The Instigator
kingkd
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TBR
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

Resolved: A just society ought to ban abortion

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 3 votes the winner is...
TBR
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/9/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 906 times Debate No: 75034
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (3)

 

kingkd

Pro

Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Openings
Round 3: Refutations
Round 4: Conclusion
abortion:the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy. (Google)

Drops=Concessions
No new arguments last round
Good luck to TBR, a formidable opponent.
TBR

Con

Thank you for posting I look forward to it.

I accept
Debate Round No. 1
kingkd

Pro

Thanks again, TBR.

There is one thing, and one thing only that really matters in this debate: Is the fetus a human? According to scientific http://www.abort73.com...
"Faye Wattleton, the longest reigning president of the largest abortion provider in the United States"Planned Parenthood"argued as far back as 1997 that everyone already knows that abortion kills. She proclaims the following in an interview with Ms. Magazine:

I think we have deluded ourselves into believing that people don't know that abortion is killing. So any pretense that abortion is not killing is a signal of our ambivalence, a signal that we cannot say yes, it kills a fetus.1

On the other side of the pond, Ann Furedi, the chief executive of the largest independent abortion provider in the UK, said this in a 2008 debate:

We can accept that the embryo is a living thing in the fact that it has a beating heart, that it has its own genetic system within it. It"s clearly human in the sense that it"s not a gerbil, and we can recognize that it is human life.2"

""It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive...It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception."

"The official Senate report reached this conclusion:

Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being - a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings."
https://www.princeton.edu...

"The fusion of the sperm (with 23 chromosomes) and the oocyte (with 23 chromosomes) at fertilization results in a live human being, a single-cell human zygote, with 46 chromosomesA533;the number of chromosomes characteristic of an individual member of the human species. "
"This new single-cell human being immediately produces specifically human proteins and enzymes (not carrot or frog enzymes and proteins), and genetically directs his/her own growth and development. (In fact, this genetic growth and development has been proven not to be directed by the mother.)12 Finally, this new human being the single-cell human zygote is biologically an individual, a living organism an individual member of the human species"

What makes the fetus so obviously, biologically human is that from conception, the fetus has HUMAN DNA, and the zygote is what every cell you are made from develops. Thus, it is the beginning of a human life, as part of the species Homo Sapiens. It isn't an opinion, but a fact that the fetus is part of Homo Sapiens.
http://prolifetraining.com...
http://www.str.org...
Of course, "pro-choice" people will say the fetus isn't human because of 4 excuses known as SLED:
Size
Level of Development
Environment
Degree of Dependency

These arguments are completely false. Size has nothing to do with level of humanity, a large athlete is no more human than a 5 year old. Development is false also, as a 65 year old woman is more developed than a pre-pubescent, and yet they are both human, Environment does not change anything, as going 8 inches down the birth canal does not make you more or less human, where you are does not dictate your humanity. Finally, dependency is false as those on life support and infants dependent on their parents for everything does not make you less human.

FLO

http://www.introductiontophilosophy.com...

"Marquis' argument is straight-forward. Abortion is seriously morally wrong. Why? Because abortion involves killing. But, what is wrong with killing. Killing robs a being of a natural property which is of great, if not the greatest, value. What is this natural property of which a being is robbed? It is the property of having a future, a "future-just-like-ours." To be killed "deprives one of all the experiences, activities, projects, and enjoyments that would otherwise have constituted one's future. Therefore, killing someone is wrong, primarily because the killing inflicts (one of) the greatest possible losses on the victim. To describe this as the loss of life can be misleading, however. The change in my biological state does not by itself make killing me wrong. The effect of the loss of my biological life is the loss to me of all those activities, projects, experiences, and enjoyments which would otherwise have constituted my future personal life. These activities, projects, experiences, and enjoyments are either valuable for their own sakes or are means to something else that is valuable for its own sake." "Therefore, when I die, I am deprived of all of the value of my future." (p.308) Since fetuses have the same kind of future that we do, and since it is wrong to deprive us of our futures, it follows that it is wrong to kill fetuses and thereby rob them of what is of the greatest value to them.""Abortion is the intentional act of killing a fetus robbing it of a future which has a value-like-ours."

P1) Intentionally killing an innocent being with a future-like-ours (FLO) is morally wrong.
P2) A fetus is an innocent human being with FLO.
P3) Abortion intentionally kills the human being.
C) Abortion is morally wrong.

Conclusion

Scientifically and biologically, the fetus is a human, as a human being is one part of Homo Sapiens with human DNA, and the fetus is part of that. Abortion takes away that life. FLO is why life is valuable, and innocent lives should not be taken away by abortion. I await Con response!

"I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born."
Ronald Reagan
"A person's a person no matter how small"
Dr. Seuss
TBR

Con

Introduction

Moral conflict is a cornerstone of the abortion debate. The supporting arguments for each side highlight the difference in a moral approach to the question; however, only one side (by necessity) demands its morals must be superimposed over the others, the pro-life side. After all, pro-choice has no interest in forcing abortion, only allowing, and recognizing choice exists.

Social justice, as in the question at hand, not only evaluated the morality of a situation, but its utility to society. “Greatest happiness” - the term John Stuart Mill choose as the grandfather of the concepts of “just society” [1] has significant interest in this debate.

P1: The moral position of one does not necessarily negate the moral position of another in a just society.

P2: A just society balances rightness in some part on utility and greatest happiness obtainable.

C: A just society should not ban abortion for all.

Argument P1:

Every individual has the ability to choose what they feel is wrong or right. Regardless if you think morals are objective or subjective, it is up to the individual to accept or reject that morality as their own. The line between morality and justice is where the government intervenes on behalf of the society.

Moral or immoral from one point of view or another, asking the government is siding with one over the other, pro-life must by necessity negate the moral decisions of pro-choice. Pro-choice has no interest in forcing their morality on pro-life therefore pro-choice is a default while pro-life must have intervention in personal life choices. The question then becomes, does the government have interest, for the sake of society, to intervene and control a woman’s body without her consent based on one set of morals while excluding another’s - enforcing by law the sense of moral superiority of one group.

Argument P2:

Greatest happiness holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness [2]. It is noteworthy that happiness in this context is not synonymous with immorality. What the term describes is judging ethical value in overall consequences. What achieved the greatest happiness.

Starting with the “happiness” of the women who seek abortion, we can pick some important points using a pro-life friendly site as a source. Abortion73.com has, under the heading “why do abortions occur”, compiled these three stats for the United States. 75% of women seeking abortion cite interference with work, school, or other responsibilities as a motivator in seeking an abortion. 50% say they do not want to be a single parent, or are having problems with their husband or partner. 12% cite health concerns [3]. The CDC reports that ~730k legal abortions were performed in 2011, or about 13.9 in 1,000 made this choice for their greater happiness. Denying abortion would unquestionably diminish happiness for a great number of women.

Romania’s experiment with abortion bans was a model for societal unhappiness. Starting in the late 60’s, the state took an aggressive interventionists roll in woman’s rights. This resulted in much higher infant-mortality rates (85 deaths in 1,000 live births, more than 8x before) underdeveloped infants (1 in 10 babies) [5] all the while, abortions were still happening illegally - increasing adult women’s deaths and severer health concerns. The number of unwanted children became an epidemic, a human tragedy that the country still suffers from. Called “Decree orphans” [7] they are outcasts from the very society that insisted on their birth.

Conclusion:

While the act of aborting a fetus may be considered immoral to some, it is not to all. Allowing a woman to make a choice in keeping with her moral, and not subjected by another’s is socials balanced morals. Further, a person who feels that government has the right to intervene is violating the woman’s right to body integrity.

The societal impact of removing this choice from the woman has a dramatic and negative impact on the society at large, leading to unhappiness.

Abortion is necessary in a just society.


References

[1] http://plato.stanford.edu...

[2] http://oregonstate.edu...

[3] http://www.abort73.com...

[4] http://www.cdc.gov...

[5] http://www.ceausescu.org...

[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[7] http://en.wikipedia.org...

https://www.guttmacher.org...

Debate Round No. 2
kingkd

Pro

kingkd forfeited this round.
TBR

Con

I had intended to post several concessions in my first round. They may have spared pro some trouble, but not only do they seem better said now as part of my rebuttal, they also may serve pro better now that he (or she) has had the opportunity to make the argument he wanted.

Concessions

A zygote-embryo-fetus is alive
It converts nutrients and oxygen into energy that allows for cell division, multiplication, and growth. It is alive.

A zygote-embryo-fetus is human
Its DNA is that of homo-sapien, it is a human. Allowed to mature it will become a person.

Personhood is ambiguous
Unless absolutely necessary within the context of the debate, I will not argue over “personhood” – only realize that each side has somewhat conflicting definitions.


Rebuttal
P1 and P2 seem reversed in order. That is, to claim that the “killing of innocent being with a future-like-ours (FLO) is morally wrong.” before saying that “a fetus is an innocent human being” is a little backwards. To aid in clarity, I will respond to both P1 and P2 under P2.

P1) Intentionally killing an innocent being with a future-like-ours (FLO) is morally wrong.
P2) A fetus is an innocent human being with FLO.

This notion of innocence of a fetus is problematic in several ways. First, it is understood that the unwanted fetus has no ill intent. It, like a parasite, is just doing what it naturally does. But, is it harmless? Not entirely.

There are physical risks to any pregnancy, and a fetuses dependence on a woman’s body means it is not harmless, therefor not innocent. No one makes the claim that the fetus is intentionally attacking the mother’s body, but the fetus is doing just that. That it has no control is not the fault of the woman or the fetus.

What this argument of innocents is – is innocent in a sentimental way. The same way we refer to adorable animals. The implication is, how could pro-choice be so cruel to kill this cute helpless thing. Juxtaposing the fetus with the immoral person who had careless sex.

A woman has the right to defend herself. Granting a fetus a rights that no other person has, the right to use another’s body without their consent is not moral not just. Shaming a woman for her choice is not moral or just.

P3) Abortion intentionally kills the human being.

As I have described in my concessions above, this is non-controversial. Abortion kills a zygote-embryo-fetus that is human.


While not critical to the argument, I enjoy using quotes. The two you have chosen are of interest to me, and are common to the pro-life debater. I present my thoughts on each.

"I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born."
Ronald Reagan

This often used quote is really a genetic fallacy. It does not deal with the argument, but attempts to prey on sympathies. The simple answer for me is, it is meaningless. There is no way to know what fetus responses would be, similar to asking anyone how they would respond to a hypostatical they could never encounter. The fetus is gone and has no ability to wish for a different outcome.


"A person's a person no matter how small"

Dr. Seuss

Let me start with some words about Dr. Seuss himself. First, he objected to this quote being used by the pro-life community. It was misused from the start, and he did not like the meaning getting twisted. His “dust speck civilization” was a story about racism and prejudice (relating to post WW2 Japan). It was a metaphor for a minority group having “no voice” not small people (literally) being worth as much as normal sized people.

That Seuss himself did not like the misappropriation of the quote is tough luck. That is, anyone may use it regardless of bastardization of the authors’ intent.

What is more interesting to me about the use of this quote is the necessity of the pro-life community to manipulate emotion. The argument does not stand on its own, it must have help from jingoistic manipulation.


Rebuttal Conclusion

The attempt to criminalize the act of women seeking abortion is immoral. The pro-life side must turn these women into something other than what they are to make the argument work. The fetus is innocent, while the woman “should not have had sex if she didn’t want a baby”. Slut shaming and turning women into criminals. Regardless of intent, pro-life is favoring the rights and decisions of one over another based on personal morality and emotion.

Fetuses die every day. For every successful embryo that implants, there are five to nine that miscarry. The death of embryos is normal. The addition of choice to the possibly that a women got enough to eat in the days before ovulation is rational, moral and a necessity in a just society.

Note: Since pro has forfeited his last round, I will refrain from posting additional arguments until he or she returns.
Debate Round No. 3
kingkd

Pro

Thanks, Con.
Introduction
Refutations
http://www.christiananswers.net...
http://www.prolifeinfo.ie...
TBR's main argument goes as such
P1: The government should not try to impose morality onto people but should instead let them decide
P2: Banning abortion imposes morality onto women.
C: Banning abortion is wrong.

This logic is quite fallacious. Every law nowadays "imposes morality" in one way or another. Laws against slavery "impose morality". Back in the 1800's, the argument for slavery was popular sovereignty, or that people should be allowed the choice of slavery.

TBR says:"Pro-choice has no interest in forcing their morality on pro-life therefore pro-choice is a default while pro-life must have intervention in personal life choices. ""While the act of aborting a fetus may be considered immoral to some, it is not to all. Allowing a woman to make a choice in keeping with her moral, and not subjected by another's is socials balanced morals.
Substitute in slavery: "Pro-slavery has no interest in forcing their morality on anti-slavery therefore pro-slavery is a default while anti-slavery must have intervention in personal life choices. ""While the act of slavery may be considered immoral to some, it is not to all. Allowing a person to make a choice in keeping with her moral, and not subjected by another's is socials balanced morals. "

This logic is false because the government's job is to find the best system of morality and use it in laws. By TBR's logic, we should have a system of popular sovereignty in which we can choose to own slaves.
Bodily Autonomy
" Further, a person who feels that government has the right to intervene is violating the woman's right to body integrity."
TBR claims that banning abortion violates rights to your own body. However, this is clearly untrue, as the fetus is its own body with its own DNA, not "part of the mother". Abortion violates the fetus's bodily autonomy by killing it. The mother's right to choose ends where the other person begins. This argument turns to Pro because the fetus is the one with bodily autonomy being violated.
http://www.personhoodinitiative.com...

"The CDC reports that ~730k legal abortions were performed in 2011, or about 13.9 in 1,000 made this choice for their greater happiness. Denying abortion would unquestionably diminish happiness for a great number of women."

Con claims that banning abortion would diminish happiness of many people seeking out an abortion because they would have more interference in their lives. I refute this by the fact that the fetus is dying too, and will never have the chance to experience ANY happiness in their lives. See FLO argument.

Extensions

Alright, we agree the fetus is a human and alive; anyone could see that. But TBR attempts to outweigh this, with the choice of not being pregnant vs. life. Life is the most important right you can have because without life, you don't have the ability to choose anything. The fetus is an innocent with FLO (which goes unrebutted). Life is also a human right.

Conclusion
Give Con conduct point, however, the argument of FLO is unrefuted by Con.
In order to justify killing innocents, Con attempts to bring up that people should be able to choose what is moral for them and bodily autonomy, however, killing a human deprives them of the choice to be happy (FLO) and violates the bodily autonomy of the fetus.
TBR

Con

Conclusion
While I don’t entirely mind pro attempting to answer my arguments with their own perspective, just rewriting my points for pros own convenience is disingenuous.

Pro states my argument is this;
P1: The government should not try to impose morality onto people but should instead let them decide
P2: Banning abortion imposes morality onto women.
C: Banning abortion is wrong.

My argument is this;
P1: The moral position of one does not necessarily negate the moral position of another in a just society.
P2: A just society balances rightness in some part on utility and greatest happiness obtainable.
C: A just society should not ban abortion for all.

It may not be a complete rewrite, but enough to allow slack to pro when rebutting my points. Interjecting slavery is a further attempt to appeal to emotion in an already emotional debate. The same is true for the idea of “Future Like Ours.” It does not differed substantively from the phrase “sanctity of life”. Just another term to play to emotion over rational and balanced social policy.

The debate question asks what a just society should do. It does not ask, should a just society bend to the morals of one group over another’s. A society must strike balance, providing the greatest happiness for its members rather than operate as an extension of one religious/moral code.

The overall impact to society of an abortion ban would be negative. Remove from the debate self-righteous moral superiority, and you are left with a clear just solution - the safe access to abortion for those that wish to seek them.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by ChristianDeontologist 2 years ago
ChristianDeontologist
TBR, you should use the structure P1, P2, C if you aren't actually making a logical syllogism. In a syllogism the member shared between the two premises disappears in the conclusion and the conclusion is a connection between the other two members. Abortion was not mentioned in a single premise, but it appeared in your conclusion. You can't actually draw a conclusion from these two particular premises because they are both statements about what applies to all just societies. You can only conclude "Given a just society exists, something that maximizes utility and happiness also involves not negating another's moral code with your own."

I think kingkd did a good job at refuting "premise" (i.e. statement) 1 pretty well in mentioning slavery. The argument there was not "appeal to emotion" but "reductio ad absurdem", that is if your statement was consistently applied in another situation it would lead to a false conclusion (slavery would be legal in a just society).
Posted by ConceptEagle 2 years ago
ConceptEagle
Oh yes, sorry about that. I was referring to a human with rights.
Posted by ConceptEagle 2 years ago
ConceptEagle
I look at it this way: a fetus has the same DNA structure as a fully developed human, but the killing of the fetus is not murder due to it being in a stage of early development. This is because a fetus cannot feel things like joy, sadness, or excitement, lacks a conscience, and cannot feel pain until after 24 weeks. Hence, it has no human rights despite being a human, until 24 weeks. Basically, I am saying that it is practically a fertilized egg in its later stages and does not deserve human rights despite genetics.
Posted by kingkd 2 years ago
kingkd
@ConceptEagle, the fetus is a human in the sense that it has COMPLETELY human DNA, and is simply a human in the earliest stages of development as any biology textbook would show you. So if it's not human, what do you say it is then? A rabbit?
Posted by ConceptEagle 2 years ago
ConceptEagle
Just because a fetus shares those similar characteristics as to a human does not mean it is one. A monkey is 99.6% human and if you kill one you would not be considered a murderer.
Posted by That1User 2 years ago
That1User
Is this for the May Tournament?
Posted by TBR 2 years ago
TBR
Sorry I was going to post a list of I will do that in an hour. You will most likely be happy with them all
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Splenic_Warrior 2 years ago
Splenic_Warrior
kingkdTBRTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: I give conduct to Con because Pro forfeited a round.
Vote Placed by SNP1 2 years ago
SNP1
kingkdTBRTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con gets conduct for Pro forfeiting a round. I give arguments to Con because I feel he successfully demonstrated that a just society would not impose the pro-life morality onto a pro-choice women. I feel like Pro's argument appealed to emotion more then using logic.
Vote Placed by CASmnl42 2 years ago
CASmnl42
kingkdTBRTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Pro forfeited a round. S&G: No particular difference noticed. Arguments: Pro rewrote Con's position and failed to adequately respond to the arguments that were actually made. Also, strawmen, as explained next. Sources: In R1, Pro held that pro-choice individuals rely on "SLED" arguments to justify abortion. I have never once heard an advocate for legal abortion use those arguments. They are found exclusively in the literature of the religious right, which is all Pro cites. Next time, when citing an opposing argument, find someone from the other side arguing it - not just what your side *says* that the other side argues.