The Instigator
MysticEgg
Pro (for)
Tied
6 Points
The Contender
Weiler
Con (against)
Tied
6 Points

Abortion should be legal

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...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/3/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 656 times Debate No: 38431
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

MysticEgg

Pro

Welcome, everyone!

This is a reinstatement of a debate I did with my opponent, Weiler, which ended in nothingness, essentially. So, I hope to rectify this fact in this debate. A re-match, if you will!


The resolution is: Abortion should be legal.

Weiler will take the Con position on this resolution.

I should hope we are good enough to be able to get past semantics and thus not need to define it. If my opponent would prefer I define it, however, I would ask him to post a comment.

So, onto the rules:

1) The burden of proof will be on Pro and Con to show why abortion should be legal and illegal, respectively.
2) There can be no "Vote Pro" or "Vote Con" at the end of the debate unless one of the debaters conceded.
3) A forfeit of a round will be an automatic loss of conduct; a forfeit of a round will only be an automatic loss of conduct.
4) The first round can be for acceptance only. If that is the case then the debate shall continue normally. If my opponent wishes to use the first round for opening contention(s), however, then Weiler must put - and only put - "No argument posted here as agreed" for his round three post.

I believe that's all, so if anyone has any questions, please feel free to post a comment! Good luck to Weiler et al. Allez!

Weiler

Con

I accept your challenge, and the rules as stated above.

I look forward to a spirited and respectful debate.
Debate Round No. 1
MysticEgg

Pro

Thanks to Con for accepting this debate today. I wish him the best of luck.

The resolution is whether abortion should be legal or not. I will give one example of why abortion should be legal, and if I do not receive a concession; I will introduce a second contention in round two. ((Yes, I'm that confident!))


Contention One: Maternal Deaths
Maternal deaths are when the death of the mother will occur while pregnant. Often, if the pregnancy is allowed to be continued - the mother will die. However, if an abortion is carried out, the mother will live. This can happen, in the case of eclampsia or infections[1]

So, allow me to present Con with two scenarios:

1) In scenario one, the act of abortion is illegal and thus, the pregnancy cannot be terminated early. As a result, the mother dies. Also, due to the lack of almost everything for the child, the child will die as well. Con would present a case - willing or no - where this hideous scenario could play out.

2) Now for another scenario, the one I'm for, where abortion is legal. To everyone's sadness, the foetus will die due to the termination of the pregnancy. HOWEVER, the mother might still live. Therefore, in all likelihood, we have only lost one life.

It is important to recognise that in both scenarios, the foetus will die. This is unavoidable and thus, objectively speaking, irrelevant. What is relevant? The life of the mother. In the case I am presenting, I give this mother a chance to live. In Con's case, we have a dead mother on our hands because abortion would be illegal. I would ask Con to justify why abortion should be illegal even though the foetus dies either way.

I do not see abortion as killing a child in all cases; I see abortion as saving a mother.

((I am not suggesting at all that Con wants this kind of thing to play out; I am merely demonstrating that the case Con is debating for - illegal abortion - it will play out.))

It is possible that Con accepts abortion to be legal under these circumstances. If that is the case, Con has conceded this debate, because the stance Con is taking "Abortion should be illegal" has no asterisks attached to it and nothing the rules changed this.

I will eagerly await my opponent's response(s)! Until next round!


Source(s):

[1]WHO report, 2005
Weiler

Con

My opponent seems to be hanging his argument to keep abortion legal on a commonly agreed upon exception to the laws banning abortion. His argument fails for two reasons.

1. We don't make laws based on rare exceptions. To do so would be absurd. For instance, that lethal force is permitted to defend yourself against an attacker, doesn't mean lethal force should be allowed for all other purposes, like keeping the neighbors poodle out of your rose garden (I hate that dog).

Abortions for medical reasons are rare. Less than 4% of all abortions are perform for any medical reason, life-threatening or not. [1]

2. My opponent stated very clearly that this was a reinstatement of our previous debate. If he will recall we agreed on the definition of abortion for the purposes of debate as "The intentional termination of a pregnancy by surgical procedure in which the death of the fetus is an intended result."[2] Since in this type of abortion the intended result is not the death of the fetus but the health of the mother, this does not fit the definition.

Sources

1. 1. Lawrence B. Finer, Lori F. Frowirth, Lindsay A. Dauphinee, Susheela Singh, and Ann M. Moore, "Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives," Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 37, no. 3 (September 2005): 110"18.

2. http://www.debate.org...
Debate Round No. 2
MysticEgg

Pro

Thanks to Con for his post; I'll respond.

Contention One: Maternal Deaths

"1. We don't make laws based on rare exceptions. To do so would be absurd. For instance, that lethal force is permitted to defend yourself against an attacker, doesn't mean lethal force should be allowed for all other purposes..."
In the same sense, abortion should be permitted in this situation; that is exactly what I'm arguing for! Permitted is being used as a synonym for legal here. My opponent appears to think I am using this a ground to permit abortion in all situations; I am not. This contention is to make abortion legal under those scenarios. Instead of refuting, my opponent has pointed out the obvious - which I agree with.

"Abortions for medical reasons are rare. Less than 4% of..." This is irrelevant.

My opponent second objection as to why my "argument fails" is based off semantics of "abortion".

Abortion (as we're defining it in this debate) is:
"The intentional termination of a pregnancy by surgical procedure in which the death of the f[o]etus is an intended result."[...Since in this type of abortion the intended result is not the death of the f[o]etus..."]

My opponent then tries to use the procedure where the death of the foetus is the intended result and show how it isn't. Semantics.

If a mother has an abortion (of any type), then by definition, the death of the foetus is the intended result. If it isn't then it's not an abortion by definition and thus my opponent is arguing against something that is pointless. ((It is rather ironic that my opponent mis-treats the definition of abortion to try and show how I have mis-treated the definition of abortion!))

True, the health of the mother might be at heart, but saying that there can be only one is a false dichotomy fallacy. There can be multiple intentions.

Extend contention.


My opponent mentioned self defence, so I will actually move onto my second contention:

Contention Two: Self-defence

This is an interesting one to ponder. Allow us to assume that if a woman is pregnant and she continues the pregnancy then she will suffer, physically and/or mentally. I do not mean that she will die, merely suffer.

So, what is causing this suffering? The pregnancy. What is causing the pregnancy? The foetus. Therefore, even if we assume that
(i) The foetus is living
(ii) The foetus is human
(iii) Killing the foetus is murder

We can justify abortion as a form of self-defence to protect physical and mental well-being. As a comparison, turn the pregnancy into a pointed, loaded gun, and the foetus as the person wielding it. Is killing the person wielding it a justified form of self-defence? My opponent and I seem to both agree. Therefore, this is a justified situation.

This can be extended to any form of abortion if a woman's or girl's mental or physical health would be damaged and/or forfeited.

Reminder: I would like to offer a friendly reminder to my opponent that he has not met his burden yet, because all he has done is attempt to refute my first contention and not introduced any of his own. if he wishes to fulfil his burden, he must introduce at least one contention.


Lastly, I would like to extend a thank you to my opponent, the audience, and the voters for this fun and interesting debate! Please vote and I'll see you all around!

J
Weiler

Con

My point on it being a rare exception, is that all laws have exceptions. Therefore, if we were debating "Murder should be legal", the argument about self-defense would be irrelevant. Since my opponent seems to concede, at least for this debate, that "(i) The foetus is living; (ii) The foetus is human; [and] (iii) Killing the foetus is murder", his self defense argument fails. In conceding this my opponent also makes my contention for me.

The definition of abortion we agreed on was not for the purpose of a semantic argument. Since "abortion" can apply to any termination of pregnancy, even a C-section, or a "spontaneous abortion" like a miscarriage, in which case, neither of us, I believe would argue should result in an arrest.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by MysticEgg 3 years ago
MysticEgg
Good debate, Weiler! I would point out, however, that I never conceded it; I just said that *even if we consider* xyz etc...
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Murphy348834 3 years ago
Murphy348834
MysticEggWeilerTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con use a source, even if it WAS to clarify a debate premise. Conduct to Con since Pro's entry in the comments section did seem like he was trying to clarify an argument.
Vote Placed by Projectid 3 years ago
Projectid
MysticEggWeilerTied
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: Pros arguments were well explained and were more convincing. The Con never refuted the Pros arguments and gave no counter arguments in favor for abortion to deemed illegal.
Vote Placed by Valar_Morghulis 3 years ago
Valar_Morghulis
MysticEggWeilerTied
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: The debate rules don't really make sense. The Pro always has the burden of proof except in rare circumstances. Pro provided more concise and clear arguments. Con failed to make a strong case for the banning of abortion and just played semantic games. Spelling and grammar errors abound.