argument
stringlengths 18
10.3k
| stance
int64 -1
1
| definition
stringlengths 1
275
| model
stringclasses 5
values | topic
stringclasses 1
value | plausible_an1
stringclasses 2
values | plausible_an2
stringclasses 2
values | definition_stance_an1
stringclasses 3
values | definition_stance_an2
stringclasses 3
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
"My framework will be based around libertarianism. Within libertarianism, there is controversy on abortions because it depends on if the fetus is alive. If the fetus is alive then libertarians are against abortions because libertarians are individualists and therefore value the life of the individual heavily [1]. If the fetus is not alive then libertarians advocate abortion because libertarians belief in a less powerful and restrictive government. In our first contention we will prove the fetus to be living. I will explain why we should have an abortion under libertarian belief." Correct me if I am wrong here, your first point is that liberals support abortion, therefore abortion is morally acceptable because the liberals must be right. This is a poorly attempted appeal to authority. "She is the individual that libertarians prioritize, due to their individualist beliefs [2]. Since libertarians believe in a less restrictive government, the outcome is clear. The government should NOT be involved in something so personal to the person since by intervening in this person"s choice, you are restricting them and are violating libertarian ideology [3]." The fetus had no choice in it being in the woman"s womb either, that fetus is like a prisoner there, it had no choice I the matter, here is a story to illustrate this: "it would be like if I came home one day, and some guy was tied by his feet upside down, he wants to get down so he can leave my house, so I can either A shoot the innocent victim (abortion), or B untie him and let him go (continue with pregnancy), what would you do?" Additionally, if said fetus is not a product of rape, then that means that the mother consented to it being there. "Only 1.4% of abortions occur after 21 weeks into the pregnancy [3,4]. This means that that most abortions are done before the fetus is even formed. It is an embryo, and an embryo is proven to be not alive. It isn't a subject of discussion when talking about the embryo [5]." If it consumes energy, grows and develops, and responds to stimuli, according to the definition of life provided by biology, it is alive. I will now address the fetus - which is mitigated due to the small percentage of abortions that occur at this period. "There are 7 categories in which life can be identified [6]. The categories have been compiled by biologists over a long period of time with great discussion [6]. The fetus only meets 2 of these. Movement - The fetus can move so this part is met. Respiration - The fetus cannot respire on its own (7). Is a fish alive? Yes, it is, but it never respires, it absorbs oxygen through the liquid surrounding, like a fetus. Sensitivity - The fetus cannot sense at 24 weeks or even 28 weeks (8). Actually, as soon as grey matter has been formed, it can feel. Growth - The fetus does grow. Reproduction - Whilst it is a fetus, no it cannot reproduce (9). By that logic children that have not yet hit puberty are not alive, hence killing them is OK. Excretion - This is possible however very rare and unlikely (10). I guess people who are constipated are not alive either. Nutrition - The fetus cannot independently take in nutrition. So people dependent on injected nutrition are not alive either, wow, there"s a lot of dead people walking around these days eh? "When an abortion is legal there is absolutely no point in having an illegal abortion because they have been proven to be very dangerous and expensive. If abortion are legal then illegal abortions will negatively correlate (11). These illegal abortions have been known to kill both the mother and the baby and sometimes result in extreme suffering on the mother"s part (11). Mothers are not doctors (most of the time) so these illegal abortions also occur later than 24 (and even 28) weeks meaning that the babies suffer too (11)!" That is because these mothers are deranged psychopaths, under some circumstances, something not so good should be legalized seeing what happened as a result of prohibition, but in other circumstances, it is too evil to allow. This is one of them. "This statistic is shocking but demonstrates my point very well. These unsafe abortions are illegal and this is what is currently happening because abortions are illegal in places. They have no option to a safe abortion and are so desperate for abortion that they attempt to have an unsafe abortion. Therefore, we can conclude that there are a huge number of unsafe abortions (13% of all pregnancy related deaths). From this we can then follow up an argument suggesting that making abortions illegal will not necessarily get rid of all abortions therefore rendering our opponent"s aim to be mitigated." I think you missed my point, if it isn"t rape, incest, or a medical issue, they should be forced to go forward, so if they NEED one, they can get one, but it they DO NOT need one, they should go forward, and we should put harsh punishments on trying to abort when they o not need to. "This statistic is significant for many reasons. If this occurs amongst 18 - 19 year olds then this is extremely bad. Having to look after and care for a child ruins their chances of going to university. Your twenties are your most important period of your lives according to many sources (13,14,15). Having to look after a child in this period of time is extremely stressful and prevents you from getting proper qualifications and more importantly, it prevents you from getting a full time job and a house. Children are extremely expensive to have and having a child at the time when you should be looking for a job makes income problematic. On top of this you will have to pay huge amounts of money." This would fit under an issue that harms both the mother and the child. "A pregnancy to a woman is perhaps one of the most determinative aspects of her life. It disrupts her body. It disrupts her education. It disrupts her employment. And it often disrupts her entire family life." (17) She continued: "[And we feel that], because of the impact on the woman, this " is a matter which is of such fundamental and basic concern to the woman involved that she should be allowed to make the choice as to whether to continue or to terminate her pregnancy." (17) This was a case showing that without the right to a termination, you are denying women a right and therefore what my opponent is advocating is gender inequality. So let me get this straight, women have the right to murder, because it makes their lives easier? There are a lot of people in everyone"s lives that if they were to go missing then their lives would be so much easier, but it does not justify murder. The philosopher, Judith Thomson said: "If abortion rights are denied, then a constraint is imposed on women's freedom to act in a way that is of great importance to them, both for its own sake and for the sake of their achievement of equality .... and if the constraint is imposed on the ground that the fetus has a right to life from the moment of conception, then it is imposed on a ground that neither reason nor the rest of morality requires women to accept, or even to give any weight at all." (17) This emphasizes my previous point in regards to the denial of gender rights and equality. That"s how nature set them up, women were made for pregnancy, and men were made for getting themselves killed. Correct me if I am wrong, this is your argument: a baby makes a woman"s life harder, something that men don"t have to deal with, hence, they have the right to kill to make their lives easier. I have to listen to my mom, something that adults don"t have to deal with, does that justify the same action, yes or no?
| -1 |
the act of terminating a pregnancy as a means of preventing birth
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Hi thanks for the debate.I believe that abortion should be permissible under certain circumstances such as when the mother's life is in danger, when it's the result of rape or other similar harms, and when the mother does not feel ready to bear a child yet and decides to have an abortion under a certain timeframe. In my case, it would be before the third-trimester, where after this, it is believed that the fetus develops neurological abilities. Ultimately, one sees that my arguments favor the woman's decisions over the fetus because it was the woman's decision to have a child in the first place (generalization.) Moreover, I do not deem a fetus to be the same as a baby for the difference is a ball of cells vs working organs. Therefore, the definition of a "baby" for me, is after the 3rd trimester. If a mother decides to have an abortion after the third-trimester, then it really depends on the situation and reason for having an abortion at such a late timeframe. However, for the sake of time and character limits, I will limit it to the last assertion that made earlier (abortion before 3rd trimester is permissible.)Given my stance, I have to comment on the fact that CON makes many assertions with no supporting evidence. I will address them now:Abortion is Murder no matter what people say.Your assertion is weak when you do not provide a reason to why its considered murder. Your argument holds the same weight as me saying that, "I am god." You cannot prove nor disapprove my assertion without further details of my definition of God. As soon as the baby is created it is has a soul. Lets assume that as soon as fertilization occurs, the fetus has a soul. If this is true then how does one differentiate between a fetus' souls and other souls such as dogs, pigs, and oranatangs? (sp) Also, what makes an organism having a soul protect them from envrionmental, social, and moral factors? ...People say it is the women's choice whether or not to abort. People can say things but that doesn't mean its true. Youre right, women have no rights whatsoever. A baby or if you want to call it a fetus is feeding off of you but that doesn't mean it is part of you. Im assuming youre saying that it's an individual since its fertilization, even if this is true, it doesn't prove that mothers cannot abort. The baby is using her for her resources. Without her, the baby cannot live. So why is it moral for someone to steal one's resources without having any moral consequences for his/her actions? Your statement is very hard to prove because it would be hard to define someone as an individual when it doesnt have neurological or physical abilities whatsoever. If you can't seriously take care of your baby, put it up for adoption, don't kill him/her because you were irresponsible and became pregnant when you didn't want to/or couldn't take care of her/him.The real question is, is it better to not live at all or to live a life of torture?If the mother isn't ready to have a child, according to you, she still should suffer those 9 months, not taking into consideration how she became pregnant and if shes a single-mother. After those 9 months of suffering, she will then have to force her child away because she cannot take care of her. Clearly, adoption centers are a great place for children to grow up in. I'm just surprised that the general population haven't given up their babies yet to adoption centers.
| 1 |
the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy -- usually before the 28th week of pregnancy
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
According to mayoclinic.com a babies heart starts beating 4 weeks after conception therfore it is to be considered a living human being, making an abortion after four weeks murder, and murder is illegal, yes? Why should a fetus with a heartbeat be any different? A woman has many ways to protect against pregnancy (under normal circumstances) failure to protect against unwanted pregnancy is NOT reason enough to warrent killing a human being.
| -1 |
the act of deliberately causing the death of an unborn child
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
con
|
con
|
Hello, and thank you for posting this debate. Should be good I hope. My opponent has set up the parameters of this debate, and he is trying to prove to you that abortion should never be illegal. If I can convince you that abortion should be illegal in ANY case ever, I win. These are the parameters that my opponent has set up. As abortion is illegal in some cases currently, my opponent does have the burden of proof. My arguments for why abortion should be illegal in some cases are as follows: 1. Abortion should be illegal after the second trimester. If you have no idea that you're pregnant after six months? I mean, honestly, you should know by then. If in the first six months you want to have an abortion, fine. You may be surprised by the fact that you're pregnant. But after six months, the baby can feel pain and is much more human in a biological sense. To abort at that point (26 weeks) is to cause pain to a human child, and you should have made the realization and decision far before 6 months into the pregnancy. (http://discovermagazine.com...) 2. I would be interested to hear your contention that life is not sacred. Does that mean it would be okay to kill a newborn baby as well? Just curious. As to your third contention, why is a fetus not a person at say, 35 weeks? Is it okay to abort at 35 weeks? The medical definition of a fetus is the unborn offspring from the 8th week after conception to birth (http://www.medterms.com...). Therefore, you must believe it is okay to abort up until birth? I believe you must explain the difference between a 38 week-old fetus and a just-born infant. What you are proposing sounds much like infanticide. There are few differences between a fetus that is that old and a newborn. You must justify your opinion here. (http://www.leaderu.com...) These are just my opening arguments and I await your retort. Thank you.
| -1 |
a change of mind that reverses an earlier decision
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
On your contention that life is not sacred: What exactly does this have to do with abortion? I use life being valuable in terms of not killing a human being, I guess. Would you be in favor of killing innocent people because life is not sacred? On your contention that human life does not begin at conception: It is not that hard to make an argument for having abortion illegal in at least ONE case without this point. Abortion should be illegal at 38 weeks. Anyone who is convinced by this statement should vote CON. That has nothing to do with life beginning at conception, but of life being existent/valued at 38 weeks. On your contention that a fetus is not a person: A fatal mistake, this is not. In fact, the mistake is on your part. I would ask people to read the article for themselves. The article states that the fetus can feel pain in the 28th week - two weeks into the third trimester. Even pro-abortion groups have said 26 weeks is the time when a fetus can feel pain. Look at this article: Control F "26" and it is near the bottom: (http://www.theinterim.com...) "However, others in the pro-abortion camp continue to argue that, for example, pain cannot be felt before 26 weeks' gestation." Therefore, no mistake was made on my part; you simply did not properly read the article and only looked at the first paragraph. Please, no more false accusations of faulty reading and "fatal mistakes." " When a baby is born, and the mother accepts responsibility for raising it, it's very first personal relationship is formed (beforehand it is part of the mother's body)." - This makes it a human, you say. If the personal relationship is only formed after birth, why do parents name their children in the womb? Care about said child in the womb? Just because it cannot physically be touched, it is not human? Just to make this clear: You are in favor of aborting a 38 week old baby/fetus? You think that should be legal?
| -1 |
the deliberate termination of a human life
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
con
|
con
|
How I abortion any further murder than using birth control or masturbate? Both are hindering the potential life of a human which seems to be the only argument that my opponent had to offer. And I think we've passed the "maybe she will learn her lesson and never have sex."I don't think that a one night fling with a condom that breaks really should be a punishable act with the fine of more than 18 year of commitment, 9 month pregnancy which is a pain already, birth, a complete lack of sleep for the first year or so, having her entire life limited hundredfold, and paying a minimum fine of $241.080: The costs of lego not included.Would you honestly be willing to choose between only having sex when you absolutely are certain you want children (because accidents do happen), something men don't really have to consider since they can sleep with whomever they want and then vanish off the face of the earth for all she knows, and have little or no restrictions. However, making abortion illegal poses serious restrictions to females and gives off the message that women do not have the rights to themselves and to choose. Either they have sex and if an accident does happen they just have to shut up and face the punishment or not be allowed to do what they want to, even if that is just to have a little fun under the starlight. This is a massive step backwards when it comes to female social position and equality: That women do not have a choice, do not have the ability to decide for themselves and should just be there for reproductive purposes. It is either the "murder" of something that never lived against brutally breaking the rights of someone that has been living for q minimum of nearly two decades, give or take a few years. To conclude:In the beginning of my case I asked my opponent a few questions that his entire case hung on, a few questions that he really needed to answer in order for his case to hold up. He did not answer these question; and in hindsight he didn't do much to even protect his case. I showed you, dear readers, how abortion, be it moral or not, is a needed thing and making it illegal is not a steo forward, it isn't saving anyone and there are a lot of cases where it just does not apply. abortions are not going away soon, they'll just change form if we would try and stop them. Abortions would no longer just remove the fetus, but possibly harm the woman and even killing her. This is not a future for us, and thus we conclude that abortion is not the dreaded thing my opponent wishes it was.thank you also for the debate.
| 1 |
the act of deliberately causing an unborn child to be killed in the womb
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
con
|
con
|
you keep using the term "unsafe abortion" If you go to a clinic where this is practiced is is way more safe than getting it from that hobo down the street. And another thing, you have a better likely hood to gain depression when you have a child as well. And it isn't our place to say anything about mothers who have abortions. What if it wasn't there fault. What if the condom broke, what if the birth control pills didn't work? Why should it be there fault then. Why should we get to judge them based on their decision. This is their choice. And yeah it's very sad, and suicide sadly is an option for them. But if you can't handle a baby then wouldn't it be better to bring a baby into the world when they, THE PARENTS are prepared?
| 1 |
termination of pregnancy before the fetus is fully developed
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
To use the term baby is incorrect a child born at 24 weeks after fertilization is a human, while one in womb at 37 weeks is not. So you can't say that 'the baby has no chance at life'. However the mother still has a say in whether or not she gives birth. But, if you want to think about it from the child's point of view, the child will feel like it was a mistake everyone hates. Personally I would rather die than think that my own mother didn't even want me. This topic is so conditional that you can't say 'It was the mothers own fault to decide to go out and get pregnant with out protection.' You can be on the pill and use a condom, there is still a chance of getting pregnant. However slim, there is a chance. And I don't agree with 'the only option' you give. A mother has free agency. She should be allowed to choose. And the consequences should not be determined by the state. Whatever God one believes in or your own guilt is by far a worse punishment. Not to mention the mothers who give birth because they are given no other option might go beat the child they were forced to give life. And back to the rape topic. I want the option to be selfish sometimes! Everyone does. And if you take away the option of abortion some of these people who were forced into this situation people might start doing abortions unprofessionally to make a quick dollar. Lets face it, it will happen. And if its not professionally done bad things can happen, its guaranteed to happen, as it does with any medical procedure.
| 1 |
the deliberate destruction of a fetus especially in the first months of pregnancy
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
con
|
con
|
I am also non-religious. Ultimately I accept the fundamentality of existence and the universe. I, like everyone else, have no truthful answers to the big question. As a consequence I can not attribute real significance to anything, including life. Ok. I'm happy to conform with the conventions of society, it will obviously makes my short life a whole lot easier if I do so. Your questions. 1) Difficult question, for a socially conforming realist. I debate for debating's sake and my debating stance does no necessarily conform with my personal, socially based opinion. That is to say. from a social perspective I would say that I am anti-abortion. But society is also about billions of other people with individual opinions and should also be about their personal freedom of choice. Nonetheless, where a legislative decision allowing abortion has been made, I have to be prepared to accept that decision. So under these circumstances my answer to your question would be: Up to ten weeks. Given that the recognised transition from the embryonic stage of development to the fetal stage of development occurs around the eleventh week of gestation. Even so If we pay regard to "awareness". It is fair to suggest that for a period of development after the eleventh week, major organs, including the brain are not sufficiently developed as to be properly functional. 2) An easier question to answer. Everyone has a personal opinion and everyone should be allowed the freedom of choice within the constraints of social legislation. We are not all affected by morals and principles in the same way and should not have the high morals and principles of others forced upon us. I will now list three reasons for your consideration. A) Forced pregnancy arising from a rape situation. B) An individual or a couple may consider themselves to be unready to cope with parenthood. Given the demands and expectancies of Modern Society. C) The one all consuming Global God is money. The financial demands of children may be considered to be overwhelming and unsustainable. 3) Yes. Life is that absurdly amazing thing. I would suggest that the spark of life is already present in the sperm and the egg. As a realist I regard all life as absurd and amazing and with equal measure. What is your point of view here? At this point in abortion debates religious people will usually ascribe to the Orwellian notion that, All life is equal, but some lives are more equal than others. Do you eat? Are you omnivorous or even vegetarian or vegan? If so you have to be prepared extinguish the spark of life, out of necessity and with impunity. Despite the amazing absurdity of life, it is still only transient and extremely tenuous, it can wiped out in the blink of an eye for all manner of reasons and without consideration. Isn't it simply the human condition? That we have a highly developed sense of memory and therefore continually subjugate ourselves to our own consciences. That is to say, we tend to worry excessively about things that are no more than intangible concepts, things that have little or no importance in the greater reality of the universe.
| 1 |
the act of terminating a pregnancy as a means of birth control
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Abortion, despite how it may seem, is not a complicated issue. Either the fetus is alive, and thus is a human life. or it isn't. there are a number of moral arguments to the debate. the first moral argument is that scientifically the human fetus meets the criterion to be considered alive from conception (1)" Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity." As we can see, the fetus is genetically human and meets every criterion to be considered alive. now that we have established that the human life begins at conception I may be faced with the argument from many in favor of abortion that though the organism forming in the womb is alive (if they don't fully reject the known science thus committing fallacy) that it is not a person. this leads me to moral argument number two which is: even if you don't consider the humanity of the organism in the womb, there are plenty of things that exist that are A. not persons. and B. has rights and intrinsic value, for example, dogs or other domesticated animals. To state that simply because you don't consider the human fetus (which is what I shall be referring to the developing child as hereinafter.) to be a person, does not mean that it does not have rights and value. Furthermore, even if you deny the humanity of the fetus, you are still dealing with a potential human life which should be held in higher moral regard than the convenience of the mother or father. Another argument that many of those on the pro-choice side of the argument is that women have the human right to control their bodies. And I am in complete agreement. When it is your body that you are doing something to then you should have every right to do so insofar as it's not self-harm. However, the human fetus is not your body. It is IN your body. as I stated in my first card in the scientific portion of my argument, the human fetus has a separate genetic identity with the restoration of the diploid number of chromosomes. therefore, the human fetus is not a part of the mother's body any more than the child would be after (s)he was born. I hold that the time to control your body would have been before conception IE: using birth control or not having sexual intercourse. one thing that society appears to have forgotten, is that sex is not for pleasure. it is the biological process through which most species ensure the continuation of their species through reproduction (2). if you choose to partake in an action the purpose of which is to reproduce. (thus controlling your body.) then you accept the risk of conception. Moral argument number 3. does the fetus have any rights, any intrinsic value, and any right to live. well, the collective opinion of society is that the fetus has essentially infinite right to live. when? if and only if the mother decides to keep the child. if she does, society and its laws, regard the fetus with infinite worth and considers it so valuable, that if someone were to kill that child they would be prosecuted for homicide. keeping in mind that the definition of homicide is: the deliberate and unlawful killing of one person by another (3). we can, therefore, see that if the mother decides to keep her child then the law recognizes it as a person. if she doesn't, the fetus is considered worthless with essentially no right to live. now, does that make sense? it doesn't seem to. either the fetus has worth, or it doesn't. on what moral grounds does the mother alone have the right to decide the fetus' worth? most people would consider killing the baby once it exits the womb as murder. however, the deliberate killing of the fetus a mere two months before is no more morally problematic than extracting a tooth. and finally, we need to recognize that there are instances when an abortion simply cannot be considered moral. take for example if the mother or father aborts a child because they prefer boys to girls. as has happened millions of times in China and elsewhere. or any other form of bias or preference of the mother or father simply cannot offer moral grounds for the termination of the human life. I look forward to a rational and well thought out debate and wish my opponent the best of luck. I eagerly await your response. (1) https://www.princeton.edu..................... (2) www.biology-online.org (3)www.dictionary.com Now to address my opponents arguments. My opponent makes the "what about rape?" argument. I'll make you a deal. I think it's a terrible deal but I'll make it. since only .03% of abortions are because of rape(1) I will allow for rape as well in order to save 99% of babies even though this sins of the father argument for killing a baby is morally reprehensible. as for a last resort being necessary when "two human lives are connected" nothing. I repeat, nothing beyond the life of the mother exception I gave earlier, gives you the right to kill a baby. Ever. Beyond life endangerment because of a pregnancy, you should not be allowed to kill your baby. I don't care about your organs. I don't care if you have your appendix removed. I don't care if you donate a kidney. a baby is not an organ. At no point is a baby an organ. this assertion is frankly ridiculous. Branching from my previous point, I don't care what you do with your body. A baby is not your body. At no point is a baby your body. A baby from the moment of fertilization is a genetically distinct human being completely separate in identity from the mother. To say anything else is to deny facts, to deny science, to deny the truth. No one of faith can support killing a baby. when you say last resort, unless you mean the life endangerment exception, it isn't really a last resort. it's an easy out that removes responsibility for a parent's actions. I already stated, and you have acknowledged, that I will only accept an abortion as correct if the life of the mother is endangered. If a woman will die because of a pregnancy, I would have that be legal. so your point on endangerment falls flat unless you want to make the argument that it is a post birth endangerment at which point you can't kill the baby anyway. (1) Alan Guttmacher institute.
| -1 |
the termination of a pregnancy after implantation which separates the fertilized ovum from the mother's body
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Abortion, despite how it may seem, is not a complicated issue. Either the fetus is alive, and thus is a human life. or it isn't. there are a number of moral arguments to the debate. the first moral argument is that scientifically the human fetus meets the criterion to be considered alive from conception (1)" Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity." As we can see, the fetus is genetically human and meets every criterion to be considered alive. now that we have established that the human life begins at conception I may be faced with the argument from many in favor of abortion that though the organism forming in the womb is alive (if they don't fully reject the known science thus committing fallacy) that it is not a person. this leads me to moral argument number two which is: even if you don't consider the humanity of the organism in the womb, there are plenty of things that exist that are A. not persons. and B. has rights and intrinsic value, for example, dogs or other domesticated animals. To state that simply because you don't consider the human fetus (which is what I shall be referring to the developing child as hereinafter.) to be a person, does not mean that it does not have rights and value. Furthermore, even if you deny the humanity of the fetus, you are still dealing with a potential human life which should be held in higher moral regard than the convenience of the mother or father. Another argument that many of those on the pro-choice side of the argument is that women have the human right to control their bodies. And I am in complete agreement. When it is your body that you are doing something to then you should have every right to do so insofar as it's not self-harm. However, the human fetus is not your body. It is IN your body. as I stated in my first card in the scientific portion of my argument, the human fetus has a separate genetic identity with the restoration of the diploid number of chromosomes. therefore, the human fetus is not a part of the mother's body any more than the child would be after (s)he was born. I hold that the time to control your body would have been before conception IE: using birth control or not having sexual intercourse. one thing that society appears to have forgotten, is that sex is not for pleasure. it is the biological process through which most species ensure the continuation of their species through reproduction (2). if you choose to partake in an action the purpose of which is to reproduce. (thus controlling your body.) then you accept the risk of conception. Moral argument number 3. does the fetus have any rights, any intrinsic value, and any right to live. well, the collective opinion of society is that the fetus has essentially infinite right to live. when? if and only if the mother decides to keep the child. if she does, society and its laws, regard the fetus with infinite worth and considers it so valuable, that if someone were to kill that child they would be prosecuted for homicide. keeping in mind that the definition of homicide is: the deliberate and unlawful killing of one person by another (3). we can, therefore, see that if the mother decides to keep her child then the law recognizes it as a person. if she doesn't, the fetus is considered worthless with essentially no right to live. now, does that make sense? it doesn't seem to. either the fetus has worth, or it doesn't. on what moral grounds does the mother alone have the right to decide the fetus' worth? most people would consider killing the baby once it exits the womb as murder. however, the deliberate killing of the fetus a mere two months before is no more morally problematic than extracting a tooth. and finally, we need to recognize that there are instances when an abortion simply cannot be considered moral. take for example if the mother or father aborts a child because they prefer boys to girls. as has happened millions of times in China and elsewhere. or any other form of bias or preference of the mother or father simply cannot offer moral grounds for the termination of the human life. I look forward to a rational and well thought out debate and wish my opponent the best of luck. I eagerly await your response. (1) https://www.princeton.edu.................. (2) www.biology-online.org (3)www.dictionary.com
| -1 |
the termination of a pregnancy after implantation but before it is clinically recognizable as a separate being
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
yes
|
no
|
pro
|
pro
|
I accept. Though I'd like to provide a definition for "abortion" and clarify my stance on the issue. Abortion: the termination of a pregnancy by removing the fetus or embro from the woman's uterus before it can survive. In most states, abortion is legal up to around 20 weeks (if I did my research correctly) unless it poses a serious health risk for the woman, in which case exceptions are made to this rule. I will be arguing that we not change the status quo on this issue and that abortion continue to be legal up to around this period of pregnancy.
| 1 |
the termination of a pregnancy
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Let's get to it. I'll respond to his arguments in order (opening, cross-ex, and rebuttal). Contention 1All humans, including the embryo/fetus, have a right to life. The reason the embryos' right to life trumps a right to a woman's bodily autonomy is because in the vast majority of cases, she (and the father) are responsible for its being there. They are responsible for the creation of a naturally needy child, so they bear a responsibility for caring for it. Say you come a cross a button on a wall that says "baby-making machine" that offers a pleasurable experience, that has a 1/100 chance of creating a baby. Say you press the button and receive your pleasurable experience, but a baby pops out. You are not justified in just walking away and letting the child die. You must now take responsibility for that child. The Fourteenth Amendment only says one must be born in the United States to be a citizen. The Amendment says that the state shall deprive no person of life. We are not justified in killing illegal immigrants, neither are we justified in killing the unborn simply because they are not citizens. Additionally, before Roe v. Wade, the unborn were persons, legally protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. [1]The embryo/fetus has rights, despite not having interests at the moment. Someone who is asleep or in a coma does not have an interest in remaining alive, but one is assumed. Also, newborns do not have awareness, expectation, etc. , but we still believe it is immoral to kill them (with the exception of some pro-choice philosophers who support infanticide). That's why it's illegal to kill someone who is asleep or in a coma. Plus, if personality and rationality were traits that bestowed a right to life, then humans would not be inherently valuable, personality and rationality would be. This would mean it would be morally justifiable to kill someone if it were possible to bring about two people with these inherently valuable traits. Contention 2Once a woman becomes pregnant, she has already reproduced. Abortion is not about reproduction rights, but the right to end the life of an innocent human. A woman does not have absolute right to her own body. She cannot take illegal drugs, she must obey seatbelt laws, and she cannot strike someone without just cause. Contention 3Banning rape, murder, and theft doesn't stop all rapes, murders, and thefts from happening. But we should not legalize them anyway. Pregnancy is not inherently dangerous. A woman has less than a 1% chance of dying in childbirth or in pregnancy. [2] The reality is that even before Roe v. Wade, the vast number of pregnancies were still done by licensed medical professionals, not unsafe "home" abortions. Dr. Mary Calderone, medical director of Planned Parenthood, stated, "90% of illegal abortions are being done by physicians. Call them what you will, abortionists, or anything else, they are still physicians, trained as such. .. They must do a pretty good job if the death rate is as low as it is. .. Abortion, whether therapeutic or illegal, is in the main no longer dangerous, because it is being done well by physicians. " [3] That was in 1960, thirteen years before Roe v. Wade was passed. In fact, the numbers of illegal abortion deaths was greatly inflated by the pro-choice side. Dr. Bernard Nathanson, former abortionist and founder of NARAL, has written: "How many deaths were we talking about when abortion was illegal? In NARAL, we generally emphasized the frame of the individual case, not the mass statistics, but when we spoke of the latter it was always 5,000 to 10,000 deaths a year. I confess that I knew the figures were totally false, and I suppose the others did too if they stopped to think of it. But in the morality of our revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics? The overriding concern was to get the [anti-abortion] laws eliminated, and anything within reason that had to be done was permissible. " [4]Cross-examinationPro says he only believes homemade abortions should be restricted, but goes on to say that he believes a woman's bodily autonomy does not justify abortion after viability. There is some conflict here, since he apparently believes late-term abortions should be restricted. There is further conflict, since if a woman has ultimate right to her bodily autonomy, then the fetus would not be safe after viability. The woman, under bodily autonomy arguments, has no obligation to keep the fetus alive until the point of birth. She can "unplug," as the euphemism goes, at any time she wants. Perhaps Pro can clarify a bit next round. According to scientific understanding, the unborn are living human organisms (human beings) from fertilization. The problem about viability is it's a moving target. Currently, viability is considered to be at about 24 weeks, but 50 years ago it was at 28 or 29 weeks. Are we to assume 24 week fetuses are human beings now but that same human would not have been 50 years ago? Viability is a moving target that changes with advancements in technology. Plus, according to Pro's criterion, people on life support are not human beings. It would be morally permissible to end their lives for any reason, even if they have a good chance of survival. I don't see any reason not to consider pre-viable embyros and fetuses human beings, especially since the viable fetus is the same entity as the pre-viable one. He has ignored my question about Thalidomide, but it is definitely relevant. If a woman has a right to her bodily autonomy, then there should be nothing wrong with taking Thalidomide which will cause birth defect, despite the fact that her child will be born without limbs. RebuttalUsing Joyce Arthur is a fallacious appeal to authority on Pro's part. First, just because there is no consensus does not mean that everyone is wrong or that no one is right. Second, there is scientific consensus on when human life begins. It is at fertilization (I gave a scientific case in round one, and also gave quotes by embryologists, the experts on human embryology, that human life begins at fertilization). It's simply false to say that no one knows. Also, if no one knows, the benefit of the doubt should go to life. If you don't know there whether there is anyone inside a condemned building, it would be utterly irresponsible to blow it up anyway. You would check to make sure there is no one alive in the building before blowing it up. Joyce Arthur simply appears ignorant of the scientific facts. Being dependent on only one person does not mean that someone is not a human being. That's simply bad reasoning. Plus, if you are the last one out of a pool but you hear a splash and, upon investigating, there is a toddler in the pool drowning, totally dependent on you for survival, are you justified in walking away and leaving the child to drown or are you responsible for saving the child? Pro's reasoning is bad. Having human DNA and showing signs of life makes you a living human organism. Pro has not offered any compelling reason for not considering the unborn human beings. As I illustrated, viability is not adequate. Being a living human organism from fertilization is sufficient for being a human being. To claim otherwise is semantic nonsense. I don't have room for my second contention, so I'll go ahead and drop it. But my case against abortion succeeds anyway, and I have shown why Pro's case for it fails. I look forward to our next round. [1] Francis J. Beckwith, Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice, (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, New York, 2007), p.22. [2] . http://health.usnews.com...[3] Mary Calderone, American Journal of Public Health, July 1960. [4] Bernard Nathanson, Aborting America, New York, Doubleday, 1979, p. 193
| -1 |
the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy especially in the first 28 or 30 weeks after conception
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
You are basically living a double standard life dealing with abortion. I say that because you say that you morally don't agree with abortion, but you basically think it is okay because the law has made it legal. I believe that if you were against abortion then you would not say it was okay because it is legal. By sitting back and not doing anything about it is saying that it is ok. What make aborting an unborn child any different than me going out and killing someone
| -1 |
the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy often resulting in the death of the embryo or fetus
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Not all chicken eggs are unfertilised (poultry standards are different everywhere), and they too have the potential for life. Furthermore, several living plants have to be killed to obtain food or wood, but no value of life over there eh? Or what about killing of living chickens and cattle for meat? And not every single proponent of a foetus should count as living. After all, it is not functional during that time period. Humans are superior to other organisms, but that doesn't reduce the value of a "life". Animals and plants are just as living as, if not more than a foetus. Yet we utilise them for our resources and benefits, and in case of hunting, for pleasure. Therefore abortion can be done as it will save our resources/benefit us, and not reduce pleasure. Furthermore, we can discard pets anytime we want, yet we have to always keep a child? That hasn't even come into the world yet? Pets are fully living and functional, they love us even more than children at times (dog=man's best friend), yet if they even get slightly injured or start taking up more funds than allocated for it, we send it away? This is unfair. If the parents are not ready for a child, or they changed their decision, it should within their rights to kill the foetus. One reason for abortion would be financial problems, for many families may not have the time or the money required to give their child the right growth. Or a surprise loan/ accident cripples the person, and causes problems for the upcoming child. We shouldn't force parents to keep a child they don't want. This will be bad for the child due to ill-treatment from the parents, and will be bad for the parents for the reason they wanted abortion. Suppose if we find out that the unborn child has some deformities/ infection, shouldn't we give it a merciful death rather than an impaired, handicapped life?
| 1 |
the act of destroying or neutralizing the fertilized ovum
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
con
|
Actually, life becomes life after conception, its not as simple as a seed, the seed has already been sown, forming a living, breathing being. In your point of view, the baby isn't alive yet, so if it isn't alive yet then why does it need food, and nutrients, why is the umbilical chord even there if the baby is yet a seed? So now, since I have established my view on when the life takes place, I will like to rebuttal your argument about abortion protecting life. .. With your views "destroying the seed" is protecting human life. I see where you're going though, but let me ask you, would you rather NOT have a voice/choice in life and that being chose for you, or would you like to give life a chance? If the mother cannot provide for the child then put him/her up for adoption, even though the chances of him/her being adopted are slim, its still better that being dead, don't you agree? Babies grow up, they make choices (in the future), they live their life, when they die, we grieve the death. .. Whats the point of grieving human death if the idea of another life beings' life in general is a CHOICE by the mother?
| -1 |
the deliberate destruction of a fetus
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
con
|
con
|
I believe that abortion should become illegal, and that's the case I will be supporting here. I have basically two main reasons for believing abortion should generally be illegal (leaving an exception in case the mother's life is in immediate jeopardy, and the child could not be delivered and be saved). Contention OneWe are the same entity in the womb as we are outside the womb. Embryologists, who are the experts in the field, consistently agree that life begins at fertilization. For example, from the most-used textbook on embryology, the authors note: "Although life is a continuous process, fertilization (which, incidentally, is not a 'moment') is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte. " [1]Another embryologist has written the following: "Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual. " [2]On top of that, the more sophisticated pro-choice philosophers, like Judith Jarvis Thompson (who came up with the famous analogy of the violinist), and Peter Singer, accept the full humanity of the preborn. Peter Singer has noted, “It is possible to give ‘human being’ a precise meaning. We can use it as equivalent to ‘member of the species Homo Sapiens’. Whether a being is a member of a given species is something that can be determined scientifically, by an examination of the nature of the chromosomes in the cells of living organisms. In this sense there is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence an embryo conceived from human sperm and eggs is a human being. ” [3]Additionally, pro-choice philosopher David Boonin writes: "Perhaps the most straightforward relation between you and me on the one hand and every human fetus on the other is this: All are living members of the same species, homo sapiens. A human fetus after all is simply a human being at a very early stage in his or her development. " [4]It's simply common sense. We know the preborn are alive because they grow. Non-living and dead things don't grow. They also exhibit the other signs of life, such as metabolism and cell division. The preborn have human DNA, and they are the product of human parents. Creatures reproduce after their own kind; dogs have dogs, cats have cats, and humans have humans. At no point in human development is a member of humanity a "non-human. "This is also different from saying that a hair follicle has human DNA, so it is wrong to pluck them out. Zygotes/embryos/fetuses are unique individual humans, developing from within, made up of all the individual parts. A hair follicle must stay plugged in to the parent organism to function. However, the parent organism can still function even if he/she loses parts of their body. The zygote/embryo/fetus is a full human organism made up of individual parts of which it develops from within, not constructed like a car. Essentially, you didn't come from an embryo, you once were an embryo. Since we are the same entity in the womb as outside, if a morally justifiable reason is required to kill someone outside the womb, an equally morally justifiable reason is needed to kill someone inside the womb. Since killing someone outside the womb without moral justification (e. g. self-defense and just war are morally justifiable reasons) is illegal, then killing someone without moral justification inside the womb should also be illegal. Contention TwoRoe v. Wade is the single worst piece of legislation ever passed. The Supreme Court had no justification for passing it. However, rather than defending that contention here, I will wait until my rebuttal round (since most of what I have to say on this matter directly conflicts with Pro's first contention). I look forward to our next round. [1] Ronan O'Rahilly and Fabiola Müller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8. [2] Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition, Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. p. 16. [3] Peter Singer,Practical Ethics, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 85-86. [4] David Boonin, A Defense of Abortion. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003) 20.
| -1 |
the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy usually resulting in the death of the fetus
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
yes
|
neutral
|
con
|
We are debating "Abortion should remain legal." Anyways, let me start. P.S. The Affirmative Constructive and Negative Constructive will only have their case but won't refute arguments (in case you didn't know that). Contention 1: Embryos/Fetuses have no rights! I'm going to present my 1st argument for the choice of abortion. "There is no such thing as a "right to live" when the embryo/fetus is in a woman's body. The embryo/fetus has no right to be in the woman's body. It is only there by the woman's permission. Permission is not a right and it can be revoked as in the case of the embryo/fetus being killed. The 14th Amendment also says only "born citizens" have the right granted to individuals by the U.S. Constitution which means the embryo/fetus doesn't have the right to life. Thus, his life is not protected by any part of the Constitution and has no rights! Well, the 14th Amendment clearly says that all people born or naturalized in the USA are citizens and thus have the right of life. Without being born, an embryo/fetus is not a human being. There are two traits that rights derive from. If something doesn't have one of these two traits, it's does not have the right to live. Those two traits are personality and rationality. "Without awareness, expectation, belief, desire, aim, and purpose, a being can have no interests; without interests he cannot be benefited; without the capacity to be a beneficiary, he can have no rights." This indicates to having a personality (belief, desire, aim, purpose) and having rationality (awareness). Having both of these traits gives human beings rights. An embryo/fetus doesn't have any personality nor does it have rationality which is why it does not have the "right to life". The fact is that the embryo/fetus has no rights. Contention 2: A pregnant woman has rights. My 2nd argument will be about a women's reproducing rights. A woman has reproducing rights which includes the choice of ending a pregnancy. A woman also has the right to her own body. That being is a product of the woman which gives her the right of abortion. As the woman has the right to reproduce and to her own body, so the embryo/fetus has no rights which means that the woman can do what she wants with the embryo/fetus as long as the embryo/fetus is still in the uterus. Contention 3: Banning abortion doesn't stop abortion but instead harms people who want abortions. My 3rd and final argument is that banning abortion doesn't stop abortions from happening. If abortion is illegal, abortions are still going to happen except they are homemade. Without trained professionals using safe and secure procedures, women will go to individuals who have no adequate medical skills. World Health Organization has measured up to 20 million unsafe abortions in unintended pregnancies only. 14% unsafe abortion out of all abortions would increase so badly and increasing maternal deaths. There are also some very unfortunate statistics such as 8 maternal deaths per hour due to unsafe abortions and according to WHO, a woman dies from unsafe abortions each 8 minutes. Thus, banning abortion won't stop abortion from happening, it will just cause more maternal deaths and disabilities for Americans. Back to Con for his Constructive. After that, the refutations begin. ;) Sources: 1. http://www.abortionisprolife.com... 2. http://eleutherian.blogspot.com... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. http://en.wikipedia.org... 5. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 6. http://www.lancet.com...
| 1 |
the proposition that should be argued in favor of or against
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Hello MUNER287. I will accept your challenge. Abortion. An emotive issue. Including expressions such as "stripping a fetus" in any dialogue is sure to raise eyebrows. I'm more pragmatic though, I always prefer to take a more realistic, godless approach to such issues. Let me ask you a few questions. At what point do you think a fetus becomes aware of existence? That is to say. We do not fear death itself, what we fear is non-existence. So does a fetus have knowledge of life and death? Can a fetus fear non-existence?
| 1 |
the act of intentionally causing the death of an unborn child
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
con
|
con
|
Round 1 = Acceptance Round 2 = Arguments For/Against Abortion Round 3 = Rebuttals
| -1 |
a statement that is contrary to the one being discussed
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Law does not define terms. By what you are saying if the government made murder legal then there would be no murder. There would still be murder, it just wouldn't be prosecuted. I would like it if you actually argued the issue that is at hand instead of trying to jump on a technicality, in my first sentence. For you I will restate my opening argument. I am arguing that abortion is the immoral killing of another human innocent life. It is not the choice of the mother to decide whether or not the fetus is aborted. I am sorry for my confusing opening statement but I hope that you will continue a serious debate on my restated argument.
| -1 |
the deliberate destruction of an embryo or fetus
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
con
|
con
|
ObservationsOV1: Con uses no sources in his rounds which you should note. This means that conflicting notions such as con's claim that the requirements for life are different to the ones I suggested should be ignored. I provided sources and evidence that the requrements for life are not the same as what con claims that they are. I provided sources and evidence my criteria in which I should classify life ought to be bought over con's list of classifications. It is also important to note that con essentially concedes when they provided their classifications for life due to the fact that the fetus does not meet their criteria as well. OV2: It should be made clear that the BOP is shared in this debate since we both have contradicting objectives to achieve. I must prove that abortion ought to be legalized whereas con must prove that abortions ought to be illegal. We both have positions to affirm and we both have our con's arguments to negate. Since con only brings one argument into this debate that regards to the fetus being alive this means that their position in this debate is severly mitigated.R3 Rebuttals Con states that I ignored their 4 characteristics. This is false. I have demonstrated that their argument fails under both of our definitions of life. I have also proven that you ought to buy my definition of life over con's one since I provided sources. Con fails to understand the parameters set. They also act contrary to their position. They present a definition of life which sets the parameter that it must be able to reproduce (bare in mind that con introduces this in their parameters too). They then contradict themselves and say that reproduction should not be a parameter for considering life because children who haven't gone through puberty cannot reproduce. I will make the same clarification that I made before. The parameters used to define life aren't used individually, they are used to define whether the entire human race is living. The answer to this is yes because the large majority of all humans will eventually be able to reproduce and the large majority can [1]. Killing children isn't acceptable to their sentience and consciousness and due to the fact that they will be able to reproduce in their current state as human beings [2]. I have already stated why the lack of ability to reproduce is a valid reason as to why a group of things (in this case fetus') is a good enough reason to dismiss it as a living thing. Con has dropped this. I proved that the fetus cannot respond to stimuli. Con states that I am wrong because he said reacts not responds. This is a poor rebuttal since they are both synonyms. I could have said that the fetus cannot react to stimuli and it would have meant the same thing as responds to stimuli. The fetus cannot react and respond to stimuli [3], can Con please respond to this sufficiently now. Con attempted a pre-emptive rebuttal to an argument that I may possibly make; I never made this argument, in fact I agree that the fetus isn't just a clump of cells but this proves nothing for Pro or Con and this argument ought to be thrown out of the debate for this reason. I said that the fetus is developing to become a human. Con states that this means that all men under the age of 33 are also developing. This a key issue that I'd like to address. The fetus is developing TO BECOME a human being [5]. Babies, children, teenagers and young adults are developing AS HUMANS [4]. They are still humans whereas the fetus is not [4]. Con excludes the main elements of libertarian philosophy which consist of two beliefs:1. The government ought to have less power and make less restrictions. [6][7].2. The individual is the most important member of society and their opinions and rights ought to be prioritized to the highest level of their ability to do so [6][7]. Life is important in libertarianism however less government restriction is also extremely important factor and by preventing somebody from having an abotion is a restriction that libertarians ought to avoid at all costs [7]. As my contentions have described, this is a violation of the women's equality and human rights. By preventing the women from having an abortion you violate the women's right and you also violate libertarianism. Being against abortions violates the two most important libertarian ideologies, this means that it is an overall violation of libertarianism. Con provides no alternative framework and mine still stands, you ought to vote Pro baed solely on the premise that under my framework abortion is morally permissable. He asks me a question: "Do you think he/she WANTS to live in someone who wants to kill it?"The answer to this question is that the fetus isn't alive and it doesn't have an opinion. No matter whether you're for or against abortion everybody acknowledges that the fetus isn't able to formulate opinions [8]. Con's old man analogy is faulty. He fails to consider financial issues but that isn't the only problem. He forgets that the fetus doesn't care if it's on the boat or not, neither does it care if it on board or thrown off because if the boy represents the fetus then this boy must also not be able to think or have opinions [8]. I have also demonstrated that the fetus isn't alive. This means that con's analogy based on the premise that all possible outcomes and situations haven't been analyzed and the fact that con hasn't acknowledged that the fetus cannot think or forumlate opinions, means that the analogy fails. I do not advocate infanticide / killing children, the scenarios are completely different as I have already proven. Con's rebuttal to the fact that most abortions are done at the stage where the fetus is DEFINITELY not alive. The ebryo is less developed than the fetus and cannot feel pain or think or respond to stimuli etc. [9]. Con makes the mistake of calling the fetus a human. The stages begin with the fertilization of the sperm and egg, the embryo, the fetus, then the human. There is a distinguishable difference between the fetus and the human [10]. I still advocate the fact that we must look at things as a whole and looking at people with disabilities is not applicable in classifying life as people with disabilities still belong to the same species as us. Con's next rebuttal is subjective. He states that abortion isn't a right. Life is. It is still under his BOP to prove why. Until this is done there is nothing to refute. This is all bare assertion.Con says that illegal abortions should be punished but doesn't refute the argument that says that the problem won't be solved anyway. I have shown that in places where abortion is illegal, illegal abortions still occur. The consequences are much worse than what Con suggests as a result of these illegal abortions. Sometimes the baby and mother die or are severely injured in the process. If you legalize abortions then people won't be inclined to do it illegally and they will do it legally - ie. safely.Con is contradictory. At first they say that the most important right is life and emphasize that life is extremely important and that aborting the fetus is murder, they then say that the mother should receive death by stoning. This is contradictory to the case and is a concession - it negates the only argument that they provided. I never that the teenagers were below the legal age of abortions being allowed. I said 18-19 year olds which is old enough [6]. The argument talked about teenagers missing out on their lives. This means that it still stands and has been dropped again. Con respond to human rights by saying that he supports the right to life. This doesn't make sense; he says that we should stone the mothers to death which is not supporting the right to life. Sources[1] http://bbc.in...[2] http://bit.ly...;[3] http://bit.ly... [4] http://bit.ly...;[5] http://bit.ly...;[6] http://bit.ly...;[7] http://bit.ly...;[8] http://bit.ly...;[9] http://bit.ly...;[10] http://bit.ly...;
| 1 |
a declaration of legislative intent
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
3. Right to life is appointed to everyone and everything even pets. Why do you think people where POed at Michael Vick when he was doin dog fights 5. theory your website is a theory not a fact, that makes your evidense invaild 6. I never said anything about chemistry, when the babies heart beats that when people know that you're pregnet. 8. abortion isn't ethical just look at Wade V. Boggs 14. you said that abortion lowers chance of reat cancer well you're wrong it raises it by 130% after an abortion now I'm sure women don't want breast cancer if I'm wrong please tell me http://www.deveber.org... a1. first of all know one ever, why don't you tell the aduiance about FAILED ABORTIONS hum?! a2. my opponet hasn't refuted my adoption alternartive a3. with a failed abortion may lead to a prom night dumpster baby. http://www.youtube.com... my attacks. 1. women face emotional difficultis. 2. abortions that fail will lead to several birth defects and defects for the mother 3. increases breast cancer rate by 130% 4. After an abortion, women are more likely to display self-destructive behaviors including suicide 5. lead to depression and guilt for men. 6. abortion reserch is inacurate. my source for this is http://www.deveber.org... thank you and have a happy Martin Luther Day
| -1 |
the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy usually before the 6th month of gestation
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
This is a human life. This is murder. A human life starts at conception. Saying abortion is ok is like saying it's ok to kill your next door neighbor. You have no right to take away this life that hasn't even had a chance yet. This is a pure soul, they have never done anything bad or done anything to harm anyone. This child should at least be given a chance at life.
| -1 |
the deliberate destruction of a human fetus in the womb
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
yes
|
con
|
neutral
|
First of all, I would like to say that it is unfortunate that CON waited until the final round to drop details such as the position from which she was debating. I may have chosen to respond differently, but now I cannot because CON would not have any opportunity to rebut my arguments, so I will, once again, do the best I can with what I have. As I’m sure CON recalls, my “illegal killing” argument was a line of argument I said I was not going to take; I mentioned it only to clarify a point. Next, CON went on some sort of tangent about viability, which she never actually tied down to an argument. She claims that a fetus can be viable five weeks after implantation. I am confused by this claim because it is dead wrong. Fetal viability, or the point at which a fetus is able to survive outside the mother’s body [1], is usually put between 24 and 28 weeks [1][2]. Perhaps CON is confusing pregnancy viability with fetal viability. I think CON missed my whole point about giving human status to all vertebrates. Of course it is absurd; that was my point. However, if CON is going to assign personhood based on a heartbeat, that is the logical conclusion. Regarding rape, CON is a walking contradiction. She talks about how we shouldn’t murder babies by aborting them, but it is suddenly OK when the object is to avoid further trauma to the mother. Its either murder or it is not; you can’t have it both ways. I didn’t discuss CON's comments about birth control because they are irrelevant. The claim that women use abortion as their primary form of birth control is a myth. Often times their preferred method of contraception failed [3][4]. CON’s last point is an unsupported claim that “if abortion were no longer an option, birth control would be better utilized, and teen pregnancy would drop.” A source here would be helpful; because I’m pretty sure reality reflects the opposite. I wasn’t able to find figures specifically on teen pregnancy, but in areas of the world where abortion has been criminalized, the abortion rate has not dropped [4][5]. CON has tried to argue that abortion is wrong if the fetus has a heartbeat; I showed why this line of reasoning doesn’t pan out. She then went on to a discussion about viability, however her argument wasn’t properly formed, and I wasn’t able to determine exactly what she was saying. Con’s rape exception shows that her position is rocky at best, and finally her unsupported claim that criminalizing abortion would reduce teen pregnancy seems to be at odds with the available data. Overall, CON has failed to show why abortion should not be legal. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.babymed.com... [3] http://www.prochoice.org... [4] http://www.womenscenter.com... [5] “Induced abortion: incidence and trends worldwide from 1995 to 2008,” The Lancet, Volume 379, Issue 9816, Pages 625 - 632, 18 February 2012
| 1 |
the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, as through induced miscarriage
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
If a mother is going to end up struggling in life further because of having a baby well then too bad for her. She should have put some thought into it before she decided to have sexual intercourse with her husband or some random dude that would eventually lead to her being pregnant. A woman should have sense enough to know that if she's going to end up having a hard time in life that she doesn't need to have a baby ever or until she gets her life together. It makes absolutely no sense for a woman to have a baby if she won't be able to care for it unless of course she has been raped by some selfish guy who cares only about pleasuring himself regardless of how the woman could be effected. Therefore I will rest my case on the fact that Abortion should only be allowed if the woman has been raped or if the pregnancy is endangering the child and its mother's life because as far as i'm concerned Abortion is murder if it isn't related to these two circumstances.
| -1 |
the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy especially in the first 8 months
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
I'm just going to finish this by saying that there should be no law that forbids abortion. It is a matter between the two involved, and no one has the right to interfere with that.
| 1 |
the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy especially in the medical or legal sense
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
One of the most pressing issues of the 21st century- abortion. And it really is one. It questions our moral and ethical values. Even though many people people believe abortion should never be an answer, abortion should be legalised. This is because abortion because the woman"s choice is to be valued. Firstly, there are many questions to answer and doubts to clear. To what age is it even right? Technically the zygote, which turns into an embryo isn"t really human yet. They don"t have feelings, they don"t technically have rights yet. Yes it is sad, but a fetus wouldn"t even have organs at that time. We can"t look at this emotionally, we have to look at this rationally. There however, should be a line drawn, a certain age where you shouldn"t get an abortion, like 28 weeks, that is when the fetus has blood going into it and life birthed. If the mother wants an abortion afterwards, that"s her loss. Also, it"s a woman"s choice. It"s a woman"s choice whether she wants a child. It"s a woman"s choice if she wants to endure 9 months of hell. It"s a woman"s choice if she wants to go through the pain of labour. What if the woman had potential to something great, but has to give it up for a child? She might even grow to hate on the child. If the mother got pregnant in school and had to drop out, would it really be worth it? The girl would be too young, too unknowledgeable to be a mother. She wouldn"t have even learnt about biology let alone being a mother. So it"s a woman"s choice. What if the child can"t be supported? The child could be born into a family without privileges, support, or a real certain future. It may be a single mother, it may be money scarcity, it may be anything. The child may have a bad future awaiting, and may even be put up into adoption anyway. If a mother can"t even look after herself, how can she be expected to take care of another human being? Also, mothers with addictions like drugs, alcohol and smoking would be imposing problems on the fetus, possibly defects, which is unfair on the fetus. Why should the fetus live with disabilities? Rape is also a huge issue. The mother, may have been raped and imposed with a child. A child could bring major psychological harm to the mother. A 10 year old girl in India, is wanting an abortion for her 21 week old. She was raped by her stepfather. Due to this, if the doctors don"t approve of her abortion, this means she may be psychologically damaged of carrying her stepfather"s child, the one that brutally raped her. Why should this even be allowed? Imagine yourself as a ten year old, carrying a child, while you"re still a child and still have lots to learn. Imagine a twelve year old girl as a victim of incest to have a daughter that is their brothers creation. The psychological harm would be unbelievable.This is why abortion should be allowed, with exceptions like date and reason. To a certain stage, abortion is not good. 28 weeks? Too old. But we do have to legalize it. We just need a few restrictions on it. How reasonable is having a world without abortion?
| 1 |
the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy especially in the first 28 or 30 days after conception
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
1) "Society is also built of other people with individual opinions and should also be their personal freedom of choice." Do you mean the freedom to kill an innocent human life, this freedom cannot be granted. "Where a legaslative decision allowing abortion has been made, I have to prepare to accept this decision." So from what I understood you believe we should accept everything our government does. If the government (I"m assuming you are American) decided to make murder legal which is what they are doing, would you prepare to accept that? You can"t accept everything your government does, you cant grant them that power. You believe abortion should be allowed until 10 weeks, but why do more than 90% of abortion occur on the 13th week. Why does the stage of development the fetus is at even matter to you? Your main argument is fetuses haven"t fully developed to become a human being, however newborn babies and even children haven"t fully developed yet. Do you believe killing a baby, or even a kid is fine? 2) A) forced pregnancy arising from a rape situation. Are you aware that less than 0.1% of abortions are caused because of a forced pregnancy. This 0.1% does not justify the killing of millions of human beings. B) An individual or a couple may find themselves unready to cope with parenthood. Given the demands of modern society. In what way unready? C) The financial demands of children may be considered to be overwhelming and unsustainable. The financial state of a family does not determine how good the life of the offspring will be. Many insanely rich people started off poor Oprah Winfrey Howard Schultz Just to name a few. This is no reason to kill a human being 3) All life is not equal, but all life is precious. We have no importance in the greater reality of the universe, but what we are experiencing is our reality, our only reality. Life is intangible, therefore shouldn"t be touched.
| -1 |
the deliberate termination of a human life after conception especially before the fetus is viable
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
yes
|
no
|
neutral
|
con
|
Contention 1Pro's definitions are largely irrelevant. I have made a scientific case for why the unborn are human beings, which Pro has not refuted. I have also given quotes by embryologists, the experts in the field, and Pro could not produce one embryologist that dissented. Of course, I expected as much because embryologists consistently agree that a new human being exists at fertilization. Also, it should be noted that according to the second definition of child that Pro provided himself, the definition is "an unborn infant; a fetus. " So even according to the dictionary, a fetus is a child and by extension, also fits the definition of "human being" that Pro, himself, provided. I have proven in spades that the unborn is a separate human entity from fertilization. The fetus is not part of its mother until viability. If this were the case, the pregnant woman would have two heads, four legs, four arms, two noses, and roughly half the time, a penis and two testicles. Also, the unborn embryo/pre-viability fetus has different fingerprints than the mother and often a different bloodtype. Also, you can conceive a white embryo through IVF and implant him into a black woman, and the child will still be born white. I have committed no fallacies, and Pro, unfortunately, did not point out which fallacy he believed I was committing. Pro admits that the person who made the baby in the baby-making machine is now responsible for the child. By extension, if a man and woman engage in an act they know has a chance of producing a child, they now bear responsibility for that child. I contend that it's Pro who actually doesn't understand the Constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment is about citizenship, not the right to life. Illegal immigrants still have a right to life, despite not being U. S. citizens. The unborn also have the right to life, despite not yet being citizens (and as I pointed out previously, prior to Roe v. Wade the unborn were considered persons legally protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. Pro asserts that rationality and personality are needed for human beings to be considered human beings, but they are baseless. He offers no reasons to support his claims so we can reject them. Conversely, I have offered plenty of evidence that the unborn are human beings from fertilization. I have also shown why the woman does not simply have the right to "revoke" the presence of the fetus from inside her body. She bears responsibility for bringing a naturally needy child into existence (the man does, too, of course). If you bring a naturally needy child into existence then you bear responsibility for caring for that child. Contention 2Pro does not give strong justification for why the woman's right to reproduce trumps the fetus' right to life. I have already shown that the fetus is a full-fledged human. One's right to reproduce does not trump one's right to life, which is the most fundamental of all rights. Additionally, once fertilization happens she has already reproduced. Contention 3I have committed no fallacy here (and Pro has not mentioned which fallacy he believes I am making). Pro also gives no sources to back up his claims here, so they can be rejected. I believe that women are generally law-abiding citizens, so I'm not convinced they would all flock to abortionists to have illegal abortions. But even if they did, that doesn't mean that abortions should stay legal. After all, murder and rape happen even though they are illegal. That doesn't mean we should legalize it. Cross-ExaminationPro has still offered no reason for why viability should give a right to life. The entity before viability is the same entity post-viability. Why is it that a being must be able to live independently that gives it a right to life? This would mean that a born person on life support would not have a right to life, even if they have a good chance of recovering. Also, as I have shown viability is an arbitrary line to draw. Viability decreases as technology improves. RebuttalThe reason Pro's reference to Joyce Arthur is an appeal to authority is because he gave no reasons to support his claims. He used Joyce Arthur as his argument, rather than supporting it. I gave actual scientific and philosophical reasoning to support the case that the unborn are full-fledged humans from fertilization. Plus, Joyce Arthur is not a scientist. Specifically, she's not an embryologist. I gave quotes by embryologists, who are the experts on human embryology to support my case. Pro also ignores my analogies, so I extend them. It's simply ridiculous not to answer them for his reasons. I might as well say Judith Jarvis Thomson's violinist analogy is irrelevant because you're plugged into a violinist, you're not pregnant in the analogy. This is simply a ridiculous objection. That's the exact purpose of an analogy, to show a comparison between one thing and another, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification. Once again, I'd like to thank Pro for this intriguing debate. I believe I have made my case and defended it from scrutiny. Thank you for reading.
| -1 |
the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, especially in the medical sense
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
I surely do believe we should take a more realistic approach too. More than 90% of abortions occur during the 13th week of pregnancy, at this time fetuses have already developed finger prints, vocal chords, and the part of the brain which is responsible for complex thoughts is developing. This is a human life that cannot be taken away. Now to answering your questions "At what point do you think a fetus becomes aware of existence?" I as a non religious person believe life cannot be judged on awareness, for example when a person is in coma they aren"t aware of themselves nor environment. Do you believe it would be fine to murder a human being that is in coma just because they aren"t aware of their current state, and existence? "Does a fetus have knowledge of life and death?" Fetuses do have knowledge of life and death. One of, if not the most used abortion method is MVA. In this process a vacuum is used to retire contents from uterine. During this process the fetus"s body is completely destroyed by the vacuum. Doctors who have performed this form of abortion have recalled observing fetuses desperately moving to stay in womb. Fetuses are aware of their life, and will try to stay alive. "Does a fetus fear non-existence?" This is a question impossible to answer. If fetuses didn"t fear non-existence this does still not justify the killing of them. A suicidal person may often not fear non-existence, however would you kill them? Now I"d like to ask you a few questions? At what point in a fetuses life do you believe abortion shouldn"t be allowed anymore? How can a parent(s) justify the decision to have an abortion? Do you consider fetuses to be alive?
| -1 |
the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy especially in the first eight months
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
I understand that you didn't use 'person', But I find that 'person' is the better word to use. It's no "think of all those human beings" or "you lovely human beings". I'm aware that a foetus is a human, And alive. It's just not a person. Again, Foetus =/= person. Yes, A foetus hasn't experienced these things. No, It doesn't make abortion 'okay'. It's just evidence to the contrary for abortion being murder, And therefore illegal. Yes, It's why they never get them. But hypothetical futures don't matter in the real world. I'm not treated as an 80 year old, And a foetus isn't treated as a person. You can't say 'deserve'. That's subjective i. E. Your opinion. Opinions don't matter. Murdering someone because they've murdered someone is revenge, Not justice, And this is another debate entirely. I'm fine with you believing abortion is murder. It's just objectively not. Given that Meriam-Webster doesn't have a separate definition for human being, The other will serve; "a man, Woman, Or child of the species Homo sapiens, Distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, Power of articulate speech, And upright stance. " It'd be safe to assume that 'man' and 'woman' refer to sex, But for the distinction 'child'. This suggests that a human being is an adult or child member of the human race. Given that a child is "a young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority", And age cannot be negative, A foetus is not a human being. You aren't pro-choice. Remember, This is the English language. Not everything is literal. Unless you believe that a women should be allowed abortions, You are not pro-choice. Some false equivalencies right there. A slave is a human being. A murder victim is a human being (or was). A foetus is not a human being. And banning the latter makes all three a violation of the right to bodily autonomy, Which is a good segue to my argument. Under the laws of the U. S. A, And most western countries, Citizens have the civil (legal) right to bodily autonomy. This means that they have the final say in what happens to their body. This is why you have to consent to giving blood, And to being an organ. You can't just have them taken from you willy nilly. Banning abortion violates this right, Because women can no longer choose not to be pregnant. But hold your horses, Because I'd imagine you have a couple of rebuttals. Firstly, It doesn't violate the foetus's civil rights. A foetus has no civil rights. It's not a citizen of any country. Secondly, 'the woman should've just chosen not to have sex' is stupid. Don't punish women for having sex.
| 1 |
the deliberate and intentional destruction of a human embryo or fetus
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
con
|
con
|
Firstly, I want to make myself clear, though I do not agree with abortion, there are certain circumstances where it is acceptable. That being rape, incest, and medical issues. However, having an abortion "just because", or "I don't want to have to take care of my kid", then it is no different than murder. This type of thinking, is the same type of thinking that the feminists are using to justify abortion, they are not justifying it in rape, incest, or medical issues only, they are trying to say that it is OK in any circumstance. Back during the bronze age of around 3,000-1,000 B.C.E., there was a popular Sumerian religion that worshiped Baal. People would sacrifice their babies to Baal via cooking them alive (getting cooked alive, sounds familiar doesn't it). Archaeologists wondered how mothers could have their children be cooked alive, and they came to the conclusion, that they were able to have this detestable act done, because they did not consider their babies to be a living human, now this should sound very familiar. So, no one is arguing that women shouldn't have control of their bodies, they are entitled to complete control over their bodies, however, I am arguing that a fetus is a living human also, and hence is ALSO entitled to complete control over their body, which includes the right not to be cooked alive. So if you want to argue that women should have control over their bodies, you must argue that babies must have control over their bodies. It is two separate bodies, and hence the baby has rights too, separate from the mother. Point 1: a fetus is alive: Now, I will be arguing that a fetus is a living human, and by definition, it is, let's look at the definition of life according to Websters dictionary: "the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death." Please note, nowhere in this definition will you see "took a first breath", and all of these definitions, a fetus fits, it can grow, it will be able to reproduce eventually, it will be able to preform functional activity, and it will continue to change until death. According to biology, life has these characteristics: 1. Grows and develops (check) 2. Capable of reproduction (check) 3. Consumes and uses energy (check) 4. Responds to stimuli (check) Point 2: a fetus is NOT a clump of cells: So, I have established that a fetus is alive, now I will establish that it is not a clump of cells, calling a fetus a "clump of cells" is mind boggling, no scientific mind would look at a fetus, and say "meh- it's a bag of cells", calling it a clump of cells is inherently wrong, a fetus is not a clump of cells any more than you or I are clumps of cells. Because a "clump" suggests that it has no form or organization, a fetus cannot be considered a "clump of cells", because a fetus's cells has organization, and all those cells are working for the survival of the rest of the "clump", hence, the correct term would be a "system of cells", just like you or me. Point 3: A fetus is a human: This is very easy to prove, if you sample a fetus's DNA, and test it, what will you find? The genetic material comes from a human, not a baboon, or a buffalo, or a "clump of cells", a HUMAN. Problem solved, it's genetics are human genetics, it's a human, what else? It's dad is a human, it's mom is a human, they aren't ducks are they? So, it would logically follow, that their child will be---- A HUMAN! It cannot be a clump of cells, the dad isn't a clump of cells, the mom isn't a clump of cells, so, logically their offspring will be a human, not a clump of cells. If I get a duck, and another duck, and I breed them, they will give birth to a duck, same with gorillas, eagles, snakes, lions, bears, whales, dolphins, etc, they will give birth to gorillas, eagles, snakes, lions, bears, whales, dolphins, etc. So, if two humans get together, the only logical outcome, is that their offspring will be a human, NOT a clump of cells.
| -1 |
the deliberate destruction of a human embryo or fetus in the womb
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
con
|
con
|
Response Point 1: Correct. People should not have pregnancies that they do not plan to have or keep (intended or uninteded pregnancy). But this unfortunate fact will never be suppressed (meaning that millions of people per year will continue to have sex that may result in an unintended pregnancy). Thus, abortion is still necessary. Response Point 2: Exactly. Thank you for proving my point that if abortion was made illegal, than women are going to get abortions anyhow, and a lot of women have them homemade (to use your term), and most of those are unsafe. Response Point 3: There is no right to live. Being able to live is a privilege provided by God. But to not go off on a tangent, I would like for you to state me the passage that either says those words verbatim (preferably), or something of the same effect. Response Point 4: I will cover post-abortion stress in one of my attack points. Response Point 5: Do you really believe Lordknukle? He has some extremely weird beliefs. Response Point 6: Most women who abort are poor. If the baby was born into this surrounding, the baby would be most likely poor his or her whole childhood, and most likely, the rest of his or her life, and these surroundings greatly increase the chance that he or she commits one murder or is murdered. The child would be better off not being born. I would not want to live in or experience those types of surroundings. Would you? Response Point 7: The matter of when a fetus is of one's own opinion. Some say when the fetus's heart first beats, or when the fetus can start breathing, or at conception, or when a fetus can feel pain, or when a fetus can survive on it's own, or at birth. There is no strong, solid evidence of when a baby is born, and most of the accepted alive dates (like when a fetus can survive on it's own, or when the fetus can feel pain) have no set date, but are still a matter of scientific study not proven yet. You cannot prove that a fetus is alive when it's heart first beats. Response Point 8: Most of these famous people did not live in poor surroundings, or where abortion was a major opinion for the child's mother (I am not saying that all famous people do not fit this category because some do). Attack Point 1: "In 1964, 28-year-old Geraldine Santoro bled to death on the floor of a Connecticut hotel room after she and her former lover, Clyde Dixon, attempted an abortion on their own. Dixon, who had no medical experience of any kind, used a textbook and some borrowed tools. When things went terribly wrong, he fled the scene, and Santoro died alone": http://socialistworker.org.... This quote alone sums up what it was like for the thousands of women who died at the hands of untrained specialists. Attack Point 2: Six months after abortion was legalized in Guyana in 1995, admissions for septic and incomplete abortion dropped by 41%. Previously, septic abortion had been the third largest, and incomplete abortion the eighth largest, cause of admissions to the country's public hospitals. One year after Romania legalized abortion in 1990, its abortion-related mortality rate fell from 142 to 47 deaths per 100,000 live births. These are examples of the positive impact legalizing abortion has on women's health.": http://www.ourbodiesourselves.org.... Attack Point 3: "Forty-two percent of women obtaining abortions have incomes below 100% of the federal poverty level ($10,830 for a single woman with no children)" "Twenty-seven percent of women obtaining abortions have incomes between 100–199% of the federal poverty level": http://www.guttmacher.org.... Do you think the babies that were aborted by these 69% of women who are single, and make a yearly income of less then $21,660 would have had a very good life? Do you think they would ever have a chance? Say those 69% of women were not able to abort. Those children grew up in terrible surroundings surrounded by violence, murder, want, and laziness. I am sure a lot of those children would grow up to become theives and even murderers. And I am sure a lot of those would end up in jail. These children would be better off not being born. Attack Point 4: "The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that in 1972 alone, 130,000 women obtained illegal or self-induced procedures, 39 of whom died.":http://www.guttmacher.org.... This means that at least 260,000 people broke the law by having an illegal abortion. That number only takes into account the woman and the doctor. There could be more the 2 involced in one abortion. The prohibition of abortion will again cause 130,000+ crimes. And they need solving. Police are already having a hard time controlling crime. Adding 130,000+ crimes with at least 260,000 people involved will make the police department a mess. Attack Point 5: "In 1967, England liberalized its abortion law to permit any woman to have an abortion with the written consent of two physicians. More than 600 American women made the trip to the United Kingdom during the last three months of 1969 alone" "The year before the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade, just over 100,000 women left their own state to obtain a legal abortion in New York City": http://www.guttmacher.org.... This means that is abortion is made illegal, then thousands of women will travel to a foreign country that legalizes abortion. In other words, they will bypass the law. Attack Point 6: This is the connection between abortion and mental illness I promised. http://www.msnbc.msn.com...... http://www.guardian.co.uk....... This source claims that the unwanted pregnancy is the cause of mental illness, not the abortion itself. http://feministing.com....... This source cites at least three studies denying the claim. I know you stated the connection of post abortion stress. Here is a quote that I think may sum this part of the argument up in my favor: "This review identified several factors that are predictive of more negative psychological responses following first-trimester abortion among women in the United States. Those factors included:Perceptions of stigma, need for secrecy, and low or anticipated social support for the abortion decision; A prior history of mental health problems; Personality factors such as low self-esteem and use of avoidance and denial coping strategies; and Characteristics of the particular pregnancy, including the extent to which the woman wanted and felt committed to it.":http://www.apa.org...... So the abortion did not cause the mental illness, rather, it was the unwanted pregnancy. If the woman was made to stay with the pregnancy, then there would be even worse post-pregnancy stress. Get the connection? Attack Point 7: In February 2003, the US National Cancer Institute (NCI) held a workshop of more than 100 of the world's leading experts who study pregnancy and breast cancer risk. The experts reviewed human and animal studies that looked at the link between pregnancy and breast cancer risk, including studies of induced and spontaneous abortions. Some of their findings were: • Breast cancer risk is increased for a short time after a full-term pregnancy (that is, a pregnancy that results in the birth of a living child). • Induced abortion is not linked to an increase in breast cancer risk. • Spontaneous abortion is not linked to an increase in breast cancer risk. The level of scientific evidence for these findings was considered to be "well established" (the highest level): http://www.cancer.org....... This conclusion again states that if the woman was made to stay with the pregnancy (or not allow her to abort), than the women is at an increased chance for breast cancer. Another point is the if you prohibit abortion, you would have to prohibit pregnancy before that because the pregnancy itself causes mental illness and breast cancer. ==OFR== I have essentially crushed the pro-Life argument.
| 1 |
the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy usually resulting in the death of the embryo or fetus
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
yes
|
neutral
|
con
|
It seems my opponent believes that presenting made up statistics is somehow a rebuttal to the truth. I will explain... In response to my claim that 1.2 million more unwanted children will be born per year (an estimate based on the amount of legal abortions reported in 2007 in the US) he claims these extra births would somehow be a boon to the economy. He cites his own "quick and easy 'facts'" as his rebuttal. I will refute each of these "quick and easy facts" one by one. "if we were too Illegalize abortion you will find that their is MORE taxpayers" -Babies don't pay taxes. "MORE people to buy products in the U.S" -Babies don't buy anything. "MORE people in the work force and AND more people to enlist in the military" -Babies can't work, and though some may consider 17 year olds their "baby", babies can't enlist in the military. "In fact Abortions actually hurt the United States economy in the state of Illinois alone it costs the tax payers $1 million each year." -Though I would like to see that measly estimate ($1 million is not a lot of money when considering the alternatives; I will explain), because Illinois was mentioned, let's do a quick study on Illinois... -Most children placed by DCFS (Department of Children and Family Services) were from homes so abusive or neglectful that it would be unsafe for them to return. -Illinois spends an annual $14,871,200 in the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services Foster Homes/Specialized Foster Care and Prevention line -$8,100,000 for DCFS funding of personal services to prevent the layoff of frontline staff (http://childcareillinois.wordpress.com...) -In 2007 there were 111,742 reports of child abuse and neglect in the state of Illinois -In 2003 there were 25,344 substantiated cases of child abuse and neglect, more than 4,000 children removed from their homes, and 58 confirmed child deaths due to abuse.(http://www.fightcrime.org...) I know I provided more information than necessary to refute my opponent's claims, but this information is relevant when considering foster care and adoption as a viable alternative to abortion. The truth is many children are abused in foster care, and many homeless in America come from the foster care system. -20,000 youth "age out" or emancipate from foster care each year. -Up to 50% of former foster/probation youth become homeless within the first 18 months of emancipation. -Twenty seven percent (27%) of the homeless population spent time in foster care. -Fifty-eight percent (58%) of all young adults accessing federally funded youth shelters in 1997 had previously been in foster care. -Less than half of former foster youth are employed 2.5-4 years after leaving foster care, and only 38% have maintained employment for at least one year. -Youth in foster care are 44% less likely to graduate from high school and after emancipation, 40 – 50 percent never complete high school. -Girls in foster care are six times more likely to give birth before the age of 21 than the general population. -Sixty percent (60%) of women who emancipate from foster care become parents within 2.5-4 years after exiting care. -Parents with a history of foster care are almost twice as likely as parents with no such history to see their own children placed in foster care or become homeless. (http://fosterculture.wordpress.com...) Now, these statistics not only refute my opponent's claims, but they support my claim that illegalizing abortion is more likely to have a negative impact on our economy than my opponent's alternative claim. My opponent admits that I am right about the burden illegalizing abortion would be on the adoption industry. He then claims that the system will "correct itself", and the result will be a boon to the economy. The statistics I provided above suggest otherwise. In fact the statistics imply there would be a vicious circle of children in foster care, homelessness, and even crime (http://www.fightcrime.org...). My opponent claims that the right to life is more important to a child who is, as I suggested, doomed to live in these institutions. -7.6% vs 3.1% adoptees vs. non-adoptees are likely to attempt suicide -16.9% vs 8.2% adoptees vs. non-adoptess were likely to have received psychological and/or emotional counseling -Attempted suicide is more common among adolescents who live with adoptive parents than among adolescents who live with biological parents (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org...) I believe many of those who have actually suffered through living in these institutions would disagree with my opponent. My opponent claims that "only" 1% of abortions in the US are a result of rape and/or incest. Even so, he does not argue that rape and incest should be an exception, rather that a baby acting as a cancer should be the ONLY exception. Acknowledgment of 1 single abortion performed due to rape and/or incest is justification that that abortion should be allowed. He does not make this argument. Instead he says that "loved ones whom they trust" would provide psychiatric support, as well as therapists. What if a girl was raped by a family member (incest), or even her own father? My opponent does not address this. My opponent says he does not see how illegalizing abortion would affect the psychiatric needs of these women and girls. Well, most health insurance does not cover mental health. Mental health already costs the US $150 billion annually. (http://www.apa.org...) My opponent claims that he would rather be born than aborted as the result of rape or incest. I argue that my opponent cannot possibly fathom the mental effects these children suffer, and given the suicide statistics for adoption quoted above, the suicide rates related to depression, and the depression that would occur when finding out you are the child of a rapist, or that your mother is also your sister- I am sure none of us, unless we have suffered through this, can possibly say it is better to be born. My opponent admits illegal abortion rates would go up, and then expects us all to assume (without reason) that the rates will eventually go down. The statistics state otherwise- abortion rates are similar worldwide whether legal or illegal (http://www.iht.com...), and illegalization is not a deterrent from the world's most prevalent medical procedure. The difference is the mortality and injury rates of the women having illegal abortions performed, versus legal abortions (http://www.womensenews.org...). My opponent claims that abortion is an infringement upon the unborn's "right to life". I have addressed this in my first round argument- it is not for the law to determine when life begins, and when a "person" has the right to live, rather it is for medicine and science to decide. According to medicine, an embryo is not a developed human being (references in R1). Asking whether or not we would have wanted to be aborted does not matter because 1 out of 3 of our mothers have had or will have an abortion by age 45 (http://www.ourbodiesourselves.org...). The question is spiritual, and not scientific- at which point does the human soul enter the human body. Would I have been me had I been born rather than have previously been aborted? I would argue yes- I would still be me whether I was aborted during the conception in which I was actually born and born later, or if I had been born previously. How many millions more of us are lost when our fathers masturbate, or when our mothers perform oral sex? I see no difference in this line of questioning. Thank you.
| 1 |
the act of intentionally causing the death of a fetus
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
yes
|
no
|
neutral
|
con
|
This has been repeated a million times but I'm going to say it again because it must act as the foundation of this debate. Abortion is not murder, especially when it is performed before the fetus has developed into a human being. When an abortion is performed, no baby is killed or murdered. Think of it as destroying the seed before it becomes a plant. Performing an abortion is by definition not committing murder. With this fact as a base or foundation, throughout the next few rounds I will argue that abortion does not demean the value of human life, but protects it -- using facts and rational arguments. I will also argue that mother"s, being the carrier of the fetus, have the right and responsibility to decide and weigh the advantages and disadvantages of bringing a human being into the world. Let me ask you. How is it better to have the child and allow it to lead a poor and neglected life, rather than never existing in the first place? If you value life, and the sanctity of living, then you will accept abortion. You don"t have to practice it, advocate for it, understand it, or even respect it. But if you respect life, then you will accept abortion and allow other women to have abortions. Thank you, I look forward to your response.
| 1 |
the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy -- usually before the fetus attains viability
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
A woman has the right to choose what she wants to do with her body. Therefore, abortion is accepted. Rules: No new arguments in R4. If you forfeit a round you automatically lose.
| 1 |
the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy especially before the 6th month
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
I will accept the con side of this debate. Abortion is the taking of an innocent life that is growing and maturing inside the body of another human being. If abortion is right, as pro has clearly stated, then what type of morality are we judging the set of guidelines on? I could argue that life begins at conception, but I'll leave that alone for now and just base my arguments on facts. Fact #1) Heartbeats are detected as early as 4 weeks. Fact #2) Brain activity begins as early as 8 weeks. Fact #3) When a crime such as murder is committed against a pregnant woman in the United States, the individual committing the crime will be charged with multiple murders, not one.
| -1 |
the deliberate and intentional destruction of the life of an unborn child
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
con
|
con
|
My opponent has not refuted any of my arguments and has only made unsupported claims that he did not effeciently defend or provide evidence for and he has not given me an answer to any of the questions I asked him. I therefore extend all of my arguments from the last round as they all went untouched. To provide some form of content for this round: "Everyone has rights."Including the mother, so why do you think her rights should be broken for the rights of something that is not born?"If you want to abort someone, then go ahead."This is completly against your pole: should I read that as a consession? "Kill something that was supposed to life." Can you prove that statement? It is not a human any more than your sex-cells are humans. The act of abortion is just as immoral as using birth control. Are you going to defend that those should be illegal? Birth control prevents the would-be fetus to be born and thus kills something that was supposed to live. Why should bc be legal if abortion isn't? are you proposing that the only valid sexual intercourse should be for reproduction?Abortion protects the life of the mother. the reasoning "Don't because it kills something that has no self-awareness!" is not going to hold valid."Again, morally abortion is wrong. "How so is it morally worse than forcing the child upon an unwilling mother? My opponent cannot ignore this point and must answer it, along with all others, in the next and final round.
| 1 |
the termination of a pregnancy after, with, or just before birth
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
"But a fetus isn't a fetus until 8 weeks into the pregnancy." You apparently are not well-versed in human reproduction. The Zygote exists for only four days, then turns into a blastocyst on the fifth day. "Day 1: Conception: Of the 200,000,000 sperm that try to penetrate the mother's egg cell, only one succeeds.2 At that very moment, a new and unique individual is formed. All of the inherited features of this new person are already set – whether it's a boy or girl, the color of the eyes, the color of the hair, the dimples of the cheeks and the cleft of the chin. He or she is smaller than a grain of sugar, but the instructions are present for all that this person will ever become. The first cell soon divides in two. Each of these new cells divides again and again as they travel toward the womb in search of a protected place to grow.3 Day 6-14:The new individual at first attaches loosely to the wall of the womb, then burrows deeply and attaches securely to it over the next week. Sensitive pregnancy tests can now show positive, but this depends on the level of hormone produced by the new life. By the end of the second week, the mother's menstrual period is suppressed by this hormone (hCG) which is produced by her child.4 Day 17:Blood vessels begin to form.4 Remarkably, the future sex cells that will give rise to sperm or eggs for a new generation begin to group together - only 17 days after this new life is alive itself.5 Day 18-20:The foundations of the brain, spinal cord, and nervous system are laid.6 Day 21:The heart begins to beat,7 unsurely at first, gaining strength day by day. The heart beats 70 times per minute at first, reaching a maximum of 170-190 at seven weeks, and slowing a bit to 160-180 at 9 weeks.8 A day later the eyes begin to develop. The earliest stages of the ears are now present.9 Day 26-27:The lungs now begin to form.10 Day 28-32:Two tiny arms make their appearance and budding legs follow two days later.11 The beginnings of the mouth take shape.12 The nose starts to develop.13 The thyroid gland begins to grow. Blood flows in the baby's veins but stays separate from the mother's blood. The tongue now begins to form. The face now makes its first appearance.14 Day 36:The baby's eyes develop their first color in the retina (see photo above, right).15 Day 40:The baby makes her first reflex movements. Touching around the mouth with a fine bristle causes her to flex her neck.16 Day 41:The fingers begin to form, followed by the toes a few days later.17 Day 42:The baby develops nerve connections that will lead to a sense of smell. The brain is now divided into 3 parts – one to experience emotion and understand language, one for hearing and one for seeing. 18 Joints begin to form.19 Mother now misses second period. Day 44:Buds of milk teeth appear. Facial muscles develop.20 Eyelids begin to form, protecting the developing eyes.21 Elbows take shape. Internal organs are present, but immature. 99% of muscles are present; each with its own nerve supply.22 Electrical activity is detectable in brain.23 Day 52:Spontaneous movement begins. The baby then develops a whole collection of moves over the next 4 weeks including hiccupping, frowning, squinting, furrowing the brow, pursing the lips, moving individual arms and legs, head turning, touching the face, breathing (without air), stretching, opening the mouth, yawning, and sucking.24 8 Weeks:The baby is now well-proportioned, and about the size of a thumb. Every organ is present. The liver is making blood, the kidneys function, and the heart beats steadily. The skull, elbows, and knees are forming. Of the 4500 structures in the adult body, 4000 are already present.25 The skeleton of the arms and legs and the spine begins to stiffen as bone cells are added." Is it right to kill it? http://abortionfacts.com...
| -1 |
the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy not resulting in a live birth
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
I agree that it is wrong to take another person's life. That is murder, And absolutely reprehensible. Where you and I evidently differ is whether or not a foetus is a person. Both the Oxford and Merriam-Webster dictionaries define person as an individual human being, Or a human with reference to individuality. On the definition of individual, They differ slightly, But the consensus is that individual means a distinctly separate entity, With defining characteristics. It is my belief that, Beyond genes (which it shares partly with either parent anyway), A foetus has no defining characteristics. No individuality. For example, I have friends. Likes. Dislikes. Relationships. Aspirations. Worries. Things that make me me. A foetus has none of these things. P. S. I find it hypocritical to be pro-life and pro death penalty, Because of these definitions. P. P. S. I don't like abortion. I just don't think it's murder or that it should be illegal. You'll find the vast majority of pro-choice people share these views. We aren't pro-abortion.
| 1 |
the act of terminating a pregnancy before it has progressed beyond a certain number of weeks
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
How is abortion not murder. It is wrong to things like this. I understand that if a mother does not want to have a baby, but maybe they will learn something. Thank you for this argument. You were good.
| -1 |
the deliberate and intentional destruction of a human fetus during pregnancy
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
con
|
Life: The condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter. It took me 5 seconds to find this explanation of life. Why would it take Con 2 hours to write the same. What Con differentiates between, is the value they are prepared to attribute to the lives of different species. and not life itself. This is simply a human centred, selfish disregard for all other species. Life is a singular almost magical property that is present and equal in all species. The questions are. Does life have real value. Is life merely a quirk of evolution Does life have any significance beyond it's Earth bound home. The honest answer to these questions is, we do not know. All we have is theories and theories are guess work. Keystone species: Another and completely different debate really. But I would assert that in proffering this argument,Con exacerbates their misunderstanding and consequent double standards with regard to the value of life. Addendum response: Con's response to this quite simple question is confused to say the least. Either they accept that the taking of human life is justifiable or they do not. They say yes, but then wish to pick and choose which lives they take. Once again, double standards. Which clearly suggests that Con's arguments are based on emotive thought and not logical thought. From a logical and realistic debating standpoint, I would assert that the life contained within an embryo or fetus has exactly the same value as the life contained within a terrorist bomber. Society makes rational collective decisions, that justify the taking of life, whether it be the life of a terrorist or the life of an embryo or undeveloped fetus. Not everyone will agree with those decisions, but accepting those decisions is the price we have to pay to be able to live in a relatively safe and stable society. One day our respective nations may decide to legislate against abortion and I for one will whole heartedly support that decision.
| 1 |
the act of deliberately causing an unborn child to die in the womb
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
yes
|
no
|
con
|
con
|
abor�tion 1: the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: as a: spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation — compare miscarriage b: induced expulsion of a human fetus c: expulsion of a fetus by a domestic animal often due to infection at any time before completion of pregnancy (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Abortion cannot be defined as murder, as it doesn't always involve the induced death of an embryo or fetus. Embryo: The organism in the early stages of growth and differentiation from fertilization to, in humans, the beginning of the third month of pregnancy. After that point in time, it is termed a fetus. (http://www.medterms.com...) 1.a. An organism in its early stages of development, especially before it has reached a distinctively recognizable form. b. An organism at any time before full development, birth, or hatching. 2.a. The fertilized egg of a vertebrate animal following cleavage. b. In humans, the prefetal product of conception from implantation through the eighth week of development. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...) Murder: 1: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) In order for my opponent's first statement to be valid: "Abortion is murder and it should be illegal.", abortion would have to first be illegal, and murder would have to be redefined in the US Code as the taking of human life including at the earliest stages of development. Abortion is a medical procedure, and should only be defined by medical doctors. In modern American history, the Christian Right has attempted to sequester this medical procedure and redefine it according to their own morals with complete disregard for the consequences of illegalizing abortion, the toll it will have on adoption rates in the US which are already dismal, and the social consequences of perpetuating a rise in illegal abortions. My opponent claims that an alternative for abortion is adoption. There are perpetually about 500,000 kids in foster care each year. With all the movement in and out of foster care, there is a constant 130,000 children awaiting adoption. In total, in 2007, 783,000 children were in the foster care system at some point. Only about 50,000 American children are adopted every year (http://www.acf.hhs.gov...). Abortion is currently LEGAL. In 2005, 1.21 million abortions were performed, down from 1.31 million in 2000. From 1973 through 2005, more than 45 million legal abortions occurred. What would my opponent propose happen with this rise in unwanted children if already there are only 50,000 adoptions per year in the US? An extra 1.2 million children born per year would be disastrous to our economy, our orphanages, and the children doomed to live their lives in these institutions. (http://www.guttmacher.org...). My opponent states that the "only reason why there should be an abortion is in case the baby is acting as a cancer and its killing the mother". I refute that my opponent can make this claim because he cannot get into the heads of millions of women who have had, and do have abortions and discern for them whether or not they had a good reason to have an abortion. Even lacking this argument, my opponent ignores the conditions of rape and incest. Who will father these children? Will he? Who will provide psychiatric support for these women- too often children themselves- who have been violated and impregnated by disgusting criminals? Who will provide the psychiatric support for the children themselves when they are born? My opponent ignores several issues related to illegalizing abortion, besides the ones I have mentioned above. Illegalizing abortion would not lower abortion rates, rather it will raise illegal abortion rates, and the mortality rates associated with abortion. In 1972, a year before abortion became legal, there were a reported 130,000 illegal abortions. From 1975-1979 there were 11,300 illegal abortions reported. (http://findarticles.com...) Repealing Roe v. Wade (one of the steps required to illegalize abortion) would most likely result in a rise in illegal abortions. Now, rather than opposing the right of a woman and her doctor to choose what she should do medically with her own body, we should be advocating education of controceptive use, education in alternatives to abortion, laws that would ease adoption rather than make it more difficult (like the recent Arkansas Unmarried Couple adoption ban, http://ballotpedia.org...(2008), and help for single mothers and families living in poverty. It is this work that helps reduce the number of annual abortions, and reducing the number of annual abortions should be everyone's goal rather than attacking the rights of a woman, and a medical procedure while not being medically qualified to judge what is and isn't good for the human body, what defines human life, and what is or isn't ethical/unethical in medicine. Thank you.
| 1 |
the termination of pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely associated with the death of the embryo, forming an early stage in the development of an organism
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
yes
|
neutral
|
con
|
Response Point 1: I don't think that the voters are going to find this a very reliable refutation. If nothing in the world can happen without God's approval, than I guess God changed is mind in 1973 for Roe vs. Wade, and is beginning to question that. Abortions happen everyday. Your statement is completely illogical. Response Point 2: What is your point with this point? Is there any argument here? Response Point 3: First of all, abortion is NOT illegal by law. Let's clear that up. And secondly, the "rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" were not aimed at babies, and the "right of life" was not aimed at babies either. This was talking about the individual person to make his own decision however he saw fit. So if she wants to have an abortion, that is here choice. Response Point 4: Sorry to break it do you, but quoting another debater who dosen't even have prove should not be a proof to your argument. That is not a proof at all. Response Point 5: I was going to use this in one of my next attack points, but oh well. ""A number of studies have looked at cases of women living in jurisdictions in which governmental approval to have an abortion was required, who sought to have an abortion, but were denied the ability to do so (Dagg, 1991; David, Dytrych, Matejcek and Schuller, 1988). For example, Dagg (1991) reports that these women overwhelmingly kept their babies, rather than giving them up for adoption, but that they often resented the unwanted children. These children who were born because their mothers were denied an abortion were substantially more likely to be involved in crime, even when controlling for the income, age, education and health of the mother.": http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu....... What I am trying to say is that after the women have the baby, the hormones racing in her do not allow her to give the baby up. She does not want to do it. Response Point 6: This does not prove that the baby is alive at any particular point. You could go on to say that atoms are alive because they struggle to form chemical compounds. Saying something like that does not leave any boundaries toward further advancement to the argument. Response Point 7: I wish you would provide quotes from this article like I do. Refer to my point 5. Response Point 8: There is nothing that has either upheld, nor proved that abortion should be illegal. One, since abortion is still legal, than the notion that the prohibition of abortion has been unheld is just wrong, and two, abortion is not and can not be proven illegal since it is legal. Here, you seem to think that abortion is illegal. I want you to look up Roe vs. Wade, than look up the court case that overturned Roe vs. Wade, and made a sweeping law prohibting abortion across the United States. Response Point 9: I don't think you understood the purpose of that argument. Let me sum it up for you. If abortion is made illegal, than some women are still going to seek abortions, but this time, underground abortions by untrained specialists. This means a higher number of deaths from abortion. If abortion is made illegal, it will not stop abortion. Thus, you have a serious problem. Response Point 10: What? Your point was not a rebuttal. I have provided proof for my argument that you are wrong. Response Point 11: Look at my response pont 5. You must provide a differnet rebuttal. I extend my arguments here from the last round into this round. Response Point 12: What? That is not even a refutation. Response Point 13: Most women do not feel guilt after an abortion. If they do, sources please. Response Point 14: I am not saying that all women that get pregnant are going to get breast cancer. What I am trying to say is that a higher PERCENTAGE of women who have a pregnancy have breast cancer than those who have an abortion. Since you have not provided a rebuttal, I extend my arguments here from the last round into this round. Attack Point 1: This one's a killer. One of the four major factors that decreased crime in the 1990s was abortion: http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu....... "The underlying theory rests on two premises: 1) unwanted children are at greater risk for crime, and 2) legalized abortion leads to a reduction in the number of unwanted births." :http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu...... "These children who were born because their mothers were denied a nabortion were substantially more likely to be involved in crime, even when controlling for the income, age, education and health of the mother.":http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu....... "For instance, homicide fell 25.9 percent in high-abortion states between 1985 and 1997 compared to an INCREASE of 4.1 percent in low-abortion states. Panel data estimates confiŽrm the strong negative relationship between lagged abortion and crime. An analysis of arrest rates by age reveal that only arrests of those born after abortion legalization are affected by the law change.":http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu....... There are so many great passages on this website to list all here. To have a better understanding of what this article is saying, read the article from the bottom of page 19 to the top of page 21. Also, look at the graphs throughout the article. Here is the article again: http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu....... And no, I can not prove the prohibiting abortion would just increase crime and poverty in the United States, but I can prove the legalizing abortion has decreased crime. Attack Point 2: Here is some simple logic. "Say abortion is still illegal. Then the 1 million babies aborted each year would raise the unemployment rate tremendously (based on Guttermacher estimates on abortion, unemployment would be between 15-20%). More babies from the 1980s now=a higher unemployment and povery rate." And more simple logic. "Say abortion is still illegal. Than the 56 million babies that would have survived may pay more taxes, but since over 90% are in the bottom 47% of the population (money wise), they don't pay any taxes (Look it up if you doubt me about the 47% not paying taxes). Also, they are sucking up Government Welfare money. So they would increase the Government Debt, not decrease".
| 1 |
the act of terminating a pregnancy prematurely
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Hello, I hold the null hypothesis when it comes to the issue of abortion.
| 1 |
the act of terminating a pregnancy after the fetus has developed enough to live outside the womb
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
con
|
Thanks amby, for offering up this debate. this would not be the first time i have debated abortion, and i find it a rather itchy topic. Nonetheless it should be interesting. ccount, FREEDOM- First if your going argue freedom, you must look at all sides of the equation. There obviously is a reason why this topic is so overtly hated. If your going to argue freedom, you should first takes all accounts of freedom into account, such as the baby. the baby who has not even had a chance at life, and is being refused to ever have a chance at life.. This is not freedom in any way. It was the mothers own fault to decide to go out and get pregnant with out protection. Not very responsible. Now she is left with the only option of filling out her responsibility, by carrying out the child. she destroys a whole life because she wants a few moments of pleasure. I find this very selfish on the mothers part. RAPE- O.K. So the mother got raped. She doesn't want to take responsibility of the child . Then dont! give the child up for adoption or close family member. Carry out through the pain and emoitional turmoil, to be humane. Yes, it was not fair and you didn't choose this decision, But don't act out of selfishness. Is it easier to murder a potential life, then to just Wait out the nine long hard months. You have to ask yourself if your ethics are correct if you negate that. Would you, Could you, risk a little bit of pain, to save a life?I know it wasn't the mother fault that she is pregnant. Its not fair to her that she has to go through this. It's not fair for anyone. But is it fair for the child either? To not let that child live because of his/her fathers wrong doing? Its just as unfair to the child as it is to the mother.She doesn't need to keep it. How could you look in to the eyes of you attacker everyday? But that shouldn't suggest that someone else can't care for the child. Thanks for this debate amber. ill be waiting for your rebuttal
| -1 |
the act of terminating a pregnancy as a means of family planning
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
I believe that abortion should be illegal except for when the pregnancy poses a serious threat to the life of the mother. Abortion, despite how it may seem, is not a complicated issue. Either the fetus is alive, and thus is a human life. or it isn't. there are a number of moral arguments to the debate. the first moral argument is that scientifically the human fetus meets the criterion to be considered alive from conception (1)" Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity." As we can see, the fetus is genetically human and meets every criterion to be considered alive. now that we have established that the human life begins at conception I may be faced with the argument from many in favor of abortion that though the organism forming in the womb is alive (if they don't fully reject the known science thus committing fallacy) that it is not a person. this leads me to moral argument number two which is: even if you don't consider the humanity of the organism in the womb, there are plenty of things that exist that are A. not persons. and B. has rights and intrinsic value, for example, dogs or other domesticated animals. To state that simply because you don't consider the human fetus (which is what I shall be referring to the developing child as hereinafter.) to be a person, does not mean that it does not have rights and value. Furthermore, even if you deny the humanity of the fetus, you are still dealing with a potential human life which should be held in higher moral regard than the convenience of the mother or father. Another argument that many of those on the pro-choice side of the argument is that women have the human right to control their bodies. And I am in complete agreement. When it is your body that you are doing something to then you should have every right to do so insofar as it's not self-harm. However, the human fetus is not your body. It is IN your body. as I stated in my first card in the scientific portion of my argument, the human fetus has a separate genetic identity with the restoration of the diploid number of chromosomes. therefore, the human fetus is not a part of the mother's body any more than the child would be after (s)he was born. I hold that the time to control your body would have been before conception IE: using birth control or not having sexual intercourse. one thing that society appears to have forgotten, is that sex is not for pleasure. it is the biological process through which most species ensure the continuation of their species through reproduction (2). if you choose to partake in an action the purpose of which is to reproduce. (thus controlling your body.) then you accept the risk of conception. Moral argument number 3. does the fetus have any rights, any intrinsic value, and any right to live. well, the collective opinion of society is that the fetus has essentially infinite right to live. when? if and only if the mother decides to keep the child. if she does, society and its laws, regard the fetus with infinite worth and considers it so valuable, that if someone were to kill that child they would be prosecuted for homicide. keeping in mind that the definition of homicide is: the deliberate and unlawful killing of one person by another (3). we can, therefore, see that if the mother decides to keep her child then the law recognizes it as a person. if she doesn't, the fetus is considered worthless with essentially no right to live. now, does that make sense? it doesn't seem to. either the fetus has worth, or it doesn't. on what moral grounds does the mother alone have the right to decide the fetus' worth? most people would consider killing the baby once it exits the womb as murder. however, the deliberate killing of the fetus a mere two months before is no more morally problematic than extracting a tooth. and finally, we need to recognize that there are instances when an abortion simply cannot be considered moral. take for example if the mother or father aborts a child because they prefer boys to girls. as has happened millions of times in China and elsewhere. or any other form of bias or preference of the mother or father simply cannot offer moral grounds for the termination of the human life. I look forward to a rational and well thought out debate and wish my opponent the best of luck. I eagerly await your response. (1) https://www.princeton.edu............... (2) www.biology-online.org (3)www.dictionary.com
| -1 |
the act of terminating a pregnancy
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
To claim that a fetus in the first trimester can survive long term, or even short term without its mother body and live a healthy life is a blatant lie. Maybe it can survive for a couple of days, but that's hardly a healthy life. Argument debunked. Prostitution should be legal as well. Just because the USA has archaic laws regarding prostitution doesn't mean we should also have archaic laws regarding abortion. We aren't arguing what the laws are; we are arguing what they should be. If we were, then you'd lose the abortion debate since it's legal. Argument debunked. I never claimed a child in the womb was less important than a kidney. That shows a lack of reading comprehension. I claimed that a woman is not obligated to use her body to save anyone's life, whether it be her fetus or to give someone else a kidney. Argument debunked. I never claimed a fetus wasn't important; I merely claimed that a woman's right to choose what to do with her body was MORE important. Argument debunked. Now, have you considered the cost of not letting anyone have an abortion? There are already 100 THOUSAND orphans in the USA, and that is with LEGAL abortion. https://showhope.org... If abortion were illegal, that number could easily be 1 million. Here are some questions for you: Who is going to take care of those children? Who is going to pay for it? Do you think that this will have a negative effect on the 100 thousand children waiting to be adopted, or do you not care about them? Do you know how traumatic it is to live a life where you know you weren't wanted? How do you think that is going to turn out? What about the mother who was forced to have a baby she didn't want? Did you ever consider the consequences of that?
| 1 |
the deliberate and often violent termination of a human pregnancy -- especially in the first eight months
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
con
|
con
|
They are not simply murdering their baby, they are reliving the baby from coming into a world that the mother knows wont go good for the baby because the mother is still struggling in life and will not be able to provide the baby with all its necessities. Babies are expensive, and not having any education or a job will decrease ones chances of being able to survive the land of all the high bills. I understand their is adoption, yet some mothers do not view another family taking care of the child they could not care for. The women that is soon to be mother might have gotten raped and decided that the baby would be better off in gods hands. A baby is no fool, yet it would not be fair for it to come into a world that it cannot be cared for in. Many abortions have been taken into account and our species is not dying off any time soon.
| 1 |
a deliberate termination of a pregnancy
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
"The greatest destroyer of peace is abortion because if a mother can kill her own child, what is left for me to kill you and you to kill me? There is nothing between," says Mother Teresa. Abortion, what does this really mean? The definition of abortion is the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks. About 42 million women in the entire world with unintended pregnancies choose abortion. Abortion is a big controversial topic, people believe abortion should be illegal and others think it should stay legal. Why would someone want to kill an innocent little life? It"s not their fault people made mistakes and now they"re the ones having to pay for it. Abortion should be illegal because abortions are not safe, laws are protecting unborn babies, and fetuses can feel pain. Abortion should have never been legal.
| -1 |
the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy especially in the medical or periodical sense
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Same here, its my first debate on this site too. **I would just like to clarify that I am talking about first trimester abortion, as my views regarding post -fetal abortion are yet to be determined** Firstly, the fact that a placenta and the umbilical cord attach the fetus shows that the fetus cannot exist independent of the mother. We cannot consider the fetus as an individual entity because it cannot live outside the mother"s womb. Additionally, adoption is not an alternative to abortion, and if so, a rather poor one at that. Statistics show that less than three percent of all women who refuse abortion choose to give their child up for adoption. Even if I concede that adoption is an alternative, what kind of life is that for a child? Adoption generally comes with a negative connotation and with good reason. There is no guarantee that the child will have a family, and the child might get tied up in the foster system. Next, you mentioned the child (fetus"s) right to a choice and having a voice in what happens to them. By prohibiting and dismissing abortion you are in turn taking away the mothers choice and her civil right to control her own body. What is next? Forcing women to use contraceptives or undergo sterilization? Not to mention, in cases of teenage pregnancies, without the option of abortion you are taking away the young woman"s future. Furthermore, you say that being put up for adoption and bounced around the system is better than being dead, but the child was never alive to begin with. Statistics that were found on abortion.us show that pregnant women will resort to illegal and unsafe abortions if a legal option is not available. In many cases abortion is the best option, especially in cases of rape and incest where the child is unwanted and having the child can cause severe psychological problems for both the mother and the child. Children born as a result of incest are at risk of being deformed. We are talking about quality of life, and since a mother has the responsibility of bringing a life into the world, she should in turn have the right or option of an abortion. Finally, all women should have the right to choose to have an abortion, and the government or any religious authority should not limit them.
| 1 |
the act of deliberately terminating a human pregnancy
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
I am arguing as for abortion. The reason being is that it is the choice of the woman; and if the man is there, him also; to keep to zygote or not. If they don't then let it be. Another reason is that there might be underlying issues with why the woman wants an abortion; like say if she got raped, or incest. That's why I feel like some one should have the choice to choose if they want to carry the child for nine months, or have the choice to abort it with in the first trimester.
| 1 |
the act of deliberately causing an abortion
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Round 1: Opening statements Round 2: Facts/Argument Round 3: Facts/Argument Round 4: Closing statements I look forward to my oppnents opening statements. Good luck In my opnion, Abortion is wrong. Abortion is basically killing something. It is murder. Which is why it should mot be legalized.
| -1 |
the act of terminating a pregnancy as a form of birth control
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Sorry that my rebuttal took so long, I have been busy Regarding the questions I "avoided" 1) Do you regard all life with an equal measure? No, I do not believe all existing life is equal to our human life. Bacteria are alive, however they are not equal to human life. 2) Do you eat? If so, you are prepared to extinguish the spark of life out of necessity and Impunity. Yes, however this does not correlate with abortion. The only justifiable reason for abortion is the mother not being able to endure giving birth. This is a life and death situation, so is eating. If you don't eat you die, however how is having a child a life and death situation? I do understand a child is a financial burden, but couples can easily avoid pregnancy. I stated that life is intangible, not tangible. Now let's go to my supposed double standards. OUR, as in humans. If you would have taken a minute to analyze the last paragraph you would have realized I'm talking about human life. Social legislation should be guided by rationale and not driven purely by emotion. Yes, many things mostly economic legislations are and should be guided by rationale. However by stating all legislation should purely be rational is utter nonesense. Murder, rape, cannibalism, and etc are prohibited by law in most of the world, especially western countries. However these fundamental laws are moral and emotional, the emotion that bringing in suffering to another human being is wrong. Many of these things were legal, and even endorsed centuries or in some countries decades ago. As morals change, laws change. Why is all life not equal? Have you ever heard of a keystone species, other organisms depend on these organisms, therefore from a logical/moral standpoint these keystone species's life is more valuable than others. Why? Whole ecosystems can crumble if a keystone species is not present or goes extinct. Explain what life is? Life is an organism that presents all 6 characteristics of life. The spark of life in humans is different. https://www.researchgate.net..., browse that page. It states exactly what I wanted to tell you, but couldn't find a way to spend less than 2 hours writing it. Addendum response: Yes and no, in some instances the taking of life is justifiable and in most others not. It is a way too broad question to be able to answer with a yes or a no, as these 2 governments have been doing this for decades.
| -1 |
a deliberate act of killing an unborn child
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
con
|
con
|
I'm assuming the resolution is along the lines of "abortion should generally remain legal" or "abortion is generally moral. " It would help if Pro could clarify this in the comments or in the next round so I know, precisely, what he wants to debate. I also believe that abortions to save the life of the mother are morally justifiable, as long as the child is not viable (in that case, a caesarian section should be done to save both mother and child). So I will be arguing that all other abortions are immoral/should be illegal (depending on which direction Pro wishes to take the debate). I have decided to take the debate with this style, as I'm planning on having my first in-person Lincoln-Douglas style debate in a few months, so this will be good practice. Just a quick addendum to the definition of abortion. Abortion is generally defined as the termination of a woman's pregnancy that results in the death of the embryo/fetus. It's not enough to say it's simply the expulsion of it because in most cases, you are actually killing the embryo/fetus in order to remove it (the only exceptions being taking a pill that prevents the embryo from implanting into the womb). I look forward to our next round, and to Pro's opening argument.
| -1 |
a decision that is made by considering all the relevant factors
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Abortion should never be accepted in any culture, whether religious or not, I fail to see how anyone can be pro killing unborn babies. The issue on preserving the wildlife is more argued for than the issue on saving humans lives and I feel that is the biggest flaw in our country.
| -1 |
the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Abortion is not killing innocent life. Rather, it's letting a woman control her own body. Abortion is accepted because a woman has the right to choose what she wants to do with her body. The fetus needs the body of the mother to survive. If human A needs a part of human B to survive, e.g. a kidney transplant, it is entirely up to human B whether or not he wants to give human A a kidney. Even if human B is dying and his kidneys will rot with him, he decides what to do with his own body. Even if human A's life is at stake and human B's life is already over, with rotting kidney's, it's still human B's right to choose what to do with his dead body. Is this considered murder? No, of course it's not. Is it a little douchey? Perhaps. Is it acceptable? Yes, a person has the right to do whatever he wants with his body. If the fetus can survive on its own, then abortion is more of an up in the air debate. However, if the fetus needs the mother's body (which it does), abortion comes down to the simple principal of a woman has the right to choose what she wants to do with her body. By letting the fetus control a woman's body, you are granting a fetus rights to someone else's body. No one has rights to anyone's body but that person. Period A fetus needs a mother's body to survive. If the mother does not want to let the fetus use her body, it doesn't have to. The fetus is a part of a parasitic relationship; although its body is affected, it's using the body of the mother to survive. Yes, the fetus is alive. Agreed. Fact 1-2 agreed. Fact 3, it's murder because as was stated above, a WOMAN decides what to do with her body, not anyone else. If the woman doesn't abort the fetus, it's murder.
| 1 |
the deliberate destruction of a nonhuman organism especially an embryo or fetus or a germ or fungu
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
con
|
neutral
|
Sorry, this took longer to revise than I thought. Shall we go on?As agreed to legal is defined as something that is allowed and permitted by law. This is important because if something is illegal then there won't be ANY exceptions to that rule, no situations will be fit for an abortion legally. The structure of my argument is three-fold. One will be dealing with the morality of the action itself, the second one will deal with special exceptions to which my opponent has somewhat conceded to and the third one will deal with how far legal actions can go. In order to win the debate my opponent must not only prove that there is no morally acceptable situation in which abortion is the answer but also that the best way to fight abortion is with legal constraints, he must defend ALL RESOLUTION CONDITION that I'll put forth. With that in mind, let us move on to the first section:MORALITYImagine this if you will: You've just finished your higher education and are free, you have perhaps a year to see the world and experience everything you have not already experienced. You want to love, be loved, be care free and enjoy life. This is a rather rational wish, isn't it? What are you going to do if I come along and lock the door and tell you that you are not allowed to go anywhere, that you cannot live your dreams to your fullest and chain you to your house. Would you consider me to be breaking your human rights? Of course I would be. You'd most likely sue me for breaking your freedom of life. You never had a chance to live your dreams. Did I violate your right? Is it morally correct of me to obligate you to abandon your dreams? Of course it isn't. But this is happening every day everywhere and we cannot deny that. But what if the “I” in this story is replaced with an infant. Is it still morally incorrect? Is it still morally correct to force a woman to abandon her life and dreams and force her to birth a child she does not want to have, essentially trying her to her house? No, the scenario in it's core is unchanged. It is her body and legally obligating her to having the child and denying her her right to choose is just as immoral as my first scenario. On what grounds? The rights of the unborn infant?Why is it so that my opponent will argue that the right of a random cluster of cells that have just as much independent life as a small part of your skin has more right than the mother? The cell cluster has no thoughts, it is not self-aware, it cannot think, does not have feelings, does not show signs of sentient life and is in no definition of the word more human than the bacteria in your intestine. Yet my opponent indirectly wishes to argue that it has priority, that it's rights are somehow “more important” than the rights of the mother who does show all signs of intelligent life, human emotions and the ability to be self-aware. What makes her rights so much lesser than the rights of the child? Since we cannot keep the human rights valid for both parents and children my opponent must answer the following question to win: Why is the unborn infant more worthy of human rights than the parent?A child is not a human any more than a blueprint is a house. it has all the potentials to be a house, but it isn't a house. demolishing an already built structure just so the blueprint gets a chance to be a house as well is absurd. Abortion, under con's set of arguments, is just as moral as violating human rights, so which would you rather choose?When is it “ok” to abort? Assuming that abortion becomes illegal in all cases: Will there be no exceptions? My opponent wishes that rape abortion is still legal. On what grounds? Why is that still legal? Is there in fact a difference?Be careful however: because I am going to tell you right now that this is a trick question: for I am going to use whatever you answer against you. There are a minuscule amount of answers that are fitting for rape-pregnancies that are not ALSO compatible with regular pregnancies. So, either my opponent finds a great reason for abortion in case of rape that does not fit at some level with a regular abortion or he falls from his case and fights that all abortions are illegal. This leads us to the first major contradiction in my opponents case. When we're not talking about rape a fetus has potential, it might live a great life, could be given away to an orphanage and has rights that must not be violated, its murder. But when the child is a result of rape, it has no potential? What makes this child right less? It had nothing to do with the rape, it's not it's fault. Why should it be discriminated against when some other fetus has all the rights in the world? Does the history of the father make this child any worse? Is it evil and deserves to die because it has a rapist father? It's the same child, it has the same rights, abortion is not an exception. Any set of logic that my opponent can find to protect or diminish rape infants will also hold for infants that are not a rape result if my opponent cannot defend the “paradox” that a child that is the result of rape has less human rights than any other child, he has lost the debate.But we still have an unaddressed issue: My female friend. See, I have a female friend. She unfortunately isn't perfectly healthy: and should not try and complete a pregnancy since doing so will most likely result in her health worsening or she simply dies from physical trauma. Let's assume she becomes pregnant. Are you to expect it from her to actually carrying trough with her pregnancy and risking her life? If the government forces her to finish it and she dies. The government is now guilty of the murder of a young woman that could have been avoided. Why should she not have an abortion? It is literally the only method for her, the only option that does NOT result in a bad ending. What does my opponent want to do for my friend? Is legal banning a solution?The law is meant to be broken. This isn't something that is generally supported or correct, but it is still so. The harder we press to ban a certain matter the more active it gets. You can look at drug abuse and prostitution to see that. It's still peaking again and again, underground it flows like water and we cannot stop it, we cannot monitor it. Whatever is banned becomes black market material. Abortion is no different. Abortion is LEGAL and still over 700.000 die from ILLEGAL operations[1]. If abortion is banned illegal operations will only increase, will only spiral out of control. When something is legal we have a chance to monitor it, tax it and make sure safety regulations and health conditions are always met to protect the mother for instance. with abortion becoming black we can no longer monitor it, it becomes hidden, unsafe and dangerous. Think clamping the limbs and dragging them out is bad? Sticking a metal coat hanger inside the genitalia of the woman and scraping the child out is much worse and the child STILL dies. We now have a third condition:If my opponent cannot explain how illegal operations can be dealt with in a safe, efficient manner, he has lost the debate.I'll cover adoption in my next round: I just ran out of room for now. I hope you see that abortion is in fact moral when we shift the perspective. The mother is in danger, she might have been raped, her human rights are on the line, she is looking at a nearly $241,080 expense and a lifetime of unwanted commitment. And for what? The rights of a few cells that are not humans in any other sense apart from the potential to become one later on. Because the condom broke, the pill failed, a rape. That is a big fall for a small reason. Choosing between human rights isn't easy, but I hope you all see that the rights of those born should be greater than those that are not born, and are little more than just a blueprint to a house. 1) http://www.genderacrossborders.com......2)http://money.cnn.com...
| 1 |
an act or process of terminating a pregnancy
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
"Not all chicken eggs are unfertilised..." If you were to crack open an unfertilized chicken egg, you would notice. [1] "Furthermore, several living plants have to be killed to obtain food or wood, but no value of life over there eh?" You are incredibly mistaken, the reason we kill these organisms is because their products are very valuable. Vegetables and wood are valuable commodities. Humans, however early in development, are valuable in their own right. "Or what about [the] killing of living chickens and cattle for meat?" I think you will be surprised to know that livestock animals are only bred and kept for the purposes of their products. They do not exist but to feed us. It is basic supply and demand. Without the demand, there is no supply. Without our hunger for meat, these animals would not have been bred. "And not every single proponent of a foetus should count as living. After all, it is not functional during that time period." Really? A foetus does not function? The function of a foetus is to develop his characteristics as to be able to perform the functions of a prenatal being. I think the majority of foetuses perform that function very well. "Animals and plants are just as living as, if not more than a foetus." Of course, but do animals and plants, in their mature, yea, even their developing stages possess even a fraction of the potential for greatness, a fraction of the potential beneficial impact on the world as a foetus? The answer is no. The second an ovum is fertilised by a sperm cell the DNA, what makes us unique, is exchanged between the mother and the father in a mostly random way which creates the first metre of the tapestry of life. You will develop this way. You will have these eyes, this facial structure and other such characteristics. That's definite. If some crazy murderer doesn't come along and pluck you from your developmental chamber before you are ready, you will definitely be this person and there will never be another like you. That is the miracle of human life. The probability of your mother meeting your father is 1 in 20,000, the probability of them reproducing is thereafter 1 in 2000. The probability of the exact sperm and egg meeting after this sexual exchange that would lead to you existing exactly as you do is 1 in 400,000,000,000,000,000. The probability of every one of your ancestors following the aforementioned processed is one in [4x10^17]150,000 W76; 10^2,640,000. The probability of you being born is 10^2,685,000. Again, that is the miracle of human life.[2] "We shouldn't force parents to keep a child they don't want. This will be bad for the child due to ill-treatment from the parents, and will be bad for the parents for the reason they wanted abortion." There are multiple viable alternatives to this, in the first instance: condoms. In later instances, adoption. No one should be killed for the irresponsibility of his parents. "Suppose if we find out that the unborn child has some deformities/ infection, shouldn't we give it a merciful death rather than an impaired, handicapped life?" I think we should give him or her the best life he or she could possibly hope for. I think we should provide the utmost in palliative care. I mean, by your Hitleresque logic, Stephen Hawkins should have been shown mercy and killed as soon as he showed symptoms of motor neurone disease. [1] http://www.poultryhub.org... [2] Second-hand source initially cited by Mel Robbins during her talk at TEDx San Francisco.
| -1 |
the deliberate termination of a pregnancy
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
This debate was suicide for my opponent from the get go. Con wants to argue that abortion is an unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another (murder), and that a decision making abortion more lawful than it already is, should be overturned. mur·der/ˈmərdər/ Noun: The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. Verb: Kill (someone) unlawfully and with premeditation. [1]My opponent's position is incoherent. This is because, if Roe v. Wade exists, then abortion cannot be unlawful (Roe v. Wade enhances the lawfulness of abortion), and therefore it is not murder. On the other hand, if abortion is murder, then Roe v. Wade wouldn't exist, and therefore, it being overturned would be impossible. Vote Pro. Sources[1] . http://oxforddictionaries.com...
| 1 |
a deliberate act that causes the death of an individual of ethnic or national minority
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
con
|
Again, my position on "pro-choice" is that it is not for me, nor a body of government, or a religious group to decide what a woman can or cannot do with her body or what goes on inside of it. It is the choice of the woman, and the woman alone. I also cannot do anything more than speculate on why a woman might say that they had no other choice than abortion, as I am not pregnant, nor a woman. Perhaps some women feel this way because they feel that even if the child is born, there is no chance that that child will live to have a good life; perhaps some women feel this way because their lives would be put in grave danger if they were to continue with their pregnancy; perhaps some women feel this way because their child would be born with a defect that would result in infant mortality. Whatever the reason may be for a woman to feel like there is no other choice, I still don't feel that anyone else should be able to make that choice for them. To clarify my earlier question, I was asking at what point do you consider it a human being? Is it a human being the exact moment of conception, when the sperm meets the egg? Or is it human being when it starts to develop human features? Or is it a human being the moment there is a heartbeat? In other words, at what point along the growth of a fetus, from conception to birth, would you consider it to be a human being?
| 1 |
the termination of a pregnancy after, with the loss of the fetus that has developed outside the uterus
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Rebutting My Opponent"Law does not define terms."Murder is defined as unlawful. Therefore, being unlawful is a necessary condition which needs to be in place, for a murder to take place. "By what you are saying if the government made murder legal then there would be no murder."If the government made killing of any kind was lawful, then murder would not exist."There would still be murder, it just wouldn't be prosecuted. I would like it if you actually argued the issue that is at hand instead of trying to jump on a technicality, in my first sentence. For you I will restate my opening argument."There would not be murder, because it wouldn't be against the law. Murder is defined as unlawful. Here is another definition:"mur·der n. 1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice."[1] "I am arguing that abortion is the immoral killing of another human innocent life. It is not the choice of the mother to decide whether or not the fetus is aborted."This is great, but I accepted the debate on the terms my opponent provided in the first round. For trying to change it mid-debate, I urge a conduct vote for Pro. Regardless, I will still debate with this new argument for fun, but I hope the voters are aware the resolution has already been negated, and an argument vote for Pro is warranted regardless of any further argumentation. "I am sorry for my confusing opening statement but I hope that you will continue a serious debate on my restated argument."When one doesn't make serious opening arguments, how can one expect to get serious responses? It doesn't matter anyway, my response was very serious. Argument In Favor Of Abortion Not Being Immoral P1: Human life gains moral value when when consciousness is obtained, and/ or pain can be feltP2: A first and second trimester fetus is not conscious (about as conscious as a kidney), and can feel no pain.P3: Most abortions (99%) are obtained in the first and second trimester of pregnancyP4: Abortion is not unethical Regarding Premise 1:Human life's value begins when consciousness begins and/or pain can be felt is more than a fair statement. It's only rational to assume that human life's value is based on the actions and feelings of conscious beings. It's also rational to assume that if a being isn't conscious and can feel no pain, then there is nothing immoral which can be done to this being. It is morally dead.Regarding Premise 2: Abortions carried out in the first and second trimester have absolutely no moral implications once so ever, due to the fact that a first trimester embryo is not conscious [2]. Also, first and second trimester embryos can feel absolutely no pain once so ever because pain receptors are required for this. Pain receptors need a neotox which is not formed until the third trimester [2]. Regarding Premise 3Over 88% of all abortions are actually done within the first trimester [3]. Some sources even claim that the number is more around 88-92% [4]. What about second trimester abortions?"About 140,000 second trimester abortions are performed yearly. They represent 9% of the total"So, I think it is safe to say that close to all abortions Regarding Premise 4Since first and second trimester embryos have no consciousness and cannot feel pain, and 99% abortions are carried out in the first and second trimester, then the majority of abortions don't really imply any genuine negative moral implications (and therefore, should not be considered unethical).A Woman Has a Right To Choose A woman has a right to do with her own body as she pleases. Even is she commits suicide after like some women do, that wouldn't mean the woman didn't have the right to do it or it was unethical. What is unethical is restricting someone's right to chose what they want to do with their own body, especially when we are dealing with a subject that isn't even aware it exists and can feel no pain.Since this woman a conscious being and can feel pain, while the subject in question does not meet the requirements, then not letting this woman have the right to chose to have an abortion would be extremely unethical.Conclusion I amused my opponent by rebutting her the argument, but the one I agreed to debate to has been negated clearly without sufficient rebuttal. Sources[1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[2] http://civilliberty.about.com...[3] http://contraception.about.com... [4] http://www.abort73.com...
| 1 |
the deliberate and unlawful killing of a human being
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
con
|
con
|
This issue is not about the potential parent, it is about the child that had no choice in their making. If someone was to have an abortion, I believe that person was making the right decision for themselves but also for there child. If a person has too many doubts about having a child then I do not believe they deserve too; furthermore, I do not believe the child deserves a parent that is not prepared mentally, physically and financially to bring up this child with everything they need. My belief of "Pro-Choice" is because I am an advocate for children because that child does not have a choice.
| 1 |
the deliberate destruction of a nonhuman organism especially an embryo or fetus before it is born
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
yes
|
no
|
neutral
|
con
|
OK so you said I failed to tell you why the fetus/baby is a human and your right but I will now tell you why it is a human being going off of several definitions Human being: a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance. Human being: A member of any of the races of Homo sapiens; person; man, woman, or child You see these do not state the fact that the fetus/baby has to be born yet. It is a child (Human being) a female to start off and then either stays a female or develops male-like features. therefore going back to the murder statement: Murder: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. since we have now established that the fetus/baby is a human being you can now see that this is in fact murder. the fetus/baby (human being) is being sucked out (killing the fetus/baby) by another human being. Although you could say it is Justifiable Homicide (only if the abortion is legal in most cases it is) there is no difference between when abortion was illegal and now when it is legal besides the fact that it is legal. there is a slight difference between murder and Justifiable Homicide. but the thing is, is it really justifiable besides the fact that it is now legal to kill an innocent fetus/baby. You can not say that it isn't innocent, because it hasn't done anything, the father did something continuing on I am also going to go on to your rape statement along with the murder and justifiable homicide. If a teenager is raped and she gets pregnant (now this is rare for a teenager to get pregnant from a rape so you can barely make this point but I will address it anyways) who is there to blame, the father, not the child. The teenager is living with her parents and in this case there are several people who can in fact take care of the child. even if they are poor the teenager and parent(s) can take care of child giving the baby more support than a wanting child. If the teenager is too scared to take care of a child she decides to get an abortion but, can it be justified besides it being a legal abortion JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE: That which is committed with the intention to kill, or to do a grievous bodily injury, under circumstances which the law holds sufficient to exculpate the person who commits it. 2. It is justifiable, 1. When a judge or other magistrate acts in obedience to the law. 2. When a ministerial officer acts in obedience to a lawful warrant, issued by a competent tribunal. 3. When a subaltern officer, or soldier, kills in obedience to the lawful commands of his superior. 4. When the party kills in lawful self-defence. 3.-1. A judge who, in pursuance of his duty, pronounces sentence of death, is not guilty of homicide; for it is evident, that as the law prescribes the punishment of death for certain offences, it must protect those who are entrusted with its execution. A judge, therefore, who pronounces sentence of death, in a legal manner, on a legal indictment, legally brought before him, for a capital offence committed within his jurisdiction, after a lawful trial and conviction, of the defendant, is guilty of no offence. 4.-2. Magistrates, or other officers entrusted with the preservation of the public peace, are justified in committing homicide, or giving orders which lead to it, if the excesses of a riotous assembly cannot be otherwise be repressed. 5-2. An officer entrusted with a legal warrant, criminal or civil, and lawfully commanded by a competent tribunal to execute it, will be justified in committing homicide, if, in the course of advancing to discharge his duty, he be brought into such perils that, without doing so, he cannot either save his life, or discharge the duty which he is commanded by the warrant to perform. And when the warrant commands him to put a criminal to death, he is justified in obeying it. 6.-3. A soldier on duty is justified in committing homicide, in obedience to the command of his officer, unless the command was something plainly unlawful. 7.-4. A private individual will, in many cases, be justified in committing homicide, while acting in self-defense. See Self-defense. Vide, generally, It's not any of these reason's its a justifiable homicide besides the fact that it is because it is some how legal. she's not defending herself (no one is coming at her) she's not a solider she's not a officer she's not a judge now going back to the human being definition: there by it can't be a mammal because of the difference between a human being and a mammal, that a fetus is developing even before the mother aborts the fetus/baby. OK the nutrition part. Why is there two different things, because they need different things because they are developing differently. Why is it in two different spots, because the baby is inside the mother for nine months and outside afterwards. She's not stealing those things either. when you get your period it's preparing your body for pregnancy some of those stuff is just for pregnancy. the body is for pregnancies. You can't say the baby is taking away and it's not right because your womb prepared for it not so you can kill the baby and say it was taking away the nutrition and now it's your right to kill it, just because you can.
| -1 |
the act of killing a fetus or baby
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
con
|
con
|
"The cost is not minimal. The average cost to raise a child is $245,340 http://www.huffingtonpost.com....... Multiply that by 1 million and well....Argument debunked" You aren't debunking anything. So you believe that ending someone's life and not giving them a chance at life is a better option? This is a disgusting ideal abortionists try to convince themselves and other of. "Let's not be burdened by the cost of a human being due to its inconvenience to others..." "Sex is natural and has nothing to do with being able to raise a child. Evolution made sex feel really good so that we would produce. Practically everyone wants to have sex badly. It's a natural desire. Argument debunked." Yes, sex is natural. What, exactly, does that have anything to do with aborting a child? "Sex is fun, so we should just allow anyone to engage in it and then terminate the human growing inside if we don't want to deal with the consequences of our actions." "No, you are only looking at your side of the picture, rather than considering EVERY piece of evidence," Actually, I have, which is why I am pro life. "As I stated, there are 100k orphans ALREADY. If we become antiabortion, this number will reach ridiculous heights." Abortion became legal in the United States in 1973. Was there overpopulation before this? No. This argument isn't even relevant. "Actually, no. This is untrue. Pain MIGHT be felt for a couple of seconds." No, pain is felt for a while as it bleeds out after being ripped apart limb from limb. And if the fetus is a bunch of cells, how does it feel pain at all? Pain indicates that it is a human life being painfully ended.
| -1 |
the act of deliberately killing an unwanted unborn child
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
con
|
con
|
I will argue that abortion should never be illegal, and that pro-lifers use seriously flawed, illogical arguments to support pro-life views. Contention 1: Life is not sacred Contention 2: Human life does not start at conception Contention 3: A fetus is not a person I will basically forfeit the rest of round one and be limited to rounds two and three to make my points. Happy arguing!
| 1 |
the deliberate and intentional destruction of the fetus
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
con
|
con
|
The cost is not minimal. The average cost to raise a child is $245,340 http://www.huffingtonpost.com.... Multiply that by 1 million and well....Argument debunked "If a parent can't handle a child, maybe they shouldn't engage in sexual activity until they can. It isn't right, morally, to end an innocent life." This is a ridiculous statement. Sex is natural and has nothing to do with being able to raise a child. Evolution made sex feel really good so that we would produce. Practically everyone wants to have sex badly. It's a natural desire. Argument debunked. "I care about children, which is why I am pro life." No, you are only looking at your side of the picture, rather than considering EVERY piece of evidence, whereas I have weighed both the positives and the negatives of abortion and formulate my argument accordingly. I highly suggest you learn to think objectively. For example, like I stated, you haven't considered the cost of having tons of unwanted babies. This affects the babies already in an orphanage. You claim to care about children, yet you don't consider the wants and needs of the babies already in an orphanage looking for a home. As I stated, there are 100k orphans ALREADY. If we become antiabortion, this number will reach ridiculous heights. I mentioned it already but you ignored it so here it is again: how do you think this will affect the children already in the orphanage? Or do you not care about them? "A lot less traumatic than being ripped apart while still alive. But then again, you believe the child in the womb isn't even alive. It has been proven that a child in the womb CAN feel pain. http://www.mccl.org...... http://www.doctorsonfetalpain.com...; Actually, no. This is untrue. Pain MIGHT be felt for a couple of seconds. To claim this is MORE traumatic than a life time of knowing that you are unwanted is faulty reasoning. Evidence debunked.
| 1 |
to suppress or eliminate
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
To every person the time when a child is considered to be living changes. So at what point is this child actually considered to be a person? Not at conception when the magic begins as you claim. How about six weeks when it starts to form ears, a mouth, and a nose and has a heartbeat pumping what is often a different blood type than that of the mother. Or at seven weeks when it begins to form hands and feet. How about week ten when it begins to grow organs. By the end of week thirteen, it has its own unique fingerprints and working kidneys. By week eighteen, it has developed its reproductive organs and may not even be the same gender as the mother. The rest of the time the child is growing bigger and maturing its brain and lungs until it comes out for that first sweet breath of air. So again I ask when does a person become a person. When you have a pregnant friend you ask them how the baby is coming not "How's the sex cell doing today". The child's DNA is different from its mothers from the moment of conception. While this child is still attached to its mother it itself is not a part of her body. It is a separate life form that will have a close bond with this person for life. I do not care if a woman gets a tattoo, piercings, breast enlargements/reductions, plastic surgery or whatever. What a woman can not do however is get away with murder, and that is what abortion is. "pro-choice" advocates get upset when pro-life people hold up a picture of the dead child recently aborted or will try to lock away the people who showed how Planned Parenthood was harvesting the organs of the unborn children instead of the monsters at Planed Parenthood. There is a reason Norma McCorvey known better as Jane Roe spent the second half of her life fighting for life. The immoral action that is murder kills the sole. I see no difference in the act of having an abortion that the despicable act that Dylan Roof made when he shot up that church. One hundred from now we will look back on abortion the same way we look at slavery today. https://www.babycenter.com... http://www.lifenews.com...
| -1 |
the deliberate killing of a nonhuman animal especially as a form of population control
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
con
|
Abortion does indeed kill a child. Yet, the death of a young child before birth could save the child of a painful life. Even if the baby feels this pain for seconds, it will never remember it. This is why a child is circumcised so young. Either way, a child born into poverty or born of a rape victim in many cases will end up having a life worth than death, and end up dying later on of neglect or starvation.
| 1 |
the act of bringing forth a child or young as if by an animal
|
wordnet
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Dataset of plausibility and stance annotations of the generated definitions.
The dataset was produced as part of the annotation study described in the paper: Stance-aware Definition Generation for Argumentative Texts.
The dataset can be used for studies in the plausibility and stance evaluation of the generated output.
This dataset contains only arguments and definitions on the topic of abortion. The dataset contains an original argument, the stance of the original argument, the generated definition from an extracted argumentative sequence that contains the keyword, the model used for generation, the topic (keyword), and annotations for stance and plausibility by two annotators.
The dataset contains original arguments from Webis args.me cor- pus (Ajjour et al., 2019b) and IBM Keypoint Dataset (Friedman et al., 2021). The definitions were generated by one of the following models:
| Model | Training data |
|---|---|
| LT3/definitions-oxford-llama-8B-instruct | Oxford |
| LT3/definitions-all-noslang-llama-8B-instruct | WordNet, Wiki, Oxford |
| LT3/definitions-all-llama-8B-instruct | WordNet, Wiki, Oxford, Urban |
| LT3/definitions-wordnet-llama-8B-instruct | WordNet |
| LT3/definitions-slang-llama-8B-instruct | Urban |
How to use
Use this code to extract the argumentative sequence from the original arguments that was used to generate definitions:
def extract_keyword_sentence(text, keyword, max_length=256):
"""Extract and truncate the sentence containing the keyword."""
if pd.isna(text) or pd.isna(keyword):
return None
keyword_index = text.lower().find(keyword.lower())
if keyword_index == -1:
return None # Keyword not found
half_length = max_length // 2
start_index = max(0, keyword_index - half_length)
end_index = min(len(text), keyword_index + half_length)
return text[start_index:end_index]
def add_example_column(df, argument_col="argument", topic_col="topic", max_length=256):
"""
Create an 'example' column by extracting the snippet from the argument text
that contains the topic keyword.
"""
df = df.copy()
df["example"] = df.apply(
lambda row: extract_keyword_sentence(str(row[argument_col]), str(row[topic_col]), max_length),
axis=1
)
return df
BibTeX entry and citation info
If you would like to use or cite this dataset, feel free to use the following BibTeX code:
@inproceedings{evgrafova-etal-2025-stance,
title = "Stance-aware Definition Generation for Argumentative Texts",
author = "Evgrafova, Natalia and
De Langhe, Loic
and
Hoste, Veronique and
Lefever, Els ",
editor = "Chistova, Elena and
Cimiano, Philipp and
Haddadan, Shohreh and
Lapesa, Gabriella and
Ruiz-Dolz, Ramon",
booktitle = "Proceedings of the 12th Argument mining Workshop",
month = jul,
year = "2025",
address = "Vienna, Austria",
publisher = "Association for Computational Linguistics",
url = "https://aclanthology.org/2025.argmining-1.16/",
doi = "10.18653/v1/2025.argmining-1.16",
pages = "168--180",
ISBN = "979-8-89176-258-9",
abstract = "Definition generation models trained on dictionary data are generally expected to produce neutral and unbiased output while capturing the contextual nuances. However, previous studies have shown that generated definitions can inherit biases from both the underlying models and the input context. This paper examines the extent to which stance-related bias in argumentative data influences the generated definitions. In particular, we train a model on a slang-based dictionary to explore the feasibility of generating persuasive definitions that concisely reflect opposing parties' understandings of contested terms. Through this study, we provide new insights into bias propagation in definition generation and its implications for definition generation applications and argument mining."
}
- Downloads last month
- 2