The Instigator
KeytarHero
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
rross
Pro (for)
Winning
29 Points

Men Should Have No Say Womens' Abortion Decision

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 7 votes the winner is...
rross
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/28/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,919 times Debate No: 28702
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (7)

 

KeytarHero

Con

I saw rross in a debate along these lines and decided that I'd like to challenge him to this debate.

The resolution is that men have no say in womens' abortion decision. I will take the con position. I will assume burden of proof and make my opening argument as soon as rross accepts.
rross

Pro

Thank you for the challenge, KeytarHero. I'm interested to see what arguments you have.
Debate Round No. 1
KeytarHero

Con

I wish to thank Pro for accepting my challenge. As indicated in the comments, as men being allowed to have opinions on abortion is largely uncontroversial (and to deny this is to commit a logical fallacy known as ad hominem, saying that a man's opinion is worthless specifically because he's a man), this debate will focus on whether or not men should have any say in whether or not a woman aborts her child, or in whether or not society should forbid abortions.

I will make the following argument:

P1) The unborn, from fertilization, are human beings.
P2) Killing human beings is immoral.
P3) Anyone can stand against immorality (this is not limited to a particular gender, race, etc.).
C) Therefore, men can take a stand against abortion (including making it illegal, etc.).

To support my first premise:

Embryologists, who are the experts in the field, consistently agree that life begins at fertilization. For example, from the most-used textbook on embryology, the authors note: "Although life is a continuous process, fertilization (which, incidentally, is not a 'moment') is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte." [1]

Another embryologist has written the following: "Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual." [2]

On top of that, the more sophisticated pro-choice philosophers, like Judith Jarvis Thompson (who came up with the famous analogy of the violinist), and Peter Singer, accept the full humanity of the preborn. Peter Singer has noted, “It is possible to give ‘human being’ a precise meaning. We can use it as equivalent to ‘member of the species Homo Sapiens’. Whether a being is a member of a given species is something that can be determined scientifically, by an examination of the nature of the chromosomes in the cells of living organisms. In this sense there is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence an embryo conceived from human sperm and eggs is a human being.” [3]

Additionally, pro-choice philosopher David Boonin writes: "Perhaps the most straightforward relation between you and me on the one hand and every human fetus on the other is this: All are living members of the same species, homo sapiens. A human fetus after all is simply a human being at a very early stage in his or her development." [4]

It's simply common sense. We know the preborn are alive because they grow. Non-living and dead things don't grow. They also exhibit the other signs of life, such as metabolism and cell division. The preborn have human DNA, and they are the product of human parents. Creatures reproduce after their own kind; dogs have dogs, cats have cats, and humans have humans. At no point in human development is a member of humanity a "non-human."

This is also different from saying that a hair follicle has human DNA, so it is wrong to pluck them out. Zygotes/embryos/fetuses are unique individual humans, developing from within, made up of all the individual parts. A hair follicle must stay plugged in to the parent organism to function. However, the parent organism can still function even if he/she loses parts of their body. The zygote/embryo/fetus is a full human organism made up of individual parts of which it develops from within, not constructed like a car.

Therefore, the unborn entity is the offspring of both the mother and the father.

To support my second premise:

This is largely uncontroversial. Killing adult human beings is wrong. What makes it wrong? Philosopher Don Marquis illuminates the reason in his famous article against abortion, Why Abortion is Immoral:

“Some answers can be eliminated. It might be said that what makes killing us wrong is that a killing brutalizes the one who kills. But the brutalization consists of being injured to the performance of an act that is hideously immoral; hence, the brutalization does not explain the immorality. It might be said that what makes killing us wrong is the great loss others would experience due to our absence. Although such hubris is understandable, such an explanation does not account for the wrongness of killing hermits, or those whose lives are relatively independent and whose friends find it easy to make new friends.

“A more obvious answer is better. What primarily makes killing wrong is neither its effect on the murderer nor its effect on the victim’s friends and relatives, but its effect on the victim. The loss of one’s life is one of the greatest losses one can suffer. The loss of one’s life deprives one of all the experiences, activities, projects and enjoyments that would otherwise have constituted one’s future. Therefore, killing someone is wrong, primarily because the killing inflicts (one of) the greatest possible losses on the victim.” [5]

Killing human beings is wrong because it robs them of all their future experiences. Killing the unborn are also wrong for the same reason.

To support premise three:

This should also be largely uncontroversial. You didn't have to be African to oppose slavery in America, you didn't have to be Jewish to oppose the Holocaust. You don't have to be female to oppose slavery, or attempt to put an end to it.

Conclusion:

Therefore, the conclusion is supported. If men have no say in the issue, then you would have to remove pro-choice men from the equation, as well. We would have to overturn Roe v. Wade, in fact, because it was voted on by nine men.

Anyone can oppose the killing of innocent human beings. So anyone, men included, can attempt to get abortion made illegal again, as killing older humans is legal.

[1] Ronan O'Rahilly and Fabiola Müller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.
[2] Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition, Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. p. 16.

[3] Peter Singer,Practical Ethics, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 85-86.
[4] David Boonin, A Defense of Abortion. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003) 20.

[5] Don Marquis, Why Abortion is Immoral, 1989.
rross

Pro

Thank you to my opponent for his arguments.

Because my opponent has the burden of proof, I only need to rebut his arguments. I don’t need to present any arguments of my own. However, I would like to make a few general comments before I discuss his argument specifically.

Abortion is not some glorious freedom for women or even for feminists. Abortion is awful, invasive and sometimes traumatic. Women who do not want to get pregnant should not be getting pregnant. The fact that they are, in such large numbers, is a sad indication of the power balance in sexual relationships.

Germaine Greer says it best:

“If we accept every abortion as the outcome of unwanted and easily avoided pregnancy, we have to ask ourselves how it is that women are still exposing themselves to this risk. A woman who is unable to protect her cervix from exposure to male hyperfertility, who cannot suggest another way of making love or ask for a condom to be used, is certainly not calling the shots… Because he ejaculates when and where he ejaculates, she conceives against her will…The crowning insult is that this ordeal [abortion] is represented to her as some kind of privilege. Her sad and onerous duty is garbed in the rhetoric of a civil right.” [1]

There is nothing desirable about abortion. However, what my opponent suggests – that women should be prevented from having abortions – is even more horrible. It’s allowing women no more power over their bodies than domestic animals have.

The resolution is that men should have no say in women’s abortion decisions. Absolutely correct. It can be extended, though, that women shouldn’t have a say in any abortion decision other than their own. Each woman should have the sole power to make decisions about her own body.

And now to my opponent’s argument, which he presented in four parts.

P1) The unborn, from fertilization, are human beings.

Yes. This seems reasonable. I’ve never had much liking for the “just a mass of cells” argument. However, until about 6 months’ gestation, these “humans” are unable to live independently. They are parasites on the host mother. Also, for pragmatic reasons, they are not defined as human beings in a legal sense.

It’s using emotive language to say that an abortion is murder of the unborn. Another way to see it is as separating the foetus from the mother. She is denying it access to her body. Of course, the result is that it dies. But the difference is important. Women should have sovereignty over their own bodies. They shouldn’t be forced to sacrifice themselves physically to support other people.

P2) Killing human beings is immoral.

Yes, usually. But we allow exceptions to the rule in our society. For example, killing in self-defense. Also, failure to intervene (in the absence of duty of care) to save lives is never punished. Even when the intervention required is negligible, say, just calling 9-1-1 or fetching someone’s medicine from their handbag, there is no law requiring people to do it (except in Vermont and Minnesota where there may be a small fine). [2]

Of course, this doesn’t mean that failure to intervene isn’t immoral. Indeed, how could you ever think well of someone who stood with their mobile in their hand and watched someone die when they could have made the call to save them?

But we recognize that much of morality is private. That people make moral and immoral decisions and that they cannot all be (and should not all be) subject to external control.

Abortion, obviously, is one of these private decisions.

P3) Anyone can stand against immorality (this is not limited to a particular gender, race, etc.).

This is such an ambiguous statement, because immorality is subjective and “stand against” could mean anything at all.

For example, in Bangladesh, it’s considered immoral for a woman to travel alone, to shake hands with strange men and to walk about in public with bare shoulders. Of course, there will be some among the 150 million Bangladeshis who don’t think this way. However, there will also be several million Bangladeshi men who feel very strongly about these things and who feel moved to “stand against” any immorality they come across.

Can they? Should they? And to what extent? Would it be OK for them to take a stick and whack any offending woman? How about imposing a law to forbid women from leaving the house without a male relative? How about some kind of ritual humiliation for offending women so that everyone can watch and learn?

No, no, and no.

So, on the whole, I disagree with my opponent’s statement. He’ll need to be more specific.

C) Therefore, men can take a stand against abortion (including making it illegal, etc.).

Con said: “If men have no say in the issue, then…[w]e would have to overturn Roe v. Wade, in fact, because it was voted on by nine men.”

I think my opponent is making a little joke here. Until relatively recently, all legislation was written by men and all court decisions were made by men. There is nothing in the resolution to suggest that I support overturning all these decisions.
However, if we were to overturn all decisions made by men, we would have to include the decisions that made abortion illegal in the first place, all the rulings of the Catholic Church, and indeed most of Christianity, which has been very male dominated.

And we would end up where we started, which is with nothing to prevent women from making decisions to abort or not to abort for themselves. It really is a woman’s own decision, and I’m glad my opponent has failed to prove otherwise.


[1] Germaine Greer, The Whole Woman, Transworld Publishers Ltd, 1999. p. 89.
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Debate Round No. 2
KeytarHero

Con

Thank you to Pro for continuing the discussion.

I will reply briefly to Pro's comments.

I am aware of the awful nature of abortion (though some pro-choice advocates argue that there is nothing bad about abortion). Germaine Greer is simply mistaken about the nature of relationships. Certainly some relations are of a coercive nature, but not all (or even most) of them. Additionally, even if a woman is "coerced" into having relations (which is a very dubious statement), she still bears moral culpability for the child she was instrumental in conceiving. The real solution is to raise boys to be better men and treat women with respect, not to kill a living human being that she conceives.

My statement that women should be prevented from having abortions is not a horrible statement (and indeed, Pro has decided to attack a strawman). Women have control over their bodies, but no one has absolute right over their bodies. Pro-choice philosopher Louis Pojman provides an example: "Consider 500-pound Fat Fred who decides to sit down, but your money-packed wallet happens to be directly on the spot where he sits. You request him to move his body so that you can get your wallet, but he refuses, claiming that he has an absolute right to do with his body what he wills." [1] No one has an absolute right to bodily integrity, and if the unborn are valuable human beings (as we are), then prevented an abortion is not attempting to control womens' bodies, it is preventing abortionists and women from murdering the most vulnerable members of our species.

I will now respond to Pro's criticisms of my argument.

P1 -- The unborn, from fertilization, are human beings.

Pro mentions that from the sixth month (it's actually a couple of weeks before the sixth month) the unborn are not able to live independently. But he doesn't support his contention as to why this is a morally relevant reason to allow us to kill them. Until he supports this contention, it should be regarded as a baseless assertion, nothing more. The unborn is the same entity from fertilization past viability past birth, so there is no reason to grant the unborn rights at viability and not before.

Abortion, medically, is merely the separation of the unborn from the woman. However, medical methods to perform this procedure are not mere separations, it is direct killing -- through dismemberment, poisoning, etc. As Frank Beckwith writes, "euphemistically calling abortion the withholding of support makes about as much sense as calling suffocating someone with a pillow the withdrawing of oxygen." [2]

P2 -- Killing human beings is [prima facie] immoral.

Point taken in regards to certain types of killing. I have amended my statement to read that killing humans is prima facie immoral. It is not always wrong to kill, especially in self-defense.

While there is some privacy involved in moral decisions, if abortion kills an innocent human being then it can't be justified in the name of privacy, any more than child abuse or spousal abuse could be justified by claiming that it was done in the privacy of their own home/bedroom.

P3 -- Anyone can stand against immorality (this is not limited to a particular gender, race, etc.).

Immorality is not subjective. When I say abortion is wrong, I am not saying "I dislike abortion" like I dislike guacamole. I am saying that it is wrong for all people, at all times (this would include men, if they had the capacity to become pregnant). If Pro can say that murder is wrong (as he seemed to have conceded in his critique of my second premise), then he could admit that if abortion were murder, it would also be objectively wrong. And by "stand against," I merely mean "work toward the ending of the practice." I do not condone abortion-related violence from the pro-choice or the pro-life side.

Slavery was once legal in the United States. It is now illegal. If morality were merely subjective, then slavery was a moral practice, and the abolitionists who opposed it were moral monsters, not heroes. I am sure Pro would also concede that slavery was immoral, even when it was legal (at least, I hope he would). As such, all human beings are deserving of dignity. What is legal is not always moral, and what is moral is not always legal. It is not right to mistreat women, even if it is legal to do so. In the example from Bangladesh, I would say that no, it would be wrong for them to whack any "offending women." I would hope Pro would agree. I would also hope Pro would agree it would be wrong of them to do so, even if it is legal for them to do so. But moral relativism would dictate that it is moral for some men to abuse women.

Civilized countries hold to the same moral standard, e.g. that murder is wrong and is illegal. They may disagree on what constitutes murder, but they still hold "murder is wrong" to be an objective moral standard. The pro-life position makes a case that abortion is immoral and should be illegal (since murder is illegal). If this is true, then pro-life advocates are well within their rights to oppose it.

C -- Therefore, men can take a stand agaisnt abortion (including making it illegal, etc.).

No, it was not a joke. If men must stay out of the abortion issue, we would have to overturn all the legislation on abortion that was voted on by men. Pro can't have it both ways. If men must stay out of the abortion issue, they must stay out on both sides. The sword cuts both ways. We must give abortion legislation back to the states, and then have only women decide on legislation about whether or not abortion should be legal.

Pro states, "...if we were to overturn all decisions made by men, we would have to include the decisions that made abortion illegal in the first place, all the rulings of the Catholic Church, and indeed most of Chrsitianity, which has been very male dominated."

Pro misrepresents my position. Only abortion-related decisions that were made by men would have to be overturned. Nothing in my reductio would indicate that every decision by males would have to be overturned. Besides, this is what Pro's position entails, not mine. My position entails that if something is immoral, especially so immoral that it should be illegal (such as murder, rape, and abortion, if it fits), then men have as much say in restricting it as women do.

I have sufficiently upheld my argument. Pro has failed to give any compelling reason as to why the abortion decision should remain the woman's considering it, and hers alone.

[1] Louis P. Pojman, "Abortion: A Defense of the Personhood Argument," The Abortion Controversy, 2nd Ed., ed. Louis P. Pojman and Frank J. Beckwith, Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1998, p.278.
[2] Francis J. Beckwith, Politically Correct Death: Answering Arguments for Abortion Rights, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1993, p. 133.
rross

Pro

Thank you to Con for his response.

When I talk of 'power imbalance' in sexual relationships, I'm not talking about rape or "coercion" particularly. I'm talking about ordinary, everyday sexual politics. For example, in a 2006 survey of Canadian women [1]:

"Of these 2751 women [who had sex but didn't want to get pregnant], 410 (14.9%) never used contraception. Among contraception users, the most frequently used methods of contraception were condoms (54.3%), OCs (43.7%), and withdrawal (11.6%). Newer contraceptive methods were used by less than 4%. Choice of contraceptive method varied by age. Only 65.2% of respondents who were sexually active and not trying to conceive “always used” contraception." (my emphasis)

How can it be, in this day and age, that women are still allowing these situations? How can they still be so much on the back foot? And, to my mind, the high incidence of abortion is a symptom of women's lack of power in ordinary, everyday sexual relations.
Con thinks that "[t]he real solution is to raise boys to be better men and treat women with respect..." My own view is that women need to take control more. It's OK for us to disagree on the best means to improve the situation because it's not central to the debate.

Con gives the example of Fat Fred and the wallet which, I'm afraid, I find confusing. Is Fat Fred the woman, the wallet the foetus? Or is it the other way around?
But the overall principle is sound. We don't have absolute right over our bodies. We have only the rights that society/government gives us. And societies differ in terms of what rights are granted. That's the whole point of this debate, I suppose.

My argument is that women should be able to decide whether they want to donate their own biological resources to another person (foetus) or if they want to keep those resources for themselves. Con is arguing that they should be forced to donate those resources against their will.

This has been preamble. I will now address Con's arguments directly.


P1. Foetal rights


Con argued that abortion in theory is separation of mother and foetus, but that the procedures are often direct killing methods. This is quite true. And if Con insists, we could legislate against these direct killing methods and allow only "pure" separation methods. But why? Is it more humane to have a foetus come out live and die in a kidney dish? To my mind, there's not much difference. Presumably, the doctors go for the quickest, safest, cheapest method.

Abortion is "withholding support" and it's also "killing". Which term you use depends on what you want to say. In terms of foetal rights, it's withholding support. Because we do not allow any person the right to take biological resources from another against her will.

Women have the right to terminate pregnancies. Is it moral for them to do so? These are two quite separate issues. It's not uncommon for women to use abortion quite casually, as a form of contraception. I can understand Con's distaste for this. I don't like it much myself. But what should we do about it? Con would like to intervene. He would like to impose his own morality on women, and force them to continue the pregnancies against their will.
I find this sort of position difficult to understand. You can't end evil in the world by forcing others to comply with your own view of right and wrong. Goodness. Hasn't history shown us this over and over?

P.2 Killing humans is [prima facie] immoral

No, no, of course I meant "privacy" in quite a different way. I didn't mean it as the opposite of "public". That would make no sense at all.

What I meant was that as a society we allow individuals freedom and control over certain moral decisions. For example. I think that bystanders should help at an accident, if they can. I think that nobody should lie to their mothers. I think people should be faithful to their partners. That everyone should make sure to pay for their fair share of drinks. That nobody should mention sociobiology at parties. But should there be legislation to force people to do these things? Of course not. Apart from the difficulty, the impossibility, of enforcing such legislation, people should be allowed to make their own choices. Of course we disagree with a lot of what they do. That’s diversity for you.

And so, yes, Con thinks that abortion is immoral. Whether he is right or wrong to think so is not the issue here. The issue is: is it OK for him to take his view of morality and impose it on women in the form of some kind of restriction on their actions (legislative restriction, I’m assuming)? No, it isn’t.

P.3 Anyone can take a stand against immorality

Con said: "If Pro can say that murder is wrong, then he could admit that if abortion were murder, it would also be objectively wrong."

This is a circular argument. Murder is, by definition, wrongful killing. Therefore, if abortion were murder, it would be unnecessary to add that it's wrong. But it's not murder.

Con said "And by "stand against," I merely mean "work toward the ending of the practice.""

That's hardly more clear. This how things are:

1. There are pregnant women who want to terminate.

2. There are doctors willing to do the termination.

3. Con wants to end the practice.

THEREFORE: some degree of force is required to prevent the termination. Possibly, Con desires legislation against abortion which would get him the full force of the police and the legal system to help him force women to continue their pregnancies.

When I said "morality is subjective", I wasn't trying to plunge into a defense of moral (or cultural) relativism! Far from it.

As Charlesworth and Chinkin say: "While concerns of cultural relativism arise with respect to human rights generally, it is striking that 'culture' is much more frequently invoked in the context of women's rights than any other area." [2]

And, yes, we've seen that conflict over and over again, with abortion rights, social justice, gendered poverty, female circumcision, trafficking, child marriages and female infanticide. So no, I am not arguing for moral relativism. Quite the opposite. With my "morality is subjective" comment, I was trying to point out that Con's view of morality is his own and should not be imposed onto millions of women.

Nevertheless, I take note of Con's use of the term "civilized" as in "civilized countries". Civilized countries, he says, hold to the same moral standard. Presumably, countries that have a different standard are "uncivilized". Another circular argument.

Con mentioned slavery and violence against women as things that are wrong even if legal. Of course. The big difference, of course, is that these are violences imposed on individuals that should be removed. And now Con is arguing for another violence to be imposed on women. He wants foetuses to grow into babies and children, and he is happy to put aside women's rights over their own bodies to achieve his aim.

Of course he shouldn't "work towards ending the practice" of women having sovereignty over their own bodies.

C. Therefore men can take a stand against abortion

Men have often been successful preventing abortion. In fact, Roe vs Wade only existed because men had been so successful stopping abortion. If men's influence over abortion decisions were removed entirely (including past influence, which is silly, and also not part of this debate, but whatever), then women would be free to have abortions. Which is how it should be.

Con is free to dislike abortion. He is free to talk prolifically about it and against it. However, his will should not be imposed on women. Nobody's will should be. If we don't want to give our bodies and our biological resources to support foetal life, then we have every right to refuse to. And nobody should force us otherwise.

[1] http://www.sexualityandu.ca...

[2] Hilary Charlesworth and Christine Chinkin The Boundaries of International Law:A Feminist Analysis Juris Publishing 2000. p.222

Debate Round No. 3
KeytarHero

Con

KeytarHero forfeited this round.
rross

Pro

Con forfeited. All arguments extended.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by rross 4 years ago
rross
Thanks for saying that, KeytarHero. :) I was wondering what had happened to you. I hope you had a great trip.
Posted by KeytarHero 4 years ago
KeytarHero
I do apologize, Rross. It was not my intention to forfeit. I went out of town on Friday, and I was going to respond and give my last argument on Thursday evening before I went out of town, but I still had to pack and prepare for the trip so it just slipped my mind.
Posted by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
Conclusion:

This was difficult for me to vote for. I think men should have a say in a woman's decision to abort, because there could be the case that the woman wants to keep the baby, but the man doesn't want to. Given that upon birth, the man will be financially responsible for such an event, I think the man should have a say in such matters.

Regardless, that point was not debated here. CON argued a pro-life position based on morality. I am pro-choice and think that morality is subjective for exactly the reasons PRO stated. CON's pro-life arguments were refuted by PRO in round #2, and CON did not address any of these direct refutations in round #3. Therefore, I did not even read PRO's round #3. Given CON's round #4 forfeiture, nothing in my mind changed, which was that PRO was already more convincing by the end of round #2, and also by the end of CON's round #3.

Arguments and Conduct to PRO.
Posted by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
1) Round #2 was interesting. CON makes a compelling case that a human life begins at conception, and PRO makes an equally compelling case that a life that can only survive independently (i.e. , parasitic, failure to intervene) is one worth protecting. Also fully agree with PRO that morality is subjective.
2) CON: "Certainly some relations are of a coercive nature, but not all..." Strawman.
3) CON: "But he doesn't support his contention as to why this is a morally relevant reason..." Because morality is subjective, as PRO stated in round #2. You are ignoring PRO's argument here.
4) CON: "Abortion, medically, is merely the separation of the unborn from the woman. However, medical methods to perform this procedure are not mere separations, it is direct killing -- through dismemberment, poisoning, etc." However, the results are the same. Would you object to abortion if it was a simple separation? I think you would, given your definitions of life and morality.
5) CON: "if abortion kills an innocent human being then it can't be justified in the name of privacy, any more than child abuse or spousal abuse could be justified by claiming that it was done in the privacy of their own home/bedroom." Improper argument. PRO's main stance is about the "failure to intervene", not to directly intervene in an abusive manner.
6) CON completely avoided the argument that PRO proffered that morality is subjective. He merely agrees with PRO's concept of morality, and claims it is objective.
7) Agree that point C seems to be a joke. Is CON seriously suggesting that we set up a federal "abortion panel" of 100% women to decide this issue? Because it would take MEN to do so...this is circular. Therefore, I agree with PRO that "...we would end up where we started, which is with nothing to prevent women from making decisions to abort or not to abort for themselves."

At the end of round #3, I remain unconvinced of CON's argument.

(con't with conclusion)
Posted by RyuuKyuzo 4 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
lol weird I literally just finished a debate on this same topic just a few days ago.
Posted by KeytarHero 4 years ago
KeytarHero
Hey, rross: By "no say," I mean "no power over." They can hold opinions, but ultimately the opinions they hold should have no sway on whether or not a woman aborts or whether or not the law permits her to abort.
Posted by rross 4 years ago
rross
Hello KeytarHero. Thanks for the challenge. It depends what you mean by "no say". If you mean "no power over" then I accept. If you mean that they shouldn't express an opinion, then how can I possibly argue it?
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
KeytarHerorrossTied
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 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: see comments
Vote Placed by DoctorDeku 4 years ago
DoctorDeku
KeytarHerorrossTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 4 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
KeytarHerorrossTied
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: F.F.
Vote Placed by morgan2252 4 years ago
morgan2252
KeytarHerorrossTied
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 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: Both sides had good spelling & grammar and sources. However, conduct and convincing arguments go to pro because of con's forfeit.
Vote Placed by Clash 4 years ago
Clash
KeytarHerorrossTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited the last round.
Vote Placed by philochristos 4 years ago
philochristos
KeytarHerorrossTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: What a shame to invest so much time and effort in a debate only to forfeit the last round.
Vote Placed by RyuuKyuzo 4 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
KeytarHerorrossTied
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: ff