Total votes: 2
Okay. I was not a fan of this debate, at all. I am not going to award sources, or grammar, as they both pretty well were relevant to what was being relied upon. Pro had ground to make, Con didn't really -have- to do anything, argumentation wise.
I am not going to award conduct, because frankly "Wow, neither conduct was great" isn't present.
I was able to understand the instigator's concept. A fertilized egg was now a person/human being/human. This, however was challenged in the legal forum in which currently it doesn't hold. What I wanted was a convincing argument as to why I should consider (as Con relates through Sophie's Choice hypothetical), why is the batch of fertilized and frozen embryos panned? I know I did a little moral calculus and determined I am rushing the day care to save kids. I don't know if most would, regarding asking for a citation, but that is the measure of a convincing argument. I think Con did a lot to answer questions (some efforts in good faith, some in the interest of at least ham-fisting what was already believed to be answered), but that hypothetical I feel was a lynch pin in the moral framework that Pro wanted to build. It was avoided.
What I also wanted was an internally consistent argument if it insists upon itself to be true, that being outlawing abortion is not slavery.
This is real tough to reconcile, as Con pointed out:
"If a woman chooses to have unprotective sex, she should recognize she is taking on responsibility if pregnancy occurs."
"I never said a woman's choice is irrelevant in controlling her body."
"Agreed, rape is wrong, yet killing the innocent unborn because of rape is not justifiable. It adds another injustice."
Simplified:
A woman accepts responsibility for pregnancy if she chooses sex.
A woman can control their body.
A woman cannot terminate a pregnancy (control her body) she didn't accept responsibility or choose sex.
... but its not slavery? Um...
This collection of terms unequivocally states that a woman on the matter of carrying a child has no rights. Indeed, she is obligated to carry to term a child she has no desire for, no responsibility in creating, compounding the usurpation of autonomy she already lost. IE, no, she is not allowed to control her body. Were all people to be created equal, this to doesn't hold.
All that said, I feel this debate was mostly to people eloquently talking past each other. Pro insisted on something with no reason given as to why, repeated the same questions which I feel were answered. Con clearly was not interested in a philosophical debate on the nature of man, and it showed even though I think that is what Pro was initially auguring for but wasn't clear on.
... I hate to say it, but I am really not convinced by either series of arguments.
Pro flat out ignored what bodily autonomy was in favor of something that has no autonomy, all the while saying that some -other- (presumably the state) body needs to have sway over what constitutes a threat, as well as usurping said autonomy when (ironically) the case of rape usurps the autonomy of the rape victim. Its a double whammy that is supposed to come out as a moral "win". Quite literally its 2 wrongs that are supposed to make a right. That moral calculus to me simply fails, though it is circumstance dependent.
Conversely, on the notion of what the unborn constitute as far as rights go, Con never really put up a reasonable front as to why various stages of the unborn should or should not have certain rights. What specifically entreats the unborn to a new set of rights simply by having completed its travel down the birth canal? Arguably, the biological creature is no different having completed that journey, though I am being led to believe it now was a different value set. I am left unsatisfied, as forced abortion would just as equally have no merit, or a crime in which an expectant mother loses their developing offspring has no recourse (morally).
Source wise, while I don't appreciate "here are a whole bunch of list quotes I expect you to read via link as part of my argument (some how...)", this was limited in scope, and those sources that were presented on behalf of pro historically painted a fantastic appeal to emotion. Reliable? Sure. Well used? Yup, though I think they were used more to paint a picture about an appeal to emotion than solidify a winning moral calculus.
Sorry, debateurs. I am still on the fence.