Instigator / Pro
12
1487
rating
7
debates
35.71%
won
Topic
#1125

Should Abortion Be Illegal

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
9
Better sources
6
6
Better legibility
3
3
Better conduct
3
3

After 3 votes and with 9 points ahead, the winner is...

Barney
Judges
David's avatar
David
91 debates / 171 votes
No vote
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
14 debates / 8 votes
No vote
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
27 debates / 191 votes
Voted
FaustianJustice's avatar
FaustianJustice
0 debates / 2 votes
Voted
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
43 debates / 689 votes
Voted
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
12,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Judges
Contender / Con
21
1810
rating
49
debates
100.0%
won
Description

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 human 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.

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:

I will be honest and start off with saying that pros style here somewhat let him down. Pro appeared to rely heavily on asking questions to make rhetorical points: many of these felt like loaded questions, and felt like appeals to emotion - which are fine in some mediums, but don’t make it east to disentangle in this one.

Pros central argument upon which everything else seemed to be based, is that an unborn child, fetus, or embryo is a human being, and thus should be treated with the value and all the rights of a human being.

As a starting point, this seems reasonable: but con makes substantial inroads here by driving a wedge between extremes:

Contrasting MLK and embryos in a lab; or living, breathing, contributing humans to embryos that will not survive was an excellent appeal to intuition, that showed that pros argument wasn’t adequate to describe the nature of reality.

How con seemed to turn this debate on this point; was to show that the value of embryos and that of real living humans isn’t the same - thus pros value cannot apply, without having a good value with which to determine the relative worth of an embryo - this to me eroded the central plank of pros argument.

Pro mostly responded simply by trying to restate that embryos are humans, that humans have differing values - but the same objective value.

By the end of this inherent exchange, I was left in the position where I wasn’t sure what the value of an embryo is, nor how to really measure it : as while I’m prepared to buy pros premise, con showed that pros black and white approach is less inherently intuitive with cons more nuanced issues.

Cons central plank, is that forcing a woman to nourish and nurture and unborn child against her will is effectively slavery.

Con provides an explanation of why he feels a Woman carrying a fetus against her will is slavery - and pro largely appears to fully concede this point.

Pros main objection to the slavery point here - is to argue that just because something is evil, doesn’t mean it should be solved with another evil.

This all requires me to buy into pros values: which as explained, I don’t fully.

Pro indeed tells me that it’s wrong to fight one evil with another, and I think this point put a nail in the coffin: this appears to be exactly what pro is doing: suggesting that the evil of slavery is okay to fight the evil of rape, or other issues pro suggests - but the evil of termination is not.

If I had a good way of measuring the value, I may have come down a different way: but cons effective rebuttal to this point was to suggest that if one were to decide between two evils, slavery has a definitive harm, cost, and negatives - while the termination option is largely without any associated impact. I would have liked to see this point challenged with more than a dismissive line that seemed to miss the point con appeared to be making.

As pro tied everything back to his personhood claim - a point which I felt sufficiently muddied, this raised pros slavery claim: as he very much highlighted the harm, and essentially relied on a similar value case to pro (real people and humans that are born and are alive suffer and are harmed by this); because of all of this, arguments go to con.

I am going to tie all other points; while I considered conduct, I don’t feel this was clear cut enough for me to warrant an award.

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:

Okay. I was not a fan of this debate, at all. I am not going to award sources, or grammar, as they both pretty well were relevant to what was being relied upon. Pro had ground to make, Con didn't really -have- to do anything, argumentation wise.

I am not going to award conduct, because frankly "Wow, neither conduct was great" isn't present.

I was able to understand the instigator's concept. A fertilized egg was now a person/human being/human. This, however was challenged in the legal forum in which currently it doesn't hold. What I wanted was a convincing argument as to why I should consider (as Con relates through Sophie's Choice hypothetical), why is the batch of fertilized and frozen embryos panned? I know I did a little moral calculus and determined I am rushing the day care to save kids. I don't know if most would, regarding asking for a citation, but that is the measure of a convincing argument. I think Con did a lot to answer questions (some efforts in good faith, some in the interest of at least ham-fisting what was already believed to be answered), but that hypothetical I feel was a lynch pin in the moral framework that Pro wanted to build. It was avoided.

What I also wanted was an internally consistent argument if it insists upon itself to be true, that being outlawing abortion is not slavery.

This is real tough to reconcile, as Con pointed out:
"If a woman chooses to have unprotective sex, she should recognize she is taking on responsibility if pregnancy occurs."
"I never said a woman's choice is irrelevant in controlling her body."
"Agreed, rape is wrong, yet killing the innocent unborn because of rape is not justifiable. It adds another injustice."

Simplified:
A woman accepts responsibility for pregnancy if she chooses sex.
A woman can control their body.
A woman cannot terminate a pregnancy (control her body) she didn't accept responsibility or choose sex.

... but its not slavery? Um...

This collection of terms unequivocally states that a woman on the matter of carrying a child has no rights. Indeed, she is obligated to carry to term a child she has no desire for, no responsibility in creating, compounding the usurpation of autonomy she already lost. IE, no, she is not allowed to control her body. Were all people to be created equal, this to doesn't hold.

All that said, I feel this debate was mostly to people eloquently talking past each other. Pro insisted on something with no reason given as to why, repeated the same questions which I feel were answered. Con clearly was not interested in a philosophical debate on the nature of man, and it showed even though I think that is what Pro was initially auguring for but wasn't clear on.

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 given here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qxbpf0qsdHFRyyYGUeCP8tYQBzr-fvTSHZFGYVo-WKY/edit?usp=sharing