Instigator / Pro
Raul's avatar
4
Raul
1517
rating
4
debates
75.0%
won
Topic
#3981

Pro Life vs. Pro Choice

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
3
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1

After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

Athias
Tags
Philosophy
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
2
Time for argument
One day
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
Athias's avatar
7
Athias
1598
rating
20
debates
65.0%
won
Description

Con will be arguing for Pro Choice

Round 1
Raul's avatar
Raul
Pro
#1
Welcome to the discussion on the con position on abortion! I appreciate your participation and willingness to engage in respectful and thoughtful dialogue on this important and complex issue. The con position on abortion holds that it is morally acceptable and should be legally protected, and that individuals have the right to make their own reproductive choices without interference from the government or others. I welcome your perspective and insights on this position, and look forward to a productive and respectful exchange of ideas with you.

Definitions:

  • Pro-life: The belief that human life should be protected and valued from the moment of conception until natural death.
  • Abortion: The termination of a pregnancy before the fetus is capable of independent life.
Stipulations:

  • The argument presented here is based on the assumption that human life has inherent value and deserves to be protected.
  • The argument does not address situations of rape, incest, or threats to the life of the mother, as these are complex and sensitive issues that may require a different ethical analysis.
Arguments:

1. Human life is valuable and deserving of respect.

  • According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person" (United Nations, 1948).
  • The value of human life is also recognized in various religious and philosophical traditions, including Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and Buddhism (Barna Group, 2018).
2. The fetus in the first trimester has moral value.

  • A first trimester fetus has the potential to grow into a baby, and therefore has more value than just a "cluster of cells" (paraphrased).
  • It is difficult to draw a line at any point other than the inception of the baby to determine when a human life has intrinsic value, as there are examples of adults who are alive due to external forces or are in a coma, and these cases raise questions about the use of criteria such as heartbeats or brain function to determine the value of a human life.
3. Abortion ends the life of a developing human being.

  • From the moment of fertilization, a new human being is created with his or her own unique genetic makeup (American College of Pediatricians, 2018).
  • Scientific evidence shows that the unborn child is a living being with his or her own unique set of DNA, blood type, and potential for growth and development (American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 2017).
4. The rights of the unborn should be protected.

  • If the unborn child is a human being with inherent value and dignity, then he or she has the right to life and should be protected by law (National Right to Life Committee, 2021).
  • The pro-life position asserts that all human beings, including the unborn, should be treated with respect and dignity, regardless of their size, location, or level of development (National Right to Life Committee, 2021).
Extras:

While it is important to respect an individual's right to privacy and autonomy, the pro-life position asserts that this right is not absolute and must be balanced with other moral considerations, such as the inherent value and dignity of human life. The pro-life position asserts that from the moment of conception, a new human being is created with his or her own unique genetic makeup and the potential for growth and development (American College of Pediatricians, 2018). Scientific evidence shows that the unborn child is a living being with his or her own unique set of DNA, blood type, and potential for growth and development (American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 2017). If the unborn child is a human being with inherent value and dignity, then he or she has the right to life and should be protected by law (National Right to Life Committee, 2021). The pro-life position advocates for legal and cultural protections for the unborn and support for expectant mothers and families facing unplanned pregnancies, as a way to demonstrate respect for the inherent value and dignity of all human life.

Resolution:

Based on the above definitions, stipulations, and arguments, the pro-life position on abortion is that it is morally wrong because it ends the life of a developing human being with moral value and fails to recognize the inherent value and dignity of all human life. Therefore, the pro-life position advocates for legal and cultural protections for the unborn and support for expectant mothers and families facing unplanned pregnancies.

References:


Athias's avatar
Athias
Con
#2
I'd like to thank my opponent for instigating this debate.

First, I'd like to submit a few of definitions:

Taken from Britannica
abortion, the expulsion of a fetus from the uterus before it has reached the stage of viability
Someone who is pro-choice thinks that women have a right to choose whether or not to continue their pregnancy and give birth or to have an abortion if they do not want the child.
Taken from Wikipedia:
Self-ownership, also known as sovereignty of the individual or individual sovereignty, is the concept of property in one's own person, expressed as the moral or natural right of a person to have bodily integrity and be the exclusive controller of one's own body and life.
Taken from Merriam-Webster:
Gift
2
: something voluntarily transferred by one person to another without compensation
Taken from Dictionary.com:
Debt
1. something that is owed or that one is bound to pay to or perform for another.
2. a liability or obligation to pay or render something.
3. the condition of being under such an obligation.
Just to be clear, the terms defined are abortion, pro-choice, self-ownership, gift, and debt.

Opening Argument:

My opponent has argued that: (1) human life is valuable and deserving of respect, (2) the fetus's life is valuable as early as the first trimester and any division in the context of when that life begins is arbitrary, (3) death of a human being is a consequence of abortion, and (4) the rights of the unborn child should be protected. Now, I've listed my opponent's arguments to state that I do not nor do I have the intention to dispute the first three; that is, human life is valuable and merits respect, the fetus is human, and abortion results in the death of a zygote/embryo/fetus. My opponent would also later supplement this argument with mentions of how the fetus contains human DNA--again, I don't dispute any of this.

My contention instead will focus on self-ownership; I will also demand that my opponent substantiate how in spite of the fact that a zygote/embryo/fetus is a human, it--the zygote/embryo/fetus that is--bears a claim to occupy its mother's womb despite her wishes. Now when considering the concept of self-ownership, one would naturally presume that the right to/over oneself is self-evident. I mean as individuals we--I suppose one can refer to this as our consciousnesses, minds, spirits--possess our bodies independent of interference are under our control. Our bodies as well as our consciousnesses/minds/spirits comprise who are as individuals. It would then follow that any moral consideration as it concerns an individual and his/her environment, including his/her interactions with other individuals, would begin with his/her own interests over his/her own person.

Now as one who maintains the pro-choice position, the chief concern isn't whether a prospective mother carries out or terminates a pregnancy. It's whether she has the choice; as I maintained above, the mother as an individual bears a right to her person--not just parts of it, but all of it, including her womb. If she decides to assist her unborn child in its development by gifting her womb, that is and ought to be her choice. Her interest over her own body take precedence always given that it's her body (again, self-ownership is self-evident.) If said prospective mother decides to terminate her pregnancy, that too, is her choice for the same reason. Contrary to my opponent's description, maintaining a pro-choice position isn't about being disrespectful or devaluing a human life; it's about maintaining a fundamental component of it: to act in one's own interests as it concerns oneself (self-determination.)

Now some of you may have noticed that I used particular language in my references to pregnancy, particularly gifting one's womb. And this is important because its codified with an individual's right to decided how his/her body is used. That if the prospective mother submits her womb, her consent, her willingness is the morally preferable resolution. My opponent stated that the right to privacy and autonomy is not absolute without substantiation or justification for this modification as it concerns the right to one's self, while presumably maintaining absolution for the "right to life," and all other rights. And one platitude often argued in favor of the pro-life position, which I argue seeks to provide legal consequence to an individual for exact his/her own interests over his/her own body, is that the zygote/embryo/fetus is OWED its mother's assistance--chiefly through the submission of her womb--in it's development. So I'll pose these questions to my opponent since it coincides with the presumed claim maintained by the pro-life position that a zygote/embryo/fetus has to occupy its mother's womb: why does the mother owe the fetus her womb? What creates the obligation where a mother must have her bodily integrity disrespected in favor of the fetus's alleged claim to occupy her womb?

Last, it's important to understand what produces the death of the fetus. Now in saying this, I'm not at all eliding, ignoring, or dismissing the methods of abortion which intentionally harm the fetus before expulsion. But we must acknowledge that the chief reason that the fetus dies as a result of abortion is not because of some calculated decision to see its life end. It's death is a result of its physiology--that is, its underdevelopment and its incapability to survive outside of its mothers womb is what produces the consequence of death. I maintain that advocating for legal and cultural protections for the unborn and support for expectant mothers and families facing unplanned pregnancies--particularly coercing the mother to carry out a pregnancy by law--is a gross violation of a fundamental human right, the right to oneself.


Round 2
Raul's avatar
Raul
Pro
#3
Thank you for participating in this debate and for presenting your arguments. I appreciate the opportunity to engage in respectful and thoughtful dialogue on this important and complex issue.

Definitions:

  • Abortion: the expulsion of a fetus from the uterus before it has reached the stage of viability (American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 2017)
  • Pro-choice: the belief in the right to choose whether or not to continue their pregnancy and give birth or to have an abortion (National Right to Life Committee, 2021)
  • Self-ownership and the right to one's own body: the belief that individuals have the right to privacy and bodily autonomy and that these rights should be protected (American College of Pediatricians, 2018)

Arguments:

1. Definition of abortion

I want to start by responding to your argument by addressing the definitions you gave. Although these definitions provide helpful information, they oversimplify certain aspects of the discussion and fail to adequately represent the complexity of the issues at hand. As an illustration, the definition of abortion as the "expulsion of a foetus from the uterus before it has reached the stage of viability" ignores the moral ramifications of the choice to end a pregnancy as well as the intrinsic worth and dignity of human existence.

2. Definition of pro-choice

Similarly, the definition of pro-choice as the belief in the "right to choose whether or not to continue their pregnancy and give birth or to have an abortion" does not take into account the moral and ethical considerations involved in this decision.

3. Self-ownership and the right to one's own body

With regards to your argument on self-ownership and the right to one's own body, I agree that people have the right to privacy and bodily autonomy and that these rights are important and should be protected. However, I would argue that these rights are not absolute and must be balanced with other moral considerations, such as the inherent value and dignity of human life.

4. The inherent value and dignity of human life

The pro-life position asserts that from the moment of conception, a new human being is created with his or her own unique genetic makeup and the potential for growth and development (American College of Pediatricians, 2018). Scientific evidence shows that the unborn child is a living being with his or her own unique set of DNA, blood type, and potential for growth and development (American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 2017). If the unborn child is a human being with inherent value and dignity, then he or she has the right to life and should be protected by law (National Right to Life Committee, 2021). The pro-life position advocates for legal and cultural protections for the unborn and support for expectant mothers and families facing unplanned pregnancies, as a way to demonstrate respect for the inherent value and dignity of all human life.

5. Self-ownership and the right to one's own body versus the inherent value and dignity of human life

I also disagree with your argument that self-ownership and the right to one's own body should take precedence over the inherent value and dignity of human life. While the right to privacy and bodily autonomy is important, it does not override the fundamental moral principle that human life is valuable and deserving of respect. This is especially true in the case of abortion, where the decision to terminate a pregnancy involves the taking of a human life. The pro-life position acknowledges the complexity and sensitivity of this issue and does not seek to impose its views on others, but rather to advocate for the protection of all human life, including the unborn

why does the mother owe the fetus her womb? What creates the obligation where a mother must have her bodily integrity disrespected in favor of the fetus's alleged claim to occupy her womb?

The pro-life position does not argue that the mother owes the fetus her womb or has a responsibility to carry the pregnancy to term. Rather, the pro-life position argues that the unborn child has inherent value and dignity as a human being, and therefore has a right to life that should be protected by law. This belief is based on the scientific evidence that the unborn child is a living being with his or her own unique set of DNA, blood type, and potential for growth and development (American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 2017). The pro-life position acknowledges the complexity and sensitivity of the abortion issue and recognizes that pregnancy can be challenging and that expectant mothers may face difficult circumstances. However, it advocates for legal and cultural protections for the unborn and support for expectant mothers and families facing unplanned pregnancies, as a way to demonstrate respect for the inherent value and dignity of all human life.


Conclusion:

In conclusion, while I respect the pro-choice position and the importance of self-ownership and bodily autonomy, I believe that the inherent value and dignity of human life must also be considered. The pro-life position advocates for legal and cultural protections for the unborn and support for expectant mothers and families facing unplanned pregnancies, as a way to demonstrate respect for the inherent value and dignity of all human life.

Extras:

In the text provided, there are no citations included, which makes it difficult to determine the sources of the ideas and arguments presented.

Thank you to all the bystanders who took the time to read and consider the arguments presented in this debate. Your attention and participation are greatly appreciated. It is through respectful and thoughtful dialogue that we can better understand and address complex and important issues. Thank you again for your attention and contribution to this important conversation.

References:


Athias's avatar
Athias
Con
#4
Rebuttal:

"I want to start by responding to your argument by addressing the definitions you gave. Although these definitions provide helpful information, they oversimplify certain aspects of the discussion and fail to adequately represent the complexity of the issues at hand. As an illustration, the definition of abortion as the "expulsion of a foetus from the uterus before it has reached the stage of viability" ignores the moral ramifications of the choice to end a pregnancy as well as the intrinsic worth and dignity of human existence."
Con merely states, and fails to outline how the definition "ignores" the moral ramifications of the choice to end a pregnancy. And I'm also compelled to remind my opponent as well as the audience that the definitions that we use ARE NOT arguments. They are merely descriptions we use in service to our arguments. Expecting a definition to account for "ramifications" of any sort is not realistic.

"Similarly, the definition of pro-choice as the belief in the "right to choose whether or not to continue their pregnancy and give birth or to have an abortion" does not take into account the moral and ethical considerations involved in this decision."
I extend the same objection I presented  above.

"With regards to your argument on self-ownership and the right to one's own body, I agree that people have the right to privacy and bodily autonomy and that these rights are important and should be protected. However, I would argue that these rights are not absolute and must be balanced with other moral considerations, such as the inherent value and dignity of human life."

Yes, you are repeating a point you've already submitted in Round One. What you have failed to do however is outline, describe, or even justify how the inherent value and dignity of human life modifies one's right to one's body, and the reason pregnancy compels us to prioritize, as you describe, "other moral considerations."

"4. The inherent value and dignity of human life

The pro-life position asserts that from the moment of conception, a new human being is created with his or her own unique genetic makeup and the potential for growth and development (American College of Pediatricians, 2018). Scientific evidence shows that the unborn child is a living being with his or her own unique set of DNA, blood type, and potential for growth and development (American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 2017). If the unborn child is a human being with inherent value and dignity, then he or she has the right to life and should be protected by law (National Right to Life Committee, 2021)...
Another point you've repeated. As I mentioned in Round One, I don't dispute the zygote/embryo/fetus is human or that the fetus's life is valuable as early as the first trimester. But again, where have you outlined, described, or justified how this proposed right to life NULLIFIES the prospective mother's right to her person? Does it? If you protect by law the zygote's/embryo's/fetus's right to life under any circumstances--i.e. ensure that the mother is legally prohibited from expelling it from her womb until it reaches viability--does that violate its mother's right to her person since the continued occupancy of her womb by a zygote/embryo/fetus is against her wishes? What if she has a miscarriage? Is she to be investigated, perhaps charged for involuntary manslaughter? To what extent is the pro-life position willing to undermine the mother's right to life in service to their interpretation of the zygote's/embryo's/fetus's right to life?  I ask that my opponent, as well as the audience, to consider, what morally preferable right is maintained which produces the violation of another?

5. Self-ownership and the right to one's own body versus the inherent value and dignity of human life

I also disagree with your argument that self-ownership and the right to one's own body should take precedence over the inherent value and dignity of human life. While the right to privacy and bodily autonomy is important, it does not override the fundamental moral principle that human life is valuable and deserving of respect. This is especially true in the case of abortion, where the decision to terminate a pregnancy involves the taking of a human life. The pro-life position acknowledges the complexity and sensitivity of this issue and does not seek to impose its views on others, but rather to advocate for the protection of all human life, including the unborn
It's interesting you've framed your response in the form of Right vs Right, which is reminiscent of the question I posted just above. It's not that one right takes precedence over another. It's how it applies. To illustrate this, consider the hypothetical where my brother, for examples, is suffering kidney failure. He requires a kidney transplant to continue living. We're a match, but I refuse to go under the knife. No law can force me to undertake a surgery against my wishes. In exercising my discretion, am I conveying that my right to my person takes precedence over my brother's right to life? In my expression of my right am I diminishing my brother's right to life?

Let's consider another hypothetical. Let's say I live in a small town that's experiencing a terrible blizzard. I'm inside my warm home when I hear a knock at the door. It's a stranger who requests entrance because he fears he'll succumb to the horrid weather conditions. I say no. Am I denying his right to life? If I slightly modify this hypothetical and have the stranger enter my home for about half an hour before deciding to expel him, have I diminished or violated his right to life? Or am I merely refusing my assistance in aiding his survival?

The concern I present with the nature of protection you propose should be enforced by law is that it creates a debt of service. That is, we are all obligated to sustain the survival of all others even at the expense of our property and/or persons. We'd have to validate the reductio ad absurdum that I couldn't refuse my brother my kidney, and I wouldn't be able to refuse a stranger's entering my home if the weather conditions threatens his survival. The right to one's person would be subordinate, rather than concurrently maintained. Your proposal also neglects to delineate the primary reason--as I mentioned in Round One--the zygote/embryo/fetus dies after the abortion. When we consider the act of giving birth and the act of abortion, in both cases, expulsion is occurring. What's the difference? The difference is the unborn's capacity to survive. Does its death outside the occupancy of its mother's womb result as a product of its mothers premeditated decision to see its life end? Or is it its physiological underdevelopment which renders it incapable of surviving outside of its mother's womb? And this where the concept of debt comes full circle: in the mother's refusal of her womb is she in dereliction of some debt she owes the zygote/embryo/fetus? More to the point, why does she OWE her fetus her womb?

Maintaining one's right to one's person does not undermine, reject, or violate one's right to life. It maintains that one's person and how it's behaved is decided by the interests of the one to whom said person belongs. If my opponent maintained his interpretation of one's right to life while having suggested that right takes precedence over one's right to one's person, then my opponent has failed to explain how this created a claim which nullified one's right's to one's person.

The pro-life position does not argue that the mother owes the fetus her womb or has a responsibility to carry the pregnancy to term. Rather, the pro-life position argues that the unborn child has inherent value and dignity as a human being, and therefore has a right to life that should be protected by law.
This does not make sense. Protection by law would coerce a mother to carry her pregnancy to term because of some perceived legal obligation to submit her womb to her inviable zygote/embryo/fetus. In other words, SHE WOULD OWE HER FETUS HER WOMB.

This belief is based on the scientific evidence that the unborn child is a living being with his or her own unique set of DNA, blood type, and potential for growth and development (American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 2017).
A point you've repeated redundantly. I state this because, again, I do not dispute that the zygote/embryo/fetus is human.

In conclusion, while I respect the pro-choice position and the importance of self-ownership and bodily autonomy, I believe that the inherent value and dignity of human life must also be considered.
Are you, or are have you insinuated that your position should take precedence. Because human life and dignity is being considered when one argues that the right to one's person should be maintained.

In the text provided, there are no citations included, which makes it difficult to determine the sources of the ideas and arguments presented.
Not true. I provided citations for the descriptions I employed. Most of the sources you referenced were pertinent to the arguments, which I stated in Round One I would not dispute. Since the argument is normative, I'm relying on your, as well as the audience's, general when exploring certain ideas.

Closing statements:

Again, maintaining one's right to one's person does not undermine, reject, or violate one's right to life. It does not come at the expense of another right. It maintains that as it concerns one's person, one's interests maintain priority, and that this is paramount to the function of the individual. The nature of protection proposed by my opponent would subject all individuals to a debt of service that subordinates our rights to ourselves in service to the survival of any and all individuals.

I'd like to thank my opponent, again, for instigating this debate as well as the audience for reading through our debate. Vote well.