The Instigator
16kadams
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points
The Contender
EvanK
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points

Abortion in the 1st and 2nd trimester is immoral

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...
16kadams
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/22/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,218 times Debate No: 23077
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (4)

 

16kadams

Con

I dont know what category to put this into... philosophy, misc, science? Anyway. I argue abortion is morally permissible 1st and second trimester.

> Definitions

1st trimester - 1-3 months pregnant
2nd trimester - 4-6 months pregnant
Abortion - Termination of pregnancy before the baby is born (in this debate 1st and second trimester)
******************************

These definitions are common knowledge, any semantics with them is an FF. Immoral is common knowledge, any semantics or trolling here is also an FF.

> Rules

1, Any FF's = well an FF :P
2. No trolling
3. No semantics
4. You must think abortion is immoral (or devils advocate, as long as you argue correctly)

> BOP

I define this if you do not like the BOP dont accept.

I prove abortion is not murder, and a fetus is not equivalent to a human, it is not a person.

PRO says a fetus is a person with rights etc.
*****

No semantics here either, we basically go head to head on if it is moral to kill a fetus, or if it is even killing.

> Layout

R1. Acceptance, and instagator to do his opening thing
2. Arguments begin
3. Arguments rebuttals, one or the other, both, just argue in a non-abusive way
4. Rebuttals no new arguments closing
****

ANY TROLLING OR SEMANTICS WITH THE RULES IS AN FF

Basically the rules (main rules) are no semantics or trolling or you lose :P

This is a round 2 of our other debate, just more specified.
EvanK

Pro

I accept. I enjoyed our first debate on this subject, and am glad to do it again.

Obviously, I'm taking the Pro side, arguing against abortion.

Good luck!
Debate Round No. 1
16kadams

Con

I too enjoyed the last debate, your arguments deeply improved. DDO will make a debater outa you yet!

1. What makes a human, human?

One main argument I will use (SPA):

"Consciousness (of objects and events external and/or internal to the being), and in particular the capacity to feel pain;

Reasoning (the developed capacity to solve new and relatively complex problems);

Self-motivated activity (activity which is relatively independent of either genetic or direct external control);

The capacity to communicate, by whatever means, messages of an indefinite variety of types, that is, not just with an indefinite number of possible contents, but on indefinitely many possible topics;

The presence of self-concepts, and self-awareness, either individual or racial, or both. " [1]

These are made as it is impossible to argue that a mere genetic case against abortion wages a war on women's rights, nor does it prove a fetus is a person. The concept of where killing is immoral is a tough one, BUT here is the problem: It defined as person. Killing a human is not morally wrong, killing a person is. Merely having biologic attributes are no enough to establish anything, my opponent must prove a fetus is a person, which under logic I see no reason how it can be a person. A fetus has none of these attributes.

"Now if (1)-(5) are indeed the primary criteria of personhood, then it is clear that genetic humanity is neither necessary nor sufficient for establishing that an entity is a person. Some human beings are not people, and there may well be people who are not human beings. A man or woman whose consciousness has been permanently obliterated but who remains alive is a human being which is no longer a person; defective human beings, with no appreciable mental capacity, are not and presumably never will be people; and a fetus is a human being which is not yet a person, and which therefore cannot coherently be said to have full moral rights. " [1]

SPB: A fetus and the community

A fetus is not part of the community you and I and any other human being resides in. It resides INSIDE the mother, it is reliant on her, the fetus is not known to the outside world. A large part of being a person is social identity, and as stated last sentence a fetus has none. A fetus has no interaction with the outside world, none, it is stuck inside the woman, its just plain not in the society. Although miscarriages are tragic, if a woman has a miscarriage she will be upset, but if her recently born child dies of birth problems, it is more tragic. Why? Once the fetus is born it gains social identity, it now has seen, felt, and smelled the world, and people have seen it got documents for it etc. A fetus is therefore not equivalent to a human as it has no social identity. As Joyce Aurthur writes:

"A big part of what makes us human beings is our ability to participate in society, or at least be recognized as a member of society. Fetuses are excluded both by necessity and custom. There can be no meaningful social participation for someone cocooned inside another's body. Fetuses do not even have a social identity, since names are not officially bestowed until after birth. In fact, a birth certificate marks the first legal recognition of a person's existence. And fetuses are generally not given ritualized burials when miscarried or aborted. It is quite telling that the death of a newborn infant is much more of a crushing blow to parents than an early miscarriage. People simply place a higher social value on infants than fetuses, and this convention is ingrained in our culture and history. " [2]

SPC: Does a fetus have a right to life?

Before verging head on into this, lets look at my main argument. The 5 precincts. Just based on this philosophically a fetus has no right to life, it does not work. It is not a person. Now lets look at SPA. It is not part of the society, it has never seen the world, it is socially void. It is not as valuable as a human. Now, lets look at this head on.

As you conceded in this debate round 1, you admit abortion is ok in certain situations, but this concedes abortion is sometimes morally correct, conceding the right to life is of paramount importance, and that women's rights can trump a fetus' ones. They [they as pro lifers] do this to accommodate some human/women's rights, so you aren't seen as bigoted. They actually admit a fetuses rights trump the woman's if they think abortion is ok sometimes! [2]

Also, we must look at there the baby lives. Does a baby have a right to reside in the woman? No, its a privilege its her home. One example, used by source 2 states the state cannot force people to donate organs even if it saves peoples lives. [2] This is correct. A fetus living in the body "saves a life", but does it mean the fetus has a right to live there? No, organs are peoples bodies, her womb is her body, hence her body trumps any right to life. I will also argue a quote:

"Even if a fetus can be said to have a right to life, this does not include the right to use the body of another human being. For example, the state cannot force people to donate organs or blood, even to save someone's life. We are not obligated by law to risk our lives jumping into a river to save a drowning victim, noble as that might be. Therefore, even if a fetus has a right to life, a pregnant woman is not required to save it by loaning out her body for nine months against her will." [2]

This means EVEN IF my opponent proves a fetus has rights, he must prove it overrides the woman's choice of her body, even though it saves lives, this does not trump anything as we can see with organ donation limitations. A persons body is their temple, letting people live in the temple is protecting property rights and privacy, no matter if the hobo is hungry. My opponent must prove that a fetus' rights he claims them to have (which they dont) override a woman fully developed in the essential 5's rights. This is impossible. A fetus has no right to life.

CONCLUSION:

A fetus has no right to life under the 5 essential things a human needs to gain the status of a person (a human with rights). [1] A fetus, even if it does (my opponent needs to prove this) have a right to life is still less valuable then a born child as it is lacking the 5 senses and is devoid of a social identity. [2] And, even if a fetus has a right to life (my opponent still needs to prove this), he must prove a fetus' rights trump a woman's rights. As stated even if things saves a life, like organ donations, they should not be forced to do anything to save a life as it infringes privacy. So my opponent must also prove a fetus' rights trump a woman's rights. VOTE CON




_______________
[1] http://instruct.westvalley.edu...
[2] http://www.abortionaccess.info...
EvanK

Pro

1. Human v.s. Person?


[1]Definition of a human-A bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens)

Perhaps one of the biggest reasons I am of the pro life persona, is because of the natural right to life that all humans are supposed to enjoy. Now, it has been scientifically proven that a fetus is human. Logic suggests, that since the right to life is a human right, and that since a fetus is in fact, a living human being, that it would enjoy this right. My opponent argues that it is human, but not a person. However, the right to life is not a personal right, it is a human right. To enjoy this right, you must be human (other animals, for example do not get this right because they are not human). My opponent argues that a fetus must be mentally developed to be considered a *person*. But, as I said, life is a human right, not a personal right. Because a fetus shares the physical and anatomical traits of homo sapiens (human beings), and not, say, that of a cat or a dog, it then qualifies for the human right to life.

Because a fetus is in fact a member of the human race, physically and anatomically, I feel that social identity and mental state are beside the point. The question is, do you need "social interaction" or "social identity" to be considered a human being? No, you do not. To be a person, maybe. In extreme cases, such as hermits, little to no social interaction takes place, but they are still human. I admit, the case of a hermit is extreme, and unusual, but it is still true, for this part of the debate. No interaction with society is achieved. They are still human.

What about the mental state of a fetus? Does the mental state change the fact of whether a fetus is human or not, and consequentially entitled to human rights? No, it does not. It still shares the traits of human beings. It is not a dog, it is not a cat, it is a human being, whether it is mentally undeveloped or otherwise. Even in the case of anencephalic fetuses, they still have a chance for survival, and killing them would deprive them of their right to life. While I did argue that they could be aborted in my previous argument, the result of some more, careful thinking leads me to the conclusion that they still do, in fact have a right to life, because they are still human.


2. Does a fetus have a right to life?

After observing the fact that a fetus is human, and the right to life is a human right, guaranteed to all human beings, yes, a fetus does, in fact, have a right to life. My only exception is when the Mother is sick, and needs treatment, and the fetus is younger than 21 weeks gestation. For example, lets say a woman has cancer, and needs chemotherapy. It runs the risk of harming the fetus, therefore, she has a few choices. Start chemo anyway, abort the fetus (depending on the gestational age), inducing labor and try to have the baby premature, or forgo treatment altogether. I agree it would be wrong to ask a woman to forgo treatment, so if the fetus is younger than 21 weeks gestation, then I believe she should be allowed to abort if she wishes, because otherwise, the fetus would die anyway. However, any older, then she should induce labor and attempt to have the child, because there would still be a chance for survival (optimal age for this would be 30 weeks gestation, but 21 weeks on up, survival is possible).

What about cases of rape, you may ask? Again, assuming that life is a human right, and that a fetus is human, then I believe the fetus should be allowed to live. If she sees a doctor soon enough, perhaps the fetus hasn't been conceived. In this case, a contraceptive would be permissible, because life hasn't been conceived yet, it is just potential life (outlawing contraceptives would be like outlawing masturbation, so obviously a contraceptive is fine, so long as life hasn't been conceived).


Conclusion

Because a fetus is a living human being, and because life is a natural human right, then logic suggests that a fetus should in fact be allowed to live. Saying it is anything less than human, is bordering upon argumentsmade that black people were less than human, only partly human. In this case, my opponent is arguing the same thing, only instead of black people, it is fetuses. I conclude then, that the pro choice argument is unsound, and that fetuses do, in fact, have a natural human right to life.


Sources-

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate Round No. 2
16kadams

Con

Rebuttals:

1. Human v Person

My opponents main argument is all humans have a right to life, and a fetus is a person. His claims all rest on the biological arguments and scientific ones, this is a logical fallacy called the "begging the question". Biology and science have no governing over the issue, nor does society for the whole, rather the women itself. Now, let me diverge, I used this in my argument. A fetus resides in the body of a woman, her body, not his. Without the woman, he dies. But this is different then a young child, as a young child does not reside in the woman's womb. Now, lets take your position, pretend a fetus has a right to life. But we must ask does this right to life trumps a woman's right to her body and privacy? I ask my opponent, is abortion ok in rape, if the baby is deformed etc.? There is always controversy on whether a fetus is a human, the woman IS always considered a human with rights, hence we should favor the woman, her body, and her privacy. [1] So my opponent needs to prove a fetus' rights trump a woman's rights.

My opponent claims that my arguments are wrong, as scientifically a fetus is a human, again, biology does not fully tie into morality, you must prove the fetus has worth amongst other things to be at a moral equivalent to a person. If we go by biology, a skin cell through DNA is a human, scratching your skin is therefore murder. Is itching an itch immoral? Being a human IS NOT enough to justify a right to life. But here is an essential question that refutes my opponents arguments AND is totally valid in a morality debate: What property to embryos own, and is it so any entity that is at the same status gets the right to life?

This can be also countered this professors way, if your criteria is true (biologically) then a fetus that is missing half the brain (anencephalic infants) and are always end in death near after birth, then it would be immoral to abort the fetus, hence a dead fetus must live. [2] The argument means anything with human DNA or biological properties has a right to life. This morally is unsound and faulty. Before you can dish out the right to life card, morally an philosophically, one must look at the criteria for a human with rights:

1) What properties are needed for a right to life
2) When are these properties attained. [2]

I showed the (5) Properties last round, the answer to #1 is those 5, unless my opponent can think of another logical grouping, and the answer too #2 is a fetus does not have these properties, unless my opponent can speak otherwise.

My opponent then claims just because a fetus is like us it trumps social states, this is wrong in a morality debate, as then fetuses that are essentially dead have the same right to life, which is illogical. It is also faulty, as this too is a fallictic question begging response. If being defined as a species is enough, then we must also ask then why does this exclude animals form having a right to life, gotta ban eating meat now. [2] My opponents claims on a fetus is a member of the human species is not enough to prove that a fetus has a right to life, not at all, hence his whole argument is well, weak in a moral sense.

My opponent then claims the mental state has no governance on whether or not a fetus is a human. But being part of the homo sapien species is NOT enough to prove a fetus is a human in the moral sense. The only argument that proves abortion is immoral in a moral sense is a fetus has the potential to be a person, you have not stated this, and if you do I will refute it. Essentially when arguing abortion in a moral sense a biological argument is not enough to serve anything as immoral. My opponent must prove a fetus (if he uses the biological argument) be included in the moral community. As this person claims, (Marry Anne Warren), genetics is not enough to make a moral case, but development of the mind and cultural characteristics do. [3] In other words, genetics plays no role in morality.

2. Does a fetus have a right to life?

My opponent then falls under the same trap as last time, he says there are exceptions, its ok if it helps the woman. This concedes the right to life is not paramount, and womens rights can trump them. I will just quote:
"Anti-choicers say that a fetus has an inherent "right to life." But many of them support exceptions to a ban on abortion in cases of rape, incest, or a threat to the woman's life, or even health. This clearly indicates that they believe the right to life of a fetus is negotiable, certainly not absolute or paramount. By compromising their "right to life" definition in order to accommodate a woman's rights, they inadvertently acknowledge that women's rights are more important than the "right to life" of fetuses. " [1] You conceding abortion is ok in that one circumstance cripples you, you basically admitted that a woman's health and life is above a fetuses, hence a fetus is not morally equivalent to a human You say:

"I agree it would be wrong to ask a woman to forgo treatment, so if the fetus is younger than 21 weeks gestation, then I believe she should be allowed to abort if she wishes"

That concedes your point, you say a woman's life is above a fetus'.

My opponent says use contraceptives, but let pretend she is raped and the kid is alive, what do you do, abort or force her to keep it through out the 9 months and her having to remember the incident every time it kicks?

CONCLUSION:

My opponent essentially concedes, he says a woman's rights trump a fetus' (without saying it), and hence concludes a fetus does not have the same moral standing as a person. I have proven with valid philosophic arguments my opponent false, and that abortion is NOT immoral, not at all. VOTE A LA CON




[1] http://www.abortionaccess.info...
[2] http://spot.colorado.edu...
[3] http://instruct.westvalley.edu...
EvanK

Pro

I would like to start off by clarifying what I mean by saying that abortion may be permissible. I only say it would be fine in the case where the child couldn't be born, and the Mother needs a medical treatment that would otherwise harm the child. This is a very small window of possibility, and the only reason I argue it is that the fetus will die if she goes on with the treatment. It would be wrong to say a woman, who is lets say 5 weeks pregnant and needs chemo, should ride it out until the fetus can be born. Otherwise, if she is lets say 19 weeks pregnant, then she can wait and possibly have the baby (very) premature, and go on with treatment. You may say that the baby has a good chance of dieing if we do this. Well, it will most certainly die from an abortion, so why not try and preserve the life of it? I am not saying that the right of the Woman necessarily trumps that of the baby, just that logically, in very few cases, it may make sense.

And yes, if the woman is raped and a child is conceived, I believe the fetus should be allowed to live, because it is human life, deserving of the human right to life.

1. Human vs. Person

So now we have a problem. When does a human being inherit the human right to life? Does it's mental state and social status have anything to do with it? I argue no, it doesn't. You say that this would then mean, that since " a skin cell through DNA is a human, scratching your skin is therefore murder." This isn't true, because it isn't human. What I am arguing is that human beings, not components of human beings (ie, skin), have a right to life, because they are human, and the right to life is a human right. I am also not arguing that eating meat should be illegal, because we do not eat humans, we eat animals, cows, chickens, fish, none of which have a right to life because they are not human.

So I do not see your logic. You are saying that it has to be mentally developed and have a "social status" to have a right to life. Now, does this mean a brain dead individual doesn't have a right to life? What I mean is, would it be ok to euthanize a brain dead human being? No, it doesn't. So why does it permit the killing of an innocent life?

What I am arguing is that a conceived child is alive, it is a human being, and so it is entitled to the human right to life, because it is a human being. I don't believe the mental capabilities of human determine whether it is human or not. If it is a human life, then it is morally wrong to kill it. Like I said, I don't think mental capabilities or social status determines whether a human is human or not.

The problem, in my opinion, is that there is no legal definition of a human being. So, I see it as, a human is human and alive upon conception, and therefore is entitled to the right to life.

Conclusion

My opponent believes that the right to life isn't universal for human beings, rather for "persons", with a social status and developed mental capabilities, whereas I see it as the right to life is for all human life. Because it is a human right, rather than a personal right.
Debate Round No. 3
16kadams

Con

An abortion might be ok?

My opponents clarification still concedes the vital point I needed him to concede in this debate, he claims if the mother needs X and the fetus blocks X, abortion Y is ok. Basically

1. X ---> B locked
2. B ---> ok for Y
3. Fetus ---> Dies
4. Therefore X = Y

He essentially conceded that a woman's right to treatment (many times life) trumps a fetus' right to live, he has not clarified this, he literally conceded that a woman's rights CAN trump a fetus' rights, hence he concedes a fetus is not the same as a human.

My opponent now says abortion with rape is not ok, alright, you still essentially conceded above that a woman's right to medical treatment or life trumps a fetus', this means you no longer think the fetus' right to life is paramount over a woman's rights. I will bring forth the same quote again:

"Anti-choicers say that a fetus has an inherent "right to life." But many of them support exceptions to a ban on abortion in cases of rape, incest, or a threat to the woman's life, or even health. This clearly indicates that they believe the right to life of a fetus is negotiable, certainly not absolute or paramount. By compromising their "right to life" definition in order to accommodate a woman's rights, they inadvertently acknowledge that women's rights are more important than the "right to life" of fetuses. " [1]

1. Human v person

My opponent again brings forth the question begging response (a fallacy), and I think it is due to the fact he does not understand my argument, or the moral aspect of it. The question your argument begs: What properties to human fetus' have that that the entity has a right to life? He also ignores my counter example, my anencephalic fetus argument. If your argument stands to scrutiny, it also gives these deformed children the right to life, even though they die nearly after birth.

I will quote:

"Appeal to this criterion [fetus is biologically human]is, as we have seen, exposed to two main objections. First, there are excellent reasons for holding that the principle that all innocent members of the biologically defined species Homo sapiens have a right to life cannot be a basic moral principle: there must, for example, be some principle that does not refer to particular species that explains why members of other species - consider the imaginary case of ET - also have a right to life. But if the principle in question cannot be basic, then one needs to go back to the underlying, basic principle, and show that that principle supports the claim that humans have a right to life from conception onward. But this, of course, takes one back to the other criteria that we have been considering, and if none of those criteria is sound, then neither is the derived criterion that appeals to membership in the biologically defined species, Homo sapiens.

The second objection is that the claim that all innocent members of the biologically defined species, Homo sapiens, have a right to life is exposed to counterexamples - such as the cases of anencephalic infants, and adults who have suffered whole brain death or upper brain death." [2]

I used this argument last round, you never refuted it, hence the point stands as is.

So essentially, my opponent goes on a spree claiming the mental state has nothing to do with a fetus being a human, but it does when speaking in a moral sense. For something to have worth, even in a moral sense, we must ask what qualities that a fetus have to deserve moral recognition? [2] My opponents only, repeat ONLY, argument is question begging and morally unsound. For something to have moral worth (like normal humans after birth) they have certain qualities they must have to have any moral worth. My opponent never answers the question: What qualities to fetus' have to acquire the right to life? This questioning crumbles his case in a moral perspective, as now his case cannot hold up in a morality debate such as this.

Now, humans philosophy have NO right to life, persons do. Now, in a moral debate on abortion the question boils down, the side that answers this the best is the winner: "At what stage in the development of a human being does it acquire the property, or properties, in question?" [2] My opponent has not provided any criterion for a human, a human with rights that is, hence in a moral debate his arguments fail to find criteria and answer this question. As providing criteria last round would be unfair, as I would not be able to respond, he has now entered a corner: He has no definition or criteria for a right to life that actually works in a morality debate. Now, my criteria, and the lofgical criteria is:

"Consciousness (of objects and events external and/or internal to the being), and in particular the capacity to feel pain;

Reasoning (the developed capacity to solve new and relatively complex problems);

Self-motivated activity (activity which is relatively independent of either genetic or direct external control);

The capacity to communicate, by whatever means, messages of an indefinite variety of types, that is, not just with an indefinite number of possible contents, but on indefinitely many possible topics;

The presence of self-concepts, and self-awareness, either individual or racial, or both. " [3]

So, the question now is when does a fetus acquire these abilities? Third term? Birth? It is NOT first or second term, hence a fetus is actually NOT morally equivalent to a person, now your arguments fail in this debate to meet the even BOP. My arguments answer the core question, whereas yours do not.

My opponent earlier states the social state does not matter in this debate, but he is actually dodging the question and putting a straw man. brain dead individual no longer has these rights to life, therefore it would be moral to kill him, under your argument even EVEN a dead man cannot be putout of his misery as every human has a right to life, it is simply illogical.

My opponent said first paragraph skin =/= fetus, yet if you look at core pro life arguments it actually is relatable. yes, no typo, is, this quote paraphrases it perfectly, except uses dandruff:

"If you point out that a fetus consists of human tissue and DNA, anti-choicers triumphantly claim you just conceded it's a human being. Now, a flake of dandruff from my head is human, but it is not a human being, and in this sense, neither is a zygote. Anti-choicers will respond that a fertilized egg is not like dandruff, because the fertilized egg consists of a unique set of chromosomes that makes it a separate human being. But with cloning, a cell from my dandruff is enough to create a new human being." [1]

So the skin rule applies, as if you look at the core arguments you are hinting at is that skin is now a human, once again, your argunments are illogical.

CONCLUSION:

I have refuted my opponents case thoroughly using valid arguments and moral philosophies. My opponent fails to answer the core question of the debate, and give criteria, and when a human gains the right to life, and his arguments are proven illogical and should not be accepted. The criteria for human-hood:

(1) consciousness
(2) the capacity to reason
(3) self-motivated activity
(4) the capacity to communicate messages,
(5) thy presence of self-concepts. [3]

A fetus does not have this, hence a fetus is not morally equivalent. ALSO, my opponent above conceded that a woman's right can trump abortion in some cases, he concedes a fetus' rights are less then a woman's, a right to life is no longer paramount! Even in his argumentation!

My opponent fails to prove me wrong and prove his case, VOTE CON






_____________
[1] http://www.abortionaccess.info...
[2] http://spot.colorado.edu...
[3] http://instruct.westvalley.edu...
EvanK

Pro

I have not conceded that the Woman's right trumps that of the fetus, I believe they have an equal right to life, but in very few, rare circumstances, it would be ok to abort because it comes down to either 1 person dies (the fetus), or both die. The fetus would die anyway. This seems a hypocritical statement, but it's a very difficult situation when dealing with human life. So yes, in very few, rare circumstances, it may be ok, like when the Mother is 5 weeks pregnant and has cancer. If the treatment can wait, then I believe it should.

I completely understand that this is a moral issue, and as I have stated, I believe that the killing of a human life is morally wrong. I believe that as soon as human life is conceived (human life, meaning a human fetus, not the components of a human being) the fetus is entitled to the right to life because it is human.

I will again state what I said in my previous argument, the mental state and social status of a human doesn't change it's human state. As soon as it is conceived, it is human, and therefore deserving of the human right to life. Life, once again, is a human right, not a personal right given to "persons", but to humans. And because I believe that it is immoral to kill human life, it can be determined that abortion is immoral.

Conclusion

My opponent believes that the right to life isn't a human right, but a right of a "person", with a social status and developed mental capabilities. I argue though, that since the right to life is a human right, and because a fetus is human upon conception, it can be deduced that abortion is immoral because the killing of human life is immoral.

Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
XD go to the last post tins forum and get 1000th post!!
Posted by EvanK 4 years ago
EvanK
Well, I couldn't think of anything more to say, other than to once again state my points and my reasons for viewing them (as opposed to yours). I suppose we'll see how this affects me. XD
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Evan, try not to make really short arguments last round. Try to push the main points still, that round crippled ya.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Lol ok
Posted by EvanK 4 years ago
EvanK
Thanks, I definitely appreciate it! I'll look forward to debating other topics with you.

I try to get on the forms, but I've been busy, and want to make sure I get my arguments in lol, so..
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Pro, I hope you enjoy DDO, your arguments are improving, after this I will let you debate others :P, also seriously the forums are fun too.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
I am not devils advocating, my views are in mood swings
Posted by Freeman 4 years ago
Freeman
16kadams, I think it's cool that you're playing devil's advocate.
Posted by EvanK 4 years ago
EvanK
Same here. I think I'm getting the hang of it :D
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
I hope to see your arguments further develop :D
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Wallstreetatheist 4 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
16kadamsEvanKTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was unable to prove that abortion of a fetus or embryo is the same thing as murder of a human, and thus concedes the point of right to life. Con had much better arguments demonstrating that a fetus is not the equivalent to a human, and even if a fetus had a right to life, it is still less valuable than a child. Con had better and more sources.
Vote Placed by seraine 4 years ago
seraine
16kadamsEvanKTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 showed that a fetus is not the equivalent of a person because it doesn't have remotely similar mental capacities. Pro said that fetuses are people and have the right to life, but never really said why.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
16kadamsEvanKTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 set a high bar for Pro in this debate, which Pro accepted. Pro must prove that abortion is equivalent to murder of a mature human. Premeditated murder of a mature human is typically punished by life imprisonment or execution. I give arguments to Con because he gave better arguments for fetus not being equivalent, while Pro mostly asserted that the reasons did not matter rather than giving reasons why they did not matter. Pro's argument using a hermit as an isolated person didn't come close.
Vote Placed by Ixaax 4 years ago
Ixaax
16kadamsEvanKTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:21 
Reasons for voting decision: Good debate! Some moderate grammatical in Con's arguments, though his sources crush Pro's in quantity and quality. Both sides made valid arguments, though I would give a slight edge to Pro; so slight that it's not worth the vote. Pro's argument that Dogs don't fit the definition of a human was insufficiently refuted, was not so strong of a point to begin with, so the vote remains a tie.