The Instigator
elvroin_vonn_trazem
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
socialpinko
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

Many Abortion Opponents are Despicable, because they are in it for the money

Do you like this debate?NoYes-5
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 5 votes the winner is...
socialpinko
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/22/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,084 times Debate No: 24384
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (4)
Votes (5)

 

elvroin_vonn_trazem

Pro

"Despicable" is related to the word "despise". And many abortion opponents should indeed be despised, because they are "in it for the money" --meaning that they expect to get richer because they oppose abortion. Of course they won't admit it, and will make all sorts of alternate excuses, but the facts that support my claim begin with this (replace initial dots with standard web-address characters):
htt.....ww.investopedia.com/terms/l/law-of-supply-demand.asp

It is well known that many "political conservatives" oppose abortion. It is also well known that many of them also operate businesses, and therefore they know all about the Law of Supply and Demand. It is the majority of this specific group, the many business-operating opponents of abortion, who are despicable.

This short Debate is therefore about most of that specific group only, and my opponent in this Debate must not reference any other group. To win this Debate, all that Con need do is either show that the Law of Supply and Demand is false (good luck with that!), or show how it doesn't actually apply in my argument that follows.

To begin, please consider a very simple and stable "model economy". In this model, the population is stable and is adequately supplied with resources, mostly by recycling (energy can't be recycled like, say, copper). Everyone is employed, although some are employed as "employers of others". All types of "goods" that are produced are fairly priced, and all workers are fairly paid. There is no inflation; all money circulates. Nobody is getting richer and nobody is getting poorer.

In some ways that is an impossibly ideal model economy, because human greed won't accept it. One of the fundamental propositions of economics is that people have unlimited wants, after all.
htt.....ww.investopedia.com/university/economics/

As a result, just for example, an employer who has unlimited wants might decide to buy out all competitors. Doing this lets that employer control all the resources that become some particular type of goods. The employer can now fire some of the employees, causing fewer goods to be made. But the overall population, in that original model economy, still has the same demand as before, for those goods. The net effect is that prices rise and the employer gets richer.

But that's not all! Those workers that were fired are now in competition with others for new jobs. Per the Law of Supply and Demand, an oversupply of workers causes wages to go down. Now the employer can get richer even faster, due to paying workers less, and because prices are higher.

In general, such a process is called "creating artificial scarcity", and it actually happens in the real world.
htt.....ww.pippinbass.com/Artificial-Diamond-Scarcity.asp
It also tends to lead to new types of competition. In the case of the diamond market, some new mines were opened in Canada that were not controlled by the mostly-based-in-Africa diamond cartel. And perfect gem-quality diamonds can now be grown in a laboratory.

However, in this Debate I've started off with a "model economy" in which such options are not available. Besides, you can be sure that in the real world, the diamond cartel could potentially, eventually, buy out both the Canadian mines and the diamond-growing labs, and once again create artificial scarcity. "Everyone has a price", goes the cliche. In other words, I'm not being completely unrealistic in denying new resources to my model economy.

Getting back to that model economy, let us assume that no employer tries to corner some particular market. Let us instead see what happens when we add some more people to that economy, say by banning abortion....

Immediately the demand for various goods goes up, because there are more people who need those goods. However, if resources are fixed, as indicated above, then the Law of Supply and Demand causes prices to rise. And, eventually, as those extra people grow up and join the work force, they compete for jobs, causing wages to go down, also as previously mentioned.

It should be obvious that this also is a way for employers to get richer, as a result of lower wages and higher prices. In general, those two things, population growth and attempts to corner markets, are the fundamental things that cause the rich to get richer, and everyone else (not just the poor) to get poorer.

For evidence, just look at History. In Europe they had the Black Death at one point, that killed 1/3 the population of Europe, and pretty much destroyed the feudal/serf system of that time. It also left 3/3 the wealth/resources of Europe in the hands of 2/3 as many people as before; the "middle class" was born as a result.
htt.....ww.bbc.co.uk/history/british/middle_ages/black_impact_01.shtml

The Black Death was the opposite of the population-growth thing that I described for that model economy; basically the poor got richer faster than the rich.

When the Western Hemisphere was opened up to colonization by Europeans, vast quantities of many types of resources suddenly became available. The middle class grew, the poor still got rich faster than the rich, basically because resources were being produced faster than the population grew.

Economic decline in the United States began roughly in the 1950s-1960s. Those were the beginning of the end of the days when one man's wages sufficed to support a family. Nowadays the wages of both parents barely suffice, and the middle class is shrinking; population has grown that much faster than resource-production in just the USA, to say nothing of the whole world.

Meanwhile, business operators know all about the Law of Supply and Demand, and those who oppose abortion (plus those who try to corner markets) know full well it means they can get richer while everyone else gets poorer. They care not at all how the babies they want to be born must eventually scrabble to obtain poor-paying jobs, and fight for ever-more-restricted and higher-priced resources. All that most of the abortion-opposing business operators really care about, no matter what they claim, is getting richer.

As far as I can figure, there is only one way members of that group can prove they aren't opposing abortion for the money. They must do everything they can to increase resource-production, faster than the population grows. Only then can they demonstrate they want the general population to get rich, also.

A very few of them are indeed trying. The rest, the majority of business-operating abortion opponents, are just plain despicable!
socialpinko

Con

The resolution argues that opponents of abortion who are in it for the money are despicable. In order to uphold the resolution, my opponent must (A) prove the existence of anti-abortionists who hold the position solely for monetary gain, (B) prove that they are despicable, and (C) prove correct the standard on which he bases the supposition that holding profit over other things is despicable is correct.


Contention. Creating Artificial Scarcity.


In my opponent's argument, he argues that the motivation of many anti-abortionists is to create artificial scarcity for products and jobs by increasing the population at a faster rate then resource-production. He argues this based on the basic law of supply and demand whereby prices are determined in conjunction with the rise of one correlating with the decline of the other. If, my opponent argues, population increase while resource production stays the same, employers and owners of industry can pocket the increased profits due to lowered wages for employees and higher prices for products.


The meat of my opponent's case lies in proving this fact which I will simply agree with seeing as it doesn't sufficiently prove his case. He must also show that some anti-abortionists oppose abortion for specifically this reason, something they never attempted to do over their case. In fact, in regards to the motivations behind anti-abortionists, all my opponent contends is that the ONLY way anti-abortionists can defeat this claim is to POSITIVELY do everything they can to increase production faster then population. Of course this is an impossible mis-characterization of where the burden of proof actually lies.


--Burden of Proof--


In making a positive contention, my opponent has assumed the burden of evidence in showing it to be true. This means that charging with someone gives him the responsibility of proving it. We cannot assume that he is right just because those whom the charge was leveled at have not refuted the claim. That's not how proof works. Consider a court case where the prosecutor simply says that my opponent robbed a bank because he likes money. Obviously this provides some sort of economic motive but is far from providing adequate evidence to prove that he robbed the bank. Furthermore, it does only that, provide a motive. But we can have contradictory motives can't we?


For instance, my opponent might have a motive to get money, but probably has a rival motive not to go to jail and thus has a motive not to rob the bank. Likewise, corporate owners who are also against abortion may profit off of overpopulation, but my opponent's point totally ignores any other rival motives they might have, such as living in line with their religion or protecting what they see as the sanctity of life. My opponent never attempts to show why people who might profit off of overpopulation were not instead persuaded by their own religious or philosophical views on the matter, as we can see that most anti-abortionists are.


A point which is just as interesting I would add is that my opponent never mentions a single name concerning supposed anti-abortionists who are in it for the money. Not one! Therefore he could not possible uphold his burden seeing as we can't even identify a single person that the resolution would apply to.


Contention. Despicability and Moral Standards.


The second part of my opponent's burden of proof, besides establishing the existence of purely financially motivated anti-abortionists (which he has failed to do), lies in proving that they are (A) despicable and (B) proving correct the standard which he uses to call them despicable. On this aspect of his evidential burden my opponent is completely silent. All we can surmise from his case is the standard itself which my opponent uses to make the claim i.e. that they supposedly favor profit over quality of life for some others. Now under a common sense conception of morality this would be correct, but a common sense conception is unjustified. My opponent has the burden to actually argumentatively justify this standard in order to prove that it is something other than a personal valuation.


Why are these people (whom my opponent has not even proven to exist mind you) despicable? My opponent argues because they don't abide by his own personal values. But seeing as he has failed to prove the soundness of validity of these values themselves, I see no reason to accept the criticism as seriously correct or supporting the resolution. We are here dealing with categorical criticism, not value criticism. My opponent needed to prove that there behavior was objectively despicable i.e. objectively immoral and has failed to do so. Therefore the point and the resolution fail.
Debate Round No. 1
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by elvroin_vonn_trazem 4 years ago
elvroin_vonn_trazem
Since there are those who want to question this Debate without reading it, I'll post some of it here as a "nutshell" thing.

To Deathbeforedishonor, "what you always thought" obviously just reflects what you have been told, and doesn't reflect the facts. And the facts quite clearly include the statements that "many abortion opponents operate businesses", and "most business operators know about the Law of Supply and Demand". Since it logically follows that opposing abortion causes population to increase, and thereby also increases Demand, it should be obvious how those particular business-operating abortion opponents hope to profit from it.

The thing that makes them despicable is their failure to simultaneously ensure that Supply grows to meet (or be synchronized with) that Demand, especially when <strong>normal</strong> business practice includes the idea of artificially restricting Supply, also to increase profits. The net effect: All those who are forced to be born into that economy will suffer from that out-of-sync Supply, just so the abortion-opposing business operators can get rich.

Whether they <strong>know</strong> this particular consequence or not is irrelevant; their <strong>actions</strong>, of seeking to increase Demand while not seeking to increase Supply, condemn them to despicability (the same way someone can be guilty of "manslaughter" without having intended it).

There is more, regarding increased competition for jobs (they also are linked to Supply), that also increases profits for business operators. See the Debate for the details.

To Kenneth_Stokes, if you aren't a business operator, then you are not one of the "many" that are specifically referenced in this Debate.
Posted by Kenneth_Stokes 4 years ago
Kenneth_Stokes
I'm 17-years-old and oppose abortion, yet I make no income? Why?
Posted by Deathbeforedishonour 4 years ago
Deathbeforedishonour
Wait how would people who oppose abortions get money? I always thought the people who made money were the pro-abortion people, because the abortions cost money and can be taxed.
Posted by elvroin_vonn_trazem 4 years ago
elvroin_vonn_trazem
My argument was based on the notion that "actions speak louder than words". So it is the actions of most members the particular group being discussed, that makes them despicable. I probably should have said as much in the Debate. So it goes, sometimes (can't always think of everything).
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
elvroin_vonn_trazemsocialpinkoTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had to prove intent. That might be done, for example, with polling data or by writings expressing intent. Pro offered nothing but an unsubstantiated theory.
Vote Placed by Double_R 4 years ago
Double_R
elvroin_vonn_trazemsocialpinkoTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Strange resolution. I read Pros argument out of sheer curiosity as to how he would support such a bizarre notion that proving anti-abortionists are despicable can be done using economics. As Con pointed out, he didn't.
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
elvroin_vonn_trazemsocialpinkoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: It's possible that what Pro said was true, but he never showed that Abortion opponents were actually in it to increase population and lower wages. He sort of implied that anyone who opposes abortions must be in a position to profit from a larger labor force, and never proved it.
Vote Placed by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
elvroin_vonn_trazemsocialpinkoTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: As Con pointed out, Pro didn't prove anybody is actually in the category of business-owners-who-oppose-abortion-for-the-purpose-of-driving-down-wages. There are plenty of reasons to think some anti-abortion people are despicable, and plenty of reason to think some of them are in it for the money, but Pro fantasized only the one category of despicable anti-abortion business people. We have no reason to think that category has anyone in it.
Vote Placed by TheOrator 4 years ago
TheOrator
elvroin_vonn_trazemsocialpinkoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro couldn't uphold the burden of proof