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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Abortion gives women the right to do as they please. And see fit with their own body. Women are given the freedom of choice, to do what they would like. Humans are endowed to life,liberty and pursuit of happiness as stated in The Declaration of Independence. These rights are our "unalienable rights", and they are protected by the Government. Abortion is also legal. There are no laws the prohibit Abortion in some states. So if it is not Illegal then we should be able to do as we please. Sources: http://www.archives.gov... You are asserting that giving birth is the "responsible" choice in the event of a pregnancy but that your opinion. If the woman knows that she will not be able to provide for the child,or the child will be born with a disability that will affect the child throughout it's whole life, then she should be able to abort if needed. Also if the child will have a short,miserable life, then the mother should be able to choose if she will keep the child or not.
| 1 |
the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or destruction of the embryo or fetus
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
I will accept your challenge of the issue of Abortion. The view points on this are about 50/50 so I can see this being a VERY close fight, prehaps to the death. Argue well, and may the best man win.
| 1 |
the act of deliberately killing a human fetus
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
no
|
con
|
con
|
I encourage my opponent to make one last conclusion on this debate, and not forfeit the last argument. In conclusion, abortions are a very bad thing, both for the mother and the child. Abortions cause physical and mental pain to the mother, and often leave them second guessing themselves. Doctors should be the ones protecting the children, not the ones aborting the children. Now, there is a better option, put the child up for adoption. As i mentioned above there is a plethora of parents who would love to adopt the children of those who do not want them. Lastly, abortion should be illegal only if it endangers the life of the mother. Otherwise, we will see many negative impacts on our country both now and into the future.
| -1 |
the termination of a pregnancy so that it does not result in the birth of a child
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
I apologize for the delay. I will be arguing against abortion. I hope that round 1 was not all of Pro's argument but all Pro seems to indicate that abortion is a right. I am unaware of such a right. Since pro did not make many arguments for abortion I will give a brief outline of arguments against abortion and I will try to incorporate some counterclaims as well. Life Begins at ConceptionIt is a foregone conclusion that what is in a mother's stomach is a living being and not simply a body part of the woman's body. End of story. [1]Those who are pro-choice tend to avoid calling to murder by pointing out that since the baby isn't viable it is more justifiable. I am assuming pro is fine with pretty much all forms of abortion that take place because pro did not give any period of time. If we use what I just gave as a reference, babies can become viable sometimes as early as 22 weeks. [2]Even prior to that, why is there any justification for killing a living baby just because it cannot survive on its own? Plus if one were to just wait a few weeks, the baby will become viable. Proponents of abortion, especially those who consider it a right, tend to argue that since abortion is the deliberate termination of a baby in the womb, if the government would outlaw abortion they would be "forcing" women to have a baby which is unjust. This is blatantly false. The government is not "forcing" people to have babies by preventing the murder of them. The government is simply executing one of its primary roles which is to protect the life of people. The government has every right to prevent people from murdering each other. And guess what? A women has every right to not get pregnant. I look forward to your response. Sources:[1]: . https://www.princeton.edu...[2]: . http://www.nytimes.com...
| -1 |
the termination of a human pregnancy, as a medical procedure or in some cases as a result of accident or injury
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
To define infanticide one must first define life. Human rights are applied to the living. A corpse has no human rights after life has seeped away from it for example. A foetus had no human rights until life has emerged from the biological process. 'Murder for pleasure'. Really! Your argument seems to be based from an emotional standpoint. You utilise terms such as murder and infanticide when referring to abortion. Whether this comes from a religious standpoint or your own moralising you have left unclear. You state: 'What people need to understand is that it is no skin off the womens constitutional rights to be denied the 'right' to murder their children.' First I will ask you when a collection of cells become a child. There is a large grey area you could have swung for yet I suspect from your writing, and though you haven't stated it as I requested, it is conception. If that is so then I strongly disagree. One week after conception the potential of life is but a bunch of cells. And yet you would argue that this bunch of cells is enough to deny a woman the right to life, liberty and property as set out within your constitution and that you are fond of quoting. Your argument of constitutional illegality is flawed and USA centric. Unless you are only concerned with infringing upon the rights of American women I would ask what your argument might be in addressing European abortion. The laws here are a little different, and less disproportionate than 'you' would wish. From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org... Fetal rights are moral rights or legal rights of human fetuses under natural and civil law. The term fetal rights came into wide usage after the landmark case Roe v. Wade that legalized abortion in the United States in 1973.[1] The concept of fetal rights has evolved to include the issues of maternal drug and alcohol abuse.[2] The only international treaty specifically tackling the fetal rights is the American Convention on Human Rights which envisages the fetal right to life. While international human rights instruments lack a universal inclusion of a fetus as a person for the purposes of human rights, fetus is granted various rights in the constitutions and civil codes of several countries. Many legal experts recognize an increasing need to settle the legal status of the fetus. And: Under European law, fetus is generally regarded as an in utero part of the mother and thus its rights are held by the mother.[42] The European Court of Human Rights opined that the right to life does not extend to fetuses under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR),[42] although it does not confer on the European Court of Human Rights the authority to impose relevant laws on European Union member states.[43] In H. v. Norway, the European Commission did not exclude that "in certain circumstances" the fetus may enjoy "a certain protection under Article 2, first sentence".[44] Three European Union member states (Ireland, Hungary and Slovakia) grant fetus the constitutional right to life. The Constitution of Norway grants the unborn royal children the right of succession to the throne.[45] In English common law, fetus is granted inheritance rights under the born alive rule. Every nation struggles with the concept of abortion with unique conclusions. The World Health Organization (WHO) and Human Rights Watch prioritize women's reproductive rights over fetal rights period. To protect both mother and the potential of life she carries as best we can emotion must be set aside in favour of logic and reason. I await your application of both of those.
| 1 |
the act of destroying a foetus
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Ladies and gentlemen, it is evident my opponent has a disregard for statistics. He would rather you believe his own claims with no sources to back up these claims. He questions my statistics without reading the sources. He questions the relevance of my arguments, and in doing so ignores the fact that they were written in response to his own arguments. In effect, he is disregarding his own arguments as irrelevant. Though I know the readers can follow, it seems my opponent cannot, and so I will explain: "(1)Babies do NOT stay babies forever...(2)parents will buy things for them...(3)There is an entire Industry revolved around babies...etc." 1-I provided statistics regarding the vicious circle of the foster care system. Not only will it be at least 18 years before children grow out of the system, I provided statistics on children who are adopted before then. Yes, there are many adopted children- even the vast majority- who become productive members of our society, however it is a demographic which now contributes in greater majorities to homelessness, crime, and to the very demographic they come from- foster care and/or adoptive children. Please see my sources in R2. 2-We are speaking about parents who would not want their children, and would most likely give them up for adoption. 3- Again, these are children who won't be wanted by their parents because they were forced to have them after they already wanted to have them aborted. "Is my opponent suggesting that DCFS is a bad thing?" -My mention of DCFS was to show statistically the expenditure by the state of Illinois in comparison to my opponent's claim that abortions cost the state $1 million annually. "So unless my opponent claims that the majority of people who go to get abortions who belong to the Lower Socioeconomic Income class" -I thank my opponent for making my argument relevant. I will give several sources' statements on demographics: * 56% of women having abortions are in their 20s; * 61% have one or more children; * 67% have never married; * 57% are economically disadvantaged; * 88% live in a metropolitan area; and * 78% report a religious affiliation. http://www.guttmacher.org... -67% of abortions occur amongst minority (non-white) women. -The abortion rate among women living below the federal poverty level ($9,570 for a single woman with no children) is more than four times that of women above 300% of the poverty level (44 vs. 10 abortions per 1,000 women). This is partly because the rate of unintended pregnancies among poor women (below 100% of poverty) is nearly four times that of women above 200% of poverty* (112 vs. 29 per 1,000 women -75% of women who had an abortion say they couldn't afford to have a child http://www.guttmacher.org... Now, I don't know if I have to link poverty to drug abuse, as that is common sense, but I will nonetheless provide some sources so as not to rely simply on my opinion and assumptions as my opponent has. My sources say there are links between poverty as the cause of drug abuse, and vice versa. There are also links between abortion and drug abuse, and vice versa. Poor, unmarried women are both more likely to have abortions (as evidenced in the sources above), and they are also more likely to use drugs. http://www.policelink.com... http://www.guttmacher.org... http://www.apa.org... "Again my opponent seems to keep going on about the Adoption Industry." - It is the only alternative my opponent provided to abortion. I have presented the options of education on contraceptive use, help for single mothers, etc. My opponent seems to not want me to address an issue that he brought up. "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." -I did not claim to know what they were thinking, rather I was pointing out their higher prevalence for suicide attempts in response to your claim that "the worst doom of all is not even getting the chance to live and the right to life." Though I don't condone suicide, it is easy to understand why a child not wanted by his/her birth parents might wish that he/she were not alive. Yes, it is a drastic thought, and suicide is a drastic measure, but it is an issue that we have to deal with. Illegalizing abortion would contribute to the demographic most prone to attempting suicide amongst youths. "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." -By that same token a girl who is raped by her father should not be punished by having to bear his child. At the time of conception it is not the conceived child who will suffer, rather the child who was raped. No one has the right to impose that on a child, and to claim ethical and moral superiority on this issue is ridiculous. My opponent makes other statements that completely disregard my arguments, yet has presented no counter-argument of his own, even if you disregard my arguments. He never defended my statements on abortion not being murder, nor my scientific definition of embryo, and so we must assume he has accepted both. What reason, then, remains to illegalize abortion in his arguments? He claimed in R2 "it is the right of the baby's right to life that abortion infringes on", but that argument does not hold when considering the definition of embryo, and the fact that most abortions occur at that stage of pregnancy (before the start of the third month). My opponent asks a question, but doesn't provide an answer: "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." I contend that the reason it is considered a double homicide is because it was not the woman's choice to end the child's life. Her life was taken, as well as the life of the child she INTENDED to have. My opponent claims that life begins when the sperm meets the egg, and that it is as simple as that. I refute this statement because a sperm is a living cell independent from all other cells in our body, and an egg is a cell independent from all other cells in our body. When the sperm enters the egg, they become one lving cell called a zygote. How is a zygote a living human, yet a sperm cell or an egg- both which contain the information to develop a human, both building blocks of life- not a living human? The truth is a zygote is not a living human. It is merely a cell. When it divides, and continues to divide, it eventually forms an embryo- also not a living human. I will close with some passages from the bible: Hosea 9:11-16"Ephraim shall bring forth his children to the murderer. Give them, 0 Lord: what wilt thou give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. . .Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit: yea though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb." Numbers 5:11-21 Priest ordered to cause abortion of woman who conceives child of another man. Hosea 13:16 God promises to dash to pieces the infants of Samaria and the "their women with child shall be ripped up". I do not condone abortion, nor do I support it. I support the right of a woman to choose, and I oppose the arguments against abortion based on morality or ethics. My morality should not impose on the personal choices of others which do not affect me. The above passages are not intended to offend Christians, rather to point out that morality can be taken out of context, and manipulated to one's own views. I ask the readers to judge on the merits of the arguments, not their own
| 1 |
the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, as a medical procedure or in some cases as a criminal act
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
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 ending a human pregnancy
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Homicide is the deliberate taking of a person"s life by another person. If someone commits homicide, they can be put in prison for a life sentence, or under certain circumstances be executed. Abortion is the deliberate "procedure" of taking an unborn baby's life. The key word is deliberate. In both cases however, someone"s life is taken by another person on purpose. In 1973, the supreme court"s decision over Roe Vs Wade effectively legalized abortion in all fifty states, opening abortion clinics all over the nation. Norma McCorvey, also know as Jane Roe, was dragged into the Roe vs Wade case. She wanted an abortion, and it was this that led to her being behind the Supreme Court"s ruling. She says it is the number one regret in her life. She wishes she had known what she was getting into.. She hates that because of her abortion is legal. In other words, murder is legal. If the person behind the thousands of Planned Parenthood's is Pro Life, shouldn"t that mean something? Anything? Or even everything?
| -1 |
the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most commonly performed as a surgical procedure by a qualified health professional
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
pro
|
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 termination of a pregnancy by the removal or destruction of an embryo or fetus
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
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 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 |
termination of pregnancy
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Abortion is wrong, there are two many reasons.
| -1 |
the act of deliberately terminating a pregnancy
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
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 act of removing or inducing the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Adoption is a common thing to rebuff abortion, however, abortion is mainly used when they don't want to give birth, so forcing them to give birth wouldn't make sense. Abstinence is not a good way to prevent children, while it works 100% of the time, people will eventually "quit", and have sex. I didn't say it couldn't cause STDs, what I said was that my doctor told me that oral and anal cause cancer, which they don't
| 1 |
the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo before the viability of the fetus.
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
"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 termination of a pregnancy by the removal or destruction of a fetus or embryo
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
I understand your viewpoint, but it is unclear whether abortion is slaughter or not, just as it is unclear whether a fetus is alive or not. Words like "kill" and "murder" cannot be used validly where it is questionable that the fetus has life in the first place. Also, crimes such as sexual assault and rape can occur. After these events women may not choose to birth the child, which means that she may need to choose abortion.
| 1 |
the deliberate destruction of a fetus
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
no
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
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 |
termination of a pregnancy
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Explain to me why abortion is good and why is it not murder.
| -1 |
the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or destruction of an embryo or fetus.
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
First off, I never said to kill the attacker. Review my post and see for yourself. What I said was to grab the attacker's arm, denying him bodily autonomy to move his arm, but allowing a child to live. I was finding fault with your statement: 'Bodily integrity or bodily autonomy means that you have the right to control what happens to your body even if that hurts or kills others.' In my scenario, I go against your statement, yet in my opinion it is the right thing to do. 'If someone is trying to kill your child, and the ONLY way to stop them is to kill them, any rational person would choose their child's life over the attacker's life. Is that your stance? Because you only have two options in that contrived situation: advocate murdering the attacker or advocate the murder of your child. By doing either, does that mean that you don"t value life? How can your point of view be anything but contradictory of each other?' You have set me up to fail. If I choose to do nothing, (according to you) I do not value life. If I kill the attacker, I don't value life. the only way to successfully win in your scenario is to not care about human life, which i am not prepared to do. In that situation, I would kill the attacker. In my opinion when someone tries to take a life deliberately, their life is less important than their victim's. However, I am against the death penalty. The reason for this is that the death penalty is about revenge, while, killing an attacker is about stopping an evil act being committed by a murderer. Of course you could argue that killing the attacker is still murder, and it is, but in a situation where the child dies OR the attacker dies, I would pick the attacker, as seeing that either way a life is lost, It may as well be that of a murderer as opposed to a child. You cannot prevent death, only decide who it takes. 'If you do believe human have "worth" please tell me what a human is worth? That should be an interesting discussion.' Well here's your interesting discussion. I didn't mean 'worth' as in monetary worth, not at all. I meant it as moralworth, as in something to be valued. I honestly do not know how you can take '... is human life after birth worth anything?' and see that as monetary worth. 'Life begins at conception, and no I don"t agree with your view. You present a false dichotomy where there are only two choices, and that"s not the reality. Is it morally "right" to put the child"s life above the mother's? Is it morally "right" to put the mother"s life above the child"s? The answer to both is no, it"s not a decision I have any right to make from a moral standpoint.' To clarify, I believe that if the mother's life is in danger, then the only solution should be to maximise human life, whatever that looks like. Think of it in a utilitarian sort of way. You say it is incorrect there are only two choices. Is it? If so, prove me wrong. These are the only two choices available: 1. You believe human life begins at conception, and therefore agree with my view. 2. There is a cut-off point in terms of development as to what constitutes human life, and what is worthy of human rights. Prove me wrong. Here, you put: 'Bodily autonomy is what others can do to your body. This is the reason that rationally, you should defend yourself from an attacker, to protect that attacker from violating your body.' But what gives you the right to violate his bodily autonomy? If you prevent someone harming you using their body, you are preventing their bodily autonomy. This sounds ridiculous, because it is. However, I'm only going off your definition. So either change your definition or agree with me, because at the moment your statement above contradicts your definition. For clarity, here is your definition: 'Bodily integrity or bodily autonomy means that you have the right to control what happens to your body even if that hurts or kills others.' So if you say that it's ok to prevent an attacker from attacking you, then you directly contradict your definition, as you say '...even if that hurts or kills others' Now I expect you to be a nihilist at this point, as the only way this statement below is consistent with your beliefs is if you don't care about human life at all. However, this is not true, as you care about the life of the fetus' mother. 'In your thought experiment, you are not in any way required to take care of someone who is helpless.' Of course you are not required, just as a mother at this moment in time is allowed to not care for someone (the fetus) that is helpless. The alternative to not taking care of the person is a human dying. If you value human life, you would care for the human life, as you can see that 9 months of inconvenience are by far worth less than an actual human life. You said this: 'We have the freedom to help others, or not help others, that is what freedom is.' True, but do you think you should have the freedom to pull the trigger of a gun and kill someone who isn't harming you? In my opinion, the freedom of choice can be infringed, as the alternative is someone losing their freedom to live. Thus, it is the same with the fetus. As for your lung example, I would like to live in a would where you are forced to give a lung if it saves the life of someone else. I value human life over virtually anything else, so someone else's convenience can be sacrificed for human life. 'Choosing to not save someone, does not make you a murder.' No, of course not. But deliberately having an operation to destroy an unborn baby is, as you are actively causing the fetus' death. I cannot find where I have said I don't care about the good of society. I'm assuming you are referencing my view that lowered crime rates do not make a difference in terms of the abortion argument. '...you just care about birth, not what happens afterwards.' No, you do not know that. You are assuming that I have a hard right Republican leaning, and therefore advocate things like flat tax and cutting welfare etc. I have never mentioned anything as to what happens to the child after birth. Therefore you are assuming my view point on issues you do not know what my view point is. Do not do this,as you may be wrong and it is an unfair argument, I could (hypothetically) be a communist who so happens to be pro-life. So do not assume my complete political viewpoint is the same as many pro life advocates.
| -1 |
the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, especially one that prevents a woman from giving birth to a baby
|
noslang
|
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 |
termination of a pregnancy so that the embryo or fetus is not born
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
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 terminating a pregnancy by destroying the embryo or fetus
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
I would also like to say that this is my first time on this website, so bear with me! Abortion was legalized in 1973 due to Roe v. Wade, and since then over 56 million unborn children have been killed. That means that every hour, 155 babies are aborted, and approximately 1 child is aborted every 2.6 seconds. [1] Life begins at conception. In most cases, a man and a woman choose to engage in sexual intercourse fully aware of the consequences that could arise. Hence, they should make sure to take the proper steps to avoid any consequence, for example by using contraception. Abortion however, should not be used as a form of contraception. Abortion is not a Now how about if the man and woman who engage in sexual intercourse truly take the proper precautions, but the woman still ends up pregnant, but doesn't want the child? First of all, it is common knowledge that babies are made through sexual intercourse, so if the woman or man do not want a baby, then they should refrain from sexual intercourse. Second of all, adoption is always an alternative. With approximately 1.5 million American families wanting to adopt a child [2], there is no such thing as an unwanted child. Moving on to teenagers who merely have sexual intercourse for fun, and get pregnant, and because they feel that they are not old enough, get an abortion. If you feel that you are not old enough to have a child and provide for that child, then you should not be having sexual intercourse " plain and simple. It is commonly argued that women should have control over their own body, and choose what happens to their body. I completely agree. However, if women truly want control over their body, then that includes preventing themselves from an unwanted pregnancy, by taking the proper precautions or practicing abstinence. Moving on to women or girls who get pregnant through rape or incest. This is different, as they do not choose to engage in sexual intercourse, but are instead forced to. However, abortion punished the unborn innocent child, who has done absolutely nothing wrong. It is the perpetrator who should be punished, not the child. Again, adoption is a viable option. (I would just like to take moment to say that I do not believe rape is ever the woman or girls fault. I wholeheartedly believe that it is the perpetrators fault) Abortion can also result in medical complications. For example, abortions doubles the risk of ectopic pregnancies, and the chances of a miscarriage and pelvic inflammatory disease also increases. In addition, undergoing an abortion will most likely result in intense psychological pain and stress. [2] Human life is precious, and seeing as life begins at conception, these unborn babies are human beings with a right to life. These unborn babies have done nothing to hurt anyone, so punishing them due to the fact that perhaps a woman choose to engage in sexual intercourse without taking the proper precautions is plain unjust and unethical. Hence, abortion should be illegal. Now, I could go on and on about the dangers of abortion, how abortion goes against what it says in the bible, how abortion is murder, or even how it has been proved that fetuses feel pain during an abortion procedure " but I am going to leave it at that. [1] . http://www.tfpstudentaction.org... [2] . http://womensissues.about.com...
| -1 |
the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, as a means of birth control, or because it poses health risks to the mother ; the induced expulsion of a fetus or embryo from the uterus before the viability of birth.
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
pro
|
pro
|
Are we ever gonna start debating about abortion or not ?
| 1 |
the deliberate destruction of a fetus or the expulsion of a fetus that has died
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Contention 1: life is not sacred. Con really didn't say too much about this, other than saying that I must think killing newborn babys is OK. Even though I don't believe my point was adequately contested, I will continue defending it in hopes it is addressed better next round. Life is not sacred. We kill germs constantly, we kill animals for fun, we even kill people if they don't follow the laws. This is all life. Contention 2: Human life does not begin at conception. Con did not address this point at all. I will assume con concedes this point. If human life does not begin at conception then a pro-life argument is hard to make, of course... Contention 3: A fetus is not a person. Con spent the vast majority of the round addressing this point, and introduces a new contention "Abortion should be illegal after the second trimester" which I will lump together here. He quotes Discover Magazine, and claims that "after six months, the baby can feel pain" but apparently does not bother to read the article quoted. Only two paragraphs in, it states "...physicians... tell women that 20-week-old fetuses can feel pain during the procedure unless they are anesthetized. A newly released review of the scientific evidence, however, suggests the premise of those laws is wrong." The article continues on to further defend this premise. This is a fatal mistake, Con. What makes you a person? Reaction to stimuli? Brain activity? A beating Heart? None of these. These traits make you ALIVE which is dealt with in contention 1. Personhood includes your personality, experiences, relationships with other people, your abilities, and your sins. Every person has made faults. A fetus has not. 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). It sins (cries, disobeys), gains experience, forms a personality, and becomes a person. This is the difference you asked me for.
| 1 |
the act of intentionally causing a fetus to die or a pregnant woman to miscarry or give birth prematurely
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
I believe that the killing of a child inside the womb is abortion during and stage of a pregnancy. I cannot understand your reasoning behind a baby being viable or not. As I said, heart is beating at 3 and 1/2 weeks. Science proves that this is in fact a separate entity from his or her mother. ALL abortion is horrific. I am not for any trimester- I believe that abortion is just as terrible in the first trimester than the third. And you still did not answer my question on how you justify that most women feel that they had no other choice than to abort their child.. can this be because organizations like Planned Parenthood are not giving these women all the choices possible? Maybe these organizations are persuading women a certain direction? Certainly.. it happens every day. Planned Parenthood employees have a script to avoid any kind of question a woman may have and to ensure that those women come in to receive an abortion. You discuss first trimester abortion, yet your stance on the pro choice is that a woman should be able to decide at any stage when she can abort her child. I ask you when you consider this "fetus" and child? When should the line be drawn? Can we kill children even outside the womb? I mean honestly, what you essentially are saying is that there is no difference between killing a baby in the womb or killing a baby outside the womb... I really do not understand this whole viable vs. unviable, baby vs. fetus argument. Does a single difference in a day decide when a life is a life?
| -1 |
the deliberate destruction of a fetus or embryo
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
As said in the title, this debate is about abortion. I am con, so will argue against. The challenge is open to whomever takes it. This is my point of view: Abortion is an act of murder, wherein a human being is removed from the uterus of the mother, resulting in the death of this baby. Abortion is a violation of human rights. It violates the unborn baby's basic right to live, and should be illegal, except in unusual circumstances. This would include, but not be limited to, rape, mother's life in danger, SERIOUS disabilities, confirmed uncurable diseases present in the fetus. My opponent can argue for abortion in any case, or upto a certain period (2nd term, 3rd term) of time. It's up to him/her.
| -1 |
the act of ending a pregnancy so that the fetus is not born
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
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 termination of pregnancy
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
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 |
termination of pregnancy before the fetus is fully developed
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
I accept. Since you are Pro (for) abortion, I assume you are on the side of abortion, while I am against abortion.
| -1 |
the act of terminating a pregnancy, especially as a medical procedure
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
First I will present my case. P1: A fetus is a human P2: It is morally wrong to kill a human C: Abortion is wrong P1: A zygote, made at the moment of conception, already has the same attributes needed to be alive. It has metabolism, growth, reacts to stimulants, and reproduction cells. It has human DNA. A fetus is a homosapien, therefore they are a human. P2: This ones kind of obvious, I hope you agree. Conclusion: Abortion is killing a human, therefore it is wrong. Sources F. Beck, D. B. Moffat, and D. P. Davies, Human Embryology, Second edition . http://abortionfacts.com... THE THREE QUESTIONS I await your response.
| -1 |
termination of pregnancy by removal of the embryo or fetus
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
All life should be valued and held sacred. Life begins at conception and killing them would be murder. Just because they are not full grown human being they should not be looked at differently. No civilized society on earth permits taking the life of another, abortion should not be any different.
| -1 |
the act of removing a fetus or embryo from the uterus
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
"Thank you for informing me about this, this is where I personally feel its wrong to kill a human, because this is when I feel like it becomes a person. " And this is when most abortions occur, it is before 8 months. Concession. Vote Con. "1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child. " Yes, I feel it is okay in those situations. I agree.
| -1 |
the deliberate termination of a pregnancy
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
A counter argument to your maternal death rates due to complications during pregnancy is that there are also complications during the abortion procedure. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... The article states on a world wide scale about 42 million woman choose abortion while nearly half of them are unsafe and woman could potentially die and some woman can have serious health complications after the fact of the abortion. Also in this article: http://www.hli.org... The article mentions: About 6 chances in 100,000 for childbirth and about 3 chances in 100,000 for abortion. To put these probabilities into perspective, a woman's chances of dying in childbirth are equal to those of being killed in a car accident. There are a numerous of risks for both cases so either perspective the both of us put it in whether pro choice or pro life there are risks either way. http://www.car-accidents.com... To clear up the car accident statistic in relation to the deaths. "At this point I cannot consider Mr. Allot's reference to the report credible." This statement was in your argument about the post-abortion depression. Since Mr. Allot's study link was not provided you cannot believe this to be correct but, in the article you provided from the New England Journal it clearly states,"The law also requires that doctors give pregnant women a description of medical and "statistically significant" risks of abortion, among which it includes depression and other psychological distress, suicide, danger to subsequent pregnancies, and death." Which since you did provide this article and read through and saw that there were psychological dangers due to abortion my argument stands credible. Furthermore a fetus is born in the moment of conception http://the-dp-is-good-always.blogspot.com... As number 1 states the basic elementary definition of life begins during fertilization. Once the sperm reaches the egg the baby has life to it and killing the baby will be against our morals. Also it is a helpless baby and obviously has no say in anything we need to protect the babies rights of life and provide for him/her In the same article I would like to point out number 4 where after 20 weeks the fetus can actually feel the pain according to Kanwaljeet J. S. Anand, MBBS, DPhil, Professor of Pediatrics, Anesthesiology and Neurobiology A major reason why women are getting abortions is because of there age many girls today are getting pregnant at 15-19 years old which is relatively young. A way for these girls to not get in trouble is ending the pregnancy which is a way to save them selves but not thinking about there child and there responsibility. http://abortion.procon.org... Page 3 of 24 states it under the age and adolescence tab. Also another point I'll address is that when a woman does get an abortion she is also likely to get a second abortion. http://www.priestsforlife.org... 26.2% of women who aborted had experienced one previous abortion; 11.2% had two previous abortions, and 7.5% had three or more previous abortions. Why haven't these woman learned there lesson before? If these woman have to go through three abortions than they are cruel.
| -1 |
termination of pregnancy by induced labor or surgical removal of the embryo or fetus
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Thanks to FemaleGamer for this wonderful debate. I hope to see the outcome. I shall start with my opponent's points and then add some of my own. (NOTE: I will not asses the video; it just reiterates what my opponent says in her argument.) ==== No nation devoted to individual liberty should force women back to the days of back-alley abortions. ==== Definition of force::: binding power, as of a contract (2) strength or power exerted upon an object; physical coercion; violence. [Source: 1] By outlawing abortion, you do not "force" people to have back alley abortions. If you were forced to have an abortion in a back alley, that would translate into someone holding you down whilst giving you an abortion in an alley. Abortions are always a choice for people to have -- I think, though, that the choice is wrong. I want to make sure the choice is for life. ==== No women should have to bear a child against thier will. Free-will. That's what I stand for. No, no. That would be terrible, un-ethical and generally wrong. Women with free-will? God-forbid! ==== Let me show some facts: 1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (ex. the child is unwanted or inconvenient). [2] This means most make a choice to have sex, and most just plain don't want the baby. There are few victims here -- other than the fetuses. What about when the condom doesn't work? Well, when used in the proper way consistently, condoms are around 98% effective. [3] So, we can conclude that most abortions aren't due to failure of a condom. ==== The fact is that women will always still desire to have an abortion, which some may follow through with. This will never end abortion. You have no control over that. ==== You are very correct. I will never have control over what people do. However, it is THEIR choice, FemaleGamer, and if they choose to make an illegal and stupid one, so be it. ==== It is estimated near 1 million women saught for illegal abortions each year before Roe Vs Wade. Thats atleast 1 million babies. End of abortion? I think not! Thousands died, tens of thousands mutilated, forced to behave as if they were criminals. ==== 1 million before Roe v Wade... and 42 million a YEAR after Roe v Wade. Once again, I cannot stress enough on how it is the mother's choice to have an illegal abortion -- if she decides to do something that she knows is illegal, she must realize the consequences. You are also forgetting the one million dead babies before Roe v Wade . The women weren't the victims in all cases, the fetuses were. ==== A law making abortion illegal would make a law stating that all fetus' are superior to women .Apparently women aren't as important to you as fetus' are. Good thing women don't have feelings, or you would be in trouble! ==== Not at all! I seek to make sure fetuses and women are /equal/. All people are equal, and the fetus is no exception. Women have feelings, and so do fetuses. I want to protect them both with equality to live. ==== If the government can decide if the women gives birth or not, when will they stop? ==== If person decides on the life of a baby without consequence, when will they stop? //Outlaw abortion, and more children, will bear children. 40% of all 14 year old women will become pregnant before they turn 20. Do you want this happening to people you care about?// The teenagers, like myself (W00T! 13!), make stupid choices. At the schools here, we receive extensive education regarding sex for children. The people who have sex are most often, in my school, the ones who blow off authority and frequently get detentions for rude behavior. Now, this is not to say that these people are any less, but that their irresponsibility cannot be taken out on the baby. ==== More children is more UNWANTED children, leaving millions hurt, alone and abused. ==== Unwanted ≠ Kill. That poor man on the side of the highway, with no family or home, is unwanted. So kill him. That abused child is lonely and afraid. So rip out his brains. That old man, with no family left and no one's care, is unwanted. So bleed him to death. NO. [I have already assessed the following paragraph above. Thank you for your time, and I hope we can keep this wonderful debate going. Sources: [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... [2]http://www.abortionno.org... [3] http://www.teenhelp.com... (the site lists more sources here)
| -1 |
the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, as in spaying or neutering an animal
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
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 removing a fetus or embryo from the uterus in order to terminate its life
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
con
|
Nice try, but that's not going to suffice. Here is your entire first post: "believe I have the perfect argument on why abortion should be illegal. I really really want to debate this. Please someone, anyone, on either side of the argument debate me. You will be the Pro position Rules 4 rounds R1 acceptance of challenge, acknowledgement and acceptance of rules R2 opening statements on both sides plus any questions my challenger wants to have answered regarding my opening statements R3 rebuttals R4 closing statements voting period 3 days time to argue 72 hours 10,000 Characters (more than there was allowed the last time I logged on, over a year ago haha) Sooooo..... Any takers?" Note that in this first post there is no mention at all of abortion as a "viable choice." It only mentions legality. You weren't "clarifying" this in your second argument, but you changed the rules. You say that I simply took on the debate. What was the alternative? Forfeit? Was that your strategy? Change the debate after the point of acceptance in the hope of having me forfeit? You weren't clarifying: you changed the topic in its entirety. Those are two completely difference questions, and the "clarification" on the two exceptions was introduced long after the fact. Also, I really resent the fact that you would posit that I attacked you personally. That never once happened. I pointed out facts--(1) your remarks that women are irresponsible was inaccurate and hateful and (2) you cheated. You're entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts.
| 1 |
the act of terminating a pregnancy, especially by surgical or medical means
|
noslang
|
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, most commonly performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
I am not quite sure whose information is correct, but acccording to Life News, more women die from abortion vs. childbirth. Here is a link that I found with a wonderful graph showing these rates. . http://www.lifenews.com... You are absolubtely right that there are many pregnancies that end in misscariage. I saw on Pregnancy Life that 10% of pregnancies do end in miscarriage. But, what happens to the other 90%? Do they just die? When you are talking about it being the mother's choice, do you think it is okay for a woman to have an abortion during the second or third trimester? Why or why not? According to Glen Beck news, 67% of people believe it is okay for a person to have an abortion during the first trimester. Then, when asked if it is okay to have an abortion during the second or third trimester, only 15% said that it was okay. If it is really the woman's choice and if you claim to be pro-choice, don't you think the woman should be able to have an abortion at any stage during the pregnancy. Then we get into the extreme case of, well, if a woman is allowed to have an abortion during pregnancy, don't you think the woman should be able to kill her child after it is born? You know, since it is "her choice. .. " Let me ask you, do you think that it is okay to kill a child one minute before birth? Well, you argue that it isn't a human, it is a fetus. Is there a difference in the baby one minute before birth or one minute after birth? It is completely phycostic to say that it is not a human when it is the same thing, separated by the lining of a placenta. - That is a strong argument when discussing abortion, but there is already tons of back street abortion occuring now. But, this honestly dwindles down to natural selection. A woman may go into a back street abortion knowing what she is doing, just like she knows she is going to have unprotected sex before concenption of the baby. The issue is that most women know the risks at hand when going into these types of dangerous abortions. Should the child die because of this? And with suicidal women carrying child, this unfortunately occurs now and I do not know how that relates to our argument of abortion. - I basically would just like to ask; where are your moral values? Do you think a person should die in the place of another? I do respect your opinion. I can understand where you are coming from. But, being a woman, I just want to think that what if my child is a woman? Should she have rights too? Absolubtely.
| -1 |
the deliberate termination of a pregnancy by medical means
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Also, I'd like to take the time to say my opponent is not bad. Your refutations are very good, and well organized, which is alot better than many of the other debaters on DDO. Without further ado lets begin! Judges, i will address his refutations, however before we begin i ask for some extensions.1)Personhood- A and B. No refutation made on either of these. So clearly aff has already won the moral aspects of Abortion.1. I'm sorry to say, but any motive, action, or goal in life may be to do one thing, but in fact may do another. Meaning Sexual Intercourse was originally meant to procreate, however the modernization of it has led to variations, and these variations involve pure pleasure, (Sorry for the vulgarity of this, but i must sight an example) The perfect example is in fact pornography. I have the perfect source to prove this [1] Dr. Michael Castleman took a study, in which 442 random people were asked why they have sex, equally from both Sexes. The top 20 reasons were laid out in the source, for both men and women. Neither of the top 20 involved procreation, just variations of pleasure. Thus your point 1 is wrong, rationally and statistically, women have sex for pleasure far more than that of procreation. Also, There is no such thing as 100% pregnancy. Just like there is no such thing as contracting HIV 100% of the time from sex. I could bring up the HIV argument of "Why have sex if there is a risk for HIV? " 2. This unclaimed "potential" comes with risks. Please judges cross apply Point C under my first Contention- Morality. This directly shows how the quality of life for both this "potential child" and the mother are lowered. This also shows suffering will occur between both Child and mother because the mother is unfit to have a baby, and because of that she must abort it.3. Simple explanation- Con has no source showing moms who WANT TO HAVE ABORTIONS, care for their children. On top of that, you can't control your body. You cannot control your heart, lungs, or liver. You cannot control bodily functions that may occur, such as women having their period. This argument is therefore invalid. Also, cross apply my Point A under Contention 2 Legality. The "Forced Permittance" already disproves this entire Argument. Also, the Joyce quote by my opponent was thoroughly misinterpreted. 4. Adoption- 1) I need a source showing most parents put their children up for adoption when they are born, or shortly after. This doesn't have any impact in this round unless a source is given.2) The women still has to have the child. I don't know if you've ever seen a woman give birth, but it takes a large toll on the women. [2] Women suffer so much pain from childbirth, that over 50% of hospitals in the United States use vast amounts of Epidural anesthesia just to calm them.3) Do you think a child would enjoy an orphanage? Cross apply Sub Point C of Morality once again. My opponent fails to address the quality of life for both children and the mother. [3] The Hurdles to adoption are insanely rigorous for the child. Many times the child feels suicidal, or may receive horrible foster parents and the cycle starts over. It is a sad epidemic, adoption. People just don't care about these children, or where they go. You assume these kids will get good homes, but that's just not living in reality. 4) ABORTION IS LEGAL IN ALL 50 STATES IN THE UNITED STATES. Cross apply Roe vs Wade (1973), Sub point A of Contention 2 Legality of Abortion. Con has NO GROUND ON LEGALITY. [4]Extend All of Morality and Legality. Con failed to address Sub points A and B on Contention 1 of morality, and the entire Contention 2 legality. Sub point C of Contention 1 was the only point focused on by cons arguments. This was successfully refuted by Pro. Pro has all the ground on Abortion, both Morally and Legally. [1] . http://www.psychologytoday.com... [2] . http://www.americanpregnancy.org...[3] . http://www.squidoo.com...[4] . http://civilliberty.about.com...
| 1 |
the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo before its viability
|
noslang
|
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 termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo before the fetus is viable
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
1. if there is a pregnacy than God intended it to happen. Nothing in the world can happen without God's approval. 2. Yes some are home made just look at the depression when families couldn't afford children so they drink, do like in the video in the 1st round, or some other satanitc way. 3. The natural rights are life, liberty, and property and all of these things are in the U.S. Constitution. So therefore an abortion is actualy illegal by law. 4. Okay then 5. I was just quoting him 6. adoption is always a choice no one said you've had to raise the kid. You know give it a beter future then no future at all. eh? 7. The fetus has several struggles to even become life. like to avoid WBC's or even Viruses. 8. adoption, sorry writting paper read this for more details, http://www.americanadoptions.com... 9. Wade V. Boggs upheld and prooved abortion should be illegal 1a. that my friend is why abortion is bad so that techinally prooved why abortion is wrong. 2a. that just says that deaths per birth have fell... with age comes expirance. 3a. adoption my friend adopition 4a. wow is all I have to say there is a reason it is illegal. people don't know how to do it right. 6a. what about the guilt that fallows the abortion you can't stop that. 7a. what do you say to the Catholic Families that have 5 kids and DON"T HAVE BREAST CANCER. I know, because I'm invovled in a large family
| -1 |
the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, especially by surgical or medical intervention
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
By abortion keeping abortion legalized, we are losing millions of innocent lives on a yearly basis. If you are opposed to keeping guns legal in the United States; 57,000,000+ abortions have occured since 1973. Since 1973, only 1.6 million deaths as a result of gunfire. (I use the word "only" to contrast that number from the number of abortions, not to discredit the significant amount). So answer me this; what logical reasons can you give me for why abortion should remain legal?
| -1 |
the act of killing a fetus
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
con
|
con
|
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 intentional termination of a human pregnancy
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
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 Thank you for informing me about this, this is where I personally feel its wrong to kill a human, because this is when I feel like it becomes a person. But, also, you have yet to take in the consideration about the mother situation. "1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child." Yes, it is a very small number, but I feel like it okay with those situations. source: http://www.abortionno.org...
| 1 |
termination of a pregnancy, as by induced abortion or spontaneous abortion
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Okay. The resolution is "Abortion should remain legal". My opponent is arguing abortion should not remain legal. Both sides have the BOP and must prove something in order to win. I hope we have a good debate and do well. Thank you. Abortion (Operational): The terminating of a pregnancy by the removing or expelling of an embryo or fetus from the uterus. My Arguments: 1. An abortion is a fundamental right for a woman. "A woman's right to choose abortion is a "fundamental right" recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Jan. 22, 1973 case of Roe v. Wade." This is true. A woman has the right of an abortion because it her body. Her body is her right. An embyro and/or fetus in a body is technically still her property. She can do what she wants with her property. Since it has been confirmed by Roe vs. Wade, it is legally a fundamental right. 2. Abortions reduce injury and death. "Access to legal, professionally-performed abortions reduces injury and death caused by unsafe illegal abortions." The World Health Organization found in 2006 that homemade abortions cause 68,000 maternal deaths each year in countries where abortion is not legal. 3. Anti-abortion stances are usually religious. The pro-life stance is usually a religious belief and threatens the vital separation of church and state. Religious beliefs should not be a foundation for law in the United States. 4. Modern abortion procedures are safe. The risk of a woman's death from abortion is less than one in 100,000. While, the risk of a woman dying from giving birth is 13.3 deaths per 100,000 pregnancies. A 1993 fertility investigation of 10,767 women by the Joint Royal College of General Practitioners and Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists found that women who had at minumum two abortions experienced the same future fertility as those who had at least two natural pregnancies. 5. Abortion gives option. Abortion gives parents the option to choose not to birth babies with severe and life-threatening medical conditions. Fragile X syndrome, the most common genetic form of mental retardation, affects about 1 in 4,000 males and 1 in 8,000 females. One in 800 babies have Down Syndrome, and one in 3,500 babies are born with Cystic Fibrosis. It is not right to sentence a child to life with a mental handicap. 6. Abortion lowers crime. Many estimates claim that legalized abortion accounted for as much as 50% of the drop in murder, property crime, and violent crime between 1973 and 2001. Teenage girls, single ladies, and poor women are more likely to have unintended pregnancies. Unwanted babies are often raised poor, increasing their chances of leading criminal lives in adulthood. 7. A baby should not come into this world unwanted. 49% of all pregnancies among American women are unintended . Having children is an important lifetime decision that requires responsible consideration, preparation, and planning. Well, that's all for now. Good luck to my opponent.
| 1 |
the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, as by various medical means
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
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 |
pregnancy termination
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
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 by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo before its development is completed
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Those examples you mention killed for malicious purposes, And if they didn't kill, They would have remained the same. Parents who abort do it so that they can remain where they are; if they don't abort, They would collapse financially, And they don't want that to happen. As for those who are already collapsed, They would gain nothing from killing other than more collapse, Therefore they are killing just for killing, And that should be punished. However, You are right; just because you are immature, Poor, Unready, Or psycho doesn't mean you have the right to take a human life, But that only applies for people where killing doesn't benefit you and the world around you. To how the world around you is affected: if you are poor, The economy suffers, So if the reason you are poor is because of not aborting, Then the baby is the reason for some economic suffering. While that might seem to not matter because of minority, Every single person that suffers financially, Ruins the economy. There are other reasons why abortion is beneficial, But those reasons are cruel and sadistic, So I am not going to mention them.
| 1 |
the act of removing a fetus or embryo from the uterus in order to end its life
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
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 termination of a human pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
They may be more emotionally unstable towards the thought of raising a child. It might cause more pain and suffering for both the mother and the child if an abortion does not take place and both persons are left in a world with no security or sense of companionship to live off of.
| 1 |
the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a non-viable fertilized ovum or embryo
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
no
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
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 |
the termination of a pregnancy by medical or surgical means
|
noslang
|
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 termination of a human pregnancy
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
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, most commonly performed as a surgical procedure by a qualified health care provider
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
pro
|
Point 1: The prohibition of abortion will just make more deaths due to abortion. It will be in the same fashion as the prohibition on alcohol in the 1920s. The prohibition of abortion will lead some women to seek "underground" doctors, who will abort illegally. These doctors are usually dangerous for mother and baby. So instead in the style of a regular abortion where only the baby dies, under these circumstances, the chances of the woman dying skyrocket. Point 2: Prohibiting abortion will just increase crime and poverty. The kind of people that abort are either young or poor. The young will not take care of the baby for society has already cast her out. She will get rid of the baby. The poor will not take care of the baby either. Because poor tends to breed poor. Crime tends to breed crime. If the woman does not abort, the baby could grow up into a criminal, or live an under-privaliged childhood. The baby would be better off not being born. Plus, chances are high that he or she will be murdered when they are older if they are poor and live in a bad part of town. Point 3: Every woman has rights. Being able to abort is one of them. Rebuttal?
| 1 |
the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Abortion is the killing of a human life. The question of when life begins and viability is a fluid situation depending on many variables.
| -1 |
removal of the embryo or fetus from the uterus
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
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 act of terminating a pregnancy
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
There is a contradiction in your "logic" when you say: 1) Abortion is murder and wrong 2) The right thing to do would be murder an attacker to keep them from murdering his child To clarify the above, let"s take your situation and add a constraint to make it more germane to the discussion. If someone is trying to kill your child, and the ONLY way to stop them is to kill them, any rational person would choose their child's life over the attacker's life. Is that your stance? Because you only have two options in that contrived situation: advocate murdering the attacker or advocate the murder of your child. By doing either, does that mean that you don"t value life? How can your point of view be anything but contradictory of each other? You ask if life is "worth" anything. My response to that is no. There is no monetary price you can put on life. I do not hold with slavery, so I do not agree that human beings have a price tag. If you do believe human have "worth" please tell me what a human is worth? That should be an interesting discussion. Life begins at conception, and no I don"t agree with your view. You present a false dichotomy where there are only two choices, and that"s not the reality. Is it morally "right" to put the child"s life above the mother's? Is it morally "right" to put the mother"s life above the child"s? The answer to both is no, it"s not a decision I have any right to make from a moral standpoint. Bodily integrity has nothing to do with someone attacking your children. Bodily autonomy is what others can do to your body. This is the reason that rationally, you should defend yourself from an attacker, to protect that attacker from violating your body. Your example supports my claim that bodily autonomy is valid. To present you a false dichotomy in return, if you don't agree then you support the "irrational" belief that you should allow the attacker to hurt you because the attackers life has "value". A fetus is part of a woman"s body. This is not in question. It is connected via the umbilical cord which provide nutrients that keep the fetus alive. Without the mother providing those nutrients the fetus dies. It is not a separate human being that can survive on its own even in the most advanced stages of pregnancy. Even if the fetus is allowed to be born, infants still at that point cannot survive on its own, and require assistance to live. But I"ll ignore all that for now, and address this as a helpless man attached by an unbreakable rope. In your thought experiment, you are not in any way required to take care of someone who is helpless. I"ll go back to my original example; You aren"t giving up that lung so others can live (helpless man), because when it comes to your body you don"t want to lose a lung. (so you let him die without your lung) You want to call abortion murder, but that"s not how murder is defined. Just as not wanting to give up your lung doesn"t make you a murderer. We have the freedom to help others, or not help others, that is what freedom is. Choosing to not save someone, does not make you a murder. You don"t want the freedom taken away from you to choose what happens to your lung, nor should you want that freedom taken away from women, but somehow you do. You state don"t feel that the good of society relevant; you just care about birth, not what happens afterwards. That makes you pro-birth, not pro-life.
| 1 |
the act of deliberately causing a foetus to be destroyed
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
no
|
yes
|
neutral
|
con
|
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 termination of a pregnancy
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Homicide is the deliberate taking of a person"s life by another person. If someone commits homicide, they can be put in prison for a life sentence, or under certain circumstances be executed. Abortion is the deliberate "procedure" of taking an unborn baby's life. The key word is deliberate. In both cases however, someone"s life is taken by another person on purpose. In 1973, the supreme court"s decision over Roe Vs Wade effectively legalized abortion in all fifty states, opening abortion clinics all over the nation. Norma McCorvey, also know as Jane Roe, was dragged into the Roe vs Wade case. She wanted an abortion, and it was this that led to her being behind the Supreme Court"s ruling. She says it is the number one regret in her life. She wishes she had known what she was getting into.. She hates that because of her abortion is legal. In other words, murder is legal. If the person behind the thousands of Planned Parenthood's is Pro Life, shouldn"t that mean something? Anything? Or even everything?
| -1 |
the act of deliberately killing an unborn child
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
con
|
con
|
"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." The method for abortion was made for abortion. Without it, there would be no abortion. Why not promote cannibalism then? Most humans do not exist for your benefit. Kill them all. Abortion is necessary as it is pre-determined that the foetus will not benefit the family. "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." That function serves no purpose for us. If the child isn't helpful, why does it live? "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. " You continue on to say that a sperm and an ovum are unique cells, and we are unique. Yet you forget that many animals reproduce sexually as well. Also, we have more of a potential of harming this world than achieving so called greatness. Before the humans rapid development, animals could roam freely, global warming, waste disposal and pollution weren't major problems. But now, they are big problems, and we are proving harmful for everyone but our own species. "The probability of your mother meeting your father is 1 in 20,000, the probability of them reproducing is thereafter 1 in 2000." Where's your source? Ted talks are usually more expressing of opinions than facts. "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." It could be possible the parents at first wanted the child but later the situation changed and they didn't want it. As for adoption, all parents feel a certain kinship to their own blood, and would feel distressed to send their own child down such a hard part. Who knows whether anyone would adopt the child or not? What if he dies anyway? If he dies due to ill-treatment from foster parents or lack of resources, the parents would be haunted for their entire lives, knowing they killed a fully sentient being. Yet a foetus isn't sentient, and is easy to think of like a disposable seed than a growing crop. Get the idea? You can throw fruit seeds, but you wouldn't want a plant that grew because of you to die because of you. "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 Hawking should have been shown mercy and killed as soon as he showed symptoms of motor neurone disease." Might as well, I don't think there was such a high probability of him being a genius. Not every child turns into a genius, you know. He didn't even make any inventions but just gave some theories. If he is later proved wrong, wouldn't your argument fall? What if it had some sort of contagious disease? Then you are eliminating a threat to society. "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." Yet when they fail to be valuable, they must be killed. It works the opposite way for humans, does it not? Kill the baby if you don't need it. Let it live if you need it. "If you were to crack open an unfertilized chicken egg, you would notice." There are some eggs that have a faster expiry date than other due to being fertilized. Day 1, 2, and 3 eggs are still sold in some markets. You just killed a potential life for your own pleasure/food. Adoption A parent suffering so many months just to give away the baby seems rather a waste of effort. Plus, foster homes aren't always the best of homes. If the real parents just see the child suffering again, they would feel extremely bad that the doomed it to this fate. It is easier to kill a foetus than allowing a living child to suffer. You may say that parents shouldn't track their child, but natural instinct and blood binds takeover. If the child dies due to ill-treatment, they will surely be reported about it, and that would be sad. Furthermore, adoption is a discreet method, while giving a child to a foster home will attract unwanted attention and call for social retribution and inquisition. "Freedom is the right of all sentient beings" prime sentient- able to see, hear, taste, smell, feel http://www.merriam-webster.com... Foetus don't have the 5 senses fully activated yet, therefore freedom is not within their rights. Optimus Prime says so.
| 1 |
the destruction of a fetus in the womb
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
"you say ending a life isn't a punishment, Purposley ending a life is a punishment to the life you are ending. " This argument relies on several assumptions regarding the nature of that life, which are, for the most part, verifiably not true and you have made no effort to demonstrate otherwise. 'Human life', as defined in a meaningful term rather than a flat biological one, requires the presence of meaningful brain activity, and it is not physically possible for foetuses to have this activity until at least 26 weeks of gestation. In order to demonstrate that I am incorrect you would have had to demonstrate that the phenomenon of 'brain death' isn't or, scientifically, 'shouldn't be' synonymous with actual death, which it is. "if you end the life of a fetus then you are punishing that fetus and that fetus is a human fetus which the main word is Human not Fetus . " The word 'foetus' isn't just there to give people an excuse to kill them, it's there because it is the correct descriptor for what they are. Nobody has ever denied that foetuses are, biologically & genetically, human. It simply isn't relevant; You need to prove that foetuses are PEOPLE, or at least that it is somehow reasonable to accord them rights as though they were (and to *also* demonstrate how those rights could 'override' those of the mother, whilst also addressing why this isn't the case for everyone, in which case the organ theft example I mentioned would have to be legal). "you don't have to be able to think to be alive, there are species all over the world that can't think cause they don't have a brain but they are alive," And could you please point out which, if any, of those species we consider to be people, or to have rights? You will, of course, note that lack of a central nervous system fundamentally and inherently means that no 'individual', from the point of view of something that itself has a point of view, exists at all. Those things are not and physically could not possibly be sentient, let alone sapient. A mould spore does not have 'rights'. "it is alive or it could not Grow and develop and a Human fetus is still a human it doesn't change to a human just because it leaves the womb" No, it doesn't. It changes to a PERSON because its brain develops to the point of functionality. In order to fault this you would have to demonstrate that the fundamental idea behind the phenomenon of 'brain death' is flawed and that the broad medical (& legal) community is simply wrong. At the very least you would need to demonstrate how it could be considered 'reasonable' to state that, rather than the equivalent starting point as opposed to the verifiable end-point of brain-death, it is instead conception when 'human life' begins. Despite the fact that we know that biologically human life which differs genetically (even if 'just' by being haploid) from its progenitor has to exist in order for conception to occur, & your position not accounting for the existence of this 'human life' *at all*. Despite this meaning that 'brain-death' would then have to not be synonymous with 'actual' death, and therefore theoretically allowing for me to shoot you in the head and get away with it so long as someone still has a culture of cells with your DNA. It simply stands to reason that if you are asserting that mere genetic existence, rather than presence of meaningful brain activity, is when 'human life', in a meaningful and specific term, begins that you must remain internally consistent in your assertions and thus be asserting that cessation of genetic existence rather than cessation of meaningful brain activity is when that life ends. You have specifically refused to address any of those points in detail despite multiple prompting for each. I have also noted your inclusion of a 'source' in comments. While this is strictly speaking not part of your argument, & while I thus do not 'need' to address it at all, I will at least humour you with its inclusion. Firstly, 'lifenews. com' is a *very* heavily biased (towards pro-life/anti-abortion) site, so anything put forth by it with regards to its bias must be taken with a grain of salt. The article itself is little more than several dozen one-or-two sentence quotations, taken completely out of context, regarding the status of conception as when 'human life' biologically begins. You will, I hope, note that *I have never stated that this is not the case or argued that it isn't true*; I've stated that it isn't relevant. Conception as the beginning of *MY* life in a distinct, meaningful, and philosophical sense, rather than merely when 'my' genes started existing and began the blind, unthinking work of starting to create 'my' body and the brain that actually constitutes 'me' as a person, is strictly a religious belief. You have merely demonstrated what is already known to be biological fact, you have not actually linked it to your postion on abortion in a meaningful or relevant manner. The fact that conception results in a novel combination of human genes, and that given an 'ideal' environment the cells those genes are present in will tend toward creating a human body which will give rise to a human brain and therefore a person, has never been argued. What I *have* been arguing is that you cannot call the mere fact of novel genetic combination to be considered a 'person', and as has been clearly seen with your refusal to address any one of several relevant points regarding the inconsistency of this belief itself and of how it is applied, demonstrates that your position is not, in fact, internally consistent and is not actually congruent with the reality of the situation. You have refused to address the existence of a (at least technically) novel genetic combination, and thus by your own terms a 'HUMAN LIFE', that is demonstrated by sperm cells and unfertilised eggs. Technically you did address it but you merely asserted 'no, that isn't right' without evidence and without regard for how it is relevant to your position. You have refused to address how your terminology regarding what constitutes a 'HUMAN LIFE' means that according to a consistently applied model of your position it could theoretically be legal, and more than that potentially objectively 'okay' and fine, for me to shoot you, lethally, in the head and keep a culture of your cells alive, as this would not constitue me 'killing' you so long as at least one cell with your DNA remained alive. You have refused to address that your apparent assertion that the foetus has a right to its mothers body, and that this apparent right flatly overrides the pregnant woman's fundamental, inalienable right to her own body, is not at all consistent with how we tend to see and enforce human rights as operating. My example regarding kidnapping random people off the street and stealing their organs to give to sick people who need them *must* be permissible and able to be legal, according to a consistently applied model of your position, else you are asserting that foetuses are a 'special case' merely because you say so, which is an unjustified bare-assertion. Or else you are asserting that pregnant women do not have rights at all, which not only flies in the face of both international law and local law in almost every country on the planet, but is also barbaric, ludicrous and ethically unacceptable. You have refused to address that a large part of your position being entirely based around 'women having to take responsibility for their actions' leaves out that it is simply not reasonable for them to have to 'take responsibility' for having sex, as it is simply not reasonable to assert that consenting to have sex somehow necessarily equates to consent to become pregnant and give birth, with or without use of contraceptives. You also made no differentiation in your argument between when such measures were or weren't used, and expressed incredulity that all people don't always get them for free and magically 'just know' exactly how to use them in all parts of the world at all times. You have also failed to address that this entire segment of your argument fundamentally has *nothing whatsoever* to do with the foetus or its 'life' and *everything* to do with your arrogant, moralising opinion regarding the womans behavior, that women should be *punished* in a degrading, inhumane and potentially life-threatening manner for having had sex. Which again is barbaric and ethically unacceptable. You have *also* refused to address the invariable life-threatening nature of pregnancy, which is the case in *every* instance of pregnancy ever. You did not address that even a late-term abortion is several times safer than even the 'safest' full-term birth and therefore that pregnancy is ALWAYS a health concern sufficient to have good cause to abort, whether or not you personally agree with it. You are also on record as having stated that you would 'only allow for abortion when BOTH the mother and baby are going to die anyway', and have not provided responses to criticisms towards this position. You flatly disregard that refusing to allow pregnant women to attempt to save their own lives when continuing with the pregnancy will result in their deaths is *literally* MURDER by your own definition, given that causing the death of humans through inaction is literally directly counter to your own asserted positions of 1. 'valuing human life' and 2. that refusing to give foetuses access to their 'ideal environment' for growth counts as 'murder'. I. .. . don't think there's really anything else to say. I think that covers everything. I hope that this debate has been enlightening, educating or at least amusing.
| 1 |
the deliberate termination of a pregnancy, especially in the medical sense
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
"the Canadian baby on life support. If you read his reference carefully you'll notice that the baby is a baby not a fetus, that it is in a vegetative state that it will not recover from, and the only question left to be decided is whether it will die at home, at his father's convenience, or in a hospital, which will save money that can be spent on saving the lives of babies who aren't terminal." In the second paragraph I am not debating rather the Canadian baby is a fetus or not. And again, the Latin word fetus literally means "offspring" or "hatching of young". (1) Also, most of the time, when a procedure is done in a hospital, the hospital is paid for their time and the doctor for his skills. I also would like to point out that while Tigg13 pointed out that I chose sources that are either pro-life or Conservative Christian, he gave no details, nor did he point out which sources were pro-life and which ones actually "don't support his position." – meaning my position. I would now like to comment on Tigg13's fourth paragraph in which he states, "Con then goes on to quote Cathy Sparks, John Ankerburg, and Gregg Jackson, and – big surprise – they all think that abortion is bad and that people who provide abortions are even worse. They tell us that abortion providers are evil and deceptive people who want to force everyone to have abortions whether they want one or not. What they don't mention, though, is, if this much unethical behavior was going on, why aren't there hundreds of lawsuits being filed daily against these people. This is the problem with anecdotal evidence – it rarely resembles reality." It's interesting he would make these statements when Kathy Sparks is a former abortionist herself - (2), and John Ankerburg has a long list of accomplishments which would establish any person as a well referenced source - (3). While he may be a Christian, it's hard to find a non-Christian or a Liberal Democrat who will back up pro-life arguments and I assume that a person fitting that description would constitute a reputable source for my opponent. Gregg Jackson is a well established author and with little research on Gregg Jackson, you will find he is a Conservative and obviously this is what my opponent did and is now just using that as ammunition. "why aren't there hundreds of lawsuits being filed daily against these people." This is an example of the lack of attention by my opponent. Other than the grammatical errors of his post, if these women were lying as good as they claim, why would there be lawsuits? A young mother would have no reason to file a lawsuit against someone who helped them...would they? My opponent's arguments about Fitzsimmons are literally baseless. Yes lobbyists lie, but that doesn't argue what he lied about. And this man was the Director of Government Relations for the National Abortion Rights Action League from 1982 to 1985, and the Executive Director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers (NCAP) from its founding in 1990 until 2004. In 1993, he was named one of the top 50 "Hired Guns" on Capitol Hill by Washingtonian magazine. - (4) So I personally believe that he would be a reputable source when talking about abortion. I won't address my opponents closing arguments as it is opinion and my entire argument goes against it. My "anonymous source from Princeton" is actually multiple sources and behind every statement, there is a name and date. - (5) "In some places euthanasia, crimes of passion, seppuku and even stoning family members for adultery are not considered to be murder. Acts of war and capital punishment aren't even considered to be crimes." Is my opponent suggesting that we result to the way of life in the Middle East and punish people accordingly? Obviously, comparing abortion and stoning a woman to death would be a dangerous comparison. "Fewer than 0.3% of abortions have complications that lead to hospitalization and abortions pose virtually no long term risks to the women who have them." This is not the argument at all. Providing the fact that women are not at much risk when aborting a fetus does not argue my case. "And the problem here is that there is no biological or scientific definition for what makes a person a person." This is odd. I believe we could all agree a person, becomes a person, when life begins. "The "less than 1%" of abortions due to rape that Con mentioned represent 14000 instances of rape that led to an unwanted pregnancy." As I did not mention a date, I find it hard to believe that my opponent would have a reputable counter-fact. And if I use 1972 and 73, which my opponent proposed, I come up with a number much less than 14000. I come up with under 6,000. "Informed consent, in general, is the law in all 50 states so, by law, all abortion providers must provide patients with complete and accurate information about the procedures they provide. 32 states have special informed consent laws that deal specifically with abortion most of which provide inaccurate and/or misleading information." Obviously, by the testimonies of the women who have worked at abortionist clinics, which more than just the ones I've posted can easily be found online, accurate information is not provided. Laws say a lot of things. Obviously they are not always followed as my opponent argues for me, "Even when abortion was illegal women still had them. In 1972 (before Roe v Wade) there were 586760 reported abortions and this number rose less than 5% in 1973 (after Roe v Wade)." My opponent agreed that life begins at conception, and then contradicted this in his conclusion. And finally, killing a fetus is only right to those who think its right. But think about the fact that even a pro-choice person, has to use the term "killing a fetus", when we've established that fetus literally means "child". In closing, I'd like to say that my opponent has given very little source for his information, a total of 4 sources, and has rushed through his argument with multiple grammatical errors being evidence of this. He accused me of giving sources that are not reputable and that's about it. He gives no details on this and then uses one of the same sources. I don't believe this opponent did research at all. Other than a few facts he may have "Googled", I think that my opponent simply does not agree with me, but does not hold the desire to prove me wrong. Sources - (1) - http://en.wikipedia.org... (2) - http://www.abortionfacts.com... (also a good source for other statements from former abortionists.) (3) - http://jas.guilddev.com... (4) - http://en.wikipedia.org... (5) - http://www.princeton.edu...
| -1 |
the intentional destruction of a fetus or the act of inducing a miscarriage
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
If you think that the baby not a life until it is breathing, then what if the baby is not breathing when it comes out of the womb? Would you still have the right to kill it? Rape is no excuse for murder/abortion. Rape is a bad thing, but just because someone got raped, does not mean that the woman can start killing babies. It sounded like you wanted all abortions to be legal, but yet you are using the rape argument. Less then 1% of all abortions are because of rape ( https://www.operationrescue.org... ). Now you are using a really small example in order to make all examples sound okay. But its not, rape is bad, killing babies is bad. Rape does not justify killing babies. My question: what if the baby is not breathing when it comes out of the womb? Would the woman still have the right to kill it?
| -1 |
the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, in particular, the deliberate destruction of a fetus or embryo.
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Abortion is murder. No child that has not done a thing in this world to make you dislike them, should be able to experience life. Abortion is a form of hatred. If you have been raped you should give the child up for adoption if you do not feel comfortable keeping them for whatever reason.
| -1 |
the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, as a woman's body of a human fetus
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
I didn't write any of that from an emotional standpoint, I only said "murder for pleasure" to exaggerate it and draw attention to how ridiculous it is to say that it would be discrimination to not allow women to commit a abortion. Really, I couldn't care less what the EU says, the EU also said that the place where Solomon's temple was built doesn't belong to the Jews somehow, come on- it's on The Nation of Israel! This is just another example of EU idiocy, a fetus is not part of the woman, they are two separate beings and one does not have any right to kill the other. And as a side note, I never said that life begins at conception, that's absurd, life begins 40 days after conception. And one last thing, even if the fetus was part of the mother, it doesn't matter, if I tried to kill a part of myself, say an arm or leg, I'd get locked up.
| -1 |
the act of intentionally causing the death of a fetus
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
con
|
Abortion is murder and should be a punishable crime.
| -1 |
the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, as a medical procedure or in some cases by various home remedies
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
I would like to clarify something that I did not perhaps say clearly in Round 1. My post was merely an explanation of where I stand on this debate, and I posted my point of view so that my opponent could see exactly what I was arguing, and take his stance in accordance. I apologise if it was not clear enough. Back to the issue at hand. One cannot prefer a definition over another if it's a definition. It's like a fact, it is not subject to a person's point of view. Doctors do, in certain countries, abort in the third term. 1.4% of abortions in the USA in 2003 were late-term abortions (see SOURCES for information on more countries). Therefore, one can say that doctors do abort even in third term pregnancies. At this stage, most fetuses are viable, and would feel pain. If they were to be therefore killed (my opponent himself asserts that at this stage they are granted personhood, so I shall not argue it), they would feel the pain of death. Not all women abort because it is absolutely necesary. If it wass absolutely necesary then I'd approve of it because it would be an unusual circumstance. I officially take the stance that abortion should be illegal/legal except for socioeconomic factors, rape, incest, health, mental health, fetal defects. Many women abort because they feel they don't want a child or because they feel they're not ready yet. The minority of abortions are in the unusual circumstances I have highlighted. I assure the audience (many may know from experience) that in most circumstances, a woman does indeed want an abortion, and never considers her fetus in making the decision. My opponent claims that over time, the number of teenagers getting pregnant has increased. The number of teenage pregnancies has decreased. It is continuing to decrease. Teenage pregnancies were normal in previous centuries. In the 1970s, as my opponent states, this rate was above 90 per 1000. In 2006, it was just over 70. The rate is clearly declining. The solution, in any event, wouldn't be abortion, it would be more education and better provision of contraception. The logic behind the abortion vs adoption argument seems bizarre. How could somebody prefer to kill a baby rather than put it up for adoption? I would thank my opponent to elaborate before I criticise. Women's rights, while important, are not as important as HUMAN rights. If there must be a choice between human and women's rights, then we must, unfortunately, opt for human rights. If we were to use the "woman's body" logic, then why should we have human rights or women's rights at all? Why should the government have laws? Why should there BE a government? No, if we were to use that logic, we'd fall into anarchy. Again, the back alley argument is also illogical. This is like arguing for the legalisation of murder. It would happen anyway, because when it's illegal people do it in the dark and privately. This is unhealthy because it is done often painfully and without the proper equipment. We should therefore make it legal so that murder can be done properly with the proper equipment and so that it inflicts minimal pain on the victim. I stress, this is illogical. Disease would fall into unusual circumstances. It is within the scope of health or mental health. If the woman cannot genuinely take care of the child then she could cite socioeconomic factors for a review of her case, and be ruled for or against accordingly. I don't think that seems too unfair, do you? SOURCES: . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://blog.thenationalcampaign.org... . http://www.thinkinboutstuff.com... . http://en.wikipedia.org...
| -1 |
the deliberate termination of a pregnancy, often by means of an operation
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Women should have the right to choose whether or not to get an abortion.
| 1 |
the termination of a human pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo before the fetus can survive outside the uterus.
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Thank You Con, First off I would like to point out that my opponent is using his opinions, not facts. He does have a right to his opinion I must say. Prefer my definition. Definition-Abortion: In medicine, an abortion is the premature exit of the products of conception (the fetus, fetal membranes, and placenta) from the uterus. It is the loss of a pregnancy and does not refer to why that pregnancy was lost. (source-. http://www.medterms.com...) My opponent talks of the abortion happening in the 2nd or 3rd term. This is impossible by this definition because doctors would not abort a baby in the 3rd term because if they did, this would indeed be a violation of human rights. But therefore it is not a human rights violation by the interpretation of this definition. My opponent also talks about human rights. He says "Abortion is a violation of human rights. It violates the unborn baby's basic right to live, and should be illegal, except in unusual circumstances. " In this statement is where my opponent contradicts himself. He says that it should only be legal in unusual circumstances. But an abortion is and unusual circumstance. A women does not just want to get an abortion. It is a very hard decision for the women to make. Of course she would not want to do this but she may have no other choice than adoption and some women don't want this either because they don't want someone else to raise their own child. This is where my opponent violates human rights. If any of these people would happen to vote con they would be taking away the right of the female who is in need of an abortion. Like I said earlier a female may not want an abortion but it may be the last tragic resort. I am not saying that abortion is neccesarly a good thing, just that it is neccesary in today's world. In the 70's 13 year olds were not getting pregnant. In today's world they are getting pregnant. And the age keeps dropping lower and lower. Of course this female would not want to get an abortion. But she may also be too young to have a safe birth whether it be a regular birth or a C-section. Therefore telling a female that she has to give birth to a child she cant care for would be a human rights violation on the female and the child. The female because she is being told that she has to do something that she doesn't want to do(an act of dictatorship by the government). And a human rights violation on the child because they are not properly cared for. So therefore on the issue of human rights the judges cannot vote con because they contradict on every level of human rights. This is why abortion should stay legal. First, It is the women's body and the government shouldn't have a say in what they do with their body. Second, If abortions are illegal then females will go to back alley abortionists. This is very dangerous and can cause disease which my opponent claims regular abortion causes. And it does not cause disease. So therefore we need to keep abortion legal. And Thirdly, keeping abortion legal is the best choice. It lets women have control of whether or not they want the child based on if they can take care of them or not. It also PREVENTS DISEASE.
| 1 |
in medicine, the premature termination of a pregnancy
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Pro: Pro-choice Con: Pro-life I would consider my views regarding abortion more on the pro life side, And here is why. For one, Abortion is murder, Murder is wrong. Secondly, No woman has the right to terminate another life, This is not an issue of body autonomy or woman"s rights, It"s about whether women have the right to end another life because it"s more convenient for her to do so. Lastly, I do not believe that abortions should be illegal all together, There should be exceptions, Just like every other law that operates in today"s society. The only cases where abortion should be an option for women is when: 1-it is the product of rape/incest. 2- it is apparent that having the child poses a deadly threat to the mother, I. E, It is predictable that the mother will be seriously harmed/killed in the process of giving birth to the baby. Women should not have the right to end the life of another because it is more convienient for her to end its life.
| -1 |
the act of intentionally terminating a pregnancy
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Again, I pose my previous three questions, as you did not answer them. I refuse to continue rebutting the same points. Once again, you have shown that you refuse to be gender-inclusive, and the Roe v Wade subject is your personal opinion on the matter. Furthermore, non-sentient beings do not have constitutional rights. And lastly, abortions should not be restricted in early weeks, pregnant people should not be required to have counseling and ultrasounds. This can cause guilt in people who wanted the pregnancy but were physically/mentally unable to carry it, and the lengthy wait periods caused by these things could render a pregnant person unable to have the abortion in the end.
| 1 |
the termination of a human pregnancy, as by induced abortion
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
First let's start with woman's rights. You see, may people believe that women have the right to choose what they do with their body. But that doesn't justify abortion at all. First off, if it is a women right, how come they are murdering women? 50% of the babies aborted are women, where are there rights.Second, "My Body, My Choice" would apply to YOUR body, but not a second creature IN your body. Many argue that the baby is still dependent on the mother, thus it is apart of her body. Let me put this into perspective for you; the elderly are dependent on people, should we shoot them because it's "our choice"? No, that seems crazy, but the same concept with the unborn. Abortion is a dangerous process filled with sick workers. The people who work at abortion clinics are not given a good name. The workers at Planned Parenthood have been known for selling baby body parts from the dead babies they abort. The dead babies become incoming cash, Also, another abortion clinic, Tiller"s Abortion Clinic, is founded by Doctor Tiller who does terrible things to the women causing the women great pain, and gives them illegal medicine. But, when sent to court, Dr. Tiller was convicted not guilty. Abortion doctors have women put things in their body such as leeches, gunpowder, salt, illegal drugs, and shots. These are things that potentially kill the women or affect her in a detrimental way. Just last year, 2015, in the month of December, Anna Yocca, 31 years old attempted a self abortion using an untwisted coat hanger. The baby survived, but will have lifelong medical issues. She was charged for attempted murder. Now, when Planned Parenthood does the same thine, attempts to kill a baby, and succeeds, they are not charged with murder. In fact, they are praised, and receive money. What"s the difference? Let me answer that for you: none
| -1 |
the intentional termination of a human pregnancy, as a medical procedure or in some cases by various types of self-induced activity
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Abortion is wrong because takes an innocent life. In the case of the infant, there is no choice. The choice of aborting a child relies on the mother. When it comes to religion, God ultimately chooses life and death. Abortion is a form of murder. It is the mother's responsibility to take care of her child.
| -1 |
the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most commonly practiced as the induced abortion of a fetus
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
First and foremost, I shall restate the medical definition of an abortion: "the premature exit of the products of conception (the fetus, fetal membranes, and placenta) from the uterus. It is the loss of a pregnancy and does not refer to why that pregnancy was lost. " My opponent's first argument was that the assault of a pregnant woman for the purpose of ending her pregnancy was assault and not abortion. This attack causes the premature exit of the products of conception (the fetus, fetal membranes, and placenta) as per the definition. This is abortion. This point is inarguable. Whether or not it is assault is irrelevant because it would be wrong for a woman to ask someone *else* to kick her in the stomach while pregnant. My opponent's argument says that the immorality lies in the assault and not the abortion, but this is illogical because this is the same act. If the kicker is seeking to cause the mother to abort, then this is an abortion, no matter how confusing my opponent wants to get. My opponent's second argument is that based on my definition, Plan B would be classified as abortion. In that case, so would condoms, birth control pills, withdrawal, masturbation, etc. Thankfully, this is not the case because my opponent has fabricated his own interpretation of abortion and falsely claimed that it was my definition. I ask the audience to quickly reread that definition and read this source: . http://health.howstuffworks.com... This source clearly states that the morning after pill simply will not work if the mother is already pregnant. This completely negates my opponent's counterargument. However, to be honest, I am a pharmacy student and I know that there is an alternative mechanism whereby conception can occur and that the embryo is just unable to latch onto the uterine lining. Even if this speculative mechanism is true, it still would not be classified as an abortifacient because it would not expel fetal membranes or a placenta, as dictated in the definition. So thus, my opponent is not just wrong based on known facts, he is wrong based on scientific speculation too. My opponent's third argument is the following: Any act of the mother eliminating her child would be classified as abortion only if it is intended by the carrier. First of all, it is very poor conduct to introduce a new and totally different definition in the last round of debate when we have been operating under mine for the past several rounds. And now, my opponent decides to introduce his personal definition of abortion? I think not. I would have accepted this definition if my opponent had not wasted his first round, but I must reject this definition because first, he has no source, and second, he seemed to accept mine in prior rounds. Now, let us continue on with the other arguments that my opponent is wrong about. My opponent has admitted the fact that he ignored the four categories I stated. Regretfully, the act of doing so constitutes bad conduct because according to the definition of abortion, all four of those categories I listed count as abortion. My opponent cannot simply ignore that point just because he doesn't like it, because those four categories completely destroy his argument. Thus, I assume he concedes those points along with the debate and at this point, we're just chatting. My opponent then goes on another rant about moral relativity. However, in the middle of his rant, he said the following: "Assault is not moral". It seems strange that a person arguing moral relativity would make a statement like that, do you not agree, audience? It seems to me that my opponent does not know where he is going with this argument. The problem with complete moral independence is the fact that we all share similar moral views. Thus, the only explanation is that morality is based on society and popularity, negating all my opponent's arguments and strengthening my notion that we as individuals can tell that kicking in a pregnant woman's stomach to induce an abortion is *immoral*. Afterwards, my opponent states that he *did* respond to my points. I assure the audience that he did no such thing except assume that his definition (Any act of the mother eliminating her child would be classified as abortion only if it is intended by the carrier. ) is acceptable. As I have stated before, he has no sources for this definition and this is his last round. This is why his definition is unacceptable and why he has not offered any argument against my points. As for his final argument: "I extend my previous arguments. .. ." I regretfully inform my opponent that he has no arguments to extend, because I have countered all of them. The problem is that this is not mutual. My opponent has either intentionally or accidentally ignored over half of the points that I made in this debate. My opponent claims to be for all forms of abortion with no restrictions. This is evidenced by the fact that he did not disagree with the burden I placed on him. I have stated that miscarriages, unwilling abortions, and unsafe abortions involving coat hangers or flinging oneself off a flight of stairs are most definitely forms of abortion that we should prevent. My opponent has expressed nothing but silence towards all those points. But curiously, my opponent has spent a considerable amount of time arguing against anti-abortion arguments that I did not make, nor did I even allude to. And as I have debunked all of my opponent's counterpoints with plenty of arguments of my own left standing, I shall keep in good conduct and not introduce new arguments in this final round. As such, I urge the audience to vote CON. Thank you to my opponent and to the audience. This has been a most enjoyable debate.
| -1 |
the premature exit of the products of conception
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
My opponent begins by saying that since life begins at conception, abortion is akin to murder. Of course, the government does not recognize it as murder when we take the lives of plants, animals, viruses, and other living things. The government also does not recognize humans in a vegetative state of consciousness as having the right to life. Not all homicide is unlawful, such as euthanasia [1]. As such, the proper way to define murder is the taking of a PERSON'S life. The word person is not necessarily limited to human beings, and it does not apply to all living human beings. I will discuss this later on in the debate.For now, I'd like to address Con's supposition that abortion neglects the sanctity of human life, and that "no civilized society" permits one human to intentionally take the life of another human without punishment. First, legalized abortion does not deny the sanctity of human life. Instead, it upholds it by acknowledging that included in our right to life is freedom to govern our own person. As such, if a woman wishes to terminate a pregnancy that requires her person (body) to both house and carry a child to term as well as birth it, she should have the right to decide what happens to and with her own body. To suggest otherwise is to deny our right to freedom which is quintessential to the right to life. Further, many "civilized" nations including Canada, South Africa, Guyana, Russia, China, and every country in Europe minus Ireland as well as others all have the option of legalized abortion [2]. I dispute the idea that adoption "accomplishes the same result." That is false. Adoption requires a woman to carry her pregnancy to term and give birth. This can have detrimental effects on a woman's life, health and sanity as well as other negative repercussions (eg. financial). While it's true that abortions can be problematic to one's health, that is a rare occurrence. Only 2% of abortions are said to have major negative health effects [3]. Compare that to the statistic that 40% of ALL pregnant women experience health problems, and 15% of women endure complications that are considered life threatening [4]. It is more dangerous and harmful to a woman to be pregnant and have a baby than it is to have an abortion. My opponent is wrong in asserting that in the instance of rape and incest, proper medical care can ensure that a woman will not get pregnant. The word "ensure" is misleading and inaccurate. According to WebMD, the fastest sperm can get to a fallopian tube is about 30 minutes, meaning that the quickest conception could occur following sex is in the half-hour range . This means that following sex, the egg could be fertilized before you've gotten up to get a drink of water [5]. You cannot always prevent pregnancy in the case of rape or incest. Birth control is also not always 100% effective. Choosing safe sex or abstinence is indeed a choice a woman has over her own body. Abortion is another optional choice.I do not necessarily advocate tax payers paying for people's abortions and my opponent cannot force me to defend that position. However, this argument is moot anyway because tax payers are forced to pay for all kinds of things they do not support or agree with. For example, I am vehemently against war; however, my tax dollars still support the expansion of our military (which I am against), war, and other programs or bills I am against. Such is the nature of taxes.Con says that many young people choose abortion as a way to suggest that those making the decision are too young and immature to know what they're doing. The reality is that women in their 20s make up the largest demographic seeking abortion (58%) and the second largest group of women are in their 30s (22%). That means that 80% of those seeking abortions are well beyond the legal age of consent [6]. If they are old enough to vote, consume alcohol, etc. then they are old enough to make decisions about their own bodies. While it's true that some women have regrets, people have regrets about all kinds of life decisions and yet we do not inhibit their right to make choices based on the potential of regret. We don't restrict the right to marry despite the fact that the majority of people wind up regretting who they initially chose and became legally bound to as a life partner. Some people also regret not getting an abortion. This is an irrelevant contention. In Defense of ChoiceFirst, it is not always morally wrong to kill an innocent human being. Human life actually begins prior to conception, because each sperm and egg cell is a living thing. It is more relevant to discuss when sentience, or self-awareness, begins. Not every living human being possesses or is able to possess sentience, such as humans in vegetative states of consciousness, those who are brain dead, or anencephalic fetuses. Furthermore, the law has also recognized the practice of legalized "mercy killing" or other forms of euthanasia where people are sometimes killed due to persistent, terminal (often painful) health problems or other risks. While clearly these examples are not exactly analogous to abortion, it does dismantle the idea that killing an innocent human being is always wrong.Like the individuals mentioned above, zygotes and fetuses do not have desires. In most cases (before a certain level of sentience), they also do not experience pain. They are not self-aware. To grant them the right to life based on the nature of their species alone is unwarranted. I submit that in the instance of a non-human species entering or evolving into existence, that possessed a certain level of consciousness (eg. an alien), they too should be considered a person despite not being a human. The difference between a human and a person is as follows: a person is conscious, has the capacity to reason, is self-motivated, is able to communicate, and understands the premise of self-concepts [7]. At any time it is possible that a human has but loses any of these abilities - eg. while they are asleep. However such an observation/objection would be trivial and arbitrary. To suggest that a fetus will one day have these abilities is irrelevant. We do not grant rights on the basis of what one will have but what one has. For example, it is not legal for a 20 year old to drink alcohol because some day they will be 21. The moral case for permissible abortion rests on the notion that a) a fetus is not a person and/or does NOT possess the right to life based on logical distinctions, and b) that the rights of the mother trump the rights of the fetus both for the aforementioned and practical reasons. Further, criminalizing abortion increases the chance of "back alley" abortions which can be severely harmful to both the mother and fetus, as well as creates a new and unwarranted class of criminals. That brings me to my next point... The legal case for abortion is pretty simple. There are not enough parents willing to adopt children, meaning "unwanted" babies will be placed in orphanages at the expense of tax payers. This nullifies my opponent's argument that tax payers should not have to bear certain costs for things they do not agree with. Our government quite literally cannot afford this expense, and the mental and emotional toll on these orphans can be irreparably harmful. Meanwhile, a fetus has no understanding of their own existence and therefore won't miss it and should not have a right to it.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://chartsbin.com...[3] http://afterabortion.org...[4] http://www.thelizlibrary.org...[5] http://wiki.answers.com...[6] http://www.guttmacher.org...[7] http://instruct.westvalley.edu...
| 1 |
the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or destruction of a fetus
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Abortion is up in the air if its full term? Let's see if we can bring it down to earth. The federal government puts no limit on age for abortion and reading your posts you don't care either way. What are the various ways of ending a pregnancy? www.prolife.com/abortion facts........americanpregnancy.org/unplanned pregnancy/abortions. These sites and others deal with procedures for abortion. I give a brief synopsis. Dilation and evacuation. A vacuum device is used to tear the foetus apart and suck out the remains. This is for up to 16wk old foetuses. Dilation and Curettage. A sharp curved knife is used to scrape the uterus and dismember the foetus. Up to 24wks. I will now touch on Pain. Including the above and below procedures I have found only one site that even mentioned the pain endured by the foetus. www.doctorsonfetalpain.com/fetalpaintheevidence.......www.lifenews.com/studiesonfetalpain. I have read the sites on fetal pain but they rarely agree. Utah has passed a law giving pain relief to 20wks foetuses at abortion. Chemical. Mifepristone blocks progesterone and the foetus starves to death. D+X. Blunt nosed scissors punch into the skull and brains sucked out. 30wks. Saline. Foetus dies from salt poisoning,dehydration,brain hemorrhage and convulsions. Full term. D+E. Foetus forcibly dismembered and may have skull crushed for removal. Full term. As I wrote none of the sites I read said anything about pain relief except the one on Utah. We wouldn't treat an animal the way we treat our unborn babes. In my next entry I will mention pain again. The thoughtless actions of women should not make abortion an easy choice. The law should make it harder than it is to obtain one.
| -1 |
the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a conceptus, a product of conception that does not include a viable fetus.
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
no
|
yes
|
neutral
|
pro
|
I find it interesting that Con has created a situation where, as his opponent, I must both make a case for abortion and rebut his position at the same time. I will do my best. Rebuttal: Con begins by asking readers to research topics completely but at least 7 of his 10 references all come from either pro-choice or conservative Christian sources and the three that aren't really don't support his position. His first anecdote, for example, is about the Canadian baby on life support. If you read his reference carefully you'll notice that the baby is a baby not a fetus, that it is in a vegetative state that it will not recover from, and the only question left to be decided is whether it will die at home, at his father's convenience, or in a hospital, which will save money that can be spent on saving the lives of babies who aren't terminal. The ironic part of this story is that, if this baby, who will never wake up, were aborted in it's first trimester, this whole situation would have been avoided. Con then goes on to quote Cathy Sparks, John Ankerburg, and Gregg Jackson, and – big surprise – they all think that abortion is bad and that people who provide abortions are even worse. They tell us that abortion providers are evil and deceptive people who want to force everyone to have abortions whether they want one or not. What they don't mention, though, is, if this much unethical behavior was going on, why aren't there hundreds of lawsuits being filed daily against these people. This is the problem with anecdotal evidence – it rarely resembles reality. Con also gives us a quote from the American Life League on the sanctity of life – which is about as useful and informative as a quote from the American Bar Association on the sanctity of law firms. But what I found most amusing was when Con trotted out Ron Fitzsimmons' admission that he had told a lie about abortions. Who was Ron Fitzsimmons? He was a lobbyist (A lobbyist told a lie? What is the world coming to?) Where did he tell it? On a television news show. How was this lie discovered? He went on another news show to correct his earlier statement because he felt it was wrong not to tell the whole truth. When did this all take place? In 1997! And 13 years later propagandists are still trying to blow it out of proportion. Con concludes by expressing his personal and theological views on the subject which I feel are really the basis for his whole argument. It really doesn't matter to Con whether abortions are safe or if women are given complete and concise information; Con simply doesn't want women to have this option. The Case for Abortion: Pro life advocates are always quick to try and push the issue of life and when it begins as if this were the only question that needs to be addressed. And while it isn't as clear cut as Con's anonymous source from Princeton would have us believe, I am willing to concede that life begins at conception and that aborting a fetus equates to ending a human life. So what? There are plenty of examples of ways that human lives can be ended that aren't perceived as acts of murder. Killing someone in self defense, for example, or accidental death. In some places euthanasia, crimes of passion, seppuku and even stoning family members for adultery are not considered to be murder. Acts of war and capital punishment aren't even considered to be crimes. To say that abortion is wrong you need to do more than demonstrate that a human life has ended, you need to show that it is ended unjustly. And to do that, you have to first grant fetuses the right to live independent of their mother in the first place. This would solve everything if fetuses could live independently from their mothers. But they can't. So, upon what basis should the right to live be granted to a fetus? It's genetically separate? Monkeys and cows are genetically separate and they don't have a right to life. Fetuses are human? Traitors and murders are human and they don't have a right to life either. Because it's a person? Here is the real issue at the center of the debate. Are fetuses people? And the problem here is that there is no biological or scientific definition for what makes a person a person. It can't just be the presence of brain activity or motor skills because dogs and cats would qualify as people. And that child in Canada that Con mentioned would not. You could say that just being human makes a person a person, but that is just as arbitrary as saying being a person is more than just being human. You could say that having a soul is what makes a person a person, but then you're just replacing facts with dogma. This is a question for philosophers and theologians not doctors and legislators. And now for some facts: Even when abortion was illegal women still had them. In 1972 (before Roe v Wade) there were 586760 reported abortions and this number rose less than 5% in 1973 (after Roe v Wade). http://en.wikipedia.org... The "less than 1%" of abortions due to rape that Con mentioned represent 14000 instances of rape that led to an unwanted pregnancy. www.epm.org/.../abortion-right-when-pregnancy-due-rape-or-incest Fewer than 0.3% of abortions have complications that lead to hospitalization and abortions pose virtually no long term risks to the women who have them. http://www.guttmacher.org... Informed consent, in general, is the law in all 50 states so, by law, all abortion providers must provide patients with complete and accurate information about the procedures they provide. 32 states have special informed consent laws that deal specifically with abortion most of which provide inaccurate and/or misleading information. http://www.abortionusa.com... http://www.guttmacher.org... Conclusion: If the fetus isn't a person then aborting it isn't murder and the question of whether or not a fetus is a person is one of personal belief not scientific fact. Thus, there is no justification for those who hold this belief to usurp a woman's actual right to privacy and liberty by forcing her to give birth against her will. And killing a fetus is only wrong to those who think it's wrong.
| 1 |
the termination of a pregnancy, especially by surgical or medical means
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
"You said, "if a woman is more likely to die during abortion, then it should be legal." But, that's the woman's choice. That's her risk that she's taking." I said that it should be illegal, just a correction. See, if I had said that it should be legal, than the woman does have a choice. You are just contradicting yourself. Eternal Father,Source of all mercy and love,out of love for us you sent your Son,and willed that blood and waterflow from his side to cleanse us of sinand restore lost innocence.Hear the cry of each woman who mournsthe loss of her child to abortion.Forgive her sin, restore her to your grace,and still the terror of her heartwith a peace beyond all understanding.Through the intercessionof the Blessed Virgin Mary,Mother of all tenderness and our Mother,strengthen her faith in you.Give her the consolation to believethat her child is now living in the Lord.We ask this through Christ our Lord,who conquered sin and death,and who lives and reigns with you,in the unity of the Holy Spirit,one God, for ever and ever. Amen. This text is by Msgr. James Moroney. And here are some facts about abortion, and when somebody already has life: 1 day to 7 weeks A new individual receives 23 chromosomes from each parent. He or she is truly a unique individual human being, never to be repeated. A new person has been created, who at this stage is a tiny living organism weighing only 15 ten-millionth of a gram. Life begins. First day of new life: The first cell divides into two, the two into four, and so on. Each of these new cells divides again and again as they travel toward the womb in search of a protected place to grow. 18 days from conception, heart begins to beat, with the baby"s own blood. This is from prolifeacrossamerica.org It already says that life begins after the first day.
| -1 |
the act of intentionally ending a human pregnancy
|
noslang
|
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 act of deliberately terminating a human pregnancy
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Abortion should not be allowed in any cases only in exception when the birth is very detrimental to the woman's health. A baby can not give consent, so it can not give consent to being aborted so I say with that it is unjustifiable.
| -1 |
the termination of a pregnancy so that the fetus is not born
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Thank you to both the audience and my opponent for yet another debate on abortion. The resolution is simply "Abortion" and my opponent has stated that he supports the affirmative. I shall then argue against that case. To begin, I submit the definition of Abortion by Medicine.net Medical Dictionary: Abortion: In medicine, an abortion is the premature exit of the products of conception (the fetus, fetal membranes, and placenta) from the uterus. It is the loss of a pregnancy and does not refer to why that pregnancy was lost. http://www.medterms.com... In addition, here is the wikipedia article in which the introduction defines abortion in the same manner: http://en.wikipedia.org... Since my opponent has used his first round to merely ask for my opening statement and did not clarify the resolution or offer any sort of framing, I will assume that my opponent is trying to affirm "abortion" in general. I start by arguing that there are many forms of abortion that should be prevented on moral grounds. 1. Partial Birth Abortions In which the fetus, nearly fully formed, is destroyed during induced labor. At this point in time, the mother might as well wait until full term and give it up for adoption as the already blurry line of morality in abortion becomes even blurrier. 2. Spontaneous Abortions In which a woman with an implanted fetus loses the fetus accidentally, commonly known as a miscarriage. This should be avoided because for the most part, women who miscarry actually wanted the child. 3. Abortions inflicted on unwilling people There is something inherently immoral in the act of walking up to a pregnant woman and kicking in her stomach such that she miscarries. Though this is a form of abortion, I argue that it should in no way be supported. 4. Dangerous abortions I am against many forms of abortion for health reasons. The use of coat hangers to stimulate an abortion, for example. Or throwing oneself off a flight of stairs. Or going to a back-alley abortionist that doubles as a tattoo parlor. These are all very dangerous ways of abortion. I look forward to my opponent's rebuttal. Thank you.
| -1 |
a topic for debate
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Abortion is a form of murder the demeans the value of human life. Since life begins at conception, abortion is the immoral killing of an innocent human being.
| -1 |
the deliberate destruction of a foetus or embryo
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Fetuses feel pain during the abortion procedure. Maureen Condic, PhD, Associate Professor of Neurobiology and Anatomy and Adjunct Associate Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Utah School of Medicine, explains that the "most primitive response to pain, the spinal reflex," is developed by eight weeks gestation, and adds that "There is universal agreement that pain is detected by the fetus in the first trimester." [18] 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." [24] Bernard N. Nathanson, MD, the late abortion doctor who renounced his earlier work and became a pro-life activist, stated that when an abortion is performed on a 12-week-old fetus, "We see [in an ultrasound image] the child"s mouth open in a silent scream... This is the silent scream of a child threatened imminently with extinction Abortion is murder. The killing of an innocent human being is wrong, even if that human being has yet to be born. Unborn babies are considered human beings by the US government. The federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which was enacted "to protect unborn children from assault and murder," states that under federal law, anybody intentionally killing or attempting to kill an unborn child should "be punished... for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being." The act also states that an unborn child is a "member of the species homo sapiens." [126] At least 38 states have passed similar fetal homicide laws. http://abortion.procon.org...
| -1 |
induced termination of a pregnancy
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Its funny how people against abortion say killing a potential life is wrong, yet the same people eat chicken eggs and call themselves 100 percent vegetarian.
| 1 |
the act of removing a product of conception, a fetus or embryo, from the uterus.
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Thank you again 16K for instigating and posting your arguments. I’d like to point out that I’m neither for nor against Abortion, I have neutral opinions on this matter making me undecided. But this’ll be fun to debate. Good luck. REBUTTAL Fetus = Human, killing them is murder The only relevant argument opponent has given here is that a fetus has a ‘life’, but that doesn’t make it a sentient, conscious, viable, fully-grown human being. The fetus may be a member of the Homo sapiens, but they are not fully resembled human beings who are sentient and with rights. They are not natural-born citizens, they cannot be dependent on their own body and they need the woman’s body to live, if we let the fetus’ moral rights override the mother’s, then this is close to invading the woman’s privacy and the right of the woman to choose. My opponent claims that life begins at fertilization, which is wrong. In fact, life begins before fertilization. Sperm and egg cells are actually living things. But the question should not be when life begins, rather, it should be when must we consider that the fetus be sentient or actually feel anything. Here’s a report published by Joyce Arthur entitled: “Personhood: Is a Fetus a Human Being?” {1}, according to her research, it showed that Fetuses are uniquely different from actual humans, and the most fundamental difference is that a fetus is totally dependent on a woman's body to survive. Anyone can take care of a newborn infant, but onlypregnant women can nurture their fetus. She can’t hire someone else to do it. Also, she said that fetuses don’t just depend on the woman for survival, but it needs to be insidethe woman’s body for it to live. She states that human beings must be separate individuals. So this very much refutes the idea that fetuses should be prioritized more because they can take care by themselves, which is false. Moving on, here’s a brief conclusion on opponent’s case: P1: Abortion ends the life of the fetus. P2: a fetus is a human being. C: Therefore, abortion is murder. This is false, so now (and this is important) to say actually affirm those contentions and say that abortion is murder, 16K needs to show and accurately prove 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. But technically, abortion is legal in the US (state and federal) since Roe v. Wade, so somewhat negates 2). So this means that abortion is (or somewhat) actually the opposite of murder, it is lawful, it is (sometimes) unintentional and it is without premeditation and without malice. Morally wrong to kill a person and society opposes such act This premise fails on so many ways, look at the following scenarios and tell me that these aren’t morally wrong and society opposes such acts: - Self Defense/ Defense of others - It is considered morally permissible to kill a killer to save your own life or kill a person to protect loved ones and others? - Kill one, save many- It is morally acceptable to kill the terrorists before 9/11 which affected upcoming the Afghan/Iraq war? - Parasitic twin scenario- We have a conjoined twins, and it only survives if we sacrifice one, so would it be considered moral to kill a weaker twin to save the stronger one? No surgery means both twins die. - Trolley Problem- Let’s say you are in a moving trolley and your mother is tied to the tracks a few meters from you, you’re about to hit her. Although, there’s another way, but there are 5 people tied to the tracks in that direction. Now you have to choose between killing your mom and killing 5 people. What should you do? If my opponent still argues that these acts are all morally wrong, he’s either lying or is out of his mind. Either way, his premise fails and these scenarios are justified morally under utilitarian view and deontological theory. Morally wrong to kill a fetus Similar to my opponent’s 2nd premise. Religion on abortion This is somewhat irrelevant to the debate, since Religion has no say on Abortion laws. My opponent’s verse has no connection to abortion whatsoever. And quoting the Ten Commandments doesn’t help him too, since the Bible is contradictory, like Hosea 9:13-16, where God said that children will be dashed in pieces and that pregnant women will be ripped open. Numbers 31:17 states that adulterous women should be killed, because they bear a child that they got from premarital sex. Also Psalms 137:9 which states that God will bless shall the ones who dash little kids with rocks. PRO-life > PRO-choice My opponent admitted that this is irrelevant and we should just discard it, I agree, but even if we didn’t, this graph is unreliable and inaccurate since it has no source whatsoever and that it didn’t show how many people were interviews. My opponent could’ve just made this statistic by interviewing 10 people and the majority are PRO-lifers. CASE C1: Abortion is NOT murder I’ve fulfilled my obligation to negate this premise. See my rebuttals above for review. I also mentioned that even if abortion ends a life, it’s still morally acceptable, in some circumstances, like issues of maternal health and risks, rape, incest and poverty. Surely we don’t want to abuse people’s choices to protect themselves especially if their lives are at stake. C2: Valuing Women’s Rights My opponent didn’t really rebut this premise, he just put up a graph/statistic that have no sources and didn’t explain it, please ignore them. And even if the chart is accurate, it just shows more PRO-lifers than PRO-choicers, they don’t necessarily oppose their right to abort. See contention 4 for my extension to this. C3: Abortion happens regardless of legality My opponent’s rebuttal here are hearsay testimonies instead of providing accurate statistics, not to mention the testimonies had no sources to back it up. So we could discard them for lack of accuracy and evidence, making them invalid. As I said, illegalizing abortion is a disadvantage and may lead to bad outcomes. Because you see, crime rates were reduced after Roe v. Wade, if we overturn that SC decision, then we would be undermining our constitution and that ‘back alley’ or illegal abortions will rise. This is a dangerous risk to take for a mother wanting an illegal abortion since the risks are very much higher than an abortion made by a professional. There was a study conducted by John Donohue and Steven Levitt entitled, "The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime" {2}. They showed that after Roe v. Wade, crime rates reduced and fell roughly after 18 years of the decision. States with high abortion rates after Roe experienced a huge drop in crime in the 90s. They state that when abortion was fully legalized, it accounted for much as 50% of the recent decline in crime rates. In El Salvador {3}, abortion is illegal and is punishable up to 25 years but yet more and more people commit ‘back alley’ abortion, and these rates are rising. The UN has urged this country to pass an abortion law so the crime rates may fall, but it’s still pending. {4} C4: Abortion is a right I’ll make a few points to support my claim and since I’m running out of characters, and since the only topic that matters here is if abortion is murder. Now, after Roe v. Wade, America has become a symbol for promoting rights, women’s rights, the right to choose and right to privacy. It’s an important and a valuable right since a fetus is technically invading the woman’s body and it depends on the body to survive, which is a risk. If we give rights to unborn fetuses, it would be like taking off the mother’s rights and women will lose control over their body. The life of the mother is more valuable than the fetus. If I may ask, if women can’t be trusted with their choice to abort, how can we trust them with children? I await my opponent’s response, and hopefully use proper sentencing structure and grammar and not rely on c/p testimony. Thank you and good luck. CITATIONS Comments.
| 1 |
a controversial issue in which a woman has an abortion
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
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 deliberate termination of a human pregnancy
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
1. I apologize for my mistake of misnaming the document that contained the phrase "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. " However this does not change my point that the founders of our constitution, and our government for that matter define "life" as a right to a human being. For Clarity's sake I would like to make clear that my opponent has conceded that fetus's are alive, but contends that they are not human, and thus do not have the right to life granted by our government. If my opponent has or would like to make the argument that the United States does not guarantee the right to life to human beings than I would gladly challenge him in a debate outside this one, so as to stay on topic. A. Coming back to whether fetus's are human or not - sub argument I am not arguing whether fetus's are human in the context of philosophy. Philosophy is pure hearsay and is based upon opinion and idle conjecture. I am debating whether a fetus is human in the eyes of the United States Law. Using your argument of philosophy (which uses rationality to denote humanity) would rule out people with Alzheimer's, dementia, and mental health diseases as having the rights both to live, and all other constitutional rights that we grant humans (as I have said previously) . My legal argument: Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a "child in utero" as a legal victim, if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb. "[2] The law is codified in two sections of the United States Code: Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), ��1841 (18 USC 1841) and Title 10, Chapter 22 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) ��919a (Article 119a). Notice how this defines a "child in utero" as a member of the species homo sapiens. B. Citizenship In 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly declared in article three, "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. " The United States is a member of the United Nations General Assembly, and thus abides and is subjected to their rules. This was unanimously incorporated by the assembly and by the United States. Furthermore, the chairman of this committee was Eleanor Roosevelt. The right to life is not only reserved to United States Citizens, but to humans in general. Thus, I cannot murder an illegal immigrant from Mexico and expect to get off scot free. I will be punished because every human bears the right to life. You stated that courts were infallible, however law is not. I have stated court cases which strongly argue in my favor, precedence is the basis of jurisdictional rulings in the U. S. Not only have I stated court cases, but I have stated federal laws which prove my point. My opponent has offered no proof that courts are infallible and has offered no proof that law is also infallible. He has used no facts, figures, or law to back up his arguments, only fish, mosquitoes, and philosophy. I have used and shown the precedence which has been in favor of my conjecture. 2. I do not need to show effective without exception to show the minute odds of contracting an unwanted pregnancy, because there is a tool out there which is 100% effective and that is abstinence. I'm not advocating abstinence, but am showing and the viewers of this debate the odds of contracting a pregnancy when using adequate protection. Furthermore adoption is also 100% effective. If a person does not want to and cannot afford to become pregnant than I suggest not being sexually active, or using contraceptive. If the remote chance occurs that while using protection they become pregnant then I suggest aborting it within the 21 days. If as my opponent stated the period is missed after the 21 days then I suggest putting the child up for adoption. Nowhere in the constitution does it grant anyone the right to deny human life. It is the woman's choice to be sexual active, and as I have said if they are raped/incest/at risk of dying then I am completely in favor of abortion. Let me explain the female cycle for you clearly. Conception can only occur during ovulation. Ovulation occurs two weeks before a menstrual cycle begins. Conception occurs two weeks after your period begins. So this means that you have 7 days after missed period to get an abortion. Pregnancy tests can detect pregnancy 4 days before your missed period. Your argument on economic non necessity would apply if a fetus was not recognized as a human under united states law. 3. So you propose that public opinion does not matter at all because democracy in your own eyes is not considered "good" No statistics is only more complicated than you think if I was judging by 1 poll or a group of polls that were done in an incoherent manner. However when national pollsters that are highly repudiated and unbiased have the same data, we get a public opinion that is accurate. And no these polls were not conducted via the Internet, they are random phone polls. Instead of trying to negate everything from the constitution, to the concept of democracy, to the laws of the United States, to court cases, to statistical polls, I suggest you provide more sufficient information on your own viewpoint instead of using anti virus software. (by the way tracking cookies are not harmless) 4. A. You might want to check the "infallible" constitution on cruel and unusual punishment. Fish again do not compare to human beings under the constitution. You eat fish. I sincerely hope you do not eat fetuses. B. No if you resist you will be tazed and further restrained and sent to jail for a longer period of time. Only if you make an attempt on the officers life will you be killed in self defense, and even then officers shoot to wound and disable first. And no a death penalty does not result from trespassing so your inordinate logic does not make sense. There is no "death penalty" only death in self defense if you make an attempt on the officers life, not trespassing. Therefore this argument makes no sense that you receive a death penalty for trespassing. C. Until it is revised or added to, it is if you live in the United States So are you suggesting my great grandfather who talks aloud to his dead wife while I am sitting there is rational? Or anyone that is brain dead does not deserve to live? Or that my Great Aunt who cannot even speak anymore but just mumbles incoherently in a bed deserves death? "If such illness exists, whosoever has it of course has no rights, but I am not under the impression that it exists. " So are you stating that under the laws of the United States murdering any of the persons mentioned above or in your argument has no crime or penalty at all. I believe, that you are sincerely mistaken. I have offered plenty of points of why abortion should be legal. 1. because the U. S. Court system has recognized the humanity of a fetus 2. you conceded they were alive 3. Because there are alternatives available such as adoption 4. Because all humans have the right to life 5. Because public opinion is in support 6. Because trespassing does not constitute a death sentence 7. Because the fetus feels pain during the abortion which under US law is cruel and unusual punishment 8. Because there are 100% effective solutions to preventing birth 9. Because when the mothers choice to have sexual intercourse is violated my argument allows abortion 10. Because when the mother's life is at stake my argument allows abortion I welcome my opponents next rebuttal and hope he is doing well.
| -1 |
the deliberate termination of a pregnancy by some medical means
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
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 deliberately ending a pregnancy
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
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 foetus in the womb
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
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 termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo before the viability of the fetus
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
I had a similar debate, granted it was my first one and I was rather inexperienced. But, I feel as though I am better "equipped" now as it were to tackle the subject. Now, I am going to work backwards with your opinion. The last thing you said was that women should not have the choice to abort the baby or not? What about the case of extreme deformity? Granted every living thing should have the right to enjoy and experience life. And I believe it's horrible for people to choose to get rid of a child who not even has had the chance to take his or her first breath. But what if that child was unable to live his or her life independently or with some amount of assistance (In cases of permanent hospitalization) because of the that deformity? In which the child would live a meaningless existence Here's some examples: Brain Dead Children Mental Retardation to the point of hospitalization for life Mutated and Abnormal arrangement of organs that cause extreme pain and difficulty And what about in the case of rape? If a woman is impregnated with the child of her attacker and she is forced to raise the child on her own would that be right to tell her she has to raise the child of her attacker? Granted I don't like the idea of that you would be able to take the life of a child who had nothing to do with the horrid event that had taken place. But, that would not be our choice to make. As for the fact as someone would have an "accident" (I apologize if that term is offensive) and end up pregnant after unprotected sex. That is an unacceptable reason for people to have an abortion and I'm glad we can agree on that. A life should never be taken because it inconveniences someone else's life. The people who choose to do so are by definition, murderers. (murderer: someone who commits the act of homicide Homicide: The unlawful killing of another living human)
| 1 |
the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo before viability
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Response to my opponent's Round 3:My opponent has offended my comprehension because he doesn't like his own conclusion.(My guess is that he made unwritten premise "arsonist is destroying the building", but this only falsifies his own definition of destruction; I however prefer to respond to what is written rather than to what is meant)I know the definitions of words I use, I said I don't think it would be immoral for someone to kill me without my consent.I would not be beneficial for me if someone killed me, but that doesn't imply it is immoral."None of what you said" is certainly not a rebuttal. The rest of my opponent's 2) is same statement as I previously rebutted. Rebuttal of premise can not be rebutted with the same premise.You can certainly see, touch and smell fellow members of the society(citizens)."show me some data, even just correlational, that suggests that abortion is harmful to society"- My opponent is the one who should be arguing that. I am arguing that abortion is beneficial to society.I don't consider anything to be immoral. I do what I think is beneficial to the things I love, and I don't do what I think is harmful to the things I love.Conclusion:My opponent rebutted none of my arguments, while I rebbutted his only one.
| 1 |
the act of intentionally causing the death of a human fetus
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
con
|
con
|
What you would feel like, if someone was acting on the thought 'this thing (fetus) is in the way, let's get rid of it by abortion' talking about your best friend. Then you wouldn't be able to be with him/her today and you wouldn't have had the chance to enjoy life with him/her. Killing a new-born and killing a fetus is the same thing, because they both have life. Killing a person is against the law. What if that baby was going to be a great person that would become a great leader or scientist that could have helped the world in many ways? You only addressed the first part of my argument in round 1, what about the rest?
| -1 |
the deliberate destruction of a foetus
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
First of all, thank you for taking the time to debate with me. I do not agree that abortion is murder. A fetus isn't really a human being and therefore it cannot be murder. Nearly all abortions take place in the first trimester, when a fetus cannot exist independent of the mother. As it is attached by the placenta and umbilical cord, its health is dependent on her health, and cannot be regarded as a separate entity and is therefore not a human being. Also, Abortion is a safe medical procedure. If abortions were illegal it would only allow for more unsafe procedures to take place. Since abortion is currently legal, there are doctors who can give safe abortions. The vast majority of women have their abortions in the first trimester (88%). Also, women are going to have abortions whether or not they are legal, so at least because they are legal, women are able to get safe abortions with sterilized tools. It is also important to note that the ability of a women to have control of her body is critical to civil rights. If you take away the choice of reproductive rights for women, then what else can the government force women to do. Can the government force you to undergo sterilization or use contraception?
| 1 |
termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo before the fetus can survive outside the uterus
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
My definition of abortion in this scenario is when a mother or father is so immature, Poor, Unready, Or psycho that she/he decides to kill their unborn baby. I think it is justifiable for a mother to have an abortion because it would spare a child from living with the mother that would have aborted the child. An abortion is a definition of killing, But the baby did not yet develop a consciousness, Therefore it doesn't yet have feelings. Also, We willingly kill our own species in wars, Why can't we make an exception for this? I also might be completely wrong, And there are better option than abortion, But I also might be right. I can be both right and wrong, One can never be sure.
| 1 |
the act of removing a fetus or embryo from the uterus in order to produce labour
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
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 intentional termination of a pregnancy
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Although it should be a women's right to chose. Aren't we born with certain unalienable rights? Granite the baby has not yet been born, but that doesn't give us a right to disregard it of its rights and take an innocent life. After a certain period of time it is no longer a clump of cells, but a living organism. Therefore abortion is wrong and inhuman.
| -1 |
the deliberate destruction of a fetus or embryo in the womb
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Well Since my opponent forfeited the last round I have nothing to refute. So I will just add more information to my arguments. Premise 4: Doctors are supposed to help babies, not kill them. Premise 5: Negative effects of an abortion on the woman. Premise 6: People are always looking to adopt. Premise 4: The doctors role is and will always be to protect and not harm. The text of the Hippocratic Oath, the oath that doctors take when swearing to practice medicine, forbids abortions. One section of the oath reads: "I will not give a woman a pessary [an abortion device] to cause an abortion." The the Hippocratic Oath also forbids abortion in its line, "Above all, I must not play at God." [1] Premise 5: There are many negative effects on a woman who has undergone an abortion procedure. One possible negative outcome of abortion related infections is sterility. Researchers have reported that 3 to 5 percent of aborted women are left inadvertently sterile as a result of the operation. [2] Studies within the first few weeks after the abortion have found that between 40 and 60 percent of women questioned report negative reactions. Within 8 weeks after their abortions, 55% expressed guilt, 44% complained of nervous disorders, 36% had experienced sleep disturbances, 31% had regrets about their decision, and 11% had been prescribed psychotropic medicine by their family doctor. [3] Women who have undergone post-abortion counseling report over 100 major reactions to abortion. Among the most frequently reported are: depression, loss of self-esteem, self-destructive behavior, sleep disorders, memory loss, sexual dysfunction, chronic problems with relationships, dramatic personality changes, anxiety attacks, guilt and remorse, difficulty grieving, increased tendency toward violence, chronic crying, difficulty concentrating, flashbacks, loss of interest in previously enjoyed activities and people, and difficulty bonding with later children. [4] Premise 6: There is a lack of adoptable babies because of the legalization of abortion. Over two million couples are waiting to adopt babies, and only 134,000 US children are available to be adopted as of June 2002. [5] The percentage of infants given up for adoption has declined from 9% of those born before 1973 to 1% of those born between 1996 and 2002. [6] Instead of having the option to abort their baby, women should give their unwanted babies to people who can not conceive children, but would love to have a child. Sources: [1] Henry E. Sigerist, The Hippocratic Oath: Text, Translation, and Interpretation, 1996 [2] Wynn and Wynn, "Some Consequences of Induced Abortion to Children Born Subsequently", British Medical Journal (March 3, 1973), and Foundation for Education and Research in Child Bearing (London, 1972). [3] Ashton,"They Psychosocial Outcome of Induced Abortion", British Journal of Ob&Gyn.(1980),vol.87,p1115-1122. [4] Reardon, Aborted Women-Silent No More, (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1987). [5] Terry Eastland, "The Forgotten Option," The Weekly Standard, Jan. 29, 2003 [6]National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), "Who Adopts? Characteristics of Women and Men Who Have Adopted Children," NCHS Data Brief, www.cdc.gov, Jan. 2009
| -1 |
the act of destroying or removing the embryo or fetus from the uterus
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
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 |
medical or surgical termination of a pregnancy
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
I do not know debate you agreed on but that is beside the point.... First I want to state that 1% of either 1.3 million OR 1.21 million(which is the approximated number of abortions a year given in my previous argument, source #3) is still 1%. And given that my source gave 21% of women citing not wanting a baby, that is 273,000 of your 1.3 million and 254,100 of my 1.21 million statistic. Let's call a spade a spade here. 1% is just about the smallest minority you can get into without getting into crazy decimals. The point I was trying to make was to say that the majority of women who get abortion do so, so as to not have to take on the huge responsibility of caring for a child. That does not nullify my claim that rape is still not a viable reason for abortion. I will touch on this again in a minute Second, At the end of my opening argument, I put a little astrisk. That astrisk was to indicate that we are considering that both baby and mother would be perfectly healthy during pregnancy and at the time of birth. Seeing as this was established before my Opp made any arguments, I ask that he kindly withdraw his argument about the health of the mother and/or the child. I can admit that it would be a very hard decission to come to terminate the baby if either lives were put in peril due to said pregnancy. To answer the question "Should the rape victim be forced to carry to term her rapists child?", I would have to ask you to answer questions I posted in my opening argument: 1. Is it the baby's fault? 2. Does that give you any less capacity to love that baby? 3. Does that make the baby any less deserving of love and the right to live? I would also ask that my Opp justify his answers to each These days it is fairly easy to determine rape. If someone is raped they SHOULD report it, as rape is a crime. Would you say the same about a murder victim's family "being forced" to testify against an accused murderer. If we want to see justice for crimes we must speak up, as painful as it may be. Please withdraw this point as well as it really has no bearing for this debate. Another thing I must point out, that I failed to do so in my opening arguments is that Pro-Choice people so often forget about the option of adoption, whether it be for a child out of rape or otherwise. How is that not a better option? Several couples are unable to bear children who desparately want children. They get the child they desire and thus the woman who could have gotten an abortion escapes responsibility of taking care of said child, like she so desparately wants. That seems to be win win to me. I ask my Opp to answer why he believes adoption is not a better option and justify his answer In response to your question "what about the rights of the rapist", what about the rights of the man who slept with the woman considering the abortion that was not a rape. He had equal part in creating the baby, should he not have equal say in whether or not the baby is born? Why should the mother have the only say in what happens to her baby when she only played PART of a role in creating it? As per my other paragraphs I ask my Opp to answer these questions and justify his answers. My Opp seems to be preoccupied with the issue of rape. In response to my Opp's counter argument that not having the funds to take care of a child, wouldn't this be another case in which adoption is a more viable option than abortion? Also, who's to say the woman can't get a job or apply for government assistance? Is she disabled and cannot work? If my Opp can not answer these question, I ask he withdraw or concede this argument. My final response is the question of deadbeat dads. There are several punishments available to deadbeat dads who do not want to take responsibility for children they helped create. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Rape aside, shouldn't the same punishments be available to women who get abortions? Answer and justify your answer as per always please. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... (section 3 specifically) 2. http://www.law.cornell.edu... 3. http://www.cnn.com... 4. http://singleparents.about.com... 5. http://singleparents.about.com...
| -1 |
the termination of a pregnancy after, before viability
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
no
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
I find it funny how most of your arguments is just what I said previously in the last round. And I also find it amusing that half of your arguments here was just cut-and-pasted from my earlier debate with 16kadams. Response Point 1: This was a simple fact. You misinterpreted my point. Just skip over this point. Response Point 2: • 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).[6] • Twenty-seven percent of women obtaining abortions have incomes between 100–199% of the federal poverty level.* [6] http://www.guttmacher.org.... So 69% of woman who have abortions have a household that makes less than $22,000. Response Point 3: With money, people can do just about anything. Money can change the COD on the death certificate. Response Point 4: There is a big difference between adopted and cared for. A lot of adopted children are abused. Response Point 5: Might is a bad word becuase with the abortion by the poor statistics I have provided, most likely, the child will not grow up in a comfortable surrounding. Response Point 6: You are using a biased website. Look at the title; pro-life. This is most certainly biased. Response Point 7: First of all, you did not disprove my statement that prohbiting an abortion would decrease the mental illness rate since abortion causes mental illness. And you have also not refuted the claim that prohibiting abortions would decrease the criminal abortion rate, and not increase crimes. As for the breast cancer-abortion link: 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....... http://www.prochoice.org...... http://www.cancer.gov......; a non-biased source. http://www.cancer.org......; more non-bias Attack Point 1: I reinstate my previous attack points 3 and 4 since my opponent failed to respond to them. My final argument will blow this debate out of the water.
| 1 |
the intentional termination of a human pregnancy by some medical or surgical means
|
noslang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.