Abortion Is Generally Morally Reprehensible

wakefield for this wonderful debate. It was not exactly what I was hoping for, but I certainly enjoyed it. In this last round I will defend my opening argument and address my opponent’s rebuttals and explain why they utterly fail. Rebuttal: On morality My opponent claims that I did not provide a moral standard in this debate. If this claim was not so grotesque, I would rather be tempted to laugh. I have spent my entire opening putting forth a moral framework, which was thereafter entirely ignored by my opponent! To recapitulate, I started out with the unproblematic assumption that killing people is wrong. Thereafter I defended the explanation that it is wrong because it harms them R2; the misfortune of a premature death deprives them of their future of value! Because the fetus has a ‘future like ours’, killing fetuses is also wrong. If the human fetus is intrinsically something it is presumptively seriously wrong to kill, then abortion is morally reprehensible. My opponent failed to refute this argument; in fact, he did not even try it. Therefore, my conclusion is successfully upheld. The only thing my opponent said is that my argument is invalid because it is a matter of opinion. This is deceptively tricky, as everything is in some sense a matter of opinion, because any argument starts out with an axiomatic principle. The right to life may be described as ‘natural’ and ‘absolute in the sense that reason demands its recognition if men are to live together in society, that no law can oblige a man to abandon it. [25] I regard morality as subjective in the sense that it is mind-dependent. We always have to start at a common principle which cannot be proved. I take the wrongness of harming as such an axiom. This is in principle essential to a utilitarian consequentialist theory, a well-established ethical theory. [26] My opponent is right, I do consider myself a moral anti-realist. His demand for an “objective, absolute, and the only possible standard for morality” is simply ridiculous. The mind-dependence relation embodied in a subjectivist theory may give rise to a relation-designating account of moral truth. [27]I have the freedom to condemn everything what I regard as immoral and to convince others to adopt my view, informed by reason. The legal view, however widely held, does not invalidate my argument in defense of the resolution whatsoever. I have argued that the alleged moral majority is mistaken — that there exists no difference, in the relevant moral sense, between the fetus and infant. Those who defend the pro-choice view can argue that the fetus lacks the right to life or that the fetus does not have the right to use the body. My opponent failed to do both. Instead he assumed moral relativism, by reasserting his position when he goes on to argue that the majority decides what is morally permissible. Again he commits the same logical fallacy, but earlier I explained why this is fallacious and, though not necessary, refuted both premises. On legality The gist of my opponent’s argument is: “Things that are generally determined to be morally reprehensible are made illegal”. From this follows that that the law and morality are the same, i. e. he claims that what seems immoral to most people is made illegal, so there is no such thing as an unjust law, thus everything that is moral is not illegal. He may deny it all he want, but again, my opponent assumes legal positivism, committing the appeal to law fallacy! I have shown that the law can be wrong, which my opponent did not refute, and in this debate I have argued that the law is wrong on the issue of abortion. Notice that I do not argue that abortion should be outlawed. The answer to the ethical dilemma of abortion is not at all self-evident so it takes moral argumentation, because either side lacks consensus, my opponent has utterly failed to do this. He is wrong that my BoP is that I “must show that the opinions of the entire world are generally in tune with his and that these opinions are also reflected in regard to what is not permitted”. If this was true, which it is not, then the opposite is true for my opponent, because recall that the BoP is shared. My opponent has presented evidence that in many countries abortion is legally permitted, I was aware of this. But abortion is generally illegal in most countries of the world, namely 126 to 73! [28] I further gave evidence that the law does not necessarily represent the moral majority as is the case in the USA. This has gone unrefuted as well. So my opponent’s argument does not lead to negations of the resolution. On the burden of proof My opponent claims: “Unless my opponent can provide an absolute basis for his standards of morality or show that they are generally held AND practiced by most people. .. ” This is really frustrating, because this is utter nonsense! As I argued earlier; both sides lack consensus, and that is exactly why I gave a moral reasons to think abortion is morally reprehensible in the nontherapeutic, non-eugenic and typical statistical (92%) context. Again my opponent commits the argumentum ad populum and appeal to common practice fallacy. His objections are moot. Closing Statements: Defense of the ‘Future Like Ours’ theory In my opening I laid out my affirming case that if it is morally reprehensible to kill children and adults, than so is killing a fetus. I offered an inference to the best explanation for the wrongness of killing. This account generates the conclusion that postnatal human beings are morally equivalent to prenatal human beings, because they share the property that best explains the wrongness of killing. Having this feature is sufficient to generate the strong presumption that killing them is immoral. [6]It is no refutation of a theory to say that it is subjective and opinion based. I was looking forward to my opponent’s rebuttal, yet this was all my opponent had to say on the FLO theory. If my opponent wanted to refute this argument, he had to provide us with a viable alternative in order to generate a pro-choice conclusion on abortion. However he did or could not, thus he failed to refute the FLO theory. Therefore, I urge a vote for Pro. Defense of Right to Life I further explained why the fetus has a positive right to life and the right to be cared for by its parents. My opponent did not even address the responsibility and parental obligation arguments, which was highly disappointing. He claims: “The positive, unqualified (and implicitly absolute) claim that fetuses have a "right to life" must be defended; the burden of proof is entirely on my opponent”. I find this claim outrageous. My opponent entirely neglected that, in my opening, I argued in minute detail why the fetus has a right to life. Therefore, because my opponent failed to point to a moral distinction between us and the fetus, my argument is successfully defended. Conclusion The difference between my case and my opponent’s case is that only I actually gave moral reasons, that generated a Pro-Life conclusion, thus I find it quite ironic that my opponent repeatedly claims that I have a misunderstanding of morality, considering this. My argument was valid, so my opponent had to show one, or both, of my premises to be false. He failed to do so. I conclude that I have met my burden of proof as my opponent has utterly failed to address, let alone refute, my initial case affirming the Pro-Life position. On the other hand I have soundly refuted my opponent’s case, showing that he relies solely on bare assertions and logical fallacies, instead of moral analysis. I stand in firm affirmation of the resolution. I urge a vote for Pro. Sources [25]. http://www.jstor.org... [26] . http://plato.stanford.edu... [27] . http://plato.stanford.edu... [28] . http://worldabortionlaws.com...;