THBT: On balance, the US ought to make abortion illegal.

So for that debate, my vote would be like: "Since Con supported his claim with 10000 cat pictures in the last round, and since Pro couldnt respond to that as it was the last round, Con wins the sources and the debate."?

"Imagine a situation where as a voter you are forced to take cat pictures as valid evidence, and weight that against the actual evidence as if they both supported the claim."

I have considered that scenario, and yes unless their opponent points out why you shouldn't accept it as evidence than you should weigh it equally.

The debate is an arena. This isn't academia where sources or who is right and wrong matter. It's an arena where two sides fight, not for truth, not for persuasion, but to win.

I would say outside of this arena, you would do well to analyze sources. In this arena you shouldn't even click on them or look at where they came from.

Post 95 response.

I know I disagree usually with votes against and for me and sometimes report ones for me. I won't publicly say anything about one for me though because I don't want to alienate that voter.

Generally most votes on this site are terrible because they voters are stupid and biased.

I am not joking

It was easier to get a large number of quality votes on DDO.

Imagine a situation where as a voter you are forced to take cat pictures as valid evidence, and weight that against the actual evidence as if they both supported the claim.

While this scenario is unlikely to happen, one must make sure that all similar scenarios give voters the ability to question the relevance of evidence.

Of course, a voter must present a good reason to question the evidence using only what was presented in evidence itself or debate.

Another thing you aren't consider when arguing against a debater in your vote is that sometimes debaters, at least I do. Is I take and try to bait somebody with a weak looking source or argument, so they can spend too much time tearing that apart. Either I have a good response or I drop the point and they fucked themselves up with all the space usage.

If an opponent doesn't take the debate and allow me to defend myself, it's none of the judges business

Yes, in theory, you could generalize the evidence. Unless the opposing party calls out on your generalization, and demands specific explanation for each of the 10000 photos. Some of those could even be cat photos. Some could be random buildings. Some could be citations in Chinese.

I mean I would think he could just be like "dick photos just prove your inability to satisfy a woman and have no use in proving the point you made", and that statement would in fact be enough without mentioning each one individually.

Gish gallops are tough to deal with, whether they come in the form of arguments or number of citations, but generally you can dismiss all with a short statement sense the person doing it has traded depth of an argument for width of argument

You could post 10000 such photos and unless Con calls out on each one specifically, they are to be accepted as valid evidence for the claim.

You shouldn't be challenging sources as a voter. That is the job of the opposing debater. I should be able to use a picture of my balls as a citation and unless my opponent calls me on it, the judges should accept it.

You may find that to be unfair. However, my ability to question the relevance of evidence is limited. I can only question it in cases such as these, where source obviously contradicts the claim. As a debater, you have a task of making your case evidently supported. If I cannot find the evidence about the argument you are trying to make, I cannot treat that case same as the case of your opponent that has evidence. With all else being equal in this argument, it would be unfair to treat Pros evidence the same as Cons lack of evidence.

Every voter takes the task of weighting arguments.

However, a voter cannot just say "this evidence is irrelevant". He must provide a reason. If the evidence contradicts the claim right at the start, that is sufficient reason to mark it as irrelevant.

You say it was impossible for you to explain the relevance. However, you had 3 rounds. All you had to do was post a source that doesnt obviously contradict to your claim. Pro was able to do that, when he posted source about Mens rea.

Would you be interested in having a debate with me on if the idea of reincarnation has any logic too it? I will obviously take the pro side.

lmfao, michael_K does that on all my debates too.

"But PRO himself advanced that the question in uncertain and the rights with which the USFG must concern itself with are not the human rights of zygotes but the Constitutional rights of people of people born or naturalized on US soil. The founding fathers gave the Federal govt no powers to preserve zygotes, though abortion was common enough in their era. The states may assume some new powers that the Federal govt may not, but the power of states to ban abortion is not our topic here."

The first 1v2 in Dart history.

CON with the late comeback, possibly reverse sweeping the scorecards.

THBT: On balance, the US OUGHT to make ABORTION ILLEGAL

Overall, one gets the impression that PRO had a prepared argument for ABORTION is IMMORAL and decided to shoehorn that argument into a public policy debate. PRO never really talks about impacts, costs benefits, the rights of citizens and particularly the rights of women or even whether his plan for outlawing might be an efficient means of producing the desired result (i.e. fewer abortions).

PRO failed to define his terms and wastes 80% of his opening argument on irrelevant assumptions trying to box CON in.

PRO builds a an elaborate series of interdependent arguments depending on the presumption that CON must argue that personhood begins at birth. The entire thing is one gigantic straw man built expressly for PRO to knock down before CON even has his say.

CON must argue that personhood requires more than just humanity but also some other not yet defined but already necessarily inconsequential and inconsistent quality.

PRO argues CON has the higher burden of proof because CON will make a personhood case that relies on more than mere humanity.

CON wisely destroys PRO's whole house of cards by denying that the question of beginnings of personhood have any influence on his case. PRO will continue insist but he can't force CON to play PRO's game. The whole gambit corrupts PRO's argument because PRO seems to just presume that all he has to do is prove that a fetus has human rights and all US Public Policy will follow. But US Public Policy must prioritize the rights of US citizens before the human rights of others and the obligations of US citizens towards non-citizens is never established by PRO or even discussed.

PRO's long prefutation also makes a lot of strange declarations without a lot of evidence

" logical impossibility of proposing a sound criteria for instilling personhood between conception and birth"
what about brain activity? heartbeat? response to external stimuli? PRO says any criteria must be subject and ambiguous but heartbeats and kicks are pretty objective.

"I assert that these differences are insignificant in determining the moral agency of an individual. "

PRO is arguing human rights from conception but this argument only compares fetus to newborn, ignoring the first 10 weeks( and so, the majority of all abortions.) Even this argument is manifestly false but would anybody really say that the difference between a 4 celled zygote and a newbord baby? Also, MORAL AGENCY is an individual's capacity to know right from wrong. I'd agree that you can't tell any difference between the moral agency of a fetus and a newborn but I'd never use a baby's moral agency as a criteria for moral worth. I assume PRO is simply misspeaking here.

PRO's argument that the "moral worth" of any fetus is subjective relative to the mother is self-defeating: if the Mother is the best source for assessing moral worth, doesn't that argue that the USFG is better off staying out of the moral question and leaving that expert to weigh values vs harms?

PRO's argument for legal consistency will prove self-defeating in ROUND 2, when PRO tries to shift his framework to allow "reasonable exceptions."

PRO is still assuming that personhood is the whole of his argument when he argues that uncertainty of personhood demands that conception be the starting point of personhood to avoid any harm.

CON is correct when he argues 1) This is the only of PRO's arguments that connects his principles to his plan. 2) That PRO never considers the harms to the born, to society, to the rights of citizens, and most particularly the rights of women condemned to unwanted or unsupportable motherhoods. If all the harms of legalized abortion fall upon non-citizens (whether proved persons or not, whether imbued with human rights or not) and all the harms of criminalizing abortion fall on US citizens, isn't the US obligated to prioritize the citizen? 3) Certain harms must outweigh uncertain harms. Only CON is arguing against certain harms.

Furthermore, PRO tries to shift the greater burden of proof on CON because PRO prefutation is so undeniable. CON easily dodges PRO's elaborate, unsupportable construction and wisely reminds PRO that BoP was set before the debate. In fact, as the instigator PRO necessarily the higher BoP here to show how making abortion illegal will improve US but PRO demonstrates little interest in welfare of the state.

80% of PRO's R1 is wasted negating an argument CON never employs. PRO's only real affirmative comes in a convoluted, circular syllogism.

P1. If abortion is killing and the reason for aborting is unjustified, abortion is unjustified killing.
P2. Abortion involves killing.
P3. The reasons for aborting are unjustified.
C1. Abortion is unjustified killing.
P4. Unjustified killing ought to be illegal.
C2. Abortion ought to be illegal.

That is:
P1. If A is B and if A is C then A is B+C
P2. A is B
P3. A is C
C1. A is B+C
P4. C should be D
C2. Therefore A should be D

D ( illegal) is not properly distributed- PRO's only affirmative argument fails formally.

P1 depends on PRO proving P3
P4 depends on PRO proving P3
C1 and C2 depend on PRO proving P3

The WHOLE of PRO's argument rests on this single evidence:

"According to the Guttmacher institute the two most common reasons for having abortions were "having a baby would dramatically change my life" and "I can't afford a baby now" (cited by 74% and 73%, respectively). Obviously, these reasons do not justify the killing of a born human lives, and thus should not be justifications for killing unborn human lives. "

PRO's whole argument sits on circular PROOF by ASSERTION: abortion is unjustified because the two most common justifications are obviously insufficient, no evidence required.

PRO should have scrapped his whole argument before this and start by explaining why the USFG must not respect the disruption and financial hardship of US citizens as sufficient harms to outweigh the right to life of non-citizens. Instead, PRO just rests his case as "it's obvious" and "CON can't possibly argue anything worthy of consideration."

By contrast, CON's affirmative is straightforward:

P1: Policies that inflict structural violence ought not be implemented
P2: Making abortion illegal would inflict structural violence
C1: Abortion ought not be made illegal

tight. The USFG must never make policy that creates inequality. As a US citizen who has read the Declaration of Independence, I accept this as axiomatic.

CON supports hist middle term "structural violence" with 6 compelling and well-documented harms.

CON tears down PRO's case effectively

"His P4 and C2 are used to convert from a purely moral issue (abortion is unjustified killing) to a policy stance (abortion ought to be illegal), yet that conversion is only meaningful if said policy is effective."
"The beginnings of personhood do not influence my case."
"Pro bites his own critiques about arbitrary selection and using subjective criteria for personhood."
"Pro claims that the most common reasons for obtaining an abortion are unjustified (his P3). Pro doesn’t explain why either of these reasons are unjustified and provides virtually no distinction between justified and unjustified reasons. "

In R2, PRO argues that CON's case is overnarrow because the application of the law is sufficiently flexible to provide exceptions for all of CON's harms. This directly contradicts PRO's assertion that Inconsistent application of the law is "one of the most frequent manifestations of unfairness" PRO does not bother to explain how such exceptions are suddenly no longer unjustified killing because once he admits that there are some considerations that outweigh the harm of unjustified killing, his "these reasons are obviously unjust" P3 from R1 must be revisited with consideration of relative values.

PRO tries to shift the BoP as second time by repeating his R1 argument

PRO falsely attributes the uncertainty principle argument as one of CON's arguments but correctly faults his own argument as an appeal to incredulity.

PRO ignores the fact that CON's case does not depend on "the beginnings of personhood" and continues his R1 argument that CON's position on the beginnings of personhood is untenable.

PRO argues:

" We live in a society in which human beings (at least grown) have rights and liberties which are upheld by the law. We can thus grant that human beings have rights. As a human beings come into existence at the moment of conception, it is axiomatically the case that it is significant - for they have become what is apodictically granted as worthy of human rights"

That is, even though PRO argued in P1 that the beginnings humanity are uncertain and unknowable, now he states as axiomatic that conception is the starting of personhood and therefore fully vested with human rights (PRO still doesn't bother to explain how US law applies to non-citizens). A is always B therefore A is always B.

At several points PRO seems to be directly attributing his R1 straw man arguments to CON that PRO actually wrote.

For example: "This is false - the uncertainty only arises when we adopt CON's subjective benchmark for prescribing personhood - it is an issue only for those (CON) who wish to deny biological humanity as solely sufficient in converting personhood. "

CON never offered any benchmark, PRO wrote one for him. CON never denies that biological humanity is solely sufficient in converting personhood, that was an argument PRO wrote in R1 that CON correctly sidestepped as irrelevant to public policy.

If this VOTER had an option to deduct points for conduct, that deduction would have been clicked at this point.

PRO denies that there is any great leap between what's morally unjustified and the law but this is manifestly false. Nuclear weapons, for example, are morally unjustified but well-justified if not essential public policy. Police shooting an unarmed civilian is never morally justified but a natural and tolerated side effect of the 2nd Amendment as Constitutional public policy. Not every public policy that kills unjustly must be or should be banned. There is a great leap that PRO is blind to and this blindness is what makes his argument fail.

PRO improves his P3 in R1 with adoption but makes no argument that a pregnancy with adoption wouldn't still be life-changing or financially devastating.

PRO really doesn't address the integrity of any of CON's claims. He merely extends his strawman.

"CON has not proposed a sound predicate for instilling personhood thus currently, in their analysis, no persons have rights."

Neither CON's argument nor any USFG have been shown to necessitate any predicate for instilling personhood.

PRO's specific refutations are far too slight considering that CON's harms are the most substantial part of this debate. PRO offers little evidence and zero sources to support these essential claims.

Criminalizing abortion won't reduce family clinics.
Criminalizing abortion won't increase less safe illegal abortions.
Criminalizing abortion won't increase burden on hospitals
Criminalizing abortion won't increase unfair prosecutions of miscarriage.

CON gave us a lot of sourcing to justify his harms and PRO gives none. PRO blows off most of CON's affirmative with some very slight, less than compelling dismissals.

In R2, CON points out the shifts in PRO's argument and repeats that his argument is not dependent on any determinations of when personhood starts.

CON effectively rejects PRO's argument that US abortions will increase based on the fact that UK increased abortions when paid for by govt and Ireland increased abortions when legalized. PRO gave us much more international and focused study including the Guttmacher Institute PRO relied on.

CON effectively challenges all of PRO analogies and mostly just extends his R1s to refute PRO insubstantial counters.

In R3, PRO's intro and conclusion summarize the problem of his argument pretty well. In spite of being the instigator of the debate he focuses entirely on CON's argument, even his opening argument just mostly tried to presage CON's.

"CON's weighing off the harms of abortion on women can be considered strong only in our society - one in which the unborn are presupposed as being subhuman and whom's killing thus elicit a lesser outrage than the "pointless suffering" of "pregnant women".

An amazing statement considering that 1) PRO was only supposed to be considering policy for the society he condemns, and 2) if there some country that bans abortion but enjoys better childcare outcomes than the US, I don't know it. PRO invokes pure logic but PRO's logic has been far inferior to CON's. Take the dueling syllogisms for example.

PRO brings some much stronger counterarguments to bear on CON's harms but I think I have to agree with CON's objection to these as a violation of PRO's rule against new arguments and set these aside from consideration (I don't think they saved PRO at any rate).

PRO re-summarize his R1 straw man personhood argument which is still castrated by CON's lack of dependency on personhood.

"the literal concession that CON's proposition does not allow for the determining of who ought and oughtn't have have human rights entails that there exists no criteria for personhood thus no persons have rights" But PRO himself advanced that the question in uncertain and the rights with which the USFG must concern itself with are not the human rights of zygotes but the Constitutional rights of people of people born or naturalized on US soil. The founding fathers gave the Federal govt no powers to preserve zygotes, though abortion was common enough in their era. The states may assume some new powers that the Federal govt may not, but the power of states to ban abortion is not our topic here.

I'll say again that this felt like PRO started with a pre-fab elegantly written moral case against abortion which he rewrote as a preconception of CON. CON wisely deflated the structure of PRO's straw man leaving one weakly supported "it's obvious" argument standing against 6 real and well-evidenced harms. All of which sits on a solid principle: The USFG must never make law that creates new inequalities- an argument PRO never addressed.

Having accused PRO of new argument, CON is careful to merely flesh out the impacts of structural violence and expose PRO's hypotheticals as insufficient by that standard and then restate the case.

I think CON summarizes PRO's R1 well " Pro’s position on the beginning of personhood is subjective, making his position subject to his principle of uncertainty argument. This means that every single one of Pro’s impacts on the lives of the unborn are relegated to uncertainty, as the degree of harm caused by their loss is entirely unclear."

CON correctly call PRO on merely assuming the impacts rather than relying on hard data. PRO calls abortion genocide at one point and assert 70 billion dead another but never get into the actual numbers of abortions, and especially whether those abortions were a net economic, social, legal benefit for US or a net harm.

PRO brings a moral argument to a policy debate. He illogically prioritized uncertain degrees of harm to one group of non-citizens over certain and specific harms to US citizens. The structure of PRO's argument unwisely depended on CON's participation and CON's smart deferral rendered much of PRO's argument unconvincing. CON parried with a simple, direct. logical, policy-based argument that PRO was unready and slow to refute.

Arguments to CON.

You don’t need to get defensive with me about whether your vote meets the standards laid out in the voting policy. I’m not arguing that.

I am, however, making a point about how a voter introducing concerns with sources and/or arguments of a debater that are not presented in the debate effectively make it impossible for the debater in question to explain their reasoning. It is an imposition that goes beyond just weighing arguments, one where the voter is providing entirely new reasons to dismiss the points in question without providing a means for the debater to respond. Even if you feel that it’s justified in this instance, it does effectively nullify portions of the debate based on work the voter did rather than the work of the debaters.

Nowhere in the voting policy does it say that challenging the relevance of an evidence of source by a voter requires previous challenging of relevance by Con or by Pro in the debate.

The line Barney mentioned was about the reliability of a source, not about the relevance. Source can be reliable, yet unrelated to the argument.

Also, sources are supposed to contain evidence that supports the point. It says so in the voting policy. Merely repeating claims is not evidence.

This leads to conclusion that I need to read the source until I find the evidence, if I am to make sure it has the evidence that one side claimed it to have.

I didn’t want to butt in here, especially as I’m trying to steer clear of any discussion of the specifics of this debate, though as this regards a style of voting, I think I can keep it general.. I do still think that source supports my point, though more pertinent to this discussion, I would have explained how it supports my point if I had been pressed on it. What you’ve done here is challenge that relevance independent of what my opponent did, and while I agree there’s a point to be made here, by making that point as a voter, you’re denying the debater (me) the opportunity to explain themselves. You may believe that that’s justified because this looks like a clear-cut case, though I’d argue that that requires a certain amount of voter intervention above and beyond the given arguments. I’m not going to get into a discussion regarding whether the voting policy allows that as I have little doubt that your vote will stand (and, if I had a choice on the matter, I would agree that it should stand), but it doesn’t come off as just weighting the arguments, either.

Are we reading the same policy?

From debate art voting policy:
"Sources:
Goes to the side that (with a strong quality lead) better supported their case with relevant outside evidence and/or analysis thereof."
Note it says relevant. Cons source neither supported his case, neither was it relevant to his argument.

"In this case, it was pro's job to read the source and find that weakness to it."
So are you implying I must accept the source as a valid support for the claim, despite that it contradicts to the claim it was supposed to support? Am I supposed to accept the claim as "supported" by a source that literally negates it?

Your argument literally:
Because Pro didnt find a flaw:
Voters must accept the source contradicting the claim as if it supported it.
Also, must weight that source as equally valid to other sources.
So where in the voting policy say that source contradicting the claim can be treated as if it supported it?

Voting policy about sources is related to sources actually supporting the claim. If the source doesnt support what the claim is saying, then voters treat the claim as unsupported by any source.

"Further, overly studying a source beyond what was presented"
"If neither debater even alluded to details from a source"
Con presented "punishment for miscarriages". I studied the source within that. All I said was about the very detail Con alluded to from the source, that detail being "punishment for miscarriages".

> read it entirely, you will find:

Again, when we vote it is not our job to defeat one of the debaters on behalf of the other one. In this case, it was pro's job to read the source and find that weakness to it.

> Actually, this is a special case which you didnt consider...

When I wrote the voting policy, I considered just this type of bias hitting.

From the voting policy:
"Further, overly studying a source beyond what was presented, risks basing a vote upon the outside content of your own analysis instead of that offered by the debaters. If neither debater even alluded to details from a source a voter mentions, the vote has probably crossed this line."

Look at the Cons source, read it entirely, you will find:
"When she arrived at hospital seeking treatment, Poolaw admitted to using illicit drugs while pregnant.

Later, the medical examiner's report, obtained by the BBC, found traces of methamphetamine in her unborn son's liver and brain."

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59214544

This is the source Con used to support his claim of punishing miscarriages. In it, you will find what I talked about.

"I can't find said quote anywhere within this debate"
Read cons source. Its in the very report he provided.

"as it reads as not one where you fairly weighted the arguments; but rather as one where you wish you were a debater and are trying to add missing contentions to bolster a preferred side."
Where did I add anything that was not used in a debate?

"such as if the other side called attention to the flaws"
Actually, this is a special case which you didnt consider. If Con provides a source that literally contradicts the claim that he is trying to support with the source, I have no any obligation to consider that source to be supporting of his claim. The case where source contradicts the claim means either the source is wrong either the claim is wrong.

> She actually got convicted for manslaughter, not for miscarriage.

*facepalm*

> "the medical examiner's report..."

I can't find said quote anywhere within this debate, nor did I spot anything which alludes to it. This exemplifies why I am being so critical of your vote, as it reads as not one where you fairly weighted the arguments; but rather as one where you wish you were a debater and are trying to add missing contentions to bolster a preferred side.

Regarding sourses form the voting policy:
"A side with unreliable sources may be penalized, but the voter must specify why the sources were unreliable enough to diminish their own case (such as if the other side called attention to the flaws, thereby engaging with sources in a more effective manner with impacts to arguments; thereby flipping the source and harming the opposing argument)."

Note the part that explicitly spells out "if the other side called attention to the flaws."

I've had plenty of times where I wish one side had argued better, but end of voting against them (whiteflame included).

The definition for Mens rea was given by Pro in his source. I dont want to add unmentioned definitions, because this is related to my vote. From Pros source, Mens rea is, to put it most simply: The knowledge that your actions would commit a crime. So if I know that shooting someone would be a crime, doing it would mean I would fullfil the Mens rea criteria.

However, I can almost certainly tell you that my vote heavily leans towards pro, despite me most likely scoring a tie later today.

Bear in mind, it is possible you could be using terms/concepts Barney does not understand, and I just want this to be a productive interaction. Maybe explain these fallacies/legal terms if necessary?

Round 2 Pro:
"CON holds that the PRO position necessitates the charging of women who undergo abortions. This is not necessarily the case."
-Separation of position from punishing women. Separation of abortion ban from punishing women for abortions.

Pro then explains that in cases of abortions, women are not to be punished unless they are proven guilty under Mens rea.

The link for Mens rea says: "The knowledge that ones actions will commit a crime"
- This obviously excludes miscarriages.

Con never refuted this.

Con provided counter argument, a source that is literally correlation argument, assumption, link to someones twitter account, and much less than 1% cases. The constant reliance on these >1% cannot possibly be treated as equal to Pros arguments that are supported by definitions of law.

Have you read the Cons source entirely? This is his own source explaining the case where woman got convicted for "miscarriage". She actually got convicted for manslaughter, not for miscarriage.
Source says:
"Later, the medical examiner's report, obtained by the BBC, found traces of methamphetamine in her unborn son's liver and brain."
Is Con claiming that women who give harmful drugs to their underage children are actually not supposed to be punished? What is Cons argument here? Remember that his entire argument is linked to this source. This source is literally trying to justify drug use during pregnancy. I am sorry, but taking this "source" and Pros source as equal is unreasonable.

This is why in this argument I give advantage to Pro. Mens rea is a reasonable criteria to be applied in abortion cases. Since Con never refuted this properly, advantage was given to Pro.

>> what evidence did pro use to show that abortion bans result in women no longer being imprisoned for miscarriages?
> The fact that abortion ban is separable from imprisoning women for miscarriages solves that problem.

What about pro's arguments suggested that it would actually be separated?

Yeah, definitely.

I would say that such position is difficult to defend if we assume human rights should be protected. There is a state of dependency between protecting the fetus and protecting human rights. The latter cannot exist without the former. Even if you deny rights and personhood to the fetus, you cannot deny the state of dependency of human rights on the fetus.
If you say: "only the ones that are born have rights" it follows that if we want for people to have rights, we must make sure they are born.
This creates the dependency:
1)The existence of rights depends upon being born. 2)The condition to be born is to be protected as a fetus.
From this, it follows: The existence of rights depends upon protecting the fetus.
From that, it follows: To secure the existence of rights, we must protect the fetus.
Finally: Destroying the fetus destroys all human rights that depend on its existence.
This dependency implies that fetus contains personhood and human rights in some form. The fact that humanity depends upon protecting fetuses to secure its existence means fetuses are not some random cells but the very thing that enables humanitys existence.

If you want me to claim some sort of objective morality, this isn't the debate for that. Within the current framework and based on how humans form societies (in the modern day) it is completely impossible for me to be less consistent in my position than my opposition, unless someone wants to argue against human rights. Its not arbitrary once we presume the axiom that humans ought to have certain privileges and expectations within a society. Once we assume this axiom (human rights) my position will always win. Unless you want to argue we should get rid of human rights, unless you argue we should disband everything we have build, and go back to living in caves, it is not arbitrary.

Everyone agrees abortion is immoral (anyone with sense).

I agree.

Locke actually contradicts his own philosophy by being against abortion because Locke's religious views clouded his judgements. Intelligent Man sees that his original philosophy supports abortion.

I'd argue your equivocation of legality with morality and bodily autonomy with personhood are arbitrary and based on your own subjective applications of those ideas.

This is why the whole abortion debate, as it is currently bring carried out today, is arbitrary. It all depends on what a person's premises are. Therefore, it is entirely subjective and not based in any sort of objectivity or fact.

You argue personhood as a legal right. Who says? The law? Which law? Whose law? And why is that law any more valid than any other law? Your whole argument is subjective.

Before anyone can even begin to debate this subject, they need to agree to certain frameworks based on arbitrary standards. Nobody is bothering to sit down and ask "what are the facts, and where will they lead?"

This is because the facts will undoubtedly lead to abortion being wrong. Yes. I would debate that position. But it would take significantly longer than a 5 round debate, so due to the constraints of time I choose not to debate it starting from ground zero without assuming anything.

Personhood laws are not arbitrary in the least if they're either:

1. personhood is decided at the point of conception
2. personhood is decided when bodily autonomy rights should be given (which means independent viability). It must be rememebered, our bodily autonomy rights are the reason murder is illegal, same with rape and so on. Therefore attaining bodily autonomy rights is akin to attaining personhood, you cannot have one without the other.

There's nothing vague about that, there's nothing subjective here. if i can show which one lacks consistent, and which one doesn't, we have a very clear answer to when personhood should be given. Giving personhood at the point of conception is not consistent with the current way the world is run (economically, based on private property and labour rights). The only way to defeat this argument is to literally go back to tribal times, where people didnt have human rights. The pro life position also has the increased burden of proof of showing people (outside of the womb) couldn't be organ harvested, or abused in ways which based on their abortion position would be appear to be permissible if we're to be consistent. Unless we roll back the right to private property (therefore people not having a right to their own body as their own) my argument is never going to lose. You would have to argue against basic human rights, constitutional rights to be able to defeat my argument.

There is no fallacy here, my friend. I'm not saying abortion (based on current laws) should be legal (although it should) im saying it OUGHT to be legal. I don't care about the current laws. I would concede abortion is immoral. That doesn't mean i think everything immoral should be illegal.

"An appeal to the law (argumentum ad legem in Latin) is a fallacy in which someone tries to encourage/defend an action purely because it is legal, or tries to discourage an action purely because it is illegal. This line of reasoning is faulty because the law of the land does not necessarily match up with the morality or sensibility of an action." [1]

Just because something is legal or illegal, that does not mean it is moral or even right. Laws are just as subjective and relative as anything else.

Sources:
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_the_law

"I won't get into specifics about it (at least not here) because those points that I would make at least partially relate to this debate and the arguments I made, but I think both sides make arbitrary arguments with problematic implications when it comes to what is considered the beginnings of personhood. We can discuss it elsewhere if you're interested."

Do you think there was any realistic flaws you seen in the argument i used against bones in his forum post? As FLRW said, it seems the lockean view is easily the most consistent position legally speaking. FLRW is actually wrong that Locke was ok with abortion (this is why i know he got the idea from me). Locke actually contradicts his own philosophy by being against it (based on his theory of private property and theory of labour). Locke's religious views clouded his judgements on abortion, to the point where he contradicts his entire philosophy in 2 lines.

"yeah, but the "personhood" debate is silly because people come to the table with different ideas of what personhood means."

Its actually really not that silly if we all axiomatically agree we should be given "personhood" rights when we would consider one to be legally protected against things such as murder, etc. Personhood simply means the point at which one should gain the status, According to law, of being a legal person. A legal person has rights, protections, privileges, responsibilities, and legal liability. The real argument is at which point in time is this.

It’s all good. Doesn’t even have to be in a forum if you just want to discuss it via PM, though I’m good with leaving it be regardless.

I mean, there's already a few forum posts on it, so I don't know if we'd be beating a dead horse lol

I won't get into specifics about it (at least not here) because those points that I would make at least partially relate to this debate and the arguments I made, but I think both sides make arbitrary arguments with problematic implications when it comes to what is considered the beginnings of personhood. We can discuss it elsewhere if you're interested.

yeah, but the "personhood" debate is silly because people come to the table with different ideas of what personhood means.

Biologically, a fetus is a person from the very beginning. Genetically as well.

But if a person is a "fatherless biped," then a fetus is not a person.

Or if a person is someone who physiologically aligns with a post-birth human, then it is not a person. But neither are amputees, brain dead individuals, and those born with deformities.

Which is why these arguments are unresolvable.

To me, logically, the fetus is a person because of the arguments from biology and genetics. However, one can make a tautological argument as well, that you can't just assign personhood at some arbitrary moment post-development because there is no particular reason THAT moment defines personhood. So the logical conclusion is either that human beings are never persons, or they are always persons. And from that conclusion, we are always persons.

But not everyone will agree with a tautological argument like that because they have their own definitions of person.