The Instigator
CiRrO
Pro (for)
Losing
15 Points
The Contender
Maya9
Con (against)
Winning
40 Points

Resolved: In the US, Unwanted Pregnancy Abortion is an unjust medical practice.

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: 6/29/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,534 times Debate No: 4537
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (17)
Votes (17)

 

CiRrO

Pro

Definitions:

Unwanted Pregnancy Abortion - The intentional, systematic extermination of an unborn child for reasons other then health precautions.(E.g. death of the mother)

Unjust - Not giving due

For the first round, I will simply provide a value structure. (This is optional, however if my opponent wishes to make one as well, he can)

Value: Justice
Value Criterion: Protection the Sanctity of Innocent Life

The thesis of this case protecting the sanctity of innocent life is a paramount criterion for achieving justice, as specified in the resolution. When innocent life is not being protected then the government is not upholding its duty. Also, the practice of abortion violates both governmental and medial moral guidelines. Therefore, unwanted pregnancy abortion does not protect innocent life and thus should be should be illegal in the US.

*I will let my opponent make his contentions first. (Since he is guest)

Thank you ladies and gentlemen. Enjoy ^^
Maya9

Con

By the way, I am a "she". I probably should have mentioned that before. Anyway, on to the debate.

From your definition of "unjust", I infer that you would define justice as giving what is due. But why should life be due to anyone or anything? Furthermore, what is your basis for saying that life, human or otherwise, holds any kind of "sanctity"?
Debate Round No. 1
CiRrO

Pro

As a fore note I apologize for mixing up your gender =( That's embarrassing. However, on to the debate.
=================================================================================

From your definition of "unjust", I infer that you would define justice as giving what is due. But why should life be due to anyone or anything? Furthermore, what is your basis for saying that life, human or otherwise, holds any kind of "sanctity"?

My Response: Yes, I am referring to giving what is due. Therefore, unjust is not giving whats due. Simple questions you ask, and can be answered according to Kant's Categorical Imperative (Enlightenment formula for justice/morality)

The Categorical Imperative can be broken up into 3 main maxims (and a 4th, but that's not used often) I'll use the first main 2.

I. "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."

Essentially, the first way Kant tells us how to determine a just action is universality. This means that whatever action you do must be able to become universalized. I.e. Killing is wrong because you yourself/people you love should not be killed. Therefore killing another person cannot be universalized. Now referring this maxim to your questions. You ask why should life be due to anyone? Obviously, you yourself would like to live, me also, and the members of the debate community (unless your suicidal). We all look for survival. Therefore, universalize the action of life.

II. "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means to an end."

Kant then goes on to use this maxim. He is saying that an action is just if it doesn't use a living creature as a means to an end. A person is always an end in and of itself. Therefore abortion uses the baby as a means to the mothers own pleasure of getting rid of a child.
Maya9

Con

"I. "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."

Essentially, the first way Kant tells us how to determine a just action is universality. This means that whatever action you do must be able to become universalized. I.e. Killing is wrong because you yourself/people you love should not be killed. Therefore killing another person cannot be universalized."

But all animal life is dependant upn some form of killing in order to survive. Lifeforms must devour other lifeforms. Should we not kill and eat living animals and plants simply because we ourselves wish to live? That would be contradictory. We cannot live without doing so. While I realize that elective abortion is not a matter of physical survival, my statements nonetheless show that Kant's statement is not valid (or at least not universally true.)

"Now referring this maxim to your questions. You ask why should life be due to anyone? Obviously, you yourself would like to live, me also, and the members of the debate community (unless your suicidal). We all look for survival. Therefore, universalize the action of life."

So life should be due to any living thing, no matter what they have done, on the basis that I would like to live?

"II. "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means to an end."

Kant then goes on to use this maxim. He is saying that an action is just if it doesn't use a living creature as a means to an end. A person is always an end in and of itself. Therefore abortion uses the baby as a means to the mothers own pleasure of getting rid of a child."

But who is Kant to dictate morals? What proof is provided that these moral statements are of value? I admit that I have not read much Kant, as I find it rather trying.

Furthermore, ask any woman who has had an abortion and she will tell you that there is no pleasure involved.
Debate Round No. 2
CiRrO

Pro

"But all animal life is dependant upon some form of killing in order to survive. Lifeforms must devour other lifeforms. Should we not kill and eat living animals and plants simply because we ourselves wish to live? That would be contradictory. We cannot live without doing so. While I realize that elective abortion is not a matter of physical survival, my statements nonetheless show that Kant's statement is not valid (or at least not universally true.)"

My Response: The CI only can be applied to humans because we have: A) Free will, B) Intellect, and C) have some sort of moral conscience. Also, you are referring to necessity, i.e. survival, rather then morality or justice. The resolution asks for the value of justice not necessity. On a different note, you have not explained how abortion is therefore justified.

"So life should be due to any living thing, no matter what they have done, on the basis that I would like to live?"

My Response: You don't understand the maxim. Kant goes on to say innocent vs. guilty is different. Anyone guilty of a capital crime deserves death, because by the criminal committing murder, they have universalized the action themselves, and therefore deserve death. However that's a totally different topic. Essentially, going to your question all innocents have the right to life.

"But who is Kant to dictate morals? What proof is provided that these moral statements are of value? I admit that I have not read much Kant, as I find it rather trying."

My Response: Well, good question. However he is by far the greatest of all enlightenment philosophers when it comes to ethics. Oh and Kant is very interesting, you should read more of him.

"Furthermore, ask any woman who has had an abortion and she will tell you that there is no pleasure involved."

My Response: Good, I was actually going to use that argument. Thx for bringing it up. Women also, are effected by abortion. 70% of women after an abortion go through some mental trauma. The women must know the consequences and say NO.
===============================================================================
*My opponent has failed to actually negate the resolution.*

This is a clear Pro ballet.

Case:

Use maxims one and teo as my contentions for the round.

I. Maxim 1: Universality

-Abortion is killing
-Killing can not be universalized
-Therefore, abortion is unjust

II. Maxim 2: Means and ends.

-Abortion uses the baby as a means to the mothers end
-Violates 2nd maxim
-Therefore, Its unjust
Maya9

Con

"My Response: The CI only can be applied to humans because we have: A) Free will, B) Intellect, and C) have some sort of moral conscience. Also, you are referring to necessity, i.e. survival, rather then morality or justice. The resolution asks for the value of justice not necessity. On a different note, you have not explained how abortion is therefore justified."

But why should any of those things give more value to life?

Furthermore, you have essentially negated your own argument. Fetuses do not have free will, intellect, or a moral conscience.

"My Response: Well, good question. However he is by far the greatest of all enlightenment philosophers when it comes to ethics. Oh and Kant is very interesting, you should read more of him."

So you're arguing not from logic, but from the moral opinions of one man. No matter how hihgly regarded a philosopher may be, they are still opinions. Unless backed up by logic, opinions are just opinions.

"My Response: Good, I was actually going to use that argument. Thx for bringing it up. Women also, are effected by abortion. 70% of women after an abortion go through some mental trauma. The women must know the consequences and say NO."

It is true that women often suffer emotional anguish from this decision. But that does not change the fact that it is their decision to make. More often than not, the emotional consequences of choosing an abortion are not greater than the practical consequences of having a baby.
Debate Round No. 3
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Cg09 8 years ago
Cg09
Im really disturbed though by the Con's argument in Round 2:
Should we not kill and eat living animals and plants simply because we ourselves wish to live? Ummm if you think thats how we should view abortion, thats its a neccesity for us being able to live, then you definetly lost me on that.
However if i was the pro I wouldve gone a more moral standpoint on this debate instead of a type of legality debate, because its wasy to seperate justice from morals, so just be careful with that.
Posted by Cg09 8 years ago
Cg09
man thats why you gotta watch out with Kant, Foucault is the same way, he says one thing then deep in the attic of his theory he'll say something contradictary.
Posted by PublicForumG-d 8 years ago
PublicForumG-d
"But we don't agree that Kant is warranted, necessitating the posting of those warrants."

-You.

It appeared (forgive me if I misunderstood) that you were not calling Kant warranted. Hence, I asked what?

//Life isn't in a special category.//

What is comparable to life? Why do we value life so strongly then? IE the government only uses the death penalty in a case where life has been taken. There is nothing that is so valuable as life. Hence, life is special.

Comparable? Maybe... Special and sanct? Yea.
Posted by Maya9 8 years ago
Maya9
I'm not saying that Kant didn't warrant anything. It was pro that didn't.

Life isn't in a special category. It is a concept comparable to any other concept.
Posted by PublicForumG-d 8 years ago
PublicForumG-d
My misunderstanding. What are you saying Kant doesn't warrant? (LDers, start crying).

//Furthermore, what is your basis for saying that life, human or otherwise, holds any kind of "sanctity" //

This is where I'm drawing your statement of life not= value. If I'm misinterpreting, let me know.

And I think the point was:

Life = special category (what is comparable to life?)
Hence, Life = sanctity.
Hence, Life = very valuable.
Hence, blah blah blah boring abortion debate.
Posted by Maya9 8 years ago
Maya9
But we don't agree that Kant is warranted, necessitating the posting of those warrants.

Again, I never said that life has no value. But all value CAN be measured. Unless the values in question are quantified, one cannot make the claim that one is greater than the other.
Posted by CiRrO 8 years ago
CiRrO
LOl, there is a mini-debate down here... ^^ Fun, Fun.
Posted by PublicForumG-d 8 years ago
PublicForumG-d
If we agree Kant is warranted, then who cares if he didn't post them? I don't think cutting Metaphysics of Morals is necessary for an 8000 char limit debate.

And as for common sense, I meant common sentiment both among society and general consensus among philosophers. Very, very, very few people (philosopher or not) would claim life has NO value. How it can be measured, what its comparable to, how we should respond to it? That's all debatable. But that it has NO value? Very little sentiment for that statement. And value vs sanctity is not a strong distinction. If something has a special kind of value (life gets its own category, as its life) then it has sanctity.

And I was explaining //I really don't understand all the pro votes.// Common paradigm for the judges of this round includes a belief in SOME value/sanctity of life (not talking abortion or whatever, i mean life in general).
Posted by Maya9 8 years ago
Maya9
But pro should have posted those warrants. As it is, he just posted the statements.

"Common sense" isn't proof of anything. What may be "common sense" to one may be unfathomable to another. Besides, there is no common sense where morality is concerned, only common opinion.

I never said life doesn't have value. I simply said that life isn't sacred. I don't believe in the notion of inherent sanctity. It does have value, but value isn't abstract. You have to define that value and compare it to other values.
Posted by PublicForumG-d 8 years ago
PublicForumG-d
On skim your cases look smaller and less intellectual (regardless of content - it appears like that. Debate.org bias recall).

Second, Kant is an authority on morality. Of course he warranted his stuff. To claim he didn't is to create pandemonium for all LDers :P hahaha I know what you're saying; him being famous is not a de facto warrant. But his stuff is warranted; perhaps a reason why he's famous.

But your criticisms still miss the point. Murder and killing are not the same thing. This is not a critique of his universalism.

Then you pull the ol' "nothing sacred" argument (challenge common sense premises)

//Furthermore, what is your basis for saying that life, human or otherwise, holds any kind of "sanctity"?//

Its pretty common sense to say life has value. Its the basis for almost every judge's paradigm. So to attack this is to attack humanity - very few people buy this (possibly valid) criticism on the basis that it attacks their paradigm. I think that its reasonable to say life has value anyway.
17 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
CiRrOMaya9Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by SoutherngentFL 8 years ago
SoutherngentFL
CiRrOMaya9Tied
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 Danielle 8 years ago
Danielle
CiRrOMaya9Tied
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 lorca 8 years ago
lorca
CiRrOMaya9Tied
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 Jamcke 8 years ago
Jamcke
CiRrOMaya9Tied
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 surfride 8 years ago
surfride
CiRrOMaya9Tied
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 Tavadon 8 years ago
Tavadon
CiRrOMaya9Tied
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 thehaha 8 years ago
thehaha
CiRrOMaya9Tied
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 BeatTheDevil89 8 years ago
BeatTheDevil89
CiRrOMaya9Tied
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 blondesrule502 8 years ago
blondesrule502
CiRrOMaya9Tied
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