The Instigator
MSte123
Pro (for)
The Contender
clingard86
Con (against)

The abortion of fetuses which do not endanger the mother should be outlawed

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
MSte123 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: 7 Point
Started: 7/18/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 572 times Debate No: 116667
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)

 

MSte123

Pro

The pro would like to begin the debate by thanking the con for accepting the challenge to debate this topic. The pro also hopes that this will be a civil and respectful debate.

The pro would also like to clarify its position towards the debate of Abortion. The pro's position is that the abortion of fetuses, which do not endanger the mother, are immoral and should be outlawed by proper legislation. The reason the pro supports abortion if the life of the mother is in danger, is that, if the mother dies, the child inside dies with her. So, in order to save the most amount of lives, abortion to save the mother, such as radiation treatment, is unfortunately justified.

Now to begin the case for why abortion should be outlawed if the life of the mother is not endangered by the fetus.

Where does life begin? This is the question that must be answered by both sides of the argument regarding abortion. The pro believes that life begins at conception. This belief is based on the idea that there is a set of natural processes which eventually leads to a human being outside of the womb. Abortion seeks to end these natural processes by destroying the fertilzed egg and ipso facto destroying a potential human life.

The second argument as to why abortion is a moral evil is that any argument proposing that a fetus is not a human can be applied to the worth of a human being outside of the womb. This is dangerous because it deters basic human worth which can lead to the murder of millions of people.

The pro would also like to ask the con if the con believes that abortion is a terrible act no matter the justification for it.

I will allow the con to respond to this argument.
clingard86

Con

Firstly I would like to thank the instigator for beginning this dialogue.

In the interest of time and attention I will, for the first round, attempt to confine my points specifically to those raised by the instigator. I aim to initially clarify the points of disputation before proceeding, so I will be as brief as I can manage.

I will straight away state that I intend to invoke political ideology as a contextual background and as instructive motive behind the main variants of opinion within the abortion debate.

For this round, I will directly quote Pro's arguments and respond.

Finally, please note that I am from South Africa, where abortion is one hundred percent legal. I intend to argue in the American context, so please feel free to correct me if I have misinterpreted anything as a result. Also please note some spelling may differ from US standards.

"The Pros position is that the abortions of fetuses, which do not endanger the mother, are immoral"

Firstly to assert that abortions should only be performed for maternal safety, so as to leave a viable vessel for possible future progeny, is to admit that women are nothing more than chattel; to be viewed inexorably as life support systems for fetuses and potential runny noses and skinned knees.

By this argument, women must either practice celibacy (the only 100% guaranteed form of contraception-well almost, if you count the Immaculate Conception) or else risk being the hostages of their reproductive biology, up until to the age of final fertility.

"... if the con believes that abortion is a terrible act no matter the justification for it?"

The con rejects the premise. Abortion is a nuanced argument but the blunt suggestions below, falsify Pros objective and obstinate stance. If not, they will help inform the debate going forward (a brief riposte by Pro, in part or whole, would be appreciated):

-If birth control was practiced but failed
-If the pregnancy is a product of rape
-If the pregnancy is a product of an incestuous relationship
-If the pregnancy is part of an arranged or child marriage
-If a significant risk exists of passing on a genetically transferable disease
-If pregnancy is a result of mis- or under- education
-If the women was not in a culpable state of mind at the time of conception (this includes acute and chronic psychological states of mind affected by neurophysiology or external factors)

" ...and should be outlawed by proper legislation..."

With regard to the legislative aspect, I would like to know by what authority Pro, or anyone else would claim the right to force child birth?

In Roe v. Wade the constitutional right to privacy was weighed with the states interest in the fetus and it was found that severely limiting a women's agency over her reproductive biology, did not pass constitutional muster. I am intent to understand why the Pro believes:

1. Conservative, pro-life opinion is superior to a majority vote of a supreme court
2. Conservative, pro-life morality (usually of the religious stripe) should replace the overarching law (the constitution) of the explicitly secular, United States?

"Where does life begin? This is the question that must be answered by both sides of the argument regarding abortion. The pro believes that life begins at conception. This belief is based on the idea that there is a set of natural processes which eventually leads to a human being outside of the womb"

Let's for the sake of argument, tentatively agree that life (at least in potential) occurs at conception. This, regrettably, does not help us in deciding at what point a fetus has rights equal to or superior to its fully fledged human incubator (the mother). Can a zygote open a bank account? Can an embryo vote? Can a fetus tell us if it prefers existence to non? Even if we were to agree on some point, we still have all our work ahead of us.

I assume that Pro wishes to converge on the question because Pro anticipates this would demonstrate that, if life is said to exist then objectively, it cannot be taken away. However we have a difficulty: Pro is also pro death penalty (as are the majority of Conservatives ). This displays that Pros side subjectively believes there exist scenarios in which the ending of life, by human intervention, is sometimes a justifiable action. That leaves us with the problem: arguing as if we will reach incontrovertible, objective truth. I would like Pro to rethink, re-frame or clarify this question if he feels I have misunderstood it.

"Abortion seeks to end these natural processes by destroying the fertilized egg and ipso facto destroying a potential human life."

If abortion is an ending of the natural process, by that definition, contraception is, if not the ending of natural processes then the manipulation there of. Would contraception not be considered, as it is in Catholicism, a violation of the natural order or if you prefer Monty Pythons: '...every sperm is sacred...' .

Does Pro intend to mean that the natural order should not be interfered with at all, for any reasons? Would this then extend to and cover all forms of human intervention that assists or ends life, e.g. should we take polio vaccines? Should we pull the life support plug on the brain dead, etc?

"The second argument as to why abortion is a moral evil is that any argument proposing that a fetus is not a human can be applied to the worth of a human being outside of the womb. This is dangerous because it deters basic human worth which can lead to the murder of millions of people."

I feel that there are arguments, especially relating to autonomy and agency, which can be related to scenarios outside of the womb but I dismiss the imagined outcome of denigrating human life as being automatic or guaranteed.

As a brief and blunt example of possible arguments, I will employ the poor go to, end of life, coma patient. They have no agency, nor autonomy. They require external forces to survive. If they do not survive without life support, the action of pulling the plug is not considered murder and is made often times for purely pragmatic reasons, such as financial pressure.

I am afraid that, unless Pro can produce evidence that abortion is directly linked to "the murder of millions of people" this premise would be shaky, at best.

Thank you for your consideration. With this, I end my opening impressions.
Debate Round No. 1
MSte123

Pro

“By this argument, women must either practice celibacy (the only 100% guaranteed form of contraception-well almost, if you count the Immaculate Conception) or else risk being the hostages of their reproductive biology, up until to the age of final fertility.”

The pro argues that women have a right to their bodies. The pro also argues that individual men and women have the right to defend their body however they wish as long as it does not encroach on other individual’s civil liberties. What the pro believes is what is inside the pregnant woman is in fact a separate human being, and the termination of that separate human being is immoral. The situation is comparable to killing a human being outside of the womb.

"With regard to the legislative aspect, I would like to know by what authority Pro, or anyone else would claim the right to force child birth?"

The pro claims the right to force the child to live because the child is a separate individual from the mother.

The pro would like to ask another question. Is it moral to end a person’s life while they are in a coma from which they might awake?

“1. Conservative, pro-life opinion is superior to a majority vote of a supreme court
2. Conservative, pro-life morality (usually of the religious stripe) should replace the overarching law (the constitution) of the explicitly secular, United States?”

The pro in no ways wishes a government supporting a single church. The pro also believes that governmental religious toleration should be practiced throughout the land. The pro also argues that individual voters should use whatever beliefs they choose because it is their choice. No one should tell an individual what to think let alone what beliefs to vote on. The pro does not believe that because some beliefs are religious, they should all be discounted.

Gallup polls show that only 29% of all US citizens believe that abortion should be made legal no matter what the circumstances (1). The Roe vs. Wade decision was a complete breach of state’s rights. The pro does not want to dive into the benefits of federalism, but the main point is that it allows for more direct representation of US citizen’s wishes. The nine unelected jurors took the decision of states on major issues away in a de facto tyrannical way.

"Can a zygote open a bank account? Can an embryo vote? Can a fetus tell us if it prefers existence to non? Even if we were to agree on some point, we still have all our work ahead of us."

Using this logic, what stop a mother who does not want to bear the responsibility of their already born child from murdering her child. The con’s logic is confirming the argument that any justification for abortion can be used against human beings outside of the womb.

"I assume that Pro wishes to converge on the question because Pro anticipates this would demonstrate that, if life is said to exist then objectively, it cannot be taken away. However we have a difficulty: Pro is also pro death penalty (as are the majority of Conservatives ). This displays that Pros side subjectively believes there exist scenarios in which the ending of life, by human intervention, is sometimes a justifiable action. That leaves us with the problem: arguing as if we will reach incontrovertible, objective truth. I would like Pro to rethink, re-frame or clarify this question if he feels I have misunderstood it."

The con uses faulty logic here and is also assuming what the pro believes with no evidence. The pro believes that the unnecessary loss of any human life is a moral evil and a terrible sadness. The pro believes that any execution should never be committed unless there is an existing threat from a guilty individual to another human. This argument derives from the inherent right to self-defense which precedes government. What the pro finds evil is the execution of the most innocent part of our society for no reason besides the burden they pose. It equates a human being to property.

"Does Pro intend to mean that the natural order should not be interfered with at all, for any reasons? Would this then extend to and cover all forms of human intervention that assists or ends life, e.g. should we take polio vaccines? Should we pull the life support plug on the brain dead, etc?"

These strawman arguments, which aim to deflect from the issue of abortion, are easily answered. Yes, the pro does not agree with contraception. As to the arguments of human intervention maintaining lives, the pro believes that all options should be exhausted for as long as possible to save the endangered life. The sad and heart-breaking act of ending a human life should only be performed when the human being can no longer return to life while not on life support.

"As a brief and blunt example of possible arguments, I will employ the poor go to, end of life, coma patient. They have no agency, nor autonomy. They require external forces to survive. If they do not survive without life support, the action of pulling the plug is not considered murder and is made often times for purely pragmatic reasons, such as financial pressure."

Continuing on the last point, a fetus has the potential for animation while a patient surviving solely because of life support has no potential of reanimation. The fundamental difference is the potential of animation.

"I am afraid that, unless Pro can produce evidence that abortion is directly linked to "the murder of millions of people" this premise would be shaky, at best."

The evidence is that the fetus is a seperate human being.

If the human race does not plant the flag of human value at the conception of life, there is no defense against the murder of any individual. This leads to justifications of horrific ideas such as the holocaust or gulag camps.

The life of the child inside of the mother starts at conception. If left to its natural processes, it will become a human being. The human race must protect the most innocent among us.

Thank you




(1) https://news.gallup.com...
clingard86

Con

Pro’s insistence on separateness:

1. What the pro believes is what is inside the pregnant woman is in fact a separate human being, and the termination of that separate human being is immoral.
2. The evidence is that the foetus is a separate human being.
3. The pro claims the right to force the child to live because the child is a separate individual from the mother.

The word “believes”, as used in point 1 of my opponents rebuttal, is very telling as Pro repeatedly, without evidence, asserts that a zygote to fetus, is a “separate human being”.

To assert that a foetus is separate/not connected/not joined to something else is to ignore biological fact.

Should you wish to test the veracity of this claim, attempt if you will to separate the human incubator (the mother) from the foetus before the 23rd week of gestation; the results and effect speak volumes. Even if Pro would force child birth, as he declares in point 3, it would appear that nature does not recognise this authority:

COMPLETED WEEKS OF GESTATION AT BIRTH

(using last menstrual period)

CHANCE OF SURVIVAL

21 weeks and less

0%

22 weeks

0-10%*

23 weeks

10-35%

...

...

* Most babies at 22 weeks are not resuscitated because survival without major disability is so rare. (1)

The current spirit of law which seeks to limit abortions to foetal viability is approximately in line with the table above, and clearly takes heed of these biological facts in weighing up the rights of the mother; to not be forced to child birth; agency over her body including dis/allowing any type of life in potential to be incubated there, against the rights of a life in potential.(2)


The contradiction of the poll and the unanswered premise

Gallup polls show that only 29% of all US citizens believe that abortion should be made legal no matter what the circumstances (1). The Roe v. Wade decision was a complete breach of state’s rights.

The Con has analysed the full polling data from the Pros reference and discovered some interesting points that appear to contradict the above:

1. 53 % of people say that the outcome of Roe v. Wade was a good thing
2. Only 29% of people would have the Roe v. Wade decision overturned
3. Only 37 % would seek a constitutional amendment in banning abortion and only 36 % would favour a similar ban at state level.
4. 48 % of people considered themselves to be pro-choice
5. 60 % of people believe abortion should be legal within the first three months of pregnancy

Lastly when specific scenarios are presented to people, the favourable view of abortion legality is generally higher than resting beliefs:

-Mother is in medical danger-83 %
-If a chance exists that the child will be mentally disabled- 56%
-If a chance exists that the child will be born with a life threatening illness-67%
-If the pregnancy is a product of rape or incest- 77%
-If a chance exists that the child will be born with down syndrome-49%

I am reminded by the last statistics above, that Pro has neglected to feedback on the similar list of obvious reasons to admit abortions that I produced in the opening (reproduced below):

-If birth control was practiced but failed
-If the pregnancy is a product of rape

-If the pregnancy is a product of an incestuous relationship
-If the pregnancy is part of an arranged or child marriage
-If a significant risk exists of passing on a genetically transferable disease
-If pregnancy is a result of mis- or under- education
-If the wom(a)n was not in a culpable state of mind at the time of conception (this includes acute and chronic psychological states of mind affected by neurophysiology or external factors)
-alcohol or drug addicted mothers (*not included in the original opening)

Is it because to admit one, would in fact invalidate my opponent’s entire premise (repeated here for clarity): “The abortion of foetuses, which do not endanger the mother should be outlawed.”


Who is tyrannical in this instance?

The nine unelected jurors took the decision of states on major issues away in a de facto tyrannical way.

It equates a human being to property.

It is clear that Pro does not understand the reason why the constitution is the over-ruling and overarching law of the land and that no law, state or federally sponsored may be in dissonance with it.(3) This is to ensure that the inalienable rights of the individual cannot simply be voted or legislated away, by a mob majority. To suggest that the nine highly trained and experienced legal minds that tested the issue against the constitution was somehow erroneous, is dubious at best.

Furthermore, for someone who would negate the rights of established human life in favour of life in potential and who would claim physical agency over a woman, at the point of a gun and retributive justice, is hardly apt to accuse anyone or anything of being “tyrannical” or as treating another as “property”.


The rehashed value argument, asserted without evidence by Pro

1.Using this logic, what stop a mother who does not want to bear the responsibility of their already born child from murdering her child.

2. If the human race does not plant the flag of human value at the conception of life, there is no defense against the murder of any individual. This leads to justifications of horrific ideas such as the holocaust or gulag camps.

The spirit of this debate is that the Pro and Pro-lifers are unable to distinguish between the value of life in potential and already established life and what rights if any, life in potential has equal to or over and above established life.

The Con has no problem in making this distinction-which is why the Con is at peace with a woman’s right to agency over her own body and uncomfortable with claiming full agency over it, before even the point of conception, and then to be indefinitely poised to take control of her again, should she fail to repress the sexual instinct (Pro has stated he is against contraception too).

In my opening I challenged Pro to provide evidence that abortions lead to the natural denigration of already established human life. There are many examples of countries that have legalized abortion, including his, for significant periods of time. He has still failed to produce evidence that abortions lead directly to a situation that “deters basic human worth which can lead to the murder of millions of people ” or his assertion as set out in point 2:as far as I am aware, Hitler and Stalin were not inspired to their respective genocides because of abortion.

The fallacy of equating abortion with murder

1. The situation is comparable to killing a human being outside of the womb
2. What the pro finds evil is the execution of the most innocent part of our society for no reason besides the burden they pose.

This is the cheapest stock in trade trick of the Pro life’s position. ‘Abortion is murder’ is a statement as used and used up as any you will find in the debate. It is not an appeal to logic or nuanced reason but to blunt emotion. So allow me to respond in kind with an emotional argument of my own.

Seeing that Pro would equate abortion with murder and a summary execution, I would like to know what his prescribed punishment would be for transgressors if he saw his legal wish fulfilled? With the vast majority of Conservatives being for the death penalty, for the crime of murder, which if we would follow the faulty logic that already established life is comparable to life in potential and the ending thereof is murder, death should be the punishment, should it not?(4)

I would like the Pro to respond honestly: if his Mother, Aunt, Sister, Girlfriend or Wife, or even a female acquaintance would choose an abortion, would he give her up for the gallows or to ride the lightning?

If he would refuse this or prescribe a less severe punishment, he would in the same breath have admitted that abortion is not equal to murder and that life in potential is not equal to life already established. If however he would seek to be consistent in his views and seek capital punishment, then I would accuse him of being far from the moral authority in this argument.

The truth is, if Pro is at all concerned with maternal safety, he cannot turn a blind eye to the statistic that more women die in child birth than they do from abortions and still manage the hubris to force a woman to risk her life in such a manner, against her will.(5)

Furthermore, if he were somehow to affect legal banning of abortion, the evidence suggests that abortions won’t diminish to the level he hopes but instead will only prompt a slew of unsafe back-yard or self-attempts at abortions, where maternal safety is immediately jeopardised to levels of morbidity. If maternal safety and the continuing ability to produce progeny is his main concern, he should rather vote Pro-choice.(6)

Finally, I would like to draw further attention to the inconsistency of thought in my opponents’ logic and philosophy; I refer to point 2. He would not allow a woman the right to end a pregnancy for pragmatic reasons such as the financial (after all it is estimated that it will cost $226 000 to raise a child to the age of 17)(7). He does however assume the right to force a woman to a life of maternal incubation and financial and physical servitude and then absolve himself of all further responsibilities.

As per my opponents profile he is against any forms of social welfare. This is a commonality to be found in the Conservative, Pro-life camp. Very sorry but that is not how the social contract works. Even if you could affect such a law, expect or rather offer unreservedly to balance that power with subsidising the outcome.(8)(9)

One would think that in possession of the foundational ideas above, the Pro-life Conservatives would be the ones arguing for more abortions, not less or none.

Thank you

(1)http://www.spensershope.org...
(2)https://bit.ly...
(3)https://bit.ly...
(4)https://bit.ly...
(5)https://usat.ly...
(6)https://bit.ly...
(7)https://ti.me...
(8)https://bit.ly...
(9)https://bit.ly...

Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by clingard86 3 years ago
clingard86
I don't foresee a problem. It seems that this time is sort of when we are both overlapping (for info sake its 19:02 here). I'll check Monday around this time and we can get the ball (re)rolling
Posted by MSte123 3 years ago
MSte123
The negotiations should end Monday, Would it be possible to send the invitation to you around Monday afternoon?
Posted by clingard86 3 years ago
clingard86
Sounds good. Are you ready to do all of that now and have enough time if we started the clock from now?
Posted by MSte123 3 years ago
MSte123
I was thinking that I could start a new debate with the same title and length with a part 2 or something of that nature in the name and we copy and paste our arguments and pick up where we left off. What do you think?
Posted by clingard86 3 years ago
clingard86
I appreciate you getting back to me with that explanation. This is the third debate I took part in that ended this way, So it is a bit frustrating.

I came to this platform for two reasons, Debating abortion was one of them-this was the weak link in the category of what I think I know and arguing the points with you has been enlightening.

I think I got what I came for but I wouldn't deny you the opportunity to respond. So I am open to suggestions on how we can see that through.
Posted by MSte123 3 years ago
MSte123
If you would like to exchange some sort of emails or restart on this website let me know.

Thank you
Posted by MSte123 3 years ago
MSte123
My personal job has had a recent situation which I needed to address. I could not attend to this debate topic for the past three days because of that. I would like to continue this conversation and almost restart the debate picking up where we left off.
Posted by clingard86 3 years ago
clingard86
So what now?

Do I win by forfeit?

I put a ton of work into this.
This debate has 0 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.