Instigator / Pro
4
1417
rating
158
debates
32.59%
won
Topic
#2473

On Balance, Abortion Should Remain Legal

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
3
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1

After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

MisterChris
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
7
1762
rating
45
debates
88.89%
won
Description

This concerns worldwide policy.

"Should": benefits outweigh the negatives.

Con is for ban, with the exception of Maternal life.

-->
@seldiora

Without going back and reading through this (I'll rely on my limited memory of the arguments made), I believe the response that MisterChris presented against uncertainty regarding the future of the unborn was that it's not about a sense of potential. I agree that there's a point to be made about how the unborn is often miscarried, but that argument relies on everyone already agreeing that what matters most is to be born into the world alive. Sure, it's possible that many unborn would die through no fault of anyone, but your opponent argued that that doesn't lessen the value of the unborn, it just means that a certain amount of tragedy is inevitable. The existence of said tragedy doesn't mean that we should heap onto that tragedy with more loss where such loss is unnecessary. The other aspect that affects this is that even if I buy that they matter less simply because many of them will never reach the point of viability, the loss of life is a more severe harm than the loss of autonomy on the part of the woman. I largely agree with the point made by the article you're quoting, but to say that pregnant women are "those most affected" is a point that's not clearly true on its face. I'm sure MisterChris would argue that the one most affected is the one who loses their life, which would be the unborn.

If I was going after the same point (eschewing more scientific questions that relate to it), which I have on occasion, I don't think I'd rest on the probability point. If we could somehow determine whether someone is likely to die at a young age or not, we wouldn't reduce their value as human beings as a result because we have established that life matters past the point of birth. MisterChris is simply trying to push that back to conception. Ragnar's made some pretty solid arguments about uncertainty regarding the value of the unborn, partly as a result of probability, and that the loss to rights is more absolute and continuous. Here, MisterChris tried to precede such arguments with his point on the Uncertainty Principle. I think that's both his most important point and the one that must be assailed most strongly. Still, even if he won the uncertainty principle, it's possible to outweigh him, and I think the 20% point could be used to do that. You would just have to put some really hefty weight on the loss to self-ownership that women suffer, and use the 20% point to reduce the impact of the losses that MisterChris used to weigh his arguments. This balancing act is a major reason why my arguments in other abortion debates have shifted a bit - I think it's possible to shift the dynamic of these debates and force more discussion over implementation - but I do think it's possible to win on these points. It just gets more complicated.

-->
@whiteflame

there's one thing I can't get out of my head-- why didn't you buy that the idea that the fetus was only going to be a baby like 20% of the time? doing more research on if Chris's argument was possible to challenge, I found an interesting article rewording my link in a more direct way: "Viability is a claim about what action can be taken in the present based on an anticipated future that is never to be. Viability is a measurement only sensible as applied to a neonate post-birth, but it is used to define the status of a fetus in utero. Moral arguments from viability thus treat pre- and post-birth as though they were equivalent states, when the very argument is that they are not.

In the end, rather than seek moral absolutism where there is none, the only legitimate answer in law is to embrace individual moral judgment on its fairest terms. There is a human rights argument that the judgment of those most affected, pregnant women themselves, should matter most, and it is thus their moral judgment about later abortions in which collective faith and trust should be placed.36 This is the sentiment driving popular Trust Women abortion movements. Gestational time limits thus implicate human rights of more than access to services, but of women’s freedom in conscience, equality, and liberty. " (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5473036/)

admittedly it takes the moral grey ground rather than talking about how viability downright is ridiculous/implausible, and raises the woman's right as the only remaining resolution possible. Chris's argument is particularly worrisome because it infers that even if the baby's birth was determined by a 20 sided dice we should still refuse to give the woman the moral claim to her body. I'm not seeing a way to defeat it...

Knowing the quality whiteflame gives voting, I don't believe I will be putting in the time and effort to read this one. I started into it, and both seemed to do well. I assume based on pro letting the focus be on humanity, that con would inevitably win.

-->
@seldiora

Personally, I’m not sure on the moral question. I have a lot of problems with the arguments of both sides, though I think MisterChris does a good job of representing the pro-life argument. My issue is mostly with finding an objective point at which a unique life (and yes, I’m not just talking about personhood) begins, and I think both sides struggle hard to justify choices that fit a specific narrative rather than engaging with the scientific facts that underpin their choices, but that’s just me. That being said, the moral argument is a lot easier for pro-life debaters than for pro-choice debaters. Lives lost is such a huge and easy impact, and it’s a given. Everything else can get a little muddled if you’re not careful.

-->
@whiteflame

I see. I guess that's why online it suggested asking what exactly the punishment should be with Abortion. With manslaughter, the legal implications are interesting. I think I focused too much on morality. As Jordan Peterson notes, Abortion is clearly wrong. However, illegalizing abortion may be even more wrong, somehow.

-->
@seldiora

Ragnar tackles it differently than I would, but he engages quite a bit harder on the issue of personhood. I can’t speak for how he’d make these arguments, but if you look back at prior debates of his, he’s largely argued that uncertainty should favor a lack of personhood. I’d like to see how he’d engage with this uncertainty principle argument.

The way I’d do it is largely not to engage on it. Essentially, the uncertainty principle is a moral framework based on a lack of knowledge. We can’t know, ergo we may be doing harm and not be aware of it. I’d refocus the debate on what we do know, including incidence of abortions (if illegal abortions are super safe as Chris said) and how they’re affected by punishments/investigations being unclear (the claim of miscarriage would allow many to get away with abortions if they’re not actively investigated). Morally, we as a society may do something “wrong” (i.e. make abortion legal) to prevent greater harms from trying to do it “right” (making abortions illegal). Essentially, I’d focus on the mechanisms used to implement what MisterChris argues for in this debate rather than the perceived outcomes of those actions.

As for defending third term abortions, I actually find that absurdly easy. Almost all of those cases involve physical harms to the child or the mother. A woman doesn’t carry a child that far to term without wanting it very often, and the number of boxes you have to check to get a late term abortion with most providers is not insubstantial. As for the rebirth argument... it came up late and leaves me thinking that the whole debate doesn’t really matter (why care about any suffering or death if we’re coming back later?).

-->
@whiteflame

any additional tips? I haven't seen even Ragnar successfully negate the fact that the value of the human life, especially third term abortion, should not be ridded. That 1% is severely bothering me. Is the framework the problem? (should I say, only abort first term). Or is there actually a way to win 3rd term abortion, because I've seen experts successfully argue that it's better to live horribly than never be born at all. I tried to say that you're effectively reborn 10 years later, but it seems you didn't buy it.

( and also Cornell University's argument links to Rape, but I probably didn't link that well enough together.)

Might take me a bit, but I’ll get through this.

-->
@whiteflame

have a go.

Interesting responses, time to wait another week and post last min again

-->
@MisterChris

I had trouble linking a second study I found to support the first study. Here it is. I'll re mention it in the last round, but know that there was more than one that added to the 92 % statistics. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4727534/

-->
@Patmos

I don't know you either, but it's always good to have more quality debaters around. Welcome back!

-->
@Patmos

I missed you! I don't know you, but I missed you!

I'm back! Who missed me?

-->
@seldiora

Ah, I see. Does consciousness decide person hood? Btw, how do you define "parasite." I think it is misapplied here given that parasites are not members of their own species, as a human is in early development. Additionally parasites rely on hosts for their entire existence, while humans rely on their mothers for only about nine months out of their life. Slavery seems a bit extreme also. I don't think think humans can force themselves onto their mother...I think we know how that happens.

Consciousness doesn't make much sense either given we are not fully conscious until our prefrontal cortex is fully developed well into adulthood (are we not fully human until that point?). You can also compare the consciousness of animals to see why it doesn't fit as the mark of person hood.

I think you are left with the bigger question: What exactly is happening in pregnancy?

If we are talking about the development of a member of the human species, then it makes sense that a person is involved. But if it is not a member of the human species, then it cannot be a person. That to me makes the most sense. What do you think?

To Truth!
-logicae

-->
@logicae

the reasoning is that 13 weeks is conscious standard (and that explains why they vast majority of women decide so before 13 weeks for abortion) [https://www.nature.com/articles/pr200950] ... and the big problem is the "parasite"/"slave" comparison from lack of abortion.

-->
@seldiora

I think major inconsistencies arise if you declare person hood to begin there. Can you explain why that point defines person hood and not conception? (which is the standard for the beginning of the human species in biology) I can understand searching for common ground, but hopefully we can find solid ground to share.

To Truth!
-logicae

-->
@logicae

other way around. Choicer usually think only 3rd term counts as best (1st term does not count as life that can infringe upon the woman's autonomy). This is the best agreement that both can agree to, that 1st term abortions should be allowed. 2nd is the arguable part.

The pro-lifer asserts life starts at conception, while pro-choicer claims preconception.
Can agreement come from debate, when all we wish to do is negate?
Could we devise a plan for agreement, so that we might find out why the disagreement.
A point can only be made if true -the very wise words of a fool.
We must tread lightly on our ignorance, till at long last we find deliverance.

We are in in this together, separated by thousands of miles, and yet it is still as if we are not so far away. May we all have the strength to accept the truth when it comes. Love to all.

To Truth!
-logicae

note to self to use this as a final straw... https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/social-philosophy-and-policy/article/abortion-abandonment-and-positive-rights-the-limits-of-compulsory-altruism/12B2E3CF9296247A0D572ED4807A7833

-->
@seldiora

we will leave that to the voters to decide

-->
@MisterChris

to be fair, I could drop all your arguments except the first one and win on virtue of that alone

-->
@MisterChris

*laughs maliciously in 92% unintended pregancy*

I will be forever astonished at your speed of reply...

9spaceking's reminder to future self to use this in case of disabled children: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/bioe.12679

-->
@seldiora

noted

sorry, I meant "that does outweigh", not that doesn't outweigh, for the $790,000 vs $780,000 argument

-->
@seldiora

Decent response, given the timeframe you wrote it in

-->
@seldiora

Keep in mind that nothing you put in the comments actually counts in the debate, although that article was interesting to read

I will also leave https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4078237/ here in case of your vegetative person argument.

ah, I just came up with a good idea. Parents are free to ground their children, limiting their freedom of liberty (access to communication, locations). They can even disown and cut off ties with children for good reason. I should probably mention this, as it troubled me for an additional reason, even if it can be proven fetus have "rights".