Resolved: Abortion ought to be illegal under normal circumstances.
Vote Here
The voting period for this debate does not end.
| Started: | 7/6/2008 | Category: | Health |
| Updated: | 4 years ago | Status: | Voting Period |
| Viewed: | 1,044 times | Debate No: | 4610 |
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (39)
Votes (10)
 Pro The abortion of a fetus is not the innocent action some make it out to be, it is a terrible crime against a child that is not able to defend itself or have a say in its future. When a women becomes pregnet, she has an obligation to care for her baby until it is born and then either give it up for adoption or care for it like she should(in some cases adoption is nessecary, but we won't go into that). 2. A human is made at the moment of conception The second the sperm touchs the egg a human life is made, so why is aborting a fetus any different from slaughtering a baby? In the state of California, if u kill a woman that is even 1 day pregnet u are charged with 2 counts of murder, so what makes doctors special? They can kill a fetus in an office and get away with murder? Califormia proves that a gamete is infact a human life.  Con Two cells do not make a human. By such a definition my hair is a human. Clearly this is wrong. It is human hair, not human itself. Equally two sex cells are not human. The possibility of their development cannot be included in their definition as a human because such development is not assured. You will need to explain what is inherent in two cells that give it any rights at all, let alone ones that are greater than the mother. Two cells have no ability necessary for sustaining its life outside of the womb; by what judgement then can they be given rights? Rights are not given they are inherent in an object. Two cells are not warranted rights because clearly they have no properties that garner that ability. It has no ability to reason; it has no existence outside of what its mother provides it. It is in its entirety the property of the bearing mother and from that whatever choice she makes in its regards is her right (she has the rational faculties). As for the legal cases you roughly bring up. The man is charged because his act was in violation of another's rights i.e. the females right to life. The baby is her property and her choice to its life. That is the second violation of law in regards to two charges of murder. An abortion doctor acts on the behalf of the mother i.e. her permission and this is what separates those cases. Otherwise there could equally be charges of negligence/manslaughter for miscarriage. |
 |
|
Pro Aaron100 forfeited this round.
Con (o.o) (> <) Forfeits make the sickly bunny, sicker. You don't want that on your conscience. So for the sake of the bunny, no more forfeits. |
 |
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Derth 4 years ago
| Aaron100 | Puck | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - |  | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | | - | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 3 | 0 |
Vote Placed by tribefan011 4 years ago
| Aaron100 | Puck | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 3 |
Vote Placed by Im_always_right 4 years ago
| Aaron100 | Puck | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | | - | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 3 | 0 |
Vote Placed by CP 4 years ago
| Aaron100 | Puck | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 3 |
Vote Placed by brian_eggleston 4 years ago
| Aaron100 | Puck | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 3 |
Vote Placed by Hanevet 4 years ago
| Aaron100 | Puck | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 3 |
Vote Placed by blond_guy 4 years ago
| Aaron100 | Puck | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 3 |
Vote Placed by Armageddon23 4 years ago
| Aaron100 | Puck | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | | - | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 3 | 0 |
Vote Placed by Debateuhbull 4 years ago
| Aaron100 | Puck | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 3 |
Vote Placed by Puck 4 years ago
| Aaron100 | Puck | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 3 |
I never said you did. I just pointed out that your individual points were just word games and misdirections, just like this statement of yours.
You continue to request a definition of "humanness," but I don't recall stating that such an attribute was needed. I defined "a human" as an organism with human DNA (pretty objective) and the biological adjective "human" as something containing human DNA (still pretty objective). You invented the "humanness" requirement and then conveniently placed the burden of explanation on me.
I have also never made any argument in the vein of "everyone knows", so that charge is just another thinly veiled misdirection to avoid addressing any of the topics at hand. I had hoped you were interested in pursuing a thoughtful debate. Clearly I was mistaken. Good day.
Incorrect: perception and emotion are valid inputs to rationalisations.
"your objectivist stance on fetuses clings to the semantic: "A fetus is not a child.""
Incorrect again. I never used one discrete stage as singular reason for abortion. It is not that simple a concept.
"You seem unwilling to approach serious discussion on any topic because you are forever circling the drain of semantic relativism. You answer every statement, or fact, with circumlocution. Even your contributions to the debate above neatly avoid ever addressing the issue of abortion, as you are forever bogged down in challenging words like "human.""
You may like to think it is semantic driven, however it is not. What defines human qualities are.
"When I define "human," you claim it is not "a human." And when I define "a human," you claim it does not have "humanness." By constantly moving the target of discussion to the next bit of semantics, you prevent genuine discussion. Your philosophy, as exercised herein, appears pointless, except as an attempt to annoy sincere persons like myself who are trying to achieve understanding, or even consensus."
You have not detailed what humanness is, so I can never refute that. To say it is essentially 'well everyone knows' is a weak argument. To assume I am here to annoy you is arrogant. I have no interest in your opinion or consensus, simply because they are not needed to me. I am not required to fuel any interests you have in discussion of any one topic, they are your interests, your pursuit.
Regards, Puck
You seem unwilling to approach serious discussion on any topic because you are forever circling the drain of semantic relativism. You answer every statement, or fact, with circumlocution. Even your contributions to the debate above neatly avoid ever addressing the issue of abortion, as you are forever bogged down in challenging words like "human."
When I define "human," you claim it is not "a human." And when I define "a human," you claim it does not have "humanness." By constantly moving the target of discussion to the next bit of semantics, you prevent genuine discussion. Your philosophy, as exercised herein, appears pointless, except as an attempt to annoy sincere persons like myself who are trying to achieve understanding, or even consensus.
I never implied it should be.
"Your responses are all semantics and opinions..."
Logical fallacies are not semantics, instead they are tools to uncover errors in formations of argument.
You may like to think I am obligated to try and 'convince' you of my position, but I have stated quite early on that is not the case. I do not require you to respect my stance, I do not require you to share it. To expound the basis of objectivist philosophy and its ties to my position on abortion would be long, and beyond the facilities of this site. Objectivist philosophy is a system of ethics, epistomolgy, metaphysics, economics, and politics. You are entitled to whatever your belief is, however this does not mean I must by necessity respect that belief in itself. It applies to any one persons belief systems.
Not that you will, of course. Your responses are all semantics and opinions...
'developing', 'possible' remember.
"And I have repeatedly addressed your "philosophical" arguments that pre-birth humans are not "human." Your prerequisites of survivability, rationality, etc. have all failed on both philosophical and factual grounds."
err no, your whole argument is one large fallacy of begging the question
"Actually, since the passage of Roe v Wade, numerous laws have been passed (and upheld by the Supreme Court) across the country that severely limit or control abortion, so the current trend is away from pro-choice."
The current trend is not "away" as it was illegal to begin with.
"And McCorvey is now pro-life. How's that for a trend? The individual whose personal opinion led to legal action and a Supreme Court ruling now thinks that opinion is wrong. Thus, in a sense, the ruling is predicated on a fallacy."
Want me to name the logical fallacies there? Argumentum ad Populum, Argumentum ad Verecundiam.
And I have repeatedly addressed your "philosophical" arguments that pre-birth humans are not "human." Your prerequisites of survivability, rationality, etc. have all failed on both philosophical and factual grounds.
So if my position is based upon facts that are verifiable out in the wider world, and your position is based on your personal philosophy, then my position is clearly a stronger basis for drafting legislation that will impact the lives of everyone in the country. I'm advocating law by reason, you are advocating law by one person's opinion, which is tyranny.
Actually, since the passage of Roe v Wade, numerous laws have been passed (and upheld by the Supreme Court) across the country that severely limit or control abortion, so the current trend is away from pro-choice. And prior to that ruling, there were anti-abortion laws all over the country, indicating that "the people" have always been generally opposed to it. More importantly, Roe v Wade was not even about abortion but the right to privacy. Roe v Wade did not overturn all anti-abortion laws, only the poorly worded ones.
And McCorvey is now pro-life. How's that for a trend? The individual whose personal opinion led to legal action and a Supreme Court ruling now thinks that opinion is wrong. Thus, in a sense, the ruling is predicated on a fallacy.
Whether you like to see it as such or not, the issue of abortion is grounded as a philosophical question on the nature of humanity. As such, to say it is simply something based on "facts" is incorrect. Attributing 'humaness' to a zygote is not a scientific question, it is a philosophical one.
"Your personal philosophy is frankly irrelevant since it does not appear to arise from fact, at least not any facts you have presented here."
It is not irrelevant, because it is the basis of my position.
"No, the reality is that abortion is heavily regulated, illegal at certain stages, illegal if performed in certain ways, and illegal in some places (Missouri), precisely because our collective morality and thus our legal system does not believe it should be generally accessible."
By this argument collective morality has changed laws in regards to the freedom of abortion i.e. the shift away from pro life (the current trend).
Your personal philosophy is frankly irrelevant since it does not appear to arise from fact, at least not any facts you have presented here. All you have done is repeated several unsubstantiated claims about what a fetus is in your opinion or whose rights you think are more important.
No, the reality is that abortion is heavily regulated, illegal at certain stages, illegal if performed in certain ways, and illegal in some places (Missouri), precisely because our collective morality and thus our legal system does not believe it should be generally accessible.
The fact that a medical procedure has not been universally banned does not prove that it has been universally approved/permitted/legalized. You confuse the two concepts.
Would you rather I had an argument based on religion? Or gut feeling, popular opinion, my neighbours view?
"You use whichever supports your pre-chosen conclusion, and disregard the parts that conflict or contradict."
My personal philosophy supports my conclusions. My conclusions do not form my rationale. I do not require it to meet yours. To assume my rationale will arise at your conclusion when we are using a different set of philosophical groundings is absurd.
"There is no coherence to your assertions."
Because you look for your conclusion in them.
"In real life, we need real laws to deal with real problems, not personal idealism to arrive at best case scenarios on a case by case basis."
You are welcome to believe it is idealism, the fact remains, abortion is still legal, it is a reality, and that supports my rationale, not yours.