The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
KatieKat99
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

removing baby is moral equivalent of removing tubes with baby in it: ectopic pregnancies

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/27/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 550 times Debate No: 55550
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

people say the ends do not justify the means. they use the principle of double effect as a way around what might otherwise be thought of a an evil means etc.
but at least as applied in any cases I can see, and probably in theory too, it opens up to a slippery slope.
people like to say these hardline rules, the ends don't justify the means but principle of double effect works, help avoid "slippery slopes" etc. but even these "principle of double effect" arguments open up a can of worms, a slippery slope

an example is ectopic pregnancies. they say you can just remove the tubes with the baby inside. so couldn't the principle be extended to removing uterus's with the baby in it, when the baby poses a risk to the mother?
isn't that just an end run around the rule that you can't have an abortion etc?
and if you could just remove the uterus with the mother in it, why couldn't you just remove the baby without the uterus?

how is there really any difference between removing a uterus with the baby in it, and removing the baby itself? [not killing it directly as w an abortion]

directly killing a child could be seen as inherently evil, but just pulling the baby out is very arguably completely different. it's so much more like pulling it out in a uterus, than it is directly killing it, that it's essentially the same thing.
KatieKat99

Con

Hi all so I think today's debate could be a good one!
Brief rode map (aka where I"m going to go in my speech)
1. I will be addressing key terms/analyzing the resolution
2. Refutations to my opponents points
3. presenting my own case
4. Comparing and contrasting Pro and Con worlds and showing why Con has more benefits
Definitions/ analysis:
Just for clarity the resolution as sated by opponent is: removing baby is moral equivalent of removing tubes with baby in it: ectopic pregnancies.
So as the Pro/Affirmative/prime minister my opponent must provide the weigh criterion for the debate as well as a set of definitions for the topic, if they believe it is self explanatory they must state so. By simply leaving this out my opponent has not provided clear barriers and structure which is extreme detrimental to the educational value of today's debate so they should simply loose on this alone. Because I feel that this debate should be run properly I have picked up the burden of definitions
Ectopic pregnancies: Ectopic pregnancies are pregnancies that occur outside of the natural environment for a pregnancy to occur. Source: Mayo clinic.org
Equivalent: equal in value, amount, function, meaning, etc. Source: Webster dictionary. com
Moral: concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.
Removing tubes with baby in it: The removal of a fallopian tube with a fetus inside it because of some sort of life threatening situation that the mother is in.
Abortion: the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy by removing the fetus. Source: medilexicon.com

Im defining this as a value case and will be running it as a value debate. Again I have had to pick up this burden simply because my opponent has neglected to provide them again because of this they should loose the debate because without a value or criterion or even basic definition of the debate we can"t have an educational debate, without a value there is no way to tell who has won.

Criterion: human treatment
Value: Morality

Refutations:
So my opponents initial claim is this that morally speaking that removing a baby in the tubes is the same as just taking the baby out (which I would like to point out is called an abortion). So their claim is not only incorrect factually but also morally! Why is it factually incorrect, well simply this and this ties back to our definition of abortion as well as our definition of removing a baby in the fallopian tubes. Ok so an abortion we defined as the purposeful termination of a pregnancy by removing the fetus, so by our own definition removing just the fetus is essentially an abortion which is distinctly different then removing a fallopian tube with a baby inside of it. The reason I say this is MORALY different (our value in today's debate) is because by allowing women to eject a living breathing baby into the world without any sort of protection is simply inhuman so thus the two are not the same (Us medical branch under rules for doctors section 4.5.9 "abortions legality") . Also my opponent has provided 0 citations in today's debate round which is another reason why he should simply lose and my statement should be held above his because I have provided evidence to back my claim instead of just opinion.
My opponents second argument is this "directly killing a child could be seen as inherently evil, but just pulling the baby out is very arguably completely different." What my opponent fails to see in this point is that by taking a baby out it will die! we haven"t come far enough in science to "simply remove" a fetus and have it survive unless it is in a fallopian tube or a utters. By removing the utters you will inherently kill the mother which is immoral but removing fallopian tubes will not actually kill the mother in fact women have two so it won"t do much and the baby then has a slight chance of surviving.
My opponent through out their whole argument has competed a novice mistake: logical fallacy, they have continuously said the same thing over and over again by doing this he is hoping that you judges will start to believe its true not matter how illogical it is. The formal name for this logical fallacy is an ad nauseam. By presenting a logical fallacy my opponent should lose because their argument has lost its validity and sense. They have committed another logical fallacy as well hypocrisy, my opponent states "how is there really any difference between removing a uterus with the baby in it, and removing the baby itself? [not killing it directly as w an abortion]" yet earlier in the argument says "isn't that just an end run around the rule that you can't have an abortion etc?" hypocrisy at its finest ladies and gentlemen.
My own points:
1. Legality
a. State/government laws: The United States legalized abortion nationwide in 1973 that is an abortion before 28 weeks (http://www.guttmacher.org...) by my opponents mer suggestion they are saying that we should just remove the baby that it is the same thing as removing the fallopian tubes with a baby inside. WRONG! by just removing the baby you are committing an abortion by state and federal laws so unless my opponent is suggesting that the state and federal government don"t understand morality then they have lost this argument and I have won my first sub point.
b. Crime: If we were to allow women to freely just abort a baby that is past 28 weeks which is essentially what my opponent is arguing we would be achieving our value or criterion of today's debate.
2. Human life
a. Morality: The comparison of morality is key in today's debate and to just answer the question of morality paladin and simple: Killing something can never be morally the same as saving one life and potentially saving another. There is no refutation to this because it is simply true, I don"t need to provide evidence for this ether because it can logically prove itself with the definition I have provided for morality.
b. Human treatment: There is simply no way my opponent can argue that killing a mother by taking out her utters is human nor can they argue that killing a baby when there's a chance of saving it is human. Since we can not achieve morality without humanity and decent human treatment my opponents whole argument has just crumbled and I have won my last point.

So in a brief closing I will be comparing and contrasting the Affirmative world vs the Negative world

So the Affirmative (Pro) world looks something like this
- Abortions of babies that have already developed are allowed
- Women dying because they can have their utters taken out just for their a baby to die
- Killing something becomes morally the same as saving something
- Late term abortion is a harms justify the means dilemma that becomes something that everyone even in no medical danger can do.
- The value of morality is not upheld
- The criterion of human treatment is not achieved

And the Negation (con) world looks like this
- Humanity is achieved by allowing women who have some kind of medical emergency to remove the baby in a fallopian tube thus not creating the moral dilemma of going against the law.
- Morality is achieved because we have a realistic weighing of the outcomes (the a world lacks).
- The law is upheld.
- Safety of human life is kept.
- More people will be alive and more women will be healthy.

So voters I urge a strong vote in firm of the nation because of five main reasons
1. My opponents argument isn"t logically sound and they have no points left standing
2. My opponent neglected too provide any of the Affirmative burdens (i.e weigh criterion, or definitions)
3. The arguments in my case fulfill the weigh criterion and value and my points were logically and evidence based.
4. My argument holds up the American justice system a key item in our society.
5. My opponent has no benefits I do.

Thanks so much for reading all this, may the best argument win! Have a wonderful day! Thanks
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

con merely says the distinction between taking the baby out and taking it out in a fallopian tube, is that doing it by itself without the tube or something is "inhuman". this is a conclusory statement and doesn't really argue the differences.

the point about how direct killing is inherently evil while just removing may not be, falls into wehther you view "the principle of double effect" to be a valid moral disguiher between abortion and removing tubes with babies in it for ectopic pregnancies. if you dont view that as a valid distinghisment, which i can sympathisze with, then you won't view just removing the baby as anything different than just kiling it etc. but, most moral theologicans and ethicists say they think there is a difference. and if we accept that, i would argue that there isn't much difference in doing it with a tube attached v not attached. it's really a technicality if it's attached. and again, all con has provided to say otherwise is the conclusory statement that it's "inhumane'.
and just to point out, im not arguing that we could just take the baby out at any point in the pgrenancy for any reason. i'm arguing when the mother's life is at risk due to the baby, we shouldn't limit it to ectopic pregnancies, but should expand the rational to just removing the risk at all. and in the most limited sense, it's not different if we remove the baby in an ectopic pregancy, and forget about harming the mother with other parts of her being removed as well. it's all effectively the same thing.
KatieKat99

Con

Hello all! So in todays speech as a road map
1. I will be going over the issue of topicality/ definitions.
2. Refutations of Affirmative/ Pro points.
3. Straightening out my own contentions.

ok so to start off with a brief explanation of my topicality argument. My opponent has had no refutation to my definitions of the value and the criterion, he has not even disagreed with my definition of todays debate as a value case and so because of this my following definitions stand and he now must uphold my weighing criterion and value because he hasn"t provided one for himself, the definitions are now set as follow's
Ectopic pregnancies: Ectopic pregnancies are pregnancies that occur outside of the natural environment for a pregnancy to occur. Source: Mayo clinic.org
Equivalent: equal in value, amount, function, meaning, etc. Source: Webster dictionary. com
Moral: concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.
Removing tubes with baby in it: The removal of a fallopian tube with a fetus inside it because of some sort of life threatening situation that the mother is in.
Abortion: the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy by removing the fetus. Source: medilexicon.com
This is a value debate
Criterion: human treatment
Value: Morality
My opponent should already simply loose based on the fact that she has yet to provide any definitions even a VALUE! She should loose also because she doesn't seem to understand the proper structure of a debate, you must present you"re own ideas backed with ether logical or factual evidence, explain why you"re idea is better, point out flaws in your opponents arguments, and finally you must prove why the argument you presnted was better then your opponents.

Ok so now to address my opponents points
1. No dissection: I stated that just taking the baby out of the mother is inhuman in refutation to this point I used our definition of abortion to support my argument, my opponents refutation to this was simply and I quote
"con merely says the distinction between taking the baby out and taking it out in a fallopian tube, is that doing it by itself without the tube or something is "inhuman". this is a conclusory statement and doesn't really argue the differences." As my opponent clearly stated in the resolution we are talking about the MORAL difference of the two and by one being more inhuman rather then the other by the definition of morality or even the basic definition of different, Something being less inhuman then something else is not a the moral equivalent and does argue the differences. She also talks a lot about the "double effect" not being a valid argument, So how is something that we"ve built our self defense and insanity pleas off of not a real moral argument (http://plato.stanford.edu...) .
2. Morality My opponent states "but, most moral theologicans and ethicists say they think there is a difference. and if we accept that, i would argue that there isn't much difference in doing it with a tube attached v not attached. it's really a technicality if it's attached. and again, all con has provided to say otherwise is the conclusory statement that it"s"inhumane"." Ok so first off if my opponent s going to complain about the topic that I would like to point out she picked then she has to better then this. How is saving a baby and not saving a baby a "technicality" A technicality implies that someone is getting around something. No the person who would be getting around something if we just allowed for babies to be "taken out" would be the Affirmative team they would be getting around the laws of what a legal and safe abortion is.

Just as a brief note my opponent has not provided any sources for her argument and it isn"t even logically based. She"s making claims that have no factual backing whatsoever and so her claims shouldn"t be bought at all. Also she yet again committed a logical fallacy "if you dont view that as a valid distinghisment, which i can sympathize" She"s making an appeal to Emotion which shows us that she is weak in her argumentation and can"t back her arguments with anything other then what she thinks. She also has not tied any of her points and ideas back to the weighing criterion/value today.

Ok so now to move on to my own conntentions
1. Legality
a. State/government: My point was simply this the difference between "just taking the baby out" and taking it out in the tubes is LEGALLY different. My opponent in her refutation to this tree to make it out to be a moral claim that was simply a personal "belief". First off my opponent has no idea what my personal beliefs are. Secondly laws are based in reason and fact so your refutation to this point is completely invalid because you didn"t understand the argument.
b. Crime: My opponent has no refutation to the fact that by enacting her idea thousands of people would be breaking the law which counter to her argument does create significant moral dilemma. If she had defined her case as one of policy and created a plane this argument could still be standing but because she neglected to do that my point is significantly more valid then hers.
2. Human Life
a.Morality: Through out this debate my opponent has tried to say that i haven"t shown any real difference besides its inhuman. Ok something being inhuman is a HUGE moral difference and the fact that she didn"t get that from our definition (which she had the opportunity to provide and even negate) should be a main factor in you"re voting decision, if she can"t even bother to try and understand the basic definition provided today why should she win todays debate.
b. Human treatment: Her refutation to this was that we would be able to "forget about the mother being harmed", the mother will only end up being harmed if you take her utters out band by suggestion that we should just "take the baby out your killing the baby and the only way your suggestion could possibly work would be if you took out the utters and well which I would like to point would render the mother infertile. taking out one of her tubes would not do this because she has two. Basic biology supports my argument here.

So what you Judges have seen in todays debate is two things. One a substantial abuse of logic and gapping holes in a case. My opponent didn"t even bother to provide definitions, much less tag line her own contusions. Next she left a whole sub point untouched and i should simply win because her case wasn"t actually there it was all just refutations to my case she never backed her original claims. Also she never ties her points back to the value or criterion which means her points have no impact which means that they shouldn"t be considered valid arguments. Furthermore she never bothers to provide any kind of citations be it logic or factual. I have literally counted zero meaning everything she has said today is just a claim. Now to move on to her abuse go logic. So my opponent has not committed one but two major logical fallacies in todays round she has tried to sway you judges with an appeal to you emotions which I would think you would be offend by this simply because I trust you are all rational and logical people who look at the arguments rather then you"re feelings. The second was the logical fallacy of Ad nauasum she says the same thing over and over again hoping that you will hear it so many times it starts to sound like fact. Because of this massive abuse of logic she should loose todays round. I have given you a clear argument and tied my points back to the criterion and value, i have not committed any logical fallacies, and I have both successfully refuted my opponents points and contained to carry my own. I also was forced to take up the affirmative burden of providing definitions but I took in stride.

So thank you all for reading all of this, I hope your finals week is good (i don"t know if its everyones its just mine) may the best argument win!
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

i dont get into the definitional stuff, cause i fail to see how it's relevant to the issues at hand. it's at best in this debate a formalism.

i can appreciate con's point that sometimes with morals all you can say is 'i just disagree' or 'i inherently think XYZ'. i just can't fathom how one could use that logic when trying to distinguish why removing a baby with nothing atttached to it is inhumane, while removing a baby with a tube or something isn't inhumane. i see no meaningful distinction. i mean, sure you can say your inhernet value is tat the moon is made of cheese, but if you can't show that it's made of cheese, it doesn't mean much.
i didn't argue 'double effect' was not valid. i said if you don't accept it, you won't accept just removing the baby. in a sense, i was questioing whether you accepted it. we may be missing each other here, talking past each other, i don't know.

con views just removing the baby in otherwise ectopic situations, or perhaps mother endanger situations, is a technicalit, and her 'tube attached' point isn't a technicality. i can't see how she'd argue this though. what is effectively being done with all these scenarios? the baby is being removed for the life of the mother. the baby dies. whether or not there's a tube attached to the baby for effective purposes means nothing. so, it's more the technicality.

con also mentions some points about legality etc. i'm only arguing about what 'ought' to be the case, morally. i'm not necessarily talking about legality. i dont know why it's brought up, the issue of legality. we've been talking about what ought to be the case all along, as far as i can see.
KatieKat99

Con

Ok so as a brief roadmap for today's closing speech
Voter issues.
Closing summation.

Opening summary:

Voter issues:
1. Definitions: so my opponent has not actually proved any definitions that in of itself is a reason for you to vote her down but the real point here is simply this he claims that their simply a "formality" no definitions DEFINE the perimeters of the debate so without definitions there really is no reason to actually debate a topic it completely negates the educational value and from what I"ve seen DDO is all about educational discourse.
2. Dropped points: My opponent has actually dropped almost all of my contentions in todays round her only refutation was that she could actually argue the legality well legality goes into morality which is what this whole round is based off so that argument/ refutation should fall.
3. No contentions of her own: She has yet to present one original idea only refutations to my points which simply should make her argument invalid.
4. No citations: She didn"t give one source for anything which means she is no longer a credible narrator so she should be voted down for this as well
5. Impacts: She gave not one impact not one reason why anything she says matter i have.
6. Criterion/value: She hasn"t followed the value or criterion thus again she should simply loose

Closing summary: What you have seen ladies and gentleman in this debate is one world riddled with hypocracy and inhumanity that lacks morality. and then you"ve seen a just and safe world. Which would you want to live in? Thank you all again for you"re time have a lovely night
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Geogeer 3 years ago
Geogeer
I would debate you on this, but I have already promised my next debate to someone else. If you do not get any takers, or you find you did not get a good debate on this, let me know and I'll give you a debate on this after my next one ends.
No votes have been placed for this debate.