The Instigator
illegalcombat
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Jerry947
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Early abortion should be legal

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/1/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 7 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 721 times Debate No: 89072
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

illegalcombat

Pro

Debate Structure

Round 1 - Acceptance only, No arguments
Round 2 - Arguments/rebuttals
Round 3 - Arguments/rebuttals
Round 4 - Rebuttals to things in previous rounds, No new arguments.

Definitions/Explanations

Early abortion should be legal = By this I mean abortion should be legal for a woman to choose in the embryonic period of pregnancy.

Abortion - is the end (termination) of a pregnancy. A low-risk surgical procedure called suction aspiration or suction curette is generally used for first trimester abortions. Medical (non-surgical) abortions using medications such as mifepristone (RU486) are available in some clinics.

The embryonic period in humans begins at fertilization (penetration of the egg by the sperm) and continues until the end of the 10th week of gestation (8th week by embryonic age).

If you have any problems with the debate, use the comments section so we can agree to terms before we start the debate.
Jerry947

Con

I accept this argument.
Debate Round No. 1
illegalcombat

Pro

I thank Jerry947 for accepting this debate.

Freedom not restricted unless justified

I think this is axiomatic. It's not just an issue of being free or wanting freedom or arguably freedom being necessary for well being, even if rejected on those grounds to argue otherwise is self defeating, since you presuppose the freedom to argue as your starting point if you were to try and argue that freedom should not be the starting point.

The right to life/right not to be killed as an absolute is false & not all killing is murder

The right to life/right not to be killed is often invoked as justification for not allowing abortion, killing is wrong, abortion kills, ergo abortion is wrong/murder.

Notice those who use such reasoning don't them self believe in the right not to be killed in the ABSOLUTE SENSE, the most common view where intentional killing is justified is self defense (or some variation of). Then we have issues of drone strikes, war, dropping the A bomb, etc etc.

Now granted this leaves the door open for a Pro-lifer to make the argument that although killing isn't always wrong, sometimes it is wrong to kill & abortion is an instance of killing that is wrong. Likewise a Pro-choicer can argue killing isn't always wrong and abortion is an instance of where it is not wrongful killing.

The logical point being even granting abortion kills something human, it does not NECESSARILY follow then that abortion is murder.

Bodily rights argument (the violinist analogy)

Judith Jarvis Thomson asks us to consider the following...

"You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you--we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist is now plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him." [1]

Even granting the violinist a right to life the question is thus, do you have the right to disconnect ? Are others justified forcing you to stay connected if you choose to disconnect ? I know of no anti-abortion person who says that you can't choose to disconnect, as rejecting such a bodily right means everyone would live in danger of say a kidney being taken against their will if it could save some one else.

Like wise it is argued, a pregnant women can take action to be unplugged from the embryo inside of her, she should not be forced to continue with a pregnancy anymore than some one plugged into the violinist to keep some one else alive, such is yours & hers bodily rights/freedom.

No conflict of rights/interests in the embryonic period

The argument here is that rights most plausibly derive from interests/desires.

We support general rules of not killing cause of our interest/desire in going on living, we support property rights cause we don't want our stuff taken from us, we support freedom of speech, etc etc. In the embryonic period the human organism has no current capacity to have an active or ideal desires, as there is no organized cortical brain activity.

David Boonin writes..." organized cortical brain activity refers to electrical activity in the cerebral cortex of the sort that produces recognizable EEG readings. As I noted in Section 3.5.3, there is no evidence to suggest that this occurs prior to approximately the 25th week of gestation, and ample evidence to suggest that it does begin to occur sometime between the 25th and 32nd week" [2]

Unjust burden argument

Sometimes right/interests conflict and we seek to manage such conflicts such as imposing various burdens upon people.

Never the less those burdens have to be justified and be proportional to interest/conflict concerned. For example we don't consider it an unjust burden to demand & enforce that people don't poison the water supply, but we would consider it an unjust burden to force people to give up a kidney, even if it would save the life of a self aware, intelligent, suffering, human.

Now consider the burden being argued to be imposed on a pregnant woman from the moment of conception, that being she should be forced to continue the pregnancy even against her will, incur the pain/suffering of said pregnancy and be subject to the risks of complication that can occur in a pregnancy, complications that can result in serious injury even death for the pregnant woman.

So here is the logical point, if we are not justified to imposed a burden on billionaires of the world to give up all their wealth except a few million (still leaving them richer than most) to save thinking, feeling, self aware, suffering, post birth humans, then it would be laughable & disproportionate to then argue that we are justified to force women to give up more, their bodily autonomy and the sufferings & dangers of pregnancy in order to save less, non thinking, non feeling, non self aware, human embryos.

A case for unequal value

(5 year old child vs 100, 3day human embryos)

Consider the following, you arrive at a burning building, behind one door is a canister of 100, 3 day human embryos, which are perfectly viable, and will remain so as long as they are immediately removed from the building and returned to cold storage. Behind another door is a 5 year old child, there is only time to rescue the canister or the 5 year old but not both.

Who do you try to save first ? if any and all human organisms are of equal moral worth then it's simple arithmetic, all things being equal you should try to save 100 over 1. But as I argue they are not equal, and even Pro-lifers would have a hard time choosing to save 100, 3day human embryos over one 5 year old child.

If early abortion is murder (reducto argument)

Consider a rapist, after raping a woman he tells her, if you end up pregnant and you have an abortion in the embryonic period your worse than I am, I am a rapist but you would be a murder.

Also consider if such an abortion is viewed as murder the rapist gets convicted of rape, but following after is the woman who he raped is now in court because she had such an abortion and thus gets convicted of murder. The woman now will be doing more years (or death penalty) than the rapist.

Again you can get out of this by just looking the other way, oh I don't want women in jail on a murder charge for abortions, but that is just an inconsistent position for the advocate that abortion is murder.

I argue that the abortion is murder premise leads to absurdity and should be rejected as a false premise.

Consequences of abortion being made illegal

Making abortion illegal doesn't stop them, woman who have illegal abortions are at much greater risk of injury and death.

"Then there are the desperate stories they hear. "I drank floor cleaner. I drank bleach. I took all the pills in the medicine cabinet. I have been trying to think how to crash the car to injure myself permanently but not die " a mother of four. I found poison bottles under my daughter"s bed, that"s how I found out she was pregnant. I"ve taken scalding hot baths, I"ve asked my boyfriend to punch me in the stomach. People say, oh, you"re just making stuff up. No, I wish I was." [3]

Sources

[1] http://spot.colorado.edu...

[2] https://ethicslab.georgetown.edu...

[3] http://www.theguardian.com...
Jerry947

Con

My Argument:

Abortion should not be legal because the fetus is human and therefore has the right to life. The fetus in the womb of the mother is alive since it is is composed of many cells. More importantly, the fetus has the nature of a human since it has human DNA. Humans do not have to speak, hear, have legs, and etc...to be considered human. Humanity goes beyond the physical. Even a person who is in a coma who has completely lost consciousness is still a human worthy of moral consideration. The United States has always recognized that the life of any human is valuable. So when people say that the value of humans is based on development, it is just false. It seems strange that people believe that the choice of the mother changes the status of the fetus from valuable to invaluable when there is no change in the nature of the fetus itself. Basically, it is obvious that being human in nature means to have a positive right to life.

That said, there are some arguments against abortions that need to be addressed. Many people would recognize that the fetus is a human but would deny that the fetus is a person. The people who say this say that a person is someone who has moral consideration as opposed to someone who is human by nature. Then there is the argument about aliens which states that aliens would still have value if they came to earth. This would mean that life is not valuable just because the nature of the fetus is human. Then there is an argument about humans only having a negative right to life which means that that humans do not have a moral obligation to keep other humans alive. Though, apparently we do have an obligation to not kill people as well. Another argument against abortion is that since a cell in the human body has human DNA and is alive, and because it is okay to kill it, therefore it makes no difference to kill the cells of a fetus. The last main argument against abortion is that the fetus is a part of the woman and therefore the woman has the right to do whatever she wants to do with her body.

The argument about the personhood of the fetus is very flawed since the people who make the claims have not really thought about what a person really is. A person who has value according to their definition is no different than a fetus. A person is not valuable because of their thoughts, feelings, or etc. A person could be brain dead and people would still treat the person as a person. So the personhood is not dependent on the things that a person can do, it is actually based on ontology. The very nature of the human is what makes a human being valuable. As for arguments about aliens, these do not work. Not only does it presuppose the existence of aliens, but the people who make this argument actually give human attributes to aliens making the aliens huaman. Basically, they are just calling humans by a different name. For example, people say that these aliens would have the morality of a human, the same functions of a human (unlike a real alien), and etc...making the alien very much human. So the nature of a human is what makes a life valuable. As for the argument about people only having a negative right to life, this also just isn"t true. When a mother has children, she has a moral obligation to feed them and keep them alive. While the mother can run away from her children and let them fend for themselves, she still has that moral obligation to take care of her children. Moral obligations do not go away even when a person fails to do what they are supposed to do. So we do actually have a positive right to life. As for the argument about the cells, while it might be okay to kill skin cells, they are cells in which have the nature of skin. In other words, a skin cell is by nature a skin cell. But the difference is that the cells of a fetus have the nature of human development. A fertilized egg has the nature of a whole human being which is not the case for a skin cell which only has the nature of skin. So this argument does not hold up. Lastly, the argument about the life being apart of the mother has one huge problem. It is that this would mean that a woman is now defined as a person with four arms, four legs, and two heads. The fetus is clearly a separate human than the mother. While it is true that the mother feeds the life inside her, the fetus is not the same person as herself. Therefore, the arguments for abortion do not effectively counter the arguments against abortion.

Rebuttals:

a. I don't really get the "freedom not restricted unless justified" argument. I am not sure if this was supposed to be a counter argument or not.

b. My opponent says that not all killing is wrong. This is completely true. That said, the whole debate is about whether murdering a baby is okay or not. My opponent has to first objectively establish what is murder before she argues that abortion is not murder.

c. The bodily rights argument has many flaws. The first being that it asserts that we have bodily rights. My opponent has to first objectively establish we have that right before their argument becomes worth discussing. If they can't, and it is only their opinion that woman have these rights, then it is subjective and meaningless since it has no impact on anyone.

d. My opponent then argues that we don't see it as an unjust burden to demand that people don't poison the water supply. I agree. Our society also doesn't see it as an unjust burden to demand that people don't murder each other. That is another reason why abortion is so wrong.

e. The case for equal value argument is one I have always thought to be horrible. Anyone could make up situations in which could never happen. But the fact is that if a person were to choose the baby instead of the embryos, that doesn't make them non-human. And if a person were to choose the embryos, that doesn't make the child non-human.

Here is another situations...five kids fall in a sink hole and you only have time to save one of them. One of them happens to be your son! So your decisions to save the son over the others doesn't make the others non-human or less vauable.

f. Not all people think that the death penalty is the proper punishment for any crime including murder. So this argument does not hold up. However, it does depend on whether the murder was unintentional, forced, or etc...But in cases where the mother knew exactly what she was doing, I agree that she should be put to death.

g. My opponent then argues that making abortions illegal wouldn't stop them. I don't understand why they bring this up. I mean, using this logic we should take away all laws since people would do bad things anyway. So my opponents arguments do not really hold up.

Thanks for a good round!
Debate Round No. 2
illegalcombat

Pro

I thank Jerry947 for their opening argument.

Opening comments

Con when talking about abortion leaves one important and I think fatal for their position variable out of their arguments and moral equation, the interests & rights of the pregnant woman. It may come as a surprise to some pro-lifers but a woman becoming pregnant does not strip her of any and all rights, especially rights concerning the use of one owns body, rights even pro-lifers take for granted for themselves.

Alot of what Con has to say is very general, eg right to life, value of humans, as such these things could even be accepted for my side of the debate and in such a general sense do nothing to refute early abortion should legal.

Con would have to explain, define and more importantly justify such things that directly force one to conclude early abortion should not be allowed, I maintain Con has failed to do so, & suffice to say I am not going to let Con just presuppose that having an early abortion is murder.

Freedom not restricted unless justified

To put this another way, if we are going to stop people from doing X, then we need to examine if we have good reason to do so.

The right to life/right not to be killed as an absolute is false & not all killing is murder

Con does agree that killing can be justified. Con remarks about murdering babies, well for one, by definition murder is wrong, secondly we are talking about human organisms in the embryonic period of pregnancy not babies.

The logical point here still stands, even granting abortion kills something human, it does not NECESSARILY follow then that abortion is murder.

Bodily rights/autonomy

(the violinist analogy)

Con has an interesting counter argument here, just reject any such bodily rights, I think Cons position is untenable. For starters I did make the argument that rights derive from our own interests/desires, but more importantly taking Cons denial approach means rape, kidnapping people and taking a kidney have not done something wrong, since there was no bodily rights to be violated in the first place.

"A case in point, if Adrian has a negative right to life against Clay, then Clay is required to refrain from killing Adrian; while if Adrian has a positive right to life against Clay, then Clay is required to act as necessary to preserve the life of Adrian." [1]

Taking a kidney against some ones will is especially justified on Cons view cause according to them we & others have a positive right to life.

So Con has two choices here, either accept we do have such a bodily rights or double down into Cons brave new world where such bodily rights are denied and let the rapeing and theft of kidneys begin.

Lastly, if Con wants to just reject such bodily rights as mere assertions and not objectively established then the same can be done to their right to life (how ever that right is defined) assertions and arguments that operate on such an assumption.

Allow me to add more to justify such bodily rights/autonomy

(Inalienability of the will & your own body)

Grape argues as follows..."If I agree to take you on an airplane ride under the obligation that I will not "ask you to leave" at 20,000 feet, I cannot change my mind and toss you out because I have given up my ownership of the airplane to that extent. With bodies, this is not the case: it is not possible for me to give up control of my body. For instance, I cannot contract the use of my arm to you because my control over it is totally and uniquely mine. Our ability to exert or will over our bodies prevents us from ever being forced to uphold such a contract. If I agreed to work for you for a year for free and then change my mind, the most you can do is demand material property as compensation; you cannot enslave me without aggressing against my rights"

"In using a mother"s body against her will, a fetus carries out exactly this kind of aggression. It may have the rights of an adult, but surely we would not permit an adult to use another person"s body as a life support system against her will. Such action would warrant violent self-defense even if it were carried out without malign intent. The mother therefore may remove a fetus from her body if it is violating her rights in this fashion. Neither she nor anyone else is bound by the fetus"s inability to survive independent of the mother; it does not have a positive right to life." [2]

No conflict of rights/interests in the embryonic period

The argument here is that rights most plausibly derive from interests/desires and in the early stages of pregnancy the human organism has no such interests.

Unjust burden argument

Recall the argument here as..."So here is the logical point, if we are not justified to imposed a burden on billionaires of the world to give up all their wealth except a few million (still leaving them richer than most) to save thinking, feeling, self aware, suffering, post birth humans, then it would be laughable & disproportionate to then argue that we are justified to force women to give up more, their bodily autonomy and the sufferings & dangers of pregnancy in order to save less, non thinking, non feeling, non self aware, human embryos."

Con merely assumes that abortion is murder, I maintain they have not established that, thus has no counter here.

A case for unequal value

(5 year old child vs 100, 3day human embryos)

Yes they are human in the genetic sense, all human organisms are human in that sense, Contra any implications from Con that I suggest otherwise.

Cons sink hole scenario doesn't show what I think Con assumes it shows. Change Cons sink hole scenario to where all children are strangers, you can either save 4 or them or 1 but not all 5. Well that's pretty easy save the 4 over the 1.

In Cons examples it's your own child at stake, and yes we may take such action, even saving our own 1 child over 4 not our own child, this only shows that when our emotions & something more primal is influencing our decision our rationality gets compromised, but take such a situation where rationality is not comprised we save 4 children over 1 & save one 5 year old over 100, 3 day human embryos.

This is because not all human organisms have the same value.

If early abortion is murder (reducto argument)

Contra Con I did argue that either long imprisonment or death sentence are the options here, so the argument does hold up.

Yes in this argument the women referred to are those who knew what they were doing and do it freely.

Con bites the bullet here, so there position that abortion even early abortion is murder and thus what should be done to such women is consistent as Con says..."I agree that she should be put to death." but that doesn't mean it is correct.

Consider the woman who was raped, then shortly after say 2-3 weeks takes an abortion pill thus causing an abortion. In Cons world she should die now, but the rapist gets to live albeit after doing some jail time. This is absurd, and it's absurd because it's the logical outcome of operating on the false premise that early abortion is murder.

Consequences of abortion being made illegal

Con points out that we can't make things legal just because some people will do them if we make them illegal. But that isn't the argument here, the argument specially refers to the price that women pay by having abortion being made illegal.

That price is serious injury and death.

Personhood

Does mere genetic humanity grant one personhood ? I argue no.

Firstly, it grants person hood on a morally irrelevant property.

Secondly, it's speciesist

Thirdly, consider we are visited by self-aware, intelligent aliens, we would recognize them as persons based on such & not deny them as persons cause they lacked genetic humanity.

I look forward to Cons reply.

Sources

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...

[2] http://www.debate.org...
Jerry947

Con

Freedom not restricted unless justified:

I will go along with what my opponent is saying. We need to have a good enough reason to stop people from doing something.

The right to life/right not to be killed as an absolute is false and not all killing is murder:

While I did agree that killing can be justified, my opponent has failed to establish that abortion is not murder. In my opening argument, I established that what makes someone have the right to life is the fact that they are human. And the human that resides in the womb of a mother has not done anything to deserve death.

Basically, my argument was that killing someone that is human makes it murder unless the human has done something that would make their rights nonexistent.

Bodily rights/autonomy:

I think there was a misunderstanding here. I wasn't saying that there was no such thing as bodily rights, but unless they can back up that claim objectively, then their argument falls apart.

My opponent says "I did make the argument that rights derive from our own interests/desires, but more importantly taking Cons denial approach means rape, kidnapping people and taking a kidney have not done something wrong, since there was no bodily rights to be violated in the first place.

The huge problem with their argument is that if rights come from our own interest, then that also means that the rapist and the kidnapper also get to define what rights we have. And that is the problem with my opponents argument. If rights do not objectively exist, then you can't say that a woman has objective bodily rights and you couldn't say (objectively) that the rapist and the kidnapper was wrong.

Then my opponent says "So Con has two choices here, either accept we do have such a bodily rights or double down into Cons brave new world where such bodily rights are denied and let the rapeing and theft of kidneys begin." But here is what I was trying to point out last round. My opponent is the one who can't prove that we have objective rights and they can't say that the rapist and the kidnapper was objectively wrong.

Now it is time to support my assertion that humans have a right to life. While my opponent has failed to show that rapist and killers objectively do things that are wrong and while they have failed to objectively establish that women have bodily rights, I can do this.

Like Thomas Jefferson, I am a believer that rights are endowed by God. If rights come from a God, they would objectively exist. God, just like Jefferson said, gave us the right to life. Otherwise, there would be no rights at all and my opponent would have no argument for bodily rights. But since they have asserted that women have bodily rights, they have to prove that this is true. And if they decide to deny the existence of rights altogether, then their whole argument falls apart and this debate comes down to me showing that rights exist objectively.

It was then stated that "In using a mother"s body against her will, a fetus carries out exactly this kind of aggression. It may have the rights of an adult, but surely we would not permit an adult to use another person"s body as a life support system against her will. Such action would warrant violent self-defense even if it were carried out without malign intent. The mother therefore may remove a fetus from her body if it is violating her rights in this fashion. Neither she nor anyone else is bound by the fetus"s inability to survive independent of the mother; it does not have a positive right to life."

I have already made an argument for why humans have a positive right to life. But my opponent can address that whenever they feel like it. That said, it is ridiculous to say that the mother has these rights when my opponent can't even establish that these bodily rights objectively exist. My opponent has made up these rights and cannot objectively support them. I on the other hand have shown that objective rights, if they exist would have to come from a God. That said, the right to kill a baby would not be one of them. No where will you see a God affirming abortion. At least, I can't think of any.

Another problem is the whole thing about self defense. In most cases, people have sex and have a baby. The baby didn't choose to be made. It was the fault of the parents. And in cases of rape, the baby is not attacking the women. The rapist did the violating. But the baby had just as much choose in the matter as the women did. So therefore the self defense argument does not hold up.

No conflict of rights/interests in the embryonic period:

If rights derive from the interests of people, then that means the rapists also get to decide what rights people have. My opponent's argument just does not hold up. If there is an objective right to life, then the human embryo gets that right as well.

Unjust Burden Argument:

I have not just assumed that abortion was murder. I spent my whole opening argument proving that being human makes you have the right to life. I also explained why an embryo would be deserving of these rights as well. On the other hand, my opponent has done nothing showing that abortion isn't murder.

A case for unequal value:

My opponent didn't read my rebuttal properly. I said that there would only be time to save one child in the sink hole.

Then my opponent says something astonishing. They claim that "yes we may take such action, even saving our own 1 child over 4 not our own child, this only shows that when our emotions & something more primal is influencing our decision our rationality gets compromised."

That is exactly what I was trying to prove. While someone might save the child instead of the 100 embryos, this wouldn't show that the embryos weren't human and vice versa. This would only show that the emotions of a person impacts their decision.

If early abortion is murder (reducto argument):

I never said that the women who was raped should be put to death. Though, I did say that in some cases the women should be put to death for having an abortion. I said it depended on the circumstance. If the women was clearly a sick baby killer, she should be put to death. But I never mentioned anything about rape in that particular situation. The problem is that my opponent keeps focusing on rape cases (or extreme cases) which leads me to believe that they don't really have a good argument here. If you can only talk about extreme cases, then you don't got much going for you.

Consequences of abortion being made illegal:

My opponent clarifies and says that if abortion is made illegal, the price is serious injury and death. But this is in only extreme cases where the mother will drink bleach or etc...And actually, nobody pays attention to the fact that abortion also has a chance of killing the mother. So I am curious if the examples where mothers hurt themselves due to abortion being made illegal are just as common as abortions harming the mother.

Personhood:

My opponent ignores my argument about the personhood since being human is apparently irrevalent. They bring up aliens to support their argument to show that my argument was "speciesist," but this was already addressed in my opening round.

I also will look forward to my opponents next response.

Sources:

http://realchoice.blogspot.com...
https://www.google.com...
http://www.abortionfacts.com...
Debate Round No. 3
illegalcombat

Pro

I thank Jerry947 for their reply.

Freedom not restricted unless justified

Agreed.

The right to life/right not to be killed as an absolute is false & not all killing is murder

Recall here that..."The logical point here still stands, even granting abortion kills something human, it does not NECESSARILY follow then that abortion is murder."

Con agrees with that point. Con wrongly implies that I have to prove that abortion is not murder & until I do so abortion is murder, this is burden shifting by Con.

I maintain that Con has not being able to justify the abortion is murder premise.

Contra Con I did argued against their positive right to life..."Taking a kidney against some ones will is especially justified on Cons view cause according to them we & others have a positive right to life."

Maybe I wasn't clear enough, What I was getting at is that such a right is untenable, lest we live a world where our body & it's various parts can be used against our will to save some one elses life.

Bodily rights/autonomy

(the violinist analogy)

Con doesn't deny such bodily rights, but rather objects that such rights have not being objectively established. Con can't have it both ways, either Con assumes such bodily rights exist that make rape & kidnapping wrong, in which case Con can't complain or Con continues to deny such bodily rights, in which case I argue that Con is forced to deny such bodily rights in order to justify their side of the debate.

(Inalienability of the will & your own body)

Con doesn't seem to dispute that ones own body isn't subject to the same restrictions as property, due to the fact that you have unique control over ones own body.

Contra Con the self defense claim does hold up, the act of aggression alluded too need not be intentional.

God given rights

Notice that even if such a God given right to life exists all my various points still stand. For example the right to life, that is to say the right not to be killed (God given) as an absolute is UNTENABLE, ergo killing something that is human is not NECESSARILY murder.

But it gets worse for Con here, what about other God given rights ? What about the God given bodily rights ? I can just as easily assert we have God given bodily rights. Nothing changes here all we have done is just pushed back and dumped it on God.

It gets worse again for Con, has Con established beyond mere assertion and implication that God given rights are such that a woman can't have an early abortion ? No.

No doubt that Con can construe a God given right to life in such a way that logically entails that a woman can't have an early abortion, but such a God given right can also be construed in such a way that allows for an early abortion.

Con and Pro-lifers don't have a monopoly on claims of God given rights.

No conflict of rights/interests in the embryonic period

Con points that rapists can just assert what rights we have, presumably in such a way to allow rape. Yes, just like a pro-lifer can just assert God given rights in such a way to force continuation of pregnancy against a woman's will. This is why we look to reason and consequence beyond just mere assertion of said rights.

Cons position of God given rights is also implausible compared to the position of rights being derived from interests since Con has to presuppose among other things the existence of a right giving God.

We have reasons to doubt the existence of such a right giving God.

George Carlin remarks..."Personally, folks, I believe that if your rights came from God, he would have given you the right to have some food every day, and he would have given you the right to a roof over your head, God would have been looking out for you. " [1]

Sam Harris argues...""Nine million children die every year before they reach the age of five. Picture an Asian tsunami of the sort we saw in 2004 that killed a quarter of a million people"one of those every 10 days, killing children only under five: that"s twenty-four thousand children a day, a thousand an hour, seventeen or so a minute. That means before I get to the end of this sentence, some few children very likely will have died in terror and agony." & "Any god who would allow children by the millions to suffer and die in this way and their parents to grieve in this way, either can do nothing to help them or doesn't care to." [2]

So what's more likely to be true ? God given rights exist in such a way that don't allow a woman to have an abortion in the earliest stage of pregnancy OR Human beings make up God given rights in such a way to justify an agenda, in this case denying a woman an early abortion.

I submit the latter, occams razor.

The argument still here is that rights most plausibly derive from interests/desires and in the early stages of pregnancy the human organism has no such interests.

Unjust burden argument

Recall the argument here as..."So here is the logical point, if we are not justified to imposed a burden on billionaires of the world to give up all their wealth except a few million (still leaving them richer than most) to save thinking, feeling, self aware, suffering, post birth humans, then it would be laughable & disproportionate to then argue that we are justified to force women to give up more, their bodily autonomy and the sufferings & dangers of pregnancy in order to save less, non thinking, non feeling, non self aware, human embryos."

I maintain that Con has not being able to justify that abortion is murder thus has no counter here.

A case for unequal value

(5 year old child vs 100, 3day human embryos)

Cons counter merely showed what happens when our rationality is comprised, eg our own child is involved. I maintain that without factors at play to compromise our rationality, even Pro-lifers would have a hard time saving 100, 3 day human embryos over one 5 year old child.

This is because whether they want to admit it or not, not all human organisms have equal value.

If early abortion is murder (reducto argument)

Con knows damm well that I was talking about early abortion, yet, and NOT for the first time Con decided to segway into commentary on baby killing or something similar.

Con when confronted with the absurdity of a raped women taking an abortion pill within a few weeks getting long term imprisonment or death penalty compared and contrasted to the rapist lesser sentence just doesn't want to deal with it.

Contra Con if it is such a weak argument, why can't Con just simply refute it ?

You know what is "weak", Con who wants to argue early abortion is murder but when it is pointed out where this gets Con just dismisses the analysis cause it's too damaging for their position. If you have to resort to such evasive tactics and disparaging remarks rather than deal with the actual argument, maybe it's time to reconsider your position.

If Con just finds this too hard of a case, allow me to make it real easy for them, the early abortion is murder premise is false to begin with.

As I argued before..."Again you can get out of this by just looking the other way, oh I don't want women in jail on a murder charge for abortions, but that is just an inconsistent position for the advocate that abortion is murder.

Personhood

Recall how I argued that genetic humanity does not grant something personhood, it grants person hood on a morally irrelevant property & it's speciesist.

Con & Pro-lifers presumably would not deny person hood to self aware intelligent aliens. What this shows is that you can't justify person vs non person on whether something possess genetic humanity, other wise said aliens would be denied personhood.

Con can assert that mere genetic humanity is so valuable and/or grants personhood, but that's all it is a mere assertion.

I maintain we have good reason to reject that genetic humanity grants something personhood.

I thank Jerry947 for the debate.

Sources

[1] http://lybio.net...

[2] https://www.youtube.com...
Jerry947

Con

Note: My opponent has not really addressed anything in my opening argument. They have only addressed things said in my rebuttals of their arguments.

The right to life/right not to be killed as an absolute is false & not all killing is murder:

My opponent states that "The logical point here still stands, even granting abortion kills something human, it does not NECESSARILY follow then that abortion is murder."

I clearly disagree with that statement. That is why I spent my whole opening argument explaining why being human makes it not okay for the baby to be killed. My opponent literally ignored everything I had to say and then keeps repeating the same line.

Then they claim that I agree with them about that statement. But that is not quite true. I agreed that there were times that it was okay to kill a human. A person who murders someone does loose their right to life. But I never agree that killing an innocent baby was okay. I mean, the embryo has done nothing wrong in any case so I don't see how my opponent sees the death of the child as valid.

Then my opponent states "con wrongly implies that I have to prove that abortion is not murder & until I do so abortion is murder, this is burden shifting by Con."

I don't see how this is the case. I made an argument for why killing the baby/embryo would be murder and it was never responded to. On the other hand, my opponent has made no justification as of to why the abortion should not be considered murder.

Bodily rights/autonomy:

My opponent says "Con doesn't deny such bodily rights, but rather objects that such rights have not being objectively established. Con can't have it both ways, either Con assumes such bodily rights exist that make rape & kidnapping wrong, in which case Con can't complain or Con continues to deny such bodily rights, in which case I argue that Con is forced to deny such bodily rights in order to justify their side of the debate."

My whole point was that my opponent said that people decide what rights people have. This is a big problem for him since people also includes the rapists and the kidnappers. They can't objectively establish rights and this causes their argument to fall apart.

My point was that the embryo or whatever stage the baby is in is not doing any attacking. The rapist is! So I don't understand why we must punish the baby for the sins of the rapist.

God given rights:

They say that "But it gets worse for Con here, what about other God given rights ? What about the God given bodily rights ? I can just as easily assert we have God given bodily rights. Nothing changes here all we have done is just pushed back and dumped it on God."

Okay fine. I will play along here. Why is the mother the only human who gets bodily rights? Why does the right to life and the bodily rights of the baby get ignored?

My opponent then says "No doubt that Con can construe a God given right to life in such a way that logically entails that a woman can't have an early abortion, but such a God given right can also be construed in such a way that allows for an early abortion. "

I am sure it could. But that would all come down to which God is the right one. Although, like I already mentioned, I don't think there is a God that allows abortion. Since my opponent hasn't supplied a such God, their argument fails.

Then they say "Con and Pro-lifers don't have a monopoly on claims of God given rights."

Who said we did? But my opponent originally argued that rights come from people. Now that they see that that position fails, now they are buying into the "rights endowed by God."

No conflict of rights/interests in the embryonic period:

"Con points that rapists can just assert what rights we have, presumably in such a way to allow rape. Yes, just like a pro-lifer can just assert God given rights in such a way to force continuation of pregnancy against a woman's will. This is why we look to reason and consequence beyond just mere assertion of said rights."

But all my opponent has presented are assertions about what rights we have. My opponent even seems to understand that rights can only be objectively established by a God.

"Cons position of God given rights is also implausible compared to the position of rights being derived from interests since Con has to presuppose among other things the existence of a right giving God."

My point was that objective rights could only exist with the existence of a God. My opponent seems to agree since they didn't provide any other way the rights could exist objectively. That said, they still acknowledge that women has objective rights such as bodily ones and etc...So how can my opponent acknowledge the existence of objective rights but not the source that endowed them? It is literally like they are acknowledging the book but not the author.

So basically, my opponents asserts that we have rights. But at the same time they say humans decide what rights we have. I showed why that doesn't work. Then my opponent seems to acknowledge that rights can only exist with a God.

As for the quotes from Carlin and Harris, they are emotional appeals and they don't actually discredit anything I have said. My argument was that objective rights could only come from a God. The fact that children suffer doesn't disprove anything. And besides, I find that to be a very ironic example since my opponent is arguing for abortion.

"The argument still here is that rights most plausibly derive from interests/desires and in the early stages of pregnancy the human organism has no such interests."

And again, the big problem with this is that the rapist gets to decide what rights we have as well. So my opponent literally has no argument here.

A case for unequal value:

"Cons counter merely showed what happens when our rationality is comprised, eg our own child is involved. I maintain that without factors at play to compromise our rationality, even Pro-lifers would have a hard time saving 100, 3 day human embryos over one 5 year old child."

Well, our rationality would also be compromised seeing a five yea old screaming in a burning house. That was the whole point to my rebuttal.

"This is because whether they want to admit it or not, not all human organisms have equal value."

Another assertion with no support. Again, i spent my whole opening argument that being human means to have the right to life. My opponent still has not responded to it.

If early abortion is murder (reducto argument):

I don't know why my opponent gets so emotional here. I see the early stage of the child as a baby. My whole thing about the death penalty was that not everyone agrees that it should be used at all. And I even said that in some cases, it would be okay to put the women to death. But I never a specific circumstance.

"Con when confronted with the absurdity of a raped women taking an abortion pill within a few weeks getting long term imprisonment or death penalty compared and contrasted to the rapist lesser sentence just doesn't want to deal with it."

Again, my opponent only focuses on rape cases...and I think that is a problem. That said, I never said anything about rape cases. I said that I think that women should be put to death in some cases. But I never really went into specific details because I don't think I have to. Not everyone agrees that murder should be punished by death.

Personhood:

Again, my whole opening argument disproved the alien objection.

Not enough characters...but I do thank my opponent for the debate. It has been fun.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Jerry947 7 months ago
Jerry947
Thanks for a good debate!
Posted by dsjpk5 8 months ago
dsjpk5
Thanks for the vote!
Posted by illegalcombat 8 months ago
illegalcombat
Just means more time for you to prepare since you know what the arguments will be then.
Posted by Jerry947 8 months ago
Jerry947
No problem.

I already know what it is anyway since you use the same opening argument in every abortion debate you create.
Posted by illegalcombat 8 months ago
illegalcombat
I WON'T be posting my opening argument anytime soon, just letting you know.
Posted by Jerry947 8 months ago
Jerry947
Wow...meant to say that I accept this debate. Not off to a good start on my part.
No votes have been placed for this debate.