The Instigator
xPrtN00bSn1p3r
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
RedDevils
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Pro-choicers can't logically justify murder of an avg. child to be worse than that of an avg. adult.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/15/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 309 times Debate No: 83932
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

xPrtN00bSn1p3r

Pro

Opening round is for acceptance.

Definition of pro choice: One who supports abortion on grounds of the less sentient life form mattering less than the more sentient life form.

No alteration or questioning of the definition is permitted the entire debate, accepting means you accept the definition word for word.
Debate Round No. 1
xPrtN00bSn1p3r

Pro

Consent barriers set by age, aside from being based on maturity, are largely based on the fact that the law considers anyone below that age in that nation/region to be incapable of genuine consent. [UK source http://www.thesite.org...] [Australian source https://aifs.gov.au...] [US source regarding sex consent http://www.solresearch.org...].

The concept of 'protecting the young' is based on the notion that aside from physical weakness, the young are also far more suggestible given their less developed resistance to persuasion which is in turn due to less solidified sentience on their part as opposed to the more sentient adults being capable of resisting hte child's manipulation without being incapable of manipulating the child himself/herself.

Similarly, pro-lifers defend the outlawing of abortion on the basis that the fetus which is totally incapable of defending itself or overpowering the sentience of the mother with its own is still deserving of defense despite being less sentient and less capable of having solidified opinions and consent. Atheistic, as well as pro-choice religious, opposition often argue that scientifically a fetus has less signs of independent thought and consciousness than their older counterparts but this is even more obviously true if we take a child and compare it to an adult both legally, psychologically and morally speaking.

The murder of a child being seen as worse than that of an adult can be justified rationally by one of three methods:

1) Probability says that the child had longer to live than the adult so the potential breadth of lifespan one has severed from existence is significantly more severe.

2) Children, on average, are far less capable of defending themselves than adults are due to both the ability to strategize a defense and escape route as well as identifying the threat in time. The relative helplessness of the child being far greater than that of the adult means that murdering a child is far less morally appeasing as you are taking advantage of a weaker being due to cowardice in that you didn't dare to murder the more challenging adult instead.

3) Children are less conscious of their decisions than adults and so it is far easier to scare them to the point of speechlessness (no screaming for help) or to bait them into false sense of security (handing out candy or some other friendly gesture) to render them placid far more so than for an adult. Similar to number 2, you are being a coward by going for such a ridiculously easy prey who is not only less capable of stopping you but has less responsibility over whatever actions they did that resulted in you wanting to kill them than the adults of the world have had.

Here is the issue: All three reasons are even more emphasised when we compare the need to protect a fetus versus that of a woman.
RedDevils

Con

On The Nature Of The Debate: Before accepting this debate I thought pro would argue something along the lines of establishing the fetus as a human therefor having rights and so forth. It seems to be the implicit assumption of pro that the fetus is human, however derived from the motion I thought it was the case that we would be arguing something regarding abortion given the term "pro-choicers". Given pro's opening all claims regarding abortion seem to be irrelevant and we seem to be solely arguing if their is a substantive difference between the murder of an adult and a child. It's not particularly relevent given pro's opening but, I would like to merely clarify that a child is not synonymous with the fetus. Given the context, the following definition of child should be adopted, as conveyed by Former Canadian Chief Justice Brian Dickson: "One refers to chronological age and is the converse of the term adult". The fetus often refers to an unborn offspring, I don't really observe much similarity in the definitions. While the current motion read strictly would entail that I would argue why I could argue that there is a substantive difference, this would imply pro would argue why I could not argue there is such a difference. As aforementioned, pro argues something differen't, namely why there is a substantive difference between the murder of a child and an adult, and as con it is my job to negate pro's claims, even if they divert from the asserted motion. I hope in this spirit,voters will not criticize me for being non-topical, as the topic is what is argued, not what ought to be argued given the motion. With this said I shall commence.


Why Is Murder Wrong: An imperative prerequsite to examinig if their is a substantive difference between the murder of a child and the murder of an adult, it is necessary to examine why murder may be denoted as immoral in the first place. Moral ontology is a highly contentious field, and I'm we could have a debate over if morality exists at all, let alone what moral ideology provides the most rational basis for moral ontology. Given this is not strictly the topic of the debate, I fell it is only necessary to provide a brief justification of definition of morality, which takes the form of utilitarianism. "Utilitarians believe that the purpose of morality is to make life better by increasing the amount of good things (such as pleasure and happiness) in the world and decreasing the amount of bad things (such as pain and unhappiness). " This definition seems to be fairly intuitive. Murder is wrong simply because it brings upon pain and reduces joy, the morality of an act is predicated upon its consequenses. This why we can make the claim that it is immoral for one to randomly go kill an innocent family, but if someone is in your house attempting to butcher your family, you are well with in the parameters of what is moral to kill the intruder as a preventative measure. The former scenario reduces joy more than it enhances it, and in the former joy is safeguarded to the maximum extent that it may be under the traumatic scenario, as opposed to the intuder butchering everyone. Given this establishment of morality as predicated on utilitarian virtues I shall now proceed to my argument, which takes the form of the following syllogism:
p1) Morality is predicated on utilitarian virtues
p2) The murder of a child violates these virtues less than the murder of an adult does
c1) The murder of an adult is less morally reprehensible than that of a child.

Now in order to negate pro's assertions, I must merely show the murder of an adult to be on par with the murder of a child, however I am going to assume even more of the burden of proof and argue why it is the case that the murder of an adult is worse. p1 Has already been reasonably demonstrated, and c1 follows axiomatically from the premises, so in order to rationally establish c1, I must now only establish p2.

p2: While it may be the case prima facie that the murder of a child is more severe than the murder of an adult, this is an artifical division merely conveying anthropological tedencies. We have propensity to protect our offspring in order to ensure our genes are passed on and we feel badly when the offspring of someone else dies because of empathy which has been evolved to assist in cohesion and survival, but this merely explains why it would seem the murder of a child is worse, it doesn't say anything as to why it actually would be. Similarly I will argue on the basis of anthropology why the murder of an adult is worse than the murder of a child and this is predicated on the notion of dependence. It is objectively the case that children are dependent on adults. Adults sustain the existence of children, because children cannot establish complex socieities and organizations which sustain the species. Children are on balance, insignificant, this not to say that they will not become significant, however it is the case that most five year olds are not particularly vital organisms. the killing of an adut is far worse for a child than the converse. Given the dependence of children on adults, persay the killing of a child's parents would leave a child starving and void of any medium to sustain themselves. Furthermore this event would have severe psychologically ramifications, far exceeding the ramification if the converse were the case. Adults have more effective and developed coping mechanisms , so the murder of a child would have far less detrimental effects. This not to say for example, that a mother wouldn't be devastated at the loss of her child, however objectively speaking she is still a completely self-capable organism, who is developed sufficiently to cope with the pain and carry on. On the other hand a child would be irreparably damaged since he or she is not sufficiently developed to deal with the pain, or sustain their existence in the absence of care givers.

I do apologize for my brief remarks, I have encountered unexpected obligations. In my next round I shall respond to pro's assertions, respond to some of pro's critiques and elaborate on my position.


[1]http://www.duhaime.org...
[2]http://www.iep.utm.edu...
Debate Round No. 2
xPrtN00bSn1p3r

Pro

xPrtN00bSn1p3r forfeited this round.
RedDevils

Con

RedDevils forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
xPrtN00bSn1p3r

Pro

xPrtN00bSn1p3r forfeited this round.
RedDevils

Con

RedDevils forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
xPrtN00bSn1p3r

Pro

xPrtN00bSn1p3r forfeited this round.
RedDevils

Con

RedDevils forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by hldemi 1 year ago
hldemi
Abortion (We are obviously speaking about less then 3 months old fetus) has nothing to do with murdering a child. It is the prevention of child forming in the womb by removing the fetus.
Posted by xPrtN00bSn1p3r 1 year ago
xPrtN00bSn1p3r
you read "can't" as "can"
Posted by RedDevils 1 year ago
RedDevils
On a point of disambiguation: The motion would indicate that it would be my position that pro-life
individuals can justify the murder of a child being worse than an adult since the motion is negative. However, I believe you are anticipating me to argue that they are morally equal. Could you clarify what
you intended the con position to be.
No votes have been placed for this debate.