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

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

I initially wasn't going to vote on this, but skimming it I spotted con multiple times falling back on arguing in favor of random murders as a strawman to pro's case...

There is a lot to unpack here... Pro argues 13 weeks, con counters that the brain structures start to form earlier, pro points out that it's only the start to formation not actual function, and con rebuts with a repeat that the brain structures start to form earlier.

I do like pro's simple syllogism of people valuing their well being, so should value that in others. Since this is a philosophy debate instead of a politics or science one, it's a decent starting point for morals. Sadly, as he admits, con does not understand the relevance.
I found con's offered syllogism to be immediately unsound due to being circular (it could easily be condensed to "(abortion=murder) x 3".

I liked the "A potential economic contributor" of sperm cells bit, but mostly as comedy. Con was able to easily show there being valid differences. Con ended up losing ground on this when he declared somewhat counter-intuitively "a teen and a fetus are exactly the same." ... And wow, pro brought it back with complex DNA stuff using con's own source to show that the sperm was just an earlier state of the human being con argues is murdered. Somehow at the end con argued we shouldn't care about the physical differences, when that very notion was vital to rejecting the absurdity of every sperm is sacred.

The main weakness I'm actually seeing in con's case is that he takes it for granted that the audience wholly buys that abortion is the murder of a person, so tries to levage having already won in a circular fashion. Con gets better with tying things to suffering, but pro is swiftly able to show that the fetus is not made to suffer whereas the woman seeking an abortion would, and the loss of future value was preempted with the whole potentialities argument (including that 50% end in miscarriages anyway, taking a lot of the intended bite out of this point).

Sources: Tied.
I got to say, do be careful on sources. "The short answer is no." one literally points that duress is a valid legal defense.

Conduct: Tied
There were some ugly bits with implying the other side condones racist genocide, but not enough to greatly distract from the debate.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Superb debate - never read anything better on this topic. Both sides made excellent arguments, used reliable sources, and did not use bad conduct.

Yes, my personal bias points to CON being the victor, and I feel like CON's arguments were more convincing overall. However, the expanded resolution in the description was not decisively proven incorrect by CON - since he never challenged the syllogism of PRO. On the contrary, PRO managed to defend his position, although not prove it to be better than PRO's FLO. Since there was no problem with the arguments or style they used, I will need to grant the vote based on the position as a whole, not the individual arguments. In the end, it came down to PRO's grand strategy being more efficient than CON's superior tactics.

IN CONCLUSION, CON WON THE BATTLES BUT PRO WON THE WAR.

Here is the whole RDF:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xZIPOyfYgWlECs2pz5xwhu6ktk-1qnGud-TTAeie2oY/edit

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

By the end of the debate, it’s clear that con only holds onto his future value argument. He loses Grasp in his arguments that the traits of the fetus are human, and instead relies on the idea that the fetus may or may not have value. However, even though pro did not outright mention that not all fetus will become human, he made the point that the personhood is arbitrary and that the murdering of man being a crime already supposed they earn their personhood or humanity. Con, I need to see you connect the ideas together. If you weigh responsibility combined with future value then you tell voters that some babies will indeed become human, even if the vast majority do not. Yes, you tell us that murder is unjust, but pro also has coercion on his side, with self defense backing his case. He managed to clarify why it is different from someone forcing you to kill someone: the mother’s liberty is actively being oppressed by the baby as a consequence unrelated to her. I need con to tell me exactly why this future value matters. I buy that a person can have great contribution, but the fetus is far more ambiguous. Make me see that our responsibility to raise the fetus combined with the eventual birth will deprive of the freedom pro vouched for and the value of human we asked for. And pro, try to latch onto this and mention that abortion could be related to crime (as some studies show). The poverty issue means that the future value even if accepted is severely reduced, forcing con’s argument to lose a lot of impact. It’s true that he didn’t 100% soundly connect his future value case, but a concise summarizing discussion could very well turn it around and defeat your case. Be sure to tell us why future value is contradictory, because con was just one sentence away from linking FLO to matching the human value.