The Instigator
Jammie
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Coveny
Pro (for)
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 2 votes the winner is...
Coveny
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/22/2017 Category: Health
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 688 times Debate No: 102141
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (11)
Votes (2)

 

Jammie

Con

I deliberately left the topic of this debate broad, to avoid contrived and un-passionate arguments. If you are firmly pro-choice, and are passionate about the so called right to choice, then I encourage you to debate me. If you choose to accept, then simply tell me you accept as your first argument, and then we can start.

Good luck.
Coveny

Pro

Bodily integrity or bodily autonomy means that you have the right to control what happens to your body even if that hurts or kills others. This is the reason that even after your death, your organs cannot be harvested to save lives, without your consent. You have two kidneys", and only need one, do you want to be forced to give up one of those kidneys to save another human being? What about a lung? Just as you don"t want to be forced to into something affecting your body, women don"t want to be force into something affecting their body. Abortion is the most basic form of freedom that exists, the freedom to do with your body whatever you wish.

Now if you are ok with having choices about what you can do to or with your body force on you, then my second point would be that abortions lower crime rates. Lower crime rates help us all. The correlation has been proven from multiple studies, but I"m going to link one that discredits the Donohue-Levitt hypothesis. I expect you to try to use the Donohue-Levitt hypothesis to try and disprove my point that abortions lower crime rates, so I'd rather just address that up front and skip a step.

http://freakonomics.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Jammie

Con

I think you misunderstood my opening statement. I intended for you to simply reply with 'I accept', and then we can start from there. No matter, I will simply post my opening argument as I would have done if you had followed my instructions, but underneath it I will post a rebuttal to your opening statement.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Section 1: My opening argument:

Abortion is morally wrong for a number of reasons, and even certain circumstances do not legitimise it in my view.

We have to start with the question, is human life after birth worth anything?

If the answer is no, than abortion is not a concern to you, and you wouldn't care either way. If it is, and you are pro abortion, then you must reach a point either in development or circumstance where the destruction of the fetus is justified.

For example, if you consider an unborn fetus not worthy of life at all, then what about premature births? If the fetus is delivered prematurely, it is considered human if it survives, but during the same stage in development, and it is unborn, it could be susceptible for abortion.

Of course, this may not be your view, in which there are only two options remaining.

1. You believe human life begins at conception, and therefore agree with my view.

2. There is a cut-off point in terms of development as to what constitutes human life, and what is worthy of human rights.

If your answer is 2, there is a fundamental error in your reasoning. The only way to instate a law regarding development is to base it on a set time period on when abortions can occur, and anything after that point is murder. This is the problem with this solution:

In a hypothetical scenario, a fetus is close to it's termination deadline. Let's say it's April 8th. At 23:59 on April 7th, destroying that fetus is no more legal or morally wrong than plucking a hair from your head, as that fetus isn't recognised as a human life. So you could get the abortion on April 7th at 23:59, no problem. How is it right then, that exactly one minute later, that would be murder? How can one minute decide the legitimacy of human life? In that split second between 23:59 and 00:00, the entire moral and legal standing of that fetus goes from morally worthless to the highest value ever issued in our communities and legal system. Nothing special happens in that split second, nothing drastically changes withing the fetus that somehow makes it eligible for human life. So, if it is valued at 00:00 and then onwards forever, but is worthless before hand, it must also be valued before that, at conception at least.

The problem is with the whole 23:59 --> 00:00 scenario is that it is illogical to attribute worth to something over a millisecond where nothing changes.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

And now for my rebuttal to your opening argument:

Right off the bat, your opening argument isn't correct. Your statement was this:

'Bodily integrity or bodily autonomy means that you have the right to control what happens to your body even if that hurts or kills others.'

Using an example I will show you how this statement is ridiculous. Imagine a situation where a man has a knife, and is about to stab a child in the throat. As he brings his arm down holding the knife, what do you do? You can...

A.
Grab the man's arm, therefore preventing the death of the child

B.
Allow the man to murder the child, as you do not have the 'right' to control his body.

It's obvious what any rational person would do in this situation. Any reasonable person would prevent the man from murdering the child.

Here's another statement of yours:

'Abortion is the most basic form of freedom that exists, the freedom to do with your body whatever you wish.'

The problem with this statement is the the fetus is not part of your body, It is simply living inside of it. Consider this analogy:

There are two men. Man A has man B tied to his leg. The rope which ties them together cannot be broken, and man B cannot move, let's just say he is paralyzed. If man A doesn't feed man B, man B will die, as he is not capable of feeding himself. However in 9 months, the rope will break and man B will be separate to man A. Man B is not a part of man A's body, he is only attached to man A's body. After 9 months, man A will be without man B, so if man B was part of man A's body he would never come off.

In the same way that man B is separate from man A, and is only temporarily attached, the fetus is not a part of the mother's body, as it is only temporarily attached.

Now for your second point:

'...then my second point would be that abortions lower crime rates.'

Now here you expect me to dispute your claim. I will neither dispute nor accept your claim that abortion lowers crime rates, mostly as I have not done my own research into this part of the abortion debate, but more importantly as I do not believe it is relevant. I believe that life begins at conception, so from my point of view, murdering a child because you suspect them of being a future criminal is monstrous. In my point of view it is a rigged trial, where the punishment is execution, all for a crime you didn't commit.
Coveny

Pro

There is a contradiction in your "logic" when you say:

1) Abortion is murder and wrong
2) The right thing to do would be murder an attacker to keep them from murdering his child

To clarify the above, let"s take your situation and add a constraint to make it more germane to the discussion. If someone is trying to kill your child, and the ONLY way to stop them is to kill them, any rational person would choose their child's life over the attacker's life. Is that your stance? Because you only have two options in that contrived situation: advocate murdering the attacker or advocate the murder of your child. By doing either, does that mean that you don"t value life? How can your point of view be anything but contradictory of each other?

You ask if life is "worth" anything. My response to that is no. There is no monetary price you can put on life. I do not hold with slavery, so I do not agree that human beings have a price tag. If you do believe human have "worth" please tell me what a human is worth? That should be an interesting discussion.

Life begins at conception, and no I don"t agree with your view. You present a false dichotomy where there are only two choices, and that"s not the reality. Is it morally "right" to put the child"s life above the mother's? Is it morally "right" to put the mother"s life above the child"s? The answer to both is no, it"s not a decision I have any right to make from a moral standpoint.

Bodily integrity has nothing to do with someone attacking your children. Bodily autonomy is what others can do to your body. This is the reason that rationally, you should defend yourself from an attacker, to protect that attacker from violating your body. Your example supports my claim that bodily autonomy is valid. To present you a false dichotomy in return, if you don't agree then you support the "irrational" belief that you should allow the attacker to hurt you because the attackers life has "value".

A fetus is part of a woman"s body. This is not in question. It is connected via the umbilical cord which provide nutrients that keep the fetus alive. Without the mother providing those nutrients the fetus dies. It is not a separate human being that can survive on its own even in the most advanced stages of pregnancy. Even if the fetus is allowed to be born, infants still at that point cannot survive on its own, and require assistance to live. But I"ll ignore all that for now, and address this as a helpless man attached by an unbreakable rope. In your thought experiment, you are not in any way required to take care of someone who is helpless. I"ll go back to my original example; You aren"t giving up that lung so others can live (helpless man), because when it comes to your body you don"t want to lose a lung. (so you let him die without your lung)

You want to call abortion murder, but that"s not how murder is defined. Just as not wanting to give up your lung doesn"t make you a murderer. We have the freedom to help others, or not help others, that is what freedom is. Choosing to not save someone, does not make you a murder. You don"t want the freedom taken away from you to choose what happens to your lung, nor should you want that freedom taken away from women, but somehow you do. You state don"t feel that the good of society relevant; you just care about birth, not what happens afterwards. That makes you pro-birth, not pro-life.
Debate Round No. 2
Jammie

Con

First off, I never said to kill the attacker. Review my post and see for yourself. What I said was to grab the attacker's arm, denying him bodily autonomy to move his arm, but allowing a child to live. I was finding fault with your statement:

'Bodily integrity or bodily autonomy means that you have the right to control what happens to your body even if that hurts or kills others.'

In my scenario, I go against your statement, yet in my opinion it is the right thing to do.

'If someone is trying to kill your child, and the ONLY way to stop them is to kill them, any rational person would choose their child's life over the attacker's life. Is that your stance? Because you only have two options in that contrived situation: advocate murdering the attacker or advocate the murder of your child. By doing either, does that mean that you don"t value life? How can your point of view be anything but contradictory of each other?'

You have set me up to fail. If I choose to do nothing, (according to you) I do not value life. If I kill the attacker, I don't value life. the only way to successfully win in your scenario is to not care about human life, which i am not prepared to do. In that situation, I would kill the attacker. In my opinion when someone tries to take a life deliberately, their life is less important than their victim's. However, I am against the death penalty. The reason for this is that the death penalty is about revenge, while, killing an attacker is about stopping an evil act being committed by a murderer. Of course you could argue that killing the attacker is still murder, and it is, but in a situation where the child dies OR the attacker dies, I would pick the attacker, as seeing that either way a life is lost, It may as well be that of a murderer as opposed to a child. You cannot prevent death, only decide who it takes.

'If you do believe human have "worth" please tell me what a human is worth? That should be an interesting discussion.'

Well here's your interesting discussion. I didn't mean 'worth' as in monetary worth, not at all. I meant it as moralworth, as in something to be valued. I honestly do not know how you can take '... is human life after birth worth anything?' and see that as monetary worth.

'Life begins at conception, and no I don"t agree with your view. You present a false dichotomy where there are only two choices, and that"s not the reality. Is it morally "right" to put the child"s life above the mother's? Is it morally "right" to put the mother"s life above the child"s? The answer to both is no, it"s not a decision I have any right to make from a moral standpoint.'

To clarify, I believe that if the mother's life is in danger, then the only solution should be to maximise human life, whatever that looks like. Think of it in a utilitarian sort of way. You say it is incorrect there are only two choices. Is it? If so, prove me wrong. These are the only two choices available:

1. You believe human life begins at conception, and therefore agree with my view.

2. There is a cut-off point in terms of development as to what constitutes human life, and what is worthy of human rights.

Prove me wrong.

Here, you put:

'Bodily autonomy is what others can do to your body. This is the reason that rationally, you should defend yourself from an attacker, to protect that attacker from violating your body.'

But what gives you the right to violate his bodily autonomy? If you prevent someone harming you using their body, you are preventing their bodily autonomy. This sounds ridiculous, because it is. However, I'm only going off your definition. So either change your definition or agree with me, because at the moment your statement above contradicts your definition. For clarity, here is your definition:

'Bodily integrity or bodily autonomy means that you have the right to control what happens to your body even if that hurts or kills others.'

So if you say that it's ok to prevent an attacker from attacking you, then you directly contradict your definition, as you say '...even if that hurts or kills others'

Now I expect you to be a nihilist at this point, as the only way this statement below is consistent with your beliefs is if you don't care about human life at all. However, this is not true, as you care about the life of the fetus' mother.

'In your thought experiment, you are not in any way required to take care of someone who is helpless.'

Of course you are not required, just as a mother at this moment in time is allowed to not care for someone (the fetus) that is helpless. The alternative to not taking care of the person is a human dying. If you value human life, you would care for the human life, as you can see that 9 months of inconvenience are by far worth less than an actual human life.

You said this:

'We have the freedom to help others, or not help others, that is what freedom is.'

True, but do you think you should have the freedom to pull the trigger of a gun and kill someone who isn't harming you? In my opinion, the freedom of choice can be infringed, as the alternative is someone losing their freedom to live. Thus, it is the same with the fetus. As for your lung example, I would like to live in a would where you are forced to give a lung if it saves the life of someone else. I value human life over virtually anything else, so someone else's convenience can be sacrificed for human life.

'Choosing to not save someone, does not make you a murder.'

No, of course not. But deliberately having an operation to destroy an unborn baby is, as you are actively causing the fetus' death.

I cannot find where I have said I don't care about the good of society. I'm assuming you are referencing my view that lowered crime rates do not make a difference in terms of the abortion argument.

'...you just care about birth, not what happens afterwards.'

No, you do not know that. You are assuming that I have a hard right Republican leaning, and therefore advocate things like flat tax and cutting welfare etc. I have never mentioned anything as to what happens to the child after birth. Therefore you are assuming my view point on issues you do not know what my view point is. Do not do this,as you may be wrong and it is an unfair argument, I could (hypothetically) be a communist who so happens to be pro-life. So do not assume my complete political viewpoint is the same as many pro life advocates.
Coveny

Pro

I expected you to choose the attackers death over your child"s, so my response was tailored that way. You did not say it before, but you have stated it since. By making that choice I felt like it proved that you were presenting a false dichotomy but I"m willing to go into more depth on the matter if you feel it"s required.

You base your whole argument on this false dichotomy response to your purposed question. Is human life worth anything? If yes then you must be against abortion, if not the you don"t care either way.

You proved this to be a false dichotomy, when you said you would choose to murder the attacker to save your child, because you have chosen both sides. You value (just going to use your term here for easy of understanding, not agreeing with it) human life in that your child lives, and you didn"t value human life in that the attacker dies. This invalids your constraints of only two choices that are mutually exclusive. You have been proven as presenting a false dichotomy by your own words.

I did not say that preventing them, using their body, prevents bodily autonomy. I said if you harm someone to protect yourself, you validate bodily autonomy. You didn"t respond to this but I"m going to take your attacker example and look it from another view to give an example of what I"m referring to. If someone tries to murder you, and you kill them in self-defense, you do so legally and morally because of bodily autonomy. The attacker is trying to change your body without your permission, so you are both morally and legally justified to stop them from changing your body without your permission. To take one step further, even if they are just trying to put you in a van, and are not threating you with death. You are still morally and legally justified to kill them to prevent that. To put it another way, trying to change a person"s body (even if there is no threat of death) without their consent allows for you to protect your body and kill them. The attacker is the "others" who get hurt, and it"s ok that you hurt them to protect yourself. Does that make more sense?

Next I would like to address this statement "If you value human life, you would care for the human life". Is there currently anyone on this planet that is helpless, but you aren"t caring for them? 700 homeless people freeze to death every year in the US, have you helped them? If you haven"t that must mean you are nihilist and don"t care about human life if we follow your train of thought. Because you COULD help them, but you aren"t, are you? You are letting them die, and that somehow makes you a murder in your world. Do you live on the street and send all your money to starving children in other countries? If you make 32k a year you are in the top 1% of the incomes of the world. Roughly 21,000 people (most of which are children) die each year because of starvation. Your money could save thousands of children, but you don"t live like a pauper, do you? By your words that means you don"t value human life, right? You let them die not to save yourself, but just to make your life more comfortable. This is what freedom is. Freedom is letting others die. Freedom is about being able to be selfish. And you are selfish, even if you don"t want to admit it.

When you say that lower crime rates are irrelevant to the abortion debate, and you base your side of the abortion debate on what"s morally "right" that throws up red flags for me. Crime rates include homicide, I assume you know that, but I"m stating it just in case you don"t. You want to call abortion murder, but when presented with actual murder, you indicate that it"s not relevant in the a morally based defense you have created. I have not assumed you are hard right or republican leaning or anything else. I am simply going off your statements. You care about what you call murder when you look at a fetus, but you say actual murder isn"t relevant. Logically what follows is you just care about birth, not what happens afterwards. To put another way your moral compass only cares about fetus. Otherwise stopping homicides would be relevant to you. (and I"m talking about the real kind, not abortions) This is not an assumption, this is just logically following your statements about what is relevant. I am staying within the abortion topic; I"m not getting into your political affiliations be they republican or communist as that is outside of the scope of this debate. This debate is for or against abortion, and in the intro, you said "deliberately left the topic of this debate broad, to avoid contrived and un-passionate arguments." So, you have opened the door to the socio-economic effects of abortion within this debate, but consider homicide" irrelevant.
Debate Round No. 3
Jammie

Con

You said this:

'You value ... human life in that your child lives, and you didn"t value human life in that the attacker dies.'

This isn't true, as before I said this:

'...but in a situation where the child dies OR the attacker dies, I would pick the attacker, as seeing that either way a life is lost, It may as well be that of a murderer as opposed to a child.'

You put me in a situation where either way one human life was being lost. As I explained above, if I HAVE to pick who dies, I would pick a murderer vs an innocent child, as either way a life is lost, I might as well move down the ladder of moral imperatives and identify at least some aspects of their character. I would rather live in a world with one less murderer as opposed to a world with one less innocent child, and remember that either way I don't have a choice and someone dies.

You also put:

'I did not say that preventing them, using their body, prevents bodily autonomy.'

Yes, yes you did. Before you said:

'Bodily integrity or bodily autonomy means that you have the right to control what happens to your body even if that hurts or kills others.'

These two statements are inconsistent with each other. You said you have the right to control what happens to your body even if it hurts or kills others, and from my example the attacker is using his body to hurt and kill a victim. According to your own definition I do not have the right to stop him, as he is allowed bodily autonomy 'even if that hurts or kills others'.

You said:

'The attacker is trying to change your body without your permission, so you are both morally and legally justified to stop them from changing your body without your permission.'

But according to you you're not, as in your first argument you said nothing can prevent bodily autonomy 'even if that hurts or kills others' You are conflicting your own definition.

Your next point was about caring for human life. You said this:

'700 homeless people freeze to death every year in the US, have you helped them?'

The point you are making is that I can't say 'why aren't you caring for human life', when at the same time many people who could use my help do not receive it, and thus my views are inconsistent. The problem with this argument is that you are taking it out of context. I agree with you, that (for example) buying a new car instead of donating the money to a starving kid's fund doesn't make you a murderer. On that, I agree with you. But abortion is different.The reason it is different is that with an abortion YOU instigate the death. If I carried on my life normally and didn't donate to charity, children would die of starvation. If I carried on my life normally and I was pregnant, nobody would die. My counter argument boils down to this, you didn't cause those children to die of starvation, so you shouldn't be held accountable for their death. However, you did cause the fetus to die, as you deliberately killed it, so you SHOULD be held accountable for it's death.

As for your final point, you stated this:

'You care about what you call murder when you look at a fetus, but you say actual murder isn"t relevant.'

The reason lower crime rates (including murder) are not relevant is that you cannot tell if a fetus will grow up to be a murderer when it is a fetus. When it is a fetus it is incapable of crime, and the justice system is (and should be) innocent until proven guilty. If you decide to abort based on crime rates, you are saying to a group of fetus' 'Some of you might kill people, but to make sure that doesn't happen we will kill all of you' How does that make sense? You are punishing a human for a crime they haven't committed, which is unjust.

You mentioned homicides and then this:

' (and I"m talking about the real kind, not abortions)'

You have stated before in round 2 that ' Life begins at conception', so how can you be against homicides but not abortions? They are both humans.

'So, you have opened the door to the socio-economic effects of abortion within this debate, but consider homicide" irrelevant'

No that is blatantly untrue. You were the one that mentioned crime rate reduction with abortion, not me. YOU brought it up. So don't say I opened the door to socio-economic effects of abortion, because you did.
Coveny

Pro

I feel like at this point you are intentionally misinterpreting my position. So, I"m going to just try to state this even more simply, and closer to the words you seem to like to use in hopes it will avoid misinterpretation on your part.

Value of life misinterpretation
You say abortion is murder because you have acted to end the life, and doing so is morally wrong. Your statement is that all life has value, and if you act to end a life then you must not value life.

You say that acting to end the life of the attacker is not morally wrong and maintain that in doing so you still value life.

If the bases of your argument is, that by acting to end a human life, you are morally wrong, when it comes to abortion, then you cannot be morally right in acting against the attacker. Your bases is that all life has value, and if you end it then you must not value life. This is a false dichotomy because you value the life of your child more than the value of the attacker"s life, so it is not a black and white case of either valuing life, or not caring about life at all. There are simply more options than you present. As this is the base from which the rest of your argument stems, it makes the rest of your argument invalid. There are more than two options on how life is valued even by you. This is clear, and there should be no confusion on this point" I mean like at all.

Bodily autonomy misinterpretation
Bodily autonomy protects you from others making changes to your body without your consent, up to the point of hurting or killing others.

The attacker in this scenario is trying to change someone else bodily autonomy which is both morally and legally wrong. He is not protected by bodily autonomy when he tries to change someone else, only when someone tries to change him. This should not be a difficult concept, another term for it is called self-defense.

To put another way, you have the right not to be punched, you do NOT have the right to punch others. Also, if you use someone"s body to shield yourself from the attacker, you are BOTH in the wrong. I did NOT say that. You do not have the right to use their body, any more than the attacker has the right to change your body. Bodily autonomy means you keep your hands to yourself, or you lose your rights. Again, this is clear, and there should be no confusion on this point, but there seems to be.

The point I made about the homeless people freezing to death DIRECTLY correlated to your example about having a man tied to you with unbreakable rope that was helpless, and you have done a complete 190 on this topic.

Original statement " In the same way that man B is separate from man A, and is only temporarily attached, the fetus is not a part of the mother's body, as it is only temporarily attached.

Now - you didn't cause those children to die of starvation, so you shouldn't be held accountable for their death

So again, you invalid your own statements. Either the mother should be held accountable for helpless person"s death, or the mother shouldn"t be held accountable for the helpless person"s death. These are mutually exclusive stances. Either you are morally obligated to help the helpless or you are not. Pick your stance.

Lastly life begins at conception (because it"s a new life), but you don"t become a human until you are out of the womb. We call it a fetus for a reason. Had you asked me if sperm was life I would have said yes as well. I assume you also believe sperm is life, right? How can you be against homicide and still masturbate? Hopefully you understand how silly that sounds, and we don"t have to go into that in any more depth, but somehow I expect we will.

https://i.ytimg.com...

Now let"s talk about future homicides. I have not said that the future homicides justify abortion. (abortion needs no justification; it has nothing to do with me) I"m saying that abortions lower homicides. (and other crimes) If there was an action you could do that would lower homicides would you be morally required to do it? Now I"m not talking about it "may" lower homicides, or there is a "chance" that it lowers homicides. I"m saying it"s been proven repeatedly to lower homicides. Do you think morally that is something that should be done? You don"t. You don"t even think morally it"s something that should be considered. You consider lowering homicide rates" irrelevant and unjust. You don"t even want to talk about it" it"s blatantly true. I brought it up, and you dismissed, something that lowers homicide rates, and you dismissed it out of hand.
Debate Round No. 4
Jammie

Con

'I feel like at this point you are intentionally misinterpreting my position. So, I"m going to just try to state this even more simply, and closer to the words you seem to like to use in hopes it will avoid misinterpretation on your part'

If you are referring to your definition of bodily autonomy, I am not deliberately misinterpreting your position, I am simply identifying where your definition conflicts with your actual position. I am trying to show you the inconsistency of your augments.

'f the bases of your argument is, that by acting to end a human life, you are morally wrong, when it comes to abortion, then you cannot be morally right in acting against the attacker.'

True, but I never said that ending a life is ALWAYS morally wrong. Like I have stated before, I would want a solution where most human life is saved. If that means ending one life to save two, that's what I would do.

'This should not be a difficult concept, another term for it is called self-defense.'

Of course it isn't a difficult concept, I believe in self defence. Like I have said time and time again, I am finding fault with your definition of bodily autonomy. Your statement is ludicrous and even you disagree with it, I am pointing out the flaw in it. So I'm not intentionally misinterpreting it, you shouldn't have said your definition if you didn't believe it. (For clarification this is the statement I was referring to):

'Bodily integrity or bodily autonomy means that you have the right to control what happens to your body even if that hurts or kills others.'

You said:

'The point I made about the homeless people freezing to death DIRECTLY correlated to your example about having a man tied to you with unbreakable rope that was helpless, and you have done a complete 190 on this topic.'

The thought experiment about the men, A and B was purely to show you how the fetus isn't part of the woman's body. I never said man A was morally obligated to help man B. If he chooses to let him die, that's not great, but it'snot man A's fault man B was burdened on him. So I haven't done a 180, as I never said man A had to help man B, and I never said you have to help the homeless man. This is different to abortion as with abortion you are actively killing the fetus. If you didn't care and kept on living your life pregnant nobody would die. Not helping a homeless man is not giving him any money. Aborting a fetus is stabbing the homeless man in the neck.

' These are mutually exclusive stances. Either you are morally obligated to help the helpless or you are not. Pick your stance.'

You are not, and I do not invalidate my own statements. You misunderstood my thought experiment, believing that I felt man A should help man B. I didn't I merely explained how they were attached.

'I assume you also believe sperm is life, right?'

Yes, it is life, but not human life. When it fuses with an egg, it then becomes human life. The reason for this is because a sperm, without the egg providing the extra X chromosome, and nutrients, can never become a human. A fertilised egg can.

'You consider lowering homicide rates" irrelevant and unjust.'

Yes I do, and you seemed to have ignored the explanation I gave you as to why. I said that you cannot find someone guilty of a crime you think they will do in the future, and kill them for it. Read my previous argument concerning this, I'm not going to waste my time repeating myself just so you can ignore it again.
Coveny

Pro

Your whole argument is based on the question of, is human life worth anything. Where you present this false dichotomy that either let the fetus live, or your acted of ending the pregancy means you don’t value human life. Yet, in situations where you acted to end human life to save yourself, you still feel that you value human life. This invalids your whole argument, and supports my arguemnt that you are allowed to kill another human life to protect your bodily autonomy.

And just because it needs to be stated: You can value human life, and still end human life, and yet somehow you refuse to admit this when it is applied to women.

Bodily autonomy is about no one else being able to use or change your body, without your permission, and when I show that protecting yourself from harm validates bodily autonomy, because you can kill someone to keep someone else from changing your body, you say that’s somehow a contradiction. It’s not a contradiction, it’s you protecting your body, and maintaining bodily autonomy. When the attacker breaks the rules of bodily autonomy they lose their right to bodily autonomy and in self-defense you are morally and legal right to kill them. And that is why a fetus that is using your body against your will is no different than an attacker. There is no contradiction here.

Oh wow, you just admitted that a fertilized egg is NOT a human. I’m going to have to quote that...

"The reason for this is because a sperm, without the egg providing the extra X chromosome, and nutrients, can never become a human. A fertilized egg can."


To put your statement very simply. You say a sperm can never BECOME a human… but a fertilized egg can 'become a human'. Meaning you do NOT believe a fertilized egg is human life, because it has not BECOME human life. Ergo your grounds against abortion only apply when it’s not just a fertilized egg. Ergo abortion is acceptable (by your standards) in roughly the first 10 – 12 days after conception. Meaning you lose this debate. Your own argument contradicts itself repeatedly and this is another instance of it. (if the biggest thus far)


Let me restate this for clarity because it seems to be required. Abortion is the act of preventing someone else from using your body against your will. Just as when the attacker came after you, you were morally and legally right to kill them to prevent them from using your body against your will, you are morally and legally right to kill a fetus that is using your body against your will. You understand these concepts when they are applied to you, but you find them confusing and contridictory when applied to a woman for some reason.


The basic principles of bodily integrity states no one, be they an attacker or a fetus, has the right to force what happens to your body. We believe in bodily integrity so strongly that we even uphold it after death, others are not allowed to use our dead body in any way unless you expressly gave them concent when we were alive. What you purpose gives dead people more rights than women.

Debate Round No. 5
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TUF 8 months ago
TUF
Voice Of Truth a few questions:

"The point that Pro brings up causes other points of contention to rise, such as how to judge the morality of an action, which he does not address -- the same mistake Con made."

Unless my understanding was not correct, this seemed to be the whole point of Coveny's argument, is that Jammie's argument's need elaboration on how to judge moral worth. His burden to me seemed to purposely stray away from having to be the moral shot caller, as Jammie was the one arguing that said abortion is immoral specifically. You can tell that this is his direction when he says this: if you do believe human have "worth" please tell me what a human is worth? That should be an interesting discussion.

Also you say this: "There are two errors here, one being that Pro assumes this aspect is not in question, when it indeed is, and also that he is arguing from a morally nihilistic PoV without justifying why that PoV is the moral high ground."

I am really confused as how a nihilistic position requires a moral high-ground rather than a logical high ground...

So here's the thing: You quite clearly read the debate, and did a good job re-iterating what you've read. The problem I think is in the reasoning behind your decision. It simply doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me at several places throughout your RFD. You are finding drops where I am not seeing them, and prioritizing unclarified morals for really no reason at all, and then the conclusion happens and I don't feel I completely understand why you think Jammie won. You mention Con not furthering his case at one point, when the one time he did try to make his own point on crime, it was conceded and dropped, really all he had left to do was refute his opponents arguments. Why should he be required to further his case? Clearly Jammie had an idea of where she wanted to take this debate, and they went to that place. in your summary of R5 you say Jammie has an edge, but I guess it not clear why.
Posted by TUF 8 months ago
TUF
Voice Of Truth a few questions:

"The point that Pro brings up causes other points of contention to rise, such as how to judge the morality of an action, which he does not address -- the same mistake Con made."

Unless my understanding was not correct, this seemed to be the whole point of Coveny's argument, is that Jammie's argument's need elaboration on how to judge moral worth. His burden to me seemed to purposely stray away from having to be the moral shot caller, as Jammie was the one arguing that said abortion is immoral specifically. You can tell that this is his direction when he says this: if you do believe human have "worth" please tell me what a human is worth? That should be an interesting discussion.

Also you say this: "There are two errors here, one being that Pro assumes this aspect is not in question, when it indeed is, and also that he is arguing from a morally nihilistic PoV without justifying why that PoV is the moral high ground."

I am really confused as how a nihilistic position requires a moral high-ground rather than a logical high ground...

So here's the thing: You quite clearly read the debate, and did a good job re-iterating what you've read. The problem I think is in the reasoning behind your decision. It simply doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me at several places throughout your RFD. You are finding drops where I am not seeing them, and prioritizing unclarified morals for really no reason at all, and then the conclusion happens and I don't feel I completely understand why you think Jammie won. You mention Con not furthering his case at one point, when the one time he did try to make his own point on crime, it was conceded and dropped, really all he had left to do was refute his opponents arguments. Why should he be required to further his case? Clearly Jammie had an idea of where she wanted to take this debate, and they went to that place. in your summary of R5 you say Jammie has an edge, but I guess it not clear why.
Posted by Coveny 8 months ago
Coveny
Voice I respect the amount of time you spent crafting a six page document on the matter, and I do appreciate you taking the time for such an in depth response and review. Obviously I don't agree with all your points, but the ones I do are useful to me, and hopefully will help me in future debates. Thanks.
Posted by Coveny 8 months ago
Coveny
Let's try this again "bodily autonomy means that you have the right to control what happens to your body even if that hurts or kills others.". I'm going to break it down into its two components:

1 right to control your body
2 right to control others body

Others do not have a right to control your body so when an attacker comes at you they have broken the rule of bodily autonomy. When they do this the attacker forfeit bodily autonomy, and the defender is allowed to control the attackers body. This is a cause and effect. You broke the rules, you don't get the protection of the rules anymore. To use a new examples, if an attacker grab a cop's arm and in response the cop grabs the attacker's arm, the attacker is not morally or legally allowed to kill the cop because the cop has bodily autonomy, but the attacker does not(because he broke the bodily autonomy rule it no long applies to him). The cop can kill the attacker, the attacker can not kill the cop even though both have grabbed each other. There repercussions to breaking bodily autonomy. If the attacker had not broken it, he would still be protected by bodily autonomy, and if the cop had just grabbed the attacker first the attacker would be morally and legally(the law does provide for you to defend yourself even against cops) to kill the cop. This is my logic, and it's utilitarianism in that it's best society to not attack others members uniformly.

On the point of an "unfair position" with kill or be killed. The bases of the debate is the false dichotomy that if you value life, you must not kill the fetus. Con would not accept this as a false dichotomy so I put him in a situation where he both valued life and killed to proved killing and valuing life are not mutually exclusive. That's not unfair, as it is his stance and I'm just putting him in that situation that refutes that stance. We are talking of matters of life and death, using a scenario that forces a choice between life and death is fair and expect
Posted by Jammie 8 months ago
Jammie
On your profile, Aurelia, it appears that you are not accepting messages at the moment. I would really enjoy a debate with you, so to organise it can you message me instead? If you don't want to that's fine, we can just make arrangements in this comment thread. I don't mind whenever really.
Posted by Jammie 8 months ago
Jammie
What I meant was just simply say 'I accept' as your first argument (Round one)
Posted by Aurelia 8 months ago
Aurelia
What do you mean by, "your first argument"? I would love to debate this due to the fact that I would like to see different opinions. Thanks!
Posted by John_C_1812 8 months ago
John_C_1812
Not to both but while you wait.

Woman"s health issues? Abortion is a legal issue that implicates every one into a self-incriminating admittance of guilt to murder or aiding in a murder. Abortions have happened so there has been murders already. All of this may have been easily avoided with just a restructure of wording which makes the issue a legal choice that can be made. Let"s say for point of discussion words like gender specific amputation or female specific amputation. First of all we are not asked to take part in any past murders or predictions of future murders.

Legalizing abortion is saying it is ok to officially stop life in a written statement to the public, and that has always been true under a declaration of independence only. What is taking place with abortion is a move to implicate others and do away with the declaration of independence. In essence to have a death penalty applied without judicial insured separation.
Posted by John_C_1812 8 months ago
John_C_1812
Ok, Thank you any way. Good luck.
Posted by Jammie 9 months ago
Jammie
I wouldn't want to debate as I have had debates with people who aren't pro choice, but the people who believe in pro choice, it's a women's health issue are always the most interesting.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by TUF 8 months ago
TUF
JammieCovenyTied
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/17Y2C4uHQJHlYuERrEvlSiLhjwldlzuMJMvnjep4lq0I/edit?usp=sharing
Vote Placed by The-Voice-of-Truth 8 months ago
The-Voice-of-Truth
JammieCovenyTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1D9QHeM1aMy3v0MU4nC0Hmr1vszaZM37CBCijsSaQsO8/edit