Abortion is both inherrently unethical and should be illegal
Round 1 is ACCEPTANCE ONLY! All arguments come afterward
Here is my complete position:
Abortion should only be allowed if there is a serious health hazard to the parent or child, if it can be proven that the baby will be stillborn(is dead while still inside mother), or if the mother was raped.
I look forward to the debate!
I will be arguing that my opponent's stance is contradictory to his actual position and thus he disproves himself.
I will re-affirm my stance so that we can actually have a debate on ethics rather than a mistake I made in typing.
Abortion(except in the cases mentioned above) is inherently unethical and should be illegal.
Murder is inherently unethical. Even unborn children are alive. If you kill a pregnant mother, it is a double homicide. Therefore, abortion is unethical because it is murder and should be illegal because there is a discrepancy in the law that needs to be fixed(Abortion of unborn children should be illegal because in other situations murdering an unborn child is illegal.)
In case the debate moves forward, lets still address my opponent's claims.
My opponent's sole claim is that abortion is unethical because its murder, but this falls for multiple reasons.
1. Something cannot be inherently immoral since there is no objective sense of morality. While you may view abortion as horrible and an awful thing to do, I might not view it in the same light. In order for morality to be objective, there would be no variation in belief. My opponent must first be proving that morality is objective before he can even attempt to claim that something is inherently immoral.
2. Even if morality were objective, something cannot be inherently immoral, as that would only beg the question of why it was immoral at all, which can only be answered in the light of some ethical framework. As my opponent has provided no such framework, he cannot claim that something is immoral without begging the question, and you presume relativism.
3. My opponent claims that abortion is murder, yet does nothing to warrant the claim.
4. Abortion, which is the killing of a fetus, is not murder. A fetus is a collection of cells. Killing a collection of cells cannot be considered murder. If it was, the following things would be murder:
- Hair cuts (cutting off your hair follicles is killing them)
- trimming finger/toe nails (kills those too)
- skinning your elbows and knees (kills your skin cells)
My opponent may claim that it has the potential to grow into a living thing so it's different, but if THAT claim were true, then masturbation would also be murder, as it kills the sperm cells that have the potential to grow into a human being. Ovulation would also e a crime as it expels female egg cells from the body that could grow into human beings. This means that all women age 13-50 and pretty much all men would be murderers to my opponent. Is that true?
Because my opponents claims are unwarranted and off the original resolution, he has yet to fulfill his BOP and this I urge a negative vote.
JMSJMS forfeited this round.
I figured as much.
Extend all my arguments.
Abortion is murder because it is the killing of a human.
A human fetus is also a living human being, not yet fully developed. If You argue that it is not fully a human being, I argue that that makes it legal to murder those with deformities because they are also not fully developed. Hair follicles are a collection of cells but not a organism.
Hey! We got a response for once!
The problem with my opponent's response is it doesn't address the vast majority of my arguments. The only thing he touches on is the argument I made about the fetus, but neglects to answer my argument about how something cannot be inherently immoral if morality is not objective. This means the resolution is negated instantly.
Moreover, my opponent also doesn't respond to my point that nothing can be inherently immoral, presuming morality were objective, unless it was based in some ethical system. Otherwise, it would only beg the question of why it was immoral at all. Since my opponent has not provided some ethical framework, the resolution is negated instantly on another level as well.
Furthermore, my opponent is still not warranting why abortion is murder. He says it's because it's killing a human being, yet does nothing to prove that it's true, but rather just assumes it is true. He needs to be providing reason and evidence to prove that this point is true. Since he isn't, then the resolution is negated on a third level.
But now let's address the actual argument he made. My opponent claims that a fetus is a human being that isn't fully developed and legalizing killing fetuses is on par with killing humans with physical or mental deformities. However, this isn't true. A fetus is, literally, just a collection of human cells, by basic definition. It has yet to acquire human traits such as sentience and knowledge of it's outside environment. The distinction here is that although the physically and mentally deformed aren't on par with a normal human being, they still possess the essential characteristics to make them human. A fetus does not have those. It would be on par with the previous examples I gave of hair follicles, nails and scraping your elbow or knee, since they're the same thing: a collection of human cells that don't have human characteristics. My opponent claims the distinction to be made is that hair follicles are not an organism, but neither is a fetus because, again, it's just a collection of human cells. His argument here fails.
But moreover, even if we presume that his argument is true and that it's wrong to kill anything that's human and has the potential to develop into a human, it would make things like masturbation and ovulation illegal as murder. My opponent never responds to this point either. Since he doesn't, his point is going to actually negate the resolution, as his line of logic would make the entire female population and a vast majority of the male population, by his line of logic, murderers.
And, since the next round is going to be the last round, don't let my opponent make any new arguments in the last round, as it's entirely unfair to me. He's had plenty of time to defend himself against my arguments, and if he hasn't yet, then there's no reason why we should let him make a new argument in the last round of the debate.
As such, I urge you to vote con
Patience, Patience. There are a great many things in life that are more important than typing.
The only “Problem” with my response was that I managed to defeat most of your points with 4 sentences.
Morality is based on what is fair. That is to say, morality defines what is the right thing to do in a given situation and is not based upon an individual perspective. Morality is not what is judged to be correct by any group or amount of people, but what is actually correct. Looking at morality seriously requires abstract thinking, the likes of which you are obviously not using. It is not something that can be studied using most thought processes, and has to be studied “Outside the Box”, that is to say, with creative thought, rather than conventional reasoning.
Murder is the unjust killing of another human. There is my warrant. A human being is a collection of varied cells assembled into an organism that has human DNA and follows the structure of a human body to a fair degree, imitating basic bodily systems. A fetus contains all of the above and therefore is a human being. My hair does not have all of these features and is therefore not human. You cannot argue that a fetus is not alive, because even the paramecium in my backyard pond is alive. Once again, you need to use a slightly different thought process to arrive at a working conclusion in these matters.
Ignorance is independent of being. Until 2 months ago, I did not know that the capital of Lichtenstein was Vaduz. I was ignorant of my outside surroundings, but I was still a human being. Until a few days ago, you were unaware that I existed, yet you were still a human being. Humans are ALWAYS ignorant of their surroundings to some degree. Do you remember Plato’s story of the men in a cave? They were there their whole lives, as ignorant as babies, and yet they were also human.
Why do you continue to bring up ovulation and masturbation when I have never even mentioned them? You try to defeat a point I have never made to try to gain support.
It is not unfair to you if I bring up new points, as you will be able to fight against them.
Woo hoo! We're upwards of a few paragraphs now! This is getting good.
So, first off, my opponent's entire last round is composed of mostly new arguments. This is unfair because, as I already stated, instead of using this round for what it was supposed to be doing (summarizing the debate), I have to respond to entirely new arguments that if I don't respond to, I lose. This is inherently unfair for me, and thus I ask that you ignore the vast majority of his last round (save the talk about why murder is unjust, as that isn't a new argument).
Moreover, let's presume he's right about morality being based off of fairness. This means that my opponent himself is being immoral by his own proposed theory because he's being inherently unfair to me by violating the accepted rules of debating (last rounds are summaries). This contradicts his entire framework, and thus is a reason why we don't look to his arguments, if we're even looking to them in the first place.
And if we do end up looking to his arguments, lets spend time responding to them.
My opponent argues that the entire idea of morality is based off of fairness. However, he does nothing to warrant why this is true, but rather just asserts that it's true. Moreover, saying that morality is based off of fairness only begs the question of why be fair. He provides no warrant for that as well. My opponent's argument that morality is objective because it's not what people think is correct but rather what is actually correct, but this actually doesn't address the issue since what is actually correct is determined by the individual. To say that this isn't the case is to deny the fact that humans are individualistic by nature. You can refer back to my argument that in order for morality to be objective, there wouldn't be any disagreement in ideals of right and wrong. Since there is, this debate is proof enough, then morality cannot be objective. Thus, this argument fails.
Moreover, my opponent still doesn't provide some sort of ethical system under which to prove that abortion is inherently immoral. This is the warrant for why my opponent's theory of why his argument that morality is based off of fairness only begs the question because it doesn't explain why we ought to be fair. My opponent's response to that would be "because it's moral to be fair" but that's just tautological. My opponent is doing nothing to warrant his ethical claims, and thus cannot prove his BOP.
Also just realized that my opponent's ad hom "Looking at morality seriously requires abstract thinking, the likes of which you are obviously not using." is highly funny since I'm known for running abstract philosophical arguments in debates (http://debate.org...).
The next paragraph is my opponent says that the warrant for why abortion is murdering a human is that murder is killing someone. That literally does nothing to warrant his claim or respond to my objection. That's like me saying "Murder is bad", my opponent responding "There's no reason why killing someone is bad" and me responding to that with "Murder is bad because it's killing someone". It literally doesn't respond at all. My opponent then concedes that the fetus is just a collection of cells that have human DNA, which exactly proves the counter-examples I gave.
My opponent also ad homs at the end of that paragraph, which is giving me quite the case of the giggles.
Also, the following paragraph from my opponent makes literally no sense:
"Ignorance is independent of being. Until 2 months ago, I did not know that the capital of Lichtenstein was Vaduz. I was ignorant of my outside surroundings, but I was still a human being. Until a few days ago, you were unaware that I existed, yet you were still a human being. Humans are ALWAYS ignorant of their surroundings to some degree. Do you remember Plato’s story of the men in a cave? They were there their whole lives, as ignorant as babies, and yet they were also human."
What relevance this has to the debate is beyond me. I guess I'm just too ignorant to know ;)
Also, I don't know what paramecium have to do with abortion, but if you really have stuff growing in your pond, you should probably clean it out every once in a while. Not exactly the most sanatary thing ever.
Also, my opponent then asks why I keep bringing up the ovulation and masturbation arguments, and this is why: 1) because you dropped them, and they work as offense for me, so why wouldn't I, and then 2) because they perfectly counter the point you make that anything that has the potential to be human has the right to life, meaning that killing it is murder. Since masturbation kills sperm cells (I mean, it would be awkward if it didn't. Just sitting there pumping the goo gun and you don't even fire? Awkward...) and ovulation kills female egg cells, everyone who went through that would be a murderer according to your argument. Which means that every female and most males would be jailed on murder charges. Does that sound right to you?
So, now that my opponent's new arguments this round have been refuted, I can finally get to summarizing the debate.
1. My opponent does nothing to prove that morality is objective. He doesn't refute the arguments I made for morality being subjective, and his new-in-the-last-round arguments for objective morality didn't make any sense and were refuted by me. Insofar as he's not doing that, he cannot warrant that something is inherently immoral, as a subjective morality denies that something can always be inherently immoral, and thus negates the resolution.
2. My opponent is not doing anything to warrant his ethical claims. His arguments that morality is based off of fairness only beg the question of why be fair, and he cannot prove that outside of some ethical system that determines what is moral and what isn't moral. He has yet to provide an ethical framework to evaluate the resolution under, and thus cannot say that something is inherently immoral, because it only begs the question of why it is or why we should be moral or abide by morality's principles and guidelines, and thus negates the resolution.
3. My opponent has failed to justify why abortion is murder. His attempts at it have been weak, at best, and he hasn't answered any of my arguments. Since he's not justifying why it's murder, he cannot warrant his BOP to prove that abortion is murder and thus immoral. This means the resolution is negated.
4. My opponent isn't doing enough work to defend against my refutations. I've refuted all of my opponent's arguments, while my opponent just keeps reiterating the same old points over and over again and has now started to resort to ad hominem attacks against me. He's not doing enough work to prove his case true, and thus cannot win the debate.
Thus, the resolution is negated.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||4|