Instigator / Pro
4
1491
rating
10
debates
45.0%
won
Topic

Abortion

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
0
3
Sources points
2
2
Spelling and grammar points
1
1
Conduct points
1
1

With 1 vote and 3 points ahead, the winner is ...

Our_Boat_is_Right
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Politics
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Contender / Con
7
1500
rating
16
debates
40.63%
won
Description
~ 325 / 5,000

As pro, I take the stand as pro choice. The timeframe of possible abortion should be a time when the baby is not alive, but is confirmed as a fetus in early development. Abortion should be safe and legal in all states, for all reasons, and the final choice should come down to a point that will be specified in my arguments.

Round 1
Pro
My stance is that of pro choice. Here's why.

1.) When people abort, they do not do it lightly. They are cancelling themselves from giving life to a human being. This decision is a very hard one, but it is the mother's choice to make. If someone has a reason to abort, they should be allowed to legally and safely carry out the process. 

2.) Reasons to abort that are sensible include: A woman was raped, a child was raped, birth control failed, mother cannot support a child, the child was discovered to be incestual, the couple does not want to have a child before marriage, and many, many more. 

Reasons to abort that are senseless: The mother wants to stick it to the father, someone other than the mother wants to abort yet the mother does not, the child is the incorrect gender/skin color, the mother was cheating on their lover with someone else, and probably a few more. 

3.) If someone really, truly needs to abort, they will do it whether legal or not. Would anybody rather have a coat hanger abortion compared to a safe, monitored abortion in a clinic or hospital?

What IS abortion:
Destroying a fetus before a certain point in pregnancy for a specific reason.

What IS NOT abortion: 
Infanticide, Miscarriages/stillbirths, C-sections, use of birth control, Forceful abortions (Without mother's consent), and early births. 

People will say that destroying a fetus is similar to killing a living person. This is philosophically incorrect. A person who has a life worth living has somebody who loves them/ takes the responsibility to care for them, a person who has breathed by their own will and had their own thoughts, and a person who, as a living being, functions independently. Fetuses that are aborted have none of those things. Fetuses that aren't aborted have someone who is prepared to be responsible for them. 

A certain case: If the mother wants an abortion, and the father wants to keep the baby, it makes an outstanding dilemma. In this case, if the father would likely be abusive to the mother if there was an abortion, the mother should be granted both the abortion and protective rights. If the father will not be abusive, a third party can help decide. The mother can move away from the father and leave him to care for the baby at his own will, if he wants, but other than that, abortion is rather straightforwardly the mother's choice. 

THE RELIGIOUS POINTS:
I am an atheist personally, so I obviously have not read and memorized the bible. What I do know, though, is that religious people say that all life is important, and a "Gift from god". So I think of it this way, in a rather simple math equation.

One life prevented < at least two lives ruined.

If a woman doesn't want a baby, why would she want to care for it if she was forced to? Just because someone is pro-choice doesn't mean they want to get an abortion themselves, same as people who claim to be pro life try to get an abortion when they find of their own pregnancy.

My final point: Abortion is a technology we possess. It has been proven safe and widely practiced, as well as being a personal matter (rather than a government matter). With the technology available and ready, we cannot just stop using it, especially if it is useful and helps prevent a girl's life from being ruined. 

Con
I will go through my opponent's arguments as reasons to abort that I disagree with for argument purposes:

mother cannot support a child
If a mother truly can not support their child, they should give it up for adoption.  Murdering a life because they can't support it is not a valid reason.
 
the couple does not want to have a child before marriage
Abortion out of convenience is not an excuse to murder.  They knew the consequences of sex.  If they did not want a child they should have used abstinence or contraception. If they do not want it, they should put it up for adoption.  Killing a child because it is inconvenient or life will be hard is not an excuse.

People will say that destroying a fetus is similar to killing a living person. This is philosophically incorrect. A person who has a life worth living has somebody who loves them/ takes the responsibility to care for them, a person who has breathed by their own will and had their own thoughts, and a person who, as a living being, functions independently. Fetuses that are aborted have none of those things. Fetuses that aren't aborted have someone who is prepared to be responsible for them. 
1) There are plenty of people who can't have a child who would love to adopt one.  

2) Breathed and thoughts) Why does a person have to breathe on their own to be worth something?  What about people on breathing machines?  Should we kill them?  Why does a person have to have thoughts to live?  Babies are first conscious in 24-28 weeks from conception.(https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-does-consciousness-arise/)  What about a person in a coma who will lose all their thoughts but still eventually wake up, let's say, in 9 months?

3) Functions independently) Can you define this?  Babies already born can't function independently, they would die with no help.

I will not argue religious points because I did not argue politics from a religious basis.

We were all a fetus.  The only difference between us and them is time. Would you have liked to be murdered just out of convenience?  You are depriving the fetus of the right to life.

Round 2
Pro
There are plenty of people who can't have a child who would love to adopt one.
There are 107,918 foster children eligible for and waiting to be adopted.
As a rebuttal to all your previous rebuttals referring to adoption, I say this: The amount of eligible children are already very, very high. Taking, for example, Alabama, with the new abortion law being passed, the foster care system there will be flooded with all of the babies that couldn't be aborted. The effects of this will be:
1.) Tougher competition to be adopted, leaving more children poor and on the streets in 18 years.
2.) Higher crime rate in poverty areas as children who were not wanted grow up.
3.) Few abortions below the poverty line, but a consistent rate above the line with people being able to leave the state and receive an abortion, or move to another state entirely for the abortion. 

What about people on breathing machines?  Should we kill them?
You didn't read my argument as a whole. People on breathing machines have memories, people who love them/ want them, and their own thoughts. 
It is the same thing for the argument about a person in a coma. 

Babies are first conscious in 24-28 weeks from conception.
Great, that means you have a 6-7 month period (Or 75 percent of the pregnancy) to abort the child before they exist consciously. Current abortion laws shoot near that mark as the deadline, and it is frowned upon and illegal to abort after that mark. 

In the argument of safe, legal abortion, there will be a deadline to abort. Don't make abortion entirely illegal or legal, but find the middle ground that lets mothers safely abort without killing anything that existed in the past. 

My definition of functions independently is this:
Their skin is exposed to air and light, they take in nutrients through their mouth (Primarily), and they expel waste by themselves. People who are assisted by machines do not count against this, as they rely on machines rather than a human body. 

We were all a fetus.  The only difference between us and them is time. Would you have liked to be murdered just out of convenience?  You are depriving the fetus of the right to life.
1.) If done correctly, I would have no opinion of being "murdered for convenience" because I don't know what life is, I don't know what death is, and I literally haven't existed yet. 
2.) I am not depriving "the" fetus from the right to life. People who are pro choice don't all abort their children, same as people who are pro-life secretly do. 
We are not destroying lives that existed, we are trying to save lives that do. After all, for a woman to become pregnant she has to be at least nine, and many years can be ruined through either raising a child, or the trauma of giving birth in the first place. 

In conclusion, Abortion should be legal and safe everywhere up until the consciousness limit, which is the point of no return. It should be decided by women as well, because male lawmakers have a hard time getting experience in that field. 
Con
Taking, for example, Alabama, with the new abortion law being passed, the foster care system there will be flooded with all of the babies that couldn't be aborted. The effects of this will be:
1.) Tougher competition to be adopted, leaving more children poor and on the streets in 18 years.
This is hypothetical.  How can you prove this?  I am a little confused about the wording on that point.  Still is not an excuse to take a life from an innocent child.

2.) Higher crime rate in poverty areas as children who were not wanted grow up.
What do you mean?  Are you talking about biological parents who hate their kids but raise them anyway?  Or adopted children?  Please clarify, I am trying to solve puzzles on some of your points.

3.) Few abortions below the poverty line, but a consistent rate above the line with people being able to leave the state and receive an abortion, or move to another state entirely for the abortion. 
um ok what is your point exactly?

You didn't read my argument as a whole. People on breathing machines have memories, people who love them/ want them, and their own thoughts. 
It is the same thing for the argument about a person in a coma. 
Not the same for a person in a coma.  You did not respond to my coma argument.  I said "What about a person in a coma who will lose all their thoughts but still eventually wake up, let's say, in 9 months?"  There is a condition called amnesia, where you lose all your memories and identity as well.  Do we murder them?

My definition of functions independently is this:
Their skin is exposed to air and light, they take in nutrients through their mouth (Primarily), and they expel waste by themselves. People who are assisted by machines do not count against this, as they rely on machines rather than a human body. 
This does not define or explain what life is or what life is worth.  Life begins at conception with a human organism through meiosis, they are simply at a early stage in life.  Life develops.  Children develop.  A early stage of life does not mean we can kill a child in the womb.  Murdering a human being at any stage of life is depriving them of the right to life.

 If done correctly, I would have no opinion of being "murdered for convenience" because I don't know what life is, I don't know what death is, and I literally haven't existed yet. 
Neither does an infant.  Should we kill them?  You know what those things are now.  Would you have like to be murdered?  You are choosing for the baby.  The baby can feel pain when being aborted, when its arms and legs are being pulled apart and skull is being crushed.  Then they throw it in a trashcan.  How despicable.  Abortion is evil.

 I am not depriving "the" fetus from the right to life. People who are pro choice don't all abort their children, same as people who are pro-life secretly do. 
I am talking about the babies who do get aborted.  Obviously there are children who don't get aborted.  You are depriving the right to life to the babies in the womb.  Abortion is a modern day holocaust.

We are not destroying lives that existed, we are trying to save lives that do. After all, for a woman to become pregnant she has to be at least nine, and many years can be ruined through either raising a child, or the trauma of giving birth in the first place. 
So because life will be hard due to the women's own decision of sex, knowing of the consequences, we can kill the child.  I don't think so.  If she doesn't want it give it to a loving family that will.  It doesn't have to be foster care adoption.  Contrary to your point, many women suffer post-abortion trauma(https://www.rachelsvineyard.org/PDF/Articles/Abortion%20and%20Post%20Traumatic%20Stress%20Disorder%20-%20Theresa%20.pdf).  Imagine what that child who was aborted could have become.  I was in my mother's womb years ago, and I am thankful she didn't abort me.  If she had, I wouldn't have experienced his great life I have.



Round 3
Pro
This is hypothetical.  How can you prove this?
This is a simple case of connecting two and two. I will include your other quote first to get two birds with one rebuttal
What do you mean?  Are you talking about biological parents who hate their kids but raise them anyway?  Or adopted children?
Say, hypothetically, there is a standard infant turnover rate to foster care of about 5% a year, and there are about 1000 babies born every year. However, there is also 500 babies that are aborted each year in low income neighborhoods from rape and untrustworthy birth control failing. Now, say, that about 40 of the kids in foster care are adopted in a year in this area. So, doing the math, with abortions, foster care gets 50 babies a year, and 40 are adopted. This will lead up to a slow buildup of children, but the kids that don't get adopted will slightly start to slip through cracks, never get adopted, and go out on the streets as a small crime figure. (Say, 1 out of 10 that are on the streets commit a violent crime). 

Now, there are no abortions, so suddenly, there is a violent spike in births. These babies that would be aborted are unwanted anyways, so they have a turnover rate of about 50-60 percent from people unprepared to raise them. For the math to be simple, we will make it 50 percent. This means that 250 kids flood the foster system because they are fully alive yet not wanted. So, 300 kids a year join the system, yet only 40 are still adopted per year. That makes these outcomes:

Competition goes from 50 kids for 40 spots to 300 kids for 40 spots, leaving a buildup of 260 kids a year not adopted. 

These 260 kids eventually become 18, and they all need jobs to survive. They flood the low income jobs and the amount of homelessness increases all around. 

Large amounts of homeless young adults are all in the areas, increasing violent crimes per year from one to 26. 

Overall, lack of abortion leads to higher crime rates and more trouble, and it is unfortunately a snowballing effect. My math is not entirely accurate, and I forgot to factor in people that go to college or move out, but the base principle is there. Safe and legal abortions means less unwanted children, which means safer streets in the future. 

3.) Few abortions below the poverty line, but a consistent rate above the line with people being able to leave the state and receive an abortion, or move to another state entirely for the abortion. 
um ok what is your point exactly?
I was attempting to make commentary about how abortions would primarily affect lower income people because they would not have any options to get rid of their baby versus wealthy people who have options outside of Alabama to get abortions and be better off. If you need further explanation, I can tell you in the comments.

Not the same for a person in a coma.  You did not respond to my coma argument.  I said "What about a person in a coma who will lose all their thoughts but still eventually wake up, let's say, in 9 months?"  There is a condition called amnesia, where you lose all your memories and identity as well.  Do we murder them? 
People on breathing machines don't have X, but do have everything else, where X equals the ability to breathe on their own accord. People in  a coma don't have Y, where Y is thoughts and memories, but they have everything else (I think, not a coma expert) . Fetuses that are aborted don't have XYZ, With Z being people willing to take care of them. People on breathing machines do have YZ, People in comas do have XZ, fetuses that aren't aborted have Z, and fetuses that are have none. 

(Sidenote, if people in comas can't breathe alone I will acknowledge that. People stuck in comas who won't have a set time to wake up, or don't have anybody to pay their bills will have the plug pulled on them. People in comas waking up won't make a woman's life harder or flood the job market. )

Murdering a human being at any stage of life is depriving them of the right to life.
Yes, there is no longer a fetus. Yes, they may have had good potential. But if you were forced to kill, say, a random stray or your own dog, you would kill the stray, because you don't know about its past or future life. All you know is that its life would be a life of struggle as the unwanted being that it has unfortunately become. 

.  The baby can feel pain when being aborted, when its arms and legs are being pulled apart and skull is being crushed.  Then they throw it in a trashcan.  How despicable.  Abortion is evil.
For people to learn this, they would've had to monitor a baby as it was being aborted, which would probably be more evil than the abortion itself. But in the spirit of the argument, I will also refute this. 

In one episode of odd jobs, the host was told to help castrate sheep. He read his information packet, and it told him to put a rubber band around the sheep's balls and tail. (Follow me here, I have a point) When he got to filming, the farmer pulled out a knife and went for the first sheep. The host stopped him and asked what he was doing, and talked about the rubber band method that he had learned previously. The farmer demonstrated the rubber band method, and the sheep started bleating in pain. When asked how long the method would take, the farmer said "about a week, they usually stop bleating after a few days". The host found this unacceptably cruel, so they went with the knife method (Which was slitting open the sack and sucking out the testies) for recording. They did this to the sheep because even though it was more bloody and slightly painful, it was temporary pain. The rubber band method and knife method led to the same effect, same as 
abortion vs. natural death, yet the rubber band method was much more painful. This lines up with the abortion argument like this:

Parents with an unwanted child will neglect, disown, and berate the child for most of the child's life. The child, (Likely in low income) will maybe get to college, and maybe do something with their life, but it's probably more likely it will die in youth from sickness or drug use. 

Parents that abort a child will cause the child to feel a sense of pain, but no sense of betrayal, no sense of loss, no sense of hate. Meanwhile, the parents can be unburdened by the child they didn't have, and can live a happier life without them. 


Abortion is a modern day holocaust.
As in: systematic killing of men, women, and children because of their religion? Torture, property seizure, and neglect? Prison camps and ghettos? 

If you are going to argue like that, you must realize that the holocaust is not something to be thrown around lightly. Abortion is abortion. Lives are prevented by people who willingly consent to it, (Hopefully), and lives are saved through lack of burden. Comparing abortion to the holocaust would mean that fetuses are the Jewish people. (Right?) Which means that they were blamed for something, generalized, stereotyped, and discriminated against. I do not see any connections to true fetuses. Safe abortions are individual choices, by independent people, against an early stage of human life, so early that they don't even know what is happening.

Fetuses have no spiritual connections, they have no loves, no property, no bonds with family. They have a very basic physical connection between the person who will need to care for them for 18 years, and if that person doesn't want to care for them, they have no reason to live a long and painful life because some senator told their mom that their kid is more important than it is. 

It doesn't have to be foster care adoption.  Contrary to your point, many women suffer post-abortion trauma
Wow, it went full circle. My first statement:
When people abort, they do not do it lightly. They are cancelling themselves from giving life to a human being. This decision is a very hard one, but it is the mother's choice to make. If someone has a reason to abort, they should be allowed to legally and safely carry out the process. 
If a woman has a reason to go through the possible trauma, she sees it as a better option than going through 18 years of bad times. 


This is my final argument, so I will conclude by saying this. I have rebutted every point con made, with very in-depth reasoning and logic. I have clarified every point asked, and I have put up a full and reasonable argument. I apologize for being so long, (I'm almost at 10,000 words) but when it comes to such a big topic it cannot be taken lightly. I thank my opponent and whoever reads this for a hard and meaningful debate. 

Con
However, there is also 500 babies that are aborted each year in low income neighborhoods from rape and untrustworthy birth control failing. Now, say, that about 40 of the kids in foster care are adopted in a year in this area. So, doing the math, with abortions, foster care gets 50 babies a year, and 40 are adopted. This will lead up to a slow buildup of children, but the kids that don't get adopted will slightly start to slip through cracks, never get adopted, and go out on the streets as a small crime figure. (Say, 1 out of 10 that are on the streets commit a violent crime). 
First off, rape is a very minute percentage of births so using that as an argument is deceiving.  This is all hypothetical with the crime in their later years, and no real stats to show it.  Even if 1 in 10 become criminals, why does that make it OK for all of the abortions and the bigger percentage that don't commit crimes?

All of your math and violent crimes with an increase in foster care children is all hypothetical and can not be proven.  The average wait is 7 years, so it is unlikely people would stay until they are 18.  There are programs to give your child to families that would take it upon birth, so foster care is not the only adoption solution.

Safe and legal abortions means less unwanted children
There are plenty of children who are born who are unwanted, so do we kill all of them?

People on breathing machines don't have X, but do have everything else, where X equals the ability to breathe on their own accord. People in  a coma don't have Y, where Y is thoughts and memories, but they have everything else (I think, not a coma expert) . Fetuses that are aborted don't have XYZ, With Z being people willing to take care of them. People on breathing machines do have YZ, People in comas do have XZ, fetuses that aren't aborted have Z, and fetuses that are have none. 
So to live you have to be able to breathe on your own, have thoughts and memories, or people willing to take care of you?  According to who?  What constitutes this as life?  What if someone was in a coma and will wake up with amnesia, they also have to have breathing machine when they wake up to live, and their parents ditch them so they don't have people who love him.  Do we have the right to kill him?  I noticed you say unborn babies have to have people willing to take care of them.  This is exactly what adoption is for!  People who want to take care of it.

Yes, there is no longer a fetus. Yes, they may have had good potential. But if you were forced to kill, say, a random stray or your own dog, you would kill the stray, because you don't know about its past or future life. All you know is that its life would be a life of struggle as the unwanted being that it has unfortunately become. 
First flaw, in abortion, there is only one person you can kill, not 2.  Second flaw, it is not as black and white as "chose which one you will murder between these 2," because that is not how human life works in these cases.  Even if it is a life of struggle, should we kill it?  Most people will grow up to become successful.  Should we kill all the struggling people and homeless right now?

For people to learn this, they would've had to monitor a baby as it was being aborted, which would probably be more evil than the abortion itself.
I guess medical research is more evil than murdering a child.  Who would have thought.

This whole sheep argument about destroying their balls and tying them up or whatever is irrelevant.  My point was in abortion there are peaceful ways to do it and torturing the baby and not doing those other methods just makes abortion worse.

[Holocaust] As in: systematic killing of men, women, and children because of their religion? Torture, property seizure, and neglect? Prison camps and ghettos? 
No.  Holocaust is the "destruction or slaughter on a mass scale." (google def.'s)


If you are going to argue like that, you must realize that the holocaust is not something to be thrown around lightly. Abortion is abortion. Lives are prevented by people who willingly consent to it, (Hopefully), and lives are saved through lack of burden. Comparing abortion to the holocaust would mean that fetuses are the Jewish people. (Right?) Which means that they were blamed for something, generalized, stereotyped, and discriminated against. I do not see any connections to true fetuses. Safe abortions are individual choices, by independent people, against an early stage of human life, so early that they don't even know what is happening. 
Holocaust is destruction or slaughter on a mass scale.  Lives are not saved through lack of burden.  Just because women's lives will be difficult if they choose to keep the baby(there is adoption which will exempt them from this), that doesn't mean the women dies.  The women lives, just through a harder life (*as a consequence of their own actions*), but she doesn't die.  Remember their conceived child is a consequence of their actions, so they should be aware and live through the repercussions.

fetuses have no spiritual connections, they have no loves, no property, no bonds with family. They have a very basic physical connection between the person who will need to care for them for 18 years, and if that person doesn't want to care for them, they have no reason to live a long and painful life because some senator told their mom that their kid is more important than it is. 
Who says the small children won't live a productive life?  Perhaps some won't, but then you are also murdering the kids that will.


Conclusion--

I have proven abortion is murder and it is wrong to end someone's life through murder, no matter what stage of life they are in.  Thanks for the debate.  Abortion is evil, vote con.