Instigator / Pro

NoahH95

1519

rating

debates

100.0%

won

Topic

#3651

Abortion is not Moral, and Should Be Illegal

Status

Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics

Better arguments

Better sources

Better legibility

Better conduct

After 2 votes and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...

NoahH95

Tags

Politics

Parameters

Publication date: 08.16.2022 06:40PM
Last updated date: 08.29.2022 03:03AM
Type: Standard
Number of rounds: 4
Time for argument: Two days
Max argument characters: 10,000
Voting period: One week
Point system: Multiple criterions
Voting system: Open

Contender / Con

Kritikal

1553

rating

debates

72.22%

won

Description

This debate is about abortion.

Meriam Webster's definition of abortion:
the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: such as
a: spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation
— compare MISCARRIAGE
b: induced expulsion of a human fetus
c: expulsion of a fetus by a domestic animal often due to infection at any time before completion of pregnancy [1]

As of this debate, only human abortion is to be debated. As a result, the (c) definition is irrelevant.
__________________

For Burden of Proof:

To be decided with-in the debate.
______________

10,000 (ten thousand) characters are allowed in each round. Loopholes to violate the character limit, like writing your case in a word (or alike) file and posting its screenshot (or image file or something like that) are not allowed. Such attempts will result in automatic disqualification - voters should penalize the violaters (if any occurs).
______________________________

Good luck

Round 1

NoahH95

08.16.2022 09:08PM

Pro

This is my first time on DebateArt, so I am excited to get started!

When talking about abortion, I think the first thing you need to establish, is when does life begin. I believe it begins at conception, therefore, I believe that having an abortion is killing a living human child. I think we should take away this so- called "choice" to kill a human. It's a baby you don't get to kill just because it's convenient for you. I think that getting an abortion is one of the most evil notions that a human can take, and that taking away a baby's life is immoral and evil.

Kritikal

08.17.2022 01:38AM

Con

Framing

BoP

BoP is on Aff because Aff wins by proving the resolution is true, so if the resolution has not been proven than default neg.

The resolution is absolute, simply saying that "it is not moral", meaning that no instance of abortion is moral, and it says that "[it] should be illegal" meaning that Aff must prove that all abortion is immoral and that all abortion should also be illegal.

Their Case

1. BoP

BoP clearly has not been met as the entire premise of my opponents case is that "life" begins at conception, however Aff says: "I believe [life] begins at conception, therefore, I believe that having an abortion is killing a living human child." No evidence logical, scientific, or otherwise is presented to support this.

2. Life vs. Humanity

Aff says that the first thing we need to establish is when "life" begins, however this is incorrect. Many things can be considered alive including trees, flies, cows, and various single cell organisms. The real question is determined by the moral assumption that taking a human life is wrong, so with this assumption the question should be to define the ontological human.

My Case

The concept of an ontological human is much simpler than many make it out to be. It is a very well known fact that pregnancy models evolution. [1] For this reason it seems logical to say that humanity in the ontological sense begins when a being has progressed to a human stage. Very early on in pregnancy, the fetus may be more close to a fish then a person for example, however as the pregnancy progresses it reaches a level of complexity unique to humans.

Specifically, at 8 weeks the fetus has reached a human level of complexity and no longer mirrors a fish. [2] Because of this I would set the limit around 8 weeks for abortion, however the specific date is irrelevant to proving the resolution false which simply says that all abortion is immoral.

[1] https://media.istockphoto.com/vectors/human-embryo-evolution-flat-vector-illustration-fetal-development-vector-id1270383525?k=20&m=1270383525&s=612x612&w=0&h=Z_W0B7BaL0AX0bm05598CLtGq1zBXGtUyHDd5ZGw5cU=

[2]https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2011/09/14/140397576/when-does-life-begin#:~:text=By%20eight%20weeks%2C%20primitive%20pathways%20are%20beginning%20to%20connect%20newly%2Dformed%20nervous%20cells%2C%20marking%20the%20initial%20development%20of%20the%20brain.%20The%20embryo%20shows%20everything%20an%20adult%20human%20shows%3B%20this%20is%20the%20beginning%20of%20the%20fetal%20stage.

Round 2

NoahH95

08.17.2022 04:18AM

Pro

So, there are a few things to unpack here...

1. I did provide logic for why I think abortion is killing a living human child, and that logic was that life begins at conception. If life begins at conception, then all abortions would be considered murder.

https://www.lifemattersww.org/Need-Help/Questions-about-abortion/When-Does-Life-Begin

2. So you said that cows, flies and trees are also living, but I think that we can both agree that the life of a baby, or in your words, a fetus, has more value than that of a fly, tree, or cow. Also, according to Marriam Webster Dictionary, Ontological means that something, or (in this case) someone, is existing. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ontological A fetus in the womb definitely exists.

Your Case: So, you are saying that a fetus is a fish and not a human? That honestly makes no sense. According to the American Pregnancy Association, most

women find out they're pregnant during their fourth to seventh week of pregnancy. By that time, the baby already has a heartbeat, it is ten THOUSAND times

larger than the fertilized egg. The eyes, legs, and hands are formed. There are already brainwaves detectable, mouth and lips are present, and fingernails are forming. By week THREE the baby's backbone and spinal cord is forming, the nervous system is taking shape, the liver and kidneys and intestines are there, and by day 22, the child's heart is already beating with its own individual blood, not the mother's. https://healthquestions.medhelp.org/fetal-development-week-4

It is an individual human being. If you kill that baby outside the womb, you get charged with first degree murder. You kill it in the womb we call it a basic

human right. So I believe all abortions are immoral because simply, life begins at conception, and if life begins at conception, then all abortions are killing a human life, and killing is immoral. Therefore, abortions are immoral. https://www.quora.com/Why-is-killing-fellow-humans-usually-considered-immoral?share=1

Kritikal

08.17.2022 05:52AM

Con

Framing
Framing was dropped, so Aff has a BoP to prove all abortions are immoral and should be illegal.

Their Case

1.BoP

I did provide logic for why I think abortion is killing a living human child, and that logic was that life begins at conception. If life begins at conception, then all abortions would be considered murder.

What I said was that no evidence has been presented to show that life begins at conception. The problem is that Aff starts with: "that logic was life begins at conception," but as I point out Aff makes an assumption that a life starts out at conception with no evidence of this particular fact.

2. Life vs. Humanity

First Aff says that we can probably both agree that a fetus has more value than a tree or a fly, but this is an oversimplification. At 12 weeks, a fetus is an ontological human, but on the first day of pregnancy the fetus is far less complex than a human or even a fly for that matter.

My whole point here is that we do not need to ask when life begins, but rather we should ask when it should be valued as human life. Simply saying we should agree on this is in no way a response.

Next Aff gives a wild oversimplification of ontology, saying that it simply asks if something exists or does not exist. So an ontological human because it exists, but this is not what ontology is. "Ontology concerns claims about the nature of being and existence." [1] Ontology can ask if something exists as a human with value, or if it is different.

My Case

First Aff says that I am saying a fetus is a fish, but this is not what I am saying. I am saying before 8 weeks a fetus is no more complex than a fish, and has no more value than its physical state reflects. This is supported by science, and it is a well known fact that evolution mirrors development. A 5 week old fetus is no more developed than a fish.

The rest of the points have absolutely no relevance to my point that an early fetus is less developed than non-human species.

According to the American Pregnancy Association, most women find out they're pregnant during their fourth to seventh week of pregnancy.

When women find out has nothing to do with if an abortion is moral at that stage, or with the complexity of a child.

By that time, the baby already has a heartbeat, it is ten THOUSAND times larger than the fertilized egg. The eyes, legs, and hands are formed. There are already brainwaves detectable, mouth and lips are present, and fingernails are forming. By week THREE the baby's backbone and spinal cord is forming, the nervous system is taking shape, the liver and kidneys and intestines are there, and by day 22, the child's heart is already beating with its own individual blood, not the mother's.

A fish has a heartbeat, all mammals become larger than a fertilized egg, and so on. Even if you wanted to pick anyone of these things as a standard for value they are all after day 0, so abortion should still be fine before this.

My standard of an ontological human is also better because it directly deals with the state of value that a fetus has at any given time, and is not completely arbitrary like choosing heart rate or a singular brainwave as the starting point of humanity.

[1] https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/ces/research/current/socialtheory/maps/ology/

Round 3

NoahH95

08.18.2022 12:10AM

Pro

So, I definitely provided a source for life beginning at conception. It was this link: https://www.lifemattersww.org/Need-Help/Questions-about-abortion/When-Does-Life-Begin Definitely not an assumption. Good to know you didn't read the sources though.

Also, I think we can both agree that a fetus has more value than a fly. It's not an oversimplification because you said, " Many things can be considered alive including trees, flies, cows, and various single cell organisms. " You compared the baby's life to a fly. You can't deny that. I do understand what you are saying when you argue that the fetus isn't anything more than a fish, because it is an embryo until about the eighth week of pregnancy. And while true, this doesn't give the embryo any less value. Just because it is less complex doesn't mean you have the right to kill it. It's still a human.

It is a fact that life begins at conception, meaning that even as an embryo, the baby is alive and should be valued as such. You compared the life of a baby to the life of a single celled organism. Do you believe that it's okay to kill a single celled organism for no reason? What I'm getting at is it shouldn't matter what stage of growth and development a baby is at. it shouldn't be cast aside and discarded just because it is at a different stage in growth.

Physical state does not dictate value. A person in a coma is in a diminished physical state. Can you go up and stab them? No, that's not moral. It's considered murder. It doesn't matter how developed or what physical state the baby is in, it still should have value.

When women find out does matter, because when you talk about the fetus being no more complex than a fish, that is before a woman will find out she is pregnant. So really, no abortions happen within the 1-3 weeks range. it is mostly the 4-8 week range. The moment the egg is fertilized, The baby has its own separate DNA. Nobody has the right to kill a baby.

Kritikal

08.20.2022 12:10AM

Con

Forfeited

Round 4

NoahH95

08.20.2022 03:03AM

Pro

Opponent forfeited

Kritikal

08.22.2022 03:03AM

Con

Forfeited

Barney

08.28.2022 08:19AM

-->

@NoahH95

Something useful for you:
http://tiny.cc/DebateArt

If a resolution contains multiple clauses, pro has not met BoP until each is supported.
If the clauses would support each other, pick one for the resolution, and use the other(s) as supporting contentions.

I do really advise keeping resolutions to single clauses, or even "assuming x, then y" statements.
One of my first debates was on if prison is more voluntary than not, and some nihilists complained that free will doesn't exist (which would be a fun debate in itself, but was not what I cared to discuss); so I added the clause 'assuming free will exists...' which reduced my opponents main argument down to a non-sequitur attempt to move the goalposts.

Barney

08.26.2022 03:47AM

-->

@Conservallectual

@Kritikal

@NoahH95

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Conservallectual // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 6 to pro
>Reason for Decision: Pro gave good arguments against abortion based on the life of a child. Also pro forfeited twice.
>Reason for Mod Action:

Arguments way to vague, wholly missing whatever that other side offered, and nothing touching on sources.

Arguments must always be reviewed even if left a tie (in which case less detail is required, but some reason for said tie based on the debate content must still be comprehensible within the vote).
Arguments go to the side that, within the context of the debate rounds, successfully affirms (vote pro) or negates (vote con) the resolution. Ties are possible, particularly with pre-agreed competing claims, but in most cases failing to affirm the resolution means pro loses by default.
Weighing entails analyzing the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments and their impacts against another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.

Sources are optional and if awarded require a strong quality lead. Sources go to the side that better supported their case with relevant outside evidence and/or analysis thereof. If both sides have done their research due diligence, these points are usually tied.
A side with unreliable sources may be penalized, but the voter must specify why the sources were unreliable enough to diminish their own case (such as if the other side called attention to the flaws, thereby engaging with sources in a more effective manner with impacts to arguments; thereby flipping the source and harming the opposing argument).
**************************************************

Barney

08.26.2022 03:38AM

-->

@NoahH95

Welcome to the site, and good luck on your future debates.

FLRW

08.23.2022 07:33PM

A stillbirth is the death of a baby at or after the 20th week of pregnancy. Roughly 2.6 million babies worldwide are stillborn each year.
Isn't God showing us that life does not begin until first breath?

Vici

08.23.2022 01:44AM

good debates folks!

NoahH95

08.20.2022 07:43PM

Sounds good!

Vici

08.20.2022 05:33AM

i will vote on this

Barney

08.28.2022 08:05AM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

Con forfeited half the debate. That alone is grounds for a pro victory.

That said, I don't believe this debate went deep enough for minimal BoP for the resolution to be held against the challenges con raised.

Vici

08.23.2022 01:43AM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

PRO opens with a strong opening - that the fetus is a human life and that they shouldn't be killed.

CON responds by arguing that many things are considered "life". I don't buy this - it seems axiomatic that human life is worth something (thus we think we would rather kill a turtle than a child). CON also argues that 8 weeks is their cut off, because that is when they are most life a like, as opposed to a fish.

PRo responds to the first point by reiterating that abortion is scientifically murder. with some sources to corroborate. They also argue that, when women find out that they are pregnant, it is usually when the baby already has a heartbeat (thus satisfying CON's criteria for being like a human).

CON then argues that the question is nto whether the fetus is a life , but whether they ought to be considered with human rights. This seems ontologically unnecesary. Why create this new criteria? CON also argues that fishes have heartbeats, so that is not a good criteria.

PRO retorts by asserting quite rightly that it jus seems that the human has more value than a fly. I can accept this - it seems so obvious that it is axiomatic.

I think that PRO won this over all - they were able to show that scientifically abortion is murder. This is done through first establishing that killing a person is valuable, and thus by extention the fetus is too. Also CON forfeited half the contest, so conduct and convincing arguments go to PRO.