The Instigator
skunkrecords
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
kukupser
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Pro-Choice is unethical.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/22/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,805 times Debate No: 9011
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)

 

skunkrecords

Pro

I will prove the Pro-choice stance is unethical.

Definitions:
* Pro-Choice: Mother's reserving the right to terminate a pregnancy.
* Pro-Life: Advocating full legal protection of embryos and fetuses.
* Murder: The act of killing intentionally and with premeditation.
* Unethical: Morally unacceptable.
* Human Life: TBD.

Murdering Human Life is Unethical. The definition of Human Life is yet to be determined, therefore terminating a fetus can potentially be Murder. The Pro-Life position then has the obligation of Burden of Proof to provide sufficient evidence that a fetus is not in fact Human Life. To demonstrate this point, I will provide an example I coined The Hammock Scenario.

If a person is laying motionless in a hammock with their eyes closed, do we reserve the right to incinerate said person immediately (provided this was feasible) without further investigation? Said person could have been in a comma, asleep, or in fact, deceased. But if said person was asleep or in a coma, we would rightfully be charged with negligent homicide.

This scenario applies to aborting a fetus. Until you define the MOMENT a fetus gains human status, you are potentially commiting Murder, therefore, holding the pro-choice stance is unethical.
kukupser

Con

OK, welcome to DDO skunkrecords! I hope to have a good debate and good luck.

"Definitions"
I accept your definitions except for the "Human Life" part. In Canada, Section 223(1) of the Criminal Code states that a child becomes a human being when it has "completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother" (Criminal Code Of Canada). This means that a fetus is not a human until it is born.

"Murdering Human Life is Unethical."
Indeed it is.

"The definition of Human Life is yet to be determined, therefore terminating a fetus can potentially be Murder."
By my definition of Human Life, a fetus is not a human, so it is not murder.

"Hammock Scenario"
You ask if we reserve the right to murder someone without further investigation, but who says their is not any investigation put into performing an abortion on a fetus? What if the parent has sickle cell anemia? It is a condition where the red blood cells in the blood are shaped like sickles (instead of their regular doughnut shape) and it causes constant pain for the sufferer It can also lead to infections and organ damage, due to the sickle shaped cells not easily being able to move through blood vessels. What about a person that has Alzheimer's? Would you really want to pass on degenerative diseases to your child and possibly have them living for the rest of their lives in pain?

What if a person is raped and found to be pregnant? Would you still want them to have the child?

Also, Pro-Choice is not unethical. It is PRO-CHOICE, not Pro-Death. People have the right to terminate their pregnancy, but only if they want to. Since a fetus is not technically a human being, it is ethical.

Thank you PRO for the debate and good luck next round.
Debate Round No. 1
skunkrecords

Pro

Thank you kukupser for accept my challenge, I wish you luck as well.

I do not accept your definition of Human Life. You define Human Life as "In Canada, Section 223(1) of the Criminal Code states that a child becomes a human being when it has "completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother" (Criminal Code Of Canada). This means that a fetus is not a human until it is born."
By definition a child is a human being, therefore proving that the definition of Human Life is subjective to individual interpretation (thus proving my Hammock Scenario). This also refutes any points you made that is based on the assumption abortion is ethical.
kukupser

Con

I do not accept your definition of Human Life."
I figured you wouldn't.

"By definition a child is a human being, therefore proving that the definition of Human Life is subjective to individual interpretation..."
If it's subjective, then what is there to debate? It's like you saying NUHUH on one side and me going YUHUH! on the other. There needs to be evidence and information given.

"(thus proving my Hammock Scenario)"
This would only prove your hammock scenario if a person thought a fetus was a human being. It does not hold true if a person does not consider a fetus to be a human. You are trying to prove that you scenario is valid using faulty logic.

"This also refutes any points you made that is based on the assumption abortion is ethical."
Not really (see above). In fact, we have been debating the wrong topic this entire time. Your resolution stated: "I will prove the Pro-choice stance is unethical." All we have been debating is whether or not ABORTION is ethical, not Pro-Choice. Your hammock scenario attempts to justify why abortions are unethical, but it does not even scratch the surface of Pro-Choice being ethical or not. All you have done is prove that Pro-Choice may or may not be ethical, depending on the person.

Also, I need to ask. If someone you knew and were got raped and got pregnant as a result, would you still be against an abortion?

Law is a reflection of society's beliefs and values. If the society wishes a bill to be passed into law, the chances of it going through are large (in a democratic system). Law is sometimes referred to as the "ethical code" or "secular moral code" (http://www.knowledgerush.com...). So when Canadian Law states that abortion is legal, it is safe to say that the majority of the population agrees with the fact. Here is a picture to show where the world stands on abortion: (http://upload.wikimedia.org...).

Whether abortion is legal or not, they will still take place. Every year 68 000 women die as a result of unsafe abortions (http://www.prochoice.org...). This figure is only the number of women who die from unsafe abortions, not the number of unsafe abortions that have taken place. But in Pakistan alone, there are 980 000 unsafe abortions that take place every year (http://www.cvcradio.in...).

If anything, Pro-Life is unethical. It limits the freedoms of women, restricting their right to choose. If a person really wanted/needed an abortion but it was illegal, what would they do? Resort to un-safe abortions, put their health at risk and possibly die. This stance on abortion strips women of their dignity and respect.

Thank you Skunk for this debate, have fun in the last round.
Debate Round No. 2
skunkrecords

Pro

In order to refute my original statement using the Hammock Scenario, you either had to a) prove there was a logical fallacy with the scenario, or b) prove that the definition of human life was not subjective to personal interpretation, and was in fact a scientific constant.
I will argue that the state of being Human is not subjective to interpretation, but is a state of being. One can only be Human, or not Human - no in between. The fact that different cultures define Human life at different stages affirms that we don't have a clear metric for determining humaneness[1].

"If it's subjective, then what is there to debate? It's like you saying NUHUH on one side and me going YUHUH! on the other. There needs to be evidence and information given."
Precisely, and that is why your argument conforms to my Hammock Scenario. The Burden of Proof lies on the person incinerating the man in the hammock, not the other way around. And until you definitively determined the man in the hammock is deceased, you have no right to incinerate him.

"This would only prove your hammock scenario if a person thought a fetus was a human being."
False, the man in the hammock is a Human regardless of what the offender interpreted him to be. It isn't subjective to interpretation. The man could have been asleep, unconscious, or in fact deceased.

"Your resolution stated: "I will prove the Pro-choice stance is unethical." All we have been debating is whether or not ABORTION is ethical, not Pro-Choice."
I defined Pro-Choice as "Mother's reserving the right to terminate a pregnancy". That's the equivalent of saying, I can defend Pro-Slavery, but doesn't necessarily mean I believe in slavery. Defending slavery would be equally as unethical.

"Whether abortion is legal or not, they will still take place."
This contributes nothing to the Pro-Choice argument. Murders are illegal, and they still take place. This is an Appeal to Common Practice.

"Also, I need to ask. If someone you knew and were got raped and got pregnant as a result, would you still be against an abortion?"
The equivalent question would be, is murder of an innocent being justifiable if rape is committed. Assuming my argument holds up, I would say no.

"Law is a reflection of society's beliefs and values. If the society wishes a bill to be passed into law, the chances of it going through are large (in a democratic system). Law is sometimes referred to as the "ethical code" or "secular moral code" (http://www.knowledgerush.com......). So when Canadian Law states that abortion is legal, it is safe to say that the majority of the population agrees with the fact. Here is a picture to show where the world stands on abortion: (http://upload.wikimedia.org......)."
Again, Appeal to Common Practice.

Thank you kukupser for participating in this though-invoking debate. Good luck on the last round.
[1]http://en.wiktionary.org...
kukupser

Con

In order to refute my original statement using the Hammock Scenario, you either had to a) prove there was a logical fallacy with the scenario..."
Ok, False Dilemma fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org...). I touched on this in R1, I just didn't have a fancy name for it and you didn't rebut this point in R2 or 3. My opponent would have me choose between either burning the man (Pro-Choice), or walking away, leaving him to live (Pro-Life). This is fallacious because there are many other options. In reality I could walk over to the man, wake him up, ask how his day was and then leave him to sleep again. If he was in a coma I can still check for a pulse too, then send him to a hospital for medical attention.
In R1 I said: "You ask if we reserve the right to murder someone without further investigation, but who says their is not any investigation put into performing an abortion on a fetus?" I then went on to say that a person who has an abortion may in fact investigate whether they should abort or not (degenerative diseases, irregular red-blood cells, etc). Again, you did not acknowledge this fact.

In R2 my opponent says:
"By definition a child is a human being, therefore proving that the definition of Human Life is subjective to individual interpretation (thus proving my Hammock Scenario)."
but in R3 says:
"I will argue that the state of being Human is not subjective to interpretation, but is a state of being."
Um... what? You contradicted yourself.

""Whether abortion is legal or not, they will still take place."
This contributes nothing to the Pro-Choice argument."
Sure it does. It is unethical to let women suffer and die from unsafe abortions performed in unhygienic conditions. Offering them a safe way to abort is the morally right thing to do.

"False, the man in the hammock is a Human regardless of what the offender interpreted him to be. It isn't subjective to interpretation. The man could have been asleep, unconscious, or in fact deceased."
Well, yea. Sure the man is a human but I'm talking about the fetus here. The fetus could be healthy, unhealthy or deceased. Either way that does not make it a human being. It has potential to become a human but it is not yet human. Is a chicken's egg a chicken?

"I defined Pro-Choice as "Mother's reserving the right to terminate a pregnancy". That's the equivalent of saying, I can defend Pro-Slavery, but doesn't necessarily mean I believe in slavery. Defending slavery would be equally as unethical"
No because Pro-Choice maximizes the freedoms of individuals (ethical), while supporting slavery does pretty much the opposite (unethical).

"The equivalent question would be, is murder of an innocent being justifiable if rape is committed. Assuming my argument holds up, I would say no."
Murder is defined as the intentional killing of another human being. Fetuses aren't human beings, although they have the potential to be.
So you say that the victim, who has been violated and involuntarily become pregnant, must carry a criminal's seed against her will for nine months? Sounds ethical.

Conclusion:
My opponent tries to justify his "Hammock Scenario" using a False Dilemma fallacy. He has not taken some of my counterpoints into account, merely saying that his "Hammock Scenario" is right, while simultaneously contradicting himself. Pro-Choice is ethical because it maximizes personal freedom, offering safe abortion conditions and possibly preventing babies being born with diseases that seriously impact their health. With this in mind, I urge a vote for CON.

Thanks to skunkrecords for instigating this debate and to the audience for taking the time out to read this debate. It was interesting and quite fun. Voters, please post RFD's as well.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by kukupser 7 years ago
kukupser
Well in the cold, steely eyes of the government it's ethical.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
"Since a fetus is not technically a human being, it is ethical."

See, I just can't see how a technicality makes something moral; I, for one, am glad that I wasn't aborted just because some dictionary told my mother that I'm not human.
Posted by kukupser 7 years ago
kukupser
Ah what the heck I'll accept.
Posted by kukupser 7 years ago
kukupser
"For every round of debate, you will have 24 hours to post your argument."

If you change it to 72, even 48, I will gladly accept.
Posted by skunkrecords 7 years ago
skunkrecords
Thanks USAPitBull63, I'm obviously new here :)
Posted by USAPitBull63 7 years ago
USAPitBull63
Free advice: you might want to start this one over. The CON would argue in favor of pro-choice ideology. You should be PRO if your argument will agree with the resolution.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Willoweed 5 years ago
Willoweed
skunkrecordskukupserTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: come on
Vote Placed by rimshot515 7 years ago
rimshot515
skunkrecordskukupserTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06