Instigator / Con
0
1522
rating
14
debates
28.57%
won
Topic
#4288
The argument of "my body, my choice" is a good argument for abortion.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Winner
0
1
After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
LeFrog
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Pro
1
1500
rating
1
debates
100.0%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
Con
#1
As it is a little bit unclear considering how the con side (me) is the instigator, I would to clarify that I (the con side) will be arguing that the argument of "my body, my choice" is a bad argument for abortion, while my opponent (the pro side) will be arguing the argument of "my body, my choice" is a good argument for abortion. I would also like to clarify that this argument will NOT cover whether or not abortion is moral, just whether the argument of "my body, my choice" is a good one. As a matter of fact, I personally believe that abortion is moral, but I simply disagree with the argument of "my body, my choice" for it.
The argument of "my body, my choice" posits that one's body is their own, and thus it is just to do as they see fit with their body. As having an abortion is a choice you make for your body, the argument states that abortions are moral because one should have a choice over what they do with their own body and abortions are one of those things. The "my body, my choice" argument posits that the basis of morality for abortion is the fact that one's body should always be their choice for what to do with it and thus abortions are under this umbrella of doing what you want with your body always being moral. However, if it is always moral to do what you want with your body under this argument, if something that you want to do with your body is immoral, then the argument of "my body, my choice" cannot be true. Put in another way, if I can prove that something that you do with your body that is your choice is immoral, I can also prove that the "my body, my choice" argument is a poor argument.
The issue with this argument is that it is not always moral to do whatever one wants with their body. For instance, suppose a suicidal person wants to end their own life. Under the "my body, my choice argument", they should be allowed to commit suicide because it's their body and their choice to kill themselves. In another instance, suppose someone doesn't want to wear a seatbelt. Under the "my body, my choice" argument, as long as they aren't endangering anyone else with their lack of seatbelt wearing and only themselves, it should be their body and their choice to not wear a seatbelt.
Quite clearly, it is immoral to allow people to harm themselves by giving them absolute autonomy over themselves. Therefore, I can also prove that the "my body, my choice" argument is a poor argument for abortion.
Pro
#2
INTRODUCTION
Happy to accept this debate, @BennyEmerald. Let us have a great discussion. I'll also clarify as well that I am not politically aligned with the pro-choice movement but, nonetheless, am eager to represent their cause in the best way I can through this debate (I hope I do you proud @BennyEmerald in best displaying the intentions and advocacies of the pro-choice side).
OBSERVATIONS
- Burden of Proof lays on the Instigation which has been satisfied.
- Voters shall note that proper definitions have not been established so I, the Opposition, shall establish such that I find is impartial and factual.
DEFINITIONS
Def. of "Body" (n.) at 2b [1]
"2a: the organized physical substance of an animal or plant either living or dead
Def. of "Choice" (n.) [2]
"2: power of choosing : OPTIONyou have no choice"
Def. of "My Body, My Choice" [3]
"My body, my choice is a feminist slogan used in several countries, most often surrounding issues of bodily autonomy and abortion.
Feminists usually defend an individual's right of self-determination over their bodies for sexual, marriage and reproductive choices as rights."
CONTENTIONS
- BODILY AUTONOMY
"My Body, My Choice" is a common slogan, especially in reference to the abortion discussion. It is in actively serving for the idea that women's medical care should be decided for themselves and for the benefit of their well-being-- even if it is at the expense of an unborn child whom they're solely responsible for. As written by Olivia Pan in the Spire article, "My Body, My Choice: Abortion and Why It Matters" [4]
"Sometimes in life there are no “good solutions.” Sometimes there are only hard choices to be made. Who gets to decide and make those choices is crucial. . . I understand what a prickly subject this can be. However, one must acknowledge that it is every human being’s right to control their own physical being. To disallow that and rob women of the choice to give birth or not is draconian and patriarchal."
"My Body, My Choice" perfectly emulates what truly the pro-choice movement is fighting for-- and that is the sole choice of whether to proceed with an abortion or not. That is what it was intended for and what it truly focuses on. Pro-choice doesn't automatically equate to being "pro-abortion" and that distinction must be made-- one could be theoretically against abortions yet would be pro-choice. The same cannot be said for those who're pro-life whom must solely be against abortions. This expresses the fact that abortion can be perceived as moral or immoral yet still be a choice for women who desire to take control of their lives so to secure their physical, mental, and financial health.
REFUTATIONS
"The argument of "my body, my choice" posits that one's body is their own, and thus it is just to do as they see fit with their body. As having an abortion is a choice you make for your body, the argument states that abortions are moral because one should have a choice over what they do with their own body and abortions are one of those things. The "my body, my choice" argument posits that the basis of morality for abortion is the fact that one's body should always be their choice for what to do with it and thus abortions are under this umbrella of doing what you want with your body always being moral."
I've no real contentions with this line of thought.
"However, if it is always moral to do what you want with your body under this argument, if something that you want to do with your body is immoral, then the argument of "my body, my choice" cannot be true. Put in another way, if I can prove that something that you do with your body that is your choice is immoral, I can also prove that the "my body, my choice" argument is a poor argument."
The slogan "my body, my choice" is not for the notion that a woman can do necessarily whatever they want with their body— it is still confined by the objectivity of morals and philosophy. The true semantic of this line: “My body, my choice” produces the argument that women should see it fit what benefits their families and their physical, mental, and financial health-- most especially the bodily autonomy of women. As MSI United States writes [5],
“Bodily autonomy is defined as the right to make decisions about your own body, life, and future, without coercion or violence.”
“My body, my choice” means it is for the health of women and overall is a moral benefit so to allow women themselves to choose what options will help them in parenthood and with their health.
"The issue with this argument is that it is not always moral to do whatever one wants with their body. For instance, suppose a suicidal person wants to end their own life. Under the "my body, my choice argument", they should be allowed to commit suicide because it's their body and their choice to kill themselves. In another instance, suppose someone doesn't want to wear a seatbelt. Under the "my body, my choice" argument, as long as they aren't endangering anyone else with their lack of seatbelt wearing and only themselves, it should be their body and their choice to not wear a seatbelt."
I introduce this quote from Neel Burton in the Psychology Today article, "Can It Be Right to Commit Suicide?" [6]
"But the reality is that suicide is seldom the product of cool-headed deliberation, the so-called ‘rational suicide’, but mostly an act of uncontrollable anguish and despair.
Suicide is a mental condition. Burton later says,
For instance, if an intelligent person suffers a head injury that reduces her mental state to that of a contented infant, this should be considered a serious evil even if the person herself (in her current condition) is oblivious to her fate."
What he's saying here is that, in discussion of the moralities of having the right to choose to commit suicide, you are firstly not in the correct state to make any sort of rational choice to fully justify the morality of your actions. The majority if not all of those who have committed suicide are mentally unstable or depressed [6]. Suicide itself is inherently immoral and is widely regarded in society as such due to its harmful effects it has on the individual. And in reference to what Burton stated, those with thoughts of suicide are impeded by their emotions in their ability to rationalize and think reasonably. They are thus unfit to make the rightful decision to commit suicide due to their mental state and importantly due to the immorality of suicide. The morality of suicide does not equate to that of abortion.
In reference to seatbelts, once more, the morality of seatbelts does not equate to that of abortion. To not wear your seatbelt is hazardous to one's health, same with suicide. Abortion does not which justifies the usage of "My Body, My Choice" as a good argument. "My body, my choice" struggles for a woman's right to fight for their health-- to safeguard abortion is to allow women to be able to be given the opportunity to stay physically, mentally, and financially healthy. Suicide and not wearing seatbelts does not relate to such a statement. The morality of abortion is crucially more important in today's society than what apparent morality can be found in not wearing seatbelts or suicide.
SUMMARY
To Readers and Voters, the sole contention of Round One points toward the fact that "My Body, My Choice" is a good argument because of its advocation toward women's bodily autonomy. Women's bodily autonomy must be maintained so to protect the health of the said group and their families. The Instigation raises the idea that to have the individual autonomy to do whatever they want, regardless of the morality of their actions, makes the statement "My Body, My Choice" a poor argument. That I challenge given the fact that "My Body, My Choice" focuses on the struggle against an impeding government who desires to remove their right to an abortion. Abortion is moral in that sense because it offers the 169 million women in the United States [7]-- and the three billion women worldwide-- the opportunity to secure their physical, mental, and financial health. It does not advocate for the right to do harmful actions on yourself, and neither was it intended for such a purpose.
SOURCES
Round 2
Con
#3
I wish you luck in this debate and also hope that we can have a good discussion.
Questions:
Pro-choice doesn't automatically equate to being "pro-abortion" and that distinction must be made-- one could be theoretically against abortions yet would be pro-choice. The same cannot be said for those who're pro-life whom must solely be against abortions. This expresses the fact that abortion can be perceived as moral or immoral yet still be a choice for women who desire to take control of their lives so to secure their physical, mental, and financial health.
You say that this is an important distinction to make, but I fail to see why. This debate details whether or not the argument of "my body, my choice" is a good argument for abortion. Considering that, if abortion is seen as moral or immoral yet still be a choice for women, why does it matter? I fail to see how this is a distinction which relates to the debate.
Notes:
Your definition of my body, my choice is as follows:
"My body, my choice is a feminist slogan used in several countries, most often surrounding issues of bodily autonomy and abortion.Feminists usually defend an individual's right of self-determination over their bodies for sexual, marriage and reproductive choices as rights."
I would like to note that this definition does not say that "my body, my choice" solely refers to issues of bodily autonomy and abortion. It says it most often does, and later goes on to say that it usually is used to defend an individuals rights of self-determination over their bodies for sexual, marriage and reproductive choices, but never does it concretely say that those are the only things that "my body, my choice" refers to. In other words, this definition could include the idea that suicide is moral as it's one's body and therefor one's choice to commit suicide.
Another note to make is that you said that you had no contentions with the following line of thought I gave earlier:
"The argument of "my body, my choice" posits that one's body is their own, and thus it is just to do as they see fit with their body. As having an abortion is a choice you make for your body, the argument states that abortions are moral because one should have a choice over what they do with their own body and abortions are one of those things. The "my body, my choice" argument posits that the basis of morality for abortion is the fact that one's body should always be their choice for what to do with it and thus abortions are under this umbrella of doing what you want with your body always being moral."
The last line in question includes the idea that "the 'my body, my choice' argument posits that the basis of morality for abortion is the fact that one's body should always be their choice for what to do with it". If one's body is always their choice for what to do with it, this would include suicide, as suicide is one's choice to do something with their body. Ergo, my opponent agrees that the "my body, my choice" argument includes the idea that suicide should be something everyone is allowed to do.
Contentions/Refutations:
You quote a spire article and in that quote was the following:
However, one must acknowledge that it is every human being’s right to control their own physical being.
The quote says that it is every human being's right to control their own physical being, but doesn't specify a limit to that control based on whether or not they are harming themselves. This idea supports the fact that people should be allowed to commit suicide when they so please, as that would be included on controlling one's own physical being. As covered previously, that definition would support the line of reasoning that "my body, my choice" is a poor argument for abortion as it is clearly morally wrong to allow people to kill themselves.
You go on to say:
The true semantic of this line: “My body, my choice” produces the argument that women should see it fit what benefits their families and their physical, mental, and financial health-- most especially the bodily autonomy of women.
"My body, my choice" does indeed argue this, and it does argue that women should pursue what they see fit. However, while "my body, my choice" does produce this argument, it simultaneously produces the argument that people should be allowed to commit suicide when they so please. As stated previously, that line of thinking supports my argument. Just because an argument argues for one thing (women's bodily autonomy) doesn't necessarily mean it fails to argue for anything else, which in this case is the idea that anyone should be able to commit suicide.
Another thing that you mention is:
Suicide itself is inherently immoral and is widely regarded in society as such due to its harmful effects it has on the individual. And in reference to what Burton stated, those with thoughts of suicide are impeded by their emotions in their ability to rationalize and think reasonably. They are thus unfit to make the rightful decision to commit suicide due to their mental state and importantly due to the immorality of suicide. The morality of suicide does not equate to that of abortion.
I agree with you on saying that suicide is inherently immoral, and also that the morality of suicide does not equate to that of abortion. That said, both of those things support my argument. If suicide is inherently immoral, and furthermore their moralities are not equivalent, that just more goes to show that "my body, my choice" is a a bad argument. After all, "my body, my choice" argues for the support of suicide being moral, as stated previously. If suicide is inherently immoral, the only logical conclusion is that the argument of "my body, my choice" is flawed.
Another refutation that you make is:
To not wear your seatbelt is hazardous to one's health, same with suicide. Abortion does not which justifies the usage of "My Body, My Choice" as a good argument. "My body, my choice" struggles for a woman's right to fight for their health-- to safeguard abortion is to allow women to be able to be given the opportunity to stay physically, mentally, and financially healthy. Suicide and not wearing seatbelts does not relate to such a statement. The morality of abortion is crucially more important in today's society than what apparent morality can be found in not wearing seatbelts or suicide.
It is true that suicide and not wearing seatbelts doesn't relate to the statement that "my body, my choice" argues that women should be given the opportunity of abortion. However, the argument that women should be given the opportunity of abortion isn't the only argument made by "my body, my choice". As stated previously, it also argues that suicide is moral.
Pro
#4
Thanks, @BennyEmerald.
OBSERVATIONS
- As aforementioned by @Intelligence_06 in the comments, readers and voters must note that individual interpretations of the debate prompt were made that were different from one another. I fail to see how this could call for concluding the debate or for either of us to forfeit so, for the sake of progress, I'll happily continue this discussion. Thank you to @Intelligence_06 for your insight.
REBUTTALS
Questions. . .You say that this is an important distinction to make, but I fail to see why. This debate details whether or not the argument of "my body, my choice" is a good argument for abortion. Considering that, if abortion is seen as moral or immoral yet still be a choice for women, why does it matter? I fail to see how this is a distinction which relates to the debate.
I discuss this in the next rebuttal.
Notes:Your definition of my body, my choice is as follows. . .I would like to note that this definition does not say that "my body, my choice" solely refers to issues of bodily autonomy and abortion. It says it most often does, and later goes on to say that it usually is used to defend an individuals rights of self-determination over their bodies for sexual, marriage and reproductive choices, but never does it concretely say that those are the only things that "my body, my choice" refers to. In other words, this definition could include the idea that suicide is moral as it's one's body and therefor one's choice to commit suicide.
Indeed, it does not refer solely to bodily autonomy. The reason being is because "My Body, My Choice" is a slogan by which has been and can be adopted "informally" for other arguments. The English semantics of the slogan can be taken too literally. One could easily make an argument with this slogan for the purposes of suicide, vaccination, wearing seatbelts, et cetera. but I, the Opposition, was interpreting the prompt where it focused solely on the abortion debate (as that is where its origin lay)-- and to be more precise, this is how it should be interpreted as. Even with the ambiguity of it being used for other topics such as suicide, etc., that does not discount its integral value in a debate where it does summarize the true intentions of the pro-choice movement. That's why, in reference to my first rebuttal above, I made the following:
Pro-choice doesn't automatically equate to being "pro-abortion" and that distinction must be made-- one could be theoretically against abortions yet would be pro-choice. The same cannot be said for those who're pro-life whom must solely be against abortions. This expresses the fact that abortion can be perceived as moral or immoral yet still be a choice for women who desire to take control of their lives so to secure their physical, mental, and financial health.
Voters, readers, and the Instigation alike must note that I was interpreting the debate prompt on how it would (or not) be a good argument against the pro-life movement alone. The purpose of the above quote was to display how "My Body, My Choice" expresses how the pro-choice movement isn't denying the political right from not doing an abortion and convincing others (not coercing) to do the same. Neither is it trying to support the supposition that pro-choice is, in fact, "pro-abortion". Therefore, because of its inherent neutrality where both pro-abortion and anti-abortion acolytes can equally support such a slogan, "My Body, My Choice" is a remarkably great argument point.
Another note to make is that you said that you had no contentions with the following line of thought I gave earlier:"The argument of "my body, my choice" posits that one's body is their own, and thus it is just to do as they see fit with their body. As having an abortion is a choice you make for your body, the argument states that abortions are moral because one should have a choice over what they do with their own body and abortions are one of those things. The "my body, my choice" argument posits that the basis of morality for abortion is the fact that one's body should always be their choice for what to do with it and thus abortions are under this umbrella of doing what you want with your body always being moral."The last line in question includes the idea that "the 'my body, my choice' argument posits that the basis of morality for abortion is the fact that one's body should always be their choice for what to do with it". If one's body is always their choice for what to do with it, this would include suicide, as suicide is one's choice to do something with their body. Ergo, my opponent agrees that the "my body, my choice" argument includes the idea that suicide should be something everyone is allowed to do.
Although I wouldn't like to admit it, I, the Opposition concedes that I overlooked the line and accidentally included it in the section where in Round 1: "I've no real contentions with this line of thought." Voters, readers, and the like, keep this in mind as an error on my part.
The sole reason "My Body, My Choice" is a good arguing point in the abortion debate is because, once more, of its neutral standing, and also because of its clear summarization of the pro-choice movement. For women to have the right to an abortion allows them to secure their physical, mental, and financial health (along with their families) that could come from pregnancy and parenthood. It is not the fact that the slogan supports people hurting themselves-- in fact, no one has had the intention of acknowledging nor even denying such a line of inquiry-- but its true meaning and interpretation is for the right of women and their families to have the choice to stay physically, mentally, and financially healthy which would be worsened by pregnancy and parenthood. To interpret it in any other fashion-- other than in the debate of abortion--slowly deviates from its meaning and what the struggle for women all around the world is truly about.
Contentions/Refutations:You quote a spire article and in that quote was the following. . .The quote says that it is every human being's right to control their own physical being, but doesn't specify a limit to that control based on whether or not they are harming themselves. This idea supports the fact that people should be allowed to commit suicide when they so please, as that would be included on controlling one's own physical being. As covered previously, that definition would support the line of reasoning that "my body, my choice" is a poor argument for abortion as it is clearly morally wrong to allow people to kill themselves.
It was the article's interpretation that this be based solely on women's reproductive right to abortion. I highly doubt that Olivia Pan, the author of this article, wrote it with the intention or foreknowledge that audiences will interpret this as "the right to harm yourself"-- because, once more, that is not what "My Body, My Choice" was intended to mean, intended to fight for, and that is conclusively not what the pro-choice movement is advocating for. All this is the struggle of women to fight against governments who have deemed it their moral justification to remove women's rights to abortion when the women of their country aren't ready for it and certainly are not supporting it. The upheaval responding to the overruling of Roe vs. Wade expresses this.
Another thing that you mention is. . .I agree with you on saying that suicide is inherently immoral, and also that the morality of suicide does not equate to that of abortion. That said, both of those things support my argument. If suicide is inherently immoral, and furthermore their moralities are not equivalent, that just more goes to show that "my body, my choice" is a a bad argument. After all, "my body, my choice" argues for the support of suicide being moral, as stated previously. If suicide is inherently immoral, the only logical conclusion is that the argument of "my body, my choice" is flawed.
The types of interpretation of "My Body, My Choice" is something I cannot control and neither do I want to. But voters, readers, and the like, the Opposition would like to connect this to another worldwide slogan that has also rallied its own controversy: Black Lives Matter. There are political right demonstrations who have used this slogan and interpreted it to mean that the Black Lives Matter movement is stating only black lives matter. This has sprung the apparent opposing slogan of All Lives Matter to arise and its controversy continues to resume itself.
Which brings the Opposition to say this that the semantics of the slogan "My Body, My Choice" and alternatively, "Black Lives Matter" shouldn't deviate from its true intentions. To misinterpret "My Body, My Choice" through a literal meaning so to signify that the right to commit suicide or other mundane trivialities (like whether to have the right to pick your nose, eat it, or wearing seatbelts) is justified as well, fails to capture the true intention of the slogan and alternatively allows more despicable characters to delegitimatize movements that were intended and are trying to fight for good. And, once more, the ambiguity of this statement and its multi-faceted interpretations of it doesn't necessarily negate the effectiveness of "My Body, My Choice" as an arguing point.
Another refutation that you make is. . .It is true that suicide and not wearing seatbelts doesn't relate to the statement that "my body, my choice" argues that women should be given the opportunity of abortion. However, the argument that women should be given the opportunity of abortion isn't the only argument made by "my body, my choice". As stated previously, it also argues that suicide is moral.
For the sake of the word limit, extend applicable arguments.
Round 3
Con
#5
Contentions/Refutations:
I, the Opposition, was interpreting the prompt where it focused solely on the abortion debate (as that is where its origin lay)-- and to be more precise, this is how it should be interpreted as. Even with the ambiguity of it being used for other topics such as suicide, etc., that does not discount its integral value in a debate where it does summarize the true intentions of the pro-choice movement
Yes, the claim of "my body, my choice" should be interpreted solely for the purposes of abortion, although the basis shouldn't. The problem doesn't lay within that interpretation, but rather the implications of that interpretation. Let's break down what "my body, my choice" means, in my opinion. I believe that it means that one should be allowed to get an abortion on the basis that a persons body should always be their choice for what they do with it. The issue with this interpretation is that it implies that all other instances of a person exercising choice over their body is moral as the basis for saying that an abortion is justified under this argument is that one's body should always be one's choice -- and thus it makes logical sense that if one's body should always be one's choice one should be allowed to commit suicide as that is a choice they are exercising over their body. To put it in a different way, the "my body, my choice" should be interpreted on the basis of abortion, but that basis itself implies that suicide is alright by proxy.
Suppose, however, that we interpret an alternative definition. Let's have this definition be fully limited to abortion, and would directly not include anything outside it. It would look something like this: "One's body should be their choice to as they please regarding abortion on the basis that one's body should always be their choice regarding abortion". The issue with this definition is that the basis for abortion being moral is that abortion is moral, yet it fails to explain why that would be so. In my original definition, the basis for abortion being moral is that one's body should always be one's choice. In other words, this alternative definition creates a claim (one's body should be their choice to as they please regarding abortion) then immediately cites that claim as being fact despite not proving it, and claiming that that constitutes moral proof (on the basis that one's body should always be their choice regarding abortion). It would be much like if someone said that the Earth was flat on the basis that the Earth was flat. So, clearly, we cannot interpret the basis for abortion being moral from the perspective of just referring to abortion.
Pro-choice doesn't automatically equate to being "pro-abortion" and that distinction must be made-- one could be theoretically against abortions yet would be pro-choice. The same cannot be said for those who're pro-life whom must solely be against abortions. This expresses the fact that abortion can be perceived as moral or immoral yet still be a choice for women who desire to take control of their lives so to secure their physical, mental, and financial health.Voters, readers, and the Instigation alike must note that I was interpreting the debate prompt on how it would (or not) be a good argument against the pro-life movement alone. The purpose of the above quote was to display how "My Body, My Choice" expresses how the pro-choice movement isn't denying the political right from not doing an abortion and convincing others (not coercing) to do the same. Neither is it trying to support the supposition that pro-choice is, in fact, "pro-abortion". Therefore, because of its inherent neutrality where both pro-abortion and anti-abortion acolytes can equally support such a slogan, "My Body, My Choice" is a remarkably great argument point.
As I understand it, what you mean by this is that "my body, my choice" is a good argument because it doesn't force others to have an abortion or convincing others to get an abortion. Rather instead, it simply highlights the idea that people should have the right to make their own choices about whether or not they get an abortion. As I understand it, you then further claim that this idea is fully neutral, as the pro-choice side will agree with the idea that one should have a choice in whether or not they get an abortion and the pro-life side will support the idea that people should get the opportunity to choose whether not to have an abortion without someone pushing them towards abortion. You then claim that because of this neutrality and the fact that everyone can use the slogan it is a good argument point.
However, whether or not the argument is neutral and can be used by both sides is completely irrelevant to whether or not the argument is good. I fail to see how neutrality somehow makes the argument better. In this case, as you said in the same paragraph, "I was interpreting the debate prompt on how it would (or not) be a good argument against the pro-life movement alone." If you were comparing it against the pro-life movement alone, why does it matter that pro-life can also use it as an argument? After all, the prompt is "The argument of 'my body, my choice' is a good argument for abortion", which wouldn't include it being used as a pro-life argument for the purposes of this debate.
The types of interpretation of "My Body, My Choice" is something I cannot control and neither do I want to. But voters, readers, and the like, the Opposition would like to connect this to another worldwide slogan that has also rallied its own controversy: Black Lives Matter. There are political right demonstrations who have used this slogan and interpreted it to mean that the Black Lives Matter movement is stating only black lives matter. This has sprung the apparent opposing slogan of All Lives Matter to arise and its controversy continues to resume itself.Which brings the Opposition to say this that the semantics of the slogan "My Body, My Choice" and alternatively, "Black Lives Matter" shouldn't deviate from its true intentions. To misinterpret "My Body, My Choice" through a literal meaning so to signify that the right to commit suicide or other mundane trivialities (like whether to have the right to pick your nose, eat it, or wearing seatbelts) is justified as well, fails to capture the true intention of the slogan and alternatively allows more despicable characters to delegitimatize movements that were intended and are trying to fight for good. And, once more, the ambiguity of this statement and its multi-faceted interpretations of it doesn't necessarily negate the effectiveness of "My Body, My Choice" as an arguing point.
Let's look at some of the possible interpretations for Black Lives Matter. Firstly, "Black lives matter because all lives matter, which includes black lives". This explanation makes logical sense as an argument. It also holds up from a moral perspective, as it is obviously morally correct that all lives matter. Now, let's look at an alternative, "Black lives matter because black lives matter". Clearly, this is a poor argument because it uses the claim as evidence. To reuse an example I used earlier, it is like saying that the Earth is flat because the Earth is flat. Next, let's look at some of the possible interpretations of "my body, my choice". Though I have done this already previously, I'll restate it here for clarity. Firstly, "one should be allowed to get an abortion on the basis that a persons body should always be their choice for what they do with it". From an argument perspective, this makes logical sense. It posits that the basis for morality in abortion is that one's body should always be their choice. The issue with this is that the argument doesn't hold up from a moral perspective. If one's body is always their choice to with as they so please, then suicide should also logically be something that they can morally do. Let's try another definition, then, again this is one I used earlier, "One's body should be their choice to as they please regarding abortion on the basis that one's body should always be their choice regarding abortion". This argument is not sound. The evidence is itself the claim, in much the same way the flat earth argument I used earlier was.
As can clearly be seen, there is a vast difference between the BLM argument and the "my body, my choice" argument. The BLM argument can be easily defined in a way that works as a suitable argument, while "my body, my choice" cannot be. The ambiguity of and multi-faceted interpretations of "my body, my choice" doesn't necessarily negate the effectiveness of "my body, my choice" as an argument, as you say, but the issue lies in the fact that "my body, my choice" is a flawed argument regardless of how it is interpreted.
Pro
#6
INTRODUCTION
Thanks @BennyEmerald. Good luck during the voting period and glad to have this discussion.
REFUTATIONS
Yes, the claim of "my body, my choice" should be interpreted solely for the purposes of abortion, although the basis shouldn't. The problem doesn't lay within that interpretation, but rather the implications of that interpretation.
Voters and readers, let it be discussed that there's an infinitely limitless number of implications in any sort of work, slogan, study, etc. There are discussed, controversial implications surrounding the American flag and Her symbolism, the implications of the book, 1984, by George Orwell, et cetera. As aforementioned, "My Body, My Choice" perfectly emulates women's struggle to have the medicinal right to choose an abortion. Any other implication of the slogan is purely informal. That definitively refutes any discussion from the Instigation's central point of how the implication disregards its value in a debate-- because, when used in an abortion discussion, anything besides abortion separates from the discussion itself.
This thus is a non-sequitur rebuttal-- if A is true, then B. A is true. Therefore, we should do C. [1]
If "My Body, My Choice" is moral, then abortion should be allowed.
"My Body, My Choice" is moral.
Therefore, suicide should be allowed.
Therefore, suicide should be allowed.
On top of this, once more, the wide extrapolations the Instigation is pushing for goes away from the general, societal understanding of what "My Body, My Choice" pertains to.
Let's break down what "my body, my choice" means, in my opinion. I believe that it means that one should be allowed to get an abortion on the basis that a persons body should always be their choice for what they do with it.
Once more, the words "I believe" have already solidified this interpretation as solely subjective. "My Body, My Choice" is a slogan by which commonly known to be in reference in regard to abortion.
The issue with this interpretation is that it implies that all other instances of a person exercising choice over their body is moral as the basis for saying that an abortion is justified under this argument is that one's body should always be one's choice -- and thus it makes logical sense that if one's body should always be one's choice one should be allowed to commit suicide as that is a choice they are exercising over their body. To put it in a different way, the "my body, my choice" should be interpreted on the basis of abortion, but that basis itself implies that suicide is alright by proxy.
To disconnect from the slogan's stipulation makes this rebuttal a non-sequitur and even then (voters and readers note), the Instigation is consistently using suicide as a counterpoint to "My body, my choice". Let it be known that in certain global scenarios, suicide pods [2] are being developed (such as in Switzerland) -- this shows that the consistent use of non-sequitur subjects, such as suicide, can be refuted with justification of permissible morality. Since morality is contested as either a subjective, objective (or both) [3] [4], the justification of either abortion or suicide as moral can be met as given with the pro-choice movement and the development of Swiss suicide pods-- but it must be clear, that "My Body, My Choice" regardless of what you believe focuses only on the right to abortion. To meet it otherwise with any alternative meaning doesn't resolve nor focus on any debate regarding abortion nor does it devalue its clear summarization of what the pro-choice movement is justly fighting for (the good for all).
Suppose, however, that we interpret an alternative definition. Let's have this definition be fully limited to abortion, and would directly not include anything outside it. It would look something like this: "One's body should be their choice to as they please regarding abortion on the basis that one's body should always be their choice regarding abortion". The issue with this definition is that the basis for abortion being moral is that abortion is moral, yet it fails to explain why that would be so. In my original definition, the basis for abortion being moral is that one's body should always be one's choice.
Indeed, this definition has its problems, one of them being that it doesn't emulate what the pro-choice side is advocating for-- "My Body, My Choice" once more is a slogan that fights for abortion because it helps women and their families in their physical, mental, and financial health. Abortion is not moral because it is moral (that is a circular definition) -- it's moral because it contributes beneficially to the physical, mental, and financial health of women.
As I understand it, what you mean by this is that "my body, my choice" is a good argument because it doesn't force others to have an abortion or convincing others to get an abortion. Rather instead, it simply highlights the idea that people should have the right to make their own choices about whether or not they get an abortion. As I understand it, you then further claim that this idea is fully neutral, as the pro-choice side will agree with the idea that one should have a choice in whether or not they get an abortion and the pro-life side will support the idea that people should get the opportunity to choose whether not to have an abortion without someone pushing them towards abortion. You then claim that because of this neutrality and the fact that everyone can use the slogan it is a good argument point.However, whether or not the argument is neutral and can be used by both sides is completely irrelevant to whether or not the argument is good. I fail to see how neutrality somehow makes the argument better. In this case, as you said in the same paragraph, "I was interpreting the debate prompt on how it would (or not) be a good argument against the pro-life movement alone." If you were comparing it against the pro-life movement alone, why does it matter that pro-life can also use it as an argument? After all, the prompt is "The argument of 'my body, my choice' is a good argument for abortion", which wouldn't include it being used as a pro-life argument for the purposes of this debate.
Because from Round 1, you stated, "The issue with this argument is that it is not always moral to do whatever one wants with their body."
Essentially, you were signifying that alternative meanings can be utilized, away from its original stipulation.
On that, according to the aforementioned implication from the prompt, the only plausible alternative that doesn't deviate from abortion is it being used by the pro-life side (using suicide, etc. doesn't make this an abortion debate anymore).
That's why the neutrality of a statement like "My Body, My Choice" makes it a good argument in that sense.
It totally eviscerates any opposition from the pro-life side since there's no need to be opposed to anything if it doesn't prohibit your right to deny yourself to access abortion. There are pro-lifers that do support full restrictions or bans for all women in a specific region (look at the overruling of Roe vs Wade) but they-- the only people who could possibly be opposed to such a slogan-- are unable to use such an argument because of their advocacy in forcing women to not have an abortion (even if they want or need to).
Let's look at some of the possible interpretations for Black Lives Matter. Firstly, "Black lives matter because all lives matter, which includes black lives". This explanation makes logical sense as an argument. It also holds up from a moral perspective, as it is obviously morally correct that all lives matter. Now, let's look at an alternative, "Black lives matter because black lives matter".
The point of bringing up the controversy of the "Black Lives Matter" slogan was to present another real-world scenario of people misinterpreting the intention and true stipulation of such a slogan-- connecting it with the given prompt of "My Body, My Choice" being misinterpreted to mean it can apply to other unrelated topics to abortion.
Clearly, this is a poor argument because it uses the claim as evidence. To reuse an example I used earlier, it is like saying that the Earth is flat because the Earth is flat. Next, let's look at some of the possible interpretations of "my body, my choice". Though I have done this already previously, I'll restate it here for clarity. Firstly, "one should be allowed to get an abortion on the basis that a persons body should always be their choice for what they do with it". From an argument perspective, this makes logical sense. It posits that the basis for morality in abortion is that one's body should always be their choice. The issue with this is that the argument doesn't hold up from a moral perspective. If one's body is always their choice to with as they so please, then suicide should also logically be something that they can morally do. Let's try another definition, then, again this is one I used earlier, "One's body should be their choice to as they please regarding abortion on the basis that one's body should always be their choice regarding abortion". This argument is not sound. The evidence is itself the claim, in much the same way the flat earth argument I used earlier was.
For the sake of the word limit, I'll refrain from rebutting to this to go straight to the conclusion.
CONCLUSION
The Instigation resorts to using a non-sequitur rebuttal to delegitimize the stipulation of the slogan "My Body, My Choice". Voters, readers, and the like, I discussed previously how this draws the debate away from abortion and doesn't devalue its effectivity as an arguing point as it fully summarizes what women are fighting for-- and society knows this and knows what it stipulates.
VOTE FOR THE OPPOSITION / PRO.
And thank you again, @BennyEmerald for debating with me and to you, the readers, for your time.
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
Con is readily able to show that it would not be a good argument for suicide and other self harm. Pro is able to defend that when it comes specifically to abortion it’s a good argument in that she’s the only person whose choice it is, for the good of herself, her family, etc.
Trying to say it shouldn’t be applied to various other topics, has no weight in its argument for the one; especially as it gives clear educational value in summarizing much of the issue as to if women should have a choice or not
This shouldn't even need to be an argument, it should be common sense..
I did add a description, but I only added it under the "short description" category because I assumed (incorrectly) that the short description would also be under the main description. If you look at the debate on the main site and not in the actual link of the debate you'd see the short description. I'll paste it here to be more clear:
This argument will not cover whether or not abortion is moral, just whether or not the argument of "my body, my choice" is a good argument for it. The debate will assume that both sides agree that abortion is moral, but the con side believes that the argument of "my body, my choice" is a poor argument in support of the morality of abortion.
Obviously, because it is an abstract claim. No one will know what the “Kalam Cosmological Argument” is until you explain it.
Without the description describing which interpretation and seeing how messy the claim is in of itself just politically, it will not be treated as “an” argument, let alone a good one.