Instigator / Con

Freja

1500

rating

debates

0.0%

won

Topic

#4663

Is morality a valid argument against Abortion?

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 5 votes and with 9 points ahead, the winner is...

Best.Korea

Tags

Morality

Abortion

Parameters

Publication date: 07.01.2023 06:03PM
Last updated date: 09.03.2023 08:05PM
Type: Standard
Number of rounds: 2
Time for argument: Two days
Max argument characters: 10,000
Voting period: Two months
Point system: Multiple criterions
Voting system: Open

Contender / Pro

Best.Korea

1233

rating

408

debates

39.09%

won

Description

I am of the belief that abortion should not be outlawed because it can be deemed immoral. I strive to look at thing from alternative lenses and have assumed the position that abortion is a case of body autonomy and no matter how immoral it can be deemed everyone has the right to their own body. However if one believes abortion is murder can we truly place ones right to body autonomy over a supposed life?

Round 1

Freja

07.01.2023 07:12PM

Con

I am of the belief that morality has no grounds in a debate about abortion.

Abortion is of course the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, which is in my belief a crucial human right. I would argue that abortion is simply a matter of body autonomy and therefore a right every woman should be entitled to.

Exercising ones right to body autonomy can in many cases be considered immoral. For example donating blood is a simple procedure that is low in pain. By donating blood, we would most certainly be saving lives. One could argue that choosing not to donate blood knowing that it places someone at risk (especially when considering the amount of blood donated is lower than the demand for blood) is immoral and results in a loss of life. Surely the most moral decision one can make to minimise these casualties is to mandate that every citizen donates a pint of blood so that the demand for blood matches the amount of blood being donated. However that would over ride ones right to body autonomy and for many would seem out of the question. The right to body autonomy ensures that you have ownership to your body and thus to illegalise a procedure that grants you body autonomy forcibly removes your rights to your own body. No matter how immoral, you would want to keep the rights to your own body as you aren't simply a blood bag to be used when needed, but a human. A woman isn't simply an incubator; she too is a human, a sentient being. At what point does ones body not become their own? If we lose our right to our own body when another's life is reliant upon it we would have no ownership of our own body at all. And thus I would conclude that morality has no grounds in a discussion about body autonomy.

Best.Korea

07.01.2023 08:05PM

Pro

My position is that abortion is murder of a child.

1. Abortion means preventing the birth of a child.

2. Preventing birth of a child means preventing the child from living.

3. Preventing the child from living means murdering a child.

4. Abortion means murdering a child.

There is no way around this.

Allowing abortions means that some girls will be forced to have abortions.

1. Allowing abortions means parents will be able to force their pregnant underage daughters to have abortions through convincing and threats.

2. Banning abortions will prevent that

3. Banning abortions will, by preventing forced abortions, reduce the number of abortions.

I am of the belief that morality has no grounds in a debate about abortion.
Abortion is of course the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, which is in my belief a crucial human right. I would argue that abortion is simply a matter of body autonomy and therefore a right every woman should be entitled to.

Sadly, women being entitled to destroy future generations is not beneficial for society, or for women. Allowing abortions means that women become more careless about sex, which leads to depression.

Exercising ones right to body autonomy can in many cases be considered immoral. For example donating blood is a simple procedure that is low in pain. By donating blood, we would most certainly be saving lives. One could argue that choosing not to donate blood knowing that it places someone at risk (especially when considering the amount of blood donated is lower than the demand for blood) is immoral and results in a loss of life.

Well, yes, donating blood helps others.

Surely the most moral decision one can make to minimise these casualties is to mandate that every citizen donates a pint of blood so that the demand for blood matches the amount of blood being donated.

I think an easier way would be to simply select citizens who will donate blood.

However that would over ride ones right to body autonomy and for many would seem out of the question.

Yes, for many. However, debates arent about the opinion of the many. In fact, the purpose of the debate is to become smarter than the many, instead of sinking to their level.

The right to body autonomy ensures that you have ownership to your body and thus to illegalise a procedure that grants you body autonomy forcibly removes your rights to your own body.

This begs the question: Does a child have right to body autonomy?

If yes, then abortions are wrong. Abortion is the violation of body autonomy of a child.

Fetus does not belong to a woman. Fetus's body belongs to a fetus.

Destroying 70+ years of person's autonomy to uphold woman's 9 months of autonomy is a math that simply doesnt work in your favor.

Person who is born can live and have autonomy for 70 years.

You cannot have an abortion without destroying 70 years of autonomy of a person.

However, aborting just 1 person also means destroying not just that person, but destroying that person's children, their children's children...

One woman choosing not to give birth destroys dozens if not thousands of people. One cannot argue that one woman's autonomy is more important than autonomy of dozen other persons.

No matter how immoral, you would want to keep the rights to your own body as you aren't simply a blood bag to be used when needed, but a human. A woman isn't simply an incubator; she too is a human, a sentient being.

Fetus too is a human, a sentient being. Destroying a fetus destroys a sentient being.

Even if you assume that fetus isnt sentient, it still follows that destroying a fetus destroys a sentient being.

Preventing the creation of a sentient human being means destroying a sentient human being.

Abortion prevents the creation of a sentient human being.

Abortion destroys a sentient human being.

At what point does ones body not become their own? If we lose our right to our own body when another's life is reliant upon it we would have no ownership of our own body at all. And thus I would conclude that morality has no grounds in a discussion about body autonomy

Your body autonomy destroys dozens of other lives and dozens of other people's bodies, therefore violating their autonomy.

Your 9 months of autonomy are simply not more important than dozens of people's 70 years of autonomy, nor should we destroy hundreds of years of other people's autonomy to uphold 9 months of yours.

Round 2

Freja

07.03.2023 08:05PM

Con

Forfeited

Best.Korea

07.05.2023 08:05PM

Pro

Forfeited

hey-yo

07.01.2023 09:13PM

-->

@Freja

Hey this is interesting topic. Are you open to debate me on same topic?

Barney

07.01.2023 06:26PM

-->

@Freja

The resolution as currently worded, may not give you the debate you desire.

An argument is valid, if the logic is internally consistent. A red piller can make a valid argument that it should be illegal because women suck. It would be unsound due to the premise that women suck is wrong, but it would still technically be valid.

What I believe you wish to argue is that the moral weight of "the right to life" does not exceed that of "the right to the pursuit of happiness" when it comes to abortion.

A related topic would of course be that abortion ought to not be considered murder.

prefix

08.20.2023 09:34PM

Criterion

Con

Tie

Pro

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

The debate was flawed from the beginning ( i.e. it was in the form of a question rather than a proposition such as "morality is not a valid argument against Abortion")

Then there is the policy of forfeiture to consider. I am disregarding this policy because they both forfeited equally.

The better argument points then go to Pro.

Americandebater24

07.31.2023 03:12AM

Criterion

Con

Tie

Pro

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

I think That both Pro and Con made good arguments. Con argued that Abortion was a matter of human anatomy and not Morality and made a decent argument by pointing out that lacking the right to your own body due to pregnancy is a lack of ownership of your autonomy. Which Pro conceded to. However, Con made the mistake of claiming that Abortion was entirely devoid of moral discussion.

Which leads to why my vote goes to Pro. While Pro made several claims about the law, such as claiming Abortion is murder without sources. They effectively demonstrate how morality plays a factor in Abortion by pointing Abortion that unborn children should have a right to their bodies just as much as their mothers do. And while their claims of the fetus being Sentient are not supported, it is biologically true that since fetuses do have cells, they are technically living, and destroying said fetus is to destroy life on a technical basis. This overrides Con's denial of morality being a valid argument against Abortion since the logic makes sense.

Everything else was a tie. But once again, despite my vote ultimately going with Pro. Con did an excellent job in this debate as well.

Savant

07.31.2023 02:23AM

Criterion

Con

Tie

Pro

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

Con concedes that abortion is immoral but argues that it should not be illegal. While legality is mentioned in the description, it's not included in the debate resolution. Con's case might have been stronger if they argued that the principle of bodily autonomy makes abortions morally justified, but instead, they argue that we shouldn't be considering morality at all. Pro comes in and makes a case that we should pass laws that are beneficial to society. While Con brings up bodily autonomy, this doesn't work as a moral objection to an abortion ban when Con is saying we shouldn't care about morality at all. Pro has a stronger case since abortion is largely conceded as immoral and undesirable, while Con insists that we should default to bodily autonomy (without much reasoning given).

RationalMadman

07.17.2023 09:17PM

Criterion

Con

Tie

Pro

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

f f

Slainte

07.06.2023 01:08AM

Criterion

Con

Tie

Pro

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

The DART voting policy says a full forfeit occurs when 40% or more of the rounds are forfeited. 50% of the rounds were forfeited. Both forfeit.