Legalizing Abortion in the US
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 15,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
No information
- So you would rather see a young girl be raped and be forced to give birth to a fetus which may or may not damage her physically and mentally than to see an organism that most likely isn't sentient yet to be terminated? I and many other people would rather see a non-sentient being suffer than see a sentient being suffer and possibly die.
Consciousness isn't the only trait a being with sentience has, more importantly, a fetus after 5 months feels pain and well being. Consciousness is important, however, feeling pain and well being is even more important.
Humans do have value for several different traits that human and life in general possess. Intelligence and more important sentience is the most important trait that a human possesses.
Even the most well behaved of men succumb to the primal urges to have sex for pleasure, this is why abortion should be legal too act as a safety net.
So you would rather see a young girl be raped and be forced to give birth to a fetus which may or may not damage her physically and mentally than tosee an organism that most likely isn't sentient yet to be terminated?
"C-sections are certainly not good for the well being of the mother as there are many side effects"
incorrect for several reasons however the biggest reason is that people who are unconscious still feel pain. According to sciencemag.org, "
- Again condoms still break, and birth control fails.
- I've stated my argument already, my argument is that abortion is moral if the mother became pregnant outside of her control IE rape, the condom broke, or birth control failed, or if it's in the first 5 months before the baby becomes sentient.
Um no I already stated that people who can feel pain have a right to life. ... even unconscious brains in vegative states still register pain. Going off of this, the mother would still be able to feel pain and therefore it would be wrong to kill her.
Ok so then if your main value of life is in existence and NOT on sentience nor intelligence, are you against people unintentionally killing micro bacteria cells daily, mothers not fertilizing eggs, or men masturbating and their sperms cease to exist as a result?
condoms still break, and birth control fails.
abortion itself doesn't cause the mother to have the mental and physical toll that childbirth and pregnancy have on the mother. The only reason most mothers experience mental issues from abortion is due to society seeing it as immoral.
I've stated my argument already, my argument is that abortion is moral if the mother became pregnant outside of her control IE rape, the condom broke, or birth control failed, or if it's in the first 5 months before the baby becomes sentient.
"Again so are you against women, not fertilizing eggs, men masturbating which terminates sperm, the unintentional killing of micro bacteria, or killing ants and other bugs? "
"If existence, sentience, and intelligence aren't the meaning of life, then please explain what is the meaning of life. "
"The murder rate is also statistically rare, so then should we just not have the police force?"
"Abortion only fails 2-3 % of the time. Compared to the high chances of women feeling pain in pregnancy and birth, and possibly women dying from giving birth. "
"This is not how society works, I do not have to prove that something is ethical, you have to prove to me why it isn't. Every action by default is morally neutral"
"that is the mothers own fault for not realizing that the fetus had no value, this has nothing to do with abortions. "
"This is society and the mother's fault for valuing a non-sentient nor intelligent being. Again what about the negatives for giving birth or carrying a baby? Babys are not cheap and cost a great deal of money and time for the mother. Carrying the baby and giving birth also can cause many different mental and physical issues. For example, my boyfriend's mother giving birth to 3 children directly caused depression for her and caused her to have weight issues."
"You still have not provided me with a trait that a fetus has that justifies its existence aside from it existing. "
Fetuses are pure potentiality, and by aborting one you're transforming that into an actualized negative death.
The value is just significantly less relative to a human.
If you were to massacre enough insects the ecosystem would collapse; likewise, if you kill enough babies society will collapse.
That IS quite the thing to ask of me. I know that it certainly isn't sentience and intelligence. I just don't think anyone is equipped to answer that. You're approaching life like it's a problem to be solved when the truth lies in the experience.
The primary difference here is that the police aren't there as a safety net. They are a preventative measure like condoms. If the police were simply a safety net, they would love for people to break the law, probably even encourage it.
Also, psychological trauma (which is real pain) is linked to abortion and miscarriage at a higher rate than birth, so this point simply doesn't hold.
If you want to prove something should be legal, you have to prove many things. Namely, that there's actually a reason for it to be legal.
Every action can't be morally neutral, it's simply not possible.
It's the mother's fault for valuing her child. This is incredibly wrong, from a biological standpoint and a moral one.
From a sociological perspective alone abortions cost outweighs the benefit.
"This would be an appeal to potentiality which is not a very good basis to measure life on. If you think life is just simply based on potentiality""Since you are framing your entire argument on potentiality and existence, than again what makes a human different than a bug in your logic. In my logic, humansmatter more as they are sentient and intelligent. "
"Before I begin, I am NOT justifying the genocide of people or babies. Well ecosystems can directly impact humans, mostly in rural areas. For example if an entire population of ants dissipated from an area, the local bug pesticide company may go out of business. If the local foxes or deer become an endangered species, than the local hunters will be forced to find other animals to kill or may go out of business. The point is that ecosystems can impact human civilization. "
"OK I'm sorry I think I asked the wrong question, what gives life it's value than? Since you don't care about sentient nor intelligence, and existence wouldn't make you logical consistent and is very arbitrary, please explain to me the value that life has. "
"First of all, cops whether as a safety net or preventive measure or not, don't activily enjoy people breaking the law."
"Despite the fact that your source isn't from a medical professional and looks to be from a bias source"
"Regardless I have already proven as to why abortion should be legal, you have still yet to give me good enough reasons to believe it should be illegal. "
"In the context of this scenario, the fetus is not alive yet as it is not sentient nor intelligent which is proven by biology and science. If the mother values a non-sentient nor intelligent being, this is not abortions fault this is the fault of society, and the mother. "
"Lets examine the costs, the costs of abortion are the mother possibly might experience trauma and depression. The benefits are most likely the mother does not have to go through physical pain of carrying the baby or giving birth, the mother saves a great deal of time and money from not raising the baby, and the assuming their are birth complications that may put the mother at risk the mother's life would be saved. "
"This is a straw-man argument, I NEVER said that all actions are morally neutral, I specifically states that all actions are morally neutral by DEFAULT. "
Firstly - please try and maintain consistent formatting : it makes my job much easier!
For abortion debates - normally the only important argument is the discussion around what rights an unborn child should have, why, and how this can be measured - these are all normally boiled down to arguments concerning “person hood” or “humanhood”.
The remainder of the discussion about the morality and generalized utility of abortion is often just talking over one another’s disagreement of this basic fact. If I agree that an unborn baby does not deserve to be treated as a person - then abortion is moral - or not if it does.
So this is the part I will focus on - and unless this is firmly established one way or another - I won’t deal with other arguments either way.
So let’s begin!
Pro: pro argues that the treatment of a fetus as less than human is due it not being sentient, conscious or being able to feel pain.
Cons states that babies are not fully conscious and are not born with autonomy.
Pros counter here with the following quote was excellent: “This is the same reason why we don't value micro bacteria, as micro bacteria has no intelligence and no sentient, this is why as a society we've come to the conclusion that micro bacteria cells aren't worth saving. “
Cons argues that consciousness and the ability to feel pain change and can change during our lives - (like his grand mother).
Con argues that the “potentiality” of a fetus renders it murder.
Con argues that there is more to humanity than those things - there is an appeal to the universe here - that we’re lucky to be here, and no one should be derived of that right.
Pro argues that just being knocked unconscious doesn’t mean there is not a response to pain.
There’s some talk about the meaning of life, con talks about the relative value of different types of life
For potentiality - pro argues that if the potentiality argument applies then why not masturbation. Pro asks what is it that gives life its value.
Out of all of this, what pro does well, is provide me a good reason why I shouldn’t necessarily treat an unborn child as having all the same rights as a person. The appeal to microbes together with sentience showed to me that there is a key difference that allows us to treat life differently based on how what it is and what it does: if an embryo is functionally equivalent to something we treat differently - why not treat it differently.
The only real argument from con was relating to potentiality - and in my view what con was missing is a clear line between when potential is just potential - and when it makes something equivalent to a full human. Pro pointed this out, after some prompting.
What thus meant, is that con primarily gave reasoning to support his position based on what appeared to be arbitrary and subjective determinations. Where as pro used more specific comparative examples.
Out of this, pro did not show that the unborn had no rights at all - but gave me a baseline of how to view where those rights are.
Reading through the arguments provided - cons primary arguments are all predicated on his position that unborn children are not simply blobs of cells”, and that they deserve protection due to the rights established by the arguments I mentioned, and as I do not feel this was established by con - most of cons objections to the 5 month limit fall away as not established.
Con does raise some practical issues with abortion: specifically related to trauma - specifying that regret is present at a rate of 31%, and 11% being prescribed medication. Together with an increased risk of psychosis. Con would have done MUCH better had he gone into much greater detail here and broke down the sources and the outcome - without this, it’s almost a throwaway accusation without any detail on the harm caused - this meant pros response comparing it to the outcomes of pregnancy sufficiently muddied the water for me to not accept it.
As a result Arguments to pro - all other points tied.
ok so I just read the rules for voting and they seem pretty straightforward. I am kinda on the pro side so i may be a tad bias however regardless here's my vote.
Reliable sources should go to pro since one of Cons youtube sources was bias on the subject due to it being created by a religious person who is a known liar, and his other sources he didnt incorporate into his arguments very much partularly with the abortions causing psychological issues argument.. Although I did like the way he sited them by numbering them. con also didnt provide a source about how the majority of abortions happen after 5 months which is a common fact amoung the medical community. They also didn't provide any statistical data to back up the 1 % argument used during the debate.
Conduct goes to Pro since Con avoided the questions pro asked. for example, pro asked " So you would rather see a young girl be raped and be forced to give birth to a fetus which may or may not damage her physically and mentally than to see an organism that most likely isn't sentient yet to be terminated?" And than all con said was pull a red herring and start talking about how the baby shouldn't be punished. pro very obviously put con inside of a trap so con pulled a red herring. Cons over abundence of red herrings on the name the trait argument and the safety net argument by talking about completely unrelated stuff to pros questions and using the red herrings to dodge questions during the debate is very poor conduct on cons part. Not only this but Pro established very clearly in his opening argument that all religious arguments will not be allowed, however than at one point con stated that " The purpose of life is to be found in existence itself. Depriving someone of such a pursuit is equivalent to a universal sin." Here Con is using an appeal to religious morality argument which is poor conduct since pros rules strictly prohibeted these types of arguments.
In short, Pro caught con in several different corners and con resorted to pulling red herrings to dodge the questions, and broke the rules which very obviously bad conduct.
Arguments easily goes to pro. Pro kept debunked cons argument on existence by talking about how " are you against people unintentionally killing micro bacteria cells daily, mothers not fertilizing eggs, or men masturbating and their sperms cease to exist as a result?," con never answered this question. what was even funnier was seeing con in the comment section trying to squirm away from the question lol. con also conceeded on safety nets by agreeing to pros statement. all and all this was a pretty poor debate on cons part, as pro stated in the debate that the way society works is " legal until proven illegal," con didnt provide any good reason to outlaw abortion aside from a few contexts. Pro also provided his position clearly in the debate with " I've stated my argument already, my argument is that abortion is moral if the mother became pregnant outside of her control IE rape, the condom broke, or birth control failed, or if it's in the first 5 months before the baby becomes sentient. " Con NEVER clarified his position at all throughout the debate and due to this, his argument was very difficult to understand. On that note Con contradicted his points by stating that " Ok so then if your main value of life is in existence and NOT on sentience nor intelligence, are you against people unintentionally killing micro bacteria cells daily, mothers not fertilizing eggs, or men masturbating and their sperms cease to exist as a result?
I said the meaning of life is to be found in existence; not that existence is the meaning of life." Here Con contradicts his statements by stating that existence is to be found in the meaning of life but is not the meaning. Con here also avoids pros underlieing question which is the name the trait question. A question Con claims they answered but never actually answered during the debate, not only is this poor conuduct, but also a very poorly structured argument since it shows that Cons argument is logically inconsistent and pro even points it out by stating that COn would have to be in favor of micro bacteria rights and inanimate object rights.
Argument Point for Con. Reasons below.
Pro's key argument was that abortions before 5 months were acceptable because the fetus would feel no pain and by the definition of Pro's worldview, the fetus would not yet be a life. All argument going forwards stem from this.
Pro also talks about cases of Rape and pregnancies out of the mother's control and justifies them for different reasons. I was disappointed here that Pro did not specify if this applied to abortions after 5 months, but there seemed to be strong implications that his was the case, so I took this as a given because pro left me no choice to by not specifying.
This seemed, to me, to be a tactic to sneak in later term abortions under a weaker condition while using the seemingly stronger 5 month condition to bolster it.
Pro also argued that parents were not responsible not accountable for their sexual behaviors. I feel like pro waved this off rather axiomatically, only using a couple of non analogous examples which were flimsy at best. The false analogies failed to account for the fact that, in the case of abortion. A parent is imposing their will on the human life of the baby, while in Pro's examples, there were simply people risking their own personal safety. This is why I was forced to reject this argument.
Con handles Pros arguments routinely. Taking down the rape argument with Ben Shapiros famous 99% line, which is as convincing as it is true. Con rightly points out that Pros standard does not have proper justification and that there was good reason to believe that fetuses under 5 months are living even if they don't feel pain.
Con correctly states that it is quite possible and practical for one to manage their sexual habits in a responsible way that was also personally beneficial. Even going as far as to give specific pillars by which to make this assessment. The completeness of this particular point made it a strong sell for me and with the arguments I mention. Con successfully sweeps the rug out of all of Pros points categorically and renders his argument useless.
Both sides fought for ground later on. But nothing said impacted my initial assessment of the key points.
I gave Con the conduct point because Pro was being unnecessarily rude even in the opening argument when unprovoked.
Pro repeatedly implies that the negations of his points were logically inferior and would use language to imply this.
Specifically, there was one point where Pro said that making arguments against sexual freedom were and I quote "ignorant." I found the overall tone of this argument to be excessive and a big turn off in the debate.
All other points tied.
Right, so this brushes against the crux of my argument. It is the same as killing a human, just not an 'intelligent,' or 'sentient' human. I even went as far as to clarify and present this in several ways during every round. The 5th round was for clarification so I'll extract some applicable quotes which described my position and the arguments I presented.
Quote: "What do you think value itself is? Your intelligence argument is based upon the same potentiality as my own, the only difference is I'm applying it directly and consistently."
Quote: "The question of value is a question of potential and purpose. You seemed to have confined potential to intelligence and sentience while completely avoiding the more important question."
Quote: "Actually the fetus is alive and constitutes life, just not necessarily 'sentient' life as you've put it. Women are biologically preconditioned to ascribe emotional value to the child -- logically justified or not, that is the case."
The exact line was “Fetuses are pure potentiality, and by aborting one you're transforming that into an actualized negative death.”
I kind of meant killing in this context - the specific issue I was trying to get across was that I felt your argument was implying that because of potentiality, that an abortion of a potential life that could be a human, should be counted as the same as killing a human. (I just used murder because that seemed the most appropriate word in that context).
So I kind of agree with your stipulation that this wasn’t explicitly your argument, but my vote didn’t really consider it so, so it’s really just the word I used that’s at issue!)
It looks pretty thorough to me without reading it in depth.
I appreciate the vote. One minor stipulation though, I never said the potentiality argument specifically rendered it murder.
Edit for clarification: Killing is different from murdering, I wasn't arguing that the fetus was a complete human being, only that it constituted sufficient human life.
I hope this vote is more clear and provides better reasons.
In a brief response to your points:
"Proactive population control (eventually it will be a problem)?"
- I don't think population control is as much a benefit as you think it is. Assuming it was possible to limit population growth with legalized abortion (it isn't), it wouldn't be applicable to the more general population (think Eugenics). Manipulating culture and societal stigma/norms would be a much more effective method than abortion for general population control.
"Negation of negative environmental development (kids growing up in an environment proliferated with drugs, poverty, foster care, etc)."
- I never really understood this argument to be completely honest. It seems to me that the areas with high abortion rates also possess the highest crime rates. If life (in any from, really), is viewed as valueless or disposable I'd imagine the surrounding society would reflect that.
Thanks for the comment, I'll respond in kind once I finish my research paper and my rebuttal to Ralph (I have a lot on my plate currently).
If you have anything else to ask of me post it and tag me, I will respond thoroughly by the end of the day.
"The great thing here is that these are not sociological arguments. I'd love for anyone name me a single valid sociological benefit to abortion."
Proactive population control (eventually it will be a problem)?
Negation of negative environmental development (kids growing up in an environment proliferated with drugs, poverty, foster care, etc).
Wouldn't those both in one way or another correlate to a more stable/superior sociological environment.
Hey, you didn't delete my vote. Does that mean I'm doing it right now?
" So you would rather see a young girl be raped and be forced to give birth to a fetus which may or may not damage her physically and mentally than to see an organism that most likely isn't sentient yet to be terminated?" - I answered the question directly when I stated I'd rather see the rapist punished than the baby. I also said this is close to a 1% statistic prevalence, and we were arguing legalizing abortion in general before 5 months. I also stated that it's a simple misconception that the welfare of the baby and the mother interfere with eachother.
It seems you didn't put any effort into actually analyzing the debate. I'm thankful for the vote, but please at least read both of the arguments before you write it.
I'm on a different time schedule from most people so it becomes quite hard to respond to things in time. I realize your vote has been removed for whatever reason, but here are my thoughts on the vote itself.
"Cons youtube sources was bias on the subject," - right below it is the source study, the video was meant to be a more accessible format. I stated that explicitly several times in the comments and debate. The study is a thorough analysis that you are welcome to try and refute.
"are you against people unintentionally killing micro bacteria cells daily, mothers not fertilizing eggs, or men masturbating and their sperms cease to exist as a result?" - I answered the question directly when I stated I'd rather see the rapist punished then the baby. I also said this is close to a 1% statistic prevalence, and we were arguing legalizing abortion in general before 5 months.
"are you against people unintentionally killing micro bacteria cells daily, mothers not fertilizing eggs, or men masturbating and their sperms cease to exist as a result?" - I responded to this as well, when I said those things DO have value, just significantly less relative to a human fetus. I also isolated ants (which he mentioned, and you elected to disclude), to create an analogy.
"what was even funnier was seeing con in the comment section trying to squirm away from the question lol" - It's not a matter of squirming away. I have already responded to his arguments in kind, and getting into a spat in the comments EXCLUSIVELY benefits him. Why do you think he's so determined to ask things that have already been answered during the debate?
It seems he, and you, are intent on straw-manning both my arguments and the conclusion.
RFD ok so I just read the rules for voting and they seem pretty straightforward. I am kinda on the pro side so i may be a tad bias however regardless here's my vote. Reliable sources should go to pro since one of Cons youtube sources was bias on the subject, and his other sources he didnt incorporate into his arguments very much. Although I did like the way he sited them by numbering them. con also didnt provide a source about how the majority of abortions happen after 5 months. Conduct goes to Pro since Con avoided the questions pro asked. for example, pro asked " So you would rather see a young girl be raped and be forced to give birth to a fetus which may or may not damage her physically and mentally than to see an organism that most likely isn't sentient yet to be terminated?" And than all con said was pull a red herring and start talking about how the baby shouldnt be punished. pro very obviously put con inside of a trap so con pulled a red herring. Arguments easily goes to pro. Pro kept debunked cons argument on existence by talking about how " are you against people unintentionally killing micro bacteria cells daily, mothers not fertilizing eggs, or men masturbating and their sperms cease to exist as a result?," con never answered this question. what was even funnier was seeing con in the comment section trying to squirm away from the question lol. con also conceeded on safety nets by agreeing to pros statement. all and all this was a pretty poor debate on cons part, as pro stated in the debate that the way society works is " legal until proven illegal," con didnt provide any good reason to outlaw abortion aside from a few contexts. anyways i hope this vote provided a clear indication of who won the debate :)
Continued from above
In order to award conduct points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:
(a) Provide specific references to instances of poor conduct which occurred in the debate
(b) Demonstrate how this poor conduct was either excessive, unfair, or in violation of mutually agreed upon rules of conduct pertaining to the text of the debate
(c) Compare each debater's conduct from the debate
Misconduct is excessive when it is extremely frequent and/or when it causes the debate to become incoherent or extremely toxic. In the case of awarding conduct points solely on the basis of forfeits, there is an exception to these steps: a debater may award conduct points solely for forfeited rounds, but only if one debater forfeited half or more of their rounds or if the voter also awards argument points (or explains their decision not to award argument points in a manner which meets the argument points voting standards).
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: {username} // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 6 points to pro for arguments, sources, and conduct
RFD: See above
Reason for mod action: The voter fails to meet the standards set forth by the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
(1) Arguments are not sufficiently explained. In order to award arguments, the voter must:
(a) Survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate
(b) Weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself)
(c) Explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points
Weighing entails analyzing how the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments outweighed (that is, out-impacted) and/or precluded another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.
(2) Sources are not sufficient. In order to award sources, the voter must
(a) Explain, on balance, how each debater's sources impact the debate
(b) Directly evaluate at least one source in particular cited in the debate and explain how it either bolstered or weakened the argument it was used to support
(c) Must explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's
*******************************************************************
no problem and thanks for the compliment! I like the pun on your name lol
Thanks for the vote
Hey thank you for the vote.
Hey thank you for the vote.
lol dylan kleboid. Nice name and welcome to DART!
This is absolutely ridiculous, the justification is really simple. All you have to do is name a trait. Since you are unable to do so, this conversation can serve no further purpose since you are dodging the question, playing word games, and pulling red herrings.
Talking with you further isn't going to be productive, as you haven't set the bar for acceptable proof or justification. You will repeatedly move the bar and then refer to what I give you as a red herring afterwards. You are infatuated with your own arguments, and I can only hope you gain the capacity for introspection one day.
Good luck in voting.
All you keep doing is pulling up red herrings and trying to dodge the question
You never provided any justification for the less than 5 month old fetus that I didn't debunk in the debate. So just answer the question.
I could reiterate the many answers I provided in the debate, and some of the ones in the comments. It wouldn't matter though since you're deadset on calling whatever justification or proof I provide a red herring. There is no point in continuing this, and I'm not even sure you understand what constitutes a sequitur argument is at this point.
Answer the question. Stop pulling red herrings and unrelated topics. Just answer the question.
That would be fun. I'll arrange it later today.
I would simply say that you can't say drug dealing is immoral unless you say people buying and smoking drugs is also illegal. I'm not in favor of minors doing drugs so drug dealers who sell to minors would still go to jail.
No, you can argue with me. My votes have nothing to do with my views. I voted for a theist today, lol.
This is an interesting topic, thought not directly related to abortion. Feel free to challenge me to a debate on this topic, as we both probably stand to learn something about it.
Edit: I should probably stop arguing with the people who voted for me.
I disagree with your disagreement, something being criminalized doesn't necessitate a 'punishment.' I never said we should execute or jail addicts/dealers (like in our current system).
It's also certainly not a victimless act when you consider a distribution market is created to meet the demand. By making such a thing completely legal it wouldn't harm the more educated, but the disadvantaged and depressed before we can reach them through social means.
Oh, now we disagree. I think drugs are a medical issue and should not be criminalized at all. I'm against abortion because it kills babies. Drugs is slow self harm which I have no problem with as long as we have medical treatment. It's a victimless act and by my standard that makes it amoral.
Both are necessary, this is the fundamental mistake Reagan made in his "war on drugs." Drugs are certainly bad, but it's hardly justifiable criminalizing the drug itself without equal effort to influence culture away from them.
Edit: Social enforcement and legal enforcement are equally valuable, and in a cohesive society they should support eachother.
Oh, don't worry, I don't bite.
Would you agree that if making it illegal will not stop it, then approaching it from other avenues while holding a legal "front line" would be a good strategy?
If we're to isolate the idea of legality: amendments can be made for exceptions, they are constantly with other laws so the same would apply here. Generally you legislate around the majority and create amendments and clauses for the more isolated scenarios (e.g., rape, life-saving).
I'm not going to actually address the idea about them "happening even if they're illegal," regardless you can probably guess at what the objection would be. I learnt from DDO arguing in comments isn't nearly as productive as structured debates so I'll leave it at that.
I should also point out that I'm okay with abortions where the baby or mother would automatically be DOA anyway. Also possibly in cases where the mother is risking a lot of person safety or suffering for her child, we might be able to allow them but on a case by case basis until we establish a sound precedent. I'm not sure which way I would lean on rapes. Probably more towards the no abortion side here.
My current assessment is that history has shown that abortions will happen even if they're illegal, so at the very least, we have to say that keeping it legal is necessary at the moment, and we have to change our focus from a legal issue to an education/culture issue. I think improvements in sex ed and other changes can create a situation where we could "de-necessitate" abortions. the beauty of this strategy is it could work without ever having to make abortion illegal. It will become obsolete. Like DVD players (dropping that reality on everybody.)
Agreed. I spent a good portion of my life being pro choice for purely axiomatic reasons until one day a good argument shook me the opposite way and then I kind of moved back and forth a lot on it.
Abortion is such a grey area. Will always be an interesting debate
Forgot to tag you
From what I've seen, you proved my point you didn't disprove it. I can elaborate upon this if you'd like but there's no point in bickering about it in the comments.
You have yet to present a good enough reason to value the fetus. All you've said is easily debunkable existence and potentially arguments. Both of which I debunked several times.
Vote Reported: Melcharaz // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 5 points to con for argument and sources
RFD:
Con make it clear the potential and value of life where as pro seemed to dismiss intelligence and sentience in upholding the ideal of life.
Con provided scientific journal and other sources that supported non abortion while pro simply linked more popular websites as to why abortion is complicated and often bad, his first source actually shows conciousness and memory in 5 month old babies.
Both had acceptable grammar and spelling, though i would say that pro is more blunt in his under taking
Both had acceptable conduct.
Reason for mod action: The voter fails to meet the requirements set forth by the COC found here https://www.debateart.com/rules
(1) In order to award arguments points, the voter must:
(a) Survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate
(b) Weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself)
(c) Explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points
Weighing entails analyzing how the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments outweighed (that is, out-impacted) and/or precluded another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.
(2) To award sources, the voter must:
(a) Explain, on balance, how each debater's sources impact the debate
(b) Directly evaluate at least one source in particular cited in the debate and explain how it either bolstered or weakened the argument it was used to support
c) Must explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's
Mere appeals to quantity are not sufficient to justify awarding sources points.
Sure, but seeing as I've already said and justified it having value it's irrelevant to ask 'why' you should appreciate such value.
You're applying a relativistic viewpoint to an objective value -- that's the true red herring, not the justification I'm using.
If it doesn't have value, than I have a right to terminate it. Answer the question, I am sick of you guys pulling red herrings and avoiding the question so just answer the question.
I think the why question is for the most part is irrelevant. Value isn't just something you ascribe, and whether you choose to believe something has value or not is irrelevant to whether it actually does.
Explain WHY they have value. They have no sentience nor intelligence, the existence and potential argument I debunked, so then what gives them value.
We already covered this topic in the debate itself. At this point it would be better to allow a 3rd (or 4th) party to evaluate the vote itself.
in themselves they have less inherent value to humanity, but when combined or interacting with humanity there is a increase in its value. Scientists have argued that begins the moment a sperm enters an egg because there is a small emission of light.
I have already explained why a fetus before 5 months does not have sentience. A child 5 months old has sentience. It's as simple as that.
Besides again which would you rather see " suffer", a sentient and intelligent women, or a non-sentient non-intelligent fetus.
Why should I value something that simply exists without sentience nor intelligence? Do you value micro bacteria? Or sperm? Or unfertilized eggs not being fertilized? Or non-sentient bugs?
I feel that life its self is under scrutiny, it you were able to show that the life of a being thats 5 months or less in the women or out of it is of less value to humanity than the developed life of a child 5 months or older, then i would cast the vote in your favor.