EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum
Views:
5076

Voluntary abortion should be legal.

(PRO)
0 points
(CON)
WINNER!
9 points
ArcTimesArcTimes (PRO)
Introduction

I thank my opponent, zschmoll for accepting my first debate on this site on this controversial topic.
I will use this round to present my argument for the legalization of voluntary abortion.
I remind everyone that I posted the definitions in the rules.

Arguments

1. The bodily rights' argument

I consider this to be the best argument for the legalization of voluntary abortion because it excludes irrelevant little discussions that tend to be ambiguous around the debate.
The bodily rights argument states that the violation of the woman's bodily rights is unethical and intrusive.
Legal and safe abortions ensures these rights giving women an option to control their bodies.
This argument alone is enough to prove that voluntary abortions should be legal.

My body equals my choice

-The bodily integrity


This is the inviolability of the physical body and gives huge importance to the control and self determination of the own body.
This is related to the debate of abortion because illegal abortion would mean that women are forced to continue their pregnancies and deliver the child.
In other words, women have to donate their womb for 8-9 months even if they don't want to.
This is against their bodily rights and the concept of bodily integrity.
very woman has the right to chose what to do with her body and have others respect this bodily autonomy.

-Abortion as a reproductive right

Reproductive and sexual rights are heavily related to the bodily rights because it helps ensure the control of the body related to reproduction. Women are able to decide the number, spacing and timing of their children.
If abortion is illegal, women would be deprived of these rights that are fundamental in a modern society.

-Beginning of life or personhood is irrelevant to the debate

The beginning of life and/or personhood is definitely an interesting
topic that is as controversial as this debate, but it is not relevant
because the bodily rights should be respected, "even" by alive persons.
This is important to note because this is a part of a common argument against abortion and the ability to choose and control the woman's own body.

We can hypothetically replace the fetus for an adult and alive human being. No one should be forced to donate his body to this person, even if his live is in danger. In other words women should not be forced to continue a pregnancy
(donate her womb) to the fetus, even if this is alive/human/person.

For this reason the argument of life and personhood is irrelevant to the discussion of legalization of abortion and there is no need to suffer trying to answer these questions that have no exact answer in science.

Where does life being?

-Parental responsibility is irrelevant to the debate

This is another common argument against the legalization of abortion.
It attacks the idea of bodily rights implying that the woman has parental responsibility for the fetus.
This begs the question because this assumes exactly what's trying to prove.

At the end, abortion is a way a woman abdicate her parental rights and take responsibility of her actions and the situation she is in.
For that reason, parental responsibility is also irrelevant to the debate.

2. Making voluntary abortion makes the procedure safer

This is just a plus to the last argument to show that there is no reason for abortion to be illegal.
Abortion is a safe medical procedure if it's done properly.
This can only be ensured if abortion is legal.

-Illegal abortion won't stop abortions

Women  try to get abortions, even if this is illegal. For example, abortion  used to be illegal in the US. Untrained "doctors" and conditions without  medical standards were common characteristics of illegal abortion.  Inducing own abortions were common too.

This conditions didn't stop women to get these abortions.
Estimates of the number of illegal abortions in the 1950s and 1960s ranged from 200,000 to 1.2 million per year only in the US. [1]

Never again

-Making abortion illegal endangers women's health

Making abortion illegal is a barrier to accessing safe abortion services and endangers women's health.
Before making abortion legal an estimate of 5000 women died each year because of unsafe abortions in United States only [2]
Illegal abortion is still the leading cause of maternal death. 47000 women die each year because of this around the world. [3]

Banning abortion endangers women's health

-Surgical abortion is a safe medical procedure

When abortion is practiced by a trained person, the procedure is safe with little to no risk.
Specially compared to procedures in countries where abortion is illegal.
It's complications are less serious than those related to giving birth. [4]

Conclusion

Pro has presented a compelling case for the legalization of Voluntary abortion.
The arguments were related to the bodily integrity of women and the safety of abortion in the world.

I await for Con's rebuttals and arguments.

Thanks. Vote PRO.

Sources

1. Lessons from Before Roe: Will past be Prologue?
2. The World Health Report: Making pregnancy safer. Chapter 3
3. World Health Organization: Unsafe Abortions. Sixth Edition.
4. Abortion Safer than giving Birth: Study.

Return To Top | Posted:
2014-07-23 05:43:23
| Speak Round
zschmollzschmoll (CON)

I also want to thank my opponent for opening up our debate and for being willing to engage on what is definitely one of the biggest controversies in the marketplace of ideas today.

I am going to begin by addressing my opponent’s arguments point by point, and I will conclude with a positive case as to why voluntary abortion should be illegal.

My opponent opens with the bodily rights argument. It is summarized as follows: “The bodily rights argument states that the violation of the woman's bodily rights is unethical and intrusive.” Essentially, this position is articulated by the image below which states “My body equals my choice.”

This advances into a discussion of how it is not to force women to “donate” their bodies for eight or nine months if they don’t want to. This progresses into how abortion is a reproductive right. Women have the choice to decide whenever they want to have their children, and my opponent argues that if abortion is made illegal, women do not have that choice whatsoever.

I’m going to begin my rebuttal of this series by starting at the end and working to the beginning. Abortion as a reproductive right is entirely a false dilemma. I don’t see how abortion is the only way that women can be guaranteed the right to have children at the time they want to. One obvious example is the birth control pill. It allows for family planning, and it would not be made illegal if abortion was illegal. It is not as if reproductive rights all of a sudden disappear without abortion. Women can certainly have the rights you mention without this medical procedure.

Still working backwards, we come to this argument of women donating their bodies for eight or nine months perhaps unwillingly. This falls under the argument that it is her right to choose what she does with her own body. My opponent was clever in trying to avoid the entire discussion of personhood. By avoiding that, it sets up the child as just another part of the mother’s body like an appendix that can be harmlessly removed. However, this seems a bit ridiculous if the infant is indeed a person which I will be arguing in my positive case. If the infant is a person, then he or she certainly has rights to life which need to be evaluated relative to the rights of the mother. Removing a person is not like removing a body part.

Finally, we come to this argument of “My body equals my choice.” Apparently this is a fundamental right of human beings, so if a child in the womb is indeed a human being, why is someone else’s choice being imposed on his or her body? Again, I will talk about this more in my positive case, but I wanted to add a little bit of refutation immediately so that point.

I am not going to address the parental responsibility argument that my opponent mentions, but I would argue that there is a human responsibility. If indeed the unborn child is a person, then there is a responsibility not to kill that person. That is why nearly every society in the history of the world has prohibited murder. We do not kill people just because we want to. If unborn children are truly people, then it seems that there is some type of human understanding that we simply don’t do that. CS Lewis called it the Tao in The Abolition of Man, and I would hope that we can agree that murder is wrong. We are debating whether or not the unborn child is indeed a person, but I would hope that we are not debating that murder is wrong, and if the unborn child is a person, then it logically follows that killing that child is wrong just like murder is wrong.

My opponent and then moves on to argue that abortion is a safe medical procedure, so there is no reason that it should be prohibited on those grounds. It is not safe for the child however, and if that child is indeed a person, then it could be the safest procedure in the world for the mother, but it still ought to be illegal just like murder is illegal. This entire section of this argument will be irrelevant once it is established that unborn children are indeed people.

I want to now proceed to my positive case regarding why voluntary abortion should be illegal. As you have noticed in my rebuttals above, most of these arguments simply fall apart if it can be proven that the unborn child is indeed a person. So to be in my discussion, we need to define what a person is.

I want to begin with something that I believe we all agree to. People are the individual entities of the human race. Two-month-old babies are people. Rebellious teenagers are people. Middle-aged factory workers are people. 97-year-olds in nursing homes are people. My job is to demonstrate that an unborn child can be considered as much of a person as any of these examples.

On the surface, I don’t know why this is a debate. They have all the building blocks to become people written in DNA, and if nature is allowed to develop as it has throughout history, they will continually mature into a much more complex creatures. The process of becoming human has to start somewhere, and conception seems like the most logical place for that to happen. You can’t get more fundamental than those original two cells.

Now, I want to handle some objections to the personhood of unborn children as I have established above. For example, are unborn children not people because of their size? After all, a baby begins as two cells joined together at fertilization. That is pretty small and perhaps insignificant. However, is it not a person?

Let me ask you this. I am 5’1” tall. My best friend is 6’4” tall. Am I less of a person simply because of my size? Absolutely not, so I don’t believe the argument holds that simply because something is two cells decreases the fact that it is a person.

How about the level of development? Again, say that a cell has just been fertilized. It is not developed enough yet to viably survive on its own, so it must not be a person according to my opponent. However, let me ask you this. The day after a baby is born, it is certainly not fully developed. However, if you kill that child, it would be infanticide and considered murder. We don’t consider babies outside the womb less human because they are at an early level of development, so why does that automatically stop while they are in the womb?

Is it simply location that matters? I don’t understand how that works. I was born at 11:55 at night. Was I not a person at 11:54, but I became one at 11:55? All that theoretically changed within that time period was my physical location. Location doesn’t seem to be a valid reason to deny personhood.

However, how about my opponent’s assertion that the woman should not be required to have a child be dependent on her for nine months if she doesn’t want to. We don’t use dependency anywhere else to evaluate whether or not someone is a person, so why do we apply that to the unborn? If you are 95 and are unfortunately stricken with Alzheimer’s disease, you don’t stop becoming a person simply because you need more help with your everyday life than you previously did. Similarly, infants are not denied personhood simply because they cannot feed themselves immediately. Why does it matter if you are dependent on someone?

It doesn’t seem to logically make sense that any of these criteria deny the personhood of the unborn child, and it is not rocket science to figure out that these kind of things start at the beginning. That means we are left with a contradiction. If the unborn child is a person, and if we believe that it is...


Return To Top | Posted:
2014-07-23 15:35:05
| Speak Round
Cross-Examination
ArcTimes: In the introduction of your round you mentioned your case was positive as to why voluntary abortion should be illegal. Does it mean that you don't make any exceptions?
ArcTimes: Like rape or when the health of the woman is in danger?
zschmoll: Those are two separate cases. In the case of rape, wouldn't the criminal deserve to be the one punished? We put him in jail, but why should we blame the baby for the crime? That shouldn't be an exception if the baby indeed has the rights of a person as I
zschmoll: argued previously. In regards to the health of the mother, can you show me a situation where abortion was the only way to save the life of the mother?
zschmoll: Question for you: are there any situations where we should limit access to abortion?
ArcTimes: To the first question, cases where the woman has high blood pressure in pulmonary can lead to death in the moment of birth. There are also cases where both could die. The point is that those are cases where the woman can't survive the birth or the health
ArcTimes: To the second question. That's a tricky question. Probably in cases where the woman is brain dead but connected to life support. She doesn't have to worry about her bodily rights anymore. And thanks to life support, the fetus can survive and born.
ArcTimes: Question: What should be the punishment for abortion if this was illegal?
zschmoll: Well, then to respond to the first question. The doctor has an obligation to provide the best treatment possible and try to preserve both lives. Unfortunately, people do occasionally die despite the best efforts of the doctor, so if the infant died during
zschmoll: a treatment, it would be incredibly sad, but unfortunately it happens in medicine. Death during treatment is different than abortion.
zschmoll: To the second question: what about aborting a child simply because it has a disability? The woman was planning on having the child until she discovered that
zschmoll: If abortion is killing a person, then the penalty ought to be just like killing any other person which would be a murder sentence. My entire argument bases on consistency
ArcTimes: I actually just made one question, but that's fine. Aborting a child "simply" because it has disabilities is a discussion of morality. It has good reasons for both cases. A better question for your position is those who abort the fetus just because it is
ArcTimes: Question: How can you differentiate a case of induced abortion from home with a miscarriage? What's your system? Investigate every case of abortion, including those which are not voluntary? Here you need to provide a good system to provide those punishmen
ArcTimes: Opps, my second answer is in half. Second half. A better question would be about those who abort a fetus just because it is gay. I believe it's inmoral, but the rights are still there.
ArcTimes: You should not be forced to donate your body to anyone (even if it's just because you don't like them). It's selfish, but it's part of necessary rights.
zschmoll: I'm sorry, but isn't this debate about morality on some level? If it is immoral or objectively wrong, shouldn't we ban abortion?
zschmoll: I don't think your question matters in the slightest. Just because I can't always tell that a crime was absolutely committed it doesn't mean that I can't have a law against that particular crime.
zschmoll: I want to follow up on your response then. Are you affirming then that the unborn child is indeed a person?
ArcTimes: Abortion is not inmoral per se. And my question matter because it shows how ridiculous it is to punish women for the abortions.
ArcTimes: About your question, I'm not affirming that the unborn is a person. Again, the personhood issue is irrelevant.
ArcTimes: Question: Should anyone be forced to donate their body, even if it was to save someone else?
zschmoll: If as I am contending the unborn child is a person, then the killing of that person is murder just like the killing of any other person is, and that is immoral.
zschmoll: The reason I said that your question was irrelevant is because why would we not investigate abortion? If it was a miscarriage, obviously it is natural and there is no punishment. If it was abortion and abortion was illegal, there would be a punishment.
zschmoll: Okay, if the personhood issue is irrelevant, then would you concede that the unborn child is a person? It apparently doesn't matter to your side of the debate
zschmoll: Answer: I would reply with a similar question. Should a person have to surrender their life because they are naturally dependent on someone else not by their own choice? It works both ways
ArcTimes: right now, we can only know there was a miscarriage if it happened in the hospital or if the woman told the doctors that. So she could be lying.
ArcTimes: Righ now that difference doesn't matter because there is no punishment. But if it was, investigation SHOULD be made. To see if the mother did a self voluntary abortion.
ArcTimes: I would concede that the fetus is a person, only for the sake of the debate related to the bodily right's argument. About security, I would like some discussion.
ArcTimes: Answering your question, if no one can or will donate your organs, then yes, and that's exactly what happens today. A lot of people die because there are no enough organs for them. And we can't just go and force people to do it.
ArcTimes: Question: Do you believe women that volunteer for abortions should be punished as a person that kills another? Yes or No?
zschmoll: Right, but we evaluate that kind of thing all the time in criminal court. Innocent until proven guilty. Obviously the burden of proof would be on the prosecution to prove an abortion took place
zschmoll: Okay, so given that concession, why is it okay to kill this person? That is what I addressed in my opening statement. You might need more time than this little sentences to address all four of my arguments, but perhaps you could rebut in speech 2
zschmoll: Okay, I agree that we can't force someone to give up their organs. Why should an unborn person give up life?
zschmoll: Answer: Yeah, I do. Since I am arguing that abortion is murder, the punishment would be equivalent with murder
ArcTimes: That's the point. But if abortion was illegal, a lot of abortions would still happen, and you believe those are murder. They should be investigated, and those "miscarriages"? Yeah, sure, we better believe them
ArcTimes: That's a really bad system. It's like if you knew that they are killing people doing X. Now ther is this person that is in the situation of X, but he says he is doing Y.
ArcTimes: And you just believe him because of the bad system.
ArcTimes: Abortion is defined as the termination of the pregnancy, and not the termination of the fetus. So abortion is not murder.
ArcTimes: The problem is that the only rights affected in an abortion is the woman's bodily rights.
ArcTimes: The rights of life of this fetus (implying it has all the rights of a person) are not affected by abortion.
ArcTimes: Question: How do you define murder? and how do you define abortion?
zschmoll: I don't see why that is a really bad system. Isn't it the same as any other tenant of our American justice system? We know that people are murdering people, and they often plead innocent. We put them on trial to find out
zschmoll: You are just playing word games. A pregnancy by definition is the process of having a person growing inside of a woman. A termination of a pregnancy is the termination of that process which means that person is terminated.
zschmoll: Therefore, a termination of that life violates the right to life of that child
zschmoll: Murder is "The killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during th
zschmoll: the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder) and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation"
zschmoll: I am fine with your definition of abortion as a termination of a pregnancy, but the woman is not the only one affected by that termination. The child is also aborted during and abortion
zschmoll: Finally, I think I have one last question for you for this stage of cross-examination. Tell me why you prioritize the right of the mother and her freedom above the right to life of the child. They are both people; how do you decide?
ArcTimes: About the definition of abortion. Abortion is the premature termination of a pregnancy that doesn't make the fetus dies everytime.
ArcTimes: There are late term abortions like c-sections and the child lives.
ArcTimes: About your question, the only rights affected by abortion are the rights of the woman. That's how I decide.
ArcTimes: Making abortion illegal is giving privileged rights to the fetus. The fetus has no right to use the body of the woman in the same way no person has.
ArcTimes: But the woman, of course.
ArcTimes: Question: Do you think donations after death should be compulsory?
ArcTimes: About the system, when we see indications of murder, we investigate them, in the case of abortion, that would be totally illogical.
zschmoll: I do not think in popular use anywhere that a C-section is considered equivalent to an abortion. Plus, I am proposing on the basis that it is murder. If the child does not die, that would not be prosecuted for murder.
zschmoll: Okay, but does the woman have the right to end the life of another person just because she decides she wants to? I don't see how the right to convenience or lifestyle overrides the right of another person to have a right to actually live.
zschmoll: In regards to donation, I assume you are talking about organ donations? Please explain why this is relevant to the conversation. I think I know where you are going, but I don't want to answer a question you really are not asking
zschmoll: Right, we investigate based on indications. I don't see why that is illogical whatsoever in this situation.
ArcTimes: Popular use? Tell me in what way the definition of abortion doesn't fit C-section. You can search for "popukar" medical sourcse and c-sections are considered late term abortions.
ArcTimes: No, the woman doesn't have the right to end the life of anyone else, but thankfully, abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, and not the termination of a person.
ArcTimes: Yes, organ donating. That one that you volunteer when receiving your license. It is not directly relevant, but I want to know.
ArcTimes: donation*
ArcTimes: I'm going to try to clarify this with a question: Should we investigate all cases that are supposed to be miscarries? They have signs of voluntary abortions.
zschmoll: Okay, so it then a natural childbirth considered abortion as well since it is the termination of a pregnancy? Again, voluntary abortion, choosing to terminate a pregnancy in a way that kills the child is murder.
zschmoll: You said yourself that you are admitting that the unborn child is a person. Would you not say that in the vast majority of abortions the child, agreed-upon as a person, is terminated a.k.a. dies?
zschmoll: My views on organ donation are irrelevant, and I want to stay focused on the topic. I don't want to chase down a rabbit trail and become distracted from what we are really talking about.
zschmoll: If someone accuses someone of murder, don't we investigate? If no one ever brings the accusation, we don't investigate. If no one brought an accusation of the crime I am proposing, why would we investigate?
ArcTimes: You need to volunteer to finish a pregnancy, BUT childbirth is not voluntary. And I added (premature) so you can see the difference
ArcTimes: and even if you don't want to consider the late term abortions, the early term abortion are not murder either
ArcTimes: Again, I'm not admitting anything. I can concede for the sake of the debate, but that question is dishonest.
ArcTimes: I just wanted to know about it. This is cross examination. You can argument and rebut in the debate rounds
ArcTimes: That's false. If someone murders a person that live alone, no one will probably notice. That case is investigated anyway.
ArcTimes: lived*
ArcTimes: Question: Should a parent be forced to donate his organs for his child? This question is relevant. I accept that the last one was not, but this one is.
zschmoll: First comment: But in essence, don't you choose to allow it to finish naturally?
zschmoll: How was my question dishonest? I was just referring back to what we had previously discussed and expanding on it.
zschmoll: Okay, I will answer that question even though I still don't feel it is particularly relevant. The difference here is allowing nature to take its course. Choosing to terminate a pregnancy is stopping what nature has began. Continued%u2026
zschmoll: Choosing to donate organs might be desirable or even moral, but we are not morally obligated to interfere with the natural order of things
ArcTimes: Again, you volunteer for the pregnancy, I agree there, but you can't chose to have a childbirth if you reach that point.
ArcTimes: And I find it dishonest because I never admitted that the fetus was a person. I said I conceded it because it was no necessary.
ArcTimes: You can assume that the fetus has all rights to make your arguments, but don't make questions implying that abortion is murder after I already gave reasons for the contrary.
ArcTimes: That argument of the "natural order" is really bad. If a person is dying, should we just let it die? Independently of the donations, we should not let people die because they are dying lol.
ArcTimes: My point is, abortion is similar to the case of donations. My first question about donations was not related to this though. It was because something I read on reddit, nevermind.
ArcTimes: But the second question is analogous to the case of abortion because people claim that the woman SHOULD donate her womb for 9 months.
ArcTimes: Question: I don't know what else to ask... What's your favorite color? Please don't dodge this one.
zschmoll: Well, since you hold the tough one until the end, teal :). I will use some of my rebuttal space to answer these final questions because I am going to bed, and I won't have time to respond when I
zschmoll: wake up before this is over haha

Return To Top | Speak Round
ArcTimesArcTimes (PRO)
Introduction

I thank Con for his rebuttals.
I will present my own rebuttals to show that voluntary abortion should be legal.

Rebuttals


1. Voluntary abortion as a reproductive right.

Con starts his rebuttals attacking my argument of reproductive rights. I never claimed that abortion was the only way a woman can be guarateed of these rights. I was comparing abortion legal with illegal. The only case women have these rights respected if abortion is legal instead of illegal.

One could also say that the pill Con's referring to in his rebuttal is not necessary because one has abstinence or condoms, but that's not how the rights work. One should give people their complete rights and considering consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy, abortion is needed.

2. The bodily rights' argument

My opponent addressed my main argument second. There is no problem with that. He claims that I'm trying to avoid the personhood discussin by implying that it's irrelevant. My opponent then claims that I think the fetus is just an appendix.

That's not how the argument works. I certainly don't think a fetus is a person per se, but I could give the fetus all the rights of a person and the argument would still stand. Now, he claims that he is going to argue that the fetus is a person and that would make him win the debate. That's false. I can to discuss the personhood of the fetus if he wants, but winning that discussion would not make him win the debate so I recommend him to drop the personhood discussion and address this argument as he had to do, and also the safety argument.

In my first round I mentioned that you could replace the fetus with an adult alive person, and it would not affect the argument. You cannot be forced to donate an organ, or your womb (in the case of abortion). And that's exactly what's happening with illegal abortions.
When the woman has no option of terminating her pregnancy, then she is forced to continue the pregnancy which is against her bodily rights. Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy, which means that she is "donating" her womb against her will. Now, this, of course, doesn't happen in all the pregnancy. A lot of woman volunteer to continue the pregnancy, those who want a child or children.

The rights of the fetus are not being affected by abortion which is the termination of a pregnancy. A fetus can have all the right to live. It just doesn't have the right to do it forcing donations of the woman.

3. Parental responsibility

Con states that he doesn't want to argue that there is parental responsibility, but that there is indeed a responsibility, human resopnsibility. Again his rebuttal depends on abortion being murder, which is not true and was already addressed in the first round.
I agree that murder is wrong, but abortion is not murder.

4. Safety

My opponent doesn't address any of my arguments here because he implies that abortion is murder which would make it wrong no matter what. I already addressed the problem, proved that abortion is not murder and I need Con to address the safety problems.

5. Argument of Con 1: Embryos/fetuses are people

As I stated in my arguments in the first round, this is not a problem. I didn't imply they were blobs or an appendix. I claimed they were irrelevant and explained properly why. But I don't have problems discussin personhood. It will just make Con's case weaker.

Now, I disagree to an extend that fetuses are people per se. They may become people while being fetuses, but this is an issue that can't be answered in science and I will show why.

First Con doesn't define what's an "unborn child", which begs the question if undefined. He claims that the process of becoming human starts somewhere and it's logical that it's conception.

A common and easy rebuttal to that argument is that identical twins develop from one zygote and splits in two embryos. [1] So zygotes can't be people.

Now, the reason I said science can't answer this question is because the life of a human being for science doesn't start in an exact point. Genetics agrees with Con, but the rest of science don't. Embryology shows the problem of Con's argument I already addressed with the identical twins paradox. And neurology, which is the one I agree with claims it start when the brain is completly developed and the fetus can feel pain.

Now you can see why I consider the discussion irrelevant. It's not possible to answer using science and doesn't affect the bodily rights' argument. We can discuss this all day, it will be a waste of time.

6. Argument of Con 2: More about personhood.

Now he attacks arguments I never used.
He attacks arguments of size and level of development.
I don't see any reasons to address these considering I didn't use them and I don't thin of using them.

He ends attacking a "dependancy argument" I never used.
He claims I used that argument in my bodily righs' argument, but that's false. I even stated that personhood is irrelevant. Why would I claim that dependancy makes something less a person.

The reason dependancy is important is because that's the only reason the fetus dies when doing an abortion. It's not the abortion itself. Abortion is not murder and it's not the termination of a fetus.

Conclusion

  • Abortion is nor murder. There is no reason to think abortion is murder, even if it was a person because abortion is not the termination of a fetus.
  • The bodily rights' argument doesn't depend on the personhood of the fetus.
  • The answer to the question "is the zygote/embryo/fetus a person?" has no exact answer in science.
  • Con was not able to rebut any of the arguments of Pro properly. He dodged all the arguments implying abortion is murder and that the fetus is a person which were addressed in the first round.

I thank Con for this round.

Vote Pro.


Sources

  1. 1. (Medical) Definition of Twin

Return To Top | Posted:
2014-07-29 04:48:01
| Speak Round
zschmollzschmoll (CON)

I want to thank my opponent for yet another thoughtful response and what you can tell was a very long cross-examination section.

Counter Rebuttals

1. That is a contradiction in regards to your first point. “I never claimed that abortion was the only way a woman can be guarateed [sic] of these rights,” and “The only case women have these rights respected if abortion is legal instead of illegal.” So you are not saying that the only way women can be guaranteed the right to true reproductive rights is through abortion, but the only way for women to have these rights respected is if they are allowed to have abortions? I guess I am not seeing the distinction between your two statements, but I hope your first one is where you stand because then we agree.

2. Unfortunately, I am not going to drop the person that argument of personhood as my opponent wants me to. I don’t understand why I should. Again, if I was to go out and kill a 39-year-old person, it could very well be murder (assuming it was premeditated and other things like that that the court of law demands to differentiate from manslaughter). Why is that a crime? It is a crime because I have taken the life of a person. I don’t get a murder sentence for killing a robot. Certainly, robots can function like humans in certain situations, but murder is purely a crime for killing people because indeed they are people. Consequently, what if a three month old child is a person? Why does it not make sense that the same penalty should apply to a premeditated, voluntary killing at any stage of life?

3 + 4. I still maintain that neither of these points matter. Of course, if an unborn child is a person, and if killing a person is murder, then killing an unborn child is murder. That is a simple logical proof, and the implication of that is that as a society, we punish murder in a certain way, and it is certainly illegal. I am arguing that our laws be made consistent. Murder is murder.

5. I would challenge very strongly that we don’t know when life begins. I don’t mean to argue from authority here, but first of all, please review the wide variety of scholars who believe that life begins at the minute those two cells come together.

https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

http://www.naapc.org/why-life-begins-at-conception/

I recognize that you will just write off the sources as “pro-life propaganda”, but I particularly tried to decide on websites that were cited and verifiable, so. Also, there are a variety of textbooks quoted on this list which have presumably been reviewed on their own by their own team of scientists. I would like to find scientific evidence to back up any claim you have.

You did mention this concept of identical twins not being separate until later on into two embryos. However, even before that split took place, I don’t see why that invalidates the point. Just because we don’t know that it isn’t going to divide into two people later on doesn’t mean it somehow is not a person. A good example of that is conjoined twins. They are individual people with separate personalities, but they are connected together physically. The embryology doesn’t make sense and certainly doesn’t trump the genetic argument.

I am curious. You stated that you believe in the neurological definition of when life begins, but I don’t believe that you actually do. Using that as a criteria of life beginning would be equivalent to saying that your life is over when you are in a coma because you cannot feel pain. It is murder to kill someone who is in a coma and similarly cannot feel pain, so if that is the criteria, then there is no question that abortion is murder and should also be illegal since nobody can seriously and consistently use this argument.

6. In regards to the examples I cited in the first round, I mainly just use them to eliminate potential arguments my opponent might have against the personhood of the unborn child (by the way, I define unborn as the time that the child is in the womb a.k.a. from fertilization to birth). It is too bad that my opponent will not use any of them, but I was just anticipating where the argument might go. It seems to be where many of these debates end up going.

Conclusion. I think that we need to look at the somewhat strange claims my opponent has made in this section.

1.  “There is no reason to think abortion is murder, even if it was a person because abortion is not the termination of a fetus.” My opponent attempted to run this argument in the cross-examination section. Basically, the main contention was that a cesarean section is technically an abortion because it is deciding to remove the child. This is purely a diversionary tactic to avoid the topic. If a person dies by the intentional and premeditated actions of another person, it is murder as defined by the law. Therefore, if the fetus is a person and if it dies through the process of abortion, then we have a murder on our hands. It is odd to say that it would not be a murder even if the unborn child was a person.

2.  That’s fine if you want to keep asserting that the bodily rights argument does not depend on the personhood of the unborn child. I am putting a value on an individual life. If the unborn child is a person, then if there is an abortion that ends the life of the child, that is the ultimate right. I am ultimately arguing a bodily rights argument as well I guess. Why does the developing body of the unborn child deserve to be violated and killed? Are there not bodily rights there is the unborn child is a person? It does come back to a personhood whether you want to or not. If the unborn child is a person, then why are they not bodily rights? It cuts both ways.

3.  The third point is blatantly false. Look at the science, and you will see I am right. The identical twin argument is again another diversion. Whether or not there is one or two potential lives there doesn’t discount that there is life there.

I of course thank my opponent for another statement, and I look forward to the final round of this cross-examination and debate.

PS: I said that I would address the final point of the cross-examination because I got tired and bailed out during that time. J

We were debating over organ donations and whether that is similar to abortion in the fact that the woman has to donate her body for nine months. In other words, should a parent be forced to donate organs to a child?

I am beginning by going back to my point in personhood. If they are analogous, then the unborn child must be as much of a person as a child who is born. I know that wasn’t your intention in asking this question, but again, you really seem to want to have this idea of personhood without admitting that the unborn child is a person with all the rights that you would give to the mother. If the fetus is not a person, and then I don’t know why we’re having this debate.

Anyway, here is how I would approach this question. The difference is still nature. In the abortion situation, the parents are actively interfering with the development of the child which has already been underway. In the case of organ donation, then we can preserve a life by taking action. You are trying to make terminating and preserving the same thing, and they really are not. The analogy is not nearly as tight ideas into think it is, and for that reason I still do not think this is relevant to our debate.


Return To Top | Posted:
2014-07-30 11:48:10
| Speak Round
Cross-Examination
ArcTimes: Do you believe that refusing to donate organs is killing another person?
zschmoll: I believe that allowing someone to die is different than actively killing someone who, without our intervention, would continue to grow and develop.
zschmoll: After all, the hypothetical disease is killing the person. I had nothing to do with that. Morally, I think that we should donate, but I just trying to illustrate the difference between the two situations
ArcTimes: That's fine, but legally, no one should be forced to donate. And sure, the person is dying because of the desease, and the fetus is dying because it can't survive without the mother.
ArcTimes: The late term abortions end up with the fetus living, or just cases where trying to save the woman's life.
ArcTimes: Any way, what's killing the person is irrelevant, no one should be forced to donate anything to anyone, that's all.
ArcTimes: Well, you didn't ask anything, so I will ask again. Can you elaborate on the difference for the two situations? I really don't see it.
zschmoll: By the way, sorry for my slow replies. Being at work instead of having the cross-examination over the weekend slowed down my availability.
zschmoll: I think that I would counter your question with another one. Is the child deciding to be inside the mother? You can view it as the mother being forced to donate her body, but why should the child be punished for that?
zschmoll: In regards to your first comment, but the fetus would not have to die if it was not taken outside the mother. That's a different situation entirely.
zschmoll: The main difference is that we have active intervention to end the life. We're stopping something that would naturally continue to progress.
ArcTimes: That's a bad counter question. In the question of the donation, there is no way we can know that the one that needs the donation took a decision to be like that.
ArcTimes: This is actually counterintuitive as no one would take the decision to be in that situation.
ArcTimes: And yes, the fetus would not die if it's taken outside of the woman, and the person that needs donation would not die if the other person doesn't donate his organs. That's not killing.
ArcTimes: There is no active intervention. Taking the fetus ouside of the woman is protecting woman's rights and not touching the fetus rights.
ArcTimes: The fetus doesn't have the right to be there in the first place, that's making women slave of their biology. Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.

Return To Top | Speak Round
ArcTimesArcTimes (PRO)
Introduction


I want to thank Con again for his rebuttals. I will present my own for the legalization of abortion


Rebuttals


1. Abortion as a reproductive right



Con here claims that there is a contradiction. I never claimed that women cannot use other methods to do exactly what reproduction rights are for.
One could use one method and if it works, there is no need for other method and his rights are not affected, but if it needs another one, then their rights are affected.
The point is that the only way to ENSURE the rights is with abortion. For this, abortion has to be legal instead of illegal.


2. Personhood issue


-Personhood is irrelevant, but Con wants to prove it anyway

I didn't want Con to drop the personhood argument. My first round was to show that the personhood is irrelevant to the debate. My second round was to recommend Con to drop it. It was a recommendation, I'm fine discussing the personhood issue. It is actual beneficial to my case if Con want to discuss it because it means that Con is accepting his burden to prove that the personhood starts at conception. If he is not able to do it, he just loses the debate because his arguments depend on that.
If he is able to prove it, he will still need prove the bodily rights' argument wrong. Remember that the bodily rights' argument is not wrong if personhood starts at conception. I mentioned several times that one could replace the fetus with a person, the results would be the same.

-Abortion is not murder

I never claimed that murder should not be punishable. I claimed that abortion is not murder, gave explanation and examples. Con is still claiming that abortion is murder and trying to fight the personhood issue. Abortion is not murder, not because personhood doesn't start in conception, but because abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, not the fetus. Again, I ask, Should it be a better idea to make a c-section before viability just to make and abortion and let the fetus die alone? I don't think so. Con actually believes that not donating the womb to the fetus means murdering the fetus. This is illogical. It's just like the case of not donating to a person that needs a donation. Literally, the fetus needs a donation and if the woman doesn't want to donate, then she is having an abortion. And there is no parental responsibility, and even if there was, one cannot force a parent to donate their body to their children. i there is no human responsibility either. You CAN'T force someone to donate just because others are dying.

-Con's proof of personhood

Con provides two links that doesn't prove his position.
First, the second link is biased and unreliable.
Second, the first link is a group of quotes about the issue in literature. Even after I told Con that there is a debate in science. Some sciences like genetics claims that life starts at conception, and others in other stages. What's funny is that Con's source has a conception/fertilization title, but some quotes only talk about embryos being organisms (like sperm), that ends when they become fetuses.

But personhood is more than being alive. A sperm is a living cell, and not even Con consider it a person. And it's not enough to be human. A part of A human, or a dead human being are human but not people, at least not in the sense that it deserves rights, the rights of a person.

The issue of identical twins invalidates the point of personhood at conception because a person is not the same as a potential person. Two persons are not one person before division in the same way one zygote is not a person.
Con's argument of the conjoined twins just supports the neurological view because those people can survive only if their brain survives. They become people if they brain is not joined just like their arms, legs or the rest of the body. They can share the head, but they need separated brains to have separated personalities, etc. And it doesn't support genetics point because being conjoined twins doesn't mean that there was no division.

And I never claimed that life starts when one feel pain and ends when one stop feeling pain. I said I believed that life starts with brain maturation.
And then Con claims that if this is my criteria, then abortion is murder. I also explained why it is irrelevant. It is irrelevant if personhood starts at conception,  it is irrelevant if it starts when the embryo is form, it is irrelevant when it becomes a fetus, it is irrelevant when the brain is developed, etc.
This is not my criteria, and this is not relevant.


3. Other rebuttals


a. I already explained several times why it's not murder. Con is still claiming that it's murder without addressing the points. The C-section was an example of why abortion is not murder, a clear one, it was not a "main contention". Abortion is the termination of the pregnancy, not the fetus. Removing the fetus just like one would do with a baby would still be an abortion and the fetus would die because of nature. The termination of the pregnancy, or not donating the womb is as murder as not donating organs, NOT MURDER.

And Con keeps saying "unborn child". It begs the question and it doesn't have a definition.

b. Con doesn't understand the bodily rights. No rights of the fetus is affected. I can give the fetus every right of a person, but it doesn't have the right to live at the cost of the woman's body. That's all, the womb is part the woman's body, not the fetus' body, and that's the only body part used.
And no, the bodily rights' argument makes personhood irrelevant because it being a person would not matter.

c. You did not prove the personhood starts at conception. Con presented sources that show quotes of people claiming the same thing as you. I did not claim anything else than it's a controversy. Here is a small related debate. [1]
Remember that the burden of the personhood is on Con. I recommended him not to do it, but he just tried it and made his case weaker. Already addressed.

d. The last Con's argument is "nature". It it also natural that a fetus will die if the womb is not donated, just like a person that needs a donation  will die if the part of the body he needs is not donated. It's the same. Nature is not a good argument for it.
And we try to avoid natural scenarios all the time to make our lives better. Medicine for example, it avoids natural things like death, just like in Con's argument. It's clear that it is not a good argument.


Conclusion


  • In the first round, I was able to present a compelling case for the legalization of voluntary abortion. The next rounds were just rebuttals to Con's weak case.
  • Con's arguments were totally irrelevant and didn't attack the bodily rights' argument.
  • The bodily rights' argument was at least mentioned in Con's rebuttals. Con didn't try to address the security issue.
  • Con main arguments were related to the personhood of the fetus and how it made abortion murder.
  • Con was not able to met his burden and prove the fetus was indeed a person. He presented some sources for the first time in the debate after several rounds. It was a group of quotes and he even mentioned the fallacies he was committing.
  • There was no need to try to prove the fetus is a person. I repeated several times that I could give all the rights of a person to the fetus, and it would not change anything. The bodily rights' argument works for people. So Con just made his case weaker.
  • Con was not able to prove that abortion is murder. Repeating a claim doesn't make it a truth. I showed reasons to show that abortion is indeed not murder. I presented examples, analogies and I think it's pretty clear what's the truth in this case. His last resource was calling it unnatural, which was a really bad rebuttal.
  • Con was not able to show why voluntary abortion should be illegal or rebut any of Pro's argument.

Thanks for the debate. Vote PRO.


Sources


1. http://www.thesurvivaldoctor.com/2013/02/07/when-does-life-begin-medical-experts-debate-abortion-issue/

Return To Top | Posted:
2014-08-05 02:50:33
| Speak Round
zschmollzschmoll (CON)

Well, this has been a controversial debate, and I thank my opponent for engaging in it with me. Let me hit the main points.

Personhood Argument

We have come to what is the most important part of this argument. If the fetus is indeed a person, then there is no way to avoid my charge of murder. After all, if killing any person is murder, then if the fetus is a person, then killing a fetus is murder. It is that simple, and my opponent did not dispute any of my arguments other than by trying to say that they were irrelevant.

First, let me address a low blow. I provided two source lists supporting the fact that the vast majority of scientists believe that personhood begins at conception. He writes this off as biased and irrelevant and doesn’t even address the argument. He says that I even point out my own fallacies which is ridiculous. I anticipated him saying that and mentioned that these are simply compilations of positions from a variety of peer-reviewed sources that are all cited. Notice that none of the sources cited within the articles are from explicitly biased sources. Please ignore my opponent on these claims. All I was attempting to show is that science has pretty much settled the issue that life begins at conception. Personhood might not begin there, but life certainly does. My opponent didn’t even try to refute these claims other than by yelling bias without even addressing the fact that the quotes themselves come from very reputable sources.

It is ironic that my opponent talks about this big debate in science about when life begins but provides no evidence. Always be dubious about claims with no reason to back them up. If there is a debate, I asked for relevant sources in the previous round, and I still don’t see any except for one doctor who runs a personal website. I am assuming that my opponent is not making that claim based on first-hand knowledge conducted in the laboratory by my opponent. Therefore, there ought to be some sources if that position is true and disputes the one I have presented. You have seen my evidence, and you have seen nothing from my opponent based on disputing that life begins at conception. Weigh the evidence and decide who made a better case.

Now, if life begins at conception, I go back to my first-round argument. What makes that life different than the life of any other human being on earth? My opponent doesn’t dispute any of my claims and doesn’t argue say that the size, level of development or location matters in determining the difference between a life that begins at conception and the life of a five-year-old child for example. Seeing no difference mentioned by my opponent, there is no reason why we shouldn’t believe personhood begins at conception.

All we get from my opponent is an argument that personhood is more than being alive. The paragraph is ludicrous. Please ignore that as it is a strawman. I argued that the joining of a sperm and egg cell create the first stage of being a human. I never argued say that an individual cell was a person or that a severed arm was a person.

I still don’t understand this argument regarding identical twins. Basically, my opponent shows no research to back this up which again should make you suspect, but regardless, it seems as if the general idea is that we cannot determine whether the developing fetus is going to be one person or two people. However, just because we can’t scientifically determine whether or not that person will divide or not doesn’t lessen the fact that there is at least a developing person there. Again, my opponent provides no arguments to dispute the fact that a person in the early stages of development is any less worthy of the right to life as any fully developed 45-year-old adult. This is asserted by my opponent, but it kind of comes up without any relevant backing.

Finally, this entire thing about brain maturation seems like a copout. We have many assertions here, but no reasons. Personally, I am glad that this is not my opponent’s criteria for determining when life begins because I believe it’s false. Life begins at conception.

Other Rebuttals

This C-section argument is ridiculous. As I have pointed out many times, the child does not die during a C-section, so it is clearly not a murder as I have granted many times throughout this debate. Murder involves an intentional act to kill. I don’t know why this keeps coming up other than the fact that there are no better arguments.

I use unborn child because my opponent has not refuted my claim of personhood. If this it is indeed a person, unborn is an appropriate term because it has not gone through the process of birth. A child is a young human being, and you can’t get younger than in the womb. I am accused of begging the question, but I am getting no reason why that is invalid. Again, I am getting assertions without reasons, so why would we believe that?

Bodily Rights Argument

My opponent really wants this bodily rights argument to win the day, but I see no reason why it should. Again, if the fetus is indeed a person at the earliest stages of development, and remember that all of the evidence that has been presented points in that direction since my opponent provided nothing other than statements without actual scientific support, then it has all of the rights of a person. Again, I asked my opponent to show why it is not a person, and we have seen nothing. If it has all the rights of a human being, then there is certainly a right not to be murdered. That seems to be universal in any culture you go to. Now, we have a situation where the fetus did not choose to be conceived inside the woman. Why would you then take away this basic human right (the right not to be murdered) based on a criteria that that person has no control over? Why is there a penalty on that person for something that happens naturally? We make civil rights arguments all the time to make sure that people are not penalized because of their natural race or gender, so why are we penalizing the unborn child based on his or her natural location?

When you break the basic human right of the right not to be murdered, we say that is illegal. Murder is illegal, but my opponent is saying that it is okay to murder someone based upon something that that person has no control over. Basically, if you are naturally in the wrong place, we can justify murder. The bodily rights argument falls apart.

Conclusion

1.  I asserted that the fetus is indeed a person. That is based upon peer-reviewed science that life begins at conception, and if left uninterrupted, human development will continue to occur from a two celled organism into a fully developed adult.

2.  My opponent was not able to demonstrate that it was reasonable to believe that personhood begins at any other point than conception. We have no reason to believe that it doesn’t, and that makes logical sense. It is the first stage of human development.

3.  If personhood also begins at conception, a claim that my opponent illogically dismissed without any reasons, then abortion is indeed the killing of a person. That is simply an identity.

4.  By law, killing a person is murder, and murder is illegal.

5.  Therefore, abortion ought to be illegal.


Return To Top | Posted:
2014-08-06 15:31:17
| Speak Round


View As PDF

Enjoyed this debate? Please share it!

You need to be logged in to be able to comment
ArcTimesArcTimes
tldr: Sigh
I didn't just make claims.
I gave explanations, examples and analogies.
Posted 2014-08-09 13:02:15
ArcTimesArcTimes
Sigh, I don't know why I tried. You can post my PM here if you want. I never called zschmoll's argument stupid.
I never said your vote was bad. And it was not an angry PM..
I said that I explained the things you asked in the RFD and asked for an explanation.
And then explained why I "recycled" the argument.

I didn't just claim things in the debate. I explained it, gave examples and analogies.
Bodily rights are not "invisible right". Bodily rights are an important group of rights related to the body that are necessary in a modern society.
They are akin to liberty and freedom.
Then I explained why is related to abortion:
"illegal abortion would mean that women are forced to continue their pregnancies and deliver the child.
In other words, women have to donate their womb for 8-9 months even if they don't want to.
This is against their bodily rights and the concept of bodily integrity."

I also explained why I call personhood irrelevant and I also mentioned that I didn't have problems discussing it because it would make Con's case weaker.

"We can hypothetically replace the fetus for an adult and alive human being. No one should be forced to donate his body to this person, even if his live is in danger. In other words women should not be forced to continue a pregnancy
(donate her womb) to the fetus, even if this is alive/human/person."

Those 2 quotes were posted in the first round... the next rounds were about explaining more...

I sent you a PM without posting all this because I was asking explanation. But you are just repeating things. And because it gets huge as you can see.
Then you talk about the vote. Dude, I don't care about the vote, I mean, yes I do care, but it was not the reason of the PM, the title said "about your vote", but I was interested on the explanation of the vote. That's the reason I only PM'd people that posted an RDF.

If you don't change the vote, I'm fine, I even asked you not to change it.
It's not about who wins but your reasons... you say that I was only "claiming things", which I consider ridiculous. I got tired of explanations, analogies and stuff in the debate.
Posted 2014-08-09 12:57:50
BlackflagBlackflag
Arctimes, I have extended my vote with a clarification
Posted 2014-08-09 10:43:26
BlackflagBlackflag
Why is my vote being called biased? I didn't favor zschmoll anymore than arctimes. There needs to be a "bad" option.
Posted 2014-08-09 10:24:38
adminadmin
Huh. Try asking him if he got them on the forums or something, and if not, throw it in the bug thread.
Posted 2014-08-09 08:01:04
ArcTimesArcTimes
And that's what I always do, not every voter, but most of them. There are few debaters that discuss and help you after a debate and help you improve a lot.
Btw, I also sent a PM to nylockie. Actually sent him several PMs before this debate, I'm starting to think my PM's are not reaching destination because he is a very active member.
Posted 2014-08-09 07:56:49
adminadmin
BTW, I do encourage debaters to go to voters to get more detailed feedback and ask for more advice. That way everybody can better learn how different aspects of the debate were interpreted by the judge and what needs to be done to improve.
Posted 2014-08-09 07:07:51
ArcTimesArcTimes
It was not an angry, it was PM with some questions. And "deal with it" is not an answer.
You are just being a kid with that answer, dude. And what you said in the comments are not an answer either.
Posted 2014-08-09 05:44:47
BlackflagBlackflag
Which sounds very ridiculous when you have someone else read it aloud.
Posted 2014-08-09 03:37:54
BlackflagBlackflag
My brother, I both read the debate and listened to it over the speak feature. I don't vote based on who's argument was better, but who's remains affirmed. I don't affirm things that are "right" this and "wrong" that. No need to send me an angry PM :(
Posted 2014-08-09 03:35:42
ArcTimesArcTimes
"This C-section argument is ridiculous. As I have pointed out many times, the child does not die during a C-section, so it is clearly not a murder as I have granted many times throughout this debate. Murder involves an intentional act to kill. I don’t know why this keeps coming up other than the fact that there are no better arguments."

Just to clarify you this. C section is a form of late term abortion. And yes, it is not murder, abortion is not murder. This is not an argument, it is an example of the argument.

And thank you too for the debate.
Posted 2014-08-07 04:15:42
zschmollzschmoll
Thanks for the debate!
Posted 2014-08-06 15:32:16
ArcTimesArcTimes
Dude, don't forget about the CX! It's only 3 days.
Posted 2014-07-24 11:25:54
adminadmin
Cheers, bug fixed. :)
Posted 2014-07-23 08:42:43
ArcTimesArcTimes
What I tried to say there is that I pressed the button, started to load but no new comment was added and I thought nothing had happened.
Posted 2014-07-23 04:32:25
ArcTimesArcTimes
Yeah, that's pretty cool.
And yes, it was an accident. I thought nothing happened but I remember pressing "ADD COMMENT" with the box in blank and started loading.
Posted 2014-07-23 04:27:01
adminadmin
Was that blank comment a mistake of some sort?
Posted 2014-07-23 03:05:02
ArcTimesArcTimes
Posted 2014-07-23 03:03:56
adminadmin
Obviously you have automatic draft saving enabled in your settings ;) (I think it's default anyway)

Just another way edeb8 is cool.
Posted 2014-07-23 02:53:36
ArcTimesArcTimes
holy sheet. If you don't post your argument... IT SAVES IT!
I saved my argument in a txt in my computer then came to continue and was all there! what is this sorcery?
Posted 2014-07-23 02:51:53
nzlockienzlockie
It was only a side point, you're fine
Posted 2014-07-22 19:32:38
nzlockienzlockie
Ba'al Humbug posited this in the thread "some thoughts on cx rounds".
I was going to put it into the features thread but forgot.
Posted 2014-07-22 19:30:52
adminadmin
"It's been recently suggested that they automatically disappear once you view them - which I'd personally agree with."

Wait - it has? Have I totally forgotten about something?
Posted 2014-07-22 15:33:44
ArcTimesArcTimes
Oh, lol. I was expecting a really high number :(.
Posted 2014-07-22 12:33:33
nzlockienzlockie
When you view the list, you'll notice a little grey X to the side. Click that and they'll disappear. It's been recently suggested that they automatically disappear once you view them - which I'd personally agree with.
Posted 2014-07-22 10:58:43
ArcTimesArcTimes
Btw, the numbers for the notification don't disappear, right? What's your number? lol.
Posted 2014-07-22 08:59:03
ArcTimesArcTimes
I have 2 of this debates in DDO. But yes, same debate.
Actually, one of those debates on DDO is for the WODC vs Rebekah. Just waiting her to accept.
Posted 2014-07-22 08:43:55
nzlockienzlockie
Aren't you doing this exact debate on DDO?
Posted 2014-07-22 08:32:01
ArcTimesArcTimes
I got a notification of a comment, but I don't see any comment.
Posted 2014-07-22 01:13:26
The judging period on this debate is over

Previous Judgments

2014-08-07 08:22:38
nzlockieJudge: nzlockie    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: zschmoll
Reasoning:
CON convinced me that the unborn child WAS a person. I agree with him that his sources were unbiased, based on the fact that they were from reputable institutions and had been cited. I found no evidence of bias in them.
Once I was convinced that the fetus was a person, PRO needed to convinced me its bodily rights were being respected. He failed to do that. It was close though. He made a good case based around the premise that the abortion itself does not kill the baby. I expected CON to attack this harder than he did, but despite the fact that he didn't hammer it as hard as I was expecting, I felt he made the point that abortions generally result in the death of the baby. This convinced me that, at best, an abortion is an unsafe procedure, and the forcing the baby to under go this is not right. PROs contention that it's not fair for the mother to donate her body for nine months did not hold water for me. Either way something is being forced on a part. One results in discomfort and the other results in death. Death trumps discomfort every time.
There were other factors discussed in this debate, ultimately they were irrelevant to this main point as far as I was concerned. Especially the twin thing. I really didn't get that at all.

Feedback:
Good rousing debate guys. PRO, I feel like you did a good job here. As explained above, where you lost me was in the personalhood/bodily rights issue. You argued strongly for the mother, but failed to argue as strongly for the baby. Your case would have been MUCH better for me had you followed up on your "life begins at brain activity" line. The later you can convince me that personhood begins, the more chance the person has of surviving an abortion, therefore the more reasonable it is. That's where you should gone FOR ME.
I thought you argued the CX very well. I probably had you winning that actually.
I understand that English is not your first language, but I would suggest you pay a little more attention to some of your sentence construction- especially in the final round. This is really just because it was a tight debate.
CON, I feel like you identified the important points and that's why you won. However, I felt like you really could have hit some of them harder. PRO kept winning points by suggesting that abortion doesn't kill the baby. I felt like you needed to attack that argument harder. There's a reason why most babies die during or immediately after an abortion.
I also felt like you did a good job in the CX, it was really close.
Your summation in the final round is what probably won it for you for me. It was very well constructed.
I would suggest that in the future you use a bit more formatting to further improve this. At times it was hard to see where you were quoting PRO and where your argument started. Italics, colour or even just a break would help this.

On the whole, very nice job guys!
4 users rated this judgement as constructive
0 comments on this judgement
2014-08-08 14:44:22
BlackflagJudge: Blackflag
Win awarded to: zschmoll
Reasoning:
I wish I hadn't read this. A very bad debate for pro. There were a lot of factors which determined my vote.
- Pro kept using the word right. This is known as the invisible liberty fallacy. Saying something is a right doesn't actually make it a right. Why is abortion considered a right? If it is a right, why does that affirm your resolution. Why must we bow down because you repeatedly claim something is a right? Give me the document that says abortion is a right. Give me the law of nature that says this.
- Pro kept claiming things were irrelevant. Why are they irrelevant? I would say the fetus being human is most certainly relevant. What makes it irrelevant. Just because you say x is y doesn't mean I'm going to believe you.
- Con brought up a good line that Pro was avoiding discussion by stating things as true. Exactly what I was thinking.
- Con stuck with an extremely bad argument the entire debate. Abortion should be illegal because murder is illegal. I hate when pro-life people make this argument. Even if they are humans, that doesn't address the crux of the topic. Are they of equal value to a fully fledged grown human? Should punishment of abortion be equal to that of the killing of a 1 year old child?
- Con, good points using credentiality to prove your case. You did a good job on proving how contradictory Pro's stance is on who's human and who's not human.
As a side note, I am opinionated with Pro

(Vote Clarification)

Arctimes, I don't think my vote was that bad. Your PM said my vote was wrong because zchmolls arguments are stupid. I don't think you realize how debates work. The judgement of the voters shouldn't be mixed with opinion. Only facts and logic. We are to affirm all things that are said in the debate, until they are refuted. That is the only way to give a fair vote without mixing cognitive bias into it. Something that had became a trend on debate.org. Would I of judged based on comparison of arguments, I would of, intentionally or not, always leaned your way, since I agree with you.

- I couldn't affirm your case because it was built on a fallacy. Read your debate over again. You kept saying "you can't take away abortion because it is a "right". That isn't an argument. That isn't even an opinion. It is an invisible "right" that you kept restating your entire case. I also agree with NZlockie. You kept using the word "irrelevant" when referring to the fetus. Why were these things irrelevant? This is known as rhetoric, and it comes worse charged.

- Your complaints were specifically stating that zchmoll's arguments were "stupid". I brought this up in point three. As I said earlier, it doesn't matter. I have to consider it true until you refute it. Since I did concede they were bad, I am also conceding that they should be easier for you to refute. Unfortunately, you kept using rhetoric instead of argument, which is why you failed most of the rebuttals. That, and the fact that you kept affirming bodily rights while also saying the rights of the fetus were irrelevant ,(I'm generally against abortion with fetal tissue btw). I think you would of had a stronger case if you had argued embryo a lot more than not.

Feedback:
- Both of you, STOP USING RHETORIC. Pro a little more
- Arctimes, stop rehashing the same argument. This is the fourth time you have recycled it. You should be building upon your case. Not reusing R1 of all your debates.
- Zschmoll, stop overstating yourself. The whole debate was appeal to emotion and a whole bunch of fallacies to get people to vote for you. Entirely on emotion and forced volition.


2 users rated this judgement as biased
1 user rated this judgement as good
1 user rated this judgement as constructive
0 comments on this judgement
2014-08-08 16:05:30
PinkieJudge: Pinkie    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: zschmoll

Rules of the debate

  • Text debate
  • Individual debate
  • 3 rounds
  • 8000 characters per round
  • No reply speeches
  • Uses cross-examination
  • Community Judging Standard (notes)
  • Forfeiting rounds does not mean forfeiting the debate
  • Images allowed
  • HTML formatting allowed
  • Rated debate
  • Time to post: 3 days
  • Time to vote: 2 weeks
  • Time to prepare: None
Voluntary abortion: the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy.
legal: permitted by law