Early abortion should be legal
Debate Rounds (4)
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.
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.
I thank Shamoo2 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.
The logical point being even granting abortion kills something human, it does not NECESSARILY follow then that abortion is murder because something human is killed.
(The violinist analogy)
Consider Judith Jarvis Thomson's bodily rights argument via the violinist analogy . In this analogy you are kidnapped in order to keep some violinist alive by having your body connected to theirs so your kidneys can filter poisons out from the violinist, If you were to unplug from he violinist they will die.
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 against your will ? Are you allowed to take action to disconnect yourself ?
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/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." 
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" 
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 where applicable) than the rapist.
Some one may claim that oh I don't want women in jail on a murder charge for an early abortion, but that is just an inconsistent position for the advocate that abortion, including early abortions is equivalent to murder.
I argue that the early abortion is murder premise leads to absurdity and should be rejected as a false premise.
I look foward to Cons reply.
Shamoo2 forfeited this round.
Shamoo2 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by fire_wings 10 months ago
|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:||4||0|
Reasons for voting decision: concession in the last round, 2 forfeits.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.