The Instigator
JacobAnderson
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
OtakuJordan
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Abortion should remain legal.

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 2 votes the winner is...
OtakuJordan
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/21/2013 Category: Health
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 617 times Debate No: 42741
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)

 

JacobAnderson

Pro

Round 1- Acceptance, Rules, and Definition of Terms
Round 2- Opening Arguments
Round 3- Cross Examination
Round 4- Cross Examination (for Pro) Rebuttals
Round 5- Conclusion

Rules for Cross Examination.
In Round 3, I, the Pro, will ask my opponent, the Con, 5 questions that they will answer in Round 3. In Round 3, they will also ask me 5 questions that I will answer in Round 4 before I begin my rebuttals.

Definition of Terms. These are to be accepted throughout the debate unchanged and unargued.

Abortion- The deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy [1].

Coming from Latin word abioriri, aborior, abortus meaning miscarry, be aborted, pass away [2].

Human Being/Person- A man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance [3].

Murder- The crime of deliberately killing a person [4a]. The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another [4b].

Involuntary Manslaughter- The act of unlawfully killing another human being unintentionally [5].

Miscarriage- Loss of an embryo or fetus before the 20th week of pregnancy [6a].

Stillborn- When a baby dies after the 20th week of pregnancy [6b].

Life- The condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity of growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death [7].

Rape- The crime, typically committed by a man, of forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with the offender against their will [8].

Sources

1. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com......

2. http://www.latin-dictionary.net......

3. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com......

4a. http://www.merriam-webster.com......

4b. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com......

5. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com......

6a. http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com......

6b. http://www.babycenter.com......

7. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com......

8. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com......
OtakuJordan

Con

I accept.

I would like to submit that abortion entails the intentional destruction of the fetus as the means of ending the pregnancy, and therefore we should use this Merriam-Webster definition of abortion as it is more accurate than the one presented by my opponent: "a medical procedure used to end a pregnancy and cause the death of the fetus."[1]

I do not contest any other defininitions presented by my opponent.

Please state your case, Pro.

Sources
1. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate Round No. 1
JacobAnderson

Pro

Before I begin, we will be debating under the term I set for Abortion as it is more correct. Scientists and physchologists have not found when a fetus is alive, so you cannot call the termination of said fetus the "death of the fetus." My definition does not entail that the fetus is alive or dead, therefore it is unbiased, therefore making it the acceptable definition.

Let's refrain from calling the fetus either alive or dead until science has proven when the fetus is alive.

Consensual Sex, Rape and Unplanned Pregnancies

On the topic of abortion, many people bring up consensual sex and rape, rape most commonly used as the special circumstance many Pro-Life advocates allow for abortions. Now, I am no one to interfere on their continuity, but I do not believe rape is a special case, I believe it is an extreme case that should follow under any allowances given to any other woman- to get an abortion. According to Guttmacher Institute, about half of the estimated 6.7 million pregnancies in the US are unplanned [1]. Also, about half of the female population will experience an unplanned pregnancy by the age of 45 and about three in ten of these women will end up terminating their pregnancy [1]. Do we have the right to force the mother to keep the baby solely because she consented to participate in these sexual activities? Do we have the right to take away another’s right as we continue to fight for other rights? Why do we take away the rights of a woman because she has thepotential to have a baby?

In the case of rape, I believe that both sides have come to a blurry agreement that rape may be the exception to the “No Abortion” preaches of Pro-Life advocates. If some do not believe that rape is not an exception, an occurrence undeserving of abortion, why do we not allow the mother to get rid of a pregnancy that is a reminder of what someone forcefully had done to her? More of a thought-provoking question, If we do not force the woman to keep an unwanted baby from rape, why do we not allow her the same opportunities to get rid of an unwanted baby? Keep in mind, the sex was consensual, not the baby.

When it comes to unplanned pregnancies, we cannot overlook the boom in teenage pregnancies that are glorified by shows like Teen Mom or 16 and Pregnant. Dosomething.org shows that 3 in 10 teenage girls get pregnant before the age of 20 and that less than 2% of these teen mothers get college degrees before the age of 30 [2]. Do we force these teens to give birth to their babies, even if they do not want the babies for reasons unknown? If we expect them to give birth to the baby, do we then expect the mother to keep the baby? If we do not expect them to keep the baby, what do we suggest is done with the baby? If we expect the baby to go to an adoption center, do we neglect the consequences that the parents may have to face emotionally? The questions are endless and often unanswered. But with statistics like these, we cannot neglect this topic.

Additional Fact: Guttmacher Institute states that 99.9% of women use contraceptives at least once in their sexual life and about 62% of the women currently use contraception [3]. It is clear that a majority of the population uses contraceptives to prevent any unwanted pregnancies, and although we all know we run the risk of pregnancy even with contraceptives, we cannot hold women accountable for a condom breaking or a pill not functioning properly. (I realize these are incomparable, but a condom breaking has the same, although extremely less severe, consequence as rape- unwanted pregnancies.)

Bodily Autonomy

Bodily autonomy is defined as the right for a person to control what they do to their bodies without the interruption or force of someone else. It is a right that is given to everyone and is one of the reasons why it is illegal to take organs from the deceased that have not signed off permission. If we continue this right after life, why do we strip it from a pregnant woman? We cannot morally, or legally (in my opinion), strip away the rights that we grant to the deceased, and to go against this argument would be irrational. Why would you grant a dead person a right that you wouldn’t give to someone that is alive.

I’ve read something that rings true, that if someone needs something donated that you have, you are not legally obligated to donate anything. This parallels to pregnancies because a fetus does need these resources, but the mother is not legally obligated to keep giving this baby her resources. Denying to give someone a body part is not illegal, so terminating a pregnancy should not be illegal.

Euthanasia

When talking about abortion, morals often, if not always, play a part. Some see the fetus as an innocent creature that, because it is dependent on the woman, the woman had the obligation to keep it alive. Well, let’s parallel this to something that we are familiar with- euthanasia. When someone is on life support and dependant on a machine for oxygen and life, there is a time in which morals allow us to pull the plug, thus ending that person’s life. Now, if someone can pull the plug as a way of relieving the other, then how is getting an abortion different? To use the “a fetus is unborn” angle would be illogical because what makes the ending of someone’s life more ethical than ending something before it experiences life? Now, if you are against both euthanasia and abortion, then I commend you for being consistent. However, if you believe in one and not the other, I must question your consistency. Euthanasia, one may say, is the abortion of someone alive, instead of a fetus, having not a 100% chance of being born.

OtakuJordan

Con

Introduction
Ah, pardon me. I did not notice your rule against challenging definitions before.

I would, however, like to ask you to provide a modern and reliable source for your claim that the scientific community has not determined when life begins. This is an important aspect of the debate and it is not acceptable to make this claim without proof.

My case
As dictated by the rules, I will not be presenting any rebuttals in this round. I shall be making only three contentions.

1. The zygote/embryo/fetus is a human life
2. There is a moral obligation to preserve innocent human life
3. This moral obligation is of the highest order

Throughout this debate round, "unborn" may be used to mean an unborn human at any of the three stages of zygote, embryo or fetus.

Contention #1 - The unborn is a human life
The standard, biology textbook definition of life is 1) the ability to grow and 2) the ability to reproduce.[1] In other words, if something grows and possesses the ability to reproduce at some point in its life cycle (barring some sort of defect), then it is considered by the scientific community to be alive.

By this standard, the unborn can be considered to be a life. But what if we use a more advanced definition such as the one below?


        1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.



        1. Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells â€" the basic units of life.



        1. Metabolism Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.



        1. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.



        1. Adaptation: The ability to change over time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity, diet, and external factors.



        1. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion; for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototroism), and chemotaxis.



        1. Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms.[1][2]


Once again, the unborn meets all the criteria for life.

However, this is somewhat irrelevant. After all, bacteria and blades of grass are also alive, and we feel no moral qualms about killing them. Why, then, is the zygote/embryo/fetus different? Put simply, because it is a human life. By definition, a product of reproduction is of the same kind as its 'parents.'[3] I offer this Merriam-Webster definition of fetus as further proof: "a human being or animal in the later stages of development before it is born."[4]

Contention #2 - There is a moral obligation to preserve innocent human life
Man is a moral agent, a being with free will whose actions have moral import. Because of our freedom we are bound by duty to act morally or, if you prefer, ethically. Morality may be derived from either philosophy or religion. I shall be making a philosophical case for the moral obligation to preserve human life using Kant's three Formulations of the Imperative.

The First Formulation of the Imperative

"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction." Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of Metaphysic of Morals[5]

Clearly we would not want the justified taking of innocent life to become a universal law without contradiction. This would result in chaos, bloodshed and (depending on your interpretation of this First Formulation) the extinction of the human race.

The Second Formulation of the Imperative

"Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end but always at the same time as an end." Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of Metaphysic of Morals[6]

The taking of innocent life violates this Formulation because it disregards and devalues the free will of the victim and sees them as an end in themselves.

The Third Formulation of the Imperative

"Therefore, every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends." Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of Metaphysic of Morals[7]

To explain this Formulation, I quote from an article on deontological ethics by the Seven Pillars Institute for Global Finance and Ethics:

Using reasoned judgment we can apply this formula to any maxim and discover whether it is morally permissible under deontological ethics. Let's take, for example, the act of picking flowers from the local park. The flowers are very pretty, and one may want to take some home. Essentially, this requires adopting a maxim that supports doing whatever one wants to do. Using the formula of the universal law (categorical imperative), there are a few irrationalities and contradictions that arise from the adoption of such a maxim as law. If everyone were to do this, there would be no flowers left in the park, and the act contradicts the original motive for picking the flowers. The better option is to go to a shop and order or plant one's own flowers.[8]

The taking of innocent life unarguably carries moral implication on far grander and more devastating scale than the picking of flowers.

Contention #3 - This moral obligation is of the highest order
As can be evidenced by the Formulations of the Imperative, ignoring this moral obligation results in greater devastation than the violation of any other moral obligation can (including such hypothetical consequences as the extinction of the human race).

Clearly, then, it supersedes any other demands upon our free will.

Sources
1. http://www2.una.edu...
2. http://phoenix.lpl.arizona.edu...
3. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
4. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
5. http://sevenpillarsinstitute.org...
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid.
Debate Round No. 2
JacobAnderson

Pro

JacobAnderson forfeited this round.
OtakuJordan

Con

Cross-examination

Please answer and explain your answers to the following questions:

Q1 - Is bodily autonomy the only right allegedly violated by making abortion illegal?

Q2 - Would my opponent agree that the right to life supersedes all other rights?

Q3 - Why is the fetus not entitled to bodily autonomy?

Q4 - Is dependence upon others justification for the termination of a life?

Q5 - If the fetus is indeed alive, why should it not be given full natural rights?

I will close this round by repeating my request for my opponent to provide a citation from a credible and modern source for his claim that the scientific community has not yet determined whether or not the fetus is alive.
Debate Round No. 3
JacobAnderson

Pro

Well I was out of town with family so I forfeited. And I didn't want to do this debate after I was done with my other because you had seen my whole debate and a large sum of my argument. Plus, I'm not really into this site anymore. Sorry.

Q1- Bodily autonomy and free will, yes.
Q2- No.
Q3- In comparison to nature, it is a parasite the host has created that takes nutrients from the host. Because the fetus's body is in the woman's body, the woman has superior rights to everything. I guess we can parallel this to receiving rights in America, the older you are, the more rights you gain.
Q4- Once again, you cannot base your argument on the fetus being alive knowing that neither scientists nor philosophers have pinpointed the moment life begins. And you cannot mirror the dependence of a fetus/woman to someone else/who they are dependent on. The fetus cannot do anything and 100% relies on the woman for nutrients. If you re dependent as a child, teen, or adult, there is still a sort of independence. If the person you are dependent on dies or gets sick, you can find someone else to help you. However, if a woman gets sick or dies, the fetus is out of luck. So that is why you cannot compare the severity of the dependency of the fetus to anything else, logically at least.
Q5- We are often taught, from the Constitution, that you are born with these natural rights. The natural rights were set by the Constitution, and not all countries give their citizens these rights. Why focus on giving a fetus rights that aren't granted to people that can are conscious and breathing?

I would like to point out that I refrained from calling the fetus either alive or dead, so the Con had the BOP for calling the fetus alive.

I suppose I should ask questions then.

Q1- Who is the murderer and why?
Q2- Would miscarriage be considered involuntary manslaughter, a crime punishable by time in jail and fines? If no, why not?
Q3- What gives anyone the right to strip the breathing woman of her rights to her own body?
Q4- If we are not required by law to donate organs or blood to keep someone alive (whether it be famiy, friends, or strangers), then why is the woman obligated to keep supplying for the fetus before it is born?
Q5- If the mother had pressing conditions such as lack of funds, serious illnessses, or the fetus has a high chance of being born with mutations, does this allow abortion?
OtakuJordan

Con

Given that I am not given enough characters to both respond to Pro's cross-ex questions and rebut his arguments and cross-ex responses, I shall not be doing the former. For me to sacrifice my rebuttal round becase Pro forfeited and then broke his own rules (which stated that R3 was to be for CX while R4 is for rebuttals) would be putting myself at an unfair and undeserved disadvantage.

Also, I explicitly asked my opponent to explain his answers to my questions. He failed to do so in his response to Q1 and Q2.

Responses

"Q1- Bodily autonomy and free will, yes."

Thank you.

"Q2- No."

Given that my third contention in R2 was that the moral obligation to preserve innocent life is of the highest order, this answer is insufficient in the extreme.

"
Q3- In comparison to nature, it is a parasite the host has created that takes nutrients from the host. Because the fetus's body is in the woman's body, the woman has superior rights to everything. I guess we can parallel this to receiving rights in America, the older you are, the more rights you gain."

I shall be quoting heavily from my personal blog to refute this response.

The first problem with this argument is that it is biologically inaccurate on many different levels.[1] Parasites are labelled parasitic animals whether they are in a parasitic stage of their life cycle or not. If the fetus is a parasite, then every adult mammal, whether it be a human or an elephant, is also a parasite. If this is so, then the term has been so stripped of meaning as to be useless. Also, a parasite contribues "nothing to the survival of its host"[2] whereas feti have been shown to contribue stem cells to damaged organs of the mother.[3]

Obviously then, the fetus is not a parasite by any truly scientific definition. Instead, when people call the fetus a parasite they are using the popular layman’s definition of the word. I shall now proceed to refute the ethical arguments developed based on this inaccurate definition.

Pt. #1 - The fetus has no moral guilt

The fetus did not intentionally enter a woman’s womb, and in most cases its presence there is actually a result of the woman’s decisions. The pro-choice person will say that this does not matter, as bodily violation is not necessarily intentional.

This is true, but it does not mean that the intentions of the violating party are irrelevant. There is an undeniable difference in the moral guilt of someone who has accidentally brushed their hand against another person and someone who has purposefully groped another person. In both cases the person violated has a right to put a stop to the action. He or she may resort to force, even lethal force, to prevent someone from groping them. However, it would be wholly inappropriate to use the same force against a person who has accidentally brushed up against them. That person has not intentionally done any harm and does not deserve such treatment.

Similarly, the fetus has not intentionally invaded the body of a woman. Using lethal action against it, therefore, is an immoral act and the taking of an innocent life.

Pt. #2 - There is a moral obligation to sacrifice to preserve innocent life

I have already made this contention in R2 and my opponent failed to make a rebuttal in this, the designated rebuttal round. It may therefore be considered a dropped argument and an established point. However, allow me to elaborate upon it now.

The crux of this contention is that life is valuable. We can do this using assumptions made by the pro-choice side to avoid a debate on the point. If abortion is necessary, as they claim, to ensure quality of life for women, we may infer that life has some value. Because they claim that government has no right to interfere with their reproductive decisions (and, thus, their quality of life), we may also infer that they believe their quality of life to have value that exceeds governmental law. God, divine law, higher law, natural law, morality, ethics—whatever one chooses to call it, the pro-choice community indirectly references it when placing value upon life.

There are very few situations that mentally healthy people regard as being worse than death, and some hold that no such situations exist. Quality of life is clearly secondary to life itself, and to say that one’s right to a certain quality of life trumps another person’s right to life itself is fallacious. If such ethics were to be implemented into law it would be legal to murder someone for their possessions.

Some would reply that although keeping the unborn child alive may be the moral thing to do, compelling someone to do the right thing is illegal. This is untrue in many cases, but proving it to be untrue falls outside the scope of this post. Instead, I shall simply explain why statements like the one below are irrelevant.

"Bodily autonomy is defined as the right for a person to control what they do to their bodies without the interruption or force of someone else. It is a right that is given to everyone and is one of the reasons why it is illegal to take organs from the deceased that have not signed off permission. If we continue this right after life, why do we strip it from a pregnant woman? We cannot morally, or legally (in my opinion), strip away the rights that we grant to the deceased, and to go against this argument would be irrational. Why would you grant a dead person a right that you wouldn’t give to someone that is alive.

I’ve read something that rings true, that if someone needs something donated that you have, you are not legally obligated to donate anything. This parallels to pregnancies because a fetus does need these resources, but the mother is not legally obligated to keep giving this baby her resources. Denying to give someone a body part is not illegal, so terminating a pregnancy should not be illegal."

Using governmental law as a framework for the debate is pointless. Regardless of whether the government has a right to compel a person to preserve child’s life, that person has a moral obligation to do so. Add to this that we have already established that life has value that is of a higher origin than human law and the above argument becomes irrelevant.

"Q4- Once again, you cannot base your argument on the fetus being alive knowing that neither scientists nor philosophers have pinpointed the moment life begins. And you cannot mirror the dependence of a fetus/woman to someone else/who they are dependent on. The fetus cannot do anything and 100% relies on the woman for nutrients. If you re dependent as a child, teen, or adult, there is still a sort of independence. If the person you are dependent on dies or gets sick, you can find someone else to help you. However, if a woman gets sick or dies, the fetus is out of luck. So that is why you cannot compare the severity of the dependency of the fetus to anything else, logically at least."

My opponent has failed yet again to provide the source for his claim that the scientific community has not determined when life begins. I have asked for his source for this claim multiple times now, and although he has failed to provide it he continues to make the same unsupported claim.

Also, since I argued in R2 that the fetus is alive and he has failed to rebut it, it may be considered to be a dropped argument and an estabished point.

"Q4- Once again, you cannot base your argument on the fetus being alive knowing that neither scientists nor philosophers have pinpointed the moment life begins. And you cannot mirror the dependence of a fetus/woman to someone else/who they are dependent on. The fetus cannot do anything and 100% relies on the woman for nutrients. If you re dependent as a child, teen, or adult, there is still a sort of independence. If the person you are dependent on dies or gets sick, you can find someone else to help you. However, if a woman gets sick or dies, the fetus is out of luck. So that is why you cannot compare the severity of the dependency of the fetus to anything else, logically at least."

My opponent failed to answer what was asked of him. Is dependence, total or otherwise, a justification for the termination of life? If so, why?

"Q5- We are often taught, from the Constitution, that you are born with these natural rights. The natural rights were set by the Constitution, and not all countries give their citizens these rights. Why focus on giving a fetus rights that aren't granted to people that can are conscious and breathing?"

This is a red herring. By the same token, why given women the right of bodily autonomy when women in other countries do not have it?

Also, please see Pt. 2 of my Q4 response for further commentary on the irrelevance of legality in this debate.

Rebuttals

My opponent had three main points in R2.

1. Unwanted pregnancies occur
2. The right to bodily autonomy makes making abortion illegal immoral
3. Being in favor of euthanasia but not abortion is an inconsistent position

Rebuttal #1 - Unwanted pregnancies occur
This is uncontested and irrelevant.

Rebuttal #2 - The right to bodily autonomy makes making abortion illegal immoral
My opponent has not rebutted my R2 contentions that the right to life supersedes all others and that the unborn are alive. Because of this, I have already proven that the right to life of the fetus should trump the right to bodily autonomy.

Rebuttal #3 - Being in favor of euthanasia but not abortion is an inconsistent position
This is an irrelevant point. Inconsistency in a set of beliefs does not invalidate said beliefs.

Conclusion

I shall close by once again asking my opponent to provide a modern and reliable source for his claim that the scientific community has not determined when life begins in regard to the unborn.


Sources
1. http://www.l4l.org...
2. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
3. http://www.newscientist.com...
Debate Round No. 4
JacobAnderson

Pro

You typed all that I thought you read where I say idc anymore. I'll -give- you a win because I'm bored and I am bot going to read all of that I just got off Christmas mode im done
OtakuJordan

Con

My apologies, I did not interpret "I do not care" for not wanting to continue the debate, just a lack of enthusiasm for it. Thank you for challenging and debating me.

Please vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by pictureofdeloreangray 2 years ago
pictureofdeloreangray
I understood your basis for the statement. However, within the elucidation itself there is a contradiction. If deontological ethics hinges on moral absolute duty regardless of the outcome, wouldn't the derivation of the idea from "either philosophy or religion" suggest a relativistic approach? Even if the conclusion from either point may be ultimately correct, this would be an excursion in moral relativism and, once more, the case that "Human life is superlative" in this respect and that the unborn child falls into this prescriptive criteria is relative. Now, a relative point can still be decided true, given that the evidence supports it, but it suffers from issues that are still necessary to vet. In short, what if your deontological duties were arbitrary and were not reflective of moral truth? That means we still have the entire process of evaluating whether or not abortion as an act is, from a strictly virtuous perspective, innately wrong.

How do we know that abortion is wrong if the preservation of life is distinct from the preservation of human welfare? Your deontological mode does not account, in its rigour of duty, for whether or not the the sustentation of foetal life will be equivalent to sustaining the well being of the human race; which currently I think it doesn't in regards to unborn foetuses.

I've had Immanuel Kant in my private collection for some time now, I guess I'm finally going to have to pick him up.

I don't mean to continue this on in the comments section, Otaku, if you would care to message or start a new debate instead, or that I should drop it all together, just say so.
Posted by OtakuJordan 2 years ago
OtakuJordan
It was covered under contention two and the pointed out in contention three.
Posted by pictureofdeloreangray 2 years ago
pictureofdeloreangray
You provided an argument as to why abortion is immoral, under the presupposition that the right to life is of the highest order, not why it is.
Posted by OtakuJordan 2 years ago
OtakuJordan
If I had simply made a bare assertion it would have been begging the question. Making an argument and then asking my opponent if he agrees is not.
Posted by pictureofdeloreangray 2 years ago
pictureofdeloreangray
Isn't "Is the violation of personal autonomy the only violation" a non sequitur in regards to the question? Isn't asking whether or not the right to life in this respect is the most superlative begging the question?

For the most part, OtakuJordan, facets of your position are predicated on these assumptions, I believe.
Posted by JacobAnderson 2 years ago
JacobAnderson
Yeah I was iffy bc you took the challenge after my debate so I was signed out of it. Sorrryyyy
Posted by OtakuJordan 2 years ago
OtakuJordan
I have not posted any arguments I had not already used since you challenged me.
Posted by JacobAnderson 2 years ago
JacobAnderson
I don't know how this debate is going to go. The reason I told you to accept before my at debate was over was because now you know a large sum of my arguments, and looking at your debates, I know a large sum of yours. This is why I stressed that this should have been done before my other debate ended.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
JacobAndersonOtakuJordanTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: "I was Con. My opponent said he no longer cared about the debate and that he would give me the win. Requesting a full seven points." Someone civily dropping out (as opposed to just forfeiting), is most comparable to a concession, which would usually be conduct to them and argument to you. How you think them dropping out means you're better at let's say spelling, I haven't a clue.
Vote Placed by janetsanders733 2 years ago
janetsanders733
JacobAndersonOtakuJordanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pretty tough debate. But, I am going to have to call ff. Good job though to both debaters.