Instigator / Pro
4
1491
rating
10
debates
45.0%
won
Topic
#925

Abortion

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
3
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1

After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

Our_Boat_is_Right
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
7
1500
rating
16
debates
40.63%
won
Description

As pro, I take the stand as pro choice. The timeframe of possible abortion should be a time when the baby is not alive, but is confirmed as a fetus in early development. Abortion should be safe and legal in all states, for all reasons, and the final choice should come down to a point that will be specified in my arguments.

-->
@Christen

Honestly, I probably won't, I'm pretty busy irl so I'll be very inactive during summer it looks like.

And to be frank, I don't like abortion debates.

They're oversaturated and both sides use the same boring arguments.

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
@Pinkfreud08

The contender here is probably just going to go, "but what if person A isn't sentient or person B is mentality deficient, do we kill them????"

Right now I can't vote cause I didn't fulfill all of the tedious requirements, but you can, so do you agree with instigator or contender?

If it were up to me, I guess I would:

Give arguments to instigator (both sides had strong arguments, but the instigator provided more strong arguments than the contender did, even though the instigator was drawing false lines at things)

Tie sources (although I recommend that the instigator avoid using nylon.com as a source, simply because it loaded with dozens of ads, pop-ups, fancy pictures, and links to purchase shoes, glasses, t-shirts, and other lame products, all of which can slow down certain peoples' browsers and computers; if it wasn't for my adblock plus, my computer probably would have frozen and/or crashed)

Tie spelling/grammar ('cause let's be honest, most people who vote aren't going to waste time checking every single sentence for a spelling error anyways, and vote moderators aren't going to waste time checking hundreds if not thousands of words and sentences to see if there is a spelling error)

Give conduct to contender (because like I said, instigator kept trying to draw false lines over and over for no reason, prompting the contender to keep applying it to live people, thus making the debate go nowhere)

I generally don't even like debates on whether or not abortion is "morally okay" because it just leads nowhere, and both sides of the debated get frustrated with each other.

-->
@Christen

The " take away valuable trait so I can kill you" argument is very weak and has a very simple way to get around it.

Non-Sentient beings are essentially property.

This is why houses since they aren't sentient, don't have moral consideration.

However, if you destroy someone's house than their well being is affected.

Applied to this scenario, if the person was in a coma then it is the decision of their family members or spouse to decide their fate.

Another example would be the intelligence trait.

Mentally deficient people aren't intelligent, therefore they don't have moral consideration.

However, if you kill a child who is mentally deficient the parents well being is affected.

I believe Ben Shapiro explains it best, in this short video where he debates with a university kid on abortion.

https://youtu.be/PbNYOyPRpgg?t=23

"The real question is where do you draw the line? You gonna draw the line at the heartbeat? Because it's very hard to draw the line at the heartbeat. There are people who are adults who are alive because of a pacemaker and they need some sort of outside force generating their heartbeat. You gonna do it based on brain function? Okay, well what about people who are in a coma? Should we just kill them. The problem is, anytime you draw any line other than the inception of the child, you end up a drawing a false line that can also be applied to people who are adults."

Here the college student argues "I believe that sentient is what gives something moral value" and then Ben Shapiro responds with "When you're asleep can I stab you?" followed by "If you are in a coma from which you may awake, can I stab you?" followed by "You know what else is potential sentient? Being a fetus". Here, the college student realizes that he has failed to draw a proper line at the sentient of a baby, so he then tries to draw a new line at the level of burden that a fetus presents, which also fails.

Looking at this video, and then looking back at your arguments and the contender's arguments, we can see how you keep drawing lines at different parts, the same way that this college kid draws lines at different parts. The contender just keeps taking it and applying to something else. When it fails, you keep doing it over again, so the contender just refutes it again the same way.

You don't want to make the same mistake that this college kid makes. I also recommend that you keep your religious affiliations out of all debates, unless the debate specifically has to do with religion. The contender even made it clear that he does not debate from religious standpoints.

This debate is anyone's game. I can't wait to see the outcome.

Now I think the instigator did some things wrong too. One main piece of advice I would give the instigator is, be careful when using arguments like:
1) A person who has a life worth living has somebody who loves them/ takes the responsibility to care for them
2) My definition of functions independently is this: Their skin is exposed to air and light, they take in nutrients through their mouth (Primarily), and they expel waste by themselves.
3) Fetuses that are aborted don't have XYZ
When you make arguments like these, you actually make the whole debate harder for yourself because your arguments went something like this:
"A fetus doesn't count as a person because a fetus lacks X"
then the opponent simply goes "but a person A lacks X too, so should we kill person A simply because they lack X?"
then you would say "but a fetus also lacks Y"
then the opponent simply goes "but person B lacks Y as well, so should be kill person B?"
"well, yes, but a fetus also lacks this and that"
"but person C lacks this and that too!"
This kind of interaction would go on back and forth, and would get nowhere.

Like, you would say "A person who has a life worth living has somebody who loves them/ takes the responsibility to care for them, a person who has breathed by their own will" and the opponent responds "What about people on breathing machines? Should we kill them?" then you respond "People on breathing machines have memories, people who love them/ want them, and their own thoughts. It is the same thing for the argument about a person in a coma." and then the opponent goes "What if someone was in a coma and will wake up with amnesia, they also have to have breathing machine when they wake up to live, and their parents ditch them so they don't have people who love him."

See what I mean? Sometimes it's better to simply drop/abandon arguments like these that lead nowhere, shift gears, and focus on different and stronger arguments.

I think both sides could have debated this better. I'll start by responding to a couple of the contender's arguments from the last round.

"First off, rape is a very minute percentage of births so using that as an argument is deceiving."
So what if it's a small percentage? That doesn't mean that a woman who was raped shouldn't have an abortion simply because they are within that small percentage.

"There are plenty of children who are born who are unwanted, so do we kill all of them?"
Depends if it's legal or not and what laws that the area has. Some areas ban it outright, while other areas allow it during specific times and/or circumstances, as explained in this article. https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/overview-abortion-laws

"Who says the small children won't live a productive life? Perhaps some won't, but then you are also murdering the kids that will."
I don't think the mother is going to concern herself with whether or not the baby will live a productive life. She just wants to get rid of a baby that she doesn't want.

"Conclusion I have proven abortion is murder and it is wrong to end someone's life through murder, no matter what stage of life they are in."
The definition of murder, according to google: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. The key word here, is unlawful. In other words, it doesn't count as actual murder if it is lawful and legal. I agree that it is wrong to murder, but as far as I can tell, abortion doesn't actually count as that. It's better to simply that you don't like killing babies no matter what stage of life they are in.

I'm not trying to convince the contender that abortion is okay. I believe that people should look at any upsides and downsides to abortion and then make their own judgement. I'm just responding to a few of these arguments that I find very weak.

-->
@Bazza97125

Get removed my guy lol

-->
@Bazza97125

*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Bazza97125 // Mod Action: Removed

Points awarded: 2 points to pro for source, 1 point to con for s/g

RFD: Con is cool

Reason for mod action: In order to be eligible to vote, Accounts must have read the site's COC AND completed at least 2 non-troll debates without any forfeits OR posted 100 forum posts

The voter should review the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
The voter should also review this: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346?page=1&post_number=4
*******************************************************************

-->
@Bazza97125

this isnt ddo my guy lol

-->
@David

llolololol

-->
@Debaticus

uno reverse card

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

No U

-->
@Debaticus

buttface

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

Oh I see it, nevermind

-->
@Debaticus

I also responded to the sheep ball argument. I refuted both. Stop making arguments in the comments.

I want to point out that Con cherry picked my argument in the third round. I said:

"For people to learn this, they would've had to monitor a baby as it was being aborted, which would probably be more evil than the abortion itself. "

then followed it with:

"But in the spirit of the argument, I will also refute this. "

and gave my rebuttal.

Con only provided rebuttal for the first quote, and ignored the rest.

(Vote Pro)

-->
@Debaticus

I will try, but I can't promise I will be able to make one in time with finals and everything.

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

One day left

-->
@GuitarSlinger

By conscious, I mean it is able to manipulate itself (to a degree), and has instinctual but complex reactions to things.

Measuring brain activity is a primary way to tell if they have thoughts, and memories start to be formed and stick around 3-4 (Not that that means you can kill one after birth)

By function independently, I did not get my point across correctly. What I meant by that was a series of things (that I learned in bio) such as:
* Skin starts to harden and protect against light dust.
* Eyes gain clarity and can learn to recognize environments.
* Cardio-respiratory cycle runs on its own accord.
* Skeleton protects and reinforces child's brain and body
* Intestinal tract works, food is taken in through the mouth, processed, and defecated through the rear.

So thank you for the recommendation, but these things are definitely necessary for a child to be alive and growing for more than a couple minutes.

"A baby left on the delivery table will die if not fed by another human."
And a 10 year old will starve if left on the streets by their parents. We aren't completely self sufficient for the first 25 YEARS of our life, but we don't need to be protected with a second layer of skin and bone just to not die.

-->
@Debaticus

Thanks for clarifying. Might I ask for more clarification?

1) What do you mean, exactly, by "conscious"?
2) How can you now for certain (without a doubt) that a being has thoughts/memories?

I think I won't ask about the "function independently". I don't believe that is a requirement for being "alive". A newborn baby can only breathe on it's own (and it even needs help to start doing THAT!)-- a baby left on the delivery table will die if not fed by another human. So I would cross "function independently" off your "evidence it's alive" list....

-->
@GuitarSlinger

You did get me there. I see where I contradicted myself. I believe, for clarification, that it would be you'd have to have at least one of those things to be alive, because things that aren't alive (At least in this sense, ignoring the actual 9 or so things you need for your species to be classified as alive) have none of them.

-->
@Debaticus

Curious, must all 3 things be present in order to be classified as "alive"

a) You are conscious (24-28 weeks) in the womb
b) function independently (breathe and take in nutrients)
c) Have thoughts/memories

Is it "You must have all 3 in order to be alive" or is it "If you have at least 1 to be alive?"

-->
@GuitarSlinger
@Dr.Franklin

For Dr Franklin, it would be punishing the woman for forcing her to have a baby from sex she didn't consent to, rather than avoiding punishing something that isn't yet a human being.

For guitar slinger, leaving the baby to die is infanticide, and I stated in my first argument that it is different from abortion. Also, the entire purpose of abortion is for couples that really don't want the child do prevent it from being born, not for couples who are on the fence long enough for the child to be born. I am not basing the right to life entirely on someone who loves them. As stated in my arguments, you are classified as alive when you are conscious (24-28 weeks in the womb), function independently (breathe and take nutrients), and have had thoughts/ memories. If a person has none of these things, either they are not alive or don't have reason to live. I bring the same thing to a hypothetical person outside the womb. If they were born brain-dead, require machines for all functions to stay alive, and have nobody willing to pay their medical bills or even visit them, they will be considered non-valuable. A living corpse, basically. In this case, even the hospitals would find it easier to pull the plug, with the final nail (Not the entire reason, just the last one) being that nobody loves or wants them.

Sorry for confusing formatting, couldn't find a good spot for a paragraph break.

-->
@Debaticus

Your argument is based on a lot of assumptions, and you conveniently use different words in effort to keep the person in the womb totally different from the person outside the womb, and not eligible for any rights that the person outside the womb has.

So you are basing the right to life simply on the fact that the person outside the womb has someone to love them, whereas the fetus doesn't? So if a baby is born, and yet it's parent do not love it (or want it), are you ok with that baby just being left to die? Choose your answer carefully, You say that fetuses that aren't aborted have someone that will care for them, etc. However, if a baby doesn't have someone to care for it are you ok with it being left to die?

-->
@Debaticus

Why are we punishing the baby.

-->
@Dr.Franklin

And that means 1% are, so it should be granted to those cases.

99% of abortions are not rape cases

Hopefully you get a non-troll contender...