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 / 191 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.

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:

Wanted to make this short, but ended up having quite a bit to say.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/13MFeTQ8B-nIflORdA3s0mFbC1kGp7pqoM75ZIrPOaQs/edit?usp=sharing

For the tl:dr, I found that the debaters largely argued past each other, there was too little discussion on the framework for the debate, and almost no weighing analysis. What's left on the table largely favors Pro in terms of raw numbers and impact, so that's where I vote.

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 hate to say it, but I am really not convinced by either series of arguments.

Pro flat out ignored what bodily autonomy was in favor of something that has no autonomy, all the while saying that some -other- (presumably the state) body needs to have sway over what constitutes a threat, as well as usurping said autonomy when (ironically) the case of rape usurps the autonomy of the rape victim. Its a double whammy that is supposed to come out as a moral "win". Quite literally its 2 wrongs that are supposed to make a right. That moral calculus to me simply fails, though it is circumstance dependent.

Conversely, on the notion of what the unborn constitute as far as rights go, Con never really put up a reasonable front as to why various stages of the unborn should or should not have certain rights. What specifically entreats the unborn to a new set of rights simply by having completed its travel down the birth canal? Arguably, the biological creature is no different having completed that journey, though I am being led to believe it now was a different value set. I am left unsatisfied, as forced abortion would just as equally have no merit, or a crime in which an expectant mother loses their developing offspring has no recourse (morally).

Source wise, while I don't appreciate "here are a whole bunch of list quotes I expect you to read via link as part of my argument (some how...)", this was limited in scope, and those sources that were presented on behalf of pro historically painted a fantastic appeal to emotion. Reliable? Sure. Well used? Yup, though I think they were used more to paint a picture about an appeal to emotion than solidify a winning moral calculus.

Sorry, debateurs. I am still on the fence.

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 argued his points well, but suffered two problems. First, his argument was ad hoc. For example, he simply calls an embryo an "intruder" and then builds this entire argument off that ad hoc definition. Even if his conclusions followed, his premise was illogical. He never was convincing on why an embryo should be viewed as an intruder and never addressed Pro's rebut of that idea. If the embryo is not an intruder, his argument fails.

Second, his argument itself was not logical. Calling every pregnancy a "threat" that enables the mother to kill the embryo at will is patiently absurd. He says that willingly engaging in sex is not accepting a pregnancy. But, what IS accepting a pregnancy if not engaging in sex? His position is basically illogical.

Pro did a good job addressing each of his claims. Listing them out in bold and systematically showing why they logically failed. And he was able to site secular sources for his argument, which was logically consistent throughout.