The Instigator
UseYOURname
Con (against)
The Contender
Envisage
Pro (for)

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Envisage has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 6/20/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 420 times Debate No: 115747
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)

 

UseYOURname

Con

This is parliamentary style rules, I"ll let you go first since your preposition I guess. Good luck!
Envisage

Pro


First time I have been issued a unsolicited challenge from a forum discussion, but sure, I am happy to oblige. Please note that I am a teacher and I don’t have a lot of time to devote to argumentation. I aim to keep my rounds to a max of 3,000 characters as a result. Apologies to those who have higher expectations, on the positive side it will make the debate easier to read.



Moral Framework


To narrow the area of contention, I will present the following argument:



a) It is acceptable for a person to remove a non-human non-sentient growth from their body (even if it entails the growth’s death)


b) A human non-sentient growth is ethically equivalent to a non-human non-sentient growth


c) If A is true, and if B is true, then it is also acceptable for a person to remove a non-human non-sentient growth from her body


Conclusion 1 (a,b & c Modus Ponens)): It is also acceptable for a person to remove a non-human non-sentient growth from her body



d) All foetuses (prior to 24 weeks) are human non-sentient growths


Conclusion 2 (Conclusion 1 & d – BARBARA Syllogism): It is also acceptable for a person to remove a foetus from her body.



While this syllogism doesn’t achieve much, it does narrow exactly what I will argue and what my opponent needs to refute, if premises a,b, c and d are true, then the conclusion follows deductively, thus Pro would needs to refute at least one of them to avoid the conclusion.



Defence of A: We have no issue with removing shrapnel, basteria, cancers or parasites from out body in society. There are essentially no laws prohibiting this until it comes to humans. This premise is not in contention.



Defence of C: Swapping situations by maintaining ethical equivalency will logically yield identical ethical considerations and outcomes. If tables are ethically equivalent to pens, then damaging either of them will yield the same ethical judgement.



Defence of D: This is categorically true, foetuses are a type of growth that exist in women, and they are human. Moreover if Pro objects to the word “growth” here then this entire argument can simply be rephrased with “thing” replacing growth with exactly the same logical validity.



Defence of B: This is where I expect anyone who is against abortion to object. While we consider this false if we use adult humans as an example, we need to consider why we value sentient adult humans over non-sentient non-humans. The fact that adults are sentient, with their own values, and the fact that we empathise with such humans and fear harm coming to ourselves. If we fear harm coming to ourselves then we seek to avoid harm coming to people like ourselves, thus we rule against murder (the unjustified killing of sentient humans). However when we consider foetuses, they lack any of this capacity, their brains are not developed, they don’t have memories in the way we do, they don’t hold values, they don’t care, nor could they care, about their existence, or anything for that matter.



Thus they are much like other living organisms, such as bacteria, fungi or parasites such as tapeworm, for which the same things apply. They for moral purposes, fall into this category since there is nothing of comparable value there to consider.



Removal of an Inconvenience



Childbird is a major inconvenience on the mother. The foetus consumes calories and nutrients from the mother, and essentially is a parasite to its mother host. Just like any other parasite, it is something that the mother can be entitled to remove from her body.



Moreover full-term childbirth is physically strenous, exceptionally painful for the mother and often permanantly physically altering process.



To say this is an inconvenience is an understatement, and is something that should only be borne if the mother intends to keep the child, or wants to birth it and give it up. Abortion removes this issue.



The Mother takes Priority over the Foetus



The mother is a conscious human being with memories, values and experience and knowledge of pain. The mother has real-world relationships and is often within the workforce generating capital when not impregnated. The foetus is an unconscious, or minimally conscious cluster of cells/tissue without anywhere near the extent of the aforementioned qualities. These are the qualities that we tend to value for moral reasons.



Moreover, any foetus will have these qualities to a substantially lower extent than living domesticated animals for food consumption, e.g. Cows, sheep, even chickens. As a society we don't hold these to the same moral standards as a fully grown human mother would, thus why on Earth should we view a foetus as such?



Thus, the mother, who wants to get rid of the parasite/foetus, should have priority over any arbitrary collection of human cells.



Wel, sh*t, 4500 characters. Next rounds will be shorter.


Debate Round No. 1
UseYOURname

Con

I present the following arguments in favor of banning abortion:

The potentiality of a fully-functioning human life far outweighs any inconvenience the mother may face as a result of giving birth.
There basically no common long-term detrimental effects of pregnancy. There are actually way more long-term detrimental effects as a result of abortion if we were to consider this argument completely from a health perspective.
There are numerous foster care systems set up throughout the country, and with foster care rates going down consistently, there should be room to take on all the would-be dead children.
During a pregnancy, it is now law in a good deal of states that you are allowed to take maternity leave, most mothers have a husband or some sort of support system to help raise their child. There are plenty of churches and other organizations that help mothers in turmoil.
If the mother makes the mistake of having children out of wedlock and engaged in the use of unprotected sex, then you have inconvenienced yourself. If you don"t want to have a kid, then make that decision before a pregnancy happens. Contraceptives are extraordinarily cheap and the notion that birth control is a privilege of the upper classes isn"t factually correct anymore.
The human life begins at conception.
This point is not in contention by the con side, the con side argues only that the human life at that point is not worthy of rights. While an uncontested point, this premise will become useful for my third point, which is in contention.
The human fetus deserves rights.
This point is where I expect the con to take the most issue with. To effectively draw the line to where a human deserves rights, we need to isolate the line to the point which it can"t be unfairly ascribed to animals or humans that are already alive. I"ll take my opponent"s point as an example. He claims that sentience defines the point at which a fetus deserves human rights. The issue with this claim is that there are certain examples of humans and animals that wrongly fit/don"t fit the criteria. For example, a human in a coma does not fit the criteria, however a raccoon does. So now, if we use the oppositional argument, we now have raccoons with the right to bear arms, and people in comas who don"t have the right to live.

Ultimately, the distinction I"m attempting to make here is that it"s not beneficial for society to condone the killing of a fetus. We"ve proven that the baby"s life far outweighs the inconvenience to the mother and that if we were to take rights away from the fetus, we would have to give rights to things that don"t deserve them.

I would appreciate it if my opponent had defined his definition of sentience within the moral framework. I would also appreciate it if my opponent clarified what he meant at the start because it was written sloppily and the point did not get across.
Envisage

Pro

Passing this round. Con is welcome to expand/extend his arguments or pass back.
Debate Round No. 2
UseYOURname

Con

a) It is acceptable for a person to remove a non-human non-sentient growth from their body (even if it entails the growth’s death)

Agree


b) A human non-sentient growth is ethically equivalent to a non-human non-sentient growth


First off, a fetus is not a growth, see response to contention d. Secondly, sentience has nothing to do with a human life. Sentience, as it is not specific to humans is a faulty framework for this resolution. You did not provide your definition for sentience so I shall do so here. Sentience is the capacity to feel, my evidence for this claim is (http://www.duhaime.org...).

By this criteria that was just set, most common farm animals are now protected by human rights. So you shouldn’t be advocating for the continued tenure of abortion but rather forced vegetarianism. This is obviously just hyperbole on my part but it illustrates the point quite well that your criteria could never stand in society.

c) If A is true, and if B is true, then it is also acceptable for a person to remove a non-human non-sentient growth from her body

I can’t even tell what you’re saying here, you need to proofread.


Conclusion 1 (a,b & c Modus Ponens)): It is also acceptable for a person to remove a non-human non-sentient growth from her body

Proofread.



d) All foetuses (prior to 24 weeks) are human non-sentient growths


The fetus is not a growth, you’ve provided no evidence to support this claim. As the burden of proof is on me to refute, I will now provide evidence to refute your claim. According to several dictionaries such as: google, merriam-webster and dictionary.com; a growth is an abnormal formation such as a tumor. A fetus, which is part of the completely natural process of pregnancy, does not fit this criteria.

Conclusion 2 (Conclusion 1 & d – BARBARA Syllogism): It is also acceptable for a person to remove a foetus from her body.



While this syllogism doesn’t achieve much, it does narrow exactly what I will argue and what my opponent needs to refute, if premises a,b, c and d are true, then the conclusion follows deductively, thus Pro would needs to refute at least one of them to avoid the conclusion.


Contentions D & B are wrong and contention C as well as conclusion 1 need to be proofread.


Defence of A: We have no issue with removing shrapnel, basteria, cancers or parasites from out body in society. There are essentially no laws prohibiting this until it comes to humans. This premise is not in contention.


If there is a parasite on someone’s brain and it limits function but will not kill then it is perfectly unacceptable to remove it because it would entail the host’s death. Secondly, you narrow down the criteria to growths in contention a, how do bacteria, shrapnel and parasites entail a valid defense to this criteria as they don’t fit the criteria themselves.


Defence of C: Swapping situations by maintaining ethical equivalency will logically yield identical ethical considerations and outcomes. If tables are ethically equivalent to pens, then damaging either of them will yield the same ethical judgement.

Now I get what you were trying to say. Agree.



Defence of D: This is categorically true, foetuses are a type of growth that exist in women, and they are human. Moreover if Pro objects to the word “growth” here then this entire argument can simply be rephrased with “thing” replacing growth with exactly the same logical validity.


They aren’t a growth (See response to contention 1 subpoint D), moreover it can’t be replaced with the same logical validity as you set two criteria necessary to establish rights for a human: sentience and not being a growth. By eliminating half of your criteria it effects your case dramatically.


Defence of B: This is where I expect anyone who is against abortion to object. While we consider this false if we use adult humans as an example, we need to consider why we value sentient adult humans over non-sentient non-humans. The fact that adults are sentient, with their own values, and the fact that we empathise with such humans and fear harm coming to ourselves. If we fear harm coming to ourselves then we seek to avoid harm coming to people like ourselves, thus we rule against murder (the unjustified killing of sentient humans). However when we consider foetuses, they lack any of this capacity, their brains are not developed, they don’t have memories in the way we do, they don’t hold values, they don’t care, nor could they care, about their existence, or anything for that matter.

Why was this not in your original contention? You hide all this extra criteria in this sub-point and it reduces your argument tremendously. You seek to make a point about values. That all humans who seek rights should have values. I find values to be subjective. Not everybody lives by a standard of behavior, or perhaps, the standard of behavior is twisted. For example, serial killers, they live by values, the values are disconnected, yet still remain values. If it is someone’s standard of behavior to kill as many people as possible then who gets to say whether those values hold validity. Another example, foxes. Foxes hold values, sure they are very primal values, yet values the same. What are values except standards of behavior, a fetus has standards of behavior. The fetus subsists itself, that’s certainly behavior and it holds to a constant standard. So I believe fetuses do have values, however values can’t have an objective definition so this criteria is faulty.



Thus they are much like other living organisms, such as bacteria, fungi or parasites such as tapeworm, for which the same things apply. They for moral purposes, fall into this category since there is nothing of comparable value there to consider.

In a world where the human life is not valued higher than that of a different species this species becomes non-existent. We eat other life to subsist ourselves. If we value all life the same then we either don’t eat or eat each other. Neither sounds like a suitable society, thus the only effective way to continue in modern society is to establish human life with a higher value than that of other life.



Removal of an Inconvenience



Childbird is a major inconvenience on the mother. The foetus consumes calories and nutrients from the mother, and essentially is a parasite to its mother host. Just like any other parasite, it is something that the mother can be entitled to remove from her body.

We’ve established that it’s not a growth. If the mother wishes not to be inconvenienced then she can make that choice before she gets pregnant. If she chooses not to make that choice and chooses irresponsibility instead, then she can live with the inconvenience.



Moreover full-term childbirth is physically strenous, exceptionally painful for the mother and often permanantly physically altering process.

If she wishes to avoid strain on herself then she can make that choice before she gets pregnant. Contraception prevents pregnancy, abortion prevents birth. One is murder, the other is responsibility.



To say this is an inconvenience is an understatement, and is something that should only be borne if the mother intends to keep the child, or wants to birth it and give it up. Abortion removes this issue.

Once again, you fail to address the point that the mother can choose to have a child before that child is alive.



The Mother takes Priority over the Foetus



The mother is a conscious human being with memories, values and experience and knowledge of pain. The mother has real-world relationships and is often within the workforce generating capital when not impregnated. The foetus is an unconscious, or minimally conscious cluster of cells/tissue without anywhere near the extent of the aforementioned qualities. These are the qualities that we tend to value for moral reasons.

The mother is a conscious human being who made the conscious decision to have unprotected intercourse. Afterwards, this mother realized the consequences of her *conscious* decision and now wants to murder her child. You make the comparison between the mother and the fetus; however this isn’t remotely true. You should be making the comparison between the effects of pregnancy and the life itself. Do we value 6 months worth of money and being fat for a while over the life of a child.



Moreover, any foetus will have these qualities to a substantially lower extent than living domesticated animals for food consumption, e.g. Cows, sheep, even chickens. As a society we don't hold these to the same moral standards as a fully grown human mother would, thus why on Earth should we view a foetus as such?

Tell Burger King to start selling flame-grilled whoppers made from 100% real human. See my response to your last point before the removal of inconvenience part.



Thus, the mother, who wants to get rid of the parasite/foetus, should have priority over any arbitrary collection of human cells.

I agree to an extent. The mother can get rid of her child before it exists by choosing to make smart decisions.



Wel, sh*t, 4500 characters. Next rounds will be shorter.

Please provide some sort of definition to these important terms you introduced. For example, sentience.


This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by UseYOURname 1 year ago
UseYOURname
Thanks, I think I got it figured out now. My opponent has my docs link so he"s able to see it in correct formatting. Ridiculous that this forum doesn"t use vbulletin.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
For whatever it's worth, there's two ways to avoid the spacing issue. You could c/p the text from Word or Google Docs or wherever onto the normal text, then click Rich Text and format it. Alternatively, you could c/p directly from Word and then rework the spacing.
Posted by Envisage 1 year ago
Envisage
I used the rich text editor. It messed up my spacing between lines though so it"s a trade off. Thanks for the round link, I"ll put it in my next round so it"s easier for readers to use it.
Posted by UseYOURname 1 year ago
UseYOURname
Hey envisage, I had this formatted correctly with numbers and letters. It may be easier for you to read if I give you the original google docs link. Also how do you get the bold letters?

Here is the google docs link.
https://docs.google.com...
Posted by John_C_1812 1 year ago
John_C_1812
Clearly did not read it. I believe it was just time table of 24 weeks to sentient life that had me fooled me.

I was looking for a new way to say this Envisage.

You have a right to remain silent,
anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.
You have a right to an attorney,
if you cannot afford an attorney one will be assigned to you. Assigned does not mean without self-value.

As it is the judicial separation which directs the attorney by instruction to represent you in a judicial separation they cannot share your criminal change in any way. Meaning the attorney is free of charge by criminal standard. You may not have understood these rights as the had been read to you.

An attorney, nor the public is not free of the self-incrimination created by the admission of abortion made in the public, in relationship to pregnancy. As no Miranda right is given in civil court by the accuser as their choice under liberty. Female Specific Amputation is to remind to no Miranda, Attorneys have seen fit to allow self-incrimination to the public. The course of this unconstitutional separation of the issue of malpractice has exceeded the limits of any fanatical compensation.
Posted by Envisage 1 year ago
Envisage
John you clearly did not read any of the debate when posting that. If you did then you would realise that when "life begins" is irrelevant to the arguments and position I have given.
Posted by John_C_1812 1 year ago
John_C_1812
So the argument is about when life begins. Science has a definition already for when life begins are we creating a double standard? Abortion is an admission to murder by self-incrimination. There is no need for all woman to make a self-incrimination to murder. Yet, they are be directed to this United State by legislation of law and its wording. It is a violation of the 5th Amendment, using the 1st Amendment to describe a medical process as a 2nd Amendment weapon woman are free to use and bring to bear against the United States of America. Free meaning law is used to remove all self-value and cost. Hence the double standard being placed on the medical field by its patients.

With the induction of woman into a United States Armed Force, which is service by oath to defend, protect, and preserve the United States Constitution. I believe it may be time for woman to honor the burden of relief of command. Female Specific Amputation is a much more realistic idea of united state which directs all woman in such a way as to avoid automatic admission of guilt to all accounts of loss of pregnancy.
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.