Hello everyone. I thank the instigator for instigating this issue: the one I always want to make my voice heard. It is a beautiful opportunity for me.
INTRODUCTION:
The resolution of the debate is "Induced abortions should be controlled." By that, as seen from the debate description, PRO means that "abortions should have tighter laws and regulations and not be used as a form of birth control." I oppose his contention. It is OK for me to confront him in 2 different ways:
- Argue against him about induced abortions only.
- Argue against him for all kinds of abortions.
I am going to go with the 2nd way: My position is that no abortion should be restricted in anyway by someone other than the bearer (e.g. mother) and his partner. My position is that only biological mother and her partner shall have voice to decide the fate of the fetus. Thus, when I demonstratemy case, it will naturally follow that induced abortions should also be not restricted or controlled in anyway other than the fetus bearer and her partner. However, this debate is not about abortions in general. Thus, PRO does not need to argue against abortion in general but arguing about induced abortions only is sufficient.
ARGUMENTS/REBUTTALS:
ABORTION, MORALITY AND REASON:
The main argument for abortion is that it is the woman who shall decide it: the woman will choose to maintain assisting the fetus that is inside her or not to assist. It is her body, not public body, not common or mutual body of the society. Thus, it can not be decided by nation-wide referendum.
PRO argued that abortion is morally wrong. I protest: not at all. I paraphrase PRO's 2 aspects for this as such:
1. "Life begins at conception."
2. "Unwanted pregnancy could have been prevented."
By this, we see that he not only does not understand how law works but he does not understand the issue as well. PRO does not understand how law works and should work: Human rights belong to humans that are already born, not yet-to-be born. In law, It is called Natural Personhood. [1]. Natural Personhood as acquired upon birth, not before and lost upon death.[2] It is a basic common knowledge in law. Both by law and by logic, fetus does not have human rights.
It is not matter of when life begins but matter of if woman is a slave of a fetus: women are not slaves that have to serve others so that others can survive. Simply put, as long as women are not considered slaves, there can be no argument against abortion. Thus, I see no need to address the disputation on whether a fetus is life or not. Even if we assume that fetus is life or even a human, it has no rights, let alone over-lapping and suppressing rights of another human, a woman that bears it.
Fetus being a life or not is irrevelevant: a parasite is a life but when they are burden to a human's body, we simply kick them out. Does PRO argue that parasites should be protected under the law because they are "life"? As thus, being life does not necessitate a woman to be their slave. Do we force women to maintain parasites in their bodies?
There was 3rd aspect by PRO: biblical. At the end, he indirectly acknowledges that bible is not a binding authority at least for both sides:
"even if you're not a bible thumper how immoral and wrong uncontrolled abortions are especially when there are other morally acceptable options such as adoption or abstinence. "
Morally speaking, ejaculating sperm into a clothet is no different than abortion: both carry potential to eventually become a human, a natural person protected by the laws. Carrying potential does not make it immoral. In contrast, many animals like cats and dogs are protected by law under sections like "animal rights" or "non-human rights" yet parasites are not procted despite being life. Thus, it entails that fetus having potential for life or humanhood does not entail any kind of moral wrongness.
ABORTION AND ECONOMY:
PRO brings up economic costs of abortion but he does not elaborate his point. Does PRO argue that "Abortion should be partially restricted because it has tremendous cost." - I see it as non-sequitor if it is what he means: video gaming, football (soccer) etc all have expenses on economy. Does that mean all of them should be banned/controlled? As long as the consumer pays the costs, financial cost alone is not a valid reason to ban something. If what he means is abortions should not be paid by taxes/government spending, I agree with that: none of the medical operations should be paid by taxes. I support free market economy even at health sectors.
PRO raises another aspect in this section: to raise birthrates. But it is reductio ad absurdum case: a woman is not obligated to give birth, to raise birthrates.Some people, especially catholic monks, do not reproduce for religious reasons, should we force them to reproduce so that birth rates go up? Do we force them to reproduce? Does PRO argue those catholic priests should be forced to reproduce? If not, why women? Some abstain from reproducing for philosophical reasons, which we call anti-natalism.[3] Do we force antinatalists to reproduce? Why women, then?
ABORTION'S HEALTH RELATED HARMS:
PRO argues that abortion yields both psychological and physiological harms. Then, he argues that is the reason induced abortions should be controlled. Again, this aspect is also reductio ad absurdum and cherry picking: There are dozens of studies highlighting how cheering for a football/soccer club yielding harm[4] as well as physically permanents damages, which we call hooliganism[5]. Cited study emphasizes that "Hardcore football fans experience intense levels of physical stress during matches." Now, by PRO's reasoning, we would have to ban cheering for football clubs, ban football because it yields stress. Reality does not work in the way PRO tries to manipulate us when it comes to abortion. Do we ban football because it brings not only psychological harm but hooliganism as well? But then why would the same non-sequitor have to be accepted valid when it comes to women while it is not working for men?
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I believe I have successfully addressed PRO's case, demonstrated that they are invalid, unrelated or a misunderstanding. I not only argued against restricting induced abortions but abortions in general, which includes induced ones as well. I look forward to hear more.
REFERENCES:
no no. it is not matter of winning or losing. When it comes to conduct only, person feels underestimed, un-appreciated. That was why
If you want me to revote, I can do that. I don't know why you particularly care about the amount of points you're getting, though. I can practically guarantee you won't lose this debate.
I did not ask to be given all points (on the basis of forfeits). Rather, I even asked the readers to NOT penalize PRO for his forfeitures. What I talked of in my previous comment was to elaborate why I think I deserved more. You could still vote beyond conduct. PRO put forth some arguments, I believe I have successfully rebutted them and I believe I have successfully countered and refuted them.
BUT what you meant was "I did not read the debate. Just voted based on the policy." Then that is different.
If otherwise, here are some for example:
* The clearest one is the clash on abortion and economy: Pro was not clear, I highlighted it and countered even football has such costs.
* life and potential: Pro argued fetus is life, I argued even parasytes have life but people are not forced to maintain parasytes.
* bible issue: I pointed out bible is not binding as initially acknowledged by PRO himself. Then he still insisted, I pointed out bible does not talk of terminating pregnancy.
Pls delete my vote, I meant to give one point to con
I can't speak for 21Pilots, but as for me, I was simply following the voting policy. If someone forfeits every round, or every round except the first, then you are allowed to award all the points to the other side on the basis of "full forfeiture". In this case, Pro did provide arguments for two rounds at least, so this doesn't apply. However, the voting policy still allows you to not award argument points if one side forfeits 40% or more of the debate. This is why I voted based on conduct alone. No sense writing out a whole detailed vote on a debate where the one with the BoP missed the majority of it.
Hello guys. While I appreciate your spending time for reading and voting, I can not believe you gave tie votes for arguments and legibility.
To the debate, I have introduced the legal personhood argument, bodyly autonomy (though not verbatimly), a parasite analogy that rebutted "fetus is a life" argument,. Then for legibility, PRO did not make it clear what his point was on "taxes and costs" issue even though I emphasized it in the first round, he was still unclear in the second round.
21Pilots even gave shared point on "conduct" as well. Pro was saying things like "con loves red herrings."
All in all, I believe I deserved more and you maybe unconsciously biased.
I accept the challenge. I wish good luck
Do you have any limits regarding the stage the pregnancy is at?
It looks like the debate is restricted to elective abortion. Is that assumption correct.