The Instigator
cello242
Con (against)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
omar2345
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points

Abortion

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 5 votes the winner is...
omar2345
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/17/2019 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,207 times Debate No: 119938
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (27)
Votes (5)

 

cello242

Con

I have done a number of debates on Abortion and usually have provided a lengthy opening statement for my opponent to challenge. However I shall take an unusual turn.

My opponent will start their opening statement first in the first round on why Abortion is ethical or at least ethically justified.

This is my main argument of the debate in which I will be defending and which my opponent will have to refute.

1. All human beings are persons
2. A fetus is a human being
3. A fetus is a person

Since killing a person is unethical, And abortion kills a fetus, Therefore it would follow logically that abortion is unethical. If the fetus is not a person, Then destroying it is not unjustified and perfectly permissible.

By accepting this debate you agree to finish the debate to the end, To be respectful and attack my arguments with logic and reason rather than insult and mockery, And most importantly, To have fun! :)

Person: a being who is a part of our moral community
Human being: A member of the species Homo Sapiens
omar2345

Pro

Before I do make my arguments I will first define the words that I am using.

Abortion: the termination of a pregnancy after, Accompanied by, Resulting in, Or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus
(Merriam Webster)

Ethical: involving or expressing moral approval or disapproval (Merriam Webster)
Not a good definition so I will base it as a framework of what is right and wrong.

Human being: a man, Woman, Or child of the species Homo sapiens, Distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, Power of articulate speech, And upright stance. (Google: Human being define)
Merriam Webster don't even have a definition of human being they just direct you to human which doesn't help. Did not like your vague definition so I made it more specific.

Life threatening
First point is when the mother's life is threatened the mother should be allowed to terminate the fetus. Going by the first link below 7% would be what I consider life threatening ("Physical problem with my health", "Possible problems affecting the health of the fetus") which if you are against abortion (assuming you want to ban it) would allow 7% of women to die or face long lasting health problems.

Choice
Second reason is you are pretty much saying the choice of the mother is less than the choice of fetus. Still going by the first link you ban abortion which forces single mothers to have children, Force people who are not ready to have children and stop a woman's careers opportunities due to the banning of abortion. This makes up 19% of the women which you are pretty much saying there choice does not matter and a mistake cannot be undone and she will have to live with that.

Rape
Even though rape rarely occurs. It still does happen. You are forcing the women to carry a child she did not consent to carrying. Going by the first link below the numbers are less then 0. 5 percent. Even though the number is really small it is still a problem. Small one but still a problem.

I will leave it at that as my opening arguments and await your response.

Source:
https://www. Guttmacher. Org/sites/default/files/pdfs/pubs/psrh/full/3711005. Pdf
(Table 3)





Debate Round No. 1
cello242

Con

Before I answer, I would like to thank you for more thoroughly defining the terms. I just used quick definitions in order to draw the distinction between human and person.

First,

None of these arguments refute the notion that a fetus is a person. If a fetus is a person then killing it is immoral.

On the subject of life threatening situations, I will hand that one over. The vast majority of life threatening pregnancies are solved by induced labor and the children have the chance of survival, And an ectopic pregnancy procedure is not an abortion, But I understand the fringe cases of women with cancer or other conditions in which if they keep their pregnancy they cannot get the chemotherapy they need. I will give those fringe cases over because if the mother's life is truly endangered and there is no other option I would be okay with abortion.

On choice, I am not claiming that the value or choice of the mother is less than the choice of the fetus. They are equal, But the choice of the mother is to kill the fetus and the choice of the fetus is to live. Since the fetus is a person as of now, Then that argument is similar to say that the choice of a murderer is less than the choice of their chosen victim. Both sides are equal, But some choices are unethical and infringe upon the choices and rights of others.

Rape is an interesting argument, Because it does not argue against the rights of the fetus or its personhood. The only argument that rape is refuting is the notion that people have to take responsibility for their actions, Mainly consensual sex. It doesn't even do a good job of refuting that because like you said the numbers are astronomically small. Since the fetus is a person then killing that person does not "unrape" the mother, It just adds another act of. The fetus has a right to live and its rights are not subject to the experiences of the mother. I would like to point out that I believe rape is a terrible terrible act. Rapists do not serve nearly enough time in jail. If the fetus is a person, Then taking its life equates to taking an adult life.

My argument for the person-hood of a fetus is that there are no morally relevant differences between an adult (someone that would be regarded as a person) and the fetus. All differences between an adult and a fetus can be summarized by the acronym SLED.

Size: Size definitely does not determine person-hood. A four-year-old is no less of a person than a 32 year old even though the 32 year old is much bigger. Moreover determining a size requirement of person-hood seems odd. For example if the requirement of person-hood was that the fetus must be 34 weeks old (or have similar size) then if it was born early infanticide would still be justified.

Level of Development: Level of development does not have anything to do with the value of a human being. An adult does not have the authority to abuse or harm a child even though it is much more developed than the child. At conception, The sperm and the egg fuse into a new combination of DNA. That zygote is a human organism or human being. Lines drawn at further stages of development would leave out adults that would widely be regarded as persons.

Environment: Environment is not a predicate for person-hood either. Where you are has nothing to do with your value or rights.

Dependency: The line of person-hood drawn at viability is a common one. However, This excludes coma patients, Iron lung patients, Certain diabetic patients, Pace-maker patients, Etc. Who are entirely dependent on machines. Moreover the line of viability is determined by where you go. A New York hospital can deliver a fetus much earlier than a hospital in Bangladesh, But environment does not determine human value.

If a fetus is a person then abortion is wrong. If a fetus is not a person then abortion is similar to a Kidney transplant or other bodily choices. If the assertion that a fetus is a person is refuted, Then the Pro-Life view is destroyed. Back to you.
omar2345

Pro

"None of these arguments refute the notion that a fetus is a person. "
My definitions should have cleared up why a fetus is not a human being.

"On choice, I am not claiming that the value or choice of the mother is less than the choice of the fetus. They are equal, "
One is an unborn child and another is a fully developed woman. You are saying an undeveloped, Unborn child has the same rights as a fully developed woman?

"They are equal, But the choice of the mother is to kill the fetus and the choice of the fetus is to live. "
The choice of the mother over rules the choice of the fetus. This is because the reliance of the fetus. Without the mother the fetus would not exist. Due to this the mother is well in her right to remove the fetus.

"Since the fetus is a person as of now"
Not a human being.
When I look up the definition of in Google this comes up: a human being regarded as an individual.
By this a person and human being are linked. By my above definition that was about human being should help you realise why a fetus is not a person or human being.

"Then that argument is similar to say that the choice of a murderer is less than the choice of their chosen victim. "
Context does matter and this case a developed individual is not taking the life of another developed individual. The fetus relies on mother to live. By the person definition above if the fetus was an individual why is it reliant on the mother to survive?

"Because it does not argue against the rights of the fetus or its personhood. "
I thought I made it clear human being requires to have certain attributes I have also demonstrated here the link between person and human being I don't see how you have a point.

"The fetus has a right to live and its rights are not subject to the experiences of the mother. "
Why? Because you said so. I want some clarification on where you state live starts.

"If the fetus is a person, Then taking its life equates to taking an adult life. "
The difference is the fetus is not developed. The adult is which is why it is called an adult and the fetus is called a fetus.
I would also like to define fetus: an unborn or unhatched offspring of a mammal, In particular an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception. (Google: fetus define)
How is a fetus a person without being born?

"My argument for the person-hood of a fetus is that there are no morally relevant differences between an adult"
This depends on the morals and the context of the abortion. Would like you to set parameters on what you consider right and wrong in context of abortions.

"then if it was born early infanticide would still be justified. "
A fetus requires the being to be unborn. If the being is born it is no longer a fetus. Everything else about the size part is that yes both are individuals the 4 year old and the 32 year old.

"Level of development does not have anything to do with the value of a human being. "
A fetus cannot survive by itself, Can't speak, Articulate speech, Have an upright stance or the superior mental development compared to other animals that I clearly listed earlier requirements to be a human being.

"An adult does not have the authority to abuse or harm a child even though it is much more developed than the child. "
Child is born. A fetus is unborn.

"Where you are has nothing to do with your value or rights. "
Environment: the surroundings or conditions in which a person, Animal, Or plant lives or operates. (Google: Environment define)
What if the potential child is being brought in a middle of a war?
What if the potential child is being brought in a contaminated area (Chernobyl)?
There are two instances where it does matter what the environment the woman is in.

"But environment does not determine human value. "
If the environment makes it nearly impossible to deliver a child the environment does matter.

"If a fetus is not a person then abortion is similar to a Kidney transplant or other bodily choices"
A kidney is a body part. A fetus is an unborn human lacking in many requirements to be considered a human being.

"If the assertion that a fetus is a person is refuted"
I think I have. Would like a response.
Debate Round No. 2
cello242

Con

Human Being: a man, Woman, Or child of the species Homo sapiens, Distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, Power of articulate speech, And upright stance.

Child: a young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority.

Ketchup: A spicy sauce made chiefly from tomatoes and vinegar, Used as relish

The dictionary definition of a human being cannot disprove the person-hood of a fetus because the definition of child creates a loop back to the definition of human being.

Also, The dictionary cannot be the only argument used because as you can see dictionaries can be flawed and therefore must be backed up by other arguments.

The reason a fetus is a person is because the zygote at conception is a new form of DNA and behaves in a manner outside of a normal human cell or brain tumor. Different molecular composition separates the body of the zygote from the body of the mother and different behavior from regular human cells adds as evidence that the zygote is a human organism or human being.

You keep making the point that a fetus is not a person because it is dependent on the mother. I have already addressed that point in my arguments in round 2 (see dependency).

I am also using the philosophical definition of person because that is what I am referring to. Whatever a being who is a part of our moral community is, I call that a person.

In context of abortions I would say that all are wrong with the exception of the threatening of the mother's life with no other options.

"Where you are has nothing to do with your value or rights. "
Environment: the surroundings or conditions in which a person, Animal, Or plant lives or operates. (Google: Environment define)
What if the potential child is being brought in a middle of a war?
What if the potential child is being brought in a contaminated area (Chernobyl)?
There are two instances where it does matter what the environment the woman is in. "

These have nothing to do with the value or rights of the fetus.

If you are using the definition of human being to determine person-hood, Then if I get on all fours I am no longer a person because I lack an upright stance.

Back to you
omar2345

Pro

The dictionary definition of a human being cannot disprove the person-hood of a fetus because the definition of child creates a loop back to the definition of human being.
It comes down if the mother should have a right to abort a fetus. I say yes because the mother does have the right to do so due to reasons. Whatever it maybe the mother has more right over the fetus due to reliance involved. Without the mother the fetus would not be surviving. Due to this the mother if wanting to abort the baby due to reasons is well within her right do so because the fetus has become a high enough problem to want the mother carry out an abortion.

Also, The dictionary cannot be the only argument used because as you can see dictionaries can be flawed and therefore must be backed up by other arguments.
The problem with this is that if we do not agree on definition then we would be talking past each other. It can be flawed which is why I choose the best definition I can find. You didn't however. Examples would be your definition of person and human being. I would require another definition to understand what it means instead I gave you a definition of human being which has attributes that did make it clear to what I meant.

The reason a fetus is a person is because the zygote at conception is a new form of DNA and behaves in a manner outside of a normal human cell or brain tumor.
It is still unborn and reliant on the mother which you are not addressing.

Different molecular composition separates the body of the zygote from the body of the mother and different behavior from regular human cells adds as evidence that the zygote is a human organism or human being.
I see this as filler or dodging the matter at hand. The fetus is reliant on the mother. If the mother cannot have the fetus in her body whatever reason it maybe she should be able to abort it. The mother has more value than a fetus due to how developed the mother is and potential of pregnancy later on during her life.

You keep making the point that a fetus is not a person because it is dependent on the mother. I have already addressed that point in my arguments in round 2 (see dependency).
It was a bad point but I will address it here again what you stated in Round 2.

Dependency: The line of person-hood drawn at viability is a common one. However, This excludes coma patients, Iron lung patients, Certain diabetic patients, Pace-maker patients, Etc. Who are entirely dependent on machines. Moreover the line of viability is determined by where you go. A New York hospital can deliver a fetus much earlier than a hospital in Bangladesh, But environment does not determine human value.
No where in here have you defined your words. You defined person to be a being who is part of our moral community. No where in the definition does it help me understand what you mean by that definition. I require the definition of moral community as well. Hopefully you give one in the following next. The reason why the coma patients, Iron lung patients etc are in a different category is because all of them are born. Meaning they are not reliant on their mother to survive. Yes they are reliant on a machine or a material of some sort but that is expense is cheaper than time. 6-9 months of a mother's live has more value than electrical energy. Due to the abundance of electrical energy and the limited time the woman has to do something with her life. After that point you decide to not address the fetus being reliant on the mother instead talk about places. Yes it is easier to deliver a baby in New York than Bangladesh but what if the mother does not want to spend 6-9 months of her life providing for it and putting her life on halt? You are basically saying since you are against abortion would say the life of the fetus over-rules the choice the mother has aborting it. Limiting to what a woman can do with her life by 6-9 months at the least and if she does decide to care of it would probably spend the majority of 14 years afterwards to take care the child.

I am also using the philosophical definition of person because that is what I am referring to. Whatever a being who is a part of our moral community is, I call that a person.
Would like a definition of moral community.

In context of abortions I would say that all are wrong with the exception of the threatening of the mother's life with no other options.
This means you are okay with children being born by rape. The problem with this is that you force a woman to spend 6-9 months of her time to growing and eventually give birth to a baby then since we have laws. The rapist would be put in jail leaving the mother to be a single mother. Not to mention if the mother had prior commitments that were over-ruled by something she could not prevent. Whether it be the rape itself or being pregnant for 6-9 months (If what you propose does become policy) then the mother would have to decide to be a single mother and take care of the child on her own or give it up for adoption. Both are bad options for the woman. One would be a stressful life trying to be both breadwinner and the career in the family or giving up the child which does psychologically scar the mother. Aborting the baby is not as damaging as letting it go while being in the process of being pregnant of 6-9 months then going into labour only for it to be given away. Both are options are bad if the person did not want to have a child. So basically instead of a better option for the woman abortion you would pick from the lesser of two evils.

These have nothing to do with the value or rights of the fetus.
The problem is that it does have an impact during the pregnancy stage. If it would be impossible to bring a baby in the world the value matters less than the environment the woman might be in. Values tend to matter less than surviving in a middle of a war.

If you are using the definition of human being to determine person-hood, Then if I get on all fours I am no longer a person because I lack an upright stance.
Clearly missing my definition.
Here it is: superior mental development, Power of articulate speech, And upright stance.
You still have an upright stance, Can articulate speech and superior mental development compared to other animals. You can get on all fours but it does not make you less of a human being.

Await a response.
Debate Round No. 3
cello242

Con

cello242 forfeited this round.
omar2345

Pro

Would have liked a response since it is good to have opposing ideas battle eachother if not I would be in a bubble thinking I am always right. Oh well.
Debate Round No. 4
cello242

Con

cello242 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
27 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@AIRhino

I would like to know what went without rebuttals because I just don't see what I didn't rebut.
Posted by Thoht 3 years ago
Thoht
Omar, I should point out that the philosophical definition of "person" is an entirely separate thing. People equate 'person' with 'human' but they're very different. Aliens that aren't humans would still be persons morally. If animals developed traits we associate with 'persons' we would all probably give them moral value.

You are both talking past each other in this debate, So I can't really give either side stronger argument.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
I am not going to challenge him because I am will be losing a lot more than gaining. Dsjpk5 does not debate I do which basically just gives him the opportunity to use his vendetta to vote bomb me.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@zhaod1

Thank you but I did not challenge him he implied it. No evidence was given that I wanted to challenge him directly instead he/she assumed it. A simple question could have given him/her the answer but dsjpk5 did not ask if I challenged him/her to a vote off also including evidence so that I can actually know what he/she considers something as a challenge to a vote off.
Posted by zhaod1 3 years ago
zhaod1
If you do challenge him, Then I can counter his votes for you.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@zhaod1

By the way if I supposedly did challenge dsjpk5 directly I would lose a lot of debates and bascially draw if we counter each other votes. Which did happen apart from directly challenging dsjpk5 to a vote off. As of yet he/she has given no proof of such a thing asked by me.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@zhaod1

Well since I don't to make something of it. We have called it off.
So no.
Posted by zhaod1 3 years ago
zhaod1
DIdn't you and dsjpk5 challenge each other to a vote-off?
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@dsjpk5

Where are these rules or are you making this up?
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
Yeah sure. Ask me for a debate if you want.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
cello242omar2345Tied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes to Pro since Con forfeited. Con did not provide any sources. So he guesses in his arguments with heated fluff. Con stipulates "To have fun!" That's docking points galore. How is abortion "fun"? Con "if the mother's life is truly endangered and there is no other option I would be okay with abortion." Con "Both sides are equal," What if the mother is a drug abuser and thus its is known that the baby will be born addicted to drugs? How is the baby "equal"? Its not. Con "Since the fetus is a person then killing that person does not "unrape" the mother, It just adds another act of." But fails to solve the problem who takes care of the baby? as Pro "The fetus relies on mother to live." True. Pro "A fetus cannot survive by itself, Can't speak, Articulate speech," True. Con does not present satisfactory arguments.
Vote Placed by AIRhino 3 years ago
AIRhino
cello242omar2345Tied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made several arguments which were not refuted by pro, while every argument made by pro was countered by con. WIth regard to the statement that the fetus is reliant to the mother, he replied in Round 2(see level of development). Therefore arguments goes to Con.
Vote Placed by Thoht 3 years ago
Thoht
cello242omar2345Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Con said the rule at the beginning was that his opponent agreed to debate it 'until the end.' I assume he was playing by his own rules and by forfeiting the last two rounds violates his own rule, therefore conduct. More in comments.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 3 years ago
dsjpk5
cello242omar2345Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering poor vote. The rules of the website require forfeiting at least half of the rounds in order to award a conduct only vote.
Vote Placed by zhaod1 3 years ago
zhaod1
cello242omar2345Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited the last 2 rounds, which is poor conduct.

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