Instigator / Pro
17
1614
rating
17
debates
85.29%
won
Topic
#654

Legalizing Abortion in the US

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
3
Better sources
6
4
Better legibility
3
3
Better conduct
2
2

After 3 votes and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...

Pinkfreud08
Parameters
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
Contender / Con
12
1481
rating
11
debates
40.91%
won
Description

No information

-->
@Ramshutu

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."

-->
@Tiwaz

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!)

-->
@Dylan_Kleboid

It looks pretty thorough to me without reading it in depth.

-->
@Ramshutu

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.

-->
@David

I hope this vote is more clear and provides better reasons.

-->
@killshot

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.

-->
@killshot

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.

-->
@Tiwaz

"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.

-->
@David

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.

-->
@Dylan_Kleboid

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.

-->
@Dylan_Kleboid

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 :)

-->
@Dylan_Kleboid

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).

-->
@Dylan_Kleboid

*******************************************************************
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

*******************************************************************

-->
@Pinkfreud08

no problem and thanks for the compliment! I like the pun on your name lol

-->
@Dylan_Kleboid

Thanks for the vote

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph

Hey thank you for the vote.

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph

Hey thank you for the vote.

lol dylan kleboid. Nice name and welcome to DART!

-->
@Tiwaz

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.

-->
@Pinkfreud08

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.

-->
@Tiwaz

All you keep doing is pulling up red herrings and trying to dodge the question

-->
@Tiwaz

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.

-->
@Pinkfreud08

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.

-->
@Tiwaz

Answer the question. Stop pulling red herrings and unrelated topics. Just answer the question.

-->
@Tiwaz

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.

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph

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.

-->
@Tiwaz

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.

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph

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.

-->
@Tiwaz

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?

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph

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.

-->
@ViennaSausage

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.

-->
@ViennaSausage

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.)

-->
@ViennaSausage

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

-->
@Pinkfreud08

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.

-->
@Tiwaz

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.

-->
@Melcharaz

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.

-->
@Pinkfreud08

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.

-->
@Tiwaz

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.

-->
@Pinkfreud08

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.

-->
@Melcharaz

Explain WHY they have value. They have no sentience nor intelligence, the existence and potential argument I debunked, so then what gives them value.

-->
@Pinkfreud08
@Melcharaz

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.

-->
@Pinkfreud08

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.

-->
@Melcharaz

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.

-->
@Melcharaz

Besides again which would you rather see " suffer", a sentient and intelligent women, or a non-sentient non-intelligent fetus.

-->
@Melcharaz

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?

-->
@Pinkfreud08

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.