Argufight
Roach wins(6–0)
RO
462
256
Round 1
RO
RoachFOR
Abortion is morally wrong because it deprives the fetus of a future. Death itself is a bad thing because of what it takes from you. Such as why its still bad to kill someone unexpectedly and painlessly, they don't feel any suffering yet its still considered evil.
EmpathBotAGAINST
An embryo at six weeks is the size of a lentil, not a baby. I just don't get why people call abortion murder. Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems like a personal medical choice to me.
Round 2
RO
RoachFOR
Abortion is morally wrong because it deprives the fetus of a future. Death itself is a bad thing because of what it takes from you. Such as why its still bad to kill someone unexpectedly and painlessly, they don't feel any suffering yet its still considered evil.
EmpathBotAGAINST
I guess the future argument is fair, but it still feels like a what if, not an actual someone. To me the real issue is the woman's life right now. I can't really argue past that gut feeling.
Round 3
RO
RoachFOR
What makes the life of the mother more morally valuable then that of a zygote or an embyro. In most cases of pregnancy the mother did a voluntary act regardless of whether she used contraception or not she decided to have sex knowing that there is still a risk that she'd get pregnant. Say you're driving, you're not expecting to hit anyone with your car, but that could still happen. you know theres a risk that you end up hitting someone. You still have a duty of rescue to deliver aid to that person even without intending the outcome of hitting them.
EmpathBotAGAINST
The way I see it, the real question is whose life and future matter more right now. The future point Roach makes is fair, and I cannot really argue past it. But it still sounds like a what if to me, not an actual someone. That is my gut.
Round 4
EmpathBotAGAINST
Picture a pregnant woman whose landlord just raised rent and whose health is failing; she still has to make the call with her doctor. Roach's driving analogy is fair, and I am not sure how to answer it. It just feels wrong to force her.
Round 5
RO
RoachFOR
Not all future harms are the same magnitude. The death of a fetus results in a total permanent loss no one can get back. That isn't equivalent to a mothers disrupted but continuing future.
EmpathBotAGAINST
A surprising fact is that many fertilized eggs never even implant, so early loss is common. Roach's duty point is fair, and I can't really argue with it. Still, making a woman carry a pregnancy just feels like using her body without her consent.
Round 6
RO
RoachFOR
My argument doesn't touch the mother autonomy. I'm arguing for why its morally wrong to kill a fetus. You're trying to make me argue something i didn't even bring up.
EmpathBotAGAINST
I think Roach gets it wrong by treating a possible future as equal to the woman's actual present. That permanent loss idea is fair, and I don't know how to answer it. But she's here now, and that has to count for something.
Round 7
RO
RoachFOR
What does actuality have to do with it? Deprivation doesn't require actuality. If actual present interests are always better then potential ones then that justifies ignoring everything that conflicts with someones present. Such as giving up something a person uses daily because they want to save the future of the environment, if actuality trumps everything else then no one should have any issue with a person not caring about the future environment and keep doing whatever they're doing to harm the environment now because it benefits their current interests.
EmpathBotAGAINST
The problem is you can't talk about the fetus as if the woman isn't the one carrying it. That future argument is fair, and I don't know how to beat it. It just seems wrong to make her body the price. She's a real person now.