The Instigator
StephenPeace
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
lannan13
Pro (for)
Winning
12 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 4 votes the winner is...
lannan13
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/18/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 632 times Debate No: 88457
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (13)
Votes (4)

 

StephenPeace

Con

Science proves that human life begins at the moment of conception. Being so, it's the most innocent form of life. Why then should it be legal to kill that child, who is indeed A human being, Living and growing inside of it's mothers womb? Should not all human life be respected and upheld to the same dignity? Does not every human being truly have A "right to life"?
lannan13

Pro

I accept this debate and look forward to my opponent's opening arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
StephenPeace

Con

http://naapc.org...

Scientific proof^
Now, since science proves that life begins at the moment of conception and according to our constitution we all have A right to life, it should be illegal to kill this unborn child.
lannan13

Pro

I thank my opponent for this debate as I do hope it will be a good one. Before we begin, I would like to make it clear that I will only be arguing for 1st and 2nd term abortion, not third term. Good luck and have fun.

Introduction

It was in a panic. She was coming close to child birth. Her husband quickly rushed her into a back ally. As she began to give birth, the husband, Mr. Davis, insurted a rusty coat hanger into the infant's skull and jiggled it, effectively scrambling the child's brain. Mr. and Mrs. Davis cleaned up and dispenced of the dead child into the green allyway dumpster. With abortion illegal these are the murders that occur.

In the world today, the debate still revolves around the debate of abortion on whether or not it is murder. What people tend to not look at, is the alternative. Under banning abortion, it will result in more backstreet abortions much like what had occured to Mr. and Mrs. Davis. Banning Abortion would lead to these types of live birth abortions. These are the states.


Contention 1: The Constitutional Battle

Many opponents to abortion constantly argue that Abortion is unconstitutional. This is completely far from fact. Abortion, in it of itself, is Constiutional. The first is that it protects the right to privacy. This is important as it shows that you own your body [1]. When we extend this all across the issues we can see that this can be extended to other key areas making sure the law has to protect your privacy. This includes things like limiting just how far the TSA can search at air ports. Another is preention of organ harvesting by the government. Unlike China, the US is not able to simply harvest the organs of prisoners nor the dead without their consent. Why is this you may ask? This is simply due to the fact that the individual owns their body. If you take that away, then you open up a whole new area the government can do that they haven't been able to do before. All of which are immoral acts. Roe V Wade, was a great decission for limiting the government.

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to thejurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State whereinthey reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge theprivileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any Statedeprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nordeny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
US Constitution, 14th Amendment

A lot of people site the Constitution for the "Right to Life," but the Constiutional fact is that, you have to be born in the United States in order for these rights to apply to you. So even though it may or may not be alive, it is not considered a US citizen, hence have Constitutional rights, until they are born, not at conception.

Contention 2: Abortion reduces Crime



In the 1980s, crime was increasing and many people were fearing that the 90s would be a mega crime decade, but that never happened. Many people tend to site Gun control or many other factors, but the real solution was abortion. Crime, all across the board, began to fall. The reason is that all of the unwanted babbies that would be born into poverty and would turn to crime were never born. Welfare, crime, drug use, and a long list of other criminal activities fell because of this [2]. Homocide, and property crimes had fallen by 30% which had been at the lowest rates since the end of the end of the Prohibition. We also need to look at a lot of the factors that play into this. In this research they found that a lot of the women that would have had abortion, their children would engage in illegal activities harming soceity [5]. Studies by University of California found that 76% of the women who are turned away from abortion are likely to become unemployed, on welfare, compared to the 40% that have abortions [6]. 30% is a huge difference. They are also more likely to stay with their abusive partner leading to a higher amount of domestic violence. This is something that no one, men, women, or children, have to be forced to live through. Making abortion illegal will cause these harmful things to occur by forcing a women to have an unwanted child.

The Colorado Department of Health and Environment stated that, "unintended pregnancies are associated with birth defects, low birth weight, maternal depression, increased risk of child abuse, lower educational attainment, delayed entry into prenatal care, a high risk of physical violence during pregnancy, and reduced rates of breastfeeding.[3]"

On top of this, the CDC reports that 49% of all pregnancies are unintended [4]. We can see that by making abortion illegal, we can see that we would be severly harming the mother as well as leading to harm for the child which would harm there lives leading to much of the life of crime that would have had not occured. A child that is not wanted and one that would cause massive harm as well as dettremental effects to soceity should not have to be born into this world as it would simply just cause everyone pain.



Sources
1. ( http://abortion.procon.org...)
2. (http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu...)
3. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, "Family Planning Program," colorado.gov (accessed Apr. 21, 2014)
4. (http://abortion.procon.org...)
5. John J. Donohue, and Steven D. Levitt, "The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, May 2001 (Despite admitting to an error in one of this study's tables, Levitt has stated that "the story we put forth in the paper is not materially changed by the coding error." See Steven D. Levitt, "Everything in Freakonomics Is Wrong!," freakonomics.com, Nov. 28, 2005)
6. Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH), University of California at San Francisco, "Turnaway Study," ansirh.org (accessed Apr. 22, 2014)
Debate Round No. 2
StephenPeace

Con

Simply because people murder their children in inhumane ways, does not mean that we should make it legal for them to do so. What's wrong is wrong and should not be accepted as good. Murder being one of these things.

Now, even if the constitution does not protect A "right to life", natural law does. It's what entitles us, all of us, you and I included to this "right to life" it's something each human deserves and no other man has A right to take it away... Think about it, what if you or I had been killed/aborted? would that have been just? No... Even when we are simply A zygote we are still A human being, simply at the very beginning stages... and as such each individual has A "right to life" whether the constitution protects it or not... That right is still there and since science has proven that A human being is in fact A human being from the moment of conception we as other human beings have no right to murder that human being, (which is in fact illegal). So since murder is illegal and A person is A person since the moment of conception.. murdering this unborn human is still in fact illegal.

Also, you list all these seemingly "good" things that come from abortion.. but that doesn't change the fact that these are human beings.. being murdered, which is illegal. Despite the "benefits" it's still wrong and should not be accepted.
lannan13

Pro

My opponent is confusing things here. We can see that if abortion is made illegal then these murders will occur. In the status quo, these things do not happen.

My opponent goes on the right to life. This is vague. Right to life can be made from everything to making like in NAZI Germany where you got rewarded the more children you had. If you have the "Right to Life" then people should max out the number of children they can have. This way they meet this standard. This argument is completely bogus since my opponent has not made a single argument about what constitutes as "Alive" or even if the fetus is alive and living. He simply provided a link from a Pro-Life website that states "it's proof." This isn't even an argument that was made. I could do the same by claiming that the holicost never happened by siting a Neo-NAZI website (note that I don't think that way). My opponent wants to ask what would happened if we were aborted. The answer? Nothing. It wouldn't matter since we simply would not exist and the world wouldn't be much of a different place that it is now. My opponent disregards all of my arguments on the legality of abortion, but then moves around to say that it's illegal for murder. Murder is illegal, but we must define murder first.

Murder- the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way) and with no legal excuse or authority... Death of an unborn child who is "quick" (fetus is moving) can be murder, provided there was premeditation, malice and no legal authority. Thus, abortion is not murder under the law. [1]

We can see in the very legal definition of murder that it must be by a sane person of another. One could argue that the fetus is not indeed sane. It is even stated that abortion is NOT murder under law. Legal authority, in the second portion, comes from the Federal/State government which the mother can have it performed. By US law, abortion, is NOT murder.

The evaluation of life, as defined by Biologists, is done by locating Signs or Characteristics all life possess. While no full list is accepted on a universal scale, at least twelve characteristics are generally used in Biology, often in lists of five or seven. They are as followed [2]:

Organization: Defined as composing of cells.
Genes: To consist of DNA and RNA.
Adaption: Changing to match the environment around it.
Homeostasis: Maintaining a consistent internal environment.
Metabolism: Sometimes called Thermodynamics, it’s the transformation and use of energy.
Response: To react to stimuli or to the environment around it.
Reproduction: To be able reproduce or bear children.
Growth: To grow in size, usually referred to as Cell Growth.
Excretion: Removing wasted from the organism’s body.
Respiration: The intake of gases needed to live.
Feeding: The consumption of resources to live.
Movement: The ability to move that even plants have.

The Fetus must meet these standards to show that the fetus is indeed alive. If not then the fetus is not alive.

My opponent drops my arguments here that show that the US, by legalizing abortion, has a reduced amount of crime, child abuse, domestic violence, and murder in the US. All of these things are important since no child should have to be born to live in a family surrounded by child abuse and cause massive burden on a family that could lead to more crime as I have showned in my last round. I extended these arguments across.



Sources
1. (http://dictionary.law.com...)
2. (www.biologyjunction.com/chapteroutlines_final.doc)
Debate Round No. 3
StephenPeace

Con

I am not confusing things here. Perhaps Coat hangers aren't being used in abortion clinics, but other devices are. Which are in fact killing human beings in just as inhumane ways. please watch the following :

(NOTE: these are cartoons because watching the real thing is just too unbearable for most people)

https://www.youtube.com... ~ FIRST TRIMESTER
https://www.youtube.com... ~ SECOND TRIMESTER

It actually seems like you are trying to confuse things by coming up with these different definitions of A "right to life" that I have never even mentioned. In order to clear things up I will provide my definition of this "right to life" on which I base my arguments.

Right to Life: The right of all human life from the moment of conception to not be killed/murdered by another human being.
NOTE: this doesn't mean that everybody has to max out on the number of kids they can have... This just simply means once A human being is created (at the moment of conception) no other human being has any right to end that life.

It seems you further try to confuse things by taking the definition of murder and applying it incorrectly to the situation by misconstruing the definition.

Murder- the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way) and with no legal excuse or authority... Death of an unborn child who is "quick" (fetus is moving) can be murder, provided there was premeditation, malice and no legal authority. Thus, abortion is not murder under the law. [1]

Indeed this quote^ you shared does say that murder must be by A sane person to another, but does not specify that the person being killed must be sane. It merely states that the person actually doing the killing must be sane himself. The person being killed could be without "sanity". A good example would be someone going around killing people with autism or down syndrome, simply because one might say these individuals themselves are not completely "sane" does not change the fact that they are still human beings who deserve human life and have every right not to be killed. The man doing the killing ought to be put on trial for murder, and under our laws, would.

You then add on to the end that since under the law it is not murder that it's not murder... but thats exactly what I'm arguing against. I'm saying that the law is wrong. So by saying that the law is the law and is just because it's the law really doesn't argue anything. It merely points out the law, which is exactly what I'm saying is wrong....

The fact of the matter is that these are human beings we are dealing with and no government can give the "legal authority" for one man to kill another, no matter how "sane" the second man is. He/She is still A person and does in fact have every right to life.

You also say that because the website I shared is from Pro-Life advocates that makes it invalid. However, that is not true. The information I shared is still valid and the facts remain true. The fact that it comes from A Pro-Life website makes sense because once you learn that all human life begins at the moment of conception, as I have said many times, you generally tend to become pro-life.

Below I will provide A link to A video that shows how human life begins from the moment of conception, and at the end of the video provides references to people who are not pro-life at all but still in fact admit that life does indeed begin from the moment of conception, ((so please watch the full thing)). THANK YOU

https://www.youtube.com...
lannan13

Pro

I realize that these are not used in abortion clinics, but these are back street abortions that occured when abortion was banned. It was one of the methods used for many of the ways to have a self-induced abortion. [1]

My opponent is confusing things here as he is misconstrewing things. We can simply look at the Kantian ideals of potential which is something that many Pro-Lifers use when arguing for the "Right to Life." Another thing we have to look at is what occurs when the women's body rejects the newly formed object. Under my opponent's idea, the mother, who had nothing to do with it, had committed murder and would be sentenced to jail. And for what? Simply her body doing it's job and rejecting a foreign object. Also, tell me what's more Pro-Life. Forcing a mother to die during chidlbirth or an abortion? Granted that the odds are low, this still happens and you would be sentencing women to death because of this [2]. This is something that isn't very Pro-Life.



My opponent hasn't really made an argument for why the fetus or even at the moment at conception if it's really alive. It isn't. He hasn't made a single argument for it outside of presenting a link and said "see proof." On top of that, he has refused to refute a great deal of my own arguments. Most abortions occur within the first few weeks, the capassity of the fetus during this time period is pratically the same as a tulip. People kill tulips all the time and is that murder? In the video I provided we can see that there is a great deal of fallacies that my opponent is spreading. We even see a picture of a 1st trimester abortion and it's not the crazy graphic pictures that all the crazies online want you to believe. We have to put the mother 1st, we can see that in doing so we could protect them and prevent a child from being unwanted and facing poverty as well as child abuse.


It is not alive to pull a quote from the video, which I have provided, "Nearly all abortions take place in the first trimester. During this time the fetus is entirely dependent on the mother. By the end of the first trimester an average fetus only one inch long. As the fetus is attached by the placenta and umbilical cord, its health is dependent on her health, and cannot be regarded as a separate entity as it cannot exist outside her womb. So therefore is that fetus alive in the true sense of the word? Or is it just an extension of the mother’s life? At that stage it has no sense of being, so does it warrant being treated as a human being."


My opponent provides a link, but once again, it's not much of a creditable video as it depics bias from the Catholic Church. We all know their position on the matter. To continue, we can see that none of the 12 criteria of a living being argument that was presented was neither argued or addressed. In my opponent's other two videos, if you scroll down, you can see that they were also bias as they were funded, by once again, the Catholic Church.

Sources
1. Waldo L. Fielding, M.D., Tony Cenicola, ed., "Repairing the Damage, Before Roe", The New York Times (June 3, 2008).
2. (http://www.economist.com...)
Debate Round No. 4
StephenPeace

Con

I will not repeat my refutations that I have already said but will present new ones. As for all your arguments, they're all wrong and pointless once you realize that we are human beings from the moment of conception and all deserve A right to life.

Also note, all the information presented by my opponent is wrong/incredible because they are clearly from pro-abortion websites as well as pro-abortion advocates, which clearly means they have A bias in this matter, and therefore (according to his logic of course) cannot be deemed truthful. ~ foolish, clearly there is going to be a bias in this debate, no matter what side you're on. But only one side is presenting the truth. Me.

Now I will continue this debate by arguing the only fact of the matter that actually matters, which is that these are human beings from the moment of conception.

As for these "Kantian ideals for potential" I'm not familiar enough with them to use them, but I don't have to in order to prove that A human being is A human being and alive, from the moment of conception.

No one is forcing A mother to die, that is simply A lie. I am just not condoning the murder of the innocent life inside her. She is not sentenced to death and neither is the life inside her, which is of just as equal value.

Now understand this, from the moment of conception the tissue of the father (sperm) and the tissue of the mother (egg) unite, at this point they are no longer merely tissue but A life form. from this moment forward the Human being that is formed, begins to develop through the stages of life. (This is what makes the human being Alive and not merely tissue, it's DEVELOPING, the sperm or the egg cannot do this on their own, only UNITED is the human life created and begins to go through this developmental process until roughly the age of 25). EXPLANATION ~This DEVELOPING, which is what proves theres human life, does not magically cease once humans are born, rather it continues. all throughout adolescent years, into adulthood and it is scientifically proven that the brain itself actually continues to develop until roughly the age of 25. People don't just magically become people once they have Brain activity, or take their first breath, they're people all along. Simply because they have not DEVELOPED enough to have the Brain Activity such as yourself or myself does not make them any less human, they have already started the process of life and will continue to develop until age 25.

Now according to your video, A human being is only A human being once there is Brain activity, but this makes no sense. According to this logic, someone with down syndrome would be considered less human then someone with A normally developed brain. But this is not the case, we know that there is something more to life, then mere brain activity. On top of this, let's look at someone who is in A comatose state, according to your logic, this person would not actually be Alive, or even A human being. But that is not the case either, these people are indeed human beings and are definitely alive. They simply lack brain activity, which is not what makes them A human, clearly. Otherwise they would not still be alive, which they are.

Life must be something else therefore then mere brain activity.
Answer~ Life begins at conception, the moment when this whole developmental process begins. Nothing else makes logical sense. To say otherwise, you have to commit logical fallacies such as my opponent has.

As far as my opponents second video,
First argument ~ says it happens either way, and since people have unplanned pregnancies they don't want they should be allowed to murder the innocent life growing inside them. Illogical and irrelevant, this is A human life and deserves to be treated as one, simply because the two people were not careful does not mean the baby should suffer for their mistakes.

Second argument ~ says It's not alive, complete lie. This is in fact a living human being who has already started the developmental process to reach all the capacities of human life which you and i both possess. Saying it's not alive is simply an ignorant statement which ignores scientific proof that has already been provided.

third argument ~ Planned babies are healthier, ignores the fact that unplanned babies are in fact human beings who are alive and developing. Being such they deserve to be treated as human beings and deserve a right to life.

Fourth argument ~ Adoption is not an adoption ~ Complete lie, adoption is always an option, if however you do become attached to your child and find A way to support the child, that is awesome. Nothing wrong with that.

Fifth argument ~ God does not have a say ~ once again A complete lie. But really does not matter in this debate because science alone is all that is needed to prove abortion is wrong and is in fact the killing of the most innocent form all life.

In conclusion, all my opponents arguments are bogus. He makes logical fallacies left and right and fails to back them up with any real evidence. The truth of the matter is that life begins at the moment of conception, when the whole developmental process begins. I'll provide more videos to back this up, also under my definition, unlike my opponents, it applies to all human life no matter what stage of development they are in and is logical. Unlike my opponent who has no explanation for people with down syndrome and how they are fully human, or those in A comatose state who lose their brain activity and how they are still fully human.

Human life only end with the cessation of ALL vital functions of the human body including heartbeat, brain activity, and breathing.

Taking in this definition of the end of life and using my opponents tactic of zeroing in on only one of these functions of life, we could say that the life begins at 18-21 days, when the child first begins to have A heartbeat. However, we know for A fact that life begins at the moment of conception because the DEVELOPMENTAL process towards having this heart beat has already begun. It is completely logical and scientifically proven. My point about life beginning once the baby had A heartbeat, merely provides another example as to why my opponent is wrong.

I don't know about you, but I've never heard of A tulip having A heartbeat, or ever developing into anything more than A tulip it is always merely a tulip, your comparison is illogical.

Also my opponent provided a picture of a 6 week abortion well lets provide pictures from four weeks later at 10 weeks, remember that the first trimester goes up to just under 14 weeks.
feel free to take A look ~
http://www.jillstanek.com...

and watch the following videos ~

https://www.youtube.com...

Here is A another video which explains in depth why Human Life begins at conception :

https://www.youtube.com...
lannan13

Pro

As we come to a close in this debate we must examin this debate as a whole.

First we can see that my opponent has dropped all arguments regarding the benefits of abortion from protecting the mother, the potential child, the life of the mother, and the economic safety of others. All of these things were dropped and they were the only advantages brought up in this debate. These arguments were dropped. You should be voting on this topic since it affects more than the one person and affects a greater number of people. My opponent constantly harps on saving the lives of the fetus, but how can he say he's "Pro-Life" when he sentences the mother to death, poverty, and threatens the lives of others by birthing unwanted children who resort to crime in the US. These things affect and kill more people.

My opponent has dropped all Constitutionally and US legal arguments on the regards to abortion. This is the second part that he only argues murder, but how can this be a crime when the fetus doesn't have rights form the US or anyone until birth. The US Constiution and the US Supreme Court have shown that this issue is settled and the fetus, which is NOT alive, has no rights and the rights of the mother trump this.

"Human life only end with the cessation of ALL vital functions of the human body including heartbeat, brain activity, and breathing."

Here my opponent makes this argument in the last round. If that's the case, he then goes to the argument that it begins when developement begins. So which is correct? Does it begin with the beginning of developement or heart beat? If it's the first then you could argue that drinking, as it kills blood cells, is murder since you are killing a part of a human that can develope. If it's the later, my opponent has even concieved that this doesn't occur until later, which means that life does not begin at conception and thus abortion is not immorral. Whichever one, my opponent's arguments are invalid and disprove themsleves.

Now I'm not going to go and respond to all of my opponent's attacks on my videos from youtube as there's really no reason to go through and refute the sources themselves since it would be a waste of debate time. Even I have yet to make every single argument from these videos which makes doing so not reasonable.

I would like to highlight that my opponent has personally attacked me in this debate by stating that I make things that are not common sense or logical fallacies without pointing out which ones or why. This is simply an ad hom attack against me for no reason.

With that I would like to thank the readers and please vote Pro.

Debate Round No. 5
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by dr_sepheroth 7 months ago
dr_sepheroth
I am Disabled, I have Epilepsy, Autism and Multiple LEarning Difficulties.

Disability detected during the pregnancy is one reason why a mother may consider abortion, another reason might be unplanned pregnancy, pregnancy as the result of rape, or pregnancy in a mother incapable of supporting a child (a 12 year old girl for example)

While Abortion and Euthanasia have many things in common, my opinion on both is slightly different.

An embryo becomes self aware and able to feel pain as it aproches the fetal stage;
http://www.mccl.org...
Although a child may not be aware of his or her own actions, emotions and decisions till much later, often after puberty

So if a embryo is capable of being aware of pain, the question becomes is the same as "Is Animal Testing Fair", many animals are capable of feeling pain but are aware only in that they react to stimuli based on instinct. An embryo is like this. I do not feel Abortion should be a legal practice, as the child did not ask to be conceived, and weather or not the mother planed the pregnancy or not, the mother has a fundamental responsibility to the child despite any disability. The Mothers family have a responsibility to support the mother.

As far as Euthanasia goes I would say this should be legal.
What quality of life does a disabled person have, lying in bed, with an iron lung to breathe, requiring, feeding through a G tube, and having to have their incontinence brief changed because they have no control of their bladder or bowel. Requiring constant medication for Chronic Pain and having everything done for them, on the time schedule of the care worker. Could you imagine waiting an hour to have your but wiped because you messed yourself, every single day.

But ultimately the choice of euthanasia, should be the choice of the patient and with the approval of a family member to verify zero quality of life.

A embryo has no such choice !
Posted by tejretics 8 months ago
tejretics
== RFD ==

My vote is on behalf of DK's Voter Union. The arguments from the constitution are irrelevant because this debate is a *should* not an *is.* Under an "is" case, Pro is right that abortion is legal anyway, and Con even concedes that. Con concedes crime and argues that the fetus' right to life outweighs, but doesn't really prove it. The semantics of "murder" are also largely irrelevant on either side. So the debate comes down to whether the killing of fetuses outweighs crime under utilitarian grounds established by the debaters.

Con says the fetus has a right to life, but doesn't sufficiently establish it. Pro shows that in the status quo the fetus doesn't have a right to life, and Con's sole ground to defend the existence of an absolute right to life is the status quo. Beyond that, Con doesn't even explain why there should be such an absolute right to life. Pro provides clear exceptions to the right to life which are all dropped, e.g. the mother's body naturally kills the fetus in some cases. Con also concedes the characteristics of life, but doesn't explain how the fetus fulfills those characteristics. Don't expect the source to do the arguing for you; explain what is in the source or it has to be discredited.

The back-alley abortions argument isn't clearly explained on either side, because Pro just asserts it and Con drops it. Regardless, Con has to show that a ban on abortion will reduce the number of abortions, which Con doesn't, so all of Con's offense is useless without that crucial link.

Since Pro's argument re: crime and affects in upbringing outweighs Con's case, I vote Pro.
Posted by StephenPeace 8 months ago
StephenPeace
It's unfortunate that so many people will have to die before realizing this most basic truth.
Posted by StephenPeace 8 months ago
StephenPeace
in reality there is really only one issue that matters and that is are these human beings and are they alive, the science is there and if you watch the videos I've provided you will see that these are in fact human beings and they are in fact alive. Being such, they deserve every right to life just as much as you do, or I do, or any of us do.
Posted by illegalcombat 8 months ago
illegalcombat
Although Pro argues for various benefits of allowing abortion, eg less illegal abortion, crimes, Con argues for a more fundamental right, the "right to life".

Early on this wasn't really defined explicitly and kind of just thrown out there and Con was forced to drop a legal American constitution argument of "right to life" in light of Pros counters that said rights only apply to those who are born plus Roe v Wade.

I also noticed early on Con made various claims that already assume that abortion is murder rather than justifying that abortion is murder in the first place.

Con seeks to establish a moral case against abortion by once again throwing out the term "right to life" which is subject to various interpretations.

Con refutes Pros argument that killing some one who isn't sane isn't a justification for killing that some one.

It's not until round 4 that Con defines "right to life" as The right of all human life from the moment of conception to not be killed/murdered by another human being" & " This just simply means once A human being is created (at the moment of conception) no other human being has any right to end that life."

Pro did point out this doesn't allow an abortion where the mother life is at risk, I found Cons response to be evasive here.

Ultimately Cons case came down to an ill defined, vague (until later on) right to life, Pro showed this as flawed, but not as much as they could of easily done in my view, this may also be due in part to the right to life claim being vague from Con from the start, so I give Pro some consideration on that point.

Note: I judged the debate by text on screen, not watching videos.

Arguments to Pro.
Posted by illegalcombat 8 months ago
illegalcombat
Screw it, ill just post it again with the corrections......
Posted by illegalcombat 8 months ago
illegalcombat
I mixed up Con vs Pro, but I think you know who I am talking about.
Posted by illegalcombat 8 months ago
illegalcombat
Although CON argues for various benefits of allowing abortion, eg less illegal abortion, crimes, Con argues for a more fundamental right, the "right to life".

Early on this wasn't really defined explicitly and kind of just thrown out there and Con was forced to drop a legal American constitution argument of "right to life" in light of Con counters that said rights only apply to those who are born plus Roe v Wade.

I also noticed early on Pro made various claims that already assume that abortion is murder rather than justifying that abortion is murder in the first place.

Pro seeks to establish a moral case against abortion by once again throwing out the term "right to life" which is subject to various interpretations.

Pro refutes Cons argument that killing some one who isn't sane isn't a justification for killing that some one.

It's not until round 4 that Pro defines "right to life" as The right of all human life from the moment of conception to not be killed/murdered by another human being" & " This just simply means once A human being is created (at the moment of conception) no other human being has any right to end that life."

Con did point out this doesn't allow an abortion where the mother life is at risk, I found Pro response to be evasive here.

Ultimately Pro case came down to an ill defined, vague (until later on) right to life, Con showed this as flawed, but not as much as they could of easily done in my view, this may also be due in part to the right to life claim being vague from Pro from the start, so I give Con some consideration on that point.

Note: I judged the debate by text on screen, not watching videos.
Posted by Leugen9001 8 months ago
Leugen9001
CORRECTION: Con did address Pro's definition and show reasons why it was flawed in round 4. However, his definition of life, as pointed out by Pro, was still self-contradictory, which therefore meant that abortion doesn't have to be murder.
Posted by Leugen9001 8 months ago
Leugen9001
Finally, the third and last issue will be gone over. In round 4, Pro argued that abortions can sometimes save the lives of pregnant mothers. Con responded by saying that "no one is forcing a mother to die," but has not demonstrated that there is always an alternative to abortion in life-threatening situations. Therefore, Pro won on the third issue.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by tejretics 8 months ago
tejretics
StephenPeacelannan13Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments
Vote Placed by TUF 8 months ago
TUF
StephenPeacelannan13Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HHtwk1Bt96Ru94v7UqUJdUBvDew86zBHLux5TxnijX8/edit?usp=sharing
Vote Placed by illegalcombat 8 months ago
illegalcombat
StephenPeacelannan13Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments
Vote Placed by Leugen9001 8 months ago
Leugen9001
StephenPeacelannan13Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments go to Pro; this is justified in the comments (note: the comments are in the opposite order than they should be read in.)