The Instigator
TheGoldMustache
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Zarroette
Con (against)
Winning
8 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 2 votes the winner is...
Zarroette
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/3/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 507 times Debate No: 72867
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

TheGoldMustache

Pro

If abortion is murder, so is abstinence. Having an abortion is the equivalent of not getting pregnant in the first place.
Zarroette

Con

Thank you, TheGoldMustache, for instigating this debate.

In this debate, Pro has the burden of proof to affirm the clarified resolution:

"If abortion is murder, so is abstinence."

I will treat the first round as acceptance, considering that the debate is 5 rounds long with 10,000 characters per round. I wish my opponent strength in argument.
Debate Round No. 1
TheGoldMustache

Pro

Note: My firs round was not meant to be taken literally, I just thought it did a fairly good job of summing up my point. A fetus in the first few months is not mentally developed, and to abort it is the equivalent of not getting pregnant in the first place. I am not debating at what point it is developed; it is a gray area. The last two months is not okay to abort, first three months it is. The middle is fairly circumstantial. I am arguing for the right to have an abortion, not whether it is ok to abort a seven month developed child. This post was more of an introductory round, not a main argument.
Zarroette

Con

Thank you, Pro.


Negative Case


A1: False equivalence

In the first round, in order to clarify the single word "abortion" into a resolution, my opponent elaborates: "if abortion is murder, so is abstinence. Having an abortion is the equivalent of not getting pregnant in the first place".

Now, there is are obvious differences between abortion and not getting pregnant.


I.

There is no child in not getting pregnant, yet there is a child involved with an abortion.


II.

There is no child death involved in not getting pregnant, yet there is always child death with abortion.


It follows that "having an abortion is the equivalent of not getting pregnant in the first place" is contradictory. Hence, my opponent's resolution falls under the logical fallacy classification of false equivalence [1].


Counter-arguments


"Note: My firs round was not meant to be taken literally, I just thought it did a fairly good job of summing up my point. A fetus in the first few months is not mentally developed, and to abort it is the equivalent of not getting pregnant in the first place. I am not debating at what point it is developed; it is a gray area."

My opponent has attempted to shift the goalposts here, which is logically fallacious [2]. How this occurred is that opponent originally clarified the resolution to be about a debate on "having an abortion is the equivalen[ce] of not getting pregnant in the first place", but now he/she has lessened this burden of proof by claiming that the resolution had to be taken non-literally. Unfortunately for my opponent, no such further clarification was presented in the first round:

"If abortion is murder, so is abstinence. Having an abortion is the equivalent of not getting pregnant in the first place."

Within these two sentences, you will find nothing that dictates this debate requires a non-literal interpretation of the resolution. Therefore, the resolution is not set to be taken non-literally, and thus my interpretation remains legitimate in this debate.


"The last two months is not okay to abort, first three months it is. The middle is fairly circumstantial. I am arguing for the right to have an abortion, not whether it is ok to abort a seven month developed child. This post was more of an introductory round, not a main argument."

My opponent concedes the debate with this argument, even if the resolution were to be taken non-literally. You see, my opponent argues that abortion is not a singular colour, in regards to metaphysical ethics/morals (i.e. not being "okay" to abort during the last two months). In other words, it would be okay to abort in the first three months, BUT abortion, according to Pro, is the same as not getting pregnant! What this means is that:

1) Abortion is proposed as a singular type
2) However, according to my opponent, there is a difference in the morality/ethics of abortion, varying based on the time of incubation (meaning that there are two types of abortion)
3) Not getting pregnant is a singular type
4) My opponent judged that abortion is (ethically/morally) the equivalent not getting pregnant in the first place, despite there being black-and-white differences (i.e. singular term) in regards to the abortion in question
C) Therefore, my opponent has to keep the morality/ethics of abortion either wrong or "okay" (due to the construction of the resolution requiring abortion to equal not getting pregnant), yet my opponent has argued that the ethics/morality of abortion varies! Thus, abortion is not always the equivalent of not getting pregnant.


Conclusion

Via a legitimate interpretation of the resolution, I have shown that there are literal differences between abortion and not getting pregnant, thereby negating the resolution. Later, even though I am not required to do so, I showed how my opponent's argument concedes the debate, even if I were to allow the shifting of goalposts to a strictly non-literal interpretation. On both grounds, the resolution is negated.


References

[1] http://www.trulyfallacious.com...
[2] http://www.logicallyfallacious.com...
Debate Round No. 2
TheGoldMustache

Pro

TheGoldMustache forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
TheGoldMustache

Pro

TheGoldMustache forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
TheGoldMustache

Pro

TheGoldMustache forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by GainWisdom 1 year ago
GainWisdom
When dealing with the problem of abortion... You are pretty much debating on whether or not murder is wrong.... And to that I will ask:

1. If something is growing, isn't it alive?
2. If it has human parents, isn't it human?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Commondebator 1 year ago
Commondebator
TheGoldMustacheZarroetteTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by ESocialBookworm 1 year ago
ESocialBookworm
TheGoldMustacheZarroetteTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: TGM disappeared. Zarro provided arguments and rebutted his.