[TD]Abortion - Team debate S101 Voting

[Roland_Deschain]

DEBATE IS NOW OPEN TO PUBLIC. A POLL IS ADDED, YOU CAN ONLY VOTE IF YOU FOLLOW UP WITH A POST EXPLAINING YOUR VOTE. 150 WORDS MINUMUM!!!



Calilily, My Maniac, and Draklor = Pro choice / Womens choice < WILL USE GREEN

Harlerquin, Roland_Deschain, Starstruck = Anti-abortion. < WILL USE BLUE

The debate will last a total of seven days. Afterwards, it will be opened to the public, accompanied by a poll for the readers to depict the side they stand on, and who promoted their sides best.

If your opinion is swayed then you may switch the side you feel you stand on overall. Doing so, you must also switch colors.

Treat everyone in the debate as if they were strangers beforehand. There will be no relaying relationships (good or bad) of any sort, into the debate.



RULES

- Each debatist will be allowed no more then 1500 Words per post. 150 word minimum.
- Each debatist will be allowed no more then 15 overall posts during the debate's duration.
- All forms of insults are strictly forbiddon.
- Every "question" given by a person, must be addressed by the person it was asked to.
- All statistics using percents, ratio's, numbers, must be coupled with posted information.
- The duration of each debate will be five days in length in order to work smoothly.
- Every opponent must cross words with each other at least once, no 1v1 in a 3v3 debate.
- Use proper Grammar.
- Do NOT lie. Lying is strictly forbiddon. Only provide honest truths and stated opinions, do not present opinions as facts.
- No trolling.



Everyone show respect, stay open minded, and hold your grounds.

 

[Roland_Deschain]

Before I debate or rebuttal points I would like to be perfectly clear on my stance of Abortion.

STANCE: I feel that abortion should only be an option in the most severe of circumstances. These circumstances pretty much consist of rape, and that is all. Furthermore I believe that abortion itself is not a horrible thing, but rather a solution to an avoidable problem of unprepared pregnancy, that has been taken advantage of.

I am fully aware of the Supreme Court case of Roa VS Wade. I understand that the constitution protects the laws of abortion as they stand. My stance is that this should be changed and altered to only to rape cases.

As cliché as it may seem to promote saving lives in this debate, I have to point out that this is why I stand where I stand. If we were not ending lives before they could begin, I do not think it would be an issue.

When it comes to abortion the majority of them are young pregnancies. Worldwide, statistics say that there are approximately 115,000 abortions per day. In America, there are approximately 3,700 per day. Race comes heavily into play (will address later).

http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html

I cannot speak for other countries, but I do find that America's population problems do not compare with some of the other major overpopulated countries that contribute to the abortion count.

I feel that many people say it’s a bias topic between men and women, however I would like to point out that there are men and women who both who stand on each side of the fence.

My argument is that two wrongs do not make a right. I will take the humanitarian side of the argument and say that it IS the woman's right to do what she wants with her body. However, I believe it is the woman’s responsibility prior. If you say men can mate with the female and face no problems, I would agree, and say that they should be equally responsible for the child. However the woman does not have to indulge in intercourse regardless of what the man wants. With power comes resposibility, and the power to bring life into this world is very meaningful.

As much as people do not want to admit it, there are ways to prevents pregnancies. You can use contraceptives, which in my opinion are wildly neglected this day and age partially due to the concept of abortion. Most importantly, you do NOT have to partake in intercourse until you are ready to bear a child, or at least take the risk. As far as I can tell human life should outweigh the desire for underage and unprotected sex... there is something called oral sex and masturbation.

So in my eyes I see abortion as a problem being used to solve an avoidable problem. The only exclusion imo, should be rape. I feel that we should alter the system, to promote and protect the potential human life, take away the only excuse not to practice safe sex (or prepared sex), and offer more assistance programs for those who are not fully capable of taking care of a child.

To those religious I ask, “what if Jesus was aborted?” To those intellectuals I ask, “what if Einstein was?” We never know the value of a human life until we know. Some of the most inspirational and intelligent people were born with nothing. While I agree that some children might turn into neglectful criminals, I feel that others will learn from the mistakes of their parents, guilty until proven innocent... correct?

A lot of people were born into bad situations, I wonder how many would actually say they would have preferred not to exsist.

As for the matter of a phetus not achieving awareness, I do not think it matters. If it will become a human then there is no difference. Once the process has began, I find it equally unethical to stop it, no matter what stage it is in.

 

[Roland_Deschain]

Most abortions in America(from what I've read) are preformed up to 14 weeks and then in some states you can abort up to 24 weeks. At 14 weeks I personally think it's murder. I am for the idea of the woman having the choice to abortion at the latest of 8-9 weeks. I think then and only then a woman has the choice of abortion before it begins to involve more than one person in the decision.

I think anything under 8-9 weeks is acceptable and only involves the woman.

This is a fair point, no doubt. I do have to ask you a question though. In your heart, do you actually feel a difference between 8-9 and 14 weeks? I mean its going to the the same result of a child in the end correct? So if the process has already begun, and is inevitable, then what is the difference? I mean I know its different to a scientist, but is it really not still stopping a life from happening?

Some say abortion should be done when it's extreme circumstances between the life and the well-being of the mother but I think that's unfair for the women. Let's face it, women nowadays they are very much sexually active. And honestly, it's a bit extreme to try and expect all them to put down their sexuality in order to live in our ideal way of life and live a life of no sex until they want a child or are at least married.

This also is a very fair point regarding women. However, I am sorry that I might have to disagree in my stance. When you say the word extreme... and compare using contraceptives or not having sex, to abortion. I think abortion sounds the most extreme between the two.

Besides health reasons, there is a major life-changing factor in having a child. In some instances, women end up losing their careers because they had an unexpected pregnancy. It slows the track of the woman's life that they very much wanted. One of the major issues being careers. It's not fair for a women to have to throw away her future just because she got pregnant when she could have prevented it with an early abortion or contraceptive. But even then, contraceptives sometimes fail... but does that mean the woman has to stick through having an unwanted child when she could abort it before it gets to the point of being another life?

I agree it may sound unfair to an extent, and that is why I personally would like to see some serious laws put down to enforce the man's responsibility. I think that men should keep it in their pants also (I believe they are the majority who disregard contraceptives.) This is all the more reason to have self control.

However, Roland, you said contraceptives aren't used as much as they should be because of the option of abortion, but that's simply not the case. See, here in America a woman has to pay with her own money for her own birth control. It's not covered by the government like Viagra is. For most instances it's pretty hard for a girl to have money on the side for birth control when they're out of a job and have bills piling up left and right.

I didn't state that it was strictly because of abortion, but partially. As far as a man goes when it comes to strapping on a condom I think if they knew there was no abortion... well they might remember better. Keep in mind I am not afraid to put blame on men in this debate as well. I know very well that there are so many out there that do not use condoms.

However I definately do not think that money should be laid down as an excuse for why you got pregnant. The avergage cost of birth control (according to planned parenthood) is 160-600 dollars per year. Now, if you can not must that much cash per year, then I would say you should be working and not having sex. Because once you do get pregnant, the average abortion costs up to $1,000 dollars, and raising a child costs about $12,000 per year. I am going to have to say prioritys first. A couple using no birth control has an 85% chance of getting pregnant in one year.

This is a link regarding the costs of different contraceptives.
http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/alpha-consumer/2010/08/27/the-real-cost-of-birth-control-

While, I agree with you contraceptives like birth control aren't used as much as they should be it's not because girls aren't wanting to use them. There are cases where a girl forgets to take the pill one day and then, just like that, they have a chance of getting pregnant. Even with contraceptives like birth control, it can backfire both financially and bodily. There are quite a lot of side affects associated to taking birth control, as well. Some women don't want to take the risk of it for reasons of their own health or the future possibility of wanting a child.

Thats very true, I am aware that many contraceptives and pills feature rather nasty side effects, and I think its something they should definately try to improve as far as medical protection goes. However like I stated above, I think its just priority's first.

I saw that you mentioned oral sex and masturbation is a way for someone to avoid pregnancy. But what about those women that do not like the idea of oral? Maybe they think that's unmoral or disgusting, like myself?

Well masterbation is better then nothing if you are sexually active.

You also brought up that a woman doesn't have to take part in sexual activity--but, come on. In today's society that's extremely naive to tell women that. Especially when a lot of women feel pressured into doing it, in the first place. Again, as a Christian women, I know what it's like with pressure to get active sexually. It's not something that you can just bat an eyelash at. Some relationships crumble if there isn't any sexual activity. This is something you have to accept if we're going to be able to debate this the best we can.

I am not going to defend "America", because its not so sexually active in many other countries. I know very well that its turned into a wildly sexual country. Now imo I do not fully see this as a good thing. I mean I think people should have the right to have sex of course, but I don't think the desire to have sex excuses the execution of a baby that will never live. In a way I wish sex was put back on a pedastal, and I wish sex would have some of its lost meaning and significance restored. In a way this is yet another reason I am standing anti-abortion, I think it would put some more pressure back on sex in general.

For the record, I was not just telling woman that, but also men. I think they should have enforcment on the human lives they create. Just as much as the woman does.

.

You have some good points Cali, I look forward to seeing everyone else's stances on the matter.

 

[Harlequin]

I'm with Roland for the most part. I'm going to argue that abortion should only be an option to those in extreme circumstances, like victims of rape.

Now I'm not too well versed on the development processes the foetus takes during pregnancy, but I know there is a cut off point where you can no longer have a legal abortion. Bizarre, seeing as terminating a pregnancy is terminating a pregnancy, when exactly should it count as murder? When the foetus develops a heart beat? Or a nervous system to feel pain?

The abortion cut off point in the UK is currently 24 weeks, which to me is vile. There are babies that are born prematurely at that stage who survive. Western society drones on about having the higher moral ground to the rest of the world but I don't think there's anything humane about sucking a live baby out of a womb and leaving it to die in a sink.

Now I'm not too big on freedom of choice. Yes, it's great living with opportunity and freedoms, but the reality is people can't be trusted with liberty. There are girls out there who treat abortion as casually as going out to get a haircut. It's that abortion is made readily avaliable to people by the state that spoils their attitudes to it. If someone is always given a route out of a problem, there is an increased risk of that problem coming to pass seeing as the negative consequence is gone. The West is having to get tougher to deal with a complete lack of responsibility within it's populace. Hundreds of thousands of young people are lining up to get on welfare because it's a more pleasant alternative to actually having some responsibility and working for their money. Just like how abortions are a more pleasant alternative to having to wake up to feed a child rather than going out with friends every week.

There's adequate protection when it comes to sex. The chances of getting pregnant when she's on the pill and you've got a condom on are extremely low when basic competence is involved. The problems sprout from a lapse in responsibility, when you hit it bareback just once as if she can't get pregnant off one time.

Now I'm not necessarily saying it should be made illegal, but it should definately not be made avaliable by the state. Like Roland said, once the wheels have been put in motion it doesn't matter when you terminate the pregnancy, life has still been snuffed out.

As for the woman's choice, I wholely agree. Gents, if you wanted a baby you should've found a lady who you trusted who was prepared to have one. What she does with her body is no business of yours. Of course, this is a moot point when taking into account my stance on abortion anyway.

Sorry for the delayed involvement everyone.

See, here in America a woman has to pay with her own money for her own birth control. It's not covered by the government like Viagra is. For most instances it's pretty hard for a girl to have money on the side for birth control when they're out of a job and have bills piling up left and right.

I think people should always pay for their own birth control. You have to work to eat, to live and to enjoy luxuries. The problem with western society is that because we've lived in such a liberal society for so long we've developed a false sense of entitlement. We feel that it's our right to eat, that it's out right to shelter. It's not. There is a system that must be in place for these things to work. If someone has no money then they have no responsibility (as a characteristic), therefore they cannot afford take on additional responsibilities, like having sex - where like it or loathe it, is a responsibility. If you have no way of paying for birth control, you can't be trusted to be having sex.

-----

Word Count 617

 

[ribbit]

Alright, now before I go answering everyone else (and reading their replies @_@), I'm going to start with my viewpoint. Here we go.

By no means am I for abortion. I am absolutely against it. But, this is the "Land of the Free," and not allowing a woman the right to make this decision for herself pretty much goes against that freedom.

I believe abortion is terrible, seeing as I don't believe in senseless killing. If you don't want to have a baby in the first place, you shouldn't be sleeping around or having unprotected sex. But, again, it's still their choice in the end. Like it or not; right or wrong. On the other hand, if it comes to the subject of rape, then yes, I can see why any woman would not want to have that child. Regardless of the fact that it's also part of you. The act that it was conceived in and then having that child could keep you from getting over what happened instead of allowing you to move on and (hopefully) forget about it.

Back to my original point, though (seeing as my last paragraph was somewhat leaning towards the blue side). On the topic of abortion cutoff dates. I absolutely agree with Cali here:

Most abortions in America(from what I've read) are preformed up to 14 weeks and then in some states you can abort up to 24 weeks. At 14 weeks I personally think it's murder. I am for the idea of the woman having the choice to abortion at the latest of 8-9 weeks. I think then and only then a woman has the choice of abortion before it begins to involve more than one person in the decision.

Anything past that point is murder, because the baby has already started to develop into a fully living organism at this point. Much earlier on, they haven't developed enough, and I'd say it wouldn't be as bad (but again, either way I still don't think it's right).

(will add more to this later; as of now I'm stumped on what to write next)

_________________

Word count: A measly 259

 

[Roland_Deschain]

By no means am I for abortion. I am absolutely against it. But, this is the "Land of the Free," and not allowing a woman the right to make this decision for herself pretty much goes against that freedom.

I do not want to sound like I am agaisnt freedom, and while I recognize that is a valid argument, I must rebuttal in some form.

America may be the land of the free, but that does not mean you can do anything you want. I mean we have restrictions on many things, and those things are always changing for the better and/or worse. Even I, a smoker, thinks that banning and booting all indoor smoking areas is a very good idea. Further more, I think that if its illegal for us to kill murderers or rapist by ourselves (excluding self defence), then it should be illegal to kill unborn lives with no criminal exsistance.

When it comes to legality, it is what we make it. I guess I think that illegalizing abortion is a good step in the right direction of a country that has pride in ourselves and the lives that live in our borders. I do not like being seen as a "throw away country".

 

[Will Graham]

I am not going to state my opinion on the matter because it is irrelevant, nor am I going to select specific paragraphs to rebut. I am going to lay down the reasons I think pro-choice is the superior option, as well as counter arguments to some points the opposition is making as a whole.

It's clear to me that there are only two stances in this matter, that abortion is always wrong, or that in some cases it is understandable. Pro-life offers no wriggle-room from what I can see, it is a declaration that abortion is the wrongful taking of life. Whereas pro-choice is a spectrum, from allowing the woman a choice only in extreme cases, to always allowing her the choice.

For now I will go through some of the most likely scenarios for abortion, and show you why pro-life is not always an option. As well as why these 'selective pro-lifers' are mistaken.

Rape

Rape is one of the most abhorrent and inhumane acts a human can perform on another, and I am sure no one will dispute that. If a woman were to fall pregnant after such an atrocity, surely she should be allowed terminate as soon as possible if she so wishes. To have them live with a growing, living reminder of what happened, for many women would be too cruel. Some might choose however to live with that child and raise it with all of their love, and that too is their choice.

Here Pro-Life (the belief that abortion is never acceptable) seems an incredible onus on so many women, an indelibly cruel law. People claiming to be 'pro-life' however, and who permit abortion in such a case are what really make no sense, to me. How can you say that abortion is murder when it is the child of two idiotic or unfortunate teens, but not in this scenario? This child is innocent and yet you say that it is ok to be erased. Surely if you are pro-life, then you would advocate adoption?

Danger to health of mother/child

In the Republic of Ireland abortion is against the law in all cases, i.e. it is a pro-life country. Back in 2007 there was what was known as the 'Miss. D case'. She was a 17-year old ward of the state that got pregnant, and her child was diagnosed with anencephaly.

Read about the disease here

In short,

About 25% of anencephalic children who live to the end of the pregnancy die during delivery; 50% have a life expectancy of between a few minutes and 1 day, 25% live up to 10 days

As she was a minor and ward of the state, she was informed that she could not fly to England to have an abortion, to the extent that the police force would physically restrain her.

Read about her case here

I don't think I even need to explain why pro-life is such a mistaken idea here.

There are of course other cases, which may seem frivolous reasons to have an abortion compared to these. If you are pro-life though, surely you must value all lives equally. I think it's clear now that most who are claiming to be pro-life are merely on one end of the pro-choice spectrum.

 

[ribbit]

America may be the land of the free, but that does not mean you can do anything you want. I mean we have restrictions on many things, and those things are always changing for the better and/or worse. Even I, a smoker, thinks that banning and booting all indoor smoking areas is a very good idea. Further more, I think that if its illegal for us to kill murderers or rapist by ourselves (excluding self defence), then it should be illegal to kill unborn lives with no criminal exsistance.

Yes, I agree that it doesn't mean you can do whatever you want. But there is no rule against smoking in general unless you're under the age of 18. It's your choice to smoke and do God knows what to your lungs, so it should also be your choice to abort a child under 8 weeks, regardless of the morality. I can see where you're coming from that it's illegal to kill an unborn child, seeing that it's illegal to kill someone who has done something much worse, and I agree with this as well. But it's the woman's choice to make, and in my honest opinion, I'd hope they would choose not to unless it was because of rape. Life is a beautiful thing and shouldn't be taken for granted. While I don't agree that women should abort the children, I'd rather let them make the judgement choice, and if they choose to abort, that it will be left with them and never be forgotten.

When it comes to legality, it is what we make it. I guess I think that illegalizing abortion is a good step in the right direction of a country that has pride in ourselves and the lives that live in our borders. I do not like being seen as a "throw away country".

I don't think it should be made illegal. Why? Because if it were made illegal, the women who still want to abort a child would go to the extreme and choose the unsafe route. The unsafe route entails a much higher rate of death and injury. There are approximately 68,000 deaths a year due to unsafe abortion, but much of it isn't just in the US, seeing as we have the safe method[1]. Take the safe method to go about it away, and you'll see that number go much, much higher. I'd rather we kept our population from diminishing, even if at the price of keeping abortion legalized.

 

[Tucker]

I am going to lay down my reasons of why I am Pro-Life.

I am going to start off by saying that I am only okay with abortion if it is in extreme circumstances AND it is under a certain amount of weeks. (Before the fetus grows into what would define it as a human/person. FE heart beating, brain showing activity, etc.)

Many abortions are done after the fetus even looks like a little baby, and has developed all its parts. There is one video taken that shows an abortion, where they cut the fetus apart. It shows the little fists trying to push it away. There are videos online showing photos of the torn apart body. It's so heartbreaking.

With that point, you cannot just say it is only the woman's choice.
Now let's switch this point of view. I understand, it is the woman' body and she can do what she wants with it. But, if the fetus has already proven itself to be another person what about their rights? The woman may have more rights, but it doesn't mean they completely overrule the fetus', therefore taking over it's life. Here is an anology.

There is another person living in your house. You don't want him there, but he must be there. Sadly, he is sick. He can't leave your house. He didn't put himself in there, it was because of you that he is in there. But, it was an accident and you want him out. Does that give you the right to kill him? Because you don't want him in your house? He effects your everyday life, making it harder. He has completely changed your life negatively, but it is your fault. Does that mean you can kill him?

Now, I understand that I think everyone else here believes only in abortion in serious circumstances. So lets take rape into an analogy.

Sadly, some man has put this person in your house. All the circumstances are the same. If you remove him from your house, he will die. Or, you can murder him. He is defenseless and is a hassle to you. So, you kill him. He is human, and he can feel pain. So you take his life without his say. So, technically, you murder him.

Now I know this analogy is a little off. (Comparing a woman's body to a house) But the gist of it is the same. If the fetus proves to be at the stage to identify itself as human, doesn't it seem wrong to kill it?


Now, I grew up Catholic. Catholics are extremely, 100% pro-life. There are whole religious reasons as to why abortion is always wrong, because Catholics believe that every life is precious and God has a soul in every fetus from the moment of conception. That would make it human, and killing it murder. So, now we get to if the pregnancy endangers the life of the mother. Now, here it gets tough. To save the mom the baby must die. Me being a borderline Catholic and Agnostic, I can go in circles and circles of which is right and which is wrong. So, if you aren't religious, it can easily be proven that it is okay to remove the baby. So I won't address it.

So, I am pro-life. I think that life is always a priority to a lifestyle. So, the fetus should only be aborted if it is not old enough to define itself as a living person, and also only removed in extreme cases.

Words Count: 592

http://www.babycenter.com/fetal-development-week-by-week
http://www.abortionfacts.com/fetal_development/fetal_pain.asp
(Didn't address it too much, but this is mostly why I think abortions should only be done around under 7-8 weeks)
http://www.abort73.com/videos/this_is_abortion/
(Don't feel the need to watch this video.)

 

[Roland_Deschain]

Yes, I agree that it doesn't mean you can do whatever you want. But there is no rule against smoking in general unless you're under the age of 18. It's your choice to smoke and do God knows what to your lungs, so it should also be your choice to abort a child under 8 weeks, regardless of the morality. I can see where you're coming from that it's illegal to kill an unborn child, seeing that it's illegal to kill someone who has done something much worse, and I agree with this as well. But it's the woman's choice to make, and in my honest opinion, I'd hope they would choose not to unless it was because of rape. Life is a beautiful thing and shouldn't be taken for granted. While I don't agree that women should abort the children, I'd rather let them make the judgement choice, and if they choose to abort, that it will be left with them and never be forgotten.

What is legal is not always right. One of the weakest arguments for the legitimacy of abortion is that it is legal. Civil law does not determine morality. Rather, the law should reflect a morality that exists independently of the law. Can anyone seriously believe that abortion was immoral on January 21, 1973, and moral on January 23, 1973? If abortion killed children before the law changed, it continues to kill children after the law changed. Law or no law, either abortion has always been right and always will be, or it has always been wrong and always will be.

Smoking deals with harming your own self, while abortion deals with harming another life. Smoking laws are restricted to prevent us from bringing harm to others, while retaining the right to harm ourselves. I do not think smoking is a good cause for debate in comparison.

Many Americans who pay taxes are opposed to abortion, therefore it's morally wrong to use tax dollars to fund abortion.

Your tonsils or appendix are part of your body – individual organs you were born with – which you can have removed if necessary. Your baby, on the other hand, is not one of your organs, it's a whole new person, temporarily living and growing inside of you. The body you kill with abortion is not your own. The body killed by abortion belongs to another human being who is distinctly different and separate from you.

Rape is one of the most abhorrent and inhumane acts a human can perform on another, and I am sure no one will dispute that. If a woman were to fall pregnant after such an atrocity, surely she should be allowed terminate as soon as possible if she so wishes. To have them live with a growing, living reminder of what happened, for many women would be too cruel. Some might choose however to live with that child and raise it with all of their love, and that too is their choice.

Agreed

Here Pro-Life (the belief that abortion is never acceptable) seems an incredible onus on so many women, an indelibly cruel law. People claiming to be 'pro-life' however, and who permit abortion in such a case are what really make no sense, to me. How can you say that abortion is murder when it is the child of two idiotic or unfortunate teens, but not in this scenario? This child is innocent and yet you say that it is ok to be erased. Surely if you are pro-life, then you would advocate adoption?

First I would like to say something. This argument you posed seems only valuable in selling the idea that pro life people have contradictions within their perspectives. This does in no way shape or form provide a realistic argument as to why it should be condoned. I could argue the same in saying that your perspective is flawed and contradicted in the idea that you are willing to leave it legal only determined by a fraction of cases that actually feature reason. Where is the greater good in this argument? What you are saying is that we are wrong because we think certain cases are justifiable, and you are right because only a small percent of abortions are justifiable. So therefor you give sway to thousands of healthy babies being aborted because some of them have reason.

There is a difference. I do not think its a black and white argument by any means, and this is illustrated by the different people who have spoken so far. This goes back to my original post which conveys that it is wrong when abortion is used to solve an avoidable problem. I would not call myself pro life, I would call myself anti abortion. I am not saying that killing a rape baby it morally sound, nor am I saying that it is not murder. what I AM saying, is that it seems more justifiable. Although, yes I would opt for adoption before anything else.

Adoption is a viable alternative to abortion and accomplishes the same result. And with 1.5 million American families wanting to adopt a child, there is no such thing as an unwanted child.

In the Republic of Ireland abortion is against the law in all cases, i.e. it is a pro-life country. Back in 2007 there was what was known as the 'Miss. D case'. She was a 17-year old ward of the state that got pregnant, and her child was diagnosed with anencephaly.

Read about the disease here

In short,

As she was a minor and ward of the state, she was informed that she could not fly to England to have an abortion, to the extent that the police force would physically restrain her.

Read about her case here

I don't think I even need to explain why pro-life is such a mistaken idea here.

Now this on the other hand is a valid argument. I think this disease and these situations should feature allowance for abortion. This features reason as to certain cases that I also think should allow for abortion. However, this does not mean I think they all should be. Once again you have proved that extremist pro life people have flawed ideals only. You have not yet sold the justification for why we should allow thousands and thousands of healthy baies be killed because a some of them are unhealthy or rape victoms. These things can be regulated, if we would just do it. Rape can be proven, and this disease can be detected. Do you not think a better alternative would be to strip away the rights for trivial abortions, when the difference can be made? Or are you simply playing devils advocate in all of this.



Now I will take this side of your argument and illustrate how people abuse it to an extreme extent of what is morally sound.

Increasingly, with the legalization of abortion at all stages of pregnancy, prenatal testing and diagnosis has become a tool by which parents decide whether or not to end the life of their unborn child should a disability be present. Physicians are pressured to offer such tests out of fear they will be successfully sued for the "wrongful" birth of a child with a disability.


[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]The most common genetic abnormality is Down syndrome which affects one in 800 births. Down syndrome is most often associated with women who become pregnant at an older age and, perhaps, paternal age greater than 55 years. While for women in the 18-year-old-age group, the occurrence of Down syndrome is one in 2,100 births; for women age 30 it is one in 1,000 births; and for women 40, one in 100 births. 3

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Although not considered a severe disability, a large, multi-institutional study published in 1991 showed that 92% of Down syndrome children detected prenatally have their lives ended by abortion.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Many people with Down syndrome are capable of living remarkably normal lives. Why? One word: hope.[/FONT]
[/FONT]

http://www.cpforlife.org/truth_about_abortion.htm

I mean what do you think about this? Do you also find these cases are right? I think the idea of the debate is to promote a belief, not only to promote that other beliefs are incorrect. I think it would be helpful if you offered exactly what your stance is.

 

[Will Graham]

B1- Abortion should be prohibited all of the time.
B2- Abortion should be the Woman's choice.

That is the debate I signed up for, where they opposition are against abortion all of the time. You see my difficulty? I raised, what I feel, were two good justifications for abortion (rape and health risks). You then agreed with these being justifiable, claiming you are anti-abortion not pro-life. It makes it difficult to debate when people seem to have a different idea of their oppositions stance.

 

[Ethics]

My Manic has a point here. By literal definition, agreeing with the choice of abortion is not pro-life. Perhaps a realignment of the teams, or the creation of a third team is needed. Arguing the differences of extreme choices only against free reign of one’s child-to-be may be a very short debate and will loop much faster than pro-life vs pro-choice. It may be for the best to, while arguing your personal point, be more assertive of the differences of the two.



Roland, if you find the time to gather the active rules or members overseeing these debates, can we get a more concrete list of rules that are in play? Flipping through the discussion gives one ideas of the rules, but nothing solid. It will make these threads much easier to "moderate".

 

[Roland_Deschain]

That is the debate I signed up for, where they opposition are against abortion all of the time. You see my difficulty? I raised, what I feel, were two good justifications for abortion (rape and health risks). You then agreed with these being justifiable, claiming you are anti-abortion not pro-life. It makes it difficult to debate when people seem to have a different idea of their oppositions stance.

Given those options, I think its pretty apparent that there will be grey areas. People are going to sign up for the side that they would most likely vote for if it was an election. I mean its like voting for a president, you can not have everything you want.


Like I said, I would rather choose adoption first for a rape victoms, but I cannot speak for everyone else. I did sign up for for the topic that was there. I merely stated that other situations feature more justification in my eyes. I think the greater good is within banning them all if nothing else. I would sacrifice those few rape victoms because they can be adopted, and I would refuse everyone else the immoral ability to kill their unborn children. Thats where I stand, thats where I think the greater good is, period.

If it were black an white, I think my stance would remain the same. Just because people have the ability to break the law and perform horrible acts of rape, does not mean we should warrant the ability for endless lives to be aborted in a trivial manner. Also, just because a decimal fraction of those lives have fatal diseases, does not mean we should let the overwhelming number of abortions continue when there is no life pending reasons.


I did not really put you in a corner with that question. you posed a fair point in why our side was flawed, and I did the same... not really an issue I do not think. you point out the contradiction of pro-life people being able to make exceptions and I point out the flaws of pro choice people forgetting about those who are not exceptions.

Accounting for those diseases, and rape victoms, how would you stand if they "were" all prohibited? And furthermore how would you justify your stance. This is one of the reasons I think people were putting their stances first, so that they could debate the points that really matter in their eyes.

Now that I 've cleared that up pockets I would like to point out that the forums does not really have amazing activity, and the more complicated and intricate that sign ups are, the less people we will have. Perhaps I should have just put "Anti" abortion... that would have solved everything. Besides the debate allows for side changing, think of this as... meeting the other side half way on certain issues. Its not an unfair question.

 

[Harlequin]

Alright well... the British Department of Health cites a few statistics on abortion for England and Wales in 2009 here:

http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsStatistics/DH_116039

For those who don't want to sieve through the information: In 2009, 94% of 189,100 abortions were funded by the NHS (the taxpayer). 82% of the women who undertook abortions were single. 34% of those women had previously had an abortion. The highest rate of abortion by age group was the 19, 20 and 21 year olds at a rate of 33 per 1000 of the populace.

Now abortion might not be avaliable on request here in the UK, but you can certainly get one for 'social or economic reasons'. Which is bogus, basically all you have to do is talk some shit on how you're not ready yet or you have no money and voila.

These numbers suggest that the most likely scenario for abortions are socio-economic factors. By the looks of those stats, the taxpayer is paying for an expensive procedure to absolve the responsibilities of young women who have taken the decision to have sex outside of wedlock, a substantial amount of which have been through this procedure before and quite simply refused to learn. I'm not suggesting women shouldn't have sex, they should do whatever they like but if they insist on doing it maybe we as a society should insist on making them rise to the possible consequences instead of making it readily avaliable to them.

As for the exception I gave regarding rape, that is a scenario in which by definition the female has no choice whatsoever in regards to the risks of pregnancy. As far as health is concerned it can be argued that the woman made a decision to undertake pregnancy including it's risks, whereas the life inside her hasn't made any decision whatsoever.

I don't think it should be made illegal. Why? Because if it were made illegal, the women who still want to abort a child would go to the extreme and choose the unsafe route. The unsafe route entails a much higher rate of death and injury. There are approximately 68,000 deaths a year due to unsafe abortion, but much of it isn't just in the US, seeing as we have the safe method[1]. Take the safe method to go about it away, and you'll see that number go much, much higher. I'd rather we kept our population from diminishing, even if at the price of keeping abortion legalized.

I feel that this is a cop out. I don't feel that because people are going to go to extreme lengths that we as a society should compromise our laws to accomodate them. I don't believe in rough justice, but I do believe in tough discipline. If a child wants to go to extreme lengths to dodge their responsibilities should the parent cave in to them? We do more harm to their attitudes and mentality by making it avaliable than we do by removing the safety net that prevents these overgrown children from growing up.

 

[Ethics]

Quick heads up to everyone, this thread will be closed around this time tomorrow. If you have any points you've been wanting to cover, you might want to get to them now.

This thread will become the voting poll and all further debating posts will be deleted. Thank you.

 

[ribbit]

I feel that this is a cop out. I don't feel that because people are going to go to extreme lengths that we as a society should compromise our laws to accomodate them. I don't believe in rough justice, but I do believe in tough discipline. If a child wants to go to extreme lengths to dodge their responsibilities should the parent cave in to them? We do more harm to their attitudes and mentality by making it avaliable than we do by removing the safety net that prevents these overgrown children from growing up.

It's true not everyone would go to extreme lengths to have an abortion (mainly because a lot of the unsafe ones aren't performed in the US), but there are those desperate people that haven't heard of adoption or just don't want to go through child birth that might go for this alternative. Should they just choose adoption? Yes, of course. It's safer and everyone gets what they want. Will they? I can't say for sure, but I doubt everyone goes for that because of how many people choose abortion in the first place. You can take it away and they may think logically, or you can take it away and they'll go off and do something stupid. The same can be said for your analogy. Not everyone can get past that "safety net" and "grow up".

 

[unadulteratedawesome]

Abortion being legal is morally correct, better for the individual, and better for society.

The moral argument is a poor one, because the entire thing hinges on whether you consider a fetus a person or not. If you do consider it a person, then wouldn't miscarriage be tantamount to having your one year old son die suddenly? I don't think it is, and to place the 'life' of a fetus on the level of a person is patently ridiculous. I feel that, in every way, the fetus is simply part of the woman's body and is thus is her choice. I feel that the current time window available in law is a good enough compromise.

Legal abortion is safer, and a more logical choice than forcing someone to have a kid they obviously don't want or aren't ready for. Doing so is only harmful for the child and the parent. And for those saying adoption: Yes, flooding the adoption services with even more children sounds like a great idea. That option should be available for anyone, but it shouldn't be forced on anyone.

Legal abortion leads to lower crime rates and better living standards. It is rather safe to assume that individuals who would have gotten an abortion but were stopped by law are going to end up having unwanted children. Unwanted children tend to be below the poverty line or grow up in otherwise harsh or confusing conditions because their birth was inopportune. These children are at an incredibly high chance of delinquency that blossoms into full-blown criminality.

This is supported by conditions in Romania and the United States in relation to their abortion laws. The US crime rate took a nose dive roughly 15 years after Roe v. Wade passed. The years where this drop began to occur coincided with the peak delinquency and crime ages for unwanted children that would have been born immediately following Roe v. Wade. These potential children were not born, and thus the crime rate dropped drastically. Crime continued to increase for adult career criminals, as expected. Contrast Romania, where in the 60s abortion was made illegal and breeding programs were instituted. The massive amount of unwanted children and the population boom lead to a drastic increase in crime. Logically, for the betterment of society and the world, to make abortion illegal is to knowingly raise the crime rate and contribute to overpopulation and destabilization of society.

Abortion also doesn't discourage women from having children willingly later. The vast majority of women who get abortions in the late teens to early 20s go on to have children willingly years later - when they're economically, socially, and emotionally ready to raise them. These children are going to be raised in much better conditions than those born into families that don't want them.

 

[Ethics]

This debate is now over. If you wish to vote, please do so now. This poll will end in seven days.

All further posts posts "debating" will be deleted.

 

[Abstract Debauchery]

Personally, I feel as if the pro-choice side came out stronger. Licky and Cali both did great jobs getting their points across. However, Darklor seemed to be a bit... confused as to what side he was on at times. However, pretty much everyone on the pro-life side of things pretty much stated that there were exceptions to their beliefs. Now, I understand that, and I get it, I really do. However, in my eyes that always weakens an argument severely.

Having worked and volunteered at Planned Parenthood (the one in Houston, TX, the largest Planned Parenthood in the United States, the same one that protesters like to call an "abortion supercenter") I can tell you that the Protesters I've spoken to do not believe in abortion at all. They don't care about the circumstances of the conception of the baby at all.

Harlequin and Roland also did great jobs in getting their point across. However, from the getgo when they mentioned they believed it to be fine in certain cases, it instantly made me side more with the pro-choice side. If arguing in cases in if it should be legal or illegal, the entire debate would make one see that it should be legal. Even legal "with restrictions" is still legal.

Should it be used as a form of birth control? Fuck no. Keep your pants on and close your legs. However, accidents happen, rape happens, hell if you want to go that far, people happen. At the end of the day, I still see a legitimate case for abortion and I support it. Looking at things from a neutral point of view, I can safety say that the pro-choice side did a better job.

 

[Donald Trump]

I don't foetuses are sentient so I don't think they deserve any rights.
It cannot think, therefore it is not. That's not exactly what Descartes meant but I think that explains my position. It simply isn't alive. And if it is not alive it cannot have rights.
I could go on and on, but I won't. Both sides believe their opinions to be factually correct, there's probably some grey area. Then it will become a debate over semantics baby/foetus/child/fetus etc etc.
I don't morals should come into it at all.

Edit.
I was pro-choice before and my opinion hasn't changed.
I'll vote because I want the two points, but to be honest I disagreed with almost all of what was said by both sides.