Instigator / Pro
0
1500
rating
1
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#5762
Abortion
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 2 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...
Ferbalot
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
2
1514
rating
6
debates
75.0%
won
Description
A Fetus is a human being, Murder is wrong, therefore abortion is wrong.
Round 1
Forfeited
A Fetus is a human being, Murder is wrong, therefore abortion is wrong.
I concede that a fetus is a human being.
However, depending on the definition of "murder" used, I either reject that abortion is a form of murder or that murder is always wrong. I'll assume that it was used synonymously with "kill" or "kill brutally" or "kill with malintent" until my opponent gives a different definition.
Under many forms of consequentialism, in a variety of cases (such as in many cases when dealing with serial killers who cannot realistically be rehabilitated and who would otherwise suffer a great deal), it seems very likely that murder wouldn't be wrong.
Under moral nihilism it seems quite clear that murder wouldn't be wrong. And unless a moral "ought" statement is presupposed, the is-ought gap seems to support moral nihilism.
Round 2
Forfeited
I forfeit this round.
Round 3
Forfeited
I forfeit this round.
That's understandable. And ahh I should have realized what you said was a jest, sorry, that makes sense.
Thank you for the invite, but I’m trying not to engage in any formal debates at least until I’ve got a certain project off the ground.
…
Anyways I was criticizing “A Fetus is a human being, Murder is wrong, therefore abortion is wrong”
It’s a bad non-sequitur. Might as well say “I like vanilla ice cream, therefore abortion is wrong.”
I don't see how a murderer lacking remorse for a murder they committed would preclude that murder being wrong. And I don't see how else your argument supports the conclusion that murder is not automatically wrong, unless you're arguing against intuitionism or a strange version of subjectivism.
Would you like to debate it (or something like it) with me?
I think my cat could out logic this setup. Namely by killing something and feeling no remorse, ergo either not murder or murder is not automatically wrong.