Instigator / Pro
24
1500
rating
2
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#6339
Induced Abortions should be controlled
Status
Voting
The participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.
Voting will end in:
00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
28
1541
rating
4
debates
100.0%
won
Description
Hello there! It is my personal belief that abortion is being overused and children are being denied a life for selfish reasons. I believe abortions should have tighter laws and regulations and not be used as a form of birth control. It is cons job to convince the audience that abortions should not be controlled and can be used whenever.
Definitions:
Induced Abortion: "abortion brought on intentionally by drugs or mechanical means." (Farlex Partner Medical Dictionary. (2012))
Controlled: Better laws and regulations
I look forward to an interesting and striking debate!
Round 1
Thank you to my opponent for accepting, let's get right to it.
Abortion is a topic that plagues mankind. Is it right in certain instances? I think you will find that in most cases it is not and therefore should be controlled. Each year around 73 million abortions are induced in the world. 6 out of 10 of all unintended pregnancies and 3 out of 10 of all pregnancies end in abortion.
1. Abortion is morally wrong.
When does life actually begin? For many such as myself it begins at conception when you and a partner decide to become one and, low and behold, the miracle of life is produced. If the two parties didn't expect this to happen I argue that they wouldn't engage in a sexual encounter mainly or that they would both use protection. A condom and the pill used together bring a 98-99 percent success. A majority of woman who had an abortion, 54% CLAIM that they essentially used abortion as a form of birth control.
The fact that makes this morally wrong is the taking away of life and potential. A fetus is a living thing. " By the end of the third month of pregnancy, your baby is fully formed. Your baby has arms, hands, fingers, feet, and toes and can open and close its fists and mouth. Fingernails and toenails are beginning to develop and the external ears are formed. The beginnings of teeth are forming. Your baby's reproductive organs also develop, but the baby's gender is difficult to distinguish on ultrasound."https://www.webmd.com/baby/1to3-months this is at 3 months. There are abortions being preformed up to 5 months and onward! I argue that there should be restrictions on the timeframe when abortions can be performed as well because most would agree its murder to abort at 9 months.
Biblically, abortion is murder and it is written "Thou shall not kill" also in Psalm 139:1-3 it shows that God helped create us from the womb and Jeremiah 1:4-5 and Isaiah 49:1 show that God knows us from the moment of conception and has a plan for us. Multiple times it is written how God hates and condemns the shedding of innocent blood. Proverbs 6:16-19, Jeremiah 22:17, Psalm 106:37-40, 2 Kings 21:6 and 16
Therefore it is easy to see why biblically, and even if you're not a bible thumper how immoral and wrong uncontrolled abortions are especially when there are other morally acceptable options such as adoption or abstinence.
2. Abortion Costs.
6.9 trillion dollars in the united states alone each year. Between the procedure itself and follow ups and medical complications. Not to mention the capital lost from each abortion you have a potential doctor, potential trade worker someone to benefit the country and make a difference in the world. Currently the birth rate is below the replacement rate which could be changed with a control on abortions.
3. Abortion causes Psychological and Bodily harm
It is not surprising that such a procedure would cause stress and anxiety. In a study done of post-abortion patients "researchers found that 44% complained of nervous disorders, 36% had sleep disturbances, 31% had regrets about their decision, and 11% had been prescribed psychotropic medicine by their family doctor." (1) Also, When compared with women without an abortion history, women with a prior abortion experienced a 61% increased risk of mood disorders. Abortion was linked with a 61% increased risk of social phobia, and increased the risk of suicidal thoughts by 59%. Another study shown that those who undergo abortions are more likely to go through risk taking behaviors that can lead to premature death. These are big numbers with big issues that shouldn't be ignored. Another thing that isn't talked about enough is the effect on the fathers. They too go through similar psychological factors although currently men have no say which makes them feel even more repressed helplessness and grief. As a man who was with my ex on the day of her abortion at 2 and a half months i can say with experience that it causes psychological harm.
Despite how safe abortions are being depicted, many studies have been done on the effects of abortions. The highest rate of complications is 30.5%. That is a study on women averaging 10 years after their abortions. This rate included both immediate and delayed complications ranging from mild to severe. Complications include damage to the womb or cervix, excessive bleeding, incomplete abortion that will require an additional surgical abortion, infection of the uterus or fallopian tubes, scarring of the inside of the uterus, sepsis or septic shock, uterine perforation. Another study found that within 6 weeks of there abortion, 5.2% of women were admitted into ER treatment following a medication abortion, 1.3% following a first-trimester surgical abortion, and 1.5% following a late term surgical abortions. another complication that arises is abortion lessens the chance of having a healthy child in the future, A 2013 study found that women who have had abortions are more than twice as likely to have a very early preterm child, which gives the child a way lower chance of living to adulthood. the children that do survive are more susceptible to serious disabilities, including cerebral palsy, intellectual impairment, psychological development disorders and autism.
In conclusion, I believe that for moral and ethical reasons, for a better country, and for our own health, abortions should be better controlled not used as a form of birth control or a thing you can use indefinitely. I turn it over to con.
Sources in order
1 Ashton, The Psychosocial Outcome of Induced Abortion”, British Journal of Ob&Gyn., 87:1115-1122, (1980).
Hello everyone. I thank the instigator for instigating this issue: the one I always want to make my voice heard. It is a beautiful opportunity for me.
INTRODUCTION:
The resolution of the debate is "Induced abortions should be controlled." By that, as seen from the debate description, PRO means that "abortions should have tighter laws and regulations and not be used as a form of birth control." I oppose his contention. It is OK for me to confront him in 2 different ways:
- Argue against him about induced abortions only.
- Argue against him for all kinds of abortions.
I am going to go with the 2nd way: My position is that no abortion should be restricted in anyway by someone other than the bearer (e.g. mother) and his partner. My position is that only biological mother and her partner shall have voice to decide the fate of the fetus. Thus, when I demonstratemy case, it will naturally follow that induced abortions should also be not restricted or controlled in anyway other than the fetus bearer and her partner. However, this debate is not about abortions in general. Thus, PRO does not need to argue against abortion in general but arguing about induced abortions only is sufficient.
ARGUMENTS/REBUTTALS:
ABORTION, MORALITY AND REASON:
The main argument for abortion is that it is the woman who shall decide it: the woman will choose to maintain assisting the fetus that is inside her or not to assist. It is her body, not public body, not common or mutual body of the society. Thus, it can not be decided by nation-wide referendum.
PRO argued that abortion is morally wrong. I protest: not at all. I paraphrase PRO's 2 aspects for this as such:
1. "Life begins at conception."
2. "Unwanted pregnancy could have been prevented."
By this, we see that he not only does not understand how law works but he does not understand the issue as well. PRO does not understand how law works and should work: Human rights belong to humans that are already born, not yet-to-be born. In law, It is called Natural Personhood. [1]. Natural Personhood as acquired upon birth, not before and lost upon death.[2] It is a basic common knowledge in law. Both by law and by logic, fetus does not have human rights.
It is not matter of when life begins but matter of if woman is a slave of a fetus: women are not slaves that have to serve others so that others can survive. Simply put, as long as women are not considered slaves, there can be no argument against abortion. Thus, I see no need to address the disputation on whether a fetus is life or not. Even if we assume that fetus is life or even a human, it has no rights, let alone over-lapping and suppressing rights of another human, a woman that bears it.
Fetus being a life or not is irrevelevant: a parasite is a life but when they are burden to a human's body, we simply kick them out. Does PRO argue that parasites should be protected under the law because they are "life"? As thus, being life does not necessitate a woman to be their slave. Do we force women to maintain parasites in their bodies?
There was 3rd aspect by PRO: biblical. At the end, he indirectly acknowledges that bible is not a binding authority at least for both sides:
"even if you're not a bible thumper how immoral and wrong uncontrolled abortions are especially when there are other morally acceptable options such as adoption or abstinence. "
Morally speaking, ejaculating sperm into a clothet is no different than abortion: both carry potential to eventually become a human, a natural person protected by the laws. Carrying potential does not make it immoral. In contrast, many animals like cats and dogs are protected by law under sections like "animal rights" or "non-human rights" yet parasites are not procted despite being life. Thus, it entails that fetus having potential for life or humanhood does not entail any kind of moral wrongness.
ABORTION AND ECONOMY:
PRO brings up economic costs of abortion but he does not elaborate his point. Does PRO argue that "Abortion should be partially restricted because it has tremendous cost." - I see it as non-sequitor if it is what he means: video gaming, football (soccer) etc all have expenses on economy. Does that mean all of them should be banned/controlled? As long as the consumer pays the costs, financial cost alone is not a valid reason to ban something. If what he means is abortions should not be paid by taxes/government spending, I agree with that: none of the medical operations should be paid by taxes. I support free market economy even at health sectors.
PRO raises another aspect in this section: to raise birthrates. But it is reductio ad absurdum case: a woman is not obligated to give birth, to raise birthrates.Some people, especially catholic monks, do not reproduce for religious reasons, should we force them to reproduce so that birth rates go up? Do we force them to reproduce? Does PRO argue those catholic priests should be forced to reproduce? If not, why women? Some abstain from reproducing for philosophical reasons, which we call anti-natalism.[3] Do we force antinatalists to reproduce? Why women, then?
ABORTION'S HEALTH RELATED HARMS:
PRO argues that abortion yields both psychological and physiological harms. Then, he argues that is the reason induced abortions should be controlled. Again, this aspect is also reductio ad absurdum and cherry picking: There are dozens of studies highlighting how cheering for a football/soccer club yielding harm[4] as well as physically permanents damages, which we call hooliganism[5]. Cited study emphasizes that "Hardcore football fans experience intense levels of physical stress during matches." Now, by PRO's reasoning, we would have to ban cheering for football clubs, ban football because it yields stress. Reality does not work in the way PRO tries to manipulate us when it comes to abortion. Do we ban football because it brings not only psychological harm but hooliganism as well? But then why would the same non-sequitor have to be accepted valid when it comes to women while it is not working for men?
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I believe I have successfully addressed PRO's case, demonstrated that they are invalid, unrelated or a misunderstanding. I not only argued against restricting induced abortions but abortions in general, which includes induced ones as well. I look forward to hear more.
REFERENCES:
Round 2
Hello, lets get down to business!
1. My first argument is the morality of the issue at hand. Con makes some interesting points.
Con states first that "...the woman will choose to maintain assisting the fetus that is inside her or not to assist. It is her body, not public body, not common or mutual body of the society. Thus, it can not be decided by nation-wide referendum." yet earlier stated "My position is that only biological mother and her partner shall have voice to decide the fate of the fetus." does this mean that Con concedes and agrees that there should be rules that the "Partner" be included in the decision? Because currently the partner has no say and it is mainly the woman.
Then, this in regards to my showing that a fetus is a human being , "By this, we see that he not only does not understand how law works but he does not understand the issue as well." Con foolishly attacks me with a straw man fallacy by stating that since I don't understand law, my whole argument should be dismissed. I remind con that we are not debating the law of the issue but we are debating on the facts. Since con loves using faulty comparisons and red herrings i will say that the laws of a pedophile are a lot easier then a guy dealing weed in some states. Does that make the law right or moral? I say that morality should not be based on law which is the reason for this whole discussion. Also regarding law in different places fetuses do have rights its called fetal personhood and in 17 states a fetus is considered a person at some stage during pregnancy which therefore gives it status as a living being and makes abortion, according to cons logic, immoral and unethical. Plus when a man murders, manslaughters or assaults a pregnant woman it is considered a double homicide or homicide if the baby is killed in 38 states meaning the law addresses the fetus as a living human.
Con states, "... a parasite is a life but when they are burden to a human's body, we simply kick them out. Does PRO argue that parasites should be protected under the law because they are "life"? As thus, being life does not necessitate a woman to be their slave. Do we force women to maintain parasites in their bodies?" This is a prime example of a faulty comparison to distract from the point at hand. First off i shouldn't have to explain that a parasite does not share any maternal relation with a man and a woman and usually there's no debate on whether we should keep parasites or not. A fetus shares DNA with the father and the mother and is therefore a part of two individuals that have joined both physically and biologically and the miracle created should be held in much higher regard then viewing as a parasite.
Con dismisses the bible entirely, which I say is fine for con. But since 7 in 10 women who have an abortion say they are Christian, plus the fact that over 2.3 billion people in the world are Christians including myself, and a lot of our current laws and ideas of morality surround religious texts, i think its important to state that biblically abortion is wrong and Con simply pushed past it.
Then this. "Morally speaking, ejaculating sperm into a clothet is no different than abortion: both carry potential to eventually become a human, a natural person protected by the laws. Carrying potential does not make it immoral. In contrast, many animals like cats and dogs are protected by law under sections like "animal rights" or "non-human rights" yet parasites are not procted despite being life. Thus, it entails that fetus having potential for life or humanhood does not entail any kind of moral wrongness."
Again more logical fallacies. I will state once again we are not debating jacking off into a clothet, or if we should procted parasites. Jerking off does not involve two people creating a new being and parasites are far different then a being that shares attributes with two people who chose to entwine and create such a miracle of life.
2. My Economy argument I used to demonstrate the tremendous cost to the public with abortions. Costs that could be prevented with controls in place that protect the life of unborn children and women who use abortions as a form of birth control. Research shows that 45% of woman in the united states who had an abortion have had multiple, And 31% in the UK. This shows the use of abortion as a form of birth control that woman are comfortable using. But the fact is its costing us. In personnel, in equipment and in actual dollars, its raising peoples taxes and healthcare plan rates who have never had an abortion! There is a lot of equipment and doctors and supplies that could have better use on someone who actually needs it instead of someone who just wants it. If such a control was put on limiting the amount of abortions a woman could get, it would surely help the cost to our countries healthcare system. Countries like mine in Canada healthcare is free and woman can have as many abortions as they please at any stage that is paid for by public dollars. Surely I agree that the cost should fall to the person or persons who decided to hook up. I believe that would be considered a form of control on abortions as well.
Con tries to disassemble my argument on potentiality and birthrates. He makes an appeal to ridicule fallacy without properly addressing and rebutting my argument. Every life of an unborn child that is killed could have been a doctor or a tradesman or someone adding importance to the world. Con says its absurd speaking from a moral standpoint. However my moral standpoint was in statement 1. Statement two is the economical standpoint and economically these lives that are taken could have certainly benefited the economy by filling jobs and helping society.
3. I will say that con loves the use of red herrings and faulty comparisons. Comparing football games to the trauma of abortion is something else. I will concede that maybe the fact is inarguable for con and say the psychological problems and complication that arise from abortions be added to the cost of abortions. Cost for psychological help and time in the hospital which for many is paid by taxpayers. Perhaps we can understand that better then the emotions of another.
In conclusion, I look forward to a more fact based second round from Con. I believe that my arguments show why we should have some form of control on abortions. From basic morality to the financial burden it places. Thank you.
Hello again.
PRO put forth some expressions that really really muddle the picture here. I assume good faith and thus going to express that s/he is misunderstanding - I am not going to accuse him of deliberate/blatant distortions. Now, let us get into the business
REBUTTALS:
The very first issue PRO misunderstood and raised was if my position included some sort of discrepancy which would result in the partners of the women having voice in the decision of the abortion. The partner having or lacking a voice in the decision is not our subject. Our subject is to legally prohibit or control some sort of abortion, irregardless of whether only the woman or the woman+husband having voice in it.
Then PRO goes onto state that “we are not debating the law of the issue but facts.” But we ARE debating the law and how this law should go on: Look at the debate description, the rules PRO himself decided: S/he defined “control” as better laws and regulations.
Then, PRO complains of me pointing out parasites are life and yet women are not legally forced to take care of the parasites that are in the body of the women. S/he even goes as far as calling it “faulty comparison” and raises fetus having bond with the woman and her partner. But again, PRO is forgetting or misunderstanding the issue: All pro was arguing was “fetus is life and has potential (refer to his/her first round, first section, 2nd paragraph). All PRO said was “fetus is life and potential to be life” and what he calls faulty comparison, the fact that parasite is a life was put forth against “fetus being life” NOT against fetus having bond with the bearer. Again, PRO is failing to understand what is going on. S/He is now upgrading his argument I shall say. Expanding your argument is not a shame, you can do it explicitly, instead of implicitly. Now, coming back to the upgrade: sperm to its bearer has as much relation to fetus is to its bearer: both do not know or feel anything about their bearer. Again, from this “relation” aspect, abortion is no different than ejaculating into a toilet or some sort of condoms: only the bearer knows the relation and its morality is up to the bearer: if bearer feels his/her sperm/fetus is valubale, he/she maintains it, if they deem it worthless, they throw it. As simple as that. He later on complains of this comparison, stating “we are not debating jacking off into a toilet.” But debating abortion corresponds into exactly jerking off into a toilet as I have demonstrated here. Now, pro has completely dropped/ignored my argument on why all abortions should be free from law. I argued, in short, that unless women are held slaves, there can be no argument for abortion. For elaboration, refer to my first round’s first sub-section.
Then PRO emphasizes the importance of bible to him and many (possibly billions) but in his initial round he himself indirectly acknowledged that it is not binding (“IF you are not a bible thumper” IIRC). Thus, it is not something to be entertained here. Bible is not a mutually binding authority for us: thus, not appealable here. Moreover, If he wants, I can point out some things he himself likely dismisses from the bible: stoning woman for adultery. Does PRO advocate for stoning women into death for adultery just because bible says so? If not, he himself is dismissing the authority he puts forth. I can list many others as well. Moreover, and the main part, bible does not talk of abortion: it is PRO’s interpretation or interpolation. Bible, as far as I know, does not forbid terminating pregnancy.
ABORTION AND ECONOMY:
Again, PRO is very very vague and unclear on what his point is. Even after I pointed out in the first round, s/he is still not formulating his point. S/he talks of costs, but what do we have to do with the costs? Is s/he arguing that something that costs much should be prohibited? First round, I proposed my view that all medical procedures should be paid by the one that requested it, including abortion. He talks of abortion being paid by public tax, while I do oppose spending public tax being for health, our debate is not about whether abortion should be paid by tax or not. Simply, PRO is vague and unclear. So, I ask them to better formulate it. PRO again ignored my counter-argument: I pointed out that football (soccer) has as much, if not more, expense. Does PRO argue for banning football? No. Arguing it for abortion but not for football is double-standards. S/he then talks of fetuses having potentials to be a doctor or a soldier etc. But so do the sperms that were ejaculated into the toilet have the same potential: sperms that were ejaculated into a toilet too could have been transformed into a doctor or a soldier, does PRO advocate prohiting wanking? As seen, PRO’s case is just a ridiculous tailor-made argument to target women. PRO is again dropping/ignoring my another rebuttal as well as his own: “birth rates going down” issue. I counter-argued by pointing out there are people who refrain from reproduction for philosophical reasons, do we force them to reproduce? If not, birth rates can not be an argument to force women to serve fetuses. Since he did not talk of it, can we say PRO acknowledges that I am right here?
Finally, PRO complains of me comparing football into the trauma of abortion: S/he again seems to misunderstand the issue: he was pointing out potential harm of abortion as a rationale to prohibit or restrict abortion, such problems exist in football as well. What is wrong with this comparison? If that harm is a case for banning abortion, why not football? As a last resort, he again raises “public taxes” issue: I re-iterate: 1) abortion’s or any other things’ expenses being covered by tax or not is not our subject or topic. 2) I oppose spending tax Money for abortion and other medical procedures. Pointing out abortion's cost into the tax is not an argument to ban abortion but to take it out from the scope of tax. PRO does not understand this small yet important nuance.
__________________________
All in all, I would want a better performance from PRO.
Good luck
Round 3
Forfeited
Unfortunately, the opponent has forfeited. I ask the juries (voters) to not penalize him for forfeiting. If I add something into the debate now, the opponent may get handicapped: both to defend his positions from the previous rounds, as well as having to rebutt the things I might add now. Thus, I just skip this round.
Let us hope the opponent will have time to engage us.
Good luck to Pro.
Round 4
Forfeited
The opponent has forfeited 1 more round, unfortunately.
A more engaging disputation would have been more entertaining for the readers. Still waiting for engagement.
If the opponent comes back, I will engage him in the 5th round. I am not going to demand auto-forfeit for forfeiting 2 rounds.
Good luck
Round 5
Forfeited
Unfortunately, this debate of mine also featured forfeitures. I wish more engagement would have been better.
I thank everyone who spent time reading the debate. Also, special thanks to voters.
Have a good life, everyone.
no no. it is not matter of winning or losing. When it comes to conduct only, person feels underestimed, un-appreciated. That was why
If you want me to revote, I can do that. I don't know why you particularly care about the amount of points you're getting, though. I can practically guarantee you won't lose this debate.
I did not ask to be given all points (on the basis of forfeits). Rather, I even asked the readers to NOT penalize PRO for his forfeitures. What I talked of in my previous comment was to elaborate why I think I deserved more. You could still vote beyond conduct. PRO put forth some arguments, I believe I have successfully rebutted them and I believe I have successfully countered and refuted them.
BUT what you meant was "I did not read the debate. Just voted based on the policy." Then that is different.
If otherwise, here are some for example:
* The clearest one is the clash on abortion and economy: Pro was not clear, I highlighted it and countered even football has such costs.
* life and potential: Pro argued fetus is life, I argued even parasytes have life but people are not forced to maintain parasytes.
* bible issue: I pointed out bible is not binding as initially acknowledged by PRO himself. Then he still insisted, I pointed out bible does not talk of terminating pregnancy.
Pls delete my vote, I meant to give one point to con
I can't speak for 21Pilots, but as for me, I was simply following the voting policy. If someone forfeits every round, or every round except the first, then you are allowed to award all the points to the other side on the basis of "full forfeiture". In this case, Pro did provide arguments for two rounds at least, so this doesn't apply. However, the voting policy still allows you to not award argument points if one side forfeits 40% or more of the debate. This is why I voted based on conduct alone. No sense writing out a whole detailed vote on a debate where the one with the BoP missed the majority of it.
Hello guys. While I appreciate your spending time for reading and voting, I can not believe you gave tie votes for arguments and legibility.
To the debate, I have introduced the legal personhood argument, bodyly autonomy (though not verbatimly), a parasite analogy that rebutted "fetus is a life" argument,. Then for legibility, PRO did not make it clear what his point was on "taxes and costs" issue even though I emphasized it in the first round, he was still unclear in the second round.
21Pilots even gave shared point on "conduct" as well. Pro was saying things like "con loves red herrings."
All in all, I believe I deserved more and you maybe unconsciously biased.
I accept the challenge. I wish good luck
Do you have any limits regarding the stage the pregnancy is at?
It looks like the debate is restricted to elective abortion. Is that assumption correct.