The Instigator
Zealotical
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Lexicaholic
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points

Abortion

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
Lexicaholic
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/18/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 840 times Debate No: 8346
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (3)

 

Zealotical

Con

I think that Abortion is wrong. The parents should have used protection and it also isn't fair for the baby. The baby shouldn't have to pay for his/her mother's mistake by being aborted.

There are cases where the mother is sometimes raped. I still think that abortion is wrong because it isn't the child's fault that she got raped. This is why I say that adoption is a better option.

human-rights should be respected, but it should never be the case that a person has a right to make a decision with no reference to the rights and wishes of others. In this case, one might wonder about the rights of the father to have a say in the fate of the foetus. More importantly, though, pro-choice groups actively ignore the most important right; the child's right to life. What is more important than life? All other rights, including the mother's right to choice, surely stem from a prior right to life; if you have no right to any life, then how do you have a right to an autonomous one? The woman may have a reasonable right to control her own body, but this does not confer on her the entirely separate (and insupportable) right to decide whether another human lives or dies.

Unborn children cannot articulate their right to life; their lives are vulnerable and as such must be protected. Where a restriction in someone's freedom is the price to pay for protecting an innocent life, then so be it.

I await for my opponent's response. I thank you for challenging me and wish you good luck
Lexicaholic

Pro

I thank my opponent for the opportunity to debate this important subject. I understand the following to comprise my opponent's convictions:
1. The life of an individual is more important than the quality of life of another individual. "The woman may have a reasonable right to control her own body, but this does not confer on her the entirely separate (and insupportable) right to decide whether another human lives or dies."
2. All individuals have a right to life, from which all other rights are derived. "All other rights, including the mother's right to choice, surely stem from a prior right to life."
3. Laws should be promulgated to protect the life of the unborn regardless of the cost to personal autonomy, because their rights to life precede and therefore have priority over the right to autonomy in themselves and others. "if you have no right to any life, then how do you have a right to an autonomous one?" "Where a restriction in someone's freedom is the price to pay for protecting innocent life, then so be it."
4. The manner in which life is generated is inconsequential to the rights that attach to that form of life. "There are cases where the mother is sometimes raped. I still think that abortion is wrong because it isn't the child's fault that she got raped. This is why I say that adoption is a better option."
5. For all these reasons, my opponent asserts that abortion is wholly wrong. "I think that Abortion is wrong."

My argument to the contrary is as follows:
ABORTION IS NOT ALWAYS WRONG
1. No person's right to life is greater than any other person's. This must be true for you to argue that women should not have the ability to deprive unborn children of this right. (I.e. the aborting women do not get to choose murder to avoid personal inconvenience because the life of the one to be murdered is as valuable as the murderer.)
2. A person who's existence is known to be beneficial for society is more valuable to society than a person who's value is unknown (because the unknown could be beneficial or detrimental to society).
3. A person with a positive value to society should have her life protected from the consequences of the generation of a person with an unknown value to society, because both lives are equal and the only distinguishing factor between the two is societal value.
4. Therefore, I resolve that a woman with a known positive value to society, who's life would be endangered by the generation of life with an unknown value (birth) has the right to abort the generative process in preservation of her own life.
5. Therefore a single instance of abortion is shown to be right and abortion can not be absolutely wrong.

A PRECEDING RIGHT DOES NOT NECESSARILY SUPERSEDE SUBSEQUENT RIGHTS
1. The value to society of a right may be observed in the effects of protecting that right.
2. The relative observed value of a right should determine the extent to which it is protected over other rights, where those rights are competing.
3. As evidenced throughout history, particularly in the foundation of the United States, people will sacrifice the right to life in exchange for the right to personal autonomy. "Give me liberty or give me death."
4. Therefore, while one right may give rise to the other (life-->liberty) the other takes precedence over the prior (liberty>life). This may be due to the fact that humans, as living beings, recognize that the value in organic over inorganic existence as the ability to experience existence. Sacrificing autonomy for existence would negate the advantage of being a living organism, which is illogical. Therefore existence can not hold a greater value than autonomy.
5. Therefore, I resolve that where the right to autonomy and the right to life conflict, the right to autonomy supersedes the right to life.
6. Therefore it is shown that where a woman's right to autonomy is in conflict with a child's right to life, the woman's right to autonomy is superior to the child's right to life. As a consequence, abortion is not wrong.
Debate Round No. 1
Zealotical

Con

Zealotical forfeited this round.
Lexicaholic

Pro

... O.O ... a forfeit? aww ...

Well, my arguments still stand I guess. I'll leave it to my opponent to reply.
Debate Round No. 2
Zealotical

Con

I thank my opponent for challenging me.

"A person who's existence is known to be beneficial for society is more valuable to society than a person who's value is unknown (because the unknown could be beneficial or detrimental to society)."

This is a good point and it is true that it is unknown if the baby will be beneficial for society, however, my opponent is saying that the woman's life is automatically beneficial to society when in fact, her life may be worse to society. By aborting the baby, you will never know if the baby would be beneficial to society.

For example, if Obama was aborted, we wouldn't have him as president right now. I think that he is a really good president. I hear people complain because he hasn't done much, You have to consider the fact that he hasn't been president that long. He already ended our current war. It will probably take at least 20 years to fix the damages that the bush administration has done.

Anyways, back on topic and on to my next point.

"Therefore, I resolve that a woman with a known positive value to society, who's life would be endangered by the generation of life with an unknown value (birth) has the right to abort the generative process in preservation of her own life."

First of all, the woman might have more of a negative value to society then a positive value. Second, it is true that she is risking her life, however, she isn't going to live forever anyways. Third of all, she would be giving birth to a new life in the next generation and also, she would still somewhat live on because the child is a part of her.
Lexicaholic

Pro

I thank my opponent for his response, and will now seek to supply my own.

My opponent misstates the scope of my first argument when he claims that I say "the woman's life is automatically beneficial to society." I simply state that where the value of the woman's life is known to be beneficial to society, she possesses the right to preserve it even at the expense of an as yet un-lived life. Admittedly, abortion might still be wrong under a strict valuation system based on individual worth if the woman was a triple murderer and her child, like all children, was unlikely to become such itself. However, the first point is not that some abortions are wrong and some may be right, but rather that some are clearly not wrong. By showing this, by way of inverse argument, I show that some abortions are right. Therefore they can not all be wrong.

If Obama was aborted at this age, it would be murder. Admittedly, if that happened, he wouldn't be president right now and I would be quite upset. Especially because Joe Biden would be in charge. I think he fills the sidekick role well; I just don't think he's ready for the saddle. But I digress ... as did my opponent. His example did nothing to refute my prior argument.

As for my opponent's repeated argument that the woman might have more of a negative value, I have already explained that point and do not see the cause to do so again. As for my opponent's contention that "it is true that she is risking her life, however, she isn't going to live forever ..." the same is true of every single human being and, by extension, children. (See http://en.wikipedia.org... ) Either the mother or the child could die, and both will, so it makes little sense to use one's ability to live as a criterion. My opponent's best argument is that a woman with a positive value would be "giving birth to a new life in the next generation and also, she would still somewhat live on because the child is a part of her." Technically a part of every dead animal you've ever consumed lives on in you, but I doubt you feel like a herd of cattle. Whether or not one's biological material exists in some form is not a valid criterion for establishing continuation of existence because there is no continuation of self identity, which is essential to claiming that one still 'lives.' Your children may be the closest thing to yourself, but they are not 'you.'

My opponent also failed to disprove my second point, which means that the argument stands and basically all abortion is shown to be not wrong. (Personally, I think he should have attacked that argument, as it had the greater number of holes in it, not that I'm inclined to point them out.) Because my opponent did not rebut my argument that abortion in general was not wrong, the argument stands, and abortion can not be wrong. For these reasons, I urge you to vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Lexicaholic 7 years ago
Lexicaholic
Thanks for voting, bored. Yeah, the wiki reference I used was more of a jibe than an actual reference (it links to the wikipedia entry on death). XP
Posted by bored 7 years ago
bored
I'm actually still hovering on this topic...closely to the pro-choice side. Good points, both of you. I guess I've never really thought about it so much as quantity versus quality. Interesting.
Anyway, I voted Pro for conduct--the forfeit lost Con's chance
Pro for S&G, all together
and pro for better arguments.
Sources was a tie because neither used a sources worth mentioning (I think pro had one source, but I don't think wikipedia's very reliable)
Posted by Zealotical 7 years ago
Zealotical
Yeah, haven't you heard of babies coming out of mother's belly instead of their vagina? lol sorry, I meant to say belly instead of stomach.
Posted by Lexicaholic 7 years ago
Lexicaholic
lol. I just realized that I urged people to vote Con. Too used to that side of the debate I suppose. XD Oh well, if I lose this one, I argued for it. XD
Posted by zach12 7 years ago
zach12
"I meant if he was aborted when he was in his mother's stomach and also it does refute your prior argument because his mother might of aborted him if it was legal."

Stomach? seriously?
Posted by Lexicaholic 7 years ago
Lexicaholic
Which, by the way, is why I took a more farcical approach to responding to it than I usually would. My apologies if you took it as a personal affront. Sometimes I like to inject some levity into what would be otherwise joyless subjects.
Posted by Lexicaholic 7 years ago
Lexicaholic
For the record, I'm not a fan of abortion myself in a age where prophylactics flow like water. However, your example doesn't actually refute the argument, because you're suggesting the probability that someone could grow up to be a better person than one's mother equates the value of the living with that of the unborn. Hindsight is 20/20. At the time of the decision, his mother's life had more inherent value than his own, because it had some value and the fetus had none. Just because he grew up to have more apparent value to society doesn't mean that the potentiality of his existence prior to birth equates to the value it acquired after birth. He gained that by experience. The only way to compare his present value to that of his mother's prior to her giving birth is to do just that ... compare them directly. Obama's mother's fetus was not the collection of experience that became President Obama. It was merely the organic matter upon which those experiences could be impressed. If Obama wasn't president right now, someone still would be. Maybe someone better. We can't know, because it didn't happen. As such, the argument is moot.
Posted by Zealotical 7 years ago
Zealotical
"If Obama was aborted at this age, it would be murder. Admittedly, if that happened, he wouldn't be president right now and I would be quite upset. Especially because Joe Biden would be in charge. I think he fills the sidekick role well; I just don't think he's ready for the saddle. But I digress ... as did my opponent. His example did nothing to refute my prior argument."

You know what I meant. I meant if he was aborted when he was in his mother's stomach and also it does refute your prior argument because his mother might of aborted him if it was legal.
Posted by fresnoinvasion 7 years ago
fresnoinvasion
"I still think that abortion is wrong because it isn't the child's fault that she got raped"

hahahahahahaha

That is all..
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by bored 7 years ago
bored
ZealoticalLexicaholicTied
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 Lexicaholic 7 years ago
Lexicaholic
ZealoticalLexicaholicTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Zealotical 7 years ago
Zealotical
ZealoticalLexicaholicTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70