The Instigator
Emilychance
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
InVinoVeritas
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

Abortion and Gay Marriage: Legal?

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 4 votes the winner is...
InVinoVeritas
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/7/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,039 times Debate No: 41862
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (4)

 

Emilychance

Pro

I'm aware that both are hot button issues, that invoke strong feelings on both sides. My argument is this:
I) Abortion: The option should always be available to women without major hoop jumping necessary. If a woman feels she cannot adequately provide for her child, or there are other circumstances, who are lawmakers to say that she should not be able to chose what to do with her body. In my opinion, it is not murder,instead simply a choice. In no way should the Government be able to limit that, or make women feel inferior for doing so.
II) Gay Marriage: It should absolutely be completely legal. Two people marrying the person they love does not effect heterosexual marriage in any way, nor does it redefine marriage. There is nothing immoral about two people being in love, and the fact that current laws limit the ability for loving couples to be married is wrong, plain and simple.
InVinoVeritas

Con

I. ABORTION

The development of the human being begins at conception until death. At no time during that development should a human's right to life be infringed upon, even if the human is in a fragile, dependent state within his/her mother. The opponent claims, "In my opinion, it is not murder, instead [sic] simply a choice." Abortion is surely a choice, in the same way that murder is a choice. A woman can "choose" to kill her child... but should then be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Her charge? Murder, plain and simple. The government has a duty to protect the individual liberties of its citizens--and abortion is an infringement on the liberty of a human being during the earliest stages of life.

II. GAY MARRIAGE

My opponent makes a common mistake: she conflates "marriage" with "love." Marriage is a relationship that is bound by legal contract, while love is simply an emotion. Why has our government invested in the institution of marriage? It's not because the government wants people to "love" each other; that would happen regardless. Rather, the government invests in marriage, because it wants to invest in the creation and upbringing of future citizens; it wants to promote relationships that lead to stable procreation and child-rearing environments. The only relationship that comes with the benefits of procreation (without external dependency, that is) and stable child-rearing is a heterosexual relationship that lasts. How does the government support the stable heterosexual relationships that so efficiently produce future upstanding citizens? Through incentivization... and specifically, through the institution of marriage.
Debate Round No. 1
Emilychance

Pro

My opponent just asserted that a woman should be charged for murder for getting an abortion. Mind you, most cases of abortion are because the child cannot be adequately cared for, thus preventing them from living a bad life. How is not wanting your child to live in an unstable environment murder? If you believe the Government has a duty to protect the rights of individuals, isn't outlawing abortjon infringing on the rights of all women. It is their bodies, and it should be their choice. It is worse to illegal ode abortion than to have one. And what about extenuating circumstances? Do you believe it should also be illegal even in cases of tape or incest?

Gay Marriage: The entire point of marriage to spend your life with another person because of love. I highly doubt most of the population considers marriage to be a license to pro create. If it is so absoutely essential that every married couple be able to have kids, shouldn't older couples who can no longer have kids be forced to revoke their marriage license. Shouldn't infertile people not be allowed to wed either? Gay couples can adopt unfortunate children and bring them into loving homes. That is a plus for society, but as I previously stated, there is more to marriage than pro creation. No matter what, there will always be enough couples having children. That is not going to stop because same-sex couples are allowed to wed.
InVinoVeritas

Con

I. ABORTION

My opponent has stated that a mother should kill her child just because the mother thinks the child will have a "bad life." This, of course, is a ridiculous justification for taking away someone's life against his or her will. Does my opponent seriously think that she knows whether it is better to die (i.e., not live a full life) than to live a "bad life"? Does my opponent expect that every mother will have reasonable standards for the "badness" of their child's future? This standard is unfounded. And no, it is not only "their bodies"--it is also the body of another human being that happens to be located inside their bodies and depending on them. The woman does not have a right to impose her beliefs on what is a "good life" and what is a "bad life." I assume that my opponent does not believe that her parents have a right to kill her (of course, without her consent) just because they think she's going to have a rough future--or just because her parents believe she'd be better off dead.

II. GAY MARRIAGE:

Again, the most stable relationship for a family (considering both procreation and child-rearing, both essential to producing future citizens) is a heterosexual union. Why does my opponent think that marriage is a legal institution? Why aren't there legal contracts pertaining to "friends" or "enemies" or "acquaintances"? Why only bride and groom? Well, marriage is unique in that it carries out a beneficial service to society. Homosexual couples are not procreative in nature, and they create a demand for surrogate mothers and sperm banks--roles and institutions that separate children from their biological parents. The most stable... the IDEAL environment involves a man and a woman who have biological children together, raise the children together, and maintain a peaceful, loving environment in their household. This is what marriage incentivizes. If we are just talking about "love," why not open up marriage completely? Why not include dogs and ceiling tiles and trees? As I said before, marriage is different from a friendship, and that's why it has a "special" status that is recognized by the government--and that is why the government provides benefits (e.g., tax cuts) to those who get married. It is not a right; it is an exclusive privilege that is provided for those who contribute to society in a specific, beneficial way. (And in response to my opponent's question about infertile parents: I believe that, in theory, they should not be allowed to get married--but in practice, they are compatible by type (male-female) and we cannot intrude on individual rights by mandating that they take fertility tests. However, we do not need a fertility test to determine that two men... or a man and a dog... or a woman and a table... cannot produce offspring. This is why homosexual (same-type) marriage is indubitably exempt.)
Debate Round No. 2
Emilychance

Pro

You being a male, it is of course simple for you to say what a woman should not do with her body. You will never be forced to make a decision such as that one. Also, it is not possible for a fetus to be consented on the subject of abortion, just an FYI. 1 in 3 women are sexually assaulted, she they be forced to carry the baby to term? Additionally, you never answered my question from the previous round, if you still believe there should not he abortion in the case if rape or incest.

Gay marriage: I'm pretty sure most married couples do not consider their marriage to be a service to society. You say there is an exception for infertile people. Why then, not make one for same sex couples? Aren't they, by perhaps adopting children and just living happy lives as American citizens, contributing to society? Again, what makes them less worthy than infertile people? Barring gays from marrying is also an intrusion on individual rights. Your eloquence especially shinned through when you compared two men being happily married to a man and a dog and a woman and a table.
InVinoVeritas

Con

InVinoVeritas forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Emilychance

Pro

Seeing that my opponent has forfeited the previous round, I will respectfully wait for his next rebuttal (if it is to come)
InVinoVeritas

Con

Sorry. It's a Saturday evening, and I had social things to attend to. (There are three-hour periods between rounds, which stinks. I should read the debate terms before I accept.)

I. ABORTION

This round, my opponent brings up my gender, which has nothing to do with the issue at hand. My opponent is right about one thing, though: a fetus cannot consent to anything, including being aborted... that is, it can't pass on a death wish to its mother. Therefore, a fetus--as a human being--should not be aborted. A person who is sleeping cannot give consent, either (until they wake up)... That doesn't mean we can simply end their lives.

Only 5% of pregnancies are a result of rape [1], so my opponent is bringing up an exceptional case. To answer her question, I personally believe that there ought to be a rape exception, but absolutely not a (non-rape) incest exception... But that is neither here nor there.

II. GAY MARRIAGE

Again, I emphasize that there is an exception for infertile partners for practical purposes only; we ought to not infringe on individual privacy by having the government mandate (very expensive) fertility tests. However, in the case of same-sex couples, there is an incompatibility based on type alone; two men (with XY chromosomes) cannot create biological children together and raise them, and that's a simple biological fact. Therefore, they are exempt from marriage based on their type-based status alone. And my opponent has not explained to me what's wrong with extending the marriage definition further and allowing it to include relationships between men and dogs, tables, and hockey teams. We need to limit the definition of marriage for the sake of its practical meaning and its legal significance--and we need to understand the practical role that marriage (specifically marriage that is heterosexual in type) plays in a society.

---

I'd like to thank my opponent for the debate. If she'd like debate either of these topics again (or talk about them further in the comments), she can be my guest. :)

I'd like to ask the voters to (1) give the conduct point to my opponent because of my forfeit in the prior round, and (2) vote on the rest of the categories based on the arguments that have been made, rather than based on personal opinions about the subject.

Again, thanks!

---

[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com...
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by InVinoVeritas 3 years ago
InVinoVeritas
EndarkenedRationalist, for a rationalist, you have a very irrational way of voting on debates.
Posted by OtakuJordan 3 years ago
OtakuJordan
There is only a two-hour gap for this debate.
Posted by TheOncomingStorm 3 years ago
TheOncomingStorm
How did he forfeit a round if the debate was started today and there's a 72 hour gap to post arguments? Is there a forfeit button I missed?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Yraelz 3 years ago
Yraelz
EmilychanceInVinoVeritasTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I think that the main problem with Pro's case is a lack of definition arguments. As it stands, Con just gets to run away with defining conception as the start of life. From that viewpoint an abortion is definitely murder. Pro brings up multiple hypothetical, "how do you feel about this" situations but those don't actually serve to support her case. Especially since con mostly ignores them. As for the gay marriage standpoint I think the same problem exists. Con runs away with marriage being a licence for pro-creation. This is uncontested.
Vote Placed by EndarkenedRationalist 3 years ago
EndarkenedRationalist
EmilychanceInVinoVeritasTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: This really should have been two separate debates. I think PRO won on the marriage case but CON won on the abortion case, so I don't really know which side to give arguments to. I guess it'll have to be a tie. Conduct goes to PRO. CON'S source came in the last round where PRO had no chance to refute it, so sources are tied. Spelling and grammar were about equal and thus are also tied.
Vote Placed by philochristos 3 years ago
philochristos
EmilychanceInVinoVeritasTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 to Pro for Con's forfeit. Arguments to Con: Pro's case for abortion rights were weak, and she committed the ad hominem fallacy when attempting to undermine Con's case merely on the basis that he is male. Con refuted all of Pro's arguments successfully. Pro and Con were pretty close on the marriage issue. Con showed that the state has an interest in opposite sex relationships because of the unique ability of that kind of relationship to produce citizens. Pro didn't dispute that, but argued that same sex relationships also contribute to society (by adoption, etc.). I don't think Con adequately responded to that. Since they were pretty close to a tie on the marriage issue, but Con clearly won on the abortion issue, I gave arguments to Con.
Vote Placed by YoungTurtleBear 3 years ago
YoungTurtleBear
EmilychanceInVinoVeritasTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was able to lead and start the new arguments and shaping the debate. Con was able to support and constantly knockout arguments from Pro. Con was the only one with sources.