The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Abortion Should be illegal

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: 1/16/2019 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,511 times Debate No: 119912
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (41)
Votes (0)




Question #1:
Pigs are extremely cognitively complex with a wide range of emotions and a high level of intelligence. Newborns, However, Have very little intelligence and operate off a basic set of primitive reactions. Why do we give the newborns more rights than adult pigs?

My View:
The newborn should have rights and the pig should not. An organism must exhibit or have the potential to exhibit symbolic abstract thinking or higher consciousness (essentially attributes which make homo sapiens unique) in order to have value or "human" rights. Those organisms who have only the potential would include (at least) the human unborn/newborns. These organisms should be given a right to not be intentionally killed and a right to natural and ordinary care.

Question #2:
Analogy: A woman has consensual sex. She becomes pregnant but is not aware of the fact until birth. She gives birth in a cabin during a terrible storm. She has plenty of food but no formula. Does she have any legal obligation to breastfeed the newborn to keep it alive. What if she was raped instead? Would that change your answer?

My view: In both cases the woman has a legal obligation to breastfeed her newborn. She has a natural and ordinary obligation to care for the child until it is viable in another"s care. By natural care, The distinction I am making is that her breastmilk is biologically intended for her offspring, So the care is natural.

This analogy parallels well to pregnancy in all but the degree of care (both involve bodily autonomy violations but in differing degrees). However, I hold the view that parents should not be forced to donate blood despite the relatively low degree of violation in bodily autonomy. I hold this view consistently because the care would be artificial (the parent"s blood is biologically not intended for the child). Therefore, The principle of natural and ordinary care seems to be the only consistent principle in application.

Conclusion: The Unborn should have the same rights as newborns, This includes the right to natural and ordinary care by the mother until another can provide such care.
Other conclusions: Unborn and newborns who no longer have the potential to exhibit uniquely human characteristics have no rights.
Women who are forced surrogates have no obligation to continue pregnancy/breastfeeding (Voluntary surrogates and wet nurses have accepted the role of the mother meaning they have consented that their womb/breast-milk are now meant for the child).

Question #3 (Just for fun): A man has protected consensual sex (it"s that 1/100 time when the condom fails). The woman tells him she is pregnant and is going to keep the baby. He wants nothing to do with the baby and is willing to give up any custody rights. He wants the women to abort or adopt but she will not! Currently the law says he must still pay child support to that women despite the fact that the only thing he consented to was sex. Do you agree with the law? If so, Would you not say that the government views consent to sex as also consent to be responsible for the needy human who might be produced from said sex?

My view: This question does not lie at the core of my argument but is a simple example of how the government currently views consent to sex as something more than just consent to a pleasurable sexual experience.

My goal in this debate is to prove that the unborn have rights and that one of those rights includes access to a mother"s body for natural and ordinary care. Therefore, The conclusion is that abortion should be illegal. Reducing the abortion rate, While a positive thing, Is not my main goal. Giving the unborn the rights they deserve is my ultimate goal and the purpose of this debate.


Q1: We are agreed here, To some extent.

1. As persons, We know WE have consciousness. We assume that all other beings like us have consciousness. We don't know they do, But it seems a safe and optimistic assumption.

2. If the vast majority of humans develop consciousness, And we have no way to prove where it begins, It seems the best value to have is 'brain activity' since that is a precursor to consciousness.

In reality, We have no idea if other animals have consciousness or not. Several species appear to have decent levels of intellect. I, For one, Would never eat or kill a raven, Dolphin, African grey, Et cetera. It's a fine line to draw though.

My line for 'personhood' would be 'when brain activity starts in beings thought to have consciousness/high intellect. ' Many alien species will likely fit the bill, And several animals probably do or will as they evolve, Or we evolve them.

My line for personhood would not apply to a fetus that has not yet developed brain activity. My view is that there is no argument for valuing a full set of DNA or an essentially dead body prior to brain activity.


1. She doesn't necessarily have a legal obligation to do so. As far as moral? Not even necessarily that. Is it a bodily autonomy violation to milk yourself and feed the baby from a bottle, Or whatever other implement you have? Probably not. No, The answer would not change if she were raped.

Do you think the answer changes when a woman finds shelter in a random house and a baby just happens to be in there? I would say she has a moral obligation to feed the baby even if it were not her own, Because it is a 'person' and we should care for each other. I don't think many women would view this as a bodily autonomy violation. The women can then give them up for adoption after the storm has passed.

Again, They don't really have a legal obligation to breastfeed specifically. 'natural and ordinary obligation' is so non-specific that it could apply to hundreds of things that you don't like. Humans in the past have ordinarily and naturally enslaved each other. A woman's womb has the natural and ordinary job of producing babies. Is she morally obligated to do so because beings might be persons in the future that wouldn't exist were she not? Doesn't the moral implications of forcing women to breed and being second class citizens on the planet have any value to you?

Yes, The DEGREE OF BODILY AUTONOMY VIOLATION is the concern here. The analogy isn't in a similar ball park at all. It's not on the same planet, The same solar system, Or galaxy. Let's not understate how different the bodily autonomy violations are, Specifically when most women wouldn't view it as a bodily autonomy violation, Shall we?

You say 'artificial' now, So under your 'natural and ordinary' rule it would be OK for a woman who finds an abandoned baby to not take care of it until she could give it up for adoption? That seems to be what you're saying. Your rule is at best vague and incomplete. We as a society would not force someone to give up blood to save a person's life, But that doesn't mean it isn't a dick move. We as a society don't force people to take care of an abandoned child they see, But it is also a dick move. All newborns are assigned a caretaker by society. The default is the parents. If they're planning to not take responsibility for the child we have a system in place for them to deposit the child, So they are no longer the caretakers. By default, When a child is born we assign that caretaker role to the parent until it is given up. 'Natural and ordinary' is a vague way to describe this. Parents are just the default we currently use.

Your conclusion states 'unborn should have the same rights as newborns' but all your questions have been for beings that are born already.

You seem to be valuing your 'natural and ordinary' principle rather than valuing life, Personhood, Et cetera. It seems strange when your principle could be used to justify many other actions, As well as be a justification for actions others have real moral arguments against.

I have said already, I value personhood. Not vague principles or 'life. ' I have defined personhood to you. Some unborn would fall under this, Some would not. Until tech improves to let women know when they are pregnant faster and until society improves their ability to access abortion I'm uncomfortable on a practical level with banning abortions past the start of brain activity, But that is the ideal goal for me. I have zero discomfort with abortions prior to brain activity.

Under your 'natural and ordinary' you say forced surrogates having abortions is fine, But raped females having abortions is not. So you are essentially valuing DNA here and going against your natural and ordinary principle. Under your principle, The forced surrogate's womb and milk would be for the child as well. This is a contradictory position unless you are valuing DNA, Which you cannot make a good argument for.

Q3 This is called 'male abortions' or 'father abortions' and is law in several countries already. The male parent can give up all rights to the child and pay no child support as long as the woman can still have an abortion.

No, The government does not view the act of sex as signing a contract to take care of the negative results. The proof is that abortions are legal, And a supermajority of society think they should be legal. Your claim holds no grounds. If they viewed sex as signing a contract to take care of the unborn, Abortions would be illegal.

You have already shown that you yourself fail to hold consistent with your principle.

The debate in philosophy is "When is something a person? " I'll link a video in the comments, Because you may not have heard of it before. You're saying something gains personhood whenever it requires a female's care to stay alive and whether the female was 'designed' to care for it. These are vague notions and could apply to parasites, Et cetera.

Debate Round No. 1


Who is WE? Who are other beings like us? Lots of beings are like us in different ways. What is consciousness? Definitions please. You are just making vague undefined statements.

If we have no way of proving when consciousness begins then it seems like a terrible tool to assign or measure personhood. You are essentially basing your personhood argument off ignorance.

Which is why you can"t answer this question: why do we give a give a day-old newborn personhood but not the same to an adult pig? You don"t know because your argument is based off a vague undefined concept and an appeal to ignorance.
Realizing the flaws in your definition, You try to salvage it by throwing in the word "precursor" which is essentially a placeholder for potential. Which was my argument and would take us back to genetics. Your definition is vague, Based off ignorance, And impractical in application.

The embryo is a living organism with the genetic potential to become rational, So it is not a dead body. Not biologically. Not philosophically. A brain-dead human is philosophically dead because it no longer has the potential to reason. I am staying extremely consistent with my definition of personhood. On completion of a successful fertilization you have an organism with human DNA, The first precursor for reason. You have yet to present me with any reason why this view is inconsistent.

The government forcing a woman extract bodily fluid from herself to give to another is not a bodily autonomy violation. So, I guess the government forcing a woman to extract blood from herself to give to her child would not be a bodily autonomy violation as well. Many women don"t view pregnancy as a bodily violation but that doesn't change the fact that it is one. You are making an appeal to the masses.

You keep on speaking of morals and moral obligations. But this is a discussion of rights and laws. I only care about the legal obligations.

Legally speaking a person has no duty to help a stranger. Their only legal obligation is to attempt to contact the authorities about the situation. The woman has no legal obligation to care for the stranger (who in this case is the infant).
I will restate in more detail the definitions of my qualifiers. Please pay attention.

Natural care:
1) It must be the primary biological purpose of the organ from the person giving the care.
Ex. Primary biological purpose of breasts: to produce milk in order to nourish her infant
Ex. Primary biological purpose of uterus: nurturing her fertilized ovum that develops into a fetus and holding it till the baby is mature enough for birth.
Ex. Primary biological purpose of blood: supply essential substances around her body, Such as sugars, Oxygen, And hormones. (The primary purpose does not include nourishing a parasite so that would not fit my definition of natural).

2) It must be clear what living individual(s) it is meant for.
Ex. The breasts/breastmilk biologically meant to nourish her living offspring.
Ex. The uterus is biologically to meant to nourish her living offspring.
Ex. The ovum is biologically meant for a man"s sperm. (which man/men is not clear, So it does not fall under my definition of natural). I wouldn"t consider sex an act of care so it wouldn"t apply anyway.

Ordinary care:
This is all other care that is not life-threatening to the one providing the care. Essentially it is synonymous with non-life-threatening care.
Ex. A man would be required to walk a mile to get food for his child even though there is a very low chance he will get hit by a car.
Ex. A man would not be required to run into a burning building to save his child because there is a very high chance of death.

Your slavery example is so illogical it deserves no response.

How about in the same multi-verse then? Stick to logos please. You completely ignored my argument and then made an appeal to the masses again. My point was that if you think a mother has a legal obligation to breastfeed your child (I guess you don"t which just shows the moral bankruptcy of your argument) then you must also legally require a woman to give blood to her child. Both involve similar degrees of bodily violation. In my view the two situations are significantly different. One involves natural care while the other does not. The only time that degree matters is if it comes to the point of a life-threatening degree. That would violate my ordinary qualifier.

Ironic that you say value personhood not vague principles when I have already showed that your definition of personhood is founded on vague undefined terms and ignorance. I don"t really care about your comfort level. If you say my definition of personhood is vague perhaps you should try to prove that.

I am not going against my natural or ordinary principles. The primary biological purpose of a woman"s womb is to nourish HER offspring not someone else"s. Of course, I value DNA. My whole argument is built off genetics. You did not even challenge my view of persons based of genetics, So you can"t criticize the position.

Several unnamed countries allow for male abortions. There are 195 countries. Most countries still force a man to support a child he never consented to it.

So yes, Most governments view the act of sex for men as agreement to take care of negative results (if you consider a child a negative result). But it does not hold women to the same standard which was my whole point and you missed it.
All your attempts to show inconsistencies in my arguments were easily refuted. You, However, May want to rethink your definition of personhood.

I never said personhood came from the requirement of a female"s care. I said nearly the opposite. I defined a person as organisms with the potential/actual ability to reason. Those persons with only potential have a right to natural and ordinary care (among other rights). That would include the natural and ordinary care from the female"s body.


1. You say we're speaking about legal obligations right now not moral ones. Then this debate is easy. Abortion is legal in the US right now. Our conversation is now over.

That wasn't too interesting was it? When you make the topic "should be illegal" you have to make a moral argument against what is currently legal. Our legal system is informed in some way by our moral system. That is why you're making a moral argument for it to be illegal. You're grasping for straws real hard with this protest. I hope you, Or at least the judges, Can see this

2. "We" means humans. "Other beings like us" are other humans. We are conscious, So we assume other beings like us are conscious.

Consciousness is the ability to think, Awareness of onesself in your brain, The ability to plan ahead for future events, Et cetera. There is not a single definition. I assume you're aware of what consciousness is because you use it in your own argument as well in a similar fashion.

Consciousness is the value that science may eventually define perfectly and be able to measure perfectly. It cannot now. I have said this, And I have said that since we cannot measure it we have to use something else. That is why I go with brain activity. It is a different 'potential' than your 'potential. ' A different starting point.

I believe the start of personhood is the same as the end of personhood. When brain activity stops, The person ends. When brain activity starts, The person begins. Brain activity starting is the person beginning to build themselves. Prior to the person beginning to build themselves, The mother is simply building the vessel of the person which is not a person, Therefore can be destroyed with no moral repercussions. This is quite simple and not vague at all. I think the judges will see this.

You believe that persons begin when they have the potential to eventually be conscious (higher thinking), Or they currently have that ability. Here are a few things I'm not sure of:

1. Why is the starting point fertilization for you? Eggs and sperm all have the 'potential' to have higher thinking if an intermediate step - fertilization - is taken. Why do they have no value? Fertilized eggs also require an intermediate step - a female growing the body, Risking herself and letting her nutrients be leeched, To develop that potential into reality. Both require intermediate steps, I can't see why your values don't extend to eggs and sperm. They both have half a DNA set. If your value is potential, They have it too. If your value is a full set of DNA, Why does a dead body not have value? Dead bodies have a full set of DNA. If we value DNA when it comes to personhood, Those with no brain activity are still 'live persons. ' It would then be murder to take brain-dead individuals whose bodies are on life support off life support.

You have said you value DNA as a necessary precursor to consciousness. I submit it is not so. DNA may help construct the brain but I wouldn't value it. If I replace parts of you atom by atom with mechanical parts and pieces I think that you will eventually have no DNA but still be human. I think if we can remove DNA from the equation and still have personhood we shouldn't value it as a precursor. I think consciousness can exist without DNA. The machine may not specifically have "brain activity" but it will be similar. Measurable. Activity or processing of some sort will occur.

Perhaps one day science will improve both of our definitions by understanding consciousness better. We are not there yet, So we're both working with the best we have. I just can't value DNA. It helps construct the body and brain. It is not personhood itself. I have no attachment to my DNA just like I have no attachment to my body. I DO have attachment to my processing ability, My brain activity, My pattern recognizer, My experiences. I can thank my DNA for constructing my brain but I can't factor that into who I am as a person. All the DNA has done is give me the hardware required. Personhood is the software, The experiences in the memory. Software that can be uploaded and removed entirely from the hardware and moved onto other hardware. You aren't your DNA. You are your pattern recognizer. Brain activity is a sign of consciousness in a real way. A precursor that continues to point to consciousness even after the body is formed that cannot be removed.

I said in R1 my reason for giving unborn humans personhood when brain activity starts and not pigs is the same as yours. Because we as humans assume other humans will develop consciousness with that brain activity. You can say brain activity and DNA are both 'potential' but they are different starting points. Neither are vague, But you throw in an extra principle with your DNA valuation.

If I have a body on life support that is a living organism with genetic potential. "To become rational" is pointing at the brain, Which does not exist at fertilization, Nor does it start working for several months. I have discussed why DNA valuation is inconsistent.

Females tend to NEED to milk themselves or they get significant pain. It would be for me like feeding someone my urine. I wouldn't see that the same as my blood. Forced breastfeeding is certainly a bodily autonomy violation, But comparing that to forced pregnancy is laughable. Saying most women would agree with me here is an appeal to the masses, But not a fallacious one. You can argue that women SHOULD feel a certain way and I can say they don't currently.

The problem with your 'natural and ordinary' principle isn't that it doesn't work here, It is that your argument works without it, And when we create principles we apply them in as many places as we can. We export it to other moral scenarios.

We justify killing people all the time. Women are second class citizens without reproductive control.

Your permitting surrogate abortions IS legal abortion. It is inconsistent because you're allowing people to kill what you value as persons.
Debate Round No. 2


In R1 Con referred to moral obligations w/out clarifying whether these should translate into legal obligations. I had no way of knowing rather these were his personal morals or morals to be imposed on society. That was my objection. Con then decided to strawman the protest and frame it as though I was arguing that the current law should be the only thing considered in this debate.

Brain Activity (neuron"s communicating) begins at 6-7 weeks: Allows for fetal movement. So even if Con"s argument for Personhood based off "brain activity" was justified (which it is not) he gives unborn rights around 6-7 weeks. I wonder if Con holds this view?

Con basis the argument of personhood from brain activity b/c it is a precursor to consciousness. Neurologically, A 1-day old newborn lacks the synapses or connections necessary for critical thinking. At that time, The brain is at a remarkably unfinished state. Most neurons are not yet connected. And the connections that have been made are very simple and only translate into primitive responses and survival instincts.

However, We have found that pigs are more intelligent the previously thought. They have similar complex ethological traits (cognition, Emotion and behavior) as chimpanzees and dogs.
This would suggest with great certainty that adult pigs are superior in consciousness (his definition: ability to think and awareness of self) to newborns. Con has already labeled Pigs as non-conscious organisms so therefore we can say w/ certainty that 1-day old newborns have no consciousness. Meaning that these newborns are not persons under Con"s definition, And they have no rights.

A mother is never building the embryo. A mother is simply supplying nutrients for the for the organism to build itself. This is first coordinated by its DNA. I have already shown how inconsistent Con has been in defining personhood.
My definition: An organism must exhibit or have the potential to exhibit symbolic abstract thinking [Ability to think about abstract objects, Principles, And ideas] or higher consciousness [self-reflective awareness including self-monitoring, Self-recognition and self-identification] in order to have value or "human life. "
Notice again how Con strawman"s my definition. He replaces organism with nonspecific "they" so that his objections work. This is a clear and unmistakable strawman.

Sperm/Eggs are parts of organisms not organisms within themselves like a fertilized egg. This is an extremely crucial distinction in biology. For my opponent to contest this point is nonsensical. His intermediate step approach fails as well. Before fertilization there are two parts of separate organisms. After fertilization there is a new organism. Throughout pregnancy it is the same organism. At Brain death the organism no longer has potential so it is no longer a person under my definition. I"m sure the judges can see that Con has again failed to show inconsistencies in my definition of personhood.
I never said that human DNA is the only precursor to consciousness. But it certainly is a precursor to consciousness. By looking at the genetics of a human embryo, A scientist can see that the organism has the potential for consciousness. There may be other organisms with the potential for consciousness (Aliens). If that is the case, Then they too would be granted personhood and rights according to my definition.

You have no attachment to your body? Most humans are attached both to their bodies and their minds. The two are intimately connected and are complimentary in their process. I obviously hold the mind in a higher regard than the body, But I like most people respect and cherish both. Perhaps you need to take a break from debating online and experience our natural side. It"s as if you view yourself and other humans as robots and see everything organic as unimportant. This is not a healthy way to view the world.

I have shown that when Con attempts to define consciousness (which is at the root of his personhood definition) he either casts to wide of a net and includes pigs or too narrow and excludes newborns. He then must resort to basing it off potential or must appeal to our ignorance of subject. The first would cede that my definition based of potential is correct. The second would be valueless because it is based off our ignorance.

Pain from not breastfeeding does not occur in every female and similar or worse pains can occur because a female breastfeeds, So you point fails. It is certainly nothing like urinating. If a woman does not breastfeed her glands dry up. It"s nothing necessary like urinating (which would not fall under my natural care principle anyway). Also breastfeeding prevents ovulation so forced breastfeeding would take away woman"s control of her reproductive cycle. You say the comparison is laughable but give no good reason why. I"ve already shown that degree does not seem to matter. You can make an observation about women"s feelings, But it doesn"t change reality. It doesn"t strengthen your argument. You"re simply wasting characters.

My argument does not work without my principles. This is just confirmation that Con never seriously tried to understand it. Feel free to export them to other moral scenarios. You claimed there were 100"s with terrible consequences but I"m still waiting and it"s R3.

Are men second class citizens because they may be drafted? Because the courts favor women in custody court? No. Just because the laws apply differently to men and women based off their biological differences doesn"t mean either is a second-class citizen.

I view pregnancy as an act of care so in the case of a forced surrogacy my principles of care would not apply. Therefore, The woman could induce labor at any time and would not be guilty of negligent homicide if the unborn was not viable outside of her womb. She would be guilty if she intentionally dismembered the fetus.

Begone Thoht


Sources in the comments


When in R2 you say:

"You keep on speaking of morals and moral obligations. But this is a discussion of rights and laws. I only care about the legal obligations. "

It makes it seem like you are referring to the entire discussion. This is all I was speaking to. If I blew it out of proportion of what you meant, Then it is a misunderstanding not a strawman. I'll let the judges decide.

I give the unborn personhood at 2-3 months depending on when brain activity starts, Yes. Abortion prior to this is acceptable because you're destroying a body, Not a person. Similar to when one goes brain dead and is removed from life support that is killing a body, Not a person. I accept abortions past this point because of practical limitations. These practical limitations are technology to inform the woman of the pregnancy in time to abort prior to brain activity, Anti-abortion states that have only 1 to a handful of abortion clinics in their state, Also requiring wait times et cetera. This puts undue burden on the mother. I would like it to not be so. If abortion were more easily accessible, And women could learn that they are pregnant in time to make the decision that would be my ideal world. To say nothing of proper sex ed, Public funding of superior contraceptive methods, Et cetera. Drawing the line that I'd like to draw is impractical currently. This isn't an inconsistency on my part. In my ideal world no one would die. That is impractical. In my ideal world no one would work. That is currently impractical.

I said at the beginning: We as humans assume all humans born will develop consciousness because we have it. We can't point to something and call it consciousness outside of brain activity. So the fetus that has brain activity gains moral value. We don't know if pigs have consciousness. They might. I have said previously that some animals probably do fall under my personhood definition. If your personhood definition is so specific that it can't possibly refer to animals, Your definition of personhood is likely wrong. Aliens will probably not be anything like us. Valuing DNA is silly if that is so. Strong AI will fit my definition in the future. There is no way around it. The label of "person" may apply to them in a far greater way than it does to us. Currently I justify killing some animals for nutrition reasons. Vegans accept that some people can't live healthily without meat. This isn't an inconsistency. My line for what intellectual level an animal has to achieve to gain moral value is admittedly not clear. It is a hard line to draw. Pigs are more intelligent than dogs, If I recall. I give value to ravens, African greys, Dolphins, And some others. Pigs may very well deserve to be on this list. It is a strawman to say that under my definition newborns will be killed. I have stated brain activity = personhood. All brain activity that occurs shapes who 'you' are, Even the brain activity that happens prior to gaining consciousness. All of this shapes 'you. '

Your personhood definition has all of these values:
1. Human DNA
2. "Potential" consciousness/abstract thinking
3. "Current" consciousness/abstract thinking
4. Be an "organism"

On top of that, You accept abortion when it comes to surrogate mothers because it doesn't fall under your "Natural and Ordinary" principle.


1. It must be the primary biological purpose of the organ from the person giving the care.
2. It must be clear what living individual(s) it is meant for.

Instead of just saying "we shouldn't kill persons" you bring the N+O principle into play which can be justified to kill some persons, Making your acknowledgement of persons less important than your appeal to biology or nature. This is an "appeal to nature" fallacy. What you are saying is "what is natural is good. "

Look how hard you work to limit your scope to JUST human fetuses. Your 1st valuation of human DNA eliminates all aliens and AI from possible personhood. This is ridiculous. Unless you are religious and think there is something supernatural that makes us persons (which isn't part of your definition) there is no reason to think animals and AI could not be persons even given hundreds of millions or billions of years of evolution. I have already gone into why valuing DNA is silly.

What you try to do is combine all these principles at the same time, Saying that "If even one is present you are a person. " Whenever I argue against DNA, You'll say it has potential, But this potential is derived from its DNA for you, Not brain activity, So they are one and the same argument. The "potential" part though can apply to animals. You don't apply your moral consideration to animals because it doesn't follow your "Human DNA" requirement even if it may pass all the other tests.

What is happening is you're picking and choosing. A fetus does not have current consciousness, So it violates one of your principles, Yet smart animals don't have human dna which is also one of your principles, But you don't give them moral value even though both violate one of your principles. This, And the surrogate mother part is why your position is inconsistent. You allow abortions, Just ones that don't violate your natural and ordinary principle.

Your whole position is designed to allow you to cherry pick whatever you want, But you're applying your principles inconsistently. It doesn't include those that may be persons. It doesn't value persons for being persons. It values persons that are natural. On top of that, You probably don't value the "potential" children that females may have if they are allowed to choose when they become pregnant and are financially prepared for it. You only value "potential" that already exists. This is not valuing potential. This is just valuing fully-formed DNA.

I apply my principles, My line, Consistently to all. Is it not immoral to force pregnancy on women? Does this not factor at all into your moral weighing of the situation?

May your thoughts be clear,

Debate Round No. 3
41 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Thoht 3 years ago
I should note that part of my conclusion would be fallacious if you do apply personhood or value to intelligent animals as well.
Posted by Thoht 3 years ago
I agree. I started this wrong.
Posted by analogizer 3 years ago
Also I apologize for my "begone thoht" joke at the end of R3. I thought it was humorous at the time but now I realize it was inappropriate. I hope your thoughts remain clear. :)
Posted by analogizer 3 years ago

Just so you know for the future. If you start the debate by inferring that your opponent is confused in the head and then proceed to label his analogies and arguments as "laughable" "ridiculous" and not in the same ball park, Planet, Solar system, Galaxy. Then your opponent might get a bit annoyed. Just point out the flaw in your opponent's argument/analogy/comparison and continue on. No need to use such useless condescending rhetoric.

I admit. I was guilty of using the same rhetoric. So for that I am sorry. I look forward to reading your R3 arguments.
Posted by Thoht 3 years ago
I'll stop commenting now and just try to iron out what I want to say for R3. It's been fun. We'll see if I can put my thoughts into words as clearly as I'd like.
Posted by Thoht 3 years ago
Of course I feel the same, But I take 'uneducated, Disingenuous, And ignorant' et cetera a bit personally and feel they're a bit strong as far as labels go. I take truth quite seriously. Disingenuous is quite a bad label for me.

I don't think 6k characters in a 3 round debate can really give it the justice the topic deserves. If we're working this philosophically there are ten other debates that tie into it. Frankly, I didn't look at the character limit before we started.

I find it is irresponsible to have debates on abortion without discussing practical solutions. Philosophical debate is great by itself but if we're talking about how we actually get the things we agree on to exist in our reality I think it's important to discuss how we get there as well as what is the right position.

As far as abortion in general goes, We all draw arbitrary lines to some extent. It's hard to say what a 'correct' answer would be. I just find that your explanation of what yours is has too many qualifiers and an attachment of an unnecessary principle. I failed to explain mine as best I could as well.

I agree endless comment debating is annoying but fully fleshing out and responding to opponents and clarifying et cetera in 18k characters for complex debates is difficult to say the least. The format of debate. Org may just not lend itself to more complex debates.
Posted by analogizer 3 years ago
I'm really not trying to paint you in a negative light. I'm simply pointing out when are in bad form. Your the one who seems to getting really emotionally attached to this debate. You can't even let the debate run its course. You had to come to the comment section to make more points. If you think that is ad hom then I can't really help you.

I am enjoying this debate and I think you are very smart. I just don't think your approach is as genuine as you think it is. I don't blame you for that. I honestly think you might not realize it.

The only thing I'm a little bitty salty about is that this debate was supposed to have 3 rounds with a limited amount of characters. Now the comment section has become debate zone and I honestly don't have time for a never-ending comment section debate. However, I know that judges will probably read the comments and be influenced by them so I feel the need to respond. To be clear, If I had the time I would debate you in the comment section all day. I quite enjoy the dialogue with you. I'm sorry if you don't feel the same.
Posted by Thoht 3 years ago
Wow you're trying so hard to paint me in a negative light when I've done nothing to deserve that but question your positions. That's what debates are, Analogizer. If you get this upset over it you really need to either quit debating or get a stronger stomach for debating. The ad homs are really strong in your camp.
Posted by Thoht 3 years ago
We're talking about solutions in the comments of the debate. You specifically called it a distraction from the goal of ending abortion entirely. Ending what you feel, Against the majority, Is a moral catastrophe. It isn't a direct "I am against sex ed improvements" but it is everything but.

It seems weird to base your arguments around perfect world hypotheticals and not reality. This isn't really that confusing of a statement. You don't need to get so salty about people disagreeing with you and trying to get specific in debates. You seem to take everything so personally.
Posted by analogizer 3 years ago
I'll reply to your other numerous arguments which you've dragged into the comment section later. Personally, I think starting debates in the comment section while the current debate is still running is bad form. But I guess I shouldn't be surprised you stooped to this low. Shows how desperate you are though. . .
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.