The Instigator
zezima
Pro (for)
Losing
10 Points
The Contender
tmar19652
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points

men have a say in abortion

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 5 votes the winner is...
tmar19652
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/9/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,595 times Debate No: 31120
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (5)

 

zezima

Pro

Men should have a say in abortion. Please argue why they don't.
tmar19652

Con

I will argue against a man being able to force, or prevent a woman from having an abortion. You have the burden of proof to show that a man should be able to force a woman into an abortion and prevent her from having one should be legal.
Debate Round No. 1
zezima

Pro

first I'm going to clarify that men as in all people should have a right into saying if abortion is legal or not. men should not be able to force a woman into abortion.
now what im saying is that woman cant use the excuse "if you cant get pregnant, you dont have a say".
now my first example is a father. a father should have a right to say if the mother of his child can abort it. he should not be able to force her into it. the father should also be willing to take care of the kid or be able to put it up for adoption.
i will explain why the excuse "if you cant get pregnant, you dont have a say" in the next round.
i believe in the rights of an unborn child, and that a mother should not be alowed to abort it unless it is threatning the mothers life.

please answer these questions with a "yes" or a "no"

1. do you think the holocaust was wrong?

2. do you think the death penalty is wrong?

3. are you for or against gun control?

4. are you Jewish?
this is not a troll
tmar19652

Con


First, I do not accept your clarification as the resolution specifically referred to men, and I do not wish to give you argumentational advantages with clarifications whenever you see fit.


Second, your “men should have a say in abortion” goes both ways as to forcing a women to have an abortion, and taking away her right to an abortion. You should have clarified this in the first round, if you did not want forced abortions to be part of this debate.


Addressing your first argument;” a father should have a right to say if the mother of his child can abort it. he should not be able to force her into it.



  • First, your resolution would condone both forcing the woman into the abortion, and keeping her from having one.

  • Second, what if the mother was going to die if she had the baby? Your resolution would allow the father to risk the mother’s life, just to prevent the abortion of a parasite. Or, what if the mother simply did not want the baby to grow up in a terrible situation, such as with a felon or a crack-addict father. The felon, or crack-addict father would be able to keep her from having an abortion under your resolution.


Answering your questions:



  1. 1. I believe the holocaust was wrong because it was state-sponsored killing.

  2. 2. I believe the death penalty is ok.

  3. 3. I am against gun control

  4. 4. I am not Jewish, I am a card-carrying Deist (If you get the joke there).

Debate Round No. 2
zezima

Pro

As you can see in round 1, I said "men should have a say". I never said that it was completely up to them. I never said they should be allowed to force one on them. I simply said they should have a say.
Also in round 2 I said that a woman should not have the right to abort a child unless her life is in danger.
Your conclusion for not making a baby grow up in a terrible situation is to not let it live at all? Who are you saving there?
1. You are not Jewish and I"m sure you are not a Nazi, therefore you have no right in saying if the Holocaust was right or wrong.
2. You are not on death row so you have no right to say if it should be allowed or not.
3. The same goes for gun control if you don"t own a gun or ever had to deal with one, as in being robbed or held hostage etc.
As you can see none of these make sense. It doesn"t "affect" you so you have no right in having a say.
The same goes for abortion. It may not affect you, but it is hurting a being that can"t speak for itself.
A fetus is alive and can feel pain.
tmar19652

Con

My opponent perpetuates 3 logical fallacies by trying to apply general concepts to an individual level. My opponent's resolution would support men having a say in whether or not a victim of rape could have an abortion, something that is irreprehensible.

My opponent then tries to argue that because a fetus cannot speak for itself, that it should not be hurt. According to your logic, cows should not be killed because they cannot speak, or dogs should not be euthanized because they cannot speak. A fetus is nothing more than a glorified parasite and because of this, killing a fetus is not murder, nor is it immoral. Therefore Men should not have a say in the legality of abortion, because there is nothing wrong with abortion.
Debate Round No. 3
zezima

Pro

My logic is not saying cows should not be killed. Why do we kill cows? For food. Its nature. Abortion is not a part of nature. And yes, dogs should not be euthanized. Saying it is a parasite is a complete opinion. Here"s a fact. A fetus is alive. It cannot live without its mother, this is true, but that doesn"t mean it doesn"t have the right to live. I can say a fetus is an unborn glorified child and that cancels out you saying "glorified parasite". These are both opinions. Killing an unborn child is just as bad as killing someone on life support because they can"t live on their own.
Again do you think that only Jews can have an opinion about the holocaust? Do you think only people on death row can have an opinion about the death penalty? I never quite got an answer.

http://www.priestsforlife.org...

take a look at this site and see what you are calling "parasites".
tmar19652

Con


My opponent is being hypocritical by calling some murder “part of nature”, and other killing “unnatural”.


My opponent then calls my statement of a fetus being a parasite an opinion, however this is complete fact. The definition of a parasite is “An organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense.”, and that definition fits a fetus perfectly. People do not think twice about killing tapeworms, so why care about killing a fetus?


My opponent’s entire argument is based on the unsubstantiated claim that human life is more valuable than other forms of life. Unless they prove that humans are inherently more valuable than cows, then by saying that killing cows is ok, they have stated that killing fetuses is ok.


The opinion that people on life support are similar to fetuses is entirely wrong. The difference here lies with the fact that people on life support do not live inside or on a host organism, whereas a fetus lives inside of the woman.


Therefore, men should not have a say in the decision on not to allow abortions, because there is no reason not to allow abortions. As I have shown, the killing of a fetus is the same as killing a tapeworm, and there is no reason for a host not to kill a parasite.




Sources:



  1. 1. https://www.google.com...

Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Kenneth_Stokes 3 years ago
Kenneth_Stokes
Although Con is justified in his claims, he knows very well what Pro is trying to say. I wish he (Con) would simply debate Pro on his intended topic instead of curving the argument for the win. But, like I said, Pro is just.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by morgan2252 3 years ago
morgan2252
zezimatmar19652Tied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter TripleM160's votebomb. Just because his only source is Google does not account for things like S&G and conduct. He also fails to give a reason that con makes no sense.
Vote Placed by TripleM160 3 years ago
TripleM160
zezimatmar19652Tied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con makes no sense and his only source is google.
Vote Placed by wiploc 3 years ago
wiploc
zezimatmar19652Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was all over the map. Did he resolve that men do have a say, or that they should have a say? Does either of those square with his claim that women shouldn't be able to have abortions (even if the man wants one too)? And, by "have a say" did he mean that men should get to decide in the event that the man and woman disagree? Or that they do get to decide. Or tat they should be allowed to express an opinion? Or that they are allowed to express an opinion? In the face of all that waffling, I don't think Con can be faulted for guessing what Pro intended the resolution to be, and accepting the debate based on that guess. Pro never settled, never picked a position, never established and lifted the burden of proof. Pro had the burden of proof, but we never figured out what his subject was. Victory: Con.
Vote Placed by Daktoria 3 years ago
Daktoria
zezimatmar19652Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:32 
Reasons for voting decision: Round 3 was rather fascinating. I've never seen that argument before about abortion. Con's retort over a logical fallacy doesn't exist. Yes, principles are principles. The fallacy is the exact opposite - taking a particular and extrapolating to the whole. If it wasn't for round 3, the debate would have been Con hands down. Kudos to creativity.
Vote Placed by ExiOrca 3 years ago
ExiOrca
zezimatmar19652Tied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro attempts to use fallacy on his question, and Con also use fallacy in comparing fetus and cow but Pro fails to point that out. Anyhow, Pro doesn't make much argument relates to the topic whereas Con does.