Instigator / Pro
17
1500
rating
1
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#1024

Should abortion be made illegal?

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
9
Better sources
6
8
Better legibility
4
4
Better conduct
4
4

After 4 votes and with 8 points ahead, the winner is...

Barney
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
25
1810
rating
49
debates
100.0%
won
Description

Please refrain from slandering your opponent in any way. Arguments such as "you hate women" are not valid. Please cite any facts or statistics used and retain good conduct during the debate.
I am against all forms of abortion (yes even in cases of rape and incest) except for if the mother will die as a result of the birth. Good luck to my opponent

-->
@Tickbeat

It is an uphill battle, but I’ve been persuaded to vote for the pro-life side several times.

I’d say start with scope control. Just like I would not (seriously) argue for fourth trimester abortions, you should not argue against any means of birth control. Heck, start arguing against late term abortions, and as you win on those step it back a trimester at a time.

My all time favorite debater to read was strongly pro-life. Here’s one of his debates:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1109-resolved-abortion-should-remain-legal-in-the-us

Generally I think no matter what happens, most of the time, whoever is debating as pro choice is going to win.

-->
@Tickbeat

I disagree with religious law being applied outside of the temple.

Plus, belief in the rights of others, may or may not correlate to personal practice.

As a Christian, it's sad to see how many of these people agree with the notion that abortion is perfectly fine and should be practiced.

A follow-up to this has finished (different instigator, so not the same quality):
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1125-should-abortion-be-illegal

Something good I will say about it, is the slavery angle goes much deeper.

@PGA2.0
I blocked you from tagging me in things due to your repeated shit behavior at: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1936
I never tagged you in anything after that, and you make this call-out in my debate only to block me to prevent yourself from being tagged. *slow-clap*

If you've gained the maternity to challenge someone to a debate, rather than just being a forum troll, bring it.

-->
@Caleb

Thanks for the debate. While I did not address it in my arguments, you did an amazing job! Seriously, you actually got me to concede a subpoint to one of my contentions, which is rare.

We can debate again sometime, and I'm also open to discussing the topic in a non-combative manner (just don't be an ad infinitum moron).

I probably would not have attacked sources so hard (not to mention some of the smaller points, like ectopic pregnancy), were it not for a couple people who should not vote swearing they would... For context to why it's a problem with abortion debates: On another site there was a small group of people who would vote in favor of any pro-life argument (even if the argument was babies make better foodstuff than fetuses...), because they believe pro-lifers are in need of participation trophies and public safe spaces free from their ideas being challenged... While the promised voters here are not such idiots, I was still going to stack the deck again them (for clarity, neither of them ended up voting).

-->
@Caleb

@ Ragnar:
PS. Since you have blocked me I cannot challenge you to debate yet you continually challenged me to do that very thing.

I.e., Added: 06.10.19 01:21PM
--> @PGA2.0
Reply
"If you want to challenge me to a rematch for him, by all means issue the challenge. If you want to actually discuss why divine command theory fails to be the only possible source of human morals, stop acting like someone using Poe's Law."

I choose abortion as the first challenge.

-->
@Caleb

@ Ragnar
This challenge to debate abortion with you, Ragnar, is a result of the match between Caleb and you. Based on the three points Cabel cited in his first round, I did not find your arguments and rebuttal particularly convincing; in fact, I thought your logic flawed and in need of further exploration. Thus, I want to exploit your reasoning further by challenging you to a debate on the same three foundational points formulated by Caleb in his opening round (R1) plus your position on slavery and dispute any other areas that may arise from these four contentions.

These contentions are,
1. The unborn child is very much alive and very much human;
2. Abortion is murder ;
3. Abortion causes the value of life to become subjective;
4. Your position on slavery

I want to change the point order slightly and add a few adjustments to the wording:

1. Concerning human beings, the unborn from conception is very much alive and very much a human being;

2. Abortion causes the value of life to become subjective.

3. Abortion is murder (except when the woman's life is threatened such as by a tubal/ectopic pregnancy that will result in her death if not terminated) ;

4. Slavery association with pregnant women.

***

Four Rounds.
First Round is reserved for opening statements
No new arguments in the final round.

-->
@Caleb

Thanks for your reply; it’s refreshing. I think your debate was one of the better debates on this subject, so don’t feel too badly about this debate.

-->
@Barney

Congratulations to Ragnar on his victory in this debate. Thank you once again for accepting the challenge and for giving me the honor of taking on such a skilled debater for my first debate. I would love to challenge you again one day once I have become more experienced, would you be interested.

-->
@Ramshutu
@PsychometricBrain
@oromagi
@Speedrace

Sorry I haven't been commenting I'm currently traveling internationally and don't have a great connection to the internet. However, thank you to everyone who voted in this debate.

-->
@Barney

I was gonna give you sources but you’re winning so I’m not gonna bother now lol

-->
@Speedrace

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Speedrace // Mod action: [Not Removed]
>Points Awarded: 3 points to pro for arguments.

Reason for Mod Action> This vote was deemed sufficient as per site policy.
*******************************************************************

-->
@Ramshutu
@oromagi

Thank you both for voting!

As a result, this usage and analysis of sources within the debate by con was excellent and is very much worth the extra two points: sources to con tooz

Pro claims the servitude is voluntary - con points out that if someone is unable to withdraw consent, and stop something happening to them: it ceases to become voluntary and becomes forced. Pro has no good answer to this.

On the point of slavery, while I would have liked more detail - cons argument evokes an intuitive precept to me : that one cannot sell yourself into slavery. A point that con implicitly makes here with the argument from being forced. Pro ends up mostly dropping this case.

For pro to have a chance here; he must show validity in why a woman should not be able to withdraw consent; by referencing other examples where consent cannot be withdrawn easily (contracts, the draft, some forms of military service, etc). And tie this somehow to abortion.

As it stands cons case was mostly unchallenged.

Constitution: this was not a main point, it ended up pitting two constitutional points against each other; con pointing out the omission of the due process element was particularly relevant, and pro had no real answer to it.

In the above points pro won all of them, except for one draw: and for this reason I must award arguments to con.

Sources:

I normally steer clear of awarding source, unless there is a knock out source, and/or sources provided are used against someone.

The sources here were reasonable on both sides: with some exceptions.

Con tools pros source on abortion health risks and used it to substantially bolster his own case. There were other examples; relating to the definition of chatel, that also l were ceased upon by con to bolster his own case.

Cons source concerning the failure of abstinence education, and the fact that pregnancies are unintentional both helped bolster his rebuttal by showing the key claims of pro are less valid.

Point3
The value of life is subjective. This is probably pros worse point, I’m not sure what pro is really asking me to weigh here.

Pros contention doesn’t appear to clearly follow from the premise. I do not understand how one gets from allowing abortion to celebrating suicide.

Con argues that life is already subjective and the value and cost is different for each person. I found this the most confusing point from both sides, and I don’t think I quite understood either the harm pro was advancing, or really the inherent subjectivity of value con.

I would have liked pro to have explained how life has objective value with a framework: covering war, death penalty, manslaughter, etc - and for con to have done the same.

While this helps con by specifying that there is a burden of birth that shouldn’t be forced upon women, this point is otherwise unhelpful to both sides.

Health:
Con explains health risks of pregnancy. While I accept that this sets up valid reason to avoid pregnancy for women - The ectopic pregnancy point is too semantic for my liking; I feel this ectopic pregnancy example is covered by the intent of pros policy - if not by the specific wording.

Con shows abortion is generally safer than pregnancy. Con also negates pros main point that women should be aware of the issues before getting pregnant - clearly explaining that the pregnancy wasn’t intentional, and so wasn’t entered into with foreknowledge.

Pro argues that they know they could get pregnant by having sex - but as con points out, pros argument was that they knew the risks, a point that was clearly refuted by cons case.

Slavery.

This was cons best point. Con argues that a woman is a slave to the fetus if she is unable to chose to remove it.

Note: this was the best anti-abortion presentation I have seen thus far by pro (I have not assessed other in progress debates), but also the best pro abortion argument presented on this site by con imo. Well done to both, this was a great debate.

Point1:
Human

Pro argues an unborn child is human, and thus shouldn’t be aborted. Con highlights that this is not relevant: citing that simply having human cells doesn’t appear relevant, and prioritizing human life is not currently a priority for political administrations.

While I buy the potential relevance issue; the latter is a bit of an appeal to hypocrisy for me. While pro points this out, he omits the issue of relevance and doesn’t explain what aspect of human life warrants protection.

Con makes it a little bit more relevant here by explaining that simply being cells doesn’t give them rights - given that being alive and out of the womb aren’t given the same rights either.

On this point: pro has to give me a compelling reason why a non intelligent collection of cells, or fetus, warrants protection on the grounds that it is “human”, this is mostly asserted as true by pro, and whole cons rebuttal has its flaws: he highlighted this fact by showing this is not the current state of the world.

Point2
I actually changed my mind whilst reading this. Pro specifically stated that murder is the unlawful killing - con points out that as abortion is legal it cannot by definition be murder. While obtuse, con can only argue against the definitions provided, and I agree with his point here.

Had the definition not been “unlawful”, there could have been more meaningful discussion: the role of euthanasia, manslaughter, war, death penalty, etc already put nuance to the concept of killing.

As no such nuance was put forward by pro - abortion cannot by pros definition be considered murder..

PART 3:

OFFENSE
Pregnancy confers many significant health risks for the mother.
PRO argues abortion also carries risk.
CON demonstrates unlike risks for pregnancy vs. abortion
PRO argues irresponsible women reap what they sow.
(PRO loses this voter right about here)
Con argues the inefficacy of abstention.

PRO loses this point.

Forced pregnancy is defacto slavery, devalues women’s lives.
PRO calls the analogy horrible and also argues irresponsible women reap what they sow. PRO argues that it is not slavery if women are being restrained from murder.
CON’s reply is convoluted but sound: forced pregnancies increase the number of women compelled to disastifying maternies by the government thereby increasing the number of post-partum murders, which both PRO and CON agree ought to be illegal and discouraged by state action.
CON futhers that PRO’s support of forced pregnancy in cases of rape, incest, etc counter PRO’s insistence that women are fully knowlegable and responsible from inseminsation, however violent/involuntary the insemination.

In R2, PRO adds an argument that the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause protects fetuses.
CON points out that the due process clause of the same sentence has repeatedly upheld Roe V. Wade and those decisions explicitly excluded the first two trimesters from 14th ammendment protection.

PRO really needed to lock down resolution and definitions. A policy debate needs to focus on best policy for people- moral applications usually fail in this realm. A moral argument vs abortion required a different framework. PRO made a fine, full faith effort but loses on points.

PART 2:

PRO offers no counterplan for resolution of the problem of unwanted pregnancy. Indeed, PRO does not seem to acknowledge unwanted pregnancies as the core problem to be resolved.

Perhaps because PRO’s case never really comes together, CON’s counterarguments strike this voter as too dismissive. I don’t mind CON acknowledging that he’s argued this topic before but links to prior debates are probably better left to comments or at the end of the debate to avoid any suggestion that prior debates require any refutation by opponent.

DEFENSE
Unborn children are living, and therefore
US policy does not suggest that life is inviolable
PRO will counter this defense as irrelevant
CON will clarify that unborn children ought not to prioritized before the born and that US immigration policy & also apparent Federal satisfaction with present mass shooting rates in education suggest that the lives of even the born are not particular priorities of govt and the same govt owes less due to the unborn.
Abortion is murder.
Non-sequitur, as above. Either abortion is legal and so not murder or abortion is illegal and PRO’s resolution made redundant.
PRO fails to understand non-sequitur

This voter finds PRO interdependent first & second arguments well disproved.

Abortion makes the value of life subjective.
Value itself is subjective. (pretty weak- value needs a definition here.)
That abortion can save a mother tens of thousands of dollars in medical expenses is one clear objective value.
PRO points out that there are adoption, etc programs that might offset these costs.
CON argues that many important costs such as lost work time, salary not calculated.

PRO and CON never really argued the same definition of value. DRAW on this point

PRO’s topic and description indicate a public policy debate but PRO’s R1 lack any kind of policy formatting. What government & what legal code are under discussion? In the absence of any defined resolution, I shall consider the resolution something like: RESOLVED: The USFG ought to criminalize abortion.

In the absence of any BOP this voter places the burden on PRO as instigator and advocate for policy change.

PRO offers 3 arguments:

Unborn children are living, and therefore
Abortion is murder.
Abortion makes the value of life subjective.

The first and second argument are really interdependent: if the child was not alive it could not serve as evidence of murder. Regrettably, PRO argues his only working argument out of contention:

PRO defines murder as an unlawful killing but we know that abortion has already been adjudged to be a lawful killing, if only because PRO wants to make it illegal.

P1: Murder is illegal
P2: Abortion is murder
C: Therefore, abortion should be illegal

But abortion is not unlawful in the US, therefore, using PRO’s definition, it cannot be murder. PRO’s first and second contentions are self-refuted before the end of R1.

PRO’s 3rd contention is barely comprehensible. The only ordinary, objective measure of life this voter is aware of is years lived but that yardstick starts at birth, ends at death, and is measured in birthdays. Pro entirely fails to offer even one objective value of a fetus, particularly an unwanted fetus which is our present subject. PRO shows no evidence to show that “people have begun to devalue human life.” By any and every historical account this voter knows of, the subjective value of human life and the subjective value of fetuses is presently enjoying an all-time high. PRO fails to show how feelings alter the objective value of life.

-->
@Speedrace

Thanks for voting, and for the feedback. Hope you get some good sleep...

---1 of 3---
And yes, I of course hope you reweigh things with the damage from sources factored in (it's easy, as I outlined them at the end of each round, and that pro's evidence often directly opposed his case went uncontested).

-->
@Speedrace

---2 of 3---
Pro-lifers chanting "abortion is murder" is a pet peeve of mine (and similar for anti-meat protesters), much like pro's opinion of pro-choicers saying "you hate women."
Both of these come up in debates too often, and when the person making the claim specifically uses the legal definition, I point out that they haven't proven abortion is the illegal killing of a human to prove that it's murder. I assume were I to have pulled the "you hate women" pro would have pointed out a similar lack of evidence toward that precise conclusion. In R3 he conceded that it is not murder, which was the contention. Were he to have used to more mellow claim that it's comparable to murder, that would be the start to a potentially constructive conversation.

On "Health" I indeed dropped the stillborn sub-point, but I literally flipped how much of pro's evidence on the main point? Then supported this one with the constitution prohibiting inflicting potential death on them (some points crossover).

-->
@Speedrace

---3 of 3---
On "Slavery," my main evidence used the legal definitions (as this was a debate about law), as seen in block-text in R2.

On "constitution" I am surprised this one is not weighted higher, given that this is a legal debate, and pro's own evidence proved that abortion should remain legal according to the foundation of law itself (it was his late debate attempt at a silver bullet, but it shot his case instead of mine).

I fully admit to being confused by the decision to award pro a bonus round (or penalize me? same outcome). I'm a firm believer in dismissing any brand new points, and decreasing the weight given, but to outright assign without warning an unequal number of argument rounds on principle seems odd.

-->
@Barney
@Caleb

I might change both conduct and sources tomorrow because I just realized it tied, but gimme a minute because my eyes hate me right now

-->
@Barney
@Caleb

I am again ignoring Con’s last argument since it isn’t fair to Pro. I simply fail to see the real evidence on Con’s part that the woman is a slave, since Pro pointed out that they knew what they were getting into. Point to Pro because of a lack of evidence on Con’s part.

Pro: 4
Con: 2

Pro gets arguments.

Sources: I heard that you don’t have to vote a specific side in all categories if you don’t want to, and I’m SO SLEEPY right now, and it probably wouldn’t make a difference anyway, so tied.

-->
@Barney
@Caleb

Point 1: Con says that a woman can suffer from many things following pregnancy, and also that Pro ignores the possibility that a mother could die unless the baby is aborted before birth. Pro points out that the pregnant women are aware of the bad effects, and that he is ok with abortion for ectopic pregnancies. He also says that abortions carry health risks. Con says that many women can't be aware because most pregnancies are unplanned, and he also points out that abortion health problems are rare. He says that Pro never mentioned ectopic pregnancies at first in his exception list, as well as the fact that Pro must be supporting carrying stillbirths to full term. Pro says that they are aware because they know what happens when they sleep with someone. He points out that Con is just picking at a minor detail he forgot in the description for ectopic pregnancies, and that stillbirth abortions are not actually abortions since the fetus is dead.

I'm ignoring Con's response because it's completely unfair that he gets the last word on his own arguments but Pro doesn't get the last word on his own. Firstly, picking on the ectopic pregnancies was unnecessary and annoying. It's irrelevant. Secondly, Pro showed how the women still are aware of the risks simply because they know how babies are made, so the health stuff is irrelevant. Pro successfully debunked this point. Point to Pro.

Point 2: Con says that a lack of abortion forces unwilling women into slavery. Pro says that women can’t be chattel because they are real estate and therefore are excluded from the definition. Con says that they are not real estate and that they are forced to parent the children, making them slaves. Pro says that pregnancy is not slavery because the woman knew what she was getting into and therefore has a responsibility.

-->
@Barney
@Caleb

Con never addressed the "killing a stranger" part of this argument at all. Besides that, he literally says that the subjectivity of life is increasing, which was Pro's point all along. However, we must determine if that is because of abortion or not. Con basically admitted it, as Pro pointed out, when he said that some people will take a stranger for $12k and others won't, and Pro said that they will "kill" a stranger for $12k while others won't. Con never addressed the "kill" part of this. Point to Pro.

Point 4: Pro says that all people have a right to life, and therefore so do embryos if it is proven that they are living. Con points out that the 14th amendment says that states, or governments, can’t take life away. All that Pro then says is that life should win over someone’s right to privacy. Con reasserts what he already said.

Pro essentially drops his original argument, so I must give this to Con for a good examination of the Constitution.
(Con's arguments)

-->
@Barney
@Caleb

Point 2: Pro says that abortion is murder since he established that the embryo is living and killing it is therefore murder. Con says that Pro would be making abortion already illegal by that definition since murder is already illegal and that Pro was using a non-sequitur fallacy. Pro says that it was completely relevant and therefore not a non-sequitur. Con then says that Pro used the wrong definition of non-sequitur and that defining abortion as already illegal is different from the resolution of making abortion illegal. Pro shows how the definitions are essentially the same, and then how, since abortion isn't illegal, he can't be arguing for abortion already being illegal. Con says that Pro admits that abortion is not murder by saying that abortion is not illegal.

This was obviously a ridiculous semantics argument which I was annoyed by. It is pretty clear what Pro means by abortion being murder and the core of that argument is never addressed by Con, as he only says that that would make abortion "already" murder, even though he provides no real justification for that. This argument goes to Pro.

Point 3: Pro says that abortion causes life to become subjective. Con says it has always been subjective and shows how some women are okay with high birth costs and others are not. Pro points out that that means that some women are ok with killing a stranger for $12k and others aren't, proving his point on the subjectivity of life. Con again asserts that human life is subjective in this regard because some women can afford it and others can't. Pro then says that he found no study on such a matter, and that it would show a moral breakdown if he had indeed found such a study. He also mentions adoption as an alternative. Con says that adoption can hurt other kids waiting and that Pro gave no reason why someone shouldn't take $12k instead of a stranger.

-->
@Barney
@Caleb

I know this took a long time, but it's cool, also this debate was awesome

I'll start with Pro's case

Arguments (Pro)

Point 1: Pro says that unborn children are human. Con says that human cells have no significance. He says that a lack of regulation for school shootings proves we don't care about human lives, let alone just human cells. Pro then says that not only do we try to stop school shootings, but that doesn't fight the fact that human embryos are lives that deserve to live. Con comes back by showing how immigrants could be given homes at the expense of American citizens, but they're not which shows the subjectivity of human life, and he also shows how universal background checks could reduce homicides, but we still don't reduce them. Pro points out that just because we don't do stuff to help children and immigrants doesn't mean we shouldn't try to help the unborn. Con says that he has shown that the unborn are non-intelligent and therefore have no value.

I see the validity in Con's argument that non-intelligent life seems to have no value, as that was the premise of his value. Pro gave no real defense to this and did not show why non-intelligent life should have value, so this goes to Con. Remember, Pro has the burden.

-->
@PsychometricBrain

Part of pro's case finally makes sense to me. I treated that as a self evident intuitive leap once the price tag was in place (to me $12K is a very large amount...).

-->
@Barney

No worries, your debates tend to be enjoyable and you've voted on mine quite a few times. Could've strengthened your R2 $12k argument by immediately citing a study/article indicating that the monetary factor acts as an incentive to have abortions imo, other than that you did really well, loved how you consistently attacked his sources and flipped them against his own reasoning, that's something I'll work on doing myself in future debates.

-->
@PsychometricBrain

Thanks for voting.

-->
@Barney

If I get time, remind me on Saturday if you can

-->
@Caleb

I'm more pro life the pro choice, so that may have influenced my vote. I don't know who I would have voted for.

-->
@Alec

Just out of curiosity, who would you have voted for if you had privileges?

-->
@Barney

I can't vote on debates. Virt took away my voting privileges. RFDs are hard for me to make.

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
@Alec
@Speedrace
@Debaticus
@semperfortis

As the users most active in abortion debates, would any of you mind giving feedback and/or voting?

-->
@RationalMadman

Agreed!

-->
@Caleb

This is actually one of the best pro-life debates I've seen. You are not falling for a single bait the pro-choicer has set. I will be sure to vote on this but I'm curious how he concludes.

PS. Your citation # 3...what point in the video are you referencing
and in relation to what point in your opening round?

-->
@Caleb

Round 1, a good argument to date. Short, concise, to the point, and enough fact or evidence to support it!