The Instigator
Hlinnerooth
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
BobTurner
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

Abortion Should be left up to the mothers

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 2 votes the winner is...
Hlinnerooth
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/31/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,004 times Debate No: 61127
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (2)

 

Hlinnerooth

Pro

There is nothing wrong with Abortion. It's ones own opinion, decision, and sometimes justifiable.
Religious debates and points will not be excepted and will automatically forfeit the debate.
Thank you for your opinions and I look foreword to our debate.
BobTurner

Con

=Definitions=

Abortion - "a medical procedure used to end a pregnancy and cause the death of the fetus." [http://www.merriam-webster.com...]


=Framework=

We have a normative resolution, and therefore a shared burden of proof. The voters should vote in favor of the person who is more persuasive. However, Pro must carry a higher burden. Pro must be able to show necessarily P, whereas I must only show not necessarily P, or possibly H.

=Rebuttals=

"There is nothing wrong with Abortion. It's ones own opinion,"

Pro contradicts himself; he first states categorically that there is nothing wrong with abortion, and then goes on to say that this is merely a matter of opinion. His first statement is objective, his second subjective, and thus they completely conflict with one another.


He says that abortion is "sometimes justifiable." Note that he is making an "is" instead of "ought" statement, and is thus stating that this as thought it were objective. The problem with this remark is that, if abortion is sometimes justifiable, it is, also, sometimes unjustifiable.


=Contentions=


CONTENTION ONE: Categorical statements are doomed to fail


Subpoint A: Timing of the abortion

There are various types of abortion, including third-trimester dilation and extraction, otherwise known as partial-birth abortion. The principle is that, beyond a certain point, the fetus can feel pain and is thus its own entity. As such, the mother loses her discretion over choosing whether or not to abortion the baby. We could take this argument further and ask Pro whether he would argue that a baby should be aborted 10 seconds before it could be born, or when it could be healthily given birth to because it has progressed to such a late stage. If he concedes this, you vote to negate.

Subpoint B: Morality

Pro makes conflicting statements regarding morality; he asserts that abortion is a matter of personal opinion, but then ridicules people who hold a different view than him -- that being the view that abortion ought to be illegal. If this is a matter of opinion, being that morality is subjective, why shouldn't people be able to decide whether or not abortion is legal, on-demand, at all times? If he concedes this you also vote to negate because I've proved "not necessarily P."



=Conclusion=

I await Pro's remarks.
Debate Round No. 1
Hlinnerooth

Pro

First of all I would like to say that I am a female not a male, and I should have worded it better by stating that in my opinion sometimes justifiable. Second (I should have also written it better) is that it is the mothers opinion and ultimate decision. Sorry this is my first debate on here, and I should have spelled it all out for you.

We will define abortion as: explosion from the uterus before viability, or before 21 weeks.

Everyone has the right to make their own decisions when it comes to ones own body. We have to right to accept or deny medical treatment. Say if I was diagnosed with cancer, and I choose deny medical treatment against the doctors better judgment. Should I be able to deny ,or because they think that they can they can eradicate it ,do the treatment against my wishes? The same should go for abortion. Should they only abort if it will save the mother from certain death, or not at all?

This is where I will get into my view of justifiable reasons. I will list three:
1. If it is a choice between the life of the mother and the life of the child,.
2. Rape and related circumstances like molestation.
3. If the child will beyond a doubt live a very short and painful life.

If we do make abortion illegal then what is next? What other decisions about are body's and our lives should they control next? I don't always agree with people's decisions, but they should still have the right to make them. I agree that partial birth abortion is in my opinion wrong and murder. I understand that a fetus can feel pain and have a heartbeat extremely early in pregnancy, but some people do not realise they are pregnant at first and should therefore have the proper time to make the decision. I do believe that it needs to be regulated.

Which do you feel is worse
A. Aborting a fetus at 6 weeks, or
B. letting the child possibly live through birth only to live a few days in excruciating pain?

If you choose A over B, but still oppose abortion then were do we draw the line?
BobTurner

Con

1. Pro attempts to change the goalposts


For this the voters should award me both arguments and conduct, because Pro attempts to change the definition of abortion to "explosion from the uterus" BEFORE 21 WEEKS. The resolution does not address late-term abortion, but abortion in general. Pro completely ignores my framework analyss stating that she possesses a higher burden and must be able to prove necessary P -- that necessarily all abortions should be at the discretion of the mother. It would be a changing-the-goalposts fallacy to allow her to get away with changing the resolution in Round 2 to "late-term" abortion. Moreover, she provides absolutely no sourcing for her definition, whereas mine comes from the very credible Merriam-Webster. We can see from my definition that abortion is NOT LIMITED to the first 21 weeks. She attempts to set an arbitrary standard post hoc, and the voters should take this into account. This debate is already over.


Pro: "Everyone has the right to make their own decisions when it comes to ones own body."

First, this is an ipse dixit fallacy; Pro makes an asserton as though it's true, but doesn't back it up. Second, this doesn't apply to infants in the case of circumcision or ailing people on a respirator. Third, this is utterly irrelevant because the baby's body is distinct from the mother's body. Surely Pro would accept that a third trimester baby has its own body. By her own assertion, if it DOES own its body, it should be able to decide whether or not to die.

Pro states, "We have to right to accept or deny medical treatment. Say if I was diagnosed with cancer, and I choose deny medical treatment against the doctors better judgment. Should I be able to deny ,or because they think that they can they can eradicate it ,do the treatment against my wishes? The same should go for abortion. Should they only abort if it will save the mother from certain death, or not at all?"

The first part of this is utterly irrelevant because it presupposes that abortion IS a medical treatment as the status quo. However, our resolution deals with "ought," not an "is." We are not discussing what "is," but what "ought" to be. So merely the fact that legal abortion -- mind you, it's illegal in the third trimester, so even by this you vote Con -- is left to the mother now does not mean that it should be. Not to mention, Pro makes an unfounded comparison to treating cancer or ending a life. No one has ever suggested doing a treatment against your wishes. We are merely debating whether or not abortion is a TREATMENT or a valid medical procedure, and whether it ought to exist at all.

Note, also, that I have never denied that abortion should be available to save a mother's life. Note that, at least in the third trimester, this is chosen by a medical professional, not by the woman. But even if I accepted the premise that a woman should be ale to decide in this particular case, that doesn't carry Pro's burden because Pro hasn't defended third-trimester elective abortion.


Pro goes on to cite three reasons she believes that abortion is justified. However, this is an ipse-dixit fallacy. She fails to articulate WHY abortion is justified in these cases, so we can now discard her assertions entirely.


Pro: "If we do make abortion illegal then what is next? What other decisions about are body's and our lives should they control next?"

This is nothing more than a slippery-slope fallacy and beyond the scope of the resolution. Therefore, we should discard it outright. I never said that we should make abortion ILLEGAL, period. I'm saying that partial-birth abortion should not be at the sole discretion of the mother, but a medical professional should be heavily involved

Pro: "I don't always agree with people's decisions, but they should still have the right to make them."

You do not have a right to do whatever you want no matter the consequences. Society sets rules that we all need to follow. You can't kill someone, for instance. Therefore, if killing is wrong 10 seconds after birth, killing is also wrong 10 seconds before birth.

Pro: "I agree that partial birth abortion is in my opinion wrong and murder. I understand that a fetus can feel pain and have a heartbeat extremely early in pregnancy, but some people do not realise they are pregnant at first and should therefore have the proper time to make the decision."

It's good to see that Pro concedes that partial-birth abortion is murder -- though let's be clear that it is not IN HER OPINION murder, but actually murder. However, he argument for keeping it at the sole discretion of the mother is ludicrous. She says that a woman may not realize she's pregnant AT FIRST and this may impact her ability to make the decision. Here are the problems with it:

(a) it presupposes the justification of the "decision" made by the women, which Pro has failed to do
(b) Partial-birth abortion is late second trimester or third trimester. How can you not have known you're pregnant by the THIRD TRIMESTER of pregnancy? This argument s positively ludicrous. Not to mention, even if I accepted the premise, ignorance is not a justification for murder.


Pro: "I do believe that it needs to be regulated."

Regulated in what way? Pro isn't clear. If abortion is regulated, it isn't simply the mother's decision. Pro concedes the debate with this remark.

Pro says: "Which do you feel is worse
A. Aborting a fetus at 6 weeks, or
B. letting the child possibly live through birth only to live a few days in excruciating pain?"

This is irrelevant to the resolution because I'm contesting late-term abortion and abortion left up to the sole discretion of the mother. Not to mention, the 6-week interval is utterly irrelevant.

As I have said, my line is at the point at which dilation and extraction is the preferred method of abortion, which is late second trimester.

But to answer your question, I do think, via FLO, that abortion a fetus is much worse because you have denied that child a meaningful future and denied his or her bodily autonom.



Dropped arguments

All of my contentions have been dropped. Extend them.


Debate Round No. 2
Hlinnerooth

Pro

First off let me say thank you for finally referring to me as a female, why you assume I am a male I do not know... I looked up to see that you are male though.

I define abortion by what is stated in wikepiedia: http://en.m.wikipedia.org...
Which clearly stats the difference between late stage termination and abortion.
And Merriam-Webster defines it as abortion : http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Before the fetus can survive outside of the mothers body

Examples of such:
He states that I stated " I don't always agree with people's decisions, but they should still have a right to make them"
I did make this statement, but if you read the paragraph I was talking about their own body's and life not their actions. I never stated anything about people's actions, like murder as he points out.

He further misleads you by stating that he received his definition from Merriam-Webster but if you look for yourself he takes it out of context as well. Therefore his entire argument is on a completely different matter entirely.
It sates: Intact dilation and extraction procedures may occur in the third trimester; sometimes critically referred to as "partial-birth abortions," they have been very controversial.
Critical in this case meaning of high importance. There is a difference. And he himself refers to it as "late term" or "partial birth" abortion and therefore separates the difference himself.

He further sates that it is a medical treatment but denies the comparisons that I have stated.

He then states that my slippery slope should be disregarded, because he is talking about his definition of abortion from Merriam-Webster, again please see there definition: http://www.merriam-webster.com...

As for giving the mothers time to make the decision because they do not know that they are pregnant at first. I would like to know if any mother out there knew right at the moment of conception? I have 2 children and did not realise I was pregnant until the first missed menstrual cycle like most other mothers.

He says that my examples of justified abortion are not explained as to why they are justified, but if you read they justify themselves. Each is a question of what would you do or how do you feel. It is not up to either him or myself on how you would wish to deal with these instances, but up to the reader. And again if you look up the definition in Merriam-Webster it lists those three as 3 of the 4 reasons for abortions, which he used to define abortion!

Solely on the fact that he chooses to argue about late term termination instead of abortion alone disqualifies him from this debate as they are two separate issues. This argument is also not about legalising what is already illegal, like late term abortion. It is about the current opinion on making all abortions illegal or leaving it up to the mothers to decide.
In which case my example of mother vs fetus death still stands. If one can choose to let the baby live and the mother die then why not go the other way? Should we leave it up to the doctors to choose who has the best chance? Then what happens if they have an equal chance?

I thank you BobTurner in advance for this debate and look forward to your reply
BobTurner

Con

BobTurner forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Hlinnerooth 2 years ago
Hlinnerooth
@ 09galatains
Yes I'm sure the mothers go around jumping for joy and party it up right after killing their babies...
And do you read your sentences before you post or is your head really that messed up that you think they all make sense? It says you are 17, but you write like your 7....
Posted by 09galatians 2 years ago
09galatians
No religious views okay.
which comes first? egg or chicken? baby or mother? whatever is the answer here whether egg or chicken--where does it come from? all of us-- where did we come from? Now we can really feel that there is a CREATOR for all of these. A life is a life and a life, if you abort a child or fetus or a living cell that has soul, and flesh - it is a form of killing a person. it desrve to make a living too. At the first place why mothers be pregnant and kill? is this a joke to them? they should have pity on what they are doing. What if that happend to mothers too who once a kid too and is going to be abort too?
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
They have already demonstrated that they make bad choices. Why let them choose whether another person lives or dies.Yes, another person. It gets me that someone would be so twisted in their thinking that it is not a baby just because it does not have air in its lungs.It used to be when a mother found out she was pregnant, she would tell everyone she was going to have a baby. Now, its just a blob of protoplasm. The clear thinking ones still call it a baby.I was downtown one day near a baby killing station, and there was a young mother approaching. All these " escorts " surounded her.They were there to " protect her from the evil people who wanted to talk her out of it. She went in. Then about an hour later she came out. She had this lost look on her face. The escorts did not even look up. The evil people went to her and comforted her. It was a sad day for American when government sanctioned killing babies.60.000.000 babies later and we are no closer to overturning that dispicable thing.
Posted by TrasguTravieso 2 years ago
TrasguTravieso
Pro defines abortion as an "explosion from the uterus". It ought never to come to that.
Posted by Osiris_Rosenthorne 2 years ago
Osiris_Rosenthorne
See, this is why I don't enter debates here.
Posted by Hlinnerooth 2 years ago
Hlinnerooth
I was commenting on a comment from someone else in the comments section. And refuse to argue with you further in the comments section.
Posted by BobTurner 2 years ago
BobTurner
@Hlinnerooth: Don't argue in the comment section.

"I never once changed the subject. "

Yes you did. The debate was on ABORTION -- Not EARLY TERM ABORTION, but ABORTION.

Your cancer-patient example was non-topical.

"He though chooses to change the debate from abortion to late-term abortion"

Nope, that was the resolution -- late term abortion is a form of abortion.

"urther chooses to take a definition which clearly says that there is a difference."

It's a form of abortion. Don't be so dense.
Posted by Hlinnerooth 2 years ago
Hlinnerooth
I never once changed the subject. I assume you are talking about my example of a cancer patient in which case I gave as... Wait for it.... An example! Hence the opening of the sentence " say if..."
He though chooses to change the debate from abortion to late-term abortion, and further chooses to take a definition which clearly says that there is a difference.
Posted by Imalwaysthesmartone 2 years ago
Imalwaysthesmartone
Maybe you change the debate to " When a woman is losing the argument can she change the subject " lol
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by TrasguTravieso 2 years ago
TrasguTravieso
HlinneroothBobTurnerTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct FF Sp/Gr.- I would take points away for the definition of abortion as exploding fetuses, but I imagine it is simply a way to metaphorically underline the violent nature of the procedure. Arguments - Con showed that Pro's argument fell into several contradictions, alternating erratically between considering abortion justifiable, partially justifiable or a matter of opinion. Pro negated her own resolution when she listed specific cases in which abortion should be considered legitimate as this implicitly rejects other cases (and therefore a generic reference to abortion)
Vote Placed by The_Gatherer 2 years ago
The_Gatherer
HlinneroothBobTurnerTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con FF in last round. Also, I believe Con failed the debate on the basis that he does not seem to have a basic factual understanding of the details of pregnancy / abortion and also of the concept of bodily autonomy. Although he attempted to make a good case, it really would not have been possible given this glaring lack of understanding of the facts.