Abortion Should Be Illegal
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 9 votes and with 25 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Definition:
Abortion Should Be illegal - The deliberate termination of a human pregnancy should be lawfully federally illegal and banned.
I as Pro will waive Round 1. You as Con will begin your argument in round 1.
When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.
By 2002 in South Africa, for example, six years after liberalizing its abortion law, deaths due to unsafe abortion dropped by at least 50% and the number and severity of postabortion complications fell dramatically as well. Similarly, according to Nepalese government hospitals records, soon after abortion was legalized in 2004, the number of women admitted for complications of unsafe abortion and the severity of those complications declined markedly; pregnancy-related deaths in Nepal also declined.
Over the last several years, many states, including California, Kentucky, Minnesota, Montana, New York, Oregon, and Virginia, have considered legislation requiring physicians to inform women seeking abortions that the fetus feels pain and to offer fetal anesthesia. This year, Arkansas and Georgia enacted such statutes.
P.S. I think it was very stupid of you to play devil's advocate here as I doubt you'll be able to make good arguments (you haven't so far). I don't mean to dismiss your round 1 argument, it's just that both the things you mentioned have no relevance to why abortion should really be illegal.
Parents talk to and about their unborn child. They (may) name their unborn child. They may even play with their child, for example poking or tapping a little elbow sticking out of the mother’s belly. No one names, plays with, or sings songs to their body parts, at least not seriously.
There is also ample evidence to indicate that there is a tremendous amount of social learning that occurs before a child is even born. Interactions between twins are especially interesting (and cute). The parent-child relationship exists before the child is even born precisely because the child is an individual and only individuals can be social with one another.
Just because the fetus is of the human species does not make it human. My skin cells are of the human species. Therefore, we are talking about personhood, and you have not supported your claims on the personhood of the fetus sufficiently.
Conclusion
In interest of character preservation, I’ll keep it brief: My opponent’s conduct in this debate has not been good. His arguments have been insufficiently proved and sufficiently rebutted. His bold and crude claim that this debate is an “easy win” is not aging well.
[Note if my structure is unclear, my opponent should address this argument next round per the structure. He should address my opening case in this round.]
Human life does not have the right to life. You kill thousands of human cells by scratching an itch. Therefore, for my opponent to prove that abortion is morally wrong, he likely must seek to prove that the fetus is a person with a right to life, or, if not a person, a something with an inherent right to life. Since personhood and “the right to life” are vaguely defined terms, I believe he cannot do so although he likely will be seeking to in his opening case.
3. In more than 50% of cases, the baby has a different blood type than the mother. We all know what happens when a blood type that is not yours enters your system.4. Completely different DNA. It cannot be part of you per se if it doesn't share your DNA.5. Unlike all other parts of a woman, the fetus is not independently generated by the woman. It takes a man as well.6. In 50% of cases, the baby is a different sex than the mother. Are you now about to tell me that in 50% of the time, the mother has male genitalia?
8. When a woman is pregnant the fetus weakens her immune system. Had the fetus been "part" of the mother there would be no need to locally weaken the woman's immune system.9. It's illegal to put a pregnant woman on death row.
P.S. I think it was very stupid of you to play devil's advocate here as I doubt you'll be able to make good arguments (you haven't so far). I don't mean to dismiss your round 1 argument, it's just that both the things you mentioned have no relevance to why abortion should really be illegal.
75% FF, hence
Case is preffered to CON and is extended and refuted, giving the advantage to CON
50% of the debate was forfeited.
Fulliousious Forfeitiouluous
50% F
The forfeits alone justify the vote, though the arguments do as well. Con addresses every argument Pro makes in the debate and retains the strength of his own arguments throughout the debate, as all of Pro's responses amount to a separate case with no real clash. I also award conduct, as Pro included a few personal jabs at Con in among the few arguments he posted, including calling Con "stupid" for taking on the devil's advocate position. I (and many others who see people like Con taking on and defending positions they may not personally agree with) applaud efforts to engage in debates like this where they stretch outside of their personal biases. It's not simple, particularly on an ideologically charged issue like this.
Gist:
Pro chose to insist proof “don't prove anything,” and offer no real challenge to con’s case; do uninspired insults, and then drop out. Comparatively, con offered a case.
1. March for life
This is really just part of the preamble, not debate points in itself. Still of educational value of course.
2. BoP
Given the forfeiture, this alone could carry the debate. Which is ironic, as I also consider it part of the preamble, rather than debate points.
3. Issues ... Structure ... Constructive
Skimming at this point; but all preamble material.
4. Abortion Safety
Okay, into the contentions...
This one starts with a subpoint about prohibition, using that not working to compare to abortion. I suggest such points use an unlined but non-bold heading.
The South African abortion deaths was a good comparative example to bring up, of problems suffered by citizens if abortion were illegal. The follow up of similar studies was also effective.
Con counters that it “are useless as they don't prove anything.” The proof was given, expanded upon, etc. and not countered. Basically, game over for the debate.
5. Fetal Pain
No pain until the “fetus is 23-30 weeks old.” With a very high-quality source backing it up. Thus, until the 23rd week, some harm other than pain should be shown by pro to support his claim. But instead he insists proof “don't prove anything,” effectively dropping this point.
6. Conclusion
An expansion of the neutrality principle used earlier, and the example of scratching an itch also killing technically human cells.
7. Gish Gallop
Con drops pro’s case, and offers a wall of text Gish Gallop; 11 different unsupported assertions. He proceeded to call con stupid for engaging in debates...
There are various ways to handle Gish Gallops, but at the end of the day, I as a voter choose to not reward such obvious BS by giving it the time of day. Try the Chebacco Defense next time, at least it’s entertaining.
---
Arguments:
See above review of key points. Honestly, the Gist section would have been enough for this debate (which is effectively a full forfeit).
Sources:
Pro used a couple, one was pretty decent (but would only apply to late term abortions), and the other was a propaganda piece he used as part of his mind reading demonstration. Con on the other hand researched a case, even citing an academic journal to prove one of his key contentions.
Conduct:
Base insults and forfeiture.
S&G:
Leaving this technically tied, but pro used a damned wall of text without formatting. It honestly looks copy/pasted from somewhere else.
Pro forfeited the majority of the debate, that's poor conduct
Pro forfeited most of the debate.
Conduct to con.
pro forfeited 3/4 of the debate rounds
np mate
Thanks for the vote supa
Getting my votes in and comment
Thank you for voting on this!
no problem
Thank you for voting!
Thanks to all voters!
FYI, another moderator might rule differently, but to me this is in essence a FF. Pro waived R1, making his R2 effectively his R1, and forfeited thereafter.
How are the args coming? Idk if you read your pms
u runnin outta time!
This isn't me, but some people are pro choice exclusively because setting the kid up for adoption messes up the kid. What's your response to this?
Reminder that since you haven't contested the structure you should rebut my opening case in R3 and nothing more. Don't worry about what I just posted until next round.
Playing pro-choice devil's advocate in this debate has really helped me realize how crappy the pro-choice arguments are.
Almost thereeeee
Less than a day now!
Okay, thanks!
Yep. I'm going to try to finish my case tonight.
Just letting you know you have about a day left.
I think donating part of your liver is harder than donating blood. I mean, if that's the option someone wants to take to save another life (which they would have to do if they committed or were responsible for an abortion), then fine, but I think most people would rather donate some blood than part of their liver. How does bone marrow, semen, and hair save someone's life? I can see how breast milk would, but I don´t think feeding someone, even if that someone is a baby should count as saving their life. People always find ways to obtain food and a newborn can nurse from someone able and willing or can use baby formula.
Do you understand how debates work? I asked for a week to argue because I needed a week to construct a good case and you said yes to that - I'm very busy this week and will need every minute of that time.
I have 0 intention of forfeiting, be patient. Debates aren't about making quick arguments, they're about making good ones.
Is this debate coming anytime soon or would you like to forfeit? This has been taking an awful amount of time.
Only mother's life. Not rape or incest.
Do you support abortion in the case of rape, incest, or danger to the mother's life?
My thoughts exactly. There are plenty of renewable human parts or byproducts and it's not as if we need to limit this legislation to just organs. For example, hair, bone marrow, breast milk and semen also have applicable uses that can be readily harvested and replenished from humans. And ultimately the cost for doing so is less than what the punishment should be for the murder of other human beings. It's a win-win
Your liver grows back and you can donate part of it ;)
Since I think everyone who can be an organ donor should be required to be an organ donor, I don't think organs can be used as an alternative to blood donation, unless it's a kidney, which donating a kidney is probably harder than donating 480 ml of blood. Even if you disagree with this, 1 organ donor can save only 8 lives, and under this system, to be an abortion doctor, you have to save a life for every abortion you perform. This only enables a doctor to perform 8 abortions in their life. The rest of the abortions would have to be paid for by donating blood unless there is a better idea.
I would only have murderers, rapists, and abortion doctors donate blood to different degrees. 60,000 people die per year because they can't get enough blood. I figured these lives and others internationally can be saved by forcing bad people to donate blood. I think if the felon's blood is safe, then it can be donated, some felons have unusable blood, some do. I wouldn't say that donating blood is something anyone wants to do; they merely tolerate it in an effort to save up to 3 people. If an STD prevents a felon from donating blood, then I would treat that STD in order to obtain the blood if possible. It helps the felon, but it's better than the alternative of getting no blood from them. I don't think abortion doctors would drop significantly. They would probably be fine with donating blood every 3 months as part of their regulation, especially if it prevents Roe V Wade from getting overturned because even if your pro life, the notion that they would be saving a life for every one they take would make them fine with abortions under such situations.
It doesn't have to be just blood. We can extend the feasibility long-term by mandating the donation of various organs such as kidneys, the liver, corneas and what have you. We would massively improve the health outcomes of those waiting for organs, while discouraging abortions at the same time
It is good for me. Exactly the point. I was trying to say that having abortion doctors be blood donors isn't feasible longterm as the drop will be very large very quickly.
A 99% drop in abortion doctors would be good for you, though, wouldn't it?
I don't understand this obsession with you. What is it with you and donating blood? It's not a problem. As much as the Red Cross advertises, what they say simply isn't true. The US doesn't just run out of blood in the Winter. The US consistently donates enough blood to give to these Americans that need it. Now there is usually never a surplus of sorts, but it's not like we're on dry of it. And btw, felons can't donate blood. Felons can lose the privilege to donate blood because of the potential health risks that blood recipients face from felons who have been incarcerated and exposed to serious conditions like hepatitis from unsafe tattoo, sex, or possible IV drug usage. Now I understand that most abortion doctors don't do those things, but it's hard to implement your blood donating thing on a very few people every year. And you could only sustain it for so long, as I'm positive the amount of abortion doctors would drop by ~99% in max 5 years.
My solution would be to hire more doctors so the doctors can only perform abortions every 45 days so they can keep up with it from a blood standpoint. 1 pint of blood saves 2 people. The doctors in the meantime would be doing other things that are bipartisan, like contraception, STD testing, etc.
I was referring to the doctors that do multiple abortions a week. :P
Not the actual amount of blood taken.
It´s 240 ml of blood. People often donate a 480 ml of blood and they don´t pass out. The doctors won't be likely to pass out if others can donate double the blood and survive with only minor temporary effects.
Lol, some doctors will start passing out from blood loss.
I didn't get the reply. What if the doctor just donated enough blood to save someone else (240 ml)? An eye for an eye; you take a life, you save a life. The left might agree to it too.
Did I not already answer this? The mother and doctor would go to prison on charges of murder for most likely a life-sentence (maybe not for the mother but certainly for the doctor). Abortion is murder and murderers go to prison.
Everything that is banned needs a punishment, otherwise what's the point of making it illegal. Would you punish abortion?
yep gimme 1 day. Like I said I need time.
Would you like to accept this one? No, the first one was deleted for some reason other than me doing it. I did cancel the one I sent to you because you didn't accept it. WIll you accept this one?
A glitch? Didn't you challenge me and delete it?
Sorry guys,
A glitch of some sort happened with the my previous debate on this topic, but now it's back.