Hello dear readers. I thank @Rohit7664 for contesting. I hope I will be able to provide a case that is worth your time andI hope you will not regret reading it later.
I want to state that my aim hereis to have this debate in a dialectic method and socratic method. That is,disputing something with the intention of finding out what is true, what isrational, instead of attempting to be right at all costs. That is not my aimhere. I hope the contender will also have similar or same intention.
We are to debate abortion here. My position is that of PRO. Which means, I am going to assert and advocate that abortion should not be prevented in any way.
The very first thing we have to address in this debate is to assess who has theburden of in this debate. Before my challenge was accepted, I and theusers Novice_II and Bones have disputed the burden of proof part. I assertedthat in this debate, PRO does not (and should not) have burden of proof. Butthey opposed me stating that it should either be shared or disputed with-in thedebate. I accepted it and that is the very first thing I am going to presentyou:
1. PRO does not have any burden of proof in this debate:
a) If you noticed, this debate is not about any specificcountry or state-like entities, like the European Union. So, as a result, we donot have legal and de facto "status quo" in this case.
If this debate was based on Madagaskar for example, whereabortion is illegal(without any exception), the status quo would have been that"abortion is illegal" and I would have been arguing to change thestatus quo. Thus, in that case I would have burden of proof.
b) These is a philosophical maxim on the philosophy of law,philosophy of politics and the philosophy of society, the maxim which states:1) "That which is not prohibited is allowed".
c) Humans were initially conventional lawless animals, wedid not have social contracts up to certian point in human history. We createdthese laws, law enforcement entities. We created state and governments.
In a state of lawless environment, which many philosophersof politics like Plato, Rousseau and John Locke called "chaoticstate", no action was prohibited: There were no laws and law enforcementexecutive bodies to prohibit and enfore it.People were completely free to doany action, like abortion or slaying or drinking water. In this debate, we are evaluating how abortion should be treated in our social contract: should we interfere with woman who wants to have abortion or should we just mind our business just like we think we ought to do when a woman is drinking water.
In regard to that, PRO's position is the default position inthis debate. CON is arguing that we should prohibit abortion, thus, CON has topersuade us to agree with his proposal. All the PRO needs to do is to rebutthis assertions and to dissuade you from accepting his assertions and proposal.
CON may dispute this presentation of mine, he is welcome todo it. After all, we are here to debate it.
There are many things related to abortion which I thinkshould be addressed but I am going to do them in case CON raises them or incase a need be for them. As of now, I am not going to touch anything as long asit is not put forth by CON, because, as I argued and I think I demonstrated, PROdoes not have burden of proof in this debate.
I wish CON good luck, in case he manages to persuade me tothink PRO should have burden of proof in this debate, I am going to present myarguments in the forthcoming rounds. As CON and contender, he always has around to respond back. On the other hand, I would request him to not raise anynew argument[s] in his last round presentation, as that would mean I am nolonger able to respond back. Of course, CON may argue that “it was not writtenin the rules of the debate I accepted”, it is something I neglected to checkwhen I was negotiating it with @Novice_II and @Bones. The current opponent,Rohit7664, caught us un-prepared: he accepted the challenge when we 3 wasnegotiating the format and the rules of the debate. I was thinking to stillpresent them the format and the rules, then to update as we agree and then tostart the debate. So, dear readers, keep this in mind when you give yourverdicts.
i would hav evoted for CON if they had given me something to judge. very unfortunate.
abortion is completely wrong
"When con says that abortion is killing fetus, its wrong. Abortion is not killing fetus because a fetus does not have life of its own till 24 weeks and abortion is not possible after 24 weeks. So abortion before 24 weeks is just removing a non living thing from body. So there is noting morally wrong in abortion."
A fetus does have life, cellular life at its core.
The basic biological criterion for cellular life is met at conception, therefore the pregnancy is surely a "living" organism.
As such, a pregnancy terminates a living organism.
Abortions are done after 22-24 weeks, in rare circumstances, which demonstrates why less than 1.2% of all abortions take place after that timeframe.
90-94% of all abortions are before 14 weeks, with the majority of those being before 6 weeks. No "baby" involved.
Abortion is morally acceptable prior to fetal viability. Once viable, I take issue with abortion. Up to 20 weeks is long enough to decide whether or not you're ready psychologically, physiologically, and financially capable of birthing and raising a child for 18 years.
If you want, we can still have debate on this one.
You can choose either way: 1) 1 debate, with each of us arguing for different levels of burden of proof. 2) Two debates, 1 will be titled "Abortion should be legal" and in second debate the title will be "Abortion should be illegal". in one of them I will be PRO and in one you will be PRO. In each debate, only PRO will have burden of proof.
oh someone accepted looks like
Replying to your comment at #9.
One debate will be to argue "Abortion should be legal" - it is "proponent wivew". Ib that debate, I would be pro and advocate that it is to be legal.
In the opponent view, you would be the pro and have the burden of proof, advocating abortion should be illegal
Or if you want, I am updating this debate's rules in accordance with your request and reducing it to 3 rounds. I (pro) will start the debate outright and con will end it at the 3rd round
I don't really see how that makes any sense with respect to out current aspirations. What is the necessity of having two debates ongoing? Also why would pro have the burden of proof in both debates when it should be shared or contested like any policy debate?
What about this proposal of mine:
We (me and the contender of this debate) will have 2 (two) debates:
In both debates, only the PRO side will have the burden of proof and in the description of both debates, the other debate will be referenced as "Proponent view" and "Opponent view". With both debates being titled "Abortion" debate.
Both debates will take place concurrently and both debates will feature the link of the other debate.
Can you actually change the rules so it alters the condition of burden of proof to be shared or disputed?
Three rounds (so four if we waive the first and last) is enough. We can debate the BoP for it is a matter of contention.
As I said in my previous comment, BoP is to be not shared in this debate but if you want, I may compromise for you and make it shared.
But on that case, I will start the debate.
3 rounds are enough?
But why burden of proof should be "shared"?
If I am asserting "drinking coffee should be prohibited" for example, I would have burden of proof - why would you need to demonstrate that drinking coffee should be allowed?
Also, make it four rounds - I promise that three rounds of contest is more than enough.
Your burden of proof analysis is itself which you seem to require the contender to conceded. You ought instead, like Novice suggested, put the burden up for contention.
Make the burden of proof shared and I will oblige you.