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.
Look, I understand how tasteless and hurtful this topic is to you but I don't want it dismissed as rhetoric or absurdity on the mere charge that there is no comparison or connection. So when you voice your opinion with your OP in the Comments section I do not think you are giving it the scrutiny it deserves because believe it or not, you have a bias and you are Jewish. Thus the hurt it incites to discuss such a topic is evident. But it is important to realize what is being done to the unborn. Have the unborn been dehumanized and treated as less than what they are? I am willing to make that argument to bring attention to the subject of abortion and the injustice to the unborn, a subject that is seldom mentioned in comparing because the charge is immediately laid of argumentum ad Hitlerum (argument to Hitler) to invalidate the argument, as Wikipedia points out.
"The suggested rationale is one of guilt by association. It is a tactic often used to derail arguments, because such comparisons tend to distract and anger the opponent."
(Funnily enough, that is what I have been accused of here, derailing the argument)
"Since its inception, the 'reductio ad Hitlerum' fallacy has also inspired a counter-fallacy, whereby it has been cited not to point out a logical fallacy in an argument but instead to deflect valid allegations of acting with similar intent or beliefs to Nazism, allegations of collaboration with the Holocaust, or to support statements of Holocaust denial, by alleging that critics are exaggerating their allegations, irrespective of the actual specifics of the allegations or the evidence supporting them. In this counter-fallacy, any mention of historical events associated with the Nazis is used as a basis to dismiss the other fundamentals of the argument as 'reductio ad Hitlerum', even where there is a direct association."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum
I feel that in this discussion, initiated by my objection to Ragnar's use of it in his vote, and your objection as well to my citing Hilter or the Nazis, or even greater, your claim that I am calling Pro-choicers little Hitler's which I think is absurd, I would remind you if I have used such arguments of Reductio Ad Absurdum in my debates or forum posts I point out that Socrates used arguments of absurdity to great effect, so did Jesus, so they are not always a bad thing.
So, yes, I take a great risk in how it is perceived and I am prepared to suffer negative votes to bring the issue out in the public further by what you call, "inciting bias" by doing so. Perhaps a debate on such a narrow topic as dehumanizing language and how it is used in abortion and with the Nazis will expand on the topic further. Since you had not finished reading the debate but initiated the comment, did the red flag come up as soon as you saw I had taken the time to show how language and law created negative effects for many groups of people who were marginalized, but especially the Jews? And do you really believe that pro-choicers do not use much of the same kind of language of devaluation or marginalizing and degrading the Nazis did to present a negative view of the unborn, of pro-life and the pro-life position, for as much as I try to see the unborn upheld as a human being and with a right to life, the most fundamental of all rights, I seldom see that consideration taking into consideration by pro-choicers? They usually advocate for and side exclusively with the woman's rights or her freedoms. What about the rights and freedoms of this other class of human beings - the unborn? They do not seem to count.
YOU: "You should probably just start a debate on if Reductio ad Hitlerum is still a fallacy or not when used in abortion debates."
Would you be willing to have such a debate?
Thanks
>> "hey im new to this site and was just wondering how voting works?"
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
In short, you need to take part in a couple debates in order to vote (or post a lot on the forums to indicate investment in the greater community, which is fastest to achieve by playing Mafia).
Voting here isn't about agreement with one side, but about weighting the performances (it need to cover every nuance, but it should list at least a couple highlights). As an example, there's a few users whom I can't stand whom have nonetheless won votes from me.
You should probably just start a debate on if Reductio ad Hitlerum is still a fallacy or not when used in abortion debates.
Look, we can keep going back and forth on the validity of the comparison for days (and, to be clear, I still very much disagree that this is a valid comparison), but that doesn't alter what I said in my OP or what I've continued saying all along. Again, even if I assume that the comparison between being pro-choice and being a Nazi is apt, there is no doubt that it also inflames people who are pro-choice to make the comparison. Saying that it's still accurate to make the comparison doesn't change the fact that people are automatically either turned away from discussing it with you by the tension it brings, or become so focused on the comparison that the substance of your argument effectively doesn't matter after reading it. And I'm telling you that this is working against your interest of educating and bringing attention to what's happening because the only people who are going to care about the substance of your argument are people who already agree with you. You're not educating by inciting the opposition to engage with this comparison rather than engage with the substance of the moral issue that you're trying to argue is most important.
It seems like your goal in this comment thread is to show that you are right, yet I've spent scant little time in this discussion challenging your basic claim. Contrary to your supposition, I'm not assuming I'm correct because I don't have a horse in this race. I'm not arguing that pro-choice is moral - seriously, read back through any of my comments. The only thing I'm arguing is that pro-choice people see the words "you're basically Hitler" and that has a strong negative effect on their willingness to read your other words. Much as you treat my OP as though it's some kind of treatise denouncing your argument as invalid, the only goal of posting it was to point out that you're going to have a very hard time connecting with any pro-choice audience. Maybe you don't care about connecting with that audience because you feel they're already aligned against you, but then I really just have to wonder whom it is you are trying to educate. Who's benefiting from reading these debates? Are you just trying to give pro-life people more fodder to use in their arguments, or are you really trying to engage with a group of people who you feel have it wrong? If it's the latter, then it is my suggestion that you change your tactics. You can choose to take that advice or leave it, but it's coming from someone who is trying his best to look at your points objectively and also knows how he and other pro-choice people perceive being effectively called a Nazi for their views. Your last line, in particular, is really odd to me. You want to know who and what influences pro-choice people? Then I'd suggest you do not start the conversation by equating their views with people who started and ran the Holocaust. That's not going to facilitate your or their understanding. That's going to tell them, like it tells me, that you care more about casting judgement on them than you do engaging with their views.
Again, as far as I'm concerned, take this or leave it. It's your choice whether or not you care about how people reading this perceive you and your arguments. Personally, I care a lot about how people read my arguments because I want them to read them fully. I want them to engage with the entirety of my points. If that's what you want, I can tell you straight up, this isn't helping.
You also say, likening abortion to the Nazis and what they did to human beings "is clearly meant to inflame emotionally." It does, yes, but the aim or "goal" is to educate and bring attention to what is happening. What has happened throughout human history when a group is singled out by this kind of negative language should be noted. And I am well aware that you "strongly disagree with it personally."
And,
"if you want to keep assuming how correct you are with your whole argument in response to what I'm saying, that's your choice,"
It is not the point but whether such devaluing and demonizing language is actually and factually used in discriminating and dehumanizing a particular group of human beings. Also, the same can be applied to you. You accuse me, assuming it is you who are correct.
You say,
"Showing me examples of people using the language you're discussing doesn't make your perspective on all of pro-choice thought correct. It certainly doesn't validate you painting with such a broad brush as you have here and in our previous discussion."
The point is that human beings, yes, human beings, are being killed. That is a fact. Is that killing justified, and what spurs such killing? Usually, it is the unwantedness of these unborn human beings and the legal justification to do so made possible by the language we use to describe them. So, are these laws just? Is it just to kill innocent human beings simply because you or someone else says the moral justification for doing so is because they are not liked, or they are not wanted?
Ideas and their consequences shape nations, and that is why I never forgot what someone once said to me; that is, if you want to find out about someone, find out who and what influences them.
As for your vote, let me give you my opinion. I already had a good sense of where you were going with it in your OP. To me, that was the prep work to paint a particular portrait, and you come across to most as sober and fair-minded, and generally, that is the case. Thus, your opinion will set the stage for others. I also knew that the chance of winning a pro-choicer, which seems to me is the position held by the majority on debate forums, and possibly the American culture, is an arduous task. But hopefully, some will be aware of what language and laws can do and will think about such things in the future.
When you say,
"The goal of the comparison (between the Nazis and the unborn) isn't simply to show that the two are similar, it's to malign one party who would otherwise be considered relatively normal by comparing them to another party that has committed clear and outright atrocities."
The goal is to show how language, then laws are used to paint a negative picture of and how they do demonize groups of people from fairness and justice by maligning them. Has that been done with the Jews in Nazi Germany, and has that been done with the unborn by abortion advocates? Did Hitler call the Jews parasites? I already quoted from Mein Kampf where he did. Do you deny he did this? Do pro-choicers label and call the unborn human using the same kinds of inflammatory and degrading language? If so, the comparison sticks. Words are being used to relegate the unborn to the garbage heap and cheapen its worth to society.
https://www.thenewscommenter.com/news/please-let-this-pro-choice-protest-sign-calling-the-unborn-parasites-be-a-photoshop/1146399
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/rtlofneo/pages/192/attachments/original/1425400981/Unborn_a_Parasite_12-6-13a.pdf?1425400981
https://randalrauser.com/2016/06/fetus-as-parasite-a-disturbing-trend-in-pro-choice-rhetoric/
Carl Sagan and his wife said in Parade Magazine, April 6, 1990, p.6, speaking of the unborn that it "is a kind of parasite on the walls of the uterus." - Dehumanizing the Vulnerable, by William Brennan, p.110.
Calling a human being a parasite is a way of providing a negative repulsive image of that person or human being, something that should not be wanted. It conjures up pictures of an unwanted INTRUDER, the same wording used in a debate on abortion at DebateArt.
Blackmun: "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." [p. 160]
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/abortion/supreme-courts-response-to-the-question-when-does-life-begin.cfm
Do we not know when a human being begins to exist? "Need not resolve?" Why would you not resolve this difficult question before advocating for taking its life? If a small kid came to you and said, "Can I kill it?" before you said yes would you not ask what "it" referenced?
"There has always been strong support for the view that life does not begin until live birth."
"In areas other than criminal abortion, the law has been reluctant to endorse any theory that life, as we recognize it, begins before live birth or to accord legal rights to the unborn except in narrowly defined situations and except when the rights are contingent upon live birth."
https://www.sacred-texts.com/wmn/rvw/rvw09.htm
All these statements paint a negative picture of the worth and humanity of the unborn. They are not based on facts or reason.1) Justice should be based on fair-play/equality, not discrimination of the innocent. We know the unborn are treated differently from other human beings. 2) We know a new human life starts at conception.
Blackmun: "The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument." [p. 156]
https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/the-supreme-court-in-1973-knew-personhood-could-kill-roe-v-wade
If personhood is established his case collapses, yet he could not scientifically establish it was not a person, yet the idea was pushed into law that it did not deserve the same rights under the law. Surely, when unsure the benefit of the doubt should go to the unborn?
So with these examples, you see how law and language change the way the unborn is viewed.
Both have benefits and problems, but a debate is more focused on the topic at hand and deals with only one person in the bulk of the arguments. The difficulties encountered in both by my arguments are that the majority of the culture is mostly of pro-choice bias. That stereotype is used to address those talking points. As soon as Hitler or the Nazis are mentioned as a comparison of what was done with language or law, the immediate response is the claim of Reductio ad Hitlerum.
Discussing the vote was in response to Ragnar's comment which I thought set the stage for how others would most definitely be influenced because he set the tone with these words,
"DOESN'T seem to FAVOUR CON IN ANY AREA, and TO VOTE HIM would CALL FOR likewise VOTING AGAINST CANCER AND STD TREATMENTS."
The analogy was not appropriate, in my opinion. Then your OP brought up the issue further, and in your words, without even having fully read the debate because of your dislike of comparing abortion language, law or practice in any way to Naziism. I could have used numerous other examples such as how negative language was used against women to deny them voting rights as men in the USA (i.e., the vote). Many other slants against them were held by the societies of yesteryear and even in some cultures today. I could have given you examples of Apartheid, that I experienced while living or vacationing in South Africa, or how colonialism which I also experienced exploited particular groups of society wherever it was found by language and in action. But with sheer numbers, the holocaust of abortion is most comparable to the Nazi Holocaust. Thus, I wanted to focus on what language and laws can do to sway a nation or nations against a particular group if the words are negative towards that group. Europe had a negative attitude towards the Jews long before Hitler came along (which was wrong thinking since we are all human beings and deserve to be treated with respect and dignity). Hitler escalated the language of discrimination and dehumanization with his hatred. Mein Kampf was full of such hatred. I wanted to highlight how abortion advocates do the same thing with wording and laws. They used both of these tools to change the way a culture viewed abortion. Blackmun did not establish scientifically that the unborn was not a person or not fully human yet Roe V wade set the table for justifying that it was okay to kill the unborn if the woman did not want it. The "not a person or fully human" legislated into law his negative view.
hey im new to this site and was just wondering how voting works?
It appears that what you're coming down on is that the forums are ineffective, but so are the debates, because you're encountering the same problems. This, what we're engaging in right now, is derailing. Discussing the validity of a vote or view on a given type of argument, rather than discussing the issue of abortion straight up, is derailing. I would say that this debate was also derailed since it became more about the reasons why you or your opponent won than the content of your arguments, so even before the focus was placed on the voting, you had this problem. So, if the forums and the debates have failed to bring about the kind of discussion you're looking for, I'm not sure why you're choosing to engage in either one.
I made clear that I have a problem with a particular point you're making. I also made clear (several times) that that would not prevent me from voting for you should the remainder of your arguments be successful or should you somehow explain why this point would factor without a meaningful response from your opponent. If you want to believe that I'm already so biased that there's no chance of my voting for you based on a single point about your comparisons of pro-choice mentalities to Naziism, that honestly just concerns me because it makes it sound like that argument is integral to your case. If it is, then yes, you're likely to encounter expansions on what I've said here in my vote and it's likely to play a big role in my decision. I would hope (and from what we've discussed before, I expect) to see something a little more thought out and interesting than this.
I think you're getting the wrong impression from my and Ragnar's statements regarding these comparisons. It's not just a matter of whether the comparison is to Nazis, though that's the low-hanging genocidal fruit and certainly makes it stand out more. There's a reason why this fallacy that Ragnar mentioned exists, and it goes beyond simple comparison to Nazis. The goal of the comparison isn't simply to show that the two are similar, it's to malign one party who would otherwise be considered relatively normal by comparing them to another party that has committed clear and outright atrocities. Admittedly, the goal of any debate is to show that the other side is wrong, but this is clearly meant to inflame emotionally. You might believe wholeheartedly that the two are equivalent, or at least nearly so. I understand that, even if I very strongly disagree with it personally. I'm telling you, though, that using this kind of rhetoric in a debate isn't going to bring people to your side, nor is it going to make them consider your side more. It's an inherently polarizing comparison, and the only people who will read and consider it are those who already agree. You can call it true from your perspective all you want, but that doesn't change how it functions with your audience.
Look, if you want to keep assuming how correct you are with your whole argument in response to what I'm saying, that's your choice. You can assume all you want that it's pro-choice language that's causing the most harm, though I have disagreements on that as well. What concerns me with your points, and what I'm clearly having a hard time getting across, is that your language does nothing more than entrench the perceived divides between pro-life and pro-choice views. If every pro-choice individual is inherently Nazi-esque, then there's no point considering their argument rationally from your perspective, and since they think their perspective is moral, being told that they're basically all Hitler turns them off to any engagement with you. If you really want to have a rational discussion, starting with "yeah, but you're basically Hitler" doesn't do much to get the ball rolling. It's really good if you want to get people upset, but that's about it.
Showing me examples of people using the language you're discussing doesn't make your perspective on all of pro-choice thought correct. It certainly doesn't validate you painting with such a broad brush as you have here and in our previous discussion. I don't know who those "gatekeepers" are, but I ascribe to my own views on the matter, and I know many others who feel differently as well. Yet your argument places us in the same camp as anyone who holds a pro-choice view, despite not using the language you find so odious. Another example of your attempts to stop rather than start conversation on this issue.
It doesn't seem to me like you'd like to engage on language and how we use it to designate the unborn, since you already seem quite decided on that issue and view anyone who wobbles or falls on a different perspective as reprehensible for their views. I think the question that you posed two posts earlier, "should abortion be legal?", is about far more than a moral issue, and my views on it largely fall off the moral spectrum entirely. I think there are numerous problems with making abortion illegal, and they're mostly practical. That being said, the moral debate is an interesting one, and it would be a lot easier to have a substantive, detailed examination of that topic if the comparison to Nazis didn't make it all the more polarizing.
Sorry, it should have been "lived in South Africa."
Also, it should be "chances of persuasion" instead of changes.
I find the forums ineffective in communicating on such issues. First, the response to an initiated thread takes lots of work when you get bombarded with multiple posts at one time. Second, the thread usually gets derailed. Third, I have done a lot of thinking on this particular topic, and yes, like you, I don't have all the answers, but who does. Fourth, I believe my position is reasonable. Fifth, as I said before, I disagree with Ragnar in his assessment yet realize he is free to his opinion, just like I am. I pointed out my points of contention. Sixth, your original post already seemed predetermined to me.
a) You are "not a big fan of the Hitler comparison."
b) "[A]ssuming that it's an apt comparison, [you] would still find fault with it." Thus, as I said, you have a particular bias.
c) "if [my] goal is to earn votes for [my] side from those who are pro-choice, then [I'm] not doing [myself] any favors," in your opinion.
d) "Admittedly, [you've only read part of this debate." "[You] don't think the comparison is apt," so your mind is already thinking along those lines.
e) "[You are] both pro-choice and a Jew, so [you] feel it strongly on both fronts."
Not only this, on a forum that is largely secular and largely pro-choice, my changes of persuasion were slim from the start. The same goes for when I discuss Christianity with an atheist.
Yes, I am talking about the effects of negative language and what it does to our thinking. And what better example than what the barbary of the Nazis did to highlight what is being done through language and law to the unborn, granting you consider them human beings, and how can you not? Yes, I could have chosen other examples of societies using language and laws to discriminate against groups of people since I live in South Africa and witnessed what was done there, but on the scale of atrocities, the Holocaust is the example that comes closest in sheer numbers to what has been done to the unborn. Besides language, I'm also talking about justice and what that means. No matter how you frame it I do not understand how someone can believe in equality for all human beings then single out a particular group and treat them unjustly. As I said in the debate, justice is only just if it applies equally to all. The whole topic should abortion be of legal revolves around justice.
So, yes, you may think it ironic, what negative language can do to a particular group but pro-lifers are not the ones advocating for the killing of the unborn human being.
Regarding your last point, point four, I realize you do not appreciate it that I point out the flaws in such a view, but I could show you examples after examples of these very debates on abortion where the unborn are made to be lesser than they are through language. They are painted as less valuable human beings if they are even considered human beings. I could also go to the threads and show you pro-choice language that call the unborn all kinds of degrading and highly charged names like a parasite, cancer, an intruder, a group of cells, subhuman, not as human, and so on. I believe that is because our culture promotes such ideas of the unborn. As the gatekeepers of society go, so quite likely goes the main talking points and thinking of society, IMO.
First off, I don't agree that your position or your combative style necessarily preclude you from doing well in a debate on this subject. It's a difficult subject, it incites a lot of strong feelings, and people expect those debating these topics to be combative. You can be both combative and persuasive.
Second, if your goal is to drive the conversation, I'd suggest shifting to the forums. Engaging in large, researched debates like this invite people to pick a winner rather than contribute to the discussion and forward or challenge issues like those you're discussing. Maybe it's just because you don't think you're getting much reach working the forums, but this kind of debate is really only helping you find one person to have these conversations with, and it becomes more about winning the debate than it does about furthering the discussion.
Third, it seems pretty ironic to me that you're talking about the effects of language on perceptions of groups when your own language is doing exactly that in this context. Efforts to characterize the other side as "Hitler-like" inherently shut down discussions like the one you're trying to have, that's part of the reason these comparisons are problematic. Even when someone is willing to engage with you, it either starts from a place of greater antagonism, or it becomes a discussion of the methods you're using like this, rather than a discussion of language surrounding the lives of the unborn.
Fourth, I'm really not appreciating that you're speaking about those who are pro-choice as being relatively homogeneous in their views. I say "their" when I am pro-choice myself, and it has never been my goal to "cloak or disguise" the identity of the unborn. That being said, I have used the words "potential person" to describe them, and I feel that that position is entirely appropriate because it acknowledges uncertainty in our perception of the unborn rather than uncertainty of what they physically are. For that matter, I think questioning the point at which a life becomes unique, individual, or human is reasonable. Again, we've had this discussion at great length. I'm more than willing to concede that there are flaws in some of the arguments proposed by people who are pro-choice. The same is true of those who are pro-life. That doesn't mean that the pro-choice side has no reasonable points to make when it comes to issues like this, and if you want to engage with me and other pro-choice people on issues like this to better understand the logic we're employing, a good place to start is by acknowledging that we don't have to compare these positions to those espoused by the Nazis in order to find fault in them.
Sorry, should be cloak, not clocks.
I have already realized, very likely, I don't stand a chance with the vote because of the culture I operate in. I further realize my combative style in challenging the status quo will not win many over. My hopes and purpose are to perhaps drive the conversation deeper along the lines of how words in societies can have a very negative effect on our perceptions of groups of people to the point where laws are enacted and affected by such use of language to the detriment and exclusion of groups. Should abortion be legal? That is a moral issue that revolves around what the unborn is. Have you ever noticed how the pro-choice position clocks or disguises what we are speaking of, a human being? To argue it is not a human being or not as human as more developed human beings (more like a group of cells, or biological blob, or potential life, or potential human, instead of its own unique individual entity or organism, directing its own growth) is not to treat it with the same equality and value as other human beings.
I'm not calling the argument fallacious. Comparisons to the Nazis are, occasionally, warranted. Nor am I arguing that you have a negative stance towards Jews. My concern is its usage in this instance and how it can be perceived. This isn't just about inherent bias, though when you're looking to get votes on a debate, that is something you have to concern yourself with. Rather, this is about inciting bias through your use of this comparison, which I think you are doing. I've seen and voted for several good pro-life arguments, and while I recognize that there are many pro-choice people who would vote against those people on principle alone, I think what leads me and others who are pro-choice to vote for these debaters is largely that they make a persuasive point that doesn't compare their deeply held beliefs to those held by the Nazis. Again, whether this is an apt comparison based on the language used by the pro-choice movement vs. Hitler is really irrelevant to the point I'm making now. It can be accurate to say this and still put you in a worse position to do so.
Well, Whiteflame, I think people evoke and use the Hitler fallacy to squash any discussion on the comparisons on the two groups via language and laws. As I said, I think semantics are used to put a negative slant of what the unborn is, just like Hitler did with the Jew, the gypsy, and many other groups of human beings. Furthermore, I understand that everyone holds a bias to some degree and that the majority of people on DebateArt are not Christian or pro-life. I also think that what Hitler did was a sin against humanity and I hold nothing against you as a Jew. In fact, I admire and think highly of Jews, generally speaking., and I'm proud to say my Messiah was/is a Jew, and as a Christian, I identify the church as the New Israel of God, expressed in the parallels between the Old Testament and the New Testament.
I will post a vote on this when I get the opportunity (there's a lot of time to do that, and comparatively little time for me to finish writing my dissertation), but I did want to quickly weigh in on the main issue being discussed.
We have discussed this at length previously, PGA2.0, and I've made clear to you that I'm not a big fan of the Hitler comparison. If we start by assuming that it's an apt comparison, I would still find fault with it, as it's basically calling out anyone who supports abortion as Nazi-esque. I know that the issue of abortion as a whole is incredibly polarizing, but if your goal is to earn votes for your side from those who are pro-choice, then you're not doing yourself any favors using this comparison. It may be unintentional, but it makes your argument sound like a rather strong indictment of being pro-choice rather than an attack on the mentalities used to justify it, even if it is done directly in reference to those mentalities. It's hard to get away from making a comparison like this feel personal because there are so many traits that get dragged along with the Nazi label and all of them are moral indictments.
To be clear, I don't think the comparison is apt, and I don't think you're pigeon-holed into using it, either. I can discuss that in more detail either with you personally or via my vote, but I have a lot of problems with the equivocation. Admittedly, I've only read part of this debate and you could have justified it better than when we discussed it before, but it's unlikely that you've managed to make the comparison compelling enough for me to agree with you. Perhaps that's my own bias leaking in (I am both pro-choice and a Jew, so I feel it strongly on both fronts), but I'm trying to just take a step back and analyze this on a purely logical basis, and I'm seeing numerous flaws even in the short paragraph justification you're providing here. We can discuss that much here in the comments, though I'd rather not provide specific analysis here before I've voted.
All this being said, I have not yet read through the whole debate and therefore have not decided whom I would vote for. These are just my two cents about the usage of a specific argument without examining the specific points made under it.
Not something you are aware of, perhaps.
You charge me with Reductio ad Hitlerum, but if a comparison is true, or similar, what makes it fallacious? I'm glad we are having this discussion. I think that label is thrown around many times to detract from such discussions as a mere ploy to win arguments to those who are gullible.
Because I chose the Nazis as an example I got pigeon-holed into this fallacy. I could have chosen one of the other groups I mentioned in my last post but I think the Nazi example is most fitting because of the horror of what was done. The human Holocaust, language and laws are similar in both examples. I gave sufficient evidence to prove the terminology was similar in both the way the Nazis devalued the Jews and how abortion advocates devalue the unborn. The language used by the Nazis and abortionists compared both groups of victims to diseases and of lesser nature. Both groups victimized are further dehumanized and depersonalized. The German Nazi or the pro-choicer forms a picture of a disease or something less than human. It marginalizes a human being so it becomes easier to do things that should not be done to one of these humans in removing them. The fact is that both the Nazi and abortionists use language like disease, cancer, parasite, or garbage to disparage both groups.
I chose this aspect of comparison because this aspect of the debate on abortion is often the one that is most neglected or pushed to the side and ignored. Words paint a picture that is used to either present a positive or negative image of something and when negative words are used regarding human beings the unthinkable becomes the norm, something not worthy of life.
I could give you numerous examples of this disparaging language where the Jew and the unborn are compared to diseases, cancers, pestilence, an animal metaphor, a non-person, non-human, sub-human, parasite, waste product, non-entity, potential life, potential human, etc.
In Hitler's Mein Kampf as a lone example, he spoke of the Jew as "a foreign virus," "germ carriers," filth," "a pestilence," "moral pestilence," "infection," "worse than the Black Plague," "the worst kind of germ carriers in poisoning human souls," "unclean products in public cultural life," (p. 56) "a foreign people," (p. 57) "evil," "alien race," "leading our people astray," (p. 59) "a real leech who clings to the body of his unfortunate victims and cannot be removed," "a real scourge," (p.242) "the Jewish menace," "The Jew's life as a parasite in the body of other nations and states," "monsters," "our general disease," "blindly ignored the virus," "The end is not only the end of the freedom of the peoples oppressed by the Jew, but also the end of this parasite upon the nations," "syphilis," spreading infection throughout the world.
Read pages 55-60 (Ch. 2) as a small sample of his rant and demonizing of the Jew.
https://mk.christogenea.org/_files/Adolf%20Hitler%20-%20Mein%20Kampf%20english%20translation%20unexpurgated%201939.pdf
http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv1ch11.html
Do you think the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margret Sanger, fairs much better in her portrayals of the unwanted unborn and with many other topics of similarity with Hitler, such as euthanasia or separating people and groups from society?
I could present the same kind of language used to demonize the unborn by abortionists and pro-choicers to lessen its humanity. Whenever such negative language is used it works its way into how a group is viewed to the point where laws are passed to limits these groups freedoms and liberties to the point where their lives are threatened and taken (i.e., Roe V Wade changed a law that had stood since the 1800s). One law set a precedent permitting the killing of a group of human beings for almost any reason based on the will of the woman as to whether she wanted the unborn or not.
>> "suggestive and leading in helping others to formulate a particular opinion."
Not how I vote. Further, if anyone casts a vote merely piggybacking on mine (or any other) rather than forming their own opinions, they'll be deleted (if reported).
>> "Am I right?"
You are wrong. You may want to read pro's case again, and next time not drop the points related to human diseases. That was a key failing, to which I gave an extra highlight as it stuck in my mind.
>> "Nazi analogy taken out of context by you"
When you choose to exemplify Godwin's Law by pulling a Reductio ad Hitlerum, no one in their right mind is going to take you seriously on that contention.
Thank you for casting your vote and I believe we are all deserving of expressing our opinions but I find your last statement suggestive and leading in helping others to formulate a particular opinion.
RAGNAR: "doesn’t seem to favour con in any area, and TO VOTE HIM would call for likewise voting against cancer and STD treatments."
The disease analogy was also not necessary. I think you misspoke here. I think the analogy was meant to say, "To vote for Con would be like voting for cancer." Am I right?
I also found the Nazi analogy taken out of context by you. The point of comparing the pro-choice and Pros position in the debate to what the Nazis DID was to highlight that LANGUAGE and LAWS have been used to discriminate and dehumanize particular groups of humanity, just like is done with abortion advocates. Sometimes that leads to mass extermination of these groups. I was nowhere saying Pro was a Nazi. The unborn are often treated no differently than unwanted cancer, a parasite, or a disease; something the Nazis did, and that kind of language was something that should be thought badly of and eliminated. Pro-choice uses words and laws in a similar manner. When those kinds of terms are used, and I have countless examples of were Pro-choice do such things with their semantics, it shapes how society at large view an unborn when it is convenient to them (i.e., the woman does not want the unborn). I think Pro-choicers never hold themselves accountable for what the unborn is - a human being; instead, they lessen what it is by words, just like the Nazis, American slavers, Apartheid, the Caste system in India, how women were sometimes looked upon in past centuries and different cultures as not in the same league as men, and so on. What other human beings would people opt to and advocate for in terminating their life because they don't see them as valuable enough to fight for? Justice is only just if applied without discrimination, equally to all human beings. How can justice be applied equally for all human beings when one class, the unborn, is excluded?
Hi all! Vote! Vote! Vote! 😁
Bumb
You know, you can just say bumb
Is it just me, or does everyone become a better editor after the argument has been published?
Should anyone have missed the the flaws I pointed out, see my comment below starting with "In fairness". I'd be happy to entertain any analogy which does not have bias built-in.
I will let you go then. Though as far as flaws I have yet to see what you dislike, other then it shows a serious issue we are ignoring.
Have a good week!
To Truth!
-logicae
I won't answer questions regarding an anology I consider to be unfair. I explained in detail the issues I have with it. It is up to you to fix the flaws if you want the conversation to proceed on that front.
Additionally, I think you are tracking similarly in "humans can't kill each other". I wonder how you're defining "human" that includes a fetus without the capacity for consciousness and excludes things such as terratomas or cancer. Plus, it should be noted how this statement denies justified killings such as self-defense and war which makes it incomplete and absent crucial nuance. Finally, even if we assume a fetus is a person with all accompanying rights, there is no right to use the body of another even if life depends on it, so this is no defense for your view. Rights apply to everyone the same - even the unborn.
I answered your question, but in the form of a question because that is the only way I think we can see eye to eye. If you do not like the scenario, then please explain why (though in detail, why not analogous?).
"there is no right to control the body of another" -Agreed, which is why I think it makes sense that humans cannot kill each other regardless of where they are located or their state of helplessness (such as the bodily dependence of a new born to its mother). What do you think?
Though I have to say these types of arguments seem to backtrack away from the argument at hand: Is it human or not? That to me seems to be the real question.
To Truth!
-logicae
I'm all for conversation, but I don't see much point in moving on to your questions until mine has been addressed. Plus, the questions you ask are either dependent on a non-analogous scenario (I've disputed the fairness of) or attempting to suggest dependence provides a justification for subverting human rights (there is no right to control the body of another). I think an honest attempt to answer my (one) question will explain where your priorities lie: equality, personal sovereignty, etc... or not.
If you want the answer to your question you need to answer the questions I posed and in the situation, otherwise you have ended the conversation (I can't help you after that). There is nothing anyone can do in fact, unless you yourself wish to keep up the conversation. (remember a conversation is a 2-way event, meaning that not only do I have to answer your questions, but you must answer mine as well)
No worries about the tagging, I will probably mess up at some point too XD,
To Truth!
-logicae
Again, you present a non-analogous situation. If we don't want our money spent on welfare, we stop funding it, which isn't the same as killing the recipients.
My argument isn't about dependence - it is about personal sovereignty, equality, etc. Pro-life either denies these or creates a situation where control of another persons body is available to all (which isn't all that different from the first option). I reject both of these options.
*Edit* Sorry, @logicae I tagged you when this should have been directed to @Alec. Apologies to both of you.
"If all people are equally valuable (and we assume a fetus is a person), how can one person living off the body of another (without consent) be justified?"
Because the fetus can't control the fact that their life is dependant on someone else. People who are on welfare live off of the resources of people who aren't on welfare without their inherit consent, just as what a fetus does with a woman. Does this mean that we kill people on welfare? No. Same applies to a fetus. Being dependant on someone without their consent is not worthy of a death sentence.
In fairness, you've not answered my question. Rather you've presented a thought experiment which is more strawman-y that analogy. For instance, the woman is represented as thugs and the fetus is represented as completely benign. This is not representative of pregnancy in the real world. Pregnancy affects a woman's body, education, career, and life in drastic ways, and one needn't be a thug to want to avoid unwanted circumstances such as these.
So, I'll ask my question again: If all people are equally valuable (and we assume a fetus is a person), how can one person living off the body of another (without consent) be justified?
This is an important question,
Let's start by analyzing a scenario, tell me what you think:
*Over some lush and untamed jungle, far from the civilized world* Not knowing how you got there, you find yourself in the cargo section of an old stuffy jet plane. Climbing out of the hold, you discover three well armed men. You cautiously make your way toward them, having no other choice but to submit to their mercy, but then, upon learning of your presence, the gunmen decide you are not worth having around and they toss you out of their plane...dead.
In this example, did the owners of the plane have a right to kill you because you were in their property and requiring them to assist you to safety?
The problem with the argument you present is that you ignore the baby's perspective entirely. If that indeed is a human, it has the same rights as any other human. In other words, would you say that a mother should not have to care for a born baby, as it too requires the mother to stay alive? The unborn baby is simply that, but even more helpless.
Thanks for the question, hope to hear from you soon,
To Truth!
-logicae
If all people are equally valuable (and we assume a fetus is a person), how can one person living off the body of another (without consent) be justified?
Yes, but the problem here is that by saying not having a past means you have no value, you assume that the past is the determining factor of value. This means that more past means more value and less past means less value (with 'no past' being the bottom and most extreme). This is why in the slavery example slaves were seen as less valuable, because they did not have the experience of the European colonists or in other words did not have the past of the colonists.
I noticed at the end of your last post you said, "They have contributed to the human race by being a human." This here is a separate issue, because now you assert the the unborn are not human. *What reasons do you have to think they are not human and how do they not apply to a born person as well?* (The issue we were discussing is whether or not your past gives you value, not what makes you human) However, I think that is the most important question when it comes to abortion, because being human assumes certain dignities such as the right to life, if the unborn aren't human then you would be right, but if they are then we would be justifying killing humans based on their age or past if you prefer. *see question above*
To Truth!
-logicae
Well, what I mean by "past", and relating this back to abortion, is that all humans have a past, good or bad, big or small. They have contributed to the human race by being a human. Babies on the other had have been a human for exactly 0 hours. They have not contributed to our race in any way shape or form, if that makes any sense.
So I'm less worried about "what you did in your past", but rather "did you have a past?"
I would say not, for the reason that we do not see someone's past as the reason to value them. Example: Slavery. It is important to note that beyond the slave's skin-color, they were seen as lesser because of their past experience in Africa (It being far less developed in all). This prompted the slaveholders to treat them as property, as they couldn't understand the European lifestyle yet(this difference in experience).
*Modern Day* Do you think slavery is right? It seems quite rightly to have been extinguished if the past standard is not sound.
The thing about using pasts to determine value is that even those with a past can be deemed less valuable (and harmed).
Another question: Would you like to be discriminated against because someone thought your past was less valuable? (Your elders for example *though probably politicians these days XD*)
A good exchange this is becoming! Rare on the internet,
To Truth!
-logicae
Well, I just think that if you have a past, then you are valuable.
By your logic, are elders than more important than youth?
I see,
it is true that younger people lack experience that their elders have in the world. The question then becomes whether or not your experience determines the value of your life.
Thoughts?
To Truth!
-logicae
Well, what I meant by a "contribution to society" was a person's past. I'm sure you have a past, whether it be small or big, or good or bad. It is a past none the less. However, babies do not have a past...
Also yes, I agree.
Interesting question, mind if I add a thought?
I agree it seems that we indeed care about relating with each other (fashion, peer pressure) and we certainly do praise contributions to society, but is that all? But who wants to relate to Hitler, Stalin, or Mao and who wants to be known for contributing destruction? This list seems to lack one fundamental backbone that gives both meaning. It is good that in the end we care about things, whether it is to relate to someone in a good way or to contribute something good to society, we search for our purpose in it all.
On the subject of abortion, you say that babies aren't relatable nor contribute to society, but you miss that important last question: Are they good? (Not like did they preform the moral act good, but are they in themselves valuable) Human life has that innate value, which is why we look first to protect newborns for example, we know that they are beyond material value like gold and also is why we look down upon those that hurt or kill, we see value in each other beyond our actions or superficial looks.
Perhaps this is why we are struggling to see the value in those that are hard to see, as you said, babies are not relatable, Indeed they are not, which is why many of them are killed each year(I think we know the numbers well). Like abominations before it (slavery, mass killings of every kind and shape), abortion is once more as PGA puts it an excuse to commit a horrendous act based on a difference of the person. Indeed it is and it needs to be said that many are waking up to this fad of an excuse for genocide.
Good question,
To Truth!
-logicae
Why do we care about things?
1. Relatability
2. Contribution to Society
Babies aren't relatable. Nor did they contribute to the society.
I can elaborate on this if anyone likes...
Thank you!
I've seen way too many people argue against birth control; so a debate focused on the approximate 13th week, should be refreshing to see. So good luck to you both!