The Instigator
ILoveSitarMusic
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
benschroeder43
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Contraception is a right.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 1 vote the winner is...
benschroeder43
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/31/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 285 times Debate No: 85854
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)

 

ILoveSitarMusic

Pro

My oppnent will make the opening statements. Pro means I agree with this statement, and con means my opponent disagrees. Happy debating.
benschroeder43

Con

I would like to start off by thanking you for creating this debate. Hopefully this will be fun and interesting and we will both learn something new, as well as see both sides of the argument.

Let's begin by defining a right. I assume you are referring to civil rights. A civil right can be defined as a federal law which regulates a public accommodation (a private/public enterprise which opens it's doors to the public). Civil rights mandate whom a public accommodation may not discriminate against
Debate Round No. 1
ILoveSitarMusic

Pro

Thank you for being a nice person. To me, a right is something that belongs to each lviving creature. A right is something given to us by God and affirmed by a democratic government. We have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We also have the right to be secure in our person. How can a woman do that if she is forced to have an abortion, or give birth? I am against most abortions, but for any contraception that works before fertilization.
benschroeder43

Con

The problem that lies here is our each individual definition of a right. You are using the moral standards of a right, however morals are relative. We each have different morals. On top of this, this topic is quite vague. I am going to assume you are arguing this: Women have the essential right to contraception, that is, if they wish to use contraception they may do so and shall not be prevented from doing so.

Question: Does contraception prevent the possibility of a new entity of human life?
Debate Round No. 2
ILoveSitarMusic

Pro

This debate is about contraception, not whether objective morality exists. This is my body. I have the right to contraception. I don't want chilren. I don't need to breed to feel important.
benschroeder43

Con

I'm sorry but you didn't answer my previous question, so I have two for you, please answer them both with a clear and concise answer:

Do you agree that the right to life is a given right?

Does contraception prevent the possibility of a new entity of human life?
Debate Round No. 3
ILoveSitarMusic

Pro

You never asked me a question.
benschroeder43

Con

It is unfortunate that you are unable to create an argument, and instead choose to refute what I clearly said. I asked a question, and I asked two more in the previous round. Perhaps you did not read them so I ask them again:

Do you agree that the right to life is a given right?

Does contraception prevent the possibility of a new entity of human?

If these questions are not answered, I will assume you are purposefully ignoring me, stalling, and therefore should be seen as forfeiting the debate.
Debate Round No. 4
ILoveSitarMusic

Pro

I am an abolitionist. I believe that the right to live begins at fertilization. I believe that abortion is murder unless the pregnancy is ectopic, but I support contraception provided that it acts before fertilization, and not after.
benschroeder43

Con

I would like to conclude by thanking my opponent for allowing me to debate with them. I would like to start off by pointing out how my opponent blatantly refused answering questions I posed before them, this should either be looked upon as lack of the ability to counter my argument, or simply stalling. My opponent also did not show much evidence arguing their point. Contraception strips the right of life, stated by pro as a given right, from a possible human being, there inducing on other rights
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by benschroeder43 10 months ago
benschroeder43
Why is the voting period half a year? Seems far too long.
Posted by Troller808 10 months ago
Troller808
@ILoveSitarMusic @benschoerder43
PRO has already lost I noticed once they had said "A right is something given to us by God and affirmed by a democratic government." The U.S. government is not religious, you are assuming that it is religious and it is not. Most of the founding fathers were not christian but they did believe that there is be something higher then them per say god as an example. The "In God we trust" Is just a statement assuming that there is a higher power, this was meant to establish that even things higher then the government cannot infringe upon these rights. PRO is giving incorrect fact there for PRO is an unreliable source making everything PRO says questionable.
Posted by benschroeder43 10 months ago
benschroeder43
@SquirrelFaces I agree, I believed we came to the consensus that the right is a human right: something that one is allowed to do, and cannot be taken away without extreme circumstances or due process.
Posted by SquirrelFaces 10 months ago
SquirrelFaces
I think right should be defined. Are you guys debating a 'positive right' or a 'negative right'?
Posted by benschroeder43 10 months ago
benschroeder43
500 characters per entry is a bit short. I recommend lengthening it to something much greater to allow for more evidence and analysis to be provided.
Posted by condeelmaster 10 months ago
condeelmaster
I suggest you to define what a right is, just to avoid semantics.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by U.n 9 months ago
U.n
ILoveSitarMusicbenschroeder43Tied
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: I'm not a big fan of the strategy of asking your opponent multiple questions but regardless... Pro failed to uphold the BOP and really only stated their own personal beliefs and stance. Con essentially rebutted this in the second round by pointing out that it's all relative. No proven BOP for Pro equals more convincing argument points for Con.