Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Angry Grandpa

Abortion DA

Recommended Posts

I've been working on constructing an abortion DA to counter the abortion Aff. I'm able to link mothers having abortions to incurring post dramatic stress disorder, but cannot find any uniqueness that says people in poverty cannot afford abortions. As a last resort I could try cross applying the Inherency of the Aff case as my Uniqueness, but I find that risky and potentially unfair to the Affirmative. Does anyone have any evidence that says people in poverty currently cannot or struggle to afford abortions, or do you know of a source where I may be able to find this information? Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've been working on constructing an abortion DA to counter the abortion Aff. I'm able to link mothers having abortions to incurring post dramatic stress disorder, but cannot find any uniqueness that says people in poverty cannot afford abortions. As a last resort I could try cross applying the Inherency of the Aff case as my Uniqueness, but I find that risky and potentially unfair to the Affirmative. Does anyone have any evidence that says people in poverty currently cannot or struggle to afford abortions, or do you know of a source where I may be able to find this information? Any help would be greatly appreciated.

This isn't 'potentially risky'. The Aff can't take out uniqueness for your disad without conceding Inherency. You're just impact-turning part of the Affirmative - you don't need additional uniqueness (although your impact isn't going to be nearly enough to outweigh most cases - but I suppose that's beside the point).

 

Likewise, you don't need to read evidence in support of any claim the other team makes. If they read an impact to economic collapse in the 1AC and you have a politics DA with an econ impact, you don't need to read Mead '92 again - you can just cross-apply their card.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i doubt you will be able to win an impact. poor women have abortions in the sqo, just most aren't and the rest are delayed so that they can find their own means to pay for them.

 

i am also not sure what impact you will be able to garner, especially when it happens in the sqo for those who have the money to pay for it. also, most affs dont claim advantages off women receiving abortions, just giving women the ability to have one. women dont have to have abortions to solve patriarchy.

 

more details about the disad would help us help you, especially since i run the aff, i would be willing to give you ideas of how to spin it and avoid these args.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've been working on constructing an abortion DA to counter the abortion Aff. I'm able to link mothers having abortions to incurring post dramatic stress disorder, but cannot find any uniqueness that says people in poverty cannot afford abortions. As a last resort I could try cross applying the Inherency of the Aff case as my Uniqueness, but I find that risky and potentially unfair to the Affirmative. Does anyone have any evidence that says people in poverty currently cannot or struggle to afford abortions, or do you know of a source where I may be able to find this information? Any help would be greatly appreciated.

 

Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the advice. Sorry that I wasn't more specific about the DA.

Basically, the form of the case that I was most familiar with was claiming overpopulation advantages, which would require the actual abortions occurring. I have cards that deny the overpopulation impact, and had intended for the DA to be run in addition to harms mitigation.

I changed my impact to drug abuse, which I have cards to say is a fate worse that death to help in the impact calc. As for the fact that women who are not in poverty receiving abortions and incurring my impact, I had intended to argue that the affirmative would increase the people who suffer from the impacts, whereas the negative would keep people in poverty from the impacts of drug abuse.

 

Thanks again for the advice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think with PTSD you can get to a dehumanization impact.

 

You need to run a counterplan that decreases the number of abortions to get uniqueness for this disad--because the affirmative will say that abscent the plan there will be back alley abortions--which are theoretically worse because a doctor and medical facilities aren't involved. (unfortunately, all of these arguments are either foreign aid counterplans which theoretically would cost less or social service based. if you funded education it might seem less like social services, however. On the flip side this is an advantage, because it gives you an argument to kick out of if you go for the C/P strategy--but a smart team may peg you with a bad time trade off if your social service bad arguments are pretty extensive)

 

To me the terminal defense to this argument is that legalized abortions leads to abortion mills in which marginalized people are manipulated into getting abortions (Unfortunately for you in this particular case I think the aff might solve for abortion mills because the people they target are poor people--but its all about what the literature says). The impact cards for abortion mills are pretty gruesome.

 

PS. West Georgia ran this argument 3 years ago--you might be able to find the sites on the college debate caselist wiki (at least if you use the "wayback machine" which allows you to access old webpages by date)

 

As a side note: I think the argument on the uniqueness issue is a bit disengenous. Its the same argument that people say heroin and cocaine legalization use. Its not a comparative issue--a world of legalization means it happens far, far, far, far, far more often. I would say on the order of 3 to 5 times more (although thats arbitrary). You might see if there is empirical evidence from the states on the issue of the effectiveness of banning abortion.

Edited by nathan_debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
because the affirmative will say that abscent the plan there will be back alley abortions--which are theoretically worse because a doctor and medical facilities aren't involved. To me the terminal defense to this argument is that legalized abortions leads to abortion mills in which marginalized people are manipulated into getting abortions (Unfortunately for you in this particular case I think the aff might solve for abortion mills because the people they target are poor people--but its all about what the literature says). The impact cards for abortion mills are pretty gruesome.

 

I think you have a decent argument here, because what is more dehumanizing:

 

1. having access to safe, affordable medical care (with potential threat that they are too efficient)

2. having the state tell you that you must carry a pregnancy to term or you can go see a fake doctor in a forced illicit situation

 

i think itd be easy to show how not having 'abortion mills' is much worse than having them.

 

ps. wtf is an abortion mill?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That right wing rag (ok not really) the New York Times highlights the issue of abortion mills:

 

These are usually private doctors' offices masquerading as clinics -- that is, the doctors are licensed, but the clinics are not. Many of the mills, though not all, are situated in poorer neighborhoods, where immigrants, the uneducated and non-English-speaking residents form a core of clients.

 

This NYT article frames it such that abortion mills might be equivalent to back alley abortions.

 

I'm not sure if you banned abortion if this practice wouldn't increase. (or why the aff wouldn't implicitly solve) I don't know how West Georgia was able to frame this argument as an advantage to their overturn Roe affirmative.

 

In other news there is substantial evidence about planned parenthood corruption--and the aff (by their own admission and in order to be topical is increasing the number of people who are subject to this corruption).

 

Planned Parenthood received a "deficiency" finding from the California Department of Health for not reporting the abortion death within 24 hours, as required by law.

 

"There is a pattern of cover-up in Planned Parenthood's recent troubles that is systemic of the abortion industry around the nation. The habit is to deny problems and cover the truth, even if it costs the lives of patients," said Sullenger, who spent years warning women of dangers the San Diego Planned Parenthood.

 

 

The Press of Atlantic City reports that the Heath Department released its 116-page inspection report listing problems with the abortion office that included dried blood on the abortion beds and stirrups, expired medications, and general filth. According to the news report, "Dust, rust, dirt and debris also were found on some equipment, and floors in the operating room, laboratory and recovery room were 'soiled and stained.'"

 

In addition, the clinic was cited because abortionists did not always scrub between abortion procedures, partially because the mill lacked hot water and a scrub sink. In an outageous attempt to defend this practice, a clinic worker told inspectors, "Abortions aren't really surgery, they aren't sterile procedures."

 

"The problems at these two abortion clinics illustrate that the idea of abortions being 'safe and legal' is mythical," said Sullenger. "The health and well-being of women are regularly sacrificed for greed, profits, and the protection of their radical abortion ideology without regard for the cost in human lives and tragedy. That is the true state of the abortion industry today."

 

This evidence on abortion mills (above) isn't as conclusive as I would like and I would cut it all as one card (including the parts omitted). Its still at least as good as most politics link cards (which is a pretty terrible standard)

Edited by nathan_debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"The problems at these two abortion clinics illustrate that the idea of abortions being 'safe and legal' is mythical," said Sullenger. "The health and well-being of women are regularly sacrificed for greed, profits, and the protection of their radical abortion ideology without regard for the cost in human lives and tragedy. That is the true state of the abortion industry today."

 

You could use Sullenger as a source, if you wanted to be known as someone who wants to murder health care providers.

 

I'd be careful with that quote, you might be accused of terrorism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Retired,

 

Apparently we have a difference in our opinion about what constitutes:

 

medical care

 

"Care" of a patient that violates the Hippocratic Oath seems to run counter to the purpose of being a doctor (Science and Theology News):

 

Doctors and other health-care workers swear by the Hippocratic Oath before practicing medicine. The classical version of the oath reads in part: "I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly, I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness, I will guard my life and my art." A more modern version, written by Louis Lasagna in 1964, addresses the issue of dealing with human lives. "Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God."

 

Those involved in medicine who abhor these procedures must be respected and supported in their protection of human life. At the very least they must be legally allowed to follow the oath they have made. Doctors who refuse to perform euthanasia or abortion keep their promise to society. They are the true healers, not their counterparts who break medicine's most solemn oath.

 

 

According to Robert Nozick (and I'm not libertarian) this turns people into chattle slaves. I think thats somewhere in the first 30 or so pages of Anarchy, State, and Utopia. I'm sure Tibor Machan makes a similar argument in his many writings.

 

And a second level link to coersion/libertarianism, its the same reason you shouldn't have to support Catholic schools--the argument goes both ways. (ie funding abortions you don't agree with vs. funding schools you don't agree with).

 

And planned parenthood is racist--the money for the plan would go to planned parenthood and the people would go there too for "services" Human Events has probably one of the more credible arguments on the issue of Planned parenthood and racism. I'm not a fan of David Brody usually, but this article on the racism issue from CBN is worth checking out as well (its the same argument used about eco-racism).

Edited by nathan_debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And a second level link to coersion/libertarianism, its the same reason you shouldn't have to support Catholic schools--the argument goes both ways. (ie funding abortions you don't agree with vs. funding schools you don't agree with).

 

And planned parenthood is racist--the money for the plan would go to planned parenthood and the people would go there too for "services"

 

You have a very twisted understanding of libertarianism if you think the philosophy supports the state forcing women to carry pregnancy to term. That's all I'm going to say on that topic.

 

On the issue of catholic schools versus social services:

 

1. We already fund catholic schools. And part of the Hein decision says taxpayers do not have standing in funding lawsuits against the white house. Which means, as part of the Faith-based Intiatives and millions of other school subsidies, my tax dollars go to the catholic church.

 

tough shit, huh..

 

2. Its not the same. There is a constitutional principle (the first amendment) which gives rise to the argument that the state and churches should be kept separate.

 

There is not constitutional principle that says your tax dollars can't go towards secular social services. In fact, the opposite. Congress has a duty to pass all laws required for the general welfare of our nation.

 

 

Furthermore, beliefnet has proven itself not credible. not clicking that link, also, i don't care about anecdotal christian doctors... not an actual argument.

 

how come when i click your google link, its just a bunch of religious garbage?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not quite the same. I get that. I think the faith based initiative issue is arguably different (although some of the nuance seems minimal even to me). However, I think this is an issue of not that these organizations are religious in nature--but the services they provide like day care, homeless shelters, or english language programs for immigrants.

 

You have a very twisted understanding of libertarianism if you think the philosophy supports the state forcing women to carry pregnancy to term.

 

Getting pregnant is a choice, unless rape/coersion is involved. If you do the deed, you've made a definite choice. It might sound a bit dismissive but-if you want to get an abortion you still have the right to get a loan, get a job at McDonalds, or get a job at Walmart.

 

Its like being an an airplane and midflight claiming the "right" to jump off and parachute to the ground. As a tax payer I have no obligation to pay for your desire to jump off--you've already made the decision to buy the ticket and get on the airplane--you had plenty of options leading up to your plane flight to say no. If its medically better for you to jump off--I'm willing to deal with those as separate issues.

 

Also, you've deprived another being of the right to make those very same choices--you've denied them agency. What about control of the babies bodies?

 

Furthermore, beliefnet has proven itself not credible. not clicking that link, also, i don't care about anecdotal christian doctors... not an actual argument.

 

how come when i click your google link, its just a bunch of religious garbage?

 

I'm confused who is close minded now. Also that stacks the deck for you to win the argument in your own mind. As debaters there is the argument that reading the other side makes you more empathetic, tolerant, and understand the truth of the issue. Apparently dogmatism is happy intellectual position for you.

Edited by nathan_debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, you've deprived another being of the right to make those very same choices--you've denied them agency. What about control of the babies bodies?

 

I'm confused who is close minded now. Also that stacks the deck for you to win the argument in your own mind. As debaters there is the argument that reading the other side makes you more empathetic, tolerant, and understand the truth of the issue. Apparently dogmatism is happy intellectual position for you.

 

show me a baby that has been aborted, ill concede.

 

secondly, youre the one going around quoting violent terrorists, not me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently name calling instead of making arguments is more your style.

 

Also, I won't stand behind those tactics.

 

However, finding pictures of aborted babies in the age of Google images is rather simple, but thanks for asking. This provides pictures of babies at each stage in development as well as providing an explanation of the methods of abortion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Apparently name calling instead of making arguments is more your style.

 

Also, I won't stand behind those tactics.

 

However, finding pictures of aborted babies in the age of Google images is rather simple, but thanks for asking. This provides pictures of babies at each stage in development as well as providing an explanation of the methods of abortion.

 

thats great and all, but those aren't babies. those are fetii. babies are the things that crawl around and shit all over the place. a fetus is whats up a woman's vagina and in her tummy. duh, science.

 

but sure, the women who calls for murdering doctors who provide a full range of reproductive care services has the moral upper hand.

 

gotta love christians... hypocrisy is for sinners!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Science and the Slate in an article on fetal viability say you are in error in your judgement (independent of our definitional discrepancy above):

 

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor argued in a 1983 decision that Roe was on a "collision course with itself." She said that improvements in technology would continually push the point of fetal viability closer to the beginning of the pregnancy, allowing states greater opportunity to regulate the right to an abortion. And this seems to be the case--up to a point. Doctors now believe a fetus can become viable during the 23rd week--a week earlier than was thought 24 years ago. Most hospitals will only perform abortions through the 22nd week of pregnancy.

 

And by the way, it happens that viability is the threshold for the Supreme Court decision in Roe vs. Wade.

 

Also, if you win the evolution debate, you falter on the issue of abortion.

Viable offspring derived from fetal and adult mammalian cells. From Nature, a peer reviewed scientific magazine.

 

 

I'm sorry...I don't understand your argument about my supposed hypocrisy?

Edited by nathan_debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me break it down for ya (since this thread is being hijacked, lets take abortion right or wrong to one of a million threads about it in NDD)

 

---------

 

1. youre making some moral argument about the life of the fetus (over the moral implication of the decision of the mother).

 

2. the card you are using to impact that debate has a quote from a horrible person who has a litany of quotes advocating death for medical care providers.

 

3. at the point when your impact authors aren't willing to cede fully to the process of democratic debate and instead call for acts of extremely violent terror via assassination of political opponents, and, has pleaded guilty to plotting to bomb an abortion clinic, and, when you supply other terrorists with locations and times of their victims, you, a. don't get to access any of your moral implications. this isn't shooting the messenger, this is you repeating the rhetoric of violent extremists, and b. are put on the defensive. the world your author advocates for is violently repressive, biomedically demhumanizing, and Medievally punitive.

 

4. thats bad. even if you aren't necessarily calling for the death of anyone who has ever helped anyone follow through on their decision of a constitutionally protected right, they are. and you are using them and their horrible rhetoric to persuade judges, and impressionable high schoolers, about some moral position of a fetus, when the cards you are using are so filled with whacked ideas, like murdering your political opponents, that its detrimental to the process of informed debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

youre making some moral argument about the life of the fetus (over the moral implication of the decision of the mother).

so people's right to choice outweighs a life??

 

so i can kill people if i want to?? legally??

 

i dont think anyone here is advocating terrorism btw..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
so people's right to choice outweighs a life??

 

so i can kill people if i want to?? legally??

 

i dont think anyone here is advocating terrorism btw..

 

WRONG!

 

Reread my post. The impact card nathan uses quotes one Cathy Sullenger.

 

Google her. She served time from plotting to blow up an abortion clinic, regularly threatens to assassinate political opponents and care providers, and provided Scott Roeder with George Tiller's daily schedule so he could kill him.

 

That's the type of hateful garbage nathan is preaching on this site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Getting pregnant is a choice, unless rape/coersion is involved. If you do the deed, you've made a definite choice. It might sound a bit dismissive but-if you want to get an abortion you still have the right to get a loan, get a job at McDonalds, or get a job at Walmart.

 

its about punishing others for having sex, isn' it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WRONG!

 

Reread my post. The impact card nathan uses quotes one Cathy Sullenger.

 

Google her. She served time from plotting to blow up an abortion clinic, regularly threatens to assassinate political opponents and care providers, and provided Scott Roeder with George Tiller's daily schedule so he could kill him.

 

That's the type of hateful garbage nathan is preaching on this site.

 

So wait.. show me where Nathan said we should commit terrorism

 

and just because it comes from Sullenger, that doesn't mean it is incorrect

----mumia killed a cop, but i still think poverty is bad

 

I also want to point out that you didn't mention the right to choice<right to life point I made

Edited by Tyrone Biggums

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So wait.. show me where Nathan said we should commit terrorism

 

and just because it comes from Sullenger, that doesn't mean it is incorrect

----mumia killed a cop, but i still think poverty is bad

 

I also want to point out that you didn't mention the right to choice<right to life point I made

 

thats because i dont care about your point. it doesn't negate my #1. Nathan is making a value statement about life.

 

I think it hurts nathan's case pretty badly. How can we evaluate different claims to morality if one person will simply kill you for holding the opposing view?

 

I might agree or disagree with those annoying Maoists from chicago, but if they were trying to kill me for having the debate, it doesn't matter what they say about marxism.

 

The same goes for sullenger. she wants me dead, simply for having this debate. so its hard to take her ideas on who gets to live (babies that have yet to be baptized) and who should fucking die (sinners who have sex, intellectuals, anybody who disagrees with her). it also isn't good for any alternative. of course shes going to hype the moral implications of whatever snake oil she's selling (totalitarian christianity).

 

Nathan is repeating her awful rhetoric, her justifications for taking her extremist positions. she literally thinks there is a holocaust in america every time an egg doesn't implant in the wall. based on what she feels is ontological terror, she commits bombings and advocates murder.

Edited by retired

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Tyrone,

 

Thanks

 

@Retired,

 

First, I didn't know that. It was never my intent.

 

I don't know why you've decided to wage your battles against such issues rather than dealing what 80 to 95% of America would term substance. In that argument or the multiple other lines of arguments.

 

The example of Hardt and Negri on globalization is pretty close in nature. They say biopolitics will kill us (genocide style and various other forms of elimination). The fact that Negri killed somebody (in your words a "terrorist") doesn't seem to effect his argument that globalization has multiple risks for us including death and genocide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@Tyrone,

 

Thanks

 

@Retired,

 

First, I didn't know that. It was never my intent.

 

I don't know why you've decided to wage your battles against such issues rather than dealing what 80 to 95% of America would term substance. In that argument or the multiple other lines of arguments.

 

The example of Hardt and Negri on globalization is pretty close in nature. They say biopolitics will kill us (genocide style and various other forms of elimination). The fact that Negri killed somebody (in your words a "terrorist") doesn't seem to effect his argument that globalization has multiple risks for us including death and genocide.

 

except he didn't kill anybody. people used his writings to justify the attempted murder of the prime minister.

 

but it is different. even if negri had killed somebody, which he didn't, it changes little. I think revolutionaries with the capacity to kill are dangerous, but Negri is hardly arguing that his moral determination of life is universal, or that people who see productive aspects of biopolitics (because, well, even negri does), should die.

 

negri has never claimed someone should die because they are debating a point. negri has never claimed killing people who disagree with him is good.

in fact, read the letters in defense of negri from other thinkers. its helpful.

 

---

 

bottom line: you can't repeat the words of a reactionary terrorist with connections to recent murders without being called out.

 

please respect the thread enough to move the abortion good or bad to another thread, my argument is about author indicts re: this particular disad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...