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

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Con did better....

J/K: RfD in comments.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

RFD in comments

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

RFD in the comments

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Pro's case:
Unborn children are humans, humans have objective value, hence abortions should be made illegal.
Con successfully refutes Pro’s first argument by pointing out that if abortions were murder, they would already be illegal, making it futile for “abortion[s] to be made illegal” as the debate resolution states. Furthermore, with his $13k example, Con shows that the value of life is currently treated as subjective, Pro merely asserted that “human life has objective value…” which he however supports with neither argument nor sources, giving me no reason to accept his assertion. In R2 pro attempts to defend his argument by restating “we think the child has the right to live” “the human embryo… deserves a chance outside the womb alive”, these are again mere assertions not backed up by any evidence or argument. Pro merely asserts that human life has objective intrinsic value and that hence abortions should be illegal, the problem however is that Con disagrees that human life has objective value. Merely restating that the conclusion follows from the premises is futile when the premise is rejected by the opponent, Pro did nothing to support his premise (that human life has objective value), and hence he did not defend his conclusion successfully (that abortions should be made illegal). In R3 Pro makes no further attempt to show that human life has objective value other than to moralistically assert "I feel we can all agree those women [referring to those willing to have abortions] have had a severe moral breakdown.". ---> Dismantled by Con, not supported by any argument from Pro, merely asserted.

Con's case:
Con outlines that pregnancy causes lasting harm to the mother, which he supports with several examples and a source. Con furthermore outlines that the mother is not responsible to care for the ‘stranger’ (unborn child), as this would be alike to slavery as the woman would be forced to care for another being against her will.
Pro concedes that abortions are permissible in cases where the mother is “at risk of death” (presumably meaning at a considerable risk of death). Pro then goes on to claim that the mother should be aware of the health risks before becoming pregnant, which however seems irrelevant to the debate, since there are women who are not aware of this in which case abortion would be their best option. Pro has not outlined why the fact that they should’ve known beforehand means that they should be denied their preference after their mistake. Con rebuts this through pointing out that "The vast majority of abortions are for unplanned pregnancies [6], thus future knowledge is not a a point of significance.", and flips Con's own words to show that the “You cannot make the decisions for the majority based on the exceptions of the minority." Furthermore, Pro outlines that abortions also carry health risks, does however not state whether these are comparable to those of carrying out pregnancies, which hence only provides limited support for his POV. Con refutes this point by firstly arguing that there is a significant difference between the two as women are aware of the risks of abortions before undergoing them, whereas they are not considering the risks before an unplanned pregnancy, additionally, Con flips Pro's sources to show that “These problems are really rare, and they’re usually easy to treat” suggesting that the harm of pregnancy is more significant than that of abortions. In his final round Pro again merely asserts "the mother should have known" without stating why this would justify prohibiting abortions for those women who have not known. Again Pro merely makes assertions which are not supported by argument. --> Con's argument stands strong as Pro's counter-arguments suffer from lack of detail (e.g. weighing harm of pregnancy vs abortions) and lack of elaboration (why it matters that the women should've known), Con pointed both of these issues out (and refuted them by citing sources), which were not addressed by Pro who merely restated his prior assertions.

Con’s slavery argument is addressed by Pro, who argues that it uses the same logic as his abortion argument which Con accused of being a non-sequitur. Pro does not outline how they resemble each other, hence his assertion has little value. To defend his case, Pro defines the womb as real-estate to be excluded from the definition of chattel, Con rebuts this through citing a longer definition showing that the woman is, in fact, not real-estate, basically ending the argument as Pro takes a different approach suggesting that the woman "chose to create this life" and is hence responsible for her own servitude. How the choice (which Con pointed out is not a real choice as abortions tend to be for unwanted pregnancies) suggests that abortions should be illegal is again not explained, merely asserted. --> Con's case once more stands strong, well-rebutted against mere assertions by Pro.