The debate "Abortion should be controlled" was started by
August 8, 2015, 2:18 pm.
60 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 8 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
toughgamerjerry posted 3 arguments, historybuff posted 3 arguments, toughgamer posted 5 arguments to the agreers part.
Sosocratese posted 4 arguments, BryanTheLion posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
toughgamerjerry, sloanstar1000, PsychDave, sabrina, historybuff, theQueenofdebate, toughgamer, gouthamabi, wmd, jadesenia, jwelch15, dixie18, PranavArora, wayneSPEC, Skeetc15, sherry2503, Jenna2208, spellbeechamp, rishab, Edson, Victor_10n, Yuki_Amayane, Psych_Code, mohanraj, Abraham, Maharshi, sidhant, debaterjr, SwaggerPoptart, DB8101, blakelovesjesus and 29 visitors agree.
dylan21502, Sosocratese, BryanTheLion and 5 visitors disagree.
toughgamer, three year professional my ass, this is a app, an anonymous internet discussion, no need to lie, U keep getting destroyed and u keep letting ur feeling and opinion fuel ur arguement as oppose to sosocrates using reason and fact
I'll re-frame the question. If you have a mother, who went to a doctor, was diagnosed as pregnant (medical records and all) then decides to abort the baby herself would you hold her criminally responsible?
I don't quite understand what you wanted me to get out of that drug article. It's a terrible article. First, it uses very outdated sources, it doesn't analyze stats, it doesn't look at any raw data at all. It is simply a collection of arguments and rebuttals for/against legalization of drugs. Can you please tell me how you think this helps your abortion case?
On to the embryo. I agree that late term abortions should be heavily regulated for the reason you mentioned (a fetus' ability to feel pain at 20 weeks). However, you have not shown that until that point it is immoral to abort the pregnancy. You are simply asserting that we ought to respect the potential person-hood of something which displays no characteristics of person-hood.
You're claim that pregnancy is preventable is partially true. However, it is not always the case. Birth control measures fail at times. No form of birth control is 100% effective. So you're saying women have to suffer the consequences of a pregnancy which may not even be their fault. Furthermore, you're saying that a teenager who may not fully understand the consequences of their actions when they engage in sexual intercourse ought to carry that burden regardless of whether or not the fetus is actually a person. You are also saying that a mother ought to bring a pregnancy to term if the child is to be disabled (since you didn't make an exception for this in your first claim) even though she may not be able to provide for a special needs child. If the woman wants a child, but is unable to care for a special needs child, you are essentially forcing her to bring to term a ward of the state which she must look upon and carry and be reminded that she was unable to produce a healthy child. You are essentially adding to her misery.
As far as adoption goes. It's not a viable alternative. You are essentially arguing that we ought to force women to carry out unwanted pregnancies and then saying that the state should pay for those children. In 2009 69,947 children were given up for adoption out of those 57,466 were adopted. So how do you propose we deal with this influx of unwanted children in the system?
Ok I shall go through all of your arguments one by one as well.
The mother would have to show signs that she was pregnant in the first place, so if nothing comes out of it then people would get suspicious, if not then they must live out in the woods in isolation which we can't stop, as I said before I want it to be controlled not to stop it, because that's impossible, but so that humans are not being killed legally.
Making drugs legal may have worked in Portugal, but just because it worked in one place, doesn't mean it will work everywhere else. www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=533&issue_id=32005 . man that's a lot of typing random stuff. You don't need to read the whole thing just read, proponents' arguments, Opponents to legalization, and drugs and crime, you can read some other parts if you feel it necessary.
The embryo may not be able to feel pain.... until 20 weeks. Which means that it will happen and it is proven that it will happen. It doesn't matter when, what matters is that it does happen. Would you kill a human being, just to keep the inconsiderate mother from feeling pain? The mother made the choice to become pregnant, so they should go through the consequences because of it. There are many ways that a woman can not get pregnant, if she doesn't take those precautions then that is her fault and not the unborn babies fault. Why kill an innocent unborn baby who hasn't had the chance of going through the steps of person-hood, because of the actions of the mother and father? It is more cruel to kill someone and not go through pain, than to go through pain and confirm a life. If the mother doesn't want the baby, she can put it up for adoption, she doesn't have to take care of it, she just has to change it from unborn, to born.
We'll go through them one at a time, since that seems to produce the best exchanges.
Let me first go through your answer to my question and pose another. You are claiming that you would prosecute both the mother and the doctor for performing a medical abortion, fair enough. Now, how about the mother if she performed her own abortion either through vaginal trauma or via self starvation etc... if you have proof that the mother intentionally aborted the pregnancy, would you prosecute her?
On to your drug argument. It's a really poor analogy to support your argument since your claim is absolutely false. First, your claim that legalizing drugs causes an increase in use is simply false. Portugal legalized all drugs and their rate of use decreased, the deaths due to drug use decreased, infection rates decreased, criminal upkeep cost decreased etc... Source: http://mic.com/articles/110344/14-years-after-portugal-decriminalized-all-drugs-here-s-what-s-happening
Second, since use and risk decreased by legalizing drugs, and extending the analogy to abortion as you did so wonderfully for me, we can say that legalizing abortions decreases risk and use.....see why it's a bad analogy for your point?
So I would say my argument for legal abortions due to the prevalence of illegal abortions still stands.
Now let's talk morality. Since christian morality isn't the be all end all of ethical philosophy, I'd like to pose you with an argument from moral utility. The embryo is incapable of suffering, incapable of understanding life, incapable of self awareness, incapable of desiring life, incapable of experiencing joy or happiness, it's interest in life is none. The mother on the other hand is clearly capable of having a vested interest in her life and thus the pregnancy and how it will effect her life. Therefore, her happiness is the only thing worth considering. If her life will have a net positive effect from having an abortion she ought to have an abortion since the embryo need not be considered as it has no capacity for happiness or suffering.
Just to make you happy though historybuff.
This doctor is responsible for 75,000 abortions, and after he became director of obstetrics of a large hospital in New York City, he says himself that life begins at conception. But that is only the first doctor. There's still 4 more.
Politicians are usually not the smartest and most informed of people. these are not prerequisites for politics. people skills and money are all that really matter. If a politician says something is proven by science you need to check. Especially if that person has a background as a televangelist, because I doubt very much he bases most of his opinions on science.
I never said he was an expert. But every smart politician will do lots of research on a certain topic before speaking out about it, especially on live television. You are taking my words way out of context. I can say that I am an expert in electronic surveillance and marine policies in the US. Have I done anything for either, no, but I have done a lot of research on both.
Just so you know, there is a name glitch with my name so it may show up as two different names but they are both me.
It wasnt getting the quote wrong which was bad. it was quoting a politician and assuming he is an expert. most politicians have no medical background. and I checked, Mike Huckabee has none as far as I can tell. therefore claiming he is an expert is rediculous. he is a televangelist by trade and therefore not an expert on anything but his brand if religion and politics.
To answer your first question, it depends. For the mother to get an abortion she has to want to get one. Then for her to get one then there has to be a doctor to perform the abortion. So unless the doctor is performing abortions without the mother's consent, or a mother is found searching for a doctor to perform an abortion, then both.
So you're saying that because people are going to do it anyway that is should not be illegal. What about drugs? Those are illegal. They kill people or mess up their bodies. And yet they were made illegal, but people still do them. So should we make them legal? No. because that would increase how much people use them. By making abortions illegal unless in special cases, you may not be stopping them all, but you are decreasing, and people are not killing human beings legally.
Give me as many as you have. I'm prepared.
Well, guess what. Nobody laughs at me. That was the first time I got mixed up on something like that. I am a three year professional debater, and I am trying to improve my quick thinking skills, as you can see they are not the best, but that is why I am trying to improve them. I did not look at any sources before I replied to simulate a cross examination, where you walk up right after the person is done giving their speech and asking questions and things like that to poke holes in their case. Nobody is perfect so you cannot expect anybody to get everything 100% right the first time. If you do then you're insane. So go ahead, laugh at me. See what happens.
I commented on that argument already, it's a really poor argument by the way.
Furthermore, it doesn't really matter what you call it, banning or regulation since the end result is the same.
I won't argue the whole life begins at x y or z. I think it's a boring debate and somewhat irrelevant. I'll restate some of my arguments from the other thread here since they are probably more stronger for this debate.
Before that though, I have a question, are you in favor of prosecuting people who perform abortions if it they fall outside of the parameters you listed? Who would you prosecute, the mother, the doctor, both?
Abortions are a fact of life. Women have been getting them for centuries and will continue to get them regardless of the legal status. What you are doing by advocating against legal abortions is the equivalent of advocating for black market abortions. You are saying that a system which doesn't permit legal abortions is morally superior, to one which doesn't have legal abortions. So by extension you are saying that a culture which has illegal "cut wives" is superior to one which has legal abortion clinics. You are also then arguing that the limits set on legal abortions are moot bringing back the days of late term abortions performed in basement clinics.
I'll let you address that point first before cluttering the this with more arguments.... Trust me, I have plenty for you.
Except you were wrong. you got the quote wrong. and you were quoting a politician. One of the other guys on stage with him called all Hispanic people rapists. don't use them as an example of an expert. people will laugh at you.
I created this topic because, literally, every single time I debate abortion and say that it should be banned but I give exceptions, people criticize me and say that I should say it should not be banned but strongly controlled. And yet you're telling me that they are the same thing. There is another abortion debate that I am in debating that, proven by science, stated by a Republican running for president, there is a heartbeat right after conception which proves life. If you wanna debate it over there where everyone already is then that would be better, but then I don't wanna see anyone telling me that I should agree with them because I give exceptions.
I'm only disagreeing with the claim because of your initial argument. I'd like to point out, that abortion is already under strict control.
But on to your point about this being somehow different than the other abortion debates. It's not really any different. The only thing your saying is you'd like an exception for banning abortions and that is in the case of incest, rape, and the life of the mother. You're still advocating for a ban on all other abortions.
This means you run into the same issues as all the other proponents of banning abortions. That is to say, you have to prove that we are actually destroying a human life when we abort a fetus. As of right now, you are simply asserting that this is the case.
I'm definitely contesting the idea that a embryo should be considered human life and endowed with the same rights as a person. Thus giving the woman more right to her body than the embryo
By controlled I mean that it should only be don't if the mother's life is on the line, the child's life is on the line, or if the mother was raped. Every single day many unborn children are killed just because the mother doesn't want them. I feel that this is wrong and that abortion should be controlled. I have not seen any other debates like this because all the others are saying it should completely stop, not controlled.