TBHT: Abortion is, on balance, moral

• Abortion - "a procedure to end a pregnancy. It uses medicine or surgery to remove the embryo or fetus and placenta from the uterus. " [A1]
  
• Moral - A behavior, conduct, or topic that is based on valid principles and/or foundations [A2][A3]
  
• Balance - "A predominating amount; a preponderance" [A4]
  
• Well-Being - The positive state of one's physical and mental state [A5] [A6]
  
• Personhood - "A human being regarded as an individual." [A7]
  

“Your fetus will begin the process of developing a brain around week 5, but it isn’t until week 6 or 7 when the neural tube closes and the brain separates into three parts…” [8]

“From week 33 the baby ‘s brain and nervous system are fully developed, and the bones are continuing to harden.” [9]

“By week 12, all the fetus’ organs, muscles, limbs and bones are in place, the sex organs have begun to develop and from now on, the pregnancy is about growing and maturing the fetus’ systems and organs.” [9]

“The majority of abortions in 2018 took place early in gestation: 92.2% of abortions were performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation; a smaller number of abortions (6.9%) were performed at 14–20 weeks’ gestation, and even fewer (1.0%) were performed at ≥21 weeks’” [10]

“ A study published Tuesday by the  Journal of the American Medical Association found that the initial experience of sexual intercourse for 1 in 16 women is rape while 56 percent reported being verbally pressured into having sex the first time.” [11]  [12]

“Imagine having sex with a man, agreeing beforehand to use protection, only to find out that he removed the condom during intercourse. That's what a dangerous new sex trend called "stealthing" is all about. And not only does it put partners at risk for STIs and pregnancy— it's also a lesser-known form of assault” [13] [14]

As many as half of all pregnancies may end in miscarriage. We don’t know the exact number because a miscarriage may happen before a woman knows she’s pregnant. Most women who miscarry go on to have a healthy pregnancy later. [17]

Quite simply, if an action were to detract from this well-being overall (as in short term vs long term), then we could call this action necessarily immoral. 

In 2015, 55 million people died (55,000,000) [4] Around 800,000 of those deaths were attributed due to suicide [5] Using some simple calculations (55,000,000 divided by 800,000 and converting to percentages) we get a suicide to be 1.6875% of the annual deaths globally.

if we were to regard any organism that was or had potential for human life, then skin cells, semen, and all, would also be human life. 

Personhood - "A human being regarded as an individual."

This would mean that this human being at least ought to have a brain that functions, no?

Therefore it is more justifiable to claim that 13 weeks is the time whenever a fetus is said to first have personhood. 

“By week 12, all the fetus’ organs, muscles, limbs and bones are in place, the sex organs have begun to develop and from now on, the pregnancy is about growing and maturing the fetus’ systems and organs.” [9]

As this would be the point (13 weeks) whenever the base functions should be mostly developed and grown, therefore the neurological conditions that make a human capable of such things should be developed by this point.

First, we should ask the question, is it always the individual who is impregnated's choice to become pregnant? The answer to that question is an overwhelming no. Not only are over half of woman who have sex, coerced, even if the sex is consensual, woman often give explicit warning, that they do not consent to being ejaculated (impregnated), and are ignored by their partner.

 If you find this, still, the woman's fault, then I suppose you would also think that one who is raped at fault?

a woman who does not consent to being impregnated, is not at fault whenever they are against their wishes. 

To clarify upon the latter point, this isn't women just not wanting to be impregnated and just saying it (though that should also be regarded), it is women saying that they only consent to having intercourse with someone who can impregnate them with a condom. As the article notes, this is a form of assault. 

Again, unless you are willing to use this logic, "Anyone who walks at night is risking the chance to be mugged or stabbed, therefore the criminal should have no punishment." 

Let us establish a hypothetical, shall we? A woman is at some establishment and engaged in harmless flirting with some other person, the person is upset whenever the woman leaves, and the woman defends herself whenever the person attacks her, is this wrong of her? 

Then it is true that an innocent person is persecuted for defending themselves in a dark alleyway. “It is their responsibility! They choose to have sex!” You might claim, but just as a victim of an assault is not at fault for defending themselves from the criminal in the allies, the bearer of the child is not at fault for choosing to defend their bodily autonomy.

I have thus established two principles that are important precepts to this conversation, that: A) The vast majority of abortions are not regarding fetus' with human personhood, and B) If the fetus is a person, with personhood, it is not the impregnated one's responsibility to care for that fetus. 

As many as half of all pregnancies may end in miscarriage

For most pregnancies, this isn't any different from ending the "life" of semen or a skin cell. 

“Personhood - "A human being regarded as an individual."

This would mean that this human being at least ought to have a brain that functions, no?”

“No. If you are to measure personhood by brain function, then people in comas, of whom have minimal brain activity would be considered less human. Clearly, this is not the case.” 

“Incorrect. I'm not too sure where you nabbed this number from, but electrical brain activity begins to occur around day 40-43 (6 weeks). So even if brain function marks personhood (it doesn't) you would be incorrect to pin it at 12 weeks. Even so, my point about people in comas remain. Are they any less human because of their minimal brain activity?”

P1: Humans value their own well-being

P2: If you desire others to respect your well-being you ought to respect theirs

Con: Therefore you ought to value the well-being

• respond to their environment
  
• grow and change
  
• reproduce and have offspring
  
• have complex chemistry
  
• maintain homeostasis
  
• are built of structures called cells
  
• pass their traits onto their offspring
  

““Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which amale gamete or sperm unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form asingle cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell markedthe beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginningof a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”

—Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically OrientedEmbryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.

 

“Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploidgametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a genetically distinct individual.”

—Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases duringsperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)

 

“Although life is a continuous process, fertilization (which,incidentally, is not a ‘moment’) is a critical landmark because, under ordinarycircumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.”

—Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Mueller, Human Embryology andTeratology, 3rd edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2000, p. 8”

“This is an excellent point and can be applied to the case of abortion. Think, what are the short term benefits of one having an abortion? Self satisfaction? Convivences? Happiness, which is disputable as people who undergo abortion are usually guilty? Now consider the long term losses.  A potential economic contributor. An intrinsically valuable organism. And most glaringly, a human being. “

“Well no, a skin cell is not a human being  but a fetus is, according to the 6 sources which I have provided.”

“No. If you are to measure personhood by brain function, then people in comas, of whom have minimal brain activity would be considered less human. Clearly, this is not the case.”

“What is so special about these particular characteristics? At 8 weeks, the baby has a nose, arms, legs and has began to form distinct fingers and toes.”

“Incorrect. I'm not too sure where you nabbed this number from, but electrical brain activity begins to occur around day 40-43 (6 weeks). So even if brain function marks personhood (it doesn't) you would be incorrect to pin it at 12 weeks. Even so, my point about people in comas remain. Are they any less human because of their minimal brain activity?”

“Since I was convinced by another party to have sex, I guess I don't bare consequences. 

 

Since I was convinced by another party to shoot him, I guess I don't bare consequences.”

“Abstract: It is nearly universally accepted, both in law and in morals, that agreements entered into under coercion are not binding. Thus you are not obligated to keep, and the law will not enforce, a contract you undertake to save your life at gunpoint.” [4]

“As I have demonstrated, rape is incest are the bottom two reasons for having an abortion.”

“I agree, but you have mixed up being forced and being coerced. If someone has been forced to have sex, than that would be called rape. If someone has been coerced, then they have been convinced and have consented.”

“Both cases are the result of an unwanted event, yet, I'll hazard a guess, if I were to kill a kid of whom was the result of rape, you wouldn't be too pleaded. Predictably, you may attempt to say "but in the second scenario, the mother can put the child up for adoption". This would be missing the point. The point of this analogy isn't to determine what to do with children who are the product of rape, the point is to make a situation in which mimics that of abortion a child because of rape. In the first scenario, there is no "sending your fetus to an adoption centre", it is either kill or not kill. “

“nothing my opponent say will be louder than this statement” 

p1. The purpose of walking around at night is to enjoy yourself. 

p1. The purpose of sex is to have a child.*

 

p2. If you get mugged, that is an unintended result of walking at night

p2. If you get a child, this is an intended result of having sex. 

 

c1. If you get mugged while walking at night, this is unintended 

c1. If you get pregnant while having sex, this is intended.

“Again, if you are walking down a dark alleyway, you do not intend on being attacked. If you are having sex, you do intend on having a baby. This is all about intent. The victim of assault can defend themselves as they had no intention of being assaulted, however, a pregnant women cannot abort a baby because they did in fact, intend on having a baby. “

“Sex serves several of life’s basic purposes: from pleasure, stress reduction, and formation of our identity to our intimate connection and (of course) procreation” [6]

“With this logic, why don't we abort all babies? I can, using your statistics, say that 800 000 people died from suicide so why not just go on the streets and kill some people? What's the harm? Your logic, essentially is as follows. “

“Personhood - "A human being regarded as an individual."

The arguments that challenge fertilization as the event at which human personhood begins do not sufficiently compel opinion due to several semantic discrepancies.

-

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5499222/

This would mean that this human being at least ought to have a brain that functions, no?”

“No. If you are to measure personhood by brain function, then people in comas, of whom have minimal brain activity would be considered less human. Clearly, this is not the case.” 

Notice the clear contradiction within con’s reasoning, they have minimal brain activity? Is that not still brain functioning? It is. 

Personhood is regarding something which is individual, as someone who is distinct from others mentally and physically.

I say 13 weeks because then it is true that the basis of the brain is developed, and is simply growing from there.

P1: Humans value their own well-being

P2: If you desire others to respect your well-being you ought to respect theirs

Con: Therefore you ought to value the well-being

The fact of that matter, personhood is not developed until at minimum, 13 weeks. 

• respond to their environment
  
• grow and change
  
• reproduce and have offspring
  
• have complex chemistry
  
• maintain homeostasis
  
• are built of structures called cells
  
• pass their traits onto their offspring
  

These 7 signs are the signs of biological life [2], so, how do they compare to a cell of sperm? 

I find all of these scientists' claims quite interesting, … why do they separate a human organism like a cell of skin, does it not contain all 46 chromosomes?

“This is an excellent point and can be applied to the case of abortion. Think, what are the short term benefits of one having an abortion? Self satisfaction? Convivences? Happiness, which is disputable as people who undergo abortion are usually guilty? Now consider the long term losses.  A potential economic contributor. An intrinsically valuable organism. And most glaringly, a human being. “

This is not only a strawman, besides happiness, but it is also flawed in reasoning. If we were to consider something as only life-having, intrinsically valuable, well, you’ve seen my argument regarding that. A potential economic contributor? If we are arguing for those, I suppose every single sperm must also be that, as they are “potential” economic contributors, using something which has “potential” to do x, can be dangerous without the correct basis. 

"annual survey asked 13,310 American women about their first sexual experience"

“Coercion is a spectrum—there’s a variety of different ways it can look.”

-

https://www.wellandgood.com/verbal-coercion-first-time-having-sex/

Con is okay with; The impregnated having to support an organism in their stomach for something they have zero control over … clearly not morally cogent.

A teen which is already there, and a fetus which is a direct consequence of the rape, are not synonymous. 

 but whenever the impregnated literally says “No, I am not going to procreate with you” then my argument holds.

Con has continuously argued that murder is the ultimate moral wrong

You are arguing this based on your assumptions, no, sex is not had all the time with the intent to have a baby, this is obviously false. 

“A human being does not become a person at a particular stage of development following fertilization. It follows that a human person is in continuous development of potentialities and a human being has been a person since he or she began to exist at fertilization.” 

P1:  Without personhood, murder is not wrong

This is referring to the flaw of concluding that because something can be or will be something that has moral weight it already contains that moral weight in its current iteration.

Con isn’t specifically incorrect in that they were formed differently, but the core processes are the same. As many things in nature are. They are similar enough to be considered not only analogous, but synonymous. To claim that the fetus has moral weight and that the sperm does not?

“A human being does not become a person at a particular stage of development following fertilization. It follows that a human person is in continuous development of potentialities and a human being has been a person since he or she began to exist at fertilization.” 

This is an interesting argument, as biologically speaking, all that has happened is a new genome. That is the only difference between this and a gametic cell

Con is essentially under the impression that the fetus holds the same moral weight of a human being, because it is a human…

The same could be said of gametes, the same could be said of cells,

what Con is doing is, as I said, drawing an arbitrary line which advantages their argumentation.

The fact is, Con is inferring that the fetus, which is biologically and even as a term a stage before they are a “baby” or developed, is morally worth the same as a developed human. 

They still insisted that I never sourced it. Even going as far as to say that Meriam Webster says the term doesn’t exist

Con must specifically point out some statement or another made by me, and use the article to say, “That is factually incorrect”

However what they fail to consider is that we are not talking about some arbitrary amount of brain activity, but the type of brain activity. As I made specifically clear, it is the distinction that there is self-awareness to the mental state that grants someone personhood. The ability to not only be distinct in brain pattern, but to have consciousness and the like. 

This would mean that this human being at least ought to have a brain that functions, no? 

If we were to be even more uncharitable I could justifiably claim that a fetus does not hold personhood and therefore has no rights until it is 33 weeks developed, at least while still in the womb, however, this does not satisfy me. I do not think that the process of being "fully" developed, precludes the previous iterations from having some level of the incomplete version. Therefore we must look for whenever the base functions are finished developing. 

As I made specifically clear, it is the distinction that there is self-awareness to the mental state that grants someone personhood.

In reference to my statement is defined as someone who is distinct or an individual in physical and mental affairs, they argue that having unique DNA would mean that something has personhood. Then… turtles have personhood, 

They have clearly missed the “mental” part of my statement.

 I was arguing that using your flawed logic, sperm cells would have the same moral weight as human beings. Which you have failed to debunk as of now. 

Next, in response to my entire contention regarding personhood and how it precedes the moral argument, they don’t have a rebuttal except that it’s “irrelevant”.

Con responds that their is a contium on which coercion happens, which is incorrect, as the literal definition of Coercion that I provide proves

Therefore their entire use of the word “pressured” in their syllogism, is false. 

 Not only that, but they use the answer of an individual lawyer (which… is akin to what they did with the whole personhood study), to conclude that this is false. 

This is relates to the coercion as a tactic to get a verbal contract of consent to sex. 

This is in regards to Con saying that it is the moral responsibility is still held by the mother if they were raped. 

 But…. if one remembers what I quoted last time, “nothing my opponent say will be louder than this statement”, then yes, they did - in effect - claim that murder is the ultimate wrong

P1:  Without personhood, murder is not wrong

P1: majority of impregnated don't choose to be

I pointed out that the very first premise was incorrect. 

• The FLO
  
• Implications cont.
  
• Personhood cont.
  
• Responsibility cont.
  

• The FLO
  

• Implications Continued (Possibility Fallacy Defense)
  

I am not arguing that a fetus should be considered a moral agent because it will soon become something which is considered a moral creature, I am arguing that a fetus should be a moral agent because it is already a human being. 

• Personhood Continued
  

I will say that Lexico is an abridged version the Oxford English dictionary which of course, does not consider personhood as a real word. 

At 7 weeks, fetal DNA appears in the maternal circulation early in the first trimester, which can be identified in all pregnancies tested by 7 weeks. Surely an intrinsically individual DNA pattern, one which has never and will never be seen again, qualifies as being individual?

Personhood means nothing

• Responsibility Principle Continued (Coercion)
  

While duress is not a justification for committing a crime, it can serve as an excuse when a defendant committed a crime because they were facing the threat or use of physical force. The defense must establish that a reasonable person in the defendant’s position also would have committed the crime. 

• Dropped Arguments:
  

1. Consequences of Rape
   
2. Teens and Fetus aren't synoymous
   
3. The Roulette Point of Sex
   
4. The Ultimate Moral Wrong
   

As you have changed your definition for personhood quite a few times, please provide a one sentence definition what person hood is. Is it valuing ones well being? Is it brain activity? Is it being mentally unique? It it being conscious? 

Name a circumstance which is more immoral than allowing a mother to murder a genetically unique and scientifically human being of which did not do harm upon them. 

How is my FLO account of harm and murder flawed, and how does it not apply to abortion

Name a circumstance which is more immoral than allowing a mother to murder a genetically unique and scientifically human being of which did not do harm upon them. 

Being Raped

Being Tortured

Having your body mutilated and forced to hold the resulting pregnancy

• FLO
  

It is, on reflection, the loss of a future of value that is misfortune; not the loss of a future of value to adults or loss of a future of value to non-black people.

3. It essentially hinges on "values" that are hypothetical and have not been demonstrated to exist objectively

The fact that the FLO hinges on future/potential value is an essential part of the theory

Fundamentally this argument assumes that morality exists without justification - it doesn't as far as Con has demonstrated - instead of the foundation for which any morality exists; human personhood. Without there is no justification for moral obligation nor a warrant for human death. Con essentially says, any life with negativity would be discounted... thus trying to hand wave my argument away, this isn't cogent. Con is saying if there are no negative consequences, then death or more specifically murder is wrong. 

• Implications
  

• Personhood
  

 I simply showed that the Meriam Webster and Oxford dictionary does not contain the word personhood, meaning it isn't really an age old term

it's worth noting that my opponent is yet to provide a definition of personhood

Personhood - "A human being regarded as an individual." 

 According to my opponent, the following are "all the same"

 

1. Must value their well being in order to be considered a moral agent

 

2. Brain activity was necessary for a life to be considered worthy of personhood. 

 

3. Unique. 

 

If 1) then a 2 year old baby isn't a moral agent. If 2) people in comas are less human and if 3) a fetus is a person as it has unique DNA. 

DNA is certainly unique. I'm not sure what the fuss is but you allude to there being some "context" that I am missing, which you haven't pointed out to me. The point remians, your criteria for personhood are ultimately faulty. 

• Responsibility Principle
  

They agree in the same way someone being tortured "agrees" to share the information they are hiding.

This is a complete false equivalence. To equivalate a soldier being tortured for information about their country with some irresponsible teen hitting up their druggo ex at a party is quite . . . interesting. The difference is that the person has a choice to say no and walk out. The soldier, well, they don't have anywhere to walk do they.  

• "why personhood means nothing"
  

• Dropped points
  

Consequences of Rape

The consequences or rape or not as evil as killing an innocent person who did not choose to be killed

Teens and Fetus aren't synoymous

I have already shown that a fetus is a human being, a claim backed up by princton educations research department. I remember your response being "I find these scientists claim to be very interesting"

The Roulette Point of Sex

A false equivalence if there ever was one. Again this goes back to the point of purpose. If you are driving, your purpose is not to be killed. You intend to arrive at your destination. However, the intention of having sex, the purpose is to have a child. Of course you should drive, the purpose is to get around. However, don't have sex if you don't want to have a child. The purpose of sex is to have a child. 

• Questions 
  

Being raped is worse than being killed? This is absolutely ridiculous. No doubt that being rape is bad but, but to say that it is worse than being killed? A baseless claim about a serious. 

Not to mention that this is a red herring. Rape only impacts less than 1 percent of people.

Being Tortured

A red herring if there was ever one. The process of giving birth is not tortue. If it was as bad as tortue, then no one give birth. Not only that,  what you are implying is that abortions till the point of birth. If the process of giving birth is tortue, you can say "well I have a 9 month baby and I dont want to be tortured so..."

Having your body mutilated and forced to hold the resulting pregnancy

Again, this implies that, as all successful pregnancies end with the "mulitation of bodies", abortions till the point of birth should be allowed. 

• Being Coerced into sex is considered sexual assault
  
• Extrapolation isn't a definition
  
• The entire implications response
  

"Loss of future value", in what regard? I have yet to see you demonstrate that humans have any future value without personhood.

For clarity - Con is trying to establish why murder is wrong without personhood, I'm saying, this specific argument isn't cogent. 

I think Con is confused, they are the ones defending this argument, if your "value" is loose that it doesn't apply to sleeping people or depressed people if its not "potential"... that isn't a very strong value for your entire basis of morality.

Fundamentally this argument assumes that morality exists without justification - it doesn't as far as Con has demonstrated - instead of the foundation for which any morality exists; human personhood. Without there is no justification for moral obligation nor a warrant for human death. Con essentially says, any life with negativity would be discounted... thus trying to hand wave my argument away, this isn't cogent. Con is saying if there are no negative consequences, then death or more specifically murder is wrong. 

Wrong. Murder is only wrong if the individual in question does not have a FLO. I have already used the example of permanently unconscious people to prove this point.

That's not a rebuttal, and no correct. Make a rebuttal please.

it's worth noting that my opponent is yet to provide a definition of personhood

I'll just quote all the times I did that.

Personhood - "A human being regarded as an individual." 

Oh wait? was that in the 1st round, yes, yes it was.

Nope, in fact I directly referenced one of those and explained why it was wrong last round too.

DNA is certainly unique. I'm not sure what the fuss is but you allude to there being some "context" that I am missing, which you haven't pointed out to me. The point remians, your criteria for personhood are ultimately faulty. 

So... they completely miss the point? Again. Being genetically different is not enough to count as being unique in the manner I'm referring, as fetuses of this age are literaly physically incapable of it - due to their brains not being developed enough, as I have clarified for every round. 

My opponent, the weakeredge, stated, stated: They agree in the same way someone being tortured "agrees" to share the information they are hiding.

This is a complete false equivalence. To equivalate a soldier being tortured for information about their country with some irresponsible teen hitting up their druggo ex at a party is quite . . . interesting. The difference is that the person has a choice to say no and walk out. The soldier, well, they don't have anywhere to walk do they.  

Funnily enough this is actually a false equivalence, furthermore it drops most of my argument

Last little note here: this is all assuming abortion is murder, which I have neither granted, nor you proven Con.

So... If I'm getting this right, essentially "We all agree killing each other is wrong", if you use personhood then yes, if you aren't then no I am not convinced.... your saying that personhood is wrong based on an assumption of what I believe?

Let me dsisect this little point, being a "person" is not a moral category, the question is when should people have moral "value" and when do we have the moral obligation to others, as far as we have discussed, that is only whenever some personhood is present or was present.

Consequences of Rape

The consequences or rape or not as evil as killing an innocent person who did not choose to be killed

1. Demonstrate that claim - that rape isn't as evil as killing someone who didn't choose to die

2. Demonstrate that claim - that the person in question, a fetus, deserves moral weight

Teens and Fetus aren't synoymous

I have already shown that a fetus is a human being, a claim backed up by princton educations research department. I remember your response being "I find these scientists claim to be very interesting"

Fails to actually address the point in question, that in a category, and the one that they dropped, fetuses and teens aren't comparable. That is in moral weight, and seeing as Con's entire analogy in that regards hangs on a moral quandry, I think that's an important note.

not all sex is for the purpose of having children,

Being Tortured

A red herring if there was ever one. The process of giving birth is not tortue. If it was as bad as tortue, then no one give birth. Not only that,  what you are implying is that abortions till the point of birth. If the process of giving birth is tortue, you can say "well I have a 9 month baby and I dont want to be tortured so..."

Being forced to hold, incubate, and birth a fetus you don't want that was a result of sexual assault isn't torture? You are being ignorant.

Con hasn't even successfully established that murder is wrong,

they have tried to assert that personhood is meaningless, but have presented no compelling argument so

furthermore, it is evidently true that it is personhood that makes murder wrong.

Con has further tried to argue that the impregnated defending their body from something which they did not choose to freely, and something which hurts them, is wrong,