The Instigator
NathanDuclos
Con (against)
Winning
1 Points
The Contender
factsrgoood
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Abortion

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 1 vote the winner is...
NathanDuclos
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/23/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 412 times Debate No: 59448
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

NathanDuclos

Con

Dear Facts. . .

BOP is on you that abortion should be legal.
I'll take con, that it should be illegal.

You can start on Rnd 1 for your initial argument.
Its a low word count, so be adviced.


factsrgoood

Pro

I am a newbie at this so bear with me.
I accept this debate and look forward to an interesting challenge.
Even though we both live in Canada I will be referencing case law from the US.
Obviously the main one being Roe V Wade.
The main issue at hand here is not abortion itself but the definition of what it means to be a person in the eyes of the law.
This issue is what determines whether abortions should be legal or not. I am not debating this on moral or religious grounds but base purely on science and law.

What gives something or someone a right? They must have an interest in the outcome of what happens to them. For this to be possible they must be sentient(must be conscious of sense impressions).
A fetus does not gain sentience until somewhere between the second and third trimester. so if here is not sentience then it doesn't have an interest and therefore does not have a right.
Due to this then a woman will have a right then to abort the fetus on the grounds that the fetus has no right to use her body so she can abort up until the point of sentience.

Also in Griswold v Connecticut "that people enjoyed a constitutional right to private decision-making in certain personal matters that no legislation could rescind" based on the Fourteenth Amendment, "Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
Since the fetus is not considered a person based on science and law then this also applies to this case and therefore again the rights of the woman prevail over an entity that has no rights
Debate Round No. 1
NathanDuclos

Con

Dear Pro

Thanks, and since you’re pro, USA it is.

Roe v Wade was made on several different points. However, I believe you are making a bodily rights argument, that no one can live off another, and “I think there for I exist and have rights” arguments. Additionally you point out that it is the law, so it should be Legal. I will refute them in reverse as bodily right is the hardest.

1)Your argument (if I am reading you right), is that it was made legal so it should be legal. Slavery was legal, so is should be legal? What if it was illegal, so it should be legal? I may have gotten the claim your making, please clarify.

2)‘if it thinks it has right’. Does that mean that you agree that at the 18 month and before you would say yes but after no, as a brain starts to develop? (assuming your down with euthanasia or right to dignified death)

3)Bodily rights. . . As for bodily rights argument, which I fully understand, how do you know that is a legitimate argument? It is an argument, but can you show its valid?

My point will be thus, unless you can define life and define why we have rights, or what is human, and apply it so it’s true in all circumstances, how can you go around saying this form of life or stage of development does or does not have a right . Since you have not defined why your argument is legitimate, or how its true, its best not to perform an act without reason to do so. As such, abortion should be illegal until a valid argument shown to be true is formed.


Nathan. . .

factsrgoood

Pro

factsrgoood forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
factsrgoood

Pro

factsrgoood forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
NathanDuclos

Con

Fact . . Im still waiting . . .
factsrgoood

Pro

factsrgoood forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
NathanDuclos

Con

Still waiting .. . ..
factsrgoood

Pro

Sorry, have been preoccupied.
What I was trying to communicate is that from a scientific perspective the brain is not functioning in a fetus until late second early third trimester
Therefore the fetus is not a person and has no rights before that point.
If a person was brain dead and the only way to keep them alive was for them to be hooked up to you 24/7 would that be allowable?
The only difference here is that someone who is brain dead will not recover and a fetus has the potential to become a living breathing organism.
But potential is not a reason to deny abortion
Now while we have seen that allowing abortion has shown a correlation with reduced crime 20 years later, Roe V Wade was 1973 and crime started showing reductions in 1994 about the time when people who would have been born in 1974 would be in their crime making years this is not a reason to allow abortion but a general benefit due to unwanted kids born most often in poverty not being born

If abortion is murder then so is capital punishment, if you outlaw abortion then you must outlaw capital punishment.
The whole argument rests on what defines a person, when does a fetus become a person scientifically and therefore then acquires the right to life?
Most religious people believe that moment is at conception and talk about potential, if potential is such a big issue then we have more issues.
Male masturbation is wrong as well as using a condom due to losing the potential of those sperm.
Also this would mean that every time a woman has her period is a waste of potential and she should be pregnant non-stop from the first time she is able to conceive until she runs out of eggs otherwise she is murdering potential humans.

Again if you apply something in one situation what makes it different in another situation. Without bringing God into the equation the logical arguments along this line do not stand up.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by thenewkidd 2 years ago
thenewkidd
"My point will be thus, unless you can define life and define why we have rights, or what is human, and APPLY it so it"s true in all circumstances, how can you go around saying this form of life or stage of development does or does not have a right . Since you have not defined why your argument is legitimate, or how its true, its best not to perform an act without reason to do so. As such, abortion should be illegal until a valid argument shown to be true is formed."

you are on the right track with this... not that I have to tell you how to debate this subject, but this is the direction I would have taken this debate as well :)
Posted by NathanDuclos 2 years ago
NathanDuclos
True - I'm off Thursday and Friday at 3, and Jack free Friday. Blondie Friday?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
NathanDuclosfactsrgooodTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for Pro's forfeits. As Pro didn't present a case until the last round when it was impossible for Con to rebut, I'm not awarding arguments for it--Con might have managed to rebut it sufficiently, had he the opportunity to do so. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.