Abortion

Burden of Proof: the obligation to establish a contention as fact by evoking evidence of its probable truth. [. http://dictionary.reference.com...] Burden of Proof Fallacy: the burden of proof is placed wrongfully or on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof cannot be facilitated or actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form: Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B. Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X. [. http://www.nizkor.org...] If what Con said is true, "Having a "Burden of Proof" implies that it is your job to uphold your argument. So, the fact that Pro has the burden of proof means that it is primarily Pro's job to convince you of her stance. ." --then Con would have to concede that she, in fact, also shares the burden of proof! (which is what I already said and pointed out how silly "proof"is for moral values and judgments in moral philosophy! ). Con would have to hold herself to the same standard for the motion that, on balance, abortion is immoral (in essence, sharing the same burden of proof). Again, the Con "over-stipulated" the pre-debate incorrectly to a fault. 1) Con cannot ask for 'moral proofs" for value judgments. And if she meant "present and defend" persuasive arguments, then she must concede she must also share this 'burden' (thus her pre-debate stipulations are in fact flawed). 2) Con's definition of abortion incorrect, nor Con's definition properly cited. Full Definition of ABORTION [with proper citation] 1 : the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: as a : spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation " compare miscarriage b : induced expulsion of a human fetus c : expulsion of a fetus by a domestic animal often due to infection at any time before completion of pregnancy " compare contagious abortion 2 : monstrosity 3 : arrest of development (as of a part or process) resulting in imperfection; also : a result of such arrest [. http://www.merriam-webster.com...] Notice that the correct definition of abortion is NOT solely relegated to a surgical procedure as Con portrays. Anyone can look for themselves and notice Con did not properly define the term 'abortion'. Con has taken it upon herself to make-up her own definitions for the terms; which the Pro in this debate has tried to address early so a meaningful debate can take place. The debate has been skewed from the beginning for these reasons, for which the Con is responsible and should have made proper amendments as the instigator. The proper definitions for the terms are critical in order to discuss the ethical aspects of value judgments. Answering (the rebuttal) that Con claims not address for natural abortions not being relevant: 1) Natural abortions are relevant precisely because there would be no difference from an ethical standpoint for an intentional intervention or natural intervention when person-hood or right to life can be assigned. 2) Women can drink alcohol until a fetus is aborted. Though this would be considered a natural abortion, morally and ethically, this would be considered intentional intervention if the mother used the alcohol on purpose for this reason to cause the abortion. 3) Natural (spontaneous) abortions ARE abortions, despite Con's inability to properly define the term. Addressing the FLO argument: 1) The end result of the FLO argument is equivalent to assigning full ontological status immediately after conception, which is equivalent to saying an acorn [IS] an oak tree, which is a Slippery Slope fallacy. It is giving value to the idea for "potential life. " As mentioned before, is an acorn an oak tree? Does an acorn have potential to become an oak tree? When does an acorn stop being an acorn and becomes an oak tree? However we know a three-day-old blastocyst is a collection of a 150 cells, which are no different ethically then the many more cells I destroy when I scratch my nose! Con has not addressed Pro's rebuttal arguments for the FLO, but has rather decided to say Pro cannot make good arguments because it violates Con's horrible pre-debate stipulations! Con's Medical Case (mostly an appeal to emotion): 1) Con violates his own supporting arguments for the motion that abortion is on balance immoral by making an exception in cases to save the mother. Both the FLO and Medical arguments are violated. A) The FLO established full ontological status after conception. -- This means that the "potential human being" has full rights and person-hood, which then is equal to that of the mother's right to life person-hood. Con has failed to show good reasons to prefer the equal-life of the mother over the equal-life of the unborn (with full right to life because of the FLO and Medical principles) except for preference, which is why the use of David Hume's moral philosophy is valid. B) The Con's made-up Medical argument contains mostly an appeal to emotions (what a fetus will respond to/pain stimuli) etc. , and betting on natural human empathy to sway opinion. But the Medical argument is also violated but Con's exception to save the mother! Con would still intervene to save the mother, kill the unborn, even if the unborn had EEG brain waves! So the pro doesn't need to waste time addresses this but rather establish true ontology. "Proof" abortion is immoral or moral cannot be made as these are value judgments. However it can be shown that abortion is not immoral thus making it "on balance" obviously moral in some cases as it is not immoral. Further, if Con makes the concession and the exception that abortion is moral in cases to save the mother, Con must then be obligated to make a distinction why is would be considered moral but using reasons that didn't also violate the reasons giving for the motion that it is immoral, which Con failed to do. Pro merely needs to show that abortion is not immoral and would be "on balance". Pro will not attack personally attack Con or try to sway the voting populace. Pro will simply request that Debate. org's pre-established voting guidelines be followed: Who had better conduct? Who had better spelling and grammar? Who made more convincing arguments? Who used the most reliable sources?