 1: Embryos/Fetuses have no rights! I'm going to present my 1st argument for the choice of abortion. "There is no such thing as a "right to live" when the embryo/fetus is in a woman's body. The embryo/fetus has no right to be in the woman's body. It is only there by the woman's permission. Permission is not a right and it can be revoked as in the case of the embryo/fetus being killed. The 14th Amendment also says only "born citizens" have the right granted to individuals by the U.S. Constitution which means the embryo/fetus doesn't have the right to life. Thus, his life is not protected by any part of the Constitution and has no rights! Well, the 14th Amendment clearly says that all people born or naturalized in the USA are citizens and thus have the right of life. Without being born, an embryo/fetus is not a human being. There are two traits that rights derive from. If something doesn't have one of these two traits, it's does not have the right to live. Those two traits are personality and rationality. "Without awareness, expectation, belief, desire, aim, and purpose, a being can have no interests; without interests he cannot be benefited; without the capacity to be a beneficiary, he can have no rights." This indicates to having a personality (belief, desire, aim, purpose) and having rationality (awareness). Having both of these traits gives human beings rights. An embryo/fetus doesn't have any personality nor does it have rationality which is why it does not have the "right to life". The fact is that the embryo/fetus has no rights. Contention 2: A pregnant woman has rights. My 2nd argument will be about a women's reproducing rights. A woman has reproducing rights which includes the choice of ending a pregnancy. A woman also has the right to her own body. That being is a product of the woman which gives her the right of abortion. As the woman has the right to reproduce and to her own body, so the embryo/fetus has no rights which means that the woman can do what she wants with the embryo/fetus as long as the embryo/fetus is still in the uterus. Contention 3: Banning abortion doesn't stop abortion but instead harms people who want abortions. My 3rd and final argument is that banning abortion doesn't stop abortions from happening. If abortion is illegal, abortions are still going to happen except they are homemade. Without trained professionals using safe and secure procedures, women will go to individuals who have no adequate medical skills. World Health Organization has measured up to 20 million unsafe abortions in unintended pregnancies only. 14% unsafe abortion out of all abortions would increase so badly and increasing maternal deaths. There are also some very unfortunate statistics such as 8 maternal deaths per hour due to unsafe abortions and according to WHO, a woman dies from unsafe abortions each 8 minutes. Thus, banning abortion won't stop abortion from happening, it will just cause more maternal deaths and disabilities for Americans. Back to Con for his Constructive. After that, the refutations begin. ;) Sources: 1. http://www.abortionisprolife.com... 2. http://eleutherian.blogspot.com... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. http://en.wikipedia.org... 5. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 6. http://www.lancet.com...
| 1 |
the proposition that should be argued in favor of or against
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Hello MUNER287. I will accept your challenge. Abortion. An emotive issue. Including expressions such as "stripping a fetus" in any dialogue is sure to raise eyebrows. I'm more pragmatic though, I always prefer to take a more realistic, godless approach to such issues. Let me ask you a few questions. At what point do you think a fetus becomes aware of existence? That is to say. We do not fear death itself, what we fear is non-existence. So does a fetus have knowledge of life and death? Can a fetus fear non-existence?
| 1 |
the act of intentionally causing the death of an unborn child
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
con
|
con
|
Round 1 = Acceptance Round 2 = Arguments For/Against Abortion Round 3 = Rebuttals
| -1 |
a statement that is contrary to the one being discussed
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Law does not define terms. By what you are saying if the government made murder legal then there would be no murder. There would still be murder, it just wouldn't be prosecuted. I would like it if you actually argued the issue that is at hand instead of trying to jump on a technicality, in my first sentence. For you I will restate my opening argument. I am arguing that abortion is the immoral killing of another human innocent life. It is not the choice of the mother to decide whether or not the fetus is aborted. I am sorry for my confusing opening statement but I hope that you will continue a serious debate on my restated argument.
| -1 |
the deliberate destruction of an embryo or fetus
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
con
|
con
|
ObservationsOV1: Con uses no sources in his rounds which you should note. This means that conflicting notions such as con's claim that the requirements for life are different to the ones I suggested should be ignored. I provided sources and evidence that the requrements for life are not the same as what con claims that they are. I provided sources and evidence my criteria in which I should classify life ought to be bought over con's list of classifications. It is also important to note that con essentially concedes when they provided their classifications for life due to the fact that the fetus does not meet their criteria as well. OV2: It should be made clear that the BOP is shared in this debate since we both have contradicting objectives to achieve. I must prove that abortion ought to be legalized whereas con must prove that abortions ought to be illegal. We both have positions to affirm and we both have our con's arguments to negate. Since con only brings one argument into this debate that regards to the fetus being alive this means that their position in this debate is severly mitigated.R3 Rebuttals Con states that I ignored their 4 characteristics. This is false. I have demonstrated that their argument fails under both of our definitions of life. I have also proven that you ought to buy my definition of life over con's one since I provided sources. Con fails to understand the parameters set. They also act contrary to their position. They present a definition of life which sets the parameter that it must be able to reproduce (bare in mind that con introduces this in their parameters too). They then contradict themselves and say that reproduction should not be a parameter for considering life because children who haven't gone through puberty cannot reproduce. I will make the same clarification that I made before. The parameters used to define life aren't used individually, they are used to define whether the entire human race is living. The answer to this is yes because the large majority of all humans will eventually be able to reproduce and the large majority can [1]. Killing children isn't acceptable to their sentience and consciousness and due to the fact that they will be able to reproduce in their current state as human beings [2]. I have already stated why the lack of ability to reproduce is a valid reason as to why a group of things (in this case fetus') is a good enough reason to dismiss it as a living thing. Con has dropped this. I proved that the fetus cannot respond to stimuli. Con states that I am wrong because he said reacts not responds. This is a poor rebuttal since they are both synonyms. I could have said that the fetus cannot react to stimuli and it would have meant the same thing as responds to stimuli. The fetus cannot react and respond to stimuli [3], can Con please respond to this sufficiently now. Con attempted a pre-emptive rebuttal to an argument that I may possibly make; I never made this argument, in fact I agree that the fetus isn't just a clump of cells but this proves nothing for Pro or Con and this argument ought to be thrown out of the debate for this reason. I said that the fetus is developing to become a human. Con states that this means that all men under the age of 33 are also developing. This a key issue that I'd like to address. The fetus is developing TO BECOME a human being [5]. Babies, children, teenagers and young adults are developing AS HUMANS [4]. They are still humans whereas the fetus is not [4]. Con excludes the main elements of libertarian philosophy which consist of two beliefs:1. The government ought to have less power and make less restrictions. [6][7].2. The individual is the most important member of society and their opinions and rights ought to be prioritized to the highest level of their ability to do so [6][7]. Life is important in libertarianism however less government restriction is also extremely important factor and by preventing somebody from having an abotion is a restriction that libertarians ought to avoid at all costs [7]. As my contentions have described, this is a violation of the women's equality and human rights. By preventing the women from having an abortion you violate the women's right and you also violate libertarianism. Being against abortions violates the two most important libertarian ideologies, this means that it is an overall violation of libertarianism. Con provides no alternative framework and mine still stands, you ought to vote Pro baed solely on the premise that under my framework abortion is morally permissable. He asks me a question: "Do you think he/she WANTS to live in someone who wants to kill it?"The answer to this question is that the fetus isn't alive and it doesn't have an opinion. No matter whether you're for or against abortion everybody acknowledges that the fetus isn't able to formulate opinions [8]. Con's old man analogy is faulty. He fails to consider financial issues but that isn't the only problem. He forgets that the fetus doesn't care if it's on the boat or not, neither does it care if it on board or thrown off because if the boy represents the fetus then this boy must also not be able to think or have opinions [8]. I have also demonstrated that the fetus isn't alive. This means that con's analogy based on the premise that all possible outcomes and situations haven't been analyzed and the fact that con hasn't acknowledged that the fetus cannot think or forumlate opinions, means that the analogy fails. I do not advocate infanticide / killing children, the scenarios are completely different as I have already proven. Con's rebuttal to the fact that most abortions are done at the stage where the fetus is DEFINITELY not alive. The ebryo is less developed than the fetus and cannot feel pain or think or respond to stimuli etc. [9]. Con makes the mistake of calling the fetus a human. The stages begin with the fertilization of the sperm and egg, the embryo, the fetus, then the human. There is a distinguishable difference between the fetus and the human [10]. I still advocate the fact that we must look at things as a whole and looking at people with disabilities is not applicable in classifying life as people with disabilities still belong to the same species as us. Con's next rebuttal is subjective. He states that abortion isn't a right. Life is. It is still under his BOP to prove why. Until this is done there is nothing to refute. This is all bare assertion.Con says that illegal abortions should be punished but doesn't refute the argument that says that the problem won't be solved anyway. I have shown that in places where abortion is illegal, illegal abortions still occur. The consequences are much worse than what Con suggests as a result of these illegal abortions. Sometimes the baby and mother die or are severely injured in the process. If you legalize abortions then people won't be inclined to do it illegally and they will do it legally - ie. safely.Con is contradictory. At first they say that the most important right is life and emphasize that life is extremely important and that aborting the fetus is murder, they then say that the mother should receive death by stoning. This is contradictory to the case and is a concession - it negates the only argument that they provided. I never that the teenagers were below the legal age of abortions being allowed. I said 18-19 year olds which is old enough [6]. The argument talked about teenagers missing out on their lives. This means that it still stands and has been dropped again. Con respond to human rights by saying that he supports the right to life. This doesn't make sense; he says that we should stone the mothers to death which is not supporting the right to life. Sources[1] http://bbc.in...[2] http://bit.ly...;[3] http://bit.ly... [4] http://bit.ly...;[5] http://bit.ly...;[6] http://bit.ly...;[7] http://bit.ly...;[8] http://bit.ly...;[9] http://bit.ly...;[10] http://bit.ly...;
| 1 |
a declaration of legislative intent
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
3. Right to life is appointed to everyone and everything even pets. Why do you think people where POed at Michael Vick when he was doin dog fights 5. theory your website is a theory not a fact, that makes your evidense invaild 6. I never said anything about chemistry, when the babies heart beats that when people know that you're pregnet. 8. abortion isn't ethical just look at Wade V. Boggs 14. you said that abortion lowers chance of reat cancer well you're wrong it raises it by 130% after an abortion now I'm sure women don't want breast cancer if I'm wrong please tell me http://www.deveber.org... a1. first of all know one ever, why don't you tell the aduiance about FAILED ABORTIONS hum?! a2. my opponet hasn't refuted my adoption alternartive a3. with a failed abortion may lead to a prom night dumpster baby. http://www.youtube.com... my attacks. 1. women face emotional difficultis. 2. abortions that fail will lead to several birth defects and defects for the mother 3. increases breast cancer rate by 130% 4. After an abortion, women are more likely to display self-destructive behaviors including suicide 5. lead to depression and guilt for men. 6. abortion reserch is inacurate. my source for this is http://www.deveber.org... thank you and have a happy Martin Luther Day
| -1 |
the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy usually before the 6th month of gestation
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
This is a human life. This is murder. A human life starts at conception. Saying abortion is ok is like saying it's ok to kill your next door neighbor. You have no right to take away this life that hasn't even had a chance yet. This is a pure soul, they have never done anything bad or done anything to harm anyone. This child should at least be given a chance at life.
| -1 |
the deliberate destruction of a human fetus in the womb
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
yes
|
con
|
neutral
|
First of all, I would like to say that it is unfortunate that CON waited until the final round to drop details such as the position from which she was debating. I may have chosen to respond differently, but now I cannot because CON would not have any opportunity to rebut my arguments, so I will, once again, do the best I can with what I have. As I’m sure CON recalls, my “illegal killing” argument was a line of argument I said I was not going to take; I mentioned it only to clarify a point. Next, CON went on some sort of tangent about viability, which she never actually tied down to an argument. She claims that a fetus can be viable five weeks after implantation. I am confused by this claim because it is dead wrong. Fetal viability, or the point at which a fetus is able to survive outside the mother’s body [1], is usually put between 24 and 28 weeks [1][2]. Perhaps CON is confusing pregnancy viability with fetal viability. I think CON missed my whole point about giving human status to all vertebrates. Of course it is absurd; that was my point. However, if CON is going to assign personhood based on a heartbeat, that is the logical conclusion. Regarding rape, CON is a walking contradiction. She talks about how we shouldn’t murder babies by aborting them, but it is suddenly OK when the object is to avoid further trauma to the mother. Its either murder or it is not; you can’t have it both ways. I didn’t discuss CON's comments about birth control because they are irrelevant. The claim that women use abortion as their primary form of birth control is a myth. Often times their preferred method of contraception failed [3][4]. CON’s last point is an unsupported claim that “if abortion were no longer an option, birth control would be better utilized, and teen pregnancy would drop.” A source here would be helpful; because I’m pretty sure reality reflects the opposite. I wasn’t able to find figures specifically on teen pregnancy, but in areas of the world where abortion has been criminalized, the abortion rate has not dropped [4][5]. CON has tried to argue that abortion is wrong if the fetus has a heartbeat; I showed why this line of reasoning doesn’t pan out. She then went on to a discussion about viability, however her argument wasn’t properly formed, and I wasn’t able to determine exactly what she was saying. Con’s rape exception shows that her position is rocky at best, and finally her unsupported claim that criminalizing abortion would reduce teen pregnancy seems to be at odds with the available data. Overall, CON has failed to show why abortion should not be legal. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.babymed.com... [3] http://www.prochoice.org... [4] http://www.womenscenter.com... [5] “Induced abortion: incidence and trends worldwide from 1995 to 2008,” The Lancet, Volume 379, Issue 9816, Pages 625 - 632, 18 February 2012
| 1 |
the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, as through induced miscarriage
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
If a mother is going to end up struggling in life further because of having a baby well then too bad for her. She should have put some thought into it before she decided to have sexual intercourse with her husband or some random dude that would eventually lead to her being pregnant. A woman should have sense enough to know that if she's going to end up having a hard time in life that she doesn't need to have a baby ever or until she gets her life together. It makes absolutely no sense for a woman to have a baby if she won't be able to care for it unless of course she has been raped by some selfish guy who cares only about pleasuring himself regardless of how the woman could be effected. Therefore I will rest my case on the fact that Abortion should only be allowed if the woman has been raped or if the pregnancy is endangering the child and its mother's life because as far as i'm concerned Abortion is murder if it isn't related to these two circumstances.
| -1 |
the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy especially in the first 8 months
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
I'm just going to finish this by saying that there should be no law that forbids abortion. It is a matter between the two involved, and no one has the right to interfere with that.
| 1 |
the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy especially in the medical or legal sense
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
One of the most pressing issues of the 21st century- abortion. And it really is one. It questions our moral and ethical values. Even though many people people believe abortion should never be an answer, abortion should be legalised. This is because abortion because the woman"s choice is to be valued. Firstly, there are many questions to answer and doubts to clear. To what age is it even right? Technically the zygote, which turns into an embryo isn"t really human yet. They don"t have feelings, they don"t technically have rights yet. Yes it is sad, but a fetus wouldn"t even have organs at that time. We can"t look at this emotionally, we have to look at this rationally. There however, should be a line drawn, a certain age where you shouldn"t get an abortion, like 28 weeks, that is when the fetus has blood going into it and life birthed. If the mother wants an abortion afterwards, that"s her loss. Also, it"s a woman"s choice. It"s a woman"s choice whether she wants a child. It"s a woman"s choice if she wants to endure 9 months of hell. It"s a woman"s choice if she wants to go through the pain of labour. What if the woman had potential to something great, but has to give it up for a child? She might even grow to hate on the child. If the mother got pregnant in school and had to drop out, would it really be worth it? The girl would be too young, too unknowledgeable to be a mother. She wouldn"t have even learnt about biology let alone being a mother. So it"s a woman"s choice. What if the child can"t be supported? The child could be born into a family without privileges, support, or a real certain future. It may be a single mother, it may be money scarcity, it may be anything. The child may have a bad future awaiting, and may even be put up into adoption anyway. If a mother can"t even look after herself, how can she be expected to take care of another human being? Also, mothers with addictions like drugs, alcohol and smoking would be imposing problems on the fetus, possibly defects, which is unfair on the fetus. Why should the fetus live with disabilities? Rape is also a huge issue. The mother, may have been raped and imposed with a child. A child could bring major psychological harm to the mother. A 10 year old girl in India, is wanting an abortion for her 21 week old. She was raped by her stepfather. Due to this, if the doctors don"t approve of her abortion, this means she may be psychologically damaged of carrying her stepfather"s child, the one that brutally raped her. Why should this even be allowed? Imagine yourself as a ten year old, carrying a child, while you"re still a child and still have lots to learn. Imagine a twelve year old girl as a victim of incest to have a daughter that is their brothers creation. The psychological harm would be unbelievable.This is why abortion should be allowed, with exceptions like date and reason. To a certain stage, abortion is not good. 28 weeks? Too old. But we do have to legalize it. We just need a few restrictions on it. How reasonable is having a world without abortion?
| 1 |
the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy especially in the first 28 or 30 days after conception
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
1) "Society is also built of other people with individual opinions and should also be their personal freedom of choice." Do you mean the freedom to kill an innocent human life, this freedom cannot be granted. "Where a legaslative decision allowing abortion has been made, I have to prepare to accept this decision." So from what I understood you believe we should accept everything our government does. If the government (I"m assuming you are American) decided to make murder legal which is what they are doing, would you prepare to accept that? You can"t accept everything your government does, you cant grant them that power. You believe abortion should be allowed until 10 weeks, but why do more than 90% of abortion occur on the 13th week. Why does the stage of development the fetus is at even matter to you? Your main argument is fetuses haven"t fully developed to become a human being, however newborn babies and even children haven"t fully developed yet. Do you believe killing a baby, or even a kid is fine? 2) A) forced pregnancy arising from a rape situation. Are you aware that less than 0.1% of abortions are caused because of a forced pregnancy. This 0.1% does not justify the killing of millions of human beings. B) An individual or a couple may find themselves unready to cope with parenthood. Given the demands of modern society. In what way unready? C) The financial demands of children may be considered to be overwhelming and unsustainable. The financial state of a family does not determine how good the life of the offspring will be. Many insanely rich people started off poor Oprah Winfrey Howard Schultz Just to name a few. This is no reason to kill a human being 3) All life is not equal, but all life is precious. We have no importance in the greater reality of the universe, but what we are experiencing is our reality, our only reality. Life is intangible, therefore shouldn"t be touched.
| -1 |
the deliberate termination of a human life after conception especially before the fetus is viable
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
yes
|
no
|
neutral
|
con
|
Contention 1Pro's definitions are largely irrelevant. I have made a scientific case for why the unborn are human beings, which Pro has not refuted. I have also given quotes by embryologists, the experts in the field, and Pro could not produce one embryologist that dissented. Of course, I expected as much because embryologists consistently agree that a new human being exists at fertilization. Also, it should be noted that according to the second definition of child that Pro provided himself, the definition is "an unborn infant; a fetus. " So even according to the dictionary, a fetus is a child and by extension, also fits the definition of "human being" that Pro, himself, provided. I have proven in spades that the unborn is a separate human entity from fertilization. The fetus is not part of its mother until viability. If this were the case, the pregnant woman would have two heads, four legs, four arms, two noses, and roughly half the time, a penis and two testicles. Also, the unborn embryo/pre-viability fetus has different fingerprints than the mother and often a different bloodtype. Also, you can conceive a white embryo through IVF and implant him into a black woman, and the child will still be born white. I have committed no fallacies, and Pro, unfortunately, did not point out which fallacy he believed I was committing. Pro admits that the person who made the baby in the baby-making machine is now responsible for the child. By extension, if a man and woman engage in an act they know has a chance of producing a child, they now bear responsibility for that child. I contend that it's Pro who actually doesn't understand the Constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment is about citizenship, not the right to life. Illegal immigrants still have a right to life, despite not being U. S. citizens. The unborn also have the right to life, despite not yet being citizens (and as I pointed out previously, prior to Roe v. Wade the unborn were considered persons legally protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. Pro asserts that rationality and personality are needed for human beings to be considered human beings, but they are baseless. He offers no reasons to support his claims so we can reject them. Conversely, I have offered plenty of evidence that the unborn are human beings from fertilization. I have also shown why the woman does not simply have the right to "revoke" the presence of the fetus from inside her body. She bears responsibility for bringing a naturally needy child into existence (the man does, too, of course). If you bring a naturally needy child into existence then you bear responsibility for caring for that child. Contention 2Pro does not give strong justification for why the woman's right to reproduce trumps the fetus' right to life. I have already shown that the fetus is a full-fledged human. One's right to reproduce does not trump one's right to life, which is the most fundamental of all rights. Additionally, once fertilization happens she has already reproduced. Contention 3I have committed no fallacy here (and Pro has not mentioned which fallacy he believes I am making). Pro also gives no sources to back up his claims here, so they can be rejected. I believe that women are generally law-abiding citizens, so I'm not convinced they would all flock to abortionists to have illegal abortions. But even if they did, that doesn't mean that abortions should stay legal. After all, murder and rape happen even though they are illegal. That doesn't mean we should legalize it. Cross-ExaminationPro has still offered no reason for why viability should give a right to life. The entity before viability is the same entity post-viability. Why is it that a being must be able to live independently that gives it a right to life? This would mean that a born person on life support would not have a right to life, even if they have a good chance of recovering. Also, as I have shown viability is an arbitrary line to draw. Viability decreases as technology improves. RebuttalThe reason Pro's reference to Joyce Arthur is an appeal to authority is because he gave no reasons to support his claims. He used Joyce Arthur as his argument, rather than supporting it. I gave actual scientific and philosophical reasoning to support the case that the unborn are full-fledged humans from fertilization. Plus, Joyce Arthur is not a scientist. Specifically, she's not an embryologist. I gave quotes by embryologists, who are the experts on human embryology to support my case. Pro also ignores my analogies, so I extend them. It's simply ridiculous not to answer them for his reasons. I might as well say Judith Jarvis Thomson's violinist analogy is irrelevant because you're plugged into a violinist, you're not pregnant in the analogy. This is simply a ridiculous objection. That's the exact purpose of an analogy, to show a comparison between one thing and another, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification. Once again, I'd like to thank Pro for this intriguing debate. I believe I have made my case and defended it from scrutiny. Thank you for reading.
| -1 |
the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, especially in the medical sense
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
I surely do believe we should take a more realistic approach too. More than 90% of abortions occur during the 13th week of pregnancy, at this time fetuses have already developed finger prints, vocal chords, and the part of the brain which is responsible for complex thoughts is developing. This is a human life that cannot be taken away. Now to answering your questions "At what point do you think a fetus becomes aware of existence?" I as a non religious person believe life cannot be judged on awareness, for example when a person is in coma they aren"t aware of themselves nor environment. Do you believe it would be fine to murder a human being that is in coma just because they aren"t aware of their current state, and existence? "Does a fetus have knowledge of life and death?" Fetuses do have knowledge of life and death. One of, if not the most used abortion method is MVA. In this process a vacuum is used to retire contents from uterine. During this process the fetus"s body is completely destroyed by the vacuum. Doctors who have performed this form of abortion have recalled observing fetuses desperately moving to stay in womb. Fetuses are aware of their life, and will try to stay alive. "Does a fetus fear non-existence?" This is a question impossible to answer. If fetuses didn"t fear non-existence this does still not justify the killing of them. A suicidal person may often not fear non-existence, however would you kill them? Now I"d like to ask you a few questions? At what point in a fetuses life do you believe abortion shouldn"t be allowed anymore? How can a parent(s) justify the decision to have an abortion? Do you consider fetuses to be alive?
| -1 |
the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy especially in the first eight months
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
I understand that you didn't use 'person', But I find that 'person' is the better word to use. It's no "think of all those human beings" or "you lovely human beings". I'm aware that a foetus is a human, And alive. It's just not a person. Again, Foetus =/= person. Yes, A foetus hasn't experienced these things. No, It doesn't make abortion 'okay'. It's just evidence to the contrary for abortion being murder, And therefore illegal. Yes, It's why they never get them. But hypothetical futures don't matter in the real world. I'm not treated as an 80 year old, And a foetus isn't treated as a person. You can't say 'deserve'. That's subjective i. E. Your opinion. Opinions don't matter. Murdering someone because they've murdered someone is revenge, Not justice, And this is another debate entirely. I'm fine with you believing abortion is murder. It's just objectively not. Given that Meriam-Webster doesn't have a separate definition for human being, The other will serve; "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. " It'd be safe to assume that 'man' and 'woman' refer to sex, But for the distinction 'child'. This suggests that a human being is an adult or child member of the human race. Given that a child is "a young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority", And age cannot be negative, A foetus is not a human being. You aren't pro-choice. Remember, This is the English language. Not everything is literal. Unless you believe that a women should be allowed abortions, You are not pro-choice. Some false equivalencies right there. A slave is a human being. A murder victim is a human being (or was). A foetus is not a human being. And banning the latter makes all three a violation of the right to bodily autonomy, Which is a good segue to my argument. Under the laws of the U. S. A, And most western countries, Citizens have the civil (legal) right to bodily autonomy. This means that they have the final say in what happens to their body. This is why you have to consent to giving blood, And to being an organ. You can't just have them taken from you willy nilly. Banning abortion violates this right, Because women can no longer choose not to be pregnant. But hold your horses, Because I'd imagine you have a couple of rebuttals. Firstly, It doesn't violate the foetus's civil rights. A foetus has no civil rights. It's not a citizen of any country. Secondly, 'the woman should've just chosen not to have sex' is stupid. Don't punish women for having sex.
| 1 |
the deliberate and intentional destruction of a human embryo or fetus
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
con
|
con
|
Firstly, I want to make myself clear, though I do not agree with abortion, there are certain circumstances where it is acceptable. That being rape, incest, and medical issues. However, having an abortion "just because", or "I don't want to have to take care of my kid", then it is no different than murder. This type of thinking, is the same type of thinking that the feminists are using to justify abortion, they are not justifying it in rape, incest, or medical issues only, they are trying to say that it is OK in any circumstance. Back during the bronze age of around 3,000-1,000 B.C.E., there was a popular Sumerian religion that worshiped Baal. People would sacrifice their babies to Baal via cooking them alive (getting cooked alive, sounds familiar doesn't it). Archaeologists wondered how mothers could have their children be cooked alive, and they came to the conclusion, that they were able to have this detestable act done, because they did not consider their babies to be a living human, now this should sound very familiar. So, no one is arguing that women shouldn't have control of their bodies, they are entitled to complete control over their bodies, however, I am arguing that a fetus is a living human also, and hence is ALSO entitled to complete control over their body, which includes the right not to be cooked alive. So if you want to argue that women should have control over their bodies, you must argue that babies must have control over their bodies. It is two separate bodies, and hence the baby has rights too, separate from the mother. Point 1: a fetus is alive: Now, I will be arguing that a fetus is a living human, and by definition, it is, let's look at the definition of life according to Websters dictionary: "the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death." Please note, nowhere in this definition will you see "took a first breath", and all of these definitions, a fetus fits, it can grow, it will be able to reproduce eventually, it will be able to preform functional activity, and it will continue to change until death. According to biology, life has these characteristics: 1. Grows and develops (check) 2. Capable of reproduction (check) 3. Consumes and uses energy (check) 4. Responds to stimuli (check) Point 2: a fetus is NOT a clump of cells: So, I have established that a fetus is alive, now I will establish that it is not a clump of cells, calling a fetus a "clump of cells" is mind boggling, no scientific mind would look at a fetus, and say "meh- it's a bag of cells", calling it a clump of cells is inherently wrong, a fetus is not a clump of cells any more than you or I are clumps of cells. Because a "clump" suggests that it has no form or organization, a fetus cannot be considered a "clump of cells", because a fetus's cells has organization, and all those cells are working for the survival of the rest of the "clump", hence, the correct term would be a "system of cells", just like you or me. Point 3: A fetus is a human: This is very easy to prove, if you sample a fetus's DNA, and test it, what will you find? The genetic material comes from a human, not a baboon, or a buffalo, or a "clump of cells", a HUMAN. Problem solved, it's genetics are human genetics, it's a human, what else? It's dad is a human, it's mom is a human, they aren't ducks are they? So, it would logically follow, that their child will be---- A HUMAN! It cannot be a clump of cells, the dad isn't a clump of cells, the mom isn't a clump of cells, so, logically their offspring will be a human, not a clump of cells. If I get a duck, and another duck, and I breed them, they will give birth to a duck, same with gorillas, eagles, snakes, lions, bears, whales, dolphins, etc, they will give birth to gorillas, eagles, snakes, lions, bears, whales, dolphins, etc. So, if two humans get together, the only logical outcome, is that their offspring will be a human, NOT a clump of cells.
| -1 |
the deliberate destruction of a human embryo or fetus in the womb
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
con
|
con
|
Response Point 1: Correct. People should not have pregnancies that they do not plan to have or keep (intended or uninteded pregnancy). But this unfortunate fact will never be suppressed (meaning that millions of people per year will continue to have sex that may result in an unintended pregnancy). Thus, abortion is still necessary. Response Point 2: Exactly. Thank you for proving my point that if abortion was made illegal, than women are going to get abortions anyhow, and a lot of women have them homemade (to use your term), and most of those are unsafe. Response Point 3: There is no right to live. Being able to live is a privilege provided by God. But to not go off on a tangent, I would like for you to state me the passage that either says those words verbatim (preferably), or something of the same effect. Response Point 4: I will cover post-abortion stress in one of my attack points. Response Point 5: Do you really believe Lordknukle? He has some extremely weird beliefs. Response Point 6: Most women who abort are poor. If the baby was born into this surrounding, the baby would be most likely poor his or her whole childhood, and most likely, the rest of his or her life, and these surroundings greatly increase the chance that he or she commits one murder or is murdered. The child would be better off not being born. I would not want to live in or experience those types of surroundings. Would you? Response Point 7: The matter of when a fetus is of one's own opinion. Some say when the fetus's heart first beats, or when the fetus can start breathing, or at conception, or when a fetus can feel pain, or when a fetus can survive on it's own, or at birth. There is no strong, solid evidence of when a baby is born, and most of the accepted alive dates (like when a fetus can survive on it's own, or when the fetus can feel pain) have no set date, but are still a matter of scientific study not proven yet. You cannot prove that a fetus is alive when it's heart first beats. Response Point 8: Most of these famous people did not live in poor surroundings, or where abortion was a major opinion for the child's mother (I am not saying that all famous people do not fit this category because some do). Attack Point 1: "In 1964, 28-year-old Geraldine Santoro bled to death on the floor of a Connecticut hotel room after she and her former lover, Clyde Dixon, attempted an abortion on their own. Dixon, who had no medical experience of any kind, used a textbook and some borrowed tools. When things went terribly wrong, he fled the scene, and Santoro died alone": http://socialistworker.org.... This quote alone sums up what it was like for the thousands of women who died at the hands of untrained specialists. Attack Point 2: Six months after abortion was legalized in Guyana in 1995, admissions for septic and incomplete abortion dropped by 41%. Previously, septic abortion had been the third largest, and incomplete abortion the eighth largest, cause of admissions to the country's public hospitals. One year after Romania legalized abortion in 1990, its abortion-related mortality rate fell from 142 to 47 deaths per 100,000 live births. These are examples of the positive impact legalizing abortion has on women's health.": http://www.ourbodiesourselves.org.... Attack Point 3: "Forty-two percent of women obtaining abortions have incomes below 100% of the federal poverty level ($10,830 for a single woman with no children)" "Twenty-seven percent of women obtaining abortions have incomes between 100–199% of the federal poverty level": http://www.guttmacher.org.... Do you think the babies that were aborted by these 69% of women who are single, and make a yearly income of less then $21,660 would have had a very good life? Do you think they would ever have a chance? Say those 69% of women were not able to abort. Those children grew up in terrible surroundings surrounded by violence, murder, want, and laziness. I am sure a lot of those children would grow up to become theives and even murderers. And I am sure a lot of those would end up in jail. These children would be better off not being born. Attack Point 4: "The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that in 1972 alone, 130,000 women obtained illegal or self-induced procedures, 39 of whom died.":http://www.guttmacher.org.... This means that at least 260,000 people broke the law by having an illegal abortion. That number only takes into account the woman and the doctor. There could be more the 2 involced in one abortion. The prohibition of abortion will again cause 130,000+ crimes. And they need solving. Police are already having a hard time controlling crime. Adding 130,000+ crimes with at least 260,000 people involved will make the police department a mess. Attack Point 5: "In 1967, England liberalized its abortion law to permit any woman to have an abortion with the written consent of two physicians. More than 600 American women made the trip to the United Kingdom during the last three months of 1969 alone" "The year before the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade, just over 100,000 women left their own state to obtain a legal abortion in New York City": http://www.guttmacher.org.... This means that is abortion is made illegal, then thousands of women will travel to a foreign country that legalizes abortion. In other words, they will bypass the law. Attack Point 6: This is the connection between abortion and mental illness I promised. http://www.msnbc.msn.com...... http://www.guardian.co.uk....... This source claims that the unwanted pregnancy is the cause of mental illness, not the abortion itself. http://feministing.com....... This source cites at least three studies denying the claim. I know you stated the connection of post abortion stress. Here is a quote that I think may sum this part of the argument up in my favor: "This review identified several factors that are predictive of more negative psychological responses following first-trimester abortion among women in the United States. Those factors included:Perceptions of stigma, need for secrecy, and low or anticipated social support for the abortion decision; A prior history of mental health problems; Personality factors such as low self-esteem and use of avoidance and denial coping strategies; and Characteristics of the particular pregnancy, including the extent to which the woman wanted and felt committed to it.":http://www.apa.org...... So the abortion did not cause the mental illness, rather, it was the unwanted pregnancy. If the woman was made to stay with the pregnancy, then there would be even worse post-pregnancy stress. Get the connection? Attack Point 7: In February 2003, the US National Cancer Institute (NCI) held a workshop of more than 100 of the world's leading experts who study pregnancy and breast cancer risk. The experts reviewed human and animal studies that looked at the link between pregnancy and breast cancer risk, including studies of induced and spontaneous abortions. Some of their findings were: • Breast cancer risk is increased for a short time after a full-term pregnancy (that is, a pregnancy that results in the birth of a living child). • Induced abortion is not linked to an increase in breast cancer risk. • Spontaneous abortion is not linked to an increase in breast cancer risk. The level of scientific evidence for these findings was considered to be "well established" (the highest level): http://www.cancer.org....... This conclusion again states that if the woman was made to stay with the pregnancy (or not allow her to abort), than the women is at an increased chance for breast cancer. Another point is the if you prohibit abortion, you would have to prohibit pregnancy before that because the pregnancy itself causes mental illness and breast cancer. ==OFR== I have essentially crushed the pro-Life argument.
| 1 |
the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy usually resulting in the death of the embryo or fetus
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
yes
|
neutral
|
con
|
It seems my opponent believes that presenting made up statistics is somehow a rebuttal to the truth. I will explain... In response to my claim that 1.2 million more unwanted children will be born per year (an estimate based on the amount of legal abortions reported in 2007 in the US) he claims these extra births would somehow be a boon to the economy. He cites his own "quick and easy 'facts'" as his rebuttal. I will refute each of these "quick and easy facts" one by one. "if we were too Illegalize abortion you will find that their is MORE taxpayers" -Babies don't pay taxes. "MORE people to buy products in the U.S" -Babies don't buy anything. "MORE people in the work force and AND more people to enlist in the military" -Babies can't work, and though some may consider 17 year olds their "baby", babies can't enlist in the military. "In fact Abortions actually hurt the United States economy in the state of Illinois alone it costs the tax payers $1 million each year." -Though I would like to see that measly estimate ($1 million is not a lot of money when considering the alternatives; I will explain), because Illinois was mentioned, let's do a quick study on Illinois... -Most children placed by DCFS (Department of Children and Family Services) were from homes so abusive or neglectful that it would be unsafe for them to return. -Illinois spends an annual $14,871,200 in the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services Foster Homes/Specialized Foster Care and Prevention line -$8,100,000 for DCFS funding of personal services to prevent the layoff of frontline staff (http://childcareillinois.wordpress.com...) -In 2007 there were 111,742 reports of child abuse and neglect in the state of Illinois -In 2003 there were 25,344 substantiated cases of child abuse and neglect, more than 4,000 children removed from their homes, and 58 confirmed child deaths due to abuse.(http://www.fightcrime.org...) I know I provided more information than necessary to refute my opponent's claims, but this information is relevant when considering foster care and adoption as a viable alternative to abortion. The truth is many children are abused in foster care, and many homeless in America come from the foster care system. -20,000 youth "age out" or emancipate from foster care each year. -Up to 50% of former foster/probation youth become homeless within the first 18 months of emancipation. -Twenty seven percent (27%) of the homeless population spent time in foster care. -Fifty-eight percent (58%) of all young adults accessing federally funded youth shelters in 1997 had previously been in foster care. -Less than half of former foster youth are employed 2.5-4 years after leaving foster care, and only 38% have maintained employment for at least one year. -Youth in foster care are 44% less likely to graduate from high school and after emancipation, 40 – 50 percent never complete high school. -Girls in foster care are six times more likely to give birth before the age of 21 than the general population. -Sixty percent (60%) of women who emancipate from foster care become parents within 2.5-4 years after exiting care. -Parents with a history of foster care are almost twice as likely as parents with no such history to see their own children placed in foster care or become homeless. (http://fosterculture.wordpress.com...) Now, these statistics not only refute my opponent's claims, but they support my claim that illegalizing abortion is more likely to have a negative impact on our economy than my opponent's alternative claim. My opponent admits that I am right about the burden illegalizing abortion would be on the adoption industry. He then claims that the system will "correct itself", and the result will be a boon to the economy. The statistics I provided above suggest otherwise. In fact the statistics imply there would be a vicious circle of children in foster care, homelessness, and even crime (http://www.fightcrime.org...). My opponent claims that the right to life is more important to a child who is, as I suggested, doomed to live in these institutions. -7.6% vs 3.1% adoptees vs. non-adoptees are likely to attempt suicide -16.9% vs 8.2% adoptees vs. non-adoptess were likely to have received psychological and/or emotional counseling -Attempted suicide is more common among adolescents who live with adoptive parents than among adolescents who live with biological parents (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org...) I believe many of those who have actually suffered through living in these institutions would disagree with my opponent. My opponent claims that "only" 1% of abortions in the US are a result of rape and/or incest. Even so, he does not argue that rape and incest should be an exception, rather that a baby acting as a cancer should be the ONLY exception. Acknowledgment of 1 single abortion performed due to rape and/or incest is justification that that abortion should be allowed. He does not make this argument. Instead he says that "loved ones whom they trust" would provide psychiatric support, as well as therapists. What if a girl was raped by a family member (incest), or even her own father? My opponent does not address this. My opponent says he does not see how illegalizing abortion would affect the psychiatric needs of these women and girls. Well, most health insurance does not cover mental health. Mental health already costs the US $150 billion annually. (http://www.apa.org...) My opponent claims that he would rather be born than aborted as the result of rape or incest. I argue that my opponent cannot possibly fathom the mental effects these children suffer, and given the suicide statistics for adoption quoted above, the suicide rates related to depression, and the depression that would occur when finding out you are the child of a rapist, or that your mother is also your sister- I am sure none of us, unless we have suffered through this, can possibly say it is better to be born. My opponent admits illegal abortion rates would go up, and then expects us all to assume (without reason) that the rates will eventually go down. The statistics state otherwise- abortion rates are similar worldwide whether legal or illegal (http://www.iht.com...), and illegalization is not a deterrent from the world's most prevalent medical procedure. The difference is the mortality and injury rates of the women having illegal abortions performed, versus legal abortions (http://www.womensenews.org...). My opponent claims that abortion is an infringement upon the unborn's "right to life". I have addressed this in my first round argument- it is not for the law to determine when life begins, and when a "person" has the right to live, rather it is for medicine and science to decide. According to medicine, an embryo is not a developed human being (references in R1). Asking whether or not we would have wanted to be aborted does not matter because 1 out of 3 of our mothers have had or will have an abortion by age 45 (http://www.ourbodiesourselves.org...). The question is spiritual, and not scientific- at which point does the human soul enter the human body. Would I have been me had I been born rather than have previously been aborted? I would argue yes- I would still be me whether I was aborted during the conception in which I was actually born and born later, or if I had been born previously. How many millions more of us are lost when our fathers masturbate, or when our mothers perform oral sex? I see no difference in this line of questioning. Thank you.
| 1 |
the act of intentionally causing the death of a fetus
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
yes
|
no
|
neutral
|
con
|
This has been repeated a million times but I'm going to say it again because it must act as the foundation of this debate. Abortion is not murder, especially when it is performed before the fetus has developed into a human being. When an abortion is performed, no baby is killed or murdered. Think of it as destroying the seed before it becomes a plant. Performing an abortion is by definition not committing murder. With this fact as a base or foundation, throughout the next few rounds I will argue that abortion does not demean the value of human life, but protects it -- using facts and rational arguments. I will also argue that mother"s, being the carrier of the fetus, have the right and responsibility to decide and weigh the advantages and disadvantages of bringing a human being into the world. Let me ask you. How is it better to have the child and allow it to lead a poor and neglected life, rather than never existing in the first place? If you value life, and the sanctity of living, then you will accept abortion. You don"t have to practice it, advocate for it, understand it, or even respect it. But if you respect life, then you will accept abortion and allow other women to have abortions. Thank you, I look forward to your response.
| 1 |
the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy -- usually before the fetus attains viability
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
A woman has the right to choose what she wants to do with her body. Therefore, abortion is accepted. Rules: No new arguments in R4. If you forfeit a round you automatically lose.
| 1 |
the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy especially before the 6th month
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
I will accept the con side of this debate. Abortion is the taking of an innocent life that is growing and maturing inside the body of another human being. If abortion is right, as pro has clearly stated, then what type of morality are we judging the set of guidelines on? I could argue that life begins at conception, but I'll leave that alone for now and just base my arguments on facts. Fact #1) Heartbeats are detected as early as 4 weeks. Fact #2) Brain activity begins as early as 8 weeks. Fact #3) When a crime such as murder is committed against a pregnant woman in the United States, the individual committing the crime will be charged with multiple murders, not one.
| -1 |
the deliberate and intentional destruction of the life of an unborn child
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
con
|
con
|
My opponent has not refuted any of my arguments and has only made unsupported claims that he did not effeciently defend or provide evidence for and he has not given me an answer to any of the questions I asked him. I therefore extend all of my arguments from the last round as they all went untouched. To provide some form of content for this round: "Everyone has rights."Including the mother, so why do you think her rights should be broken for the rights of something that is not born?"If you want to abort someone, then go ahead."This is completly against your pole: should I read that as a consession? "Kill something that was supposed to life." Can you prove that statement? It is not a human any more than your sex-cells are humans. The act of abortion is just as immoral as using birth control. Are you going to defend that those should be illegal? Birth control prevents the would-be fetus to be born and thus kills something that was supposed to live. Why should bc be legal if abortion isn't? are you proposing that the only valid sexual intercourse should be for reproduction?Abortion protects the life of the mother. the reasoning "Don't because it kills something that has no self-awareness!" is not going to hold valid."Again, morally abortion is wrong. "How so is it morally worse than forcing the child upon an unwilling mother? My opponent cannot ignore this point and must answer it, along with all others, in the next and final round.
| 1 |
the termination of a pregnancy after, with, or just before birth
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
"But a fetus isn't a fetus until 8 weeks into the pregnancy." You apparently are not well-versed in human reproduction. The Zygote exists for only four days, then turns into a blastocyst on the fifth day. "Day 1: Conception: Of the 200,000,000 sperm that try to penetrate the mother's egg cell, only one succeeds.2 At that very moment, a new and unique individual is formed. All of the inherited features of this new person are already set – whether it's a boy or girl, the color of the eyes, the color of the hair, the dimples of the cheeks and the cleft of the chin. He or she is smaller than a grain of sugar, but the instructions are present for all that this person will ever become. The first cell soon divides in two. Each of these new cells divides again and again as they travel toward the womb in search of a protected place to grow.3 Day 6-14:The new individual at first attaches loosely to the wall of the womb, then burrows deeply and attaches securely to it over the next week. Sensitive pregnancy tests can now show positive, but this depends on the level of hormone produced by the new life. By the end of the second week, the mother's menstrual period is suppressed by this hormone (hCG) which is produced by her child.4 Day 17:Blood vessels begin to form.4 Remarkably, the future sex cells that will give rise to sperm or eggs for a new generation begin to group together - only 17 days after this new life is alive itself.5 Day 18-20:The foundations of the brain, spinal cord, and nervous system are laid.6 Day 21:The heart begins to beat,7 unsurely at first, gaining strength day by day. The heart beats 70 times per minute at first, reaching a maximum of 170-190 at seven weeks, and slowing a bit to 160-180 at 9 weeks.8 A day later the eyes begin to develop. The earliest stages of the ears are now present.9 Day 26-27:The lungs now begin to form.10 Day 28-32:Two tiny arms make their appearance and budding legs follow two days later.11 The beginnings of the mouth take shape.12 The nose starts to develop.13 The thyroid gland begins to grow. Blood flows in the baby's veins but stays separate from the mother's blood. The tongue now begins to form. The face now makes its first appearance.14 Day 36:The baby's eyes develop their first color in the retina (see photo above, right).15 Day 40:The baby makes her first reflex movements. Touching around the mouth with a fine bristle causes her to flex her neck.16 Day 41:The fingers begin to form, followed by the toes a few days later.17 Day 42:The baby develops nerve connections that will lead to a sense of smell. The brain is now divided into 3 parts – one to experience emotion and understand language, one for hearing and one for seeing. 18 Joints begin to form.19 Mother now misses second period. Day 44:Buds of milk teeth appear. Facial muscles develop.20 Eyelids begin to form, protecting the developing eyes.21 Elbows take shape. Internal organs are present, but immature. 99% of muscles are present; each with its own nerve supply.22 Electrical activity is detectable in brain.23 Day 52:Spontaneous movement begins. The baby then develops a whole collection of moves over the next 4 weeks including hiccupping, frowning, squinting, furrowing the brow, pursing the lips, moving individual arms and legs, head turning, touching the face, breathing (without air), stretching, opening the mouth, yawning, and sucking.24 8 Weeks:The baby is now well-proportioned, and about the size of a thumb. Every organ is present. The liver is making blood, the kidneys function, and the heart beats steadily. The skull, elbows, and knees are forming. Of the 4500 structures in the adult body, 4000 are already present.25 The skeleton of the arms and legs and the spine begins to stiffen as bone cells are added." Is it right to kill it? http://abortionfacts.com...
| -1 |
the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy not resulting in a live birth
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
I agree that it is wrong to take another person's life. That is murder, And absolutely reprehensible. Where you and I evidently differ is whether or not a foetus is a person. Both the Oxford and Merriam-Webster dictionaries define person as an individual human being, Or a human with reference to individuality. On the definition of individual, They differ slightly, But the consensus is that individual means a distinctly separate entity, With defining characteristics. It is my belief that, Beyond genes (which it shares partly with either parent anyway), A foetus has no defining characteristics. No individuality. For example, I have friends. Likes. Dislikes. Relationships. Aspirations. Worries. Things that make me me. A foetus has none of these things. P. S. I find it hypocritical to be pro-life and pro death penalty, Because of these definitions. P. P. S. I don't like abortion. I just don't think it's murder or that it should be illegal. You'll find the vast majority of pro-choice people share these views. We aren't pro-abortion.
| 1 |
the act of terminating a pregnancy before it has progressed beyond a certain number of weeks
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
How is abortion not murder. It is wrong to things like this. I understand that if a mother does not want to have a baby, but maybe they will learn something. Thank you for this argument. You were good.
| -1 |
the deliberate and intentional destruction of a human fetus during pregnancy
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
con
|
Life: The condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter. It took me 5 seconds to find this explanation of life. Why would it take Con 2 hours to write the same. What Con differentiates between, is the value they are prepared to attribute to the lives of different species. and not life itself. This is simply a human centred, selfish disregard for all other species. Life is a singular almost magical property that is present and equal in all species. The questions are. Does life have real value. Is life merely a quirk of evolution Does life have any significance beyond it's Earth bound home. The honest answer to these questions is, we do not know. All we have is theories and theories are guess work. Keystone species: Another and completely different debate really. But I would assert that in proffering this argument,Con exacerbates their misunderstanding and consequent double standards with regard to the value of life. Addendum response: Con's response to this quite simple question is confused to say the least. Either they accept that the taking of human life is justifiable or they do not. They say yes, but then wish to pick and choose which lives they take. Once again, double standards. Which clearly suggests that Con's arguments are based on emotive thought and not logical thought. From a logical and realistic debating standpoint, I would assert that the life contained within an embryo or fetus has exactly the same value as the life contained within a terrorist bomber. Society makes rational collective decisions, that justify the taking of life, whether it be the life of a terrorist or the life of an embryo or undeveloped fetus. Not everyone will agree with those decisions, but accepting those decisions is the price we have to pay to be able to live in a relatively safe and stable society. One day our respective nations may decide to legislate against abortion and I for one will whole heartedly support that decision.
| 1 |
the act of deliberately causing an unborn child to die in the womb
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
yes
|
no
|
con
|
con
|
abor�tion 1: the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: as a: spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation — compare miscarriage b: induced expulsion of a human fetus c: expulsion of a fetus by a domestic animal often due to infection at any time before completion of pregnancy (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Abortion cannot be defined as murder, as it doesn't always involve the induced death of an embryo or fetus. Embryo: The organism in the early stages of growth and differentiation from fertilization to, in humans, the beginning of the third month of pregnancy. After that point in time, it is termed a fetus. (http://www.medterms.com...) 1.a. An organism in its early stages of development, especially before it has reached a distinctively recognizable form. b. An organism at any time before full development, birth, or hatching. 2.a. The fertilized egg of a vertebrate animal following cleavage. b. In humans, the prefetal product of conception from implantation through the eighth week of development. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...) Murder: 1: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) In order for my opponent's first statement to be valid: "Abortion is murder and it should be illegal.", abortion would have to first be illegal, and murder would have to be redefined in the US Code as the taking of human life including at the earliest stages of development. Abortion is a medical procedure, and should only be defined by medical doctors. In modern American history, the Christian Right has attempted to sequester this medical procedure and redefine it according to their own morals with complete disregard for the consequences of illegalizing abortion, the toll it will have on adoption rates in the US which are already dismal, and the social consequences of perpetuating a rise in illegal abortions. My opponent claims that an alternative for abortion is adoption. There are perpetually about 500,000 kids in foster care each year. With all the movement in and out of foster care, there is a constant 130,000 children awaiting adoption. In total, in 2007, 783,000 children were in the foster care system at some point. Only about 50,000 American children are adopted every year (http://www.acf.hhs.gov...). Abortion is currently LEGAL. In 2005, 1.21 million abortions were performed, down from 1.31 million in 2000. From 1973 through 2005, more than 45 million legal abortions occurred. What would my opponent propose happen with this rise in unwanted children if already there are only 50,000 adoptions per year in the US? An extra 1.2 million children born per year would be disastrous to our economy, our orphanages, and the children doomed to live their lives in these institutions. (http://www.guttmacher.org...). My opponent states that the "only reason why there should be an abortion is in case the baby is acting as a cancer and its killing the mother". I refute that my opponent can make this claim because he cannot get into the heads of millions of women who have had, and do have abortions and discern for them whether or not they had a good reason to have an abortion. Even lacking this argument, my opponent ignores the conditions of rape and incest. Who will father these children? Will he? Who will provide psychiatric support for these women- too often children themselves- who have been violated and impregnated by disgusting criminals? Who will provide the psychiatric support for the children themselves when they are born? My opponent ignores several issues related to illegalizing abortion, besides the ones I have mentioned above. Illegalizing abortion would not lower abortion rates, rather it will raise illegal abortion rates, and the mortality rates associated with abortion. In 1972, a year before abortion became legal, there were a reported 130,000 illegal abortions. From 1975-1979 there were 11,300 illegal abortions reported. (http://findarticles.com...) Repealing Roe v. Wade (one of the steps required to illegalize abortion) would most likely result in a rise in illegal abortions. Now, rather than opposing the right of a woman and her doctor to choose what she should do medically with her own body, we should be advocating education of controceptive use, education in alternatives to abortion, laws that would ease adoption rather than make it more difficult (like the recent Arkansas Unmarried Couple adoption ban, http://ballotpedia.org...(2008), and help for single mothers and families living in poverty. It is this work that helps reduce the number of annual abortions, and reducing the number of annual abortions should be everyone's goal rather than attacking the rights of a woman, and a medical procedure while not being medically qualified to judge what is and isn't good for the human body, what defines human life, and what is or isn't ethical/unethical in medicine. Thank you.
| 1 |
the termination of pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely associated with the death of the embryo, forming an early stage in the development of an organism
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
yes
|
neutral
|
con
|
Response Point 1: I don't think that the voters are going to find this a very reliable refutation. If nothing in the world can happen without God's approval, than I guess God changed is mind in 1973 for Roe vs. Wade, and is beginning to question that. Abortions happen everyday. Your statement is completely illogical. Response Point 2: What is your point with this point? Is there any argument here? Response Point 3: First of all, abortion is NOT illegal by law. Let's clear that up. And secondly, the "rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" were not aimed at babies, and the "right of life" was not aimed at babies either. This was talking about the individual person to make his own decision however he saw fit. So if she wants to have an abortion, that is here choice. Response Point 4: Sorry to break it do you, but quoting another debater who dosen't even have prove should not be a proof to your argument. That is not a proof at all. Response Point 5: I was going to use this in one of my next attack points, but oh well. ""A number of studies have looked at cases of women living in jurisdictions in which governmental approval to have an abortion was required, who sought to have an abortion, but were denied the ability to do so (Dagg, 1991; David, Dytrych, Matejcek and Schuller, 1988). For example, Dagg (1991) reports that these women overwhelmingly kept their babies, rather than giving them up for adoption, but that they often resented the unwanted children. These children who were born because their mothers were denied an abortion were substantially more likely to be involved in crime, even when controlling for the income, age, education and health of the mother.": http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu....... What I am trying to say is that after the women have the baby, the hormones racing in her do not allow her to give the baby up. She does not want to do it. Response Point 6: This does not prove that the baby is alive at any particular point. You could go on to say that atoms are alive because they struggle to form chemical compounds. Saying something like that does not leave any boundaries toward further advancement to the argument. Response Point 7: I wish you would provide quotes from this article like I do. Refer to my point 5. Response Point 8: There is nothing that has either upheld, nor proved that abortion should be illegal. One, since abortion is still legal, than the notion that the prohibition of abortion has been unheld is just wrong, and two, abortion is not and can not be proven illegal since it is legal. Here, you seem to think that abortion is illegal. I want you to look up Roe vs. Wade, than look up the court case that overturned Roe vs. Wade, and made a sweeping law prohibting abortion across the United States. Response Point 9: I don't think you understood the purpose of that argument. Let me sum it up for you. If abortion is made illegal, than some women are still going to seek abortions, but this time, underground abortions by untrained specialists. This means a higher number of deaths from abortion. If abortion is made illegal, it will not stop abortion. Thus, you have a serious problem. Response Point 10: What? Your point was not a rebuttal. I have provided proof for my argument that you are wrong. Response Point 11: Look at my response pont 5. You must provide a differnet rebuttal. I extend my arguments here from the last round into this round. Response Point 12: What? That is not even a refutation. Response Point 13: Most women do not feel guilt after an abortion. If they do, sources please. Response Point 14: I am not saying that all women that get pregnant are going to get breast cancer. What I am trying to say is that a higher PERCENTAGE of women who have a pregnancy have breast cancer than those who have an abortion. Since you have not provided a rebuttal, I extend my arguments here from the last round into this round. Attack Point 1: This one's a killer. One of the four major factors that decreased crime in the 1990s was abortion: http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu....... "The underlying theory rests on two premises: 1) unwanted children are at greater risk for crime, and 2) legalized abortion leads to a reduction in the number of unwanted births." :http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu...... "These children who were born because their mothers were denied a nabortion were substantially more likely to be involved in crime, even when controlling for the income, age, education and health of the mother.":http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu....... "For instance, homicide fell 25.9 percent in high-abortion states between 1985 and 1997 compared to an INCREASE of 4.1 percent in low-abortion states. Panel data estimates confiŽrm the strong negative relationship between lagged abortion and crime. An analysis of arrest rates by age reveal that only arrests of those born after abortion legalization are affected by the law change.":http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu....... There are so many great passages on this website to list all here. To have a better understanding of what this article is saying, read the article from the bottom of page 19 to the top of page 21. Also, look at the graphs throughout the article. Here is the article again: http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu....... And no, I can not prove the prohibiting abortion would just increase crime and poverty in the United States, but I can prove the legalizing abortion has decreased crime. Attack Point 2: Here is some simple logic. "Say abortion is still illegal. Then the 1 million babies aborted each year would raise the unemployment rate tremendously (based on Guttermacher estimates on abortion, unemployment would be between 15-20%). More babies from the 1980s now=a higher unemployment and povery rate." And more simple logic. "Say abortion is still illegal. Than the 56 million babies that would have survived may pay more taxes, but since over 90% are in the bottom 47% of the population (money wise), they don't pay any taxes (Look it up if you doubt me about the 47% not paying taxes). Also, they are sucking up Government Welfare money. So they would increase the Government Debt, not decrease".
| 1 |
the act of terminating a pregnancy prematurely
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Hello, I hold the null hypothesis when it comes to the issue of abortion.
| 1 |
the act of terminating a pregnancy after the fetus has developed enough to live outside the womb
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
con
|
Thanks amby, for offering up this debate. this would not be the first time i have debated abortion, and i find it a rather itchy topic. Nonetheless it should be interesting. ccount, FREEDOM- First if your going argue freedom, you must look at all sides of the equation. There obviously is a reason why this topic is so overtly hated. If your going to argue freedom, you should first takes all accounts of freedom into account, such as the baby. the baby who has not even had a chance at life, and is being refused to ever have a chance at life.. This is not freedom in any way. It was the mothers own fault to decide to go out and get pregnant with out protection. Not very responsible. Now she is left with the only option of filling out her responsibility, by carrying out the child. she destroys a whole life because she wants a few moments of pleasure. I find this very selfish on the mothers part. RAPE- O.K. So the mother got raped. She doesn't want to take responsibility of the child . Then dont! give the child up for adoption or close family member. Carry out through the pain and emoitional turmoil, to be humane. Yes, it was not fair and you didn't choose this decision, But don't act out of selfishness. Is it easier to murder a potential life, then to just Wait out the nine long hard months. You have to ask yourself if your ethics are correct if you negate that. Would you, Could you, risk a little bit of pain, to save a life?I know it wasn't the mother fault that she is pregnant. Its not fair to her that she has to go through this. It's not fair for anyone. But is it fair for the child either? To not let that child live because of his/her fathers wrong doing? Its just as unfair to the child as it is to the mother.She doesn't need to keep it. How could you look in to the eyes of you attacker everyday? But that shouldn't suggest that someone else can't care for the child. Thanks for this debate amber. ill be waiting for your rebuttal
| -1 |
the act of terminating a pregnancy as a means of family planning
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
I believe that abortion should be illegal except for when the pregnancy poses a serious threat to the life of the mother. Abortion, despite how it may seem, is not a complicated issue. Either the fetus is alive, and thus is a human life. or it isn't. there are a number of moral arguments to the debate. the first moral argument is that scientifically the human fetus meets the criterion to be considered alive from conception (1)" Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity." As we can see, the fetus is genetically human and meets every criterion to be considered alive. now that we have established that the human life begins at conception I may be faced with the argument from many in favor of abortion that though the organism forming in the womb is alive (if they don't fully reject the known science thus committing fallacy) that it is not a person. this leads me to moral argument number two which is: even if you don't consider the humanity of the organism in the womb, there are plenty of things that exist that are A. not persons. and B. has rights and intrinsic value, for example, dogs or other domesticated animals. To state that simply because you don't consider the human fetus (which is what I shall be referring to the developing child as hereinafter.) to be a person, does not mean that it does not have rights and value. Furthermore, even if you deny the humanity of the fetus, you are still dealing with a potential human life which should be held in higher moral regard than the convenience of the mother or father. Another argument that many of those on the pro-choice side of the argument is that women have the human right to control their bodies. And I am in complete agreement. When it is your body that you are doing something to then you should have every right to do so insofar as it's not self-harm. However, the human fetus is not your body. It is IN your body. as I stated in my first card in the scientific portion of my argument, the human fetus has a separate genetic identity with the restoration of the diploid number of chromosomes. therefore, the human fetus is not a part of the mother's body any more than the child would be after (s)he was born. I hold that the time to control your body would have been before conception IE: using birth control or not having sexual intercourse. one thing that society appears to have forgotten, is that sex is not for pleasure. it is the biological process through which most species ensure the continuation of their species through reproduction (2). if you choose to partake in an action the purpose of which is to reproduce. (thus controlling your body.) then you accept the risk of conception. Moral argument number 3. does the fetus have any rights, any intrinsic value, and any right to live. well, the collective opinion of society is that the fetus has essentially infinite right to live. when? if and only if the mother decides to keep the child. if she does, society and its laws, regard the fetus with infinite worth and considers it so valuable, that if someone were to kill that child they would be prosecuted for homicide. keeping in mind that the definition of homicide is: the deliberate and unlawful killing of one person by another (3). we can, therefore, see that if the mother decides to keep her child then the law recognizes it as a person. if she doesn't, the fetus is considered worthless with essentially no right to live. now, does that make sense? it doesn't seem to. either the fetus has worth, or it doesn't. on what moral grounds does the mother alone have the right to decide the fetus' worth? most people would consider killing the baby once it exits the womb as murder. however, the deliberate killing of the fetus a mere two months before is no more morally problematic than extracting a tooth. and finally, we need to recognize that there are instances when an abortion simply cannot be considered moral. take for example if the mother or father aborts a child because they prefer boys to girls. as has happened millions of times in China and elsewhere. or any other form of bias or preference of the mother or father simply cannot offer moral grounds for the termination of the human life. I look forward to a rational and well thought out debate and wish my opponent the best of luck. I eagerly await your response. (1) https://www.princeton.edu............... (2) www.biology-online.org (3)www.dictionary.com
| -1 |
the act of terminating a pregnancy
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
To claim that a fetus in the first trimester can survive long term, or even short term without its mother body and live a healthy life is a blatant lie. Maybe it can survive for a couple of days, but that's hardly a healthy life. Argument debunked. Prostitution should be legal as well. Just because the USA has archaic laws regarding prostitution doesn't mean we should also have archaic laws regarding abortion. We aren't arguing what the laws are; we are arguing what they should be. If we were, then you'd lose the abortion debate since it's legal. Argument debunked. I never claimed a child in the womb was less important than a kidney. That shows a lack of reading comprehension. I claimed that a woman is not obligated to use her body to save anyone's life, whether it be her fetus or to give someone else a kidney. Argument debunked. I never claimed a fetus wasn't important; I merely claimed that a woman's right to choose what to do with her body was MORE important. Argument debunked. Now, have you considered the cost of not letting anyone have an abortion? There are already 100 THOUSAND orphans in the USA, and that is with LEGAL abortion. https://showhope.org... If abortion were illegal, that number could easily be 1 million. Here are some questions for you: Who is going to take care of those children? Who is going to pay for it? Do you think that this will have a negative effect on the 100 thousand children waiting to be adopted, or do you not care about them? Do you know how traumatic it is to live a life where you know you weren't wanted? How do you think that is going to turn out? What about the mother who was forced to have a baby she didn't want? Did you ever consider the consequences of that?
| 1 |
the deliberate and often violent termination of a human pregnancy -- especially in the first eight months
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
con
|
con
|
They are not simply murdering their baby, they are reliving the baby from coming into a world that the mother knows wont go good for the baby because the mother is still struggling in life and will not be able to provide the baby with all its necessities. Babies are expensive, and not having any education or a job will decrease ones chances of being able to survive the land of all the high bills. I understand their is adoption, yet some mothers do not view another family taking care of the child they could not care for. The women that is soon to be mother might have gotten raped and decided that the baby would be better off in gods hands. A baby is no fool, yet it would not be fair for it to come into a world that it cannot be cared for in. Many abortions have been taken into account and our species is not dying off any time soon.
| 1 |
a deliberate termination of a pregnancy
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
"The greatest destroyer of peace is abortion because if a mother can kill her own child, what is left for me to kill you and you to kill me? There is nothing between," says Mother Teresa. Abortion, what does this really mean? The definition of abortion is the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks. About 42 million women in the entire world with unintended pregnancies choose abortion. Abortion is a big controversial topic, people believe abortion should be illegal and others think it should stay legal. Why would someone want to kill an innocent little life? It"s not their fault people made mistakes and now they"re the ones having to pay for it. Abortion should be illegal because abortions are not safe, laws are protecting unborn babies, and fetuses can feel pain. Abortion should have never been legal.
| -1 |
the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy especially in the medical or periodical sense
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Same here, its my first debate on this site too. **I would just like to clarify that I am talking about first trimester abortion, as my views regarding post -fetal abortion are yet to be determined** Firstly, the fact that a placenta and the umbilical cord attach the fetus shows that the fetus cannot exist independent of the mother. We cannot consider the fetus as an individual entity because it cannot live outside the mother"s womb. Additionally, adoption is not an alternative to abortion, and if so, a rather poor one at that. Statistics show that less than three percent of all women who refuse abortion choose to give their child up for adoption. Even if I concede that adoption is an alternative, what kind of life is that for a child? Adoption generally comes with a negative connotation and with good reason. There is no guarantee that the child will have a family, and the child might get tied up in the foster system. Next, you mentioned the child (fetus"s) right to a choice and having a voice in what happens to them. By prohibiting and dismissing abortion you are in turn taking away the mothers choice and her civil right to control her own body. What is next? Forcing women to use contraceptives or undergo sterilization? Not to mention, in cases of teenage pregnancies, without the option of abortion you are taking away the young woman"s future. Furthermore, you say that being put up for adoption and bounced around the system is better than being dead, but the child was never alive to begin with. Statistics that were found on abortion.us show that pregnant women will resort to illegal and unsafe abortions if a legal option is not available. In many cases abortion is the best option, especially in cases of rape and incest where the child is unwanted and having the child can cause severe psychological problems for both the mother and the child. Children born as a result of incest are at risk of being deformed. We are talking about quality of life, and since a mother has the responsibility of bringing a life into the world, she should in turn have the right or option of an abortion. Finally, all women should have the right to choose to have an abortion, and the government or any religious authority should not limit them.
| 1 |
the act of deliberately terminating a human pregnancy
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
I am arguing as for abortion. The reason being is that it is the choice of the woman; and if the man is there, him also; to keep to zygote or not. If they don't then let it be. Another reason is that there might be underlying issues with why the woman wants an abortion; like say if she got raped, or incest. That's why I feel like some one should have the choice to choose if they want to carry the child for nine months, or have the choice to abort it with in the first trimester.
| 1 |
the act of deliberately causing an abortion
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Round 1: Opening statements Round 2: Facts/Argument Round 3: Facts/Argument Round 4: Closing statements I look forward to my oppnents opening statements. Good luck In my opnion, Abortion is wrong. Abortion is basically killing something. It is murder. Which is why it should mot be legalized.
| -1 |
the act of terminating a pregnancy as a form of birth control
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Sorry that my rebuttal took so long, I have been busy Regarding the questions I "avoided" 1) Do you regard all life with an equal measure? No, I do not believe all existing life is equal to our human life. Bacteria are alive, however they are not equal to human life. 2) Do you eat? If so, you are prepared to extinguish the spark of life out of necessity and Impunity. Yes, however this does not correlate with abortion. The only justifiable reason for abortion is the mother not being able to endure giving birth. This is a life and death situation, so is eating. If you don't eat you die, however how is having a child a life and death situation? I do understand a child is a financial burden, but couples can easily avoid pregnancy. I stated that life is intangible, not tangible. Now let's go to my supposed double standards. OUR, as in humans. If you would have taken a minute to analyze the last paragraph you would have realized I'm talking about human life. Social legislation should be guided by rationale and not driven purely by emotion. Yes, many things mostly economic legislations are and should be guided by rationale. However by stating all legislation should purely be rational is utter nonesense. Murder, rape, cannibalism, and etc are prohibited by law in most of the world, especially western countries. However these fundamental laws are moral and emotional, the emotion that bringing in suffering to another human being is wrong. Many of these things were legal, and even endorsed centuries or in some countries decades ago. As morals change, laws change. Why is all life not equal? Have you ever heard of a keystone species, other organisms depend on these organisms, therefore from a logical/moral standpoint these keystone species's life is more valuable than others. Why? Whole ecosystems can crumble if a keystone species is not present or goes extinct. Explain what life is? Life is an organism that presents all 6 characteristics of life. The spark of life in humans is different. https://www.researchgate.net..., browse that page. It states exactly what I wanted to tell you, but couldn't find a way to spend less than 2 hours writing it. Addendum response: Yes and no, in some instances the taking of life is justifiable and in most others not. It is a way too broad question to be able to answer with a yes or a no, as these 2 governments have been doing this for decades.
| -1 |
a deliberate act of killing an unborn child
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
con
|
con
|
I'm assuming the resolution is along the lines of "abortion should generally remain legal" or "abortion is generally moral. " It would help if Pro could clarify this in the comments or in the next round so I know, precisely, what he wants to debate. I also believe that abortions to save the life of the mother are morally justifiable, as long as the child is not viable (in that case, a caesarian section should be done to save both mother and child). So I will be arguing that all other abortions are immoral/should be illegal (depending on which direction Pro wishes to take the debate). I have decided to take the debate with this style, as I'm planning on having my first in-person Lincoln-Douglas style debate in a few months, so this will be good practice. Just a quick addendum to the definition of abortion. Abortion is generally defined as the termination of a woman's pregnancy that results in the death of the embryo/fetus. It's not enough to say it's simply the expulsion of it because in most cases, you are actually killing the embryo/fetus in order to remove it (the only exceptions being taking a pill that prevents the embryo from implanting into the womb). I look forward to our next round, and to Pro's opening argument.
| -1 |
a decision that is made by considering all the relevant factors
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Abortion should never be accepted in any culture, whether religious or not, I fail to see how anyone can be pro killing unborn babies. The issue on preserving the wildlife is more argued for than the issue on saving humans lives and I feel that is the biggest flaw in our country.
| -1 |
the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Abortion is not killing innocent life. Rather, it's letting a woman control her own body. Abortion is accepted because a woman has the right to choose what she wants to do with her body. The fetus needs the body of the mother to survive. If human A needs a part of human B to survive, e.g. a kidney transplant, it is entirely up to human B whether or not he wants to give human A a kidney. Even if human B is dying and his kidneys will rot with him, he decides what to do with his own body. Even if human A's life is at stake and human B's life is already over, with rotting kidney's, it's still human B's right to choose what to do with his dead body. Is this considered murder? No, of course it's not. Is it a little douchey? Perhaps. Is it acceptable? Yes, a person has the right to do whatever he wants with his body. If the fetus can survive on its own, then abortion is more of an up in the air debate. However, if the fetus needs the mother's body (which it does), abortion comes down to the simple principal of a woman has the right to choose what she wants to do with her body. By letting the fetus control a woman's body, you are granting a fetus rights to someone else's body. No one has rights to anyone's body but that person. Period A fetus needs a mother's body to survive. If the mother does not want to let the fetus use her body, it doesn't have to. The fetus is a part of a parasitic relationship; although its body is affected, it's using the body of the mother to survive. Yes, the fetus is alive. Agreed. Fact 1-2 agreed. Fact 3, it's murder because as was stated above, a WOMAN decides what to do with her body, not anyone else. If the woman doesn't abort the fetus, it's murder.
| 1 |
the deliberate destruction of a nonhuman organism especially an embryo or fetus or a germ or fungu
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
con
|
neutral
|
Sorry, this took longer to revise than I thought. Shall we go on?As agreed to legal is defined as something that is allowed and permitted by law. This is important because if something is illegal then there won't be ANY exceptions to that rule, no situations will be fit for an abortion legally. The structure of my argument is three-fold. One will be dealing with the morality of the action itself, the second one will deal with special exceptions to which my opponent has somewhat conceded to and the third one will deal with how far legal actions can go. In order to win the debate my opponent must not only prove that there is no morally acceptable situation in which abortion is the answer but also that the best way to fight abortion is with legal constraints, he must defend ALL RESOLUTION CONDITION that I'll put forth. With that in mind, let us move on to the first section:MORALITYImagine this if you will: You've just finished your higher education and are free, you have perhaps a year to see the world and experience everything you have not already experienced. You want to love, be loved, be care free and enjoy life. This is a rather rational wish, isn't it? What are you going to do if I come along and lock the door and tell you that you are not allowed to go anywhere, that you cannot live your dreams to your fullest and chain you to your house. Would you consider me to be breaking your human rights? Of course I would be. You'd most likely sue me for breaking your freedom of life. You never had a chance to live your dreams. Did I violate your right? Is it morally correct of me to obligate you to abandon your dreams? Of course it isn't. But this is happening every day everywhere and we cannot deny that. But what if the “I” in this story is replaced with an infant. Is it still morally incorrect? Is it still morally correct to force a woman to abandon her life and dreams and force her to birth a child she does not want to have, essentially trying her to her house? No, the scenario in it's core is unchanged. It is her body and legally obligating her to having the child and denying her her right to choose is just as immoral as my first scenario. On what grounds? The rights of the unborn infant?Why is it so that my opponent will argue that the right of a random cluster of cells that have just as much independent life as a small part of your skin has more right than the mother? The cell cluster has no thoughts, it is not self-aware, it cannot think, does not have feelings, does not show signs of sentient life and is in no definition of the word more human than the bacteria in your intestine. Yet my opponent indirectly wishes to argue that it has priority, that it's rights are somehow “more important” than the rights of the mother who does show all signs of intelligent life, human emotions and the ability to be self-aware. What makes her rights so much lesser than the rights of the child? Since we cannot keep the human rights valid for both parents and children my opponent must answer the following question to win: Why is the unborn infant more worthy of human rights than the parent?A child is not a human any more than a blueprint is a house. it has all the potentials to be a house, but it isn't a house. demolishing an already built structure just so the blueprint gets a chance to be a house as well is absurd. Abortion, under con's set of arguments, is just as moral as violating human rights, so which would you rather choose?When is it “ok” to abort? Assuming that abortion becomes illegal in all cases: Will there be no exceptions? My opponent wishes that rape abortion is still legal. On what grounds? Why is that still legal? Is there in fact a difference?Be careful however: because I am going to tell you right now that this is a trick question: for I am going to use whatever you answer against you. There are a minuscule amount of answers that are fitting for rape-pregnancies that are not ALSO compatible with regular pregnancies. So, either my opponent finds a great reason for abortion in case of rape that does not fit at some level with a regular abortion or he falls from his case and fights that all abortions are illegal. This leads us to the first major contradiction in my opponents case. When we're not talking about rape a fetus has potential, it might live a great life, could be given away to an orphanage and has rights that must not be violated, its murder. But when the child is a result of rape, it has no potential? What makes this child right less? It had nothing to do with the rape, it's not it's fault. Why should it be discriminated against when some other fetus has all the rights in the world? Does the history of the father make this child any worse? Is it evil and deserves to die because it has a rapist father? It's the same child, it has the same rights, abortion is not an exception. Any set of logic that my opponent can find to protect or diminish rape infants will also hold for infants that are not a rape result if my opponent cannot defend the “paradox” that a child that is the result of rape has less human rights than any other child, he has lost the debate.But we still have an unaddressed issue: My female friend. See, I have a female friend. She unfortunately isn't perfectly healthy: and should not try and complete a pregnancy since doing so will most likely result in her health worsening or she simply dies from physical trauma. Let's assume she becomes pregnant. Are you to expect it from her to actually carrying trough with her pregnancy and risking her life? If the government forces her to finish it and she dies. The government is now guilty of the murder of a young woman that could have been avoided. Why should she not have an abortion? It is literally the only method for her, the only option that does NOT result in a bad ending. What does my opponent want to do for my friend? Is legal banning a solution?The law is meant to be broken. This isn't something that is generally supported or correct, but it is still so. The harder we press to ban a certain matter the more active it gets. You can look at drug abuse and prostitution to see that. It's still peaking again and again, underground it flows like water and we cannot stop it, we cannot monitor it. Whatever is banned becomes black market material. Abortion is no different. Abortion is LEGAL and still over 700.000 die from ILLEGAL operations[1]. If abortion is banned illegal operations will only increase, will only spiral out of control. When something is legal we have a chance to monitor it, tax it and make sure safety regulations and health conditions are always met to protect the mother for instance. with abortion becoming black we can no longer monitor it, it becomes hidden, unsafe and dangerous. Think clamping the limbs and dragging them out is bad? Sticking a metal coat hanger inside the genitalia of the woman and scraping the child out is much worse and the child STILL dies. We now have a third condition:If my opponent cannot explain how illegal operations can be dealt with in a safe, efficient manner, he has lost the debate.I'll cover adoption in my next round: I just ran out of room for now. I hope you see that abortion is in fact moral when we shift the perspective. The mother is in danger, she might have been raped, her human rights are on the line, she is looking at a nearly $241,080 expense and a lifetime of unwanted commitment. And for what? The rights of a few cells that are not humans in any other sense apart from the potential to become one later on. Because the condom broke, the pill failed, a rape. That is a big fall for a small reason. Choosing between human rights isn't easy, but I hope you all see that the rights of those born should be greater than those that are not born, and are little more than just a blueprint to a house. 1) http://www.genderacrossborders.com......2)http://money.cnn.com...
| 1 |
an act or process of terminating a pregnancy
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
"Not all chicken eggs are unfertilised..." If you were to crack open an unfertilized chicken egg, you would notice. [1] "Furthermore, several living plants have to be killed to obtain food or wood, but no value of life over there eh?" You are incredibly mistaken, the reason we kill these organisms is because their products are very valuable. Vegetables and wood are valuable commodities. Humans, however early in development, are valuable in their own right. "Or what about [the] killing of living chickens and cattle for meat?" I think you will be surprised to know that livestock animals are only bred and kept for the purposes of their products. They do not exist but to feed us. It is basic supply and demand. Without the demand, there is no supply. Without our hunger for meat, these animals would not have been bred. "And not every single proponent of a foetus should count as living. After all, it is not functional during that time period." Really? A foetus does not function? The function of a foetus is to develop his characteristics as to be able to perform the functions of a prenatal being. I think the majority of foetuses perform that function very well. "Animals and plants are just as living as, if not more than a foetus." Of course, but do animals and plants, in their mature, yea, even their developing stages possess even a fraction of the potential for greatness, a fraction of the potential beneficial impact on the world as a foetus? The answer is no. The second an ovum is fertilised by a sperm cell the DNA, what makes us unique, is exchanged between the mother and the father in a mostly random way which creates the first metre of the tapestry of life. You will develop this way. You will have these eyes, this facial structure and other such characteristics. That's definite. If some crazy murderer doesn't come along and pluck you from your developmental chamber before you are ready, you will definitely be this person and there will never be another like you. That is the miracle of human life. The probability of your mother meeting your father is 1 in 20,000, the probability of them reproducing is thereafter 1 in 2000. The probability of the exact sperm and egg meeting after this sexual exchange that would lead to you existing exactly as you do is 1 in 400,000,000,000,000,000. The probability of every one of your ancestors following the aforementioned processed is one in [4x10^17]150,000 W76; 10^2,640,000. The probability of you being born is 10^2,685,000. Again, that is the miracle of human life.[2] "We shouldn't force parents to keep a child they don't want. This will be bad for the child due to ill-treatment from the parents, and will be bad for the parents for the reason they wanted abortion." There are multiple viable alternatives to this, in the first instance: condoms. In later instances, adoption. No one should be killed for the irresponsibility of his parents. "Suppose if we find out that the unborn child has some deformities/ infection, shouldn't we give it a merciful death rather than an impaired, handicapped life?" I think we should give him or her the best life he or she could possibly hope for. I think we should provide the utmost in palliative care. I mean, by your Hitleresque logic, Stephen Hawkins should have been shown mercy and killed as soon as he showed symptoms of motor neurone disease. [1] http://www.poultryhub.org... [2] Second-hand source initially cited by Mel Robbins during her talk at TEDx San Francisco.
| -1 |
the deliberate termination of a pregnancy
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
This debate was suicide for my opponent from the get go. Con wants to argue that abortion is an unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another (murder), and that a decision making abortion more lawful than it already is, should be overturned. mur·der/ˈmərdər/ Noun: The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. Verb: Kill (someone) unlawfully and with premeditation. [1]My opponent's position is incoherent. This is because, if Roe v. Wade exists, then abortion cannot be unlawful (Roe v. Wade enhances the lawfulness of abortion), and therefore it is not murder. On the other hand, if abortion is murder, then Roe v. Wade wouldn't exist, and therefore, it being overturned would be impossible. Vote Pro. Sources[1] . http://oxforddictionaries.com...
| 1 |
a deliberate act that causes the death of an individual of ethnic or national minority
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
con
|
Again, my position on "pro-choice" is that it is not for me, nor a body of government, or a religious group to decide what a woman can or cannot do with her body or what goes on inside of it. It is the choice of the woman, and the woman alone. I also cannot do anything more than speculate on why a woman might say that they had no other choice than abortion, as I am not pregnant, nor a woman. Perhaps some women feel this way because they feel that even if the child is born, there is no chance that that child will live to have a good life; perhaps some women feel this way because their lives would be put in grave danger if they were to continue with their pregnancy; perhaps some women feel this way because their child would be born with a defect that would result in infant mortality. Whatever the reason may be for a woman to feel like there is no other choice, I still don't feel that anyone else should be able to make that choice for them. To clarify my earlier question, I was asking at what point do you consider it a human being? Is it a human being the exact moment of conception, when the sperm meets the egg? Or is it human being when it starts to develop human features? Or is it a human being the moment there is a heartbeat? In other words, at what point along the growth of a fetus, from conception to birth, would you consider it to be a human being?
| 1 |
the termination of a pregnancy after, with the loss of the fetus that has developed outside the uterus
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Rebutting My Opponent"Law does not define terms."Murder is defined as unlawful. Therefore, being unlawful is a necessary condition which needs to be in place, for a murder to take place. "By what you are saying if the government made murder legal then there would be no murder."If the government made killing of any kind was lawful, then murder would not exist."There would still be murder, it just wouldn't be prosecuted. I would like it if you actually argued the issue that is at hand instead of trying to jump on a technicality, in my first sentence. For you I will restate my opening argument."There would not be murder, because it wouldn't be against the law. Murder is defined as unlawful. Here is another definition:"mur·der n. 1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice."[1] "I am arguing that abortion is the immoral killing of another human innocent life. It is not the choice of the mother to decide whether or not the fetus is aborted."This is great, but I accepted the debate on the terms my opponent provided in the first round. For trying to change it mid-debate, I urge a conduct vote for Pro. Regardless, I will still debate with this new argument for fun, but I hope the voters are aware the resolution has already been negated, and an argument vote for Pro is warranted regardless of any further argumentation. "I am sorry for my confusing opening statement but I hope that you will continue a serious debate on my restated argument."When one doesn't make serious opening arguments, how can one expect to get serious responses? It doesn't matter anyway, my response was very serious. Argument In Favor Of Abortion Not Being Immoral P1: Human life gains moral value when when consciousness is obtained, and/ or pain can be feltP2: A first and second trimester fetus is not conscious (about as conscious as a kidney), and can feel no pain.P3: Most abortions (99%) are obtained in the first and second trimester of pregnancyP4: Abortion is not unethical Regarding Premise 1:Human life's value begins when consciousness begins and/or pain can be felt is more than a fair statement. It's only rational to assume that human life's value is based on the actions and feelings of conscious beings. It's also rational to assume that if a being isn't conscious and can feel no pain, then there is nothing immoral which can be done to this being. It is morally dead.Regarding Premise 2: Abortions carried out in the first and second trimester have absolutely no moral implications once so ever, due to the fact that a first trimester embryo is not conscious [2]. Also, first and second trimester embryos can feel absolutely no pain once so ever because pain receptors are required for this. Pain receptors need a neotox which is not formed until the third trimester [2]. Regarding Premise 3Over 88% of all abortions are actually done within the first trimester [3]. Some sources even claim that the number is more around 88-92% [4]. What about second trimester abortions?"About 140,000 second trimester abortions are performed yearly. They represent 9% of the total"So, I think it is safe to say that close to all abortions Regarding Premise 4Since first and second trimester embryos have no consciousness and cannot feel pain, and 99% abortions are carried out in the first and second trimester, then the majority of abortions don't really imply any genuine negative moral implications (and therefore, should not be considered unethical).A Woman Has a Right To Choose A woman has a right to do with her own body as she pleases. Even is she commits suicide after like some women do, that wouldn't mean the woman didn't have the right to do it or it was unethical. What is unethical is restricting someone's right to chose what they want to do with their own body, especially when we are dealing with a subject that isn't even aware it exists and can feel no pain.Since this woman a conscious being and can feel pain, while the subject in question does not meet the requirements, then not letting this woman have the right to chose to have an abortion would be extremely unethical.Conclusion I amused my opponent by rebutting her the argument, but the one I agreed to debate to has been negated clearly without sufficient rebuttal. Sources[1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[2] http://civilliberty.about.com...[3] http://contraception.about.com... [4] http://www.abort73.com...
| 1 |
the deliberate and unlawful killing of a human being
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
con
|
con
|
This issue is not about the potential parent, it is about the child that had no choice in their making. If someone was to have an abortion, I believe that person was making the right decision for themselves but also for there child. If a person has too many doubts about having a child then I do not believe they deserve too; furthermore, I do not believe the child deserves a parent that is not prepared mentally, physically and financially to bring up this child with everything they need. My belief of "Pro-Choice" is because I am an advocate for children because that child does not have a choice.
| 1 |
the deliberate destruction of a nonhuman organism especially an embryo or fetus before it is born
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
yes
|
no
|
neutral
|
con
|
OK so you said I failed to tell you why the fetus/baby is a human and your right but I will now tell you why it is a human being going off of several definitions 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. Human being: A member of any of the races of Homo sapiens; person; man, woman, or child You see these do not state the fact that the fetus/baby has to be born yet. It is a child (Human being) a female to start off and then either stays a female or develops male-like features. therefore going back to the murder statement: Murder: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. since we have now established that the fetus/baby is a human being you can now see that this is in fact murder. the fetus/baby (human being) is being sucked out (killing the fetus/baby) by another human being. Although you could say it is Justifiable Homicide (only if the abortion is legal in most cases it is) there is no difference between when abortion was illegal and now when it is legal besides the fact that it is legal. there is a slight difference between murder and Justifiable Homicide. but the thing is, is it really justifiable besides the fact that it is now legal to kill an innocent fetus/baby. You can not say that it isn't innocent, because it hasn't done anything, the father did something continuing on I am also going to go on to your rape statement along with the murder and justifiable homicide. If a teenager is raped and she gets pregnant (now this is rare for a teenager to get pregnant from a rape so you can barely make this point but I will address it anyways) who is there to blame, the father, not the child. The teenager is living with her parents and in this case there are several people who can in fact take care of the child. even if they are poor the teenager and parent(s) can take care of child giving the baby more support than a wanting child. If the teenager is too scared to take care of a child she decides to get an abortion but, can it be justified besides it being a legal abortion JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE: That which is committed with the intention to kill, or to do a grievous bodily injury, under circumstances which the law holds sufficient to exculpate the person who commits it. 2. It is justifiable, 1. When a judge or other magistrate acts in obedience to the law. 2. When a ministerial officer acts in obedience to a lawful warrant, issued by a competent tribunal. 3. When a subaltern officer, or soldier, kills in obedience to the lawful commands of his superior. 4. When the party kills in lawful self-defence. 3.-1. A judge who, in pursuance of his duty, pronounces sentence of death, is not guilty of homicide; for it is evident, that as the law prescribes the punishment of death for certain offences, it must protect those who are entrusted with its execution. A judge, therefore, who pronounces sentence of death, in a legal manner, on a legal indictment, legally brought before him, for a capital offence committed within his jurisdiction, after a lawful trial and conviction, of the defendant, is guilty of no offence. 4.-2. Magistrates, or other officers entrusted with the preservation of the public peace, are justified in committing homicide, or giving orders which lead to it, if the excesses of a riotous assembly cannot be otherwise be repressed. 5-2. An officer entrusted with a legal warrant, criminal or civil, and lawfully commanded by a competent tribunal to execute it, will be justified in committing homicide, if, in the course of advancing to discharge his duty, he be brought into such perils that, without doing so, he cannot either save his life, or discharge the duty which he is commanded by the warrant to perform. And when the warrant commands him to put a criminal to death, he is justified in obeying it. 6.-3. A soldier on duty is justified in committing homicide, in obedience to the command of his officer, unless the command was something plainly unlawful. 7.-4. A private individual will, in many cases, be justified in committing homicide, while acting in self-defense. See Self-defense. Vide, generally, It's not any of these reason's its a justifiable homicide besides the fact that it is because it is some how legal. she's not defending herself (no one is coming at her) she's not a solider she's not a officer she's not a judge now going back to the human being definition: there by it can't be a mammal because of the difference between a human being and a mammal, that a fetus is developing even before the mother aborts the fetus/baby. OK the nutrition part. Why is there two different things, because they need different things because they are developing differently. Why is it in two different spots, because the baby is inside the mother for nine months and outside afterwards. She's not stealing those things either. when you get your period it's preparing your body for pregnancy some of those stuff is just for pregnancy. the body is for pregnancies. You can't say the baby is taking away and it's not right because your womb prepared for it not so you can kill the baby and say it was taking away the nutrition and now it's your right to kill it, just because you can.
| -1 |
the act of killing a fetus or baby
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
con
|
con
|
"The cost is not minimal. The average cost to raise a child is $245,340 http://www.huffingtonpost.com....... Multiply that by 1 million and well....Argument debunked" You aren't debunking anything. So you believe that ending someone's life and not giving them a chance at life is a better option? This is a disgusting ideal abortionists try to convince themselves and other of. "Let's not be burdened by the cost of a human being due to its inconvenience to others..." "Sex is natural and has nothing to do with being able to raise a child. Evolution made sex feel really good so that we would produce. Practically everyone wants to have sex badly. It's a natural desire. Argument debunked." Yes, sex is natural. What, exactly, does that have anything to do with aborting a child? "Sex is fun, so we should just allow anyone to engage in it and then terminate the human growing inside if we don't want to deal with the consequences of our actions." "No, you are only looking at your side of the picture, rather than considering EVERY piece of evidence," Actually, I have, which is why I am pro life. "As I stated, there are 100k orphans ALREADY. If we become antiabortion, this number will reach ridiculous heights." Abortion became legal in the United States in 1973. Was there overpopulation before this? No. This argument isn't even relevant. "Actually, no. This is untrue. Pain MIGHT be felt for a couple of seconds." No, pain is felt for a while as it bleeds out after being ripped apart limb from limb. And if the fetus is a bunch of cells, how does it feel pain at all? Pain indicates that it is a human life being painfully ended.
| -1 |
the act of deliberately killing an unwanted unborn child
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
con
|
con
|
I will argue that abortion should never be illegal, and that pro-lifers use seriously flawed, illogical arguments to support pro-life views. Contention 1: Life is not sacred Contention 2: Human life does not start at conception Contention 3: A fetus is not a person I will basically forfeit the rest of round one and be limited to rounds two and three to make my points. Happy arguing!
| 1 |
the deliberate and intentional destruction of the fetus
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
con
|
con
|
The cost is not minimal. The average cost to raise a child is $245,340 http://www.huffingtonpost.com.... Multiply that by 1 million and well....Argument debunked "If a parent can't handle a child, maybe they shouldn't engage in sexual activity until they can. It isn't right, morally, to end an innocent life." This is a ridiculous statement. Sex is natural and has nothing to do with being able to raise a child. Evolution made sex feel really good so that we would produce. Practically everyone wants to have sex badly. It's a natural desire. Argument debunked. "I care about children, which is why I am pro life." No, you are only looking at your side of the picture, rather than considering EVERY piece of evidence, whereas I have weighed both the positives and the negatives of abortion and formulate my argument accordingly. I highly suggest you learn to think objectively. For example, like I stated, you haven't considered the cost of having tons of unwanted babies. This affects the babies already in an orphanage. You claim to care about children, yet you don't consider the wants and needs of the babies already in an orphanage looking for a home. As I stated, there are 100k orphans ALREADY. If we become antiabortion, this number will reach ridiculous heights. I mentioned it already but you ignored it so here it is again: how do you think this will affect the children already in the orphanage? Or do you not care about them? "A lot less traumatic than being ripped apart while still alive. But then again, you believe the child in the womb isn't even alive. It has been proven that a child in the womb CAN feel pain. http://www.mccl.org...... http://www.doctorsonfetalpain.com...; Actually, no. This is untrue. Pain MIGHT be felt for a couple of seconds. To claim this is MORE traumatic than a life time of knowing that you are unwanted is faulty reasoning. Evidence debunked.
| 1 |
to suppress or eliminate
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
To every person the time when a child is considered to be living changes. So at what point is this child actually considered to be a person? Not at conception when the magic begins as you claim. How about six weeks when it starts to form ears, a mouth, and a nose and has a heartbeat pumping what is often a different blood type than that of the mother. Or at seven weeks when it begins to form hands and feet. How about week ten when it begins to grow organs. By the end of week thirteen, it has its own unique fingerprints and working kidneys. By week eighteen, it has developed its reproductive organs and may not even be the same gender as the mother. The rest of the time the child is growing bigger and maturing its brain and lungs until it comes out for that first sweet breath of air. So again I ask when does a person become a person. When you have a pregnant friend you ask them how the baby is coming not "How's the sex cell doing today". The child's DNA is different from its mothers from the moment of conception. While this child is still attached to its mother it itself is not a part of her body. It is a separate life form that will have a close bond with this person for life. I do not care if a woman gets a tattoo, piercings, breast enlargements/reductions, plastic surgery or whatever. What a woman can not do however is get away with murder, and that is what abortion is. "pro-choice" advocates get upset when pro-life people hold up a picture of the dead child recently aborted or will try to lock away the people who showed how Planned Parenthood was harvesting the organs of the unborn children instead of the monsters at Planed Parenthood. There is a reason Norma McCorvey known better as Jane Roe spent the second half of her life fighting for life. The immoral action that is murder kills the sole. I see no difference in the act of having an abortion that the despicable act that Dylan Roof made when he shot up that church. One hundred from now we will look back on abortion the same way we look at slavery today. https://www.babycenter.com... http://www.lifenews.com...
| -1 |
the deliberate killing of a nonhuman animal especially as a form of population control
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
con
|
Abortion does indeed kill a child. Yet, the death of a young child before birth could save the child of a painful life. Even if the baby feels this pain for seconds, it will never remember it. This is why a child is circumcised so young. Either way, a child born into poverty or born of a rape victim in many cases will end up having a life worth than death, and end up dying later on of neglect or starvation.
| 1 |
the act of bringing forth a child or young as if by an animal
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
BABY OR NOT? Yes it is a baby. he/she still has potential for life. he/she would be a living human being with thoughts and love and feelings just as any other human being. Denying The Child that privilige- no not privilige a better word for that would be freedom- would be unjust and wrong. The second that couple decided to have unprotected sex, was the second they put a life in motion. and please state some some sources of those 'facts' about egg fertilization. because i believe that is a total hoax. but if you want to argue scientifically, scientists have also claimed that the fetus is alive.If you do not know this already, you can research this. Embrio's have been proven to be alive. And either way, even if the they weren't, the card has already been pulled. The baby had that oppurtunity at having a life the second the mother was pregnant. There would still have been a life produced whether living at the moment or not. The second that mother gets pregnant, is the second, that potential child is alive. So yes, I would still say that is murder. CHILDS LIFE- MY OPPONENT-"But, if you want to think about it from the child's point of view, the child will feel like it was a mistake everyone hates. Personally I would rather die than think that my own mother didn't even want me." Let me point out specifically the words my opponents used were 'me presonally'. there's always going to be something missing in their life some questions that cannot be answered like "why didn't my mummy want me " which could eat a child inside out." Yes i am sure the question would arise to the child about there parents reasoning for leaving them behind. But should that imply that there whole entire life from that point on will be truly and utterly miserable? To the point where they should not even Have the right to live? Like they don't have every oppurtunity to progress in life as any other? Things such as marriage, and friendship, and their own legacy of children perhaps. No, there is no reason for them not to have those every equal oppurtunites at happiness, Just because there "mummy and daddy" gave them up. As if the child would be trying to commit suicide just to preserve his emotions. These mothers are making that desicion for them. They don't even get the CHOICE to choose happiness or death of bitterness. They assume the latter and just kill the child, which is utterly wrong and cruel. Those who claim to be pro-choice, look on every aspect of the ideal pro-'choice'. Respect the the childs decision as well. The mother got a chance at life. She got too experience happiness and sadness. Why deny the child of this same freedom? MY OPPONENT- "This topic is so conditional that you can't say 'It was the mothers own fault to decide to go out and get pregnant with out protection.' You can be on the pill and use a condom, there is still a chance of getting pregnant. However slim, there is a chance." ok hun, if he has a condom, and she's on the pill and she still gets pregnant, she's obviously gotten around... however, even if what you claim is true, theres a little thing i like to call responsibility. now that she is pregnant, she holds another life in the palm of her hands. She can easily choose to carry it out, witch would be a win-win situation. the mother lives, and the child lives. However, out of selfishness, she chooses not to, and by doing so, ends another life. This is not taking responsibility. MY OPPONENT- "A mother has free agency. She should be allowed to choose. And the consequences should not be determined by the state. Whatever God one believes in or your own guilt is by far a worse punishment." It is true a mother has free agency. But that doesn't make it right. When debating abortion, you come to a conclusion of morality. Morality = right/wrong. Is ending the baby's life moral? where is his/her free agency? They are denied to ever have an oppurtunity to live. Witch means they are denied to ever have kids of their own, or to get married, or ever experience happiness. Is this fair? where is the justice in this? The mother can have all these same oppurtunities, but the child cannot? you must ask yourself now if this is a good thing. MY OPPONENT- "Not to mention the mothers who give birth because they are given no other option might go beat the child they were forced to give life." abusive parenting is not an issue with abortion either. There are parents all over america who are abusive. This is where the law comes in. The law prevents child abuse, and just because the parents didn't want the child and abuse him/her, doesn't mean that its right. This whole debate is based on how the mother decision is wrong. By telling me that she is going to make wrong decisions and abuse the child, you are only strengthening my case. again if they dont want to deal with the child, there is adoption. SELFISHNESS- MY OPPONENT-" I want the option to be selfish sometimes! Everyone does" Since this is now a debate about morality, do you think that being selfish is moral? and how are you taking responsibility by being selfish? If that is the case, then us as people need to notice the flaw in ourselves.If what you say about selfishness being an issue is an any correlation to abortion, I am not misjudging anyone by saying this an issue with abortion. OTHER ISSUES- MY OPPONENT- "And if you take away the option of abortion some of these people who were forced into this situation people might start doing abortions unprofessionally to make a quick dollar. Lets face it, it will happen. And if its not professionally done bad things can happen, its guaranteed to happen, as it does with any medical procedure." OKay, so just because people doing un-professional abortions is bad, means they should go get an official one? wheres the difference? I am arguing that abortion is bad in all cases. even if done unprofessionally. I would like to again thank my opponent for this debate. It should be fun, and i look forward to your next argument (amby) ;)
| -1 |
the deliberate destruction of a foetus
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
yes
|
no
|
con
|
neutral
|
Ok, yes rape is terrible and is a very traumatic experience. However it is still murder. God has a plan for all of us (I don't mean to offend anyone if you don't have the same beliefs). God makes everything happen for a reason. Many people say "don't let others make decisions for you." This fetus can't make a decision to be killed. People argue that its the woman's body and they can do what they want with it, but it's not their body they are killing. They are killing a whole other person. No one should have the authority to kill such an innocent creature. It is also true that woman die at birth, but woman also die during the abortion. More than 400 hundred woman have died from abortion (not including illegal ones). It saddens me how woman will risk their lives to kill this one. Many mothers cry over losing a child, whether it be to disease, war, car crashes, miscarriage, or gang violence but these mothers are killing their kids before they have even met them. These mothers knowing and willingly let their children die.
| -1 |
the deliberate and unlawful killing of a human being especially an infant before or after birth
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
con
|
con
|
U thabk my opponent fot this debate, I hope he enjoys it. =)C1: A fetus is a human, therefore it's murderSince a fetus is a human, it should be considered murder. I will now prove thait a fetus is a human being. A scientific textbook called “Basics of Biology” gives five characteristics of living things; these five criteria are found in all modern elementary scientific textbooks: 1. Living things are highly organized. 2. All living things have an ability to acquire materials and energy. 3. All living things have an ability to respond to their environment. 4. All living things have an ability to reproduce. 5. All living things have an ability to adapt. According to this elementary definition of life, life begins at fertilization, when a sperm unites with an oocyte. From this moment, the being is highly organized, has the ability to acquire materials and energy, has the ability to respond to his or her environment, has the ability to adapt, and has the ability to reproduce (the cells divide, then divide again, etc., and barring pathology and pending reproductive maturity has the potential to reproduce other members of the species). Non-living things do not do these things. Even before the mother is aware that she is pregnant, a distinct, unique life has begun his or her existence inside her. [1] So according to these definitions, a fetus is a human. Killing it would be murder, and it's not justified because its not self-defense. An abortion is only justified in the case to save a mothers life. Life begins at conseption. Furthermore, that life is unquestionably human. A human being is a member of the species homo sapiens. Human beings are products of conception, which is when a human male sperm unites with a human female oocyte (egg). When humans procreate, they don’t make non-humans like slugs, monkeys, cactuses, bacteria, or any such thing. Emperically-verifiable proof is as close as your nearest abortion clinic: send a sample of an aborted fetus to a laboratory and have them test the DNA to see if its human or not. Genetically, a new human being comes into existence from the earliest moment of conception. [1] More of the same... “I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly, I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy.” Hippocrates, 400 B.C., Greece Sorry if the enlarged stuff is annoying, but that is from my first source. C2: It is morally wrong to kill a person, society looks down upon those acts. This is hard to argue against. A fetus is a person therefore it is murder (or should be considered so). I have proven my point aboveas pf now, that a fetus is a human being. I will expand next round on that point as it will be needed. But this point relates to the one above, a fetus is a human, killing it is murder, and killing is morally wrong. Same old same old. C3: It is morally wrong to kill a fetus Well a fetus is a human, and killing unless in self-defense is morally wrong, so it is morally wrong to kill a fetus. This point relys on the 2 above. C4: Religeon in some cases pohibits abortion. This is undisputable, but I will add on to it anyway. This point only relys towards christians. “…and Rebekah his [Isaac’s] wife conceived. And the children struggled together within her…” (Genesis 25:21-22). Notice that when she conceived, i was called a child. It consideres the zygot a human. This biblical quote is from my seond source as well. Also look at the 10 commandments: "thou shall not kill", or "thou shall not murder", depending on the translation, but that specfically states that murder/killing is wrong, and above calls a zygot a child, so in god's eyes abortion is murder because he agrees with my above conentions. ALso, Catholics are against abortion, as you know, and many protestants are as well. So this only applies to christians, abortion is wrong on the lines of our faith. C5: More people are pro-life than pro-choice as of 2011 This is just a little side argument: So theres that. Rebuttals: "Since my opponent’s main case relies on abortion being murder, it will also be my obligation to negate his contention. If I’ve fulfilled this obligation, you must negate the resolution." Well I have proven that a fetus is a human, but I will add on to it here, if fetus is a human then it is murder: Fetuses feel pain during an abortion according to Kanwaljeet J. S. Anand, MBBS, DPhil, Professor of Pediatrics, Anesthesiology and Neurobiology at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center. "If the fetus is beyond 20 weeks of gestation, I would assume that there will be pain caused to the fetus. And I believe it will be severe and excruciating pain." So above I proved that a fetus is a human, here I prove that it is painful for the baby. "I will show that a mother has rights over her body and privacy, and that it is more important to save the mother than the unborn fetus if both lives are at stake. " Well, most women do not want this right: Most women do not want this right, also lets add on to this rebuttal. A fetus is a human, therefor it deserves basic human rights, and it should have control over its body. So killing the baby takes away it's freedom, so it's a 50-50 split of freedoms. Although women do not want this freedom, you will still argu that it is essential. So the women loses rights the baby gains them. But since a majority of women do not want these rights, then why should they have them? "I’ll be proving in this premise that illegalizing abortion is a bad idea and a disadvantage to society and may lead to bad consequences and events." Tanl you for this argument, I love to attack it. You claim that more abortions wil happen illegally if it is illegal, wrong. Senator James Buckley stated: "Data from foreign countries having far longer experience with legalised abortion than we have had in the US, suggest that legalisation has no effect on the criminal abortion rate. In at least three countries, the criminal abortion rate has actually risen since legalisation. Legalised abortion moves the back alley abortionists into the front office where their trade can be practised without fear of criminal prosecution." [5] Dr Christopher Tietze, an abortion advocate, concedes: "Although one of the major goals of the liberalisation of abortion laws in Scandinavia was to reduce the incidence of illegal abortion, this was not accomplished. Rather as we know from a variety of sources, both criminal and total abortions increased." [4] So look at this, a senator says there is no poof that legilising it redices that number, and a pro choice docor admits that legilising it increases the back street abortions. So I have proven that when its illegal there is less of both types of abortion. "For my last contention, I will attempt to finally argue that a woman has a right to abort a child." This is a vauge point. I will not refute it...yet. So please expand then I'll attepmt to refute it. I await your response. :) Sorry if my spellings bad, the spell check has an internal error. Sources: http://prolifephysicians.org... [1] http://www.christiananswers.net... [2] http://www.gallup.com... [3] Kanwaljeet J. S. Anand, MBBS, DPhil, Professor of Pediatrics, Anesthesiology and Neurobiology at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center. 93rd Congress of the US [4] Dr Christopher Tietze [5]
| -1 |
the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy -- usually before the 28th week -- by some medical means after the fetus is far enough developed to be viable
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
First off, I never used the word "person. " I said "I believe it is wrong to take away another"s life. " Although maybe I should have used a little different wording and said "human life. " (yes, A fetus is human life. ) Secondly, Every fetus does have individuality. Otherwise, Every person would look and act just like everybody else which is obviously not the case. I see your point that a fetus does not have likes, Dislikes, Relationships, Etc. Why does it not have these? Because it has not yet been born and able to experience these things in life beyond the womb. I don"t agree that the lack of characteristics such as likes and dislikes makes abortion ok, Because killing them before they are able to develop these characteristics is why they never get them. I don"t find it hypocritical to be pro-life and pro-death penalty. Why? Because I believe humans that murder people, Commit treason, Take part in human trafficking, Etc. Deserve to be killed. I also believe that humans that have not murdered people, Not committed treason, Not trafficked humans, And not done any wrong (such as a fetus) don"t deserve to be killed. I"m glad that you don"t like abortion (there is something we have in common haha). However, I do believe abortion is murder. Oxford Dictionary defines murder as "The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. " Of course you could argue that abortion is legal and therefore it is not "unlawful" as the definition says, But that is the entire point of my debate is to argue against abortion and I think it should be illegal so I am overlooking the use of that word. Abortion still is a "premeditated killing of one human being by another. " Lastly, I am also pro-choice. I believe people can make any choice they want, That is until they make a choice that inhibits the freedoms and choice-making abilities of another human being. For example, I can choose whether to read a book or watch a movie. That choice doesn"t affect the agency of any other human being. However, I cannot choose to own a slave (I would never want to, This is just an example). Why? Because by choosing to own a slave, I would be taking away the choice-making ability of my slave. Another example: I could make the choice to murder someone (Again, I wouldn"t, Just another example). But this takes away the freedom of that person to live. Abortion, Taking away the life of the human being, Takes away their freedom to live. Slavery and murder are illegal, Why isn"t abortion?
| -1 |
the act of giving birth to an animal or person
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
When I say 100% pro life, I believe that abortion is wrong no matter what the circumstance is. Many may ask about rape or incest, but should that child receive the death penalty because of the acts of his or her father? And when you say you are pro choice, do you believe that a woman should be able to choose even in the third trimester? I believe that even first trimester abortion are horrific. The heart is beating at 3 and 1/2 weeks. We need to realize that that is a baby inside the woman, not a blob of tissue. I believe that we should not have to kill our innocent children to achieve the dreams and careers we strive for. We should welcome these children into our world instead of seeing them as a threat. Of course there are going to be situations where the mother cannot take care of the child because of financial reasons or stability, but this is why we have many organizations like Live action, churches, mentors, and government agencies which can help these women. Not to mention adoption... there are many more options than just simply killing the child. Also, when women are asked why they received an abortion the number one response is, "I felt that I had no choice." How do you justify this when you seem so set on the fact that women should have this choice to kill their child or not, when in reality our abortion clinics and agencies are not really laying all the cards on the table?
| -1 |
the act of deliberately killing a nonhuman animal especially with a weapon or by poison
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
con
|
I am arguing that abortion is murder of an innocent life, and that Roe v. Wade should be overturned.
| -1 |
the act of deliberately causing an unborn child to be born dead
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
con
|
As he will have to answer my questions and give a rebuttal in the next round, I'll try and limit the number of questions I ask him so he'll have adequate room to respond to my opening argument and answers to my questions.1a. That is what I'm saying.1b. By Google's definition, the universe is also an entity, as are animals. The pro-life position is that we are the same substance as we were in the womb, and a substance is something that maintains its identity through change. I have changed quite a bit since I was an embryo, or even an infant, but through all these changes I remained the same entity. I think we can see that fetuses have a personality, at least at a very rudimentary level, if you define personality as "the visible aspect of one's character as it impresses others. " [1] Fetuses can certainly be observed performing some tasks, such as sucking their thumb and rolling over when they're trying to sleep (they can even enter REM sleep, so it's likely they dream, as well). So at least in a visible sense, it can be shown that at least fetuses (from about the fifth month of gestation on) have a rudimentary personality. However, it's not the present capacity to have a personality or be rational that makes us valuable. It's the inherent capacity to fulfill these functions, in which the unborn qualify because they have the same inherent nature that makes all of us valuable. People who are asleep, in reversible comas, or under anesthesia for surgery also do not have the immediately exercisable capacity for a personality or rationality, so if this were what makes us valuable it would be morally permissible to kill someone for any reason you please while in these reversible states. Personhood would be "episodic," which means you would lose your personhood every night you fall asleep, and every time you would enter these other reversible states. Finally, I did not rely on myself to survive while in the womb, but neither did I rely on myself to survive as a newborn. I relied on my mother's breastfeeding me and giving me formula. I didn't rely on myself as a toddler, because while I was working on becoming more indepdent, I was still reliant on my parents to keep a roof over my head, clothes on my body, and food and water to keep me alive.1c. I am the same entity I was in the womb because I was the same entity (or substance) through all these changes. As I showed in the first round, the unborn are living human organisms from fertilization. At no point did I suddenly go from "non-life" to "life" or from "non-human" to "human. " Human life is a continuum, so even before I became self-aware (which doesn't even happen until sometime after you're born), I was still "me. "2a. Ultimate, rights derive from God. Morality is objective, meaning independent of the human mind. Morality is not left up to humans. When we say an act, like rape, is objective wrong, we don't simply mean we don't like rape. We are making a statement about the act itself. Rape is objectively wrong, regardless if someone believes their right to personal gratification outweighs another's right not to be sexually assaulted. By contrast, morality is not relative. It is not left up to the individual, otherwise we'd have no right to call another person's actions wrong. Mother Teresa and Adolf Hitler would be no morally different from each other. In fact, they'd be morally the same because they were both acting based on their moral code. But Hitler was definitely wrong for killing all those Jews, and the only way we can consider him as being wrong is if morality is objective. Morality is also not left up to society, otherwise morality would be constantly changing. Abortion is illegal in Ireland. That would mean abortion is immoral in Ireland, but moral in the United States. Plus, abortion used to be illegal in the United States, as did slavery. That means that abortion and slavery used to be moral. What's more, slavery abolitionists were not heroes, as they were leading a charge for immorality by trying to change what the state has decreed is moral. Even more confusing, some states were free and some were slave states. Let's say you had one foot on one side of the Mason Dixon Line, and one foot on the other side. Were you a slave or free? Was slavery moral or immoral for you?2b. The fetus has a right to life, as we all have. This is a natural right, one that we have based on our common human nature. This is not to be confused with a legal right, which is granted by the state and usually comes through ability or maturity, such as the right to drive or vote.2c. The Fourteenth Amendment protects it. Before Roe v. Wade, the unborn were persons legally protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. [2] The right to life is the most fundamental of all rights. Without it, we can't enjoy any other rights. It's pointless to have freedom of speech if we're not alive to speak in the first place.3a. Yes, as we all do, to a certain extent. She does not have the right to punch someone without just cause, nor does she have the right to take some drugs or drive without wearing her seatbelt.3b. Yes, a woman has a right to reproduce. But once she is pregnant, she has already reproduced.3c. The fetus is not a part of a woman's body, unless you're willing to accept that a pregnant woman has four arms, four legs, two heads, and roughly half the time, a penis and two testicles. The unborn has a different genetic code, and often a different blood type than the mother. Plus, a white baby can be created through IVF, be implanted into a black woman, and would still be born white. The unborn is not a part of her body. She does not have the right to revoke its presence because in the vast majority of cases, she is responsible for creating a naturally needy child. She bears a responsibility for caring for that naturally needy child.4a. The fetus is a human being.4b. The fetus can live without the mother once it reaches viability (at about 24 weeks' gestation).4c. No. See my response at 1b. Questions for Pro1. Do you believe abortions should have any restrictions at all? Why or why not?2. If abortions should have some restrictions, do you see a problem with restricting them? For example, if a woman has a right to her own body, wouldn't that be true all the way up until birth?3. You seem to think viability has some bearing on our being considered human beings. Could you please explain why?4. Scott Peterson was convicted of two murders for killing his wife and unborn child. Was it okay for Laci (his wife) to kill her child if she wanted to, but not okay for Scott to?5. Thalidomide was a drug in the 1950's and 60's prescribed to ease morning sickness in pregnant woman. However, it was later discovered that this drug caused severe fetal defects (resulting in children born without arms and legs). It is illegal for pregnant women to take. Let's say she acquires Thalidomide illegally and takes it, resulting in her child being born with no arms. Do you believe that she did anything wrong? Would you excuse her actions based on her right to bodily autonomy? That does it for me. I look forward to Pro's answers and his rebuttal. [1] . http://dictionary.reference.com...;[2] Francis J. Beckwith, Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice, (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, New York, 2007), p.22.
| -1 |
the act of terminating a pregnancy as a means of family planning or as a solution to social problems
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
pro
|
I accept, 5 minutes to post arguments is fine by me (although strange to be honest), but con must refute my case, here goes... Now onto the Pro case, on why abortion is legal and moral. 1st- Morality Morality is defined as a "Code of Conduct that would be put forth by all rational persons" By the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy[1] Personhood- [3] Murder- The crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought [2]. Is Abortion truly murder? Well, to answer that question, we must look at what allegedly is being murdered during the process of an abortion. A Fetus is NOT a Person, A.K.A a human being. A-Is a Fetus a human being? Fetus are essentially completely reliant on their host, in which they reside. Only that one host can truly take care and sustain that Fetus. This characteristic represents that of an organism that is inhumane, in that human beings do not rely on one human being, and only that human being, for sustenance. Simply saying that Fetus will grow is a weak argument on the grounds of abortion, because we look towards what is technically going to die. In no way at any point of an abortion is a human being going to die. A Fetus, can clearly be distinguished from a human being, and as such, Abortion cannot be considered a murder. B- The Right to life of a Fetus There is a major contradiction in giving a Fetus a right to life, anyone who does is completely undermining the host from which it lives. As stated in point 1, Fetus' do not share any characteristics of a human being, they reflect a parasite in fact, one that sustains itself solely off a host organism, and continues to grow, while feeding off the host. By giving a Fetus the right to life, the mother's life is basically worthless, it must sustain a parasite it does not want to sustain, and this is indeed an infringement upon the rights of the mother. To better state this, i will Quote Joyce Arthur- "The free exercise of one's moral conscience is a fundamental right in our society. And since pregnancy entails profound physical, psychological, and long-lasting consequences for a woman (it is not a mere "inconvenience"), her freedoms are significantly restricted if she is forced to carry to term." [3] C-The Choice of abortion (Quality of Life) Has anyone ever stopped to ask themselves why women have abortions? Does the quality of life mean nothing to Pro-Life people? A Moral outlook on abortion shows the many reasons women choose to have abortions. Not only may it be unwanted, but many times the Rape victim or the Soon-To-Be Single mother cannot successfully sustain their baby. The Fact is, Quality of life is just as important to the mother as it is to all of us looking at this issue from a 3rd person perspective. If a mother is living in such harsh conditions where she can barely make a living herself, why would she want to bring into this world a being which she must watch suffer unless cared for, and then diminish the already bad quality of her life as well? No Justification exists for allowing a being into this world if it WILL SUFFER. On top of that, the it should be the mother's choice based off of her right to life, and her quality of life. Why do we make the innocent pay? By Diminishing a mother's life, and allowing a baby to suffer, we as human beings are inherently immoral. This point in no way advocates unwanted pregnancies, but a pregnancy cannot be planned, and no specification has been made on how women become pregnant in the first place. An easy assumption is through unwanted means such as- Forgetting Birth Control or the much more gruesome- Rape. 2nd Legality of Abortion A- Roe vs Wade (1973) The U.S. Supreme Court stated that abortion bans were unconstitutional in every state, legalizing abortion throughout the United States. There are multiple reasons for this. 1) Forced Permittence This may sound silly, but a burden is a burden, just as a man walking into your house and using your bed without any permittence is unlawful so too is having to carry an unborn organism that feeds off of you. Just as that man eats your food and takes all of your stuff, so too does that unborn organism. The truth of the matter is, just like a house is owned, so is a body, whatever is inside that house or body is what is permitted to be inside based on he owner.To make things clearer- Whatever exists inside my body is at my disposal, any organism is inherently infringing upon my rights by taking up space in my body. Just as a Tapeworm is an unwanted organism in your body, so too is an unborn fetus, unwanted by the mother, yet the mother is forced to carry it. 2)Infringing upon the Quality of Life (Sound Familiar?) This point may sound familiar, and it should, because it applies to both legality and morality. Quality of life is everything, many philosophers argue the quality of life is what defines life, without happiness and joy there is no point to life. If a women was forced to carry a burden which she knew she could not carry, and had no way of disposing it legally, this would be in reality torture. We cannot justify denying the rights of Freedom, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. By not allowing for a woman to have an abortion, we are deterring and infringing upon that woman's rights. B- Fetus' Rights [3] Do Fetus' Have rights? Let's say we somehow gave an unborn Fetus all the constitutional rights an American Citizen was given. Could it truly exercise any rights at all? What would be the point? Giving Rights to an organism that cannot use a single one is meaningless. By Giving Rights to the Fetus or Zygote, a weighing factor would be put into play. Who's life would be worth more then? The Woman or the Unborn Fetus that cannot exercise a single right given to it? This is completely unfair to the woman, not only is this Fetus' life given weight equivalent to hers, it's also given rights it can't even use, and it isn't even alive! Logically, we cannot give an organism rights if they cannot exercise those rights.Thus it is legal for a woman to have an abortion on the grounds of rights. Thank you for taking the time to read this debate, i wish you all good luck and thank my opponent for an intellectually stimulating debate. I hope for the best :) [1] http://plato.stanford.edu...... [2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...... [3] http://www.abortionaccess.info...... This is all mine, i used this in another abortion debate as well, but judges my opponent put a time limit of 5 minutes between arguments, and this is still MY WORK look it up if you don't believe me. Thank you and good luck. Reminder- Cons BOP is to refute pro, simply giving completely different reasons why abortion is wrong does not comply to traditional forms of debate.
| 1 |
the act of terminating a pregnancy as a medical procedure
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
My opponent said: "An extra 1.2 million children born per year would be disastrous to our economy, our orphanages, and the children doomed to live their lives in these institutions." My opponent stated that our economy,orphanages,and the children would suffer from illegalizing abortion. Well, here are some quick and easy facts, if we were too Illegalize abortion you will find that their is MORE taxpayers, MORE people to buy products in the U.S,MORE people in the work force and AND more people to enlist in the military. In fact Abortions actually hurt the United States economy in the state of Illinois alone it costs the tax payers $1 million each year. My opponent also stated: "There are perpetually about 500,000 kids in foster care each year. With all the movement in and out of foster care, there is a constant 130,000 children awaiting adoption. In total, in 2007, 783,000 children were in the foster care system at some point. Only about 50,000 American children are adopted every year " If the United States were to illegalize abortion tomorrow my opponent is right the Adoption Industry would boom and you would find that there would be a need to build more orphanages and there would be a need to get the kids in permanent households. So, he is right that the orphanages would be greatly impacted at FIRST, but over a period of time both the government and the orphanages as individuals would begin to build more orphanages to house all the kids,(which by the way would create countless jobs across America and further boost the economy.)and they would also find ways to give up children at less costlier of a price and there would be a significant increase in adoption advertisements which always helps a cause. In the long run the problems in the overcrowded orphanages would correct its self. As for this statement " children doomed to live their lives in these institutions." In my opinion and I hope the voters agree with me on this, the worst doom of all is not even getting the chance to live and the right to life. As for this argument: " my opponent ignores the conditions of rape and incest. Who will father these children? Will he? Who will provide psychiatric support for these women- too often children themselves- who have been violated and impregnated by disgusting criminals? Who will provide the psychiatric support for the children themselves when they are born?" With all the abortions that occur each year in the U.S. only 1% of all abortions are from a result from rape and incest. "who will provide psychiatric support for these women?" Well, to answer the question I guess I'd have to say by loved ones whom they trust or by a therapist or both. But, I also don't see how illegalizing abortion is going to effect the needs of psychiatric needs of the woman. You cannot punish an unborn child through abortion due to the evils of another human. I don't know about you but I would rather know that I was born through a rape then to be aborted and not living at all. Also.... my opponent states: " Illegalizing abortion would not lower abortion rates, rather it will raise illegal abortion rates, and the mortality rates associated with abortion. In 1972, a year before abortion became legal, there were a reported 130,000 illegal abortions. From 1975-1979 there were 11,300 illegal abortions reported. (http://findarticles.com......) Repealing Roe v. Wade (one of the steps required to illegalize abortion) would most likely result in a rise in illegal abortions." Again my opponent is correct on one thing the Illegal abortion rates WOULD go up a few years after it becomes illegal because our society is conditioned to believe abortion is okay. But, you will find that in the long run assuming our government enforces the law and arrests people and keep people in line, you will find that Illegal abortions will decrease significantly and 130,000 abortions is a heck of a lot less then an estimated 1.3 million each year. My opponent also says that is the right of a woman to decide what she wants to do with her body. But this is not the case, It is the right of the babies right to life that abortion infringes on. I'm going to ask the voters and my opponent a question would have wanted to be aborted while in the mothers womb? Thanks for accepting this debate Also my two main sources for the debate: Abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html and citizenlink.org/clnews/A000006052.cfm
| -1 |
the act of intentionally killing a nonhuman animal
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
con
|
Thanks for instigating. Since this is only for acceptance and a brief review on my contentions, we’ll make this round quick. But first some definitions relevant to the debate: Abortion- Induced termination of a pregnancy with destruction of the embryo or fetus. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Murder- The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Contentions: C1: Abortion is NOT murder Since my opponent’s main case relies on abortion being murder, it will also be my obligation to negate his contention. If I’ve fulfilled this obligation, you must negate the resolution. In this premise, I will also be arguing that murder can be justified and morally acceptable to society. Not all killings are morally wrong. I will also attempt to argue that even if abortion ends a life, it’s still morally acceptable, in some circumstances. C2: Valuing Women’s Rights I will show that a mother has rights over her body and privacy, and that it is more important to save the mother than the unborn fetus if both lives are at stake. C3: Abortion happens regardless of legality I’ll be proving in this premise that illegalizing abortion is a bad idea and a disadvantage to society and may lead to bad consequences and events. C4: Abortion is a right For my last contention, I will attempt to finally argue that a woman has a right to abort a child. I reserve the right to expand, drop and add more contentions whenever necessary to the debate. Thank you.
| 1 |
the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most authoritatively after the embryo has been implanted in the uterus wall and has implanted itself in it
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
I will make this brief, since I hadn't realized after going into a lengthy response, that there was a 2,000 word limit on each round of debate. Pro would like us to believe that abortion is not killing innocent life. I say that it is. A child has been known and documented to survive with extra care outside the womb as early as a couple months, which is in the first trimester. The child can live a full and healthy life after initial treatment for several months afterward. Pro would also like us to believe that a woman has control of her own body. This is also not entirely true. If a woman is caught prostituting, she will be arrested and fined, depending on the state or the country she resides in. She does not have control of her own body in other cases. Pro would like to have us believe that a child in the womb is no more important than a kidney or some other organ in our body. Pro compares a human life to a disposable organ, many of which we can live a long and healthy life without. Pro would also like us to believe that something with brain activity is nothing more than a bunch of cells with no reason to live if the woman decides not to keep them. Brain activity, along with our nervous system, allows us to feel pain. Pro would like us to believe that abortion is just us removing cells from a woman's body. If pro wants to believe that a fetus controls someone else's body, that's their business. However, it does not control another person's body...it is attached to a woman's body and grows inside until mature enough to leave. It has been proven that a child in the womb can feel pain by its reaction when tested. Pain is the body's way of telling us that what we're doing to it or what is being done to it, is harmful. That fact right there should be proof that a child in the womb is NOT a random collection of lifeless cells that can be removed forcibly.
| -1 |
the act of deliberately killing human life in the mother's womb
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
yes
|
no
|
con
|
con
|
Framework My framework will be based around libertarianism. Within libertarianism, there is controversy on abortions because it depends on if the fetus is alive. If the fetus is alive then libertarians are against abortions because libertarians are individualists and therefore value the life of the individual heavily [1]. If the fetus is not alive then libertarians advocate abortion because libertarians belief in a less powerful and restrictive government. In our first contention we will prove the fetus to be living. I will explain why we should have an abortion under libertarian belief. Capitalism magazine explains this by saying, “A fetus does not have a right to be in the womb of any woman, but is there by her permission. This permission may be revoked by the woman at any time, because her womb is part of her body... There is no such thing as the right to live inside the body of another, i.e., there is no right to enslave... a woman is not a breeding pig owned by the state (or church).” [2]She is the individual that libertarians prioritize, due to their individualist beliefs [2]. Since libertarians believe in a less restrictive government, the outcome is clear. The government should NOT be involved in something so personal to the person since by intervening in this person’s choice, you are restricting them and are violating libertarian ideology [3]. The Fetus Is Not Alive Only 1.4% of abortions occur after 21 weeks into the pregnancy [3,4]. This means that that most abortions are done before the fetus is even formed. It is an embryo, and an embryo is proven to be not alive. It isn't a subject of discussion when talking about the embryo [5]. I will now address the fetus - which is mitigated due to the small percentage of abortions that occur at this period. There are 7 categories in which life can be identified [6]. The categories have been compiled by biologists over a long period of time with great discussion [6]. The fetus only meets 2 of these. Movement - The fetus can move so this part is met. Respiration - The fetus cannot respire on its own (7). Sensitivity - The fetus cannot sense at 24 weeks or even 28 weeks (8). Growth - The fetus does grow. Reproduction - Whilst it is a fetus, no it cannot reproduce (9). Excretion - This is possible however very rare and unlikely (10). Nutrition - The fetus cannot independently take in nutrition. If one of these wasn’t met then the fetus would not be considered alive. The fetus was only able to meet 2. Illegal Abortions When an abortion is legal there is absolutely no point in having an illegal abortion because they have been proven to be very dangerous and expensive. If abortion are legal then illegal abortions will negatively correlate (11). These illegal abortions have been known to kill both the mother and the baby and sometimes result in extreme suffering on the mother’s part (11). Mothers are not doctors (most of the time) so these illegal abortions also occur later than 24 (and even 28) weeks meaning that the babies suffer too (11)! Did you know: “13% of pregnancy-related deaths worldwide are related to complications of unsafe abortion.”(12) This statistic is shocking but demonstrates my point very well. These unsafe abortions are illegal and this is what is currently happening because abortions are illegal in places. They have no option to a safe abortion and are so desperate for abortion that they attempt to have an unsafe abortion. Therefore, we can conclude that there are a huge number of unsafe abortions (13% of all pregnancy related deaths). From this we can then follow up an argument suggesting that making abortions illegal will not necessarily get rid of all abortions therefore rendering our opponent’s aim to be mitigated. Underaged teenagers “19% of teens who have had sexual intercourse become pregnant each year. 78% of these pregnancies are unplanned. 6 in 10 teen pregnancies occur among 18-19 year olds.” (12) This statistic is significant for many reasons. If this occurs amongst 18 - 19 year olds then this is extremely bad. Having to look after and care for a child ruins their chances of going to university. Your twenties are your most important period of your lives according to many sources (13,14,15). Having to look after a child in this period of time is extremely stressful and prevents you from getting proper qualifications and more importantly, it prevents you from getting a full time job and a house. Children are extremely expensive to have and having a child at the time when you should be looking for a job makes income problematic. On top of this you will have to pay huge amounts of money. “To raise a child born in 2013 to the age of 18, it will cost a middle-income couple just over $245,000, according to newly released estimates from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. That's up $4,260, or almost 2%, from the year before.”(16) Now let's compare this to the average income of a family: “The typical U.S. households pulls in $51,371 per year.” Teenage parents are most likely to make a lot less than this but let's take this statistic anyway. Assuming that this ‘average’ family spend no money at all on anything. It will still cost them almost 5 times their yearly income to equate to that amount. Of course they will need food, clothes, mortgage, heating, electricity etc. on top of this sum of money. If this seems like a lot you should double the cost of a child figures (assuming that they have another child), what will you do then? Not allow an abortion? Allow these teengagers to pay almost $500,000, earning (most likely) less than $51,371 per year. Gender Equality Pregnancies have a huge impact upon people’s lives - in particular the mother. As Sarah Weddington stated: “A pregnancy to a woman is perhaps one of the most determinative aspects of her life. It disrupts her body. It disrupts her education. It disrupts her employment. And it often disrupts her entire family life.” (17) She continued: “[And we feel that], because of the impact on the woman, this … is a matter which is of such fundamental and basic concern to the woman involved that she should be allowed to make the choice as to whether to continue or to terminate her pregnancy.” (17) This was a case showing that without the right to a termination, you are denying women a right and therefore what my opponent is advocating is gender inequality. The philosopher, Judith Thomson said: “If abortion rights are denied, then a constraint is imposed on women's freedom to act in a way that is of great importance to them, both for its own sake and for the sake of their achievement of equality .... and if the constraint is imposed on the ground that the foetus has a right to life from the moment of conception, then it is imposed on a ground that neither reason nor the rest of morality requires women to accept, or even to give any weight at all.” (17) This emphasizes my previous point in regards to the denial of gender rights and equality. P1: Denying women an abortion is gender inequality P2: Gender inequality is a violation of human rights C1: Abortion legalization stops gender inequality rights C2: Abortions should be legalized ConclusionI have provided strong and well sourced evidence proving that if you don't legalize abortion you violate libertarianism, women's human rights, the rights of teenagers/ children and it also violates the law. I will refute my opponent's case in the next round. I thank my opponent for initiating such an interesting resolution. The resolution is affirmed. Vote Pro! Sources[1] http://bit.ly...;[2] http://bit.ly...;[3] http://bit.ly...[4] http://bit.ly...[5] http://bit.ly...[6] http://bbc.in...;[7] http://bit.ly...[8] http://bit.ly...[9] http://bit.ly...[10] http://bit.ly...[11] http://bit.ly...[12] http://bit.ly...[13] http://bit.ly...[14] http://onforb.es...;[15] http://elitedai.ly...[16] http://cnnmon.ie...[17] http://bbc.in...[18] http://bit.ly...
| 1 |
the act of deliberately causing the death of a human fetus
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
yes
|
no
|
con
|
con
|
I accept these definitions. Your definition of aborition is right, but morally it is wrong. Abortion is the action of killing what is supossed to be human. Making abortion legal would be unethical. Abortion is wrong with exceptions to rape or incest. If someone had sexual intercourse and got pregnant, why didn't they use a condom. Like I said in the previous round, Abortion is basically killing a person. If you legalize abortion, you are basically legalizing murder.
| -1 |
the act of killing a human fetus or a human embryo
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
yes
|
no
|
neutral
|
con
|
1. then people shouldn't do it... or at least were a condom 2. In the depression people made home made abortions. I don't know how to get videos on here so just put this url link up. (no pun intended) http://www.youtube.com... 3. What about the basic human rights. The right to live. It is inbeded in the Constitution so abortion would all-in-all be against the law. 4. post-abortion stress. my source for this is, http://postabortionsyndrome.org..., 5. now here's the pun, LordKnuckle said, "I see everyone for abortion has already been born." 6. How would you feel if you'd been aborted. Nothing cause you wouldn't of existed. 7. The baby is alive when the heart first beats. 8. What would happen if some of the greatest people in history were aborted. overval sources: http://www.youtube.com... http://postabortionsyndrome.org...
| -1 |
the deliberate destruction of a nonviable fetus
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
What if the mother was raped? While I believe that life begins at implantantation, I support last resort choice that is safe and legal for the mother. Women have the right to make difficult choices for their pregnancy. Do I support birth controll or consensual sterilization as a first resort for free as an independent progressive like Bernie? Yes. Do I think abortion takes a human life? Yes. Do I realize that last resort choice has to exist when two human lives are connected? A resounding yes. That's the very definition of prochoice. My main problem with abolitionists and life of the mother onlyers is that I PERSONALLY BELIEVE that they support legalized forced organ donation. When even a corpse has the right to choose who uses his or her organs, but a live breathing woman does not, I have a problem with that. Here's the thing forced lifers fail to realize: I have no opinion or rights to what or who uses your human body, nor do you over mine. Pardon my French, but no one supports chits and gigles abortion, but anyone of any faith or none whatsoever can support last resort choice. It's a very emotional subject, and so hard to avoid lifers accusing me of hating children (I don't), or choicers accusing you of hating women even if you don't. My final point ius that women will die if abortion is banned according to pre Roe statitistical studies. Is that really prolife?
| 1 |
the act of deliberately causing an unborn human to die in the womb
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
yes
|
no
|
con
|
con
|
I am gonna go back to Murder part because you weren't clear on that so the definition of Murder: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. Now Abortion isn't illegal BUT hear me out, abortion is the killing of a human being by another human being. (the baby is sucked out (the doctor is doing that with a tool) and then thrown into a trash can) therefore by definition abortion is legal but still murder. Another thing is whats the difference between the fetus getting nutrition from the mother inside versus the baby getting milk from his/her mother's breast. Now I know not all babies get milk from their mothers breast and/or another women, but there is no difference, so then why is it mortal for a baby to take milk form a women's breast. Going on from the Rape stand of point. Yes the mother wasn't responsible or irresponsible, because she was raped, but it is still considered her child whether or not the father of the child is with her. And yes she may not be ready to carry the baby in her stomach for the 9 months and go through all of that, but don't you agree it is selfish to take away someone's life just to not be pregnant for 9 months? Around the the 10th week of your pregnancy your baby becomes a fetus, meaning its been developing ever since it was transferred from a guy to a girl. Your stopping the possibility of life of your child. That goes along with the selfishness of abortion. By the 10th week of pregnancy, your baby probably measures more than 1 inch, or roughly the length of a quarter. By the end of the 1st trimester, your baby will grow to be about 3 inches " around the length of a kiwi fruit. This measurement doesn't even take into account arms and legs. That's because in the 1st trimester, your baby is measured from the top of the head to the bottom of the rump. By the beginning of the 10th week of pregnancy, all of your baby's vital organs have formed. His embryonic tail, located at the bottom of his spinal cord, has disappeared. His bones continue to develop. On an ultrasound, your baby's bones appear white. At 10 weeks pregnant, his ears get close to their final form. His teeth buds emerge, and his eyelids develop further. His testes start producing the male hormone testosterone around the 10th week of pregnancy. Tiny fingers and toes are fully separated (no more webbing). Plus, your baby's brain growth really takes off. Every minute, 250,000 new neurons (or first brain cells) are produced This proves right there it is a baby not just a fetus but a human being, and it's only the first trimester of your pregnancy. Now Your response in the first round You said: a fetus to be the same as a baby for the difference is a ball of cells vs working organs. 10th week- fingers start to grow along with bones, eyelids, no more webbing 11th week -The blood vessels in your placenta grow larger to prepare for this time of accelerated growth in your baby. this proves they baby/fetus isn't just a ball of cells, there's arms, legs, organs developing along with body formations developing.
| -1 |
the act of killing a human being intentionally and with premeditation
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
con
|
Laws are protecting unborn babies therefore abortion should be illegal. Murder is illegal. The definition of murder is the unlawful killing of a human being. *If, abortion were illegal it would be considered murder because basic science proves that an unborn child, fetus whatever you want to call it is a human being. These babies are fully human even if they"re not born yet. They"re just like us but the difference is that they are innocent little people, voiceless and helpless. Abortion is contradicting the U.S constitution. "The Fourteenth Amendment to the United Statses Constitution says, "No State shall " deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The fetus should have an undeniable right to live. As a matter of fact, this has been written in the U.S constitution since 1787. People have been ignoring this for years. That"s why we have abortion.* If people are ignoring the constitution we might as well not have a constitution. The death penalty law states, "Federal law prohibits the death penalty for pregnant women until they give birth. (18 U.S.C.A. S.3596) In essence, the law declared that an innocent unborn person cannot be sentenced and put to death for a crime he did not commit. If the unborn child were not seen as a person in the eyes of the law, there would be no need for this prohibition." You can only kill a person if they committed a crime. That"s why people say that you"re killing an innocent person because it has not done anything wrong to get to the point of taking away its life. Laws have always been against abortion.
| -1 |
the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy -- most often performed during the first 6 months of carrying
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
#1 no ad hominems. #2 standard rules regarding dropped arguments apply I believe that abortion should be illegal except for when the pregnancy poses a serious threat to the life of the mother.
| -1 |
the act of intentionally causing an unwanted fetus to be aborted
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
yes
|
neutral
|
con
|
First of all, abortions are not safe. A woman has a high risk of getting depression. In fact, this can last at least five years after they abort. They also have a high risk of suicide. (154% more likely than women who give birth.) *If , someone decides to have an abortion. Their lives are going to be miserable. They"re going to be depressed. Especially the day the baby was supposed to be born or/and the day they aborted. The Guttmatcher Institute says, "Unsafe abortion has significant negative consequences beyond its immediate effects on women"s health. For example, complications from unsafe abortion may reduce women"s productivity, increasing the economic burden on poor families; cause maternal deaths that leave children motherless; cause long-term health problems, such as infertility; and result in considerable costs to already struggling public health systems." These are some of the bad things that can happen after an abortion. And these are not the only ones, there"s many more. Lisa B Haddad, MD says, "Some 68,000 women die of unsafe abortion annually, making it one of the leading causes of maternal mortality (13%). Of the women who survive unsafe abortion, 5 million will suffer long-term health complications."
| -1 |
the act of deliberately ending a pregnancy
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
R4 Rebuttals Con concedes that the fetus does not meet the reproduction requirment of the definition that THEY provided. This is crusical to note because this is a contradiction on their behalf and this should be considered and taken into account when voting. Con states that they got their characteristics of life from their biology class. This is insufficient evidence. I also got mine from my biology class however I managed to source and prove that this classification of life is valid whereas yours has been based off bare assertion. Con continues to make the claim that children that haven't meet puberty is a sufficient rebuttal since I said that the fetus isn't fully developed. Con clearly skims my case because if they had read it properly and thouroughly they would have noticed that I refuted this a number of times. I have clearly said and demonstrated that children are developing humans whereas the fetus is developing to BECOME a human. It is not yet a human whereas a child is. Since the child belongs to the human race this means that it is considered living whereas the fetus does not yet belong to the human race. This means that it is considered separate to humans and is therfore should be assessed separately unlike children [1]. Con continues to state that there is a difference between reacting to stimuli and responding to it. To end the confusion I will provide sources to prove that it doesn't react to stimuli and it doesn't respond to it either. a) The fetus does not respond to stimuli [2]. b) The fetus doesn't react to stimuli [3]. He believes that the fetus is human however this is easily disproven, and it has already been done so, nevertheless I will provide more supporting evidence to satisfy him. Human Characteristics - Consciousness - Sentience - Response to stimuli - Ability to feel emotions - Excretion- Independantly supply itself with nutrition - Indepenantly respire - Be able to feel and sense things around it Characteristics that the fetus meets- Excretion (rarely)This is it. The fetus, extremely rarely, exretes whilst in this state however if it does excrete this means that it will most likely be severely disabled. Regardless, I'll be kind to con and let them say that the fetus meets this category. Even so, the fetus meets hardly any of the categories and is therefore not a human. Continuation of R4 Rebuttals Con attempts to refute the libertarian framework extention however this is extremely difficult for them to do given the fact that I provided sources demonstrating libertarian philosohpy and views on abortion whilst my opponent attempts to tackle it without any evidence. Con, instead of refuting anything that I said makes assertions about what the government has a right to do. This is unfortunately is the subjective and completely arbitrary opinion. The declaration of rights and responsibilities for governments, individuals and societies approes of the UK of a good model and demonstration of a country that properly enforces human rights [4]. The UK advocates and has abortion legal and is a good model of human rights. Ergo, we can conclude that protecting the unborn (ie. fetus') is not a responsibility that the government has [5]. I'll reiterate this, since con has provided no alternative framework you ought to vote Pro based on this premise alone. Con calls my framework morally insane - more subjectivity with absoloutely no evidence. He does something serious that is NOT acceptable during a debate. He make the following summary of my position and says that I SAY THIS. I did not say this and this make my position look bad. He also puts this in quotation marks to make it took even more like I said this. Con's summary of my position that "supposedly" comes from me, is false and should be penalized with conduct at the very least. I'll refute con's untrue summary of my case: "Because men do not have to deal with the hormonal issues associated with pregnancy, that women are being treated unequally, therefore we must allow them to commit abortion so they can be equal to men."Con provides this quotation to go against my case and then refutes it. I will not refute his reubttal to a summary that he made since I never made any of the arguments that con says that I did. I did say that women aren't getting their rights but I made no such comparisons to men. I said that women have the right over their body and can do what they like with it and I provided a number of quotes from philosophers backing up this view. This has very little relation to men and virtually no relation to men not having to deal with hormonal issues as con falsely says when summarising my case. I never said that the fetus was trespassing or committing any acts like this on the mother's body. I simply said that it is the mothers choice and it should be assessed by them since it is their body. Yes the fetus is dependant on the mother however the fetus wouldn't know the difference if it was alive or dead [1]. Con's old man analogy is still faulty despite the additions that he has made. Even if the boy is asleep he still wants to live and he still meets the requirements for being a living things as I have continually demonstrated. Therefore, killing the boy isn't justified however aborting the fetus is. Also, the abortion of the fetus is quick and painless (because the fetus cannot feel pain) [1][3]. The boy will have to drown and will almost certainly wake up upon impact of the water and will struggle to get out and will slowly die due to the lack of oxygen. Con's solution is adoption however this is easily refuted. In a year in the US 135,000 adoptions occur, this is due to the lack of willing parents [6]. In a year in the US 1.2 million abortions occur [7]. This means that you're 975,000 parents short. On top of this, you'll probably need even more parents considering that there are other adoptions occuring anyway for reasons other than abortions. Con believes that the embryo can think. I have demonstrated that the fetus cannot think and logically if the fetus cannot think then the embryo cannot either since the embryo is the very first stage of the growth before you reach the fetus and human stages. Embryos are 100% not alive and are 100% not able to think and are 100% not conscious - I could go on [8]. Con concedes that the fetus and embryo are not human by failing to respond to my argument. I clearly layed out the stages and they simply responded with the following words: "I could never find out how they do that." This is clearly not a rebuttal and therefore this should be treated as a concession to the argument. Con believes that the burden of proof is on me however I have clearly proven that it is shared. Con is still contradicting themselves. If the BOP really was on me then there was no need to provide initial arguments which he did. Based on this, you ought to assume that the BOP in this debate is shared. Con obviously believes that there argument is self-evident however this doesn't mean that everybody agrees. My opponent believes that I hold the BOP because their position is evident however I clearly disagree and have provided clear reasons as to why the BOP is shared. You ought to presume pro here.Con says that nobody will try illegal abortions. They are wrong in R1 I showed that 13% of all pregnancy related deaths are because of illegal abortions. Con says that the death penalty is okay in some scenarios but they fail to understand that they just said that life was important and should never be taken. Con says that my grammar is so bad in the teenagers paragraph. There was 1 spelling mistake. >.< I said the argument in R1 and it was dropped. That was just a reiteration. Please respond to the argument in R1 not this. That was basically saying that you dropped the argument. Sources [1] http://bit.ly...;[2] http://bit.ly...;[3] http://bit.ly...;[4] http://bit.ly...;[5] http://bit.ly...;[6] http://to.pbs.org...;[7] http://bit.ly...;[8] http://bit.ly...;
| 1 |
a formal or official rejection or cancellation
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
I will refute my opponent's R1 arguments followed by their R3 rebuttals. R1 Yes, it has a heartbeat but does that mean that it is alive? No, it does not. A fetus scientifically does not have any feeling of pain or emotion at the stage where abortion in the pregnancy that abortions are currently allowed. Sometimes it is a bit more complicated than just putting your child up for adoption. Please bare in mind that I am arguing against adoptions, I am arguing for the option to an abortion if the mother feels like this is her only option. I admit that in certain scenarios, abortion isn't necessary however I am not saying that I am pro abortion in all situations, I am saying that abortion should always be open as an option to the mother (and father) if they do not want a child for various different reasons. My opponent refers to the fetus as if it is a baby. I would like to make this clear - I am not Pro the killing of babies. An abortion should be an option if the mother or father have a valid reason to do so, ie. rape, underage pregnancy, financial issues, e.t.c. My opponent hasn't used this argument directly however I will refute this anyway because this is a commonly brought up argument: what if your baby would grow up to cure cancer. Let's see how likely that is. Out of every child in the planet that is born how many of them will cure cancer? The chances will be significantly below 1% since 1 percent is the equivalent to 1/100. R2 My opponent concedes that if the woman is raped then she has the right to abort the baby. Since the debate resolution and R1 never said that I could not argue that rape is an issue by opponent has conceded. It is unfair to say in the last round that rape is not a valid argument because you agree that you can have an abortion in this case. I will now cover the issue of adoption in greater detail since it has been raised more than once now. Many adoptive children grow up feeling bitter and resentful of their biological parents, even as they grow and mature into adults. These feelings are rooted in the abandonment that children feel they have suffered from. The adoptive parents sometimes can influence this outlook, but it remains a risk that a biological parent faces when choosing to give up her child. The adoption process and subsequent loss of a child often leaves the biological parents with a deep sense of loss, according to TheLaborOfLove.com. Grief is likely to set in, and it may reside within a parent for years after the adoption. Some individuals may continue to be haunted by their decision to give their child up for adoption, feeling haunted and regretful of their decision--regardless of whether it was the right decision at the time of the adoption. Sources TheLabourOfLove.com http://www.livestrong.com...
| 1 |
the termination of a pregnancy after implantation but before it can be otherwise detected
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Cross-Examination: 1. I believe that abortions should have restrictions. The reason there should be restrictions on abortions is because homemade abortions could cause maternal injuries and maternal deaths. 2. Well, I do see a problem with restricting abortions because the only abortions I want to restrict are homemade abortions due to their lack of safety. Also, I would say I support the woman's right to her own body until the point where the fetus can live outside of the uterus. 3. A fetus must be able to be functioning independently to be a human being. To live outside the uterus makes a fetus a human being. The reason is that a human being must be capable to live on its own. Being human does not make a fetus a human being until it can survive outside of the womb. I'm not talking about living without being fed or clothed but instead talking about being able to physically live outside of the womb. 4. As I've said, it was a homemade abortion so both people should not be able to commit abortion but instead get an abortion. 5. I don't see how this relates to the ca and because it is irrelevant, I will ignore it. However, I would say that her right to her own body does not include being able to take illegal drugs. Rebuttal 1: I'll try to keep this brief so my opponent can both argue against my opening round my rebuttal. My opponent basically claims that a fetus is a human being. However, Joyce Arthur, a abortion rights activist, believes that this is false. She says: "Biology, medicine, law, philosophy, and theology have no consensus on the issue, and neither does society as a whole. There will never be a consensus because of the subjective and unscientific nature of the claim, so we must give the benefit of the doubt to women, who are indisputable human beings with rights." It is impossible to prove whether a fetus is a human being because there is no absolute agreement from any of the listed subjects that a fetus is a human being. This is exactly like the issue of Uniformitarianism and Castrophism, Jesus being Son of God, and the existence of a god. It will always be disputed with various types of evidence confirming and destroying different arguments. These issues don't have a certain agreement and will be going on forever. However, women are undisputably human beings. Having the right to her own body makes sure that she can revoke the presence of the fetus in her body. Joyce Arthur continues to say: "Fetuses are uniquely different from born human beings in major ways, which casts doubt on the claim that they can be classified as human beings. The most fundamental difference is that a fetus is totally dependent on a woman's body to survive. Anti-choicers might argue that born human beings can be entirely dependent on other people too, but the crucial difference is that they are not dependent on one, specific person to the exclusion of all others. Anybody can take care of a newborn infant (or disabled person), but only that pregnant woman can nurture her fetus. She can't hire someone else to do it." As I said, a human being must be able to survive on its own as in not depending on one person and it can't be anyone else. Also a fetus doesn't just rely on the woman but resides in her. A human being are separate individuals and a fetus is not separate from the woman's body or it will die. They don't gain the status of human being because of living inside the body of another human being. I'd also like to say being human doesn't make someone a human being. Having human DNA and showing signs of life doesn't make it human. Also formerly being an embryo doesn't make me currently an embryo. Since I was unborn, I was essentially not the same entity. For Contention 2, I don't see any need to have a rebuttal for it and I look forward to future elaboration due to no justification for the claims that Roe vs. Wade was "the single worst piece of legislation ever passed" and the Supreme Court having "no justification for passing it." I look forward to my opponent's rebuttal. Sources: 1. http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org... 2. http://www.abortionisprolife.com... 3. http://eleutherian.blogspot.com...
| 1 |
the termination of a pregnancy after, with, or shortly before fertilization or implantation so that a fetus is not formed
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
pro
|
He has lied, made up false quotes that were supposedly from my argument and has provided me with almost all of their arguments being assertions. I hope that voter's take all of this into consideration because some of the stuff that he has done is NOT acceptable in a debate. R5 RebuttalsIt is clear that con has skimmed and not read my entire argument. This is because con continues to say that reproduction doesn't count however I will now show why reproduction counts when determining life: - It was in my strongly sourced biological list used to determine life. - It was in con's definition of life. - This applies to groups of things and children belong to the group: humans and they still are classified as living. I'll restate something here that con fails to understand. These are the stages of being a human being: These are the stages at which somebody is considered human. Con should note that babies and pre-pubescent children are included here. Con should look at the other classification system that is NOT considered human: The outcome here is simple. The fetus and the human are different things since they have different stages of classification. I have constantly repreated this and he has completely ignored the logic, reasoning and sources that I have provided and resorted to bare assertion. Con attempts to show that abortions causes pain and provides a youtube video. There are a number of reasons why this fails. This was not a normal abortion - it was a late term abortion. The words "abortion" and "late term abortion" have very different meanings. An abortion is tehe termination of the fetus up to 24 weeks (in the UK) and 28 weeks (in the US) [1]. This person had an abortion at 7 1/2 months. That's around 32 weeks which may not seem like a lot more however in this period of time a lot of new changes happen which makes the scenario completely different from what we are debating here. Con believes that consciousness / sentience is a characteristic of the fetus. A specialized egg has no nervous system and hence no consciousness [2]. Con's assertion is therefore incorrect. It is also important to note that I got my information for this from a reliable medical website. Con's source, on the other hand, is from youtube. Con believes that I we cannot detect emotions. This is true but we can detect brain activity and certain brain activity demonstrates that the fetus has 'feelings' of some sort. The egg has no specialized nervous system in it's brain and it's brain is evidentally not completely developed, from scientists brain reports we have deduced that the fetus cannot feel emotions [2][3]. Con uses the same examples that have been constantly refuted. People that are on injected nutrition belong to the human race which we can decipher from their DNA, physical appearance and brain activity and complexity. The fetus has comparable DNA to humans (but not completely developed or the same). The fetus has little resemblance to a human being in terms of physical appearance. The fetus' brain is also not as developed as any living human being [4]. He drops independant respiration. Con states that he quoted the foundation of libertarianism and it's declaration of independance. By saying this alone, then they effectively drop my entire argument that I made and my previous rebuttals. I stated the main ideologies of libertarianism and why they should be considered above the requirements set by my opponent for this reason. This is dropped by Con. I find Con's critisism of quite funny. As somebody who has studied the politics of the UK in extreme depth I will try to correct your mistakes as best as I can. Right to bare arms: The right to bare arms isn't a right and it's a terrible idea. I don't want to get into too much depth however it is imporant to note that assaults are 7 times more likely to result in death if the aggressor posesses a firearm [5]. Free Speech: This isn't explained and is really easy to respond to. The UK follows the UDHR and in their laws they allow freedom of speech so long as it isn't discriminatory or racist and is used to provoke violence [6]. Privacy: This is broad and covers a lot of areas including freedom of the press, survailence, census frequency etc. Con hasn't been specific enough for me to respond. Taxes: We have a free NHS. We have free education. We have more jobs. We have higher wages. These taxes work out better for us than they do for you. You've also completely exaggeraed our taxes. Our basic rate divided income is at 10%. Basic rate savings income is 20%. Higher rate divided income is 32.5%. Our higher rate savings income is at 40%. Our additional rate divided income is 37.5%. Our additional rate savings income is at 45%. This is no where near as con has suggested. You should also note that he didn't source this whereas I have [7]. You are making absoloutely no sense. Please tell me in the comments (because there are no rounds left) what source you used to conclude your information because that statistic is worryingly far from the truth. He states that their framework is conservatism using that one word. Without an explanation (like mine), this makes no sense. It is not a framework. You have just used 1 word. Since my opponent has no explained his framework's significance and it's views on abortion this means that it is not suitable for the definition of a framework in debate and as a result you ought to vote Pro on the basis that con has failed to provide a framework. He attempts to justify they violation of the TOS by taking my words out of context and then putting them in quotation marks to make it look like they said this. As is evident, this is virtually impossible to justify. Yes, I said that women aren't getting their rights by being denied an abortion but I never mentioned a comparison to men and I never mentioned equal rights in this context. Con has also failed to justify putting this into quotation marks. I find it hilarious that con states that I should be voted against because of this. Con says that I am lying. If you can find evidence of me saying that the fetus is trespassing on the mother's body (other than when I deny con's claim that I said this), then you can vote Con. If you can't then you ought to vote Pro since con has lied (again). Con says that there are 1 million gay people wanting to adopt. Where are the sources? Oh wait, there are none. Con says that they were referring to the picture when they said that - they ignore the fact that they dropped the embryo argument which is the most signficant argument in the debate. Con makes a remark about communism in response to the BOP. I assume that means that they agree that the BOP is shared. Con says that he will punish illegal abortions. I said that most women die. He says that they will be put off. I say that they still do illegal abortions. Con says that he was talking about punishment. Do you see what is happening here? He is going arond in circles and not refuting my points. Con says that the fetus has committed no crime so it does not apply but fails to say why. It seems ironic that con says that one of his main philosophies is in regards to life and then says that life can be taken in certain circumstances. He doesn't explain why crime allows moral standards to be abandoned you ought to view it irrelevant. Arguments: He only has 1 which is refuted. He also drops my main argument. This goes to Pro. Conduct: He lies and makes false quotations. This goes to Pro. S&G - Tied Sources: He has used no sources up until the final round after I questioned him on it. He failed to source anything else throughout the entire debate where sources were necessary this goes to Pro. This is an objective vote for Pro. Sources [1] . http://bit.ly...;[2] . http://bit.ly...;[3] . http://bit.ly...[4] . http://bit.ly...[5] Guns in America: A Reader [6] . http://bit.ly...;[7] . http://bit.ly...;
| 1 |
the act of intentionally causing the death of a human fetus
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
yes
|
no
|
con
|
con
|
sorry about that I was thinking of something else. If a baby is born ill he will never live I normal life. something becomes living once the sperm and eggs touch but, If a baby is born ill he will never live I normal life. the good things about abortion is both the parents and the kid do not have to go through all the hardships of an extremely ill person. Imagine if you had to go through not even be able to talk and not now who anybody you have known for a long time is. Imagine that,Imagine that.
| 1 |
the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, or resulting in, the death of the fetus
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
#1 no ad hominems. #2 standard rules regarding dropped arguments apply #3 no new arguments in final rebuttals. I believe that abortion should be illegal except for when the pregnancy poses an abnormal threat to the life of the mother. please don't accept if you intend to forfeit.
| -1 |
a belief that is opposed to or contradicts accepted facts or principles
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Thanks 16K for your response. It’s sad to see that my opponent hasn’t adequately refuted some of my points in his last round. And since this is the last round, I’ll make this brief. REBUTTAL RE: Fetus = Human My opponent must be confused here. I’ve already explained the difference between a fetus and a fully grown sentient human being. And by ‘fully grown’ shouldn’t mean an adult, but it should refer to a human who can be dependent on one’s body, it should be capable to feel and think freely. A fetus doesn’t do any of these. My opponent hasn’t proven that the fetus has done any of this, he just argued that it ‘has’ life, which is very much insufficient to affirm his case. Furthermore, my opponent goes on and relies on hearsay testimony without really supporting it. He quoted something from a scripture that states that an abortion is murdering an innocent person, making a fetus a fully-grown human, this testimony should be considered null and void because I’ve already disproved it. CON also gives a link on medical evidence of fetus being human, he just gave a link and didn’t type an argument. Please discard them. RE: Abortion is murder My opponent states that abortion is illegal in some countries thus making it murder. But hasn’t offered proof on which country bans abortion and if it defines fetuses as a sentient human. So his argument fails here. Also, we shouldn’t be sidetracked here since this debate is about abortion in the US. It’s clear from the start. RE: Fetus feels pain My opponent lately claims that a fetus can feel pain, but that study only supports fetal pain during the end of the second trimester (28th week/7th month) of pregnancy. Now, this can be relevant if we’re arguing partial birth abortion, but we’re not, so we could disregard it. Also, even if a fetus can feel pain, it’s still not fully-grown or sentient. It is still a risk to the mother. My opponent failed to expand this contention. RE: Fetus dependent on mother CON’s logic fails here. He compares a fetus to a newborn infant. A fetus’ rights are still a developing right whereas children’s rights already exist. Fetuses aren’t natural-born citizens yet, but an infant is. An infant can survive without its mother (e.g.: nursing care, adoption centers), a fetus cannot survive without the mother because it’s still in the mother’s womb, so the life of the fetus is dependent on the mother. RE: Religion and Abortion Last time I checked, the US is a secular country and that the separation of Church and State shall be inviolable. My opponent has dropped my argument concerning the Bible’s contradiction on itself. He just repeated his argument. So please extend. RE: Abortion Polls: PRO-life vs. PRO-choice CON failed to give a website, and that site has tons of polls, I’m not obligated to go through a pile of polls just to negate the fact that it’s reliable. It’s CON’s fault for not backing it up. Also, he didn’t respond as to how many were interviewed, probably only 10 biased people were interviewed, which is false. Ergo, this premise has already been disproved for lack of accuracy and its lack or relevancy. RE: Hippocratic Oath Again, I’ve proven that the fetus shouldn’t be considered human and that abortion can be justified. This oath wasn’t introduced adequately with sufficient evidence, so there’s nothing really to refute. DEFENSE Killing justified on certain circumstances My opponent evades these hypothetical scenarios by comparing it to a fetus being aborted, which isn’t entirely the point. This premise is solely to negate that killing is always wrong, which is false. But nevertheless, my opponent negates his own contention by saying ‘unless you are in danger, except in health risks, etc, etc’ --- And… that’s it. Nothing to defend really, since my opponent failed to address my contentions, which is a disappointment. Which leads us to my the conclusion. CONCLUSION Okay, so by now you will realize that my opponent has failed to satisfy his burden of proof. He needed to show that: 1) A fetus is a human being, and 2) All abortions are the unlawful killing of a human being with premeditation and malice aforethought. My opponent didn’t give adequate and enough evidence to sufficiently prove a fetus is human and he made no argument that abortion is the premeditated killing of a human. He has also failed to refute all my arguments and he has failed to back up his claims. I urge you voters to vote PRO. Thanks. And for my exit, I present you a picture that shows abortion is a choice, a right of the woman and it shouldn't be taken away.
| 1 |
the act of destroying a fetus
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
con
|
con
|
I dont believe abortion should be legal unless two situations exist, rape or the mothers life is in danger. Abortion shouldnt be an option for young women (or older women) who dont wish to be burdened with carrying and delivering a child. Especially with the numerous forms of birth control for little or no cost.
| -1 |
the act of deliberately terminating a human pregnancy especially in the first eight months
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Abortion should not be seen as a crime. Once someone aborts, many view them as a cruel, bad person. A parent who aborts always has a reason behind their abortion. One cannot judge a person if they do not see the situation or know the reason behind their abortion. Many women who abort are young who still have a whole life ahead of them, and are simply unable to provide the baby with all its necessities. Some women get raped, others have health problems, or sometimes the baby has health problems. You have to be able to understand the situation of the parent. No one wants too see a baby suffering along with a young mom who was not able to abort therefore leading to her dropping out of school and living in bad conditions with no education.
| 1 |
the act of terminating a pregnancy as a woman or other person with capacity to gestate a human fetus
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
yes
|
no
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
My opponent uses the arguments: "-Babies don't pay taxes." "-Babies don't buy anything." "Babies can't work, and though some may consider 17 year olds their "baby", babies can't enlist in the military." Well, in response to these arguments I'll say this. Babies do NOT stay babies forever and also sure babies cannot buy anything but the parents will buy things for them such as: food, clothes, toys, ect. There is an entire Industry revolved around babies. Some examples: baby showers, baby clothing, baby toys, baby furniture and many other things. My opponent's next argument: "-Most children placed by DCFS (Department of Children and Family Services) were from homes so abusive or neglectful that it would be unsafe for them to return. -Illinois spends an annual $14,871,200 in the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services Foster Homes/Specialized Foster Care and Prevention line -$8,100,000 for DCFS funding of personal services to prevent the layoff of frontline staff (http://childcareillinois.wordpress.com......) -In 2007 there were 111,742 reports of child abuse and neglect in the state of Illinois -In 2003 there were 25,344 substantiated cases of child abuse and neglect, more than 4,000 children removed from their homes, and 58 confirmed child deaths due to abuse.(http://www.fightcrime.org......)" Is my opponent suggesting that DCFS is a bad thing? My opponent's argument has no relevance to the topic we are debating and I will explain. Most of the children removed from the parents are abused and neglected and the major cause of the abuse and the neglect is that the parents are either hooked on drugs, suffering from a mental illness or the father is abusing the mother. Those are also the parents that belong to the class of lower socioeconomic Incomes and these people have to rely on the government(DCFS) more so then the middle class and wealthy. So unless my opponent claims that the majority of people who go to get abortions who belong to the Lower Socioeconomic Income class and either have a problem with drugs, mental health. or domestic violence then his argument is irrelevant. Another argument: "I know I provided more information than necessary to refute my opponent's claims, but this information is relevant when considering foster care and adoption as a viable alternative to abortion. The truth is many children are abused in foster care, and many homeless in America come from the foster care system. -20,000 youth "age out" or emancipate from foster care each year. -Up to 50% of former foster/probation youth become homeless within the first 18 months of emancipation. -Twenty seven percent (27%) of the homeless population spent time in foster care. -Fifty-eight percent (58%) of all young adults accessing federally funded youth shelters in 1997 had previously been in foster care. -Less than half of former foster youth are employed 2.5-4 years after leaving foster care, and only 38% have maintained employment for at least one year. -Youth in foster care are 44% less likely to graduate from high school and after emancipation, 40 �€" 50 percent never complete high school. -Girls in foster care are six times more likely to give birth before the age of 21 than the general population. -Sixty percent (60%) of women who emancipate from foster care become parents within 2.5-4 years after exiting care. -Parents with a history of foster care are almost twice as likely as parents with no such history to see their own children placed in foster care or become homeless. (http://fosterculture.wordpress.com......) Now, these statistics not only refute my opponent's claims, but they support my claim that illegalizing abortion is more likely to have a negative impact on our economy than my opponent's alternative claim." Again my opponent seems to keep going on about the Adoption Industry. He is right the Industry would boom due to the few people out there who actually can't afford to take care of a kid. Only 21% of all people who get an abortion is because of the amount of money that they make. My opponent states that "7.6% vs 3.1% adoptees vs. non-adoptees are likely to attempt suicide" Now I am going to use one of his own arguments against him how do you know what is really going on in the adoptees minds? You do not know what they are thinking. Lets assume that his statistics are even true. 7.6% adoptees who would rather commit suicide then to tough it out and survive vs 92.7% who would rather live,is a big difference and it further proves my point that the vast majority of people would rather have the right to life then to be aborted by their mothers. My opponent says: "I believe many of those who have actually suffered through living in these institutions would disagree with my opponent." Take it from me my father actually was an adopted child and he actually had a good experience out of it better then he would have had if his parents would have kept him. So according to my source which happens to be my own father contradicts with this statement. Also he says... "Even so, he does not argue that rape and incest should be an exception" People should NOT be permitted to have an abortion in a case of these as I said earlier you cannot punish the innocent due to the evils of the guilty. He says: My opponent claims that "only" 1% of abortions in the US are a result of rape and/or incest. Even so, he does not argue that rape and incest should be an exception, rather that a baby acting as a cancer should be the ONLY exception. Acknowledgment of 1 single abortion performed due to rape and/or incest is justification that that abortion should be allowed. He does not make this argument. Instead he says that "loved ones whom they trust" would provide psychiatric support, as well as therapists. What if a girl was raped by a family member (incest), or even her own father? As I said earlier they should look for counsel by a family member who they TRUST. Like I said only 1%is due to rape and incest. Again his arguments have no revelance to the topic, Illegalizing abortion has nothing to do with the counseling needs of a woman that has been raped. He also states: "The statistics state otherwise- abortion rates are similar worldwide whether legal or illegal (http://www.iht.com......), and illegalization is not a deterrent from the world's most prevalent medical procedure. The difference is the mortality and injury rates of the women having illegal abortions performed, versus legal abortions." Of course there would be a deterrent from getting an illegal abortion. Firstly a lot of women would be uncomfortable getting illegal abortions knowing they wouldn't be as safe as they would be legally. Also the law its self would be a deterrent people wont want to take the chance getting caught and arrested for getting an abortion. He says: "I have addressed this in my first round argument- it is not for the law to determine when life begins, and when a "person" has the right to live, rather it is for medicine and science to decide." Well, then why is it that when somebody commits a murder of a pregnant woman he is charged with double homicide, but somehow when a woman gets an abortion its somehow no longer human. For example The Scott and Lacy Peterson trial. He says: "How many millions more of us are lost when our fathers masturbate, or when our mothers perform oral sex? I see no difference in this line of questioning." Life does not begin until the sperm meets with the egg its as simple as that. Well, thanks for the debate, aren't you glad your mother didn't abort you?
| -1 |
the act of terminating a pregnancy after, accompanied by, or resulting in the death of the fetus
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
OK the problem I have with your rebuttals is that you failed to go into sufficient details as to why you make such an argument. The reason being is that you mention several different topics that fall within the Abortion issue, but instead of sticking to one topic, you briefly mention several, making it hard to defend or attack your assertions. For example, the first statement you make is that abortion is considered murder. You gave me a defintion of murder, yet you have failed to demonstrate WHY a fetus/baby is human and why it's immoral. If a fetus/baby, is considered human (again we didn't define it) then you have to show that it is murder. If it's not a human, then your whole argument fails. The only argument I can make is to demonstrate that neurological activity doesnt FULLY develop until around the 3rd trimester. It is true that there will be simple neurological brain activity by the 6th week, however, they are very basic firings that do not define as it as a human ability. The article that I provided states that it has the same neurological activity as a patient minutes after death. http://www.nytimes.com...;I take a neurological approach because I believe that humans are ultimately defined by our brains. All other organs are accessory organs mediated for our survival. What makes us, human, and ourselves, is really just our brain. Since CON hasn't rebutted my argument about abortion being permissible before the 3rd trimester, my case still holds. The next topic you go on about is nutrition. To be frank, this argument is ridiculous. I dont see how it relates to abortion and even if it did, I dont know what point youre trying to make with this. The fetus gets its nutrients from the placenta, while the baby, after conception, gets it from the mothers breasts. A placenta is not the same thing as a mother's breasts. They're even located on different areas of the human body. The nutrients aren't even the same. The placenta brings in nutrients and hormones for growth and differentiation of cells. The breasts provide milk for specific development of differentiated cells. If they served the same purpose, then why would women have two different organs providing for the same thing?The third topic, rebutting a brief point I made in R1 (which by the way, isnt the crux of my argument) was about abortion in the case of rape. I don't understand why a fetus, who has no activiy of any kind whatsoever and who isnt born yet, has more rights than the mother, who has been living for several years and has contributed to society. Please elaborate why you think a ball of cells has more rights than a living human being. Even if the fetus does have rights, that doesnt mean that it has the right to violate someone else's rights. So no, I do not think it's selfish. In fact, I think in the case of rape, it's selfish from the fetus standpoint to force the mother carry it to term and then another 18 years. Your burden is to prove to me why an inanimate object's rights is greater than a human being's life.The next paragraph you list on development stages, which I dont understand the point. Just because one develops a leg means that it's human? So all types of mammals are now considered human and should have the same human rights as us, is that what youre suggesting? The only relevant argument, to a small degree, is the formaiton of neurons. While it is true that lots of neurons form, one gotta realize that most of those neurons aren't used at all. It's a form of development where the neurons overdevelop to increase the chances of making the correct connections with other parts of the brain. The ones that aren't used, the failed connections, are degraded over time. It's called the neurotrophic hypothesis. For further information please read the abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...;While I do realize that you need a subscription to pubmed and most of the people here do not have it, one should realize that you just need to read the abstract to get a basic understanding of the hypothesis. Lastly, you rebut a small point that I made in R1 about the fetus vs baby. While organs do form, they are nonfunctioning in a fetus. It is essentially a prep time before actual use. It's making sure everything works before the irreversible step of conception. Anyways, it doesnt weaken my argument about abortion at all. Before I submit my responses, one should realize that CON has failed to rebut the crux of my issue on abortion. She cherry-picked small, superfiical information that I made about my opinions on abortion, but not on my actual arguments. I hope the readers realizes that ALL my arguments still stands.
| 1 |
the act of deliberately causing something to end prematurely
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.