Instigator / Pro
Vici's avatar
13
Vici
1501
rating
11
debates
27.27%
won
Topic
#3644

abortion is immoral

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
24
Better sources
8
16
Better legibility
4
8
Better conduct
1
8

After 8 votes and with 43 points ahead, the winner is...

oromagi
Tags
Art
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
2
Time for argument
Two hours
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
oromagi's avatar
56
oromagi
1922
rating
117
debates
97.44%
won
Description

No information

Round 1
Vici's avatar
Vici
Pro
#1
Proposition: Abortion is immoral 

Argument 1 - Abortion is killing and unjustified. 

  • What does it mean to kill? 
  • What does it mean to be justified? 
    • to give or to be a good reason for
      • Thus, unjustified killing can be defined as the instant in which one causes the death or the deprives life, in a way that does not give a good reason for. 
        • We can agree axiomatically that unjustified killing is not justified and hence immoral. 
  • Does abortion satisfy this criteria? 
    • Does it involve the act of depriving life? 
      • Yes. 
        • “Human life begins at fertilisation, the process during which a male gamete or sperm unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialised, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning 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.
        • “Fertilisation is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a genetically distinct individual.” Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphates and proteases during sperm 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 ordinary circumstances, 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
    • Is it justified? 
Argument 2 - The unborn ought to have rights. 

P1: Living humans ought to have rights and liberties enforced by judicial laws
P2: If humans come into being at the moment of conception, they ought to have rights and liberties enforced by judicial laws
P3: Humans come into being at the moment of conception
C: Humans ought to have rights and liberties enforced by judicial laws at the moment of conception

p1 is self explanatory and axiomatic. We go around society assuming that we all have rights which are upheld by judicial laws. 
p2 follows from p1. 
p3 is true from the prior science I provided. 
c1 conclusion follows. 





oromagi's avatar
oromagi
Con
#2
Thx, Vici

PROPOSITION:  ABORTION is IMMORAL

DEFINITIONS:

OBJECTION:   Since PRO failed to define the terms of this debate, CON is forced to define the terms of this debate.   

Mirriam-Webster defines ABORTION as 

"1: the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: such as
    a: spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation— compare MISCARRIAGE
    b: induced expulsion of a human fetus
    c: expulsion of a fetus by a domestic animal often due to infection at any time before completion of pregnancy"

Wikipedia defines 

an ABORTION  as " the termination of a pregnancy by removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus.  An abortion that occurs without intervention is known as a miscarriage or "spontaneous abortion";

Mirriam-Webster defines

IMMORAL as "conflicting with generally or traditionally held moral principles"

Wikipedia defines 

IMMORALITY as  "the violation of moral laws, norms or standards. It refers to an agent doing or thinking something they know or believe to be wrong."

BURDEN of PROOF:

Wikipedia advises:

"When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo. This is also stated in Hitchens's razor, which declares that "what may be asserted without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence."

As the instigator of this debate, PRO bears the entire burden of proof for this debate.  PRO must show that all ABORTIONS, including miscarriages and foetuses expelled due to infection conflict with generally held beliefs.  PRO must show evidence that when pregnant animals, including humans have miscarriages, they know or believe they have done something wrong.

Argument 1 - Abortion is killing and unjustified. 

What does it mean to kill? 
  • Not all abortion involves killing.  In fact, the overwhelming majority of abortions are entirely unintentional.
  • By comparison, in the US, the CDC estimated that just over 1% of US human pregnancies were intentionally induced.
  • That is PRO is inaccurately painting all ABORTIONS using a characteristic to be discovered in only 2.4-3.3% of all ABORTIONS
    • PRO is making generalized judgements based on a distinctly minority experience.
What does it mean to be justified? 
  • PRO's standard here is IMMORAL and PRO must show that the majority or traditionally held principle is violated by miscarriages and other ABORTIONS.
    • In fact, the opposite is true.  In modern thinking, spontaneous abortions are generally thought of as natural, albeit sometimes regrettable, processes.
      • Most participants (74%) correctly believed that pregnancy loss was most commonly the result of a genetic or medical problem.   Highly educated respondents, defined as those who graduated from college and/or received higher graduate education, were more likely to believe that the most common cause of miscarriage is genetic than those who were less educated (defined as those who have not completed college) (37.6% vs. 24.9%; p < 0.001). Level of education was significantly inversely associated with increased odds for reporting that miscarriages are not due to a genetic or medical problem (p < 0.001). 
    • Historically,  Society's reactions to spontaneous abortions have changed over time. 
      • "In the early 20th century, the focus was on the mother's physical health and the difficulties and disabilities that miscarriage could produce. Other reactions, such as the expense of medical treatments and relief at ending an unwanted pregnancy, were also heard. In the 1940s and 1950s, people were more likely to express relief, not because the miscarriage ended an unwanted or mistimed pregnancy, but because people believed that miscarriages were primarily caused by birth defects, and miscarrying meant that the family would not raise a child with disabilities.  The dominant attitude in the mid-century was that a miscarriage, although temporarily distressing, was a blessing in disguise for the family, and that another pregnancy and a healthier baby would soon follow, especially if women trusted physicians and reduced their anxieties"
    • Even with the greater intention involved with induced abortions, the majority still does not seem to think of abortion as particularly in conflict with general practices.
    • Even traditionally, induced abortions (for the first 20 weeks)  were legal and commonplace in from the Puritans until the mid-19th Century.
      • "Social attitudes towards abortion shifted in the context of a backlash against the women's rights movement. Abortion had previously been widely practiced and legal under common law in early pregnancy (until quickening), and it was not until the 19th century that the English-speaking world passed laws against abortion at all stages of pregnancy."
Argument 2 - The unborn ought to have rights. 

  • Civil rights and enfranchisement are by definition, statuses granted after birth is confirmed.
    • In the US, 
      • "There are two primary sources of citizenship: birthright citizenship, in which a person is presumed to be a citizen if he or she was born within the territorial limits of the United States, or—providing certain other requirements are met—born abroad to a United States citizen parent,  and naturalization, a process in which an eligible legal immigrant applies for citizenship and is accepted. These two pathways to citizenship are specified in the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution which reads:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
  • Even human rights are quite questionable since humans are by definition,  characterized "by bipedalism and large, complex brains."  Brain activity in a human foetuses doesn't even start until about 6 weeks in.
  • The extension of human rights to fetuses' would prove legally untenable and almost universally harmful to the mother's rights.  For example, humans have the right not to be held silent in the dark without air for weeks at a time but no mother would be able to complete her pregnancy without depriving the foetus of those basic human rights.
CONCLUSION

  • PRO failed to define terms and so opened up his argument to counterargument using commonplace defintions of the words abortion and immoral that do not match his arguments at all.
  • In fact, PRO never talked about morality and only addressed justification
  • PRO never addressed the rights of parents and particularly mothers.
  • PRO's argument for rights for the unborn is inconsitant with current understandings of civil or human rights
SOURCES in COMMENTS

Round 2
Vici's avatar
Vici
Pro
#3
Forfeited
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
Con
#4
Thx, Vici!

PROPOSITION:  ABORTION is IMMORAL

DEFINITIONS:

VOTERS will note that PRO made no objections to any of CON's definition of ABORTION or IMMORAL.

CON's definitions stand.

BURDEN of PROOF:

VOTERS will note that PRO did not refute that the entire burden of the debate was his to prove.


Argument 1 - Abortion is killing and unjustified. 

What does it mean to kill? 
  • PRO dropped CON's argument that most abortions involve no killing whatsoever
What does it mean to be justified? 
  • PRO argued that all unjustified killings are IMMORAL because they aren't justified.
  • CON showed that ABORTIONS, spontaneous or otherwise,  are not generally considered killings and therefore IMMORAL from the perspective of general society or traditionally culture.
  • PRO dropped CON's argument
Argument 2 - The unborn ought to have rights. 

  • CON argued that civil rights and enfranchisement are by definition, statuses granted after birth is confirmed.
    • PRO dropped this argument.
  • Even human rights are quite questionable since humans are by definition,  characterized "by bipedalism and large, complex brains." 
CONCLUSION

  • PRO offered a moral argument but failed to the impacts of pregnancy to society, families, parents, and particularly mothers.  How can any assessment be considered MORAL without any consideration for the majority of stakeholders?
  • PRO's plan for fetal rights is entirely unworkable and inconsistent with modern civil and humans rights provisions.
  • PRO dropped all of CON's arguments and forfeited half of the argument.
  • In fact, PRO never engaged CON's argument at all.
  • PRO failed to show that all ABORTIONS, including miscarriages and fetuses' expelled due to infection conflict with generally held (American, at least) beliefs. 
  • PRO failed to show evidence that when pregnant animals, including humans have miscarriages, they know or believe they have done something wrong.
CON asks VOTERS to award ARGUMENTS to CON for providing DEFINITIONS and adhering more closely to the thesis as defined than PRO.
CON asks VOTERS to award CONDUCT to CON, for PRO's forfeit.

  • Thanks in advance to all VOTERS for their kind consideration and thanks to Vici for providing this exercise in speed argument under pressure.
  • Please VOTE CON!