The Abortion of a Fetus is NEVER Moral NOR and Imperative

My poor opponent is very, very confused about the resolution and what it actually means. Responses: >> "CON has to negate the entire resolution." The negation of the resolution is, "The Abortion of a Fetus is moral or imperative in at least one case." >> "We can not assume the fetus is nonviable because we do not know all the factors." All the relevant factors are given in the case. The case is one where Jessica's fetus is not viable. >> "If the fetus is already nonviable then CON is given to much ground making the debate unfair." PRO took the debate knowing full well what the case was. PRO cannot simply accept the debate and then attempt to reword CON's opening argument to suit his needs. >> "The CON has to negate the entire resolution, thus the CON must prove that in all cases abortion is moral AND imperative." We've already been over this. Please take a course in basic logic. And reread this: Never is logically equivalent to none (meaning no). For example, "There are no unicorns." The negation of such a term does not mean it's opposite. For example, if I say, "Jimmy Carter was never President," the negation of that statement is not "Jimmy Carter was always President." The negation is "Jimmy Carter was President AT LEAST ONCE." The negation of "none/no" is "some/at least one." So I need to show that abortion is moral or imperative in AT LEAST ONE situation. >> "You can not change the scenario and make the fetus UN-healthy." The scenario was given that the fetus IS UNHEALTHY. Fetuses sometimes become unhealthy... Hell - I was an unhealthy fetus myself. >> "The CON can't assume that the fetus is not viable." The entire debate is over whether or not there exists a situation in which abortion is moral or imperative. My argument is that, in Jessica's case, abortion is the moral choice. >> "The CON has to negate the resolution and prove abortion MORAL AND IMPERATIVE in all cases." PLEASE, PLEASE take a logic class. You are performing a De Morgans, when all is needed is a simple Contradiction. If we view the situation as: ~(M v I) - meaning: Not moral or imperative (Moral NOR imperative) You have labeled the negation of it as: (~M & ~I) - meaning: Not moral and not imperative. Unfortunately, the two expressions are logically equivalent, meaning that you haven't actually identified anything different - just the same thing in a different way. Please read up on De Morgan's Law: (http://en.wikipedia.org...). What is needed is a negation of ~(M v I). Obviously, the easiest negation is (M v I) - Moral OR Imperative. For more information on contradiction and the negation of a proposition, please read up on the Square of Opposition: (http://en.wikipedia.org...). ******************************************************************** Ok - my opponent has raised only two actual points this round. 1) The doctor is not killing Jessica - the complications are. 2) Extension of my responsibility argument indicates everyone is responsible for hungry children in Africa. The second contention is easier to answer. Simply, yes, those able to donate that choose not to re responsible in some part for the suffering of hungry children in Africa. However, obviously the amount of responsibility is proportional to the amount of difference a person can make. For example, if a billionaire and a normal, middle class person both choose not to donate, the billionaire bears more responsibility for their suffering. What that level of responsibility is, however, is determined by a discussion of how obligated we are to provide for others. If there is no obligation to provide for others, then people bear no responsibility. The fact that Jessica is in the doctor's care, and he has been hired to help her indicates that he has an obligation to make a choice concerning her medical treatment. To the first contention, one must understand the difference between responsibility and blame. For example, if a parent takes their child to the doctor and gets them a shot, the parent is responsible for the pain of the shot, but they are not to blame for it, since the pain was inflicted in order to bring about a greater net good (i.e. polio vaccination). In Jessica's case, the doctor would be responsible for her death, but the medical complications would be to blame. *************************************************************************** A recap for our readers: To negate the resolution, CON must show that in at least one situation, it is the case that abortion of a fetus is moral or imperative. I argue that in Jessica's case, above, the abortion of her fetus is the moral decision to make, and that the moral import of the situation constitutes a moral imperative to act in aborting the fetus. In appealing to a standard of morality, I suggest we examine the situation from a utilitarian standpoint. Obviously, being dead is bad - it decreases net benefit. Under utilitarianism, the moral thing to do is to maximize net benefit. And obviously, the more people you can save (or the fewer dead), the greater net benefit is. By this reasoning, it is obvious that Jessica's fetus should be aborted to spare her life. If the fetus is NOT aborted, there will be two dead people. If the fetus IS aborted, there will only be 1 dead quasi-person. In order to provide a salient position, my opponent must address the following, some of which have been ignored entirely throughout the course of the debate: 1) If abortion is murder, knowingly leaving the fetus in a situation where it WILL DIE is also murder. 2) Not removing the fetus is thus akin to TWO murders. 3) Removal of the fetus maximizes benefit to all parties involved. 4) If murder is killing wrongfully, the abortion of Jessica's fetus is not murder, as it is, for all intents and purposes already dead. 5) A nonviable fetus is arguably not a person anyway - thus, Jessica's rights trump that of the fetus'. 6) PRO must explain how bringing about a situation wherein two people die instead of one is a moral situation. Throughout the debate, my opponent has constantly quibbled about the parameters of Jessica's case, stating that it is not a fair case. No pregnant mother about to lose her child would say that it was FAIR. However, life is not FAIR. It does not matter if Jessica's case is FAIR - what matters is whether or not it is REALISTIC, which it is. I offered a realistic case for a situation wherein abortion would be moral. My opponent never raised a contention that moral situations carry the moral import to create a moral imperative - and in the last round, it would be dishonest of him to do so. My opponent took this debate realizing full well what the case was. NEGATED.