The Instigator
illegalcombat
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
x15
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Restricted abortion should be legal

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 2 votes the winner is...
illegalcombat
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/25/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 857 times Debate No: 88710
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (2)

 

illegalcombat

Pro

Debate Structure

Round 1 - Acceptance only, No arguments
Round 2 - Arguments/rebuttals
Round 3 - Arguments/rebuttals
Round 4 - Rebuttals to things in previous rounds, No new arguments.

Definitions/Explanations

Restricted abortion should be legal = By this I mean abortion should be legal for a woman to choose in the embryonic period of pregnancy.

Abortion - is the end (termination) of a pregnancy. A low-risk surgical procedure called suction aspiration or suction curette is generally used for first trimester abortions. Medical (non-surgical) abortions using medications such as mifepristone (RU486) are available in some clinics.

The embryonic period in humans begins at fertilization (penetration of the egg by the sperm) and continues until the end of the 10th week of gestation (8th week by embryonic age).

If you have any problems with the debate, use the comments section so we can agree to terms before we start the debate.
x15

Con

I accept this debate challenge.
Debate Round No. 1
illegalcombat

Pro

I thank x15 for accepting this debate.

Freedom not restricted unless justified

I think this is axiomatic. It's not just an issue of being free or wanting freedom or arguably freedom being necessary for well being, even if rejected on those grounds to argue otherwise is self defeating, since you presuppose the freedom to argue as your starting point if you were to even try that non freedom should be the starting point rather than freedom.

The right to life/right not to be killed as an absolute is untenable

The right to life/right not to be killed is often invoked as justification for not allowing abortion. Notice those who advocate it don't really believe it them-self, the most common view where intentional killing is justified is self defense (or some variation of). Then we have issues of drone strikes, war, dropping the A bomb, etc etc.

The logical point is that any anti-abortion argument that is built upon such an absolute right to life/right not to be killed has at it's foundation a false premise and can be rejected as such, not to mention the double standard of selectively applying it in the case of pregnancy to deny abortion rights.

Bodily rights argument (the violinist analogy)

Judith Jarvis Thomson asks us to consider the following...

"You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you--we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist is now plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him." [1]

Even granting the violinist a right to life the question is thus, do you have the right to disconnect ? I know of no anti-abortion person who says that you can't.

Like wise it is argued, a pregnant women can take action to be unplugged from the embryo inside of her, she should not be forced to continue with her pregnancy anymore than some one plugged into the violinist to keep them alive, such is yours & hers bodily rights/freedom.

No conflict of rights/interests in the embryonic period

The argument here is that rights most plausibly derive from interests/desires.

We support general rules of not killing cause of our interest/desire in going on living, we support property rights cause we don't want our stuff taken from us, we support freedom of speech, etc etc. Sometimes right/interests/desires can conflict and thus we seek ways in order to manage such conflicts.

In the embryonic period the human organism has no current capacity to have an active or ideal desire, an ideal desire being a desire which would exist had there not being a cognitive distortion. The human organism has no such capacity in the embryonic stage as there is no organized cortical brain activity,

David Boonin writes..." organized cortical brain activity refers to electrical activity in the cerebral cortex of the sort that produces recognizable EEG readings. As I noted in Section 3.5.3, there is no evidence to suggest that this occurs prior to approximately the 25th week of gestation, and ample evidence to suggest that it does begin to occur sometime between the 25th and 32nd week" [2]

Unjust burden argument

As mentioned before sometimes right/interests conflict and we seek to manage such conflicts such as imposing various burdens upon people.

Never the less those burdens have to be justified and be proportional to interest/conflict concerned. For example we don't consider it an unjust burden to demand & enforce that people don't poison the water supply, but we would consider it an unjust burden to say restrict people to only wearing thick wool coats no matter how hot it is.

Now consider the burden being imposed or argued to be imposed on a pregnant woman from the moment of contraception, that being she should be forced to continue even against her will for a period of around 9 months.

Then there is the pain and suffering of pregnancy and that's just when the pregnancy doesn't have any added complications, for those pregnancies that do added pain and suffering can occur even death. Now compare and contrast that to the burden or lack of imposed on billionaires.

So here is the logical point, if we are not justified to imposed a burden on billionaires of the world to give up all their wealth except a few million (still leaving them richer than most) to save thinking, feeling, self aware, suffering, post birth humans, then it would be laughable & disproportionate to then argue that we are justified to force women to give up more, their bodily autonomy and the dangers of pregnancy in order to save less, non thinking, non feeling, non self aware, human embryos.

A case for unequal moral equivalence

5 year old child vs 100, 3day human embryos

Consider the following, you arrive at a burning building, behind one door are 100, 3 day human embryos, behind another a 5 year old child. Who do you try to save first ? Most if not all will try to save the 5 year old, if a 3 day human embryo is morally equivalent to say a 5 year old child then it is simple arithmetic, try to save the 100 hundred all things being equal before you try to save the 1.

But as I argue they are not equal, the 5 year old child not only trumps one 3 day human embryo, it even trumps one hundred.

If abortion is murder (reducto argument)

If it is the case that abortion in the embryonic stage is equivalent to murder as some anti-choicers assert then that means all women who have had an abortion in that period should all be in jail doing sentences for murder, maybe even the death penalty, as well as any future women who will have such an abortion. Think about it, the likes of Charles Manson, Ted Bundy and next to them endless row cells of women who had an abortion in the embryonic stage.

Either lock such women up or accept the abortion is murder premise is false.

I maintain that the abortion is murder premise is more plausibly false to begin with.

Personhood & rights

Consider the following argument...

1) Only a person has a right to life
2) If X has none of the characteristics [1-5] it is certainly not a person.
3) The human organism in the embryonic stage has none of the [1-5] characteristics
C) Therefore the human organism in the embryonic stage is not a person
C2) Therefore the human organism in the embryonic stage is has no right to life

[1-5] refers to the following characteristics....1) Consciousness, 2) Reasoning, 3) Self-motivated activity ,4) The capacity to communicate, 5) The presence of self-concepts, and self-awareness,

Warren argues..."All we need to claim, to demonstrate that a fetus (for my purposes in this debate the human organism in the embryonic stage)is not a person, is that any being which satisfies none of (1)-(5) is certainly not a person. I consider this claim to be so obvious that I think anyone who denied it, and claimed that a being which satisfied none of (1)-(5) was a person all the same, would thereby demonstrate that he had no notion at all of what a person is-perhaps because he had confused the concept of a person with that of genetic humanity." [3]

Consider we are visited by self-aware, intelligent aliens, presumably Con and a pro-lifers would recognize them as persons based on such characteristics.

I look forward to Cons response.

Sources

[1] http://spot.colorado.edu...

[2] https://ethicslab.georgetown.edu...

[3] http://instruct.westvalley.edu...

x15

Con

Thank you for this interesting debate.
Just to keep time frames consistent " I"ll be taking about the pregnancy from Conception\Fertilization to Birth " roughly 266 days.

My Definition: Innocent = not responsible for or directly involved in an event yet suffering its consequences [1]

Your Definition: "Restricted abortion should be legal = By this I mean abortion should be legal for a woman to choose in the embryonic period of pregnancy."

I"m Con therefore my claim: Restricted abortions should not be legal.
My warrants are simple:
1. Abortion terminates an innocent human.
Anytime an abortion happens, an innocent human life is terminated and that goes against our society"s common values of protecting innocent human life. Pro agrees with me only after the 56th day of pregnancy. Pro"s definition of human life as being human is not distinguishable between 56th day and 57th day. What test can a doctor preform to verify a baby is now human and we should protect the innocent human life? Pro gives us no test but just a rough estimation of say after 56th day a baby is now human. Pro is therefore unclear of the exact moment a human is really a human.
2. Human life begins at fertilization.
I subscribe that human life begins at fertilization.
Doctors have test (Urine or Blood) to indicate presence of hCG to confirm a woman is pregnant. [2]
Pro constructs a baby is non-human during the embryotic period in which science has proven otherwise:
"It is important to note that embryological evidence shows that the human embryo is a whole, although obviously immature, human being; it is not a mere part. This is a crucial point: human tissues or human cells, whether body cells or gametes, are indeed human"that is, genetically human"but are not whole human organisms. Neither of these has the active disposition to develop itself to the mature stage of a human being. By contrast, the human embryo, from fertilization onward, is fully programmed to actively develop himself or herself to the next mature stage along the path of human development. [3]
My Impact: Pro and I agree we should not terminate an innocent human being in pregnancy. Pro"s only contention to this statement is during the embryotic period. Pro claims it is okay to terminate a human during their embryotic development. So you have to ask yourself why? Why does Pro flip flop after 56 days of pregnancy? Why not 55th or 58th day? Why doesn"t Pro stay the course through the entire pregnancy and contend abortion should be legal? There is some sort of event horizon that happens for a human to be a human. If we subscribe to Pro"s argument, we go against logical and scientific evidence that during the embryotic period the human embryo is fully programmed to actively develop and is indeed composed of human definable substance. If we can so easily construct our own criteria for viability of a human life (as Pro subscribes) " then humans are at the mercy of those that define the criteria for protection of life. For the best protection of innocent human life, we should indeed protect a human life when it begins at fertilization.

REBUTTLE
-------
Freedom not restricted unless justified: We both subscribe to this and my justification for otherwise is "human life begins at fertilization". Pro"s justification for otherwise is "after the embryotic period".

The right to life/right not to be killed as an absolute is untenable:
What do you say to this contention after a pregnant woman"s embryotic period? Are you selectively applying it in the case of pregnancy to deny abortion rights? I think we can throw this contention out unless you yourself don"t use it in a double standard.

Bodily rights argument (the violinist analogy):
Why doesn"t the pregnant woman have "bodily rights" after the embryotic period? I think we can throw this contention out unless you are willing to see it through until the very end of pregnancy.

No conflict of rights/interests in the embryonic period:

I"ll reject that and submit:
"Again, the human embryo, from fertilization forward, develops in a single direction by an internally directed process: the developmental trajectory of this entity is determined from within, not by extrinsic factors, and always toward the same mature state, from the earliest stage of embryonic development onward. This means that the embryo has the same nature"it is the same kind of entity, a whole human organism"from fertilization forward; there is only a difference in degree of maturation between any of the stages in the development of the living being."[3]

That indeed is a conflict of rights.

Unjust burden argument:
"she should be forced to continue even against her will for a period of around 9 months"

Pro will force women against their will if pregnant after the embryotic period (56 days) " total of 210 days.
Con will force women against their will if pregnant after fertilization " total of 266 days.

56 days is not unjust burden.

A case for unequal moral equivalence:
Again we can throw out this contention as Pro subscribes to saving babies after embryotic period in a pregnancy.

If abortion is murder (reducto argument):
I"m not here to debate what the law should state and penalty actions if restricted abortion is illegal.

Personhood & rights:
This contention is non-factor as we can apply that to humans outside the womb and find that we should terminate humans with such criteria.

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[2] http://www.early-pregnancy-tests.com...
[3] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Debate Round No. 2
illegalcombat

Pro

I thank X15 for their opening argument.

Freedom not restricted unless justified

Con seems to agree with the point here and seeks to establish that abortion is murder in the embryonic period to justify not allowing such an abortion by a pregnant woman.

Humanity

Con asserts that I deny the humanity of human things. I talk about things like 3 day HUMAN embryos, HUMAN organism, HUMAN fetus, embryonic period in HUMANS begins at fertilization, etc etc.

As such dis-regard all claims where Con says or implies otherwise.

Cons: Innocence

Cons claims the human organism in the embryonic period is innocent, I agree & disagree, it depends in what sense you talking about innocence.

1) Innocent in the sense of being something which has not done any immoral action.

2) Innocent in the sense of being a moral agent making choices who has chosen not to take an immoral action.

The human organism embryonic stage is innocent in the first sense, but then again so is dirt & rocks. The human organism is clearly not innocent in the second sense.

The right to life/right not to be killed as an absolute is untenable

Recall how I here that..."The logical point is that any anti-abortion argument that is built upon such an absolute right to life/right not to be killed has at it's foundation a false premise and can be rejected as such, not to mention the double standard of selectively applying it in the case of pregnancy to deny abortion rights."

Con doesn't deny there can be situations where killing a human is justified, BUT that can only be the case if the right not to be killed is NOT absolute. Contra Con we are not going to just throw out this contention.

Also consider a pregnancy where complications are such that either the woman or fetus can live, but not both, and fail to act means both die. I argue that most if not all, will choose the life of the mother over the fetus and it is the right decision to make, once again showing the right not to be killed in the ABSOLUTE sense is false.

The logical point is the fact that abortion kills something human does in of it's self justify that it is a wrongful act/murder.

Bodily rights argument (the violinist analogy)

Recall here the argument that..."Like wise it is argued, a pregnant women can take action to be unplugged from the embryo inside of her, she should not be forced to continue with her pregnancy anymore than some one plugged into the violinist to keep them alive, such is yours & hers bodily rights/freedom."

Con wrongly asserts that I assume a woman should not be allowed an abortion after the embryonic period, as their counter arguments that rests upon that false assumption don't apply here.

I am open to the idea that maybe abortion should be more restricted in the later stages, but being open to that possibility is not the same as just assuming it, I would need to see arguments in support such a thing that can withstand critical scrutiny.

It seems to me that Con doesn't deny that you can choose to be unplugged from the violinist.

No conflict of rights/interests in the embryonic period

Recall how I argued that...In the embryonic period the human organism has no current capacity to have an active or ideal desire, an ideal desire being a desire which would exist had there not being a cognitive distortion. The human organism has no such capacity in the embryonic stage as there is no organized cortical brain activity,"

Contra Con such an interest does not exist, since to have such an interest/desire requires a certain mental capacity, a capacity that does not exist in the human organism at such an early stage.

Unjust burden argument

Recall how I argued that..."So here is the logical point, if we are not justified to imposed a burden on billionaires of the world to give up all their wealth except a few million (still leaving them richer than most) to save thinking, feeling, self aware, suffering, post birth humans, then it would be laughable & disproportionate to then argue that we are justified to force women to give up more, their bodily autonomy and the dangers of pregnancy in order to save less, non thinking, non feeling, non self aware, human embryos."

Con wrongly assumed that I pre-supposed that a woman should have no choice after the embryonic period.

A case for unequal moral equivalence

(5 year old vs 100, 3 day human embryos)

Con doesn't seem to deny that one should save the 5 year old over 100, 3 day human embryos.

(Mother vs Fetus)

Also consider a pregnancy where complications are such that either the woman or fetus can live, but not both, and fail to act means both die. I argue that most if not all, will choose the life of the mother over the fetus. This only makes sense if the moral value of different human organisms is not equal.

(Spontaneous abortions)

Also consider that about 60% of zygotes do not survive to term, up to half of all fertilized eggs die and are lost (aborted) spontaneously, often unknown to the pregnant woman. No one considers spontaneous abortion of zygotes or blastocysts as morally significant.

The logical point here being that not all things that are human organisms have equal moral value.

If abortion is murder (reducto argument)

Recall here how I argued that if you accept the abortion is MURDER premise and apply it consistency and follow it's logic where it gets you, mass incarceration of woman (death penalty where applicable) who have had an abortion in the embryonic period.

Con doesn't deny the logic here, Con just doesn't want to talk about it.

Allow me to add weight to the absurdity here.

Consider a rapist, after raping a woman he tells her, if you end up pregnant and you have an abortion in the embryonic period your worse than I am, I am a rapist but you would be a murder. (Hey if abortion is murder he ain't wrong).

Also consider if such an abortion is viewed as murder the rapist gets convicted of rape, but following after is the woman who he raped is now in court because she had such an abortion and thus gets convicted of murder. The woman now will be doing more years (or death penalty) than the rapist.

Again you can get out of this by just looking the other way, oh I don't want women in jail on a murder charge for abortions, but that is just an inconsistent position for the advocate that abortion is murder.

I still maintain the premise that abortion is murder in the embryonic period is more plausibly false.

Personhood & rights

Con says..."This contention is non-factor as we can apply that to humans outside the womb and find that we should terminate humans with such criteria."

Con thinks this is wrong because they are assuming that any and all human organisms make it a person because of its humanity, I don't think that is tenable for the following reasons....

1) It's makes person hood dependent on a morally irrelevant property, eg whether something has human dna.

2) It's specisist, humans declaring that humanity (in the genetic sense) is what makes a person, excludes everything else from personhood that doesn't have human dna.

Also recall my argument that we would recognize self-aware, intelligent aliens as persons based on those characteristics and not deny them personhood cause they lacked human dna.

Con doesn't seem to disagree we should recognize such aliens as persons on such characteristics.

Also consider..."This sense of self is critical to our status as persons. In fact, philosophers often use the terms self and person interchangeably: a capacity for self-awareness is necessary for full personhood. One has a sense of self if one is able to entertain first-person thoughts, and if one possesses first-person knowledge." [1]

The argument here still is that the human organism in the embryonic period is not a person and thus does not have a right to life (however that right is defined).

I look forward to Cons reply.

Sources

[1] http://socrates.berkeley.edu...
x15

Con

Thank you Pro for your statements and your debating skills in round 3.

I will submit some rewording to help in any confusion.

1.Abortion terminates an innocent living human organism.
Pro is trying figure out in what sense I"m using "innocent":
Pro says "" I agree & disagree, it depends in what sense you talking about innocence"

So what I mean is a "living human organism" is not responsible for or directly involved in the abortion yet suffers the abortion consequences. The consequence is that the once living human organism is no longer alive. There are of course exceptions to this statement as some aborted human organisms have survived the abortion process.

I think it is clear then, any kind of morality statement rest clearly on those that are responsible for the abortion event not the innocent one.

Freedom not restricted unless justified

"Con seems to agree with the point here and seeks to establish that abortion is murder in the embryonic period to justify not allowing such an abortion by a pregnant woman."

I do agree with freedom not restricted unless justified.
I think it is justifiable to restrict abortions and make them illegal. I will not debate what law makers decide on what the law should say or the penalty associated by breaking the law. Pro keeps pushing that I must declare it murder. But that is Pro"s assumptions only. I"m simply saying abortions should be illegal during the embryonic period as well as with the rest of the pregnancy without stating any wording of the law or wording of the penalty or wording of any exceptions to the law.

Humanity

Con asserts that I deny the humanity of human things. I talk about things like 3 day HUMAN embryos, HUMAN organism, HUMAN fetus, embryonic period in HUMANS begins at fertilization, etc etc.

Okay good - I don"t want to deny you humanity.
I just want to get some clarifications though:
1. What exact point in a pregnancy, event horizon if you will, that you think abortion is no longer appropriate?
2. Are we debating restricted abortions or unrestricted abortions?

Let us look at Virginia's Abortion Law:
"The state of Virginia restrict second-trimester abortions to licensed hospitals, with third-trimester abortions legal only to save the life or medical well-being of the mother. Virginia law also requires women seeking abortions to undergo a transvaginal ultrasound of their fetus prior to the procedure."[1]

Pro are you saying by "restricted abortion" that you would subscribe to Virginia's abortion restrictions in the third trimester? - " third-trimester abortions legal only to save the life or medical well-being of the mother". [1]

I'm not ignoring any contentions " I think it's more appropriate for me to clarify before any further rebuttals - and I will use my last round to finish any rebuttals and to finish my side of the debate.

Good evening,
x15

Sources
[1] http://statelaws.findlaw.com...
Debate Round No. 3
illegalcombat

Pro

I think it would of being better to ask for clarifications in the comments section since I think Cons questions can be taken care of quickly enough without wasting a round, but since it's to late for that.

Con questions.

1. What exact point in a pregnancy, event horizon if you will, that you think abortion is no longer appropriate?

I refer to Con to the previous round..."I am open to the idea that maybe abortion should be more restricted in the later stages, but being open to that possibility is not the same as just assuming it, I would need to see arguments in support such a thing that can withstand critical scrutiny."

Since among other things I believe that rights/interests need to be balanced against one another in any given situation where they conflict, I am open to the possibility that maybe in the latter stages of pregnancy the rights/interests equation changes so much that a restriction on the bodily right becomes at some point becomes justifiable.

Consider Roe vs Wade..."Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion. It was decided simultaneously with a companion case, Doe v. Bolton. The Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion, but that this right must be balanced against the state's two legitimate interests in regulating abortions: protecting women's health and protecting the potentiality of human life.[1] Arguing that these state interests became stronger over the course of a pregnancy, the Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the third trimester of pregnancy." [1]

2. Are we debating restricted abortions or unrestricted abortions?

I refer Con to round 1..."Restricted abortion should be legal = By this I mean abortion should be legal for a woman to choose in the embryonic period of pregnancy."

I would remind Con as per rules for round 4, Rebuttals to things in previous rounds, No new arguments.

Sources

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...
x15

Con

Good Morning,
Thank you Pro for some clarification.

My warrants for taking the other side for Pro's claim of Restricted Abortions should be Legal are simply:
1. Abortion terminates an innocent living human organism.
2. Human life begins at fertilization.

Pro's main arguments against my warrants are:
1. Protecting the potentiality of human life is not warranted during the early development of the living human organism.

This is why I wasted a whole round to try and find out the exact point when Pro thinks we should protect the potentiality of human life in a pregnancy.

This is the critical point because at what point does a living human life deserve to be recognized as a human and receive protections?

There is no clear point for Pro's side with only statements of "I am open to the idea that maybe abortion should be more restricted in the later stages".

My argument is that protecting the potentiality of human life is at a clear point - human life begins at fertilization.

Why?
"the human embryo, from fertilization onward, is fully programmed to actively develop himself or herself to the next mature stage along the path of human development". [1]

How do we know a woman is at the stage of fertilization?
Doctors have test (Urine or Blood) to indicate presence of hCG to confirm a woman is pregnant. [2]

I want to make clear as well that my contention is that the human embryo is not merely human tissue or human cells, human DNA, etc..., rather:
"It is important to note that embryological evidence shows that the human embryo is a whole, although obviously immature, human being; it is not a mere part. This is a crucial point: human tissues or human cells, whether body cells or gametes, are indeed human"that is, genetically human"but are not whole human organisms. Neither of these has the active disposition to develop itself to the mature stage of a human being. By contrast, the human embryo, from fertilization onward, is fully programmed to actively develop himself or herself to the next mature stage along the path of human development." [1]

You have to be honest and ask your selves, at what point does a human life deserve protections? I think it is clear from Con's position. I think it is completely unclear from Pro"s arguments if human life deserves protections during pregnancy or even after birth.
Pro gives us criteria
2) If X has none of the characteristics [1-5] it is certainly not a person.
[1-5] refers to the following characteristics....1) Consciousness, 2) Reasoning, 3) Self-motivated activity ,4) The capacity to communicate, 5) The presence of self-concepts, and self-awareness

If we use Pro's criteria to terminate living human organisms, there will be no restrictions in abortions, there will be living human organisms outside the womb that can be terminated.

Let us look at Virginia's Abortion Law again:
"The state of Virginia restrict second-trimester abortions to licensed hospitals, with third-trimester abortions legal only to save the life or medical well-being of the mother. Virginia law also requires women seeking abortions to undergo a transvaginal ultrasound of their fetus prior to the procedure."[3]

First-trimester = unrestricted, second-trimester = only licensed hospitals can do the abortion, and finally third-trimester NOT legal but can be done to save life or medical well-being of the mother.

At the third-trimester, Virginia State says - now we think abortions at this juncture shouldn't be legal anymore for some reason. What is that reason? What is that criteria of such a significant event of terminating a human organism or not terminating a human organism? What is the significant difference as to now (the third-trimester) we should protect the unborn child. What significant difference between the third-trimester and the day before the third-trimester?

I believe with my (Con's) warrants, we can have an exact point with no doubts when a human organism should be protected and not terminated.

Pro says "I am open to the idea that maybe abortion should be more restricted in the later stages, but being open to that possibility is not the same as just assuming it, I would need to see arguments in support such a thing that can withstand critical scrutiny."; therefore, I submit that Pro doesn't have a clear point when a human organism should be protected.

I'm not sure why Pro uses "restricted" in the claim if you don't really mean restricted?

Vote for Con to protect of the little human organism trying to make it into the world. I know the appearance isn't pretty during the embryotic period but it still a whole human trying to make it to the next stage in maturity.

Thanks for the debate,
X15

sources
[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
[2] http://www.early-pregnancy-tests.com......
[3] http://statelaws.findlaw.com......
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by x15 7 months ago
x15
Thanks for the comments

I have a lot to learn about debating as I just starting learning the art.

I still think this debate should say "Unrestricted Abortions should be legal". If it says restricted and Pro gives the restriction period - then it is illegal after that period as per the definition of "restriction". Most of Pro's contentions will full apart as she will be forced to defend the restriction period herself. But maybe I'm completely wrong with that opinion.

What I find interesting in the abortion debate is when does a human life deserve to have protections? It's clear the US has protections after a child is born - parents are responsible to a high degree all the way until 18 years of age. Before a child is born - murky waters - well maybe until the last trimester and my god we better do something - it looks like a baby. This world is strange how we can disassociate from what we are really terminating in an abortion no matter what the maturity level in the pregnancy.

As an atheist, I'm not saying there is a pre-written moral code we should abide by, rather just calling out reality and the reality is an abortion ends a innocent human life. There is no sweet way to say it. But if majority agrees with abortions then as they say the mob rules and what do I know.

When I was a kid back in the 70's - I remember climbing a tree and discovering a birds nest. I picked up the eggs in the nest with amazement and wonder. Putting the eggs back into the nest I was exited in the notion of watching the entire processes of hatching and so forth. I ran back the next day to discover all the eggs at the bottom of the tree. I realized that touching the eggs wasn't a good idea and feeling bad I knelt down and touch the exposed embryo. I felt the small parts of the bird and took flight into the world of atheism and kindness.

I learned from this debate - If you all don't mind vote on my debate with the elephants- it's up for vote.
Posted by NothingSpecial99 7 months ago
NothingSpecial99
As promised, another vote from the Voters' Union
Posted by NothingSpecial99 7 months ago
NothingSpecial99
The right to life/right not to be killed as an absolute is untenable:

This argument isn"t particularly strong to begin with. It doesn"t bode well for the argument if it is hard for me as a voter to follow the logic. Pro should have definitely explained this argument more thoroughly. There also appear to be some bare assertions such as " Notice those who advocate it don't really believe it themself" without substantiating it with let"s say quotes from pro-life activists. This argument does not hold any weight therefore I will not go into detail with Con"s contentions and Pro"s defense.

The Violinist Argument:

Now this argument I am familiar with. Con seems to concede this argument through silence in the later rounds. This is a major concession on Con"s side as this argument pertains to the ethics of abortion.
Posted by NothingSpecial99 7 months ago
NothingSpecial99
No conflict of rights/interests in the embryonic period:

Con concedes that rights are derived from desires. In Con"s first rebuttal from this by pasting an excerpt from an academic journal. It is an instant turn-off for me as he doesn"t go into further detail in explaining it. The excerpt itself does not directly contest Pro"s argument. In the later rounds, Con also concedes this argument through silence.

Unjust burden argument:

The argument itself seems to hold weight. Con"s rebuttals were weak by strawmanning Pro"s stance and ultimately conceding through silence.

A case for unequal moral equivalence:

Con concedes this point again through silence and his only contention was a strawman of Pro"s stance. However, let me point out that Pro"s argument is based on assumptions that he/she did not back up such as that most people would save the child instead of the embryos.
Posted by NothingSpecial99 7 months ago
NothingSpecial99
If abortion is murder argument:

Con concedes yet again. Bad thing too as I believe this is a rather convincing argument.

Personhood and rights:

My biggest issue with Pro"s initial argument is that there are many competing theories as to when "personhood" begins. Pro has not given me any reason to accept this particular criteria when determining whether a fetus is a person or not. Although Con actually produces a somewhat meaningful rebuttal, it lacks elaboration therefore Pro wins this case.

Con"s arguments:
Since all of Pro"s arguments stand, Con would have to have made a very strong initial argument to counter and have his/her argument stand. However, this is not the case. Con"s arguments are poorly organized, and do not hold enough weight in this debate to compete with Pro"s arguments. Since Con"s initial arguments aren"t strong enough to stand against Pro"s arguments, anything said during rebuttals and contentions cannot win Con a victory. Therefore, I give this debate to Pro.
Posted by TUF 7 months ago
TUF
Another VU vote promised
Posted by NothingSpecial99 8 months ago
NothingSpecial99
Greetings, here from the Voter's Union to let you know that I'll be voting on this
Posted by stschiffman 8 months ago
stschiffman
I meant "Deja vu"
Posted by illegalcombat 8 months ago
illegalcombat
Practice makes perfect.......
Posted by stschiffman 8 months ago
stschiffman
D"j" vu
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by NothingSpecial99 7 months ago
NothingSpecial99
illegalcombatx15Tied
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: RFD in the comments
Vote Placed by TUF 7 months ago
TUF
illegalcombatx15Tied
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: https://docs.google.com/document/d/10wU1z6zQ_vUB3f3HYRkZnbGIgCzRNxjdxXJXIrC4HKE/edit?usp=sharing