argument
stringlengths 18
10.3k
| stance
int64 -1
1
| definition
stringlengths 1
275
| model
stringclasses 5
values | topic
stringclasses 1
value | plausible_an1
stringclasses 2
values | plausible_an2
stringclasses 2
values | definition_stance_an1
stringclasses 3
values | definition_stance_an2
stringclasses 3
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Abortion has a big impact on how much crime has been reduced. After abortion was legalized, the crime dropped by 50% and it also has a social benefit of $30 billion. Research indicates that unwanted babies are more likely to become criminals than wanted babies. Abortion cuts down on the amount of unwanted babies, which eliminates those who are more likely to commit crime. http://www.stopp.org...
| 1 |
the reduction of crime
|
slang
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
pro
|
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 act of a woman to remove an unwanted fetus from her uterus
|
slang
|
abortion
|
no
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
resolution: Abortion should be legal Is that ok with you? Since he has provided no argument I'll start with these simple arguments: 1. A fetus is not a human, so it shouldn't be against the law. 2. The mother has the right to decide whether she wants a child or not, because raising a child is hard work. 3. We kill things all the time. Having an abortion is the same as wearing a condom. I'll let you take it from there.
| 1 |
"abortion is the act of removing a fetus from the womb
|
slang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
---- Contentions ----1. I always like to give a brief history on the topic that I am debating, and how It's looked at by the government. In this case, the United States government. So let me begin, ever since the Roe vs. Wade case in 1973 woman have had the right to go through the process of an abortion in all 50 states of the United States. Therefore from 1973 woman have the right to terminate a fetus life without any repercussions. Now I will state my case, why should abortion remain legal? It's quite simple, It's her own body and she has the first and final decision upon it. We can never understand the situation a woman desires an abortion, but whatever the reason may be even if It's the simple factor that she doesn't want a baby into her life at the moment is her personal and final decision. I believe no one should come between the rights that woman have earned and they certainly deserve. . http://www.law.cornell.edu...2. I would like to ask this simple question to the audience and to the opponent. Let's suppose for a few minutes that abortion was illegal, many pro-life would be rejoicing over the factor that fetus will have the right to life. But what pro-life citizen's do not understand is, that according to the law of the United States fetus don't have rights, therefore they do not have the right of life. I also ask this, abortion is legal in all of the 50 states in the United States what rights are we depriving pro-life citizen's from? Yet it is up to my knowledge that if abortion was illegal, we would be depriving woman from their rights. 3. I will also tell this to the opponent and audience. Hillary Clinton once said a few words, and these words I believe have significant value because It's truthful. " I've met thousands, and thousands, of pro-choice. Yet I've never met a pro-abortion. " I will like to tell the opponent and audience we don't believe in "killing" a fetus but we believe that woman deserve the choice. That's something of extreme importance in this debate and that is choices. Choices that I nor anyone else should deny to woman, because wether is the wrong or correct choice It's there personal life and we as citizen's should respect each other's privacy and choices. 4. I will like to state that in China woman are forced to have only one child, because of the enormous population they have in their country. The one child policy took place in 1979, and ever since then It has been successful to control the population growth. Even though some people may not see this as a big issue, I will like to point out what would happen if this world become over populated. When a country has such a huge amount of citizen's it's extremely difficult to be able to feed them all and sooner or later they will end up dying of hunger. It also affects the environment overpopulation will mean less farmlands and forests which our planet demands. Not only this but the extreme waste that would go into our oceans. Overpopulation will cause the the termination of our world as a whole if we do not control it. So wether we like to accept it or not we need abortions. Over 4 million kids are born each year in the United States and It's expected to have a population total of 8 - 10.5 billions humans on earth between the year 2040 and 2050. This will create chaos, so wether the opponent will like to accept it or not we have enough babies born each day to be worrying about those not being born. . http://factsanddetails.com...http://geojoedr.tripod.com...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://www.msnbc.msn.com...http://civilliberty.about.com...---- Conclusion ----I will conclude quickly I believe that we need abortion for the over well being of the entire world but not only do I believe it I proved it. I also prove that wether our morals are for abortion or not It's their final decision. I will finish telling this to the opponent and audience, today we may make abortion legal and some may protest against tomorrow we will all demand woman for abortion when we see ourselves with over 10 billion people on earth.
| 1 |
abortion is the process of terminating a fetus life
|
slang
|
abortion
|
no
|
yes
|
neutral
|
con
|
This will not be a formal debate. both of us are trying to prove our points, and that is all we will do. thank you for accepting:) Now, abortion is sometimes referred to as 'murder' however, this fetus is not a full human yet. It does not have emotions, it can not feel pain, it doesn't even know what this is. It doesn't even know what it is. While i will go ahead and stop this argument before it is started: Do i believe that you should be able to abort a fetus because you didn't use protection? No. But in the cases that someone did use protection and it failed, or a rape of some kind occurred, i believe that abortion is a right and an option. Like I said..this is not a formal debate... I don't really care if people vote me down..im not putting sources, and im not listing everything formally. I'm more interested with debating and hearing other points, than winning. Good luck to con:)
| 1 |
a term used to describe a fetus that is not yet a human
|
slang
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
pro
|
This will be a debate on when abortion should and should not be legal. My opponent can be for or against abortion, as my position could allow for contentions from both sides. *edit* My opponent must support another model for the legality of abortion.Resolution: Abortion should be legal until the fetus has brain activity (approximately 8 weeks gestation). Abortion would then be illegal after this point.There will be 4 rounds, 8000 character limit. First round acceptance only. I hope for a great debate!
| 1 |
the act of a woman killing a fetus with her body
|
slang
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
con
|
con
|
I do not mind if anyone votes Pro because of that. However I did not start this debate so I could add a win to my stat column. I started this debate so that hopefully I could change some minds. So despite the confusion in the first to rounds I hope to place forth my case as well as possible in this 3rd and final round. I will argue purely against my opponents four premises. P1&P2. "Human life gains moral value when when Human life gains moral value when consciousness is obtained, and/ or pain can be felt" Three years ago I was in a high school football game. I went out on a fly passing route and was clipped on the side of my helmet by the free safety of the opposing team. I was out cold. I was unconscious for 3 minutes and I was put on an ambulance to go to the hospital. When I was knocked out consciousness was not present, neither could I feel pain, but we would all acknowledge it would be immoral to have killed me on the spot. And while, yes, everyone knew I was going to regain consciousness, everyone knows that if you give a fetus time to develop in the womb and en birth it, it will gain consciousness and feel pain. P3. If my rebuttal to P1&P2 stands then it doesn't matter that the fetus is in the first or second trimester. During your argument you first stated that a human life loses value when it loses consciousness and feeling of pain. Then throughout your argument you mainly quoted pain. "Also, first and second trimester embryos can feel absolutely no pain once so ever because pain receptors are required for this. " This is because fetuses are conscious through week 10. [1]Now you are arguing purely for killing living humans just because they can't feel pain, since the fetus is conscious. My friend Bethany has no feeling in her left arm. She was born that way. It would still be immoral for me to cut off her right arm because it doesn't feel pain. Just because something doesn't feel does not mean it loses its worth. (P4) Even according to your own argument, a portion of abortions are immoral, so I am wondering if you would support making it illegal to commit an abortion in the third trimester. If so, what if a woman wants to have an abortion one day before or after the 3rd trimester starts? What about minutes or seconds after the 3rd trimester starts? Woman's Right to ChooseI completely agree that a woman, as well as a man has every right to do whatever they want to with their own body. I even agree that humans have the right to drink, eat, and smoke whatever they want to and the government has no role to play in humans personal lives. I believe all humans have the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The fetus also has the same rights. The fetus is a separate being to the mother. It is dependant on its mother just like an asthmatic is dependant on an inhaler as well as an infant is dependant on its mother. The mother has no right to infringe on the right of the fetus. [1]. http://www.eheart.com...
| -1 |
a medical procedure that is both a right and a responsibility of women, and should not be illegal
|
slang
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
pro
|
pro
|
Abortions might cost $500 for a women, but $500 is nothing compared to the amount of money than raising a child requires. On average, it takes $245,000 to raise a kid, that's 490 times the amount of money it takes to have an abortion. Women prefer to pay $500 or $700 and wait until they have enough money to support their child, rather than have a baby that it going to take a lot of money from them plus the time and energy that they need. Abortions are good because they decrease the rate of teenage pregnancy which is basically children taking care of children. Abortions also allow women to make their own choices. About 13,000 women have abortions each year because they were raped or incest. 50% of women who have abortions report that they used some type of birth control before they had sex with their partner because their plan was never to have a baby but things went wrong and the women ended up pregnant. They were well aware that it wasn't the perfect time for them to have a baby. Also, in a survey completed by women who had abortions, most women reported to be stressed out before they had the abortion rather than after they had it so having an abortion was the right thing for them to do because stress can lead to Pain of any kind, Heart disease, Digestive problems, Sleep problems, Depression, Weight problems, Auto immune diseases, Skin conditions, such as eczema, etc. 1) https://rewire.news... 2) http://abortion.procon.org... 3) http://prochoice.org... 4) http://abcnews.go.com... 5) https://www.plannedparenthood.org... 6) http://money.cnn.com... 7) http://www.helpguide.org...
| 1 |
a decision made by women when they are not ready to have a child
|
slang
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
pro
|
Abortion should be illegal. If a woman is running around having unprotected sex with either one guy or multiple partners, that woman and that man should take full responsibilities for what precautions they did not take. Imagine ripping a life out of the woman's womb. The baby is innocent and had nothing to do with you and your partners carelessness so why punish it? For example say this woman is trying to relieve some stress and goes out with her girls to a party. Relieving some of this tension this woman decides to drink some vodka shots and some tequila, wakes up the next morning and a few weeks later she finds out that she is pregnant. Not knowing who the father is she decides to go to a clinic where she has to take a pill and the fetus will just flush out. How gruesome is that, forcing yourself to have a miscarriage because you got drunk and didn't know what you were doing. Well now the woman is sober and she does know what she is doing she is taking an innocent life and the mother knows. My next point is that financially you and your partner are not capable of providing a safe home for the child. To nip this in the butt you have choices to make such as give the baby to a relative and when you two are ready take the baby back or simply put the baby up for adoption. Many couples are trying to have a baby but can't and you can provide them with a healthy baby and the baby in a nice home as opposed to death the "easy" way put of this. Putting the baby up for adoption would be the best possible choice because you and your partner will feel happy knowing that your baby will be safe, have a happy life, and you won't have to live with the fact that you didn't have to kill your first born similar to what Abraham almost had to do with Isaac. The next best thing to do is give your baby up to a close family member because than you could know for certain that the baby is perfectly fine. One can go across town and visit the baby when ever the couple wanted to and the family will still remain close. One of my last points in which I will defiantly expand on later is the fact that women get postpartum depression. Imagine a woman who keeps her child but still feels depressed now compare her to a woman who was three months pregnant and is having her baby removed from her by unnatural causes the mother and the baby obviously will be negatively effected. With therapy a woman with a naturally born baby will recover from her experience but how do we know for certain that the mother who aborted her baby will ever recover? We don't, women are very emotional and in this situation a man will be emotional too little things will remind her of what she has done and it won't be pretty. The woman could go back to her old ways of partying or start abusing drugs or crying her eyes out every minute or something to fill up the void. My major idea that I am trying to portray is the fact that this baby you didn't plan to have is an innocent life and I don't want to see the baby be put at harm for something two horny teenagers didn't take it serious enough and risked the life of someone else.
| -1 |
the act of killing a human being before it is born
|
slang
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
con
|
con
|
For my closing argument I will give a summary of my main ideas about why abortions are a good thing and not murder. Firstly, I believe they are a good thing because they help to lower the number of unwanted children who are abused. This is because they can stop a pregnancy in someone who is not yet ready to have a child. Therefore the mother can continue with their lives without having their education or work disrupted too much (in a case where the child is an accident and unwanted). The argument is the same if a teenager becomes accidentally pregnant they will not be able to care for the child if they could they would not still be in education. This means that abortions are good because they prevent children being not properly cared for. Also if a women was raped abortions are a good thing because the pregnancy won't have to continue and cause a reminder to the women about what happened to her. Furthermore if a women was raped and they go through with the child they might take their anger out on the baby which would be unkind and the child may grow up feeling unloved. Many people argue that the mother should go through with the baby and then if she doesn't want it then it could be put in an orphanage. However this may make the child feel unwanted and confused as they don't know who their real parents are. In my opinion abortion is not murder, this is because it happens before a baby has fully developed. Therefore you are not killing a human but removing an organism. The fetes can't think it has no consciousness this means it doesn't know what life is. Thank you for reading my closing argument on why abortion is good and not murder.
| 1 |
the process of taking a fetus out of a womans body before it is born
|
slang
|
abortion
|
no
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
First of all, We have to see in which case abortion is be done by the actor. Sometimes we have to considered the situation between the baby' s mom also the baby himself. Even though, That may be whatever the situation is it is immoral action to kill that baby right. What I wanted to state here is that first we have to see where's the location of abortion, Because different location different law right and also different religion and different culture right. I think first you have to make clear this case.
| 1 |
"the killing of a baby by the mother
|
slang
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
con
|
con
|
Japan bombings having nothing to do with the abortion debate. I think bombing Japan was moral and saved lives http://www.newsweek.com... It is common for pro-abortionists to look at any exude to try to justify abortion. You say 69% of woman who get abortions don't have money. That, I'll admit, is true, or just about true. But why does not having money justify killing? Let's look at the other options that don't cost money, yet don't kill. 1. Adoption. - I know adoption isn't ideal, but an Alive kid is better then a dead one. 2. There are hundreds of charities that are dedicated to pregnant woman, and their babies. Instead of getting the quick way out via abortion, one can simply apply for charity, or government assistance if necessary. 18% of woman who get abortions are under 20. Why have sex under 20? That's stupid, and actions deserve consequences. The mother makes a bad choice, but is told she can get away with it by killing- and killing, to my knowledge, creates a negative impact on both the killer, and killed, and all who consciencely concentrate to the act. Nobody is leaving a poor mother to take care of a baby alone. If the mother is a good person, she will receive charity money or government assistance. If the mother doesn't deserve charity or government assistance, the baby will be tacken away. What would you rather have a. A bellow- average well being (keep in mind this is america where one can achieve greatness out of nothing), or b. No shot at life? a. Little food, food stamps, or charity food. b. No food cause your dead. b. Little food, food stamps, or charity food. b. having to kill to get conformable food. One could also use adoption. For those who don't know adoption is getting rid of a baby without killing it. One of your "benifits" is "not making the child's life harder" it seems like your saying it's better for a child to die, then to go though a bit of hard times and have a shot at greatness. Another one of the benifits is that the parents won't feel lonely. What would a person feel more lonely about- being alone, or having a kid to talk to? Seems easy. You keep repeating the same thing about money, ice already said charities, goverment assistance, or adoption. "Children from single parent families live less healthy lives" - in my opinion, death isn't too healthy. "Children growing up with one parent have a higher probabilityof dropping out of school" so the solution is to kill them. I believe hitler did a similar thing. The earning capacity of woman thing is for another debate You also think that not making a lot of money is justificarion to kill. Also you think saying "I can't find child care, I'll get an abortion" is correct because nothing says great child care like killing
| -1 |
a baby that is killed by a doctor in the womb
|
slang
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
con
|
con
|
Abortion is a fundamental right that every woman should have the option to do so. Each individual woman has the right to control their own body and no one should take that right away. Even though religion is important to many people's lives, there is a reason church and state are separated. Many woman want to have abortions because they do not feel like they could raise the child safely or in a good manner.
| 1 |
the termination of a pregnancy, typically by surgical or medical means
|
slang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Heretofore, Con has failed to provide evidence for a single claim, provide evidence or any form of support. Moreover, Con has failed to answer questioned posed by Pro in earlier rounds. I will keep this round brief because BOP is 50, therefore only one side has advanced arguments, rebutted claims, and provided evidence. But let me answer Con statement: “The female way have the decision to abort the baby, but then why would she even chose to have the baby in the FIRST place!” The answer supports Pro. Okay, so “why would she chose to have the baby in the first place” implies that all women chose to have babies but then inexplicably abortion them. However, there are many circumstances where women are raped or coerced into incest are entered forcefully against their will. These women do not have a choice. Apart from those examples, it is also true that almost 50% of all pregnancies are accidental, not planned.[1][2] That provides an answer to that question. [Question for Con]: since you are opposing abortion, categorically please explain why raped women should be forced against their will to bear the child of a rapist. [Question for Con]: In instances where the fetus endangers the life of the woman, what is the proper course of action? Do you give priority to a non-viable fetus or a living woman? [1] National Health Statistics Report: “Intended and Unintended Births in the United States: 1982–2010 William D. Mosher, Ph.D.; Jo Jones, Ph.D.; and Joyce C. Abma, Ph.D., Division of Vital Statistics. http://www.cdc.gov... [2] Lindsay Abrams, “Why We Keep Accidently Getting Pregnant,” The Atlantic Magazine. http://www.theatlantic.com...
| 1 |
the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus from the uterus
|
slang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
You make some really good points. You should win the debate. To be honest, we are 13 years old and doing this debate for an English project. We would really like it if you tell us more about abortion so we can get better educated about and do better on our project. You seem to know a good amount about the topic, care to share more... The more information the merrier. Here are some questions: What is the main reason that most women abort children? When do you consider a fetus a human being? Do you support abortion? Are you against abortion? Thank you very much and your insight will be very helpful
| -1 |
a procedure that a woman can get if she is pregnant and does not want the baby
|
slang
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
pro
|
"Thank you for informing me about this, this is where I personally feel its wrong to kill a human, because this is when I feel like it becomes a person. " And this is when most abortions occur, it is before 8 months. Concession. Vote Con. "1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child. " Yes, I feel it is okay in those situations. I agree.
| -1 |
the act of killing a fetus or a baby in the womb
|
slang
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
con
|
Women who have abortions can suffer from Post-Abortion Syndrome (PAS). PAS is a term that is used to describe the emotional and psychological consequences of abortion. Some symptoms of PAS may occur right after an abortion, and other symptoms may take months or years to surface. Some women may feel guilty. Guilt is a normal reaction that surfaces after the woman recognizes that abortion is wrong, and that she is responsible for committing her own abortion. Besides guilt women may express anger, have anxiety or depression, or some commit suicide. Teenagers who have abortions are especially vulnerable to PAS because they are at a critical developmental period of their life.
| -1 |
abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by the destruction of the fetus or embryo inside the mother's womb
|
slang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
"One thing that I can't stand is the media, you never hear anything to with God anymore." This is because the world is less religion orientated, but I must ask: What did this point have to do with this argument!" "Its all about promoting stuff that has been looked down upon for centuries such as abortion." and freedom of speech, women's rights and individualism. I don't see what so bad about this in hindsight. "If a teenager gets pregnant by a birth control mistake, she chose to engage in sexual activities, not the baby." Baby, according to wikipedia, is a human offspring from birth to 12 months. A fetus, is not a baby. It is the teenager's choice, not the fetus's, I agree but by all means that says that it is the woman's responsibility, the woman's choice to have an abortion or not. " If she is still in school she shouldn't even have sex on her mind. She should be worried about passing school." to this I say, "to err is human, to forgive is divine." Humans are, by nature, idiots but does that mean we should punish their idiocy. The teenager has a burden of responsibility now which means that there is less likely chance of succession in school, like I said in round one. I also say, that teenagers have sexual hormones raging around their body, and whether it's curiosity or lust, inevitably some will have sex, irresponsibly I might add. You mention that the FETUS at five months has a fast beating heart, yet you do not say how this equates to conscience, sentience or anything that might strengthen your argument. You then proceed to talk incomprehensibly but I got the gist. "A prime example of abortions done of evil ,not from the parent but doctor, is the the Dr. Kermit Gosnell case. He killed babies that were already out of the womb ,exactly what people today are saying is it's OK to murder just as long as the mom's OK with it." I didn't specify how Dr Kermit Gosnell Killed those babies, but if they were born then killed, not aborted, then it is infanticide not abortion. I read up on the case. According to wikipedia, he was charged with malpractice, letting a patient die, preforming Illegal abortions and killing 7 born babies. It appears that this doctor was inept and possibly sadistic and I will give it to you, but only because of the ultra-specific context, otherwise it doesn't prove that all abortion is 'Evil'; remember all those shades of grey(hmm...sounds like a book.) The case of the baby in the bathroom was not abortion, it was straight up infanticide, and not merciful in anyway and cannot be equated to all abortion if at all. You also use the Slippery slope fallacy, " I bet this girl did it because if you can kill a baby in a clinic why not in a bathroom?" You say that if we allow legal abortion by professional doctors, than people will think it ok to straight up choke children to death. The woman was clearly not fit to have children at all and should have gotten a legal abortion. Then you sort of go insane..."And how dare you say we are happy with war! My father was a marine, now retired, and would tell me stories of how his friend would die in front of him and nothing he could do but defend the country. If a count is going to attack us their is not much we can do but defend ourselves. If Korea launches missiles at us and we shoot them down, we have to attack to defend America. What can we do, watch and become a communist country?" Well first, when I said 'we are perfectly happy of war' I should have been specific. I meant to say 'Our society is ok with war' Either way, I wasn't trying to justify war; I was simply trying to make a point with the geneva conventions. Lastly, why did a debate on abortion escalate to Communism?
| 1 |
the most misunderstood and hated topic in the world
|
slang
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
pro
|
neutral
|
It's wonderful to know that my opponent percieves it to be a possibility that I could have copied and pasted by case over due to a hidden insecurity on the length of the case. I am still in awe of how either I was able to copy and paste it, or how Debate. org gliched itself. Nevertheless, we still have a round to conclude with a person who has just set forth the notion that I am justifying murder. I would also notify Con that there should be no introduction of new arguments. This round will just be a notification to the judge on how the arguments set forth in the previous rounds justify your victory. Point 1-Dependence on mothers: Con has added the argument that my logic would also justify killing babies. As I outlined in round 3, their are significant diffferances between a baby and a fetus. A fetus is not complete in having grown its mind, arms, legs, and feet. It also states that the fetus is truly complete with developing those parts on the 22nd to 24th week. That is usually when abortions are deemed illegal. A senior is still a human being is outside his mother's womb. A senior still developed all the essential human components. Fetuses do not have that. Con still subconciously rejects the fact that a fetus is truly complete between the 22nd and 24th week. Con will still have to continue equating a baby to a fetus. His justification is that a fetus is a baby in the stomach. Judges should note that it has never been rebuked that the fetus is only done developing essential components for a baby until the 22nd to 24th week. Before that, it still has not even consolidated its brain. A sperm can still be classified as an unborn male according to Con's logic. Con claims that sperm is unfertilized which bestows it with exemption. Though, it is still a fact that sperm could have had a life which fertilized. The government ought to ban masturbation, because it is expelling basic life. That is how I view this abortion debate. Stop defending potential. There is still potential for sperm to live. Point 2-The MindNo, its been solidified for the debate that the brain is consolidated after 8 weeks. That fact was inserted during round 2. I also clarified in round 2 that abortions should and are deemed illegal after 8 weeks. If I was brain dead, than I would classify myself as dead. Con's only path to victory for this argument is uncertainty. The facts have already been set forth in round 2 which completely eleminates any chance of victory for his argument. A brain is usually consolidated after 8 weeks where abortions are usually deemed illegal. Point 3: Excuse me for saying so, but I don't think inconvenience is grounds for killing a child. Con argues that it is still not on grounds for killing a child. This argument already falls due to lacking brain, body parts, and extreme dependency. Con also appears to completely ignore the fact that his world would allow for poverty wage people pay 15,000 dollars for a C-section. Poverty wage people are paid 20,000 dollars per year. A surgery like that would leave a woman destitute, and bring in a motherless child. Con would simply allow for people to be left destitute in order to insure that a lacking fetus can become a human. Con has not een retorted this argument which should be deemed a drop. Pro obviously wins this point. Con only wins if the judge truly possesses the conception that a motherless child and a mother without basic human needs is a just moral repercussion. Conclusion: I still really can't see how Con won this debate. His whole argument relies on potential. Sperm have potential. A sperm can be compared to a fetus which Con has not sufficiently rebuked. Spem do not have brains, yet they are still capable of growing those components if fertilized. Con's worldview would justify banning masturbation if we were to concede to the logic of potential. Potential is what a sperm has. Letting a sperm be expelled without it being fetilized ought to be deemed a crime in Con's worldview. We all started off as sperm. That is indisputable. Con's arguments deconstruct themselves. Take all of his arguments, and defend the rights of a sperm. If the judge percieves Con to be the victor, than sperm ought to also have rights. He can use the fertilization argument, but than I can use the child birth argument. If child birth or prefferably body parts intact does not diffrientiate a fetus from a baby, than fertilization has the same grounds as child birth.
| 1 |
the act of a woman killing a senior human being
|
slang
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
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 |
a word that should never be used in a sentence
|
slang
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
con
|
con
|
Pro makes three arguments for justifying abortion and denying it to be murder. 1. It is done by medical professionals. Lets say a teenage rape victim has aborted the baby that resulted. Now the abortion wasn't done by medical professionals and wasn't as humanely as those Pro supports. The woman will die for her crime. When asked to justify it we just say-- the needle is far more humane than what used to be done and the execution will be carried out by a professional staff. Of course there are lots of other reasons, better reasons why the woman shouldn't be put to death or shouldn't even be punished at all. Because it is humane-- it's a better argument for the abortion but in either case it doesn't make it right. 2.Abortion is okay because fetuses are no different than parasites. Actually this is strangely true. Pro explicitly states abortions are acceptable when done by medical professionals using humane means. The slaughter of animals is perfectly acceptable when done by medical and scientific researchers; or by butchers as long as they use humane means. Though would most people put a human fetus on the same level of a monkey, a mouse, a rat, or a cow. As for the parasites Pro was probably referencing-- those things people want to get rid of-- not every woman wants to get rid of her unborn baby 3. Abortion is okay because a parent has total control over his or her children to the age of 18. There are a number of exceptions to this including situations where the upper age limit extends to 21; and as Pro explicitly mentions-- the fetus-- the unborn baby. Which means to use Pro's logic the mother doesn't have total legal control over the unborn baby. Even if she does-- we should not a the law restricts the absolute control a parent has over a minor child-- including a prohibition on murder. Since it only covers the time after birth-- the prohibition against murder doesn't apply to the unborn. So I guess it is alright to slaughter the unborn. Something is illogical about that
| -1 |
the act of a woman killing her own unborn baby
|
slang
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
con
|
con
|
I Challenge you to a debate regarding why Abortion is wrong, and should be illegal.
| -1 |
the killing of a fetus
|
slang
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
con
|
con
|
I will be arguing against Glitter on abortionResolution: Abortion should be legalRules-FF is automatic loss-Rule 1 is acceptance only-BoP is shared-No semantics about the round 1 rulesHappy to debate
| 1 |
the destruction of a human fetus by any means
|
slang
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
con
|
Lets be honest. Your body is your own body. It belongs to you, but what you choose to do with your body, put in your body. Sometimes it up to the government. As long as they keep in some areas abortion illegal. You can't. Your not allowed. This is a really complicated topic cause the girl chose to be stupid for pleasure. She chose. Then she's pregnant. Either she things the baby in her body is just some animal she can kill over and over again, or she believes there a human with a living soul. Not only is it her body now, but its the baby's body in her. Once the body is being formed. There shouldn be a choice whether I should kill it or not. There are probably many women in certain areas where they werent allowed to kill there baby, and guess what. Now there living breathing humans who are making a difference in this world. Do you realize how many human beings who have a mother who thought of getting an abortion before they were born. My mom honestly wanted to get an abortion, but she didn't and I am thankful. What if she did? I wouldn't be here. Sometimes makes me a little bit sad, but I should't. She gave me a chance.
| -1 |
a woman's choice to not have a baby
|
slang
|
abortion
|
no
|
yes
|
neutral
|
pro
|
Spelling and grammar goes to Pro due to failure to capitalize 'I'. I would like to begin by pointing out that we must subdivide murder before we can have a moral discussion because not all types of murder are equal. Suicide is murder. Killing an enemy soldier is murder. And my opponent asserts that abortion is murder. Yet most of the moral arguments of pro-life advocates take all of the arguments against HOMICIDE (one type of murder) and apply them to abortion. This would be analogous to taking all the arguments against coal power plants and trying to apply those arguments to solar power using the slogan "Solar power is POWER and all power is DIRTY."Without appealing to homicide, I ask my opponent to prove why other types of murder (suicide, killing enemy soldiers, (allegedly) abortion) are immoral.Throughout this debate I will be appealing to the ethical system called utilitarianism, whereas pro-lifers usually appeal to the Categorical Imperative. The Categorical Imperative asserts that there are certain actions we can NEVER take. It is very rigid ethical system.Here is my proof that Utilitarianism is preferable to the Categorical Imperative (henceforth "CI"):================================================= Utilitarianism is preferable to CI ==Joseph Nye of Harvard University cites the following hypothetical to show the ridiculousness of the categorical imperative: you pass through a conflict area and a rebel captain has captured 30 innocent villagers. The captain is going to execute the innocent villagers for being from a rival tribe. You pass by and the captain, for his amusement, hands you a gun and says: shoot one villager and I will let the rest go free. If you refuse, the captain will order his men to shoot all of the villagers. Nye asks, "Will you shoot one person with the consequences of saving [the rest], or will you allow [all] to die but preserve your moral integrity by refusing to play his dirty game?" [1]Judging the morality of an action a priori, without looking at consequences, leads to rigid ethical systems that prefer 30 people to die rather than one, merely because "murder is "on face" wrong and is never morally permissible."=============================================Next I offer a brief thought experiment:You wake up one morning and find yourself attached to a famous Violinist by means of a long tube. You are told by the doctors that if you remove this tube, the Violinist will die. During this time period, you must take time off work because you cannot walk around with an invalid attached to you. If you are poor, you cannot afford to take this time off work. The Violinist requires that you eat twice as much food as normal. Again, this is quite difficult if you are poor. Do you have the right to pull the tube out of your body?If you answered yes, then you acknowledge that if a life is contingent on our own, severing that contingency is not immoral. By this logic, an abortion that merely severs the placenta is not morally wrong.Now moving on to a few reasons why abortion should be allowed:1) Clear cases where abortion should be allowed(a) RapeThe woman does not choose to become pregnant. This fits perfectly with the Violinist analogy, since you are forced to be attached to the Violinist and should not be held morally culpable for refusing to accede to this situation.(b) Medical needIn cases, like ectopic pregnancy (where the fetus is growing in the fallopian tube), the mother has a substantial chance of dying if the fetus is not aborted, in which case abortion is a life-saving medical procedure. If abortion is defined as murder, then medical need would not matter; the mother would be forced to carry any life to term, regardless of danger (even with 100% certainty she would die).If conjoined twins shared a heart and had a condition where the heart could only keep one of them alive, should we force them both to die, or separate the conjoined twins and give the heart to one of them, even though this technically kills the other twin.The choice is either one death or two, in both cases.2) Abortions don't decrease when we ban themThe New York Times reports that "A comprehensive global study of abortion has concluded that abortion rates are similar in countries where it is legal and those where it is not, suggesting that outlawing the procedure does little to deter women seeking it. Moreover, the researchers found that abortion was safe in countries where it was legal, but dangerous in countries where it was outlawed and performed clandestinely. Globally, abortion accounts for 13 percent of women's deaths during pregnancy and childbirth." [6] This study empirically proves that women don't stop seeking abortions when they are illegal; they are merely forced to seek more dangerous abortions. Utilitarianism thus sees no benefit to banning abortion since it saves no fetuses but does harm many women.To give a US example: According to Associated Content, in 1932, 15,000 women died each year due to illegally and improperly performed abortions.3) Unwanted children are bad for societyThe CDC reports that 60% of women seeking an abortion already had one child, and often their method of birth control has failed. According to studies by the Guttmacher Institute. "a majority of women who report their reasons for seeking abortion say they can't afford a child or are unready to raise one. Women living below the federal poverty level are more than four times more likely to terminate a pregnancy than women earning above 300 percent of the poverty level."A study by Steven Levitt found that the 40% decline in the homicide rate can be directly attributed to Roe v. Wade and the decline in unwanted children. [7] The 5 states that legalized abortion prior to Roe saw declines in crime earlier than other states and the crime declines lagged abortion's legalization by about 18 years in all states.This means that banning abortion is bad, on utilitarian grounds, because it leads to more deaths from illegally performed abortions and leads to more crime (through more unwanted children).My opponent may argue foster care, but that just churns out sexual abuse victims, who are likely to become abusers themselves. A study by Orlow (2009) found that "As many as 75 percent of all children in foster care, upon leaving the system, will have experienced sexual abuse." [8] Churning out sexual abusers is obviously bad for society.5. OverpopulationThere are 42 million abortions performed worldwide per year. [1] If we COULD stop these, that would quickly lead to overpopulation (approximately 1 billion additional people every 20 years). That's an awful lot of "unwanted" mouths to feed.Sourceshttp://www.debate.org...
| 1 |
a medical procedure that is used to end a pregnancy
|
slang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Thank you for your response. After reading the peer reviewed report (abstract, but we have enough to work with) and the other sources linked in your previous round, I found even more compelling evidence to reject the Con position. At this point, I can see no way for Con to secure support. I am doing my best to clash in this debate. Con still has not adequately addressed maternal death, nor has he addressed the absolute nature of his position – abortion should be illegal. As I stated in the last round, even if Con can show that abortion causes post abortion depression, he is still not addressing my contention, maternal death. I responded to claims of post abortion depression because this is the only near relevant position Con presented after my first round. I will take Con's arguments in the order that he presented them: Complications to Abortion: I agree there are complications to abortion; it is an operation and all operations have complications, but those complications, as clearly stated in the study, result in less deaths than those associated with childbirth for some women. This point is all I needed to show your position does not consider these risks in any capacity. Your position does not even consider these matters since abortion should always be illegal. Con goes further and quotes the worldwide stats from a peer reviewed journal – thank you so much. I was going to leave the worldwide stats alone (hence the reason I focused on the US) but you brought them in so I will quote from your source: "Both of the primary methods for preventing unsafe abortion—less restrictive abortion laws and greater contraceptive use—face social, religious, and political obstacles, particularly in developing nations, where most unsafe abortions (97%) occur." Con, you are supposed to be attacking my position concerning maternal death. Instead, you presented the most restrictive abortion position, "abortion should be illegal" and provided stats showing that restrictive abortion laws are a leading cause in maternal death worldwide. Again, thank you. The maternal death rate from abortion vs. childbirth: Con relies on yet another anti abortion source to show that these rates are nearly the same. As I said, even if he can do this, he is still avoiding the elephant in the room. Now, Con suggests that the statistics provided are small (6/100,000 childbirth and 3/100,000 for abortion). The 6/100,000 is relative to dying in a car crash and Con supports the car crash analogy with a source (which his original source failed to do – nice work Con) Here is the problem though – Con's source jumped through some pretty fantastic hoops to get to this number. As shown in the "Redefining the Parameters" section of the report, This group made up a term called "birth avoidance mortality" so they could include deaths related to IUDs, hysterectomies, oral contraceptives, etc. I invite all reviewers to read this section and decide whether this redefinition is supported. I see little to consider here. Mr. Allot's credibility in relation to an unlinked study: Link the study and settle the issue. You, and many anti abortion sites, referenced this study. Where is it? I consider his reference less than credible because he does not give me the details I need to find it. I concede that depression may occur after an abortion, but the effects and the magnitude are not supported in the literature. The report I linked, and you quoted, said as much. Life at Conception: Con uses a horrible source that links another horrible source. Both are steeped in religiosity and the definition of life provided in the first can apply to crystal formations. As I made clear in the first round, you could have avoided a "life at conception" argument and I offered a helpful definition for you to do so, but you have now articulated this position so ectopic pregnancies have come into play. (See 1st round response) Ectopic Pregnancies: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... As stated very clearly in this source: "An ectopic pregnancy is an abnormal pregnancy that occurs outside the womb (uterus). The baby (fetus) cannot survive, and often does not develop at all in this type of pregnancy." The death rate for ectopic pregnancy in the US is now at 0.1%. Why? Because the pregnancy is terminated safely. Your stance "abortion is illegal" combined with "a fetus is born in the moment of conception" puts women in great danger. Under your position, terminating an ectopic pregnancy is abortion and can no longer be tolerated. Do you wish to reconsider your position? Further Information: Con explains that youth (15-19) is a major reason for abortion rates but his own source states that of the abortions reported, women from 15-19 accounted for 16.5% in the study. I don't consider 16% to be a major reason. Please support this statement and explain why it is relevant to your position that ectopic pregnancies cannot be terminated. Lastly, Con says that a woman that gets an abortion is likely to get a second one, or third but the same data shows that a majority of abortions in all states that participated in the study are first time abortions. See Table 19 http://www.cdc.gov... Now, explain your position in light of maternal death especially concerning ectopic pregnancies. Under your rule the answer is simple: Let them die.
| 1 |
a procedure that is performed by a trained medical professional, usually a doctor, to terminate a pregnancy
|
slang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
1. Con's only 'rebuttal' to my point was him saying: "Well ma'am if you actually read my arugment i actually proved as teens got older they stopped using condoms and etc." This doesn't even begin to address my point. I had mentioned that Con has the burden of explaining why the State is responsible for forcing citizens to carry unwanted pregnancies to term, which obviously his statement does not do. I als said that teenagers only made up 1/5 of those seeking abortions and his idea that unwanted pregnancies only happen to "dumb" or careless teens is false, obviously. 2a. (Which I had listed as 1B... don't know why Con changed it) I pointed out that it's hypocritical and non-sensical to think that abortion is okay in cases of rape only. Instead of explaining why Con supports that idea despite its flaws, he responded with, "Ma'am i belive that in the law,and also common sense that taking a life is wrong with out a cause is just common sense thats why when people kill people they go to jail or sentenced to death." Obviously this has absolutely nothing to do with my point - besides, I already argued against this notion in another contention (about personhood). However Con does go on to explain that abortion in cases of rape is permissible because rape is different than accidental pregnancy. The problem is that if Con's case is based on the notion that life begins at conception (which he's argued) then life begins at conception even in cases of rape victims. So, Con was asked to explain why innocent lives (fetuses) were invaluable or able to be taken just because the mother was raped. In either scenario, the "innocent life" dies and does not deserve death. Con failed to make a valid argument in this regard. In saying women who were not raped cannot receive abortions, he's saying that some fetuses are more deserving of life than others which is just backwards and non cohesive with his other arguments. 2B. Con says that technology can be used to determine if one was really raped or not. Obviously Con does not know enough about sexual intercourse if he really believes this to be true. Nevertheless my point still stands; I argued that people would lie about being raped and say they were raped just to receive an abortion, which can have devastating effects and implications. In short, my response is that technology cannot be depended upon to make this distinction. 3. ... I'm not really sure what Con's argument to my 3rd point was, if any. He didn't respond to my contentions directly. Please extend all of my other arguments from the previous round, as I cannot make sense of Con's lacking rebuttal. Thank you.
| 1 |
a medical procedure to terminate a pregnancy, which is usually performed in the first trimester
|
slang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
To define infanticide one must first define life. Human rights are applied to the living. A corpse has no human rights after life has seeped away from it for example. A foetus had no human rights until life has emerged from the biological process. 'Murder for pleasure'. Really! Your argument seems to be based from an emotional standpoint. You utilise terms such as murder and infanticide when referring to abortion. Whether this comes from a religious standpoint or your own moralising you have left unclear. You state: 'What people need to understand is that it is no skin off the womens constitutional rights to be denied the 'right' to murder their children.' First I will ask you when a collection of cells become a child. There is a large grey area you could have swung for yet I suspect from your writing, and though you haven't stated it as I requested, it is conception. If that is so then I strongly disagree. One week after conception the potential of life is but a bunch of cells. And yet you would argue that this bunch of cells is enough to deny a woman the right to life, liberty and property as set out within your constitution and that you are fond of quoting. Your argument of constitutional illegality is flawed and USA centric. Unless you are only concerned with infringing upon the rights of American women I would ask what your argument might be in addressing European abortion. The laws here are a little different, and less disproportionate than 'you' would wish. From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org... Fetal rights are moral rights or legal rights of human fetuses under natural and civil law. The term fetal rights came into wide usage after the landmark case Roe v. Wade that legalized abortion in the United States in 1973.[1] The concept of fetal rights has evolved to include the issues of maternal drug and alcohol abuse.[2] The only international treaty specifically tackling the fetal rights is the American Convention on Human Rights which envisages the fetal right to life. While international human rights instruments lack a universal inclusion of a fetus as a person for the purposes of human rights, fetus is granted various rights in the constitutions and civil codes of several countries. Many legal experts recognize an increasing need to settle the legal status of the fetus. And: Under European law, fetus is generally regarded as an in utero part of the mother and thus its rights are held by the mother.[42] The European Court of Human Rights opined that the right to life does not extend to fetuses under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR),[42] although it does not confer on the European Court of Human Rights the authority to impose relevant laws on European Union member states.[43] In H. v. Norway, the European Commission did not exclude that "in certain circumstances" the fetus may enjoy "a certain protection under Article 2, first sentence".[44] Three European Union member states (Ireland, Hungary and Slovakia) grant fetus the constitutional right to life. The Constitution of Norway grants the unborn royal children the right of succession to the throne.[45] In English common law, fetus is granted inheritance rights under the born alive rule. Every nation struggles with the concept of abortion with unique conclusions. The World Health Organization (WHO) and Human Rights Watch prioritize women's reproductive rights over fetal rights period. To protect both mother and the potential of life she carries as best we can emotion must be set aside in favour of logic and reason. I await your application of both of those.
| 1 |
a medical procedure to remove a fetus from a woman's womb
|
slang
|
abortion
|
no
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
'Adoption is not very common. Most women in poverty don't have access to that option.'Yes, but there are programs to help women in poverty. 'For me, nothing is better than the possibility of dying after years of hunger.'I'd rather have a chance at life than have my limbs cut off and flushed down the toilet. 'In reality, most parents would've chosen one of the non-lethal ways if they have the choice. Killing off the unborn children can be better than letting the born children die.'Both are equally bad. 'Because there are people who don't take responsibility for their actions, there are children who won't be taken care of after birth.' The goverment will provide assistance to unwanted children 'And you agree that abortion is allowed if a mother is raped or might die from giving birth.'Yes, because those are the only good reasons why abortion is neccasary. Most abortions are done for convience.
| -1 |
the act of taking a human life from the womb
|
slang
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
con
|
Contention1: Abortion is terribleMy opponent clearly makes the assertion that "abortion is terrible" without specifying what kind of abortion or the circumstances around it. Therefore, I'm going to assume she means that -all- abortions are terrible, regardless of what kind of abortion it is or the circumstances which may surround it. So all I would have to do is find a single instance of an abortion not being terrible to disprove my opponent's assertion that they all are. Instead, I'll provide four instances where abortion might actually be good or even beneficial for the mother, and therefore not "terrible":1. Pregnancies resulting from rape.2. Pregnancies resulting from incest. 3. Pregnancies which threaten the life of the mother. 4. Teenage pregnancies.5. Cases where the mother is a young child. (note: the youngest recorded human mother was a five-year-old.)Contention2: Person hoodWhile I agree with my opponent that a fetus is human biologically speaking, that hardly makes it a person. The physical changes which occur during the fetus' development do not a person make, and any brain activity the fetus does have lacks the intricate sophistication of that of a person. Fetuses are not self-aware, do not recognize emotion and therefore do not cognitively interpret pain in the traditional sense. The fetus is little more than a tumor. Contention3: Rights of the motherMy opponent states that adoption is an option while ignoring the emotional and physical strains that come with pregnancy and childbirth itself. In fact, she seems to completely blatantly ignore the plight of the mother at all. Everyone has a right to their own body, and to force a woman, a person, to give birth takes away those rights.
| 1 |
"contention1: abortion is terrible
|
slang
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
con
|
con
|
On your contention that life is not sacred: What exactly does this have to do with abortion? I use life being valuable in terms of not killing a human being, I guess. Would you be in favor of killing innocent people because life is not sacred? On your contention that human life does not begin at conception: It is not that hard to make an argument for having abortion illegal in at least ONE case without this point. Abortion should be illegal at 38 weeks. Anyone who is convinced by this statement should vote CON. That has nothing to do with life beginning at conception, but of life being existent/valued at 38 weeks. On your contention that a fetus is not a person: A fatal mistake, this is not. In fact, the mistake is on your part. I would ask people to read the article for themselves. The article states that the fetus can feel pain in the 28th week - two weeks into the third trimester. Even pro-abortion groups have said 26 weeks is the time when a fetus can feel pain. Look at this article: Control F "26" and it is near the bottom: (http://www.theinterim.com...) "However, others in the pro-abortion camp continue to argue that, for example, pain cannot be felt before 26 weeks' gestation." Therefore, no mistake was made on my part; you simply did not properly read the article and only looked at the first paragraph. Please, no more false accusations of faulty reading and "fatal mistakes." " When a baby is born, and the mother accepts responsibility for raising it, it's very first personal relationship is formed (beforehand it is part of the mother's body)." - This makes it a human, you say. If the personal relationship is only formed after birth, why do parents name their children in the womb? Care about said child in the womb? Just because it cannot physically be touched, it is not human? Just to make this clear: You are in favor of aborting a 38 week old baby/fetus? You think that should be legal?
| -1 |
the act of killing an innocent unborn child
|
slang
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
con
|
con
|
I believe that abortion is murder and should not be tolerated. Why do you think abortion should be accepted?
| -1 |
the intentional destruction of a human fetus during pregnancy
|
slang
|
abortion
|
no
|
yes
|
con
|
con
|
I Thank you for your final reply and I too have enjoyed this debate. To address your argument while furthering my own at the same time and work my way through using quotes when necessary. you are using emotive words to trigger an emotive response in people as they read it so they will disregard facts and logical analysis whereas I have only stated that you are oppressing people by taking away their right of free will which is oppression in one case there is a definite the other in ambiguous so please refrain from such partial language. Nice to see we agree that your sources are inaccurate because andy study that is bias will portray the results in such a way as to create a bias even when no such thing exists this is why we have peer reviews in academia to which your sources would/have all failed even the source you use to defend abortion"facts".com has a trust metre underneath this person which is quite low. to say my argument revolves around a mother's choice, you have mischaracterized my argument one aspect was mother's free will and the quality of her life another was the life of something that is unborn another was health another what the ethics of terminating a pregnancy. to say "we have no further argument on that point." is very patronising as yes there is an argument there as to whether or not the fetus is considered human life because of all the reasons I have covered and you have just ignored. also in your definition fetus is "more than eight weeks after conception." so what about before then are you backing off your baseless assertion that something is human life from conception. I don't feel targeted by you using murder just call it what it is, terminating a pregnancy, without trying to trick our voters. "we are fairly strong for the most part" I too believe woman are very strong but getting pregnant can knock anyone's psyche. Also just because the majority is strong doesn't mean that those who don't fit your generalisation must suffer because of what you are forcing them to do. your anecdotal example of your life is one circumstance of many and holds no weight here because A) your mother assumably had had children before you so was ready for parenthood and knew its struggles B) If she wanted to risk you haveing DS that was her choice but to someone who doesn't wish to roll the dice ill give them the choice to say no C) your mother again is one example of someone who was ready for having children and this is the state I want all mothers to be in before they have a child. I want them to be prepared for the workload of having a child so if they are not ready I want to give them the opportunity to say no and wait till they are ready. D) your sister is another anecdote and for every one person that is like your sister there is someone like Alanna(12) E) Government support in your country of origin might be good but in all countries, it is not as flash so "the government will save you" is not a proper reason and your anecdote doesn't support you in the slightest. "Women are not traumatised by giving birth" you should say most "Women are not traumatised by giving birth" because for those who are, despite what you say they do exist and I will treat them with the respect they deserve, those who deserve the right to not be forced into trauma as to follow your flawed absolutist "morality" "its mother won't be the only one in its life to supply love" the relationship between a child and his/her mother is infinitely important especially in the first few years as this is when the child is developing their understanding of love and social constructs. So no mothers are not the only supply of love but they are by far the most important and giving the chance for a mother to get to a point where she will love and neuter this child above all else is a point I wish to get these mothers too. I am not closing my mind but trying to open yours., Now your philosophical argument of Substantial Identity: I have problems with premise 2 and 4. starting with 4 you have created an equivalence problem for yourself by equating us or assumably a member of society whom adds to that society in some form or other to that of a zygote which doesn't have human for or thought functions is lacking in all things that make us "intrinsically valuable" So unless you are claiming that just because it shares DNA it is valuable I refer you back to organisms that we don't discern with rights because if we did we would be able to function. Premise 2 somewhat links onto what i had started talking about where just because something is "human" doesn't mean it has value as yes most human beings are valuable but that is because we work to further society or keep it running we don't passively sit by while society keeps us going or we don't push against the society with no rightful cause. humans who do push against society are called criminals and yes this is a bit tangental from our argument about zygotes but to say that every human deserves rights as though we already do this is a fallacy. also good to see you found a nice academic paper and were able to copy and paste (2) "repeat abortions? How many times can an "accident" happen" mistakes and accidents are based on chances and if one person is unlucky birth control can fail, sometimes multiple times, this is a weak justification as well as these are just a small majority and taking the right away from all women based on this minority is unjust. (3,4,5). these are just case studies and a couple of case studies won't represent the massive population of unwanted children you are forcing into the world that is already struggling, and you are forcing the people who are struggling to bear the burden even if they did all in their power to have birth control you will stop them at this arbitrary point because you feel like is wrong. that's all it is. you are forcing people to do what you feel is best. what you feel is right. but these are people too with their own beliefs and their own values who more often than not can make rational choices and that's what I will give them. Free Will, choice. my thought experiment is exactly that a thought experiment, not an analogy as you tried to make it because you refuse to engage with the argument present. From that, i can only assume one thing that to thought behind it was all too real and you could only attack the circumstances, not the idea. an idea that shows pro-life campaigners like you that your all for pro-life but free will be damned the world must bow to your self-righteous view. I won't say its parasitic but I will say that without the mother what would happen to this "life" and who are you to force the mother to stay hooked up. My closing statement: I will not try to convince you with emotive language and anecdotes but I have only shown you the facts. Abortion is safer than ever now it's legal and we are saving lives by keeping it that way not losing them to something they were going to do anyway. The quality of life will only decrease for not only the child but the mother and all those around them if your view is allowed to be pressed upon a nation or even the world. People are not haveing an abortion and then never having children so why not let them get to a place where they are ready for such a commitment as having a child. Pushing your viewpoint onto someone else is considered wrong so please voters this case cannot stand Vote Con 12)http://www.netmums.com...
| 1 |
the act of killing a child in the womb
|
slang
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
con
|
con
|
Framework My framework will be based around libertarianism. Within libertarianism, there is controversy on abortions because it depends on if the fetus is alive. If the fetus is alive then libertarians are against abortions because libertarians are individualists and therefore value the life of the individual heavily [1]. If the fetus is not alive then libertarians advocate abortion because libertarians belief in a less powerful and restrictive government. In our first contention we will prove the fetus to be living. I will explain why we should have an abortion under libertarian belief. Capitalism magazine explains this by saying, “A fetus does not have a right to be in the womb of any woman, but is there by her permission. This permission may be revoked by the woman at any time, because her womb is part of her body... There is no such thing as the right to live inside the body of another, i.e., there is no right to enslave... a woman is not a breeding pig owned by the state (or church).” [2] She is the individual that libertarians prioritize, due to their individualist beliefs [2]. Since libertarians believe in a less restrictive government, the outcome is clear. The government should NOT be involved in something so personal to the person since by intervening in this person’s choice, you are restricting them and are violating libertarian ideology [3]. The Fetus Is Not Alive Only 1.4% of abortions occur after 21 weeks into the pregnancy [3,4]. This means that that most abortions are done before the fetus is even formed. It is an embryo, and an embryo is proven to be not alive. It isn't a subject of discussion when talking about the embryo [5]. I will now address the fetus - which is mitigated due to the small percentage of abortions that occur at this period. There are 7 categories in which life can be identified [6]. The fetus only meets 2 of these. Movement - The fetus can move so this part is met. Respiration - The fetus cannot respire on its own (7). Sensitivity - The fetus cannot sense at 24 weeks or even 28 weeks (8). Growth - The fetus does grow. Reproduction - Whilst it is a fetus, no it cannot reproduce (9). Excretion - This is possible however very rare and unlikely (10). Nutrition - The fetus cannot independently take in nutrition. If one of these wasn’t met then the fetus would not be considered alive. The fetus was only able to meet 2. Illegal Abortions When an abortion is legal there is absolutely no point in having an illegal abortion because they have been proven to be very dangerous and expensive. If abortion are legal then illegal abortions will negatively correlate (11). These illegal abortions have been known to kill both the mother and the baby and sometimes result in extreme suffering on the mother’s part (11). Mothers are not doctors (most of the time) so these illegal abortions also occur later than 24 (and even 28) weeks meaning that the babies suffer too (11)! Did you know: “13% of pregnancy-related deaths worldwide are related to complications of unsafe abortion.”(12) This statistic is shocking but demonstrates my point very well. These unsafe abortions are illegal and this is what is currently happening because abortions are illegal in places. They have no option to a safe abortion and are so desperate for abortion that they attempt to have an unsafe abortion. Therefore, we can conclude that there are a huge number of unsafe abortions (13% of all pregnancy related deaths). From this we can then follow up an argument suggesting that making abortions illegal will not necessarily get rid of all abortions therefore rendering our opponent’s aim to be mitigated. Underaged teenagers “19% of teens who have had sexual intercourse become pregnant each year. 78% of these pregnancies are unplanned. 6 in 10 teen pregnancies occur among 18-19 year olds.” (12) This statistic is significant for many reasons. If this occurs amongst 18 - 19 year olds then this is extremely bad. Having to look after and care for a child ruins their chances of going to university. Your twenties are your most important period of your lives according to many sources (13,14,15). Having to look after a child in this period of time is extremely stressful and prevents you from getting proper qualifications and more importantly, it prevents you from getting a full time job and a house. Children are extremely expensive to have and having a child at the time when you should be looking for a job makes income problematic. On top of this you will have to pay huge amounts of money. “To raise a child born in 2013 to the age of 18, it will cost a middle-income couple just over $245,000, according to newly released estimates from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. That's up $4,260, or almost 2%, from the year before.”(16) Now let's compare this to the average income of a family: “The typical U.S. households pulls in $51,371 per year.” Teenage parents are most likely to make a lot less than this but let's take this statistic anyway. Assuming that this ‘average’ family spend no money at all on anything. It will still cost them almost 5 times their yearly income to equate to that amount. Of course they will need food, clothes, mortgage, heating, electricity etc. on top of this sum of money. If this seems like a lot you should double the cost of a child figures (assuming that they have another child), what will you do then? Not allow an abortion? Allow these teengagers to pay almost $500,000, earning (most likely) less than $51,371 per year. Gender Equality Pregnancies have a huge impact upon people’s lives - in particular the mother. As Sarah Weddington stated: “A pregnancy to a woman is perhaps one of the most determinative aspects of her life. It disrupts her body. It disrupts her education. It disrupts her employment. And it often disrupts her entire family life.” (17) She continued: “[And we feel that], because of the impact on the woman, this … is a matter which is of such fundamental and basic concern to the woman involved that she should be allowed to make the choice as to whether to continue or to terminate her pregnancy.” (17) This was a case showing that without the right to a termination, you are denying women a right and therefore what my opponent is advocating is gender inequality. The philosopher, Judith Thomson said: “If abortion rights are denied, then a constraint is imposed on women's freedom to act in a way that is of great importance to them, both for its own sake and for the sake of their achievement of equality .... and if the constraint is imposed on the ground that the foetus has a right to life from the moment of conception, then it is imposed on a ground that neither reason nor the rest of morality requires women to accept, or even to give any weight at all.” (17) This emphasizes my previous point in regards to the denial of gender rights and equality. P1: Denying women an abortion is gender inequality P2: Gender inequality is a violation of human rights C1: Abortion legalization stops gender inequality rights C2: Abortions should be legalized Mother’s Life “The risk of death associated with childbirth is about 10 times as high as that associated with abortion.” (12) This means that in almost ANY circumstance, an abortion is safer than a pregnancy. 99% of all pregnancy related deaths occur in countries that have no option to an abortion (18). The correlation is evident between the lack of abortion and the maternal mortality. By the end of 2015, 303,000 mothers would have died due to the lack of abortion availability (18). Sources [1] http://bit.ly... [2] http://bit.ly... [3] http://bit.ly... [4] http://bit.ly... [5] http://bit.ly... [6]http://bbc.in... [7] http://bit.ly... [8] http://bit.ly... [9] http://bit.ly... [10] http://bit.ly... [11] http://bit.ly... [12] http://bit.ly... [13] http://bit.ly... [14] http://onforb.es... [15] http://elitedai.ly... [16] http://cnnmon.ie... [17] http://bbc.in... [18] http://bit.ly...
| 1 |
a fetus has the right to live
|
slang
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
con
|
con
|
Being a Catholic and Republican, that's where I get most my political views especially my view of abortion and the media, for as long as I can remember, has always gone against my views, politically and religiously. I don't like bringing religion to arguments but that's what this is about to me. The definition of baby is different on a lot of sites. Dictionary.com defines it as many examples 1.an infant or very young child. 2.a newborn or very young animal. 3.the youngest member of a family, group, etc. 4.an immature or childish person. 5.a human fetus. It depends on the site you look it up on. Could you kill a "fetus" that has a heart, face, organs and all things necessary for life, exactly the same as a baby out of the womb? And if you would say yes, don't answer it in your next argument. Yes to err is human and to forgive is divine but humans aren't punished at all. We have all sorts of electronics that spoil us and makes us think anything is okay until the damage is to far done. In my eyes, infanticide and abortion are the same thing. Abortion is the killing off a baby inside the womb. The only difference between the girl killing her baby and abortion is that she wasn't a doctor and it was done in a bathroom. You tell me that baby isn't legally a baby until the second it come out of the womb? That's impossible, theirs no way for that babies heart to start beating, for it's blood to start flowing coming out of the uterus. Their are videos of babies in the womb, being dismembered and trying to get away from suffering. I honestly doubt that's how how they say the baby will react. I watched a video to wear a girl went undercover as a pregnant mom to see what happens in an abortion clinic and what they tell you. http://www.youtube.com... I have a bunch of stories of people going to be a nurse during an abortion and quit working at the clinic because of watching what they do. You don't need a PHD to tell if something is alive or not. And yes you were saying we are happy with war. I got mad because you going off and insulting my father's work. He was gone for 3 years of my life stationed and fighting for our country and saying we are OK with it. I doubt any one is OK with war but can we control others that want war? No, so we defend ourselves. Me bringing up communism was one sentence. I doubt that means this third part of the argument is all about communism. Learn the difference between changing the conversation and stating an example. You brought up euthanasia as an example. Does that mean the conversation was about euthanasia?
| -1 |
the intentional destruction of a human fetus by medical means, usually by a surgical procedure
|
slang
|
abortion
|
no
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
"Progeria like you said is rare so rare that it only occurs in 1 newborn of 4 - 8 million newborns. This birth defect is NOT detectable in a sonogram it only begins to appear in the child’s first 18 to 24 months. If the parent already has progeria the rate rises to 2-3% of the child obtaining this birth defect, in this scenario testing is available to see if the birth defect has been passed down"It really doesn't matter how rare it is, just because very few kids actually get it doesn't mean you can completely cut it off. For example, Company A submits a certain drug. Because only 5% of people would actually need that drug to survive, the drug does not pass FDA inspection. The bottom line here is that it doesn't matter how few people get the disease, at least leave all the options open for them instead of labeling them as "not worth it".Also, since progeria is a genetic mutation, it can technically be tested pre-birth through blood or fluid samples of the fetus."On the topic of downs syndrome I happen to know many children born with downs syndrome. These kids are some of the sweetest and most kind kids there are. "I am really not impressed with anecdotes especially in scientific discussions because it honestly tells me very little. It does, however, tell me that my opponent likes to over-generalize based on personal experience, which is never a good thing. I couldn't care less how sweet or kind they are, these kids are in a variety of pain. The disease makes it very difficult to function normally in both personal and social situations, and also makes them more susceptible to serious diseases. Just because they are sweet and kind doesn't mean that their disease isn't bogging them down and making their life harder than it needs to be. "God has a plan for every single child that lives here on earth some of these plans are shorter than others but sure as heck would not take the opportunity away from them to live out Gods plan!" How do you know God's plan, or even if he has one. Did He tell you? I really doubt you're such an interesting person that a so-called timeless, spaceless, omnipresent, all powerful deity would take the time to have make small talk with you in particular. "If the family didn’t want another child they should have taken the precautionary measures to insure they did not have another child. 1. Tubes tide after the previous child 2. Birth control 3. Condom"Not everyone is as smart or wise as you are. A lot of people are also against the three options you have suggested, so they sure as hell won't be using them. "Like I said in round 2 if the woman didn’t want a child she should not have had sex in the first place and if she just wanted to have sex she should have used contraceptives to prevent the pregnancy"Again, not everyone is as wise as you are. If you want to go on a crusade to educate the ignorant public on the use of contraceptives, be my guest, but until then, this argument is invalid."I have an amazing friend who was abandoned and adopted. She is one of the best people I know. And if you think adoption is a bad thing you are mistaken there are millions of women who cant have children who want children that would love and care for them."Unimpressive anecdote is unimpressive. You can't possibly know what she has been through or how she feels about it. I am not against adoption, but not all adopters are as loving and caring as you may think they are."It is NOT called suffering, its called giving them a chance to live."I take it you also don't want cancer-ridden patients to be given the choice to take their own life because "It is NOT called suffering, its called giving them a chance to live." These diseases, if not VERY painful, are VERY obstructive to the patient's daily life. This is definitely called suffering.And then my opponent links a bunch of stories of genetically mutated babies who were supposedly very happy. At least, their parents were. Again, anecdotes are unimpressive because they tell me next to nothing about anything."But that woman who aborted her baby will never know what the best of her abilities are until she try’s."This is like saying "I've never jumped off a cliff before, so I might as well try and see what happens." or, "I've never taken care of 10 cats at a time before, hell, I can't even take care of myself, but you know, I might as well try." Most people have the capacity to predict the consequences of something even if they have never done it before. For example, I'm pretty sure a pot-head, homeless, gang-affiliated prostitute who lives in a wooden shack and can only eat one meal day knows beyond a doubt that she does not have the capacity to raise a child, should she realize that she is pregnant one day."Based off of what you just said I FORCED her to have sex. But for a matter of fact that was her decision to have sex, not mine, not yours, and not anybody else’s. When you get an abortion you are NOT TAKING CARE of the baby. You are getting rid of your problems instead of owning up to your mistake you made!"This is an incredible example of shifting blame onto the woman. You should also read my argument one more time. I said the woman was forced to have sex. Having sex and becoming pregnant are two different issues. And based on your logic, if I accidentally adopt 20 dogs, I should keep all of them, because giving them up would be irresponsible."But when you keep allowing women to have abortions its like telling the world “Oh you just made a LITTLE mistake, don’t worry about it When in all reality you should be telling them “own up to your mistakes, have the child, keep it or put him/ her up for adoption and move on I will leave you with this......Would you really take your child's life just because they were different?" This is some really strange logic. How is conceiving a baby you KNOW you are not ready for owning up to anything. You act as if these children are like pets, they can either be kept or given away. Do you not realize that children also have complex emotional responses to their situation? It's not as if taking care of a child is easy, even experienced parents and those who are ready for a child have a hard time taking care of one. Taking on an the challenge of raising a child when you know you are not ready is not only selfish but also completely foolish. Doing this solves absolutely nothing, all it does is compound the problem.And no, I would not have my child aborted if they were different, because after all, all children are different. Hell, all people are different. However, if my child was to be born disease ridden or when I am not ready for one, I would definitely abort, as refraining from doing so is extremely selfish. I may love my child with all my heart, but my child would be in pain, physically or mentally. If I truly loved my child, I would not subject him/her to that kind of suffering just so I can get off a few years of happiness or experiment whether or not I am ready for a child. I will close with a quote from one of Aesop's fables, which I think perfectly emphasizes my point:"Give assistance, not advice, in a crisis"
| 1 |
abortion is the act of killing a baby that is still in the womb
|
slang
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
con
|
con
|
I support abortion
| 1 |
the most misunderstood word in the english language
|
slang
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
pro
|
neutral
|
We all know that the point of Abortion is for parents who cannot afford to take care of a child but does that mean that the child must be put to sleep? Its pretty much a slaughter at birth. Now this is not reasonable. People don't deserve this. If an adult brings a child into our world, they should live up to their responsibilities as a parent. My mom chose to save me. She didn't chose to abort me and I am grateful. You should also be grateful that you are alive today. I have never heard of someone who cannot give a child up for adoption. That is nonsense. Adoption isn't something that just happened to me. My mom chose it for me because she knew that it was the right choice for her. I hope you understand this that Abortion is a very cruel thing to do to someone. I accept that everyone has different opinions and I respect your opinion. But I hope who ever is with Abortion, I hope you all come to your senses and live for what's right! In any case, I hope you change your mind and know that you are alive today.
| -1 |
the point of abortion is for parents who cannot afford to take care of a child but does that mean that the child must be put to sleep?
|
slang
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
con
|
neutral
|
But the woman has a maternal feeling and is very connected to her child. If she chooses to get an abortion, I feel that it is an okay choice. Many people don't understand that abortion has a lot of circumstances that it is actually almost required. If a woman has to choose between her life and the baby's, no one can tell her that abortion isn't okay, and that she will just have to die during childbirth. Many people don't understand that abortion is a big decision. It is just as big of a decision as marriage. Women spend hours deciding what she wants to do. It is no doubt just a split-second decision, it is a long and hard process and it is to be taken seriously. We spend hours deciding what to do. It is life or death for the fetus, something that is not a joking matter.
| 1 |
a choice that many women are forced to make
|
slang
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
pro
|
While I could attempt to obfuscate the argument by introducing multiple different arguments, I will attempt to limit myself to the arguments that he has set forth. So without further ado I will present my counter arguments. RebuttalDefinition of abortion. My opponent defines it as: "artificially ending a pregnancy, specifically excluding C-section". While I think that while we are going to agree with what is meant, this could be misused in conditions where the woman is receiving treatment for something else which has the unintended side effect resulting in the death of the child. Additionally, it could include drugs that induce delivery of the child when it is safe to the child to do so. And I will also include drugs or devices that would prevent an embryo from implanting. With these general exceptions I think we can agree upon the definition. Next my opponent essentially concedes personhood to the unborn child (more on that later). Abortion argument #1:"A two year old child is dying, they require a kidney transplant, the only person who can provide the kidney is the babies mother, the babies mother doesn't want to give up her kidney. If that woman can choose to not donate a kidney then why can't a pregnant woman choose to no longer provide her body for the fetus to grow inside of? "and"Now for your position to be logically consistent you need to force the mother of the two year old to give her kidney to her child. Obviously it would be a moral action for the mother to give her child her kidney but that is not the question, the question is whether or not she should be forced to give away her kidney. "While my opponent claimed he wasn't arguing morality he ends up arguing morality! (I jest). :-)This is resolved by a little bit of philosophy and reasoning. The purpose of the mother's kidney is to filter and reprocess blood [1] in the mother's body. That we can repurpose it to do the same in the child's body is truly a marvel of modern medicine. However, as this is an extra-natural (i. e. outside of nature) act there is no onus on the parents to do so. As such it is up to the parent to decide the best course of action. She may decide that this is her only child and that she'll make the sacrifice, or she may decide that that she has another 7 children at home and that the toll will be too great on her resulting in much suffering for her and her other children. Now we can look at the child within the womb. The purpose of the womb is there explicitly to give life to the mother's young children. In fact, the woman can live safely without the womb, the unborn child cannot. Additionally, the mother's body naturally desires the child to be there since every month it intentionally prepares itself to provide nourishment to the child. As procreation is the natural purpose of every living being, and this is the only means by which our species can naturally reproduce, it is intuitive that the child has a natural right to use the mother's womb for the purpose that it exists while being in conformity with the natural desire of the woman's body. Additionally, we recognize that parents have a natural duty to provide for the basic needs of their children. While this is generally an obvious issue of natural or common law, nations are generally enshrining this into law. Let's take Canadian Law as an example:Failure to Provide the Necessities of Life: Everyone is under a legal duty as a parent, foster parent, guardian or head of a family, to provide necessaries of life for a child under the age of sixteen years. [2]The parents are the legal guardians of the child until the age of majority and as such have the rights to make legal decisions on behalf of the child, but also have the corresponding duty to provide for the needs of the child. However, they do not own the child. Finally we agreed that the child has a right to life. If (s)he is alive (s)he has a body. An abortion "artificially ends a pregnancy" in either a direct or indirect attack by the mother on the child thus denying him/her of his/her right to life. Whereas choosing not to give the child her kidney merely lets nature take its course. Abortion Argument #2:And now for very early term abortion, the argument that a early term (0-10 week) fetus is human has to rest on the genetic makeup of the fetus which begs the question: Should a placenta have rights? It has no nervous system but neither does an early term fetus. An early term fetus should be considered no more human than a placenta and if you want to argue otherwise you will have to find a trait an early term fetus possesses which a placenta lacks. First let's analyze your life. Your profile says that you're 14 (and probably quite mature for your age to be making these kind of arguments). If we go back second by second we'll find that you are the same organism now as a teenager as you were as a youth, as a toddler, as a baby, as a fetus, as an embryo, as a zygote, however there was no "you" before that. The egg and the sperm did not have to result in you, any other sperm could have combined with that egg and you'd not have been you. If that sperm combined with a different egg, once again you'd not be you. A new homo sapiens organism begins at fertilization, it is a scientific fact. Additionally, you will note that in that phase of development you were never a placenta. In fact, there is no natural process that results in a placenta developing into a human being. At no time has a placenta ever spontaneously become any of the other stages of life that I described. A placenta does not become a teenager, baby, fetus, embryo or zygote. It is a tissue of a human organism, and not an organism itself. Thus other human tissues are objectively different than an actual human being. A placenta is just a placenta, whereas an embryo is a human being at the youngest stages of life. In reality this is just another form of discrimination based on appearance. It doesn't look like us, in fact it looks more like a pimple than a person. And yet, it is a member of the human species, just like you and me. Finally you noted in your opening arguments you agreed that a fetus has a right to life. Life is the most fundamental human right that anyone has because if you do not have the right to life you cannot actually have any other right. If it is a fundamental human right that means that neither the government nor any other person the the authority to give it or take it from you - otherwise it would not be a right, but would instead be a privilege granted to you. Additionally, if it is fundamental right then you must always possess it. If you are the same organism from fertilization to natural death, how could you have varying fundamental human rights? That is logically inconsistent. Counter ArgumentThere is no single criteria other than simply being a member of humanity that you can apply to a zygote that doesn't also apply to a newborn baby in terms of granting rights. Brain - well other animals also have brains and we kill and eat many of them. Intelligence - well one can objectively show that the adult cow you ate for dinner was more intelligent than a newborn. Ability to feel pain - Other animals also feel pain. Ability to communicate - A baby can only cry. Dogs can bark, whine, growl, pant and wag their tail, paw at you, bring you their leash, etc. .. Is sapient - well neither of them are yet sapient. Logically, you have to permit infanticide if you are going to determine humanity on any single attribute other than merely being a member of the species. If you want to argue that there are 2 attributes that have to be met then you are applying a truly subjective criteria and have to justify why 2 criteria are needed. You are implicitly accepting that there is something special about being a member of the species rather than the secondary attribute. The secondary criteria is a means of discrimination of the powerful over the powerless. Humanity has a history of this:You are only a person if you are human and male, human and white, human and non-Jewish, human and a citizen of a particular nation, etc. .. I look forward to my opponent's reply. [1] . http://www.ahwatukee.com...[2] . http://en.wikibooks.org...
| -1 |
"an abortion is the artificial termination of a pregnancy
|
slang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Thanks to con for this great debate I hope both of us can learn something positive from this debate. First I will rebut my opponent's case then I will present my case. Rebuttal I. My opponent opens his case by stating that murdering a human is wrong. Most people will agree with this but yet we (U. S. Military, Army Etc. ) murder men and women every single day to protect our freedom yet we don't call that murder, why because the intentions behind it to us is morally correct, to protect our freedom our way of life. So why should we believe is incorrect and murder when a girl's innocence is taken away by rape from her and she has to bear with the pain that a man forced on her without her choice. Why should she have to take on life with a kid that she had no intentions on having? Why should she have to take on the world by herself to be able to feed herself & her child? Will these people that are pro-life going to help her with her life and struggles? No, no one will she will have to take on the world by herself. Rebuttal II. A fetus can dream, let's see how about we focus on the kids that because of the situation they are living in can not dream can not have hope? My opponent here is worrying about taking the choice which was given to woman by this country to make decision of her body on her own. Let's focus on the millions of kids in school struggling to get on with life, let's focus on them to make sure they have a better life. A fetus can dream can my opponent exactly tell me what does a fetus dream about? The sounds he hears when the mother's food is digesting? If he does dream about these certain sounds then of course we should rip away women rights over their body because a fetus can dream of food digesting, It's very essential to the future of this country. Rebuttal III. I'd like to tell my opponent I am not here arguing whether fetus are humans or not but whether Abortion is correct or not. It is in the choice of the women to do whatever she wants with her body and not anyone in this world will ever take that right away from her because it is a God giving right. Rebuttal IIII. "There are major consequences to ones actions. Abortion is no different. Here is a list of some of the emotional side-effect to an abortion. " I would like to start by saying that it is proven that the most reliable indicator of whether a woman will experience feelings of distress after an abortion is her emotional stability before the abortion. The women can be stressful but not because she had to terminate her human fetus but because the process of abortion is long and stressful. Yet the most common emotion after completing an abortion is relief. Most women have stress and are ashamed during this whole process because of the many people in this world that want to deprive her of her rights. She becomes stressful because of the much obstacles she has to face to receive abortion care. Also some of them end up in depression because they feel so alone because people believe what she is doing is "morally" incorrect. I tell this to my opponent, he wants to prevent these women to have these side effects maybe giving them support will help. Letting them know that we understand that at times we all make mistakes, that we understand that they would not like to see the face of the effect of a rape. . http://www.prochoice.org...Rebuttal V. My opponent states that Abortion increases cancer. I believe we should tell that to the millions of smokers out there, that smoking causes lung cancer. Because it causes lung cancer should we make it illegal to smoke and take that choice away from them? Let's look at alcohol, alcohol can affect our judgement and make us do things we wouldn't do when we're sober. Alcohol slows down our reflexes and our coordination, it can put us to sleep it can induce a comma and kill. Yet should we make it illegal for everyone to stop drinking because of the side affects of it? Life is about choices. Choices we make and no one else should make it for us. . http://www.quit-smoking-stop.com...http://www.everybody.co.nz...Rebuttal VI. Adoption there are millions of children in adoption homes which spend their entire life's these without anyone coming to adopt them? I believe it is idiotic to add to these number let's worry about those children in adoption homes, not worry about bringing in more to the adoption homes. Contention I. I will now get my case across. I'd like to begin with these quotes just like my opponent did. Frederica Mathewes-Green: "No woman wants an abortion as she wants an ice cream cone or a Porsche. She wants an abortion as an animal caught in a trap wants to gnaw off its own leg. "Diane British: "If (Vice President Dan Quayle) thinks it's disgraceful for an unmarried woman to bear a child, and if he believes that a woman cannot adequately raise a child without a father, then he'd better make sure that abortion remains safe and legal. "Katha Pollitt: "Young women need to know that abortion rights and abortion access are not presents bestowed or retracted by powerful men (or women) -- Presidents, Supreme Court justices, legislators, lobbyists -- but freedoms won, as freedom always is, by people struggling on their own behalf. " I would like to state quickly that most pro-life activist's biggest defense is that fetus are humans? Yet in my rebuttals alone I've shown a ton of reasons why it should be legal here are a few more. In many cases women have to raise their children alone and my mother is a perfect example of it. She had to work two jobs day and night and was never able to spend quality time with her children. Just to be able to maintain us and put food on our plates. I would like to point out that not many women will be able to pull that off. I believe they shouldn't have to go through it this is a major reason why I am pro-choice because no women should have to go through the pain of raising a child on her own. According to studies in 2006, 12.9 million families in the U. S. were headed by a single-parent, 80% of which were headed by a female. Why should they have to go through these struggles? . http://en.wikipedia.org...Contention II. I would like to tell this to my opponent. Where in the law do Fetus have legal rights? Yet I am for sure that women do. Every single person in this world agree that children have rights not everyone agrees that Fetus of two, four, twenty-eight weeks are children. So I would like to state that by the law a Fetus does not have rights therefore it should not be considered by people like my opponent "MURDER. "Conclusion I. I would like to conclude fast and simple, I've met thousands of people who are pro-choice but no one is pro-abortion. Do you think we like terminating a fetus life? We do not, but It's the woman's choice whether she is ready or not. Not mines nor my opponent's, therefore we should not deny them their right of CHOICE.
| 1 |
the act of ending a pregnancy by removing the fetus from the womb
|
slang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
We've also been through this. Nobody is 'punishing' foetuses for anything. That they typically do not end up surviving the abortion of a pregnancy is irrelevant. you say ending a life isn't a punishment, Purposley ending a life is a punishment to the life you are ending. if you end the life of a fetus then you are punishing that fetus and that fetus is a human fetus which the main word is Human not Fetus . to prove that god exists all you have to do is look around, all of creation cannot exist without a creator. you don't have to be able to think to be alive, there are species all over the world that can't think cause they don't have a brain but they are alive, all a fetus has to do is be HUMAN for murder to take place, it is alive or it could not Grow and develop and a Human fetus is still a human it doesn't change to a human just because it leaves the womb
| -1 |
the intentional destruction of a fetus
|
slang
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
con
|
Anyone who has any understanding of morality knows that tines of war are different from times of peace. Japan bombed us, we hit back to end the war, and show power to prevent another war. Abortion isn't war, unless you have a war on babies, which would be strange. Abortion also doesn't save lives, as the bombing on Japan does. Abortion may give one a littler more money since they won't care for a child, but do does adoption. Since these two do the same we look at which is better. Death or life. Most people pick life. Adoption is not only financially better to the parents, but saves a life. Abortion may be saving the mother from a bit of delivery pain, but it kills to do so. The problem with charity is charity funds aren't infinite, charity relies on the people giving, the number of people eligible for charity is way greater then the number of donated stuff. "We have to make sure they have the same opportunities as we do" #the American dream only under capitalism is this possible. Burnie doesn't bring the poor up, he brings the rich down. In your rebuttal to my a or b questions you gave me material for more of the same instead of answering. A. Have a bad job or no job as a young adult b. Have no job cause your dead and never got a chance Your repeating the same things you said ealier. I've conceded facts, yes, I hope everyone does that. Why con wins: I have proved that the benifits of abortion can be received with not having an abortion, but also saving lives. Pro has attempted to prove his point by using killing in war as proof. Since abortion isn't war we can see this point as void. Pro has clearly no understanding of morality and fails to recognize killing one person as a greater harm then a little less money for another person. I have proved that abortion is life, with no rebuttal from Pro, which means I won that point.
| -1 |
a procedure to end a pregnancy
|
slang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Murder does not only mean if the HUMAN has Personhood it means the killing of a Human not just a Human Person, this said abortion is the Premeditated killing of an innocent. once a woman willingly has unprotected sex, they have given the right to the child that may be created because of that choice. also if you are raped its called go to the hospital that night, get the morning after pill and don't wait for weeks up on weeks, and you should have to PROVE beyond a shadow of a doubt that you were raped not just say you were raped. anyway That being said blaming the innocent for your mistake in not being protected is cruel and should be banned, also Husbands or whoever the father is of the baby( unless it rape of course) should have a say in it too and if they both don't agree it should not be able to be done as the baby does not only belong to the mother just cause its in her, the father of it is part of it too
| -1 |
"the killing of an innocent human being
|
slang
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
con
|
con
|
Abortions are very risky and hazardous to the women
| -1 |
the act of killing an unborn child, usually by injecting the child with a poison and then vacuuming it out of the mother's womb
|
slang
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
con
|
con
|
To deny someone of life is cruel and unjust. To deny a baby of life to deny someone a living being who hasn't even experienced life is beyond cold-blooded. When a women is bearing a child she has the I believe ultimate responsibility. The women must abandon everything and focus on her responsibility. When a woman kills a child she skills an opportunity someone that can have an idea the benefits outweigh the negatives. In case of rape doctors can administer pills and make sure she isn't pregnant and give her pharmaceuticals to ensure she won't get pregnant. It was decided on roe vs. wade that the mother had the choice whether or not she had the power over one's life a bit like Russian roulette except the baby has a 50% chance of being killed and 50% chance of staying alive. "if you take away a woman's right to her own body, what could the government make you do. it is not murder if the child can't even live outside of the mothers body and as long as its done within the first four months then I don't see why people care so much"- opponent R1- what about the babies rights? what about giving the baby rights? and not leaving it to a bovine/asinine teen who gives it away every time she feels like it. Most abortions are teens. How is it none of their business it's like saying why do people want to stop racism? it's like asking why do people even care about the columbine high school shooting I mean it was none of their business so what's the big deal? well Murder is a big deal it's a huge deal. When a baby has a mind the baby is a human being. You obviously have no idea what the "situation" is. killing is a very big deal in America people care, they're passionate, and they have the 1st amendment right to protest. Also the government is made for the people and by the people. -aside- the resolution is unfair and limits the arguments that one can make against it
| -1 |
a teen mother who doesn't want to be a mother, but it's not like it's any of your business
|
slang
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
pro
|
neutral
|
Some women get unintentionally pregnant, whether by rape or just making whoopie. This is why abortion exists; in case a woman gets pregnant but doesn't want the baby. Now, the common response is that we could take the child to an orphanage. However, then there's the problem with teen pregnancy; sometimes a teenager will get pregnant. Since they're not ready to give birth, the child may get defects, which leads to no one wanting this baby. It would be better then if the child didn't exist in the first place; having an abortion.
| 1 |
the act of taking the child out of the womb of the mother
|
slang
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Okay, so Con wants to make one final point that is essential to the argument. The resolution debated was being in favor of abortion or being against abortion. While I have provided several arguments that are supported by evidence to make that claim, the most convincing piece comes from Pro’s closing remarks. Here is the relevant statement quoted from Pro: “…women who are raped should have the choice for abortion, although that would not be right. ” Even though Con does not support abortion as a concept or as a value in itself, Con does support abortion in instances of rape and incest. Therefore, Con concede that Con supports abortion in these cases, although with the caveat “although that [abortion] would not be right. ” Reasons to Vote for Pro: BOP for this debate is 50/50 Pro provided rebuttals to every single [warrant] or counterclaim made by Con. Pro provided evidence or support for arguments made. Pro asked Con several questions or warrants, every few of which Con provided answer and none that Con rebutted with evidence.
| 1 |
the act of removing a fetus from the womb of a pregnant woman
|
slang
|
abortion
|
no
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
It is not always the fault of the woman's irresponsibility that causes an unwanted pregnancy. My friend's mom got pregnant twice while using birth control and condoms. Some people are just very fertile. Also, even if a woman is irresponsible and makes a bad decision, should she pay for that one small mistake for the rest of her life? Does she deserved to lose so much because of one mistake? "They have the most emotional ties to their baby, then they will be equally emotionally distraught by the abortion of their child."- I am not sure exactly what Con is trying to say here, but it takes a while for a mother to be emotionally tied to her baby. A woman with an unwanted pregnancy can get an abortion before she even notices the changes in her body other than the lack of menstruation. Also, if a woman wants an abortion she obviously is not that emotionally attached to the baby.
| 1 |
"an abortion is the intentional termination of a pregnancy by removing the fetus or embryo from the uterus
|
slang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Now, I couldn"t help but notice something he stated in his opening: "I am for abortion, but only in certain cases" He said this nonchalantly, but he really has forced me into a pickle. He hasn"t taken the stance that Abortion is okay, he is taking the position that Abortion is okay in moderation. So, I must argue the fact that abortion is murder, even from conception. This will be the stance that I will take and will attempt to prove today.
| -1 |
the most horrible thing that can happen to a human being
|
slang
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
con
|
con
|
Abortion should not be allowed in any cases only in exception when the birth is very detrimental to the woman's health. A baby can not give consent, so it can not give consent to being aborted so I say with that it is unjustifiable.
| -1 |
the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo during the first 28 weeks of gestation
|
slang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
I believe that abortion should not be restricted by law. It is the mother's choice whether or not she wants to keep the child she is pregnant with, and that choice should not be regulated by the government. People who are opposed to this say that it's inhumane to kill a child like that. I agree that everything that is alive has its own rights, but when women get an abortion, the child isn't even old enough for speech. They also aren't old enough for sophisticated thought. Therefore, they are not yet a part of society, and aren't yet really their own person. They are completely dependent on the mother, so it is the mother's decision on whether or not she wishes to keep and raise them.
| 1 |
the act of terminating a pregnancy by removing the fetus from the womb
|
slang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
I concede my opponent, clearly has me bested. She has a better arsenal, and a better argument. While I am still against abortion, and always will be! My opponent has beaten out my challenge, thus deserves the votes for this debate. I look forward to more debates with this person.
| -1 |
the act of removing a fetus from a woman's womb, usually by a medical doctor
|
slang
|
abortion
|
no
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Rules: In this debate I will conduct myself as Con on the issue of abortion. My opponent is to conduct his/her self as Pro on the issue of abortion. First Round is for acceptance. Burden of Proof is shared.
| -1 |
the process of terminating a pregnancy by killing the fetus
|
slang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
con
|
Thank you, but although all Orphanage's are not abusive, many are. Abortions should remain legal and are a difficult choice for the woman to make as well. Maybe that woman has been through trauma in foster care or orphanage's, or even group homes and has seen it all, but is not able to properly care for the child and give the child the proper life he/she needs, and or deserves, the only other option she sees fit is abortion before this child has to suffer further pain for as long as he/she lives. There are thousands of scenario's on why abortions should be legal, can any one give me a thousand reasons why it should not? Rest on that question.
| 1 |
the removal of a fetus from a woman's womb
|
slang
|
abortion
|
no
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
My opponent says that abortion is always immoral under every circumstance without exceptions. I oppose this resolution. ===DEFINITIONS=== 1. Abortion: An operation or other procedure to terminate pregnancy before the fetus is viable. [1] 2. Fetus: The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic structural resemblance to the adult animal. [2] We shall take into assumption for this debate that a human fetus is what is being referred to. ===ARGUMENTS === 1. A Fetus is not necessarily a human. What is it that makes us human? If being human is simply defined by having human DNA then yes a fetus is a human. But is that really what you believe? Probably not, and rightly so. Our advance and higher level of sentience is a more suitable description for what sets us apart from the animal kingdom. Wouldn't you agree? Now we must ask; does a fetus have this same sentience? The simple answer is no. A fetus has not even yet obtained the ability to feel pain until the third trimester, as described in the Journal of the American Medical Association[3,4]. In other words, the fetus has even less sentience than a common fish. 2. Even if a fetus was human that doesn't make killing it immoral in every circumstance. The right to life is not an absolute. Rights are made by humans to create a generality of better well-being in society caused by those specific rights being established. I contend that in many cases and nearly every case in which the mother seeks an abortion there is a higher potential amount of negative consequences which would result from keeping the fetus than otherwise aborting it. So giving the fetus a right to life would be defeating the purpose of having rights at all. The mother may have been raped or whatever kind of birth-control used may have malfunctioned thus she became pregnant against her will. To force her into not having an abortion would in-effect be forcing her to become pregnant since it was by no fault of her own. Furthermore, the mother's living situation may be entirely unsuitable for taking proper care of a baby. To force her not to have an abortion would in-effect be mandated child abuse. I look forward to my opponent's reply and the rest of this debate. ===SOURCES=== 1. . http://dictionary.reference.com... 2. . http://education.yahoo.com... 3. . http://jama.ama-assn.org... 4. . http://www.msnbc.msn.com...
| 1 |
the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo, resulting in or caused by its death
|
slang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Thank you, TheGoldMustache, for instigating this debate. In this debate, Pro has the burden of proof to affirm the clarified resolution: "If abortion is murder, so is abstinence. "
| -1 |
"abortion is the removal of a fetus from the womb of a pregnant woman
|
slang
|
abortion
|
no
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
"Con concedes that the fetus does not meet the reproduction requirment of the definition that THEY provided. This is crusical to note because this is a contradiction on their behalf and this should be considered and taken into account when voting." Yes, this IS very crucial when voting, because I have rebutted this faulty argument 3 TIMES ALREADY, and he STILL pretends as if I didn"t. So yes, take note people, if he cannot rebuttal my point, then vote Con. "Con states that they got their characteristics of life from their biology class. This is insufficient evidence. I also got mine from my biology class however I managed to source and prove that this classification of life is valid whereas yours has been based off bare assertion. Con continues to make the claim that children that haven't meet puberty is a sufficient rebuttal since I said that the fetus isn't fully developed. Con clearly skims my case because if they had read it properly and thouroughly they would have noticed that I refuted this a number of times. I have clearly said and demonstrated that children are developing humans whereas the fetus is developing to BECOME a human. It is not yet a human whereas a child is. Since the child belongs to the human race this means that it is considered living whereas the fetus does not yet belong to the human race. This means that it is considered separate to humans and is therfore should be assessed separately unlike children." Let"s break Pro"s argument down shall we? He says here, that children are alive, even though they cannot reproduce yet, but a fetus is not alive for the same reason that he was willing to discredit to say that a child is alive. His rational of this, is that a child belongs to the human race, and overall, humans can reproduce. But he does not consider a fetus to be part of the human race, even though he never offers a real explanation as to why it is not. I on the other hand offered a perfectly reasonable reason why they ARE part of the human race; their genetic is human genetics. Please note, if Pro argues that a fetus is not a human because it is not alive, this is called a circular argument, and you should vote Con for it. "Con continues to state that there is a difference between reacting to stimuli and responding to it. To end the confusion I will provide sources to prove that it doesn't react to stimuli and it doesn't respond to it either. a) The fetus does not respond to stimuli. b) The fetus doesn't react to stimuli. He believes that the fetus is human however this is easily disproven, and it has already been done so, nevertheless I will provide more supporting evidence to satisfy him." This is the testimony of scientists, unless they can get a "pain-o-meter", they cannot say that a fetus cannot feel pain, however, I have the next best thing, the only thing that can detect the pain in a body; the person in that body, and this person can TESTIFY that she DID feel pain in a failed abortion [1]. "Human Characteristics" "- Consciousness" Babies are conscious in their mother"s womb [2]. "- Sentience" This is a synonym as above. "- Response to stimuli" Actually, your citations prove that a fetus DOES respond to stimuli, so I will cite YOUR OWN sources [3]. - Ability to feel emotions You cannot detect emotions so this will have to be discounted. "- Excretion" You gave this to me. "- Independantly supply itself with nutrition" People on injected nutrition are not humans I guess, you cannot say that it is of the overall humans, then I could say a lizard is a human and it does not fit the characteristics, it applies to the overall human. How do we tell then? Genetics, it has human genetics it"s a human, it doesn"t, it isn"t, a lizard does not have human genetics, a fetus does. "- Indepenantly respire" "- Be able to feel and sense things around it" This is a synonym of 1 and 2. "Continuation of R4 Rebuttals Con attempts to refute the libertarian framework extention however this is extremely difficult for them to do given the fact that I provided sources demonstrating libertarian philosohpy and views on abortion whilst my opponent attempts to tackle it without any evidence. Con, instead of refuting anything that I said makes assertions about what the government has a right to do. This is unfortunately is the subjective and completely arbitrary opinion." The foundation of libertarianism is the Declaration of Independence, I quoted it and shew how your views are a violation of it. "The declaration of rights and responsibilities for governments, individuals and societies approes of the UK of a good model and demonstration of a country that properly enforces human rights [4]. The UK advocates and has abortion legal and is a good model of human rights. Ergo, we can conclude that protecting the unborn (ie. fetus') is not a responsibility that the government has [5]." Good model? You don"t even have the right to bear arms, free speech, privacy (thanks to George Bush we don"t either, but then again George Bush is a relative of the British crown, I think they and their descendants have an issue with human rights), and your taxes are 95%, ours is 55%. So as you can see, the British bill of rights is a TERRIBLE example of how a government should act. "I'll reiterate this, since con has provided no alternative framework you ought to vote Pro based on this premise alone." Conservativism. "He does something serious that is NOT acceptable during a debate. He make the following summary of my position and says that I SAY THIS. I did not say this and this make my position look bad. He also puts this in quotation marks to make it took even more like I said this. Con's summary of my position that "supposedly" comes from me, is false and should be penalized with conduct at the very least. I'll refute con's untrue summary of my case: "Because men do not have to deal with the hormonal issues associated with pregnancy, that women are being treated unequally, therefore we must allow them to commit abortion so they can be equal to men." Con provides this quotation to go against my case and then refutes it. I will not refute his reubttal to a summary that he made since I never made any of the arguments that con says that I did. I did say that women aren't getting their rights but I made no such comparisons to men. I said that women have the right over their body and can do what they like with it and I provided a number of quotes from philosophers backing up this view. This has very little relation to men and virtually no relation to men not having to deal with hormonal issues as con falsely says when summarising my case. You said that pregnancy is a state of emotional turmoil, therefore a woman to go through it is unequal. So yes, this is your argument, points to Con for Pro lying. "I never said that the fetus was trespassing or committing any acts like this on the mother's body. I simply said that it is the mothers choice and it should be assessed by them since it is their body. Yes the fetus is dependant on the mother however the fetus wouldn't know the difference if it was alive or dead [1]." Pro lies again, vote Con! "Con's old man analogy is still faulty despite the additions that he has made. Even if the boy is asleep he still wants to live and he still meets the requirements for being a living things as I have continually demonstrated. Therefore, killing the boy isn't justified however aborting the fetus is. Also, the abortion of the fetus is quick and painless (because the fetus cannot feel pain) [1][3]. The boy will have to drown and will almost certainly wake up upon impact of the water and will struggle to get out and will slowly die due to the lack of oxygen. Con's solution is adoption however this is easily refuted. In a year in the US 135,000 adoptions occur, this is due to the lack of willing parents [6]. In a year in the US 1.2 million abortions occur [7]. This means that you're 975,000 parents short. On top of this, you'll probably need even more parents considering that there are other adoptions occuring anyway for reasons other than abortions." As I remember, there are what " 1 million gay people who want to adopt children, just pawn them off to them, sure they make worse parents, but it"s worse than being dead. Con concedes that the fetus and embryo are not human by failing to respond to my argument. I clearly layed out the stages and they simply responded with the following words: "I could never find out how they do that." This is clearly not a rebuttal and therefore this should be treated as a concession to the argument. Actually, I was referring to you posting a picture on your argument and I said I could never figure out how they post pictures on an argument. "Con believes that the burden of proof is on me however I have clearly proven that it is shared. Con is still contradicting themselves. If the BOP really was on me then there was no need to provide initial arguments which he did. Based on this, you ought to assume that the BOP in this debate is shared. Con obviously believes that there argument is self-evident however this doesn't mean that everybody agrees. My opponent believes that I hold the BOP because their position is evident however I clearly disagree and have provided clear reasons as to why the BOP is shared. You ought to presume pro here." I said that the right to Life, Liberty, and Property is self-evident, if you don"t know it, that"s what happens when you live in a communist country (oh, I"m sorry, a "Socialist" country, it"s a synonym, you use it to make yourselves feel better about living in Commie-land) , you don"t even know what universal rights are anymore. "Con says that nobody will try illegal abortions. They are wrong in R1 I showed that 13% of all pregnancy related deaths are because of illegal abortions." I did not say that, I said that we should punish abortion because it cannot be tolerated, as to reduce it. "Con says that the death penalty is okay in some scenarios but they fail to understand that they just said that life was important and should never be taken." I said that life is sacred and should only be taken in certain circumstances, including the death penalty, however, a fetus has committed no crime so this does not apply. [1]. [2]. [3]. http://www.doctorsonfetalpain.com...
| -1 |
the most common form of homicide in the united states
|
slang
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
con
|
con
|
Hello, this is my first real debate on this site so I'm a little nervous to see how it goes. I must warn my opponent that I am a Christian and as such will not be afraid to mention the moral aspect of this issue. I am taking the Con side in this debate and I intend to prove to my opponent that abortion is disgraceful human murder and should be stopped! I also want to prove that the baby's right to life goes before the mother's right to choose. From the moment of conception the baby in the womb is a perfect work of art with everything it needs to sustain its life for the stage of growth it is in. A huge question that is often asked is at what point does a baby become a viable human being? Well what is the definition of "viable" at what point is the baby no longer just sperm and egg but a living human being with the same basic human right to life as the rest of us have? No one really agrees as to when this takes place so how can we say when it does not take place? The beginning of life is not a gradual process it takes place in an instant after that the development of the embryo in the womb is the same as outside the womb. I contend that life begins at the moment of conception when those cells begin to split and divide to form the child. So although the mother does have rights to her own body the baby, as a human being and citizen of the United states is entitled to the exact same rights.
| -1 |
the intentional destruction of a human fetus
|
slang
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
con
|
con
|
I am FOR Abortion. Abortion should be legal at all points during pregnancy. I believe a woman has the right to decide what to do with HER body. A fetus is not a human being when it is conceived; I believe it is considered a human being and is given all the rights we have when it leaves the womb and enters the world. Abortion is not murder because the baby is not a person yet! Abortion should be legal in every case, such as when having the baby will kill the mother, or even if the baby is just an inconvenience and the mother does not want it. Murder is killing anyone from the day they LEAVE THE WOMB to the day they die. Fetus' cannot live without the assistance of their mothers and therefore they are not living, breathing people yet!
| 1 |
the most common reason a woman has an abortion is because she is too young to have a child
|
slang
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
pro
|
"Back alley" abortions are more frequent when abortion is illegal.
| 1 |
"the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, as in by an induced abortion
|
slang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
I also have a few requests for the voter: 1) Please vote, "Tie" for grammar/spelling and conduct unless myself or my opponent shows otherwise. 2) Please read the ENTIRE debate before voting. 3) Don't vote only on your views 4) Please make the appropriate comments I am very much pro-life and I am so pleased to be in this debate. I shall make my opening arguments: 1) The fetus' right to life is greater than a woman's right to choose. 2) Abortion is the same as murder 3) A fetus, though developing, can still feel and has senses. 4) In a case of rape, proper medical treatment can prevent an un-wanted pregnancy. 5) If you do not want the baby, adoption is always a better option 6) There are serious emotional side-effects to an abortion . http://www.americanpregnancy.org... 7) There are health-risks for an abortion . http://www.abortioninformation.net... 8) Have you ever thought about what happens during an abortion? . http://www.abort73.com... these are pictures of an after-abortion along with a few videos. Please search this whole site. That is enough for now. Good luck to pro and I am looking forward to this debate.
| -1 |
the act of murdering an unborn child, usually performed by a doctor, but can be done by any person
|
slang
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
con
|
con
|
'There are many women in the world who can't afford financially to have a child.' Adoption is an option and the're are many programs to help those who are in financial need. Even if you live in poverty, you don't have to kill your unborn to solve your problem. If a mother killed her two year old for the exact same reason, she will be arrested for murder. 'If a child is born without anyone wanting him or her to born, he or she will probably live a horrible life.' It's better living a life than having none at all. 'Even though they have rights, since they can't decide for themselves, it is usually the best for their parents, who are responsible for them, to decide what is best for the baby.' So killing off your unborn children is the best option ? There are many, non-lethal ways of handling this situation. 'The world is too populated! We need less children!' The world is not even close to over-population and is supported by no proof what so ever. 'Honestly, they can be the result of a careless act between a guy and a girl.' Take responsibility for your actions. In conclusion, abortion is a violent way of ending a pregnancy and should not be allowed in our civilized society. Abortion should be only to save a mother's life or if she has been raped. Remember that fifty million babies are murdered for your 'choice'.
| -1 |
the violent way of ending a pregnancy
|
slang
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
con
|
con
|
Not everyone in America is religious so let's take religion out of it. To say that getting pregnant, with no plan in place to prevent that is a "little mistake" is absolutely ludicrous. Secondly there are no reasonable people going around saying that if someone chooses to have an abortion then they should be killed, I have no idea where that comes from. Now to the real point of the issue, is abortion okay? The answer to this should be very simple and I am not sure why it is such a big question. Killing another human being is illegal, and it is immoral regardless of whether you are religious or not. In what world is it okay to kill another human? An unborn child is not just a nuisance that you should be allowed to kill off at your convenience. Any scientist will tell you a single cell is proof of life, why does this for some reason apply to everything other than humans to the left?
| -1 |
a medical procedure that is used to terminate an unwanted pregnancy
|
slang
|
abortion
|
no
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
An unborn human does not have to voluntarily commit immoral behavior for the termination to be justified. Again, As long as being alive involves more suffering than not being alive it is morally acceptable to perform the abortion. You say that the vast majority of mothers do not have good justifiable reasons but how do you know this? This is something that only the mothers themselves are equipped to answer. Being not financially prepared is important, There is a correlation between money and suffering. Same for children of bad relationships and parents who are not emotionally prepared. Again, As long as being alive causes more suffering, The abortion is moral.
| 1 |
a morally acceptable option to the suffering of a human being
|
slang
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
pro
|
pro
|
I am going to open the debate that I am strictly against abortion, because of the simple fact that its a cruel barbaric act of taking a life. And I am going to challenge the fact that I can't stand how women say its my right to abort a child "A precious gift from above".
| -1 |
killing a baby that is not yet born
|
slang
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
con
|
con
|
Response to R4: 1) No, I made an extreme example in order to show the logical end of your argument, because it was stupid. Killing is destruction of life, just as arson is destruction of buildings. If someone burned your house down, you would most certainly not let them get away with it, especially with a claim as incoherent as 'I didn't destroy it, I just shortened it's existence!' Destruction means to end forever. Killing is destruction of life. 2) Yes, you do. If they did not have your consent, then you would be against it. If you are against it, you're stating a moral preference. Because morals must be universal, that means that you would also be against the murder of others. If you consented to your own killing, then it would be morally fine, but once again, I said non-consensual killing. 3) I put forward a definition. You didn't rebut it. You tried to say that you did, but you didn't. There was no counter-definition, no source cited, just your words. A human is a member of Homo Sapiens. Fetuses are Homo Sapiens. Therefore, we must give fetuses the same moral treatment we do humans, ie not murder them. 4) No, but society isn't the people, it's their interaction, as you yourself said. You can't touch social interaction. For the second part, you did get me, that was a typo. Still, you haven't shown any sort of evidence to support abortion being beneficial. And, even if you did, it wouldn't matter, because this is, as it must be, an argument over the morality of the issue. 5) Yes you do. You exhibit moral preferences all the time. Not wanting to be stolen from, killed, beaten, etc. If you have these preferences, but don't respect the right of others to have them, you are a hypocrite, plain and simple. Or, at the very least, irrational. Neither of which says very much for your argument. Conclusion: Abortion is wrong because fetuses are humans, and it is wrong to commit murder. My opponent has failed to offer any real rebuttal to this.
| -1 |
the act of killing an unborn child
|
slang
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
con
|
con
|
You said that my: At what point is it no longer okay to kill? question was a strawmanning attempt. Yes it was, but it is still a very important question for this debate, so its definitely not irrelevant as you said. If we want abortions to be legal, then we need a specific point on when someone gets classified as a human being and an individual. So if you got to decide everything about abortion, at what point would the legal limit be to have an abortion? My point is that the difference between killing and not killing is very extreme. So something very large or important must have happened to the baby in order for you not having the right to kill it (if you had the right in the first place). So if you cant give me something specific that has happened between "killable" and "non-killable" then I think that it is a very irrational claim to be pro choice. I don't think that a fetus is not a life until a specific point. I believe that it is a process, more of a spectrum. At conception, life is created, but is a very small form of life. But again, just because he/she seems small and meaningless to someone, does not give them the right to kill it I do agree on your last statements; there are better ways to avoid abortion, such as the things you mentioned. But even then, while having protected sex, there is a risk. A risk that the woman and the man are aware of, and by proceeding, they accept the risk. If they get unlucky, then the baby should not have to suffer for his/her parents mistakes. "Women.. be seen as carrying vessels" Well, I don't view women that way, and I don't think that most people view them that way either. But women are the only ones that are going to be pregnant. You mentioned that abortion is involuntary, but they were aware of the risk, which they took voluntary. "We must continue... bodily self-governing rights" Agreed, but we don't have to give women the right to kill other human beings. How is killing other humans a "self-governing right?
| -1 |
"the question of whether or not to have an abortion is one of the most debated topics in the world
|
slang
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Point 1: There were no "illegal" abortions after Roe vs. Wade in 1973. But there were "underground" abortions not done in a hospital for a couple of years after Roe vs. Wade. Why? Because having an abortion was still not something that people told everyone becuase abortion was still considered immoral by the vast majority of the population (Kind of like gays today). As a result, thousands of women who had abortions did not tell anyone because it would tarnish their reputation forever. So as a result, thousands if not tens of thousands of women went to doctors who would not put the information on the women's abortion on file, unlike a hospital. This of course, is illegal. But as abortion became more accepted and widespread, women shifted from these "underground" doctors to hospitals. This is a shot to the whole pro-life argument because if they didn't protest abortion, abortion would not be scrutinized, and women would not seek "underground" doctors. If you can provide statistics on illegal abortion after the year 2000 that provide reasonable evidence, I will concede this part of the argument. Point 2: I only said that 39 deaths from illegal abortion were DOCUMENTED. Since their wasn't really a major crackdown of these "underground" aborters prior to Roe vs. Wade, thousands could have gone undocumented. And once the family learned of the woman's death from an abortion, the family usually hid it, for as the same reasons above, it was illegal and immoral and would tarnish the family name. Point 3: Remember, this whole debate is whether abortion is justified or not. So I do not consider the vast majority of the 1.21 million abortions to be murder. And your statistic that 130,000 illegal abortions is again flawed because you are only counting documented and speculated. And what is your point about Norway? One, the abortion rate is about the same, and naturally there would be more abortions as the population increases. Point 4: I did not say that leaving a country for a country that legalizes abortion was illegal. In fact, it is justified and understandable. I just said that thousands of women would just leave America for some other country that legalizes abortion. Point 5: I will clump two points in one argument. This is regarding when fetuses feel pain. http://news.discovery.com...: 18-29 weeks. http://discovermagazine.com...: 28 weeks. http://www.time.com...: 20-26 weeks. http://www.godandscience.org...: Nothing less than 20 weeks. http://www.religioustolerance.org...: Nothing less than 20 weeks. http://www.omaha.com...: 18-22 weeks. http://www.gargaro.com...: 12-20 weeks. http://abcnews.go.com...: 35-37 weeks. I want more of your "6-8 week" sources because I sure have the force of numbers. And I proved that since Roe vs. Wade, the percentage of abortions done in the first trimester, legal or illegal, has more than doubled, making the legalization less painful for the percentage of babies. Point 6: Why do you not trust an edu site? And why you of all people trust Government sites? Anyway, your comment about contraceptive has two fundumental flaws. One, we are talking about children conceived and aborted in the few years just after Roe vs. Wade. The decline in the teen pregnancy rate was not attributed to this. This has no bearing on the decline in crime in the 1990s. Two, even if your comment was logical, you still can't explain this statement: "The magnitude of the differences in the crime decline between high- and low-abortion states was over 25 percent for homicide, violent crime and property crime. 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 confi�rm 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.... And again, as I pointed out from a source, almost 50% of the women having abortions had a salary below the US poverty level of $10660. And the percentage of poor people who commit a crime is a lot higher than for the other two classes. And here is another article linking the crime decrease to abortion: http://www.slate.com.... Point 7: What was so hard to get about that statement? Here is the full quote: "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." Does this clear your confusion up? Point 8: Barack Obama and Herman Cain were a select few. The vast vast majority of poor people are never able to even get into the middle class. Millions of children who under abortion prohibiting laws would live terrible lives in poverty for the rest of their life. What is better, one moment of suffering under abortion, or a lifetime of suffering with no abortion? That was my point. Point 9: "The Recession of 1969–1970 was a relatively mild recession in the United States... The recession followed the second longest economic expansion in U.S. history.":http://en.wikipedia.org.... The recession officially ended in November of 1970. So at the end of 1971 saw the near peak of the growth period between 1971 and 1973. Naturally, poverty levels would be lower. "The 1973–75 recession in the United States or 1970s recession was a period of economic stagnation, putting an end to the general post-World War II economic boom.": http://en.wikipedia.org.... This means that poverty was beginning to increase at the end of 1973. Naturally, there would be a 2-3% difference. Better statistics please. Point 10: Women should be able to decide to abort pregnancies when the child can not be provided for. That is smart. Point 11: You have one source claiming 6-8 weeks. I have 8 sources claiming 15-37 weeks. More sources please. Point 12: 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. Point 13: http://www.prochoice.org... http://www.cancer.gov...; a non-biased source. http://www.cancer.org...; more non-bias I have the strength in numbers again. Point 14: There are more children entering foster care than leaving and abuse rates are going up. This is pretty mainstream. Everyone knows there is a problem with today's child care system. Point 15: There is the same argument for the young and the poor. They both are usually not adequate parents. END I have crushed the pro-life argument.
| 1 |
"point 1: the word ""abortion"" has been used since the 16th century
|
slang
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
You covered everything except Soylent Green. Check it out, its right up your ally. "An individual is responsible for a singular life, their own. No one individual has automatic claim on another. " Wrong, again without a woman being responsibly for the sanctity of life we wouldn't have a civilization to discuss. Sentence correction - prisons throughout this country are full of criminals that have violated the womb of a woman. "Rights are negative claims on action - judging is a positive action and irrelevant in a discussion of rights. Note that the trait "alive" is your sole sufficient clause. A mosquito is alive, under this premise squashing one would be illegal. " Fallacy - squashing a mosquito would not be illegal, but killing a human being born or unborn should be. "Human is a philosophical definition and refers solely to "rational animal" - rationality is the basis of rights, a foetus is not rational so thanks for conceding. A foetus is Homo sapien, not human. " Wrong, the definition of Homo sapien is a human being, and by your our volition a foetus is Homo sapien, thus a foetus is human being and given time and maturity will have rationally thoughts, if not executed first through a abortion. "Incorrect. The life she carries is a symbiote of which she has sole controlling interest, sole controlling decision as property holder of it. It is a visitor until such time as she determines she wants it removed from her property at which point it becomes a trespasser. :)" Correction - you consider the life she carries a symbiote. I consider it a unborn human being, that she is a caretaker of, and not to be viewed as a piece of property but as an unborn life. "By your premise of "trait - alive" a parasitic worm has rights over and above the controlling host human to destroy it - if you are going to be consistent. " Incorrect - a parasitic, a worm or any other form of bacteria has no controlling rights over the human it may occupy. A human embryo conceived by two opposite sexed humans does have rights, no more or less then the mother of which conceived it. "Fallacy - slippery slope. Again by your sole trait of "alive" the daily microbial activity in our gut makes us all mass murderers. " Correction of Fallacy - the daily microbial activity of our stomach acid destroying bacteria in our digestive system, cannot be compared to the growth of a human embryo in a mothers womb and its destruction through abortion. "Common sense is not a solid foundation for law - it relies on current common perception - which is far from reliable and usually far from valid. Holding slaves was considered good sense. " Common Sense is the only basics of law, without it there is no foundation. No matter what the current common perception. Example the Holocaust was considered acceptable by Nazi Germany but basic human common sense finally deemed it wrong, and a crime against society at the Nuremberg trails. The Holocaust was always found fundamentally wrong, as is abortion. "Fallacy - Appeal to emotion. Hopefully recognising such individual rights will lead to further recognition. " Sentence error - recognizing spelled wrong Human emotion - fortunately we have it, other forms of life do not. That is the salvation of our very existence. Man kind without emotion cannot continue to unjustly kill its young.
| -1 |
"the act of terminating a foetus
|
slang
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
con
|
I'll be arguing for abortion, while my opponent has to argue against abortion. I hold full BoP. Abortion - the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy. [1] Structure: Round One - Opening Statements from Con Round Two - Rebuttals from Pro, Defense from Con Round Three - Opening Statements from Pro, Rebuttals from Con Round Four - Defense from Pro, Con Must Waive Rules: 1) No trolls 2) No slander/hate speech 3) No forfeiture 4) No kritkiks 5) Please use citations 6) No new arguments in final round Voting Rules: 1) Vote for Convincing Arguments 2) Only vote for conduct if plagiarism and/or forfeiture is present 3) Only vote spelling/grammar if it's distracting enough to detract from arguments 4) Only vote sources if they're proven inaccurate by opponent Thank you Citation [1] http://www.google.com...
| 1 |
the deliberate termination of a human pre
|
slang
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Everyone has rights. If you want to abort someone, then go ahead. Kill something that was supposed to life. Again, morally abortion is wrong.
| -1 |
killing a human being that was supposed to live
|
slang
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
con
|
con
|
Sirenomella, also known as Mermaid Syndrome, is a rare birth defect where the child is born with his/her legs fused together, much like a mermaid. This defect also results in the absence or abnormality of several major organs, most notably the kidneys and the bladder. Life expectancy is 1 to 2 days due to organ complications and failure.Spina Bifida is a neural tube defect that occurs when the spinal column does not close completely during the first month of pregnancy. Spina Bifida is different for everybody. Symptoms may include partial to full paralysis, difficulty controlling the bowel and bladder, learning disabilities, latex allergies, depression, and social/sexual interaction problems. At worst, the brain cavity fills up with fluid which must be drained over and over again through constant surgery.Progeria is a rare, fatal, birth defect that appears to accelerate aging in children. As such, symptoms begin appearing at 18 to 24 months of age and include growth failure, body fat loss, hair loss, hip dislocation, aged looking skin, stiffness of joints, cardiovascular disease, and stroke. Death occurs in between 8 to 21 years of age.Cerebral Palsy is a defect in the area in the brain that controls movement, and as such the baby cannot move normally. Symptoms of cerebral palsy vary as there are different types, but there are three major types which are Spastic Cerebral Palsy, which stiffens all the muscles which makes movement difficult and in severe cases mentally retards the child, Athetoid Cerebral Palsy, which causes fluctuations in muscle tone ranging from too loose to too stiff, and Axaxic Cerebral Palsy, which makes it difficult for the patient to balance and coordinate his/her muscles, making basic activities such as walking and writing extremely difficult.Down syndrome is a birth defect that occurs when an error occurs during cell division that involves chromosome 21. Other than the superficial effects of Down syndrome, symptoms include congenital heart disease, hearing problems, intestine/bowel problems, eye problems, thyroid dysfunctionality, skeletal problems, dementia, and increased susceptibility to infectious diseases such as pneumonia.Let's put aside birth defects and diseases for now. 51% of pregnancies in America are unintended or mistimed. Approximately 3 in 10 will result in abortion. If abortion is banned, that number will drop to a least 0. These are the consequences of these kinds of births.1. The family will have too many kids and may be unable to support the child2. Fewer educational opportunities and development opportunities for the woman3. Abandonment or adoption4. Undernourished children5. Higher infant susceptibility to disease6. Less treatment for diseases7. Less breastfeeding8. Higher infant mortality 9. If the mother acquired an STD as well as pregnancy, when the baby is conceived the disease will be passed down to the baby10. Child abuse11. Depression of mother during and after pregnancy12. Higher chance of death of mother during labor These are the facts. Now lets look at Con's arguments."Is it your fault that you had unprotected sex, and that child had no say in you taking THEIR life not yours. Step up for the mistake you made and raise your child to the best of your ability." Well the thing is, the child is not technically alive yet. But since that is a controversial point, I will put that aside. Assuming that the fetus is considered to be a person starting from ovulation (not protected by US law for the sake of this argument), consider the type of life that person would live when he/she is conceived. It's really not that hard, you just have to look at the information written above. In fact, ignore the diseases for now, just look at the list of effects of unintended births. Do you really want a child to live a life where any of those things could have a high possibility of happening simply because you have some sort of agenda or need for every child to be born?There are only four birth defects written above, however, there are some thousands upon thousands of other birth defects. I have barely even scratched the surface. But lets just work with those four above. If you knew your child was definitely going to be born with one of those diseases, would you abort, or let it suffer the full and unabridged agony of the disease simply because "You could possibly be carrying the person who could cure cancer or the future president". The two things honestly have an extremely small chance of occurring and is an extremely risky and frankly sadistic gamble to take. If your reason for giving birth to a child is for this reasons, I honestly have nothing to say.And believe it or not, someone's best ability in terms of raising a child can actually be pretty bad. Veeeerrrrry bad."As soon as you start having sex you are taking the risk of possible becoming pregnant. If you are not ready for that responsibility then you should not be having sex!" AMEN. However, if a girl so happens to get pregnant when she is not ready for a child, forcing her to have one anyway opens a pretty damn big can of worms, as it not only affects the life and mental health of the girl, but also negatively affects the child in many different ways. Part of owning up for a mistake is fixing it, and attempting to take care of a baby when you KNOW you are not ready for one is definitely not fixing, but amplifying the mistake. For proof of this, just look at the information above one more time.One last point, this child is not your child, and quite frankly, it's none of your business what a woman does with her unwanted or disease ridden fetus. Keep this option open for women who want it, because by banning it simply because you don't like it uses the same logic as me banning bacon for everybody forever simply because I don't enjoy it.
| 1 |
the intentional termination of a pregnancy by a trained medical professional
|
slang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
I would like to apologize to my opponent for over looking (normative ethics) and (meta ethics). I will explain now. Meta Ethics: I believe that abortion is wrong. It is wrong because it is the destruction of a mistake. Human beings make mistakes to learn from them, not to run away from them in fear! A child is pure. My opponent asked why is killing wrong. Let me put it this way; if we were to kill as we felt neccessary, the whole world would be dead. This is why there are laws to prohibit such things. There are adoption centers worldwide, why not go that route, rather than abort an unborn child? My opponent asked for justification. I am not sure I understand what my opponent means. I don't believe this needs justifaction. Why not just adopt the child out? It is more human than just killing the fetus needlessly. Normative Ethics: Here are my practical reasons for being against abortion: 2.Dilatation and Extraction, D&X, (Partial Birth Abortion) A.The baby is delivered feet first. The head is left inside the birth canal. A sharp instrument is used to puncture the rear of the skull at the base and the brains are sucked out. Once dead, the baby is fully delivered. 3.Dilatation & Curettage (D&C) A.Abortive procedure where the abortionist inserts a curved knife into the placenta and cuts the baby up into pieces before it is suctioned out. Done in the first trimester. 4.Dilatation & Evacuation A.An abortive procedure where an abortionist inserts a pliers-like instrument into the uterus. The abortionist then grabs whatever part of the baby it comes in contact with. Then, by twisting and pulling, the baby is dismembered, killed, and pulled from the womb. 5.Mifepristone or Mifeprex (RU-486) A.A pill taken after conception that stops the absorption of Progesterone, a hormone necessary for sustaining pregnancy. Taken with misoprostol, it causes the uterus to contract and eject the newly conceived baby. 6.Partial Birth Abortion A.An abortive method where all the baby is delivered except the head. With its body outside of the vaginal canal, the doctor then uses a sharp instrument to pierce the back of the skull of the baby and scramble the brains, killing it. Then the baby is fully delivered. 7.Pregnancy Reduction A.An abortive method of reducing the number of babies in the womb (twins, triplets, etc.) by injecting a poison into the heart of one or more of the babies while still in the womb. 8.Saline Amniocentesis A.An abortive method where a highly concentrated salt solution is injected into the placenta. The baby takes the salt into the lungs as well as swallowing it. After more than an hour, the baby dies and the mother delivers the body a day or two later. Above are many different procedures for aborting a child; I posted this link in the round prior. I was pre aware of these facts before I put the link. This is my practical reasons why abortion is wrong.
| -1 |
the destruction of a mistake
|
slang
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
con
|
Finally, someone who provides a real challenge. I have to say, I thought that this was going to be a little less intense, but I hope I am up to the challenge. Firstly, you argue that an unborn baby is not a real human because it is not fully formed. Is anyone really fully formed until they reach the point where their bodies stop growing? This can take years after adulthood. Is it okay to kill them? I know you said that it was different, and I agree, to an extent. It is different to kill a man instead of an unborn baby. You can't hear the screams. You also state that "without a brain, the human is not truly a being." If you lose your arm, do you lose your status of human? If you lose an eye, are you an animal to be killed because you were an inconvenience? What of your heart? With a fake heart (which has been done before and will be done again), do you lose your soul? A brain is just another part of the body, albeit one we can't live without. It provides thought, but thought does not make us human. What makes us human is we were born from humans, live with humans, have the same anatomy as humans, and act like humans. Humanity is not something we gain. It's something we are. I know you will say now: "If our anatomy makes us human, then if someone has a different anatomy, they aren't human, and the unborn baby is just that." I'm sure you can put it better, but such is life. If you have a different anatomy as a fully functional, grown man, you can't be human, right? Actually, a lot of people have a different anatomy than a fully grown male, like: older people, women, children, people with deformities or disabilities, and last of all: a fetus. Just because this baby is different from you (who I am sure has a functional brain), that doesn't make it a petty rat to kill when it's in your way. I would like to look at your sources that you so graciously provided. Abort73 being the first one, let's look at it first. It says on the website that abortion fatalities have happened, and not just the babies, or "fetuses (if that is the wording that you use to dehumanize them). It reads, and I quote: "On average, women give three reasons for choosing abortion: 3/4 say that having a kid would interfere with work, school, or other responsibilities, about 3/4 say they cannot afford a child, and 1/2 say they do not want to be a single mother or are having problems with their husband or partner." Excuse me for saying so, but I do not think that inconvenience is grounds for killing a child. For the 3/4 of the mothers who say they can't afford a child and the 1/2 that say they're having troubles with their significant other, adoption is a real thing, and foster homes do tend to work out in the end. Instead of killing the kid, give him (or her) to someone who wants him (or her). The next source talks of the cost of children. More specifically, raising them. But, as I mentioned earlier, putting a child up for adoption is free. Why kill the kid when some mother with empty nest syndrome so desperately needs someone to love? The next source, 10storiesofsinglemothers.org, has no real real connection to abortion. Okay, these are the stories of real (Australian) mothers who didn't abort. But, if you looked these mothers in the eye and asked them if they wanted to kill their kid, they would say no. Because children are precious, and you can't kill them. If they really wanted to, they could hand them over to someone else. Finally, your questions. I would have started with these, but I already started writing a response before I really read them. Without further ado, the answers you're so eager to hear: 1. A sperm is not a human being, just as you do not call seeds flowers. It needs somewhere to lay its roots before you call it a plant. A fetus or embreo is that same metaphorical plant before it pokes its head out of the soil. 2. No, but a body without a part is. 3. The rights of a fetus are equal to those of a mother. It is not right to kill either. 4. No woman should suffer destitution. Instead of Planned Parenthood, how about we give that money to those women who really need it.
| -1 |
"the act of killing a fetus, or ""baby"", that is inside a woman's womb
|
slang
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
con
|
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 removal of an embryo from the uterus
|
slang
|
abortion
|
no
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Thanks to Pro for proposing this 1000-character-limited debate. I am rarely concise! A girl may or may not be able to deal with experiencing pregnancy and raising a child. The girl may have been raped, (10 -20%) or emotionally damaged by earlier sexual abuse (up to 70%). http://en.wikipedia.org... Hidden drug use or medical problems make the medical risks of early teen pregnancy greater. The emotional wreckage and life disruption may be severe and unwarranted. In poor countries, adoption may not be an option, and, sadly, in the US unwanted children are often kept and poorly raised. Families should have the right to come to their own resolution that is best for circumstances, and the abortion option should be open to them. Abortion pills http://www.plannedparenthood.org... may be the least traumatic. It shouldn't be a government decision.
| 1 |
"abortion is a medical procedure that terminates the pregnancy of a woman
|
slang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
The US Supreme Court has declared abortion to be a "fundamental right" guaranteed by the US Constitution. The landmark abortion case Roe v. Wade, decided on Jan. 22, 1973 in favor of abortion rights, remains the law of the land. The 7-2 decision stated that the Constitution gives "a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy," and that "This right of privacy... is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." [49] Reproductive choice empowers women by giving them control over their own bodies. The choice over when and whether to have children is central to a woman's independence and ability to determine her future. [134] Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote in the 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, "The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives." [8] Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in her dissenting opinion in Gonzales v. Carhart (2007) that undue restrictions on abortion infringe upon "a woman's autonomy to determine her life's course, and thus to enjoy equal citizenship stature." [59] CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, JD, stated that Roe v. Wade was "a landmark of what is, in the truest sense, women"s liberation." [113] Personhood begins after a fetus becomes "viable" (able to survive outside the womb) or after birth, not at conception. [31] [32] Embryos and fetuses are not independent, self-determining beings, and abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, not a baby. A person's age is calculated from birth date, not conception, and fetuses are not counted in the US Census. The majority opinion in Roe v. Wade states that "the word 'person,' as used in the Fourteenth Amendment [of the US Constitution], does not include the unborn." [49] Fetuses are incapable of feeling pain when most abortions are performed. According to a 2010 review by Britain's Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, "most neuroscientists believe that the cortex is necessary for pain perception." The cortex does not become functional until at least the 26th week of a fetus' development, long after most abortions are performed. This finding was endorsed in 2012 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, [1] which stated that that there is "no legitimate scientific information that supports the statement that a fetus experiences pain." [142] A 2005 University of California at San Francisco study said fetuses probably can't feel pain until the 29th or 30th week of gestation. [166] Abortions that late into a pregnancy are extremely rare and are often restricted by state laws. [164] According to Stuart W. G. Derbyshire, PhD, Senior Lecturer at the University of Birmingham (England), "...fetuses cannot be held to experience pain. Not only has the biological development not yet occurred to support pain experience, but the environment after birth, so necessary to the development of pain experience, is also yet to occur." [10] The "flinching" and other reactions seen in fetuses when they detect pain stimuli are mere reflexes, not an indication that the fetus is perceiving or "feeling" anything. [135] [145] Access to legal, professionally-performed abortions reduces maternal injury and death caused by unsafe, illegal abortions. According to Daniel R. Mishell, Jr., MD, Chair of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, before abortion was legalized women would frequently try to induce abortions by using coat hangers, knitting needles, or radiator flush, or by going to unsafe "back-alley" abortionists. [150] In 1972, there were 39 maternal deaths from illegal abortions. By 1976, after Roe v. Wade had legalized abortion nationwide, this number dropped to two. [7] The World Health Organization estimated in 2004 that unsafe abortions cause 68,000 maternal deaths worldwide each year, many of those in developing countries where safe and legal abortion services are difficult to access. [11] Modern abortion procedures are safe and do not cause lasting health issues such as cancer and infertility. A peer-reviewed study published by Obstetrics & Gynecology in Jan. 2015 reported that less than one quarter of one percent of abortions lead to major health complications. [159] [160] A 2012 study in Obstetrics & Gynecology found a woman's risk of dying from having an abortion is 0.6 in 100,000, while the risk of dying from giving birth is around 14 times higher (8.8 in 100,000). The study also found that "pregnancy-related complications were more common with childbirth than with abortion." [3] The American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists stated "Abortion is one of the safest medical procedures performed in the United States." They also said the mortality rate of a colonoscopy is more than 40 times greater than that of an abortion. [122] The National Cancer Institute (NCI), the American Cancer Society (ACS), and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists all refuted the claim that abortion can lead to a higher probability of developing breast cancer. [22] A 1993 fertility investigation of 10,767 women by the Joint Royal College of General Practitioners and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists found that women who had at least two abortions experienced the same future fertility as those who had at least two natural pregnancies. [14] Women who receive abortions are less likely to suffer mental health problems than women denied abortions. A Sep. 2013 peer-reviewed study comparing the mental health of women who received abortions to women denied abortions found that women who were denied abortions "felt more regret and anger" and "less relief and happiness" than women who had abortions. The same study also found that 95% of women who received abortions "felt it was the right decision" a week after the procedure. [158] Studies by the American Psychological Association (APA), the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges (AMRC), and researchers at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health all concluded that purported links between abortion and mental health problems are unfounded. [152] Abortion gives pregnant women the option to choose not to bring fetuses with profound abnormalities to full term. Some fetuses have such severe disorders that death is guaranteed before or shortly after birth. These include anencephaly, in which the brain is missing, and limb-body wall complex, in which organs develop outside the body cavity. [12] It would be cruel to force women to carry fetuses with fatal congenital defects to term. Even in the case of nonfatal conditions, such as Down syndrome, parents may be unable to care for a severely disabled child. Deborah Anne Driscoll, MD, Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Pennsylvania, said "many couples... don"t have the resources, don"t have the emotional stamina, don"t have the family support [to raise a child with Down syndrome]." [9] Women who are denied abortions are more likely to become unemployed, to be on public welfare, to be below the poverty line, and to become victims of domestic violence. A University of California at San Francisco study found that women who were turned away from abortion clinics (because they had passed the gestational limit imposed by the clinic) were three times more likely to be below the poverty level two years later than women who were able to obtain abortions. 76% of the "turnaways" ended up on unemployment benefits, compared with 44% of the women who had abortions. The same study found that women unable to obtain abortions were more likely to stay in a relationship with an abusive partner than women who had an abortion, and were more than twice as likely to become victims of domestic violence. [114] [73] Reproductive choice protects women from financial disadvantage. Many women who choose abortion don't have the financial resources to support a child. 42% of women having abortions are below the federal poverty level. [13] A Sep. 2005 survey in the peer-reviewed Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health asking women why they had an abortion found that 73% of respondents said they could not afford to have a baby, and 38% said giving birth would interfere with their education and career goals. [19] An Oct. 2010 University of Massachusetts at Amherst study published in the peer-reviewed American Sociological Review found that women at all income levels earn less when they have children, with low-wage workers being most affected, suffering a 15% earnings penalty. [136] A baby should not come into the world unwanted. Having a child is an important decision that requires consideration, preparation, and planning. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment stated that unintended pregnancies are associated with birth defects, low birth weight, maternal depression, increased risk of child abuse, lower educational attainment, delayed entry into prenatal care, a high risk of physical violence during pregnancy, and reduced rates of breastfeeding. [75] 49% of all pregnancies among American women are unintended. [50] Abortion reduces welfare costs to taxpayers. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), a nonpartisan federal agency, evaluated a proposed anti-abortion bill that would ban all abortions nationwide after 20 weeks of pregnancy, and found that the resulting additional births would increase the federal deficit by $225 million over nine years, due to the increased need for Medicaid coverage. Also, since many women seeking late-term abortions are economically disadvantaged, their children are likely to require welfare assistance. [129] [130] http://abortion.procon.org...
| 1 |
"the intentional destruction of an embryo or fetus, or the expulsion of a fetus that has died or is about to die
|
slang
|
abortion
|
no
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Lives are at stake. You can't excuse a culture where people grow up like bums and then kill. In the case of the less than 1% of abortions with rape. Again there is adoption, Childcare, And more. Abortion is murder. Why are punishing the baby? We put rapists in jail. There are better alternatives than killing. The killing of an innocent human being is wrong, Even if that human being has yet to be born. Unborn babies are considered human beings by the US government. The federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act, Which was enacted "to protect unborn children from assault and murder, " states that under federal law, Anybody intentionally killing or attempting to kill an unborn child should "be punished. . . For intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being. " The act also states that an unborn child is a "member of the species homo sapiens. " At least 38 states have passed similar fetal homicide laws. Upon fertilization, A human individual is created with a unique genetic identity that remains unchanged throughout his or her life. This individual has a fundamental right to life, Which must be protected. Jerome Lejeune, The French geneticist who discovered the chromosome abnormality that causes Down syndrome, Stated that "To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion. . . The human nature of the human being from conception to old age is not a metaphysical contention, It is plain experimental evidence. " Maureen Condic, PhD, Associate Professor of Neurobiology and Anatomy and Adjunct Associate Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Utah School of Medicine, Explains that the "most primitive response to pain, The spinal reflex, " is developed by eight weeks gestation, And adds that "There is universal agreement that pain is detected by the fetus in the first trimester. " i look forward to your repsonse
| -1 |
a procedure that kills a baby
|
slang
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
con
|
As for your "perfect standard" of morality, you negate to mention i was able to successfully refute this, with statistics and numbers, in my "majority rules" concept. The same "majority rules" concept you attempted, and failed to refute. Let us not forget, science doesn't prove one thing true, it proves all others false. Let's look at the definition of "tragic" Tragic: "causing strong feelings of sadness usually because someone has died in a way that seems very shocking, unfair, etc. ". ( . http://www.merriam-webster.com... ) Would me, stepping on the Zygote in the previous image, cause more sadness to you than a man mercilessly beating a child? It certainly must, as I killed the zygote, but the child is still alive. I do hope you now see the flaw in your sentiment. How could one hold a single celled zygote on the same plateau as a developed, grown, human? I have already shown how, within the bounds of their species, gorillas have (by definition) free will. As they do form hierarchical societies, and do interact and even form opinions of one another, which is clear by seeing the way they interact with each other. They must form premeditated plans, as that is exactly what a plan is. Plan: "a set of actions that have been thought of as a way to do or achieve something" ( . http://www.merriam-webster.com... ) Certainly, a gorilla, by definition, plans how to get its food, or protect its offspring. Just to further my point, Premeditated: "done or made according to a plan : planned in advance". ( . http://www.merriam-webster.com... ) If something has been thought out as a way to achieve something, then certainly, do that thing, according to the plan, in order to achieve the desired outcome. Self-preservation is recognizing harm or danger in one"s environment. In recognizing danger, one knows they are separate from the environment, and the notion that they have personalities (mean, nice, caring, antisocial) suggests they know they are different from one another. Possibly the largest issue with your excerpt from your previous debate, is the use of the Catholic faith as a defense. I say this, as not every person worships the same god, or any god at all. Certainly a religion like (for example Islam) would find no refute to any of their arguments in another religion, as that religion does not apply to them. Next you say "abortion is permissible because two equal innocent lives are at risk". Does this mean that if the mother is at risk, and not the fetus, it is NOT permissible to kill the fetus to save the mother? Should it not be the mothers choice, whether the fetus was at risk or not, to kill the fetus to save her own life? By your sentiment that is wrong, as only one life was at risk, and not both. Again, I ask you to look at the definition of "Tragic". Tragic seems like an awfully opinionated word, what is tragic by your standards, may not be tragic by mine. Therefore, saying anything is more tragic than another, is a strictly personal opinion. You now use Oliver Wendell Holmes' quote. Allow me to show you how this does not apply. Birth: "The emergence of a baby or other young from the body of its mother; the start of life as a physically separate being". ( . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... ) Notice, how even if you wish to argue that the fetus is alive, the definition states "birth" is the start of life "as a physically separate being". This is exponentially important, as through this definition of the word "birth", it is shown the mother and child are not separate beings while in pregnancy. So a much more accurate quote for this argument would be "The right to swing my fist ends where another man's nose begins, save this situation, as the nose is my own, and I can do with it as I will"- angeloivy. Next i will address how declaring something living or non-living IS CLASSIFICATION AND CATEGORIZATION. It is remarkably near sighted to assume the only scientific categories are domain, kingdom, phylum etc. And in saying "you still are only showing how categorization of life in science is fuzzy" you help my argument immensely, as you are agreeing that there are gray areas, and not everything will be categorized neatly. Saying one definition is more appropriate than another, is ridiculous. Definition: "State or describe exactly the nature, scope, or meaning of". ( . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... ) By this definition, of the word "definition" the explanation must be exact. Therefore, if there is MORE THAN ONE DEFINITION, ALL MUST BE CORRECT. I must however, hand it to Con for being the only person I have seen yet to incorporate a "no true Scotsman" fallacy into the definition of a word. Next onto your definition of what makes a person a human. Your exact words are "conceived with free will", so you must surely be using the word in terms of conception, as you believe the moment a zygote is conceived, you believe it to be human. Though you claim that they have the POTENTIAL to achieve free will, so though that argument, a zygote is not a human, because it is not conceived with free will, it only has the potential to achieve free will. At no point did i say the baby knows it is crying for attention. However, it has begun to learn, if it cries, it will get attention. Can you learn calculus in 30 seconds? No. But in 30 seconds, the teacher can give an overview of the course from the syllabus. Thus beginning the learning process of calculus. While the fetus is parasitic, and may not deserve to die, that does not mean it deserves life. This cannot be a "one or the other" argument. It does not deserve to die, however, it does not deserve to live. Deserving: "qualified for or having a claim to reward, assistance, etc. , because of one's actions, qualities, or situation". ( . http://dictionary.reference.com... ) The fetus has done nothing to deserve either, then neither argument can be used. The fetus deserves neither life nor death. I must now also ask, as you say "rights extend beyond laws", so should a man, who kills another be put to death? Certainly you can"t believe so, as that would be infringing on his right to life, and because "rights extend beyond laws" he must, even if found guilty, keep his right to life, as it was a law he was found guilty of breaking. As you argue the that the release of chemicals in the brain makes the fetus out as "doing something beneficial" for the mother, there are also tumors, when growing in specific locations (carcinoid tumors) that release serotonin, a chemical in the brain that increases ones feeling of well-being. Though no one would argue this is a benefit of having a tumor. You also argue "every other parasite on a human ought to be removed since it has no right to be there, unless someone consents to it". By this logic, if the mother did not consent to having a child, the child should be removed. You have just confirmed my entire argument. As the fetus is a parasite, if the mother does not consent to it, it must be removed. Let us not forget, consent to have sex, is not consent to carry and birth a child. If you honestly believe consenting to sex, is the same as consenting to carry and birth a child, and therefore the woman must go through with it, then you MUST also believe that in consenting to sex, the man must stay to raise the child into adulthood. If you do not believe the man must stay, but do believe the woman must have the child, then you sir, are not supporting woman"s rights. I have already proven how, by your words and standards, a fetus is not human, therefore, by your definition, the double murder clause is wrong. You completely ignored the numbers in my argument. I think this actually funny. As you can see, in the south, the majority of people were against slavery, just as the majority of the world was against the Nazi regime. If you would like to argue that the majority of plantation owners supported slavery (which were the minority of the population, the majority of the population were not slave or plantation owners) then I will also argue the color blue is blue. Is this not you picking and choosing what numbers and facts you use. The number of slavery supporters and plantation owners were the minority of the population. END OF STORY. The 3/5 argument was voted upon by a majority rule yes, however, only the wealthy were active in government proceedings, and in the south, the plantation owners were the wealthy ones with power, though they were also the south"s minority. So while the bill was passed in a majority rules fashion, the majority in this case simply had no say in government. As for ancient times, (I personally do not believe that it is moral to own a slave, however, we are both products of our time period) it was socially acceptable to own a slave. It is not accurate to compare vastly different time periods, as ideals, religions, and science change daily. Also you said ""because that would remove a person"s free will to choose right or wrong, thus making that person not human since they would not possess free will. " This clearly disagrees with your idea of a fetus being human, as they do not possess free will, they only have the potential to achieve free will, thus, because it does not have free will, you openly admit it"s not human. As I see another debate has begun in the comments section, allow me to point out, that factual_asshole, and yourself, have just proven free will to have no bearing on whether or not an organism is human, as Con has said ""making that person not human since they would not possess free will". factual_asshole was right in calling you out on this. You also explicitly say "limiting what someone's free will extends to". In limiting someone"s free will, you take away a trait that, by your definition, is necessary for a human to be considered as such. So a_janis, is free will still required to suit your definition? If so, then a woman not in control of her own body, (I have proven the fetus to be part of her being, alive or not) is not human.
| 1 |
"the act of killing a human fetus
|
slang
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
con
|
I am not saying I am for abortion, but I do think it is not a matter of what everyone other than the carrier of the child. You have failed to mention that there is such thing as rape and other causes that are able to get a woman pregnant, not just consensual sex. Say you got pregnant via rape (I don't want to harm anyone emotionally, but just putting it out there). You are young and have a whole life ahead of you. If you don't want a kid, you shouldn't be forced into having one. And let's not forget that it is in fact possible for a woman to die during child birth. I believe that the decision is to be made between the doctor and the woman carrying said child.
| 1 |
the most debated topic in the world
|
slang
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Abortion gives couples the option to choose not to birth babies with severe and life-threatening medical conditions. There is a possibility of babies being born with Fragile X syndrome, which is the most common genetic form of mental retardation. This affects 1 in every 4,000 males and 1 in every 8,000 females. As well as Down Syndrome, 1 in every 800 babies are born with Down Syndrome and 1 in every 3,500 babies are born with Cystic Fibrosis. Bringing a child into the world should not be about sentencing him/her to a handicap life.
| 1 |
the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo before the fetus can survive independently
|
slang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Let me start by welcoming to this site, lighth0us3. I hope that you enjoy yourself here and that you have a great time debating. Let me also offer you a friendly word of advice for future debates - it is standard practice to have a resolution as the title of the debate so that everyone knows exactly what it's about, and what the participants are arguing. So for example, a suitable resolution for this debate might be: 'Abortion should not be legalised.' As I'm sure you can see, this tells us exactly what the debate is, whereas simply saying 'abortion' tells us nothing - although to be fair, it's usually fairly obvious what an abortion debate is going to be about! Anyway, on with the actual debate. I would begin by saying that I agree with your very last sentence. Abortion is sad. It's incredibly sad. I don't think that any woman who has one goes into it lightly, and I would agree that in an ideal world, it would never happen. In an ideal world, women would only fall pregnant when they're ready to have a child. But we don't live in an ideal world. We live in a flawed world, an imperfect world, where mistakes happen and bad choices are made. And I do believe that there are times when a woman does have the moral right to terminate her own pregnancy. So let me start by challenging one of your central claims. I do not agree that all abortion is murder. By your own definition, murder is defined as the killing of another human being; but I don't agree that all fetuses are human beings. I'd be happy to accept that an 8 month old fetus is a human being, for instance, but I would think it absurd to claim that an egg, ten seconds after fertilisation, is a human being. Yes, if left alone it will eventually develop into one, but there is an initial period of time where the entity within the woman's womb is not a human being; and so, during this time, I submit that the woman, who has the right of control over her own body, has every right to terminate the pregnancy if she so wishes. And so I believe abortion should be legal during this period of time. Now, in your second point, you go on to make a very strong claim, namely that "all women who have abortions are cowards, ... too afraid to fix what they have caused upon themselves." My first point would be that you are on very dangerous ground to presume to know the mindset of every single woman who has an abortion. Are some simply scared, in the way that you allege? Quite possibly. But it seems to me that this claim seems to be formed out of emotional prejudice rather than rational fact, based on evidence. Have you not considered the possibility that some women might choose to have an abortion, not because they're scared, but simply because they've come to the rational decision, based on their own individual life circumstances, that they do not wish to have a baby? Of course, to that you might well say 'Tough! They should have thought about that before they got pregnant.' But not all pregnancies are deliberate. No method of contraception is 100% effective. Furthermore, there is the obvious counterexample of those women who fall pregnant as a result of rape. Such women, obviously, do not plan their pregnancies. Are you saying that all women in this situation should be forced to bear their rapist's child? Of course, maybe you think that the following sentence: 'I believe that every human being, no matter how SMALL, deserve a fair chance in life to live' still holds, even in that terrible situation. I hope you don't, but if you do, I would ask if you have ever considered just how incredibly wasteful the human reproductive system actually is. During your life, your body will produce around 400 eggs, the vast majority of which will come to nothing. Furthermore, upon ejaculation, the human male produces millions upon millions of sperm, of which only one can fertilise an egg - dooming the rest to oblivion. Each of those sperm, had they been the one to fertilise the egg, would have produced a different human being. Think of all the potential millions of people who could have been born instead of you. Consider how all those millions will, nevertheless, never get to see, smell, taste, hear or touch. This is the biological reality of our reproductive system. And I see no reason to condemn those women who choose to add one more to the pile.
| 1 |
the debate on whether abortion should be legalised or not
|
slang
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
If somone is poor and know they can give children thing for a good life its better to do an abortion than torture kinds And if they give them away they will end up in some bad place whit many children an eat wan pear day
| 1 |
the best thing you can do if you are poor and you have a lot of children
|
slang
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
pro
|
pro
|
I never made it sound like that abortion has no consequences, nor was that ever implied. I simply said that a woman should have the right to choose what to do with her body. Almost EVERY action has both positives and negatives " abortion is no different. Whether or not the baby has committed a crime against his or her mother is irrelevant and a non-sequitur. The argument is that a woman should have the right to do whatever she wants to her own body. For example, she has the right to cut off her hand if she wants, even if that hand has done her no harm.
| 1 |
"the word ""abortion"" is a very loaded word
|
slang
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
"I am pro choice for abortions. Which is a termination of pregnancy during a time period less that 27 weeks. I personally have a reverence for life. That is why I say 27 weeks. On the 28th week we are now talking baby viability." According to thefreedictionary.com Viability is Capable of living outside the uterus. Used of a fetus or newborn.Why does Viability make you human? It doesn't what makes you human is your human DNA which you have at the moment of conception. "But before that time this potential for life is an zygote and then embryo, non-human."I explained how even if the baby isn't viable yet that it is still living and still made of Human DNA making it human. "Looking back at your Article for human rights. Take at look at Article 1, it states all humans are BORN equal in dignity and rights. But this embryo is not BORN yet, so therefore has no rights, therefore its not considered human by law"One, it does not say only those born have rights, but if you follow your reasoning here which is you have no rights until you are born then abortion after viability should be legal. Two, it basically says "you are born with the rights" not "you have these rights because you were born". Three, it also says at the beginning "Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world," As I stated before they are human and they do deserve rights."My point I am trying to make in supporting pro choice is that there is a middle ground. We always have two extremes."Middle ground logical fallacy which is "You claimed that a compromise, or middle point, between two extremes must be the truth." What you call extreme I call protecting life. That is not extreme."The liberals are irrational and thoughtlessness in their values; its a women's choice, its her body. And then the conservatives state inconsistency by saying abortion is homicide unless its rape or incest. And that person-hood begins at the point of conception."I never claimed to have exceptions for rape or incest. In fact, I don't have those exceptions because they are still human and still entitled to their right to life."There is no right or wrong here. Its a choice, and the only one who can take into account the situation at hand, is the female who is pregnant."There is right and wrong. It is wrong to kill humans. It is a choice and people will still try to abort babies even if abortion is outlawed, but those choices can still be wrong.Sources: http://www.un.org...http://www.thefreedictionary.com...;https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...;
| -1 |
a termination of pregnancy
|
slang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
If abortion was officially criminal homicide, then no state would even allow it right now. And there's a difference; abortion deals with the life that a woman must handle for nine months while homicide is just killing another being whether you know them or not. Also, would a miscarriage be considered murder? I bet you would say no. By the way, I'm actually on both sides that's why I acknowledged that it's a human life, but this website doesn't allow for that even though there are good arguments for both sides. And don't be too cocky, sir. It's just an online debate and I need this for an assignment. It's not like you're running for president in 2016, but thank you for your input; it's truly valued.
| 1 |
the deliberate termination of a pregnancy, by any means
|
slang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Thank you for challenging me to this debate and welcome to debate.org! Since con has not proposed a resolution to the debate, I would like to propose the following resolution: "Resolved: Abortion should be legal in the United States." DefinitionsAbortion: A procedure that ends an undesired pregnancy by removing the fetus and placenta from the mother's womb (uterus). (1)Zygote: A cell in diploid state following fertilization or union of haploid male sex cell (e.g. sperm) and haploid female sex cell (e.g. ovum). (2) Fetus: An unborn offspring, from the embryo stage (the end of the eighth week after conception, when the major structures have formed) until birth (3).Contention 1: Abortion is sometimes medically necessaryAs a pre-medical student, there have been many cases that I have read about and studied in which abortion was the only option available. In her WashingtonPost editorial, Rebecca Cohen recounted her story as to why she had an abortion after 20-weeks. She writes (4):"At 20 weeks, my husband and I went for our favorite prenatal visit: the detailed ultrasound anatomy scan that shows your baby’s heart, kidneys, bladder, stomach, spine and brain and whether you’re having a girl or a boy. I could barely contain myself as I sat on the exam table, eager to meet our baby more intimately. My husband and I chit-chatted with the ultrasound technician, gabbing and laughing when we recognized familiar features on the ultrasound images.""I had a choice. I could try to live with the husk of a child inside of me for more than 100 days, swallowing tears at every cheery inquiry as I grew bigger. Or I could have an abortion. And the choice wasn’t just about me. I have young children who would have had to see their mother endure this torture and give birth to someone they would never meet. So we made the painful, but I believe merciful, decision to terminate."In the most extreme cases, abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother. As the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists notes: "Abortions are necessary in a number of circumstances to save the life of a woman or to preserve her health. Unfortunately, pregnancy is not a risk-free life event." (5)As RoyLatham noted in his debate with Contradiction, "In these cases, the life of the mother is universally placed above that of the fetus. This means that no one, or almost no one, considers the lives morally equivalent. So, does such universal agreement prove that they are not morally equivalent? It does, because while we cannot decide the shape of the earth by an opinion poll, morally reflects human nature. While there are many moral disagreements, we be assured that near-universal agreement on the immorality of things like murder and theft means those, at least, are features of natural law." (6)Contention 2: A fetus is not morally equivalent to a human beingFreeman notes in his debate (8):"A fetus may be a human in the biological sense, but it is not a person. According to philosopher Marry Anne Warren, the most plausible characteristics for personhood are mental in nature. Since a fetus does not possess any significant mental qualities, it can rightfully not be considered a person with a serious right to life. My argument can thus be summed up as follows:P1: Only a person has a right to life.P2: An entity is a person if it has (1) consciousness, (2) the capacity to reason, (3) self-motivated activity, (4) the capacity to communicate messages, and (5) the presence of self-concepts.P3: A human fetus does not have properties (1-5).P4: Therefore, a human fetus is not a person. (from 2 and 3)C: Therefore, a human fetus does not have a right to life. (from 1 and 4)"Contention 3: Spontaneous AbortionsAccording to MedlinePlus, an online medical information website ran by the NIH, "Around half of all fertilized eggs die and are lost (aborted) spontaneously, usually before the woman knows she is pregnant. Among women who know they are pregnant, 15 to 20 out of every 100 will have a miscarriage. Most miscarriages occur during the first 7 weeks of pregnancy. The rate of miscarriage drops after the baby's heartbeat is detected." (9) RoyLatham writes in his debate:"No one considers spontaneous abortion of zygotes or blastocysts as morally significant. Generally no one knows they happen, and no one thinks it important to find out. If mature humans are lost in, say, mountain climbing accidents or airline crashes in remote areas, serious attempts are made to find the remains so that they can be given funerals and honored according the tradition of their families. Yet, no heroic attempts are made using modern science to locate spontaneously aborted zygotes so they can be given proper funerals. There is no demand for microscopic caskets or burial plots. The reason is that they are not morally equivalent to mature humans, and that is universally recognized." (10)| Conclusion |In conclusion, a fetus is not a human being that would qualify it to any moral right to life. Furthermore, abortion is sometimes medically necessary to save the life of a mother, among other things. Therefore, abortion is both morally permissible and should be legally in the U.S.Over to con! Sources1. http://tinyurl.com...;2. http://tinyurl.com...;3. http://tinyurl.com...;4. http://tinyurl.com...;5. http://tinyurl.com...;6. http://tinyurl.com...;8. http://tinyurl.com...;9. http://tinyurl.com...;10. See source 6
| 1 |
a procedure that ends an undesired pregnancy by removing the fetus from the uterus
|
slang
|
abortion
|
no
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Most abortions are the result of unprotected sex, Irresponsible sexual behaviour and stupidity and for that the living infant human being must be sucked out of the womb via a vacuum, this is extremely painful for the child as he/she gets literally ripped apart. A survey conducted in 2004 concluded that 74% of woman that have an abortion claim that it's because the baby would change life for the new mother, which is ridiculous they could have just put the baby up for adoption. Only 1% of abortions are because of rape and if the reason is for rape, why should the baby die for the man's crime? The baby can just be given up for adoption. Not only does the baby die for a stupid reason but he/she dies inhumanely. Source: . https://en.wikipedia.org...
| -1 |
the act of killing an unborn baby
|
slang
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
con
|
con
|
Pro failed to understand “rights” come from the physical constructal law and not from government. I should have composed 4 paragraphs, not “3. ” The links I supplied describes life's “unalienable Rights” are an animate interpretation of the constructal law; therefore, at conception the human entity has “unalienable Rights. ” To be fair, many are under the illusion government gives rights. The Bill of Rights in the US Constitution gave us no rights at all, it is a set of instructions to the institution of government to protect the individual's “unalienable Rights. ” This is a common problem, in general, our government controlled schools (aka public schools and colleges) are not required to have courses on Constitutional study. Why? But I digress, since the US ruling-class in DC became unmoored from the US Constitution, it behaves like most governments imposing tyrannical laws interfering with the individual's “unalienable Rights,” tyrannical laws preventing the market to be free; in fact, there are so many laws on the books the average citizen commits three felonies a day (. http://www.amazon.com...). In other words, there are so many lawyers looking for business, you bring them the man, they'll find you the crime. The less laws the more freedom we have. For example, at one time the tyranny of government prevented women from having an abortion. A segment of the population convinced the masterminds in government to abolish that tyrannical law resulting in freedom for women to have an abortion option. If they want to have an abortion, is a choice they have to live with. However, the DC masterminds turned around and contrive a set of tyrannical laws forcing me to pay for said abortions. This is the problem! I do not support genocide of which Pro has no problem with as Pro stated, “… poor people SHOULD have abortions over children because they cannot afford to support children. ” There are a lot of poor people who have families, and the ones I know, seem happier than most of the rich families I know. I'm not one to judge, however, at this point in our debate, I'm beginning to feel sorry for Pro having such an immoral mindset supporting genocide. On the other hand, I do agree with Pro's statement, “Ah, but on the contrary, making ME pay for babies that YOU cannot afford to support is disgusting. ” BINGO! Having the tyranny of government to enslave me, or Pro, to work for others is simply bondage. One would think we have abolish slavery, but over the last hundred years DC morphed into a modern day plantation. Most who have a job, are enslaved to the government working almost a half a year to pay all their taxes, including those abortions. At the turn of last century millions of immigrants, most poor, were coming to the US for freedom. There were few laws, DC was following the Constitution embracing and protecting the individual's “unalienable Rights. ” There were no government run welfare or social programs. If you can't find a job it was easy to start your own business in a free market; otherwise, you starve or seek help from charity. Those “poor people” showed all the tyrannical governments what freedom can do, in a short period of time, advancing technology, food production, and medicine changing the world like no other social system in recorded history. Pro said, “The fetus needs the body of the mother to survive. ” Well that's obvious, sex education 101. Then Pro when on some rant about “human A needs a part of human B to survive. ” What's up with that? What does that have to do with the tyranny of government forcing me to pay for abortions? Perhaps, Pro wants more tyranny from government to enslave a dead body and chop it up to keep others alive. I would not be surprised one day that will happen. Then Pro when on with more fetus bio-info.
| -1 |
the right to control one's own body
|
slang
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
pro
|
pro
|
Thank you for the quick response. This portion will be repleted with rebukes against the arguments propounded by Con. Point 1- "you argue that an unborn baby is not a real human because it is not fully formed. Is anyone really fully formed until they reach the point where their bodies stop growing" Con ought to become a scientist. I always deemed it to be truly incomprehensible how their was a need in science to diffrentiate a fetus and a baby. There are only miniscule differances between a fetus and a baby. Minisucle differancees such as how a fetus depends on the mother for its survival. The fetus depends on the mother for food. The fetus will die if the mother will die. This is a common occurance that human beings go through as well. The fetus also between the 1st and 8 weeks will not have fully developed its brain. After the brain is develeoped, than the fetus starts to develop its arms, legs, and hands. I hope my sarcasm remained transparent. Po-lifers fail to comprehend that fetus's do not have access to rights. Fetus's are completely dependent on the mother, and the mother's rights completely outweigh a bowl of cells rights if it has any. Here is why Pro-Choice wins this argument. Con fails to any adequete evidence diffrentiating a baby from a fetus. Con fails to explicate the link between the fetus and the baby. Con fails to rebuke the notion of a fetus being completely dependent on the mother. Con fails to adress the legality argument(Does a Fetus have rights) which should be rendered as a drop. Point 2: "You also state that without a brain, the human is not truly a being. If you lose your arm, do you lose your status of human?" I appreciate the attempt to propound semantisism to convey your points, but your argument is completely unfounded, because it is based upon a false equivilance. A brain is what diffrientiates humans from apes, monkeys, lions, tigers, and horses. The brain dictates the functions of a human being. The reason why Con can participate in this debate is because of the mind. The reason why Con can propell pro-life absurdities is because of the mind. Take his mind away, and observe the repercussions of an individual without a mind. Is that really human. A 25 year old with no mind can easily be compared to a fetus before 8 weeks or an ant which is an offense towards ants, because ants actually carry out tasks. Anatamy makes us human, but what forms the anatoms. The brain allows for those actions to be carried out. Con claims that all components of humanity make us human. Yet, what really makes us die. The human brain is still alive after the heart ceases which can generate hallucinations. Con's foundation is based upon a false equivilance which nullifies the whole argument. Pro's argument still remains viable on the mind. Pro has provided clear vindication of how essential a mind is to a human, because the repercussions of a human lacking a mind are clear. Point 3: "Excuse me for saying so, but I do not think that inconvenience is grounds for killing a child." I can see how the word inconvenience can delude you, but I would speculate that many words concerning abortion would delude you. Yes, it is an inconvinience to not only endure the pain of childbirth, but to impel a poor woman to pay for it. A C-section will usually cost between $14,000 dollars to $25,000 dollars. Many of the women that attain abortions are too destitute to have access to insurance which would impel them to suffer this stipulation. A C-section will usually cost 3,000 dollars if the woman has access to insurance. An abortion to abrogate a growing seed is a more advantagous. Con completely underestimates the costs of childbirth. Con still adheres to the logic that a bowl of cells without a brain is entitled to the same rights as a fully functioning adult. Conclusion: The debate should not only be judged by the legality of abortion, but the repercussions of con's world. In con's world, women would face certain destitution in the face of a fetus having rights. In con's world, individuals who are brain dead are still considered living. In con's world, a human body part can be classified as life. Thank you for the quick response. This portion will be repleted with rebukes against the arguments propounded by Con. Point 1- "you argue that an unborn baby is not a real human because it is not fully formed. Is anyone really fully formed until they reach the point where their bodies stop growing" Con ought to become a scientist. I always deemed it to be truly incomprehensible how their was a need in science to diffrentiate a fetus and a baby. There are only miniscule differances between a fetus and a baby. Minisucle differancees such as how a fetus depends on the mother for its survival. The fetus depends on the mother for food. The fetus will die if the mother will die. This is a common occurance that human beings go through as well. The fetus also between the 1st and 8 weeks will not have fully developed its brain. After the brain is develeoped, than the fetus starts to develop its arms, legs, and hands. I hope my sarcasm remained transparent. Po-lifers fail to comprehend that fetus's do not have access to rights. Fetus's are completely dependent on the mother, and the mother's rights completely outweigh a bowl of cells rights if it has any. Here is why Pro-Choice wins this argument. Con fails to any adequete evidence diffrentiating a baby from a fetus. Con fails to explicate the link between the fetus and the baby. Con fails to rebuke the notion of a fetus being completely dependent on the mother. Con fails to adress the legality argument(Does a Fetus have rights) which should be rendered as a drop. Point 2: "You also state that without a brain, the human is not truly a being. If you lose your arm, do you lose your status of human?" I appreciate the attempt to propound semantisism to convey your points, but your argument is completely unfounded, because it is based upon a false equivilance. A brain is what diffrientiates humans from apes, monkeys, lions, tigers, and horses. The brain dictates the functions of a human being. The reason why Con can participate in this debate is because of the mind. The reason why Con can propell pro-life absurdities is because of the mind. Take his mind away, and observe the repercussions of an individual without a mind. Is that really human. A 25 year old with no mind can easily be compared to a fetus before 8 weeks or an ant which is an offense towards ants, because ants actually carry out tasks. Anatamy makes us human, but what forms the anatoms. The brain allows for those actions to be carried out. Con claims that all components of humanity make us human. Yet, what really makes us die. The human brain is still alive after the heart ceases which can generate hallucinations. Con's foundation is based upon a false equivilance which nullifies the whole argument. Pro's argument still remains viable on the mind. Pro has provided clear vindication of how essential a mind is to a human, because the repercussions of a human lacking a mind are clear. Point 3: "Excuse me for saying so, but I do not think that inconvenience is grounds for killing a child." I can see how the word inconvenience can delude you, but I would speculate that many words concerning abortion would delude you. Yes, it is an inconvinience to not only endure the pain of childbirth, but to impel a poor woman to pay for it. A C-section will usually cost between $14,000 dollars to $25,000 dollars. Many of the women that attain abortions are too destitute to have access to insurance which would impel them to suffer this stipulation. A C-section will usually cost 3,000 dollars if the woman has access to insurance. An abortion to abrogate a growing seed is a more advantagous. Con completely underestimates the process of childbirth. Con still adheres to the logic that a bowl of cells without a brain is entitled to the same rights as a fully functioning adult. Conclusion: The debate should not only be judged by the legality of abortion, but the repercussions of abortion
| 1 |
the termination of a pregnancy by the destruction of the embryo or fetus or by inducing labor and removing the fetus by forceps or other instruments
|
slang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Before we begin, I would like to make it clear that I will only be arguing for 1st and 2nd term abortion, not third term. Good luck and have fun. IntroductionIt was in a panic. She was coming close to child birth. Her husband quickly rushed her into a back ally. As she began to give birth, the husband, Mr. Davis, insurted a rusty coat hanger into the infant's skull and jiggled it, effectively scrambling the child's brain. Mr. and Mrs. Davis cleaned up and dispenced of the dead child into the green allyway dumpster. With abortion illegal these are the murders that occur. In the world today, the debate still revolves around the debate of abortion on whether or not it is murder. What people tend to not look at, is the alternative. Under banning abortion, it will result in more backstreet abortions much like what had occured to Mr. and Mrs. Davis. Banning Abortion would lead to these types of live birth abortions. These are the states. Contention 1: The Constitutional BattleMany opponents to abortion constantly argue that Abortion is unconstitutional. This is completely far from fact. Abortion, in it of itself, is Constiutional. The first is that it protects the right to privacy. This is important as it shows that you own your body [1]. When we extend this all across the issues we can see that this can be extended to other key areas making sure the law has to protect your privacy. This includes things like limiting just how far the TSA can search at air ports. Another is preention of organ harvesting by the government. Unlike China, the US is not able to simply harvest the organs of prisoners nor the dead without their consent. Why is this you may ask? This is simply due to the fact that the individual owns their body. If you take that away, then you open up a whole new area the government can do that they haven't been able to do before. All of which are immoral acts. Roe V Wade, was a great decission for limiting the government. "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to thejurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State whereinthey reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge theprivileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any Statedeprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nordeny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "US Constitution, 14th AmendmentA lot of people site the Constitution for the "Right to Life," but the Constiutional fact is that, you have to be born in the United States in order for these rights to apply to you. So even though it may or may not be alive, it is not considered a US citizen, hence have Constitutional rights, until they are born, not at conception. Contention 2: Abortion reduces Crime In the 1980s, crime was increasing and many people were fearing that the 90s would be a mega crime decade, but that never happened. Many people tend to site Gun control or many other factors, but the real solution was abortion. Crime, all across the board, began to fall. The reason is that all of the unwanted babbies that would be born into poverty and would turn to crime were never born. Welfare, crime, drug use, and a long list of other criminal activities fell because of this [2]. Homocide, and property crimes had fallen by 30% which had been at the lowest rates since the end of the end of the Prohibition. We also need to look at a lot of the factors that play into this. In this research they found that a lot of the women that would have had abortion, their children would engage in illegal activities harming soceity [5]. Studies by University of California found that 76% of the women who are turned away from abortion are likely to become unemployed, on welfare, compared to the 40% that have abortions [6]. 30% is a huge difference. They are also more likely to stay with their abusive partner leading to a higher amount of domestic violence. This is something that no one, men, women, or children, have to be forced to live through. Making abortion illegal will cause these harmful things to occur by forcing a women to have an unwanted child. The Colorado Department of Health and Environment stated that, "unintended pregnancies are associated with birth defects, low birth weight, maternal depression, increased risk of child abuse, lower educational attainment, delayed entry into prenatal care, a high risk of physical violence during pregnancy, and reduced rates of breastfeeding. [3]" On top of this, the CDC reports that 49% of all pregnancies are unintended [4]. We can see that by making abortion illegal, we can see that we would be severly harming the mother as well as leading to harm for the child which would harm there lives leading to much of the life of crime that would have had not occured. A child that is not wanted and one that would cause massive harm as well as dettremental effects to soceity should not have to be born into this world as it would simply just cause everyone pain. Sources1. ( . http://abortion.procon.org...) 2. (. http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu...) 3. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, "Family Planning Program," colorado. gov (accessed Apr. 21, 2014)4. (. http://abortion.procon.org...)5. John J. Donohue, and Steven D. Levitt, "The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, May 2001 (Despite admitting to an error in one of this study's tables, Levitt has stated that "the story we put forth in the paper is not materially changed by the coding error. " See Steven D. Levitt, "Everything in Freakonomics Is Wrong! ," freakonomics. com, Nov. 28, 2005)6. Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH), University of California at San Francisco, "Turnaway Study," ansirh. org (accessed Apr. 22, 2014)
| 1 |
abortion is the act of terminating a pregnancy
|
slang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
I would like to clarify something that I did not perhaps say clearly in Round 1. My post was merely an explanation of where I stand on this debate, and I posted my point of view so that my opponent could see exactly what I was arguing, and take his stance in accordance. I apologise if it was not clear enough. Back to the issue at hand. One cannot prefer a definition over another if it's a definition. It's like a fact, it is not subject to a person's point of view. Doctors do, in certain countries, abort in the third term. 1.4% of abortions in the USA in 2003 were late-term abortions (see SOURCES for information on more countries). Therefore, one can say that doctors do abort even in third term pregnancies. At this stage, most fetuses are viable, and would feel pain. If they were to be therefore killed (my opponent himself asserts that at this stage they are granted personhood, so I shall not argue it), they would feel the pain of death. Not all women abort because it is absolutely necesary. If it wass absolutely necesary then I'd approve of it because it would be an unusual circumstance. I officially take the stance that abortion should be illegal/legal except for socioeconomic factors, rape, incest, health, mental health, fetal defects. Many women abort because they feel they don't want a child or because they feel they're not ready yet. The minority of abortions are in the unusual circumstances I have highlighted. I assure the audience (many may know from experience) that in most circumstances, a woman does indeed want an abortion, and never considers her fetus in making the decision. My opponent claims that over time, the number of teenagers getting pregnant has increased. The number of teenage pregnancies has decreased. It is continuing to decrease. Teenage pregnancies were normal in previous centuries. In the 1970s, as my opponent states, this rate was above 90 per 1000. In 2006, it was just over 70. The rate is clearly declining. The solution, in any event, wouldn't be abortion, it would be more education and better provision of contraception. The logic behind the abortion vs adoption argument seems bizarre. How could somebody prefer to kill a baby rather than put it up for adoption? I would thank my opponent to elaborate before I criticise. Women's rights, while important, are not as important as HUMAN rights. If there must be a choice between human and women's rights, then we must, unfortunately, opt for human rights. If we were to use the "woman's body" logic, then why should we have human rights or women's rights at all? Why should the government have laws? Why should there BE a government? No, if we were to use that logic, we'd fall into anarchy. Again, the back alley argument is also illogical. This is like arguing for the legalisation of murder. It would happen anyway, because when it's illegal people do it in the dark and privately. This is unhealthy because it is done often painfully and without the proper equipment. We should therefore make it legal so that murder can be done properly with the proper equipment and so that it inflicts minimal pain on the victim. I stress, this is illogical. Disease would fall into unusual circumstances. It is within the scope of health or mental health. If the woman cannot genuinely take care of the child then she could cite socioeconomic factors for a review of her case, and be ruled for or against accordingly. I don't think that seems too unfair, do you? SOURCES: . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://blog.thenationalcampaign.org... . http://www.thinkinboutstuff.com... . http://en.wikipedia.org...
| -1 |
the deliberate termination of a pregnancy
|
slang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
According to http://www.numberofabortions.com... There have been over 90,000 Abortions today across the entire world. The majority of people might choose the pro side to this, abortion should exist. And I have noticed the main argument for this is "The baby is not considered alive and/or human unit birth." An Abortion typically occurs between the 13th and the 20th weeks of fetal development. By the 13th week of fetal development, the baby has already developed its organs and body parts meaning that the baby is very much alive in every way as a non-living thing cannot be made living by the effects of birth. According to the Webster"s dictionary the definition of murder is "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another." This is what you commit when you walk into a school and shoot, promptly killing children. This is also the same thing as killing a fetus which by definition is "an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception." The majority of abortions are performed after 8 weeks. which, by definition, would make this murder. Many would like to argue that a Fetus is non-living or human so this law does not apply to such situations. It does in fact. By definition, a living organism is something that "stimulates some kind of response or growth" in which a fetus does and it is, in fact, a human fetus, not a mouse fetus or a horse fetus. And as stated in the paragraph above "a non-living product cannot become a living product by the effects of birth. There are always other options, such as Adoption.
| -1 |
the act of taking a human life for the sake of convenience
|
slang
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
con
|
con
|
In my opinion, abortion is morally and ethically wrong, and should be illegal except in the case of extenuating circumstances, (explained later). Abortion being legal only teaches our society that rather then dealing with an accident or mistake, you can simply give some money to a doctor in order to "fix" the problem. Sure, there are arguments based on the fact that a fetus is not technically a human being yet, and that by aborting it, we are not denying its natural rights to life. But in all honesty, who are we to judge that. Sex, birth, and life are all natural processes, and the more we tamper with them, the worse the consequences will be. I feel that abortion simply makes people lazier. Rather then taking responsibility for what they have done, they'd rather deny a potential human being its right to life, because they do not want the responsibility of taking care of him/her.
| -1 |
the termination of a pregnancy by the destruction of the fetus or embryo inside the womb
|
slang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Your opinion is based on a moral standard that you personally uphold. In any case, you neglect to see that perhaps people are capable of making mistakes, and as you said it is not the child's fault. If the mother mistakenly became pregnant under any circumstance, and is not capable of raising a child properly, you are saying that we should let that child live and suffer through its life? You would rather do away with abortion and have the child possibly suffer from neglect or abuse? The child is not at fault for what happened here and should not be subjected into an environment where they will not be cared for properly.
| 1 |
"an abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a [fetus]
|
slang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
Abortion should be the mothers choice. 1) By taking away the mothers right to decide you take away yet another little bit of her freedom. 2) Not to mention all the exeptions such as rape victims. Are you going to tell the poor girl who got pregnant from some scum of the Earth that she has to keep his child?
| 1 |
1) the decision to end a pregnancy 2) the act of ending a pregnancy 3) the process of ending a pregnancy
|
slang
|
abortion
|
yes
|
yes
|
neutral
|
neutral
|
I guess this a little informal and more of a question regarding your stance on Abortion. You say "you make it you keep it". What if you didn't make it? What if you were raped? and every day for the rest of your life the child is a constant reminder. A reminder of that night, when you were drugged or jumped. Violated. Nothing was the same afterwards. Then you fell pregnant. And you didn't even have a say over your own body over your own life. So you carry out those nine months. Knowing the child is of a man you didn't know, a by-product of the worst breach of privacy possible. Then the child is born. Do you keep it, or put it up for adoption? Lets say she keeps it. She raises the child. Knowing one half is hers and the other half is made up of something inexplicably evil. Would my child become him. Would my son be his fathers son, will my daughter have the same fate as me - with no right to choice?? And you can't look at your child. Because you don't recognize the smile on its face. It isn't a trait of mine so it must make it a trait of his. I am fair haired but my child is dark haired. And when people ask me does he look more like his father? What do i say? So my child grows up with resentment. Over an unloving and distant mother. Dreaming of its father, wondering what he was like and maybe he'd have this parental love for me. All the while you can't simply tell the child it was an result of rape. Because what kind of life would that child live? It is not an after effect of pure love, but an output of an attack by an violent man.
| 1 |
a decision to have a baby or not
|
slang
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
neutral
|
pro
|
Abortion fails to liberate women as intended
| -1 |
the act of a woman having her fetus killed
|
slang
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
con
|
con
|
Very strong arguments, from a very exceptional debater. Let's do this. DEFINITION:A cell is a living thing. Like it or not, you are killing what is programmed to be a human baby. Rebuttal 1:You say that if an organism can't be independent from it's parents, then it is not alive. However this is un-true. I will take this argument using my favorite animal, the polar bear!As a quote from the article of frequently asked questions of polar bears, the question was:" Polar Bear FAQs How long do the cubs remain with their mother? Until they're about 2-1/2 years old—although some bears in the Hudson Bay areawean their young at age 1-1/2. During this time with mom, they learn how to hunt and survive in one of the earth's harshest environments. Between the time they leave their mother and they are mature enough to mate, they are called sub adults" (1)I would say the fetus/embryo is alive. Just because they can't be independent doesn't mean we can just kill them. The fetus's DNA is only made once. You can't copy it. It is their one chance at life. Ever. Who are we to take that away from them?Rebuttal 2:First off, I would like you to give me some complications in pregnancy where the mom will die if she doesn't abort the baby, and I'll tell you how to fix it without an abortion. Adoption facilities are all over the place. Now you say that the baby should be aborted rather than go through foster care. Now, take a minute and think about what you are saying. A human being should just die, rather than go through the adoption or foster care process, and have a chance at a loving family in their life? There is something really wrong with that.Okay I don't even know how this made it into your argument. If the girl doesn't want to die, then it's her choice.First off, the baby, when he/she grows up, can work hard at their grades, void gangs, get a scholarship, and go to college. He/she can work their way out of the slums. The adoption agency abuse argument doesn't change the fact that he/she may find a decent, and loving family. You make out the adoption process to be so bad, so, I want you to give me solid evidence that many adoption and foster care services abuse and mis-treat the kids there. Why not just give the kid a chance to make it, than just killing them?Rebuttal 3:No, if you are not ready for a baby, then don't have sex. If you do choose to have sex, use protection. If all else fails and you get knocked up, you have the option to do the right thing and give the baby to an adoption agency. This way, you take the responsibility of giving your baby up, rather than having the responsibility of being a bad parent.Rebuttal 4:I would like to argue that my link is valid. If you were so confident my link was invalid, then you wouldn't have posted an argument against it. my reply to that argument is that the women don't have to die. They can just not have an abortion, and have the baby. Then give it away.Rebuttal 5:Show me some complications and I'll show you how it can be fixed without an abortion.Rebuttal 6:That is kidnapping, which is punishable by law. The woman can just have the baby, and give it away. Oh no! We don't want to compromise her privacy for a human life! Nah, the human can just die so the mom has her privacy. That is bull! Also, why can't the man be on dialysis? Why can't the mom just have a baby after the rape? Rape is uncommon. Why is a baby's life not as important as the mom's privacy? That is what is messed up. 1. http://www.polarbearsinternational.org...
| -1 |
killing a baby for no reason
|
slang
|
abortion
|
no
|
no
|
con
|
con
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.