Instigator / Pro
19
1706
rating
33
debates
80.3%
won
Topic
#2669

TBHT: Abortion is, on balance, moral

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
9
0
Better sources
4
6
Better legibility
3
3
Better conduct
3
3

After 3 votes and with 7 points ahead, the winner is...

Theweakeredge
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
20,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
12
1516
rating
9
debates
55.56%
won
Description

Abortion - "a procedure to end a pregnancy. It uses medicine or surgery to remove the embryo or fetus and placenta from the uterus. " [1]
Moral - A behavior, conduct, or topic that is based on valid principles and/or foundations [2][3]

[1] https://medlineplus.gov/abortion.html
[2] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/
[3] https://www.lexico.com/definition/moral

Interpreted Resolution: "The procedure used to end a pregnancy is based on valid moral principles and/or foundations."

Theweakeredge's burden of proof: "Abortion is moral"
Contender's burden of proof: "Abortion is not moral"

Foreword:

My first note is to explain my approach to this particular argument, which is to posit abortion a philosophic and legal good. Some may be confused or even put off by my strange definition of morality, I suppose strange is the wrong word, different. I found the lexico definition (as trust as it usually is) lacking in it's presentation of the definition. Now, the definition is fine, but the way that it would be applied to the resolution itself is the part I find uncompelling. I used two sources, which is the lexico.com iteself, and the plato.stanford.edu to make up this new definition.

Another note, none of this is set in stone, if the Contender wishes to address these definitions or burden of proof, that is completely fine as long its tackled honestly and all. This description is to give any potential opponents insight into my thoughts, though I will have an independent first round. I've already had this debate with Ancap and narrowly lost due to Conduct points (2 days was not long enough for writing arguments). I want to try my hand at it again now that I've had more experience debating on the site, and also learning more about the subject matter.

Edit: On balance, this means in most cases, a minority of cases cannot be my main point, perhaps a supplementary one, but definitely not the main one.

General Rules:
1. No new arguments in the last round
2. Sources should be posted in the debate rounds, hyperlinked or otherwise
3. Burden of Proof is shared

-->
@Wagyu

"To those who have read the entire 25 000 words worth of this debate, I commend you. Those very same people should also know who has won this debate.

Sincerely,
Wagyu,
3/02/2021"

Those words didn't age well, I did enjoy the debate though, it was a solid one and helped me really get a concrete grasp on how I want to debate for now on. I'm sure that you noticed I kinda switched it up - it was very eh. I am happy I got back from my first loss... jeez that was a while ago, now that I've "avenged" that one, on to my second lost debate, woo boy.

-->
@Barney

Hope never dies.

-->
@Benjamin

Someone could still report it. I was just curious so skimmed it.

-->
@Barney

A vote of mine doesn't get reported, yay : )

"It is a small vote for Theweakeredge but a giant leap for Benjamin".

-->
@Benjamin

Glanced at your vote. I have to agree with you that con would have done much better had he not delayed the FLO argument until so late.

-->
@gugigor

it should be fixed now

-->
@Benjamin

I can't access the link

-->
@Theweakeredge
@Wagyu

Thank you for writing such a brilliant debate.

-->
@Theweakeredge
@Wagyu

Excellent work both of you. I have never read a better or more objective debate on this topic. I will cast a vote when I finish reading it.

-->
@Theweakeredge
@Wagyu

Excellent work. My vote might seem short but I read the debate. I take it that con dropped the majority of the scientific personhood argument since he never brought it up again. I’m happy to clarify any part of my vote. This was not easy— pro had a lot of sugar, but FLO had some reasoning behind it, even if not connected perfectly to the problems of abortion.

-->
@Wagyu

No problemo, this is the second debate on abortion for me - thanks for the opportunity to see if I had improved. Good debate.

-->
@Theweakeredge

A very intense first debate for me. Thx for the opportunity.

Funny thing is, whenever I first made the argument I completely forgot to use the "is it right to force an impregnated person to support a fetus, because it isn't right to force someone to give someone else blood" thing, though I did touch on it in my responsibility principle.

-->
@Theweakeredge
@Wagyu

if you are becoming frustrated with the length of the debate and think things are going in circles, you can both agree to just give a brief summary of points for R5 and call it a day.

naise

-->
@Undefeatable

You COULD use it that way, but there are some clear differences I think in context.

-->
@MisterChris

The further I read pro, the further I feel your VR argument justifies abortion. What if the combination of uncertainty and proportionality overcome the baby’s potential life? People feared that Britain’s taxation and “oppression” would lead to their lives lost (or freedom equivalent to their lives), despite nearly no chance of that. If VR was justified despite the uncertainty of the worst scenario, isn’t abortion even more justified, because the baby’s personhood is even more uncertain than the “taxation=oppression”?

-->
@Wagyu

That’s kind of underhanded of you because FLO is one of the big arguments once personhood falls apart. FLO doesnt really work here unless you combine it with proportionality because otherwise you infer that even self defense is immoral. I will leave pro to tear down the rest.

-->
@Wagyu

I am, and I'm a little frustrated that you never responded to the core part of my argument regarding the Possibility Fallacy, or even my bit about semi-conservative DNA replication, which was a core rebuttal, and I SOURCED PERSONHOOD FROM LEXICO. What? How are you still insisting that personhood doesn't exist?

Anyone still following this very intense debate?

-->
@vector

Firstly I would recommend reading the entire debate before trying your hand at offering, second I would recommend not giving advice at all - as its unfair to the other side. I'm grateful, but I refuse to use such a pedantic argument whenever there are much strong arguments to use, not to mention I don't need to prove all abortion, just the majority of it moral.

-->
@Theweakeredge

I only read the first few rounds, but did you try a rebuttal to fetus being human being on a definition basis? As in accept that the cells have life but not under the classification of human being: "a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens". As child/baby/infant by definition all refer to someone born (thus, a fetus does not fall under this definition) it becomes incorrect to refer to a fetus as a child/baby/infant/human/etc.

I do think the personhood argument is strong, though it only applies to the first 13 weeks rather than all of pregnancy.

-->
@Wagyu

I mean, that is the debate, lol

-->
@Theweakeredge

I disagree with the way you use the word.

-->
@Wagyu

You disagree with the dictionary definition of a term?

-->
@Theweakeredge

The disagree with what the source says.

-->
@Wagyu

You disagree that I clearly listed a source and told you that I had?

-->
@Theweakeredge

oh yeah, fair call, my mistake. Nevertheless, I respectfully disagree.

-->
@Wagyu

You said I hadn't sourced it.... it was in my list of definitions in my first round.

-->
@Theweakeredge

I guess I'll see what you mean. Did I misrepresent your claim about personhood? I remember clearly quoting you exactly on the second line of my debate...

-->
@Wagyu

Don't get me wrong, it hasn't deterred a response, and I am pruning it to make sure my claims are sourced, and making sure I didn't miss anything, but still - its just a little frustrating whenever something that has been clarified in the debate and the comments, such as my source for the definition of personhood, comes into one of your contentions as a negative spot against me.

-->
@Theweakeredge

damn

-->
@Wagyu

You know, the pure level of misrepresentation throughout your round has got me a little frustrated, not gonna lie.

Got it.

-->
@Wagyu

says right there 56% women are coerced into sex for the first time (https://www.wellandgood.com/verbal-coercion-first-time-having-sex/#:~:text=A%20study%20published%20Tuesday%20by,having%20sex%20the%20first%20time.)

-->
@Wagyu

Wagyu, all of my claims are hyperlinked. All you have to do is go to the first round and find where I claimed it, from there, just click the annotated number directly beside it.

-->
@Theweakeredge

Where did you get the 50 percent of sex was coerced number from? Could you provide the link? I've been fishing around and wanted to see exactly what your source says.

Ah, good rebuttal. I feel this will be a good debate

-->
@seldiora

stronk

-->
@Theweakeredge

stronk argument. Nicely done

-->
@Theweakeredge

Good stuff.

-->
@Wagyu

Thanks! And no worries, Its already pretty far into development, I'm doing some tying up and summations currently, well not right now right now, but I'm around there writing it.

-->
@Theweakeredge

Just reminding you the your argument is due in under two days! I'm in no way rushing you, just making sure it doesn't slip past your diary.

-->
@seldiora

"which brings in another moral dilemma, is self-defense justified when someone is doing something but they do not know they are doing it, nor are they controlling themselves?"

Good question. According to the Responsibility-Sensitive Account, if you're being targeted by someone who is not responsible for their actions, you can only respond with a severity similar to their non-consensual acts.

For example, if you were mind-controlled and trying to stab me with a knife, I'd probably defend myself with similarly lethal force for my own and others' sakes... and that would be OK. In the context of abortion, there is really no way to "defend" from having a child against your will other than to kill it, send it to an orphanage, or throw it on the street to be picked up by whoever. All of those are questionable, but the orphanage option is at least acceptable to most people. Obviously the other two are highly immoral.

-->
@seldiora

If you wanted to use the proportionality arg for abortion, you'd have to drop the Responsibility-Sensitive Account and adopt a utilitarian model. Then, you would probably do well to argue that the fetus does not have the same value as a human person (although the innate value of lost potential remains) which allows you to argue that the requirement for proportionality is therefore less strict and the killing is justified. You could do this by really stressing some of the societal consequences of banning abortion.

Of course, as with any utilitarian arg, there are big problems... but if you can defend the model, you'll be in a good spot.

-->
@MisterChris

ahhh, that's a good point too. Because of lack of responsibility, the Pro VR argument falls just a little bit short of completely winning abortion. You could of course, do a "people are wise" kind of thing like you did and say "people will only abort when the oppression is so bad it is as if someone responsible was abusing them!"

... which brings in another moral dilemma, is self-defense justified when someone is doing something but they do not know they are doing it, nor are they controlling themselves? Even if similar to VR where citizens take the risk that the government is oppressive, it's not like the government is just stupidly oppressing them with no idea -- unlike the baby sleeping in the woman's body. Undefeatable's point about the American revolution being ridiculous with "Taxation without representation" is also difficult compared to abortion, as Abortion is only one single woman convinced she is correct, while the revolution has to be a consensus among a group of people to commit the violence, which inherently has a higher barrier to bypass the proportionality of danger.

-->
@seldiora

"you know, the comparison to intentions and the idea of self defense gives me deja vu with MisterChris's argument in favor for violent revolution (even in potentially non violently oppressive scenarios) -- https://www.debateart.com/debates/2637-resolved-violent-revolution-is-a-just-response-to-political-oppression. It's an interesting link between different ideas. I'm curious if Pro would successfully be able raise the same idea as supporting a VR as supporting an abortion. Just fruit for thought."

PRO could make that argument, but of course, the Responsibility-Sensitive Account of Proportionality isn't an excuse to do whatever you want if you feel inconvenienced. There has to be a certain severity to the sustained transgressions to justify violent response, and I think it's fairly evident that severity is not even close to being reached in the case of abortion. There is also the explicit exception to the rule that applies when the oppressive party is not responsible for their oppression: "In contrast, someone who is addicted to pinching, call her the Addicted Pincher, and as such is much less responsible for posing a threat, may not be subjected to harms greater than pinching itself.” As the child is not responsible for its existence (which you would claim is the oppressive act), there should be no harm done to it.

-->
@Theweakeredge
@Wagyu

you know, the comparison to intentions and the idea of self defense gives me deja vu with MisterChris's argument in favor for violent revolution (even in potentially non violently oppressive scenarios) -- https://www.debateart.com/debates/2637-resolved-violent-revolution-is-a-just-response-to-political-oppression. It's an interesting link between different ideas. I'm curious if Pro would successfully be able raise the same idea as supporting a VR as supporting an abortion. Just fruit for thought.

-->
@Theweakeredge

No problem. I usually use as much time as I need, but this time, the word count ticked away before time did.

-->
@Wagyu

Definitely an interesting argument, I'll get into my next round shortly then, probably a couple of days for school and all.