The Instigator
Cobalt
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
LiberalProlifer
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Abortion is a justified practice.

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 3 votes the winner is...
Cobalt
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/26/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,017 times Debate No: 81555
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (22)
Votes (3)

 

Cobalt

Pro

The resolution says it all. The only rule is that BoP is shared.

Round 1 is for acceptance. If Con would like to give definitions, he is free to do so -- though they are open to debate.

Round 5 is for closing statements. This mostly means that no new arguments are to be made this round, as the opponent will not have an opportunity to respond to them.

I look forward to this debate.
LiberalProlifer

Con

I am bored as Hell, so I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
Cobalt

Pro

Based upon my understanding of most religious texts that reference Hell, it really isn't that boring a place.

I will keep my opening arguments brief, and make only two of them. The first, to test the quality of the opponent, and the second is meant to be reasonable.

1. Abortion is legal today

Humanity generally tends toward creating laws that benefit humanity. What is good for humanity is in and of itself justified. The law allows abortion, therefore abortion benefits humanity and is, thus, justified.

2. The Parasite

If we are to approach this topic from a secular persepective, then we must find a basis for justice that does not include religion. This 'justice' most often comes in the form of human rights and societal good.

From a biological perspective, a baby is largely a parasite. The mother gives nutrients to the baby, while the baby gives little in return.

My argument here is that no human should be forced to carry a parasite on their body if there is a reasonable way of removing it. The baby is a parasite and the mother has a way (abortion) to remove it. Therefore, it is justifiable for a mother to remove a parasite from her body if she does not wish it to be there.

These arguments are limited, and that is the intent. I look forward to a fruitful debate.
LiberalProlifer

Con

Legality does not equal morality. Slavery used to be legal, did that make it right? What Hitler did was legal, what Stalin did was legal. In Saudi Arabia, it ius legal to kill rape victims. Also, abortion kills a living child. An ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure. Abortion is child abuse and age discrimination. If you don't want a baby, use contraception. I want tohave my tubes removed for this reason. I am willing to live my own advice.
Debate Round No. 2
Cobalt

Pro

As I stated, my first argument was purely to gauge the opponent's strengths. I fully rescind said argument.

However, my opponent's response to my second argument is woefully inadequate. I imagine much of the debate will focus on this argument.

It seems my opponent's only real response to my second argument is this: "if you don't want a baby, use contraception".

This argument holds no water. First, there are many cases in which a woman desires to get pregnant and, for whatever reasons, decides she no longer wishes to be pregnant. This links back to the parasite argument.

Second, many women don't use protection because they feel the likelihood of getting pregnant is low (whether that likelihood is small or not.) They end up becoming pregnant, and my parasite argument is again in play. It doesn't matter how silly a woman is for becoming pregnant; there should be no obligation for her to hold this parasite on her body, especially when said parasite cannot survive on its own.

Third, I will bring up rape victims. Some women, despite all their actions, cannot help but become pregnant due to rape. If a woman is raped and does not wish to have the child, my parasite argument comes into play.


I recommend that my opponent directly refutes the logic behind my parasite argument. The fact that she is willing to have her tubes tied says nothing about the other women in this world who aren't. There are too many cases in which a woman wants to have a child, just not the one they are impregnated with, for that argument to be valid.

I also recommend they use more than a paragraph to detail their argument. I set the limit to 10,000 characters, and there is no reason the opponent shouldn't use some of them.
LiberalProlifer

Con

You have only addressed one of my arguments. The fact remains that abortion kills a living child. Included are some picture of aborted children. Every person has the right to live, including babies. In most surgical abortions, the baby is torn to pieces. That is not choice.
https://krishna.org...
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...
Debate Round No. 3
Cobalt

Pro

I've elected not to view those pictures, since I just ate. I'll begin.

First, my opponent claims I missed an argument, specifically the "babies are alive" statement. I must apologize. I thought this was a lead in to your next point, not a point on its own. I will now address that argument.

Yes, a baby is no doubt a living thing. And it is mostly true that everyone has a right to live -- but this right does not extend to babies in the womb. Let me give a hypothetical example.

Suppose that one day you are approached by the government and told that an important scientist is having liver issues and requires 'help' filtering his blood. The scientist has a rare blood type that you share, so the government decides that you and the scientist will be 'hooked up' together for a period of time. His blood and yours will run through your liver and his bad one. The government makes a few inurances: a) That you are unlikely to die or have long term damage from this. b) That you'll only need to do this for 9 months, then the scientist will be healthy again. c) That the scientist will surely die if this arangement does not happen.

So the government decided that you must do this, that you have no choice in the matter. Is this jusified? After all, both the scientist and you have a right to live and without your body, the scientist cannot survive. Based upon your argument, this would be jusified, since "every person has a right to live."

Clearly, though, this is not justified. A person should not have to contribute a part of themselves in order to insure that another person lives. The right to life should not be confused with an obligation to insure the life of others.

This example should make it clear why a person's right to live does not matter in a parasitic relationship. Additionally, my opponent failed to actually address my parasite argument, again.

In conclusion, I made an argument r1 that still has not been adequately addressed by the opponent. I have used logic and common sense in order to show that my opponent's position in untenable.

I look forward to the opponent's response.
LiberalProlifer

Con

The so called forced organ donation argument is an appeal to emotion. No one is forcing women to be pregnant. They have the option to use contraception. Also, the fetus has the rigt to live. If you don't want a baby, use contraception, even multiple forms if you have to. The Affordable Care Act makes it that much easier for people to use contraception. Thank you for debating me, and I am sorry if I missed anything.
Debate Round No. 4
Cobalt

Pro

The opponent begins by stating that my 'forced organ donation' argument is an appeal to emotion since women are not forced to be pregnant. Two important things to note here:

1. Sometimes a woman is forced to be pregnant. As I've mentioned before, some women are raped. They have no choice in their pregnancy.

2. Even if a woman becomes pregnant, she is forced to remain pregnant if abortion is not an option. This directly links back to my parable in the previous round as well as my parasite argument (which the opponent still has not attempted to refute.)

That is about all my opponent said in the previous round. Let's move to my closing remarks.

Conclusion

My opponent did not make an attempt to adequately address my parasite argument. Given this, the argument still stands and I have won the debate on this issue alone.

What's more, my opponent's only real argument seems to be that "a baby has a right to life", which I have refuted multiple times through my parasite argument and my forced donation argument. A mother's right to not have to host a parasite on her body trumps the baby's right to live. If there were a way to remove the fetus so that it could still live, we would do that. But given current technology there is no way to remove the fetus from the womb without it dying.

Vote Pro because I had superior arguments and because I had the courtesy to hit all of Con's arguments, while they did not return the favor. I have met my burden of proof; the opponent has hardly constructed a viable argument.

Thanks for reading.
LiberalProlifer

Con

Here in America, women are not forced to be pregnant. They have the option to use contraception. It is only forced birth if contraceptive rights are denied.
Debate Round No. 5
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by airmax1227 1 year ago
airmax1227
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: whiteflame// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments). This seems pretty straightforward to me. Pro makes clear that a) there are plenty of women who get pregnant that don't have a choice, defying Con's argument that they always have another means, b) that the rights of the mother always outweigh the rights of the unborn child, and c) that the mother is under no obligation to sacrifice anything for the sake of another life. Con isn't responsive to any of these points, merely repeating her arguments multiple times. That decision might seem reasonable to her, but it does not a debate make, and the lack of weighing her argument against Pro's (or, for that matter, even including a similar level of logical analysis) makes this decision simple.

[*Reason for non-removal*] The vote clearly explains the decision, pointing to several arguments that led to his determination and examining what didn't work from the opponent.
************************************************************************
Posted by Matt532 1 year ago
Matt532
Thank you Mod for making that clarification. I would say that the forced donation argument should have been discussed by the opponent in order for it to be invalid, and that I personally view it as invalid, though it would make sense to me now to be a valid argument if nothing was said on it, which nothing was from the opponent. I do think that the forced donation argument threatened Con's arguments with the killing of a life, and Con failed to address that. Con failed to show what is wrong with killing a fetus/baby, but merely assumes that it is bad. Con says that a fetus has a right to life, but this is also an assumption. Moreover, Pro attacked these ideas with the forced donation argument.

I also have a hard time in voting without bias in this issue, since I have particularly strong feelings on this issue, and that I need to realize that voting for a side does not meant you support that side. I think this sort of thing is better within the debate, rather than in the voting.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Matt532// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). In R2, Con says that "Abortion is child abuse and age discrimination," which I think is a legitimate point. Pro fails to talk about that. Pro's parasite argument and forced donation argument don't cover this point. Con's point rebuts the parasite argument, because parents are to be responsible, i.e. held accountable, for their children. I don't buy the forced donation argument because it is extraordinary means vs. the ordinary means of doing uncomplicated things like eating. For the rape case, it wouldn't justify child abuse, assuming this point works for Con, which Pro didn't respond to.

[*Reason for removal*] Much as this vote does discuss many of the given arguments, much of the reasoning for why the voter isn't buying Pro's argumentation doesn't appear in the debate. If there's clear illogic or some clearly false argument, that might be acceptable. However, the voter actually appears to insert several arguments into the debate, providing an argument against the forced donation point that isn't just about lacking logic, and minimizing the rape case without clear reasoning. The vote seems all the more suspect since the main point the voter is picking up appeared in R2 and was dropped by both debaters thereafter. The voter needs to analyze the arguments given, and not simply vote for the arguments they personally agree with.
************************************************************************
Posted by Matt532 1 year ago
Matt532
I would be interested in debating one of the voters on this issue.
Posted by Matt532 1 year ago
Matt532
Oh, ok.

Well, Con said that not maintaining the child's life (fetus, baby) is child abuse and age discrimination, and I still don't know of a valid argument that works against this.
Posted by Cobalt 1 year ago
Cobalt
Matt, I never claimed nor meant to argue that a baby is not alive and that abortion is taking another person's life.

My argument was that the mother is not obligated to maintain someone else's life.
Posted by Matt532 1 year ago
Matt532
I don't see, for the burden of proof, how it's hard to show that child abuse or age discrimination could occur from an abortion, especially if the fetus looks just like a baby. Also, I noticed that you failed to give a valid argument (if I consider your one argument on it invalid) as to how an abortion isn't the killing of a fetus or baby, which also seems like it doesn't need a burden of proof from my point of view, unless you can convince me in some way that I can't see right now.
Posted by Matt532 1 year ago
Matt532
Let me know which arguments didn't he cover and you may convince me otherwise.

I think Con may or may not have intended to use the child abuse argument against the parasite argument, but it seems valid from my point of view.

In R3, Con says that "You have only addressed one of my arguments. The fact remains that abortion kills a living child." I think that is what is likely meant by the child abuse argument, so it seems plausible that Con was reminding you, though it is slightly different than the first thing Con said. It turns out you did respond to the latter thing with your organ donation argument, which I noted what I thought to be a significant difference in the way of making the argument valid for me. I come from a Catholic background, and I remember the Catechism of the Catholic Church permitting extraordinary means to be "unplugged", but not ordinary means (http://www.catholic.com...).
Posted by Cobalt 1 year ago
Cobalt
Oh, I agree that the parasite argument is totally horrible to think about. Abortion is one of those topics where it's really hard for pro-choice people to make sound arguments that don't sound, at times, totally inhumane.
Posted by Cobalt 1 year ago
Cobalt
Oh, I agree that the parasite argument is totally horrible to think about. Abortion is one of those topics where it's really hard for pro-choice people to make sound arguments that don't sound, at times, totally inhumane.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Matt532 1 year ago
Matt532
CobaltLiberalProliferTied
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 failed to show what is wrong with killing a fetus/baby, but merely assumes that it is bad. Con says that a fetus has a right to life, but this is also an assumption. Moreover, Pro attacked these ideas with the forced donation argument. Since Con gave no real rebuttal, Pro had a decisive advantage over Con's only assumed point I saw.
Vote Placed by Sarai.K82 1 year ago
Sarai.K82
CobaltLiberalProliferTied
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: My initial position turns on the term "justified." This was a very even debate and difficult for me to award a clear win to either side. Con's counter to Pro's initial R2 argument was strong. I also thought Con did provide a reasonable counter to the "parasite" argument, which is that regardless, abortion kills a living child. I wasn't completely persuaded by pro's counter in R3, but I though pro pointing out the rape issue very strong. Wearing a condom isn't a choice when the sex is not consensual and it's not fair to ask a woman to have her tubes tied so that she can't get pregnant is she will at some point want the opportunity to consensually become pregnant when her financial ability and health permit. In the end, I would give pro a slight win.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
CobaltLiberalProliferTied
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: This seems pretty straightforward to me. Pro makes clear that a) there are plenty of women who get pregnant that don't have a choice, defying Con's argument that they always have another means, b) that the rights of the mother always outweigh the rights of the unborn child, and c) that the mother is under no obligation to sacrifice anything for the sake of another life. Con isn't responsive to any of these points, merely repeating her arguments multiple times. That decision might seem reasonable to her, but it does not a debate make, and the lack of weighing her argument against Pro's (or, for that matter, even including a similar level of logical analysis) makes this decision simple.