Debate Rounds (5)
I will accept under the terms provided.
However...I will strongly recommend Con to revise their conditions. That is, according to the Con, we are not allowed to quote any individual...this would include medical professionals such as doctors, psychiatrists, and others in the medical field, or elsewhere, which would help confirm or deny the truthfulness of some statements. This is, in effect, a nerf on sourcing. Which will lead to disastrous results. If the Con would be so kind as to revise this ban on sourcing, to merely exclude opinionated banter from philosophers only, I will gladly accept those terms. Having said that, let the debate commence. Obviously, if Con is against abortion, then I am for abortion.
All things considered benign until argued otherwise, I grant my opponent the honour of first argument; that is, why abortion is wrong.
-You can use only statistics and medical terms, if you want, you can use actual testimonies from people...
1. "IT'S A WOMAN'S RIIGHT TO MAKE THIS DECISION. ABORTION IS A CIVIL ISSUE"-average pro-choicer
-All of our RIGHTS ARE LIMITED by the extent to which we infringe on the rights of others. My right to swing my arm end when my fist reaches your nose. Freedom of speech does not grant the right to false advertising or libel. A woman does have the right to choose whether or not to invite or risk pregnancy by participating in sexual activity, but does not have the right to decide whether another person should live or die.
2. "But it's just a blob of tissue. It's obviously not a person with rights! It's only a potential person"-average pro-choicer
-The fact that life begins at conception is a fact of Biology. However, we all have a mental image of what a "person" is supposed to look like, based on the mature people we have seen. Preborns do not match that image. But one might also have a mental image of a "tree" as something large and well developed, which does not match newly planted, 'stick' trees. But 'stick' trees really are trees, just young and undeveloped. Similarly, preborns really are people, just young and undeveloped.
-Preborns are not "potential people" but people with potential. The word potential has two different meanings. A lottery ticket and a check are both mere pieces of paper with the potential for being exchanged for a large sum of money. But while the lottery ticket has only a "possibility" for such an exchange, and is worth little, the check has the "capability" of that exchange and has the same value as the cash itself. Eggs and sperm are like lottery tickets with the possibility of joining with one another to form a new person, but a preborn human is like the check-possessing the same value as the adult he or she will eventually grow to becom, later in the continuum of his or her life.
3. "The supreme court has said that abortion is a fundamental right in our country"
-The supreme court has been wrong before. The dred scott decision in 1857 said that slaves were property and could never be citizens, and that the federal government had no right to prohibit slavery in the territories. Pre-born children are not the property of their parents, but separate, "human" individuals. Many legal experts criticize Roe v. Wade as a bad decision-based on the so-called right to privacy somehow vaguely "found" in either the 14th or the 9th amendment-but never explicitly mentioned anywhere in the constitution.
4. "The child has no rights until birth, when it becomes independent of the mother."
-Newborns are still completely dependent on other for care, as are many handicapped individuals. Dependency does not take away the fact that the individual is a person with rights. Infants in later pregnancy can in fact, be helped to survive outside the womb, but abortion is still legal up through the entire nine months of pregnancy.
-While birth is a major milestone in development, the process of emerging from the womb does not change the essential nature of the child. Does it make sense that the child has no rights one day before birth, but suddenly acquires rights the next day when they are born? What about two days? A week? A month? There is no significant transformation in the nature of the child at any point after conception itself.
I look forward to hearing the arguments to this.....
Take note my opponent has not actually made any form of argument against abortion, but rather, has simply countered imaginary arguments I've yet to make, if I were ever to make any of those arguments. My opponents has failed to provide any form of reasoning as to why abortion should be outlawed this round.
The debate of abortion is a rather simple debate when one gets down to it. The problem is, people muddle their debates with discussions on whether or not the child is human, whether or not the fetus has rights, the innocence of the fetus, ect. However, these things are all irrelevant. Abortion boils down to one simple point: Bodily sovereignty.
Bodily sovereignty is the ability to control the happenings of your own body, and have authority over it. It is the idea that one owns their body, and therefore, no one has any right to their body. For instance, if I am in need of a new liver, lest I die, I do not have the authority to forcible take my opponents liver, to their detriment, for my benefit. If I am in need of new blood, I have no right to have you forced down by the State, and forcibly take blood from you, against your will. Such acts would be violations of one's bodily sovereignty.
In the same way, when we look at the issue of abortion, it becomes quite clear what the only logical stance is. If the fetus is a human being, then it is subject to the same rules and regulations governing bodily sovereignty. That is, if the fetus is a human being, it has no inherent right to the mother's body. Therefore, the mother, in self-defense, reserves the right to remove the fetus, a violator, by any means necessary. Unfortunately at this time, abortion is the only means necessary. And of course, if the fetus isn't human, then there should be no debate; there should be no gripes about killing what is nothing more than a parasite then.
The fact is, if we are to uphold bodily sovereignty, we must uphold abortion. Anything less, and we would no longer be upholding the idea of bodily sovereignty. Which, as I'm sure my opponent may imagine, would be disastrous for society.
I will now counter relevant claims by my opponent. However, I would like to remind the viewing world that, once again, they has failed to make any form of argument in opposition to abortion.
"All of our RIGHTS ARE LIMITED by the extent to which we infringe on the rights of others."
Indeed, all rights are limited by the extent to which we infringe upon the rights of others. And that is precisely what is occurring. The fetus, if considered human, is infringing upon the mother's bodily sovereignty. It has no inherent right to the mother's body. And regardless of how desperately it needs the mother's body to live, like with the liver example, it is still a violation of the mother's rights to be forced to carry the fetus. The fetus' "right to life", as mine did in the example, does not supersede that of bodily sovereignty. The fetus' "right to life" stops when it begins infringing on another's physical well being, against their will, to live.
"A woman does have the right to choose whether or not to invite or risk pregnancy by participating in sexual activity, but does not have the right to decide whether another person should live or die."
Concession to sex is not concession to pregnancy and childbirth, no more than concession to rock climbing is a concession to death. If I am rock climbing, sure, I may have conceded to the possibility that a bad event will occur to me, such as falling and breaking my bones, or potentially dying...but by the logic my opponent espouses, if I were to fall, simply because I accepted the risk of these bad events, that is reason enough to allow them to happen. Simply put, according to the reasoning my opponent gives, if I fall while rock climbing, break my back, and am laying, paralyzed and dying, others there with me are to turn and say "Welp, you conceded to the risk of death. Tough luck. Deal with it." A concession to rock climbing is not a concession to death, but a mere concession to the risk of it. It is not logically conclusive to say "you accepted the risk, so you have to suffer it if it occurs". Should we not help those who have found themselves in unfortunate life situations? Like a fallen rock climber? Or an victim of a car accident? Does my opponent truly suggest letting them lie and say "tough luck, you conceded to death when you stepped in that car". In the same way, while sex is a concession to the possibility of pregnancy, it is not a concession to carry the pregnancy.
"The fact that life begins at conception is a fact of Biology."
This isn't relevant to my argument, however, it is most certainly not a fact of biology that life begins at conception. In Biology, life is required to demonstrate all or most of the following characteristics:
6) Response to Stimuli
There is a substantial lack of these characteristics at conception, making it not alive.
RTN1994 forfeited this round.
My opponent forfeits. Vote Con.
RTN1994 forfeited this round.
Forgive me, I misspoke last round. I was in a debate where my opponent, and I was Con. I should have said "Vote Pro".
My opponent has forfeit the round. Vote Pro.
RTN1994 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 4 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: For multiple forfeits. Forfeits means that Con was unable to respond to Pro's refutation and thus the argument is extended without objection.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.