The Instigator
jhenley9111
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Philocat
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

Abortion

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 1 vote the winner is...
Philocat
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/7/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 738 times Debate No: 71304
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)

 

jhenley9111

Pro

This is a debate about abortion (The deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy.) As always, I will allow Pro to go first. All forms of references will be allowed if correct citation is provided. Best of luck!
Philocat

Con

I will be arguing that abortion is immoral in all cases apart from when the mother's life is in immediate danger.

As you are pro, you can go first :)
Debate Round No. 1
jhenley9111

Pro

Thank you for agreeing to debate me on this topic.

I will be arguing the bodily rights argument, a view point adopted from Judith Jarvis Thomson. His argument states that even if the fetus is a person and has a right to life, abortion is morally permissible because a woman has a right to control her own body and its life-support functions. For example, if a child was going to die and he/she needed an organ in order to live, the parent of that child should not be legally or morally obligated to provide those organs at his/her own expense.

sources:

"Home." National Abortion Federation. Web. 8 Mar. 2015. <http://prochoice.org...;.
Philocat

Con

Right, first I will present two arguments why abortion is morally wrong, then I will refute Pro's arguments.

Argument 1

This argument has the following form:

P1: A human foetus is a human being
P2: It is morally wrong to kill a human being
P3: Abortion kills a human foetus
C: Abortion is morally wrong

This is a deductive syllogism, which is to say that the conclusion is true insofar as the premises are true. I will now explain why all the premises are true.

Is a human foetus a human being?

Consider the definition of 'human being':

'A human.' (1)

We know that a human foetus is a human by noting that the DNA from a human foetus is the same as the DNA from a human adult.

It is also a live human, because it has the attribute of being alive. Consider the definition of life:

'the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.' (2)

A foetus is composed of organic matter, is growing, can function and is subject to continual change preceding death. Although it cannot reproduce in its present state, this does not mean that it is not alive, because otherwise infertile people would not be alive, which is absurd.

Therefore a human foetus is a live human being with a separate body (this being evident if one simply looks at the form of a foetus in a pregnancy scan)- it is an single organism. Hence P1 is verified to be true.

P2 is self-evident. I commend its veracity to the voters but if my opponent takes issue with this premise, then I will defend it.

P3 is a medical fact, as abortion systematically kills a foetus. (3)

As all the premises are true, the conclusion is therefore true, that abortion is immoral.

Argument 2

Moral assertions are only rational if they are consistent. If one maintains 'X is good in Y situation' then they must stick by their belief even if it does not favour them. If they do not do this then they are being morally inconsistent and thus irrational.

The consistency principle is similar to the Golden Rule:

'Treat someone in a given situation in such a way that you would consent to being treated if you were to then be put in that exact situation'.

In order for a moral statement to be consistent, it must adhere to this principle. I argue that stating 'it is morally acceptable to abort a foetus' is inconsistent.
Why is this?
Many people state that 'it is morally acceptable to abort a foetus' - in other words they are willing to kill a foetus or allow it to be killed.
Yet if they were faced with the prospect of being put in the situation of a foetus, then they would not consent to being killed.

This is inconsistent; they are saying it is good to do something to someone in a given situation yet they would not consent to being treated in that way if they were in that exact same situation.
As abortion is an inconsistent moral principle, it is an irrational moral principle. Therefore, it is not rational to support abortion.

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Pro's arguments

Pro goes down the route of arguing about a woman's bodily rights.

'abortion is morally permissible because a woman has a right to control her own body'

A woman has a right to control her own body, but this right cannot be extended to the point at which it harms others. A quote by Zechariah Chafee sums up this point:

'Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins' (4)

In short, we have bodily rights, but not to the point at which others' rights are infringed, namely the foetus's right not to be killed.

'if a child was going to die and he/she needed an organ in order to live, the parent of that child should not be legally or morally obligated to provide those organs at his/her own expense.'

Really?! If a child will die if his mother does not donate a non-vital organ, then it would be morally abhorrent for the mother to refuse to do so. Parents have special obligations to their children whereas they might be exempt from these obligations for total strangers.

Furthermore, the mother caused the foetus to be in the dependent situation (by consenting to sexual intercourse), so she is not morally justified in withdrawing her life support.
To use an analogy, if I spiked someone's drink and this inadvertently caused that person to have kidney failure, then if I was the only possible kidney donor then I would be morally obligated to donate a kidney. This is because I was the reason that the dependant is in the situation of being dependent in the first place!

Your turn, Pro!

______________________________________________________________________________________________

(1) http://dictionary.reference.com... being
(2) http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
(3) http://www.abortionfacts.com...
(4) http://en.wikiquote.org....
Debate Round No. 2
jhenley9111

Pro

Before I get to my rebuttals I want to make one thing clear. In an abortion you are not terminating the fetus's life. You are terminating the pregnancy. Not all pregnancy terminations harm the fetus. Take C-section for example. That is terminating the pregnancy and the fetus will most likely live. (By the way Con spelled fetus wrong EVERY SINGLE TIME.)

Con said...
"We know that a human fetus is a human by noting that the DNA from a human fetus is the same as the DNA from a human adult."

I would like to point out to the voters that this definition of human life is sloppy. A blood cell has the DNA and RNA of a human. A blood cell is organic, it's alive, and can function and change before death. But that does not make it a person by any means.

Con said that a fetus is a totally separate organism in the mother's womb. This is not true. The fetus is 100% biologically dependent on the mother to live. Keep in mind I am not suggesting that a fetus is an extenuation of a person.

It seems that Con is wanting to give special rights to fetuses. If I were going to die I CAN NOT hook myself up to someone else to circulate my blood. I do not have that right even if I might patently die. So a fetus does not have a right to use someone else body in order to live without their consent. If not, a fetus would have the right to use someone's body without consent. Just like you have to have consent with organ donation you have to give consent to continue a pregnancy.

Con said...
"If a child will die if his mother does not donate a non-vital organ, then it would be morally abhorrent for the mother to refuse to do so. Parents have special obligations to their children"

Weather we are talking an organ or a womb, a child does not have a right to use someone else body without consent. Legally, a parent is not obligated to provide those services. Someone only has "special" obligations to a child in witch they choose to care for. That is why you can put a child up for adoption at any time.

Con also said...

" Furthermore, the mother caused the foetus to be in the dependent situation (by consenting to sexual intercourse), so she is not morally justified in withdrawing her life support."

I do not mean to be cliche, but the mother could have been raped. Just because you have sex does not mean you want to get pregnant.

When someone can not make medical decisions on their own, those responsibilities go to the next of kin, in this case, the mother. So the mother can legally choose to "pull the plug" on the fetus and terminate the pregnancy.

Con said...

"To use an analogy, if I spiked someone's drink and this inadvertently caused that person to have kidney failure, then if I was the only possible kidney donor then I would be morally obligated to donate a kidney. This is because I was the reason that the dependant is in the situation of being dependent in the first place!"

You are implying that we live in an "Eye-for-an-eye" type crime system, in witch we do not. If I steal a television from the store, the government can not cut my fingers off and take my property.
Philocat

Con

Firstly, Pro states that I spell foetus wrong. In fact, I spell it right. It is an americanism to insist in spelling it 'fetus'.
The disparity comes in spelling differences between American English and British English. Considering that Britain is the home and creator of the English language, it follows that American English is a more bastardised form of British English.
Hence I shall continue to call a foetus a foetus, and not a 'fetus', as the former is the correct spelling.

'I would like to point out to the voters that this definition of human life is sloppy. A blood cell has the DNA and RNA of a human. A blood cell is organic, it's alive, and can function and change before death. But that does not make it a person by any means.'

Having human DNA wasn't my full definition of human life; a being must also be an individual organism and alive in order to be a human being. In this way, blood cells are not human beings because, despite being both human and alive, they are not individual organisms. Yet foetuses are human beings because a foetus is an alive individual organism with unique human DNA.

'Con said that a fetus is a totally separate organism in the mother's womb. This is not true. The fetus is 100% biologically dependent on the mother to live. Keep in mind I am not suggesting that a fetus is an extenuation of a person.'

I didn't say that it was a 'totally separate organism', I simply said that it has a separate body, in other words, it has its own body.
The fact that the foetus is dependent on the mother is irrelevant, as dependency does not refute the assertion that the foetus has its own, separate body.
Just to say, when I say 'separate' I am not saying that the body is not attached, all this says is that the foetus is not a part of the mother's body, which logically entails that it is a separate body.

'It seems that Con is wanting to give special rights to fetuses. If I were going to die I CAN NOT hook myself up to someone else to circulate my blood. I do not have that right even if I might patently die. So a fetus does not have a right to use someone else body in order to live without their consent. If not, a fetus would have the right to use someone's body without consent. Just like you have to have consent with organ donation you have to give consent to continue a pregnancy.'

1. The foetus does not choose to use the mother's body, unlike the person in the analogy.

2. The analogy does not pertain to pregnancy. The very reason that the foetus is in such a state that it requires life-support is because of the actions of the mother. To adjust the analogy, it would be immoral for someone to sever my blood supply and then refuse to keep me alive using their body.

3. By engaging in sexual intercourse (an act intrinsically ordered towards procreation), one gives tacit consent to the possibility that they might conceive a foetus that will use their body. The reason that tacit consent is given is by virtue of that fact that sex is intrinsically ordered towards procreation. Of course there could be cases of rape, but I'll discuss these situations later.

'Weather we are talking an organ or a womb, a child does not have a right to use someone else body without consent.

Fair enough, but what I am saying is that it is immoral to not consent to harbouring one's child inside the womb. Of course a mother can not consent to this and go and abort her child, but I'm arguing that it is not moral to do this.

'Legally, a parent is not obligated to provide those services.'

I am not talking about legal obligations, I am talking about moral obligations.

'Someone only has "special" obligations to a child in witch they choose to care for. That is why you can put a child up for adoption at any time.'

Agreed, they can put the child up for adoption as soon as its possible to do so without harming the child. Therefore abortion is not justified as the mother can simply put the child up for adoption after she gives birth.

Using an analogy, there is a mother in the middle of the wilderness who has given birth to an unwanted baby. Morally, is she justified in abandoning the baby because she has no obligations to children she does not wish to care for?
Not at all, if she does not wish to care for the baby then she can hand it over to adoption centres, but if she cannot do this at the moment then she has an obligation to not harm the child until the child has been handed over.

'I do not mean to be cliche, but the mother could have been raped. Just because you have sex does not mean you want to get pregnant.'

1. A tiny minority of abortions are sought because of rape, so this is an appeal to extremes fallacy.

2. Abortion does not do any good - it doesn't 'undo' the rape in any way and it is a misdirection of justice. The child is innocent and so it is not moral to punish it.

'When someone can not make medical decisions on their own, those responsibilities go to the next of kin, in this case, the mother. So the mother can legally choose to "pull the plug" on the fetus and terminate the pregnancy.'

With that logic, I would be able to murder my disabled brother because he cannot make medical decisions and I am his next of kin, yet this is absurd. Termination of life is not a medical decision.

'You are implying that we live in an "Eye-for-an-eye" type crime system, in witch we do not. If I steal a television from the store, the government can not cut my fingers off and take my property.'

Not at all, all I am saying is that if Person A causes Person B to be in a dependent position, then Person A is not morally justified in withdrawing the means of Person B's survival.

Finally, Pro ignores the consistency argument, headed 'Argument 2'.
Debate Round No. 3
jhenley9111

Pro

Con said...

"Having human DNA wasn't my full definition of human life; a being must also be an individual organism and alive in order to be a human being. In this way, blood cells are not human beings because, despite being both human and alive, they are not individual organisms. Yet foetuses are human beings because a foetus is an alive individual organism with unique human DNA."

You are clearly confused on the difference between human and human being. An egg and sperm have potential to become human and then it has potential to become a human being. Why does someone have to have unique DNA to be human? A blood cell is human. A clone is a human being.

Con also said...
"Just to say, when I say 'separate' I am not saying that the body is not attached, all this says is that the foetus is not a part of the mother's body, which logically entails that it is a separate body."

The fetus is definitely part of the mothers body. Everything the mother puts in her will harm or help the fetus.

"The foetus does not choose to use the mother's body, unlike the person in the analogy."

So your saying that the fetus has the right to use someone's body without consent because it doesn't get to pick the person it takes the rights away from...

" it would be immoral for someone to sever my blood supply and then refuse to keep me alive using their body. "

Why should it matter? Without consent, you have no right to continue using that blood.

" what I am saying is that it is immoral to not consent to harbouring one's child inside the womb. Of course a mother can not consent to this and go and abort her child, but I'm arguing that it is not moral to do this."

Is it not immoral for the fetus to use the mother's body without permission? The fetus is robbing a mother of her basic rights.

"Using an analogy, there is a mother in the middle of the wilderness who has given birth to an unwanted baby. Morally, is she justified in abandoning the baby because she has no obligations to children she does not wish to care for?
Not at all, if she does not wish to care for the baby then she can hand it over to adoption centres, but if she cannot do this at the moment then she has an obligation to not harm the child until the child has been handed over."

When the baby is born you are taking the human being debate out of question, so yes, the baby has rights. I think you are missing my whole argument. A woman should not have to be forced to stay pregnant because she has a right to say "No"
to something using her body without permission.

" A tiny minority of abortions are sought because of rape, so this is an appeal to extremes fallacy."

Even though only a small amount of abortions are done due to rape, it doesn't mean that rape is a very common crime around the world. Suggesting the extreme leads to an absurd conclusion. So rape cases are not an example of the appeal to extremes fallacy. However, if I argued "What if a fetus was going to kill the mother and the fetus had to die?" then that would be an example of the appeal to extremes fallacy.

" The child is innocent and so it is not moral to punish it."

How is the "child" innocent? It is obvious that the fetus is using the mother's body for its own agenda agents the mother's will.

"With that logic, I would be able to murder my disabled brother because he cannot make medical decisions and I am his next of kin, yet this is absurd. Termination of life is not a medical decision."

If your brother was on life support any you were the legal next-of-kin, you could. And the fetus is on life support for nine months.

" all I am saying is that if Person A causes Person B to be in a dependent position, then Person A is not morally justified in withdrawing the means of Person B's survival."

If that were true then if I were a drunk driver and I hit someone and that person had to be put in the hospital , it would be my moral duty to go to medical school and care for that person, which us illogical.

"Pro ignores the consistency argument, headed 'Argument 2'."

Yes I did. But perhaps I need to be more clear. The fetus is being immoral in a pregnancy if the mother does not give consent.

Sources:

"APPEAL TO EXTREMES." N.p., n.d. Web. <http://www.logicallyfallacious.com...;.

Arthur, Joyce. Pro Choice Action Network. N.p., n.d. Web. <http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org...;.

N.p., n.d. Web.
Philocat

Con

'An egg and sperm have potential to become human and then it has potential to become a human being.'

Yes, but potential human beings are not human beings, and so should not be treated as such. My argument asserts that foetuses, however, are actual human beings and not potential human beings.

'Why does someone have to have unique DNA to be human? A blood cell is human. A clone is a human being.'

You don't have to have unique DNA to be a human being, that is just generally a way of telling if a life form is a separate organism. Of course clones have non-unique DNA but these are exceptions to the rule; it is evident that clones are separate organisms but in cases where it is not evident (such as with foetuses), the fact the the DNA is unique rules out the possibility that it is not an individual organism. This is because it must be an individual organism if it has unique DNA.

'The fetus is definitely part of the mothers body. Everything the mother puts in her will harm or help the fetus.'

Consider the definition of 'part':

'A portion, division, piece, or segment of a whole.' (1)

A foetus is not a division of the mother's body; it does not form any bit of the composition of the mother's body.
Therefore the foetus is not a part of the mother's body. It is connected to the body and is located inside the body, but this does not entail being a part of the mother's body.

'So your saying that the fetus has the right to use someone's body without consent because it doesn't get to pick the person it takes the rights away from...'

It has a right to not be killed (as it is a human being and so it is entitled to the human right to life), if this entails that the foetus will have to remain in the womb, then it has a right to remain in the womb even if this happens to be using the mother's body.
The right to life supersedes the right to bodily autonomy, I will refer you back to my earlier quotation:

'Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins'

So although we have a right to bodily autonomy, this right does not supersede the right of other's to not be harmed/killed.

'Why should it matter? Without consent, you have no right to continue using that blood.'

Ipse dixit fallacy (2).

By causing someone to be in a state of mortal dependency, then you are taking responsibility for that person's welfare. You forfeit your own right to not support the dependant if you are the reason that the dependant is in a state of dependency. In a way, it is your fault that they need support in the first place. And it is the woman's fault (for want of a better word) that the foetus is in a state of dependency on the mother.

'Is it not immoral for the fetus to use the mother's body without permission? The fetus is robbing a mother of her basic rights.'

An action can only be immoral if it is freely chosen. For example, if I am hypnotised into killing someone, I have not acted immorally because I did not chose to kill that person.
Therefore, the foetus is not acting immorally because it did not freely choose to use the mother's body.

'When the baby is born you are taking the human being debate out of question, so yes, the baby has rights. I think you are missing my whole argument. A woman should not have to be forced to stay pregnant because she has a right to say "No"
to something using her body without permission.'

She can say no, that doesn't harm anybody. But if a woman wants the right to kill another human being (which is what she is doing by seeking abortion) then this right cannot be granted. As I have said before, the right to bodily autonomy does not supersede a right to life.

'Even though only a small amount of abortions are done due to rape, it doesn't mean that rape is a very common crime around the world. Suggesting the extreme leads to an absurd conclusion. So rape cases are not an example of the appeal to extremes fallacy. However, if I argued "What if a fetus was going to kill the mother and the fetus had to die?" then that would be an example of the appeal to extremes fallacy.'

Why is the latter guilty of the appeal to extremes fallacy and not the former? They are both comparatively rare cases for abortion.

'How is the "child" innocent? It is obvious that the fetus is using the mother's body for its own agenda agents the mother's will.'

As I have said above, the foetus is completely innocent because it has not freely chosen to act immorally. This is because it physically cannot choose to do so.
Also, the foetus is innocent of the crime in question; the rape. Aborting a foetus in a case of rape is punishing the foetus for a crime that someone else committed.

'If your brother was on life support any you were the legal next-of-kin, you could. And the fetus is on life support for nine months.'

Just saying so does not make it so. Involuntary euthanasia (which is what you are describing) is almost universally condemned and illegal. (3)

Even in cases where involuntary euthanasia can be conceived to be morally justified, these are where it is rationally concluded that the person would have to continue living. Yet this is not the case with a foetus, because it cannot be rationally assumed that a foetus would want to not live.

'If that were true then if I were a drunk driver and I hit someone and that person had to be put in the hospital , it would be my moral duty to go to medical school and care for that person, which us illogical.'

No, that's an elaboration of an analogy.
To modify it to pertain to the debate, it would be as follows.

If I were a drunk driver and I hit someone and that person had to have an emergency kidney transplant, and I was the only possible donor then I would be morally, if not legally, obliged to donate a kidney.

This analogy pertains to pregnancy as closely as possible, and hence it shows that cause of dependence gives an obligation to protect the dependant.

'Yes I did. But perhaps I need to be more clear. The fetus is being immoral in a pregnancy if the mother does not give consent.'

Okay then, you concede to argument 2 by virtue of the fact that you will not attempt to respond to it.
And as I have said multiple times, free-will is a necessary prerequisite to immoral acts, yet a foetus does not have free-will so they cannot act immorally.


Debate Round No. 4
jhenley9111

Pro

" but potential human beings are not human beings, and so should not be treated as such. My argument asserts that foetuses, however, are actual human beings and not potential human beings."

So far Con has not given a good reason why a fetus should be considered a human being.

"You don't have to have unique DNA to be a human being, that is just generally a way of telling if a life form is a separate organism. Of course clones have non-unique DNA but these are exceptions to the rule; it is evident that clones are separate organisms but in cases where it is not evident (such as with foetuses), the fact the the DNA is unique rules out the possibility that it is not an individual organism. This is because it must be an individual organism if it has unique DNA"

One again Con uses sloppy definitions. And in this case the Overwhelming Exceptions fallacy.

"A foetus is not a division of the mother's body; it does not form any bit of the composition of the mother's body.
Therefore the foetus is not a part of the mother's body. It is connected to the body and is located inside the body, but this does not entail being a part of the mother's body."

By your definition, the fetus IS part of a woman. It is connected to the mother

"The right to life supersedes the right to bodily autonomy"

No it doesn't by any means. Someone can not lawfully live off of someone else body. I have stated this many times. Sure a fetus could have a right to live, but not at the extent of someone else.

If someone made another person in a state of dependence, why is it right to force him/her to cater to the latter?

"An action can only be immoral if it is freely chosen. For example, if I am hypnotised into killing someone, I have not acted immorally because I did not chose to kill that person.
Therefore, the foetus is not acting immorally because it did not freely choose to use the mother's body"

Once again Con is trying to give special rights to fetuses. A mother has the right to terminate a pregnancy.

"She can say no, that doesn't harm anybody. But if a woman wants the right to kill another human being (which is what she is doing by seeking abortion) then this right cannot be granted. As I have said before, the right to bodily autonomy does not supersede a right to life."

You are asserting that a fetus is a human being (Ipse dixit fallacy) And a woman is not terminating the fetus she is terminating the pregnancy.

"Why is the latter guilty of the appeal to extremes fallacy and not the former?"

Because rape is a huge problem in the world. Just because few women choose to abort the pregnancy if they get pregnant does not mean it is not an issue that has to be dealt with. You can not force someone to stay pregnant.

"Also, the foetus is innocent of the crime in question; the rape. Aborting a foetus in a case of rape is punishing the foetus for a crime that someone else committed."

Forcing a woman to stay pregnant is also a punishment for a crime she did not commit.

"If I were a drunk driver and I hit someone and that person had to have an emergency kidney transplant, and I was the only possible donor then I would be morally, if not legally, obliged to donate a kidney."

No one can legally force you to donate an organ. You have to volunteer for someone else to use your own body.

Sources:

"APPEAL TO EXTREMES." N.p., n.d. Web. <http://www.logicallyfallacious.com......;.

Arthur, Joyce. Pro Choice Action Network. N.p., n.d. Web. <http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org......;.

N.p., n.d. Web.
Philocat

Con

'One again Con uses sloppy definitions. And in this case the Overwhelming Exceptions fallacy.'

Firstly I definitely don't commit the overwhelming exceptions fallacy, as there is only a single exception (clones). This can hardly considered to be an overwhelming exception.

Pro does not seem to have understood the clear argument I put that asserts that a human foetus is a human being. I will reiterate:

Human being: 'any individual of the genus Homo, esp. a member of the species Homo sapiens.' (1)

Individual: 'A single organism as distinguished from a species, community, or group.' (2)

So, is a human foetus an individual?
Yes, because it is a single organism (to disagree would to either assert that it is not an organism or that it is multiple organisms, both of which are biologically false).

Is a human foetus a member of the species Homo Sapiens?
Yes, because a human foetus has human DNA.

Ergo, a human foetus is a human being. I can't express the argument much more simply than this. Besides, the definitions are not 'sloppy' as they come from recognised and respected dictionaries.

'By your definition, the fetus IS part of a woman. It is connected to the mother'

If X is connected to Y, X is not necessarily a part of Y.
For example, I can connect my phone to my computer, but that does not mean that my phone is part of my computer.

'No it doesn't by any means. Someone can not lawfully live off of someone else body. I have stated this many times. Sure a fetus could have a right to live, but not at the extent of someone else.'

False, the right to life is the most fundamental human right (3).

Besides, whether it is lawful is irrelevant, as this debate is pertaining to the morality of abortion, not the legality.

For reasons of simplification, deciding whether to have an abortion is basically two essential options:

1. Kill a human being
2. Not kill a human being, but maintain a mild temporary physical handicap on another human being

Given that these are the options, it is clear to see that, whilst the latter is not a 'good' circumstance, it is far more preferable than the former.

'If someone made another person in a state of dependence, why is it right to force him/her to cater to the latter?'

Effectively they take responsibility for the welfare of the dependant by causing them to be in such a state.
For example if I am a nurse and I knock a patient out of their bed due to being careless while moving them, I have a moral obligation to assist the patient because I am the reason why the patient is in a vulnerable position.

Therefore, if I am a woman and I act in such a way (have sex) as to cause another human being (the foetus) to be in a vulnerable position, then she has a moral obligation to assist the foetus because she is the reason why the foetus is in a vulnerable position.

'Once again Con is trying to give special rights to fetuses. A mother has the right to terminate a pregnancy.'

Again, you're just blatantly saying that the mother has the right to terminate a pregnancy, this cannot be taken as fact unless sufficient justification is given for its veracity.
Remember that a mother does not have a right to kill her child (I commend this to the readers of this debate), and this right is not superseded by the aforementioned 'right' to end a pregnancy. Hence the 'right' to end a pregnancy cannot be justifiably actualised because doing so entails an even greater infringement of rights.

Besides, I'm not giving 'special' rights to the foetus. The right to life is anything but special, it is applied to all humans regardless of creed, colour, age, sexuality, gender etc...

'You are asserting that a fetus is a human being (Ipse dixit fallacy) And a woman is not terminating the fetus she is terminating the pregnancy.'

I would have committed the ipse dixit fallacy if I just asserted that a foetus is a human being without any justification. Yet in reality I have presented a sound argument that supports that very assertion. I have proved that a foetus is in fact a human being.

It is tenuous to say that abortion is terminating the pregnancy, not terminating the foetus, as the two are inextricably linked. One cannot terminate the pregnancy without terminating the foetus and vice versa. Making a distinction is meaningless.
Furthermore, this assertion is medically incorrect. The actual abortion procedure manually aims at the foetus and kills it (4); the termination of the pregnancy is just the consequence, not the actual act of abortion itself.

'Because rape is a huge problem in the world.'

Of course it is, but abortion does not solve it.

'You can not force someone to stay pregnant.'

You can force someone to not kill another human being, if this entails forcing someone to stay pregnant then so be it. This is because homicide is worse than indirectly causing someone to have a mild physical disability for a temporary period (i.e pregnancy).

'Forcing a woman to stay pregnant is also a punishment for a crime she did not commit.'

Yes, but it is less of a punishment than being killed.

Abortion is a matter of weighing up the rights and seeing who's are being infringed more. Being killed is far more of an infringement than being kept in a state of pregnancy, so although the latter is an infringement of rights, it is necessary in order to prevent the greater infringement of rights that is the former.

'No one can legally force you to donate an organ. You have to volunteer for someone else to use your own body.'

Again, I'm not asserting that they have a legal obligation, but they have a moral obligation. Therefore a mother has a moral obligation to support her unborn child because she caused the child to be in a situation that requires support, even if this obligation is not legally binding.


To conclude, I congratulate my opponent for a spirited attempt to defend abortion, but ultimately she has failed to refute my arguments against abortion, and her own arguments do not provide good reason to suppose that it is morally justified to have an abortion.


Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Philocat 1 year ago
Philocat
Thanks, beanall! :)
Posted by beanall 1 year ago
beanall
Well done Con. Solid arguments and rebuttals so far. I'm interested in how Pro can refute the arguments of the mother's consent.
Posted by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
"As always, I will allow Pro to go first."..... but you are Pro.
Posted by jhenley9111 1 year ago
jhenley9111
I apologize for my typo in the comment section
Posted by 1Credo 1 year ago
1Credo
You realize that you're Pro, don't you?
Posted by jhenley9111 1 year ago
jhenley9111
The reason I chose to not clarify further, is because I wanted to give Pro to have the chance to argue any side of abortion he/she wanted. So morality, politics, religion may be apart of the debate overall.
Posted by StalinIncarnate 1 year ago
StalinIncarnate
I feel like this topic is quite stale and ambiguous, along with Whether God exists or not.
Posted by Moroni23 1 year ago
Moroni23
I think it's important you clarify exatly what you are trying to do debate. For instance are you debating from a politial aspet IE the government should make no laws regarding abortion? Or are you debating from a moral aspect arguing that abortion is either wrong or right moraly.
Posted by Chuz-Life 1 year ago
Chuz-Life
"Abortion" is rather vague. So what's the actual subject of the debate? Please be more specific.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Chuz-Life 1 year ago
Chuz-Life
jhenley9111PhilocatTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Congrats to both pro and con on an exceptionally well executed debate. I can't imagine how the points debated could have been made (on both sides) better than they were. I give arguments to Con for the tenacious use of unbiased sources to show how a human fetus is a human being, an individual and not just a 'part of' the mother's body. It also did not help pro's case when Pro uses language that recognizes the fetus is a separate being from the mother (i.e. it has no right to use her blood, etc.). Con's argument that the mother can not claim the fetus is violating her rights when she is the created the relationship herself is the most convincing one of all. Grammar and conduct were close to going to Con as well due to the bickering over the spelling of fetus vs. foetus and a few other minor errors.