The Instigator
rross
Pro (for)
Losing
22 Points
The Contender
MouthWash
Con (against)
Winning
25 Points

Abortion is a woman's decision

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 13 votes the winner is...
MouthWash
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/28/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,890 times Debate No: 28693
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (13)

 

rross

Pro

I never had an intense opinion about abortion until I came on this site. But now, everywhere I look, there's men yapping about abortion. Get your faces out of it! This is a matter for women, because women are the ones who get pregnant and bear children.

The rules of this debate are as follows.

My opponent has the burden of proof. He has to prove that men should have some power over the decision (or rights) to abort.

Of course, nobody can stop men from voicing an opinion. But honestly, the carry on here about abortion! I can't help but feel that this is all about men wanting to control the process of pregnancy. You can't. So sorry.
MouthWash

Con

I thank Pro for starting this debate, and I assume that since I have the BOP I shall go first. To clarify, I will be arguing that men should have equal influence in judging the practice of abortion.

Let us say that the fetus has no inherent right to live. If it could be established that fetuses are simply clumps of cells with no moral hurdles in killing them, then abortion would obviously be justified. It would be no different than clipping a fingernail.

However, if it could be established that fetuses are human and have the right to live just as much as a fully-grown adult, then abortion would be murder.

Both men and women can learn and understand philosophy, and therefore either a man or a woman could theoretically validate either position. Therefore, men should have a say in abortion.

The end. Thanks for playing!
Debate Round No. 1
rross

Pro

Hello Mouthwash.

Tens of thousands of Americans need a kidney transplant [1]. Most of them won't get one, and will die as a consequence. The rest of us can live with just one kidney. But it would be obscene to suggest that we should hand one over, let alone legislate for such a thing.

Those Americans have a right to life, of course. But they don't have a right to take from another human to sustain life.

Of course, pregnancy is different from the kidney scenario because the fetus is already there. It's already taking from its mother. It's as if you woke up and found yourself in a hospital bed hooked up to a man without kidneys. And he would die if they unhooked you. Do you have the right to unhook yourself, even so? I suggest that you do. You might choose not to, out of the kindness of you heart, but it could hardly be murder if you did.

1. http://www.emedicinehealth.com...

MouthWash

Con

Hello, birdie.

It seems Pro has decided to ignore my arguments and argue for abortion instead. Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 2
rross

Pro

Thanks for taking this debate so seriously, Mouthwash.

My opponent had the burden of proof to show that men should have a role in abortion decisions. He has failed, of course.

His argument was very simple. That abortion is not, after all, a pragmatic decision, but a philosophical one. Of course, to the thousands of women who are facing this decision every day, it is very much a pragmatic issue. Like I said in the introduction, men can voice an opinion. My opponent is quite free to philosophise on fetusus, because this will make no difference to the decisions made. He has no power over the decisions and this is OK. That's why I didn't bother to argue these points. They don't challenge the resolution.

There was only one issue raised by my opponent that was relevant: the possibility that abortion is murder. If abortion is murder then it is a crime and can be legislated against. This would constitute men having power over abortion decisions. So I did argue this point, and indeed demonstrated that abortion is not murder even if a fetus is granted the right to live.

So yeah. Nothing, really, from my opponent. We can't blame him too much. After all, abortion really is a woman's decision. Accept it.

MouthWash

Con

I have indeed been taking this debate very seriously. In fact, I'm offended that you would suggest I wasn't. Raising the sanity waterline on this site is always in my interest.

"His argument was very simple. That abortion is not, after all, a pragmatic decision, but a philosophical one. Of course, to the thousands of women who are facing this decision every day, it is very much a pragmatic issue. Like I said in the introduction, men can voice an opinion. My opponent is quite free to philosophise on fetusus, because this will make no difference to the decisions made. He has no power over the decisions and this is OK. That's why I didn't bother to argue these points. They don't challenge the resolution."

Nope! See, if it is a pragmatic issue then philosophy still applies to it. Philosophy can determine whether or not someone can disconnect wires someone else needs to survive. Since men and women are capable of philosophizing, then my argument still holds completely. And I dearly hope that you aren't trying to prove the resolution by saying that men technically can't force all women not to have abortion. Because those would not remotely be related to the case at hand. They would be semantics, and absurd ones indeed since you have already argued your actual position in the previous round. Semantic users do not win debates.

"There was only one issue raised by my opponent that was relevant: the possibility that abortion is murder. If abortion is murder then it is a crime and can be legislated against. This would constitute men having power over abortion decisions. So I did argue this point, and indeed demonstrated that abortion is not murder even if a fetus is granted the right to live."

Sorry, my argument was that philosophy can determine rights and that men are also capable of knowing philosophy. This applies to any conceivable situation... not just whether fetuses should be considered humans, but whether they should have a right to live in any given context. Simply because I gave an analogy of whether fetuses were humans does not make that my main argument.

And another semantic! Now, you claim that only if abortion is proven to be truly murder do men have a say, because that's when they can technically legislate against it. However, you say in the first round that I have to "prove that men should have some power over the decision (or rights) to abort." In other words, men should have influence over the decision of whether abortion is wrong, which contradicts your new position directly. Semantics fail.

Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by RyuuKyuzo 4 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
@MouthWash

I'll debate you on this topic. Let me know if you're interested and I'll set up the debate.
Posted by MouthWash 4 years ago
MouthWash
@threenorns, that isn't an RFD...
Posted by YYW 4 years ago
YYW
This was a categorically fvcked up resolution.
Posted by bladerunner060 4 years ago
bladerunner060
I can't vote as I haven't completed 3 debates. However, Con has clearly won this debate. Pro conceded it @: "If abortion is murder then it is a crime and can be legislated against. This would constitute men having power over abortion decisions. So I did argue this point, and indeed demonstrated that abortion is not murder even if a fetus is granted the right to live."

This wasn't a debate about the relative morality of abortion (a subject I suspect Con and I would greatly disagree on), but rather whether men may have any voice in the decision. If abortion WAS murder, then Pro has conceded that men would have a legitimate say. Pro argues against the premise that abortion is murder, but not against whether the question itself is irrelevant, which means that men can discuss it as much as women; one can argue that they should THEN concede the decision, perhaps, but until Con has conceded the point, it is begging the question to treat it as settled, as Con only had to establish that men may legitimately opine on the subject, and Pro essentially conceded that men may, until the question as to whether it is murder or not is settled. What Pro had to establish was that the question was irrelevant, and Pro failed in that burden.

To simplify this argument a bit: Imagine a world where Green clothes are allowed, but Red clothes are not. Pro argues that men may have no say in what women wear. Con's argument was that men MAY have such say, at least until it is settled whether the clothes are green or red. Pro's response was "But these clothes are green, so therefore it's okay and men shouldn't have a say!" That doesn't make the original question irrelevant, and therefore Con wins, as Pro hasn't actually addressed the substance of the point. In that case, the question would have been better phrased as "Men should have no say in what women choose among green clothes". In the case of the actual debate here, I suspect that that the debate should have been framed differently, to
Posted by MouthWash 4 years ago
MouthWash
wiploc, are you an idiot? The resolution was that men should also be able to decide whether an abortion is right, not if they can actually hold back women from doing. She clarified this in her first round. I don't usually call out stupid votes but that one is insane.
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by threenorns 4 years ago
threenorns
rrossMouthWashTied
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:24 
Reasons for voting decision: i AM a female and i do not agree that abortion is solely a woman's decision. the only time i think it's strictly up to the woman is if her life is in jeopardy. the father has an equal right to his child - if he wants the baby and the mother doesn't, i feel she should be required to have the baby, turn it over to the father, and then walk with a clear conscience, no child support or further involvement required.
Vote Placed by YYW 4 years ago
YYW
rrossMouthWashTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: The is/ought discrepancy between PRO and CON effectuated two fundamentally different resolutions to be debated. Peculiar though this may be, PRO stipulated to it and CON agreed. C'est la vie. In consequence, both debaters acquire an equal burden of proof to their respective resolutions (pro-is/con-ought). P opens by attempting to deflect his BOP, and no more. C argues that because men and women can derive their own perspective on the subject of abortion with equal capacity, both ought to enjoy equal right to make said call. That was actually rather clever. P compares and dismisses pregnancy to kidney transplants to illustrate the implications of sustained life at the expense of another -the connection to P's argument was weak at best. C rightly notes that P ignored his argument. P claims that Cs arguments didn't address the resolution, incorrectly. C explains why this was not the case in closing. This was like watching dark ships pass in the night, and yet P dodged his BOP.
Vote Placed by blackfirewolf 4 years ago
blackfirewolf
rrossMouthWashTied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: To me it seemed that pro had a better point and con's arguments confused me. And I agree with pro with the kidney example that relates to abortion. It is the woman's choice. And pro was the only one with sources (even if it was just one) so that point goes to her.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 4 years ago
bladerunner060
rrossMouthWashTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I can vote now! RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by Chuz-Life 4 years ago
Chuz-Life
rrossMouthWashTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Cons argument that a child in the womb is a bit more than a nail clipping (paraphrased) and that men AND women have valid concerns was not addressed directly by Pro. Pro instead tried to shift the subject to organ transplant and away from the 'personhood' of the child in the womb and Men's rights to defend them. My vote goes to Con for this reason.
Vote Placed by andrewkletzien 4 years ago
andrewkletzien
rrossMouthWashTied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con claims it is a philosophical issue riding on the proposition, but leaves it at that without providing philosophical reasons why men should have any say. Pro made virtually no arguments, but this goes to show how crucial the BOP really is, which Con agreed was on him (I'm not convinced this was the right move in his case given the wording of the resolution).
Vote Placed by Canadian-In-Florida 4 years ago
Canadian-In-Florida
rrossMouthWashTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: My reasons for voting are simple. Conduct - Tie, cause both spent time just bickering, not utilizing the debate for what it should have been. S&G - Tie, no explanation needed. Sources - While some say one source is better than none, the relevance of the source must be considered. The link posted describes a kidney transplant, something (even with the analogy) is irrelevant to the argument as I did not see that analogy as relevant to this debate. Getting kidnapped and hooked up to a machine is far different than having sex and making a baby, even in rape cases, you're not tied to a machine unable to leave. Convincing - Con. He made an argument showing that men are capable of making this decision. That was not refuted by Pro. Pro decided to argue about abortion being murder, not against Con. Overall, the debate was, as another said, "weird" and not on point. There were many possible arguments I hoped to read in this. Unfortunate. Could have been good.
Vote Placed by morgan2252 4 years ago
morgan2252
rrossMouthWashTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes to pro because con does not use the second round to build on his argument and simply dismisses pro's. Both sides had equal spelling and grammar and equally convincing arguments. Though pro only has one source, it is better than having none, as con does.
Vote Placed by KeytarHero 4 years ago
KeytarHero
rrossMouthWashTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: I felt there was no clear winner in this debate, but some of Con's contentions did go uncontested (and he had BOP), so I gave a point to him.
Vote Placed by richarddong 4 years ago
richarddong
rrossMouthWashTied
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:33 
Reasons for voting decision: weird