Instigator / Pro
1
1500
rating
4
debates
50.0%
won
Topic
#4666
Abortion before 20 weeks is okay
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Winner
1
0
After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
Bill-0
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
0
1469
rating
340
debates
40.88%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
Con
#2
Too busy for the fourth for the opposing side I suppose.
Well I'm going to pick it up kind of where I left off. This debate I believe is a follow up to the other debate for an opportunity to expand on several points and the opposing side was willing and generous to have what we can call a part 2.
Being that this is a continuation of points, the context may appear deficient. Please refer to the original debate "Abortion is okay" for further context.
But to summarize my understanding of the "Pro" position, they believe abortion is ok by them, particularly until 20 weeks in pregnancy term, then they convert to "pro life". Their basis of no pain and consciousness is the criteria to meet for approval or for an "okay".
I ask the opposing side, wouldn't it then be ok to terminate you once you're not deploying conscious experience as you put it?
Now that's an all encompassing wide sweeping question that would include any and all circumstances where you lose conscious experience. So the question may not be as easy as you think . You can isolate an exception like you did before but you still have to resolve all the other scenarios imaginable.
People lose conscious experience of reality all drugged up whether recreationally or within a psychiatric facility/institution.
So would it be ok to terminate your life when or if ever you lose conscious experience period, in all cases?
If not in all, why not?
This looks like a good place to pick up and we can take it from there.
Round 2
Pro
#3
I have 50 seconds to publish this, short things short, i was out for the forth of July and just got back to internet assess, my next round will actually have an argument, my apologies
Round 3
Pro
#5
Alright, so to begin this let me first explain my position in depth and make what i think clear.
What is valued of human life is consciousnesses, This is why brain dead people in a constant vegetative state are commonly euthanized, However, being brain dead, or in this case the fetus's brain not being developed enough to experience conspicuousness, Is in no way shape or form comparable to being asleep, Why? Well when you are asleep or in a coma, the necessary portions of your brain to deploy a conscious experience are still there, and the brain is still reacting, and if you woke up that moment you would be able to again deploy that conscious experience. However, in a fetus before 20 weeks, ( 1 ) The brain of said fetus before 20 weeks, is not capable of experiencing consciousness or pain.
Now to refute your points.
Now to refute your points.
"I ask the opposing side, wouldn't it then be ok to terminate you once you're not deploying conscious experience as you put it?"
Yes, and i suppose my explanation in the prior debate was something you didn't understand. If, i was considered brain dead by doctors ( Which is me not deploying a conscious experience) Then i would support the euthenization of myself due to the brain function no longer being there. If the brain is dead ( Or not even developed yet in the case of a fetus under 20 weeks) Then due to the fact that we consider brain death legal death ( 2 ) It would be justified to euthanize one that is brain dead, aswell as do the same to a fetus under 20 weeks
Now lets say i fall asleep, or im drugged.
The only reason that isn't the same as brain death, ( Or not having a developed brain capable of observing a conscious experience) Is because there is a prior conscious experience that i had before being drugged, and, if woken up now, i would continue to experience that consciousness with little problem.
What about a 19 week old fetus? Well there is not prior conscious experience to think of, and if i pulled it out of the womb now, it wouldn't survive ( Youngest fetus delivered out of womb still alive is 21 weeks and 1 day ( 3 )
Do you see the difference? The 19 week old fetus cannot be woken up, but if im drugged i can, right now, and resume my consciousness unless im brain dead.
Con
#6
"Yes, and i suppose my explanation in the prior debate was something you didn't understand."
The question was asking for a yes or no across the board. Instead of trying to make an explanation, a clear yes or no would have been clear.
You answered yes in a given scenario. That's in a given scenario when I asked about conscious experience period.
"If, i was considered brain dead by doctors ( Which is me not deploying a conscious experience) Then i would support the euthenization of myself due to the brain function no longer being there."
Here you are again trying to drive this into a specific scenario when I didn't ask about one .
"Now lets say i fall asleep, or im drugged.
The only reason that isn't the same as brain death, ( Or not having a developed brain capable of observing a conscious experience) Is because there is a prior conscious experience that i had before being drugged, and, if woken up now, i would continue to experience that consciousness with little problem. "
I wasn't asking what is the same. I'm asking is it ok to terminate or end your life when you lose consciousness?
Regardless of the scenario of how it happens that you lose conscious experience, you lost it, don't have it , would it be ok to terminate you?
See now you want to get more detailed and more specific adding all these conditions about having consciousness before and after and all like this.
I'm going off what your position was before you started adding all these ad hoc points .
This is what you said your position was .
"Abortion is okay before 20 weeks
This is due to multiple factors, Firstly, we place importance on the ability to perceive conscious reality as a human, and the ability to perceive pain
Multiple scientific studies ( 1 ) Have concluded that the baby first begins to feel pain and become somewhat conscious at 20 weeks and on."
Being that this topic is a continuation, everything you add on now can just be thrown out. Your position is abortion is ok before 20 weeks because at 20 and beyond perception of pain and consciousness is present.
That is the entirety of your position. It's just as simple and broad as that. So therefore and I hope the readers are getting this regardless on their views on "pro-choice", I'm demonstrating your rationale with using you shooting your view right back on you. The very dog you signal to bite other people, I learned the signal to have that same dog bite on you.
"Do you see the difference? The 19 week old fetus cannot be woken up, but if im drugged i can, right now, and resume my consciousness unless im brain dead. "
It doesn't matter. You should of made out all these specifications in the very first round of the original debate. All this is null and void. That's why it's very important to be detailed, specific when it comes to words.
It's pretty much debate over. I do have reason to believe that the majority of readers, some will be honest, but the majority I believe will support the fallacy made on your part but it's alright. It's nothing new on this site.
Round 4
Pro
#7
I hope you are getting some ranch on that word salad of yours my freind.
"The question was asking for a yes or no across the board. Instead of trying to make an explanation, a clear yes or no would have been clear.
You answered yes in a given scenario. That's in a given scenario when I asked about conscious experience period."
And i gave you an answer to all situations you asked me to, I know this is a hard concept for you to grasp, but typically you must answer questions with nuance, You were the one who have me that scenario, and i answered it for you, then i also went on to give you other examples such as being asleep or in a coma, the only point i am trying to make with the brain dead argument, is that because the brain is dead, not conscious and not feeling any pain, we typically see it as acceptable to euthanize said person. So therefore a 19> week old fetus can also have the same done to it because it has no conscious experience to speak of.
You asked ME if it was okay to kill me if i wasn't deploying a conscious experience, and i answered your question using my definition of the term, which is being brain dead, however i also explained other situations that may apply to your definition such as being asleep or in a coma.
"I wasn't asking what is the same. I'm asking is it ok to terminate or end your life when you lose consciousness? Regardless of the scenario of how it happens that you lose conscious experience, you lost it, don't have it , would it be ok to terminate you? See now you want to get more detailed and more specific adding all these conditions about having consciousness before and after and all like this. I'm going off what your position was before you started adding all these ad hoc points "
Did i SAY you asked that? No, but i decided to tell you because obviously they arent the same, If i am brain dead, my life can be terminated, if i am asleep my life cannot be terminated, All you are having me do is go in a circle and say the same things over and over again . Being asleep is not the same as a 19 week old fetus's brain not being developed, i also went into an explanation of why these arent the same, You cannot pull a baby out of the womb and then it survive on its own, however you can wake up a sleeping person and they can survive on their own easily. Why are you going off a previous position? I had already explained to you that i needed to more clearly state my position so that we could have a better debate. All you want to do is go over and over in circles and try to get me to trip up in my explanation.
"Being that this topic is a continuation, everything you add on now can just be thrown out. Your position is abortion is ok before 20 weeks because at 20 and beyond perception of pain and consciousness is present. That is the entirety of your position. It's just as simple and broad as that. So therefore and I hope the readers are getting this regardless on their views on "pro-choice", I'm demonstrating your rationale with using you shooting your view right back on you. The very dog you signal to bite other people, I learned the signal to have that same dog bite on you. "
Okay? My previous point fits with this one just fine. Yes, because a 20 week old fetus has likely developed the brain components to experience consciousness, then when it does develop the brain components, we can no longer say it is okay to abort that fetus. Now on your rant about dog signals or something, All im doing is trying to demonstrate to you why my original point is correct, all you are doing is trying to deflect and you haven't even made a single argument of your own yet.
"""It doesn't matter. You should of made out all these specifications in the very first round of the original debate. All this is null and void. That's why it's very important to be detailed, specific when it comes to words. It's pretty much debate over. I do have reason to believe that the majority of readers, some will be honest, but the majority I believe will support the fallacy made on your part but it's alright. It's nothing new on this site."""
That last debate was my first EVER debate, and i still did really well against you, This, the audience reading the debate, goes to show how my opponent, instead of arguing against my points, decides to null them and move on because they have no argument against them. They have failed to even show an example of a fallacy on my point, and instead attack me on prior points that still fit with my current argument. My opponent has also made what i like to call an All roads lead to Rome fallacy
This means that if they win this debate, They obviously argued better, but if they lose the debate, the system is rigged against them, so they are correct in their mind no matter what the result is.
Con
#8
"we typically see it as acceptable to euthanize said person. "
"Typically " you say. Now we got the exceptions rolling in. No where to be found initially in your presentation. I thought it was a bit short. Now you try to refine it.
"and i answered your question using my definition of the term"
You established no definitions in your position. Once you go pass that initial stage, you can just grab at anything, make up anything at any time just bending the position to make it fit for anything on and on and on. Like I say, that opening statement suffered from a lack of detail. You curtailed it to the bone.
"Did i SAY you asked that? No, but i decided to tell you because obviously they arent the same "
Well don't make your answer/response as if I asked that. This may be too disciplined of a conduct with the questions and answers for you . But it's how we keep everything straight, clear and no confusion. Answer directly. Then if you want , announce that you're entering a side note or another thought process or something.
"if i am asleep my life cannot be terminated"
You can be killed in your sleep. Trust me, if being asleep made you invincible, nobody ever die in their sleep.
"All you are having me do is go in a circle and say the same things over and over again . "
Well hey, let's leave it alone. I already said basically what I had to say based on your position which is abortion before 20 weeks is ok as pain and consciousness become present at 20 weeks. I already refuted your case because once we acknowledge that when you experience no pain or no conscious experience of pain , you self refuted.
"Why are you going off a previous position? I had already explained to you that i needed to more clearly state my position so that we could have a better debate."
Ohhh so you concede that the position from the original debate was refuted and now you want to drop it. So the votes should reflect that in that original debate. I'll check for sake of integrity on this site.
Now being that you forfeited the first round and I had to go first, this is a continuation of that original debate. You didn't even leave a description to indicate you were changing your position.
"Okay? My previous point fits with this one just fine. Yes, because a 20 week old fetus has likely developed the brain components to experience consciousness, then when it does develop the brain components, we can no longer say it is okay to abort that fetus. Now on your rant about dog signals or something, All im doing is trying to demonstrate to you why my original point is correct, all you are doing is trying to deflect and you haven't even made a single argument of your own yet. "
"Your original point " . So you are sticking with your original position. Like which is it? Are you sticking and staying or moving on? Are sticking to that or moving on?
By the way if you don't get the metaphors, just let them go over your head like everything else.
What's my argument? Well I guess you missed it . Let me reiterate.
"To wrap all this up with a nice ribbon on it, the opposing side negated their position, rejected their own position, has falsified abortion being ok not only just after 20 weeks but prior by their own standard it wouldn't be ok to terminate their life due to no conscious experience, the same rule negates "no conscious experience" argument before 20 weeks in life development."
By the way, in spite of you not being clear as you say, apparently the majority thought you were. We can agree on the lack of detail in your position you'd refer to as lack of clarity to make strong valid arguments. The voters say "no, we know better of what makes them sufficient than you do for your own position and it works for us". You can say "for the sake of women's freedom, abortion is ok". That works even though women's freedom can entice anything. That's debateart.com for you.
The majority just believes in abortion or to put it political correctly, "pro-choice ".
"This, the audience reading the debate, goes to show how my opponent, instead of arguing against my points, decides to null them and move on because they have no argument against them. "
"To wrap all this up with a nice ribbon on it, the opposing side negated their position, rejected their own position, has falsified abortion being ok not only just after 20 weeks but prior by their own standard it wouldn't be ok to terminate their life due to no conscious experience, the same rule negates "no conscious experience" argument before 20 weeks in life development."
Let me add this too because no conscious experience is exactly that and we both know regardless of how it comes, when you're a fetus , a baby, an incognizant comatose patient, you have NO CONSCIOUS EXPERIENCE.
"Regardless of the scenario of how it happens that you lose conscious experience, you lost it, don't have it , would it be ok to terminate you? See now you want to get more detailed and more specific adding all these conditions about having consciousness before and after and all like this. "
The readers understand the conflict with your position but those that support your position, they allow the double standard as they cannot support pro life. Now there are arguments you could of made to clear the double standard for the sake of edification anyway. I understand you may just be content with having an echo chamber.
Kudos to the readers that have seen the truth I've presented. I'm not downplaying you at all. Even if we are a minority, let no one downplay us.
"This means that if they win this debate, They obviously argued better, but if they lose the debate, the system is rigged against them, so they are correct in their mind no matter what the result is. "
My response is a disclaimer I always use for any debate I initiate in regards to so called winning or losing. The truth is the truth and I that put it forth is for the sake of edification.
"Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes."
Like I say, the debate is pretty much over.
Round 5
Pro
#9
I say " Typically " Because it is standard medical practice in the united states of america, but i cannot make a sweeping statement across the board due to the fact that i am not researched in the standard for other countries.
I gave you the definition of what a baby is in the previous argument, i have no idea what you are on about here.
Typically my freind, people have pretty specific beilifs about stuff, my orginal argument was vauge because it had the simple intention of pining down exacly what your argument was, And even after reading your argument, you have yet to tell me what the opposition argument is, all you have done is attacked my arguments without making any of your own, Do you believe in life at conception? Are you anti abortion across the board? Who knows, and even if you answer now i wont even have the chance to respond because this is the final round.
"Well don't make your answer/response as if I asked that. This may be too disciplined of a conduct with the questions and answers for you . But it's how we keep everything straight, clear and no confusion. Answer directly. Then if you want , announce that you're entering a side note or another thought process or something."
This line of argument is giving me a headache, How about this, Did i ask how to conduct myself in a debate? NO, Is this about abortion and not debate conduct? YES
""You can be killed in your sleep. Trust me, if being asleep made you invincible, nobody ever die in their sleep""
Holy shit, This guy, I swear to god.
He seriously thinks i said that you cant die in your sleep? You took the context of the quote out and made it seem like i was saying that when i didnt. This is such a bad faith debate on his part.
Look i dont even understand what you are trying to say, Not a single position i have had has negated each other, not one, But he is trying to act like being more specific about a topic is refuting a prior point.
I won the last debate, because i had arguments while you just attacked my arguments with no position of your own, and the attacks on my arguments were baseless to say the least. You have yet to cite a single study or other source to back up any claim you have made, and i have cited sources to back up all my claims about fetus consciousness. I guess this persons position is that i am wrong, and thats that.
"""""""""What's my argument? Well I guess you missed it . Let me reiterate.
"To wrap all this up with a nice ribbon on it, the opposing side negated their position, rejected their own position, has falsified abortion being ok not only just after 20 weeks but prior by their own standard it wouldn't be ok to terminate their life due to no conscious experience, the same rule negates "no conscious experience" argument before 20 weeks in life development."""""""""""""""
How is this an argument? Its not one, All this is is dishonest debate style. I fail to see where you have argued once why abortion before 20 weeks is not okay.
""""By the way, in spite of you not being clear as you say, apparently the majority thought you were. We can agree on the lack of detail in your position you'd refer to as lack of clarity to make strong valid arguments. The voters say "no, we know better of what makes them sufficient than you do for your own position and it works for us". You can say "for the sake of women's freedom, abortion is ok". That works even though women's freedom can entice anything. That's debateart.com for you."""
I won because i actually had a position, Thats it, read the votes on the debate. Again, all you are doing is essentially arguing with my delivery of the points but agreeing with my position on the matter.
He wants the debate to be over because he has no argument, He is grasping at straws trying to make a false claim that my argument is incorrect, And adding quotations from both me and you and not saying who said who to confuse the audience more. ( All quotes in my argument are his, and i would explain if one was mine)
I dont really know what to say at this point, This debate is dishonest on your part and i dont know how im supposed respond to a nonexistent argument
Con
#10
"you have yet to tell me what the opposition argument is, all you have done is attacked my arguments without making any of your own"
You apparently are not reading everything. I got to reiterate over and over and over. Are you just ignoring the following?
" To wrap all this up with a nice ribbon on it, the opposing side negated their position, rejected their own position, has falsified abortion being ok not only just after 20 weeks but prior by their own standard it wouldn't be ok to terminate their life due to no conscious experience, the same rule negates "no conscious experience" argument before 20 weeks in life development."
Let's state it again.
" To wrap all this up with a nice ribbon on it, the opposing side negated their position, rejected their own position, has falsified abortion being ok not only just after 20 weeks but prior by their own standard it wouldn't be ok to terminate their life due to no conscious experience, the same rule negates "no conscious experience" argument before 20 weeks in life development."
One more time for the readers.
" To wrap all this up with a nice ribbon on it, the opposing side negated their position, rejected their own position, has falsified abortion being ok not only just after 20 weeks but prior by their own standard it wouldn't be ok to terminate their life due to no conscious experience, the same rule negates "no conscious experience" argument before 20 weeks in life development."
Like what is the dealio? What the problem is ?
Stop ducking your head so this can't go over it. Please allow it to hit you in the head. It'll hurt but the truth hurts .
"Do you believe in life at conception? Are you anti abortion across the board? Who knows, and even if you answer now i wont even have the chance to respond because this is the final round. "
It's all good as it's for the edification of the public anyway. If you desire, you can comment or message me in regards to what is said here. The communication doesn't have to stop with these rounds.
To the first question, yes . To the second, no.
"This line of argument is giving me a headache, How about this, Did i ask how to conduct myself in a debate? NO, Is this about abortion and not debate conduct? YES"
I understand that but get my point. You guys, work harder at getting the other person's point. We get too defensive. My point was about avoiding confusion.
"But it's how we keep everything straight, clear and no confusion. Answer directly. Then if you want , announce that you're entering a side note or another thought process "
The communication gets lost and tangled up when we don't keep the answers sharp to line up exactly to how the questions were put forth. Then tangents come on, irrelevant points, things get lost in the sauce, you mention an idea that wasn't specifically asked about, then the context shifts out of order. I mean just confusion can come about easily either to us or the reader or both .
Just clear concise and exact much like perhaps to your initial presentation you'd suppose. I just say it was skimpy and broad. You say vague. If questions are yes or no questions , try to stick to yes or no answers again for the sake of clarity, understanding and no confusion. Cool beans.
"He seriously thinks i said that you cant die in your sleep? You took the context of the quote out and made it seem like i was saying that when i didnt. This is such a bad faith debate on his part. "
Calm down calm down take it easy. Discipline remember, you'll be alright. Let's re-quote what you stated.
"if i am asleep my life cannot be terminated"
You said this.
"if i am asleep my life cannot be terminated"
Be very careful, very careful in your choice of words. Let the honest readers read this for themselves.
Unless you're trying to argue someone's life that's terminated doesn't mean they died, just what in the world are you talking about?
It's called pro life for a reason. Folks believe in not terminating, ending, aborting a life but preserving it. A life preserved is not one that has died. So trust me again, this would not be a controversy as it has been if it didn't mean in the eyes of people, life and death. Let's be real .
"I won the last debate, because i had arguments while you just attacked my arguments with no position of your own, and the attacks on my arguments were baseless to say the least. You have yet to cite a single study or other source to back up any claim you have made, and i have cited sources to back up all my claims about fetus consciousness. I guess this persons position is that i am wrong, and thats that. "
" To wrap all this up with a nice ribbon on it, the opposing side negated their position, rejected their own position, has falsified abortion being ok not only just after 20 weeks but prior by their own standard it wouldn't be ok to terminate their life due to no conscious experience, the same rule negates "no conscious experience" argument before 20 weeks in life development."
I either said that or I didn't. It's a mic drop after that. You won with those that have taken what you said to resonate with them and I likewise. That's all there is . Instead of worrying about winning or losing, worry about how much truth and falsehood you're spewing. That's all it is at the end of it comrade.
"How is this an argument? Its not one, All this is is dishonest debate style. I fail to see where you have argued once why abortion before 20 weeks is not okay."
Then you just slow to understand that's all. Instead of debunking what I said, you step back and dismiss it which is the invincible ignorance argumentative fallacy. Anybody can do that just about. I say there's the sun shining bright on your face. You say " no you made no case for the existence of the sun". You didn't raise one question about what I said. You made no point about the heat, the composition of the sun, the distance, other sources of heat in the environment, nothing.
You have no refutation for what I said because it's irrefutable. Your double standard was demonstrated to you. You couldn't deny so therefore you dismissed it.
You fail to see where I have argued once why abortion before 20 weeks is not okay. First off you never said the burden is shared. Also you don't see it being ok because it's not ok for your own life. You negated your own position. Nothing else further for me to refute. You done terminated your own self, pun intended.
"I won because i actually had a position, Thats it,"
You won with those that agree with you, that's it. How's that?
"read the votes on the debate."
Majority agrees with you , big deal. Appeal to popularity doesn't mean your correct. Don't go there with that fallacy.
"Again, all you are doing is essentially arguing with my delivery of the points but agreeing with my position on the matter. "
You're straight up making a fictitious statement here. Just because YOU SAY I don't have a position, I must agree with you.
My position is the following:
" To wrap all this up with a nice ribbon on it, the opposing side negated their position, rejected their own position, has falsified abortion being ok not only just after 20 weeks but prior by their own standard it wouldn't be ok to terminate their life due to no conscious experience, the same rule negates "no conscious experience" argument before 20 weeks in life development."
My stance is that yours is paradoxical, negates and collapses on itself. I don't believe you agree with that. So therefore we oppose each other. I don't believe you believe your position is paradoxical but you've presented no defense that it isn't. You haven't even denied that your position is broad and lacks detail which you affirm as much needed for clarity. This is why you wanted a second debate. But because your cheerleaders and voters found it sufficient for them, you probably stand by your original broad presentation.
I'm not going to agree with a paradoxical position. That's what yours is .
"He wants the debate to be over because he has no argument, He is grasping at straws trying to make a false claim that my argument is incorrect, And adding quotations from both me and you and not saying who said who to confuse the audience more."
The debate is over because there's nothing left to debate about. Nothing to do with who wants what. I demonstrated the paradoxical nature of your position, you just ran from the refutation. What else can you do when you can't refute it?
The audience will have to read everything in context and follow the debate like a story book to avoid confusion. Quotes are simply indicating words that was stated previously from the party that made the statement.
This debate was plain and simple. I summarized your stance and the fallacy that tore it down . Plain and simple.
"I dont really know what to say at this point, This debate is dishonest on your part and i dont know how im supposed respond to a nonexistent argument"
You make a claim on me and haven't backed it up. You were supposed to argue against the following:
" To wrap all this up with a nice ribbon on it, the opposing side negated their position, rejected their own position, has falsified abortion being ok not only just after 20 weeks but prior by their own standard it wouldn't be ok to terminate their life due to no conscious experience, the same rule negates "no conscious experience" argument before 20 weeks in life development."
Duh. This is kind of disingenuous of you but nothing personal, huh. Good debate comrade.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
Pro made a simple case, and fortified it with being willing to be terminated if brain dead. Con thought this was somehow a checkmate, which makes no sense to me.
In the end, we have clear reasons to believe it's ok (no brain, no related brain stuff), without a clear reason it would not be ok. Coma people exist but pro was able to show how there's a difference.
Making this debate worse, con kept obsessing over another debate. This is not said other debate, this is debate 4,666;
https://tiny.cc/DebateArt