The Instigator
EthanHuOnDebateOrg
Con (against)
Winning
19 Points
The Contender
stinkbomb
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points

Should abortion be allowed?

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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 4 votes the winner is...
EthanHuOnDebateOrg
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/26/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,370 times Debate No: 20070
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (4)

 

EthanHuOnDebateOrg

Con

I thank my opponent for this debate, and look forward to an interesting discussion.
This round will merely be acceptance, and rounds will proceed in normal format, as in case introduction and refutations.

My opponent's BoP will be to demonstrate the justification of abortion on not only legal premises, but also that it is morally sound. My BoP will be to adequately refute his points and provide points of consideration for why the practice should not be allowed.

I would be glad to provide a few definitions for the purpose of this debate, as follows:
1> Abortion: any of various surgical methods for terminating a pregnancy, especially during the first six months.
2> Allowed: to give permission to or for; permit

I thank my opponent, and wish him a great discussion.
stinkbomb

Pro

My opponent's definition of allowed is not adequate or good enough for this debate, because allowed actually means to let something be permissible. That is why we can look to my definitions, and see that my opponent provides unfair definitions, and should be disregarded. This should be worth the conduct point.

Other than that, my budren of proof is actually only to tell why abortion is not very bad, not why it is allowed. He is once again messing this up, and thus the burden of proof is not accurate.

Other than those, I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
EthanHuOnDebateOrg

Con

I thank my opponent, PRO, and appreciate this opportunity for discussion on this very topic.

Preface:
-----------
Before I introduce my case, however, there are a few points of consideration that I must specify in order to clear up misunderstanding and to help the clarity of this debate.

He introduces his alternate definition of 'allowed', for which he strongly endorses with the mere justification that my "definition of allowed is not adequate or good enough for this debate, because allowed actually means to let something be permissible". As such, we find immediately that my proposed definition adheres to the exact same concept, and is, in fact, a re-wording of exactly the same definition.

Indeed, PRO states that he should be given the conduct point, while we find absolutely *no* justification for this statement, and furthermore, no source for his as well. We thus find it to be easily disregarded in the context of this debate.

Now, he endorses a certain BoP for which he states he does not have to justify why abortion should be allowed. This is a blatant contradiction to the very resolution, "Should abortion be allowed?" As such, I advise my opponent to look more carefully towards the explicit resolution when proposing a specific Burden of Proof.
_______________________

As for my argument, I would like to introduce a central syllogistic argument that provides the grounds for all of my arguments. There are, essentially, only a few simple premises that allow us to deduce our conclusion for abortion:

P[1]> All human beings deserve the categorical right to life.
P[2]> All unborn entities at the end of the fertilization period are considered human beings.
P[3]> Abortion denies the intrinsic right to life for infants and unborn entities.
C: All unborn entities and infants at the end of the fertilization period deserve the categorical right to life, and thus abortion should not be allowed.

The moral relevance of an abortion is, often proposed by PRO, dependent upon the foundational aspects of a human entity, and varies accordingly with the being's size and mental faculties as well as capacities. However, this is irrelevant to the central premise of life. The stages of a pregnancy as well as the stages of development of the fetus are characterized by and given apt consideration for an intrinsic and inherent human being, not the condition of living.

Categorical Right to Life
-----------------------------
Now, the intrinsic right to life is an inherently categorical one, the concept of which was endorsed by Immanuel Kant. Rights or certain privileges may vary as accordingly dependent upon the individual or entity that is being considered for, yet there remain certain categorical rights that are universally bestowed without consideration for state of being.

I am either in existence, or not. There is no middle ground for which I may claim to be becoming, for the such referred to 'becoming' is merely reinforcing the concept of existence, and only 'becoming' the individual that I am today. As such, we find that the right to life is a categorical one that is bestowed depending upon the existence of an individual or entity for which it is applied.

The very existence of human life entails the categorical right to life, for which it would not only be immoral to deny, but also to ignore the fundamental and foundational concepts of life and existence. Under not only our social contract but also a moral one, we are entitled and obligated to bestow the categorical and intrinsic right to life for all human beings that it presides over and influences.

Human Beings
-------------------
The unborn entity that remains inside the womb after the period of fertilization retains the fundamental and core aspects that allow us to categorize it as a definitive model of human life. No matter what stage of development it currently is in, the inherent objective status of the fact that it is a human being remains stolidly clear. Indeed, from the very moment that the fertilization period ceases to be in constant effect, the resulting fetus and unborn entity claims its objective status as a human being in our society.

To terminate the pregnancy during the stage of fertilization, thus, can be obviously seen to be categorized as a whole new concept, for the fetus has not been yet formed. At such a point in time, the termination of such a pregnancy does not adhere to the definition of an abortion, for there remains no entity to be neutralized for the stopping of such a pregnancy.

As such, any termination of a pregnancy after the fertilization may be successfully categorized, by the very definition, as an abortion. We find it thus imminently clear that the fetus after the fertilization period obtains objective status in a societal as well as scientific context as a live, responsive, human being.

Obtaining Categorical Right to Life
----------------------------------------------
Now, looking in retrospective at the past premises, we find it adequately and sufficiently justified that as all human beings and entities deserve the categorical and universal right to life, and as I have justified that all unborn entities past the period of fertilization may be successfully categorized as human entities, we find it clear that the conclusion for abortion may be reached.

As abortion in of itself, as I have defined it, and as my opponent fails to contest, supplements us with the central idea and method for terminating a pregnancy after the fertilization period. As such, through my justification for the categorical right to life that is intrinsic to all human beings, and abortion fails to accept just such an inherent concept, we find that abortion should not be allowed.

Indeed, to claim or assert that abortion should be allowed is unjustifiable by any standard, whether it be moral relevancy or a social contract. If we are to preserve intrinsic categorical rights for humans, for which it would be irrational to deny, then claiming the categorical right to life for human entities past the fertilization period is completely and utterly justified.

By providing adequate justification for the grounds and premises [1] and [2], we find it sufficient to come to the conclusion that abortion should NOT be allowed, for it denies unborn *human* entities the inherent and categorical right to life. Thus I strongly urge a CON vote.
stinkbomb

Pro

My opponent starts off by saying that my proposed definition is completey the same concept. HOWEVER, it is exactly not the same. i have already proven to you guys that alloewd is not his definition, because it is not good enough to provide for the FULL resolution. My definition, however, actually is much more general-friendly, and that is why he is being abusive in his definition, and thus should be worth the conduct point.

Next, he talks about the burden of proof. Again, he fails to understand that I actually should be able to decide what my burden of proof is, because I want to start and show everyone a new side to this debate, not just should it be allowed or not. That is why he is once again making false claims that you all should disregard. I HAVE looked at the resolution, but it still is positively clear that my burden of proof is much more accurate to judge the debate.

Arguments:
My only argument, although it is a very strong one, is that abortion SHOULD BE allowed, because of the big fact that a mother should have possession and control over her child. It is one thing to say that I can throw a toy away, but another to say a mother can throw her child away. Once she has become pregnant, but still not had her child, she is most definitely still allowed to stop her pregnancy.

Also, what if it is by rape? Although it is HIGHly unlikely, we have to prepare for all circumstances, don't we? if she was raped, then she should be able to stop her baby from coming to the world, because it wasnt her choice.

Rebutttal:
Firstly, my opponent's so called "syllogistic argument" is clearly false. There are NO, I repeat, NO rights that are actually belonging to everyone. How can I say that a cow has the right to life when I want to eat it? That is OBVIOUSLY a contradiction, and that is why you will be voting on my side, because as he tells us, that his syllogistic argument is central to all of his argumnts, and if I prove that it is wrong, as I just have, then we find that it is completely invalid.

That is why all of you guys can disregard this argument that he makes an argument that is clearly not possible to our society. NOw, since I HAVE made good and valid arguments, you will CLEARLY be voting for PRO. THank you, and have a fun discussion.
Debate Round No. 2
EthanHuOnDebateOrg

Con

I thank my opponent for the lively discussion.

Now, we return once again to his 'definition'. Looking in retrospective, however, we find immediately that I have not only justified how exactly PRO's definition is completely adherent to mine, but also that there is absolutely no deviation between the two. Furthermore, he provides absolutely no sources for us to refer to, and thus his credibility and plausibility may be questioned.

He once again goes on to write about his so called Burden of Proof. Interestingly enough, we find that PRO is unwilling to abide by the explicit terms of the resolution. Now, without referring to the exact wording of the resolution, what purpose would there exist for such a debate to continue? Indeed, I find this fascinating that PRO would propose such a BoP that is irrelevant to not only the context of the resolution, but also contradictory towards the very nature of a burden of proof.

Throughout, PRO has been trying to gain the conduct point, whereas there exists no form of misconduct on my part that allows him to receive such. His misinterpretation of my definition as 'abusive' is, if I may say so, unfounded and most definitely invalid, for his proposed definition provides absolutely no variance at all as well. Looking to such a regard, I hope that his false accusations of courtesy may be disregarded for voting issues.

Syllogism:
________
Now, PRO's sole refutation against my syllogistic argument is to propose a most interesting case that, for all my charitable intentions, I must pronounce as completely irrelevant. He states that "How can I say that a cow has the right to life when I want to eat it?". Indeed, what PRO fails to take into consideration, and yet which forms the foundation and fundamental premises for all my arguments, is that such a categorical right to life, as I propose, is bestowed upon *human* entities, once they have surpassed the fertilization period.

As such, we find it immediate that his refutation falls sadly short of justifying his position, and my syllogism may definitely still be referred to for validity.

As for his arguments, we find major flaws in both. PRO writes that "a mother should have possession and control over her child." Looking to the context of the debate as well as my introduced arguments, it becomes clear that the control and possession that a mother is capable and deserves to exercise over her child is most definitely justified until she ventures to terminate her child's life.

Looking in retrospective, we find that as I introduced the categorical right to life, the line for which we draw control ends at just such a parameter; a mother is no more allowed to kill her unborn child than she is allowed to terminate my life or your life. A human entity in existence deserves such an intrinsic and inherent categorical right, for which my opponent fails to recognize.

Next, he writes about the possibility of rape, for which he even concedes that it is "Highly unlikely". As such, even the possibility of rape may not be justified for by an abortion, for emergency postcoital contraception pills provide us with sufficient methods of termination while still within the fertilization period. A woman, even after the trauma of a rape, is absolutely capable of obtaining such pills, which work up to 72 hours, or 3 days after intercourse. [1]

Looking to the framework of arguments, we find that PRO, my opponent, fails to refute any of my arguments, instead only providing a feeble rebuttal against the syllogism for which I have already demonstrated to be unfounded in nature. As for his arguments, none are sufficient or adequate to allow us to deduce that abortion should be allowed, based upon the above reasons.

As such, we find no justification for abortion, on moral or societal grounds. In regard, my opponent provides no adequate or sufficient refutations that allow us to deduce his position on this resolution, and thus I strongly urge a CON vote.

_________

Sources:
[1]: Stockton, Rachel. "ella:" Contraceptive Method or Abortion Agent? Food Consumer. June 12, 2010./

http://www.foodconsumer.org...
stinkbomb

Pro

I thank my opponent for the fast response.

HOWEVER, there still remains the definition debate and the BoP debate. HE is still very stubborn when claiming that his definition is exactly the same as mine, and this, as I have already proved, is ABSOLUTELY not true. As for the BoP, I am absolutely allowed to tell which burden I wish to go by, because it is MY case I am writing, and not his.

That is why I should DEFINITELY receive the conduct point, and he is only distorting arguments to not let me do so, but that would be very unfair.

Arguments:
He says that he is only talking about *humans*. However, again, there is an obvious rebuttal to this. How can you talk about only humans when we are talking about rights? Are there not rights for other animals? Or are there only HUMAN rights in this world? NO, that is definitely not true, which is why you can not only talk about humans.

That is why his syllogism is wrong, and you shoudln't vote on that at all.

Later, he talks about rape and possession. Firstly, what if the woman can't get a pill in 3 days? What if she's stuck in a mountain where there's no Safeway, or 7-Eleven, or pharmacies? Then she can't avoid an abortion, right? Most definitely. He also talks about possession, but it is exactly because of stuff like rape that she is allowed to control what happens to her child. He is confusing this AGAIN, and that is why you must VOTE for PRO, because he really has nothing to argue, because his whole argument is false, like I've showed.

That is why a vote for PRO would be the most LOGICAL decision. Thank you! (:
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by wiploc 2 years ago
wiploc
Let me know if I'm doing you any good, Ethan. If you don't like this stuff, there's no reason for me to post it.
Posted by wiploc 2 years ago
wiploc
===continued===

: P[1]> All human beings deserve the categorical right to life.
: P[2]> All unborn entities at the end of the fertilization period are considered human beings.
: P[3]> Abortion denies the intrinsic right to life for infants and unborn entities.
: C: All unborn entities and infants at the end of the fertilization period deserve the categorical right to
: life, and thus abortion should not be allowed.

P1: All human beings have a right to life.
P2: We are all human beings from the moment of conception.
C1: Therefore, we all have a right to life from the moment of conception.
C2: Therefore, abortion violates a human being's right to life.
P3: Violation of rights should not be allowed.
C3: Therefore, abortion should not be allowed.

Which one is more readable? Which one has excess terms that are not understandable in context and never used anyway, and therefore better eliminated? Which one is actual valid syllogisms.
Posted by wiploc 2 years ago
wiploc
: P[1]> All human beings deserve the categorical right to life.

Deserve? So they don't actually have it?

Categorical? A reference to Kant? Or just an intensifier, like "very much"?

P1: All human beings have a right to life.

: P[2]> All unborn entities at the end of the fertilization period are considered human beings.

Entities? Like pure energy beasts from Star Treck?

Fertilization period?

Considered? So maybe they aren't really, but we just happen to think of them that way?

P2: We are all human beings from the moment of conception.

C1: Therefore, we all have a right to life from the moment of conception.

: P[3]> Abortion denies the intrinsic right to life for infants and unborn entities.

Intrinsic? You're making the irrelevant claim that we can have a value without a valuer? Why open that can of worms when it has nothing to do with your argument. Are we supposed to see a relationship between intrinsicness and categoricality? Or is this just another intensifier, as in, they really really really have the right to life?

Denies? Abortion prevents them from having the right, so there's no harm done after all? You want, "violates."

And anyway, this is your conclusion. If abortion violates rights, then you win the debate, right? Don't use your conclusion as a premise. It makes your argument circular.

C2: Therefore, abortion violates a human being's right to life.

: C: All unborn entities and infants at the end of the fertilization period deserve the categorical right to
: life, and thus abortion should not be allowed.

I don't know that you need to add this, but if you want to add it on, perhaps:

P3: Violation of rights should not be allowed.

C3: Abortion should not be allowed.

===continued===
Posted by wiploc 2 years ago
wiploc
: Before I introduce my case, however, there are a few points of consideration that I must specify in
: order to clear up misunderstanding and to help the clarity of this debate.

First, some clarifications:

: He introduces his alternate definition of 'allowed', for which he strongly endorses with the mere
: justification that my "definition of allowed is not adequate or good enough for this debate, because
: allowed actually means to let something be permissible". As such, we find immediately that my
: proposed definition adheres to the exact same concept, and is, in fact, a re-wording of exactly the
: same definition.
:
: indeed, PRO states that he should be given the conduct point, while we find absolutely *no*
: justification for this statement, and furthermore, no source for his as well. We thus find it to be easily
: disregarded in the context of this debate.

Pro disputes my definition of, "allowed," and offers his own. But his is the same as mine. Where I say something allowed is permitted, he says it is permissible. For this he wants the conduct point?
Posted by wiploc 2 years ago
wiploc
: My opponent's BoP will be to demonstrate the justification of abortion on not only legal premises, but
: also that it is morally sound. My BoP will be to adequately refute his points and provide points of
: consideration for why the practice should not be allowed.

That's hard to read and understand, and there's no benefit, no upside, to the difficulty. All you're saying is,

- Burden of proof is shared. Pro must show that abortion is legal and moral. I must show that it's not.

Or, if that's not what you're saying, then I guessed the meaning wrong because the prose was opaque.

I'll offer more examples above.
Posted by EthanHuOnDebateOrg 2 years ago
EthanHuOnDebateOrg
wiploc. awkard and stilted? I'm just curious, actually. I merely want to improve and learn as much as I can. Can you explain how it is so, that I may improve in the near future? Thank you so much! Oh, and thank you for your thorough RFD as well; it's definitely appreciated.
Posted by EthanHuOnDebateOrg 2 years ago
EthanHuOnDebateOrg
Stinkbomb.. I'm pretty sure the Burden of Proof is based upon the resolution... there would be absolutely no point of debating a resolution otherwise. So I hope you can center your arguments more around that, so it actually provides meaning for this debate. Thank you!
Posted by stinkbomb 2 years ago
stinkbomb
I have. but the BoP is up to me to decide though, so you should calm down... The resolution has absolutely no impact on what I was trying to say, because I was saying that I wanted to argue for another side of the matter, not just allowed. I think you should try to understand stuff better before making false claims.
Posted by EthanHuOnDebateOrg 2 years ago
EthanHuOnDebateOrg
Stinkbomb...what are you talking about? that is the exact definition of 'allowed' that I have proposed.. As for your burden of proof, I am very sure that you must justify 'allowed', for the resolution explicitly states so.. Stinkbomb? I hope you can read the resolution more clearly next time when responding, becuase it provides a serious block to understanding and impedes the debate. Thank you!
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by wiploc 2 years ago
wiploc
EthanHuOnDebateOrgstinkbombTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41 
Reasons for voting decision: If Pro didn't want the burden of proof, he should have negotiated that before accepting. Conduct: Con. Con's paragraphs are awkward and stilted, very hard to read. S&G: Pro. I'm totally pro-abortion, but Pro didn't really engage with Con's argument, and his own argument, "a mother should have possession and control over her child," is of stay-off-my-side quality. He followed that with, "she is most definitely still allowed to stop her pregnancy," which is an unsupported claim.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
EthanHuOnDebateOrgstinkbombTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: didn't read it so can't give arguments but i looked for sources and con had one so he gets that, pro had no sources so he doesn't get it. So this is not a votebomb I just saw con had a source.
Vote Placed by ConservativePolitico 2 years ago
ConservativePolitico
EthanHuOnDebateOrgstinkbombTied
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Wow epic fail for Pro who barely even put up a fight against Con's arguments... smh
Vote Placed by vmpire321 2 years ago
vmpire321
EthanHuOnDebateOrgstinkbombTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: CONDUCT goes to con, b/c pro tried to argue definitions and his reasons made no sense. S/G goes to CON, since I saw several misspellings on pro's part. Furthermore, con used a source yet pro used none. Overall, con provided superior arguments.