Debate analysis: Elective abortion is immoral

[Aught3]

This thread is for discussion of the debate between Philosopher (affirmative) and ImprobableJoe (negative). The proposition is 'Elective abortion is prima facie the most immoral of all available choices'. A quick reminder that the debating parties cannot post in this thread.

The debate can be found here.

 

[Aught3]

Very nice opening post from Philosopher he clearly set out his arguments, I can't wait to see what Joe will say in response. IIRC, his position is that we allowed to kill and eat the foetus so this could be an interesting discussion :lol:

 

[JustBusiness17]

I haven't read the opening but I'd like to share my objections to this debate. The following is from the thread where the debate was formed:

JustBusiness17:
How can you discuss the morality of abortion before establishing the existence of objective morality? And how can you discuss objective morality before establishing the existence of god? Unless you intend to limit the debate to strictly medically backed evidence, this debate is headed absolutely nowhere...

How about you debate abortion based on the assumptions that there is no god and morality is entirely subjective?

BTW, my stance is that abortion should be avoided at all costs which means a comprehensive sex education program including proper use of contraceptives. I read a really good article discussing cognitive development of embryo and base my opinions around that. I can't recall the time periods however it's not really necessary information because I live in Canada where religious zealotry isn't an issue (yet)

Philosopher:
We don't have to cover the issue of objective morality first, although it may be useful. All that's required is that we both agree that it's morally wrong to kill a human person without sufficient justification.

JustBusiness17:
What's your definition of a "human person"? 2 cells? 1 trillion? Is someone a human before their brain becomes functional? Do you think its wrong to ejaculate without intent to conceive (serious question)?

More importantly, how do you define "sufficient justification"? I'm sure many people choose abortion because they want to avoid the social stigma associated with pregnancy out of wedlock. What about financial position? Is it right to have a child when you know that you can't provide it with a decent quality of life? 'Justification' is a really loose term to base your debate around. Especially when you qualify it with the word 'sufficient'

With the user name 'Philosopher', I expected that you would be a little more precise with your words. Do you have a philosophy background or do you just fancy yourself a philosopher?

Philosopher:
Um, I don't think I'm permitted to discuss debate details, But, I believe a human person to be the same as a human being (I hold to a substance theory of persons, so I treat both as the same). Other then that, read my OP.

I don't think this debate has enough ground rules to come to any conclusion...

 

[nasher168]

This might be more interesting than the other debates we've so far had. Philosopher has made a better starting post the TruthfulChristian, VyckRyo or Phitran did in their debates.

 

[nemesiss]

This might be more interesting than the other debates we've so far had. Philosopher has made a better starting post the TruthfulChristian, VyckRyo or Phitran did in their debates.

indeed, it has subsections, making it easier to focus on each individual part.
i would almost say this should be a standard opening format for EVERYONE who wants to start a debate.

some points im not in (full) degreement, but atleast it didn't make me facepalm and/or scream.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

What the, this got to be a mistake, I think I should have turned left instead of right because I'm prety sure I am in the wrong alternaive reality.
This is got to be the first time I see a christian promote point and make sense, I even agree with some points that Philosopher made, heck we need more people like this. Not enough to change my mind tough, I do agree that a baby are humans even before they leave the womb and I do not support abortion in any period after a certain treshold of gestation. The threshold at stake is a rather dificult one to establish since the trasition between a inanimated gelatinous pulp and a living human being doesn't have clear cut hedges.
I desgree on the part of non descrimination based on development, in particularly the development of the brain because I only consider someone being alive as a human being as long as they have a functional brain. I personaly find extremely absurd to try and mantain brain dead person for years hooked up to a machin that pumps the blood arround and feeds him oxygen and nutrients; I would hav no problem what so ever to pull the plug on such a person because that person is not a person anymore, it is a animated gelatinous bloob. The same criteria I would use for a unborn fetus, i.e. if it doesn't have a brain it is a gelatinous blob. The problem is where to be able to tell when exactly does a unborn fetus has a functional brain or not, but we do know the period where it certainly does and the period where it certainly doesn't whit a shady period in the midle, and I am fundamentaly convinced that there is no moral issue what so ever if abortions are made before the shady period (which is has a rather confortable margin for anyone to realise they are pregnant, decide that thy want to abort and pull trough).

 

[SagansHeroes]

Yeah there's always a problem with deciding when and when something is not a human.... If every sperm is a potential human and none should die "as I guess the catholic church goes for with it's "no condoms, masturbation and lots of celibacy" policy... But then what about the millions of sperm that enter your wives Uterus but don't fertilise the egg and die?
In my opinion the development of the brain in the foetus should be the "cut off point" (no pun intended), but that's if we have to have a cut off point. It's more or less a parasite on the mother until it enters the world, takes it's first breath and gets it's umbilical cord cut. This may sounds harsh, but I'm obviously looking at it from an unemotional p.o.v. If I were to really vote on it/engage my emotions, I would say, abortions are fine, until it has developed a working brain (it has electrical function).

That being said, most people arguing against abortion are religious and use religious grounds to support their view... However stat's show that the higher percentage of pre-marital pregnancy and abortions are done by religious people... ALSO, that "god" essentially commits more "abortions" than anyone else with all the miscarriages and stillbirths, by their own definition on whatever "god" is.

 

[borrofburi]

It mostly hinges on the definition of human life, as well as why precisely killing is immoral.

 

[Case]

Clean post, quite civil, too.

I disagree with many aspects of his post/argument, but I'm not the one debating so I'll just agree with JB that it should've been established what they mean by 'immoral'. Something that should be frowned upon, something that should be forbidden by law, something that should be restricted, something that should make religious people feel weird if they do it...
It's also weird that he objects to arguments IJ hasn't even made. I'd greatly appreciate if he concentrated on the issue instead of making up arguments to object to.

 

[Aught3]

And a very nice reply by Joe, we could be in for a treat here

My assessment so far is that there were two weaknesses in Philosopher's initial argument. The first was that he did not establish why killing a person was immoral. I think if he had done so it might have cut off some of Joe's argument about an embryo not meeting the moral condition of a fully-fledged person and thus not being wrong to kill it. I also think Philosopher probably has a different idea of why killing is immoral - but he failed to mention it in his opening argument.

The second area Philosopher actually did try to support by comparing a child developing into a adult being equivalent to an embryo developing into a child. I don't think he quite grasps the immense development of complexity that occurs from fertilisation until the child is fully-formed, we go from a single cell to a complex system of organs and tissues. Compare that to how small the differences are between a child and an adult: size, proportion, slight improvements in cognition, anything else? Joe did quite a good job of pointing out the difference in kind that exists here. I'll be interested to see how Philosopher responds.

As for Joe I see he's used Warren's criteria for personhood (of which I approve) but I don't think he's justified his usage of it. Why should we believe that this is the best way to decide whether a particular entity warrants ethical consideration over the more simple criteria of just being an adult human?

Edit: actually reading the argument again I see Joe had pointed out that our treatment of animals is explained by the use of personhood criteria so that's a good start.

 

[JustBusiness17]

Much better than the other debates I've glanced at... I was a little surprised at how well Joe can write and didn't expect Phil to have any substance behind his content but it looks like he's well versed in the subject.

Here is where I feel that Phil fails (coincidentally, his entire argument rests on this one point):

Human embryos by their very nature possess the capacity for sentience.

By this logic, humans would have a moral obligation to care for every sperm and ova and ensure that they reach their capacity for human life. That would mean women would be responsible for conceiving a new child every 9 or 10 months and a lot of frozen sperm. But why stop there? If ensuring the fruition of capacity is the ultimate goal, the we would also have the obligation to provide every human with every possible opportunity to achieve their full capacity of "personhood". I don't think any of this is inherently bad -in fact its actually quite ideal, but in a world with finite resources, it's simply not feasible. But I digress. The point is that the protection of capacity is unrealistic and impractical as a means for basing this decision.

 

[Aught3]

JB, you are on to something with that quote but not in the direction you have taken it. I think there is currently a bit of a misunderstanding between the words 'potential' and 'capacity', they seem to be used almost interchangeably but the have different meanings.

Potential means the possibility of becoming actual.
Capacity is the current possession of an ability.

What I think Warren, and hopefully Joe, would say is that an embryo has the potential to develop cognitive capacity whereas the unconscious person already has the capacity fully developed but currently unused. This way a person remains a person - because they still have the relevant cognitive capacity - even when knocked-out by the anesthesiologist.

 

[JustBusiness17]

JB, you are on to something with that quote but not in the direction you have taken it. I think there is currently a bit of a misunderstanding between the words 'potential' and 'capacity', they seem to be used almost interchangeably but the have different meanings.

Potential means the possibility of becoming actual.
Capacity is the current possession of an ability.

What I think Warren, and hopefully Joe, would say is that an embryo has the potential to develop cognitive capacity whereas the unconscious person already has the capacity fully developed but currently unused. This way a person remains a person - because they still have the relevant cognitive capacity - even when knocked-out by the anesthesiologist.

Thats what I meant :roll:

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

From reading this, Philosopher has yet to state how a human embryo is different from me scratching my neck and killing off however many skin cells that have flaked away -
they all have the possibility of growing into more skin cells with a thorough copy of my DNA within each and every one of them. Am I ending those poor cell's rights to grow more skin?

Philosopher has failed to difine Life. Joe has done just that, however, by giving the cell a set of criteria. All Philosopher said in his latest post can equate to "Nu-uh" without clearly stating reasons why it's a lacking criteria for something to be more than "just a lump of cells."

 

[australopithecus]

The reason why I say that abortion is permissible only in cases where the life of the mother is in danger is because in such instances, both entities in question are in danger. Consider an ectopic pregnancy, in which the unborn implants itself outside the uterine cavity. In an ectopic pregnancy, both the mother and child will die. Thus, all things being equal, it is better to let one die instead of letting both die. Both the lives of the mother and unborn child are still of equal worth. "[A]ll things being equal, better that one should live rather than two die... [an] abortion, to save the mother's life, in this case, is justified." [5]

What about instances where the danger is pretty much whole on the mothers part, that a normal pregnancy would put so much physical stress on the mother that she would probably not survive to full term however the fetus, if prematurely delivered, would survive. Who gets to live then?

 

[JustBusiness17]

I'm not usually the type of person that likes broaden a topic but they are so closely tied to the subject of abortion/religion that I'd like to see the following topics discussed:

- Sex Education
- Contraceptives
- Economics and financial ability
- Raising children outside of marriage
- Carrying capacity (overpopulation)

Am I missing anything?

 

[Case]

I know IJ said that he wouldn't cover any of the Pro-choice arguments, but I would be so compelled to do just that. :lol:
Until birth, the "child" is not a complete child, it's sort of a symbiont. The more viable symbiont (host, if you will) gets to choose whether or not to nourish (keep or abandon the symbiotic relationship) the other,... end of debate. But yea I find "morals" to be quite useless and dangerous a notion.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

It does upset me that some people try to compare a pre-natal baby to a leach, or to say that morals are for squares.
There are limits to stuff and this is definitly gone over it, not to say that my opinion is better than yours but come on isn't that a bit to of?

 

[Case]

It does upset me that some people try to compare a pre-natal baby to a leach, or to say that morals are for squares.
There are limits to stuff and this is definitly gone over it, not to say that my opinion is better than yours but come on isn't that a bit to of?

I'll just assume you were talking to me, here's a couple of pointers.

Firstly, I'd appreciate if you didn't talk about me in third person. I'm right here, you can address my statement directly. If it was a general notion, fair enough, but the notion you incorrectly paraphrased is not general, so show a bit of respect, please.

Secondly, I'm not comparing a prenatal baby to [what I assume you meant to say] a leech. I'm saying prenatal babies are symbionts, sort of. Sym-bios(is) means together-life and denotes the coexistence of two organisms where at least one's life depends on the other. Host, in this context, refers to the one playing that particular part of the other. I have yet to hear of any evidence against the notion that human offspring requires a phase of symbiosis in order to develop to a point of independence from said symbiotic relationship.

Thirdly, I'm not claiming "morals [were] for squares", I'm saying morals are obsolete. That's a pretty grave difference. I'm also not saying there should be no maxims to our actions, quite the opposite. What I'm advocating however is ethics instead of morals. "Mores" (lt.) refer to customs as preserved by tradition (which in turn refers to practices you "carried along") and they only say what the standard practice is, not why. It can be perfectly moral to keep women suppressed according to some moral code while it's very unlikely you'll find anyone who can show it to be ethical.

Lastly, if you think I crossed some sort of line, point out why, according to what standards, why that would be a problem and make your case. Besides, you are saying that your opinion was better (as in: more correct) than mine. That in itself isn't a problem, but you fail to back it up.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

I'll just assume you were talking to me, here's a couple of pointers.

Firstly, I'd appreciate if you didn't talk about me in third person. I'm right here, you can address my statement directly. If it was a general notion, fair enough, but the notion you incorrectly paraphrased is not general, so show a bit of respect, please.

Secondly, I'm not comparing a prenatal baby to [what I assume you meant to say] a leech. I'm saying prenatal babies are symbionts, sort of. Sym-bios(is) means together-life and denotes the coexistence of two organisms where at least one's life depends on the other. Host, in this context, refers to the one playing that particular part of the other. I have yet to hear of any evidence against the notion that human offspring requires a phase of symbiosis in order to develop to a point of independence from said symbiotic relationship.

Thirdly, I'm not claiming "morals [were] for squares", I'm saying morals are obsolete. That's a pretty grave difference. I'm also not saying there should be no maxims to our actions, quite the opposite. What I'm advocating however is ethics instead of morals. "Mores" (lt.) refer to customs as preserved by tradition (which in turn refers to practices you "carried along") and they only say what the standard practice is, not why. It can be perfectly moral to keep women suppressed according to some moral code while it's very unlikely you'll find anyone who can show it to be ethical.

Lastly, if you think I crossed some sort of line, point out why, according to what standards, why that would be a problem and make your case. Besides, you are saying that your opinion was better (as in: more correct) than mine. That in itself isn't a problem, but you fail to back it up.

I didn't wanted to adress tis point directly to you since you are not the only person making the same comparison. And by making it impersonal would make this stament sort of also aply to them, I do apologise if this seamed socialy disrespectufull but on my defense I would like to add that I don't have almost any senses of social correctness what so ever, so don't take it personal or feel ofended when I do shit like this. Oh, and I'm also a bit dislexic.

Secondly the baby to mother relation is not one of simbiotic, the mother would be able to live prety well if the baby were for example to die, the mother doesn't colect any benefit from the existence of the baby other than it passes on her genes (or money from child support), the same can not be said the other way arround. And the comparison of leeche was indeed made by some pro-abrtion feminist (not on the league of reason) and if it was even possible they would like to be able to terminate pregnancy until the kid turns 5 (and I'm not even exagerating she actualy said that on BlogTv) and this was a simple mentionig of it (the user is actualy a semi-popular youtuber who has recieved shoutouts by several people on the LoR blog panel, I won't mention names but it shouldn't be hard to find). Whe you mentioned the choice of "whether or not to nourish" as a criteria I assumed that you used the it rather literaly (for which born babys would also fall in to), but even for the uborn kind I believe that such criteria would be detrimental as it encompasses functional unborn.

On the topic of morality you are simply using a different definiton, I do agree that morality shouldn't be based on the criteria of tradition, but I also find justified "socialy beneficial" actions to be part of morality (and that ethics and morality overlap) aparently you push justified parts to ethics.