Abortion is morally acceptable.

I must admit, when I accepted this debate I was quite nervous to face such an intimidating opponent. However, I have realized that my opponent's arguments are nothing I haven't heard before; I'm still doing the same old abortion debate. And the truth is, there really are no adequate arguments supporting abortion. I look forward to the opportunity to debate with you again, Skeptic. By the way, do not worry about me posting any new arguments in this round. I would hate it if someone did the same to me, so I am determined to never do it to someone else. One more thing I would like to point out before I begin: The debate is already over. I have won. Just about any debate on abortion is over when the pro-choicer attempts to justify infanticide... XD I shall set my argument up in a similar form to that of my opponent's. ========================= Determining Personhood ========================= "My opponent attacks the foundations of my argument, that personhood is hinged upon rationality, but he never defends his own definition of personhood. If our values are in conflict, which presumably is so, then he has failed to show why we should believe personhood is based on something else." I will point out that my opponent has done the exact same thing. Given his stance and situation in this debate, he is the one whose arguments are jeopardized by this fact. My position is unaffected. I'll state why later. "Humans have a complex cerebral cortex, and this allows for our rationality. Do we value a body without a brain - do we call that a person? Of course not, that's ludicrous. Similarly, if someone's brain was entirely wiped and they were a mindless zombie, we would similarly not call them a person." Let's have an example here. Let's pretend for a moment that this could really happen; that a man's mind is actually wiped out, and he still lives. Say also that his mind would gradually come back over a period of a few months. Would he have any rights at all? Would his life still have value? Obviously, yes. Would it be morally acceptable to quickly kill him before his mind returned? Absolutely not. He remains a person throughout the ordeal. This is the position of a fetus. My point stands. It isn't a functioning mind alone that makes a person. ========================= Reasons against abortion ========================= 1) "This means your cases of mentally disable/comatose people bear no harm. If they don't have the sufficient cognitive abilities, then it must be so. However, do realize that they can very well have unconscious mental states, meaning they shouldn't be ruled out so easily. At best, your argument reduces to an appeal to emotion - so what if they are not persons? Do you have a substantive argument to say otherwise?" My argument was not an appeal to emotion. Remember, we are debating morality here. By your view of what makes human life valuable, those in a vegetative state, etc. would all be non-persons, or at the very least less-than-persons. This would mean that abusing or killing them would be morally acceptable. These things are most certainly not morally acceptable; no society would advocate the killing of the mentally disabled, those in a coma, or infants. Need I give examples? I will anyway. In this case, a mother drowns her newly born baby and faces charges for first-degree murder (1). One father faces charges for killing his one-month-old child (2). Here is another mother that faces murder charges for killing her baby (3). Two men are charged with murdering a severely disabled 22 year old (4). And here a son is charged with attempted murder for shooting his comatose father (5). Do I need any more sources to show you that killing people in those situations is not morally acceptable? My opponent has not even shown why killing these people could be morally acceptable, other than his own opinion as to what makes a person, and circular reasoning. He needed to do better than that to justify infanticide, among other things. 2) "Yes, you are correct. Some people have different degrees of rights than others - like children! Even though they are capable of rudimentary displays of rationality, they are still not fully developed. Of course, once they mature they are equipped with a full inventory as the rest of us." No. children do not have the full rights to liberty because they are not responsible enough to make their own decisions. No parent would punish their child and say it is morally acceptable because that child is 'less than a person'. They violate their child's right to freedom because that child is not responsible enough to earn their freedom. It's the same with criminals; they are not responsible enough to obey the law, so they lose freedom. With responsibility comes freedom. With freedom comes responsibility. 3) Here, my opponent concedes that there is no definite determination for his definition of person. This goes a long way in refuting his own argument. My opponent's determination for personhood is very hazy. Not only does he admit that his definition of a person allows for 'partial persons', but it is also unclear just when one becomes a person. His standard also permits the killing of persons in a vegetative state, those in a coma, premature and newborn infants, and the severely mentally disabled, which are all obviously morally unacceptable, as I have shown. He has given no substantial argument as to why his standard of personhood is to be accepted. On the contrary, my determination is completely clear, with no grey areas or. All human beings are rational by nature, so no humans are excluded. This avoids any obvious moral infractions. My determination for personhood is obviously better, but unfortunately it is still only my opinion. However, it is not necessary to provide an irrefutable determination for personhood to show that abortion is morally unacceptable. Here is why. What makes a person is and always will be an opinion, so long as contesting viewpoints exist. There has never been a condition of personhood that has not been hotly contested, save perhaps humanity. Because there is no absolute standard for personhood, we should always err on the side of protecting human life. Abortion clearly does not do this. ========================= Summary and conclusion ========================= My opponent has given no argument as to why abortion is morally acceptable, other than his own definition of person, which he has not even come close to defending or defining adequately. His opinion of what defines a person is clearly morally unacceptable. Since he uses this opinion to support abortion, abortion is morally unacceptable. The resolution is thoroughly negated. Whew! That wasn't so hard. I thank you again for this excellent debate, Skeptic. A final note: I too wish that voters look at the arguments objectively. I further request that all those who vote on this debate give an RFD. Sources: (1) http://www.huliq.com... (2) http://www.encyclopedia.com... (3) http://www.dddnews.com... (4) http://www.mirror.co.uk... (5) http://www.nytimes.com...