The Instigator
SlamminSam212
Con (against)
Losing
27 Points
The Contender
Puck
Pro (for)
Winning
32 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 10 votes the winner is...
Puck
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/17/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,204 times Debate No: 8672
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (21)
Votes (10)

 

SlamminSam212

Con

Abortion is wrong and should be illegal in the USA! Except or rape incest and mothers health but it is a such a low percentage for it to ever get passed i would have to give that up.

Anybody wanna start this up!
Puck

Pro

"Abortion is wrong and should be illegal in the USA! Except or rape incest and mothers health but it is a such a low percentage for it to ever get passed i would have to give that up."

"Abortion is wrong" is not a valid argument - "should be illegal" renders this debate into the domain of philosophy.

A pregnant woman is self-governing - and the only relevant party with rational capacities that make it relevant to regard her as having rights - rights that are solely derived from the unique nature of being human - the ability to be rational.

Rights are only applicable to those with this characteristic - based on the reality that the employ of force against others is an unreliable means of gaining values. The rational conclusion to this is to prohibit force from normal interaction with others. Individual rights, define those areas or aspects of action which should be free from force.

Forcing a birth is in direct violation of the concept of rights . It violates the mothers rights to her own self as her own property - a punishment for the non-crime of sex. She and she alone is the rational body. She alone has property rights, and the foetus, non-rational, non-rights bearing, is definitely existent as part of the mother's property.
Debate Round No. 1
SlamminSam212

Con

Being the caretaker of our species, a woman has a awesome responsibly the sanctity of life. In fact if her womb is violated against her will by an unwanted perpetrator, prisons throughout our country are full of these criminals. In regards to the rights of a woman, her right to judge the existence of another life ends at the moment of conception. "We are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights of which among these being life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." For a woman to determine the unborn life to be any less or more important then her own is unjust in a civilized society. Her decision and her right to decide the life of another human being ends when she, the caretaker, voluntarily decides to conceive. At the moment of conception she relinquishes her rights to be anymore or less important then the life in which she carries, they are of equal value, no life is greater then another. To abort this creation from that moment forward for anything less then a life threatening reason is paramount to murder and the suicide of our society and man kind as we know it. Pure unadulterated self destruction of man kind. In conclusion of this round a wise man once quoted "recently there has been a lot of talk about the merits of abortion right/wrong one side/ the other... but it would seem that human common sense should simply dictate that by purposely taking the life of a purely innocent Being about to embark on life's journey is and should be beyond our comprehension and ability to execute." If man kind has no problem with heinously killing and executing its unborn young then what next? Cannibalism, or maybe even Soylent Green? It's just people. Pro-Life or Pro-Death that's the choice.
Puck

Pro

"Being the caretaker of our species, a woman has a awesome responsibly the sanctity of life."

Ambiguous collective fallacy. An individual is responsible for a singular life, their own. No one individual has automatic claim on another.

"In fact if her womb is violated against her will by an unwanted perpetrator, prisons throughout our country are full of these criminals."

Sentence error - a statement does not follow the premise.

"In regards to the rights of a woman, her right to judge the existence of another life ends at the moment of conception."

Rights are negative claims on action - judging is a positive action and irrelevant in a discussion of rights. Note that the trait "alive" is your sole sufficient clause. A mosquito is alive, under this premise squashing one would be illegal.

"For a woman to determine the unborn life to be any less or more important then her own is unjust in a civilized society."

Ambiguous collective - again the trait "alive" is insufficient in the determination of rights - read R1.

"Her decision and her right to decide the life of another human being ends when she, the caretaker, voluntarily decides to conceive."

Human is a philosophical definition and refers solely to "rational animal" - rationality is the basis of rights, a foetus is not rational so thanks for conceding. A foetus is Homo sapien, not human.

"At the moment of conception she relinquishes her rights to be anymore or less important then the life in which she carries, they are of equal value, no life is greater then another."

Incorrect. The life she carries is a symbiote of which she has sole controlling interest, sole controlling decision as property holder of it. It is a visitor until such time as she determines she wants it removed from her property at which point it becomes a trespasser. :)

By your premise of "trait - alive" a parasitic worm has rights over and above the controlling host human to destroy it - if you are going to be consistent.

"To abort this creation from that moment forward for anything less then a life threatening reason is paramount to murder and the suicide of our society and man kind as we know it."

Fallacy - slippery slope. Again by your sole trait of "alive" the daily microbial activity in our gut makes us all mass murderers.

"In conclusion of this round a wise man once quoted "recently there has been a lot of talk about the merits of abortion right/wrong one side/ the other... but it would seem that human common sense should simply dictate that by purposely taking the life of a purely innocent Being about to embark on life's journey is and should be beyond our comprehension and ability to execute.""

Common sense is not a solid foundation for law - it relies on current common perception - which is far from reliable and usually far from valid. Holding slaves was considered good sense.

"If man kind has no problem with heinously killing and executing its unborn young then what next?"

Fallacy - Appeal to emotion. Hopefully recognising such individual rights will lead to further recognition.
Debate Round No. 2
SlamminSam212

Con

You covered everything except Soylent Green. Check it out, its right up your ally.

"An individual is responsible for a singular life, their own. No one individual has automatic claim on another."

Wrong, again without a woman being responsibly for the sanctity of life we wouldn't have a civilization to discuss.

Sentence correction - prisons throughout this country are full of criminals that have violated the womb of a woman.

"Rights are negative claims on action - judging is a positive action and irrelevant in a discussion of rights. Note that the trait "alive" is your sole sufficient clause. A mosquito is alive, under this premise squashing one would be illegal."

Fallacy - squashing a mosquito would not be illegal, but killing a human being born or unborn should be.

"Human is a philosophical definition and refers solely to "rational animal" - rationality is the basis of rights, a foetus is not rational so thanks for conceding. A foetus is Homo sapien, not human."

Wrong, the definition of Homo sapien is a human being, and by your our volition a foetus is Homo sapien, thus a foetus is human being and given time and maturity will have rationally thoughts, if not executed first through a abortion.

"Incorrect. The life she carries is a symbiote of which she has sole controlling interest, sole controlling decision as property holder of it. It is a visitor until such time as she determines she wants it removed from her property at which point it becomes a trespasser. :)"

Correction - you consider the life she carries a symbiote. I consider it a unborn human being, that she is a caretaker of, and not to be viewed as a piece of property but as an unborn life.

"By your premise of "trait - alive" a parasitic worm has rights over and above the controlling host human to destroy it - if you are going to be consistent."

Incorrect - a parasitic, a worm or any other form of bacteria has no controlling rights over the human it may occupy. A human embryo conceived by two opposite sexed humans does have rights, no more or less then the mother of which conceived it.

"Fallacy - slippery slope. Again by your sole trait of "alive" the daily microbial activity in our gut makes us all mass murderers."

Correction of Fallacy - the daily microbial activity of our stomach acid destroying bacteria in our digestive system, cannot be compared to the growth of a human embryo in a mothers womb and its destruction through abortion.

"Common sense is not a solid foundation for law - it relies on current common perception - which is far from reliable and usually far from valid. Holding slaves was considered good sense."

Common Sense is the only basics of law, without it there is no foundation. No matter what the current common perception. Example the Holocaust was considered acceptable by Nazi Germany but basic human common sense finally deemed it wrong, and a crime against society at the Nuremberg trails. The Holocaust was always found fundamentally wrong, as is abortion.

"Fallacy - Appeal to emotion. Hopefully recognising such individual rights will lead to further recognition."

Sentence error - recognizing spelled wrong

Human emotion - fortunately we have it, other forms of life do not. That is the salvation of our very existence. Man kind without emotion cannot continue to unjustly kill its young.

VOTE CON!
Puck

Pro

"You covered everything except Soylent Green. Check it out, its right up your ally."

Advocating liberty =/= dystopia.

"Wrong, again without a woman being responsibly for the sanctity of life we wouldn't have a civilization to discuss."

Again ambiguous collective fallacy - there is no construct "society" here that is valid, only individuals.

"Sentence correction - prisons throughout this country are full of criminals that have violated the womb of a woman."

That relates to abortion being made legal how exactly? The only thing it does it harm your case by the law recognising a woman as her own property and the ability of a trespasser in that property. :)

"Fallacy - squashing a mosquito would not be illegal, but killing a human being born or unborn should be."

Saying "fallacy" is a useless exercise unless you indicate what one - i.e. how the argument is faulty. All you have done is gone NUHUH! Saying "should be" is the resolution, not an argument.

"Wrong, the definition of Homo sapien is a human being, and by your our volition a foetus is Homo sapien, thus a foetus is human being and given time and maturity will have rationally thoughts, if not executed first through a abortion."

This a debate on philosophical grounds - Homo sapien is a biological scientific classification - it indicates nothing more than demarcation between species - human is a philosophical one, and specifically means "rational animal." Volition has nothing to do with whether an organism meets a classification criteria. Potentiality argument fails - as a sperm and embryo both have potentials for development into a human - thus under your reasoning making periods and masturbation illegal.

"Correction - you consider the life she carries a symbiote. I consider it a unborn human being, that she is a caretaker of, and not to be viewed as a piece of property but as an unborn life."

Unborn and symbiote are no exclusive definitions. It is residing on property that the mother has controlling right over - her body.

"Incorrect - a parasitic, a worm or any other form of bacteria has no controlling rights over the human it may occupy. A human embryo conceived by two opposite sexed humans does have rights, no more or less then the mother of which conceived it."

You still fail to give a basis for what rights are other than "life" - as such all life still has rights under your premise - equally you fail utterly in building a case for the singular rights of a foetus.

"Correction of Fallacy - the daily microbial activity of our stomach acid destroying bacteria in our digestive system, cannot be compared to the growth of a human embryo in a mothers womb and its destruction through abortion."

Simply making a statement is not an argument. Using your premises.

1. Destruction of life is murder
2. A microbe is alive
3. Killing a microbe is murder

"Common Sense is the only basics of law, without it there is no foundation."

In America the basis is the constitution - not common sense. Common sense is simply an appeal to popularity - if laws were based on this sole premise then popular vote would need to occur for the creation of each legal decision. Clearly that doesn't occur. Clearly you fail.

"No matter what the current common perception. Example the Holocaust was considered acceptable by Nazi Germany but basic human common sense finally deemed it wrong, and a crime against society at the Nuremberg trails."

Murder was established as punishable far prior to post WWII. It is not "common sense" that dictates reaction to murder is is based upon the rational premise that force should be void from social actions i.e. the right to life.

"The Holocaust was always found fundamentally wrong, as is abortion."

Fallacy - weak analogy, abortion =/= WWII genocide.

"Sentence error - recognizing spelled wrong"

Queen's English. It may be difficult for you to understand, however America is not the origin of the English language.

==
Debate Round No. 3
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Lexicaholic 7 years ago
Lexicaholic
RFD: PRO
(1) Tied. Agree with abortion to an extent, beyond that extent I do not, and ...
(2) Tied. I feel the same way still. Both sides relied far too much on their ideologies without an explanation of the consequences of the effects of their ideologies. An argument for or against restricting an action should have mentioned the effects of allowing or restricting that action.
(3) Tied. Conduct wasn't bad either way.
(4) Pro. Better spelling, grammar and logical construction of sentences, generally.
(5) Pro. Used logic rather than an emotional appeal.
(6) Tied. Neither side used sources.
Posted by Puck 7 years ago
Puck
"It is a yes or no answer Puck. I am starting to think you do not want to answer the question."

No, it maybe yes or no in your head.:) An adult with severe MS maybe totally reliant on their mother. You need to be specific with hypotheticals. :)
Posted by KeithKroeger91 7 years ago
KeithKroeger91
"That's a scenario that details nothing specific."

It is a yes or no answer Puck. I am starting to think you do not want to answer the question.
Posted by Puck 7 years ago
Puck
The difference is mother's intent prior to birth - a birth indicates a specific intent. At birth the baby engages in a process towards rationality - a foetus cannot. A 3 week baby still does not have rights.
Posted by Puck 7 years ago
Puck
"Are you saying that a person does not have the right to life if they are dependent on the mother for survival?"

That's a scenario that details nothing specific.
Posted by SlamminSam212 7 years ago
SlamminSam212
FINAL COMMENT!

Maybe, just maybe this will sink in your think intellectual, arrogant, egotistical mind.

Scenario 1:
Third Trimester partial birth abortion desired by irresponsible mom and leakier boyfriend.
Three weeks prior to birth smashed the skull and use a Oreck to vacuum up the brains and after birth, no problem lets go to lunch.

Scenario 2:
Three weeks after birth irresponsible mom and leaky boyfriend decide they don't want to be bothered with the baby, so they smash the babies skull, chop it up, and shove it down an garbage disposal.

Result:
First degree intention homicide to mom and leaky boyfriend. No lunch this time. Convection life in prison or Capital Punishment in some states.

Whats the difference? Three weeks this way or threes weeks that way, same life, same being, same as murder. So much for abortion.

Got it?
Posted by KeithKroeger91 7 years ago
KeithKroeger91
Are you saying that a person does not have the right to life if they are dependent on the mother for survival?
Posted by Puck 7 years ago
Puck
"Singular case, singular smashe let's cut this proper mumbo jumbo that you are so hooked up on and get to the bottom line. To abort a fetus, embryo or unborn human being at any time following conception, and the spark of life, is nothing less then murder. Call it what you will its still murder. A wise man once said, "It's impossible to argue with ignorant people that simply won't accept facts as they are and instead focus on irrelevant, trivial elements that do nothing more than cloud the issue.""

Unfortunately for you "just accept my argument because I want you to" doesn't work. The 'mumbo jumbo' you refer to, relates to the domain you placed the debate in. :) In a debate on law would you preclude legal terms? No? Same with a debate founded in other domains.
Posted by SlamminSam212 7 years ago
SlamminSam212
"Capatalising it, does not make the usage any more correct. Again, a parasite grows too - you are failing to make a singular case."

Puck you are not using common sense here. i.e. if there was a forest fire in California, you would be the person that would say "you know the fire retardant coming out of the planes is a green dye and I think its supposed to be orange, so let's bring the planes down and investigate," all the while the forest fire rages and homes are burning by the hundreds, while YOU investigate the color of the retardant dye. My point is this. Singular case, singular smashe let's cut this proper mumbo jumbo that you are so hooked up on and get to the bottom line. To abort a fetus, embryo or unborn human being at any time following conception, and the spark of life, is nothing less then murder. Call it what you will its still murder. A wise man once said, "It's impossible to argue with ignorant people that simply won't accept facts as they are and instead focus on irrelevant, trivial elements that do nothing more than cloud the issue."
Posted by Puck 7 years ago
Puck
"Yes, a parasite does grow making it a living creature. But the differance is, is that a parasite isn't human a baby is with its 46 chromosomes."

And? There is nothing inherent in biological classification that determines rights. All you are arguing is on a basis of "cause I say so."

"I was emphasizing that it is indeed HUMAN. Also, my argument clearly states that the "fetus" in the womb is in fact human, thus has rights like any other human outside the womb, a parasite isn't human."

Um no. Usage is incorrect, whether you like it to be or not. There is a colloquial usage and a technical usage of the term 'human'; much like there is with 'theory' - the debate was worded specifically in the domain that uses it as "rational animal." Even so, your "it is human" fails utterly in the determination of a basis of rights. It has rights because it is human, a human has rights, is circular and deficient.

"No, I only stated a fact that humans have 46 chromosomes while a sperm or egg only contain 23 proving that sperm and eggs are not human thus not protected by the law."

They are protected, both are still property of the original host. :)
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Debate201Brett 7 years ago
Debate201Brett
SlamminSam212PuckTied
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 
Vote Placed by Lexicaholic 7 years ago
Lexicaholic
SlamminSam212PuckTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:04 
Vote Placed by KeithKroeger91 7 years ago
KeithKroeger91
SlamminSam212PuckTied
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:61 
Vote Placed by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
SlamminSam212PuckTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
SlamminSam212PuckTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by tBoonePickens 7 years ago
tBoonePickens
SlamminSam212PuckTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by brittwaller 7 years ago
brittwaller
SlamminSam212PuckTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
SlamminSam212PuckTied
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 
Vote Placed by LB628 7 years ago
LB628
SlamminSam212PuckTied
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 SlamminSam212 7 years ago
SlamminSam212
SlamminSam212PuckTied
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