Instigator / Pro
7
1469
rating
340
debates
40.88%
won
Topic
#5194
Nothing I say here has ever justified abortion. I could even include for the safety of the mother to an extent.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
0
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1
After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
Mall
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- None
Contender / Con
4
1309
rating
273
debates
40.48%
won
Description
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.
Only mandate:
Every point has to be countered thoroughly based on its exact words.
Equal amount of arguments from both sides.
The opposing side must challenge with questions non rhetorical as a part of their argumentation.
Round 1
Pro
#1
Greetings.
Here are the common points I hear about attempting to justify abortion but first speaking on the mother's life.
In the event of the mother's life being in jeopardy to an extent , abortion is not justified.
Why and to what extent?
To the extent of mothers that decide that their babies are to live at the cost of their lives. Being that the law wishes to protect the rights of the mother to start with, she uses that same right to make the decision.
So to argue that it's justified to administer abortion to the extent or in the case of mothers that decide against abortion would be conflicting so therefore in would not be justified in that state.
Now on to points I will say that have never been justifiable.
1. The unborn is not a baby/human.
This doesn't justify abortion because it's simply based on semantics. Based on that, the law can shuffle the rights around because of technical classification. There is an arbitrary assessment once the nature of something is broken down for what it is.
2. Unaware/no sentience.
This doesn't justify abortion because there's a definitive contradiction when assessing situations where there is no awareness. It doesn't become automatically justified to terminate.
3. Appropriate birth control.
This doesn't justify abortion because there's a conflict of controlling births and populations in other methods that if we're legalized, murder would really be no such thing. Not to mention unnecessary terminating life, instead of destroying life , wasting reproductive material, just save it, hold it, preserve it which would mean abstaining. Unless couples wish to go to a bank to freeze their reproductive material right after consummation. Like saving money in the bank instead of wasting it unnecessarily, save it.
4. Convenience/Responsibility .
This doesn't justify abortion as it is loaded with conflict as when there is a problem faced with anyone, it is not justified to knock them off to make life easier and avoid duties required of you that you are the cause of.
You're not justified in having an unhealthy diet because you know of medical treatments , life sustaining treatments you could possibly undergo later.
5. Right to the body.
This is extremely technical and if the rights were shift around, what was thought to be justified just became arbitrary. The conflict comes in where the rights are preemptively excluded for what would be a being taking them away in advance. Taken away and assigning rights doesn't instantly make life justifiable to be terminated.
When we're talking justification, it is on the side of what is just or right and thereby necessary. Now as we go forward, learn, grow and develop, we observe life into two categories, do's and don'ts in order to build up life, maintain it or gradually deplete it, delete it into detriment. These categories are nominally referred to as right , wrong, good, bad/evil.
The signs that begin to appear to identify one category from another is the consistency, conflict, questionability, things that contradict. Those things tend to be what false inaccurate elements are which are synonymous with invalidity ,error, falsehood, not the truth, wrongness, fitting the category of wrong or bad.
Abortion has been so conflicting because what is being done is just an assault or destruction in advance.
Abortion is legal not because it's thought of to be just so therefore it is....but from what is allowable with limited damage to a society at minimum.
When we look at all the different things that are not very healthy, hospitable to ourselves such as drugs, malnutritious foods, even the schedules we work in the workforce depleting of proper sleep,in light of all these things, society is not optimally geared towards life in general. So of course abortion fits the bill.
Con
#2
Thank you for starting this debate.
In the event of the mother's life being in jeopardy to an extent , abortion is not justified.To the extent of mothers that decide that their babies are to live at the cost of their lives.
So if mothers decide to have an abortion in case where pregnancy threatens their lives, abortion is justified?
1. The unborn is not a baby/human.This doesn't justify abortion because it's simply based on semantics. Based on that, the law can shuffle the rights around because of technical classification. There is an arbitrary assessment once the nature of something is broken down for what it is.
My opponent assumes that if something is based on semantics, that it cannot justify abortion.
Then he assumes that law would shuffle rights of humans around, which it wouldnt because excluding unborn as humans does not demand further exclusion.
Then my opponent assumes that if something is arbitrary, it cannot justify abortion, despite every moral standard being arbitrary.
2. Unaware/no sentience.This doesn't justify abortion because there's a definitive contradiction when assessing situations where there is no awareness. It doesn't become automatically justified to terminate.
My opponent stated in rules that I must respond to every point, yet he starts the debate by making counter-points against points I didnt make.
This ultimately forces me to defend points I didnt even make.
But fine.
While there are situations where unawareness does not justify termination, my opponent assumes that those situations are like abortion, when they are not.
Abortion is obviously different because fetus is unaware and living at total expense of another, not just in terms of money, but inside the body of another.
3. Appropriate birth control.This doesn't justify abortion because there's a conflict of controlling births and populations in other methods that if we're legalized, murder would really be no such thing. Not to mention unnecessary terminating life, instead of destroying life , wasting reproductive material, just save it, hold it, preserve it which would mean abstaining. Unless couples wish to go to a bank to freeze their reproductive material right after consummation. Like saving money in the bank instead of wasting it unnecessarily, save it.
My opponent assumes that if abortion is legal, then murder of born humans would be too. This is obviously incorrect.
My opponent then assumes how abstaining is a better way, despite it clearly not working so far.
Then my opponent says "waste of reproductive material", but the point of birth control is to not reproduce.
Further, reproductive material is spent anyway over the years, irrelevant if one practices abstinence or abortion.
So his argument against abortion would also work against abstinence.
4. Convenience/Responsibility .This doesn't justify abortion as it is loaded with conflict as when there is a problem faced with anyone, it is not justified to knock them off to make life easier and avoid duties required of you that you are the cause of.You're not justified in having an unhealthy diet because you know of medical treatments , life sustaining treatments you could possibly undergo later
I dont see the point of mentioning unhealthy diet leading people to be inconvenient for others.
Even if it was same type of inconvenience, which it isnt, only one would be forced.
When giving birth to a child, you are either:
1. Raising it and paying hundreds of thousands of dollars
2. Putting it in foster care and risking its future, possibly producing criminal
We see that there is more to it than simple "inconvenience" of eating unhealthy food.
5. Right to the body.This is extremely technical and if the rights were shift around, what was thought to be justified just became arbitrary. The conflict comes in where the rights are preemptively excluded for what would be a being taking them away in advance. Taken away and assigning rights doesn't instantly make life justifiable to be terminated
My opponent assumes that arbitrary is not justified.
Further, he confuses "taking away rights" with "not giving rights", assumes that they are the same.
Fetus is not given rights, so no rights are taken away.
Further, even if fetus had right to body, right to body excludes right to use someone else's body against their will.
Therefore, fetus violating woman's right to her body is the one who is in the wrong, not the woman.
do's and don'ts in order to build up life
My opponent assumes that we are always supposed to create life.
destruction in advance
Its a simple lack of creation. You assume its a bad thing.
If I missed any points, let me know.
My questions:
Are forced pregnancies bad?
What is the difference between forced pregnancy and rape?
If woman does not intent to get pregnant, why would she suffer the consequences of pregnancy?
If abstinence is fine, why? It also results in fetus being denied of existence.
What is the difference between not starting pregnancy and terminating pregnancy?
Why is one justified and the other isnt, when both have same results?
Round 2
Pro
#3
"So if mothers decide to have an abortion in case where pregnancy threatens their lives, abortion is justified?"
Depends on the mother. Let's say a mother found out there was a misdiagnosis and the threat was a false alarm. She feels regret about deciding to abort. So it's her assessment to declare it was still justified or not. Particularly in a situation where she had second thoughts not getting a second medical opinion .
On top of that, the topic is about what I've said that isn't justified. None of my points entered in about a mother deciding abortion because of her life in jeopardy not being justified.
I only mentioned to some extent which that extent only agrees with the mothers that also assessed for themselves as unjustifiable decisions.
"My opponent assumes that if something is based on semantics, that it cannot justify abortion.
Then he assumes that law would shuffle rights of humans around, which it wouldnt because excluding unborn as humans does not demand further exclusion.
Then my opponent assumes that if something is arbitrary, it cannot justify abortion, despite every moral standard being arbitrary."
You didn't rebuttal. You just continued to say I'm assuming.
"My opponent stated in rules that I must respond to every point, yet he starts the debate by making counter-points against points I didnt make.
This ultimately forces me to defend points I didnt even make.
But fine."
Of course. The idea is to refute the points whether they be ones you make yourself or not in defense of abortion. I know it's tougher to do but you took the challenge.
"While there are situations where unawareness does not justify termination, my opponent assumes that those situations are like abortion, when they are not.
Abortion is obviously different because fetus is unaware and living at total expense of another, not just in terms of money, but inside the body of another."
So I guess you're saying"total expense" is the difference. So if I have a relative in a coma covering their bills at my expense, it be justified to kill them according to your reasoning . This is why abortion is not legalized for this very reasoning or we could conflate it with other scenarios.
"My opponent assumes that if abortion is legal, then murder of born humans would be too. This is obviously incorrect.
My opponent then assumes how abstaining is a better way, despite it clearly not working so far."
You're getting excessive with that word "assume". What do you mean by "if abortion is legal"? It already is legal and it's legal based on the reasoning I explained last round which obviously protects mankind to a certain extent.
"Then my opponent says "waste of reproductive material", but the point of birth control is to not reproduce.
Further, reproductive material is spent anyway over the years, irrelevant if one practices abstinence or abortion.
So his argument against abortion would also work against abstinence."
Don't quite follow what you're saying here. I'm not going to read into it . Unlike others I try to get understanding of what someone is saying first.
I'll leave it there.
"I dont see the point of mentioning unhealthy diet leading people to be inconvenient for others."
You can make a case for inconvenience for others but that wasn't the original point of the analogy.
What is analogous is the responsibility taken for eating healthy avoiding bad health to destroy one's life like the responsibility taken to care for a baby avoiding to destroy one's own life (own baby).
It is not justified to avoid responsibility at the expense of terminating life for the sake of convenience.
"My opponent assumes that arbitrary is not justified.
Further, he confuses "taking away rights" with "not giving rights", assumes that they are the same.
Fetus is not given rights, so no rights are taken away.
Further, even if fetus had right to body, right to body excludes right to use someone else's body against their will."
What is your rebuttal here?
"Therefore, fetus violating woman's right to her body is the one who is in the wrong, not the woman."
This is incorrect. You cannot place blame of wrong on an entity that is not responsible. You got it wrong which is why abortion is not legal for that reason because the blame is not on the unborn.
"My opponent assumes that we are always supposed to create life."
Can you refute that we're not living creatures structured to live, survive and in turn continue to live genetically?
Just saying assumptions without a rebuttal is no rebuttal.
"Its a simple lack of creation. You assume its a bad thing."
Something that is not created is not the same as something being destroyed because in one scenario that something exists while in the other it doesn't.
Doesn't make sense what you said.
"If I missed any points, let me know."
Done . Just read through all this round.
"My questions:
Are forced pregnancies bad?"
Depends. I try to be more specific while interacting.
Whether there's a complication that leaves the unborn to be born or gun held to the mother's head in an usual situation.
"What is the difference between forced pregnancy and rape?"
One has a sexual element while the other doesn't.
"If woman does not intent to get pregnant, why would she suffer the consequences of pregnancy?"
It's like eating unhealthy, why would someone suffer the consequences of disease and or the "treatment" that just may bring about more complications as a further consequence?
There are consequences to actions.
"If abstinence is fine, why? It also results in fetus being denied of existence."
Is it denied or deferred? Big difference.
"What is the difference between not starting pregnancy and terminating pregnancy?"
One is deferment while the other is not.
"Why is one justified and the other isnt, when both have same results?"
If I have saved my money instead of wasting it or throwing it away, that's different. I can still use the money later. I can't use it once it's gone for good. Once a baby is dead that's it. You can't bring a baby back that would of had rights like anyone else.
Con
#4
You didn't rebuttal. You just continued to say I'm assuming.
Assuming means claiming without proof, when other options are equally valid.
So I guess you're saying"total expense" is the difference. So if I have a relative in a coma covering their bills at my expense, it be justified to kill them according to your reasoning . This is why abortion is not legalized for this very reasoning or we could conflate it with other scenarios.
My opponent ignored the part about fetus living in the body of another.
His example is not same, because if your relative was about to be living in your body for 9 months, it would be justified to kick him out even if it kills him.
What is analogous is the responsibility taken for eating healthy avoiding bad health to destroy one's life like the responsibility taken to care for a baby avoiding to destroy one's own life (own baby).
My opponent assumes that there is responsibility to give birth, but there isnt.
My opponent started the argument by mentioning inconvenience, but then moved to having responsibility to be a baby factory.
It is not justified to avoid responsibility at the expense of terminating life for the sake of convenience
My opponent obviously thinks its justified to force a woman to get pregnant.
Further, no one ever claimed that its justified to avoid responsibility by terminating life.
What was claimed is that responsibility of pregnancy is so high for the individual which makes abortion justified.
This is incorrect. You cannot place blame of wrong on an entity that is not responsible. You got it wrong which is why abortion is not legal for that reason because the blame is not on the unborn.
Its a fact that fetus is the cause of expense of woman's body.
To be cause of something does not require your version of "responsibility" to take place.
Can you refute that we're not living creatures structured to live, survive and in turn continue to live genetically?
There is a growing number of people who dont reproduce.
You assume that people were structured to reproduce, yet that obviously doesnt apply to all people as not all people reproduce.
Even if all people had some part in them telling them to reproduce, the assumption that all must obey that part is evidently false.
Something that is not created is not the same as something being destroyed because in one scenario that something exists while in the other it doesn't
There are only two options for you in this debate:
1. Existence is good
2. Existence is not good
If existence is good, then producing existence is good, therefore abstinence is not good as it prevents the production of existence.
It's like eating unhealthy, why would someone suffer the consequences of disease and or the "treatment" that just may bring about more complications as a further consequence?There are consequences to actions.
If you agree that it would be good if eating unhealthy caused no disease, then what is your point?
You are basically saying its good if sex has no bad consequences, which with abortion it has less.
Round 3
Pro
#5
"Assuming means claiming without proof, when other options are equally valid."
Well then explain why what I've said already is not proof or you don't see as proof. Make a rebuttal instead of dismissal.
"My opponent ignored the part about fetus living in the body of another.
His example is not same, because if your relative was about to be living in your body for 9 months, it would be justified to kick him out even if it kills him."
You just ignored the statement you made about expense so it's refuted.
"My opponent assumes that there is responsibility to give birth, but there isnt."
It's not what I said. You quote what I say then misrepresent. Why is it so hard to go by my exact wording? Not just you but people tend to twist words up. Must be societal social habit.
"My opponent started the argument by mentioning inconvenience, but then moved to having responsibility to be a baby factory."
Interchangeable. People avoid responsibility for convenience because it will cause inconvenience.
"My opponent obviously thinks its justified to force a woman to get pregnant."
I'm not responding to anything I never stated. You can continue to misrepresent.
"Further, no one ever claimed that its justified to avoid responsibility by terminating life."
If you're not going to contest it you might as well agree with it with me.
"What was claimed is that responsibility of pregnancy is so high for the individual which makes abortion justified."
If you can quote me on this I can deal with it. Otherwise it makes it that more difficult to ascertain what you're talking about.
"Its a fact that fetus is the cause of expense of woman's body."
Does the person who made the fetus take any blame and cause or do you put it all on the unborn?
"To be cause of something does not require your version of "responsibility" to take place."
I specifically said blame. Do you see how sloppy you are with words instead of sticking exactly?
The unborn cannot be blamed for being an expense. It didn't choose or make the mistake to be,whatever. That's what it means to take responsibility. Man up, woman up .
"There is a growing number of people who dont reproduce."
So what?
"You assume that people were structured to reproduce, yet that obviously doesnt apply to all people as not all people reproduce."
Ok so are you going to ask what proof of our bodies shows we're designed to live and survive?
Not all people reproduce. Well why is that? Don't stop there. See you're coming to wrong conclusions or incomplete conclusions because you don't seek the truth and facts for everything the way it is and why it is.
You're about to get me started with a debate topic on this . The point of it would be for us to honestly look at ourselves, all of our functions in depth and not just on the surface.
I understand people have views on sexuality and it kind of stems from how we look at our bodies often negating things about them but I digress.
"Even if all people had some part in them telling them to reproduce, the assumption that all must obey that part is evidently false."
This is getting off subject. I think I have to setup that topic for this.
"There are only two options for you in this debate:
1. Existence is good
2. Existence is not good"
Both options either way, they both can be applied. Why? Because the options are broad enough to allow me to do so.
"If existence is good, then producing existence is good, therefore abstinence is not good as it prevents the production of existence."
Existence of what? Abstinence is deferment, not destruction.
I think you're trying to conflate abstinence is destruction like abortion. So therefore abortion is justified because abstinence is not looked at as unjustifiable. Alternatively you can look at abstinence as destruction so why demonize abortion?
That's because saving money is not wasting money to use an illustration.
"If you agree that it would be good if eating unhealthy caused no disease, then what is your point?"
I have no stance on unhealthy being good. I never made such a statement. Strawman and loaded question fallacies really have to stop from you.
"You are basically saying its good if sex has no bad consequences, which with abortion it has less."
You say I'm basically saying. Why not forget about"basically" and go by exactly?
I think I said what I said word for word about consequences to actions.
You asked about a woman not having the intent on getting pregnant suffering the consequences of it. You argue like the act itself , the action of itself does not have a consequence or is not to be expected regardless of a person's intent.
So a person in their mind may not be thinking about disease when they do the act, the action of eating what they eat. It doesn't change that the act itself will have that consequence of poor health.
Nothing in there said anything about it's good if sex has no consequences. Where did you get that from?
I said " consequences to actions". So you just misrepresented me again looking like on PURPOSE. It might as well be on purpose because I specifically said "consequences to actions". So where did you get " no bad consequences from sex " from out of those words I used?
If you're going to refute what I say, deal honestly as the text states exactly. Is this the only way to refute for you is to jumble words up? This is just interesting how people continue to twist things to fit their position and then have much misunderstanding. This is done with all types of literature, history events, testimonies, the bible, misquoting folks.
Con
#6
Does the person who made the fetus take any blame and cause or do you put it all on the unborn?
The person who created the fetus to the point of pregnancy obviously takes the blame for that, but that blame does not negate body rights, nor negate that fetus is violating body rights of a woman.
Without that person's action, unborn wouldnt exist in that stage.
The person has a right to use own body as they please.
So allowing unborn to live at the expense of a woman for some time more than usual does not mean duty to extend that service further.
Its like saying that if I give you 1000$ so you can live for a few months, that I have duty to do so again just because I did it once.
Your conclusion doesnt follow.
So while the woman did cause existence of a fetus at the stage of pregnancy, the woman has no duty to extend her services to further support the existence of the fetus.
To put it simply, just because woman created pregnancy, the conclusion that she has to further maintain it at her own great expense does not follow.
Thats because body rights say that no one has right to body of another.
Woman can live without fetus, but fetus cannot live without woman.
Therefore, fetus lives at the expense of a woman.
Woman did not violate body right, but fetus did.
Fetus comes as unwanted attachment to the body.
Person has a right to remove unwanted attachments to the body, even if person unintentionally or intentionally created the attachment.
Fetus is an unintentional attachment which wasnt intentionally caused by the person, as person has ability to get pregnant even if person doesnt want to have that ability.
So the attachment of fetus creation is not intentional, and fetus creation ability comes as unwanted attachment to the woman's body.
The idea that there is a difference between woman removing that attachment by surgery before sex, or by abortion after sex, is wrong.
There is no difference between the two for the fetus, except that in case of pregnancy, fetus gets to live longer than it would without pregnancy.
In both cases, fetus no longer exists after attachment is removed.
To claim that woman has duty to give birth is just another reduction of a woman to a baby factory, and a violation of body rights.
You would be saying that one has right to body of another.
If one doesnt have right to body of another, then neither fetus creation nor fetus maintaining is a duty of a woman.
The unborn cannot be blamed for being an expense. It didn't choose or make the mistake to be
If I had a rock attached to my arm, I would be allowed to remove that rock.
The rock, despite not making a choice, would be the cause of expense of my body, having to carry it around.
Even if I intentionally attached the rock to my body, the idea that I have no right to remove it is absurd.
So what is the difference between a rock and a fetus?
Does fetus have right to my body?
No.
Would fetus's body be more violated by existence than by non-existence?
No.
So the idea that woman allowed fetus to live at her expense for some time does not mean that those services have to be extended.
Not all people reproduce. Well why is that? Don't stop there. See you're coming to wrong conclusions or incomplete conclusions because you don't seek the truth and facts for everything the way it is and why it is.You're about to get me started with a debate topic on this . The point of it would be for us to honestly look at ourselves, all of our functions in depth and not just on the surface.
The way it is, is that some people dont reproduce.
Having ability to reproduce does not mean duty to reproduce.
Having some part of you saying you should reproduce does not mean you should reproduce, nor does it negate lack of will to reproduce.
Both options either way, they both can be applied. Why? Because the options are broad enough to allow me to do so.
Which option applies to the fetus?
Is its existence good or not good?
Existence of what? Abstinence is deferment, not destruction.I think you're trying to conflate abstinence is destruction like abortion. So therefore abortion is justified because abstinence is not looked at as unjustifiable. Alternatively you can look at abstinence as destruction so why demonize abortion?That's because saving money is not wasting money to use an illustration.
Both abstinence and abortion equal no fetus.
Abstinence = no fetus
Abortion = no fetus
So explain to me, in your world view where abortion is bad and abstinence is not, what difference does it make for the fetus and life?
Fetus in both cases wont exist.
Therefore, if you support life, you must be against both to stay consistent.
If you think that life should increase, you must by logic be against both.
If you think life shouldnt be destroyed, then choosing to not reproduce destroys life that would come from reproduction.
It destroys life that would otherwise exist if it wasnt destroyed by choice to not reprooduce.
What is the difference between destroying life after it exists for some time and destroying life by preventing its existence?
Both result in no life, while the latter denies even more life than the former.
Liked it or not, your world view would force reproduction.
You argue like the act itself , the action of itself does not have a consequence or is not to be expected regardless of a person's intent.
The act has a consequence of abortion.
You have a problem with that consequence.
You want to impose consequences on a woman that would otherwise not exist because otherwise consequence would be abortion.
The idea that you have obligation to not alter or remove consequences of your actions is a false idea.
Its like saying someone shouldnt go to the dentist and should just tolerate consequences of eating bad food because he chose to eat bad food.
Conclusion doesnt follow.
Intentional actions that have worse consequences if consequences are not altered, does not lead to conclusion that consequences shouldnt be altered.
Round 4
Pro
#7
"The person who created the fetus to the point of pregnancy obviously takes the blame for that, but that blame does not negate body rights, nor negate that fetus is violating body rights of a woman."
Is it really a violation when the person welcomed, accepted the risks of what would happen?
Someone that is violated like a molested person never signed up for it. When engaging in sex , it comes with the territory.
"Without that person's action, unborn wouldnt exist in that stage.
The person has a right to use own body as they please.
So allowing unborn to live at the expense of a woman for some time more than usual does not mean duty to extend that service further.
Its like saying that if I give you 1000$ so you can live for a few months, that I have duty to do so again just because I did it once.
Your conclusion doesnt follow."
I don't quite follow your illustration. But bottomline, the person that made the fetus is responsible for it causing it to be an expense. Hence their bed, lie in it.
If you don't think I should be terminated now that I'm born but accept termination when I was unborn, it's inconsistent. It's still me either way and I would like to live.
"So while the woman did cause existence of a fetus at the stage of pregnancy, the woman has no duty to extend her services to further support the existence of the fetus."
Well that's why we have adoption services. Children that have been adopted are joy that they're alive.
''To put it simply, just because woman created pregnancy, the conclusion that she has to further maintain it at her own great expense does not follow."
Well she is responsible for it. Everything else in life we're responsible for we pay up don't we?
This somehow just made the exception perhaps through strong enough protest, petition and lobbying at the cost of someone's potential life .
Just inconsistency after inconsistency but abortion is not legal for the sake of consistency, oh no.
"Thats because body rights say that no one has right to body of another."
Not entirely true. This is how we can have prisons and adults over minors because rights are reduced or taken away altogether.
"Woman can live without fetus, but fetus cannot live without woman."
That woman can live because she was spared as a so called fetus.
"Therefore, fetus lives at the expense of a woman.
Woman did not violate body right, but fetus did.
Fetus comes as unwanted attachment to the body. "
I think we should move on from these line of points to avoid circles.
"Person has a right to remove unwanted attachments to the body, even if person unintentionally or intentionally created the attachment."
Obviously, it's the law. Not debatable.
"Fetus is an unintentional attachment which wasnt intentionally caused by the person, as person has ability to get pregnant even if person doesnt want to have that ability."
Only quoting this to show I'm not ignoring anything. But I do feel the bottomline was addressed. You can continue on to reiterate. I won't except for this segment.
"So the attachment of fetus creation is not intentional, and fetus creation ability comes as unwanted attachment to the woman's body.
The idea that there is a difference between woman removing that attachment by surgery before sex, or by abortion after sex, is wrong.
There is no difference between the two for the fetus, except that in case of pregnancy, fetus gets to live longer than it would without pregnancy.
In both cases, fetus no longer exists after attachment is removed.
To claim that woman has duty to give birth is just another reduction of a woman to a baby factory, and a violation of body rights."
Only quoting this to show I'm not ignoring anything. But I do feel the bottomline was addressed. You can continue on to reiterate. I won't except for this segment.
"You would be saying that one has right to body of another.
If one doesnt have right to body of another, then neither fetus creation nor fetus maintaining is a duty of a woman."
In respective to the law. All relative to the law.
"If I had a rock attached to my arm, I would be allowed to remove that rock.
The rock, despite not making a choice, would be the cause of expense of my body, having to carry it around.
Even if I intentionally attached the rock to my body, the idea that I have no right to remove it is absurd.
So what is the difference between a rock and a fetus?"
If you are the cause of the rock on your arm or the rock has caused injury, the rock is not charged with expense. You get the medical bill, you. You or whoever was responsible. You can't charge a rock or the unborn.
The number one thing with this pro abortion stuff, it teaches to abandon responsibility.
The opposing side's point is why should someone be responsible for their action even if it's at the cost of what could of been a beautiful life?
"Does fetus have right to my body?
No.
Would fetus's body be more violated by existence than by non-existence?
No."
I said challenge with questions non rhetorical.
"So the idea that woman allowed fetus to live at her expense for some time does not mean that those services have to be extended."
Only quoting this to show I'm not ignoring anything. But I do feel the bottomline was addressed. You can continue on to reiterate. I won't except for this segment.
"The way it is, is that some people dont reproduce."
See this is exactly my point. I just communicated this about digging deep for reasoning.
"The way it is" ........."The way it is"......"The way it is"........"The way it is"
Well why is it that way? You can just say you don't know and have not learned why. That's fine that's one thing. But don't take the position that's all there is to it like you've hit a complete conclusion. You think you have one so your worldview appears truthful to you. You spread that incomplete truth as absolute truth.
"Having ability to reproduce does not mean duty to reproduce."
Oh then why have it?
It's like saying any other function of our body exists but you say oh it has no function, no job/duty.
All of our functions have jobs. Just drop this point. I can tell it hasn't been fully thought out by you. Just leave it alone.
"Having some part of you saying you should reproduce does not mean you should reproduce, nor does it negate lack of will to reproduce."
See this is why we have a society that does not promote life. We have thought processes knowing that the body communicates its functionality but well let's decide to abandon it if we want. But hey, that's liberalism/libertarianism for you.
I live in a functioning body, every proper function to support my life or is pro life, but because I'm not necessarily pro life, you know that makes sense, really.
If you're not pro life, you're not going to adhere to every point of the organic autonomy.
Now if it was put like this in regards to our bodily functionality, maybe "pro-choicers" would look at their position different. But they go no further then, "I use my body how I want which may mean misusing its function. So offffff courseeee I'm not going to deal with the end result of its functionality.
No way , these laws better be in place to comfort my every liberal whim and to sweep away consequences."
Alright I'm done, back to the debate. Hopefully I didn't lose anybody reading.
"Which option applies to the fetus?
Is its existence good or not good?"
Depends on what constitutes a good effect.
To the mother, father, brother, sister,doctor, etc ., the unborn baby may or may not be a good effect.
This is why I'm not arguing about what is good or not. That's a personal assessment in somebody's personal situation. What's good to them, what isn't.
"Both abstinence and abortion equal no fetus.
Abstinence = no fetus
Abortion = no fetus"
See what happens when you look at everything so simplistic and shallow.
Both saving money and throwing away money equals no spending.
But both acts have different values.
Do you get it?
If you're not getting the money illustration, I'll try to come up with a different one. You may be struggling with it .
"So explain to me, in your world view where abortion is bad and abstinence is not, what difference does it make for the fetus and life?"
In my position on this topic because I don't get outright personal, it's what is justified based on what is consistently established to adjudicate as justified already basically. The good and the bad, if you notice through my points, never characterized anything as good or bad . Really, really got to pay attention to details carefully.
Do not conflate and or assume things can be instantly interchangeable either. It may make all the difference in a person's unique position. Abstinence like saving money is justified over throwing money or life away well because it is our livelihood. Both(money+life) are to maintain society. But of course a pleasure seeking liberal society made law for both abortion and monetary gambling.
"Fetus in both cases wont exist.
Therefore, if you support life, you must be against both to stay consistent."
Didn't I speak to this already?
Let me go back through the rounds and see if I can find it. See these points were already dealt with. The questions you have were most likely already answered but you're not absorbing the information.
Yes I said already the following:
"Abstinence is deferment, not destruction.
I think you're trying to conflate abstinence is destruction like abortion. So therefore abortion is justified because abstinence is not looked at as unjustifiable. Alternatively you can look at abstinence as destruction so why demonize abortion?
That's because saving money is not wasting money to use an illustration."
Let me know if it's something you're missing here in what was stated.
"If you think that life should increase, you must by logic be against both."
Can you increase life from saved biological reproductive organic material or wasted lost material?
"If you think life shouldnt be destroyed, then choosing to not reproduce destroys life that would come from reproduction.
It destroys life that would otherwise exist if it wasnt destroyed by choice to not reprooduce."
You're not thinking this all the way through.
Just answer this question with one or the other.
Can you increase life from saved biological reproductive organic material or wasted lost material?
"What is the difference between destroying life after it exists for some time and destroying life by preventing its existence?"
This is a loaded question fallacy.
"Both result in no life, while the latter denies even more life than the former."
The latter I take is abortion so denying more life would be more justified to you or just as, is that correct?
"Liked it or not, your world view would force reproduction."
Look at it this way. I wouldn't be able to have my worldview or anything else if reproduction wasn't made to be required. People have sexual desires because their bodies are requiring reproduction.
Not the topic but if you want to debate that, message me.
"The act has a consequence of abortion.
You have a problem with that consequence."
This is incorrect. The act of sex has a consequence or result of offspring. Possibly so anyway. The reason why it doesn't have the result of abortion because something or someone has to act and choose to administer an abortion or have one done.
The rule of thumb is direct cause and effect alone without requiring any other influence.
For instance, a car alone is not the cause of someone being hit by it. This is why the person driving it is prosecuted. It is because of their actions, not the car but their actions that have consequences. So therefore that person is prosecuted for their wreckless actions.
Otherwise the car would go no where unless the influence of the driver's actions and decisions come into it.
The person has to make a decision for the abortion to take place. So the effect , consequence, result of their choice is or isn't abortion. Abortion is the consequence of the person's decision, not the sex act.
Very important rule of thumb. Otherwise we'd be incorrect with actions and consequences all over the place . Asking well what is the cause of the cause of the cause? Well this person is the cause. No that person is it. No that other person is it. No this is it, that was it.
See ,let us be very careful.
"You want to impose consequences on a woman that would otherwise not exist because otherwise consequence would be abortion."
This is a lie. The consequences from actions exist independent of my existence. I think you're confusing beliefs with consequences. I can't impose consequences. I can impose beliefs. But I don't have to do that either because I can just simply point out or identify what the consequences are.
A doctor doesn't impose disease on people. A diseased body is the result of that body doing what it did to become diseased.
"The idea that you have obligation to not alter or remove consequences of your actions is a false idea.
Its like saying someone shouldnt go to the dentist and should just tolerate consequences of eating bad food because he chose to eat bad food.
Conclusion doesnt follow."
Once again, I don't follow you.
Here's where my position will run with that dentist example in the correct order. Someone consuming certain foods that will possibly give them poor oral health leading up to dentist attention thinking why can't they just eat certain foods getting away with the consequences.
Likewise people consummating thinking why they can't just get away with doing it without the consequences or results of offspring.
It's something called a package deal or what comes with it. Instead of going through the difficulty, abstain until you're ready for ALL that comes with it, risks, consequences, etc.
If you're going to live a certain way, prepare for the ramifications, life adjustments.
You can live a life with poor water consumption. Just because you can possibly get an organ transplant, doesn't justify living unhealthy.
Same thing with consuming drugs and alcohol.
Also certainly abortion.
Just because you can diminish a minute form of life whether it be the life of an organ or a life that would have many organs of its own to come, doesn't justify going in that direction to do so.
If we're going to be consistent, this is the way it has to be to justify.
"Intentional actions that have worse consequences if consequences are not altered, does not lead to conclusion that consequences shouldnt be altered."
This debate has been fun.
Con
#8
Thank you for the debate, I enjoyed it so far, but I kinda lost the will to add more.
So I concede.
Round 5
To me, its not really about winning.
I sometimes try hard to win, but sticking to same pattern of debating and same topics gets boring even if it gives wins.
Sometimes I go with what the opponent offers in round 1, even if debate topic is something different by official definitions.
So you stick to the debate title, let your opponent veer off, and win.
I thought that thats what the debate will be about, but first round went completely other way.
You guys are arguing about abortion when you should be arguing based on the debate title if Mall has always been pro life.
@BestKorea
If you can find one quote from Mall where he says something pro choice, then you have won this debate.
If you want to do an abortion debate with each other, label it, "Abortion should be illegal in X cases" (define X), Mall can be Pro; Korea can be Con.