Instigator / Pro
4
1602
rating
40
debates
62.5%
won
Topic
#4639

Abortion is undesirable

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
6
Better sources
0
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2

After 2 votes and with 10 points ahead, the winner is...

RationalMadman
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Rated
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Minimal rating
None
Contender / Con
14
1700
rating
544
debates
68.01%
won
Description

By "undesirable" I mean that in an ideal world, there would be no abortion. This does not mean that an individual can't desire abortion or that it isn't necessary in some cases in the world as it is.

Round 1
Pro
#1
In an ideal world abortion is something that would be rendered unnecessary and obsolete. Pregnancy would either be prevented at minimal expense or result in healthy birth.

1: Abortion is a waste of resources. This includes the resources used to perform the abortion and the resources that go into developing a fetus that will ultimately be terminated. 

2: Abortion could be making God angry. You never know, if souls potentially exist and you are potentially terminating a soul by performing an abortion why risk it? The existence or non-existence of such things can't be proven either way as far as we know so you are gambling regardless of what you believe by having an abortion.

3: Abortion not only costs money, but often leads to physical discomfort. 





Con
#2
Framework

The description tries to rig the debate as a truism for Pro to get a cheap and easy win.

What Pro is saying Con is up against is the idea that if all things were ideal, abortion wouldn't be necessary.

Pro concedes the resolution as it's written by including this in the framework:
 This does not mean that an individual can't desire abortion or that it isn't necessary in some cases in the world as it is.
So, let's work with the rigged resolution, let's explore why it is plausible that in an ideal world, we still will desire abortion.

I will combine two philosophical outlooks; hedonism and anti-natalism into a fused case for the fact that in an ideal world not only will abortion be desirable but encouraged.

====

Quickfire rebuttals

In an ideal world abortion is something that would be rendered unnecessary and obsolete.
Baseless statement, if I say unprotected sex would be happening at rampant rates in an ideal world and it being slick and easy to abort as people love every bit of their life, being as irresponsible as they can get away with as robots do all the menial and repetitive tasks, then what?

Pregnancy would either be prevented at minimal expense or result in healthy birth.
Why? Why is this ideal? Baseless.

1: Abortion is a waste of resources. 
False. It is a bigger waste of resources to have a neglected kid either ending up in foster care or abused/neglected and growing up troubled and toxic themselves when the parents knew they didn't want the kid.

2: Abortion could be making God angry.
So could you saying no to me giving you a good hard spanking. Agreed?

3: Abortion not only costs money, but often leads to physical discomfort. 
We would, in an ideal world, have refined combining precise strikes/moves with efficient painkilling to make slaughtering your foetus not just painless but fun even with music playing and scrolling tiktok as it's done to you.

=====

Hedonism

The word ‘hedonism’ comes from the ancient Greek for ‘pleasure’. Psychological or motivational hedonism claims that only pleasure or pain motivates us. Ethical or evaluative hedonism claims that only pleasure has worth or value and only pain or displeasure has disvalue or the opposite of worth. Jeremy Bentham asserted both psychological and ethical hedonism with the first two sentences of his book An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation: “Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain, and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do”.

2. Ethical Hedonism
At its simplest, ethical hedonism is the claim that all and only pleasure has positive importance and all and only pain or displeasure has negative importance. This importance is to be understood non-instrumentally, that is, independently of the importance of anything that pleasure or displeasure might cause or prevent. From ethical hedonism, it follows that if our relationships, achievements, knowledge, character states, and so on, have any non-instrumental importance, this is just a matter of any pleasure or displeasure that is in their natures. Otherwise, they have only instrumental importance through the pleasure they cause or displeasure they diminish. At least from the simple forms of ethical hedonism, it also follows that pleasure is good whenever it is had, even in matters that are themselves worthless or worse. Some hedonists are willing to bite such bullets; others develop more complex forms of ethical hedonism that seek to soften the bullets or even to dissolve them.

Some things have both instrumental and non-instrumental importance, and in such cases their overall importance is a function of both. These two matters can also pull in opposite directions. Your pain of being once bitten has non-instrumental negative importance, for example, but it might also have instrumental positive importance through the further pain you avoid by its making you twice shy. Instrumental importance is a contingent matter and it varies widely from case to case. This is why the non-instrumental claims of pleasure and displeasure are the present focus.

Ethical hedonism can be universalist, me-and-my-near-and-dear egocentric, or egoistically focused just on one's own pleasure. It can also be a claim about value, morality, well-being, rationality, reasons or aesthetics. It can be a claim about grounds for action, belief, motivation or feeling; or a claim about ought, obligation, good and bad, or right and wrong. And these are not the only possibilities. The discussion below aims for both determinacy of formulation and generality across the different forms of ethical hedonism, albeit that these two aims are in some tension with one another. For economy of expression, discussion proceeds below in terms of hedonism about value. At its simplest, this is the thesis that anything has non-instrumental value if and only if it is an instance of pleasure, and has non-instrumental disvalue if and only if it is an instance of pain or displeasure.

I could do a series of syllogisms but essentially maximal pleasure is achieved in a world where we fuck when we want how we want, protection or not and having minimised consequences AKA 'pain' of any kind for our actions.

If the aborted foetus would have been unwanted anyway, there's further argument but the key is if the mother doesn't want to have it, she needn't.

=====

Anti-Natalism

Benatar refers to this as his “Asymmetry of Pleasure and Pain.” He says: 
  1. The presence of pain is bad
  2. The presence of pleasure is good
  3. The absence of pain is good, even if that good is not enjoyed by anyone
  4. The absence of pleasure is not bad unless there is somebody for whom this absence is a deprivation.
If humans were to exist (scenario A), the presence of pain (which is bad) and the presence of pleasure (which is good) cancel each other out. But, if humans were to never exist (scenario B), there would be no pain. And we say that no pain is good! There would also be an absence of pleasure. But we don’t tend to care about the absence of pleasure (like on Mars), so this isn’t bad; it’s just neutral. So we’re left with only a good! 

In life we have many issues at times, pain can happen. Pleasure can't be taken away from a being that never got to be.
Round 2
Pro
#3
Baseless statement, if I say unprotected sex would be happening at rampant rates in an ideal world and it being slick and easy to abort as people love every bit of their life, being as irresponsible as they can get away with as robots do all the menial and repetitive tasks, then what?
In an ideal world we would have total control of pregnancy and be able to stop it before an abortion becomes necessary. People would be able to turn it on and off at the flip of a switch.


False. It is a bigger waste of resources to have a neglected kid either ending up in foster care or abused/neglected and growing up troubled and toxic themselves when the parents knew they didn't want the kid.
This assumes there are only two options and not one where we can turn conception on and off with nano technology.


So could you saying no to me giving you a good hard spanking. Agreed?

I would argue that God is more concerned with the human soul than the state of my buttocks.

Hedonism
In what sense is abortion necessary to achieve any level of pleasure other than some weird sadistic desire to kill offspring?

Antinatalism
If there are other means of protecting the environment than having less humans and/or pregnancy can be turned on and off before it happens then the bigger issue becomes not going to a hell that may exist terminating a soul's chance at life.

Con
#4
We desire unprotected sex
Round 3
Pro
#5
If you need an abortion after unprotected sex then you didn't desire the pregnancy which means you didn't desire the thing that made you need the abortion which means you didn't desire the abortion.
Con
#6
If you need an abortion after unprotected sex then you didn't desire the pregnancy
Excluding the rare people with a fetish to slaughter their fetus or rather to experience pregnancy for the hell of it for some time and then get rid of the baby/fetus, you are fairly correct here.
which means you didn't desire the thing that made you need the abortion
You have said didn't desire the pregnancy twice, in essence.
which means you didn't desire the abortion.
False. I can desire a result and not desire the cause.

You see, The entire structure of reality as I present it in this debate, is the apex morality and ethics optimises apex pleasure for all and reduces apex pain.

You have both in terms of antinatalistic avoidance of potential suffering for the offspring and in terms of apex pleasure for all alive to fuck each other mindlessly and enjoy it, had a reality where abortion is still very desirable at massive rates.

Your reality is wishy washy. For instance, you say God may have a problem with abortion but we know nothing about if god is real or what god wants beyond blind 'everything is equally probable' conjecture, which you baselessly dismissed. God could be upset that you don't let someone spank you ruthlessly until you squeal and that's because you don't know who the real god is or at least have 0% justified it in this debate, nor do you have the slightest clue to its agenda since you have not the slightest clue which is the real one.

You say this:

In an ideal world we would have total control of pregnancy and be able to stop it before an abortion becomes necessary. People would be able to turn it on and off at the flip of a switch.
But never justify this. You also don't explain why people may not dislike this and wish they had pregnancies again and couldn't just plop a baby out with an on and off switch. There are people who as you put it:
some weird sadistic desire to kill offspring?
Okay, so these people can exist and in an ideal world would have apex pleasure, agreed?