Instigator / Pro
4
1551
rating
9
debates
66.67%
won
Topic
#1667
Abortion should be legal
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Winner
4
1
After 5 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
SkepticalOne
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two months
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
1
1487
rating
7
debates
35.71%
won
Description
PGA (Peter) and I will take on the abortion debate. Neither of us will be arguing an absolute position and understand there must be room for nuance. Peter allows abortion when the mother's life is threatened by pregnancy. I accept Roe V Wade has laid out reasonable limits on abortion. I anticipate our main point of contention will be, not in the fringe, but, where abortion is most common. Ie. Most abortions occur at or before 13 weeks of pregnancy. I will argue this should be legal, and Peter will argue against it. Each debater will have their own burden to meet.
There will be no new arguments in the final round - only rebuttal and closing.
Round 1
Pro
#1
I’d like to thank my opponent for his participation in this debate. While we may not agree on abortion, I think we can agree being able to openly talk about controversial issues can raise awareness and allow individuals to make informed decisions. Thanks, Peter.
Definitions
An abortion is a medical procedure to end a pregnancy. It uses medicine or surgery to remove the embryo or fetus and placenta from the uterus. The procedure is done by a licensed health care professional. [1]
Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, regardless of race, sex, nationality, ethnicity, language, religion, or any other status. [2]
Women’s health
When comparing countries with the most restrictive laws (banned or allowed only when a woman’s life is endangered) with those with the least restrictive abortion laws, we find that there is virtually no difference in abortion frequency - 37 and 34 per 1,000 women, respectively. [3] So what effect does more restrictions on abortion yield? According to Guttmacher institute, “in 14 developing countries where unsafe abortion is prevalent, 40% of women who have an abortion develop complications that require medical attention”. [3] Additionally, Guttmacher finds that “Of all abortions, an estimated 55% are safe (i.e., done using a recommended method and by an appropriately trained provider); 31% are less safe (meet either method or provider criterion); and 14% are least safe (meet neither criterion). The more restrictive the legal setting, the higher the proportion of abortions that are least safe—ranging from less than 1% in the least-restrictive countries to 31% in the most-restrictive countries. [3] Furthermore, legal abortion encourages women to seek abortion earlier making the process safer. Before Roe V Wade (1970) 25% of abortions were done after 13 weeks, and afterwards (1980) 10% were done after 13 weeks. Additionally, more than 50% of abortions (1980) were done at 8 weeks or earlier. [4]
In summary, prohibition and restrictive laws do not appear to reduce the frequency of abortion overall, but they do decrease women’s health in a society by forcing women to reluctantly seek necessary medical treatment (at later stages when more complications can occur) without the oversight provided by government regulation. Undeniably, legal abortion avoids complications and deaths that would occur with heavy restriction and prohibition. In other words: Outlawing abortion endangers women while doing nothing to solve the perceived problem.
Human rights
“A pregnancy to a woman is perhaps one of the most determinative aspects of her life. It disrupts her body. It disrupts her education. It disrupts her employment. And it often disrupts her entire family life.” Sarah Weddington – Wade Attorney
Freedom, justice, and peace rests on fundamental human rights such as ‘freedom from slavery, freedom from torture, equality, and the right to life. Disallowing abortion violates every single one of these. If a woman does not consent to pregnancy and has no choice but to give birth, then she has become a slave to pregnancy. A woman being forced to give birth against her will is being subjected to torture. A woman being denied the same reproductive freedom as a man is receiving unequal treatment. This is a challenge to ‘right to life’ overall as liberty and bodily autonomy are being denied. Every person has the right to control their own body. When this is denied, human rights are being attacked. Abortion is necessary for women to reach their full potential, and severe restrictions stand in the way.
I expect we will see the S.L.E.D argument from my opponent. For those that are not familiar, S.LE.D. stands for size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency. Essentially, the argument suggests that a being of smaller size, lesser development, different environment (location), or being dependent on another is no grounds for “discriminating” against the unborn and its “rights”. For the sake of argument, if I were to accept my opponent’s view that personhood begins at conception (which I adamantly do not), we would still disagree because there is no ‘right to use the body of another’. I cannot involve myself with anyone else’s body without their consent, and neither can any other person regardless of their size, level of development, environment, or degree of dependency. Essentially, the SLED argument argues for the unborn to have special rights no person has.
I will keep this round short and sweet and send this debate over to Peter. I look forward to seeing his arguments.
Con
#2
As Con/Contender, I would sincerely like to thank Skepticalone for initiating this debate, which allows me to defend what I consider a most critical moral issue, the unborn's fate.
Since the word character count is minimal, I will dispense with other preliminaries.
Before considering the legal aspect, please understand what we are debating in the matter and realize that not all laws are just.
1) What is the unborn?
Would Pro consider that the scientific evidence confirms it is a human being? In our last debate, he acknowledged this to be the case.
"Pro [me in this case] argues human life begins at conception to which I would agree." [1]
Scientifically, it is confirmed in many ways, such as by a human being's DNA structure, which differs from other species chromosomally (46 in most cases, except for defects). [2]
"Thus, each human cell contains a total of 46 chromosomes—22 pairs common to both males and females, plus two so-called sex chromosomes (X and Y in males, two Xs in females)." [3]
Verifiably, when two human beings produce offspring, the offspring is another human being.
So, unless Pro wishes to dispute the unborn is a human being, contrary to his previously stated position, we move to the next point.
2) Does it matter what we do with the unborn?
The stated question involves whether human beings have intrinsic value. Please, reader, pay attention to this point. Does Pro believe in equal treatment for all human beings? He does, [4] (R2) yet he makes an exception (personhood) that is hard to justify. Once some human beings are classed or grouped as more or less valuable than others, morality and inequality become an issue, as with the unborn. For many, it is recognized as a human being but classed as a non-person/not yet a person. The same classification of human beings as non-persons or sub-persons has led to oppression, devaluation, discrimination, and dehumanization by many. [5]
3) Personhood?
Can Pro confirm scientifically when human personhood begins? If not, the unborn should be granted the status of a person because of what human beings are, by nature - personal beings.
By not recognizing the unborn's right to personhood gives those who enact laws all kinds of liberties, the ability to do what they want with this 'non-person,' not yet person, or sub-person.
That question of personhood has become central in the abortion debate since 1973, Roe v. Wade, that caused a paradigm shift in our view of personhood. [6]
4) Establishing Unjust Societies - The Example of Nazi Germany
Facinghistory.org document steps the Nazis took in alienating particular groups from society (Jews, gypsies, gays, the deformed and handicapped, political and religious opposition, etc.). Human atrocities and the ill-treatment of human beings throughout the world, including abortion, follow some of the same steps. Those steps include discrimination, demonization, alienation, and dehumanization. In some cases, the final solution is the death of these groups through legislation.
In January 1933, Hitler was appointed chancellor of Germany. In his first radio address, he gave his vision and promises for a classless society without class warfare [7]. Based on other ideas of his, this included purifying the racial/genetic structure of his nation. [8]
He asks a trial period of four years for the German people to judge his efforts to renew their economic prosperity, of which Hitler blamed the Jews as being partly responsible for their "economic and social problems." [9]
In mid-1929, there were approximately 20 million Germans out of work.
By 1933, there were about 6 million.
In late 1934, fudged statistical data further convinced the public of his success, supposedly reducing that unemployed number by half, which gained widespread support for the Nazi Party. [10] He also employed a large number of Germans in rebuilding the military complex, a "violation of the Treaty of Versailles." [10] [11 - p.333]
Another step in the progression of power was to eliminate political opposition. [12]
In March 1933, the Nazis passed a law, the "Malicious Practices Act," [12] which made it illegal to voice opposition to their government or leaders.
Three days later, Hitler passed the "Enabling Act." [13] This act gave Hitler the ability to label the opposition enemies of the state.
The same day, the "first concentration camp" was opened in Germany to house those who threatened the security of the state. [12]
By June 1933, Hitler banned the Social Democratic Party, leaving the Nazis as the sole party. [12]
By the end of the summer of 1933, there were over 100,000 "Communists, Social Democrats, union officials, and other 'radicals' imprisoned." [12]
To enact their policies, the Nazi Party employed intimidation by paramilitary groups, German youth, the SA (storm troopers) and SS.
In April 1933, the Nazis created the Gestapo.
Hitler understood propaganda, and the Nazi propaganda machine swayed public opinion and people's thoughts with negative images of the Jew. [14] The State uses biased materials and emotional appeal. Quickly, Hitler established the Reich Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda. [15] This agency overreached into all areas of public address, including the German press, the foreign media, newspapers, law, radio, film, theatre, music, literature, visual arts/posters/slogans, tourism, education, etc. [16]
Hitler, through education, indoctrinated the youth movement which played an essential part in turning the country to his way of thinking. The Hitler Youth, the Student League and the Pupils' League, the National Socialist Women's League, were examples. Hitler also used professional groups such as teachers, lawyers and doctors in this effort. Along with positive images and slogans to sway the population were also negative ones. Fear and terror was used as intimidation by the 'brownshirts' or Nazi youth, instigated against Jews and others. Incorporate this philosophy of intimidation with the antisemite feelings prevailing in Europe at the time set the course. [17] [18]
Prewar, Hitler and the Nazi Party enacted over 400 decrees and regulations of antisemitic legislation discriminating against Jews. [19]
1933-34, included "limited Jewish participation in German society." [19]
1935, the "Nuremberg Laws" [20]
1937-38, laws of segregation. [19]
These laws limited Jewish rights and treated them as non-citizens as of July 14, 1933. [21]
From January 31, 1933, to August 31, 1939, according to one historian, there were "1,448 laws, policies, and decrees designed to remove Jews from the country's political, economic, and cultural life.
In 1933 alone, 316 anti-Jewish measures were taken in Germany..." [22]
By labelling the Jews as racial enemies of the state (not conforming to the "Aryan race") with inferior genetic makeup, The Nazis started segregating them from the rest of society.
"If Germany did not act decisively against the Jews both at home and abroad, Hitler claimed, hordes of subhuman,[23] [24] uncivilized Slavs and Asiatics that the Jews could mobilize would sweep away the "Aryan" German race." [25]
They believed, through social Darwinism, "consistent with the law of nature" [25] and other philosophies, that it was their "obligation to subdue and even exterminate inferior" [25] races.
Thus began the eugenics program and extermination of the Jew and other "inferior" races. Some believe the "Final Solution" began in 1941 and lasted until 1945. [26]
5) The Dehumanizing of the Unborn
Planned Parenthood is somewhat instrumental in shaping today's views on abortion. Its founder, Margret Sanger, regularly used discriminatory and demonizing language against the unborn, people of colour, the poor, and weaker human beings. She used derogatory language (just like the Nazis) to change opinions on women's issues. She wanted "conservation of the race through birth control" and a "plan to stem the tide of production of the unfit and try to turn it in the right direction" [27] through eugenics, again, a view similar to Nazi Germany in weeding out the "unfit" as they saw them. She also espoused social Darwinian. Some human beings were inferior, for she wrote, "The lower down in the scale of human development we go the less sexual control we find. It is said that the aboriginal Australian, the lowest known species of the human family, just a step higher than the chimpanzee in brain development,..." [28]
A copyrighted article comparing Nazi concentration camps to Planned Parenthood clinics lists similarities in its dehumanization practices and language used of the unborn. [29]
Building on Planned Parenthood, Roe v Wade has perhaps shaped opinion on abortion like no other law.
6) Inequality and Injustice
Law is concerned with equal justice/equality. Lack of those qualities has been the scourge of human history.
a) Basic Rights
The right to life is the most basic right all human beings should have or else some/any can be treated inhumanely.
b) Devaluing life
Devaluating human life denies basic human dignity and rights under the laws to some humans.
"intentional killing of some human beings would not be incompatible with dignity, for those human beings would have no dignity. Such views arbitrarily designate some members of the human family as unworthy of moral respect despite the fact that they are beings of the same kind as ourselves." [30]
c) Duty and Obligation
When engaging in sex, and an unborn is created, there should be a responsibility, an obligation, to protect it.
d) Bodily Rights
Our bodily rights should not harm the rights of others unless others are threatening to harm us.
e) Function v Substance
Which determines worth?
Round 2
Pro
#3
Morality and Law
If my opponent hasn’t already, I suspect he will present a moral argument against abortion. However, we should keep in mind the resolution – “Abortion should be legal”. This is an important point, because law and morality are not interchangeable terms. Law is the “system of rules which a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and which it may enforce by the imposition of penalties”. [5] On the other hand, morality is particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society”. [6] We might tend to think laws come from moral convictions when we consider those against murder, rape, or theft, but there are also laws which run contrary to typical notions of morality such as those which legalized slavery [7] or advocated racial segregation [8]. The point here is that a moral argument for or against something is an insufficient reason to endorse legislation because morality is subjective. On the other hand, my arguments above make an objective practical and ideological case relevant to legislation for abortion in a society which values human health and rights.
That being said, I have no intention of conceding abortion as an immoral act. Every person has a moral right to control their own body. Every person has a moral right to defend their body (even if something or someone else might be harmed in that defense). Additionally, disallowing abortion has a negative impact on societal health and human rights. On balance, allowing abortion is morally preferable to abolition of it.
"..a great deal turns for women on whether abortion is or is not available.
If abortion rights are denied, then a constraint is imposed on women's freedom to act in a way that is of great importance to them, both for its own sake and for the sake of their achievement of equality;
and if the constraint is imposed on the ground that the foetus has a right to life from the moment of conception, then it is imposed on a ground that neither reason nor the rest of morality requires women to accept, or even to give any weight at all." - Judith Jarvis Thomson
Defense
1) Con has made claims on behalf of science and myself which are in error. Scientific consensus does not endorse Con’s scientific claims (it was concluded that biology alone is not able to determine the point at which personhood is established” [9]), and I do not accept personhood occurs at conception. It seems Con equates human and person, and doing so has created misapprehensions with his understanding of scientists and myself. In short, attaching human as an adjective says nothing of the legal status of what it modifies. For instance, cancer can be human cancer, but it doesn’t make sense to claim murder when someone dies from cancer ...because cancer is not a person. In the same way, attaching human to life does not equate that life to a person.
2), 3), & 6):
In the interest of conciseness (and conservation of time and characters), I will combine these categories as they rely on similar reasoning and do not overcome arguments laid out in round 1 for the same reason.
A concept of personhood which fails to account for (at a minimum) the capacity for consciousness is at best incomplete and at worst diminishing. Regardless, no matter how my opponent might personally define personhood he will need to apply rights consistently rather than argue special rights for a particular group at the expense of another's. The personhood Con advances sets up an impossible scenario where the basic rights of one group (women) are in conflict with another proposed group (the unborn). His apparent solution is to revoke rights from women so that new rights (applicable only to the unborn) may be extended. Given that rights are meant to be a shield, removing them so that an entire group can be effectively subjugated by dispensations of a new group is an attack on the rights of everyone. After all, if rights can be revoked for any individual or group for any reason whatsoever, then they lose their power.
My opponent builds his case on a simplistic understanding of what it means to be a human being (a person). His concern for the unborn sans consideration for the consent of the woman in whose body it resides is problematic. How can we talk of intrinsic value, equality, justice, basic rights, etc., where stripping rights from women and applying special rights to another group is implicitly being advocated? I submit - we cannot. Consent and bodily autonomy go hand-in-hand, and it is not possible to have one without the other. If a woman does not consent to using her biology for pregnancy then no one has the right to say otherwise.
There is one other point Peter raises I would like to address: duty and obligation. It seems Con believes sex creates a new person. While it is true conception is a possibility of sex, it is far from true that this is a given. In fact, one informal study found that it takes, on average, 78 sessions of sex before pregnancy occurs [10] - and this was among people specifically trying to get pregnant (so the number can be higher among those not trying). In spite of what my opponent may think, sex, more often that not, does not "create an unborn" and has many subjective purposes beyond procreation including pleasure, intimacy, connection, stress reduction, etc. None of which necessitate a duty or obligation to anything beyond those who have given their consent to share their bodies. Additionally, consent is conditional. If a person consents to an activity, they do not consent to enduring any unwanted outcomes that might come from it. We do not consider an STI resulting from consensual sex to be untreatable. We understand a sexually transmitted disease can (if left untreated) cause unwanted changes to the individual. We certainly do not consider consent to an activity sufficient reason disallow treatment when something more than intended was shared. The medical treatment of abortion is no different.
One other point, sex is not always consensual. I can't imagine my opponent would seriously entertain a 'duty or obligation' someone else forced upon his biology - and neither should anyone else. Theft of someone's body is a tragic event and disregard of their rights on top of it is unconscionable.
4) & 5)
In Section 4, it seems my opponent is suggesting that abortion is wrong because the Nazis endorsed it. There are two problems with this notion. 1) A position or view is not refuted by the fact that the Nazis shared it (association fallacy [11]). 2) If it were, then my opponent should be just as concerned with his argument as I. He is correct that the Nazis endorsed abortion (for non-Aryan women). However, the Nazis were also against abortion for Aryan women [11 page 90, paragraph 3] and even restricted contraceptives ([12] page 85 – paragraph 3). The Nazis endorsed both sides of the abortion debate as it furthered their agenda of hate. Suffice to say, it is not as simple as having a *correct view* by avoiding positions the Nazis held. Ultimately, my opponent has advanced an argument which, by his own reasoning, works against him.
In section 5, Con continues with this faulty line of reasoning except, instead of Nazis, he points to Margaret Sanger. Again, a position is not refuted because it is shared by someone with whom we disagree on other views. The merits (or detriments) of legal abortion are important to this discussion and a demonized person or group who may have supported abortion are an irrelevant non-sequitur.
That being said, my opponent’s sources for these two sections (7-29) should carry no weight in regards to source points.
***On that, I turn the debate back over to Peter. Belated Merry Christmas, my friend, and happy New Year to you and yours.
Con
#4
Best wishes for this New Year!
Thank you for another chance to expose flaws in the Pro-choice position!
R1
Pros two main arguments center on the woman's health and human rights. Concerning the latter, Pro has given his opinion but no logically compelling or conclusive facts that abortion is right and should be legal. However, with his one statement, there is agreement.
"Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, regardless of race, sex, nationality, ethnicity, language, religion, or any other status."
On this statement alone, Pro undermines his entire position since abortion does not treat all human beings equally under the law. Where are the unborn's rights?
P1. All human beings should be treated equally under the law.
P2. The unborn (speaking of the human unborn) is a human being.
C. The unborn should be treated equally under the law.
Premise 1 Justice is dependent on equal treatment under the law.
In my R1, Hitler's Germany was given as an example of an unjust society. Various groups were not treated fairly under the law. There are countless other examples of nations with unfair laws, such as slavery in America or Apartheid in South Africa.
"Historically, every single attempt to divide humanity into those who have rights and those who are expendable has proven to be a colossal mistake. Why think abortion is any different?" [1]
"The principle of respect for every human being is found not just in theological sources but also in the principles of the Stoics, the Hippocratic Oath, the philosophical ethics of Immanuel Kant, and the U.N. Declaration on Human Rights." [2]
The Declaration of Independence declares,
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." [3]
1) Fundamentally first is the right to life. It is the most basic of all human rights. The absence of its defence leads to barbary and unlivable conditions for those less desirable. Without that right to life, there is no existence, hence no freedom or pursuit of happiness.
2) Unalienable rights - If one human being is not equal, morally speaking, to another human being, then human beings are not intrinsically valuable. Granting this, why not kill the woman and her unborn together? What does it matter what one human being does to another? If the rights of the innocent are not protected, then there is no justice.
Unequally treatment by the law can set a precedent. A vast number of undesirable or devalued human beings can be discriminated against and dehumanized to death. (I.e., Roe v. Wade is cited as justification for abortion because the unborn human being is not recognized as a person under the law).
"In Roe v. Wade, the Court said that a fetus is not a person but "potential life," and thus does not have constitutional rights of its own." [4]
Surely the law should protect all human beings from unjust killing or devaluation?
"[T]he standard pro-choice position...divide humanity into those who matter and those who matter a little or not at all." [5]
"If unborn human beings don't have rights, though, then the criterion for having rights must be something other than being human—it must be something that unborn humans don't have." [9]
That last quote shows the inconsistency with the U.N. declaration cited above and in R1.
Premise 2 is a biological and scientific fact. It is also philosophically and logically verifiable. Pro has admitted in the past that the unborn is a human being. Almost every embryological text will identify the unborn from conception as a human being. [5]
The Conclusion follows from the major and minor premises as sound. The unborn is a human being, and it should be treated equally under the law (for the law to be just) with the same rights as every other human being.
"If the future experiences of the unborn count for nothing, then they don't count for the born either, and we lose one of the strongest reasons for avoiding our own death, and regretting the deaths of others." [5]
"Belvedere reproduces the argument this way:
1) What makes killing someone wrong is that doing so deprives her of a future of value.
2) When a fetus is killed, it suffers the same kind of loss.
Thus,
3) Abortion is immoral just as killing an adult or a child is immoral." [6]
***
1) All human beings should be equally valuable (Intrinsic worth) under the law.
2) The unborn (speaking of the human unborn) is a human being.
3) The unborn should be an equally valuable human being under the law.
Premise 1, supported by the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights, declares all human beings have human rights. It is a statement of what should be, not necessarily what is the case. It is also logically coherent with justice.
Premise 2 is consistent with science. The life of a human being begins at conception. Its development does not stop at fertilization, or birth, or adolescence, but continues throughout its life. [7] (ch 1, p. 1)
The Conclusion then follows.
***
Woman's Health (and the Harm Done)
Health can be argued for the woman and the unborn. Remember what is aborted.
1. Compare abortion frequency stats before Roe v Wade with that after.
Number of Recorded abortions per year
1960 --> 292
1964 --> 823 (sexual revolution)
1973 --> 744,600 (Roe v Wade)
1981 --> 1,577,340 (highest number)
2011 --> 1,058,500 [8]
The abortion numbers escalated after Roe V Wade. It became a slaught of innocent human beings.
Robert Johnston Study (Estimating) Live Births and Abortions Reported
1926 --> (2,839,000) = (2)
1960 --> 4,257,850 = 292
1973 --> 3,136,965 = 744,610
1985 --> 3,760,561 = 1,588,550
2017 --> 3,853,472 = 427,111 [9]
Guttmacher Institute Reported/Estimated Abortions
1973 --> 744,600
1985 --> 1,588,600
2017 --> (850,200) [9]
Please look at the "Pregnancy-related mortality ratio per 100,000" chart since formating it is a problem. [10]
"CDC...confirmed that there were more than 3,400 pregnancy-related deaths over a five-year period in the United States." [11]
The estimated abortion deaths, same time period --> 3,156,876 - 5,335,590 [9]
Causes of pregnancy-related death in the United States percentages: 2011-2016
Hemorrhage - 11
Infection - 12.5
Amniotic fluid embolism - 5.6
Thrombotic pulmonary embolism - 9
Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy - 6.9
Anesthesia complications - 0.3
Cerebrovascular accident - 7.7
Cardiomyopathy - 11
Other cardiovascular condition - 15.7
Other noncardiovascular conditions - 13.9
The cause of death is unknown for 6.4% of all pregnancy-related deaths
2. What about the health and harm of the unborn? Abortion utterly neglects it. The harm to the unborn's health is irreparably, plus the prevention of these deaths is almost entirely possibly. Since Pro used an emotional appeal, consider the trial of the unborn that go "through lethal suction [12], dismemberment [13], crushing, or poisoning" [14]
The leading cause of death, in a Florida case study, was unwantedness/no reason.
The woman's physical health was threatened by the pregnancy .288% of the time.
The woman aborted for social or economic reasons 6.268% of the time.
92.330% No reason (elective) [15]
.288% for health reasons is a small number in comparison to the total aborted.
More human beings in the USA die from abortions each year than any other cause.
Heart disease is listed as the leading cause.
Deaths in 2017: 647,457 [16]
Compare that to abortion:
Estimate in 2017: 850,200 [9]
Pro believes it is okay for a woman to kill her unborn human offspring. As the father, would Pro feel it right for him to kill it too?
3. What about human equality concerns Pro? He focuses only on the woman's health; the adverse health effects to the unborn is fatal.
4. The woman's health is also adversely affected both physically (possible uterus or cervix damage, risk of hemorrhage, infection, and future pregnancy complications [12]), and psychologically in many cases. [17] Some controversial studies have linked abortion to breast cancer. [18]
R2
PRO:
"..., it seems my opponent is suggesting that abortion is wrong because the Nazis endorsed it."
No, that is not the point, and where was that said? The Nazis first discriminated against a class of people and then dehumanized and alienated them by their system of law. Pro-choice does the same.
PRO:
"1) A position or view is not refuted by the fact that the Nazis shared it (association fallacy [11])."
It is factual that the pro-choice movement employs language and indoctrination used by the Nazis to cheapen human life. Therefore it is not guilt by association.
William Brennan [19] charts nine "semantics of oppression" used by the Nazis describing the Jew also employed to the unwanted unborn, women, Native Americans, African American slaves. The derogatory name-calling list includes deficient human, non-human, animal, parasite [20], disease, inanimate objects, waste products, nonpersons.
Two debates, many devaluing terms
"Some collection of cells", "potentially non-viable embryo," "such a broad definition of human," [20] (R2 - Con), "an intruder," "abortion...a form of self-defence," "a group of cells," "it cannot be legitimately argued a fetus is a person (an individual human) while it exists as an extension of a person's body," "a potential person," (R2), "an extension of a woman’s body," "slavery," "Human rights apply to individual human beings and not parts of human beings. A fetus is part of a woman." [21]
Round 3
Pro
#5
Thank you, Peter. I hope your New Years was memorable!
It seems my opponent and I are talking passed one another. He would like for the reader to accept a fertilized egg is a person. For reasons already mentioned, I do not consider this to be reasonable. More importantly, I consider the discussion on personhood to be beside the point. As I’ve said previously, even if we were to grant personhood as my opponent understands it, there is no right to use the body of another. In an attempt to better illustrate this point, I will draw on thought experiments by Judith Jarvis-Thomson (JJT).
People seeds
Again, suppose it were like this: people-seeds drift about in the air like pollen, and if you open your windows, one may drift in and take root in your carpets or upholstery. You don't want children, so you fix up your windows with fine mesh screens, the very best you can buy. As can happen, however, and on very, very rare occasions does happen, one of the screens is defective; and a seed drifts in and takes root. [13]
In this, ‘people-seeds’ flying through the window represent conception and mesh screens represent contraception. While attempting to protect oneself from unwanted consequences, a person still finds they have people sprouting in their home. JJT asks would it be impermissible to rid a home of unwanted consequences from reasonable actions – especially given the precautions taken to avoid this outcome and the burdens they represent?
This scenario is analogous to the occurrence of a pregnancy in spite of contraceptives being employed. The pill has a failure rate of 7% - which means 7 out of every 100 women using only the pill will become pregnant every year. Condoms have an even higher rate of failure at 13% [14]. This is a very real concern - contraceptives are no guarantee against pregnancy. As mentioned previously, pregnancy disrupts body, education, employment, and family. Abortion allows a woman to maintain control of her life when countermeasures fail.
The Violinist
You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you. [13]
In this scenario, a person’s biology has been co-opted against their will to bring someone else to full health. JJT argues the kidnapped individual has no obligation to the violinist. Yes, the world may be without a world-class violinist, but there is no duty to his life at the expense of another’s biology. There is no right to life that includes the use of another person’s body. For the same reason, abortion does not deny a fetus’ right to life – it merely deprives it of the non-consensual use of another’s body. This is analogous to conception as a result of rape.
Defense - R1 – Human rights
P1. All human beings should be treated equally under the law.
P2. The unborn (speaking of the human unborn) is a human being.
C. The unborn should be treated equally under the law.
**Premise 1 – I agree with the premise, although I take issue with some of Con’s defense of it. I will focus on those parts.
2) Unalienable rights: Unalienable means ‘irrevocable’ [15] not ‘equality’. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for equality and I, like Peter, accept this as a basic human right. However, I also hold that rights are not revocable and I’ve pointed out how the pro-life position seeks to revoke bodily autonomy from women so that a new group (the unborn) may use their body – whether they consent or not. That is the opposite of inalienable rights.
As for the rest – I have not challenged personhood as Con understands it and the perceived problems related to personhood are ultimately a distraction from challenges to the Pro-life position presented in this debate.
**Premise 2 – In round 2, I expounded how neither science, nor I, support Con’s understanding of personhood. This ultimately boils down to semantics. Attaching the adjective “human” to a noun like, say, “being” does not equate to personhood. I would be willing to entertain personhood beginning late in the pregnancy, but this does nothing to help my opponent since personhood of the unborn does not bestow a special right, but rather the same rights to every person.
**Conclusion – The conclusion does not follow from the premises - All human beings should be treated equally under the law and, whether the unborn is considered a person or not, there is no right to use the body of another without consent.
1) What makes killing someone wrong is that doing so deprives her of a future of value.
2) When a fetus is killed, it suffers the same kind of loss. Thus,
3) Abortion is immoral just as killing an adult or a child is immoral."
The first premise does not take into account instances where killing someone can be justified such as war or self-defense and the conclusion is faulty.
1) All human beings should be equally valuable (Intrinsic worth) under the law.
2) The unborn (speaking of the human unborn) is a human being.
3) The unborn should be an equally valuable human being under the law.
This syllogism suffers the same flaws as the first presented – so I won’t beat a dead horse. More importantly, the conclusion does not argue against abortion since there is no right to use the body of another. It is possible to respect the unborn as equally valuable AND acknowledge being equally valuable does not permit non-consensual use of another person's body. Being equally valuable means one has the same rights as every other person.
.
Defense –R1 - Women's Health
- I am willing to accept Con’s stats showing *legal* abortion increased after Roe V. Wade. This is not surprising or beneficial to my opponent’s case. As stated in round one, restrictive laws regarding abortion do not appear to reduce abortion overall. What they actually do is force more abortions to be unsafe. According to Guttmacher, “estimates of the number of illegal abortions in the 1950s and 1960s ranged from 200,000 to 1.2 million per year. One analysis, extrapolating from data from North Carolina, concluded that an estimated 829,000 illegal or self-induced abortions occurred in 1967.” [16] The causes of pregnancy related death percentages are not surprising either. The percentages are in the context of legal abortion, and as my opponent seems to suggest, these are relatively low numbers. The stats he has provided would be part of 55% of safe abortions (worldwide) I mentioned in round one since abortion is legal (and safe) in the US. On the other hand, 93% of women of reproductive age in Africa live in countries with restrictive abortion laws, and Africa is the world region with the highest abortion related deaths - 9% of maternal deaths in Africa are from unsafe abortion. [20] A clearer demonstration of the harm illegal abortion attributes to can be had by comparing abortion related deaths in Eastern Asia (where abortion is largely unrestricted) to Sub Saharan Africa (where abortion is much more restricted). Eastern Asia has abortion related deaths at .8% whereas SSA is at 9.6% (as of this report in 2014). More than 10 times as many women die in SSA over Eastern Asia due to abortion - making abortion illegal makes it less safe, not less prevalent. [21 Table 1]2
- Con ask about the “health and harm” of the unborn. He might as well ask about the health and harm of self-defense. Is it unfortunate harm can come from protecting oneself? Yes, but the alternative is much worse: no right to do so. Also, the various surgical abortion procedures described are not the norm and might be required when a woman’s life is in danger – which Con himself allows for. This is another inadvertent ‘own-goal’ [17] (Nazi argumentation from rnd 1) and as Con admits himself - an emotional appeal. However, the typical abortion (occurring before 13 weeks) utilizes medication (not surgery) and Con’s emotional appeal has limited applicability (if any) to the notion that a person has a right not to be used by another.
- Equality means everyone has the same rights. Con is not advocating for everyone to have the same rights, but rather for the unborn alone to have a special right. This is not equality.
- The adverse health effects described by my opponent are not an argument against abortion any more than they are an argument against rights overall. Defense of one’s person and personal sovereignty (for example) comes with the potential for harm to the self and others, but this certainly doesn’t mean it is unwarranted. Also, I dispute some of the effects listed. For instances, surgical procedures, which typically happens later in the pregnancy and/or out of necessity (the mother’s life being in danger) do not come into play in most abortions. Additionally, abortion does not affect women’s mental health more than not having an abortion. [18] [19].
Round 2
Con denies he is employing the association fallacy, but I stand by my evaluation and related refutation. Even while denying the fallacy, we see a recommitment to it.
Con
#6
Thank you, Pro!
***
Pro did not grasp the significance of my arguments. He said we talk past each other. Let me clear up some of the misunderstandings.
Summary
My main arguments (that Pro largely ignores) are 1) what is the unborn, and 2) why does it matter? Unless Pro can prove that it is less than a human being [1] or less than a person and that human beings have no intrinsic value, he does not address the heart of the debate regarding abortion laws. Pro agrees it is a human being. Does it matter then that we kill innocent human beings? Pro suggests that killing one does not matter when it is unborn. Why not?
Human Rights
How does killing innocent human beings relate to legalized abortion? Is such a law unjust? This rule of law is unfair if justice exists. Justice relies on applying the law equally and impartiality. Can Pro experientially live with this view of not all human beings as intrinsically valuable? Pro is a human being. If someone decided his human life did not matter, would he think otherwise?
To illustrate this injustice, I pointed out with Nazi Germany that laws that discriminate against or dehumanize innocent human beings are not just laws. I believe Pro and pro-choice advocates fall into the pattern of minimalizing unborn human life, opposing and downgrading the most vulnerable amongst us. Just like the Nazis with the Jews, such laws prey unjustly on the powerless. Both cultures used language and laws, along with the media, educational institutions and propagation machinery to change people's thinking negatively towards targeted human beings.
Indoctrination: "[T]he process of influencing a person with ideas and attitudes (AKA brainwashing)...[I]t is getting someone to accept a "doctrine" as their own ideology...The purpose of propaganda is to indoctrinate someone with a viewpoint,..., and the intentions behind the indoctrination matter in terms of judging the morality of the indoctrination." [2]
Propaganda can be misinformation that often denies, trivializes, or distorts the obvious, the facts. Pro-choice has done the same with abortion. They have desensitized people to what is killed and why it matters in its devaluation of the unborn. Pro did not prove the unborn a non-person, he just asserted it. He says, "Attaching the adjective "human" to a noun like, say, "being" does not equate to personhood." In our previous debate, Pro defines a person,
Pro, how does adding the adjective change what the unborn is? It either is a human being, or it is not. A living human being is also an actual human being, not a potential human being like Pro has previously suggested. "Potential" degrades its worth. It makes it less than it is, as was done in Roe V Wade, the erroneous case that changed abortion practice and thinking.
"(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother." p. 164-165 [4]
Human beings, by nature, are personal beings. Can Pro demonstrate otherwise?
Substance V Function
A substance exists in itself, not as a part of something else. The difference is that function is acquired, but the substance is what the being is throughout its existence. You are the same person throughout your life. If you lose a leg, that does not make you a non-person or a different person. You are still you. An arm or leg (functionality) is not needed to be a person.
Misrepresenting My Stated Syllogism
Please notice what Pro did with Premise 2. He exchanged the word 'human' with 'person' and then reconstructed the case around personhood. Pro dehumanized and trivialized the unborn human being to something less than it is with language. The syllogism clearly spoke of human beings, which the unborn is. There was no mention of personhood. If he wants to argue it is not a person he must prove it, which his earlier link did not establish.
The crux is that Pro believes it is permissible to kill innocent human beings at least until they are deemed by law to be persons. How is it ever just to do so? Pro bases that on the woman having autonomy over her body. Does that argument work? "Bodily autonomy is important, but there are obvious limits to that autonomy when someone else's body is also involved." [5]
Bodily Autonomy
Pro focuses on the woman's bodily rights argument. He is using a minimalist ethic. He applies the term 'harm' to the woman yet fails to include the fatal injury done to the unborn nor consider the potential damage to the woman's body from abortions.
Pro: "A woman being forced to give birth against her will is being subjected to torture." [7 - R1]
That statement is emotive language, an appeal to pity, that paints a one-sided picture. Two can play that game. What about the torture of the unborn? [6]
Pro: "Every person has the right to control their own body. When this is denied, human rights are being attacked." [7 - R2]
That right does not include the right to kill an innocent human being except in self-defence. Again, the right of the unborn human being is forgotten. What of its rights?
Judith Jarvis-Thomson
Her Violinist arguments have been refuted many times.
1. The unborn is not a part of the woman's body but a separate being. Pro mistakenly has argued for that very premise in a past debate.
Pro: "...the line of distinction I am interested in is when human becomes person, and that occurs at birth. Before birth, a fetus is an extension of a woman's body, and as such, any rights it has are an extension of the mother's rights. After birth, a new individual human being exists in the world with rights of their own." [3 - R3]
Not true. The 'fetus' is another body, another being.
Pro: "...an extension of a woman's body, and cannot be considered a person until they are well and truly an individual human being." [3 - R4]
This is a fallacy of Affirming the Consequent, Appeal to Common Belief, and Begging the Question. The conclusion does not follow.
Pro: "He would like for the reader to accept a fertilized egg is a person." [7- R3]
Another misrepresentation. Once an egg is fertilized, it is no longer an egg; it becomes a distinct, separate individual human being. And unless Pro can prove that personhood does not start at conception/fertilization, the unborn should be given the benefit of the doubt.
Nowhere have I argued a fertilized egg is a person, nowhere. When an egg is fertilized it becomes a human being and stops being an egg.
"...[U]pon fertilization, parts of human beings have actually been transformed into something very different from what they were before;...a single, whole human being. During the process of fertilization, the sperm and the oocyte cease to exist as such, and a new human being is produced." [8] [9]
Pro argues,
"I consider the discussion on personhood to be beside the point." [7 - R3]
Yet, Pro continually comes back to and rests much of his argument upon personhood, as does the legal case of Roe V Wade.
2. Sovereign bodily rights should not be absolute.
Pro: "Abortion allows humans rights to women equal to that of men."
Again, what he states gives a woman more rights than a man, not equal rights. Generally speaking, a man can exercise his right to use his body in causing the death of another only in self-defence. Pro believes the woman should be completely sovereign over her body. No one has absolute rights to kill an innocent human being on their property who has no intent on wrongdoing. [5 - ibid]
3. Abortion is more than withdrawing life support from the unborn, it is intentionally killing her own offspring, violating its right to life, thus the violin analogy is not parallel.
"[I]t is the intentional and active killing of that child, often by dismemberment. This killing violates the child's right to life (the right not to be intentionally killed) and right to bodily integrity." [5 - ibid]
4. The woman knew the possible biological consequences of sex. In most cases, she willingly engaged in the sexual act.
Pros arguments about the failure of condoms/devices or the average number of times it takes of having sex before pregnancy results (78) are non-sequiturs and irrelevant since the woman knows that engaging in sex always leaves open the possibility of pregnancy unless she or her partner is sterile. Abortion speaks after the fact of pregnancy, not before.
5. The unborn have a right not to have their bodies "fatally violated through abortion."
The woman is treating the unborn as less than it is, a human being, thus unjustly. The most basic human right is the right to life. That is where rights begin, with a new life. That is a natural right, not a legal right. It is included in the Declaration of Independence, the UN Declaration on Human Rights, as well as being common sense where justice is concerned.
6. The woman has a maternal obligation to protect her offspring, not destroy it.
The woman has more obligation to her own than to a stranger.
7. The woman has a moral obligation to protect her vulnerable offspring.
Who would be allowed to treat an abandoned baby as the woman is treating her own biological offspring? Not only this but people recognize there is something wrong with abortion legally. It does not treat every human being with equal rights to life and dignity, or as Pro previously (R2) said well, "human rights applied discriminately is an attack on human dignity."
8. The uterus is where the unborn lives, its temporary home, its natural environment for the duration of pregnancy.
Abortion advocates want to deny it is rightful home. It is in its necessary environment.
Round 4
Pro
#7
Thank you so much, Con!
Round 3 Rebuttal and refutation
Human Rights
Con attempts to simplify the situation by equating my life with that of the unborn. However, I doubt Con would argue for my right to use the body of another person without their consent as he does for the unborn. In fact, I imagine he would understand my life being lost in a defensive act by my would-be subject if I were attempting to do such a thing. I ask that he be consistent.
In short, It is possible to accept the unborn is fully human, humans have inherent value, AND argue for abortion. Con is presenting a non-sequitur/ false dilemma suggesting otherwise. Thus far, he has made no attempt to account for how a fully human and inherently valuable woman can have her body used for purposes other than her own. A logically consistent view of rights accepts all people (even the unborn should we choose to view them as persons) have the same rights - and no one (not even the unborn) have a right to use the body of another without consent. It is not an absence of value that leads me to support equality, personal sovereignty, and human rights in general, but very much the opposite. Are we prepared to have our bodies forcibly used for another being? If not, we shouldn't expect others to do any different.
Judith Jarvis Thomson
Con has imported arguments from another debate in order to attack them rather than addressing arguments presented here. This tactic has been used elsewhere in this debate, but in response to this argument it was too blatant to disregard.
PGA explicitly states “sovereign bodily autonomy should not be absolute”. This is an extreme difference between our positions and a contradiction to his endorsement of inalienable rights. If human rights are conditional then they are undermined.
My interlocutor insinuates abortion is merely ‘killing an innocent on owned property’ and states “no one has the right to kill an innocent with no intent to do harm”. However, I very much see abortion as a form of self defense. An unwanted pregnancy can send a woman’s life in a direction from which she cannot recover. It will affect her body, her ability to earn a living, and ..her future. Additionally, Con himself allows abortion when a woman’s life is endangered – would this not be ‘killing an innocent with no intent to do harm’? The same applies to PGA's assertion that "The unborn have a right not to have their bodies "fatally violated through abortion". Ultimately, his words do not square with his own position. My opponent suffers more self-inflicted wounds.
In round 1 under the title "3) Personhood", Con argues the unborn should be granted the status of personhood because of what human beings are. Apparently, Con has changed his mind and now views equating human and person as a 'dehumanization and trivialization' of the unborn when I interpreted his arguments to match the subject of this debate which is the legality of abortion: one need be a person for human rights to be applicable. I’ve not seriously challenged his view of personhood though, so this is nothing more than a distraction.
Conclusion
Let us evaluate the debate thus far. I have presented arguments regarding women’s health, human rights, a moral argument, as well as thought experiments to provide (perhaps) a different perspective on pregnancy and abortion.
Women’s Health
In the women’s health argument I submitted ‘restricting abortion does nothing to reduce the frequency - it merely makes abortion less safe’. Con attempted to show (legal) abortion frequency increased after Roe V. Wade, but this had already been addressed in round 1 – rates of abortion in countries where it is highly restrictive are roughly the same as countries where it is not (37 of 1000;34 of 1000 respectively). This was further addressed in round 3 when the number of (illegal) abortions pre-Roe abortions were shown to be roughly the same or higher than post-Roe frequency of (legal) abortions.
Secondly, Con attempts to suggest abortion should be made illegal because of the “harm to the unborn”. I don’t consider this to be a particularly compelling argument since the measures Con proposes would do nothing to reduce harm to the unborn given the consistent frequency of abortion regardless of legality. That leaves us with only one solution which has a net reduction in harm: legalized abortion which reduces the harm to women. Ultimately, Con drops his defense on this front in round 3. Argument to Pro.
Human Rights
In this section, my argument was that disallowing abortion denies basic rights to women like equality. My opponent argues for human rights as well, namely, that the ‘unborn have the right to life’. I am not unsympathetic to his argument, but the situation is much more nuanced to stop there. First, there is the question of personhood, I mean, we don’t generally see folks arguing for the right to life for gametes. That is because they are sufficiently different from what is typically recognized as “human” that most everyone accepts gametes do not have rights even though they ARE human (“human beings” if you like). The line of demarcation my opponent presents for human rights seems more semantic than the substantive. What makes humans special isn’t our cells or our DNA (which is pretty much all there is at conception). However, rather than have a fruitless argument about personhood, I have chosen, for the sake of the argument, to imagine the unborn as people. Even doing this I find that my opponent’s view is incoherent. He argues for inalienable rights, and, at the same time, “bodily autonomy should not be absolute”. These two statements are contradictory. He argues for equality while arguing the unborn should have the right to use the body of another – a right everyone doesn’t have (nor should they). These notions are contradictory. The Pro side of the debate has been logically consistent. A person should have the same rights as every other person and abortion does not violate this notion. A man, woman, or fetus (even assuming personhood) cannot use the body of another without consent. On coherence alone, this argument should go to Pro.
Morality and Law
To be honest, I didn’t consider this argument to be very strong – it is a simplistic argument which pushes legal abortion as morally preferable to disallowing abortion because the latter causes more harm and less freedom to women. It is a very utilitarian outlook. Con did not directly address this argument. Later he suggested a woman has a moral obligation to “protect her vulnerable offspring”. Not to be overly pedantic, but to be an “offspring” one would need to spring-off! (ie. Be a separate and independent entity) Besides, he suggests harm to the fetus should be taken into account, but as stated above, Con did not provide an alternative which allowed for less harm to the fetus – only the same frequency of fetal harm combined with more harm for women. He later equated an abandoned baby to the unborn, but this analogy fails. The unborn draws it sustenance directly and exclusively from the body of another, whereas, a baby (abandoned or otherwise) need not. Suffice to say, this is an oversimplification and fails to account for the broader context of pregnancy. Argument to Pro.
People seeds
This thought experiment explored what should be done when reasonable measures to avoid pregnancy fail. Pro’s indirect response seems to be that there is no such thing as a reasonable measure (except presumably abstinence) because, in his mind, sex equates to pregnancy. Of course, this simply isn’t true as highlighted by the facts that:
1)unprotected sex on average yields conception every 78 attempts (far from sex and pregnancy being synonymous), and;
2)people have sex for many reasons other than reproduction (none of which abstinence could address).
The fact of the matter is that people are going to have sex because it satisfies many needs, the unexpected sometimes happens, and a woman is within her rights to forgo pregnancy and what it might do to her body and life. Of course, if she chooses to bring a child into the world – that’s her prerogative as well. That’s personal sovereignty. Ultimately, Con did not (at least not directly) address this argument. Argument to Pro.
Violinist argument
Con has imported arguments from another debate in order to attack them rather than addressing the argument presented here. The argument as stated does not suggest the violinist is part of the person’s body – only that the person’s biology has been co-opted against their will AND this creates no obligation on their part. The argument allows the personhood of both entities, and stresses the thrust of my case which is that there is no right to use the body of another without consent (regardless of personhood). This argument is completely unaddressed due to this misrepresentation. Argument to Pro.
Grammar and Spelling
I see no advantage going to either debater on this.
Final word
Given that this is my final word in this debate, I would like to ask my opponent not to provide anything new as that would be unfair to me. I'll rely on the reader and the judges to hold Con accountable. That being said, I would like to thank my opponent for this debate. It has been a thoroughly enjoyable experience, and on that, I will turn this over to him. May your words be true and your arguments strong!
Vote Pro!
Con
#8
Why Abortion Should Not be Legal
Fact 1: The unborn is a human being.
Pro did not challenge this fact, nor is it reasonable to do so scientifically.
Fact 2: Pro admits it is a human being, but he and abortion advocates lessen its value and status through disparaging language (see the last heading).
Fact 3: Killing innocent human beings is unjust. The unborn is an innocent human being.
Pro never outright disputed the status of its innocence or humanity but did so subtly with semantics.
Fact 4: The Nazis lessened the value and status of many groups of human beings living within Germany by their laws and propaganda, leading to the Holocaust.
A section of my R2 established that Nazi law and Nazi practices devalued and dehumanized particular groups within German society. Pro never disputed those facts, although he argued my comparative analogy between unwanted groups (Jews) and the unborn were unfound. Not true. In both cases, the language undercuts the humanity and personhood of the group(s) it isolates.
Fact 5: Abortion is a colossal human Holocaust unsurpassed by numbers killed to date in the history of the world (over 1.5 billion human beings legislated out of existence since 1980). [1]
Fact 6: Pro could not establish the unborn was not a personal being from conception. He granted it for the sake of this argument. His one supporting citation as evidence of non-personhood [2] was highly speculative, loaded with uncertain language,
"In 1973 the Supreme Court had refused to resolve the question,"
"...the scientific point of view...concluded that biology alone is not able to determine the point at which personhood is established,"
"scientists expressed their view,"
"Reasons for not defining the fetus as a person included the negative impact on providing medical services to the mother and the fetus,..."
"further explorations of the question are necessary."
Although Pro did not prove it was a non-person (his onus), he is okay with stripping it of any legal rights. I argued that from conception, the unborn is a person by its very nature from a philosophical as well as logical perspective. Pro failed to challenge my contentions adequately, even conceding for the sake of this debate that it is a person, yet treats it differently from other persons. In America, what other innocent people can you kill because you don't want them? Hence, Pro has a double standard unless its lack of personhood is proven.
Two Main Arguments - Health and Bodily Rights
a) Woman's Health
Pro was unable to establish that the woman's death rate from pregnancy, was lesser numerically, to the unborn death rate from abortion. Statistically, the death rate from abortion is far higher than the death rate for pregnancy complications. Pro says that "restricting abortion does nothing to reduce its frequency." Even if this were true (due to choosing an illegal abortion as the contributing factor of those deaths, not pregnancy), that does not make two wrongs a right. Even if illegal abortions contribute to just as many deaths as do legal abortions when did ever breaking the law or ignoring the most basic right to life for innocent human beings justify doing something wrong?
Pro never established but only claimed the moral right of abortion (for any reason), especially for bodily rights as being right. Morally, Pro pushed for human equality, citing the UN Declaration on Human Rights, at the same time undermining such rights with his stand on Pro-choice. He says we should treat all human beings equally then proceeds to argue the innocent unborn human are not equal. His position is a glaring deficiency and contradiction.
Only "a small proportion of women who have abortions do so because of health concerns or fetal anomalies, the large majority choose termination in response to an unintended pregnancy." [3]
"Worldwide, the most commonly reported reason women cite for having an abortion is to postpone or stop childbearing." [4]
Again, the reasons are not usually health-related but unwantedness for a variety of factors. Sub Sahara Africa does not fare well in family planning. Abortion becomes a method of contraception there as well as in Asia, such as in Japan (89%). [5]
In the USA, the risk to maternal health is 2.8%; with fetal health, the risk is 3.3%. [6] Health reasons, other than for Pakistan and India play a tiny percentage in why women opt for abortions. [7]
The data available is considered inconclusive and unreliable in many countries. The primary health factor could be for psychological reasons - e.g. ostracization, guilt, shame. For fetal defects, the sex of the child factors into such evaluations in the pregnancy (the Chinese bias to want sons). Health concerns play a minor part in abortions.
b) Bodily Autonomy
Regarding bodily autonomy, Pro wanted to absolute the woman's bodily autonomy. He repeatedly argues that others should ask the woman's consent before using her body, rightly so, yet the unborn is unable to do this. What is more, by the woman consenting to sex, she understands the possibility of pregnancy occurring. With most cases of pregnancy, she agrees to sex. Rape related abortions count for about 1% of all abortions in the USA. [3]
The Violinist
Pros misapprehension here is that the innocent unborn is a stranger (the unborn shares a part of her DNA) who was forcibly attached to the woman's body. In most cases, the sexual union carried with it her consent with the possibility of pregnancy occurring and is a natural biological result of sexual union, not a forced one. Non-consensual sex or rape is the 1% exception to willing intercourse in the USA.
People Seeds
Pro mistakenly thinks that I equate sex to automatic pregnancy. My point is there is a moral responsibility involved with sex that happens with pregnancy. By consenting, there is a chance of forming a new life. I addressed his argument of the woman's bodily "sovereignty" under absolute rights. Nowhere should any person have absolute rights over their body to do with it whatever they like if it involves killing another innocent human being. Pro gives the woman greater rights than men.
Human Rights
Pro continually led me to believe he conceded the personhood argument, so I did not pursue it further, yet in R4, he again puts the onus on me. He has the burden to prove it is not a person of which he did not do.
As mentioned previously, human rights are the weakest part of his argument as explained in Facts # 2-6.
Morality and Law
Pro does not consider my moral or legal arguments to be "strong" for illegalizing abortion. Pro is wrong; he pushes legal abortion as "morally preferable" not as morally right. The harm done to the unborn is irrevocable. Pro does not recognize the "offspring" as a separate "independent entity," but has the illusion it is part of or and "extension" of the woman's body. Therefore he believes the woman can do with it as she pleases. His logic is faulty. If the unborn is part of or an extension of a pregnant woman, she would have four arms and legs, a separate, distinct DNA and blood system, and sometimes a penis. The unborn is its own entity, a different organism, directing its personal development internally. These are scientific facts that Pro conflates and confuses with false assertions. Granted, the unborn relies on the woman's womb and nutrients for its temporary home and food source. Perhaps Pro mistakenly thinks that the only analogy is one of sustenance, but it is one of moral right and wrong, per the heading.
Furthermore, Pro equates harm to the unborn in killing it as lesser harm that the woman endures in carrying it for nine months then perhaps putting it up for adoption. As for the charge that I equate the unborn and abandoned baby as equal, what does that mean? They are equal from a moral perspective, not a developmental perspective, just like a baby and a teen are somewhat different developmentally but no less a human being.
The Loaded Dehumanizing and Depersonalizing Language of Abortion
Although Pro and many Pro-choicers are most likely unaware, they used the same kind of dehumanizing language used by oppressive totalitarian authorities to marginalize opposing groups of society for their purposes. [8] By applying a different legal standard to such groups, Roe V Wade set a precedent for abortion. Roe V Wade questioned the personhood of the unborn, was wrong in its historical summation and used devaluing language to sway public opinion to change laws. Pro used suggestive, dehumanizing, and devaluing language during this debate, with terms like "potential life" or suggestions that the gamete is "sufficiently different from what is typically recognized as 'human'" to lessen what the unborn is.
He made misrepresenting, unscientific statements like "what makes humans special isn't our cells or DNA (which is pretty much all there is at conception)," but that DNA is what does make us unique for it directs the human organism to be what it is. The unborn is more than a collection of cells. At conception, the unborn is a separate, individual, unique human entity with everything it needs internally to direct its growth to its full potential. Like every other human entity or personal being, it needs an environment and nutrients ( that the woman supplies) to aid it in its development.
I thank Pro for willingly debating this important subject!
Fact 3: Killing innocent human beings is unjust. The unborn is an innocent human being.
Pro never outright disputed the status of its innocence or humanity but did so subtly with semantics.
Fact 4: The Nazis lessened the value and status of many groups of human beings living within Germany by their laws and propaganda, leading to the Holocaust.
A section of my R2 established that Nazi law and Nazi practices devalued and dehumanized particular groups within German society. Pro never disputed those facts, although he argued my comparative analogy between unwanted groups (Jews) and the unborn were unfound. Not true. In both cases, the language undercuts the humanity and personhood of the group(s) it isolates.
Fact 5: Abortion is a colossal human Holocaust unsurpassed by numbers killed to date in the history of the world (over 1.5 billion human beings legislated out of existence since 1980). [1]
Pro never demonstrated these unfactual. He turns a blind eye while he pushed for a woman's "right" to control her own body, regardless of the consequences which he trivializes in killing the unborn. Pro also misunderstands the difference between him using someone else's body without consent and the unborn's situation. They are not parallel (see Violinist).
Fact 6: Pro could not establish the unborn was not a personal being from conception. He granted it for the sake of this argument. His one supporting citation as evidence of non-personhood [2] was highly speculative, loaded with uncertain language,
"In 1973 the Supreme Court had refused to resolve the question,"
"...the scientific point of view...concluded that biology alone is not able to determine the point at which personhood is established,"
"scientists expressed their view,"
"Reasons for not defining the fetus as a person included the negative impact on providing medical services to the mother and the fetus,..."
"further explorations of the question are necessary."
Although Pro did not prove it was a non-person (his onus), he is okay with stripping it of any legal rights. I argued that from conception, the unborn is a person by its very nature from a philosophical as well as logical perspective. Pro failed to challenge my contentions adequately, even conceding for the sake of this debate that it is a person, yet treats it differently from other persons. In America, what other innocent people can you kill because you don't want them? Hence, Pro has a double standard unless its lack of personhood is proven.
Two Main Arguments - Health and Bodily Rights
a) Woman's Health
Pro was unable to establish that the woman's death rate from pregnancy, was lesser numerically, to the unborn death rate from abortion. Statistically, the death rate from abortion is far higher than the death rate for pregnancy complications. Pro says that "restricting abortion does nothing to reduce its frequency." Even if this were true (due to choosing an illegal abortion as the contributing factor of those deaths, not pregnancy), that does not make two wrongs a right. Even if illegal abortions contribute to just as many deaths as do legal abortions when did ever breaking the law or ignoring the most basic right to life for innocent human beings justify doing something wrong?
Pro never established but only claimed the moral right of abortion (for any reason), especially for bodily rights as being right. Morally, Pro pushed for human equality, citing the UN Declaration on Human Rights, at the same time undermining such rights with his stand on Pro-choice. He says we should treat all human beings equally then proceeds to argue the innocent unborn human are not equal. His position is a glaring deficiency and contradiction.
Only "a small proportion of women who have abortions do so because of health concerns or fetal anomalies, the large majority choose termination in response to an unintended pregnancy." [3]
"Worldwide, the most commonly reported reason women cite for having an abortion is to postpone or stop childbearing." [4]
Again, the reasons are not usually health-related but unwantedness for a variety of factors. Sub Sahara Africa does not fare well in family planning. Abortion becomes a method of contraception there as well as in Asia, such as in Japan (89%). [5]
In the USA, the risk to maternal health is 2.8%; with fetal health, the risk is 3.3%. [6] Health reasons, other than for Pakistan and India play a tiny percentage in why women opt for abortions. [7]
The data available is considered inconclusive and unreliable in many countries. The primary health factor could be for psychological reasons - e.g. ostracization, guilt, shame. For fetal defects, the sex of the child factors into such evaluations in the pregnancy (the Chinese bias to want sons). Health concerns play a minor part in abortions.
b) Bodily Autonomy
Regarding bodily autonomy, Pro wanted to absolute the woman's bodily autonomy. He repeatedly argues that others should ask the woman's consent before using her body, rightly so, yet the unborn is unable to do this. What is more, by the woman consenting to sex, she understands the possibility of pregnancy occurring. With most cases of pregnancy, she agrees to sex. Rape related abortions count for about 1% of all abortions in the USA. [3]
The Violinist
Pros misapprehension here is that the innocent unborn is a stranger (the unborn shares a part of her DNA) who was forcibly attached to the woman's body. In most cases, the sexual union carried with it her consent with the possibility of pregnancy occurring and is a natural biological result of sexual union, not a forced one. Non-consensual sex or rape is the 1% exception to willing intercourse in the USA.
People Seeds
Pro mistakenly thinks that I equate sex to automatic pregnancy. My point is there is a moral responsibility involved with sex that happens with pregnancy. By consenting, there is a chance of forming a new life. I addressed his argument of the woman's bodily "sovereignty" under absolute rights. Nowhere should any person have absolute rights over their body to do with it whatever they like if it involves killing another innocent human being. Pro gives the woman greater rights than men.
Human Rights
Pro continually led me to believe he conceded the personhood argument, so I did not pursue it further, yet in R4, he again puts the onus on me. He has the burden to prove it is not a person of which he did not do.
As mentioned previously, human rights are the weakest part of his argument as explained in Facts # 2-6.
Morality and Law
Pro does not consider my moral or legal arguments to be "strong" for illegalizing abortion. Pro is wrong; he pushes legal abortion as "morally preferable" not as morally right. The harm done to the unborn is irrevocable. Pro does not recognize the "offspring" as a separate "independent entity," but has the illusion it is part of or and "extension" of the woman's body. Therefore he believes the woman can do with it as she pleases. His logic is faulty. If the unborn is part of or an extension of a pregnant woman, she would have four arms and legs, a separate, distinct DNA and blood system, and sometimes a penis. The unborn is its own entity, a different organism, directing its personal development internally. These are scientific facts that Pro conflates and confuses with false assertions. Granted, the unborn relies on the woman's womb and nutrients for its temporary home and food source. Perhaps Pro mistakenly thinks that the only analogy is one of sustenance, but it is one of moral right and wrong, per the heading.
Furthermore, Pro equates harm to the unborn in killing it as lesser harm that the woman endures in carrying it for nine months then perhaps putting it up for adoption. As for the charge that I equate the unborn and abandoned baby as equal, what does that mean? They are equal from a moral perspective, not a developmental perspective, just like a baby and a teen are somewhat different developmentally but no less a human being.
The Loaded Dehumanizing and Depersonalizing Language of Abortion
Although Pro and many Pro-choicers are most likely unaware, they used the same kind of dehumanizing language used by oppressive totalitarian authorities to marginalize opposing groups of society for their purposes. [8] By applying a different legal standard to such groups, Roe V Wade set a precedent for abortion. Roe V Wade questioned the personhood of the unborn, was wrong in its historical summation and used devaluing language to sway public opinion to change laws. Pro used suggestive, dehumanizing, and devaluing language during this debate, with terms like "potential life" or suggestions that the gamete is "sufficiently different from what is typically recognized as 'human'" to lessen what the unborn is.
He made misrepresenting, unscientific statements like "what makes humans special isn't our cells or DNA (which is pretty much all there is at conception)," but that DNA is what does make us unique for it directs the human organism to be what it is. The unborn is more than a collection of cells. At conception, the unborn is a separate, individual, unique human entity with everything it needs internally to direct its growth to its full potential. Like every other human entity or personal being, it needs an environment and nutrients ( that the woman supplies) to aid it in its development.
I thank Pro for willingly debating this important subject!
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
Pro Arguments: Womans Health, and Human Rights.
Con Arguments: Human Being, Personhood, Unjust Societies (Nazi), Dehumanizing Unborn,
Pro made a strong case about Womans health. Great details and stats. Showed harm if pregnancies are banned. I believed what was being said. Con focused a bunch on personhood, and Nazi's Implying that having legal abortions is like running an unjust society not better than the Nazis. Con also kept repeating that everyone is treated equal under the law.
Pro did a good job questioning the definition of personhood, giving some std and cancer examples.
The debate is about the law. Pro made better arguments about the impact of having legal abortion. Con did not paint a clear picture on if abortions are illegal.
Pro's arguments were clearer, and more plausible.
Both did great.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
After Protest, I supplement my original vote and apologize to the parties.
Pros position on Womans Health, and Human Rights were far more tangible, especially when taken into consideration with their opening argument being illegality does not necessarily reduce the occurrence. In addition, Pro did a better job of staying focused on the issue at hand and repeatedly tried to bring the conversation back to that point. It is something that I appreciate.
Con attempted to change the definition of the woman to woman and unborn in stats framing. This for me was an area of no return. Con had just argued about the independent personhood of a fetus. Con then argues that a woman and fetus are one, for the pure purposes of trying to misapply CDC statistics on the acquisition of abortion to woman health, at which point it could be argued there was an adoption of the Violinist theory.
Con also miscategorized the rights differences brought yup between a man and a woman and how they use their body, Their application of the term inalienable does not meet legal standards (inalienable does not mean irrevocable as Pro pointed out)
Finally, credibility is substantially eroded when Nazi's are brought in for comparative purposes. It just undermines the entire argument from Con.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
RFD given here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Qahk3ymdFQsyUq0pAEeFs8htdvRIv8O92vo_GZlr7io/edit?usp=sharing
Tougher choice this time around, though the tl:dr is that I feel Pro did a better job weighing his points with the given resolution, whereas Con was a little too focused on a single point to place it solidly in the broader context of the debate.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
Women's Health: Pro argues, with citation, “Of all abortions, an estimated 55% are safe (i.e., done using a recommended method and by an appropriately trained provider)..." This is not a convincing percentage to argue that abortion is "safe" since it acknowledges that there are degrees of safeness. Con argues, with citation, ""CDC...confirmed that there were more than 3,400 pregnancy-related deaths over a five-year period in the United States," and that, "The estimated abortion deaths, same time period --> 3,156,876 - 5,335,59" The two citations indicate that there are a thousand-fold more abortions than pregnancy-related deaths, which suggests that "women's health" is, at best, a relative term, along with "safeness" and not a credible leading argument for abortion.
Person: Con is consistent in the definition of what constitutes "person" as being human, whereas Pro vacillates in that definition.
Rights: Con argues that the unborn, being acknowledged as "persons" and humans, have rights afforded to human. Pro, due to the above vacillation, cannot argue from form both sides of the table and maintain credibility. Example: Pro argues, as a definition, that "Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, regardless of race, sex, nationality, ethnicity, language, religion, or any other status." It's the "any other status" that hangs all other Pro claims that the right to life belongs only to the woman, and not the fetus, since "Every person has a moral right to control their own body," when Pro also argues, "Freedom, justice, and peace rests on fundamental human rights such as ‘freedom from slavery, freedom from torture, equality, and the right to life." Pro has not successfully argued that a human is not human at conception, even though arguing that a "person" is not established at conception, hanging "person" on a nebulous hook of "consciousness." Pro has not demonstrated by evidence that a fetus has no consciousness, and must do that to deny a fetus the right that freedom and justice demand.
S.L.E.D. depends on a value being "taken" from the pregnant woman by the fetus, that value being nutrients, even if, in the transfer of nutrients, the woman's body is deprived of them to the degree they are "taken" by the fetus. What in the process specifically requires that "give" is not at least an equal to "take" in that the "give" is not a conscious act by the woman any more than "take" is a conscious act of the fetus? After all, Pro argues that consciousness is not a feature endowed to the fetus.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
1. Health
Pro uses sources to prove a clear harm for almost no gain (prevented abortions).
Con uses YouTube videos in an attempt to get voters to ignore the offered evidence. He does also throw numbers around, but I’ll trust in professional analysis from Guttmacher or other sources above his interpretation. Pro of course defends using expert contextual analysis.
2. Human Rights
Pro uses comparative rights to men to show further harm to women, with the slavery analogy.
With his second and sixth contentions, con revisits this to say that the unborn are the real slaves.
Pro defends that rights should not be stripped away from people. And further that sex is not always consensual, thus there’s cases that side step pro’s entire argument.
Pro further uses the people seeds and violinist analogies (on the Violinist one in particular, con claims pro was refuted on it, without bothering to refute it; or better yet show why an audience member would be obligated to be enslaved as a life support system for someone else...).
This area could be well summarized ith “there is no right to use the body of another without consent.” Given that con dropped things like consent and rape until the final round after pro could no longer respond, and then barely touched them, he doesn’t have a case in favor of human rights.
3. SLED
Pro preemptively argues that no one has the right to forcibly take resources from another, even if that is the only means for them to survive.
With his first contention, Con revisits this to try to make some point out of already conceded material.
4. Personhood
Con asserts (and then later under another slightly different name) that the unborn should have full personhood from the moment of conception.
Con further turns this into a Gish Gallop by repeating it under multiple slightly different named contention headings.
Pro used nih.gov to refute pro’s claims about scientific concensious on when personhood begins. He further uses “human cancer” to show that if con’s argument holds, all cancer treatment in humans must be ceased as human cancer would be a person.
Pro further uses human STDs being treatable to bolster this point.
5. Nazis
Con lengthy declares that pro is a nazi.
Pro points out the obvious fallacious, and hilariously shows that Nazis were also against abortions.
With con continuing this in R2, it’s very hard to take his case seriously.
---
Arguments:
See above review of key points. Somewhat of a messy debate, but the outcome doesn’t seem to favor con in any area, and to vote him would call for likewise voting against cancer and STD treatments.
ME: "You can't demonstrate that it is not a person"
SKONE: "This is not my burden. My burden is to show the standard I set for personhood is demonstrable at the time frame I suggest. I have done this. Those who hold that personhood start at conception must show their standard of personhood is applicable at conception (and doesn't apply to things which should not be a person). Also, I'm not aware of ever saying "the human at conception is not a person.". I've said the things you think define a person cannot be demonstrated at conception, and that I believe personhood can be attached to the capacity for consciousness. Please don't attribute things to me I haven't said."
The burden is abortion SHOULD be legal. That is not only a legal issue but a moral one. It involves many issues. Laws are built around right and wrong, what should and should not be done. Being a person comes into the discussion.
"Should" is a moral imperative. If you grant the life of the unborn is worth less than that of the woman based on Roe V. Wade, and that hinges, in part, on an interpretation of a what a person is, an interpretation of a law established in the 1800s, then you SHOULD demonstrate the unborn is not a person rather than just legislating its personhood out of existence. If you can't demonstrate this then you should give it the benefit of the doubt. If you don't give it the benefit of the doubt what else will you compromise on without knowing, such a "potential life?" Potential life diminishes the actuality of that life. It is living, not potentially so. You said you granted its personhood for the sake of the argument but continued to bring it up as if it mattered. I was arguing for both its humanity and its personhood and it seemed the personhood argument did not matter to you but you still built a rebuttal around it without establishing it was not a person. You failed to prove that what I said was false on this matter.
"The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to "person." The first, in defining "citizens," speaks of "persons born or naturalized in the United States." The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. "Person" is used in other places in the Constitution …. But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application...Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer." - http://historymuse.net/readings/RoevWade1973.htm
Your argument supported equal rights for all human beings yet you excluded the unborn based in part on personhood.
My whole argument was that it does matter when human life begins and you did not challenge that it began at conception but agreed. I argued that some laws are unjust and that it ties into what is a human being. That includes personhood. Human beings are people. You avoided the personhood argument to a large extent but Blackmun's interpretation of the Texas law is open to criticism. I have an online book that speaks largely on the issue of personhood in the 19th century, but you granted personhood so I did not have to go there as I did in our previous debate.
SKONE: "things that can be demonstrated are not always true"
You point to a few things which are demonstrated true and suggest they are false because they don't mess with your un-demonstrable beliefs. This is not a strong argument, Peter."
Can it be demonstrated? My belief can be demonstrated. Now whether that is to your satisfaction is another matter. Evolution can be demonstrated provided you work from a PARTICULAR framework. Whether that framework is true is debatable, as you well know. You rely just as much on faith for your core presuppositions as anyone else. I question those core presuppositions and I have challenged you on them many times.
"The reason I don't discuss the subject much is that I do not like being ridiculed by those who are not open to considering their worldview is wrong. They are blind and deaf to God. They presuppose they know better from a subjective, relativistic framework. So, how can I argue with that? Their minds are already made up there is no God or any reasonable evidence for His existence (Hebrews 11:6), just as mine is set about God. The question is which is more reasonable? Do you really think it is yours?"
I don't intend to mock you, Peter. I consider us to be friends. Although, I cannot control what the audience says or does. If you'd rather not debate this subject, I understand.
It seems you are irritated by close-mindedness in those who accept evolution while admitting your own close-mindedness to anything beyond your beliefs. Shouldn't you be open to changing your views if you expect your interlocutors to do the same?
"You can't demonstrate that it is not a person"
This is not my burden. My burden is to show the standard I set for personhood is demonstrable at the time frame I suggest. I have done this. Those who hold that personhood start at conception must show their standard of personhood is applicable at conception (and doesn't apply to things which should not be a person). Also, I'm not aware of ever saying "the human at conception is not a person.". I've said the things you think define a person cannot be demonstrated at conception, and that I believe personhood can be attached to the capacity for consciousness. Please don't attribute things to me I haven't said.
"things that can be demonstrated are not always true"
You point to a few things which are demonstrated true and suggest they are false because they don't mess with your un-demonstrable beliefs. This is not a strong argument, Peter.
It seems so. (^8
The reason I don't discuss the subject much is that I do not like being ridiculed by those who are not open to considering their worldview is wrong. They are blind and deaf to God. They presuppose they know better from a subjective, relativistic framework. So, how can I argue with that? Their minds are already made up there is no God or any reasonable evidence for His existence (Hebrews 11:6), just as mine is set about God. The question is which is more reasonable? Do you really think it is yours?
SKONE: "Correct me if I'm wrong. You believe god made the Earth a short time ago with the appearance of old age?"
I believe that is the more plausible biblical explanation and just like you with origins, it starts with something presupposed. The reason I do presuppose a young or younger earth is because I believe God cannot lie and I also believe, judging from His word, that hermeneutically, it is what is taught in Scripture.
I believe it is better DEMONSTRATED via Scripture. (^8
ME: "Not observe does not necessarily mean not present. That is fallacious thinking."
SKONE: "This is not a fallacy I am committing. My view is that things which can be demonstrated are true and things which cannot be demonstrated are not necessarily false, but we have no reason to hold them as true. Your view that we should 'give the benefit of a doubt' holds things true which have not (to my knowledge) been demonstrated, and that is a fallacy."
First, you fail to demonstrate "the human at conception is not a person." Your view, "things which can be demonstrated," does not fit your own criterion regarding personhood. Yet you are willing to place your whole argument on something that is not demonstrated yet you may believe it is. How? Thus, you are killing something that you don't know what it is yet you believe it is permissible. That, as I pointed out, is infrahumanization. You can't demonstrate that it is not a person yet you are willing to make it a non-person, less than a person, and exclude it from the commonwealth of personhood.
Second, things that can be demonstrated are not always true. It is whether they are real to what is the case that makes them true, whether what you believe is demonstrated corresponds to what is the case. For instance, macroevolution is thought to be demonstrably true. I argue it is not. It relies on presuppositions I touched on in my last two posts, yet it is preached as true. Many call it proven science. They "demonstrate" the connection with fossils. With particular starting points (similarity of shared traits, or similarity of physiology), it builds from and off of those starting points. Off the top of my head, one of those is a common ancestor. It assumes a common ancestor is the best explanation and then proceeds to demonstrate this is fact by looking at it from a particular standpoint - usually a solely naturalistic one or a theistic evolutionary one. Another is that life originates from non-life. This is not demonstrated but believed. Another is that fossilization shows the links. The presupposition is that because we all share similarities we must have originally evolved from such an ancestor. Another explanation is that because we all share the same planet we would naturally share characteristics but that does not necessarily mean we all originated from a common ancestor, unless you include God in that equation.
Correct me if I'm wrong. You believe god made the Earth a short time ago with the appearance of old age?
"Not observe does not necessarily mean not present. That is fallacious thinking."
This is not a fallacy I am committing. My view is that things which can be demonstrated are true and things which cannot be demonstrated are not necessarily false, but we have no reason to hold them as true. Your view that we should 'give the benefit of a doubt' holds things true which have not (to my knowledge) been demonstrated, and that is a fallacy.
*edit* Sorry, I hadn't noticed you were explaining your understanding of creationism - please continue!
Young Earthers are castigated to gullibility, naive and stupid, but the point is that none of us were they to witness. That is the current trend with the intellectual elites, the Mr. Worldlt Wise of our day. They profess to be wise. Thus without God, we build our worldview through interpretations of data that we look upon in the present concerning the past. Thus, there is a difference between science and scientism. I'm all for science, not scientism. I argue your worldview takes as much faith to believe as mine because of these two points, and others. Considering the number of 'origins' explanations there are vying for your support it depends on how well each fits the current scientific paradigm before they are replaced with a "better" model. Once too many anomalies are found in one then another that "better" answers the question becomes the "in." Better is always an interesting term. "Better in relation to what? Better requires a best to compare to otherwise it is relative and shifting. Granting God exists solves the problem since an omniscient Being has revealed, in the biblical case. A Christian can make sense of the problem of origins for he/she has the necessary reference point, the final reference point.
Sure. I lean towards a young universe but am open to explanations of how an old universe view can fit the bill. Regardless, God created, the question is how. Speaking it into existence would give the impression of an old universe/earth when it was young. Mature trees and animals already formed, conditions right, etc., before the pinnacle of God's creation - us. Reconciling the biblical texts would be much more difficult with an old universe view, IMO.
We can make the proposition 'which explains the diversity of life better - evolution or Biblical creationism'. Maybe we could discuss exactly what you believe regarding Biblical creationism sometime. I wouldn't want to misrepresent your view.
SKONE: "I'm considering a debate on which explains the diversity of life better - evolution or creationism. Maybe you'd be interested at some point in the near future?"
I only defend the Christian perspective when it comes to religion, but I would be glad to once my current debate is over. Thank you for your consideration!
SKONE: "It depends on which part: evolution goes in science, abiogenesis goes in science, epistemology would go in philosophy, personhood in politics/philosophy, rejection of science/Christianity in religion or science.. This debate is marked politics, so clearly the discussion has veered far from that.
I'm considering a debate on which explains the diversity of life better - evolution or creationism. Maybe you'd be interested at some point in the near future?"
Morality can fit all four of your categories - science, epistemology, philosophy, or politics. They are interlaced. Thus, if you don't know (epistemology) when a person begins existence (science, religion, philosophy, politics) the benefit should go to the unborn as a person. You don't know whether you are killing a person. There is also a moral responsibility to protect human life regardless of personhood. Once you start killing human beings of any group you lessen the worth of being human (intrinsic value) and open the floodgates, like Adolf Hitler, to possibly include many groups. The word 'should' in the title conveys an ought, a moral responsibility. Roe v. Wade touched on science, philosophy, epistemology, science, and politics. How do you propose separating morality from these categories when you evoke a moral ought?
If you grant human beings are created in the image and likeness of God (religion), that creation begins at conception, when you/they become a separate, individual human being. Religion, likewise, also focuses on morality, on right and wrong.
It depends on which part: evolution goes in science, abiogenesis goes in science, epistemology would go in philosophy, personhood in politics/philosophy, rejection of science/Christianity in religion or science.. This debate is marked politics, so clearly the discussion has veered far from that.
I'm considering a debate on which explains the diversity of life better - evolution or creationism. Maybe you'd be interested at some point in the near future?
Same as the debate?
What do you propose we label it?
You know...we could discuss this in the forms where the format allows for an easier back and forth. I think that would be more appropriate especially when unrelated to the subject of this debate. It looks like the forums could use the traffic, and this conversation touches on religion, science, and politics. Three for one!!
SKONE: "Yes, humans are animals, and I agree there is a worldview interpretation at play - in the denial. I don't see the relevance this tangent has to abortion though - at least not to my view. We are animals, yes, but we have something other animals do not - the ability to reason, problem-solve, creativity, etc. and this is what we honor with personhood."
Worldviews play a part not only in the denial but in the affirmation. The relevance is that you dismiss the Christian worldview when your own has no certainty. Your worldview constructs its outlook on a model they believe is true. It takes faith to believe it is true since it is built on Darwinian principles of macroevolution and materialism that a human being is an animal.
ME: "A personal being is synonymous with being a person."
SKONE: "You've provided a circular definition. I am no closer to understanding what it is you actually mean."
Yes, it is circular. A synonym is another word or words for the same thing. I'm giving another similar term used for what I mean when I say 'personal being.' We have discussed as to what it entails/means before. What do you understand by 'being a person' to mean? You have incorporated consciousness and self-awareness into the term. I have incorporated more than you.
SKONE: "People sleep, people get anesthetized, people fall into comas - all examples where people might be absent a personality but maintain their personhood by virtue of their capacity for consciousness. As for conception and early pregnancy - there is no personality there either. I get that you believe there's a personality at conception, but that has never been observed or demonstrated. In essence, what you hold up as a demonstration of personhood cannot be demonstrated at conception or early pregnancy. This is a problem for your contention of personhood at conception. You said " a person =/= process" I agree, but I would go further: a process =/= a person. In other words, it's not the process that is important, but the results. The fact that a developmental process has begun that could yield a person doesn't mean the process will be completed. ~ 50-80% of conceptions fail for various reasons - that would be a lot of rights attached to failed pregnancies."
You associate personhood with consciousness. I associate it with the nature of being human.
Not observe does not necessarily mean not present. That is fallacious thinking.
The key to people asleep or a coma is that they still have a personality. You don't lose it just because you sleep. You are still you when you wake up.
Your keyword here is "PEOPLE." People, sleep, people sometimes go into comas. You assume the unborn is not a person but also assume it is not developing as a person (as what it is) because you have never witnessed or observed that personality or personhood developing from dormant humans - those in a coma or asleep? But asleep or awake they are persons. Inside the womb or out I argue the unborn are persons.
The unborn have the "capacity" for consciousness as a personal being. So, if personhood is inherently in the nature of human beings and is a human quality, then in the unborn it is NOT YET developed to the EXTENT that we recognize or see it. The brain, the mind, the whole individual is not fully functional yet. Note: not fully functional as opposed to stopped functioning or never will function or never will function again. If it is the nature of being a person to have a personality, then the unborn has one developing too, just not as developed as in old human beings where we recognize it. Because our self-awareness, our consciousness, our personalities are not always witnessed or operational, such as with those in a coma or asleep, does that mean they lack those two things? You say it does not, per your example above. So, does that mean we are justified in killing every human being who is sleeping or in a coma since we do not see evidence of the personality in action? That seems to be your implication.
Processes occur in people. We are conceived, we are born, we age, we die. We classify our stages of development, as in pregnancy, in early childhood, in adolescents, in puberty, in adulthood.
A person =/= a process, but within the person, a process is taking place, a process of growth, development, and yes, dying. Nor is a process a person (process =/= person) although processes are functioning and taking place within people, so please quit trying to redefine a person since I am not arguing for a process being a person or a person being a process, nor have I.
People:
2 plural: human beings, persons —often used in compounds instead of persons
SKONE: "I see no reason to believe minds can exist independent of a physical substrate and a fair amount of evidence to confirm a link between the two to a reasonable certainty."
What does a physical substrate mean? No reason to believe the two are independent of each other. So, are our minds and brains the same thing to your reasoning? If so, then you think that there is nothing more to the universe than just physicality, which you examine purely from the physicality of it (i.e., naturalism or materialism). You examine everything inside the box FROM inside the box. But physicality alone cannot explain the non-physical or abstract that you find or witness within the box - i.e., the physical realm. The laws of logic are intangible and non-physical, yet without logic, you could make sense of nothing, no thing. Thus, there are glaring contradictions in what is real and your perception of it if you claim everything is material. I question such belief.
SKONE: "I don't think personhood is at natural at all. It is conceptual construct built by humans for humans. I consider "personal being by nature" to be equivalent to " natural personhood" - it's oxymoronic."
A conceptual construct used to describe what the thing is, the essence of what it is.
By the word natural, I mean inherent to that thing, that thing being a human being. So, what is "natural" to a human being is that it is a personal being.
Human nature:
"the nature of humans
especially : the fundamental dispositions and traits of humans"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/human%20nature
SKONE: "I'm not sure I can agree to "Personality is an attribute of personhood" either."
Attribute:
2a: to regard as a characteristic of a person or thing
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/attribute
Definition of personality
1a: the quality or state of being a person
b: personal existence
2a: the condition or fact of relating to a particular person
3a: the complex of characteristics that distinguishes an individual or a nation or group
especially : the totality of an individual's behavioral and emotional characteristics
b: a set of distinctive traits and characteristics
4a: distinction or excellence of personal and social traits
also : a person having such quality
b: a person of importance, prominence, renown, or notoriety
a TV personality
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/personality
Personhood:
1: human, individual —sometimes used in combination especially by those who prefer to avoid man in compounds applicable to both sexes
2: a character or part in or as if in a play : guise
3a: one of the three modes of being in the Trinitarian Godhead as understood by Christians
b: the unitary personality of Christ that unites the divine and human natures
4a
archaic : bodily appearance
b: the body of a human being
also : the body and clothing
unlawful search of the person
5: the personality of a human being: self
6: one (such as a human being, a partnership, or a corporation) that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties
7: reference of a segment of discourse to the speaker, to one spoken to, or to one spoken of as indicated by means of certain pronouns or in many languages by verb inflection
In as much as classification is an exercise and so is what it is.
One could easily sub-class foetus-hood.
I don't think personhood is at natural at all. It is conceptual construct built by humans for humans. I consider "personal being by nature" to be equivalent to " natural personhood" - it's oxymoronic. I'm not sure I can agree to "Personality is an attribute of personhood" either. People sleep, people get anesthetized, people fall into comas - all examples where people might be absent a personality but maintain their personhood by virtue of their capacity for consciousness. As for conception and early pregnancy - there is no personality there either. I get that you believe there's a personality at conception, but that has never been observed or demonstrated. In essence, what you hold up as a demonstration of personhood cannot be demonstrated at conception or early pregnancy. This is a problem for your contention of personhood at conception. You said " a person =/= process" I agree, but I would go further: a process =/= a person. In other words, it's not the process that is important, but the results. The fact that a developmental process has begun that could yield a person doesn't mean the process will be completed. ~ 50-80% of conceptions fail for various reasons - that would be a lot of rights attached to failed pregnancies.
I see no reason to believe minds can exist independent of a physical substrate and a fair amount of evidence to confirm a link between the two to a reasonable certainty.
Yes, humans are animals, and I agree there is a worldview interpretation at play - in the denial. I don't see the relevance this tangent has to abortion though - at least not to my view. We are animals, yes, but we have something other animals do not - the ability to reason, problem-solve, creativity, etc. and this is what we honor with personhood.
"A personal being is synonymous with being a person."
You've provided a circular definition. I am no closer to understanding what it is you actually mean.
SKONE: "It seems like you're heading toward abiogenesis or evolution...How is this relevant to abortion?"
Only in the sense of where it all begins. How does consciousness begin? How does something living originate from something without life? I think you, presuming you take God out of the equation, are jumping multiple hurdles at once. If personhood is not built into our makeup, what we are as human beings, then you have to account for it as an external factor, not something coming from within. To do that you have to identify when it begins or you cannot justify whether you are killing a personal being (meaning one that has personhood) during pregnancy.
So now I must ask you, is consciousness (what you seem to attribute personhood to) built into (inherent, part of, our nature) being a human being or is it something external to being a human being?
SKONE: "Regardless of the origins of life or how it diversified, there can be no denial of the link between consciousness and a physical brain as well as the significance of consciousness to humanity."
There is a link between our physical brains and our minds, but are the two the same? Are you saying that all we are composed of is "physical matter"?
SKONE: "There is no dispute regarding a developmental process in which individual consciousness comes about. The point I was making is that your argument would functionally grant rights to a process rather than the product/subject."
No, the granting would be to a person who is developing through a process. The two are not the same. A person =/= process.
No dispute regarding the development process?
Then you are confirming that personhood which you attribute to consciousness is inherent in the individual from fertilization, from the moment a new and distinct living human being is formed. Thus, consciousness is a feature of human nature, something that develops as we grow. You are affirming the consciousness is inherent in the nature of what it means to be human and not something acquired from an outside source. Thus, to kill a human being is to kill a person or personal being.
SKONE: "Is the unborn an "it"? If someone asked me if they could kill "it" and I say yes - virtually no one would think I understood the question to be in regards to a person."
'It' in reference to either a male or female human being. I am referring to either.
SKONE: "I really don't understand why you devote your time to personality if we're talking about the unborn in general. There is no demonstration of personality at conception or in early pregnancy. Personality is something that emerges from the brain. I'm sure someone more knowledgeable on this subject might also point to how environment shapes it. Regardless, I'd think it would be fairly safe to say personality is not built into cells and DNA which seems to be what you're implying. I'm open to evidence to the contrary - if you can provide.
Personality reflect on the person. You can't have a personality unless you are a person or a personal being. Personality is an attribute of personhood. I'm saying that from day one the person and personality are developing. If you were to look back at a microscopic development of your being from the first cell dividing you would identify and say that that one cell is you in your earliest form, not someone else or something else. You are recognizing you regardless of how underdeveloped you are.
SKONE: "Humans ARE animals whether you believe it or not (genetics, among other things, shows our relatedness), and every one of the traits you listed is derived from the brain. No brain = no imagination, love, empathy, communication, creativity, etc., and thus my view regarding personhood being connected with consciousness (or the capacity for it)."
Humans are animals?
I argue this is a matter of worldview interpretation, not science. Just because humans and animals have similar genetic makeup does NOT necessarily follow we are from one common ancestor (excluding God our Creator, of course, since we derive our being from Him) and thus, the closer you get in genetic similarity the closer we are related. It is an inference. It could just be that since we share the same environment, the world, we have structures that complement and compete with each other. Your worldview, which does not look to the biblical and personal God (granting He is the only God through a process of logical deduction) as the explanation must then look strictly to a naturalistic process as the answer. The problem is that the data needs interpretation since no human being was present to witness the transitional links from one kind to another. A second problem in interpreting data, as in the case of origins, is that the condition is assumed that the "present" is the key to the past. That is to say, we look at things in the present for our interpretation of the things of the past. That leads to a lot of assumptions that are weighed in a particular model or framework. Once too many assumptions and contradictions happen within that model or framework (in which you or a scientist looks at the world through) a new and "better" explanation is sought after. Then the paradigm shifts to a new model that does not have as many glaring holes in it. And the process of examination goes on until the anomalies build up once again.
***
SKONE: "If you are not referring to "personhood is natural" when you say things like "personal being by nature", then I don't know what you mean. Humans come from humans. I'll need you to define "personal beings" before I agree to more. Please don't use the words you're defining in your explanation."
If I don't reference the words there is no connection that can be made, no relationship that can be established.
A personal being is synonymous with being a person.
Is a human being a person/personal being? Yes or no? What is your answer?
If you grant a human being is a person, and thus personal being, when does a person being to exist? Is being a person inherent in the nature of being a human being? If you say being a person is inherent to being a human being then being a person is something that all human beings are (discounting abnormalities in the human beings genetic makeup). Another way of saying this is the nature of the being (i.e., bird, fish, human) determines what we are, whether we can fly, or live underwater, or have human personhood which is distinct from other beings.
Humans ARE animals whether you believe it or not (genetics, among other things, shows our relatedness), and every one of the traits you listed is derived from the brain. No brain = no imagination, love, empathy, communication, creativity, etc., and thus my view regarding personhood being connected with consciousness (or the capacity for it).
If you are not referring to "personhood is natural" when you say things like "personal being by nature", then I don't know what you mean. Humans come from humans. I'll need you to define "personal beings" before I agree to more. Please don't use the words you're defining in your explanation.
It seems like you're heading toward abiogenesis or evolution...How is this relevant to abortion? Regardless of the origins of life or how it diversified, there can be no denial of the link between consciousness and a physical brain as well as the significance of consciousness to humanity.
There is no dispute regarding a developmental process in which individual consciousness comes about. The point I was making is that your argument would functionally grant rights to a process rather than the product/subject.
Is the unborn an "it"? If someone asked me if they could kill "it" and I say yes - virtually no one would think I understood the question to be in regards to a person.
I really don't understand why you devote your time to personality if we're talking about the unborn in general. There is no demonstration of personality at conception or in early pregnancy. Personality is something that emerges from the brain. I'm sure someone more knowledgeable on this subject might also point to how environment shapes it. Regardless, I'd think it would be fairly safe to say personality is not built into cells and DNA which seems to be what you're implying. I'm open to evidence to the contrary - if you can provide.
So you take the life of the unborn (kill it) without knowing whether or not it is a person. You want to give it personhood only at the point of consciousness or awareness. How do you pinpoint that this is not through a process of growth and development that starts the moment a new being begins to exist, and that this process is due to the nature of the begin that this happens, has not been demonstrated by you? If consciousness and personality are built into the intrinsic nature of the human being, the kind of being it is, that nature determines this. If you disagree then until you can explain how and why consciousness begins all of a sudden (because you say it is not a process) you have no evidence what you say actually takes place, nor is it reasonable to believe.
SKEPTICAL: "This question regarding killing something without knowing what it is - it is not wrong by default to kill without knowing what it is. Have you never heard of someone shooting through a door when something or someone was attempting to get in? Do you really think this is wrong? If not, then you should retire this question."
If your employee asks you if he can kill 'it,' do you not ask what 'it' is before you give him the okay? If you do give him the okay without knowing what 'it' is you may well be charged with accessory to murder as the accomplice when he says you gave him permission.
SKEPTICAL: "The ability to reason, plan, think abstractly, etc., is the thing that makes us unique from other animals - do you disagree. If so, please tell me of another animal which does this?"
I'll accept that summation, with some slight modifications. I do not believe we are animals. Our genetic sequencing is different also, plus our ability to imagine, love, empathize, create and communicate are other reasons, but as you know I believe the main reason is that we are created in the image and likeness of our Maker. He is a personal Being so are we in our likeness of Him.
SKEPTICAL: "People have rights - not processes. How absurd would it be if we gave rights to the process of building a boat? Also, I do not accept consciousness comes about at viability or birth. I think I've been pretty clear on this."
So, how do you acquire consciousness? How do you first become aware? Is there a process you go through to become aware or does it just magically happen? Why do you differ from inorganic matter?
My witness is from personal beings come other personal beings so if we all come from a common ancestor what is prior to that is inorganic chemical mixtures and reactions unless you grant the personal God. How does consciousness originally occur from such inorganic conditions? Since you deal strictly in science, no longer believing in the God of the Bible, what is your answer since we are discussing personhood and consciousness and you don't like my answer which I believe is self-evident and logically necessary for understanding?
SKEPTICAL: "Human conception yields a single cell with human DNA. Its nature is human. It can't have a nature of personhood, because personhood is NOT natural - it comes from us. BTW, I understand "human being" to mean "person". If you'd like to argue for the personhood of something then perhaps you can make your questions clearer (and less equivocate-y) if you can use terms without this connotation.
I'm not arguing for a "nature of personhood." What does that mean? Does it mean the same as persona beings by nature? If not, you are twisting my words. Let me be clear, what I am arguing for is human beings are personal beings by nature, by what kind of beings they are. Are you saying humans can't have a personal nature? Personhood is not natural for human beings? Are you a personal being? Is your wife? How about your kids, your neighbours, your workmates, your doctor, the mailman, and every other human being I can reference? Show me a human being who is not a personal being. You can't. All you can do is assert the unborn is not but we are at a stalemate here.
SKEPTICAL: "This question regarding killing something without knowing what it is - it is not wrong by default to kill without knowing what it is. Have you never heard of someone shooting through a door when something or someone was attempting to get in? Do you really think this is wrong? If not, then you should retire this question."
The ability to reason, plan, think abstractly, etc., is the thing that makes us unique from other animals - do you disagree. If so, please tell me of another animal which does this?
People have rights - not processes. How absurd would it be if we gave rights to the process of building a boat? Also, I do not accept consciousness comes about at viability or birth. I think I've been pretty clear on this.
Human conception yields a single cell with human DNA. Its nature is human. It can't have a nature of personhood, because personhood is NOT natural - it comes from us. BTW, I understand "human being" to mean "person". If you'd like to argue for the personhood of something then perhaps you can make your questions clearer (and less equivocate-y) if you can use terms without this connotation.
This question regarding killing something without knowing what it is - it is not wrong by default to kill without knowing what it is. Have you never heard of someone shooting through a door when something or someone was attempting to get in? Do you really think this is wrong? If not, then you should retire this question.
I'm have limited time to respond, so I'll leave it there for now.
ME: "And as I have said multiple times, if you can't produce facts you SHOULD give the unborn the benefit of the doubt, especially because all you ever witness is human beings as personal beings."
SKEPTICAL: "That's backward. You're assuming something is true in the absence of facts and evidence."
And you are assuming that it doesn't matter what we do with the unborn even if it is a person and regardless of facts and evidence.
Backwards? Do you kill something without knowing what it is, other than in the case of the unborn? That is the issue. If you can't determine whether it is factually a person or factually a human being what license do you have to kill it, especially since you state that every human being should be treated with equality and dignity. Are you doing that?
SKEPTICAL: "Human consciousness is what separates humans from other animals - wouldn't you agree?"
One of the things that separate us, yes.
But I think you are missing the bigger picture. When does human consciousness begin? Is it a PROCESS of DEVELOPMENT that starts with the beginning of the life of the human being, or does consciousness suddenly burst into existence at viability or at birth, AND WHAT MAKES IT DO THIS? (Please answer this question) If the organs start to grow at fertilization when a separate, unique human being begins to develop one cell at a time (and we have factual proof they do as determined by the genetic code and makeup) until the organs are formed, then why isn't consciousness part of the process too? Is consciousness external to the human being, some trait that does not come from within? And why isn't personhood part of the process of development and maturity too? We see in small children their development of personality. It differs from our level of development and maturity but it is a process that is taking place. You deny the unborn that process.
Can you answer these questions? If not, then why not give the unborn the benefit of the doubt? Is it because your worldview will not let you, it would compromise what you believe too much? You would have to admit you are consenting to kill a person and a personal being. You would also have to consent that you do not believe what you quoted about all human beings having equal rights.
We are speaking of the difference between function and substance. On a GM production line not having a particular part changes the function of the car. With a substance, the whole essence of the thing is contained in its inner structure, and it is a complete entity in itself.
SKEPTICAL: "The fact is this does not exist early in the pregnancy."
Does it not exist or is it not developed enough to notice? A zygote has not developed lungs or legs or a heart to a noticeable degree yet its internal structure is designed to develop them from its human blueprint.
Even if it was not apparent, it will be if given the chance to develop further, since this is the nature of human beings to have consciousness and providing it is internally generated it will happen. Can you prove it is not the nature for this to take place?
SKEPTICAL: "Your arguments rely strongly on equivocation."
How so? Equivocation uses a word or sentence in two different ways and two different meanings.
You are a human being. You are a person.
I am a human being. I am a person.
A woman is a human being. She is a person.
Her child is a human being. It is a person.
The unborn is a human being. Why is it not a person? Because it is not as developed? Are you making the level of development the pivotal issue, once again? Do you want to go there? We can have that discussion.
SKEPTICAL: "Why is the unborn a human being? Certainly it is human, but is it a being...is there agency? If so, how do you figure? I can agree later in the pregnancy when the defining characteristic of humanity is most likely existent that the unborn is indeed a human being, but I see no reason to accept this early in the pregnancy. Possibilities and potentials are not facts.
It is a human being because that is its nature. When two human beings mate and fertilization takes place they produce another human being, not some other type of being.
It is a being because it, 1) exists, and, 2) it is a particular and specific kind of entity or organism, living and growing. To be is to exist. Not to be is not to exist. A rock, on the other hand, is an inanimate object with no agency or ability to do what human beings do. The unborn do have the agency and ability but it is still developing.
I am going to start a debate on this very subject right now. I am going to attempt to show how even contemporary science, since 1967, has decreed that personhood begins at Fertilisation
"And as I have said multiple times, if you can't produce facts you SHOULD give the unborn the benefit of the doubt, especially because all you ever witness is human beings as personal beings."
That's backward. You're assuming something is true in the absence of facts and evidence. Human consciousness is what separates humans from other animals - wouldn't you agree? The fact is this does not exist early in the pregnancy. Your arguments rely strongly on equivocation. Why is the unborn a human being? Certainly it is human, but is it a being...is there agency? If so, how do you figure? I can agree later in the pregnancy when the defining characteristic of humanity is most likely existent that the unborn is indeed a human being, but I see no reason to accept this early in the pregnancy. Possibilities and potentials are not facts.
ME: "I never said we OBSERVE personalities at conception"
SKEPTICAL: "...and yet, it seems you want to act as though one exists at conception. I'm of the opinion we need facts and evidence before we accept something as true, and you do not seem to share this view. I seriously doubt we will be able to agree on any of the other points until we find common epistemological ground."
And as I have said multiple times, if you can't produce facts you SHOULD give the unborn the benefit of the doubt, especially because all you ever witness is human beings as personal beings. That suggests personality for humans is part of their very nature, just like it is the nature of birds to have the ability to fly or fish to swim and live underwater. It is just common sense which is not too common anymore.
As I have also said, you don't kill something until you know what it is. Since you don't seem to know when personhood begins how do you justify killing it? 1) You justify killing it be unjust laws passed by fallible opinionated people, as was the case with Roe v. Wade. 2) You justify killing it by saying we don't know when personality begins, thus it is okay to kill it, or personality begins when consciousness, reason, and awareness begins without sufficient proof this is the case, yet the woman is still killing it after viability.
"I never said we OBSERVE personalities at conception"
...and yet, it seems you want to act as though one exists at conception. I'm of the opinion we need facts and evidence before we accept something as true, and you do not seem to share this view. I seriously doubt we will be able to agree on any of the other points until we find common epistemological ground.
Replying through the comments is tedious.
ME: "3. That is where you are wrong if it can be established "the others" have done something wrong. Thus, is it wrong to kill innocent human beings, human beings that have not committed a crime?"
SKEPTICAL: "My point is that if the unborn has no consciousness, then holding others accountable is not just something that it lacks the ability to do, but that their is no existent subjectivity. You'll need to show otherwise before I can follow your reasoning that the unborn should be seen as a moral agent.
It lacks the ability but not everyone does. All humanity should be treated equally under the law. The unborn is not.
I may not have the ability to hold you accountable for you doing something illegally, but the officer of the law SHOULD if it can be proved you are guilty of an offence. And when the officer of the law does not hold you accountable for a wrong then he/she is negligent in their duty, it is not being enforced, or the rule of law could be unjust because it does not address the wrongful killing.
ME: "4. But she did not. She allowed her body to be used by another, the result being the pregnancy in those cases where pregnancy occurs."
SKEPTICAL: "Again, choosing to share your body for a sexual encounter is not blanket consent to anything that might come from it. This is a misunderstanding of the conditional nature of consent."
"ME: "Only one has the choice to kill the unborn - the woman."
SKEPTICAL: "No, everyone has the right to choose the use of their body."
ME: "You are switching the subject to another topic. The woman chooses whether the unborn lives or dies. She makes that determination in most cases. Thus, the statement stands. She chooses whether it lives or dies."
SKEPTICAL: "The subject here is equality - and I am explaining how a woman can refuse for her body to be used as life support - just like everyone else."
I'm not following. The topic of bodily rights should not be equated to the topic of killing the unborn. The right to life is paramount. If that right is denied no other rights can follow. If you want to tie the two together then how is the unborn guilty of a wrong and how is it being treated equally to the woman? The unborns body is irreconcilable harmed in degree. The degree is the difference between life and death, between a future and an end. Add to this, the way the unborn is killed is inhumane, let alone unjust. Where else do you chemically burn, poison, or pull apart human beings?
https://www.lifenews.com/2013/01/02/abortion-methods-and-abortion-procedures-used-to-kill-unborn-babies/
SKEPTICAL: "The definition you provided in our first debates...
...is irrelevant to the definitions, arguments, and positions laid out in *this* debate. Focus."
ME: "Only if you are playing devil's advocate and do not believe what you are supporting, the pro-choice position."
I believe you knew your argument would self-combust if you tried to prove personhood started at a specific point of development."
SKEPTICAL: "Just as there are many opening to chess, there are many approaches to debate. If I happen to choose the Scotch over the queen's gambit - it doesn't mean I think the queen's gambit is weak. Perhaps, I don't want to go down the Queen's gambit declined path...again. The route I've chosen and your unwillingness to adjust your strategy accordingly is most definitely to my advantage."
The opening and defence often depend on who is White and who is Black as to tempo, and the opening by White (gained tempo) can result in defence until weakness is created and exploited. I saw a weakness in your argument and I exploited it.
As a footnote, in my playing days, I preferred the Roy Lopez attack, Alekhine's Defence, the Indian Opening, the Sicilian Defence, and the Queen's, never the King's Gambit (yuk), as my more common openings and replies.
***
ME: "As I already stated, I believe unless the unborn can be proven not to be a person [...]"
SKEPTICAL: "Shifting the burden. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof"
The abortion SHOULD be LEGAL debate centers on personhood and human rights. Since the pro-choice position is taking a life they claim is not yet a person they need to justify such a position. If you are going to claim it is alright to kill the unborn you should determine what it is. Personhood is central to Roe V. Wade and killing the unborn. Once personhood is invoked the argument takes on this aspect. My claim works on the premise that before you kill something you should first know what it is you are killing. Is that reasonable or not? SHOULD I just be able to walk around shooting and killing whatever I like without identifying what it is?
SKEPTIC: "Haha! That's how all this started. I thought a debate would be the end of it, but I was wrong. Peter has a problem integrating new data, and I have a problem letting statements I don't agree with alone. 😅"
What is the new data you speak of?
I think we both have the problem of letting statements we disagree with go. (^8
Abortion debates are negatively charged environments. Usually, both debtors come to the table with an invested position, then there are the biases of those who read the debates that come into play in the Comment section also.
Ragnar: "You two should probably just have another debate..."
(^8
Do you think the issues would be resolved without an elongated discussion? The debate brought issues to light, now we can delve deep into those issues. My feeling is that judging from the votes, SkepticalOne has probably won the vote and I would concede the vote for the sake of exploring the underlining presuppositions. Winning a vote is quite often different from winning the argument of such an important issue - the life and death of the unborn.
For some, the debate outcome is nothing more than a stoke of the ego. For me, it is more. I genuinely care about what is done to the unborn because I see what is done to it as unjust. Some just play devil's advocate because the sole objective is a win. The debate offers an opportunity to go behind the scenes, so to speak. I definitely believe the pro-choice position is not morally justifiable once it is stated the unborn is a human being. It boils down to the concept of equality and dignity as stated in the US Declaration of Independence, as one example, the UN Declaration on Human Rights, as another, the principle of doing unto others as you would have them do unto you, as a third.
***
USA
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the LAWS OF NATURE and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
Preamble."
"We hold these truths to be SELF-EVIDENT, that ALL MEN are created EQUAL, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain UNALIENABLE RIGHTS, that among these are LIFE, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--"
***
UN
"Preamble
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,
Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status...
Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article 7.
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination."
***
ME: "Why are you choosing 13 weeks?"
YOU: "Most abortions occur at or before 13 weeks. This is mentioned in the description of this debate."
I see. Because more abortions occur at or before 13 weeks, it makes it okay to kill human beings at or before this period of time!
ME: "1. [...]Thus its DNA is made up in part by the woman's DNA. It shares it genetic makeup with the woman."
YOU: "This is true of human cancer as well. Your standard should not grant rights to cancer."
This is a fatal flaw in your position. Human cancer is not a human being. It does not have the ability to develop reasoning or the human capacities that human beings do. A human being has its own individual organs that work together to help the human organism live and grow. Cancer destroys the functionality of human beings. It is a malignancy in the cells of a human being, not the human being itself. A human being is its own entity.
***
ME: ""2. They are living human beings, unique and different from every other human being, yet they have done nothing wrong, nothing evil, nothing immoral. Thus, they are innocent of wrongdoing, not guilty of doing something wrong yet. Their personalities begin to develop at fertilization. If allowed to continue these personalities with continuing to develop. Unless you can establish otherwise this is a reasonable deduction based upon what we observe."
YOU/SKEPTIC: "We don't observe personalities at conception."
That does not necessarily mean that it is not growing and developing, just like the physical body of the human being.
We don't observe your thoughts either unless you express them either orally, through writing, or via signing. There are lots of things we cannot observe yet know through logic that these things exist necessarily. We don't see the wind. We see and feel its effects. We don't see logic. It has no physical form (immaterial) yet without it, nothing makes sense nor can communication take place. Thus, it is necessary in forming and understanding concepts.
SKEPTIC: "We don't observe personalities at conception. That is blatantly false. And this dovetails into my point: the absence of any semblance of consciousness or even the structures necessary for it disallows innocence or guilt. By the loose definitions you are using we might say an inanimate object is 'innocent'. This is simply an emotional appeal built on strained words.
Again, you misrepresent me. I never said we OBSERVE personalities at conception. You charge me again with something I am not guilty of saying. Do you observe personalities once the brain and awareness is functional in the unborn or are you arbitrarily choosing this point of commencement?
Those "structures" are developing, just like the personality of a newborn or toddler is not as DEVELOPED as that of an adult, generally speaking.
Again, how can you condemn someone (a living human being) to death who has done nothing wrong?
As for your inanimate object, it lacks what is necessary for personhood so it is a false analogy. The unborn does not lack what is necessary, so the question is when does personality begin? Does it just "magically appear" at a particular stage of development - poof - or is it in its development from the moment it exists, thus part of its nature? And from observation when have you ever witnessed a human being who is not a personal being? On a side track, this type of prodding brings to mind how consciousness starts from an inanimate object. How does something that is not conscious acquire consciousness? How does something that is inorganic first acquire consciousness?
As for your claim of logical fallacies, there are lots of pitfalls in using language we both are guilty of, based on ambiguities. You are ALSO making various appeals such as that of the appeal to ignorance on the lack of evidence (i.e., not observed, therefore does not exist), of which I make a similar appeal (You can't prove when scientifically, therefore, you should grant the benefit). You exclude the idea of personhood until the individual has a functioning brain and is aware or perhaps self-conscious. If personhood is part of its nature of being human then it is present at fertilization, just under-developed, so that does not correspond to your exclusivity of it being non-existent until a particular stage of development. And the argument I use is if you cannot prove with certainty then you SHOULD give the unborn the benefit of the doubt. You just don't go around killing things unless you know what they are or you could become guilty of murder. Do you know what the unborn is and when it becomes a person?
Fallacies are errors in reasoning, not necessarily factual errors (i.e., a thing may exist - thus a fact - even if we are unaware of its existence or misrepresent it in our reasoning).
Haha! That's how all this started. I thought a debate would be the end of it, but I was wrong. Peter has a problem integrating new data, and I have a problem letting statements I don't agree with alone. 😅
"ME: "The definition you provided in our first debates..."
YOU: "...is irrelevant to the definitions, arguments, and positions laid out in *this* debate. Focus."
Only if you are playing devil's advocate and do not believe what you are supporting, the pro-choice position."
"I believe you knew your argument would self-combust if you tried to prove personhood started at a specific point of development."
Just as there are many opening to chess, there are many approaches to debate. If I happen to choose the Scotch over the queen's gambit - it doesn't mean I think the queen's gambit is weak. Perhaps, I don't want to go down the Queen's gambit declined path...again. The route I've chosen and your unwillingness to adjust your strategy accordingly is most definitely to my advantage.
"As I already stated, I believe unless the unborn can be proven not to be a person [...]"
Shifting the burden. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof
You two should probably just have another debate...
"3. That is where you are wrong if it can be established "the others" have done something wrong. Thus, is it wrong to kill innocent human beings, human beings that have not committed a crime?"
My point is that if the unborn has no consciousness, then holding others accountable is not just something that it lacks the ability to do, but that their is no existent subjectivity. You'll need to show otherwise before I can follow your reasoning that the unborn should be seen as a moral agent.
"4. But she did not. She allowed her body to be used by another, the result being the pregnancy in those cases where pregnancy occurs.
Again, choosing to share your body for a sexual encounter is not blanket consent to anything that might come from it. This is a misunderstanding of the conditional nature of consent.
"ME: "Only one has the choice to kill the unborn - the woman."
YOU: "No, everyone has the right to choose the use of their body."
You are switching the subject to another topic. The woman chooses whether the unborn lives or dies. She makes that determination in most cases. Thus, the statement stands. She chooses whether it lives or dies.""
The subject here is equality - and I am explaining how a woman can refuse for her body to be used as life support - just like everyone else.
ME: "I have never said pregnancy is a given with sex.
YOU: "Great - you agree consent to sex is not agreeing to 'inflict' anything on oneself - except maybe a good time."
Again, as you did in the debate, you are putting words in my mouth. I am saying that consent to sex raises the possibility of later pregnancy. If that happens there is a responsibility to protect the innocent human life that results unless you can establish morally that it is okay to kill innocent human beings.
***
ME: "The definition you provided in our first debates..."
YOU: "...is irrelevant to the definitions, arguments, and positions laid out in *this* debate. Focus."
Only if you are playing devil's advocate and do not believe what you are supporting, the pro-choice position.
***
ME: "Second, you were the person that equates personhood to legality. Hence, my response, "I focused more on HUMAN rights which can include personhood." I'm defining what I mean. You are the one who only includes or equates personhood to birth."
YOU: "I am relying on the status quo. If you want to challenge that, you'll need to do better than shift the burden. If you were able to argue for the personhood of the unborn without causing absurdities or conflicts, you'd have my vote. I personally don't see how it can be done. I think I've been more than fair on this particular point given that I have allowed it may be acceptable for personhood to be granted at some point before birth when the capacity for consciousness exists."
My opinion is that you granted it to avoid accountability. I believe you knew your argument would self-combust if you tried to prove personhood started at a specific point of development. Blackmun declared the unborn a nonperson, a potential person once born, all based on assertion and interpretation of existing laws at that time that went back over a century. As I already stated, I believe unless the unborn can be proven not to be a person, hence a personal being, before birth, the benefit should go to protecting the unborn. Roe v. Wade hinges, in part, on the personhood issue.
"Why are you choosing 13 weeks?"
Most abortions occur at or before 13 weeks. This is mentioned in the description of this debate.
"1. [...]Thus its DNA is made up in part by the woman's DNA. It shares it genetic makeup with the woman."
This is true of human cancer as well. Your standard should not grant rights to cancer.
"2. They are living human beings, unique and different from every other human being, yet they have done nothing wrong, nothing evil, nothing immoral. Thus, they are innocent of wrongdoing, not guilty of doing something wrong yet. Their personalities begin to develop at fertilization. If allowed to continue these personalities with continuing to develop. Unless you can establish otherwise this is a reasonable deduction based upon what we observe."
We don't observe personalities at conception. That is blatantly false. And this dovetails into my point: the absence of any semblance of consciousness or even the structures necessary for it disallows innocence or guilt. By the loose definitions you are using we might say an inanimate object is 'innocent'. This is simply an emotional appeal built on strained words.
YOU: "All responses will be in regards to the unborn 13 weeks or less:
3. Not accountable - agreed, but no place to hold others accountable either.
4. She (just like everyone else) can withhold her body from anyone she chooses.
***
3. That is where you are wrong if it can be established "the others" have done something wrong. Thus, is it wrong to kill innocent human beings, human beings that have not committed a crime?
4. But she did not. She allowed her body to be used by another, the result being the pregnancy in those cases where pregnancy occurs.
ME: "Only one has the choice to kill the unborn - the woman."
YOU: "No, everyone has the right to choose the use of their body."
You are switching the subject to another topic. The woman chooses whether the unborn lives or dies. She makes that determination in most cases. Thus, the statement stands. She chooses whether it lives or dies.
YOU: "Irrelevant. A homeowner who kills a burglar does not suffer the same degree of harm. Demanding equal harm would disallow self-defense in general - that's not how self-defense works."
ME: "No, granted, not in that case, but there are additional considerations here. As I said, the harm is relative when you compare two different things that are not overly related.
1. The burglar is (usually) a stranger. The unborn shares her DNA.
2. The burglar is guilty of wrongdoing, an immoral act. The unborn are innocent of wrongdoing.
3. The burglar is accountable for his actions, able to reason about breaking the law and invading personal space. The unborn are not yet accountable.
4. The unborn is NOT part of the woman's body, although it is attached. Thus, she is doing harm to ANOTHER body, not her own."
YOU: "All responses will be in regards to the unborn 13 weeks or less:
1. No - you yourself have said that the DNA of the unborn is distinct (ie. not shared) You can't have it both ways...
2. Without a consciousness, the unborn cannot be guilty or innocent.
3. Not accountable - agreed, but no place to hold others accountable either.
4. She (just like everyone else) can withhold her body from anyone she chooses.
"Only one has the choice to kill the unborn - the woman."
No, everyone has the right to choose the use of their body.
Why are you choosing 13 weeks?
1. The DNA is distinct in that there are two contributions to the unborns DNA, not one. Thus its DNA is made up in part by the woman's DNA. It shares it genetic makeup with the woman.
2. They are living human beings, unique and different from every other human being, yet they have done nothing wrong, nothing evil, nothing immoral. Thus, they are innocent of wrongdoing, not guilty of doing something wrong yet. Their personalities begin to develop at fertilization. If allowed to continue these personalities with continuing to develop. Unless you can establish otherwise this is a reasonable deduction based upon what we observe. We observe that a new entity comes into existence at fertilization, a fully functioning organism in the sense that everything needed for its internal development, other than nutrients and an environment to sustain it, is governed from within. With nutrients and the environment, you too require something from without yourself yet you are still yourself. That unborn entity is a personal being or can you establish human beings are not personal beings?
"If you were to look back upon your life, perhaps even viewing an ultrasound of you at your earliest stages of development, would you call that "you" or someone else? Would you be able to say that YOU began to grow and develop at fertilization or was it someone else until a certain age and stage of development was reached? Were you none existent at fertilization or was that distinct DNA yours? Obviously, something new and different started to exist at fertilization, a new, individual human being. Was the new ORGANISM or entity you? If not, what was it? If you can't answer these questions with certainty then should you not give the unborn the benefit of the doubt you have?"
"You" "I" "me" - these are all concepts dependent on consciousness. Without consciousness, they cannot be. By equating these terms to an entity where consciousness has never existed, you are anthropomorphizing it. My uncertainty about the exact time frame in late pregnancy when the capacity for consciousness might arise does not change the fact that early in the pregnancy (when most abortions occur) the structures known to house consciousness do not exist. My view is on much firmer scientific footing than the burden shifting argument from ignorance you advance.
Your argument is "well, we don't know when personhood begins, so *waves hand* personhood begins at conception". If the rights of women didn't hang in the balance, this wouldn't be such a problem, but, they do.
ME: "Therefore, since neither you nor science can determine when personhood begins, the unborn SHOULD be given the benefit of any doubt since we are talking about human rights."
YOU: "You're misrepresenting my position suggesting that my "uncertainty" (6 or 7 month of pregnancy is what I am willing to allow) equates to the unborn automatically being considered persons. How does that follow? This is nothing more than an attempt to shift the burden to me rather than making a case for the personhood of the unborn. That's broken thinking, bud."
What you are "willing to allow" is a personal opinion unless that is the case. Your position is conjecture unless you can establish scientifically and with certainty when personhood begins. I have not seen where this is the case. Thus, how can you justify killing a human being in which you have not verified whether it is a person?
If you were to look back upon your life, perhaps even viewing an ultrasound of you at your earliest stages of development, would you call that "you" or someone else? Would you be able to say that YOU began to grow and develop at fertilization or was it someone else until a certain age and stage of development was reached? Were you none existent at fertilization or was that distinct DNA yours? Obviously, something new and different started to exist at fertilization, a new, individual human being. Was the new ORGANISM or entity you? If not, what was it? If you can't answer these questions with certainty then should you not give the unborn the benefit of the doubt you have?