The Instigator
Daktoria
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
wolfman4711
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Abortion Is a Violation of Burden of Proof

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/16/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,097 times Debate No: 31274
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

Daktoria

Con

The argument here is that abortion does not respect how burden of proof is on the affirmative. Preborns do not consent to exist, so they are negative by default. Those who affirm them must prove preborns' state of mind. Otherwise, they are making a brutal assertion in potentially judging someone without consent, forcing personhood to assume the risk of being violated.

Unfortunately, "state of mind" cannot be physically determined. It ignores the fact-value dichotomy, is-ought problem, and naturalistic fallacy. For example, in neuroscience, we induce, rather than deduce, what brainwave patterns coincide with certain attitudes or thoughts. This is done by measuring people who admit to having certain attitudes or thoughts, and then averaging the results throughout a sample.

The problem is this discounts the value of outliers, and assumes that everyone being sampled has an equal attitude or thought in the first place.

Similarly, neuroscientists don't know what to anticipate when evaluating when a preborn becomes cognitive. Typically, they refer to when a brain is formed during a preborn's embryonic period. The problem is we don't know whether or not a "brain" must exist for cognition to function. In fact, if we really want to get technical, even the formation of neural tissue is a "blur" as much as in the rest of biology. The definition of when cells form tissues depends on inducing cohesion from arbitrating how close is close enough for cells to come together to reflect what we identify as a "brain".

This inductive cohesion is where burden of proof is shifted onto the negative. We are demanding that personhood proves itself to us rather than recognizing how personhood is innocent before proven guilty. If personhood exists, it is not obligated to satisfy the judgment of those it didn't consent to assemble with.
wolfman4711

Pro

Well I think I may have misinterpret the debate because title makes little sense and so does my opponents argument so I will have to concede.
Debate Round No. 1
Daktoria

Con

The argument, very simply put, is preborns don't consent to exist. Therefore, they shouldn't have to prove their consciousness. If they are conscious, they're entitled to exercise that conscious at their will.
wolfman4711

Pro

Vote con! Unless you are to lazy to put a vote in!
Debate Round No. 2
Daktoria

Con

Are you mocking preborns in saying they're too lazy to satisfy their makers?
wolfman4711

Pro

No, no I am not...
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by wolfman4711 4 years ago
wolfman4711
and yes to lazy to put a vote in!
Posted by wolfman4711 4 years ago
wolfman4711
I would like to ask, I am debating that the un-born do exist and are alive? Correct? Because your argument is very confusing?
Posted by bladerunner060 4 years ago
bladerunner060
What is your actual motion?

The title makes little sense, then you're listed as Con, and your R1 rambles a bit about the subject but seems to be against abortion, which would seem to make you Pro the resolution.
No votes have been placed for this debate.