The Instigator
jjmd280
Pro (for)
Losing
11 Points
The Contender
Ragnar_Rahl
Con (against)
Winning
20 Points

Abortion is an inalienable right.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 7 votes the winner is...
Ragnar_Rahl
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/25/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,988 times Debate No: 5814
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (7)

 

jjmd280

Pro

Abortion is an inalienable right. Abortion is not a violation of any right, because there is no such thing as the freedom to live inside (or outside) of another human being as a parasite, i.e., against the will of that person.

This principle applies to both fetuses and adults. As a woman has a right to choose who she has sex with (as her body is her property), so is it a woman's right to choose what can and cannot remain inside her body (as her body is her property). As it is evil for someone else to dictate the use of her body by raping her, so it is evil for someone else to dictate the use of her body by forcing her to remain pregnant.

As their is no such thing as the right to live inside another, whether the fetus is removed, because of incest, or rape, or "convenience" does not matter politically—whatever the reason, it is the woman's inalienable right.

Good luck, can't wait to hear the counter.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

Abortion is a right, but that right, like any right, is not inalienable. All rights are alienable- by the action of the rights-bearer, in waiving that right directly or in invalidating it by violating someone else's rights. If a woman has ever stood outside an abortion clinic, blocking the path to the abortionist for someone else, she does not have the right to abortion. If a woman kills someone innocent, she does not have the right to abortion. If a woman sticks a knife inside another innocent woman's womb, she has invalidated any claim she once had to her own.

Whosoever doth not recognize rights doth not have them, is the relevant principle here. If the state wishes a murderess to bear their new genetically modified super-soldier in her womb, the murderess, by virtue of her guilt for murder, has no right to protests.

Granted, in more mundane situations the state will have no need of the murderess's womb. Yet this does not mean she has the right to it. That right, and all other of the murderess' rights, have been alienated by her action.
Debate Round No. 1
jjmd280

Pro

You've really made me think. It must be understood that the definition I use is -Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights, as defined by Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.

You can surrender, sell or transfer inalienable rights if you consent either actually or constructively.

But we must recognize that forfeiture of a right by the bearer does NOT supersede the inalienable right. If I say "I give up my right to abortion", you cannot forbid me one if later I have a change of heart. A temporary waiving of my right to one does not make it alienable by any logic.

Because one opposes a right does not make the persons right to what they oppose inalienable. Do I give up my right to life because I support capital punishment? I am violating another's right to life by condoning it, but the criminal voluntarily forfeited their right to life - so in all actuality I am NOT violating that which is waived. Again, it's the voluntary waiver of that right that's the real issue, it does not change the right itself.

Clever approach, but I stand my ground.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

http://www.answers.com...

When you don't define something in the first round, you're typically subject to the dictionary. None of these have a "Without consent" clause, and the philosophy dictionary specifically dictates that it cannot be signed away voluntarily. Dictionaries are typically better indicators of common usage than an obscure court case.

"
But we must recognize that forfeiture of a right by the bearer does NOT supersede the inalienable right. If I say "I give up my right to abortion", you cannot forbid me one if later I have a change of heart. A temporary waiving of my right to one does not make it alienable by any logic."
You didn't specify temporary in that statement. If you give something up, and no period of time is mentioned, it is assumed to be permanent.

"
Because one opposes a right does not make the persons right to what they oppose inalienable. Do I give up my right to life because I support capital punishment? I am violating another's right to life by condoning it, but the criminal voluntarily forfeited their right to life"
If they forfeit it, you aren't violating it. You cannot violate what is not present.
If, however, you support (or execute on your own authority perhaps :D) capital punishment of people who have not forfeited it (abortionists, say :D), you have forfeited it by that support. And all other rights, since all rights exist as consequences of human nature being calculated with the right to life.
Debate Round No. 2
jjmd280

Pro

Lesson learned. Thanks for it. As my statement was not properly defined, and lead to misconception - I forfeit. Thank you to my opponent for educating me in the art of debate, and I hope to debate him again in the future. Exactly why I began this debate - to learn. Thanks again.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

And thank you, my good opponent, for learning. So few are willing to do so :D
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by jjmd280 8 years ago
jjmd280
This was my first initiated debate - I learned a lot - thanks for the comments.
Posted by Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
Before/After: Con

Conduct: Con
Pro forfeited a debate I felt he was winning.

Convincing arguments: Pro
Though Pro forfeited his final argument, Con did not follow up with one- so disregarding R3, I believe Pro's R2 argument was the most convincing of all. I still disagree with Pro- inalienable rights do not require the support of law. Abortion definitely needs the support of law. We don't need laws to be written to live and be happy, though laws punishing the violators of those rights do exist, there are no laws punishing someone who doesn't allow a woman to get an abortion, unless they violate another law.

Sources: Con
Inalienable rights do not require law to support them.
Posted by InquireTruth 8 years ago
InquireTruth
Conduct: Pro (it takes balls to admit you're toast)
S/G: Tie
C/A: Con
Sources: Con
Posted by KRFournier 8 years ago
KRFournier
My vote:

Conduct: Tie.
Spelling and Grammar: Tie.
Convincing Arguments: Con. Pro forfeited.
Sources: Con.
Posted by scissorhands7 8 years ago
scissorhands7
Since this was a foreit all points to Con
Posted by Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
"All rights are alienable- by the action of the rights-bearer, in waiving that right directly or in invalidating it by violating someone else's rights."

Whoops, forgot.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"f a woman has ever stood outside an abortion clinic, blocking the path to the abortionist for someone else, she does not have the right to abortion"

To clarify--- this refers to abortion protests, deliberately blocking the path to abortion all day long, and the like. Not to, say, a bit of rudeness in going slow along the path. :D
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
No, Rezz. Since this is not JJ's first debate, he does not get a free pass, I will argue the resolution as written...
Posted by Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
...........aren't rights inalienable by definition?
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by starkmad 8 years ago
starkmad
jjmd280Ragnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
jjmd280Ragnar_RahlTied
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:32 
Vote Placed by metalhead62 8 years ago
metalhead62
jjmd280Ragnar_RahlTied
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 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
jjmd280Ragnar_RahlTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by InquireTruth 8 years ago
InquireTruth
jjmd280Ragnar_RahlTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:11 
Vote Placed by jjmd280 8 years ago
jjmd280
jjmd280Ragnar_RahlTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by KRFournier 8 years ago
KRFournier
jjmd280Ragnar_RahlTied
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