The Instigator
jzonda415
Con (against)
The Contender
Rogue_99
Pro (for)

"On The Moral and Legal Status of Abortion" by Mary Anne Warren Justifies Legalizing Abortion

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Rogue_99 has forfeited round #1.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 1/12/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 525 times Debate No: 98709
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (14)
Votes (0)

 

jzonda415

Con

This is now an open debate. If you wanna accept, be prepared to argue.

Intro:

Well, since I'm currently Pro in a debate about legalizing abortion, I thought I should finally do this debate.


"On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion" by Mary Anne Warren, henceforth Warren, is an infamous and incredibly influential work in the debate over abortion. I've been interested in this paper since I first even heard of it. It sounded so compelling to me when I first read it, and I couldn't stop finding way to just talk about it. I wasn't as experienced in abortion debates and philosophy back then as I like to think I am now, so it took me a while to reach a level where I comforted her points fully. But I just finished my first college paper on it, and I'd love to continue a discussion on the site. Warren's paper can be read here:

http://www.douglasficek.com...

Warren presents a bold, ambitious paper. Many pro-choicers/proponents of legal abortion still point to this paper as common justification for legalization of the procedure. I tend to digress on numerous points and believe the paper ultimately fails, as I intend to show.

The Debate:

Straightforward. 4 rounds. 1st round is for acceptance only. 2nd round, introduce arguments, no refutations until the 3rd round, no new arguments in the final round. No semantics. All definitions are standard Google definitions unless otherwise noted.


Full Resolution: "Mary Anne Warren's 'On The Moral and Legal Status of Abortion' is Sound Justification for the Legalization of Abortion"

BOP is shared. I will be Con, arguing the paper fails to soundly justify abortion being generally legal. Pro will argue the opposite, that the paper succeeds in justifying abortion being generally legal.


Other rules:
1. No "kritiks" allowed.
2. No trolling.

3. Citations can be provided outside round of debate in the comments or to another link. So long as they can all be easily found, they are good.

I look forward to this debate!
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by jzonda415 1 year ago
jzonda415
@Rogue Please don't forfeit the acceptance round ffs.
Posted by jzonda415 1 year ago
jzonda415
@GrimlyF Cool to point that out, but it doesn't really matter. Abortion is illegal in several countries, and remains a hotly contentious issue with millions of Americans. On top of that, it's an intensely philosophical question about when life begins and rights of the woman. Because of this, I see a clear point, especially since this paper is often used as a backbone by many abortion supporters to defend abortion.
Posted by GrimlyF 1 year ago
GrimlyF
Since abortion is legal in 50 states I don't see the point.
Posted by jzonda415 1 year ago
jzonda415
@DStallman It's just a debating technique. It's pretty much questioning the entire presumption of the debate rather than the question at hand. So, if the debate was "Access to technology is a basic human right," using a kritik would mean someone (Con, in this case) would question the legitimacy of the concept of basic human rights as a whole rather than just human rights as it relates to water. It can be incredibly effective, especially as other won't see it coming; however, it's somewhat dishonest. This is at least my understanding of it; I could be way off base.

For this debate, I didn't really see how a kritik could be used, but I threw on there as a rule just in case as I wanna argue this resolution correctly.
Posted by DStallman 1 year ago
DStallman
What's a "kritik"? I'm not here to accept the debate, just trying to observe some more advanced debates than those I've been in to learn more.
Posted by Mharman 1 year ago
Mharman
Good luck.
Posted by Mharman 1 year ago
Mharman
Ok.
Posted by jzonda415 1 year ago
jzonda415
@Mharman I'm negating a paper which supports abortion, hence arguing against abortion.
Posted by Mharman 1 year ago
Mharman
I am interested, if you are advocating for abortion.
Posted by jzonda415 1 year ago
jzonda415
@canis Okay. I did. Still don't really get your point.
This debate has 6 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.