The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
6 Points


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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/1/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,060 times Debate No: 80290
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (16)
Votes (3)




This is a simple debate on the issue of abortion in America. I, the Pro, will argue for the right of a woman to receive an abortion, and the Con will argue his/her oppositions to abortion. I am willing to make some changes to the rules and details of the debate if you comment about it.

Debate Itinerary:
Round 1: Acceptance and definitions
Round 2: Introductory arguments
Round 3: Rebuttals
Round 4: Rebuttals and concluding arguments

The debate should be impossible to accept, please comment if you are interested in accepting this debate.


I accept.

After a short PM, Pro has explained that he will be defending all cases of safe Abortion. I await his arguments.
Debate Round No. 1


Thanks to the Con for accepting the debate, I look forward to a good one!

To clarify for all, donald.keller said, I am arguing for a woman to have the right to an abortion (in an approved clinic), and not just in situations of rape or incest that end up in pregnancies. I will argue the pro-choice point of view of the issue, and the Con will argue the pro-life side.

My first argument is a simple one. I support the choice of a woman to have an abortion because:

It is an American woman's fundamental right, due to Roe v. Wade.
On January 22nd, 1973, a near unanimous decision was made by the Supreme Court, that for a woman to have an abortion would be her "fundamental right", and to this day remains the law of the land. The decision stated that when it comes to this issue for women, they are entitled to privacy. The court decision also stated:

"This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."[1]

Whether the decision was made by the Supreme Court or not, my second argument would still stand:

It is the right of a woman to have an abortion.

I'm sure the Con will bring up the argument that "a fetus is a person", and while I do not mind if he uses that as a basis for his argument, I do not intend to base the entire debate on the person hood of a fetus.
However, when it comes to fetuses, we must recognize that it cannot survive on its own; this meaning that it is essentially a part of the mother. Being a part of the mother, she has the undeniable right to do with it whatever she wishes. Just like it's completely a person's right to refuse to donate their organs, even if the life of another person would be saved by doing so. [2]

On a side note, isn't it quite hypocritical when the usual pro-life advocate, conservatives, absolutely hate when the government tells them what to do-- but that they're completely fine with the notion that the government should tell women what to do with their bodies? Pro-life advocates argue that the fetus has a "right to life". I think that it is infallible to say that the life of a fetus should not be valued over the life of an already-born, independent (not directly relying on another source of life to live), human woman. In the same exact way, these women have a right to life without the government or other people imposing these choices upon them!

As I have just briefly covered, this leads to my third argument:

The safety and health of a woman is valued over an unborn fetus.

This idea is nothing new. In fact, many conservatives also support the idea, and it is a bipartisan agreement when it comes to the issue of abortion. In fact, in the recently introduced and killed House Resolution 36, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, it is suggested that abortion be banned after a certain amount of time, with certain exceptions:

"It creates exceptions in the case of risk of death or permanent injury of the mother, in case of rape, and in the case of incest against a minor."[3]

When the life of the woman is at risk because of her pregnancy, she still has the right to an abortion. Matter of fact, its her "super-guaranteed right" in situations like those. And it just so happens, that childbirth is one of the most dangerous things that can happen to a woman. The mortality rate of women and the unborn children- even in hospitals- is surprisingly high, and should still be considered a serious risk. [4] A pregnant woman has a right to choose not to take that risk, for herself and for the fetus.

It also goes to say,

Roe v. Wade did not mark the beginning of abortions, it was the end of women dying as a result of them.

When women were denied abortions, more than likely, they would find a way to terminate their pregnancy anyways. I am a strong believer that we, as a country, are beyond the times of back alley abortions and terminated pregnancies with wire hangers. We should be far beyond the point of ignoring the rights of women as human beings capable of choice.

This leads to my final argument:

Abortion is sometimes beneficial.

When I say this, I don't mean to take a Freakonomics approach to the issue. ([5]) I also don't mean it in the sense that it would be perfectly fine for "would-be terrible people" to never have been born. I mean this by the fact that it is better for the child to simply not be born into a "would-be terrible environment".

Often times, a woman seeking an abortion is doing so because she knows that she wouldn't be able to provide for that child. It's also a generally accepted idea, that it would be better for a child to have never been born than to have to grow up hungry and thirsty, without a roof over their heads, or even experiencing constant abuse from either parent due to other circumstances. Just like putting an animal out of its misery, abortion would avert the problem in the first place. A baby should also not come into this world unwanted, to avoid half of the problems that would come with it from the parents.

Thanks again to the Con for accepting this debate, I look forward to his arguments.



It should be understood that Pro's case is to defend all abortions, not just some.

Premise I: Human Rights.

The definition of Human Rights might be debatable, but the most agreeable definition is the UN Declaration of Human Rights (UNDHR)[1]. By this definition of Human Rights, we see that abortion is a violation. This is seen by observing Article II, which claims that everyone (all humans) have the rights listed in the Declaration without distinction of any kind. Article VI then says that the Government must recognize everyone (all humans) as persons. Article III says everyone has the right to Life and Liberty.

Article II:
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as... ...birth or other status.

Article VI:
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article III:
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Even the US Constitution is in agreement. The Constitution, in the Fourteen Amendment, established that all persons have the right to life, liberty, and property. I will detail this more in Premise II.


Premise II: Personhood.

It can be established with ease that the definition of a person is being human. While the law references humans when discussing persons, it never gives an end-all criteria. Therefore, it can be assumed the only requirement is being human. A common misconception is that you must be born. However, this is only the requirement for a citizen. A clear look at the Fourteenth Amendment shows us this:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States... ...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"

The amendment defines citizens as persons who are born in the US (or naturalized). However, after defining the term citizen, the amendment goes on to say all persons of the right to life (and others). It does not say all 'citizens' or 'person born/naturalized in the US.' So you need not be a citizen to have the right to life. A look at any definition of person shows us the criteria in action.

A human being regarded as an individual (Oxford) [2]
A human being (Merriam-Webster) [3]
In general usage, a human being; (Legal Dictionary) [4]
A living human (Free Dictionary) [5]
A human being ( [6]

A number of philosophical definitions will apply criteria (like being able to feel) but never explains why these criteria are needed. Why must a human feel pain to be a person? Some humans don't feel pain. Some aren't conscious and some can't feel emotion. These are performance-based criteria that fall short every time.


Argument I: Is the Fetus a Living Human?

The Fetus is, without question, human. Albeit most definitions of Person only requires that much. In fact, non-living humans are still persons. This is why grave robbing is illegal, and why the government can't take the organs of dead people without having their consent prior to death. Some define being alive as having a heartbeat, or a conscious. However, we live in a modern world where science, not philosophy, must be the centerpiece of our legal system.

Science already has a definition of what makes someone living. They define them with characteristics shared by all living things. After a long study, I found 12 total characteristics. These characteristics are as follows:

Homeostasis / Metabolism / Organization / Genes / Feeding / Growth / Response / Adaption / Reproduction / Excretion / Movement / Respiration.

The fetus fulfills each by week two (if not sooner.): The fetus will fulfill each criteria by the time the placenta is formed. Through the placenta, the fetus can maintain homeostasis [8], metabolism [9], feeding [10], adaption [11], excretion [12], and respiration [13]. The fetus has organization [14], genes [15], growth [16], movement [17], and can respond to stimuli (which is how it knows to move down the fallopian tube and to grow the placenta.) As a zygote, it has reproduction (cell-division) [16].

The Zygote is defined by scientists as an eukaryotic cell [7]. Biologically speaking, all eukaryotic cells are living. To sum this up in a syllogism:

P1) All eukaryotic cells are living.
P2) All zygotes are eukaryotic cells.
C) All zygote are living.

Therefore, while living prior (as a unicellular zygote would have a different criteria), the fetus is empirically alive by 1-2 weeks of age. Therefore, the fetus is a living human, and thus a person. Therefore, the fetus should be entitled human rights.


Argument II: Conflict of Rights

So now that we can establish that the fetus is a living human, and therefore a person, therefore holding the right to life... What about the Mother? The Supreme Court has, time and time again, reaffirmed the principle of how to handle conflicting rights. When two rights conflict, the right that is superior exceeds the inferior right. Or the right that leads to least consequence. We see this in cases where you can not scream 'Fire!' in a full building. Their right to life exceeds your right to scream "Fire!" We also see a conflict with business owners and gun owners. Your right to own guns does not exceed his right to property, and he can deny you entry if you have a gun.

So what rights are in conflict? The Mother's right to privacy v the Fetus's right to life. We know the answer, as I'm not allowed to build a WMD in my basement, as the right to life of my neighbors exceeds my right to privacy. Likewise, I can not beat my children just because it's in the privacy of my home.

The right to bodily autonomy could also be played, but the fetus also has the right to bodily autonomy, as it's a unique organism from the mother. The mother's right to choose must be superior to the fetus's right to life for Pro's case to work. However, the right to life is the 'mother right'... It surpasses all others, and is the right most others are based on.

Argument III: All Abortions v Some Abortion

While cases in which a Mother's health is at risk may be reasonable, this isn't the same as "all" or even "most" cases of Abortion. In fact, using Britain as an example, saving the mother's life accounts for 0.006% of all abortions, and only 0.3% are done to prevent the risk of possible death [18]. In the US, only 1% are for rape and incest [19]. Albeit, many question if rape and incest are even viable reasons to have an abortion.

Pro must prove that all abortions must be legal.


I shall allow Pro the floor now. Hopefully I have the work schedule to allow me more time to do more next round.
Debate Round No. 2


I have already clarified that my case is to support all abortions with the details I specified in Round 2.

For Round 3, while the Con ponders over my arguments from Round 2, I will provide rebuttals for all the reasoning he provides for his case.

To start my rebuttals, I have a few problems with the Con's definitions. I only start there, because an arugment based on an inaccurate definition must give an inaccurate argument. I will provide rebuttals for both, while not going too much into semantics.


My Problems with the Con's Premise I:

The Con says,

"The definition of Human Rights might be debatable, but the most agreeable definition is the UN Declaration of Human Rights (UNDHR)[1]. By this definition of Human Rights, we see that abortion is a violation. This is seen by observing Article II, which claims that everyone (all humans) have the rights listed in the Declaration without distinction of any kind. Article VI then says that the Government must recognize everyone (all humans) as persons. Article III says everyone has the right to Life and Liberty."

I must start by saying that I have several problems with this first paragraph.

First of all, the definition of Human Rights is beyond debatable, and is a very vague subject when it comes to a group such as the United Nations. If anything, it only makes sense that the target of the UDHR when it comes to Human Rights, is humans already living independently outside of a woman's body. This means that children already born and men and women of all ages are the intended target of any Human Rights Articles.

Sceond of all, the amendments from the UDHR on Human Rights do not specifically support "fetus" rights. Article II of the UNDHR reads,

"...birth or other status.."

meaning people cannot be exempt from these human rights base on birth status, or other status. Birth status means place of birth. Even the children's version of the UDHR explains that. [1] However, if you wish to be medically correct, there's another definition for birth status:

"The status of the baby at birth as represented by a code." [2].

Articles III and VI define the word "everyone" presumably just as the Articles before and after them. This means that they support the rights of humans, not fetuses.

It would be assumed, that with all those UDHR Articles for Human Rights, that the United Nations would support women's rights when it comes to reproductive choices! Oh, wait, they do! [3]

My Problems with the Con's Premise II:

In this "definition", the Con uses the 14th Ammendment of the United States Constitution to imply that it extends its protections to all humans. This is because "it never gives an end-all criteria" after defining what a citizen of the United States would be. Obviously, you can't argue with the fact that in order to be a citizen of this great country of ours, you just have to be born!

We also have to look at the context of the 14th Amendment, and why it was introduced to the Bill of Rights-- so we can better understand the intended language and definitions of terms left open-ended.

Read the article found here [4], you can read that the main purpose of the 14th Amendment was to nationally grant citizenship to all people in the United States, specifically current and former black slaves at the time, and grant all US citizens their rights. This means that when the 14th Amendment says,

"...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;",

the focus on United States citizens carries over and continues to be the subject of the amendment.

It's only logical that something going in a pattern will continue to go in that same pattern. It is no different when it comes to the subject of amendments in the Bill of Rights.

Continuing, with my rebuttals:

My Problems with the Con's Argument I:

The Con goes on to state in his first argument that "The fetus is, without correction, human.". This is an unproved statement, due to an inaccurate premise. However, I will continue to refute the Con's arguments.

Con says,

"This is why grave robbing is illegal, and why the government can't take the organs of dead people without having their consent prior to death. Some define being alive as having a heartbeat, or a conscious. However, we live in a modern world where science, not philosophy, must be the centerpiece of our legal system.".

Grave robbing and the removal of organs of dead humans without consent is not a matter of personhood, it's a matter of respect for the dead. There's no possible way to ask the dead human if you can have their property, therefore, it is illegal to take anything that belonged to them, whether it be material items or internal organs.

The Con gives 12 total characteristics for what he believes characterizes living things to be. I would like to see more sources on this, and less on defintions of "humans" from five different dictionary websites.

From there the Con only goes to give proof that zygotes are living organisms. This does not mean that zygotes are people. Zygotes are living cells that make up another organism, not necessarily living in entirety-- and especially not human. As a matter of fact, knowing that there are more animals on planet Earth than humans, more zygotes go on to form the fetuses of other animals, more than the number of unborn fetuses. My point is that the fact that a zygote is living doesn't make a fetus a human anymore than a living fungi cell makes a mushroom a whale. It's all in the same ballpark.

My Problems with the Con's Argument II:

I have already refuted the Con's Arguments that a fetus is a living human. However, I completely agree with his arugment:

"The Supreme Court has, time and time again, reaffirmed the principle of how to handle conflicting rights. When two rights conflict, the right that is superior exceeds the inferior right."

I have argued in Round 2 why the rights of women to choose and to have privacy are the superior right.

My Problems with the Con’s Argument III:

The Con gives two different statistics on the details of abortion. one is from the UK while the other one is from the United States, and without further resources it has to be assumed that they have nothing to do with one another. Let's say that the Con's resources and statements he says are true, even so, the rest of his argument remains false. The Con says that:
"Many question if rape and incest are even viable reasons for abortion."
Not only is that statement inaccurate, it is also a flat out assumption backed by no reliable resources. Out of all the reasons for pro-choice, this argument remains the strongest: a woman should not be forced to carry out a pregnancy she had no part in starting. That is her right, as a born human, born citizen of the United States, and as an empowered woman.



Premise I: Human Rights.

Pro's case starts by saying that the definition of Human Rights is debatable, but doesn't give a definition of his own. Therefore, my definition stands. His next case is based on the claim that the Articles of the UNDHR are only for born persons. However, it says "...without distinction of any kind, such as... birth or other status." The terms "or other status" is what's important here, be it born or unborn. He then says the UNDHR doesn't specifically support fetus rights... That's like saying the Constitution doesn't support black rights because it doesn't specifically say "person and black persons." In fact, if a fetus is a living human, the UNDHR refers to them too.

"The status of the baby at birth as represented by a code."
Pro then holds the UNDHR to a legal definition from Australia... Not one from the UN. The UNDHR does not specify such a code. Pro also brings up a "child version of the UNDHR." This isn't an official document, or one with weight. It's a rewording by an educational group to teach kids about the document. The UN actually does have a child version... The UN's Convention on the Rights of the Child (1).

"Whereas the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth,"

The document, accepted by the UN in 1989, claims that the child must be protected before birth as well. In the next paragraph, it says that this has been recognized by the UNDHR, disproving Pro's skepticism.

Premise II: Personhood

Pro's case is a strawman, misrepresenting what I said. He refers to the definition of citizen... But this is about personhood. My case was that it says that any 'person' born/naturalized is a citizen, but that the right to life isn't given to the pre-defined "citizen," but to all persons, period. This is why I can't kill an illegal immigrant. Pro has the audience read his sources for him, instead of posting an argument. He should make his own arguments, not have his source make it for him.

Pro drops the remainder of my definitions.

Argument I: Living Human

Pro says that you can't rob graves because of respect... The law does not deal in respect. It deals only in personhood. The law states that grave robbing is illegal because it is theft, read: invasion of the dead's right to property. On that same note, you can't take organs from a dead person without his consent, as even in death, he is entitled the right to his property.

Pro has claimed that the 12 characteristics of biological life are wrong because he wants sourcing. This is laughably dodging the science behind life. Even a basic 6th grade Biology class teaches us of at least 7 characteristics. However, I will post my sources.

Organization /Genes / Adaption / Homeostasis / Metabolism [2]
Response / Reproduction [3]
Growth / Excretion / Respiration / Feeding / Movement: [4]

Pro's case is continued only by dropping my claim that the fetus is human. He tried to explain that a person is not human, but never actually addressed my case saying it was human. Claiming that the Zygote is living, but not necessarily human, is unsustainable. Almost all biologists concede that the unborn is human. A review by Irving, M.A., Ph.D., published in International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 1999 (5), concludes that the fetus is human. A book on Embryology by renowned biologist Kieth Moore writes: "...This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."(6) Robert Moore, M.D., wrote in his book, Embryology: "Thus, human embryos are what the embryology textbooks say they are, namely, human organisms — living individuals of the human species — at the earliest developmental stage."(7)

There is no debate over the humanity of the unborn. Meanwhile, Pro has given no reason why the fetus is not human.

Argument II: Conflict of Rights

Pro's case here is based on having addressed my Argument I. However, I've shown his case dropped my own, and falls short of a rebuttal. If the fetus is a Living Human, as I have proven it is, it's Right to Life is more important then the Right of Choice. In fact, the Right to Choice here ONLY exists if the fetus is not human, as one does not have to right to choose to kill someone outside of self-defense.

Argument III: All Abortions v Some Abortion

I'm not sure I understand Pro's case. One stat is about abortion in cases of rape, and one is about cases of saving the mother's life. They aren't meant to relate... They are meant to show that neither case takes up more than a percent of total abortions.

Pro says my case on Abortion in cases of rape being questionable is wrong because a) it's false and b) no sources. Pro doesn't use sources here either, so the second case is hypocritical. The first case is wrong in that my statement is a truism... It's not arguable that there are people who disagree with abortion in cases of rape. Gallup claims 22% of people oppose Abortion in cases of rape (and is continuously increasing)(8). Therefore at least half of all pro-lifers disagree with abortion in cases of rape... Far from Pro's claim that my statement is false.

Pro's case assumes rape is relevant in the discussion of who has rights. Your right to life is not revoked because of your father, unless Pro can find a place in the UNDHR or the Constitution claiming that the Right to Life is determined by means of conception. Instead, the UNDHR says that ALL humans get the Right to Life, with no distinction of any kind, rape included. The Fourteenth Amendment claims all persons get the Right to Life. Not just wanted persons conceived outside of rape.

Rebuttal I: Roe v Wade

Pro starts R2 by claiming Roe V Wade gives women th right to abortion... This is circular logic, as Roe v Wade is essentially the law in question when debating Abortion. Therefore, his first argument is that A is right, because A says so. It's like saying God wrote the Bible because the Bible said so.

Roe v Wade has been criticized by a vast number of judges for being unconstitutional. Not that Abortion was unconstitutional, but that the court case was (9). Even pro-choice Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg agrees (10). The case claimed that, had the personhood of the fetus been established, Roe's case fell apart. But the Judge deemed that because each state legalized abortion in cases where the mother was in danger, the fetus could not be a person. This is because these are "exceptions" to personhood, and that was constitutional. However, anyone can tell that this is a conflict of rights, not an exception to personhood. The Judge rationalized a reason to decide in Roe's favor.

Rebuttal II: Rights of the Mother

This case is founded in a philosophical performance-based criteria for a person. A person must be able to sustain himself separately, in this case. However, coma patients and people on iron lungs can't sustain themselves, but are still persons. Performance-based criteria are begging the question... They ask us to accept a premise without explaining why it's the case. In this example, you must be self-sustaining to be a human... But why? What makes that a requirement? I have given the actual definition of person, and proven that the fetus is a living human. That is the only requirement. Also, being a separate human is about being unique from the parent, of which the fetus is. Even as a zygote, the fetus is separate and unique. By Pro's logic, being on an iron lung means you are now apart of the iron lung, and not a unique human anymore.

The rest of this case is built on the idea that the Mother has rights, and therefore that's that... But if the fetus is human, he has rights, and a conflict occurs (see Argument II). Pro assumes that because the Mother has rights, hers are the end-all of rights.

Rebuttal III: Beneficial Cases.

Pro's case about the health of the Mother is nullified, as such cases makeup less than 1% of all abortions. Therefore it holds no impact on the resolution.

Regarding safer methods... How dangerous breaking the law is isn't the law's concern. Making murder illegal doesn't stop one from doing it... It just makes it more dangerous. As famous pro-choicer, Mary Warren, wrote: "the fact that restricting access to abortion has tragic side effects does not, in itself, show that the restrictions are unjustified, since murder is wrong regardless of the consequences of prohibiting it..." But to put Pro's concerns to rest, less than 150 deaths occurred annually from illegal abortions prior to Roe v Wade, as opposed to 1.1 million unborn killed in legal abortions (11). This defies the claim that deaths from illegal abortions will be a critical issue.

The remainder of Pro's cases is that abortion can prevent a child from being born in bad circumstance. However, these cases can be solved with adoption or childcare aid. Even then, it's immoral to kill someone for what they might become (be it unwanted or poor.) Levitt and Donahue’s studies finding a link between abortions and crime/unwanted children was a solo act. No other study ever found the same results. Joyce did a study and found no correlation in Pro's favor (12). But John Lott did a study that found the Abortion led to an increase in unwanted children and crime. Of over 6000 regressions, all but one implied a 0.5 - 7% increase in murder rates and number of unwanted children (13).

However, abortion has great negative effects that outweigh any good that Pro could bring up. Within 8 weeks after having the abortion, 55% of women expressed guilt, with over 40% reporting nervous disorders. Over a third experienced sleep disturbances, and 31% had regrets about their decision. Over a tenth had been prescribed psychotropic medicine by their family doctor (14). Abortion is not healthy, and it is not beneficial.


Abortion violates the rights of the Living Human Unborn, and is therefore unconstitutional.
Debate Round No. 3


CentristX forfeited this round.


Arguments extended.
Debate Round No. 4
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 11 months ago
Yeah, figured you could use a real one :)
Posted by donald.keller 11 months ago
Thank's Whiteflame :)

I'm glad to see I did most of the debate right. I wanted to say that the effectiveness of the UNDHR human rights case is that almost no opponent would deny it as a reasonable definition of what human rights looks like. Also, Con threw out a legal document, so the UNDHR is a great counter to his.

Again, thanks :) I don't like when I put a lot of work into a debate, and the RFD's are "ff"...
Posted by whiteflame 11 months ago
RFD (Pt. 1):

This debate is really straightforward, and that's mainly because of a staggering difference between the two sides in terms of the strength of their rebuttals. I'll explain.

I'll go into what arguments ended up working, and which ones failed.

Pro's Arguments:

1) Roe v. Wade

This wasn't a great place to start for Pro. It engages in the is/ought fallacy, presenting how things are and stating that's how things should be. The only argument under this that encompasses the ought has to do with the right to privacy, but Pro never examines why privacy is an important right beyond a basic "personal liberty is important" point. That will come into play later.

2) Right to abort

This one started out strong. Questioning the personhood of the fetus is essential to the pro-choice position, and Pro at least started to make this argument here. However, he never really goes the distance, making two disjointed points: it's not a person, and it cannot survive on its own. If there's a reason that a lack of independent survivability means a lack of personhood, then Pro had to be clear on what that reason is.

Without that, all I really have is comparisons to forced donation of organs. If an organ was itself a person, this comparison would hold some water, but it's just not doing much. The purported hypocrisy doesn't end up affecting the debate at all, so I'm left with little to do with this argument.

3) Safety and health

This was the start of something strong. Pro argues that the life of the woman should always be preferred to the life of the unborn, and states that potential risks to the mother should also include that precedence. The first half of that argument isn't all that strong, since, as Con points out, saving the life of the mother is a rare reason for abortion to be performed.
Posted by whiteflame 11 months ago
(Pt. 2)

The latter, though, had promise. Especially when Pro argued that pregnancy ITSELF presents a serious health risk, I felt this point may become very important. The problem is that he doesn't reinforce that point, and worse yet, he drops the major response from Con. When Con argues that a conflict of rights necessarily favors the party that would necessarily die, he's stating that the risk of pregnancy is always going to be outweighed by the certain death of the child as a result of abortion. Pro missed an opportunity to explain why the potential harms to the mother should always be preferred, and as such, ends up losing this point.

The rape point just ends up being vanishingly small by the end, as Pro doesn't do much to support it as an important harm, and Con does a good job dismissing it.

4) Illegal abortions

This one seemed stronger than it actually was. As Con points out, the number of women who died from illegal abortions is far fewer than the number of abortions that are performed today. Maybe numbers shouldn't be the means by which we determine what's best, but Pro had to make that argument, and he didn't.

5) Abortion is sometimes beneficial

This point just left me wanting. I agree that being born into a bad environment can be problematic, but in order for this point to be strong, Pro had to show that this would be a common theme, and that the potential for this harm outweighed the reality of their non-existence in the case of abortion, neither of which I feel he effectively did. Even if he managed that, though, by not proving that unborn life is not a person, he's making it very difficult to believe that they would merely not exist. These are persons from the point of conception, so they go from alive to dead, not from pseudoexistence to non-existence.
Posted by whiteflame 11 months ago
(Pt. 3)

Con's Argument:

1) Human Rights

Personally, I didn't find this point exceptionally persuasive. Simply because important documents uphold the view that the unborn should have human rights does not mean that we should uphold human rights. It seems, once again, to be a bit of an is/ought fallacy, though Pro doesn't point it out. But since he doesn't, and in fact appears to accept the view that what these documents set what we should view as human rights, it makes Con's arguments rather strong on this end. They may not be enough to win the debate, but there's reason to afford these rights to the unborn.

2) Personhoood/Living Human

Con's just doing a lot more work on this front than Pro is, and despite all attempts to engage Pro on the issue, Pro merely keeps throwing questions back at Con without engaging with his argument. So long as I'm buying that the unborn is necessarily a person based on the lack of a definitive reason for the unborn to be separate from the born, this point is deadly to Pro's argument, since it sets these lives as equal to the mothers who birth them.

The remainder of Con's arguments are all addressed on Pro's points. Several of these are sufficient to net him the debate, but the clear stand out is the personhood argument. As Con clearly explained how even a zygote is human life and should be assigned the status of personhood, I'm left with little choice but to view that life as extremely important, and therefore abortion as a whole as immoral. The only real counter I have to that is this right to privacy and right to choose argument from Pro, but Con clearly states that the right to life outweighs these to a large degree, and I find that persusasive. Ergo, I vote Con.
Posted by tajshar2k 1 year ago
I see DK is back into debating now. Good luck to both you guys.
Posted by donald.keller 1 year ago
Might want to fix the formatting.
Posted by donald.keller 1 year ago
I guess you aren't accepting me? XD
Posted by josiah.norman 1 year ago
ill take you up on this debate
Posted by Daboss_McSwag 1 year ago
I'll take you up on this...
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 11 months ago
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: Given in comments. Conduct to Con for the forfeit.
Vote Placed by logical-master123 1 year ago
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:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF.
Vote Placed by famousdebater 1 year ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: ff