Pro
#1
Round 1 Waived.
My conditional: I am willing to change my mind on the issue if there is an unrefutable precedent/analogy argument that can be used to justify the ANAL position and there are no unrefutable precedent/analogy arguments that can be used to justify the PAL position.
Opponent should state what is their conditional (you can integrate that with your initial argument).
Con
#2
I am willing to change my mind, believe different, understand different if the consistency cannot be compromised from the opposing side with protecting the rights of the born along with any stage of life where the rights are granted….. and….. not protecting the rights of the unborn along with any stage of life where the rights are not granted .
Pro
#3
Alright.
So, there are 2 (we will call them bad things) regarding the abortion debate of women who want to abort:
1. The 9 months of forced female pregnancy pain.
2. The homicide of the unborn child (zygote, fetus, whatever term you want to use).
They are both bad things. BUT, which one of the 2 BAD things is worse?
You look at precedent to determine which bad thing is worse.
Analogy present (vasectomies vs pregnancy): If you asked virtually every anti abortion dude who has done premarital sex if they would be willing to prevent BOTH bad things by enduring not 9 months of pregnancy pain, but 3 days of vasectomy pain, then virtually every dude would say, “NO!” and they may say some reason like, “How will we reproduce?” (when you can store enough pre vasectomy sperm in a hospital freezer for if/when you want kids in the future even if 50% of sperm attempts fail). The vasectomy can be government paid for with men being exempt from the tax; men would still refuse. The reason: Their body, their choice (but only for MEN, not for women).
9 months of unwanted pregnancy pain has more weight than 3 days of unwanted vasectomy pain (because 9 months > 3 days).
Based on the precedent established, it is unideal to advocate that men who don't wait until marriage be required to obtain a vasectomy and the 3 days of pain associated with it because society (PAL and ANAL alike) has decided that 3 days of unwanted pain > unborn kid's life and unvasectomized men having sex is legal federally.
So based on this precedent, we can argue that 9 months of unwanted pregnancy pain is more serious than an unborn kid's life. You could even say 3 days of unwanted pregnancy pain is more serious than an unborn kid's life, justifying abortion legalization federally for the whole 9 months.
Con
#4
Here is the inconsistency people run into like the opposing side.
The focus bottomline is all on the woman, what she goes through.
Furthermore, that is supposed to be more of an issue than the unborn to live.
But if you care so much for that BORN woman, why abort her so she won't exist?
Why is there so much care and emphasis on the lives of the born?
It's because the value of life is there. So since you grant so much value, we're not going to demolish the roots, right.
You care so much for the plant , if you willing to place all that effort in care and energy on it, don't take out the roots.
You care so much for the plant, protect it from damage and spoilage. If you care about your plants and want them to exist, you're going to have to protect its roots.
If the problem is just pain, if that is the concern, that doesn't justify terminating life. Are we going to terminate life every time there's an instance of agony?
That's foolish because that's what comes with life unless there is a terminal illness, which is another controversial topic altogether.
But you care for the woman which in order to care for her she has to exist so don't terminate her in advance.
Also, being that you care for her to exist without the particular pregnancy agony you're talking about, get rid of the so called agony, not her.
The "her" is the unborn child that could be a mother.
She may be pregnant with a female child. A child that can grow up without the so called agony you're arguing about. May grow up to solve the so called agony problems the opposing side is talking about.
My mother said she had no agony or pain at all . So let us not even generalize with attempting a general justification.
Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Take the pun for what it is.
To kill a person in advance due to personal selfish trials is no justification. We can make a lot of justifications for taking life if it's just as slim as personal suffering.
People suffer, bleed , sweat , shed tears on account of the welfare of others.
Abortion is self destruction, self negated stance.
As expected, you plead the concern and welfare of the born but elect to extinguish that what you plead for.
Unless you are a nihilist, you will not be sound in comparison.
Pro
#5
My attempt to steelman your points:
Con
#6
The opposing side's first point has yet to reconcile or demonstrate the difference but is circular. Saying the pain which is not absolute is more serious is not explaining, arguing or proving how or why in valuable comparison.
I can imagine that the pain in select cases is a concern because the opposing side cares for a person living a life without pain or painless as possible. But if that same care existing for the life of that grown woman is there for her before she is born, consistently speaking there shouldn't be a desire to execute termination on her prior to being grown.
Here's the thing, if we go by the argument of the opposing side arguing as if the pain of pregnancy is throughout, why argue for aborting instead of abstaining?
Once you get to the stage where you can abort, there's already pain, right. The opposite side mentioned "9 months of woman’s pain".
Which again, that isn't absolute. How do you know how long each and every woman has of experience with this?
This is suspected to be exaggerative and the opposing side hasn't proven this absolutely, nor reconciled what is supposed to be the difference in caring for the life of a grown woman and the life of her before she was born. The very life unborn is to that of that grown woman you're arguing so much over.
So the inconsistency is just a mess and further , the question is to earnest genuine care being there arguing for allowing abortion where the so called absolute pain can be prevented with abstinence instead.
The point about the plants went over the opposing side's head. At this point, I've made a sufficient rebuttal with my first counterpoint here .
Saying to give an example of a point the opposing side is arguing for of pain, I have no burden to make an example regarding it. At this point, it doesn't matter, the so called debate is over.
Point three is all subjective. Not really countering anything, let alone helping your circular point.
"Would you FORCE people to take care of their old parents? No."
I have one more response to make. Why ask a question to answer it yourself?
A good way to shut out the opposing counter by saying it didn't require my answer.
How about this, should able people be forced to save defenseless life(unborn+elderly+anybody unable to fend for themselves) or are people just to be nihilists and not care about themselves?
Should people be forced to save anybody? Such as a woman?
If you want to save her from pain, why not her life too? You want her to live life saved from pain, right. See how inconsistent this gets.
Should people be forced to care for the elderly? Yes .
According to you, you want to care for a woman's pain so why not an elderly woman's pain?
You position proves to be inconsistent over and over and over because it does not stand for life all around. You are really arguing from a feminist perspective and all this is a reaction or a get back at society that tells you to value you life that you claim to care about being in so much pain. It is nothing more than a retaliation set forth against those that have a say against the right(legal allowance )of abortion. Really you are saying to those people, they don't get to say anything, not their choice, they can't FORCE the pregnancy. That's why you throw this word "force" in there.
The women should get to decide, women power. It's a fight for power. That would be a better stance from you than this pain angle. Pain is a sign of harm. Now you only care about harm because you care a about life. But you don't have a pro life position, it is a pro abortion pro choice position.
There in lies your collapsed case in making any justifiable argument.
Point 5 addressed.
In point 6 the opposing side has not proved or denied that the gross generalization of pregnancy pain is accurate so it is not a real issue to make an argument for. So instead of ripping life away because of pain because pain is a part of life, keep the life of the woman, rid the pain while keeping the life of what would grow to be a woman recycling the same resolution.
The opposing side is not pushing for that due to the care really not being there for the woman as touted.
Point 7 is an assertion not proven true. Another gross generalization that is not backed. The opposite side has not proven that all people are selfish thus nor a society will exist or be backed by this gross generalization.
Hence, society functions via a network of ancillary powers and systems of people in purpose of one service to another which negates just exclusive self centered interest. Much accomplished by joy as well as discomfort, hardship, stress, tension and grief.
The opposite side is not being grounded but just taking a liberal stance with poor argumentation.
Hence explains the last point made by the opposing side . Totally futile and moot.
Probably 2 males agruing about pregnancy like it will affect them at all in their life time.
Zygote first stage
Embryo second stage
Fetus-8w-42w
Human is a classification of species
Human being is a term for sentient being.
" is and was and is human, therefore a person with rights, only human, and nothing else, but. The distinction of in- and ex-vitro has no medical/scientific distinction; only one by flawed law."
Very biological incorrect.
When a fertilized egg happens. It doesn't automatically make fully form fetus. It's a process of 40-42 gestation to complete this process. Newborn is a formed person. A 6 week Embryo is not a fully formed human.
Also, human is a classification of species.
Human being is term to discrib a person or "sentient being".
For fetuses to have ability of or to be a person or to be a being. They have to have ability of perception/experience.
https://thisvsthat.io/human-vs-human-being
I know; but I just think all the people who voted for you were too biased. I'm not hating YOU for it; but the pro lifers on the site voted for YOU, and the pro choicers didn't vote for me because they hate my guts because they're liberals and I'm libetarian.
It's called popular vote. That's what voting at the least demonstrates.
You technically won the debate, but I only think it's because both people that voted for you strongly agree with your position; so you won; but at least own that you got biased votes. Not your fault; but own it.
Both votes against me are from biased people.
Can you consider removing the 2 votes that were voted against me? You removed a bunch of votes that helped me and we are both pro choice.
Re: your #4: there is no conduct point in this type of debate. You want conduct points, make your future debate a multi-criteria debate, not an unrated, winner-selection general debate.
Re: your #15, it does not help to assume anyone's position on any subject, Mod, or not. Your attitude in that regard is one reason why I refuse to vote on this debate. there are others. Clean up your act. It's childish.
re: your #9: regardless of Pro's argument, there is demonstrated scientific evidence that no significant physiological change occurs between the in-vitro condition of a fetus and it's expansive momentary condition ex-vitro. It is and was and is human, therefore a person with rights, only human, and nothing else, but. The distinction of in- and ex-vitro has no medical/scientific distinction; only one by flawed law.
No. I am actually very pro choice.
You are hardcore anti-abortion. I don't really trust you being a mod here.
<p>>Reported Vote: RationalTheist // Mod action: Removed</p>
<p>>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy</p>
<p>>Voted for: tie</p>
<p>>Reason for Decision: other</p>
<p>>Reason for Mod Action:</p>
<p>Mod power test </p>
<p>---RationalTheist's former vote---</p>
<p>Voted for: tie</p>
<p>Test vote </p>
<p>>Reported Vote: FLRW // Mod action: Removed</p>
<p>>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy</p>
<p>>Voted for: pro</p>
<p>>Reason for Decision: fails-to-analyze</p>
<p>>Reason for Mod Action:</p>
<p>Needs more analysis. </p>
<p>---FLRW's former vote---</p>
<p>Voted for: pro</p>
<p>RemyBrown provides an adequate argument that a fetus is not a child.</p>
<p>>Reported Vote: FLRW // Mod action: Removed</p>
<p>>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy</p>
<p>>Voted for: pro</p>
<p>>Reason for Decision: fails-to-analyze</p>
<p>>Reason for Mod Action:</p>
<p>Needs more analysis. </p>
<p>---FLRW's former vote---</p>
<p>Voted for: pro</p>
<p>RemyBrown provides an adequate argument that a fetus is not a child.</p>
<p>>Reported Vote: FLRW // Mod action: Removed</p>
<p>>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy</p>
<p>>Voted for: pro</p>
<p>>Reason for Decision: fails-to-analyze</p>
<p>>Reason for Mod Action:</p>
<p></p>
<p>---FLRW's former vote---</p>
<p>Voted for: pro</p>
<p>RemyBrown provides an adequate argument that a fetus is not a child.</p>
<p>>Reported Vote: FLRW // Mod action: Removed</p>
<p>>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy</p>
<p>>Voted for: pro</p>
<p>>Reason for Decision: fails-to-analyze</p>
<p>>Reason for Mod Action:</p>
<p></p>
<p>---FLRW's former vote---</p>
<p>Voted for: pro</p>
<p>RemyBrown provides an adequate argument that a fetus is not a child.</p>
My opponent failed to waive the last round, so it would be a loss of conduct point.
Isn't God showing us that it is ok to abort fetuses by him creating pediatric cancer?
If you want to do this debate a second time, I am game.
Thats a good argument, but I have reasons I am against abortion, which I am sure can be challenged depending on which country are we talking about. For example, abortion in Japan has much worse consequences for the country than abortion in afghanistan.
| Criterion | Pro | Tie | Con |
|---|---|---|---|
| Winner |
| Criterion | Pro | Tie | Con |
|---|---|---|---|
| Winner |
| Criterion | Pro | Tie | Con |
|---|---|---|---|
| Winner |
