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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Argument Women should have the right to make decisions about their own bodies. Women should be able to have an abortion if they are too young and unable to take care their babies. And the right to have an abortion if the pregnancy negatively affects the women's or the babies's health. It is women's right to make decisions about their own bodies. Having control over their own bodies is an important part of the equal rights that women have fount for. According to socialist worker, Women have the right to control their own body and reproductive lives. Therefore, no one has the right to tell a woman what she can or can not do with her body. This view is shared by the United States Supreme Court who ruled in the 1973 case "Roe Vs. Wade" that women have the right to control their own bodies. Since 1973 the Supreme Court has never over ruled this decision. Another reason that women should be able to have abortions is in case the mothers are too young and unable to take care their babies. Unwanted pregnancies can be very stressful for women. Therefore, if they think they can not give their babies a good life then it is right for them to have abortions. For example, one of my friends was pregnant when she was 19. She and her baby's father were still in college by that time. Neither had a job, and they knew that they could not afford to buy food and provided medical care for their baby. My friend got an abortion, even though it was the hardest decision of her life. She knew that it would be better, however, for her own life and because she could not properly take care of the baby. Critics of abortion say stopping a fetus's life is wrong. But if the babies health is at question during the pregnancy a woman should have the right to choose for herself. The reason is I believe that continuing a dangerous pregnancy will put a woman in a dangerous situation and will bring the baby into a life of sickness. In pre-pregnancy diabetes raises risk of birth defects, Donya (2008) report that " Women diagnosed with diabetes before they become pregnant are three times to four times more likely to give birth to a child with one or even multiple birth defects than a non diabetic mother, according to a study in the Aug. 1 American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology ". If a woman gets pregnant and she has a history of heart disease then continuing the pregnancy would put both her and her baby at risk. A woman with a history of heart disease should avoid pregnancy because of the the high risk of death or she will give birth to a baby with birth defects. Therefore, it is right if a woman chooses to get abortion in this case. Advocates of abortion believe that death is harmful for the fetus and the fetus has the right to have a life just like ours. One advocate of abortion is Stone. For Stone, " death seriously harms the fetus and so the fetus has a right to life because death deprives the fetus of conscious goods which it is the fetus's biological natural to make itself have " . However when a woman's health is at risk or they will give birth to a child with defects then abortion would be better for the mother and for the baby. If we know the child will be born with defects then there is no point in having have the mother keep the baby if she chooses not to. I'm not sure my opponent considered if the person wanting an abortion is a rape victim. If someone is raped (especially at a young age - younger than 18) do you think that they should have to go through the process of having a child. Not only will it be hard to look after at such a young age. It will also be hard to explain to the baby who the father is. Having a child who reminds you of such a horrible experience is not a nice thing. What if the child grows up to look like his father (the rapist). Then what? In conclusion, I believe that women have the right to have abortions. First, women have the right to control their own bodies. Second, they have the right to have abortions if the pregnancies will affect their health and their babies health in a harmful way. Third, women have the right to have abortions if they have been raped. Also advocates of abortion believe that abortion is seriously wrong but women should do what is best for them and their babies. Sources Sharon Smith. " Abortion is every woman's right." Socialistworker 23 April 2004. Stretton, Dean. "The Deprivation Argument Against Abortion." Bioethics 18.2 (Apr. 2004): 144-180. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. [Library name], [City], [State abbreviation]. Currie, Donya. "Pre-pregnancy diabetes raises risk of birth defects." Nation's Health 38.8 (Oct. 2008): 21-21. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. [Library name], [City], [State abbreviation]. J. Stone. Why Potentiality Matters. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 1987; 17: 815-830. More recently: J. Stone. Why Potentiality Still Matters. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 1994; 24: 281-294
| 1
|
the right to abortion
|
all
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
pro
|
pro
|
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 human being in the process of being born
|
all
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
con
|
Abortion should be the mothers choice. 1) By taking away the mothers right to decide you take away yet another little bit of her freedom. 2) Not to mention all the exeptions such as rape victims. Are you going to tell the poor girl who got pregnant from some scum of the Earth that she has to keep his child?
| 1
|
the right to choose what happens to your body
|
all
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
pro
|
pro
|
I agree that it is wrong to take another person's life. That is murder, And absolutely reprehensible. Where you and I evidently differ is whether or not a foetus is a person. Both the Oxford and Merriam-Webster dictionaries define person as an individual human being, Or a human with reference to individuality. On the definition of individual, They differ slightly, But the consensus is that individual means a distinctly separate entity, With defining characteristics. It is my belief that, Beyond genes (which it shares partly with either parent anyway), A foetus has no defining characteristics. No individuality. For example, I have friends. Likes. Dislikes. Relationships. Aspirations. Worries. Things that make me me. A foetus has none of these things. P. S. I find it hypocritical to be pro-life and pro death penalty, Because of these definitions. P. P. S. I don't like abortion. I just don't think it's murder or that it should be illegal. You'll find the vast majority of pro-choice people share these views. We aren't pro-abortion.
| 1
|
the intentional destruction of a human fetus
|
all
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
First off, I never used the word "person. " I said "I believe it is wrong to take away another"s life. " Although maybe I should have used a little different wording and said "human life. " (yes, A fetus is human life. ) Secondly, Every fetus does have individuality. Otherwise, Every person would look and act just like everybody else which is obviously not the case. I see your point that a fetus does not have likes, Dislikes, Relationships, Etc. Why does it not have these? Because it has not yet been born and able to experience these things in life beyond the womb. I don"t agree that the lack of characteristics such as likes and dislikes makes abortion ok, Because killing them before they are able to develop these characteristics is why they never get them. I don"t find it hypocritical to be pro-life and pro-death penalty. Why? Because I believe humans that murder people, Commit treason, Take part in human trafficking, Etc. Deserve to be killed. I also believe that humans that have not murdered people, Not committed treason, Not trafficked humans, And not done any wrong (such as a fetus) don"t deserve to be killed. I"m glad that you don"t like abortion (there is something we have in common haha). However, I do believe abortion is murder. Oxford Dictionary defines murder as "The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. " Of course you could argue that abortion is legal and therefore it is not "unlawful" as the definition says, But that is the entire point of my debate is to argue against abortion and I think it should be illegal so I am overlooking the use of that word. Abortion still is a "premeditated killing of one human being by another. " Lastly, I am also pro-choice. I believe people can make any choice they want, That is until they make a choice that inhibits the freedoms and choice-making abilities of another human being. For example, I can choose whether to read a book or watch a movie. That choice doesn"t affect the agency of any other human being. However, I cannot choose to own a slave (I would never want to, This is just an example). Why? Because by choosing to own a slave, I would be taking away the choice-making ability of my slave. Another example: I could make the choice to murder someone (Again, I wouldn"t, Just another example). But this takes away the freedom of that person to live. Abortion, Taking away the life of the human being, Takes away their freedom to live. Slavery and murder are illegal, Why isn"t abortion?
| -1
|
the act of causing a fetus to be expelled from the uterus
|
all
|
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 act of killing a human before he is born
|
all
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
con
|
con
|
you keep using the term "unsafe abortion" If you go to a clinic where this is practiced is is way more safe than getting it from that hobo down the street. And another thing, you have a better likely hood to gain depression when you have a child as well. And it isn't our place to say anything about mothers who have abortions. What if it wasn't there fault. What if the condom broke, what if the birth control pills didn't work? Why should it be there fault then. Why should we get to judge them based on their decision. This is their choice. And yeah it's very sad, and suicide sadly is an option for them. But if you can't handle a baby then wouldn't it be better to bring a baby into the world when they, THE PARENTS are prepared?
| 1
|
the act of aborting
|
all
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Not all chicken eggs are unfertilised (poultry standards are different everywhere), and they too have the potential for life. Furthermore, several living plants have to be killed to obtain food or wood, but no value of life over there eh? Or what about killing of living chickens and cattle for meat? And not every single proponent of a foetus should count as living. After all, it is not functional during that time period. Humans are superior to other organisms, but that doesn't reduce the value of a "life". Animals and plants are just as living as, if not more than a foetus. Yet we utilise them for our resources and benefits, and in case of hunting, for pleasure. Therefore abortion can be done as it will save our resources/benefit us, and not reduce pleasure. Furthermore, we can discard pets anytime we want, yet we have to always keep a child? That hasn't even come into the world yet? Pets are fully living and functional, they love us even more than children at times (dog=man's best friend), yet if they even get slightly injured or start taking up more funds than allocated for it, we send it away? This is unfair. If the parents are not ready for a child, or they changed their decision, it should within their rights to kill the foetus. One reason for abortion would be financial problems, for many families may not have the time or the money required to give their child the right growth. Or a surprise loan/ accident cripples the person, and causes problems for the upcoming child. We shouldn't force parents to keep a child they don't want. This will be bad for the child due to ill-treatment from the parents, and will be bad for the parents for the reason they wanted abortion. Suppose if we find out that the unborn child has some deformities/ infection, shouldn't we give it a merciful death rather than an impaired, handicapped life?
| 1
|
the act of removing an unwanted foetus from a womb
|
all
|
abortion
|
no
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
They are not simply murdering their baby, they are reliving the baby from coming into a world that the mother knows wont go good for the baby because the mother is still struggling in life and will not be able to provide the baby with all its necessities. Babies are expensive, and not having any education or a job will decrease ones chances of being able to survive the land of all the high bills. I understand their is adoption, yet some mothers do not view another family taking care of the child they could not care for. The women that is soon to be mother might have gotten raped and decided that the baby would be better off in gods hands. A baby is no fool, yet it would not be fair for it to come into a world that it cannot be cared for in. Many abortions have been taken into account and our species is not dying off any time soon.
| 1
|
the act of removing a foetus from the womb
|
all
|
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
|
the intentional killing of a fetus
|
all
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
con
|
"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
|
"abortion is the killing of a baby
|
all
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
con
|
con
|
Abortion is wrong. For the people who say that abortion is okay are saying that it is okay to murder people so that must mean that it is okay for me to kill a person and not get in trouble with the law. What makes murdering an unborn child okay, but murdering someone else wrong?
| -1
|
the act of killing a human fetus
|
all
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
con
|
sorry about that I was thinking of something else. If a baby is born ill he will never live I normal life. something becomes living once the sperm and eggs touch but, If a baby is born ill he will never live I normal life. the good things about abortion is both the parents and the kid do not have to go through all the hardships of an extremely ill person. Imagine if you had to go through not even be able to talk and not now who anybody you have known for a long time is. Imagine that,Imagine that.
| 1
|
the act of removing a fetus by surgical or other means
|
all
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
First of all, do not bring God into this. God has nothing to do with this. Who's to say if Buddha has the right to take a baby away? Or Muhammad? You could even argue Ra, the ancient Egyptian sun god. So no higher being decides weather to take a life or spare it. No you would not kill a person if they are sick. I mean a permanent serious birth defect. Like if someone was born with a serious physical or mental disease and could only live for a year. That baby would have to suffer for a year, as opposed to the few moments it would take to abort it. Example 2: It doesn't matter who's fault it is. You fail to rebuttal the idea of harassment and pain a young woman would have to go through during and after those 9 months of pregnancy. The father would not be there to support it at all. The mother might not even know who the father is. Abortion is not meant for lazy doctors who don't want to take care of the baby, as you stated in you last argument. Secondly I do not believe "vegeated" is a word, so I am not going to refute that sentence as a I fail to see what you are trying to convey. CON has failed to produce solid arguments, and only had one in the beginning. CON also did not rebuttal all of my points and postings. Therefore I may declare that I have won this debate, however the vote goes to the users.
| 1
|
the termination of a pregnancy by any means
|
all
|
abortion
|
no
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
I will be taking the position of "pro-choice" in this debate. To start, I think it is important for me to point out that the position of "pro-choice", to me, means that any individual woman has the right to choose whether or not to get an abortion, and that choice can not be made for her by any government entity; to clarify, the position of "pro-choice" does not necessarily mean that abortion is inherently right or wrong. When you say that you are "100%" pro-life, what exactly do you mean?
| 1
|
the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or destruction of an embryo or fetus
|
all
|
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 removal of a fetus from the uterus
|
all
|
abortion
|
no
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
"Con states that I ignored their 4 characteristics. This is false. I have demonstrated that their argument fails under both of our definitions of life. I have also proven that you ought to buy my definition of life over con's one since I provided sources." No, I established that they fit all of these characteristics, save reproduction, you said that a fetus is not alive because it cannot reproduce. I rebutted this by asking you a very simple question; "If this is so, doesn"t that mean that children that haven"t reached puberty are not alive?" You failed 3 times to answer this very simple question. I got my 4 characteristics of life from my Biology class. "Con fails to understand the parameters set. They also act contrary to their position. They present a definition of life which sets the parameter that it must be able to reproduce (bare in mind that con introduces this in their parameters too). They then contradict themselves and say that reproduction should not be a parameter for considering life because children who haven't gone through puberty cannot reproduce. I will make the same clarification that I made before. The parameters used to define life aren't used individually, they are used to define whether the entire human race is living. The answer to this is yes because the large majority of all humans will eventually be able to reproduce and the large majority can. Killing children isn't acceptable to their sentience and consciousness and due to the fact that they will be able to reproduce in their current state as human beings." Pro is contradicting himself, he says here that children who have not yet reached puberty are alive because they will be able to reproduce in the future. Is this not the same for a fetus? If a fetus is left to develop long enough, won"t it be able to reproduce eventually too? "I proved that the fetus cannot respond to stimuli. Con states that I am wrong because he said reacts not responds. This is a poor rebuttal since they are both synonyms. I could have said that the fetus cannot react to stimuli and it would have meant the same thing as responds to stimuli. The fetus cannot react and respond to stimuli [3], can Con please respond to this sufficiently now." The difference between "responds to stimuli", and "reacts to stimuli", yes, is very similar, except "responds to stimuli" indicates that the reaction is noticeable. As "respond" indicates that there is a recipient, there is no such recipient in "react." "I said that the fetus is developing to become a human. Con states that this means that all men under the age of 33 are also developing. This a key issue that I'd like to address. The fetus is developing TO BECOME a human being. Babies, children, teenagers and young adults are developing AS HUMANS. They are still humans whereas the fetus is not." The issue with this argument is that you are stating that a fetus is only a human after it is born. I stated that the only difference is the extent of development, and what level of development determines you being a human is only an opinion, and cannot be proven. That a fetus"s genetics is human genetics, that a fetus fits all the definitions of life, and that a fetus can feel pain, that can be proven. "Con excludes the main elements of libertarian philosophy which consist of two beliefs: 1. The government ought to have less power and make less restrictions. [6][7]. 2. The individual is the most important member of society and their opinions and rights ought to be prioritized to the highest level of their ability to do so [6][7]. Life is important in libertarianism however less government restriction is also extremely important factor and by preventing somebody from having an abortion is a restriction that libertarians ought to avoid at all costs [7]. As my contentions have described, this is a violation of the women's equality and human rights." The government is here to protect people"s rights, born or unborn, when someone wants to violate these rights, not only does the government have the power to stop it, they have the obligation to do so. "By preventing the women from having an abortion you violate the women's right and you also violate libertarianism. Being against abortions violates the two most important libertarian ideologies, this means that it is an overall violation of libertarianism. Con provides no alternative framework and mine still stands, you ought to vote Pro baed solely on the premise that under my framework abortion is morally permissable." For one your framework is anything BUT morally permissible, it is morally insane. Let"s examine Pro"s excuse for abortion, he says that; "Because men do not have to deal with the hormonal issues associated with pregnancy, that women are being treated unequally, therefore we must allow them to commit abortion so they can be equal to men." This is the panicle of ignorance in liberalism, to go to war against biological gender differences, call it "gender inequality", and use it to justify atrocities such as this. Biological gender differences is NOT gender inequality, it is the natural order of things and if you don"t like it, DEAL WITH IT. "The answer to this question is that the fetus isn't alive and it doesn't have an opinion. No matter whether you're for or against abortion everybody acknowledges that the fetus isn't able to formulate opinions." So my opponent admits that the fetus is NOT trespassing on the mothers body because it did not choose to be there, and if the fetus is NOT a product of rape then the mother chose for it to be there, and CANNOT change her decision seeing as though the fetus is dependent on her to live now. "Con's old man analogy is faulty. He fails to consider financial issues but that isn't the only problem. He forgets that the fetus doesn't care if it's on the boat or not, neither does it care if it on board or thrown off because if the boy represents the fetus then this boy must also not be able to think or have opinions [8]. I have also demonstrated that the fetus isn't alive. This means that con's analogy based on the premise that all possible outcomes and situations haven't been analyzed and the fact that con hasn't acknowledged that the fetus cannot think or forumlate opinions, means that the analogy fails. I do not advocate infanticide / killing children, the scenarios are completely different as I have already proven." Then the boy is asleep, and cannot chose or formulate opinions as he does not know he is on board either. Additionally, if the mother does not want to take care of the child, pawn it off to someone else! "Con's rebuttal to the fact that most abortions are done at the stage where the fetus is DEFINITELY not alive. The ebryo is less developed than the fetus and cannot feel pain or think or respond to stimuli etc." If it has grey matter, it can think. "Con makes the mistake of calling the fetus a human. The stages begin with the fertilization of the sperm and egg, the embryo, the fetus, then the human. There is a distinguishable difference between the fetus and the human." I could never find out how they do that. "I still advocate the fact that we must look at things as a whole and looking at people with disabilities is not applicable in classifying life as people with disabilities still belong to the same species as us." "Con's next rebuttal is subjective. He states that abortion isn't a right. Life is. It is still under his BOP to prove why. Until this is done there is nothing to refute. This is all bare assertion." I don"t need to prove that abortion is not a right, the burden of proof is on you to prove that it IS a right, if you cannot then it is established that abortion IS NOT a right. I also don"t need to prove that Life is a right, it is SELF-EVIDENT, that you are entitled to Life, Liberty, and Property. "Con says that illegal abortions should be punished but doesn't refute the argument that says that the problem won't be solved anyway. I have shown that in places where abortion is illegal, illegal abortions still occur. The consequences are much worse than what Con suggests as a result of these illegal abortions. Sometimes the baby and mother die or are severely injured in the process. If you legalize abortions then people won't be inclined to do it illegally and they will do it legally - ie. safely." I understand this argument, but it is wrong. With things like booze or Marijuana it is better to be legal, because the demand will be higher if it is illegal. But there is a point where this does not apply, a mother that would put herself in danger to have her child be cooked alive by corrosive chemicals, should be punished harshly, so that no one would try it. "Con is contradictory. At first they say that the most important right is life and emphasize that life is extremely important and that aborting the fetus is murder, they then say that the mother should receive death by stoning. This is contradictory to the case and is a concession - it negates the only argument that they provided." In certain instances death penalty is necessary for certain crimes, a fetus has committed no crime. Therefore this is irrelevant. "I never that the teenagers were below the legal age of abortions being allowed. I said 18-19 year olds which is old enough [6]. The argument talked about teenagers missing out on their lives. This means that it still stands and has been dropped again." I"m sorry, your grammar on this paragraph is so bad I can"t understand it, come back later with a fully illustrated point. "Con respond to human rights by saying that he supports the right to life. This doesn't make sense; he says that we should stone the mothers to death which is not supporting the right to life." In certain instances death penalty is necessary for certain crimes, a fetus has committed no crime. Therefore this is irrelevant. P.S. How do you post pictures?
| -1
|
the deliberate termination of a pregnancy
|
all
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
R1 Rebuttals My opponent makes the claim that killing babies (ie. infanticide) is ultimately the same as having an abortion. This is not true as my R1 arguments clearly demonstrate. The list that has been complied by biolgoists to determine whether things are living and the fetus clearly does not meet this list. My opponent cannot make baseless assertions as comparisons to abortions. I have provided scientific evidence in support of the fetus being living whereas my opponent has failed to do the same. Without any evidence to support this comparison voters ought to consider it as baring no weight upon the resolution. My opponent attempt to define life using Webster's dictionary to define life. Unfortunately Webster's dictionary is not used by scientists when determining things. It is not a biological site and it is purposefully vague to as to keep the definition suitable for anybody of any age or background [1]. Of course, even if you do buy my opponent's definition you still ought to presume Pro since this definition includes the condition of reproduction which the fetus is unable to do [2]. Therefore, whichever definition you choose, mine or my opponents, the fetus should be considered to be non-living. My opponent makes the following claim which is completely false: "According to biology, life has these characteristics:1. Grows and develops (check)2. Capable of reproduction (check)3. Consumes and uses energy (check)4. Responds to stimuli (check)" [3]1 is true. 2 is completely false, and I have proven this already [2]. 3 is correct. 4 is false, it can detect stimuli however it cannot respond to it until much after the legal date for an abortion [4]. I never referred to the fetus as a clump of cells, merely non-living. Therefore the pre-emptive rebuttal stating that the fetus is not a clump of cells is irrelevant since it is already proven to be non-living which is what is important. My opponent's 3rd point is that the fetus is a human which is false. The genetic material will come out as human because it is growing to become a human however that doesn't mean that it is a human, this simply means that it is developing to become one. My opponent seems to believe that when humans and other species reproduce another member of that species just pops into existence. They are very mistaken. If it's parents are both members of this species then this does not means that it is automatically classified as a member of this species. And even if it is this still doesn't prove that it's living - it simply proves that it could be human (which it isn't). A dead person is still human, but that doesn't mean that it is living does it? Just because something is a member of the same species as something else, this does not mean that it ought to be considered living.This is the only argument that my opponent presents and since the burden of proof is shared, my opponent is clearly unable to fulfill their burden. Another important thing to note is that my opponent fails to prove the impacts of this to me and to readers. Even if you believe my rebuttal to be insufficient and my opponent's argument to be wrong, you still ought to presume Pro since the impacts are not provided. My opponent fails to say why the fact that the fetus is living means that abortions should be illegal (not that I believe this but my opponent clearly does). R2 Rebuttals My opponent completely misunderstands the framework. The framework does not refer to liberals. It refers to libertarians and it provides arguments and a framework for the debate. My opponent has failed to respond to the framework or provide an alternative framework, this is problematic since under my framework abortion should be legal. Without a sufficient rebuttal or alternative, this ultimately means that you can vote Pro based on this alone. Of course the fetus has no choice in being in the mother's womb. Why is that? The answer is: because the fetus isn't alive and only living things can make decisions [5]. The fetus isn't like a prisoner for a number of reasons. The first being that prisoners are held in prisons to be punished. The fetus is not held in the womb as a punishment. The second reason is that the prisoner is held there against their will. The fetus has no will because it is unable to think or feel things so therefore the fetus is not being held their against its will (this is impossible since the fetus has no will). Even if the fetus had will it still wouldn't be a prisoner because when prisoners are released from jail they are free to go back to civilization. If the fetus is taken out of the womb then it will die. The womb is its only place of security and therefore the womb is not like a prison. For this reason my opponent's analogy is flawed. Another point that my opponent's analogy fails to acknowledge is that you actually have to look after the baby once it's born and this can be extremely expensive as my contentions explain. Another vital things that I must pick up on is the insufficieny of a rebuttal to my argument in regards to embryotic abortions. I stated that most abortions are done when it is proven for a 100% fact that the embro is not alive (since it is not even at the stage of being a fetus). My opponent responds by saying that it consumes energy, grows and develops and responds to stimuli. It does not respond to stimuli so even by my opponent's definition the embryo is not alive [6].My opponent makes a common misconception with my biological categories of defining life. I understand that there are people that do not meet all of these categories due to a disability or for some other reason. The problem is that my opponent misunderstands the entire purpose of the argument. The argument is used to define whether a group of things is alive not individual things. We aren't going to go around to every single fetus to test if it's alive or not. We're going to analyze the fetus as a whole and decide whether it's alive or not. Therefore, when analyzing humans using this classification system we analyzed humans on a whole not just every individual humans [7]. My opponent's response to illegal abortions is shocking. He deems mother's to be psychopaths because they want abortions and they are denied the right to do so. Until my opponent is able to prove this, then this argument should not work in his favour since it is under my opponent's burden to provide evidence for this assertion. My opponent drops the rest of my illegal abortions contention by saying that it's a medical issue. This is not true. Having an illegal abortion can result in death but the argument isn't about this alone. It is also about the fact that there is no point in making it illegal if it's going to happen anyway. My opponent completely ignores this part of the argument and only responds to the statement in regards to people dying and being severely injured due to these illegal abortions which is arguably not a medical reason - rather a political related one. My opponent dismisses the argument in regards to teenagers having children by saying that this harms both the mother and child. This may be true however the criteria set in R1 is that I am not allowed to argue in regards to rape, medical issues or incest. I haven't argued in regards to any of these and therefore voters ought to consider this argument as dropped by my opponent. My opponent completely misunderstands my argument and essentially drops all the philosophy in regards to women's rights. He states that this means that women have the right to kill but you cannot kill what isn't alive. Also my opponent fails to acknowledge that this isn't all about whether or not the fetus is living. It is also about human rights. Sources[1] http://bit.ly...;[2] http://bit.ly...;[3] http://bit.ly... [4] http://www.beginbeforebirth.org...;[5] http://www2.fiu.edu...;[6] http://bit.ly...;[7] http://bbc.in...;
| 1
|
the deliberate killing of a fetus or new-born
|
all
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
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
|
a woman's right to choose
|
all
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
pro
|
pro
|
Great, another forfeiter. As someone who has debated abortion before, I will put a link to my original abortion debate right here: http://www.debate.org... I will be using arguments that I used from that debate here, so if you have any questions about my argument, simply read my original arguments. (1) First of all, I would like to define an abortion. “Abortion is the termination ofpregnancy by the removal or expulsion from theuterus of afetus orembryo beforeviability. An abortion can occur spontaneously, in which case it is often called amiscarriage, or it can be purposelyinduced. The term abortion most commonly refers to the induced abortion of a human pregnancy. After viability, the relevant procedure is referred to as a ‘late termination of pregnancy’ Modern medicine utilizes medications and surgical procedures for induced abortion.” From Wikipedia Great. Now that we all know what abortion is, I would like to bring up that Abortion is a right in many countries. Almost every country in the world have abortion that is legal to a degree. Often countries allow abortions only in special cases, like rape, fetal defects and maternal health. Only 6 countries refuse to give abortions under any circumstance. However, many countries allow abortions for any reason. “The landmark abortion case Roe v. Wade, decided on Jan. 22, 1973 in favor of abortion rights, remains the law of the land. The 7-2 decision stated that the Constitution gives ‘a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy,’ and that ‘This right of privacy... is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.’ ” Abortion in many countries is considered a civil right and taking away a right is not a good thing. Why? Simple. Discrimination. Anti-Abortion laws discriminate against rape-victims. Not only is it unfair to the mother but it is also unfair to the child. Imagine growing up with a mother who didn’t want you. This would be very bad. Any ways, I have to wrap things up. Thanks DDD. http://abortion.procon.org...
| 1
|
a debate over whether or not one should have an abortion
|
all
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Thanks for instigating. Since this is only for acceptance and a brief review on my contentions, we’ll make this round quick. But first some definitions relevant to the debate: Abortion- Induced termination of a pregnancy with destruction of the embryo or fetus. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Murder- The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Contentions: C1: Abortion is NOT murder Since my opponent’s main case relies on abortion being murder, it will also be my obligation to negate his contention. If I’ve fulfilled this obligation, you must negate the resolution. In this premise, I will also be arguing that murder can be justified and morally acceptable to society. Not all killings are morally wrong. I will also attempt to argue that even if abortion ends a life, it’s still morally acceptable, in some circumstances. C2: Valuing Women’s Rights I will show that a mother has rights over her body and privacy, and that it is more important to save the mother than the unborn fetus if both lives are at stake. C3: Abortion happens regardless of legality I’ll be proving in this premise that illegalizing abortion is a bad idea and a disadvantage to society and may lead to bad consequences and events. C4: Abortion is a right For my last contention, I will attempt to finally argue that a woman has a right to abort a child. I reserve the right to expand, drop and add more contentions whenever necessary to the debate. Thank you.
| 1
|
termination of a pregnancy
|
all
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Abortion does indeed kill a child. Yet, the death of a young child before birth could save the child of a painful life. Even if the baby feels this pain for seconds, it will never remember it. This is why a child is circumcised so young. Either way, a child born into poverty or born of a rape victim in many cases will end up having a life worth than death, and end up dying later on of neglect or starvation.
| 1
|
the intentional killing of a human fetus
|
all
|
abortion
|
yes
|
no
|
neutral
|
con
|
1. then people shouldn't do it... or at least were a condom 2. In the depression people made home made abortions. I don't know how to get videos on here so just put this url link up. (no pun intended) http://www.youtube.com... 3. What about the basic human rights. The right to live. It is inbeded in the Constitution so abortion would all-in-all be against the law. 4. post-abortion stress. my source for this is, http://postabortionsyndrome.org..., 5. now here's the pun, LordKnuckle said, "I see everyone for abortion has already been born." 6. How would you feel if you'd been aborted. Nothing cause you wouldn't of existed. 7. The baby is alive when the heart first beats. 8. What would happen if some of the greatest people in history were aborted. overval sources: http://www.youtube.com... http://postabortionsyndrome.org...
| -1
|
1
|
all
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
In my opinion, abortion is morally and ethically wrong, and should be illegal except in the case of extenuating circumstances, (explained later). Abortion being legal only teaches our society that rather then dealing with an accident or mistake, you can simply give some money to a doctor in order to "fix" the problem. Sure, there are arguments based on the fact that a fetus is not technically a human being yet, and that by aborting it, we are not denying its natural rights to life. But in all honesty, who are we to judge that. Sex, birth, and life are all natural processes, and the more we tamper with them, the worse the consequences will be. I feel that abortion simply makes people lazier. Rather then taking responsibility for what they have done, they'd rather deny a potential human being its right to life, because they do not want the responsibility of taking care of him/her.
| -1
|
the termination of pregnancy by the removal, or expulsion from the uterus, of a fetus or embryo
|
all
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
To use the term baby is incorrect a child born at 24 weeks after fertilization is a human, while one in womb at 37 weeks is not. So you can't say that 'the baby has no chance at life'. However the mother still has a say in whether or not she gives birth. But, if you want to think about it from the child's point of view, the child will feel like it was a mistake everyone hates. Personally I would rather die than think that my own mother didn't even want me. This topic is so conditional that you can't say 'It was the mothers own fault to decide to go out and get pregnant with out protection.' You can be on the pill and use a condom, there is still a chance of getting pregnant. However slim, there is a chance. And I don't agree with 'the only option' you give. A mother has free agency. She should be allowed to choose. And the consequences should not be determined by the state. Whatever God one believes in or your own guilt is by far a worse punishment. Not to mention the mothers who give birth because they are given no other option might go beat the child they were forced to give life. And back to the rape topic. I want the option to be selfish sometimes! Everyone does. And if you take away the option of abortion some of these people who were forced into this situation people might start doing abortions unprofessionally to make a quick dollar. Lets face it, it will happen. And if its not professionally done bad things can happen, its guaranteed to happen, as it does with any medical procedure.
| 1
|
the termination of a pregnancy by any means other than giving birth
|
all
|
abortion
|
no
|
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 termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a nonviable fetus
|
all
|
abortion
|
no
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
True, but it is not our choice to decide who lives and who dies, and especially not who never even has a chance to live. We cannot see into the future, therefore we cannot know what kind of life that child will have, we just have to hope for the best. Everyone knows that life is not easy, and abortion doesn't mean we are "saving" these potential children from it. I'm not going to be a hypocrite and say "don't have sex before marriage," because that is no longer the norm. However, if you are going to have sex before marriage, you should know, accept, and be aware of the potential consequences. I feel that the possibility of abortion causes people to make even worse decisions, because its basically telling our society that "any problem can be fixed with money." You had sex and you get pregnant, but luckily for you, you don't have to deal with it. Instead, you can just pay a doctor to "take care" of it.
| -1
|
the act of terminating a pregnancy by means of an operation
|
all
|
abortion
|
no
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Abortion sounds silly the way its spelt... heh heh
| 1
|
a very serious subject that is not funny at all
|
all
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
con
|
neutral
|
Hello MUNER287. I will accept your challenge. Abortion. An emotive issue. Including expressions such as "stripping a fetus" in any dialogue is sure to raise eyebrows. I'm more pragmatic though, I always prefer to take a more realistic, godless approach to such issues. Let me ask you a few questions. At what point do you think a fetus becomes aware of existence? That is to say. We do not fear death itself, what we fear is non-existence. So does a fetus have knowledge of life and death? Can a fetus fear non-existence?
| 1
|
the removal of a fetus or embryo from the uterus
|
all
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
//sorry about that I was thinking of something else. If a baby is born ill he will never live I normal life. something becomes living once the sperm and eggs touch but, If a baby is born ill he will never live I normal life.// So, if you are ill, and not normal, this provides grounds to kill? A man without working legs has a hard life, and therefore can be killed? //the good things about abortion is both the parents and the kid do not have to go through all the hardships of an extremely ill person. Imagine if you had to go through not even be able to talk and not now who anybody you have known for a long time is. Imagine that,Imagine that.// I'd rather have a baby alive than dead, no matter what. Abortion is the killing of a baby -- 99% of the time for illegitimate reasons. Less than one percent of abortions are for the good of the baby, mother, or due to rape and incest. THat makes over 40 million abortions a year unjustified.
| -1
|
the deliberate killing of an unborn child
|
all
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
con
|
con
|
Abortion is wrong because it is a direct interference with God's work which is to say the creation of human life. For someone to say that they want to murder their newborn child because they never wanted it in the first place is absolutely heinous and vulgar. There is a far better alternative to abortion known as adoption, and unlike abortion it doesn't pose any threat to the child's life. Though it should be noted that women may not have the same experience when putting their child up for adoption it is still a more humane decision and doesn't involve butchering an innocent child. By the way have you ever thought of what the baby might think about being murdered mercilessly if its ability to speak and comprehend was fully developed? Probably not because as far as your concerned a newborn is just an ignorant fool that is only here for you to do whatever you please with. Abortion also decreases the birth rate which must remain at a stable and constant rate in order to ensure the continuation of our species in the event of a thermonuclear war or some other cataclysm that could thrust mankind towards the brink of extinction.
| -1
|
the deliberate destruction of a fetus
|
all
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
OK so you said I failed to tell you why the fetus/baby is a human and your right but I will now tell you why it is a human being going off of several definitions Human being: a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance. Human being: A member of any of the races of Homo sapiens; person; man, woman, or child You see these do not state the fact that the fetus/baby has to be born yet. It is a child (Human being) a female to start off and then either stays a female or develops male-like features. therefore going back to the murder statement: Murder: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. since we have now established that the fetus/baby is a human being you can now see that this is in fact murder. the fetus/baby (human being) is being sucked out (killing the fetus/baby) by another human being. Although you could say it is Justifiable Homicide (only if the abortion is legal in most cases it is) there is no difference between when abortion was illegal and now when it is legal besides the fact that it is legal. there is a slight difference between murder and Justifiable Homicide. but the thing is, is it really justifiable besides the fact that it is now legal to kill an innocent fetus/baby. You can not say that it isn't innocent, because it hasn't done anything, the father did something continuing on I am also going to go on to your rape statement along with the murder and justifiable homicide. If a teenager is raped and she gets pregnant (now this is rare for a teenager to get pregnant from a rape so you can barely make this point but I will address it anyways) who is there to blame, the father, not the child. The teenager is living with her parents and in this case there are several people who can in fact take care of the child. even if they are poor the teenager and parent(s) can take care of child giving the baby more support than a wanting child. If the teenager is too scared to take care of a child she decides to get an abortion but, can it be justified besides it being a legal abortion JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE: That which is committed with the intention to kill, or to do a grievous bodily injury, under circumstances which the law holds sufficient to exculpate the person who commits it. 2. It is justifiable, 1. When a judge or other magistrate acts in obedience to the law. 2. When a ministerial officer acts in obedience to a lawful warrant, issued by a competent tribunal. 3. When a subaltern officer, or soldier, kills in obedience to the lawful commands of his superior. 4. When the party kills in lawful self-defence. 3.-1. A judge who, in pursuance of his duty, pronounces sentence of death, is not guilty of homicide; for it is evident, that as the law prescribes the punishment of death for certain offences, it must protect those who are entrusted with its execution. A judge, therefore, who pronounces sentence of death, in a legal manner, on a legal indictment, legally brought before him, for a capital offence committed within his jurisdiction, after a lawful trial and conviction, of the defendant, is guilty of no offence. 4.-2. Magistrates, or other officers entrusted with the preservation of the public peace, are justified in committing homicide, or giving orders which lead to it, if the excesses of a riotous assembly cannot be otherwise be repressed. 5-2. An officer entrusted with a legal warrant, criminal or civil, and lawfully commanded by a competent tribunal to execute it, will be justified in committing homicide, if, in the course of advancing to discharge his duty, he be brought into such perils that, without doing so, he cannot either save his life, or discharge the duty which he is commanded by the warrant to perform. And when the warrant commands him to put a criminal to death, he is justified in obeying it. 6.-3. A soldier on duty is justified in committing homicide, in obedience to the command of his officer, unless the command was something plainly unlawful. 7.-4. A private individual will, in many cases, be justified in committing homicide, while acting in self-defense. See Self-defense. Vide, generally, It's not any of these reason's its a justifiable homicide besides the fact that it is because it is some how legal. she's not defending herself (no one is coming at her) she's not a solider she's not a officer she's not a judge now going back to the human being definition: there by it can't be a mammal because of the difference between a human being and a mammal, that a fetus is developing even before the mother aborts the fetus/baby. OK the nutrition part. Why is there two different things, because they need different things because they are developing differently. Why is it in two different spots, because the baby is inside the mother for nine months and outside afterwards. She's not stealing those things either. when you get your period it's preparing your body for pregnancy some of those stuff is just for pregnancy. the body is for pregnancies. You can't say the baby is taking away and it's not right because your womb prepared for it not so you can kill the baby and say it was taking away the nutrition and now it's your right to kill it, just because you can.
| -1
|
the killing of a fetus/baby by another human being
|
all
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
con
|
con
|
abor�tion 1: the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: as a: spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation — compare miscarriage b: induced expulsion of a human fetus c: expulsion of a fetus by a domestic animal often due to infection at any time before completion of pregnancy (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Abortion cannot be defined as murder, as it doesn't always involve the induced death of an embryo or fetus. Embryo: The organism in the early stages of growth and differentiation from fertilization to, in humans, the beginning of the third month of pregnancy. After that point in time, it is termed a fetus. (http://www.medterms.com...) 1.a. An organism in its early stages of development, especially before it has reached a distinctively recognizable form. b. An organism at any time before full development, birth, or hatching. 2.a. The fertilized egg of a vertebrate animal following cleavage. b. In humans, the prefetal product of conception from implantation through the eighth week of development. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...) Murder: 1: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) In order for my opponent's first statement to be valid: "Abortion is murder and it should be illegal.", abortion would have to first be illegal, and murder would have to be redefined in the US Code as the taking of human life including at the earliest stages of development. Abortion is a medical procedure, and should only be defined by medical doctors. In modern American history, the Christian Right has attempted to sequester this medical procedure and redefine it according to their own morals with complete disregard for the consequences of illegalizing abortion, the toll it will have on adoption rates in the US which are already dismal, and the social consequences of perpetuating a rise in illegal abortions. My opponent claims that an alternative for abortion is adoption. There are perpetually about 500,000 kids in foster care each year. With all the movement in and out of foster care, there is a constant 130,000 children awaiting adoption. In total, in 2007, 783,000 children were in the foster care system at some point. Only about 50,000 American children are adopted every year (http://www.acf.hhs.gov...). Abortion is currently LEGAL. In 2005, 1.21 million abortions were performed, down from 1.31 million in 2000. From 1973 through 2005, more than 45 million legal abortions occurred. What would my opponent propose happen with this rise in unwanted children if already there are only 50,000 adoptions per year in the US? An extra 1.2 million children born per year would be disastrous to our economy, our orphanages, and the children doomed to live their lives in these institutions. (http://www.guttmacher.org...). My opponent states that the "only reason why there should be an abortion is in case the baby is acting as a cancer and its killing the mother". I refute that my opponent can make this claim because he cannot get into the heads of millions of women who have had, and do have abortions and discern for them whether or not they had a good reason to have an abortion. Even lacking this argument, my opponent ignores the conditions of rape and incest. Who will father these children? Will he? Who will provide psychiatric support for these women- too often children themselves- who have been violated and impregnated by disgusting criminals? Who will provide the psychiatric support for the children themselves when they are born? My opponent ignores several issues related to illegalizing abortion, besides the ones I have mentioned above. Illegalizing abortion would not lower abortion rates, rather it will raise illegal abortion rates, and the mortality rates associated with abortion. In 1972, a year before abortion became legal, there were a reported 130,000 illegal abortions. From 1975-1979 there were 11,300 illegal abortions reported. (http://findarticles.com...) Repealing Roe v. Wade (one of the steps required to illegalize abortion) would most likely result in a rise in illegal abortions. Now, rather than opposing the right of a woman and her doctor to choose what she should do medically with her own body, we should be advocating education of controceptive use, education in alternatives to abortion, laws that would ease adoption rather than make it more difficult (like the recent Arkansas Unmarried Couple adoption ban, http://ballotpedia.org...(2008), and help for single mothers and families living in poverty. It is this work that helps reduce the number of annual abortions, and reducing the number of annual abortions should be everyone's goal rather than attacking the rights of a woman, and a medical procedure while not being medically qualified to judge what is and isn't good for the human body, what defines human life, and what is or isn't ethical/unethical in medicine. Thank you.
| 1
|
the process of a female mammal giving birth to a dead or non-viable offspring
|
all
|
abortion
|
no
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Round 1 = Acceptance Round 2 = Arguments For/Against Abortion Round 3 = Rebuttals
| -1
|
a discussion where you and your opponent have to go back and forth on whether or not abortion should be legal
|
all
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Oh when you challenged to a debate on abortion I did not realise you wanted to limit the scope to the US. However that should not effect my response as Harry has given me something to read and ponder though as I have no knowledge of the constitution I may misstep. Fantastic argument, I take it the persons referenced would be alive. Living, breathing, cognitive? That's who it seems to have been written to protect. Without mention of the foetus its impossible to infer much and hard for you to tack it onto abortion then say 'see'. Besides I could use the same amendment as a protection of the woman's right of access to abortion if I were being flippant. If you are advocating a total ban on all abortion no matter what the circumstances and life to be at conception please state it as you have been unclear on the boundaries you are working by and want me to argue against. I state that it is a woman's right to abortion. We can set parameters that are agreed but that right is fundamental. Banning has never stopped abortion and rather than force women to term, which you would have to do to eliminate the procedure, progressive societies protect the rights of the woman first and foremost. To not do so is to tell half of the human race that they are inferior to the other half which is ridiculous.
| 1
|
the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo before its viability
|
all
|
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 intentional termination of a pregnancy
|
all
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
I thank Con again for his response and a lovely debate. Contention 1: I would first like to look at different definitions of a human being or a human. Defined by The Free Dictionary, human being is "a member of any of the races of Homo sapiens; person; man, woman, or child". Now child is defined by the same source as "a person between birth and puberty." Basically, that means a fetus in hot a human being. We can check other definitions too. Dictionary.com says a human being is "any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens." It defines individual as "a single human being, as distinguished from a group." Again, a single human being is not a fetus. Why? A fetus technically is a part of it's mother until it is able to live outside the uterus. I believe I have proved that the embryo/fetus is not a human being which is why it doesn't have the right to life. They two people responsible have the power to revoke their own product. Thus, they aren't baby-making machines. Also another fallacy is that you believe that the person who pressed the baby-making machine must take the child. However, this is not the case with abortion. It is not a child yet. It was not born yet. It is being slowly formed and the parent has the right to revoke its existence. My opponent doesn't understand that the unborn don't have the right to life due to them not having the access to the Constitution. Illegal immigrants are already born and have the right to life. However, they don't have the right to stay in the USA because of the Constitution. To be clear, I believe that personality and rationality are needed for human beings to be considered human beings. I would not like to go into euthanasia right now. However, the main reason why a fetus's presence may be revoked is because they are living inside a human being. The idea is so ridiculous that the condition is obviously that the human being can revoke the presence of the fetus. We aren't arguing on the morality of abortion. We are arguing on the fetus being a human being. Contention 2: Abortion is about the recognized right to reproduce against the fetus's right to retain in a recognized human being's body. A woman has the right to her own body as long as it's not illegal and it doesn't infringe on another's right. A woman's confirmed right to reproduce beats the controversial debated right to life by the fetus. Contention 3: Illegal abortion rates since 1960 will obviously increase. Today, abortions are very common and if it were made illegal, illegal abortions would be extremely common. My opponent has committed a fallacy assuming that illegal abortions in 1960 will affect us today if abortion was illegal since 52 years have had much change. Cross-examination: Viability causes the right to life which overrules the right to reproduce. The unborn are not human beings but are human. I would say that each time of viability is unique and to not assume that it's based on weeks but instead at the time when the fetus is viable. Also this isn't a moral debate. The reason I ignored your question about the illegal drug is because it's illegal which is why it is wrong to take the drug. Rebuttal: I'd like to say my opponent has made several appeals to different people and that if I use Joyce Arthur and it's an appeal to authority, then my opponent has done much more of what he accused me of doing. Also I would like to state that nobody knows for certain. They do believe that they know but it's not confirmed and people will always disagree as I've made the argument. Also the benefit of doubt should go to confirmed life which is the mother and her right instead of the fetus. I'd also like to state that your analogies are irrelevant as the fetus is not a human being but a human within a human being. Being human doesn't equate to a human being. I'm sorry about this case. I was very busy especially with school starting. I apologize for my case. Great job to Keytar. Vote Pro. Sources: http://dictionary.reference.com... http://dictionary.reference.com... being http://www.thefreedictionary.com... being http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
| 1
|
the process of the mother's body removing the fetus from her womb
|
all
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Contention 1Pro's definitions are largely irrelevant. I have made a scientific case for why the unborn are human beings, which Pro has not refuted. I have also given quotes by embryologists, the experts in the field, and Pro could not produce one embryologist that dissented. Of course, I expected as much because embryologists consistently agree that a new human being exists at fertilization. Also, it should be noted that according to the second definition of child that Pro provided himself, the definition is "an unborn infant; a fetus. " So even according to the dictionary, a fetus is a child and by extension, also fits the definition of "human being" that Pro, himself, provided. I have proven in spades that the unborn is a separate human entity from fertilization. The fetus is not part of its mother until viability. If this were the case, the pregnant woman would have two heads, four legs, four arms, two noses, and roughly half the time, a penis and two testicles. Also, the unborn embryo/pre-viability fetus has different fingerprints than the mother and often a different bloodtype. Also, you can conceive a white embryo through IVF and implant him into a black woman, and the child will still be born white. I have committed no fallacies, and Pro, unfortunately, did not point out which fallacy he believed I was committing. Pro admits that the person who made the baby in the baby-making machine is now responsible for the child. By extension, if a man and woman engage in an act they know has a chance of producing a child, they now bear responsibility for that child. I contend that it's Pro who actually doesn't understand the Constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment is about citizenship, not the right to life. Illegal immigrants still have a right to life, despite not being U. S. citizens. The unborn also have the right to life, despite not yet being citizens (and as I pointed out previously, prior to Roe v. Wade the unborn were considered persons legally protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. Pro asserts that rationality and personality are needed for human beings to be considered human beings, but they are baseless. He offers no reasons to support his claims so we can reject them. Conversely, I have offered plenty of evidence that the unborn are human beings from fertilization. I have also shown why the woman does not simply have the right to "revoke" the presence of the fetus from inside her body. She bears responsibility for bringing a naturally needy child into existence (the man does, too, of course). If you bring a naturally needy child into existence then you bear responsibility for caring for that child. Contention 2Pro does not give strong justification for why the woman's right to reproduce trumps the fetus' right to life. I have already shown that the fetus is a full-fledged human. One's right to reproduce does not trump one's right to life, which is the most fundamental of all rights. Additionally, once fertilization happens she has already reproduced. Contention 3I have committed no fallacy here (and Pro has not mentioned which fallacy he believes I am making). Pro also gives no sources to back up his claims here, so they can be rejected. I believe that women are generally law-abiding citizens, so I'm not convinced they would all flock to abortionists to have illegal abortions. But even if they did, that doesn't mean that abortions should stay legal. After all, murder and rape happen even though they are illegal. That doesn't mean we should legalize it. Cross-ExaminationPro has still offered no reason for why viability should give a right to life. The entity before viability is the same entity post-viability. Why is it that a being must be able to live independently that gives it a right to life? This would mean that a born person on life support would not have a right to life, even if they have a good chance of recovering. Also, as I have shown viability is an arbitrary line to draw. Viability decreases as technology improves. RebuttalThe reason Pro's reference to Joyce Arthur is an appeal to authority is because he gave no reasons to support his claims. He used Joyce Arthur as his argument, rather than supporting it. I gave actual scientific and philosophical reasoning to support the case that the unborn are full-fledged humans from fertilization. Plus, Joyce Arthur is not a scientist. Specifically, she's not an embryologist. I gave quotes by embryologists, who are the experts on human embryology to support my case. Pro also ignores my analogies, so I extend them. It's simply ridiculous not to answer them for his reasons. I might as well say Judith Jarvis Thomson's violinist analogy is irrelevant because you're plugged into a violinist, you're not pregnant in the analogy. This is simply a ridiculous objection. That's the exact purpose of an analogy, to show a comparison between one thing and another, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification. Once again, I'd like to thank Pro for this intriguing debate. I believe I have made my case and defended it from scrutiny. Thank you for reading.
| -1
|
the act of causing the death of a fetus or infant
|
all
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
con
|
Sorry, this took longer to revise than I thought. Shall we go on?As agreed to legal is defined as something that is allowed and permitted by law. This is important because if something is illegal then there won't be ANY exceptions to that rule, no situations will be fit for an abortion legally. The structure of my argument is three-fold. One will be dealing with the morality of the action itself, the second one will deal with special exceptions to which my opponent has somewhat conceded to and the third one will deal with how far legal actions can go. In order to win the debate my opponent must not only prove that there is no morally acceptable situation in which abortion is the answer but also that the best way to fight abortion is with legal constraints, he must defend ALL RESOLUTION CONDITION that I'll put forth. With that in mind, let us move on to the first section:MORALITYImagine this if you will: You've just finished your higher education and are free, you have perhaps a year to see the world and experience everything you have not already experienced. You want to love, be loved, be care free and enjoy life. This is a rather rational wish, isn't it? What are you going to do if I come along and lock the door and tell you that you are not allowed to go anywhere, that you cannot live your dreams to your fullest and chain you to your house. Would you consider me to be breaking your human rights? Of course I would be. You'd most likely sue me for breaking your freedom of life. You never had a chance to live your dreams. Did I violate your right? Is it morally correct of me to obligate you to abandon your dreams? Of course it isn't. But this is happening every day everywhere and we cannot deny that. But what if the “I” in this story is replaced with an infant. Is it still morally incorrect? Is it still morally correct to force a woman to abandon her life and dreams and force her to birth a child she does not want to have, essentially trying her to her house? No, the scenario in it's core is unchanged. It is her body and legally obligating her to having the child and denying her her right to choose is just as immoral as my first scenario. On what grounds? The rights of the unborn infant?Why is it so that my opponent will argue that the right of a random cluster of cells that have just as much independent life as a small part of your skin has more right than the mother? The cell cluster has no thoughts, it is not self-aware, it cannot think, does not have feelings, does not show signs of sentient life and is in no definition of the word more human than the bacteria in your intestine. Yet my opponent indirectly wishes to argue that it has priority, that it's rights are somehow “more important” than the rights of the mother who does show all signs of intelligent life, human emotions and the ability to be self-aware. What makes her rights so much lesser than the rights of the child? Since we cannot keep the human rights valid for both parents and children my opponent must answer the following question to win: Why is the unborn infant more worthy of human rights than the parent?A child is not a human any more than a blueprint is a house. it has all the potentials to be a house, but it isn't a house. demolishing an already built structure just so the blueprint gets a chance to be a house as well is absurd. Abortion, under con's set of arguments, is just as moral as violating human rights, so which would you rather choose?When is it “ok” to abort? Assuming that abortion becomes illegal in all cases: Will there be no exceptions? My opponent wishes that rape abortion is still legal. On what grounds? Why is that still legal? Is there in fact a difference?Be careful however: because I am going to tell you right now that this is a trick question: for I am going to use whatever you answer against you. There are a minuscule amount of answers that are fitting for rape-pregnancies that are not ALSO compatible with regular pregnancies. So, either my opponent finds a great reason for abortion in case of rape that does not fit at some level with a regular abortion or he falls from his case and fights that all abortions are illegal. This leads us to the first major contradiction in my opponents case. When we're not talking about rape a fetus has potential, it might live a great life, could be given away to an orphanage and has rights that must not be violated, its murder. But when the child is a result of rape, it has no potential? What makes this child right less? It had nothing to do with the rape, it's not it's fault. Why should it be discriminated against when some other fetus has all the rights in the world? Does the history of the father make this child any worse? Is it evil and deserves to die because it has a rapist father? It's the same child, it has the same rights, abortion is not an exception. Any set of logic that my opponent can find to protect or diminish rape infants will also hold for infants that are not a rape result if my opponent cannot defend the “paradox” that a child that is the result of rape has less human rights than any other child, he has lost the debate.But we still have an unaddressed issue: My female friend. See, I have a female friend. She unfortunately isn't perfectly healthy: and should not try and complete a pregnancy since doing so will most likely result in her health worsening or she simply dies from physical trauma. Let's assume she becomes pregnant. Are you to expect it from her to actually carrying trough with her pregnancy and risking her life? If the government forces her to finish it and she dies. The government is now guilty of the murder of a young woman that could have been avoided. Why should she not have an abortion? It is literally the only method for her, the only option that does NOT result in a bad ending. What does my opponent want to do for my friend? Is legal banning a solution?The law is meant to be broken. This isn't something that is generally supported or correct, but it is still so. The harder we press to ban a certain matter the more active it gets. You can look at drug abuse and prostitution to see that. It's still peaking again and again, underground it flows like water and we cannot stop it, we cannot monitor it. Whatever is banned becomes black market material. Abortion is no different. Abortion is LEGAL and still over 700.000 die from ILLEGAL operations[1]. If abortion is banned illegal operations will only increase, will only spiral out of control. When something is legal we have a chance to monitor it, tax it and make sure safety regulations and health conditions are always met to protect the mother for instance. with abortion becoming black we can no longer monitor it, it becomes hidden, unsafe and dangerous. Think clamping the limbs and dragging them out is bad? Sticking a metal coat hanger inside the genitalia of the woman and scraping the child out is much worse and the child STILL dies. We now have a third condition:If my opponent cannot explain how illegal operations can be dealt with in a safe, efficient manner, he has lost the debate.I'll cover adoption in my next round: I just ran out of room for now. I hope you see that abortion is in fact moral when we shift the perspective. The mother is in danger, she might have been raped, her human rights are on the line, she is looking at a nearly $241,080 expense and a lifetime of unwanted commitment. And for what? The rights of a few cells that are not humans in any other sense apart from the potential to become one later on. Because the condom broke, the pill failed, a rape. That is a big fall for a small reason. Choosing between human rights isn't easy, but I hope you all see that the rights of those born should be greater than those that are not born, and are little more than just a blueprint to a house. 1) http://www.genderacrossborders.com......2)http://money.cnn.com...
| 1
|
the removal of a fetus or embryo from the uterus in which it is implanted
|
all
|
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
|
the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo
|
all
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
(3 rounds in 72 hours) Abortion is Murder no matter what people say. As soon as the baby is created it is has a soul. People say a baby is not a baby until it is born; as in breathing air, eating food, and can see the world. People say it is the women's choice whether or not to abort. People can say things but that doesn't mean its true. A baby or if you want to call it a fetus is feeding off of you but that doesn't mean it is part of you. You shouldn't have the choice to murder you child or not. You aren't giving her/him a chance to live. If you can't seriously take care of your baby, put it up for adoption, don't kill him/her because you were irresponsible and became pregnant when you didn't want to/or couldn't take care of her/him.
| -1
|
the act of killing a baby before it is born
|
all
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
con
|
con
|
How is abortion not murder. It is wrong to things like this. I understand that if a mother does not want to have a baby, but maybe they will learn something. Thank you for this argument. You were good.
| -1
|
the act of a woman having an abortion
|
all
|
abortion
|
no
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Sorry that my rebuttal took so long, I have been busy Regarding the questions I "avoided" 1) Do you regard all life with an equal measure? No, I do not believe all existing life is equal to our human life. Bacteria are alive, however they are not equal to human life. 2) Do you eat? If so, you are prepared to extinguish the spark of life out of necessity and Impunity. Yes, however this does not correlate with abortion. The only justifiable reason for abortion is the mother not being able to endure giving birth. This is a life and death situation, so is eating. If you don't eat you die, however how is having a child a life and death situation? I do understand a child is a financial burden, but couples can easily avoid pregnancy. I stated that life is intangible, not tangible. Now let's go to my supposed double standards. OUR, as in humans. If you would have taken a minute to analyze the last paragraph you would have realized I'm talking about human life. Social legislation should be guided by rationale and not driven purely by emotion. Yes, many things mostly economic legislations are and should be guided by rationale. However by stating all legislation should purely be rational is utter nonesense. Murder, rape, cannibalism, and etc are prohibited by law in most of the world, especially western countries. However these fundamental laws are moral and emotional, the emotion that bringing in suffering to another human being is wrong. Many of these things were legal, and even endorsed centuries or in some countries decades ago. As morals change, laws change. Why is all life not equal? Have you ever heard of a keystone species, other organisms depend on these organisms, therefore from a logical/moral standpoint these keystone species's life is more valuable than others. Why? Whole ecosystems can crumble if a keystone species is not present or goes extinct. Explain what life is? Life is an organism that presents all 6 characteristics of life. The spark of life in humans is different. https://www.researchgate.net..., browse that page. It states exactly what I wanted to tell you, but couldn't find a way to spend less than 2 hours writing it. Addendum response: Yes and no, in some instances the taking of life is justifiable and in most others not. It is a way too broad question to be able to answer with a yes or a no, as these 2 governments have been doing this for decades.
| -1
|
the act of terminating a pregnancy
|
all
|
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
|
all
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
I accept. Though I'd like to provide a definition for "abortion" and clarify my stance on the issue. Abortion: the termination of a pregnancy by removing the fetus or embro from the woman's uterus before it can survive. In most states, abortion is legal up to around 20 weeks (if I did my research correctly) unless it poses a serious health risk for the woman, in which case exceptions are made to this rule. I will be arguing that we not change the status quo on this issue and that abortion continue to be legal up to around this period of pregnancy.
| 1
|
the termination of a pregnancy
|
all
|
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
| -1
|
the act of killing an unborn child
|
all
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
con
|
con
|
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 termination of pregnancy
|
all
|
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
|
abortion
|
all
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
First of all, I would like to say that it is unfortunate that CON waited until the final round to drop details such as the position from which she was debating. I may have chosen to respond differently, but now I cannot because CON would not have any opportunity to rebut my arguments, so I will, once again, do the best I can with what I have. As I’m sure CON recalls, my “illegal killing” argument was a line of argument I said I was not going to take; I mentioned it only to clarify a point. Next, CON went on some sort of tangent about viability, which she never actually tied down to an argument. She claims that a fetus can be viable five weeks after implantation. I am confused by this claim because it is dead wrong. Fetal viability, or the point at which a fetus is able to survive outside the mother’s body [1], is usually put between 24 and 28 weeks [1][2]. Perhaps CON is confusing pregnancy viability with fetal viability. I think CON missed my whole point about giving human status to all vertebrates. Of course it is absurd; that was my point. However, if CON is going to assign personhood based on a heartbeat, that is the logical conclusion. Regarding rape, CON is a walking contradiction. She talks about how we shouldn’t murder babies by aborting them, but it is suddenly OK when the object is to avoid further trauma to the mother. Its either murder or it is not; you can’t have it both ways. I didn’t discuss CON's comments about birth control because they are irrelevant. The claim that women use abortion as their primary form of birth control is a myth. Often times their preferred method of contraception failed [3][4]. CON’s last point is an unsupported claim that “if abortion were no longer an option, birth control would be better utilized, and teen pregnancy would drop.” A source here would be helpful; because I’m pretty sure reality reflects the opposite. I wasn’t able to find figures specifically on teen pregnancy, but in areas of the world where abortion has been criminalized, the abortion rate has not dropped [4][5]. CON has tried to argue that abortion is wrong if the fetus has a heartbeat; I showed why this line of reasoning doesn’t pan out. She then went on to a discussion about viability, however her argument wasn’t properly formed, and I wasn’t able to determine exactly what she was saying. Con’s rape exception shows that her position is rocky at best, and finally her unsupported claim that criminalizing abortion would reduce teen pregnancy seems to be at odds with the available data. Overall, CON has failed to show why abortion should not be legal. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.babymed.com... [3] http://www.prochoice.org... [4] http://www.womenscenter.com... [5] “Induced abortion: incidence and trends worldwide from 1995 to 2008,” The Lancet, Volume 379, Issue 9816, Pages 625 - 632, 18 February 2012
| 1
|
the act of removing a fetus from the womb
|
all
|
abortion
|
no
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Abortion in my opinion is still wrong and should only be allowed if the woman is raped or her life is in danger. A woman should also not even bother having a baby if she knows she won't be able to take care of it unless she has a family member who is able and willing to take care of the child until she can support and raise the child on her own. Another thing that can be done to avoid abortion is to use protection or birth control except in cases of rape so that the child isn't being killed shortly after it's been born. These options are an excellent alternative to abortion in non-rape related cases and also don't involve the murder of an innocent child.
| -1
|
the act of a woman to terminate a pregnancy
|
all
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
"The greatest destroyer of peace is abortion because if a mother can kill her own child, what is left for me to kill you and you to kill me? There is nothing between," says Mother Teresa. Abortion, what does this really mean? The definition of abortion is the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks. About 42 million women in the entire world with unintended pregnancies choose abortion. Abortion is a big controversial topic, people believe abortion should be illegal and others think it should stay legal. Why would someone want to kill an innocent little life? It"s not their fault people made mistakes and now they"re the ones having to pay for it. Abortion should be illegal because abortions are not safe, laws are protecting unborn babies, and fetuses can feel pain. Abortion should have never been legal.
| -1
|
the act of deliberately causing a pregnant woman to miscarry
|
all
|
abortion
|
no
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Same here, its my first debate on this site too. **I would just like to clarify that I am talking about first trimester abortion, as my views regarding post -fetal abortion are yet to be determined** Firstly, the fact that a placenta and the umbilical cord attach the fetus shows that the fetus cannot exist independent of the mother. We cannot consider the fetus as an individual entity because it cannot live outside the mother"s womb. Additionally, adoption is not an alternative to abortion, and if so, a rather poor one at that. Statistics show that less than three percent of all women who refuse abortion choose to give their child up for adoption. Even if I concede that adoption is an alternative, what kind of life is that for a child? Adoption generally comes with a negative connotation and with good reason. There is no guarantee that the child will have a family, and the child might get tied up in the foster system. Next, you mentioned the child (fetus"s) right to a choice and having a voice in what happens to them. By prohibiting and dismissing abortion you are in turn taking away the mothers choice and her civil right to control her own body. What is next? Forcing women to use contraceptives or undergo sterilization? Not to mention, in cases of teenage pregnancies, without the option of abortion you are taking away the young woman"s future. Furthermore, you say that being put up for adoption and bounced around the system is better than being dead, but the child was never alive to begin with. Statistics that were found on abortion.us show that pregnant women will resort to illegal and unsafe abortions if a legal option is not available. In many cases abortion is the best option, especially in cases of rape and incest where the child is unwanted and having the child can cause severe psychological problems for both the mother and the child. Children born as a result of incest are at risk of being deformed. We are talking about quality of life, and since a mother has the responsibility of bringing a life into the world, she should in turn have the right or option of an abortion. Finally, all women should have the right to choose to have an abortion, and the government or any religious authority should not limit them.
| 1
|
the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy
|
all
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
I am arguing as for abortion. The reason being is that it is the choice of the woman; and if the man is there, him also; to keep to zygote or not. If they don't then let it be. Another reason is that there might be underlying issues with why the woman wants an abortion; like say if she got raped, or incest. That's why I feel like some one should have the choice to choose if they want to carry the child for nine months, or have the choice to abort it with in the first trimester.
| 1
|
the act of deliberately ending a human pregnancy
|
all
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Ok, yes rape is terrible and is a very traumatic experience. However it is still murder. God has a plan for all of us (I don't mean to offend anyone if you don't have the same beliefs). God makes everything happen for a reason. Many people say "don't let others make decisions for you." This fetus can't make a decision to be killed. People argue that its the woman's body and they can do what they want with it, but it's not their body they are killing. They are killing a whole other person. No one should have the authority to kill such an innocent creature. It is also true that woman die at birth, but woman also die during the abortion. More than 400 hundred woman have died from abortion (not including illegal ones). It saddens me how woman will risk their lives to kill this one. Many mothers cry over losing a child, whether it be to disease, war, car crashes, miscarriage, or gang violence but these mothers are killing their kids before they have even met them. These mothers knowing and willingly let their children die.
| -1
|
the act of killing a child while it is still in the womb
|
all
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
con
|
con
|
1) "Society is also built of other people with individual opinions and should also be their personal freedom of choice." Do you mean the freedom to kill an innocent human life, this freedom cannot be granted. "Where a legaslative decision allowing abortion has been made, I have to prepare to accept this decision." So from what I understood you believe we should accept everything our government does. If the government (I"m assuming you are American) decided to make murder legal which is what they are doing, would you prepare to accept that? You can"t accept everything your government does, you cant grant them that power. You believe abortion should be allowed until 10 weeks, but why do more than 90% of abortion occur on the 13th week. Why does the stage of development the fetus is at even matter to you? Your main argument is fetuses haven"t fully developed to become a human being, however newborn babies and even children haven"t fully developed yet. Do you believe killing a baby, or even a kid is fine? 2) A) forced pregnancy arising from a rape situation. Are you aware that less than 0.1% of abortions are caused because of a forced pregnancy. This 0.1% does not justify the killing of millions of human beings. B) An individual or a couple may find themselves unready to cope with parenthood. Given the demands of modern society. In what way unready? C) The financial demands of children may be considered to be overwhelming and unsustainable. The financial state of a family does not determine how good the life of the offspring will be. Many insanely rich people started off poor Oprah Winfrey Howard Schultz Just to name a few. This is no reason to kill a human being 3) All life is not equal, but all life is precious. We have no importance in the greater reality of the universe, but what we are experiencing is our reality, our only reality. Life is intangible, therefore shouldn"t be touched.
| -1
|
the act of killing a human being
|
all
|
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 act of terminating a pregnancy by removing a fetus or embryo
|
all
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Life: The condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter. It took me 5 seconds to find this explanation of life. Why would it take Con 2 hours to write the same. What Con differentiates between, is the value they are prepared to attribute to the lives of different species. and not life itself. This is simply a human centred, selfish disregard for all other species. Life is a singular almost magical property that is present and equal in all species. The questions are. Does life have real value. Is life merely a quirk of evolution Does life have any significance beyond it's Earth bound home. The honest answer to these questions is, we do not know. All we have is theories and theories are guess work. Keystone species: Another and completely different debate really. But I would assert that in proffering this argument,Con exacerbates their misunderstanding and consequent double standards with regard to the value of life. Addendum response: Con's response to this quite simple question is confused to say the least. Either they accept that the taking of human life is justifiable or they do not. They say yes, but then wish to pick and choose which lives they take. Once again, double standards. Which clearly suggests that Con's arguments are based on emotive thought and not logical thought. From a logical and realistic debating standpoint, I would assert that the life contained within an embryo or fetus has exactly the same value as the life contained within a terrorist bomber. Society makes rational collective decisions, that justify the taking of life, whether it be the life of a terrorist or the life of an embryo or undeveloped fetus. Not everyone will agree with those decisions, but accepting those decisions is the price we have to pay to be able to live in a relatively safe and stable society. One day our respective nations may decide to legislate against abortion and I for one will whole heartedly support that decision.
| 1
|
the intentional killing of a foetus
|
all
|
abortion
|
no
|
yes
|
neutral
|
con
|
Definitions: Abortion is defined as the removing and/or expelling of a fetus/embryo. 1. This debate will be done Lincoln-Douglas Style. Round 1: Definitions/Rules Affirmative Constructive/Negative Constructive for Round 2. Round 3: Cross-Examination. Round 4: Affirmative Rebuttal 1/Negative Rebuttal 1. Round 5: Affirmative Rebuttal 2 and Conclusion/Negative Rebuttal 2 and Conclusion.
| 1
|
the removal of a fetus
|
all
|
abortion
|
no
|
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
|
killing a baby
|
all
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
con
|
con
|
When I say 100% pro life, I believe that abortion is wrong no matter what the circumstance is. Many may ask about rape or incest, but should that child receive the death penalty because of the acts of his or her father? And when you say you are pro choice, do you believe that a woman should be able to choose even in the third trimester? I believe that even first trimester abortion are horrific. The heart is beating at 3 and 1/2 weeks. We need to realize that that is a baby inside the woman, not a blob of tissue. I believe that we should not have to kill our innocent children to achieve the dreams and careers we strive for. We should welcome these children into our world instead of seeing them as a threat. Of course there are going to be situations where the mother cannot take care of the child because of financial reasons or stability, but this is why we have many organizations like Live action, churches, mentors, and government agencies which can help these women. Not to mention adoption... there are many more options than just simply killing the child. Also, when women are asked why they received an abortion the number one response is, "I felt that I had no choice." How do you justify this when you seem so set on the fact that women should have this choice to kill their child or not, when in reality our abortion clinics and agencies are not really laying all the cards on the table?
| -1
|
the act of a woman to kill her child
|
all
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
con
|
con
|
In this final round of debate I will only be answering the questions asked by pro and give the reasons why I believe pro to be wrong. "Now, have you considered the cost of not letting anyone have an abortion?" The cost is minimal. You believe that children don't have a right to life because you think that child will be stuck in a foster house and be unwanted. While unwanted children IS an issue, it isn't a large enough issue to warrant taking their life before it truly begins outside the womb. Many of these children can go on to become healthy members of society, contributing so much. "Who is going to take care of those children? Who is going to pay for it?" I don't believe that hardship cases deserve to be "snuffed out" just because they have a good chance at being orphaned. If a parent can't handle a child, maybe they shouldn't engage in sexual activity until they can. It isn't right, morally, to end an innocent life. "Do you think that this will have a negative effect on the 100 thousand children waiting to be adopted, or do you not care about them?' I care about children, which is why I am pro life. Pro abortionists will say they care about children, but if they truly cared, they wouldn't be pro abortion. Abortion is terminating a life before it has a chance. And most abortions are performed out of convenience for the mother, not health reasons or rape. http://abort73.com... "Do you know how traumatic it is to live a life where you know you weren't wanted? How do you think that is going to turn out?" A lot less traumatic than being ripped apart while still alive. But then again, you believe the child in the womb isn't even alive. It has been proven that a child in the womb CAN feel pain. http://www.mccl.org... http://www.doctorsonfetalpain.com... And abortions performed for selfish reasons is worse than because of rape and health.
| -1
|
the act of getting an abortion
|
all
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Con presented his/her position in absolute terms: Abortion should be illegal. As Pro, I will take the position that abortion should be legal in the United States for a one reason. Abortion – [T]he removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy. . http://dictionary.reference.com... I am using this definition to avoid the discussion of ectopic pregnancies (which is beneficial to me as Pro), but I reserve the right to reference such pregnancies should my opponent present a "life at conception" argument; he hinted at such an argument, but did not clarify it. "From the uterus" is the important phrase for this distinction. Pro position: Con's position is absolute; therefore, I will submit that abortion should be legal since carrying a fetus to term could result in the death of the mother. [Although I will not take the position in this debate, I support reproductive rights in ALL cases. I am only examining a few arguments here. ] If Con clarifies his/her position in this five round debate, then I will adjust. Potential Death of the Mother: In 2010, Amnesty International urged President Obama and the US to examine our maternal mortality rate. Minorities were affected disproportionately in respect to prenatal care and "near misses" –cases of near death, increased 25% since 1998. . http://www.amnesty.org... The US maternal mortality rate is further examined here, and the results reflect the title: "A Human Rights Failure". . http://www.arhp.org... Even in one of the most medically advanced countries in the world, maternal mortality is still not addressed well. The potential for death puts the medical decision in the hands of the woman and no one else. No law abiding citizen need be forced into a life and death struggle to satisfy the changing moral whims of others. Outlawing abortion would make the decision for the mother in absence of medical necessity and such a condition cannot stand in a republic. Rebuttal of Con arguments: Con wants us to consider the drunken party girl and her irresponsible partner, or partners, but a maternal death could occur regardless of the circumstances inducing a pregnancy so these arguments are irrelevant. My position, only for this debate, is that abortion should be allowed in the case of maternal death, vodka and tequila shots notwithstanding. In addition, Con thinks unwanted pregnancy is a condition of partying, alcohol, and illicit sex, but he/she does not address the married woman who does not wish to carry a nine month pregnancy. Con goes through and asks us to "imagine" many things, but simple Google searches with remove the "imagine" and allow Con to present some statistics – I will address these agreements should he/she choose to present them. In light of my position, I see no need to mention post partum depression as the topic is irrelevant. Con presented little in the opening round and he must address the maternal death issue considering my position. Without addressing this issue, his/her argument cannot stand. Very Truly Yours, Sherlockmethod
| 1
|
a debate about whether abortion should be legal
|
all
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
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 intentional killing of a fetus or newborn
|
all
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
con
|
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 various procedures
|
all
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Rebutting My Opponent's Arguments"Three years ago I was in a high school football game. I went out on a fly passing route and was clipped on the side of my helmet by the free safety of the opposing team. I was out cold. I was unconscious for 3 minutes and I was put on an ambulance to go to the hospital. When I was knocked out consciousness was not present, neither could I feel pain, but we would all acknowledge it would be immoral to have killed me on the spot. And while, yes, everyone knew I was going to regain consciousness, everyone knows that if you give a fetus time to develop in the womb and en birth it, it will gain consciousness and feel pain. "This has nothing to do with my argument, thus the entire paragraph above can be disregarded. My argument, is that human life gains moral value when when consciousness is obtained, and/ or pain can be felt. Consciousness would have obviously been obtained before my opponent got knocked unconscious, or else, my opponent couldn't have been knocked unconscious because he never would have been conscious to begin with. Since my opponent is using examples that have nothing to do with my argument, they can be dismissed. Con would still have moral value because Con would have reached consciousness and the ability to feel pain. Temporarily losing any of these things has no bearing on whether they have been obtained or not to begin with. "If my rebuttal to P1&P2 stands then it doesn't matter that the fetus is in the first or second trimester. "Con's rebuttal had nothing to do with my argument. My argument deals with a subject that has not obtained consciousness at all, Con's rebuttal deals with a subject that obtained consciousness but temporarily lost it. Therefore, Con's rebuttal clearly does not stand. "During your argument you first stated that a human life loses value when it loses consciousness and feeling of pain. "This is not what I said. I never claimed that human life loses it's value when it loses consciousness temporarily or stops feeling pain temporarily. I claimed that human life gains moral value when when consciousness is obtained, and/ or pain can be felt in the first place. "Now you are arguing purely for killing living humans just because they can't feel pain, since the fetus is conscious. "When did I argue this? I never argued this, once. I argued that the being has to not be able to feel pain, and the being has to not have obtained consciousness yet. "My friend Bethany has no feeling in her left arm. She was born that way. It would still be immoral for me to cut off her right arm because it doesn't feel pain. Just because something doesn't feel does not mean it loses its worth. "This friend would be conscious though, a fetus is not conscious. I said that if a being has any of the two qualities (has obtained consciousness, can feel pain), then this being is morally valuable. Also, if Bethany allowed Con to cut it off, there is nothing wrong with that. I fail to see how anything my opponent said, undermined any of my claims in the slightest. "Even according to your own argument, a portion of abortions are immoral, so I am wondering if you would support making it illegal to commit an abortion in the third trimester. If so, what if a woman wants to have an abortion one day before or after the 3rd trimester starts? What about minutes or seconds after the 3rd trimester starts? "Yes, 1% of abortions are not done in the proper manner (done in the third trimester). However, a higher percentage of drivers drive in a non proper manner, and kill more people. Of course, driving isn't immoral because a small percentage of drivers do not do it properly. Also, a line has to be drawn somewhere. I say the third trimester is a good place to draw it. I completely agree that a woman, as well as a man has every right to do whatever they want to with their own body. I even agree that humans have the right to drink, eat, and smoke whatever they want to and the government has no role to play in humans personal lives. I believe all humans have the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The fetus also has the same rights. The fetus is a separate being to the mother. It is dependant on its mother just like an asthmatic is dependant on an inhaler as well as an infant is dependant on its mother. The mother has no right to infringe on the right of the fetus. A fetus has no moral rights. It has no consciousness or ability to feel pain, and is as morally valuable as an ant. The only thing one could say, is that it has the potential to be morally valuable. Well, so do the sperm that get wasted every time I masturbate or pull out. I lose no sleep over it, and neither should anybody else. ConclusionI already won this debate, due to the fact that the the initial position of my opponent was incoherent. Even if this wasn't the case, my opponent's whole case for abortion being immoral was baseless. I clearly showed that abortion as a whole is not immoral at all.
| 1
|
the intentional termination of a human pregnancy
|
all
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Let's get to it. I'll respond to his arguments in order (opening, cross-ex, and rebuttal). Contention 1All humans, including the embryo/fetus, have a right to life. The reason the embryos' right to life trumps a right to a woman's bodily autonomy is because in the vast majority of cases, she (and the father) are responsible for its being there. They are responsible for the creation of a naturally needy child, so they bear a responsibility for caring for it. Say you come a cross a button on a wall that says "baby-making machine" that offers a pleasurable experience, that has a 1/100 chance of creating a baby. Say you press the button and receive your pleasurable experience, but a baby pops out. You are not justified in just walking away and letting the child die. You must now take responsibility for that child. The Fourteenth Amendment only says one must be born in the United States to be a citizen. The Amendment says that the state shall deprive no person of life. We are not justified in killing illegal immigrants, neither are we justified in killing the unborn simply because they are not citizens. Additionally, before Roe v. Wade, the unborn were persons, legally protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. [1]The embryo/fetus has rights, despite not having interests at the moment. Someone who is asleep or in a coma does not have an interest in remaining alive, but one is assumed. Also, newborns do not have awareness, expectation, etc. , but we still believe it is immoral to kill them (with the exception of some pro-choice philosophers who support infanticide). That's why it's illegal to kill someone who is asleep or in a coma. Plus, if personality and rationality were traits that bestowed a right to life, then humans would not be inherently valuable, personality and rationality would be. This would mean it would be morally justifiable to kill someone if it were possible to bring about two people with these inherently valuable traits. Contention 2Once a woman becomes pregnant, she has already reproduced. Abortion is not about reproduction rights, but the right to end the life of an innocent human. A woman does not have absolute right to her own body. She cannot take illegal drugs, she must obey seatbelt laws, and she cannot strike someone without just cause. Contention 3Banning rape, murder, and theft doesn't stop all rapes, murders, and thefts from happening. But we should not legalize them anyway. Pregnancy is not inherently dangerous. A woman has less than a 1% chance of dying in childbirth or in pregnancy. [2] The reality is that even before Roe v. Wade, the vast number of pregnancies were still done by licensed medical professionals, not unsafe "home" abortions. Dr. Mary Calderone, medical director of Planned Parenthood, stated, "90% of illegal abortions are being done by physicians. Call them what you will, abortionists, or anything else, they are still physicians, trained as such. .. They must do a pretty good job if the death rate is as low as it is. .. Abortion, whether therapeutic or illegal, is in the main no longer dangerous, because it is being done well by physicians. " [3] That was in 1960, thirteen years before Roe v. Wade was passed. In fact, the numbers of illegal abortion deaths was greatly inflated by the pro-choice side. Dr. Bernard Nathanson, former abortionist and founder of NARAL, has written: "How many deaths were we talking about when abortion was illegal? In NARAL, we generally emphasized the frame of the individual case, not the mass statistics, but when we spoke of the latter it was always 5,000 to 10,000 deaths a year. I confess that I knew the figures were totally false, and I suppose the others did too if they stopped to think of it. But in the morality of our revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics? The overriding concern was to get the [anti-abortion] laws eliminated, and anything within reason that had to be done was permissible. " [4]Cross-examinationPro says he only believes homemade abortions should be restricted, but goes on to say that he believes a woman's bodily autonomy does not justify abortion after viability. There is some conflict here, since he apparently believes late-term abortions should be restricted. There is further conflict, since if a woman has ultimate right to her bodily autonomy, then the fetus would not be safe after viability. The woman, under bodily autonomy arguments, has no obligation to keep the fetus alive until the point of birth. She can "unplug," as the euphemism goes, at any time she wants. Perhaps Pro can clarify a bit next round. According to scientific understanding, the unborn are living human organisms (human beings) from fertilization. The problem about viability is it's a moving target. Currently, viability is considered to be at about 24 weeks, but 50 years ago it was at 28 or 29 weeks. Are we to assume 24 week fetuses are human beings now but that same human would not have been 50 years ago? Viability is a moving target that changes with advancements in technology. Plus, according to Pro's criterion, people on life support are not human beings. It would be morally permissible to end their lives for any reason, even if they have a good chance of survival. I don't see any reason not to consider pre-viable embyros and fetuses human beings, especially since the viable fetus is the same entity as the pre-viable one. He has ignored my question about Thalidomide, but it is definitely relevant. If a woman has a right to her bodily autonomy, then there should be nothing wrong with taking Thalidomide which will cause birth defect, despite the fact that her child will be born without limbs. RebuttalUsing Joyce Arthur is a fallacious appeal to authority on Pro's part. First, just because there is no consensus does not mean that everyone is wrong or that no one is right. Second, there is scientific consensus on when human life begins. It is at fertilization (I gave a scientific case in round one, and also gave quotes by embryologists, the experts on human embryology, that human life begins at fertilization). It's simply false to say that no one knows. Also, if no one knows, the benefit of the doubt should go to life. If you don't know there whether there is anyone inside a condemned building, it would be utterly irresponsible to blow it up anyway. You would check to make sure there is no one alive in the building before blowing it up. Joyce Arthur simply appears ignorant of the scientific facts. Being dependent on only one person does not mean that someone is not a human being. That's simply bad reasoning. Plus, if you are the last one out of a pool but you hear a splash and, upon investigating, there is a toddler in the pool drowning, totally dependent on you for survival, are you justified in walking away and leaving the child to drown or are you responsible for saving the child? Pro's reasoning is bad. Having human DNA and showing signs of life makes you a living human organism. Pro has not offered any compelling reason for not considering the unborn human beings. As I illustrated, viability is not adequate. Being a living human organism from fertilization is sufficient for being a human being. To claim otherwise is semantic nonsense. I don't have room for my second contention, so I'll go ahead and drop it. But my case against abortion succeeds anyway, and I have shown why Pro's case for it fails. I look forward to our next round. [1] Francis J. Beckwith, Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice, (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, New York, 2007), p.22. [2] . http://health.usnews.com...[3] Mary Calderone, American Journal of Public Health, July 1960. [4] Bernard Nathanson, Aborting America, New York, Doubleday, 1979, p. 193
| -1
|
the act of deliberately killing a human being after it has been conceived
|
all
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
con
|
Thank you for letting me debate this with you. So you try to defend your definition of murder and how abortion is murder by giving me two definitions of a Human being summarized below (copy and pasted directly):1) a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.2) A member of any of the races of Homo sapiens; person; man, woman, or childWhile I agree that those definitions do not state that they have to be born to be considered a human, yet it holds no weight because you do not give a link as to where you got these definitions. I realize thats just being picky, but I do wanted to state that fact. Just because you have a definition of something doesnt mean that it is an accepted truth. For future debates, it would be beneficial for you to give supporting evidences to back up your claim. :)Anyways your own definitions fail you if we first consider (1). A baby/fetus not born yet does not meet any of the requriremens you listed. It does not have superior mental development, speech, nor upright stance. (I dont think I need to further explain why these are not true.)(2) This definition is so broad that it essentially encompasses everything that's deemed human, but yet fails to explain why these traits are deemed of human charateristics. Likewise, I can say that the Animal kindom consists of all organisms that are not prokaryotes and one cannot either refute or defend the assertion. My point that it's so broad that one can use the definition for any scenario without properly being able to refute or defend against it. As a result, it is a very weak definition of human beings.Lastly, you gave the definition of murder as UNLAWFUL premeditated killing of... but you conceded to the fact that abortion is legal in most cases thereby conceding to the fact that abortion is not murder. Although you could say it is Justifiable Homicide (only if the abortion is legal in most cases it is)Thus, we can conclude that you have failed to demonstrate why abortion is considered murder. The next argument about justifiable homicide vs "murder" is flat out wrong. While I agree that the results of abortion are the same wheter its legal or not, we are not debating about the law, we are debating about the moralilty behind abortion. Morality in certain circumstances do not have to follow proposed statutes on behavior. i.e. Roe vs. Wade.Your comparision between murder and homicide is a selfish view. You fail to consider that its not the baby itself who is the concern, the mother has to be taken into consideration too. What you failed to explain on is why this unborn baby has more rights than a living mother.If a teenager is raped and she gets pregnant (now this is rare for a teenager to get pregnant from a rape so you can barely make this point but I will address it anyways)"An estimated 60 percent of teen girls’ first pregnancies are preceded by experiences of molestation, rape, or attempted rape."http://www.feministe.us...I guess over half of the population isn't high enough for you.You go on to argue that it's the fathers fault, which is partially true, but why suffer for something when you've done nothing wrong? You fail to realize that just because there are people who can take care of a baby doesnt mean they have the time, resources, or ability to handle a child. If it was easy to rear a child then we should have babies at the start of puberty, because the younger we are, the more likely we are to have healthier babies.Moreover, assuming that the child is born as a result of unwanted pregnancy, if one does not have the resources or ability to take care of a child, why let a child into this world when all hes gonna do is suffer? By the way, abortion isnt considered justfiable homicide at least most of society doesnt consider it. YOU put that definition towards abortion. Im only disaproving the issues you decide to talk about.now going back to the human being definition: there by it can't be a mammal because of the difference between a human being and a mammal, that a fetus is developing even before the mother aborts the fetus/baby. I do not understand what you mean. It seems to me that you are conceding to my point in R2? Humans are mammals, but a mammal doesnt have to be a human. If we are not mammasl then we are not human, which means abortion is irrelevant to humans. My question in R2 referencing to mammals was for you to clarify your statement. I never made any assertions about mammals or humans. You failed to understand the points im making about the nutrition argument. IM rebutting what you said in r1. I'm not gonna respond back to this because nutrients is irelevnat and moreover, you failed to understand your own arguments.ConclusionI'm pretty sure ive made my argument clear considering con hasn't bothered with refuting my assertions.
| 1
|
the termination of a pregnancy by various procedures
|
all
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
We are debating "Abortion should remain legal." Anyways, let me start. P.S. The Affirmative Constructive and Negative Constructive will only have their case but won't refute arguments (in case you didn't know that). Contention 1: Embryos/Fetuses have no rights! I'm going to present my 1st argument for the choice of abortion. "There is no such thing as a "right to live" when the embryo/fetus is in a woman's body. The embryo/fetus has no right to be in the woman's body. It is only there by the woman's permission. Permission is not a right and it can be revoked as in the case of the embryo/fetus being killed. The 14th Amendment also says only "born citizens" have the right granted to individuals by the U.S. Constitution which means the embryo/fetus doesn't have the right to life. Thus, his life is not protected by any part of the Constitution and has no rights! Well, the 14th Amendment clearly says that all people born or naturalized in the USA are citizens and thus have the right of life. Without being born, an embryo/fetus is not a human being. There are two traits that rights derive from. If something doesn't have one of these two traits, it's does not have the right to live. Those two traits are personality and rationality. "Without awareness, expectation, belief, desire, aim, and purpose, a being can have no interests; without interests he cannot be benefited; without the capacity to be a beneficiary, he can have no rights." This indicates to having a personality (belief, desire, aim, purpose) and having rationality (awareness). Having both of these traits gives human beings rights. An embryo/fetus doesn't have any personality nor does it have rationality which is why it does not have the "right to life". The fact is that the embryo/fetus has no rights. Contention 2: A pregnant woman has rights. My 2nd argument will be about a women's reproducing rights. A woman has reproducing rights which includes the choice of ending a pregnancy. A woman also has the right to her own body. That being is a product of the woman which gives her the right of abortion. As the woman has the right to reproduce and to her own body, so the embryo/fetus has no rights which means that the woman can do what she wants with the embryo/fetus as long as the embryo/fetus is still in the uterus. Contention 3: Banning abortion doesn't stop abortion but instead harms people who want abortions. My 3rd and final argument is that banning abortion doesn't stop abortions from happening. If abortion is illegal, abortions are still going to happen except they are homemade. Without trained professionals using safe and secure procedures, women will go to individuals who have no adequate medical skills. World Health Organization has measured up to 20 million unsafe abortions in unintended pregnancies only. 14% unsafe abortion out of all abortions would increase so badly and increasing maternal deaths. There are also some very unfortunate statistics such as 8 maternal deaths per hour due to unsafe abortions and according to WHO, a woman dies from unsafe abortions each 8 minutes. Thus, banning abortion won't stop abortion from happening, it will just cause more maternal deaths and disabilities for Americans. Back to Con for his Constructive. After that, the refutations begin. ;) Sources: 1. http://www.abortionisprolife.com... 2. http://eleutherian.blogspot.com... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. http://en.wikipedia.org... 5. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 6. http://www.lancet.com...
| 1
|
a controversial issue
|
all
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
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 "If a parent can't handle a child, maybe they shouldn't engage in sexual activity until they can. It isn't right, morally, to end an innocent life." This is a ridiculous statement. Sex is natural and has nothing to do with being able to raise a child. Evolution made sex feel really good so that we would produce. Practically everyone wants to have sex badly. It's a natural desire. Argument debunked. "I care about children, which is why I am pro life." No, you are only looking at your side of the picture, rather than considering EVERY piece of evidence, whereas I have weighed both the positives and the negatives of abortion and formulate my argument accordingly. I highly suggest you learn to think objectively. For example, like I stated, you haven't considered the cost of having tons of unwanted babies. This affects the babies already in an orphanage. You claim to care about children, yet you don't consider the wants and needs of the babies already in an orphanage looking for a home. As I stated, there are 100k orphans ALREADY. If we become antiabortion, this number will reach ridiculous heights. I mentioned it already but you ignored it so here it is again: how do you think this will affect the children already in the orphanage? Or do you not care about them? "A lot less traumatic than being ripped apart while still alive. But then again, you believe the child in the womb isn't even alive. It has been proven that a child in the womb CAN feel pain. http://www.mccl.org...... http://www.doctorsonfetalpain.com...; Actually, no. This is untrue. Pain MIGHT be felt for a couple of seconds. To claim this is MORE traumatic than a life time of knowing that you are unwanted is faulty reasoning. Evidence debunked.
| 1
|
the killing of an unborn child
|
all
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
con
|
con
|
Abortion should not be used as another form of contraception.
| -1
|
the act of causing the death of a fetus
|
all
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
con
|
"Not all chicken eggs are unfertilised..." If you were to crack open an unfertilized chicken egg, you would notice. [1] "Furthermore, several living plants have to be killed to obtain food or wood, but no value of life over there eh?" You are incredibly mistaken, the reason we kill these organisms is because their products are very valuable. Vegetables and wood are valuable commodities. Humans, however early in development, are valuable in their own right. "Or what about [the] killing of living chickens and cattle for meat?" I think you will be surprised to know that livestock animals are only bred and kept for the purposes of their products. They do not exist but to feed us. It is basic supply and demand. Without the demand, there is no supply. Without our hunger for meat, these animals would not have been bred. "And not every single proponent of a foetus should count as living. After all, it is not functional during that time period." Really? A foetus does not function? The function of a foetus is to develop his characteristics as to be able to perform the functions of a prenatal being. I think the majority of foetuses perform that function very well. "Animals and plants are just as living as, if not more than a foetus." Of course, but do animals and plants, in their mature, yea, even their developing stages possess even a fraction of the potential for greatness, a fraction of the potential beneficial impact on the world as a foetus? The answer is no. The second an ovum is fertilised by a sperm cell the DNA, what makes us unique, is exchanged between the mother and the father in a mostly random way which creates the first metre of the tapestry of life. You will develop this way. You will have these eyes, this facial structure and other such characteristics. That's definite. If some crazy murderer doesn't come along and pluck you from your developmental chamber before you are ready, you will definitely be this person and there will never be another like you. That is the miracle of human life. The probability of your mother meeting your father is 1 in 20,000, the probability of them reproducing is thereafter 1 in 2000. The probability of the exact sperm and egg meeting after this sexual exchange that would lead to you existing exactly as you do is 1 in 400,000,000,000,000,000. The probability of every one of your ancestors following the aforementioned processed is one in [4x10^17]150,000 W76; 10^2,640,000. The probability of you being born is 10^2,685,000. Again, that is the miracle of human life.[2] "We shouldn't force parents to keep a child they don't want. This will be bad for the child due to ill-treatment from the parents, and will be bad for the parents for the reason they wanted abortion." There are multiple viable alternatives to this, in the first instance: condoms. In later instances, adoption. No one should be killed for the irresponsibility of his parents. "Suppose if we find out that the unborn child has some deformities/ infection, shouldn't we give it a merciful death rather than an impaired, handicapped life?" I think we should give him or her the best life he or she could possibly hope for. I think we should provide the utmost in palliative care. I mean, by your Hitleresque logic, Stephen Hawkins should have been shown mercy and killed as soon as he showed symptoms of motor neurone disease. [1] http://www.poultryhub.org... [2] Second-hand source initially cited by Mel Robbins during her talk at TEDx San Francisco.
| -1
|
the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo, resulting in or caused by its death
|
all
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
I understand what you are saying, however, I feel the best benefit that we may give a child is life itself. There are plenty of people who have grown up in poor conditions and made something of themselves. Abortion is wrong because it never even gives the child a chance. And even if the parents say there doing it so the child wont have to grow up with parents who aren't ready, in all honesty, they are most likely doing it for selfish reasons. Whether you are ready or not, you got pregnant, so that is the time to grow up and deal with it. Me personally, I feel that having a child by mistake would make me want to be an even better father. No matter what the conditions are that he/she will be brought up in, I'm sure they will find their place in the world. In the case of extenuating circumstances, for example, a child who will be born with down syndrome, or other conditions that would seriously inhibit their quality of life, then I feel that abortion is justified. However, if the only worry of the parents is that the child will be raised in unsuitable conditions, then it is not. We, as adults, have an obligation to ensure that the child does grow up in suitable conditions, rather then denying its right to life all together.
| -1
|
the act of giving a child the chance to live
|
all
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
con
|
pro
|
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 termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus that is developing outside the womb
|
all
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Hi thanks for the debate.I believe that abortion should be permissible under certain circumstances such as when the mother's life is in danger, when it's the result of rape or other similar harms, and when the mother does not feel ready to bear a child yet and decides to have an abortion under a certain timeframe. In my case, it would be before the third-trimester, where after this, it is believed that the fetus develops neurological abilities. Ultimately, one sees that my arguments favor the woman's decisions over the fetus because it was the woman's decision to have a child in the first place (generalization.) Moreover, I do not deem a fetus to be the same as a baby for the difference is a ball of cells vs working organs. Therefore, the definition of a "baby" for me, is after the 3rd trimester. If a mother decides to have an abortion after the third-trimester, then it really depends on the situation and reason for having an abortion at such a late timeframe. However, for the sake of time and character limits, I will limit it to the last assertion that made earlier (abortion before 3rd trimester is permissible.)Given my stance, I have to comment on the fact that CON makes many assertions with no supporting evidence. I will address them now:Abortion is Murder no matter what people say.Your assertion is weak when you do not provide a reason to why its considered murder. Your argument holds the same weight as me saying that, "I am god." You cannot prove nor disapprove my assertion without further details of my definition of God. As soon as the baby is created it is has a soul. Lets assume that as soon as fertilization occurs, the fetus has a soul. If this is true then how does one differentiate between a fetus' souls and other souls such as dogs, pigs, and oranatangs? (sp) Also, what makes an organism having a soul protect them from envrionmental, social, and moral factors? ...People say it is the women's choice whether or not to abort. People can say things but that doesn't mean its true. Youre right, women have no rights whatsoever. A baby or if you want to call it a fetus is feeding off of you but that doesn't mean it is part of you. Im assuming youre saying that it's an individual since its fertilization, even if this is true, it doesn't prove that mothers cannot abort. The baby is using her for her resources. Without her, the baby cannot live. So why is it moral for someone to steal one's resources without having any moral consequences for his/her actions? Your statement is very hard to prove because it would be hard to define someone as an individual when it doesnt have neurological or physical abilities whatsoever. If you can't seriously take care of your baby, put it up for adoption, don't kill him/her because you were irresponsible and became pregnant when you didn't want to/or couldn't take care of her/him.The real question is, is it better to not live at all or to live a life of torture?If the mother isn't ready to have a child, according to you, she still should suffer those 9 months, not taking into consideration how she became pregnant and if shes a single-mother. After those 9 months of suffering, she will then have to force her child away because she cannot take care of her. Clearly, adoption centers are a great place for children to grow up in. I'm just surprised that the general population haven't given up their babies yet to adoption centers.
| 1
|
the act of causing a fetus to be removed from the uterus
|
all
|
abortion
|
no
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
About 205 million pregnancies occur each year worldwide. Over a third are unintended and about a fifth end in induced abortion. Most abortions result from unintended pregnancies. An abortion is medically referred to as a therapeutic abortion when it is performed to save the life of the pregnant woman; prevent harm to the woman's physical or mental health; terminate a pregnancy where indications are that the child will have a significantly increased chance of premature morbidity or mortality or be otherwise disabled; or to selective reduce the number of fetuses to lessen health risks associated with multiple pregnancy. Also a spontaneous abortion, is just a miscarriage. An abortion(just abortion) is referred to as an elective or voluntary abortion when it is performed at the request of the woman for non-medical reasons. I am Christian and understand this conflict, but if God intended the fetus to be born then it would still be alive. Adoption is great, but you just shouldn't be controlling another woman's choices, or even her body. It wasn't you who decided to have the sex with your spouse, and it was most definitely not you/spouse's egg/sperm that produced that fetus. http://en.wikipedia.org...
| 1
|
pregnancy termination
|
all
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
To claim that a fetus in the first trimester can survive long term, or even short term without its mother body and live a healthy life is a blatant lie. Maybe it can survive for a couple of days, but that's hardly a healthy life. Argument debunked. Prostitution should be legal as well. Just because the USA has archaic laws regarding prostitution doesn't mean we should also have archaic laws regarding abortion. We aren't arguing what the laws are; we are arguing what they should be. If we were, then you'd lose the abortion debate since it's legal. Argument debunked. I never claimed a child in the womb was less important than a kidney. That shows a lack of reading comprehension. I claimed that a woman is not obligated to use her body to save anyone's life, whether it be her fetus or to give someone else a kidney. Argument debunked. I never claimed a fetus wasn't important; I merely claimed that a woman's right to choose what to do with her body was MORE important. Argument debunked. Now, have you considered the cost of not letting anyone have an abortion? There are already 100 THOUSAND orphans in the USA, and that is with LEGAL abortion. https://showhope.org... If abortion were illegal, that number could easily be 1 million. Here are some questions for you: Who is going to take care of those children? Who is going to pay for it? Do you think that this will have a negative effect on the 100 thousand children waiting to be adopted, or do you not care about them? Do you know how traumatic it is to live a life where you know you weren't wanted? How do you think that is going to turn out? What about the mother who was forced to have a baby she didn't want? Did you ever consider the consequences of that?
| 1
|
the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo, which is then destroyed
|
all
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
"Con concedes that the fetus does not meet the reproduction requirment of the definition that THEY provided. This is crusical to note because this is a contradiction on their behalf and this should be considered and taken into account when voting." Yes, this IS very crucial when voting, because I have rebutted this faulty argument 3 TIMES ALREADY, and he STILL pretends as if I didn"t. So yes, take note people, if he cannot rebuttal my point, then vote Con. "Con states that they got their characteristics of life from their biology class. This is insufficient evidence. I also got mine from my biology class however I managed to source and prove that this classification of life is valid whereas yours has been based off bare assertion. Con continues to make the claim that children that haven't meet puberty is a sufficient rebuttal since I said that the fetus isn't fully developed. Con clearly skims my case because if they had read it properly and thouroughly they would have noticed that I refuted this a number of times. I have clearly said and demonstrated that children are developing humans whereas the fetus is developing to BECOME a human. It is not yet a human whereas a child is. Since the child belongs to the human race this means that it is considered living whereas the fetus does not yet belong to the human race. This means that it is considered separate to humans and is therfore should be assessed separately unlike children." Let"s break Pro"s argument down shall we? He says here, that children are alive, even though they cannot reproduce yet, but a fetus is not alive for the same reason that he was willing to discredit to say that a child is alive. His rational of this, is that a child belongs to the human race, and overall, humans can reproduce. But he does not consider a fetus to be part of the human race, even though he never offers a real explanation as to why it is not. I on the other hand offered a perfectly reasonable reason why they ARE part of the human race; their genetic is human genetics. Please note, if Pro argues that a fetus is not a human because it is not alive, this is called a circular argument, and you should vote Con for it. "Con continues to state that there is a difference between reacting to stimuli and responding to it. To end the confusion I will provide sources to prove that it doesn't react to stimuli and it doesn't respond to it either. a) The fetus does not respond to stimuli. b) The fetus doesn't react to stimuli. He believes that the fetus is human however this is easily disproven, and it has already been done so, nevertheless I will provide more supporting evidence to satisfy him." This is the testimony of scientists, unless they can get a "pain-o-meter", they cannot say that a fetus cannot feel pain, however, I have the next best thing, the only thing that can detect the pain in a body; the person in that body, and this person can TESTIFY that she DID feel pain in a failed abortion [1]. "Human Characteristics" "- Consciousness" Babies are conscious in their mother"s womb [2]. "- Sentience" This is a synonym as above. "- Response to stimuli" Actually, your citations prove that a fetus DOES respond to stimuli, so I will cite YOUR OWN sources [3]. - Ability to feel emotions You cannot detect emotions so this will have to be discounted. "- Excretion" You gave this to me. "- Independantly supply itself with nutrition" People on injected nutrition are not humans I guess, you cannot say that it is of the overall humans, then I could say a lizard is a human and it does not fit the characteristics, it applies to the overall human. How do we tell then? Genetics, it has human genetics it"s a human, it doesn"t, it isn"t, a lizard does not have human genetics, a fetus does. "- Indepenantly respire" "- Be able to feel and sense things around it" This is a synonym of 1 and 2. "Continuation of R4 Rebuttals Con attempts to refute the libertarian framework extention however this is extremely difficult for them to do given the fact that I provided sources demonstrating libertarian philosohpy and views on abortion whilst my opponent attempts to tackle it without any evidence. Con, instead of refuting anything that I said makes assertions about what the government has a right to do. This is unfortunately is the subjective and completely arbitrary opinion." The foundation of libertarianism is the Declaration of Independence, I quoted it and shew how your views are a violation of it. "The declaration of rights and responsibilities for governments, individuals and societies approes of the UK of a good model and demonstration of a country that properly enforces human rights [4]. The UK advocates and has abortion legal and is a good model of human rights. Ergo, we can conclude that protecting the unborn (ie. fetus') is not a responsibility that the government has [5]." Good model? You don"t even have the right to bear arms, free speech, privacy (thanks to George Bush we don"t either, but then again George Bush is a relative of the British crown, I think they and their descendants have an issue with human rights), and your taxes are 95%, ours is 55%. So as you can see, the British bill of rights is a TERRIBLE example of how a government should act. "I'll reiterate this, since con has provided no alternative framework you ought to vote Pro based on this premise alone." Conservativism. "He does something serious that is NOT acceptable during a debate. He make the following summary of my position and says that I SAY THIS. I did not say this and this make my position look bad. He also puts this in quotation marks to make it took even more like I said this. Con's summary of my position that "supposedly" comes from me, is false and should be penalized with conduct at the very least. I'll refute con's untrue summary of my case: "Because men do not have to deal with the hormonal issues associated with pregnancy, that women are being treated unequally, therefore we must allow them to commit abortion so they can be equal to men." Con provides this quotation to go against my case and then refutes it. I will not refute his reubttal to a summary that he made since I never made any of the arguments that con says that I did. I did say that women aren't getting their rights but I made no such comparisons to men. I said that women have the right over their body and can do what they like with it and I provided a number of quotes from philosophers backing up this view. This has very little relation to men and virtually no relation to men not having to deal with hormonal issues as con falsely says when summarising my case. You said that pregnancy is a state of emotional turmoil, therefore a woman to go through it is unequal. So yes, this is your argument, points to Con for Pro lying. "I never said that the fetus was trespassing or committing any acts like this on the mother's body. I simply said that it is the mothers choice and it should be assessed by them since it is their body. Yes the fetus is dependant on the mother however the fetus wouldn't know the difference if it was alive or dead [1]." Pro lies again, vote Con! "Con's old man analogy is still faulty despite the additions that he has made. Even if the boy is asleep he still wants to live and he still meets the requirements for being a living things as I have continually demonstrated. Therefore, killing the boy isn't justified however aborting the fetus is. Also, the abortion of the fetus is quick and painless (because the fetus cannot feel pain) [1][3]. The boy will have to drown and will almost certainly wake up upon impact of the water and will struggle to get out and will slowly die due to the lack of oxygen. Con's solution is adoption however this is easily refuted. In a year in the US 135,000 adoptions occur, this is due to the lack of willing parents [6]. In a year in the US 1.2 million abortions occur [7]. This means that you're 975,000 parents short. On top of this, you'll probably need even more parents considering that there are other adoptions occuring anyway for reasons other than abortions." As I remember, there are what " 1 million gay people who want to adopt children, just pawn them off to them, sure they make worse parents, but it"s worse than being dead. Con concedes that the fetus and embryo are not human by failing to respond to my argument. I clearly layed out the stages and they simply responded with the following words: "I could never find out how they do that." This is clearly not a rebuttal and therefore this should be treated as a concession to the argument. Actually, I was referring to you posting a picture on your argument and I said I could never figure out how they post pictures on an argument. "Con believes that the burden of proof is on me however I have clearly proven that it is shared. Con is still contradicting themselves. If the BOP really was on me then there was no need to provide initial arguments which he did. Based on this, you ought to assume that the BOP in this debate is shared. Con obviously believes that there argument is self-evident however this doesn't mean that everybody agrees. My opponent believes that I hold the BOP because their position is evident however I clearly disagree and have provided clear reasons as to why the BOP is shared. You ought to presume pro here." I said that the right to Life, Liberty, and Property is self-evident, if you don"t know it, that"s what happens when you live in a communist country (oh, I"m sorry, a "Socialist" country, it"s a synonym, you use it to make yourselves feel better about living in Commie-land) , you don"t even know what universal rights are anymore. "Con says that nobody will try illegal abortions. They are wrong in R1 I showed that 13% of all pregnancy related deaths are because of illegal abortions." I did not say that, I said that we should punish abortion because it cannot be tolerated, as to reduce it. "Con says that the death penalty is okay in some scenarios but they fail to understand that they just said that life was important and should never be taken." I said that life is sacred and should only be taken in certain circumstances, including the death penalty, however, a fetus has committed no crime so this does not apply. [1]. [2]. [3]. http://www.doctorsonfetalpain.com...
| -1
|
the act of deliberately killing an unborn child
|
all
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
con
|
con
|
Depending on the stage, a "fetus" can be removed as just a few cells. I don't think that a cluster of cells feel pain. Yes, it might hurt the fetus if it is a later stage, but would in some cases save it from months or years or torture. One example: A woman is given an ultrasound and finds that her baby has a horrible disease that will cause it to go through months or years of pain depending on how long it lives. Think of children that have such severe mental or physical disabilities that they would never aspire to anything in live. It is the merciful thing to abort them, Example 2: A woman is raped, and finds out she is pregnant. What if she is also young? 17? 16? younger? Should she really have to be harassed for 9 months and then have to give birth and raise a child that has an unknown father or the father is in jail,not supporting it? That's not fair to the mother, child, or family. There is also the Donahue-Levitt hypothesis, a theory that shows that legalised abortion is linked to lower crime rates. explained here:http://en.wikipedia.org...
| 1
|
the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo before the fetus can survive outside the uterus
|
all
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
There is a MAJOR difference between "life" and "human life." A fetus is alive, but it is not a human. You claim to have sources that say a fetus is human; however, there are plenty of sources which claim that a fetus is not. Here is one of many: http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org... I'll ask you some simple questions from yet another source: http://addictinginfo.org... if human life were to start before birth, then why is age counted from the start of birth, rather than from the start of pregnancy? If a fetus is a person then why aren"t adoptions finalized until after the baby is born? If a fetus is a person, why is no one (I shouldn"t speak too soon) suggesting the death penalty for women who have abortions? If a fetus is a person does that mean a pregnant woman is two people? Can she drive in the carpool lane? Can she buy two items when a store advertises "one per customer" sales? The list of questions goes on. Just because you have a "source" claiming the fetus is a human does not mean it is. In fact, it shows a lack of understanding how sources work. I could just make a website, claim a fetus is human, give faulty logic, and then you could use that as a source. In fact, that's what you did right now: use a source with faulty logic. Moreover, just because a fetus BECOMES a human doesn't mean that it IS a human. A caterpillar BECOMES a butterfly, but it is not yet a butterfly. A baby BECOMES an adult, but it is not yet an adult. A fetus BECOMES a human, but it is not yet a human. It is a fetus. However, EVEN IF YOU FALSELY ASSUME A FETUS IS HUMAN, WHICH IT IS NOT, ABORTION STILL IS ALLOWED. It comes down to the argument of "A woman has the right to choose what she wants to do with her own 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. Is human B not letting human A use his kidney considered murder? No. Is a mother not letting a fetus use her body considered murder? Again, no. 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. 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.
| 1
|
the act of having an abortion
|
all
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
A woman has the right to choose what she wants to do with her body. Therefore, abortion is accepted. Rules: No new arguments in R4. If you forfeit a round you automatically lose.
| 1
|
the right of a woman to have an abortion
|
all
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
pro
|
pro
|
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 removing a fetus or embryo from the uterus
|
all
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
My opponent said: "An extra 1.2 million children born per year would be disastrous to our economy, our orphanages, and the children doomed to live their lives in these institutions." My opponent stated that our economy,orphanages,and the children would suffer from illegalizing abortion. Well, here are some quick and easy facts, if we were too Illegalize abortion you will find that their is MORE taxpayers, MORE people to buy products in the U.S,MORE people in the work force and AND more people to enlist in the military. In fact Abortions actually hurt the United States economy in the state of Illinois alone it costs the tax payers $1 million each year. My opponent also stated: "There are perpetually about 500,000 kids in foster care each year. With all the movement in and out of foster care, there is a constant 130,000 children awaiting adoption. In total, in 2007, 783,000 children were in the foster care system at some point. Only about 50,000 American children are adopted every year " If the United States were to illegalize abortion tomorrow my opponent is right the Adoption Industry would boom and you would find that there would be a need to build more orphanages and there would be a need to get the kids in permanent households. So, he is right that the orphanages would be greatly impacted at FIRST, but over a period of time both the government and the orphanages as individuals would begin to build more orphanages to house all the kids,(which by the way would create countless jobs across America and further boost the economy.)and they would also find ways to give up children at less costlier of a price and there would be a significant increase in adoption advertisements which always helps a cause. In the long run the problems in the overcrowded orphanages would correct its self. As for this statement " children doomed to live their lives in these institutions." In my opinion and I hope the voters agree with me on this, the worst doom of all is not even getting the chance to live and the right to life. As for this argument: " my opponent ignores the conditions of rape and incest. Who will father these children? Will he? Who will provide psychiatric support for these women- too often children themselves- who have been violated and impregnated by disgusting criminals? Who will provide the psychiatric support for the children themselves when they are born?" With all the abortions that occur each year in the U.S. only 1% of all abortions are from a result from rape and incest. "who will provide psychiatric support for these women?" Well, to answer the question I guess I'd have to say by loved ones whom they trust or by a therapist or both. But, I also don't see how illegalizing abortion is going to effect the needs of psychiatric needs of the woman. You cannot punish an unborn child through abortion due to the evils of another human. I don't know about you but I would rather know that I was born through a rape then to be aborted and not living at all. Also.... my opponent states: " Illegalizing abortion would not lower abortion rates, rather it will raise illegal abortion rates, and the mortality rates associated with abortion. In 1972, a year before abortion became legal, there were a reported 130,000 illegal abortions. From 1975-1979 there were 11,300 illegal abortions reported. (http://findarticles.com......) Repealing Roe v. Wade (one of the steps required to illegalize abortion) would most likely result in a rise in illegal abortions." Again my opponent is correct on one thing the Illegal abortion rates WOULD go up a few years after it becomes illegal because our society is conditioned to believe abortion is okay. But, you will find that in the long run assuming our government enforces the law and arrests people and keep people in line, you will find that Illegal abortions will decrease significantly and 130,000 abortions is a heck of a lot less then an estimated 1.3 million each year. My opponent also says that is the right of a woman to decide what she wants to do with her body. But this is not the case, It is the right of the babies right to life that abortion infringes on. I'm going to ask the voters and my opponent a question would have wanted to be aborted while in the mothers womb? Thanks for accepting this debate Also my two main sources for the debate: Abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html and citizenlink.org/clnews/A000006052.cfm
| -1
|
the killing of a child in the womb
|
all
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
con
|
con
|
How I abortion any further murder than using birth control or masturbate? Both are hindering the potential life of a human which seems to be the only argument that my opponent had to offer. And I think we've passed the "maybe she will learn her lesson and never have sex."I don't think that a one night fling with a condom that breaks really should be a punishable act with the fine of more than 18 year of commitment, 9 month pregnancy which is a pain already, birth, a complete lack of sleep for the first year or so, having her entire life limited hundredfold, and paying a minimum fine of $241.080: The costs of lego not included.Would you honestly be willing to choose between only having sex when you absolutely are certain you want children (because accidents do happen), something men don't really have to consider since they can sleep with whomever they want and then vanish off the face of the earth for all she knows, and have little or no restrictions. However, making abortion illegal poses serious restrictions to females and gives off the message that women do not have the rights to themselves and to choose. Either they have sex and if an accident does happen they just have to shut up and face the punishment or not be allowed to do what they want to, even if that is just to have a little fun under the starlight. This is a massive step backwards when it comes to female social position and equality: That women do not have a choice, do not have the ability to decide for themselves and should just be there for reproductive purposes. It is either the "murder" of something that never lived against brutally breaking the rights of someone that has been living for q minimum of nearly two decades, give or take a few years. To conclude:In the beginning of my case I asked my opponent a few questions that his entire case hung on, a few questions that he really needed to answer in order for his case to hold up. He did not answer these question; and in hindsight he didn't do much to even protect his case. I showed you, dear readers, how abortion, be it moral or not, is a needed thing and making it illegal is not a steo forward, it isn't saving anyone and there are a lot of cases where it just does not apply. abortions are not going away soon, they'll just change form if we would try and stop them. Abortions would no longer just remove the fetus, but possibly harm the woman and even killing her. This is not a future for us, and thus we conclude that abortion is not the dreaded thing my opponent wishes it was.thank you also for the debate.
| 1
|
the act of killing a fetus
|
all
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
con
|
I accept, 5 minutes to post arguments is fine by me (although strange to be honest), but con must refute my case, here goes... Now onto the Pro case, on why abortion is legal and moral. 1st- Morality Morality is defined as a "Code of Conduct that would be put forth by all rational persons" By the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy[1] Personhood- [3] Murder- The crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought [2]. Is Abortion truly murder? Well, to answer that question, we must look at what allegedly is being murdered during the process of an abortion. A Fetus is NOT a Person, A.K.A a human being. A-Is a Fetus a human being? Fetus are essentially completely reliant on their host, in which they reside. Only that one host can truly take care and sustain that Fetus. This characteristic represents that of an organism that is inhumane, in that human beings do not rely on one human being, and only that human being, for sustenance. Simply saying that Fetus will grow is a weak argument on the grounds of abortion, because we look towards what is technically going to die. In no way at any point of an abortion is a human being going to die. A Fetus, can clearly be distinguished from a human being, and as such, Abortion cannot be considered a murder. B- The Right to life of a Fetus There is a major contradiction in giving a Fetus a right to life, anyone who does is completely undermining the host from which it lives. As stated in point 1, Fetus' do not share any characteristics of a human being, they reflect a parasite in fact, one that sustains itself solely off a host organism, and continues to grow, while feeding off the host. By giving a Fetus the right to life, the mother's life is basically worthless, it must sustain a parasite it does not want to sustain, and this is indeed an infringement upon the rights of the mother. To better state this, i will Quote Joyce Arthur- "The free exercise of one's moral conscience is a fundamental right in our society. And since pregnancy entails profound physical, psychological, and long-lasting consequences for a woman (it is not a mere "inconvenience"), her freedoms are significantly restricted if she is forced to carry to term." [3] C-The Choice of abortion (Quality of Life) Has anyone ever stopped to ask themselves why women have abortions? Does the quality of life mean nothing to Pro-Life people? A Moral outlook on abortion shows the many reasons women choose to have abortions. Not only may it be unwanted, but many times the Rape victim or the Soon-To-Be Single mother cannot successfully sustain their baby. The Fact is, Quality of life is just as important to the mother as it is to all of us looking at this issue from a 3rd person perspective. If a mother is living in such harsh conditions where she can barely make a living herself, why would she want to bring into this world a being which she must watch suffer unless cared for, and then diminish the already bad quality of her life as well? No Justification exists for allowing a being into this world if it WILL SUFFER. On top of that, the it should be the mother's choice based off of her right to life, and her quality of life. Why do we make the innocent pay? By Diminishing a mother's life, and allowing a baby to suffer, we as human beings are inherently immoral. This point in no way advocates unwanted pregnancies, but a pregnancy cannot be planned, and no specification has been made on how women become pregnant in the first place. An easy assumption is through unwanted means such as- Forgetting Birth Control or the much more gruesome- Rape. 2nd Legality of Abortion A- Roe vs Wade (1973) The U.S. Supreme Court stated that abortion bans were unconstitutional in every state, legalizing abortion throughout the United States. There are multiple reasons for this. 1) Forced Permittence This may sound silly, but a burden is a burden, just as a man walking into your house and using your bed without any permittence is unlawful so too is having to carry an unborn organism that feeds off of you. Just as that man eats your food and takes all of your stuff, so too does that unborn organism. The truth of the matter is, just like a house is owned, so is a body, whatever is inside that house or body is what is permitted to be inside based on he owner.To make things clearer- Whatever exists inside my body is at my disposal, any organism is inherently infringing upon my rights by taking up space in my body. Just as a Tapeworm is an unwanted organism in your body, so too is an unborn fetus, unwanted by the mother, yet the mother is forced to carry it. 2)Infringing upon the Quality of Life (Sound Familiar?) This point may sound familiar, and it should, because it applies to both legality and morality. Quality of life is everything, many philosophers argue the quality of life is what defines life, without happiness and joy there is no point to life. If a women was forced to carry a burden which she knew she could not carry, and had no way of disposing it legally, this would be in reality torture. We cannot justify denying the rights of Freedom, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. By not allowing for a woman to have an abortion, we are deterring and infringing upon that woman's rights. B- Fetus' Rights [3] Do Fetus' Have rights? Let's say we somehow gave an unborn Fetus all the constitutional rights an American Citizen was given. Could it truly exercise any rights at all? What would be the point? Giving Rights to an organism that cannot use a single one is meaningless. By Giving Rights to the Fetus or Zygote, a weighing factor would be put into play. Who's life would be worth more then? The Woman or the Unborn Fetus that cannot exercise a single right given to it? This is completely unfair to the woman, not only is this Fetus' life given weight equivalent to hers, it's also given rights it can't even use, and it isn't even alive! Logically, we cannot give an organism rights if they cannot exercise those rights.Thus it is legal for a woman to have an abortion on the grounds of rights. Thank you for taking the time to read this debate, i wish you all good luck and thank my opponent for an intellectually stimulating debate. I hope for the best :) [1] http://plato.stanford.edu...... [2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...... [3] http://www.abortionaccess.info...... This is all mine, i used this in another abortion debate as well, but judges my opponent put a time limit of 5 minutes between arguments, and this is still MY WORK look it up if you don't believe me. Thank you and good luck. Reminder- Cons BOP is to refute pro, simply giving completely different reasons why abortion is wrong does not comply to traditional forms of debate.
| 1
|
the intentional destruction of a fetus
|
all
|
abortion
|
no
|
yes
|
neutral
|
con
|
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 termination of a pregnancy by the removal, crushing, or other destruction of the embryo or fetus
|
all
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
con
|
This debate was suicide for my opponent from the get go. Con wants to argue that abortion is an unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another (murder), and that a decision making abortion more lawful than it already is, should be overturned. mur·der/ˈmərdər/ Noun: The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. Verb: Kill (someone) unlawfully and with premeditation. [1]My opponent's position is incoherent. This is because, if Roe v. Wade exists, then abortion cannot be unlawful (Roe v. Wade enhances the lawfulness of abortion), and therefore it is not murder. On the other hand, if abortion is murder, then Roe v. Wade wouldn't exist, and therefore, it being overturned would be impossible. Vote Pro. Sources[1] . http://oxforddictionaries.com...
| 1
|
the intentional killing of a human being
|
all
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
con
|
con
|
Laws are protecting unborn babies therefore abortion should be illegal. Murder is illegal. The definition of murder is the unlawful killing of a human being. *If, abortion were illegal it would be considered murder because basic science proves that an unborn child, fetus whatever you want to call it is a human being. These babies are fully human even if they"re not born yet. They"re just like us but the difference is that they are innocent little people, voiceless and helpless. Abortion is contradicting the U.S constitution. "The Fourteenth Amendment to the United Statses Constitution says, "No State shall " deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The fetus should have an undeniable right to live. As a matter of fact, this has been written in the U.S constitution since 1787. People have been ignoring this for years. That"s why we have abortion.* If people are ignoring the constitution we might as well not have a constitution. The death penalty law states, "Federal law prohibits the death penalty for pregnant women until they give birth. (18 U.S.C.A. S.3596) In essence, the law declared that an innocent unborn person cannot be sentenced and put to death for a crime he did not commit. If the unborn child were not seen as a person in the eyes of the law, there would be no need for this prohibition." You can only kill a person if they committed a crime. That"s why people say that you"re killing an innocent person because it has not done anything wrong to get to the point of taking away its life. Laws have always been against abortion.
| -1
|
the act of killing a baby
|
all
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
con
|
con
|
#1 no ad hominems. #2 standard rules regarding dropped arguments apply I believe that abortion should be illegal except for when the pregnancy poses a serious threat to the life of the mother.
| -1
|
the termination of a human pregnancy by delivery of a dead fetus or by the destruction of the fetus before delivery
|
all
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
First of all, abortions are not safe. A woman has a high risk of getting depression. In fact, this can last at least five years after they abort. They also have a high risk of suicide. (154% more likely than women who give birth.) *If , someone decides to have an abortion. Their lives are going to be miserable. They"re going to be depressed. Especially the day the baby was supposed to be born or/and the day they aborted. The Guttmatcher Institute says, "Unsafe abortion has significant negative consequences beyond its immediate effects on women"s health. For example, complications from unsafe abortion may reduce women"s productivity, increasing the economic burden on poor families; cause maternal deaths that leave children motherless; cause long-term health problems, such as infertility; and result in considerable costs to already struggling public health systems." These are some of the bad things that can happen after an abortion. And these are not the only ones, there"s many more. Lisa B Haddad, MD says, "Some 68,000 women die of unsafe abortion annually, making it one of the leading causes of maternal mortality (13%). Of the women who survive unsafe abortion, 5 million will suffer long-term health complications."
| -1
|
the termination of a human pregnancy by delivery or other means
|
all
|
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 act of taking a life of an unborn child
|
all
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
con
|
con
|
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 act of killing a child in the womb
|
all
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
con
|
con
|
He has lied, made up false quotes that were supposedly from my argument and has provided me with almost all of their arguments being assertions. I hope that voter's take all of this into consideration because some of the stuff that he has done is NOT acceptable in a debate. R5 RebuttalsIt is clear that con has skimmed and not read my entire argument. This is because con continues to say that reproduction doesn't count however I will now show why reproduction counts when determining life: - It was in my strongly sourced biological list used to determine life. - It was in con's definition of life. - This applies to groups of things and children belong to the group: humans and they still are classified as living. I'll restate something here that con fails to understand. These are the stages of being a human being: These are the stages at which somebody is considered human. Con should note that babies and pre-pubescent children are included here. Con should look at the other classification system that is NOT considered human: The outcome here is simple. The fetus and the human are different things since they have different stages of classification. I have constantly repreated this and he has completely ignored the logic, reasoning and sources that I have provided and resorted to bare assertion. Con attempts to show that abortions causes pain and provides a youtube video. There are a number of reasons why this fails. This was not a normal abortion - it was a late term abortion. The words "abortion" and "late term abortion" have very different meanings. An abortion is tehe termination of the fetus up to 24 weeks (in the UK) and 28 weeks (in the US) [1]. This person had an abortion at 7 1/2 months. That's around 32 weeks which may not seem like a lot more however in this period of time a lot of new changes happen which makes the scenario completely different from what we are debating here. Con believes that consciousness / sentience is a characteristic of the fetus. A specialized egg has no nervous system and hence no consciousness [2]. Con's assertion is therefore incorrect. It is also important to note that I got my information for this from a reliable medical website. Con's source, on the other hand, is from youtube. Con believes that I we cannot detect emotions. This is true but we can detect brain activity and certain brain activity demonstrates that the fetus has 'feelings' of some sort. The egg has no specialized nervous system in it's brain and it's brain is evidentally not completely developed, from scientists brain reports we have deduced that the fetus cannot feel emotions [2][3]. Con uses the same examples that have been constantly refuted. People that are on injected nutrition belong to the human race which we can decipher from their DNA, physical appearance and brain activity and complexity. The fetus has comparable DNA to humans (but not completely developed or the same). The fetus has little resemblance to a human being in terms of physical appearance. The fetus' brain is also not as developed as any living human being [4]. He drops independant respiration. Con states that he quoted the foundation of libertarianism and it's declaration of independance. By saying this alone, then they effectively drop my entire argument that I made and my previous rebuttals. I stated the main ideologies of libertarianism and why they should be considered above the requirements set by my opponent for this reason. This is dropped by Con. I find Con's critisism of quite funny. As somebody who has studied the politics of the UK in extreme depth I will try to correct your mistakes as best as I can. Right to bare arms: The right to bare arms isn't a right and it's a terrible idea. I don't want to get into too much depth however it is imporant to note that assaults are 7 times more likely to result in death if the aggressor posesses a firearm [5]. Free Speech: This isn't explained and is really easy to respond to. The UK follows the UDHR and in their laws they allow freedom of speech so long as it isn't discriminatory or racist and is used to provoke violence [6]. Privacy: This is broad and covers a lot of areas including freedom of the press, survailence, census frequency etc. Con hasn't been specific enough for me to respond. Taxes: We have a free NHS. We have free education. We have more jobs. We have higher wages. These taxes work out better for us than they do for you. You've also completely exaggeraed our taxes. Our basic rate divided income is at 10%. Basic rate savings income is 20%. Higher rate divided income is 32.5%. Our higher rate savings income is at 40%. Our additional rate divided income is 37.5%. Our additional rate savings income is at 45%. This is no where near as con has suggested. You should also note that he didn't source this whereas I have [7]. You are making absoloutely no sense. Please tell me in the comments (because there are no rounds left) what source you used to conclude your information because that statistic is worryingly far from the truth. He states that their framework is conservatism using that one word. Without an explanation (like mine), this makes no sense. It is not a framework. You have just used 1 word. Since my opponent has no explained his framework's significance and it's views on abortion this means that it is not suitable for the definition of a framework in debate and as a result you ought to vote Pro on the basis that con has failed to provide a framework. He attempts to justify they violation of the TOS by taking my words out of context and then putting them in quotation marks to make it look like they said this. As is evident, this is virtually impossible to justify. Yes, I said that women aren't getting their rights by being denied an abortion but I never mentioned a comparison to men and I never mentioned equal rights in this context. Con has also failed to justify putting this into quotation marks. I find it hilarious that con states that I should be voted against because of this. Con says that I am lying. If you can find evidence of me saying that the fetus is trespassing on the mother's body (other than when I deny con's claim that I said this), then you can vote Con. If you can't then you ought to vote Pro since con has lied (again). Con says that there are 1 million gay people wanting to adopt. Where are the sources? Oh wait, there are none. Con says that they were referring to the picture when they said that - they ignore the fact that they dropped the embryo argument which is the most signficant argument in the debate. Con makes a remark about communism in response to the BOP. I assume that means that they agree that the BOP is shared. Con says that he will punish illegal abortions. I said that most women die. He says that they will be put off. I say that they still do illegal abortions. Con says that he was talking about punishment. Do you see what is happening here? He is going arond in circles and not refuting my points. Con says that the fetus has committed no crime so it does not apply but fails to say why. It seems ironic that con says that one of his main philosophies is in regards to life and then says that life can be taken in certain circumstances. He doesn't explain why crime allows moral standards to be abandoned you ought to view it irrelevant. Arguments: He only has 1 which is refuted. He also drops my main argument. This goes to Pro. Conduct: He lies and makes false quotations. This goes to Pro. S&G - Tied Sources: He has used no sources up until the final round after I questioned him on it. He failed to source anything else throughout the entire debate where sources were necessary this goes to Pro. This is an objective vote for Pro. Sources [1] . http://bit.ly...;[2] . http://bit.ly...;[3] . http://bit.ly...[4] . http://bit.ly...[5] Guns in America: A Reader [6] . http://bit.ly...;[7] . http://bit.ly...;
| 1
|
the act of removing a fetus from the uterus
|
all
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Abortion is murder and it should be illegal. There is no excuse for an abortion there are many alternatives too them, one example would be adoption. I would say that the ONLY reason why there should to be an abortion is in case the baby is acting as a cancer and its killing the mother, but that should be the last resort. I will await for my opponents arguments
| -1
|
the act of taking a baby out of the womb
|
all
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
con
|
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
|
the act of killing a human life
|
all
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
con
|
con
|
#1 no ad hominems. #2 standard rules regarding dropped arguments apply #3 no new arguments in final rebuttals. I believe that abortion should be illegal except for when the pregnancy poses an abnormal threat to the life of the mother. please don't accept if you intend to forfeit.
| -1
|
the killing of a fetus
|
all
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
con
|
"The cost is not minimal. The average cost to raise a child is $245,340 http://www.huffingtonpost.com....... Multiply that by 1 million and well....Argument debunked" You aren't debunking anything. So you believe that ending someone's life and not giving them a chance at life is a better option? This is a disgusting ideal abortionists try to convince themselves and other of. "Let's not be burdened by the cost of a human being due to its inconvenience to others..." "Sex is natural and has nothing to do with being able to raise a child. Evolution made sex feel really good so that we would produce. Practically everyone wants to have sex badly. It's a natural desire. Argument debunked." Yes, sex is natural. What, exactly, does that have anything to do with aborting a child? "Sex is fun, so we should just allow anyone to engage in it and then terminate the human growing inside if we don't want to deal with the consequences of our actions." "No, you are only looking at your side of the picture, rather than considering EVERY piece of evidence," Actually, I have, which is why I am pro life. "As I stated, there are 100k orphans ALREADY. If we become antiabortion, this number will reach ridiculous heights." Abortion became legal in the United States in 1973. Was there overpopulation before this? No. This argument isn't even relevant. "Actually, no. This is untrue. Pain MIGHT be felt for a couple of seconds." No, pain is felt for a while as it bleeds out after being ripped apart limb from limb. And if the fetus is a bunch of cells, how does it feel pain at all? Pain indicates that it is a human life being painfully ended.
| -1
|
the act of ending a pregnancy
|
all
|
abortion
|
no
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
I would like my opponent to answer the following: What gives the justification to kill a being? At what point does something become 'living'? What are upsides of abortion? Downsides? Thanks for accepting!
| -1
|
abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by removal or destruction of an embryo or fetus
|
all
|
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
|
the act of taking the life of a fetus
|
all
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
con
|
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 termination of a human pregnancy by various medical methods
|
all
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Rebutting My Opponent"Law does not define terms."Murder is defined as unlawful. Therefore, being unlawful is a necessary condition which needs to be in place, for a murder to take place. "By what you are saying if the government made murder legal then there would be no murder."If the government made killing of any kind was lawful, then murder would not exist."There would still be murder, it just wouldn't be prosecuted. I would like it if you actually argued the issue that is at hand instead of trying to jump on a technicality, in my first sentence. For you I will restate my opening argument."There would not be murder, because it wouldn't be against the law. Murder is defined as unlawful. Here is another definition:"mur·der n. 1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice."[1] "I am arguing that abortion is the immoral killing of another human innocent life. It is not the choice of the mother to decide whether or not the fetus is aborted."This is great, but I accepted the debate on the terms my opponent provided in the first round. For trying to change it mid-debate, I urge a conduct vote for Pro. Regardless, I will still debate with this new argument for fun, but I hope the voters are aware the resolution has already been negated, and an argument vote for Pro is warranted regardless of any further argumentation. "I am sorry for my confusing opening statement but I hope that you will continue a serious debate on my restated argument."When one doesn't make serious opening arguments, how can one expect to get serious responses? It doesn't matter anyway, my response was very serious. Argument In Favor Of Abortion Not Being Immoral P1: Human life gains moral value when when consciousness is obtained, and/ or pain can be feltP2: A first and second trimester fetus is not conscious (about as conscious as a kidney), and can feel no pain.P3: Most abortions (99%) are obtained in the first and second trimester of pregnancyP4: Abortion is not unethical Regarding Premise 1:Human life's value begins when consciousness begins and/or pain can be felt is more than a fair statement. It's only rational to assume that human life's value is based on the actions and feelings of conscious beings. It's also rational to assume that if a being isn't conscious and can feel no pain, then there is nothing immoral which can be done to this being. It is morally dead.Regarding Premise 2: Abortions carried out in the first and second trimester have absolutely no moral implications once so ever, due to the fact that a first trimester embryo is not conscious [2]. Also, first and second trimester embryos can feel absolutely no pain once so ever because pain receptors are required for this. Pain receptors need a neotox which is not formed until the third trimester [2]. Regarding Premise 3Over 88% of all abortions are actually done within the first trimester [3]. Some sources even claim that the number is more around 88-92% [4]. What about second trimester abortions?"About 140,000 second trimester abortions are performed yearly. They represent 9% of the total"So, I think it is safe to say that close to all abortions Regarding Premise 4Since first and second trimester embryos have no consciousness and cannot feel pain, and 99% abortions are carried out in the first and second trimester, then the majority of abortions don't really imply any genuine negative moral implications (and therefore, should not be considered unethical).A Woman Has a Right To Choose A woman has a right to do with her own body as she pleases. Even is she commits suicide after like some women do, that wouldn't mean the woman didn't have the right to do it or it was unethical. What is unethical is restricting someone's right to chose what they want to do with their own body, especially when we are dealing with a subject that isn't even aware it exists and can feel no pain.Since this woman a conscious being and can feel pain, while the subject in question does not meet the requirements, then not letting this woman have the right to chose to have an abortion would be extremely unethical.Conclusion I amused my opponent by rebutting her the argument, but the one I agreed to debate to has been negated clearly without sufficient rebuttal. Sources[1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[2] http://civilliberty.about.com...[3] http://contraception.about.com... [4] http://www.abort73.com...
| 1
|
the act of murdering a fetus
|
all
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
con
|
con
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.