The Instigator
Charr
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Con (against)
Winning
17 Points

Abortion is immoral.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
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 5 votes the winner is...
Danielle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/24/2010 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,235 times Debate No: 14132
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (22)
Votes (5)

 

Charr

Pro

I thank whomever takes this debate.

I will allow my opponent to define the moral principals we are dealing with, to a reasonable extent, but reserve the right to contest them if I choose. I will also allow my opponent to have the first round. No semantics. No utilitarianism. No forfeiting.
Danielle

Con

Thanks, Pro.

I think it's bad conduct when an instigator with the burden of proof shifts the obligation onto the contender to make the first argument, or set up the parameters for the debate. Pro is the one who must prove that abortion is immoral, so I technically need not post a round since there's nothing for me to critique about his assessment thus far. Nevertheless I'll bite (I'm accepting the debate as-is after all :P ) and present an introduction. Before we begin I'd like to ask Pro whether or not he considers birth control to also be immoral, as it may pertain to one of my future arguments. So without further adieu, I'll present my brief opening round...

A person - not a fetus - has rights. Therefore the mother's rights trump the non-existent rights of the fetus. Just because the fetus is a living thing does not mean it necessarily has the right to life. For example, plants are living yet we kill those all the time. As such, it seems that a particular level of conscious determines whether or not one indeed has the right to life. While plants are conscious, they do not posses this right.

Another example is those with severe brain damage. A living person with brain death is considered legally deceased [1]. As Bernard Gert - the Stone Professor of Intellectual and Moral Philosophy at Dartmouth College – points out, simply being alive does not have inherit value in itself. It is the ability to have a conscious experience of the world that is important [2] (via Freeman). Richard Carrier writes, "Until the 20th week, the cut-off date for an actual 'abortion' to occur, there is no complex cerebral cortex and no major central nervous activity. That is a condition universally regarded as a state of death in adults. An adult human being in such a state cannot really be 'killed,' just unplugged [3].

To force a woman to utilize her body in certain ways against her will is immoral. Abortion is an issue about rights: rights to privacy, medical sovereignty, property, etc. Requiring a woman to take unnecessary risks with her life and body - and pregnancy ALWAYS greatly increases medical risks - is indicative of slavery and a blatant infringement upon her rights. While I have innumerable other arguments (or rather defenses) in mind, I'll allow my opponent to make his case before assuming what his criticisms of abortion might be. For now I'll conclude with the simple notion that it is not immoral to kill a fetus because it does not have the right to life.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] Gert, Bernard. Common Morality: Deciding What to Do. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2004. p. 30.
[3] http://faculty.cua.edu...
Debate Round No. 1
Charr

Pro

Jeez. This is rather nerve racking. :B

Okay, so irrelevant fact, but I'm actually playing devil's advocate here. So don't get the wrong impression, I'm not actually as imposing or self-righteous as I may seem. Also, if I may make a correction, I am referring abortions in the normal case, after consensual, fully informed sex, and not abortions in rape cases and other obscure occurrences.

Yes, and I don't consider Birth Control to be immoral. And I'll keep in that mind and try to provide an opening argument next time. So without further "ado"...

===Con's Case===

1. The mother has the right to abortion.

My opponent opens with "...the mother's rights trump the non-existent rights of the fetus."

I agree. The mother should have a right to abort. However, this is irrelevant. If we see a person on the street suffering from a heart attack, it is within our rights to ignore him. Does this mean that said course of action is moral? Yes, the mother has the CHOICE to an abortion, but there are moral and immoral choices, leading to moral and immoral outcomes.

Yes, the mother has the choice to abortion, but this is not a matter of choice, but rather a matter of morals. So unless my opponent is trying to lay this as a premise for something, rights don't prove anything in this matter.

2. A fetus is not at a certain level of sentience, and therefore does not have the right to live.

My opponent claims "Just because the fetus is a living thing does not mean it necessarily has the right to life... a particular level of conscious determines whether or not one indeed has the right to life. While plants are conscious, they do not posses this right.". To back up this statement, she points out that "A living person with brain death is considered legally deceased", and concludes that the fetus is not a person.

However, this argument was made without thorough consideration. For every living human being will pass through periods of sleep. Does this mean that during these periods, we lose our rights as a human being and are no longer considered human? Does this mean that we pass one third of our life, "legally deceased"? Does this mean that the murder of a comatose patient is perfectly moral?

No. The true factor in determining who or what has the right to life is probably the POTENTIAL for sentience. A brain dead person does not have a feasible chance to regain consciousness. Therefore, he/she is legally deceased. An inert or comatose patient has the POTENTIAL for regaining consciousness. Therefore he/she has the right to life. A fetus is likely to gain this certain level of consciousness, therefore it should be treated with the rights and privileges any human should have.

===Pro's Case===

I have quite a simple case, in reality.

1. Intentionally inflicting harm for the sake of expediency is immoral (Premise)
2. If an unwanted pregnancy is achieved through consensual sex, the child is held within the responsibility of the guardians. (Premise)
3. In an abortion, the mother is trying to escape responsibility by the inflicting harm on another human life.
4. Abortion is immoral. (Conclusion)

So instead of abortion, why not opt for the more moral alternative? Although evading responsibility in itself is sketchy, adoption is a safe way of eliminating unnecessary responsibility without the moral consequences.

===Conclusion===

My opponent claims in her conclusion "To force a woman to utilize her body in certain ways against her will is immoral.".

This is not true. My opponent might as well say that to force a man into prison and strip him of common rights is immoral. In the case of unwanted pregnancy through consensual sex, the woman ACKNOWLEDGES that she may have to utilize her body in certain ways against her will as a potential consequence. Just like how an embezzler acknowledges that he/she may face prison as a potential consequence. Unless my opponent can prove that prison for offenders is immoral, her statement is invalid.

Thank you.
Danielle

Con

Many thanks to my opponent for his prompt response and compliments :)

== Re: CON's Case ==

1. Pro's first response is that while the mother has the right to abort a fetus, it's not necessarily the moral option. However my opponent hasn't provided a moral framework (ethical system) to justify this argument. For example, if I utilize the value of ethical egoism as my moral framework, this argument of Pro's fails on the grounds that said doctrine espouses "the virtue of selfishness." In that case, aborting the fetus would actually be the moral thing to do.

2. Pro's next argument is that conciousness does not determine the right to life. He supposes that the potential for sentience is what does. This is not true for several reasons. For example, a male ejaculates sperm when he orgasms. That sperm has the *potential* for sentience, so is it immoral for a male to masturbate which prohibits this endeavorer? Obviously not. Pro continues," Does this mean that during these periods [of sleep], we lose our rights as a human being and are no longer considered human [because we're not conscious]?" Apparently my opponent is unaware of the fact that humans are in fact conscious during sleep [1].

== Re: PRO's Case ==

My opponent presents a syllogism and I will dissect his premises one by one.

1. Intentionally inflicting harm for the sake of expediency is immoral.

When I pull off a band-aid, I intentionally rip it off very fast (causing pain) for the sake of expediency. Is this immoral? There are countless other examples of a similar nature. This premise is discounted on the basis of its ambiguity.

2. If an unwanted pregnancy is achieved through consensual sex, the child is held within the responsibility of the guardians.

A) Quite obviously my first response is going to be -- what if unwanted pregnancy occurs through non-consensual means? It would be irresponsible to suggest I must defend this, as that was never clarified in the opening round (Hence why it's important to actually present a case in R1), meaning I never agreed to that standard in accepting this debate. The resolution is not specific in that regard. PRO would therefore have to argue that ALL abortion is immoral regardless of circumstance.

B) I question my opponent's choice of words here. Guardians are not synonymous with biological parents. Nevertheless, this is a faulty premise. PRO says the "child" is held within the responsibility of guardians. However a fetus is not a child, so this premise does not apply to abortion anyway.

3. In an abortion, the mother is trying to escape responsibility by the inflicting harm on another human life.

This contention is entirely presumptuous. If consensual sex caused pregnancy, but the parents knew the baby would be born with catastrophic birth defects, they may opt to have an abortion and not simply want to shrug off responsibility. People make this decision for a plethora of reasons - many of them responsible.

4. Abortion is immoral.

As you can see, this syllogism is null and void on the basis of faulty premises, therefore this conclusion does not logically follow. PRO continues, "So instead of abortion, why not opt for the more moral alternative? Although evading responsibility in itself is sketchy, adoption is a safe way of eliminating unnecessary responsibility without the moral consequences." First, pro hasn't proven that abortion is immoral to begin with, so we have no reason to believe that there even is a more moral alternative. Second, it's once again presumptuous to suggest abortion only occurs to avoid responsibility. Finally, I've explained in the last round that pregnancy always creates risks. As such, it's not true that all pregnancies are necessarily "safe" (especially depending on particular circumstances).

== Re: Conclusion ==

PRO's conclusion is ridiculous. He determines that I must prove sending a prisoner to jail is immoral in order to justify my claim that a woman has the right to self-ownership of her own body. Ignoring the fact that I DO have a lot of moral concerns of the prison system, these two examples are not at all analogous. If someone is sent to jail, it's because they (a) committed a crime against another person, or (b) broke the law. Since abortion is not against the law, and because the fetus is not a person (PRO hasn't argued as such thus far) then it makes no sense to punish a woman as you would punish a criminal by stripping them of their rights via force. They've seemingly done nothing wrong, as they have not infringed on another person's rights. In actuality, a fetus is more likened to a parasite than a person.

== CON's Conclusion ==

PRO is suggesting women should be FORCED to carry a baby to term against their will. This is far more immoral than aborting a fetus with the potential for human life, as it actually violates the rights of a conscious, living person. Since the fetus is not conscious enough to understand or appreciate their existence, they are not losing anything by ceasing to exist (as a person) in the first place. Moreover, my opponent suggests that he does not consider birth control to be immoral. However many forms of contraception rely on terminating pregnancies such as Plan B [2]. Therefore it's hypocritical to suggest birth control is permissible but abortion is not.

Thank you.

Source:

1. Kolb, Bryan, and Ian Whishaw. An Introduction to Brain and Behavior. 2nd. New York: Worth Publishers, 2006. 454. Print.

2. www.PlanBOneStep.com
Debate Round No. 2
Charr

Pro

Well. I see you've managed to make it on time. :B

===CON's case===

1. Rights

"Pro's first response is that while the mother has the right to abort a fetus, it's not necessarily the moral option. However my opponent hasn't provided a moral framework (ethical system) to justify this argument."

I do not need to. Con is clearly confused.

Argument started with Con saying that a woman's rights overrule the fetus', and therefore abortion is within the woman's rights.

Pro responded by labeling said argument as IRRELEVANT, not by reaffirming the resolution. Point is irrelevant because not all lawful actions are considered immoral, as mentioned above. Therefore, unless my opponent wishes to challenge my premise, rights do not prove or strengthen con's case.

2. Sentience

Con's response to my preposition to what makes us human by questioning whether masturbation is immoral also since "sperm has the *potential* for sentience". I suppose this means that under my opponent's beliefs, a puddle of sperm trapped within a plastic container could somehow develop the same amount of consciousness as any other human being.

What my opponent fails to realize is that sperm, on it's own, does not have the potential for sentience. Sperm, combined with an egg, which is an EMBRYO, has the potential for sentience. Therefore, under my definition, male masturbation is NOT immoral.

However, under my opponent's definition of what makes us human, which is simply a "a particular level of conscious determines whether or not one indeed has the right to life", any person in an even TEMPORARY state of unconsciousness loses his/her rights as a human being. Ergo, my opponent believes that if at any time I should faint, I lose my right to live, making the murder of a temporarily unconscious person legal.

Instead of responding to the obvious flaws in con's definition of "human", she chooses to ignore it, dismissing all counter arguments by asserting that "my opponent is unaware of the fact that humans are in fact conscious during sleep".

Here my opponent makes a deliberate misinterpretation of my words. If you scroll up and read through my original argument, nowhere have I stated that humans are unconscious during sleep. It is simply my opponents assumption. What my opponent must realize is that dream and sleep renders us to a REDUCED state of consciousness, which is similar to that of animals.[1] Therefore, under my opponents beliefs, the murder of a sleeping human is comparable to the killing of a dolphin, of a primate, of any animal capable of reaching primary consciousness.

So until my opponent is capable of coming up with a FEASIBLE alternative to my definition of what makes us human, the fetus should be considered a human and treated with equal rights.

3. Safety

My opponents last point is that "[not all] pregnancies are necessarily 'safe'". However, as my opponent has not cited any source to prove said point, this is just another of con's subjective, unverifiable claims. In fact, a recent study from Finland shows that abortion has four times the mortality rate compared to normal pregnancies.[2]

And even with pregnancy risks and complications, pregnancy itself is a consequence of the woman's choices, as I will point out below. Therefore, these risks are negligible as they come as an ensuing consequence.

===PRO's Case===

Harrumph. I see that my ambiguity is costing me dearly.

Please allow me to rephrase my points.

1. Intentionally inflicting harm >on others< for the sake of expediency >for oneself< is immoral.

2. The fetus is held within the responsibility of the biological parents.

3. In an abortion, the mother is trying to escape responsibility by the inflicting harm on another human life.

Con labels this statement as presumptuous, pointing out that "[if] the baby would be born with catastrophic birth defects, they [the parents] may opt to have an abortion". However, as my opponent does not explain why this is an example of not avoiding responsibility, this point is invalid until further notice.

My opponent also claims that there could potentially be a "plethora of reasons". However, since she only mentions one FAULTY example, these unmentioned reasons should be discounted until further notice.

4. Abortion is immoral.

As you can see, the revised syllogism can now be considered valid and free of any faulty premises. Therefore, the conclusion is valid.

===Conclusion===

My opponent claims "He [pro] determines that I must prove sending a prisoner to jail is immoral in order to justify my claim [abortion is not a consequence] ... these two examples are not at all analogous.".

Con is clearly mistaken here. I am not comparing the effects or causes of jail to pregnancy, I am using the two examples to prove that the detrimental effects of pregnancy are natural consequences of the individual's actions. However, seeing as my opponent is incapable of comprehending the analogy, I am willing to supply another one.

Let us compare abortion to eating chocolates, and the pregnancy risks and term to gaining weight. The woman is not forced to eat the chocolates, and she knows that eating them will probably cause her to gain weight, and she doesn't want to gain weight. However, she eats the chocolates anyway, and, not surprisingly, she gains weight. Does the woman have any right to complain about the weight gain when it is clearly a CONSEQUENCE of her actions?

Now, let us apply this to abortion. Does my opponent have any right to complain that "To force a woman to utilize her body in certain ways against her will is immoral", when it is clearly a consequence of the woman's actions that the outcome is not to her liking?

In her conclusion, con also claims that "it's hypocritical to suggest birth control is permissible but abortion is not.", asserting that "Plan B" (The morning after pill) works similarly to an abortion. Unfortunately, attune to my opponent's previous arguments, she is once again making assertions on things she does not understand.

Plan B actually works by DELAYING the egg from ovulation, killing the sperm.[4] That's why PLAN B DOESN'T WORK IF YOU ARE ALREADY PREGNANT.

Thank you.

===Sources===

1.http://www.neurologyreviews.com...
2.http://www.pregnantpause.org...
Danielle

Con

Danielle forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Charr

Pro

As my opponent could not extend my arguments, I will take this opportunity to summarize the arguments and wrap up any loose ends.

===CON's Case===

1. Rights

Recall that Con starts off by making a case about the rights of the women overruling the rights of the fetus. However, RIGHTS are not relevant to MORALS. A lawful course of action does not necessarily insinuate that said course of action is morally reasonable.

Ergo, this case is invalid, and should not have any weight on this debate.

2. Sentience

Con opens with "plants are living yet we kill those all the time... it seems that a particular level of conscious determines whether or not one indeed has the right to life".

However, my opponent overlooks the fact that we can gain and lose sentience throughout our life. Examples of this would be sleeping, fainting, falling into a coma, etc. That being said, I proposed that the "POTENTIAL for sentience" should define whether the organism is considered a person.

However, INSTEAD of coming up with a proper defense for her assertion, Con chooses to dismiss the entire argument by saying "humans are in fact conscious during sleep". (Notice that she attempts to ignore the "coma" argument, and avoids going in depth altogether as well.)

Pertaining to this, one must note that, while humans ARE conscious during sleep, sleeping results in a state of MINIMAL consciousness. [1] This level of consciousness, known as primary consciousness, is at par (or below, even) with the consciousness of animals. At this point, I would like to question if Con believes that during the duration of a nap, we lose our rights as a human being.

Con's assertion does not encompass these points.

Furthermore, even if Con chooses to argue that humans retain their rights as a person because of PREVIOUS consciousness, or anything along those lines, the VERY FACT that one can acquire sentience, lose it (Or partially, at least), and regain it again while still being considered human all the while PROVES that there is some form of personal unity beneath all of this, and that sentience is NOT a defining factor of what makes us human.

Instead of acknowledging these points and refuting them properly, my opponent seeks to challenge my definition instead. She says that "... a male ejaculates sperm when he orgasms... sperm has the *potential* for sentience, so is it immoral for a male to masturbate [?]". However, this would imply that Con believes that any puddle of sperm, without any external interference, has the same potential for sentience as any other fetus. Now, we all know that sperm, WITH an EGG (the EMBRYO) has the potential for sentience, so it is NOT immoral to masturbate and Con has NOT managed to properly refute my statement.

3. Risks

My opponent's last argument is that "[not all] pregnancies are necessarily 'safe'". Unfortunately, any pregnancy complication is simply a CONSEQUENCE of the woman's actions, as I have shown above. Additionally, most sources would state that abortion has FOUR TIMES the mortality rate of regular pregnancies. [2]

Ergo, even if my opponent's point is valid, which it's NOT, it would be illegitimate.

4. Consistency

My opponent's last point is that it's "hypocritical to suggest birth control is permissible but abortion is not.", because "many forms of contraception rely on terminating pregnancies such as Plan B".

Apparently, my opponent is not aware that contraceptives work by PREVENTING pregnancy. NO contraceptive method will terminate pregnancy. If my opponent would take the time to look through her OWN SOURCES, she might realize that "Plan B" works by DELAYING the egg-sperm contact, and killing off the sperm. [3] What my opponent is mistakenly referring to is actually what is known as an "abortion pill", or "mifepristone", which is NOT a contraceptive.

===PRO's Case===

1. Intentionally inflicting harm on others for the sake of expediency for oneself is immoral.

2.The fetus is held within the responsibility of the biological parents.

3. In an abortion, the mother is trying to escape responsibility by the inflicting harm on another human life.

4. Abortion is immoral.

My opponent challenges point three by saying "If consensual sex caused pregnancy, but the parents knew the baby would be born with catastrophic birth defects, they may opt to have an abortion and not simply want to shrug off responsibility". However, Con must realize that it is ONLY because the biological parents acknowledge that the fetus was THEIR responsibility, are they opting for abortion.

===Conclusion===

My opponent ends with "Since the fetus is not conscious enough to understand or appreciate their existence, they are not losing anything by ceasing to exist". However, my opponent is confusing concepts of HARM and PAIN. PAIN is the outcome of HARM. Simply put, just because the fetus does NOT feel any PAIN, doesn't mean that HARM isn't done to them.

Moreover, using my opponent's logic, once could also claim that "Since the >Slumbering< are not conscious enough to understand and appreciate their existence, they are not losing anything by ceasing to exists", thus CONDONING the murder of the asleep. One can easily see the outright absurdity of such a statement.

I would like to conclude by saying that even though I obviously cannot match my opponents eloquent oratory style, I have done my best to make solid points in the midst of such an unbalanced debate. I thank my opponent for the opportunity to gain further insight on the structuring of debates.

Thank you.

===Sources===

1.http://www.neurologyreviews.com......
2.http://www.pregnantpause.org......
3. http://www.planbonestep.com...
Danielle

Con

Sorry for the missed round - I accept the loss of conduct point.

== Re: CON's Case ==

1. Pro says he doesn't have to provide a moral framework for justifying the ideal that abortion is immoral. This is absurd. He absolutely must, though he has not done so. What's his value here? Utalitarianism? Deontological ethics? I pointed out that utilizing ethical egoism, choosing to abort the fetus is actually the moral option. Pro hasn't claimed that this was an immoral standard, therefore using that standard to justify abortion MUST be accepted. As such, I have proven that abortion is NOT immoral. I have fulfilled my burden; the debate is technically over and you should vote CON.

Nevertheless...

Pro writes, "Not all lawful actions are considered immoral... unless my opponent wishes to challenge my premise, rights do not prove or strengthen Con's case." This is a completely random contention. I don't even know what premise he is talking about. The rights I am referring to have nothing to do with the law. It is my opponent's burden to prove that the fetus HAS THE RIGHT TO LIFE. That has nothing to do with the current law, but what the law SHOULD be. My opponent must prove through *some means* that abortion is IMMORAL. Without proving the fetus has the right to life, abortion cannot be immoral because there would be no person suffering on behalf of the immoral act. Is throwing a rock on the floor immoral? No. Is throwing a fetus on the floor immoral? It was Pro's burden to prove that it is. He has not justified the resolution.

2. Pro says that embryos have sentience and sperm do not, therefore terminating an embryo is immoral. An embryo is merely the fertilization of an egg with sperm. Neither by themselves constitute the right to life by Pro's own standards. He did not explain why the two coming together specifically constitutes the right to life whereas separately they do not. My claim has been that when consciousness is recognized by the fetus, personhood is established and the right to life comes into fruition. Rights do not pertain to the potential of what could be - only to what actually is. Since Pro hasn't proven personhood begins at conception, we have no reason to recognize a fetus' rights. The rights of the born take precedent over the un-born. Who has the right to dictate to a woman what she is to make of the functions of her own body? Such force would be a blatant violation of her rights. Therefore, abortion is not immoral.

Sentience is the ability to feel or perceive [1]. I'm assuming Pro is referring to the fetus' ability to feel pain. Researchers from the University of California concluded in a meta-analysis of data from dozens of medical reports and studies that fetuses are unlikely to feel pain until the third trimester of pregnancy [2]. There is an emerging consensus among developmental neurobiologists that the establishment of thalamocortical connections (at about 26 weeks) is a critical event with regard to fetal perception of pain [3]. This means that only late term abortion would therefore be immoral even by Pro's standard.

Moving on, my opponent claims that I have ignored a flawed description of what makes someone "human." Nowhere did I ever claim that only conscious beings were human. I challenge my opponent to quote me saying that anywhere in the debate; if he can rise to the challenge and post it in the comments section, I will vote for him. The fact remains that he has not provided any coherent definition or description of personhood, which was paramount to this discussion. Moreover, he completely misrepresents my arguments and once again draws the same illogical conclusion that people lose rights if they faint and are no longer conscious. I obviously don't think sleeping people lose their rights because they are in an altered state of conscious. However if they have never BEEN considered a person to begin with (and we have no reason to assume they are, since Pro never explained why they should be) then it doesn't make sense to give them rights we wouldn't give to another who was in a similar position of non-conscious - like say someone who was brain dead.

3. Risks

Pro writes, "Unfortunately, any pregnancy complication is simply a CONSEQUENCE of the woman's actions, as I have shown above." This is completely inaccurate. Pro has NOT proven that, as quite obviously women often become pregnant against their will -- i.e., via faulty birth control, rape, etc. As I've already explained, my opponent has the burden of proving abortion is immoral in ALL cases. He apparently acknowledges this burden as he's never challenged that reality. As such, it was his obligation to prove that a woman must be forced to carry a pregnancy to term regardless of any associated risks, including the condition of her health or the fetus' health. I've argued that a woman has the right to determine whether or not it is worth the risk of keeping a seriously ill and defective fetus - especially if her own life was seriously threatened. The resolution is making an absolute moral claim: that abortion is wrong in EVERY scenario. That has simply not been justified.

4. Consistency

Pro was a bit condescending here, demanding "NO contraceptive method will terminate pregnancy." However physicians across America have determined that birth control pills, IUDs, Depo-Provera, Norplant, etc. cause outright abortions [4, 5]. Therefore, extend all of my arguments regarding inconsistency.

== Re: PRO's Case ==

After negating his syllogism, my opponent has changed his premises to:

1. Intentionally inflicting harm >on others< for the sake of expediency >for oneself< is immoral.

----> Pro has not proven that a fetus should count as an "other" with rights, so this premise is irrelevant.

2.The fetus is held within the responsibility of the biological parents.

----> False. The fetus is held within the responsibility of the MOTHER. Thus, the mother has the right to determine what happens to the fetus, which I've explained has a parasitic relationship with the mother host on whom it relies to live. Extend my arguments regarding the mother's right to govern her own body, and her right to not have anyone else force her to sustain a fetus at her expense.

3. In an abortion, the mother is trying to escape responsibility by the inflicting harm on another human life.

----> Once again, this is incredibly presumptious. Extend my arguments regarding a mother's many reasons for making this difficult choice. Pro also presumes to know my response, noting "Con must realize that it is ONLY because the biological parents acknowledge that the fetus was THEIR responsibility, are they opting for abortion." However I never denied the mother's biological responsibility; see point 2. The mother has a responsibility to make a choice and live with it, however she is not necessarily responsible to make sure the fetus is born.

4. Abortion is immoral.

I've negated both Pro's original and second syllogism, thus this has proven to be an illogical conclusion.

== Re: CONCLUSION ==

Pro says harm can be done to the fetus, even if it does not feel pain. I agree, though Pro has not explained why the fetus has a right to remain unharmed. If rights are not being violated, abortion cannot be immoral. Ex: I am not violating a rock's life by smashing it on the ground, doing so is not immoral. Again, Pro hasn't described personhood and when rights are established or why. I also reject his repetition that sleeping people do not have rights; see Con's Point 2.

With that said, I'd like to thank Pro for the opportunity to debate such a competent opponent - he's definitely been my favorite on this issue thus far. Good luck!

[1] http://tinyurl.com...
[2] http://tinyurl.com...
[3] Johnson, Martin and Everitt, Barry. Essential Reproduction. Blackwell: 2000. p. 215.
[4] http://tinyurl.com...
[5] http://tinyurl.com...
Debate Round No. 4
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by theorusso 6 years ago
theorusso
Fetus's are not technically alive, they can be compared to a virus. Neither one can survive without a host.
Posted by Danielle 6 years ago
Danielle
Haha - I completely forgot about this. Right after Christmas there was a huge blizzard in NY. I couldn't get out of the house (the city was literally at a stand-still for awhile; no streets were plowed - there was chaos). I was visiting with my grandparents who don't have internet, hence the missed round. Then after New Years Eve I was recovering for 4 days (lol) and didn't make it on DDO by choice. But I still have a few hours to post a final round, so I will... thanks for reminding me :)
Posted by Charr 6 years ago
Charr
Go to her profile.
Posted by dinokiller 6 years ago
dinokiller
There must be something up. theLwerd never forfeited a round let alone trying to lose after getting into something.
Posted by Superboy777 6 years ago
Superboy777
feel srry for theLwerd since New York is a dump right now
Posted by Superboy777 6 years ago
Superboy777
sure....

xD
Posted by dinokiller 6 years ago
dinokiller
lol i only said shes hawt. im not really interested in her :O
Posted by Freeman 6 years ago
Freeman
@Charr

I wasn't trying to give her advice. I was just trying to steal her thunder as if I were Kanye West. --->
Posted by Superboy777 6 years ago
Superboy777
to dinokiller

lol u interested?
Posted by Superboy777 6 years ago
Superboy777
Charr, suck it up

u are so screwed for this one

well, dont bite off more than u can chew
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Justin-L 6 years ago
Justin-L
CharrDanielleTied
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 
Vote Placed by steezfest 6 years ago
steezfest
CharrDanielleTied
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:16 
Vote Placed by Danielle 6 years ago
Danielle
CharrDanielleTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Vote Placed by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
CharrDanielleTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Vote Placed by nhq 6 years ago
nhq
CharrDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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