The Instigator
socialpinko
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
teekong
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points

Libertarian philosophy supports the pro-choice position

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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...
socialpinko
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/14/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,743 times Debate No: 23596
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (13)
Votes (2)

 

socialpinko

Pro

===Resolution and BoP===


The topic up for debate here will be the correct application of libertarian ethics to the issue of abortion. The Pro will argue that the correct application leads one to the pro-choice side of the debate while the Con will argue that it leads to the pro-life side. The primary BoP will lie with Pro and so Pro must provide a positive case in support of the resolution while Con must merely disprove Pro's case in order to fulfill their burden. Note that Con's burden does not preclude choosing to provide a positive case of their own.


===Definitions===


Libertarian philosophy and ethics refer to the concepts of both self ownership and the non-aggression principle. Self ownership refers to "the moral or natural right of a person to be the exclusive controller of his own body and life."[1] The non-aggression principle is the ethical concept that aggression is inherently illegitimate with aggression being defined as the initiation of physical force against one's person or property, the threat of such, or fraud upon someone[2].


For libertarian philosophy, ethics to support either the pro-life or pro-choice positions means that the correct application of that philosophy to the problem of abortion should lead one to support a specific side of the issue in order to be in accordance with libertarian philosophy or ethics.


To be pro-life means to support the notion that "the government has an obligation to preserve all human life, regardless of intent, viability, or quality-of-life concerns."[3] Pro-choice means that one supports the notion that "the government does not have the right to impede a woman's right to decide whether or not to continue a pregnancy."[3]


===Rules===


1. Drops will count as concessions.

2. Semantic or abusive arguments will not be counted.

3. New arguments brought in the last round will not be counted.

4. R1 is for acceptance. Argumentation will begin in R2.


===Sources===


[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://wiki.mises.org...
[3] http://civilliberty.about.com...
teekong

Con

I look forward to this debate and appreciate the philosophical position which you are presenting.

I accept your definition of libertarian philosophy and ethics. I accept your definitions of pro-life and pro-choice.

Further, I request, that that for the sake of this debate, life be assumed to begin at time of conception.
Debate Round No. 1
socialpinko

Pro

I accept my opponent's request to assume that life begins at the moment of conception. Also, I would like to acknowledge that the argument which I am about to posit is regarding an issue which is still hotly debated and intensely controversial within the United States (I admit I'm ignorant of the relative controversial status abroad). Therefore I will request that readers and voters (both of the pro-choice and pro-life persuasion) put away their biases and presuppositions and judge this debate purely on the merits of the arguments which my opponent and I put forth.


===Incoherence of Positive Rights===


The pro-life position contains within it a fatal flaw which makes it incompatible with libertarian ethics. This flaw stems from the fact that just as no post-birth person has the positive right to things such as clothing, shelter, medical care, etc. neither does a pre-birth person. In conceding that the foetus is alive at the moment of conception, it does follow that it possesses legitimate libertarian rights such as the right not to be aggressed upon and the right to retain a limited form of personal autonomy. However, nowhere in these negative rights does a positive right form. A positive right referring to the right to retain shelter within the mother's womb, nutrients from the mother, etc. Therefore the mother is under no positive obligation to keep the foetus alive.


Now even if one were to concede that pre-birth humans are not necessarily entitled to positive rights via negative rights, one might still argue that positive rights aren't prima facie contradicting of negative rights. However this is improbable seeing as the only way positive rights may exist is through negation of negative rights. Consider clothing as a relatively simple example. In order to guarantee provision of clothing to person A, one must come into possession of the clothes from someone else, presumably the manufacturer. Let's call him person B. But since person B has a right not to have his property stolen (infringing on his property rights), fulfilling the alleged positive rights of person A comes at the expense of the negative rights of person B. And since negative rights (a la libertarian ethics) are already assumed there is therefore no reason to adopt positive rights into our framework.


===Foetus as an Aggressor===


This is where the argument gets more and more controversial. I advice readers and voters though to judge the argument purely on it's intellectual merit (i.e. on it's consistency with libertarian ethics). Under libertarian ethics, the mother has complete autonomy within the borders of her own body. The foetus, being within the confines of the woman's body against her will (presumably against her will being that the mother is seeking an abortion) is aggressing against the mother's right to self ownership and thus the mother is within her rights in stopping this aggression. Objections can come in a few forms and I will preemptively refute them here.


One possible objection is that the foetus has no intention of harming the mother in any way (the foetus is not ven conscious) and I would not object that the foetus had no malice intentions. However, the question is whether (a) the mother's rights are being violated and (b) whether killing the foetus is the optimal method of stopping this aggression. On A, the answer is relatively straightforward. The mother has the right to control the inner confines of her body and not allowing her to remove an unwanted visitor is in clear violation of this right. On B, unfortunately removing the foetus immediately is the only way to stop the aggression being made.
teekong

Con

Thank you for this opportunity to discuss in a pleasant and intellectual manner this topic. I appreciate the arguments you have made, and kindly disagree. I echo Pros request that the debate be approached without bias and be judged upon the merit of the arguments presented.

Incoherence of Positive rights

Core Libertarian ethics clearly reject all positive rights(1). The pro-life position is not based on the fetus's positive rights (of which they like all humans, have none), but on their negative (non interference) rights. The right to life is a non interference right. It is the right to be NOT be killed or injured, hence the term negative right. As the burden of proof is Pros, I will not go into further detail, I will simple state that you must prove that the right of choice of the mother supersedes the right to life of the fetus or you must prove that the fetus is not a complete person(2). Pro suggests that fetus has no right to be sheltered or otherwise taken care of by the mother. Following this logic, mothers and fathers have no responsibility to care for their children because being cared for by your parents is a positive right, being born or unborn does not factor into it. I will touch more on this later.

Foetus as an Aggressor
The right to life , in libertarian ethics, is bound to the concept that we are the sole proprietors of our bodies. This same argument extends to the right to defend against aggression, that libertarians support, as long as it follows non interference principles. Specifically, that my defense specifically responds to the aggressor and does not interfere with others rights who are not aggressors. Once again, pro must prove that the right to defend of the mother supersede the right to life of the fetus. I do not believe he has done this. Furthermore, he has gone as far to suggest that the fetus is a parasite. That the fetus is in fact the aggressor, and that the fetus was created not by choices made by the mother but by some unwanted assailant (which may be true in the case of pregnancy due to rape, which is another issue for debate). He then asserts that it is within her rights to remove this unwanted aggressor, while ignoring, once again, the fetus's right to life and non aggression.

Contracts as rights
If we fully examine libertarian concept we see an interesting principle arise(3). While we have no inherent positive rights, libertarian ethics does hold the fulfilment contracts as a right. A contract once made, is not a positive right, but a negative right by agreement. Upon agreeing to a contract with another, a libertarian, has made the fulfillment of that contract an essential component of the rights to whom the contract was made. A common mistake made in the course of abortion debates is the lack of recognition that there were choices made that resulted in a pregnancy and these choices have consequences. Under pure libertarian ethics one's negative rights are all that matter, this does not mean however that their are no consequences to your choices. In that regard, libertarians believe that marriage is a voluntary contractual option, specifically they support civil unions(4). Government's role is then to enforce the contract if need be, but it is the consenting adults who enter into this contract in the first place. Similarly when adopting a child , parents enter into a contract. This contract terminates the parent-child relationship of the biological parents and cedes them to the adoptive parents(5). If legal recognition of this relationship can be ceded, then this "contract" between the biological parents and the child must have already existed. I would also argue as that the fetus had no voice in the initial contract as to whom their biological parents were to be, the fetus has a greater right to have his/her end of the contract fulfilled then the free thinking and fully aware adults whom consented to intercourse that resulted in the fetus's conception.

Conclusion
Thus, for a pure libertarian to abort a child, they would be violating the fetus's right to non aggression and his/her right to life. They would also be violating the contract which they knowingly (though perhaps they were hoping wouldn't have) entered into. Pure libertarian ethics does not mean freedom of choice without consequence.

Sources
(1)http://www.wku.edu...
(2)http://www.wku.edu...

(3)http://www.wku.edu... (paragraph 5)
(4)http://www.libertarianism.com...
(5)http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...
Debate Round No. 2
socialpinko

Pro

===Incoherence of Positive Rights===


I'm glad my opponent agrees with me that positive rights do not fit into libertarian ethics. I was actually expecting my opponent to attempt a positive-negative synthesis of libertarian rights theory and am pleasantly surprised I don't have to deal with refuting that and therefore we can get to the crux of the debate. My opponent makes a crucial mistake in their proposed reductio ad absurdum. In attempting to show the absurdity of the idea that foetus' "have no right to be sheltered or otherwise taken care of by the mother", my opponent argues that it implies that parents have no obligation to care for their children post-utero. However, this is not the reductio that my opponent believes it is. Murray Rothbard (no lightweight in the realm of libertarian theory) in his book The Ethics of Liberty argues:


"...the very concept of "rights" is a "negative" one, demarcating the areas of a person's action that no man may properly interfere with. No man can therefore have a "right" to compel someone to do a positive act, for in that case the compulsion violates the right of person or property of the individual being coerced."[1]


....and from there....


"Applying our theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die."[1]


It is contradictory for my opponent to throw out the idea of positive rights on the one hand, yet assume their existence in the single sense of children, infants, and foetus'. If one does not have any positive obligation to perform actions and/or services for another (save for the case of contracts, though I will deal with why there is no contract in this case in the 'Contracts as Rights' point by my opponent) than it cannot logically follow that one also DOES have a positive obligation to perform actions and/or services for another. My opponent's point is in clear contradiction with libertarian ethics.


===Foetus as an Aggressor===


My opponent argues that I have not shown good reason why the foetus is in a position to justifiably have it's natural rights to life and non-interference interfered with. As I have earlier explained, the foetus (in the purely physical sense of the term, not the psychological sense of whether or had malice in mind) is aggressing against the right of non-interference of the mother by lodging within her body against her will. Just as in the case of the invited guest who does not leave at the request of the host (whether as a result of inability to move or general malice towards the host is wholly irrelevant in this case), the mother must have the right to remove unwanted lodgers if her self-ownership is to remain intact. The fact that this dislodging results in the death of the foetus is (while unfortunate), the only possible way for removal that does not either prologue aggression or invoke positive obligation on the mother.


===Contracts as Rights===


I would agree with my opponent that the fulfillment of contracts is a "right" as an extension of the right to exclusive non-aggressive use of one's property. My opponent argues that when a woman engages in consensual sexual activities knowing that it may well result in pregnancy, she is forming a contract with the foetus to carry it to term. Thus if the mother aborts the foetus, she is abandoning her contractual obligation to the foetus. There is a single flaw in my opponent's argument though and it stems from the definition of a contract. Libertarian legal theorist Stephan Kinsella echoes the general conception of the requirements to form a contract as "agreement between parties to exchange
promises or performance"[2]. However, since the foetus has no legal standing (in the same sense that a 9 year old has no legal ability to form contracts on their own), it lacks the ability to form a contract with anyone. Therefore, when the mother aborts the foetus, she is not abandoning any contractual obligation to the foetus and thus is not in antagonism to libertarian ethics.


===Sources==


[1] Murray Rothbard. The Ethics of Liberty. Ch. 14, Children and Rights. Available online at: http://mises.org...
[2] http://mises.org...
teekong

Con

I thank you for your well organized and politely presented arguments.

Incoherence of Positive Rights
My opponent is attempting to present a very subtle red herring. My original argument asserted that there were no positive rights, and I extended the logic of this to parental obligation both in and out of the womb. I agreed there is no positive right, I then went on to show that there is contractual obligation (a negative right by choice) between parents and children. I did not argue however that the parents of born children had positive rights to being cared for.
However,Rothbard cannot be used to argue this case because Rothbard logic asserts that contracts do not actual exist in pure libertarianism. Rothbard reasons that we are self owners, our will is absolute and inalienable. He states that you cannot sell yourself into slavery because being a slave would entail the surrender of your will. Extending this logic, a contract is something you agree to do in the future, how then is one to handle the situation in which at that future time you have decided that you no longer wish to fulfill that contract? Because your will is inalienable, to be compelled to fulfill the obligations of the contract is a violation of your non interference rights(1). My opponent has conceded that pure libertarian ethics view contractual obligations as rights. Therefore his use of Rothbard as supporting reason is a contradiction and invalid.

Fetus as an Aggressor
The right to life supersedes the right to choose, for without the right to life there is no right of choice (without life there are no rights at all). Therefore, if the fetus attains person hood at conception, the fetus has a right to life and this right to life supersedes the mothers right of choice because in all cases the right of life is of greater importance than the right to choose. Similarly the right to life supersedes the right of non aggression, except perhaps in the case where aggression will violate ones right to life. Again, my opponent has not shown that the mother's right to choose supersedes the right of life in libertarian ethics.

Contracts as Rights
A lack of legal status only means that the contract will not be enforced by the government. This, however, does not mean the contract does not exist, especially from an ethical perspective. Verbal agreements are very difficult to prove, they are however still contracts where the two parties involved are concerned. The existence of a contract does not depend on the ability to prove it was entered into by two parties. My opponent suggests that the libertarian ethic is one of free will without consequence, contract without obligation. I argue that it is not. Our choices are contracts with consequence(used as a noun here). If our choice leads to a negative outcome and additional choices allow us to avoid that outcome without violating the non interference rights of others then we are free to make them and breach the contract with consequence. However, it is circular logic to argue that the consequences of my choices that lead to a situation in which my next choice will violate the non interference rights of another invalidates their right to non interference in the first place, because of my right to choose.

Furthermore, because pregnancy is a choice, not a random consequence (which one could argue don't exist anyways) the mother has in fact entered into a contract with the consequence of her choice. In this case the consequence of her choice has its own rights, thus any act against that consequence that violates those rights is a violation of the libertarian ethic as it concerns the fetus and a violation of the libertarian ethic as it concerns the mothers contractual obligation.

Sources
(1)http://www.l4l.org...
Debate Round No. 3
socialpinko

Pro

===Incoherence of Positive Rights===


My opponent here makes an interesting case against Rothbard's conception of children's rights. He misinterprets Rothbard's thought in such a way so that it would appear that Rothbard was against the core libertarian concept of contracts. This is because Rothbard held self-ownership to be a higher-order right than any other "lower-order" rights, contractual with them. But this far from means that Rothbard did not accept the existence of a contractual society, he merely disagreed with contractual slavery and SOME other aspects of contractual theory. For instance, Rothbard disagreed with the idea that one could be physically coerced into fulfilling a contract. This does not mean however that no contract holds any weight, far from it. In reality, under Rothbard's contractual theory, contracts could still be enforced, just not in the way which my opponent conceives. A contract under Rothbardian theory can still be enforced via restitution. This means that by going back on the contract in question, the one who forfeits the contract owes the one forfeited against restitution and damages for (A) the time lost and (B) for breaking one's contractual obligation (herein an extension of negative rights as my opponent agrees) and therefore aggressing against the negative rights of the one forfeited against. Contracts may still be fulfilled, just not in a manner in which one's self ownership is compromised. Therefore Rothbard's contractual beliefs are in no way conflicting with the larger picture of libertarianism and hence Rothbardian thought may be applied to the case of children's rights.


===Foetus as an Aggressor===


My opponent in his response to this point appears to have ignored entirely my points posited in the previous round. I showed that in a purely physical manner, the foetus is aggressing against the right of non-interference in the mother's person and thus the mother is within her rights to dislodge it. My opponent argues that the right to life must always supersede the right to "choose" (a euphemism for the mother's property right in her person). But does this really follow? Libertarianism (referring to the ethical framework with which this debate is modeled under) posits no "right to life" as separate from the right to control of one's body. The right to life is merely an extension of it. Take any scenario in which someone tries to murder another who has not invaded their property rights. In every single case the attempt to murder that person is an aggression against their self-ownership, not some mystical right to life. As Murray Rothbard and later libertarian theorists formulated, all "human rights" are simply extensions of property rights in one's person and their justly acquired property[1].


Besides the fact though that my opponent is unnecessarily separating property rights (encompassing self-ownership) from the vague notion of human rights or the rights to life and thus confusing libertarian rights theory, but even if this separation were a necessity, it would still fall in on itself of it's own contradictions. For consider an example of a man A who walks into another man B's yard and refuses to leave. Consider that man B reasons all he can do persuade man A to leave but he refuses. Now consider that man B decides to use physical force to remove man A, but here man A fights back and in the struggle man A is killed. Man B has here violated man A's "right to life". But if the right to life supersedes property rights or the "right to choose", how are property rights ever to actually be upheld? One must see that not only are "human rights" and property rights necessarily connected, but cannot be separated without both losing all meaning.


===Contracts as Rights===


I by no means suggest that libertarianism stands for freedom without consequence of choices, again far from it. My opponent has grossly misinterpreted my point in arguing that the only way to keep one responsible for the consequences of their actions is to destroy the very notion of contractual rights. That is what my opponent is doing if a contract may be deemed ethically or legally valid wherein only one part of the contract has been a party to it. I do not own your shoes simply because I have entered into a "contract" for them unless you also agree to the contract. Likewise, as the foetus has no legal standing (actually even less than no legal standing, the foetus did not have consciousness or even existence prior to the pregnancy) and no capacity to enter into a contract with anyone, it would be insane to infer a contractual obligation to create quasi-positive rights (by this I mean the genuine rights which are created as contractual obligations between parties to a voluntary contract) when there is only one party to that transfer. My opponent has not only failed to show that a foetus has the capacity to enter into a real contract with the mother, but in lacking this justification has failed to show why any contractual rights have been created on the foetus's behalf.


===Sources===


[1] Murray Rothbard. The Ethics of Liberty. Ch. 15. Human Rights as Property Rights. Available online at: http://mises.org...
teekong

Con

I thank my opponent for this debate, I thoroughly enjoyed his arguments and appreciate the time and effort he expending in formulating them.

Incoherence of Positive Rights
It is not I whose misinterpreted his words, but Rothbard himself who has generated circular reasoning, though he avoids the issue and would likely argue, as Pro has, that it isn't circular reasoning. If a contract cannot be enforced, because forcing someone to fulfill a contract which they do not want to fulfill is an act of aggression(because my will is inalienable and thus to be forced is to be violated), then by choosing to no longer want to fulfill your contract, under Rothbard's theories , you have freed yourself from the ethical requirement to do so and created an ethical dilemma for the one who desires to enforce the contract. Pro did not refute this position, in fact he simple restated Rothbardian theory , as if to restate the theory and cite the source would remove the paradoxical logic.


Foetus as an Aggressor

My argument never ignored Pro's points, Pro has repeated identical arguments in all rounds. Continually arguing that the fetus is an aggressor and that a fetus (despite conceding life begins at conception) has no actual rights. He has not shown how the rights of the mother supersede the rights of the fetus. Further more he has clarified that the right to life is an extension of ones right to property, as if this would support the case that the fetus has no such rights, thus it is the mothers prerogative to murder him/her.

I will first clarify that the right to life supersedes all other rights, does not suggest a separation of this right from the property rights from which it is extended. In pros example, the aggressor's right to life is compromised because of his CHOICE to violate the property rights of another. This was HIS choice, thus he must accept the consequences because of the contract that is formed when that choice is made. His attempt to avoid the consequences and preserve his own rights are unethical. This example however does not apply to the fetus and mother situation because unlike the man who entered into another mans house and refused to leave, the fetus was not the one who chose to enter the womb. The choice was that of the mothers. It was the mother who entered into a contract by choice and it is the mothers property rights that have been compromised because of her choice. In an earlier example, Pro cited the case of inviting someone into your home and the later asking them to leave and them refusing. He suggests that while a fetus may be the result of the choice, once the mother has changed her mind she is no longer bound to her original choice. Instead she can turn a once invited guest into an aggressor, simple by choosing to do so. This choice, however violates the rights of the fetus, and thus is an unethical choice. This would be similar to giving someone a gift and then demanding it back by force simple because you changed your mind.

Contracts as Rights
Pro once again contradicts himself. He maintains his position of circular logic surrounding contracts, yet belabors a point of legal standing. If the fulfillment of a contract is not wanted by an individual then the enforcement of that contract would be a violation of the individuals rights. Aside from contradicting himself by belaboring the point, he continues to argue that contracts are only valid if they are legally enforceable. I have already refuted this point. A contract does not require a legal enforceability to exist, especially ethically. Enforcing the outcome of the contract my be impossible without appealing to a higher authority, it does not however mean that the contract did not exist. Before 1819 and Darthmouth College V. Woodward(1) ,Corporations were not considered legal persons. They legally could not enter into contracts. However, this did not mean they did not, it simple meant that prior to 1819 the contracts made by corporations were not legally enforceable. The government and people at the time went to court over the issue and the courts ruled they were legal persons and thus contracts made the courts would enforce.

As an example, if two eight year old children are playing at school and they agree to trade toys, they have entered into a contract in which they have transferred ownership of their toys via trade. If one boy then renege on this contract and attempts to take back his toy they would certainly not be able to appeal to the government to enforce this contract legally, but that does not invalidate their original agreement. My opponents basic argument is that if person A was 18, person B was 18 and person C was 8, then a verbal agreement between person A and B would be an ethically enforceable and binding contract but an agreement between person A and C would not be, and person A is not in fact obligated to fulfill his end of the contract, because unless its a legally binding contract it isn't an ethically binding one. To argue in libertarian ethics, that contracts are only contracts if they are legally binding is to argue that our choices do not generate ethically binding consequences. Thus debating any position of ethics within libertarianism would be pointless.

Additionally, agreements are entered into in many forms. A handshake, a signature, verbal acknowledgement and more. In many situations there are even unspoken contracts, the division of labor in a marriage is a good example of this (it often leads to fights, because of the lack of communication). Because a fetus cannot speak, does not mean he has not agreed. By simple fact that he exists we have to assume that he agrees to the terms of the contract set forth at conception, to do otherwise would violate his right to property. Because his rights are negative , just like ours, until he agrees to the dissolution of the contract we have to assume he has accepted it.

The ultimate crux of my opponents arguments is that the fetus is not a person. He argues that because there is no legal context for a contract the fetus in effect has no rights because they cannot be enforced. He argues its insane to suggest there is a contract when only one party is involved, but there are TWO parties involved. The mother and the fetus.

As he agreed that person hood is obtained at conception, he cannot argue that there is only one party involved, when there are in fact two, without first proving that the fetus is not a full person and thus doesn't not have equal rights as the mother. He has not done this.

I thank all those that take time to read this debate and vote.

Sources
(1)http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 4
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by OMGJustinBieber 5 years ago
OMGJustinBieber
This one is a headache to judge.
Posted by teekong 5 years ago
teekong
thanks, I enjoyed the debate as well.
Posted by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
Good debate. Best of luck to you in the voting period, teekong.
Posted by popculturepooka 5 years ago
popculturepooka
Interesting. *favorited*
Posted by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
Time to break out the Rothbard!
Posted by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
Sure. If that is Con's prerogative.
Posted by teekong 5 years ago
teekong
so your assumption is that they are a person?
Posted by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
The reason I chose to use te presumption of libertarian philosophy is so that we wouldn't have to go through the arbitrariness of when one becomes a person. As Pro I do not plan on arguing that the foetus isn't a person or doesn't have rights of it's own.
Posted by teekong 5 years ago
teekong
Basically this debate
http://www.debate.org...
Posted by teekong 5 years ago
teekong
@AlwaysMoreThanYou
I don't disagree that you can't make arguments to those cases, however, that argument would still depend on the "condition" of the fetus.

If it is a human/person then you could argue it is trespassing (which could be refuted, by arguing that pregnancy is largely a choice of 2 consenting adults, even if "accidents " occur, with the exception of rape and Jesus), but to argue trespassing you'd have to concede that the life is a "person" with rights in the first place, hence my point.

Without a agreement upon when life is official a person, any debate around abortion would and should degrade to that point.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by CiRrK 5 years ago
CiRrK
socialpinkoteekongTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: So it came down to the issue of aggression and contract rights. As opposed to this as I am (personally), Pinko proved two things: first, that the fetus is an aggressor in terms of stealing from the woman's body and second, that if the woman changes her mind she can label the fetus as an aggressor. The whole rothbard fiasco ended up being moot and irrelevant. But you both need to warrant and justify your claims better...it was mostly reiteration of competing premises
Vote Placed by TUF 5 years ago
TUF
socialpinkoteekongTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: A wide majority of this debate seems to lose focus of the pro-choice options of abortion, rather than what the actual topic was "Libertarian philosophy supporting pro choice". However given the vagueness of the title, I will let it slide. Put simply, this debate could have been entitled "Abortion is wrong/right" to make things simpler. Social had the stronger case (though I dis-agreed with it) but I have to give S/G to Teekong, as some of what he said did not make sense. sources were a tie.