The Instigator
Grape
Con (against)
Winning
37 Points
The Contender
Kinesis
Pro (for)
Losing
36 Points

Rape and Abortion

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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: 7/9/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,590 times Debate No: 12517
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (25)
Votes (21)

 

Grape

Con

Resolved: Whether a fetus was conceived voluntarily or as a result of rape is a relevant factor in determining whether or not an abortion is ethical.

Just to clarify, I am AGAINST the resolution. I am reposting this debate because someone took it, thinking by mistake that I was FOR the resolution.

Preface: I would like to begin this debate by noting that I am in favor of abortion. Many people like to qualify their positions on this topic by saying that if a pregnancy is a result of rape then abortion may be justified where otherwise it would not be. For this debate I am going to argue that this factor does not suffice to make a distinction. It is necessary to conclude either that it is unethical even in the case of rape or that it is ethical even if the fetus conceived by voluntary intercourse.

Just to clear up any confusion about what I mean by voluntary, nonvoluntary, and involuntary intercourse and conception:

Rape: Intercourse and conception are both INvoluntary (not wanted)
Consensual Sex: Intercourse is voluntary (wanted) and conception is NONvoluntary (not intended for)

If consensual sex occured for the purpose of conceiving a fetus than the conception would be voluntary but I don't see why this would lead to an abortion barring extremely unusual circumstances. Therefore, I am going to suggest we ignore this possibility to avoid overcomplicating the debate.

In round one my opponent will indicate that he/she has accepted the debate and may post any questions regarding definitions, terms, burden of proof, etc. I will state my case in round two and this will procede like a normal three round debate.
Kinesis

Pro

Very well, I accept. I have no questions.
Debate Round No. 1
Grape

Con

Introduction: I am going to start by clarifying something I probably ought to have earlier. A consideration is considered relevant if it can, in some case, alter the correct outcome of an ethical dilemma. If we decide an abortion was not ethical in a certain case, and after considering rape it is still not ethical, than the consideration was not relevant because it did not help us determine our conclusion. This also applies to abortions that are considered ethical.

Therefore, if someone thinks all abortions are wrong or all abortions are right, then rape (or any factor) is never a relevant consideration. This is an extremely absolutist perspective and I am not arguing for it. Instead, I will argue that under the most reasonable ethical analysis of abortion, considerations of rape will not alter any of our results. I expect my opponent with argue that a more reasonable ethical framework will indicate otherwise, but it is of course impossible to predict Kinesis' trickery.

Much of the abortion debate hinges on whether a fetus has a right to life. I do not believe it does and will argue my perspective. However, I will also show that if you accept that a fetus has a right to life, the resolution still holds true.

Perspective One: Fetus Has No Right To Life

This one is pretty straightforward to argue. If the fetus has no right to life, than it does not matter how it was conceived. Aborting the fetus would still be ethical. It would of course be possible to argue that rape would be a consideration if the fetus had a right to life because of rape, but this line of argument is too irrational the be attempted.

Perspective Two: Fetus Has A Right To Life

As I said in the previous round, many people who otherwise oppose abortion allow exceptions if the fetus was conceived by rape. This is specifically the view that I am trying to refute with this debate. I content that if a fetus has a right to life, then the fact that it was conceived by rape cannot justify killing it.

It has been argued that "Forcing [a woman] not to abort is to remind her of the rape day-by-day which would be a serious mental strain" and that the existence of the child would be a further traumatization. I agree that this is true, but is does not undermine the fetus's (supposed) right to life. If we hold that a fetus has a right to life then this is not sufficient grounds to kill it. An adult human being would not be killed for reminding someone that she was raped, even voluntarily. It would be extremely difficult, impossible in my opinion, to argue that one person's life is worth less than keeping another person happy.

Any exception argued that could allow the abortion of a fetus conceived by rape would require a moral justification that would allow for abortions in all or nearly all factors, meaning rape would not be the determining factor. For instance, it were somehow (hypothetically) proven that all abortions on Earth are justified by virtue of being on Earth and they are otherwise immoral, rape would not count as a determining factor simply because it falls under this subcategory. The consideration of rape would have to be strongly related to the larger consideration.

Conclusion: Now, ethier a fetus has a right to life or it does not. In both of these cases, rape is not a relevant consideration. My opponent may present addition presuppositions about abortion that there may be disagreement on, but the right to life is still a relevant consideration and additional considerations do not represent a third possibility. I am not sure of where Kinesis is going to go with this and I am expecting the unexpected, so I will rest my case for now.

My reading comes mainly from here: http://www.iep.utm.edu...
But this is not a debate that I feel should be judged on sources. Unless an argument hinges on facts from sources, sources are usually not very useful in purely philosophical debates.
Kinesis

Pro

Before I begin my argument, a few questions must be answered. Why, exactly, do we think a person has a right to life? What characteristics do people have that give their lives worth? Neither me or my opponent believe in the eternal soul so that isn't relevant in this debate. It is mine, and I assume my opponent's, belief that there are a number of criteria that indicate personhood (though these are very contentious) and thus a right to life. Most important is undoubtedly cognitive ability, so I shall concentrate on that.

:Personhood isn't all or nothing:

My primary argument is this: personhood is not an all or nothing proposition. There are varying degrees of concious thought; some animals have cognitive abilities that approach human levels; some people have key areas of their brain damaged or underdeveloped. It is my contention that there is only one conclusion we can reasonably draw from this. These humans have surely not forfeited all their rights as a person - we don't regard a mentally retarded people as a worthless hunk of meat to be gotten rid of at the first opportunity, but then again, if we were to choose between the life of someone with significant mental impairment and a perfectly healthy person we would likely regard the healthy person's right to life as 'counting more'. The more, and more advanced cognitive abilities a being has, the greater its claim to personhood and a right to life.

:The foetus:

So, what relevance does this have to the resolution? As the foetus develops in the womb, higher levels of conciousness are constantly developing. About 20 weeks through a pregnancy, the neural pathways for the primary senses (taste, smell, hearing, seeing, and touch) are being formed. More complex connections are being formed. The foetus can even hear and remember (and recognise later) music being played to the mother at this stage. [1] As time goes on from this stage, the foetus' cognitive faculties gradually come to resemble those of a full adult - passing through stages resembling the 'lower' mental abilities of various animals or mentally retarded human beings as it goes.

:The final stage:

So, what is the conclusion of this line of reasoning? Well, as the foetus develops greater cognitive abilities, its right to life becomes more and more weighty. In the latter stages of foetal development, the foetus' right to life would likely outweigh the mother's psychological damage from having to give birth to and possibly raise a child conceived by a rapist. However, earlier on in the pregnancy it would have very little right to life and thus could be safely aborted without any ethical qualms. Rape, then, becomes not only a relevant factor but a very significant one. If the mother had no good reason to abort the foetus - say, merely for convenience, an early foetus' diminished right to life would still outweigh this inconvenience to the mother. However, if the foetus were conceived by rape, the psychological damage would outweigh the foetus' right to life and thus it should be aborted.

[1] http://www.pregnancy.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Grape

Con

I'm going to start this round by answering some of the questions in my opponent's introduction. As I originally argued, it doesn't matter how we determine personhood or the right to life. We will come to the conclusion either that the fetus has a right to life or that it does not. In either case, rape does not affect the conclusion that it is or is not wrong to kill the fetus. That being said, I will move on the address my opponent's statements and explain why they do not uphold the resolution.

:Personhood isn't all or nothing:

Even if personhood isn't all or nothing, but the right to life is all or nothing. A being either has the right to life or it does not. Since there is no such thing as partial killing or partial life, I don't see how the right to life can be extended partially or gradually. In any case, I will contend that personhood IS all or nothing. In order to do this, I will appeal to Mary Ann Warren's five criteria for determining personhood: consciousness, reasoning, self-motivated activity, the ability to communicate, and the presence of self concepts. The combination of these five criteria give a being a stake in its own existence and give it a meaningful value. Any being without all five would be too deficient in this regard to be considered a person. A few of these traits do not make a partial person, they make a being on the way to personhood that is still not a person at all. It is not necessary to regard animals and the mentally disabled as "a worthless hunk of meat" in order to understand that they are not people. Likewise, though they are not extended the right to life it does not necessarily mean that killing them at our first convenience is necessarily the right thing to do. Note, furthermore, that a fetus in the beginning stages of development, conceived by any means, is significantly less mentally advanced then the animals and people my opponent is referring to.

In any case, I do not see where this is going toward supporting the resolution. This attempted argument does not show that rape is relevant to ethical considerations with abortion. If this in an attempt to find a third possibility between having the right to life and not having the right to life, no attempt has been made to show this. As stated before, even if it could be shown that personhood is gradual the right to life could not be gradual.

:The fetus:

I'm not addressing any of this specifically because it is a list of facts that are of no relevance to the resolution. The stages and process of fetal development are considered fairly basic knowledge for an abortion debate and I see no reason why this needed to be explained. The fetus does indeed grow continuously but the state of personhood and the right to life do not.

"The final stage:

As I said before, the fetus's right to life cannot grow. The right is life, as was originally expressed by John Locke and is commonly understood, is that a negative right is bestow on an individual against being killed. That is, no one may ethically kill a being with the right to life. Killing tends to be a pretty all or nothing affair; either someone is killed or they are not. A right, in the traditional sense of what rights are, cannot be weighted to a varied extent. If a right exists then it is absolute.

What my opponent intends to argue is that the fetus has a sufficient right to life that it cannot be killed for no reason, but it can be killed if conceived by rape. It seems both difficult and absurd to define and justify the traits an individual would have such that it has a right to life in some situations or not others. Why would the mental strain on the mother because of rape be the exact cut off at which we determine the right to life is "not weighty enough?" Could that point not also occur when the fetus becomes an inconvenience or interferes with the mother's lifestyle choices? I ask my opponent to justify, for one, why the right to life should not be absolute when it deals with a perfectly absolute act and more importantly why he makes the exact distinction that he does. There is absolutely no reason besides whim to declare that psychological trauma is sufficiently unpleasant to outweigh the life of the fetus but the significant difficulties of pregnancy are not. The right to life, as I have defined it, is based on the capacity to have a stake in one's own existence and is purely absolute. My opponent's attempt at defining the right to life is for one thing subjective and for another arbitrary.

It seems we are at a profound philosophical disagreement. This ornery stemmed fruit will rest its case for this round and resume its ideological tirade in a more organized format in the next round once my opponent's viewpoint has been exampled and can be better understood.

Sources:
Warren: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Locke: http://en.wikipedia.org...

The Locke article is not particularly elaborative but there are links to other articles, such as those on right and Locke's political theory that may better explain what I mean by certain terms/phrases.
Kinesis

Pro

I thank Grape for his swift response.

I agree, of course, that the right to exist can either exist or it can not. However, perhaps an instructive analogy can be drawn - monetary worth. Something is either worth money or it is not. However, this does not damn us to the proposition that everything is either worth �10000 or nothing. How much something is worth is based on a number of factors such as rarity, functionality and so on. So while it is true that something is either worth money or not, the amount something is worth increases or decreases depending on its attributes.

So, while I am not trying to 'find a third possibility between having the right to life and not having the right to life', this is irrelevant. What I am saying is that a person's right to life increases or decreases based on a number of important attributes. I am happy to accept Warren's criteria. My only point of disagreement is whether falling slightly short of these criteria instantly removes all the rights of the person in question. I contend this is absurd, and as you have already conceded, it would immediately remove the rights to life of all humans with significant mental impairment who don't quite meet the criteria - there is nothing wrong with butchering the lot of them merely to cut down on costs. This position is obviously rejected by the entirety of the civilised world today - the law certainly doesn't agree with my opponent's position.

To push the point a little with animals - many animals are highly intelligent. They have nervous systems as complex as ours; they can reason through scenarios that require abstract thought; they can communicate with one another using complex communication methods. Are we to deny them all any right to life just because they don't have certain types of self-awareness? Why? If I accidentally damage a car so its radio permanently ceases to function, does the car instantly lose all its value? Of course not. In the same way, while not having particular type of cognition might decrease the rights of an individual, to claim that it removes them entirely is absurd.

My opponent should also remember that his first round obligates him to defend the proposition that rape isn't a relevant factor when determining the ethics of an abortion. This is a blanket statement applying to all abortions, and pointing out that foetus' have little mental development in early stages isn't relevant - I am obviously referring to late term abortions as the exception.

My opponent is quite right that I can't quite determine the exact point where the rights of the foetus begin to outweigh those of the mother. However, I can be quite sure that early in the pregnancy when the foetus has virtually no cognitive ability its right to life would be virtually nothing as well and rape could be a significant reason for aborting the foetus. I can also be quite sure that when the foetus' cognitive ability is fairly advanced its right to life would also be, and the mother's psychological problems from conceiving a child from rape would be outweighed by this. This isn't really a pressing problem for my position - after all the problem of having to include arbitrary cut-off points is one numerous in philosophy and linguistics. Think of the term 'heap', for example, or the evolution of one species to another.

Remember, all I am defending is the position that rape is a relevant consideration - I don't have to pinpoint exactly how relevant, or how the ethical considerations do, in fact, stack up. Just that when we are determining if an abortion is ethical or not, rape should be included in the discussion.

Grape's conception of the right to life is extremely non-inclusive. I see no reason why the right to life should be suddenly acquired once a particular standard is met. The criteria listed for personhood develop gradually in a foetus, they exist in various levels in different animals. Why do individuals sudden get a right to life when they reach human-level cognition? It seems to me my opponent is the one arbitrarily setting a standard. If we met an alien race with vastly superior minds to ours, what would be to stop them concluding that only individuals who had reached their level of intelligence have a right to life? Why not set the standard at dolphin level intelligence or mouse level intelligence?

Whereas I scale the right to life of an individual to its mental capabilities, Grape attempts to claim that only those with a particular standard get any rights to life at all - slamming the door on those who approach our capabilities, or have different mental capabilities. I see no reason to do this. I think this standard is contrived and absurd, excluding the rights of the mentally damaged and intelligent animals.
Debate Round No. 3
Grape

Con

I am going to focus this last round mainly on refuting my opponent's points about gradual development. I think that my perspective on the right to life has been has been taken too far. More importantly, the points about gradual development do not suffice to prove that rape is a relevant consideration.

First off, the right to life is not like the value of a commodity. A commodity can have any value, ranging from 0 to the highest conceivable amount something might be worth. The rights do not work in the same way. The whole point of a right is that a right cannot be violated under ANY circumstances, barring a few exceptions. In John Locke's theory, unless you violate the rights of others your rights can never be taken away, period. Nature rights theory was created to be much different than the utilitarian calculus, which can theoretically allow for anything if the benefits are thought to outweigh the costs. If something has to right to life, it cannot be killed because it's right to life is outweighed by some other consideration, this completely defeats the purpose of having a right to life at all. What my opponent is essentially arguing for is a utilitarian theory in which certain attributes, in this case the "right" to life, are weighed to a certain extent in value. These such systems have been shown to constantly fail because, as I said, it is impossible to make such precise judgments in a practical situation. There is no way for anyone to objectively judge exactly how much the right to life would be worth; a system in which it simply cannot be violated is far superior.

On another note, my opponent goes much too far in his understanding of what happens to those who fall a little short of the right to life. The right to life and the right to be treated well are very different things, and the latter implies a much lower standard. It is my belief that the essential reason why my opponent and I agree on the traits needed for the right to life is that these traits in combination give an entity a stake in it's own existence. Only an entity would these traits would understand itself, life, death, and thus be able to possess a true desire to live and fulfill itself through life. Many higher animals and all but the most terribly impaired humans are up to this standard and therefore should not be killed. But is it wrong to painlessly kill an animal are person that does not comprehend or understand its own existence? This state is so natural to us as humans that we may not realize that other beings do not possess it. Killing animals or people that truly do not understand the ideas of life, death, and self is not in any way harmful to them. That does not mean they should be "butchered to cut costs" any more then all babies should be aborted. Badly disabled people, simply animals, and plants are very often valuable to us for other reasons and should not be made to feel pain when it can be avoided, but painlessly killing them does not violate any rights. I was not aware that the entire civilized world rejects that euthanasia of animals or humans in a vegetative mental state. The more likely explanation is that my opponent has taken my position too far and tried to apply it in the most negative way possible where this was certainly not necessary or implied.

To go into the point of individuals having some but not all of the characteristics: many of them frequently occur in combination and all five are needed for the right to life. Consciousness is necessary because it is a prerequisite for the other four traits. Self-motivated activity is important because it demonstrates that the entity has some form of will or desires for itself. Self-awareness is possibly the most vital trait because without self-awareness and entire does not even comprehend its own life and death. Reasoning is also essential for this to occur. Communication is the only criteria I find sketchy, but the point of it is that a communicating creature must understand the difference between itself and others and possesses to desire to express information. These traits together give an entity the capacity to have concern over its own life or death. In essence, the ability to want to life as opposed to the inability to express understanding and desires in matters of life and death is what gives an entity the right to life. This definition is inclusive in that all five criteria must be met, but the standard for meeting any one of them is very low and they all are absolutely essential.

Moving on...

I will agree with my opponent that for the most part we are only talking about late term abortions here. One note I would like to make is that we are talking about what justifies or does not justify an abortion. The fact that rape is a reason to want an abortion is not what I am arguing against, of course that's true. Now, I have already argued that the right to life does not change it value, if it is possessed then it cannot be overridden. My opponent is supposing that the value starts at 0 and increases to whatever the full value is, so there must be some intermediate phase at which fact that the mother was raped outweighs it. This suffers from far worse flaws that the traditional linguistic/philosophical problem of demarcation that my opponent has referred to. The problem isn't that we can't draw an exact line, the problem is that there is no way of having even the most remote idea of where the line should be or if it exists at all. Anything else could be a factor besides rape and there is no way of knowing how much each consideration is worth. It is much better and more rational to begin with to say that the right to life, if it is indeed a right, can never be violated. There is still the demarcation problem, as always occurs, but the issue with this is pinpointing the line by narrowing down the area. With my opponent's proposal, we cannot narrow down the position of the life because we have no way of knowing where it is. There is absolutely no way to weigh the psychological effect of rape against the right to life.

It seems that what my opponent is essentially arguing is that a fetus conceived by rape can be aborted slightly later in normal cases. In my position all abortions are ethical regardless of the development of the fetus, but I can see why distinctions according to development would be made. I cannot see, however, why rape has anything to do with this. Even if a right "develops" gradually, comparing a woman's right to avoid psychological stress to a fetus's right to life is apples to oranges. You can't say one outweighs to other. The solution, of course, would be to recommend that raped women get abortions early on (I can't see why they wouldn't do this anyway). If one is really opposed to late term abortion then rape should not be enough to override the fetus's rights. The fetus is, of course, innocent of any crime.

So, I think I have done enough to show that my position is not as my opponent has represented it. I do not arbitrarily choose "human" traits as my standard, I choose those traits which are by rational conclusion necessary for the right to life. They are applicable to any entity of any mental level, whether animal, human, or alien. These traits need to be inclusive because they are so basic and essential, without them the right to life cannot be conferred. My opponent, on the other hand, convolutes rights into some arbitrary scale. This is clearly not the most reasonable way to interpret and apply rights theory.

In conclusion, a fetus must either have or lack a right to life. If it lacks this right than it can be aborted regardless of rape. If it has this right then we cannot let psychological considerations override its right to exist. Rights do not exist on a scale or allow for a middle ground. This is a simple antonymic pair. Out of characters.
Kinesis

Pro

I apologise sincerely for the brevity of this round. I am attending a wedding soon and have about twenty minutes to finish.

In his last round, my opponent raises two objections to my arguments. First, he argues that utilitarianism (a form of which I defend) suffers extreme problems because of the difficulty of demarcation. Second, he claims his attributes for a right to life are not arbitrary.

Obviously, I do not accept John Locke's theory of a right to life. Grape argues that having a right to life that can always theoretically be overridden by some other consideration defeats the whole point of a right to life. Why? It's impossible to make precise judgements in such situations. We will never know for sure if we've made the right decision, and will often rely merely on our intuitions. However, I think Grape is overestimating the troubles here. We could still certainly make obvious decisions where, for instance, sacrificing a few lives for the good of many more people would be the right thing to do. In addition, I think Grape's chosen system of simply taking the easy route and claiming the right to life in inviolable and absolute leads to clear absurdities - such as the loss of rights of intelligent animals, mentally disabled and, to take a hypothetical example, aliens with intelligence higher than ours that had evolved very different mental capabilities than us.

Grape points out that many countries accept the euthanasia of animals or humans in a vegetative state - this one is easy. Any being in a vegetative state would have virtually no right to life on my system, since it would have virtually no mental faculties relevant to the right to life.

I am very unsure of what Grape means by the 'right to be treated well'. If a creature has no right to life, there would be nothing wrong with killing it (or him or her) to cut down on the costs to maintain them. Fine if we should treat them well while they're alive, but we have no obligation to keep them alive. I think Grape is trying to weasel out of the implications of his system a little here.

He repeatedly asserts that there is nothing wrong with killing creatures who don't understand their own existence. However, he never really gives an argument as to why this should be the case. Surely, an intelligence creature with social skills that can feel pain and pleasure, and has a moderate level of intelligence still has a right to be alive even if it lacks a complete understanding of its existence? Surely, someone with many of the qualities we understand makes our existence worthwhile but lacks a few essentials ones should have some right to exist? I think this self evident.

My opponent points out that I would be unable to pinpoint where the right to life of the child would be overridden by the mother's psychological damage form conceiving a child from rape. Well, as I've already said - I don't have to. I just have to point out that it is a relevant consideration. Obviously making even a reasonable estimate would be difficult - but if we had a fair understanding of how developed a foetus' brain is a different points and what would be lost upon abortion, and weighed it against research of the psychological damage a mother can have on conceiving a child that would be a constant reminder of a terrible act, we could undoubtedly get an estimate of the window where a foetus develops in to something with a serious right to life that would outweigh damage to the mother.

Pro argues that his system is not arbitrary because it chooses abilities essential 'by rational conclusion' to the right to life. I find it quite suspicious that these all happen to be abilities that we humans find extremely important. I can think off the top of my head a dozen mental capabilities we are unable to perform which would be highly relevant to a right to life, but which Grape would dismiss as peripheral.

I'm afraid I have to go. Thanks to Grape for a great debate!
Debate Round No. 4
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by tvellalott 5 years ago
tvellalott
Brilliant debate guys
Spellings, Conduct, Sources: All Tied
Arguments: CON
This was close one, hence why I'm giving 1 (source) point to PRO.
Great job guys.
Posted by Kinesis 6 years ago
Kinesis
Accursed votebombers...
Posted by Grape 6 years ago
Grape
Oh how I wish there were more rounds. I really don't think either of us had a complete case here. There are so many more things that could have been clarified or discussed. Damn the 8000 character limit. Well, the voting period is indefinite so maybe someone will dig this up and I'll be undefeated again. I'm definitely not sure if I deserve to win, though.

On another note, RoyLatham makes some interesting points. Normally I'd be interested in a debate but I've already done about 6 abortion debates over the course of working on a 15 page paper on the topic for a class, so I'm done with discussion of abortion for a while. No doubt I will come back to it after I have learned enough to approach it from a new perspective.
Posted by Kinesis 6 years ago
Kinesis
Wow, I honestly expected to come back to find myself losing this one. At the very least, I'm not sure if the position I took in this debate is the correct one.
Posted by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
Con took a different tact than I expected, but argued it well enough to win. The ethical obligation to preserve a 128 cell speck is slight compared to a near-term foetus, so other ethical consideration may then dominate, such as personal situation.

I would have argued that the fetus has no inherent right to life, but there are nonetheless ethical obligations that affect an abortion decision. For example, there might be a weak obligation to increase the population of an underpopulated country (present Japan, many countries after wars), an obligation to spouse of family to carry on the family line, an obligation to not economically burden the rest of a family at a particular time, and so forth. One could argue that not all of these ethical obligation should be taken seriously, but they are still arguable. Consequently, whether or not the pregnancy is a product of rape can reasonably alter the decision. For example, a rape is obviously unplanned, and may be at a time when having a child would be a family hardship. None of my arguments are relevant to the debate, since they were not raised.
Posted by Grape 6 years ago
Grape
I have heard of Peter Singer and his arguments but not read any of this work. Thank you for that link.

It seems that no one is voting in this debate?
Posted by Freeman 6 years ago
Freeman
I think both of you would find this interesting, as it pertains to many things discussed in the debate. http://www.animal-rights-library.com...
Posted by Kinesis 6 years ago
Kinesis
'The right to life, as I have defined it, is based on the capacity to have a stake in one's own existence'

What does that mean?
Posted by Kinesis 6 years ago
Kinesis
Hmm...I realise how confusingly I put that argument now. Having a random flash of inspiration, doing no research then forgetting to post till midnight a few hours before the deadline aren't exactly factors conducive to writing a clear and compelling debate round. Ah well, I'm sure it'll turn out all right in the end.
Posted by Kinesis 6 years ago
Kinesis
'This ornery stemmed fruit'

Wut?
21 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by famousdebater 11 months ago
famousdebater
GrapeKinesisTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Amveller 5 years ago
Amveller
GrapeKinesisTied
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 
Vote Placed by quarterexchange 5 years ago
quarterexchange
GrapeKinesisTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
GrapeKinesisTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Excellent presentation on both sides, the clincher for me was "I think Grape's chosen system of simply taking the easy route and claiming the right to life in inviolable and absolute leads to clear absurdities "
Vote Placed by marker 5 years ago
marker
GrapeKinesisTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:22 
Vote Placed by tvellalott 5 years ago
tvellalott
GrapeKinesisTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Vote Placed by Loserboi 5 years ago
Loserboi
GrapeKinesisTied
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 
Vote Placed by jat93 6 years ago
jat93
GrapeKinesisTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
GrapeKinesisTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by maya.earl 6 years ago
maya.earl
GrapeKinesisTied
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