argument,stance,definition,model,topic,plausible_an1,plausible_an2,definition_stance_an1,definition_stance_an2
"""My framework will be based around libertarianism. Within libertarianism, there is controversy on abortions because it depends on if the fetus is alive. If the fetus is alive then libertarians are against abortions because libertarians are individualists and therefore value the life of the individual heavily [1]. If the fetus is not alive then libertarians advocate abortion because libertarians belief in a less powerful and restrictive government. In our first contention we will prove the fetus to be living. I will explain why we should have an abortion under libertarian belief."" Correct me if I am wrong here, your first point is that liberals support abortion, therefore abortion is morally acceptable because the liberals must be right. This is a poorly attempted appeal to authority. ""She is the individual that libertarians prioritize, due to their individualist beliefs [2]. Since libertarians believe in a less restrictive government, the outcome is clear. The government should NOT be involved in something so personal to the person since by intervening in this person""s choice, you are restricting them and are violating libertarian ideology [3]."" The fetus had no choice in it being in the woman""s womb either, that fetus is like a prisoner there, it had no choice I the matter, here is a story to illustrate this: ""it would be like if I came home one day, and some guy was tied by his feet upside down, he wants to get down so he can leave my house, so I can either A shoot the innocent victim (abortion), or B untie him and let him go (continue with pregnancy), what would you do?"" Additionally, if said fetus is not a product of rape, then that means that the mother consented to it being there. ""Only 1.4% of abortions occur after 21 weeks into the pregnancy [3,4]. This means that that most abortions are done before the fetus is even formed. It is an embryo, and an embryo is proven to be not alive. It isn't a subject of discussion when talking about the embryo [5]."" If it consumes energy, grows and develops, and responds to stimuli, according to the definition of life provided by biology, it is alive. I will now address the fetus - which is mitigated due to the small percentage of abortions that occur at this period. ""There are 7 categories in which life can be identified [6]. The categories have been compiled by biologists over a long period of time with great discussion [6]. The fetus only meets 2 of these. Movement - The fetus can move so this part is met. Respiration - The fetus cannot respire on its own (7). Is a fish alive? Yes, it is, but it never respires, it absorbs oxygen through the liquid surrounding, like a fetus. Sensitivity - The fetus cannot sense at 24 weeks or even 28 weeks (8). Actually, as soon as grey matter has been formed, it can feel. Growth - The fetus does grow. Reproduction - Whilst it is a fetus, no it cannot reproduce (9). By that logic children that have not yet hit puberty are not alive, hence killing them is OK. Excretion - This is possible however very rare and unlikely (10). I guess people who are constipated are not alive either. Nutrition - The fetus cannot independently take in nutrition. So people dependent on injected nutrition are not alive either, wow, there""s a lot of dead people walking around these days eh? ""When an abortion is legal there is absolutely no point in having an illegal abortion because they have been proven to be very dangerous and expensive. If abortion are legal then illegal abortions will negatively correlate (11). These illegal abortions have been known to kill both the mother and the baby and sometimes result in extreme suffering on the mother""s part (11). Mothers are not doctors (most of the time) so these illegal abortions also occur later than 24 (and even 28) weeks meaning that the babies suffer too (11)!"" That is because these mothers are deranged psychopaths, under some circumstances, something not so good should be legalized seeing what happened as a result of prohibition, but in other circumstances, it is too evil to allow. This is one of them. ""This statistic is shocking but demonstrates my point very well. These unsafe abortions are illegal and this is what is currently happening because abortions are illegal in places. They have no option to a safe abortion and are so desperate for abortion that they attempt to have an unsafe abortion. Therefore, we can conclude that there are a huge number of unsafe abortions (13% of all pregnancy related deaths). From this we can then follow up an argument suggesting that making abortions illegal will not necessarily get rid of all abortions therefore rendering our opponent""s aim to be mitigated."" I think you missed my point, if it isn""t rape, incest, or a medical issue, they should be forced to go forward, so if they NEED one, they can get one, but it they DO NOT need one, they should go forward, and we should put harsh punishments on trying to abort when they o not need to. ""This statistic is significant for many reasons. If this occurs amongst 18 - 19 year olds then this is extremely bad. Having to look after and care for a child ruins their chances of going to university. Your twenties are your most important period of your lives according to many sources (13,14,15). Having to look after a child in this period of time is extremely stressful and prevents you from getting proper qualifications and more importantly, it prevents you from getting a full time job and a house. Children are extremely expensive to have and having a child at the time when you should be looking for a job makes income problematic. On top of this you will have to pay huge amounts of money."" This would fit under an issue that harms both the mother and the child. ""A pregnancy to a woman is perhaps one of the most determinative aspects of her life. It disrupts her body. It disrupts her education. It disrupts her employment. And it often disrupts her entire family life."" (17) She continued: ""[And we feel that], because of the impact on the woman, this "" is a matter which is of such fundamental and basic concern to the woman involved that she should be allowed to make the choice as to whether to continue or to terminate her pregnancy."" (17) This was a case showing that without the right to a termination, you are denying women a right and therefore what my opponent is advocating is gender inequality. So let me get this straight, women have the right to murder, because it makes their lives easier? There are a lot of people in everyone""s lives that if they were to go missing then their lives would be so much easier, but it does not justify murder. The philosopher, Judith Thomson said: ""If abortion rights are denied, then a constraint is imposed on women's freedom to act in a way that is of great importance to them, both for its own sake and for the sake of their achievement of equality .... and if the constraint is imposed on the ground that the fetus has a right to life from the moment of conception, then it is imposed on a ground that neither reason nor the rest of morality requires women to accept, or even to give any weight at all."" (17) This emphasizes my previous point in regards to the denial of gender rights and equality. That""s how nature set them up, women were made for pregnancy, and men were made for getting themselves killed. Correct me if I am wrong, this is your argument: a baby makes a woman""s life harder, something that men don""t have to deal with, hence, they have the right to kill to make their lives easier. I have to listen to my mom, something that adults don""t have to deal with, does that justify the same action, yes or no?",-1,the act of terminating a pregnancy as a means of preventing birth,wordnet,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"Hi thanks for the debate.I believe that abortion should be permissible under certain circumstances such as when the mother's life is in danger, when it's the result of rape or other similar harms, and when the mother does not feel ready to bear a child yet and decides to have an abortion under a certain timeframe. In my case, it would be before the third-trimester, where after this, it is believed that the fetus develops neurological abilities. Ultimately, one sees that my arguments favor the woman's decisions over the fetus because it was the woman's decision to have a child in the first place (generalization.) Moreover, I do not deem a fetus to be the same as a baby for the difference is a ball of cells vs working organs. Therefore, the definition of a ""baby"" for me, is after the 3rd trimester. If a mother decides to have an abortion after the third-trimester, then it really depends on the situation and reason for having an abortion at such a late timeframe. However, for the sake of time and character limits, I will limit it to the last assertion that made earlier (abortion before 3rd trimester is permissible.)Given my stance, I have to comment on the fact that CON makes many assertions with no supporting evidence. I will address them now:Abortion is Murder no matter what people say.Your assertion is weak when you do not provide a reason to why its considered murder. Your argument holds the same weight as me saying that, ""I am god."" You cannot prove nor disapprove my assertion without further details of my definition of God. As soon as the baby is created it is has a soul. Lets assume that as soon as fertilization occurs, the fetus has a soul. If this is true then how does one differentiate between a fetus' souls and other souls such as dogs, pigs, and oranatangs? (sp) Also, what makes an organism having a soul protect them from envrionmental, social, and moral factors? ...People say it is the women's choice whether or not to abort. People can say things but that doesn't mean its true. Youre right, women have no rights whatsoever. A baby or if you want to call it a fetus is feeding off of you but that doesn't mean it is part of you. Im assuming youre saying that it's an individual since its fertilization, even if this is true, it doesn't prove that mothers cannot abort. The baby is using her for her resources. Without her, the baby cannot live. So why is it moral for someone to steal one's resources without having any moral consequences for his/her actions? Your statement is very hard to prove because it would be hard to define someone as an individual when it doesnt have neurological or physical abilities whatsoever. If you can't seriously take care of your baby, put it up for adoption, don't kill him/her because you were irresponsible and became pregnant when you didn't want to/or couldn't take care of her/him.The real question is, is it better to not live at all or to live a life of torture?If the mother isn't ready to have a child, according to you, she still should suffer those 9 months, not taking into consideration how she became pregnant and if shes a single-mother. After those 9 months of suffering, she will then have to force her child away because she cannot take care of her. Clearly, adoption centers are a great place for children to grow up in. I'm just surprised that the general population haven't given up their babies yet to adoption centers.",1,the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy -- usually before the 28th week of pregnancy,wordnet,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"According to mayoclinic.com a babies heart starts beating 4 weeks after conception therfore it is to be considered a living human being, making an abortion after four weeks murder, and murder is illegal, yes? Why should a fetus with a heartbeat be any different? A woman has many ways to protect against pregnancy (under normal circumstances) failure to protect against unwanted pregnancy is NOT reason enough to warrent killing a human being.",-1,the act of deliberately causing the death of an unborn child,wordnet,abortion,no,no,con,con
"Hello, and thank you for posting this debate. Should be good I hope. My opponent has set up the parameters of this debate, and he is trying to prove to you that abortion should never be illegal. If I can convince you that abortion should be illegal in ANY case ever, I win. These are the parameters that my opponent has set up. As abortion is illegal in some cases currently, my opponent does have the burden of proof. My arguments for why abortion should be illegal in some cases are as follows: 1. Abortion should be illegal after the second trimester. If you have no idea that you're pregnant after six months? I mean, honestly, you should know by then. If in the first six months you want to have an abortion, fine. You may be surprised by the fact that you're pregnant. But after six months, the baby can feel pain and is much more human in a biological sense. To abort at that point (26 weeks) is to cause pain to a human child, and you should have made the realization and decision far before 6 months into the pregnancy. (http://discovermagazine.com...) 2. I would be interested to hear your contention that life is not sacred. Does that mean it would be okay to kill a newborn baby as well? Just curious. As to your third contention, why is a fetus not a person at say, 35 weeks? Is it okay to abort at 35 weeks? The medical definition of a fetus is the unborn offspring from the 8th week after conception to birth (http://www.medterms.com...). Therefore, you must believe it is okay to abort up until birth? I believe you must explain the difference between a 38 week-old fetus and a just-born infant. What you are proposing sounds much like infanticide. There are few differences between a fetus that is that old and a newborn. You must justify your opinion here. (http://www.leaderu.com...) These are just my opening arguments and I await your retort. Thank you.",-1,a change of mind that reverses an earlier decision,wordnet,abortion,no,no,neutral,neutral
"On your contention that life is not sacred: What exactly does this have to do with abortion? I use life being valuable in terms of not killing a human being, I guess. Would you be in favor of killing innocent people because life is not sacred? On your contention that human life does not begin at conception: It is not that hard to make an argument for having abortion illegal in at least ONE case without this point. Abortion should be illegal at 38 weeks. Anyone who is convinced by this statement should vote CON. That has nothing to do with life beginning at conception, but of life being existent/valued at 38 weeks. On your contention that a fetus is not a person: A fatal mistake, this is not. In fact, the mistake is on your part. I would ask people to read the article for themselves. The article states that the fetus can feel pain in the 28th week - two weeks into the third trimester. Even pro-abortion groups have said 26 weeks is the time when a fetus can feel pain. Look at this article: Control F ""26"" and it is near the bottom: (http://www.theinterim.com...) ""However, others in the pro-abortion camp continue to argue that, for example, pain cannot be felt before 26 weeks' gestation."" Therefore, no mistake was made on my part; you simply did not properly read the article and only looked at the first paragraph. Please, no more false accusations of faulty reading and ""fatal mistakes."" "" When a baby is born, and the mother accepts responsibility for raising it, it's very first personal relationship is formed (beforehand it is part of the mother's body)."" - This makes it a human, you say. If the personal relationship is only formed after birth, why do parents name their children in the womb? Care about said child in the womb? Just because it cannot physically be touched, it is not human? Just to make this clear: You are in favor of aborting a 38 week old baby/fetus? You think that should be legal?",-1,the deliberate termination of a human life,wordnet,abortion,no,no,con,con
"How I abortion any further murder than using birth control or masturbate? Both are hindering the potential life of a human which seems to be the only argument that my opponent had to offer. And I think we've passed the ""maybe she will learn her lesson and never have sex.""I don't think that a one night fling with a condom that breaks really should be a punishable act with the fine of more than 18 year of commitment, 9 month pregnancy which is a pain already, birth, a complete lack of sleep for the first year or so, having her entire life limited hundredfold, and paying a minimum fine of $241.080: The costs of lego not included.Would you honestly be willing to choose between only having sex when you absolutely are certain you want children (because accidents do happen), something men don't really have to consider since they can sleep with whomever they want and then vanish off the face of the earth for all she knows, and have little or no restrictions. However, making abortion illegal poses serious restrictions to females and gives off the message that women do not have the rights to themselves and to choose. Either they have sex and if an accident does happen they just have to shut up and face the punishment or not be allowed to do what they want to, even if that is just to have a little fun under the starlight. This is a massive step backwards when it comes to female social position and equality: That women do not have a choice, do not have the ability to decide for themselves and should just be there for reproductive purposes. It is either the ""murder"" of something that never lived against brutally breaking the rights of someone that has been living for q minimum of nearly two decades, give or take a few years. To conclude:In the beginning of my case I asked my opponent a few questions that his entire case hung on, a few questions that he really needed to answer in order for his case to hold up. He did not answer these question; and in hindsight he didn't do much to even protect his case. I showed you, dear readers, how abortion, be it moral or not, is a needed thing and making it illegal is not a steo forward, it isn't saving anyone and there are a lot of cases where it just does not apply. abortions are not going away soon, they'll just change form if we would try and stop them. Abortions would no longer just remove the fetus, but possibly harm the woman and even killing her. This is not a future for us, and thus we conclude that abortion is not the dreaded thing my opponent wishes it was.thank you also for the debate.",1,the act of deliberately causing an unborn child to be killed in the womb,wordnet,abortion,yes,yes,con,con
"you keep using the term ""unsafe abortion"" If you go to a clinic where this is practiced is is way more safe than getting it from that hobo down the street. And another thing, you have a better likely hood to gain depression when you have a child as well. And it isn't our place to say anything about mothers who have abortions. What if it wasn't there fault. What if the condom broke, what if the birth control pills didn't work? Why should it be there fault then. Why should we get to judge them based on their decision. This is their choice. And yeah it's very sad, and suicide sadly is an option for them. But if you can't handle a baby then wouldn't it be better to bring a baby into the world when they, THE PARENTS are prepared?",1,termination of pregnancy before the fetus is fully developed,wordnet,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"To use the term baby is incorrect a child born at 24 weeks after fertilization is a human, while one in womb at 37 weeks is not. So you can't say that 'the baby has no chance at life'. However the mother still has a say in whether or not she gives birth. But, if you want to think about it from the child's point of view, the child will feel like it was a mistake everyone hates. Personally I would rather die than think that my own mother didn't even want me. This topic is so conditional that you can't say 'It was the mothers own fault to decide to go out and get pregnant with out protection.' You can be on the pill and use a condom, there is still a chance of getting pregnant. However slim, there is a chance. And I don't agree with 'the only option' you give. A mother has free agency. She should be allowed to choose. And the consequences should not be determined by the state. Whatever God one believes in or your own guilt is by far a worse punishment. Not to mention the mothers who give birth because they are given no other option might go beat the child they were forced to give life. And back to the rape topic. I want the option to be selfish sometimes! Everyone does. And if you take away the option of abortion some of these people who were forced into this situation people might start doing abortions unprofessionally to make a quick dollar. Lets face it, it will happen. And if its not professionally done bad things can happen, its guaranteed to happen, as it does with any medical procedure.",1,the deliberate destruction of a fetus especially in the first months of pregnancy,wordnet,abortion,yes,yes,con,con
"I am also non-religious. Ultimately I accept the fundamentality of existence and the universe. I, like everyone else, have no truthful answers to the big question. As a consequence I can not attribute real significance to anything, including life. Ok. I'm happy to conform with the conventions of society, it will obviously makes my short life a whole lot easier if I do so. Your questions. 1) Difficult question, for a socially conforming realist. I debate for debating's sake and my debating stance does no necessarily conform with my personal, socially based opinion. That is to say. from a social perspective I would say that I am anti-abortion. But society is also about billions of other people with individual opinions and should also be about their personal freedom of choice. Nonetheless, where a legislative decision allowing abortion has been made, I have to be prepared to accept that decision. So under these circumstances my answer to your question would be: Up to ten weeks. Given that the recognised transition from the embryonic stage of development to the fetal stage of development occurs around the eleventh week of gestation. Even so If we pay regard to ""awareness"". It is fair to suggest that for a period of development after the eleventh week, major organs, including the brain are not sufficiently developed as to be properly functional. 2) An easier question to answer. Everyone has a personal opinion and everyone should be allowed the freedom of choice within the constraints of social legislation. We are not all affected by morals and principles in the same way and should not have the high morals and principles of others forced upon us. I will now list three reasons for your consideration. A) Forced pregnancy arising from a rape situation. B) An individual or a couple may consider themselves to be unready to cope with parenthood. Given the demands and expectancies of Modern Society. C) The one all consuming Global God is money. The financial demands of children may be considered to be overwhelming and unsustainable. 3) Yes. Life is that absurdly amazing thing. I would suggest that the spark of life is already present in the sperm and the egg. As a realist I regard all life as absurd and amazing and with equal measure. What is your point of view here? At this point in abortion debates religious people will usually ascribe to the Orwellian notion that, All life is equal, but some lives are more equal than others. Do you eat? Are you omnivorous or even vegetarian or vegan? If so you have to be prepared extinguish the spark of life, out of necessity and with impunity. Despite the amazing absurdity of life, it is still only transient and extremely tenuous, it can wiped out in the blink of an eye for all manner of reasons and without consideration. Isn't it simply the human condition? That we have a highly developed sense of memory and therefore continually subjugate ourselves to our own consciences. That is to say, we tend to worry excessively about things that are no more than intangible concepts, things that have little or no importance in the greater reality of the universe.",1,the act of terminating a pregnancy as a means of birth control,wordnet,abortion,no,no,neutral,neutral
"Abortion, despite how it may seem, is not a complicated issue. Either the fetus is alive, and thus is a human life. or it isn't. there are a number of moral arguments to the debate. the first moral argument is that scientifically the human fetus meets the criterion to be considered alive from conception (1)"" Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."" As we can see, the fetus is genetically human and meets every criterion to be considered alive. now that we have established that the human life begins at conception I may be faced with the argument from many in favor of abortion that though the organism forming in the womb is alive (if they don't fully reject the known science thus committing fallacy) that it is not a person. this leads me to moral argument number two which is: even if you don't consider the humanity of the organism in the womb, there are plenty of things that exist that are A. not persons. and B. has rights and intrinsic value, for example, dogs or other domesticated animals. To state that simply because you don't consider the human fetus (which is what I shall be referring to the developing child as hereinafter.) to be a person, does not mean that it does not have rights and value. Furthermore, even if you deny the humanity of the fetus, you are still dealing with a potential human life which should be held in higher moral regard than the convenience of the mother or father. Another argument that many of those on the pro-choice side of the argument is that women have the human right to control their bodies. And I am in complete agreement. When it is your body that you are doing something to then you should have every right to do so insofar as it's not self-harm. However, the human fetus is not your body. It is IN your body. as I stated in my first card in the scientific portion of my argument, the human fetus has a separate genetic identity with the restoration of the diploid number of chromosomes. therefore, the human fetus is not a part of the mother's body any more than the child would be after (s)he was born. I hold that the time to control your body would have been before conception IE: using birth control or not having sexual intercourse. one thing that society appears to have forgotten, is that sex is not for pleasure. it is the biological process through which most species ensure the continuation of their species through reproduction (2). if you choose to partake in an action the purpose of which is to reproduce. (thus controlling your body.) then you accept the risk of conception. Moral argument number 3. does the fetus have any rights, any intrinsic value, and any right to live. well, the collective opinion of society is that the fetus has essentially infinite right to live. when? if and only if the mother decides to keep the child. if she does, society and its laws, regard the fetus with infinite worth and considers it so valuable, that if someone were to kill that child they would be prosecuted for homicide. keeping in mind that the definition of homicide is: the deliberate and unlawful killing of one person by another (3). we can, therefore, see that if the mother decides to keep her child then the law recognizes it as a person. if she doesn't, the fetus is considered worthless with essentially no right to live. now, does that make sense? it doesn't seem to. either the fetus has worth, or it doesn't. on what moral grounds does the mother alone have the right to decide the fetus' worth? most people would consider killing the baby once it exits the womb as murder. however, the deliberate killing of the fetus a mere two months before is no more morally problematic than extracting a tooth. and finally, we need to recognize that there are instances when an abortion simply cannot be considered moral. take for example if the mother or father aborts a child because they prefer boys to girls. as has happened millions of times in China and elsewhere. or any other form of bias or preference of the mother or father simply cannot offer moral grounds for the termination of the human life. I look forward to a rational and well thought out debate and wish my opponent the best of luck. I eagerly await your response. (1) https://www.princeton.edu..................... (2) www.biology-online.org (3)www.dictionary.com Now to address my opponents arguments. My opponent makes the ""what about rape?"" argument. I'll make you a deal. I think it's a terrible deal but I'll make it. since only .03% of abortions are because of rape(1) I will allow for rape as well in order to save 99% of babies even though this sins of the father argument for killing a baby is morally reprehensible. as for a last resort being necessary when ""two human lives are connected"" nothing. I repeat, nothing beyond the life of the mother exception I gave earlier, gives you the right to kill a baby. Ever. Beyond life endangerment because of a pregnancy, you should not be allowed to kill your baby. I don't care about your organs. I don't care if you have your appendix removed. I don't care if you donate a kidney. a baby is not an organ. At no point is a baby an organ. this assertion is frankly ridiculous. Branching from my previous point, I don't care what you do with your body. A baby is not your body. At no point is a baby your body. A baby from the moment of fertilization is a genetically distinct human being completely separate in identity from the mother. To say anything else is to deny facts, to deny science, to deny the truth. No one of faith can support killing a baby. when you say last resort, unless you mean the life endangerment exception, it isn't really a last resort. it's an easy out that removes responsibility for a parent's actions. I already stated, and you have acknowledged, that I will only accept an abortion as correct if the life of the mother is endangered. If a woman will die because of a pregnancy, I would have that be legal. so your point on endangerment falls flat unless you want to make the argument that it is a post birth endangerment at which point you can't kill the baby anyway. (1) Alan Guttmacher institute.",-1,the termination of a pregnancy after implantation which separates the fertilized ovum from the mother's body,wordnet,abortion,no,yes,neutral,neutral
"Abortion, despite how it may seem, is not a complicated issue. Either the fetus is alive, and thus is a human life. or it isn't. there are a number of moral arguments to the debate. the first moral argument is that scientifically the human fetus meets the criterion to be considered alive from conception (1)"" Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."" As we can see, the fetus is genetically human and meets every criterion to be considered alive. now that we have established that the human life begins at conception I may be faced with the argument from many in favor of abortion that though the organism forming in the womb is alive (if they don't fully reject the known science thus committing fallacy) that it is not a person. this leads me to moral argument number two which is: even if you don't consider the humanity of the organism in the womb, there are plenty of things that exist that are A. not persons. and B. has rights and intrinsic value, for example, dogs or other domesticated animals. To state that simply because you don't consider the human fetus (which is what I shall be referring to the developing child as hereinafter.) to be a person, does not mean that it does not have rights and value. Furthermore, even if you deny the humanity of the fetus, you are still dealing with a potential human life which should be held in higher moral regard than the convenience of the mother or father. Another argument that many of those on the pro-choice side of the argument is that women have the human right to control their bodies. And I am in complete agreement. When it is your body that you are doing something to then you should have every right to do so insofar as it's not self-harm. However, the human fetus is not your body. It is IN your body. as I stated in my first card in the scientific portion of my argument, the human fetus has a separate genetic identity with the restoration of the diploid number of chromosomes. therefore, the human fetus is not a part of the mother's body any more than the child would be after (s)he was born. I hold that the time to control your body would have been before conception IE: using birth control or not having sexual intercourse. one thing that society appears to have forgotten, is that sex is not for pleasure. it is the biological process through which most species ensure the continuation of their species through reproduction (2). if you choose to partake in an action the purpose of which is to reproduce. (thus controlling your body.) then you accept the risk of conception. Moral argument number 3. does the fetus have any rights, any intrinsic value, and any right to live. well, the collective opinion of society is that the fetus has essentially infinite right to live. when? if and only if the mother decides to keep the child. if she does, society and its laws, regard the fetus with infinite worth and considers it so valuable, that if someone were to kill that child they would be prosecuted for homicide. keeping in mind that the definition of homicide is: the deliberate and unlawful killing of one person by another (3). we can, therefore, see that if the mother decides to keep her child then the law recognizes it as a person. if she doesn't, the fetus is considered worthless with essentially no right to live. now, does that make sense? it doesn't seem to. either the fetus has worth, or it doesn't. on what moral grounds does the mother alone have the right to decide the fetus' worth? most people would consider killing the baby once it exits the womb as murder. however, the deliberate killing of the fetus a mere two months before is no more morally problematic than extracting a tooth. and finally, we need to recognize that there are instances when an abortion simply cannot be considered moral. take for example if the mother or father aborts a child because they prefer boys to girls. as has happened millions of times in China and elsewhere. or any other form of bias or preference of the mother or father simply cannot offer moral grounds for the termination of the human life. I look forward to a rational and well thought out debate and wish my opponent the best of luck. I eagerly await your response. (1) https://www.princeton.edu.................. (2) www.biology-online.org (3)www.dictionary.com",-1,the termination of a pregnancy after implantation but before it is clinically recognizable as a separate being,wordnet,abortion,yes,no,pro,pro
"I accept. Though I'd like to provide a definition for ""abortion"" and clarify my stance on the issue. Abortion: the termination of a pregnancy by removing the fetus or embro from the woman's uterus before it can survive. In most states, abortion is legal up to around 20 weeks (if I did my research correctly) unless it poses a serious health risk for the woman, in which case exceptions are made to this rule. I will be arguing that we not change the status quo on this issue and that abortion continue to be legal up to around this period of pregnancy.",1,the termination of a pregnancy,wordnet,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"Let's get to it. I'll respond to his arguments in order (opening, cross-ex, and rebuttal). Contention 1All humans, including the embryo/fetus, have a right to life. The reason the embryos' right to life trumps a right to a woman's bodily autonomy is because in the vast majority of cases, she (and the father) are responsible for its being there. They are responsible for the creation of a naturally needy child, so they bear a responsibility for caring for it. Say you come a cross a button on a wall that says ""baby-making machine"" that offers a pleasurable experience, that has a 1/100 chance of creating a baby. Say you press the button and receive your pleasurable experience, but a baby pops out. You are not justified in just walking away and letting the child die. You must now take responsibility for that child. The Fourteenth Amendment only says one must be born in the United States to be a citizen. The Amendment says that the state shall deprive no person of life. We are not justified in killing illegal immigrants, neither are we justified in killing the unborn simply because they are not citizens. Additionally, before Roe v. Wade, the unborn were persons, legally protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. [1]The embryo/fetus has rights, despite not having interests at the moment. Someone who is asleep or in a coma does not have an interest in remaining alive, but one is assumed. Also, newborns do not have awareness, expectation, etc. , but we still believe it is immoral to kill them (with the exception of some pro-choice philosophers who support infanticide). That's why it's illegal to kill someone who is asleep or in a coma. Plus, if personality and rationality were traits that bestowed a right to life, then humans would not be inherently valuable, personality and rationality would be. This would mean it would be morally justifiable to kill someone if it were possible to bring about two people with these inherently valuable traits. Contention 2Once a woman becomes pregnant, she has already reproduced. Abortion is not about reproduction rights, but the right to end the life of an innocent human. A woman does not have absolute right to her own body. She cannot take illegal drugs, she must obey seatbelt laws, and she cannot strike someone without just cause. Contention 3Banning rape, murder, and theft doesn't stop all rapes, murders, and thefts from happening. But we should not legalize them anyway. Pregnancy is not inherently dangerous. A woman has less than a 1% chance of dying in childbirth or in pregnancy. [2] The reality is that even before Roe v. Wade, the vast number of pregnancies were still done by licensed medical professionals, not unsafe ""home"" abortions. Dr. Mary Calderone, medical director of Planned Parenthood, stated, ""90% of illegal abortions are being done by physicians. Call them what you will, abortionists, or anything else, they are still physicians, trained as such. .. They must do a pretty good job if the death rate is as low as it is. .. Abortion, whether therapeutic or illegal, is in the main no longer dangerous, because it is being done well by physicians. "" [3] That was in 1960, thirteen years before Roe v. Wade was passed. In fact, the numbers of illegal abortion deaths was greatly inflated by the pro-choice side. Dr. Bernard Nathanson, former abortionist and founder of NARAL, has written: ""How many deaths were we talking about when abortion was illegal? In NARAL, we generally emphasized the frame of the individual case, not the mass statistics, but when we spoke of the latter it was always 5,000 to 10,000 deaths a year. I confess that I knew the figures were totally false, and I suppose the others did too if they stopped to think of it. But in the morality of our revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics? The overriding concern was to get the [anti-abortion] laws eliminated, and anything within reason that had to be done was permissible. "" [4]Cross-examinationPro says he only believes homemade abortions should be restricted, but goes on to say that he believes a woman's bodily autonomy does not justify abortion after viability. There is some conflict here, since he apparently believes late-term abortions should be restricted. There is further conflict, since if a woman has ultimate right to her bodily autonomy, then the fetus would not be safe after viability. The woman, under bodily autonomy arguments, has no obligation to keep the fetus alive until the point of birth. She can ""unplug,"" as the euphemism goes, at any time she wants. Perhaps Pro can clarify a bit next round. According to scientific understanding, the unborn are living human organisms (human beings) from fertilization. The problem about viability is it's a moving target. Currently, viability is considered to be at about 24 weeks, but 50 years ago it was at 28 or 29 weeks. Are we to assume 24 week fetuses are human beings now but that same human would not have been 50 years ago? Viability is a moving target that changes with advancements in technology. Plus, according to Pro's criterion, people on life support are not human beings. It would be morally permissible to end their lives for any reason, even if they have a good chance of survival. I don't see any reason not to consider pre-viable embyros and fetuses human beings, especially since the viable fetus is the same entity as the pre-viable one. He has ignored my question about Thalidomide, but it is definitely relevant. If a woman has a right to her bodily autonomy, then there should be nothing wrong with taking Thalidomide which will cause birth defect, despite the fact that her child will be born without limbs. RebuttalUsing Joyce Arthur is a fallacious appeal to authority on Pro's part. First, just because there is no consensus does not mean that everyone is wrong or that no one is right. Second, there is scientific consensus on when human life begins. It is at fertilization (I gave a scientific case in round one, and also gave quotes by embryologists, the experts on human embryology, that human life begins at fertilization). It's simply false to say that no one knows. Also, if no one knows, the benefit of the doubt should go to life. If you don't know there whether there is anyone inside a condemned building, it would be utterly irresponsible to blow it up anyway. You would check to make sure there is no one alive in the building before blowing it up. Joyce Arthur simply appears ignorant of the scientific facts. Being dependent on only one person does not mean that someone is not a human being. That's simply bad reasoning. Plus, if you are the last one out of a pool but you hear a splash and, upon investigating, there is a toddler in the pool drowning, totally dependent on you for survival, are you justified in walking away and leaving the child to drown or are you responsible for saving the child? Pro's reasoning is bad. Having human DNA and showing signs of life makes you a living human organism. Pro has not offered any compelling reason for not considering the unborn human beings. As I illustrated, viability is not adequate. Being a living human organism from fertilization is sufficient for being a human being. To claim otherwise is semantic nonsense. I don't have room for my second contention, so I'll go ahead and drop it. But my case against abortion succeeds anyway, and I have shown why Pro's case for it fails. I look forward to our next round. [1] Francis J. Beckwith, Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice, (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, New York, 2007), p.22. [2] . http://health.usnews.com...[3] Mary Calderone, American Journal of Public Health, July 1960. [4] Bernard Nathanson, Aborting America, New York, Doubleday, 1979, p. 193",-1,the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy especially in the first 28 or 30 weeks after conception,wordnet,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"You are basically living a double standard life dealing with abortion. I say that because you say that you morally don't agree with abortion, but you basically think it is okay because the law has made it legal. I believe that if you were against abortion then you would not say it was okay because it is legal. By sitting back and not doing anything about it is saying that it is ok. What make aborting an unborn child any different than me going out and killing someone",-1,the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy often resulting in the death of the embryo or fetus,wordnet,abortion,no,yes,neutral,neutral
"Not all chicken eggs are unfertilised (poultry standards are different everywhere), and they too have the potential for life. Furthermore, several living plants have to be killed to obtain food or wood, but no value of life over there eh? Or what about killing of living chickens and cattle for meat? And not every single proponent of a foetus should count as living. After all, it is not functional during that time period. Humans are superior to other organisms, but that doesn't reduce the value of a ""life"". Animals and plants are just as living as, if not more than a foetus. Yet we utilise them for our resources and benefits, and in case of hunting, for pleasure. Therefore abortion can be done as it will save our resources/benefit us, and not reduce pleasure. Furthermore, we can discard pets anytime we want, yet we have to always keep a child? That hasn't even come into the world yet? Pets are fully living and functional, they love us even more than children at times (dog=man's best friend), yet if they even get slightly injured or start taking up more funds than allocated for it, we send it away? This is unfair. If the parents are not ready for a child, or they changed their decision, it should within their rights to kill the foetus. One reason for abortion would be financial problems, for many families may not have the time or the money required to give their child the right growth. Or a surprise loan/ accident cripples the person, and causes problems for the upcoming child. We shouldn't force parents to keep a child they don't want. This will be bad for the child due to ill-treatment from the parents, and will be bad for the parents for the reason they wanted abortion. Suppose if we find out that the unborn child has some deformities/ infection, shouldn't we give it a merciful death rather than an impaired, handicapped life?",1,the act of destroying or neutralizing the fertilized ovum,wordnet,abortion,no,no,neutral,con
"Actually, life becomes life after conception, its not as simple as a seed, the seed has already been sown, forming a living, breathing being. In your point of view, the baby isn't alive yet, so if it isn't alive yet then why does it need food, and nutrients, why is the umbilical chord even there if the baby is yet a seed? So now, since I have established my view on when the life takes place, I will like to rebuttal your argument about abortion protecting life. .. With your views ""destroying the seed"" is protecting human life. I see where you're going though, but let me ask you, would you rather NOT have a voice/choice in life and that being chose for you, or would you like to give life a chance? If the mother cannot provide for the child then put him/her up for adoption, even though the chances of him/her being adopted are slim, its still better that being dead, don't you agree? Babies grow up, they make choices (in the future), they live their life, when they die, we grieve the death. .. Whats the point of grieving human death if the idea of another life beings' life in general is a CHOICE by the mother?",-1,the deliberate destruction of a fetus,wordnet,abortion,no,no,con,con
"I believe that abortion should become illegal, and that's the case I will be supporting here. I have basically two main reasons for believing abortion should generally be illegal (leaving an exception in case the mother's life is in immediate jeopardy, and the child could not be delivered and be saved). Contention OneWe are the same entity in the womb as we are outside the womb. Embryologists, who are the experts in the field, consistently agree that life begins at fertilization. For example, from the most-used textbook on embryology, the authors note: ""Although life is a continuous process, fertilization (which, incidentally, is not a 'moment') is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte. "" [1]Another embryologist has written the following: ""Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual. "" [2]On top of that, the more sophisticated pro-choice philosophers, like Judith Jarvis Thompson (who came up with the famous analogy of the violinist), and Peter Singer, accept the full humanity of the preborn. Peter Singer has noted, “It is possible to give ‘human being’ a precise meaning. We can use it as equivalent to ‘member of the species Homo Sapiens’. Whether a being is a member of a given species is something that can be determined scientifically, by an examination of the nature of the chromosomes in the cells of living organisms. In this sense there is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence an embryo conceived from human sperm and eggs is a human being. ” [3]Additionally, pro-choice philosopher David Boonin writes: ""Perhaps the most straightforward relation between you and me on the one hand and every human fetus on the other is this: All are living members of the same species, homo sapiens. A human fetus after all is simply a human being at a very early stage in his or her development. "" [4]It's simply common sense. We know the preborn are alive because they grow. Non-living and dead things don't grow. They also exhibit the other signs of life, such as metabolism and cell division. The preborn have human DNA, and they are the product of human parents. Creatures reproduce after their own kind; dogs have dogs, cats have cats, and humans have humans. At no point in human development is a member of humanity a ""non-human. ""This is also different from saying that a hair follicle has human DNA, so it is wrong to pluck them out. Zygotes/embryos/fetuses are unique individual humans, developing from within, made up of all the individual parts. A hair follicle must stay plugged in to the parent organism to function. However, the parent organism can still function even if he/she loses parts of their body. The zygote/embryo/fetus is a full human organism made up of individual parts of which it develops from within, not constructed like a car. Essentially, you didn't come from an embryo, you once were an embryo. Since we are the same entity in the womb as outside, if a morally justifiable reason is required to kill someone outside the womb, an equally morally justifiable reason is needed to kill someone inside the womb. Since killing someone outside the womb without moral justification (e. g. self-defense and just war are morally justifiable reasons) is illegal, then killing someone without moral justification inside the womb should also be illegal. Contention TwoRoe v. Wade is the single worst piece of legislation ever passed. The Supreme Court had no justification for passing it. However, rather than defending that contention here, I will wait until my rebuttal round (since most of what I have to say on this matter directly conflicts with Pro's first contention). I look forward to our next round. [1] Ronan O'Rahilly and Fabiola Müller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8. [2] Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition, Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. p. 16. [3] Peter Singer,Practical Ethics, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 85-86. [4] David Boonin, A Defense of Abortion. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003) 20.",-1,the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy usually resulting in the death of the fetus,wordnet,abortion,no,yes,neutral,con
"We are debating ""Abortion should remain legal."" Anyways, let me start. P.S. The Affirmative Constructive and Negative Constructive will only have their case but won't refute arguments (in case you didn't know that). Contention 1: Embryos/Fetuses have no rights! I'm going to present my 1st argument for the choice of abortion. ""There is no such thing as a ""right to live"" when the embryo/fetus is in a woman's body. The embryo/fetus has no right to be in the woman's body. It is only there by the woman's permission. Permission is not a right and it can be revoked as in the case of the embryo/fetus being killed. The 14th Amendment also says only ""born citizens"" have the right granted to individuals by the U.S. Constitution which means the embryo/fetus doesn't have the right to life. Thus, his life is not protected by any part of the Constitution and has no rights! Well, the 14th Amendment clearly says that all people born or naturalized in the USA are citizens and thus have the right of life. Without being born, an embryo/fetus is not a human being. There are two traits that rights derive from. If something doesn't have one of these two traits, it's does not have the right to live. Those two traits are personality and rationality. ""Without awareness, expectation, belief, desire, aim, and purpose, a being can have no interests; without interests he cannot be benefited; without the capacity to be a beneficiary, he can have no rights."" This indicates to having a personality (belief, desire, aim, purpose) and having rationality (awareness). Having both of these traits gives human beings rights. An embryo/fetus doesn't have any personality nor does it have rationality which is why it does not have the ""right to life"". The fact is that the embryo/fetus has no rights. Contention 2: A pregnant woman has rights. My 2nd argument will be about a women's reproducing rights. A woman has reproducing rights which includes the choice of ending a pregnancy. A woman also has the right to her own body. That being is a product of the woman which gives her the right of abortion. As the woman has the right to reproduce and to her own body, so the embryo/fetus has no rights which means that the woman can do what she wants with the embryo/fetus as long as the embryo/fetus is still in the uterus. Contention 3: Banning abortion doesn't stop abortion but instead harms people who want abortions. My 3rd and final argument is that banning abortion doesn't stop abortions from happening. If abortion is illegal, abortions are still going to happen except they are homemade. Without trained professionals using safe and secure procedures, women will go to individuals who have no adequate medical skills. World Health Organization has measured up to 20 million unsafe abortions in unintended pregnancies only. 14% unsafe abortion out of all abortions would increase so badly and increasing maternal deaths. There are also some very unfortunate statistics such as 8 maternal deaths per hour due to unsafe abortions and according to WHO, a woman dies from unsafe abortions each 8 minutes. Thus, banning abortion won't stop abortion from happening, it will just cause more maternal deaths and disabilities for Americans. Back to Con for his Constructive. After that, the refutations begin. ;) Sources: 1. http://www.abortionisprolife.com... 2. http://eleutherian.blogspot.com... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. http://en.wikipedia.org... 5. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 6. http://www.lancet.com...",1,the proposition that should be argued in favor of or against,wordnet,abortion,no,no,neutral,neutral
"Hello MUNER287. I will accept your challenge. Abortion. An emotive issue. Including expressions such as ""stripping a fetus"" in any dialogue is sure to raise eyebrows. I'm more pragmatic though, I always prefer to take a more realistic, godless approach to such issues. Let me ask you a few questions. At what point do you think a fetus becomes aware of existence? That is to say. We do not fear death itself, what we fear is non-existence. So does a fetus have knowledge of life and death? Can a fetus fear non-existence?",1,the act of intentionally causing the death of an unborn child,wordnet,abortion,no,no,con,con
Round 1 = Acceptance Round 2 = Arguments For/Against Abortion Round 3 = Rebuttals,-1,a statement that is contrary to the one being discussed,wordnet,abortion,no,no,neutral,neutral
"Law does not define terms. By what you are saying if the government made murder legal then there would be no murder. There would still be murder, it just wouldn't be prosecuted. I would like it if you actually argued the issue that is at hand instead of trying to jump on a technicality, in my first sentence. For you I will restate my opening argument. I am arguing that abortion is the immoral killing of another human innocent life. It is not the choice of the mother to decide whether or not the fetus is aborted. I am sorry for my confusing opening statement but I hope that you will continue a serious debate on my restated argument.",-1,the deliberate destruction of an embryo or fetus,wordnet,abortion,no,no,con,con
"ObservationsOV1: Con uses no sources in his rounds which you should note. This means that conflicting notions such as con's claim that the requirements for life are different to the ones I suggested should be ignored. I provided sources and evidence that the requrements for life are not the same as what con claims that they are. I provided sources and evidence my criteria in which I should classify life ought to be bought over con's list of classifications. It is also important to note that con essentially concedes when they provided their classifications for life due to the fact that the fetus does not meet their criteria as well. OV2: It should be made clear that the BOP is shared in this debate since we both have contradicting objectives to achieve. I must prove that abortion ought to be legalized whereas con must prove that abortions ought to be illegal. We both have positions to affirm and we both have our con's arguments to negate. Since con only brings one argument into this debate that regards to the fetus being alive this means that their position in this debate is severly mitigated.R3 Rebuttals Con states that I ignored their 4 characteristics. This is false. I have demonstrated that their argument fails under both of our definitions of life. I have also proven that you ought to buy my definition of life over con's one since I provided sources. Con fails to understand the parameters set. They also act contrary to their position. They present a definition of life which sets the parameter that it must be able to reproduce (bare in mind that con introduces this in their parameters too). They then contradict themselves and say that reproduction should not be a parameter for considering life because children who haven't gone through puberty cannot reproduce. I will make the same clarification that I made before. The parameters used to define life aren't used individually, they are used to define whether the entire human race is living. The answer to this is yes because the large majority of all humans will eventually be able to reproduce and the large majority can [1]. Killing children isn't acceptable to their sentience and consciousness and due to the fact that they will be able to reproduce in their current state as human beings [2]. I have already stated why the lack of ability to reproduce is a valid reason as to why a group of things (in this case fetus') is a good enough reason to dismiss it as a living thing. Con has dropped this. I proved that the fetus cannot respond to stimuli. Con states that I am wrong because he said reacts not responds. This is a poor rebuttal since they are both synonyms. I could have said that the fetus cannot react to stimuli and it would have meant the same thing as responds to stimuli. The fetus cannot react and respond to stimuli [3], can Con please respond to this sufficiently now. Con attempted a pre-emptive rebuttal to an argument that I may possibly make; I never made this argument, in fact I agree that the fetus isn't just a clump of cells but this proves nothing for Pro or Con and this argument ought to be thrown out of the debate for this reason. I said that the fetus is developing to become a human. Con states that this means that all men under the age of 33 are also developing. This a key issue that I'd like to address. The fetus is developing TO BECOME a human being [5]. Babies, children, teenagers and young adults are developing AS HUMANS [4]. They are still humans whereas the fetus is not [4]. Con excludes the main elements of libertarian philosophy which consist of two beliefs:1. The government ought to have less power and make less restrictions. [6][7].2. The individual is the most important member of society and their opinions and rights ought to be prioritized to the highest level of their ability to do so [6][7]. Life is important in libertarianism however less government restriction is also extremely important factor and by preventing somebody from having an abotion is a restriction that libertarians ought to avoid at all costs [7]. As my contentions have described, this is a violation of the women's equality and human rights. By preventing the women from having an abortion you violate the women's right and you also violate libertarianism. Being against abortions violates the two most important libertarian ideologies, this means that it is an overall violation of libertarianism. Con provides no alternative framework and mine still stands, you ought to vote Pro baed solely on the premise that under my framework abortion is morally permissable. He asks me a question: ""Do you think he/she WANTS to live in someone who wants to kill it?""The answer to this question is that the fetus isn't alive and it doesn't have an opinion. No matter whether you're for or against abortion everybody acknowledges that the fetus isn't able to formulate opinions [8]. Con's old man analogy is faulty. He fails to consider financial issues but that isn't the only problem. He forgets that the fetus doesn't care if it's on the boat or not, neither does it care if it on board or thrown off because if the boy represents the fetus then this boy must also not be able to think or have opinions [8]. I have also demonstrated that the fetus isn't alive. This means that con's analogy based on the premise that all possible outcomes and situations haven't been analyzed and the fact that con hasn't acknowledged that the fetus cannot think or forumlate opinions, means that the analogy fails. I do not advocate infanticide / killing children, the scenarios are completely different as I have already proven. Con's rebuttal to the fact that most abortions are done at the stage where the fetus is DEFINITELY not alive. The ebryo is less developed than the fetus and cannot feel pain or think or respond to stimuli etc. [9]. Con makes the mistake of calling the fetus a human. The stages begin with the fertilization of the sperm and egg, the embryo, the fetus, then the human. There is a distinguishable difference between the fetus and the human [10]. I still advocate the fact that we must look at things as a whole and looking at people with disabilities is not applicable in classifying life as people with disabilities still belong to the same species as us. Con's next rebuttal is subjective. He states that abortion isn't a right. Life is. It is still under his BOP to prove why. Until this is done there is nothing to refute. This is all bare assertion.Con says that illegal abortions should be punished but doesn't refute the argument that says that the problem won't be solved anyway. I have shown that in places where abortion is illegal, illegal abortions still occur. The consequences are much worse than what Con suggests as a result of these illegal abortions. Sometimes the baby and mother die or are severely injured in the process. If you legalize abortions then people won't be inclined to do it illegally and they will do it legally - ie. safely.Con is contradictory. At first they say that the most important right is life and emphasize that life is extremely important and that aborting the fetus is murder, they then say that the mother should receive death by stoning. This is contradictory to the case and is a concession - it negates the only argument that they provided. I never that the teenagers were below the legal age of abortions being allowed. I said 18-19 year olds which is old enough [6]. The argument talked about teenagers missing out on their lives. This means that it still stands and has been dropped again. Con respond to human rights by saying that he supports the right to life. This doesn't make sense; he says that we should stone the mothers to death which is not supporting the right to life. Sources[1] http://bbc.in...[2] http://bit.ly...;[3] http://bit.ly... [4] http://bit.ly...;[5] http://bit.ly...;[6] http://bit.ly...;[7] http://bit.ly...;[8] http://bit.ly...;[9] http://bit.ly...;[10] http://bit.ly...;",1,a declaration of legislative intent,wordnet,abortion,no,no,neutral,neutral
"3. Right to life is appointed to everyone and everything even pets. Why do you think people where POed at Michael Vick when he was doin dog fights 5. theory your website is a theory not a fact, that makes your evidense invaild 6. I never said anything about chemistry, when the babies heart beats that when people know that you're pregnet. 8. abortion isn't ethical just look at Wade V. Boggs 14. you said that abortion lowers chance of reat cancer well you're wrong it raises it by 130% after an abortion now I'm sure women don't want breast cancer if I'm wrong please tell me http://www.deveber.org... a1. first of all know one ever, why don't you tell the aduiance about FAILED ABORTIONS hum?! a2. my opponet hasn't refuted my adoption alternartive a3. with a failed abortion may lead to a prom night dumpster baby. http://www.youtube.com... my attacks. 1. women face emotional difficultis. 2. abortions that fail will lead to several birth defects and defects for the mother 3. increases breast cancer rate by 130% 4. After an abortion, women are more likely to display self-destructive behaviors including suicide 5. lead to depression and guilt for men. 6. abortion reserch is inacurate. my source for this is http://www.deveber.org... thank you and have a happy Martin Luther Day",-1,the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy usually before the 6th month of gestation,wordnet,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"This is a human life. This is murder. A human life starts at conception. Saying abortion is ok is like saying it's ok to kill your next door neighbor. You have no right to take away this life that hasn't even had a chance yet. This is a pure soul, they have never done anything bad or done anything to harm anyone. This child should at least be given a chance at life.",-1,the deliberate destruction of a human fetus in the womb,wordnet,abortion,no,yes,con,neutral
"First of all, I would like to say that it is unfortunate that CON waited until the final round to drop details such as the position from which she was debating. I may have chosen to respond differently, but now I cannot because CON would not have any opportunity to rebut my arguments, so I will, once again, do the best I can with what I have. As I’m sure CON recalls, my “illegal killing” argument was a line of argument I said I was not going to take; I mentioned it only to clarify a point. Next, CON went on some sort of tangent about viability, which she never actually tied down to an argument. She claims that a fetus can be viable five weeks after implantation. I am confused by this claim because it is dead wrong. Fetal viability, or the point at which a fetus is able to survive outside the mother’s body [1], is usually put between 24 and 28 weeks [1][2]. Perhaps CON is confusing pregnancy viability with fetal viability. I think CON missed my whole point about giving human status to all vertebrates. Of course it is absurd; that was my point. However, if CON is going to assign personhood based on a heartbeat, that is the logical conclusion. Regarding rape, CON is a walking contradiction. She talks about how we shouldn’t murder babies by aborting them, but it is suddenly OK when the object is to avoid further trauma to the mother. Its either murder or it is not; you can’t have it both ways. I didn’t discuss CON's comments about birth control because they are irrelevant. The claim that women use abortion as their primary form of birth control is a myth. Often times their preferred method of contraception failed [3][4]. CON’s last point is an unsupported claim that “if abortion were no longer an option, birth control would be better utilized, and teen pregnancy would drop.” A source here would be helpful; because I’m pretty sure reality reflects the opposite. I wasn’t able to find figures specifically on teen pregnancy, but in areas of the world where abortion has been criminalized, the abortion rate has not dropped [4][5]. CON has tried to argue that abortion is wrong if the fetus has a heartbeat; I showed why this line of reasoning doesn’t pan out. She then went on to a discussion about viability, however her argument wasn’t properly formed, and I wasn’t able to determine exactly what she was saying. Con’s rape exception shows that her position is rocky at best, and finally her unsupported claim that criminalizing abortion would reduce teen pregnancy seems to be at odds with the available data. Overall, CON has failed to show why abortion should not be legal. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.babymed.com... [3] http://www.prochoice.org... [4] http://www.womenscenter.com... [5] “Induced abortion: incidence and trends worldwide from 1995 to 2008,” The Lancet, Volume 379, Issue 9816, Pages 625 - 632, 18 February 2012",1,"the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, as through induced miscarriage",wordnet,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
If a mother is going to end up struggling in life further because of having a baby well then too bad for her. She should have put some thought into it before she decided to have sexual intercourse with her husband or some random dude that would eventually lead to her being pregnant. A woman should have sense enough to know that if she's going to end up having a hard time in life that she doesn't need to have a baby ever or until she gets her life together. It makes absolutely no sense for a woman to have a baby if she won't be able to care for it unless of course she has been raped by some selfish guy who cares only about pleasuring himself regardless of how the woman could be effected. Therefore I will rest my case on the fact that Abortion should only be allowed if the woman has been raped or if the pregnancy is endangering the child and its mother's life because as far as i'm concerned Abortion is murder if it isn't related to these two circumstances.,-1,the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy especially in the first 8 months,wordnet,abortion,no,yes,neutral,neutral
"I'm just going to finish this by saying that there should be no law that forbids abortion. It is a matter between the two involved, and no one has the right to interfere with that.",1,the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy especially in the medical or legal sense,wordnet,abortion,no,no,neutral,neutral
"One of the most pressing issues of the 21st century- abortion. And it really is one. It questions our moral and ethical values. Even though many people people believe abortion should never be an answer, abortion should be legalised. This is because abortion because the woman""s choice is to be valued. Firstly, there are many questions to answer and doubts to clear. To what age is it even right? Technically the zygote, which turns into an embryo isn""t really human yet. They don""t have feelings, they don""t technically have rights yet. Yes it is sad, but a fetus wouldn""t even have organs at that time. We can""t look at this emotionally, we have to look at this rationally. There however, should be a line drawn, a certain age where you shouldn""t get an abortion, like 28 weeks, that is when the fetus has blood going into it and life birthed. If the mother wants an abortion afterwards, that""s her loss. Also, it""s a woman""s choice. It""s a woman""s choice whether she wants a child. It""s a woman""s choice if she wants to endure 9 months of hell. It""s a woman""s choice if she wants to go through the pain of labour. What if the woman had potential to something great, but has to give it up for a child? She might even grow to hate on the child. If the mother got pregnant in school and had to drop out, would it really be worth it? The girl would be too young, too unknowledgeable to be a mother. She wouldn""t have even learnt about biology let alone being a mother. So it""s a woman""s choice. What if the child can""t be supported? The child could be born into a family without privileges, support, or a real certain future. It may be a single mother, it may be money scarcity, it may be anything. The child may have a bad future awaiting, and may even be put up into adoption anyway. If a mother can""t even look after herself, how can she be expected to take care of another human being? Also, mothers with addictions like drugs, alcohol and smoking would be imposing problems on the fetus, possibly defects, which is unfair on the fetus. Why should the fetus live with disabilities? Rape is also a huge issue. The mother, may have been raped and imposed with a child. A child could bring major psychological harm to the mother. A 10 year old girl in India, is wanting an abortion for her 21 week old. She was raped by her stepfather. Due to this, if the doctors don""t approve of her abortion, this means she may be psychologically damaged of carrying her stepfather""s child, the one that brutally raped her. Why should this even be allowed? Imagine yourself as a ten year old, carrying a child, while you""re still a child and still have lots to learn. Imagine a twelve year old girl as a victim of incest to have a daughter that is their brothers creation. The psychological harm would be unbelievable.This is why abortion should be allowed, with exceptions like date and reason. To a certain stage, abortion is not good. 28 weeks? Too old. But we do have to legalize it. We just need a few restrictions on it. How reasonable is having a world without abortion?",1,the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy especially in the first 28 or 30 days after conception,wordnet,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"1) ""Society is also built of other people with individual opinions and should also be their personal freedom of choice."" Do you mean the freedom to kill an innocent human life, this freedom cannot be granted. ""Where a legaslative decision allowing abortion has been made, I have to prepare to accept this decision."" So from what I understood you believe we should accept everything our government does. If the government (I""m assuming you are American) decided to make murder legal which is what they are doing, would you prepare to accept that? You can""t accept everything your government does, you cant grant them that power. You believe abortion should be allowed until 10 weeks, but why do more than 90% of abortion occur on the 13th week. Why does the stage of development the fetus is at even matter to you? Your main argument is fetuses haven""t fully developed to become a human being, however newborn babies and even children haven""t fully developed yet. Do you believe killing a baby, or even a kid is fine? 2) A) forced pregnancy arising from a rape situation. Are you aware that less than 0.1% of abortions are caused because of a forced pregnancy. This 0.1% does not justify the killing of millions of human beings. B) An individual or a couple may find themselves unready to cope with parenthood. Given the demands of modern society. In what way unready? C) The financial demands of children may be considered to be overwhelming and unsustainable. The financial state of a family does not determine how good the life of the offspring will be. Many insanely rich people started off poor Oprah Winfrey Howard Schultz Just to name a few. This is no reason to kill a human being 3) All life is not equal, but all life is precious. We have no importance in the greater reality of the universe, but what we are experiencing is our reality, our only reality. Life is intangible, therefore shouldn""t be touched.",-1,the deliberate termination of a human life after conception especially before the fetus is viable,wordnet,abortion,yes,no,neutral,con
"Contention 1Pro's definitions are largely irrelevant. I have made a scientific case for why the unborn are human beings, which Pro has not refuted. I have also given quotes by embryologists, the experts in the field, and Pro could not produce one embryologist that dissented. Of course, I expected as much because embryologists consistently agree that a new human being exists at fertilization. Also, it should be noted that according to the second definition of child that Pro provided himself, the definition is ""an unborn infant; a fetus. "" So even according to the dictionary, a fetus is a child and by extension, also fits the definition of ""human being"" that Pro, himself, provided. I have proven in spades that the unborn is a separate human entity from fertilization. The fetus is not part of its mother until viability. If this were the case, the pregnant woman would have two heads, four legs, four arms, two noses, and roughly half the time, a penis and two testicles. Also, the unborn embryo/pre-viability fetus has different fingerprints than the mother and often a different bloodtype. Also, you can conceive a white embryo through IVF and implant him into a black woman, and the child will still be born white. I have committed no fallacies, and Pro, unfortunately, did not point out which fallacy he believed I was committing. Pro admits that the person who made the baby in the baby-making machine is now responsible for the child. By extension, if a man and woman engage in an act they know has a chance of producing a child, they now bear responsibility for that child. I contend that it's Pro who actually doesn't understand the Constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment is about citizenship, not the right to life. Illegal immigrants still have a right to life, despite not being U. S. citizens. The unborn also have the right to life, despite not yet being citizens (and as I pointed out previously, prior to Roe v. Wade the unborn were considered persons legally protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. Pro asserts that rationality and personality are needed for human beings to be considered human beings, but they are baseless. He offers no reasons to support his claims so we can reject them. Conversely, I have offered plenty of evidence that the unborn are human beings from fertilization. I have also shown why the woman does not simply have the right to ""revoke"" the presence of the fetus from inside her body. She bears responsibility for bringing a naturally needy child into existence (the man does, too, of course). If you bring a naturally needy child into existence then you bear responsibility for caring for that child. Contention 2Pro does not give strong justification for why the woman's right to reproduce trumps the fetus' right to life. I have already shown that the fetus is a full-fledged human. One's right to reproduce does not trump one's right to life, which is the most fundamental of all rights. Additionally, once fertilization happens she has already reproduced. Contention 3I have committed no fallacy here (and Pro has not mentioned which fallacy he believes I am making). Pro also gives no sources to back up his claims here, so they can be rejected. I believe that women are generally law-abiding citizens, so I'm not convinced they would all flock to abortionists to have illegal abortions. But even if they did, that doesn't mean that abortions should stay legal. After all, murder and rape happen even though they are illegal. That doesn't mean we should legalize it. Cross-ExaminationPro has still offered no reason for why viability should give a right to life. The entity before viability is the same entity post-viability. Why is it that a being must be able to live independently that gives it a right to life? This would mean that a born person on life support would not have a right to life, even if they have a good chance of recovering. Also, as I have shown viability is an arbitrary line to draw. Viability decreases as technology improves. RebuttalThe reason Pro's reference to Joyce Arthur is an appeal to authority is because he gave no reasons to support his claims. He used Joyce Arthur as his argument, rather than supporting it. I gave actual scientific and philosophical reasoning to support the case that the unborn are full-fledged humans from fertilization. Plus, Joyce Arthur is not a scientist. Specifically, she's not an embryologist. I gave quotes by embryologists, who are the experts on human embryology to support my case. Pro also ignores my analogies, so I extend them. It's simply ridiculous not to answer them for his reasons. I might as well say Judith Jarvis Thomson's violinist analogy is irrelevant because you're plugged into a violinist, you're not pregnant in the analogy. This is simply a ridiculous objection. That's the exact purpose of an analogy, to show a comparison between one thing and another, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification. Once again, I'd like to thank Pro for this intriguing debate. I believe I have made my case and defended it from scrutiny. Thank you for reading.",-1,"the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, especially in the medical sense",wordnet,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"I surely do believe we should take a more realistic approach too. More than 90% of abortions occur during the 13th week of pregnancy, at this time fetuses have already developed finger prints, vocal chords, and the part of the brain which is responsible for complex thoughts is developing. This is a human life that cannot be taken away. Now to answering your questions ""At what point do you think a fetus becomes aware of existence?"" I as a non religious person believe life cannot be judged on awareness, for example when a person is in coma they aren""t aware of themselves nor environment. Do you believe it would be fine to murder a human being that is in coma just because they aren""t aware of their current state, and existence? ""Does a fetus have knowledge of life and death?"" Fetuses do have knowledge of life and death. One of, if not the most used abortion method is MVA. In this process a vacuum is used to retire contents from uterine. During this process the fetus""s body is completely destroyed by the vacuum. Doctors who have performed this form of abortion have recalled observing fetuses desperately moving to stay in womb. Fetuses are aware of their life, and will try to stay alive. ""Does a fetus fear non-existence?"" This is a question impossible to answer. If fetuses didn""t fear non-existence this does still not justify the killing of them. A suicidal person may often not fear non-existence, however would you kill them? Now I""d like to ask you a few questions? At what point in a fetuses life do you believe abortion shouldn""t be allowed anymore? How can a parent(s) justify the decision to have an abortion? Do you consider fetuses to be alive?",-1,the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy especially in the first eight months,wordnet,abortion,no,yes,neutral,neutral
"I understand that you didn't use 'person', But I find that 'person' is the better word to use. It's no ""think of all those human beings"" or ""you lovely human beings"". I'm aware that a foetus is a human, And alive. It's just not a person. Again, Foetus =/= person. Yes, A foetus hasn't experienced these things. No, It doesn't make abortion 'okay'. It's just evidence to the contrary for abortion being murder, And therefore illegal. Yes, It's why they never get them. But hypothetical futures don't matter in the real world. I'm not treated as an 80 year old, And a foetus isn't treated as a person. You can't say 'deserve'. That's subjective i. E. Your opinion. Opinions don't matter. Murdering someone because they've murdered someone is revenge, Not justice, And this is another debate entirely. I'm fine with you believing abortion is murder. It's just objectively not. Given that Meriam-Webster doesn't have a separate definition for human being, The other will serve; ""a man, Woman, Or child of the species Homo sapiens, Distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, Power of articulate speech, And upright stance. "" It'd be safe to assume that 'man' and 'woman' refer to sex, But for the distinction 'child'. This suggests that a human being is an adult or child member of the human race. Given that a child is ""a young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority"", And age cannot be negative, A foetus is not a human being. You aren't pro-choice. Remember, This is the English language. Not everything is literal. Unless you believe that a women should be allowed abortions, You are not pro-choice. Some false equivalencies right there. A slave is a human being. A murder victim is a human being (or was). A foetus is not a human being. And banning the latter makes all three a violation of the right to bodily autonomy, Which is a good segue to my argument. Under the laws of the U. S. A, And most western countries, Citizens have the civil (legal) right to bodily autonomy. This means that they have the final say in what happens to their body. This is why you have to consent to giving blood, And to being an organ. You can't just have them taken from you willy nilly. Banning abortion violates this right, Because women can no longer choose not to be pregnant. But hold your horses, Because I'd imagine you have a couple of rebuttals. Firstly, It doesn't violate the foetus's civil rights. A foetus has no civil rights. It's not a citizen of any country. Secondly, 'the woman should've just chosen not to have sex' is stupid. Don't punish women for having sex.",1,the deliberate and intentional destruction of a human embryo or fetus,wordnet,abortion,yes,yes,con,con
"Firstly, I want to make myself clear, though I do not agree with abortion, there are certain circumstances where it is acceptable. That being rape, incest, and medical issues. However, having an abortion ""just because"", or ""I don't want to have to take care of my kid"", then it is no different than murder. This type of thinking, is the same type of thinking that the feminists are using to justify abortion, they are not justifying it in rape, incest, or medical issues only, they are trying to say that it is OK in any circumstance. Back during the bronze age of around 3,000-1,000 B.C.E., there was a popular Sumerian religion that worshiped Baal. People would sacrifice their babies to Baal via cooking them alive (getting cooked alive, sounds familiar doesn't it). Archaeologists wondered how mothers could have their children be cooked alive, and they came to the conclusion, that they were able to have this detestable act done, because they did not consider their babies to be a living human, now this should sound very familiar. So, no one is arguing that women shouldn't have control of their bodies, they are entitled to complete control over their bodies, however, I am arguing that a fetus is a living human also, and hence is ALSO entitled to complete control over their body, which includes the right not to be cooked alive. So if you want to argue that women should have control over their bodies, you must argue that babies must have control over their bodies. It is two separate bodies, and hence the baby has rights too, separate from the mother. Point 1: a fetus is alive: Now, I will be arguing that a fetus is a living human, and by definition, it is, let's look at the definition of life according to Websters dictionary: ""the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death."" Please note, nowhere in this definition will you see ""took a first breath"", and all of these definitions, a fetus fits, it can grow, it will be able to reproduce eventually, it will be able to preform functional activity, and it will continue to change until death. According to biology, life has these characteristics: 1. Grows and develops (check) 2. Capable of reproduction (check) 3. Consumes and uses energy (check) 4. Responds to stimuli (check) Point 2: a fetus is NOT a clump of cells: So, I have established that a fetus is alive, now I will establish that it is not a clump of cells, calling a fetus a ""clump of cells"" is mind boggling, no scientific mind would look at a fetus, and say ""meh- it's a bag of cells"", calling it a clump of cells is inherently wrong, a fetus is not a clump of cells any more than you or I are clumps of cells. Because a ""clump"" suggests that it has no form or organization, a fetus cannot be considered a ""clump of cells"", because a fetus's cells has organization, and all those cells are working for the survival of the rest of the ""clump"", hence, the correct term would be a ""system of cells"", just like you or me. Point 3: A fetus is a human: This is very easy to prove, if you sample a fetus's DNA, and test it, what will you find? The genetic material comes from a human, not a baboon, or a buffalo, or a ""clump of cells"", a HUMAN. Problem solved, it's genetics are human genetics, it's a human, what else? It's dad is a human, it's mom is a human, they aren't ducks are they? So, it would logically follow, that their child will be---- A HUMAN! It cannot be a clump of cells, the dad isn't a clump of cells, the mom isn't a clump of cells, so, logically their offspring will be a human, not a clump of cells. If I get a duck, and another duck, and I breed them, they will give birth to a duck, same with gorillas, eagles, snakes, lions, bears, whales, dolphins, etc, they will give birth to gorillas, eagles, snakes, lions, bears, whales, dolphins, etc. So, if two humans get together, the only logical outcome, is that their offspring will be a human, NOT a clump of cells.",-1,the deliberate destruction of a human embryo or fetus in the womb,wordnet,abortion,yes,yes,con,con
"Response Point 1: Correct. People should not have pregnancies that they do not plan to have or keep (intended or uninteded pregnancy). But this unfortunate fact will never be suppressed (meaning that millions of people per year will continue to have sex that may result in an unintended pregnancy). Thus, abortion is still necessary. Response Point 2: Exactly. Thank you for proving my point that if abortion was made illegal, than women are going to get abortions anyhow, and a lot of women have them homemade (to use your term), and most of those are unsafe. Response Point 3: There is no right to live. Being able to live is a privilege provided by God. But to not go off on a tangent, I would like for you to state me the passage that either says those words verbatim (preferably), or something of the same effect. Response Point 4: I will cover post-abortion stress in one of my attack points. Response Point 5: Do you really believe Lordknukle? He has some extremely weird beliefs. Response Point 6: Most women who abort are poor. If the baby was born into this surrounding, the baby would be most likely poor his or her whole childhood, and most likely, the rest of his or her life, and these surroundings greatly increase the chance that he or she commits one murder or is murdered. The child would be better off not being born. I would not want to live in or experience those types of surroundings. Would you? Response Point 7: The matter of when a fetus is of one's own opinion. Some say when the fetus's heart first beats, or when the fetus can start breathing, or at conception, or when a fetus can feel pain, or when a fetus can survive on it's own, or at birth. There is no strong, solid evidence of when a baby is born, and most of the accepted alive dates (like when a fetus can survive on it's own, or when the fetus can feel pain) have no set date, but are still a matter of scientific study not proven yet. You cannot prove that a fetus is alive when it's heart first beats. Response Point 8: Most of these famous people did not live in poor surroundings, or where abortion was a major opinion for the child's mother (I am not saying that all famous people do not fit this category because some do). Attack Point 1: ""In 1964, 28-year-old Geraldine Santoro bled to death on the floor of a Connecticut hotel room after she and her former lover, Clyde Dixon, attempted an abortion on their own. Dixon, who had no medical experience of any kind, used a textbook and some borrowed tools. When things went terribly wrong, he fled the scene, and Santoro died alone"": http://socialistworker.org.... This quote alone sums up what it was like for the thousands of women who died at the hands of untrained specialists. Attack Point 2: Six months after abortion was legalized in Guyana in 1995, admissions for septic and incomplete abortion dropped by 41%. Previously, septic abortion had been the third largest, and incomplete abortion the eighth largest, cause of admissions to the country's public hospitals. One year after Romania legalized abortion in 1990, its abortion-related mortality rate fell from 142 to 47 deaths per 100,000 live births. These are examples of the positive impact legalizing abortion has on women's health."": http://www.ourbodiesourselves.org.... Attack Point 3: ""Forty-two percent of women obtaining abortions have incomes below 100% of the federal poverty level ($10,830 for a single woman with no children)"" ""Twenty-seven percent of women obtaining abortions have incomes between 100–199% of the federal poverty level"": http://www.guttmacher.org.... Do you think the babies that were aborted by these 69% of women who are single, and make a yearly income of less then $21,660 would have had a very good life? Do you think they would ever have a chance? Say those 69% of women were not able to abort. Those children grew up in terrible surroundings surrounded by violence, murder, want, and laziness. I am sure a lot of those children would grow up to become theives and even murderers. And I am sure a lot of those would end up in jail. These children would be better off not being born. Attack Point 4: ""The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that in 1972 alone, 130,000 women obtained illegal or self-induced procedures, 39 of whom died."":http://www.guttmacher.org.... This means that at least 260,000 people broke the law by having an illegal abortion. That number only takes into account the woman and the doctor. There could be more the 2 involced in one abortion. The prohibition of abortion will again cause 130,000+ crimes. And they need solving. Police are already having a hard time controlling crime. Adding 130,000+ crimes with at least 260,000 people involved will make the police department a mess. Attack Point 5: ""In 1967, England liberalized its abortion law to permit any woman to have an abortion with the written consent of two physicians. More than 600 American women made the trip to the United Kingdom during the last three months of 1969 alone"" ""The year before the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade, just over 100,000 women left their own state to obtain a legal abortion in New York City"": http://www.guttmacher.org.... This means that is abortion is made illegal, then thousands of women will travel to a foreign country that legalizes abortion. In other words, they will bypass the law. Attack Point 6: This is the connection between abortion and mental illness I promised. http://www.msnbc.msn.com...... http://www.guardian.co.uk....... This source claims that the unwanted pregnancy is the cause of mental illness, not the abortion itself. http://feministing.com....... This source cites at least three studies denying the claim. I know you stated the connection of post abortion stress. Here is a quote that I think may sum this part of the argument up in my favor: ""This review identified several factors that are predictive of more negative psychological responses following first-trimester abortion among women in the United States. Those factors included:Perceptions of stigma, need for secrecy, and low or anticipated social support for the abortion decision; A prior history of mental health problems; Personality factors such as low self-esteem and use of avoidance and denial coping strategies; and Characteristics of the particular pregnancy, including the extent to which the woman wanted and felt committed to it."":http://www.apa.org...... So the abortion did not cause the mental illness, rather, it was the unwanted pregnancy. If the woman was made to stay with the pregnancy, then there would be even worse post-pregnancy stress. Get the connection? Attack Point 7: In February 2003, the US National Cancer Institute (NCI) held a workshop of more than 100 of the world's leading experts who study pregnancy and breast cancer risk. The experts reviewed human and animal studies that looked at the link between pregnancy and breast cancer risk, including studies of induced and spontaneous abortions. Some of their findings were: • Breast cancer risk is increased for a short time after a full-term pregnancy (that is, a pregnancy that results in the birth of a living child). • Induced abortion is not linked to an increase in breast cancer risk. • Spontaneous abortion is not linked to an increase in breast cancer risk. The level of scientific evidence for these findings was considered to be ""well established"" (the highest level): http://www.cancer.org....... This conclusion again states that if the woman was made to stay with the pregnancy (or not allow her to abort), than the women is at an increased chance for breast cancer. Another point is the if you prohibit abortion, you would have to prohibit pregnancy before that because the pregnancy itself causes mental illness and breast cancer. ==OFR== I have essentially crushed the pro-Life argument.",1,the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy usually resulting in the death of the embryo or fetus,wordnet,abortion,no,yes,neutral,con
"It seems my opponent believes that presenting made up statistics is somehow a rebuttal to the truth. I will explain... In response to my claim that 1.2 million more unwanted children will be born per year (an estimate based on the amount of legal abortions reported in 2007 in the US) he claims these extra births would somehow be a boon to the economy. He cites his own ""quick and easy 'facts'"" as his rebuttal. I will refute each of these ""quick and easy facts"" one by one. ""if we were too Illegalize abortion you will find that their is MORE taxpayers"" -Babies don't pay taxes. ""MORE people to buy products in the U.S"" -Babies don't buy anything. ""MORE people in the work force and AND more people to enlist in the military"" -Babies can't work, and though some may consider 17 year olds their ""baby"", babies can't enlist in the military. ""In fact Abortions actually hurt the United States economy in the state of Illinois alone it costs the tax payers $1 million each year."" -Though I would like to see that measly estimate ($1 million is not a lot of money when considering the alternatives; I will explain), because Illinois was mentioned, let's do a quick study on Illinois... -Most children placed by DCFS (Department of Children and Family Services) were from homes so abusive or neglectful that it would be unsafe for them to return. -Illinois spends an annual $14,871,200 in the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services Foster Homes/Specialized Foster Care and Prevention line -$8,100,000 for DCFS funding of personal services to prevent the layoff of frontline staff (http://childcareillinois.wordpress.com...) -In 2007 there were 111,742 reports of child abuse and neglect in the state of Illinois -In 2003 there were 25,344 substantiated cases of child abuse and neglect, more than 4,000 children removed from their homes, and 58 confirmed child deaths due to abuse.(http://www.fightcrime.org...) I know I provided more information than necessary to refute my opponent's claims, but this information is relevant when considering foster care and adoption as a viable alternative to abortion. The truth is many children are abused in foster care, and many homeless in America come from the foster care system. -20,000 youth ""age out"" or emancipate from foster care each year. -Up to 50% of former foster/probation youth become homeless within the first 18 months of emancipation. -Twenty seven percent (27%) of the homeless population spent time in foster care. -Fifty-eight percent (58%) of all young adults accessing federally funded youth shelters in 1997 had previously been in foster care. -Less than half of former foster youth are employed 2.5-4 years after leaving foster care, and only 38% have maintained employment for at least one year. -Youth in foster care are 44% less likely to graduate from high school and after emancipation, 40 – 50 percent never complete high school. -Girls in foster care are six times more likely to give birth before the age of 21 than the general population. -Sixty percent (60%) of women who emancipate from foster care become parents within 2.5-4 years after exiting care. -Parents with a history of foster care are almost twice as likely as parents with no such history to see their own children placed in foster care or become homeless. (http://fosterculture.wordpress.com...) Now, these statistics not only refute my opponent's claims, but they support my claim that illegalizing abortion is more likely to have a negative impact on our economy than my opponent's alternative claim. My opponent admits that I am right about the burden illegalizing abortion would be on the adoption industry. He then claims that the system will ""correct itself"", and the result will be a boon to the economy. The statistics I provided above suggest otherwise. In fact the statistics imply there would be a vicious circle of children in foster care, homelessness, and even crime (http://www.fightcrime.org...). My opponent claims that the right to life is more important to a child who is, as I suggested, doomed to live in these institutions. -7.6% vs 3.1% adoptees vs. non-adoptees are likely to attempt suicide -16.9% vs 8.2% adoptees vs. non-adoptess were likely to have received psychological and/or emotional counseling -Attempted suicide is more common among adolescents who live with adoptive parents than among adolescents who live with biological parents (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org...) I believe many of those who have actually suffered through living in these institutions would disagree with my opponent. My opponent claims that ""only"" 1% of abortions in the US are a result of rape and/or incest. Even so, he does not argue that rape and incest should be an exception, rather that a baby acting as a cancer should be the ONLY exception. Acknowledgment of 1 single abortion performed due to rape and/or incest is justification that that abortion should be allowed. He does not make this argument. Instead he says that ""loved ones whom they trust"" would provide psychiatric support, as well as therapists. What if a girl was raped by a family member (incest), or even her own father? My opponent does not address this. My opponent says he does not see how illegalizing abortion would affect the psychiatric needs of these women and girls. Well, most health insurance does not cover mental health. Mental health already costs the US $150 billion annually. (http://www.apa.org...) My opponent claims that he would rather be born than aborted as the result of rape or incest. I argue that my opponent cannot possibly fathom the mental effects these children suffer, and given the suicide statistics for adoption quoted above, the suicide rates related to depression, and the depression that would occur when finding out you are the child of a rapist, or that your mother is also your sister- I am sure none of us, unless we have suffered through this, can possibly say it is better to be born. My opponent admits illegal abortion rates would go up, and then expects us all to assume (without reason) that the rates will eventually go down. The statistics state otherwise- abortion rates are similar worldwide whether legal or illegal (http://www.iht.com...), and illegalization is not a deterrent from the world's most prevalent medical procedure. The difference is the mortality and injury rates of the women having illegal abortions performed, versus legal abortions (http://www.womensenews.org...). My opponent claims that abortion is an infringement upon the unborn's ""right to life"". I have addressed this in my first round argument- it is not for the law to determine when life begins, and when a ""person"" has the right to live, rather it is for medicine and science to decide. According to medicine, an embryo is not a developed human being (references in R1). Asking whether or not we would have wanted to be aborted does not matter because 1 out of 3 of our mothers have had or will have an abortion by age 45 (http://www.ourbodiesourselves.org...). The question is spiritual, and not scientific- at which point does the human soul enter the human body. Would I have been me had I been born rather than have previously been aborted? I would argue yes- I would still be me whether I was aborted during the conception in which I was actually born and born later, or if I had been born previously. How many millions more of us are lost when our fathers masturbate, or when our mothers perform oral sex? I see no difference in this line of questioning. Thank you.",1,the act of intentionally causing the death of a fetus,wordnet,abortion,yes,no,neutral,con
"This has been repeated a million times but I'm going to say it again because it must act as the foundation of this debate. Abortion is not murder, especially when it is performed before the fetus has developed into a human being. When an abortion is performed, no baby is killed or murdered. Think of it as destroying the seed before it becomes a plant. Performing an abortion is by definition not committing murder. With this fact as a base or foundation, throughout the next few rounds I will argue that abortion does not demean the value of human life, but protects it -- using facts and rational arguments. I will also argue that mother""s, being the carrier of the fetus, have the right and responsibility to decide and weigh the advantages and disadvantages of bringing a human being into the world. Let me ask you. How is it better to have the child and allow it to lead a poor and neglected life, rather than never existing in the first place? If you value life, and the sanctity of living, then you will accept abortion. You don""t have to practice it, advocate for it, understand it, or even respect it. But if you respect life, then you will accept abortion and allow other women to have abortions. Thank you, I look forward to your response.",1,the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy -- usually before the fetus attains viability,wordnet,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"A woman has the right to choose what she wants to do with her body. Therefore, abortion is accepted. Rules: No new arguments in R4. If you forfeit a round you automatically lose.",1,the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy especially before the 6th month,wordnet,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"I will accept the con side of this debate. Abortion is the taking of an innocent life that is growing and maturing inside the body of another human being. If abortion is right, as pro has clearly stated, then what type of morality are we judging the set of guidelines on? I could argue that life begins at conception, but I'll leave that alone for now and just base my arguments on facts. Fact #1) Heartbeats are detected as early as 4 weeks. Fact #2) Brain activity begins as early as 8 weeks. Fact #3) When a crime such as murder is committed against a pregnant woman in the United States, the individual committing the crime will be charged with multiple murders, not one.",-1,the deliberate and intentional destruction of the life of an unborn child,wordnet,abortion,no,no,con,con
"My opponent has not refuted any of my arguments and has only made unsupported claims that he did not effeciently defend or provide evidence for and he has not given me an answer to any of the questions I asked him. I therefore extend all of my arguments from the last round as they all went untouched. To provide some form of content for this round: ""Everyone has rights.""Including the mother, so why do you think her rights should be broken for the rights of something that is not born?""If you want to abort someone, then go ahead.""This is completly against your pole: should I read that as a consession? ""Kill something that was supposed to life."" Can you prove that statement? It is not a human any more than your sex-cells are humans. The act of abortion is just as immoral as using birth control. Are you going to defend that those should be illegal? Birth control prevents the would-be fetus to be born and thus kills something that was supposed to live. Why should bc be legal if abortion isn't? are you proposing that the only valid sexual intercourse should be for reproduction?Abortion protects the life of the mother. the reasoning ""Don't because it kills something that has no self-awareness!"" is not going to hold valid.""Again, morally abortion is wrong. ""How so is it morally worse than forcing the child upon an unwilling mother? My opponent cannot ignore this point and must answer it, along with all others, in the next and final round.",1,"the termination of a pregnancy after, with, or just before birth",wordnet,abortion,no,no,neutral,neutral
"""But a fetus isn't a fetus until 8 weeks into the pregnancy."" You apparently are not well-versed in human reproduction. The Zygote exists for only four days, then turns into a blastocyst on the fifth day. ""Day 1: Conception: Of the 200,000,000 sperm that try to penetrate the mother's egg cell, only one succeeds.2 At that very moment, a new and unique individual is formed. All of the inherited features of this new person are already set – whether it's a boy or girl, the color of the eyes, the color of the hair, the dimples of the cheeks and the cleft of the chin. He or she is smaller than a grain of sugar, but the instructions are present for all that this person will ever become. The first cell soon divides in two. Each of these new cells divides again and again as they travel toward the womb in search of a protected place to grow.3 Day 6-14:The new individual at first attaches loosely to the wall of the womb, then burrows deeply and attaches securely to it over the next week. Sensitive pregnancy tests can now show positive, but this depends on the level of hormone produced by the new life. By the end of the second week, the mother's menstrual period is suppressed by this hormone (hCG) which is produced by her child.4 Day 17:Blood vessels begin to form.4 Remarkably, the future sex cells that will give rise to sperm or eggs for a new generation begin to group together - only 17 days after this new life is alive itself.5 Day 18-20:The foundations of the brain, spinal cord, and nervous system are laid.6 Day 21:The heart begins to beat,7 unsurely at first, gaining strength day by day. The heart beats 70 times per minute at first, reaching a maximum of 170-190 at seven weeks, and slowing a bit to 160-180 at 9 weeks.8 A day later the eyes begin to develop. The earliest stages of the ears are now present.9 Day 26-27:The lungs now begin to form.10 Day 28-32:Two tiny arms make their appearance and budding legs follow two days later.11 The beginnings of the mouth take shape.12 The nose starts to develop.13 The thyroid gland begins to grow. Blood flows in the baby's veins but stays separate from the mother's blood. The tongue now begins to form. The face now makes its first appearance.14 Day 36:The baby's eyes develop their first color in the retina (see photo above, right).15 Day 40:The baby makes her first reflex movements. Touching around the mouth with a fine bristle causes her to flex her neck.16 Day 41:The fingers begin to form, followed by the toes a few days later.17 Day 42:The baby develops nerve connections that will lead to a sense of smell. The brain is now divided into 3 parts – one to experience emotion and understand language, one for hearing and one for seeing. 18 Joints begin to form.19 Mother now misses second period. Day 44:Buds of milk teeth appear. Facial muscles develop.20 Eyelids begin to form, protecting the developing eyes.21 Elbows take shape. Internal organs are present, but immature. 99% of muscles are present; each with its own nerve supply.22 Electrical activity is detectable in brain.23 Day 52:Spontaneous movement begins. The baby then develops a whole collection of moves over the next 4 weeks including hiccupping, frowning, squinting, furrowing the brow, pursing the lips, moving individual arms and legs, head turning, touching the face, breathing (without air), stretching, opening the mouth, yawning, and sucking.24 8 Weeks:The baby is now well-proportioned, and about the size of a thumb. Every organ is present. The liver is making blood, the kidneys function, and the heart beats steadily. The skull, elbows, and knees are forming. Of the 4500 structures in the adult body, 4000 are already present.25 The skeleton of the arms and legs and the spine begins to stiffen as bone cells are added."" Is it right to kill it? http://abortionfacts.com...",-1,the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy not resulting in a live birth,wordnet,abortion,no,yes,neutral,neutral
"I agree that it is wrong to take another person's life. That is murder, And absolutely reprehensible. Where you and I evidently differ is whether or not a foetus is a person. Both the Oxford and Merriam-Webster dictionaries define person as an individual human being, Or a human with reference to individuality. On the definition of individual, They differ slightly, But the consensus is that individual means a distinctly separate entity, With defining characteristics. It is my belief that, Beyond genes (which it shares partly with either parent anyway), A foetus has no defining characteristics. No individuality. For example, I have friends. Likes. Dislikes. Relationships. Aspirations. Worries. Things that make me me. A foetus has none of these things. P. S. I find it hypocritical to be pro-life and pro death penalty, Because of these definitions. P. P. S. I don't like abortion. I just don't think it's murder or that it should be illegal. You'll find the vast majority of pro-choice people share these views. We aren't pro-abortion.",1,the act of terminating a pregnancy before it has progressed beyond a certain number of weeks,wordnet,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"How is abortion not murder. It is wrong to things like this. I understand that if a mother does not want to have a baby, but maybe they will learn something. Thank you for this argument. You were good.",-1,the deliberate and intentional destruction of a human fetus during pregnancy,wordnet,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,con
"Life: The condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter. It took me 5 seconds to find this explanation of life. Why would it take Con 2 hours to write the same. What Con differentiates between, is the value they are prepared to attribute to the lives of different species. and not life itself. This is simply a human centred, selfish disregard for all other species. Life is a singular almost magical property that is present and equal in all species. The questions are. Does life have real value. Is life merely a quirk of evolution Does life have any significance beyond it's Earth bound home. The honest answer to these questions is, we do not know. All we have is theories and theories are guess work. Keystone species: Another and completely different debate really. But I would assert that in proffering this argument,Con exacerbates their misunderstanding and consequent double standards with regard to the value of life. Addendum response: Con's response to this quite simple question is confused to say the least. Either they accept that the taking of human life is justifiable or they do not. They say yes, but then wish to pick and choose which lives they take. Once again, double standards. Which clearly suggests that Con's arguments are based on emotive thought and not logical thought. From a logical and realistic debating standpoint, I would assert that the life contained within an embryo or fetus has exactly the same value as the life contained within a terrorist bomber. Society makes rational collective decisions, that justify the taking of life, whether it be the life of a terrorist or the life of an embryo or undeveloped fetus. Not everyone will agree with those decisions, but accepting those decisions is the price we have to pay to be able to live in a relatively safe and stable society. One day our respective nations may decide to legislate against abortion and I for one will whole heartedly support that decision.",1,the act of deliberately causing an unborn child to die in the womb,wordnet,abortion,yes,no,con,con
"abor�tion 1: the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: as a: spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation — compare miscarriage b: induced expulsion of a human fetus c: expulsion of a fetus by a domestic animal often due to infection at any time before completion of pregnancy (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Abortion cannot be defined as murder, as it doesn't always involve the induced death of an embryo or fetus. Embryo: The organism in the early stages of growth and differentiation from fertilization to, in humans, the beginning of the third month of pregnancy. After that point in time, it is termed a fetus. (http://www.medterms.com...) 1.a. An organism in its early stages of development, especially before it has reached a distinctively recognizable form. b. An organism at any time before full development, birth, or hatching. 2.a. The fertilized egg of a vertebrate animal following cleavage. b. In humans, the prefetal product of conception from implantation through the eighth week of development. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...) Murder: 1: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) In order for my opponent's first statement to be valid: ""Abortion is murder and it should be illegal."", abortion would have to first be illegal, and murder would have to be redefined in the US Code as the taking of human life including at the earliest stages of development. Abortion is a medical procedure, and should only be defined by medical doctors. In modern American history, the Christian Right has attempted to sequester this medical procedure and redefine it according to their own morals with complete disregard for the consequences of illegalizing abortion, the toll it will have on adoption rates in the US which are already dismal, and the social consequences of perpetuating a rise in illegal abortions. My opponent claims that an alternative for abortion is adoption. There are perpetually about 500,000 kids in foster care each year. With all the movement in and out of foster care, there is a constant 130,000 children awaiting adoption. In total, in 2007, 783,000 children were in the foster care system at some point. Only about 50,000 American children are adopted every year (http://www.acf.hhs.gov...). Abortion is currently LEGAL. In 2005, 1.21 million abortions were performed, down from 1.31 million in 2000. From 1973 through 2005, more than 45 million legal abortions occurred. What would my opponent propose happen with this rise in unwanted children if already there are only 50,000 adoptions per year in the US? An extra 1.2 million children born per year would be disastrous to our economy, our orphanages, and the children doomed to live their lives in these institutions. (http://www.guttmacher.org...). My opponent states that the ""only reason why there should be an abortion is in case the baby is acting as a cancer and its killing the mother"". I refute that my opponent can make this claim because he cannot get into the heads of millions of women who have had, and do have abortions and discern for them whether or not they had a good reason to have an abortion. Even lacking this argument, my opponent ignores the conditions of rape and incest. Who will father these children? Will he? Who will provide psychiatric support for these women- too often children themselves- who have been violated and impregnated by disgusting criminals? Who will provide the psychiatric support for the children themselves when they are born? My opponent ignores several issues related to illegalizing abortion, besides the ones I have mentioned above. Illegalizing abortion would not lower abortion rates, rather it will raise illegal abortion rates, and the mortality rates associated with abortion. In 1972, a year before abortion became legal, there were a reported 130,000 illegal abortions. From 1975-1979 there were 11,300 illegal abortions reported. (http://findarticles.com...) Repealing Roe v. Wade (one of the steps required to illegalize abortion) would most likely result in a rise in illegal abortions. Now, rather than opposing the right of a woman and her doctor to choose what she should do medically with her own body, we should be advocating education of controceptive use, education in alternatives to abortion, laws that would ease adoption rather than make it more difficult (like the recent Arkansas Unmarried Couple adoption ban, http://ballotpedia.org...(2008), and help for single mothers and families living in poverty. It is this work that helps reduce the number of annual abortions, and reducing the number of annual abortions should be everyone's goal rather than attacking the rights of a woman, and a medical procedure while not being medically qualified to judge what is and isn't good for the human body, what defines human life, and what is or isn't ethical/unethical in medicine. Thank you.",1,"the termination of pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely associated with the death of the embryo, forming an early stage in the development of an organism",wordnet,abortion,no,yes,neutral,con
"Response Point 1: I don't think that the voters are going to find this a very reliable refutation. If nothing in the world can happen without God's approval, than I guess God changed is mind in 1973 for Roe vs. Wade, and is beginning to question that. Abortions happen everyday. Your statement is completely illogical. Response Point 2: What is your point with this point? Is there any argument here? Response Point 3: First of all, abortion is NOT illegal by law. Let's clear that up. And secondly, the ""rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"" were not aimed at babies, and the ""right of life"" was not aimed at babies either. This was talking about the individual person to make his own decision however he saw fit. So if she wants to have an abortion, that is here choice. Response Point 4: Sorry to break it do you, but quoting another debater who dosen't even have prove should not be a proof to your argument. That is not a proof at all. Response Point 5: I was going to use this in one of my next attack points, but oh well. """"A number of studies have looked at cases of women living in jurisdictions in which governmental approval to have an abortion was required, who sought to have an abortion, but were denied the ability to do so (Dagg, 1991; David, Dytrych, Matejcek and Schuller, 1988). For example, Dagg (1991) reports that these women overwhelmingly kept their babies, rather than giving them up for adoption, but that they often resented the unwanted children. These children who were born because their mothers were denied an abortion were substantially more likely to be involved in crime, even when controlling for the income, age, education and health of the mother."": http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu....... What I am trying to say is that after the women have the baby, the hormones racing in her do not allow her to give the baby up. She does not want to do it. Response Point 6: This does not prove that the baby is alive at any particular point. You could go on to say that atoms are alive because they struggle to form chemical compounds. Saying something like that does not leave any boundaries toward further advancement to the argument. Response Point 7: I wish you would provide quotes from this article like I do. Refer to my point 5. Response Point 8: There is nothing that has either upheld, nor proved that abortion should be illegal. One, since abortion is still legal, than the notion that the prohibition of abortion has been unheld is just wrong, and two, abortion is not and can not be proven illegal since it is legal. Here, you seem to think that abortion is illegal. I want you to look up Roe vs. Wade, than look up the court case that overturned Roe vs. Wade, and made a sweeping law prohibting abortion across the United States. Response Point 9: I don't think you understood the purpose of that argument. Let me sum it up for you. If abortion is made illegal, than some women are still going to seek abortions, but this time, underground abortions by untrained specialists. This means a higher number of deaths from abortion. If abortion is made illegal, it will not stop abortion. Thus, you have a serious problem. Response Point 10: What? Your point was not a rebuttal. I have provided proof for my argument that you are wrong. Response Point 11: Look at my response pont 5. You must provide a differnet rebuttal. I extend my arguments here from the last round into this round. Response Point 12: What? That is not even a refutation. Response Point 13: Most women do not feel guilt after an abortion. If they do, sources please. Response Point 14: I am not saying that all women that get pregnant are going to get breast cancer. What I am trying to say is that a higher PERCENTAGE of women who have a pregnancy have breast cancer than those who have an abortion. Since you have not provided a rebuttal, I extend my arguments here from the last round into this round. Attack Point 1: This one's a killer. One of the four major factors that decreased crime in the 1990s was abortion: http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu....... ""The underlying theory rests on two premises: 1) unwanted children are at greater risk for crime, and 2) legalized abortion leads to a reduction in the number of unwanted births."" :http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu...... ""These children who were born because their mothers were denied a nabortion were substantially more likely to be involved in crime, even when controlling for the income, age, education and health of the mother."":http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu....... ""For instance, homicide fell 25.9 percent in high-abortion states between 1985 and 1997 compared to an INCREASE of 4.1 percent in low-abortion states. Panel data estimates confiŽrm the strong negative relationship between lagged abortion and crime. An analysis of arrest rates by age reveal that only arrests of those born after abortion legalization are affected by the law change."":http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu....... There are so many great passages on this website to list all here. To have a better understanding of what this article is saying, read the article from the bottom of page 19 to the top of page 21. Also, look at the graphs throughout the article. Here is the article again: http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu....... And no, I can not prove the prohibiting abortion would just increase crime and poverty in the United States, but I can prove the legalizing abortion has decreased crime. Attack Point 2: Here is some simple logic. ""Say abortion is still illegal. Then the 1 million babies aborted each year would raise the unemployment rate tremendously (based on Guttermacher estimates on abortion, unemployment would be between 15-20%). More babies from the 1980s now=a higher unemployment and povery rate."" And more simple logic. ""Say abortion is still illegal. Than the 56 million babies that would have survived may pay more taxes, but since over 90% are in the bottom 47% of the population (money wise), they don't pay any taxes (Look it up if you doubt me about the 47% not paying taxes). Also, they are sucking up Government Welfare money. So they would increase the Government Debt, not decrease"".",1,the act of terminating a pregnancy prematurely,wordnet,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"Hello, I hold the null hypothesis when it comes to the issue of abortion.",1,the act of terminating a pregnancy after the fetus has developed enough to live outside the womb,wordnet,abortion,no,no,neutral,con
"Thanks amby, for offering up this debate. this would not be the first time i have debated abortion, and i find it a rather itchy topic. Nonetheless it should be interesting. ccount, FREEDOM- First if your going argue freedom, you must look at all sides of the equation. There obviously is a reason why this topic is so overtly hated. If your going to argue freedom, you should first takes all accounts of freedom into account, such as the baby. the baby who has not even had a chance at life, and is being refused to ever have a chance at life.. This is not freedom in any way. It was the mothers own fault to decide to go out and get pregnant with out protection. Not very responsible. Now she is left with the only option of filling out her responsibility, by carrying out the child. she destroys a whole life because she wants a few moments of pleasure. I find this very selfish on the mothers part. RAPE- O.K. So the mother got raped. She doesn't want to take responsibility of the child . Then dont! give the child up for adoption or close family member. Carry out through the pain and emoitional turmoil, to be humane. Yes, it was not fair and you didn't choose this decision, But don't act out of selfishness. Is it easier to murder a potential life, then to just Wait out the nine long hard months. You have to ask yourself if your ethics are correct if you negate that. Would you, Could you, risk a little bit of pain, to save a life?I know it wasn't the mother fault that she is pregnant. Its not fair to her that she has to go through this. It's not fair for anyone. But is it fair for the child either? To not let that child live because of his/her fathers wrong doing? Its just as unfair to the child as it is to the mother.She doesn't need to keep it. How could you look in to the eyes of you attacker everyday? But that shouldn't suggest that someone else can't care for the child. Thanks for this debate amber. ill be waiting for your rebuttal",-1,the act of terminating a pregnancy as a means of family planning,wordnet,abortion,no,no,neutral,neutral
"I believe that abortion should be illegal except for when the pregnancy poses a serious threat to the life of the mother. Abortion, despite how it may seem, is not a complicated issue. Either the fetus is alive, and thus is a human life. or it isn't. there are a number of moral arguments to the debate. the first moral argument is that scientifically the human fetus meets the criterion to be considered alive from conception (1)"" Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."" As we can see, the fetus is genetically human and meets every criterion to be considered alive. now that we have established that the human life begins at conception I may be faced with the argument from many in favor of abortion that though the organism forming in the womb is alive (if they don't fully reject the known science thus committing fallacy) that it is not a person. this leads me to moral argument number two which is: even if you don't consider the humanity of the organism in the womb, there are plenty of things that exist that are A. not persons. and B. has rights and intrinsic value, for example, dogs or other domesticated animals. To state that simply because you don't consider the human fetus (which is what I shall be referring to the developing child as hereinafter.) to be a person, does not mean that it does not have rights and value. Furthermore, even if you deny the humanity of the fetus, you are still dealing with a potential human life which should be held in higher moral regard than the convenience of the mother or father. Another argument that many of those on the pro-choice side of the argument is that women have the human right to control their bodies. And I am in complete agreement. When it is your body that you are doing something to then you should have every right to do so insofar as it's not self-harm. However, the human fetus is not your body. It is IN your body. as I stated in my first card in the scientific portion of my argument, the human fetus has a separate genetic identity with the restoration of the diploid number of chromosomes. therefore, the human fetus is not a part of the mother's body any more than the child would be after (s)he was born. I hold that the time to control your body would have been before conception IE: using birth control or not having sexual intercourse. one thing that society appears to have forgotten, is that sex is not for pleasure. it is the biological process through which most species ensure the continuation of their species through reproduction (2). if you choose to partake in an action the purpose of which is to reproduce. (thus controlling your body.) then you accept the risk of conception. Moral argument number 3. does the fetus have any rights, any intrinsic value, and any right to live. well, the collective opinion of society is that the fetus has essentially infinite right to live. when? if and only if the mother decides to keep the child. if she does, society and its laws, regard the fetus with infinite worth and considers it so valuable, that if someone were to kill that child they would be prosecuted for homicide. keeping in mind that the definition of homicide is: the deliberate and unlawful killing of one person by another (3). we can, therefore, see that if the mother decides to keep her child then the law recognizes it as a person. if she doesn't, the fetus is considered worthless with essentially no right to live. now, does that make sense? it doesn't seem to. either the fetus has worth, or it doesn't. on what moral grounds does the mother alone have the right to decide the fetus' worth? most people would consider killing the baby once it exits the womb as murder. however, the deliberate killing of the fetus a mere two months before is no more morally problematic than extracting a tooth. and finally, we need to recognize that there are instances when an abortion simply cannot be considered moral. take for example if the mother or father aborts a child because they prefer boys to girls. as has happened millions of times in China and elsewhere. or any other form of bias or preference of the mother or father simply cannot offer moral grounds for the termination of the human life. I look forward to a rational and well thought out debate and wish my opponent the best of luck. I eagerly await your response. (1) https://www.princeton.edu............... (2) www.biology-online.org (3)www.dictionary.com",-1,the act of terminating a pregnancy,wordnet,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"To claim that a fetus in the first trimester can survive long term, or even short term without its mother body and live a healthy life is a blatant lie. Maybe it can survive for a couple of days, but that's hardly a healthy life. Argument debunked. Prostitution should be legal as well. Just because the USA has archaic laws regarding prostitution doesn't mean we should also have archaic laws regarding abortion. We aren't arguing what the laws are; we are arguing what they should be. If we were, then you'd lose the abortion debate since it's legal. Argument debunked. I never claimed a child in the womb was less important than a kidney. That shows a lack of reading comprehension. I claimed that a woman is not obligated to use her body to save anyone's life, whether it be her fetus or to give someone else a kidney. Argument debunked. I never claimed a fetus wasn't important; I merely claimed that a woman's right to choose what to do with her body was MORE important. Argument debunked. Now, have you considered the cost of not letting anyone have an abortion? There are already 100 THOUSAND orphans in the USA, and that is with LEGAL abortion. https://showhope.org... If abortion were illegal, that number could easily be 1 million. Here are some questions for you: Who is going to take care of those children? Who is going to pay for it? Do you think that this will have a negative effect on the 100 thousand children waiting to be adopted, or do you not care about them? Do you know how traumatic it is to live a life where you know you weren't wanted? How do you think that is going to turn out? What about the mother who was forced to have a baby she didn't want? Did you ever consider the consequences of that?",1,the deliberate and often violent termination of a human pregnancy -- especially in the first eight months,wordnet,abortion,no,no,con,con
"They are not simply murdering their baby, they are reliving the baby from coming into a world that the mother knows wont go good for the baby because the mother is still struggling in life and will not be able to provide the baby with all its necessities. Babies are expensive, and not having any education or a job will decrease ones chances of being able to survive the land of all the high bills. I understand their is adoption, yet some mothers do not view another family taking care of the child they could not care for. The women that is soon to be mother might have gotten raped and decided that the baby would be better off in gods hands. A baby is no fool, yet it would not be fair for it to come into a world that it cannot be cared for in. Many abortions have been taken into account and our species is not dying off any time soon.",1,a deliberate termination of a pregnancy,wordnet,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"""The greatest destroyer of peace is abortion because if a mother can kill her own child, what is left for me to kill you and you to kill me? There is nothing between,"" says Mother Teresa. Abortion, what does this really mean? The definition of abortion is the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks. About 42 million women in the entire world with unintended pregnancies choose abortion. Abortion is a big controversial topic, people believe abortion should be illegal and others think it should stay legal. Why would someone want to kill an innocent little life? It""s not their fault people made mistakes and now they""re the ones having to pay for it. Abortion should be illegal because abortions are not safe, laws are protecting unborn babies, and fetuses can feel pain. Abortion should have never been legal.",-1,the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy especially in the medical or periodical sense,wordnet,abortion,no,no,neutral,neutral
"Same here, its my first debate on this site too. **I would just like to clarify that I am talking about first trimester abortion, as my views regarding post -fetal abortion are yet to be determined** Firstly, the fact that a placenta and the umbilical cord attach the fetus shows that the fetus cannot exist independent of the mother. We cannot consider the fetus as an individual entity because it cannot live outside the mother""s womb. Additionally, adoption is not an alternative to abortion, and if so, a rather poor one at that. Statistics show that less than three percent of all women who refuse abortion choose to give their child up for adoption. Even if I concede that adoption is an alternative, what kind of life is that for a child? Adoption generally comes with a negative connotation and with good reason. There is no guarantee that the child will have a family, and the child might get tied up in the foster system. Next, you mentioned the child (fetus""s) right to a choice and having a voice in what happens to them. By prohibiting and dismissing abortion you are in turn taking away the mothers choice and her civil right to control her own body. What is next? Forcing women to use contraceptives or undergo sterilization? Not to mention, in cases of teenage pregnancies, without the option of abortion you are taking away the young woman""s future. Furthermore, you say that being put up for adoption and bounced around the system is better than being dead, but the child was never alive to begin with. Statistics that were found on abortion.us show that pregnant women will resort to illegal and unsafe abortions if a legal option is not available. In many cases abortion is the best option, especially in cases of rape and incest where the child is unwanted and having the child can cause severe psychological problems for both the mother and the child. Children born as a result of incest are at risk of being deformed. We are talking about quality of life, and since a mother has the responsibility of bringing a life into the world, she should in turn have the right or option of an abortion. Finally, all women should have the right to choose to have an abortion, and the government or any religious authority should not limit them.",1,the act of deliberately terminating a human pregnancy,wordnet,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"I am arguing as for abortion. The reason being is that it is the choice of the woman; and if the man is there, him also; to keep to zygote or not. If they don't then let it be. Another reason is that there might be underlying issues with why the woman wants an abortion; like say if she got raped, or incest. That's why I feel like some one should have the choice to choose if they want to carry the child for nine months, or have the choice to abort it with in the first trimester.",1,the act of deliberately causing an abortion,wordnet,abortion,no,no,neutral,neutral
"Round 1: Opening statements Round 2: Facts/Argument Round 3: Facts/Argument Round 4: Closing statements I look forward to my oppnents opening statements. Good luck In my opnion, Abortion is wrong. Abortion is basically killing something. It is murder. Which is why it should mot be legalized.",-1,the act of terminating a pregnancy as a form of birth control,wordnet,abortion,no,yes,neutral,neutral
"Sorry that my rebuttal took so long, I have been busy Regarding the questions I ""avoided"" 1) Do you regard all life with an equal measure? No, I do not believe all existing life is equal to our human life. Bacteria are alive, however they are not equal to human life. 2) Do you eat? If so, you are prepared to extinguish the spark of life out of necessity and Impunity. Yes, however this does not correlate with abortion. The only justifiable reason for abortion is the mother not being able to endure giving birth. This is a life and death situation, so is eating. If you don't eat you die, however how is having a child a life and death situation? I do understand a child is a financial burden, but couples can easily avoid pregnancy. I stated that life is intangible, not tangible. Now let's go to my supposed double standards. OUR, as in humans. If you would have taken a minute to analyze the last paragraph you would have realized I'm talking about human life. Social legislation should be guided by rationale and not driven purely by emotion. Yes, many things mostly economic legislations are and should be guided by rationale. However by stating all legislation should purely be rational is utter nonesense. Murder, rape, cannibalism, and etc are prohibited by law in most of the world, especially western countries. However these fundamental laws are moral and emotional, the emotion that bringing in suffering to another human being is wrong. Many of these things were legal, and even endorsed centuries or in some countries decades ago. As morals change, laws change. Why is all life not equal? Have you ever heard of a keystone species, other organisms depend on these organisms, therefore from a logical/moral standpoint these keystone species's life is more valuable than others. Why? Whole ecosystems can crumble if a keystone species is not present or goes extinct. Explain what life is? Life is an organism that presents all 6 characteristics of life. The spark of life in humans is different. https://www.researchgate.net..., browse that page. It states exactly what I wanted to tell you, but couldn't find a way to spend less than 2 hours writing it. Addendum response: Yes and no, in some instances the taking of life is justifiable and in most others not. It is a way too broad question to be able to answer with a yes or a no, as these 2 governments have been doing this for decades.",-1,a deliberate act of killing an unborn child,wordnet,abortion,no,no,con,con
"I'm assuming the resolution is along the lines of ""abortion should generally remain legal"" or ""abortion is generally moral. "" It would help if Pro could clarify this in the comments or in the next round so I know, precisely, what he wants to debate. I also believe that abortions to save the life of the mother are morally justifiable, as long as the child is not viable (in that case, a caesarian section should be done to save both mother and child). So I will be arguing that all other abortions are immoral/should be illegal (depending on which direction Pro wishes to take the debate). I have decided to take the debate with this style, as I'm planning on having my first in-person Lincoln-Douglas style debate in a few months, so this will be good practice. Just a quick addendum to the definition of abortion. Abortion is generally defined as the termination of a woman's pregnancy that results in the death of the embryo/fetus. It's not enough to say it's simply the expulsion of it because in most cases, you are actually killing the embryo/fetus in order to remove it (the only exceptions being taking a pill that prevents the embryo from implanting into the womb). I look forward to our next round, and to Pro's opening argument.",-1,a decision that is made by considering all the relevant factors,wordnet,abortion,no,no,neutral,neutral
"Abortion should never be accepted in any culture, whether religious or not, I fail to see how anyone can be pro killing unborn babies. The issue on preserving the wildlife is more argued for than the issue on saving humans lives and I feel that is the biggest flaw in our country.",-1,the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy,wordnet,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"Abortion is not killing innocent life. Rather, it's letting a woman control her own body. Abortion is accepted because a woman has the right to choose what she wants to do with her body. The fetus needs the body of the mother to survive. If human A needs a part of human B to survive, e.g. a kidney transplant, it is entirely up to human B whether or not he wants to give human A a kidney. Even if human B is dying and his kidneys will rot with him, he decides what to do with his own body. Even if human A's life is at stake and human B's life is already over, with rotting kidney's, it's still human B's right to choose what to do with his dead body. Is this considered murder? No, of course it's not. Is it a little douchey? Perhaps. Is it acceptable? Yes, a person has the right to do whatever he wants with his body. If the fetus can survive on its own, then abortion is more of an up in the air debate. However, if the fetus needs the mother's body (which it does), abortion comes down to the simple principal of a woman has the right to choose what she wants to do with her body. By letting the fetus control a woman's body, you are granting a fetus rights to someone else's body. No one has rights to anyone's body but that person. Period A fetus needs a mother's body to survive. If the mother does not want to let the fetus use her body, it doesn't have to. The fetus is a part of a parasitic relationship; although its body is affected, it's using the body of the mother to survive. Yes, the fetus is alive. Agreed. Fact 1-2 agreed. Fact 3, it's murder because as was stated above, a WOMAN decides what to do with her body, not anyone else. If the woman doesn't abort the fetus, it's murder.",1,the deliberate destruction of a nonhuman organism especially an embryo or fetus or a germ or fungu,wordnet,abortion,no,no,con,neutral
"Sorry, this took longer to revise than I thought. Shall we go on?As agreed to legal is defined as something that is allowed and permitted by law. This is important because if something is illegal then there won't be ANY exceptions to that rule, no situations will be fit for an abortion legally. The structure of my argument is three-fold. One will be dealing with the morality of the action itself, the second one will deal with special exceptions to which my opponent has somewhat conceded to and the third one will deal with how far legal actions can go. In order to win the debate my opponent must not only prove that there is no morally acceptable situation in which abortion is the answer but also that the best way to fight abortion is with legal constraints, he must defend ALL RESOLUTION CONDITION that I'll put forth. With that in mind, let us move on to the first section:MORALITYImagine this if you will: You've just finished your higher education and are free, you have perhaps a year to see the world and experience everything you have not already experienced. You want to love, be loved, be care free and enjoy life. This is a rather rational wish, isn't it? What are you going to do if I come along and lock the door and tell you that you are not allowed to go anywhere, that you cannot live your dreams to your fullest and chain you to your house. Would you consider me to be breaking your human rights? Of course I would be. You'd most likely sue me for breaking your freedom of life. You never had a chance to live your dreams. Did I violate your right? Is it morally correct of me to obligate you to abandon your dreams? Of course it isn't. But this is happening every day everywhere and we cannot deny that. But what if the “I” in this story is replaced with an infant. Is it still morally incorrect? Is it still morally correct to force a woman to abandon her life and dreams and force her to birth a child she does not want to have, essentially trying her to her house? No, the scenario in it's core is unchanged. It is her body and legally obligating her to having the child and denying her her right to choose is just as immoral as my first scenario. On what grounds? The rights of the unborn infant?Why is it so that my opponent will argue that the right of a random cluster of cells that have just as much independent life as a small part of your skin has more right than the mother? The cell cluster has no thoughts, it is not self-aware, it cannot think, does not have feelings, does not show signs of sentient life and is in no definition of the word more human than the bacteria in your intestine. Yet my opponent indirectly wishes to argue that it has priority, that it's rights are somehow “more important” than the rights of the mother who does show all signs of intelligent life, human emotions and the ability to be self-aware. What makes her rights so much lesser than the rights of the child? Since we cannot keep the human rights valid for both parents and children my opponent must answer the following question to win: Why is the unborn infant more worthy of human rights than the parent?A child is not a human any more than a blueprint is a house. it has all the potentials to be a house, but it isn't a house. demolishing an already built structure just so the blueprint gets a chance to be a house as well is absurd. Abortion, under con's set of arguments, is just as moral as violating human rights, so which would you rather choose?When is it “ok” to abort? Assuming that abortion becomes illegal in all cases: Will there be no exceptions? My opponent wishes that rape abortion is still legal. On what grounds? Why is that still legal? Is there in fact a difference?Be careful however: because I am going to tell you right now that this is a trick question: for I am going to use whatever you answer against you. There are a minuscule amount of answers that are fitting for rape-pregnancies that are not ALSO compatible with regular pregnancies. So, either my opponent finds a great reason for abortion in case of rape that does not fit at some level with a regular abortion or he falls from his case and fights that all abortions are illegal. This leads us to the first major contradiction in my opponents case. When we're not talking about rape a fetus has potential, it might live a great life, could be given away to an orphanage and has rights that must not be violated, its murder. But when the child is a result of rape, it has no potential? What makes this child right less? It had nothing to do with the rape, it's not it's fault. Why should it be discriminated against when some other fetus has all the rights in the world? Does the history of the father make this child any worse? Is it evil and deserves to die because it has a rapist father? It's the same child, it has the same rights, abortion is not an exception. Any set of logic that my opponent can find to protect or diminish rape infants will also hold for infants that are not a rape result if my opponent cannot defend the “paradox” that a child that is the result of rape has less human rights than any other child, he has lost the debate.But we still have an unaddressed issue: My female friend. See, I have a female friend. She unfortunately isn't perfectly healthy: and should not try and complete a pregnancy since doing so will most likely result in her health worsening or she simply dies from physical trauma. Let's assume she becomes pregnant. Are you to expect it from her to actually carrying trough with her pregnancy and risking her life? If the government forces her to finish it and she dies. The government is now guilty of the murder of a young woman that could have been avoided. Why should she not have an abortion? It is literally the only method for her, the only option that does NOT result in a bad ending. What does my opponent want to do for my friend? Is legal banning a solution?The law is meant to be broken. This isn't something that is generally supported or correct, but it is still so. The harder we press to ban a certain matter the more active it gets. You can look at drug abuse and prostitution to see that. It's still peaking again and again, underground it flows like water and we cannot stop it, we cannot monitor it. Whatever is banned becomes black market material. Abortion is no different. Abortion is LEGAL and still over 700.000 die from ILLEGAL operations[1]. If abortion is banned illegal operations will only increase, will only spiral out of control. When something is legal we have a chance to monitor it, tax it and make sure safety regulations and health conditions are always met to protect the mother for instance. with abortion becoming black we can no longer monitor it, it becomes hidden, unsafe and dangerous. Think clamping the limbs and dragging them out is bad? Sticking a metal coat hanger inside the genitalia of the woman and scraping the child out is much worse and the child STILL dies. We now have a third condition:If my opponent cannot explain how illegal operations can be dealt with in a safe, efficient manner, he has lost the debate.I'll cover adoption in my next round: I just ran out of room for now. I hope you see that abortion is in fact moral when we shift the perspective. The mother is in danger, she might have been raped, her human rights are on the line, she is looking at a nearly $241,080 expense and a lifetime of unwanted commitment. And for what? The rights of a few cells that are not humans in any other sense apart from the potential to become one later on. Because the condom broke, the pill failed, a rape. That is a big fall for a small reason. Choosing between human rights isn't easy, but I hope you all see that the rights of those born should be greater than those that are not born, and are little more than just a blueprint to a house. 1) http://www.genderacrossborders.com......2)http://money.cnn.com...",1,an act or process of terminating a pregnancy,wordnet,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"""Not all chicken eggs are unfertilised..."" If you were to crack open an unfertilized chicken egg, you would notice. [1] ""Furthermore, several living plants have to be killed to obtain food or wood, but no value of life over there eh?"" You are incredibly mistaken, the reason we kill these organisms is because their products are very valuable. Vegetables and wood are valuable commodities. Humans, however early in development, are valuable in their own right. ""Or what about [the] killing of living chickens and cattle for meat?"" I think you will be surprised to know that livestock animals are only bred and kept for the purposes of their products. They do not exist but to feed us. It is basic supply and demand. Without the demand, there is no supply. Without our hunger for meat, these animals would not have been bred. ""And not every single proponent of a foetus should count as living. After all, it is not functional during that time period."" Really? A foetus does not function? The function of a foetus is to develop his characteristics as to be able to perform the functions of a prenatal being. I think the majority of foetuses perform that function very well. ""Animals and plants are just as living as, if not more than a foetus."" Of course, but do animals and plants, in their mature, yea, even their developing stages possess even a fraction of the potential for greatness, a fraction of the potential beneficial impact on the world as a foetus? The answer is no. The second an ovum is fertilised by a sperm cell the DNA, what makes us unique, is exchanged between the mother and the father in a mostly random way which creates the first metre of the tapestry of life. You will develop this way. You will have these eyes, this facial structure and other such characteristics. That's definite. If some crazy murderer doesn't come along and pluck you from your developmental chamber before you are ready, you will definitely be this person and there will never be another like you. That is the miracle of human life. The probability of your mother meeting your father is 1 in 20,000, the probability of them reproducing is thereafter 1 in 2000. The probability of the exact sperm and egg meeting after this sexual exchange that would lead to you existing exactly as you do is 1 in 400,000,000,000,000,000. The probability of every one of your ancestors following the aforementioned processed is one in [4x10^17]150,000 W76; 10^2,640,000. The probability of you being born is 10^2,685,000. Again, that is the miracle of human life.[2] ""We shouldn't force parents to keep a child they don't want. This will be bad for the child due to ill-treatment from the parents, and will be bad for the parents for the reason they wanted abortion."" There are multiple viable alternatives to this, in the first instance: condoms. In later instances, adoption. No one should be killed for the irresponsibility of his parents. ""Suppose if we find out that the unborn child has some deformities/ infection, shouldn't we give it a merciful death rather than an impaired, handicapped life?"" I think we should give him or her the best life he or she could possibly hope for. I think we should provide the utmost in palliative care. I mean, by your Hitleresque logic, Stephen Hawkins should have been shown mercy and killed as soon as he showed symptoms of motor neurone disease. [1] http://www.poultryhub.org... [2] Second-hand source initially cited by Mel Robbins during her talk at TEDx San Francisco.",-1,the deliberate termination of a pregnancy,wordnet,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"This debate was suicide for my opponent from the get go. Con wants to argue that abortion is an unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another (murder), and that a decision making abortion more lawful than it already is, should be overturned. mur·der/ˈmərdər/ Noun: The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. Verb: Kill (someone) unlawfully and with premeditation. [1]My opponent's position is incoherent. This is because, if Roe v. Wade exists, then abortion cannot be unlawful (Roe v. Wade enhances the lawfulness of abortion), and therefore it is not murder. On the other hand, if abortion is murder, then Roe v. Wade wouldn't exist, and therefore, it being overturned would be impossible. Vote Pro. Sources[1] . http://oxforddictionaries.com...",1,a deliberate act that causes the death of an individual of ethnic or national minority,wordnet,abortion,no,no,neutral,con
"Again, my position on ""pro-choice"" is that it is not for me, nor a body of government, or a religious group to decide what a woman can or cannot do with her body or what goes on inside of it. It is the choice of the woman, and the woman alone. I also cannot do anything more than speculate on why a woman might say that they had no other choice than abortion, as I am not pregnant, nor a woman. Perhaps some women feel this way because they feel that even if the child is born, there is no chance that that child will live to have a good life; perhaps some women feel this way because their lives would be put in grave danger if they were to continue with their pregnancy; perhaps some women feel this way because their child would be born with a defect that would result in infant mortality. Whatever the reason may be for a woman to feel like there is no other choice, I still don't feel that anyone else should be able to make that choice for them. To clarify my earlier question, I was asking at what point do you consider it a human being? Is it a human being the exact moment of conception, when the sperm meets the egg? Or is it human being when it starts to develop human features? Or is it a human being the moment there is a heartbeat? In other words, at what point along the growth of a fetus, from conception to birth, would you consider it to be a human being?",1,"the termination of a pregnancy after, with the loss of the fetus that has developed outside the uterus",wordnet,abortion,no,no,neutral,neutral
"Rebutting My Opponent""Law does not define terms.""Murder is defined as unlawful. Therefore, being unlawful is a necessary condition which needs to be in place, for a murder to take place. ""By what you are saying if the government made murder legal then there would be no murder.""If the government made killing of any kind was lawful, then murder would not exist.""There would still be murder, it just wouldn't be prosecuted. I would like it if you actually argued the issue that is at hand instead of trying to jump on a technicality, in my first sentence. For you I will restate my opening argument.""There would not be murder, because it wouldn't be against the law. Murder is defined as unlawful. Here is another definition:""mur·der n. 1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.""[1] ""I am arguing that abortion is the immoral killing of another human innocent life. It is not the choice of the mother to decide whether or not the fetus is aborted.""This is great, but I accepted the debate on the terms my opponent provided in the first round. For trying to change it mid-debate, I urge a conduct vote for Pro. Regardless, I will still debate with this new argument for fun, but I hope the voters are aware the resolution has already been negated, and an argument vote for Pro is warranted regardless of any further argumentation. ""I am sorry for my confusing opening statement but I hope that you will continue a serious debate on my restated argument.""When one doesn't make serious opening arguments, how can one expect to get serious responses? It doesn't matter anyway, my response was very serious. Argument In Favor Of Abortion Not Being Immoral P1: Human life gains moral value when when consciousness is obtained, and/ or pain can be feltP2: A first and second trimester fetus is not conscious (about as conscious as a kidney), and can feel no pain.P3: Most abortions (99%) are obtained in the first and second trimester of pregnancyP4: Abortion is not unethical Regarding Premise 1:Human life's value begins when consciousness begins and/or pain can be felt is more than a fair statement. It's only rational to assume that human life's value is based on the actions and feelings of conscious beings. It's also rational to assume that if a being isn't conscious and can feel no pain, then there is nothing immoral which can be done to this being. It is morally dead.Regarding Premise 2: Abortions carried out in the first and second trimester have absolutely no moral implications once so ever, due to the fact that a first trimester embryo is not conscious [2]. Also, first and second trimester embryos can feel absolutely no pain once so ever because pain receptors are required for this. Pain receptors need a neotox which is not formed until the third trimester [2]. Regarding Premise 3Over 88% of all abortions are actually done within the first trimester [3]. Some sources even claim that the number is more around 88-92% [4]. What about second trimester abortions?""About 140,000 second trimester abortions are performed yearly. They represent 9% of the total""So, I think it is safe to say that close to all abortions Regarding Premise 4Since first and second trimester embryos have no consciousness and cannot feel pain, and 99% abortions are carried out in the first and second trimester, then the majority of abortions don't really imply any genuine negative moral implications (and therefore, should not be considered unethical).A Woman Has a Right To Choose A woman has a right to do with her own body as she pleases. Even is she commits suicide after like some women do, that wouldn't mean the woman didn't have the right to do it or it was unethical. What is unethical is restricting someone's right to chose what they want to do with their own body, especially when we are dealing with a subject that isn't even aware it exists and can feel no pain.Since this woman a conscious being and can feel pain, while the subject in question does not meet the requirements, then not letting this woman have the right to chose to have an abortion would be extremely unethical.Conclusion I amused my opponent by rebutting her the argument, but the one I agreed to debate to has been negated clearly without sufficient rebuttal. Sources[1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[2] http://civilliberty.about.com...[3] http://contraception.about.com... [4] http://www.abort73.com...",1,the deliberate and unlawful killing of a human being,wordnet,abortion,no,no,con,con
"This issue is not about the potential parent, it is about the child that had no choice in their making. If someone was to have an abortion, I believe that person was making the right decision for themselves but also for there child. If a person has too many doubts about having a child then I do not believe they deserve too; furthermore, I do not believe the child deserves a parent that is not prepared mentally, physically and financially to bring up this child with everything they need. My belief of ""Pro-Choice"" is because I am an advocate for children because that child does not have a choice.",1,the deliberate destruction of a nonhuman organism especially an embryo or fetus before it is born,wordnet,abortion,yes,no,neutral,con
"OK so you said I failed to tell you why the fetus/baby is a human and your right but I will now tell you why it is a human being going off of several definitions Human being: a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance. Human being: A member of any of the races of Homo sapiens; person; man, woman, or child You see these do not state the fact that the fetus/baby has to be born yet. It is a child (Human being) a female to start off and then either stays a female or develops male-like features. therefore going back to the murder statement: Murder: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. since we have now established that the fetus/baby is a human being you can now see that this is in fact murder. the fetus/baby (human being) is being sucked out (killing the fetus/baby) by another human being. Although you could say it is Justifiable Homicide (only if the abortion is legal in most cases it is) there is no difference between when abortion was illegal and now when it is legal besides the fact that it is legal. there is a slight difference between murder and Justifiable Homicide. but the thing is, is it really justifiable besides the fact that it is now legal to kill an innocent fetus/baby. You can not say that it isn't innocent, because it hasn't done anything, the father did something continuing on I am also going to go on to your rape statement along with the murder and justifiable homicide. If a teenager is raped and she gets pregnant (now this is rare for a teenager to get pregnant from a rape so you can barely make this point but I will address it anyways) who is there to blame, the father, not the child. The teenager is living with her parents and in this case there are several people who can in fact take care of the child. even if they are poor the teenager and parent(s) can take care of child giving the baby more support than a wanting child. If the teenager is too scared to take care of a child she decides to get an abortion but, can it be justified besides it being a legal abortion JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE: That which is committed with the intention to kill, or to do a grievous bodily injury, under circumstances which the law holds sufficient to exculpate the person who commits it. 2. It is justifiable, 1. When a judge or other magistrate acts in obedience to the law. 2. When a ministerial officer acts in obedience to a lawful warrant, issued by a competent tribunal. 3. When a subaltern officer, or soldier, kills in obedience to the lawful commands of his superior. 4. When the party kills in lawful self-defence. 3.-1. A judge who, in pursuance of his duty, pronounces sentence of death, is not guilty of homicide; for it is evident, that as the law prescribes the punishment of death for certain offences, it must protect those who are entrusted with its execution. A judge, therefore, who pronounces sentence of death, in a legal manner, on a legal indictment, legally brought before him, for a capital offence committed within his jurisdiction, after a lawful trial and conviction, of the defendant, is guilty of no offence. 4.-2. Magistrates, or other officers entrusted with the preservation of the public peace, are justified in committing homicide, or giving orders which lead to it, if the excesses of a riotous assembly cannot be otherwise be repressed. 5-2. An officer entrusted with a legal warrant, criminal or civil, and lawfully commanded by a competent tribunal to execute it, will be justified in committing homicide, if, in the course of advancing to discharge his duty, he be brought into such perils that, without doing so, he cannot either save his life, or discharge the duty which he is commanded by the warrant to perform. And when the warrant commands him to put a criminal to death, he is justified in obeying it. 6.-3. A soldier on duty is justified in committing homicide, in obedience to the command of his officer, unless the command was something plainly unlawful. 7.-4. A private individual will, in many cases, be justified in committing homicide, while acting in self-defense. See Self-defense. Vide, generally, It's not any of these reason's its a justifiable homicide besides the fact that it is because it is some how legal. she's not defending herself (no one is coming at her) she's not a solider she's not a officer she's not a judge now going back to the human being definition: there by it can't be a mammal because of the difference between a human being and a mammal, that a fetus is developing even before the mother aborts the fetus/baby. OK the nutrition part. Why is there two different things, because they need different things because they are developing differently. Why is it in two different spots, because the baby is inside the mother for nine months and outside afterwards. She's not stealing those things either. when you get your period it's preparing your body for pregnancy some of those stuff is just for pregnancy. the body is for pregnancies. You can't say the baby is taking away and it's not right because your womb prepared for it not so you can kill the baby and say it was taking away the nutrition and now it's your right to kill it, just because you can.",-1,the act of killing a fetus or baby,wordnet,abortion,no,no,con,con
"""The cost is not minimal. The average cost to raise a child is $245,340 http://www.huffingtonpost.com....... Multiply that by 1 million and well....Argument debunked"" You aren't debunking anything. So you believe that ending someone's life and not giving them a chance at life is a better option? This is a disgusting ideal abortionists try to convince themselves and other of. ""Let's not be burdened by the cost of a human being due to its inconvenience to others..."" ""Sex is natural and has nothing to do with being able to raise a child. Evolution made sex feel really good so that we would produce. Practically everyone wants to have sex badly. It's a natural desire. Argument debunked."" Yes, sex is natural. What, exactly, does that have anything to do with aborting a child? ""Sex is fun, so we should just allow anyone to engage in it and then terminate the human growing inside if we don't want to deal with the consequences of our actions."" ""No, you are only looking at your side of the picture, rather than considering EVERY piece of evidence,"" Actually, I have, which is why I am pro life. ""As I stated, there are 100k orphans ALREADY. If we become antiabortion, this number will reach ridiculous heights."" Abortion became legal in the United States in 1973. Was there overpopulation before this? No. This argument isn't even relevant. ""Actually, no. This is untrue. Pain MIGHT be felt for a couple of seconds."" No, pain is felt for a while as it bleeds out after being ripped apart limb from limb. And if the fetus is a bunch of cells, how does it feel pain at all? Pain indicates that it is a human life being painfully ended.",-1,the act of deliberately killing an unwanted unborn child,wordnet,abortion,no,no,con,con
"I will argue that abortion should never be illegal, and that pro-lifers use seriously flawed, illogical arguments to support pro-life views. Contention 1: Life is not sacred Contention 2: Human life does not start at conception Contention 3: A fetus is not a person I will basically forfeit the rest of round one and be limited to rounds two and three to make my points. Happy arguing!",1,the deliberate and intentional destruction of the fetus,wordnet,abortion,no,no,con,con
"The cost is not minimal. The average cost to raise a child is $245,340 http://www.huffingtonpost.com.... Multiply that by 1 million and well....Argument debunked ""If a parent can't handle a child, maybe they shouldn't engage in sexual activity until they can. It isn't right, morally, to end an innocent life."" This is a ridiculous statement. Sex is natural and has nothing to do with being able to raise a child. Evolution made sex feel really good so that we would produce. Practically everyone wants to have sex badly. It's a natural desire. Argument debunked. ""I care about children, which is why I am pro life."" No, you are only looking at your side of the picture, rather than considering EVERY piece of evidence, whereas I have weighed both the positives and the negatives of abortion and formulate my argument accordingly. I highly suggest you learn to think objectively. For example, like I stated, you haven't considered the cost of having tons of unwanted babies. This affects the babies already in an orphanage. You claim to care about children, yet you don't consider the wants and needs of the babies already in an orphanage looking for a home. As I stated, there are 100k orphans ALREADY. If we become antiabortion, this number will reach ridiculous heights. I mentioned it already but you ignored it so here it is again: how do you think this will affect the children already in the orphanage? Or do you not care about them? ""A lot less traumatic than being ripped apart while still alive. But then again, you believe the child in the womb isn't even alive. It has been proven that a child in the womb CAN feel pain. http://www.mccl.org...... http://www.doctorsonfetalpain.com...; Actually, no. This is untrue. Pain MIGHT be felt for a couple of seconds. To claim this is MORE traumatic than a life time of knowing that you are unwanted is faulty reasoning. Evidence debunked.",1,to suppress or eliminate,wordnet,abortion,no,no,neutral,neutral
"To every person the time when a child is considered to be living changes. So at what point is this child actually considered to be a person? Not at conception when the magic begins as you claim. How about six weeks when it starts to form ears, a mouth, and a nose and has a heartbeat pumping what is often a different blood type than that of the mother. Or at seven weeks when it begins to form hands and feet. How about week ten when it begins to grow organs. By the end of week thirteen, it has its own unique fingerprints and working kidneys. By week eighteen, it has developed its reproductive organs and may not even be the same gender as the mother. The rest of the time the child is growing bigger and maturing its brain and lungs until it comes out for that first sweet breath of air. So again I ask when does a person become a person. When you have a pregnant friend you ask them how the baby is coming not ""How's the sex cell doing today"". The child's DNA is different from its mothers from the moment of conception. While this child is still attached to its mother it itself is not a part of her body. It is a separate life form that will have a close bond with this person for life. I do not care if a woman gets a tattoo, piercings, breast enlargements/reductions, plastic surgery or whatever. What a woman can not do however is get away with murder, and that is what abortion is. ""pro-choice"" advocates get upset when pro-life people hold up a picture of the dead child recently aborted or will try to lock away the people who showed how Planned Parenthood was harvesting the organs of the unborn children instead of the monsters at Planed Parenthood. There is a reason Norma McCorvey known better as Jane Roe spent the second half of her life fighting for life. The immoral action that is murder kills the sole. I see no difference in the act of having an abortion that the despicable act that Dylan Roof made when he shot up that church. One hundred from now we will look back on abortion the same way we look at slavery today. https://www.babycenter.com... http://www.lifenews.com...",-1,the deliberate killing of a nonhuman animal especially as a form of population control,wordnet,abortion,no,no,neutral,con
"Abortion does indeed kill a child. Yet, the death of a young child before birth could save the child of a painful life. Even if the baby feels this pain for seconds, it will never remember it. This is why a child is circumcised so young. Either way, a child born into poverty or born of a rape victim in many cases will end up having a life worth than death, and end up dying later on of neglect or starvation.",1,the act of bringing forth a child or young as if by an animal,wordnet,abortion,no,no,neutral,neutral
"BABY OR NOT? Yes it is a baby. he/she still has potential for life. he/she would be a living human being with thoughts and love and feelings just as any other human being. Denying The Child that privilige- no not privilige a better word for that would be freedom- would be unjust and wrong. The second that couple decided to have unprotected sex, was the second they put a life in motion. and please state some some sources of those 'facts' about egg fertilization. because i believe that is a total hoax. but if you want to argue scientifically, scientists have also claimed that the fetus is alive.If you do not know this already, you can research this. Embrio's have been proven to be alive. And either way, even if the they weren't, the card has already been pulled. The baby had that oppurtunity at having a life the second the mother was pregnant. There would still have been a life produced whether living at the moment or not. The second that mother gets pregnant, is the second, that potential child is alive. So yes, I would still say that is murder. CHILDS LIFE- MY OPPONENT-""But, if you want to think about it from the child's point of view, the child will feel like it was a mistake everyone hates. Personally I would rather die than think that my own mother didn't even want me."" Let me point out specifically the words my opponents used were 'me presonally'. there's always going to be something missing in their life some questions that cannot be answered like ""why didn't my mummy want me "" which could eat a child inside out."" Yes i am sure the question would arise to the child about there parents reasoning for leaving them behind. But should that imply that there whole entire life from that point on will be truly and utterly miserable? To the point where they should not even Have the right to live? Like they don't have every oppurtunity to progress in life as any other? Things such as marriage, and friendship, and their own legacy of children perhaps. No, there is no reason for them not to have those every equal oppurtunites at happiness, Just because there ""mummy and daddy"" gave them up. As if the child would be trying to commit suicide just to preserve his emotions. These mothers are making that desicion for them. They don't even get the CHOICE to choose happiness or death of bitterness. They assume the latter and just kill the child, which is utterly wrong and cruel. Those who claim to be pro-choice, look on every aspect of the ideal pro-'choice'. Respect the the childs decision as well. The mother got a chance at life. She got too experience happiness and sadness. Why deny the child of this same freedom? MY OPPONENT- ""This topic is so conditional that you can't say 'It was the mothers own fault to decide to go out and get pregnant with out protection.' You can be on the pill and use a condom, there is still a chance of getting pregnant. However slim, there is a chance."" ok hun, if he has a condom, and she's on the pill and she still gets pregnant, she's obviously gotten around... however, even if what you claim is true, theres a little thing i like to call responsibility. now that she is pregnant, she holds another life in the palm of her hands. She can easily choose to carry it out, witch would be a win-win situation. the mother lives, and the child lives. However, out of selfishness, she chooses not to, and by doing so, ends another life. This is not taking responsibility. MY OPPONENT- ""A mother has free agency. She should be allowed to choose. And the consequences should not be determined by the state. Whatever God one believes in or your own guilt is by far a worse punishment."" It is true a mother has free agency. But that doesn't make it right. When debating abortion, you come to a conclusion of morality. Morality = right/wrong. Is ending the baby's life moral? where is his/her free agency? They are denied to ever have an oppurtunity to live. Witch means they are denied to ever have kids of their own, or to get married, or ever experience happiness. Is this fair? where is the justice in this? The mother can have all these same oppurtunities, but the child cannot? you must ask yourself now if this is a good thing. MY OPPONENT- ""Not to mention the mothers who give birth because they are given no other option might go beat the child they were forced to give life."" abusive parenting is not an issue with abortion either. There are parents all over america who are abusive. This is where the law comes in. The law prevents child abuse, and just because the parents didn't want the child and abuse him/her, doesn't mean that its right. This whole debate is based on how the mother decision is wrong. By telling me that she is going to make wrong decisions and abuse the child, you are only strengthening my case. again if they dont want to deal with the child, there is adoption. SELFISHNESS- MY OPPONENT-"" I want the option to be selfish sometimes! Everyone does"" Since this is now a debate about morality, do you think that being selfish is moral? and how are you taking responsibility by being selfish? If that is the case, then us as people need to notice the flaw in ourselves.If what you say about selfishness being an issue is an any correlation to abortion, I am not misjudging anyone by saying this an issue with abortion. OTHER ISSUES- MY OPPONENT- ""And if you take away the option of abortion some of these people who were forced into this situation people might start doing abortions unprofessionally to make a quick dollar. Lets face it, it will happen. And if its not professionally done bad things can happen, its guaranteed to happen, as it does with any medical procedure."" OKay, so just because people doing un-professional abortions is bad, means they should go get an official one? wheres the difference? I am arguing that abortion is bad in all cases. even if done unprofessionally. I would like to again thank my opponent for this debate. It should be fun, and i look forward to your next argument (amby) ;)",-1,the deliberate destruction of a foetus,wordnet,abortion,yes,no,con,neutral
"Ok, yes rape is terrible and is a very traumatic experience. However it is still murder. God has a plan for all of us (I don't mean to offend anyone if you don't have the same beliefs). God makes everything happen for a reason. Many people say ""don't let others make decisions for you."" This fetus can't make a decision to be killed. People argue that its the woman's body and they can do what they want with it, but it's not their body they are killing. They are killing a whole other person. No one should have the authority to kill such an innocent creature. It is also true that woman die at birth, but woman also die during the abortion. More than 400 hundred woman have died from abortion (not including illegal ones). It saddens me how woman will risk their lives to kill this one. Many mothers cry over losing a child, whether it be to disease, war, car crashes, miscarriage, or gang violence but these mothers are killing their kids before they have even met them. These mothers knowing and willingly let their children die.",-1,the deliberate and unlawful killing of a human being especially an infant before or after birth,wordnet,abortion,no,no,con,con
"U thabk my opponent fot this debate, I hope he enjoys it. =)C1: A fetus is a human, therefore it's murderSince a fetus is a human, it should be considered murder. I will now prove thait a fetus is a human being. A scientific textbook called “Basics of Biology” gives five characteristics of living things; these five criteria are found in all modern elementary scientific textbooks: 1. Living things are highly organized. 2. All living things have an ability to acquire materials and energy. 3. All living things have an ability to respond to their environment. 4. All living things have an ability to reproduce. 5. All living things have an ability to adapt. According to this elementary definition of life, life begins at fertilization, when a sperm unites with an oocyte. From this moment, the being is highly organized, has the ability to acquire materials and energy, has the ability to respond to his or her environment, has the ability to adapt, and has the ability to reproduce (the cells divide, then divide again, etc., and barring pathology and pending reproductive maturity has the potential to reproduce other members of the species). Non-living things do not do these things. Even before the mother is aware that she is pregnant, a distinct, unique life has begun his or her existence inside her. [1] So according to these definitions, a fetus is a human. Killing it would be murder, and it's not justified because its not self-defense. An abortion is only justified in the case to save a mothers life. Life begins at conseption. Furthermore, that life is unquestionably human. A human being is a member of the species homo sapiens. Human beings are products of conception, which is when a human male sperm unites with a human female oocyte (egg). When humans procreate, they don’t make non-humans like slugs, monkeys, cactuses, bacteria, or any such thing. Emperically-verifiable proof is as close as your nearest abortion clinic: send a sample of an aborted fetus to a laboratory and have them test the DNA to see if its human or not. Genetically, a new human being comes into existence from the earliest moment of conception. [1] More of the same... “I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly, I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy.” Hippocrates, 400 B.C., Greece Sorry if the enlarged stuff is annoying, but that is from my first source. C2: It is morally wrong to kill a person, society looks down upon those acts. This is hard to argue against. A fetus is a person therefore it is murder (or should be considered so). I have proven my point aboveas pf now, that a fetus is a human being. I will expand next round on that point as it will be needed. But this point relates to the one above, a fetus is a human, killing it is murder, and killing is morally wrong. Same old same old. C3: It is morally wrong to kill a fetus Well a fetus is a human, and killing unless in self-defense is morally wrong, so it is morally wrong to kill a fetus. This point relys on the 2 above. C4: Religeon in some cases pohibits abortion. This is undisputable, but I will add on to it anyway. This point only relys towards christians. “…and Rebekah his [Isaac’s] wife conceived. And the children struggled together within her…” (Genesis 25:21-22). Notice that when she conceived, i was called a child. It consideres the zygot a human. This biblical quote is from my seond source as well. Also look at the 10 commandments: ""thou shall not kill"", or ""thou shall not murder"", depending on the translation, but that specfically states that murder/killing is wrong, and above calls a zygot a child, so in god's eyes abortion is murder because he agrees with my above conentions. ALso, Catholics are against abortion, as you know, and many protestants are as well. So this only applies to christians, abortion is wrong on the lines of our faith. C5: More people are pro-life than pro-choice as of 2011 This is just a little side argument: So theres that. Rebuttals: ""Since my opponent’s main case relies on abortion being murder, it will also be my obligation to negate his contention. If I’ve fulfilled this obligation, you must negate the resolution."" Well I have proven that a fetus is a human, but I will add on to it here, if fetus is a human then it is murder: Fetuses feel pain during an abortion according to Kanwaljeet J. S. Anand, MBBS, DPhil, Professor of Pediatrics, Anesthesiology and Neurobiology at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center. ""If the fetus is beyond 20 weeks of gestation, I would assume that there will be pain caused to the fetus. And I believe it will be severe and excruciating pain."" So above I proved that a fetus is a human, here I prove that it is painful for the baby. ""I will show that a mother has rights over her body and privacy, and that it is more important to save the mother than the unborn fetus if both lives are at stake. "" Well, most women do not want this right: Most women do not want this right, also lets add on to this rebuttal. A fetus is a human, therefor it deserves basic human rights, and it should have control over its body. So killing the baby takes away it's freedom, so it's a 50-50 split of freedoms. Although women do not want this freedom, you will still argu that it is essential. So the women loses rights the baby gains them. But since a majority of women do not want these rights, then why should they have them? ""I’ll be proving in this premise that illegalizing abortion is a bad idea and a disadvantage to society and may lead to bad consequences and events."" Tanl you for this argument, I love to attack it. You claim that more abortions wil happen illegally if it is illegal, wrong. Senator James Buckley stated: ""Data from foreign countries having far longer experience with legalised abortion than we have had in the US, suggest that legalisation has no effect on the criminal abortion rate. In at least three countries, the criminal abortion rate has actually risen since legalisation. Legalised abortion moves the back alley abortionists into the front office where their trade can be practised without fear of criminal prosecution."" [5] Dr Christopher Tietze, an abortion advocate, concedes: ""Although one of the major goals of the liberalisation of abortion laws in Scandinavia was to reduce the incidence of illegal abortion, this was not accomplished. Rather as we know from a variety of sources, both criminal and total abortions increased."" [4] So look at this, a senator says there is no poof that legilising it redices that number, and a pro choice docor admits that legilising it increases the back street abortions. So I have proven that when its illegal there is less of both types of abortion. ""For my last contention, I will attempt to finally argue that a woman has a right to abort a child."" This is a vauge point. I will not refute it...yet. So please expand then I'll attepmt to refute it. I await your response. :) Sorry if my spellings bad, the spell check has an internal error. Sources: http://prolifephysicians.org... [1] http://www.christiananswers.net... [2] http://www.gallup.com... [3] Kanwaljeet J. S. Anand, MBBS, DPhil, Professor of Pediatrics, Anesthesiology and Neurobiology at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center. 93rd Congress of the US [4] Dr Christopher Tietze [5]",-1,the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy -- usually before the 28th week -- by some medical means after the fetus is far enough developed to be viable,wordnet,abortion,no,yes,neutral,neutral
"First off, I never used the word ""person. "" I said ""I believe it is wrong to take away another""s life. "" Although maybe I should have used a little different wording and said ""human life. "" (yes, A fetus is human life. ) Secondly, Every fetus does have individuality. Otherwise, Every person would look and act just like everybody else which is obviously not the case. I see your point that a fetus does not have likes, Dislikes, Relationships, Etc. Why does it not have these? Because it has not yet been born and able to experience these things in life beyond the womb. I don""t agree that the lack of characteristics such as likes and dislikes makes abortion ok, Because killing them before they are able to develop these characteristics is why they never get them. I don""t find it hypocritical to be pro-life and pro-death penalty. Why? Because I believe humans that murder people, Commit treason, Take part in human trafficking, Etc. Deserve to be killed. I also believe that humans that have not murdered people, Not committed treason, Not trafficked humans, And not done any wrong (such as a fetus) don""t deserve to be killed. I""m glad that you don""t like abortion (there is something we have in common haha). However, I do believe abortion is murder. Oxford Dictionary defines murder as ""The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. "" Of course you could argue that abortion is legal and therefore it is not ""unlawful"" as the definition says, But that is the entire point of my debate is to argue against abortion and I think it should be illegal so I am overlooking the use of that word. Abortion still is a ""premeditated killing of one human being by another. "" Lastly, I am also pro-choice. I believe people can make any choice they want, That is until they make a choice that inhibits the freedoms and choice-making abilities of another human being. For example, I can choose whether to read a book or watch a movie. That choice doesn""t affect the agency of any other human being. However, I cannot choose to own a slave (I would never want to, This is just an example). Why? Because by choosing to own a slave, I would be taking away the choice-making ability of my slave. Another example: I could make the choice to murder someone (Again, I wouldn""t, Just another example). But this takes away the freedom of that person to live. Abortion, Taking away the life of the human being, Takes away their freedom to live. Slavery and murder are illegal, Why isn""t abortion?",-1,the act of giving birth to an animal or person,wordnet,abortion,no,no,neutral,neutral
"When I say 100% pro life, I believe that abortion is wrong no matter what the circumstance is. Many may ask about rape or incest, but should that child receive the death penalty because of the acts of his or her father? And when you say you are pro choice, do you believe that a woman should be able to choose even in the third trimester? I believe that even first trimester abortion are horrific. The heart is beating at 3 and 1/2 weeks. We need to realize that that is a baby inside the woman, not a blob of tissue. I believe that we should not have to kill our innocent children to achieve the dreams and careers we strive for. We should welcome these children into our world instead of seeing them as a threat. Of course there are going to be situations where the mother cannot take care of the child because of financial reasons or stability, but this is why we have many organizations like Live action, churches, mentors, and government agencies which can help these women. Not to mention adoption... there are many more options than just simply killing the child. Also, when women are asked why they received an abortion the number one response is, ""I felt that I had no choice."" How do you justify this when you seem so set on the fact that women should have this choice to kill their child or not, when in reality our abortion clinics and agencies are not really laying all the cards on the table?",-1,the act of deliberately killing a nonhuman animal especially with a weapon or by poison,wordnet,abortion,no,no,neutral,con
"I am arguing that abortion is murder of an innocent life, and that Roe v. Wade should be overturned.",-1,the act of deliberately causing an unborn child to be born dead,wordnet,abortion,no,no,neutral,con
"As he will have to answer my questions and give a rebuttal in the next round, I'll try and limit the number of questions I ask him so he'll have adequate room to respond to my opening argument and answers to my questions.1a. That is what I'm saying.1b. By Google's definition, the universe is also an entity, as are animals. The pro-life position is that we are the same substance as we were in the womb, and a substance is something that maintains its identity through change. I have changed quite a bit since I was an embryo, or even an infant, but through all these changes I remained the same entity. I think we can see that fetuses have a personality, at least at a very rudimentary level, if you define personality as ""the visible aspect of one's character as it impresses others. "" [1] Fetuses can certainly be observed performing some tasks, such as sucking their thumb and rolling over when they're trying to sleep (they can even enter REM sleep, so it's likely they dream, as well). So at least in a visible sense, it can be shown that at least fetuses (from about the fifth month of gestation on) have a rudimentary personality. However, it's not the present capacity to have a personality or be rational that makes us valuable. It's the inherent capacity to fulfill these functions, in which the unborn qualify because they have the same inherent nature that makes all of us valuable. People who are asleep, in reversible comas, or under anesthesia for surgery also do not have the immediately exercisable capacity for a personality or rationality, so if this were what makes us valuable it would be morally permissible to kill someone for any reason you please while in these reversible states. Personhood would be ""episodic,"" which means you would lose your personhood every night you fall asleep, and every time you would enter these other reversible states. Finally, I did not rely on myself to survive while in the womb, but neither did I rely on myself to survive as a newborn. I relied on my mother's breastfeeding me and giving me formula. I didn't rely on myself as a toddler, because while I was working on becoming more indepdent, I was still reliant on my parents to keep a roof over my head, clothes on my body, and food and water to keep me alive.1c. I am the same entity I was in the womb because I was the same entity (or substance) through all these changes. As I showed in the first round, the unborn are living human organisms from fertilization. At no point did I suddenly go from ""non-life"" to ""life"" or from ""non-human"" to ""human. "" Human life is a continuum, so even before I became self-aware (which doesn't even happen until sometime after you're born), I was still ""me. ""2a. Ultimate, rights derive from God. Morality is objective, meaning independent of the human mind. Morality is not left up to humans. When we say an act, like rape, is objective wrong, we don't simply mean we don't like rape. We are making a statement about the act itself. Rape is objectively wrong, regardless if someone believes their right to personal gratification outweighs another's right not to be sexually assaulted. By contrast, morality is not relative. It is not left up to the individual, otherwise we'd have no right to call another person's actions wrong. Mother Teresa and Adolf Hitler would be no morally different from each other. In fact, they'd be morally the same because they were both acting based on their moral code. But Hitler was definitely wrong for killing all those Jews, and the only way we can consider him as being wrong is if morality is objective. Morality is also not left up to society, otherwise morality would be constantly changing. Abortion is illegal in Ireland. That would mean abortion is immoral in Ireland, but moral in the United States. Plus, abortion used to be illegal in the United States, as did slavery. That means that abortion and slavery used to be moral. What's more, slavery abolitionists were not heroes, as they were leading a charge for immorality by trying to change what the state has decreed is moral. Even more confusing, some states were free and some were slave states. Let's say you had one foot on one side of the Mason Dixon Line, and one foot on the other side. Were you a slave or free? Was slavery moral or immoral for you?2b. The fetus has a right to life, as we all have. This is a natural right, one that we have based on our common human nature. This is not to be confused with a legal right, which is granted by the state and usually comes through ability or maturity, such as the right to drive or vote.2c. The Fourteenth Amendment protects it. Before Roe v. Wade, the unborn were persons legally protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. [2] The right to life is the most fundamental of all rights. Without it, we can't enjoy any other rights. It's pointless to have freedom of speech if we're not alive to speak in the first place.3a. Yes, as we all do, to a certain extent. She does not have the right to punch someone without just cause, nor does she have the right to take some drugs or drive without wearing her seatbelt.3b. Yes, a woman has a right to reproduce. But once she is pregnant, she has already reproduced.3c. The fetus is not a part of a woman's body, unless you're willing to accept that a pregnant woman has four arms, four legs, two heads, and roughly half the time, a penis and two testicles. The unborn has a different genetic code, and often a different blood type than the mother. Plus, a white baby can be created through IVF, be implanted into a black woman, and would still be born white. The unborn is not a part of her body. She does not have the right to revoke its presence because in the vast majority of cases, she is responsible for creating a naturally needy child. She bears a responsibility for caring for that naturally needy child.4a. The fetus is a human being.4b. The fetus can live without the mother once it reaches viability (at about 24 weeks' gestation).4c. No. See my response at 1b. Questions for Pro1. Do you believe abortions should have any restrictions at all? Why or why not?2. If abortions should have some restrictions, do you see a problem with restricting them? For example, if a woman has a right to her own body, wouldn't that be true all the way up until birth?3. You seem to think viability has some bearing on our being considered human beings. Could you please explain why?4. Scott Peterson was convicted of two murders for killing his wife and unborn child. Was it okay for Laci (his wife) to kill her child if she wanted to, but not okay for Scott to?5. Thalidomide was a drug in the 1950's and 60's prescribed to ease morning sickness in pregnant woman. However, it was later discovered that this drug caused severe fetal defects (resulting in children born without arms and legs). It is illegal for pregnant women to take. Let's say she acquires Thalidomide illegally and takes it, resulting in her child being born with no arms. Do you believe that she did anything wrong? Would you excuse her actions based on her right to bodily autonomy? That does it for me. I look forward to Pro's answers and his rebuttal. [1] . http://dictionary.reference.com...;[2] Francis J. Beckwith, Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice, (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, New York, 2007), p.22.",-1,the act of terminating a pregnancy as a means of family planning or as a solution to social problems,wordnet,abortion,no,no,neutral,pro
"I accept, 5 minutes to post arguments is fine by me (although strange to be honest), but con must refute my case, here goes... Now onto the Pro case, on why abortion is legal and moral. 1st- Morality Morality is defined as a ""Code of Conduct that would be put forth by all rational persons"" By the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy[1] Personhood- [3] Murder- The crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought [2]. Is Abortion truly murder? Well, to answer that question, we must look at what allegedly is being murdered during the process of an abortion. A Fetus is NOT a Person, A.K.A a human being. A-Is a Fetus a human being? Fetus are essentially completely reliant on their host, in which they reside. Only that one host can truly take care and sustain that Fetus. This characteristic represents that of an organism that is inhumane, in that human beings do not rely on one human being, and only that human being, for sustenance. Simply saying that Fetus will grow is a weak argument on the grounds of abortion, because we look towards what is technically going to die. In no way at any point of an abortion is a human being going to die. A Fetus, can clearly be distinguished from a human being, and as such, Abortion cannot be considered a murder. B- The Right to life of a Fetus There is a major contradiction in giving a Fetus a right to life, anyone who does is completely undermining the host from which it lives. As stated in point 1, Fetus' do not share any characteristics of a human being, they reflect a parasite in fact, one that sustains itself solely off a host organism, and continues to grow, while feeding off the host. By giving a Fetus the right to life, the mother's life is basically worthless, it must sustain a parasite it does not want to sustain, and this is indeed an infringement upon the rights of the mother. To better state this, i will Quote Joyce Arthur- ""The free exercise of one's moral conscience is a fundamental right in our society. And since pregnancy entails profound physical, psychological, and long-lasting consequences for a woman (it is not a mere ""inconvenience""), her freedoms are significantly restricted if she is forced to carry to term."" [3] C-The Choice of abortion (Quality of Life) Has anyone ever stopped to ask themselves why women have abortions? Does the quality of life mean nothing to Pro-Life people? A Moral outlook on abortion shows the many reasons women choose to have abortions. Not only may it be unwanted, but many times the Rape victim or the Soon-To-Be Single mother cannot successfully sustain their baby. The Fact is, Quality of life is just as important to the mother as it is to all of us looking at this issue from a 3rd person perspective. If a mother is living in such harsh conditions where she can barely make a living herself, why would she want to bring into this world a being which she must watch suffer unless cared for, and then diminish the already bad quality of her life as well? No Justification exists for allowing a being into this world if it WILL SUFFER. On top of that, the it should be the mother's choice based off of her right to life, and her quality of life. Why do we make the innocent pay? By Diminishing a mother's life, and allowing a baby to suffer, we as human beings are inherently immoral. This point in no way advocates unwanted pregnancies, but a pregnancy cannot be planned, and no specification has been made on how women become pregnant in the first place. An easy assumption is through unwanted means such as- Forgetting Birth Control or the much more gruesome- Rape. 2nd Legality of Abortion A- Roe vs Wade (1973) The U.S. Supreme Court stated that abortion bans were unconstitutional in every state, legalizing abortion throughout the United States. There are multiple reasons for this. 1) Forced Permittence This may sound silly, but a burden is a burden, just as a man walking into your house and using your bed without any permittence is unlawful so too is having to carry an unborn organism that feeds off of you. Just as that man eats your food and takes all of your stuff, so too does that unborn organism. The truth of the matter is, just like a house is owned, so is a body, whatever is inside that house or body is what is permitted to be inside based on he owner.To make things clearer- Whatever exists inside my body is at my disposal, any organism is inherently infringing upon my rights by taking up space in my body. Just as a Tapeworm is an unwanted organism in your body, so too is an unborn fetus, unwanted by the mother, yet the mother is forced to carry it. 2)Infringing upon the Quality of Life (Sound Familiar?) This point may sound familiar, and it should, because it applies to both legality and morality. Quality of life is everything, many philosophers argue the quality of life is what defines life, without happiness and joy there is no point to life. If a women was forced to carry a burden which she knew she could not carry, and had no way of disposing it legally, this would be in reality torture. We cannot justify denying the rights of Freedom, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. By not allowing for a woman to have an abortion, we are deterring and infringing upon that woman's rights. B- Fetus' Rights [3] Do Fetus' Have rights? Let's say we somehow gave an unborn Fetus all the constitutional rights an American Citizen was given. Could it truly exercise any rights at all? What would be the point? Giving Rights to an organism that cannot use a single one is meaningless. By Giving Rights to the Fetus or Zygote, a weighing factor would be put into play. Who's life would be worth more then? The Woman or the Unborn Fetus that cannot exercise a single right given to it? This is completely unfair to the woman, not only is this Fetus' life given weight equivalent to hers, it's also given rights it can't even use, and it isn't even alive! Logically, we cannot give an organism rights if they cannot exercise those rights.Thus it is legal for a woman to have an abortion on the grounds of rights. Thank you for taking the time to read this debate, i wish you all good luck and thank my opponent for an intellectually stimulating debate. I hope for the best :) [1] http://plato.stanford.edu...... [2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...... [3] http://www.abortionaccess.info...... This is all mine, i used this in another abortion debate as well, but judges my opponent put a time limit of 5 minutes between arguments, and this is still MY WORK look it up if you don't believe me. Thank you and good luck. Reminder- Cons BOP is to refute pro, simply giving completely different reasons why abortion is wrong does not comply to traditional forms of debate.",1,the act of terminating a pregnancy as a medical procedure,wordnet,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"My opponent said: ""An extra 1.2 million children born per year would be disastrous to our economy, our orphanages, and the children doomed to live their lives in these institutions."" My opponent stated that our economy,orphanages,and the children would suffer from illegalizing abortion. Well, here are some quick and easy facts, if we were too Illegalize abortion you will find that their is MORE taxpayers, MORE people to buy products in the U.S,MORE people in the work force and AND more people to enlist in the military. In fact Abortions actually hurt the United States economy in the state of Illinois alone it costs the tax payers $1 million each year. My opponent also stated: ""There are perpetually about 500,000 kids in foster care each year. With all the movement in and out of foster care, there is a constant 130,000 children awaiting adoption. In total, in 2007, 783,000 children were in the foster care system at some point. Only about 50,000 American children are adopted every year "" If the United States were to illegalize abortion tomorrow my opponent is right the Adoption Industry would boom and you would find that there would be a need to build more orphanages and there would be a need to get the kids in permanent households. So, he is right that the orphanages would be greatly impacted at FIRST, but over a period of time both the government and the orphanages as individuals would begin to build more orphanages to house all the kids,(which by the way would create countless jobs across America and further boost the economy.)and they would also find ways to give up children at less costlier of a price and there would be a significant increase in adoption advertisements which always helps a cause. In the long run the problems in the overcrowded orphanages would correct its self. As for this statement "" children doomed to live their lives in these institutions."" In my opinion and I hope the voters agree with me on this, the worst doom of all is not even getting the chance to live and the right to life. As for this argument: "" my opponent ignores the conditions of rape and incest. Who will father these children? Will he? Who will provide psychiatric support for these women- too often children themselves- who have been violated and impregnated by disgusting criminals? Who will provide the psychiatric support for the children themselves when they are born?"" With all the abortions that occur each year in the U.S. only 1% of all abortions are from a result from rape and incest. ""who will provide psychiatric support for these women?"" Well, to answer the question I guess I'd have to say by loved ones whom they trust or by a therapist or both. But, I also don't see how illegalizing abortion is going to effect the needs of psychiatric needs of the woman. You cannot punish an unborn child through abortion due to the evils of another human. I don't know about you but I would rather know that I was born through a rape then to be aborted and not living at all. Also.... my opponent states: "" Illegalizing abortion would not lower abortion rates, rather it will raise illegal abortion rates, and the mortality rates associated with abortion. In 1972, a year before abortion became legal, there were a reported 130,000 illegal abortions. From 1975-1979 there were 11,300 illegal abortions reported. (http://findarticles.com......) Repealing Roe v. Wade (one of the steps required to illegalize abortion) would most likely result in a rise in illegal abortions."" Again my opponent is correct on one thing the Illegal abortion rates WOULD go up a few years after it becomes illegal because our society is conditioned to believe abortion is okay. But, you will find that in the long run assuming our government enforces the law and arrests people and keep people in line, you will find that Illegal abortions will decrease significantly and 130,000 abortions is a heck of a lot less then an estimated 1.3 million each year. My opponent also says that is the right of a woman to decide what she wants to do with her body. But this is not the case, It is the right of the babies right to life that abortion infringes on. I'm going to ask the voters and my opponent a question would have wanted to be aborted while in the mothers womb? Thanks for accepting this debate Also my two main sources for the debate: Abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html and citizenlink.org/clnews/A000006052.cfm",-1,the act of intentionally killing a nonhuman animal,wordnet,abortion,no,no,neutral,con
"Thanks for instigating. Since this is only for acceptance and a brief review on my contentions, we’ll make this round quick. But first some definitions relevant to the debate: Abortion- Induced termination of a pregnancy with destruction of the embryo or fetus. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Murder- The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Contentions: C1: Abortion is NOT murder Since my opponent’s main case relies on abortion being murder, it will also be my obligation to negate his contention. If I’ve fulfilled this obligation, you must negate the resolution. In this premise, I will also be arguing that murder can be justified and morally acceptable to society. Not all killings are morally wrong. I will also attempt to argue that even if abortion ends a life, it’s still morally acceptable, in some circumstances. C2: Valuing Women’s Rights I will show that a mother has rights over her body and privacy, and that it is more important to save the mother than the unborn fetus if both lives are at stake. C3: Abortion happens regardless of legality I’ll be proving in this premise that illegalizing abortion is a bad idea and a disadvantage to society and may lead to bad consequences and events. C4: Abortion is a right For my last contention, I will attempt to finally argue that a woman has a right to abort a child. I reserve the right to expand, drop and add more contentions whenever necessary to the debate. Thank you.",1,"the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most authoritatively after the embryo has been implanted in the uterus wall and has implanted itself in it",wordnet,abortion,no,yes,neutral,neutral
"I will make this brief, since I hadn't realized after going into a lengthy response, that there was a 2,000 word limit on each round of debate. Pro would like us to believe that abortion is not killing innocent life. I say that it is. A child has been known and documented to survive with extra care outside the womb as early as a couple months, which is in the first trimester. The child can live a full and healthy life after initial treatment for several months afterward. Pro would also like us to believe that a woman has control of her own body. This is also not entirely true. If a woman is caught prostituting, she will be arrested and fined, depending on the state or the country she resides in. She does not have control of her own body in other cases. Pro would like to have us believe that a child in the womb is no more important than a kidney or some other organ in our body. Pro compares a human life to a disposable organ, many of which we can live a long and healthy life without. Pro would also like us to believe that something with brain activity is nothing more than a bunch of cells with no reason to live if the woman decides not to keep them. Brain activity, along with our nervous system, allows us to feel pain. Pro would like us to believe that abortion is just us removing cells from a woman's body. If pro wants to believe that a fetus controls someone else's body, that's their business. However, it does not control another person's body...it is attached to a woman's body and grows inside until mature enough to leave. It has been proven that a child in the womb can feel pain by its reaction when tested. Pain is the body's way of telling us that what we're doing to it or what is being done to it, is harmful. That fact right there should be proof that a child in the womb is NOT a random collection of lifeless cells that can be removed forcibly.",-1,the act of deliberately killing human life in the mother's womb,wordnet,abortion,yes,no,con,con
"Framework My framework will be based around libertarianism. Within libertarianism, there is controversy on abortions because it depends on if the fetus is alive. If the fetus is alive then libertarians are against abortions because libertarians are individualists and therefore value the life of the individual heavily [1]. If the fetus is not alive then libertarians advocate abortion because libertarians belief in a less powerful and restrictive government. In our first contention we will prove the fetus to be living. I will explain why we should have an abortion under libertarian belief. Capitalism magazine explains this by saying, “A fetus does not have a right to be in the womb of any woman, but is there by her permission. This permission may be revoked by the woman at any time, because her womb is part of her body... There is no such thing as the right to live inside the body of another, i.e., there is no right to enslave... a woman is not a breeding pig owned by the state (or church).” [2]She is the individual that libertarians prioritize, due to their individualist beliefs [2]. Since libertarians believe in a less restrictive government, the outcome is clear. The government should NOT be involved in something so personal to the person since by intervening in this person’s choice, you are restricting them and are violating libertarian ideology [3]. The Fetus Is Not Alive Only 1.4% of abortions occur after 21 weeks into the pregnancy [3,4]. This means that that most abortions are done before the fetus is even formed. It is an embryo, and an embryo is proven to be not alive. It isn't a subject of discussion when talking about the embryo [5]. I will now address the fetus - which is mitigated due to the small percentage of abortions that occur at this period. There are 7 categories in which life can be identified [6]. The categories have been compiled by biologists over a long period of time with great discussion [6]. The fetus only meets 2 of these. Movement - The fetus can move so this part is met. Respiration - The fetus cannot respire on its own (7). Sensitivity - The fetus cannot sense at 24 weeks or even 28 weeks (8). Growth - The fetus does grow. Reproduction - Whilst it is a fetus, no it cannot reproduce (9). Excretion - This is possible however very rare and unlikely (10). Nutrition - The fetus cannot independently take in nutrition. If one of these wasn’t met then the fetus would not be considered alive. The fetus was only able to meet 2. Illegal Abortions When an abortion is legal there is absolutely no point in having an illegal abortion because they have been proven to be very dangerous and expensive. If abortion are legal then illegal abortions will negatively correlate (11). These illegal abortions have been known to kill both the mother and the baby and sometimes result in extreme suffering on the mother’s part (11). Mothers are not doctors (most of the time) so these illegal abortions also occur later than 24 (and even 28) weeks meaning that the babies suffer too (11)! Did you know: “13% of pregnancy-related deaths worldwide are related to complications of unsafe abortion.”(12) This statistic is shocking but demonstrates my point very well. These unsafe abortions are illegal and this is what is currently happening because abortions are illegal in places. They have no option to a safe abortion and are so desperate for abortion that they attempt to have an unsafe abortion. Therefore, we can conclude that there are a huge number of unsafe abortions (13% of all pregnancy related deaths). From this we can then follow up an argument suggesting that making abortions illegal will not necessarily get rid of all abortions therefore rendering our opponent’s aim to be mitigated. Underaged teenagers “19% of teens who have had sexual intercourse become pregnant each year. 78% of these pregnancies are unplanned. 6 in 10 teen pregnancies occur among 18-19 year olds.” (12) This statistic is significant for many reasons. If this occurs amongst 18 - 19 year olds then this is extremely bad. Having to look after and care for a child ruins their chances of going to university. Your twenties are your most important period of your lives according to many sources (13,14,15). Having to look after a child in this period of time is extremely stressful and prevents you from getting proper qualifications and more importantly, it prevents you from getting a full time job and a house. Children are extremely expensive to have and having a child at the time when you should be looking for a job makes income problematic. On top of this you will have to pay huge amounts of money. “To raise a child born in 2013 to the age of 18, it will cost a middle-income couple just over $245,000, according to newly released estimates from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. That's up $4,260, or almost 2%, from the year before.”(16) Now let's compare this to the average income of a family: “The typical U.S. households pulls in $51,371 per year.” Teenage parents are most likely to make a lot less than this but let's take this statistic anyway. Assuming that this ‘average’ family spend no money at all on anything. It will still cost them almost 5 times their yearly income to equate to that amount. Of course they will need food, clothes, mortgage, heating, electricity etc. on top of this sum of money. If this seems like a lot you should double the cost of a child figures (assuming that they have another child), what will you do then? Not allow an abortion? Allow these teengagers to pay almost $500,000, earning (most likely) less than $51,371 per year. Gender Equality Pregnancies have a huge impact upon people’s lives - in particular the mother. As Sarah Weddington stated: “A pregnancy to a woman is perhaps one of the most determinative aspects of her life. It disrupts her body. It disrupts her education. It disrupts her employment. And it often disrupts her entire family life.” (17) She continued: “[And we feel that], because of the impact on the woman, this … is a matter which is of such fundamental and basic concern to the woman involved that she should be allowed to make the choice as to whether to continue or to terminate her pregnancy.” (17) This was a case showing that without the right to a termination, you are denying women a right and therefore what my opponent is advocating is gender inequality. The philosopher, Judith Thomson said: “If abortion rights are denied, then a constraint is imposed on women's freedom to act in a way that is of great importance to them, both for its own sake and for the sake of their achievement of equality .... and if the constraint is imposed on the ground that the foetus has a right to life from the moment of conception, then it is imposed on a ground that neither reason nor the rest of morality requires women to accept, or even to give any weight at all.” (17) This emphasizes my previous point in regards to the denial of gender rights and equality. P1: Denying women an abortion is gender inequality P2: Gender inequality is a violation of human rights C1: Abortion legalization stops gender inequality rights C2: Abortions should be legalized ConclusionI have provided strong and well sourced evidence proving that if you don't legalize abortion you violate libertarianism, women's human rights, the rights of teenagers/ children and it also violates the law. I will refute my opponent's case in the next round. I thank my opponent for initiating such an interesting resolution. The resolution is affirmed. Vote Pro! Sources[1] http://bit.ly...;[2] http://bit.ly...;[3] http://bit.ly...[4] http://bit.ly...[5] http://bit.ly...[6] http://bbc.in...;[7] http://bit.ly...[8] http://bit.ly...[9] http://bit.ly...[10] http://bit.ly...[11] http://bit.ly...[12] http://bit.ly...[13] http://bit.ly...[14] http://onforb.es...;[15] http://elitedai.ly...[16] http://cnnmon.ie...[17] http://bbc.in...[18] http://bit.ly...",1,the act of deliberately causing the death of a human fetus,wordnet,abortion,yes,no,con,con
"I accept these definitions. Your definition of aborition is right, but morally it is wrong. Abortion is the action of killing what is supossed to be human. Making abortion legal would be unethical. Abortion is wrong with exceptions to rape or incest. If someone had sexual intercourse and got pregnant, why didn't they use a condom. Like I said in the previous round, Abortion is basically killing a person. If you legalize abortion, you are basically legalizing murder.",-1,the act of killing a human fetus or a human embryo,wordnet,abortion,yes,no,neutral,con
"1. then people shouldn't do it... or at least were a condom 2. In the depression people made home made abortions. I don't know how to get videos on here so just put this url link up. (no pun intended) http://www.youtube.com... 3. What about the basic human rights. The right to live. It is inbeded in the Constitution so abortion would all-in-all be against the law. 4. post-abortion stress. my source for this is, http://postabortionsyndrome.org..., 5. now here's the pun, LordKnuckle said, ""I see everyone for abortion has already been born."" 6. How would you feel if you'd been aborted. Nothing cause you wouldn't of existed. 7. The baby is alive when the heart first beats. 8. What would happen if some of the greatest people in history were aborted. overval sources: http://www.youtube.com... http://postabortionsyndrome.org...",-1,the deliberate destruction of a nonviable fetus,wordnet,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"What if the mother was raped? While I believe that life begins at implantantation, I support last resort choice that is safe and legal for the mother. Women have the right to make difficult choices for their pregnancy. Do I support birth controll or consensual sterilization as a first resort for free as an independent progressive like Bernie? Yes. Do I think abortion takes a human life? Yes. Do I realize that last resort choice has to exist when two human lives are connected? A resounding yes. That's the very definition of prochoice. My main problem with abolitionists and life of the mother onlyers is that I PERSONALLY BELIEVE that they support legalized forced organ donation. When even a corpse has the right to choose who uses his or her organs, but a live breathing woman does not, I have a problem with that. Here's the thing forced lifers fail to realize: I have no opinion or rights to what or who uses your human body, nor do you over mine. Pardon my French, but no one supports chits and gigles abortion, but anyone of any faith or none whatsoever can support last resort choice. It's a very emotional subject, and so hard to avoid lifers accusing me of hating children (I don't), or choicers accusing you of hating women even if you don't. My final point ius that women will die if abortion is banned according to pre Roe statitistical studies. Is that really prolife?",1,the act of deliberately causing an unborn human to die in the womb,wordnet,abortion,yes,no,con,con
"I am gonna go back to Murder part because you weren't clear on that so the definition of Murder: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. Now Abortion isn't illegal BUT hear me out, abortion is the killing of a human being by another human being. (the baby is sucked out (the doctor is doing that with a tool) and then thrown into a trash can) therefore by definition abortion is legal but still murder. Another thing is whats the difference between the fetus getting nutrition from the mother inside versus the baby getting milk from his/her mother's breast. Now I know not all babies get milk from their mothers breast and/or another women, but there is no difference, so then why is it mortal for a baby to take milk form a women's breast. Going on from the Rape stand of point. Yes the mother wasn't responsible or irresponsible, because she was raped, but it is still considered her child whether or not the father of the child is with her. And yes she may not be ready to carry the baby in her stomach for the 9 months and go through all of that, but don't you agree it is selfish to take away someone's life just to not be pregnant for 9 months? Around the the 10th week of your pregnancy your baby becomes a fetus, meaning its been developing ever since it was transferred from a guy to a girl. Your stopping the possibility of life of your child. That goes along with the selfishness of abortion. By the 10th week of pregnancy, your baby probably measures more than 1 inch, or roughly the length of a quarter. By the end of the 1st trimester, your baby will grow to be about 3 inches "" around the length of a kiwi fruit. This measurement doesn't even take into account arms and legs. That's because in the 1st trimester, your baby is measured from the top of the head to the bottom of the rump. By the beginning of the 10th week of pregnancy, all of your baby's vital organs have formed. His embryonic tail, located at the bottom of his spinal cord, has disappeared. His bones continue to develop. On an ultrasound, your baby's bones appear white. At 10 weeks pregnant, his ears get close to their final form. His teeth buds emerge, and his eyelids develop further. His testes start producing the male hormone testosterone around the 10th week of pregnancy. Tiny fingers and toes are fully separated (no more webbing). Plus, your baby's brain growth really takes off. Every minute, 250,000 new neurons (or first brain cells) are produced This proves right there it is a baby not just a fetus but a human being, and it's only the first trimester of your pregnancy. Now Your response in the first round You said: a fetus to be the same as a baby for the difference is a ball of cells vs working organs. 10th week- fingers start to grow along with bones, eyelids, no more webbing 11th week -The blood vessels in your placenta grow larger to prepare for this time of accelerated growth in your baby. this proves they baby/fetus isn't just a ball of cells, there's arms, legs, organs developing along with body formations developing.",-1,the act of killing a human being intentionally and with premeditation,wordnet,abortion,no,no,neutral,con
"Laws are protecting unborn babies therefore abortion should be illegal. Murder is illegal. The definition of murder is the unlawful killing of a human being. *If, abortion were illegal it would be considered murder because basic science proves that an unborn child, fetus whatever you want to call it is a human being. These babies are fully human even if they""re not born yet. They""re just like us but the difference is that they are innocent little people, voiceless and helpless. Abortion is contradicting the U.S constitution. ""The Fourteenth Amendment to the United Statses Constitution says, ""No State shall "" deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."" The fetus should have an undeniable right to live. As a matter of fact, this has been written in the U.S constitution since 1787. People have been ignoring this for years. That""s why we have abortion.* If people are ignoring the constitution we might as well not have a constitution. The death penalty law states, ""Federal law prohibits the death penalty for pregnant women until they give birth. (18 U.S.C.A. S.3596) In essence, the law declared that an innocent unborn person cannot be sentenced and put to death for a crime he did not commit. If the unborn child were not seen as a person in the eyes of the law, there would be no need for this prohibition."" You can only kill a person if they committed a crime. That""s why people say that you""re killing an innocent person because it has not done anything wrong to get to the point of taking away its life. Laws have always been against abortion.",-1,the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy -- most often performed during the first 6 months of carrying,wordnet,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
#1 no ad hominems. #2 standard rules regarding dropped arguments apply I believe that abortion should be illegal except for when the pregnancy poses a serious threat to the life of the mother.,-1,the act of intentionally causing an unwanted fetus to be aborted,wordnet,abortion,no,yes,neutral,con
"First of all, abortions are not safe. A woman has a high risk of getting depression. In fact, this can last at least five years after they abort. They also have a high risk of suicide. (154% more likely than women who give birth.) *If , someone decides to have an abortion. Their lives are going to be miserable. They""re going to be depressed. Especially the day the baby was supposed to be born or/and the day they aborted. The Guttmatcher Institute says, ""Unsafe abortion has significant negative consequences beyond its immediate effects on women""s health. For example, complications from unsafe abortion may reduce women""s productivity, increasing the economic burden on poor families; cause maternal deaths that leave children motherless; cause long-term health problems, such as infertility; and result in considerable costs to already struggling public health systems."" These are some of the bad things that can happen after an abortion. And these are not the only ones, there""s many more. Lisa B Haddad, MD says, ""Some 68,000 women die of unsafe abortion annually, making it one of the leading causes of maternal mortality (13%). Of the women who survive unsafe abortion, 5 million will suffer long-term health complications.""",-1,the act of deliberately ending a pregnancy,wordnet,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"R4 Rebuttals Con concedes that the fetus does not meet the reproduction requirment of the definition that THEY provided. This is crusical to note because this is a contradiction on their behalf and this should be considered and taken into account when voting. Con states that they got their characteristics of life from their biology class. This is insufficient evidence. I also got mine from my biology class however I managed to source and prove that this classification of life is valid whereas yours has been based off bare assertion. Con continues to make the claim that children that haven't meet puberty is a sufficient rebuttal since I said that the fetus isn't fully developed. Con clearly skims my case because if they had read it properly and thouroughly they would have noticed that I refuted this a number of times. I have clearly said and demonstrated that children are developing humans whereas the fetus is developing to BECOME a human. It is not yet a human whereas a child is. Since the child belongs to the human race this means that it is considered living whereas the fetus does not yet belong to the human race. This means that it is considered separate to humans and is therfore should be assessed separately unlike children [1]. Con continues to state that there is a difference between reacting to stimuli and responding to it. To end the confusion I will provide sources to prove that it doesn't react to stimuli and it doesn't respond to it either. a) The fetus does not respond to stimuli [2]. b) The fetus doesn't react to stimuli [3]. He believes that the fetus is human however this is easily disproven, and it has already been done so, nevertheless I will provide more supporting evidence to satisfy him. Human Characteristics - Consciousness - Sentience - Response to stimuli - Ability to feel emotions - Excretion- Independantly supply itself with nutrition - Indepenantly respire - Be able to feel and sense things around it Characteristics that the fetus meets- Excretion (rarely)This is it. The fetus, extremely rarely, exretes whilst in this state however if it does excrete this means that it will most likely be severely disabled. Regardless, I'll be kind to con and let them say that the fetus meets this category. Even so, the fetus meets hardly any of the categories and is therefore not a human. Continuation of R4 Rebuttals Con attempts to refute the libertarian framework extention however this is extremely difficult for them to do given the fact that I provided sources demonstrating libertarian philosohpy and views on abortion whilst my opponent attempts to tackle it without any evidence. Con, instead of refuting anything that I said makes assertions about what the government has a right to do. This is unfortunately is the subjective and completely arbitrary opinion. The declaration of rights and responsibilities for governments, individuals and societies approes of the UK of a good model and demonstration of a country that properly enforces human rights [4]. The UK advocates and has abortion legal and is a good model of human rights. Ergo, we can conclude that protecting the unborn (ie. fetus') is not a responsibility that the government has [5]. I'll reiterate this, since con has provided no alternative framework you ought to vote Pro based on this premise alone. Con calls my framework morally insane - more subjectivity with absoloutely no evidence. He does something serious that is NOT acceptable during a debate. He make the following summary of my position and says that I SAY THIS. I did not say this and this make my position look bad. He also puts this in quotation marks to make it took even more like I said this. Con's summary of my position that ""supposedly"" comes from me, is false and should be penalized with conduct at the very least. I'll refute con's untrue summary of my case: ""Because men do not have to deal with the hormonal issues associated with pregnancy, that women are being treated unequally, therefore we must allow them to commit abortion so they can be equal to men.""Con provides this quotation to go against my case and then refutes it. I will not refute his reubttal to a summary that he made since I never made any of the arguments that con says that I did. I did say that women aren't getting their rights but I made no such comparisons to men. I said that women have the right over their body and can do what they like with it and I provided a number of quotes from philosophers backing up this view. This has very little relation to men and virtually no relation to men not having to deal with hormonal issues as con falsely says when summarising my case. I never said that the fetus was trespassing or committing any acts like this on the mother's body. I simply said that it is the mothers choice and it should be assessed by them since it is their body. Yes the fetus is dependant on the mother however the fetus wouldn't know the difference if it was alive or dead [1]. Con's old man analogy is still faulty despite the additions that he has made. Even if the boy is asleep he still wants to live and he still meets the requirements for being a living things as I have continually demonstrated. Therefore, killing the boy isn't justified however aborting the fetus is. Also, the abortion of the fetus is quick and painless (because the fetus cannot feel pain) [1][3]. The boy will have to drown and will almost certainly wake up upon impact of the water and will struggle to get out and will slowly die due to the lack of oxygen. Con's solution is adoption however this is easily refuted. In a year in the US 135,000 adoptions occur, this is due to the lack of willing parents [6]. In a year in the US 1.2 million abortions occur [7]. This means that you're 975,000 parents short. On top of this, you'll probably need even more parents considering that there are other adoptions occuring anyway for reasons other than abortions. Con believes that the embryo can think. I have demonstrated that the fetus cannot think and logically if the fetus cannot think then the embryo cannot either since the embryo is the very first stage of the growth before you reach the fetus and human stages. Embryos are 100% not alive and are 100% not able to think and are 100% not conscious - I could go on [8]. Con concedes that the fetus and embryo are not human by failing to respond to my argument. I clearly layed out the stages and they simply responded with the following words: ""I could never find out how they do that."" This is clearly not a rebuttal and therefore this should be treated as a concession to the argument. Con believes that the burden of proof is on me however I have clearly proven that it is shared. Con is still contradicting themselves. If the BOP really was on me then there was no need to provide initial arguments which he did. Based on this, you ought to assume that the BOP in this debate is shared. Con obviously believes that there argument is self-evident however this doesn't mean that everybody agrees. My opponent believes that I hold the BOP because their position is evident however I clearly disagree and have provided clear reasons as to why the BOP is shared. You ought to presume pro here.Con says that nobody will try illegal abortions. They are wrong in R1 I showed that 13% of all pregnancy related deaths are because of illegal abortions. Con says that the death penalty is okay in some scenarios but they fail to understand that they just said that life was important and should never be taken. Con says that my grammar is so bad in the teenagers paragraph. There was 1 spelling mistake. >.< I said the argument in R1 and it was dropped. That was just a reiteration. Please respond to the argument in R1 not this. That was basically saying that you dropped the argument. Sources [1] http://bit.ly...;[2] http://bit.ly...;[3] http://bit.ly...;[4] http://bit.ly...;[5] http://bit.ly...;[6] http://to.pbs.org...;[7] http://bit.ly...;[8] http://bit.ly...;",1,a formal or official rejection or cancellation,wordnet,abortion,no,no,neutral,neutral
"I will refute my opponent's R1 arguments followed by their R3 rebuttals. R1 Yes, it has a heartbeat but does that mean that it is alive? No, it does not. A fetus scientifically does not have any feeling of pain or emotion at the stage where abortion in the pregnancy that abortions are currently allowed. Sometimes it is a bit more complicated than just putting your child up for adoption. Please bare in mind that I am arguing against adoptions, I am arguing for the option to an abortion if the mother feels like this is her only option. I admit that in certain scenarios, abortion isn't necessary however I am not saying that I am pro abortion in all situations, I am saying that abortion should always be open as an option to the mother (and father) if they do not want a child for various different reasons. My opponent refers to the fetus as if it is a baby. I would like to make this clear - I am not Pro the killing of babies. An abortion should be an option if the mother or father have a valid reason to do so, ie. rape, underage pregnancy, financial issues, e.t.c. My opponent hasn't used this argument directly however I will refute this anyway because this is a commonly brought up argument: what if your baby would grow up to cure cancer. Let's see how likely that is. Out of every child in the planet that is born how many of them will cure cancer? The chances will be significantly below 1% since 1 percent is the equivalent to 1/100. R2 My opponent concedes that if the woman is raped then she has the right to abort the baby. Since the debate resolution and R1 never said that I could not argue that rape is an issue by opponent has conceded. It is unfair to say in the last round that rape is not a valid argument because you agree that you can have an abortion in this case. I will now cover the issue of adoption in greater detail since it has been raised more than once now. Many adoptive children grow up feeling bitter and resentful of their biological parents, even as they grow and mature into adults. These feelings are rooted in the abandonment that children feel they have suffered from. The adoptive parents sometimes can influence this outlook, but it remains a risk that a biological parent faces when choosing to give up her child. The adoption process and subsequent loss of a child often leaves the biological parents with a deep sense of loss, according to TheLaborOfLove.com. Grief is likely to set in, and it may reside within a parent for years after the adoption. Some individuals may continue to be haunted by their decision to give their child up for adoption, feeling haunted and regretful of their decision--regardless of whether it was the right decision at the time of the adoption. Sources TheLabourOfLove.com http://www.livestrong.com...",1,the termination of a pregnancy after implantation but before it can be otherwise detected,wordnet,abortion,no,no,neutral,neutral
"Cross-Examination: 1. I believe that abortions should have restrictions. The reason there should be restrictions on abortions is because homemade abortions could cause maternal injuries and maternal deaths. 2. Well, I do see a problem with restricting abortions because the only abortions I want to restrict are homemade abortions due to their lack of safety. Also, I would say I support the woman's right to her own body until the point where the fetus can live outside of the uterus. 3. A fetus must be able to be functioning independently to be a human being. To live outside the uterus makes a fetus a human being. The reason is that a human being must be capable to live on its own. Being human does not make a fetus a human being until it can survive outside of the womb. I'm not talking about living without being fed or clothed but instead talking about being able to physically live outside of the womb. 4. As I've said, it was a homemade abortion so both people should not be able to commit abortion but instead get an abortion. 5. I don't see how this relates to the ca and because it is irrelevant, I will ignore it. However, I would say that her right to her own body does not include being able to take illegal drugs. Rebuttal 1: I'll try to keep this brief so my opponent can both argue against my opening round my rebuttal. My opponent basically claims that a fetus is a human being. However, Joyce Arthur, a abortion rights activist, believes that this is false. She says: ""Biology, medicine, law, philosophy, and theology have no consensus on the issue, and neither does society as a whole. There will never be a consensus because of the subjective and unscientific nature of the claim, so we must give the benefit of the doubt to women, who are indisputable human beings with rights."" It is impossible to prove whether a fetus is a human being because there is no absolute agreement from any of the listed subjects that a fetus is a human being. This is exactly like the issue of Uniformitarianism and Castrophism, Jesus being Son of God, and the existence of a god. It will always be disputed with various types of evidence confirming and destroying different arguments. These issues don't have a certain agreement and will be going on forever. However, women are undisputably human beings. Having the right to her own body makes sure that she can revoke the presence of the fetus in her body. Joyce Arthur continues to say: ""Fetuses are uniquely different from born human beings in major ways, which casts doubt on the claim that they can be classified as human beings. The most fundamental difference is that a fetus is totally dependent on a woman's body to survive. Anti-choicers might argue that born human beings can be entirely dependent on other people too, but the crucial difference is that they are not dependent on one, specific person to the exclusion of all others. Anybody can take care of a newborn infant (or disabled person), but only that pregnant woman can nurture her fetus. She can't hire someone else to do it."" As I said, a human being must be able to survive on its own as in not depending on one person and it can't be anyone else. Also a fetus doesn't just rely on the woman but resides in her. A human being are separate individuals and a fetus is not separate from the woman's body or it will die. They don't gain the status of human being because of living inside the body of another human being. I'd also like to say being human doesn't make someone a human being. Having human DNA and showing signs of life doesn't make it human. Also formerly being an embryo doesn't make me currently an embryo. Since I was unborn, I was essentially not the same entity. For Contention 2, I don't see any need to have a rebuttal for it and I look forward to future elaboration due to no justification for the claims that Roe vs. Wade was ""the single worst piece of legislation ever passed"" and the Supreme Court having ""no justification for passing it."" I look forward to my opponent's rebuttal. Sources: 1. http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org... 2. http://www.abortionisprolife.com... 3. http://eleutherian.blogspot.com...",1,"the termination of a pregnancy after, with, or shortly before fertilization or implantation so that a fetus is not formed",wordnet,abortion,no,no,neutral,pro
"He has lied, made up false quotes that were supposedly from my argument and has provided me with almost all of their arguments being assertions. I hope that voter's take all of this into consideration because some of the stuff that he has done is NOT acceptable in a debate. R5 RebuttalsIt is clear that con has skimmed and not read my entire argument. This is because con continues to say that reproduction doesn't count however I will now show why reproduction counts when determining life: - It was in my strongly sourced biological list used to determine life. - It was in con's definition of life. - This applies to groups of things and children belong to the group: humans and they still are classified as living. I'll restate something here that con fails to understand. These are the stages of being a human being: These are the stages at which somebody is considered human. Con should note that babies and pre-pubescent children are included here. Con should look at the other classification system that is NOT considered human: The outcome here is simple. The fetus and the human are different things since they have different stages of classification. I have constantly repreated this and he has completely ignored the logic, reasoning and sources that I have provided and resorted to bare assertion. Con attempts to show that abortions causes pain and provides a youtube video. There are a number of reasons why this fails. This was not a normal abortion - it was a late term abortion. The words ""abortion"" and ""late term abortion"" have very different meanings. An abortion is tehe termination of the fetus up to 24 weeks (in the UK) and 28 weeks (in the US) [1]. This person had an abortion at 7 1/2 months. That's around 32 weeks which may not seem like a lot more however in this period of time a lot of new changes happen which makes the scenario completely different from what we are debating here. Con believes that consciousness / sentience is a characteristic of the fetus. A specialized egg has no nervous system and hence no consciousness [2]. Con's assertion is therefore incorrect. It is also important to note that I got my information for this from a reliable medical website. Con's source, on the other hand, is from youtube. Con believes that I we cannot detect emotions. This is true but we can detect brain activity and certain brain activity demonstrates that the fetus has 'feelings' of some sort. The egg has no specialized nervous system in it's brain and it's brain is evidentally not completely developed, from scientists brain reports we have deduced that the fetus cannot feel emotions [2][3]. Con uses the same examples that have been constantly refuted. People that are on injected nutrition belong to the human race which we can decipher from their DNA, physical appearance and brain activity and complexity. The fetus has comparable DNA to humans (but not completely developed or the same). The fetus has little resemblance to a human being in terms of physical appearance. The fetus' brain is also not as developed as any living human being [4]. He drops independant respiration. Con states that he quoted the foundation of libertarianism and it's declaration of independance. By saying this alone, then they effectively drop my entire argument that I made and my previous rebuttals. I stated the main ideologies of libertarianism and why they should be considered above the requirements set by my opponent for this reason. This is dropped by Con. I find Con's critisism of quite funny. As somebody who has studied the politics of the UK in extreme depth I will try to correct your mistakes as best as I can. Right to bare arms: The right to bare arms isn't a right and it's a terrible idea. I don't want to get into too much depth however it is imporant to note that assaults are 7 times more likely to result in death if the aggressor posesses a firearm [5]. Free Speech: This isn't explained and is really easy to respond to. The UK follows the UDHR and in their laws they allow freedom of speech so long as it isn't discriminatory or racist and is used to provoke violence [6]. Privacy: This is broad and covers a lot of areas including freedom of the press, survailence, census frequency etc. Con hasn't been specific enough for me to respond. Taxes: We have a free NHS. We have free education. We have more jobs. We have higher wages. These taxes work out better for us than they do for you. You've also completely exaggeraed our taxes. Our basic rate divided income is at 10%. Basic rate savings income is 20%. Higher rate divided income is 32.5%. Our higher rate savings income is at 40%. Our additional rate divided income is 37.5%. Our additional rate savings income is at 45%. This is no where near as con has suggested. You should also note that he didn't source this whereas I have [7]. You are making absoloutely no sense. Please tell me in the comments (because there are no rounds left) what source you used to conclude your information because that statistic is worryingly far from the truth. He states that their framework is conservatism using that one word. Without an explanation (like mine), this makes no sense. It is not a framework. You have just used 1 word. Since my opponent has no explained his framework's significance and it's views on abortion this means that it is not suitable for the definition of a framework in debate and as a result you ought to vote Pro on the basis that con has failed to provide a framework. He attempts to justify they violation of the TOS by taking my words out of context and then putting them in quotation marks to make it look like they said this. As is evident, this is virtually impossible to justify. Yes, I said that women aren't getting their rights by being denied an abortion but I never mentioned a comparison to men and I never mentioned equal rights in this context. Con has also failed to justify putting this into quotation marks. I find it hilarious that con states that I should be voted against because of this. Con says that I am lying. If you can find evidence of me saying that the fetus is trespassing on the mother's body (other than when I deny con's claim that I said this), then you can vote Con. If you can't then you ought to vote Pro since con has lied (again). Con says that there are 1 million gay people wanting to adopt. Where are the sources? Oh wait, there are none. Con says that they were referring to the picture when they said that - they ignore the fact that they dropped the embryo argument which is the most signficant argument in the debate. Con makes a remark about communism in response to the BOP. I assume that means that they agree that the BOP is shared. Con says that he will punish illegal abortions. I said that most women die. He says that they will be put off. I say that they still do illegal abortions. Con says that he was talking about punishment. Do you see what is happening here? He is going arond in circles and not refuting my points. Con says that the fetus has committed no crime so it does not apply but fails to say why. It seems ironic that con says that one of his main philosophies is in regards to life and then says that life can be taken in certain circumstances. He doesn't explain why crime allows moral standards to be abandoned you ought to view it irrelevant. Arguments: He only has 1 which is refuted. He also drops my main argument. This goes to Pro. Conduct: He lies and makes false quotations. This goes to Pro. S&G - Tied Sources: He has used no sources up until the final round after I questioned him on it. He failed to source anything else throughout the entire debate where sources were necessary this goes to Pro. This is an objective vote for Pro. Sources [1] . http://bit.ly...;[2] . http://bit.ly...;[3] . http://bit.ly...[4] . http://bit.ly...[5] Guns in America: A Reader [6] . http://bit.ly...;[7] . http://bit.ly...;",1,the act of intentionally causing the death of a human fetus,wordnet,abortion,yes,no,con,con
"sorry about that I was thinking of something else. If a baby is born ill he will never live I normal life. something becomes living once the sperm and eggs touch but, If a baby is born ill he will never live I normal life. the good things about abortion is both the parents and the kid do not have to go through all the hardships of an extremely ill person. Imagine if you had to go through not even be able to talk and not now who anybody you have known for a long time is. Imagine that,Imagine that.",1,"the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, or resulting in, the death of the fetus",wordnet,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
#1 no ad hominems. #2 standard rules regarding dropped arguments apply #3 no new arguments in final rebuttals. I believe that abortion should be illegal except for when the pregnancy poses an abnormal threat to the life of the mother. please don't accept if you intend to forfeit.,-1,a belief that is opposed to or contradicts accepted facts or principles,wordnet,abortion,no,no,neutral,neutral
"Thanks 16K for your response. It’s sad to see that my opponent hasn’t adequately refuted some of my points in his last round. And since this is the last round, I’ll make this brief. REBUTTAL RE: Fetus = Human My opponent must be confused here. I’ve already explained the difference between a fetus and a fully grown sentient human being. And by ‘fully grown’ shouldn’t mean an adult, but it should refer to a human who can be dependent on one’s body, it should be capable to feel and think freely. A fetus doesn’t do any of these. My opponent hasn’t proven that the fetus has done any of this, he just argued that it ‘has’ life, which is very much insufficient to affirm his case. Furthermore, my opponent goes on and relies on hearsay testimony without really supporting it. He quoted something from a scripture that states that an abortion is murdering an innocent person, making a fetus a fully-grown human, this testimony should be considered null and void because I’ve already disproved it. CON also gives a link on medical evidence of fetus being human, he just gave a link and didn’t type an argument. Please discard them. RE: Abortion is murder My opponent states that abortion is illegal in some countries thus making it murder. But hasn’t offered proof on which country bans abortion and if it defines fetuses as a sentient human. So his argument fails here. Also, we shouldn’t be sidetracked here since this debate is about abortion in the US. It’s clear from the start. RE: Fetus feels pain My opponent lately claims that a fetus can feel pain, but that study only supports fetal pain during the end of the second trimester (28th week/7th month) of pregnancy. Now, this can be relevant if we’re arguing partial birth abortion, but we’re not, so we could disregard it. Also, even if a fetus can feel pain, it’s still not fully-grown or sentient. It is still a risk to the mother. My opponent failed to expand this contention. RE: Fetus dependent on mother CON’s logic fails here. He compares a fetus to a newborn infant. A fetus’ rights are still a developing right whereas children’s rights already exist. Fetuses aren’t natural-born citizens yet, but an infant is. An infant can survive without its mother (e.g.: nursing care, adoption centers), a fetus cannot survive without the mother because it’s still in the mother’s womb, so the life of the fetus is dependent on the mother. RE: Religion and Abortion Last time I checked, the US is a secular country and that the separation of Church and State shall be inviolable. My opponent has dropped my argument concerning the Bible’s contradiction on itself. He just repeated his argument. So please extend. RE: Abortion Polls: PRO-life vs. PRO-choice CON failed to give a website, and that site has tons of polls, I’m not obligated to go through a pile of polls just to negate the fact that it’s reliable. It’s CON’s fault for not backing it up. Also, he didn’t respond as to how many were interviewed, probably only 10 biased people were interviewed, which is false. Ergo, this premise has already been disproved for lack of accuracy and its lack or relevancy. RE: Hippocratic Oath Again, I’ve proven that the fetus shouldn’t be considered human and that abortion can be justified. This oath wasn’t introduced adequately with sufficient evidence, so there’s nothing really to refute. DEFENSE Killing justified on certain circumstances My opponent evades these hypothetical scenarios by comparing it to a fetus being aborted, which isn’t entirely the point. This premise is solely to negate that killing is always wrong, which is false. But nevertheless, my opponent negates his own contention by saying ‘unless you are in danger, except in health risks, etc, etc’ --- And… that’s it. Nothing to defend really, since my opponent failed to address my contentions, which is a disappointment. Which leads us to my the conclusion. CONCLUSION Okay, so by now you will realize that my opponent has failed to satisfy his burden of proof. He needed to show that: 1) A fetus is a human being, and 2) All abortions are the unlawful killing of a human being with premeditation and malice aforethought. My opponent didn’t give adequate and enough evidence to sufficiently prove a fetus is human and he made no argument that abortion is the premeditated killing of a human. He has also failed to refute all my arguments and he has failed to back up his claims. I urge you voters to vote PRO. Thanks. And for my exit, I present you a picture that shows abortion is a choice, a right of the woman and it shouldn't be taken away.",1,the act of destroying a fetus,wordnet,abortion,no,no,con,con
"I dont believe abortion should be legal unless two situations exist, rape or the mothers life is in danger. Abortion shouldnt be an option for young women (or older women) who dont wish to be burdened with carrying and delivering a child. Especially with the numerous forms of birth control for little or no cost.",-1,the act of deliberately terminating a human pregnancy especially in the first eight months,wordnet,abortion,no,yes,neutral,neutral
"Abortion should not be seen as a crime. Once someone aborts, many view them as a cruel, bad person. A parent who aborts always has a reason behind their abortion. One cannot judge a person if they do not see the situation or know the reason behind their abortion. Many women who abort are young who still have a whole life ahead of them, and are simply unable to provide the baby with all its necessities. Some women get raped, others have health problems, or sometimes the baby has health problems. You have to be able to understand the situation of the parent. No one wants too see a baby suffering along with a young mom who was not able to abort therefore leading to her dropping out of school and living in bad conditions with no education.",1,the act of terminating a pregnancy as a woman or other person with capacity to gestate a human fetus,wordnet,abortion,yes,no,neutral,neutral
"My opponent uses the arguments: ""-Babies don't pay taxes."" ""-Babies don't buy anything."" ""Babies can't work, and though some may consider 17 year olds their ""baby"", babies can't enlist in the military."" Well, in response to these arguments I'll say this. Babies do NOT stay babies forever and also sure babies cannot buy anything but the parents will buy things for them such as: food, clothes, toys, ect. There is an entire Industry revolved around babies. Some examples: baby showers, baby clothing, baby toys, baby furniture and many other things. My opponent's next argument: ""-Most children placed by DCFS (Department of Children and Family Services) were from homes so abusive or neglectful that it would be unsafe for them to return. -Illinois spends an annual $14,871,200 in the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services Foster Homes/Specialized Foster Care and Prevention line -$8,100,000 for DCFS funding of personal services to prevent the layoff of frontline staff (http://childcareillinois.wordpress.com......) -In 2007 there were 111,742 reports of child abuse and neglect in the state of Illinois -In 2003 there were 25,344 substantiated cases of child abuse and neglect, more than 4,000 children removed from their homes, and 58 confirmed child deaths due to abuse.(http://www.fightcrime.org......)"" Is my opponent suggesting that DCFS is a bad thing? My opponent's argument has no relevance to the topic we are debating and I will explain. Most of the children removed from the parents are abused and neglected and the major cause of the abuse and the neglect is that the parents are either hooked on drugs, suffering from a mental illness or the father is abusing the mother. Those are also the parents that belong to the class of lower socioeconomic Incomes and these people have to rely on the government(DCFS) more so then the middle class and wealthy. So unless my opponent claims that the majority of people who go to get abortions who belong to the Lower Socioeconomic Income class and either have a problem with drugs, mental health. or domestic violence then his argument is irrelevant. Another argument: ""I know I provided more information than necessary to refute my opponent's claims, but this information is relevant when considering foster care and adoption as a viable alternative to abortion. The truth is many children are abused in foster care, and many homeless in America come from the foster care system. -20,000 youth ""age out"" or emancipate from foster care each year. -Up to 50% of former foster/probation youth become homeless within the first 18 months of emancipation. -Twenty seven percent (27%) of the homeless population spent time in foster care. -Fifty-eight percent (58%) of all young adults accessing federally funded youth shelters in 1997 had previously been in foster care. -Less than half of former foster youth are employed 2.5-4 years after leaving foster care, and only 38% have maintained employment for at least one year. -Youth in foster care are 44% less likely to graduate from high school and after emancipation, 40 �€"" 50 percent never complete high school. -Girls in foster care are six times more likely to give birth before the age of 21 than the general population. -Sixty percent (60%) of women who emancipate from foster care become parents within 2.5-4 years after exiting care. -Parents with a history of foster care are almost twice as likely as parents with no such history to see their own children placed in foster care or become homeless. (http://fosterculture.wordpress.com......) Now, these statistics not only refute my opponent's claims, but they support my claim that illegalizing abortion is more likely to have a negative impact on our economy than my opponent's alternative claim."" Again my opponent seems to keep going on about the Adoption Industry. He is right the Industry would boom due to the few people out there who actually can't afford to take care of a kid. Only 21% of all people who get an abortion is because of the amount of money that they make. My opponent states that ""7.6% vs 3.1% adoptees vs. non-adoptees are likely to attempt suicide"" Now I am going to use one of his own arguments against him how do you know what is really going on in the adoptees minds? You do not know what they are thinking. Lets assume that his statistics are even true. 7.6% adoptees who would rather commit suicide then to tough it out and survive vs 92.7% who would rather live,is a big difference and it further proves my point that the vast majority of people would rather have the right to life then to be aborted by their mothers. My opponent says: ""I believe many of those who have actually suffered through living in these institutions would disagree with my opponent."" Take it from me my father actually was an adopted child and he actually had a good experience out of it better then he would have had if his parents would have kept him. So according to my source which happens to be my own father contradicts with this statement. Also he says... ""Even so, he does not argue that rape and incest should be an exception"" People should NOT be permitted to have an abortion in a case of these as I said earlier you cannot punish the innocent due to the evils of the guilty. He says: My opponent claims that ""only"" 1% of abortions in the US are a result of rape and/or incest. Even so, he does not argue that rape and incest should be an exception, rather that a baby acting as a cancer should be the ONLY exception. Acknowledgment of 1 single abortion performed due to rape and/or incest is justification that that abortion should be allowed. He does not make this argument. Instead he says that ""loved ones whom they trust"" would provide psychiatric support, as well as therapists. What if a girl was raped by a family member (incest), or even her own father? As I said earlier they should look for counsel by a family member who they TRUST. Like I said only 1%is due to rape and incest. Again his arguments have no revelance to the topic, Illegalizing abortion has nothing to do with the counseling needs of a woman that has been raped. He also states: ""The statistics state otherwise- abortion rates are similar worldwide whether legal or illegal (http://www.iht.com......), and illegalization is not a deterrent from the world's most prevalent medical procedure. The difference is the mortality and injury rates of the women having illegal abortions performed, versus legal abortions."" Of course there would be a deterrent from getting an illegal abortion. Firstly a lot of women would be uncomfortable getting illegal abortions knowing they wouldn't be as safe as they would be legally. Also the law its self would be a deterrent people wont want to take the chance getting caught and arrested for getting an abortion. He says: ""I have addressed this in my first round argument- it is not for the law to determine when life begins, and when a ""person"" has the right to live, rather it is for medicine and science to decide."" Well, then why is it that when somebody commits a murder of a pregnant woman he is charged with double homicide, but somehow when a woman gets an abortion its somehow no longer human. For example The Scott and Lacy Peterson trial. He says: ""How many millions more of us are lost when our fathers masturbate, or when our mothers perform oral sex? I see no difference in this line of questioning."" Life does not begin until the sperm meets with the egg its as simple as that. Well, thanks for the debate, aren't you glad your mother didn't abort you?",-1,"the act of terminating a pregnancy after, accompanied by, or resulting in the death of the fetus",wordnet,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"OK the problem I have with your rebuttals is that you failed to go into sufficient details as to why you make such an argument. The reason being is that you mention several different topics that fall within the Abortion issue, but instead of sticking to one topic, you briefly mention several, making it hard to defend or attack your assertions. For example, the first statement you make is that abortion is considered murder. You gave me a defintion of murder, yet you have failed to demonstrate WHY a fetus/baby is human and why it's immoral. If a fetus/baby, is considered human (again we didn't define it) then you have to show that it is murder. If it's not a human, then your whole argument fails. The only argument I can make is to demonstrate that neurological activity doesnt FULLY develop until around the 3rd trimester. It is true that there will be simple neurological brain activity by the 6th week, however, they are very basic firings that do not define as it as a human ability. The article that I provided states that it has the same neurological activity as a patient minutes after death. http://www.nytimes.com...;I take a neurological approach because I believe that humans are ultimately defined by our brains. All other organs are accessory organs mediated for our survival. What makes us, human, and ourselves, is really just our brain. Since CON hasn't rebutted my argument about abortion being permissible before the 3rd trimester, my case still holds. The next topic you go on about is nutrition. To be frank, this argument is ridiculous. I dont see how it relates to abortion and even if it did, I dont know what point youre trying to make with this. The fetus gets its nutrients from the placenta, while the baby, after conception, gets it from the mothers breasts. A placenta is not the same thing as a mother's breasts. They're even located on different areas of the human body. The nutrients aren't even the same. The placenta brings in nutrients and hormones for growth and differentiation of cells. The breasts provide milk for specific development of differentiated cells. If they served the same purpose, then why would women have two different organs providing for the same thing?The third topic, rebutting a brief point I made in R1 (which by the way, isnt the crux of my argument) was about abortion in the case of rape. I don't understand why a fetus, who has no activiy of any kind whatsoever and who isnt born yet, has more rights than the mother, who has been living for several years and has contributed to society. Please elaborate why you think a ball of cells has more rights than a living human being. Even if the fetus does have rights, that doesnt mean that it has the right to violate someone else's rights. So no, I do not think it's selfish. In fact, I think in the case of rape, it's selfish from the fetus standpoint to force the mother carry it to term and then another 18 years. Your burden is to prove to me why an inanimate object's rights is greater than a human being's life.The next paragraph you list on development stages, which I dont understand the point. Just because one develops a leg means that it's human? So all types of mammals are now considered human and should have the same human rights as us, is that what youre suggesting? The only relevant argument, to a small degree, is the formaiton of neurons. While it is true that lots of neurons form, one gotta realize that most of those neurons aren't used at all. It's a form of development where the neurons overdevelop to increase the chances of making the correct connections with other parts of the brain. The ones that aren't used, the failed connections, are degraded over time. It's called the neurotrophic hypothesis. For further information please read the abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...;While I do realize that you need a subscription to pubmed and most of the people here do not have it, one should realize that you just need to read the abstract to get a basic understanding of the hypothesis. Lastly, you rebut a small point that I made in R1 about the fetus vs baby. While organs do form, they are nonfunctioning in a fetus. It is essentially a prep time before actual use. It's making sure everything works before the irreversible step of conception. Anyways, it doesnt weaken my argument about abortion at all. Before I submit my responses, one should realize that CON has failed to rebut the crux of my issue on abortion. She cherry-picked small, superfiical information that I made about my opinions on abortion, but not on my actual arguments. I hope the readers realizes that ALL my arguments still stands.",1,the act of deliberately causing something to end prematurely,wordnet,abortion,no,no,neutral,neutral
"He has lied, made up false quotes that were supposedly from my argument and has provided me with almost all of their arguments being assertions. I hope that voter's take all of this into consideration because some of the stuff that he has done is NOT acceptable in a debate. R5 RebuttalsIt is clear that con has skimmed and not read my entire argument. This is because con continues to say that reproduction doesn't count however I will now show why reproduction counts when determining life: - It was in my strongly sourced biological list used to determine life. - It was in con's definition of life. - This applies to groups of things and children belong to the group: humans and they still are classified as living. I'll restate something here that con fails to understand. These are the stages of being a human being: These are the stages at which somebody is considered human. Con should note that babies and pre-pubescent children are included here. Con should look at the other classification system that is NOT considered human: The outcome here is simple. The fetus and the human are different things since they have different stages of classification. I have constantly repreated this and he has completely ignored the logic, reasoning and sources that I have provided and resorted to bare assertion. Con attempts to show that abortions causes pain and provides a youtube video. There are a number of reasons why this fails. This was not a normal abortion - it was a late term abortion. The words ""abortion"" and ""late term abortion"" have very different meanings. An abortion is tehe termination of the fetus up to 24 weeks (in the UK) and 28 weeks (in the US) [1]. This person had an abortion at 7 1/2 months. That's around 32 weeks which may not seem like a lot more however in this period of time a lot of new changes happen which makes the scenario completely different from what we are debating here. Con believes that consciousness / sentience is a characteristic of the fetus. A specialized egg has no nervous system and hence no consciousness [2]. Con's assertion is therefore incorrect. It is also important to note that I got my information for this from a reliable medical website. Con's source, on the other hand, is from youtube. Con believes that I we cannot detect emotions. This is true but we can detect brain activity and certain brain activity demonstrates that the fetus has 'feelings' of some sort. The egg has no specialized nervous system in it's brain and it's brain is evidentally not completely developed, from scientists brain reports we have deduced that the fetus cannot feel emotions [2][3]. Con uses the same examples that have been constantly refuted. People that are on injected nutrition belong to the human race which we can decipher from their DNA, physical appearance and brain activity and complexity. The fetus has comparable DNA to humans (but not completely developed or the same). The fetus has little resemblance to a human being in terms of physical appearance. The fetus' brain is also not as developed as any living human being [4]. He drops independant respiration. Con states that he quoted the foundation of libertarianism and it's declaration of independance. By saying this alone, then they effectively drop my entire argument that I made and my previous rebuttals. I stated the main ideologies of libertarianism and why they should be considered above the requirements set by my opponent for this reason. This is dropped by Con. I find Con's critisism of quite funny. As somebody who has studied the politics of the UK in extreme depth I will try to correct your mistakes as best as I can. Right to bare arms: The right to bare arms isn't a right and it's a terrible idea. I don't want to get into too much depth however it is imporant to note that assaults are 7 times more likely to result in death if the aggressor posesses a firearm [5]. Free Speech: This isn't explained and is really easy to respond to. The UK follows the UDHR and in their laws they allow freedom of speech so long as it isn't discriminatory or racist and is used to provoke violence [6]. Privacy: This is broad and covers a lot of areas including freedom of the press, survailence, census frequency etc. Con hasn't been specific enough for me to respond. Taxes: We have a free NHS. We have free education. We have more jobs. We have higher wages. These taxes work out better for us than they do for you. You've also completely exaggeraed our taxes. Our basic rate divided income is at 10%. Basic rate savings income is 20%. Higher rate divided income is 32.5%. Our higher rate savings income is at 40%. Our additional rate divided income is 37.5%. Our additional rate savings income is at 45%. This is no where near as con has suggested. You should also note that he didn't source this whereas I have [7]. You are making absoloutely no sense. Please tell me in the comments (because there are no rounds left) what source you used to conclude your information because that statistic is worryingly far from the truth. He states that their framework is conservatism using that one word. Without an explanation (like mine), this makes no sense. It is not a framework. You have just used 1 word. Since my opponent has no explained his framework's significance and it's views on abortion this means that it is not suitable for the definition of a framework in debate and as a result you ought to vote Pro on the basis that con has failed to provide a framework. He attempts to justify they violation of the TOS by taking my words out of context and then putting them in quotation marks to make it look like they said this. As is evident, this is virtually impossible to justify. Yes, I said that women aren't getting their rights by being denied an abortion but I never mentioned a comparison to men and I never mentioned equal rights in this context. Con has also failed to justify putting this into quotation marks. I find it hilarious that con states that I should be voted against because of this. Con says that I am lying. If you can find evidence of me saying that the fetus is trespassing on the mother's body (other than when I deny con's claim that I said this), then you can vote Con. If you can't then you ought to vote Pro since con has lied (again). Con says that there are 1 million gay people wanting to adopt. Where are the sources? Oh wait, there are none. Con says that they were referring to the picture when they said that - they ignore the fact that they dropped the embryo argument which is the most signficant argument in the debate. Con makes a remark about communism in response to the BOP. I assume that means that they agree that the BOP is shared. Con says that he will punish illegal abortions. I said that most women die. He says that they will be put off. I say that they still do illegal abortions. Con says that he was talking about punishment. Do you see what is happening here? He is going arond in circles and not refuting my points. Con says that the fetus has committed no crime so it does not apply but fails to say why. It seems ironic that con says that one of his main philosophies is in regards to life and then says that life can be taken in certain circumstances. He doesn't explain why crime allows moral standards to be abandoned you ought to view it irrelevant. Arguments: He only has 1 which is refuted. He also drops my main argument. This goes to Pro. Conduct: He lies and makes false quotations. This goes to Pro. S&G - Tied Sources: He has used no sources up until the final round after I questioned him on it. He failed to source anything else throughout the entire debate where sources were necessary this goes to Pro. This is an objective vote for Pro. Sources [1] . http://bit.ly...;[2] . http://bit.ly...;[3] . http://bit.ly...[4] . http://bit.ly...[5] Guns in America: A Reader [6] . http://bit.ly...;[7] . http://bit.ly...;",1,"the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a non-viable fetus, or a fetus that does not stand a viable chance of survival after birth",oxford,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"I am gonna go back to Murder part because you weren't clear on that so the definition of Murder: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. Now Abortion isn't illegal BUT hear me out, abortion is the killing of a human being by another human being. (the baby is sucked out (the doctor is doing that with a tool) and then thrown into a trash can) therefore by definition abortion is legal but still murder. Another thing is whats the difference between the fetus getting nutrition from the mother inside versus the baby getting milk from his/her mother's breast. Now I know not all babies get milk from their mothers breast and/or another women, but there is no difference, so then why is it mortal for a baby to take milk form a women's breast. Going on from the Rape stand of point. Yes the mother wasn't responsible or irresponsible, because she was raped, but it is still considered her child whether or not the father of the child is with her. And yes she may not be ready to carry the baby in her stomach for the 9 months and go through all of that, but don't you agree it is selfish to take away someone's life just to not be pregnant for 9 months? Around the the 10th week of your pregnancy your baby becomes a fetus, meaning its been developing ever since it was transferred from a guy to a girl. Your stopping the possibility of life of your child. That goes along with the selfishness of abortion. By the 10th week of pregnancy, your baby probably measures more than 1 inch, or roughly the length of a quarter. By the end of the 1st trimester, your baby will grow to be about 3 inches "" around the length of a kiwi fruit. This measurement doesn't even take into account arms and legs. That's because in the 1st trimester, your baby is measured from the top of the head to the bottom of the rump. By the beginning of the 10th week of pregnancy, all of your baby's vital organs have formed. His embryonic tail, located at the bottom of his spinal cord, has disappeared. His bones continue to develop. On an ultrasound, your baby's bones appear white. At 10 weeks pregnant, his ears get close to their final form. His teeth buds emerge, and his eyelids develop further. His testes start producing the male hormone testosterone around the 10th week of pregnancy. Tiny fingers and toes are fully separated (no more webbing). Plus, your baby's brain growth really takes off. Every minute, 250,000 new neurons (or first brain cells) are produced This proves right there it is a baby not just a fetus but a human being, and it's only the first trimester of your pregnancy. Now Your response in the first round You said: a fetus to be the same as a baby for the difference is a ball of cells vs working organs. 10th week- fingers start to grow along with bones, eyelids, no more webbing 11th week -The blood vessels in your placenta grow larger to prepare for this time of accelerated growth in your baby. this proves they baby/fetus isn't just a ball of cells, there's arms, legs, organs developing along with body formations developing.",-1,the deliberate destruction of a human embryo or foetus in the womb,oxford,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,con
"The cost is not minimal. The average cost to raise a child is $245,340 http://www.huffingtonpost.com.... Multiply that by 1 million and well....Argument debunked ""If a parent can't handle a child, maybe they shouldn't engage in sexual activity until they can. It isn't right, morally, to end an innocent life."" This is a ridiculous statement. Sex is natural and has nothing to do with being able to raise a child. Evolution made sex feel really good so that we would produce. Practically everyone wants to have sex badly. It's a natural desire. Argument debunked. ""I care about children, which is why I am pro life."" No, you are only looking at your side of the picture, rather than considering EVERY piece of evidence, whereas I have weighed both the positives and the negatives of abortion and formulate my argument accordingly. I highly suggest you learn to think objectively. For example, like I stated, you haven't considered the cost of having tons of unwanted babies. This affects the babies already in an orphanage. You claim to care about children, yet you don't consider the wants and needs of the babies already in an orphanage looking for a home. As I stated, there are 100k orphans ALREADY. If we become antiabortion, this number will reach ridiculous heights. I mentioned it already but you ignored it so here it is again: how do you think this will affect the children already in the orphanage? Or do you not care about them? ""A lot less traumatic than being ripped apart while still alive. But then again, you believe the child in the womb isn't even alive. It has been proven that a child in the womb CAN feel pain. http://www.mccl.org...... http://www.doctorsonfetalpain.com...; Actually, no. This is untrue. Pain MIGHT be felt for a couple of seconds. To claim this is MORE traumatic than a life time of knowing that you are unwanted is faulty reasoning. Evidence debunked.",1,"the termination of a pregnancy by the destruction of the embryo or fetus, before it can survive without the womb.",oxford,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"You put a link up that clearly contradicts the very point you are trying to make, then you post a completely different link and say I didn't read it correctly and to check it again. Instead of one fatal error, you have now made two. Instead of admitting your mistake and continuing on, you have now turned a citation error into a conduct abuse by trying to coerce the voters into thinking you had posted a different link. Contention1/3: life is not sacred. You are twisting my words. I clearly made the distinction between ""person"" and ""life"" earlier. For you to say that I must think killing people is OK is pure negligence on your point. The relevance of this point is that pro-lifers use the fact that life is sacred to defend making abortion illegal. I am pointing out this fallacy. Contention 2: life does not begin at conception. Con is now relying on the 38 weeks argument completely to win his case, so we will switch gears here. In another twist of words, Con says I am ""in favor of"" aborting a 38 week old fetus. I never said this; I simply do not believe abortion should be banned at any time. Doctors can choose not to abort later on, but there is no point in making it illegal. Where would we draw the line? At the ""pain"" point? This is very fuzzy, controversial, and irrelevant. Many animals feel pain and there is no ban on killing them. There is no evidence of pain in abortion. Your NEW citation is a clearly biased, non-peer reviewed, non-primary source. You would get graded down in college for using that in an upper level course. I fail to see the relevance of naming a child before it is born. I know people who name their cell phones. I have answered Con's points thoroughly and systematically, and have refuted them successfully each time. On the other hand, Con has ignored my points completely in rounds, twisted my words at times, posted links that contradict himself, used clear coercion, and constantly misunderstood my very clear arguments. My contentions stand",1,"the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed before the fetus is viable, by various medical means, in order to remove a fetus that has serious abnormalities or is otherwise unsuitable for delivery or would otherwise produce a child that would suffer.",oxford,abortion,yes,yes,pro,pro
"I feel you are being both unjustly harsh and accusatory. It is frustrating you keep trying to point out a mistake where one does not in fact exist. ""Fetuses cannot feel pain until at least the 28th week of gestation because they haven't formed the necessary nerve pathways, says Mark Rosen, an obstetrical anesthesiologist at the University of California at San Francisco."" This is a quote from the first link I put up. There is no contradiction. My contention was that the third trimester should be off limits to abortion. I said that pain can be felt at the start of the third trimester. There is an article that substantiates my claims. Here is another that says basically the same thing. The fetus can feel pain in the third trimester. ( http://jama.ama-assn.org...). It is scholarly. We do not wish to cause another human being pain, and it can feel pain. Therefore, abortion should not be legal at that time. 2. Your 'life isn't sacred' argument simply confused me. No need to be upset. The 38 weeks argument is valid. If I can convince voters that aborting a 38 week old fetus should be illegal, I have won. What is the real difference between a 38-week old fetus and a newly born baby? Nothing biologically. They both feel pain. They look remarkably alike. I give a much better point at which to call a fetus a human. The ""pain point"" in the third trimester is a much more logical place to call a fetus a human than to say babies are not babies until birth. At least there is a scientific and biological distinction instead of an inside/outside argument. My opponent is in favor of legalized abortion for 38-week old fetuses. Many babies are BORN at 38 weeks. His view that abortion should be legal up until birth is extreme, but that is his stated stance. If you are convinced that abortion should be illegal at 38 weeks then by definition of the argument, you should vote CON. Thank you very much.",-1,the premature ending of a pregnancy,oxford,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"I'm just going to finish this by saying that there should be no law that forbids abortion. It is a matter between the two involved, and no one has the right to interfere with that.",1,"the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed before the foetus is viable but in some cases later during the pregnancy",oxford,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
#1 no ad hominems. #2 standard rules regarding dropped arguments apply #3 no new arguments in final rebuttals. I believe that abortion should be illegal except for when the pregnancy poses an abnormal threat to the life of the mother. please don't accept if you intend to forfeit.,-1,"the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first six months of pregnancy",oxford,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"""My framework will be based around libertarianism. Within libertarianism, there is controversy on abortions because it depends on if the fetus is alive. If the fetus is alive then libertarians are against abortions because libertarians are individualists and therefore value the life of the individual heavily [1]. If the fetus is not alive then libertarians advocate abortion because libertarians belief in a less powerful and restrictive government. In our first contention we will prove the fetus to be living. I will explain why we should have an abortion under libertarian belief."" Correct me if I am wrong here, your first point is that liberals support abortion, therefore abortion is morally acceptable because the liberals must be right. This is a poorly attempted appeal to authority. ""She is the individual that libertarians prioritize, due to their individualist beliefs [2]. Since libertarians believe in a less restrictive government, the outcome is clear. The government should NOT be involved in something so personal to the person since by intervening in this person""s choice, you are restricting them and are violating libertarian ideology [3]."" The fetus had no choice in it being in the woman""s womb either, that fetus is like a prisoner there, it had no choice I the matter, here is a story to illustrate this: ""it would be like if I came home one day, and some guy was tied by his feet upside down, he wants to get down so he can leave my house, so I can either A shoot the innocent victim (abortion), or B untie him and let him go (continue with pregnancy), what would you do?"" Additionally, if said fetus is not a product of rape, then that means that the mother consented to it being there. ""Only 1.4% of abortions occur after 21 weeks into the pregnancy [3,4]. This means that that most abortions are done before the fetus is even formed. It is an embryo, and an embryo is proven to be not alive. It isn't a subject of discussion when talking about the embryo [5]."" If it consumes energy, grows and develops, and responds to stimuli, according to the definition of life provided by biology, it is alive. I will now address the fetus - which is mitigated due to the small percentage of abortions that occur at this period. ""There are 7 categories in which life can be identified [6]. The categories have been compiled by biologists over a long period of time with great discussion [6]. The fetus only meets 2 of these. Movement - The fetus can move so this part is met. Respiration - The fetus cannot respire on its own (7). Is a fish alive? Yes, it is, but it never respires, it absorbs oxygen through the liquid surrounding, like a fetus. Sensitivity - The fetus cannot sense at 24 weeks or even 28 weeks (8). Actually, as soon as grey matter has been formed, it can feel. Growth - The fetus does grow. Reproduction - Whilst it is a fetus, no it cannot reproduce (9). By that logic children that have not yet hit puberty are not alive, hence killing them is OK. Excretion - This is possible however very rare and unlikely (10). I guess people who are constipated are not alive either. Nutrition - The fetus cannot independently take in nutrition. So people dependent on injected nutrition are not alive either, wow, there""s a lot of dead people walking around these days eh? ""When an abortion is legal there is absolutely no point in having an illegal abortion because they have been proven to be very dangerous and expensive. If abortion are legal then illegal abortions will negatively correlate (11). These illegal abortions have been known to kill both the mother and the baby and sometimes result in extreme suffering on the mother""s part (11). Mothers are not doctors (most of the time) so these illegal abortions also occur later than 24 (and even 28) weeks meaning that the babies suffer too (11)!"" That is because these mothers are deranged psychopaths, under some circumstances, something not so good should be legalized seeing what happened as a result of prohibition, but in other circumstances, it is too evil to allow. This is one of them. ""This statistic is shocking but demonstrates my point very well. These unsafe abortions are illegal and this is what is currently happening because abortions are illegal in places. They have no option to a safe abortion and are so desperate for abortion that they attempt to have an unsafe abortion. Therefore, we can conclude that there are a huge number of unsafe abortions (13% of all pregnancy related deaths). From this we can then follow up an argument suggesting that making abortions illegal will not necessarily get rid of all abortions therefore rendering our opponent""s aim to be mitigated."" I think you missed my point, if it isn""t rape, incest, or a medical issue, they should be forced to go forward, so if they NEED one, they can get one, but it they DO NOT need one, they should go forward, and we should put harsh punishments on trying to abort when they o not need to. ""This statistic is significant for many reasons. If this occurs amongst 18 - 19 year olds then this is extremely bad. Having to look after and care for a child ruins their chances of going to university. Your twenties are your most important period of your lives according to many sources (13,14,15). Having to look after a child in this period of time is extremely stressful and prevents you from getting proper qualifications and more importantly, it prevents you from getting a full time job and a house. Children are extremely expensive to have and having a child at the time when you should be looking for a job makes income problematic. On top of this you will have to pay huge amounts of money."" This would fit under an issue that harms both the mother and the child. ""A pregnancy to a woman is perhaps one of the most determinative aspects of her life. It disrupts her body. It disrupts her education. It disrupts her employment. And it often disrupts her entire family life."" (17) She continued: ""[And we feel that], because of the impact on the woman, this "" is a matter which is of such fundamental and basic concern to the woman involved that she should be allowed to make the choice as to whether to continue or to terminate her pregnancy."" (17) This was a case showing that without the right to a termination, you are denying women a right and therefore what my opponent is advocating is gender inequality. So let me get this straight, women have the right to murder, because it makes their lives easier? There are a lot of people in everyone""s lives that if they were to go missing then their lives would be so much easier, but it does not justify murder. The philosopher, Judith Thomson said: ""If abortion rights are denied, then a constraint is imposed on women's freedom to act in a way that is of great importance to them, both for its own sake and for the sake of their achievement of equality .... and if the constraint is imposed on the ground that the fetus has a right to life from the moment of conception, then it is imposed on a ground that neither reason nor the rest of morality requires women to accept, or even to give any weight at all."" (17) This emphasizes my previous point in regards to the denial of gender rights and equality. That""s how nature set them up, women were made for pregnancy, and men were made for getting themselves killed. Correct me if I am wrong, this is your argument: a baby makes a woman""s life harder, something that men don""t have to deal with, hence, they have the right to kill to make their lives easier. I have to listen to my mom, something that adults don""t have to deal with, does that justify the same action, yes or no?",-1,"the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed before the fetus is viable, by various medical or surgical means, as by the use of abortion drugs, dilation and curettage, or hysterectomy.",oxford,abortion,no,yes,neutral,neutral
"Hello MUNER287. I will accept your challenge. Abortion. An emotive issue. Including expressions such as ""stripping a fetus"" in any dialogue is sure to raise eyebrows. I'm more pragmatic though, I always prefer to take a more realistic, godless approach to such issues. Let me ask you a few questions. At what point do you think a fetus becomes aware of existence? That is to say. We do not fear death itself, what we fear is non-existence. So does a fetus have knowledge of life and death? Can a fetus fear non-existence?",1,"the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or destruction of the embryo or foetus, before it can survive outside the uterus",oxford,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"Abortion, despite how it may seem, is not a complicated issue. Either the fetus is alive, and thus is a human life. or it isn't. there are a number of moral arguments to the debate. the first moral argument is that scientifically the human fetus meets the criterion to be considered alive from conception (1)"" Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."" As we can see, the fetus is genetically human and meets every criterion to be considered alive. now that we have established that the human life begins at conception I may be faced with the argument from many in favor of abortion that though the organism forming in the womb is alive (if they don't fully reject the known science thus committing fallacy) that it is not a person. this leads me to moral argument number two which is: even if you don't consider the humanity of the organism in the womb, there are plenty of things that exist that are A. not persons. and B. has rights and intrinsic value, for example, dogs or other domesticated animals. To state that simply because you don't consider the human fetus (which is what I shall be referring to the developing child as hereinafter.) to be a person, does not mean that it does not have rights and value. Furthermore, even if you deny the humanity of the fetus, you are still dealing with a potential human life which should be held in higher moral regard than the convenience of the mother or father. Another argument that many of those on the pro-choice side of the argument is that women have the human right to control their bodies. And I am in complete agreement. When it is your body that you are doing something to then you should have every right to do so insofar as it's not self-harm. However, the human fetus is not your body. It is IN your body. as I stated in my first card in the scientific portion of my argument, the human fetus has a separate genetic identity with the restoration of the diploid number of chromosomes. therefore, the human fetus is not a part of the mother's body any more than the child would be after (s)he was born. I hold that the time to control your body would have been before conception IE: using birth control or not having sexual intercourse. one thing that society appears to have forgotten, is that sex is not for pleasure. it is the biological process through which most species ensure the continuation of their species through reproduction (2). if you choose to partake in an action the purpose of which is to reproduce. (thus controlling your body.) then you accept the risk of conception. Moral argument number 3. does the fetus have any rights, any intrinsic value, and any right to live. well, the collective opinion of society is that the fetus has essentially infinite right to live. when? if and only if the mother decides to keep the child. if she does, society and its laws, regard the fetus with infinite worth and considers it so valuable, that if someone were to kill that child they would be prosecuted for homicide. keeping in mind that the definition of homicide is: the deliberate and unlawful killing of one person by another (3). we can, therefore, see that if the mother decides to keep her child then the law recognizes it as a person. if she doesn't, the fetus is considered worthless with essentially no right to live. now, does that make sense? it doesn't seem to. either the fetus has worth, or it doesn't. on what moral grounds does the mother alone have the right to decide the fetus' worth? most people would consider killing the baby once it exits the womb as murder. however, the deliberate killing of the fetus a mere two months before is no more morally problematic than extracting a tooth. and finally, we need to recognize that there are instances when an abortion simply cannot be considered moral. take for example if the mother or father aborts a child because they prefer boys to girls. as has happened millions of times in China and elsewhere. or any other form of bias or preference of the mother or father simply cannot offer moral grounds for the termination of the human life. I look forward to a rational and well thought out debate and wish my opponent the best of luck. I eagerly await your response. (1) https://www.princeton.edu..................... (2) www.biology-online.org (3)www.dictionary.com Now to address my opponents arguments. My opponent makes the ""what about rape?"" argument. I'll make you a deal. I think it's a terrible deal but I'll make it. since only .03% of abortions are because of rape(1) I will allow for rape as well in order to save 99% of babies even though this sins of the father argument for killing a baby is morally reprehensible. as for a last resort being necessary when ""two human lives are connected"" nothing. I repeat, nothing beyond the life of the mother exception I gave earlier, gives you the right to kill a baby. Ever. Beyond life endangerment because of a pregnancy, you should not be allowed to kill your baby. I don't care about your organs. I don't care if you have your appendix removed. I don't care if you donate a kidney. a baby is not an organ. At no point is a baby an organ. this assertion is frankly ridiculous. Branching from my previous point, I don't care what you do with your body. A baby is not your body. At no point is a baby your body. A baby from the moment of fertilization is a genetically distinct human being completely separate in identity from the mother. To say anything else is to deny facts, to deny science, to deny the truth. No one of faith can support killing a baby. when you say last resort, unless you mean the life endangerment exception, it isn't really a last resort. it's an easy out that removes responsibility for a parent's actions. I already stated, and you have acknowledged, that I will only accept an abortion as correct if the life of the mother is endangered. If a woman will die because of a pregnancy, I would have that be legal. so your point on endangerment falls flat unless you want to make the argument that it is a post birth endangerment at which point you can't kill the baby anyway. (1) Alan Guttmacher institute.",-1,"the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy.",oxford,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"First I will present my case. P1: A fetus is a human P2: It is morally wrong to kill a human C: Abortion is wrong P1: A zygote, made at the moment of conception, already has the same attributes needed to be alive. It has metabolism, growth, reacts to stimulants, and reproduction cells. It has human DNA. A fetus is a homosapien, therefore they are a human. P2: This ones kind of obvious, I hope you agree. Conclusion: Abortion is killing a human, therefore it is wrong. Sources F. Beck, D. B. Moffat, and D. P. Davies, Human Embryology, Second edition . http://abortionfacts.com... THE THREE QUESTIONS I await your response.",-1,"the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed before the foetus is viable, by means of an induced miscarriage or other medical procedure",oxford,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"Abortion is wrong. For the people who say that abortion is okay are saying that it is okay to murder people so that must mean that it is okay for me to kill a person and not get in trouble with the law. What makes murdering an unborn child okay, but murdering someone else wrong?",-1,"the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed before the fetus is viable, by various procedures.",oxford,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"I thank Con again for his response and a lovely debate. Contention 1: I would first like to look at different definitions of a human being or a human. Defined by The Free Dictionary, human being is ""a member of any of the races of Homo sapiens; person; man, woman, or child"". Now child is defined by the same source as ""a person between birth and puberty."" Basically, that means a fetus in hot a human being. We can check other definitions too. Dictionary.com says a human being is ""any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens."" It defines individual as ""a single human being, as distinguished from a group."" Again, a single human being is not a fetus. Why? A fetus technically is a part of it's mother until it is able to live outside the uterus. I believe I have proved that the embryo/fetus is not a human being which is why it doesn't have the right to life. They two people responsible have the power to revoke their own product. Thus, they aren't baby-making machines. Also another fallacy is that you believe that the person who pressed the baby-making machine must take the child. However, this is not the case with abortion. It is not a child yet. It was not born yet. It is being slowly formed and the parent has the right to revoke its existence. My opponent doesn't understand that the unborn don't have the right to life due to them not having the access to the Constitution. Illegal immigrants are already born and have the right to life. However, they don't have the right to stay in the USA because of the Constitution. To be clear, I believe that personality and rationality are needed for human beings to be considered human beings. I would not like to go into euthanasia right now. However, the main reason why a fetus's presence may be revoked is because they are living inside a human being. The idea is so ridiculous that the condition is obviously that the human being can revoke the presence of the fetus. We aren't arguing on the morality of abortion. We are arguing on the fetus being a human being. Contention 2: Abortion is about the recognized right to reproduce against the fetus's right to retain in a recognized human being's body. A woman has the right to her own body as long as it's not illegal and it doesn't infringe on another's right. A woman's confirmed right to reproduce beats the controversial debated right to life by the fetus. Contention 3: Illegal abortion rates since 1960 will obviously increase. Today, abortions are very common and if it were made illegal, illegal abortions would be extremely common. My opponent has committed a fallacy assuming that illegal abortions in 1960 will affect us today if abortion was illegal since 52 years have had much change. Cross-examination: Viability causes the right to life which overrules the right to reproduce. The unborn are not human beings but are human. I would say that each time of viability is unique and to not assume that it's based on weeks but instead at the time when the fetus is viable. Also this isn't a moral debate. The reason I ignored your question about the illegal drug is because it's illegal which is why it is wrong to take the drug. Rebuttal: I'd like to say my opponent has made several appeals to different people and that if I use Joyce Arthur and it's an appeal to authority, then my opponent has done much more of what he accused me of doing. Also I would like to state that nobody knows for certain. They do believe that they know but it's not confirmed and people will always disagree as I've made the argument. Also the benefit of doubt should go to confirmed life which is the mother and her right instead of the fetus. I'd also like to state that your analogies are irrelevant as the fetus is not a human being but a human within a human being. Being human doesn't equate to a human being. I'm sorry about this case. I was very busy especially with school starting. I apologize for my case. Great job to Keytar. Vote Pro. Sources: http://dictionary.reference.com... http://dictionary.reference.com... being http://www.thefreedictionary.com... being http://www.thefreedictionary.com...",1,"the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of an embryo, fetus, or fetus that has died",oxford,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"First of all, do not bring God into this. God has nothing to do with this. Who's to say if Buddha has the right to take a baby away? Or Muhammad? You could even argue Ra, the ancient Egyptian sun god. So no higher being decides weather to take a life or spare it. No you would not kill a person if they are sick. I mean a permanent serious birth defect. Like if someone was born with a serious physical or mental disease and could only live for a year. That baby would have to suffer for a year, as opposed to the few moments it would take to abort it. Example 2: It doesn't matter who's fault it is. You fail to rebuttal the idea of harassment and pain a young woman would have to go through during and after those 9 months of pregnancy. The father would not be there to support it at all. The mother might not even know who the father is. Abortion is not meant for lazy doctors who don't want to take care of the baby, as you stated in you last argument. Secondly I do not believe ""vegeated"" is a word, so I am not going to refute that sentence as a I fail to see what you are trying to convey. CON has failed to produce solid arguments, and only had one in the beginning. CON also did not rebuttal all of my points and postings. Therefore I may declare that I have won this debate, however the vote goes to the users.",1,"the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed before the foetus is able to survive independently",oxford,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"Not really that humorous given that chicken eggs are unfertilised. Do you know what I find hilarious, though? The fact that every single proponent of abortion has been born. I wonder how a foetus would argue if he could.",-1,"the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or destruction of a developing embryo or foetus, either spontaneously or as a result of medical intervention",oxford,abortion,no,yes,neutral,neutral
"Actually, life becomes life after conception, its not as simple as a seed, the seed has already been sown, forming a living, breathing being. In your point of view, the baby isn't alive yet, so if it isn't alive yet then why does it need food, and nutrients, why is the umbilical chord even there if the baby is yet a seed? So now, since I have established my view on when the life takes place, I will like to rebuttal your argument about abortion protecting life. .. With your views ""destroying the seed"" is protecting human life. I see where you're going though, but let me ask you, would you rather NOT have a voice/choice in life and that being chose for you, or would you like to give life a chance? If the mother cannot provide for the child then put him/her up for adoption, even though the chances of him/her being adopted are slim, its still better that being dead, don't you agree? Babies grow up, they make choices (in the future), they live their life, when they die, we grieve the death. .. Whats the point of grieving human death if the idea of another life beings' life in general is a CHOICE by the mother?",-1,"the expulsion of a fertilised egg from the uterus, resulting in the death of the embryo",oxford,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"We are debating ""Abortion should remain legal."" Anyways, let me start. P.S. The Affirmative Constructive and Negative Constructive will only have their case but won't refute arguments (in case you didn't know that). Contention 1: Embryos/Fetuses have no rights! I'm going to present my 1st argument for the choice of abortion. ""There is no such thing as a ""right to live"" when the embryo/fetus is in a woman's body. The embryo/fetus has no right to be in the woman's body. It is only there by the woman's permission. Permission is not a right and it can be revoked as in the case of the embryo/fetus being killed. The 14th Amendment also says only ""born citizens"" have the right granted to individuals by the U.S. Constitution which means the embryo/fetus doesn't have the right to life. Thus, his life is not protected by any part of the Constitution and has no rights! Well, the 14th Amendment clearly says that all people born or naturalized in the USA are citizens and thus have the right of life. Without being born, an embryo/fetus is not a human being. There are two traits that rights derive from. If something doesn't have one of these two traits, it's does not have the right to live. Those two traits are personality and rationality. ""Without awareness, expectation, belief, desire, aim, and purpose, a being can have no interests; without interests he cannot be benefited; without the capacity to be a beneficiary, he can have no rights."" This indicates to having a personality (belief, desire, aim, purpose) and having rationality (awareness). Having both of these traits gives human beings rights. An embryo/fetus doesn't have any personality nor does it have rationality which is why it does not have the ""right to life"". The fact is that the embryo/fetus has no rights. Contention 2: A pregnant woman has rights. My 2nd argument will be about a women's reproducing rights. A woman has reproducing rights which includes the choice of ending a pregnancy. A woman also has the right to her own body. That being is a product of the woman which gives her the right of abortion. As the woman has the right to reproduce and to her own body, so the embryo/fetus has no rights which means that the woman can do what she wants with the embryo/fetus as long as the embryo/fetus is still in the uterus. Contention 3: Banning abortion doesn't stop abortion but instead harms people who want abortions. My 3rd and final argument is that banning abortion doesn't stop abortions from happening. If abortion is illegal, abortions are still going to happen except they are homemade. Without trained professionals using safe and secure procedures, women will go to individuals who have no adequate medical skills. World Health Organization has measured up to 20 million unsafe abortions in unintended pregnancies only. 14% unsafe abortion out of all abortions would increase so badly and increasing maternal deaths. There are also some very unfortunate statistics such as 8 maternal deaths per hour due to unsafe abortions and according to WHO, a woman dies from unsafe abortions each 8 minutes. Thus, banning abortion won't stop abortion from happening, it will just cause more maternal deaths and disabilities for Americans. Back to Con for his Constructive. After that, the refutations begin. ;) Sources: 1. http://www.abortionisprolife.com... 2. http://eleutherian.blogspot.com... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. http://en.wikipedia.org... 5. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 6. http://www.lancet.com...",1,"the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a non-viable fetus or a fetus that will not survive, a procedure which is also known as an induced miscarriage",oxford,abortion,no,yes,neutral,pro
"BABY OR NOT? Yes it is a baby. he/she still has potential for life. he/she would be a living human being with thoughts and love and feelings just as any other human being. Denying The Child that privilige- no not privilige a better word for that would be freedom- would be unjust and wrong. The second that couple decided to have unprotected sex, was the second they put a life in motion. and please state some some sources of those 'facts' about egg fertilization. because i believe that is a total hoax. but if you want to argue scientifically, scientists have also claimed that the fetus is alive.If you do not know this already, you can research this. Embrio's have been proven to be alive. And either way, even if the they weren't, the card has already been pulled. The baby had that oppurtunity at having a life the second the mother was pregnant. There would still have been a life produced whether living at the moment or not. The second that mother gets pregnant, is the second, that potential child is alive. So yes, I would still say that is murder. CHILDS LIFE- MY OPPONENT-""But, if you want to think about it from the child's point of view, the child will feel like it was a mistake everyone hates. Personally I would rather die than think that my own mother didn't even want me."" Let me point out specifically the words my opponents used were 'me presonally'. there's always going to be something missing in their life some questions that cannot be answered like ""why didn't my mummy want me "" which could eat a child inside out."" Yes i am sure the question would arise to the child about there parents reasoning for leaving them behind. But should that imply that there whole entire life from that point on will be truly and utterly miserable? To the point where they should not even Have the right to live? Like they don't have every oppurtunity to progress in life as any other? Things such as marriage, and friendship, and their own legacy of children perhaps. No, there is no reason for them not to have those every equal oppurtunites at happiness, Just because there ""mummy and daddy"" gave them up. As if the child would be trying to commit suicide just to preserve his emotions. These mothers are making that desicion for them. They don't even get the CHOICE to choose happiness or death of bitterness. They assume the latter and just kill the child, which is utterly wrong and cruel. Those who claim to be pro-choice, look on every aspect of the ideal pro-'choice'. Respect the the childs decision as well. The mother got a chance at life. She got too experience happiness and sadness. Why deny the child of this same freedom? MY OPPONENT- ""This topic is so conditional that you can't say 'It was the mothers own fault to decide to go out and get pregnant with out protection.' You can be on the pill and use a condom, there is still a chance of getting pregnant. However slim, there is a chance."" ok hun, if he has a condom, and she's on the pill and she still gets pregnant, she's obviously gotten around... however, even if what you claim is true, theres a little thing i like to call responsibility. now that she is pregnant, she holds another life in the palm of her hands. She can easily choose to carry it out, witch would be a win-win situation. the mother lives, and the child lives. However, out of selfishness, she chooses not to, and by doing so, ends another life. This is not taking responsibility. MY OPPONENT- ""A mother has free agency. She should be allowed to choose. And the consequences should not be determined by the state. Whatever God one believes in or your own guilt is by far a worse punishment."" It is true a mother has free agency. But that doesn't make it right. When debating abortion, you come to a conclusion of morality. Morality = right/wrong. Is ending the baby's life moral? where is his/her free agency? They are denied to ever have an oppurtunity to live. Witch means they are denied to ever have kids of their own, or to get married, or ever experience happiness. Is this fair? where is the justice in this? The mother can have all these same oppurtunities, but the child cannot? you must ask yourself now if this is a good thing. MY OPPONENT- ""Not to mention the mothers who give birth because they are given no other option might go beat the child they were forced to give life."" abusive parenting is not an issue with abortion either. There are parents all over america who are abusive. This is where the law comes in. The law prevents child abuse, and just because the parents didn't want the child and abuse him/her, doesn't mean that its right. This whole debate is based on how the mother decision is wrong. By telling me that she is going to make wrong decisions and abuse the child, you are only strengthening my case. again if they dont want to deal with the child, there is adoption. SELFISHNESS- MY OPPONENT-"" I want the option to be selfish sometimes! Everyone does"" Since this is now a debate about morality, do you think that being selfish is moral? and how are you taking responsibility by being selfish? If that is the case, then us as people need to notice the flaw in ourselves.If what you say about selfishness being an issue is an any correlation to abortion, I am not misjudging anyone by saying this an issue with abortion. OTHER ISSUES- MY OPPONENT- ""And if you take away the option of abortion some of these people who were forced into this situation people might start doing abortions unprofessionally to make a quick dollar. Lets face it, it will happen. And if its not professionally done bad things can happen, its guaranteed to happen, as it does with any medical procedure."" OKay, so just because people doing un-professional abortions is bad, means they should go get an official one? wheres the difference? I am arguing that abortion is bad in all cases. even if done unprofessionally. I would like to again thank my opponent for this debate. It should be fun, and i look forward to your next argument (amby) ;)",-1,"the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed before the fetus is viable, by various medical or surgical means, as by abortion, induced labour, or the interruption of supplies of oxygen and nutrients necessary for the maintenance of life",oxford,abortion,no,yes,neutral,neutral
"They are not simply murdering their baby, they are reliving the baby from coming into a world that the mother knows wont go good for the baby because the mother is still struggling in life and will not be able to provide the baby with all its necessities. Babies are expensive, and not having any education or a job will decrease ones chances of being able to survive the land of all the high bills. I understand their is adoption, yet some mothers do not view another family taking care of the child they could not care for. The women that is soon to be mother might have gotten raped and decided that the baby would be better off in gods hands. A baby is no fool, yet it would not be fair for it to come into a world that it cannot be cared for in. Many abortions have been taken into account and our species is not dying off any time soon.",1,"the termination of pregnancy by the destruction of the embryo or fetus, before it can survive without the mother's body",oxford,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"You are basically living a double standard life dealing with abortion. I say that because you say that you morally don't agree with abortion, but you basically think it is okay because the law has made it legal. I believe that if you were against abortion then you would not say it was okay because it is legal. By sitting back and not doing anything about it is saying that it is ok. What make aborting an unborn child any different than me going out and killing someone",-1,"the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a non-viable fetus, or a fetus no longer capable of living after birth",oxford,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"Rebutting My Opponent's Arguments""Three years ago I was in a high school football game. I went out on a fly passing route and was clipped on the side of my helmet by the free safety of the opposing team. I was out cold. I was unconscious for 3 minutes and I was put on an ambulance to go to the hospital. When I was knocked out consciousness was not present, neither could I feel pain, but we would all acknowledge it would be immoral to have killed me on the spot. And while, yes, everyone knew I was going to regain consciousness, everyone knows that if you give a fetus time to develop in the womb and en birth it, it will gain consciousness and feel pain. ""This has nothing to do with my argument, thus the entire paragraph above can be disregarded. My argument, is that human life gains moral value when when consciousness is obtained, and/ or pain can be felt. Consciousness would have obviously been obtained before my opponent got knocked unconscious, or else, my opponent couldn't have been knocked unconscious because he never would have been conscious to begin with. Since my opponent is using examples that have nothing to do with my argument, they can be dismissed. Con would still have moral value because Con would have reached consciousness and the ability to feel pain. Temporarily losing any of these things has no bearing on whether they have been obtained or not to begin with. ""If my rebuttal to P1&P2 stands then it doesn't matter that the fetus is in the first or second trimester. ""Con's rebuttal had nothing to do with my argument. My argument deals with a subject that has not obtained consciousness at all, Con's rebuttal deals with a subject that obtained consciousness but temporarily lost it. Therefore, Con's rebuttal clearly does not stand. ""During your argument you first stated that a human life loses value when it loses consciousness and feeling of pain. ""This is not what I said. I never claimed that human life loses it's value when it loses consciousness temporarily or stops feeling pain temporarily. I claimed that human life gains moral value when when consciousness is obtained, and/ or pain can be felt in the first place. ""Now you are arguing purely for killing living humans just because they can't feel pain, since the fetus is conscious. ""When did I argue this? I never argued this, once. I argued that the being has to not be able to feel pain, and the being has to not have obtained consciousness yet. ""My friend Bethany has no feeling in her left arm. She was born that way. It would still be immoral for me to cut off her right arm because it doesn't feel pain. Just because something doesn't feel does not mean it loses its worth. ""This friend would be conscious though, a fetus is not conscious. I said that if a being has any of the two qualities (has obtained consciousness, can feel pain), then this being is morally valuable. Also, if Bethany allowed Con to cut it off, there is nothing wrong with that. I fail to see how anything my opponent said, undermined any of my claims in the slightest. ""Even according to your own argument, a portion of abortions are immoral, so I am wondering if you would support making it illegal to commit an abortion in the third trimester. If so, what if a woman wants to have an abortion one day before or after the 3rd trimester starts? What about minutes or seconds after the 3rd trimester starts? ""Yes, 1% of abortions are not done in the proper manner (done in the third trimester). However, a higher percentage of drivers drive in a non proper manner, and kill more people. Of course, driving isn't immoral because a small percentage of drivers do not do it properly. Also, a line has to be drawn somewhere. I say the third trimester is a good place to draw it. I completely agree that a woman, as well as a man has every right to do whatever they want to with their own body. I even agree that humans have the right to drink, eat, and smoke whatever they want to and the government has no role to play in humans personal lives. I believe all humans have the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The fetus also has the same rights. The fetus is a separate being to the mother. It is dependant on its mother just like an asthmatic is dependant on an inhaler as well as an infant is dependant on its mother. The mother has no right to infringe on the right of the fetus. A fetus has no moral rights. It has no consciousness or ability to feel pain, and is as morally valuable as an ant. The only thing one could say, is that it has the potential to be morally valuable. Well, so do the sperm that get wasted every time I masturbate or pull out. I lose no sleep over it, and neither should anybody else. ConclusionI already won this debate, due to the fact that the the initial position of my opponent was incoherent. Even if this wasn't the case, my opponent's whole case for abortion being immoral was baseless. I clearly showed that abortion as a whole is not immoral at all.",1,"the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed before the fetus is viable, by various medical means, as by the use of abortion drugs or the performance of a surgical abortion.",oxford,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"""The method for abortion was made for abortion. Without it, there would be no abortion."" I'm not sure I follow, what point are you trying to make here, because if it that we should limit the supply, ergo the demand of abortions, I fully agree with you. ""Why not promote cannibalism then?"" Because it is wrong, just like the murder of the prenatal child. You wouldn't murder a newborn. ""Most humans do not exist for your benefit. Kill them all."" No, because in every human exists the potential for greatness, the potential to contribute something amazing to society. In every human, there are complex processes of emotion and skill. In every foetus is the genetic tapestry for an amazing iteration of man. The next Issac Newton, the Elon Musk of the future, the Da Vinci of tomorrow and for you to estimate a human with so much potential as worthless purely because he is not yet independent of his mother is sickening. ""Abortion is necessary as it is pre-determined that the foetus will not benefit the family."" I don't think you fully grasp the concept of bringing new life into the world. What it means to have new ways of thinking, what it is to welcome another living, breathing human being. I think you underestimate the fact that a foetus is more than just a collection of cells. You are also a collection of cells, why shouldn't I kill you? Because I respect your potential and your right as an individual. I also respect the right of the prenatal individual at whatever stage in pregnancy he or she may exist. Being able to father children is an amazing gift. It is more than the replication of DNA, it is the very act of creation. ""That function serves no purpose for us. If the child isn't helpful, why does it live?"" When you were a foetus, you performed the function. I'm sure you contribute a lot to society. When my doctor was a foetus, he performed his function and now that he has left the womb and developed even more outside of the body, he heals the sick, saving countless lives. The same goes for the police officer, the fireman, the binman. Just because you don't perform a useful function doesn't mean you won't. You certainly shouldn't be killed before you have the chance to. ""You continue on to say that a sperm and an ovum are unique cells, and we are unique. Yet you forget that many animals reproduce sexually as well."" I didn't claim that gametes are unique, I pointed out the fact that the survival chances of gametes and the exact connection needed to make you exactly as you exist now are very slim. It is true that the majority of animals produce sexually, but you cannot compare human mating practices to that of animals. We are very different in that respect. For instance, female spiders eat male sexual partners for nutrition. Apes have no concept of monogamous fidelity. You cannot set the standards of the species that walked on the moon to the species that rests next to your Yorkshire puddings. ""Also, we have more of a potential of harming this world than achieving so called greatness."" Really, in comparison to animals? Can you point out the species which painted the Mona Lisa? Or the species that discovered electricity? The fact of the matter is. Humans are very different from animals, and yes, whilst we can be classified into certain groups, we far outmatch any other in those groups based purely on our mental faculty. ""..and we are proving harmful for everyone but our own species."" Says the person advocating for the practice of killing your offspring before they have a chance to leave the uterus. In the game of life, some win and some lose but we should all have an opportunity, whether we are ants, tigers, prenatal humans or a pensioner. Opportunity to shine and flourish. To develop skills and technology. To form relationships, societies, governments. To change the landscape of the world. That is a power that was won by humans, that is a power that we must grant the opportunity of every life form, born or not, to seize. ""Where's your source? Ted talks are usually more expressing of opinions than facts."" You have the guts to ask me for sources when you haven't put forth a single one? How dare you. I mentioned that it is a secondary source meaning you can watch the talk and the citation will be present somewhere during it. ""It could be possible the parents at first wanted the child but later the situation changed and they didn't want it."" Well, tough, they made the decision, they live with the potential consequences. ""As for adoption, all parents feel a certain kinship to their own blood, and would feel distressed to send their own child down such a hard part."" But they wouldn't feel 'distressed' to cause their child to die before it had seen the unfiltered light of day? You have a strange logic, my friend. That a child born is somehow more valuable than a child unborn. ""Who knows whether anyone would adopt the child or not? What if he dies anyway?"" Who knows whether the murdered child would have become the next Shakespeare, what if he would have become the next Winston Churchill? What if he'd have found the cure to cancer? What if he'd have solved the mysteries of dark matter? ""Might as well, I don't think there was such a high probability of him being a genius. Not every child turns into a genius, you know. He didn't even make any inventions but just gave some theories. If he is later proved wrong, wouldn't your argument fall? What if it had some sort of contagious disease? Then you are eliminating a threat to society."" Are you hearing this ladies and gentlemen? One of the greatest cosmologists of our time should have been killed because of his disability. You really are Hitler reincarnate, aren't you? You see nothing more than the superficial ""value"" of people and are willing to kill based upon characteristics that are uncontrollable. How sick. ""Yet when they fail to be valuable, they must be killed. It works the opposite way for humans, does it not? Kill the baby if you don't need it. Let it live if you need it."" Absolutely not! The first duty of a parent is to protect and provide for his or her children. The child isn't some possession, he is merely in the custody of his parents until such a time as he reaches maturity. Similar to how a prenatal child is merely in the custody of his mother's womb until such a time as he is able to leave her womb. If a mother neglects a postnatal child, she has committed an offence under every sane legal system that exists. Why then, if she neglects a prenatal child is she not? Imagine my opponent stating that his three-year-old child was of ""no value"" to him and he was going to have him killed. The physical custody of a womb is no different to the abstract custody of postnatal parenthood. ""There are some eggs that have a faster expiry date than other due to being [fertilised]. Day 1, 2, and 3 eggs are still sold in some markets. You just killed a potential life for your own pleasure/food."" No, I haven't. In the majority of cases, eggs next to my bangers are unfertilised. The goal of farming eggs is not to prevent the life of a chicken but to feed humans. The goal of abortion is simply to kill as to alleviate a 'burden' which could equally be alleviated by adoption. ""If the real parents just see the child suffering again, they would feel extremely bad that the doomed it to this fate."" And yet they wouldn't feel bad for the dismembered foetus? They wouldn't feel bad for the fact that they have prevented the fate of someone they were supposed to nurture and protect? ""'Freedom is the right of all sentient beings' [Prime] sentient- able to see, hear, taste, smell, feel"" By your logic, a newborn, who isn't able to see until his second day is not entitled to freedom. Neither is the blind man, or the deaf man, or the man with nerve damage who cannot feel. A heart starts beating at 4 weeks after conception, it doesn't stop until death, be that because someone has forcibily brought it about or after a long life.",-1,the deliberate termination of a pregnancy,oxford,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"1. if there is a pregnacy than God intended it to happen. Nothing in the world can happen without God's approval. 2. Yes some are home made just look at the depression when families couldn't afford children so they drink, do like in the video in the 1st round, or some other satanitc way. 3. The natural rights are life, liberty, and property and all of these things are in the U.S. Constitution. So therefore an abortion is actualy illegal by law. 4. Okay then 5. I was just quoting him 6. adoption is always a choice no one said you've had to raise the kid. You know give it a beter future then no future at all. eh? 7. The fetus has several struggles to even become life. like to avoid WBC's or even Viruses. 8. adoption, sorry writting paper read this for more details, http://www.americanadoptions.com... 9. Wade V. Boggs upheld and prooved abortion should be illegal 1a. that my friend is why abortion is bad so that techinally prooved why abortion is wrong. 2a. that just says that deaths per birth have fell... with age comes expirance. 3a. adoption my friend adopition 4a. wow is all I have to say there is a reason it is illegal. people don't know how to do it right. 6a. what about the guilt that fallows the abortion you can't stop that. 7a. what do you say to the Catholic Families that have 5 kids and DON""T HAVE BREAST CANCER. I know, because I'm invovled in a large family",-1,"the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed before the foetus is viable, by various medical, surgical, or chemical means.",oxford,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"True, but it is not our choice to decide who lives and who dies, and especially not who never even has a chance to live. We cannot see into the future, therefore we cannot know what kind of life that child will have, we just have to hope for the best. Everyone knows that life is not easy, and abortion doesn't mean we are ""saving"" these potential children from it. I'm not going to be a hypocrite and say ""don't have sex before marriage,"" because that is no longer the norm. However, if you are going to have sex before marriage, you should know, accept, and be aware of the potential consequences. I feel that the possibility of abortion causes people to make even worse decisions, because its basically telling our society that ""any problem can be fixed with money."" You had sex and you get pregnant, but luckily for you, you don't have to deal with it. Instead, you can just pay a doctor to ""take care"" of it.",-1,"the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed before the foetus is viable, by various procedures.",oxford,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"""The cost is not minimal. The average cost to raise a child is $245,340 http://www.huffingtonpost.com....... Multiply that by 1 million and well....Argument debunked"" You aren't debunking anything. So you believe that ending someone's life and not giving them a chance at life is a better option? This is a disgusting ideal abortionists try to convince themselves and other of. ""Let's not be burdened by the cost of a human being due to its inconvenience to others..."" ""Sex is natural and has nothing to do with being able to raise a child. Evolution made sex feel really good so that we would produce. Practically everyone wants to have sex badly. It's a natural desire. Argument debunked."" Yes, sex is natural. What, exactly, does that have anything to do with aborting a child? ""Sex is fun, so we should just allow anyone to engage in it and then terminate the human growing inside if we don't want to deal with the consequences of our actions."" ""No, you are only looking at your side of the picture, rather than considering EVERY piece of evidence,"" Actually, I have, which is why I am pro life. ""As I stated, there are 100k orphans ALREADY. If we become antiabortion, this number will reach ridiculous heights."" Abortion became legal in the United States in 1973. Was there overpopulation before this? No. This argument isn't even relevant. ""Actually, no. This is untrue. Pain MIGHT be felt for a couple of seconds."" No, pain is felt for a while as it bleeds out after being ripped apart limb from limb. And if the fetus is a bunch of cells, how does it feel pain at all? Pain indicates that it is a human life being painfully ended.",-1,"the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed before the fetus is viable, by various surgical, chemical, or other means.",oxford,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
If a mother is going to end up struggling in life further because of having a baby well then too bad for her. She should have put some thought into it before she decided to have sexual intercourse with her husband or some random dude that would eventually lead to her being pregnant. A woman should have sense enough to know that if she's going to end up having a hard time in life that she doesn't need to have a baby ever or until she gets her life together. It makes absolutely no sense for a woman to have a baby if she won't be able to care for it unless of course she has been raped by some selfish guy who cares only about pleasuring himself regardless of how the woman could be effected. Therefore I will rest my case on the fact that Abortion should only be allowed if the woman has been raped or if the pregnancy is endangering the child and its mother's life because as far as i'm concerned Abortion is murder if it isn't related to these two circumstances.,-1,"the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed surgically ( by hysterotomy or dilation and curettage ) or medically ( by the use of drugs or other agents that induce labour or cause the uterus to contract and expel the embryo or fetus )",oxford,abortion,no,yes,neutral,neutral
"Ok, yes rape is terrible and is a very traumatic experience. However it is still murder. God has a plan for all of us (I don't mean to offend anyone if you don't have the same beliefs). God makes everything happen for a reason. Many people say ""don't let others make decisions for you."" This fetus can't make a decision to be killed. People argue that its the woman's body and they can do what they want with it, but it's not their body they are killing. They are killing a whole other person. No one should have the authority to kill such an innocent creature. It is also true that woman die at birth, but woman also die during the abortion. More than 400 hundred woman have died from abortion (not including illegal ones). It saddens me how woman will risk their lives to kill this one. Many mothers cry over losing a child, whether it be to disease, war, car crashes, miscarriage, or gang violence but these mothers are killing their kids before they have even met them. These mothers knowing and willingly let their children die.",-1,"the expulsion of the foetus from the uterus before the end of the normal period of pregnancy, especially as induced by medical intervention",oxford,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"My position of ""pro-choice"" is based on the idea that it is the woman's choice, regardless of circumstance, trimester, etcetera, to choose whether or not to have an abortion, not the inherent goodness of badness of abortion. That being said, nearly all abortions take place in the first trimester of pregnancy. During this stage, a fetus cannot exist independent of the mother. As it is attached by the placenta and umbilical cord, its health is dependent on her health, and cannot be regarded as a separate entity as it cannot exist outside her womb. In the cases that you mentioned, where the mother's financial means are not stable, it is definitely possible for the child to be born, then sent through a government-funded group home, and occasionally become adopted. Unfortunately, the amount of funding that group homes receive is often very little, providing almost the exact same environment that the child would have had staying with the mother. Neither situation is better or good for the child. I would like to ask, at what point do you consider it an ""abortion""? At what point is it no longer a blob of tissue, but a child?",1,the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a non-viable fertilised ovum or a product of conception before it is viable,oxford,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"I surely do believe we should take a more realistic approach too. More than 90% of abortions occur during the 13th week of pregnancy, at this time fetuses have already developed finger prints, vocal chords, and the part of the brain which is responsible for complex thoughts is developing. This is a human life that cannot be taken away. Now to answering your questions ""At what point do you think a fetus becomes aware of existence?"" I as a non religious person believe life cannot be judged on awareness, for example when a person is in coma they aren""t aware of themselves nor environment. Do you believe it would be fine to murder a human being that is in coma just because they aren""t aware of their current state, and existence? ""Does a fetus have knowledge of life and death?"" Fetuses do have knowledge of life and death. One of, if not the most used abortion method is MVA. In this process a vacuum is used to retire contents from uterine. During this process the fetus""s body is completely destroyed by the vacuum. Doctors who have performed this form of abortion have recalled observing fetuses desperately moving to stay in womb. Fetuses are aware of their life, and will try to stay alive. ""Does a fetus fear non-existence?"" This is a question impossible to answer. If fetuses didn""t fear non-existence this does still not justify the killing of them. A suicidal person may often not fear non-existence, however would you kill them? Now I""d like to ask you a few questions? At what point in a fetuses life do you believe abortion shouldn""t be allowed anymore? How can a parent(s) justify the decision to have an abortion? Do you consider fetuses to be alive?",-1,"the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or destruction of the embryo or foetus, before it is viable or when it is possible to remove it safely from the womb",oxford,abortion,no,yes,neutral,neutral
Definitions: Abortion is defined as the removing and/or expelling of a fetus/embryo. 1. This debate will be done Lincoln-Douglas Style. Round 1: Definitions/Rules Affirmative Constructive/Negative Constructive for Round 2. Round 3: Cross-Examination. Round 4: Affirmative Rebuttal 1/Negative Rebuttal 1. Round 5: Affirmative Rebuttal 2 and Conclusion/Negative Rebuttal 2 and Conclusion.,1,the removal of a fetus or embryo from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy,oxford,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"Abortion is stripping a fetus from its most basic human right, the right to live. Parents do not have the right to choose to inhumanly murder a human being when conception may easily avoided by using things such as condoms. Couples have a right to choose, they have the right to choose wether to engage in unprotected sexual activity which may result in another human life, this human life is as valuable as ours, and can not be taken away.",-1,"the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed before the fetus is viable",oxford,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"Contention 1: life is not sacred. Con really didn't say too much about this, other than saying that I must think killing newborn babys is OK. Even though I don't believe my point was adequately contested, I will continue defending it in hopes it is addressed better next round. Life is not sacred. We kill germs constantly, we kill animals for fun, we even kill people if they don't follow the laws. This is all life. Contention 2: Human life does not begin at conception. Con did not address this point at all. I will assume con concedes this point. If human life does not begin at conception then a pro-life argument is hard to make, of course... Contention 3: A fetus is not a person. Con spent the vast majority of the round addressing this point, and introduces a new contention ""Abortion should be illegal after the second trimester"" which I will lump together here. He quotes Discover Magazine, and claims that ""after six months, the baby can feel pain"" but apparently does not bother to read the article quoted. Only two paragraphs in, it states ""...physicians... tell women that 20-week-old fetuses can feel pain during the procedure unless they are anesthetized. A newly released review of the scientific evidence, however, suggests the premise of those laws is wrong."" The article continues on to further defend this premise. This is a fatal mistake, Con. What makes you a person? Reaction to stimuli? Brain activity? A beating Heart? None of these. These traits make you ALIVE which is dealt with in contention 1. Personhood includes your personality, experiences, relationships with other people, your abilities, and your sins. Every person has made faults. A fetus has not. When a baby is born, and the mother accepts responsibility for raising it, it's very first personal relationship is formed (beforehand it is part of the mother's body). It sins (cries, disobeys), gains experience, forms a personality, and becomes a person. This is the difference you asked me for.",1,"the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a non-viable fetus, a fetus that has died after the death of the mother, or a non-viable fetus that can not survive without artificial support.",oxford,abortion,no,yes,neutral,pro
"""Con states that I ignored their 4 characteristics. This is false. I have demonstrated that their argument fails under both of our definitions of life. I have also proven that you ought to buy my definition of life over con's one since I provided sources."" No, I established that they fit all of these characteristics, save reproduction, you said that a fetus is not alive because it cannot reproduce. I rebutted this by asking you a very simple question; ""If this is so, doesn""t that mean that children that haven""t reached puberty are not alive?"" You failed 3 times to answer this very simple question. I got my 4 characteristics of life from my Biology class. ""Con fails to understand the parameters set. They also act contrary to their position. They present a definition of life which sets the parameter that it must be able to reproduce (bare in mind that con introduces this in their parameters too). They then contradict themselves and say that reproduction should not be a parameter for considering life because children who haven't gone through puberty cannot reproduce. I will make the same clarification that I made before. The parameters used to define life aren't used individually, they are used to define whether the entire human race is living. The answer to this is yes because the large majority of all humans will eventually be able to reproduce and the large majority can. Killing children isn't acceptable to their sentience and consciousness and due to the fact that they will be able to reproduce in their current state as human beings."" Pro is contradicting himself, he says here that children who have not yet reached puberty are alive because they will be able to reproduce in the future. Is this not the same for a fetus? If a fetus is left to develop long enough, won""t it be able to reproduce eventually too? ""I proved that the fetus cannot respond to stimuli. Con states that I am wrong because he said reacts not responds. This is a poor rebuttal since they are both synonyms. I could have said that the fetus cannot react to stimuli and it would have meant the same thing as responds to stimuli. The fetus cannot react and respond to stimuli [3], can Con please respond to this sufficiently now."" The difference between ""responds to stimuli"", and ""reacts to stimuli"", yes, is very similar, except ""responds to stimuli"" indicates that the reaction is noticeable. As ""respond"" indicates that there is a recipient, there is no such recipient in ""react."" ""I said that the fetus is developing to become a human. Con states that this means that all men under the age of 33 are also developing. This a key issue that I'd like to address. The fetus is developing TO BECOME a human being. Babies, children, teenagers and young adults are developing AS HUMANS. They are still humans whereas the fetus is not."" The issue with this argument is that you are stating that a fetus is only a human after it is born. I stated that the only difference is the extent of development, and what level of development determines you being a human is only an opinion, and cannot be proven. That a fetus""s genetics is human genetics, that a fetus fits all the definitions of life, and that a fetus can feel pain, that can be proven. ""Con excludes the main elements of libertarian philosophy which consist of two beliefs: 1. The government ought to have less power and make less restrictions. [6][7]. 2. The individual is the most important member of society and their opinions and rights ought to be prioritized to the highest level of their ability to do so [6][7]. Life is important in libertarianism however less government restriction is also extremely important factor and by preventing somebody from having an abortion is a restriction that libertarians ought to avoid at all costs [7]. As my contentions have described, this is a violation of the women's equality and human rights."" The government is here to protect people""s rights, born or unborn, when someone wants to violate these rights, not only does the government have the power to stop it, they have the obligation to do so. ""By preventing the women from having an abortion you violate the women's right and you also violate libertarianism. Being against abortions violates the two most important libertarian ideologies, this means that it is an overall violation of libertarianism. Con provides no alternative framework and mine still stands, you ought to vote Pro baed solely on the premise that under my framework abortion is morally permissable."" For one your framework is anything BUT morally permissible, it is morally insane. Let""s examine Pro""s excuse for abortion, he says that; ""Because men do not have to deal with the hormonal issues associated with pregnancy, that women are being treated unequally, therefore we must allow them to commit abortion so they can be equal to men."" This is the panicle of ignorance in liberalism, to go to war against biological gender differences, call it ""gender inequality"", and use it to justify atrocities such as this. Biological gender differences is NOT gender inequality, it is the natural order of things and if you don""t like it, DEAL WITH IT. ""The answer to this question is that the fetus isn't alive and it doesn't have an opinion. No matter whether you're for or against abortion everybody acknowledges that the fetus isn't able to formulate opinions."" So my opponent admits that the fetus is NOT trespassing on the mothers body because it did not choose to be there, and if the fetus is NOT a product of rape then the mother chose for it to be there, and CANNOT change her decision seeing as though the fetus is dependent on her to live now. ""Con's old man analogy is faulty. He fails to consider financial issues but that isn't the only problem. He forgets that the fetus doesn't care if it's on the boat or not, neither does it care if it on board or thrown off because if the boy represents the fetus then this boy must also not be able to think or have opinions [8]. I have also demonstrated that the fetus isn't alive. This means that con's analogy based on the premise that all possible outcomes and situations haven't been analyzed and the fact that con hasn't acknowledged that the fetus cannot think or forumlate opinions, means that the analogy fails. I do not advocate infanticide / killing children, the scenarios are completely different as I have already proven."" Then the boy is asleep, and cannot chose or formulate opinions as he does not know he is on board either. Additionally, if the mother does not want to take care of the child, pawn it off to someone else! ""Con's rebuttal to the fact that most abortions are done at the stage where the fetus is DEFINITELY not alive. The ebryo is less developed than the fetus and cannot feel pain or think or respond to stimuli etc."" If it has grey matter, it can think. ""Con makes the mistake of calling the fetus a human. The stages begin with the fertilization of the sperm and egg, the embryo, the fetus, then the human. There is a distinguishable difference between the fetus and the human."" I could never find out how they do that. ""I still advocate the fact that we must look at things as a whole and looking at people with disabilities is not applicable in classifying life as people with disabilities still belong to the same species as us."" ""Con's next rebuttal is subjective. He states that abortion isn't a right. Life is. It is still under his BOP to prove why. Until this is done there is nothing to refute. This is all bare assertion."" I don""t need to prove that abortion is not a right, the burden of proof is on you to prove that it IS a right, if you cannot then it is established that abortion IS NOT a right. I also don""t need to prove that Life is a right, it is SELF-EVIDENT, that you are entitled to Life, Liberty, and Property. ""Con says that illegal abortions should be punished but doesn't refute the argument that says that the problem won't be solved anyway. I have shown that in places where abortion is illegal, illegal abortions still occur. The consequences are much worse than what Con suggests as a result of these illegal abortions. Sometimes the baby and mother die or are severely injured in the process. If you legalize abortions then people won't be inclined to do it illegally and they will do it legally - ie. safely."" I understand this argument, but it is wrong. With things like booze or Marijuana it is better to be legal, because the demand will be higher if it is illegal. But there is a point where this does not apply, a mother that would put herself in danger to have her child be cooked alive by corrosive chemicals, should be punished harshly, so that no one would try it. ""Con is contradictory. At first they say that the most important right is life and emphasize that life is extremely important and that aborting the fetus is murder, they then say that the mother should receive death by stoning. This is contradictory to the case and is a concession - it negates the only argument that they provided."" In certain instances death penalty is necessary for certain crimes, a fetus has committed no crime. Therefore this is irrelevant. ""I never that the teenagers were below the legal age of abortions being allowed. I said 18-19 year olds which is old enough [6]. The argument talked about teenagers missing out on their lives. This means that it still stands and has been dropped again."" I""m sorry, your grammar on this paragraph is so bad I can""t understand it, come back later with a fully illustrated point. ""Con respond to human rights by saying that he supports the right to life. This doesn't make sense; he says that we should stone the mothers to death which is not supporting the right to life."" In certain instances death penalty is necessary for certain crimes, a fetus has committed no crime. Therefore this is irrelevant. P.S. How do you post pictures?",-1,"the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed before the foetus is viable but in some cases later when the foetus has serious medical problems or the mother's life or health is at risk",oxford,abortion,yes,yes,pro,neutral
Round 1 = Acceptance Round 2 = Arguments For/Against Abortion Round 3 = Rebuttals,-1,"the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed before the 28th week of pregnancy, due to which a fetus or embryo is destroyed",oxford,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,con
"abor�tion 1: the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: as a: spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation — compare miscarriage b: induced expulsion of a human fetus c: expulsion of a fetus by a domestic animal often due to infection at any time before completion of pregnancy (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Abortion cannot be defined as murder, as it doesn't always involve the induced death of an embryo or fetus. Embryo: The organism in the early stages of growth and differentiation from fertilization to, in humans, the beginning of the third month of pregnancy. After that point in time, it is termed a fetus. (http://www.medterms.com...) 1.a. An organism in its early stages of development, especially before it has reached a distinctively recognizable form. b. An organism at any time before full development, birth, or hatching. 2.a. The fertilized egg of a vertebrate animal following cleavage. b. In humans, the prefetal product of conception from implantation through the eighth week of development. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...) Murder: 1: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) In order for my opponent's first statement to be valid: ""Abortion is murder and it should be illegal."", abortion would have to first be illegal, and murder would have to be redefined in the US Code as the taking of human life including at the earliest stages of development. Abortion is a medical procedure, and should only be defined by medical doctors. In modern American history, the Christian Right has attempted to sequester this medical procedure and redefine it according to their own morals with complete disregard for the consequences of illegalizing abortion, the toll it will have on adoption rates in the US which are already dismal, and the social consequences of perpetuating a rise in illegal abortions. My opponent claims that an alternative for abortion is adoption. There are perpetually about 500,000 kids in foster care each year. With all the movement in and out of foster care, there is a constant 130,000 children awaiting adoption. In total, in 2007, 783,000 children were in the foster care system at some point. Only about 50,000 American children are adopted every year (http://www.acf.hhs.gov...). Abortion is currently LEGAL. In 2005, 1.21 million abortions were performed, down from 1.31 million in 2000. From 1973 through 2005, more than 45 million legal abortions occurred. What would my opponent propose happen with this rise in unwanted children if already there are only 50,000 adoptions per year in the US? An extra 1.2 million children born per year would be disastrous to our economy, our orphanages, and the children doomed to live their lives in these institutions. (http://www.guttmacher.org...). My opponent states that the ""only reason why there should be an abortion is in case the baby is acting as a cancer and its killing the mother"". I refute that my opponent can make this claim because he cannot get into the heads of millions of women who have had, and do have abortions and discern for them whether or not they had a good reason to have an abortion. Even lacking this argument, my opponent ignores the conditions of rape and incest. Who will father these children? Will he? Who will provide psychiatric support for these women- too often children themselves- who have been violated and impregnated by disgusting criminals? Who will provide the psychiatric support for the children themselves when they are born? My opponent ignores several issues related to illegalizing abortion, besides the ones I have mentioned above. Illegalizing abortion would not lower abortion rates, rather it will raise illegal abortion rates, and the mortality rates associated with abortion. In 1972, a year before abortion became legal, there were a reported 130,000 illegal abortions. From 1975-1979 there were 11,300 illegal abortions reported. (http://findarticles.com...) Repealing Roe v. Wade (one of the steps required to illegalize abortion) would most likely result in a rise in illegal abortions. Now, rather than opposing the right of a woman and her doctor to choose what she should do medically with her own body, we should be advocating education of controceptive use, education in alternatives to abortion, laws that would ease adoption rather than make it more difficult (like the recent Arkansas Unmarried Couple adoption ban, http://ballotpedia.org...(2008), and help for single mothers and families living in poverty. It is this work that helps reduce the number of annual abortions, and reducing the number of annual abortions should be everyone's goal rather than attacking the rights of a woman, and a medical procedure while not being medically qualified to judge what is and isn't good for the human body, what defines human life, and what is or isn't ethical/unethical in medicine. Thank you.",1,the expulsion of a fetus or embryo from the uterus before the completion of pregnancy,oxford,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"This has been repeated a million times but I'm going to say it again because it must act as the foundation of this debate. Abortion is not murder, especially when it is performed before the fetus has developed into a human being. When an abortion is performed, no baby is killed or murdered. Think of it as destroying the seed before it becomes a plant. Performing an abortion is by definition not committing murder. With this fact as a base or foundation, throughout the next few rounds I will argue that abortion does not demean the value of human life, but protects it -- using facts and rational arguments. I will also argue that mother""s, being the carrier of the fetus, have the right and responsibility to decide and weigh the advantages and disadvantages of bringing a human being into the world. Let me ask you. How is it better to have the child and allow it to lead a poor and neglected life, rather than never existing in the first place? If you value life, and the sanctity of living, then you will accept abortion. You don""t have to practice it, advocate for it, understand it, or even respect it. But if you respect life, then you will accept abortion and allow other women to have abortions. Thank you, I look forward to your response.",1,"the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed before the foetus is viable",oxford,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"The comparison of a living, growing person to that of a dead person is sickening. Do you also look down on the disabled because they don't function the same as you? A person is a person inside the womb or out and nobody has the right to kill it. Every human life matters and has meaning. There is a reason women who have abortions are three times more likely to commit suicide than other women of the same ages and ten times as likely to commit suicide if they are still in their teens. Eighty-one percent of them have mental health problems develop after they abort. Forty-five percent of women report having suicidal feelings immediately after the abortion takes place. Two in three women or sixty-seven percent can be diagnosed with PTSD following the murder if it occurs after the twelve-week mark (eight weeks before you view it as a human). The risk of alcohol abuse rises by one hundred and ten percent for women following the abortion. http://healthresearchfunding.org... Murder kills the soul and as millions of people have found out abortion is murder. The cost of killing your own child is often not just the life of your unborn baby but also that of yourself. The choice to have the child takes place before the penis ever enters the vagina. By that point as consenting to sex, you take on any risk that may come with your actions. If a person is too immature to take care of a child maybe they should think about that before having sex. As a man, you should be shunned by society if you don't marry the woman who you knock up. Stop abortions. Stop the meaningless slaughter of babies.",-1,"the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, in particular one induced other than through medical need",oxford,abortion,no,yes,neutral,neutral
"The only relevant argument opponent has given here is that a fetus has a ‘life’, but that doesn’t make it a sentient, conscious, viable, fully-grown human being.Ok, a few flaws. You say that since a fetus isn't fully grown that it is not a human, well I'm growing am I not human? Your growing, but your a human, people are constantly changing, so if we use the ever changing argument that no one is a human. So you mus tbelive no ne is a human, because were all changing as we speak. So this argument makesno sense. Also I have other relavant arguments, his is the main one. ""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 ... it is plain experimental evidence."" The ""Father of Modern Genetics"" Dr. Jerome Lejeune, Univ. of Descarte, Paris ""By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception."" Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman, Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic Still, doctors and scientsts agree with me, a fetus is a human from conseption on. Abortion results in the death of an innocent human being. It is immoral and unjust when evaluated in the light of the law of the land (our founding documents) and the divine commandment that forbids taking the life of an innocent human being (Exodus 20:13). [1] ""My opponent claims that life begins at fertilization, which is wrong. In fact, life begins before fertilization. Sperm and egg cells are actually living things. But the question should not be when life begins, rather, it should be when must we consider that the fetus be sentient or actually feel anything.""Yes life begins before fertilization, but a single joind life is made directly after it. So before it they are 2 seperate organizms, and when they join they bcome one. Sorry that I didn't clarify earlier. And it can feel things, I belive I posted a study above. But 'll show another example:At this point, it is uncertain whether a fetus experiences pain during the first trimester of development, when most abortions occur. However, recent studies have shown that the fetus most certainly does feel pain by the end the second trimester, when late-term and partial birth abortions are performed. Since general anesthesia is not used in most of these procedures, the fetus most likely feels pain during the procedure as limbs may be pulled off and scissors are used to puncture the base of its skull. [2]So it is certian that they feel pain by the 2nd or 3rd trimester, the first one has studies proving both. So a fetus does feel pain, but how much is the real question.""Here’s a report published by Joyce Arthur entitled: “Personhood: Is a Fetus a Human Being?” {1}, according to her research, it showed that Fetuses are uniquely different from actual humans, and the most fundamental difference is that a fetus is totally dependent on a woman's body to survive.""This is another fallacy, when you where a newborn you where dependant on your parents, yet you consider newborns to be humans. Pets are deoendant on their 'masters', and they get certian rights to life, and non abuse. So many things are depanant on an outside source, and get rights, so why don't fetuses. Before refuting, I will skip a few of your points, and address them later. ""This premise fails on so many ways, look at the following scenarios and tell me that these aren’t morally wrong and society opposes such acts: -Self Defense/ Defense of others - It is considered morally permissible to kill a killer to save your own life or kill a person to protect loved ones and others?"" Yes, but killing a fetus isn't in self defense unless the fetus is going to kill you, if you will dieu have the child by all means abort it, that is defense, but most abortions dont fall into this category. So, this point is a bad one. Kill one, save many- It is morally acceptable to kill the terrorists before 9/11 which affected upcoming the Afghan/Iraq war? Wellyou kill a fetus you aren't saving anyone. (unless your is in danger), so this point doesnt relate. ""Parasitic twin scenario- We have a conjoined twins, and it only survives if we sacrifice one, so would it be considered moral to kill a weaker twin to save the stronger one? No surgery means both twins die. ""Yes that moral, abortion is bad unless you are saving yourself, or nother baby. So in that senerio we agree. Trolley Problem- Let’s say you are in a moving trolley and your mother is tied to the tracks a few meters from you, you’re about to hit her. Although, there’s another way, but there are 5 people tied to the tracks in that direction. Now you have to choose between killing your mom and killing 5 people. What should you do?Well when in abortions do you threatan to kill 5 people? SO irrelavant. Only one of these has related. SO all of your case ispotheticals that you never face during abortion. So what is th epoint of this?""This is somewhat irrelevant to the debate, since Religion has no say on Abortion laws.""I am a cahtolic, and we are against abortion. Most protestants are against abortion as well. The reason were against it is actually the thou shall not murder, and the bible says life begins at conception. Those dont say it directly, but those points relate to the topic, sicne we belive that a fetus is a human than we dont kill a fetus because it is against the 10 commandments. So relegion does have a say. http://www.godandscience.org...""My opponent admitted that this is irrelevant and we should just discard it, I agree, but even if we didn’t, this graph is unreliable and inaccurate since it has no source whatsoever and that it didn’t show how many people were interviews.""It had a source, it was the only polling source, gallup polls. Look there if you dont belive me. And the graph on it showed gallup in a light font. It is credible, and from a reliable source. In america majority rules, a goverment by the people for the people, thats why I showed it. Since we are that then we should change the laws if it stays that way. Ok, now I will prove that a fetus is a human again, and that it is murder. I am running low on space, this proves that fets is a human with medical technology: http://personal.georgiasouthern.edu...It is murder:Many countries make abortion illega, and it is murder there. Your definition is exact. But people know what I mean. Killing a fetus should be illegal because it is ending a humn life on purpose, so your being technical, yet you know what I mean. A fetus is a person, and killing it is wrong. You have droped the backstreet abortion case. You really havent defended your case...at all. You have tried to kill mine, but it seems as though you offered no facts while doing so. DO you know what a hippocratic oath is? Its a oath ALL doctors take and they promise never to end, or hurt a human life. Well a fetus is definatly human, and everytime a doctor kills one he is breaking his oath. So by all technicallities doctors shouldn't be able to do abortions as it breaks their promises to humanity. http://en.wikipedia.org...I wish you god luck, vote CON! (I used your font to be consitstant). sources:http://www.prolifephysicians.org... [1]http://www.godandscience.org... [2]",-1,"the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed before the foetus is viable, by means such as an induced miscarriage or curettage",oxford,abortion,yes,yes,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,terminate the pregnancy of ( a woman ) by a medical or surgical procedure,oxford,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"Day 21:The heart begins to beat,7 unsurely at first, gaining strength day by day. The heart beats 70 times per minute at first, reaching a maximum of 170-190 at seven weeks, and slowing a bit to 160-180 at 9 weeks.8 A day later the eyes begin to develop. The earliest stages of the ears are now present.9 Thank you for informing me about this, this is where I personally feel its wrong to kill a human, because this is when I feel like it becomes a person. But, also, you have yet to take in the consideration about the mother situation. ""1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child."" Yes, it is a very small number, but I feel like it okay with those situations. source: http://www.abortionno.org...",1,the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or destruction of the embryo or fetus,oxford,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"I understand that you didn't use 'person', But I find that 'person' is the better word to use. It's no ""think of all those human beings"" or ""you lovely human beings"". I'm aware that a foetus is a human, And alive. It's just not a person. Again, Foetus =/= person. Yes, A foetus hasn't experienced these things. No, It doesn't make abortion 'okay'. It's just evidence to the contrary for abortion being murder, And therefore illegal. Yes, It's why they never get them. But hypothetical futures don't matter in the real world. I'm not treated as an 80 year old, And a foetus isn't treated as a person. You can't say 'deserve'. That's subjective i. E. Your opinion. Opinions don't matter. Murdering someone because they've murdered someone is revenge, Not justice, And this is another debate entirely. I'm fine with you believing abortion is murder. It's just objectively not. Given that Meriam-Webster doesn't have a separate definition for human being, The other will serve; ""a man, Woman, Or child of the species Homo sapiens, Distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, Power of articulate speech, And upright stance. "" It'd be safe to assume that 'man' and 'woman' refer to sex, But for the distinction 'child'. This suggests that a human being is an adult or child member of the human race. Given that a child is ""a young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority"", And age cannot be negative, A foetus is not a human being. You aren't pro-choice. Remember, This is the English language. Not everything is literal. Unless you believe that a women should be allowed abortions, You are not pro-choice. Some false equivalencies right there. A slave is a human being. A murder victim is a human being (or was). A foetus is not a human being. And banning the latter makes all three a violation of the right to bodily autonomy, Which is a good segue to my argument. Under the laws of the U. S. A, And most western countries, Citizens have the civil (legal) right to bodily autonomy. This means that they have the final say in what happens to their body. This is why you have to consent to giving blood, And to being an organ. You can't just have them taken from you willy nilly. Banning abortion violates this right, Because women can no longer choose not to be pregnant. But hold your horses, Because I'd imagine you have a couple of rebuttals. Firstly, It doesn't violate the foetus's civil rights. A foetus has no civil rights. It's not a citizen of any country. Secondly, 'the woman should've just chosen not to have sex' is stupid. Don't punish women for having sex.",1,"the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed before the foetus is viable, by medical intervention ( medical abortion ) or by the use of drugs ( medical abortion ) or by the use of force ( criminal abortion )",oxford,abortion,no,yes,neutral,neutral
"How is abortion not murder. It is wrong to things like this. I understand that if a mother does not want to have a baby, but maybe they will learn something. Thank you for this argument. You were good.",-1,"the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed before the foetus is viable, by various medical or surgical means, as by the use of abortion drugs or the performance of an abortion procedure",oxford,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"1) ""Society is also built of other people with individual opinions and should also be their personal freedom of choice."" Do you mean the freedom to kill an innocent human life, this freedom cannot be granted. ""Where a legaslative decision allowing abortion has been made, I have to prepare to accept this decision."" So from what I understood you believe we should accept everything our government does. If the government (I""m assuming you are American) decided to make murder legal which is what they are doing, would you prepare to accept that? You can""t accept everything your government does, you cant grant them that power. You believe abortion should be allowed until 10 weeks, but why do more than 90% of abortion occur on the 13th week. Why does the stage of development the fetus is at even matter to you? Your main argument is fetuses haven""t fully developed to become a human being, however newborn babies and even children haven""t fully developed yet. Do you believe killing a baby, or even a kid is fine? 2) A) forced pregnancy arising from a rape situation. Are you aware that less than 0.1% of abortions are caused because of a forced pregnancy. This 0.1% does not justify the killing of millions of human beings. B) An individual or a couple may find themselves unready to cope with parenthood. Given the demands of modern society. In what way unready? C) The financial demands of children may be considered to be overwhelming and unsustainable. The financial state of a family does not determine how good the life of the offspring will be. Many insanely rich people started off poor Oprah Winfrey Howard Schultz Just to name a few. This is no reason to kill a human being 3) All life is not equal, but all life is precious. We have no importance in the greater reality of the universe, but what we are experiencing is our reality, our only reality. Life is intangible, therefore shouldn""t be touched.",-1,"the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy by means of an operation.",oxford,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"Abortion is wrong because takes an innocent life. In the case of the infant, there is no choice. The choice of aborting a child relies on the mother. When it comes to religion, God ultimately chooses life and death. Abortion is a form of murder. It is the mother's responsibility to take care of her child.",-1,"the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed before the foetus is viable, by means of an induced miscarriage or by the destruction of the embryo or foetus",oxford,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"1. then people shouldn't do it... or at least were a condom 2. In the depression people made home made abortions. I don't know how to get videos on here so just put this url link up. (no pun intended) http://www.youtube.com... 3. What about the basic human rights. The right to live. It is inbeded in the Constitution so abortion would all-in-all be against the law. 4. post-abortion stress. my source for this is, http://postabortionsyndrome.org..., 5. now here's the pun, LordKnuckle said, ""I see everyone for abortion has already been born."" 6. How would you feel if you'd been aborted. Nothing cause you wouldn't of existed. 7. The baby is alive when the heart first beats. 8. What would happen if some of the greatest people in history were aborted. overval sources: http://www.youtube.com... http://postabortionsyndrome.org...",-1,a violent or illegal termination of pregnancy,oxford,abortion,yes,no,con,con
"""Thank you for informing me about this, this is where I personally feel its wrong to kill a human, because this is when I feel like it becomes a person. "" And this is when most abortions occur, it is before 8 months. Concession. Vote Con. ""1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child. "" Yes, I feel it is okay in those situations. I agree.",-1,"a termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a non-viable fetus, or a fetus not developed enough to be viable, so that it will never be able to live",oxford,abortion,yes,yes,pro,con
"Framework My framework will be based around libertarianism. Within libertarianism, there is controversy on abortions because it depends on if the fetus is alive. If the fetus is alive then libertarians are against abortions because libertarians are individualists and therefore value the life of the individual heavily [1]. If the fetus is not alive then libertarians advocate abortion because libertarians belief in a less powerful and restrictive government. In our first contention we will prove the fetus to be living. I will explain why we should have an abortion under libertarian belief. Capitalism magazine explains this by saying, “A fetus does not have a right to be in the womb of any woman, but is there by her permission. This permission may be revoked by the woman at any time, because her womb is part of her body... There is no such thing as the right to live inside the body of another, i.e., there is no right to enslave... a woman is not a breeding pig owned by the state (or church).” [2]She is the individual that libertarians prioritize, due to their individualist beliefs [2]. Since libertarians believe in a less restrictive government, the outcome is clear. The government should NOT be involved in something so personal to the person since by intervening in this person’s choice, you are restricting them and are violating libertarian ideology [3]. The Fetus Is Not Alive Only 1.4% of abortions occur after 21 weeks into the pregnancy [3,4]. This means that that most abortions are done before the fetus is even formed. It is an embryo, and an embryo is proven to be not alive. It isn't a subject of discussion when talking about the embryo [5]. I will now address the fetus - which is mitigated due to the small percentage of abortions that occur at this period. There are 7 categories in which life can be identified [6]. The categories have been compiled by biologists over a long period of time with great discussion [6]. The fetus only meets 2 of these. Movement - The fetus can move so this part is met. Respiration - The fetus cannot respire on its own (7). Sensitivity - The fetus cannot sense at 24 weeks or even 28 weeks (8). Growth - The fetus does grow. Reproduction - Whilst it is a fetus, no it cannot reproduce (9). Excretion - This is possible however very rare and unlikely (10). Nutrition - The fetus cannot independently take in nutrition. If one of these wasn’t met then the fetus would not be considered alive. The fetus was only able to meet 2. Illegal Abortions When an abortion is legal there is absolutely no point in having an illegal abortion because they have been proven to be very dangerous and expensive. If abortion are legal then illegal abortions will negatively correlate (11). These illegal abortions have been known to kill both the mother and the baby and sometimes result in extreme suffering on the mother’s part (11). Mothers are not doctors (most of the time) so these illegal abortions also occur later than 24 (and even 28) weeks meaning that the babies suffer too (11)! Did you know: “13% of pregnancy-related deaths worldwide are related to complications of unsafe abortion.”(12) This statistic is shocking but demonstrates my point very well. These unsafe abortions are illegal and this is what is currently happening because abortions are illegal in places. They have no option to a safe abortion and are so desperate for abortion that they attempt to have an unsafe abortion. Therefore, we can conclude that there are a huge number of unsafe abortions (13% of all pregnancy related deaths). From this we can then follow up an argument suggesting that making abortions illegal will not necessarily get rid of all abortions therefore rendering our opponent’s aim to be mitigated. Underaged teenagers “19% of teens who have had sexual intercourse become pregnant each year. 78% of these pregnancies are unplanned. 6 in 10 teen pregnancies occur among 18-19 year olds.” (12) This statistic is significant for many reasons. If this occurs amongst 18 - 19 year olds then this is extremely bad. Having to look after and care for a child ruins their chances of going to university. Your twenties are your most important period of your lives according to many sources (13,14,15). Having to look after a child in this period of time is extremely stressful and prevents you from getting proper qualifications and more importantly, it prevents you from getting a full time job and a house. Children are extremely expensive to have and having a child at the time when you should be looking for a job makes income problematic. On top of this you will have to pay huge amounts of money. “To raise a child born in 2013 to the age of 18, it will cost a middle-income couple just over $245,000, according to newly released estimates from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. That's up $4,260, or almost 2%, from the year before.”(16) Now let's compare this to the average income of a family: “The typical U.S. households pulls in $51,371 per year.” Teenage parents are most likely to make a lot less than this but let's take this statistic anyway. Assuming that this ‘average’ family spend no money at all on anything. It will still cost them almost 5 times their yearly income to equate to that amount. Of course they will need food, clothes, mortgage, heating, electricity etc. on top of this sum of money. If this seems like a lot you should double the cost of a child figures (assuming that they have another child), what will you do then? Not allow an abortion? Allow these teengagers to pay almost $500,000, earning (most likely) less than $51,371 per year. Gender Equality Pregnancies have a huge impact upon people’s lives - in particular the mother. As Sarah Weddington stated: “A pregnancy to a woman is perhaps one of the most determinative aspects of her life. It disrupts her body. It disrupts her education. It disrupts her employment. And it often disrupts her entire family life.” (17) She continued: “[And we feel that], because of the impact on the woman, this … is a matter which is of such fundamental and basic concern to the woman involved that she should be allowed to make the choice as to whether to continue or to terminate her pregnancy.” (17) This was a case showing that without the right to a termination, you are denying women a right and therefore what my opponent is advocating is gender inequality. The philosopher, Judith Thomson said: “If abortion rights are denied, then a constraint is imposed on women's freedom to act in a way that is of great importance to them, both for its own sake and for the sake of their achievement of equality .... and if the constraint is imposed on the ground that the foetus has a right to life from the moment of conception, then it is imposed on a ground that neither reason nor the rest of morality requires women to accept, or even to give any weight at all.” (17) This emphasizes my previous point in regards to the denial of gender rights and equality. P1: Denying women an abortion is gender inequality P2: Gender inequality is a violation of human rights C1: Abortion legalization stops gender inequality rights C2: Abortions should be legalized ConclusionI have provided strong and well sourced evidence proving that if you don't legalize abortion you violate libertarianism, women's human rights, the rights of teenagers/ children and it also violates the law. I will refute my opponent's case in the next round. I thank my opponent for initiating such an interesting resolution. The resolution is affirmed. Vote Pro! Sources[1] http://bit.ly...;[2] http://bit.ly...;[3] http://bit.ly...[4] http://bit.ly...[5] http://bit.ly...[6] http://bbc.in...;[7] http://bit.ly...[8] http://bit.ly...[9] http://bit.ly...[10] http://bit.ly...[11] http://bit.ly...[12] http://bit.ly...[13] http://bit.ly...[14] http://onforb.es...;[15] http://elitedai.ly...[16] http://cnnmon.ie...[17] http://bbc.in...[18] http://bit.ly...",1,"the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed surgically when it is carried out in a clinical or medical setting",oxford,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"Response Point 1: I don't think that the voters are going to find this a very reliable refutation. If nothing in the world can happen without God's approval, than I guess God changed is mind in 1973 for Roe vs. Wade, and is beginning to question that. Abortions happen everyday. Your statement is completely illogical. Response Point 2: What is your point with this point? Is there any argument here? Response Point 3: First of all, abortion is NOT illegal by law. Let's clear that up. And secondly, the ""rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"" were not aimed at babies, and the ""right of life"" was not aimed at babies either. This was talking about the individual person to make his own decision however he saw fit. So if she wants to have an abortion, that is here choice. Response Point 4: Sorry to break it do you, but quoting another debater who dosen't even have prove should not be a proof to your argument. That is not a proof at all. Response Point 5: I was going to use this in one of my next attack points, but oh well. """"A number of studies have looked at cases of women living in jurisdictions in which governmental approval to have an abortion was required, who sought to have an abortion, but were denied the ability to do so (Dagg, 1991; David, Dytrych, Matejcek and Schuller, 1988). For example, Dagg (1991) reports that these women overwhelmingly kept their babies, rather than giving them up for adoption, but that they often resented the unwanted children. These children who were born because their mothers were denied an abortion were substantially more likely to be involved in crime, even when controlling for the income, age, education and health of the mother."": http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu....... What I am trying to say is that after the women have the baby, the hormones racing in her do not allow her to give the baby up. She does not want to do it. Response Point 6: This does not prove that the baby is alive at any particular point. You could go on to say that atoms are alive because they struggle to form chemical compounds. Saying something like that does not leave any boundaries toward further advancement to the argument. Response Point 7: I wish you would provide quotes from this article like I do. Refer to my point 5. Response Point 8: There is nothing that has either upheld, nor proved that abortion should be illegal. One, since abortion is still legal, than the notion that the prohibition of abortion has been unheld is just wrong, and two, abortion is not and can not be proven illegal since it is legal. Here, you seem to think that abortion is illegal. I want you to look up Roe vs. Wade, than look up the court case that overturned Roe vs. Wade, and made a sweeping law prohibting abortion across the United States. Response Point 9: I don't think you understood the purpose of that argument. Let me sum it up for you. If abortion is made illegal, than some women are still going to seek abortions, but this time, underground abortions by untrained specialists. This means a higher number of deaths from abortion. If abortion is made illegal, it will not stop abortion. Thus, you have a serious problem. Response Point 10: What? Your point was not a rebuttal. I have provided proof for my argument that you are wrong. Response Point 11: Look at my response pont 5. You must provide a differnet rebuttal. I extend my arguments here from the last round into this round. Response Point 12: What? That is not even a refutation. Response Point 13: Most women do not feel guilt after an abortion. If they do, sources please. Response Point 14: I am not saying that all women that get pregnant are going to get breast cancer. What I am trying to say is that a higher PERCENTAGE of women who have a pregnancy have breast cancer than those who have an abortion. Since you have not provided a rebuttal, I extend my arguments here from the last round into this round. Attack Point 1: This one's a killer. One of the four major factors that decreased crime in the 1990s was abortion: http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu....... ""The underlying theory rests on two premises: 1) unwanted children are at greater risk for crime, and 2) legalized abortion leads to a reduction in the number of unwanted births."" :http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu...... ""These children who were born because their mothers were denied a nabortion were substantially more likely to be involved in crime, even when controlling for the income, age, education and health of the mother."":http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu....... ""For instance, homicide fell 25.9 percent in high-abortion states between 1985 and 1997 compared to an INCREASE of 4.1 percent in low-abortion states. Panel data estimates confiŽrm the strong negative relationship between lagged abortion and crime. An analysis of arrest rates by age reveal that only arrests of those born after abortion legalization are affected by the law change."":http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu....... There are so many great passages on this website to list all here. To have a better understanding of what this article is saying, read the article from the bottom of page 19 to the top of page 21. Also, look at the graphs throughout the article. Here is the article again: http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu....... And no, I can not prove the prohibiting abortion would just increase crime and poverty in the United States, but I can prove the legalizing abortion has decreased crime. Attack Point 2: Here is some simple logic. ""Say abortion is still illegal. Then the 1 million babies aborted each year would raise the unemployment rate tremendously (based on Guttermacher estimates on abortion, unemployment would be between 15-20%). More babies from the 1980s now=a higher unemployment and povery rate."" And more simple logic. ""Say abortion is still illegal. Than the 56 million babies that would have survived may pay more taxes, but since over 90% are in the bottom 47% of the population (money wise), they don't pay any taxes (Look it up if you doubt me about the 47% not paying taxes). Also, they are sucking up Government Welfare money. So they would increase the Government Debt, not decrease"".",1,"the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed surgically when it is induced by accident or unwanted pregnancy",oxford,abortion,no,no,neutral,neutral
"Thanks for instigating. Since this is only for acceptance and a brief review on my contentions, we’ll make this round quick. But first some definitions relevant to the debate: Abortion- Induced termination of a pregnancy with destruction of the embryo or fetus. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Murder- The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Contentions: C1: Abortion is NOT murder Since my opponent’s main case relies on abortion being murder, it will also be my obligation to negate his contention. If I’ve fulfilled this obligation, you must negate the resolution. In this premise, I will also be arguing that murder can be justified and morally acceptable to society. Not all killings are morally wrong. I will also attempt to argue that even if abortion ends a life, it’s still morally acceptable, in some circumstances. C2: Valuing Women’s Rights I will show that a mother has rights over her body and privacy, and that it is more important to save the mother than the unborn fetus if both lives are at stake. C3: Abortion happens regardless of legality I’ll be proving in this premise that illegalizing abortion is a bad idea and a disadvantage to society and may lead to bad consequences and events. C4: Abortion is a right For my last contention, I will attempt to finally argue that a woman has a right to abort a child. I reserve the right to expand, drop and add more contentions whenever necessary to the debate. Thank you.",1,"the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or destruction of an embryo or foetus, especially in the first 28 weeks or so ( before the 28th week, the procedure is usually called a miscarriage )",oxford,abortion,no,yes,neutral,neutral
"Abortion is wrong because it is a direct interference with God's work which is to say the creation of human life. For someone to say that they want to murder their newborn child because they never wanted it in the first place is absolutely heinous and vulgar. There is a far better alternative to abortion known as adoption, and unlike abortion it doesn't pose any threat to the child's life. Though it should be noted that women may not have the same experience when putting their child up for adoption it is still a more humane decision and doesn't involve butchering an innocent child. By the way have you ever thought of what the baby might think about being murdered mercilessly if its ability to speak and comprehend was fully developed? Probably not because as far as your concerned a newborn is just an ignorant fool that is only here for you to do whatever you please with. Abortion also decreases the birth rate which must remain at a stable and constant rate in order to ensure the continuation of our species in the event of a thermonuclear war or some other cataclysm that could thrust mankind towards the brink of extinction.",-1,"the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed before the fetus is viable, by various medical, surgical, or chemical means",oxford,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"""The greatest destroyer of peace is abortion because if a mother can kill her own child, what is left for me to kill you and you to kill me? There is nothing between,"" says Mother Teresa. Abortion, what does this really mean? The definition of abortion is the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks. About 42 million women in the entire world with unintended pregnancies choose abortion. Abortion is a big controversial topic, people believe abortion should be illegal and others think it should stay legal. Why would someone want to kill an innocent little life? It""s not their fault people made mistakes and now they""re the ones having to pay for it. Abortion should be illegal because abortions are not safe, laws are protecting unborn babies, and fetuses can feel pain. Abortion should have never been legal.",-1,"the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed before the fetus is viable, by various procedures",oxford,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"Same here, its my first debate on this site too. **I would just like to clarify that I am talking about first trimester abortion, as my views regarding post -fetal abortion are yet to be determined** Firstly, the fact that a placenta and the umbilical cord attach the fetus shows that the fetus cannot exist independent of the mother. We cannot consider the fetus as an individual entity because it cannot live outside the mother""s womb. Additionally, adoption is not an alternative to abortion, and if so, a rather poor one at that. Statistics show that less than three percent of all women who refuse abortion choose to give their child up for adoption. Even if I concede that adoption is an alternative, what kind of life is that for a child? Adoption generally comes with a negative connotation and with good reason. There is no guarantee that the child will have a family, and the child might get tied up in the foster system. Next, you mentioned the child (fetus""s) right to a choice and having a voice in what happens to them. By prohibiting and dismissing abortion you are in turn taking away the mothers choice and her civil right to control her own body. What is next? Forcing women to use contraceptives or undergo sterilization? Not to mention, in cases of teenage pregnancies, without the option of abortion you are taking away the young woman""s future. Furthermore, you say that being put up for adoption and bounced around the system is better than being dead, but the child was never alive to begin with. Statistics that were found on abortion.us show that pregnant women will resort to illegal and unsafe abortions if a legal option is not available. In many cases abortion is the best option, especially in cases of rape and incest where the child is unwanted and having the child can cause severe psychological problems for both the mother and the child. Children born as a result of incest are at risk of being deformed. We are talking about quality of life, and since a mother has the responsibility of bringing a life into the world, she should in turn have the right or option of an abortion. Finally, all women should have the right to choose to have an abortion, and the government or any religious authority should not limit them.",1,"the deliberate termination of a pregnancy, especially in the first 28 weeks, as a medical procedure",oxford,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"""But a fetus isn't a fetus until 8 weeks into the pregnancy."" You apparently are not well-versed in human reproduction. The Zygote exists for only four days, then turns into a blastocyst on the fifth day. ""Day 1: Conception: Of the 200,000,000 sperm that try to penetrate the mother's egg cell, only one succeeds.2 At that very moment, a new and unique individual is formed. All of the inherited features of this new person are already set – whether it's a boy or girl, the color of the eyes, the color of the hair, the dimples of the cheeks and the cleft of the chin. He or she is smaller than a grain of sugar, but the instructions are present for all that this person will ever become. The first cell soon divides in two. Each of these new cells divides again and again as they travel toward the womb in search of a protected place to grow.3 Day 6-14:The new individual at first attaches loosely to the wall of the womb, then burrows deeply and attaches securely to it over the next week. Sensitive pregnancy tests can now show positive, but this depends on the level of hormone produced by the new life. By the end of the second week, the mother's menstrual period is suppressed by this hormone (hCG) which is produced by her child.4 Day 17:Blood vessels begin to form.4 Remarkably, the future sex cells that will give rise to sperm or eggs for a new generation begin to group together - only 17 days after this new life is alive itself.5 Day 18-20:The foundations of the brain, spinal cord, and nervous system are laid.6 Day 21:The heart begins to beat,7 unsurely at first, gaining strength day by day. The heart beats 70 times per minute at first, reaching a maximum of 170-190 at seven weeks, and slowing a bit to 160-180 at 9 weeks.8 A day later the eyes begin to develop. The earliest stages of the ears are now present.9 Day 26-27:The lungs now begin to form.10 Day 28-32:Two tiny arms make their appearance and budding legs follow two days later.11 The beginnings of the mouth take shape.12 The nose starts to develop.13 The thyroid gland begins to grow. Blood flows in the baby's veins but stays separate from the mother's blood. The tongue now begins to form. The face now makes its first appearance.14 Day 36:The baby's eyes develop their first color in the retina (see photo above, right).15 Day 40:The baby makes her first reflex movements. Touching around the mouth with a fine bristle causes her to flex her neck.16 Day 41:The fingers begin to form, followed by the toes a few days later.17 Day 42:The baby develops nerve connections that will lead to a sense of smell. The brain is now divided into 3 parts – one to experience emotion and understand language, one for hearing and one for seeing. 18 Joints begin to form.19 Mother now misses second period. Day 44:Buds of milk teeth appear. Facial muscles develop.20 Eyelids begin to form, protecting the developing eyes.21 Elbows take shape. Internal organs are present, but immature. 99% of muscles are present; each with its own nerve supply.22 Electrical activity is detectable in brain.23 Day 52:Spontaneous movement begins. The baby then develops a whole collection of moves over the next 4 weeks including hiccupping, frowning, squinting, furrowing the brow, pursing the lips, moving individual arms and legs, head turning, touching the face, breathing (without air), stretching, opening the mouth, yawning, and sucking.24 8 Weeks:The baby is now well-proportioned, and about the size of a thumb. Every organ is present. The liver is making blood, the kidneys function, and the heart beats steadily. The skull, elbows, and knees are forming. Of the 4500 structures in the adult body, 4000 are already present.25 The skeleton of the arms and legs and the spine begins to stiffen as bone cells are added."" Is it right to kill it? http://abortionfacts.com...",-1,"the process of producing offspring by sexual reproduction, especially the process by which the fertilized egg develops",oxford,abortion,no,no,neutral,neutral
"How I abortion any further murder than using birth control or masturbate? Both are hindering the potential life of a human which seems to be the only argument that my opponent had to offer. And I think we've passed the ""maybe she will learn her lesson and never have sex.""I don't think that a one night fling with a condom that breaks really should be a punishable act with the fine of more than 18 year of commitment, 9 month pregnancy which is a pain already, birth, a complete lack of sleep for the first year or so, having her entire life limited hundredfold, and paying a minimum fine of $241.080: The costs of lego not included.Would you honestly be willing to choose between only having sex when you absolutely are certain you want children (because accidents do happen), something men don't really have to consider since they can sleep with whomever they want and then vanish off the face of the earth for all she knows, and have little or no restrictions. However, making abortion illegal poses serious restrictions to females and gives off the message that women do not have the rights to themselves and to choose. Either they have sex and if an accident does happen they just have to shut up and face the punishment or not be allowed to do what they want to, even if that is just to have a little fun under the starlight. This is a massive step backwards when it comes to female social position and equality: That women do not have a choice, do not have the ability to decide for themselves and should just be there for reproductive purposes. It is either the ""murder"" of something that never lived against brutally breaking the rights of someone that has been living for q minimum of nearly two decades, give or take a few years. To conclude:In the beginning of my case I asked my opponent a few questions that his entire case hung on, a few questions that he really needed to answer in order for his case to hold up. He did not answer these question; and in hindsight he didn't do much to even protect his case. I showed you, dear readers, how abortion, be it moral or not, is a needed thing and making it illegal is not a steo forward, it isn't saving anyone and there are a lot of cases where it just does not apply. abortions are not going away soon, they'll just change form if we would try and stop them. Abortions would no longer just remove the fetus, but possibly harm the woman and even killing her. This is not a future for us, and thus we conclude that abortion is not the dreaded thing my opponent wishes it was.thank you also for the debate.",1,the action of preventing a pregnancy from developing,oxford,abortion,no,yes,neutral,neutral
"I am also non-religious. Ultimately I accept the fundamentality of existence and the universe. I, like everyone else, have no truthful answers to the big question. As a consequence I can not attribute real significance to anything, including life. Ok. I'm happy to conform with the conventions of society, it will obviously makes my short life a whole lot easier if I do so. Your questions. 1) Difficult question, for a socially conforming realist. I debate for debating's sake and my debating stance does no necessarily conform with my personal, socially based opinion. That is to say. from a social perspective I would say that I am anti-abortion. But society is also about billions of other people with individual opinions and should also be about their personal freedom of choice. Nonetheless, where a legislative decision allowing abortion has been made, I have to be prepared to accept that decision. So under these circumstances my answer to your question would be: Up to ten weeks. Given that the recognised transition from the embryonic stage of development to the fetal stage of development occurs around the eleventh week of gestation. Even so If we pay regard to ""awareness"". It is fair to suggest that for a period of development after the eleventh week, major organs, including the brain are not sufficiently developed as to be properly functional. 2) An easier question to answer. Everyone has a personal opinion and everyone should be allowed the freedom of choice within the constraints of social legislation. We are not all affected by morals and principles in the same way and should not have the high morals and principles of others forced upon us. I will now list three reasons for your consideration. A) Forced pregnancy arising from a rape situation. B) An individual or a couple may consider themselves to be unready to cope with parenthood. Given the demands and expectancies of Modern Society. C) The one all consuming Global God is money. The financial demands of children may be considered to be overwhelming and unsustainable. 3) Yes. Life is that absurdly amazing thing. I would suggest that the spark of life is already present in the sperm and the egg. As a realist I regard all life as absurd and amazing and with equal measure. What is your point of view here? At this point in abortion debates religious people will usually ascribe to the Orwellian notion that, All life is equal, but some lives are more equal than others. Do you eat? Are you omnivorous or even vegetarian or vegan? If so you have to be prepared extinguish the spark of life, out of necessity and with impunity. Despite the amazing absurdity of life, it is still only transient and extremely tenuous, it can wiped out in the blink of an eye for all manner of reasons and without consideration. Isn't it simply the human condition? That we have a highly developed sense of memory and therefore continually subjugate ourselves to our own consciences. That is to say, we tend to worry excessively about things that are no more than intangible concepts, things that have little or no importance in the greater reality of the universe.",1,"the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed before the foetus is viable, by means such as an induced miscarriage or by the use of abortion drugs",oxford,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"//sorry about that I was thinking of something else. If a baby is born ill he will never live I normal life. something becomes living once the sperm and eggs touch but, If a baby is born ill he will never live I normal life.// So, if you are ill, and not normal, this provides grounds to kill? A man without working legs has a hard life, and therefore can be killed? //the good things about abortion is both the parents and the kid do not have to go through all the hardships of an extremely ill person. Imagine if you had to go through not even be able to talk and not now who anybody you have known for a long time is. Imagine that,Imagine that.// I'd rather have a baby alive than dead, no matter what. Abortion is the killing of a baby -- 99% of the time for illegitimate reasons. Less than one percent of abortions are for the good of the baby, mother, or due to rape and incest. THat makes over 40 million abortions a year unjustified.",-1,the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a non-viable fetus or a fetus that is not compatible with extrauterine life,oxford,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"Abortion should never be accepted in any culture, whether religious or not, I fail to see how anyone can be pro killing unborn babies. The issue on preserving the wildlife is more argued for than the issue on saving humans lives and I feel that is the biggest flaw in our country.",-1,"the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed before the foetus is viable, by various medical means, in particular by the administration of a drug or the use of surgical instruments to remove the embryo or foetus.",oxford,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"Thanks 16K for your response. It’s sad to see that my opponent hasn’t adequately refuted some of my points in his last round. And since this is the last round, I’ll make this brief. REBUTTAL RE: Fetus = Human My opponent must be confused here. I’ve already explained the difference between a fetus and a fully grown sentient human being. And by ‘fully grown’ shouldn’t mean an adult, but it should refer to a human who can be dependent on one’s body, it should be capable to feel and think freely. A fetus doesn’t do any of these. My opponent hasn’t proven that the fetus has done any of this, he just argued that it ‘has’ life, which is very much insufficient to affirm his case. Furthermore, my opponent goes on and relies on hearsay testimony without really supporting it. He quoted something from a scripture that states that an abortion is murdering an innocent person, making a fetus a fully-grown human, this testimony should be considered null and void because I’ve already disproved it. CON also gives a link on medical evidence of fetus being human, he just gave a link and didn’t type an argument. Please discard them. RE: Abortion is murder My opponent states that abortion is illegal in some countries thus making it murder. But hasn’t offered proof on which country bans abortion and if it defines fetuses as a sentient human. So his argument fails here. Also, we shouldn’t be sidetracked here since this debate is about abortion in the US. It’s clear from the start. RE: Fetus feels pain My opponent lately claims that a fetus can feel pain, but that study only supports fetal pain during the end of the second trimester (28th week/7th month) of pregnancy. Now, this can be relevant if we’re arguing partial birth abortion, but we’re not, so we could disregard it. Also, even if a fetus can feel pain, it’s still not fully-grown or sentient. It is still a risk to the mother. My opponent failed to expand this contention. RE: Fetus dependent on mother CON’s logic fails here. He compares a fetus to a newborn infant. A fetus’ rights are still a developing right whereas children’s rights already exist. Fetuses aren’t natural-born citizens yet, but an infant is. An infant can survive without its mother (e.g.: nursing care, adoption centers), a fetus cannot survive without the mother because it’s still in the mother’s womb, so the life of the fetus is dependent on the mother. RE: Religion and Abortion Last time I checked, the US is a secular country and that the separation of Church and State shall be inviolable. My opponent has dropped my argument concerning the Bible’s contradiction on itself. He just repeated his argument. So please extend. RE: Abortion Polls: PRO-life vs. PRO-choice CON failed to give a website, and that site has tons of polls, I’m not obligated to go through a pile of polls just to negate the fact that it’s reliable. It’s CON’s fault for not backing it up. Also, he didn’t respond as to how many were interviewed, probably only 10 biased people were interviewed, which is false. Ergo, this premise has already been disproved for lack of accuracy and its lack or relevancy. RE: Hippocratic Oath Again, I’ve proven that the fetus shouldn’t be considered human and that abortion can be justified. This oath wasn’t introduced adequately with sufficient evidence, so there’s nothing really to refute. DEFENSE Killing justified on certain circumstances My opponent evades these hypothetical scenarios by comparing it to a fetus being aborted, which isn’t entirely the point. This premise is solely to negate that killing is always wrong, which is false. But nevertheless, my opponent negates his own contention by saying ‘unless you are in danger, except in health risks, etc, etc’ --- And… that’s it. Nothing to defend really, since my opponent failed to address my contentions, which is a disappointment. Which leads us to my the conclusion. CONCLUSION Okay, so by now you will realize that my opponent has failed to satisfy his burden of proof. He needed to show that: 1) A fetus is a human being, and 2) All abortions are the unlawful killing of a human being with premeditation and malice aforethought. My opponent didn’t give adequate and enough evidence to sufficiently prove a fetus is human and he made no argument that abortion is the premeditated killing of a human. He has also failed to refute all my arguments and he has failed to back up his claims. I urge you voters to vote PRO. Thanks. And for my exit, I present you a picture that shows abortion is a choice, a right of the woman and it shouldn't be taken away.",1,"the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed before the fetus is viable, by various medical, surgical, or other means",oxford,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"Few definitions to avoid semantics: abortion əG2;b;6;H0;@3;(ə)n/ noun 1. the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks. legal G2;liH0;g(ə)l/ adjective 1. relating to the law. ""the European legal system"" 2. permitted by law. moral G2;m;4;r(ə)l/ adjective 1. concerned with the principles of right and wrong behaviour. Standard DDO rules along with the common etiquette and rules apply (no plagarism, no forfeits, cite all sources, show proper debating etiquette, con shall post no new arguments in the last round e. t. c)Let's try and avoid debating semantics, definitions or topic resolution. The resolution resolved permits to the following:""The act of Abortion is wrong[immoral] and should not be legal. ""If my opponent does not agree to these definitions and my understanding of the debate resolution above which I shall be abiding to he shall object to them either in the comments or in a PM BEFORE posting his next round, the opening case. If he posts the second round and thus starts the debate without both objecting and resolving the issue with me he has agreed to the definition and resolved resolution along with the rules. Neither party of the debate may object, change or challenge to the terms and definitions once the next round has been posted and the debate has been started. Failiure to abide to any of these terms results in a 7 point forfeit if deemed appropriate and valid by the voters. You may state your case, assuming you agree to this round.",1,the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or destruction of an embryo or foetus before it can survive,oxford,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"""Not all chicken eggs are unfertilised..."" If you were to crack open an unfertilized chicken egg, you would notice. [1] ""Furthermore, several living plants have to be killed to obtain food or wood, but no value of life over there eh?"" You are incredibly mistaken, the reason we kill these organisms is because their products are very valuable. Vegetables and wood are valuable commodities. Humans, however early in development, are valuable in their own right. ""Or what about [the] killing of living chickens and cattle for meat?"" I think you will be surprised to know that livestock animals are only bred and kept for the purposes of their products. They do not exist but to feed us. It is basic supply and demand. Without the demand, there is no supply. Without our hunger for meat, these animals would not have been bred. ""And not every single proponent of a foetus should count as living. After all, it is not functional during that time period."" Really? A foetus does not function? The function of a foetus is to develop his characteristics as to be able to perform the functions of a prenatal being. I think the majority of foetuses perform that function very well. ""Animals and plants are just as living as, if not more than a foetus."" Of course, but do animals and plants, in their mature, yea, even their developing stages possess even a fraction of the potential for greatness, a fraction of the potential beneficial impact on the world as a foetus? The answer is no. The second an ovum is fertilised by a sperm cell the DNA, what makes us unique, is exchanged between the mother and the father in a mostly random way which creates the first metre of the tapestry of life. You will develop this way. You will have these eyes, this facial structure and other such characteristics. That's definite. If some crazy murderer doesn't come along and pluck you from your developmental chamber before you are ready, you will definitely be this person and there will never be another like you. That is the miracle of human life. The probability of your mother meeting your father is 1 in 20,000, the probability of them reproducing is thereafter 1 in 2000. The probability of the exact sperm and egg meeting after this sexual exchange that would lead to you existing exactly as you do is 1 in 400,000,000,000,000,000. The probability of every one of your ancestors following the aforementioned processed is one in [4x10^17]150,000 W76; 10^2,640,000. The probability of you being born is 10^2,685,000. Again, that is the miracle of human life.[2] ""We shouldn't force parents to keep a child they don't want. This will be bad for the child due to ill-treatment from the parents, and will be bad for the parents for the reason they wanted abortion."" There are multiple viable alternatives to this, in the first instance: condoms. In later instances, adoption. No one should be killed for the irresponsibility of his parents. ""Suppose if we find out that the unborn child has some deformities/ infection, shouldn't we give it a merciful death rather than an impaired, handicapped life?"" I think we should give him or her the best life he or she could possibly hope for. I think we should provide the utmost in palliative care. I mean, by your Hitleresque logic, Stephen Hawkins should have been shown mercy and killed as soon as he showed symptoms of motor neurone disease. [1] http://www.poultryhub.org... [2] Second-hand source initially cited by Mel Robbins during her talk at TEDx San Francisco.",-1,"the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed surgically ( induced abortion ) when it is carried out in the first two months of pregnancy.",oxford,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"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,"the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, in especially the last few months, so that the fetus is destroyed.",oxford,abortion,no,no,neutral,con
"1. But you are not treating woman like everyone else, you continue to discriminate against the wishes of the woman over your own, insist that women who go against your wishes are murderers and give little but feelings as a reason to think so. 2. If your mission here is to make liberalism even more absurd then open a debate on that subject. Injecting it into a debate on abortion smells of a derail. Curiously Harry thinks only liberals are in favour of abortion rights. 3. Fair enough, though why try to force the constitution to perform in ways it was never intended, it may have been more productive to discuss abortion in less general terms. 4 & 5. As a comparison to discredit the EUs stance on abortion it did nothing. It came across as childish and puerile. 6. Is not an answer. You stated in your first post that all abortion should be banned and then moved the goalposts to 40 days. Avoiding my question of why you are now comfortable at 40 days. 7. A boil doesn't have a brain or a soul. Newsflash Harry neither doe's a fetus. In summing up, this debate has been unsatisfactory. Harry's blustering did little to enlighten me to his position, which I found evasive and lacking any depth. His continued use of emotive language speaks volumes but ultimately has nothing to say. If Harry told me that he had tapped out his replies, spelling mistakes and all, while taking a dump I could understand the haste with which he seems to have posted his rebuttals.",1,"the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a non-viable fertilised ovum or embryo, before it can be implanted in the womb or grow properly",oxford,abortion,no,no,neutral,neutral
"(3 rounds in 72 hours) Abortion is Murder no matter what people say. As soon as the baby is created it is has a soul. People say a baby is not a baby until it is born; as in breathing air, eating food, and can see the world. People say it is the women's choice whether or not to abort. People can say things but that doesn't mean its true. A baby or if you want to call it a fetus is feeding off of you but that doesn't mean it is part of you. You shouldn't have the choice to murder you child or not. You aren't giving her/him a chance to live. If you can't seriously take care of your baby, put it up for adoption, don't kill him/her because you were irresponsible and became pregnant when you didn't want to/or couldn't take care of her/him.",-1,"the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed before the foetus is viable, by means of an induced abortion",oxford,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"I understand what you are saying, however, I feel the best benefit that we may give a child is life itself. There are plenty of people who have grown up in poor conditions and made something of themselves. Abortion is wrong because it never even gives the child a chance. And even if the parents say there doing it so the child wont have to grow up with parents who aren't ready, in all honesty, they are most likely doing it for selfish reasons. Whether you are ready or not, you got pregnant, so that is the time to grow up and deal with it. Me personally, I feel that having a child by mistake would make me want to be an even better father. No matter what the conditions are that he/she will be brought up in, I'm sure they will find their place in the world. In the case of extenuating circumstances, for example, a child who will be born with down syndrome, or other conditions that would seriously inhibit their quality of life, then I feel that abortion is justified. However, if the only worry of the parents is that the child will be raised in unsuitable conditions, then it is not. We, as adults, have an obligation to ensure that the child does grow up in suitable conditions, rather then denying its right to life all together.",-1,"the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed before the foetus is viable, by means such as an induced miscarriage or by the interruption of supplies necessary for its survival.",oxford,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"First off, I never used the word ""person. "" I said ""I believe it is wrong to take away another""s life. "" Although maybe I should have used a little different wording and said ""human life. "" (yes, A fetus is human life. ) Secondly, Every fetus does have individuality. Otherwise, Every person would look and act just like everybody else which is obviously not the case. I see your point that a fetus does not have likes, Dislikes, Relationships, Etc. Why does it not have these? Because it has not yet been born and able to experience these things in life beyond the womb. I don""t agree that the lack of characteristics such as likes and dislikes makes abortion ok, Because killing them before they are able to develop these characteristics is why they never get them. I don""t find it hypocritical to be pro-life and pro-death penalty. Why? Because I believe humans that murder people, Commit treason, Take part in human trafficking, Etc. Deserve to be killed. I also believe that humans that have not murdered people, Not committed treason, Not trafficked humans, And not done any wrong (such as a fetus) don""t deserve to be killed. I""m glad that you don""t like abortion (there is something we have in common haha). However, I do believe abortion is murder. Oxford Dictionary defines murder as ""The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. "" Of course you could argue that abortion is legal and therefore it is not ""unlawful"" as the definition says, But that is the entire point of my debate is to argue against abortion and I think it should be illegal so I am overlooking the use of that word. Abortion still is a ""premeditated killing of one human being by another. "" Lastly, I am also pro-choice. I believe people can make any choice they want, That is until they make a choice that inhibits the freedoms and choice-making abilities of another human being. For example, I can choose whether to read a book or watch a movie. That choice doesn""t affect the agency of any other human being. However, I cannot choose to own a slave (I would never want to, This is just an example). Why? Because by choosing to own a slave, I would be taking away the choice-making ability of my slave. Another example: I could make the choice to murder someone (Again, I wouldn""t, Just another example). But this takes away the freedom of that person to live. Abortion, Taking away the life of the human being, Takes away their freedom to live. Slavery and murder are illegal, Why isn""t abortion?",-1,the process of termination of pregnancy by removal or destruction of the embryo or foetus,oxford,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"To every person the time when a child is considered to be living changes. So at what point is this child actually considered to be a person? Not at conception when the magic begins as you claim. How about six weeks when it starts to form ears, a mouth, and a nose and has a heartbeat pumping what is often a different blood type than that of the mother. Or at seven weeks when it begins to form hands and feet. How about week ten when it begins to grow organs. By the end of week thirteen, it has its own unique fingerprints and working kidneys. By week eighteen, it has developed its reproductive organs and may not even be the same gender as the mother. The rest of the time the child is growing bigger and maturing its brain and lungs until it comes out for that first sweet breath of air. So again I ask when does a person become a person. When you have a pregnant friend you ask them how the baby is coming not ""How's the sex cell doing today"". The child's DNA is different from its mothers from the moment of conception. While this child is still attached to its mother it itself is not a part of her body. It is a separate life form that will have a close bond with this person for life. I do not care if a woman gets a tattoo, piercings, breast enlargements/reductions, plastic surgery or whatever. What a woman can not do however is get away with murder, and that is what abortion is. ""pro-choice"" advocates get upset when pro-life people hold up a picture of the dead child recently aborted or will try to lock away the people who showed how Planned Parenthood was harvesting the organs of the unborn children instead of the monsters at Planed Parenthood. There is a reason Norma McCorvey known better as Jane Roe spent the second half of her life fighting for life. The immoral action that is murder kills the sole. I see no difference in the act of having an abortion that the despicable act that Dylan Roof made when he shot up that church. One hundred from now we will look back on abortion the same way we look at slavery today. https://www.babycenter.com... http://www.lifenews.com...",-1,"the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed before the foetus is viable, by means such as an induced miscarriage or by the destruction of the embryo or foetus",oxford,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"On your contention that life is not sacred: What exactly does this have to do with abortion? I use life being valuable in terms of not killing a human being, I guess. Would you be in favor of killing innocent people because life is not sacred? On your contention that human life does not begin at conception: It is not that hard to make an argument for having abortion illegal in at least ONE case without this point. Abortion should be illegal at 38 weeks. Anyone who is convinced by this statement should vote CON. That has nothing to do with life beginning at conception, but of life being existent/valued at 38 weeks. On your contention that a fetus is not a person: A fatal mistake, this is not. In fact, the mistake is on your part. I would ask people to read the article for themselves. The article states that the fetus can feel pain in the 28th week - two weeks into the third trimester. Even pro-abortion groups have said 26 weeks is the time when a fetus can feel pain. Look at this article: Control F ""26"" and it is near the bottom: (http://www.theinterim.com...) ""However, others in the pro-abortion camp continue to argue that, for example, pain cannot be felt before 26 weeks' gestation."" Therefore, no mistake was made on my part; you simply did not properly read the article and only looked at the first paragraph. Please, no more false accusations of faulty reading and ""fatal mistakes."" "" When a baby is born, and the mother accepts responsibility for raising it, it's very first personal relationship is formed (beforehand it is part of the mother's body)."" - This makes it a human, you say. If the personal relationship is only formed after birth, why do parents name their children in the womb? Care about said child in the womb? Just because it cannot physically be touched, it is not human? Just to make this clear: You are in favor of aborting a 38 week old baby/fetus? You think that should be legal?",-1,"the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed before the foetus is viable, by means such as an induced miscarriage or by the destruction of the embryo",oxford,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"In this final round of debate I will only be answering the questions asked by pro and give the reasons why I believe pro to be wrong. ""Now, have you considered the cost of not letting anyone have an abortion?"" The cost is minimal. You believe that children don't have a right to life because you think that child will be stuck in a foster house and be unwanted. While unwanted children IS an issue, it isn't a large enough issue to warrant taking their life before it truly begins outside the womb. Many of these children can go on to become healthy members of society, contributing so much. ""Who is going to take care of those children? Who is going to pay for it?"" I don't believe that hardship cases deserve to be ""snuffed out"" just because they have a good chance at being orphaned. If a parent can't handle a child, maybe they shouldn't engage in sexual activity until they can. It isn't right, morally, to end an innocent life. ""Do you think that this will have a negative effect on the 100 thousand children waiting to be adopted, or do you not care about them?' I care about children, which is why I am pro life. Pro abortionists will say they care about children, but if they truly cared, they wouldn't be pro abortion. Abortion is terminating a life before it has a chance. And most abortions are performed out of convenience for the mother, not health reasons or rape. http://abort73.com... ""Do you know how traumatic it is to live a life where you know you weren't wanted? How do you think that is going to turn out?"" A lot less traumatic than being ripped apart while still alive. But then again, you believe the child in the womb isn't even alive. It has been proven that a child in the womb CAN feel pain. http://www.mccl.org... http://www.doctorsonfetalpain.com... And abortions performed for selfish reasons is worse than because of rape and health.",-1,"the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed surgically when it is induced illegally",oxford,abortion,no,no,neutral,con
"U thabk my opponent fot this debate, I hope he enjoys it. =)C1: A fetus is a human, therefore it's murderSince a fetus is a human, it should be considered murder. I will now prove thait a fetus is a human being. A scientific textbook called “Basics of Biology” gives five characteristics of living things; these five criteria are found in all modern elementary scientific textbooks: 1. Living things are highly organized. 2. All living things have an ability to acquire materials and energy. 3. All living things have an ability to respond to their environment. 4. All living things have an ability to reproduce. 5. All living things have an ability to adapt. According to this elementary definition of life, life begins at fertilization, when a sperm unites with an oocyte. From this moment, the being is highly organized, has the ability to acquire materials and energy, has the ability to respond to his or her environment, has the ability to adapt, and has the ability to reproduce (the cells divide, then divide again, etc., and barring pathology and pending reproductive maturity has the potential to reproduce other members of the species). Non-living things do not do these things. Even before the mother is aware that she is pregnant, a distinct, unique life has begun his or her existence inside her. [1] So according to these definitions, a fetus is a human. Killing it would be murder, and it's not justified because its not self-defense. An abortion is only justified in the case to save a mothers life. Life begins at conseption. Furthermore, that life is unquestionably human. A human being is a member of the species homo sapiens. Human beings are products of conception, which is when a human male sperm unites with a human female oocyte (egg). When humans procreate, they don’t make non-humans like slugs, monkeys, cactuses, bacteria, or any such thing. Emperically-verifiable proof is as close as your nearest abortion clinic: send a sample of an aborted fetus to a laboratory and have them test the DNA to see if its human or not. Genetically, a new human being comes into existence from the earliest moment of conception. [1] More of the same... “I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly, I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy.” Hippocrates, 400 B.C., Greece Sorry if the enlarged stuff is annoying, but that is from my first source. C2: It is morally wrong to kill a person, society looks down upon those acts. This is hard to argue against. A fetus is a person therefore it is murder (or should be considered so). I have proven my point aboveas pf now, that a fetus is a human being. I will expand next round on that point as it will be needed. But this point relates to the one above, a fetus is a human, killing it is murder, and killing is morally wrong. Same old same old. C3: It is morally wrong to kill a fetus Well a fetus is a human, and killing unless in self-defense is morally wrong, so it is morally wrong to kill a fetus. This point relys on the 2 above. C4: Religeon in some cases pohibits abortion. This is undisputable, but I will add on to it anyway. This point only relys towards christians. “…and Rebekah his [Isaac’s] wife conceived. And the children struggled together within her…” (Genesis 25:21-22). Notice that when she conceived, i was called a child. It consideres the zygot a human. This biblical quote is from my seond source as well. Also look at the 10 commandments: ""thou shall not kill"", or ""thou shall not murder"", depending on the translation, but that specfically states that murder/killing is wrong, and above calls a zygot a child, so in god's eyes abortion is murder because he agrees with my above conentions. ALso, Catholics are against abortion, as you know, and many protestants are as well. So this only applies to christians, abortion is wrong on the lines of our faith. C5: More people are pro-life than pro-choice as of 2011 This is just a little side argument: So theres that. Rebuttals: ""Since my opponent’s main case relies on abortion being murder, it will also be my obligation to negate his contention. If I’ve fulfilled this obligation, you must negate the resolution."" Well I have proven that a fetus is a human, but I will add on to it here, if fetus is a human then it is murder: Fetuses feel pain during an abortion according to Kanwaljeet J. S. Anand, MBBS, DPhil, Professor of Pediatrics, Anesthesiology and Neurobiology at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center. ""If the fetus is beyond 20 weeks of gestation, I would assume that there will be pain caused to the fetus. And I believe it will be severe and excruciating pain."" So above I proved that a fetus is a human, here I prove that it is painful for the baby. ""I will show that a mother has rights over her body and privacy, and that it is more important to save the mother than the unborn fetus if both lives are at stake. "" Well, most women do not want this right: Most women do not want this right, also lets add on to this rebuttal. A fetus is a human, therefor it deserves basic human rights, and it should have control over its body. So killing the baby takes away it's freedom, so it's a 50-50 split of freedoms. Although women do not want this freedom, you will still argu that it is essential. So the women loses rights the baby gains them. But since a majority of women do not want these rights, then why should they have them? ""I’ll be proving in this premise that illegalizing abortion is a bad idea and a disadvantage to society and may lead to bad consequences and events."" Tanl you for this argument, I love to attack it. You claim that more abortions wil happen illegally if it is illegal, wrong. Senator James Buckley stated: ""Data from foreign countries having far longer experience with legalised abortion than we have had in the US, suggest that legalisation has no effect on the criminal abortion rate. In at least three countries, the criminal abortion rate has actually risen since legalisation. Legalised abortion moves the back alley abortionists into the front office where their trade can be practised without fear of criminal prosecution."" [5] Dr Christopher Tietze, an abortion advocate, concedes: ""Although one of the major goals of the liberalisation of abortion laws in Scandinavia was to reduce the incidence of illegal abortion, this was not accomplished. Rather as we know from a variety of sources, both criminal and total abortions increased."" [4] So look at this, a senator says there is no poof that legilising it redices that number, and a pro choice docor admits that legilising it increases the back street abortions. So I have proven that when its illegal there is less of both types of abortion. ""For my last contention, I will attempt to finally argue that a woman has a right to abort a child."" This is a vauge point. I will not refute it...yet. So please expand then I'll attepmt to refute it. I await your response. :) Sorry if my spellings bad, the spell check has an internal error. Sources: http://prolifephysicians.org... [1] http://www.christiananswers.net... [2] http://www.gallup.com... [3] Kanwaljeet J. S. Anand, MBBS, DPhil, Professor of Pediatrics, Anesthesiology and Neurobiology at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center. 93rd Congress of the US [4] Dr Christopher Tietze [5]",-1,"the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed before the foetus is viable, by medical or surgical means",oxford,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"When I say 100% pro life, I believe that abortion is wrong no matter what the circumstance is. Many may ask about rape or incest, but should that child receive the death penalty because of the acts of his or her father? And when you say you are pro choice, do you believe that a woman should be able to choose even in the third trimester? I believe that even first trimester abortion are horrific. The heart is beating at 3 and 1/2 weeks. We need to realize that that is a baby inside the woman, not a blob of tissue. I believe that we should not have to kill our innocent children to achieve the dreams and careers we strive for. We should welcome these children into our world instead of seeing them as a threat. Of course there are going to be situations where the mother cannot take care of the child because of financial reasons or stability, but this is why we have many organizations like Live action, churches, mentors, and government agencies which can help these women. Not to mention adoption... there are many more options than just simply killing the child. Also, when women are asked why they received an abortion the number one response is, ""I felt that I had no choice."" How do you justify this when you seem so set on the fact that women should have this choice to kill their child or not, when in reality our abortion clinics and agencies are not really laying all the cards on the table?",-1,"the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed before the foetus is viable, by means such as an abortion drug, surgical removal, or other procedure",oxford,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"sorry about that I was thinking of something else. If a baby is born ill he will never live I normal life. something becomes living once the sperm and eggs touch but, If a baby is born ill he will never live I normal life. the good things about abortion is both the parents and the kid do not have to go through all the hardships of an extremely ill person. Imagine if you had to go through not even be able to talk and not now who anybody you have known for a long time is. Imagine that,Imagine that.",1,"the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed before the fetus is viable, by various medical, surgical, or chemical means.",oxford,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"This is a human life. This is murder. A human life starts at conception. Saying abortion is ok is like saying it's ok to kill your next door neighbor. You have no right to take away this life that hasn't even had a chance yet. This is a pure soul, they have never done anything bad or done anything to harm anyone. This child should at least be given a chance at life.",-1,"the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed before the foetus is viable, by various procedures",oxford,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"Law does not define terms. By what you are saying if the government made murder legal then there would be no murder. There would still be murder, it just wouldn't be prosecuted. I would like it if you actually argued the issue that is at hand instead of trying to jump on a technicality, in my first sentence. For you I will restate my opening argument. I am arguing that abortion is the immoral killing of another human innocent life. It is not the choice of the mother to decide whether or not the fetus is aborted. I am sorry for my confusing opening statement but I hope that you will continue a serious debate on my restated argument.",-1,"the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy by means of an authorized medical procedure",oxford,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"Hello, and thank you for posting this debate. Should be good I hope. My opponent has set up the parameters of this debate, and he is trying to prove to you that abortion should never be illegal. If I can convince you that abortion should be illegal in ANY case ever, I win. These are the parameters that my opponent has set up. As abortion is illegal in some cases currently, my opponent does have the burden of proof. My arguments for why abortion should be illegal in some cases are as follows: 1. Abortion should be illegal after the second trimester. If you have no idea that you're pregnant after six months? I mean, honestly, you should know by then. If in the first six months you want to have an abortion, fine. You may be surprised by the fact that you're pregnant. But after six months, the baby can feel pain and is much more human in a biological sense. To abort at that point (26 weeks) is to cause pain to a human child, and you should have made the realization and decision far before 6 months into the pregnancy. (http://discovermagazine.com...) 2. I would be interested to hear your contention that life is not sacred. Does that mean it would be okay to kill a newborn baby as well? Just curious. As to your third contention, why is a fetus not a person at say, 35 weeks? Is it okay to abort at 35 weeks? The medical definition of a fetus is the unborn offspring from the 8th week after conception to birth (http://www.medterms.com...). Therefore, you must believe it is okay to abort up until birth? I believe you must explain the difference between a 38 week-old fetus and a just-born infant. What you are proposing sounds much like infanticide. There are few differences between a fetus that is that old and a newborn. You must justify your opinion here. (http://www.leaderu.com...) These are just my opening arguments and I await your retort. Thank you.",-1,"the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy, by means of an induced miscarriage or other procedure",oxford,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"I believe that the killing of a child inside the womb is abortion during and stage of a pregnancy. I cannot understand your reasoning behind a baby being viable or not. As I said, heart is beating at 3 and 1/2 weeks. Science proves that this is in fact a separate entity from his or her mother. ALL abortion is horrific. I am not for any trimester- I believe that abortion is just as terrible in the first trimester than the third. And you still did not answer my question on how you justify that most women feel that they had no other choice than to abort their child.. can this be because organizations like Planned Parenthood are not giving these women all the choices possible? Maybe these organizations are persuading women a certain direction? Certainly.. it happens every day. Planned Parenthood employees have a script to avoid any kind of question a woman may have and to ensure that those women come in to receive an abortion. You discuss first trimester abortion, yet your stance on the pro choice is that a woman should be able to decide at any stage when she can abort her child. I ask you when you consider this ""fetus"" and child? When should the line be drawn? Can we kill children even outside the womb? I mean honestly, what you essentially are saying is that there is no difference between killing a baby in the womb or killing a baby outside the womb... I really do not understand this whole viable vs. unviable, baby vs. fetus argument. Does a single difference in a day decide when a life is a life?",-1,"the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or destruction of a foetus, either spontaneously or induced by medical intervention",oxford,abortion,no,yes,neutral,neutral
"Rebutting My Opponent""Law does not define terms.""Murder is defined as unlawful. Therefore, being unlawful is a necessary condition which needs to be in place, for a murder to take place. ""By what you are saying if the government made murder legal then there would be no murder.""If the government made killing of any kind was lawful, then murder would not exist.""There would still be murder, it just wouldn't be prosecuted. I would like it if you actually argued the issue that is at hand instead of trying to jump on a technicality, in my first sentence. For you I will restate my opening argument.""There would not be murder, because it wouldn't be against the law. Murder is defined as unlawful. Here is another definition:""mur·der n. 1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.""[1] ""I am arguing that abortion is the immoral killing of another human innocent life. It is not the choice of the mother to decide whether or not the fetus is aborted.""This is great, but I accepted the debate on the terms my opponent provided in the first round. For trying to change it mid-debate, I urge a conduct vote for Pro. Regardless, I will still debate with this new argument for fun, but I hope the voters are aware the resolution has already been negated, and an argument vote for Pro is warranted regardless of any further argumentation. ""I am sorry for my confusing opening statement but I hope that you will continue a serious debate on my restated argument.""When one doesn't make serious opening arguments, how can one expect to get serious responses? It doesn't matter anyway, my response was very serious. Argument In Favor Of Abortion Not Being Immoral P1: Human life gains moral value when when consciousness is obtained, and/ or pain can be feltP2: A first and second trimester fetus is not conscious (about as conscious as a kidney), and can feel no pain.P3: Most abortions (99%) are obtained in the first and second trimester of pregnancyP4: Abortion is not unethical Regarding Premise 1:Human life's value begins when consciousness begins and/or pain can be felt is more than a fair statement. It's only rational to assume that human life's value is based on the actions and feelings of conscious beings. It's also rational to assume that if a being isn't conscious and can feel no pain, then there is nothing immoral which can be done to this being. It is morally dead.Regarding Premise 2: Abortions carried out in the first and second trimester have absolutely no moral implications once so ever, due to the fact that a first trimester embryo is not conscious [2]. Also, first and second trimester embryos can feel absolutely no pain once so ever because pain receptors are required for this. Pain receptors need a neotox which is not formed until the third trimester [2]. Regarding Premise 3Over 88% of all abortions are actually done within the first trimester [3]. Some sources even claim that the number is more around 88-92% [4]. What about second trimester abortions?""About 140,000 second trimester abortions are performed yearly. They represent 9% of the total""So, I think it is safe to say that close to all abortions Regarding Premise 4Since first and second trimester embryos have no consciousness and cannot feel pain, and 99% abortions are carried out in the first and second trimester, then the majority of abortions don't really imply any genuine negative moral implications (and therefore, should not be considered unethical).A Woman Has a Right To Choose A woman has a right to do with her own body as she pleases. Even is she commits suicide after like some women do, that wouldn't mean the woman didn't have the right to do it or it was unethical. What is unethical is restricting someone's right to chose what they want to do with their own body, especially when we are dealing with a subject that isn't even aware it exists and can feel no pain.Since this woman a conscious being and can feel pain, while the subject in question does not meet the requirements, then not letting this woman have the right to chose to have an abortion would be extremely unethical.Conclusion I amused my opponent by rebutting her the argument, but the one I agreed to debate to has been negated clearly without sufficient rebuttal. Sources[1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[2] http://civilliberty.about.com...[3] http://contraception.about.com... [4] http://www.abort73.com...",1,"the deliberate destruction of an unborn child, especially as a means of birth control",oxford,abortion,no,no,con,con
"Cross-Examination: 1. I believe that abortions should have restrictions. The reason there should be restrictions on abortions is because homemade abortions could cause maternal injuries and maternal deaths. 2. Well, I do see a problem with restricting abortions because the only abortions I want to restrict are homemade abortions due to their lack of safety. Also, I would say I support the woman's right to her own body until the point where the fetus can live outside of the uterus. 3. A fetus must be able to be functioning independently to be a human being. To live outside the uterus makes a fetus a human being. The reason is that a human being must be capable to live on its own. Being human does not make a fetus a human being until it can survive outside of the womb. I'm not talking about living without being fed or clothed but instead talking about being able to physically live outside of the womb. 4. As I've said, it was a homemade abortion so both people should not be able to commit abortion but instead get an abortion. 5. I don't see how this relates to the ca and because it is irrelevant, I will ignore it. However, I would say that her right to her own body does not include being able to take illegal drugs. Rebuttal 1: I'll try to keep this brief so my opponent can both argue against my opening round my rebuttal. My opponent basically claims that a fetus is a human being. However, Joyce Arthur, a abortion rights activist, believes that this is false. She says: ""Biology, medicine, law, philosophy, and theology have no consensus on the issue, and neither does society as a whole. There will never be a consensus because of the subjective and unscientific nature of the claim, so we must give the benefit of the doubt to women, who are indisputable human beings with rights."" It is impossible to prove whether a fetus is a human being because there is no absolute agreement from any of the listed subjects that a fetus is a human being. This is exactly like the issue of Uniformitarianism and Castrophism, Jesus being Son of God, and the existence of a god. It will always be disputed with various types of evidence confirming and destroying different arguments. These issues don't have a certain agreement and will be going on forever. However, women are undisputably human beings. Having the right to her own body makes sure that she can revoke the presence of the fetus in her body. Joyce Arthur continues to say: ""Fetuses are uniquely different from born human beings in major ways, which casts doubt on the claim that they can be classified as human beings. The most fundamental difference is that a fetus is totally dependent on a woman's body to survive. Anti-choicers might argue that born human beings can be entirely dependent on other people too, but the crucial difference is that they are not dependent on one, specific person to the exclusion of all others. Anybody can take care of a newborn infant (or disabled person), but only that pregnant woman can nurture her fetus. She can't hire someone else to do it."" As I said, a human being must be able to survive on its own as in not depending on one person and it can't be anyone else. Also a fetus doesn't just rely on the woman but resides in her. A human being are separate individuals and a fetus is not separate from the woman's body or it will die. They don't gain the status of human being because of living inside the body of another human being. I'd also like to say being human doesn't make someone a human being. Having human DNA and showing signs of life doesn't make it human. Also formerly being an embryo doesn't make me currently an embryo. Since I was unborn, I was essentially not the same entity. For Contention 2, I don't see any need to have a rebuttal for it and I look forward to future elaboration due to no justification for the claims that Roe vs. Wade was ""the single worst piece of legislation ever passed"" and the Supreme Court having ""no justification for passing it."" I look forward to my opponent's rebuttal. Sources: 1. http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org... 2. http://www.abortionisprolife.com... 3. http://eleutherian.blogspot.com...",1,"the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or destruction of the embryo or fetus, as by surgical or medical abortion",oxford,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
I stand on the position that:1. Women should have choice on whether to abort or notand2. Abortions should be available to women as needed,1,"the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, in contrast to a miscarriage, which occurs without intent.",oxford,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"One of the most pressing issues of the 21st century- abortion. And it really is one. It questions our moral and ethical values. Even though many people people believe abortion should never be an answer, abortion should be legalised. This is because abortion because the woman""s choice is to be valued. Firstly, there are many questions to answer and doubts to clear. To what age is it even right? Technically the zygote, which turns into an embryo isn""t really human yet. They don""t have feelings, they don""t technically have rights yet. Yes it is sad, but a fetus wouldn""t even have organs at that time. We can""t look at this emotionally, we have to look at this rationally. There however, should be a line drawn, a certain age where you shouldn""t get an abortion, like 28 weeks, that is when the fetus has blood going into it and life birthed. If the mother wants an abortion afterwards, that""s her loss. Also, it""s a woman""s choice. It""s a woman""s choice whether she wants a child. It""s a woman""s choice if she wants to endure 9 months of hell. It""s a woman""s choice if she wants to go through the pain of labour. What if the woman had potential to something great, but has to give it up for a child? She might even grow to hate on the child. If the mother got pregnant in school and had to drop out, would it really be worth it? The girl would be too young, too unknowledgeable to be a mother. She wouldn""t have even learnt about biology let alone being a mother. So it""s a woman""s choice. What if the child can""t be supported? The child could be born into a family without privileges, support, or a real certain future. It may be a single mother, it may be money scarcity, it may be anything. The child may have a bad future awaiting, and may even be put up into adoption anyway. If a mother can""t even look after herself, how can she be expected to take care of another human being? Also, mothers with addictions like drugs, alcohol and smoking would be imposing problems on the fetus, possibly defects, which is unfair on the fetus. Why should the fetus live with disabilities? Rape is also a huge issue. The mother, may have been raped and imposed with a child. A child could bring major psychological harm to the mother. A 10 year old girl in India, is wanting an abortion for her 21 week old. She was raped by her stepfather. Due to this, if the doctors don""t approve of her abortion, this means she may be psychologically damaged of carrying her stepfather""s child, the one that brutally raped her. Why should this even be allowed? Imagine yourself as a ten year old, carrying a child, while you""re still a child and still have lots to learn. Imagine a twelve year old girl as a victim of incest to have a daughter that is their brothers creation. The psychological harm would be unbelievable.This is why abortion should be allowed, with exceptions like date and reason. To a certain stage, abortion is not good. 28 weeks? Too old. But we do have to legalize it. We just need a few restrictions on it. How reasonable is having a world without abortion?",1,"the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed before the foetus is able to survive outside the womb, in which the foetus, placenta, and other material are expelled from the body.",oxford,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"This debate was suicide for my opponent from the get go. Con wants to argue that abortion is an unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another (murder), and that a decision making abortion more lawful than it already is, should be overturned. mur·der/ˈmərdər/ Noun: The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. Verb: Kill (someone) unlawfully and with premeditation. [1]My opponent's position is incoherent. This is because, if Roe v. Wade exists, then abortion cannot be unlawful (Roe v. Wade enhances the lawfulness of abortion), and therefore it is not murder. On the other hand, if abortion is murder, then Roe v. Wade wouldn't exist, and therefore, it being overturned would be impossible. Vote Pro. Sources[1] . http://oxforddictionaries.com...",1,the action of terminating a pregnancy so that a child is not born,oxford,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,con
"I will be the con side in this debate. The first round is acceptance and opening contentions. No rebutals. C1: A fetus is a human therefore abortion is murder This will be explained in detail in my second round when I am actually introducung my full blown case. C2: It is morrally wrong to kill a person, and society looks down upon that act. This point can't be contested at all, but this point is dependant on my first contention. So for this to be a good contention I muat prove the first point. So if I prove the first point than this would be an argument for me as well. C3: Since it is morally wrong to kill a fetus This contention relys on the first 2 points, 2 for the moral statement, and 1 for a fetus is a human. C4: Religeon on some cases prohibits abortion The Roman Catholics are against abortion always, and the protestants are against it most of the time. C5: More people are pro-life than pro choice as of 2011. This isnt a big argument, but it is just a thing to consider, it is not a reason to illegilize it, this is just a fun fact that should only hold 1% of this debate, so my opponent could discard it. My first contention is my main argument as much of my other points rely on that one, so I only need to prove that, then most of my case follows along with it. I will provide sources and other things in the second round. And more thourogh explanations for each contention. Remember, first round no rebuttals, just acceptance and a outline for your case. If you break this rule you automatically forfeit. Good luck! 2nd round is when you add on to your case/show proof and begin the rebuttals. This first round is just for statements. ALso the BOP is on my to prove the above, and on you to prove your contentions.",-1,"the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed before the foetus is able to survive outside the womb, in which the products of conception are expelled from the body",oxford,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"R4 Rebuttals Con concedes that the fetus does not meet the reproduction requirment of the definition that THEY provided. This is crusical to note because this is a contradiction on their behalf and this should be considered and taken into account when voting. Con states that they got their characteristics of life from their biology class. This is insufficient evidence. I also got mine from my biology class however I managed to source and prove that this classification of life is valid whereas yours has been based off bare assertion. Con continues to make the claim that children that haven't meet puberty is a sufficient rebuttal since I said that the fetus isn't fully developed. Con clearly skims my case because if they had read it properly and thouroughly they would have noticed that I refuted this a number of times. I have clearly said and demonstrated that children are developing humans whereas the fetus is developing to BECOME a human. It is not yet a human whereas a child is. Since the child belongs to the human race this means that it is considered living whereas the fetus does not yet belong to the human race. This means that it is considered separate to humans and is therfore should be assessed separately unlike children [1]. Con continues to state that there is a difference between reacting to stimuli and responding to it. To end the confusion I will provide sources to prove that it doesn't react to stimuli and it doesn't respond to it either. a) The fetus does not respond to stimuli [2]. b) The fetus doesn't react to stimuli [3]. He believes that the fetus is human however this is easily disproven, and it has already been done so, nevertheless I will provide more supporting evidence to satisfy him. Human Characteristics - Consciousness - Sentience - Response to stimuli - Ability to feel emotions - Excretion- Independantly supply itself with nutrition - Indepenantly respire - Be able to feel and sense things around it Characteristics that the fetus meets- Excretion (rarely)This is it. The fetus, extremely rarely, exretes whilst in this state however if it does excrete this means that it will most likely be severely disabled. Regardless, I'll be kind to con and let them say that the fetus meets this category. Even so, the fetus meets hardly any of the categories and is therefore not a human. Continuation of R4 Rebuttals Con attempts to refute the libertarian framework extention however this is extremely difficult for them to do given the fact that I provided sources demonstrating libertarian philosohpy and views on abortion whilst my opponent attempts to tackle it without any evidence. Con, instead of refuting anything that I said makes assertions about what the government has a right to do. This is unfortunately is the subjective and completely arbitrary opinion. The declaration of rights and responsibilities for governments, individuals and societies approes of the UK of a good model and demonstration of a country that properly enforces human rights [4]. The UK advocates and has abortion legal and is a good model of human rights. Ergo, we can conclude that protecting the unborn (ie. fetus') is not a responsibility that the government has [5]. I'll reiterate this, since con has provided no alternative framework you ought to vote Pro based on this premise alone. Con calls my framework morally insane - more subjectivity with absoloutely no evidence. He does something serious that is NOT acceptable during a debate. He make the following summary of my position and says that I SAY THIS. I did not say this and this make my position look bad. He also puts this in quotation marks to make it took even more like I said this. Con's summary of my position that ""supposedly"" comes from me, is false and should be penalized with conduct at the very least. I'll refute con's untrue summary of my case: ""Because men do not have to deal with the hormonal issues associated with pregnancy, that women are being treated unequally, therefore we must allow them to commit abortion so they can be equal to men.""Con provides this quotation to go against my case and then refutes it. I will not refute his reubttal to a summary that he made since I never made any of the arguments that con says that I did. I did say that women aren't getting their rights but I made no such comparisons to men. I said that women have the right over their body and can do what they like with it and I provided a number of quotes from philosophers backing up this view. This has very little relation to men and virtually no relation to men not having to deal with hormonal issues as con falsely says when summarising my case. I never said that the fetus was trespassing or committing any acts like this on the mother's body. I simply said that it is the mothers choice and it should be assessed by them since it is their body. Yes the fetus is dependant on the mother however the fetus wouldn't know the difference if it was alive or dead [1]. Con's old man analogy is still faulty despite the additions that he has made. Even if the boy is asleep he still wants to live and he still meets the requirements for being a living things as I have continually demonstrated. Therefore, killing the boy isn't justified however aborting the fetus is. Also, the abortion of the fetus is quick and painless (because the fetus cannot feel pain) [1][3]. The boy will have to drown and will almost certainly wake up upon impact of the water and will struggle to get out and will slowly die due to the lack of oxygen. Con's solution is adoption however this is easily refuted. In a year in the US 135,000 adoptions occur, this is due to the lack of willing parents [6]. In a year in the US 1.2 million abortions occur [7]. This means that you're 975,000 parents short. On top of this, you'll probably need even more parents considering that there are other adoptions occuring anyway for reasons other than abortions. Con believes that the embryo can think. I have demonstrated that the fetus cannot think and logically if the fetus cannot think then the embryo cannot either since the embryo is the very first stage of the growth before you reach the fetus and human stages. Embryos are 100% not alive and are 100% not able to think and are 100% not conscious - I could go on [8]. Con concedes that the fetus and embryo are not human by failing to respond to my argument. I clearly layed out the stages and they simply responded with the following words: ""I could never find out how they do that."" This is clearly not a rebuttal and therefore this should be treated as a concession to the argument. Con believes that the burden of proof is on me however I have clearly proven that it is shared. Con is still contradicting themselves. If the BOP really was on me then there was no need to provide initial arguments which he did. Based on this, you ought to assume that the BOP in this debate is shared. Con obviously believes that there argument is self-evident however this doesn't mean that everybody agrees. My opponent believes that I hold the BOP because their position is evident however I clearly disagree and have provided clear reasons as to why the BOP is shared. You ought to presume pro here.Con says that nobody will try illegal abortions. They are wrong in R1 I showed that 13% of all pregnancy related deaths are because of illegal abortions. Con says that the death penalty is okay in some scenarios but they fail to understand that they just said that life was important and should never be taken. Con says that my grammar is so bad in the teenagers paragraph. There was 1 spelling mistake. >.< I said the argument in R1 and it was dropped. That was just a reiteration. Please respond to the argument in R1 not this. That was basically saying that you dropped the argument. Sources [1] http://bit.ly...;[2] http://bit.ly...;[3] http://bit.ly...;[4] http://bit.ly...;[5] http://bit.ly...;[6] http://to.pbs.org...;[7] http://bit.ly...;[8] http://bit.ly...;",1,"the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a non-viable fertilised ovum or embryo, resulting in or caused by miscarriage",oxford,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"Round 1: Opening statements Round 2: Facts/Argument Round 3: Facts/Argument Round 4: Closing statements I look forward to my oppnents opening statements. Good luck In my opnion, Abortion is wrong. Abortion is basically killing something. It is murder. Which is why it should mot be legalized.",-1,"the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed before the foetus is viable but in some cases earlier in pregnancy.",oxford,abortion,no,yes,neutral,neutral
"Abortion is wrong, there are two many reasons.",-1,"the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy, resulting in or accompanied by the death of the embryo or fetus",oxford,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"What if the mother was raped? While I believe that life begins at implantantation, I support last resort choice that is safe and legal for the mother. Women have the right to make difficult choices for their pregnancy. Do I support birth controll or consensual sterilization as a first resort for free as an independent progressive like Bernie? Yes. Do I think abortion takes a human life? Yes. Do I realize that last resort choice has to exist when two human lives are connected? A resounding yes. That's the very definition of prochoice. My main problem with abolitionists and life of the mother onlyers is that I PERSONALLY BELIEVE that they support legalized forced organ donation. When even a corpse has the right to choose who uses his or her organs, but a live breathing woman does not, I have a problem with that. Here's the thing forced lifers fail to realize: I have no opinion or rights to what or who uses your human body, nor do you over mine. Pardon my French, but no one supports chits and gigles abortion, but anyone of any faith or none whatsoever can support last resort choice. It's a very emotional subject, and so hard to avoid lifers accusing me of hating children (I don't), or choicers accusing you of hating women even if you don't. My final point ius that women will die if abortion is banned according to pre Roe statitistical studies. Is that really prolife?",1,"the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy",oxford,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"OK the problem I have with your rebuttals is that you failed to go into sufficient details as to why you make such an argument. The reason being is that you mention several different topics that fall within the Abortion issue, but instead of sticking to one topic, you briefly mention several, making it hard to defend or attack your assertions. For example, the first statement you make is that abortion is considered murder. You gave me a defintion of murder, yet you have failed to demonstrate WHY a fetus/baby is human and why it's immoral. If a fetus/baby, is considered human (again we didn't define it) then you have to show that it is murder. If it's not a human, then your whole argument fails. The only argument I can make is to demonstrate that neurological activity doesnt FULLY develop until around the 3rd trimester. It is true that there will be simple neurological brain activity by the 6th week, however, they are very basic firings that do not define as it as a human ability. The article that I provided states that it has the same neurological activity as a patient minutes after death. http://www.nytimes.com...;I take a neurological approach because I believe that humans are ultimately defined by our brains. All other organs are accessory organs mediated for our survival. What makes us, human, and ourselves, is really just our brain. Since CON hasn't rebutted my argument about abortion being permissible before the 3rd trimester, my case still holds. The next topic you go on about is nutrition. To be frank, this argument is ridiculous. I dont see how it relates to abortion and even if it did, I dont know what point youre trying to make with this. The fetus gets its nutrients from the placenta, while the baby, after conception, gets it from the mothers breasts. A placenta is not the same thing as a mother's breasts. They're even located on different areas of the human body. The nutrients aren't even the same. The placenta brings in nutrients and hormones for growth and differentiation of cells. The breasts provide milk for specific development of differentiated cells. If they served the same purpose, then why would women have two different organs providing for the same thing?The third topic, rebutting a brief point I made in R1 (which by the way, isnt the crux of my argument) was about abortion in the case of rape. I don't understand why a fetus, who has no activiy of any kind whatsoever and who isnt born yet, has more rights than the mother, who has been living for several years and has contributed to society. Please elaborate why you think a ball of cells has more rights than a living human being. Even if the fetus does have rights, that doesnt mean that it has the right to violate someone else's rights. So no, I do not think it's selfish. In fact, I think in the case of rape, it's selfish from the fetus standpoint to force the mother carry it to term and then another 18 years. Your burden is to prove to me why an inanimate object's rights is greater than a human being's life.The next paragraph you list on development stages, which I dont understand the point. Just because one develops a leg means that it's human? So all types of mammals are now considered human and should have the same human rights as us, is that what youre suggesting? The only relevant argument, to a small degree, is the formaiton of neurons. While it is true that lots of neurons form, one gotta realize that most of those neurons aren't used at all. It's a form of development where the neurons overdevelop to increase the chances of making the correct connections with other parts of the brain. The ones that aren't used, the failed connections, are degraded over time. It's called the neurotrophic hypothesis. For further information please read the abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...;While I do realize that you need a subscription to pubmed and most of the people here do not have it, one should realize that you just need to read the abstract to get a basic understanding of the hypothesis. Lastly, you rebut a small point that I made in R1 about the fetus vs baby. While organs do form, they are nonfunctioning in a fetus. It is essentially a prep time before actual use. It's making sure everything works before the irreversible step of conception. Anyways, it doesnt weaken my argument about abortion at all. Before I submit my responses, one should realize that CON has failed to rebut the crux of my issue on abortion. She cherry-picked small, superfiical information that I made about my opinions on abortion, but not on my actual arguments. I hope the readers realizes that ALL my arguments still stands.",1,"the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed before the fetus is viable, by various medical means, as by the use of abortion drugs or the performance of an abortion surgery",oxford,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"Hello, I hold the null hypothesis when it comes to the issue of abortion.",1,"the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed before the foetus is viable, by various medical means, as by the use of abortion drugs or the performance of an abortion surgery",oxford,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
#1 no ad hominems. #2 standard rules regarding dropped arguments apply I believe that abortion should be illegal except for when the pregnancy poses a serious threat to the life of the mother.,-1,the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a non-viable fetus or a fetus that is not wanted by the mother.,oxford,abortion,no,yes,neutral,neutral
"you keep using the term ""unsafe abortion"" If you go to a clinic where this is practiced is is way more safe than getting it from that hobo down the street. And another thing, you have a better likely hood to gain depression when you have a child as well. And it isn't our place to say anything about mothers who have abortions. What if it wasn't there fault. What if the condom broke, what if the birth control pills didn't work? Why should it be there fault then. Why should we get to judge them based on their decision. This is their choice. And yeah it's very sad, and suicide sadly is an option for them. But if you can't handle a baby then wouldn't it be better to bring a baby into the world when they, THE PARENTS are prepared?",1,an induced miscarriage,oxford,abortion,no,yes,neutral,neutral
"R1 Rebuttals My opponent makes the claim that killing babies (ie. infanticide) is ultimately the same as having an abortion. This is not true as my R1 arguments clearly demonstrate. The list that has been complied by biolgoists to determine whether things are living and the fetus clearly does not meet this list. My opponent cannot make baseless assertions as comparisons to abortions. I have provided scientific evidence in support of the fetus being living whereas my opponent has failed to do the same. Without any evidence to support this comparison voters ought to consider it as baring no weight upon the resolution. My opponent attempt to define life using Webster's dictionary to define life. Unfortunately Webster's dictionary is not used by scientists when determining things. It is not a biological site and it is purposefully vague to as to keep the definition suitable for anybody of any age or background [1]. Of course, even if you do buy my opponent's definition you still ought to presume Pro since this definition includes the condition of reproduction which the fetus is unable to do [2]. Therefore, whichever definition you choose, mine or my opponents, the fetus should be considered to be non-living. My opponent makes the following claim which is completely false: ""According to biology, life has these characteristics:1. Grows and develops (check)2. Capable of reproduction (check)3. Consumes and uses energy (check)4. Responds to stimuli (check)"" [3]1 is true. 2 is completely false, and I have proven this already [2]. 3 is correct. 4 is false, it can detect stimuli however it cannot respond to it until much after the legal date for an abortion [4]. I never referred to the fetus as a clump of cells, merely non-living. Therefore the pre-emptive rebuttal stating that the fetus is not a clump of cells is irrelevant since it is already proven to be non-living which is what is important. My opponent's 3rd point is that the fetus is a human which is false. The genetic material will come out as human because it is growing to become a human however that doesn't mean that it is a human, this simply means that it is developing to become one. My opponent seems to believe that when humans and other species reproduce another member of that species just pops into existence. They are very mistaken. If it's parents are both members of this species then this does not means that it is automatically classified as a member of this species. And even if it is this still doesn't prove that it's living - it simply proves that it could be human (which it isn't). A dead person is still human, but that doesn't mean that it is living does it? Just because something is a member of the same species as something else, this does not mean that it ought to be considered living.This is the only argument that my opponent presents and since the burden of proof is shared, my opponent is clearly unable to fulfill their burden. Another important thing to note is that my opponent fails to prove the impacts of this to me and to readers. Even if you believe my rebuttal to be insufficient and my opponent's argument to be wrong, you still ought to presume Pro since the impacts are not provided. My opponent fails to say why the fact that the fetus is living means that abortions should be illegal (not that I believe this but my opponent clearly does). R2 Rebuttals My opponent completely misunderstands the framework. The framework does not refer to liberals. It refers to libertarians and it provides arguments and a framework for the debate. My opponent has failed to respond to the framework or provide an alternative framework, this is problematic since under my framework abortion should be legal. Without a sufficient rebuttal or alternative, this ultimately means that you can vote Pro based on this alone. Of course the fetus has no choice in being in the mother's womb. Why is that? The answer is: because the fetus isn't alive and only living things can make decisions [5]. The fetus isn't like a prisoner for a number of reasons. The first being that prisoners are held in prisons to be punished. The fetus is not held in the womb as a punishment. The second reason is that the prisoner is held there against their will. The fetus has no will because it is unable to think or feel things so therefore the fetus is not being held their against its will (this is impossible since the fetus has no will). Even if the fetus had will it still wouldn't be a prisoner because when prisoners are released from jail they are free to go back to civilization. If the fetus is taken out of the womb then it will die. The womb is its only place of security and therefore the womb is not like a prison. For this reason my opponent's analogy is flawed. Another point that my opponent's analogy fails to acknowledge is that you actually have to look after the baby once it's born and this can be extremely expensive as my contentions explain. Another vital things that I must pick up on is the insufficieny of a rebuttal to my argument in regards to embryotic abortions. I stated that most abortions are done when it is proven for a 100% fact that the embro is not alive (since it is not even at the stage of being a fetus). My opponent responds by saying that it consumes energy, grows and develops and responds to stimuli. It does not respond to stimuli so even by my opponent's definition the embryo is not alive [6].My opponent makes a common misconception with my biological categories of defining life. I understand that there are people that do not meet all of these categories due to a disability or for some other reason. The problem is that my opponent misunderstands the entire purpose of the argument. The argument is used to define whether a group of things is alive not individual things. We aren't going to go around to every single fetus to test if it's alive or not. We're going to analyze the fetus as a whole and decide whether it's alive or not. Therefore, when analyzing humans using this classification system we analyzed humans on a whole not just every individual humans [7]. My opponent's response to illegal abortions is shocking. He deems mother's to be psychopaths because they want abortions and they are denied the right to do so. Until my opponent is able to prove this, then this argument should not work in his favour since it is under my opponent's burden to provide evidence for this assertion. My opponent drops the rest of my illegal abortions contention by saying that it's a medical issue. This is not true. Having an illegal abortion can result in death but the argument isn't about this alone. It is also about the fact that there is no point in making it illegal if it's going to happen anyway. My opponent completely ignores this part of the argument and only responds to the statement in regards to people dying and being severely injured due to these illegal abortions which is arguably not a medical reason - rather a political related one. My opponent dismisses the argument in regards to teenagers having children by saying that this harms both the mother and child. This may be true however the criteria set in R1 is that I am not allowed to argue in regards to rape, medical issues or incest. I haven't argued in regards to any of these and therefore voters ought to consider this argument as dropped by my opponent. My opponent completely misunderstands my argument and essentially drops all the philosophy in regards to women's rights. He states that this means that women have the right to kill but you cannot kill what isn't alive. Also my opponent fails to acknowledge that this isn't all about whether or not the fetus is living. It is also about human rights. Sources[1] http://bit.ly...;[2] http://bit.ly...;[3] http://bit.ly... [4] http://www.beginbeforebirth.org...;[5] http://www2.fiu.edu...;[6] http://bit.ly...;[7] http://bbc.in...;",1,"the deliberate destruction of a human embryo or foetus, especially in the early stages of pregnancy",oxford,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"It seems my opponent believes that presenting made up statistics is somehow a rebuttal to the truth. I will explain... In response to my claim that 1.2 million more unwanted children will be born per year (an estimate based on the amount of legal abortions reported in 2007 in the US) he claims these extra births would somehow be a boon to the economy. He cites his own ""quick and easy 'facts'"" as his rebuttal. I will refute each of these ""quick and easy facts"" one by one. ""if we were too Illegalize abortion you will find that their is MORE taxpayers"" -Babies don't pay taxes. ""MORE people to buy products in the U.S"" -Babies don't buy anything. ""MORE people in the work force and AND more people to enlist in the military"" -Babies can't work, and though some may consider 17 year olds their ""baby"", babies can't enlist in the military. ""In fact Abortions actually hurt the United States economy in the state of Illinois alone it costs the tax payers $1 million each year."" -Though I would like to see that measly estimate ($1 million is not a lot of money when considering the alternatives; I will explain), because Illinois was mentioned, let's do a quick study on Illinois... -Most children placed by DCFS (Department of Children and Family Services) were from homes so abusive or neglectful that it would be unsafe for them to return. -Illinois spends an annual $14,871,200 in the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services Foster Homes/Specialized Foster Care and Prevention line -$8,100,000 for DCFS funding of personal services to prevent the layoff of frontline staff (http://childcareillinois.wordpress.com...) -In 2007 there were 111,742 reports of child abuse and neglect in the state of Illinois -In 2003 there were 25,344 substantiated cases of child abuse and neglect, more than 4,000 children removed from their homes, and 58 confirmed child deaths due to abuse.(http://www.fightcrime.org...) I know I provided more information than necessary to refute my opponent's claims, but this information is relevant when considering foster care and adoption as a viable alternative to abortion. The truth is many children are abused in foster care, and many homeless in America come from the foster care system. -20,000 youth ""age out"" or emancipate from foster care each year. -Up to 50% of former foster/probation youth become homeless within the first 18 months of emancipation. -Twenty seven percent (27%) of the homeless population spent time in foster care. -Fifty-eight percent (58%) of all young adults accessing federally funded youth shelters in 1997 had previously been in foster care. -Less than half of former foster youth are employed 2.5-4 years after leaving foster care, and only 38% have maintained employment for at least one year. -Youth in foster care are 44% less likely to graduate from high school and after emancipation, 40 – 50 percent never complete high school. -Girls in foster care are six times more likely to give birth before the age of 21 than the general population. -Sixty percent (60%) of women who emancipate from foster care become parents within 2.5-4 years after exiting care. -Parents with a history of foster care are almost twice as likely as parents with no such history to see their own children placed in foster care or become homeless. (http://fosterculture.wordpress.com...) Now, these statistics not only refute my opponent's claims, but they support my claim that illegalizing abortion is more likely to have a negative impact on our economy than my opponent's alternative claim. My opponent admits that I am right about the burden illegalizing abortion would be on the adoption industry. He then claims that the system will ""correct itself"", and the result will be a boon to the economy. The statistics I provided above suggest otherwise. In fact the statistics imply there would be a vicious circle of children in foster care, homelessness, and even crime (http://www.fightcrime.org...). My opponent claims that the right to life is more important to a child who is, as I suggested, doomed to live in these institutions. -7.6% vs 3.1% adoptees vs. non-adoptees are likely to attempt suicide -16.9% vs 8.2% adoptees vs. non-adoptess were likely to have received psychological and/or emotional counseling -Attempted suicide is more common among adolescents who live with adoptive parents than among adolescents who live with biological parents (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org...) I believe many of those who have actually suffered through living in these institutions would disagree with my opponent. My opponent claims that ""only"" 1% of abortions in the US are a result of rape and/or incest. Even so, he does not argue that rape and incest should be an exception, rather that a baby acting as a cancer should be the ONLY exception. Acknowledgment of 1 single abortion performed due to rape and/or incest is justification that that abortion should be allowed. He does not make this argument. Instead he says that ""loved ones whom they trust"" would provide psychiatric support, as well as therapists. What if a girl was raped by a family member (incest), or even her own father? My opponent does not address this. My opponent says he does not see how illegalizing abortion would affect the psychiatric needs of these women and girls. Well, most health insurance does not cover mental health. Mental health already costs the US $150 billion annually. (http://www.apa.org...) My opponent claims that he would rather be born than aborted as the result of rape or incest. I argue that my opponent cannot possibly fathom the mental effects these children suffer, and given the suicide statistics for adoption quoted above, the suicide rates related to depression, and the depression that would occur when finding out you are the child of a rapist, or that your mother is also your sister- I am sure none of us, unless we have suffered through this, can possibly say it is better to be born. My opponent admits illegal abortion rates would go up, and then expects us all to assume (without reason) that the rates will eventually go down. The statistics state otherwise- abortion rates are similar worldwide whether legal or illegal (http://www.iht.com...), and illegalization is not a deterrent from the world's most prevalent medical procedure. The difference is the mortality and injury rates of the women having illegal abortions performed, versus legal abortions (http://www.womensenews.org...). My opponent claims that abortion is an infringement upon the unborn's ""right to life"". I have addressed this in my first round argument- it is not for the law to determine when life begins, and when a ""person"" has the right to live, rather it is for medicine and science to decide. According to medicine, an embryo is not a developed human being (references in R1). Asking whether or not we would have wanted to be aborted does not matter because 1 out of 3 of our mothers have had or will have an abortion by age 45 (http://www.ourbodiesourselves.org...). The question is spiritual, and not scientific- at which point does the human soul enter the human body. Would I have been me had I been born rather than have previously been aborted? I would argue yes- I would still be me whether I was aborted during the conception in which I was actually born and born later, or if I had been born previously. How many millions more of us are lost when our fathers masturbate, or when our mothers perform oral sex? I see no difference in this line of questioning. Thank you.",1,"the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed surgically ( an abortion ) or medically ( a miscarriage )",oxford,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"Let's get to it. I'll respond to his arguments in order (opening, cross-ex, and rebuttal). Contention 1All humans, including the embryo/fetus, have a right to life. The reason the embryos' right to life trumps a right to a woman's bodily autonomy is because in the vast majority of cases, she (and the father) are responsible for its being there. They are responsible for the creation of a naturally needy child, so they bear a responsibility for caring for it. Say you come a cross a button on a wall that says ""baby-making machine"" that offers a pleasurable experience, that has a 1/100 chance of creating a baby. Say you press the button and receive your pleasurable experience, but a baby pops out. You are not justified in just walking away and letting the child die. You must now take responsibility for that child. The Fourteenth Amendment only says one must be born in the United States to be a citizen. The Amendment says that the state shall deprive no person of life. We are not justified in killing illegal immigrants, neither are we justified in killing the unborn simply because they are not citizens. Additionally, before Roe v. Wade, the unborn were persons, legally protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. [1]The embryo/fetus has rights, despite not having interests at the moment. Someone who is asleep or in a coma does not have an interest in remaining alive, but one is assumed. Also, newborns do not have awareness, expectation, etc. , but we still believe it is immoral to kill them (with the exception of some pro-choice philosophers who support infanticide). That's why it's illegal to kill someone who is asleep or in a coma. Plus, if personality and rationality were traits that bestowed a right to life, then humans would not be inherently valuable, personality and rationality would be. This would mean it would be morally justifiable to kill someone if it were possible to bring about two people with these inherently valuable traits. Contention 2Once a woman becomes pregnant, she has already reproduced. Abortion is not about reproduction rights, but the right to end the life of an innocent human. A woman does not have absolute right to her own body. She cannot take illegal drugs, she must obey seatbelt laws, and she cannot strike someone without just cause. Contention 3Banning rape, murder, and theft doesn't stop all rapes, murders, and thefts from happening. But we should not legalize them anyway. Pregnancy is not inherently dangerous. A woman has less than a 1% chance of dying in childbirth or in pregnancy. [2] The reality is that even before Roe v. Wade, the vast number of pregnancies were still done by licensed medical professionals, not unsafe ""home"" abortions. Dr. Mary Calderone, medical director of Planned Parenthood, stated, ""90% of illegal abortions are being done by physicians. Call them what you will, abortionists, or anything else, they are still physicians, trained as such. .. They must do a pretty good job if the death rate is as low as it is. .. Abortion, whether therapeutic or illegal, is in the main no longer dangerous, because it is being done well by physicians. "" [3] That was in 1960, thirteen years before Roe v. Wade was passed. In fact, the numbers of illegal abortion deaths was greatly inflated by the pro-choice side. Dr. Bernard Nathanson, former abortionist and founder of NARAL, has written: ""How many deaths were we talking about when abortion was illegal? In NARAL, we generally emphasized the frame of the individual case, not the mass statistics, but when we spoke of the latter it was always 5,000 to 10,000 deaths a year. I confess that I knew the figures were totally false, and I suppose the others did too if they stopped to think of it. But in the morality of our revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics? The overriding concern was to get the [anti-abortion] laws eliminated, and anything within reason that had to be done was permissible. "" [4]Cross-examinationPro says he only believes homemade abortions should be restricted, but goes on to say that he believes a woman's bodily autonomy does not justify abortion after viability. There is some conflict here, since he apparently believes late-term abortions should be restricted. There is further conflict, since if a woman has ultimate right to her bodily autonomy, then the fetus would not be safe after viability. The woman, under bodily autonomy arguments, has no obligation to keep the fetus alive until the point of birth. She can ""unplug,"" as the euphemism goes, at any time she wants. Perhaps Pro can clarify a bit next round. According to scientific understanding, the unborn are living human organisms (human beings) from fertilization. The problem about viability is it's a moving target. Currently, viability is considered to be at about 24 weeks, but 50 years ago it was at 28 or 29 weeks. Are we to assume 24 week fetuses are human beings now but that same human would not have been 50 years ago? Viability is a moving target that changes with advancements in technology. Plus, according to Pro's criterion, people on life support are not human beings. It would be morally permissible to end their lives for any reason, even if they have a good chance of survival. I don't see any reason not to consider pre-viable embyros and fetuses human beings, especially since the viable fetus is the same entity as the pre-viable one. He has ignored my question about Thalidomide, but it is definitely relevant. If a woman has a right to her bodily autonomy, then there should be nothing wrong with taking Thalidomide which will cause birth defect, despite the fact that her child will be born without limbs. RebuttalUsing Joyce Arthur is a fallacious appeal to authority on Pro's part. First, just because there is no consensus does not mean that everyone is wrong or that no one is right. Second, there is scientific consensus on when human life begins. It is at fertilization (I gave a scientific case in round one, and also gave quotes by embryologists, the experts on human embryology, that human life begins at fertilization). It's simply false to say that no one knows. Also, if no one knows, the benefit of the doubt should go to life. If you don't know there whether there is anyone inside a condemned building, it would be utterly irresponsible to blow it up anyway. You would check to make sure there is no one alive in the building before blowing it up. Joyce Arthur simply appears ignorant of the scientific facts. Being dependent on only one person does not mean that someone is not a human being. That's simply bad reasoning. Plus, if you are the last one out of a pool but you hear a splash and, upon investigating, there is a toddler in the pool drowning, totally dependent on you for survival, are you justified in walking away and leaving the child to drown or are you responsible for saving the child? Pro's reasoning is bad. Having human DNA and showing signs of life makes you a living human organism. Pro has not offered any compelling reason for not considering the unborn human beings. As I illustrated, viability is not adequate. Being a living human organism from fertilization is sufficient for being a human being. To claim otherwise is semantic nonsense. I don't have room for my second contention, so I'll go ahead and drop it. But my case against abortion succeeds anyway, and I have shown why Pro's case for it fails. I look forward to our next round. [1] Francis J. Beckwith, Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice, (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, New York, 2007), p.22. [2] . http://health.usnews.com...[3] Mary Calderone, American Journal of Public Health, July 1960. [4] Bernard Nathanson, Aborting America, New York, Doubleday, 1979, p. 193",-1,the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a non-viable fetus or a fetus that is not yet viable.,oxford,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"ObservationsOV1: Con uses no sources in his rounds which you should note. This means that conflicting notions such as con's claim that the requirements for life are different to the ones I suggested should be ignored. I provided sources and evidence that the requrements for life are not the same as what con claims that they are. I provided sources and evidence my criteria in which I should classify life ought to be bought over con's list of classifications. It is also important to note that con essentially concedes when they provided their classifications for life due to the fact that the fetus does not meet their criteria as well. OV2: It should be made clear that the BOP is shared in this debate since we both have contradicting objectives to achieve. I must prove that abortion ought to be legalized whereas con must prove that abortions ought to be illegal. We both have positions to affirm and we both have our con's arguments to negate. Since con only brings one argument into this debate that regards to the fetus being alive this means that their position in this debate is severly mitigated.R3 Rebuttals Con states that I ignored their 4 characteristics. This is false. I have demonstrated that their argument fails under both of our definitions of life. I have also proven that you ought to buy my definition of life over con's one since I provided sources. Con fails to understand the parameters set. They also act contrary to their position. They present a definition of life which sets the parameter that it must be able to reproduce (bare in mind that con introduces this in their parameters too). They then contradict themselves and say that reproduction should not be a parameter for considering life because children who haven't gone through puberty cannot reproduce. I will make the same clarification that I made before. The parameters used to define life aren't used individually, they are used to define whether the entire human race is living. The answer to this is yes because the large majority of all humans will eventually be able to reproduce and the large majority can [1]. Killing children isn't acceptable to their sentience and consciousness and due to the fact that they will be able to reproduce in their current state as human beings [2]. I have already stated why the lack of ability to reproduce is a valid reason as to why a group of things (in this case fetus') is a good enough reason to dismiss it as a living thing. Con has dropped this. I proved that the fetus cannot respond to stimuli. Con states that I am wrong because he said reacts not responds. This is a poor rebuttal since they are both synonyms. I could have said that the fetus cannot react to stimuli and it would have meant the same thing as responds to stimuli. The fetus cannot react and respond to stimuli [3], can Con please respond to this sufficiently now. Con attempted a pre-emptive rebuttal to an argument that I may possibly make; I never made this argument, in fact I agree that the fetus isn't just a clump of cells but this proves nothing for Pro or Con and this argument ought to be thrown out of the debate for this reason. I said that the fetus is developing to become a human. Con states that this means that all men under the age of 33 are also developing. This a key issue that I'd like to address. The fetus is developing TO BECOME a human being [5]. Babies, children, teenagers and young adults are developing AS HUMANS [4]. They are still humans whereas the fetus is not [4]. Con excludes the main elements of libertarian philosophy which consist of two beliefs:1. The government ought to have less power and make less restrictions. [6][7].2. The individual is the most important member of society and their opinions and rights ought to be prioritized to the highest level of their ability to do so [6][7]. Life is important in libertarianism however less government restriction is also extremely important factor and by preventing somebody from having an abotion is a restriction that libertarians ought to avoid at all costs [7]. As my contentions have described, this is a violation of the women's equality and human rights. By preventing the women from having an abortion you violate the women's right and you also violate libertarianism. Being against abortions violates the two most important libertarian ideologies, this means that it is an overall violation of libertarianism. Con provides no alternative framework and mine still stands, you ought to vote Pro baed solely on the premise that under my framework abortion is morally permissable. He asks me a question: ""Do you think he/she WANTS to live in someone who wants to kill it?""The answer to this question is that the fetus isn't alive and it doesn't have an opinion. No matter whether you're for or against abortion everybody acknowledges that the fetus isn't able to formulate opinions [8]. Con's old man analogy is faulty. He fails to consider financial issues but that isn't the only problem. He forgets that the fetus doesn't care if it's on the boat or not, neither does it care if it on board or thrown off because if the boy represents the fetus then this boy must also not be able to think or have opinions [8]. I have also demonstrated that the fetus isn't alive. This means that con's analogy based on the premise that all possible outcomes and situations haven't been analyzed and the fact that con hasn't acknowledged that the fetus cannot think or forumlate opinions, means that the analogy fails. I do not advocate infanticide / killing children, the scenarios are completely different as I have already proven. Con's rebuttal to the fact that most abortions are done at the stage where the fetus is DEFINITELY not alive. The ebryo is less developed than the fetus and cannot feel pain or think or respond to stimuli etc. [9]. Con makes the mistake of calling the fetus a human. The stages begin with the fertilization of the sperm and egg, the embryo, the fetus, then the human. There is a distinguishable difference between the fetus and the human [10]. I still advocate the fact that we must look at things as a whole and looking at people with disabilities is not applicable in classifying life as people with disabilities still belong to the same species as us. Con's next rebuttal is subjective. He states that abortion isn't a right. Life is. It is still under his BOP to prove why. Until this is done there is nothing to refute. This is all bare assertion.Con says that illegal abortions should be punished but doesn't refute the argument that says that the problem won't be solved anyway. I have shown that in places where abortion is illegal, illegal abortions still occur. The consequences are much worse than what Con suggests as a result of these illegal abortions. Sometimes the baby and mother die or are severely injured in the process. If you legalize abortions then people won't be inclined to do it illegally and they will do it legally - ie. safely.Con is contradictory. At first they say that the most important right is life and emphasize that life is extremely important and that aborting the fetus is murder, they then say that the mother should receive death by stoning. This is contradictory to the case and is a concession - it negates the only argument that they provided. I never that the teenagers were below the legal age of abortions being allowed. I said 18-19 year olds which is old enough [6]. The argument talked about teenagers missing out on their lives. This means that it still stands and has been dropped again. Con respond to human rights by saying that he supports the right to life. This doesn't make sense; he says that we should stone the mothers to death which is not supporting the right to life. Sources[1] http://bbc.in...[2] http://bit.ly...;[3] http://bit.ly... [4] http://bit.ly...;[5] http://bit.ly...;[6] http://bit.ly...;[7] http://bit.ly...;[8] http://bit.ly...;[9] http://bit.ly...;[10] http://bit.ly...;",1,"the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed before the foetus is viable but in some cases later in pregnancy.",oxford,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"Firstly, I want to make myself clear, though I do not agree with abortion, there are certain circumstances where it is acceptable. That being rape, incest, and medical issues. However, having an abortion ""just because"", or ""I don't want to have to take care of my kid"", then it is no different than murder. This type of thinking, is the same type of thinking that the feminists are using to justify abortion, they are not justifying it in rape, incest, or medical issues only, they are trying to say that it is OK in any circumstance. Back during the bronze age of around 3,000-1,000 B.C.E., there was a popular Sumerian religion that worshiped Baal. People would sacrifice their babies to Baal via cooking them alive (getting cooked alive, sounds familiar doesn't it). Archaeologists wondered how mothers could have their children be cooked alive, and they came to the conclusion, that they were able to have this detestable act done, because they did not consider their babies to be a living human, now this should sound very familiar. So, no one is arguing that women shouldn't have control of their bodies, they are entitled to complete control over their bodies, however, I am arguing that a fetus is a living human also, and hence is ALSO entitled to complete control over their body, which includes the right not to be cooked alive. So if you want to argue that women should have control over their bodies, you must argue that babies must have control over their bodies. It is two separate bodies, and hence the baby has rights too, separate from the mother. Point 1: a fetus is alive: Now, I will be arguing that a fetus is a living human, and by definition, it is, let's look at the definition of life according to Websters dictionary: ""the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death."" Please note, nowhere in this definition will you see ""took a first breath"", and all of these definitions, a fetus fits, it can grow, it will be able to reproduce eventually, it will be able to preform functional activity, and it will continue to change until death. According to biology, life has these characteristics: 1. Grows and develops (check) 2. Capable of reproduction (check) 3. Consumes and uses energy (check) 4. Responds to stimuli (check) Point 2: a fetus is NOT a clump of cells: So, I have established that a fetus is alive, now I will establish that it is not a clump of cells, calling a fetus a ""clump of cells"" is mind boggling, no scientific mind would look at a fetus, and say ""meh- it's a bag of cells"", calling it a clump of cells is inherently wrong, a fetus is not a clump of cells any more than you or I are clumps of cells. Because a ""clump"" suggests that it has no form or organization, a fetus cannot be considered a ""clump of cells"", because a fetus's cells has organization, and all those cells are working for the survival of the rest of the ""clump"", hence, the correct term would be a ""system of cells"", just like you or me. Point 3: A fetus is a human: This is very easy to prove, if you sample a fetus's DNA, and test it, what will you find? The genetic material comes from a human, not a baboon, or a buffalo, or a ""clump of cells"", a HUMAN. Problem solved, it's genetics are human genetics, it's a human, what else? It's dad is a human, it's mom is a human, they aren't ducks are they? So, it would logically follow, that their child will be---- A HUMAN! It cannot be a clump of cells, the dad isn't a clump of cells, the mom isn't a clump of cells, so, logically their offspring will be a human, not a clump of cells. If I get a duck, and another duck, and I breed them, they will give birth to a duck, same with gorillas, eagles, snakes, lions, bears, whales, dolphins, etc, they will give birth to gorillas, eagles, snakes, lions, bears, whales, dolphins, etc. So, if two humans get together, the only logical outcome, is that their offspring will be a human, NOT a clump of cells.",-1,"the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed surgically ( by abortion ) but sometimes medically ( by abortion ) or spontaneously ( by miscarriage ).",oxford,abortion,no,yes,neutral,neutral
"Abortion, despite how it may seem, is not a complicated issue. Either the fetus is alive, and thus is a human life. or it isn't. there are a number of moral arguments to the debate. the first moral argument is that scientifically the human fetus meets the criterion to be considered alive from conception (1)"" Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."" As we can see, the fetus is genetically human and meets every criterion to be considered alive. now that we have established that the human life begins at conception I may be faced with the argument from many in favor of abortion that though the organism forming in the womb is alive (if they don't fully reject the known science thus committing fallacy) that it is not a person. this leads me to moral argument number two which is: even if you don't consider the humanity of the organism in the womb, there are plenty of things that exist that are A. not persons. and B. has rights and intrinsic value, for example, dogs or other domesticated animals. To state that simply because you don't consider the human fetus (which is what I shall be referring to the developing child as hereinafter.) to be a person, does not mean that it does not have rights and value. Furthermore, even if you deny the humanity of the fetus, you are still dealing with a potential human life which should be held in higher moral regard than the convenience of the mother or father. Another argument that many of those on the pro-choice side of the argument is that women have the human right to control their bodies. And I am in complete agreement. When it is your body that you are doing something to then you should have every right to do so insofar as it's not self-harm. However, the human fetus is not your body. It is IN your body. as I stated in my first card in the scientific portion of my argument, the human fetus has a separate genetic identity with the restoration of the diploid number of chromosomes. therefore, the human fetus is not a part of the mother's body any more than the child would be after (s)he was born. I hold that the time to control your body would have been before conception IE: using birth control or not having sexual intercourse. one thing that society appears to have forgotten, is that sex is not for pleasure. it is the biological process through which most species ensure the continuation of their species through reproduction (2). if you choose to partake in an action the purpose of which is to reproduce. (thus controlling your body.) then you accept the risk of conception. Moral argument number 3. does the fetus have any rights, any intrinsic value, and any right to live. well, the collective opinion of society is that the fetus has essentially infinite right to live. when? if and only if the mother decides to keep the child. if she does, society and its laws, regard the fetus with infinite worth and considers it so valuable, that if someone were to kill that child they would be prosecuted for homicide. keeping in mind that the definition of homicide is: the deliberate and unlawful killing of one person by another (3). we can, therefore, see that if the mother decides to keep her child then the law recognizes it as a person. if she doesn't, the fetus is considered worthless with essentially no right to live. now, does that make sense? it doesn't seem to. either the fetus has worth, or it doesn't. on what moral grounds does the mother alone have the right to decide the fetus' worth? most people would consider killing the baby once it exits the womb as murder. however, the deliberate killing of the fetus a mere two months before is no more morally problematic than extracting a tooth. and finally, we need to recognize that there are instances when an abortion simply cannot be considered moral. take for example if the mother or father aborts a child because they prefer boys to girls. as has happened millions of times in China and elsewhere. or any other form of bias or preference of the mother or father simply cannot offer moral grounds for the termination of the human life. I look forward to a rational and well thought out debate and wish my opponent the best of luck. I eagerly await your response. (1) https://www.princeton.edu.................. (2) www.biology-online.org (3)www.dictionary.com",-1,"the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or destruction of the embryo or fetus, especially in the first eight weeks after conception",oxford,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"Thank you again 16K for instigating and posting your arguments. I’d like to point out that I’m neither for nor against Abortion, I have neutral opinions on this matter making me undecided. But this’ll be fun to debate. Good luck. REBUTTAL Fetus = Human, killing them is murder The only relevant argument opponent has given here is that a fetus has a ‘life’, but that doesn’t make it a sentient, conscious, viable, fully-grown human being. The fetus may be a member of the Homo sapiens, but they are not fully resembled human beings who are sentient and with rights. They are not natural-born citizens, they cannot be dependent on their own body and they need the woman’s body to live, if we let the fetus’ moral rights override the mother’s, then this is close to invading the woman’s privacy and the right of the woman to choose. My opponent claims that life begins at fertilization, which is wrong. In fact, life begins before fertilization. Sperm and egg cells are actually living things. But the question should not be when life begins, rather, it should be when must we consider that the fetus be sentient or actually feel anything. Here’s a report published by Joyce Arthur entitled: “Personhood: Is a Fetus a Human Being?” {1}, according to her research, it showed that Fetuses are uniquely different from actual humans, and the most fundamental difference is that a fetus is totally dependent on a woman's body to survive. Anyone can take care of a newborn infant, but onlypregnant women can nurture their fetus. She can’t hire someone else to do it. Also, she said that fetuses don’t just depend on the woman for survival, but it needs to be insidethe woman’s body for it to live. She states that human beings must be separate individuals. So this very much refutes the idea that fetuses should be prioritized more because they can take care by themselves, which is false. Moving on, here’s a brief conclusion on opponent’s case: P1: Abortion ends the life of the fetus. P2: a fetus is a human being. C: Therefore, abortion is murder. This is false, so now (and this is important) to say actually affirm those contentions and say that abortion is murder, 16K needs to show and accurately prove that 1) a fetus is a human being, and 2) All abortions are the unlawful killing of a human being with premeditation and malice aforethought. But technically, abortion is legal in the US (state and federal) since Roe v. Wade, so somewhat negates 2). So this means that abortion is (or somewhat) actually the opposite of murder, it is lawful, it is (sometimes) unintentional and it is without premeditation and without malice. Morally wrong to kill a person and society opposes such act This premise fails on so many ways, look at the following scenarios and tell me that these aren’t morally wrong and society opposes such acts: - Self Defense/ Defense of others - It is considered morally permissible to kill a killer to save your own life or kill a person to protect loved ones and others? - Kill one, save many- It is morally acceptable to kill the terrorists before 9/11 which affected upcoming the Afghan/Iraq war? - Parasitic twin scenario- We have a conjoined twins, and it only survives if we sacrifice one, so would it be considered moral to kill a weaker twin to save the stronger one? No surgery means both twins die. - Trolley Problem- Let’s say you are in a moving trolley and your mother is tied to the tracks a few meters from you, you’re about to hit her. Although, there’s another way, but there are 5 people tied to the tracks in that direction. Now you have to choose between killing your mom and killing 5 people. What should you do? If my opponent still argues that these acts are all morally wrong, he’s either lying or is out of his mind. Either way, his premise fails and these scenarios are justified morally under utilitarian view and deontological theory. Morally wrong to kill a fetus Similar to my opponent’s 2nd premise. Religion on abortion This is somewhat irrelevant to the debate, since Religion has no say on Abortion laws. My opponent’s verse has no connection to abortion whatsoever. And quoting the Ten Commandments doesn’t help him too, since the Bible is contradictory, like Hosea 9:13-16, where God said that children will be dashed in pieces and that pregnant women will be ripped open. Numbers 31:17 states that adulterous women should be killed, because they bear a child that they got from premarital sex. Also Psalms 137:9 which states that God will bless shall the ones who dash little kids with rocks. PRO-life > PRO-choice My opponent admitted that this is irrelevant and we should just discard it, I agree, but even if we didn’t, this graph is unreliable and inaccurate since it has no source whatsoever and that it didn’t show how many people were interviews. My opponent could’ve just made this statistic by interviewing 10 people and the majority are PRO-lifers. CASE C1: Abortion is NOT murder I’ve fulfilled my obligation to negate this premise. See my rebuttals above for review. I also mentioned that even if abortion ends a life, it’s still morally acceptable, in some circumstances, like issues of maternal health and risks, rape, incest and poverty. Surely we don’t want to abuse people’s choices to protect themselves especially if their lives are at stake. C2: Valuing Women’s Rights My opponent didn’t really rebut this premise, he just put up a graph/statistic that have no sources and didn’t explain it, please ignore them. And even if the chart is accurate, it just shows more PRO-lifers than PRO-choicers, they don’t necessarily oppose their right to abort. See contention 4 for my extension to this. C3: Abortion happens regardless of legality My opponent’s rebuttal here are hearsay testimonies instead of providing accurate statistics, not to mention the testimonies had no sources to back it up. So we could discard them for lack of accuracy and evidence, making them invalid. As I said, illegalizing abortion is a disadvantage and may lead to bad outcomes. Because you see, crime rates were reduced after Roe v. Wade, if we overturn that SC decision, then we would be undermining our constitution and that ‘back alley’ or illegal abortions will rise. This is a dangerous risk to take for a mother wanting an illegal abortion since the risks are very much higher than an abortion made by a professional. There was a study conducted by John Donohue and Steven Levitt entitled, ""The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime"" {2}. They showed that after Roe v. Wade, crime rates reduced and fell roughly after 18 years of the decision. States with high abortion rates after Roe experienced a huge drop in crime in the 90s. They state that when abortion was fully legalized, it accounted for much as 50% of the recent decline in crime rates. In El Salvador {3}, abortion is illegal and is punishable up to 25 years but yet more and more people commit ‘back alley’ abortion, and these rates are rising. The UN has urged this country to pass an abortion law so the crime rates may fall, but it’s still pending. {4} C4: Abortion is a right I’ll make a few points to support my claim and since I’m running out of characters, and since the only topic that matters here is if abortion is murder. Now, after Roe v. Wade, America has become a symbol for promoting rights, women’s rights, the right to choose and right to privacy. It’s an important and a valuable right since a fetus is technically invading the woman’s body and it depends on the body to survive, which is a risk. If we give rights to unborn fetuses, it would be like taking off the mother’s rights and women will lose control over their body. The life of the mother is more valuable than the fetus. If I may ask, if women can’t be trusted with their choice to abort, how can we trust them with children? I await my opponent’s response, and hopefully use proper sentencing structure and grammar and not rely on c/p testimony. Thank you and good luck. CITATIONS Comments.",1,"the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed surgically when it is carried out in the medical field",oxford,abortion,no,yes,neutral,neutral
"Lets begin with Pro's argument about currently legal abortion, as abortion is not legal in my state. There is currently much debate about whether or not to legalize it, the purpose of my debate is to show why not to legalize it. It also goes to show why Pro's 'illegal killing' argument is invalid and does not pertain to all states, including mine. Moving on. Since most home pregnancy tests detect pregnancy as early as a week after a missed period, 5 weeks after implantation, the fetus is then considered viable. (babymed.com) Current abortion laws in 13 different states do not allow abortion after 24 weeks because ""a presumption of viability"" exists. (wikipedia) If a 24 weeks fetus is considered viable, why not a 4-5 week fetus? The insinuation that all vertebrates be given human status because they all have heartbeats is absurd. But if that's the way you look at it, grant them human status then it would be illegal to kill and eat them as it would be considered cannibalism. As for pregnancy stemming from rape, the decision to abort would be completely left up to the mother. You said why add murder to a terrible thing like rape? Why should a woman be forced to carry a child that is a product of a hate crime? What about the daily reminder of the terrible crime commited against her? Rape victims want to move forward with their lives not be reminded of the incident everyday when they look down at their growing bellies. Why cause more pain and suffering by forcing her to carry it ? As you offered no argument on my statements about the abundance of birth control available to women today, I can only assume that you understand and agree with that fact. Furthermore, I would like to reiterate the point I made in my last statement, and say that these numerous forms of birth control are available at little or no cost to a woman and most certainly should be utilized if pregnancy is not desired. Too often young women are engaging in sexual intercourse unprotected without thought to the consequences. Knowing, in some cases, that if they happen to get pregnant, it can just be 'taken care of'. No more should this be a viable option for irresponsible women. You made your bed lie in it. I'm willing to bet if abortion were no longer an option, birth control would be better utilized, and teen pregnancy would drop.",-1,"the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed surgically ( by hysterectomy or dilation and curettage ) when it is not wanted or considered to be untimely, in particular as a result of rape or incest or because of fetal malformation.",oxford,abortion,yes,yes,pro,pro
"Abortion should not be seen as a crime. Once someone aborts, many view them as a cruel, bad person. A parent who aborts always has a reason behind their abortion. One cannot judge a person if they do not see the situation or know the reason behind their abortion. Many women who abort are young who still have a whole life ahead of them, and are simply unable to provide the baby with all its necessities. Some women get raped, others have health problems, or sometimes the baby has health problems. You have to be able to understand the situation of the parent. No one wants too see a baby suffering along with a young mom who was not able to abort therefore leading to her dropping out of school and living in bad conditions with no education.",1,terminate a pregnancy by destroying the embryo or fetus,oxford,abortion,no,yes,neutral,neutral
"My opponent said: ""An extra 1.2 million children born per year would be disastrous to our economy, our orphanages, and the children doomed to live their lives in these institutions."" My opponent stated that our economy,orphanages,and the children would suffer from illegalizing abortion. Well, here are some quick and easy facts, if we were too Illegalize abortion you will find that their is MORE taxpayers, MORE people to buy products in the U.S,MORE people in the work force and AND more people to enlist in the military. In fact Abortions actually hurt the United States economy in the state of Illinois alone it costs the tax payers $1 million each year. My opponent also stated: ""There are perpetually about 500,000 kids in foster care each year. With all the movement in and out of foster care, there is a constant 130,000 children awaiting adoption. In total, in 2007, 783,000 children were in the foster care system at some point. Only about 50,000 American children are adopted every year "" If the United States were to illegalize abortion tomorrow my opponent is right the Adoption Industry would boom and you would find that there would be a need to build more orphanages and there would be a need to get the kids in permanent households. So, he is right that the orphanages would be greatly impacted at FIRST, but over a period of time both the government and the orphanages as individuals would begin to build more orphanages to house all the kids,(which by the way would create countless jobs across America and further boost the economy.)and they would also find ways to give up children at less costlier of a price and there would be a significant increase in adoption advertisements which always helps a cause. In the long run the problems in the overcrowded orphanages would correct its self. As for this statement "" children doomed to live their lives in these institutions."" In my opinion and I hope the voters agree with me on this, the worst doom of all is not even getting the chance to live and the right to life. As for this argument: "" my opponent ignores the conditions of rape and incest. Who will father these children? Will he? Who will provide psychiatric support for these women- too often children themselves- who have been violated and impregnated by disgusting criminals? Who will provide the psychiatric support for the children themselves when they are born?"" With all the abortions that occur each year in the U.S. only 1% of all abortions are from a result from rape and incest. ""who will provide psychiatric support for these women?"" Well, to answer the question I guess I'd have to say by loved ones whom they trust or by a therapist or both. But, I also don't see how illegalizing abortion is going to effect the needs of psychiatric needs of the woman. You cannot punish an unborn child through abortion due to the evils of another human. I don't know about you but I would rather know that I was born through a rape then to be aborted and not living at all. Also.... my opponent states: "" Illegalizing abortion would not lower abortion rates, rather it will raise illegal abortion rates, and the mortality rates associated with abortion. In 1972, a year before abortion became legal, there were a reported 130,000 illegal abortions. From 1975-1979 there were 11,300 illegal abortions reported. (http://findarticles.com......) Repealing Roe v. Wade (one of the steps required to illegalize abortion) would most likely result in a rise in illegal abortions."" Again my opponent is correct on one thing the Illegal abortion rates WOULD go up a few years after it becomes illegal because our society is conditioned to believe abortion is okay. But, you will find that in the long run assuming our government enforces the law and arrests people and keep people in line, you will find that Illegal abortions will decrease significantly and 130,000 abortions is a heck of a lot less then an estimated 1.3 million each year. My opponent also says that is the right of a woman to decide what she wants to do with her body. But this is not the case, It is the right of the babies right to life that abortion infringes on. I'm going to ask the voters and my opponent a question would have wanted to be aborted while in the mothers womb? Thanks for accepting this debate Also my two main sources for the debate: Abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html and citizenlink.org/clnews/A000006052.cfm",-1,"the termination of a pregnancy by other than normal delivery or miscarriage, induced voluntarily.",oxford,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"OK so you said I failed to tell you why the fetus/baby is a human and your right but I will now tell you why it is a human being going off of several definitions Human being: a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance. Human being: A member of any of the races of Homo sapiens; person; man, woman, or child You see these do not state the fact that the fetus/baby has to be born yet. It is a child (Human being) a female to start off and then either stays a female or develops male-like features. therefore going back to the murder statement: Murder: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. since we have now established that the fetus/baby is a human being you can now see that this is in fact murder. the fetus/baby (human being) is being sucked out (killing the fetus/baby) by another human being. Although you could say it is Justifiable Homicide (only if the abortion is legal in most cases it is) there is no difference between when abortion was illegal and now when it is legal besides the fact that it is legal. there is a slight difference between murder and Justifiable Homicide. but the thing is, is it really justifiable besides the fact that it is now legal to kill an innocent fetus/baby. You can not say that it isn't innocent, because it hasn't done anything, the father did something continuing on I am also going to go on to your rape statement along with the murder and justifiable homicide. If a teenager is raped and she gets pregnant (now this is rare for a teenager to get pregnant from a rape so you can barely make this point but I will address it anyways) who is there to blame, the father, not the child. The teenager is living with her parents and in this case there are several people who can in fact take care of the child. even if they are poor the teenager and parent(s) can take care of child giving the baby more support than a wanting child. If the teenager is too scared to take care of a child she decides to get an abortion but, can it be justified besides it being a legal abortion JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE: That which is committed with the intention to kill, or to do a grievous bodily injury, under circumstances which the law holds sufficient to exculpate the person who commits it. 2. It is justifiable, 1. When a judge or other magistrate acts in obedience to the law. 2. When a ministerial officer acts in obedience to a lawful warrant, issued by a competent tribunal. 3. When a subaltern officer, or soldier, kills in obedience to the lawful commands of his superior. 4. When the party kills in lawful self-defence. 3.-1. A judge who, in pursuance of his duty, pronounces sentence of death, is not guilty of homicide; for it is evident, that as the law prescribes the punishment of death for certain offences, it must protect those who are entrusted with its execution. A judge, therefore, who pronounces sentence of death, in a legal manner, on a legal indictment, legally brought before him, for a capital offence committed within his jurisdiction, after a lawful trial and conviction, of the defendant, is guilty of no offence. 4.-2. Magistrates, or other officers entrusted with the preservation of the public peace, are justified in committing homicide, or giving orders which lead to it, if the excesses of a riotous assembly cannot be otherwise be repressed. 5-2. An officer entrusted with a legal warrant, criminal or civil, and lawfully commanded by a competent tribunal to execute it, will be justified in committing homicide, if, in the course of advancing to discharge his duty, he be brought into such perils that, without doing so, he cannot either save his life, or discharge the duty which he is commanded by the warrant to perform. And when the warrant commands him to put a criminal to death, he is justified in obeying it. 6.-3. A soldier on duty is justified in committing homicide, in obedience to the command of his officer, unless the command was something plainly unlawful. 7.-4. A private individual will, in many cases, be justified in committing homicide, while acting in self-defense. See Self-defense. Vide, generally, It's not any of these reason's its a justifiable homicide besides the fact that it is because it is some how legal. she's not defending herself (no one is coming at her) she's not a solider she's not a officer she's not a judge now going back to the human being definition: there by it can't be a mammal because of the difference between a human being and a mammal, that a fetus is developing even before the mother aborts the fetus/baby. OK the nutrition part. Why is there two different things, because they need different things because they are developing differently. Why is it in two different spots, because the baby is inside the mother for nine months and outside afterwards. She's not stealing those things either. when you get your period it's preparing your body for pregnancy some of those stuff is just for pregnancy. the body is for pregnancies. You can't say the baby is taking away and it's not right because your womb prepared for it not so you can kill the baby and say it was taking away the nutrition and now it's your right to kill it, just because you can.",-1,"the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed surgically when it is carried out in a medical setting",oxford,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"Abortion gives women the right to do as they please. And see fit with their own body. Women are given the freedom of choice, to do what they would like. Humans are endowed to life,liberty and pursuit of happiness as stated in The Declaration of Independence. These rights are our ""unalienable rights"", and they are protected by the Government. Abortion is also legal. There are no laws the prohibit Abortion in some states. So if it is not Illegal then we should be able to do as we please. Sources: http://www.archives.gov... You are asserting that giving birth is the ""responsible"" choice in the event of a pregnancy but that your opinion. If the woman knows that she will not be able to provide for the child,or the child will be born with a disability that will affect the child throughout it's whole life, then she should be able to abort if needed. Also if the child will have a short,miserable life, then the mother should be able to choose if she will keep the child or not.",1,the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or destruction of the embryo or fetus,noslang,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"I will accept your challenge of the issue of Abortion. The view points on this are about 50/50 so I can see this being a VERY close fight, prehaps to the death. Argue well, and may the best man win.",1,the act of deliberately killing a human fetus,noslang,abortion,yes,no,con,con
"I encourage my opponent to make one last conclusion on this debate, and not forfeit the last argument. In conclusion, abortions are a very bad thing, both for the mother and the child. Abortions cause physical and mental pain to the mother, and often leave them second guessing themselves. Doctors should be the ones protecting the children, not the ones aborting the children. Now, there is a better option, put the child up for adoption. As i mentioned above there is a plethora of parents who would love to adopt the children of those who do not want them. Lastly, abortion should be illegal only if it endangers the life of the mother. Otherwise, we will see many negative impacts on our country both now and into the future.",-1,the termination of a pregnancy so that it does not result in the birth of a child,noslang,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"I apologize for the delay. I will be arguing against abortion. I hope that round 1 was not all of Pro's argument but all Pro seems to indicate that abortion is a right. I am unaware of such a right. Since pro did not make many arguments for abortion I will give a brief outline of arguments against abortion and I will try to incorporate some counterclaims as well. Life Begins at ConceptionIt is a foregone conclusion that what is in a mother's stomach is a living being and not simply a body part of the woman's body. End of story. [1]Those who are pro-choice tend to avoid calling to murder by pointing out that since the baby isn't viable it is more justifiable. I am assuming pro is fine with pretty much all forms of abortion that take place because pro did not give any period of time. If we use what I just gave as a reference, babies can become viable sometimes as early as 22 weeks. [2]Even prior to that, why is there any justification for killing a living baby just because it cannot survive on its own? Plus if one were to just wait a few weeks, the baby will become viable. Proponents of abortion, especially those who consider it a right, tend to argue that since abortion is the deliberate termination of a baby in the womb, if the government would outlaw abortion they would be ""forcing"" women to have a baby which is unjust. This is blatantly false. The government is not ""forcing"" people to have babies by preventing the murder of them. The government is simply executing one of its primary roles which is to protect the life of people. The government has every right to prevent people from murdering each other. And guess what? A women has every right to not get pregnant. I look forward to your response. Sources:[1]: . https://www.princeton.edu...[2]: . http://www.nytimes.com...",-1,"the termination of a human pregnancy, as a medical procedure or in some cases as a result of accident or injury",noslang,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"To define infanticide one must first define life. Human rights are applied to the living. A corpse has no human rights after life has seeped away from it for example. A foetus had no human rights until life has emerged from the biological process. 'Murder for pleasure'. Really! Your argument seems to be based from an emotional standpoint. You utilise terms such as murder and infanticide when referring to abortion. Whether this comes from a religious standpoint or your own moralising you have left unclear. You state: 'What people need to understand is that it is no skin off the womens constitutional rights to be denied the 'right' to murder their children.' First I will ask you when a collection of cells become a child. There is a large grey area you could have swung for yet I suspect from your writing, and though you haven't stated it as I requested, it is conception. If that is so then I strongly disagree. One week after conception the potential of life is but a bunch of cells. And yet you would argue that this bunch of cells is enough to deny a woman the right to life, liberty and property as set out within your constitution and that you are fond of quoting. Your argument of constitutional illegality is flawed and USA centric. Unless you are only concerned with infringing upon the rights of American women I would ask what your argument might be in addressing European abortion. The laws here are a little different, and less disproportionate than 'you' would wish. From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org... Fetal rights are moral rights or legal rights of human fetuses under natural and civil law. The term fetal rights came into wide usage after the landmark case Roe v. Wade that legalized abortion in the United States in 1973.[1] The concept of fetal rights has evolved to include the issues of maternal drug and alcohol abuse.[2] The only international treaty specifically tackling the fetal rights is the American Convention on Human Rights which envisages the fetal right to life. While international human rights instruments lack a universal inclusion of a fetus as a person for the purposes of human rights, fetus is granted various rights in the constitutions and civil codes of several countries. Many legal experts recognize an increasing need to settle the legal status of the fetus. And: Under European law, fetus is generally regarded as an in utero part of the mother and thus its rights are held by the mother.[42] The European Court of Human Rights opined that the right to life does not extend to fetuses under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR),[42] although it does not confer on the European Court of Human Rights the authority to impose relevant laws on European Union member states.[43] In H. v. Norway, the European Commission did not exclude that ""in certain circumstances"" the fetus may enjoy ""a certain protection under Article 2, first sentence"".[44] Three European Union member states (Ireland, Hungary and Slovakia) grant fetus the constitutional right to life. The Constitution of Norway grants the unborn royal children the right of succession to the throne.[45] In English common law, fetus is granted inheritance rights under the born alive rule. Every nation struggles with the concept of abortion with unique conclusions. The World Health Organization (WHO) and Human Rights Watch prioritize women's reproductive rights over fetal rights period. To protect both mother and the potential of life she carries as best we can emotion must be set aside in favour of logic and reason. I await your application of both of those.",1,the act of destroying a foetus,noslang,abortion,no,no,neutral,neutral
"Ladies and gentlemen, it is evident my opponent has a disregard for statistics. He would rather you believe his own claims with no sources to back up these claims. He questions my statistics without reading the sources. He questions the relevance of my arguments, and in doing so ignores the fact that they were written in response to his own arguments. In effect, he is disregarding his own arguments as irrelevant. Though I know the readers can follow, it seems my opponent cannot, and so I will explain: ""(1)Babies do NOT stay babies forever...(2)parents will buy things for them...(3)There is an entire Industry revolved around babies...etc."" 1-I provided statistics regarding the vicious circle of the foster care system. Not only will it be at least 18 years before children grow out of the system, I provided statistics on children who are adopted before then. Yes, there are many adopted children- even the vast majority- who become productive members of our society, however it is a demographic which now contributes in greater majorities to homelessness, crime, and to the very demographic they come from- foster care and/or adoptive children. Please see my sources in R2. 2-We are speaking about parents who would not want their children, and would most likely give them up for adoption. 3- Again, these are children who won't be wanted by their parents because they were forced to have them after they already wanted to have them aborted. ""Is my opponent suggesting that DCFS is a bad thing?"" -My mention of DCFS was to show statistically the expenditure by the state of Illinois in comparison to my opponent's claim that abortions cost the state $1 million annually. ""So unless my opponent claims that the majority of people who go to get abortions who belong to the Lower Socioeconomic Income class"" -I thank my opponent for making my argument relevant. I will give several sources' statements on demographics: * 56% of women having abortions are in their 20s; * 61% have one or more children; * 67% have never married; * 57% are economically disadvantaged; * 88% live in a metropolitan area; and * 78% report a religious affiliation. http://www.guttmacher.org... -67% of abortions occur amongst minority (non-white) women. -The abortion rate among women living below the federal poverty level ($9,570 for a single woman with no children) is more than four times that of women above 300% of the poverty level (44 vs. 10 abortions per 1,000 women). This is partly because the rate of unintended pregnancies among poor women (below 100% of poverty) is nearly four times that of women above 200% of poverty* (112 vs. 29 per 1,000 women -75% of women who had an abortion say they couldn't afford to have a child http://www.guttmacher.org... Now, I don't know if I have to link poverty to drug abuse, as that is common sense, but I will nonetheless provide some sources so as not to rely simply on my opinion and assumptions as my opponent has. My sources say there are links between poverty as the cause of drug abuse, and vice versa. There are also links between abortion and drug abuse, and vice versa. Poor, unmarried women are both more likely to have abortions (as evidenced in the sources above), and they are also more likely to use drugs. http://www.policelink.com... http://www.guttmacher.org... http://www.apa.org... ""Again my opponent seems to keep going on about the Adoption Industry."" - It is the only alternative my opponent provided to abortion. I have presented the options of education on contraceptive use, help for single mothers, etc. My opponent seems to not want me to address an issue that he brought up. ""Now I am going to use one of his own arguments against him how do you know what is really going on in the adoptees minds? You do not know what they are thinking."" -I did not claim to know what they were thinking, rather I was pointing out their higher prevalence for suicide attempts in response to your claim that ""the worst doom of all is not even getting the chance to live and the right to life."" Though I don't condone suicide, it is easy to understand why a child not wanted by his/her birth parents might wish that he/she were not alive. Yes, it is a drastic thought, and suicide is a drastic measure, but it is an issue that we have to deal with. Illegalizing abortion would contribute to the demographic most prone to attempting suicide amongst youths. ""People should NOT be permitted to have an abortion in a case of these as I said earlier you cannot punish the innocent due to the evils of the guilty."" -By that same token a girl who is raped by her father should not be punished by having to bear his child. At the time of conception it is not the conceived child who will suffer, rather the child who was raped. No one has the right to impose that on a child, and to claim ethical and moral superiority on this issue is ridiculous. My opponent makes other statements that completely disregard my arguments, yet has presented no counter-argument of his own, even if you disregard my arguments. He never defended my statements on abortion not being murder, nor my scientific definition of embryo, and so we must assume he has accepted both. What reason, then, remains to illegalize abortion in his arguments? He claimed in R2 ""it is the right of the baby's right to life that abortion infringes on"", but that argument does not hold when considering the definition of embryo, and the fact that most abortions occur at that stage of pregnancy (before the start of the third month). My opponent asks a question, but doesn't provide an answer: ""Well, then why is it that when somebody commits a murder of a pregnant woman he is charged with double homicide, but somehow when a woman gets an abortion its somehow no longer human. For example The Scott and Lacy Peterson trial."" I contend that the reason it is considered a double homicide is because it was not the woman's choice to end the child's life. Her life was taken, as well as the life of the child she INTENDED to have. My opponent claims that life begins when the sperm meets the egg, and that it is as simple as that. I refute this statement because a sperm is a living cell independent from all other cells in our body, and an egg is a cell independent from all other cells in our body. When the sperm enters the egg, they become one lving cell called a zygote. How is a zygote a living human, yet a sperm cell or an egg- both which contain the information to develop a human, both building blocks of life- not a living human? The truth is a zygote is not a living human. It is merely a cell. When it divides, and continues to divide, it eventually forms an embryo- also not a living human. I will close with some passages from the bible: Hosea 9:11-16""Ephraim shall bring forth his children to the murderer. Give them, 0 Lord: what wilt thou give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. . .Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit: yea though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb."" Numbers 5:11-21 Priest ordered to cause abortion of woman who conceives child of another man. Hosea 13:16 God promises to dash to pieces the infants of Samaria and the ""their women with child shall be ripped up"". I do not condone abortion, nor do I support it. I support the right of a woman to choose, and I oppose the arguments against abortion based on morality or ethics. My morality should not impose on the personal choices of others which do not affect me. The above passages are not intended to offend Christians, rather to point out that morality can be taken out of context, and manipulated to one's own views. I ask the readers to judge on the merits of the arguments, not their own",1,"the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, as a medical procedure or in some cases as a criminal act",noslang,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"How I abortion any further murder than using birth control or masturbate? Both are hindering the potential life of a human which seems to be the only argument that my opponent had to offer. And I think we've passed the ""maybe she will learn her lesson and never have sex.""I don't think that a one night fling with a condom that breaks really should be a punishable act with the fine of more than 18 year of commitment, 9 month pregnancy which is a pain already, birth, a complete lack of sleep for the first year or so, having her entire life limited hundredfold, and paying a minimum fine of $241.080: The costs of lego not included.Would you honestly be willing to choose between only having sex when you absolutely are certain you want children (because accidents do happen), something men don't really have to consider since they can sleep with whomever they want and then vanish off the face of the earth for all she knows, and have little or no restrictions. However, making abortion illegal poses serious restrictions to females and gives off the message that women do not have the rights to themselves and to choose. Either they have sex and if an accident does happen they just have to shut up and face the punishment or not be allowed to do what they want to, even if that is just to have a little fun under the starlight. This is a massive step backwards when it comes to female social position and equality: That women do not have a choice, do not have the ability to decide for themselves and should just be there for reproductive purposes. It is either the ""murder"" of something that never lived against brutally breaking the rights of someone that has been living for q minimum of nearly two decades, give or take a few years. To conclude:In the beginning of my case I asked my opponent a few questions that his entire case hung on, a few questions that he really needed to answer in order for his case to hold up. He did not answer these question; and in hindsight he didn't do much to even protect his case. I showed you, dear readers, how abortion, be it moral or not, is a needed thing and making it illegal is not a steo forward, it isn't saving anyone and there are a lot of cases where it just does not apply. abortions are not going away soon, they'll just change form if we would try and stop them. Abortions would no longer just remove the fetus, but possibly harm the woman and even killing her. This is not a future for us, and thus we conclude that abortion is not the dreaded thing my opponent wishes it was.thank you also for the debate.",1,the act of deliberately ending a human pregnancy,noslang,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"Homicide is the deliberate taking of a person""s life by another person. If someone commits homicide, they can be put in prison for a life sentence, or under certain circumstances be executed. Abortion is the deliberate ""procedure"" of taking an unborn baby's life. The key word is deliberate. In both cases however, someone""s life is taken by another person on purpose. In 1973, the supreme court""s decision over Roe Vs Wade effectively legalized abortion in all fifty states, opening abortion clinics all over the nation. Norma McCorvey, also know as Jane Roe, was dragged into the Roe vs Wade case. She wanted an abortion, and it was this that led to her being behind the Supreme Court""s ruling. She says it is the number one regret in her life. She wishes she had known what she was getting into.. She hates that because of her abortion is legal. In other words, murder is legal. If the person behind the thousands of Planned Parenthood's is Pro Life, shouldn""t that mean something? Anything? Or even everything?",-1,"the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most commonly performed as a surgical procedure by a qualified health professional",noslang,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,pro
"I am arguing as for abortion. The reason being is that it is the choice of the woman; and if the man is there, him also; to keep to zygote or not. If they don't then let it be. Another reason is that there might be underlying issues with why the woman wants an abortion; like say if she got raped, or incest. That's why I feel like some one should have the choice to choose if they want to carry the child for nine months, or have the choice to abort it with in the first trimester.",1,the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or destruction of an embryo or fetus,noslang,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"Abortion, despite how it may seem, is not a complicated issue. Either the fetus is alive, and thus is a human life. or it isn't. there are a number of moral arguments to the debate. the first moral argument is that scientifically the human fetus meets the criterion to be considered alive from conception (1)"" Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."" As we can see, the fetus is genetically human and meets every criterion to be considered alive. now that we have established that the human life begins at conception I may be faced with the argument from many in favor of abortion that though the organism forming in the womb is alive (if they don't fully reject the known science thus committing fallacy) that it is not a person. this leads me to moral argument number two which is: even if you don't consider the humanity of the organism in the womb, there are plenty of things that exist that are A. not persons. and B. has rights and intrinsic value, for example, dogs or other domesticated animals. To state that simply because you don't consider the human fetus (which is what I shall be referring to the developing child as hereinafter.) to be a person, does not mean that it does not have rights and value. Furthermore, even if you deny the humanity of the fetus, you are still dealing with a potential human life which should be held in higher moral regard than the convenience of the mother or father. Another argument that many of those on the pro-choice side of the argument is that women have the human right to control their bodies. And I am in complete agreement. When it is your body that you are doing something to then you should have every right to do so insofar as it's not self-harm. However, the human fetus is not your body. It is IN your body. as I stated in my first card in the scientific portion of my argument, the human fetus has a separate genetic identity with the restoration of the diploid number of chromosomes. therefore, the human fetus is not a part of the mother's body any more than the child would be after (s)he was born. I hold that the time to control your body would have been before conception IE: using birth control or not having sexual intercourse. one thing that society appears to have forgotten, is that sex is not for pleasure. it is the biological process through which most species ensure the continuation of their species through reproduction (2). if you choose to partake in an action the purpose of which is to reproduce. (thus controlling your body.) then you accept the risk of conception. Moral argument number 3. does the fetus have any rights, any intrinsic value, and any right to live. well, the collective opinion of society is that the fetus has essentially infinite right to live. when? if and only if the mother decides to keep the child. if she does, society and its laws, regard the fetus with infinite worth and considers it so valuable, that if someone were to kill that child they would be prosecuted for homicide. keeping in mind that the definition of homicide is: the deliberate and unlawful killing of one person by another (3). we can, therefore, see that if the mother decides to keep her child then the law recognizes it as a person. if she doesn't, the fetus is considered worthless with essentially no right to live. now, does that make sense? it doesn't seem to. either the fetus has worth, or it doesn't. on what moral grounds does the mother alone have the right to decide the fetus' worth? most people would consider killing the baby once it exits the womb as murder. however, the deliberate killing of the fetus a mere two months before is no more morally problematic than extracting a tooth. and finally, we need to recognize that there are instances when an abortion simply cannot be considered moral. take for example if the mother or father aborts a child because they prefer boys to girls. as has happened millions of times in China and elsewhere. or any other form of bias or preference of the mother or father simply cannot offer moral grounds for the termination of the human life. I look forward to a rational and well thought out debate and wish my opponent the best of luck. I eagerly await your response. (1) https://www.princeton.edu..................... (2) www.biology-online.org (3)www.dictionary.com Now to address my opponents arguments. My opponent makes the ""what about rape?"" argument. I'll make you a deal. I think it's a terrible deal but I'll make it. since only .03% of abortions are because of rape(1) I will allow for rape as well in order to save 99% of babies even though this sins of the father argument for killing a baby is morally reprehensible. as for a last resort being necessary when ""two human lives are connected"" nothing. I repeat, nothing beyond the life of the mother exception I gave earlier, gives you the right to kill a baby. Ever. Beyond life endangerment because of a pregnancy, you should not be allowed to kill your baby. I don't care about your organs. I don't care if you have your appendix removed. I don't care if you donate a kidney. a baby is not an organ. At no point is a baby an organ. this assertion is frankly ridiculous. Branching from my previous point, I don't care what you do with your body. A baby is not your body. At no point is a baby your body. A baby from the moment of fertilization is a genetically distinct human being completely separate in identity from the mother. To say anything else is to deny facts, to deny science, to deny the truth. No one of faith can support killing a baby. when you say last resort, unless you mean the life endangerment exception, it isn't really a last resort. it's an easy out that removes responsibility for a parent's actions. I already stated, and you have acknowledged, that I will only accept an abortion as correct if the life of the mother is endangered. If a woman will die because of a pregnancy, I would have that be legal. so your point on endangerment falls flat unless you want to make the argument that it is a post birth endangerment at which point you can't kill the baby anyway. (1) Alan Guttmacher institute.",-1,termination of pregnancy,noslang,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"Abortion is wrong, there are two many reasons.",-1,the act of deliberately terminating a pregnancy,noslang,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"U thabk my opponent fot this debate, I hope he enjoys it. =)C1: A fetus is a human, therefore it's murderSince a fetus is a human, it should be considered murder. I will now prove thait a fetus is a human being. A scientific textbook called “Basics of Biology” gives five characteristics of living things; these five criteria are found in all modern elementary scientific textbooks: 1. Living things are highly organized. 2. All living things have an ability to acquire materials and energy. 3. All living things have an ability to respond to their environment. 4. All living things have an ability to reproduce. 5. All living things have an ability to adapt. According to this elementary definition of life, life begins at fertilization, when a sperm unites with an oocyte. From this moment, the being is highly organized, has the ability to acquire materials and energy, has the ability to respond to his or her environment, has the ability to adapt, and has the ability to reproduce (the cells divide, then divide again, etc., and barring pathology and pending reproductive maturity has the potential to reproduce other members of the species). Non-living things do not do these things. Even before the mother is aware that she is pregnant, a distinct, unique life has begun his or her existence inside her. [1] So according to these definitions, a fetus is a human. Killing it would be murder, and it's not justified because its not self-defense. An abortion is only justified in the case to save a mothers life. Life begins at conseption. Furthermore, that life is unquestionably human. A human being is a member of the species homo sapiens. Human beings are products of conception, which is when a human male sperm unites with a human female oocyte (egg). When humans procreate, they don’t make non-humans like slugs, monkeys, cactuses, bacteria, or any such thing. Emperically-verifiable proof is as close as your nearest abortion clinic: send a sample of an aborted fetus to a laboratory and have them test the DNA to see if its human or not. Genetically, a new human being comes into existence from the earliest moment of conception. [1] More of the same... “I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly, I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy.” Hippocrates, 400 B.C., Greece Sorry if the enlarged stuff is annoying, but that is from my first source. C2: It is morally wrong to kill a person, society looks down upon those acts. This is hard to argue against. A fetus is a person therefore it is murder (or should be considered so). I have proven my point aboveas pf now, that a fetus is a human being. I will expand next round on that point as it will be needed. But this point relates to the one above, a fetus is a human, killing it is murder, and killing is morally wrong. Same old same old. C3: It is morally wrong to kill a fetus Well a fetus is a human, and killing unless in self-defense is morally wrong, so it is morally wrong to kill a fetus. This point relys on the 2 above. C4: Religeon in some cases pohibits abortion. This is undisputable, but I will add on to it anyway. This point only relys towards christians. “…and Rebekah his [Isaac’s] wife conceived. And the children struggled together within her…” (Genesis 25:21-22). Notice that when she conceived, i was called a child. It consideres the zygot a human. This biblical quote is from my seond source as well. Also look at the 10 commandments: ""thou shall not kill"", or ""thou shall not murder"", depending on the translation, but that specfically states that murder/killing is wrong, and above calls a zygot a child, so in god's eyes abortion is murder because he agrees with my above conentions. ALso, Catholics are against abortion, as you know, and many protestants are as well. So this only applies to christians, abortion is wrong on the lines of our faith. C5: More people are pro-life than pro-choice as of 2011 This is just a little side argument: So theres that. Rebuttals: ""Since my opponent’s main case relies on abortion being murder, it will also be my obligation to negate his contention. If I’ve fulfilled this obligation, you must negate the resolution."" Well I have proven that a fetus is a human, but I will add on to it here, if fetus is a human then it is murder: Fetuses feel pain during an abortion according to Kanwaljeet J. S. Anand, MBBS, DPhil, Professor of Pediatrics, Anesthesiology and Neurobiology at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center. ""If the fetus is beyond 20 weeks of gestation, I would assume that there will be pain caused to the fetus. And I believe it will be severe and excruciating pain."" So above I proved that a fetus is a human, here I prove that it is painful for the baby. ""I will show that a mother has rights over her body and privacy, and that it is more important to save the mother than the unborn fetus if both lives are at stake. "" Well, most women do not want this right: Most women do not want this right, also lets add on to this rebuttal. A fetus is a human, therefor it deserves basic human rights, and it should have control over its body. So killing the baby takes away it's freedom, so it's a 50-50 split of freedoms. Although women do not want this freedom, you will still argu that it is essential. So the women loses rights the baby gains them. But since a majority of women do not want these rights, then why should they have them? ""I’ll be proving in this premise that illegalizing abortion is a bad idea and a disadvantage to society and may lead to bad consequences and events."" Tanl you for this argument, I love to attack it. You claim that more abortions wil happen illegally if it is illegal, wrong. Senator James Buckley stated: ""Data from foreign countries having far longer experience with legalised abortion than we have had in the US, suggest that legalisation has no effect on the criminal abortion rate. In at least three countries, the criminal abortion rate has actually risen since legalisation. Legalised abortion moves the back alley abortionists into the front office where their trade can be practised without fear of criminal prosecution."" [5] Dr Christopher Tietze, an abortion advocate, concedes: ""Although one of the major goals of the liberalisation of abortion laws in Scandinavia was to reduce the incidence of illegal abortion, this was not accomplished. Rather as we know from a variety of sources, both criminal and total abortions increased."" [4] So look at this, a senator says there is no poof that legilising it redices that number, and a pro choice docor admits that legilising it increases the back street abortions. So I have proven that when its illegal there is less of both types of abortion. ""For my last contention, I will attempt to finally argue that a woman has a right to abort a child."" This is a vauge point. I will not refute it...yet. So please expand then I'll attepmt to refute it. I await your response. :) Sorry if my spellings bad, the spell check has an internal error. Sources: http://prolifephysicians.org... [1] http://www.christiananswers.net... [2] http://www.gallup.com... [3] Kanwaljeet J. S. Anand, MBBS, DPhil, Professor of Pediatrics, Anesthesiology and Neurobiology at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center. 93rd Congress of the US [4] Dr Christopher Tietze [5]",-1,the act of removing or inducing the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus,noslang,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"Adoption is a common thing to rebuff abortion, however, abortion is mainly used when they don't want to give birth, so forcing them to give birth wouldn't make sense. Abstinence is not a good way to prevent children, while it works 100% of the time, people will eventually ""quit"", and have sex. I didn't say it couldn't cause STDs, what I said was that my doctor told me that oral and anal cause cancer, which they don't",1,the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo before the viability of the fetus.,noslang,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"""The cost is not minimal. The average cost to raise a child is $245,340 http://www.huffingtonpost.com....... Multiply that by 1 million and well....Argument debunked"" You aren't debunking anything. So you believe that ending someone's life and not giving them a chance at life is a better option? This is a disgusting ideal abortionists try to convince themselves and other of. ""Let's not be burdened by the cost of a human being due to its inconvenience to others..."" ""Sex is natural and has nothing to do with being able to raise a child. Evolution made sex feel really good so that we would produce. Practically everyone wants to have sex badly. It's a natural desire. Argument debunked."" Yes, sex is natural. What, exactly, does that have anything to do with aborting a child? ""Sex is fun, so we should just allow anyone to engage in it and then terminate the human growing inside if we don't want to deal with the consequences of our actions."" ""No, you are only looking at your side of the picture, rather than considering EVERY piece of evidence,"" Actually, I have, which is why I am pro life. ""As I stated, there are 100k orphans ALREADY. If we become antiabortion, this number will reach ridiculous heights."" Abortion became legal in the United States in 1973. Was there overpopulation before this? No. This argument isn't even relevant. ""Actually, no. This is untrue. Pain MIGHT be felt for a couple of seconds."" No, pain is felt for a while as it bleeds out after being ripped apart limb from limb. And if the fetus is a bunch of cells, how does it feel pain at all? Pain indicates that it is a human life being painfully ended.",-1,the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or destruction of a fetus or embryo,noslang,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"I understand your viewpoint, but it is unclear whether abortion is slaughter or not, just as it is unclear whether a fetus is alive or not. Words like ""kill"" and ""murder"" cannot be used validly where it is questionable that the fetus has life in the first place. Also, crimes such as sexual assault and rape can occur. After these events women may not choose to birth the child, which means that she may need to choose abortion.",1,the deliberate destruction of a fetus,noslang,abortion,no,yes,neutral,neutral
"I am also non-religious. Ultimately I accept the fundamentality of existence and the universe. I, like everyone else, have no truthful answers to the big question. As a consequence I can not attribute real significance to anything, including life. Ok. I'm happy to conform with the conventions of society, it will obviously makes my short life a whole lot easier if I do so. Your questions. 1) Difficult question, for a socially conforming realist. I debate for debating's sake and my debating stance does no necessarily conform with my personal, socially based opinion. That is to say. from a social perspective I would say that I am anti-abortion. But society is also about billions of other people with individual opinions and should also be about their personal freedom of choice. Nonetheless, where a legislative decision allowing abortion has been made, I have to be prepared to accept that decision. So under these circumstances my answer to your question would be: Up to ten weeks. Given that the recognised transition from the embryonic stage of development to the fetal stage of development occurs around the eleventh week of gestation. Even so If we pay regard to ""awareness"". It is fair to suggest that for a period of development after the eleventh week, major organs, including the brain are not sufficiently developed as to be properly functional. 2) An easier question to answer. Everyone has a personal opinion and everyone should be allowed the freedom of choice within the constraints of social legislation. We are not all affected by morals and principles in the same way and should not have the high morals and principles of others forced upon us. I will now list three reasons for your consideration. A) Forced pregnancy arising from a rape situation. B) An individual or a couple may consider themselves to be unready to cope with parenthood. Given the demands and expectancies of Modern Society. C) The one all consuming Global God is money. The financial demands of children may be considered to be overwhelming and unsustainable. 3) Yes. Life is that absurdly amazing thing. I would suggest that the spark of life is already present in the sperm and the egg. As a realist I regard all life as absurd and amazing and with equal measure. What is your point of view here? At this point in abortion debates religious people will usually ascribe to the Orwellian notion that, All life is equal, but some lives are more equal than others. Do you eat? Are you omnivorous or even vegetarian or vegan? If so you have to be prepared extinguish the spark of life, out of necessity and with impunity. Despite the amazing absurdity of life, it is still only transient and extremely tenuous, it can wiped out in the blink of an eye for all manner of reasons and without consideration. Isn't it simply the human condition? That we have a highly developed sense of memory and therefore continually subjugate ourselves to our own consciences. That is to say, we tend to worry excessively about things that are no more than intangible concepts, things that have little or no importance in the greater reality of the universe.",1,termination of a pregnancy,noslang,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
Explain to me why abortion is good and why is it not murder.,-1,the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or destruction of an embryo or fetus.,noslang,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"First off, I never said to kill the attacker. Review my post and see for yourself. What I said was to grab the attacker's arm, denying him bodily autonomy to move his arm, but allowing a child to live. I was finding fault with your statement: 'Bodily integrity or bodily autonomy means that you have the right to control what happens to your body even if that hurts or kills others.' In my scenario, I go against your statement, yet in my opinion it is the right thing to do. 'If someone is trying to kill your child, and the ONLY way to stop them is to kill them, any rational person would choose their child's life over the attacker's life. Is that your stance? Because you only have two options in that contrived situation: advocate murdering the attacker or advocate the murder of your child. By doing either, does that mean that you don""t value life? How can your point of view be anything but contradictory of each other?' You have set me up to fail. If I choose to do nothing, (according to you) I do not value life. If I kill the attacker, I don't value life. the only way to successfully win in your scenario is to not care about human life, which i am not prepared to do. In that situation, I would kill the attacker. In my opinion when someone tries to take a life deliberately, their life is less important than their victim's. However, I am against the death penalty. The reason for this is that the death penalty is about revenge, while, killing an attacker is about stopping an evil act being committed by a murderer. Of course you could argue that killing the attacker is still murder, and it is, but in a situation where the child dies OR the attacker dies, I would pick the attacker, as seeing that either way a life is lost, It may as well be that of a murderer as opposed to a child. You cannot prevent death, only decide who it takes. 'If you do believe human have ""worth"" please tell me what a human is worth? That should be an interesting discussion.' Well here's your interesting discussion. I didn't mean 'worth' as in monetary worth, not at all. I meant it as moralworth, as in something to be valued. I honestly do not know how you can take '... is human life after birth worth anything?' and see that as monetary worth. 'Life begins at conception, and no I don""t agree with your view. You present a false dichotomy where there are only two choices, and that""s not the reality. Is it morally ""right"" to put the child""s life above the mother's? Is it morally ""right"" to put the mother""s life above the child""s? The answer to both is no, it""s not a decision I have any right to make from a moral standpoint.' To clarify, I believe that if the mother's life is in danger, then the only solution should be to maximise human life, whatever that looks like. Think of it in a utilitarian sort of way. You say it is incorrect there are only two choices. Is it? If so, prove me wrong. These are the only two choices available: 1. You believe human life begins at conception, and therefore agree with my view. 2. There is a cut-off point in terms of development as to what constitutes human life, and what is worthy of human rights. Prove me wrong. Here, you put: 'Bodily autonomy is what others can do to your body. This is the reason that rationally, you should defend yourself from an attacker, to protect that attacker from violating your body.' But what gives you the right to violate his bodily autonomy? If you prevent someone harming you using their body, you are preventing their bodily autonomy. This sounds ridiculous, because it is. However, I'm only going off your definition. So either change your definition or agree with me, because at the moment your statement above contradicts your definition. For clarity, here is your definition: 'Bodily integrity or bodily autonomy means that you have the right to control what happens to your body even if that hurts or kills others.' So if you say that it's ok to prevent an attacker from attacking you, then you directly contradict your definition, as you say '...even if that hurts or kills others' Now I expect you to be a nihilist at this point, as the only way this statement below is consistent with your beliefs is if you don't care about human life at all. However, this is not true, as you care about the life of the fetus' mother. 'In your thought experiment, you are not in any way required to take care of someone who is helpless.' Of course you are not required, just as a mother at this moment in time is allowed to not care for someone (the fetus) that is helpless. The alternative to not taking care of the person is a human dying. If you value human life, you would care for the human life, as you can see that 9 months of inconvenience are by far worth less than an actual human life. You said this: 'We have the freedom to help others, or not help others, that is what freedom is.' True, but do you think you should have the freedom to pull the trigger of a gun and kill someone who isn't harming you? In my opinion, the freedom of choice can be infringed, as the alternative is someone losing their freedom to live. Thus, it is the same with the fetus. As for your lung example, I would like to live in a would where you are forced to give a lung if it saves the life of someone else. I value human life over virtually anything else, so someone else's convenience can be sacrificed for human life. 'Choosing to not save someone, does not make you a murder.' No, of course not. But deliberately having an operation to destroy an unborn baby is, as you are actively causing the fetus' death. I cannot find where I have said I don't care about the good of society. I'm assuming you are referencing my view that lowered crime rates do not make a difference in terms of the abortion argument. '...you just care about birth, not what happens afterwards.' No, you do not know that. You are assuming that I have a hard right Republican leaning, and therefore advocate things like flat tax and cutting welfare etc. I have never mentioned anything as to what happens to the child after birth. Therefore you are assuming my view point on issues you do not know what my view point is. Do not do this,as you may be wrong and it is an unfair argument, I could (hypothetically) be a communist who so happens to be pro-life. So do not assume my complete political viewpoint is the same as many pro life advocates.",-1,"the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, especially one that prevents a woman from giving birth to a baby",noslang,abortion,no,yes,neutral,neutral
"Abortion, despite how it may seem, is not a complicated issue. Either the fetus is alive, and thus is a human life. or it isn't. there are a number of moral arguments to the debate. the first moral argument is that scientifically the human fetus meets the criterion to be considered alive from conception (1)"" Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."" As we can see, the fetus is genetically human and meets every criterion to be considered alive. now that we have established that the human life begins at conception I may be faced with the argument from many in favor of abortion that though the organism forming in the womb is alive (if they don't fully reject the known science thus committing fallacy) that it is not a person. this leads me to moral argument number two which is: even if you don't consider the humanity of the organism in the womb, there are plenty of things that exist that are A. not persons. and B. has rights and intrinsic value, for example, dogs or other domesticated animals. To state that simply because you don't consider the human fetus (which is what I shall be referring to the developing child as hereinafter.) to be a person, does not mean that it does not have rights and value. Furthermore, even if you deny the humanity of the fetus, you are still dealing with a potential human life which should be held in higher moral regard than the convenience of the mother or father. Another argument that many of those on the pro-choice side of the argument is that women have the human right to control their bodies. And I am in complete agreement. When it is your body that you are doing something to then you should have every right to do so insofar as it's not self-harm. However, the human fetus is not your body. It is IN your body. as I stated in my first card in the scientific portion of my argument, the human fetus has a separate genetic identity with the restoration of the diploid number of chromosomes. therefore, the human fetus is not a part of the mother's body any more than the child would be after (s)he was born. I hold that the time to control your body would have been before conception IE: using birth control or not having sexual intercourse. one thing that society appears to have forgotten, is that sex is not for pleasure. it is the biological process through which most species ensure the continuation of their species through reproduction (2). if you choose to partake in an action the purpose of which is to reproduce. (thus controlling your body.) then you accept the risk of conception. Moral argument number 3. does the fetus have any rights, any intrinsic value, and any right to live. well, the collective opinion of society is that the fetus has essentially infinite right to live. when? if and only if the mother decides to keep the child. if she does, society and its laws, regard the fetus with infinite worth and considers it so valuable, that if someone were to kill that child they would be prosecuted for homicide. keeping in mind that the definition of homicide is: the deliberate and unlawful killing of one person by another (3). we can, therefore, see that if the mother decides to keep her child then the law recognizes it as a person. if she doesn't, the fetus is considered worthless with essentially no right to live. now, does that make sense? it doesn't seem to. either the fetus has worth, or it doesn't. on what moral grounds does the mother alone have the right to decide the fetus' worth? most people would consider killing the baby once it exits the womb as murder. however, the deliberate killing of the fetus a mere two months before is no more morally problematic than extracting a tooth. and finally, we need to recognize that there are instances when an abortion simply cannot be considered moral. take for example if the mother or father aborts a child because they prefer boys to girls. as has happened millions of times in China and elsewhere. or any other form of bias or preference of the mother or father simply cannot offer moral grounds for the termination of the human life. I look forward to a rational and well thought out debate and wish my opponent the best of luck. I eagerly await your response. (1) https://www.princeton.edu.................. (2) www.biology-online.org (3)www.dictionary.com",-1,termination of a pregnancy so that the embryo or fetus is not born,noslang,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"Thanks 16K for your response. It’s sad to see that my opponent hasn’t adequately refuted some of my points in his last round. And since this is the last round, I’ll make this brief. REBUTTAL RE: Fetus = Human My opponent must be confused here. I’ve already explained the difference between a fetus and a fully grown sentient human being. And by ‘fully grown’ shouldn’t mean an adult, but it should refer to a human who can be dependent on one’s body, it should be capable to feel and think freely. A fetus doesn’t do any of these. My opponent hasn’t proven that the fetus has done any of this, he just argued that it ‘has’ life, which is very much insufficient to affirm his case. Furthermore, my opponent goes on and relies on hearsay testimony without really supporting it. He quoted something from a scripture that states that an abortion is murdering an innocent person, making a fetus a fully-grown human, this testimony should be considered null and void because I’ve already disproved it. CON also gives a link on medical evidence of fetus being human, he just gave a link and didn’t type an argument. Please discard them. RE: Abortion is murder My opponent states that abortion is illegal in some countries thus making it murder. But hasn’t offered proof on which country bans abortion and if it defines fetuses as a sentient human. So his argument fails here. Also, we shouldn’t be sidetracked here since this debate is about abortion in the US. It’s clear from the start. RE: Fetus feels pain My opponent lately claims that a fetus can feel pain, but that study only supports fetal pain during the end of the second trimester (28th week/7th month) of pregnancy. Now, this can be relevant if we’re arguing partial birth abortion, but we’re not, so we could disregard it. Also, even if a fetus can feel pain, it’s still not fully-grown or sentient. It is still a risk to the mother. My opponent failed to expand this contention. RE: Fetus dependent on mother CON’s logic fails here. He compares a fetus to a newborn infant. A fetus’ rights are still a developing right whereas children’s rights already exist. Fetuses aren’t natural-born citizens yet, but an infant is. An infant can survive without its mother (e.g.: nursing care, adoption centers), a fetus cannot survive without the mother because it’s still in the mother’s womb, so the life of the fetus is dependent on the mother. RE: Religion and Abortion Last time I checked, the US is a secular country and that the separation of Church and State shall be inviolable. My opponent has dropped my argument concerning the Bible’s contradiction on itself. He just repeated his argument. So please extend. RE: Abortion Polls: PRO-life vs. PRO-choice CON failed to give a website, and that site has tons of polls, I’m not obligated to go through a pile of polls just to negate the fact that it’s reliable. It’s CON’s fault for not backing it up. Also, he didn’t respond as to how many were interviewed, probably only 10 biased people were interviewed, which is false. Ergo, this premise has already been disproved for lack of accuracy and its lack or relevancy. RE: Hippocratic Oath Again, I’ve proven that the fetus shouldn’t be considered human and that abortion can be justified. This oath wasn’t introduced adequately with sufficient evidence, so there’s nothing really to refute. DEFENSE Killing justified on certain circumstances My opponent evades these hypothetical scenarios by comparing it to a fetus being aborted, which isn’t entirely the point. This premise is solely to negate that killing is always wrong, which is false. But nevertheless, my opponent negates his own contention by saying ‘unless you are in danger, except in health risks, etc, etc’ --- And… that’s it. Nothing to defend really, since my opponent failed to address my contentions, which is a disappointment. Which leads us to my the conclusion. CONCLUSION Okay, so by now you will realize that my opponent has failed to satisfy his burden of proof. He needed to show that: 1) A fetus is a human being, and 2) All abortions are the unlawful killing of a human being with premeditation and malice aforethought. My opponent didn’t give adequate and enough evidence to sufficiently prove a fetus is human and he made no argument that abortion is the premeditated killing of a human. He has also failed to refute all my arguments and he has failed to back up his claims. I urge you voters to vote PRO. Thanks. And for my exit, I present you a picture that shows abortion is a choice, a right of the woman and it shouldn't be taken away.",1,the act of terminating a pregnancy by destroying the embryo or fetus,noslang,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"I would also like to say that this is my first time on this website, so bear with me! Abortion was legalized in 1973 due to Roe v. Wade, and since then over 56 million unborn children have been killed. That means that every hour, 155 babies are aborted, and approximately 1 child is aborted every 2.6 seconds. [1] Life begins at conception. In most cases, a man and a woman choose to engage in sexual intercourse fully aware of the consequences that could arise. Hence, they should make sure to take the proper steps to avoid any consequence, for example by using contraception. Abortion however, should not be used as a form of contraception. Abortion is not a Now how about if the man and woman who engage in sexual intercourse truly take the proper precautions, but the woman still ends up pregnant, but doesn't want the child? First of all, it is common knowledge that babies are made through sexual intercourse, so if the woman or man do not want a baby, then they should refrain from sexual intercourse. Second of all, adoption is always an alternative. With approximately 1.5 million American families wanting to adopt a child [2], there is no such thing as an unwanted child. Moving on to teenagers who merely have sexual intercourse for fun, and get pregnant, and because they feel that they are not old enough, get an abortion. If you feel that you are not old enough to have a child and provide for that child, then you should not be having sexual intercourse "" plain and simple. It is commonly argued that women should have control over their own body, and choose what happens to their body. I completely agree. However, if women truly want control over their body, then that includes preventing themselves from an unwanted pregnancy, by taking the proper precautions or practicing abstinence. Moving on to women or girls who get pregnant through rape or incest. This is different, as they do not choose to engage in sexual intercourse, but are instead forced to. However, abortion punished the unborn innocent child, who has done absolutely nothing wrong. It is the perpetrator who should be punished, not the child. Again, adoption is a viable option. (I would just like to take moment to say that I do not believe rape is ever the woman or girls fault. I wholeheartedly believe that it is the perpetrators fault) Abortion can also result in medical complications. For example, abortions doubles the risk of ectopic pregnancies, and the chances of a miscarriage and pelvic inflammatory disease also increases. In addition, undergoing an abortion will most likely result in intense psychological pain and stress. [2] Human life is precious, and seeing as life begins at conception, these unborn babies are human beings with a right to life. These unborn babies have done nothing to hurt anyone, so punishing them due to the fact that perhaps a woman choose to engage in sexual intercourse without taking the proper precautions is plain unjust and unethical. Hence, abortion should be illegal. Now, I could go on and on about the dangers of abortion, how abortion goes against what it says in the bible, how abortion is murder, or even how it has been proved that fetuses feel pain during an abortion procedure "" but I am going to leave it at that. [1] . http://www.tfpstudentaction.org... [2] . http://womensissues.about.com...",-1,"the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, as a means of birth control, or because it poses health risks to the mother ; the induced expulsion of a fetus or embryo from the uterus before the viability of birth.",noslang,abortion,yes,yes,pro,pro
Are we ever gonna start debating about abortion or not ?,1,the deliberate destruction of a fetus or the expulsion of a fetus that has died,noslang,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"Contention 1: life is not sacred. Con really didn't say too much about this, other than saying that I must think killing newborn babys is OK. Even though I don't believe my point was adequately contested, I will continue defending it in hopes it is addressed better next round. Life is not sacred. We kill germs constantly, we kill animals for fun, we even kill people if they don't follow the laws. This is all life. Contention 2: Human life does not begin at conception. Con did not address this point at all. I will assume con concedes this point. If human life does not begin at conception then a pro-life argument is hard to make, of course... Contention 3: A fetus is not a person. Con spent the vast majority of the round addressing this point, and introduces a new contention ""Abortion should be illegal after the second trimester"" which I will lump together here. He quotes Discover Magazine, and claims that ""after six months, the baby can feel pain"" but apparently does not bother to read the article quoted. Only two paragraphs in, it states ""...physicians... tell women that 20-week-old fetuses can feel pain during the procedure unless they are anesthetized. A newly released review of the scientific evidence, however, suggests the premise of those laws is wrong."" The article continues on to further defend this premise. This is a fatal mistake, Con. What makes you a person? Reaction to stimuli? Brain activity? A beating Heart? None of these. These traits make you ALIVE which is dealt with in contention 1. Personhood includes your personality, experiences, relationships with other people, your abilities, and your sins. Every person has made faults. A fetus has not. When a baby is born, and the mother accepts responsibility for raising it, it's very first personal relationship is formed (beforehand it is part of the mother's body). It sins (cries, disobeys), gains experience, forms a personality, and becomes a person. This is the difference you asked me for.",1,the act of intentionally causing a fetus to die or a pregnant woman to miscarry or give birth prematurely,noslang,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"I believe that the killing of a child inside the womb is abortion during and stage of a pregnancy. I cannot understand your reasoning behind a baby being viable or not. As I said, heart is beating at 3 and 1/2 weeks. Science proves that this is in fact a separate entity from his or her mother. ALL abortion is horrific. I am not for any trimester- I believe that abortion is just as terrible in the first trimester than the third. And you still did not answer my question on how you justify that most women feel that they had no other choice than to abort their child.. can this be because organizations like Planned Parenthood are not giving these women all the choices possible? Maybe these organizations are persuading women a certain direction? Certainly.. it happens every day. Planned Parenthood employees have a script to avoid any kind of question a woman may have and to ensure that those women come in to receive an abortion. You discuss first trimester abortion, yet your stance on the pro choice is that a woman should be able to decide at any stage when she can abort her child. I ask you when you consider this ""fetus"" and child? When should the line be drawn? Can we kill children even outside the womb? I mean honestly, what you essentially are saying is that there is no difference between killing a baby in the womb or killing a baby outside the womb... I really do not understand this whole viable vs. unviable, baby vs. fetus argument. Does a single difference in a day decide when a life is a life?",-1,the deliberate destruction of a fetus or embryo,noslang,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"As said in the title, this debate is about abortion. I am con, so will argue against. The challenge is open to whomever takes it. This is my point of view: Abortion is an act of murder, wherein a human being is removed from the uterus of the mother, resulting in the death of this baby. Abortion is a violation of human rights. It violates the unborn baby's basic right to live, and should be illegal, except in unusual circumstances. This would include, but not be limited to, rape, mother's life in danger, SERIOUS disabilities, confirmed uncurable diseases present in the fetus. My opponent can argue for abortion in any case, or upto a certain period (2nd term, 3rd term) of time. It's up to him/her.",-1,the act of ending a pregnancy so that the fetus is not born,noslang,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"3. Right to life is appointed to everyone and everything even pets. Why do you think people where POed at Michael Vick when he was doin dog fights 5. theory your website is a theory not a fact, that makes your evidense invaild 6. I never said anything about chemistry, when the babies heart beats that when people know that you're pregnet. 8. abortion isn't ethical just look at Wade V. Boggs 14. you said that abortion lowers chance of reat cancer well you're wrong it raises it by 130% after an abortion now I'm sure women don't want breast cancer if I'm wrong please tell me http://www.deveber.org... a1. first of all know one ever, why don't you tell the aduiance about FAILED ABORTIONS hum?! a2. my opponet hasn't refuted my adoption alternartive a3. with a failed abortion may lead to a prom night dumpster baby. http://www.youtube.com... my attacks. 1. women face emotional difficultis. 2. abortions that fail will lead to several birth defects and defects for the mother 3. increases breast cancer rate by 130% 4. After an abortion, women are more likely to display self-destructive behaviors including suicide 5. lead to depression and guilt for men. 6. abortion reserch is inacurate. my source for this is http://www.deveber.org... thank you and have a happy Martin Luther Day",-1,the termination of pregnancy,noslang,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"abor�tion 1: the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: as a: spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation — compare miscarriage b: induced expulsion of a human fetus c: expulsion of a fetus by a domestic animal often due to infection at any time before completion of pregnancy (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Abortion cannot be defined as murder, as it doesn't always involve the induced death of an embryo or fetus. Embryo: The organism in the early stages of growth and differentiation from fertilization to, in humans, the beginning of the third month of pregnancy. After that point in time, it is termed a fetus. (http://www.medterms.com...) 1.a. An organism in its early stages of development, especially before it has reached a distinctively recognizable form. b. An organism at any time before full development, birth, or hatching. 2.a. The fertilized egg of a vertebrate animal following cleavage. b. In humans, the prefetal product of conception from implantation through the eighth week of development. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...) Murder: 1: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) In order for my opponent's first statement to be valid: ""Abortion is murder and it should be illegal."", abortion would have to first be illegal, and murder would have to be redefined in the US Code as the taking of human life including at the earliest stages of development. Abortion is a medical procedure, and should only be defined by medical doctors. In modern American history, the Christian Right has attempted to sequester this medical procedure and redefine it according to their own morals with complete disregard for the consequences of illegalizing abortion, the toll it will have on adoption rates in the US which are already dismal, and the social consequences of perpetuating a rise in illegal abortions. My opponent claims that an alternative for abortion is adoption. There are perpetually about 500,000 kids in foster care each year. With all the movement in and out of foster care, there is a constant 130,000 children awaiting adoption. In total, in 2007, 783,000 children were in the foster care system at some point. Only about 50,000 American children are adopted every year (http://www.acf.hhs.gov...). Abortion is currently LEGAL. In 2005, 1.21 million abortions were performed, down from 1.31 million in 2000. From 1973 through 2005, more than 45 million legal abortions occurred. What would my opponent propose happen with this rise in unwanted children if already there are only 50,000 adoptions per year in the US? An extra 1.2 million children born per year would be disastrous to our economy, our orphanages, and the children doomed to live their lives in these institutions. (http://www.guttmacher.org...). My opponent states that the ""only reason why there should be an abortion is in case the baby is acting as a cancer and its killing the mother"". I refute that my opponent can make this claim because he cannot get into the heads of millions of women who have had, and do have abortions and discern for them whether or not they had a good reason to have an abortion. Even lacking this argument, my opponent ignores the conditions of rape and incest. Who will father these children? Will he? Who will provide psychiatric support for these women- too often children themselves- who have been violated and impregnated by disgusting criminals? Who will provide the psychiatric support for the children themselves when they are born? My opponent ignores several issues related to illegalizing abortion, besides the ones I have mentioned above. Illegalizing abortion would not lower abortion rates, rather it will raise illegal abortion rates, and the mortality rates associated with abortion. In 1972, a year before abortion became legal, there were a reported 130,000 illegal abortions. From 1975-1979 there were 11,300 illegal abortions reported. (http://findarticles.com...) Repealing Roe v. Wade (one of the steps required to illegalize abortion) would most likely result in a rise in illegal abortions. Now, rather than opposing the right of a woman and her doctor to choose what she should do medically with her own body, we should be advocating education of controceptive use, education in alternatives to abortion, laws that would ease adoption rather than make it more difficult (like the recent Arkansas Unmarried Couple adoption ban, http://ballotpedia.org...(2008), and help for single mothers and families living in poverty. It is this work that helps reduce the number of annual abortions, and reducing the number of annual abortions should be everyone's goal rather than attacking the rights of a woman, and a medical procedure while not being medically qualified to judge what is and isn't good for the human body, what defines human life, and what is or isn't ethical/unethical in medicine. Thank you.",1,termination of pregnancy before the fetus is fully developed,noslang,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"I accept. Since you are Pro (for) abortion, I assume you are on the side of abortion, while I am against abortion.",-1,"the act of terminating a pregnancy, especially as a medical procedure",noslang,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"First I will present my case. P1: A fetus is a human P2: It is morally wrong to kill a human C: Abortion is wrong P1: A zygote, made at the moment of conception, already has the same attributes needed to be alive. It has metabolism, growth, reacts to stimulants, and reproduction cells. It has human DNA. A fetus is a homosapien, therefore they are a human. P2: This ones kind of obvious, I hope you agree. Conclusion: Abortion is killing a human, therefore it is wrong. Sources F. Beck, D. B. Moffat, and D. P. Davies, Human Embryology, Second edition . http://abortionfacts.com... THE THREE QUESTIONS I await your response.",-1,termination of pregnancy by removal of the embryo or fetus,noslang,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"All life should be valued and held sacred. Life begins at conception and killing them would be murder. Just because they are not full grown human being they should not be looked at differently. No civilized society on earth permits taking the life of another, abortion should not be any different.",-1,the act of removing a fetus or embryo from the uterus,noslang,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"""Thank you for informing me about this, this is where I personally feel its wrong to kill a human, because this is when I feel like it becomes a person. "" And this is when most abortions occur, it is before 8 months. Concession. Vote Con. ""1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child. "" Yes, I feel it is okay in those situations. I agree.",-1,the deliberate termination of a pregnancy,noslang,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"A counter argument to your maternal death rates due to complications during pregnancy is that there are also complications during the abortion procedure. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... The article states on a world wide scale about 42 million woman choose abortion while nearly half of them are unsafe and woman could potentially die and some woman can have serious health complications after the fact of the abortion. Also in this article: http://www.hli.org... The article mentions: About 6 chances in 100,000 for childbirth and about 3 chances in 100,000 for abortion. To put these probabilities into perspective, a woman's chances of dying in childbirth are equal to those of being killed in a car accident. There are a numerous of risks for both cases so either perspective the both of us put it in whether pro choice or pro life there are risks either way. http://www.car-accidents.com... To clear up the car accident statistic in relation to the deaths. ""At this point I cannot consider Mr. Allot's reference to the report credible."" This statement was in your argument about the post-abortion depression. Since Mr. Allot's study link was not provided you cannot believe this to be correct but, in the article you provided from the New England Journal it clearly states,""The law also requires that doctors give pregnant women a description of medical and ""statistically significant"" risks of abortion, among which it includes depression and other psychological distress, suicide, danger to subsequent pregnancies, and death."" Which since you did provide this article and read through and saw that there were psychological dangers due to abortion my argument stands credible. Furthermore a fetus is born in the moment of conception http://the-dp-is-good-always.blogspot.com... As number 1 states the basic elementary definition of life begins during fertilization. Once the sperm reaches the egg the baby has life to it and killing the baby will be against our morals. Also it is a helpless baby and obviously has no say in anything we need to protect the babies rights of life and provide for him/her In the same article I would like to point out number 4 where after 20 weeks the fetus can actually feel the pain according to Kanwaljeet J. S. Anand, MBBS, DPhil, Professor of Pediatrics, Anesthesiology and Neurobiology A major reason why women are getting abortions is because of there age many girls today are getting pregnant at 15-19 years old which is relatively young. A way for these girls to not get in trouble is ending the pregnancy which is a way to save them selves but not thinking about there child and there responsibility. http://abortion.procon.org... Page 3 of 24 states it under the age and adolescence tab. Also another point I'll address is that when a woman does get an abortion she is also likely to get a second abortion. http://www.priestsforlife.org... 26.2% of women who aborted had experienced one previous abortion; 11.2% had two previous abortions, and 7.5% had three or more previous abortions. Why haven't these woman learned there lesson before? If these woman have to go through three abortions than they are cruel.",-1,termination of pregnancy by induced labor or surgical removal of the embryo or fetus,noslang,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"Thanks to FemaleGamer for this wonderful debate. I hope to see the outcome. I shall start with my opponent's points and then add some of my own. (NOTE: I will not asses the video; it just reiterates what my opponent says in her argument.) ==== No nation devoted to individual liberty should force women back to the days of back-alley abortions. ==== Definition of force::: binding power, as of a contract (2) strength or power exerted upon an object; physical coercion; violence. [Source: 1] By outlawing abortion, you do not ""force"" people to have back alley abortions. If you were forced to have an abortion in a back alley, that would translate into someone holding you down whilst giving you an abortion in an alley. Abortions are always a choice for people to have -- I think, though, that the choice is wrong. I want to make sure the choice is for life. ==== No women should have to bear a child against thier will. Free-will. That's what I stand for. No, no. That would be terrible, un-ethical and generally wrong. Women with free-will? God-forbid! ==== Let me show some facts: 1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (ex. the child is unwanted or inconvenient). [2] This means most make a choice to have sex, and most just plain don't want the baby. There are few victims here -- other than the fetuses. What about when the condom doesn't work? Well, when used in the proper way consistently, condoms are around 98% effective. [3] So, we can conclude that most abortions aren't due to failure of a condom. ==== The fact is that women will always still desire to have an abortion, which some may follow through with. This will never end abortion. You have no control over that. ==== You are very correct. I will never have control over what people do. However, it is THEIR choice, FemaleGamer, and if they choose to make an illegal and stupid one, so be it. ==== It is estimated near 1 million women saught for illegal abortions each year before Roe Vs Wade. Thats atleast 1 million babies. End of abortion? I think not! Thousands died, tens of thousands mutilated, forced to behave as if they were criminals. ==== 1 million before Roe v Wade... and 42 million a YEAR after Roe v Wade. Once again, I cannot stress enough on how it is the mother's choice to have an illegal abortion -- if she decides to do something that she knows is illegal, she must realize the consequences. You are also forgetting the one million dead babies before Roe v Wade . The women weren't the victims in all cases, the fetuses were. ==== A law making abortion illegal would make a law stating that all fetus' are superior to women .Apparently women aren't as important to you as fetus' are. Good thing women don't have feelings, or you would be in trouble! ==== Not at all! I seek to make sure fetuses and women are /equal/. All people are equal, and the fetus is no exception. Women have feelings, and so do fetuses. I want to protect them both with equality to live. ==== If the government can decide if the women gives birth or not, when will they stop? ==== If person decides on the life of a baby without consequence, when will they stop? //Outlaw abortion, and more children, will bear children. 40% of all 14 year old women will become pregnant before they turn 20. Do you want this happening to people you care about?// The teenagers, like myself (W00T! 13!), make stupid choices. At the schools here, we receive extensive education regarding sex for children. The people who have sex are most often, in my school, the ones who blow off authority and frequently get detentions for rude behavior. Now, this is not to say that these people are any less, but that their irresponsibility cannot be taken out on the baby. ==== More children is more UNWANTED children, leaving millions hurt, alone and abused. ==== Unwanted ≠ Kill. That poor man on the side of the highway, with no family or home, is unwanted. So kill him. That abused child is lonely and afraid. So rip out his brains. That old man, with no family left and no one's care, is unwanted. So bleed him to death. NO. [I have already assessed the following paragraph above. Thank you for your time, and I hope we can keep this wonderful debate going. Sources: [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... [2]http://www.abortionno.org... [3] http://www.teenhelp.com... (the site lists more sources here)",-1,"the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, as in spaying or neutering an animal",noslang,abortion,no,no,neutral,neutral
"First off, I never used the word ""person. "" I said ""I believe it is wrong to take away another""s life. "" Although maybe I should have used a little different wording and said ""human life. "" (yes, A fetus is human life. ) Secondly, Every fetus does have individuality. Otherwise, Every person would look and act just like everybody else which is obviously not the case. I see your point that a fetus does not have likes, Dislikes, Relationships, Etc. Why does it not have these? Because it has not yet been born and able to experience these things in life beyond the womb. I don""t agree that the lack of characteristics such as likes and dislikes makes abortion ok, Because killing them before they are able to develop these characteristics is why they never get them. I don""t find it hypocritical to be pro-life and pro-death penalty. Why? Because I believe humans that murder people, Commit treason, Take part in human trafficking, Etc. Deserve to be killed. I also believe that humans that have not murdered people, Not committed treason, Not trafficked humans, And not done any wrong (such as a fetus) don""t deserve to be killed. I""m glad that you don""t like abortion (there is something we have in common haha). However, I do believe abortion is murder. Oxford Dictionary defines murder as ""The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. "" Of course you could argue that abortion is legal and therefore it is not ""unlawful"" as the definition says, But that is the entire point of my debate is to argue against abortion and I think it should be illegal so I am overlooking the use of that word. Abortion still is a ""premeditated killing of one human being by another. "" Lastly, I am also pro-choice. I believe people can make any choice they want, That is until they make a choice that inhibits the freedoms and choice-making abilities of another human being. For example, I can choose whether to read a book or watch a movie. That choice doesn""t affect the agency of any other human being. However, I cannot choose to own a slave (I would never want to, This is just an example). Why? Because by choosing to own a slave, I would be taking away the choice-making ability of my slave. Another example: I could make the choice to murder someone (Again, I wouldn""t, Just another example). But this takes away the freedom of that person to live. Abortion, Taking away the life of the human being, Takes away their freedom to live. Slavery and murder are illegal, Why isn""t abortion?",-1,the act of removing a fetus or embryo from the uterus in order to terminate its life,noslang,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,con
"Nice try, but that's not going to suffice. Here is your entire first post: ""believe I have the perfect argument on why abortion should be illegal. I really really want to debate this. Please someone, anyone, on either side of the argument debate me. You will be the Pro position Rules 4 rounds R1 acceptance of challenge, acknowledgement and acceptance of rules R2 opening statements on both sides plus any questions my challenger wants to have answered regarding my opening statements R3 rebuttals R4 closing statements voting period 3 days time to argue 72 hours 10,000 Characters (more than there was allowed the last time I logged on, over a year ago haha) Sooooo..... Any takers?"" Note that in this first post there is no mention at all of abortion as a ""viable choice."" It only mentions legality. You weren't ""clarifying"" this in your second argument, but you changed the rules. You say that I simply took on the debate. What was the alternative? Forfeit? Was that your strategy? Change the debate after the point of acceptance in the hope of having me forfeit? You weren't clarifying: you changed the topic in its entirety. Those are two completely difference questions, and the ""clarification"" on the two exceptions was introduced long after the fact. Also, I really resent the fact that you would posit that I attacked you personally. That never once happened. I pointed out facts--(1) your remarks that women are irresponsible was inaccurate and hateful and (2) you cheated. You're entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts.",1,"the act of terminating a pregnancy, especially by surgical or medical means",noslang,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"I surely do believe we should take a more realistic approach too. More than 90% of abortions occur during the 13th week of pregnancy, at this time fetuses have already developed finger prints, vocal chords, and the part of the brain which is responsible for complex thoughts is developing. This is a human life that cannot be taken away. Now to answering your questions ""At what point do you think a fetus becomes aware of existence?"" I as a non religious person believe life cannot be judged on awareness, for example when a person is in coma they aren""t aware of themselves nor environment. Do you believe it would be fine to murder a human being that is in coma just because they aren""t aware of their current state, and existence? ""Does a fetus have knowledge of life and death?"" Fetuses do have knowledge of life and death. One of, if not the most used abortion method is MVA. In this process a vacuum is used to retire contents from uterine. During this process the fetus""s body is completely destroyed by the vacuum. Doctors who have performed this form of abortion have recalled observing fetuses desperately moving to stay in womb. Fetuses are aware of their life, and will try to stay alive. ""Does a fetus fear non-existence?"" This is a question impossible to answer. If fetuses didn""t fear non-existence this does still not justify the killing of them. A suicidal person may often not fear non-existence, however would you kill them? Now I""d like to ask you a few questions? At what point in a fetuses life do you believe abortion shouldn""t be allowed anymore? How can a parent(s) justify the decision to have an abortion? Do you consider fetuses to be alive?",-1,"the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most commonly performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy",noslang,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"I am not quite sure whose information is correct, but acccording to Life News, more women die from abortion vs. childbirth. Here is a link that I found with a wonderful graph showing these rates. . http://www.lifenews.com... You are absolubtely right that there are many pregnancies that end in misscariage. I saw on Pregnancy Life that 10% of pregnancies do end in miscarriage. But, what happens to the other 90%? Do they just die? When you are talking about it being the mother's choice, do you think it is okay for a woman to have an abortion during the second or third trimester? Why or why not? According to Glen Beck news, 67% of people believe it is okay for a person to have an abortion during the first trimester. Then, when asked if it is okay to have an abortion during the second or third trimester, only 15% said that it was okay. If it is really the woman's choice and if you claim to be pro-choice, don't you think the woman should be able to have an abortion at any stage during the pregnancy. Then we get into the extreme case of, well, if a woman is allowed to have an abortion during pregnancy, don't you think the woman should be able to kill her child after it is born? You know, since it is ""her choice. .. "" Let me ask you, do you think that it is okay to kill a child one minute before birth? Well, you argue that it isn't a human, it is a fetus. Is there a difference in the baby one minute before birth or one minute after birth? It is completely phycostic to say that it is not a human when it is the same thing, separated by the lining of a placenta. - That is a strong argument when discussing abortion, but there is already tons of back street abortion occuring now. But, this honestly dwindles down to natural selection. A woman may go into a back street abortion knowing what she is doing, just like she knows she is going to have unprotected sex before concenption of the baby. The issue is that most women know the risks at hand when going into these types of dangerous abortions. Should the child die because of this? And with suicidal women carrying child, this unfortunately occurs now and I do not know how that relates to our argument of abortion. - I basically would just like to ask; where are your moral values? Do you think a person should die in the place of another? I do respect your opinion. I can understand where you are coming from. But, being a woman, I just want to think that what if my child is a woman? Should she have rights too? Absolubtely.",-1,the deliberate termination of a pregnancy by medical means,noslang,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"Also, I'd like to take the time to say my opponent is not bad. Your refutations are very good, and well organized, which is alot better than many of the other debaters on DDO. Without further ado lets begin! Judges, i will address his refutations, however before we begin i ask for some extensions.1)Personhood- A and B. No refutation made on either of these. So clearly aff has already won the moral aspects of Abortion.1. I'm sorry to say, but any motive, action, or goal in life may be to do one thing, but in fact may do another. Meaning Sexual Intercourse was originally meant to procreate, however the modernization of it has led to variations, and these variations involve pure pleasure, (Sorry for the vulgarity of this, but i must sight an example) The perfect example is in fact pornography. I have the perfect source to prove this [1] Dr. Michael Castleman took a study, in which 442 random people were asked why they have sex, equally from both Sexes. The top 20 reasons were laid out in the source, for both men and women. Neither of the top 20 involved procreation, just variations of pleasure. Thus your point 1 is wrong, rationally and statistically, women have sex for pleasure far more than that of procreation. Also, There is no such thing as 100% pregnancy. Just like there is no such thing as contracting HIV 100% of the time from sex. I could bring up the HIV argument of ""Why have sex if there is a risk for HIV? "" 2. This unclaimed ""potential"" comes with risks. Please judges cross apply Point C under my first Contention- Morality. This directly shows how the quality of life for both this ""potential child"" and the mother are lowered. This also shows suffering will occur between both Child and mother because the mother is unfit to have a baby, and because of that she must abort it.3. Simple explanation- Con has no source showing moms who WANT TO HAVE ABORTIONS, care for their children. On top of that, you can't control your body. You cannot control your heart, lungs, or liver. You cannot control bodily functions that may occur, such as women having their period. This argument is therefore invalid. Also, cross apply my Point A under Contention 2 Legality. The ""Forced Permittance"" already disproves this entire Argument. Also, the Joyce quote by my opponent was thoroughly misinterpreted. 4. Adoption- 1) I need a source showing most parents put their children up for adoption when they are born, or shortly after. This doesn't have any impact in this round unless a source is given.2) The women still has to have the child. I don't know if you've ever seen a woman give birth, but it takes a large toll on the women. [2] Women suffer so much pain from childbirth, that over 50% of hospitals in the United States use vast amounts of Epidural anesthesia just to calm them.3) Do you think a child would enjoy an orphanage? Cross apply Sub Point C of Morality once again. My opponent fails to address the quality of life for both children and the mother. [3] The Hurdles to adoption are insanely rigorous for the child. Many times the child feels suicidal, or may receive horrible foster parents and the cycle starts over. It is a sad epidemic, adoption. People just don't care about these children, or where they go. You assume these kids will get good homes, but that's just not living in reality. 4) ABORTION IS LEGAL IN ALL 50 STATES IN THE UNITED STATES. Cross apply Roe vs Wade (1973), Sub point A of Contention 2 Legality of Abortion. Con has NO GROUND ON LEGALITY. [4]Extend All of Morality and Legality. Con failed to address Sub points A and B on Contention 1 of morality, and the entire Contention 2 legality. Sub point C of Contention 1 was the only point focused on by cons arguments. This was successfully refuted by Pro. Pro has all the ground on Abortion, both Morally and Legally. [1] . http://www.psychologytoday.com... [2] . http://www.americanpregnancy.org...[3] . http://www.squidoo.com...[4] . http://civilliberty.about.com...",1,the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo before its viability,noslang,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"According to mayoclinic.com a babies heart starts beating 4 weeks after conception therfore it is to be considered a living human being, making an abortion after four weeks murder, and murder is illegal, yes? Why should a fetus with a heartbeat be any different? A woman has many ways to protect against pregnancy (under normal circumstances) failure to protect against unwanted pregnancy is NOT reason enough to warrent killing a human being.",-1,the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo before the fetus is viable,noslang,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"1. if there is a pregnacy than God intended it to happen. Nothing in the world can happen without God's approval. 2. Yes some are home made just look at the depression when families couldn't afford children so they drink, do like in the video in the 1st round, or some other satanitc way. 3. The natural rights are life, liberty, and property and all of these things are in the U.S. Constitution. So therefore an abortion is actualy illegal by law. 4. Okay then 5. I was just quoting him 6. adoption is always a choice no one said you've had to raise the kid. You know give it a beter future then no future at all. eh? 7. The fetus has several struggles to even become life. like to avoid WBC's or even Viruses. 8. adoption, sorry writting paper read this for more details, http://www.americanadoptions.com... 9. Wade V. Boggs upheld and prooved abortion should be illegal 1a. that my friend is why abortion is bad so that techinally prooved why abortion is wrong. 2a. that just says that deaths per birth have fell... with age comes expirance. 3a. adoption my friend adopition 4a. wow is all I have to say there is a reason it is illegal. people don't know how to do it right. 6a. what about the guilt that fallows the abortion you can't stop that. 7a. what do you say to the Catholic Families that have 5 kids and DON""T HAVE BREAST CANCER. I know, because I'm invovled in a large family",-1,"the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, especially by surgical or medical intervention",noslang,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"By abortion keeping abortion legalized, we are losing millions of innocent lives on a yearly basis. If you are opposed to keeping guns legal in the United States; 57,000,000+ abortions have occured since 1973. Since 1973, only 1.6 million deaths as a result of gunfire. (I use the word ""only"" to contrast that number from the number of abortions, not to discredit the significant amount). So answer me this; what logical reasons can you give me for why abortion should remain legal?",-1,the act of killing a fetus,noslang,abortion,no,no,con,con
"First of all, I would like to say that it is unfortunate that CON waited until the final round to drop details such as the position from which she was debating. I may have chosen to respond differently, but now I cannot because CON would not have any opportunity to rebut my arguments, so I will, once again, do the best I can with what I have. As I’m sure CON recalls, my “illegal killing” argument was a line of argument I said I was not going to take; I mentioned it only to clarify a point. Next, CON went on some sort of tangent about viability, which she never actually tied down to an argument. She claims that a fetus can be viable five weeks after implantation. I am confused by this claim because it is dead wrong. Fetal viability, or the point at which a fetus is able to survive outside the mother’s body [1], is usually put between 24 and 28 weeks [1][2]. Perhaps CON is confusing pregnancy viability with fetal viability. I think CON missed my whole point about giving human status to all vertebrates. Of course it is absurd; that was my point. However, if CON is going to assign personhood based on a heartbeat, that is the logical conclusion. Regarding rape, CON is a walking contradiction. She talks about how we shouldn’t murder babies by aborting them, but it is suddenly OK when the object is to avoid further trauma to the mother. Its either murder or it is not; you can’t have it both ways. I didn’t discuss CON's comments about birth control because they are irrelevant. The claim that women use abortion as their primary form of birth control is a myth. Often times their preferred method of contraception failed [3][4]. CON’s last point is an unsupported claim that “if abortion were no longer an option, birth control would be better utilized, and teen pregnancy would drop.” A source here would be helpful; because I’m pretty sure reality reflects the opposite. I wasn’t able to find figures specifically on teen pregnancy, but in areas of the world where abortion has been criminalized, the abortion rate has not dropped [4][5]. CON has tried to argue that abortion is wrong if the fetus has a heartbeat; I showed why this line of reasoning doesn’t pan out. She then went on to a discussion about viability, however her argument wasn’t properly formed, and I wasn’t able to determine exactly what she was saying. Con’s rape exception shows that her position is rocky at best, and finally her unsupported claim that criminalizing abortion would reduce teen pregnancy seems to be at odds with the available data. Overall, CON has failed to show why abortion should not be legal. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.babymed.com... [3] http://www.prochoice.org... [4] http://www.womenscenter.com... [5] “Induced abortion: incidence and trends worldwide from 1995 to 2008,” The Lancet, Volume 379, Issue 9816, Pages 625 - 632, 18 February 2012",1,the intentional termination of a human pregnancy,noslang,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"Day 21:The heart begins to beat,7 unsurely at first, gaining strength day by day. The heart beats 70 times per minute at first, reaching a maximum of 170-190 at seven weeks, and slowing a bit to 160-180 at 9 weeks.8 A day later the eyes begin to develop. The earliest stages of the ears are now present.9 Thank you for informing me about this, this is where I personally feel its wrong to kill a human, because this is when I feel like it becomes a person. But, also, you have yet to take in the consideration about the mother situation. ""1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child."" Yes, it is a very small number, but I feel like it okay with those situations. source: http://www.abortionno.org...",1,"termination of a pregnancy, as by induced abortion or spontaneous abortion",noslang,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"Okay. The resolution is ""Abortion should remain legal"". My opponent is arguing abortion should not remain legal. Both sides have the BOP and must prove something in order to win. I hope we have a good debate and do well. Thank you. Abortion (Operational): The terminating of a pregnancy by the removing or expelling of an embryo or fetus from the uterus. My Arguments: 1. An abortion is a fundamental right for a woman. ""A woman's right to choose abortion is a ""fundamental right"" recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Jan. 22, 1973 case of Roe v. Wade."" This is true. A woman has the right of an abortion because it her body. Her body is her right. An embyro and/or fetus in a body is technically still her property. She can do what she wants with her property. Since it has been confirmed by Roe vs. Wade, it is legally a fundamental right. 2. Abortions reduce injury and death. ""Access to legal, professionally-performed abortions reduces injury and death caused by unsafe illegal abortions."" The World Health Organization found in 2006 that homemade abortions cause 68,000 maternal deaths each year in countries where abortion is not legal. 3. Anti-abortion stances are usually religious. The pro-life stance is usually a religious belief and threatens the vital separation of church and state. Religious beliefs should not be a foundation for law in the United States. 4. Modern abortion procedures are safe. The risk of a woman's death from abortion is less than one in 100,000. While, the risk of a woman dying from giving birth is 13.3 deaths per 100,000 pregnancies. A 1993 fertility investigation of 10,767 women by the Joint Royal College of General Practitioners and Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists found that women who had at minumum two abortions experienced the same future fertility as those who had at least two natural pregnancies. 5. Abortion gives option. Abortion gives parents the option to choose not to birth babies with severe and life-threatening medical conditions. Fragile X syndrome, the most common genetic form of mental retardation, affects about 1 in 4,000 males and 1 in 8,000 females. One in 800 babies have Down Syndrome, and one in 3,500 babies are born with Cystic Fibrosis. It is not right to sentence a child to life with a mental handicap. 6. Abortion lowers crime. Many estimates claim that legalized abortion accounted for as much as 50% of the drop in murder, property crime, and violent crime between 1973 and 2001. Teenage girls, single ladies, and poor women are more likely to have unintended pregnancies. Unwanted babies are often raised poor, increasing their chances of leading criminal lives in adulthood. 7. A baby should not come into this world unwanted. 49% of all pregnancies among American women are unintended . Having children is an important lifetime decision that requires responsible consideration, preparation, and planning. Well, that's all for now. Good luck to my opponent.",1,"the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, as by various medical means",noslang,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"I will argue that abortion should never be illegal, and that pro-lifers use seriously flawed, illogical arguments to support pro-life views. Contention 1: Life is not sacred Contention 2: Human life does not start at conception Contention 3: A fetus is not a person I will basically forfeit the rest of round one and be limited to rounds two and three to make my points. Happy arguing!",1,pregnancy termination,noslang,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"My opponent has not refuted any of my arguments and has only made unsupported claims that he did not effeciently defend or provide evidence for and he has not given me an answer to any of the questions I asked him. I therefore extend all of my arguments from the last round as they all went untouched. To provide some form of content for this round: ""Everyone has rights.""Including the mother, so why do you think her rights should be broken for the rights of something that is not born?""If you want to abort someone, then go ahead.""This is completly against your pole: should I read that as a consession? ""Kill something that was supposed to life."" Can you prove that statement? It is not a human any more than your sex-cells are humans. The act of abortion is just as immoral as using birth control. Are you going to defend that those should be illegal? Birth control prevents the would-be fetus to be born and thus kills something that was supposed to live. Why should bc be legal if abortion isn't? are you proposing that the only valid sexual intercourse should be for reproduction?Abortion protects the life of the mother. the reasoning ""Don't because it kills something that has no self-awareness!"" is not going to hold valid.""Again, morally abortion is wrong. ""How so is it morally worse than forcing the child upon an unwilling mother? My opponent cannot ignore this point and must answer it, along with all others, in the next and final round.",1,the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo before its development is completed,noslang,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"Those examples you mention killed for malicious purposes, And if they didn't kill, They would have remained the same. Parents who abort do it so that they can remain where they are; if they don't abort, They would collapse financially, And they don't want that to happen. As for those who are already collapsed, They would gain nothing from killing other than more collapse, Therefore they are killing just for killing, And that should be punished. However, You are right; just because you are immature, Poor, Unready, Or psycho doesn't mean you have the right to take a human life, But that only applies for people where killing doesn't benefit you and the world around you. To how the world around you is affected: if you are poor, The economy suffers, So if the reason you are poor is because of not aborting, Then the baby is the reason for some economic suffering. While that might seem to not matter because of minority, Every single person that suffers financially, Ruins the economy. There are other reasons why abortion is beneficial, But those reasons are cruel and sadistic, So I am not going to mention them.",1,the act of removing a fetus or embryo from the uterus in order to end its life,noslang,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"On your contention that life is not sacred: What exactly does this have to do with abortion? I use life being valuable in terms of not killing a human being, I guess. Would you be in favor of killing innocent people because life is not sacred? On your contention that human life does not begin at conception: It is not that hard to make an argument for having abortion illegal in at least ONE case without this point. Abortion should be illegal at 38 weeks. Anyone who is convinced by this statement should vote CON. That has nothing to do with life beginning at conception, but of life being existent/valued at 38 weeks. On your contention that a fetus is not a person: A fatal mistake, this is not. In fact, the mistake is on your part. I would ask people to read the article for themselves. The article states that the fetus can feel pain in the 28th week - two weeks into the third trimester. Even pro-abortion groups have said 26 weeks is the time when a fetus can feel pain. Look at this article: Control F ""26"" and it is near the bottom: (http://www.theinterim.com...) ""However, others in the pro-abortion camp continue to argue that, for example, pain cannot be felt before 26 weeks' gestation."" Therefore, no mistake was made on my part; you simply did not properly read the article and only looked at the first paragraph. Please, no more false accusations of faulty reading and ""fatal mistakes."" "" When a baby is born, and the mother accepts responsibility for raising it, it's very first personal relationship is formed (beforehand it is part of the mother's body)."" - This makes it a human, you say. If the personal relationship is only formed after birth, why do parents name their children in the womb? Care about said child in the womb? Just because it cannot physically be touched, it is not human? Just to make this clear: You are in favor of aborting a 38 week old baby/fetus? You think that should be legal?",-1,the termination of a human pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus,noslang,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
They may be more emotionally unstable towards the thought of raising a child. It might cause more pain and suffering for both the mother and the child if an abortion does not take place and both persons are left in a world with no security or sense of companionship to live off of.,1,the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a non-viable fertilized ovum or embryo,noslang,abortion,no,yes,neutral,neutral
"you keep using the term ""unsafe abortion"" If you go to a clinic where this is practiced is is way more safe than getting it from that hobo down the street. And another thing, you have a better likely hood to gain depression when you have a child as well. And it isn't our place to say anything about mothers who have abortions. What if it wasn't there fault. What if the condom broke, what if the birth control pills didn't work? Why should it be there fault then. Why should we get to judge them based on their decision. This is their choice. And yeah it's very sad, and suicide sadly is an option for them. But if you can't handle a baby then wouldn't it be better to bring a baby into the world when they, THE PARENTS are prepared?",1,the termination of a pregnancy by medical or surgical means,noslang,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"This is a human life. This is murder. A human life starts at conception. Saying abortion is ok is like saying it's ok to kill your next door neighbor. You have no right to take away this life that hasn't even had a chance yet. This is a pure soul, they have never done anything bad or done anything to harm anyone. This child should at least be given a chance at life.",-1,the termination of a human pregnancy,noslang,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"Abortion should never be accepted in any culture, whether religious or not, I fail to see how anyone can be pro killing unborn babies. The issue on preserving the wildlife is more argued for than the issue on saving humans lives and I feel that is the biggest flaw in our country.",-1,"the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most commonly performed as a surgical procedure by a qualified health care provider",noslang,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,pro
"Point 1: The prohibition of abortion will just make more deaths due to abortion. It will be in the same fashion as the prohibition on alcohol in the 1920s. The prohibition of abortion will lead some women to seek ""underground"" doctors, who will abort illegally. These doctors are usually dangerous for mother and baby. So instead in the style of a regular abortion where only the baby dies, under these circumstances, the chances of the woman dying skyrocket. Point 2: Prohibiting abortion will just increase crime and poverty. The kind of people that abort are either young or poor. The young will not take care of the baby for society has already cast her out. She will get rid of the baby. The poor will not take care of the baby either. Because poor tends to breed poor. Crime tends to breed crime. If the woman does not abort, the baby could grow up into a criminal, or live an under-privaliged childhood. The baby would be better off not being born. Plus, chances are high that he or she will be murdered when they are older if they are poor and live in a bad part of town. Point 3: Every woman has rights. Being able to abort is one of them. Rebuttal?",1,the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo,noslang,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
Abortion is the killing of a human life. The question of when life begins and viability is a fluid situation depending on many variables.,-1,removal of the embryo or fetus from the uterus,noslang,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"""But a fetus isn't a fetus until 8 weeks into the pregnancy."" You apparently are not well-versed in human reproduction. The Zygote exists for only four days, then turns into a blastocyst on the fifth day. ""Day 1: Conception: Of the 200,000,000 sperm that try to penetrate the mother's egg cell, only one succeeds.2 At that very moment, a new and unique individual is formed. All of the inherited features of this new person are already set – whether it's a boy or girl, the color of the eyes, the color of the hair, the dimples of the cheeks and the cleft of the chin. He or she is smaller than a grain of sugar, but the instructions are present for all that this person will ever become. The first cell soon divides in two. Each of these new cells divides again and again as they travel toward the womb in search of a protected place to grow.3 Day 6-14:The new individual at first attaches loosely to the wall of the womb, then burrows deeply and attaches securely to it over the next week. Sensitive pregnancy tests can now show positive, but this depends on the level of hormone produced by the new life. By the end of the second week, the mother's menstrual period is suppressed by this hormone (hCG) which is produced by her child.4 Day 17:Blood vessels begin to form.4 Remarkably, the future sex cells that will give rise to sperm or eggs for a new generation begin to group together - only 17 days after this new life is alive itself.5 Day 18-20:The foundations of the brain, spinal cord, and nervous system are laid.6 Day 21:The heart begins to beat,7 unsurely at first, gaining strength day by day. The heart beats 70 times per minute at first, reaching a maximum of 170-190 at seven weeks, and slowing a bit to 160-180 at 9 weeks.8 A day later the eyes begin to develop. The earliest stages of the ears are now present.9 Day 26-27:The lungs now begin to form.10 Day 28-32:Two tiny arms make their appearance and budding legs follow two days later.11 The beginnings of the mouth take shape.12 The nose starts to develop.13 The thyroid gland begins to grow. Blood flows in the baby's veins but stays separate from the mother's blood. The tongue now begins to form. The face now makes its first appearance.14 Day 36:The baby's eyes develop their first color in the retina (see photo above, right).15 Day 40:The baby makes her first reflex movements. Touching around the mouth with a fine bristle causes her to flex her neck.16 Day 41:The fingers begin to form, followed by the toes a few days later.17 Day 42:The baby develops nerve connections that will lead to a sense of smell. The brain is now divided into 3 parts – one to experience emotion and understand language, one for hearing and one for seeing. 18 Joints begin to form.19 Mother now misses second period. Day 44:Buds of milk teeth appear. Facial muscles develop.20 Eyelids begin to form, protecting the developing eyes.21 Elbows take shape. Internal organs are present, but immature. 99% of muscles are present; each with its own nerve supply.22 Electrical activity is detectable in brain.23 Day 52:Spontaneous movement begins. The baby then develops a whole collection of moves over the next 4 weeks including hiccupping, frowning, squinting, furrowing the brow, pursing the lips, moving individual arms and legs, head turning, touching the face, breathing (without air), stretching, opening the mouth, yawning, and sucking.24 8 Weeks:The baby is now well-proportioned, and about the size of a thumb. Every organ is present. The liver is making blood, the kidneys function, and the heart beats steadily. The skull, elbows, and knees are forming. Of the 4500 structures in the adult body, 4000 are already present.25 The skeleton of the arms and legs and the spine begins to stiffen as bone cells are added."" Is it right to kill it? http://abortionfacts.com...",-1,the act of terminating a pregnancy,noslang,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"There is a contradiction in your ""logic"" when you say: 1) Abortion is murder and wrong 2) The right thing to do would be murder an attacker to keep them from murdering his child To clarify the above, let""s take your situation and add a constraint to make it more germane to the discussion. If someone is trying to kill your child, and the ONLY way to stop them is to kill them, any rational person would choose their child's life over the attacker's life. Is that your stance? Because you only have two options in that contrived situation: advocate murdering the attacker or advocate the murder of your child. By doing either, does that mean that you don""t value life? How can your point of view be anything but contradictory of each other? You ask if life is ""worth"" anything. My response to that is no. There is no monetary price you can put on life. I do not hold with slavery, so I do not agree that human beings have a price tag. If you do believe human have ""worth"" please tell me what a human is worth? That should be an interesting discussion. Life begins at conception, and no I don""t agree with your view. You present a false dichotomy where there are only two choices, and that""s not the reality. Is it morally ""right"" to put the child""s life above the mother's? Is it morally ""right"" to put the mother""s life above the child""s? The answer to both is no, it""s not a decision I have any right to make from a moral standpoint. Bodily integrity has nothing to do with someone attacking your children. Bodily autonomy is what others can do to your body. This is the reason that rationally, you should defend yourself from an attacker, to protect that attacker from violating your body. Your example supports my claim that bodily autonomy is valid. To present you a false dichotomy in return, if you don't agree then you support the ""irrational"" belief that you should allow the attacker to hurt you because the attackers life has ""value"". A fetus is part of a woman""s body. This is not in question. It is connected via the umbilical cord which provide nutrients that keep the fetus alive. Without the mother providing those nutrients the fetus dies. It is not a separate human being that can survive on its own even in the most advanced stages of pregnancy. Even if the fetus is allowed to be born, infants still at that point cannot survive on its own, and require assistance to live. But I""ll ignore all that for now, and address this as a helpless man attached by an unbreakable rope. In your thought experiment, you are not in any way required to take care of someone who is helpless. I""ll go back to my original example; You aren""t giving up that lung so others can live (helpless man), because when it comes to your body you don""t want to lose a lung. (so you let him die without your lung) You want to call abortion murder, but that""s not how murder is defined. Just as not wanting to give up your lung doesn""t make you a murderer. We have the freedom to help others, or not help others, that is what freedom is. Choosing to not save someone, does not make you a murder. You don""t want the freedom taken away from you to choose what happens to your lung, nor should you want that freedom taken away from women, but somehow you do. You state don""t feel that the good of society relevant; you just care about birth, not what happens afterwards. That makes you pro-birth, not pro-life.",1,the act of deliberately causing a foetus to be destroyed,noslang,abortion,no,yes,neutral,con
If a mother is going to end up struggling in life further because of having a baby well then too bad for her. She should have put some thought into it before she decided to have sexual intercourse with her husband or some random dude that would eventually lead to her being pregnant. A woman should have sense enough to know that if she's going to end up having a hard time in life that she doesn't need to have a baby ever or until she gets her life together. It makes absolutely no sense for a woman to have a baby if she won't be able to care for it unless of course she has been raped by some selfish guy who cares only about pleasuring himself regardless of how the woman could be effected. Therefore I will rest my case on the fact that Abortion should only be allowed if the woman has been raped or if the pregnancy is endangering the child and its mother's life because as far as i'm concerned Abortion is murder if it isn't related to these two circumstances.,-1,the termination of a pregnancy,noslang,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"Homicide is the deliberate taking of a person""s life by another person. If someone commits homicide, they can be put in prison for a life sentence, or under certain circumstances be executed. Abortion is the deliberate ""procedure"" of taking an unborn baby's life. The key word is deliberate. In both cases however, someone""s life is taken by another person on purpose. In 1973, the supreme court""s decision over Roe Vs Wade effectively legalized abortion in all fifty states, opening abortion clinics all over the nation. Norma McCorvey, also know as Jane Roe, was dragged into the Roe vs Wade case. She wanted an abortion, and it was this that led to her being behind the Supreme Court""s ruling. She says it is the number one regret in her life. She wishes she had known what she was getting into.. She hates that because of her abortion is legal. In other words, murder is legal. If the person behind the thousands of Planned Parenthood's is Pro Life, shouldn""t that mean something? Anything? Or even everything?",-1,the act of deliberately killing an unborn child,noslang,abortion,no,no,con,con
"""I think you will be surprised to know that livestock animals are only bred and kept for the purposes of their products. They do not exist but to feed us."" The method for abortion was made for abortion. Without it, there would be no abortion. Why not promote cannibalism then? Most humans do not exist for your benefit. Kill them all. Abortion is necessary as it is pre-determined that the foetus will not benefit the family. ""Really? A foetus does not function? The function of a foetus is to develop his characteristics as to be able to perform the functions of a prenatal being."" That function serves no purpose for us. If the child isn't helpful, why does it live? ""Of course, but do animals and plants, in their mature, yea, even their developing stages possess even a fraction of the potential for greatness, a fraction of the potential beneficial impact on the world as a foetus? The answer is no. "" You continue on to say that a sperm and an ovum are unique cells, and we are unique. Yet you forget that many animals reproduce sexually as well. Also, we have more of a potential of harming this world than achieving so called greatness. Before the humans rapid development, animals could roam freely, global warming, waste disposal and pollution weren't major problems. But now, they are big problems, and we are proving harmful for everyone but our own species. ""The probability of your mother meeting your father is 1 in 20,000, the probability of them reproducing is thereafter 1 in 2000."" Where's your source? Ted talks are usually more expressing of opinions than facts. ""There are multiple viable alternatives to this, in the first instance: condoms. In later instances, adoption. No one should be killed for the irresponsibility of his parents."" It could be possible the parents at first wanted the child but later the situation changed and they didn't want it. As for adoption, all parents feel a certain kinship to their own blood, and would feel distressed to send their own child down such a hard part. Who knows whether anyone would adopt the child or not? What if he dies anyway? If he dies due to ill-treatment from foster parents or lack of resources, the parents would be haunted for their entire lives, knowing they killed a fully sentient being. Yet a foetus isn't sentient, and is easy to think of like a disposable seed than a growing crop. Get the idea? You can throw fruit seeds, but you wouldn't want a plant that grew because of you to die because of you. ""I think we should give him or her the best life he or she could possibly hope for. I think we should provide the utmost in palliative care. I mean, by your Hitleresque logic, Stephen Hawking should have been shown mercy and killed as soon as he showed symptoms of motor neurone disease."" Might as well, I don't think there was such a high probability of him being a genius. Not every child turns into a genius, you know. He didn't even make any inventions but just gave some theories. If he is later proved wrong, wouldn't your argument fall? What if it had some sort of contagious disease? Then you are eliminating a threat to society. ""You are incredibly mistaken, the reason we kill these organisms is because their products are very valuable. Vegetables and wood are valuable commodities. Humans, however early in development, are valuable in their own right."" Yet when they fail to be valuable, they must be killed. It works the opposite way for humans, does it not? Kill the baby if you don't need it. Let it live if you need it. ""If you were to crack open an unfertilized chicken egg, you would notice."" There are some eggs that have a faster expiry date than other due to being fertilized. Day 1, 2, and 3 eggs are still sold in some markets. You just killed a potential life for your own pleasure/food. Adoption A parent suffering so many months just to give away the baby seems rather a waste of effort. Plus, foster homes aren't always the best of homes. If the real parents just see the child suffering again, they would feel extremely bad that the doomed it to this fate. It is easier to kill a foetus than allowing a living child to suffer. You may say that parents shouldn't track their child, but natural instinct and blood binds takeover. If the child dies due to ill-treatment, they will surely be reported about it, and that would be sad. Furthermore, adoption is a discreet method, while giving a child to a foster home will attract unwanted attention and call for social retribution and inquisition. ""Freedom is the right of all sentient beings"" prime sentient- able to see, hear, taste, smell, feel http://www.merriam-webster.com... Foetus don't have the 5 senses fully activated yet, therefore freedom is not within their rights. Optimus Prime says so.",1,the destruction of a fetus in the womb,noslang,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"""you say ending a life isn't a punishment, Purposley ending a life is a punishment to the life you are ending. "" This argument relies on several assumptions regarding the nature of that life, which are, for the most part, verifiably not true and you have made no effort to demonstrate otherwise. 'Human life', as defined in a meaningful term rather than a flat biological one, requires the presence of meaningful brain activity, and it is not physically possible for foetuses to have this activity until at least 26 weeks of gestation. In order to demonstrate that I am incorrect you would have had to demonstrate that the phenomenon of 'brain death' isn't or, scientifically, 'shouldn't be' synonymous with actual death, which it is. ""if you end the life of a fetus then you are punishing that fetus and that fetus is a human fetus which the main word is Human not Fetus . "" The word 'foetus' isn't just there to give people an excuse to kill them, it's there because it is the correct descriptor for what they are. Nobody has ever denied that foetuses are, biologically & genetically, human. It simply isn't relevant; You need to prove that foetuses are PEOPLE, or at least that it is somehow reasonable to accord them rights as though they were (and to *also* demonstrate how those rights could 'override' those of the mother, whilst also addressing why this isn't the case for everyone, in which case the organ theft example I mentioned would have to be legal). ""you don't have to be able to think to be alive, there are species all over the world that can't think cause they don't have a brain but they are alive,"" And could you please point out which, if any, of those species we consider to be people, or to have rights? You will, of course, note that lack of a central nervous system fundamentally and inherently means that no 'individual', from the point of view of something that itself has a point of view, exists at all. Those things are not and physically could not possibly be sentient, let alone sapient. A mould spore does not have 'rights'. ""it is alive or it could not Grow and develop and a Human fetus is still a human it doesn't change to a human just because it leaves the womb"" No, it doesn't. It changes to a PERSON because its brain develops to the point of functionality. In order to fault this you would have to demonstrate that the fundamental idea behind the phenomenon of 'brain death' is flawed and that the broad medical (& legal) community is simply wrong. At the very least you would need to demonstrate how it could be considered 'reasonable' to state that, rather than the equivalent starting point as opposed to the verifiable end-point of brain-death, it is instead conception when 'human life' begins. Despite the fact that we know that biologically human life which differs genetically (even if 'just' by being haploid) from its progenitor has to exist in order for conception to occur, & your position not accounting for the existence of this 'human life' *at all*. Despite this meaning that 'brain-death' would then have to not be synonymous with 'actual' death, and therefore theoretically allowing for me to shoot you in the head and get away with it so long as someone still has a culture of cells with your DNA. It simply stands to reason that if you are asserting that mere genetic existence, rather than presence of meaningful brain activity, is when 'human life', in a meaningful and specific term, begins that you must remain internally consistent in your assertions and thus be asserting that cessation of genetic existence rather than cessation of meaningful brain activity is when that life ends. You have specifically refused to address any of those points in detail despite multiple prompting for each. I have also noted your inclusion of a 'source' in comments. While this is strictly speaking not part of your argument, & while I thus do not 'need' to address it at all, I will at least humour you with its inclusion. Firstly, 'lifenews. com' is a *very* heavily biased (towards pro-life/anti-abortion) site, so anything put forth by it with regards to its bias must be taken with a grain of salt. The article itself is little more than several dozen one-or-two sentence quotations, taken completely out of context, regarding the status of conception as when 'human life' biologically begins. You will, I hope, note that *I have never stated that this is not the case or argued that it isn't true*; I've stated that it isn't relevant. Conception as the beginning of *MY* life in a distinct, meaningful, and philosophical sense, rather than merely when 'my' genes started existing and began the blind, unthinking work of starting to create 'my' body and the brain that actually constitutes 'me' as a person, is strictly a religious belief. You have merely demonstrated what is already known to be biological fact, you have not actually linked it to your postion on abortion in a meaningful or relevant manner. The fact that conception results in a novel combination of human genes, and that given an 'ideal' environment the cells those genes are present in will tend toward creating a human body which will give rise to a human brain and therefore a person, has never been argued. What I *have* been arguing is that you cannot call the mere fact of novel genetic combination to be considered a 'person', and as has been clearly seen with your refusal to address any one of several relevant points regarding the inconsistency of this belief itself and of how it is applied, demonstrates that your position is not, in fact, internally consistent and is not actually congruent with the reality of the situation. You have refused to address the existence of a (at least technically) novel genetic combination, and thus by your own terms a 'HUMAN LIFE', that is demonstrated by sperm cells and unfertilised eggs. Technically you did address it but you merely asserted 'no, that isn't right' without evidence and without regard for how it is relevant to your position. You have refused to address how your terminology regarding what constitutes a 'HUMAN LIFE' means that according to a consistently applied model of your position it could theoretically be legal, and more than that potentially objectively 'okay' and fine, for me to shoot you, lethally, in the head and keep a culture of your cells alive, as this would not constitue me 'killing' you so long as at least one cell with your DNA remained alive. You have refused to address that your apparent assertion that the foetus has a right to its mothers body, and that this apparent right flatly overrides the pregnant woman's fundamental, inalienable right to her own body, is not at all consistent with how we tend to see and enforce human rights as operating. My example regarding kidnapping random people off the street and stealing their organs to give to sick people who need them *must* be permissible and able to be legal, according to a consistently applied model of your position, else you are asserting that foetuses are a 'special case' merely because you say so, which is an unjustified bare-assertion. Or else you are asserting that pregnant women do not have rights at all, which not only flies in the face of both international law and local law in almost every country on the planet, but is also barbaric, ludicrous and ethically unacceptable. You have refused to address that a large part of your position being entirely based around 'women having to take responsibility for their actions' leaves out that it is simply not reasonable for them to have to 'take responsibility' for having sex, as it is simply not reasonable to assert that consenting to have sex somehow necessarily equates to consent to become pregnant and give birth, with or without use of contraceptives. You also made no differentiation in your argument between when such measures were or weren't used, and expressed incredulity that all people don't always get them for free and magically 'just know' exactly how to use them in all parts of the world at all times. You have also failed to address that this entire segment of your argument fundamentally has *nothing whatsoever* to do with the foetus or its 'life' and *everything* to do with your arrogant, moralising opinion regarding the womans behavior, that women should be *punished* in a degrading, inhumane and potentially life-threatening manner for having had sex. Which again is barbaric and ethically unacceptable. You have *also* refused to address the invariable life-threatening nature of pregnancy, which is the case in *every* instance of pregnancy ever. You did not address that even a late-term abortion is several times safer than even the 'safest' full-term birth and therefore that pregnancy is ALWAYS a health concern sufficient to have good cause to abort, whether or not you personally agree with it. You are also on record as having stated that you would 'only allow for abortion when BOTH the mother and baby are going to die anyway', and have not provided responses to criticisms towards this position. You flatly disregard that refusing to allow pregnant women to attempt to save their own lives when continuing with the pregnancy will result in their deaths is *literally* MURDER by your own definition, given that causing the death of humans through inaction is literally directly counter to your own asserted positions of 1. 'valuing human life' and 2. that refusing to give foetuses access to their 'ideal environment' for growth counts as 'murder'. I. .. . don't think there's really anything else to say. I think that covers everything. I hope that this debate has been enlightening, educating or at least amusing.",1,"the deliberate termination of a pregnancy, especially in the medical sense",noslang,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"""the Canadian baby on life support. If you read his reference carefully you'll notice that the baby is a baby not a fetus, that it is in a vegetative state that it will not recover from, and the only question left to be decided is whether it will die at home, at his father's convenience, or in a hospital, which will save money that can be spent on saving the lives of babies who aren't terminal."" In the second paragraph I am not debating rather the Canadian baby is a fetus or not. And again, the Latin word fetus literally means ""offspring"" or ""hatching of young"". (1) Also, most of the time, when a procedure is done in a hospital, the hospital is paid for their time and the doctor for his skills. I also would like to point out that while Tigg13 pointed out that I chose sources that are either pro-life or Conservative Christian, he gave no details, nor did he point out which sources were pro-life and which ones actually ""don't support his position."" – meaning my position. I would now like to comment on Tigg13's fourth paragraph in which he states, ""Con then goes on to quote Cathy Sparks, John Ankerburg, and Gregg Jackson, and – big surprise – they all think that abortion is bad and that people who provide abortions are even worse. They tell us that abortion providers are evil and deceptive people who want to force everyone to have abortions whether they want one or not. What they don't mention, though, is, if this much unethical behavior was going on, why aren't there hundreds of lawsuits being filed daily against these people. This is the problem with anecdotal evidence – it rarely resembles reality."" It's interesting he would make these statements when Kathy Sparks is a former abortionist herself - (2), and John Ankerburg has a long list of accomplishments which would establish any person as a well referenced source - (3). While he may be a Christian, it's hard to find a non-Christian or a Liberal Democrat who will back up pro-life arguments and I assume that a person fitting that description would constitute a reputable source for my opponent. Gregg Jackson is a well established author and with little research on Gregg Jackson, you will find he is a Conservative and obviously this is what my opponent did and is now just using that as ammunition. ""why aren't there hundreds of lawsuits being filed daily against these people."" This is an example of the lack of attention by my opponent. Other than the grammatical errors of his post, if these women were lying as good as they claim, why would there be lawsuits? A young mother would have no reason to file a lawsuit against someone who helped them...would they? My opponent's arguments about Fitzsimmons are literally baseless. Yes lobbyists lie, but that doesn't argue what he lied about. And this man was the Director of Government Relations for the National Abortion Rights Action League from 1982 to 1985, and the Executive Director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers (NCAP) from its founding in 1990 until 2004. In 1993, he was named one of the top 50 ""Hired Guns"" on Capitol Hill by Washingtonian magazine. - (4) So I personally believe that he would be a reputable source when talking about abortion. I won't address my opponents closing arguments as it is opinion and my entire argument goes against it. My ""anonymous source from Princeton"" is actually multiple sources and behind every statement, there is a name and date. - (5) ""In some places euthanasia, crimes of passion, seppuku and even stoning family members for adultery are not considered to be murder. Acts of war and capital punishment aren't even considered to be crimes."" Is my opponent suggesting that we result to the way of life in the Middle East and punish people accordingly? Obviously, comparing abortion and stoning a woman to death would be a dangerous comparison. ""Fewer than 0.3% of abortions have complications that lead to hospitalization and abortions pose virtually no long term risks to the women who have them."" This is not the argument at all. Providing the fact that women are not at much risk when aborting a fetus does not argue my case. ""And the problem here is that there is no biological or scientific definition for what makes a person a person."" This is odd. I believe we could all agree a person, becomes a person, when life begins. ""The ""less than 1%"" of abortions due to rape that Con mentioned represent 14000 instances of rape that led to an unwanted pregnancy."" As I did not mention a date, I find it hard to believe that my opponent would have a reputable counter-fact. And if I use 1972 and 73, which my opponent proposed, I come up with a number much less than 14000. I come up with under 6,000. ""Informed consent, in general, is the law in all 50 states so, by law, all abortion providers must provide patients with complete and accurate information about the procedures they provide. 32 states have special informed consent laws that deal specifically with abortion most of which provide inaccurate and/or misleading information."" Obviously, by the testimonies of the women who have worked at abortionist clinics, which more than just the ones I've posted can easily be found online, accurate information is not provided. Laws say a lot of things. Obviously they are not always followed as my opponent argues for me, ""Even when abortion was illegal women still had them. In 1972 (before Roe v Wade) there were 586760 reported abortions and this number rose less than 5% in 1973 (after Roe v Wade)."" My opponent agreed that life begins at conception, and then contradicted this in his conclusion. And finally, killing a fetus is only right to those who think its right. But think about the fact that even a pro-choice person, has to use the term ""killing a fetus"", when we've established that fetus literally means ""child"". In closing, I'd like to say that my opponent has given very little source for his information, a total of 4 sources, and has rushed through his argument with multiple grammatical errors being evidence of this. He accused me of giving sources that are not reputable and that's about it. He gives no details on this and then uses one of the same sources. I don't believe this opponent did research at all. Other than a few facts he may have ""Googled"", I think that my opponent simply does not agree with me, but does not hold the desire to prove me wrong. Sources - (1) - http://en.wikipedia.org... (2) - http://www.abortionfacts.com... (also a good source for other statements from former abortionists.) (3) - http://jas.guilddev.com... (4) - http://en.wikipedia.org... (5) - http://www.princeton.edu...",-1,the intentional destruction of a fetus or the act of inducing a miscarriage,noslang,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"If you think that the baby not a life until it is breathing, then what if the baby is not breathing when it comes out of the womb? Would you still have the right to kill it? Rape is no excuse for murder/abortion. Rape is a bad thing, but just because someone got raped, does not mean that the woman can start killing babies. It sounded like you wanted all abortions to be legal, but yet you are using the rape argument. Less then 1% of all abortions are because of rape ( https://www.operationrescue.org... ). Now you are using a really small example in order to make all examples sound okay. But its not, rape is bad, killing babies is bad. Rape does not justify killing babies. My question: what if the baby is not breathing when it comes out of the womb? Would the woman still have the right to kill it?",-1,"the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, in particular, the deliberate destruction of a fetus or embryo.",noslang,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"Abortion is murder. No child that has not done a thing in this world to make you dislike them, should be able to experience life. Abortion is a form of hatred. If you have been raped you should give the child up for adoption if you do not feel comfortable keeping them for whatever reason.",-1,"the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, as a woman's body of a human fetus",noslang,abortion,no,no,neutral,neutral
"I didn't write any of that from an emotional standpoint, I only said ""murder for pleasure"" to exaggerate it and draw attention to how ridiculous it is to say that it would be discrimination to not allow women to commit a abortion. Really, I couldn't care less what the EU says, the EU also said that the place where Solomon's temple was built doesn't belong to the Jews somehow, come on- it's on The Nation of Israel! This is just another example of EU idiocy, a fetus is not part of the woman, they are two separate beings and one does not have any right to kill the other. And as a side note, I never said that life begins at conception, that's absurd, life begins 40 days after conception. And one last thing, even if the fetus was part of the mother, it doesn't matter, if I tried to kill a part of myself, say an arm or leg, I'd get locked up.",-1,the act of intentionally causing the death of a fetus,noslang,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,con
Abortion is murder and should be a punishable crime.,-1,"the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, as a medical procedure or in some cases by various home remedies",noslang,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"I would like to clarify something that I did not perhaps say clearly in Round 1. My post was merely an explanation of where I stand on this debate, and I posted my point of view so that my opponent could see exactly what I was arguing, and take his stance in accordance. I apologise if it was not clear enough. Back to the issue at hand. One cannot prefer a definition over another if it's a definition. It's like a fact, it is not subject to a person's point of view. Doctors do, in certain countries, abort in the third term. 1.4% of abortions in the USA in 2003 were late-term abortions (see SOURCES for information on more countries). Therefore, one can say that doctors do abort even in third term pregnancies. At this stage, most fetuses are viable, and would feel pain. If they were to be therefore killed (my opponent himself asserts that at this stage they are granted personhood, so I shall not argue it), they would feel the pain of death. Not all women abort because it is absolutely necesary. If it wass absolutely necesary then I'd approve of it because it would be an unusual circumstance. I officially take the stance that abortion should be illegal/legal except for socioeconomic factors, rape, incest, health, mental health, fetal defects. Many women abort because they feel they don't want a child or because they feel they're not ready yet. The minority of abortions are in the unusual circumstances I have highlighted. I assure the audience (many may know from experience) that in most circumstances, a woman does indeed want an abortion, and never considers her fetus in making the decision. My opponent claims that over time, the number of teenagers getting pregnant has increased. The number of teenage pregnancies has decreased. It is continuing to decrease. Teenage pregnancies were normal in previous centuries. In the 1970s, as my opponent states, this rate was above 90 per 1000. In 2006, it was just over 70. The rate is clearly declining. The solution, in any event, wouldn't be abortion, it would be more education and better provision of contraception. The logic behind the abortion vs adoption argument seems bizarre. How could somebody prefer to kill a baby rather than put it up for adoption? I would thank my opponent to elaborate before I criticise. Women's rights, while important, are not as important as HUMAN rights. If there must be a choice between human and women's rights, then we must, unfortunately, opt for human rights. If we were to use the ""woman's body"" logic, then why should we have human rights or women's rights at all? Why should the government have laws? Why should there BE a government? No, if we were to use that logic, we'd fall into anarchy. Again, the back alley argument is also illogical. This is like arguing for the legalisation of murder. It would happen anyway, because when it's illegal people do it in the dark and privately. This is unhealthy because it is done often painfully and without the proper equipment. We should therefore make it legal so that murder can be done properly with the proper equipment and so that it inflicts minimal pain on the victim. I stress, this is illogical. Disease would fall into unusual circumstances. It is within the scope of health or mental health. If the woman cannot genuinely take care of the child then she could cite socioeconomic factors for a review of her case, and be ruled for or against accordingly. I don't think that seems too unfair, do you? SOURCES: . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://blog.thenationalcampaign.org... . http://www.thinkinboutstuff.com... . http://en.wikipedia.org...",-1,"the deliberate termination of a pregnancy, often by means of an operation",noslang,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
Women should have the right to choose whether or not to get an abortion.,1,the termination of a human pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo before the fetus can survive outside the uterus.,noslang,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"Thank You Con, First off I would like to point out that my opponent is using his opinions, not facts. He does have a right to his opinion I must say. Prefer my definition. Definition-Abortion: In medicine, an abortion is the premature exit of the products of conception (the fetus, fetal membranes, and placenta) from the uterus. It is the loss of a pregnancy and does not refer to why that pregnancy was lost. (source-. http://www.medterms.com...) My opponent talks of the abortion happening in the 2nd or 3rd term. This is impossible by this definition because doctors would not abort a baby in the 3rd term because if they did, this would indeed be a violation of human rights. But therefore it is not a human rights violation by the interpretation of this definition. My opponent also talks about human rights. He says ""Abortion is a violation of human rights. It violates the unborn baby's basic right to live, and should be illegal, except in unusual circumstances. "" In this statement is where my opponent contradicts himself. He says that it should only be legal in unusual circumstances. But an abortion is and unusual circumstance. A women does not just want to get an abortion. It is a very hard decision for the women to make. Of course she would not want to do this but she may have no other choice than adoption and some women don't want this either because they don't want someone else to raise their own child. This is where my opponent violates human rights. If any of these people would happen to vote con they would be taking away the right of the female who is in need of an abortion. Like I said earlier a female may not want an abortion but it may be the last tragic resort. I am not saying that abortion is neccesarly a good thing, just that it is neccesary in today's world. In the 70's 13 year olds were not getting pregnant. In today's world they are getting pregnant. And the age keeps dropping lower and lower. Of course this female would not want to get an abortion. But she may also be too young to have a safe birth whether it be a regular birth or a C-section. Therefore telling a female that she has to give birth to a child she cant care for would be a human rights violation on the female and the child. The female because she is being told that she has to do something that she doesn't want to do(an act of dictatorship by the government). And a human rights violation on the child because they are not properly cared for. So therefore on the issue of human rights the judges cannot vote con because they contradict on every level of human rights. This is why abortion should stay legal. First, It is the women's body and the government shouldn't have a say in what they do with their body. Second, If abortions are illegal then females will go to back alley abortionists. This is very dangerous and can cause disease which my opponent claims regular abortion causes. And it does not cause disease. So therefore we need to keep abortion legal. And Thirdly, keeping abortion legal is the best choice. It lets women have control of whether or not they want the child based on if they can take care of them or not. It also PREVENTS DISEASE.",1,"in medicine, the premature termination of a pregnancy",noslang,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"Pro: Pro-choice Con: Pro-life I would consider my views regarding abortion more on the pro life side, And here is why. For one, Abortion is murder, Murder is wrong. Secondly, No woman has the right to terminate another life, This is not an issue of body autonomy or woman""s rights, It""s about whether women have the right to end another life because it""s more convenient for her to do so. Lastly, I do not believe that abortions should be illegal all together, There should be exceptions, Just like every other law that operates in today""s society. The only cases where abortion should be an option for women is when: 1-it is the product of rape/incest. 2- it is apparent that having the child poses a deadly threat to the mother, I. E, It is predictable that the mother will be seriously harmed/killed in the process of giving birth to the baby. Women should not have the right to end the life of another because it is more convienient for her to end its life.",-1,the act of intentionally terminating a pregnancy,noslang,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"Again, I pose my previous three questions, as you did not answer them. I refuse to continue rebutting the same points. Once again, you have shown that you refuse to be gender-inclusive, and the Roe v Wade subject is your personal opinion on the matter. Furthermore, non-sentient beings do not have constitutional rights. And lastly, abortions should not be restricted in early weeks, pregnant people should not be required to have counseling and ultrasounds. This can cause guilt in people who wanted the pregnancy but were physically/mentally unable to carry it, and the lengthy wait periods caused by these things could render a pregnant person unable to have the abortion in the end.",1,"the termination of a human pregnancy, as by induced abortion",noslang,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"First let's start with woman's rights. You see, may people believe that women have the right to choose what they do with their body. But that doesn't justify abortion at all. First off, if it is a women right, how come they are murdering women? 50% of the babies aborted are women, where are there rights.Second, ""My Body, My Choice"" would apply to YOUR body, but not a second creature IN your body. Many argue that the baby is still dependent on the mother, thus it is apart of her body. Let me put this into perspective for you; the elderly are dependent on people, should we shoot them because it's ""our choice""? No, that seems crazy, but the same concept with the unborn. Abortion is a dangerous process filled with sick workers. The people who work at abortion clinics are not given a good name. The workers at Planned Parenthood have been known for selling baby body parts from the dead babies they abort. The dead babies become incoming cash, Also, another abortion clinic, Tiller""s Abortion Clinic, is founded by Doctor Tiller who does terrible things to the women causing the women great pain, and gives them illegal medicine. But, when sent to court, Dr. Tiller was convicted not guilty. Abortion doctors have women put things in their body such as leeches, gunpowder, salt, illegal drugs, and shots. These are things that potentially kill the women or affect her in a detrimental way. Just last year, 2015, in the month of December, Anna Yocca, 31 years old attempted a self abortion using an untwisted coat hanger. The baby survived, but will have lifelong medical issues. She was charged for attempted murder. Now, when Planned Parenthood does the same thine, attempts to kill a baby, and succeeds, they are not charged with murder. In fact, they are praised, and receive money. What""s the difference? Let me answer that for you: none",-1,"the intentional termination of a human pregnancy, as a medical procedure or in some cases by various types of self-induced activity",noslang,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"Abortion is wrong because takes an innocent life. In the case of the infant, there is no choice. The choice of aborting a child relies on the mother. When it comes to religion, God ultimately chooses life and death. Abortion is a form of murder. It is the mother's responsibility to take care of her child.",-1,"the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most commonly practiced as the induced abortion of a fetus",noslang,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"First and foremost, I shall restate the medical definition of an abortion: ""the premature exit of the products of conception (the fetus, fetal membranes, and placenta) from the uterus. It is the loss of a pregnancy and does not refer to why that pregnancy was lost. "" My opponent's first argument was that the assault of a pregnant woman for the purpose of ending her pregnancy was assault and not abortion. This attack causes the premature exit of the products of conception (the fetus, fetal membranes, and placenta) as per the definition. This is abortion. This point is inarguable. Whether or not it is assault is irrelevant because it would be wrong for a woman to ask someone *else* to kick her in the stomach while pregnant. My opponent's argument says that the immorality lies in the assault and not the abortion, but this is illogical because this is the same act. If the kicker is seeking to cause the mother to abort, then this is an abortion, no matter how confusing my opponent wants to get. My opponent's second argument is that based on my definition, Plan B would be classified as abortion. In that case, so would condoms, birth control pills, withdrawal, masturbation, etc. Thankfully, this is not the case because my opponent has fabricated his own interpretation of abortion and falsely claimed that it was my definition. I ask the audience to quickly reread that definition and read this source: . http://health.howstuffworks.com... This source clearly states that the morning after pill simply will not work if the mother is already pregnant. This completely negates my opponent's counterargument. However, to be honest, I am a pharmacy student and I know that there is an alternative mechanism whereby conception can occur and that the embryo is just unable to latch onto the uterine lining. Even if this speculative mechanism is true, it still would not be classified as an abortifacient because it would not expel fetal membranes or a placenta, as dictated in the definition. So thus, my opponent is not just wrong based on known facts, he is wrong based on scientific speculation too. My opponent's third argument is the following: Any act of the mother eliminating her child would be classified as abortion only if it is intended by the carrier. First of all, it is very poor conduct to introduce a new and totally different definition in the last round of debate when we have been operating under mine for the past several rounds. And now, my opponent decides to introduce his personal definition of abortion? I think not. I would have accepted this definition if my opponent had not wasted his first round, but I must reject this definition because first, he has no source, and second, he seemed to accept mine in prior rounds. Now, let us continue on with the other arguments that my opponent is wrong about. My opponent has admitted the fact that he ignored the four categories I stated. Regretfully, the act of doing so constitutes bad conduct because according to the definition of abortion, all four of those categories I listed count as abortion. My opponent cannot simply ignore that point just because he doesn't like it, because those four categories completely destroy his argument. Thus, I assume he concedes those points along with the debate and at this point, we're just chatting. My opponent then goes on another rant about moral relativity. However, in the middle of his rant, he said the following: ""Assault is not moral"". It seems strange that a person arguing moral relativity would make a statement like that, do you not agree, audience? It seems to me that my opponent does not know where he is going with this argument. The problem with complete moral independence is the fact that we all share similar moral views. Thus, the only explanation is that morality is based on society and popularity, negating all my opponent's arguments and strengthening my notion that we as individuals can tell that kicking in a pregnant woman's stomach to induce an abortion is *immoral*. Afterwards, my opponent states that he *did* respond to my points. I assure the audience that he did no such thing except assume that his definition (Any act of the mother eliminating her child would be classified as abortion only if it is intended by the carrier. ) is acceptable. As I have stated before, he has no sources for this definition and this is his last round. This is why his definition is unacceptable and why he has not offered any argument against my points. As for his final argument: ""I extend my previous arguments. .. ."" I regretfully inform my opponent that he has no arguments to extend, because I have countered all of them. The problem is that this is not mutual. My opponent has either intentionally or accidentally ignored over half of the points that I made in this debate. My opponent claims to be for all forms of abortion with no restrictions. This is evidenced by the fact that he did not disagree with the burden I placed on him. I have stated that miscarriages, unwilling abortions, and unsafe abortions involving coat hangers or flinging oneself off a flight of stairs are most definitely forms of abortion that we should prevent. My opponent has expressed nothing but silence towards all those points. But curiously, my opponent has spent a considerable amount of time arguing against anti-abortion arguments that I did not make, nor did I even allude to. And as I have debunked all of my opponent's counterpoints with plenty of arguments of my own left standing, I shall keep in good conduct and not introduce new arguments in this final round. As such, I urge the audience to vote CON. Thank you to my opponent and to the audience. This has been a most enjoyable debate.",-1,the premature exit of the products of conception,noslang,abortion,no,no,neutral,neutral
"My opponent begins by saying that since life begins at conception, abortion is akin to murder. Of course, the government does not recognize it as murder when we take the lives of plants, animals, viruses, and other living things. The government also does not recognize humans in a vegetative state of consciousness as having the right to life. Not all homicide is unlawful, such as euthanasia [1]. As such, the proper way to define murder is the taking of a PERSON'S life. The word person is not necessarily limited to human beings, and it does not apply to all living human beings. I will discuss this later on in the debate.For now, I'd like to address Con's supposition that abortion neglects the sanctity of human life, and that ""no civilized society"" permits one human to intentionally take the life of another human without punishment. First, legalized abortion does not deny the sanctity of human life. Instead, it upholds it by acknowledging that included in our right to life is freedom to govern our own person. As such, if a woman wishes to terminate a pregnancy that requires her person (body) to both house and carry a child to term as well as birth it, she should have the right to decide what happens to and with her own body. To suggest otherwise is to deny our right to freedom which is quintessential to the right to life. Further, many ""civilized"" nations including Canada, South Africa, Guyana, Russia, China, and every country in Europe minus Ireland as well as others all have the option of legalized abortion [2]. I dispute the idea that adoption ""accomplishes the same result."" That is false. Adoption requires a woman to carry her pregnancy to term and give birth. This can have detrimental effects on a woman's life, health and sanity as well as other negative repercussions (eg. financial). While it's true that abortions can be problematic to one's health, that is a rare occurrence. Only 2% of abortions are said to have major negative health effects [3]. Compare that to the statistic that 40% of ALL pregnant women experience health problems, and 15% of women endure complications that are considered life threatening [4]. It is more dangerous and harmful to a woman to be pregnant and have a baby than it is to have an abortion. My opponent is wrong in asserting that in the instance of rape and incest, proper medical care can ensure that a woman will not get pregnant. The word ""ensure"" is misleading and inaccurate. According to WebMD, the fastest sperm can get to a fallopian tube is about 30 minutes, meaning that the quickest conception could occur following sex is in the half-hour range . This means that following sex, the egg could be fertilized before you've gotten up to get a drink of water [5]. You cannot always prevent pregnancy in the case of rape or incest. Birth control is also not always 100% effective. Choosing safe sex or abstinence is indeed a choice a woman has over her own body. Abortion is another optional choice.I do not necessarily advocate tax payers paying for people's abortions and my opponent cannot force me to defend that position. However, this argument is moot anyway because tax payers are forced to pay for all kinds of things they do not support or agree with. For example, I am vehemently against war; however, my tax dollars still support the expansion of our military (which I am against), war, and other programs or bills I am against. Such is the nature of taxes.Con says that many young people choose abortion as a way to suggest that those making the decision are too young and immature to know what they're doing. The reality is that women in their 20s make up the largest demographic seeking abortion (58%) and the second largest group of women are in their 30s (22%). That means that 80% of those seeking abortions are well beyond the legal age of consent [6]. If they are old enough to vote, consume alcohol, etc. then they are old enough to make decisions about their own bodies. While it's true that some women have regrets, people have regrets about all kinds of life decisions and yet we do not inhibit their right to make choices based on the potential of regret. We don't restrict the right to marry despite the fact that the majority of people wind up regretting who they initially chose and became legally bound to as a life partner. Some people also regret not getting an abortion. This is an irrelevant contention. In Defense of ChoiceFirst, it is not always morally wrong to kill an innocent human being. Human life actually begins prior to conception, because each sperm and egg cell is a living thing. It is more relevant to discuss when sentience, or self-awareness, begins. Not every living human being possesses or is able to possess sentience, such as humans in vegetative states of consciousness, those who are brain dead, or anencephalic fetuses. Furthermore, the law has also recognized the practice of legalized ""mercy killing"" or other forms of euthanasia where people are sometimes killed due to persistent, terminal (often painful) health problems or other risks. While clearly these examples are not exactly analogous to abortion, it does dismantle the idea that killing an innocent human being is always wrong.Like the individuals mentioned above, zygotes and fetuses do not have desires. In most cases (before a certain level of sentience), they also do not experience pain. They are not self-aware. To grant them the right to life based on the nature of their species alone is unwarranted. I submit that in the instance of a non-human species entering or evolving into existence, that possessed a certain level of consciousness (eg. an alien), they too should be considered a person despite not being a human. The difference between a human and a person is as follows: a person is conscious, has the capacity to reason, is self-motivated, is able to communicate, and understands the premise of self-concepts [7]. At any time it is possible that a human has but loses any of these abilities - eg. while they are asleep. However such an observation/objection would be trivial and arbitrary. To suggest that a fetus will one day have these abilities is irrelevant. We do not grant rights on the basis of what one will have but what one has. For example, it is not legal for a 20 year old to drink alcohol because some day they will be 21. The moral case for permissible abortion rests on the notion that a) a fetus is not a person and/or does NOT possess the right to life based on logical distinctions, and b) that the rights of the mother trump the rights of the fetus both for the aforementioned and practical reasons. Further, criminalizing abortion increases the chance of ""back alley"" abortions which can be severely harmful to both the mother and fetus, as well as creates a new and unwarranted class of criminals. That brings me to my next point... The legal case for abortion is pretty simple. There are not enough parents willing to adopt children, meaning ""unwanted"" babies will be placed in orphanages at the expense of tax payers. This nullifies my opponent's argument that tax payers should not have to bear certain costs for things they do not agree with. Our government quite literally cannot afford this expense, and the mental and emotional toll on these orphans can be irreparably harmful. Meanwhile, a fetus has no understanding of their own existence and therefore won't miss it and should not have a right to it.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://chartsbin.com...[3] http://afterabortion.org...[4] http://www.thelizlibrary.org...[5] http://wiki.answers.com...[6] http://www.guttmacher.org...[7] http://instruct.westvalley.edu...",1,the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or destruction of a fetus,noslang,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"Abortion is up in the air if its full term? Let's see if we can bring it down to earth. The federal government puts no limit on age for abortion and reading your posts you don't care either way. What are the various ways of ending a pregnancy? www.prolife.com/abortion facts........americanpregnancy.org/unplanned pregnancy/abortions. These sites and others deal with procedures for abortion. I give a brief synopsis. Dilation and evacuation. A vacuum device is used to tear the foetus apart and suck out the remains. This is for up to 16wk old foetuses. Dilation and Curettage. A sharp curved knife is used to scrape the uterus and dismember the foetus. Up to 24wks. I will now touch on Pain. Including the above and below procedures I have found only one site that even mentioned the pain endured by the foetus. www.doctorsonfetalpain.com/fetalpaintheevidence.......www.lifenews.com/studiesonfetalpain. I have read the sites on fetal pain but they rarely agree. Utah has passed a law giving pain relief to 20wks foetuses at abortion. Chemical. Mifepristone blocks progesterone and the foetus starves to death. D+X. Blunt nosed scissors punch into the skull and brains sucked out. 30wks. Saline. Foetus dies from salt poisoning,dehydration,brain hemorrhage and convulsions. Full term. D+E. Foetus forcibly dismembered and may have skull crushed for removal. Full term. As I wrote none of the sites I read said anything about pain relief except the one on Utah. We wouldn't treat an animal the way we treat our unborn babes. In my next entry I will mention pain again. The thoughtless actions of women should not make abortion an easy choice. The law should make it harder than it is to obtain one.",-1,"the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a conceptus, a product of conception that does not include a viable fetus.",noslang,abortion,no,yes,neutral,pro
"I find it interesting that Con has created a situation where, as his opponent, I must both make a case for abortion and rebut his position at the same time. I will do my best. Rebuttal: Con begins by asking readers to research topics completely but at least 7 of his 10 references all come from either pro-choice or conservative Christian sources and the three that aren't really don't support his position. His first anecdote, for example, is about the Canadian baby on life support. If you read his reference carefully you'll notice that the baby is a baby not a fetus, that it is in a vegetative state that it will not recover from, and the only question left to be decided is whether it will die at home, at his father's convenience, or in a hospital, which will save money that can be spent on saving the lives of babies who aren't terminal. The ironic part of this story is that, if this baby, who will never wake up, were aborted in it's first trimester, this whole situation would have been avoided. Con then goes on to quote Cathy Sparks, John Ankerburg, and Gregg Jackson, and – big surprise – they all think that abortion is bad and that people who provide abortions are even worse. They tell us that abortion providers are evil and deceptive people who want to force everyone to have abortions whether they want one or not. What they don't mention, though, is, if this much unethical behavior was going on, why aren't there hundreds of lawsuits being filed daily against these people. This is the problem with anecdotal evidence – it rarely resembles reality. Con also gives us a quote from the American Life League on the sanctity of life – which is about as useful and informative as a quote from the American Bar Association on the sanctity of law firms. But what I found most amusing was when Con trotted out Ron Fitzsimmons' admission that he had told a lie about abortions. Who was Ron Fitzsimmons? He was a lobbyist (A lobbyist told a lie? What is the world coming to?) Where did he tell it? On a television news show. How was this lie discovered? He went on another news show to correct his earlier statement because he felt it was wrong not to tell the whole truth. When did this all take place? In 1997! And 13 years later propagandists are still trying to blow it out of proportion. Con concludes by expressing his personal and theological views on the subject which I feel are really the basis for his whole argument. It really doesn't matter to Con whether abortions are safe or if women are given complete and concise information; Con simply doesn't want women to have this option. The Case for Abortion: Pro life advocates are always quick to try and push the issue of life and when it begins as if this were the only question that needs to be addressed. And while it isn't as clear cut as Con's anonymous source from Princeton would have us believe, I am willing to concede that life begins at conception and that aborting a fetus equates to ending a human life. So what? There are plenty of examples of ways that human lives can be ended that aren't perceived as acts of murder. Killing someone in self defense, for example, or accidental death. In some places euthanasia, crimes of passion, seppuku and even stoning family members for adultery are not considered to be murder. Acts of war and capital punishment aren't even considered to be crimes. To say that abortion is wrong you need to do more than demonstrate that a human life has ended, you need to show that it is ended unjustly. And to do that, you have to first grant fetuses the right to live independent of their mother in the first place. This would solve everything if fetuses could live independently from their mothers. But they can't. So, upon what basis should the right to live be granted to a fetus? It's genetically separate? Monkeys and cows are genetically separate and they don't have a right to life. Fetuses are human? Traitors and murders are human and they don't have a right to life either. Because it's a person? Here is the real issue at the center of the debate. Are fetuses people? And the problem here is that there is no biological or scientific definition for what makes a person a person. It can't just be the presence of brain activity or motor skills because dogs and cats would qualify as people. And that child in Canada that Con mentioned would not. You could say that just being human makes a person a person, but that is just as arbitrary as saying being a person is more than just being human. You could say that having a soul is what makes a person a person, but then you're just replacing facts with dogma. This is a question for philosophers and theologians not doctors and legislators. And now for some facts: Even when abortion was illegal women still had them. In 1972 (before Roe v Wade) there were 586760 reported abortions and this number rose less than 5% in 1973 (after Roe v Wade). http://en.wikipedia.org... The ""less than 1%"" of abortions due to rape that Con mentioned represent 14000 instances of rape that led to an unwanted pregnancy. www.epm.org/.../abortion-right-when-pregnancy-due-rape-or-incest Fewer than 0.3% of abortions have complications that lead to hospitalization and abortions pose virtually no long term risks to the women who have them. http://www.guttmacher.org... Informed consent, in general, is the law in all 50 states so, by law, all abortion providers must provide patients with complete and accurate information about the procedures they provide. 32 states have special informed consent laws that deal specifically with abortion most of which provide inaccurate and/or misleading information. http://www.abortionusa.com... http://www.guttmacher.org... Conclusion: If the fetus isn't a person then aborting it isn't murder and the question of whether or not a fetus is a person is one of personal belief not scientific fact. Thus, there is no justification for those who hold this belief to usurp a woman's actual right to privacy and liberty by forcing her to give birth against her will. And killing a fetus is only wrong to those who think it's wrong.",1,"the termination of a pregnancy, especially by surgical or medical means",noslang,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"""You said, ""if a woman is more likely to die during abortion, then it should be legal."" But, that's the woman's choice. That's her risk that she's taking."" I said that it should be illegal, just a correction. See, if I had said that it should be legal, than the woman does have a choice. You are just contradicting yourself. Eternal Father,Source of all mercy and love,out of love for us you sent your Son,and willed that blood and waterflow from his side to cleanse us of sinand restore lost innocence.Hear the cry of each woman who mournsthe loss of her child to abortion.Forgive her sin, restore her to your grace,and still the terror of her heartwith a peace beyond all understanding.Through the intercessionof the Blessed Virgin Mary,Mother of all tenderness and our Mother,strengthen her faith in you.Give her the consolation to believethat her child is now living in the Lord.We ask this through Christ our Lord,who conquered sin and death,and who lives and reigns with you,in the unity of the Holy Spirit,one God, for ever and ever. Amen. This text is by Msgr. James Moroney. And here are some facts about abortion, and when somebody already has life: 1 day to 7 weeks A new individual receives 23 chromosomes from each parent. He or she is truly a unique individual human being, never to be repeated. A new person has been created, who at this stage is a tiny living organism weighing only 15 ten-millionth of a gram. Life begins. First day of new life: The first cell divides into two, the two into four, and so on. Each of these new cells divides again and again as they travel toward the womb in search of a protected place to grow. 18 days from conception, heart begins to beat, with the baby""s own blood. This is from prolifeacrossamerica.org It already says that life begins after the first day.",-1,the act of intentionally ending a human pregnancy,noslang,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"Abortion is not killing innocent life. Rather, it's letting a woman control her own body. Abortion is accepted because a woman has the right to choose what she wants to do with her body. The fetus needs the body of the mother to survive. If human A needs a part of human B to survive, e.g. a kidney transplant, it is entirely up to human B whether or not he wants to give human A a kidney. Even if human B is dying and his kidneys will rot with him, he decides what to do with his own body. Even if human A's life is at stake and human B's life is already over, with rotting kidney's, it's still human B's right to choose what to do with his dead body. Is this considered murder? No, of course it's not. Is it a little douchey? Perhaps. Is it acceptable? Yes, a person has the right to do whatever he wants with his body. If the fetus can survive on its own, then abortion is more of an up in the air debate. However, if the fetus needs the mother's body (which it does), abortion comes down to the simple principal of a woman has the right to choose what she wants to do with her body. By letting the fetus control a woman's body, you are granting a fetus rights to someone else's body. No one has rights to anyone's body but that person. Period A fetus needs a mother's body to survive. If the mother does not want to let the fetus use her body, it doesn't have to. The fetus is a part of a parasitic relationship; although its body is affected, it's using the body of the mother to survive. Yes, the fetus is alive. Agreed. Fact 1-2 agreed. Fact 3, it's murder because as was stated above, a WOMAN decides what to do with her body, not anyone else. If the woman doesn't abort the fetus, it's murder.",1,the act of deliberately terminating a human pregnancy,noslang,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"Abortion should not be allowed in any cases only in exception when the birth is very detrimental to the woman's health. A baby can not give consent, so it can not give consent to being aborted so I say with that it is unjustifiable.",-1,the termination of a pregnancy so that the fetus is not born,noslang,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"Thank you to both the audience and my opponent for yet another debate on abortion. The resolution is simply ""Abortion"" and my opponent has stated that he supports the affirmative. I shall then argue against that case. To begin, I submit the definition of Abortion by Medicine.net Medical Dictionary: Abortion: In medicine, an abortion is the premature exit of the products of conception (the fetus, fetal membranes, and placenta) from the uterus. It is the loss of a pregnancy and does not refer to why that pregnancy was lost. http://www.medterms.com... In addition, here is the wikipedia article in which the introduction defines abortion in the same manner: http://en.wikipedia.org... Since my opponent has used his first round to merely ask for my opening statement and did not clarify the resolution or offer any sort of framing, I will assume that my opponent is trying to affirm ""abortion"" in general. I start by arguing that there are many forms of abortion that should be prevented on moral grounds. 1. Partial Birth Abortions In which the fetus, nearly fully formed, is destroyed during induced labor. At this point in time, the mother might as well wait until full term and give it up for adoption as the already blurry line of morality in abortion becomes even blurrier. 2. Spontaneous Abortions In which a woman with an implanted fetus loses the fetus accidentally, commonly known as a miscarriage. This should be avoided because for the most part, women who miscarry actually wanted the child. 3. Abortions inflicted on unwilling people There is something inherently immoral in the act of walking up to a pregnant woman and kicking in her stomach such that she miscarries. Though this is a form of abortion, I argue that it should in no way be supported. 4. Dangerous abortions I am against many forms of abortion for health reasons. The use of coat hangers to stimulate an abortion, for example. Or throwing oneself off a flight of stairs. Or going to a back-alley abortionist that doubles as a tattoo parlor. These are all very dangerous ways of abortion. I look forward to my opponent's rebuttal. Thank you.",-1,a topic for debate,noslang,abortion,no,no,neutral,neutral
"Abortion is a form of murder the demeans the value of human life. Since life begins at conception, abortion is the immoral killing of an innocent human being.",-1,the deliberate destruction of a foetus or embryo,noslang,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"Fetuses feel pain during the abortion procedure. Maureen Condic, PhD, Associate Professor of Neurobiology and Anatomy and Adjunct Associate Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Utah School of Medicine, explains that the ""most primitive response to pain, the spinal reflex,"" is developed by eight weeks gestation, and adds that ""There is universal agreement that pain is detected by the fetus in the first trimester."" [18] According to Kanwaljeet J. S. Anand, MBBS, DPhil, Professor of Pediatrics, Anesthesiology and Neurobiology at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center, ""If the fetus is beyond 20 weeks of gestation, I would assume that there will be pain caused to the fetus. And I believe it will be severe and excruciating pain."" [24] Bernard N. Nathanson, MD, the late abortion doctor who renounced his earlier work and became a pro-life activist, stated that when an abortion is performed on a 12-week-old fetus, ""We see [in an ultrasound image] the child""s mouth open in a silent scream... This is the silent scream of a child threatened imminently with extinction Abortion is murder. The killing of an innocent human being is wrong, even if that human being has yet to be born. Unborn babies are considered human beings by the US government. The federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which was enacted ""to protect unborn children from assault and murder,"" states that under federal law, anybody intentionally killing or attempting to kill an unborn child should ""be punished... for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being."" The act also states that an unborn child is a ""member of the species homo sapiens."" [126] At least 38 states have passed similar fetal homicide laws. http://abortion.procon.org...",-1,induced termination of a pregnancy,noslang,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"Its funny how people against abortion say killing a potential life is wrong, yet the same people eat chicken eggs and call themselves 100 percent vegetarian.",1,"the act of removing a product of conception, a fetus or embryo, from the uterus.",noslang,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"Thank you again 16K for instigating and posting your arguments. I’d like to point out that I’m neither for nor against Abortion, I have neutral opinions on this matter making me undecided. But this’ll be fun to debate. Good luck. REBUTTAL Fetus = Human, killing them is murder The only relevant argument opponent has given here is that a fetus has a ‘life’, but that doesn’t make it a sentient, conscious, viable, fully-grown human being. The fetus may be a member of the Homo sapiens, but they are not fully resembled human beings who are sentient and with rights. They are not natural-born citizens, they cannot be dependent on their own body and they need the woman’s body to live, if we let the fetus’ moral rights override the mother’s, then this is close to invading the woman’s privacy and the right of the woman to choose. My opponent claims that life begins at fertilization, which is wrong. In fact, life begins before fertilization. Sperm and egg cells are actually living things. But the question should not be when life begins, rather, it should be when must we consider that the fetus be sentient or actually feel anything. Here’s a report published by Joyce Arthur entitled: “Personhood: Is a Fetus a Human Being?” {1}, according to her research, it showed that Fetuses are uniquely different from actual humans, and the most fundamental difference is that a fetus is totally dependent on a woman's body to survive. Anyone can take care of a newborn infant, but onlypregnant women can nurture their fetus. She can’t hire someone else to do it. Also, she said that fetuses don’t just depend on the woman for survival, but it needs to be insidethe woman’s body for it to live. She states that human beings must be separate individuals. So this very much refutes the idea that fetuses should be prioritized more because they can take care by themselves, which is false. Moving on, here’s a brief conclusion on opponent’s case: P1: Abortion ends the life of the fetus. P2: a fetus is a human being. C: Therefore, abortion is murder. This is false, so now (and this is important) to say actually affirm those contentions and say that abortion is murder, 16K needs to show and accurately prove that 1) a fetus is a human being, and 2) All abortions are the unlawful killing of a human being with premeditation and malice aforethought. But technically, abortion is legal in the US (state and federal) since Roe v. Wade, so somewhat negates 2). So this means that abortion is (or somewhat) actually the opposite of murder, it is lawful, it is (sometimes) unintentional and it is without premeditation and without malice. Morally wrong to kill a person and society opposes such act This premise fails on so many ways, look at the following scenarios and tell me that these aren’t morally wrong and society opposes such acts: - Self Defense/ Defense of others - It is considered morally permissible to kill a killer to save your own life or kill a person to protect loved ones and others? - Kill one, save many- It is morally acceptable to kill the terrorists before 9/11 which affected upcoming the Afghan/Iraq war? - Parasitic twin scenario- We have a conjoined twins, and it only survives if we sacrifice one, so would it be considered moral to kill a weaker twin to save the stronger one? No surgery means both twins die. - Trolley Problem- Let’s say you are in a moving trolley and your mother is tied to the tracks a few meters from you, you’re about to hit her. Although, there’s another way, but there are 5 people tied to the tracks in that direction. Now you have to choose between killing your mom and killing 5 people. What should you do? If my opponent still argues that these acts are all morally wrong, he’s either lying or is out of his mind. Either way, his premise fails and these scenarios are justified morally under utilitarian view and deontological theory. Morally wrong to kill a fetus Similar to my opponent’s 2nd premise. Religion on abortion This is somewhat irrelevant to the debate, since Religion has no say on Abortion laws. My opponent’s verse has no connection to abortion whatsoever. And quoting the Ten Commandments doesn’t help him too, since the Bible is contradictory, like Hosea 9:13-16, where God said that children will be dashed in pieces and that pregnant women will be ripped open. Numbers 31:17 states that adulterous women should be killed, because they bear a child that they got from premarital sex. Also Psalms 137:9 which states that God will bless shall the ones who dash little kids with rocks. PRO-life > PRO-choice My opponent admitted that this is irrelevant and we should just discard it, I agree, but even if we didn’t, this graph is unreliable and inaccurate since it has no source whatsoever and that it didn’t show how many people were interviews. My opponent could’ve just made this statistic by interviewing 10 people and the majority are PRO-lifers. CASE C1: Abortion is NOT murder I’ve fulfilled my obligation to negate this premise. See my rebuttals above for review. I also mentioned that even if abortion ends a life, it’s still morally acceptable, in some circumstances, like issues of maternal health and risks, rape, incest and poverty. Surely we don’t want to abuse people’s choices to protect themselves especially if their lives are at stake. C2: Valuing Women’s Rights My opponent didn’t really rebut this premise, he just put up a graph/statistic that have no sources and didn’t explain it, please ignore them. And even if the chart is accurate, it just shows more PRO-lifers than PRO-choicers, they don’t necessarily oppose their right to abort. See contention 4 for my extension to this. C3: Abortion happens regardless of legality My opponent’s rebuttal here are hearsay testimonies instead of providing accurate statistics, not to mention the testimonies had no sources to back it up. So we could discard them for lack of accuracy and evidence, making them invalid. As I said, illegalizing abortion is a disadvantage and may lead to bad outcomes. Because you see, crime rates were reduced after Roe v. Wade, if we overturn that SC decision, then we would be undermining our constitution and that ‘back alley’ or illegal abortions will rise. This is a dangerous risk to take for a mother wanting an illegal abortion since the risks are very much higher than an abortion made by a professional. There was a study conducted by John Donohue and Steven Levitt entitled, ""The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime"" {2}. They showed that after Roe v. Wade, crime rates reduced and fell roughly after 18 years of the decision. States with high abortion rates after Roe experienced a huge drop in crime in the 90s. They state that when abortion was fully legalized, it accounted for much as 50% of the recent decline in crime rates. In El Salvador {3}, abortion is illegal and is punishable up to 25 years but yet more and more people commit ‘back alley’ abortion, and these rates are rising. The UN has urged this country to pass an abortion law so the crime rates may fall, but it’s still pending. {4} C4: Abortion is a right I’ll make a few points to support my claim and since I’m running out of characters, and since the only topic that matters here is if abortion is murder. Now, after Roe v. Wade, America has become a symbol for promoting rights, women’s rights, the right to choose and right to privacy. It’s an important and a valuable right since a fetus is technically invading the woman’s body and it depends on the body to survive, which is a risk. If we give rights to unborn fetuses, it would be like taking off the mother’s rights and women will lose control over their body. The life of the mother is more valuable than the fetus. If I may ask, if women can’t be trusted with their choice to abort, how can we trust them with children? I await my opponent’s response, and hopefully use proper sentencing structure and grammar and not rely on c/p testimony. Thank you and good luck. CITATIONS Comments.",1,a controversial issue in which a woman has an abortion,noslang,abortion,no,no,neutral,neutral
"What if the mother was raped? While I believe that life begins at implantantation, I support last resort choice that is safe and legal for the mother. Women have the right to make difficult choices for their pregnancy. Do I support birth controll or consensual sterilization as a first resort for free as an independent progressive like Bernie? Yes. Do I think abortion takes a human life? Yes. Do I realize that last resort choice has to exist when two human lives are connected? A resounding yes. That's the very definition of prochoice. My main problem with abolitionists and life of the mother onlyers is that I PERSONALLY BELIEVE that they support legalized forced organ donation. When even a corpse has the right to choose who uses his or her organs, but a live breathing woman does not, I have a problem with that. Here's the thing forced lifers fail to realize: I have no opinion or rights to what or who uses your human body, nor do you over mine. Pardon my French, but no one supports chits and gigles abortion, but anyone of any faith or none whatsoever can support last resort choice. It's a very emotional subject, and so hard to avoid lifers accusing me of hating children (I don't), or choicers accusing you of hating women even if you don't. My final point ius that women will die if abortion is banned according to pre Roe statitistical studies. Is that really prolife?",1,the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy,noslang,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"1. I apologize for my mistake of misnaming the document that contained the phrase ""Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "" However this does not change my point that the founders of our constitution, and our government for that matter define ""life"" as a right to a human being. For Clarity's sake I would like to make clear that my opponent has conceded that fetus's are alive, but contends that they are not human, and thus do not have the right to life granted by our government. If my opponent has or would like to make the argument that the United States does not guarantee the right to life to human beings than I would gladly challenge him in a debate outside this one, so as to stay on topic. A. Coming back to whether fetus's are human or not - sub argument I am not arguing whether fetus's are human in the context of philosophy. Philosophy is pure hearsay and is based upon opinion and idle conjecture. I am debating whether a fetus is human in the eyes of the United States Law. Using your argument of philosophy (which uses rationality to denote humanity) would rule out people with Alzheimer's, dementia, and mental health diseases as having the rights both to live, and all other constitutional rights that we grant humans (as I have said previously) . My legal argument: Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a ""child in utero"" as a legal victim, if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines ""child in utero"" as ""a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb. ""[2] The law is codified in two sections of the United States Code: Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), ��1841 (18 USC 1841) and Title 10, Chapter 22 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) ��919a (Article 119a). Notice how this defines a ""child in utero"" as a member of the species homo sapiens. B. Citizenship In 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly declared in article three, ""Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. "" The United States is a member of the United Nations General Assembly, and thus abides and is subjected to their rules. This was unanimously incorporated by the assembly and by the United States. Furthermore, the chairman of this committee was Eleanor Roosevelt. The right to life is not only reserved to United States Citizens, but to humans in general. Thus, I cannot murder an illegal immigrant from Mexico and expect to get off scot free. I will be punished because every human bears the right to life. You stated that courts were infallible, however law is not. I have stated court cases which strongly argue in my favor, precedence is the basis of jurisdictional rulings in the U. S. Not only have I stated court cases, but I have stated federal laws which prove my point. My opponent has offered no proof that courts are infallible and has offered no proof that law is also infallible. He has used no facts, figures, or law to back up his arguments, only fish, mosquitoes, and philosophy. I have used and shown the precedence which has been in favor of my conjecture. 2. I do not need to show effective without exception to show the minute odds of contracting an unwanted pregnancy, because there is a tool out there which is 100% effective and that is abstinence. I'm not advocating abstinence, but am showing and the viewers of this debate the odds of contracting a pregnancy when using adequate protection. Furthermore adoption is also 100% effective. If a person does not want to and cannot afford to become pregnant than I suggest not being sexually active, or using contraceptive. If the remote chance occurs that while using protection they become pregnant then I suggest aborting it within the 21 days. If as my opponent stated the period is missed after the 21 days then I suggest putting the child up for adoption. Nowhere in the constitution does it grant anyone the right to deny human life. It is the woman's choice to be sexual active, and as I have said if they are raped/incest/at risk of dying then I am completely in favor of abortion. Let me explain the female cycle for you clearly. Conception can only occur during ovulation. Ovulation occurs two weeks before a menstrual cycle begins. Conception occurs two weeks after your period begins. So this means that you have 7 days after missed period to get an abortion. Pregnancy tests can detect pregnancy 4 days before your missed period. Your argument on economic non necessity would apply if a fetus was not recognized as a human under united states law. 3. So you propose that public opinion does not matter at all because democracy in your own eyes is not considered ""good"" No statistics is only more complicated than you think if I was judging by 1 poll or a group of polls that were done in an incoherent manner. However when national pollsters that are highly repudiated and unbiased have the same data, we get a public opinion that is accurate. And no these polls were not conducted via the Internet, they are random phone polls. Instead of trying to negate everything from the constitution, to the concept of democracy, to the laws of the United States, to court cases, to statistical polls, I suggest you provide more sufficient information on your own viewpoint instead of using anti virus software. (by the way tracking cookies are not harmless) 4. A. You might want to check the ""infallible"" constitution on cruel and unusual punishment. Fish again do not compare to human beings under the constitution. You eat fish. I sincerely hope you do not eat fetuses. B. No if you resist you will be tazed and further restrained and sent to jail for a longer period of time. Only if you make an attempt on the officers life will you be killed in self defense, and even then officers shoot to wound and disable first. And no a death penalty does not result from trespassing so your inordinate logic does not make sense. There is no ""death penalty"" only death in self defense if you make an attempt on the officers life, not trespassing. Therefore this argument makes no sense that you receive a death penalty for trespassing. C. Until it is revised or added to, it is if you live in the United States So are you suggesting my great grandfather who talks aloud to his dead wife while I am sitting there is rational? Or anyone that is brain dead does not deserve to live? Or that my Great Aunt who cannot even speak anymore but just mumbles incoherently in a bed deserves death? ""If such illness exists, whosoever has it of course has no rights, but I am not under the impression that it exists. "" So are you stating that under the laws of the United States murdering any of the persons mentioned above or in your argument has no crime or penalty at all. I believe, that you are sincerely mistaken. I have offered plenty of points of why abortion should be legal. 1. because the U. S. Court system has recognized the humanity of a fetus 2. you conceded they were alive 3. Because there are alternatives available such as adoption 4. Because all humans have the right to life 5. Because public opinion is in support 6. Because trespassing does not constitute a death sentence 7. Because the fetus feels pain during the abortion which under US law is cruel and unusual punishment 8. Because there are 100% effective solutions to preventing birth 9. Because when the mothers choice to have sexual intercourse is violated my argument allows abortion 10. Because when the mother's life is at stake my argument allows abortion I welcome my opponents next rebuttal and hope he is doing well.",-1,the deliberate termination of a pregnancy by some medical means,noslang,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"Round 1: Opening statements Round 2: Facts/Argument Round 3: Facts/Argument Round 4: Closing statements I look forward to my oppnents opening statements. Good luck In my opnion, Abortion is wrong. Abortion is basically killing something. It is murder. Which is why it should mot be legalized.",-1,the act of deliberately ending a pregnancy,noslang,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"Actually, life becomes life after conception, its not as simple as a seed, the seed has already been sown, forming a living, breathing being. In your point of view, the baby isn't alive yet, so if it isn't alive yet then why does it need food, and nutrients, why is the umbilical chord even there if the baby is yet a seed? So now, since I have established my view on when the life takes place, I will like to rebuttal your argument about abortion protecting life. .. With your views ""destroying the seed"" is protecting human life. I see where you're going though, but let me ask you, would you rather NOT have a voice/choice in life and that being chose for you, or would you like to give life a chance? If the mother cannot provide for the child then put him/her up for adoption, even though the chances of him/her being adopted are slim, its still better that being dead, don't you agree? Babies grow up, they make choices (in the future), they live their life, when they die, we grieve the death. .. Whats the point of grieving human death if the idea of another life beings' life in general is a CHOICE by the mother?",-1,the deliberate destruction of a foetus in the womb,noslang,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"I'm just going to finish this by saying that there should be no law that forbids abortion. It is a matter between the two involved, and no one has the right to interfere with that.",1,the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo before the viability of the fetus,noslang,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"I had a similar debate, granted it was my first one and I was rather inexperienced. But, I feel as though I am better ""equipped"" now as it were to tackle the subject. Now, I am going to work backwards with your opinion. The last thing you said was that women should not have the choice to abort the baby or not? What about the case of extreme deformity? Granted every living thing should have the right to enjoy and experience life. And I believe it's horrible for people to choose to get rid of a child who not even has had the chance to take his or her first breath. But what if that child was unable to live his or her life independently or with some amount of assistance (In cases of permanent hospitalization) because of the that deformity? In which the child would live a meaningless existence Here's some examples: Brain Dead Children Mental Retardation to the point of hospitalization for life Mutated and Abnormal arrangement of organs that cause extreme pain and difficulty And what about in the case of rape? If a woman is impregnated with the child of her attacker and she is forced to raise the child on her own would that be right to tell her she has to raise the child of her attacker? Granted I don't like the idea of that you would be able to take the life of a child who had nothing to do with the horrid event that had taken place. But, that would not be our choice to make. As for the fact as someone would have an ""accident"" (I apologize if that term is offensive) and end up pregnant after unprotected sex. That is an unacceptable reason for people to have an abortion and I'm glad we can agree on that. A life should never be taken because it inconveniences someone else's life. The people who choose to do so are by definition, murderers. (murderer: someone who commits the act of homicide Homicide: The unlawful killing of another living human)",1,the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo before viability,noslang,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"Response to my opponent's Round 3:My opponent has offended my comprehension because he doesn't like his own conclusion.(My guess is that he made unwritten premise ""arsonist is destroying the building"", but this only falsifies his own definition of destruction; I however prefer to respond to what is written rather than to what is meant)I know the definitions of words I use, I said I don't think it would be immoral for someone to kill me without my consent.I would not be beneficial for me if someone killed me, but that doesn't imply it is immoral.""None of what you said"" is certainly not a rebuttal. The rest of my opponent's 2) is same statement as I previously rebutted. Rebuttal of premise can not be rebutted with the same premise.You can certainly see, touch and smell fellow members of the society(citizens).""show me some data, even just correlational, that suggests that abortion is harmful to society""- My opponent is the one who should be arguing that. I am arguing that abortion is beneficial to society.I don't consider anything to be immoral. I do what I think is beneficial to the things I love, and I don't do what I think is harmful to the things I love.Conclusion:My opponent rebutted none of my arguments, while I rebbutted his only one.",1,the act of intentionally causing the death of a human fetus,noslang,abortion,yes,yes,con,con
"What you would feel like, if someone was acting on the thought 'this thing (fetus) is in the way, let's get rid of it by abortion' talking about your best friend. Then you wouldn't be able to be with him/her today and you wouldn't have had the chance to enjoy life with him/her. Killing a new-born and killing a fetus is the same thing, because they both have life. Killing a person is against the law. What if that baby was going to be a great person that would become a great leader or scientist that could have helped the world in many ways? You only addressed the first part of my argument in round 1, what about the rest?",-1,the deliberate destruction of a foetus,noslang,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"First of all, thank you for taking the time to debate with me. I do not agree that abortion is murder. A fetus isn't really a human being and therefore it cannot be murder. Nearly all abortions take place in the first trimester, when a fetus cannot exist independent of the mother. As it is attached by the placenta and umbilical cord, its health is dependent on her health, and cannot be regarded as a separate entity and is therefore not a human being. Also, Abortion is a safe medical procedure. If abortions were illegal it would only allow for more unsafe procedures to take place. Since abortion is currently legal, there are doctors who can give safe abortions. The vast majority of women have their abortions in the first trimester (88%). Also, women are going to have abortions whether or not they are legal, so at least because they are legal, women are able to get safe abortions with sterilized tools. It is also important to note that the ability of a women to have control of her body is critical to civil rights. If you take away the choice of reproductive rights for women, then what else can the government force women to do. Can the government force you to undergo sterilization or use contraception?",1,termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo before the fetus can survive outside the uterus,noslang,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"My definition of abortion in this scenario is when a mother or father is so immature, Poor, Unready, Or psycho that she/he decides to kill their unborn baby. I think it is justifiable for a mother to have an abortion because it would spare a child from living with the mother that would have aborted the child. An abortion is a definition of killing, But the baby did not yet develop a consciousness, Therefore it doesn't yet have feelings. Also, We willingly kill our own species in wars, Why can't we make an exception for this? I also might be completely wrong, And there are better option than abortion, But I also might be right. I can be both right and wrong, One can never be sure.",1,the act of removing a fetus or embryo from the uterus in order to produce labour,noslang,abortion,no,no,neutral,neutral
"I accept these definitions. Your definition of aborition is right, but morally it is wrong. Abortion is the action of killing what is supossed to be human. Making abortion legal would be unethical. Abortion is wrong with exceptions to rape or incest. If someone had sexual intercourse and got pregnant, why didn't they use a condom. Like I said in the previous round, Abortion is basically killing a person. If you legalize abortion, you are basically legalizing murder.",-1,the intentional termination of a pregnancy,noslang,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"Although it should be a women's right to chose. Aren't we born with certain unalienable rights? Granite the baby has not yet been born, but that doesn't give us a right to disregard it of its rights and take an innocent life. After a certain period of time it is no longer a clump of cells, but a living organism. Therefore abortion is wrong and inhuman.",-1,the deliberate destruction of a fetus or embryo in the womb,noslang,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"Well Since my opponent forfeited the last round I have nothing to refute. So I will just add more information to my arguments. Premise 4: Doctors are supposed to help babies, not kill them. Premise 5: Negative effects of an abortion on the woman. Premise 6: People are always looking to adopt. Premise 4: The doctors role is and will always be to protect and not harm. The text of the Hippocratic Oath, the oath that doctors take when swearing to practice medicine, forbids abortions. One section of the oath reads: ""I will not give a woman a pessary [an abortion device] to cause an abortion."" The the Hippocratic Oath also forbids abortion in its line, ""Above all, I must not play at God."" [1] Premise 5: There are many negative effects on a woman who has undergone an abortion procedure. One possible negative outcome of abortion related infections is sterility. Researchers have reported that 3 to 5 percent of aborted women are left inadvertently sterile as a result of the operation. [2] Studies within the first few weeks after the abortion have found that between 40 and 60 percent of women questioned report negative reactions. Within 8 weeks after their abortions, 55% expressed guilt, 44% complained of nervous disorders, 36% had experienced sleep disturbances, 31% had regrets about their decision, and 11% had been prescribed psychotropic medicine by their family doctor. [3] Women who have undergone post-abortion counseling report over 100 major reactions to abortion. Among the most frequently reported are: depression, loss of self-esteem, self-destructive behavior, sleep disorders, memory loss, sexual dysfunction, chronic problems with relationships, dramatic personality changes, anxiety attacks, guilt and remorse, difficulty grieving, increased tendency toward violence, chronic crying, difficulty concentrating, flashbacks, loss of interest in previously enjoyed activities and people, and difficulty bonding with later children. [4] Premise 6: There is a lack of adoptable babies because of the legalization of abortion. Over two million couples are waiting to adopt babies, and only 134,000 US children are available to be adopted as of June 2002. [5] The percentage of infants given up for adoption has declined from 9% of those born before 1973 to 1% of those born between 1996 and 2002. [6] Instead of having the option to abort their baby, women should give their unwanted babies to people who can not conceive children, but would love to have a child. Sources: [1] Henry E. Sigerist, The Hippocratic Oath: Text, Translation, and Interpretation, 1996 [2] Wynn and Wynn, ""Some Consequences of Induced Abortion to Children Born Subsequently"", British Medical Journal (March 3, 1973), and Foundation for Education and Research in Child Bearing (London, 1972). [3] Ashton,""They Psychosocial Outcome of Induced Abortion"", British Journal of Ob&Gyn.(1980),vol.87,p1115-1122. [4] Reardon, Aborted Women-Silent No More, (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1987). [5] Terry Eastland, ""The Forgotten Option,"" The Weekly Standard, Jan. 29, 2003 [6]National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), ""Who Adopts? Characteristics of Women and Men Who Have Adopted Children,"" NCHS Data Brief, www.cdc.gov, Jan. 2009",-1,the act of destroying or removing the embryo or fetus from the uterus,noslang,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"I believe that abortion should be illegal except for when the pregnancy poses a serious threat to the life of the mother. Abortion, despite how it may seem, is not a complicated issue. Either the fetus is alive, and thus is a human life. or it isn't. there are a number of moral arguments to the debate. the first moral argument is that scientifically the human fetus meets the criterion to be considered alive from conception (1)"" Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."" As we can see, the fetus is genetically human and meets every criterion to be considered alive. now that we have established that the human life begins at conception I may be faced with the argument from many in favor of abortion that though the organism forming in the womb is alive (if they don't fully reject the known science thus committing fallacy) that it is not a person. this leads me to moral argument number two which is: even if you don't consider the humanity of the organism in the womb, there are plenty of things that exist that are A. not persons. and B. has rights and intrinsic value, for example, dogs or other domesticated animals. To state that simply because you don't consider the human fetus (which is what I shall be referring to the developing child as hereinafter.) to be a person, does not mean that it does not have rights and value. Furthermore, even if you deny the humanity of the fetus, you are still dealing with a potential human life which should be held in higher moral regard than the convenience of the mother or father. Another argument that many of those on the pro-choice side of the argument is that women have the human right to control their bodies. And I am in complete agreement. When it is your body that you are doing something to then you should have every right to do so insofar as it's not self-harm. However, the human fetus is not your body. It is IN your body. as I stated in my first card in the scientific portion of my argument, the human fetus has a separate genetic identity with the restoration of the diploid number of chromosomes. therefore, the human fetus is not a part of the mother's body any more than the child would be after (s)he was born. I hold that the time to control your body would have been before conception IE: using birth control or not having sexual intercourse. one thing that society appears to have forgotten, is that sex is not for pleasure. it is the biological process through which most species ensure the continuation of their species through reproduction (2). if you choose to partake in an action the purpose of which is to reproduce. (thus controlling your body.) then you accept the risk of conception. Moral argument number 3. does the fetus have any rights, any intrinsic value, and any right to live. well, the collective opinion of society is that the fetus has essentially infinite right to live. when? if and only if the mother decides to keep the child. if she does, society and its laws, regard the fetus with infinite worth and considers it so valuable, that if someone were to kill that child they would be prosecuted for homicide. keeping in mind that the definition of homicide is: the deliberate and unlawful killing of one person by another (3). we can, therefore, see that if the mother decides to keep her child then the law recognizes it as a person. if she doesn't, the fetus is considered worthless with essentially no right to live. now, does that make sense? it doesn't seem to. either the fetus has worth, or it doesn't. on what moral grounds does the mother alone have the right to decide the fetus' worth? most people would consider killing the baby once it exits the womb as murder. however, the deliberate killing of the fetus a mere two months before is no more morally problematic than extracting a tooth. and finally, we need to recognize that there are instances when an abortion simply cannot be considered moral. take for example if the mother or father aborts a child because they prefer boys to girls. as has happened millions of times in China and elsewhere. or any other form of bias or preference of the mother or father simply cannot offer moral grounds for the termination of the human life. I look forward to a rational and well thought out debate and wish my opponent the best of luck. I eagerly await your response. (1) https://www.princeton.edu............... (2) www.biology-online.org (3)www.dictionary.com",-1,medical or surgical termination of a pregnancy,noslang,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"I do not know debate you agreed on but that is beside the point.... First I want to state that 1% of either 1.3 million OR 1.21 million(which is the approximated number of abortions a year given in my previous argument, source #3) is still 1%. And given that my source gave 21% of women citing not wanting a baby, that is 273,000 of your 1.3 million and 254,100 of my 1.21 million statistic. Let's call a spade a spade here. 1% is just about the smallest minority you can get into without getting into crazy decimals. The point I was trying to make was to say that the majority of women who get abortion do so, so as to not have to take on the huge responsibility of caring for a child. That does not nullify my claim that rape is still not a viable reason for abortion. I will touch on this again in a minute Second, At the end of my opening argument, I put a little astrisk. That astrisk was to indicate that we are considering that both baby and mother would be perfectly healthy during pregnancy and at the time of birth. Seeing as this was established before my Opp made any arguments, I ask that he kindly withdraw his argument about the health of the mother and/or the child. I can admit that it would be a very hard decission to come to terminate the baby if either lives were put in peril due to said pregnancy. To answer the question ""Should the rape victim be forced to carry to term her rapists child?"", I would have to ask you to answer questions I posted in my opening argument: 1. Is it the baby's fault? 2. Does that give you any less capacity to love that baby? 3. Does that make the baby any less deserving of love and the right to live? I would also ask that my Opp justify his answers to each These days it is fairly easy to determine rape. If someone is raped they SHOULD report it, as rape is a crime. Would you say the same about a murder victim's family ""being forced"" to testify against an accused murderer. If we want to see justice for crimes we must speak up, as painful as it may be. Please withdraw this point as well as it really has no bearing for this debate. Another thing I must point out, that I failed to do so in my opening arguments is that Pro-Choice people so often forget about the option of adoption, whether it be for a child out of rape or otherwise. How is that not a better option? Several couples are unable to bear children who desparately want children. They get the child they desire and thus the woman who could have gotten an abortion escapes responsibility of taking care of said child, like she so desparately wants. That seems to be win win to me. I ask my Opp to answer why he believes adoption is not a better option and justify his answer In response to your question ""what about the rights of the rapist"", what about the rights of the man who slept with the woman considering the abortion that was not a rape. He had equal part in creating the baby, should he not have equal say in whether or not the baby is born? Why should the mother have the only say in what happens to her baby when she only played PART of a role in creating it? As per my other paragraphs I ask my Opp to answer these questions and justify his answers. My Opp seems to be preoccupied with the issue of rape. In response to my Opp's counter argument that not having the funds to take care of a child, wouldn't this be another case in which adoption is a more viable option than abortion? Also, who's to say the woman can't get a job or apply for government assistance? Is she disabled and cannot work? If my Opp can not answer these question, I ask he withdraw or concede this argument. My final response is the question of deadbeat dads. There are several punishments available to deadbeat dads who do not want to take responsibility for children they helped create. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Rape aside, shouldn't the same punishments be available to women who get abortions? Answer and justify your answer as per always please. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... (section 3 specifically) 2. http://www.law.cornell.edu... 3. http://www.cnn.com... 4. http://singleparents.about.com... 5. http://singleparents.about.com...",-1,"the termination of a pregnancy after, before viability",noslang,abortion,no,yes,neutral,neutral
"I find it funny how most of your arguments is just what I said previously in the last round. And I also find it amusing that half of your arguments here was just cut-and-pasted from my earlier debate with 16kadams. Response Point 1: This was a simple fact. You misinterpreted my point. Just skip over this point. Response Point 2: • Forty-two percent of women obtaining abortions have incomes below 100% of the federal poverty level ($10,830 for a single woman with no children).[6] • Twenty-seven percent of women obtaining abortions have incomes between 100–199% of the federal poverty level.* [6] http://www.guttmacher.org.... So 69% of woman who have abortions have a household that makes less than $22,000. Response Point 3: With money, people can do just about anything. Money can change the COD on the death certificate. Response Point 4: There is a big difference between adopted and cared for. A lot of adopted children are abused. Response Point 5: Might is a bad word becuase with the abortion by the poor statistics I have provided, most likely, the child will not grow up in a comfortable surrounding. Response Point 6: You are using a biased website. Look at the title; pro-life. This is most certainly biased. Response Point 7: First of all, you did not disprove my statement that prohbiting an abortion would decrease the mental illness rate since abortion causes mental illness. And you have also not refuted the claim that prohibiting abortions would decrease the criminal abortion rate, and not increase crimes. As for the breast cancer-abortion link: In February 2003, the US National Cancer Institute (NCI) held a workshop of more than 100 of the world's leading experts who study pregnancy and breast cancer risk. The experts reviewed human and animal studies that looked at the link between pregnancy and breast cancer risk, including studies of induced and spontaneous abortions. Some of their findings were: • Breast cancer risk is increased for a short time after a full-term pregnancy (that is, a pregnancy that results in the birth of a living child). • Induced abortion is not linked to an increase in breast cancer risk. • Spontaneous abortion is not linked to an increase in breast cancer risk. The level of scientific evidence for these findings was considered to be ""well established"" (the highest level): http://www.cancer.org....... http://www.prochoice.org...... http://www.cancer.gov......; a non-biased source. http://www.cancer.org......; more non-bias Attack Point 1: I reinstate my previous attack points 3 and 4 since my opponent failed to respond to them. My final argument will blow this debate out of the water.",1,the intentional termination of a human pregnancy by some medical or surgical means,noslang,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"Argument Women should have the right to make decisions about their own bodies. Women should be able to have an abortion if they are too young and unable to take care their babies. And the right to have an abortion if the pregnancy negatively affects the women's or the babies's health. It is women's right to make decisions about their own bodies. Having control over their own bodies is an important part of the equal rights that women have fount for. According to socialist worker, Women have the right to control their own body and reproductive lives. Therefore, no one has the right to tell a woman what she can or can not do with her body. This view is shared by the United States Supreme Court who ruled in the 1973 case ""Roe Vs. Wade"" that women have the right to control their own bodies. Since 1973 the Supreme Court has never over ruled this decision. Another reason that women should be able to have abortions is in case the mothers are too young and unable to take care their babies. Unwanted pregnancies can be very stressful for women. Therefore, if they think they can not give their babies a good life then it is right for them to have abortions. For example, one of my friends was pregnant when she was 19. She and her baby's father were still in college by that time. Neither had a job, and they knew that they could not afford to buy food and provided medical care for their baby. My friend got an abortion, even though it was the hardest decision of her life. She knew that it would be better, however, for her own life and because she could not properly take care of the baby. Critics of abortion say stopping a fetus's life is wrong. But if the babies health is at question during the pregnancy a woman should have the right to choose for herself. The reason is I believe that continuing a dangerous pregnancy will put a woman in a dangerous situation and will bring the baby into a life of sickness. In pre-pregnancy diabetes raises risk of birth defects, Donya (2008) report that "" Women diagnosed with diabetes before they become pregnant are three times to four times more likely to give birth to a child with one or even multiple birth defects than a non diabetic mother, according to a study in the Aug. 1 American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology "". If a woman gets pregnant and she has a history of heart disease then continuing the pregnancy would put both her and her baby at risk. A woman with a history of heart disease should avoid pregnancy because of the the high risk of death or she will give birth to a baby with birth defects. Therefore, it is right if a woman chooses to get abortion in this case. Advocates of abortion believe that death is harmful for the fetus and the fetus has the right to have a life just like ours. One advocate of abortion is Stone. For Stone, "" death seriously harms the fetus and so the fetus has a right to life because death deprives the fetus of conscious goods which it is the fetus's biological natural to make itself have "" . However when a woman's health is at risk or they will give birth to a child with defects then abortion would be better for the mother and for the baby. If we know the child will be born with defects then there is no point in having have the mother keep the baby if she chooses not to. I'm not sure my opponent considered if the person wanting an abortion is a rape victim. If someone is raped (especially at a young age - younger than 18) do you think that they should have to go through the process of having a child. Not only will it be hard to look after at such a young age. It will also be hard to explain to the baby who the father is. Having a child who reminds you of such a horrible experience is not a nice thing. What if the child grows up to look like his father (the rapist). Then what? In conclusion, I believe that women have the right to have abortions. First, women have the right to control their own bodies. Second, they have the right to have abortions if the pregnancies will affect their health and their babies health in a harmful way. Third, women have the right to have abortions if they have been raped. Also advocates of abortion believe that abortion is seriously wrong but women should do what is best for them and their babies. Sources Sharon Smith. "" Abortion is every woman's right."" Socialistworker 23 April 2004. Stretton, Dean. ""The Deprivation Argument Against Abortion."" Bioethics 18.2 (Apr. 2004): 144-180. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. [Library name], [City], [State abbreviation]. Currie, Donya. ""Pre-pregnancy diabetes raises risk of birth defects."" Nation's Health 38.8 (Oct. 2008): 21-21. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. [Library name], [City], [State abbreviation]. J. Stone. Why Potentiality Matters. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 1987; 17: 815-830. More recently: J. Stone. Why Potentiality Still Matters. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 1994; 24: 281-294",1,the right to abortion,all,abortion,no,no,pro,pro
"Thank you again 16K for instigating and posting your arguments. I’d like to point out that I’m neither for nor against Abortion, I have neutral opinions on this matter making me undecided. But this’ll be fun to debate. Good luck. REBUTTAL Fetus = Human, killing them is murder The only relevant argument opponent has given here is that a fetus has a ‘life’, but that doesn’t make it a sentient, conscious, viable, fully-grown human being. The fetus may be a member of the Homo sapiens, but they are not fully resembled human beings who are sentient and with rights. They are not natural-born citizens, they cannot be dependent on their own body and they need the woman’s body to live, if we let the fetus’ moral rights override the mother’s, then this is close to invading the woman’s privacy and the right of the woman to choose. My opponent claims that life begins at fertilization, which is wrong. In fact, life begins before fertilization. Sperm and egg cells are actually living things. But the question should not be when life begins, rather, it should be when must we consider that the fetus be sentient or actually feel anything. Here’s a report published by Joyce Arthur entitled: “Personhood: Is a Fetus a Human Being?” {1}, according to her research, it showed that Fetuses are uniquely different from actual humans, and the most fundamental difference is that a fetus is totally dependent on a woman's body to survive. Anyone can take care of a newborn infant, but onlypregnant women can nurture their fetus. She can’t hire someone else to do it. Also, she said that fetuses don’t just depend on the woman for survival, but it needs to be insidethe woman’s body for it to live. She states that human beings must be separate individuals. So this very much refutes the idea that fetuses should be prioritized more because they can take care by themselves, which is false. Moving on, here’s a brief conclusion on opponent’s case: P1: Abortion ends the life of the fetus. P2: a fetus is a human being. C: Therefore, abortion is murder. This is false, so now (and this is important) to say actually affirm those contentions and say that abortion is murder, 16K needs to show and accurately prove that 1) a fetus is a human being, and 2) All abortions are the unlawful killing of a human being with premeditation and malice aforethought. But technically, abortion is legal in the US (state and federal) since Roe v. Wade, so somewhat negates 2). So this means that abortion is (or somewhat) actually the opposite of murder, it is lawful, it is (sometimes) unintentional and it is without premeditation and without malice. Morally wrong to kill a person and society opposes such act This premise fails on so many ways, look at the following scenarios and tell me that these aren’t morally wrong and society opposes such acts: - Self Defense/ Defense of others - It is considered morally permissible to kill a killer to save your own life or kill a person to protect loved ones and others? - Kill one, save many- It is morally acceptable to kill the terrorists before 9/11 which affected upcoming the Afghan/Iraq war? - Parasitic twin scenario- We have a conjoined twins, and it only survives if we sacrifice one, so would it be considered moral to kill a weaker twin to save the stronger one? No surgery means both twins die. - Trolley Problem- Let’s say you are in a moving trolley and your mother is tied to the tracks a few meters from you, you’re about to hit her. Although, there’s another way, but there are 5 people tied to the tracks in that direction. Now you have to choose between killing your mom and killing 5 people. What should you do? If my opponent still argues that these acts are all morally wrong, he’s either lying or is out of his mind. Either way, his premise fails and these scenarios are justified morally under utilitarian view and deontological theory. Morally wrong to kill a fetus Similar to my opponent’s 2nd premise. Religion on abortion This is somewhat irrelevant to the debate, since Religion has no say on Abortion laws. My opponent’s verse has no connection to abortion whatsoever. And quoting the Ten Commandments doesn’t help him too, since the Bible is contradictory, like Hosea 9:13-16, where God said that children will be dashed in pieces and that pregnant women will be ripped open. Numbers 31:17 states that adulterous women should be killed, because they bear a child that they got from premarital sex. Also Psalms 137:9 which states that God will bless shall the ones who dash little kids with rocks. PRO-life > PRO-choice My opponent admitted that this is irrelevant and we should just discard it, I agree, but even if we didn’t, this graph is unreliable and inaccurate since it has no source whatsoever and that it didn’t show how many people were interviews. My opponent could’ve just made this statistic by interviewing 10 people and the majority are PRO-lifers. CASE C1: Abortion is NOT murder I’ve fulfilled my obligation to negate this premise. See my rebuttals above for review. I also mentioned that even if abortion ends a life, it’s still morally acceptable, in some circumstances, like issues of maternal health and risks, rape, incest and poverty. Surely we don’t want to abuse people’s choices to protect themselves especially if their lives are at stake. C2: Valuing Women’s Rights My opponent didn’t really rebut this premise, he just put up a graph/statistic that have no sources and didn’t explain it, please ignore them. And even if the chart is accurate, it just shows more PRO-lifers than PRO-choicers, they don’t necessarily oppose their right to abort. See contention 4 for my extension to this. C3: Abortion happens regardless of legality My opponent’s rebuttal here are hearsay testimonies instead of providing accurate statistics, not to mention the testimonies had no sources to back it up. So we could discard them for lack of accuracy and evidence, making them invalid. As I said, illegalizing abortion is a disadvantage and may lead to bad outcomes. Because you see, crime rates were reduced after Roe v. Wade, if we overturn that SC decision, then we would be undermining our constitution and that ‘back alley’ or illegal abortions will rise. This is a dangerous risk to take for a mother wanting an illegal abortion since the risks are very much higher than an abortion made by a professional. There was a study conducted by John Donohue and Steven Levitt entitled, ""The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime"" {2}. They showed that after Roe v. Wade, crime rates reduced and fell roughly after 18 years of the decision. States with high abortion rates after Roe experienced a huge drop in crime in the 90s. They state that when abortion was fully legalized, it accounted for much as 50% of the recent decline in crime rates. In El Salvador {3}, abortion is illegal and is punishable up to 25 years but yet more and more people commit ‘back alley’ abortion, and these rates are rising. The UN has urged this country to pass an abortion law so the crime rates may fall, but it’s still pending. {4} C4: Abortion is a right I’ll make a few points to support my claim and since I’m running out of characters, and since the only topic that matters here is if abortion is murder. Now, after Roe v. Wade, America has become a symbol for promoting rights, women’s rights, the right to choose and right to privacy. It’s an important and a valuable right since a fetus is technically invading the woman’s body and it depends on the body to survive, which is a risk. If we give rights to unborn fetuses, it would be like taking off the mother’s rights and women will lose control over their body. The life of the mother is more valuable than the fetus. If I may ask, if women can’t be trusted with their choice to abort, how can we trust them with children? I await my opponent’s response, and hopefully use proper sentencing structure and grammar and not rely on c/p testimony. Thank you and good luck. CITATIONS Comments.",1,a human being in the process of being born,all,abortion,no,no,neutral,con
Abortion should be the mothers choice. 1) By taking away the mothers right to decide you take away yet another little bit of her freedom. 2) Not to mention all the exeptions such as rape victims. Are you going to tell the poor girl who got pregnant from some scum of the Earth that she has to keep his child?,1,the right to choose what happens to your body,all,abortion,no,no,pro,pro
"I agree that it is wrong to take another person's life. That is murder, And absolutely reprehensible. Where you and I evidently differ is whether or not a foetus is a person. Both the Oxford and Merriam-Webster dictionaries define person as an individual human being, Or a human with reference to individuality. On the definition of individual, They differ slightly, But the consensus is that individual means a distinctly separate entity, With defining characteristics. It is my belief that, Beyond genes (which it shares partly with either parent anyway), A foetus has no defining characteristics. No individuality. For example, I have friends. Likes. Dislikes. Relationships. Aspirations. Worries. Things that make me me. A foetus has none of these things. P. S. I find it hypocritical to be pro-life and pro death penalty, Because of these definitions. P. P. S. I don't like abortion. I just don't think it's murder or that it should be illegal. You'll find the vast majority of pro-choice people share these views. We aren't pro-abortion.",1,the intentional destruction of a human fetus,all,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"First off, I never used the word ""person. "" I said ""I believe it is wrong to take away another""s life. "" Although maybe I should have used a little different wording and said ""human life. "" (yes, A fetus is human life. ) Secondly, Every fetus does have individuality. Otherwise, Every person would look and act just like everybody else which is obviously not the case. I see your point that a fetus does not have likes, Dislikes, Relationships, Etc. Why does it not have these? Because it has not yet been born and able to experience these things in life beyond the womb. I don""t agree that the lack of characteristics such as likes and dislikes makes abortion ok, Because killing them before they are able to develop these characteristics is why they never get them. I don""t find it hypocritical to be pro-life and pro-death penalty. Why? Because I believe humans that murder people, Commit treason, Take part in human trafficking, Etc. Deserve to be killed. I also believe that humans that have not murdered people, Not committed treason, Not trafficked humans, And not done any wrong (such as a fetus) don""t deserve to be killed. I""m glad that you don""t like abortion (there is something we have in common haha). However, I do believe abortion is murder. Oxford Dictionary defines murder as ""The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. "" Of course you could argue that abortion is legal and therefore it is not ""unlawful"" as the definition says, But that is the entire point of my debate is to argue against abortion and I think it should be illegal so I am overlooking the use of that word. Abortion still is a ""premeditated killing of one human being by another. "" Lastly, I am also pro-choice. I believe people can make any choice they want, That is until they make a choice that inhibits the freedoms and choice-making abilities of another human being. For example, I can choose whether to read a book or watch a movie. That choice doesn""t affect the agency of any other human being. However, I cannot choose to own a slave (I would never want to, This is just an example). Why? Because by choosing to own a slave, I would be taking away the choice-making ability of my slave. Another example: I could make the choice to murder someone (Again, I wouldn""t, Just another example). But this takes away the freedom of that person to live. Abortion, Taking away the life of the human being, Takes away their freedom to live. Slavery and murder are illegal, Why isn""t abortion?",-1,the act of causing a fetus to be expelled from the uterus,all,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"This is a human life. This is murder. A human life starts at conception. Saying abortion is ok is like saying it's ok to kill your next door neighbor. You have no right to take away this life that hasn't even had a chance yet. This is a pure soul, they have never done anything bad or done anything to harm anyone. This child should at least be given a chance at life.",-1,the act of killing a human before he is born,all,abortion,no,no,con,con
"you keep using the term ""unsafe abortion"" If you go to a clinic where this is practiced is is way more safe than getting it from that hobo down the street. And another thing, you have a better likely hood to gain depression when you have a child as well. And it isn't our place to say anything about mothers who have abortions. What if it wasn't there fault. What if the condom broke, what if the birth control pills didn't work? Why should it be there fault then. Why should we get to judge them based on their decision. This is their choice. And yeah it's very sad, and suicide sadly is an option for them. But if you can't handle a baby then wouldn't it be better to bring a baby into the world when they, THE PARENTS are prepared?",1,the act of aborting,all,abortion,no,no,neutral,neutral
"Not all chicken eggs are unfertilised (poultry standards are different everywhere), and they too have the potential for life. Furthermore, several living plants have to be killed to obtain food or wood, but no value of life over there eh? Or what about killing of living chickens and cattle for meat? And not every single proponent of a foetus should count as living. After all, it is not functional during that time period. Humans are superior to other organisms, but that doesn't reduce the value of a ""life"". Animals and plants are just as living as, if not more than a foetus. Yet we utilise them for our resources and benefits, and in case of hunting, for pleasure. Therefore abortion can be done as it will save our resources/benefit us, and not reduce pleasure. Furthermore, we can discard pets anytime we want, yet we have to always keep a child? That hasn't even come into the world yet? Pets are fully living and functional, they love us even more than children at times (dog=man's best friend), yet if they even get slightly injured or start taking up more funds than allocated for it, we send it away? This is unfair. If the parents are not ready for a child, or they changed their decision, it should within their rights to kill the foetus. One reason for abortion would be financial problems, for many families may not have the time or the money required to give their child the right growth. Or a surprise loan/ accident cripples the person, and causes problems for the upcoming child. We shouldn't force parents to keep a child they don't want. This will be bad for the child due to ill-treatment from the parents, and will be bad for the parents for the reason they wanted abortion. Suppose if we find out that the unborn child has some deformities/ infection, shouldn't we give it a merciful death rather than an impaired, handicapped life?",1,the act of removing an unwanted foetus from a womb,all,abortion,no,yes,neutral,neutral
"They are not simply murdering their baby, they are reliving the baby from coming into a world that the mother knows wont go good for the baby because the mother is still struggling in life and will not be able to provide the baby with all its necessities. Babies are expensive, and not having any education or a job will decrease ones chances of being able to survive the land of all the high bills. I understand their is adoption, yet some mothers do not view another family taking care of the child they could not care for. The women that is soon to be mother might have gotten raped and decided that the baby would be better off in gods hands. A baby is no fool, yet it would not be fair for it to come into a world that it cannot be cared for in. Many abortions have been taken into account and our species is not dying off any time soon.",1,the act of removing a foetus from the womb,all,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"Abortion, despite how it may seem, is not a complicated issue. Either the fetus is alive, and thus is a human life. or it isn't. there are a number of moral arguments to the debate. the first moral argument is that scientifically the human fetus meets the criterion to be considered alive from conception (1)"" Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."" As we can see, the fetus is genetically human and meets every criterion to be considered alive. now that we have established that the human life begins at conception I may be faced with the argument from many in favor of abortion that though the organism forming in the womb is alive (if they don't fully reject the known science thus committing fallacy) that it is not a person. this leads me to moral argument number two which is: even if you don't consider the humanity of the organism in the womb, there are plenty of things that exist that are A. not persons. and B. has rights and intrinsic value, for example, dogs or other domesticated animals. To state that simply because you don't consider the human fetus (which is what I shall be referring to the developing child as hereinafter.) to be a person, does not mean that it does not have rights and value. Furthermore, even if you deny the humanity of the fetus, you are still dealing with a potential human life which should be held in higher moral regard than the convenience of the mother or father. Another argument that many of those on the pro-choice side of the argument is that women have the human right to control their bodies. And I am in complete agreement. When it is your body that you are doing something to then you should have every right to do so insofar as it's not self-harm. However, the human fetus is not your body. It is IN your body. as I stated in my first card in the scientific portion of my argument, the human fetus has a separate genetic identity with the restoration of the diploid number of chromosomes. therefore, the human fetus is not a part of the mother's body any more than the child would be after (s)he was born. I hold that the time to control your body would have been before conception IE: using birth control or not having sexual intercourse. one thing that society appears to have forgotten, is that sex is not for pleasure. it is the biological process through which most species ensure the continuation of their species through reproduction (2). if you choose to partake in an action the purpose of which is to reproduce. (thus controlling your body.) then you accept the risk of conception. Moral argument number 3. does the fetus have any rights, any intrinsic value, and any right to live. well, the collective opinion of society is that the fetus has essentially infinite right to live. when? if and only if the mother decides to keep the child. if she does, society and its laws, regard the fetus with infinite worth and considers it so valuable, that if someone were to kill that child they would be prosecuted for homicide. keeping in mind that the definition of homicide is: the deliberate and unlawful killing of one person by another (3). we can, therefore, see that if the mother decides to keep her child then the law recognizes it as a person. if she doesn't, the fetus is considered worthless with essentially no right to live. now, does that make sense? it doesn't seem to. either the fetus has worth, or it doesn't. on what moral grounds does the mother alone have the right to decide the fetus' worth? most people would consider killing the baby once it exits the womb as murder. however, the deliberate killing of the fetus a mere two months before is no more morally problematic than extracting a tooth. and finally, we need to recognize that there are instances when an abortion simply cannot be considered moral. take for example if the mother or father aborts a child because they prefer boys to girls. as has happened millions of times in China and elsewhere. or any other form of bias or preference of the mother or father simply cannot offer moral grounds for the termination of the human life. I look forward to a rational and well thought out debate and wish my opponent the best of luck. I eagerly await your response. (1) https://www.princeton.edu..................... (2) www.biology-online.org (3)www.dictionary.com Now to address my opponents arguments. My opponent makes the ""what about rape?"" argument. I'll make you a deal. I think it's a terrible deal but I'll make it. since only .03% of abortions are because of rape(1) I will allow for rape as well in order to save 99% of babies even though this sins of the father argument for killing a baby is morally reprehensible. as for a last resort being necessary when ""two human lives are connected"" nothing. I repeat, nothing beyond the life of the mother exception I gave earlier, gives you the right to kill a baby. Ever. Beyond life endangerment because of a pregnancy, you should not be allowed to kill your baby. I don't care about your organs. I don't care if you have your appendix removed. I don't care if you donate a kidney. a baby is not an organ. At no point is a baby an organ. this assertion is frankly ridiculous. Branching from my previous point, I don't care what you do with your body. A baby is not your body. At no point is a baby your body. A baby from the moment of fertilization is a genetically distinct human being completely separate in identity from the mother. To say anything else is to deny facts, to deny science, to deny the truth. No one of faith can support killing a baby. when you say last resort, unless you mean the life endangerment exception, it isn't really a last resort. it's an easy out that removes responsibility for a parent's actions. I already stated, and you have acknowledged, that I will only accept an abortion as correct if the life of the mother is endangered. If a woman will die because of a pregnancy, I would have that be legal. so your point on endangerment falls flat unless you want to make the argument that it is a post birth endangerment at which point you can't kill the baby anyway. (1) Alan Guttmacher institute.",-1,the intentional killing of a fetus,all,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,con
"""Thank you for informing me about this, this is where I personally feel its wrong to kill a human, because this is when I feel like it becomes a person. "" And this is when most abortions occur, it is before 8 months. Concession. Vote Con. ""1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child. "" Yes, I feel it is okay in those situations. I agree.",-1,"""abortion is the killing of a baby",all,abortion,no,no,con,con
"Abortion is wrong. For the people who say that abortion is okay are saying that it is okay to murder people so that must mean that it is okay for me to kill a person and not get in trouble with the law. What makes murdering an unborn child okay, but murdering someone else wrong?",-1,the act of killing a human fetus,all,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,con
"sorry about that I was thinking of something else. If a baby is born ill he will never live I normal life. something becomes living once the sperm and eggs touch but, If a baby is born ill he will never live I normal life. the good things about abortion is both the parents and the kid do not have to go through all the hardships of an extremely ill person. Imagine if you had to go through not even be able to talk and not now who anybody you have known for a long time is. Imagine that,Imagine that.",1,the act of removing a fetus by surgical or other means,all,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"First of all, do not bring God into this. God has nothing to do with this. Who's to say if Buddha has the right to take a baby away? Or Muhammad? You could even argue Ra, the ancient Egyptian sun god. So no higher being decides weather to take a life or spare it. No you would not kill a person if they are sick. I mean a permanent serious birth defect. Like if someone was born with a serious physical or mental disease and could only live for a year. That baby would have to suffer for a year, as opposed to the few moments it would take to abort it. Example 2: It doesn't matter who's fault it is. You fail to rebuttal the idea of harassment and pain a young woman would have to go through during and after those 9 months of pregnancy. The father would not be there to support it at all. The mother might not even know who the father is. Abortion is not meant for lazy doctors who don't want to take care of the baby, as you stated in you last argument. Secondly I do not believe ""vegeated"" is a word, so I am not going to refute that sentence as a I fail to see what you are trying to convey. CON has failed to produce solid arguments, and only had one in the beginning. CON also did not rebuttal all of my points and postings. Therefore I may declare that I have won this debate, however the vote goes to the users.",1,the termination of a pregnancy by any means,all,abortion,no,yes,neutral,neutral
"I will be taking the position of ""pro-choice"" in this debate. To start, I think it is important for me to point out that the position of ""pro-choice"", to me, means that any individual woman has the right to choose whether or not to get an abortion, and that choice can not be made for her by any government entity; to clarify, the position of ""pro-choice"" does not necessarily mean that abortion is inherently right or wrong. When you say that you are ""100%"" pro-life, what exactly do you mean?",1,the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or destruction of an embryo or fetus,all,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"Actually, life becomes life after conception, its not as simple as a seed, the seed has already been sown, forming a living, breathing being. In your point of view, the baby isn't alive yet, so if it isn't alive yet then why does it need food, and nutrients, why is the umbilical chord even there if the baby is yet a seed? So now, since I have established my view on when the life takes place, I will like to rebuttal your argument about abortion protecting life. .. With your views ""destroying the seed"" is protecting human life. I see where you're going though, but let me ask you, would you rather NOT have a voice/choice in life and that being chose for you, or would you like to give life a chance? If the mother cannot provide for the child then put him/her up for adoption, even though the chances of him/her being adopted are slim, its still better that being dead, don't you agree? Babies grow up, they make choices (in the future), they live their life, when they die, we grieve the death. .. Whats the point of grieving human death if the idea of another life beings' life in general is a CHOICE by the mother?",-1,the removal of a fetus from the uterus,all,abortion,no,yes,neutral,neutral
"""Con states that I ignored their 4 characteristics. This is false. I have demonstrated that their argument fails under both of our definitions of life. I have also proven that you ought to buy my definition of life over con's one since I provided sources."" No, I established that they fit all of these characteristics, save reproduction, you said that a fetus is not alive because it cannot reproduce. I rebutted this by asking you a very simple question; ""If this is so, doesn""t that mean that children that haven""t reached puberty are not alive?"" You failed 3 times to answer this very simple question. I got my 4 characteristics of life from my Biology class. ""Con fails to understand the parameters set. They also act contrary to their position. They present a definition of life which sets the parameter that it must be able to reproduce (bare in mind that con introduces this in their parameters too). They then contradict themselves and say that reproduction should not be a parameter for considering life because children who haven't gone through puberty cannot reproduce. I will make the same clarification that I made before. The parameters used to define life aren't used individually, they are used to define whether the entire human race is living. The answer to this is yes because the large majority of all humans will eventually be able to reproduce and the large majority can. Killing children isn't acceptable to their sentience and consciousness and due to the fact that they will be able to reproduce in their current state as human beings."" Pro is contradicting himself, he says here that children who have not yet reached puberty are alive because they will be able to reproduce in the future. Is this not the same for a fetus? If a fetus is left to develop long enough, won""t it be able to reproduce eventually too? ""I proved that the fetus cannot respond to stimuli. Con states that I am wrong because he said reacts not responds. This is a poor rebuttal since they are both synonyms. I could have said that the fetus cannot react to stimuli and it would have meant the same thing as responds to stimuli. The fetus cannot react and respond to stimuli [3], can Con please respond to this sufficiently now."" The difference between ""responds to stimuli"", and ""reacts to stimuli"", yes, is very similar, except ""responds to stimuli"" indicates that the reaction is noticeable. As ""respond"" indicates that there is a recipient, there is no such recipient in ""react."" ""I said that the fetus is developing to become a human. Con states that this means that all men under the age of 33 are also developing. This a key issue that I'd like to address. The fetus is developing TO BECOME a human being. Babies, children, teenagers and young adults are developing AS HUMANS. They are still humans whereas the fetus is not."" The issue with this argument is that you are stating that a fetus is only a human after it is born. I stated that the only difference is the extent of development, and what level of development determines you being a human is only an opinion, and cannot be proven. That a fetus""s genetics is human genetics, that a fetus fits all the definitions of life, and that a fetus can feel pain, that can be proven. ""Con excludes the main elements of libertarian philosophy which consist of two beliefs: 1. The government ought to have less power and make less restrictions. [6][7]. 2. The individual is the most important member of society and their opinions and rights ought to be prioritized to the highest level of their ability to do so [6][7]. Life is important in libertarianism however less government restriction is also extremely important factor and by preventing somebody from having an abortion is a restriction that libertarians ought to avoid at all costs [7]. As my contentions have described, this is a violation of the women's equality and human rights."" The government is here to protect people""s rights, born or unborn, when someone wants to violate these rights, not only does the government have the power to stop it, they have the obligation to do so. ""By preventing the women from having an abortion you violate the women's right and you also violate libertarianism. Being against abortions violates the two most important libertarian ideologies, this means that it is an overall violation of libertarianism. Con provides no alternative framework and mine still stands, you ought to vote Pro baed solely on the premise that under my framework abortion is morally permissable."" For one your framework is anything BUT morally permissible, it is morally insane. Let""s examine Pro""s excuse for abortion, he says that; ""Because men do not have to deal with the hormonal issues associated with pregnancy, that women are being treated unequally, therefore we must allow them to commit abortion so they can be equal to men."" This is the panicle of ignorance in liberalism, to go to war against biological gender differences, call it ""gender inequality"", and use it to justify atrocities such as this. Biological gender differences is NOT gender inequality, it is the natural order of things and if you don""t like it, DEAL WITH IT. ""The answer to this question is that the fetus isn't alive and it doesn't have an opinion. No matter whether you're for or against abortion everybody acknowledges that the fetus isn't able to formulate opinions."" So my opponent admits that the fetus is NOT trespassing on the mothers body because it did not choose to be there, and if the fetus is NOT a product of rape then the mother chose for it to be there, and CANNOT change her decision seeing as though the fetus is dependent on her to live now. ""Con's old man analogy is faulty. He fails to consider financial issues but that isn't the only problem. He forgets that the fetus doesn't care if it's on the boat or not, neither does it care if it on board or thrown off because if the boy represents the fetus then this boy must also not be able to think or have opinions [8]. I have also demonstrated that the fetus isn't alive. This means that con's analogy based on the premise that all possible outcomes and situations haven't been analyzed and the fact that con hasn't acknowledged that the fetus cannot think or forumlate opinions, means that the analogy fails. I do not advocate infanticide / killing children, the scenarios are completely different as I have already proven."" Then the boy is asleep, and cannot chose or formulate opinions as he does not know he is on board either. Additionally, if the mother does not want to take care of the child, pawn it off to someone else! ""Con's rebuttal to the fact that most abortions are done at the stage where the fetus is DEFINITELY not alive. The ebryo is less developed than the fetus and cannot feel pain or think or respond to stimuli etc."" If it has grey matter, it can think. ""Con makes the mistake of calling the fetus a human. The stages begin with the fertilization of the sperm and egg, the embryo, the fetus, then the human. There is a distinguishable difference between the fetus and the human."" I could never find out how they do that. ""I still advocate the fact that we must look at things as a whole and looking at people with disabilities is not applicable in classifying life as people with disabilities still belong to the same species as us."" ""Con's next rebuttal is subjective. He states that abortion isn't a right. Life is. It is still under his BOP to prove why. Until this is done there is nothing to refute. This is all bare assertion."" I don""t need to prove that abortion is not a right, the burden of proof is on you to prove that it IS a right, if you cannot then it is established that abortion IS NOT a right. I also don""t need to prove that Life is a right, it is SELF-EVIDENT, that you are entitled to Life, Liberty, and Property. ""Con says that illegal abortions should be punished but doesn't refute the argument that says that the problem won't be solved anyway. I have shown that in places where abortion is illegal, illegal abortions still occur. The consequences are much worse than what Con suggests as a result of these illegal abortions. Sometimes the baby and mother die or are severely injured in the process. If you legalize abortions then people won't be inclined to do it illegally and they will do it legally - ie. safely."" I understand this argument, but it is wrong. With things like booze or Marijuana it is better to be legal, because the demand will be higher if it is illegal. But there is a point where this does not apply, a mother that would put herself in danger to have her child be cooked alive by corrosive chemicals, should be punished harshly, so that no one would try it. ""Con is contradictory. At first they say that the most important right is life and emphasize that life is extremely important and that aborting the fetus is murder, they then say that the mother should receive death by stoning. This is contradictory to the case and is a concession - it negates the only argument that they provided."" In certain instances death penalty is necessary for certain crimes, a fetus has committed no crime. Therefore this is irrelevant. ""I never that the teenagers were below the legal age of abortions being allowed. I said 18-19 year olds which is old enough [6]. The argument talked about teenagers missing out on their lives. This means that it still stands and has been dropped again."" I""m sorry, your grammar on this paragraph is so bad I can""t understand it, come back later with a fully illustrated point. ""Con respond to human rights by saying that he supports the right to life. This doesn't make sense; he says that we should stone the mothers to death which is not supporting the right to life."" In certain instances death penalty is necessary for certain crimes, a fetus has committed no crime. Therefore this is irrelevant. P.S. How do you post pictures?",-1,the deliberate termination of a pregnancy,all,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"R1 Rebuttals My opponent makes the claim that killing babies (ie. infanticide) is ultimately the same as having an abortion. This is not true as my R1 arguments clearly demonstrate. The list that has been complied by biolgoists to determine whether things are living and the fetus clearly does not meet this list. My opponent cannot make baseless assertions as comparisons to abortions. I have provided scientific evidence in support of the fetus being living whereas my opponent has failed to do the same. Without any evidence to support this comparison voters ought to consider it as baring no weight upon the resolution. My opponent attempt to define life using Webster's dictionary to define life. Unfortunately Webster's dictionary is not used by scientists when determining things. It is not a biological site and it is purposefully vague to as to keep the definition suitable for anybody of any age or background [1]. Of course, even if you do buy my opponent's definition you still ought to presume Pro since this definition includes the condition of reproduction which the fetus is unable to do [2]. Therefore, whichever definition you choose, mine or my opponents, the fetus should be considered to be non-living. My opponent makes the following claim which is completely false: ""According to biology, life has these characteristics:1. Grows and develops (check)2. Capable of reproduction (check)3. Consumes and uses energy (check)4. Responds to stimuli (check)"" [3]1 is true. 2 is completely false, and I have proven this already [2]. 3 is correct. 4 is false, it can detect stimuli however it cannot respond to it until much after the legal date for an abortion [4]. I never referred to the fetus as a clump of cells, merely non-living. Therefore the pre-emptive rebuttal stating that the fetus is not a clump of cells is irrelevant since it is already proven to be non-living which is what is important. My opponent's 3rd point is that the fetus is a human which is false. The genetic material will come out as human because it is growing to become a human however that doesn't mean that it is a human, this simply means that it is developing to become one. My opponent seems to believe that when humans and other species reproduce another member of that species just pops into existence. They are very mistaken. If it's parents are both members of this species then this does not means that it is automatically classified as a member of this species. And even if it is this still doesn't prove that it's living - it simply proves that it could be human (which it isn't). A dead person is still human, but that doesn't mean that it is living does it? Just because something is a member of the same species as something else, this does not mean that it ought to be considered living.This is the only argument that my opponent presents and since the burden of proof is shared, my opponent is clearly unable to fulfill their burden. Another important thing to note is that my opponent fails to prove the impacts of this to me and to readers. Even if you believe my rebuttal to be insufficient and my opponent's argument to be wrong, you still ought to presume Pro since the impacts are not provided. My opponent fails to say why the fact that the fetus is living means that abortions should be illegal (not that I believe this but my opponent clearly does). R2 Rebuttals My opponent completely misunderstands the framework. The framework does not refer to liberals. It refers to libertarians and it provides arguments and a framework for the debate. My opponent has failed to respond to the framework or provide an alternative framework, this is problematic since under my framework abortion should be legal. Without a sufficient rebuttal or alternative, this ultimately means that you can vote Pro based on this alone. Of course the fetus has no choice in being in the mother's womb. Why is that? The answer is: because the fetus isn't alive and only living things can make decisions [5]. The fetus isn't like a prisoner for a number of reasons. The first being that prisoners are held in prisons to be punished. The fetus is not held in the womb as a punishment. The second reason is that the prisoner is held there against their will. The fetus has no will because it is unable to think or feel things so therefore the fetus is not being held their against its will (this is impossible since the fetus has no will). Even if the fetus had will it still wouldn't be a prisoner because when prisoners are released from jail they are free to go back to civilization. If the fetus is taken out of the womb then it will die. The womb is its only place of security and therefore the womb is not like a prison. For this reason my opponent's analogy is flawed. Another point that my opponent's analogy fails to acknowledge is that you actually have to look after the baby once it's born and this can be extremely expensive as my contentions explain. Another vital things that I must pick up on is the insufficieny of a rebuttal to my argument in regards to embryotic abortions. I stated that most abortions are done when it is proven for a 100% fact that the embro is not alive (since it is not even at the stage of being a fetus). My opponent responds by saying that it consumes energy, grows and develops and responds to stimuli. It does not respond to stimuli so even by my opponent's definition the embryo is not alive [6].My opponent makes a common misconception with my biological categories of defining life. I understand that there are people that do not meet all of these categories due to a disability or for some other reason. The problem is that my opponent misunderstands the entire purpose of the argument. The argument is used to define whether a group of things is alive not individual things. We aren't going to go around to every single fetus to test if it's alive or not. We're going to analyze the fetus as a whole and decide whether it's alive or not. Therefore, when analyzing humans using this classification system we analyzed humans on a whole not just every individual humans [7]. My opponent's response to illegal abortions is shocking. He deems mother's to be psychopaths because they want abortions and they are denied the right to do so. Until my opponent is able to prove this, then this argument should not work in his favour since it is under my opponent's burden to provide evidence for this assertion. My opponent drops the rest of my illegal abortions contention by saying that it's a medical issue. This is not true. Having an illegal abortion can result in death but the argument isn't about this alone. It is also about the fact that there is no point in making it illegal if it's going to happen anyway. My opponent completely ignores this part of the argument and only responds to the statement in regards to people dying and being severely injured due to these illegal abortions which is arguably not a medical reason - rather a political related one. My opponent dismisses the argument in regards to teenagers having children by saying that this harms both the mother and child. This may be true however the criteria set in R1 is that I am not allowed to argue in regards to rape, medical issues or incest. I haven't argued in regards to any of these and therefore voters ought to consider this argument as dropped by my opponent. My opponent completely misunderstands my argument and essentially drops all the philosophy in regards to women's rights. He states that this means that women have the right to kill but you cannot kill what isn't alive. Also my opponent fails to acknowledge that this isn't all about whether or not the fetus is living. It is also about human rights. Sources[1] http://bit.ly...;[2] http://bit.ly...;[3] http://bit.ly... [4] http://www.beginbeforebirth.org...;[5] http://www2.fiu.edu...;[6] http://bit.ly...;[7] http://bbc.in...;",1,the deliberate killing of a fetus or new-born,all,abortion,no,no,neutral,con
If a mother is going to end up struggling in life further because of having a baby well then too bad for her. She should have put some thought into it before she decided to have sexual intercourse with her husband or some random dude that would eventually lead to her being pregnant. A woman should have sense enough to know that if she's going to end up having a hard time in life that she doesn't need to have a baby ever or until she gets her life together. It makes absolutely no sense for a woman to have a baby if she won't be able to care for it unless of course she has been raped by some selfish guy who cares only about pleasuring himself regardless of how the woman could be effected. Therefore I will rest my case on the fact that Abortion should only be allowed if the woman has been raped or if the pregnancy is endangering the child and its mother's life because as far as i'm concerned Abortion is murder if it isn't related to these two circumstances.,-1,a woman's right to choose,all,abortion,no,no,pro,pro
"Great, another forfeiter. As someone who has debated abortion before, I will put a link to my original abortion debate right here: http://www.debate.org... I will be using arguments that I used from that debate here, so if you have any questions about my argument, simply read my original arguments. (1) First of all, I would like to define an abortion. “Abortion is the termination ofpregnancy by the removal or expulsion from theuterus of afetus orembryo beforeviability. An abortion can occur spontaneously, in which case it is often called amiscarriage, or it can be purposelyinduced. The term abortion most commonly refers to the induced abortion of a human pregnancy. After viability, the relevant procedure is referred to as a ‘late termination of pregnancy’ Modern medicine utilizes medications and surgical procedures for induced abortion.” From Wikipedia Great. Now that we all know what abortion is, I would like to bring up that Abortion is a right in many countries. Almost every country in the world have abortion that is legal to a degree. Often countries allow abortions only in special cases, like rape, fetal defects and maternal health. Only 6 countries refuse to give abortions under any circumstance. However, many countries allow abortions for any reason. “The landmark abortion case Roe v. Wade, decided on Jan. 22, 1973 in favor of abortion rights, remains the law of the land. The 7-2 decision stated that the Constitution gives ‘a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy,’ and that ‘This right of privacy... is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.’ ” Abortion in many countries is considered a civil right and taking away a right is not a good thing. Why? Simple. Discrimination. Anti-Abortion laws discriminate against rape-victims. Not only is it unfair to the mother but it is also unfair to the child. Imagine growing up with a mother who didn’t want you. This would be very bad. Any ways, I have to wrap things up. Thanks DDD. http://abortion.procon.org...",1,a debate over whether or not one should have an abortion,all,abortion,no,no,neutral,neutral
"Thanks for instigating. Since this is only for acceptance and a brief review on my contentions, we’ll make this round quick. But first some definitions relevant to the debate: Abortion- Induced termination of a pregnancy with destruction of the embryo or fetus. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Murder- The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Contentions: C1: Abortion is NOT murder Since my opponent’s main case relies on abortion being murder, it will also be my obligation to negate his contention. If I’ve fulfilled this obligation, you must negate the resolution. In this premise, I will also be arguing that murder can be justified and morally acceptable to society. Not all killings are morally wrong. I will also attempt to argue that even if abortion ends a life, it’s still morally acceptable, in some circumstances. C2: Valuing Women’s Rights I will show that a mother has rights over her body and privacy, and that it is more important to save the mother than the unborn fetus if both lives are at stake. C3: Abortion happens regardless of legality I’ll be proving in this premise that illegalizing abortion is a bad idea and a disadvantage to society and may lead to bad consequences and events. C4: Abortion is a right For my last contention, I will attempt to finally argue that a woman has a right to abort a child. I reserve the right to expand, drop and add more contentions whenever necessary to the debate. Thank you.",1,termination of a pregnancy,all,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"Abortion does indeed kill a child. Yet, the death of a young child before birth could save the child of a painful life. Even if the baby feels this pain for seconds, it will never remember it. This is why a child is circumcised so young. Either way, a child born into poverty or born of a rape victim in many cases will end up having a life worth than death, and end up dying later on of neglect or starvation.",1,the intentional killing of a human fetus,all,abortion,yes,no,neutral,con
"1. then people shouldn't do it... or at least were a condom 2. In the depression people made home made abortions. I don't know how to get videos on here so just put this url link up. (no pun intended) http://www.youtube.com... 3. What about the basic human rights. The right to live. It is inbeded in the Constitution so abortion would all-in-all be against the law. 4. post-abortion stress. my source for this is, http://postabortionsyndrome.org..., 5. now here's the pun, LordKnuckle said, ""I see everyone for abortion has already been born."" 6. How would you feel if you'd been aborted. Nothing cause you wouldn't of existed. 7. The baby is alive when the heart first beats. 8. What would happen if some of the greatest people in history were aborted. overval sources: http://www.youtube.com... http://postabortionsyndrome.org...",-1,1,all,abortion,no,no,neutral,neutral
"In my opinion, abortion is morally and ethically wrong, and should be illegal except in the case of extenuating circumstances, (explained later). Abortion being legal only teaches our society that rather then dealing with an accident or mistake, you can simply give some money to a doctor in order to ""fix"" the problem. Sure, there are arguments based on the fact that a fetus is not technically a human being yet, and that by aborting it, we are not denying its natural rights to life. But in all honesty, who are we to judge that. Sex, birth, and life are all natural processes, and the more we tamper with them, the worse the consequences will be. I feel that abortion simply makes people lazier. Rather then taking responsibility for what they have done, they'd rather deny a potential human being its right to life, because they do not want the responsibility of taking care of him/her.",-1,"the termination of pregnancy by the removal, or expulsion from the uterus, of a fetus or embryo",all,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"To use the term baby is incorrect a child born at 24 weeks after fertilization is a human, while one in womb at 37 weeks is not. So you can't say that 'the baby has no chance at life'. However the mother still has a say in whether or not she gives birth. But, if you want to think about it from the child's point of view, the child will feel like it was a mistake everyone hates. Personally I would rather die than think that my own mother didn't even want me. This topic is so conditional that you can't say 'It was the mothers own fault to decide to go out and get pregnant with out protection.' You can be on the pill and use a condom, there is still a chance of getting pregnant. However slim, there is a chance. And I don't agree with 'the only option' you give. A mother has free agency. She should be allowed to choose. And the consequences should not be determined by the state. Whatever God one believes in or your own guilt is by far a worse punishment. Not to mention the mothers who give birth because they are given no other option might go beat the child they were forced to give life. And back to the rape topic. I want the option to be selfish sometimes! Everyone does. And if you take away the option of abortion some of these people who were forced into this situation people might start doing abortions unprofessionally to make a quick dollar. Lets face it, it will happen. And if its not professionally done bad things can happen, its guaranteed to happen, as it does with any medical procedure.",1,the termination of a pregnancy by any means other than giving birth,all,abortion,no,yes,neutral,neutral
"""But a fetus isn't a fetus until 8 weeks into the pregnancy."" You apparently are not well-versed in human reproduction. The Zygote exists for only four days, then turns into a blastocyst on the fifth day. ""Day 1: Conception: Of the 200,000,000 sperm that try to penetrate the mother's egg cell, only one succeeds.2 At that very moment, a new and unique individual is formed. All of the inherited features of this new person are already set – whether it's a boy or girl, the color of the eyes, the color of the hair, the dimples of the cheeks and the cleft of the chin. He or she is smaller than a grain of sugar, but the instructions are present for all that this person will ever become. The first cell soon divides in two. Each of these new cells divides again and again as they travel toward the womb in search of a protected place to grow.3 Day 6-14:The new individual at first attaches loosely to the wall of the womb, then burrows deeply and attaches securely to it over the next week. Sensitive pregnancy tests can now show positive, but this depends on the level of hormone produced by the new life. By the end of the second week, the mother's menstrual period is suppressed by this hormone (hCG) which is produced by her child.4 Day 17:Blood vessels begin to form.4 Remarkably, the future sex cells that will give rise to sperm or eggs for a new generation begin to group together - only 17 days after this new life is alive itself.5 Day 18-20:The foundations of the brain, spinal cord, and nervous system are laid.6 Day 21:The heart begins to beat,7 unsurely at first, gaining strength day by day. The heart beats 70 times per minute at first, reaching a maximum of 170-190 at seven weeks, and slowing a bit to 160-180 at 9 weeks.8 A day later the eyes begin to develop. The earliest stages of the ears are now present.9 Day 26-27:The lungs now begin to form.10 Day 28-32:Two tiny arms make their appearance and budding legs follow two days later.11 The beginnings of the mouth take shape.12 The nose starts to develop.13 The thyroid gland begins to grow. Blood flows in the baby's veins but stays separate from the mother's blood. The tongue now begins to form. The face now makes its first appearance.14 Day 36:The baby's eyes develop their first color in the retina (see photo above, right).15 Day 40:The baby makes her first reflex movements. Touching around the mouth with a fine bristle causes her to flex her neck.16 Day 41:The fingers begin to form, followed by the toes a few days later.17 Day 42:The baby develops nerve connections that will lead to a sense of smell. The brain is now divided into 3 parts – one to experience emotion and understand language, one for hearing and one for seeing. 18 Joints begin to form.19 Mother now misses second period. Day 44:Buds of milk teeth appear. Facial muscles develop.20 Eyelids begin to form, protecting the developing eyes.21 Elbows take shape. Internal organs are present, but immature. 99% of muscles are present; each with its own nerve supply.22 Electrical activity is detectable in brain.23 Day 52:Spontaneous movement begins. The baby then develops a whole collection of moves over the next 4 weeks including hiccupping, frowning, squinting, furrowing the brow, pursing the lips, moving individual arms and legs, head turning, touching the face, breathing (without air), stretching, opening the mouth, yawning, and sucking.24 8 Weeks:The baby is now well-proportioned, and about the size of a thumb. Every organ is present. The liver is making blood, the kidneys function, and the heart beats steadily. The skull, elbows, and knees are forming. Of the 4500 structures in the adult body, 4000 are already present.25 The skeleton of the arms and legs and the spine begins to stiffen as bone cells are added."" Is it right to kill it? http://abortionfacts.com...",-1,the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a nonviable fetus,all,abortion,no,yes,neutral,neutral
"True, but it is not our choice to decide who lives and who dies, and especially not who never even has a chance to live. We cannot see into the future, therefore we cannot know what kind of life that child will have, we just have to hope for the best. Everyone knows that life is not easy, and abortion doesn't mean we are ""saving"" these potential children from it. I'm not going to be a hypocrite and say ""don't have sex before marriage,"" because that is no longer the norm. However, if you are going to have sex before marriage, you should know, accept, and be aware of the potential consequences. I feel that the possibility of abortion causes people to make even worse decisions, because its basically telling our society that ""any problem can be fixed with money."" You had sex and you get pregnant, but luckily for you, you don't have to deal with it. Instead, you can just pay a doctor to ""take care"" of it.",-1,the act of terminating a pregnancy by means of an operation,all,abortion,no,yes,neutral,neutral
Abortion sounds silly the way its spelt... heh heh,1,a very serious subject that is not funny at all,all,abortion,no,no,con,neutral
"Hello MUNER287. I will accept your challenge. Abortion. An emotive issue. Including expressions such as ""stripping a fetus"" in any dialogue is sure to raise eyebrows. I'm more pragmatic though, I always prefer to take a more realistic, godless approach to such issues. Let me ask you a few questions. At what point do you think a fetus becomes aware of existence? That is to say. We do not fear death itself, what we fear is non-existence. So does a fetus have knowledge of life and death? Can a fetus fear non-existence?",1,the removal of a fetus or embryo from the uterus,all,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"//sorry about that I was thinking of something else. If a baby is born ill he will never live I normal life. something becomes living once the sperm and eggs touch but, If a baby is born ill he will never live I normal life.// So, if you are ill, and not normal, this provides grounds to kill? A man without working legs has a hard life, and therefore can be killed? //the good things about abortion is both the parents and the kid do not have to go through all the hardships of an extremely ill person. Imagine if you had to go through not even be able to talk and not now who anybody you have known for a long time is. Imagine that,Imagine that.// I'd rather have a baby alive than dead, no matter what. Abortion is the killing of a baby -- 99% of the time for illegitimate reasons. Less than one percent of abortions are for the good of the baby, mother, or due to rape and incest. THat makes over 40 million abortions a year unjustified.",-1,the deliberate killing of an unborn child,all,abortion,no,no,con,con
"Abortion is wrong because it is a direct interference with God's work which is to say the creation of human life. For someone to say that they want to murder their newborn child because they never wanted it in the first place is absolutely heinous and vulgar. There is a far better alternative to abortion known as adoption, and unlike abortion it doesn't pose any threat to the child's life. Though it should be noted that women may not have the same experience when putting their child up for adoption it is still a more humane decision and doesn't involve butchering an innocent child. By the way have you ever thought of what the baby might think about being murdered mercilessly if its ability to speak and comprehend was fully developed? Probably not because as far as your concerned a newborn is just an ignorant fool that is only here for you to do whatever you please with. Abortion also decreases the birth rate which must remain at a stable and constant rate in order to ensure the continuation of our species in the event of a thermonuclear war or some other cataclysm that could thrust mankind towards the brink of extinction.",-1,the deliberate destruction of a fetus,all,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"OK so you said I failed to tell you why the fetus/baby is a human and your right but I will now tell you why it is a human being going off of several definitions Human being: a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance. Human being: A member of any of the races of Homo sapiens; person; man, woman, or child You see these do not state the fact that the fetus/baby has to be born yet. It is a child (Human being) a female to start off and then either stays a female or develops male-like features. therefore going back to the murder statement: Murder: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. since we have now established that the fetus/baby is a human being you can now see that this is in fact murder. the fetus/baby (human being) is being sucked out (killing the fetus/baby) by another human being. Although you could say it is Justifiable Homicide (only if the abortion is legal in most cases it is) there is no difference between when abortion was illegal and now when it is legal besides the fact that it is legal. there is a slight difference between murder and Justifiable Homicide. but the thing is, is it really justifiable besides the fact that it is now legal to kill an innocent fetus/baby. You can not say that it isn't innocent, because it hasn't done anything, the father did something continuing on I am also going to go on to your rape statement along with the murder and justifiable homicide. If a teenager is raped and she gets pregnant (now this is rare for a teenager to get pregnant from a rape so you can barely make this point but I will address it anyways) who is there to blame, the father, not the child. The teenager is living with her parents and in this case there are several people who can in fact take care of the child. even if they are poor the teenager and parent(s) can take care of child giving the baby more support than a wanting child. If the teenager is too scared to take care of a child she decides to get an abortion but, can it be justified besides it being a legal abortion JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE: That which is committed with the intention to kill, or to do a grievous bodily injury, under circumstances which the law holds sufficient to exculpate the person who commits it. 2. It is justifiable, 1. When a judge or other magistrate acts in obedience to the law. 2. When a ministerial officer acts in obedience to a lawful warrant, issued by a competent tribunal. 3. When a subaltern officer, or soldier, kills in obedience to the lawful commands of his superior. 4. When the party kills in lawful self-defence. 3.-1. A judge who, in pursuance of his duty, pronounces sentence of death, is not guilty of homicide; for it is evident, that as the law prescribes the punishment of death for certain offences, it must protect those who are entrusted with its execution. A judge, therefore, who pronounces sentence of death, in a legal manner, on a legal indictment, legally brought before him, for a capital offence committed within his jurisdiction, after a lawful trial and conviction, of the defendant, is guilty of no offence. 4.-2. Magistrates, or other officers entrusted with the preservation of the public peace, are justified in committing homicide, or giving orders which lead to it, if the excesses of a riotous assembly cannot be otherwise be repressed. 5-2. An officer entrusted with a legal warrant, criminal or civil, and lawfully commanded by a competent tribunal to execute it, will be justified in committing homicide, if, in the course of advancing to discharge his duty, he be brought into such perils that, without doing so, he cannot either save his life, or discharge the duty which he is commanded by the warrant to perform. And when the warrant commands him to put a criminal to death, he is justified in obeying it. 6.-3. A soldier on duty is justified in committing homicide, in obedience to the command of his officer, unless the command was something plainly unlawful. 7.-4. A private individual will, in many cases, be justified in committing homicide, while acting in self-defense. See Self-defense. Vide, generally, It's not any of these reason's its a justifiable homicide besides the fact that it is because it is some how legal. she's not defending herself (no one is coming at her) she's not a solider she's not a officer she's not a judge now going back to the human being definition: there by it can't be a mammal because of the difference between a human being and a mammal, that a fetus is developing even before the mother aborts the fetus/baby. OK the nutrition part. Why is there two different things, because they need different things because they are developing differently. Why is it in two different spots, because the baby is inside the mother for nine months and outside afterwards. She's not stealing those things either. when you get your period it's preparing your body for pregnancy some of those stuff is just for pregnancy. the body is for pregnancies. You can't say the baby is taking away and it's not right because your womb prepared for it not so you can kill the baby and say it was taking away the nutrition and now it's your right to kill it, just because you can.",-1,the killing of a fetus/baby by another human being,all,abortion,no,no,con,con
"abor�tion 1: the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: as a: spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation — compare miscarriage b: induced expulsion of a human fetus c: expulsion of a fetus by a domestic animal often due to infection at any time before completion of pregnancy (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Abortion cannot be defined as murder, as it doesn't always involve the induced death of an embryo or fetus. Embryo: The organism in the early stages of growth and differentiation from fertilization to, in humans, the beginning of the third month of pregnancy. After that point in time, it is termed a fetus. (http://www.medterms.com...) 1.a. An organism in its early stages of development, especially before it has reached a distinctively recognizable form. b. An organism at any time before full development, birth, or hatching. 2.a. The fertilized egg of a vertebrate animal following cleavage. b. In humans, the prefetal product of conception from implantation through the eighth week of development. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...) Murder: 1: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) In order for my opponent's first statement to be valid: ""Abortion is murder and it should be illegal."", abortion would have to first be illegal, and murder would have to be redefined in the US Code as the taking of human life including at the earliest stages of development. Abortion is a medical procedure, and should only be defined by medical doctors. In modern American history, the Christian Right has attempted to sequester this medical procedure and redefine it according to their own morals with complete disregard for the consequences of illegalizing abortion, the toll it will have on adoption rates in the US which are already dismal, and the social consequences of perpetuating a rise in illegal abortions. My opponent claims that an alternative for abortion is adoption. There are perpetually about 500,000 kids in foster care each year. With all the movement in and out of foster care, there is a constant 130,000 children awaiting adoption. In total, in 2007, 783,000 children were in the foster care system at some point. Only about 50,000 American children are adopted every year (http://www.acf.hhs.gov...). Abortion is currently LEGAL. In 2005, 1.21 million abortions were performed, down from 1.31 million in 2000. From 1973 through 2005, more than 45 million legal abortions occurred. What would my opponent propose happen with this rise in unwanted children if already there are only 50,000 adoptions per year in the US? An extra 1.2 million children born per year would be disastrous to our economy, our orphanages, and the children doomed to live their lives in these institutions. (http://www.guttmacher.org...). My opponent states that the ""only reason why there should be an abortion is in case the baby is acting as a cancer and its killing the mother"". I refute that my opponent can make this claim because he cannot get into the heads of millions of women who have had, and do have abortions and discern for them whether or not they had a good reason to have an abortion. Even lacking this argument, my opponent ignores the conditions of rape and incest. Who will father these children? Will he? Who will provide psychiatric support for these women- too often children themselves- who have been violated and impregnated by disgusting criminals? Who will provide the psychiatric support for the children themselves when they are born? My opponent ignores several issues related to illegalizing abortion, besides the ones I have mentioned above. Illegalizing abortion would not lower abortion rates, rather it will raise illegal abortion rates, and the mortality rates associated with abortion. In 1972, a year before abortion became legal, there were a reported 130,000 illegal abortions. From 1975-1979 there were 11,300 illegal abortions reported. (http://findarticles.com...) Repealing Roe v. Wade (one of the steps required to illegalize abortion) would most likely result in a rise in illegal abortions. Now, rather than opposing the right of a woman and her doctor to choose what she should do medically with her own body, we should be advocating education of controceptive use, education in alternatives to abortion, laws that would ease adoption rather than make it more difficult (like the recent Arkansas Unmarried Couple adoption ban, http://ballotpedia.org...(2008), and help for single mothers and families living in poverty. It is this work that helps reduce the number of annual abortions, and reducing the number of annual abortions should be everyone's goal rather than attacking the rights of a woman, and a medical procedure while not being medically qualified to judge what is and isn't good for the human body, what defines human life, and what is or isn't ethical/unethical in medicine. Thank you.",1,the process of a female mammal giving birth to a dead or non-viable offspring,all,abortion,no,yes,neutral,neutral
Round 1 = Acceptance Round 2 = Arguments For/Against Abortion Round 3 = Rebuttals,-1,a discussion where you and your opponent have to go back and forth on whether or not abortion should be legal,all,abortion,no,no,neutral,neutral
"Oh when you challenged to a debate on abortion I did not realise you wanted to limit the scope to the US. However that should not effect my response as Harry has given me something to read and ponder though as I have no knowledge of the constitution I may misstep. Fantastic argument, I take it the persons referenced would be alive. Living, breathing, cognitive? That's who it seems to have been written to protect. Without mention of the foetus its impossible to infer much and hard for you to tack it onto abortion then say 'see'. Besides I could use the same amendment as a protection of the woman's right of access to abortion if I were being flippant. If you are advocating a total ban on all abortion no matter what the circumstances and life to be at conception please state it as you have been unclear on the boundaries you are working by and want me to argue against. I state that it is a woman's right to abortion. We can set parameters that are agreed but that right is fundamental. Banning has never stopped abortion and rather than force women to term, which you would have to do to eliminate the procedure, progressive societies protect the rights of the woman first and foremost. To not do so is to tell half of the human race that they are inferior to the other half which is ridiculous.",1,the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo before its viability,all,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"Abortion should never be accepted in any culture, whether religious or not, I fail to see how anyone can be pro killing unborn babies. The issue on preserving the wildlife is more argued for than the issue on saving humans lives and I feel that is the biggest flaw in our country.",-1,the intentional termination of a pregnancy,all,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"I thank Con again for his response and a lovely debate. Contention 1: I would first like to look at different definitions of a human being or a human. Defined by The Free Dictionary, human being is ""a member of any of the races of Homo sapiens; person; man, woman, or child"". Now child is defined by the same source as ""a person between birth and puberty."" Basically, that means a fetus in hot a human being. We can check other definitions too. Dictionary.com says a human being is ""any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens."" It defines individual as ""a single human being, as distinguished from a group."" Again, a single human being is not a fetus. Why? A fetus technically is a part of it's mother until it is able to live outside the uterus. I believe I have proved that the embryo/fetus is not a human being which is why it doesn't have the right to life. They two people responsible have the power to revoke their own product. Thus, they aren't baby-making machines. Also another fallacy is that you believe that the person who pressed the baby-making machine must take the child. However, this is not the case with abortion. It is not a child yet. It was not born yet. It is being slowly formed and the parent has the right to revoke its existence. My opponent doesn't understand that the unborn don't have the right to life due to them not having the access to the Constitution. Illegal immigrants are already born and have the right to life. However, they don't have the right to stay in the USA because of the Constitution. To be clear, I believe that personality and rationality are needed for human beings to be considered human beings. I would not like to go into euthanasia right now. However, the main reason why a fetus's presence may be revoked is because they are living inside a human being. The idea is so ridiculous that the condition is obviously that the human being can revoke the presence of the fetus. We aren't arguing on the morality of abortion. We are arguing on the fetus being a human being. Contention 2: Abortion is about the recognized right to reproduce against the fetus's right to retain in a recognized human being's body. A woman has the right to her own body as long as it's not illegal and it doesn't infringe on another's right. A woman's confirmed right to reproduce beats the controversial debated right to life by the fetus. Contention 3: Illegal abortion rates since 1960 will obviously increase. Today, abortions are very common and if it were made illegal, illegal abortions would be extremely common. My opponent has committed a fallacy assuming that illegal abortions in 1960 will affect us today if abortion was illegal since 52 years have had much change. Cross-examination: Viability causes the right to life which overrules the right to reproduce. The unborn are not human beings but are human. I would say that each time of viability is unique and to not assume that it's based on weeks but instead at the time when the fetus is viable. Also this isn't a moral debate. The reason I ignored your question about the illegal drug is because it's illegal which is why it is wrong to take the drug. Rebuttal: I'd like to say my opponent has made several appeals to different people and that if I use Joyce Arthur and it's an appeal to authority, then my opponent has done much more of what he accused me of doing. Also I would like to state that nobody knows for certain. They do believe that they know but it's not confirmed and people will always disagree as I've made the argument. Also the benefit of doubt should go to confirmed life which is the mother and her right instead of the fetus. I'd also like to state that your analogies are irrelevant as the fetus is not a human being but a human within a human being. Being human doesn't equate to a human being. I'm sorry about this case. I was very busy especially with school starting. I apologize for my case. Great job to Keytar. Vote Pro. Sources: http://dictionary.reference.com... http://dictionary.reference.com... being http://www.thefreedictionary.com... being http://www.thefreedictionary.com...",1,the process of the mother's body removing the fetus from her womb,all,abortion,no,no,neutral,neutral
"Contention 1Pro's definitions are largely irrelevant. I have made a scientific case for why the unborn are human beings, which Pro has not refuted. I have also given quotes by embryologists, the experts in the field, and Pro could not produce one embryologist that dissented. Of course, I expected as much because embryologists consistently agree that a new human being exists at fertilization. Also, it should be noted that according to the second definition of child that Pro provided himself, the definition is ""an unborn infant; a fetus. "" So even according to the dictionary, a fetus is a child and by extension, also fits the definition of ""human being"" that Pro, himself, provided. I have proven in spades that the unborn is a separate human entity from fertilization. The fetus is not part of its mother until viability. If this were the case, the pregnant woman would have two heads, four legs, four arms, two noses, and roughly half the time, a penis and two testicles. Also, the unborn embryo/pre-viability fetus has different fingerprints than the mother and often a different bloodtype. Also, you can conceive a white embryo through IVF and implant him into a black woman, and the child will still be born white. I have committed no fallacies, and Pro, unfortunately, did not point out which fallacy he believed I was committing. Pro admits that the person who made the baby in the baby-making machine is now responsible for the child. By extension, if a man and woman engage in an act they know has a chance of producing a child, they now bear responsibility for that child. I contend that it's Pro who actually doesn't understand the Constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment is about citizenship, not the right to life. Illegal immigrants still have a right to life, despite not being U. S. citizens. The unborn also have the right to life, despite not yet being citizens (and as I pointed out previously, prior to Roe v. Wade the unborn were considered persons legally protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. Pro asserts that rationality and personality are needed for human beings to be considered human beings, but they are baseless. He offers no reasons to support his claims so we can reject them. Conversely, I have offered plenty of evidence that the unborn are human beings from fertilization. I have also shown why the woman does not simply have the right to ""revoke"" the presence of the fetus from inside her body. She bears responsibility for bringing a naturally needy child into existence (the man does, too, of course). If you bring a naturally needy child into existence then you bear responsibility for caring for that child. Contention 2Pro does not give strong justification for why the woman's right to reproduce trumps the fetus' right to life. I have already shown that the fetus is a full-fledged human. One's right to reproduce does not trump one's right to life, which is the most fundamental of all rights. Additionally, once fertilization happens she has already reproduced. Contention 3I have committed no fallacy here (and Pro has not mentioned which fallacy he believes I am making). Pro also gives no sources to back up his claims here, so they can be rejected. I believe that women are generally law-abiding citizens, so I'm not convinced they would all flock to abortionists to have illegal abortions. But even if they did, that doesn't mean that abortions should stay legal. After all, murder and rape happen even though they are illegal. That doesn't mean we should legalize it. Cross-ExaminationPro has still offered no reason for why viability should give a right to life. The entity before viability is the same entity post-viability. Why is it that a being must be able to live independently that gives it a right to life? This would mean that a born person on life support would not have a right to life, even if they have a good chance of recovering. Also, as I have shown viability is an arbitrary line to draw. Viability decreases as technology improves. RebuttalThe reason Pro's reference to Joyce Arthur is an appeal to authority is because he gave no reasons to support his claims. He used Joyce Arthur as his argument, rather than supporting it. I gave actual scientific and philosophical reasoning to support the case that the unborn are full-fledged humans from fertilization. Plus, Joyce Arthur is not a scientist. Specifically, she's not an embryologist. I gave quotes by embryologists, who are the experts on human embryology to support my case. Pro also ignores my analogies, so I extend them. It's simply ridiculous not to answer them for his reasons. I might as well say Judith Jarvis Thomson's violinist analogy is irrelevant because you're plugged into a violinist, you're not pregnant in the analogy. This is simply a ridiculous objection. That's the exact purpose of an analogy, to show a comparison between one thing and another, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification. Once again, I'd like to thank Pro for this intriguing debate. I believe I have made my case and defended it from scrutiny. Thank you for reading.",-1,the act of causing the death of a fetus or infant,all,abortion,no,no,neutral,con
"Sorry, this took longer to revise than I thought. Shall we go on?As agreed to legal is defined as something that is allowed and permitted by law. This is important because if something is illegal then there won't be ANY exceptions to that rule, no situations will be fit for an abortion legally. The structure of my argument is three-fold. One will be dealing with the morality of the action itself, the second one will deal with special exceptions to which my opponent has somewhat conceded to and the third one will deal with how far legal actions can go. In order to win the debate my opponent must not only prove that there is no morally acceptable situation in which abortion is the answer but also that the best way to fight abortion is with legal constraints, he must defend ALL RESOLUTION CONDITION that I'll put forth. With that in mind, let us move on to the first section:MORALITYImagine this if you will: You've just finished your higher education and are free, you have perhaps a year to see the world and experience everything you have not already experienced. You want to love, be loved, be care free and enjoy life. This is a rather rational wish, isn't it? What are you going to do if I come along and lock the door and tell you that you are not allowed to go anywhere, that you cannot live your dreams to your fullest and chain you to your house. Would you consider me to be breaking your human rights? Of course I would be. You'd most likely sue me for breaking your freedom of life. You never had a chance to live your dreams. Did I violate your right? Is it morally correct of me to obligate you to abandon your dreams? Of course it isn't. But this is happening every day everywhere and we cannot deny that. But what if the “I” in this story is replaced with an infant. Is it still morally incorrect? Is it still morally correct to force a woman to abandon her life and dreams and force her to birth a child she does not want to have, essentially trying her to her house? No, the scenario in it's core is unchanged. It is her body and legally obligating her to having the child and denying her her right to choose is just as immoral as my first scenario. On what grounds? The rights of the unborn infant?Why is it so that my opponent will argue that the right of a random cluster of cells that have just as much independent life as a small part of your skin has more right than the mother? The cell cluster has no thoughts, it is not self-aware, it cannot think, does not have feelings, does not show signs of sentient life and is in no definition of the word more human than the bacteria in your intestine. Yet my opponent indirectly wishes to argue that it has priority, that it's rights are somehow “more important” than the rights of the mother who does show all signs of intelligent life, human emotions and the ability to be self-aware. What makes her rights so much lesser than the rights of the child? Since we cannot keep the human rights valid for both parents and children my opponent must answer the following question to win: Why is the unborn infant more worthy of human rights than the parent?A child is not a human any more than a blueprint is a house. it has all the potentials to be a house, but it isn't a house. demolishing an already built structure just so the blueprint gets a chance to be a house as well is absurd. Abortion, under con's set of arguments, is just as moral as violating human rights, so which would you rather choose?When is it “ok” to abort? Assuming that abortion becomes illegal in all cases: Will there be no exceptions? My opponent wishes that rape abortion is still legal. On what grounds? Why is that still legal? Is there in fact a difference?Be careful however: because I am going to tell you right now that this is a trick question: for I am going to use whatever you answer against you. There are a minuscule amount of answers that are fitting for rape-pregnancies that are not ALSO compatible with regular pregnancies. So, either my opponent finds a great reason for abortion in case of rape that does not fit at some level with a regular abortion or he falls from his case and fights that all abortions are illegal. This leads us to the first major contradiction in my opponents case. When we're not talking about rape a fetus has potential, it might live a great life, could be given away to an orphanage and has rights that must not be violated, its murder. But when the child is a result of rape, it has no potential? What makes this child right less? It had nothing to do with the rape, it's not it's fault. Why should it be discriminated against when some other fetus has all the rights in the world? Does the history of the father make this child any worse? Is it evil and deserves to die because it has a rapist father? It's the same child, it has the same rights, abortion is not an exception. Any set of logic that my opponent can find to protect or diminish rape infants will also hold for infants that are not a rape result if my opponent cannot defend the “paradox” that a child that is the result of rape has less human rights than any other child, he has lost the debate.But we still have an unaddressed issue: My female friend. See, I have a female friend. She unfortunately isn't perfectly healthy: and should not try and complete a pregnancy since doing so will most likely result in her health worsening or she simply dies from physical trauma. Let's assume she becomes pregnant. Are you to expect it from her to actually carrying trough with her pregnancy and risking her life? If the government forces her to finish it and she dies. The government is now guilty of the murder of a young woman that could have been avoided. Why should she not have an abortion? It is literally the only method for her, the only option that does NOT result in a bad ending. What does my opponent want to do for my friend? Is legal banning a solution?The law is meant to be broken. This isn't something that is generally supported or correct, but it is still so. The harder we press to ban a certain matter the more active it gets. You can look at drug abuse and prostitution to see that. It's still peaking again and again, underground it flows like water and we cannot stop it, we cannot monitor it. Whatever is banned becomes black market material. Abortion is no different. Abortion is LEGAL and still over 700.000 die from ILLEGAL operations[1]. If abortion is banned illegal operations will only increase, will only spiral out of control. When something is legal we have a chance to monitor it, tax it and make sure safety regulations and health conditions are always met to protect the mother for instance. with abortion becoming black we can no longer monitor it, it becomes hidden, unsafe and dangerous. Think clamping the limbs and dragging them out is bad? Sticking a metal coat hanger inside the genitalia of the woman and scraping the child out is much worse and the child STILL dies. We now have a third condition:If my opponent cannot explain how illegal operations can be dealt with in a safe, efficient manner, he has lost the debate.I'll cover adoption in my next round: I just ran out of room for now. I hope you see that abortion is in fact moral when we shift the perspective. The mother is in danger, she might have been raped, her human rights are on the line, she is looking at a nearly $241,080 expense and a lifetime of unwanted commitment. And for what? The rights of a few cells that are not humans in any other sense apart from the potential to become one later on. Because the condom broke, the pill failed, a rape. That is a big fall for a small reason. Choosing between human rights isn't easy, but I hope you all see that the rights of those born should be greater than those that are not born, and are little more than just a blueprint to a house. 1) http://www.genderacrossborders.com......2)http://money.cnn.com...",1,the removal of a fetus or embryo from the uterus in which it is implanted,all,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"First I will present my case. P1: A fetus is a human P2: It is morally wrong to kill a human C: Abortion is wrong P1: A zygote, made at the moment of conception, already has the same attributes needed to be alive. It has metabolism, growth, reacts to stimulants, and reproduction cells. It has human DNA. A fetus is a homosapien, therefore they are a human. P2: This ones kind of obvious, I hope you agree. Conclusion: Abortion is killing a human, therefore it is wrong. Sources F. Beck, D. B. Moffat, and D. P. Davies, Human Embryology, Second edition . http://abortionfacts.com... THE THREE QUESTIONS I await your response.",-1,the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo,all,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"(3 rounds in 72 hours) Abortion is Murder no matter what people say. As soon as the baby is created it is has a soul. People say a baby is not a baby until it is born; as in breathing air, eating food, and can see the world. People say it is the women's choice whether or not to abort. People can say things but that doesn't mean its true. A baby or if you want to call it a fetus is feeding off of you but that doesn't mean it is part of you. You shouldn't have the choice to murder you child or not. You aren't giving her/him a chance to live. If you can't seriously take care of your baby, put it up for adoption, don't kill him/her because you were irresponsible and became pregnant when you didn't want to/or couldn't take care of her/him.",-1,the act of killing a baby before it is born,all,abortion,no,no,con,con
"How is abortion not murder. It is wrong to things like this. I understand that if a mother does not want to have a baby, but maybe they will learn something. Thank you for this argument. You were good.",-1,the act of a woman having an abortion,all,abortion,no,yes,neutral,neutral
"Sorry that my rebuttal took so long, I have been busy Regarding the questions I ""avoided"" 1) Do you regard all life with an equal measure? No, I do not believe all existing life is equal to our human life. Bacteria are alive, however they are not equal to human life. 2) Do you eat? If so, you are prepared to extinguish the spark of life out of necessity and Impunity. Yes, however this does not correlate with abortion. The only justifiable reason for abortion is the mother not being able to endure giving birth. This is a life and death situation, so is eating. If you don't eat you die, however how is having a child a life and death situation? I do understand a child is a financial burden, but couples can easily avoid pregnancy. I stated that life is intangible, not tangible. Now let's go to my supposed double standards. OUR, as in humans. If you would have taken a minute to analyze the last paragraph you would have realized I'm talking about human life. Social legislation should be guided by rationale and not driven purely by emotion. Yes, many things mostly economic legislations are and should be guided by rationale. However by stating all legislation should purely be rational is utter nonesense. Murder, rape, cannibalism, and etc are prohibited by law in most of the world, especially western countries. However these fundamental laws are moral and emotional, the emotion that bringing in suffering to another human being is wrong. Many of these things were legal, and even endorsed centuries or in some countries decades ago. As morals change, laws change. Why is all life not equal? Have you ever heard of a keystone species, other organisms depend on these organisms, therefore from a logical/moral standpoint these keystone species's life is more valuable than others. Why? Whole ecosystems can crumble if a keystone species is not present or goes extinct. Explain what life is? Life is an organism that presents all 6 characteristics of life. The spark of life in humans is different. https://www.researchgate.net..., browse that page. It states exactly what I wanted to tell you, but couldn't find a way to spend less than 2 hours writing it. Addendum response: Yes and no, in some instances the taking of life is justifiable and in most others not. It is a way too broad question to be able to answer with a yes or a no, as these 2 governments have been doing this for decades.",-1,the act of terminating a pregnancy,all,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"I apologize for the delay. I will be arguing against abortion. I hope that round 1 was not all of Pro's argument but all Pro seems to indicate that abortion is a right. I am unaware of such a right. Since pro did not make many arguments for abortion I will give a brief outline of arguments against abortion and I will try to incorporate some counterclaims as well. Life Begins at ConceptionIt is a foregone conclusion that what is in a mother's stomach is a living being and not simply a body part of the woman's body. End of story. [1]Those who are pro-choice tend to avoid calling to murder by pointing out that since the baby isn't viable it is more justifiable. I am assuming pro is fine with pretty much all forms of abortion that take place because pro did not give any period of time. If we use what I just gave as a reference, babies can become viable sometimes as early as 22 weeks. [2]Even prior to that, why is there any justification for killing a living baby just because it cannot survive on its own? Plus if one were to just wait a few weeks, the baby will become viable. Proponents of abortion, especially those who consider it a right, tend to argue that since abortion is the deliberate termination of a baby in the womb, if the government would outlaw abortion they would be ""forcing"" women to have a baby which is unjust. This is blatantly false. The government is not ""forcing"" people to have babies by preventing the murder of them. The government is simply executing one of its primary roles which is to protect the life of people. The government has every right to prevent people from murdering each other. And guess what? A women has every right to not get pregnant. I look forward to your response. Sources:[1]: . https://www.princeton.edu...[2]: . http://www.nytimes.com...",-1,the termination of a human pregnancy,all,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"I accept. Though I'd like to provide a definition for ""abortion"" and clarify my stance on the issue. Abortion: the termination of a pregnancy by removing the fetus or embro from the woman's uterus before it can survive. In most states, abortion is legal up to around 20 weeks (if I did my research correctly) unless it poses a serious health risk for the woman, in which case exceptions are made to this rule. I will be arguing that we not change the status quo on this issue and that abortion continue to be legal up to around this period of pregnancy.",1,the termination of a pregnancy,all,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"Abortion, despite how it may seem, is not a complicated issue. Either the fetus is alive, and thus is a human life. or it isn't. there are a number of moral arguments to the debate. the first moral argument is that scientifically the human fetus meets the criterion to be considered alive from conception (1)"" Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."" As we can see, the fetus is genetically human and meets every criterion to be considered alive. now that we have established that the human life begins at conception I may be faced with the argument from many in favor of abortion that though the organism forming in the womb is alive (if they don't fully reject the known science thus committing fallacy) that it is not a person. this leads me to moral argument number two which is: even if you don't consider the humanity of the organism in the womb, there are plenty of things that exist that are A. not persons. and B. has rights and intrinsic value, for example, dogs or other domesticated animals. To state that simply because you don't consider the human fetus (which is what I shall be referring to the developing child as hereinafter.) to be a person, does not mean that it does not have rights and value. Furthermore, even if you deny the humanity of the fetus, you are still dealing with a potential human life which should be held in higher moral regard than the convenience of the mother or father. Another argument that many of those on the pro-choice side of the argument is that women have the human right to control their bodies. And I am in complete agreement. When it is your body that you are doing something to then you should have every right to do so insofar as it's not self-harm. However, the human fetus is not your body. It is IN your body. as I stated in my first card in the scientific portion of my argument, the human fetus has a separate genetic identity with the restoration of the diploid number of chromosomes. therefore, the human fetus is not a part of the mother's body any more than the child would be after (s)he was born. I hold that the time to control your body would have been before conception IE: using birth control or not having sexual intercourse. one thing that society appears to have forgotten, is that sex is not for pleasure. it is the biological process through which most species ensure the continuation of their species through reproduction (2). if you choose to partake in an action the purpose of which is to reproduce. (thus controlling your body.) then you accept the risk of conception. Moral argument number 3. does the fetus have any rights, any intrinsic value, and any right to live. well, the collective opinion of society is that the fetus has essentially infinite right to live. when? if and only if the mother decides to keep the child. if she does, society and its laws, regard the fetus with infinite worth and considers it so valuable, that if someone were to kill that child they would be prosecuted for homicide. keeping in mind that the definition of homicide is: the deliberate and unlawful killing of one person by another (3). we can, therefore, see that if the mother decides to keep her child then the law recognizes it as a person. if she doesn't, the fetus is considered worthless with essentially no right to live. now, does that make sense? it doesn't seem to. either the fetus has worth, or it doesn't. on what moral grounds does the mother alone have the right to decide the fetus' worth? most people would consider killing the baby once it exits the womb as murder. however, the deliberate killing of the fetus a mere two months before is no more morally problematic than extracting a tooth. and finally, we need to recognize that there are instances when an abortion simply cannot be considered moral. take for example if the mother or father aborts a child because they prefer boys to girls. as has happened millions of times in China and elsewhere. or any other form of bias or preference of the mother or father simply cannot offer moral grounds for the termination of the human life. I look forward to a rational and well thought out debate and wish my opponent the best of luck. I eagerly await your response. (1) https://www.princeton.edu.................. (2) www.biology-online.org (3)www.dictionary.com",-1,the act of killing an unborn child,all,abortion,no,no,con,con
"Its funny how people against abortion say killing a potential life is wrong, yet the same people eat chicken eggs and call themselves 100 percent vegetarian.",1,the termination of pregnancy,all,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"3. Right to life is appointed to everyone and everything even pets. Why do you think people where POed at Michael Vick when he was doin dog fights 5. theory your website is a theory not a fact, that makes your evidense invaild 6. I never said anything about chemistry, when the babies heart beats that when people know that you're pregnet. 8. abortion isn't ethical just look at Wade V. Boggs 14. you said that abortion lowers chance of reat cancer well you're wrong it raises it by 130% after an abortion now I'm sure women don't want breast cancer if I'm wrong please tell me http://www.deveber.org... a1. first of all know one ever, why don't you tell the aduiance about FAILED ABORTIONS hum?! a2. my opponet hasn't refuted my adoption alternartive a3. with a failed abortion may lead to a prom night dumpster baby. http://www.youtube.com... my attacks. 1. women face emotional difficultis. 2. abortions that fail will lead to several birth defects and defects for the mother 3. increases breast cancer rate by 130% 4. After an abortion, women are more likely to display self-destructive behaviors including suicide 5. lead to depression and guilt for men. 6. abortion reserch is inacurate. my source for this is http://www.deveber.org... thank you and have a happy Martin Luther Day",-1,abortion,all,abortion,no,no,neutral,neutral
"First of all, I would like to say that it is unfortunate that CON waited until the final round to drop details such as the position from which she was debating. I may have chosen to respond differently, but now I cannot because CON would not have any opportunity to rebut my arguments, so I will, once again, do the best I can with what I have. As I’m sure CON recalls, my “illegal killing” argument was a line of argument I said I was not going to take; I mentioned it only to clarify a point. Next, CON went on some sort of tangent about viability, which she never actually tied down to an argument. She claims that a fetus can be viable five weeks after implantation. I am confused by this claim because it is dead wrong. Fetal viability, or the point at which a fetus is able to survive outside the mother’s body [1], is usually put between 24 and 28 weeks [1][2]. Perhaps CON is confusing pregnancy viability with fetal viability. I think CON missed my whole point about giving human status to all vertebrates. Of course it is absurd; that was my point. However, if CON is going to assign personhood based on a heartbeat, that is the logical conclusion. Regarding rape, CON is a walking contradiction. She talks about how we shouldn’t murder babies by aborting them, but it is suddenly OK when the object is to avoid further trauma to the mother. Its either murder or it is not; you can’t have it both ways. I didn’t discuss CON's comments about birth control because they are irrelevant. The claim that women use abortion as their primary form of birth control is a myth. Often times their preferred method of contraception failed [3][4]. CON’s last point is an unsupported claim that “if abortion were no longer an option, birth control would be better utilized, and teen pregnancy would drop.” A source here would be helpful; because I’m pretty sure reality reflects the opposite. I wasn’t able to find figures specifically on teen pregnancy, but in areas of the world where abortion has been criminalized, the abortion rate has not dropped [4][5]. CON has tried to argue that abortion is wrong if the fetus has a heartbeat; I showed why this line of reasoning doesn’t pan out. She then went on to a discussion about viability, however her argument wasn’t properly formed, and I wasn’t able to determine exactly what she was saying. Con’s rape exception shows that her position is rocky at best, and finally her unsupported claim that criminalizing abortion would reduce teen pregnancy seems to be at odds with the available data. Overall, CON has failed to show why abortion should not be legal. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.babymed.com... [3] http://www.prochoice.org... [4] http://www.womenscenter.com... [5] “Induced abortion: incidence and trends worldwide from 1995 to 2008,” The Lancet, Volume 379, Issue 9816, Pages 625 - 632, 18 February 2012",1,the act of removing a fetus from the womb,all,abortion,no,yes,neutral,neutral
Abortion in my opinion is still wrong and should only be allowed if the woman is raped or her life is in danger. A woman should also not even bother having a baby if she knows she won't be able to take care of it unless she has a family member who is able and willing to take care of the child until she can support and raise the child on her own. Another thing that can be done to avoid abortion is to use protection or birth control except in cases of rape so that the child isn't being killed shortly after it's been born. These options are an excellent alternative to abortion in non-rape related cases and also don't involve the murder of an innocent child.,-1,the act of a woman to terminate a pregnancy,all,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"""The greatest destroyer of peace is abortion because if a mother can kill her own child, what is left for me to kill you and you to kill me? There is nothing between,"" says Mother Teresa. Abortion, what does this really mean? The definition of abortion is the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks. About 42 million women in the entire world with unintended pregnancies choose abortion. Abortion is a big controversial topic, people believe abortion should be illegal and others think it should stay legal. Why would someone want to kill an innocent little life? It""s not their fault people made mistakes and now they""re the ones having to pay for it. Abortion should be illegal because abortions are not safe, laws are protecting unborn babies, and fetuses can feel pain. Abortion should have never been legal.",-1,the act of deliberately causing a pregnant woman to miscarry,all,abortion,no,yes,neutral,neutral
"Same here, its my first debate on this site too. **I would just like to clarify that I am talking about first trimester abortion, as my views regarding post -fetal abortion are yet to be determined** Firstly, the fact that a placenta and the umbilical cord attach the fetus shows that the fetus cannot exist independent of the mother. We cannot consider the fetus as an individual entity because it cannot live outside the mother""s womb. Additionally, adoption is not an alternative to abortion, and if so, a rather poor one at that. Statistics show that less than three percent of all women who refuse abortion choose to give their child up for adoption. Even if I concede that adoption is an alternative, what kind of life is that for a child? Adoption generally comes with a negative connotation and with good reason. There is no guarantee that the child will have a family, and the child might get tied up in the foster system. Next, you mentioned the child (fetus""s) right to a choice and having a voice in what happens to them. By prohibiting and dismissing abortion you are in turn taking away the mothers choice and her civil right to control her own body. What is next? Forcing women to use contraceptives or undergo sterilization? Not to mention, in cases of teenage pregnancies, without the option of abortion you are taking away the young woman""s future. Furthermore, you say that being put up for adoption and bounced around the system is better than being dead, but the child was never alive to begin with. Statistics that were found on abortion.us show that pregnant women will resort to illegal and unsafe abortions if a legal option is not available. In many cases abortion is the best option, especially in cases of rape and incest where the child is unwanted and having the child can cause severe psychological problems for both the mother and the child. Children born as a result of incest are at risk of being deformed. We are talking about quality of life, and since a mother has the responsibility of bringing a life into the world, she should in turn have the right or option of an abortion. Finally, all women should have the right to choose to have an abortion, and the government or any religious authority should not limit them.",1,the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy,all,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"I am arguing as for abortion. The reason being is that it is the choice of the woman; and if the man is there, him also; to keep to zygote or not. If they don't then let it be. Another reason is that there might be underlying issues with why the woman wants an abortion; like say if she got raped, or incest. That's why I feel like some one should have the choice to choose if they want to carry the child for nine months, or have the choice to abort it with in the first trimester.",1,the act of deliberately ending a human pregnancy,all,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"Ok, yes rape is terrible and is a very traumatic experience. However it is still murder. God has a plan for all of us (I don't mean to offend anyone if you don't have the same beliefs). God makes everything happen for a reason. Many people say ""don't let others make decisions for you."" This fetus can't make a decision to be killed. People argue that its the woman's body and they can do what they want with it, but it's not their body they are killing. They are killing a whole other person. No one should have the authority to kill such an innocent creature. It is also true that woman die at birth, but woman also die during the abortion. More than 400 hundred woman have died from abortion (not including illegal ones). It saddens me how woman will risk their lives to kill this one. Many mothers cry over losing a child, whether it be to disease, war, car crashes, miscarriage, or gang violence but these mothers are killing their kids before they have even met them. These mothers knowing and willingly let their children die.",-1,the act of killing a child while it is still in the womb,all,abortion,no,no,con,con
"1) ""Society is also built of other people with individual opinions and should also be their personal freedom of choice."" Do you mean the freedom to kill an innocent human life, this freedom cannot be granted. ""Where a legaslative decision allowing abortion has been made, I have to prepare to accept this decision."" So from what I understood you believe we should accept everything our government does. If the government (I""m assuming you are American) decided to make murder legal which is what they are doing, would you prepare to accept that? You can""t accept everything your government does, you cant grant them that power. You believe abortion should be allowed until 10 weeks, but why do more than 90% of abortion occur on the 13th week. Why does the stage of development the fetus is at even matter to you? Your main argument is fetuses haven""t fully developed to become a human being, however newborn babies and even children haven""t fully developed yet. Do you believe killing a baby, or even a kid is fine? 2) A) forced pregnancy arising from a rape situation. Are you aware that less than 0.1% of abortions are caused because of a forced pregnancy. This 0.1% does not justify the killing of millions of human beings. B) An individual or a couple may find themselves unready to cope with parenthood. Given the demands of modern society. In what way unready? C) The financial demands of children may be considered to be overwhelming and unsustainable. The financial state of a family does not determine how good the life of the offspring will be. Many insanely rich people started off poor Oprah Winfrey Howard Schultz Just to name a few. This is no reason to kill a human being 3) All life is not equal, but all life is precious. We have no importance in the greater reality of the universe, but what we are experiencing is our reality, our only reality. Life is intangible, therefore shouldn""t be touched.",-1,the act of killing a human being,all,abortion,no,no,con,con
"""I think you will be surprised to know that livestock animals are only bred and kept for the purposes of their products. They do not exist but to feed us."" The method for abortion was made for abortion. Without it, there would be no abortion. Why not promote cannibalism then? Most humans do not exist for your benefit. Kill them all. Abortion is necessary as it is pre-determined that the foetus will not benefit the family. ""Really? A foetus does not function? The function of a foetus is to develop his characteristics as to be able to perform the functions of a prenatal being."" That function serves no purpose for us. If the child isn't helpful, why does it live? ""Of course, but do animals and plants, in their mature, yea, even their developing stages possess even a fraction of the potential for greatness, a fraction of the potential beneficial impact on the world as a foetus? The answer is no. "" You continue on to say that a sperm and an ovum are unique cells, and we are unique. Yet you forget that many animals reproduce sexually as well. Also, we have more of a potential of harming this world than achieving so called greatness. Before the humans rapid development, animals could roam freely, global warming, waste disposal and pollution weren't major problems. But now, they are big problems, and we are proving harmful for everyone but our own species. ""The probability of your mother meeting your father is 1 in 20,000, the probability of them reproducing is thereafter 1 in 2000."" Where's your source? Ted talks are usually more expressing of opinions than facts. ""There are multiple viable alternatives to this, in the first instance: condoms. In later instances, adoption. No one should be killed for the irresponsibility of his parents."" It could be possible the parents at first wanted the child but later the situation changed and they didn't want it. As for adoption, all parents feel a certain kinship to their own blood, and would feel distressed to send their own child down such a hard part. Who knows whether anyone would adopt the child or not? What if he dies anyway? If he dies due to ill-treatment from foster parents or lack of resources, the parents would be haunted for their entire lives, knowing they killed a fully sentient being. Yet a foetus isn't sentient, and is easy to think of like a disposable seed than a growing crop. Get the idea? You can throw fruit seeds, but you wouldn't want a plant that grew because of you to die because of you. ""I think we should give him or her the best life he or she could possibly hope for. I think we should provide the utmost in palliative care. I mean, by your Hitleresque logic, Stephen Hawking should have been shown mercy and killed as soon as he showed symptoms of motor neurone disease."" Might as well, I don't think there was such a high probability of him being a genius. Not every child turns into a genius, you know. He didn't even make any inventions but just gave some theories. If he is later proved wrong, wouldn't your argument fall? What if it had some sort of contagious disease? Then you are eliminating a threat to society. ""You are incredibly mistaken, the reason we kill these organisms is because their products are very valuable. Vegetables and wood are valuable commodities. Humans, however early in development, are valuable in their own right."" Yet when they fail to be valuable, they must be killed. It works the opposite way for humans, does it not? Kill the baby if you don't need it. Let it live if you need it. ""If you were to crack open an unfertilized chicken egg, you would notice."" There are some eggs that have a faster expiry date than other due to being fertilized. Day 1, 2, and 3 eggs are still sold in some markets. You just killed a potential life for your own pleasure/food. Adoption A parent suffering so many months just to give away the baby seems rather a waste of effort. Plus, foster homes aren't always the best of homes. If the real parents just see the child suffering again, they would feel extremely bad that the doomed it to this fate. It is easier to kill a foetus than allowing a living child to suffer. You may say that parents shouldn't track their child, but natural instinct and blood binds takeover. If the child dies due to ill-treatment, they will surely be reported about it, and that would be sad. Furthermore, adoption is a discreet method, while giving a child to a foster home will attract unwanted attention and call for social retribution and inquisition. ""Freedom is the right of all sentient beings"" prime sentient- able to see, hear, taste, smell, feel http://www.merriam-webster.com... Foetus don't have the 5 senses fully activated yet, therefore freedom is not within their rights. Optimus Prime says so.",1,the act of terminating a pregnancy by removing a fetus or embryo,all,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"Life: The condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter. It took me 5 seconds to find this explanation of life. Why would it take Con 2 hours to write the same. What Con differentiates between, is the value they are prepared to attribute to the lives of different species. and not life itself. This is simply a human centred, selfish disregard for all other species. Life is a singular almost magical property that is present and equal in all species. The questions are. Does life have real value. Is life merely a quirk of evolution Does life have any significance beyond it's Earth bound home. The honest answer to these questions is, we do not know. All we have is theories and theories are guess work. Keystone species: Another and completely different debate really. But I would assert that in proffering this argument,Con exacerbates their misunderstanding and consequent double standards with regard to the value of life. Addendum response: Con's response to this quite simple question is confused to say the least. Either they accept that the taking of human life is justifiable or they do not. They say yes, but then wish to pick and choose which lives they take. Once again, double standards. Which clearly suggests that Con's arguments are based on emotive thought and not logical thought. From a logical and realistic debating standpoint, I would assert that the life contained within an embryo or fetus has exactly the same value as the life contained within a terrorist bomber. Society makes rational collective decisions, that justify the taking of life, whether it be the life of a terrorist or the life of an embryo or undeveloped fetus. Not everyone will agree with those decisions, but accepting those decisions is the price we have to pay to be able to live in a relatively safe and stable society. One day our respective nations may decide to legislate against abortion and I for one will whole heartedly support that decision.",1,the intentional killing of a foetus,all,abortion,no,yes,neutral,con
Definitions: Abortion is defined as the removing and/or expelling of a fetus/embryo. 1. This debate will be done Lincoln-Douglas Style. Round 1: Definitions/Rules Affirmative Constructive/Negative Constructive for Round 2. Round 3: Cross-Examination. Round 4: Affirmative Rebuttal 1/Negative Rebuttal 1. Round 5: Affirmative Rebuttal 2 and Conclusion/Negative Rebuttal 2 and Conclusion.,1,the removal of a fetus,all,abortion,no,yes,neutral,neutral
"Round 1: Opening statements Round 2: Facts/Argument Round 3: Facts/Argument Round 4: Closing statements I look forward to my oppnents opening statements. Good luck In my opnion, Abortion is wrong. Abortion is basically killing something. It is murder. Which is why it should mot be legalized.",-1,killing a baby,all,abortion,no,no,con,con
"When I say 100% pro life, I believe that abortion is wrong no matter what the circumstance is. Many may ask about rape or incest, but should that child receive the death penalty because of the acts of his or her father? And when you say you are pro choice, do you believe that a woman should be able to choose even in the third trimester? I believe that even first trimester abortion are horrific. The heart is beating at 3 and 1/2 weeks. We need to realize that that is a baby inside the woman, not a blob of tissue. I believe that we should not have to kill our innocent children to achieve the dreams and careers we strive for. We should welcome these children into our world instead of seeing them as a threat. Of course there are going to be situations where the mother cannot take care of the child because of financial reasons or stability, but this is why we have many organizations like Live action, churches, mentors, and government agencies which can help these women. Not to mention adoption... there are many more options than just simply killing the child. Also, when women are asked why they received an abortion the number one response is, ""I felt that I had no choice."" How do you justify this when you seem so set on the fact that women should have this choice to kill their child or not, when in reality our abortion clinics and agencies are not really laying all the cards on the table?",-1,the act of a woman to kill her child,all,abortion,no,no,con,con
"In this final round of debate I will only be answering the questions asked by pro and give the reasons why I believe pro to be wrong. ""Now, have you considered the cost of not letting anyone have an abortion?"" The cost is minimal. You believe that children don't have a right to life because you think that child will be stuck in a foster house and be unwanted. While unwanted children IS an issue, it isn't a large enough issue to warrant taking their life before it truly begins outside the womb. Many of these children can go on to become healthy members of society, contributing so much. ""Who is going to take care of those children? Who is going to pay for it?"" I don't believe that hardship cases deserve to be ""snuffed out"" just because they have a good chance at being orphaned. If a parent can't handle a child, maybe they shouldn't engage in sexual activity until they can. It isn't right, morally, to end an innocent life. ""Do you think that this will have a negative effect on the 100 thousand children waiting to be adopted, or do you not care about them?' I care about children, which is why I am pro life. Pro abortionists will say they care about children, but if they truly cared, they wouldn't be pro abortion. Abortion is terminating a life before it has a chance. And most abortions are performed out of convenience for the mother, not health reasons or rape. http://abort73.com... ""Do you know how traumatic it is to live a life where you know you weren't wanted? How do you think that is going to turn out?"" A lot less traumatic than being ripped apart while still alive. But then again, you believe the child in the womb isn't even alive. It has been proven that a child in the womb CAN feel pain. http://www.mccl.org... http://www.doctorsonfetalpain.com... And abortions performed for selfish reasons is worse than because of rape and health.",-1,the act of getting an abortion,all,abortion,no,no,neutral,neutral
"Con presented his/her position in absolute terms: Abortion should be illegal. As Pro, I will take the position that abortion should be legal in the United States for a one reason. Abortion – [T]he removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy. . http://dictionary.reference.com... I am using this definition to avoid the discussion of ectopic pregnancies (which is beneficial to me as Pro), but I reserve the right to reference such pregnancies should my opponent present a ""life at conception"" argument; he hinted at such an argument, but did not clarify it. ""From the uterus"" is the important phrase for this distinction. Pro position: Con's position is absolute; therefore, I will submit that abortion should be legal since carrying a fetus to term could result in the death of the mother. [Although I will not take the position in this debate, I support reproductive rights in ALL cases. I am only examining a few arguments here. ] If Con clarifies his/her position in this five round debate, then I will adjust. Potential Death of the Mother: In 2010, Amnesty International urged President Obama and the US to examine our maternal mortality rate. Minorities were affected disproportionately in respect to prenatal care and ""near misses"" –cases of near death, increased 25% since 1998. . http://www.amnesty.org... The US maternal mortality rate is further examined here, and the results reflect the title: ""A Human Rights Failure"". . http://www.arhp.org... Even in one of the most medically advanced countries in the world, maternal mortality is still not addressed well. The potential for death puts the medical decision in the hands of the woman and no one else. No law abiding citizen need be forced into a life and death struggle to satisfy the changing moral whims of others. Outlawing abortion would make the decision for the mother in absence of medical necessity and such a condition cannot stand in a republic. Rebuttal of Con arguments: Con wants us to consider the drunken party girl and her irresponsible partner, or partners, but a maternal death could occur regardless of the circumstances inducing a pregnancy so these arguments are irrelevant. My position, only for this debate, is that abortion should be allowed in the case of maternal death, vodka and tequila shots notwithstanding. In addition, Con thinks unwanted pregnancy is a condition of partying, alcohol, and illicit sex, but he/she does not address the married woman who does not wish to carry a nine month pregnancy. Con goes through and asks us to ""imagine"" many things, but simple Google searches with remove the ""imagine"" and allow Con to present some statistics – I will address these agreements should he/she choose to present them. In light of my position, I see no need to mention post partum depression as the topic is irrelevant. Con presented little in the opening round and he must address the maternal death issue considering my position. Without addressing this issue, his/her argument cannot stand. Very Truly Yours, Sherlockmethod",1,a debate about whether abortion should be legal,all,abortion,no,no,neutral,neutral
"U thabk my opponent fot this debate, I hope he enjoys it. =)C1: A fetus is a human, therefore it's murderSince a fetus is a human, it should be considered murder. I will now prove thait a fetus is a human being. A scientific textbook called “Basics of Biology” gives five characteristics of living things; these five criteria are found in all modern elementary scientific textbooks: 1. Living things are highly organized. 2. All living things have an ability to acquire materials and energy. 3. All living things have an ability to respond to their environment. 4. All living things have an ability to reproduce. 5. All living things have an ability to adapt. According to this elementary definition of life, life begins at fertilization, when a sperm unites with an oocyte. From this moment, the being is highly organized, has the ability to acquire materials and energy, has the ability to respond to his or her environment, has the ability to adapt, and has the ability to reproduce (the cells divide, then divide again, etc., and barring pathology and pending reproductive maturity has the potential to reproduce other members of the species). Non-living things do not do these things. Even before the mother is aware that she is pregnant, a distinct, unique life has begun his or her existence inside her. [1] So according to these definitions, a fetus is a human. Killing it would be murder, and it's not justified because its not self-defense. An abortion is only justified in the case to save a mothers life. Life begins at conseption. Furthermore, that life is unquestionably human. A human being is a member of the species homo sapiens. Human beings are products of conception, which is when a human male sperm unites with a human female oocyte (egg). When humans procreate, they don’t make non-humans like slugs, monkeys, cactuses, bacteria, or any such thing. Emperically-verifiable proof is as close as your nearest abortion clinic: send a sample of an aborted fetus to a laboratory and have them test the DNA to see if its human or not. Genetically, a new human being comes into existence from the earliest moment of conception. [1] More of the same... “I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly, I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy.” Hippocrates, 400 B.C., Greece Sorry if the enlarged stuff is annoying, but that is from my first source. C2: It is morally wrong to kill a person, society looks down upon those acts. This is hard to argue against. A fetus is a person therefore it is murder (or should be considered so). I have proven my point aboveas pf now, that a fetus is a human being. I will expand next round on that point as it will be needed. But this point relates to the one above, a fetus is a human, killing it is murder, and killing is morally wrong. Same old same old. C3: It is morally wrong to kill a fetus Well a fetus is a human, and killing unless in self-defense is morally wrong, so it is morally wrong to kill a fetus. This point relys on the 2 above. C4: Religeon in some cases pohibits abortion. This is undisputable, but I will add on to it anyway. This point only relys towards christians. “…and Rebekah his [Isaac’s] wife conceived. And the children struggled together within her…” (Genesis 25:21-22). Notice that when she conceived, i was called a child. It consideres the zygot a human. This biblical quote is from my seond source as well. Also look at the 10 commandments: ""thou shall not kill"", or ""thou shall not murder"", depending on the translation, but that specfically states that murder/killing is wrong, and above calls a zygot a child, so in god's eyes abortion is murder because he agrees with my above conentions. ALso, Catholics are against abortion, as you know, and many protestants are as well. So this only applies to christians, abortion is wrong on the lines of our faith. C5: More people are pro-life than pro-choice as of 2011 This is just a little side argument: So theres that. Rebuttals: ""Since my opponent’s main case relies on abortion being murder, it will also be my obligation to negate his contention. If I’ve fulfilled this obligation, you must negate the resolution."" Well I have proven that a fetus is a human, but I will add on to it here, if fetus is a human then it is murder: Fetuses feel pain during an abortion according to Kanwaljeet J. S. Anand, MBBS, DPhil, Professor of Pediatrics, Anesthesiology and Neurobiology at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center. ""If the fetus is beyond 20 weeks of gestation, I would assume that there will be pain caused to the fetus. And I believe it will be severe and excruciating pain."" So above I proved that a fetus is a human, here I prove that it is painful for the baby. ""I will show that a mother has rights over her body and privacy, and that it is more important to save the mother than the unborn fetus if both lives are at stake. "" Well, most women do not want this right: Most women do not want this right, also lets add on to this rebuttal. A fetus is a human, therefor it deserves basic human rights, and it should have control over its body. So killing the baby takes away it's freedom, so it's a 50-50 split of freedoms. Although women do not want this freedom, you will still argu that it is essential. So the women loses rights the baby gains them. But since a majority of women do not want these rights, then why should they have them? ""I’ll be proving in this premise that illegalizing abortion is a bad idea and a disadvantage to society and may lead to bad consequences and events."" Tanl you for this argument, I love to attack it. You claim that more abortions wil happen illegally if it is illegal, wrong. Senator James Buckley stated: ""Data from foreign countries having far longer experience with legalised abortion than we have had in the US, suggest that legalisation has no effect on the criminal abortion rate. In at least three countries, the criminal abortion rate has actually risen since legalisation. Legalised abortion moves the back alley abortionists into the front office where their trade can be practised without fear of criminal prosecution."" [5] Dr Christopher Tietze, an abortion advocate, concedes: ""Although one of the major goals of the liberalisation of abortion laws in Scandinavia was to reduce the incidence of illegal abortion, this was not accomplished. Rather as we know from a variety of sources, both criminal and total abortions increased."" [4] So look at this, a senator says there is no poof that legilising it redices that number, and a pro choice docor admits that legilising it increases the back street abortions. So I have proven that when its illegal there is less of both types of abortion. ""For my last contention, I will attempt to finally argue that a woman has a right to abort a child."" This is a vauge point. I will not refute it...yet. So please expand then I'll attepmt to refute it. I await your response. :) Sorry if my spellings bad, the spell check has an internal error. Sources: http://prolifephysicians.org... [1] http://www.christiananswers.net... [2] http://www.gallup.com... [3] Kanwaljeet J. S. Anand, MBBS, DPhil, Professor of Pediatrics, Anesthesiology and Neurobiology at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center. 93rd Congress of the US [4] Dr Christopher Tietze [5]",-1,the intentional killing of a fetus or newborn,all,abortion,no,no,neutral,con
"On your contention that life is not sacred: What exactly does this have to do with abortion? I use life being valuable in terms of not killing a human being, I guess. Would you be in favor of killing innocent people because life is not sacred? On your contention that human life does not begin at conception: It is not that hard to make an argument for having abortion illegal in at least ONE case without this point. Abortion should be illegal at 38 weeks. Anyone who is convinced by this statement should vote CON. That has nothing to do with life beginning at conception, but of life being existent/valued at 38 weeks. On your contention that a fetus is not a person: A fatal mistake, this is not. In fact, the mistake is on your part. I would ask people to read the article for themselves. The article states that the fetus can feel pain in the 28th week - two weeks into the third trimester. Even pro-abortion groups have said 26 weeks is the time when a fetus can feel pain. Look at this article: Control F ""26"" and it is near the bottom: (http://www.theinterim.com...) ""However, others in the pro-abortion camp continue to argue that, for example, pain cannot be felt before 26 weeks' gestation."" Therefore, no mistake was made on my part; you simply did not properly read the article and only looked at the first paragraph. Please, no more false accusations of faulty reading and ""fatal mistakes."" "" When a baby is born, and the mother accepts responsibility for raising it, it's very first personal relationship is formed (beforehand it is part of the mother's body)."" - This makes it a human, you say. If the personal relationship is only formed after birth, why do parents name their children in the womb? Care about said child in the womb? Just because it cannot physically be touched, it is not human? Just to make this clear: You are in favor of aborting a 38 week old baby/fetus? You think that should be legal?",-1,the termination of a human pregnancy by various procedures,all,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"Rebutting My Opponent's Arguments""Three years ago I was in a high school football game. I went out on a fly passing route and was clipped on the side of my helmet by the free safety of the opposing team. I was out cold. I was unconscious for 3 minutes and I was put on an ambulance to go to the hospital. When I was knocked out consciousness was not present, neither could I feel pain, but we would all acknowledge it would be immoral to have killed me on the spot. And while, yes, everyone knew I was going to regain consciousness, everyone knows that if you give a fetus time to develop in the womb and en birth it, it will gain consciousness and feel pain. ""This has nothing to do with my argument, thus the entire paragraph above can be disregarded. My argument, is that human life gains moral value when when consciousness is obtained, and/ or pain can be felt. Consciousness would have obviously been obtained before my opponent got knocked unconscious, or else, my opponent couldn't have been knocked unconscious because he never would have been conscious to begin with. Since my opponent is using examples that have nothing to do with my argument, they can be dismissed. Con would still have moral value because Con would have reached consciousness and the ability to feel pain. Temporarily losing any of these things has no bearing on whether they have been obtained or not to begin with. ""If my rebuttal to P1&P2 stands then it doesn't matter that the fetus is in the first or second trimester. ""Con's rebuttal had nothing to do with my argument. My argument deals with a subject that has not obtained consciousness at all, Con's rebuttal deals with a subject that obtained consciousness but temporarily lost it. Therefore, Con's rebuttal clearly does not stand. ""During your argument you first stated that a human life loses value when it loses consciousness and feeling of pain. ""This is not what I said. I never claimed that human life loses it's value when it loses consciousness temporarily or stops feeling pain temporarily. I claimed that human life gains moral value when when consciousness is obtained, and/ or pain can be felt in the first place. ""Now you are arguing purely for killing living humans just because they can't feel pain, since the fetus is conscious. ""When did I argue this? I never argued this, once. I argued that the being has to not be able to feel pain, and the being has to not have obtained consciousness yet. ""My friend Bethany has no feeling in her left arm. She was born that way. It would still be immoral for me to cut off her right arm because it doesn't feel pain. Just because something doesn't feel does not mean it loses its worth. ""This friend would be conscious though, a fetus is not conscious. I said that if a being has any of the two qualities (has obtained consciousness, can feel pain), then this being is morally valuable. Also, if Bethany allowed Con to cut it off, there is nothing wrong with that. I fail to see how anything my opponent said, undermined any of my claims in the slightest. ""Even according to your own argument, a portion of abortions are immoral, so I am wondering if you would support making it illegal to commit an abortion in the third trimester. If so, what if a woman wants to have an abortion one day before or after the 3rd trimester starts? What about minutes or seconds after the 3rd trimester starts? ""Yes, 1% of abortions are not done in the proper manner (done in the third trimester). However, a higher percentage of drivers drive in a non proper manner, and kill more people. Of course, driving isn't immoral because a small percentage of drivers do not do it properly. Also, a line has to be drawn somewhere. I say the third trimester is a good place to draw it. I completely agree that a woman, as well as a man has every right to do whatever they want to with their own body. I even agree that humans have the right to drink, eat, and smoke whatever they want to and the government has no role to play in humans personal lives. I believe all humans have the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The fetus also has the same rights. The fetus is a separate being to the mother. It is dependant on its mother just like an asthmatic is dependant on an inhaler as well as an infant is dependant on its mother. The mother has no right to infringe on the right of the fetus. A fetus has no moral rights. It has no consciousness or ability to feel pain, and is as morally valuable as an ant. The only thing one could say, is that it has the potential to be morally valuable. Well, so do the sperm that get wasted every time I masturbate or pull out. I lose no sleep over it, and neither should anybody else. ConclusionI already won this debate, due to the fact that the the initial position of my opponent was incoherent. Even if this wasn't the case, my opponent's whole case for abortion being immoral was baseless. I clearly showed that abortion as a whole is not immoral at all.",1,the intentional termination of a human pregnancy,all,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"Let's get to it. I'll respond to his arguments in order (opening, cross-ex, and rebuttal). Contention 1All humans, including the embryo/fetus, have a right to life. The reason the embryos' right to life trumps a right to a woman's bodily autonomy is because in the vast majority of cases, she (and the father) are responsible for its being there. They are responsible for the creation of a naturally needy child, so they bear a responsibility for caring for it. Say you come a cross a button on a wall that says ""baby-making machine"" that offers a pleasurable experience, that has a 1/100 chance of creating a baby. Say you press the button and receive your pleasurable experience, but a baby pops out. You are not justified in just walking away and letting the child die. You must now take responsibility for that child. The Fourteenth Amendment only says one must be born in the United States to be a citizen. The Amendment says that the state shall deprive no person of life. We are not justified in killing illegal immigrants, neither are we justified in killing the unborn simply because they are not citizens. Additionally, before Roe v. Wade, the unborn were persons, legally protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. [1]The embryo/fetus has rights, despite not having interests at the moment. Someone who is asleep or in a coma does not have an interest in remaining alive, but one is assumed. Also, newborns do not have awareness, expectation, etc. , but we still believe it is immoral to kill them (with the exception of some pro-choice philosophers who support infanticide). That's why it's illegal to kill someone who is asleep or in a coma. Plus, if personality and rationality were traits that bestowed a right to life, then humans would not be inherently valuable, personality and rationality would be. This would mean it would be morally justifiable to kill someone if it were possible to bring about two people with these inherently valuable traits. Contention 2Once a woman becomes pregnant, she has already reproduced. Abortion is not about reproduction rights, but the right to end the life of an innocent human. A woman does not have absolute right to her own body. She cannot take illegal drugs, she must obey seatbelt laws, and she cannot strike someone without just cause. Contention 3Banning rape, murder, and theft doesn't stop all rapes, murders, and thefts from happening. But we should not legalize them anyway. Pregnancy is not inherently dangerous. A woman has less than a 1% chance of dying in childbirth or in pregnancy. [2] The reality is that even before Roe v. Wade, the vast number of pregnancies were still done by licensed medical professionals, not unsafe ""home"" abortions. Dr. Mary Calderone, medical director of Planned Parenthood, stated, ""90% of illegal abortions are being done by physicians. Call them what you will, abortionists, or anything else, they are still physicians, trained as such. .. They must do a pretty good job if the death rate is as low as it is. .. Abortion, whether therapeutic or illegal, is in the main no longer dangerous, because it is being done well by physicians. "" [3] That was in 1960, thirteen years before Roe v. Wade was passed. In fact, the numbers of illegal abortion deaths was greatly inflated by the pro-choice side. Dr. Bernard Nathanson, former abortionist and founder of NARAL, has written: ""How many deaths were we talking about when abortion was illegal? In NARAL, we generally emphasized the frame of the individual case, not the mass statistics, but when we spoke of the latter it was always 5,000 to 10,000 deaths a year. I confess that I knew the figures were totally false, and I suppose the others did too if they stopped to think of it. But in the morality of our revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics? The overriding concern was to get the [anti-abortion] laws eliminated, and anything within reason that had to be done was permissible. "" [4]Cross-examinationPro says he only believes homemade abortions should be restricted, but goes on to say that he believes a woman's bodily autonomy does not justify abortion after viability. There is some conflict here, since he apparently believes late-term abortions should be restricted. There is further conflict, since if a woman has ultimate right to her bodily autonomy, then the fetus would not be safe after viability. The woman, under bodily autonomy arguments, has no obligation to keep the fetus alive until the point of birth. She can ""unplug,"" as the euphemism goes, at any time she wants. Perhaps Pro can clarify a bit next round. According to scientific understanding, the unborn are living human organisms (human beings) from fertilization. The problem about viability is it's a moving target. Currently, viability is considered to be at about 24 weeks, but 50 years ago it was at 28 or 29 weeks. Are we to assume 24 week fetuses are human beings now but that same human would not have been 50 years ago? Viability is a moving target that changes with advancements in technology. Plus, according to Pro's criterion, people on life support are not human beings. It would be morally permissible to end their lives for any reason, even if they have a good chance of survival. I don't see any reason not to consider pre-viable embyros and fetuses human beings, especially since the viable fetus is the same entity as the pre-viable one. He has ignored my question about Thalidomide, but it is definitely relevant. If a woman has a right to her bodily autonomy, then there should be nothing wrong with taking Thalidomide which will cause birth defect, despite the fact that her child will be born without limbs. RebuttalUsing Joyce Arthur is a fallacious appeal to authority on Pro's part. First, just because there is no consensus does not mean that everyone is wrong or that no one is right. Second, there is scientific consensus on when human life begins. It is at fertilization (I gave a scientific case in round one, and also gave quotes by embryologists, the experts on human embryology, that human life begins at fertilization). It's simply false to say that no one knows. Also, if no one knows, the benefit of the doubt should go to life. If you don't know there whether there is anyone inside a condemned building, it would be utterly irresponsible to blow it up anyway. You would check to make sure there is no one alive in the building before blowing it up. Joyce Arthur simply appears ignorant of the scientific facts. Being dependent on only one person does not mean that someone is not a human being. That's simply bad reasoning. Plus, if you are the last one out of a pool but you hear a splash and, upon investigating, there is a toddler in the pool drowning, totally dependent on you for survival, are you justified in walking away and leaving the child to drown or are you responsible for saving the child? Pro's reasoning is bad. Having human DNA and showing signs of life makes you a living human organism. Pro has not offered any compelling reason for not considering the unborn human beings. As I illustrated, viability is not adequate. Being a living human organism from fertilization is sufficient for being a human being. To claim otherwise is semantic nonsense. I don't have room for my second contention, so I'll go ahead and drop it. But my case against abortion succeeds anyway, and I have shown why Pro's case for it fails. I look forward to our next round. [1] Francis J. Beckwith, Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice, (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, New York, 2007), p.22. [2] . http://health.usnews.com...[3] Mary Calderone, American Journal of Public Health, July 1960. [4] Bernard Nathanson, Aborting America, New York, Doubleday, 1979, p. 193",-1,the act of deliberately killing a human being after it has been conceived,all,abortion,no,no,neutral,con
"Thank you for letting me debate this with you. So you try to defend your definition of murder and how abortion is murder by giving me two definitions of a Human being summarized below (copy and pasted directly):1) a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.2) A member of any of the races of Homo sapiens; person; man, woman, or childWhile I agree that those definitions do not state that they have to be born to be considered a human, yet it holds no weight because you do not give a link as to where you got these definitions. I realize thats just being picky, but I do wanted to state that fact. Just because you have a definition of something doesnt mean that it is an accepted truth. For future debates, it would be beneficial for you to give supporting evidences to back up your claim. :)Anyways your own definitions fail you if we first consider (1). A baby/fetus not born yet does not meet any of the requriremens you listed. It does not have superior mental development, speech, nor upright stance. (I dont think I need to further explain why these are not true.)(2) This definition is so broad that it essentially encompasses everything that's deemed human, but yet fails to explain why these traits are deemed of human charateristics. Likewise, I can say that the Animal kindom consists of all organisms that are not prokaryotes and one cannot either refute or defend the assertion. My point that it's so broad that one can use the definition for any scenario without properly being able to refute or defend against it. As a result, it is a very weak definition of human beings.Lastly, you gave the definition of murder as UNLAWFUL premeditated killing of... but you conceded to the fact that abortion is legal in most cases thereby conceding to the fact that abortion is not murder. Although you could say it is Justifiable Homicide (only if the abortion is legal in most cases it is)Thus, we can conclude that you have failed to demonstrate why abortion is considered murder. The next argument about justifiable homicide vs ""murder"" is flat out wrong. While I agree that the results of abortion are the same wheter its legal or not, we are not debating about the law, we are debating about the moralilty behind abortion. Morality in certain circumstances do not have to follow proposed statutes on behavior. i.e. Roe vs. Wade.Your comparision between murder and homicide is a selfish view. You fail to consider that its not the baby itself who is the concern, the mother has to be taken into consideration too. What you failed to explain on is why this unborn baby has more rights than a living mother.If a teenager is raped and she gets pregnant (now this is rare for a teenager to get pregnant from a rape so you can barely make this point but I will address it anyways)""An estimated 60 percent of teen girls’ first pregnancies are preceded by experiences of molestation, rape, or attempted rape.""http://www.feministe.us...I guess over half of the population isn't high enough for you.You go on to argue that it's the fathers fault, which is partially true, but why suffer for something when you've done nothing wrong? You fail to realize that just because there are people who can take care of a baby doesnt mean they have the time, resources, or ability to handle a child. If it was easy to rear a child then we should have babies at the start of puberty, because the younger we are, the more likely we are to have healthier babies.Moreover, assuming that the child is born as a result of unwanted pregnancy, if one does not have the resources or ability to take care of a child, why let a child into this world when all hes gonna do is suffer? By the way, abortion isnt considered justfiable homicide at least most of society doesnt consider it. YOU put that definition towards abortion. Im only disaproving the issues you decide to talk about.now going back to the human being definition: there by it can't be a mammal because of the difference between a human being and a mammal, that a fetus is developing even before the mother aborts the fetus/baby. I do not understand what you mean. It seems to me that you are conceding to my point in R2? Humans are mammals, but a mammal doesnt have to be a human. If we are not mammasl then we are not human, which means abortion is irrelevant to humans. My question in R2 referencing to mammals was for you to clarify your statement. I never made any assertions about mammals or humans. You failed to understand the points im making about the nutrition argument. IM rebutting what you said in r1. I'm not gonna respond back to this because nutrients is irelevnat and moreover, you failed to understand your own arguments.ConclusionI'm pretty sure ive made my argument clear considering con hasn't bothered with refuting my assertions.",1,the termination of a pregnancy by various procedures,all,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"We are debating ""Abortion should remain legal."" Anyways, let me start. P.S. The Affirmative Constructive and Negative Constructive will only have their case but won't refute arguments (in case you didn't know that). Contention 1: Embryos/Fetuses have no rights! I'm going to present my 1st argument for the choice of abortion. ""There is no such thing as a ""right to live"" when the embryo/fetus is in a woman's body. The embryo/fetus has no right to be in the woman's body. It is only there by the woman's permission. Permission is not a right and it can be revoked as in the case of the embryo/fetus being killed. The 14th Amendment also says only ""born citizens"" have the right granted to individuals by the U.S. Constitution which means the embryo/fetus doesn't have the right to life. Thus, his life is not protected by any part of the Constitution and has no rights! Well, the 14th Amendment clearly says that all people born or naturalized in the USA are citizens and thus have the right of life. Without being born, an embryo/fetus is not a human being. There are two traits that rights derive from. If something doesn't have one of these two traits, it's does not have the right to live. Those two traits are personality and rationality. ""Without awareness, expectation, belief, desire, aim, and purpose, a being can have no interests; without interests he cannot be benefited; without the capacity to be a beneficiary, he can have no rights."" This indicates to having a personality (belief, desire, aim, purpose) and having rationality (awareness). Having both of these traits gives human beings rights. An embryo/fetus doesn't have any personality nor does it have rationality which is why it does not have the ""right to life"". The fact is that the embryo/fetus has no rights. Contention 2: A pregnant woman has rights. My 2nd argument will be about a women's reproducing rights. A woman has reproducing rights which includes the choice of ending a pregnancy. A woman also has the right to her own body. That being is a product of the woman which gives her the right of abortion. As the woman has the right to reproduce and to her own body, so the embryo/fetus has no rights which means that the woman can do what she wants with the embryo/fetus as long as the embryo/fetus is still in the uterus. Contention 3: Banning abortion doesn't stop abortion but instead harms people who want abortions. My 3rd and final argument is that banning abortion doesn't stop abortions from happening. If abortion is illegal, abortions are still going to happen except they are homemade. Without trained professionals using safe and secure procedures, women will go to individuals who have no adequate medical skills. World Health Organization has measured up to 20 million unsafe abortions in unintended pregnancies only. 14% unsafe abortion out of all abortions would increase so badly and increasing maternal deaths. There are also some very unfortunate statistics such as 8 maternal deaths per hour due to unsafe abortions and according to WHO, a woman dies from unsafe abortions each 8 minutes. Thus, banning abortion won't stop abortion from happening, it will just cause more maternal deaths and disabilities for Americans. Back to Con for his Constructive. After that, the refutations begin. ;) Sources: 1. http://www.abortionisprolife.com... 2. http://eleutherian.blogspot.com... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. http://en.wikipedia.org... 5. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 6. http://www.lancet.com...",1,a controversial issue,all,abortion,no,no,neutral,neutral
"The cost is not minimal. The average cost to raise a child is $245,340 http://www.huffingtonpost.com.... Multiply that by 1 million and well....Argument debunked ""If a parent can't handle a child, maybe they shouldn't engage in sexual activity until they can. It isn't right, morally, to end an innocent life."" This is a ridiculous statement. Sex is natural and has nothing to do with being able to raise a child. Evolution made sex feel really good so that we would produce. Practically everyone wants to have sex badly. It's a natural desire. Argument debunked. ""I care about children, which is why I am pro life."" No, you are only looking at your side of the picture, rather than considering EVERY piece of evidence, whereas I have weighed both the positives and the negatives of abortion and formulate my argument accordingly. I highly suggest you learn to think objectively. For example, like I stated, you haven't considered the cost of having tons of unwanted babies. This affects the babies already in an orphanage. You claim to care about children, yet you don't consider the wants and needs of the babies already in an orphanage looking for a home. As I stated, there are 100k orphans ALREADY. If we become antiabortion, this number will reach ridiculous heights. I mentioned it already but you ignored it so here it is again: how do you think this will affect the children already in the orphanage? Or do you not care about them? ""A lot less traumatic than being ripped apart while still alive. But then again, you believe the child in the womb isn't even alive. It has been proven that a child in the womb CAN feel pain. http://www.mccl.org...... http://www.doctorsonfetalpain.com...; Actually, no. This is untrue. Pain MIGHT be felt for a couple of seconds. To claim this is MORE traumatic than a life time of knowing that you are unwanted is faulty reasoning. Evidence debunked.",1,the killing of an unborn child,all,abortion,no,no,con,con
Abortion should not be used as another form of contraception.,-1,the act of causing the death of a fetus,all,abortion,no,no,neutral,con
"""Not all chicken eggs are unfertilised..."" If you were to crack open an unfertilized chicken egg, you would notice. [1] ""Furthermore, several living plants have to be killed to obtain food or wood, but no value of life over there eh?"" You are incredibly mistaken, the reason we kill these organisms is because their products are very valuable. Vegetables and wood are valuable commodities. Humans, however early in development, are valuable in their own right. ""Or what about [the] killing of living chickens and cattle for meat?"" I think you will be surprised to know that livestock animals are only bred and kept for the purposes of their products. They do not exist but to feed us. It is basic supply and demand. Without the demand, there is no supply. Without our hunger for meat, these animals would not have been bred. ""And not every single proponent of a foetus should count as living. After all, it is not functional during that time period."" Really? A foetus does not function? The function of a foetus is to develop his characteristics as to be able to perform the functions of a prenatal being. I think the majority of foetuses perform that function very well. ""Animals and plants are just as living as, if not more than a foetus."" Of course, but do animals and plants, in their mature, yea, even their developing stages possess even a fraction of the potential for greatness, a fraction of the potential beneficial impact on the world as a foetus? The answer is no. The second an ovum is fertilised by a sperm cell the DNA, what makes us unique, is exchanged between the mother and the father in a mostly random way which creates the first metre of the tapestry of life. You will develop this way. You will have these eyes, this facial structure and other such characteristics. That's definite. If some crazy murderer doesn't come along and pluck you from your developmental chamber before you are ready, you will definitely be this person and there will never be another like you. That is the miracle of human life. The probability of your mother meeting your father is 1 in 20,000, the probability of them reproducing is thereafter 1 in 2000. The probability of the exact sperm and egg meeting after this sexual exchange that would lead to you existing exactly as you do is 1 in 400,000,000,000,000,000. The probability of every one of your ancestors following the aforementioned processed is one in [4x10^17]150,000 W76; 10^2,640,000. The probability of you being born is 10^2,685,000. Again, that is the miracle of human life.[2] ""We shouldn't force parents to keep a child they don't want. This will be bad for the child due to ill-treatment from the parents, and will be bad for the parents for the reason they wanted abortion."" There are multiple viable alternatives to this, in the first instance: condoms. In later instances, adoption. No one should be killed for the irresponsibility of his parents. ""Suppose if we find out that the unborn child has some deformities/ infection, shouldn't we give it a merciful death rather than an impaired, handicapped life?"" I think we should give him or her the best life he or she could possibly hope for. I think we should provide the utmost in palliative care. I mean, by your Hitleresque logic, Stephen Hawkins should have been shown mercy and killed as soon as he showed symptoms of motor neurone disease. [1] http://www.poultryhub.org... [2] Second-hand source initially cited by Mel Robbins during her talk at TEDx San Francisco.",-1,"the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo, resulting in or caused by its death",all,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"I understand what you are saying, however, I feel the best benefit that we may give a child is life itself. There are plenty of people who have grown up in poor conditions and made something of themselves. Abortion is wrong because it never even gives the child a chance. And even if the parents say there doing it so the child wont have to grow up with parents who aren't ready, in all honesty, they are most likely doing it for selfish reasons. Whether you are ready or not, you got pregnant, so that is the time to grow up and deal with it. Me personally, I feel that having a child by mistake would make me want to be an even better father. No matter what the conditions are that he/she will be brought up in, I'm sure they will find their place in the world. In the case of extenuating circumstances, for example, a child who will be born with down syndrome, or other conditions that would seriously inhibit their quality of life, then I feel that abortion is justified. However, if the only worry of the parents is that the child will be raised in unsuitable conditions, then it is not. We, as adults, have an obligation to ensure that the child does grow up in suitable conditions, rather then denying its right to life all together.",-1,the act of giving a child the chance to live,all,abortion,no,no,con,pro
"Abortion is not killing innocent life. Rather, it's letting a woman control her own body. Abortion is accepted because a woman has the right to choose what she wants to do with her body. The fetus needs the body of the mother to survive. If human A needs a part of human B to survive, e.g. a kidney transplant, it is entirely up to human B whether or not he wants to give human A a kidney. Even if human B is dying and his kidneys will rot with him, he decides what to do with his own body. Even if human A's life is at stake and human B's life is already over, with rotting kidney's, it's still human B's right to choose what to do with his dead body. Is this considered murder? No, of course it's not. Is it a little douchey? Perhaps. Is it acceptable? Yes, a person has the right to do whatever he wants with his body. If the fetus can survive on its own, then abortion is more of an up in the air debate. However, if the fetus needs the mother's body (which it does), abortion comes down to the simple principal of a woman has the right to choose what she wants to do with her body. By letting the fetus control a woman's body, you are granting a fetus rights to someone else's body. No one has rights to anyone's body but that person. Period A fetus needs a mother's body to survive. If the mother does not want to let the fetus use her body, it doesn't have to. The fetus is a part of a parasitic relationship; although its body is affected, it's using the body of the mother to survive. Yes, the fetus is alive. Agreed. Fact 1-2 agreed. Fact 3, it's murder because as was stated above, a WOMAN decides what to do with her body, not anyone else. If the woman doesn't abort the fetus, it's murder.",1,the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus that is developing outside the womb,all,abortion,no,no,neutral,neutral
"Hi thanks for the debate.I believe that abortion should be permissible under certain circumstances such as when the mother's life is in danger, when it's the result of rape or other similar harms, and when the mother does not feel ready to bear a child yet and decides to have an abortion under a certain timeframe. In my case, it would be before the third-trimester, where after this, it is believed that the fetus develops neurological abilities. Ultimately, one sees that my arguments favor the woman's decisions over the fetus because it was the woman's decision to have a child in the first place (generalization.) Moreover, I do not deem a fetus to be the same as a baby for the difference is a ball of cells vs working organs. Therefore, the definition of a ""baby"" for me, is after the 3rd trimester. If a mother decides to have an abortion after the third-trimester, then it really depends on the situation and reason for having an abortion at such a late timeframe. However, for the sake of time and character limits, I will limit it to the last assertion that made earlier (abortion before 3rd trimester is permissible.)Given my stance, I have to comment on the fact that CON makes many assertions with no supporting evidence. I will address them now:Abortion is Murder no matter what people say.Your assertion is weak when you do not provide a reason to why its considered murder. Your argument holds the same weight as me saying that, ""I am god."" You cannot prove nor disapprove my assertion without further details of my definition of God. As soon as the baby is created it is has a soul. Lets assume that as soon as fertilization occurs, the fetus has a soul. If this is true then how does one differentiate between a fetus' souls and other souls such as dogs, pigs, and oranatangs? (sp) Also, what makes an organism having a soul protect them from envrionmental, social, and moral factors? ...People say it is the women's choice whether or not to abort. People can say things but that doesn't mean its true. Youre right, women have no rights whatsoever. A baby or if you want to call it a fetus is feeding off of you but that doesn't mean it is part of you. Im assuming youre saying that it's an individual since its fertilization, even if this is true, it doesn't prove that mothers cannot abort. The baby is using her for her resources. Without her, the baby cannot live. So why is it moral for someone to steal one's resources without having any moral consequences for his/her actions? Your statement is very hard to prove because it would be hard to define someone as an individual when it doesnt have neurological or physical abilities whatsoever. If you can't seriously take care of your baby, put it up for adoption, don't kill him/her because you were irresponsible and became pregnant when you didn't want to/or couldn't take care of her/him.The real question is, is it better to not live at all or to live a life of torture?If the mother isn't ready to have a child, according to you, she still should suffer those 9 months, not taking into consideration how she became pregnant and if shes a single-mother. After those 9 months of suffering, she will then have to force her child away because she cannot take care of her. Clearly, adoption centers are a great place for children to grow up in. I'm just surprised that the general population haven't given up their babies yet to adoption centers.",1,the act of causing a fetus to be removed from the uterus,all,abortion,no,yes,neutral,neutral
"About 205 million pregnancies occur each year worldwide. Over a third are unintended and about a fifth end in induced abortion. Most abortions result from unintended pregnancies. An abortion is medically referred to as a therapeutic abortion when it is performed to save the life of the pregnant woman; prevent harm to the woman's physical or mental health; terminate a pregnancy where indications are that the child will have a significantly increased chance of premature morbidity or mortality or be otherwise disabled; or to selective reduce the number of fetuses to lessen health risks associated with multiple pregnancy. Also a spontaneous abortion, is just a miscarriage. An abortion(just abortion) is referred to as an elective or voluntary abortion when it is performed at the request of the woman for non-medical reasons. I am Christian and understand this conflict, but if God intended the fetus to be born then it would still be alive. Adoption is great, but you just shouldn't be controlling another woman's choices, or even her body. It wasn't you who decided to have the sex with your spouse, and it was most definitely not you/spouse's egg/sperm that produced that fetus. http://en.wikipedia.org...",1,pregnancy termination,all,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"To claim that a fetus in the first trimester can survive long term, or even short term without its mother body and live a healthy life is a blatant lie. Maybe it can survive for a couple of days, but that's hardly a healthy life. Argument debunked. Prostitution should be legal as well. Just because the USA has archaic laws regarding prostitution doesn't mean we should also have archaic laws regarding abortion. We aren't arguing what the laws are; we are arguing what they should be. If we were, then you'd lose the abortion debate since it's legal. Argument debunked. I never claimed a child in the womb was less important than a kidney. That shows a lack of reading comprehension. I claimed that a woman is not obligated to use her body to save anyone's life, whether it be her fetus or to give someone else a kidney. Argument debunked. I never claimed a fetus wasn't important; I merely claimed that a woman's right to choose what to do with her body was MORE important. Argument debunked. Now, have you considered the cost of not letting anyone have an abortion? There are already 100 THOUSAND orphans in the USA, and that is with LEGAL abortion. https://showhope.org... If abortion were illegal, that number could easily be 1 million. Here are some questions for you: Who is going to take care of those children? Who is going to pay for it? Do you think that this will have a negative effect on the 100 thousand children waiting to be adopted, or do you not care about them? Do you know how traumatic it is to live a life where you know you weren't wanted? How do you think that is going to turn out? What about the mother who was forced to have a baby she didn't want? Did you ever consider the consequences of that?",1,"the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo, which is then destroyed",all,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"""Con concedes that the fetus does not meet the reproduction requirment of the definition that THEY provided. This is crusical to note because this is a contradiction on their behalf and this should be considered and taken into account when voting."" Yes, this IS very crucial when voting, because I have rebutted this faulty argument 3 TIMES ALREADY, and he STILL pretends as if I didn""t. So yes, take note people, if he cannot rebuttal my point, then vote Con. ""Con states that they got their characteristics of life from their biology class. This is insufficient evidence. I also got mine from my biology class however I managed to source and prove that this classification of life is valid whereas yours has been based off bare assertion. Con continues to make the claim that children that haven't meet puberty is a sufficient rebuttal since I said that the fetus isn't fully developed. Con clearly skims my case because if they had read it properly and thouroughly they would have noticed that I refuted this a number of times. I have clearly said and demonstrated that children are developing humans whereas the fetus is developing to BECOME a human. It is not yet a human whereas a child is. Since the child belongs to the human race this means that it is considered living whereas the fetus does not yet belong to the human race. This means that it is considered separate to humans and is therfore should be assessed separately unlike children."" Let""s break Pro""s argument down shall we? He says here, that children are alive, even though they cannot reproduce yet, but a fetus is not alive for the same reason that he was willing to discredit to say that a child is alive. His rational of this, is that a child belongs to the human race, and overall, humans can reproduce. But he does not consider a fetus to be part of the human race, even though he never offers a real explanation as to why it is not. I on the other hand offered a perfectly reasonable reason why they ARE part of the human race; their genetic is human genetics. Please note, if Pro argues that a fetus is not a human because it is not alive, this is called a circular argument, and you should vote Con for it. ""Con continues to state that there is a difference between reacting to stimuli and responding to it. To end the confusion I will provide sources to prove that it doesn't react to stimuli and it doesn't respond to it either. a) The fetus does not respond to stimuli. b) The fetus doesn't react to stimuli. He believes that the fetus is human however this is easily disproven, and it has already been done so, nevertheless I will provide more supporting evidence to satisfy him."" This is the testimony of scientists, unless they can get a ""pain-o-meter"", they cannot say that a fetus cannot feel pain, however, I have the next best thing, the only thing that can detect the pain in a body; the person in that body, and this person can TESTIFY that she DID feel pain in a failed abortion [1]. ""Human Characteristics"" ""- Consciousness"" Babies are conscious in their mother""s womb [2]. ""- Sentience"" This is a synonym as above. ""- Response to stimuli"" Actually, your citations prove that a fetus DOES respond to stimuli, so I will cite YOUR OWN sources [3]. - Ability to feel emotions You cannot detect emotions so this will have to be discounted. ""- Excretion"" You gave this to me. ""- Independantly supply itself with nutrition"" People on injected nutrition are not humans I guess, you cannot say that it is of the overall humans, then I could say a lizard is a human and it does not fit the characteristics, it applies to the overall human. How do we tell then? Genetics, it has human genetics it""s a human, it doesn""t, it isn""t, a lizard does not have human genetics, a fetus does. ""- Indepenantly respire"" ""- Be able to feel and sense things around it"" This is a synonym of 1 and 2. ""Continuation of R4 Rebuttals Con attempts to refute the libertarian framework extention however this is extremely difficult for them to do given the fact that I provided sources demonstrating libertarian philosohpy and views on abortion whilst my opponent attempts to tackle it without any evidence. Con, instead of refuting anything that I said makes assertions about what the government has a right to do. This is unfortunately is the subjective and completely arbitrary opinion."" The foundation of libertarianism is the Declaration of Independence, I quoted it and shew how your views are a violation of it. ""The declaration of rights and responsibilities for governments, individuals and societies approes of the UK of a good model and demonstration of a country that properly enforces human rights [4]. The UK advocates and has abortion legal and is a good model of human rights. Ergo, we can conclude that protecting the unborn (ie. fetus') is not a responsibility that the government has [5]."" Good model? You don""t even have the right to bear arms, free speech, privacy (thanks to George Bush we don""t either, but then again George Bush is a relative of the British crown, I think they and their descendants have an issue with human rights), and your taxes are 95%, ours is 55%. So as you can see, the British bill of rights is a TERRIBLE example of how a government should act. ""I'll reiterate this, since con has provided no alternative framework you ought to vote Pro based on this premise alone."" Conservativism. ""He does something serious that is NOT acceptable during a debate. He make the following summary of my position and says that I SAY THIS. I did not say this and this make my position look bad. He also puts this in quotation marks to make it took even more like I said this. Con's summary of my position that ""supposedly"" comes from me, is false and should be penalized with conduct at the very least. I'll refute con's untrue summary of my case: ""Because men do not have to deal with the hormonal issues associated with pregnancy, that women are being treated unequally, therefore we must allow them to commit abortion so they can be equal to men."" Con provides this quotation to go against my case and then refutes it. I will not refute his reubttal to a summary that he made since I never made any of the arguments that con says that I did. I did say that women aren't getting their rights but I made no such comparisons to men. I said that women have the right over their body and can do what they like with it and I provided a number of quotes from philosophers backing up this view. This has very little relation to men and virtually no relation to men not having to deal with hormonal issues as con falsely says when summarising my case. You said that pregnancy is a state of emotional turmoil, therefore a woman to go through it is unequal. So yes, this is your argument, points to Con for Pro lying. ""I never said that the fetus was trespassing or committing any acts like this on the mother's body. I simply said that it is the mothers choice and it should be assessed by them since it is their body. Yes the fetus is dependant on the mother however the fetus wouldn't know the difference if it was alive or dead [1]."" Pro lies again, vote Con! ""Con's old man analogy is still faulty despite the additions that he has made. Even if the boy is asleep he still wants to live and he still meets the requirements for being a living things as I have continually demonstrated. Therefore, killing the boy isn't justified however aborting the fetus is. Also, the abortion of the fetus is quick and painless (because the fetus cannot feel pain) [1][3]. The boy will have to drown and will almost certainly wake up upon impact of the water and will struggle to get out and will slowly die due to the lack of oxygen. Con's solution is adoption however this is easily refuted. In a year in the US 135,000 adoptions occur, this is due to the lack of willing parents [6]. In a year in the US 1.2 million abortions occur [7]. This means that you're 975,000 parents short. On top of this, you'll probably need even more parents considering that there are other adoptions occuring anyway for reasons other than abortions."" As I remember, there are what "" 1 million gay people who want to adopt children, just pawn them off to them, sure they make worse parents, but it""s worse than being dead. Con concedes that the fetus and embryo are not human by failing to respond to my argument. I clearly layed out the stages and they simply responded with the following words: ""I could never find out how they do that."" This is clearly not a rebuttal and therefore this should be treated as a concession to the argument. Actually, I was referring to you posting a picture on your argument and I said I could never figure out how they post pictures on an argument. ""Con believes that the burden of proof is on me however I have clearly proven that it is shared. Con is still contradicting themselves. If the BOP really was on me then there was no need to provide initial arguments which he did. Based on this, you ought to assume that the BOP in this debate is shared. Con obviously believes that there argument is self-evident however this doesn't mean that everybody agrees. My opponent believes that I hold the BOP because their position is evident however I clearly disagree and have provided clear reasons as to why the BOP is shared. You ought to presume pro here."" I said that the right to Life, Liberty, and Property is self-evident, if you don""t know it, that""s what happens when you live in a communist country (oh, I""m sorry, a ""Socialist"" country, it""s a synonym, you use it to make yourselves feel better about living in Commie-land) , you don""t even know what universal rights are anymore. ""Con says that nobody will try illegal abortions. They are wrong in R1 I showed that 13% of all pregnancy related deaths are because of illegal abortions."" I did not say that, I said that we should punish abortion because it cannot be tolerated, as to reduce it. ""Con says that the death penalty is okay in some scenarios but they fail to understand that they just said that life was important and should never be taken."" I said that life is sacred and should only be taken in certain circumstances, including the death penalty, however, a fetus has committed no crime so this does not apply. [1]. [2]. [3]. http://www.doctorsonfetalpain.com...",-1,the act of deliberately killing an unborn child,all,abortion,no,no,con,con
"Depending on the stage, a ""fetus"" can be removed as just a few cells. I don't think that a cluster of cells feel pain. Yes, it might hurt the fetus if it is a later stage, but would in some cases save it from months or years or torture. One example: A woman is given an ultrasound and finds that her baby has a horrible disease that will cause it to go through months or years of pain depending on how long it lives. Think of children that have such severe mental or physical disabilities that they would never aspire to anything in live. It is the merciful thing to abort them, Example 2: A woman is raped, and finds out she is pregnant. What if she is also young? 17? 16? younger? Should she really have to be harassed for 9 months and then have to give birth and raise a child that has an unknown father or the father is in jail,not supporting it? That's not fair to the mother, child, or family. There is also the Donahue-Levitt hypothesis, a theory that shows that legalised abortion is linked to lower crime rates. explained here:http://en.wikipedia.org...",1,the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo before the fetus can survive outside the uterus,all,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"There is a MAJOR difference between ""life"" and ""human life."" A fetus is alive, but it is not a human. You claim to have sources that say a fetus is human; however, there are plenty of sources which claim that a fetus is not. Here is one of many: http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org... I'll ask you some simple questions from yet another source: http://addictinginfo.org... if human life were to start before birth, then why is age counted from the start of birth, rather than from the start of pregnancy? If a fetus is a person then why aren""t adoptions finalized until after the baby is born? If a fetus is a person, why is no one (I shouldn""t speak too soon) suggesting the death penalty for women who have abortions? If a fetus is a person does that mean a pregnant woman is two people? Can she drive in the carpool lane? Can she buy two items when a store advertises ""one per customer"" sales? The list of questions goes on. Just because you have a ""source"" claiming the fetus is a human does not mean it is. In fact, it shows a lack of understanding how sources work. I could just make a website, claim a fetus is human, give faulty logic, and then you could use that as a source. In fact, that's what you did right now: use a source with faulty logic. Moreover, just because a fetus BECOMES a human doesn't mean that it IS a human. A caterpillar BECOMES a butterfly, but it is not yet a butterfly. A baby BECOMES an adult, but it is not yet an adult. A fetus BECOMES a human, but it is not yet a human. It is a fetus. However, EVEN IF YOU FALSELY ASSUME A FETUS IS HUMAN, WHICH IT IS NOT, ABORTION STILL IS ALLOWED. It comes down to the argument of ""A woman has the right to choose what she wants to do with her own body."" The fetus needs the body of the mother to survive. If human A needs a part of human B to survive, e.g. a kidney transplant, it is entirely up to human B whether or not he wants to give human A a kidney. Even if human B is dying and his kidneys will rot with him, he decides what to do with his own body. Is human B not letting human A use his kidney considered murder? No. Is a mother not letting a fetus use her body considered murder? Again, no. If the fetus can survive on its own, then abortion is more of an up in the air debate. However, if the fetus needs the mother's body (which it does), abortion comes down to the simple principal of a woman has the right to choose what she wants to do with her body. A fetus needs a mother's body to survive. If the mother does not want to let the fetus use her body, it doesn't have to. The fetus is a part of a parasitic relationship; although its body is affected, it's using the body of the mother to survive.",1,the act of having an abortion,all,abortion,no,no,neutral,neutral
"A woman has the right to choose what she wants to do with her body. Therefore, abortion is accepted. Rules: No new arguments in R4. If you forfeit a round you automatically lose.",1,the right of a woman to have an abortion,all,abortion,no,no,pro,pro
"According to mayoclinic.com a babies heart starts beating 4 weeks after conception therfore it is to be considered a living human being, making an abortion after four weeks murder, and murder is illegal, yes? Why should a fetus with a heartbeat be any different? A woman has many ways to protect against pregnancy (under normal circumstances) failure to protect against unwanted pregnancy is NOT reason enough to warrent killing a human being.",-1,the termination of a pregnancy by removing a fetus or embryo from the uterus,all,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"My opponent said: ""An extra 1.2 million children born per year would be disastrous to our economy, our orphanages, and the children doomed to live their lives in these institutions."" My opponent stated that our economy,orphanages,and the children would suffer from illegalizing abortion. Well, here are some quick and easy facts, if we were too Illegalize abortion you will find that their is MORE taxpayers, MORE people to buy products in the U.S,MORE people in the work force and AND more people to enlist in the military. In fact Abortions actually hurt the United States economy in the state of Illinois alone it costs the tax payers $1 million each year. My opponent also stated: ""There are perpetually about 500,000 kids in foster care each year. With all the movement in and out of foster care, there is a constant 130,000 children awaiting adoption. In total, in 2007, 783,000 children were in the foster care system at some point. Only about 50,000 American children are adopted every year "" If the United States were to illegalize abortion tomorrow my opponent is right the Adoption Industry would boom and you would find that there would be a need to build more orphanages and there would be a need to get the kids in permanent households. So, he is right that the orphanages would be greatly impacted at FIRST, but over a period of time both the government and the orphanages as individuals would begin to build more orphanages to house all the kids,(which by the way would create countless jobs across America and further boost the economy.)and they would also find ways to give up children at less costlier of a price and there would be a significant increase in adoption advertisements which always helps a cause. In the long run the problems in the overcrowded orphanages would correct its self. As for this statement "" children doomed to live their lives in these institutions."" In my opinion and I hope the voters agree with me on this, the worst doom of all is not even getting the chance to live and the right to life. As for this argument: "" my opponent ignores the conditions of rape and incest. Who will father these children? Will he? Who will provide psychiatric support for these women- too often children themselves- who have been violated and impregnated by disgusting criminals? Who will provide the psychiatric support for the children themselves when they are born?"" With all the abortions that occur each year in the U.S. only 1% of all abortions are from a result from rape and incest. ""who will provide psychiatric support for these women?"" Well, to answer the question I guess I'd have to say by loved ones whom they trust or by a therapist or both. But, I also don't see how illegalizing abortion is going to effect the needs of psychiatric needs of the woman. You cannot punish an unborn child through abortion due to the evils of another human. I don't know about you but I would rather know that I was born through a rape then to be aborted and not living at all. Also.... my opponent states: "" Illegalizing abortion would not lower abortion rates, rather it will raise illegal abortion rates, and the mortality rates associated with abortion. In 1972, a year before abortion became legal, there were a reported 130,000 illegal abortions. From 1975-1979 there were 11,300 illegal abortions reported. (http://findarticles.com......) Repealing Roe v. Wade (one of the steps required to illegalize abortion) would most likely result in a rise in illegal abortions."" Again my opponent is correct on one thing the Illegal abortion rates WOULD go up a few years after it becomes illegal because our society is conditioned to believe abortion is okay. But, you will find that in the long run assuming our government enforces the law and arrests people and keep people in line, you will find that Illegal abortions will decrease significantly and 130,000 abortions is a heck of a lot less then an estimated 1.3 million each year. My opponent also says that is the right of a woman to decide what she wants to do with her body. But this is not the case, It is the right of the babies right to life that abortion infringes on. I'm going to ask the voters and my opponent a question would have wanted to be aborted while in the mothers womb? Thanks for accepting this debate Also my two main sources for the debate: Abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html and citizenlink.org/clnews/A000006052.cfm",-1,the killing of a child in the womb,all,abortion,no,no,con,con
"How I abortion any further murder than using birth control or masturbate? Both are hindering the potential life of a human which seems to be the only argument that my opponent had to offer. And I think we've passed the ""maybe she will learn her lesson and never have sex.""I don't think that a one night fling with a condom that breaks really should be a punishable act with the fine of more than 18 year of commitment, 9 month pregnancy which is a pain already, birth, a complete lack of sleep for the first year or so, having her entire life limited hundredfold, and paying a minimum fine of $241.080: The costs of lego not included.Would you honestly be willing to choose between only having sex when you absolutely are certain you want children (because accidents do happen), something men don't really have to consider since they can sleep with whomever they want and then vanish off the face of the earth for all she knows, and have little or no restrictions. However, making abortion illegal poses serious restrictions to females and gives off the message that women do not have the rights to themselves and to choose. Either they have sex and if an accident does happen they just have to shut up and face the punishment or not be allowed to do what they want to, even if that is just to have a little fun under the starlight. This is a massive step backwards when it comes to female social position and equality: That women do not have a choice, do not have the ability to decide for themselves and should just be there for reproductive purposes. It is either the ""murder"" of something that never lived against brutally breaking the rights of someone that has been living for q minimum of nearly two decades, give or take a few years. To conclude:In the beginning of my case I asked my opponent a few questions that his entire case hung on, a few questions that he really needed to answer in order for his case to hold up. He did not answer these question; and in hindsight he didn't do much to even protect his case. I showed you, dear readers, how abortion, be it moral or not, is a needed thing and making it illegal is not a steo forward, it isn't saving anyone and there are a lot of cases where it just does not apply. abortions are not going away soon, they'll just change form if we would try and stop them. Abortions would no longer just remove the fetus, but possibly harm the woman and even killing her. This is not a future for us, and thus we conclude that abortion is not the dreaded thing my opponent wishes it was.thank you also for the debate.",1,the act of killing a fetus,all,abortion,no,no,neutral,con
"I accept, 5 minutes to post arguments is fine by me (although strange to be honest), but con must refute my case, here goes... Now onto the Pro case, on why abortion is legal and moral. 1st- Morality Morality is defined as a ""Code of Conduct that would be put forth by all rational persons"" By the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy[1] Personhood- [3] Murder- The crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought [2]. Is Abortion truly murder? Well, to answer that question, we must look at what allegedly is being murdered during the process of an abortion. A Fetus is NOT a Person, A.K.A a human being. A-Is a Fetus a human being? Fetus are essentially completely reliant on their host, in which they reside. Only that one host can truly take care and sustain that Fetus. This characteristic represents that of an organism that is inhumane, in that human beings do not rely on one human being, and only that human being, for sustenance. Simply saying that Fetus will grow is a weak argument on the grounds of abortion, because we look towards what is technically going to die. In no way at any point of an abortion is a human being going to die. A Fetus, can clearly be distinguished from a human being, and as such, Abortion cannot be considered a murder. B- The Right to life of a Fetus There is a major contradiction in giving a Fetus a right to life, anyone who does is completely undermining the host from which it lives. As stated in point 1, Fetus' do not share any characteristics of a human being, they reflect a parasite in fact, one that sustains itself solely off a host organism, and continues to grow, while feeding off the host. By giving a Fetus the right to life, the mother's life is basically worthless, it must sustain a parasite it does not want to sustain, and this is indeed an infringement upon the rights of the mother. To better state this, i will Quote Joyce Arthur- ""The free exercise of one's moral conscience is a fundamental right in our society. And since pregnancy entails profound physical, psychological, and long-lasting consequences for a woman (it is not a mere ""inconvenience""), her freedoms are significantly restricted if she is forced to carry to term."" [3] C-The Choice of abortion (Quality of Life) Has anyone ever stopped to ask themselves why women have abortions? Does the quality of life mean nothing to Pro-Life people? A Moral outlook on abortion shows the many reasons women choose to have abortions. Not only may it be unwanted, but many times the Rape victim or the Soon-To-Be Single mother cannot successfully sustain their baby. The Fact is, Quality of life is just as important to the mother as it is to all of us looking at this issue from a 3rd person perspective. If a mother is living in such harsh conditions where she can barely make a living herself, why would she want to bring into this world a being which she must watch suffer unless cared for, and then diminish the already bad quality of her life as well? No Justification exists for allowing a being into this world if it WILL SUFFER. On top of that, the it should be the mother's choice based off of her right to life, and her quality of life. Why do we make the innocent pay? By Diminishing a mother's life, and allowing a baby to suffer, we as human beings are inherently immoral. This point in no way advocates unwanted pregnancies, but a pregnancy cannot be planned, and no specification has been made on how women become pregnant in the first place. An easy assumption is through unwanted means such as- Forgetting Birth Control or the much more gruesome- Rape. 2nd Legality of Abortion A- Roe vs Wade (1973) The U.S. Supreme Court stated that abortion bans were unconstitutional in every state, legalizing abortion throughout the United States. There are multiple reasons for this. 1) Forced Permittence This may sound silly, but a burden is a burden, just as a man walking into your house and using your bed without any permittence is unlawful so too is having to carry an unborn organism that feeds off of you. Just as that man eats your food and takes all of your stuff, so too does that unborn organism. The truth of the matter is, just like a house is owned, so is a body, whatever is inside that house or body is what is permitted to be inside based on he owner.To make things clearer- Whatever exists inside my body is at my disposal, any organism is inherently infringing upon my rights by taking up space in my body. Just as a Tapeworm is an unwanted organism in your body, so too is an unborn fetus, unwanted by the mother, yet the mother is forced to carry it. 2)Infringing upon the Quality of Life (Sound Familiar?) This point may sound familiar, and it should, because it applies to both legality and morality. Quality of life is everything, many philosophers argue the quality of life is what defines life, without happiness and joy there is no point to life. If a women was forced to carry a burden which she knew she could not carry, and had no way of disposing it legally, this would be in reality torture. We cannot justify denying the rights of Freedom, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. By not allowing for a woman to have an abortion, we are deterring and infringing upon that woman's rights. B- Fetus' Rights [3] Do Fetus' Have rights? Let's say we somehow gave an unborn Fetus all the constitutional rights an American Citizen was given. Could it truly exercise any rights at all? What would be the point? Giving Rights to an organism that cannot use a single one is meaningless. By Giving Rights to the Fetus or Zygote, a weighing factor would be put into play. Who's life would be worth more then? The Woman or the Unborn Fetus that cannot exercise a single right given to it? This is completely unfair to the woman, not only is this Fetus' life given weight equivalent to hers, it's also given rights it can't even use, and it isn't even alive! Logically, we cannot give an organism rights if they cannot exercise those rights.Thus it is legal for a woman to have an abortion on the grounds of rights. Thank you for taking the time to read this debate, i wish you all good luck and thank my opponent for an intellectually stimulating debate. I hope for the best :) [1] http://plato.stanford.edu...... [2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...... [3] http://www.abortionaccess.info...... This is all mine, i used this in another abortion debate as well, but judges my opponent put a time limit of 5 minutes between arguments, and this is still MY WORK look it up if you don't believe me. Thank you and good luck. Reminder- Cons BOP is to refute pro, simply giving completely different reasons why abortion is wrong does not comply to traditional forms of debate.",1,the intentional destruction of a fetus,all,abortion,no,yes,neutral,con
"What if the mother was raped? While I believe that life begins at implantantation, I support last resort choice that is safe and legal for the mother. Women have the right to make difficult choices for their pregnancy. Do I support birth controll or consensual sterilization as a first resort for free as an independent progressive like Bernie? Yes. Do I think abortion takes a human life? Yes. Do I realize that last resort choice has to exist when two human lives are connected? A resounding yes. That's the very definition of prochoice. My main problem with abolitionists and life of the mother onlyers is that I PERSONALLY BELIEVE that they support legalized forced organ donation. When even a corpse has the right to choose who uses his or her organs, but a live breathing woman does not, I have a problem with that. Here's the thing forced lifers fail to realize: I have no opinion or rights to what or who uses your human body, nor do you over mine. Pardon my French, but no one supports chits and gigles abortion, but anyone of any faith or none whatsoever can support last resort choice. It's a very emotional subject, and so hard to avoid lifers accusing me of hating children (I don't), or choicers accusing you of hating women even if you don't. My final point ius that women will die if abortion is banned according to pre Roe statitistical studies. Is that really prolife?",1,"the termination of a pregnancy by the removal, crushing, or other destruction of the embryo or fetus",all,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,con
"This debate was suicide for my opponent from the get go. Con wants to argue that abortion is an unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another (murder), and that a decision making abortion more lawful than it already is, should be overturned. mur·der/ˈmərdər/ Noun: The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. Verb: Kill (someone) unlawfully and with premeditation. [1]My opponent's position is incoherent. This is because, if Roe v. Wade exists, then abortion cannot be unlawful (Roe v. Wade enhances the lawfulness of abortion), and therefore it is not murder. On the other hand, if abortion is murder, then Roe v. Wade wouldn't exist, and therefore, it being overturned would be impossible. Vote Pro. Sources[1] . http://oxforddictionaries.com...",1,the intentional killing of a human being,all,abortion,no,no,con,con
"Laws are protecting unborn babies therefore abortion should be illegal. Murder is illegal. The definition of murder is the unlawful killing of a human being. *If, abortion were illegal it would be considered murder because basic science proves that an unborn child, fetus whatever you want to call it is a human being. These babies are fully human even if they""re not born yet. They""re just like us but the difference is that they are innocent little people, voiceless and helpless. Abortion is contradicting the U.S constitution. ""The Fourteenth Amendment to the United Statses Constitution says, ""No State shall "" deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."" The fetus should have an undeniable right to live. As a matter of fact, this has been written in the U.S constitution since 1787. People have been ignoring this for years. That""s why we have abortion.* If people are ignoring the constitution we might as well not have a constitution. The death penalty law states, ""Federal law prohibits the death penalty for pregnant women until they give birth. (18 U.S.C.A. S.3596) In essence, the law declared that an innocent unborn person cannot be sentenced and put to death for a crime he did not commit. If the unborn child were not seen as a person in the eyes of the law, there would be no need for this prohibition."" You can only kill a person if they committed a crime. That""s why people say that you""re killing an innocent person because it has not done anything wrong to get to the point of taking away its life. Laws have always been against abortion.",-1,the act of killing a baby,all,abortion,no,no,con,con
#1 no ad hominems. #2 standard rules regarding dropped arguments apply I believe that abortion should be illegal except for when the pregnancy poses a serious threat to the life of the mother.,-1,the termination of a human pregnancy by delivery of a dead fetus or by the destruction of the fetus before delivery,all,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"First of all, abortions are not safe. A woman has a high risk of getting depression. In fact, this can last at least five years after they abort. They also have a high risk of suicide. (154% more likely than women who give birth.) *If , someone decides to have an abortion. Their lives are going to be miserable. They""re going to be depressed. Especially the day the baby was supposed to be born or/and the day they aborted. The Guttmatcher Institute says, ""Unsafe abortion has significant negative consequences beyond its immediate effects on women""s health. For example, complications from unsafe abortion may reduce women""s productivity, increasing the economic burden on poor families; cause maternal deaths that leave children motherless; cause long-term health problems, such as infertility; and result in considerable costs to already struggling public health systems."" These are some of the bad things that can happen after an abortion. And these are not the only ones, there""s many more. Lisa B Haddad, MD says, ""Some 68,000 women die of unsafe abortion annually, making it one of the leading causes of maternal mortality (13%). Of the women who survive unsafe abortion, 5 million will suffer long-term health complications.""",-1,the termination of a human pregnancy by delivery or other means,all,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"Abortion is wrong because takes an innocent life. In the case of the infant, there is no choice. The choice of aborting a child relies on the mother. When it comes to religion, God ultimately chooses life and death. Abortion is a form of murder. It is the mother's responsibility to take care of her child.",-1,the act of taking a life of an unborn child,all,abortion,no,no,con,con
"I believe that the killing of a child inside the womb is abortion during and stage of a pregnancy. I cannot understand your reasoning behind a baby being viable or not. As I said, heart is beating at 3 and 1/2 weeks. Science proves that this is in fact a separate entity from his or her mother. ALL abortion is horrific. I am not for any trimester- I believe that abortion is just as terrible in the first trimester than the third. And you still did not answer my question on how you justify that most women feel that they had no other choice than to abort their child.. can this be because organizations like Planned Parenthood are not giving these women all the choices possible? Maybe these organizations are persuading women a certain direction? Certainly.. it happens every day. Planned Parenthood employees have a script to avoid any kind of question a woman may have and to ensure that those women come in to receive an abortion. You discuss first trimester abortion, yet your stance on the pro choice is that a woman should be able to decide at any stage when she can abort her child. I ask you when you consider this ""fetus"" and child? When should the line be drawn? Can we kill children even outside the womb? I mean honestly, what you essentially are saying is that there is no difference between killing a baby in the womb or killing a baby outside the womb... I really do not understand this whole viable vs. unviable, baby vs. fetus argument. Does a single difference in a day decide when a life is a life?",-1,the act of killing a child in the womb,all,abortion,no,no,con,con
"He has lied, made up false quotes that were supposedly from my argument and has provided me with almost all of their arguments being assertions. I hope that voter's take all of this into consideration because some of the stuff that he has done is NOT acceptable in a debate. R5 RebuttalsIt is clear that con has skimmed and not read my entire argument. This is because con continues to say that reproduction doesn't count however I will now show why reproduction counts when determining life: - It was in my strongly sourced biological list used to determine life. - It was in con's definition of life. - This applies to groups of things and children belong to the group: humans and they still are classified as living. I'll restate something here that con fails to understand. These are the stages of being a human being: These are the stages at which somebody is considered human. Con should note that babies and pre-pubescent children are included here. Con should look at the other classification system that is NOT considered human: The outcome here is simple. The fetus and the human are different things since they have different stages of classification. I have constantly repreated this and he has completely ignored the logic, reasoning and sources that I have provided and resorted to bare assertion. Con attempts to show that abortions causes pain and provides a youtube video. There are a number of reasons why this fails. This was not a normal abortion - it was a late term abortion. The words ""abortion"" and ""late term abortion"" have very different meanings. An abortion is tehe termination of the fetus up to 24 weeks (in the UK) and 28 weeks (in the US) [1]. This person had an abortion at 7 1/2 months. That's around 32 weeks which may not seem like a lot more however in this period of time a lot of new changes happen which makes the scenario completely different from what we are debating here. Con believes that consciousness / sentience is a characteristic of the fetus. A specialized egg has no nervous system and hence no consciousness [2]. Con's assertion is therefore incorrect. It is also important to note that I got my information for this from a reliable medical website. Con's source, on the other hand, is from youtube. Con believes that I we cannot detect emotions. This is true but we can detect brain activity and certain brain activity demonstrates that the fetus has 'feelings' of some sort. The egg has no specialized nervous system in it's brain and it's brain is evidentally not completely developed, from scientists brain reports we have deduced that the fetus cannot feel emotions [2][3]. Con uses the same examples that have been constantly refuted. People that are on injected nutrition belong to the human race which we can decipher from their DNA, physical appearance and brain activity and complexity. The fetus has comparable DNA to humans (but not completely developed or the same). The fetus has little resemblance to a human being in terms of physical appearance. The fetus' brain is also not as developed as any living human being [4]. He drops independant respiration. Con states that he quoted the foundation of libertarianism and it's declaration of independance. By saying this alone, then they effectively drop my entire argument that I made and my previous rebuttals. I stated the main ideologies of libertarianism and why they should be considered above the requirements set by my opponent for this reason. This is dropped by Con. I find Con's critisism of quite funny. As somebody who has studied the politics of the UK in extreme depth I will try to correct your mistakes as best as I can. Right to bare arms: The right to bare arms isn't a right and it's a terrible idea. I don't want to get into too much depth however it is imporant to note that assaults are 7 times more likely to result in death if the aggressor posesses a firearm [5]. Free Speech: This isn't explained and is really easy to respond to. The UK follows the UDHR and in their laws they allow freedom of speech so long as it isn't discriminatory or racist and is used to provoke violence [6]. Privacy: This is broad and covers a lot of areas including freedom of the press, survailence, census frequency etc. Con hasn't been specific enough for me to respond. Taxes: We have a free NHS. We have free education. We have more jobs. We have higher wages. These taxes work out better for us than they do for you. You've also completely exaggeraed our taxes. Our basic rate divided income is at 10%. Basic rate savings income is 20%. Higher rate divided income is 32.5%. Our higher rate savings income is at 40%. Our additional rate divided income is 37.5%. Our additional rate savings income is at 45%. This is no where near as con has suggested. You should also note that he didn't source this whereas I have [7]. You are making absoloutely no sense. Please tell me in the comments (because there are no rounds left) what source you used to conclude your information because that statistic is worryingly far from the truth. He states that their framework is conservatism using that one word. Without an explanation (like mine), this makes no sense. It is not a framework. You have just used 1 word. Since my opponent has no explained his framework's significance and it's views on abortion this means that it is not suitable for the definition of a framework in debate and as a result you ought to vote Pro on the basis that con has failed to provide a framework. He attempts to justify they violation of the TOS by taking my words out of context and then putting them in quotation marks to make it look like they said this. As is evident, this is virtually impossible to justify. Yes, I said that women aren't getting their rights by being denied an abortion but I never mentioned a comparison to men and I never mentioned equal rights in this context. Con has also failed to justify putting this into quotation marks. I find it hilarious that con states that I should be voted against because of this. Con says that I am lying. If you can find evidence of me saying that the fetus is trespassing on the mother's body (other than when I deny con's claim that I said this), then you can vote Con. If you can't then you ought to vote Pro since con has lied (again). Con says that there are 1 million gay people wanting to adopt. Where are the sources? Oh wait, there are none. Con says that they were referring to the picture when they said that - they ignore the fact that they dropped the embryo argument which is the most signficant argument in the debate. Con makes a remark about communism in response to the BOP. I assume that means that they agree that the BOP is shared. Con says that he will punish illegal abortions. I said that most women die. He says that they will be put off. I say that they still do illegal abortions. Con says that he was talking about punishment. Do you see what is happening here? He is going arond in circles and not refuting my points. Con says that the fetus has committed no crime so it does not apply but fails to say why. It seems ironic that con says that one of his main philosophies is in regards to life and then says that life can be taken in certain circumstances. He doesn't explain why crime allows moral standards to be abandoned you ought to view it irrelevant. Arguments: He only has 1 which is refuted. He also drops my main argument. This goes to Pro. Conduct: He lies and makes false quotations. This goes to Pro. S&G - Tied Sources: He has used no sources up until the final round after I questioned him on it. He failed to source anything else throughout the entire debate where sources were necessary this goes to Pro. This is an objective vote for Pro. Sources [1] . http://bit.ly...;[2] . http://bit.ly...;[3] . http://bit.ly...[4] . http://bit.ly...[5] Guns in America: A Reader [6] . http://bit.ly...;[7] . http://bit.ly...;",1,the act of removing a fetus from the uterus,all,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"Abortion is murder and it should be illegal. There is no excuse for an abortion there are many alternatives too them, one example would be adoption. I would say that the ONLY reason why there should to be an abortion is in case the baby is acting as a cancer and its killing the mother, but that should be the last resort. I will await for my opponents arguments",-1,the act of taking a baby out of the womb,all,abortion,no,no,neutral,con
Abortion is the killing of a human life. The question of when life begins and viability is a fluid situation depending on many variables.,-1,the act of killing a human life,all,abortion,no,no,con,con
#1 no ad hominems. #2 standard rules regarding dropped arguments apply #3 no new arguments in final rebuttals. I believe that abortion should be illegal except for when the pregnancy poses an abnormal threat to the life of the mother. please don't accept if you intend to forfeit.,-1,the killing of a fetus,all,abortion,no,no,neutral,con
"""The cost is not minimal. The average cost to raise a child is $245,340 http://www.huffingtonpost.com....... Multiply that by 1 million and well....Argument debunked"" You aren't debunking anything. So you believe that ending someone's life and not giving them a chance at life is a better option? This is a disgusting ideal abortionists try to convince themselves and other of. ""Let's not be burdened by the cost of a human being due to its inconvenience to others..."" ""Sex is natural and has nothing to do with being able to raise a child. Evolution made sex feel really good so that we would produce. Practically everyone wants to have sex badly. It's a natural desire. Argument debunked."" Yes, sex is natural. What, exactly, does that have anything to do with aborting a child? ""Sex is fun, so we should just allow anyone to engage in it and then terminate the human growing inside if we don't want to deal with the consequences of our actions."" ""No, you are only looking at your side of the picture, rather than considering EVERY piece of evidence,"" Actually, I have, which is why I am pro life. ""As I stated, there are 100k orphans ALREADY. If we become antiabortion, this number will reach ridiculous heights."" Abortion became legal in the United States in 1973. Was there overpopulation before this? No. This argument isn't even relevant. ""Actually, no. This is untrue. Pain MIGHT be felt for a couple of seconds."" No, pain is felt for a while as it bleeds out after being ripped apart limb from limb. And if the fetus is a bunch of cells, how does it feel pain at all? Pain indicates that it is a human life being painfully ended.",-1,the act of ending a pregnancy,all,abortion,no,yes,neutral,neutral
I would like my opponent to answer the following: What gives the justification to kill a being? At what point does something become 'living'? What are upsides of abortion? Downsides? Thanks for accepting!,-1,abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by removal or destruction of an embryo or fetus,all,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"Day 21:The heart begins to beat,7 unsurely at first, gaining strength day by day. The heart beats 70 times per minute at first, reaching a maximum of 170-190 at seven weeks, and slowing a bit to 160-180 at 9 weeks.8 A day later the eyes begin to develop. The earliest stages of the ears are now present.9 Thank you for informing me about this, this is where I personally feel its wrong to kill a human, because this is when I feel like it becomes a person. But, also, you have yet to take in the consideration about the mother situation. ""1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child."" Yes, it is a very small number, but I feel like it okay with those situations. source: http://www.abortionno.org...",1,the act of taking the life of a fetus,all,abortion,no,no,neutral,con
"To define infanticide one must first define life. Human rights are applied to the living. A corpse has no human rights after life has seeped away from it for example. A foetus had no human rights until life has emerged from the biological process. 'Murder for pleasure'. Really! Your argument seems to be based from an emotional standpoint. You utilise terms such as murder and infanticide when referring to abortion. Whether this comes from a religious standpoint or your own moralising you have left unclear. You state: 'What people need to understand is that it is no skin off the womens constitutional rights to be denied the 'right' to murder their children.' First I will ask you when a collection of cells become a child. There is a large grey area you could have swung for yet I suspect from your writing, and though you haven't stated it as I requested, it is conception. If that is so then I strongly disagree. One week after conception the potential of life is but a bunch of cells. And yet you would argue that this bunch of cells is enough to deny a woman the right to life, liberty and property as set out within your constitution and that you are fond of quoting. Your argument of constitutional illegality is flawed and USA centric. Unless you are only concerned with infringing upon the rights of American women I would ask what your argument might be in addressing European abortion. The laws here are a little different, and less disproportionate than 'you' would wish. From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org... Fetal rights are moral rights or legal rights of human fetuses under natural and civil law. The term fetal rights came into wide usage after the landmark case Roe v. Wade that legalized abortion in the United States in 1973.[1] The concept of fetal rights has evolved to include the issues of maternal drug and alcohol abuse.[2] The only international treaty specifically tackling the fetal rights is the American Convention on Human Rights which envisages the fetal right to life. While international human rights instruments lack a universal inclusion of a fetus as a person for the purposes of human rights, fetus is granted various rights in the constitutions and civil codes of several countries. Many legal experts recognize an increasing need to settle the legal status of the fetus. And: Under European law, fetus is generally regarded as an in utero part of the mother and thus its rights are held by the mother.[42] The European Court of Human Rights opined that the right to life does not extend to fetuses under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR),[42] although it does not confer on the European Court of Human Rights the authority to impose relevant laws on European Union member states.[43] In H. v. Norway, the European Commission did not exclude that ""in certain circumstances"" the fetus may enjoy ""a certain protection under Article 2, first sentence"".[44] Three European Union member states (Ireland, Hungary and Slovakia) grant fetus the constitutional right to life. The Constitution of Norway grants the unborn royal children the right of succession to the throne.[45] In English common law, fetus is granted inheritance rights under the born alive rule. Every nation struggles with the concept of abortion with unique conclusions. The World Health Organization (WHO) and Human Rights Watch prioritize women's reproductive rights over fetal rights period. To protect both mother and the potential of life she carries as best we can emotion must be set aside in favour of logic and reason. I await your application of both of those.",1,the termination of a human pregnancy by various medical methods,all,abortion,yes,yes,neutral,neutral
"Rebutting My Opponent""Law does not define terms.""Murder is defined as unlawful. Therefore, being unlawful is a necessary condition which needs to be in place, for a murder to take place. ""By what you are saying if the government made murder legal then there would be no murder.""If the government made killing of any kind was lawful, then murder would not exist.""There would still be murder, it just wouldn't be prosecuted. I would like it if you actually argued the issue that is at hand instead of trying to jump on a technicality, in my first sentence. For you I will restate my opening argument.""There would not be murder, because it wouldn't be against the law. Murder is defined as unlawful. Here is another definition:""mur·der n. 1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.""[1] ""I am arguing that abortion is the immoral killing of another human innocent life. It is not the choice of the mother to decide whether or not the fetus is aborted.""This is great, but I accepted the debate on the terms my opponent provided in the first round. For trying to change it mid-debate, I urge a conduct vote for Pro. Regardless, I will still debate with this new argument for fun, but I hope the voters are aware the resolution has already been negated, and an argument vote for Pro is warranted regardless of any further argumentation. ""I am sorry for my confusing opening statement but I hope that you will continue a serious debate on my restated argument.""When one doesn't make serious opening arguments, how can one expect to get serious responses? It doesn't matter anyway, my response was very serious. Argument In Favor Of Abortion Not Being Immoral P1: Human life gains moral value when when consciousness is obtained, and/ or pain can be feltP2: A first and second trimester fetus is not conscious (about as conscious as a kidney), and can feel no pain.P3: Most abortions (99%) are obtained in the first and second trimester of pregnancyP4: Abortion is not unethical Regarding Premise 1:Human life's value begins when consciousness begins and/or pain can be felt is more than a fair statement. It's only rational to assume that human life's value is based on the actions and feelings of conscious beings. It's also rational to assume that if a being isn't conscious and can feel no pain, then there is nothing immoral which can be done to this being. It is morally dead.Regarding Premise 2: Abortions carried out in the first and second trimester have absolutely no moral implications once so ever, due to the fact that a first trimester embryo is not conscious [2]. Also, first and second trimester embryos can feel absolutely no pain once so ever because pain receptors are required for this. Pain receptors need a neotox which is not formed until the third trimester [2]. Regarding Premise 3Over 88% of all abortions are actually done within the first trimester [3]. Some sources even claim that the number is more around 88-92% [4]. What about second trimester abortions?""About 140,000 second trimester abortions are performed yearly. They represent 9% of the total""So, I think it is safe to say that close to all abortions Regarding Premise 4Since first and second trimester embryos have no consciousness and cannot feel pain, and 99% abortions are carried out in the first and second trimester, then the majority of abortions don't really imply any genuine negative moral implications (and therefore, should not be considered unethical).A Woman Has a Right To Choose A woman has a right to do with her own body as she pleases. Even is she commits suicide after like some women do, that wouldn't mean the woman didn't have the right to do it or it was unethical. What is unethical is restricting someone's right to chose what they want to do with their own body, especially when we are dealing with a subject that isn't even aware it exists and can feel no pain.Since this woman a conscious being and can feel pain, while the subject in question does not meet the requirements, then not letting this woman have the right to chose to have an abortion would be extremely unethical.Conclusion I amused my opponent by rebutting her the argument, but the one I agreed to debate to has been negated clearly without sufficient rebuttal. Sources[1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[2] http://civilliberty.about.com...[3] http://contraception.about.com... [4] http://www.abort73.com...",1,the act of murdering a fetus,all,abortion,no,no,con,con
"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