The Instigator
Republican95
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

In regards to non-medical abortions, fraternal consent should be required at the national level.

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 2 votes the winner is...
Danielle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/8/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,382 times Debate No: 9165
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (19)
Votes (2)

 

Republican95

Pro

Resolution: In regards to non-medical abortion, a contract should have to be signed by the mother and father of the fetus stating that they both consent to the abortion. A mother cannot have an abortion without fraternal consent.

===
Definitions
===

Non-medical abortion-Also known as a social abortion, an abortion not undertaken for the fact that if the mother carries and births this child, she is in severe danger of dying.

Fraternal Consent-Consent by the father of the fetus

Father-The provider of the sperm that fertilized the female egg.

Mother- The provider of the egg that was fertilized by the sperm.

===
Arguments
===

1) The fetus belongs to the mother just as much as it does the father.
The father is just as much as a parent to the child as the mother. To kill the fetus without the father's consent would be to kill the father's child without his permission. To not allow a father to have a say in the abortion of his child would be a violation of his legal rights.

That is all for this round, I look forward to this debate and thank whoever accepts it.
Danielle

Con

I accept Pro's definitions.

As for my opponent's sole argument, I agree that the fetus belongs just as much to the father as it does to the mother. However, a few things must be kept in mind. First, a person - not a fetus - has rights. Therefore the mother's rights trump the non-existent rights of the fetus. Second, a fetus is not an entity of it's own -- it is part of the mother's body, and remains that way until child birth. As such, the mother's body does not belong to the father, and therefore the father has no jurisdiction over what the mother subjects her body to. Pro says, "To not allow a father to have a say in the abortion of his child would be a violation of his legal rights." However, to force a woman to utilize her body in certain ways against her will is a violation of HER legal rights.

My stance as Con so far rests simply on the logic that as a fetus, no rights exist for the unborn child. Therefore this is a debate about property rights between two individuals: the mother and the father. The father has no right to the mother's body (slavery has long been abolished) and the woman has every right to her own body. Thus, it's pretty obvious that the resolution does not stand.
Debate Round No. 1
Republican95

Pro

I thank my opponent for her quick response. Let us continue.

===
As for my opponent's sole argument, I agree that the fetus belongs just as much to the father as it does to the mother. However, a few things must be kept in mind. First, a person - not a fetus - has rights.
===

I am not arguing for the rights of the fetus. I am arguing for the rights of the father. Last time I checked, a father is a person, and according to my opponent a person has rights.

===
Second, a fetus is not an entity of it's own -- it is part of the mother's body, and remains that way until child birth. As such, the mother's body does not belong to the father, and therefore the father has no jurisdiction over what the mother subjects her body to.
===

So if I had YOUR dog in MY house I could do whatever you like with it? I think you would probably not agree with that statement. Similarly, both the mother and father are equally the parents of this child, and therefore, have EQUAL rights when it comes to determining the interests of the child. Simply because the fetus resides in the mother's body doesn't giver her any more rights over the fetus, because a fetus is not a part of the mother's body. The fetus is not a simple appendage of the mother. A fetus a unique set of 46 chromosomes, 23 of which are the fathers! As equal parents of the child, they have equal rights over it.

===
Pro says, "To not allow a father to have a say in the abortion of his child would be a violation of his legal rights." However, to force a woman to utilize her body in certain ways against her will is a violation of HER legal rights.
===

The mother agreed to share all reproductive rights with the father when the two had consented sex. Both the mother and father understood that the consequences of sex include the possibility of pregnancy. It takes two to be pregnant! Once a pregnancy occurs, the mother cannot push the father out of the decision making process. That would mean that the father had no rights over his fetus!

I answered all of my opponents arguments by challenging her challenges of mine.

Looks like a good debate, I give it back over to theLwerd.
Danielle

Con

I'm glad to see that my opponent concedes to the fact that a person and not a fetus has rights. That said, let us get back to the discussion regarding the rights of the father verses the rights of the mother.

Abortion is an issue about rights: rights to privacy, medical sovereignty, property, etc. Requiring a woman to take unnecessary risks with her life and body - and pregnancy ALWAYS greatly increases medical risks - just because the man who ejaculated into her says that she must is indicative of slavery and a blatant infringement upon her rights. The father doesn't have a say in abortion because abortion is about the woman's right to choose - not the man's right to property. Proof of this is the fact that our legal system does not require the father to pay child support to a woman while she is pregnant with the fetus. Instead, the man is required to pay child support once the baby is born. This is because support is necessary for the well-being and rights of the CHILD, whereas abortion deals with the well-being and rights of the mother. We have already agreed that a fetus is not yet a child or person and therefore has no right to anything.

All pregnancy carries with it a certain amount of risk and responsibility. Pro is suggesting that a man can force biological impositions onto a woman just because they've had sex. Let's assume for a moment that this woman wasn't coerced or forced into having sex with said man, etc. and take a look at Pro's analogy and sole rebuttal. He asked, "So if I had YOUR dog in MY house, I could do whatever I like with it?" Using this analogy, what Pro does with my dog is irrelevant. The real question is: Should I be able to DEMAND that Pro keep my dog in his house?! To accept this analogy is to accept without question that I should be able to demand that Pro allow my dog to stay in his house.
Debate Round No. 2
Republican95

Pro

I thank my opponent for her response.

===
I'm glad to see that my opponent concedes to the fact that a person and not a fetus has rights. That said, let us get back to the discussion regarding the rights of the father verses the rights of the mother.
===

I personally believe that fetuses have all the same rights as people, but for the sake of this debate I will concede that they don't.

===
Abortion is an issue about rights: rights to privacy, medical sovereignty, property, etc. Requiring a woman to take unnecessary risks with her life and body - and pregnancy ALWAYS greatly increases medical risks - just because the man who ejaculated into her says that she must is indicative of slavery and a blatant infringement upon her rights.
===

Pregnancy does always have medical risks, but the mother agreed to take those risks because she had sex with a man and knew their was a possibility of pregnancy. Sex is like a mutual agreement between a man and a woman to reproduce. Sex, under a biological definition, is for reproduction. It is not my fault if the money and father wish to have sex for wrong reasons, reasons outside of reproduction. This is where the sexual revolution has carried us, to a land where fathers have no rights over THEIR children. A father should not have to be denied of a child because the mother finds it "inconvenient".

If the medical risks are high enough the mother does not need fraternal consent. The whole "medical risks" argument hold no water because in these cases a mother is allowed to abort without the father's permission.

===
The father doesn't have a say in abortion because abortion is about the woman's right to choose - not the man's right to property. Proof of this is the fact that our legal system does not require the father to pay child support to a woman while she is pregnant with the fetus. Instead, the man is required to pay child support once the baby is born.
===

This isn't a debate of legalism. This is a debate of morality. The rights of the father transcend any type of legislation, because our rights transcend law. Simply because the child has yet to be born does not make it any less of the father's child, biology says so!

I will illustrate this later when talking about the "dog in house analogy"

===
The real question is: Should I be able to DEMAND that Pro keep my dog in his house?! To accept this analogy is to accept without question that I should be able to demand that Pro allow my dog to stay in his house.
===

Yes. When we entered an agreement to mutually buy a pet (symbolic of sex) we accepted that we each had to do our part to ensure that whatever came out of this purchase of an animal was indeed, MUTUAL. Since we both have rights over our dog (fetus) no one can exert his or her wishes over the other without a MUTUAL consensus. In lack of a MUTUAL consensus the dog-owner (mother) should have to stick to her end of the deal and preserve the dog because she entered a mutual agreement with the other dog-owner (father) to take care of this dog when they purchased it (had sex). Because sex, by DEFINITION IN SCIENCE, if for reproduction and reproduction only.

Another question, if this dog is both truly ours and just happens to be residing in your home at the moment, what gives you the right to KILL it without by permission? To kill it without my permission is to say that I am somehow less of an owner than you. How will you answer this?

I yield back to my opponent, I like this debate. Good luck!
Danielle

Con

I'd like to thank my opponent for this quick yet thoughtful debate.

To begin his opening argument in R3, Pro maintains that risks cannot be a considerable factor in this debate because, "If the medical risks are high enough, the mother does not need fraternal consent." However what Pro fails to realize is that there are ALWAYS risks associated with pregnancy. Therefore, by his standards, a mother never needs a father's consent because the risks of health problems are ALWAYS heightened with every pregnancy.

To continue, Pro first claims that sex, by biological definition, is solely for the purpose of reproduction. The problem is that people do not only engage in sex for biological purposes. In other words, people don't solely engage in sex just to have children, so the reproductive correlation of sex is not the only aspect to be taken into consideration for this debate in terms of analysis or definitions. Therefore Pro's assertion that "Sex is like a mutual agreement between a man and a woman to reproduce" does not stand.

Instead, sex is more like a mutual agreement to have intercourse with each other (usually with the aim of reaching climax) and that's it. Nowhere is it legally or even socially implied that reproduction is the goal of sexual intercourse. In most cases, it's not. Proof of this is the existence, promotion and high usage of of various forms of contraception. Pro says that if two consenting adults choose to have sex when the goal is not for reproduction, that they are engaging in this activity for the "wrong" reasons. Note that this is entirely subjective and rooted in opinion without any factual basis whatsoever.

Pro's next point makes the claim, "Simply because the child has yet to be born does not make it any less of the father's child - biology says so!" Pro is ignoring the fact that the entity in question is not a CHILD but a FETUS. Thus the father has no rights nor responsibility to the fetus until the child is born. While Pro might wish to dismiss my premise regarding what is required of the father by law, he has failed to combat the very notion that abortion is about a woman's choice, and not man's property.

Finally, Pro's whole dog analogy is completely misguided. First of all, he bases his entire argument around the premise that sex is solely for reproduction. He uses the "definition of science" which is not accurate, to say the least. While sex may scientifically lead to reproduction, it's simply NOT the only reason that people have sex. In order for his analogy to work, he would have to prove that the people in question (mother and father) had sex solely for the purpose of pregnancy. Since he cannot prove that people always have sex for the purpose of getting pregnant, then he cannot say that we (I'm using this pronoun for the purpose of the analogy) entered an agreement mutually to buy a pet. The couple may have decided to mutually have sex solely for the purpose of achieving orgasm - or a plethora of other reasons - all of which again are not only legally acceptable but morally as well (as indicated by social norms and standards).

Second, assuming that I would actually accept the analogy that the dog represents the fetus in this case, the analogy still fails on the basis that a dog is a living entity outside of myself or my opponent. In other words, if we owned this dog, it can be argued that the dog has some rights, and subsequently we as pet owners have rights. However, my opponent agreed at the beginning of the debate that a fetus DOESN'T have rights. Until this fetus' life comes into fruition via childbirth (or consciousness, in my opinion), then it is merely an extension of the mother's body for which the father has absolutely no jurisdiction.

Consider it this way: Say I have a female dog and Pro has a male dog. We agree to have our dogs mate and then share custody of the puppies, or rights over the puppies in the sense that we can share the profits of selling them, etc. This agreement is all fine and dandy, unless my dog doesn't produce the puppies at all (for whatever reason). In that case, Pro would have no rights: nothing lost, nothing gained. No puppies = no rights. Until the puppies are born, they are merely ideas of what may to come (to either share, have rights over, etc). If those ideas don't come into fruition, Pro is not entitled to anything. If he really wants his male dog to have puppies that badly, he can simply find another bitch to have them.

To conclude his say in this debate, Pro asks the question:

"If this dog is both truly ours and just happens to be residing in your home at the moment, what gives you the right to KILL it without by permission? To kill it without my permission is to say that I am somehow less of an owner than you. How will you answer this?"

First, note that this question is unanswerable simply on the basis that using the analogy of the dog fails for numerous reasons. As I've pointed out, a dog is already a living thing separate from both myself and my opponent (i.e. the mother and the father). If the living dog already existed as a separate entity from myself and my opponent, we would both have rights and therefore I wouldn't have the right to kill the dog without Pro's permission. However, because a fetus isn't a separate living thing, it doesn't have any rights and likewise the father does not have any rights over it. At best, the mother and the father have equal rights over the fetus. The debate then shifts to the obvious necessity of the mother's body, for which it becomes clear that the father has NO right. The mother's rights then trump the father's 2:1 thus making the resolution obsolete.
Debate Round No. 3
Republican95

Pro

I will now post my final arguments

===
To begin his opening argument in R3, Pro maintains that risks cannot be a considerable factor in this debate because, "If the medical risks are high enough, the mother does not need fraternal consent." However what Pro fails to realize is that there are ALWAYS risks associated with pregnancy. Therefore, by his standards, a mother never needs a father's consent because the risks of health problems are ALWAYS heightened with every pregnancy.
===

Read my definition of non-medical abortion.

**Non-medical abortion-Also known as a social abortion, an abortion not undertaken for the fact that if the mother carries and births this child, she is in severe danger of dying.**

A SEVERE danger of dying. Severe being defined as an elevated risk that is above the normal for a woman of the mother's age, weight, etc. The average risk of death during pregnancy is less than 1% in the United States. Some women, however, need medical abortions because of health reasons. We are talking about social abortions, or abortions not undertaken for medical reasons.

===
To continue, Pro first claims that sex, by biological definition, is solely for the purpose of reproduction. The problem is that people do not only engage in sex for biological purposes. In other words, people don't solely engage in sex just to have children, so the reproductive correlation of sex is not the only aspect to be taken into consideration for this debate in terms of analysis or definitions.
===

But that is what sex is. No matter how much people distort the meaning/purpose of sex its definition does not change. That is like saying the color blue will change is the definition of blue changes. Truth is not relative, their is an underlying truth to everything. A perfect example of this would be the statement "This child is three years old", no matter what CON says about this child his age will have not changed.

So, sex is a biological function between a man and a woman to have children. And even if people don't have sex for that reason, they still understand that a consequence of sex is possible pregnancy.

===
Proof of this is the existence, promotion and high usage of of various forms of contraception. Pro says that if two consenting adults choose to have sex when the goal is not for reproduction, that they are engaging in this activity for the "wrong" reasons. Note that this is entirely subjective and rooted in opinion without any factual basis whatsoever.
===

So, the existence of contraceptives proves that sex is not just for biological reasons? Well, do bank alarms exist? Yes, they most certainly do. But does this mean that banks are built so that they can be robbed? No. Contraceptives were invited by people with no respect for the biological definition of sex and who just wanted to enjoy sex pleasures. The existence of a contraceptive doesn't change the meaning of sex.

And I thought we were talking about abortion here? If a contraceptive were used properly than this wouldn't be an issue. Most people who receive abortions became pregnant through unprotected sex. When used properly condoms are 98% effective, when condoms (used properly) and spermicide are used properly the success rate is around 100%.

People who take part in unprotected sex are basically saying "Baby, knock me up!"

===
Pro is ignoring the fact that the entity in question is not a CHILD but a FETUS. Thus the father has no rights nor responsibility to the fetus until the child is born.
===

So, there is mutual agreement to have sex. Then, after the child is born, the father has rights over it. The father has a right to produce a child. I father has a right to father a child. But he has no right over his FETUS while it is in its mother's body. Why not? There is no good answer to this question. By having sex the two agreed to share all reproductive rights because you can't reproduce with one.

===
Finally, Pro's whole dog analogy is completely misguided. First of all, he bases his entire argument around the premise that sex is solely for reproduction. He uses the "definition of science" which is not accurate, to say the least. While sex may scientifically lead to reproduction, it's simply NOT the only reason that people have sex. In order for his analogy to work, he would have to prove that the people in question (mother and father) had sex solely for the purpose of pregnancy. Since he cannot prove that people always have sex for the purpose of getting pregnant, then he cannot say that we (I'm using this pronoun for the purpose of the analogy) entered an agreement mutually to buy a pet. The couple may have decided to mutually have sex solely for the purpose of achieving orgasm - or a plethora of other reasons - all of which again are not only legally acceptable but morally as well (as indicated by social norms and standards).
===

See above arguments over the definition of sex.

===
Second, assuming that I would actually accept the analogy that the dog represents the fetus in this case, the analogy still fails on the basis that a dog is a living entity outside of myself or my opponent.
===

The "house" in the analogy represents the mother's body. And why should it matter? Just because it lives in your "house" doesn't make me any less of an owner?

===

Consider it this way: Say I have a female dog and Pro has a male dog. We agree to have our dogs mate and then share custody of the puppies, or rights over the puppies in the sense that we can share the profits of selling them, etc. This agreement is all fine and dandy, unless my dog doesn't produce the puppies at all (for whatever reason). In that case, Pro would have no rights: nothing lost, nothing gained. No puppies = no rights. Until the puppies are born, they are merely ideas of what may to come (to either share, have rights over, etc). If those ideas don't come into fruition, Pro is not entitled to anything. If he really wants his male dog to have puppies that badly, he can simply find another bitch to have them.
===

But if your dog did become pregnant with the puppies and you decided to have a "puppy abortion" that would be in clear violation of the contract because it would violate my right over those puppies (which I have via the contract, sex). An unborn puppy is just an idea? Really? A fetus is actually composed of living matter, matter that belongs to the father as much as it does to the mother.

===
At best, the mother and the father have equal rights over the fetus. The debate then shifts to the obvious necessity of the mother's body, for which it becomes clear that the father has NO right. The mother's rights then trump the father's 2:1 thus making the resolution obsolete.
===

BUT, we've already said in the resolution that the mother's health (and therefore body) does not have a bearing because this is a "social abortion".

===
Conclusion
===

In conclusion, CON has not proved that a father should have no right. To deny the father of this choice would be to deny him of his reproductive rights. Reproductive rights in this country has sexual preference, and is therefore unconstitutional under the Reed v. Reed case of 1973. It should be changed.
Danielle

Con

[ Re: Pregnancy Risks ]

Just because the risks associated with the average pregnancy may not fall under the category of a "medical emergency," does not mean that other health concerns are not elevated in general in association with pregnancy. In other words, I agree that this debate is discussing so-called social abortions; however, that does not disregard the heightened medical concerns for a pregnant woman regardless of whether or not they are emergencies. The point is that a pregnant woman is always at risk and must adjust her lifestyle as such.

[ Re: The Biological Definition of Sex ]

In attempt to define sex as solely a means of reproduction, Pro attempts to use a color analogy. He says, "That is like saying the color blue will change as the definition of blue changes. Truth is not relative, their is an underlying truth to everything." However, Pro is putting forth fallacious argumentation in trying to prove his point. For instance, it is true that orange is derivative of the color red. Similarly, it is true that orange is derivative of the color yellow. In other words, "The color orange derives from the color red" and "The color orange derives from the color yellow" are both true statements. Similarly, while it is true to say that people engage in sexual activity for the purpose of reproduction, it is also true to say that people engage in sex - even unprotected sex - for other reasons, including physical pleasure. Thus if people have sex for reasons other than reproduction, they may accept that pregnancy is a possible consequence; however, they may not accept that they be required to see that pregnancy through to childbirth. With that said, keep in mind that this debate is not about the morality of abortion but whether or not a woman should be prohibited to have an abortion solely based on the father's opinion. Because abortion is legal - and not the subject of this debate - we must accept that abortion is an alternative for those who get pregnant and consider abortion a viable option.

[ Re: Contraceptives ]

Pro writes, "Contraceptives were invited by people with no respect for the biological definition of sex and who just wanted to enjoy sex pleasures." Note the fact that Pro is implementing his OPINION of sex and what he thinks sex should be for. Yes, I agree that contraceptives are for those who want to enjoy the physical pleasures of sex in a responsible way (to not transmit disease or result in an unwanted pregnancy). However to say that people who use contraceptives are "disrespecting" sex is merely Pro's conservative opinion with no factual basis. He is trying to impose his morality in a debate which is supposed to be about empirical facts.

Anyway, Pro continues to say that people who take part in unprotected sex are basically saying, "Knock me up!" I have a few counters to that. First, a lot of people rely on female birth control i.e. The Pill. However, the pill can be very ineffective in females who take other medication (which may negate the effects of the pill) and are not as effective as condoms in general. Additionally, the supreme court judgment of Roe vs. Wade which legalized abortion made abortion an acceptable legal option in the United States, even if one was irresponsible enough to have unprotected sex. Therefore, even if one WAS inviting the consequence of pregnancy, this debate is once again not about whether abortion is right or wrong, but whether or not a male has any right to force a woman to carry a child to term. So, I can just as easily say to Pro that if a man truly wanted a woman to have his baby, he could have / should have had sex only in a legal or spiritual commitment such as marriage where both parties agreed to have a baby should pregnancy be the consequence of their actions.

[ Re: Fetus vs. Child ]

Pro asks why a father has rights to a child and not to a fetus. This is pretty basic logic. Rights in this case go along with responsibilities. When a child is a fetus, the father has no responsibilities (they all lie with the mother whom is carrying it). When the child becomes a child, the child has needs outside of the mother's own biological cavities and thus the father as a co-parent has the responsibility to help provide for that child. While the fetus is inside of the mother, all of the rights AND responsibilities are that of the mother's. The father is essentially useless once fertilization occurs (and even that happens as a result of his ejaculated sperm; the father doesn't do anything himself to fertilize the egg - that all happens within the mother's body).

Pro says, "By having sex the two agreed to share all reproductive rights because you can't reproduce with one." However, once again the two haven't agreed to share all reproductive RESPONSIBILITIES, meaning the rights here reside with the mother until childbirth. When a woman is pregnant, she cannot eat fish, smoke, drink alcohol, eat hot dogs, drink caffeine, etc etc etc. So, what Pro is saying is that the mother and father's reproductive rights should be EQUAL; however, there is nothing to support this. The fetus resides within the WOMAN'S body. She is the one with all of the responsibility. She is the one with all of the risk. She is the one who gets morning sickness, she is the one whose responsibility it is to seek medical attention (sonograms, the gynecologist, etc.), she is the one who gains weight and other body defects, she is the one who *GIVES BIRTH* and she is the one on which the fetus RELIES for SURVIVAL, etc. Thus it only makes sense that the RIGHTS of the fetus also lie with the mother - not the father. This all changes once the child is born.

[ Re: Dog Analogy ]

Pro says, "The 'house' in the analogy represents the mother's body. And why should it matter? Just because it lives in your "house" doesn't make me any less of an owner?" First of all, it's amusing how the house has come to represent the mother, when originally the house represented the father (Pro said in R2: If i had your dog in MY house, would I be able to do with it whatever I'd like?). Anyway, Pro's question of whether or not the dog being in my house making him any less of an owner is irrelevant. He has ignored my entire argument, which has been that the dog cannot represent the fetus because a dog is a living entity outside of myself, whereas a fetus is not a living entity outside of the mother. My argument on fetus vs. child explains how the mother carries with her all of the rights until the child is born because she in turn bears all of the responsibilities until that point as well. You cannot make the same comparison with a dog.

[ Re: Dog Analogy II ]

"If your dog did become pregnant with the puppies and you decided to have a "puppy abortion" that would be in clear violation of the contract because it would violate my right over those puppies (which I have via the contract, sex)." I knew Pro would try this argument. However, it clearly doesn't work -- There is no contract or legal obligation as a result of sexual intercourse. If a woman was hired to be a surrogate mother, and upon childbirth did not want to give up the child, she would be under violation of a reproductive contract. However the sex act itself does not imply a contract.

[ Re: Equal Rights ]

I said: At best, the mother and the father have equal rights over the fetus. The debate then shifts to the obvious necessity of the mother's body, for which it becomes clear that the father has NO right. The mother's rights then trump the father's 2:1 thus making the resolution obsolete. Pro then said: We've already said in the resolution that the mother's health (and therefore body) does not have a bearing because this is a "social abortion." Uh... what? What does non-medical emergencies have to do with the fact that a man has no right over a woman's body?

[ Conclusion ]

The resolution endorses slavery. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by sherlockmethod 7 years ago
sherlockmethod
RFD:

Before/After: Con
Conduct: Tied
Spelling/Grammar: Tied, no big mistakes
Convincing Arguments: Con
Pro presented an absurd analogy concerning a dog in a house. Analogies must be "just so", this one was horrible. I do not recommend using it again. The main point is this, a father cannot carry a baby … it's biology! (right Pro?) He can't keep the dog in his house as it is not suited for it. This fallacious argument is a simple failure. In addition, Pro continued to talk about the biological definition of sex and did not support it once. His main points simply were not good enough and he started off well.
Con presented arguments concerning property rights and slavery. Neither work well in this debate. Property is a very tough subject and if the fetus is considered property then Pro has a very strong argument, but this is not so and Pro did not find the property law that would have given him a solid win on this point alone. All he had to do was accept the property laws, and Con could not have recovered. The slavery argument is one I am skeptical of, and have not seen it used well. This debate was no different.
In addition to the false analogy, Pro presented a resolution and an argument concerning a contract, which is a legal document, but then told us this issue transcends the law. Which is it, Pro? Con took this one … barely.
Sources: Tied. Con could have easily won this one, but did not force Pro to show this "biological definition".
Posted by sherlockmethod 7 years ago
sherlockmethod
The father did help create the child ... so why not carry the child himself? He can't, of course. This is a sphere of influence debate going back to ancient times. I will post an RFD as Pro started off well, and fell apart. RFD in the works. Both took the time for a good debate so I will post a solid RFD, but will say that Con took this one. I will vote with my RFD, but not tonight.
Posted by Volkov 7 years ago
Volkov
This is probably terribly anti-progressive of me, and I will be shunned by all my liberal colleagues and friends, but getting paternal consent when appropriate for abortions make sense. The father did have a part in the creation of the child, and if that child was created by agreement from both mother and father (ie., it was an intended child), then the father has rights as well...

Now, in cases where the child was not intended, or the father has disappeared, or rape, or medical complications, etc., there would be no reason for paternal consent. Seeing as this is the majority of reasons for abortions fall within such categories, I don't see a huge problem.

But, you do run into that ever-standing argument of "its the woman's body, its the woman's decision."
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
Rape.

I'm not sure whether or not Rep95 specified against it, though.
Posted by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
Oh? And what would that be? You can tell me now -- I can't use it since we're going into the final round anyway.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
I can't believe that theLwerd didn't use the one obvious scenario that would guarantee her victory.
Posted by Republican95 7 years ago
Republican95
I misspelled it. I mean parental as opposed to paternal. The word faternal "of or relating to men" is sufficient for the reasons of this debate. CON agreed to my definitions.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by sherlockmethod 7 years ago
sherlockmethod
Republican95DanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Vote Placed by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
Republican95DanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07