Abortion is ok because science says it's not a human yet is a valid defense
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 6 votes and with 20 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- One day
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
I would argue as science still requires faith in areas, Is constantly shown to be errant, And even if roughly correct can be changed due to precision of newly developed tools and techniques; it cannot be the basis for a defense that the unborn baby is not a human whose life has value and is worth defending.
As there are multiple types of validity, I shall prove my case multiple fronts, which shall be given their own sections below
- Valid if Unsound
- What Science Says
- Women's Rights
Pro has offered to concede in R1, and verified it in the comments . With that in place, this debate will be transformed into something of a tutoring session.
Of course, feel free to ask any questions on why things are structured the way they are.
The resolution means X, so I should win if I prove Y. Conversely, my opponent should win if he or she proves Z.
The description lacked certain key definitions, so to avoid semantic issues…
Merriam-Webster defines the following:
- X is “...the first in an order or class that includes x, y, and sometimes z.”
- Y is “...the second in order or class when x is made the first.”
- Etcetera is “a number of unspecified additional persons or things.”
According to the academically peer-reviewed Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy :
“A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. Otherwise, a deductive argument is said to be invalid.
A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true. Otherwise, a deductive argument is unsound.”
- P1: Abortions to non-humans is morally ok (implied).
- P2: Science verifies that X is non-human.
- C1: Abouting X is morally ok.
This one is implied by the logical train of the original declaration. While I would insist non-human life still has value, anti-abortion advocates treat it differently when obviously non-human; which implies that there is an intuitive difference in value. Since 1977, abortion clinics have faced the following :
“eight murders, 17 attempted murders, 42 bombings, and 186 arsons.”
The claim is highly debatable, however as a premise it meets the IF THEN TRUE requirement building toward the conclusion.
If premises P1 and P2 are true, it is impossible for C1 to then be false.
This will get complex, but in light of the concession, is going to be designed as discussion rather than a true contention in support of the resolution (meaning less cherry-picking from me, closer to a fair review).
As someone very smart pointed out in the comments, science doesn’t have a real distinction yet, even while people deny the personhood of others frequently when it suits them.
Science does a good job measuring this. I find some of the counters to be, simply put, absurd. Something does not cease to be a crime because you knock the victim out… You apparently get that when looking at just a human standard (or so I've been repeatedly told by pro-lifers).
The core issue about abortion legislation, is that it’s uneven application of the law. Women are human persons by any sane standard, and these laws end up oppressing them exclusively.
- Abuse (0:44), yelling and insults instead of topical points.
- Contradiction (1:19), while to argue you must take on a contrary position, some people take it painfully too far into the realm of “just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.” This is often easy to spot from line by line replies, without internal consistency and therefore contradicting themselves.
- Argument (2:12), “An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.” Not a bad type, but they included in the middle an explanation of what arguments are when done properly.
- Complaint (3:49), while a useful piece in some arguments, not an argument in itself.
- Assault (3:58), speaks for itself.
- Confusion (4:45), random off topic stuff to confuse someone, occasionally done to prevent them from attaining Burden of Proof.
“existing children of women denied abortions had lower mean child development scores and were more likely to live below the Federal Poverty Level.”