The Instigator
RyuuKyuzo
Pro (for)
Winning
39 Points
The Contender
imabench
Con (against)
Losing
27 Points

Resolved: The Father Should Not Have Say In an Abortion

Do you like this debate?NoYes+15
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 16 votes the winner is...
RyuuKyuzo
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/31/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,974 times Debate No: 28793
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (63)
Votes (16)

 

RyuuKyuzo

Pro

Resolution

The Father Should Not Have Say In an Abortion.

As PRO, I will be affirming this resolution by arguing that the decision should rest entirely on the mother.

As CON, you will attempt to negate the resolution by arguing that the father should have equal and/or greater say in the decision.

Burden Of Proof

Shared BoP.

Definitions

Pretty straight forward. All terms requiring clarification once the debate has started will be defined using the merriam-webster online dictionary definition that best fits the context of this debate [1]. If there is a dispute on which definition best fits the context of this debate, the final arbitration is reserved for myself.

Framework

The arguments made in this debate will be under the assumption that the pregnancy in question is under typical circumstances. That is, a planned pregnancy where one party later wants an abortion to take place and the other party objects.

To keep things simple, we will not be looking at bizarre scenarios such as cases of one party tricking the other into getting pregnant or cases where some sort of contract was signed prior to conception explicitly giving the father equal or final say over the option of abortion.

This debate will not be relative to any particular country's laws as this debate is meant to be normative (what OUGHT to be the case), not positive (what IS the case). However, for the purposes of this debate it will be assumed that abortion is legal.

Rules

1. All standard DDO rules apply
2. First round is for acceptance
3. Users with an ELO score under 2,800 need not apply
4. Any questions on this debate should be asked in the comments section prior to acceptance

This debate is impossible to accept at this time. If you're interested, apply in the comments section. This will not be a first-come first-serve method of acceptance. The higher your ELO ranking, the more likely you are to be accepted as the contender.

EDIT

Just to clarify, by "no say" I'm saying the father should have no practical say. This debate is not about if the father has, for example, 30% say or something like that. <50% say = no say, all else being equal.

1. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
imabench

Con

I accept this debate and will argue that the father of an unborn child should have 50% equal say in deciding whether or not to have an abortion as the mother does.

Seeing as how pro kindly allowed me to accept the debate, I will simply use this round as acceptance and allow the pro to make his opening arguments.

(Note: It is not specified which side is pushing for the abortion and which side wishes to keep it, please keep this in mind when you vote, id hate for some dingus to vote for one side because they assume that side is taking the pro-life or pro-choice position)
Debate Round No. 1
RyuuKyuzo

Pro

I'd like to in turn thank my opponent for taking up this debate. It's always nice to get a page 1 super-star down here in the trenches for a verbal fire-fight.

My opponent has chosen to argue that men should have equal say (50%), therefore that is to the extent his BoP must be fulfilled. In this round I will establish that the final decision should ultimately rest with the pregnant woman (>50% say) due to the five reasons listed below.

Before continuing, as my opponent pointed out it has not been specified which party, be it the mother or the father, wanted an abortion to occur. This was done intentionally as the arguments I am about to present are sound in both cases.

Let's begin:

Mother Wants; Father Does Not

1. Self-Ownership

We must first consider which party actually carries the burden of being pregnant. It is the mother. As my opponent has stated, he will be arguing that the man should have 50% say in the decision. His contention is most likely rooted in the argument that the man is responsible for half the child's genetic code, but keep in mind that that on top of the woman being the one carrying the child, she also has contributed equally to the child's genome. Since both share equal say when we look only at the genes, the final arbitration must come down to some other factor. That factor is self-ownership.

To argue that the man should have equal say in a woman's abortion because he contributed 50% to the child's genome is to argue that the man should also have equal say and control over the woman's body. As stated in round one, this debate is under the assumption of a typical pregnancy devoid of any prior contracts. Therefore, as no agreement has been made otherwise, the woman retains her right to change her mind about what happens within her own body. To put this argument in a single sentence; the man's “50% genetic contribution” claim is trumped by the woman's 50% contribution claim in tandem with her right to change her mind over her own body. If the man took over half the pregnancy, then the responsibility (and therefore the say) would be equal, but this is not the case, so the final say must rest with the woman.

2. Not 50%

Previously I had talked about how both parties contribute 50% to the child's genome. This was merely for the sake of argument. The truth is, the mother actually contributes slightly more than the man (up to 3.5% more) [1]. This means even if we look at the genetic argument exclusively, we still must conclude that the mother has greater than 50% say, and therefore the final say.

3. Relinquish Ownership of Sperm

Imagine person A gave person B some wood (...the kind from trees). Let's say person B decided to build a dresser out of said wood, with slightly more than half of the wood going into the dresser coming from wood person B already had. Let us then imagine that, for whatever reason, person B no longer wished to carry out the project and decided to scrap it. Would person A have the right to stop person B from doing so? Of course not.

Likewise, when a man gives a woman his sperm voluntarily, he is doing just that – giving it. She is therefore free to do with it what she chooses as he has relinquished ownership of it. Now of course we are talking about genetic material, not wood, so there are some restrictions to what she can do, but those limitations do not cover NOT doing anything with said material. Just as person B retains the right to NOT finish making a dresser, so too must the woman retain the right to NOT make a child.

One might object to this argument by saying that the man did indeed give his sperm to the woman, but he gave it to her specifically for her to make a baby out of it, and therefore the woman does not retain the right to opt out. Be that as it may, as stated earlier no sort of contract had been signed relinquishing the woman of her sovereignty, and so any agreement made between the two is subject to change at the will of the party with the most say in the matter, and given that the woman contributes the most genetically and carries the child within her own body exclusively, the woman must be the party with the final say over how the pregnancy progresses, all else being equal.

4. 50% is not 50%

Just for the sake of argument, let's assume there is an even 50/50 split in say over the fetus. What happens? A deadlock tie, one might say, where nothing is done with the fetus until some sort of agreement is reached. However, this is outcome is not representative of a 50/50 share in say as this outcome is in favour of the opposing party so long as no agreement is reached.

Either the fetus is aborted or it is not aborted, there is no neutral position and therefore there cannot be an even 50/50 split in say. One side must have more say for one reason or another. Therefore, my opponent is forced to abandon his original argument and argue that the man should have greater say (as this is his only option left outside of agreeing with the affirmative).

I leave it to Con to justify why the man should have more say.

5. Ownership of the Fetus

It has not been established that the fetus is property in the first place. Yes the parents made the child, and yes they would be responsible for it, but it is still a human being and therefore not property. Given this, if the child is not viewed as property, the argument about the parents sharing equal genetic contribution is a moot point and so the only relevant argument is who owns the host body. As it so happens, that belongs to the mother.

I leave it to Con to (on top of defending against my argument of the woman contributing slightly more genetic material than the father) justify why this argument is relevant to begin with. In other words, to justify why a fetus should be viewed as property where “shares” can be divided like stock in a company.

Father Wants; Mother Does Not

It is clear that most of the above arguments also apply to this scenario, with some requiring just a few tweaks.

1. Self Ownership

In this case, we are talking about a forced, involuntary abortion. I leave it to Con to justify why the man should have the right to force the woman into an abortion. If Con so chooses to drop this point, it is then his burden to argue why the father's say only applies when he's anti-abortion and why his say vanishes when the positions are reversed.

2.Not 50%

No changes needed.

3. Relinquish Ownership of Sperm

In this case Con must argue why the man should be able to force the woman into an abortion when he willingly gave baby-making material to the woman (presumably with the intention to make a baby). If he chooses to drop this point, it is then his burden to differentiate between the two scenarios an in point 1.

4. 50% is not 50%

No changes needed.

5. Ownership of the Fetus

No changes needed.

Conclusion

To conclude, Con has an enormous effort ahead of him if he wants to adequately defend his position. He must argue that the fetus is property first and foremost, then he must argue that the man has greater than 50% share in the fetus (as a 50/50 split cannot actually exist when the topic is abortion) despite the fact that he does not contribute 50% of the fetus' genes, then he must argue that he still owns his >50% share despite having voluntarily given his “shares” to the woman, then finally he must argue that his shares over the fetus also trumps her ownership over her own body – then he must do the same for the reverse scenario, or at least somehow show that the two scenarios are different enough to justify dropping the later points. If he cannot do all of this, then his BoP will not be fulfilled. As I have shown why the final say should rest with the mother and not the father, the resolution has been affirmed.

I turn this debate over to Con.

1. http://www.madsci.org...


imabench

Con

Ill jump right into it.

1) "Its in the woman's body, therefore she should have more say in the matter."

Just because the baby is within her body it doesnt mean that one can conclude that nobody else is allowed to have any influence in making decisions regarding the baby's life, it only proves that women should have a decent amount of influence in choosing to keep it or not and should in fact have a say in the decision..... The fact that the child grows in the womans body only cements the belief that she should have her half of the say in deciding whether to keep it or not, it doesnt mean we can simply dismiss anything that the father has to say because he invests and sacrifice a lot for the upbringing of the child in terms of financial sacrifice, helping keep the mother alive and fed, hes also probably the guy who helps her get to a place to deliver the baby, the list goes on and on....

My point is, yes the woman is the one being the host for the child, but that only proves shes entitled to her half of the say in whether it should be kept or not. It doesnt necessarily mean that nobody else can have any say at all.

2) "Women donate more genetic material then men, its not 50-50"

In this argument the Pro states that women give more genetic material to a child then men do, so much so that she should by default have an increased say. This is a very misleading argument though and the pro's own source states why.

The way human reproduction works is that each parent donates a set of identical chromosomes to the offspring, with both sets of chromosomes being just about the same. The only pair of chromosomes that arent identical are the chromosomes that determine the sex of the baby, where the female always gives an X chromosome but the male can donate an X or a Y. This is where the discrepancy happens.

If the baby is a female, then both parents have given exactly the same amount of genetic material, and pro's own source even admits that:

"So, if the father contributes an X chromosome, and the couple has a baby girl, the mother has contributed about .0006% more DNA than the father"

Now, .0006% is far less then the 3.5% number the pro gave, so where did this number come from?

If the baby is a male, then the mother donated an X chromosome whereas the father donated the Y chromosome, and since the Y chromosome is significantly smaller then the X chromosome in terms of genetic material it carries, then naturally the father would have given less genetic material to the child.

So all in all, women do not give more genetic material then men do to the child. The difference is based entirely on the sex of the child and not any kind of reproductive process that naturally favors female genes more then male genes. That being said this argument has very little weight in the big picture of things and it can rightfully be assumed that men and women each contribute approximately 50% of genetic material to the offspring.

3) "The man relinquished ownership of the sperm, so he shouldnt have any say at all"

To relinquish ownership of something is to give up not just the possession of something, but to give up any responsibilities and potential liabilities that would arise from the object the man previously owned, and that is not the case here. One can argue that a sperm donor at a sperm bank is relinquishing ownership of sperm because he is giving up all liabilities, responsibilities, or financial obligations associated with whatever is done with his sperm. This is not the case with a soon-to-be father because he still chooses to be and is responsible for the sperm in question.

The father is not relinquishing ownership of the sperm who is void of all responsibilities of his sperm, in this case he is simply loaning his sperm to the woman and he still is held accountable and responsible for it. Putting sperm in a woman is much like putting money in a bank, he may not have it on him but it is still his property and he still has a right to whatever he wants to do with it and face consequences of his actions.

4) "Even if it is 50-50, there is no neutral course of action for the parents to take, so one side must have more say in the matter"

In this argument the pro argues that since there is no middle path that a couple can take regarding aborting or not aborting, then someone HAS to have more say in order to break the tie breaker. I disagree though. Couples disagree all the time on whether or not they should keep the baby yet there are middle roads that people can take that work just fine.
- Many couples simply keep the baby and continue to argue over whether to keep it or not until one side has a change of heart over the course of the pregnancy
- Many couples can give their child up to adoption when the child is born, like in the movie Juno where the unwed teenage mother gives her child up to a loving couple who cant have kids but want one.
- Many couples can have an independent third party such as a doctor, priest, etc. come in and be the tie breaker for them or present a different point of view on why a woman should/shouldnt abort.
- in some countries you are allowed to give your child to another set of parents and then if you decide you do want to raise your child, you can have it back and keep it. This process is called 'fostering'
http://pregnancy.blurtit.com...

Those are the four main examples but the point is, there are middle roads for couples to take if they cant decide whether to abort or not. There doesnt have to be a side that by default has more say then the other and it is more then possible for both sides to have a 50-50 say in the matter and reach a stalemate.

5) "The baby is not property because it is a human being"

Property by definition is anything that is rightfully owned by someone else. In this case the baby isnt anybody's property because it isnt 'owned' by anyone. Since the fetus in question is not property, then in the con's words the only relevant argument is who is currently the host body.

The fetus being human doesnt change the fact that half of the baby's genetic material comes from the mother and the other half comes from the father, that is true whether you agree the fetus is property or not, which means the 50-50 argument is still a sound argument to consider when deciding if parents should have equal say in choosing to abort or not. This then kicks back to the 'the woman is the host and should have more say' argument where I argued that this argument only entitles the woman to have her half of the say in making a decision, not deny anyone else the right to get a word in.
Debate Round No. 2
RyuuKyuzo

Pro

Rebuttals

1.

Con does not adequately address my argument in his response. First of all, as stated in round 1, “<50% say = no say“ for the purposes of this debate. Therefore I must assume that Con is saying the father deserves 50% say for his financial help, catering to the mother and driving her to the hospital when the time comes for delivery (Etc). I don't know what this “etc” entails, but if the issue is abortion, then the matter of who will be driving to the hospital for the delivery is irrelevant as it wouldn't have happened yet.

As for money, Con assumes that the mother has no means of finance other than what the father has to offer. In this day and age, the women of the house tend to work, and are capable of working well into their pregnancies (depending on the job). And since the issue is abortion, going through with the abortion relinquishes the father from having to take care of the woman in the later stages of the pregnancy, making catering also a moot point unless we already assume the father has the power to stop the abortion, which assumes the very thing Con is trying to prove.

There is a greater issue with this argument though. Con seems to be insinuating that one's sovereignty can be bought. Well, how much money does the father need to spend on the mother to get 50% say? By what measure do we judge when the man's financial contribution is enough that the woman no longer has exclusive rights over her own body? And how do we justify this involuntary purchasing of the woman's right to change her mind? Also, does this same line of reasoning hold up with other relationships? Going back to my R2 example, if person A buys person B lunch every day for a week, does person B no longer have the right to scrap his dresser project? If he still does, then how much more money does person A have to spend to buy 50% of person B's sovereignty? And why?

2.

Con contends that my argument is misleading. Keep in mind I specifically stated the difference was up to 3.5%, not always 3.5%. Yes, there is a combination where the difference is only 0.0006%, but that difference is still in favour of the mother, winning her the genetic argument either way and so it was not worth my character space in R2 to go into further detail. Con has chosen to go into this detail here, but seeing as the mother contributes more genetic material regardless of the child's gender, he losses the point regardless. One cannot simply ignore a difference in contribution, no matter how small, if that factor is to be taken into account. Therefore, Con must either concede the point or argue as to why it is irrelevant.

I have no problem with this point being irrelevant mind you, but since it is a point in my favour it is still Con's burden to argue against it, not to simply water it down and dismiss it.

3.

Con's argument here was preemptively debunked in the same point of my R2 argument. As previously stated, even if the man only gave his sperm to the woman specifically for her to make a baby (this could be viewed as a loan, where the baby is the return payment), the woman still retains her right to change her mind as no legally binding agreement was made beforehand. Since it is her body which actually carries the child and given the fact that she retains exclusive ownership of her own body, the final decision to abort or not must also be hers exclusively.

Now, let's take Con's “bank” analogy. Even a bank has the right to refuse service, so how does this argument justify removing the woman's right to refuse service? It simply does not make sense.

4.

Con states that there are middle-ground options and lists four. I will address these in the order Con presented them.

- This option was already shown to be faulty in my R2 argument. If the dispute is to result in a dead-lock tie, then the decision has been ruled in favour of the opposition. If the father happens to be the opposition, then all he has to do is not have a change of heart until the mother has carried full-term and he wins, which is not representative of a 50/50 say. This option ignores the mother's say in favour of the father's

- This option is still not representative of a 50/50 split either. The issue is of abortion and in this scenario the father once again wins regardless of the mother's 50% say. Giving up the child is another issue distinct from abortion. Yes an abortion results in giving up the child as well, but equivocating between the two ignores that the mother still has to carry the child full-term against her will in the case of adoption. In this option, Con has completely brushed aside the woman's right to chose what happens within her own body and let the man have final say over the abortion.

Even in the case where the mother agrees to carry the child full term and then give it up for adoption, this option has a winner in terms of who has more say. The mother would have more say because this option was only carried out due to the mother agreeing to it – which implies that she has the final say.

- In this option, Con says that the couple could seek out an arbitrator. This doesn't actually solve the problem, it just passes the buck. The arbitrator will still have to come to some sort of conclusion as to whose wishes will be carried out. By what measure will the arbitrator conclude who is right? Well, that's the topic we are debating right now, so this argument is only valid assuming Con is right, which he must prove before he can use this argument, making it a moot point.

- This option has the same issues as option 2.

As we can see, there is no middle-ground in this decision. Either an abortion happens or it does not, and therefore we must come up with some sort of standard to decide who has more say. I argue that the standard should be based on the mother's ownership of her own body first and foremost, but we should also take note that the mother contributes more genetic information to the child as well. Con has offered no real alternative standard other than the fathers financial support, but since he's drawn no parallel between “services” and “self-ownership”, this is a non-cognitive standard.

5.

Con has decided not to argue that the fetus is property, but instead assert that the mother's right to self-govern her body only accounts for 50% of the say, therefore giving the father equal say nonetheless. As previously stated, Con claims the Father's financial contribution gives him the other 50% say, but this argument requires further development to be compelling.

But since I have the opportunity. Let's address another issue with this argument. Con asserts that carrying the child only gets the mother 50% of the say. Why? By what line of logic can we conclude that the right to decide what happens with and within your own body only accounts for half of the say in what happens with and within your own body? << To acknowledge what this line of reasoning actually states is to realize its absurdity.

Dropped Arguments

Con has ignored the reverse scenario arguments I laid out in R2. There were only 2, and Con only used about 6,600 characters, so he had the room to at least touch on them, yet he chose not to.

Conclusion

Aside from giving previously debunked arguments, circular arguments, and dropping other arguments, all Con presents is the assertion that the father's financial contribution should remove 50% of the mother's ownership over her body. He does not explain how this contribution gives the father 50% say, why this standard should be taken over my suggested standards, nor does he go into detail on how such a standard is quantified (or that it even can be). Furthermore, this argument is readily dismissible when we consider that going through with the abortion preemptively removes these responsibilities from the father. As such he has failed to discredit my arguments and meet his own BoP.

The resolution is affirmed. I turn the debate over to Con.
imabench

Con

1) The woman is the host body and therefore should have more then half the say

In this argument the pro completely misinterprets my arguments and insinuates that im arguing that one's sovereignty can be bought and that only dads can financially support the child, which isnt even close to what I was arguing. My arguments were that the father sacrifices just as much as the mother does when deciding to have a child which entitles both sides to have an equal say in deciding whether to keep it or not. Pro completely ignored my argument stating that being the host body only entitles the woman to her 50% of the say in the decision and did not justify why being the host is enough reason to let women have a vast majority of the decision making process, and instead goes on a rant of asking irrelevant questions.

My argument here is that the father sacrifices plenty when it comes down to raising a child, and that therefore he should have his 50% of the say in making the decision. The woman being the host and also making sacrifices justifies her having the other 50% of the say in choosing whether or not to keep it or abort, but it does not justify taking away any of the fathers say in the decision.

2) "A .0006% difference isnt irrelevant, so the argument still is in the woman's favor."

In this argument the pro is trying to argue that contributing .0006% more genetic material is enough to justify women having more then 50% of the say in deciding to abort or not, but this is hair splitting if ive ever seen it. 0.0006% is statistically zero and focuses on just one set of chromosomes where the male is naturally at a disadvantage, while completely overlooking the fact that the male and female donate the exact same number and the exact same quantity of genetic material in all the other 22 non-sexual related chromosomes to an embryo.

So to summarize, this whole argument is structured entirely on arbitrary measurements that the pro has cherry picked to somehow minimize the impact that the father has in the creation of the child in support of his own arguments. Overall this is nothing more then just an attempt to split hairs in order to somehow justify that the woman should have more say in deciding to abort or not over a male.

3) Relinquishment of the sperm argument

In this argument the pro does not dispute that the man is not relinquishing his sperm and instead falls back onto the arbitrary argument that since its her body shes allowed to do whatever she wants with it because no legally binding agreement was made. If the woman still retains her right to change her mind as no legally binding agreement was made beforehand, then why does the man suddenly not have the same right? He also didnt enter a legally binding agreement and is still responsible and liable for his role in making the child, yet apparently his rights get taken away when the woman gets to keep hers....

"Even a bank has the right to refuse service, so how does this argument justify removing the woman's right to refuse service?"

Because banks have clear cut and justifiable reasons to refuse to go through with a mutual agreement. The woman's excuse for refusing has not yet been justified since you danced around my question asking why being the host ignores any and all sacrifices the male also makes... Being the host only justifies the woman having her decision be taken into account because it is an argument that shows that men shouldnt have all the say. It is not an argument for why the man shouldnt have any or equal say in the same matters at all though, which is what Ive been arguing.

4) Middle ground for couples deadlocked in choosing to abort or not.

After providing numerous cases and possibilities that couples can choose from if they cant decide whether to abort or not, the pro tries to justify all of them as unfavorable to the mother by assuming in every case that the mother is the one who wants to abort while the father is the one who wants to keep it.

This argument was to show that there are alternatives that couples can take if they cannot reach an agreement to abort or not. In each scenario the one who gets their way is always the pro-life one since in all circumstances an abortion is not immediately brought about. Both the mother and the father could be taking up the pro-life position which means that under all of the scenarios I listed, both parents could be the ones who dont win while the unborn child is raised. It just depends on which side they are taking regarding the abortion, not on the sex of the parent.

5) The Pro and I agree the child is not any one parents property.

"Con claims the Father's financial contribution gives him the other 50% say, but this argument requires further development to be compelling."

I listed a couple of contributions the father makes to the raising of the child off the top of my head, you only chose to focus on the ones that are financial related and claim that was my entire argument. Its my position that the father is entitled to his 50% because he is responsible for half of the genetic material that led to the baby in the first place and also has to sacifice plenty to raise the unborn child. both parents sacrifice a lot out of their own lives regarding the child so both of them should have equal say in deciding whether it should be kept or not, the logic is as simple as that.

http://www.webmd.com...
http://www.webmd.com...

"Con asserts that carrying the child only gets the mother 50% of the say. Why? By what line of logic can we conclude that the right to decide what happens with and within your own body only accounts for half of the say in what happens with and within your own body? << To acknowledge what this line of reasoning actually states is to realize its absurdity."

That isnt my line of reasoning though..... Ive stated that being the host justifies the woman for having her half of the say in deciding whether to abort a child or not, but also that it doesnt give her all of the say because deciding to abort or not is a decision that involves more then just the woman here. Im just asking why the father isnt allowed to have 50% of the say in choosing to abort or not, but the pro's responses are only reasons for why the mother should have her 50% of the say which isnt answering the question.

6) Dropped arguments

The Pro claims that I dropped two arguments he presented in alternate scenarios and chose not to respond. I didnt respond to them because both alternative scenarios were built around the pretense that women shouldnt have any say at all in deciding to abort or not, which is not where my stance is....

The first alternative scenario was asking why should a man force a woman to have an abortion if she doesnt want one and is the host. The second alternative scenario asks why a man should force a woman to have an abortion when he willingly relinquished ownership of his sperm to make the baby in the first place.

Both scenarios were worded to sound like the man was forcing the women to abort against her will and that the woman had no say in the matter at all, not that the man was just opting for an abortion when the woman was not as detailed in the original scenarios.... Women should have their half of the say in deciding whether to abort or not, but the alternative scenarios were structured in a way where it implied that I would be arguing that I was against women having any say in choosing to abort or not, which is not what my stance was, and which is why I didnt respond to those scenarios.

I apologize for not clearing that up before

Id draw out a conclusion but im just about out of characters. Back to you Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
RyuuKyuzo

Pro

As this will be my last round, I will provide a brief overview of my points, Con's counter arguments, and why they do not work.

1.

In this point I argue that the woman owns her own body and therefore has final say over what happens to her body. Most would agree with this, but Con argues that in the case of a pregnancy, the father is entitled to equal control over the woman's body to the extent that what she does affects the baby (which is technically everything she does, but Con's focus is on abortion). Con claims that this entitlement is given to the father due to the hardships he has to go through during the pregnancy. These hardships include driving her to the hospital, financial aid and general catering.

My response to this argument was 2-fold. Firstly, these “hardships” only apply assuming the mother does not get an abortion. If she does, then none of these sacrifices are made. Therefore, this argument is only relevant under the assumption that the father already has enough say to stop the abortion, which makes it a circular argument. Con does not address this criticism.

Secondly, I pointed out that this standard insinuates that one's right over their own body can be purchased (via favours and finance). I go on to question how such a system breaks down – that is, how much hardship and sacrifice must the father offer before his say is equal to 50%. How does Con justify this involuntary acquisition of “say” by the father?

Rather than developing his argument further, Con claims that I am misrepresenting his argument, but does not explain how this is a misrepresentation (explaining the difference), making his counter argument non-existent. He reiterates that his argument is “sacrifice = 50% say”, but does not seem to see how this suggests the father is purchasing say via favours and finance. Regardless, the question remains – How much sacrifice does it take to gain 50% of someone else's right to their own body? Since Con cannot make new argument next round, this point has been laid to rest in favour of Pro.

Finally, Con claims that I ignored his argument about “being the host only equal 50% say”. I didn't ignore this argument because it's not an argument – it's an assertion. Con asserts that owning your own body only gives you 50% say over your own body. I don't know by what measure he is coming up with this figure, and in all likelihood there is no measure, just an assertion.

2.

In this point I argue that the mother contributes more towards the fetus' genome, therefore winning the genetic argument. Con claims the difference is negligible, but this is merely an excuse to dismiss the argument. Surely if the percentage was reversed, he would use it as an argument in his favour, though he would never admit it.

In the case of a company's stock where two owners, each with the same percentage of ownership, have a disagreement, what happens? Nothing. But if one owner has even one share more than the other, regardless of how many times the company has split their stock, that owner is recognized as having majority control. The magic number is 50%, and any amount greater than that, regardless of how small, still sways the decision. Therefore, so long as genetic contribution is taken into account, we must recognize that the mother has the greater say. Con attempts to plead for the fathers case by saying he is naturally disadvantaged. This is irrelevant. Of course he is naturally disadvantaged. That's the point. He contributes less, and that's all there is to it.

As Con has neither conceded nor dissolved this point, it rests in favour of Pro.

3.

In this point I argue that the man gives his sperm to the woman, thereby relinquishing ownership of it to the extent that the mother can choose to use it, or not use it to make a baby. Con's rebuttal, despite being preemtively debunked, is essentially that the man does not relinquish ownership of the sperm because he gave it to her specifically to make a baby. This argument is asinine as the fathers desire to see a baby be made does not in any way trump the woman's right to choose what happens with her own body. Remember, no contract was made prior to conception removing this right from the woman, therefore she retains it exclusively.

Con's return point is a re-statement of this same argument. He argues that the man has the right to have a baby with this woman because he emptied sperm into her. He does not explain how or why this “right” (which is never justified initially beyond his assertion) trumps the woman's right to govern herself. Why does “giving sperm” entitle him to any rights over her person? This sort of logic does not apply to any other relationship or agreement. If there is no legally binding contract stating the man has these rights, and the woman owns herself, then she has the right to not make a baby.

Con states that a bank has the right to refuse service because they have a “clear cut” reason to refuse service, while the woman does not. This is nothing short of grasping at straws. It is of no consequence whether or not the man understands why the woman wants to “refuse service” as it is her body and she has exclusive ownership of it. How would we even qualify what is and is not a “clear cut” reason?

Con claims I am dancing around his argument that the man has rights as well (due to his sacrifices). I am not ignoring this argument because there is no argument, just an assertion. The issue here is that Con is starting from the assumption that the man has say and working backwards. The woman has initial rights because it is her body in question, but any rights the man has over the woman's body need to be justified. They are not assumed. Simply pointing out that the father makes sacrifices (sacrifices that wouldn't even happen assuming the abortion is carried out) is an extremely underdeveloped argument for the reasons I've outlined numerous times. His argument is circular and his conclusion is unwarranted.

4.

Here I argue that since there is no middle-ground option, there can be no true 50/50 split. The 50/50 split only exists to the extent that both parties already agree with one another. Con attempts to refute this by suggesting possible middle-ground options, but none of them are actually “middle ground”. Every one of them results in an abortion not happening. It is readily obvious that “no abortion” does not equal “somewhere between an abortion and no abortion”.

Con does not defend his 4 options, but rather asserts their validity. I will make this as clear as possible; if the dispute is “abort, or not to abort”, then any option that either ends in an abortion or does not end in an abortion is not an alternative to the “abort/ don't abort” dispute. One gets their way and the other does not.

5.

In this point I argue that if child is not property, the only remaining relevant factor is the woman's self-ownership. Con's response is that the man contributes equally to the fetus' genome (this is not true. Even 49.99999% =/= 50%, and as stated in round 1 less than 50% = no say) and goes through hardships, therefore he is entitled to 50% say. These arguments have been laid to rest over and over again, so no further debunking is required.

6.

Con claims that he ignored these arguments because he felt they didn't apply. It is not my burden, nor the voter's burden to guess why Con has dropped an argument, so this is no excuse. However, Con apologizes for not clarifying earlier, so no biggie.

Since these arguments are predicated on a point we do not agree on at this point (if there can be a 50/50 split in say), I will retire these arguments for both our sakes.

Conclusion

Con's argument rests entirely on assertions he has not justified. He is starting from his conclusion and working backwards, which is why his arguments do not stand the test of scrutiny, thereby making his arguments both unsound and invalid. As such, his BoP is unfulfilled and the resolution is affirmed.

I turn the debate over to Con for the final word.

imabench

Con

I'll make this short so that people wont look at the length of this debate and then run off in fear.

1) I pointed out that the father makes numerous sacrifices for the child whether he wants to or not, yet the pro keeps claiming that im only naming financial sacrifices when I have mentioned time and time again the non-financial sacrifices a father makes for his own son or daughter. He goes on to claim that my assertion is false because its only an assertion, then goes on to claim his assertion is right. Ironic I know.

"The female makes sacrifices, the male makes sacrifices, yet the males sacrifices suddenly dont matter at all because the female makes sacrifices" is basically what the pro is arguing.

2) Pro responds to the genetic contribution argument saying that if the genetic argument was in my favor i would have used it but that I wouldnt ever admit to it.... Pro if you dont want to admit you lost one argument thats fine, but dont stoop so low where you claim I would act just as irrational and stubborn if I were in the same situation....

Irrelevant is anything that is insignificant or unimportant, and 0.0006% fits the bill of both of those. The male still contributes the same number of chromosomes as the female and the Pro cannot overcome that.

3) After not rebutting my claim that the male doesnt relinquish sperm to the woman and forfeiting that point, the pro actually claims he did argue against it and then completely lies about what my argument was in the first place. Pro claims that I argue "that the man has the right to have a baby with this woman because he emptied sperm into her" Where I have only argued that the man is not relinquishing consequences or responsibility for his sperm, thereby meaning he is still responsible for his sperm and has not relinquished control of his sperm either. A sperm donor relinquish his sperm, a father does not though.

4) Pro initially responded to my middle ground argument by painting them all as unfair to the woman by assuming in all cases that the woman is the one wanting to abort when it was agreed that it wasnt. All of these alternate scenarios are beneficial to whichever parent is pro-life, which could be either the father or the mother.

The point is that there is middle ground for both sides to pursue if they cant reach a decision, by extension meaning that no one side has to have more say then the other in order for a decision to be made.

5) We both agreed the child is not someone's property and pro goes back to asserting that the only thing that matters is that the woman is the host and continues to ignore that both give the same number of chromosomes and touts his irrelevant .0006% argument again.

6) I didnt ignore those arguments because I felt they didnt apply, I ignored them because you geared them against me and tried to force me to adopt a position I wasnt arguing (That women shouldnt have any say at all in deciding an abortion).

Conclusion:

In the end Pro said that my arguments were wrong because they are just assertions while he went on arguing that his assertions are correct. Ive provided sources and definitions for why my arguments were more then just assertions and the pro hasnt.

Making sacrifices, being responsible for the child's conception, and contributing an equal number of chromosomes to the child are all reasons why the mother should have at least 50% of the say in deciding whether to abort or not. The father also does all of these same things, and therefore is entitled to his half of the say too.

Thats all Im arguing.

As for Voting:

Arguments: Vote either way, Pro kicked a good amount of a** and he debates a lot better then most other people Ive debated, and he did pretty solid in this one in my opinion.

Spelling: I dnot tinhk I scrwed up taht bad but if I ddi you konw waht to do (Chill out, im just trolling)

Conduct: Id ask for this one, but I have a history of being a d*ck when I dont know im being one, so again you know what to do here.... But what would any of you know youre all just mindless peasants..... (AGAIN, just trolling)

Sources: I had 4, but one was for a definition, and two of them were links to the same page that was just two pages long where each page had a different link, so really its 2 to 1...... Not exactly a .0006% difference, but still about even. (one does not simply stop trolling once theyve started)
Debate Round No. 4
63 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 months ago
9spaceking
wow...ima actually lost this one...
Posted by samurai 1 year ago
samurai
yea as you can see i was making a point. i hope you get it.
Posted by imabench 1 year ago
imabench
wait, didnt see the last line when i first read this on my phone.
Posted by imabench 1 year ago
imabench
Samurai thats one of the dumbest things iver ever heard....
Posted by samurai 1 year ago
samurai
if you are not Jewish, you have no say in saying the Holocaust was bad. if you are not on death row, you have no say in the death penalty. if you dont have a gun, you have no say in gun control.
its your body. you cant tell me to wear a seat belt. you cant tell me not to kill myself. i can get a tattoo underage, and you cant tell me no.
as you can see, all this does not make sense. if you agree with everything i said, you have some issues you got to work out.
Posted by RyuuKyuzo 1 year ago
RyuuKyuzo
You know, you're all free to send me a debate challenge. I won't hold my breath, but just FYI.
Posted by zezima 1 year ago
zezima
shame on the father that wants his kid and is willing to take care of it. That poor woman should be aloud to kill her kids because she couldnt keep her legs closed...
Posted by superlative 1 year ago
superlative
I agree Tes95. As soon as the woman has more than 50% voice, the man has no voice any more. The deterioration of marriage and relationships is due to men not manning up and taking up their responsibilities, and women over-stepping the bounds of a fair relationship (possibly in response to the increasing lameness of men). No relationship can work without fairness. A child is the center of any healthy relationship, and to argue that one side has more say than the other is to condemn that relationship. I've never seen a healthy relationship in cases where one side has more say than another where the say should be equal - it's clear to everyone that the one with "less say" is bullied and controlled by the other person.

If you want to argue for that relationship, then good luck to you. I pity the one who ends up with you.
Posted by Tes95 1 year ago
Tes95
This is horrible. The man should have NO voice? Doesn't mean the outcome will change, but NO voice? That relationship is condemned to death. Evidently the woman must not need the man, if she is so arrogant as to believe that he is irrelevant in the child he gave unto her. Keep in mind, the woman allowed the man to insert his penis inside of her. For her to THEN say "Eh... yeah, baby's inconvenient, I'm gonna have it murdered." this is unbelievable. Plus, you say it was PLANNED? Unless that child has one HELL of a disease, and possibly could result in the death of the mother, there is no excuse for a PLANNED pregnancy being terminated. Oh, it is going to be HIGHLY amusing to see you women attempt to find lifelong husbands. This bogus argument, I'm out.
Posted by RyuuKyuzo 1 year ago
RyuuKyuzo
I must say likespeace, you are one on-the-ball guy!
16 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Azul145 1 year ago
Azul145
RyuuKyuzoimabenchTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did not have very good refutations while Pro had better points. I think if Con spent more time on balancing refutations and main points he would have my arguments vote. Neither had spelling mistakes or conduct flaws and both had reliable resources.
Vote Placed by BlackVoid 1 year ago
BlackVoid
RyuuKyuzoimabenchTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Comments
Vote Placed by Maikuru 1 year ago
Maikuru
RyuuKyuzoimabenchTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: I agreed with Con that the difference in genome contribution was negligible and nit-picking, that the father's contribution of genetic material does carry with it some expectation of completion of production, and that the middle ground options presented could potentially circumvent the issue. That said, Con's paternal sacrifice argument was very weak, especially considering the contributions in question range from moderate to meaningless. Also, as Pro pointed out, these sacrifices only exist if the baby is not aborted, which is the purpose of the debate. Arguments to Pro. Con struggled with punctuation throughout, granting Pro grammar.
Vote Placed by TigerTime 1 year ago
TigerTime
RyuuKyuzoimabenchTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: i can see why the mothers rights are a given because it's her body, and i don't think the father really gives up his sperm, but I also don't think that the father should have rights over the mother just because of sacrifice if the mom didnt agree and if these sacrafices might not even happen. I'm also giving sources to pro. I'm seeing a lot of people saying he cherrypicked, but I don't think you guys know what cherrypicking is. It would be cherry picking if there are genetic ways that the father contributes more that pro is ignoring. Con didn't give any sources that disprove what pro was saying, so he didn't show that it's cherry-picked, just that isn't a very big difference.
Vote Placed by The_Chaos_Heart 1 year ago
The_Chaos_Heart
RyuuKyuzoimabenchTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter ockcatdaddy. EDIT: Changing, because someone else apparently did this already. My mistake.
Vote Placed by DoctorDeku 1 year ago
DoctorDeku
RyuuKyuzoimabenchTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I give arguments to Con on the principle that the father makes sacrifices and those sacrifices should be respected. Pro addresses this argument but never provides a satisfactory rebuttal. Con also effectively argues that pro assumes his own premises to be true while rejecting Con's. This premise being the right for a woman to have an abortion devoid of the Father's say. I also give Con sources as he shows that Pro Cherry-picks the only source he provides
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 1 year ago
wrichcirw
RyuuKyuzoimabenchTied
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:34 
Reasons for voting decision: see comments, net +1 to CON.
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 1 year ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
RyuuKyuzoimabenchTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: What the hell ockcatdaddy. Also counter Chicken, because Chuz-Life's vote is legitimate.
Vote Placed by ockcatdaddy 1 year ago
ockcatdaddy
RyuuKyuzoimabenchTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: they should not
Vote Placed by MochaShakaKhan 1 year ago
MochaShakaKhan
RyuuKyuzoimabenchTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: On the six points, 1. pro said several times that the father's sacrifices wouldn't happen if the mother gets an abortion, so the father's sacrifices can't be assumed. Con didn't respond to this, so pro wins this point. 2. It's a pretty big stretch to say that 0.0006% should "sway the say". I find myself agreeing with con here. 3. what I'm getting here is that pro is saying the mother's rights are automatic because it's her body and the father's must be justified. Con is saying the father still has control over his sperm because he never actually said he gave up ownership of it. the thing is, owning sperm and owning the woman's body are not the same thing, so agree with pro here. 4. I didn't see con give an option that fairly split the say, so I have to agree with pro here too. 5. This point looks like just a re-treading of point 1, so nothing to say here. 6. this part of the debate never really went anywhere, so I won't factor this in. i agree with pro on the majority of the points, s