Which side makes a better case?
avatar
43 Comments
  • Filter by:
  • Pro
  • Draw
  • Con
  • 2 years ago

    I was trying to show the Pussy Hats they all wore at the end haha.

  • 2 years ago

    Thanks for the debate. Very stimulating and enjoyable.
    Hope you continue to debate as well as judge, @sarahmiller

    • 2 years ago

      For anybody interested, here is a Link to the other "debate"- actually an agreeable discussion on it not being a Libertarian argument.
      https://www.qallout.com/debate/2116-being-pro-abortion-is-not-a-true-libertarian-viewpoint

      • 2 years ago

        I'm pro life, but @sarahmiller won this debate imo. I like how you structured your case and focused on the practical effects of legalization. Nelson sort of talked about the moral problems with abortion but he didn't impact it enough to outweigh the contentions you presented about the harm to women and the EDIT: continuation in abortions that will take place even if abortion is made illegal.

        • 2 years ago

          @debateme13 she didn't say, at least I never got that nor would it make any sense at all, that abortions would increase if it was illegal but she didn't think they would decrease or not much. I said I didn't believe it was viable to compare today, given all the technology and what we know about the baby in the womb, with data from 45 years ago, an entirely different period and society.
          But I argued that if we agree that the govt has the role to protect human life, that the child is human life, & the taking of human life is immoral then shouldn't we outlaw it?
          Thanks for watching

        • 2 years ago

          @nellyj I meant to say continuation, not increase. Edited.

          I agree with you in principle, but you didn't prove the humanity of the fetus, you just said you think it's human. You talk about it and bring up a few warrants, but it wasn't your focus, nor was it hers. Most abortion debates, like this one, sort of skirt around the issue of when life begins, but that's the entire issue. If there is a child, your points are correct. If not, then hers are. If it's a wash, then the disadvantages presented by Sarah outweigh your points imo.

        • 2 years ago

          @debateme13 I didn't need to prove it I merely said if we can agree it is, as most of those study that field do and I provided a logical reason for such a belief, that the taking of it should be illegal as the taking of any other human life. She agreed, and possibly you do as well, that an 8lb 8.5 mo baby is a human life, though it's fully abortionavle, I asked a couple times at what point between conception and then it should be outlawed? I didn't push on that even as it's a strong argument since any point is purely arbitrary but I thought I got that point across.

        • 2 years ago

          @debateme13 I'm really looking forward to tomorrow's debate

        • 2 years ago

          @debateme13 Thank you! If we look at life before Roe v. Wade, we can see that abortion occurred at increasingly greater rates in the years leading up to 1973 (as high as 1.2 million/year in the 1960s in the U.S.). Abortion rates did peak in the 1990s and continued to decrease from there, presumably due to more advanced medicine and increased awareness on pregnancy/contraception. One could speculate that rates would increase again; however, my claim was that it would not likely decrease abortion rates and procedures would become more dangerous for the women. Just wanted to clear that up :)

      • 2 years ago

        While Sarah Miller's contentions seem valid, they aren't all that true. Also if she thinks that denying abortions causes anxiety?? You should take a look at all the problems that actually having an abortion causes the woman.
        regarding roe v. wade and how abortion actually increased upon legalization- http://www.grtl.org/docs/roevwade.pdf

        • 2 years ago

          @akyriak If you take a look at my sources, you'll find the study I referenced which found that compared to women who had abortions, women denied abortions are at greater risk of developing adverse psychological effects.

        • 2 years ago

          @sarahmiller that study you referenced included a sample of 1,000 women, here's two studies referenced that include 877,000 and 8000, it's always good to research from both angles. Due to the political and secular climate you're likely only going to see one side propogated in the media
          http://afterabortion.org/2017/abortion-not-bad-for-womens-mental-health-the-research-finds-otherwise/

        • 2 years ago

          @akyriak I appreciate your advice. Luckily, I am already aware of how bias influences reporting. And in debating this topic I did make sure to see what both sides were saying, as it clearly won't help me much if I only look at one. The study I referenced was one of many, but I thought its research most convincing as it was a longitudinal study spanning five years, documenting each women's feelings each week and then month.

        • 2 years ago

          @sarahmiller you cited one study, I would encourage you to read the article I posted, in full. It includes numerous studies including a meta study documenting 8 other studies that prove without a doubt that abortion has zero benefits but numerous risks. Not to mention the risk of death for unborn children, sorry the actual death.

        • 2 years ago

          @akyriak Considering your statement pertaining to anxiety; I will agree there is no contention to the relevance of the truthfulness to where abortion does indeed cause anxiety. However, viewing anxiety in a vacuum in terms of it existing simply due to an action is not an effective means of properly weighing the value of that anxiety.

          Meaning, is the anxiety of having an abortion more substantial and significant to that of actually having a baby and being unable to provide for it for up to 18+ years, whilst also suffering financially, physically, educationally, employment, etc.. in the process.

          Such has to be properly weighed against the alternative, and in this case, the temporary anxiety compared to the decades of anxiety and stress associated not just with the mother, but the child as well.. well, I suppose you need to examine that for yourself.

        • 2 years ago

          @vermontrevolutionary with all due respect your comment demonstrates a lack of knowledge surrounding the abortion/trauma issue. I'd encourage you to check out some of the links I've posted. Besides the trauma associated with abortion, you speak about having a baby as if that itself is a burden, its the most beautiful miracle this world has to offer. Only those who have a complete disregard for the value of human life would have the audacity to speak about having children as being such a burden "decades of anxiety and stress" lol. Do you feel the same way about your mother having to endure such things on your behalf? It boils down to sexual values, sex isn't meant strictly to pleasure ourselves, it's meant to be had within a lifelong committed relationship where a baby is par for the course.

        • 2 years ago

          @akyriak to answer your question about whether or not I was a burden on my single mother with two kids? A mother who worked and suffered for two decades and sacrificed her dreams, goals, freedom and happiness just to feed two kids? Yeah. I personally think she should have never had children. You're saying the value of being alive is more important than the quality of the life lived.

          Which is a very narrow minded view of the issue as a whole.

          Hypothetically, If I was born into slavery and beaten every day and treated with less than human right, then I personally would prefer to have been aborted. Why would I want to live that life purely because life itself is precious?

          You devalue life by saying the life itself is more important than the quality of the life lived.

          And I would argue that sex has its place for reproductive purposes. However, if it was purely reproductive only, then females would be fertile 24/7 and not just two days out of each month.

          There is a very narrow window in which a female can get pregnant each month, and such means that the majority of the time is designed for her to still be a sexual creature without the "burden" of becoming pregnant.

        • 2 years ago

          @akyriak I encourage you to scroll down to the bottom of the page and read my comment from a few hours ago.

        • 2 years ago

          @vermontrevolutionary bottom line, there is no justification for the taking of human life, period. Try and complete this sentence, it's okay to take the life of a human baby when....____........ if you can honestly provide a reason why you think it's okay to take a baby's life then shame on you. It's one thing to argue that creating life can be avoided in certain contexts, but once it's created to "terminate" it is despicable. As for the window argument, ovulation wherein which a woman can get pregnant is different each month, meaning it can happen any time, meaning that a woman can and should expect to get pregnant if she's having sex, the two are inseparable. On another note I'd encourage you to watch the movie dropbox, if you're going to use quality of life arguments. And yes the value of being alive is far far greater than the quality of life once alive, what's a greater evil, to allow someone to exist in the midst of suffering or to take away their chances at existing at all? No one has the right to take away another humans life.

        • 2 years ago

          @akyriak who ever said anything about taking the life of a human baby?

        • 2 years ago

          @akyriak and no, your data on the window of ovulation is incorrect. It's pretty standard and set for the majority of women. Between days 12-14 of her cycle. You'll need to do more research there. However, yes each woman does fluctuate per her own cycle as to which day this occurs, but there is only a two day window for which she actually ovulates and again, it remains (majority speaking) consistent for her each month as to which days those two days are.. so.... yeah,

        • 2 years ago

          But I will finish your sentence. It's okay to take the life of a human baby when that life isn't a human baby. i.e. Fetus = not human baby. Again, see comment at bottom of page.

        • 2 years ago

          @vermontrevolutionary what do you think abortion is? taking the life of a canine baby? or are you going to argue that its just a fetus? that it doesn't feel pain when it's being killed, or that even in early stages of pregnancy its some other life form?

        • 2 years ago

          @akyriak if you refuse to read the comment at the bottom of the page and understand it, then we are incapable of moving forward in this discussion.

        • 2 years ago

          However, if you are going to argue the quality of life thing, then you have a very dark view surrounding the scope of life.

          To say that being alive is more important than going through endless hell, then I say you have never experienced that sort of hell.

        • 2 years ago

          For example. Let's hypothetically hook you up to electrodes and run electricity through your body endlessly (without killing you), inducing overwhelming pain for the duration of your life from start to finish. Is it still more important to be alive than not be in endless agony?

        • 2 years ago

          @akyriak I'm surprised at your statement about canines.. it's almost as if you don't view their lives as important. That somehow just because the human species evolved to the top of the food chain, they have more "value" than that of another life form. That's not very pro-life of you.

      • 2 years ago
        • 2 years ago

          @chasuk very very interesting point!

        • 2 years ago

          @chasuk I appreciate your feedback. So are you suggesting that all murder is equal? I'm not sure if I agree with that entirely. Murder in self defense, to me, seems to be "more moral" (if that even is a thing) than unprovoked murder. And I'm not just talking about abortion. I do agree that when you draw a line on when it's OK to murder, that line will ultimately blur. Thanks for the food for thought!

        • 2 years ago

          @sarahmiller I don't think that killing in self-defense is murder. In fact, killing in self-defense is justified, which automatically makes it _not_ murder. It is homicide, yes, but the terms aren't interchangeable, even though they are frequently — usually? — used that way.

          But you're right, it's complicated – and that's before taking manslaughter into account.

      • 2 years ago

        Considering Nelson's perspective on the life of a fetus, and the generally agreed upon notion that "a fetus is life, we're just not certain what type of life it is."

        Within a certain reasonable time frame from conception, that life is cellular. It may be biologically having manifest and originated from two human beings and thus the parent entity of those cells is human; however, given that sperm cells are released regularly across the board on planet earth, as are eggs through menstruation; I think we can all agree that we as a species don't take particular issue with these cells being expelled from either the male or female body independently from one another, given how frequent such a thing occurs.

        Nelson does make a valid point in needing to determine at what point a fetus (or the cellular makeup of a fetus), when that becomes a human life; such is necessary, important and vital to the consideration and the determination of the subject overall. Without this fundamental component, there will only be stagnation of opinion due to infactual evidence to support the issue one way or the other.

        This basically becomes the crux of the subject.

        Without being able to properly define the parameters to which when it is that the cellular component of these cells that we otherwise accept the cellular death of (through ejaculation and menstruation), actually becomes a human entity... Then the conversation cannot move forward, at least not in terms of convincing one side effectively of the other's view.

        • 2 years ago

          @nellyj_misesian BTW: I'm watching a lot of your videos for a project I'm doing for Qallout.

          PP is not a for-profit company. They are a non-profit offically and legally. They don't pay dividends to shareholders, give bonuses to staff or any of the things a for-profit company does with excess revenues. They are required by law to spend all revenues for the non-profits stated mission.

          • 2 years ago

            And you are utterly wrong about what happens in a planed parenthood clinic. I've been to a few. They don't ask people "when can we schedule your abortion" That's an utter lie.

            Most of what happens there is that women come to fill their birth control prescriptions which are subsidized by PP. Every time I've been, I'm accompanying someone getting their prescription or getting a scheduled gynecological exam.

            They do perform abortions, a lot of them. So you don't need to exagerate and lie to make your point about abortions.

        • 2 years ago

          @nellyj_misesian I keep critiquing your stuff so I feel like I should say something positive. On abortion, the "human life" argument you make is the best one. And in rape/incest, you have a very consistent view (as where many pro-life folks don't).

          I think when you conflate that with the consequences of sex, it doesn't add to the argument. If you agree that the fetus's life right is more important than the suffering of a rape victim, then any argument about the consequences of sex is totally irrelevant.

          I also thought your counter to the 1960s death and abortion stats was as good as one can make. Calling into question the time difference, the technology, and the knowledge we have gained about pregnancy. It's not a total shut down of her point, but it is a decent counter to consider.

          • 2 years ago

            @sigfried in the latest tournament Thom made an excellent point I’ve not previously heard, that libertarians are generally very pro immigration and when an immigrant crosses a border the libertarian would never say he ought to be killed. A baby enters a uterus by no choice of his own so a libertarian ought to be more in favor of protecting the baby than the immigrant.

          • 2 years ago

            @nellyj_misesian Yep, I've watched that one, but am going to do it again for this project to get timestamps for different arguments.

            And I agree it is a very logical point based on those principles.

            BTW: you should watch the Roe V Wade debate I did. Not to be persuaded, but just to get a good idea of how Roe V Wade was decided and what the laws are. The aborting of 8-pound babies can be made illegal and is illegal in many states. There are only 9 states that have no restrictions on abortion.

          • 2 years ago

            @sigfried the woman in that case is anti-abortion herself but RvW was a complete misapplication of law and travesty of justice
            I may watch a few more of yours

          • 2 years ago

            @nellyj_misesian Well, I mention the plaintiff changed her mind in my opening presentation. You will likely agree with my opponent's analysis, but judging from what I've seen you argue, you don't know the specifics of the legal rationale used in the case. I think it would strengthen you argument if you had a deeper understanding of it. My oponent in that debate makes some very good legal arguments against it.

          • 2 years ago

            @sigfried we could take it up sometime