The Instigator
dipper
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
passwordstipulationssuck
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Abortion should only be legal until a way is found to safely bring an embryo to term in a lab.

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/16/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 484 times Debate No: 101034
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (0)

 

dipper

Pro

Anyone taking an unconditional stance on abortion, whether in favor of it or opposed to it, would potentially be an acceptable opponent for this debate. Pity that the system doesn't allow for three sides, because I'd ideally have liked to see one representative from each camp.

I'm approaching my position on this argument from a somewhat United States oriented ethical philosophy, so it would be helpful if you were generally accepting of US philosophies, at least in terms of the contents of the Declaration of Independence and US Constitution.

I have no particular "rules" for debate, other than that the goal should be to get as close to the top of the debate pyramid as possible (google 'debate pyramid' if you don't know what I'm talking about).
passwordstipulationssuck

Con

I am pleased to have such an interesting moral and philosophical debate and wish the warmest regards to my opponent.

First, we will establish some grounds for the debate. My opposition has stated that he does not have any real rules, however, I think some ground rules should be established.
1. no ad hominems (personal attacks)
2. no trolling.
3. arguments should be both serious and coherent.
4 no new arguments in the pros final rebuttal (as con will have no chance for rebuttal)

to begin, I will state my position on the debate. I am not in favor of abortion in any instance except for when it endangers the life of the mother. therefore, we shall make abortion illegal until such time as the embryo can be developed safely in an alternate environment. there are a number of moral arguments to the debate.

the first moral argument is that scientifically the human fetus meets the criterion to be considered alive from conception (1)" Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."

now that we have established that the human life begins at conception I may be faced with the argument from many in favor of abortion that though the organism forming in the womb is alive (if they don't fully reject the known science thus committing fallacy) that it is not a person. this leads me to moral argument number two which is: even if you don't consider the humanity of the organism in the womb, there are plenty of things that exist that are A. not persons. and B. has rights and intrinsic value, for example, dogs or other domesticated animals. To state that simply because you don't consider the human fetus (which is what I shall be referring to the developing child as hereinafter.) to be a person, does not mean that it does not have rights and value. Furthermore, even if you deny the humanity of the fetus, you are still dealing with a potential human life which should be held in higher moral regard than the convenience of the mother or father. Another argument that many of those on the pro-choice side of the argument is that women have the human right to control their bodies. And I am in complete agreement. When it is your body that you are doing something to then you should have every right to do so insofar as it's not self-harm. However, the human fetus is not your body. It is IN your body. as I stated in my first card in the scientific portion of my argument, the human fetus has a separate genetic identity with the restoration of the diploid number of chromosomes. therefore, the human fetus is not a part of the mother's body any more than the child would be after (s)he was born. I hold that the time to control your body would have been before conception IE: using birth control or not having sexual intercourse. one thing that society appears to have forgotten, is that sex is not for pleasure. it is the biological process through which most species ensure the continuation of their species through reproduction (2). if you choose to partake in an action the purpose of which is to reproduce. (thus controlling your body.) then you accept the risk of conception.

Moral argument number 3. does the fetus have any rights, any intrinsic value, and any right to live. well, the collective opinion of society is that the fetus has essentially infinite right to live. when? if and only if the mother decides to keep the child. if she does, society and its laws, regard the fetus with infinte worth and considers it so valuable, that if someone were to kill that child they would be prosecuted for homicide. keeping in mind that the definition of homicide is: the deliberate and unlawful killing of one person by another (3). we can, therefore see that if the mother decides to keep her child then the law recognizes it as a person. if she doesn't, the fetus is considered worthless with essentially no right to live. now, does that make sense? it doesn't seem to. either the fetus has worth, or it doesn't. on what moral grounds does the mother alone have the right to decide the fetus' worth?

most people would consider killing the baby once it exits the womb as murder. however, the deliberate killing of the fetus a mere two months before is no more morally problematic than extracting a tooth.

and finally, we need to recognize that there are instances when an abortion simply cannot be considered moral. take for example if the mother or father aborts a child because they prefer boys to girls. as has happened millions of times in China and elsewhere. or any other form of bias or preference of the mother or father simply cannot offer moral grounds for the termination of the human life.

I look forward to a rational and well thought out debate and wish my opponent the best of luck. I eagerly await your response.

(1) https://www.princeton.edu...
(2) www.biology-online.org
(3)www.dictionary.com
Debate Round No. 1
dipper

Pro

Greetings and warmest regards to my honored opponent.

Regarding the debate rules stated, they are mostly acceptable; I would challenge Rule #4, however, as it is factually inaccurate; were I to make a new argument in Round 4, Con would be amply able to rebutt it in their Round 4 reply. It is Con who should be refrained from new arguments in Round 4, as there is no Round 5 available for me to respond to any new argument.

My opponent makes the first moral argument that a human fetus meets the criteria to be considered alive at conception. I happily and eagerly cede this point; my argument in favor of abortion does not require the fetus to not be alive. My opponent's second argument presumes that I would declare the fetus a non-person; I don't, necessarily, but it is worth pursuing the fact that if I did consider it a non-person, then I would most certainly would not give it equivalent status to a domesticated animal. The most obvious comparison would be to that of a chicken egg, given that both are unformed versions of the animal that they are to become. Regardless, let us concede for the sake of debate that the fetus qualifies as a person.

My opponent states that a potential human life "should be held in higher moral regard than the convenience of the mother or father", and this is where our philosophies diverge. It has been stated, in the United States Declaration of Independence, that among the inalienable rights of people are the "right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". I therefore assert that, in terms of moral regard, the child's life and the mother's liberty carry equal weight. The insoluble dilemma of the abortion debate is that it brings these core rights into conflict; one cannot currently honor both, because the act of removing the fetus inevitably results in its death. The second that one can honor both of those, termination of the fetus becomes unacceptable, and human society has an obligation to deny a mother the right to terminate a fetus because, as a hypothetical example, abortion might be cheaper than transferring the baby to an artificial womb, or the woman has some emotional desire to ensure that she doesn't have some child "out there somewhere" that she doesn't know about, and aborting it would give her a greater peace of mind.

But we're not there yet, and until we get there, the simple fact remains that one of those two core concepts must be violated in favor of the other; the only question is which one takes precedence. My opponent argues that life trumps liberty; I respectfully disagree. Carrying a baby to term is not a "minor inconvenience"; it is an expensive, weighty prospect which overrules all sensibilites for roughly 2% of someone's lifespan (assuming an average lifespan of 75 years). It requires months of morning sickness, time off work, a more rigidly controlled diet, purchasing a maternity wardrobe, perhaps cessation of a smoking habit, and ultimately a truly legendary amount of pain (at least, women keep telling me I can never possibly imagine the amount of pain, so I have to assume so), followed by post-partem depression and about fifteen extra pounds to lose. My opponent argues that the fetus is IN the mother's body, rather than part of the mother's body, and that therefore the woman's right to control her own body isn't necessarily applicable. Putting aside for the moment all the physical changes I just described that quite definitely happen TO the woman's body as a result of pregnancy, this argument actually lines up perfectly with the philosophy I'm proposing: the mother/fetus relationship, viewed in this context, can be seen as something akin to a landlord/tenant dispute. If the property is also the landlord's primary place of residence (which her body clearly is), and the tenant has no lease (which the baby clearly doesn't), then society recognizes the right of the landlord to throw out the tenant at any time, for any reason or no reason, regardless of any detrimental effect this might have on the tenant. If there were a way for the baby to survive eviction, then we would be morally obligated to take that option, but such option does not currently exist. Until it does, the mother, as the citizen with seniority who will feel the burden for nearly a year, takes precedence over the fetus, who will be inconvenienced for all of a few minutes and likely not cognitively process it while it occurs.

It is worth pointing out, as an aside, that if all the money that anti-abortion organizations spent on rallying and lobbying and legal fees was instead devoted to the scientific research of finding a way for the fetus to survive in an artificial womb, the problem could very possibly have been solved years ago and all of those lives might have been saved as a result.

The remainder of my opponent's arguments fall into submoral caveats that fail to address the core principle stated above. The double standard regarding what qualifies as murder and what doesn't can just as easily be fixed by going the other way with it, and regarding whether or not the basis for someone's abortion choice is more or less petty, it is irrelevant to the principle that the woman's right to liberty is inherently superior to the child's right to life. That notion would have to be disproven for any of those moral sub-arguments to carry any weight.
passwordstipulationssuck

Con

I apologize for my misconceptions on the format of debates on this site. my rule 4 on arguments on final speeches was developed from prior experience with LD, PF, and policy debates and I cede to the change. I will first defend my own case then move on to attack my opponent's arguments.

1. My opponent has conceded that the child is indeed a person for the sake of debate, therefore we shall move directly to my second contention.

2. My opponent has stated that the liberty of the mother carries equal weight with the child's right to life. Liberty is defined by the Cambridge English Dictionary as the freedom to live as you wish and go where you want (1) however, we can see that this right to liberty does have limits. obviously, we can't just wander into people's houses or become rapists or murderers and not expect consequences. furthermore, the parents of the child did exercise their right to liberty when they engaged in sexual intercourse. they lived how they wanted and did what they wanted, now they have to deal with the consequences as we all do for any action for better or for worse. So we arrive at the question, is the child's right to life interchangeable with erasing the consequences of the parent's actions? it's also important to note that the Declaration of independence guarantees the pursuit of happiness not happiness itself. Next, he brings up a hypothetical in which it's too expensive to transfer the child to an artificial womb. as this is a theoretical technology I will make my argument on the closest available technology. surrogate mothers. while it is rather expensive to obtain a surrogate, if you can't afford it you will simply need to carry your child to term. On average, out of pocket expenses are at about 3,400$ for families with health insurance. (2) if you don't have health insurance or can't afford a 3,400$ expense, then I refer you back to my original argument on the purpose of sex. if you had sex and can't afford to carry a child, then you have made a drastic logical error and all I can tell you is to perhaps go to a local church or maternal charity. Most of them would give you financial aid.

3. My opponent argues that the child's right to simply exist, is not greater than the mothers "liberty" secondly, I never claimed that carrying a child is a minor inconvenience. it's a rather large one however, I still hold that the child's right to life is above it. and all of those things that my opponent mentioned that pregnancy entails are all true. If you aren't willing or ready to deal with them then I refer you again to the logical error. Also, the bit about kicking the smoking habit seems like a good thing to me. My opponents argument about pain can be attacked by my previous statement about consequences. if you do drugs, it will have a detrimental effect on your body. if you drink heavily the same is true. all of these actions have consequences. Having sex as I've mentioned is not for pleasure, is the same way. you engage in it for purposes other than reproducing you'd best be prepared for the consequences. For my opponents tenant-landlord analogy, I have this counter. the child does, in fact, have a lease. the lease is stated directly in the Declaration of Independence as cited by my opponent in his first case. The right to life. The right to merely exist in this world is the child's lease. also, I like the word "inconvenienced" my opponent used to describe abortion let's take a look at the "inconvenience" according to Dr.John Spencer, a child would likely have it's spine and skull crushed and it's body dismembered then be sucked out through a tube in little bloody pieces.(3) it's also important to note that scientific studies have shown that children can react to touch at 8 weeks.(4) the legal limit for abortions is 22-26 weeks.(5) long after pain receptors have been developed.

as for my opponent's final argument about the rate of research and pro-life funding, well maybe we're a little bit too wrapped up with the knowledge that 1.5 billion babies or roughly a quarter of the world's population have been aborted over the last 50 years which I do believe is significantly more than Hitler, Mao Zedong, and Josef Stalin combined. so we put our resources into preventing this while the era of motherless births draws closer.

sources.

(1) http://dictionary.cambridge.org...
(2)childbirthconnection.org
(3) Dr.John Spencer
(4)http://www.doctorsonfetalpain.com...
(5) theatlantic.com
Debate Round No. 2
dipper

Pro

It is hard to imagine that our planet could have adequately sustained another 1.5 billion people in the last fifty years. Certainly the American economy would have collapsed long ago in those circumstances.

But that's a conversation for a different debate.

My opponent raises the objection that the right to liberty is not without limitation. The argument is compelling; however, if one can place limitations upon the right to liberty, then can one not also place similar limitations on the right to life? And is it necessarily so unfair to presume that one of those limitations be that, until an individual is fully formed and formally birthed, their right to life is inherently inferior to the liberty of the mother? To put that another way, certainly a fetus is alive, but is it necessarily self-aware? To paraphrase René Descartes, it does not think, therefore it is not.

In advancing that argument, my opponent names other detrimental activities one must "pay the consequences for" while exercising their liberty. The detrimental effect of drugs, for example. The obvious difference is that in the case of pregnancy, one is talking about preventable future harm. No one tells a drug addict that they must remain on drugs for another nine months, regardless of what the drug is doing to them. Telling someone that they must remain pregnant is doing exactly that. Perhaps a more fitting example my opponent could have used is the concept of committing a crime and being condemned to a nine month jail sentence as a result. But considering what is being done to the woman's body, it seems pretty obvious that the "sentence" being imposed would qualify as cruel and unusual punishment in the legal system. It is simply too much to force someone to go through for the sake of another. I am in no way opposed to pleading, begging, incentivizing, or any other persuasion one might use to convince such selfless behavior, but it cannot be mandated. It's really that simple.

Regarding the ability of the fetus to perhaps feel pain, I'd fully support giving it a lethal injection before the procedure starts, or any other safe method which might be available to ensure that there is little or no pain during the procedure. I do not subscribe to the idea that its ability to feel pain justifies it in a way that requires it be spared. (Note, I am using "it" as the pronoun here simply because gender is not established; I have no problem substituting "he" or "she" if my opponent feels I am deliberately attempting to dehumanize the fetus in any way in order to make such an argument easier. I am not.)

Regarding the expense of transferring to an artificial womb, my opponent seems confused on the nuance of my argument; once it is possible to save the child's life after removal, then under no circumstances should it be legal to kill the child. I was using the expense example to highlight an excuse someone might give for condoning an abortion even after such a possibility exists, and affirming that such reasoning would not be acceptable.

Finally, regarding the use of the Declaration of Independence as a de facto lease agreement... I think it might be safe to say that no one has ever put those words together in the history of humanity, so bonus points to both of us for that. ;) But my opponent cannot have it both ways. If the right to life is analogous to a lease agreement, then the right to liberty is the mother/landlord's termination clause, and we're right back where we started.



passwordstipulationssuck

Con

1. My opponent has stated that just as there are inherent restrictions on the right to liberty that then there should also be limitations on the right to life. And indeed there are. Many states apply the death penalty for crimes: treason, terrorism, espionage, federal murder, large-scale drug trafficking, and attempting to kill a witness, juror, or court officer in certain cases. If you commit certain crimes then your right to life is forfeit. I would, however, state that as an unborn child has not committed a mass murder or act of terrorism then their right to life should remain intact. My opponent then moves on to state that a child's right to life is inferior to the right to liberty of the mother because (s)he is not self-aware. however scientific studies have shown that true self-awareness does not even begin to develop until around 15-24 months. Long after the baby has been born.(1) does this mean that if a child somehow threatens the liberty of the parents after being born that killing them should be legal as their right to life is inferior? this seems to be the case as my opponent has ceded that the fetus will be considered a person and as such should be treated as a person would. Perhaps, my opponent meant simple consciousness? if this were the case, then they would have to recognize that what we would call consciousness does begin in the womb. (2) One should also consider simply the logical and very real consequences if a "person" is defined only in terms of the actual exercising of "rational attributes" or of "sentience." What would this mean for the following list of adult human beings with diminished "rational attributes": e.g., the mentally ill, the mentally disabled, the depressed elderly, Alzheimers and Parkinsons patients, drug addicts, alcoholics and for those with diminished "sentience," e.g., the comatose, patients in a "vegetative state," paraplegics, and other paralyzed and disabled patients, diabetics or other patients with nerve or brain damage, etc.? Would they then be considered as only human beings but not also as human persons? Would that mean that they would not have the same ethical and legal rights and protections as those adult human beings who are considered as persons? Is there really such a "split" between a human being and a human person? this is, of course dealing in legal rights.

2. the problem with my opponent's second argument; is that it doesn't address the main purpose of the argument. Indeed, if we were sentencing people to pregnancy for crimes such as theft or fraud then we could consider it cruel or unusual. however, this analogy is not fully sound. In the event of committing a crime, retributive justice would then apply. (punishments are proportionate to the crime.) that's why sentences range from a slap on the wrist and a firm "don't do it again" and lethal injection. When you are talking about the biological correlation between sex and pregnancy, however, the difference becomes clear. When you have sex, (again, I would refer you to my first argument.) one should expect to reproduce. We are not sentencing the mother to pregnancy for a crime. All we're doing is stating that you have brought a child into this world. A genetically distinct human being that will soon grow larger and develop its faculties. we are not going to rob this child of its right to life because you made a mistake. unless you've been in solitary confinement for your entire life, you know what pregnancy is and you know what it entails. sex is similar in a way, to signing a release. It means that you accept the risks of your conduct. again, sex is not for pleasure. sex is for reproduction.

3. Next, my opponent suggests that we deliver lethal injection to children before we begin dismembering their body. However, even the most modern forms of lethal injection have come under fire from the scientific community and bioethicists because of it's potential to cause extreme pain.(3) We could very well be giving the child death by asphyxiation rather than death by dismemberment. My opponent then states that the ability to feel pain should in no way justify not sparing the child. This brings to light an obvious double standard and abhorrent moral deficit in the pro. earlier in this very round, my opponent stated that pro-life policies cannot be mandated while comparing it to cruel and unusual punishment for the mother. then states that a child, completely innocent in every regard other than the fact that it dared to exist, should be subject either to a method of execution that we would never inflict on our worst criminals; Or a method of execution that many across the nation are calling too cruel to use on mass murderers and child rapists. I have no more to say on that matter.

in my opponent's next point, he argues that he would not be against the transfer of the fetus to an artificial womb. great. irrelevant but great. the resolution stated that we are specifically working in the status quo BEFORE such a technology exists. after that, this entire debate wouldn't be happening.

and finally, he brings up the right to liberty being a termination clause. Once I started my research I began trying to look for legal loopholes to get around termination clauses. that's when I realized that this analogy should end. So let's just drop the analogy and work in plain speech. Again refer back to my previous arguments about why the mother's right to liberty does not supersede the child's right to life. even if we were to hold with equal weight, one could not supersede the other. so I suppose it's up to the voters as to whose argument for which right gets to trump the other. the mother's liberty, or the child's right to life.

(1)www.scientificamerican.com
(2)https://www.princeton.edu...
(3)http://journals.plos.org...
Debate Round No. 3
dipper

Pro

My opponent concedes that reasonable limitations can be placed on the right to life. My opponent also concedes that a fetus is not self-aware. My implied argument, that those who are not self-aware have less of a right to life, is confronted with the study that self-awareness does not necessarily occur until 15-24 months after birth. I concede this fact. My opponent then supposits that if self-awareness is not a criteria for a right to life, does that not mean that people should not be punished for murdering 15-24 month old babies?

The answer here is self-evident in my initial thesis statement; the abortion situation is a unique one in which one right must be violated for the sake of the other, no matter which policy one endorses. The moment that is not true, abortion becomes unacceptable. By that standard, a human under the age of 24 months who somehow threatens the liberty of the parents cannot be murdered because there are other choices available with can respect the baby's right to life. Indeed, society allows infants to be turned over to hospitals, no questions asked, by parents who are no longer interested in caring for them.

In a hypothetical scenario where it was somehow impossible to hand the child over to someone else, then yes, I would assert that the parent's right to liberty would still supercede the child's right to life, and the child may be murdered as the lesser of two evils. However, I cannot envision any circumstance in which such a hypothetical could possibly be realized. I don't think that one exists.

Regarding those with diminished capacity, again, their right to life does not necessarily stand in conflict with someone else's right to life, liberty or pursuit of happiness, and therefore there is no justification for exterminating them. If that changed - and here, it is much easier to imagine some kind of zombie apocalypse scenario where someone else's right to life would be immediately jeopardized by actively attempting to keep a diminished person alive - then yes, killing them becomes acceptable. Society's use of self-defense arguments in defense of murder establishes this kind of precedent quite clearly.

My opponent asserts that "when you have sex, one should expect to reproduce". That argument strikes me as ludicrous on its face, as there are literally thousands of scenarios in which it would not hold up; if a condom broke, if a birth control pill were defective, if a vasectomy spontaneously reversed itself (which has happened), if someone who was previously barren suddenly became not barren, if two children were having sex prior to hitting puberty and suddenly became reproductively capable without realizing it, if one was having sex nonconsensually... those are just off the top of my head. My opponent then goes on into the devolved emotional argument that "we are not going to rob this child of its right to life because you made a mistake"... essentially, that boils down to the circular logic that the child's right to life is more important than the mother's right to liberty because the child has right to life. I am not disputing that the child has a right to life. What is being disputed is that the child's right is inherently superior to the mother's right to liberty.

I am in agreement with my opponent that there is nothing more to say on the matter of the method of execution used on the child. Suffice to say that, with all state-sponsored murder, whether it be inflicted upon unborn infants, convicted death row inmates, or the chicken that provided my dinner this evening, humans have an ethical obligation to find the most humane, painless method possible. That we have yet to find a perfect method is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

To summarize, I maintain that the mother's right to liberty is superior to the unborn child's right to life, for the following reasons:

1) The child is subsentient and the mother is not: Therefore it is a lesser evil to inflict a comparatively quick procedure upon the child, whose understanding would be even less than that of a cow in a slaughterhouse, rather than inflict months of forced biological complications upon an unwilling mother.

2) The mother has seniority: By definition, an unborn child has made no contribution and has not been alive as long as the mother. Society arguably owes the mother more consideration.

3) Freedom is what makes life worth living: Patrick Henry, one of the most famous American patriots, said it the most succinctly: "Give me liberty or give me death." We fight wars and sacrifice lives repeatedly to preserve liberty. We consistently make the decision, as a society, that liberty is the superior right in general. Our abortion policy is quite consistent with that.

Mind you, none of this takes into account the simple, practical truths that we already have far too many wards of the state who have not found suitable adoptive parents, and the advance of automation is already creating an environment in which we have far too many people in relation to available work. Those would be compelling reasons for society to tip the balance in favor of abortion even if there were an inherent superiority in the right to life over liberty. However, there is not, nor should there be.


passwordstipulationssuck

Con

1. My opponent once again suggested that the mother's right to liberty is being violated by allowing the child to continue to exist effectively by stating that the child is to be considered subhuman due to the fact that it has not achieved that which we, in our limited understanding, would call self-awareness. However, the mother's right to liberty has not truly been violated. If you recall, in my previous argument I compared sex to a release. ( I will also be tying this into my opponents argument on the ways one can become pregnant unintentionally.) the mother and father had sex, signing a hypothetical release, and we should not rob the child of his or her right to life simply because of that. If through the use of liberty one later comes to regret the consequences; then I hold that one should not remove the child's right to life on this basis. Now moving on the aforementioned argument. My opponent has brought up many cases of how one could become pregnant despite their attempts to prevent it. I will be addressing each one of them in turn. first, a broken condom or defective birth control pill. I would refer you back to my release analogy and point out that the parents have elected (with their liberty) to utilize an entirely fallible means at contraception. When you go zip lining, they make you sign a release. The cord likely won't break, but there's a chance it will. This absolves the establishment (in this case the child) of liability. as for the spontaneous reversal of a vasectomy, while this is technically possible, it is extremely rare (1) and I do not believe we should use a one in a million chance (possible hyperbole but probably not far off.) as grounds for the continued legality of abortion. He then states that people who are barren can become spontaneously fertile. I was incapable of finding any evidence that this is true. (I even stooped so low as to read the Wikipedia article) however, as it would be ad ignorantiam fallacy to state that it is untrue because of this. (or for my opponent to state that it is true because I can't find evidence to deny it) I will simply state that I cannot confirm nor deny the validity of that statement but it does sound like it would be rather rare as well. Next he brings up two people having sex prior to puberty. well, exactly how old are these kids? seven or eight? if they are any older 11-13 or around those age groups, for one I would argue they shouldn't be having sex in the first place. that seems like a terrible idea. However, if they must; I would argue that they should be using any form of contraception available then refer you back to my broken condom argument. Then he brings up the age old argument of Rape/incest. I am willing to recognize the validity of this. although, Rape/incest only accounts for 0.5% of abortions according to a survey given to abortion patients. (2) this number is small enough however, that for the sake of saving the rest of the babies I am willing to amend my position to include cases of rape and incest solely for the purpose of preventing the abortion of the other 99.5 percent of children.

2. and again we arrive at the impasse. whether the right to life is superior to the right to liberty, (which I would argue is not truly being violated.) I would however like to offer the contrast between the permanence of the two "violations" the mother will eventually give birth and move on with her life. if you abort the fetus however, that is absolutely 100% permanent and irreversible.

3. next, my opponent dismisses my point on the horrible pain the child would likely go through as irrelevant. I hardly think that it is. the question posed is are we willing to put a child through horrible pain in order to spare the mother nine months of discomfort caused by her own actions.

4. My opponent once again makes the argument that the child is not yet what we would consider sentient. The child has simply not had the opportunity to develop those faculties yet. So to kill him or her in order to spare the mother a few months of discomfort is not moral. The termination of a potentially sentient being should not be allowed on the basis that it is not sentient yet. Next, my opponent argues that the mother has seniority thus we should respect her comfort more than we respect the child;s right to life. Earlier in this round, my opponent called raising the child's right to life over the mother's right to liberty as circular logic. no matter what we say on this point, we will always arrive at the same point of holding both rights in equal regard. therefore I believe we should look at the permanence of the two violations. (see above.) furthermore, in regard to this point and my opponents next point "give me liberty or give me death" I don't recall the unborn children being given a vote. what about their liberty? their right to live as they please and go as the wish? my opponent ceded in the very first round that the fetus shall be considered a person and should thus be granted the inalienable rights. But if you put all of the people in favor of euthanizing the disabled, and all of the world's mutes into a room and said "all in favor say aye" and "all in favor say nay" you would create the illusion of being unanimous. when you have a silent minority you will always be able to create the illusion that society believes one thing. when my opponents states that the right to liberty is inherently superior to the right to life, he fails to factor that the only people who get to decide that are the people who aren't in danger of being killed. "two wolves and a lamb taking a vote on what to eat for dinner" as the say.

I would like to take this last moment to thank my opponent for an invigorating debate. I thoroughly enjoyed it and I hope he did as well.
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by passwordstipulationssuck 9 months ago
passwordstipulationssuck
I apologize for my previous statement. I was having a really bad day and I shouldn't have said those things. My conduct was not acceptable for civilized discussion.
Posted by passwordstipulationssuck 9 months ago
passwordstipulationssuck
I apologize for my previous statement. I was having a really bad day and I shouldn't have said those things. My conduct was not acceptable for civilized discussion.
Posted by whiteflame 9 months ago
whiteflame
Jim, I apologized for that mistake.
Posted by JimShady 9 months ago
JimShady
Too bad. I don't feel that sorry for you though. And I'm also fed up with DDO vote moderation that even if I do vote properly, it will be taken down.
Posted by passwordstipulationssuck 9 months ago
passwordstipulationssuck
and now we're going to have a tie because people can't vote properly. glad I wasted my time on this. (you can probably tell I'm in a foul mood right now.)
Posted by whiteflame 9 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: JimShady// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: I believe the opposition did not deliver the best.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn"t explain conduct, S&G or sources. (2) The voter is required to actually assess arguments made in the debate, and not merely to select a winner based on vague criteria.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 9 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: august55433// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: Great debate! I have to go with con however.

[*Reason for removal*] Not an RFD. The voter has to explain why they are voting this way.
************************************************************************
Posted by passwordstipulationssuck 10 months ago
passwordstipulationssuck
My reasoning, was that
1. It was going on 11 PM in my timezone and my brain was starting to go NOPE.
2. although aborting babies that were created through rape is not optimal in my opinion, if that's the sacrifice I have to make to save the majority of the children then I'll make that deal.
Posted by dipper 10 months ago
dipper
@passwordstipulationssuck - y'know, technically saying that the mother's right to liberty hasn't been truly violated is a new argument, and you agreed not to make those in the last round. ;)

It's all good, though.

Yes, I enjoyed the debate. To be honest, this was my first time approaching it from this side, usually it's those advocating unconditional abortion that I'm sparring with, so that was fun. :)

I'm curious, though, in terms of understanding your position: the rape-makes-abortion-okay argument seems inconsistent to me. The human life is just as innocent, and the trauma of the mother is physically identical. You even made the permanence argument yourself - the mother's pain will pass, but the child's life is gone forever. What about the fact that their suffering isn't something they could have anticipated tips the scale for you, and make abortion suddenly the lesser evil?
No votes have been placed for this debate.