About Us    Debate    Judge    Forum    Tournaments
EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
Views:
130

That abortion is morally permissible

(PRO)
(CON)

Waiting for Anonymous

The chair calls upon Anonymous to continue the debate.

Time remaining to post: 2018-01-20 14:55:59

The Debate So Far

adminadmin (PRO)
I'd like to thank my opponent for joining this debate with me. I'll begin this debate by making three claims. I'll try to start it off short and simple. :)

1 - everything is morally permissible by default
In this debate I take the principle of natural law - that is, that people should be allowed to do whatever they want unless there is a good reason not to allow this. This truth is self-evident because, insofar as people can do things, there is no further natural moral restriction on doing them. There is no inherent universal bad consequence if I perform an abortion on somebody or have an abortion myself, or allow somebody to go through an abortion. There are only consequences other people would impose. It follows that if other people do not have a justifiable reason to not morally permit abortion, abortion must be considered morally permissible.

2 - killing others is not morally impermissible
We define abortion as an act of self-defense by a woman against an unwanted parasite stealing her energy so that it might hope to spawn into a human baby. Most jurisdictions would hold that killing in self-defense is morally and judicially permissible. An analogy would be if you had a baby which somehow got its hands on a gun, and seemed to be about to pull the trigger. Is it morally unjustified to kill your own baby, if that means potentially preserving your own life? In fact we find there are good reasons to believe our own lives are more valuable in these kinds of scenarios, since the unborn may never be born and thus never really contribute to society. We'd prefer not putting into jeopardy the health of people who  are likely to immediately be able to contribute, such as by having more children in the short term. The same moral justification can also be extended to a host of other cases, such as euthanasia, as a medical operation to prevent undue suffering. Where women are in distress to the point they would be willing to sacrifice something that clearly means a lot to them, doctors have a moral duty to do something about that. As evidence to this point, the majority of women who undergo abortions intend to have children in future.

3 - even if it was, the unborn should not be considered people
I define a person - or any living thing - as capable of functioning independent of other living things, provided the other basic conditions of life are met. If by some magic, I was transported to a world that magically provided me with oxygen and food etc but no other living things, I would be capable of surviving on my own. An unborn creature literally could not. Animals go through a birthing process specifically to create this independent link. On the other hand if we say such independence is not required for life, we must also say various other things are alive, such as fire. In general, this would be considered absurd. Therefore the unborn cannot be considered alive independent of the life of their mother. To extend the point, if the mother dies, the unborn child will go into an automatic shock and die immediately as well. There are numerous other physiological changes that happen at birth - the child begins to breathe for the first time, for example - but above all it is this independence that allows something to have life on its own. A woman harming her own body must be morally permissible - otherwise, fighting cancer must also be considered a moral problem, and cancer is certain to prolong death.

4 - the alternative poses moral challenges
Abortions tend to attract the most extreme cases. While most anti-abortion campaigners want to talk about self-entitled millennials getting abortions, I think about rape victims. If abortion is not allowed morally, rape can be morally justified as providing the moral outcome of a child. That's a problem, because allowing rape (along with disallowing abortion) is a restriction on people's free choice and bodily autonomy. This violates the natural law principle established in argument one, along with commonly accepted principles of human rights. Likewise, incest and other moral wrongs suddenly become justifiable, because you're practically assuring such actions a specific reward. Likewise, what if an abortion is required to save the life of the mother? Various medical conditions have led to deaths in countries where abortion is outlawed, on the grounds doctors could not perform operations required to save the mother's life. Considering abortion a moral problem is therefore to consider the lives of the mothers morally problematic also.

The resolution is affirmed.

Return To Top | Posted:
2018-01-08 10:51:16
AnonymousAnonymous (CON)

This is abortion.

You can see the Blood and Human figure of human fetus.

Pro con Agreement
1. (pro claim) Everything is morally permissible(com agreement)Yes, I agree on your whole concept.

2 Killing normally is not permissible 
I agree , murder hurt a life and the victim feels pain ,hereby Scientist claimed that fetus feels pain after 20 weeks of existence (
https://amp.livescience.com/54774-fetal-pain-anesthesia.html)

3 Even if it is unborn, it should not be considered people. i agree , it is different compare to full human being ,hereby, It is considered as human fetus and it was supposed to be born.

4. The alternative poses moral challenges concept:I agree, Since you care about the rape victim please I want you to cite their perspective in this debate.
link :abortion can save
life(https://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&source=android-browser&q=child+aborted+to+save+mother)

Con's Claim and warrant.
1.Fetus are beautiful.
A priceless gift that is more valuable than diamonds, gold and money. human fetus can spawn as human and gemstones can't do that.

When Fetus is already finished on their goal to become a human, they become more worth, they are loveable. Money can't love you back, porn can't love you back, games can't love you back, but a fetus/ human can.

2. Uses of Abortion
(https://lifedynamics.com/busted-the-abortion-industry/bad-medicine/baby-body-parts-for-sale/ )you can sell fetus organs 

(https://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/pepsi.asp) fetus as a flavor

3.I'm not aborted (google's idea) 
I was once a fetus. 


#FriendlyArgument #ThankYou


Return To Top | Posted:
2018-01-14 00:29:43
adminadmin (PRO)
I'd like to thank my opponent for continuing their case.

Addressing my opponent's rebuttal
In general, it is clear my opponent misunderstood my material. The following clarifications should show why this is the case.

My opponent chose to entirely concede my first argument. This means they accept the burden of proof in the debate. Con needs to show why it is not morally permissible. Literally nothing in my opponent's substantive argumentation does that - I'll explain why in a moment.

Secondly, I argued that it's OK to kill others. My opponent became confused by my double negative and assumed I'd said it's not OK to kill others. Hopefully this clears up the confusion. I explained in more depth why murder is morally acceptable in my previous round - even if the burden were not entirely on my opponent in this debate, they still need to deal with the arguments I raise. Con cites some scientist who has made a claim that fetuses can feel pain. First, killing generally involves some form of pain on human victims. If killing is OK for humans, and that killing usually involves pain, I believe it stands to reason that it is morally alright to cause pain to a fetus. Second, plenty of other animals have the same experience. Cows can feel pain and many of us eat them for dinner frequently. Third, con fails to cite what impact the scientist's claim has on my material. Fourth, even if pain was morally disqualifying, every fetus develops at a different rate. It makes it impossible to say whether any given abortion met that standard - how conscious does the baby need to be of the pain? Fifth, along the same lines, morality is not black-and-white to be decided by one variable. Any potential pain that is felt must be weighed against the benefits of killing, which in the case of abortion are often significant. Sixth, and this is the most damning bit: my opponent's link actually states he's wrong. According to his own source, if you read it, it explicitly states that a fetus cannot feel pain at 20 weeks, and that the case on this is "closed."

Thirdly, my opponent concedes my point but doesn't understand the impact. If we agree that fetuses should not be considered human then there's no way we can argue they're "supposed to be born." Rather, since the fetus and human are entirely biologically distinct and the fetus is not alive, it cannot be killed. The only things that can be killed are living things, so if we assume the fetus is not alive then it's within the rights of women to kill any fetus in their body. I liken it to a parasite or any other unwanted growth on a woman's body that can be safely, surgically removed by a trained professional.

Fourth, my opponent agrees, then criticizes me for not citing a perspective, and then goes on to do just that for me. He doesn't explain why that's important. My opponent's job in this debate is to defeat my arguments against them, and put forward their own compelling case in its place.

So here's where we stand:
> My opponent wants to set out to prove his case absolutely from the negative perspective. He takes that onus on completely by himself.
> My opponent has no problem with killing others
> My opponent agrees a fetus shouldn't be considered a living human
> My opponent agrees the lack of abortion is often a moral problem
> And yet, my opponent is absolutely convinced he can prove to you beyond your reasonable doubts, that abortion is not morally permissible

Let's check in with how my opponent is going with that after round one...

Con case
Con said he'd bring us a claim and a warrant, but then doesn't structure his argument like that at all. No matter...

First he said that fetuses are beautiful. I'd like to cite as counter-evidence the rather disturbing image of fetuses con himself posted at the top of his argument. Even if you think that sort of thing is beautiful, however, that doesn't mean you should have a moral problem with killing it. Con correctly notes that gemstones can't become human. This may be true, but gemstones are worth millions of dollars for a reason - they're pretty. Whereas women actually pay money to get rid of their fetuses at abortion clinics. If money is an expression of the value of something, then clearly we can characterize gemstones as a luxury and fetuses as a burden. I agree with my opponent that fetuses become more valuable after they're born. This whole point is like saying we should never dig a hole in case we ease pressure on some rock which might possibly one day become a diamond. I'd prefer people do what's best in their lives at the time.

Second con notes that abortion is super useful. I agree. To extend the point, if we could extract stem cells from fetuses, we'd be able to cure a lot of diseases on humans, too, such as cancer. Human fetus stem cells are much better than the pig stem cells we currently mostly use.

Finally my opponent notes he wasn't aborted. Well ... congratulations. I hope life is everything you dreamed it would be when you were a fetus. Unfortunately that doesn't mean it's not morally ok. If you're saying you'd rather not "be dead" right now, how do you know that? What if all aborted fetuses went to heaven or got reincarnated as dragons and had awesome lives afterwards?

The resolution is affirmed.

Return To Top | Posted:
2018-01-20 14:55:59
You need to be logged in to be able to comment
AnonymousAnonymous
"Money can't love you back, porn can't love you back, games can't love you back, but a fetus/ human can."

I posted a wrong POV to point

"Money can't love me back, porn can't love me back, games can't love me back"

No one should be pointed here , Pardon.
Posted 2018-01-14 00:36:19

Rules of the debate

  • Text debate
  • Individual debate
  • 3 rounds
  • 8000 characters per round
  • No reply speeches
  • No cross-examination
  • Permissive Judging Standard (notes)
  • Forfeiting rounds means forfeiting the debate
  • Images allowed
  • HTML formatting allowed
  • Rated debate
  • Time to post: 1 week
  • Time to vote: 1 month
  • Time to prepare: 2 days