Instigator / Pro

Bones

1761

rating

debates

95.16%

won

Topic

#3226

THBT: Abortion is, on balance, immoral.

Status

Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics

Better arguments

Better sources

Better legibility

Better conduct

After 3 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...

Bones

Tags

Philosophy

Parameters

Publication date: 09.13.2021 12:01PM
Last updated date: 02.08.2022 05:10PM
Type: Standard
Number of rounds: 3
Time for argument: One week
Max argument characters: 7,500
Voting period: One month
Point system: Multiple criterions
Voting system: Open

Contender / Con

Benjamin

1774

rating

debates

77.55%

won

Description

THBT: Abortion is, on balance, immoral.

BoP:
Bones = Abortion is, on balance, immoral.
Contender = Abortion is, on balance, moral.

Definition:
Abortion = a procedure to end a pregnancy. It uses medicine or surgery to remove the embryo or fetus and placenta from the uterus.
Moral = A behaviour, conduct, or topic that is based on valid principles and/or foundations

RULES:
1. No Kritik.
2. No new arguments are to be made in the final round.
3. The Burden of Proof is shared.
4. Rules are agreed upon and are not to be contested.
5. Sources can be hyperlinked or provided in the comment section.
6. Be decent.
7. A breach of the rules should result in a conduct point deduction for the offender.

Round 1

Bones

09.13.2021 12:51PM

Pro

Thx for accepting this debate

Contention I: Inconsequential differences

The lives of newborn children are protected by the law. The lives of fetuses are not. This inductively suggests that there is some point between conception and birth that conveys moral agency. However, a comparison of fetuses and newborns reveals that their differences are not so drastic, in fact, they only differ in the four categories; size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency. Let us inspect each of these differences. It should be clear that size is not a good criterion for converting rights. Smaller people are no more or less human than those who are bigger. Fetuses are smaller than newborns, just as newborns are smaller than toddlers, just as toddlers are smaller than adults, yet no one argues that the killing of a baby is more justified than the killing of a toddler. What about level of development? It is true to say that fetuses are less developed than newborns, however, it is unclear why this is morally significant. Children are generally less developed than adults yet this does not mean that children are morally inferior to their parents. Some people with developmental disabilities are also less developed than children, yet society never argues that these conditions are a reason for them to be executed. Environment does not seem to be a satisfactory answer either. Where someone lives surely has nothing to do with the essence of who someone is. Just as how moving from the garage to the bedroom does not affect one's moral worth, moving from inside the womb into the delivery room shouldn’t either. The last difference between a fetus and a newborn is degree of dependency. Pro-choicers often state "as a fetus is reliant on a separate entity, it has no serious right to life”. However, this argumentation can be applied to all human beings. No person isn’t reliant on some external entity, whether it is food, water, or oxygen, it just so happens that fetuses are also dependent on their mothers. Fetuses which rely on an umbilical cord in the womb should be as human as those who rely on a feeding tube outside the womb. Thus, it can be seen that the differences between a fetus and a newborn are nonconsequential. There is no stage between conception and birth that allows for people to prescribe moral agency. It appears that the only appropriate time to establish the rights of a human is the moment it comes into existence, i.e conception.

Contention II: Scientific testimony

The argument from scientific data takes the form of the following syllogism.

P1: Murder involves the intentional killing of a human being.

P2: A fetus is a human being

C1: Abortion is murder.

Ergo. Abortion is immoral.

Premise 1 is true via tautology. Almost all recognised sources stipulate that murder is the killing of a human being. [1][2][3][4][5]

The second premise is true via medical testimony. A survey found that 97 percent of biologists agree that human life begins at fertilization. Furthermore, consider the following individual sources.

"Human development begins at fertilization… when a sperm fuses with an oocyte to form a single cell, the zygote... marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual."

- The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 10th edition.

"Development begins with fertilization, the process by which the male gamete, the sperm, and the female gamete, the oocyte, unite to give rise to a zygote."

- Langman’s Medical Embryology, 13th edition.

“Human life begins at fertilization”

- The developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition

Thus the conclusion follows. Abortion is murder.

Contention III: Uncertainty principle

Advocates of abortion are not onboard with the above conclusion. Though they admit that fetuses are human-beings, they argue that there is a distinction between the terms human-being and a human-person. A human-being, they say, is simply a Homo sapien whilst a human-person is someone deserving of human rights. The term used to describe this transition of rights is known as personhood. The first observation that can be made is that this term has no bearing on the scientific world. Unlike terms such as human-being which can be objectively studied, the term personhood seems to have been conjured up with the sole purpose of justifying abortion. It hasn’t come from scientific observations, nor does it further our understanding of biology. Its lack of a scientific foundation renders it discardable via Occam's razor, which stipulates that entities should not be multiplied without necessity. As our understanding of biology and embryology function perfectly without personhood, the word is nothing more than an ontological burden. Moreover, even if the term personhood were granted as legitimate, there are still difficulties in using it in practice. As alluded to above, the metrics for measuring personhood are indistinct and inconsistent. Take, for example, Mary Warren’s personhood criteria;

Consciousness
Reasoning
Self-motivated activity
The capacity to communicate
Self-awareness

The existence of temporarily unconscious people who are most certainly deserving of human rights nullifies all 5 criteria. However, even if these criteria were sound, there is no way to say for certain that abortion does not kill a human being, as assessed by Ms. Warren. How exactly can one know for certain that a being has acquired the ability to reason? How can you say for certain that a being has consciousness?

One fact that both pro-lifers and pro-choicers can agree on is that in order for abortion to be justified, there must be absolute certainty that it does not murder a human person. Peter Kreeft, a professor of philosophy at Boston College, points out that there are only four possibilities concerning abortion and personhood. They are as follows:

The fetus is a person and this is known.
The fetus is a person and this is not known.
The fetus is not a person and this is not known.
The fetus is not a person and this is known.

The ramification of abortion in each of these situations are:

You have intentionally killed a human being.
You have unintentionally killed a human being
You have intentionally risked killing a human being.
You have done nothing wrong.

Notice how all the above scenarios either involve criminal activity or are simply impossible. Scenario 1 is plain first-degree murder. Scenario 2 is akin to shooting toxic chemicals into a building which you believe, wrongly so, that there is no one in. Scenario 3 is comparable to fumigating a building without knowing whether there are residents inside. Scenario 4, as aforementioned is the only morally permissible situation however is impossible to recreate in reality, due to the indistinct measurements used to assess personhood. As it is there is no way to determine with absolute certainty that abortion does not kill a person, abortion at best requires its adherence to commit criminal negligence, and at worst is 1st-degree murder. Thus, as established by the uncertainty principle and Occam's razor, the term personhood is not sufficient in justifying abortion.

Benjamin

09.17.2021 02:31PM

Con

Thank you, Bones.

RESOLUTION: THBT: Abortion is, on balance, immoral.

POSITION: CON

CORRECT DEFINITIONS:

Many keywords were used by PRO without an adequate definition, or with a misleading definition. Allow me to provide official cambridge definitions:

Morality: a set of personal or social standards for good or bad behaviour and character

Immoral: morally wrong, or outside society's standards of acceptable, honest, and moral behaviour

Human being: a person

Person: a man, woman or child

Child: a boy or girl from the time of birth until he or she is an adult

Murder: the crime of intentionally killing a person

Notice how this definition rightfully states that for a killing to be considered "murder", it must be a crime, hence legal killings aren't murder (a fact which even PRO's source affirms and that he conveniently leaves out). This means that self-defence, war, abortion and legal executions are not murder; PRO's misleading definition of "murder" did not draw these elementary and essential distinctions.

INTRODUCTORY

Notice how PRO failed to provide a moral framework in R1, rendering his philosofical definition of morality totally useless. I have presented the official cambridge definition instead, and it leads us to the logical conclusion that the very definition of an immoral act is one that society cannot morally accept. This defeats PRO's entire argument unless it can be proven that our society does not accept abortion. I will still repply to PRO's arguments though. Importantly though, the definitions PRO used were all unsourced, extremely broad and terribly inaccurate; so it is mine that should be the basis for this debate.

PRO has not provided any valid moral framework with which one can judge abortion immoral. In fact, he presented no "valid set of principles" at all. Without such a foundation his argument is incomplete. Even if we accept that abortion is murder (by his twisted definition), he has made no attempt at proving that murder is immoral, neither gennerally nor in the specific context of abortion. With no explantion as to how abortion is immoral, PRO's BoP is not fullfilled.

SCIENTIFIC TESTEMONY DEBUNKED:

P1: Murder involves the intentional killing of a human being.
P2: A fetus is a human being
C1: Abortion is murder.
Ergo. Abortion is immoral.

The first premise is a cherry-picked and misleading defintion, and the second premise is purely semantical, not scientific. The usage of the word "human being" with different meaning in p1 and p2 amounts to a logical fallacy of equivocation. Proving that a zygote or fetus is a member of the species homo sapiens in a biological sense does not at all translate logically into evidence for the claim that it has moral value; not to mention moral priority above a suffering woman. Even if we ignore this glaring fallacy, and accept the claim that a fetus is a human being, claiming that killing it is immoral is still a fallacy of composition. Just because some or even most humans have moral value does not mean that every human has the same moral value. Instead of rellying on such fallacies, PRO must provide evidence supporting the claim that fetuses specifically have moral value. This would require a moral framework -- which PRO unfortunately hasn't provided yet.

UNCERTAINTY ARGUMENT DEBUNKED:

PRO claims that the "personhood" of a fetus is uncertain, which is a purely semantical argument. There really isn't any important gap in our knowledge regarding a fetus, the only uncertainty is a semantical battle over what "personhood" means. Applying a precise definition to the word would render PRO's argument invalid. But lets move on. He argues that an action is immoral as long as it has any chance of harming a person.

in order for abortion to be justified, there must be absolute certainty that it does not murder a human person

Right of the bat we can see that this claim has no source or authority behind it, thus it is indifferent from a mere opinion. On closer inspection this claim has disturbing and absurd implications. Driving, coughing, policing and performing surgery would all be deemed immoral as they all bring a risk of harming a person directly or indirectly, intentionally or unintentionally. Heck, since pregnancy and childbirth is potentially dangerous or lethal to the mother, it would be immoral to deny an abortion. These absurd and contradictory conclusions arrived at by following PRO's line of reasoning show us that the argument is fundamentally flawed; and should be dismissed. Uncertainty about the results of an action does not automatically render it immoral. Hence, the argument from uncertanty is defeated.

INCONSEQUENTIAL DIFFERENCES DEBUNKED:

There is no stage between conception and birth that allows for people to prescribe moral agency.

My opponent concluded that we should asign moral value at conception. If we are to accept his claim, the single celled zygote should have the same moral value as a fully grown adult, yet the two gametes that formed it had no value whatsoever. PRO advocates for the same thing that he critizises. He he only wants the line to be drawn at conception instead of at birth. This is nothing short of blatant hypocrisy.

Consider the following logical syllogism:

IF moral value is not based on objective standards (like size, development and dependency), THEN it is arbitrary and subjective
PRO claims that moral value is not based on objective standards (since a fetus is claimed to have the same value as an adult)
Therefore, PRO indirectly claims that moral value is arbitrary and subjective

If morality is arbitrary, society can asign or deny moral value to anyone or anything, and it would be equally valid.

The legal rights of the newborn

My opponent argues that newborn children are protected by law; implying that killing them is immoral. He then proceedes to equate the moral value of a fetus to that of a newborn. The logical fallacy here is self-contradiction. If the law sets moral standards, then abortion is moral since the law supports it[1]; but if it isn't, then the legal rights of newborns doesn't prove their moral value. The argument defeats itself either way, whether or not the law represents morality is irrelevant.

Consequential differences between people and fetuses

PRO claims that the traits of an entity should not affect its moral value. This claim is simply wrong. Adults and children have different moral rights and responsibilities. And even though a chimpanzee has nearly identical DNA to humans, PRO would never argue that a chimpanzee zygote has the same moral value as a person; yet he rushes to state that a human fetus has the same moral value as a person. The little differences apparently matter a lot, even to PRO. And that is okay. Morality is in both theory and practice the way rational beings treat other rational beings. Different beings have different value based on their traits --- specifically their mental traits. Significant moral value cannot be held by a fetus because it simply lacks the mental capacity and personal identity.

We know that mental growth and personal development is a process. That is why we protect the newborn as birth is the beginning of personal development. The crucial difference that PRO forgot to mention was interaction with the world. A newborn is able to have a different physical location than their mother, and is able to learn and develop a unique personality. A fetus is directly infringing on the uncontested right of women to have bodily autonomy and medical liberty. Pregnancy and birth will cause pain, stress and even death in some cases. Unfortunate events like rape and seduction are not uncommon, which only magnifies the tragic nature of unwanted pregnancies; especially for teenagers. So while a fetus is actively hurting a women yet does not have any of the traits that separates humans from animals, the baby is already born into this world, and is actively devoping rationalle and self-consciousness.

There are a lot of differences between a fetus and a newborn, and even more between a newborn and the "on balance" aborted fetus. PRO argued that we can't disprove that a fetus has consciousness (well, we can't excactly with a rock either); but it is upon the maker of claims to bring evidence. Unless PRO can prove that a fetus has self-consciousness and alike, the known moral value of a fetus is minimal.

CONCLUSION:

The still unproven moral value of fetuses is just too ambiguous and miniscule to overcome women's undisputed right to bodily autonomy and medical liberty. Remember, as long as an action hasn't been proven to be immoral it must be considered moral. It is PRO's burden to prove logically why it is morally wrong to not carry on a pregnancy.

Round 2

Bones

09.21.2021 05:23AM

Pro

Thx Benjamin.

Affirmation:

Inconsequential differences

If we are to accept his claim, the single celled zygote should have the same moral value as a fully grown adult, yet the two gametes that formed it had no value whatsoever.

I object - my claim was never that a fetus was morally equivalent to a fully grown adult, I am suggesting that it is at least deserving of the rights not to be killed. My opponent conflates the question "is it more moral to kill an adult or fetus" with "should we allow the desires of adults to kill fetuses". Though fetuses are not synonymous with adults, this doesn't mean that they do not have a right to life.

PRO advocates for the same thing that he criticizes. He he only wants the line to be drawn at conception instead of at birth. This is nothing short of blatant hypocrisy.

Unfortunately, the inconsequential differences argument cannot be applied to conception, as coming together of a sperm and oocyte is scientifically recognised as the beginning of a human life. Unlike the arbitrary definitions which pro-choicers use to assign personhood, the scientific community is in harmony in its belief that human life begins at fertilization. Though my opponent can say that this too is mere opinion of scientists, it cannot be denied that this is at worst still a far more accurate claim than that of Mary Warren.

My opponent then provides a syllogism, which I believe fails in premise 2.

PRO claims that moral value is not based on objective standard

I do believe morals are based on objective standards, the standard I selected was fertilization, as it is the scientifically recognised standard for when human life begins. Objectively, one can make observations about when fertilization occurs. However, one cannot make these observations for factors such as consciousness and reasoning.

Scientific testimony

CON asserts that my p1 is misleading and specifically takes issue with legality. I must note that asserting "abortion is moral because it is legal" is like asserting "slavery was moral whenever it was legal". The whole purpose of this debate is to discuss whether abortion is moral, with myself taking issue with anything which dictates otherwise, law or not. Moreover,is a purely semantic point which can be easily adjusted. Consider the following revised syllogism.

p1. If abortion is killing and it is unjustified, it is unjustified killing.

p2. Abortion involves killing.

p3. Abortion is unjustified.

c1. Abortion is unjustified killing.

Ergo. Abortion is immoral.

p1.

This should be uncontroversial.

p2.

According to 96% of biologists, human life begins at fertilization. To kill is to deprive of life. Abortion kills.

p3.

When assessing whether a form of killing is moral, people investigate the reasons for why people kill and consider if they are valid. Self defence can be justified because we believe that one's right to defend themselves against a life threatening aggressor allows them to kill to their assailant. This naturally leads to the question, do the reasons for abortion trump one's life? According to the Guttmacher institute the two most common reasons for having abortions were"having a baby would dramatically change my life" and "I can't afford a baby now" (cited by 74% and 73%, respectively). Obviously, if I were to kill my 1 month old child on the grounds that "I can't afford him", this defence would do next to nothing in court.

c1.

As the resolution of this debate requires that I prove abortion, on balance, to be wrong, and, on balance, the reasons for having an abortion do not justify killing, abortion is not moral.

Uncertainty principle

Applying a precise definition to the word would render PRO's argument invalid.

The entire point of this argument is that there is no precise definition you can give, as the differences between a fetus and newborn are nonconsequential - they cannot be used to convert moral agency. I highlighted all the differences (my opponent can add to the list if they wish) between a fetus and newborn and concluded that none of them could reasonably convert personhood.

...performing surgery would all be deemed immoral as they all bring a risk of harming a person directly or indirectly, intentionally or unintentionally.

Unfortunately, this is a false equivocation on two accounts.

Things such as surgery are allowed because the risk is considered, weighed and accepted by the person affected.

In all surgeries, patients (the person affected) sign a form indicating that they accept the potential dangers of surgery. Key term - the person affected. Abortion does not allow for the person affected to accept being aborted.

Not all surgeries involve in death, the mortality is negligible. Abortion however involves death in all circumstances. There isn't a single abortion in the world which did not involve in the termination of a fetus.

Rebuttals

CON attempts to identify consequential differences. From what I can identify, the following are the examples CON provide. (For clarity sake, I would appreciate if CON can provide a syllogistic formulation or a clear indication of what they believe the consequential difference is. What is it that makes the killing of a newborn wrong, and the killing of a fetus right?)

1. An infant

1.1 is able to have a different physical location than their mother
1.2 is able to learn and develop a unique personality.

2. A fetus

2.1 is directly infringing on the womens body.

3. The process of pregnancy is painful.

1.1 was covered in my initial nonconsequential argument.Just as how moving from the garage to the bedroom does not affect one's moral worth, moving from inside the womb into the delivery room shouldn’t either.

1.2 is not satisfactory, as people born with extreme brain damage cannot learn or develop any personality.

2.1 is also unsatisfactory, as the right to life trumps the right to desire.

3. is also unsatisfactory as ones pain does not allow for them to vent it onto others. If I were in pain, would I be morally allowed to kill my child?

PRO claims that the traits of an entity should not affect its moral value. This claim is simply wrong.

I do not. I claim that the traits which one develops in the short 9 month period between conception and birth do not affect one's moral value.

Remember, as long as an action hasn't been proven to be immoral it must be considered moral.

There is a very vital difference between immoral, not moral, moral and not immoral, a difference I utilize here. Consider the following resolution.

THBT: The song Lucid Dreams is not white.

The issue here is magnified. Though one can argue against this resolution by providing an argument affirming the contrapositive, that is, that Lucid Dreams is black, one could also argue by exposing the nonsensical nature of the resolution. It is apparent that, in order to uphold this resolution, one isn't obliged to prove the contrapositive, one can simply prove that the the descriptive word (white) does not properly match the subject (Lucid Dreams).

Not moral does not equate to immoral. Not moral can refer to something that is not in the moral sphere. Just because something isn't proven to be immoral, doesn't mean it is instantly moral.

Benjamin

09.27.2021 02:14PM

Con

Thank you, Bones.

RESOLUTION: THBT: Abortion is, on balance, immoral.

POSITION: CON

OBSERVATIONS:

PRO did not contest the professional definitions I provided. This means he accepts them, including:

Immoral: morally wrong, or outside society's standards of acceptable, honest, and moral behaviour
Person: a man, woman or child
Murder: the crime of intentionally killing a person

All of PRO's arguments which rellied on cherry picked definitions without source are debunked when appliying these definitions

Thus, by not contesting the validity of these definitions, PRO has accepted the invalidity of his arguments

PRO has rephrased some of his arguments --- I will deal with them in this round

PRO has yet to provide a valid moral framework. PRO brings up "conception" as his standard, but is not even a framework, not to mention a valid one.

INCONSEQUENTIAL DIFFERENCES:

I do believe morals are based on objective standards,

PRO denied that development, size, dependency and enviroment are important factors for moral value. He also denied the validity of the word person. He even undermined the importance of conciousness and intelligence. At that point there can be no standard based on objective traits. PRO is lying when he makes the abovementioned claim --- that, or he is admiting to hypocrisy. I chose to believe the former as he himself said that a zygote is no different from a 9 month old fetus; thus admiting his own disability or unwillingness to view growth and development as morally significant ------ and thus he denies the validity of any objective difference between two human beings to be morally significant.

My claim was never that a fetus was morally equivalent to a fully grown adult

Why is a fetus morally different from an adult if "size, development, consciousness, intelligence, dependency, etc" are all invalid indicators of moral value? Truth be told, nothing. Any attempt at drawing a moral distinction between a fetus and an adult requires PRO to revoke his previous argument. For him to make this statement and not seem a liar or hypocrite he must admit that "size, intelligence, etc" truly are consequential differences.

the standard I selected was fertilization

PRO claims that the inconsequential differences argument cannot be applied to fertilization. This is simply false. Fertilization is an arbitrary point to asign moral value, because there is no consequential difference between a zygote and the two gametes that formed it. PRO's alledged "begining of human life" is not a begining at all --- both of the gametes where alive beforehand, so fertilization does not begin human life, it just accelerates development and choses a path for it. Claiming that fertilization is somehow less arbitrary than birth for legal and moral protection is absurd, and would require not mere opinions, but actuall evidence as well as a moral standard to make conclusions upon. PRO fails in this regard.

the standard I selected was fertilization

"Fertilization" is not a moral standard, it is just a biological process. What PRO is trying to do is hide his lack of moral standard. He has not presented utilitarian ethics, kantian ethics, or any other "set of valid principles" to base his argument on. A real philosophical moral framework would be usefull not only for asigning moral value but also sort moral priorities and judge in specific circumstances. PRO's lack thereof, despite my specific request for a moral framework in R1, shows either ignorance or intelectuall dishonesty. Without such a framework to base his arguments on, it is impossible for PRO to conclude that abortion is immoral. No moral conclusion can be arrived at solely by reason; one needs a moral foundation --- and PRO fails to provide excactly that. Because of this, his argument is incomplete and thus invalid.

Allow me to illustrate how his argument fails:

P1: abortion is unjustified murder of a person (or at least PRO says so)

P2: ???

P3: abortion is immoral

Lacking a moral standard, no factual or semantical claim PRO makes can be translated into moral claims.

SCIENTIFIC TESTEMONY:

PRO has accepted that abortion is not murder, and thus given up his original argument. He inserted another argument in its place.

Abortion is unjustified killing... Ergo. Abortion is immoral.

I have a series of objections.

1. Unjustified killing is not automatically immoral

Killing a chicken for more tasty meals is definately less justified than killing someone that is causing you pain and threatening to ruin and/or end your life. Still, it is not immoral to kill a chicken. The reason is that the moral value, or rather the lack thereof, renders any action accepteble and not immoral. The chicken, and by extension any entity that does not meet the criteria for moral agency, can be killed with poor justification without involving immoral activity. By this principle, an abortion is not immoral even if we assume that it is unjustified.

2. Abortion is justified.

Cambridge defines Justified as "not able to be explained in a reasonable way"[htt]. Abortion definately fits this criteria. To quote Theweakeredge's research:

Negatives of pregnancy:
-Anemia
-Uniary Tract Infections
-Hypertension
-Infections
-HIV, Viral Hepatitis, STDs, and TB
-Five other examples
Pregnancy is a serious thing, and it affects both the mental and physical state of the of the impregnated extremely [ht]

Heck, since giving birth is potentially lethal, the fetus is a lethal threat to the woman. Abortion is an act of self-defence against this physical, mental, social, economic and psycological threat that is the fetus. Women have a right to bodily autonomy and are perfectly justified in ending their own pregnancy.

3. This argument is circular... and defeats PRO's case

"I can't afford him", this defence would do next to nothing in court.

Once again, PRO appeals to the court and the law system to support his argument. But again, ABORTION IS LEGAL! The law and the court supports CON, not PRO. My opponent's constant attempts to appeal to the law for supporting his arguments is not only futile, but outright self-defeating.

UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE:

there is no precise definition you can give

Incorrect. Cambridge has given one. Person: a man, woman or child.

Abortion however involves death in all circumstances

But it involves the death of a person in no circumstance

Abortion does not allow for the person affected to accept being aborted.

An on balance fetus does not even have the basic brain function to accept or decline its death. We abort fetuses without their permission just like we drive our cars without permission from the road. If an entity cannot make its own decisions then it is entitled to control its own fate. PRO's claim that a fetus has the right to life simply by being "fertilized" is nonsensical. It's like claiming something has value just because it exists.

the right to life trumps the right to desire.

There is no such thing as "the right to desire". What does exist, however, is Bodily autonomy, a fundamental right, which is supported by the weight of UN and the declaration of universal human rights. PRO is arguing that self-defence against a rapist is immoral, because that is literally what his claim entails. He claims that a woman is morally restricted to just accept whatever ##### happens to her ----- because fighting back would be immoral as it kills (or risks killing) the aggressor.

PRO's Kritik debunked:

Just because something isn't proven to be immoral, doesn't mean it is instantly moral.

Just because something is not true, doesn't mean it is instantly false.

Actually --- it does. When x is defined as the binary opposite of y it follows that x being false renders y true. Moral and immoral are binary opposites in the context of this debate; no moral obligation was specified as BoP for CON, only moral allowance. The only way to get an inconclusive conclusion to the problem presented is if abortion is amoral. Unfortunately for PRO, this very debate proves that abortion is not amoral. We would not waste time debating abortion if it was not a problem related to morality. It follows that whatever people consider morally important is a moral, not an amoral, topic.

CONCLUSION:

Abortion is not immoral. PRO's BoP is not met. PRO's case lacks the required moral standard and his arguments are self-defeating and contradict each other.

I have shown that abortion by no means can be called "immoral", and thus fullfilled my BoP.

Vote CON.

Round 3

Bones

09.28.2021 09:59AM

Pro

Thx Benjamin

Observation

CON has failed to provide any arguments, syllogisms or frameworks suggesting why abortion is moral, and has opted instead to go full defence. This alone should render it impossible for my opponent to win, as they have not upheld their BoP in the slightest, which is as follows

Abortion is, on balance, moral

Affirmation

Inconsequential differences

PRO denied that development, size, dependency and environment are important factors for moral value

This is an appeal to incredulity. I have already shown in great depth why these criterias cannot possibly convey moral personhood.

He also denied the validity of the word person.

This was done so via Occam's razor in r1. I stated that as our understanding of embryology is in no way enhanced by the term personhood (everything personhood claims to be is already scientifically covered by the term human life), it can be deemed as an ontological burden.

He even undermined the importance of consciousness and intelligence.

Are we allowed to kill temporarily unconscious people? Are we allowed to kill retarded people? These are serious claims which have serious implications.

I chose to believe the former as he himself said that a zygote is no different from a 9 month old fetus

Of course not, the principle of Identity of Indiscernibles clearly disapproves this. There are difference between a 1 month old fetus and a 9 month old fetus, but it is my claim that these difference are nonconsequential. To illustrate this better, consider the difference between a teenager and an elderly. There are differences between the two, this is a fact, but the difference are nonconsequential when asking whether we have the right to kill either of them. Saying that the difference between X and Y are non consequential is different from saying the there are no difference between X and Y.

My claim was never that a fetus was morally equivalent to a fully grown adult
Why is a fetus morally different from an adult if "size, development, consciousness, intelligence, dependency, etc" are all invalid indicators of moral value?

This is a strawman. I never stated that the listed characteristics cannot indicate moral value, I stated that they cannot assign moral value. Things such as being conscious are generally good indications of whether one is alive, but the existence of unconscious people who are deserving of rights means that consciousness cannot be used as a full proof criteria for the assignment of moral value.

PRO claims that the inconsequential differences argument cannot be applied to fertilization... Fertilization is an arbitrary point to assign moral value, because there is no consequential difference between a zygote and the two gametes that formed it.

Unfortunately, this is scientifically incorrect. I have already explained this in my last argument, but perhaps, as this is a very technical point, it is better to let to the International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy published by the Princeton Education have a say.

there is a radical difference, scientifically, between parts of a human being that only possess "human life" and a human embryo or human fetus that is an actual "human being." Abortion is the destruction of a human being. Destroying a human sperm or a human oocyte would not constitute abortion, since neither are human beings.

PRO's alleged "begining of human life" is not a begining at all --- both of the gametes where alive beforehand, so fertilization does not begin human life, it just accelerates development and choses a path for it.

The above refers to this point, but to reiterate, there is a difference between a human being and a part of a human life. There is a scientific distinction between the term.

"Fertilization" is not a moral standard, it is just a biological process. He has not presented utilitarian ethics, kantian ethics, or any other "set of valid principles" to base his argument on.

As demonstrated by the The Munchhausen trilemma, all facts, and I seriously mean all, are technically unsatisfiable. My argument is no exception. It is by no means universally objective and does rely on certain axioms being true. The only fact which I assume as true is that the unjustified killing of an innocent individual is wrong. If you do not agree, then there is simply nothing I can do to convince you. However, do not view this as a gap in my argument. All arguments can fall victim to semantic word games. If I were to provide a framework, CON could easily say, but why is X framework true?, to which I would respond with justification Y, to which CON would say, "but why is Y justification true", ad infinitum.

Scientific testimony

CON first contests the consequent of my syllogism and surprisingly asserts that the unjustified killing of a human being is not immoral.

Killing a chicken for more tasty meals is definitely less justified than killing someone that is causing you pain and threatening to ruin and/or end your life. Still, it is not immoral to kill a chicken.

CON conflates the killing of a chicken with a human being. Whilst the example my opponent provides depicts unneeded killing of a chicken, this can hardly be conflated with the unneeded killing of a human being.

CON then disputes premise 2, that abortion is unjustified, however, does not refer to my proof for the syllogism and makes a case of his own. They assert that pregnancy is difficult and conclude that this is a valid reason for mothers to kill their fetus'. With this standard, a mother raising a rebellious teenager should be given the rights to kill their child, as there are many negatives involved in this process. To name a few, raising such a teenager

is difficult
requires financial sacrifice
results in depression
possible suicide

There is no disputing that the above things are difficult, but do are they sufficient reasons for one to kill their child?

Uncertainty principle

Cambridge has given one. Person: a man, woman or child.

Easy. Baby’s genders are determined at the moment of conception.

it involves the death of a person in no circumstance

According to the above definition you provide, the only criteria for being a person is to have a sex, and as sex is determined at conception, the killing of a being after conception is, well, killing.

PRO is arguing that self-defence against a rapist is immoral, because that is literally what his claim entails.

Straw man fallacy. I assert that the unjustified killing of a human being is immoral. This has been my stance from the beginning. Obviously killing a rapist, in most situations, is moral.

Alleged Kritik

In this section, my opponent commits a false dichotomy and asserts that if abortion isn't immoral, it is therefore moral. This is akin to saying "if you cannot prove that Santa does not exist, he therefore exists". This is simply ridiculous. Furthermore, even if this logic were valid, I could easy say "my opponent hasn't proven that abortion is moral, therefore the binary is correct by default".

Conclusion

Not only has my opponent failed to make any case to support their BoP, but all their rebuttals have already been refuted. As such, it is only reasonable to vote PRO.

Benjamin

10.04.2021 11:56AM

Con

Thank you, PRO

Before you vote, please read the text underneath

In R2, PRO claimed that "the right to life trumps the right to desire" in order to deny that abortion is justified. However, in R3, he bombastically confesses that:

Obviously killing a rapist, in most situations, is moral.

PRO has contradicted his own claim. Apparently, the right to life does not trump the right to desire. PRO admits that even a fully grown, fully conscious person can be justifiably killed if the person in question causes harm and violates the bodily autonomy of another person. This is arguably a concession. Because a fetus does excatly that: it harms and violates the bodily autonomy of women. If killing a rapist is moral, then abortion is undeniably moral as well. Thus, PRO's claim above is nothing short of an indirect concession.

VOTING PRO IS NOT AN OPTION FOR FAIR VOTERS THAT READ THIS FAR.

Do i not have arguments?

PRO claims that I have no arguments supporting the morality of abortion. This is incorrect. I have made the following arguments:

Abortion is legal and accepted by society. Thus, abortion is moral by the provided cambridge definition.
Pregnancy and birth is dangerous and painfull, its moral to help women by stopping this pain.
Woman have a right to bodily autonomy. It is moral to let women excercise this basic human freedom.
A fetus does not have proven moral value. Abortion thus cannot be immoral.

Voters, take note of this list. Even thought I didn't have a title named "arguments" and arrows pointing towards them, the items on the list above were real arguments presented by me in the previous rounds in rebuttal or response to PRO. Denying their existence is a dirty trix by PRO to make voters ignore my case.

On PRO's lack of moral framework

The only fact which I assume as true is that the unjustified killing of an innocent individual is wrong. If you do not agree, then there is simply nothing I can do to convince you.

EXCACTLY. My opponent's case rellies on an unsupported, personal opinion of PRO. His argument seeks to prove that a fetus is a human being scientifically, but it totally fails to explain or support this fundamental assumption that "all humans have moral value". Voting PRO will only make sense if the voter agrees with PRO's unproven personal belief; and thus voting PRO is automatically biased and unfair. On the other hand, CON provided official Cambridge definitions for his terms and discussed the resolution by refering to moral reasoning, the difference between law and morality as well as discuss the implications of PRO's argument.

Multiple times I pointed out PRO's lack of moral framework, but my opponent never provided one. His excuse?

If I were to provide a framework, CON could easily say, "but why is X framework true ... why is Y justification true?" ... ad infinitum.

Essentially, PRO admits to cowardice, claiming that his moral reasoning was hidden from CON due to fear that I would critique it. This is just a last ditch effort to excuse his failure to provide "a valid set of principles" as requested by me and the resolution. I urge voters not to fall for this obvious trick.

REBUTALLS:

consider the difference between a teenager and an elderly. The difference are nonconsequential when asking whether we have the right to kill either of them

A teenager and an elderly are both persons with intelligence, consciousness and agency; they are basically morally identical. On the other hand, an on balance aborted fetus is very different from an on balance person. PRO's attempt at presenting "fertilization" as a standard for morality is nonsensical. I have explained already that to assume every human being is equally deserving of moral value is a fallacy of composition. So even if the nonconsequential differences argument is enough to prove that a fetus is a human being, it in no ways shows why a fetus has moral value.

CON conflates the killing of a chicken with a human being.

This is a lie. I did not claim that a chicken and a human being are the same. I actually said that "the chicken, and by extension any entity that does not meet the criteria for moral agency, can be unjustly killed without it involving immoral activity". Contrary to PRO's lie, my argument was that justification is irrelevant when considering entities without moral value. What PRO needs to rebutt my argument is show why a fetus has moral value when the chicken doesn't. His lack of such an explanation is a gaping hole in his case. Furthermore, I also adressed the claim that abortion is unjustified. Abortion is just as justified as killing a rapist, yet PRO never acknowledges or refutes this claim. Hence, he fails to rebutt or even adress my case.

According to the above definition you provide, the only criteria for being a person is to have a sex

Cambridge defines person as a "man woman or child", and a child as a human being from birth untill they reach age 18. PRO should have read the cambridge definitions before trying to make such ridiculous arguments as "any being with a sex is a person".

In this section, my opponent commits a false dichotomy and asserts that if abortion isn't immoral, it is therefore moral.

This dichotomy is not false, it is true. I claim that abortion is morally acceptable, PRO claims that it is not. If PRO is wrong, then I am right, this is simple logic.

There is no disputing that the above things are difficult, but do are they sufficient reasons for one to kill their child?

Teenagers do not violate bodily autonomy, they do not consitently cause pain, suffering, illness and death. Children are far more developed, intelligent, independent, conscious and valueable than a fetus. Additionally, they adhere to their parrent's rules and the rules of society, and in case of necesity or dire desire, may be left for adoption. Also, the parents have already taken care of their children for many years, and have agreed to the terms and conditions of parenthood.

Comparing abortion and the killing of one's teenagers is like comparing sex with concent and rape --- the differences truly are consequential, defeating the analogy.

SUMMARY:

PRO has made three arguments:

A fetus is similar to a newborn
A fetus is a member of the species homo sapiens
It is immoral to kill a fetus since we can't be 100% sure that it does not have moral value

I have made the following rebuttals

Not every human has moral value because some have, that would be a fallacy of composition
A fetus does not inhibit the traits which are morally significat, such as intelligence, consciousness and so forth

The moral BoP falls upon the one that claims a certain entity has moral value.

Thus, uncertainty about a fetus's moral value defeats PRO's case, not CON's
CON's position is the default postion as it does not make any unnecesary assumptions

Additionally, I have provided the following arguments:

Abortion is legal and accepted by society. Thus, abortion is moral if we apply the provided cambridge definition.
Pregnancy and birth is dangerous and painfull. It is moral to help women end this suffering.
Woman have a right to bodily autonomy. It is moral to let women excercise this basic human freedom.
A fetus does not have proven moral value. Abortion thus cannot be immoral.

Furthermore, I have pointed out how PRO fails to provide "a valid set of principles" as demanded by the description. This lack of moral framework undermines PRO's entire argument. How can you claim that abortion is immoral when you don't even know the difference between moral and immoral? This objection has been raised by me every round, yet PRO ignored it, favoring instead to make ridiculous claims such as "the standard i selected was fertilization". What can be asserted without evidence can also be rejected without evidence --- and this is true for PRO's belief that "all humans have moral value". PRO's case lacks any foundation.

Most importantly, PRO himself admited that killing a rapist is moral; thus conceeding that causing pain and violating bodily autonomy justifies murder. So even if we were to assume that a fetus is a person, it causing harm and violating bodily autonmy would undeniably make abortion moral --- by PRO's own admission.

SUMMARY

PRO's case, by lack of sound moral foundation, by self contradiction, by my rebuttals and by PRO's concession, is exposed as fallacious and invalid, ineffective at provin the resolution true. On the contrary, my case stands strong. I have proven that abortion is moral by definition, by moral reasoning, by virtue of not being immoral, and because it is legal and supported by the human rights. Abortion is evidently moral.

Vote CON!

PGA2.0

02.08.2022 05:10PM

#16

-->

@Benjamin

@Bones

PRO: Obviously killing a rapist, in most situations, is moral.

CON: PRO has contradicted his own claim. Apparently, the right to life does not trump the right to desire. PRO admits that even a fully grown, fully conscious person can be justifiably killed if the person in question causes harm and violates the bodily autonomy of another person. This is arguably a concession. Because a fetus does exactly that: it harms and violates the bodily autonomy of women. If killing a rapist is moral, then abortion is undeniably moral as well. Thus, PRO's claim above is nothing short of an indirect concession.

***

The difference between a rapist and the unborn is that the unborn has done nothing wrong, it is INNOCENT. The rapist has inflicted intentional harm on another person, thus doing a moral wrong. The woman, likewise, is doing intentional harm to another human being. While I do not solely agree that killing the rapist is the fitting punishment (an eye for an eye), in the case of a male rapist I do believe they should be castrated if found guilty beyond doubt.

The bodily autonomy argument does not work on those grounds (intentional harm to another human being). I can't use my body to intentionally harm another innocent human being so why should the woman? She does not own the other human being (it is not slavery). Not only this but as pointed out by Pro, a human's environment, size, dependency, or stage of growth should not eliminate them from the right to life. The woman is denying another human being the right to life. If Con wants to use any of those four criteria he should do it consistently to include anyone who is less developed, in a different environment, is bigger or smaller, or is dependent on another human being for life outside the womb. Will he do that? Will the woman decide, based on Cons criterion, that the mother is perfectly justified in killing her one-day-old newborn because it is dependent upon her for survival and she doesn't want the duty and responsibility of looking after it any more? What makes the being any different one day before or one day after birth?

As for personhood (being a person) that is the intrinsic NATURE of all human beings. They are personal beings. Every one of them, allowed to grow will develop more fully into what they are unless they have a natural defect that prevents them from doing so. Should the woman be allowed to kill a human being because it is not showing its full human nature yet? And usually, statistically, the reason to abort is usually a selfish one.

Granted, there are rear circumstances when an abortion is morally permissible. That is when the woman's life is in danger (i.e., tubal pregnancy) and allowing the unborn to continue to grow will kill both the woman and the unborn.

PGA2.0

02.08.2022 04:21PM

#15

-->

@Benjamin

@Bones

I could not resist a comment.

Con confuses justified with unjustified:

"Cambridge defines Justified as "not able to be explained in a reasonable way"[htt]."

***

I do not see how one could justify society as the grounds for moral right and wrong. It means the "good" can be bad, even evil, depending on which society one is a part of. Thus, racism and genocide become permissible if society deems them so.

I thought the term "objective" should have been clarified further when speaking of morals.

I thought "intrinsic value" would have been a good point for Pro to expand upon. If human life is not important or worth value, Con would have no means of objection to the senseless killing of human beings. When a person or a country fails to treat all human life as equally valuable any moral wrong can be justified, hence 1.6 billion unborn humans killed since Roe v. Wade. Has there been a greater holocaust? Where else could these many INNOCENT human beings be killed or accepted without extreme moral outrage and recognition?

A further question could have been whether a woman has the right to do with her body whatever she pleases, or whether she has a duty and responsibility, especially when another human being is involved.

Con failed to prove human life does not start at conception, especially when the consensus of scientific opinion backs up conception as the forming or beginning of a new life. If the being growing from conception onwards is not a human life, what kind of life is it? When a human sperm and human egg are fertilized (conception) a new being is formed, distinction from either the sperm or egg DNA. It has its own DNA made up of both.

Ramshutu

10.20.2021 02:28AM

#14

Con argues he has proven his case within his rebuttals, and i will cover them here:

Abortion is legal and accepted by society. If con had given evidence or argument that this was accepted by society - it would have led to a win. He did not. If he had argued that legality was a moral standard - I would award the sun. He did not.

The closest con came was suggesting that morality is arbitrary - and as a result society can make whatever rules they want.

A fetus cannot have moral value

In his rebuttals con hinges his main points on the idea that a fetus has a different moral value - based on its moral agency, mental capacity and personality. It is indistinguishable in properties from other animals; the chicken killing example was really, really great - we accept that its fine to kill other creatures that don’t have moral agency. This is rounded off by cons argument that abortion is justified to save impacts on the woman. The coup de gras was pointing out that the justification pro uses to kill rapists could arguably used to justify abortion as moral.

The area that is holding me back - is that it’s hard for me to disentangle cons justification for why killing a child is not moral, but killing a fetus is. It’s touched upon throughout, but never concisely explained until the final round. Pro does himself no favours here either; the argument boils down to the choice being arbitrary (which it appears to be the case with his position too). Con does cover some aspects in his final defence.

If I were to compare how many things the different systems seem to explain, cons explains animals vs humans; self defence, etc; pros doesn’t fully explain either satisfactorily. So cons seems like the better standard to determine the morality of killing. I keep coming back to the self defence issue, using killing a rapist to justify abortion. Pointing that out, IMO was so devastating that it makes up for the poorer elaborating in other areas.

With that all being said; cons affirmative case is too sparse, and too limited for me to award the win; while I came within a hairs breadth of doing so - there’s just not enough argument affirming the position for me to justify cons BoP is met. Most of cons burden is murky - albeit less so than for pro - meaning that I would be awarding this based on a single paragraph of the entire debate that pro wasn’t able to defend.

As neither side met their BoP - I think this one is a tie.

Arguments tied.

Conduct: con spent a lot of the debate calling pro a liar, or a hypocrite - that’s not cool at all; this is a debate. I’m not going to award conduct here, but wanted to point it out. Treat the other person with respect, and as if they’re arguing in good faith.

Ramshutu

10.20.2021 02:27AM

#13

Scientific testimony.

Pro offers a syllogism. That abortion is murder; while he doesn’t explicitly justify why murder is immoral (again no standard), I think its reasonable. Pro goes on to clarify (after contest by con) that murder is the concept of unjustified killing. As before, pro goes from something that seems reasonable, to something that seems specifically ad hoc. Without pro making an attempt to explain what the standard to use to determine whether a murder is “justified” or not - I find it hard to accept this argument.

Con provides a great definition as to why it can be considered justified - by arguing that pregnancy is harmful - pro doesn’t really respond to this other than to say that desire is trumped by kids. In the final round, con points out the beautiful contradiction between killing in self defence being okay, and also claim for that desire does not trump life. This was particularly well spotted and well presented.

This effectively builds up a strong case that pros moral statements - which started our sounding definitive appear arbitrary and ad hoc when examined - are invalid.

Uncertainty.

This argument is odd. It argues that if one is uncertain about whether the fetus is not a person, abortion is unjustified. I think that’s perfectly logical - but fits outside the resolution. If I accept it without reservation - it doesn’t add to pros burden. If con argues that the fetus is not a person, for him to meet his burden; he must meet his burden of proof to show it, if he does - then it would kinda affirm the resolution and this forth argument. That is to say that I feel this argument is largely redundant.

As a result of these; I don’t think pro has met his burden, but the question remains whether con has met theirs, as is clearly stipulated by the rules.

Con implies that if something is not on balance immoral (his opponents burden), it’s on balance modal (his burden), as it is no amoral.

I don’t buy this for a second, as the default position in this appears to be that abortion is on balance neither moral or immoral - a grey area.

Ramshutu

10.20.2021 02:27AM

#12

Moral framework

Neither side presents a framework to allow me to judge whether things are moral or immoral. Both rely appealing to my (as a voter) moral intuition - that’s really, really bad for both sides, as it makes me have to decide what is moral at some level, rather than having you as debaters show me.

Inconsequential difference.

Pro argues that killing a toddler is immoral, and as there is no consequential difference between the two, it’s immoral to kill fetuses too.

Without a moral framework this is hard to assess; and this is made harder when pro also suggests the two are not completely morally equivalent in R2. Con nails pro to the wall with this. suggesting that if these things are inconsequential why is there a moral difference: con ha also pointed out that chimpanzee zygotes would be considered morally different even due to their similarity. Both of these critical rebuttals were ignored by pro.

Accepting as true Pros argument that life begins at conception and is the only point at which a consequential difference exists - cons unchallenged rebuttals does enough to undermine pros conclusion - if they don’t have the same moral value in other ways: why this one?

While this doesn’t prove cons position - it does make pros argument appear arbitrary; and in the absence of a moral framework by which to judge things - I have to reject this one.

Note1: this wound was entirely self inflicted by pro - he could have stood his ground and argued they are both morally equivalent with little issue IMO, and I would have probably accepted it.

Note2: pro didn’t establish a moral standard, nor a standard for discussing what is “consequential” was or not. It was all implied, and while con picked up on the first, he didn’t explicitly pick up on the second.

Benjamin

10.19.2021 08:47AM

#11

-->

@gugigor

Thank you for voting. I will learn from your feedback.

Bones

10.16.2021 09:51AM

#10

-->

@David

@Nyxified

@949havoc

Pinging more people. Feel free to vote.

Benjamin

10.15.2021 06:54AM

-->

@fauxlaw

@Intelligence_06

@Sum1hugme

@Undefeatable

Care to vote?

Benjamin

10.12.2021 06:29AM

Vote bump

Benjamin

10.08.2021 10:46PM

Vote bump

Benjamin

10.06.2021 12:43AM

Vote bump

Benjamin

09.28.2021 10:33AM

-->

@Bones

Thanks you too.

Bones

09.28.2021 10:00AM

-->

@Benjamin

Thanks for a good debate, I thoroughly enjoyed it. Sorry if I sounded blunt, that's just my syntax.

Theweakeredge

09.23.2021 04:01PM

-->

@Bones

The uncertainty principle eh? I thought someone would have debunked that by now, its really not all that hard, I hope your using it purely to construct contentions and not because you actually don't see the flaws in it logically.

Benjamin

09.19.2021 10:48AM

-->

@Bones

I now understand both sides, and have given up my one sided stance that abortion is definately immoral. Even if I am wrong, I have grown more rationall and see things more nuanced.

Bones

09.19.2021 09:16AM

-->

@Benjamin

You've changed your stance?

RationalMadman

10.29.2021 08:12PM

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:

In this debate, both sides failed entirely to understand what the debate was but because the pro-choice side needs to better grasp the debate, the pro-life side won and here is why:

Pro-life side says that firstly, a foetus is a human and that therefore personhood applies to a human (in Round 2 this is explicitly stated, in Round 1 implicitly)

Pro-choice side fails to realise he has to separate being human from being a person (also advocating for euthanasia here is a strong move but I understand that Con wanted to avoid having to fight a war on two fronts, though it is inevitable). Con never once does this, instead Con goes in the other direction, he actually abolishes all basis for animal rights in order to justify the slaughter of a human foetus... It's a very odd move because while it's true we as a society have huge neglect to the welfare of farm animals, it isn't true that this is necessarily morally correct.

I am also incredibly confused with what Con's point was. With a chicken, the justification is the meat... That's not lack of justification. In contrast, if you justify killing a human as cannibalistic, it is that we deem that justification insufficient vs what good the being does and can experience that is at play. This 'equating and scaling' system of morality is what Con desperately needed to bring into the debate and simply does not succeed in doing so.

Con keeps pushing for absolutism, comparing a human foetus to a chicken for instance but a much better absolutist approach from the pro-choice side would instead be equating a foetus to a fertilised chicken egg what we happened to cook and eat before it hatched (eggs from hens with a cockerel in the vicinity are always potentially fertilised and actually the morally superior organic form of egg is more, not less, likely to have had this occur).

Pro keeps sticking to absolutism, not realising that his syllogism completely lacks any exploration of morality. The way Pro wins the debate, in my eyes, is the following:

This rebuttal...

1. An infant
1.1 is able to have a different physical location than their mother
1.2 is able to learn and develop a unique personality.
2. A fetus
2.1 is directly infringing on the womens body.
3. The process of pregnancy is painful.
1.1 was covered in my initial nonconsequential argument.Just as how moving from the garage to the bedroom does not affect one's moral worth, moving from inside the womb into the delivery room shouldn’t either.

1.2 is not satisfactory, as people born with extreme brain damage cannot learn or develop any personality.

2.1 is also unsatisfactory, as the right to life trumps the right to desire.

3. is also unsatisfactory as ones pain does not allow for them to vent it onto others. If I were in pain, would I be morally allowed to kill my child? "

It excellently proves that Con's stance is scarily psychopathic in fact and essentially can be stretched to be justifying killing a newborn baby. Con's reply to this inthe LAST ROUND (which Pro can't reply to)

is this:

"Not every human has moral value because some have, that would be a fallacy of composition"

What on earth does that mean or imply? Is Con saying humans have no moral value at all, potentially?

Con's stance is that all morality is negated by default but I have never and will never support this kind of Kritik. You can't take a debate on abortion being immoral or not and say it's not immoral because nothing is immoral. That kind of kritik is childish and even if morality is purely subjective, it follows that subjectively it should and would disgust any non-psychopath that we can simply kill humans as we please if there isn't enough resistance to that killing.

Pro wins but could have presented a much stronger case, such as exploring the 'why' of foetuses mattering and the 'when' of personhood during conception and discussing euthanasia and why Pro may see that as immoral.

Ramshutu

10.20.2021 02:28AM

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:

RFd in comments: https://www.debateart.com/debates/3226/comment-links/40026

gugigor

10.18.2021 09:13PM

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:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/13UhOss4xN4Zmw9bLL2qu4q5Aj3ave2HCqEIx171UPqM/edit?usp=sharing