The Instigator
socialpinko
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
askbob
Con (against)
Winning
20 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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/22/2011 Category: Health
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 970 times Debate No: 15547
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (6)

 

socialpinko

Pro

_____________________________________________________________________
Pro will argue that abortion should be legal, Con will argue that abortion should be illegal.
_____________________________________________________________________

Abortion: the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

_____________________________________________________________________

One may not win by default. Both sides must defend their position in order to win and cannot simply refute their opponent's position. I will allow my opponent to begin as I'm a lazy douche.

Good luck!
askbob

Con

[Definitions]
For clarity I pose the following definitions.

Trimester: 3 months
Conception: meeting of the sperm and egg

[Contention]
I hereby propose illegalizing abortion after the 21st day of conception except to save a woman's life, or in the case of rape or incest.

[Reasoning]

On the 21st day after conception the fetal heart starts to beat and most major organs are functioning. The common law definition of death is the stoppage of a heartbeat and most functioning organs. Most of the laws of the United States are based off common law. Since death is considered to be the opposite of life, life should be defined as the start of the human heart.

My opponent will probably point out that brain activity is not present until much later, and humans as a race are defined by the brain. I completely agree, and propose the fetus is life with certain human potential.

Clearly we already grant life with certain human potential the right to life. Examples being severe mental retardation, coma victims, etc. Unless they otherwise stated in a concious state, they are kept alive if they have the potential to have a reasonable quality of life. Clearly fetuses have that potential with a much higher chance of realizing that than a coma victim or severly mentally retarded person.

Additionally United States Law by established legal precedent as well as by written statutes have established that fetuses indeed are human even though I have conceeded that they are not.

Murder by US law is the intentional killing of another human.

35 states classify the killing of a fetus as murder (http://www.lifenews.com...)

Therefore 35 States recognize fetuses as human.

With the advanced medical contraceptives of today such as Condoms, Birth Control, and the Day after pill, Women have a choice whether to have a child or not. And that choice has to be made 3 days within sexual activity. With the day after pill available at local walmarts for considerably less than an abortion would cost, there is little to no reason as to not be protected.

I believe that the fetus's right to life supersedes a mother's right to convienence. I do not believe that the government should continue to allow mothers to trespass on the rights of the fetus.

Debate Round No. 1
socialpinko

Pro

I accept my opponent's definitions.
_____________________________

"My opponent will probably point out that brain activity is not present until much later, and humans as a race are defined by the brain. I completely agree, and propose the fetus is life with certain human potential. "

To say that a fetus should not be aborted because it has the potential for life is utterly fallacious. By your logic we should outlaw masturbation as every time a guy finishes he is ending millions of potential lives.

"Additionally United States Law by established legal precedent as well as by written statutes have established that fetuses indeed are human even though I have conceeded that they are not."

If you have conceded that they are not alive then posting legal precedent that they are does not further your own argument and is unnecessary.

"35 states classify the killing of a fetus as murder (http://www.lifenews.com......)
Therefore 35 States recognize fetuses as human."

This is more like an appeal to authority. You did not show why a fetus is a human. You only showed that certain states say it is.

"With the advanced medical contraceptives of today such as Condoms, Birth Control, and the Day after pill, Women have a choice whether to have a child or not. And that choice has to be made 3 days within sexual activity. With the day after pill available at local walmarts for considerably less than an abortion would cost, there is little to no reason as to not be protected."

Condoms can snap and contraceptives can fail and the morning after pill is not 100% effective and can cause side effects which may discourage a woman from using it. One could theoretically use all three of these measures and still end up pregnant. Although a longshot, this person has done everything in order to be protected and yet still became pregnant. What I am saying is that there will always be exceptions and it is unfair to force someone to have a child when they have taken all of the necessary precautions.
askbob

Con

"To say that a fetus should not be aborted because it has the potential for life is utterly fallacious. By your logic we should outlaw masturbation as every time a guy finishes he is ending millions of potential lives."

1. My opponent points out no fallacy while calling my claim fallacious. This is an ubstantiated claim and should be viewed as such until my opponent proves my logic to be fallacious.

2. My opponent clearly ignores what I wrote and attempts to misconstrue it for his own gain. I awarded the right to life to life with certain human potential. Unless my opponent discovers not only a heartbeat in a sperm but also the certain potential to spontaneously become human, this point stands.

"This is more like an appeal to authority. "

1. My opponent makes his entire resolution based off of authority. It is an appeal to authority but is not fallicious and supports the resolution. If the resolution wasn't about being illegal, then I would agree that the claim was fallicious. However, this resolution requires to me to show why abortion should be illegal.

"You did not show why a fetus is a human."

A fetus is not human as I clearly stated above which you even quoted in the second sentence of your R2.

I'm simply showing that the law perceives (incorrectly) fetuses to be human in 35 states as supporting evidence for why abortions should be illegal due to established statutes. In other words, there is a contradiction between the law counting fetuses as humans in murder cases while not counting them as humans in abortion cases.

If anything my statement shows that the law is imperfect and thus cannot be relied upon to support your resolution.

"What I am saying is that there will always be exceptions and it is unfair to force someone to have a child when they have taken all of the necessary precautions."


It is more unfair to take away the life of another due to the inconvience of one person.

It's unfair that spedometers can break while someone is on the road and they can unintentionally speed and possibly get caught by a policeman and still have to pay a fine.
Thus speeding should be legalized.

My opponent has not refuted any of my arguments nor presented any of his own, therefore I have nothing to refute. Extend all arguments.

Debate Round No. 2
socialpinko

Pro

_________________________________________________________________________________________________
1. My opponent points out no fallacy while calling my claim fallacious. This is an ubstantiated claim and should be viewed as such until my opponent proves my logic to be fallacious.

2. My opponent clearly ignores what I wrote and attempts to misconstrue it for his own gain. I awarded the right to life to life with certain human potential. Unless my opponent discovers not only a heartbeat in a sperm but also the certain potential to spontaneously become human, this point stands.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

"1. My opponent makes his entire resolution based off of authority. It is an appeal to authority but is not fallicious and supports the resolution. If the resolution wasn't about being illegal, then I would agree that the claim was fallicious. However, this resolution requires to me to show why abortion should be illegal."

You must show why abortions should be legal, showing that some states consider a fetus to be alive does not show that A)It is alive and B)Abortions should be illegal.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

"A fetus is not human as I clearly stated above which you even quoted in the second sentence of your R2.
I'm simply showing that the law perceives (incorrectly) fetuses to be human in 35 states as supporting evidence for why abortions should be illegal due to established statutes. In other words, there is a contradiction between the law counting fetuses as humans in murder cases while not counting them as humans in abortion cases.
If anything my statement shows that the law is imperfect and thus cannot be relied upon to support your resolution."

If the law cannot be relied upon to suport my resolution than why do you rely on the law to support yours? And you pointed that the law was incorrect so there is no reason to even mention it.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

"It is more unfair to take away the life of another due to the inconvience of one person. "

You said yourself that a fetus is not alive but only has the potential to be alive. It is not considered a person until after it is born.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

"It's unfair that spedometers can break while someone is on the road and they can unintentionally speed and possibly get caught by a policeman and still have to pay a fine.
Thus speeding should be legalized."

This has nothing to do with the actual debate so there is no reason to respond.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________
askbob

Con

"You must show why abortions should be legal, showing that some states consider a fetus to be alive does not show that A)It is alive and B)Abortions should be illegal."

My opponent is clearly either delusional or purposely misrepresenting the debate.

1. I have shown that states consider a fetus to be human, not just alive
2. I have given reasoning and clear statements for why a fetus should be considered human
3. I have also given reasoning and shown why abortions should be illegal.

My opponent has not even addressed my points, let alone refute them. He has made no points of his own except to incorrectly denote my claim as fallacious and purposefully or delusionally misrepresent my criterion for the right to life.

"If the law cannot be relied upon to suport my resolution than why do you rely on the law to support yours?"


I don't use the law to support my argument?

"You said yourself that a fetus is not alive but only has the potential to be alive. It is not considered a person until after it is born."

Nowhere did I say or even allude to this. I said as is clearly evident from rereading what I said that a fetus is alive with the potential to be human.

Also I never said it is not considered a person until after it is born, I said that it should be considered a human when it has sufficient cognitive development, which is evident after the 12th week with alterations with the fetuses heartbeat in response to the mothers voice(http://www.aphroditewomenshealth.com...) and detectable brain waves(http://webspace.ship.edu...)

"This has nothing to do with the actual debate so there is no reason to respond."

Logical analogies that prove your logic to be inconsistent have a place in this debate.


I have given complete reasoning for why abortion should be illegal after the 21st day and provided clear logical reasoning. My opponent has not only failed to attack any of my points but has failed to make any points of his own.

Debate Round No. 3
socialpinko

Pro

socialpinko forfeited this round.
askbob

Con

extend all arguments
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by I-am-a-panda 5 years ago
I-am-a-panda
socialpinkoaskbobTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't successfully refute Con's heartbeat argument. Conduct to Con for Pro's forfeit. Con also used 3 sources, Pro used none. No difference in S
Vote Placed by quarterexchange 5 years ago
quarterexchange
socialpinkoaskbobTied
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: Forfeit and Con had better arugments
Vote Placed by CiRrK 5 years ago
CiRrK
socialpinkoaskbobTied
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: Conduct point due to forfeit. Heartbeat argument won convincing arguments point.
Vote Placed by Cobo 5 years ago
Cobo
socialpinkoaskbobTied
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: Forfiet. And Con Had better arguments.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
socialpinkoaskbobTied
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: Forfeit.
Vote Placed by darkkermit 5 years ago
darkkermit
socialpinkoaskbobTied
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: socialpinko you little b!tch. stop forfeiting.