Abortion after 3 weeks
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 5,100
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Rules of the debate:
1: I waive the 1st round and my opponent waives the last round. Violation is an automatic loss of conduct point.
2: The BoP is shared.
I support abortions after 3 weeks because it's completely unreasonable to expect that someone will always be able to detect their pregnancy and perform the operation within that time frame.
An abortion is a significant act of autonomy for any women
3 weeks is also an arbitrary amount of time
When a woman gets an abortion there can never be consent on the part of the fetus, the decision is made by the mother because they are the only one capable of deciding. An abortion is an act of autonomy because the fetus is completely reliant on the mother and no one else.
I understand your argument that the fetus is indeed alive, but that alone is not a reason to prohibit abortions. There are many situations where the effect of ending a life is not morally wrong, in this category some may saying killing an insect or a plant is wrong because you are ending a life, that alone is not a sufficient reason.
There are situations where a women is unaware of her pregnancy until beyond the three week stage, this makes this level of the pregnancy too early because some women won't be able to receive an abortion even if they wanted to.
When a woman gets an abortion there can never be consent on the part of the fetus
An abortion is an act of autonomy because the fetus is completely reliant on the mother and no one else.
There are many situations where the effect of ending a life is not morally wrong, in this category some may saying killing an insect or a plant is wrong because you are ending a life, that alone is not a sufficient reason.
Your comparison of a fetus to a 1 month old is false because a fetus is biologically more dependent on the mother specifically, the same cannot be said for the 1 month old. Yes, there are circumstances where a woman should be able to decide if their child's life continues, this includes situations such as ending life support. The process of adoption can be extremely distressing for both children and adults so that is not always an option;
https://adoptionnetwork.com/emotional-and-psychological-effects-of-adoption-on-birth-mother
My opponent then makes an incorrect assertion, while there may be differences in their DNA, insects such as flies are considerably more complex organisms in comparison to stem cells or aborted fetuses, your argument is lacking moral consistency and you have yet to explain this arbitrary 3 week cutoff.
It makes no sense to advocate for a 3 week abortion ban and then decide you'r against abortions all together, which is it?
Your comparison of a fetus to a 1 month old is false because a fetus is biologically more dependent on the mother specifically
Yes, there are circumstances where a woman should be able to decide if their child's life continues, this includes situations such as ending life support.
The process of adoption can be extremely distressing for both children and adults so that is not always an option;
Birth parents may experience guilt and shame for having placed their child for adoption
My opponent then makes an incorrect assertion, while there may be differences in their DNA, insects such as flies are considerably more complex organisms in comparison to stem cells or aborted fetuses.
and you have yet to explain this arbitrary 3 week cutoff.
Pro made a number of points here. He raised a number of reasons why abortion could be considered wrong, and a provided a justification for why the 3 week limit is warranted.
Specifically, that it harms the fetus; and that cells are specialized.
In general, while I felt con made an incredibly weak argument.
However pro massively harmed his arguments with limited and short rounds.
Pro had the outline of a good argument, that women don’t have enough time, and the beginnings of a moral underpinning - by arguing that a fetus at 3 weeks is more like an animal of plant in complexity. But with the lack of any substantial details to these points, I would be handing too much to pro to award him the points.
I defeated Our Boat is Right in a debate so I would know how to judge a debate better than him.
Our Boat is Right was pretty good at debating on DDO. I don't know what happened to him that caused his rating to be so low.
I don't think your rating classifies you as a "top debater" so what would you know?
alec just shredded u
I'll accept defeat, I'm not going to lose 3 times to a kid, my score is too low
Okay.
maybe later
Do you want a rematch?
I know! wtf
If it wasn't for that vote, we would have tied.
This debate result is BS, makes no sense at all, my opponent shouldn't have won just because my answers are more concise!