Instigator / Pro
19
1706
rating
33
debates
80.3%
won
Topic
#2669
TBHT: Abortion is, on balance, moral
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
9
0
Better sources
4
6
Better legibility
3
3
Better conduct
3
3
After 3 votes and with 7 points ahead, the winner is...
Theweakeredge
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 20,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
12
1516
rating
9
debates
55.56%
won
Description
Abortion - "a procedure to end a pregnancy. It uses medicine or surgery to remove the embryo or fetus and placenta from the uterus. " [1]
Moral - A behavior, conduct, or topic that is based on valid principles and/or foundations [2][3]
[1] https://medlineplus.gov/abortion.html
[2] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/
[3] https://www.lexico.com/definition/moral
Interpreted Resolution: "The procedure used to end a pregnancy is based on valid moral principles and/or foundations."
Theweakeredge's burden of proof: "Abortion is moral"
Contender's burden of proof: "Abortion is not moral"
Foreword:
My first note is to explain my approach to this particular argument, which is to posit abortion a philosophic and legal good. Some may be confused or even put off by my strange definition of morality, I suppose strange is the wrong word, different. I found the lexico definition (as trust as it usually is) lacking in it's presentation of the definition. Now, the definition is fine, but the way that it would be applied to the resolution itself is the part I find uncompelling. I used two sources, which is the lexico.com iteself, and the plato.stanford.edu to make up this new definition.
Another note, none of this is set in stone, if the Contender wishes to address these definitions or burden of proof, that is completely fine as long its tackled honestly and all. This description is to give any potential opponents insight into my thoughts, though I will have an independent first round. I've already had this debate with Ancap and narrowly lost due to Conduct points (2 days was not long enough for writing arguments). I want to try my hand at it again now that I've had more experience debating on the site, and also learning more about the subject matter.
Edit: On balance, this means in most cases, a minority of cases cannot be my main point, perhaps a supplementary one, but definitely not the main one.
General Rules:
1. No new arguments in the last round
2. Sources should be posted in the debate rounds, hyperlinked or otherwise
3. Burden of Proof is shared
Round 1
Pro
#1
Resolution: Abortion is, on balance, Moral
Opening Statement:
Thank you, Wagyu for agreeing to the debate, let's establish some terms.
The following procedures will be over whether: THE HOUSE BELIEVES THAT: Abortion is, on balance, Moral. Where, I, the instigator of the resolution will bear the burden of proving that the resolution is TRUE. Where, Wagyu, the contender of the resolution will bear the burden of proving that the resolution is FALSE. This clearly establishes the burden of proof and goalposts of either debater. I must demonstrate abortion on balance, average, etc, is moral. Con will have to prove the opposite.
Furthermore, I will define all applicable terms for the discussion:
- 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]
Next, I will separate my argument further; specifically into three main categories, and further be divided into two sub-sections each:
1. The establishment of the moral standard
- Clarification of Well-Being
- Pre-emptive Rebuttals
2. The framework and facts of abortion
- Establishing Standard of Human rights
- The "responsibility" principle
3. Abortion is a moral action
- Clarification of Abortion
- The analysis of Abortion's moral weight
The Establishment of the Moral Standard (1)
Before we can actually begin to talk about the moral ramifications of abortion, we must discuss the actual moral component. Such questions as: What is the standard? How can we measure that standard? How valid is that standard? I have a simple answer to these questions. Well-being. As I described above, well being is, The positive state of one's physical and mental state. This is easily measured, by using the physical and mental state of the person, which is the most accurate you can get in regards to morality. Finally, the validity of the standard is proved by the syllogism.
- Clarification of Well-being
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
To simplify, this argument is contingent on humans valuing their physical and mental state. It is almost intuitive at this point, whenever you fear retribution, social shaming, have anxiety, are nervous of acceptance, etcetera. The fact that you jump back at pain, humans value their well-being. This isn't a particularly controversial point. Well-being is simply your state of being, how you are, and this is so commonly accepted as a value that a part of standard conversation is asking, "how are you." And people talking about how dry the response are, and that we ought to go deeper there.
As I wrote in the first category here, in order for us to use this as a standard we must establish quite a few things. First, the actual standard. That's been defined the most, reltaviely, within my argument, so I won't go back into that yet. Instead let's move to the next regard, how can we measure well-being? I answered by using your physical and mental being, but what specifically am I speaking of? Specifcally, morality in this instance is with regards to the behavior of an action, and that standard is the tool used to decalre it moral, immoral, or amoral. So, how exactly does your state of being apply here?
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. Now, maybe an example would be helpful. Yelling at children? Some may say, "But that detracts from their emotional well-being so is yelling therefore bad?" Ah ah ah, that's where the anylasis of short vs long term well-being comes into play. Was that specific interaction used to discipline an action that ought to be discouraged? Well then it wouldn't be immoral, was the yelling simply the parent being angry for no valid reason? Then it is immoral.
- Pre-emptive Rebuttal
A common response to my point of well-being is suicide. "If people are suicidal then obviously they don't value their own well-being?" Two questions then: Should they value their well being? and Why don't they value their well being?
The first question is quite obviously, yes. The evidence is quite clear, if you care about your mental and physical state, you will benefit [1] [2]. You will improve physically and mentally, so regardless of if you think that you value well-being individually is of no concern, you will empirically be benefited from thinking so. While that isn't to say we should always do what is most practical, this standard creates clear incentives to adopt it, and is already what the majority of people adopt, loosely, with regards to a moral system. Next, let's get into, why people don't value their own well being.
"Youth who report frequently bullying others and youth who report being frequently bullied are atincreased risk for suicide-related behavior." [3] This is another commonly accepted fact, those who are bullied or abused or at higher risk for suicidal behavior. Therefore, it is quite easy to make the following argument: They did value their own well-being, and through expressions of bullying began to less and less. We acknowledge that suicide is not a good thing, that it needs to be prevented, thereby, suicidal thought isn't the rule, but the exception to the rule of what people value. To provide impact to this argument:
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. (Ignoring the lower rate from Who for the sake of giving the benefit of the doubt to Con) In the USA there were 1.4 million attempts at suicide (1,400,000) [6] Taking this to the population of the USA (330,700,000) [7] we can find out the rate of suicide attempters in the USA. Using the two number provided, we find that if every suicide attempted was doing so out of no care for their well-being then that would 0.42% of the population who feels that way.
The Framework and Facts of Abortion (2)
Before we can even establish whether or not a fetus would become suspect to being a human, and receiving the rights of a human, we will have to define personhood and what that entails. Next we should answer clear up the conditions that lead up to, and cause pregnancy, clearing up what exactly is happening in this space of vital context for abortion. Finally, we will anylze the "responsibility" principle, or, the idea that the person who is pregnant is completely responsible for that fetus because they were the one to engage in sexual activity. After that, there will be a be a conclusion of this entire prong.
- Establishment of Human Rights
I don't believe it is overly critical to say that in order for something to have human rights, it must have personhood, 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. Then they would all individually get human rights, the ad absurdum is obvious from that position. We should grant human rights to any being who has human personhood. What is human person hood? I have the term already defined, and I will cross apply that definition to this argument:
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? In order to regard this being as one of human rights. The development of the brain allows consciousness, subconsiousness, and individuality. Therefore, in order to answer the question, "should we give human rights to fetus" we must take a close look at the development of the brain of a fetus.
“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]
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.
“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]
Therefore it is more justifiable to claim that 13 weeks is the time whenever a fetus is said to first have personhood. As this would be the point 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. What is my point in establishing all of this? Well, let’s take a look at the abortion actually happening.
“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]
This means that the majority of abortions are not performed whenever the fetus has actual personhood, and therefore the argument of human right to life is not applicable. Until this has been debunked, my opponent has a substantial burden to overcome. Prove that it is not the same as semen dying is the essential point here.
- The "responsibility" principle
The very first thing to establish here, what is the responsibility principle I am referring to? I briefly defined it as, "the idea that the person who is pregnant is completely responsible for that fetus because they were the one to engage in sexual activity" But to elaborate: If the one who is pregnant engaged in sexual intercourse willingly, then is it not the responsibility of that individual to take care of the product of that sexual activity? That is a commonly debated point in these types of discussions, and I wish to pre-emptively "shoot it down" so to speak.
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? If you don't then this should be clear to you, a woman who does not consent to being impregnated, is not at fault whenever they are against their wishes.
“ 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]
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 assualt. And the same principle applies to this as it would to rape. In other words, the popular opinion that "they always choose to risk the chance of being impregnated," is factually incorrect. Some may object and say, "there is always a chance of being impregnated" except that chance is so low with a condom its non factor.
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?
Is the right to defend yourself whenever your body is under attack wrong? “It is not defending yourself, whenever you put yourself in the situation.” Some might boldly claim, but that is flatly incorrect. Then it is true that an innocent person is persecuted for defending themself 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. The actual intent is not a factor here.
Abortion is a Moral Action (3)
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. These are important concepts to understand whenever discussing the actual moral hood of the action. Next, I will establish and discuss the implications of what precisely abortion is, and what this means morally. Next I will take a final tally of the moral weights on both side.
- The clarification of Aboriton
I have already defined abortion, "a procedure to end a pregnancy. It uses medicine or surgery to remove the embryo or fetus and placenta from the uterus." What precisely does this mean however? This means that "abortion" and "killing" wouldn't be equivalent even if the abortion happened whenever the fetus had personhood. Abortion and surgery is also a possible way to end a pregnancy, or even stopping (in a good portion of cases) stopping the nuecleui from replicating (such is the case of contraceptives). My point here, is that abortion is not what most people like to define it as, "The murder of a baby," Is not only informal in nature, but also un-credented, nor factual in any regard.
- Anemia - having less red blood cells than healthy
- Uniary Tract Infections - A bacterial infection in the urinary tract
- Mental Health Conditions - depression, suicidal thought
- Hypertension - Chronically high blood pressure
- Duabetes during Pregnancy - Diabetes, which is already harmful, during pregnancy
- Obseity and Weight gain -preeclampsia, GDM, cesarean delivery that can lead to obseity
- Infections - Infections can more easily sneak by your immune system
- HIV, Viral Hepatitis, STDs, and TB - can easily become complications during pregnancy
- Hyperemeiss Gravidarum - a more extreme version of morning sickness
- Reproductive Abnoramalities - can actually hamper wanted pregnancies later on
- Underlying Conditions - They can become avergrated and harmful
- STIs - So both STDs and STIs these can even be transmitted to the fetus
My point here is that pregnancy is a serious thing, and it affects both the mental and physical state of the of the impregnated extremely, and, to continue on, there are high chances that all of this can be for naught, given the chance of miscarriage.
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]
Given this statistic, the chance of any positive outcomes is impacted substantially negatively. That means that all of this without any benefits is true of pregnancy half of the time. This is all simply background knowledge that Con and the voters need to take into account.
- The analysis of Abortion's moral weight
Before we get into the nitty gritty, let's summarize what we've established thus far:
- Human personhood, what determines whether something has human rights (else a sperm should have rights), is not developed in a fetus until 13 weeks into gestation
- Around 90% of abortion happens before 13 weeks into gestation
- The blame of assault is not on the victim for choosing to walk into an alley, therefore neither is a woman for ridding their body of a fetus
- Over 50% of woman are coerced into sex
- A large portion of partners who engage in consensual sex practice removal of contraceptives by the male party, against the woman’s consent.
- A large amount of negative conditions including depression and suicide are indicative of pregnancy
- Over half of pregnancies end in miscarriage
Thus, what are the arguments that abortion is immoral? Chiefly? Robbing a fetus of it's life? For most pregnancies, this isn't any different from ending the "life" of semen or a skin cell. That the impregnated is responsible for taking care of the fetus? Just as a victim of assault is responsible for being stabbed? I challenge con to present either arguments that contradict mine, or new ones. So that rules out the factor of Abortion of being "immoral" but it is truly moral either? Well, the fact that people can choose to do strenous or harmful things to themselves, but a imprenated one looking for abortion isn't consenting to this.
Therefore, enacting abortion on themselves, choosing to do, is not only preventing potential harm of a child likely to be put into the adoption system (will elaborate in round 2), but also stop the cocophany of negative effects of pregnancy. Thus, it would improve the mental and physical condition of the impregnated, making the action moral in itself. This fulfills my burden of proof while negating my opponent's simoutanously. This shall also serve as my conclusion, as it accurately sums up my entire argument. That abortion based on the moral standard of well-being is moral.
Sources:
listed sources will be included in the comment section, all sources within the argument itself have been hyperlinked.
Con
#2
Opening statement.
Well that was all very interesting.
To determine whether abortion is immoral, I shall be using asimple line of deductive argument (modus ponens) to demonstrate how abortion ismurder.
Major premise. Abortion involves intentionally killing a human being, thusmaking it murder.
Minor premise. Abortion intentionally kills a human being.
Conclusion. Abortion is therefore murder.
---
P1. It is immoral to intentionally kill a human being.
Though a seemingly simple question at first glance, there are manyways for one to arrive at the conclusion that murder is wrong. Though there are many moral frameworks of which one can adopt, they are not overwhelmingly important at this stage, as they usually debate about how they reach their conclusion, instead of the actual conclusion. (Believers of both objective and subjective morality tend to both believe murder is wrong, and only have disputes as to how we know this)Therefore, regardless ones belief in morality, it can be generally accepted that murder is wrong.
P2. Abortion intentionally kills a human being.
“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 thechromosomes 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
When questioned about when life begins, Alan Guttmacher,president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, seemed to believethat life began at conception and stated that
“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 thechromosomes 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
When questioned about when life begins, Alan Guttmacher,president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, seemed to believethat life began at conception and stated that
“This (life beginning at conception) all seems so simple andevident that it is difficult to picture a time when it wasn’t a part of thecommon knowledge”
Alan Guttmacher, former President of Planned Parenthood, (1933)
I assume my point is clear. No matter where you look, scientificarticles will state that life begins at conception. There is no dispute oneither side regarding this statement.
Now that we have concluded that a fetes is in fact alive, I shalldemonstrate how abortion involves the killing of this human being, which isadmittedly, self evident. The following is a short list of common abortion methodsused;
Surgical abortions
Suction aspiration.
This method is most commonly used during the first trimester ofpregnancy. The abortionist inserts asuction tube (similar to a vacuum hose with an extremely sharp end) into themother’s womb. The suction and cutting edge dismember the baby while the hosesucks the body parts into a collection bottle.
Medical abortion
Prostaglandins
Used during the second and third trimester,prostaglandin abortions involve the injection of naturally produced hormonesinto the amniotic sac, causing violent premature labor. During theseconvulsions the baby is often crushed to death or is born too early to have anychance of surviving.
Used during the second and third trimester,prostaglandin abortions involve the injection of naturally produced hormonesinto the amniotic sac, causing violent premature labor. During theseconvulsions the baby is often crushed to death or is born too early to have anychance of surviving.
C1. Abortion is therefore murder.
From my major and minor premise, it follows that abortion isindeed murder. However, issues may still arise from this conclusion. It isforeseeable that, if my opponent cannot deconstruct my deductive reasoning,they will try to make the claim that there are different kinds of murder.
Ofcourse, this is true, one could hardly draw a parallel between a soldier actingin self defence, and a mentally ill murderer. However, to hide abortion behind“justifiable murder” is a disgusting attempt to cover up a hideous act. Thatsaid, a claim is a claim and in this situation, it still needs to be addressed,head on.
Thefollowing are the most popular reasons (in chronological order) whichcontributed to women’s decision to have an abortion.
1. Having a baby would dramatically change my life
2. Can’t afford a baby
3. Don’t want to be a single mother or having relationship problem
Itis also worth mentioning that rape and incest cleanly cap of the list as thetwo bottom reasons for having an abortion (though they are still not justifiable)
To determine whether these reasons are valid in justifying theaction of abortion, we must first revisit our earlier premise, in which weconcluded that a fetus is in fact a human being. As we have drawn thisconclusion, it is sensible that we can substitute child with baby in thereasons for abortion list and test if the reasons for abortion stillhold.
S1. Having a baby would dramatically change my life (thusallowing me to abort [kill] it)
S2. Having a child would dramatically change my life (thusallowing me to kill my child)
S1. Can’t afford a baby (thus allowing me to abort [kill]it)
S2. Can’t afford a child (thus allowing me to kill mychild)
S1. Don’t want to be a single mother or having relationshipproblem (thus allowing me to abort [kill] it)
S2. Don’t want to be a single mother or having relationshipproblem (thus allowing me to kill my child)
As you can tell, if statement 2 does not hold, then statement onewill not hold either. The only thing I have changed between the two statementsis the word baby and child.
C2. Conclusion
To recall, the resolution of this debate is as follows.
"The procedure used to end a pregnancy is based onvalid moral principles and/or foundations." I have demonstrated that abortion is in fact murder and that inthis scenario, the murder is not justifiable.
It can then be concluded that the procedure used to end apregnancy is not based on valid moral principles and/or foundations.
---
Rebuttals
As my opponent has kindly provided a table of content, I shall be rebutting each section systematically.
1. The establishment of the moral standard rebuttal
Essentially, this whole section boils down to the following.
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.
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.
In the years between 2015 and 2019, roughly 73 million abortions occurred. According to worldometers (at the time of me writing this) there are 7832040700 people in the world. If you added 73 million to this number (to calculate potential population) and then divide 73 million from this new number, we get 0.93%. This would mean that almost 1 percent of the population would have been killed. To do some further calculations, abortion alone causes 132% more deaths than current global annual death.
It can be concluded, via the conclusion of which you have arrived to from your first section, that abortion is immoral as it detracts from the well being of a fetus in both short and long term scenario, therefore making it immoral.
2. The Framework and Facts of Abortion, rebuttal
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.
Well no, a skin cell is not a human being but a fetus is, according to the 6 sources which I have provided.
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.
Therefore it is more justifiable to claim that 13 weeks is the time whenever a fetus is said to first have personhood.
There are multiple errors with this thinking. You allude to the following being the significance of a foetus's development at 12 weeks.
“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]
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.
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.
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?
The "responsibility" principle rebuttal.
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.
You state that these women should hold no responsibility as they were unwillingly convinced to have sexual intercourse. This is faulty logic and does not justify abortion. Since my strong suit is providing analogies, I shall do exactly that.
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.
The point is that the women was convinced and therefore holds responsibility for their actions. It doesn't matter that they needed to be convinced. It doesn't matter that they needed to be nagged. If the women answer to sex remains no, there will be no consequences to the women. Women cannot be in any way legally forced to have sex. The law affirms this. However, if you are convinced, then you have acknowledged all consequences which come with sex.
If you find this, still, the woman's fault, then I suppose you would also think that one who is raped at fault?
Firstly, the initial resolution of the debate is Abortion is, on balance, moral. Key word, on balance, meaning generally, or in most cases. As I have demonstrated, rape is incest are the bottom two reasons for having an abortion.
a woman who does not consent to being impregnated, is not at fault whenever they are against their wishes.
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.
Nevertheless, none of this matters, because the fundamental issue with abortion is not rape or being coerced, it is the fact that abortion is quite literally murder. To once again use an analogy, would the following logic be acceptable?
I have been raped and want an abortion as I don't want to bear a child.
I have been raped and want to kill my teen as I don't want to support a teen.
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.
When commenting on "stealthing", my opponent stated that
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.
And I agree that this is assault. But you are mixing up two separate matters. The fundamental point (of which has been misrepresented by my opponent) is that abortion is murder, and unless this can be disputed, nothing my opponent say will be louder than this statement. True, it is a real pity that women are being tricked into sex and I agree that this is an issue which needs to be addressed. However, allowing babies to be killed is acting as a compensation to what these men are doing. Why should men care that they don't wear a condom? What's the issue, when killing the baby is such an easy option. In fact, what's the point of contraception as a whole? Why not just ditch the pills and rubber and risk it? The worse than can happen is that the women just aborts the baby, right?
The point is that, if abortion were to be illegal, causally killing the baby will not be an option, and men's action will be more severe. Sex as a whole will not just be activity which is done when bored and where no consequences are apparent.
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."
Well no. It may surprise you to hear that I (generally) don't believe women should be held accountable. Generally, women are told that they are not doing anything wrong, and that they are simply discarding a cluster of cell. Essentially, they are acting out of ignorance. The same, however, cannot be said be the abortionists, of whom are well aware of what they are doing.
Returning to your comparison between getting mugged and aborting, I'm afraid to say that it is a false equivalence. Let's use an analogy.
Anyone who walks at night is risking the chance to be mugged, therefore the criminal should have no punishment
Anyone who is having sex is risking the chance of being pregnant, therefore the abortionist should have no punishment
On first glance, it seems alright. However, upon further inspection, this logic is faulty. Using some variation of deductive reason merged with analogies, I shall demonstrate why.
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.
From these conclusions, we can examine the difference between being mugged and aborting a baby. Being mugged is not an intended part of walking at night, while having a sex is the intention for having a baby. To abort a baby after consenting to sex is like refunding your loosing lottery ticket as it is "not what you intended".
*I can predict that my opponent will mention the statistic about being coerced into sex. However, 1) that would fail to address my premise as I am simply stating that the biological reason for having sex is to have a child and 2) that even though you have been coerced, you have ultimately agreed to sex.
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?
I have already somewhat demonstrated how this is faulty logic. If you are flirting with someone at a party, your intentions are not to be assaulted. This is the same with when an individual get's raped while wearing revealing clothes. The intention of wearing the clothes is not to be raped. However, the purpose of sex is, in fact, to have a baby.
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.
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.
This argument would only hold if somehow, the women was impregnated outside of her knowledge, but even then, I could always pull out my trump card, that abortion is murder. Even if the women was impregnated outside of her knowledge, we could, using your short term vs long term moral compass, conclude that abortion is wrong by showing that there are overwhelming immoral losses which are suffered if an abortion is taken place.
Abortion is a Moral Action rebuttal
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.
And I have demonstrated how A) The vast majority of abortions do in fact regard the fetus as having human personhood (section 1 P.2), and B) the fetus is a person, with personhood, and it is the impregnated one's responsibility to care for that fetus, as they have consented to having this child.
As many as half of all pregnancies may end in miscarriage
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.
Half of all pregnancies may end in miscarriage thus I can abort a fetus.
800 000 people died from suicide thus I can kill people on the streets.
It's sad enough that so many pregnancies end in miscarriage, we don't need an extra 72 million babies to be killed.
For most pregnancies, this isn't any different from ending the "life" of semen or a skin cell.
sigh.
Round 2
Pro
#3
Introductory -
Thanks, Wagyu,
To note: Con has presented no objection to my terms, the establishment of the burden of proof, nor even one of my establishments of argument. Chiefly let it be known that Con has accepted the standard of morality of Well-being. This means that we can use this standard throughout the debate without repercussion. Furthermore, I will address Con’s posited moral claims in my defenses section.
I will separate this round into 2 sections for the sake of organization:
- The premise within the moral argument
- Further clarification of personhood
- The implications
- Defense of my argumentation
- Rebuttal
- Defense
The Premise within the Moral Argument
It seems in accepting the moral argument, Con missed an implicitly true thing, this thing would be necessarily contingent if you were to accept my argument. That necessary thing would be personhood. Necessarily speaking, in order for any life to have any value, it must have personhood. Otherwise, it would not apply to the argument I provided. To be clear - it is my view that human life has not been evidenced to have any sort of inherent value without this argument. Now, if you were to accept this argument, then yes they would, because of personhood.
- Further Clarification on Personhood
First of all, my opponent has seemingly dismissed my notion without much thought:
“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.”
Notice the clear contradiction within con’s reasoning, they have minimal brain activity? Is that not still brain functioning? It is. As evidenced by the fact that coma patients can have dreams [1]. Furthermore, the fact is that this hypothetical coma patient had already developed brain function before going into the coma. Nevertheless, this was the bare shot, this was taking the barest of the definition, regardless if Con likes it, this is how we measure personhood going on the definition.
Personhood is regarding something which is individual, as someone who is distinct from others mentally and physically. Therefore, as the brain is the only biological link we know to mentality, it should be formed before considering them an individual. Another objection I found quite lacking in reasoning was Con’s insistence that if we were to suppose my example of personhood, then it wouldn’t be 13 weeks whenever personhood develops instead arguing that:
“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?”
This is.. Uncompelling at best. I am sure Wagyu is understanding of the process of mitosis, or how cells asexually reproduce. Essentially it is through a process called PMAT, which I will not get into, but, it does include the duplication of organelles and DNA, as well as a reforming of the cellular membrane. What is my point with all of this? This entire process requires the process of cellular respiration, or the use of ATP to synthesize sugars needed for basic function within the cell. Furthermore, that would include the movement of electrons, thus a small bioelectric pulse would obviously be put out, this pulse does not prove that the brain has actually formed. I say 13 weeks because then it is true that the basis of the brain is developed, and is simply growing from there. Your argument is a non-sequitur due to the fact that you conflate the development of, with the completion of base functions.
I should also clarify my bold assertion I made within the opening of this argument. That the entire moral principle I established is based on human personhood. If this is true, then the actual value of lives of humans are necessarily dependent on personhood. I think it is imperative that we recall the simple syllogism that I proposed within round 1. That way we can analyze its contents more carefully.
P1: Humans value their own well-beingP2: If you desire others to respect your well-being you ought to respect theirsCon: Therefore you ought to value the well-being
Some keywords to take note of voters: Value, Desire, Respect, Ought
All of these words are dependent upon the fact that there is a personhood, some sort of individuality that allowed these hypothetical people to do these things: value, desire, respect, ought; this means that in order for their to even be a basis for the human life, there has to be personhood. Thus, because this is the standard of the moral basis we are using to establish whether or not abortion is moral, personhood is what we have as our basis. I have already provided a source in round 1, which Con has so wonderfully ignored.
The fact of that matter, Personhood is not developed until at minimum, 13 weeks, and the majority of abortion happens before that. As, again, I sourced in my last round.
- The Implications
What can we consider from this? That speaking morally; fetuses that, on average are aborted before personhood is developed, are aborted do not have the same moral considerations as one with personhood. This would strip the 90% majority of abortion of any moral consideration. But lets go a little further than just looking at the implications of my argument. Let’s also look at the implications of my opponents argument, particularly their view of murder.
- 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? Or perhaps a skin cell? A sperm cell does indeed respond to their environment, as they need to even fertilize an egg, they can grow and change, having to have even developed in the first place, their entire purpose to reproduce, sperms have several organelles and thus do have complex chemistry, they maintain homeostasis (not dying), and they are literally called sperm “cells”. They are also…. decidedly human. Therefore… using Con’s own argument is not every ejucalation not killing millions of human lives?
Is not any sexual reproduction horridly and tremendously evil for the times of ejaculation trade millions of lives for one? We shouldn’t stop at that however, we should consider something that is even more human than a sperm cells, that would be, a skin cell. Did you know that the outer layer is composed of several layers of dead skin cells? [3] I believe that Con and I would agree, if something is currently dead, then it used to be alive… that means that the natural bodily process of building an epidermis is also quite the atrocity, a genocide every time we shower.
Clearly - the implications of Con’s arguments defeat itself, as immorality would be so abundant and so radically shift what is and isn’t immoral, with no considerable foundation for claiming so, it is the clearest example of an ad absurdum I could think of. This is another reason why simple human life should not be the standard upon which someone is granted moral consideration. Even if Con finds issue with the personhood I have presented, there is no contest between the problems of Personhood, and the problem of life here… one you have posited may make coma patients not human (untrue), and the other would render reproduction a genocide.
Defense of my Argumentation
This is simply a one section rebuttal to Con’s rebuttal section. Whereas there were a couple of rebuttals built into my last section, this one will be solely dedicated to responding to Con’s own claims of my argument, as well as clarifying things that Con is incorrect about. There will also be some minor rebuttals to Cons arguments in general in order for some ground work to be established. It will go: Rebuttals, Defense, that way there is no confusion, I am doing this in sequential order.
- Rebuttal
““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”
I find all of these scientists' claims quite interesting, they seem to be drawing a line between mitotic and meiotic reproduction for human consideration. They say that these are the “beginning of human life” or of the “human organism”, but why do they separate a human organism like a cell of skin, does it not contain all 46 chromosomes? Not to mention, the fetus has only a 50% chance of even developing? Thus it isn’t even necessarily going to develop into a fetus, from that logic, could we not apply a sperm as a human organism?
“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.
- Defense
“Well no, a skin cell is not a human being but a fetus is, according to the 6 sources which I have provided.”
Incorrect, your sources say that a fetus is an alive human, they do not say that a skin cell is not one. Also, again, why are we distinguishing between meiotic and mitotic reproduction for consideration of being a “human being”, that is a non-sequitur.
“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.”
I have already rebutted this point, but there is more criticism here: question, are you saying that someone in a coma is worth, morally speaking, the same as someone who is not? Are you saying that there are different levels of human consideration in the first place? Your whole “less human” scale makes zero sense, it brings with it the consideration of fetuses actually. Is a fetus “less human” because it is significantly more likely to not even develop into a human? That makes more sense than your arbitrary standard.
“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.”
What is important? The brain, the brain is what is important, as it is what grants us the biological (the only demonstrable component) of consciousness. Which is what establishes personhood. This is the importance of this time, and you seem to disregard it out of your own presumptions.
“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?”
Minimal brain activity? I am talking of brain activity in general! I have also already rebutted this point, but just for further defence of my position; you make no regards to back up your claim that the brain doesn’t mark personhood, that is a claim and requires evidence to assert, but your reasoning is also off. I provided my sources for that number, and you seem to ignore it, it is the actual creation of the brain which matters, that is can actually function at all. This is not only a non-sequitur, but a red herring.
“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.”
That is a strawman, blatantly. Let's look at what I was saying: “First, we should ask the question, is it always the individual who is impregnated choice to become pregnant? The answer to that question is an overwhelming no. Not only are over half of woman who have sex, coerced” Con is clearly conflating coerced and convinced. The two do not mean the same thing.
Coerce - “Persuade (an unwilling person) to do something by using force or threats.”
“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]
From this logic it is clear that coercion is very different from persuasion, and the only other thing that could apply here, the logic that “consent to sex is consent to being ejucalated in” is not only ridiculously disgusting, but untrue. They are not the same thing, being ejaculated into is not the same thing as sex, they are two different actions that can coincide with one another.
“As I have demonstrated, rape is incest are the bottom two reasons for having an abortion.”
Con has missed the point, my argument is that to hold the impregnated responsible here, is analogous to rape, which you have conceeded to be a moral action, are you thus, agreeing that they are synonymous and proving my point? Yes. Yes you are.
“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.”
This is from Con’s fundamental misunderstanding of what coercion is, coercion is convincing someone under “threatening or force”, thus, using Con’s own argument, this is the same categorically as rape. Con’s own misunderstanding of a word can not be the crux of their argument, that is not cogent.
“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. “
In other words, Con is okay with; The impregnated having to support an organism in their stomach for something they have zero control over, this is not clearly not morally cogent. Let’s look at it; not only is the supposed potential life very potentially not a potential life (draining all hypothetical moral worth that con has given it), but it does active mental and physical harm to the mother, and also, raising that child that is literally not their responsibility does even more harm to the mother, potentially causing intense depression and suicide, not only that, but the child would most likely live with abuse if they are, which is most likely, put into adoption [5]. Not only is this argument not cogent morally, but it is a false analogy. A teen which is already there, and a fetus which is a direct consequence of the rape, are not synonymous.
“nothing my opponent say will be louder than this statement”
This is my opponent blatantly saying that murder is the worst moral action that can be committed, I would like evidence of this assertion. As half of their arguments depend on the assertion that it is the worst form of crime, they also do not take into consideration; the implications of their own argument. Is someone who has tortured their carebringer, then been tortured for the rest of their life not, collectively, worse than murder?
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 nightp2. If you get a child, this is an intended result of having sex.c1. If you get mugged while walking at night, this is unintendedc1. If you get pregnant while having sex, this is intended.
Perhaps this argument may be valid, but it is not sound, the purpose of sex is not only to procreate. Is it one of the purposes of sex? In some instances, yes, but whenever the impregnated literally says “No, I am not going to procreate with you” then my argument holds. Also, even if someone intended to go on a walk to get shot, are you saying that the criminal still deserves no punishment? This is not morally cogent. A side note, but your prediction was wrong, your “deductive argument” has not been polished.
“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. “
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.
Con has continuously argued that murder is the ultimate moral wrong, without any evidence? Now, murder is wrong because it stops all potential pleasure, but it is not the ultimate wrong. Why not? Because it also stops the potential suffering. Hence why people beg to die sometimes, because it puts an end to the suffering. What would be the ultimate moral wrong? Something that ends pleasure and increases suffering. Murder is not that.
“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. “
Incorrect. The moral value of a fetus you are supposing is it’s life, thus, if it doesn't even have that, then there is no moral consideration. There is a high likelihood it won’t even develop a human personhood.
Sources:
Hyperlinked
Con
#4
Well that was all very interesting.
===
The Premise within the Moral Rebuttal
My opponent alludes to the fact that I have missed a fundamental factor, that being personhood, which can be identified through brain activity. I do remember showing how flawed pinning human value on brain activity is, but nevertheless, I suppose more detail is in order. Whilst defining personhood, my opponent provides the following definition.
“Personhood - "A human being regarded as an individual."
Of course, there are no sources attached, no scientists to quote and no indication as to where this definition came from. Upon a quick google search it is apparent that 1) the Cambridge and Merriam-Webster dictionary do not recognise personhood as a word and 2) that there are multiple definitions of personhood, all of which are slightly different. Mary Anne Warren believes there are 5 traits of personhood, being consciousness, reasoning, self-motivated activity, the capacity to communicate and the presence of self-concepts while dictionary.com defines personhood as simply the quality or condition of being an individual person. You seem to have chosen a variation of the second definition. Of course, the professionals have already gone through the popular personhood argument and have found that
The arguments that challenge fertilization as the event at which human personhood begins do not sufficiently compel opinion due to several semantic discrepancies.-
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.
I took extra care in saying that those in comas would be less human as oppose to not human. There are disastrous issues which come with assigning life with brain activity, notably, that brain activity is a variable subject to change during the course of a humans life. Consider the following. Let X be brain activity and Y be personhood.
X + 1 =Y + 1
Let the above be the person in the coma.
X + 500 = Y + 500
Remember, Y is personhood, so it must follow that, in order to balance this logical equation, brain activity goes up with personhoodness. This is of course, absurd. Stabbing a person in a coma is no more right than stabbing a man at work.
Personhood is regarding something which is individual, as someone who is distinct from others mentally and physically.
By this criteria, personhood does not require brain activity at all. Surely, if this were really the definition for personhood, then a fetus would most certainly be considered a person. 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?
I say 13 weeks because then it is true that the basis of the brain is developed, and is simply growing from there.
Actually, during weeks 8 to 10, the cerebrum (the largest part of the brain containing the cerebral cortex as well as subcortical structures including the basal ganglia and olfactory bulb) begins its development. Neurons proliferate begin their migration throughout the brain. The anterior commissure, which is the first interhemispheric connection, also develops.
P1: Humans value their own well-beingP2: If you desire others to respect your well-being you ought to respect theirsCon: Therefore you ought to value the well-being
I honestly fail to see how this is relevant to the debate in any way. Are you in some way alluding to the fact that 13 week old foetus's values their well being? Are saying that this is the criteria for personhood? So far, you've given 3 separate criteria's.
1) Regarded as an individual
2) Brain activity
3) Self love
The fact of that matter, personhood is not developed until at minimum, 13 weeks.
I will revisit this statement later.
===
The implications rebuttal
Essentially my opponent attempts to use my own argumentation against me, by alluding to the fact that, by my own criteria of "human life", sperm should be considered human life.
- 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?
This is... uncompelling at best. I'm sure my opponent is understanding of the event which occurs between the processesof gametogenesis and fertilization which change from a simple part of onehuman being(in this a case, a sperm) and a simple part of another humanbeing (the egg),which simply possess "human life*", to a new, genetically unique,newly existing, individual, whole living human being.
Tounderstand this, it should be remembered that each kind of living organism hasa specific number and quality of chromosomes that are characteristic for eachmember of a species. For example, the characteristic number of chromosomes for a member ofthe human species is 46. Every somatic cell in a human being has this characteristic numberof chromosomes. Even the early germ cells contain 46 chromosomes; it is onlytheir mature forms - the sex gametes, or sperms and oocytes - which will latercontain only 23 chromosomes each. Sperms and arederived from primitive germ cells in the developing fetus by means of theprocess known as "gametogenesis." Because each germ cell normally has46 chromosomes, the process of "fertilization" can not take placeuntil the total number of chromosomes in each germ cell are cut in half. Thisis necessary so that after their fusion at fertilization the characteristicnumber of chromosomes in a single individual member of the human species can be maintained otherwise we would end up with a monster of some sort.
Toaccurately see why a sperm or an oocyte are considered as only possessing humanlife, and not as living human beings themselves, one only needs to look at the basicscientific facts involved in the processes of gametogenesis andof fertilization. The products ofgametogenesis are mature sex gametes with only 23 instead of 46 chromosomes.The product of fertilization is a living human being with 46 chromosomes. Gametogenesisrefers to the maturation of germ cells, resulting in gametes. Fertilizationrefers to the initiation of a new human being.
From this, we can conclude that abortion is the destruction of a human being. Destroying a human sperm or a human oocyte would not constitute murder, as neither of them are human beings. The issue is not when does human life begin, but rather when does the life of every human being begin. A human kidney or liver, a human skin cell, a sperm or an oocyte all possess human life, but they are not human beings they are only parts of a human being. If a single sperm or a single oocyte were implanted into a woman's uterus, they would not grow; they would simply disintegrate.
So my point remains, a fetus a human life yes, but when spoken about in comparison to a skin cell, it is a human being. This is a scientific fact which is agreed among the scientific community.
*It is worth noting that throughout my debate, I have admittedly referred to foetus's "human life" a couple of times (though my major premise regards foetus's as human beings. This is out of simplicity (in the sense that everyone would regard a fully formed adult as a human life) and in no way effects my argument.
===
Defence of my Argumentation rebuttal
In response to the mountain of evidence I have provided regarding when life begins, my opponent responded with the following.
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?
I have already addressed this issue in the prior paragraph. Do you really think all these scientists, most of whom have authored books and completed thesis's on these topics will fall for such a glaring trap? In short, my opponent fails to address the difference between a human being and a human life.
As this is the only objection to my proposed to deductive reasoning displayed in my first argument, my reasoning still stands.
“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.
I was simply using your argument against you. In normal circumstances, I would not use this "long term/short term" argument as I believe it isn't quite strong. Nevertheless, my opponent still cannot refute his own reasoning as the only issue they have with my reasoning is that "sperm cells are the same as human beings"
In the following section, I will admit that I confused the term coerced. Nevertheless, it poses no issues. I will address the issue from scratch with the right definitions in mind.
First, we must look at where this data has come from. According to my opponents own source,
"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.”-
Though the article does not explicitly say, it can be concluded that there are different degrees of coercion ranging from
"have sex with me or I'll attack you"
"ok"
to
"have sex"
"no"
"yes"
"ok"
Nevertheless, as I have already established that abortion is murder, we can apply the lenience we give to abortions to murder. In order to see if being coerced is a strong enough reason to allow murder, let's apply it to the murder of a child.
Since I was pressured by another party to have sex, I guess I don't bare consequences.
Since I was pressured by another party to shoot the kid, I guess I don't bare consequences.
Is this acceptable? Is coercion a good enough reason to justify killing another person? The short answer is no. Legally, even if you are coerced to kill someone, the law states you are not allowed to. You are justified in killing the person threatening your life but you are not justified in killing an innocent party to save yourself.
And keep in mind, the law does not allow you to kill an innocent party even if your life is in danger and there is a gun pointed at your head. Now compare that to abortion, where 88 percent of people who abort are in healthy conditions.
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.
Let's return to the top reasons why women have abortions.
1. Having a baby would dramatically change my life
2. Can’t afford a baby
3. Don’t want to be a single mother or having relationship problem
Do any of these seem like reasonable reasons for someone to commit murder? (It is worth noting this point was dropped by my opponent)
A teen which is already there, and a fetus which is a direct consequence of the rape, are not synonymous.
Incorrect, a teen and a fetus are "already there" according to science. Both of them are alive and both of them deserve human rights. In this context, a teen and a fetus are exactly the same.
Regarding my argument from intention, my opponent made the following claims.
but whenever the impregnated literally says “No, I am not going to procreate with you” then my argument holds.
You are getting very confused. Being coerced/tricked does not allow you to commit murder. I feel that this coercion point is going to be a key factor in this debate, so I shall addressing it properly here.
Having sex is like playing Russian roulette (in the case that you don't want a child). If you use a condom, you can take a bullet out. If you use birth control, you can take another bullet out. In the case of coercion, that would be like putting a bullet back in. Ultimately, the only way to be sure you won't die is to put the gun down.
As you can see, though being coerced is bad, it is still ultimately your fault for playing this "game" in the first place. Even though your rights have been breached, that in no way gives you any rights to breach a separate individuals life kill an innocent party (the fetus). In fact, what does your rights being breached have anything to do with the foetus's life in the first place? What has the fetus got to do with your inability to have safe sex?
It is ultimately your fault you chose an inconsiderate person to have sex and it is your fault not to stand up to them. Though this may sound harsh, one has to remember that a human life is one the line.
Con has continuously argued that murder is the ultimate moral wrong
I have never argued that it is the ultimate wrong, I have just stated that it trumps reasons such as "I have a convenience issue with this baby". If you can show me something even more immoral than killing an innocent party of which had no say in their future, then please direct me to it.
Regarding the purpose of sex, my opponent stated that
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.
The "reasons for having sex" that you have provided are all biproducts of sex's fundamental purpose. The reasons they have attached include the following.
- Pleasure
- Stress reduction
- Formation of our identity
If I said that murder gave me pleasure, stress reduction and forms my identity, would that then mean that murder is right? The key factor which my opponent neglects is what abortion actually courses. It doesn't matter that you are happy from sex, if the result is a dead baby. I doesn't matter that your stress is reduced if the result is a dead baby and it certainly doesn't matter if your identify is formed through the killing of a baby.
People can provide whatever "reasoning" they want to any action, but this in no way alleviates the moral responsibility that one has when participating in the action.
===
Recapping my argument
In my first argument, I proposed a simple line of deductive reasoning which for memories sake is as follows.
Major premise. Abortion involves intentionally killing a human being, thus making it murder.
Minor premise. Abortion intentionally kills a human being.
Conclusion. Abortion is therefore murder.
My opponent has attempted to debunk my minor premise and dispute my claim that a fetus is a human life, despite the 6 sources that I have provided (If you need more convincing, I can shoot some more sources over). My opponent claimed that, if what I am saying is correct (they made no dispute as to what I actually stated), then human sperm would be considered human life and therefore ejaculating would be mass murder.
To this, I drew a distinction between human life and human being, a claim of which is backed up by Princeton educations research department. I then identified the difference between the process of gametogenesis andfertilization.
As I have successfully fended off this attempt at debunking my reasoning, my deductive reasoning still holds. As it holds, the following can be concluded.
- Abortion is murder.
- Abortion alone causes 132% more deaths than the current global annual death toll.
- As abortion is murder, is is therefore grounded in invalid principles of morality.
Back to my opponent!
Round 3
Pro
#5
Introductory -
Thank you for your response Wagyu,
This will be brief, as at this point in the debate a lot of the discourse is clarification and rebuttals back and forther. Nevertheless I will explain the structure that I will proceed with for this round:
- Primary Contention - Possibility Fallacy
- Counter Rebuttal and Defense
- Conclusion - To copy Con, not going to lie
Possibility Fallacy
This contention hasn’t been divided into further sections for what should seem obvious, this is a very straight forward point. The argument that something which will possibly do x or y, in this case - to become a functioning human, means that the thing which holds the possibility has the same status as that thing. Now I know I did say that this is clear or obvious and it is, but it is still very open to misconstrution. To provide further clarification for this principle, let me be more frank.
The primary argument of Con is to say - A fetus has the same worth, morally, as a human. Therefore, to abort the fetus is akin to murder, which is wrong.
Pro, myself, could respond in a number of ways - they could argue that murder isn’t wrong, they could argue that the moral weight of the fetus is worth ridding themselve, or; and the point that I seek to make in this contention, they could argue that the fetus is not worth the same as a human morally. Why is this? This is due to an error in the reasoning being used here. Formally speaking, this flaw could be referred to as a non-sequitur, or the logical fallacy which describes a syllogism where the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises presented [1].
Speaking in more, as I said, frank terms: 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. That a human fetus has the same moral consideration as a human being. As I have pointed out several times, this is making a clear distinction between mioetic and mitotic replication. Con, however, argues that the distinction is a fair one to make due to the fact that these cells are forming in a way that is unique from mitotic replication, that the fact that you have a new genetic product, justifies the distinction.
On a superficial analysis, Con would appear to be correct, but to look into cell replication further would highlight the ignorance in what Con is trying to imply with their argument. Specifically what I am referring to is the Semi-Conservative nature of DNA replication [2]. That nature is specifying the sort, or way, that DNA replicates - which is as follows: The DNA undergoes an “unzipping” using an enzyme called DNA Helicase [3], then using other processes, the previous single molecule of DNA is now two strands, and ontop of either strand; other enzymes and such, like DNA Polmeryase, synthesizes a new strand for the old strand of DNA. Essentially, that DNA uses an old strand a new strand to create new DNA. Does that sound familiar to anyone?
Why was this overlooked? Why was this argument even considered valid by my opponent? Because of the possibility principle - they assumed that the fetus holds the same moral weight as a human, so there must be some distinction between Sperm, which they consider to not hold the same weight, and a Zygote on how they are formed. 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? That is drawing a line in the sand - in fact - we can see the line drawn in the sand by the study that Con cites referring to personhood in fetus’ as well [4]
“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.”
To ensure I am not quoting this article out of context I will explain the context briefly - this is summarizing the first of two competing hypotheses presented by the paper, this one is that human personhood begins at fertalization, and the other that it occurs at some point afterward. The former being Con’s take on the issue. That this person began to exist as 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, that the complete genome has occurred, but then that brings one to the obvious observation - that the new genome only began to exist, thanks to that specific collection of chromosomes brought by the sperm [5], these sperm are unique from one another. So then…. What is the distinction? The only difference is that I am looking farther back into the history of the “human being”.
From that, what may seem startling, realization - one might see what I mean by the “possibility principle” more clearly. From those biological facts, one might simply argue along Con’s same point; that these sperms are unique and the actual start of human lives. That these are realistically whenever the moral weight of a human begins. Then we could also talk about the genome of the parents? As it is only because of the genetic material by the parents that this fetus is new or distinct, should we not say that each fetus is actually worth any possible offspring? To make a completely different example, does that mean that we should consider each candidate for a job based on their possible considerations? No. Of course all of these are ad absurdems, the logic does not follow that because something will hold it- or that it will become x or y, that it holds the same consideration as x or y.
This could also, roughly, be called the Fallacy of Composition or inferring that something which is true of a component is necessarily true of the whole [6]. Only instead of inferring something of a component, Con is inferring something of a pre-ponent. I would refer to this as the Fallacy of Possibility for lack of formal terms. I think under this new lens the Voters, Con, and myself are more aptly able to consider the arguments here. 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. Consider a sword that is being forged, the metal has been cast, but not shapen, just because it will be sharp, rigid, and sturdy does not mean that the pre-sword is.
Counter Rebuttal(s)/Defense
- Implications and Personhood
For the Voter’s and Con’s comprehension, my contention on the Possibility Fallacy is my counter rebuttal to Con’s rebuttal regarding my section known as “Implications'' which is discussing the implications regarding Con’s initial and continued argumentation, and my speaking of it as an, “ad absurdum”. I more properly described Con’s flaws in the above argumentation, and that would de facto replace my implications section last round. Though its purpose is similar to “The implicit premise of personhood” contention of last round, the actual application is different - thus serving as a more specific rebuttal, even though its utility is round debate.
Funnily enough, Con seems to be good at ignoring what I write here, as whenever I mentioned that I had already sourced Personhood in the first round, “Personhood - "A human being regarded as an individual." [A7]” They still insisted that I never sourced it. Even going as far as to say that Meriam Webster says the term doesn’t exist. Then, citing more sources, one of which being on uncited name drop and nothing more, and the other having a version of my source. However I have already presented my definition exactly, Con has no need for this dishonest framing, but they continue on anyway. Next Con presents a short snippet of a study to render my entire argument asunder. I even mentioned the study in the contention prior, and I did criticise the study lightly, but let's be a bit more specific this time.
Con seemed to have missed the point, “This article is an original work critically analyzing the various arguments for human personhood at fertilization and thereafter” This is just an argument. Is it more regaled? Yes. Does the citing of it solely disagreeing with my stance excuse Con of all arguments? Of course not, Con must specifically point out some statement or another made by me, and use the article to say, “That is factually incorrect” the point of articles and studies is to provide warrant to your claims, and an individual concluding that my position is wrong, is not enough there. Otherwise, I could simply do the same to you, just throw an expert’s opinion that agrees with my position at you. That is not how studies work.
In response to my argument responding to Con’s argument about the entire personhood and does my definition devalue humans in comas debacle, Con, once again, cuts out a majority of my argument, seemingly missing context from their position. They miss a critique of even saying that assigning a value that can change in that regard is philosophically dangerous. Con’s actual response to some of my arguments is using personhood as a variable, saying that regarding brain activity as the agent of personhood is bad because it can devalue humans. 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.
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, Chimpanzee’s have personhood, anything and everything with unique DNA has personhood. They have clearly missed the “mental” part of my statement. This argument is not cogent, and it does not actually rebuke my point. Continuing onwards, Con asserts, in response to my clarification of why week 13 for personhood, that because large sections of the brain are formed at weeks 8 and 10, my point is mute. Firstly, this claim is not sourced, and second, Con is referring to a specific section of the brain having certain parts begin development, not that the function of these sections of sections are developed, just that they begin development. This is also not cogent.
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 “irrelevent”. They try to hypothesize that perhaps its adding to the criteria of personhood? Yet… they don’t accurately sum up the issue… nor is that what any of the argument actually claims to prove. It is supposed to inform what Con has accepted in regards to my moral argument, and that is in order for murder to have any moral consideration, the human in question must have personhood. Without it, there is no value that can be assigned to human lives. Therefore irrelevelent of whether the fetus has it or does not have it (to be clear they do not have personhood), in order for Con’s deductive argument regarding murder to be cogent, they must demonstrate that the Fetus has personhood, which they have not done.
Furthermore this specific section will rebuke my opponent’s entire argumentation on the personhood side of the debate. In his first argumentation in Con’s “Defense of my Argumentation” section, they quote my response to his cited articles on the human being, and when it begins. This quotation is missing key context, one such is that sperm would be regarded the same as the fetus, however they might consider this covered by their previous argument. I would cite the probability fallacy here, these experts have not “fallen for a trap” as Con implies I think - they have made an error in their reasoining whenever regarding the moral weight of such things. Which might be expected of people who are not philosophers, but scientists.
Next, we move onto my response to Con’s supposed moral weights of a fetus and Con, funnily enough, admits to commiting an Tu Quoque, or an appeal to hypocrisy [7]. Con even states that he doesn’t find his own argumentation particularly strong and was trying to, quote, “Use your arguments against you”. Without ever actually noting the similarities to our arguments, or substantiating their argument in any way further than: “he only issue they have with my reasoning is that "sperm cells are the same as human beings"”. This only further demonstrates that Con is missing the point. 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.
- Coercion and the Responsibility Principle
Con has this problem, where they cut the context from statements and respond to that statement and that statement alone. Sometimes, they’ll even cut out arguments that I made in the contention, or ignore their implications in regards to their argumentation. In response to my correction of what coercion meant, and how it clearly falls into the same moral consideration of rape, Con responds that their is a contium on which coercion happens, which is incorrect, as the literal definition of Coercion that I provide proves. Now, their is a degree of coercion, or how much is used, but the baseline for something to be considered coercion is used in the article, if something is considered coercion it would have to fulfill the definition. 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. Yet they ignore my quotation of a study into which contracts entered under coercion are not legally binding. This is relates to the coercion as a tactic to get a verbal contract of consent to sex.
The next point is related to all of this, and thus this entire section is all linked like the one about personhood was above. This is in regards to Con saying that it is the moral responsibility is still held by the mother if they were raped. This disgusting rhetortic to say the least, but simply describing the rhetoric is not enough to dismiss it. They respond with the reasons that women get abortions, and ask if these reasons are worth “murder”. Not only has Con not proven that abortion is murder, but that these are even what is being discussed here. But they also completely ignore my argument talking about the consequences of rape. This is not even the consequences of the action specifically, but the actions as a result of rape which impregantes women. They completely ignore the fact that murder is not the worst moral action. That was the point of me later pointing this out, as murder eliminates all possible suffering and pleasure, having this child can very well and will likely cause exhaustive suffering while elimating a vast sum of pleasure from their life, as I pointed out in my first rebuttal, and ignored by Con in theirs.
Following this, Con asserts that a teen and a fetus are synomyous, and this is, as I just described it as, an assertion. Con is basing this claim on fetus’ and teens having the same moral weight, and Con has not even decidedly done that if there wasn’t this response on my part. They then proceed, and I am sorry to repeat myself here, make an horrendous argument regarding sex. They claim that it is still the mothers fault for not standing up to their assualter…. This is not only morally reprehendous, but it is also not morally cogent. A running theme so far; they claim that it is the fault of the person who played the game in the first place… this is ignoring the fact that anyone who has been coerced, never chose to play the game of sex, in fact, they specifically rejected playing the game.
This is Con fundamentally being biased against people who want abortion, Con wants to claim that the fault will always be on the woman, without ever considering the actual people who literally forced them to do something. They also make a false claim that sex is like “Russian Roulette” in where every time you play you have a random chance of having children, this is just… so wrong, Condoms have a 98% chance of success [8], with a interval of 85% accounting for human error. With birth control this rate of preventing pregnancy goes even higher. Just so people are aware, this is akin to saying that you shouldn’t drive at all, since you're playing roulette with having a crash every time you do… a reductio ad absurdum if I’ve ever seen one.
Finally my opponent says, in response to my argument that murder is not the ultimate moral wrong, that they never said it was the ultimate moral wrong, murder that is. 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. They are claiming that the potential murder of this fetus is the biggest moral weight in this debate, and they are incorrect. They dropped one of my arguments from my very first round! That argument would be The clarification of Abortion, which includes a double sourced list of moral reductions that preganancy causes the impregnated. Including which is suicide of the impregnated, and going on about the implications of coercion and rape, even more than that. Finally finally we arrive at the argument that Con made in regards to my accusation of his deduction being incorrect.
They ignore the fact that I was specifically concluding that their deduction was not sound, they presented a syllogism, and I pointed out that the very first premise was incorrect. Con tries to mitigate the damage by not even mentioning that fact and trying to shoehorn in their conclusion, but the point of a deductive syllogism is to provide sound reasoning for a conclusion, which… Con evidently failed to do. They incorrectly attempted to place my argument as - “The purposes of sex isn’t is to create a baby, therefore abortion okay” my point was that Con’s assumption that the sole purpose of sex was procreation was false, and therefore their rebuttal of my point in round 1 is still on the table. Claiming as Con has done, is equivalent to blaming the victim of a stabbing for defending themselves because they chose to go out on a walk. That was the entire point, to defend my claim. Con has failed to rebuke my claims.
Conclusion
Con basically spends the entire round misrepresenting my positions, not correctly addressing arguments, the whole shebang.
To sum up my arguments:
P1: Without personhood, murder is not wrong
P2: majority of abortion is prior to personhood development
Con: Abortion is not wrong
P1: majority of impregnated don't choose to be
P2: being impregnated is a large moral negative
Con: therefore, the impregnated aren't responsible for the fetus
These are the summation of my arguments, there is more nuance and context in all of my rounds, but these are my points, and if either of the two are true, then I have fulfilled my goalpost in this debate. Seeing as Con has failed to even substantiate their own? They have failed to debunk mine.
Con
#6
Well that was all very interesting.
==
Introductory
I have to say that you have surprised me with your level of thoughtfulness in your replies. I never expected to have to whip out my big bad FLO argument. I will first present my case and then precede to rebut my opponents points in the following order.
A future like ours
- What makes murder wrong
- The implications
Primary Contention - Possibility Fallacy rebuttal
Counter Rebuttal and Defence rebuttal
Conclusion rebuttal
Conclusion
==
A future like ours
For the duration of this round, my opponent has bought essentially admitted that abortion is murder. How do we know this? The stated in their conclusion that
P1: Without personhood, murder is not wrong
They would not have needed to add the "not wrong" bit if they disagreed that abortion was murder in he first place, they could have just said "without personhood, abortion is murder".
So have we (I hope) found common ground that abortion is murder. However, we have not yet come to the conclusion that abortion is wrong. After all, murder in the case of self defence can be justified, though it is still technically murder.
I will use this section now to layout my criteria of what I believe makes murder wrong.
==
What makes murder wrong
The wrongness of murder can be understood in terms of the effects that being killed has on us. Being murdered poses people the misfortune of a premature death. When ones has been killed, they are deprived of life.
Compare two scenarios: In the former I now fall into a coma from which I do not recover until my death in thirty years. In the latter I die now. The latter scenario does not seem to describe greater misfortune than the former. The loss of our future conscious life is what underlies the misfortune of premature death. Not any future conscious life qualifies, however. Suppose that I am terminally ill with cancer. Suppose also that pain and suffering would dominate my future conscious life. If so, then death would not be a misfortune for me.Thus, the misfortune of premature death consists of the loss to us of the future goods of consciousness.
Thus, what is sufficient to make killing us wrong, in general, is that it causes premature death. Premature death is a misfortune, in general, because it deprives an individual of a future of value. An individual’s future will be valuable to that individual if that individual will come, or would come, to value it. We know that killing us is wrong. What makes killing us wrong, in general, is that it deprives us of a future of value. Thus, killing someone is wrong, in general, when it deprives her of a future like ours. I shall call this “an FLO.”
The implications
The FLO account of the wrongness highlights the cruelty of abortion. We believe that, in our own case and the cases of other adults and children, the loss of a future of value is a misfortune. After all, one wouldn't say that a black person isn't a moral agent because they are black just like how one shouldn't say that a fetus isn't a moral agent because it is too small.
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.
The FLO account is can also be applied to animal cruelty. We believe that suffering is a misfortune. It would be hypocritical to refuse to acknowledge that animal suffering is wrong on the basis that "they're just animals". From this, we can conclude that suffering is the misfortune, not the suffering of human beings. And why am I saying this?
Infliction of suffering is wrong no matter on whom it is inflicted and whether it is inflicted on persons or nonpersons.
To say that you can cause a suffering to a fetus because it isn't a person like saying you can cause a black man to suffer because he isn't white.
Arbitrary restrictions on the wrongness of this deprivation count as racism, genocide or ageism. Therefore, abortion is wrong.
Now that we are equipped with this new information, I can rebut my opponents argument.
==
Primary Contention - Possibility Fallacy rebuttal
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.
This is a complete misrepresentation of what I believe. 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.
In response to my monstrous amount of evidence which highlights the clear difference between the process of gametogenesis and fertilization, my opponent simply stated that
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?
I have already highlighted the scientifically acknowledged difference between a human life and human being. The products of gametogenesis are mature sex gametes with only 23 instead of 46 chromosomes. Does a human being have 23 chromosomes? To say that gametogenesis and fertilization are synonymous is like saying a panda giving birth and a human giving birth are synonymous. Though both processes may be similar, in the sense that a new being is being birthed, the result is drastically different.
“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.”
I am utterly confused as to why you quoted this. The quote clearly says that a human being has been a person since he or she began to exist at fertilization. Nevertheless, you then provide some context.
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
As I have already highlighted, this argument is not valid. I have already described the event which occurs between the processes of gametogenesis and fertilization which change from a simple part of one human being and a simple part of another human being ,which simply possess human life, to a new, genetically unique, newly existing, individual, whole living human being.
Con is essentially under the impression that the fetus holds the same moral weight of a human being, because it is a human…
Say that again but slower.
P1. Humans have rights.
P2. A fetus is a human
C1. Fetus' have right.
The issue?
The same could be said of gametes, the same could be said of cells,
This is getting rather annoying. As I have already said, there is a scientific difference between a part of a human and a human being. A gamete has 23 chromosomes. A human cell is not a human being because of the simple fact that gametogenesis refers to the maturation of germ cells, resulting in gamete, while fertilization refers to the initiation of a new human being.
what Con is doing is, as I said, drawing an arbitrary line which advantages their argumentation.
What part of my argument relies on false premises or invalid facts? This is quite a serious accusation to make. I have demonstrated that their is a fundamental difference between the process of gametogenesis and fertilisation. I have then demonstrated that that a fetus is a product of a process of which creates a new human being with 46 chromosomes and then made the conclusion that a fetus is therefore a human being.
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.
What does it matter that a fetus is biologically a stage before a baby? Does this give you the right to kill it? Can I kill an child because it is not an adult? Can I kill a baby because it is not a child?
==
Counter Rebuttal and Defence rebuttal
They still insisted that I never sourced it. Even going as far as to say that Meriam Webster says the term doesn’t exist
My mistake. I didn't' see the definition you sourced. Nevertheless, I will say that Lexico is an abridged version the Oxford English dictionary which of course, does not consider personhood as a real word.
Con must specifically point out some statement or another made by me, and use the article to say, “That is factually incorrect”
But that's the issue. I have no idea what you're saying. You first said that a) an agent must value their well being in order to be considered a moral agent and then b) that brain activity was necessary for a life to be considered worthy of personhood.
Regarding B, no offense but either I am completely misunderstanding A or I am just stupid, but A is a terrible argument. Does 13 week old fetus (the time at which you consider it to be human) value it's own well being?
Regarding B, I have shown that assigning life to a changing variable is not a good idea, though you do give your attempt to rebut it later on.
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.
First off, self-awareness is very different to brain activity. Secondly, you clearly stated that
This would mean that this human being at least ought to have a brain that functions, no?
and the commented that
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.
This clearly shows that we are talking about the same kind of brain activity. You came to the conclusion that a 13 week old fetus has personhood because of it's neurological conditions. Clearly, this is a case of shifting the goal posts as at the beginning, you stated that "I say 13 weeks because … (the brain) is simply growing from there)", but now, I have apparently " fail(ed) to consider that we are not talking about some arbitrary amount 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.
And the question remains. Is a 13 week old fetus aware of their own mental state.
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,
Well, no. Remember, you are the one using this "personhood" argument, not me. I never mentioned personhood. It is true that DNA means someone is distinct and therefore, but your definition, a person. The following is your flawed logic.
P1. You need to be unique to have personhood.
P2. DNA is unique
C1. A turtle has personhood.
This is the problem with the your argument. You are the one which needs to reply to this. Why doesn't a turtle have personhood? You criteria for having personhood is to be unique. I have shown that DNA is unique an you have essentially then debunked yourself!
They have clearly missed the “mental” part of my statement.
And another new criteria. Let's tally up what we're working with.
First you said the human being must value their well being in order to be considered a moral agent
Secondly, you said brain activity was necessary for a life to be considered worthy of personhood.
And finally you now say that you need to be mentally unique.
I have to say, I am rather confused.
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.
I'm getting slightly annoyed that you still haven't grasped the difference between a human being and a human life. Which I have already done so. Many, many times.
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”.
Even though I've rebutted all your points on personhood, I still maintain that this is all irrelevant. Personhood means nothing. I will get into this with more detail in the following.
It is supposed to inform what Con has accepted in regards to my moral argument, and that is in order for murder to have any moral consideration, the human in question must have personhood. Without it, there is no value that can be assigned to human lives. Therefore irrelevelent of whether the fetus has it or does not have it (to be clear they do not have personhood), in order for Con’s deductive argument regarding murder to be cogent, they must demonstrate that the Fetus has personhood, which they have not done.
==
Coercion and the Responsibility Principle rebuttal
Con responds that their is a contium on which coercion happens, which is incorrect, as the literal definition of Coercion that I provide proves
Well no. Coercion is the action of making somebody do something that they do not want to do, using force or threatening to use force. You can verbally pressure someone to do something (which is coercion) or you can threaten their life (which is also coercion). There are levels of force one can use, which is just plain obvious. Calling you a bad name is very different from pulling a gun on you.
Therefore their entire use of the word “pressured” in their syllogism, is false.
This wasn't meant to be controversial. The dictionary synonym of coerced is pressured.
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.
What do you mean, the law literally states that "states have found that killing someone else to avoid being killed is not sufficient excuse for homicide". This was not a fact which I put out with the intent of you disputing it. There really is nothing to be disputed, it is simply a fact that, if threatened, you are not allowed to commit murder.
This is relates to the coercion as a tactic to get a verbal contract of consent to sex.
Even my opponent has admitted. Coercion is used to get a verbal consent. If you have gotten a verbal consent to have sex, then the woman has acknowledged and accepted the fact that they may get a child. It doesn't matter if you have been coerced or threatened, you are not obliged to have sex. I will once again say. Women are not legally forced to have sex.
However, if women do consent, and they do not withdraw the consent, they have accepted the chance that they may get a child. Don't want to get a child? Don't have sex. There is nothing a man can do to force you to have sex which isn't illegal. If a women continues to say no, there will be no consequences.
This is in regards to Con saying that it is the moral responsibility is still held by the mother if they were raped.
As I am running low on words, I will keep this short. Just because your rights have been breached, doesn't mean you can breach someone else's right.
Next my opponent alludes to the fact that being raped is worse than being murdered as rape will likely cause exhaustive suffering while eliminating a vast sum of pleasure from the mothers life.
For the sake of the argument, let's assume you're right, a woman’s right to free her body of her fetus which will inhibit her freedom of action and possibly impair her health is stronger than the parasite’s right to life, and is so even if the fetus has as much right to life as an adult human.
Even given these very circumstantial situations, abortion is still wrong. For if A’s right is stronger than B’s, and it is impossible to satisfy both, it does not follow that A’s should be satisfied rather than B’s. It may be possible to compensate A if his right isn’t satisfied, but impossible to compensate B if his right isn’t satisfied. In such a case the best thing to do maybe to satisfy B's claim and to compensate A.
Abortion may be a case in point. If the fetus has a right to life and the right is not satisfied, there is certainly no way the fetus can be compensated. On the other hand, if the woman’s right to rid her body of the inconvenient human life is not satisfied, she can be compensated. Thus it would seem that the just thing to do would be to prohibit abortion but to compensate women for the burden of carrying a fetus to term. A way this can be done is by punishing the rapist, which is already practiced.
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
Because there is nothing regarding the majority of abortions which is worse than murder. And still, at this point, there is nothing more unjust than murdering an innocent human being that you have been able to show me.
==
Questions for my opponent
- 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.
==
Conclusion rebuttal
P1: Without personhood, murder is not wrong
Your definition of personhood is very poorly defined, with the goal posts being shifted at the turn of every paragraph.
P1: majority of impregnated don't choose to be
My opponent contradicts this point by saying
Coercion as a tactic to get a verbal contract of consent to sex.
If you are coerced, you are not allowed to commit homicide, even if your life is on the line. This is the law, I have already provided 2 sources which back up this claim.
Though I have rebutted your points on personhood, it matters not in the slightest. My FLO account of why harm is bad concludes that infliction of suffering is wrong no matter on whom it is inflicted and whether it is inflicted on persons or nonpersons. Nevertheless, the personhood argument still isn't good.
==
Conclusion
If we recall my, syllogism was as follows.
Major premise. Abortion involves intentionally killing a human being, thus making it murder.
Minor premise. Abortion intentionally kills a human being.
Conclusion. Abortion is therefore murder.
My opponent states
I pointed out that the very first premise was incorrect.
No problem.
P3. Abortion ends with a dead human being.
C1 As abortion ends with a dead fetus, which is a human being, abortion is murder.
As this is the only objection, my argument still stands.
Round 4
Pro
#7
Thanks for the response Wagyu,
Now - forgive me for my brevity but I believe that this debate is starting to become circles and circles, if one was to pay attention to the rebuttals being presented their is a clear distinction between mine and my opponent's. I'll continue that distinction, and address my opponent's problems in fundamental steps. I'll address Con's points sequentially for ease of reading. Last time I wrote an essay, this round I plan to concisely make my points.
- The FLO
- Implications cont.
- Personhood cont.
- Responsibility cont.
- The FLO
Firstly, I would like to correct Con - "Without personhood, murder is not wrong" - which Con takes as me apparently agreeing that abortion is murder. This is false. What it means is that the foundation's of Con's argument, something which he has attempted to use since round 1 and 2, is not cogent without a principle that he has not considered. Furthermore, Con makes an argument that "value" is lost whenever a human is lost. That the misfortune of a premature death is a loss of a future value. This argument is helpless to the argument I made previously, and works on several assumptions.
1. That humans lives matter intrinsically - that they have some "value" beyond subjective human measure
2. That the only type of experience lost is "value" this fails to respond to my point of increased suffering with minimized to zero pleasure
3. It essentially hinges on "values" that are hypothetical and have not been demonstrated to exist objectively
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. Furthermore, Con makes more... analogies.
The analogies of black people to fetus's is incorrect. Unless you are describing a fetus which is pigmentedly darkly, then it isn't a black person, but a black fetus. That seems a little absurd, regarding moral value - people are people - this comparison hinges on fetus's and developed humans sharing moral weight, which as far as I'm concerned Con has failed to do. Con asserts that murder is wrong because it causes suffering, why is suffering fundamentally wrong? Without personhood I see no reason to regard it as so. Again, these are assertions that have not been demonstrated.
- Implications Continued (Possibility Fallacy Defense)
Con misses the point, and that is brilliantly displayed by this quote:
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.
The entire point of the possibility fallacy was to distinguish that you are conflating a fetus and a human as the same morally, because of the underlying reasoning presented in the contention. It does not matter if a fetus is a "human being" by your standard, what matters is that "human being" have personhood. That is where I draw the distinction morally. Furthermore all Con continues to argue is that this is whenever the clunk of cells is called a "human being" is at fertilization. We are not discussing, or we shouldn't be, when something is a human being in scientific terms, but when it is in moral terms, when does a collection of cells begin to share the same moral consideration that humans enjoy?
The contention was pointing out that a fetus is a step before personhood develops, just as a gamete is step before fertilization begins. That you are conflating that this preponet to something with personhood also has it. I was not arguing that that they are deserving of moral consideration, but that using Con's logic I could conclude the same thing. Essentially Con's rebuttals are against his own argument. Replace the talk of genetic replication with the development of personhood. Just a side note, Con tries in vain to take a quote out of context and make it seem like I agree. I explain what the quote's purpose is, quite literally, right underneath it.
My problem with your little syllogism is the distinction between a developed human and a fetus, and that is personhood. I am arguing that the majority of fetus that are aborted do not hold personhood, and therefore are not morally considerable.
- Personhood Continued
Very first of all:
I will say that Lexico is an abridged version the Oxford English dictionary which of course, does not consider personhood as a real word.
False.
I don't know how much obvious I have to make it that Con is just factually incorrect on this statement. Next item on the docket, Con appeals to incredulity. Beyond that this is a red herring, I was pointing out that simply quoting another argument agreeing with his position is not sufficient to fulfill their burden of proof, what is Con's response? That he doesn't know what to direct against? Misrepresentations of my argument established long towards the beginning of the debate, that Con remarked as "irrelevant" instead of rebuking it for a round.
Con is wrong for a couple reasons, first of all, he mistakes the existence of x for possessing the elaborate extrapolation of that principle. My point in the the moral argument was that in order for their to be an umbrella morality there must be personhood. That for something to be considered by other moral agents as another moral agent, it must have personhood at a bare minimum, which is consciousness, as I clarified and, yes, I called it different things - but they are essentially all the same point. That their must be a sufficient amount brain for there to even be neurological links.
Con said:
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?
Physically speaking this creates a separation, but looking at the clearly established context, there is a more than physical individuality to consider, the use of contending your use of it was to point out that you don't understand the argument being made. I do not have to prove that turtles do not have personhood, that is a claim that you have made with improper reason. "Your criteria for personhood is to be unique" In a way of speaking, but not as simply as you conclude. This is a cheap attempt at a "gotcha" without any regard for the context already being established.
Personhood means nothing
I look forward to seeing how Con demonstrates that claim.
- Responsibility Principle Continued (Coercion)
Con quoting my definition actually provides a rebuttal to their interpretation, "using force or threatening to use force" Either way uses force as a tool to get someone to "agree" to something they do not want to do. They agree in the same way someone being tortured "agrees" to share the information they are hiding. "Calling someone a bad name," isn't an example of coercion. Continuing onwards, "pressured" is false in the context you use it, which is to imply at the same level of "persuasion" while it is a type of persuasion, it is not something which makes the "pressured" one morally culpable.
Also, I find Con's "snippets" of the argument amusing in regards to it being a legal matter, first of all, they completely ignore my arugment, but here is some more context to that line they used:
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.
"The threat or use" Coercion by definition. However I would argue that this does not apply, as we are talking about - I would just like to point out that Con's presentation of this quote is dishonest at best - it actually is technically legal to kill someone if you are threatened by them in certain situations. Moreover, my opponent continues to assert that because they have received the woman's "consent" they are legally allowed to have intercourse. First of all, this ignores my literal source calling this sexual harassment and rape. Second of all, this ignores that the "consent" is not of the same allocation of consent whenever it is forced from the individual. My opponent argues that woman are "accepting" the possibility of a child, this ignores my point of "roulette" I made last round.
To the next point, the entire comparison Con uses to conclude their argument can be summed up thusly: That because a fetus cannot be compensated whenever it is aborted and a woman can, therefore you should simply continue to undermine the woman's rights.. That also doesn't follow, also, abortion is terminating pregnancy, which as I pointed out, can, even from 20 weeks onward, simply be c-section. Futhermore, this is assuming that fetus's have legal rights and/or moral rights. Next you consider that the woman is ultimately undergoing a more morally unrespitable experience than the fetus. The fetus bring aborted in a term of killing the fetus is ending all potential suffering and pleasure, whereas the woman will be necessarily hit with heavy suffering.
- Dropped Arguments:
- Consequences of Rape
- Teens and Fetus aren't synoymous
- The Roulette Point of Sex
- The Ultimate Moral Wrong
There are more, but those are the essentials that matter, furthermore I'll address Con's questions here.
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?
I've worded it differently, but if you weren't so obtuse, you would recognize the difference of actually defining personhood and looking for signs of it - which is what I was doing. Furthermore, you also don't seem to understand something being contingent on a principle, and being that principle (that's the "valuing ones well being" one. The latter two refer to the same thing. Enough with your pedantics.
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
Etc
How is my FLO account of harm and murder flawed, and how does it not apply to abortion
Its flawed in a lot of ways, but I'd say your tendency to make assumptions is the big part.
The conclusion rebuttals are clearly not understanding argument, though very basically - no - "giving verbal consent" because of coercion is not the same as giving it regularly, or are you arguing they are the same? Because the: mental state of the woman affected, the threat or actual presence of violence, contribute to no, that not being the case.
Back to Con.
Con
#8
Well that was all very interesting.
==
A defence of the FLO
After calling my argument "hopeless", my opponent states that these are the following issues with the FLO.
1. That humans lives matter intrinsically - that they have some "value" beyond subjective human measure
==
A defence of the FLO
After calling my argument "hopeless", my opponent states that these are the following issues with the FLO.
1. That humans lives matter intrinsically - that they have some "value" beyond subjective human measure
This is not what the FLO implies whatsoever, and I'm quite confused as to where this accusation came from. I do not believe that killing a person who will forever be in a coma is wrong, a belief which is consistent with the FLO. I belief that regulated euthanasia should be legal, and that assisting an individual who suffers from uncurbable and intense pain who wants to die should be legal, a belief which is also consistent with the FLO. From these two examples alone, it can be concluded that no, human beings do not have intrinsic value.
2. That the only type of experience lost is "value" this fails to respond to my point of increased suffering with minimized to zero pleasure
I agree with this statement, in the sense that I believe that if someone has zero value in their future e.g. you are suffering with no pleasure from an incurable diseases. However, you may say "what about someone who is being tortured, does killing them become right because they have no FLO". The answer would be no, the torturer would be the one who needs to be stopped as they are depriving the individual of an FLO.
While it is true that not all futures are "enjoyable", that's not to say that a person who's going through hardship cannot have a good future. After all, the successful people in the world are usually the ones who work through their hardships.
To reiterate, killing someone is wrong because it deprives them of their ability to have a future like ours.
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. If the wrongness of murder were to be calculated by how one values themselves at a given moment a) the killing of suicide patients would not be a crime b) the killing of people who are asleep would not be a crime and c) the killing of temporarily unconscious people would not be a crime.
It is essential that in order for a good account for why murder is wrong to be created, it must account for people who are unconscious and depressed, or more simply, people who are incapable of making clear judgments.
The weakeredge stated Con essentially says, any life with negativity would be discounted
Again, the shallowness of this statement shows that the implication of the FLO has not been grasped by my opponent. No where in my theory does negativity discount a human life. As I have mentioned prior, the FLO makes it right to help people who are suicidal, meaning that life with negativity should be in fact not be discounted.
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.
The analogies of black people to fetus's is incorrect. Unless you are describing a fetus which is pigmentedly darkly, then it isn't a black person, but a black fetus.
This is . . . quite obtuse. Of course I am not saying that a fetus has to be black in order for this analogy to work. I am saying that, as a racist kills blacks on the basis they are a "lesser species" you are killing a fetus on the basis that it is not mentally capable.
Of course, this "lesser species" and "mentally developed" is all a smokescreen. Racists want to kill black people because they are black, not because they are actually a lesser species. The implications of what are doing is ageism. Discriminating against those who are extremely young.
==
Implications rebuttal
After a careful read of this section, I have finally figured it out. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume that you are making the argument that I have shown a fetus is a human being, but have failed to show that a human being is a moral category. In short, you are questioning the link between biological and moral. After all, it'll be lazy to prove that a fetus is a human being without showing why it's wrong to kill a human being. Keep this point in mind, it'll bite you back later.
==
Personhood continued
Now, I'm not going to go one about the definitional dispute we seem to have. 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. I'm not disputing the word doesn't exist, which is why I went on to rebut it. Nevertheless, I still maintain that personhood means nothing at all.
Before I get into rebutting the bulk of this section, it's worth noting that my opponent is yet to provide a definition of personhood. 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.
Regarding the DNA, my opponent stated the following
there is more than physical individuality to consider, the use of contending your use of it was to point out that you don't understand the argument being made.
This is interesting, because I remember your argument being that, and I quote, personhood is regarding something which is individual, as someone who is distinct. A fetus is certainly physically unique. 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 rebuttal
They agree in the same way someone being tortured "agrees" to share the information they are hiding.
Responsibility principle rebuttal
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.
Also, I find Con's "snippets" of the argument amusing in regards to it being a legal matter...
Nothing funny, just lawyers doing their thing. You then provide some context to "expose" the passage.
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.
It can serve as an excuse, but is it successful? Charles Manson’s family made that argument in court and failed. A law graduate stated that .
The reason is no one can compel another to commit a crime. The Prosecution would question why you did not try to defend yourself against the ones that threatened you. There are many excuses killers come up with without turning to Police for help. The proof that you had no choice in killing an innocent person would be nearly impossible.
Another criminal law graduate states that
In general, you cannot claim duress as a defence to a charge of murder. The law would prefer that you allow your own life to be taken rather than choosing to live at the cost of another's life.
Of course, the fact remains that states generally have found that killing someone else to avoid being killed is not a sufficient excuse for homicide.
it actually is technically legal to kill someone if you are threatened by them in certain situations
Very, very sneaky. A switch and a bait. This is in no way what I am saying. There is an unneglectable difference between killing that of whom is threatening your life, and killing a third party because your life is threatened. Of course, you are allowed to kill someone if they are threatening your life, but you are not allowed to kill a third party, even if your like is in danger. The case of self defense is not comparable to abortion. The case of abortion involves the killing of a completly innocent party of which had no choice in their murder.
==
Why personhood means nothing
In the earlier section, you pointed out the flaw in the classic pro-choice syllogism, being that I have made the assumption of biological and moral. Thes difficulties with the classic pro-life argument are well known and thought by many to beconclusive. The symmetrical difficulties with the classicpro-choice syllogism are not as well recognized. The premise is also subject tomoral relevance problems: Being a person is understoodby the pro-choicer as having certain psychologicalattributes. If the pro-choicer questions the connectionbetween the biological and the moral, the opponent ofabortion can question the connection between thepsychological and the moral. If one wishes to consider“person” a moral category, as is often done, then one isleft with no way of showing that the fetus is not aperson without begging the question.
Both pro-choicer and pro-lifers agree that it is obvious that it is wrongto kill us. Thus, a discussion of what it is about us thatmakes killing us not only wrong, but seriously wrong,seems to be the right place to begin a discussion of theabortion issue. This is where the FLO comes in. Unless my opponent can find a better theory for why murder is wrong, my argument stands.
==
Dropped points
I apologize for dropping these arguments. I was short on words and had to weigh which points were more important than the others.
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
Just so people are aware, this is akin to saying that you shouldn’t drive at all, since you're playing roulette with having a crash every time you do
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.
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 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.
==
Conclusion
My opponent has not rebutted my syllogism. For memories sake, it is the following,
Major premise. Abortion involves intentionally killing a human being, thusmaking it murder.
Minor premise. Abortion intentionally kills a human being.
Conclusion. Abortion is therefore murder.
My opponent had an issue with the first premise, which I swiftly rebutted. Thus far, this syllogism still stands.
All points regarding the FLO have been defended, thus the FLO still stands.
Round 5
Pro
#9
Introduction
Thank you Wagyu for the debate, time for the last round.
Thank you Wagyu for the debate, time for the last round.
First things first, I want to primarily use this round to sum up my points and the essential debate into itself, but before I do that I will briefly answer all of the "rebuttals" provided by Con in the previous round. I'll call this the "Lighting rebuttal round", simply put - we are going in circles - I don't think its productive to go into long elaborate responses anymore because its ultimately going to circle back round. Therefore, for both debaters sanity and the voters, I will only lightly touch each point.
Final Rebuttals Lightning Round
- FLO
Con claims that my observation that their argument is based on subjective value is incorrect, and has no idea where I got that implication:
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.
"Loss of future value", in what regard? I have yet to see you demonstrate that humans have any future value without personhood. Stop evading please.
Next Con claims, essentially, that they typically agree (that is someone has no "future" then killing them isn't wrong), but points out that if someone else is inflicting that on them, then it is the obligation of the other to stop.... where does your framework provide for that? People don't randomly torture others, they have an objective, and lots of times they have no other choice to fulfill that objective. Anyways, you have yet to prove this "value" exists for the torturer to be obligated to stop.
For clarity - Con is trying to establish why murder is wrong without personhood, I'm saying, this specific argument isn't cogent.
Next, Con conflates hypothetical and potential, two very different words:
3. It essentially hinges on "values" that are hypothetical and have not been demonstrated to exist objectivelyThe fact that the FLO hinges on future/potential value is an essential part of the theory
But beyond that they claim, as you may have noticed, that if the value isn't "potential" then you could argue that you could kill comatose people or depressed people or sleeping people... 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. The most important part, the one I've kinda glossed over, is that hypothetical and future/potential are not the same things.
Next, con tries to break up my "flo" and doesn't directly attack my arguments, instead stripping them of context and responding to little bites. Instead of playing Con's game I will simply requote my own argument, and refer it to as refutation to Con's arguments:
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.
Anyways lets get back to the point at hand shall we, more specifically the analogy of killing people because they are black, and terminating fetuses because they are "mentally incapable,", wrong, I said that terminating fetuses that cannot be taken out with surgery yet is fine, because the vast majority of fetuses that are terminated in that manner do not have personhood. Con has to prove that their some sort of other moral framework to appeal to that gives things moral weight.
- Implications
That's not a rebuttal, and no correct. Make a rebuttal please.
- Personhood
Oh yay, this again.
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
You are incorrect, factually, again.
Lexico, or the English and Spanish Oxford dictionary and thesaurus acknowledges Personhood as a word. This is dishonest framing stop it.
Con then claims:
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.
According to my opponent, the following are "all the same"1. Must value their well being in order to be considered a moral agent2. 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.
Nope, in fact I directly referenced one of those and explained why it was wrong last round too. Most of these are implications of the definition of personhood, not the actual definition, again, as I pointed out last round. Then they go on to say this:
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.
I'll lastly mention that they completely dropped most of this point, I'll mention that more in dropped points though.
- 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.
Funnily enough this is actually a false equivalence, furthermore it drops most of my argument, that simply "calling someone a bad name" is not coercion - that the level of "consent" from someone who is coerced is not the same as someone who freely agrees to something, which was my main point. If con can demonstrate the claim that all abortions are a result of, quote, "some irresponsible teen hitting up their druggo ex at a party", then maybe they deserve to win.
Then Con... goes on and on about a non-point. I was simply pointing out that Con had a dishonest framing, I wasn't saying that loophole was the main point... that was, my first source calling this coercion sex sexual assault on the impregnated, but also that the fetus has the moral right to undermine the impregnated's bodily autonomy as long as it needs, and that the opposite is based on several assumptions. But hey, if you want the entire point just actually read my rebuttals please.
Last little note here: this is all assuming abortion is murder, which I have neither granted, nor you proven Con.
- "why personhood means nothing"
So Con did a me and made a little sub-contention, very nice, very, nice, let's get into it - this lightning round isn't very lightning.
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.
Con misunderstands the entire underlying issue, and fails to properly explain why "personhood means nothing". They've pointed out that both sides can question the link between biological presence and moral presence... and yeah... I agree.... "Pro-lifers" arbitrarily declaring fetuses to have moral weight is begging the question, because they presume that the fetus is a human with full moral weight...
- Dropped points
Not as in the points that Con dropped in round 4, as in Con's response to the points I reminded them that they dropped.
Consequences of RapeThe consequences or rape or not as evil as killing an innocent person who did not choose to be killed
Demonstrate that claim - that rape isn't as evil as killing someone who didn't choose to die
Demonstrate that claim - that the person in question, a fetus, deserves moral weight
Teens and Fetus aren't synoymousI 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.
The Roulette Point of SexA 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.
This ignores my point, which was the point that you dropped in the first place, and one I've already dropped, not all sex is for the purpose of having children, in fact, a great deal of sex is purely recreational.... That was the entire point of the roulette question, this is essentially the same as dropping it!
- 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.
You told me to list one thing, the percentage of its happenings are irrelevant, and seeing as someone who is dead cannot feel any more suffering, but someone who had been raped continues to feel substantial, suicidal, painful, suffering, the claim isn't baseless at all.
Being TorturedA 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.
Having your body mutilated and forced to hold the resulting pregnancyAgain, this implies that, as all successful pregnancies end with the "mulitation of bodies", abortions till the point of birth should be allowed.
No but being sexually assaulted does. Also I never implied that this was even in reference to birth, I meant in general, it could apply to some though, never claimed or implied this was true of all pregnancies.
Dropped Arguments:
- Being Coerced into sex is considered sexual assault
- Extrapolation isn't a definition
- The entire implications response
Closing Statements
Voters and Con, thank you for your time and attention through this long and bumpy ride, I'll now sum up my points and reaffirm my argument. Number 1: Personhood is something that is at least not present in organism with barely formed parts of a brain, much less a brain, and the majority of abortion (some 90% of it), happen before the personhood would be in a fetus. Furthermore, the impregnated would not be at fault for defending their bodily autonomy from something they are not responsible for, that causes empirical harm, massive harm, to the impregnated. This defense is, by the way, half of the time a product of sexual assault.
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, but their evidence for such a claim has been lacking to say the least. I have firmly established my goal post- in the first round, and the argument which established that stopping the great potential suffering of a fetus which would be aborted and the happiness of the mother makes abortion moral. In contrast, Con has not fulfilled that burden.
Vote Pro.
Con
#10
Well that was all very interesting.
==
We have arrived to the last round of the debate. I would like to thank Theweakeredge for taking part with me in my very first debate on this website. It has been a intense one for sure. I will be using this round to rebut my opponents claims and then sum up the debate.
==
A final defence of the FLO
"Loss of future value", in what regard? I have yet to see you demonstrate that humans have any future value without personhood.
The FLO is not a characteristic. It is not like being a man, or being tall, it is a state of which someone can be in. To say that "I have yet to demonstrate that humans have a future value without personhood" is like saying you don't have future value because you are black. The present status of a human being does not effect the FLO, that is the very nature of the FLO. My opponent has baselessly claimed that individuals who do not have personhood cannot have an FLO. How is this even possible? The simple fact that all 7 billion people on planet earth have been a fetus and evidently possessed an FLO show that this logic is faulty.
For clarity - Con is trying to establish why murder is wrong without personhood, I'm saying, this specific argument isn't cogent.
Let's consider what my opponent is saying and then compare it to what the FLO claims to explain. The FLO claims that murder is wrong because it deprives a being of having a future like ours. My opponents only objection is that humans cannot have an FLO without personhood. This is clearly ridiculous. The very purpose of the FLO is that it is a criteria of which you can slot in any being to determine whether causing them harm is moral. The point is that you slot fetus into the equation and determine whether it has the capacity to enjoy a future like ours. To say that "no it doesn't have personhood" is to sidestep the whole theory.
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.
I had a grammatical stroke reading this sentence. Nevertheless, I will clarify this point to voters.
It is essential that the FLO relies on future goods. Why? If this theory were to hinge on present emotions, people who are suicidal and unconscious would be deemed killable. Why do we think it is right, if not morally obligatory for one to pull someone back from running onto train tracks even though they want to die? Because we believe that their judgment on their value is clouded and that they have a future like ours.
My opponent then claims that I have not rebutted their argument, and precede to lazily copy and paste their rebutted statement. The following is what they stated,
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.
As you can see, though I didn't copy and paste their whole segment and then rebut it, addressed the most important section being that my opponent believes that "Con is saying if there are no negative consequences, then death or more specifically murder is wrong" to which I replied
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.
If we inspect the original statement, we can see that the bulk of it has been rebutted. My opponent states "Con essentially says, any life with negativity would be discounted", which is completely false. Negativity does not mean that a life should be discounted, this is clearly contradictory to the FLO. The FLO shows that even though a life has negativity, it is ones ability to have a future like ours which makes discounting them immoral.
Hence, point dropped.
==
Implications
That's not a rebuttal, and no correct. Make a rebuttal please.
The implication has already been rebutted. I have stated that your link between psychological and moral is merely assumed.
==
Personhood
I don't understand what the issue is. I am not refusing to rebut the personhood argument, I am simply stating that the Meriam Webster and Oxford dictionary does not contain the word personhood. Note that lexico is different to oxford. Surely you know this.
it's worth noting that my opponent is yet to provide a definition of personhoodI'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.
This is extremely stubborn. You answer the question by avoiding it as a whole. You have merely shifted from one noun to another. Throughout this debate, you have not provided a clear criteria for what it means to be a person. To remind all, the following are all the goal posts that my opponent has used.
First you said the human being must value their well being in order to be considered a moral agent
Secondly, you said brain activity was necessary for a life to be considered worthy of personhood.
And finally you now say that you need to be mentally unique.
Admittedly, my opponent had the following to say.
Nope, in fact I directly referenced one of those and explained why it was wrong last round too.
Notice how there is no denying that their are multiple definitions in use. Nevertheless, my opponent attempts to hold onto definition 3, being unique.
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.
"In the manner I am referring to". If you communicated what you meant without making use of 3 definitions, maybe you wouldn't have referencing issues. The only issue I do not understand what you are referring to is because you are referring to too many things. You simply stated, a few rounds ago that, and I quote " personhood is regarding something which is individual, as someone who is distinct" to which you essentially reply "no no, that's not what I meant". Well, from what you have typed, this is exactly what you meant. The fact is that you believe a person is regarding someone who is distinct, and the fact is that I have shown that DNA is, in fact unique, a fact which should be indisputable. The only objection is you saying "damn he just doesn't get it"
==
Responsibility principle
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
Perhaps that wasn't the best example, though it does stand. Nevertheless I am still correct. Regarding the point on torture, a soldier giving information about their country chooses to give up the information. Even though they do not want to, and they are being forced, the fact is that the soldier, though unwillingly, still made a conscious choice to give the information up.
Nevertheless, as I have stated, this is a false equivalent. Though coercion is a real thing, it must be noted that their is a difference between torturing someone until they have sex with you, and the following
"have sex with me"
"no"
"yes"
"yes"
As the technical top synonym of coercion is persuasion, the equivalence that I have displayed is sound.
Last little note here: this is all assuming abortion is murder, which I have neither granted, nor you proven Con.
Hm that's odd, because I remember you ignoring my syllogism last round. Not only that, the last objection you had to my argument was all the way back in round 3, which I swiftly dissected. After that, you seemed to have went silent regarding my syllogism.
==
Why personhood means nothing defence
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?
You are far too deep in your personhood argument. Your whole argument essentially hinges on the fact that personhood is right. Your only objection to my argument is "well if there is no personhood, then you are wrong". To say that is to first make the assumption that personhood is a valid argument.
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.
But the question remains, why does brain activity equate to moral? The whole abortion debate is between these two competing syllogisms, being that pro-lifers believe all human beings ought to have moral rights, while pro-choicers believe that all persons ought to have moral rights. Let's assume for the sake of the argument that the pro choicers are right. A person has moral rights. The question remains, why do persons get moral rights? Why is killing a person wrong? The fundamental question of this debate shouldn't be about what a fetus is, but about why killing is wrong. You, for the duration of this debate, have not provided a single model for why murder is wrong.
Note that saying "murder is wrong because it involves the killing of a person" isn't valid. To say that murder is wrong because a being has a particular feature very similar to racism. I am allowed to kill people of a certain race because of their physical appearance. Very similar I am allowed to kill this fetus because of it's lack of development".
==
Dropped points..?
Consequences of RapeThe consequences or rape or not as evil as killing an innocent person who did not choose to be killed1. Demonstrate that claim - that rape isn't as evil as killing someone who didn't choose to die2. Demonstrate that claim - that the person in question, a fetus, deserves moral weight
1. What is there to demonstrate? I trust that the moral compasses of voters will see that being raped is much worse than killing a completely innocent part of which had no choice in their death. This is very similar to the usual objection to the turning the trolley example (kill 1 save 5), where the example of "would you push a fat man on the tracks to save 5 people, whilst killing one" is used. What do we think? Should we push the unknowing man over or should someone have to endue rape. Both are horrendous situations, but to kill a man who doesn't even know what is about to happen to them? Come on.
2. I have already done so with the FLO. A fetus is capable of having a FLO.
Teens and Fetus aren't synoymousI 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.
Note that my opponent still does not rebut the studies shown which clearly state that a fetus is in fact a human being.
Regarding the roulette of sex / purpose of sex, my opponent states that
not all sex is for the purpose of having children,
My opponent is clearly conflating the words purpose and intent. Though it is true that people can intend not to have children when having sex, it is impossible to change the biological fact that the purpose of sex is for having children. As I have already stated, an action does not become less evil even if the intent is not evil, for your intent/vision may be clouded. If I were to drive around shooting a machine gun out the window, I can certainly say that "I didn't intend to hit them, not my fault they got in the way". This is the same as abortion. You can say that you didn't intend to have children, but that biological fact is that what you are physically doing is an action of which a human being the result.
==
Question
Being TorturedA 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.
Your logic is that holding, incubating and birthing a fetus is torture, therefore abortion should be an option. This would imply that if I had a 9 month fetus I don't want, I should have the right to abort it as, after all, I wouldn't want to hold, incubate and birth a fetus, would I? Unless you are supporting 9 month abortions, then this point isn't really good.
Your personal want does not allow you to commit murder. Keep that in mind.
==
Conclusion
And we have arrived to the end. If there are really any voters reading this then damn, that's some real dedication.
Throughout this debate, I feel that my opponent has taken control of the whole narrative. It became not an abortion debate, but a debate regarding if my opponent is right. Some of my points (in particular my syllogism which has been completely dropped by my opponent) were ignored.
Nevertheless I shall sum up the debate and reaffirm my position.
I have posed 2 arguments. The first being my syllogism, and the second being the FLO. My first has been completely dropped by my opponent and the second has been poorly rebutted. I will recap them here.
The syllogism is as follows.
p1 Abortion involves intentionally killing a human being, thus making it murder.
p2 Abortion intentionally kills a human being.
c1 Abortion is therefore murder
Again, this has not been contested.
The FLO is simple. Murder is wrong because it deprives a being of a future like ours. If you slot in fetus, you will find that they do in fact have the possibility at a future like ours.
I have demonstrated why my model of why murder is wrong by utilising example, such as how the FLO accounts for why suicidal people should be saved, why euthanasia is moral and why unconscious people deserve to live.
My opponent has not been able to pose any meaningful objections to this account of why murder is wrong. They have only said "but a fetus isn't a person" which shows that the FLO is not fully understood by my opponent. Again, the very point of the FLO is for you to slot in a being and test whether killing it is wrong.
In my opponent's closing statement, they have asserted some hilarious things.
Con hasn't even successfully established that murder is wrong,
Clearly, this shows that the purpose of the FLO isn't even understood by my opponent. I will like to note that my opponent has not once even given their account for why murder is wrong. If you were to truly adopt the absurd "personhood" argument, it would be morally unjustifiable to kill a person who will forever be in a coma. Furthermore, in the eyes of the personhood argument, there is no difference between euthanasia and murder, as both involve the technical termination of a human life. The personhood argument does not allow someone who is suffering incurable and extreme pain to die, an absurd policy.
they have tried to assert that personhood is meaningless, but have presented no compelling argument so
This too is false. I have demonstrated and admitted the issues with both the pro-choice and pro life argument, being that an assumption has to be made in order for either to be successful. My opponent states that brain activity is the sign for personhood, however, the link between phycological and moral is merely assumed. In order for my opponent to be correct, they must prove that brain activity marks the start of a moral being, a remarkably difficult task. For you to rightly question the link between biological and moral, I can surely do the same to you.
furthermore, it is evidently true that it is personhood that makes murder wrong.
The lethal flaw with this is that personhood is a physical characteristic. To pin your morals on a physical characteristic is dangerous, in fact, the segregation of "possessing brain activity" and "not possessing brain activity" is very much like racists claiming that people of colour do not posses a certain physical characteristic. If I were to say "only white people are people", one would surely follow up by asking "why". My opponent has essentially done the first half and not the second. They have asserted that personhood is what makes murder wrong, without justifying their claim.
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,
The abortion debate has revolved too much into the territory of the mother and away from the second human being in the scenario. Though it is certainly not an ideal situation to carry a baby you do not want, I'm sure voters will agree that killing a separate party of whom had no choice in their execution if far worse of a moral crime. Again, to deny this is to say that, regarding the trolley problem, you should push the fat man over to, not even save 5 lives, but to prevent a rape from occurring. Sure, some may sacrifice their life to save one from such an experience, but to make this literal life and death choice for the baby is just not moral.
To those who have read the entire 25 000 words worth of this debate, I commend you. Those very same people should also know who has won this debate.
Sincerely,
Wagyu,
3/02/2021
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
I initially wasn't going to vote on this, but skimming it I spotted con multiple times falling back on arguing in favor of random murders as a strawman to pro's case...
There is a lot to unpack here... Pro argues 13 weeks, con counters that the brain structures start to form earlier, pro points out that it's only the start to formation not actual function, and con rebuts with a repeat that the brain structures start to form earlier.
I do like pro's simple syllogism of people valuing their well being, so should value that in others. Since this is a philosophy debate instead of a politics or science one, it's a decent starting point for morals. Sadly, as he admits, con does not understand the relevance.
I found con's offered syllogism to be immediately unsound due to being circular (it could easily be condensed to "(abortion=murder) x 3".
I liked the "A potential economic contributor" of sperm cells bit, but mostly as comedy. Con was able to easily show there being valid differences. Con ended up losing ground on this when he declared somewhat counter-intuitively "a teen and a fetus are exactly the same." ... And wow, pro brought it back with complex DNA stuff using con's own source to show that the sperm was just an earlier state of the human being con argues is murdered. Somehow at the end con argued we shouldn't care about the physical differences, when that very notion was vital to rejecting the absurdity of every sperm is sacred.
The main weakness I'm actually seeing in con's case is that he takes it for granted that the audience wholly buys that abortion is the murder of a person, so tries to levage having already won in a circular fashion. Con gets better with tying things to suffering, but pro is swiftly able to show that the fetus is not made to suffer whereas the woman seeking an abortion would, and the loss of future value was preempted with the whole potentialities argument (including that 50% end in miscarriages anyway, taking a lot of the intended bite out of this point).
Sources: Tied.
I got to say, do be careful on sources. "The short answer is no." one literally points that duress is a valid legal defense.
Conduct: Tied
There were some ugly bits with implying the other side condones racist genocide, but not enough to greatly distract from the debate.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Superb debate - never read anything better on this topic. Both sides made excellent arguments, used reliable sources, and did not use bad conduct.
Yes, my personal bias points to CON being the victor, and I feel like CON's arguments were more convincing overall. However, the expanded resolution in the description was not decisively proven incorrect by CON - since he never challenged the syllogism of PRO. On the contrary, PRO managed to defend his position, although not prove it to be better than PRO's FLO. Since there was no problem with the arguments or style they used, I will need to grant the vote based on the position as a whole, not the individual arguments. In the end, it came down to PRO's grand strategy being more efficient than CON's superior tactics.
IN CONCLUSION, CON WON THE BATTLES BUT PRO WON THE WAR.
Here is the whole RDF:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xZIPOyfYgWlECs2pz5xwhu6ktk-1qnGud-TTAeie2oY/edit
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
By the end of the debate, it’s clear that con only holds onto his future value argument. He loses Grasp in his arguments that the traits of the fetus are human, and instead relies on the idea that the fetus may or may not have value. However, even though pro did not outright mention that not all fetus will become human, he made the point that the personhood is arbitrary and that the murdering of man being a crime already supposed they earn their personhood or humanity. Con, I need to see you connect the ideas together. If you weigh responsibility combined with future value then you tell voters that some babies will indeed become human, even if the vast majority do not. Yes, you tell us that murder is unjust, but pro also has coercion on his side, with self defense backing his case. He managed to clarify why it is different from someone forcing you to kill someone: the mother’s liberty is actively being oppressed by the baby as a consequence unrelated to her. I need con to tell me exactly why this future value matters. I buy that a person can have great contribution, but the fetus is far more ambiguous. Make me see that our responsibility to raise the fetus combined with the eventual birth will deprive of the freedom pro vouched for and the value of human we asked for. And pro, try to latch onto this and mention that abortion could be related to crime (as some studies show). The poverty issue means that the future value even if accepted is severely reduced, forcing con’s argument to lose a lot of impact. It’s true that he didn’t 100% soundly connect his future value case, but a concise summarizing discussion could very well turn it around and defeat your case. Be sure to tell us why future value is contradictory, because con was just one sentence away from linking FLO to matching the human value.
"To those who have read the entire 25 000 words worth of this debate, I commend you. Those very same people should also know who has won this debate.
Sincerely,
Wagyu,
3/02/2021"
Those words didn't age well, I did enjoy the debate though, it was a solid one and helped me really get a concrete grasp on how I want to debate for now on. I'm sure that you noticed I kinda switched it up - it was very eh. I am happy I got back from my first loss... jeez that was a while ago, now that I've "avenged" that one, on to my second lost debate, woo boy.
Hope never dies.
Someone could still report it. I was just curious so skimmed it.
A vote of mine doesn't get reported, yay : )
"It is a small vote for Theweakeredge but a giant leap for Benjamin".
Glanced at your vote. I have to agree with you that con would have done much better had he not delayed the FLO argument until so late.
it should be fixed now
I can't access the link
Thank you for writing such a brilliant debate.
Excellent work both of you. I have never read a better or more objective debate on this topic. I will cast a vote when I finish reading it.
Excellent work. My vote might seem short but I read the debate. I take it that con dropped the majority of the scientific personhood argument since he never brought it up again. I’m happy to clarify any part of my vote. This was not easy— pro had a lot of sugar, but FLO had some reasoning behind it, even if not connected perfectly to the problems of abortion.
No problemo, this is the second debate on abortion for me - thanks for the opportunity to see if I had improved. Good debate.
A very intense first debate for me. Thx for the opportunity.
Funny thing is, whenever I first made the argument I completely forgot to use the "is it right to force an impregnated person to support a fetus, because it isn't right to force someone to give someone else blood" thing, though I did touch on it in my responsibility principle.
if you are becoming frustrated with the length of the debate and think things are going in circles, you can both agree to just give a brief summary of points for R5 and call it a day.
naise
You COULD use it that way, but there are some clear differences I think in context.
The further I read pro, the further I feel your VR argument justifies abortion. What if the combination of uncertainty and proportionality overcome the baby’s potential life? People feared that Britain’s taxation and “oppression” would lead to their lives lost (or freedom equivalent to their lives), despite nearly no chance of that. If VR was justified despite the uncertainty of the worst scenario, isn’t abortion even more justified, because the baby’s personhood is even more uncertain than the “taxation=oppression”?
That’s kind of underhanded of you because FLO is one of the big arguments once personhood falls apart. FLO doesnt really work here unless you combine it with proportionality because otherwise you infer that even self defense is immoral. I will leave pro to tear down the rest.
I am, and I'm a little frustrated that you never responded to the core part of my argument regarding the Possibility Fallacy, or even my bit about semi-conservative DNA replication, which was a core rebuttal, and I SOURCED PERSONHOOD FROM LEXICO. What? How are you still insisting that personhood doesn't exist?
Anyone still following this very intense debate?
Firstly I would recommend reading the entire debate before trying your hand at offering, second I would recommend not giving advice at all - as its unfair to the other side. I'm grateful, but I refuse to use such a pedantic argument whenever there are much strong arguments to use, not to mention I don't need to prove all abortion, just the majority of it moral.
I only read the first few rounds, but did you try a rebuttal to fetus being human being on a definition basis? As in accept that the cells have life but not under the classification of human being: "a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens". As child/baby/infant by definition all refer to someone born (thus, a fetus does not fall under this definition) it becomes incorrect to refer to a fetus as a child/baby/infant/human/etc.
I do think the personhood argument is strong, though it only applies to the first 13 weeks rather than all of pregnancy.
I mean, that is the debate, lol
I disagree with the way you use the word.
You disagree with the dictionary definition of a term?
The disagree with what the source says.
You disagree that I clearly listed a source and told you that I had?
oh yeah, fair call, my mistake. Nevertheless, I respectfully disagree.
You said I hadn't sourced it.... it was in my list of definitions in my first round.
I guess I'll see what you mean. Did I misrepresent your claim about personhood? I remember clearly quoting you exactly on the second line of my debate...
Don't get me wrong, it hasn't deterred a response, and I am pruning it to make sure my claims are sourced, and making sure I didn't miss anything, but still - its just a little frustrating whenever something that has been clarified in the debate and the comments, such as my source for the definition of personhood, comes into one of your contentions as a negative spot against me.
damn
You know, the pure level of misrepresentation throughout your round has got me a little frustrated, not gonna lie.
Got it.
says right there 56% women are coerced into sex for the first time (https://www.wellandgood.com/verbal-coercion-first-time-having-sex/#:~:text=A%20study%20published%20Tuesday%20by,having%20sex%20the%20first%20time.)
Wagyu, all of my claims are hyperlinked. All you have to do is go to the first round and find where I claimed it, from there, just click the annotated number directly beside it.
Where did you get the 50 percent of sex was coerced number from? Could you provide the link? I've been fishing around and wanted to see exactly what your source says.
Ah, good rebuttal. I feel this will be a good debate
stronk
stronk argument. Nicely done
Good stuff.
Thanks! And no worries, Its already pretty far into development, I'm doing some tying up and summations currently, well not right now right now, but I'm around there writing it.
Just reminding you the your argument is due in under two days! I'm in no way rushing you, just making sure it doesn't slip past your diary.
"which brings in another moral dilemma, is self-defense justified when someone is doing something but they do not know they are doing it, nor are they controlling themselves?"
Good question. According to the Responsibility-Sensitive Account, if you're being targeted by someone who is not responsible for their actions, you can only respond with a severity similar to their non-consensual acts.
For example, if you were mind-controlled and trying to stab me with a knife, I'd probably defend myself with similarly lethal force for my own and others' sakes... and that would be OK. In the context of abortion, there is really no way to "defend" from having a child against your will other than to kill it, send it to an orphanage, or throw it on the street to be picked up by whoever. All of those are questionable, but the orphanage option is at least acceptable to most people. Obviously the other two are highly immoral.
If you wanted to use the proportionality arg for abortion, you'd have to drop the Responsibility-Sensitive Account and adopt a utilitarian model. Then, you would probably do well to argue that the fetus does not have the same value as a human person (although the innate value of lost potential remains) which allows you to argue that the requirement for proportionality is therefore less strict and the killing is justified. You could do this by really stressing some of the societal consequences of banning abortion.
Of course, as with any utilitarian arg, there are big problems... but if you can defend the model, you'll be in a good spot.
ahhh, that's a good point too. Because of lack of responsibility, the Pro VR argument falls just a little bit short of completely winning abortion. You could of course, do a "people are wise" kind of thing like you did and say "people will only abort when the oppression is so bad it is as if someone responsible was abusing them!"
... which brings in another moral dilemma, is self-defense justified when someone is doing something but they do not know they are doing it, nor are they controlling themselves? Even if similar to VR where citizens take the risk that the government is oppressive, it's not like the government is just stupidly oppressing them with no idea -- unlike the baby sleeping in the woman's body. Undefeatable's point about the American revolution being ridiculous with "Taxation without representation" is also difficult compared to abortion, as Abortion is only one single woman convinced she is correct, while the revolution has to be a consensus among a group of people to commit the violence, which inherently has a higher barrier to bypass the proportionality of danger.
"you know, the comparison to intentions and the idea of self defense gives me deja vu with MisterChris's argument in favor for violent revolution (even in potentially non violently oppressive scenarios) -- https://www.debateart.com/debates/2637-resolved-violent-revolution-is-a-just-response-to-political-oppression. It's an interesting link between different ideas. I'm curious if Pro would successfully be able raise the same idea as supporting a VR as supporting an abortion. Just fruit for thought."
PRO could make that argument, but of course, the Responsibility-Sensitive Account of Proportionality isn't an excuse to do whatever you want if you feel inconvenienced. There has to be a certain severity to the sustained transgressions to justify violent response, and I think it's fairly evident that severity is not even close to being reached in the case of abortion. There is also the explicit exception to the rule that applies when the oppressive party is not responsible for their oppression: "In contrast, someone who is addicted to pinching, call her the Addicted Pincher, and as such is much less responsible for posing a threat, may not be subjected to harms greater than pinching itself.” As the child is not responsible for its existence (which you would claim is the oppressive act), there should be no harm done to it.
you know, the comparison to intentions and the idea of self defense gives me deja vu with MisterChris's argument in favor for violent revolution (even in potentially non violently oppressive scenarios) -- https://www.debateart.com/debates/2637-resolved-violent-revolution-is-a-just-response-to-political-oppression. It's an interesting link between different ideas. I'm curious if Pro would successfully be able raise the same idea as supporting a VR as supporting an abortion. Just fruit for thought.
No problem. I usually use as much time as I need, but this time, the word count ticked away before time did.
Definitely an interesting argument, I'll get into my next round shortly then, probably a couple of days for school and all.