Preamble: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
ConcessionPro has offered to concede in R1, and verified it in the comments [
1]. With that in place, this debate will be transformed into something of a tutoring session.
I suggest bookmarking this guide, from which the layout used is taken:
https://tiny.cc/DebateArtOf course, feel free to ask any questions on why things are structured the way they are.
Burden of ProofThe resolution means X, so I should win if I prove Y. Conversely, my opponent should win if he or she proves Z.
DefinitionsThe 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.”
I. Valid if UnsoundAccording to the academically peer-reviewed Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy [
2]:
“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.”
So plugging the argument into logical form:
- P1: Abortions to non-humans is morally ok (implied).
- P2: Science verifies that X is non-human.
- C1: Abouting X is morally ok.
P1: Abortions to non-humans is morally okThis 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 [
2]:
“eight murders, 17 attempted murders, 42 bombings, and 186 arsons.”
Whereas veterinary clinics which routinely carry out cat abortions [
3], are not even protested against.
Thus, from the perspective of those most opposed to abortion, there is a clear value difference. This is not to say they think it is best that animals be aborted, but merely that their actions evidence a perspective that it is
ok.
P2: Science verifies that X is non-humanThe claim is highly debatable, however as a premise it meets the IF THEN TRUE requirement building toward the conclusion.
If it is wrong then the argument is rendered unsound but not invalid.
C1: Abouting X is morally okIf premises P1 and P2 are true, it is impossible for C1 to then be false.
From my arguments, I have supported the soundness of P1, but not the soundness of P2. This means the conclusion while logically valid, is likely unsound.
II. What Science Says: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).
Person vs. HumanAs 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.
A hall of fame winning debate on abortion, successfully leveraged that by scientific measurements under a microscope, any combined cell cluster in the human womb is human [
4].
In my own debates on the topic, I am careful to stick to a standard of personhood [
5]. I believe speaking morally, this is a better qualifier for protections. Consider the case of the movie Ted, that we could have culturally human intellects in non-human forms, and our laws would offer them no protections from kidnapping and dismemberment. Of course the standard of personhood does not guarantee that won’t happen, as sadly seen in various countries where women are not viewed as people.
Others might argue citizenship is what matters, but as an immigrant, this seems dangerously arbitrary. Basic morals should reduce this down to absurdity.
ConsciousnessScience 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).
However, when consciousness is combined with a standard of personhood, it offers good intuitive protections…
As a hypothetical, imagine a fire in a fertility clinic with a daycare. You can save the lives of toddlers, or a thousand fertilized eggs. From a strictly human standard of morality, you should let suffer the children… From a personhood standard, you may regret the loss, but save the toddlers… I would further argue that were it a future potential person (frozen embryo), or a trapped cat, the cat is closer to being a person even while lacking human DNA, so it should be prioritized.
Women’s RightsThe 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.
While respecting their rights at the expense of a not yet human may not be perfect, it ends up being ok due to being preferable to the alternative dystopia.
Sources:- https://www.debateart.com/debates/2406/comment-links/30483
- https://www.vox.com/2015/12/1/9827886/abortion-clinic-attacks-mapped
- https://www.thesprucepets.com/so-your-cat-is-pregnant-552392
- https://www.debateart.com/debates/2211-legalized-abortion
- https://www.debateart.com/debates/1024-should-abortion-be-made-illegal
You've GOT to talk to BrotherDThomas lol. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4611-when-will-the-hypocrisy-of-the-catholic-church-ever-end
I'm glad you feel that way. I can't speak for anyone. But it's incredibly frustrating when I see people who proport to be Christians and are just ignorantly popping off at others. Hey, if it helps this audience, I'll give you something to potentially redirect and refocus someone.
(Rather than saying look you're wrong, be it a correct statement) What i literally ask brothers and sisters i see doing this to others is how, in your approach, are you fulfilling Christ's command in 1 Peter?
but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,
1 Peter 3:15 ESV
It's pleasant to see a friendly discussion instead of a flamewar, especially on a topic as controversial as abortion
I have to take a friend to the airport, so out of time. I'll respond to your points in R2.
Hey man, if you're willing and have the patience to probably get frustrated at newby mistakes of debate style, premise, flow, etc.
I'm here to discuss, and learn, and to take in new evidence and views. Im all for it in whatever form.
If you want to concede, we can have the debate technically move forward with that in place. It's just be labeled a concession so neither of us needs to worry about argument strength, and voters at the end would vote based on that rather than who was more convincing.
Otherwise a moderator can delete it (which sadly loses the comment section and what you've written as arguments). My preference is for the first option, but again, I'm fine with either.
Good post. In fact, great post!
My draft does not get into dogs but it actually contains cat abortions as a point (it weirdly does morality relate to human abortion opposition).
I'm actually not sure how to cancel. I'm happy to concede if that's an option.
I very much appreciate the offer on coaching. I'll be in touch if I get some more free time for this. I'm coming to the end of a work vacation and am about to get much busier.
Let's cancel. I'll be around. I'll be learning. When I can better round of terms and drive to a more solid debatable foundation, ill be back.
Thank you for your patience and understanding!
As you will present the "science" side of this debate, I'd wonder how science defines the distinction of "human" vs. "person." I don't believe science has that distinction any better defined than the law has. To me, "human" is a species, and, as far as that goes, that is defined immediately upon conception. Actually, it's immediately defined by each gamete, but they each represent just half the species, and they begin to exist at the point in zygotic development upon cell differentiation in vitro. A "person" is far less well defined, and federal law defines that as immediately upon live birth [Title 1, USC 8] However, the law disagrees with itself by several State fetal homicide statutes, for example, Ala. Code § 13A-6-1 (2006), which apply a duaql murder charge with the homicide of a pregnant woman. Murder is a legal term that applies to human persons, only. Murder of a dog is a misnomer.
I would be fine with canceling this one if you want to. Otherwise be prepared for some comedy, along with a good explanation on logical validity vs. soundness.
Either way, on here or on the forums I would be happy to coach you to strengthen your argument and craft a better resolution. A lot of the debates I do are largely just trying to teach people on how to improve.
lol i was just generating an easily winnable argument (probably not urs) since the resolution is somewhat "flawed"
I hope I'm not that nitpicky... But thematically, my argument is pretty much iron clad for similar reasons.
I will soon
Thirded
I support.
#BringBackTheLikeButton
Ragnar's argument be like:
It is near science in the sentence so 'it' replaces science. Science is not a human is true. Science is science. Therefore, it is a true statement, which is a valid defense.
That might actually work. Based on the grammar of the resolution, the only available antecedents for "it" are abortion or science.
It is so easy to argue PRO since all resolution says is "it" so that could be anything. Ragnar pretty much wins.
yeah, im interested, but which side of the question are you trying to uphold?
You've got two different conditions -
"abortions are ok" moral question
and
"not yet human is valid defense" legal question
which are looking to discuss?
A valid legal defense is not moral sanction so I wonder which way you're looking to go. I'd also recommend defining all these terms.