CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:38
Arguments:48
Total Votes:38
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 This would resolve the abortion debate (36)

Debate Creator

ghostheadX(1105) pic



This would resolve the abortion debate

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2014/07/17/this-amazing-remote-controlled-contraceptive-microchip-you-implant-under-your-skin-is-the-future-of-medicine/?utm_term=.1da992442713

Just make a law that every female must have one of these until she is 21 or even 18 and you will have no more abortion debate problems. Am I wrong?
Add New Argument
1 point

The link doesn't seem to be active but i get the idea , it seems like a pretty good solution bet the religious nuts would find some objections

jeffreyone(1383) Clarified
2 points

You always claim links are invalid but its you who don't know how to access it.

Supporting Evidence: it's a pity (www.washingtonpost.com)
Dermot(5736) Disputed
1 point

It's inactive you moron and I have never claimed an active link was inactive unless you're referring to your make believe sites, I didn't even need it to make a point unlike you the site dummy

1 point

You can't force someone to implant things into their bodies. Abortion affects much more than youth anyway.

Dermot(5736) Disputed
1 point

Abortion affects much more than the youth ? Yet you seem to totally disagree with the implant whys that ?

zale(46) Disputed
1 point

If you CHOOSE to get the implant then it is a valid form of birth control. But people should not be forced to get the implant.

1 point

Link doesn't want to work but I think I get the idea.

This would definitely be a good idea. Not only would it mean that rape victims won't conceive but people can essentially "turn it off" if and when they want children. The only thing it might not change is if someone who wants the child gets a medical issue that means they'd have to abort. However, these cases are fairly rare but as long as abortion is option for these cases then this would definitely mean that abortion wouldn't be an issue.

Right, and that rare instance is ok because the child would probably be unhealthy.

1 point

I couldn't read your link because I don't have a Washington Post subscription but I found an article on this by basic search.

Better birth control will always help with avoiding abortions. That would make a huge dent in them. Keep in mind though there are times families are not on birth control because they're legitimately trying to get pregnant and they get thrown a curve ball that makes them bail in the middle, such as:

Rape

A terrible health infliction of the baby to be

A terrible health infliction of the mother

Need for a DNC so a failing pregancy might be quicker replaced with a new successful effort

Granted, those are all relatively rare compared to the basic elective reason for abortions.

So your new contraceptive would help the debate, it just wouldn't completely eliminate it.

1 point

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2014/07/17/this-amazing-remote-controlled-contraceptive-microchip-you-implant-under-your-skin-is-the-future-of-medicine/?utm_term=.3b3c56b9c659

I think this link may work.

Here's where I think your statement goes wrong.

Just make a law that every female must have one of these until she is 21 or even 18 and you will have no more abortion debate problems.

Yes. You are wrong. Making it a law that women have to have one of these is wrong. If they CHOOSE to that's one thing but making it so that they are forced to insert that in their body to be following the law is wrong.

ghostheadX(1105) Disputed
1 point

Teenagers do not have good judgment. Neither do extreme alcoholics. I think you want the child to have a good upbringing. You don't want to make religious people mad by aborting. You also don't want women to be mad not being allowed to abort. This doesn't kill anyone and frankly it can be turned off.

The only problem with your choice rule is it underestimates how much experience is needed for someone to understand what is good for them and their body. This way if two teenagers or college kids have sex, no one on either side will care.

Any law you make is going to piss someone off.

Vermink(1944) Clarified
1 point

Making it a law that women have to have one of these is wrong. If they CHOOSE to that's one thing but making it so that they are forced to insert that in their body to be following the law is wrong.

As long as there are no negative effects it's really not that bad especially with what it can prevent. It's not that different from Australia's law that you have to get your kids injections.

Mint_tea(4641) Clarified
1 point

By injections I assume you mean vaccines? Yes it is different. Your child's health and the health of others relies on those vaccinations. Unless you are comparing a child to a disease which I don't think you are, it is not the same. To force someone into birth control is wrong.

You all miss the issue. ABORTION is a religious issue, not a political one. Roe vs Wade was scrutinized and reviewed by every court all the way to the supreme court and now suddenly, they think they have the right to reverse the law, even for the people who are not religious. That means they think they have the right to speak and act for God. If in fact your God even exists, then you are suppose to leave the punishing to him. That makes most Christians no more than NAZI's.

outlaw60(15368) Clarified
1 point

Now Frank abortion is a political issue with all those on the Left. Have you not been paying attention ?

Abortion is a moral, religious, political, and legal issue. The use of separation of church and state channels the legal issues only. Roe Vs Wade was a legal privacy civil ruling. The United States Constitutional representation to this declaration of legal precedent is Gender Specific Amputation or even Female Specific Amputation. The exact United States Constitutional test Indian frank is, β€œ Test of God to hold political office.” Of office is the executive office, the issue is over right to bear witness before the United States Constitution as President of the United States and not Prasedera.

Roe Vs Wade is one argument of a legal issue. Abortion is a lie. When placed on a legislated document it is perjury unless it is placed with specific condition. Abort, Abortion, aborted and termination are a series of events something never remains an abortion. It becomes a termination or it is restarted. When discussing abortion the debate is if the word is a transferable self-incriminating confession.

GOD by republic can hold a non-religious mean outside religion to an axiom which describes a basic separation process. β€œOne nation Under Principle ( a guide to the common defece,2016).” Abortion lacks United States Constitutional representation on all accounts of the crimes. There are crimes which take place outside the self-incrimination of murder.

Abortion sounds like a murder it is not a murder this is because it is an admittance the admittance is then defended. The challenge or legal test is that the witness account is a lie made publicly. Abortion is really termination or Gender Specific Amputation. The word abortion is publicly waving the presumption of innocence and publicly claiming some legal technicality. The process is abusing double jeopardy law.

The Second major United States Constitutional conflict occurs when federally funded or law is used the legislate abortion. Abortion is an act of Civil War by its self-incrimination as it floods the Court system. Also when woman voted into militia of a Congressional Armed Force and Presidential armed Force. All woman are now admitting to officially end life by Abortion meaning terminate a life and not stop or pause a life.

1 point

I believe the OP is definitely wrong. Abortion is a moral issue that concerns the status of the unborn. Is the unborn a human being? I believe that science positively confirms it is both human and a unique, separate, living human at conception.

So, is it wrong to kill an innocent human being, one that has done nothing wrong?

It depends on how valuable you think a human being is. Does the OP consider himself/herself a valuable human being? Would he/she think it wrong for someone to kill him/her if innocent of wrong doing, just because someone chose to? How about just because someone decided the OP'er was unwanted? Does that seem just?

Peter

ghostheadX(1105) Disputed
1 point

Even if abortion is murder, which I don't know for sure, birth control isn't murder.

PGA1(7) Disputed
1 point

If abortion is murder, then birth control in the form of abortion would be.

1 point

Just make a law that every female must have one of these until she is 21 or even 18 and you will have no more abortion debate problems. Am I wrong?

Yes, you are, because you're making the claim that under 21-year-olds are the ones who have abortions.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/22689931/ns/health-womens_health/t/whos-getting-abortions-not-who-youd-think/

Half of the roughly 1.2 million U.S. women who have abortions each year are 25 or older. Only about 17 percent are teens. About 60 percent have given birth to least one child prior to getting an abortion.

Anti-choicers should really acquaint themselves with the facts.

ghostheadX(1105) Disputed
1 point

Then women under 21 are giving birth to kids who aren't going to have decent childhoods. Better to prevent and not have the birth issue at all.

catninja(249) Disputed
1 point

And what if you're an emotionally unstable 30-year-old?

What if you have severe Down Syndrome or an otherwise childish mentality, but you're over 21?

What if you're 40 years "young" and like to party every night?

What if you already have 8 children and can't support another?

Just because someone is over 21 doesn't mean they're automatically going to be a good parent.