Instigator / Pro
21
1487
rating
7
debates
35.71%
won
Topic
#241

Abortion: The Woman Should NOT have the Right to Choose, with one exception.

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
9
3
Better sources
6
2
Better legibility
3
3
Better conduct
3
3

After 3 votes and with 10 points ahead, the winner is...

PGA2.0
Judges
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
1 debates / 4 votes
Voted
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
14 debates / 8 votes
No vote
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
27 debates / 202 votes
Voted
FaustianJustice's avatar
FaustianJustice
0 debates / 2 votes
Voted
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Judges
Contender / Con
11
1551
rating
9
debates
66.67%
won
Description

Pro contends that abortion is taking the life of a human being and therefore should be considered murder/a wrong, not a woman's right to choose.

Con contents that abortion should be the woman's right to choose and that it is not wrong for the woman to abort that life, whether the woman chooses to do so before or after the "age of viability" of the unborn.

Termination of pregnancy because of a threat to the life of the mother will be the exception to the rule (i.e., tubal pregnancy/Ectopic pregnancy).

The debate aims to convince others that the position held is the most reasonable of the two.

1st Round - Pro Definitions
1st Round - Con Definitions and Acceptance
2nd Round - Opening Arguments
3rd Round - Rebuttals and Additional Arguments
4th Round - Rebuttals and Additional Arguments
5th Round - Summary and Final Rebuttal; No New Arguments

I request that forfeiting one round will automatically grant the opponent the win. Please consider this before accepting.

-->
@SkepticalOne

"It is preferable to save at least one life than none at all" - ME

"Agreed, but per the position you've embraced, this would require violating the rights of the fetus and "taking an innocent human life". You..you..MONSTER! 'Denying the rights of an entire class of people' (the unborn in ectopic pregnancies) leads us to Hitler, Apartheid, American slavery, etc., no?! 🤨😂🤣" - SKEPTICAL1

There is no other choice. Either both will die or one will die. That is why I left ONE exception in the debate when the woman's life will be lost if she continues on with the debate. The unborn will die in such pregnancies. There is nothing science can do at present to prevent their deaths. But there is something science can do you save the woman.

"You can't have it both ways. Either the unborn have rights or they don't. If they have rights, then we'd better honor them without exception. If they don't, then aborting a pregnancy is nothing more than a recognition of a woman's rights." - SKEPTICAL1

When both are threatened with certain death but there is a chance to save one but you cannot save the other, no matter what you do, then it is better to save the one. The unborn cannot be saved because of its level of development but the woman still can. In the case of tubal pregnancies that is the grim reality.

If there was a way to save both then both should be saved.

-->
@PGA2.0

"It is preferable to save at least one life than none at all"

Agreed, but per the position you've embraced, this would require violating the rights of the fetus and "taking an innocent human life". You..you..MONSTER! 'Denying the rights of an entire class of people' (the unborn in ectopic pregnancies) leads us to Hitler, Apartheid, American slavery, etc., no?! 🤨😂🤣

You can't have it both ways. Either the unborn have rights or they don't. If they have rights, then we'd better honor them without exception. If they don't, then aborting a pregnancy is nothing more than a recognition of a woman's rights.

-->
@SkepticalOne

"What exactly do you mean by this?" - ME

"I don't think I can put it much simpler, but I will try. If you think abortion is wrong because it is "taking an innocent life", then allowing abortion under any circumstances undermines your position and shows your moral high ground to be a pretense.
You keep trying to make this into a 'black and white' issue while simultaneously allowing for areas of grey. This is incoherent." - SKEPTICAL1

No, it does not undermine it. As I said, one circumstance is allowable because the choice to keep both the woman and the unborn alive would result in the death of both such as in a tubal pregnancy. It is preferable to save at least one life than none at all. If the woman dies because of a tubal pregnancy the unborn will die also because we do not have the technology to save it in such circumstances. It is common sense.

"What exactly do you mean by this?"

I don't think I can put it much simpler, but I will try. If you think abortion is wrong because it is "taking an innocent life", then allowing abortion under any circumstances undermines your position and shows your moral high ground to be a pretense.

You keep trying to make this into a 'black and white' issue while simultaneously allowing for areas of grey. This is incoherent.

-->
@SkepticalOne

"I do not propose taking an innocent life." - ME
"This would be true if no allowance for abortion had been made." - YOU

What exactly do you mean by this?
Do you mean that because some judges pass a law that makes killing innocent human beings morally right and discriminate against the most helpless in of all human beings, it is okay? Where is the equality you spoke of under the UN declaration of ALL humans being equal? You side-stepped the issue. This is precisely what I was speaking about with Nazi Germany, the American South during slavery, South Africa during Apartheid (that I witnessed when we used to go on holiday there), and a hundred or a thousand other injustices that people pass into law all over the world.

-->
@PGA2.0

"I do not propose taking an innocent life."

This would be true if no allowance for abortion had been made.

-->
@SkepticalOne

"As I said elsewhere, that is one reason in which killing someone may be justified." "It is a FUNDAMENTAL right that when denied leads to genocides and/or discrimination," - ME
"Per you, denying the right to life leads to "genocide and discrimination". Killing someone (in self-defense) is most certainly denying the 'right to life'. Either you're advocating genocide and discrimination or (more likely) this subject is much more nuanced than you'd like to admit." - YOU

I have given an exception for abortion in which the woman's life is threatened where both she and the unborn will die. There is no possible way for the unborn to survive and by not taking it then it will endanger the woman's life also. I do not propose taking an innocent life. The unborn has done no wrong. The person looking to intentionally hurt another is doing a wrong. This is the case in the self-defense scenario and also the case in the woman choosing to kill the unborn.

-->
@PGA2.0

"As I said elsewhere, that is one reason in which killing someone may be justified." "It is a FUNDAMENTAL right that when denied leads to genocides and/or discrimination,"

Per you, denying the right to life leads to "genocide and discrimination". Killing someone (in self-defense) is most certainly denying the 'right to life'. Either you're advocating genocide and discrimination or (more likely) this subject is much more nuanced than you'd like to admit. 😏😏😏

-->
@SkepticalOne

"Some laws do outweigh other laws, like the right to life. " - ME
"If you believe the 'right to life' trumps other rights, then I'm curious how you justify self-defense? After all, you and you're would-be attacker have the same right to life..." - YOU

Someone else is intentionally trying to do me harm. In such cases, I have a right to defend myself (although Jesus said to turn the other check). As I said elsewhere, that is one reason in which killing someone may be justified. He does not have the right to take my life and I do not have the right to take him, yet if he does then I have the right to defend myself.

-->
@PGA2.0

"Some laws do outweigh other laws, like the right to life. "

If you believe the 'right to life' trumps other rights, then I'm curious how you justify self-defense? After all, you and you're would-be attacker have the same right to life...

-->
@SkepticalOne
@Alec

Alec, SkepticalOne is not making a true case here since all humans have an equal right to life.

SKEP1: "Outside of punishment, nothing justifies state control of a person's body. Can you imagine a circumstance when blood, tissue, or organs can be taken without consent from men to provide for the development of others?"

Does NOTHING justify it? If you use your body, your fists, to kill someone because you don't like them (and you are practicing bodily autonomy), even though they have not meant you physical harm, does your bodily autonomy come under the States judgment? You do not have the autonomy to kill someone with your fists, your body parts unless in self-defense. The State legislates you can't do this; you are not allowed to take another life.

Some laws do outweigh other laws, like the right to life. It is a FUNDAMENTAL right that when denied leads to genocides and/or discrimination, depending on who controls power. If human beings are not intrinsically valuable, and universally so, then what does it matter what we do to the Jews of Nazi Germany, or slaves in America in earlier days, or person of color in South Africa under Apartheid, or the woman, or unborn, or any other group those in power do not like? SkepticalOne issued the UN declaration in the debate that I fully agree with. The part I did not agree with was when they discriminated against the unborn because they are not treating all humans equal.

I agree a woman does have the right to decide what to do with her own body, to an extent. Her bodily autonomy should not give her the right to kill another human being and her son or daughter at that. Again, you devalue the human being when you make the unborn nothing more than a group of cells, tissue or organs. This is not all that the unborn is. A human being is a self-directed being. With abortion, a human life is being taken and the abortion pro-choice crowd are downplaying it by devaluing it.

-->
@SkepticalOne

Alec, SkepticalOne is not making a true case here since all humans have an equal right to life.

SKEP1: "Outside of punishment, nothing justifies state control of a person's body. Can you imagine a circumstance when blood, tissue, or organs can be taken without consent from men to provide for the development of others?"

Does NOTHING justify it? If you use your body, your fists, to kill someone because you don't like them (and you are practicing bodily autonomy), even though they have not meant you physical harm, does your bodily autonomy come under the States judgment? You do not have the autonomy to kill someone with your fists, your body parts unless in self-defense. The State legislates you can't do this; you are not allowed to take another life.

Some laws do outweigh other laws, like the right to life. It is a FUNDAMENTAL right that when denied leads to genocides and/or discrimination, depending on who controls power. If human beings are not intrinsically valuable, and universally so, then what does it matter what we do to the Jews of Nazi Germany, or slaves in America in earlier days, or person of color in South Africa under Apartheid, or the woman, or unborn, or any other group those in power do not like? SkepticalOne issued the UN declaration in the debate that I fully agree with. The part I did not agree with was when they discriminated against the unborn because they are not treating all humans equal.

I agree a woman does have the right to her decide what to do with her own body, to an extent. Her bodily autonomy should not give her the right to kill another human being and her son or daughter at that. Again, you devalue the human being when you make the unborn nothing more than a group of cells, tissue or organs. This is not all that the unborn is. A human being is a self-directed being. With abortion, a human life is being taken and the abortion pro-choice crowd are downplaying it by devaluing it.

-->
@Alec

We agree on the state's right to punish for infringing the rights of others. We do not agree a fetus has rights or that the state denying a woman's right to abort a pregnancy is justified.

We control rapist's bodies when telling them to not rape people because it infringes on the rights of someone else. We technically control everyone's body by saying they can't rape or assault. Is this an infringement on autonomy? Yes. Is it unjustified? No. Same basic thing for deciding on whether or not to allow someone to have an abortion. We should force our values on the women to protect the scientifically confirmed fetus from dying.

P.S. I would like to congratulate you on your conduct. It's better then many other pro choicers I've debated with on the subject.

Under the Human and Person section:
Bonobos and Orangutans are NOT “human” by accurate definitions of the word.

-->
@Alec

"It makes the state control of her body justified because [...]"

Outside of punishment, nothing justifies state control of a person's body. Can you imagine a circumstance when blood, tissue, or organs can be taken without consent from men to provide for the development of others?

-->
@SkepticalOne

Oh yes, how silly of me. I forgot to mention that both societies put legislation into place that promoted discrimination that led/leads to death.

-->
@Raltar

YOU SAID: "What if the woman was already wealthy before the pregnancy and considered the money to be of less value than the opportunity to not be pregnant? I'm pro-life personally, but the idea that you can bribe people to prevent abortions seems like a weak argument to me."

I think the fine and castration would be more of a restitution, punishment, and deterrence, myself. Who wants to get castrated? If they can't pay the fine they serve the time.

-->
@RationalMadman
@SkepticalOne

"This, and this: Reductio ad Hitlerum
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/152/Reductio-ad-Hitlerum" - Skeptical1

No fallacy here. There are many analogies and similarities. The first is the killing of humans. The second is regarding the intrinsic value of human beings. The third is like the first, the Holocaust in both cases. The fourth is the propaganda campaign used to influence the hearts and minds of the majorities. The fifth is the philosophies of the two founders, one being the Nazi Party, the other being Planned Parenthood, based on what they thought was for the good of society. The sixth is the devaluation and dehumanization of groups or segments of the population.

I never said it would apply to a large number of women. But if your counter argument is that we should ignore the small number of cases where your argument has a flaw, then that seems like an inverse ad marjoram fallacy. And besides, how long does it take a castrated iPhone slave to earn a million dollars anyway? I doubt they could earn that amount even if they remained enslaved for the rest of their life. As I said, I'm personally pro-life and conservative, but when we start talking about million dollar fines, castration and ignoring a certain percentage of the population because designing public policy for them is too hard, I think we may have missed the point of being pro-life in the first place. What ever happened to being against abortion just because killing people is wrong?

-->
@Raltar

It would apply to very little people. How little? It's safe to assume that even if you have $1 million in the bank, the notion that you could double your money gradually if you get raped would still seem pretty appealing. Assuming the cutoff is $1 million (meaning that if you have less then $1 million, an extra $1 million would seem appealing and if you have more then this, then the $1 million would not be worth it), lets see how many people this applies too.

It's a good point, however, there are 160 million women in the US. Assuming that 1/4 of them have abortions, since some of them get multiple abortions, this means that there are 40 million women that get abortions since Roe V Wade's existence. This is about 800,000 per year. Assuming 1% of the abortions are due to rape(https://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/13/us/rape-and-incest-just-1-of-all-abortions.html), this is about 8,000 abortions per year due to rape. 5% of Americans are millionaires (https://www.reference.com/business-finance/percentage-americans-millionaires-c3a30edf68c8c4d5).

This means that only about 400 abortions, barely one per day are from millionaire women who were raped. We should not base a whole nationwide policy on the focus of just 400 women out of the 300,000,000 Americans. We should not base nationwide policy based off of people that almost literally make up 1 in a million Americans. For them, their reward may seem nominal, but for the 99% of other women who got raped that weren't rich beforehand, it is life changing.

Do you like this idea?

-->
@Alec

What if the woman was already wealthy before the pregnancy and considered the money to be of less value than the opportunity to not be pregnant? I'm pro-life personally, but the idea that you can bribe people to prevent abortions seems like a weak argument to me.

-->
@SkepticalOne

It makes the state control of her body (if you would call it that) justified because the woman gets restitution for the pregnancy she endures without her prior consent to sex. It helps the woman in the long term because with all that rapist money (if you would call it that), she can afford college without any student debt and maybe could buy some stock with that money. Even though she endures 9 months of unwanted pregnancy, she won't have to endure 9 years of student loan debt. If she picks good stock with the renaming money, then she in theory won't have to work very hard the rest of her life once the pregnancy was done.

No insult was intended. You and my opponent both talk about castration and severe consequences for rapists as though this makes taking control of a woman's body (without her consent) by a third party (the state) justified. This would be the second violation.

I think Pro's exceptions aren't limited enough because there are often ways to save both lives. I wouldn't say we are reading from the same play book. It seems that you were kindof insulting me, which is poor conduct.

"Punishing someone who violates a woman's body doesn't justify a second violation" What is this 2nd violation?

-->
@Alec

You and my opponent are obviously reading from the same play book. Punishing someone who violates a woman's body doesn't justify a second violation - no matter how extreme the punishment. On this alone, (no matter if it is one woman raped) Pro's exceptions are too limited.

In round 1, you were saying that a fetus was like an intruder in someone's house. However, the woman in most situations chose to have sex, and therefore accepted the risk of pregnancy along with it. As a result, the fetus would be more like of a guest then an intruder since the woman kindof consented when she chose to have sex (assuming she doesn't get raped).

You also mentioned what happens if she gets raped. Apart from the fact that only about 1% of abortions are due to rape, if you don't get raped, then the rape clause does not apply. If you were unlucky enough to get raped, you can set the kid up for adoption and (if you have proof, getting proof is easy) you can effectively sue the rapist for cash so this way the rapist pays up, the woman gets restitution for her pain (if I were in charge, I would make the legal penalty for rape a $2 million fine, $1 million of which goes to the victim). If the rapist can't pay the full $2 million, they are enslaved by the state, castrated, and sold to companies like Apple to make Iphones (so innocent Chinese kids don't have to make them) and the wages of the rapist would be garnished so they would go towards the rape victim. The rape victim should receive the money gradually instead of a lump sum so they don't end up like lottery winners.

-->
@Alec

I think you probably meant "science confirms a fetus is an anatomically modern human" I won't disagree with that, but being human and being a person are not the same thing. I explain in the debate why granting personhood to a fetus is problematic.

-->
@SkepticalOne

"Per science, a human being is a species of Homo Sapiens" A Homo Sapiens is one type of human(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens). Orangutans are not a human species. They have different DNA. A zygote on the other hand, has all the necessary DNA to become a human being. Sorry for not responding at an earlier time.

"Why the fuck do you need to bring Hitler into this? Literally your entire closing statement of r4 is Hitler Hitler hitler"

This, and this: Reductio ad Hitlerum
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/152/Reductio-ad-Hitlerum

-->
@RationalMadman

Why the fuck do you need to bring Hitler into this? Literally your entire closing statement of r4 is Hitler Hitler hitler.

Because what is being done to the unborn was done to the Jews - devaluation, dehumanization, discrimination, death.

I could have used slavery, or Apartheid, or The Caste System, or a number of different scenarios but I like using the Hitler example because I have read up on it, read Mein Kampf, read some of the Nazi propaganda documents from the 1930's and 1940's and see how the comparisons work by visiting a number of pro-life sites.

Basically what happens is that the intrinsic worth of some humans is deemed not equal to that of other humans. When that happens it can lead to any number of atrocities. The genocide from abortion practices is the most significant death toll to human beings in our history to date. It is also the one that goes least noticed today because of the current climate of political tolerance (except for certain positions) and cultural relativism (except in some cases).

@ DebateArt.com

The solution was to get the panel to agree to judge before initiating the judicial voting process.

Thank you for your suggestions on how to use the link feature!

Why the fuck do you need to bring Hitler into this? Literally your entire closing statement of r4 is Hitler Hitler hitler

-->
@ethang5
@bsh1
@whiteflame
@FaustianJustice

↓ Same for you guys, I'd really appreciate it ^_^

-->
@PGA2.0

Hey, glad to see that you managed to create a judged debate :)

They are not that well tested so if you notice any weird behaviour, please let me know :)

-->
@Alec

Per science, a human being is a species of Homo Sapiens. Orangutans are among these.

"Science also says an Orangutan is a human being." How so? Does it have all the necessary chromosomes?

-->
@Alec

Science also says an Orangutan is a human being. Should Orangutans be recognized as persons?

Science confirms that a fetus is a human being. It therefore should be recognized as a person under US and international law.

-->
@bsh1

Hey mod. You might want to start writing your RFD now. Time management and all that.