Abortion

Thanks Hello Orange. ==Burden of proof== My opponent says that he will show that abortion is morally wrong. Therefore, I can negate the resolution by proving that abortion is morally permissible. It is not my burden to show that all cases of abortion, including late term abortion (up until the day before birth), is morally permissible, but merely that *some* cases of abortion are permissible. ==Rebuttal== R1) Murder is wrong My opponent begins his argument by claiming that murder is inherently (prima facie) wrong. He says, "murder is near universally understood to be a bad thing. The warrant for this is inherent." However, to prove that murder is wrong, a priori, my opponent must prove that an a priori ethics system, like the categorical imperative, should be adopted, as opposed to a consequentialist ethics system, that judges actions by their consequences rather than their intent. In this debate, I will be arguing in favor of utilitarianism, which is a consequentialist ethics system that seeks to maximize utility for as many people as possible. ---Utilitarianism is preferable to the categorical imperative--- Joseph Nye of Harvard University cites the following hypothetical to show the ridiculousness of the categorical imperative: you pass through a conflict area and a rebel captain has captured 30 innocent villagers. The captain is going to execute the innocent villagers for being from a rival tribe. You pass by and the captain, for his amusement, hands you a gun and says: shoot one villager and I will let the rest go free. If you refuse, the captain will order his men to shoot all of the villagers. Nye asks, "Will you shoot one person with the consequences of saving [the rest], or will you allow [all] to die but preserve your moral integrity by refusing to play his dirty game?" [1] Judging the morality of an action a priori, without looking at consequences, leads to rigid ethical systems that prefer 30 people to die rather than one, merely because "murder is "on face" wrong and is never morally permissible." In fact, States have the power to deem many forms of murder as "lawful," which many people equate with moral permissibility. State sanctioned killing is usually considered morally permissible – shooting enemy soldiers, dropping bombs on enemies from drones, capital punishment, physician assisted suicide (in some countries) – these are all deemed morally permissible by the State, usually because it serves the State's ends. By drawing clear legal distinctions, the State avoids any potential downsides to these types of killings because people clearly understand the contexts in which killing a human is allowed and disallowed, and are thus deterred from performing what the State defines as murder. Since murder is defined by the State, I ask my opponent to use the term "killing a human" rather than murder, to avoid confusion, since it's his burden to show why killing any human, regardless of circumstances, is morally wrong. R2) Abortion is murder Murder is just a word, not a ubiquitous moral concept. Its definition can be re-written by States whenever they desire. Random House defines murder as "unlawful killing of a person"; Princeton's Wordnet defines it as "unlawful killing"; Kernerman English Learner's Dictionary defines it as "the crime of killing," and Webster's defines it as "the offense of killing." [2] These definitions all have one thing in common – murder is defined by the State and its laws; it is a killing of a person not sanctioned by law. Thus, my opponent can, in theory, argue that abortion is murder, but this is inherently incorrect, since the State defines murder and the United States currently allows abortion, so it is, by definition, not murder. Unless my opponent can prove some moral, as opposed to legal, implication of abortion being defined as murder, all of his arguments fall. Under utilitarianism, because people understand that abortion is sanctioned by law, but killing someone outside the womb is not, this means that legalizing abortion does not sanction other types of killing, so there is really no downside to allowing abortion. If you agree with my opponent that murder should be defined as "killing anything with human DNA," then we'd also have to treat suicides as murder (and attempted suicide as attempted murder, with attendant jail time), we'd have to treat killing al Qaeda members with drones as murder, and try the "pilots" in court, etc. We need a flexible definition. An a apriori moral system would judge each of these actions on face (as killing another human) and conclude they are morally impermissible, since we cannot judge these actions by their consequences (for example, saving Americans from another al Qaeda attack). Refuting my opponent's specific subpoints. (a) My opponent never shows why murder, as he defines it, is wrong. (b) If my opponent used a dictionary, he would see that the word "unlawful" appears in every definition, reinforcing the fact that the definition of murder is defined by government. (c) My opponent defines a person as any unique human DNA that forms. Under this definition, cancer (mutated DNA) is a new person and removing it is murder. I sincerely hope he adds to this definition in a later point, since DNA, by itself, is a pretty pathetic definition of what constitutes a human. (d) I agree – a fetus is not a part of a woman's body; it is, however, attached to an umbilical cord that literally drains resources from her body and would likely kill her if she was not able to consume enough additional calories. Miscarriages are extremely common in nature, particularly when the mother's food resources are constrained, which led Samuel Harris to exclaim that "God is the most prolific abortionist." If nature can make the decision that a woman cannot afford to have a baby, why can the woman not make this decision for herself? Some women engage in livelihoods in countries where a pregnancy means a complete loss of income and potential starvation. Judith Butler explains, "For me, the argument in favor of a sustainable life can be made just as easily for a woman or girl who requires an abortion in order to live her life and maintain her livelihood." [4] Butler continues, "We have to ask what kinds of choices are made possible by social configurations of life, and to locate our choices socially and politically. There is no way around the question, "What makes a life livable?" This is different from the question of what constitutes life." Because human young cannot provide for themselves without the help of their mother, if the mother cannot afford to raise a child, the life is not truly viable. Just as a fetus with a horrible genetic mutation is not viable, a fetus whose mother cannot afford to care for it is not a viable life either. Lastly, Butler raises the important issue that we don't need to ask when life begins – we need to ask "at what point in any life process does the question of rights emerge?" Rights do not emerge until the umbilical cord has been severed and the fetus can survive on its own. We'll see why through Judith's Thompson's Violinist analogy: "You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers have canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, 'Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you-we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist is now plugged into you. To unplug him would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.' Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation?" Judith Thompson goes on to argue that the fetus, like the violinist, has no right to use your body unless you give it to him." [5] So even though the fetus is not a literal "part" of the woman's body, it is still not inherently a viable life, since viability is located in social conditions, AND its USE of a woman's body does not require her, morally, to accede to this situation. So the argument comes from the USE of a woman's body, not the fetus being "part" of her body (although some pro-choicers falsely attribute the fetus to being "part" of her body). (e) Killing something with unique human DNA is not murder, else killing a cancer tumor is murder. My opponent needs to reach further in his definition of murder beyond DNA. In fact, my opponent uses the terms "human being" and "person" interchangeably (i.e., "there is no standard that warrants murder of another person"). However, as Random House says, murder is the unlawful killing of a person and a person is "a human being . . . recognized by law as having rights." Webster's defines a person as being "self-conscious." Since fetuses are not recognized by law as having rights (again, personhood is defined by the State) AND they are not self-conscious, they inhabit a different moral and legal sphere from persons; as Butler would say, rights don't enter the equation until the fetus is separate and self-conscious. In fact, many definitions of murder and torture, such as Peter Singer's, hinge on the ability to feel pain, and at the stage where almost all abortions occur, the fetus cannot even feel pain. There is clearly a legal and moral distinction; it's not as simple as human DNA = person. (f) Straw man – I won't do any of the things my opponent is arguing against. (g) Already refuted above. ==My case== 1) Clear cases where abortion should be allowed (a) Rape The woman does not choose to become pregnant. This fits perfectly with the Violinist analogy, since you are forced to be attached to the Violinist and should not be held morally culpable for refusing to accede to this situation. (b) Medical need In cases, like ectopic pregnancy (where the fetus is growing in the fallopian tube), the mother has a substantial chance of dying if the fetus is not aborted, in which case abortion is a life-saving medical procedure. If abortion is defined as murder, then medical need would not matter; the mother would be forced to carry any life to term, regardless of danger. 2) Abortions don't stop when we ban them The New York Times reports that "A comprehensive global study of abortion has concluded that abortion rates are similar in countries where it is legal and those where it is not, suggesting that outlawing the procedure does little to deter women seeking it. Moreover, the researchers found that abortion was safe in countries where it was legal, but dangerous in countries where it was outlawed and performed clandestinely. Globally, abortion accounts for 13 percent of women's deaths during pregnancy and childbirth." [6] So under utilitarianism, banning abortion has no benefits but DOES have detriments, so banning abortion is morally impermissible. To give a US example: According to Associated Content, in 1932, 15,000 women died each year due to illegally and improperly performed abortions. 3) Unwanted children are bad for society The CDC reports that 60% of women seeking an abortion already had one child, and often their method of birth control has failed. According to studies by the Guttmacher Institute. "a majority of women who report their reasons for seeking abortion say they can't afford a child or are unready to raise one. Women living below the federal poverty level are more than four times more likely to terminate a pregnancy than women earning above 300 percent of the poverty level." A study by Steven Levitt found that the 40% decline in the homicide rate can be directly attributed to Roe v. Wade and the decline in unwanted children. [7] The 5 states that legalized abortion prior to Roe saw declines in crime earlier than other states and the crime declines lagged abortion's legalization by about 18 years in all states. This means that banning abortion is bad, on utilitarian grounds, because it leads to more deaths from illegally performed abortions and leads to more crime (through more unwanted children). My opponent may argue foster care, but that just churns out sexual abuse victims, who are likely to become abusers themselves. A study by Orlow (2009) found that "As many as 75 percent of all children in foster care, upon leaving the system, will have experienced sexual abuse." [8] Churning out sexual abusers is obviously bad for society. 4) Absurdity If creating a nonviable fetus is murder, then fertility clinics routinely murder fetuses, since they typically implant three to five zygotes at a time, knowing that only one is likely to take, meaning they are murdering the rest, statistically speaking. Vote Pro. Sources: [1] "Nuclear Ethics" p. 18-9 [2] http://www.definitions.net... [3] http://tinyurl.com... [4] http://tinyurl.com... [5] http://tinyurl.com... [6] http://tinyurl.com... [7] http://tinyurl.com... [8] "Sexual Abuse: An Epidemic in Foster Care Settings"