Voters: Rule 2 has been waived. Please do not penalize Sir.Lancelot for accepting.
Framework:
Definitions
Harm: To adversely affect
Person: An individual with inherent moral value
Burdens
I argue that most abortions ought to be outlawed. Con argues that no law ought to exist restricting abortion from the point of conception.
These conflicting positions should be evaluated on the moral basis of protecting
human rights. All persons have inherent rights that ought to be protected. Furthermore, the importance of a prima facie right is proportional to the loss in
utility caused by violating it. A teenager’s right not to be stabbed, for example, is more important than their right to a high school education. We should default to prioritizing more important rights unless there is a very compelling reason to do otherwise.
Rights of equal importance merit equal weighting in equal situations. If the necessity of taxes outweighs my right to $50 of gold, then it would also outweigh my right to own $50 of silver, all things being equal, if I had silver instead. Similarly, if my right to $50 of gold outweighs the necessity of taxes, then my right to the silver would as well.
Human rights should be afforded to all persons. Per the
harm principle, actions causing unwarranted harm to humans are unjust. Hence, I hold that a person is a human being who can in some way be harmed. Furthermore, having one’s lifespan reduced is a harm. Someone with
CIPA may not physically suffer when they are killed, but they have been harmed nonetheless.
The merits of each proposal, with regards to abortion legality, should be judged based on how well they protect human rights. If the harm to a fetus from abortion is proportional to the harm caused to a person by violating some human right, then abortion is also a violation of human rights.
Uncertainty Principle
For the sake of argument, suppose we are uncertain about the moral status of an unborn child. In this case, abortion is akin to drunk driving, where the risk of killing someone is low but not negligible. People have the freedom to drink alcohol and drive a car prima facie but not when such actions risk harming an innocent person. Similarly, if there is a non-negligible chance that an unborn child is a person, abortion ought to be illegal.
My Case
Arguments 1-4 will deal with establishing the personhood of the unborn. Arguments 5-6 will show that as a result, abortion is unjust. Argument 7 will deal with the efficacy of abortion bans.
1. Killing Human Beings is Wrong:
Unborn Children are Human Beings
Significance of Killing Humans
Note that a human being is a person regardless of their stage of development (infant, teenager, adult). A toddler and an adult are not exactly the same thing, but they are both persons. It hardly makes a difference to someone whether they are aborted as an embryo or killed painlessly in their sleep minutes after their birth. Both actions are immoral, as they achieve similar effects.
An alternate view holds that moral value should come from intelligence, past experiences, ability to feel pain, level of dependency, or level of development. But a number of obvious counterexamples show this view to be flawed:
- An infant born in a coma with no past conscious experiences is a person, and killing them is wrong.
- Adult dogs and dolphins are smarter than newborns, but killing a newborn is more evil than killing a dog or a dolphin.
- Newborns are dependent on their parents and on society, but killing them is wrong.
- Killing a child is as bad as killing an adult, if not worse. Thus, it is clear that the potential to live a long life is morally significant, while a human’s level of biological development is not.
Therefore, we should treat human beings as persons, regardless of past experiences or stage of development.
2. Future Like Ours:
Coma Analogy
Suppose there is someone in a deep coma, who will awaken in nine months. They have lost all their memories and will not recognize anyone. Clearly, killing them is still murder. But any argument against killing the comatose individual can also be used to show that abortion is wrong. Murder affects a person’s future, and unborn children have a future like ours.
Associated Harms
The
harm principle holds that actions should generally be considered moral unless they cause some kind of harm to someone else. Therefore, if the action of killing the comatose person is wrong, it must be because it has one or several harmful effects. I can think of several:
- Missed opportunities: Upon awakening, the comatose individual could have lived a long life
- Lack of choice: No choice was given to the individual whose opportunities were lost, because we made the decision for them
- Violation of a social contract: We would not want someone to kill us or steal our opportunities, so it would be wrong to do so to someone else
All of these harms also occur when an unborn child is killed. If these harms make killing the comatose individual wrong, then they certainly make killing an unborn child wrong.
3. Continuous Development:
Drawing a Line
At any point, a being is either a person or not. Since a toddler is clearly a person, my opponent will have to designate some point in pregnancy at which point a non-person becomes a person, despite the “non-person” and “person” sharing similar DNA, cell structures, etc. Designating all human beings as persons avoids this problem.
Transitive Property
I hold that a human adult is the same person that they were as an unborn child. I think we can agree that people remain the same person throughout their life—otherwise Ted Bundy was an innocent person being held in prison for crimes someone else committed. I think we can agree then that someone in a coma is the same person that they were before and the same person after they awaken. We can credit this to several factors:
- Equivalent DNA
- Continuous development
- Narrative continuity (the location of the person remains unchanged or changed gradually)
But if we accept any of these factors to argue that people in comas are the same person as they were before, then we must also accept that adults are the same person that they were in utero—due to similar DNA, continuous development, etc.
4. Harm of Removing Potential:
Operation Thought Experiment
Suppose there exists an operation that can be performed on an unborn child—one that will hinder their eyesight in the future with no medical benefit. Performing this operation on an unborn child would be immoral, even though it removes potential experiences, rather than ones that the unborn child is currently capable of.
Removing more potential experiences (hearing, taste, etc.) would be worse, not better.
Modus Ponens
- P1: Removing an unborn child’s potential conscious experiences is wrong.
- P2: Abortion is removing an unborn child’s potential conscious experiences.
- C1: Therefore, abortion is wrong.
5. Killing vs. Letting Die:
My View
It is true, in earlier stages of pregnancy, that an unborn child depends on their mother’s body to survive. But due to the circumstances of pregnancy, abortion is not “letting someone die.” Because it involves directly making a person dependent on oneself and then withdrawing that support, it is a direct killing.
Prima Facie Violations of Bodily Autonomy
- Forced labor (such as carrying heavy objects)
- Forced medical procedures
Bodily autonomy is a prima facie right, meaning that with all things being equal, violating it is unjust. However, in the case of abortion, all things are not equal. This is why pregnancy is not listed above; it never occurs in a prima facie scenario.
Three States of Dependence
Consider the following three states of dependence:
- A: Person X does not require your body to survive
- B: Person X does require your body to survive, and your body is currently supporting them
- C: Person X does require your body to survive, and your body is not currently supporting them
Third Syllogism
- P1: Actively making Person X go from states A -> C is morally equivalent to murder.
- P2: Abortion involves making Person X go from states A -> C.
- C1: Therefore, abortion is morally equivalent to murder.
P1
Suppose Sam is a doctor who can fix a stab wound. Sam stabs Jack (A -> C). The point is not whether Sam would be legally forced to heal Jack (though he certainly has a moral obligation to). The point is that an action from A -> C is murder.
Suppose a woman carries her newborn child into the forest full of wild beasts (A -> B). She then decides she is tired, or perhaps she is scared of being slowed down by the weight of an infant. For whatever reason, she leaves her child in the forest (B -> C) where it is then eaten by wild beasts. This action is clearly infanticide, and lawmakers have a duty to prosecute a parent who makes such a decision. Going from A -> B and then from B -> C is therefore unjust killing. The “extra step” of A -> B does not absolve the woman of murder.
P2
Before conception, Person X (the unborn child) does not yet exist. Therefore, the period before conception is State A.
Abortion in most cases involves actively taking an action that then leads to pregnancy (A -> B) and then terminating the pregnancy (B -> C). Hence, like the forest analogy, it is an unjustified killing of a human being and should be classified as murder.
6. Duty to Save:
Even if we granted that abortion was simply “letting someone die” instead of direct killing, it should still be illegal.
Weighting of Rights
Since the government has a duty to protect human rights, we should default to protecting the right that is more important prima facie. Being killed at a young age prevents someone from experiencing their entire life. Being pregnant lasts for nine months, and despite being inconvenient, it does not deprive the pregnant person of life.
Drowning Child Thought Experiment
Virtue ethics are fundamental in our understanding of human rights. Furthermore, one person's moral obligation towards another is proportional to how directly responsibility toward that person falls on them. Individuals have some responsibility to support the poor in their communities in the form of taxes—that responsibility is shared, because there are many people in the community. Individuals have stronger responsibilities to help those in their immediate family, because the responsibility is spread less thin; hence, it falls more directly on each family member.
It’s clear from the doctrine of virtue ethics that saving the child is a moral obligation, because you are the only one who can do so. Failing to save the child would be similar, morally speaking, to directly killing them. The government often enforces this moral obligation via
duty to protect laws. Since everyone has the responsibility to save a child in the circumstances I outlined, it follows that duty to protect laws ought to apply to everyone. These laws are even more ubiquitous when Person X has
directly endangered the person who depends on them. If Person X throws the child into the pond, not rescuing the child is murder.
Hence, a pregnant person has the duty not to let their child die. The child is depending on them specifically, and a human life is much more valuable than the utility lost from pregnancy. We’re discussing abortions on pregnancies that result from consensual sex, making this moral obligation even stronger.
Responsibilities of Parents
Infanticide was
common in Ancient Rome. These killings were clearly unjust, so it stands to reason that parents have a moral obligation to prevent their children from dying. In ancient times, this would include carrying a child around, feeding them, housing them, and in many cases, breastfeeding.
Comparison to Pregnancy
- P1: A child’s right to live outweighed their parent’s right not to raise them in ancient times.
- P2: Pregnancy in modern times is less inconvenient than raising a child in ancient times.
- C1: A child’s right to live outweighs their mother’s right to avoid pregnancy in modern times.
The infanticide example establishes
P1. Hence, I will argue for
P2. It is simply the case that raising a child in ancient times would require physical labor, which can lead to all sorts of
health conditions. The loss in utility from raising a child is greater than that lost from pregnancy, but it does not follow that infanticide in Ancient Rome was somehow justified. Recall that rights of equal importance merit equal weighting in equal situations. By similar logic, the right to avoid pregnancy is less pressing than the right to avoid years of labor. The child’s right to live outweighs the parent’s right to abandon them, so it certainly outweighs the parent’s right to avoid pregnancy.
7. Effects of an Abortion Ban:
Laws against abortion give women plenty of strong incentives not to get an abortion, but no reasons to get an abortion that they wouldn’t have before. Arguing that no woman will decide against abortion due to a ban is simply illogical.
Lives Lost From Abortion
Efficacy
It’s not enough to compare a country where abortion is legal with a country where it’s illegal. Extraneous factors must be controlled for. We should ideally compare different abortion policies in contexts where other factors are as similar as possible. In Northern Europe, the restrictiveness of abortion laws
explains 72% of the variation in the abortion ratio (the percentage of pregnancies ending in abortion). Pregnant women before Roe vs. Wade had
dramatically lower abortion rates. States with legal abortion before Roe had
reduced birth rates; in fact, legalizing abortion had a
higher impact on pregnancy rates than contraception. Abortion rates by state of residence show that states with heavier abortion restrictions have
lower abortion rates, even when accounting for women who cross state lines.
When policies are studied in isolation, these effects become much more pronounced. When Bulgaria liberalized its abortion laws, the abortion rate
increased by a factor of over 30. Furthermore, abortion is measurably reduced, not simply “driven underground.” Restricting abortion in Bulgaria, when controlling for other factors,
increased fertility rates by 12%. If you think an abortion ban would be hard to enforce, consider the difficulty of enforcing child pornography bans, in which case both the buyer and the seller have an incentive to remain secret. The government
still tracks them down.
Policy Additions
Abortions bans already save lives, but going abroad to obtain an abortion can also be made illegal, similarly to
laws against sex tourism.
"Pro slips into needless offense, comparing the very idea of abortion to pedophilia"
My intention was to show that there is a precedent for regulating the actions of citizens in other countries (not to compare abortion itself to pedophilia). But I do see how it could come across that way, so I will phrase that point differently in the future.
"Pro compares abortion to willful maiming of children (this has some good implications on circumcision debates)"
True, but most people assume that nothing is lost during circumcision. I literally see people comparing circumcision to trimming nails.
Thanks for voting!
--- RFD (1 of 2)---
While I strongly disagree, pro soundly takes the win. A couple shaky ideas, but a strong case that a fetus is greater than or equal to a fully developed person in importance.
Sources are overwhelmingly in his favor, going into overkill, but not feeling like source spam. His source for a fetus not being part of the mother, soundly unmade one of cons few good points. Con comparatively had a few, a couple tossed at the end of a round feeling like source spam, and others which were from a copy/paste off wikipedia (which he didn't even cite).
Conduct gets shaky at the very end, with a last ditch appeal from con (which really should have been his opening argument), but I don't feel that it sways things enough even while being of note.
---
Glad to see exceptions outlined in the description. Going in, that already lifts this out of the gutter.
R1:
Pro completely dominated this. Con responding to just one of pro's arguments, gave the impression of dropping the others; he would have been better off just making his case (and it needed to be expanded) with a statement that he would respond to pro's in R2. I really don't think con will recover from this.
R2:
Pro basically extends.
Con makes a good comeback at the start.
R3:
Pro defends quite well, using authoratative sources to blow holes in cons comback (not going to outline it in great detail due to what follows).
Con misrepresents pro's case, betting the whole thing on legal definitions of murder (which as I mention below on 5., pro thought ahead on).
---
"having one’s lifespan reduced is a harm"
This is something missing from most of these debates. Usually it falls to Karen's hurt feelings, but pro makes a harm and makes it hold sway even for those who do not feel pain.
"Uncertainty Principle"
Also a smart thing for pro to outline, as it pre-defends against any outright dismissals of the value of the fetus.
---RFD (2 of 2)---
1. Killing Human Beings is Wrong
Human life has value, more so if they're young due to remaining time span.
Con argues the starting point for consciousness is the 18th week, and abortion should be stopped at the 14th week (long after conception which this debate is about, but even further away from birth). He argues the baby born in a coma need not be kept alive if there is no possibility of it recovering (contextually seems to imply a brainless body, missing that anencephaly was one of the exceptions pro made for abortion being allowed), and that creates a difference.
Pro defends on potentiality being of utmost importance, and compares abortion to murdering coma patients. He weirdly attacks the possibility of recovery point (see anencephaly above). And insists that con believes all organisms with the possibility to achieve consciousness in the future are already people. He attacks con for poor reasoning for why a child is worth more than a fetus.
"If a woman has tried for years to conceive and finally becomes pregnant," this bares a little reflecting on... It seems like pro thinks that's the type of woman who is seeking an abortion... I doubt con will catch the absurdity of that notation. Also clearly if you have only one child from years of effort, that one is proportionately more valuable to you than one from a set of ten would be to someone else.
Con comes back strong with bulletpoints outlining why he believes a fetus and an infant are different.
2. Future Like Ours
Coma analogy, this belonged as a subpoint of 1.
3. Continuous Development
Pro argues that for simplicity all humans should be considered persons, regardless of form etc. I will say he cleverly layers in that adults are the same person as they were in utero, thereby anchoring the idea that it's a person even then.
4. Harm of Removing Potential:
Pro compares abortion to willful maiming of children (this has some good implications on circumcision debates). And does a logically valid syllogism.
5. Killing vs. Letting Die:
Pro pre-defends the bodily autonomy arguments, with a logially valid syllogism that if someone causes someone else to need their body to survive, and then denies them that access, it is murder (well equivalent anyway).
Pro is very smart to use the equivalency qualifier on murder, and it pre-defends against legal definitions.
6. Duty to Save:
Pro argues there is a duty to save a drowning child, even if mildly inconvenient. (I will note our teachers had very different opinions of virtue ethics)
Pro goes on to compare it to infanticide in ancient times.
7. Effects of an Abortion Ban:
Pro makes a strong case that abortion bans do decrease the rate of abortion. This pre-defends against coat hanger arguments.
Pro slips into needless offense, comparing the very idea of abortion to pedophilia (it's a particularly bad note to end a round on).
8. Mothers and Abortions:
Con implies negative utility lives if women are forced into motherhood, and that the need to punish disproportionately to crime is illogical.
Pro defends that he has not gone into a misogynistic rant, and insists quality of life does not outweigh life itself.
Con brings up overpopulation.
9. Inconsistent Moral Values:
Con makes a pathos appeal against the pro-life movement, for inflicting suffering on children via abandonment.
Con suggests unwilling mothers will resort to infanticide.
"This is an ad hominem fallacy, and it’s not even directed at me." Not an ad hominem fallacy if it's not directed at you. It's a weakly done political kritik. ... Anyways, pro does fine in defending this as off topic.
10. There is nothing human about a brainless body:
Got to say, I know where con wanted to go with this but it fell short. This feeds directly into responses to 1., addressing it there.
11. Light bulbs
This is tied to 1., but that it getting big... In R2 con blows this thing up, with a house analogy foundation vs the finished thing, to adequately show waste beyond just a sunk cost fallacy.
Pro defends that there is no morally significant difference between the two.
A huge part of competitive debates is being able to take a lot of L’s.
It’s okay.
I chose you for my Tournament because you’re a great debater and an intelligent voter.
That said, I also believe Savant performed better here.
Vote for who you think won.
I’m having a hard time voting in this debate. My main concern is that I believe Savant performed better, but his main point is that humans have inherent moral value. I’m not saying they don’t, but I am saying I don’t believe he was able to prove that point. Just skipped over it completely, unless I’m missing something. So his entire argument is resting on something, that he himself constructed, that he didn’t make any effort to prove.
Got to pick a friend up from the airport, but here's the start of my notes on this debate.
---
Glad to see exceptions outlined in the description. Going in, that already lifts this out of the gutter.
"having one’s lifespan reduced is a harm"
This is something missing from most of these debates. Usually it falls to Karen's hurt feelings, but pro makes a harm and makes it hold sway even for those who do not feel pain.
"Uncertainty Principle"
Also a smart thing for pro to outline, as it pre-defends against any outright dismissals of the value of the fetus.
1. Killing Human Beings is Wrong
Human life has value, more so if they're young due to remaining time span.
2. Future Like Ours
Coma analogy, this belonged as a subpoint of 1.
3. Continuous Development
Pro argues that for simplicity all humans should be considered persons, regardless of form etc. I will say he cleverly layers in that adults are the same person as they were in utero, thereby anchoring the idea that it's a person even then.
4. Harm of Removing Potential:
Pro compares abortion to willful maiming of children (this has some good implications on circumcision debates). And does a logically valid syllogism.
5. Killing vs. Letting Die:
Pro pre-defends the bodily autonomy arguments, with a logially valid syllogism that if someone causes someone else to need their body to survive, and then denies them that access, it is murder (well equivalent anyway).
Pro is very smart to use the equivalency qualifier on murder, and it pre-defends against legal definitions.
Thx for the vote!
> Adult dogs and dolphins are smarter than newborns, but killing a newborn is more evil than killing a dog or a dolphin.
Got to disagree with you there, but I do understand the rhetorical point you're building.
Thx for voting!
RFD
Since most abortion debates are about the same, I’ll keep this short.
Pro uses the usual ideas: science says life starts at conception, so we’re killing a human being. Even if they were in a coma, it’s unjustified to kill them. You know the gist. (Feedback: All the other things are not necessary since it’s not a mothers inaction that leads to the child’s death in this case.) Anyways, very verbose but better safe than sorry.
Con goes along with the standard line of reasoning too: unreasonably expecting women to financially support, and that the fetus has pre consciousness (though, fails to give any convincing support why this should be brought over pros ideas).
Pro strengthens his arguments by pointing out the potential for consciousness is what produces the human value of life. However, Pro doesn’t weigh whether it’s acceptable to force a woman to raise a child in an extremely difficult environment full of suffering. He merely says it’s unjust to kill regardless of future reasons and plants his feet there.
Con stacks on economic benefits from legalizing abortion, but doesn’t really state this importance since I don’t know how to weigh lives lost against economics (if pro wins his main argument). Con gives a better analogy pointing out (essentially) a construction project barely in development, despite having potential, wouldn’t count as destroying a full completed building. Feedback: This is a little bit better, but he fails to go the usual pro choice step of pointing out that the personhood should then approach only when the fetus is actually born (or perhaps even after the third trimester, some argue).
Pro goes in circles for a little bit since it’s not clear why mere potential can cause the human life’s value. However, it does seem he means eventually the fetus will develop which means it has the value of a human life.
Con tries a desperado last move where the women who undergo illegal abortions is extremely dangerous, but this point comes in very late so I am not sure I should include this or not.
In the end I think Pro wins. Cons argument was all over the place and not as clear as I’ve seen Pro choice make it. He has to make things clearer and point out the absurdity of potential being equivalent to a human life. For example, I’ve seen people bring up the fact that sex itself has potential for human life, but condoms reduce the possibility by 99% — would that be murder, is an excellent question to force pro to make their argument more precise. Pro did well with his argument — he pointed out it wasn’t sure what was going on with the fetus, and was uncontested with his ideas. Con also failed to talk of the woman’s liberty which may contribute to the pro choice decision by a large margin. Hence, con fails.
Only one week left to vote!
Sure, just give me two days or so.
Pleasure's all mine.
No problem. I'm about to go on vacation myself actually, but if you want to debate this or something similar in about a week, I'd be down.
Sorry, I was on a family vacation and without convenient internet access. Apologies for not telling you, I really should have done that before my sudden departure.
Don't know what happened to Austin, but I do appreciate having the opportunity to debate this.
Plz vote!
"Pro provides two contradictory measurements for personhood."
Whoops. I meant Con.
Glad for the opportunity to have this debate. Should have my opening up soon.
Austin, since Lancelot has accepted I will debate him first (though I apologize for the delay). This debate was about to delete in a day anyway, so this will give us more time to prepare for when we eventually get a chance to debate.
Voters, please do not penalize Lancelot for accepting. I'd rather be judged on arguments than on a technicality.
Idk if you are keeping track, but the debate will auto delete in about a day and a half.
Ok, lmk if there's anything else.
Thanks! And don't worry, I haven't forgotten about the debate - I've been thinking about it (I usually like to do some research before acceptance)
Congrats on being a tournament finalist, btw
Actually, lmk if this works for you. (Description is edited):
This debate addresses most abortions. However, to maintain the focus of this discussion on general cases, some rare instances fall outside the scope of this debate:
- Abortions performed in cases of rape
- Cases where the fetus is unlikely to survive if not aborted, such as those with anencephaly
- Abortions performed to save the life of the mother
- Cases where the mother is likely to have significant health disorders if an abortion is not performed, such as gestational diabetes
- Ectopic pregnancies
I suppose the issue with an extreme case is that it's hard to strictly define, but most people know it when they see it. Think "prima facie." That's why I started with "majority." I guess we can maybe define general cases as all those excluding the types you mentioned, but I think saying "in general" might actually be easier to interpret. (What deformities count as rare?) I could revert the resolution back to "majority" (i.e. you can bring up whatever cases you want so long as they make up at least half of abortions performed, similar to Novice's animal agriculture debate). That would be one barometer that I think would be fair. Or we could leave discretion up to voters. I could list a dozen extreme cases, and there would still probably be some convoluted and unlikely scenario that I missed. (i.e. what if performing an abortion sets up a chain reaction that saves 1,000 people? You could probably come up with some hypothetical situation where that's the case.)
If you support early abortions being allowed in general, I suggest we go with "majority" via the original resolution. (If I'm correct, you support all early abortions being legal.) That way the debate is about abortion in general rather than a dozen different rare cases. If a voter thinks I win on some cases and you win on others, it sets the goalposts in a clear spot.
If you want a stricter framework, I could change the resolution to "Abortion in the first two trimesters should be a right in all cases" and be Con (I assume you'd be willing to debate that.) But I'm not sure that's fair to you.
Thanks. However, the reason that I brought up these cases is precisely for a few important points.
First, we can talk all we want about "general cases," but what exactly is a general case? By definition, general is an arbitrary descriptor. For many, abortions performed due to a severe, albeit non-life threatening disorder (such as Down Syndrome), fall within this "elective" category. There are quite a few, however, who disagree.
Second, ignoring exceptions only makes sense if these exceptions are accounted for in the real world. Assuming this debate regards policy, a sensible starting point for discussion is to look at the effects of existing state abortion bans. Surprisingly (or not surprisingly), many states don't account for these exceptions. If I remember correctly, SIXTEEN STATES with abortion bans allow *no exception* for *fatal* fetal disorders.
To express my view simply: general cases are arbitrary, and existing policies fail to address exceptions. That's mostly the reason why I was seeking clarification on the scope of what this debate aims to discuss. I hope we can come to an agreement on this.
Sorry, this may be a bit long. TL;DR: If it's fine with you, I'd rather discuss the general cases of abortion (something like the 95% that are elective), rather than debating rare occurrences.
In service of complete honesty, I think I would oppose abortion in a lot of those cases; however, I don't see a great discussion being had if we're forced to do a cost-benefit analysis for all of those situations. Since your position is that abortion should be a right in the early stages of pregnancy, generally speaking, I'd like to focus on contesting that. Maybe we could discuss some of those cases in the future, but I think it best to keep this debate focused on the general case of abortion, which is a very nuanced issue already.
All of the examples you listed sound like extreme cases. If you want to argue that the mother's life is always in danger when pregnancy occurs or talk about the stress of childbirth that most women have, then that would be in the scope of the debate. But I'd rather stick to general cases than extreme examples. We might disagree on race-selective or sex-selective abortions, but I wouldn't bring those up because they're not the general case.
As for punishments, which are a discussion all on their own, you're free to bring them up, but I don't see them being the focus of the debate. If you want to argue that the death penalty would be necessary for an effective abortion law and that such a punishment would be unjust, then that's your prerogative. But I don't see it being a necessary part of the resolution unless you want to present that issue as being relevant.
For a point of comparison, suppose we were discussing mandatory blood donation. One of us could bring up the hypothetical, "What if the person needing blood is a Nobel prize winner on the brink of a cure for cancer?" But even if we disagreed on that particular case, it would detract from the overall focus of the debate.
Yea, that looks better. Just another few things:
-should abortion be legal if conceived through incest?
-should abortion be legal if the fetus is unlikely to survive?
-should abortion be legal if the mother's life is in danger?
-should abortion be legal if the mother is likely to have significant mental health disorders as a result?
-should abortion be legal if the fetus will be born with a severe developmental disorder (e.g. Down Syndrome)?
and, importantly:
-what would be the punishment if an abortion against the law is performed?
I initially phrased it that way to avoid having to address some extremely convoluted scenario I had never heard of, but I see your point. Under BoP, I listed specific exceptions. Let me know if there's anything else.
Sorry for the late response, some personal things came up.
My main concern is the use of "in the majority of cases." It feels somewhat nebulously defined - a majority could be used to encompass a lot of arbitrary categories. I would prefer if the resolution was changed to "THBT abortion should be illegal in the United States, except in cases of [insert smth here]." This, in my opinion, would also be more consistent with the real-life opinions that people hold - when people say that "I usually oppose abortion," it tends to mean that they oppose abortion with a few exceptions, rather than they want an arbitrary 49% of abortions to be allowed.
"Infinite cases are possible"
Hence, the obvious conclusion is that the resolution refers to the majority of abortions that are occurring in the United States.
Infinite cases are possible, how are you going to outline what "half" is? Inf+inf = inf. This makes no dif lmao.
all good thank you.
I promised Austin a debate, but maybe after that.
I am too unskilled for this based on your ratings I would.like to give it a go
Sounds good
Looks fairly reasonable so far. I'll think about any suggestions or clarifications I want, then get back to you in a bit.
Does this work for you?