Instigator / Pro
38
1443
rating
11
debates
22.73%
won
Topic
#1715
Abortion Should Be Illegal
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 9 votes and with 25 points ahead, the winner is...
Username
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
63
1593
rating
9
debates
77.78%
won
Description
Definition:
Abortion Should Be illegal - The deliberate termination of a human pregnancy should be lawfully federally illegal and banned.
I as Pro will waive Round 1. You as Con will begin your argument in round 1.
Round 1
Waive.
Every year, a group of protestors peacefully march in Washington, D.C., our nation’s capital. They walk through the monuments and city streets with their hats, their shirts, their banners, their flags, and their rose. They’re typically not the loudest group of people, and are not backed by any trained militants or bloodthirsty extremists; they usually receive support from Christian denominations and Republican politicians - from Reagan in ‘87, to our current president and vice-president, Donald Trump and Mike Pence. The right echoes their goals as a point of focus, repeated often by Fox News pundits and the average conservative political commentator. This large group constitutes what is formally known as the March for Life.
Last year, a group of March for Life attendees consisting of students from Covington Catholic high-school, complete with their MAGA hats and according gear, got into a confrontation with a group of Black Hebrew Israelites and a Native American man. The Black Israelites were largely cast out of the picture when the story was reported, who were more or less just yelling racial slurs at the students from the sidelines. However, the Native American became the point of focus, as the image of him banging his drum in the middle of a group of taunting teenagers became a polarizing image that divided Americans across political lines once again. The subsequent released information can only be described as interesting, with both parties seeming partially at fault, but what seemed definite was the negative effect it had on the March for Life, an effect so ruinous that the March for Life organizers stumbled over themselves apologizing and then apologizing for their apologies, a sign of chaos and panic.
For the most part, the March for Life organization has rebounded, as the media explosion that detonated after the event focused most of it’s firepower at the Covington Catholic administration and students. However, as they will convene once again a month from now, the March for Life, and the greater aspirations of the pro-life, anti-abortion movement, should not be ignored or accepted. I posit that in a just society, abortion will remain legal, Roe V. Wade will be upheld, and a federal ban on abortion and it’s proponents should be politically and intellectually shunned; as abortion is a practice that causes no pain to anyone except for the mothers performing it.
Preamble
Heres how its gonna go down:
C1: Abortion Safety
C2: Fetal pain
Conclusion
Burden of Proof
To determine the Burden of Proof in this debate, we should first determine who has the Burden of Proof in debates in general. As explained by Wikipedia:
When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.
My opponent is making the claim that “Abortion should be illegal”, and is challenging the status quo, given that Roe V. Wade is currently upheld and abortions are legal. I am also making a claim, that “Abortion should be legal (in some cases)”, and since Pro is waiving the first round, it is evident that I am supposed to present a case for the legality of abortion. So the BoP is shared.
However, my opponent must prove that abortion is wrong (and thus, that it should be banned), and I only must prove that abortion is morally neutral [Note: that this only applies to the philosophical debate] Here’s a syllogism to clear things up:
P1: Our actions are by default neutral
P2: Neutral actions should be legal
C1: If I prove that abortion is neutral, I win the debate (Unless Con argues for the banning of abortion for non-philosophical reasons)
Issues
One issue with our Burdens is that Pro has failed to outline which circumstances under which abortion is legal or banned. If abortion is banned two weeks into the pregnancy, is abortion in this society considered legal or illegal? If abortion is banned at conception but exceptions are made for rape, incest, and danger to the mother’s life, is abortion in this society considered legal or illegal?
I posit that to avoid confusion, my opponent opposes abortion at conception but makes exceptions for rape, incest, or danger to the mother’s life, and I support keeping abortion at conception legal. I suggest that we keep this debate largely about abortion at conception given that that is the focus of much of the abortion debate and given our 10,000 character limit. I hope my opponent can agree to this.
Structure
Pro has failed to outline a structure for this debate, so I’ll do so here:
Pro R1: Waive
Con R1: Constructive
Pro R2: Constructive
Con R2: Rebuttal to Pro’s Constructive
Pro R3: Rebuttal to Con’s Constructive
Con R3: Defense of Constructive
Pro R4: Defense of Constructive
Con R4: Waive
Constructive
Note that I’ll be playing Devil’s Advocate in this debate. I don’t feel too strongly but I am Pro-Life.
C1: Abortion Safety
Often, policies, such as the banning of abortions, are reduced to moral concerns rather than practical ones. When the U.S. Prohibited alcohol in January of 1920 this very mistake was made - the idea that alcohol should be banned based on it’s moral and health benefits completely bypassed the concern of whether the ban would actually work - Prohibition is needless to say now remembered as an American disaster. Remember that the resolution of this debate is whether abortion should me made illegal, not purely whether it’s morally correct to have an abortion.
The bottom line here is that getting legal abortions is safer than getting illegal abortions.
Per Guttmacher Institute, on the result of South Africa’s Choice of Termination of Pregnancy Act:
By 2002 in South Africa, for example, six years after liberalizing its abortion law, deaths due to unsafe abortion dropped by at least 50% and the number and severity of postabortion complications fell dramatically as well. Similarly, according to Nepalese government hospitals records, soon after abortion was legalized in 2004, the number of women admitted for complications of unsafe abortion and the severity of those complications declined markedly; pregnancy-related deaths in Nepal also declined.
However, the Guttmacher Institute is not the only group that supports these conclusions. Tietze's 1984 study on the effects of abortion legalization explains that roughly 1500 pregnancy deaths have been prevented and life-threatening complications have likely decreased in the order of 10s of thousands due to abortion being legalized. I’ve found the full study and copied it into a word doc. It can be found here.
More modern studies support these general conclusions. Cates, Grimes, and Schulz found that illegal abortions (which are generally performed in more unsafe conditions than legal abortions) decreased after Roe V. Wade passed, complications decreased gradually and deaths decreased sharply.
C2: Fetal Pain
Since our actions are neutral by default, and it’s tough to prove the neutrality of an action compared to proving the non-neutrality of one, I’ll make a brief argument on fetal pain based on the harm principle.
Essentially, the idea that the fetus feels pain during most abortions is a misconception. This status as a misconception is backed by a wealth of scientific data and a pretty broad consensus. Despite this, there has been a push by politicians and lawmakers to enact bills informing women of the fetuses’ supposed pain when abortions occur. This article explains:
Over the last several years, many states, including California, Kentucky, Minnesota, Montana, New York, Oregon, and Virginia, have considered legislation requiring physicians to inform women seeking abortions that the fetus feels pain and to offer fetal anesthesia. This year, Arkansas and Georgia enacted such statutes.
Let’s go over the evidence. The above article explains that before the first trimester (which is a way off from conception) the fetus is unlikely to feel pain. This is true because fetuses require recognition of noxious stimuli, recognition of which is provided by thalamocortical connections. Thalamocortical fibers are not present until the fetus is 23-30 weeks old.
I’m not going to go through more evidence in the interest of preserving characters. Since I make the logical assumption that my opponent opposes abortion at conception due to his failiure to clarify his position, it should be noted that it is universally recognized even by pro-life advocates that the fetus does not feel pain at conception. To think otherwise is frankly unimaginably absurd, but I can show my opponent plenty of studies if he questions this conclusion when it’s time for rebuttals.
Conclusion
Basically, we’ve proved that the legalization of abortion has a demonstrably positive effect on the safety of the women participating in the abortion, and we’ve proved that the fetus does not feel pain at conception. Therefore, abortion legalization harms no one and helps everyone, and should be legal by default. Unless…
Human life does not have the right to life. You kill thousands of human cells by scratching an itch. Therefore, for my opponent to prove that abortion is morally wrong, he likely must seek to prove that the fetus is a person with a right to life, or, if not a person, a something with an inherent right to life. Since personhood and “the right to life” are vaguely defined terms, I believe he cannot do so although he likely will be seeking to in his opening case.
If my opponent chooses to argue from other grounds, then we’ll see what these grounds are in his opening case. That being said, I pass the baton back to you, AKMath. :)
[Note that my opponent should not rebut my case yet provided he accepts the debate structure. He should create his own.]
Round 2
Well okay, this will be an easy win... FOR ME!!!
Let me start by saying that abortion would still be illegal if it was rape or incest. The only exception would be a danger to the mother's life.
Quite frankly your abortion safety and fetal pain arguments are useless as they don't prove anything.
The cold hard truth is that abortion IS MURDER. It's plain and simple. I hate to say this, but I don't care if you are pregnant because of rape or incest, you still have no right to MURDER a fetus.
Why is it murder? Well, let me explain to you. As much as the Left screams and shouts it, a fetus isn't part of the mother's body. A few questions...
1. Just because you are in something doesn't mean you are part of it. If you are in your car, does this mean you are part of your car? What about your house?
2. Now you may say, well the difference between a fetus and you in a car is that the fetus is physically connected to the mother. This again doesn't prove it is part of the mother. Take for example a 5 by 5 brick wall, that has graffiti on it. If I asked you to make another of that wall you wouldn't add the graffiti would you? Even though the graffiti is connected to the brick wall, it is still not a part of the wall per se. While the graffiti may be "connected" to the wall, we wouldn't say that they constitute the wall's parts.
3. In more than 50% of cases, the baby has a different blood type than the mother. We all know what happens when a blood type that is not yours enters your system.
4. Completely different DNA. It cannot be part of you per se if it doesn't share your DNA.
5. Unlike all other parts of a woman, the fetus is not independently generated by the woman. It takes a man as well.
6. In 50% of cases, the baby is a different sex than the mother. Are you now about to tell me that in 50% of the time, the mother has male genitalia?
7. The biggest argument yet are you ready... How is it possible for a mother to die, while her fetus survives? No really, think about that. No other body part could possibly dream of doing that. When the person dies, they die along with all their organs and brain and things like that, but a fetus. can possible live. If it truly is part of the mother's body, how is this possible?
8. When a woman is pregnant the fetus weakens her immune system. Had the fetus been "part" of the mother there would be no need to locally weaken the woman's immune system.
9. It's illegal to put a pregnant woman on death row.
I really hope I have now proved to you that the fetus is not part of her mother's body. Now...
The fetus is not part of her mother's body, which means it is its own person.
10. How many feet, hands, and fingers does a pregnant woman have?
11. Parents talk to and about their unborn child. They (may) name their unborn child. They may even play with their child, for example poking or tapping a little elbow sticking out of the mother’s belly. No one names, plays with, or sings songs to their body parts, at least not seriously. There is also ample evidence to indicate that there is a tremendous amount of social learning that occurs before a child is even born. Interactions between twins are especially interesting (and cute). The parent-child relationship exists before the child is even born precisely because the child is an individual and only individuals can be social with one another. This reality is exactly the reason abortion providers want to avoid mothers seeing ultrasounds, naming their babies, or even referring to their unborn as “he” or “she”. So the unborn is an individual and not a part of the mother.
BTW, the big debate really lies here. The debate is not whether abortion should(n't) be legal, instead, it lies here. I hope your convinced that a fetus is not part of her mother's body. So you'll have to prove to me that a fetus isn't part of her mother's body yet still not its own person with inalienable rights.
Anyway, to kill a human that is not your own person is murder.
Murder is federally illegal in every state.
Abortion is Murder.
Abortion should be illegal.
P.S. I think it was very stupid of you to play devil's advocate here as I doubt you'll be able to make good arguments (you haven't so far). I don't mean to dismiss your round 1 argument, it's just that both the things you mentioned have no relevance to why abortion should really be illegal.
[A quick clarification: Since this debate is centered around conception and my opponent has not objected to this, I’d want to apologize for my erroneous use of the word fetus in my conclusion. My opponent doesn’t need to prove the life of the fetus, he needs to prove the life of the embroyo and the fetus follows from that. However, in case my opponent wants to say that I lead him in the wrong direction via my conclusion, it should be clarified that my conclusion was only a suggestion to my opponent on how he would argue, not a definitive proposition like what I said in the Issues section of my R1]
Structural Violation and Conduct
By failing to address my proposed structure in this debate, I’m going to assume that my opponent is okay with the debate structure I presented. However, my structure states that Pro’s R2 should be an opening argument. Nonetheless my opponent has chosen to address my arguments by calling them “useless”. Furthermore, my opponent has offered no real reason for the uselessness of my arguments other than they don’t “prove” anything, saying this:
“BTW, the big debate really lies here. The debate is not whether abortion should(n't) be legal, instead, it lies here.”
and
P.S. I think it was very stupid of you to play devil's advocate here as I doubt you'll be able to make good arguments (you haven't so far). I don't mean to dismiss your round 1 argument, it's just that both the things you mentioned have no relevance to why abortion should really be illegal.
For the record, I did comment on this debate saying playing devil’s advocate for this debate makes it clear how crappy the arguments for being pro-choice are, however this gives my opponent little excuse to call my arguments (which I constructed) names with no justification. Let’s go over my opponents claims:
I don’t know what my opponent wants from me with regards to whether my arguments “prove” anything. My arguments for abortion rights are pretty clear cut: denying women abortion rights harms them, whereas abortion is essentially harmless because the fetus does not feel pain at conception. I think he is likely referring to how my arguments fail to address moral concerns, but frankly it should be obvious that there is more to any political issue than purely moral concerns (hence my Prohibition example). I also wanted to leave that part mostly to my opponent as it’s tough to prove the moral neutrality of a given act, so I figured I would allow my opponent to explain abortion’s immorality and then rebut that in my R2.
I’d contest my opponents claim that the real debate concerns morality or whether the fetus is part of a woman’s body rather than legality. His resolution clarified that this debate is about making abortion illegal - if he wanted a debate on purely moral grounds he could’ve easily edited his resolution to do so (i.e. Abortion is immoral). Here, he’s simply moving the goalposts to invalidate my arguments and validate his own.
When addressing his third claim, I think it’s vital for voters to consider conduct due to him calling my actions “stupid”, and has called my arguments “bad” without justification. I take insulting an opponent in a debate seriously. Once again, my opponent has failed to clarify why my claims lack relevance, and I’ve explained above how they do.
So to conclude: Unwarranted claims, structural violation, and name-calling. The conduct point should be awarded to me.
Rebuttals
The vast majority of my opponent’s argument centers around the fetus not being part of the mother’s body. Pro falsely assumes that a fetus has a right to life just because it is not part of a mother’s body; even if a fetus isn’t part of a mother’s body, what gives it a right to life? Our Constitution guarantees a right to life to persons:
“. . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
What makes the fetus a person, or something else worthy of life? Things should by default not be assumed to have a right to life. Cells don’t. Chairs don’t.
Another general issue with my opponent’s opening case is that it is fundamentally based on a semantical strawman of the pro-choice position. The point of the pro-choice “my body, my choice” argument is not just that the fetus is part of the mother’s body, but that the fetus is reliant on the mother’s body parts for survival - the mother has a right to her body parts, and does not need to allow the fetus to use them.
I’m going to avoid rebutting some of my opponents’ specific claims now because due to his previous manner of goalpost-moving suggests that he may turn this debate into an argument over whether the fetus is part of the mother’s body or not. I want to make this absolutely clear: My opponent’s case is fundamentally flawed and relies on false assumptions and strawmanning.
Let’s get into some of my opponents claims that actually have relevance to the debate:
“10. How many feet, hands, and fingers does a pregnant woman have?”
This argument frankly is difficult to understand as it seems as if he’s asking a rhetorical question to imply that since fetuses have hands, feet, and fingers than they are human persons, which is just illogical. If feet, hands, and fingers qualify you for personhood, are paraplegics disqualified from being a person?
At conception, the embroyo does not have feet, hands, or fingers. In fact, these are only fully formed by month 3.
Parents talk to and about their unborn child. They (may) name their unborn child. They may even play with their child, for example poking or tapping a little elbow sticking out of the mother’s belly. No one names, plays with, or sings songs to their body parts, at least not seriously.
This is frankly not a good criteria for personhood. Maybe it’s sort of a case for the embroyo not being part of the mother’s body, but this does not imply personhood nor the right to life. I can talk to a rock. I can talk about a rock. I can name my rock. I can play with a rock. I can theoretically do all of this completely logically and seriously. A rock is not a person.
There is also ample evidence to indicate that there is a tremendous amount of social learning that occurs before a child is even born. Interactions between twins are especially interesting (and cute). The parent-child relationship exists before the child is even born precisely because the child is an individual and only individuals can be social with one another.
All the examples listed, per Con’s own source, refer to the life of the fetus multiple weeks after conception. Perhaps the embroyo develops into a person, but it is not at conception. Reminder that this debate is in reference to conception and my opponent has not objected to this. [Note that my opponent responding to my Issues section of my R1 where I made the conception suggestion would not violate my structure given that Issue’s was a clarifying section and not an actual Constructive.]
My opponent says that the parent child relationship exists because the child is an individual and only individuals can be social with each other. However, social interaction does not necessarily imply that one’s life has a value worthy of illegalizing an act that violates that value. Ants participate in plenty of social interaction. Should we make it illegal to step on an ant?
“This reality is exactly the reason abortion providers want to avoid mothers seeing ultrasounds,”
This is not an argument. I hope my opponent intended for it to serve as a conclusion. If the mother thinks that the embroyo/fetus is a person upon seeing it, that doesn’t mean it is indeed a person.
“naming their babies, or even referring to their unborn as “he” or “she”.”
Once again, not an argument. Just because doctors treat babies as human persons doesn’t mean they are. Ancient doctors thought humans had "bad blood" and wanted to cut you to let it out. Could I see the doctor’s supporting evidence for their views on the personhood of the embroyo?
“So you'll have to prove to me that a fetus isn't part of her mother's body yet still not its own person with inalienable rights. “
No I don’t. The Burden of Proof is shared. I have to support my opening constructive arguments (as they are the claims I made), and you have to support yours. My opening contained nothing of the non-personhood of the fetus, and yours did in fact contain arguments concerning the personhood of the fetus. You have to support your claims, and in my rebuttals I have demonstrated that you have been unable to do so. Don’t shift the BoP without reason.
“Anyway, to kill a human that is not your own person is murder.”
Just because the fetus is of the human species does not make it human. My skin cells are of the human species. Therefore, we are talking about personhood, and you have not supported your claims on the personhood of the fetus sufficiently.
Conclusion
In interest of character preservation, I’ll keep it brief: My opponent’s conduct in this debate has not been good. His arguments have been insufficiently proved and sufficiently rebutted. His bold and crude claim that this debate is an “easy win” is not aging well.
[Note if my structure is unclear, my opponent should address this argument next round per the structure. He should address my opening case in this round.]
Just because the fetus is of the human species does not make it human. My skin cells are of the human species. Therefore, we are talking about personhood, and you have not supported your claims on the personhood of the fetus sufficiently.
Conclusion
In interest of character preservation, I’ll keep it brief: My opponent’s conduct in this debate has not been good. His arguments have been insufficiently proved and sufficiently rebutted. His bold and crude claim that this debate is an “easy win” is not aging well.
[Note if my structure is unclear, my opponent should address this argument next round per the structure. He should address my opening case in this round.]
Round 3
Forfeited
Extend. I have nothing to rebut, as in this round I round was supposed to defend my case from my opponent’s rebuttals to my constructive, and he has posted zero rebuttals. So instead, I’ll clarify some stuff from my last round and crystallize why I should win the debate, as I’ll be forced to waive the final round. I recommend that my opponent should concede (simply say in your argument box “I concede”) if he feels he cannot continue to debate; I’ll accept his concession. I’d rather have him do that so that we can get voting going and not put this debate into yet another seven day purgatory.
A Clarification
I said this last round:
“My opening contained nothing of the non-personhood of the fetus”
However, I did in fact say:
Human life does not have the right to life. You kill thousands of human cells by scratching an itch. Therefore, for my opponent to prove that abortion is morally wrong, he likely must seek to prove that the fetus is a person with a right to life, or, if not a person, a something with an inherent right to life. Since personhood and “the right to life” are vaguely defined terms, I believe he cannot do so although he likely will be seeking to in his opening case.
To clarify, I said this in the conclusion, just to segway my case into what I thought would be my opponent’s case. Pro says:
“So you'll have to prove to me that a fetus isn't part of her mother's body yet still not its own person with inalienable rights. “
This is still a flawed statement. Pro tells me I have to prove a statement (which is irrelevant to the debate as I clarified last round) wrong, and falsely assumes that we should assume a fetus to be a person. Like I said:
“Things should by default not be assumed to have a right to life. Cells don’t. Chairs don’t.”
Crystallization
Arguments
My argument goes almost completely uncontested given my opponent’s forfeit. My opponent tried to cast my arguments off as being irrelevant, but did this in the wrong round and also failed to justify these claims. This should be reason enough to award argument points.
Pro’s arguments rely on fundamental misunderstandings of the pro-choice position (it’s not necessarily that the fetus is part of the woman, it’s that it is reliant on her) and false assumptions by incorrectly implying that since the fetus is not a part of a woman’s body, it is it’s own independent person. I’ve also successfully rebutted all of my opponent’s points.
Sources
I’ve sourced every claim I’ve made in this debate that requires a source. Pro has failed to do so here:
3. In more than 50% of cases, the baby has a different blood type than the mother. We all know what happens when a blood type that is not yours enters your system.4. Completely different DNA. It cannot be part of you per se if it doesn't share your DNA.5. Unlike all other parts of a woman, the fetus is not independently generated by the woman. It takes a man as well.6. In 50% of cases, the baby is a different sex than the mother. Are you now about to tell me that in 50% of the time, the mother has male genitalia?
and here:
8. When a woman is pregnant the fetus weakens her immune system. Had the fetus been "part" of the mother there would be no need to locally weaken the woman's immune system.9. It's illegal to put a pregnant woman on death row.
Conduct:
Pro has violated argument structure by addressing my arguments in his R2 opening when they were supposed to be attacked in R3 and calling me and my arguments names here:
“Quite frankly your abortion safety and fetal pain arguments are useless as they don't prove anything.”
and here:
P.S. I think it was very stupid of you to play devil's advocate here as I doubt you'll be able to make good arguments (you haven't so far). I don't mean to dismiss your round 1 argument, it's just that both the things you mentioned have no relevance to why abortion should really be illegal.
He also forfeited R3.
S&G
Don’t find any issue with my opponent’s spelling. Should be tied.
Round 4
Forfeited
Waive. Thank you AKmath for the debate and happy voting!
np mate
Thanks for the vote supa
Getting my votes in and comment
Thank you for voting on this!
no problem
Thank you for voting!
Thanks to all voters!
FYI, another moderator might rule differently, but to me this is in essence a FF. Pro waived R1, making his R2 effectively his R1, and forfeited thereafter.
How are the args coming? Idk if you read your pms
u runnin outta time!
This isn't me, but some people are pro choice exclusively because setting the kid up for adoption messes up the kid. What's your response to this?
Reminder that since you haven't contested the structure you should rebut my opening case in R3 and nothing more. Don't worry about what I just posted until next round.
Playing pro-choice devil's advocate in this debate has really helped me realize how crappy the pro-choice arguments are.
Almost thereeeee
Less than a day now!
Okay, thanks!
Yep. I'm going to try to finish my case tonight.
Just letting you know you have about a day left.
I think donating part of your liver is harder than donating blood. I mean, if that's the option someone wants to take to save another life (which they would have to do if they committed or were responsible for an abortion), then fine, but I think most people would rather donate some blood than part of their liver. How does bone marrow, semen, and hair save someone's life? I can see how breast milk would, but I don´t think feeding someone, even if that someone is a baby should count as saving their life. People always find ways to obtain food and a newborn can nurse from someone able and willing or can use baby formula.
Do you understand how debates work? I asked for a week to argue because I needed a week to construct a good case and you said yes to that - I'm very busy this week and will need every minute of that time.
I have 0 intention of forfeiting, be patient. Debates aren't about making quick arguments, they're about making good ones.
Is this debate coming anytime soon or would you like to forfeit? This has been taking an awful amount of time.
Only mother's life. Not rape or incest.
Do you support abortion in the case of rape, incest, or danger to the mother's life?
My thoughts exactly. There are plenty of renewable human parts or byproducts and it's not as if we need to limit this legislation to just organs. For example, hair, bone marrow, breast milk and semen also have applicable uses that can be readily harvested and replenished from humans. And ultimately the cost for doing so is less than what the punishment should be for the murder of other human beings. It's a win-win
Your liver grows back and you can donate part of it ;)
Since I think everyone who can be an organ donor should be required to be an organ donor, I don't think organs can be used as an alternative to blood donation, unless it's a kidney, which donating a kidney is probably harder than donating 480 ml of blood. Even if you disagree with this, 1 organ donor can save only 8 lives, and under this system, to be an abortion doctor, you have to save a life for every abortion you perform. This only enables a doctor to perform 8 abortions in their life. The rest of the abortions would have to be paid for by donating blood unless there is a better idea.
I would only have murderers, rapists, and abortion doctors donate blood to different degrees. 60,000 people die per year because they can't get enough blood. I figured these lives and others internationally can be saved by forcing bad people to donate blood. I think if the felon's blood is safe, then it can be donated, some felons have unusable blood, some do. I wouldn't say that donating blood is something anyone wants to do; they merely tolerate it in an effort to save up to 3 people. If an STD prevents a felon from donating blood, then I would treat that STD in order to obtain the blood if possible. It helps the felon, but it's better than the alternative of getting no blood from them. I don't think abortion doctors would drop significantly. They would probably be fine with donating blood every 3 months as part of their regulation, especially if it prevents Roe V Wade from getting overturned because even if your pro life, the notion that they would be saving a life for every one they take would make them fine with abortions under such situations.
It doesn't have to be just blood. We can extend the feasibility long-term by mandating the donation of various organs such as kidneys, the liver, corneas and what have you. We would massively improve the health outcomes of those waiting for organs, while discouraging abortions at the same time
It is good for me. Exactly the point. I was trying to say that having abortion doctors be blood donors isn't feasible longterm as the drop will be very large very quickly.
A 99% drop in abortion doctors would be good for you, though, wouldn't it?
I don't understand this obsession with you. What is it with you and donating blood? It's not a problem. As much as the Red Cross advertises, what they say simply isn't true. The US doesn't just run out of blood in the Winter. The US consistently donates enough blood to give to these Americans that need it. Now there is usually never a surplus of sorts, but it's not like we're on dry of it. And btw, felons can't donate blood. Felons can lose the privilege to donate blood because of the potential health risks that blood recipients face from felons who have been incarcerated and exposed to serious conditions like hepatitis from unsafe tattoo, sex, or possible IV drug usage. Now I understand that most abortion doctors don't do those things, but it's hard to implement your blood donating thing on a very few people every year. And you could only sustain it for so long, as I'm positive the amount of abortion doctors would drop by ~99% in max 5 years.
My solution would be to hire more doctors so the doctors can only perform abortions every 45 days so they can keep up with it from a blood standpoint. 1 pint of blood saves 2 people. The doctors in the meantime would be doing other things that are bipartisan, like contraception, STD testing, etc.
I was referring to the doctors that do multiple abortions a week. :P
Not the actual amount of blood taken.
It´s 240 ml of blood. People often donate a 480 ml of blood and they don´t pass out. The doctors won't be likely to pass out if others can donate double the blood and survive with only minor temporary effects.
Lol, some doctors will start passing out from blood loss.
I didn't get the reply. What if the doctor just donated enough blood to save someone else (240 ml)? An eye for an eye; you take a life, you save a life. The left might agree to it too.
Did I not already answer this? The mother and doctor would go to prison on charges of murder for most likely a life-sentence (maybe not for the mother but certainly for the doctor). Abortion is murder and murderers go to prison.
Everything that is banned needs a punishment, otherwise what's the point of making it illegal. Would you punish abortion?
yep gimme 1 day. Like I said I need time.
Would you like to accept this one? No, the first one was deleted for some reason other than me doing it. I did cancel the one I sent to you because you didn't accept it. WIll you accept this one?
A glitch? Didn't you challenge me and delete it?
Sorry guys,
A glitch of some sort happened with the my previous debate on this topic, but now it's back.